content
stringlengths 1
15.9M
|
|---|
\section{Introduction}
Studying the evolution of quantum particles that scatter with their environment is important in a wide array of applications, from quantum computing to neutrino astrophysics. Neutrino states are an archetype quantum system where the non-equivalence of their energy and interaction (``flavor'') eigenstates ensure the evolution of quantum phase between the neutrino flavor states. Furthermore, in hot and dense astrophysical environments, neutrino scattering (``kinetics'') influences this development of quantum phase. The Quantum Kinetic Equations (QKEs) self-consistently solve for this evolution that involves both the development and destruction of quantum phase \cite{sr93, mt94, sb05,vfc14,cfv15}.
In astrophysical environments, the quantum kinetic evolution of neutrinos is imprinted on a variety of phenomena where they play a principal role in energy/entropy transport and nucleosynthesis. In the early universe, this quantum kinetic evolution directly affects the energy density in neutrinos (as parameterized by the derived CMB parameter $N_{\rm eff}$) and the yield of big bang nucleosynthesis \cite{man05,dp16,fpv20} and may play a role in other beyond-Standard Model processes.
Elsewhere, near the proto-neutron star in the core of a supernova, the quantum kinetic evolution of neutrinos will affect the transport of energy and entropy from the proto-neutron star to the envelope and influences the synthesis of $r$-process materials in the supernova \cite{dk09,dfq10,mfm14,vm16,saw16,dms17}. In these environments, neutrinos are created in prodigious numbers where it is hot and dense and these large fluxes subsequently diffuse toward cooler and less dense regions. Large neutrino fluxes mean that neutrino-neutrino interactions make their quantum kinetic evolution nonlinear.
In this work, we solve the QKEs for the {\it linear} evolution of a two-state, active-sterile neutrino system in the early universe with a non-zero lepton number. This represents the same physical basis as work done to self-consistently calculate the scattering-induced decoherent production of sterile neutrino dark matter \cite{vcah16}. However, Ref.\ \cite{vcah16} presents a non-linear Boltzmann-like approach to the problem, while this work is a significantly more computationally expensive linear quantum kinetic approach. It has been shown that the Boltzmann-like approach to producing sterile neutrino dark matter is consistent with solutions to the QKEs \cite{kf08}. The goal of this work is to extend this analysis to the evolution of the quantum coherences to understand the characteristics of quantum kinetic evolution in the early universe, rather than self-consistently solve the fully non-linear problem, which will be left to future work.
Linearity in the QKEs is achieved by neglecting the non-linear feedback of the quantum kinetic evolution of neutrinos in the neutrino-neutrino interaction. While the non-linearity is beyond the scope of this work, we will argue that since this non-linear feedback is significant on universal expansion time scales, which is much longer than the oscillation and scattering time scales, the general characteristics of the quantum kinetic evolution of the neutrino states would be unchanged by such slow feedback.
We simulated the quantum kinetic evolution of an active-sterile neutrino system ($\nu_e$-$\nu_s$) with a 7.1 keV dark-matter-candidate sterile neutrino and mixing angle $6 \times 10^{-11}$, consistent with X-ray observations attributed to the decay of sterile neutrino dark matter \cite{bulbul14}.
To mimic the resonances that produce a significant quantity of dark matter, we introduce a net lepton number (excess of neutrinos over anti-neutrinos relative to the photon number) in each neutrino species, $L_{\nu_e} = L_{\nu_\mu} = L_{\nu_\tau} = 9 \times 10^{-4}$. As in Ref.\ \cite{kf08}, we neglect the changing relativistic degrees of freedom that result from the annihilation of Standard Model particles as the temperature decreases with the expanding universe and the loss of quark degrees of freedom from the QCD transition. Just as before, these changes occur on expansion time scales and should not affect the conclusions of this work.
The quantum kinetic evolution of the neutrino system is governed by three rates: the in-medium neutrino oscillation rate, $\omega$, the active neutrino scattering rate with the background, $\Gamma$, and the expansion rate, $H$. Figure \ref{fig:rates} shows that the oscillation and scattering rates are always much faster than the expansion rate in our calculation.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{rates2.pdf}
\caption{The ratio of the oscillation rate to the expansion rate $\omega / H$ (dashed curve) and the ratio of the scattering rate to the expansion rate $\Gamma / H$ (dot-dashed curve).}
\label{fig:rates}
\end{figure}
The oscillation rate shows the existence of two resonances where the in-medium mixing is maximal and the oscillation rate rapidly changes over many orders of magnitude. Sterile neutrino dark matter is primarily produced at these resonances, where their otherwise resonant production is suppressed by the quantum Zeno effect. It has been shown that the oft-used quantum Zeno ansatz \cite{afp,vcah16}
for the de-coherent active-sterile transformation rate is consistent with solutions to the QKEs, at least at the percent level \cite{kf08,johns19}. This work investigates the evolution of the quantum coherences between the states, as well as the occupation probabilities.
We find that in this environment (with the oscillation and scattering rates much faster than the expansion rate, $\omega, \Gamma \gg H$), solutions to the QKEs are well-described by an adiabatic approximation where the off-diagonal terms of the density operator are constant on short (oscillation and/or scattering) timescales, but may slowly evolve on long (expansion) timescales. We dub this effect, ``quantum kinetic equilibrium.''
We set $\hbar = c = k_B = 1$ in this work. In Section \ref{sec:solve} we introduce the QKEs and discuss the relevant approximations taken and our solution techniques. Section \ref{sec:ringing} introduces the initial conditions, and how solutions to the QKEs ``ring'' toward a robust quantum kinetic equilibrium, then in Section \ref{sec:qkeq} we discuss how this equilibrium evolves as the universe expands and the slight deviations of solutions to the QKEs from this equilibrium. Finally, we discuss the caveats to this calculation and present conclusions in Section \ref{sec:conc}.
\section{Solving the QKEs} \label{sec:solve}
The QKEs are a set of quantum master equations for the density operator,
\[ f = \left( \begin{array}{cc} f_{ee} & f_{es} \\ f_{es}^* & f_{ss} \end{array} \right), \]
where the diagonal elements are the distribution functions of both flavor states and the off-diagonal term encodes information about the quantum coherences. The QKEs can be written as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{D} f = -i \left[ \mathcal{H}, f \right] + \mathcal{C} [ f ] ,
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{D}$ is the convective derivative, $\mathcal{H}$ is the Hamiltonian, and $\mathcal{C} [f]$ the collision operator, which is a functional of the density operator.
In this work, we will consider the simplest possible two-state system, one with an active (\nut{e}) and sterile (\nut{s}) state, related by a vacuum mixing angle, $\theta$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\ketnu{e} = &\cos \theta \ketnu{1} + \sin \theta \ketnu{2} \nonumber \\
\ketnu{s} = &- \sin \theta \ketnu{1} + \cos \theta \ketnu{2} , \label{eq:nu_mix}
\end{eqnarray}
where \nut{1,2} represent the low and high mass states of the vacuum Hamiltonian, respectively. The active state has forward scattering potential $V$ and scattering rate $\Gamma$ with the background universe, while the sterile state has none. Both $V$ and $\Gamma$ are time dependent because of universal expansion.
The collision integral can be written as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{C} [f] = - \Gamma \left( \begin{array}{cc} \Delta f_e & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array} \right) - \frac{\Gamma}{2} \left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & f_{es} \\ f_{es}^* & 0 \end{array} \right) ,
\end{equation}
where $\Delta f_e = f_{ee} - f_e^{\rm (eq)}$ is the difference between the $\nut{e}$ distribution function, $f_{ee}$, and the equilibrium, Fermi-Dirac distribution function, $f_e^{\rm (eq)}$. This is the approximate form of the collision operator when the \nut{e} are near equilibrium, which is likely appropriate because $\Gamma \gg H$ in our regime of interest.
As is commonly done, we decompose the density operator as
\begin{equation}
f = \frac{1}{2} P_0 \left( 1 + \mathbf{P} \cdot \boldsymbol{\sigma} \right) ,
\end{equation}
where $1$ is the identity, $\boldsymbol{\sigma}$, are the Pauli spin operator, $P_0$ is a normalization proportional to the total number of neutrinos, and $\mathbf{P}$ is a polarization vector. The QKEs are the equations of motion for $P_0$ and $\mathbf{P}$ \cite{mt94,sr93}
\begin{align}
\mathcal{D} \,\v{P} & = \v{V} \times \v{P} + (1 - P_z) \left( \mathcal{D} \ln P_0 \right) \,\hat{\mathbf{z}} \nonumber \\
& \qquad \qquad - \left( \frac{1}{2} \Gamma + \mathcal{D} \ln P_0 \right) \, (P_x \, \hat{\mathbf{x}} + P_y \, \hat{\mathbf{y}} ) \label{eq:qke_P} \\
\mathcal{D} \, P_0 & = \Gamma \left[ 1 - \frac{1}{2} P_0 ( 1 + P_z ) \right] = R, \label{eq:qke_P0}
\end{align}
using the same conventions as in Ref.\ \cite{kf08}. The vector
\begin{equation}
\v{V} = \frac{m_s^2}{2 p} ( \sin 2 \theta \, \hat{\mathbf{x}} - \cos 2 \theta \, \hat{\mathbf{z}} ) + V \, \hat{\mathbf{z}} ,
\end{equation}
where $p$ is the neutrino momentum and $m_s$ is the sterile neutrino mass (with the approximation that the sterile mass is much larger than the active neutrino masses), can be interpreted as causing coherent quantum mechanical evolution. The repopulation function, $R$, efficiently repopulates \nut{e} so that it remains in thermal and chemical equilibrium with the environment.
It will be useful for us to describe the ``weak isospin'' space in which \v{P} and \v{V} operate. The polarization vector, \v{P}, contains information about the neutrino state. The z-projection of \v{P}, $P_z$, is the difference of the occupation probabilities of \nut{e} minus \nut{s}, which means if $\v{P} = \hat{\mathbf{z}}$, then there are only \nut{e} and no \nut{s}. The x- and y-components of \v{P} represent quantum mechanical coherences between the two flavor states. The Hamiltonian vector, \v{V}, points in the direction of the high energy eigenstate and its magnitude is equal to the coherent neutrino oscillation frequency, which is equal to the difference in the energy eigenvalues. It should be observed that in this case \v{V} is not parallel to the z-axis, which means that the energy eigenstates are never coincident with the flavor eigenstates, which generates the coherent evolution of the neutrino states.
In the absence of collisions (the limit as $\Gamma \rightarrow 0$), solutions to the QKEs are simply those of the coherent evolution. \v{P} precesses around \v{V} with oscillation frequency $\omega = \vert \v{V} \vert$, which corresponds to an oscillation in the probability of measuring the neutrino in either flavor state (z-projection of \v{P}) and the time evolution of the coherences between flavor states (the off-diagonal components of the density operator, represented by the x- and y-components of \v{P}).
The effect of collisions (the other terms in Eq.\ (\ref{eq:qke_P}), which are proportional to $\Gamma$) is to reduce the length of $\vert \v{P} \vert$ as the coherences are damped toward zero. In the limit that $\Gamma \rightarrow \infty$, the coherences are zero (\mbox{$P_x = P_y = 0$,} the off-diagonal terms in the density operator are zero), preventing oscillation between the flavor states (quantum Zeno effect) and forcing the neutrinos into thermal equilibrium. This mimics the collapse of the wave function into one of the flavor states. A finite scattering rate allows for non-zero coherences to form between the flavor states.
In the early universe, the forward scattering potential for neutrinos can be written as the sum of a finite density potential arising from non-zero lepton numbers (first line below) and a thermal potential from thermal populations of leptons (second line):
\begin{align}
V = & \frac{2 \sqrt{2} \zeta (3)}{\pi^2} G_F T^3 (2 L_{\nut{e}} + L_{\nut{\mu}} + L_{\nut{\tau}} ) \label{eq:V} \\
& ~~ - \frac{8 \sqrt{2} G_F p}{3 m_W^2} \left[ \rho_{e^-} + \rho_{e^+} + \left( \frac{m_W}{m_Z} \right)^2 ( \rho_{\nut{e}} + \rho_{\nutbar{e}} ) \right] , \nonumber
\end{align}
where $G_F$ is the Fermi constant, $m_W$ and $m_Z$ are the $W^\pm$ and $Z^0$ boson masses, and the $\rho$ are the energy density in electrons, positrons, \nut{e}, and \nutbar{e}, respectively. We take the lepton numbers to be constant and the energy densities to be their thermodynamic values.
It should be noted that a fully self-consistent solution to the QKEs would require the forward scattering potential to be a matrix where the lepton numbers and neutrino energy densities should be integrals over the density matrices of neutrinos and of an entire spectrum of momenta as well as the density matrices of anti-neutrinos.
There are two primary differences between our calculation and a fully self-consistent solution: 1) we treat the lepton numbers as constant, while the self-consistent solution will have an evolving lepton number as \nut{e} are converted to \nut{s}; and 2) we neglect the off-diagonal potential that results from non-zero off-diagonal terms in the density operators that would create x- and y-components of \v{V}. Lepton numbers will change as \nut{e} transform into \nut{s}, but we expect these to change on the slow timescale of the expanding universe and have negligible effect on the conclusions of this work. The off-diagonal terms of the density operator are small compared to the diagonal terms, so the off-diagonal potential should have small effects on the numerical results in this linear work, but we do not expect to it to affect the conclusions. However, in a fully self-consistent, non-linear calculation, collective effects may produce new and interesting conclusions. This remains a fruitful area for further investigation.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{QKE_evolution.pdf}
\caption{A Bloch sphere representation of the evolution of the polarization vector, shown as the solid-line trajectory. For reference, the direction of the Hamiltonian vector, \v{V}, is included. Figure (a) shows the initial conditions ($\v{P} = \hat{\mathbf{z}}$) ``ringing'' toward a quantum kinetic equilibrium (Section \ref{sec:ringing}). Figures (b) and (c) show the resonances where \v{V} rapidly flips, the polarization vector tracks the quantum kinetic equilibrium (Section \ref{sec:qkeq}). Note that in this sketch, angle between the z-axis and both \v{P} and \v{V} are greatly exaggerated for the sake of presentation.}
\label{fig:QKE_solutions}
\end{figure*}
Expansion of the early universe is described by the scale factor, $a$, in the Friedmann-Lema\^{i}tre-Robertson-Walker metric. The evolution of the scale factor is governed by the Friedmann equation,
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{a} \frac{d a}{d t} = H = \sqrt{\frac{8 \pi \rho}{3 m_{\rm pl}^2}} = \sqrt{\frac{8 \pi}{3 m_{\rm pl}^2}} \left( \frac{\pi^2}{30} g_* T^4\right)^{1/2} ,
\end{equation}
where $m_{\rm pl}$ is the Planck mass, $\rho$ is the total energy density in the universe, and $g_*$ is the effective number of relativistic degrees of freedom. In this work we choose a constant value of $g_* = 61.75$, which corresponds to relativistic thermal distributions of quarks (up, down, strange), gluons, leptons (muon, electron), neutrinos and photons. This is roughly an appropriate value for the early universe before the QCD transition for temperatures $\sim 200 - 1500~{\rm MeV}$. It should be noted that $g_*$ is not constant, rather it varies by tens of percent in this temperature range \cite{kt90, ls06}. However, as we have argued before, $g_*$ changes on slow expansion timescales, so we expect no changes to the conclusions reached in this work.
Holding $g_*$ constant means that the plasma temperature evolves as
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{T} \frac{dT}{dt} = - \frac{1}{a} \frac{d a}{d t} = - H,
\label{eq:dTempdt}
\end{equation}
without the reheating of the plasma that occurs from the annihilation of relativistic degrees of freedom as $g_*$ decreases. Further, when we express the density operator as a function of scaled momentum, $\epsilon = p / T$ the convective derivative in the expanding universe is
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{D} = \frac{\partial}{\partial t} + \frac{d \epsilon}{d t} \frac{\partial}{\partial \epsilon} = \frac{\partial}{\partial t} .
\end{equation}
In total, these approximations allow for the QKEs (Eq.\ (\ref{eq:qke_P}) and (\ref{eq:qke_P0})) for a single $\epsilon$ to be a set of four coupled ordinary differential equations that evolve independently of other $\epsilon$. This effectively linearizes an inherently non-linear and coupled evolution by ignoring the feedback of changing density operators of all epsilon on the forward scattering potential. Nevertheless, we feel that this work has value in outlining the linear evolution of this system that may serve as a basis for describing the fully non-linear and coupled problem.
We solved the QKEs for neutrinos with $\epsilon = 1$ with the initial condition, $\v{P} = \hat{\mathbf{z}}$ and $P_0 = 1$, which represents the physical scenario of a thermal distribution of $\nut{e}$ and no initial \nut{s}. To do so, we implemented a Cash-Karp adaptive step size method \cite{numrec} with an overall tolerance level for numerical accuracy of one part in $10^{10}$. Figure \ref{fig:QKE_solutions} illustrates the evolution of \v{P} on a Bloch sphere. (The collision operator creates non-unitary evolution, causing $\vert \v{P} \vert$ to deviate from 1. Nevertheless, the Bloch sphere provides useful visual representation of the evolution of the polarization vector.)
At the beginning of the simulation, the polarization vector spirals toward a point that is almost anti-parallel to the Hamiltonian vector, but it should be noted that this ``quantum kinetic equilibrium'' is distinct, and not actually anti-parallel to \v{V}. As the universe expands, the plasma cools and the Hamiltonian vector slowly changes, which in turn causes this equilibrium to slowly change as well. As discussed above, the parameters chosen in this simulation result in resonances (level crossings where in-medium mixing is maximal) at $T \sim 1200~{\rm MeV}$ and $200~{\rm MeV}$. At these resonances, the Hamiltonian vector rapidly ``flips'' (as illustrated). Although this flip is fast compared to the in-medium neutrino oscillation rate, the evolution of the polarization vector tracks this quantum kinetic equilibrium, that balances the influences of both coherent evolution and scattering-induced decoherent evolution.
\section{Initial Conditions and ``Ringing''} \label{sec:ringing}
Figure \ref{fig:ringing} shows $P_x$ and $P_y$ ``ringing'' as they evolve from their initial values (zero for both) at $T = 1500~{\rm MeV}$ toward an ``equilibrium'' value. Both appear to follow damped oscillations with oscillation rate matching the in-medium neutrino oscillation rate, $\omega$, and the damping rate is half the active neutrino scattering rate, $\Gamma / 2$. Figure \ref{fig:rates} shows that both $\omega$ and $\Gamma$ are large compared to the expansion rate, so this evolution occurs nearly instantaneously in the history of the expanding universe. In the entire time frame of this ringing phenomenon shown in Figure \ref{fig:ringing}, the temperature of the plasma decreases by roughly 10 eV (compared to $T = 1500~{\rm MeV}$, which corresponds to $\Delta T / T \sim 10^{-8}$).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{ringing.pdf}
\caption{$P_x$ and $P_y$ ring from their initial values toward an equilibrium. The x-axes are shown equivalently in terms of $\omega t$, the phase of the damped oscillations, and the change in temperature (the negative sign recognizes that the universe cools as time progresses, and it expands).}
\label{fig:ringing}
\end{figure}
Along with $P_x$ and $P_y$ ringing toward equilibrium, $P_z$ and $P_0$ do not change from their initial values of 1 (at least within double precision, approximately one part in $10^{16}$). At equilibrium, we expect to find \mbox{$d P_x / dt = d P_y / dt = 0$}, which leads to equilibrium values,
\begin{align}
P_x^{\rm (eq)} = \frac{V_x V_z}{V_z^2 + \frac{1}{4} \Gamma^2} &\approx - \frac{\omega^2}{\omega^2+\frac{1}{4} \Gamma^2} \sin 2 \theta_M \nonumber \\
P_y^{\rm (eq)} = - \frac{V_x \Gamma}{2 ( V_z^2 + \frac{1}{4} \Gamma^2 )} &\approx -\frac{\omega\Gamma}{2(\omega^2+\frac{1}{4} \Gamma^2)} \sin 2 \theta_M , \label{eq:ringing_eqm}
\end{align}
where $V_x$ and $V_z$ are the x- and z-components of the Hamiltonian vector, and the in-medium effective mixing angle,
\begin{equation}
\sin 2 \theta_M = \frac{V_x}{\vert \v{V} \vert} ,
\end{equation}
is the sine of the angle between \v{V} and the z-axis in the Bloch sphere representation of Figure \ref{fig:QKE_solutions}. (By convention, this angle is defined as $2 \theta_M$, which, in vacuum, would be consistent with the vacuum mixing angle in Eq.\ (\ref{eq:nu_mix}).) At high temperatures, $\sin 2 \theta_M \ll 1$, which leads to the approximations in the equilibrium values, Eq.\ (\ref{eq:ringing_eqm}).
We can obtain a best fit individually for $P_x$ and $P_y$ to a damped oscillator with the general form
\begin{equation}
P_{x,y} = A e^{- B t} \sin(C t + D) + E ,
\end{equation}
where, in general, the undetermined parameters $A$-$E$ are independent between $P_x$ and $P_y$. Note that as $t \rightarrow \infty$, $P \rightarrow E$, so we expect each fit for the parameter $E$ should agree with the equilibrium values (Eq.\ (\ref{eq:ringing_eqm})). When we fit the solutions for $P_x$ and $P_y$, we find that the parameter $E$ in both fits are consistent with the equilibrium values. Furthermore, for both $P_x$ and $P_y$, we find the the angular frequency, $C = \vert \v{V} \vert = \omega$, is equal to the in-medium neutrino oscillation rate, and the decay rate, $B = \Gamma /2$, is equal to half the active neutrino scattering rate.
Finally, we observed this ringing phenomenon from the initial conditions to an equilibrium at different initial temperatures. With different initial temperatures, we numerically solved the QKEs and found a best fit for $P_x$ and $P_y$ with a damped oscillator model. We find that in each scenario, $P_x$ and $P_y$ ring toward their equilibrium (as defined in Eq.\ (\ref{eq:ringing_eqm})) with oscillation rate $\omega$ and damping rate $\Gamma / 2$. Figure \ref{fig:fits} shows the results of these fits at different initial temperatures. The solid and dashed curves are the temperature-dependent values of $\omega$, $\Gamma / 2$, $P_x^{(\rm eq)}$, and $P_y^{(\rm eq)}$. The dots are the best fit values from the fits as described above. It is evident that the initial conditions ring toward equilibrium with oscillation rate, $\omega$, and damping rate, $\Gamma / 2$, independent of the initial temperature.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fits.pdf}
\caption{The QKEs are solved with initial conditions $\v{P} = \hat{\mathbf{z}}$, $P_0 = 1$, and different initial temperatures. The subsequent ringing of $P_x$ and $P_y$ are fit to a damped exponential. The results of this fit are shown as a function of initial temperature, with oscillation rate (top panel, solid curve), $\omega$, damping rate (top panel, dashed curve), $\Gamma / 2$, and equilibrium values of $P_x$ and $P_y$ (bottom panel, solid and dashed curves, respectively), $P_x^{\rm (eq)}$ and $P_y^{\rm (eq)}$. Shown are analytic curves of the expected values (solid and dashed curves) and distinct data points that are the result of individual numerical experiments, run at different initial temperatures.} \label{fig:fits}
\end{figure}
\section{Quantum Kinetic Equilibrium} \label{sec:qkeq}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{diffplot.pdf}
\caption{The QKEs are solved in the early universe with an initial lepton number as described in the introduction to mimic the production of a dark matter-candidate sterile neutrino. In the figure, the solutions to the QKEs for $P_x$ and $P_y$ are shown as the upper curve in each panel. The dotted portions (seen only in $P_x$) are positive values and the dashed are negative values. Each panel also shows the difference between $P_x$ and $P_y$ and their equilibrium values as described in Eq.\ (\ref{eq:qkeqm_total}). We solve the QKEs from an initial temperature of $1500~{\rm MeV}$, and the temperature decreases as the universe expands, so in the figures, time moves from left to right.} \label{fig:diff}
\end{figure}
The damped oscillations in $P_x$ and $P_y$ that ring from the initial conditions to the equilibrium progress with exponentially decreasing amplitude until there is no discernible oscillation, within the numerical precision. The equilibrium values depend only on the plasma temperature; this temperature evolves [Eq.\ (\ref{eq:dTempdt})] as the universal expansion rate. We note that at the temperatures of interest (e.g., the initial conditions studied in Fig.\ \ref{fig:fits}), both the oscillation rate, $\omega$, and decay rate, $\Gamma / 2$ of these damped oscillations are significantly fast compared to the expansion rate, $H$. (In Figure \ref{fig:rates}, we see that they are $\gtrsim 10^9$ times faster than the expansion rate.) As a result, we can effectively treat the temperature -- and hence the equilibrium values of $P_x$ and $P_y$ -- as constant during this entire process. However, if we continue to evolve the QKEs from a higher initial temperature, we find that the polarization vector evolves along with the equilibrium values.
This observation leads us to a more general proposition: whenever the oscillation and scattering rates are fast compared to the dynamical rate (the rate at which the properties of \v{V} evolves), the polarization vector evolves in a ``local'' quantum kinetic equilibrium where $dP_x/dt$ and $dP_y/dt$ are both approximately zero. This local equilibrium evolves as \v{V} and $\Gamma$ evolves,
\begin{align}
P_x^{\rm (eq)} & = \frac{\omega^2 \cos 2 \theta_M}{\omega^2 \cos^2 2 \theta_M + d^2} \sin 2 \theta_M P_z \nonumber \\
P_y^{\rm (eq)} & = - \frac{\omega d}{\omega^2 \cos^2 2 \theta_M + d^2} \sin 2 \theta_M P_z ,
\label{eq:qkeqm_total}
\end{align}
where $\omega = \vert \v{V} \vert$ is the in-medium neutrino oscillation frequency,
\[ \tan 2 \theta_M = \frac{V_x}{V_z} = \frac{\sin 2 \theta}{- \cos 2 \theta + \frac{2p}{m_s^2} V} \]
is the tangent of the angle between \v{V} and the +z-axis, and the overall damping rate of $\v{P}_\perp$ is
\begin{equation}
d = \frac{1}{2} \Gamma + \frac{1}{P_0} R .
\end{equation}
It should be noted that $R \propto \Gamma$, but is only significant fraction of $\Gamma$ near resonance and is otherwise very small. In the limit that $P_0 = 1$ and $P_z = 1$ (and hence, $R = dP_0/dt = 0$) and $\theta_M \ll 1$ (and hence, $\cos 2 \theta_M \approx 1$, this result simplifies to the original equilibrium statement, Eq.\ (\ref{eq:ringing_eqm}). However, this new proposition evolves as the universe expands which directly causes $T$ to decrease (and as a result, $\omega$ and $\Gamma$), but also allows for $P_z$ and $P_0$ to evolve.
Figure \ref{fig:diff} shows a comparison of the solutions to the QKEs with these equilibrium values. In the figure, the solutions for $P_x$ and $P_y$ are shown with the dotted curve representing positive values of $P_x$ and the dashed part of the curves representing the negative values of $P_x$ and $P_y$. The solid curve on each plot shows the absolute value of the difference between the QKE solutions and these equilibrium values. The QKEs were solved from initial conditions at $T = 1500~{\rm MeV}$ and allowed to evolve to a final temperature of 200 MeV, after the neutrinos have experienced two resonances -- level crossings -- where \v{V} changes rapidly. These resonances occur at \mbox{$T_{\rm res} \approx 1160$} and $210~{\rm MeV}$ and can be seen on the figure where $P_x$ and $P_y$ change rapidly and where the difference between the actual solution and equilibrium solution is largest. These two resonances and their concurrent rapid changes are depicted in parts (b) and (c) of Figure \ref{fig:QKE_solutions}. At the resonance, the rapid change in \v{V} results in the rapid change of the proposed equilibrium state and $\omega$ decreases prodigiously (see, Figure \ref{fig:rates}). So, it is, perhaps, unsurprising that the equilibrium approximation is most stressed at the resonances.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{diffplot_zoom.pdf}
\caption{A zoomed-in view at the second resonance at \mbox{$T_{\rm res} \approx 206~{\rm MeV}$}, here in a linear view with $\Delta P_i \equiv P_i - P_i^{\rm (eq)}$, for $i = x, y$ and $\Delta T = T - T_{\rm res}$. This figure uses the same scheme as Figure \ref{fig:diff}, with solid representing the $\Delta P_i$, the dotted curve is positive $P_x$, and the dashed curve are negative $P_i$. The $\Delta P_i$ have been multiplied by 10 so that both curves can be viewed on the same plot. As before, time flows from left to right in the figure as the temperature decreases in the expanding universe.} \label{fig:diffzoom}
\end{figure}
Far from resonance, we note that the quantum kinetic equilibrium, Eq.\ (\ref{eq:qkeqm_total}), is consistent with $P_x$ to approximately one part in $10^{10}$ and with $P_y$ to approximately one part in $10^8$. (Compare this with the numerical tolerance of one part in $10^{10}$ that we used in the Cash-Karp adaptive step method.) It appears that far from resonance, $\sin 2 \theta_M \ll 1$, the equilibrium approximation is a very good one. Figure \ref{fig:diffzoom} shows a zoomed-in view of the second resonance at $T_{\rm res} \approx 206~{\rm MeV}$. Immediately proximate to the resonance, we find that $P_x$ and $P_y$ deviate from the equilibrium values at the level of a few percent, at most. It should be noted that the span represented in Figure \ref{fig:diffzoom} represents nearly 100 times the resonance width; so \v{V} flips almost instantaneously in this figure at $\Delta T = 0$.
\section{Discussion and Conclusions} \label{sec:conc}
We solved the quantum kinetic equations for an active-sterile neutrino state in the early universe in the presence of a net lepton number. In this environment, the in-medium oscillation frequency and scattering rate is much greater than the rate at which the Hamiltonian evolves for nearly the entirety of the neutrino evolution. Whenever this is true, we find that the polarization vector, \v{P}, achieves a local quantum kinetic equilibrium that slowly changes as the Hamiltonian changes. This effective ``equilibrium'' attains as the unitary development of quantum coherence ({\it to wit}, quantum phase) is balanced by the de-coherent scattering-induced destruction of this coherence so that $d P_x/ dt \approx d P_y / d t \approx 0$, as defined by the equilibrium values of $P_x^{\rm (eq)}$ and $P_y^{\rm (eq)}$ as seen in Eq.\ (\ref{eq:qkeqm_total}).
\subsection{Dark Matter and the Quantum Zeno Ansatz}
The calculations include resonances where the Hamiltonian changes rapidly. At these resonances, the in-medium oscillation frequency drastically decreases, which stretches the approximations made in the above statement of equilibrium. However, when we examine the resonance, we find that the quantum kinetic equilibrium approximation continues to do an effective job at describing the quantum kinetic evolution of the polarization vector, albeit at the maximum discrepancy of a few percent. The few percent discrepancy is notable when compared to past work in comparing solutions to the QKEs with the quantum Zeno ansatz for dark matter sterile neutrino production \cite{kf08}, which found percent-level discrepancies as well. The quantum Zeno ansatz is an oft-used approximation for the scattering-induced decoherent production of sterile neutrino dark matter \cite{afp,kf08,vcah16,fv97,johns19} that incorporates an approximation of the quantum Zeno effect that suppresses resonant production (because of the decrease in the oscillation rate at resonance).
The quantum Zeno ansatz transforms the computationally expensive task of solving the quantum kinetic equations into the easier computational problem of solving Boltzmann-like equations. With this ansatz, the Boltzmann equation for the sterile neutrino distribution function is
\begin{equation}
\frac{d f_{ss}}{d t} = \frac{\Gamma}{4} \sin^2 2 \theta_M \frac{\omega^2}{\omega^2 + \frac{1}{4} \Gamma^2} (f_{ee} - f_{ss} ) .
\end{equation}
Since $f_{ss} = \frac{1}{2} P_0 (1 - P_z)$, we can use the QKEs and the equilibrium values for $P_x$ and $P_y$ to find a similar equation using this quantum kinetic equilibrium proposition,
\begin{equation}
\frac{d f_{ss}}{d t} = \frac{d}{2} \sin^2 2 \theta_M \frac{\omega^2}{\omega^2 \cos^2 2 \theta_M + d^2} (f_{ee} - f_{ss}) .
\end{equation}
Far from equilibrium, $d \approx \Gamma / 2$ and $\cos^2 2 \theta_M \approx 1$, and the two agree with each other. However, near the resonance, where both the quantum Zeno ansatz and this equilibrium have shown to be consistent with the full solutions to the QKEs, albeit at the level of a few percent.
When considering the possibility of sterile neutrinos as a dark matter candidate, it is important to understand not only the total production to be consistent with the total dark matter energy density from cosmological measurements, but to also discuss the momentum-distribution of such a dark matter distribution. This spectrum is important to understand because it directly affects structure formation in the universe \cite{ch17}. Ideally, one would solve the quantum kinetic equations for a distribution of neutrino momenta that are coupled primarily through neutrino-neutrino interactions in the forward scattering potential, but also through scattering. This would represent a computationally expensive calculation that would inhibit parameter space searches for sterile neutrino dark matter properties. However, this notion of a quantum kinetic equilibrium would drastically reduce the computational resources required to solve the remaining equations of motion. In particular, by using $P_x^{\rm (eq)}$ and $P_y^{\rm (eq)}$ for the x- and y-components of the polarization vector away from equilibrium not only halves the number of ODEs to solve, but it also removes the fundamentally oscillatory nature of the QKEs that require tiny time steps in order to self-consistently solve these equations. Furthermore, at resonance the neutrino in-medium oscillation frequency is at its minimum, so the largest step sizes in the entire calculation occur near resonance. This means that if the notion of quantum kinetic equilibrium holds for the full calculation, its introduction would significantly and immensely reduce the computational cost of solving self consistently solving the QKEs for an ensemble of neutrino momenta.
\subsection{The Quantum Zeno Effect}
The quantum Zeno effect describes the suppression of quantum transitions at sufficiently high scattering rates. We see in the equilibrium polarization vectors, $P_x^{\rm (eq)}$ and $P_y^{\rm (eq)}$, that when $\Gamma \gg \omega$, quantum coherences (represented by $P_x$ and $P_y$) are suppressed. Further, transition probabilities are dictated by the evolution of $P_z$,
\begin{equation}
\frac{d P_z}{d t} = V_x P_y^{\rm (eq)} + (1 - P_z) \frac{R}{P_0} .
\end{equation}
Which, through its dependence on $P_y^{\rm (eq)}$ shows that same suppression at large $\Gamma$. This shows us that the quantum Zeno effect, as is typically advertised, is born of the suppression of quantum coherence caused by rapid scattering. In a quantum kinetic sense, we see that the quantum Zeno effect is the result of the competition between the creation and destruction of quantum phase. The greater the scattering rate, the smaller the x- and y-components of the polarization vector, and hence, the (in this case neutrino) state is very similar to one of the interaction eigenstates, suppressing the transition probability.
\subsection{Caveats and the Path Forward}
The many caveats of this calculation must first be addressed. Two affects that occur on the relatively slow time scale of the expanding universe are the evolution of the relativistic degrees of freedom, $g_*$, and the evolution of lepton number as active neutrinos are converted to sterile ones. We repeat this calculation with a time evolving $g_*$ \cite{kt90, ls06} and with time evolving lepton numbers from active-sterile neutrino dark matter transformation calculations using the above quantum Zeno ansatz \cite{kf08}. In both cases, while the specifics of the shapes of the resonances change along with the total active-sterile neutrino transformation through the resonance, the quantum kinetic equilibrium approximation continues to do an excellent job of describing the actual solutions to the QKEs away from resonance and also shows a few-percent discrepancy at resonance. As predicted, this form of time evolution occurs on a universal expansion time scale and since they is slow compared to the time scales that define neutrino oscillation and scattering, they do not affect the general conclusions of this work.
The most important caveat, and the class of issues that are most ripe for future work, is the linearity of this solution. While these solutions are valid to interpret linear situations, to solve neutrino-related quantum kinetic problems requires us to address the inherently non-linear problem.
So long as the oscillation and scattering rates are fast compared to the rate of change of the Hamiltonian (and the linearity of this solution demands that the evolution of the Hamiltonian is independent of the evolution of the neutrino density operators), the quantum kinetic equilibrium approximation remains a good one. However, the forward scattering potential, Eq.\ (\ref{eq:V}), has the lepton numbers and neutrino energy densities which should reflect the feedback from the evolving density operators with
\begin{align}
L &\propto \int d \epsilon \, \epsilon^2 \left[ P_0 (1 + P_z ) - \bar{P}_0 (1 + \bar{P}_z) \right] ,\\
\rho_\nu + \rho_{\bar\nu} & \propto \int d \epsilon \, \epsilon^3 \left[ P_0 (1 + P_z ) + \bar{P}_0 (1 + \bar{P}_z) \right] ,
\end{align}
where $\bar{P}$ represent components of the polarization vectors of anti-neutrinos (yes, this requires coupling with the anti-neutrino degrees of freedom), and the integrals incorporate and couple density operators of all $\epsilon$ values. However, as these only affect $P_0$ and $P_z$, we expect initial consideration of this non-linearity response to be very similar to the previous experiment that used other, Boltzmann-like calculations to mimic the lepton number evolution. While this could affect the details of the evolution (the temperature of the resonances and the total production of sterile neutrinos), we expect the general conclusions about the quantum kinetic equilibrium to be relatively unaffected.
However, this does not fully account for the neutrino-neutrino interactions, which includes both diagonal and off-diagonal interactions (terms both on and off the diagonal of the Hamiltonian, written as a matrix). \cite{vve13} The lepton-number driven term in the Hamiltonian (the first line of Eq.\ (\ref{eq:V})) is proportional to
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{H}_L \propto \int d \epsilon \, \epsilon^2 \left( f - \bar{f} \right) ,
\end{equation}
which when converted to the weak isospin space used here to solve the QKEs is
\begin{equation}
\v{V}_L \propto \int d \epsilon \, \epsilon^2 \left( P_0 \v{P} - \bar{P}_0 \v{\bar{P}} \right) .
\end{equation}
Likewise the so-called thermal term (the second line of Eq.\ (\ref{eq:V})) contains terms that are proportional to the energy density, which is proportional to
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{H}_T \propto \int d \epsilon \, \epsilon^3 \left( f + \bar{f} \right) ,
\end{equation}
which corresponds to
\begin{equation}
\v{V}_T \propto \int d \epsilon \, \epsilon^3 \left( P_0 \v{P} + \bar{P}_0 \v{\bar{P}} \right) .
\end{equation}
The upshot is that the neutrino-neutrino interactions inherent in both terms create both x- and y-components to the Hamiltonian vector, \v{V}, where non-linear feedback (integrated over all $\epsilon$) will affect the observed ringing phenomenon and the quantum kinetic equilibrium, as well as the possibility of introducing novel effects such as collective oscillations across ranges of $\epsilon$. Solving this problem is a truly computationally expensive proposition, but understanding the characteristics of the solution is not only important in understanding the production of sterile neutrino dark matter, but also more broadly in the description of quantum kinetic phenomena.
\acknowledgements
We'd like to thank G.\ Fuller for useful discussions. The work of CTK and HH is supported in part by NSF Grant PHY-1812383 and a Faculty Research Grant from the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of San Diego.
|
\section{ Introduction}
The Grassmannian-like coset model is described by \cite{CHR1306}
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{SU(N+M)_k}{SU(N)_k \times U(1)_{k N M (N+M)}}.
\label{coset}
\end{eqnarray}
By introducing the 't Hooft-like coupling constant $\lambda \equiv
\frac{k}{(k+N)}$ and taking the infinity limit of ${N}$
with fixed $\lambda$ and $M$, it has been proposed in
\cite{CH1812} that
the above coset model is dual to $M \times M$ matrix generalization
of $AdS_3$ Vasiliev higher spin theory \cite{PV1,PV2}.
For $M=1$, their proposal leads to the Gaberdiel-Gopakumar
conjecture \cite{GG1011} via level-rank duality.
See also \cite{GG1205,GG1207,AGKP} for review of \cite{GG1011}.
The central charge of the coset model with infinity limit of
level $k$ with fixed $\lambda$ and $M$ coincides with the one
in the asymptotic symmetry of above $AdS_3$ higher spin theory.
The charged spin-$2,3$ currents and the neutral
(higher) spin-$2, 3$ current in terms of the coset realization
characterized by five spin-$1$ currents
have been found explicitly.
At $\lambda=2$ (or $k=-2N$), the operator product expansion (OPE)
between the charged spin-$2$ current and itself for general
$(N,M)$, by decoupling
the charged spin-$3$ current, leads to
the one of the ``rectangular'' $W$-algebra with $SU(M)$ symmetry
of $AdS_3$ higher spin theory.
In this paper, we will compute the OPE between the charged
spin-$2$ current and itself by hand,
for generic $k$ as well as generic
$N$ and $M$. It turns out that the above
charged spin-$3$ current, for generic $\lambda$, should appear
in the right hand side of the OPE.
The structure constants appearing in the
right hand side of this OPE in terms of these
three parameters will be determined completely.
\begin{itemize}
\item[]
At each singular term, we should rearrange the coset
composite operators in terms of the known currents,
i) the stress energy tensor of spin-$2$,
ii) the spin-$1$ current of $SU(M)$,
iii) the charged spin-$2$
current by allowing all the possible nonlinear terms.
\end{itemize}
It is known that after subtracting the descendant terms,
we are left with the sum of quasi primary operators
\cite{Blumenhagenetal,Nahm1,Nahm2}.
We should determine the structure constants appearing
in these quasi primary operators of the right hand side of the OPE.
Because there are free adjoint indices $a$ and $b$ of $SU(M)$
in the left hand side of the OPE,
it is rather nontrivial to exhaust all the possible
quasi primary operators which will be contracted with some
$SU(M)$ invariant
tensors.
For example, in general, the first order pole of this OPE
can contain the cubic terms in the spin-$1$ current which possesses
a single adjoint index. Then those invariant tensors will contain
fifth order invariant ones maximally.
That is, two of them will be the above free indices
while three of them will be contracted with each index of cubic
terms. This is the reason why the OPE between the nonsinglet
charged operators even their spins are low is more complicated
to analyze,
compared to the OPE between the singlet operators.
Note that in the examples of \cite{AK1509,AKK1703,AGK2004},
there exist some OPEs having
nonsinglet indices associated with the $SO(4)$ but for these cases
it is not so difficult to figure out its structures in the right hand
sides of the OPEs because we can determine
the vector and adjoint indices and the invariant tensors in $SO(4)$
for fixed rank.
Furthermore,
we will obtain the OPE
between the charged spin-$2$ current and
the charged spin-$3$ current which occurs at the first order pole
of the previous
OPE between the charged spin-$2$ current and itself.
Now we
should include both the charged spin-$3$
current and the neutral spin-$3$ current
as the candidates for the quasi primary operators
in the list of known currents we described in
previous paragraph.
The presence of the neutral spin-$3$ current
is due to the fact that the left hand side of this OPE
has two different operators, contrary to the previous OPE
between the charged spin-$2$ current and itself.
The point is how we can write down the singular terms
described by the coset realization
in terms of the known currents.
We expect that up to the second order pole
of this OPE, we should express them
by using the known currents with various $SU(M)$ invariant tensors.
\begin{itemize}
\item[]
By analyzing the first order pole of this OPE,
we will determine the new quasi primary charged spin-$4$
current in terms of coset realization.
By construction, all the relative coefficients appearing in the
coset composite operators are determined automatically although
the careful analysis
should be performed.
\end{itemize}
From the explicit result for the OPE
between the neutral spin-$3$ current and itself
for fixed $(N,M)$ values, we will extract this OPE
for generic $(N,M)$ case and at the second order pole of
this OPE we will observe that there should be new
primary neutral spin-$4$ current in terms of coset realization.
\begin{itemize}
\item[]
In obtaining this result, we realize that the $k$-dependent
structure constant can be rewritten as the modified central charge
which is equal to the coset central charge subtracted by
the central term due to the stress energy tensor for the
quadratic Sugawara term in the spin-$1$
current of $SU(M)$.
\end{itemize}
Then i) the modified stress energy tensor of spin-$2$,
ii) the neutral spin-$3$
current and iii) the neutral spin-$4$ current will consist of the
generators of
the standard $W$ algebra and their OPEs with the spin-$1$ current
do not have any singular terms. That is, the spin-$1$ current is
decoupled in the OPEs between these singlet currents.
\begin{itemize}
\item[]
In section $2$, we review the results of \cite{CH1812}
by emphasizing that the spin-$2$ current and the spin-$3$ currents
can be obtained by hands without trying to perform for several $(N,M)$
values. Those currents were determined previously. The derivations
for obtaining these are new.
In section $3$, the simplest nontrivial OPE between the charged
spin-$2$ current and itself can be obtained.
The structure constants are new.
We will
observe the charged spin-$3$ current at the first order pole.
In section $4$,
the next nontrivial OPE between the charged
spin-$2$ current and the charged spin-$3$ current can be obtained.
The new charged quasi primary
spin-$4$ current at the first order pole is determined.
\item[]
In section $5$, the
new OPE between the charged
spin-$3$ current and itself can be determined for
specific $N$ and $M$ values
\footnote{The integer $M=4$ is the lowest value
in order to have an independent $SU(M)$ invariant tensors \cite{CH1812}.
We take $N$ which is different from $M$ as five.}.
In section $6$,
the
new OPE between the uncharged
spin-$3$ current and itself can be determined and
the new uncharged spin-$4$ current appears
at the second order pole.
In section $7$, the new OPEs between the charged spin-$1,2,3$ currents
and the uncharged spin-$3$ current are described.
In section $8$, we present the future directions with a summary
of this paper.
In Appendices, we will describe some detailed calculations
based on the previous sections.
The free field realization of \cite{OS} is reviewed and
we explain how their results can be related to the previous
results by taking the appropriate limits for the parameters we are
considering.
\end{itemize}
The Thielemans package \cite{Thielemans}
is used together with the mathematica package \cite{mathematica}.
The similar coset in the work of
\cite{EP} where the possibility of
four parameters in the specific coset is described
is studied \footnote{There is a similar construction,
a matrix extended $W_{1+\infty}$
algebra \cite{EP1}, defined in terms of matrix extended Miura
transformation (See also \cite{AM} for some mathematics for
the ``rectangular'' $W$-algebra). The truncation of
this matrix extended $W_{1+\infty}$
algebra can be realized the one in (\ref{coset}) without
$U(1)$ factor in the denominator.
The three parameters of the algebra are given by
$N, M$ and $k$ in the subsection $3.5$ of \cite{EP1}.
We thank Lorenz
Eberhardt for
pointing this out.}.
The charged spin-$1,2,3,4$ currents and uncharged
spin-$2,3,4$ currents we are considering in this paper are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \mbox{spin-1}: J^a(z), \qquad \mbox{spin-2}: K^a(z), \qquad
\mbox{spin-3}: P^a(z), \qquad
\mbox{spin-4}: \hat{R}^a(z),
\nonumber \\
&& \mbox{spin-2}: T(z), \qquad
\mbox{spin-3}: W^{(3)}(z), \qquad
\mbox{spin-4}: W^{(4)}(z).
\label{fields}
\end{eqnarray}
Here $T(z)$ is the stress energy tensor
and the index $a$ in (\ref{fields})
is an adjoint index of $SU(M)$ and $a =1,2, \cdots,
(M^2-1)$. Except of $T(z)$ and $\hat{R}^a(z)$ which are quasi
primary currents, the remaining currents are
primary ones under the stress energy tensor.
In the context of \cite{GG1011}, the OPEs between the
neutral higher spin currents are relevant to this conjecture
and
the algebra between them is closed under the neutral higher spin
currents. In addition to that, there are
also the OPEs between the charged higher spin currents and
the neutral ones and the OPEs between the charged higher
spin currents. The right hand sides of these OPEs
will contain the composite charged or neutral higher spin
operators.
\begin{itemize}
\item[]
The main work of this paper is to start with the charged and
neutral
higher
spin currents \cite{CH1812} and construct their algebra
explicitly as an extension
of \cite{GG1011} in the above coset model (\ref{coset}).
\end{itemize}
What we have found newly in this paper
is the higher spin spin-$4$ currents
in (\ref{fields}). The remaining ones were found
in \cite{CH1812} previously.
\section{ Review with some new derivations}
The normalization of the generators $(t^{\alpha}, t^a, t^{u(1)},
t^{(\rho \bar{i})}, t^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)})$ in $SU(N+M)$ of the coset (\ref{coset})
can be fixed by taking the following simple metric
\cite{CH1812}
\begin{eqnarray}
\mbox{Tr} (t^{\alpha} t^{\beta}) =\delta^{\alpha \beta},
\qquad
\mbox{Tr} (t^{a} t^{b}) =\delta^{a b},
\qquad
\mbox{Tr} (t^{u(1)} t^{u(1)}) =1,
\qquad
\mbox{Tr} (t^{(\rho \bar{i})} t^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}) =\delta^{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \, \delta^{j \bar{i}}.
\label{metric}
\end{eqnarray}
Under the decomposition of $SU(N+M)$ into the
$SU(N) \times SU(M)$,
the adjoint representation of $SU(N+M)$ breaks into
\begin{eqnarray}
({\bf N+M})^2-{\bf 1} \longrightarrow ({\bf N}^2-{\bf 1},{\bf 1})
\oplus ({\bf 1},{\bf M}^2-{\bf 1}) \oplus ({\bf 1}, {\bf 1})
\oplus ({\bf N},
\overline{{\bf M}}) \oplus (\overline{{\bf N}},{\bf M}).
\label{branching}
\end{eqnarray}
The fundamental indices $\rho$ and $j$ among (\ref{branching})
run over $\rho =1,2,\cdots, N$ and $j =1,2,\cdots, M$,
while the antifundamental indices $\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}$ and $\bar{i}$
run over $\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} =1,2,\cdots, N$ and $\bar{i} =1,2,\cdots, M$.
Note that the barred index in (\ref{metric})
becomes the unbarred one when we raise or lower
it
and vice versa.
For the $\alpha, a$ and $u(1)$ indices where
the adjoint indices are given by $\alpha =1,2, \cdots, (N^2-1)$
and $a=1,2,\cdots, (M^2-1)$ respectively, we can raise or lower them without
any change \footnote{Sometimes we use the $SU(M)$ indices $a,b,c, \cdots$
as superscripts.}. We will use the metric in (\ref{metric}) all the time.
For the above given generators, the
totally antisymmetric $f$ and totally symmetric $d$
symbols can be expressed as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\mbox{Tr} ([t^{\alpha}, t^{\beta}] t^{\gamma}) & = & i f^{\alpha \beta \gamma},
\qquad
\mbox{Tr} ([t^{a}, t^{b}] t^{c}) = i f^{a b c},
\qquad
\mbox{Tr} (\{t^{\alpha}, t^{\beta}\} t^{\gamma}) = d^{\alpha \beta \gamma},
\nonumber \\
\mbox{Tr} (\{t^{a}, t^{b}\} t^{c}) & = & d^{a b c},
\qquad
\cdots,
\label{fdtrace}
\end{eqnarray}
where the abbreviated parts
can be written similarly.
We use the following nontrivial $f$ symbols \cite{CH1812} which are
totally antisymmetric
\begin{eqnarray}
i f^{(\rho \bar{i})(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j) u(1)} & = & \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} \, \delta^{j \bar{i}}\,
\delta^{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}}, \qquad
i f^{(\rho \bar{i})(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j) \alpha} = \delta^{\rho \bar{\rho_1}}\, \delta^{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma_1 \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \,
\delta^{j \bar{i}} \, t^{\alpha}_{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma_1 \bar{\rho_1}}, \nonumber \\
i f^{(\rho \bar{i})(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j) a} & = & -\delta^{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}}\, \delta^{i_1 \bar{i}} \,
\delta^{j \bar{j_1}} \, t^{a}_{i_1 \bar{j_1}}.
\label{fdexp}
\end{eqnarray}
Due to the traceless property of the generators,
when the indices $\rho$ and $\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}$ are equal to each other
in the second relation of (\ref{fdexp}), the corresponding
$f$ symbols are zero.
Similarly, for the equal $\bar{i}$ and $j$ in the third relation,
the $f$ symbols vanish.
The nontrivial
$SU(N+M)$ currents satisfy the following OPEs \cite{CH1812}
\begin{eqnarray}
J^{\alpha}(z) \, J^{\beta}(w) & = & \frac{1}{(z-w)^2} \, k \, \delta^{\alpha \beta}+
\frac{1}{(z-w)} \, i \, f^{\alpha\beta}_{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\gamma} \, J^{\gamma}(w) + \cdots,
\nonumber \\
J^{\alpha}(z) \, J^{(\rho \bar{i})}(w) & = &
\frac{1}{(z-w)} \, i \,
f^{\alpha (\rho \bar{i})}_{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,(\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma \bar{j})} \,
J^{(\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma \bar{j})}(w) + \cdots,
\nonumber \\
J^{\alpha}(z) \, J^{(\bar{\rho} i)}(w) & = &
\frac{1}{(z-w)} \, i \,
f^{\alpha (\bar{\rho} i)}_{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)} \,
J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}(w) + \cdots,
\nonumber \\
J^{a}(z) \, J^{b}(w) & = & \frac{1}{(z-w)^2} \, k \, \delta^{a b}+
\frac{1}{(z-w)} \, i \, f^{a b}_{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,c} \, J^{c}(w) + \cdots,
\nonumber \\
J^{a}(z) \, J^{(\rho \bar{i})}(w) & = &
\frac{1}{(z-w)} \, i \,
f^{a (\rho \bar{i})}_{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,(\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma \bar{j})} \,
J^{(\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma \bar{j})}(w) + \cdots,
\nonumber \\
J^{a}(z) \, J^{(\bar{\rho} i)}(w) & = &
\frac{1}{(z-w)} \, i \,
f^{a (\bar{\rho} i)}_{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)} \,
J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}(w) + \cdots,
\nonumber \\
J^{u(1)}(z) \, J^{u(1)}(w) & = & \frac{1}{(z-w)^2} \, k + \cdots,
\nonumber \\
J^{u(1)}(z) \, J^{(\rho \bar{i})}(w) & = &
\frac{1}{(z-w)} \, i \,
f^{u(1) (\rho \bar{i})}_{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,(\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma \bar{j})} \,
J^{(\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma \bar{j})}(w) + \cdots,
\nonumber \\
J^{u(1)}(z) \, J^{(\bar{\rho} i)}(w) & = &
\frac{1}{(z-w)} \, i \,
f^{u(1) (\bar{\rho} i)}_{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)} \,
J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}(w) + \cdots,
\nonumber \\
J^{(\rho \bar{i})}(z) \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}(w) & = & \frac{1}{(z-w)^2} \, k \,
\delta^{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \, \delta^{j \bar{i}}
\label{OPEspin1spin1}
\\
& + &
\frac{1}{(z-w)} \, \Bigg[
i \,
f^{(\rho \bar{i}) (\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}_{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,u(1)}
\, J^{u(1)}+
i \,
f^{(\rho \bar{i}) (\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}_{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\alpha}
\, J^{\alpha}+
i \,
f^{(\rho \bar{i}) (\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}_{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,a} \, J^{a}
\Bigg](w) + \cdots.
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The second order pole in (\ref{OPEspin1spin1}) has
the explicit $k$ dependence with weight $1$.
From the nonzero $f$ symbols in (\ref{fdexp}),
the spin-$1$ currents transforming as
$({\bf N},\overline{{\bf M}})$ or $(\overline{{\bf N}},{\bf M})$
appear in many places of (\ref{OPEspin1spin1}).
Due to the last OPE in (\ref{OPEspin1spin1}),
the contraction between the spin-$1$ current and its conjugated one
in the OPEs later
will provide the remaining three kinds of spin-$1$ currents in the right hand
side.
Note that there are also the five regular OPEs besides the
above ten OPEs
\begin{eqnarray}
J^{\alpha}(z) \, J^a(w) & = & 0 + \cdots, \qquad
J^{\alpha}(z) \, J^{u(1)}(w) =0 + \cdots, \qquad
J^{a}(z) \, J^{u(1)}(w) =0 + \cdots,
\nonumber \\
J^{(\rho \bar{i})}(z) \, J^{(\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma \bar{j})}(w) & = & 0 +\cdots, \qquad
J^{(\bar{\rho} i)}(z) \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}(w) =0 + \cdots.
\label{regular}
\end{eqnarray}
These come from the trivial results from both
metric (\ref{metric}) and $f$ symbols in
(\ref{fdtrace}) and (\ref{fdexp}).
In particular, the first and the third relations in (\ref{regular})
can be generalized to
the spin-$2,3,4$ currents with the adjoint index $a$ according to the coset
(\ref{coset}) we are considering.
We can express the stress energy tensor \cite{CH1812}, by Sugawara
construction,
\begin{eqnarray}
T(z) & = &\frac{1}{2(k+N+M)} \Bigg[ J^{\alpha} J^{\alpha} + J^a J^a +
\delta_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \delta_{j \bar{i}} \,
J^{(\rho \bar{i})} J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)} + \delta_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \delta_{j \bar{i}}
J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)} J^{(\rho \bar{i})} + J^{u(1)} J^{u(1)}
\Bigg](z)
\nonumber \\
&-& \frac{1}{2(k+N)} \, J^{\alpha} \, J^{\alpha}(z) - \frac{1}{2k} \,
J^{u(1)} \, J^{u(1)}(z).
\label{T}
\end{eqnarray}
The first five terms of (\ref{T}) come from the $SU(N+M)$ of the coset
(\ref{coset}) while the remaining ones come from the $SU(N) \times U(1)$
of the coset.
Note that we can move the $J^{(\rho \bar{i})}$ in the fourth term of
(\ref{T})
to the left
and combine it with the third term together with a derivative term
according to the relation
$\delta_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}}\, \delta_{j \bar{i}} \,
[ J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}, J^{(\rho \bar{i})}]= - M N \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} \,
\partial \, J^{u(1)}$ which will be used several times in this paper.
Then we have the following OPE
\begin{eqnarray}
T(z) \, T(w) = \frac{1}{(z-w)^4} \, \frac{c}{2} + \frac{1}{(z-w)^2} \,
2 \, T(w) + \frac{1}{(z-w)} \, \partial \, T(w) + \cdots.
\label{TT}
\end{eqnarray}
It is rather nontrivial to check this OPE (\ref{TT}) explicitly
by using the (\ref{OPEspin1spin1}).
Here the central charge in (\ref{TT}) is given by \cite{CH1812}
\begin{eqnarray}
c & = & \frac{k((N+M)^2-1)}{(k+M+N)}-\frac{k(N^2-1)}{(k+N)}-1
\nonumber \\
&= &
\frac{(-k^2+k^2 M^2-2k N-M N+2k^2 M N + k M^2 N-N^2 + k M N^2)}{(k+N)(k+M+N)}.
\label{charge}
\end{eqnarray}
Furthermore, the spin-$1$ current is primary operator
under the stress energy tensor (\ref{T})
\begin{eqnarray}
T(z) \, J^a(w) =\frac{1}{(z-w)^2} \, J^a(w) + \frac{1}{(z-w)} \, \partial \,
J^a(w) + \cdots.
\label{OPETJ}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that
$T(z)$ is a singlet under the horizontal subalgebra
$SU(M)$ \cite{BS}.
The OPEs between $T(z)$ and $J^{\alpha}(w)$ (and $J^{u(1)}(w)$)
are regular. When we further divide
the $SU(M)$ piece in the coset (\ref{coset}) and subtract
the corresponding stress energy tensor, $\frac{1}{2(k+M)}\, J^a\, J^a(w)$,
from (\ref{T}),
then this modified stress energy tensor is no longer singular OPE
with spin-$1$ current $J^a(w)$.
\subsection{A charged spin $2$ current}
The next question is whether
the spin-$2$ current transforming as adjoint
representation of $SU(M)$ exists or not.
If there exists, then how do we construct explicitly?
It is natural to require that
it should transform as a primary operator under the stress energy tensor
(\ref{T}). The nontrivial requirement is the relation between the
previous spin-$1$ current and this spin-$2$ current.
In general, the second order pole of this OPE
contains the spin-$1$ current with two free adjoint indices
while the first order pole contains the composite spin-$2$ operators
contracted with the appropriate indices.
In the specific basis, the spin-$2$ current can transform as
the ``primary'' operator under the spin-$1$ current \cite{BCG}.
Furthermore, the spin-$2$ current should transform
under the adjoint representation of the horizontal finite dimensional
Lie algebra $SU(M)$ \cite{BS}.
Among five spin-$1$ currents, we can make the quadratic terms between
them with derivative terms in order to have spin-$2$ operator.
The nontrivial term is given by
the $SU(M)$ generator multiplied by
the spin-$1$ current
transforming
as $({\bf N},\overline{{\bf M}})$
and its conjugated one.
Moreover, the fundamental and antifundamental indices
of $SU(N)$ should be contracted each other.
We expect that there should be the spin-$2$ operator
contracted by $d$ symbol \cite{BBSS,Ahn1111} from the adjoint
spin-$1$ current $J^a(z)$.
It turns out that
a charged spin-$2$ current
\cite{CH1812}
is given by \footnote{\label{derinK} We have the
relation $\delta_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \,
t^a_{j\bar{i}} \,
J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)} \, J^{(\rho \bar{i})}(z) = \delta_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \,
t^a_{j\bar{i}} \, J^{(\rho \bar{i})} \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}(z) + N \, \partial J^a(z)$
from the last OPE of (\ref{OPEspin1spin1}) with the help of
\cite{BBSS}.}
\begin{eqnarray}
K^a(z) & = & \delta_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \,
t^a_{j\bar{i}} \, (J^{(\rho \bar{i})} \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)} +
J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)} \, J^{(\rho \bar{i})}) (z)
-\frac{N}{(M+2k)} \, d^{abc} \, J^b\, J^c(z)
\nonumber \\
& + & \frac{2N}{k} \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} \, J^a \, J^{u(1)}(z).
\label{spin2expression}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the third term of (\ref{spin2expression})
occurs in \cite{BBSS,Ahn1111}.
Instead of introducing the
arbitrary coefficients, we will check whether the above
result is consistent with other conditions.
Now we can compute the OPE between $J^{u(1)}(z)$ and $K^a(w)$
and it turns out that the second order pole of this OPE coming from
the first two and last terms of (\ref{spin2expression}) has
$J^a(w)$ term whose coefficient vanishes, similar to the third one of
(\ref{regular}).
Moreover, the OPE between $J^{\alpha}(z)$ and
$K^a(w)$ can be obtained from the first two terms of (\ref{spin2expression})
and this leads to the vanishing of this OPE, along the line of
the first relation of (\ref{regular}),
where the traceless conditions
for the generators $t^{\alpha}_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}}$ and
$t^a_{i \bar{j}}$ are used.
From the OPE between $J^{a}(z)$ and $K^b(w)$, the second order pole vanishes
by using the identity that the triple product $d f f$ is proportional to
$d$ symbol \cite{BBSS,NPB97,Ahn1111}.
We also consider $\partial \, J^a(z)$ term in (\ref{spin2expression})
but the vanishing of third order pole of
the OPE between $J^{a}(z)$ and $K^b(w)$ does not allow us to
add this term.
Finally, the first order pole of this OPE
can be written in terms of $i f^{ab}_{\,\,\,\,\,\,c} \,
K^c(w)$.
Therefore, we summarize that the charged spin-$2$ current
has the following OPE
\begin{eqnarray}
J^a(z) \, K^b(w) = \frac{1}{(z-w)} \, i \, f^{ab}_{\,\,\,\,\,\,c} \, K^c(w) +
\cdots.
\label{JK}
\end{eqnarray}
We can compute the commutator
$[J_0^a, K^b(w)]$ and this leads to
$i \, f^{a b c} \, K^c(w)$ from the result of (\ref{JK}).
In other words, the spin-$2$ current transforms under the
adjoint representation of the horizontal finite dimensional
Lie algebra $SU(M)$ as mentioned before.
Here $J_0^a$ is the Laurent zero mode of spin-$1$ current $J^a(z)$
\cite{BS}.
Because the complete expression of this charged
spin-$2$ current is given by (\ref{spin2expression}), we can calculate
the OPE with the stress energy tensor (\ref{T})
and it is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
T(z) \, K^a(w) = \frac{1}{(z-w)^2} \, 2 \, K^a(w) + \frac{1}{(z-w)} \, \partial \,
K^a(w) + \cdots,
\label{TK}
\end{eqnarray}
where the relation (\ref{OPETJ})
and other ones are used.
So far,
the currents are given by
the stress energy tensor (\ref{T}),
the spin-$1$ current and the spin-$2$ current (\ref{spin2expression}).
Their OPEs are given by (\ref{TT}), (\ref{OPETJ}), (\ref{TK}),
the fourth relation of (\ref{OPEspin1spin1}), and (\ref{JK}).
\subsection{A charged spin $3$ current}
We would like to construct the charged spin-$3$ current as we did in
previous subsection.
This charged spin-$3$ current should be a primary operator
under the stress energy tensor (\ref{T}).
We expect that the cubic term of $SU(M)$ adjoint
spin-$1$ current with the fourth order $d$ symbols
\cite{Schoutens,Ahn1111}
as a nonderivative term can arise.
For the OPE with the spin-$1$ current,
we require the previous ``primary'' condition under the spin-$1$ current.
It turns out that
the charged spin-$3$ current which was obtained by using
the works of \cite{GKO1,GKO2,BBSS1} has the following terms
\footnote{The coefficients $a_6$,$a_{10},a_{14}$ and $a_{15}$
are vanishing where the corresponding terms are given by
$a_6 \, i \, f^{a b c} \, \delta_{\rho \bar{\rho}} \,
t^b_{j\bar{i}} \, J^c (J^{(\rho \bar{i})} J^{(\bar{\rho} j)}+
+
J^{(\bar{\rho} j)} J^{(\rho \bar{i})}) (z)+
a_{10} \, d^{a b c} \, \partial \, J^b \, J^c(z)+
a_{14} \, J^a \, \partial \, J^{u(1)}(z) + a_{15} \,
\partial \, J^a \, J^{u(1)}(z) $. In order to check (\ref{spin3exp})
we keep these terms also.
\label{zerofour}}
\begin{eqnarray}
P^a(z) & = & a_1 \,
t^{\alpha}_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \, t^a_{j\bar{i}} \, J^{\alpha}
J^{(\rho \bar{i})} \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}(z)
+ a_2 \, J^{\alpha} \, J^{\alpha} \, J^a(z)+a_3 \, J^b \, J^b \, J^a(z)
+a_4 \, J^a \, J^{u(1)} \, J^{u(1)}(z)
\nonumber \\
&+& a_5 \, d^{abc} \, \delta_{\rho \bar{\rho}} \,
t^b_{j\bar{i}} \, J^c (J^{(\rho \bar{i})} J^{(\bar{\rho} j)} +
J^{(\bar{\rho} j)} J^{(\rho \bar{i})}) (z)
+ a_7 \, \delta_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \,
t^a_{j\bar{i}}\, J^{u(1)} (J^{(\rho \bar{i})} J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)} +
J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)} J^{(\rho \bar{i})}) (z)
\nonumber \\
&+& a_8 \, \delta_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \, \delta_{j\bar{i}}\,
J^a \, (J^{(\rho \bar{i})} \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)} +
J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)} \, J^{(\rho \bar{i})}) (z)
+ a_9 \, d^{abc} \, J^b \, J^c \, J^{u(1)}(z)
+ a_{11} \, i \, f^{abc} \, \partial \, J^b \, J^c(z)
\nonumber \\
&+& a_{12} \, \delta_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \,
t^a_{j\bar{i}} \, \partial \, J^{(\rho \bar{i})} \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}(z)
+ a_{13} \, \delta_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \,
t^a_{j\bar{i}} \, \partial \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)} \, J^{(\rho \bar{i})}(z)
+a_{16} \, \partial^2 \, J^a(z)
\nonumber \\
&+& a_{17} \, 6 \, \mbox{Tr} \, (t^{a} \,
t^{\left(b \right.} \, t^c \, t^{\left. d \right)}) \,
J^b \, J^c \, J^d(z).
\label{spin3exp}
\end{eqnarray}
The $a_3, a_{11}, a_{16}$ and $a_{17}$ terms
contain the spin-$1$ current only
\footnote{The $a_{17}$ term can be written as
$\frac{6}{M} \, J^a \, J^b \, J^b +\frac{3}{2} \, (i f +d)
^{a b e} \, d^{e c d}\, J^b \, J^c \, J^d+
\frac{3}{2}\, (i f +d)^{a d e}\, d^{e b c} \, i\, f^{b d f}\,
\partial \, J^f \, J^c -\frac{1}{4} \, (i f + d)^{a d e} \, f^{c d f}
\, f^{b f g} \, \partial^2 \, J^g+
\frac{6}{M} \, i\, f^{b a c} \, \partial \, J^c \, J^b-
\frac{1}{M}\, f^{b a c} \, f^{b c d}\, \partial^2 \, J^d$.}.
The $a_{17}$ term is related to the above cubic term with
the fourth order $d$ symbols mentioned before.
We understand the $a_2, a_{4}$ and $a_9$ terms
because the indices except the free adjoint index $a$
are contracted properly. The nontrivial parts are given by the
remaining six terms.
The free index $a$ arises in the generator $t^a_{j \bar{i}}$,
the spin-$1$ current $J^a$ and the $d^{a b c} $ symbols.
They contain the spin-$1$ currents
transforming
as $({\bf N},\overline{{\bf M}})$ or $(\overline{{\bf N}},{\bf M})$.
For $a_5, a_7, a_{12}$ and $a_{13}$ terms, the Kronecker
delta symbols are multiplied in order to contract with the
fundamental and antifundamental indices of $SU(N)$ each other.
For $a_8$ term, there exists further Kronecker
delta symbols associated with the fundamental and antifundamental
indices of $SU(M)$. Note that in the $a_1$ term, there is an additional
generator $t^{\alpha}_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}}$ contracted with three other
indices.
We do not get the $a_1$ term from the each term of
charged spin-$2$ current and other operators.
Therefore, the $a_1$ term is crucial for the construction of
an independent charged spin-$3$ current.
Now we would like to construct the spin-$3$ current step by step
explicitly by assuming the operator contents of \cite{CH1812}.
We calculate the OPEs by hand without using the method given in
\cite{CH1812} where they have obtained this charged spin-$3$ current
for several fixed low $(N,M)$ values and extracted
the $(N,M)$ dependence of relative coefficients
as well as $k$ dependence.
By requiring that we should have
the condition
$J^{\alpha}(z) \, P^a(w)=0$, along the line of
the first relation of (\ref{regular}),
where the corresponding terms in
(\ref{spin3exp}) are given by $a_1,a_2,a_8,a_{12}$ and $a_{13}$ terms,
the second order pole provides the following equations
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \Bigg[ (2N+k) \, a_1 +(a_{12}-a_{13}) \Bigg] \, t^{\alpha}_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}}
\, t^a_{j \bar{i}} \, J^{(\rho \bar{i})} \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}(w) = 0,
\nonumber \\
&& \Bigg[ a_1 -2(N+k)\, a_2-2 M \,a_8 \Bigg] \, J^{\alpha} \, J^a(w) = 0.
\label{tworel}
\end{eqnarray}
Here the relation $[t^{\alpha}, t^{\beta}] = i
f^{\alpha \beta}_{\,\,\,\,\,\,\gamma} \, t^{\gamma}$ is used in (\ref{tworel}).
Moreover, from (\ref{OPEspin1spin1}),
we have the following identity (See also \cite{BBSS})
\begin{eqnarray}
[J^{(\rho \bar{i})}, \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}]=
i \,
f^{(\rho \bar{i}) (\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}_{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,u(1)}
\, \partial \, J^{u(1)}+
i \,
f^{(\rho \bar{i}) (\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}_{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\alpha}
\, \partial \, J^{\alpha}+
i \,
f^{(\rho \bar{i}) (\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}_{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,a} \,
\partial \, J^{a}.
\label{comm}
\end{eqnarray}
Then the contribution from the second term of $a_8$ in (\ref{spin3exp})
is the same as the one from the first term because the additional two
delta symbols in $a_8$ term can act on (\ref{comm}) which leads to
zero value.
Similarly, the regularity condition
$J^{u(1)}(z) \, P^a(w)=0$, similar to the third relation of
(\ref{regular}),
gives the following
equations we should have
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \Bigg[-N \, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} \, a_{12} + 2 \, k \,
a_{14} - N \, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}}
\, a_{13} \Bigg] \, J^a(w) =0,
\nonumber \\
&& \Bigg[ 2 k \, a_4 -2 N \, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} \, a_7 + 2(M+N) \,a_8 \Bigg]
\, J^a \, J^{u(1)}(w)
=0,
\nonumber \\
&& \Bigg[ -2 N \, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} \,a_5 + k \, a_9 \Bigg] \, d^{abc}
J^b \, J^c(w) =0,
\nonumber \\
&& \Bigg[ 2k \, a_7 + \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} \,
a_{12} - \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}}
\, a_{13} \Bigg] \, \delta_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \, t^a_{j \bar{i}} \,
J^{(\rho \bar{i})} \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}(w)
=0,
\nonumber \\
&& \Bigg[ - 2 M N \, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} \, a_6 + k \, N \, a_7 -
N \, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} \, a_{13} + k \,
a_{15} \Bigg] \, \partial \, J^a(w) =0.
\label{Ju1P}
\end{eqnarray}
Each term of the last four terms can be seen from the
charged spin-$2$ current in (\ref{spin2expression}).
In the last relation of (\ref{Ju1P}), the identity
$f^{a b}_{\,\,\,\,\,\,c} \, J^b \, J^c(w)= i M \, \partial \, J^a(w)$
\cite{BBSS,Ahn1111}
is used.
In the computation of $a_7$ term,
there exists the relation
$\delta_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \, t^a_{j \bar{i}} \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)} \, J^{(\rho \bar{i})}(w)=
\delta_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \, t^a_{j \bar{i}} \, J^{(\rho \bar{i})}\, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}(w)+
N \, \partial \, J^a(w)$ which can be obtained from the
relation (\ref{comm}).
Let us consider the OPE between $J^a(z)$ and $P^b(w)$.
The fourth and third order poles of this OPE
give us
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \Bigg[ 2 M k \, a_3 - 2 M \, k \, a_{11} -k \, N \,
a_{12} + k \, N \, a_{13} + 6k \, a_{16}
\Bigg] \, \delta^{ab} = 0,
\nonumber \\
&& \Bigg[ 2(M-k) \, a_3 + (M^2-4) \, \frac{N}{M} \,
a_5 + 2N \, a_8 -(2k+M) \, a_{11}
-\frac{N}{2} \, a_{12} \nonumber \\
&& +\frac{N}{2} \, a_{13} + 2 a_{16} +
(M^2+6) \, a_{17} \Bigg] \, i \, f^{a b}_{\,\,\,\,\,\,c} \, J^c(w) = 0,
\nonumber \\
&& \Bigg[4 N M \,
\sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} \, a_6 -N \, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} \,
a_{12} -
N \, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} \, a_{13} + 2 k \,
a_{15} \Bigg] \, \delta^{ab} \, J^{u(1)}(w)= 0,
\nonumber \\
&& \Bigg[-N M \, a_6 +(2k+M) \, a_{10} +\frac{N}{2} \, a_{12} +
\frac{N}{2} \, a_{13}
\Bigg] \, d^{a b c} \, J^c(w) = 0.
\label{JP43}
\end{eqnarray}
In the calculation of the second relation of (\ref{JP43}),
we use the following relation
\begin{eqnarray}
\mbox{Tr} (t^i\, t^b\, t^c\, t^d) = \frac{1}{M} \, \delta^{ib}\, \delta^{cd}
+\frac{1}{4} \, ( i f + d)^{i b e}\, (i f +d )^{e c d}.
\label{fourt}
\end{eqnarray}
This can be obtained
by recalling the fact that
the product of two generators
can be written in terms of Kronecker delta symbol
with identity matrix, $f$ and
$d$ symbols with generator and we can multiply further generators
successively.
By multiplying three $f$ symbols into (\ref{fourt}),
we obtain the intermediate result
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\mbox{Tr} (t^i\, t^b\, t^c\, t^d) \, f^{abf} \, f^{f c g} \, f^{gdh}
= \nonumber \\
&&
-2 f^{a i h} + \frac{1}{4} \Bigg[M^2 f^{i a h} - i M^2 d^{h a i}-
i M^2 d^{i a h} -(M^2-4) f^{i h a} \Bigg],
\label{fourt1}
\end{eqnarray}
where the identities for the triple products $ f f f$ and $d f f$
\cite{BBSS,Ahn1111}
are used in (\ref{fourt1}).
Then the remaining five similar terms can be obtained and by adding these
we arrive at the final contribution $(M^2+6) \,a_{17}
\, i f^{a b c} \, J^c(w)$ in (\ref{JP43}).
Let us describe the second order pole which will be more
complicated.
We have the following result
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \Bigg[ -a_1 + k \, a_2 \Bigg] \, \delta^{ab} \, J^{\alpha} \, J^{\alpha}(w) = 0,
\qquad
\Bigg[ k \, a_4 - 2 N \, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} \, a_7 \Bigg] \,
\delta^{ab} \,
J^{u(1)} \, J^{u(1)}(w) = 0,
\nonumber \\
&& \Bigg[ -2 N \, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} \, a_5 + N \, a_7 +(2k+M) \, a_9
\Bigg]
\, d^{a b c} \, J^c \, J^{u(1)}(w)
= 0,
\nonumber \\
&& \Bigg[ -2 N \, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} \, a_6 + a_{15}
\Bigg] \, i \, f^{a b c} \, J^c \, J^{u(1)}(w) = 0,
\nonumber \\
&&\Bigg[ k a_{14} - k N M \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} a_8 -N \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}}
a_{13} \Bigg] \delta^{a b} \, \partial \, J^{u(1)}(w) = 0,
\nonumber \\
&& \Bigg[ 2(k+M) \, a_5 -\frac{1}{2} \, a_{12} + \frac{1}{2} \, a_{13} \Bigg]
\, d^{a b c} \, \delta_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \, t^c_{j \bar{i}} \, J^{(\rho \bar{i})}
\, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}(w) = 0,
\nonumber \\
&& \Bigg[ -2(k+M) \, a_6 +\frac{1}{2} \, a_{12} + \frac{1}{2} \, a_{13} \Bigg]
\, i\,
f^{a b c} \, \delta_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \, t^c_{j \bar{i}} \, J^{(\rho \bar{i})}
\, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}(w) = 0,
\nonumber \\
&& \Bigg[ 2 k \, a_8 -\frac{1}{M} \, a_{12} +\frac{1}{M} \, a_{13} \Bigg]
\, \delta^{a b} \, \delta_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \, \delta_{j \bar{i}} \, J^{(\rho \bar{i})}
\, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}(w) = 0,
\nonumber \\
&& \Bigg[ -N \, a_6 + a_{10} \Bigg] \, i\, f^{a c e} \, d^{b c d} \, J^e \, J^d(w)=0,
\nonumber \\
&&\Bigg[ k \, a_{10} + N \, (k+M) \, a_5 +\frac{N}{2} \, a_{13} + M N \, a_6
\Bigg] \, d^{a b c} \, \partial \, J^c(w) = 0,
\nonumber \\
&& \Bigg[ -2 \, a_3 - a_{11} + \frac{3}{2} \, k \, a_{17}
\Bigg] \, d^{a b e} \, d^{e c d} \, J^c \, J^d(w) = 0,
\nonumber \\
&& \Bigg[ 2(k+M) \, a_3 + 2 N \, a_8 + \frac{4}{M} \, (2a_3 +a_{11}) +
(\frac{12 k}{M}+18)\, a_{17} \Bigg] \, J^a \, J^b(w) = 0,
\nonumber \\
&& \Bigg[ k \, a_3 - \frac{4}{M} \, (2a_3 +a_{11})+
(\frac{6k}{M}-6) \, a_{17} \Bigg] \, \delta^{a b} \, J^c \, J^c(w) = 0,
\nonumber \\
&& \Bigg[ N \, a_5 +(2a_3 +a_{11}) + 3(k+M) \, a_{17}
\Bigg] \, d^{a c d} \, d^{b c e} \, J^d \, J^e(w) = 0,
\nonumber \\
&& \Bigg[ k \, a_{11} + 2 a_{16} + \frac{N}{2} \, a_{13} -N \, (k+M) \, a_6-
\frac{N}{M} \, (M^2-4) \, a_5-\frac{1}{M} \, (M^2-4) \,
(2a_{3}+a_{11})
\nonumber \\
&& + (-\frac{3}{2} \, k \, M +(-2M^2-6)) \, a_{17} - 2 N \, a_8 -
\frac{4}{M} \, (2a_{3}+a_{11}) \Bigg] \, i \, f^{a b c} \, \partial \, J^c(w)
= 0.
\label{JPpole2}
\end{eqnarray}
We rewrite the term $f^{a c d} \, f^{d b e}\, J^c \, J^e(w)$
in terms of Kronecker delta $\delta$ and $d$ symbols by using the
corresponding identity \cite{BS,Ahn1111}.
For the calculation of last five relations associated with
$a_{17}$ term in (\ref{JPpole2}),
the identities containing the
quartic products of $f f f f$, $f f f d$ and $f f d d$
\cite{NPB97,Ahn1111} are used.
Note that although there are also $f^{a e c} \, d^{b e d} \, J^c \, J^d(w)$
and $d^{a b c} \, \partial \, J^c(w)$ in general, those contributions
from the coefficient $a_{17}$ become zero.
By solving the above equations (\ref{tworel}), (\ref{Ju1P}),
(\ref{JP43}) and
(\ref{JPpole2}),
we obtain the coefficients appearing in
the spin-$3$ current as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
a_2 & = &
\frac{a_1}{k}, \qquad a_3= \frac{ N (k+2 N)}{k (k+M) (3 k+2 M)} \, a_1,
\qquad
a_4 = \frac{ (k+2 N) (M+N)}{k^2 M} \, a_1,
\nonumber \\
a_5 & = & -\frac{ (k+2 N)}{4 (k+M)} \, a_1,
\qquad
a_7 = \frac{(k+2 N)}{2 k} \, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} \, a_1,
\qquad
a_8 = -\frac{ (k+2 N)}{2 k M} \, a_1,
\nonumber \\
a_9 &=& - \frac{(k+2 N)N}{2 k (k+M)} \,
\sqrt{\frac{ (M+N)}{M N}} \, a_1,
\qquad
a_{11} =\frac{ (k^2-8) N (k+2 N)}{4 k (k+M) (3 k+2 M)} \, a_1,
\nonumber \\
a_{12} & = & -\frac{1}{2} \, (k+2 N) \, a_1,
\qquad
a_{13} =\frac{1}{2} \, (k+2 N) \, a_1,
\label{avalues}
\\
a_{16} & = & -\frac{ N (6 k^3+9 k^2 M+4 k M^2+12 M)
(k+2 N)}{12 k (k+M) (3 k+2 M)} \, a_1,
\qquad
a_{17} = \frac{ N (k+2 N)}{6 (k+M) (3 k+2 M)} a_1.
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Except the coefficient $a_2$, all the coefficients contain
the factor $(k+2N)$. These are the same as the ones in \cite{CH1812}.
As described in the footnote \ref{zerofour},
the four coefficients, $a_6$, $a_{10}$, $a_{14}$ and $a_{15}$
are vanishing.
Also we have the primary condition under the stress energy tensor
mentioned before
\begin{eqnarray}
T(z) \, P^a(w) = \frac{1}{(z-w)^2} \, 3 \, P^a(w) + \frac{1}{(z-w)} \,
\partial \, P^a(w) + \cdots.
\label{TP}
\end{eqnarray}
In order to check this condition (\ref{TP}), the relations
(\ref{OPETJ})
can be used.
After using the vanishing of
the fourth, third and second order poles we are left with
the first order pole and can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
J^a(z) \, P^b(w) = \frac{1}{(z-w)} i \, f^{a b c}
\, P^c(w) + \cdots,
\label{JP}
\end{eqnarray}
where the fundamental relations (\ref{OPEspin1spin1})
can be used in (\ref{JP}).
As explained in (\ref{JK}), the spin-$3$ current
transforms under the adjoint representation of $SU(M)$.
Once again, the charged spin-$3$ current is primary
operator via (\ref{TP}) and (\ref{JP}).
\subsection{An uncharged spin $3$ current}
How do we construct the higher spin-$3$ current which is neutral
under the spin-$1$ current?
We should write down the possible composite spin-$3$ operators
and determine the relative coefficients by
imposing the basic conditions coming from the coset (\ref{coset}).
As explained before, we should require
that this spin-$3$ current transforms as the primary operator
under the stress energy tensor (\ref{T}).
It turns out that
the uncharged spin-$3$ current \cite{CH1812}
has the following independent terms
\footnote{The coefficients $b_9$, $b_{10}$ and $b_{11}$ are vanishing
and the corresponding terms are given by
$b_9 \, \partial\, J^{\alpha} \, J^{\alpha}(z)+
b_{10} \,\partial\, J^{a} \, J^{a}(z)+ b_{11}\,
\partial\, J^{u(1)} \, J^{u(1)}(z)$.}
\begin{eqnarray}
W^{(3)}(z) & = &
b_1 \, d^{\alpha \beta \gamma} \, J^{\alpha} J^{\beta} J^{\gamma}(z)
+ b_2 \, d^{a b c} \, J^a J^b J^c(z)+
b_3 \, J^{u(1)} J^{u(1)} J^{u(1)}(z) + b_4 \, J^{\alpha} J^{\alpha} J^{u(1)}(z)
\nonumber \\
&+& b_5 \, J^a \, J^a \, J^{u(1)}(z) + b_6 \,
t^{\alpha}_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \, \delta_{j\bar{i}}\,
J^{\alpha} \, (J^{(\rho \bar{i})} \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)} +
J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)} \, J^{(\rho \bar{i})}) (z)
\nonumber \\
&+& b_7 \, \delta_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \,
t^a_{j\bar{i}} \, J^a (J^{(\rho \bar{i})} J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)} +
J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)} J^{(\rho \bar{i})}) (z)
+b_8 \, \delta_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \,
\delta_{j\bar{i}} \, J^{u(1)} (J^{(\rho \bar{i})} J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)} +
J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)} J^{(\rho \bar{i})}) (z)
\nonumber \\
&+& b_{12} \,
\delta_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \,
\delta_{j\bar{i}} \, \partial \, J^{(\rho \bar{i})} \,J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}(z)
+ b_{13} \,
\, \delta_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \,
\delta_{j\bar{i}} \, \partial \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)} \, J^{(\rho \bar{i})}(z)
+ b_{14} \, \partial^2 \, J^{u(1)}(z).
\label{W}
\end{eqnarray}
The second term can be seen from the work of \cite{BBSS}.
The $b_2$, $b_5$ and $b_7$ terms
can be seen from the terms of spin-$2$ current in
(\ref{spin2expression}).
When we differentiate the stress energy tensor (\ref{T}), then
we observe the $b_{12}$ and $b_{13}$ terms.
For the $b_6$ term, we have seen similar $a_1$
term in the charged
spin-$3$ current.
The regularity condition $J^{\alpha}(z) \, W(w) =0$ implies the following
relations coming from the third and second order poles
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \Bigg[ 2(k+N) \, b_9 + M \, b_{12} + M \, b_{13} \Bigg] \, J^{\alpha}(w) = 0,
\nonumber \\
&& \Bigg[ 3(k+N) \, b_1 + M \, b_6 \Bigg] \, d^{\alpha \beta \gamma} \,
J^{\beta} \, J^{\gamma}(w) =
0,
\nonumber \\
&& \Bigg[ 2(k+N) \, b_4 + 2 M \, b_8 + 2 M \, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} \,
b_6\Bigg]
\, J^{\alpha} \, J^{u(1)}(w) = 0,
\nonumber \\
&&
\Bigg[ (k+N) \, b_9 + M \, b_{13} -(k M+ 2 M N) \, b_6 \Bigg] \, \partial \, J^{\alpha}(w)
= 0,
\nonumber \\
&& \Bigg[ 2(k+2N) \, b_6 + b_{12} - b_{13} \Bigg] \, \delta_{j \bar{i}} \,
t^{\alpha}_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \, J^{(\rho \bar{i})} \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}(w) = 0.
\label{JalW}
\end{eqnarray}
In this calculation, we have the identities $f^{\alpha \beta \gamma} \,
J^{\beta} \, J^{\gamma}(w)= i N \partial \, J^{\alpha}(w)$ and $\mbox{Tr} (t^{\alpha} \,
t^{ \beta} \, t^{ \gamma} ) =\frac{1}{2}( i f+d )^{\alpha \beta \gamma}$
as described before.
Similarly, from the OPE between $J^{u(1)}(z)$ and $W(w)$,
we have the following relations from the fourth, the third and the second order
poles
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \Bigg[ k M N \, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} \,
b_{12} - k M N \, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}}
\, b_{13} + 6 k \, b_{14} \Bigg] = 0,
\nonumber \\
&& \Bigg[ 2 k \, b_{11} + (M+N) \, b_{12} + (M+N) \,
b_{13}\Bigg] J^{u(1)}(w) = 0,
\nonumber \\
&& \Bigg[ k \, b_4 + 2 M \,
\sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} \, b_6 \Bigg] \, J^{\alpha} \, J^{\alpha}(w)= 0,
\qquad
\Bigg[ k \, b_5 -2 \,N\, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} \, b_7 \Bigg] \,
J^a \, J^a(w)= 0,
\nonumber \\
&& \Bigg[ 2(M+N) \, b_8 + 3 k \, b_3 \Bigg] \, J^{u(1)} \, J^{u(1)}(w) = 0,
\nonumber \\
&&
\Bigg[ 2 k \, b_8 + \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} \, b_{12} - \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}}
\, b_{13} \Bigg] \, \delta_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \, \delta_{j \bar{i}} \,
J^{(\rho \bar{i})} \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}(w) = 0,
\nonumber \\
&&
\Bigg[ k \, b_{11} + k M N \, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} \, b_8 -(M+N) \, b_{13}
\Bigg] \, \partial \, J^{u(1)}(w) = 0.
\label{Ju1W}
\end{eqnarray}
The identity $\delta_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \, \delta_{j \bar{i}} \,
[J^{(\rho \bar{i})} , J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}](w)=
\sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}}\, M \, N\, \partial \,
J^{u(1)}(w)$ coming from (\ref{comm}) is used
in the calculation of last two equations of (\ref{Ju1W}).
If we use the relations (\ref{JalW}) and (\ref{Ju1W}) only,
then the coefficients are not determined completely.
In order to calculate the OPE between $T(z)$
and $W(w)$, we should obtain the following nontrivial OPEs
\begin{eqnarray}
T(z) \, J^{(\rho \bar{i})}(w) & = &
\frac{1}{(z-w)^2} \,
\Bigg[\frac{(-k-M+2k^2 M-N + k M N)}{2 k M (k+N)}\Bigg]
\, J^{(\rho \bar{i})}(w)
\nonumber \\
& + &
\frac{1}{(z-w)} \, \Bigg[ \frac{1}{(k+N)} \, i
f^{(\rho \bar{i}) \alpha}_{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,(\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma \bar{k})}
\, J^{\alpha} J^{(\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma \bar{k})}
+ \frac{1}{k} \, i
\, f^{(\rho \bar{i}) u(1)}_{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,(\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma \bar{j})}
\, J^{u(1)} J^{(\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma \bar{j})}
\nonumber \\
& + & \partial J^{(\rho \bar{i})} \Bigg](w) + \cdots,
\nonumber \\
T(z) \, J^{(\bar{\rho} j)}(w) & = &
\frac{1}{(z-w)^2} \,
\Bigg[\frac{(-k-M+2k^2 M-N + k M N)}{2 k M (k+N)} \Bigg]
\, J^{(\bar{\rho} j)}(w)
\nonumber \\
& + &
\frac{1}{(z-w)} \, \Bigg[ \frac{1}{(k+N)} \, i
\, f^{(\bar{\rho} j) \alpha}_{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} k)}
\, J^{\alpha} J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} k)}
+ \frac{1}{k} \, i
\, f^{(\bar{\rho} j) u(1)}_{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} k)}
\, J^{u(1)} J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} k)}
\nonumber \\
& + & \partial J^{(\bar{\rho} j)} \Bigg](w)
+ \cdots.
\label{TJJ}
\end{eqnarray}
In the first order term of (\ref{TJJ}),
there exist nontrivial nonlinear terms.
Even the second order term has nontrivial coefficients
which depend on $N$, $M$ and $k$ explicitly.
In this calculation we use the following
identity
\begin{eqnarray}
t^{\alpha}_{\rho_1 \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}_1} \, t^{\alpha}_{\rho_2 \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}_2}
=\delta_{\rho_1 \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}_2} \, \delta_{\rho_2 \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}_1} -\frac{1}{N} \,
\delta_{\rho_1 \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}_1} \, \delta_{\rho_2 \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}_2},
\qquad
t^{a}_{i \bar{j}} \, t^{a}_{k \bar{l}}
=\delta_{i \bar{l}} \, \delta_{k \bar{j}} -\frac{1}{M} \,
\delta_{i \bar{j}} \, \delta_{k \bar{l}}.
\label{ttrelations}
\end{eqnarray}
In (\ref{ttrelations}), they satisfy for any four indices and
similar relations for contracted indices can be obtained from these
identities.
We summarize the fifth, fourth and third order poles
in the OPE between $T(z)$ and $W^{(3)}(w)$ as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \Bigg[ 2k \, (M^2-1) \, b_{10} + \frac{N(-k-M+2k^2 M-N + k M N)}{(k+N)} \,
(b_{12}+b_{13}) \Bigg] = 0,
\nonumber \\
&& \Bigg[k \, (M^2-1) \, b_5 -2N (M^2-1) \, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}}\,
b_7+ \frac{N(-k-M+2k^2 M-N + k M N)}{(k+N)}
\, b_8 \nonumber \\
&& + \frac{(-k-M+2k^2 M-N + k M N)}{2 k (k+N)} \, N
\, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}}
\, (b_{12}-b_{13}) \, \Bigg] \, J^{u(1)}(w) = 0,
\nonumber \\
&& 2 b_{10} \, J^a \, J^a(w) + (b_{12}+b_{13}) \, \Bigg[ 2
\delta_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \, \delta_{j \bar{i}} \,
J^{(\rho \bar{i})} \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}-
\frac{(M+N)}{k} \, J^{u(1)} \, J^{u(1)} \nonumber \\
&& -\frac{M}{(k+N)} \, J^{\alpha}
\, J^{\alpha} - M N \, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} \, \partial \,
J^{u(1)} \Bigg](w) = 0.
\label{TWcon}
\end{eqnarray}
It can be checked that the contribution from the coefficient $b_6$ term
vanishes by using the various further contractions
between the operators
appearing in the contributions from the $b_{12}$ or $b_{13}$
term.
We have the following primary condition
under the stress energy tensor
\begin{eqnarray}
T(z) \, W^{(3)}(w) = \frac{1}{(z-w)^2} \, 3 \, W^{(3)}(w) +
\frac{1}{(z-w)^2} \, \partial \, W^{(3)}(w) + \cdots.
\label{TW}
\end{eqnarray}
It will be rather complicated to check this
by hand explicitly.
If we identify some of the factors in the spin-$3$ current with
the previous known currents, then the corresponding computations
will be easier.
By solving (\ref{JalW}), (\ref{Ju1W}) and (\ref{TWcon}), we arrive at the
following intermediate result for the coefficients
\begin{eqnarray}
b_3 &=& \frac{2(k+N)(M+N)(k+2N)}{k^2 M} \, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} \, b_1,
\qquad
b_4 = \frac{6(k+N)}{k} \, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} \, b_1,
\nonumber \\
b_5 &=& \frac{2 N}{k} \, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} \, b_7,
\quad
b_6 = -\frac{3(k+N)}{M} \, b_1, \nonumber \\
b_8 & = & -\frac{3(k+N)(k+2N)}{k M} \, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} \, b_1,
\qquad
b_{12} = \frac{3(k+N)(k+2N)}{M} \, b_1,
\nonumber \\
b_{13} &=& -\frac{3(k+N)(k+2N)}{M}\, b_1,
\qquad
b_{14} = -N (k+N)(k+2N) \, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} \, b_1.
\label{interbvalue}
\end{eqnarray}
The coefficients are written in terms of $b_1$ and $b_7$ and
moreover the coefficient $b_2$
is not determined yet.
Except the coefficients of $b_4$ and $b_6$, all the
coefficients contain the factor $(k+2N)$.
We will analyze further in section $7$ and determine
the remaining coefficients completely. Therefore, we
have checked that the expressions for the spin-$3$ current
is correct for any $(N,M)$ and $k$.
\section{ The OPE between the charged higher spin-$2$
current and itself}
In this section, we would like to construct the
OPE $K^a(z) \, K^b(w)$ which did not appear in \cite{CH1812}
by using the explicit realization in (\ref{spin2expression})
with the help of (\ref{OPEspin1spin1}).
What they have observed in \cite{CH1812} is that
the above OPE is found
by assuming that there exist the spin-$1,2$
currents as well as the stress energy tensor (\ref{T}).
Of course, they have constructed the uncharged spin-$3$ current
which does not appear in the above OPE.
Moreover, they have used the Jacobi identities
between these currents and the relative coefficients
appearing in this OPE depend on $(N,M)$ and $k$ explicitly
by collecting some of the results for fixed $(N,M)$ values.
Furthermore, their construction
does not tell us any information on the coset model.
On the other hand, in our construction we use the explicit
realization of coset and the currents are given by
(\ref{T}), (\ref{spin2expression}), (\ref{spin3exp}) and
(\ref{W}).
We will observe that there exists a charged spin-$3$
current described in (\ref{spin3exp}) in the first order pole
of the OPE.
It is useful to calculate the OPEs between $K^a(z)$ and other
spin-$1$ operators. We have (\ref{JK})
and the OPE between $K^a(z)$ and $J^{\alpha}(w)$
and the OPE between $K^a(z)$ and $J^{u(1)}(w)$
have trivial results from the analysis of the subsection $2.1$.
Then the remaining nontrivial OPEs are
given by
\begin{eqnarray}
K^a(z) \, J^{(\rho \bar{i})}(w) &=&
\frac{1}{(z-w)^2} \,
\Bigg[\frac{2(k^2-1)(2k+M+N)}{k(2k+M)} \Bigg] \,
\delta^{k \bar{i}} \, t^a_{k \bar{j}} \, J^{(\rho \bar{j})}(w)
\nonumber \\
& + &
\frac{1}{(z-w)} \Bigg[ 2(k+N) \delta_{k \bar{j}} \, (t^{a})^{\bar{i} k} \,
\partial \, J^{(\rho \bar{j})} -\frac{2(k+N)}{k} \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}}
\delta^{k \bar{i}} t^a_{k \bar{j}} J^{u(1)} J^{(\rho \bar{j})}
\nonumber \\
&+& \frac{2}{k M}(k+M+N) \, J^a \, J^{(\rho \bar{i})}-(i \, f -\frac{(2k+
M+2N)}{
(2k+M)} \, d)^{a b c} \, \delta^{k \bar{i}} \, t^c_{k \bar{j}} \, J^b \,
J^{(\rho \bar{j})} \nonumber \\
&-& 2 \delta^{k \bar{i}} \, \delta_{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma_1}} \, (t^{\alpha})^{\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma_1} \rho}
\, t^a_{k \bar{j}} \, J^{\alpha} \, J^{(\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma \bar{j})} \Bigg](w)
+ \cdots,
\nonumber \\
K^a(z) \, J^{(\bar{\rho} j)}(w) &=&
\frac{1}{(z-w)^2} \,
\Bigg[
\frac{2(k^2-1)(2k+M+N)}{k(2k+M)} \Bigg]
\, \delta^{j \bar{l}} \, t^a_{k \bar{l}} \, J^{(\bar{\rho} k)}(w)
\nonumber \\
& + &
\frac{1}{(z-w)} \Bigg[ 2(k+N) \, \delta_{k \bar{k_1}} \, (t^{a})^{\bar{k_1} j} \,
\partial \, J^{(\bar{\rho} k)} +\frac{2(k+N)}{k} \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}}
\delta^{j \bar{l}} t^a_{k \bar{l}} J^{u(1)} J^{(\bar{\rho} k)}
\nonumber \\
&-& \frac{2}{k M}(k+M+N) \, J^a \, J^{(\bar{\rho} j)}-(i \, f +
\frac{(2k+M+2N)}{
(2k+M)} \, d)^{a b c} \, \delta^{j \bar{j_1}} \, t^c_{k \bar{j_1}} \, J^b \,
J^{(\bar{\rho} k)} \nonumber \\
&+& 2 \delta^{j \bar{l}} \, \delta_{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma_1}} \, (t^{\alpha})^{\bar{\rho} \sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}
\, t^a_{k \bar{l}} \, J^{\alpha} \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma_1} k)} \Bigg](w)
+ \cdots.
\label{KJJ}
\end{eqnarray}
These two OPEs look similar but they are different from each other.
Based on these OPEs, we can calculate the OPEs
between the charged spin-$2$ current and the derivative of spin-$1$
currents by simply taking the derivative with respect to the argument
$w$.
We use the identity of two and triple products of generators
\begin{eqnarray}
t^a \, t^b & = &
\frac{1}{M} \, \delta^{a b} \,{\bf 1}_{M} + \frac{1}{2} (i \, f +d)^{a b c}
\, t^c,
\nonumber \\
t^a \, t^b \, t^c & = &
\frac{1}{M} \, \delta^{b c} \,t^a + \frac{1}{2M} \, \delta^{a d} \, (i \, f +
d)^{b c d}\,
{\bf 1}_M
+ \frac{1}{4} (i \, f +d)^{b c d} \, (i \, f + d)^{a d f} t^f,
\label{ttandttt}
\end{eqnarray}
where the first relation can be obtained from the $f$ and $d$ symbols
in (\ref{fdtrace})
together with the metric in (\ref{metric}) and the second relation
can be determined by acting other generator on the first relation.
\subsection{The fourth, third and second order poles}
Then the fourth order pole can be determined
by the OPE between the spin-$2$ current and the first two terms
of spin-$2$ current.
If we use the property of the footnote \ref{derinK},
then the contribution from the second term of the spin-$2$ current
can be expressed as the contribution from the first term and the
contribution from the OPE between the spin-$2$ current
and the derivative of spin-$1$ current which can be easily
obtained from the defining relation in (\ref{JK}).
It turns out that the fourth order pole of this OPE
is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
K^a(z) \, K^b(w) \Bigg|_{\frac{1}{(z-w)^4}} =
\frac{4(k^2-1)N(2k+M+N)}{(2k+M)} \, \delta^{ab},
\label{pole4}
\end{eqnarray}
which is equal to $\frac{c_1}{2} \, \delta^{ab}$ in the notation of
\cite{CH1812}.
Then we can determine the coefficient
\begin{eqnarray}
c_1 = \frac{8(k^2-1)N(2k+M+N)}{(2k+M)}.
\label{c1}
\end{eqnarray}
The free indices $a$ and $b$ arise in the form of invariant
Kronecker delta symbols.
How do we obtain the third order pole?
By using the
trace of triple product of generators appearing in (\ref{ttandttt})
leading to the second contribution because the first and last
contributions provide zero due to the tracelessness of
the generator,
the final result
can be expressed as a $f$ symbols with spin-$1$ current.
It turns out that
the third order pole of this OPE
is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
K^a(z) \, K^b(w) \Bigg|_{\frac{1}{(z-w)^3}} =
\frac{4(k^2-1)N(2k+M+N)}{k(2k+M)} \, i f^{a b c} \,J^c(w),
\label{pole3}
\end{eqnarray}
which is given by $c_2 \, i \,f^{a b c} \,J^c(w)$
in the notation of \cite{CH1812}.
Therefore, we have the coefficient
\begin{eqnarray}
c_2 = \frac{4(k^2-1)N(2k+M+N)}{k(2k+M)}.
\label{c2value}
\end{eqnarray}
Let us present the final result first.
The second order pole can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
&& K^a(z) \, K^b(w) \Bigg|_{\frac{1}{(z-w)^2}} =
\nonumber \\
&& -\frac{4(k+N)(M+N)}{k M} \, \delta^{a b} \, J^{u(1)} \, J^{u(1)}(w)
-4 \delta^{a b} \, J^{\alpha} \, J^{\alpha}(w)
-\frac{4 N}{k M} (k+M+N) \, J^a \, J^b(w)
\nonumber \\
&& + 2 \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} \, ( -\frac{N^2}{k} \,i \, f +
\frac{N(4k^2 + 2k M + 4 k N +M N)}{k (2k+M)} \, d )^{a b c}
\, J^c \, J^{u(1)}(w)
\nonumber \\
&& + N ( i \, f - \frac{(k+M+2N)}{(2k+M)} \, d )^{a e c} ( i \, f
+ d )^{d b c}
\, J^e\, J^d(w)
+ \frac{8(k+N)}{M} \, \delta^{a b} \, \delta^{\rho\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \, \delta_{j \bar{l}} \,
J^{(\rho \bar{l})} \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}(w)
\nonumber \\
&& - 2 N \, i \, f^{a b c} \, \delta^{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \, t^c_{j \bar{l}} \,
J^{(\rho \bar{l})} \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}(w)
+ \frac{2(4k^2 + 2 k M+ 4 k N + M N)}{(2k+M)} \, d^{a b c} \,
\delta^{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \, t^c_{j \bar{l}} \,
J^{(\rho \bar{l})} \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}(w)
\nonumber \\
&& - 4 N (k+N)\, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} \, \delta^{a b} \, \partial \, J^{u(1)}(w)
+ 2 k N \, i \, f^{a b c} \, \partial J^c(w)
\nonumber \\
&& +
\frac{2 k N(2k +M +2N)}{(2k+M)} \, d^{a b c} \, \partial \, J^c(w)
-\frac{M N}{(2k+M)} \, d^{a b c} \, K^c(w) + N \, i \, f^{a b c} \, K^c(w).
\label{Rel}
\end{eqnarray}
The contribution from the third term of (\ref{spin2expression})
is given by
the second term of the last line of (\ref{Rel}).
The last term of (\ref{Rel}) comes from the
expression of the second term having a derivative term of $J^b(w)$
in the footnote \ref{derinK}.
Then the remaining expressions come from the first two terms in
(\ref{spin2expression}).
Then
the operator contents of (\ref{Rel}) is the same as
the ones in (\ref{JPpole2}) as expected.
The next question is how we can write down
the above expression (\ref{Rel}) in terms of
previous known currents, spin-$1,2$ currents as well as the
stress energy tensor?
Of course, there should be a descendant term originating from the
third order pole. This is a simple derivative term of spin-$1$ current
with fixed known coefficient.
Moreover, it is obvious that there are stress energy tensor and
spin-$2$ current of spin-$2$.
Now it is clear to simplify
(\ref{Rel}) by comparing it with (\ref{T}) and (\ref{spin2expression}).
It is easier to look at the terms of singlet operator without having
any group indices first.
By identifying $J^{u(1)}\, J^{u(1)}(w)$ term in both (\ref{Rel}) and
(\ref{T}),
we observe that
the coefficient of $T(w)$ in the second order pole should be equal to
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{8}{M}(k+N)(k+M+N),
\label{three}
\end{eqnarray}
by focusing on the first term of (\ref{Rel}).
This is equivalent to $2 \frac{c_1 \, a_{1,CH}}{c}$
of \cite{CH1812} with (\ref{charge}) and (\ref{c1}).
Then we can extract the coefficient of $a_{1,CH}$ from (\ref{three})
as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
a_{1,CH} =
\frac{(2k+M)(-k^2+k^2 M^2-2k N-M N+2k^2 M N + k M^2 N-N^2 + k M N^2)}{
2(k^2-1)M N(2k+M+N)}.
\label{a1}
\end{eqnarray}
Then the structure constant (\ref{three})
appearing in the stress energy tensor
of the second order pole is determined.
Of course, other terms of the stress energy tensor
in the second order pole can be checked.
Let us move to the other structure constant and
the coefficient of $d^{a b c} \, K^c(w)$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{2k(2k+M+2N)}{(2k+M)},
\label{2c6rel}
\end{eqnarray}
which is equal to $2 c_6$ in \cite{CH1812}.
Note that the contribution (\ref{2c6rel}) comes from
the $d$ term of the second line of (\ref{Rel})
and the second term in the last line of (\ref{Rel})
by focusing on the singlet term of (\ref{spin2expression}).
Then
the coefficient of $c_6$ of \cite{CH1812} from (\ref{2c6rel})
is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
c_6 = \frac{k(2k+M+2N)}{(2k+M)}.
\label{c6}
\end{eqnarray}
Then the structure constant (\ref{2c6rel})
appearing in the spin-$2$ current
of the second order pole is determined.
After subtracting the descendant term, the stress energy
tensor term and
spin-$2$ current term from the second order pole, there exists the sum
of
some nonzero composite operators which corresponds to
a quasi primary operator.
We can collect the following nonderivative quadratic $J^a$
dependent terms in (\ref{Rel})
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \frac{4N}{M} \,
\delta^{a b} \, J^c \, J^c + \frac{N(4 k^2+4 k M+M^2+M N)}{(2k+M)^2}
\, d^{a b e} \, d^{e c d} \, J^c \, J^d \nonumber \\
&& -\frac{4N(2k+M+N)}{k M}
\, J^a \, J^b -\frac{2N(2k+M+N)}{(2k+M)} \, d^{a c e} \,
d^{e b d} J^c \, J^d.
\label{fourquantity}
\end{eqnarray}
From the expression of (\ref{Rel}), it is easy to
see that the above terms (\ref{fourquantity})
come from the last term of the first line (entering into the third term
of (\ref{fourquantity})),
the first term of the third line,
and the second term of the last line (contributing to the
second term
of (\ref{fourquantity})) of (\ref{Rel}).
Because we are looking at the particular composite operators,
the other terms in (\ref{Rel}) including the derivative terms
should be checked explicitly.
On the other hand, the two invariant fourth order $d$ symbols
are studied in \cite{CH1812} as well as
the two product of Kronecker delta symbols.
Then we can express the above quantities
by writing down their invariant tensors in terms of $f$ and $d$
symbols via the first two relations in Appendix (\ref{tensor}).
In other words,
we have
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \Bigg[c_{31} + \frac{4}{M} \, c_{32}-\frac{4}{M} \, c_{33} +
\frac{2 c_1 a_1}{c}
\frac{1}{2(k+M+N)} \Bigg] \, \delta^{a b} \, J^c \, J^c
\label{samefourquantity} \\
&& + \Bigg[(c_{32}-c_{33}) - 2 c_6 \,
\frac{N}{(2k+M)} \Bigg]\, d^{a b e} \, d^{e c d} \, J^c \, J^d
+\Bigg[\frac{8}{M} \, c_{33} + c_{34}\Bigg]
J^a \, J^b + 2c_{33} \, d^{a c e} \, d^{e b d} \, J^c \, J^d.
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Note that these four independent operators
appear in (\ref{JPpole2}).
For the $c_{33}$ term, as we can see in
the second relation of Appendix (\ref{tensor}),
the various identities can be used. After using the
symmetric property of the free indices, then
half of them can be rewritten as the other half.
It turns out that
$f d$ term and the derivative term with $d$ symbols are
vanishing.
Then we obtain the following expressions, by using the two equations
(\ref{fourquantity}) and (\ref{samefourquantity}),
\begin{eqnarray}
c_{31} & = & -\frac{4(4k^3+4k^2 M+k M^2+ 8 k^2 N+ 6 k M N +M^2 N+ 4k N^2+
M N^2)}{M(2k+M)^2},
\label{c3134} \\
c_{32} & = & \frac{2 k N(2k+M+N)}{(2k+M)^2}, \qquad
c_{33} = -\frac{N(2k+M+N)}{(2k+M)}, \qquad
c_{34} = -\frac{4N(2k+M+N)}{k(2k+M)}.
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, we have determined the second order pole
with (\ref{a1}), (\ref{c6}) and (\ref{c3134})
completely.
As we emphasized before, the structure constants we have found here
are different from the their $(3.27)$ in \cite{CH1812}.
\subsection{The first order pole and charged spin-$3$ current}
Now we can collect all the contributions
entering into the first order pole and
we arrive at the final results as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& K^a(z) \, K^b(w) \Bigg|_{\frac{1}{(z-w)}} =
i \, f^{a b c} \, N \partial \, K^c(w)
\nonumber \\
&& -\frac{N}{(2k+M)} \, \Big( i \, f^{a c e} \, d^{b c d} \, K^e \, J^d +
i\, f^{a d e} \, d^{b c d} \, J^c \, K^e \Big)(w)
+ \frac{2 N}{k} \, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} \, i \, f^{a b c} \,
K^c \, J^{u(1)}(w)
\nonumber \\
&&+ \delta_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \,
t^b_{j \bar{i}} \, \Bigg[ 4(k+N) \delta_{k \bar{l}} \, (t^a)^{\bar{i} k} \,
\partial \, J^{(\rho \bar{l})}\,
J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)} - \frac{4}{k} \, (k+N) \, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} \,
\delta^{k \bar{i}} \, t^a_{k \bar{l}} \,
((J^{u(1)} \, J^{(\rho \bar{l})}) J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)})
\nonumber \\
&& + \frac{4}{k M}\, (k+M+N) \,
((J^a\, J^{(\rho\bar{i})})\, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)})
\nonumber \\
&&-2 ( i \, f -\frac{(2k+M+2N)}{(2k+M)} \, d )^{a c d}\,
\delta^{k \bar{i}} \, t^d_{k \bar{l}} \,
((J^c \, J^{(\rho \bar{l})}) \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)})
\nonumber \\
&&- 4 \delta^{k \bar{i}} \, \delta_{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma_1 \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma_1}}\, (t^{\alpha})^{\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma_1} \rho} \,
t^a_{k \bar{l}} \, ((J^{\alpha} \, J^{(\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma_1 \bar{l})}) \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)})
+ 4(k+N) \delta_{k \bar{l}} \, (t^a)^{\bar{l} j} \,
J^{(\rho \bar{i})}\,
\partial \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} k)} \nonumber \\
&& + \frac{4}{k} \, (k+N) \, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} \,
\delta^{j \bar{l}} \, t^a_{k \bar{l}} \,
J^{(\rho \bar{i})}\, J^{u(1)} \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} k)}
- \frac{4}{k M}\, (k+M+N) \,
J^{(\rho\bar{i})} \, J^a \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}
\nonumber \\
&&-2 ( i \, f + \frac{(2k+M+2N)}{(2k+M)} \, d )^{a c d}\,
\delta^{j \bar{j_1}}\, t^d_{k \bar{j_1}} \,
J^{(\rho \bar{i})}\, J^c \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} k)}
\nonumber \\
&&+ 4 \, \delta^{j \bar{l}} \, \delta_{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma_1 \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma_1}}\, (t^{\alpha})^{\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} \sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma_1} \,
t^a_{k \bar{l}} \, J^{(\rho \bar{i})}\, J^{\alpha} \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma_1} k)}\Bigg](w).
\label{KKpole1}
\end{eqnarray}
Compared to the previous second order pole, it is rather easy to
obtain this first order pole because we do not have to consider
the additional contractions between the operators.
The first two terms in the second line of (\ref{KKpole1})
are determined from the OPE between the spin-$2$ current and the
third term of (\ref{spin2expression}) while
the last term in the second line of (\ref{KKpole1})
comes from the OPE between the spin-$2$ current and the
last term of (\ref{spin2expression}).
According to the observation of \cite{CH1812},
there exist five quasi primary operators including the
spin-$3$ current after subtracting the various descendant operators
properly.
Let us look at the $J^{\alpha}$ term in (\ref{KKpole1}).
It appears in the sixth line and the last line.
We can easily see that they have the product of two generators
and this contains
the $f$ symbols with numerical value $\frac{1}{2}$.
Then the overall numerical factor will be $4$ by adding the above
two contributions.
Because the operator contents are the same as the
one of the first term of spin-$3$ current
(\ref{spin3exp}), by extracting the first term of $P^c(w)$ in
the above first order term (\ref{KKpole1}),
we determine the structure constant,
the coefficient of $ P^c(w)$ in the right hand side
of the OPE
\begin{eqnarray}
C_{K^a \,K^b}^{P^c} = \frac{4}{a_1} \, i \, f^{a b c}.
\label{Struct}
\end{eqnarray}
Of course, this is one of the terms among thirteen terms in
(\ref{spin3exp}).
Further analysis on this direction can be done without any difficulty.
Note that the second term of spin-$3$ current
contains only $J^{\alpha}$ and $J^c$ term.
We can check that this term cannot be seen from (\ref{KKpole1}).
However, among the list of the five
quasi primary operators we mentioned,
we can find that term. This implies that
we should have exact coefficient in the two places,
in the quasi primary operator and the spin-$3$ current
with opposite signs.
Then we can determine the coefficient $a_3^{CH}$ in \cite{CH1812}
by focusing on the second term of $P^c(w)$
\begin{eqnarray}
i\, \Bigg[\frac{1}{2(k+M+N)}-\frac{1}{2(k+N)} \Bigg] \,
c_2 \, a_{3, CH} + i \, \frac{4}{a_1} \, a_2 =0,
\label{a3rel}
\end{eqnarray}
where (\ref{Struct}) is used.
Note that the two terms inside the bracket in (\ref{a3rel})
are coming from the explicit stress energy tensor in (\ref{T}).
From this (\ref{a3rel})
together with (\ref{c2value}) and (\ref{avalues}),
we have determined the coefficient
\begin{eqnarray}
a_{3,CH} = \frac{2(2k+M)(k+N)(k+M+N)}{(k^2-1) M N (2k+M+N)}.
\label{a3}
\end{eqnarray}
Then the structure constant appearing in
this quasi primary operator is given by the first term of
(\ref{a3rel}) with (\ref{c2value}) and (\ref{a3}).
Now we move to the other quasi primary operator.
Let us determine the coefficient of $c_{73}$ appearing in
the first order pole in \cite{CH1812}
by looking at $f^{ab c} \, d^{c d e} \, J^d \, J^e \, J^{u(1)}(w)$.
Then we have the following relation
\begin{eqnarray}
-i \frac{4 N^2}{k(2k+M)} \, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}}
-i \frac{4}{a_1} \, a_9- \frac{2N}{k} \, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} \,
c_{73}=0,
\label{a9rel}
\end{eqnarray}
where the first term originates from the
second, third
and fourth terms of (\ref{KKpole1}).
In the $c_{73}$ term of (\ref{a9rel}),
the relation of third line in Appendix (\ref{tensor})
is used.
In the $a_9$ term, the relation (\ref{Struct}) is used.
By substituting the value of $a_9$ in (\ref{avalues})
into (\ref{a9rel}),
we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
c_{73} = i \frac{k(2k+M+2N)}{(k+M)(2k+M)}.
\label{c73}
\end{eqnarray}
For the $c_{72}$ term having $ f^{a c e} \, d^{b e d}$ in \cite{CH1812},
we should focus on the $a_5$ term of
the spin-$3$ current $P^c(w)$. See also the relations in
Appendix (\ref{tensor}).
Then we have
\begin{eqnarray}
- 2 i + i \frac{4}{a_1} \, 2 \, a_5 + 2 \, c_{73} - 2 \, i \, c_{72} =0.
\label{c72rel}
\end{eqnarray}
There are two contributions from (\ref{KKpole1}) for the first
term in (\ref{c72rel}). The corresponding terms are $f$ terms in the
fifth and eighth line of (\ref{KKpole1}).
In the $a_5$ term here, the second term of $a_5$
appearing in (\ref{spin3exp}) can be
written in terms of the first term and derivative term.
Then the number $2$ exists in (\ref{c72rel}).
We determine the coefficient $c_{72}$ from
(\ref{c72rel}) by using
(\ref{avalues}) and (\ref{c73})
as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
c_{72} = -\frac{(2k+M+2N)}{(2k+M)}.
\label{c72}
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, the structure constant associated with
$c_{72}$ and $c_{73}$ terms is completely determined.
Now we consider the quasi primary operator
which is cubic terms in the spin-$1$ currents.
For the coefficient $c_{53}$, we consider
$d^{a c f} \, f^{f b g} \, d^{g d e}\, J^c \, J^d \, J^e(w)$ term.
In this case, we
have
\begin{eqnarray}
i \, \frac{2 N^2}{(2k+M)^2} - 3 \, i \, c_{53} + 2 \, \frac{N}{(2k+M)} \,
i \, c_{72}=0.
\label{c53c72}
\end{eqnarray}
It is rather nontrivial to extract the exact contribution from the
$c_{53}$ term with corresponding $d_{52}^{a b c d e}$ tensor.
The other contribution from $c_{72}$ can occur here.
Therefore,
from (\ref{c72}) and (\ref{c53c72}),
we determine the coefficient $c_{53}$
\begin{eqnarray}
c_{53} =-\frac{2N(2k+M+N)}{3(2k+M)^2}.
\label{c53}
\end{eqnarray}
By considering the
$f^{a b f} \, d^{f c g} \, d^{g d e}\, J^c \, J^d \, J^e(w)$ term,
we have
\begin{eqnarray}
i \, \frac{2N^2}{(2k+M)^2} - i \, \frac{3}{2} \, c_{52} -
i \, \frac{3}{2} \, c_{53} + i \, \frac{N}{(2k+M)} \, c_{72}
-i \, \frac{4}{a_1} \, \frac{3}{2} \, a_{17} +
\frac{N}{(2k+M)} \, c_{73} =0.
\label{c52rel}
\end{eqnarray}
Again the
the first term
can be obtained
from the first two terms in the second line of
(\ref{KKpole1}) with Jacobi identity.
In this case also, the corresponding invariant tensors
associated with $c_{52}$ and $c_{53}$ terms look complicated
in Appendix (\ref{tensor}) but if we use the symmetric property
of the indices between $c$, $d$ and $e$ we will obtain
simpler expression and we can extract the exact coefficients
we presented above.
For the $c_{72}$ term, the Jacobi identity is used.
It is easy to obtain the coefficient $c_{52}$
by substituting (\ref{avalues}), (\ref{c53}), (\ref{c72}) and (\ref{c73})
into the above (\ref{c52rel})
\begin{eqnarray}
c_{52} =\frac{2 k N(2k+M+N)}{3(2k+M)^2(3k+2M)}.
\label{c52}
\end{eqnarray}
For the $f^{a b c} \, J^c \, J^d \, J^d(w)$ term,
we have
\begin{eqnarray}
i \, \frac{4}{a_1} \, a_3 + i \, \frac{4}{a_1} \, \frac{6}{M} \, a_{17}
+\frac{1}{2(k+M+N)} \, c_2 \, a_{3,CH} + c_{51} + i\, \frac{6}{M} \,
c_{52} -i \, \frac{6}{M} \, c_{53} =0.
\label{c51rel}
\end{eqnarray}
We can observe the first term with previous structure constant
(\ref{Struct})
in the spin-$3$ current.
It is obvious to see the $a_{51}$ term
and we obtain the $c_{52}$ and $c_{53}$ terms with above coefficients.
Again, from (\ref{avalues}), (\ref{c2value}), (\ref{a3}), (\ref{c52})
and (\ref{c53}), we determine the coefficient $c_{51}$
from (\ref{c51rel})
\begin{eqnarray}
c_{51} = -i \, \frac{4 (6k^3+7k^2 M+2 k M^2 +12 k^2 N + 10 k M N + 2 M^2 N
+6 k N^2 + 2 M N^2)}{k M (2k+M)(3k+2M)}.
\label{c51}
\end{eqnarray}
We also realize that
$a_{2,CH}$ can be obtained from $a_{3,CH}$ in (\ref{a3})
\begin{eqnarray}
a_{2,CH} & = & \frac{1}{6} (1- 3 a_{3,CH})
\nonumber \\
& = &
\frac{1}{6(k^2-1)M N (2k+M+N)}
\, (-12 k^3 -18 k^2 M - 6 k M^2 -24 k^2 N -26 k M N
\nonumber \\
& + & 2 k^3 M N
- 7 M^2 N
+ k^2 M^2 N-12 k N^2 - 7 M N^2 + k^2 M N^2).
\label{a2}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that this (\ref{a2}) is not an independent structure constant
because this can be obtained from $a_{3,CH}$.
Therefore, we have determined the structure constants
with $c_{51}$, $c_{52}$ and $c_{53}$ terms appearing in the
the cubic spin-$1$ current terms.
We are left with one final quasi primary operator
of spin-$3$ which contains the derivative terms.
This is the most nontrivial parts to extract the correct
structure constants because the derivative terms
appear all over the places.
Let us determine the remaining two coefficients, $c_{41}$ and $c_{43}$.
For the former, by looking at the $f^{a b c} \, f^{c d e} \, \partial \, J^d \, J^e(w)$,
we eventually have
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \frac{4}{a_1} \, \Bigg(
-2 a_3 -a_{11} -\frac{3M}{2} \, a_{17} \Bigg)
+ 2 c_{41} + i \, c_{51} -\frac{3M}{2} \, (c_{52}+c_{53}) \nonumber \\
&& + \Bigg(\frac{12}{M}-3
\, \frac{8-M^2}{2M}\Bigg) \, c_{53} + \frac{N^2}{(2k+M)} =0.
\label{nontri}
\end{eqnarray}
It is not difficult to check the coefficient for the
$c_{51}$ term because it contains already one of the $f$ symbols.
For the $c_{52}$ term, we should move the spin-$1$ currents
to the left in order to obtain the above derivative term with
some identity including the $f$ or $d$ symbols.
For the $c_{53}$ term, the identity for $f f d d$
\cite{NPB97,Ahn1111} is used.
The last term of (\ref{nontri}) comes from the
fifth line of (\ref{KKpole1}) which should be simplified further.
Then this will give us the final expression as above.
The above (\ref{nontri}) leads to
\begin{eqnarray}
c_{41} & = & \frac{1}{k M(2k+M)^2(3k+2M)} (-24k^4 -40k^3 M-22 k^2 M^2 -4 k M^3
-48 k^3 N-64 k^2 M N \nonumber \\
&+ & 2 k^4 M N -28 k M^2 N+ 3k^3 M^2 N- 4 M^3 N+ k^2 M^3 N-24 k^2 N^2
-20 k M N^2 + k^3 M N^2 \nonumber \\
& - & 4 M^2 N^2 +k^2 M^2 N^2),
\label{c41}
\end{eqnarray}
where
the previous results (\ref{avalues}), (\ref{c51}),
(\ref{c52}) and (\ref{c53}) are used in (\ref{nontri}).
Now we would like to determine the final undetermined coefficient.
For the $c_{43}$ coefficient,
we consider the expression of $f^{a b i} K^a(z) \, K^b(w)\Bigg|_{\frac{1}{(z-w)}}$.
Then we have the relation
\begin{eqnarray}
&& -N \, \frac{4}{k M}(k+M+N) + N M -N \,
\frac{(2k+M+2N)}{(2k+M)} \, \frac{(M^2-4)}{M}
\nonumber \\
&& -\frac{4}{a_1} \, i \, 2 M \Bigg[ 2 \, i \, a_3 + i \, a_{11} +i\,
\Big( \frac{4}{M}+\frac{2}{M}+
\frac{(M^2-4)}{M} +\frac{(M^2-4)}{2M} \Big) \, a_{17} \Bigg]
\nonumber \\
&&-2(2 M \, c_{41} +c_{43}) - 2 M \, i \, c_{51}-
\Bigg(-2M \, \frac{6}{M}-\frac{3}{2} \, 2 M \, \frac{(
M^2-4)}{M} \Bigg)\, (c_{52}+c_{53})
\nonumber \\
&&-\Bigg(2M \, \frac{12}{M} + 3 M \, \frac{(M^2-4)}{M}
\Bigg) \, c_{53} =0.
\label{this}
\end{eqnarray}
The fourth line of (\ref{KKpole1}) contributes
the first term of (\ref{this}) if we further simplify nonstandard
normal ordering product in the composite operator.
Again the fifth line of (\ref{KKpole1})
can be simplified and we can check the contribution from
this will be the remaining two terms in the first line of
(\ref{this}). Now we can move to the next line.
For the $a_3$ term, we obtain the above factor by moving
the spin-$1$ current to the left. For the $a_{11}$ term, we will
have $f f$ term which is proportional to $2M$.
We collect all the contributions from the $a_{17}$ term.
From the above (\ref{this}) by substituting (\ref{avalues}),
(\ref{c41}), (\ref{c51}), (\ref{c52}) and (\ref{c53}),
we arrive at
\begin{eqnarray}
c_{43} =-\frac{2 M N(2k+M+N)}{k(2k+M)^2}.
\label{c43}
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, we have determined all the structure constants
associated with $c_{41}$ and $c_{43}$ appearing in
the first order pole
\footnote{We have checked that all the structure constants
are consistent with each other
when we consider the $(N,M)=(6,5)$ case
and the $(N,M)=(7,6)$ case.}.
\subsection{The final OPE}
After collecting the previous results (\ref{pole4}), (\ref{pole3}) ,
(\ref{Rel}) and (\ref{KKpole1}),
we summarize the OPE, in the notation of \cite{CH1812},
between the charged spin-$2$
current and itself as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
K^a(z) \, K^b(w) & = &
\frac{1}{(z-w)^4} \, \frac{c_1}{2}
+\frac{1}{(z-w)^3} \, i\, c_2 \, f^{a b c} \, J^c(w)
\nonumber \\
& + & \frac{1}{(z-w)^2} \, \Bigg[ \frac{1}{2} \, i\, c_2 \, f^{a b c} \, \partial \, J^c + \frac{2 a_{1,CH} \, c_{1}}{c}\, \delta^{a b}
\, T + 2 \, c_6 \, d^{a b c}\, K^c
\nonumber \\
& + & \Big(
c_{31} \, \delta^{a b} \, \delta^{c d} + c_{32} \, d^{a b c d}_{4SS1}
+c_{33} \,
d^{a b c d}_{4SS2}
+ c_{34}
\, \delta^{a c} \, \delta^{b d}
\Big) \, \frac{1}{2} \, (J^c \, J^d + J^d \, J^c)
\Bigg](w)
\nonumber \\
& + & \frac{1}{(z-w)} \, \Bigg[ \frac{1}{6} \, i\, c_2 \, f^{a b c}
\, \partial^2 \, J^c+ \frac{1}{2} \, \partial \, \Big( \frac{2 a_{1,CH} \, c_{1}}{c}\, \delta^{a b}
\, T + 2 \, c_6 \, d^{a b c}\, K^c
\nonumber \\
& + & \Big(
c_{31} \, \delta^{a b} \, \delta^{c d} + c_{32} \, d^{a b c d}_{4SS1}
+c_{33} \,
d^{a b c d}_{4SS2}
+ c_{34}
\, \delta^{a c} \, \delta^{b d}
\Big) \, \frac{1}{2} \, (J^c \, J^d + J^d \, J^c) \Big)
\nonumber \\
& + & i \, c_2 \, a_{3,CH} \,
f^{a b c} \,\Big( T \, J^c -\frac{1}{2} \, \partial^2 \, J^c\Big)
\nonumber \\
&+&\Big(
c_{41} \, d^{a b c d}_{4AA1}
+ c_{43}
\, \delta^{a c} \, \delta^{b d}
\Big)\, (\partial J^c \, J^d -\partial J^d \, J^c -\frac{1}{3} \, i\,
f^{c d e} \partial^2 \, J^e)
\nonumber \\
&+& \Big( c_{51} \, f^{a b c}\, \delta^{d e} +
c_{52} \, d^{a b c d e}_{51}+ c_{53}\, d^{a b c d e}_{52} \Big)
\nonumber \\
& \times & \frac{1}{6} (J^c \, J^d \, J^e +J^c \, J^e \, J^d+
J^e \, J^c \, J^d
+ J^d \, J^c \, J^e +J^d \, J^e \, J^c+J^e \, J^d \, J^c)\nonumber \\
& + & \Big( c_{72} \,d^{a b c d}_{4AA2}+ c_{73}\, d^{c d a b}_{4SA}
\Big) \, J^c \, K^d
+ i \, \frac{4}{a_1} \, f^{a b c} \, P^c \Bigg](w) + \cdots,
\label{fullKK}
\end{eqnarray}
where the structure constants are given by
(\ref{c1}),(\ref{c2value}),(\ref{a1}),(\ref{charge}),(\ref{c6}),
(\ref{c3134}),(\ref{a3}),(\ref{c41}),
(\ref{c43}),(\ref{c51}),(\ref{c52}),(\ref{c53}),(\ref{c72}),
and (\ref{c73}) and we present them here
\begin{eqnarray}
c_1 & = & \frac{8(k^2-1)N(2k+M+N)}{(2k+M)}, \qquad
c_2 = \frac{4(k^2-1)N(2k+M+N)}{k(2k+M)},
\nonumber\\
a_{1,CH} & = &
\frac{(2k+M)(-k^2+k^2 M^2-2k N-M N+2k^2 M N + k M^2 N-N^2 + k M N^2)}{
2(k^2-1)M N(2k+M+N)},
\nonumber \\
c & = &
\frac{(-k^2+k^2 M^2-2k N-M N+2k^2 M N + k M^2 N-N^2 + k M N^2)}{(k+N)(k+M+N)},
\nonumber \\
c_6 & = & \frac{k(2k+M+2N)}{(2k+M)},
\nonumber \\
c_{31} & = & -\frac{4(4k^3+4k^2 M+k M^2+ 8 k^2 N+ 6 k M N +M^2 N+ 4k N^2+
M N^2)}{M(2k+M)^2},
\nonumber \\
c_{32} & = & \frac{2 k N(2k+M+N)}{(2k+M)^2}, \qquad
c_{33} = -\frac{N(2k+M+N)}{(2k+M)},
\nonumber \\
c_{34} & = & -\frac{4N(2k+M+N)}{k(2k+M)}, \qquad
a_{3,CH} = \frac{2(2k+M)(k+N)(k+M+N)}{(k^2-1) M N (2k+M+N)},
\nonumber \\
c_{41} & = & \frac{1}{k M(2k+M)^2(3k+2M)} (-24k^4 -40k^3 M-22 k^2 M^2 -4 k M^3
-48 k^3 N\nonumber \\
& - & 64 k^2 M N
+ 2 k^4 M N -28 k M^2 N+ 3k^3 M^2 N- 4 M^3 N+ k^2 M^3 N-24 k^2 N^2
\nonumber \\
& - & 20 k M N^2 + k^3 M N^2 - 4 M^2 N^2 +k^2 M^2 N^2),
\nonumber \\
c_{43} & = & -\frac{2 M N(2k+M+N)}{k(2k+M)^2},
\nonumber \\
c_{51} & = &
-i \, \frac{4 (6k^3+7k^2 M+2 k M^2 +12 k^2 N + 10 k M N + 2 M^2 N
+6 k N^2 + 2 M N^2)}{k M (2k+M)(3k+2M)},
\nonumber \\
c_{52} & = & \frac{2 k N(2k+M+N)}{3(2k+M)^2(3k+2M)},
\qquad
c_{53} =-\frac{2N(2k+M+N)}{3(2k+M)^2},
\nonumber \\
c_{72} & = & -\frac{(2k+M+2N)}{(2k+M)}, \qquad
c_{73} = i \frac{k(2k+M+2N)}{(k+M)(2k+M)}.
\label{KKcoeff}
\end{eqnarray}
In the last line of the second order pole in (\ref{fullKK}),
there exists a quasi primary
spin-$2$ operator.
In the first two lines of the first order pole
there are descendants for the spin-$1$ and spin-$2$ operators.
In the next five lines, there are quasi primary spin-$3$ operators.
More precisely, the last one is a primary spin-$3$ current
where the coefficient $a_1$ is the overall factor in (\ref{spin3exp}).
In general, the quasi primary spin-$3$ operator in the last line
is given by $(J^c \, K^d -\frac{1}{4}\, i \, f^{c d e} \, \partial K^e)(w)$.
However, the derivative term vanishes when we multiply the tensors
of $c_{72}$ and $c_{73}$ terms
\footnote{Due to the symmetric or antisymmetric
properties of the right hand side of this OPE, we can obtain
the quantities by multiplying the antisymmetric $f$ symbols,
the symmetric $d$ symbols, or symmetric Kronecker
delta symbols. The $c_{31}$-$c_{34}$ terms are symmetric,
the $c_{41}$-$c_{43}$ terms are antisymmetric,
the $c_{51}$-$c_{53}$ terms are antisymmetric and
the $c_{72}$-$c_{73}$ terms are antisymmetric under the exchange of
the indices $a$ and $b$.}.
Let us emphasize here that although the operator contents
appearing in the right hand side of (\ref{fullKK}) except the spin-$3$
current
are the same as
the ones in \cite{CH1812}, the structure constants are completely different
from theirs.
We can check that the difference between our results and theirs
will provide the factor $(k+2N)$.
When we take the infinity limit of $k$ after substituting
$N = \frac{(1-\lambda)}{\lambda} \, k$ into the various structure
constants (\ref{KKcoeff}) we have determined, we obtain the corresponding
values in terms of $\lambda$, $k$ and $M$. We present them in Appendix
$C$. Although we do not compare here the exact values
for the structure constants
with the ones in \cite{JKKR}, we can check the $k$ dependence
as well as $M$ dependence. We observe that their $(4.40)-(4.42)$
are consistent with our results with $\lambda =2$ in
Appendix $C$ by focusing on
the $k$ dependence. Moreover, our coefficients
$c_{31}$ and $c_{51}$ do depend on the factor $\frac{1}{M}$
which can be seen from \cite{JKKR} also
\footnote{We regard $d_{4SS2}^{a b c d}$ as $\frac{4}{M} \, \delta^{a d}
\, \delta^{b c}-f^{a c e}\, f^{e b d} +
i\, f^{a c e}\, d^{e b d}+ i\, d^{ a c e}\, f^{e b d}+
d^{a c e} \, d^{e b d}$ by using the symmetric property
in the indices of $c$ and $d$ in (\ref{fullKK}) from the general
definition in Appendix $A$.
Similarly, $d_{51}^{a b c d e}$ is given by $i \, f^{a b f} \,
(\frac{6}{M} \, \delta^{f c} \, \delta^{d e}+\frac{3}{2}\, (i f +d)^{
f c g} \, d^{g d e})$ by imposing the symmetric property
between the indices $c,d$ and $e$. We also have
$d_{52}^{a b c d e} = d_{51}^{a b c d e}+ (\frac{12}{M} \, i \,
f^{c b a} \, \delta^{d e}+\frac{3}{2} \, i \, f^{c b f}\,
d^{a f g} \, d^{ g d e} -\frac{3}{2}\, i\, f^{c a f} \,
d^{b f g} \, d^{g d e})$. Finally,
we have
$d_{4 A A 2 }^{a b c d} = i\, (d^{e a c } \, f^{b d e}+ f^{a c e}\,
d^{e b d})$.}.
\section{ The OPE between the charged higher spin-$2$
current and the charged higher spin-$3$ current}
\subsection{The fifth, fourth and third order poles}
First of all, we can calculate
the fifth order pole
of the OPE $K^a(z) \, P^b(w)$ for the fixed $(N,M)=(5,4)$.
It turns out that the nonzero contribution appears
when the indices $a$ and $b$ are the same.
The coefficients contain $a_6, a_{12}$ and $a_{13}$
from $P^b(w)$ and moreover
the common factor appears in the sum of $a_{12}$ and $a_{13}$.
Then this contribution becomes zero from the footnote \ref{zerofour}
and (\ref{avalues}).
For the
fourth order pole
of the OPE $K^a(z) \, P^b(w)$ for the fixed $(N,M)=(5,4)$,
the contribution appears in the coefficients, $a_5, a_{6}, a_7, a_{12}$
and $a_{13}$ of $P^b(w)$
and the relevant fields are given by $J^{u(1)}$ and $J^c$.
Again by substituting the values of (\ref{avalues}),
all these terms are vanishing.
Now we move on the third order pole of
$K^a(z) \, P^b(w)$ where the nonzero results appear explicitly.
The relevant coefficients are given by $a_3$, $a_5$, $a_7$,
$a_8$, $a_{11}$,
$a_{12}$, $a_{13}$, $a_{16}$, and $a_{17}$.
For the calculation of $a_5$ terms in (\ref{spin3exp}),
it is better to rewrite them by using
the charged spin-$2$ current in (\ref{spin2expression})
because the first two terms of (\ref{spin2expression}), which are
equal to the factor of $a_5$ terms, can be written in terms of
the remaining three quantities.
That is,
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \,
t^c_{j\bar{i}} \, (J^{(\rho \bar{i})} \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)} +
J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)} \, J^{(\rho \bar{i})}) (w)
& = & K^c(w)
+\frac{N}{(M+2k)} \, d^{c d e} \, J^d \, J^e(w)
\nonumber \\
& - & \frac{2N}{k} \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} \,
J^c \, J^{u(1)}(w).
\label{a5relation}
\end{eqnarray}
Then the $a_5$ term
contains $d^{b c d} \, J^d$ multiplied by the above expression
to the right.
The nontrivial calculation comes from the OPE between
$K^a(z)$ and $d^{b c d} \, J^d \, K^c(w)$.
Due to the fact that there is a relation in (\ref{JK}),
the contribution of the third order pole in the above OPE
can be obtained from the second order pole of the OPE
$K^e(z) \, K^c(w)$ and
the third order pole of the OPE
$K^a(z) \, K^c(w)$
we have determined in previous section.
It is also nontrivial to calculate the $a_8$
term of (\ref{spin3exp}).
Then we
should calculate the second order pole of the OPE
between $K^c(z)$ and $ \delta_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \,
\delta_{j\bar{i}} \, (J^{(\rho \bar{i})} J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)} +
J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)} J^{(\rho \bar{i})})(w)$
and the third order pole of similar OPE
with different index we have
obtained in previous
section.
Because the $a_{12}$ and $a_{13}$ terms of (\ref{spin3exp}) cannot be
written in terms of other known quantities, it is rather complicated to
extract the corresponding third order poles.
Let us consider the OPE between the current $K^a(z)$
and the composite operator $\delta_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \,
t^b_{j\bar{i}} \, J^{(\rho \bar{i})} \, \partial \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}(w)$
which is not exactly the $a_{13}$ term because there exists
$-\frac{1}{2}\, N \, \partial^2 \, J^b(w)$ from the normal ordering in the
above composite operator. That is, the commutator
$ \delta_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \,
t^b_{j\bar{i}} \,[ \partial \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}, J^{(\rho \bar{i})}]$
provides the above second derivative term although there are other
two terms and the OPEs with $K^a(z)$
do not contribute to the final result.
For the coefficient $a_{12}$ term,
we have the following relation
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \delta_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \,
t^b_{j\bar{i}} \, \partial \, J^{(\rho \bar{i})} \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}(w)
= \frac{1}{2} \, \partial \, K^b(w) -
\delta_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \,
t^b_{j\bar{i}} \, J^{(\rho \bar{i})} \, \partial \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}(w)
-\frac{N}{2}\, \partial^2 \, J^b(w)
\nonumber \\
& & + \frac{N}{2(2k+M)}\, d^{b c d} \, \partial \, (J^c \, J^d)(w)
-\frac{N}{k} \, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}}\,
\partial \, ( J^b \, J^{u(1)})(w).
\label{1213}
\end{eqnarray}
For the second term of (\ref{1213}),
we have analyzed them in the context of $a_{13}$ term in previous
paragraph.
It is easy to observe that the third order pole from the OPE
between $K^a(z)$ and $\partial \, K^b(w)$ is given by
$(\partial \, (K^a \, K^b)_{pole-3} + 2 (K^a \, K^b)_{pole-2})(w)$
from the previous section.
For the $a_{17}$ term of (\ref{spin3exp}),
in general, there are quintic products in the $f$ and $d$ symbols.
After collecting the three products here correctly
we are left with $f$ or $d$ symbols and we can further use
the identities between the triple products by combining
these single $f$ or $d$ symbols with the remaining quadratic
products between them.
It turns out that the third order pole, by collecting the above
results, is summarized by
\begin{eqnarray}
&& K^a(z) \, P^b(w) \Bigg|_{\frac{1}{(z-w)^3}}=
2 M \, a_3\, i \, f^{a b c} \, K^c(w)
\nonumber \\
&& + a_5 \, \Bigg[ -\frac{1}{k M (2k+M)}
2N(-8k^2+ 4 k M-4 k^3 M + 4 M^2- 2k^2 M^2 -8 k N + 4 M N
\nonumber \\
&&
- 2k^2 M N + k M^2 N) \, i\, d^{a c e} \, f^{e b d} \, J^c \, J^d
-\frac{1}{k (2k +M)} N (8k^2 -4 k M+ 4k^3 M-4M^2 \nonumber \\
&& + 2k^2 M^2
+ 8 k N - 4 M N+ 2k^2 M N - k M^2 N) \, d^{a b c} \, \partial \, J^c
\nonumber \\
&& + \frac{(M^2-4) (4k^2 + 2k M + 4 k N +M N)}{M(2k+M)} \,
( N \, i \, f^{a b c} \, \partial \, J^c +
\frac{2 N}{k}\, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}}
\, i\, f^{a b c} \, J^c \, J^{u(1)} \nonumber \\
&&+ 2 \, i\, f^{a b c} \, \delta_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \, t^c_{j \bar{i}} \,
J^{(\rho \bar{i})} \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}) \Bigg](w) +
\frac{4(k^2-1)N(2k+M+N)}{k(2k+M)}\, a_7
\, i\, f^{a b c} \, J^c \, J^{u(1)}(w)
\nonumber \\
&& + a_8 \,
\Bigg[ \frac{4N}{k} \, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}}\, (2k+M+2N) \,
i\, f^{a b c} \, J^{u(1)} \, J^c -2N \, \frac{(2k+M+2N)}{(2k+M)} \, i\,
f^{a b c} \, d^{c d e} J^d \, J^e
\nonumber \\
&& + 4(2k +M+2N)
\, i \, f^{a b c} \, \delta_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \, t^c_{j \bar{i}}\,
J^{(\rho \bar{i})} \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}
+ 2 N (2k +M+2N) \,
\,
i \, f^{a b c} \, \partial \, J^c
\Bigg](w)
\nonumber \\
&& + \Bigg[ - M \, a_{11}
+ 2 \, a_{16} + (M^2+6) \, a_{17} \Bigg]
i \, f^{a b c} \, K^c(w).
\nonumber \\
&& + (a_{13}-a_{12}) \, \Bigg[
-2 \, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}}\, (k N+3 N^2-50) \,
\delta^{a b} \,
\partial \, J^{u(1)} \nonumber \\
&& +
\frac{N (6 k^3+3 k^2 M+2 k^2 N-4 k-2 M-2 N)}{k (2 k+M)}\,
i \, f^{a b c} \, \partial \, J^c
+ \frac{k N (2 k+M+2 N)}{(2 k+M)} \, d^{a b c} \, \partial \, J^c
\nonumber \\
&& +\frac{(4 k^3+2 k^2 M-k M N-4 k-2 M-2 N)}{k (2 k+M)}
\, i \, f^{a b c} \, \delta_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \, t^c_{j \bar{i}}\,
J^{(\rho \bar{i})} \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}
\nonumber \\
&&+ \frac{(4 k^2+2 k M+4 k N+M N)}{2 k+M} \, d^{a b c} \, \delta_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \, t^c_{j \bar{i}}\,
J^{(\rho \bar{i})} \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)} +
\frac{4 (k+N)}{M}\, \delta^{a b } \, \delta_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \, \delta_{j \bar{i}}\,
J^{(\rho \bar{i})} \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}
\nonumber \\
&& - \frac{2 (k+N) (M+N)}{k M}\,
\delta^{a b } \, J^{u(1)} \, J^{u(1)} -
\frac{N^2 }{k}\, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}}\,
i\, f^{a b c} \, J^{u(1)} \, J^c
\nonumber \\
&&+\sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}}\, \frac{N
(4 k^2+2 k M+4 k N+M N)}{k (2 k+M)} \,
d^{a b c} \, J^{u(1)} \, J^c
- \frac{2 N (k+M+N)}{k M} \, J^a \, J^b
\nonumber \\
&&+\frac{N}{2}\,
( i\, f -\frac{2 k+M+2 N}{2 k+M} \,
d )^{a e c} \, ( i \, f + d )^{d b c}\,
J^{e} \, J^{d} - 2 \, \delta^{a b} \, J^{\alpha} \, J^{\alpha}
+ N \, i\, f^{a b c} \, K^c
\Bigg](w)
\nonumber \\
&& + a_{12} \, \Bigg[\frac{1}{2} \, \partial \, (K^a \, K^b)_{pole-3}
+ (K^a \, K^b)_{pole-2} +\frac{M N}{(2 k+M)} \,
d^{a b c} \, K^c
\Bigg](w).
\label{KP3}
\end{eqnarray}
We expect that the spin of third order pole
is given by $2$ and it is natural to consider $K^c(w)$ term.
Let us focus on the
term $ i\, f^{a b c} \, J^c \, J^{u(1)}(w)$ in (\ref{KP3})
by remembering the
explicit form in (\ref{spin2expression}).
We obtain the following result
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \frac{4 M N }{k} \, \sqrt{\frac{ M+N}{M N}}
\, a_3
+\frac{2 (M^2-4)
N (4 k^2+2 k M+4 k N+M N)}{M k (2 k+M)}\,
\sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}}
\, a_5
\nonumber \\
&& + \frac{4 (k^2-1) N (2 k+M+N)}{k (2 k+M)} \,
a_7 + \frac{ 4 N (2 k+M+2 N)}{k}\,
\sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}}
\, a_8
\nonumber \\
&&-\frac{2 M N}{k} \,\sqrt{\frac{ (M+N)}{M N}}\,
a_{11} -\frac{ N^2 }{k} \, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}}\,
a_{12} +
\frac{ N^2 }{k} \, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}}\,
a_{13}
\nonumber \\
&&+\frac{4 N }{k} \,\sqrt{\frac{ M+N}{M N}}\, a_{16}
+ \frac{2 (M^2+6) N }{k} \, \sqrt{\frac{ (M+N)}{M N}}\, a_{17}.
\label{combi}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the $K^c(w)$ term in (\ref{KP3}) can participate in
the expression of (\ref{combi}).
By substituting the coefficients in (\ref{avalues}) into the
above (\ref{combi}), we obtain the final coefficient of
$K^c(w)$ in the third order pole.
Therefore, finally we determine the third order pole
of the OPE $K^a(z) \, P^b(w)$ as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
(K^a \, P^b)_{pole-3} =
\frac{(k^2-4)(2k+M)(k+2N)(3k+2M+2N)}{2k(k+M)(3k+2M)}
\, a_1 \, i\, f^{a b c} \, K^c(w).
\label{KP3-1}
\end{eqnarray}
Because the factor $(k+2N)$ appears in all the coefficients
except $a_1$ and $a_2$ in the spin-$3$ current,
it is obvious to see that this factor
appears in (\ref{KP3-1}).
\subsection{The second order pole}
\subsubsection{Complete second order pole in the coset realization}
For $a_1$ term in the spin-$3$ current,
we should calculate the OPEs between the
first order poles of the first OPE in (\ref{KJJ})
and $J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}$. Compared to the OPE $K^a(z) \, W^{(3)}(w)$
associated with $b_7$ term,
the $a_1$ term of (\ref{spin3exp}) contains
the generator $t^{\alpha}_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}}$ rather than
$\delta_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}}$. In this case, we have similar relations to
(\ref{ttandttt}) where the indices $a, b,c, \cdots$
are replaced by $\alpha, \beta, \gamma, \cdots$ and
$M$ is replaced by $N$. The identities involving $f$ or $d$
symbols for $SU(N)$ are used.
For $a_5$ term, from the previous relation in (\ref{a5relation}),
we need to calculate the first and second order poles
of the OPE between the charged spin-$2$ current.
For the former, due to the additional quadratic product
of $f$ and $d$ symbols, the identities involving
$f f f d$, $f d f d$, $f f d d$ and $ f d d d$ can be used
\cite{NPB97,Ahn1111}.
For $a_7$ term, by using the previous relation in (\ref{a5relation})
where the index $c$ is replaced by $b$, we can calculate the OPEs
between $K^a$ and the right hand sides of (\ref{a5relation}).
Then as before, the second order pole of the OPE between $K^a(z)$
and $K^b(w)$ can be used.
For $a_8$ term, as an alternative method,
we can use the stress energy tensor and
the second and third terms of (\ref{T})
can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \frac{1}{2(k+N+M)} (
\delta_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \,\delta_{j \bar{i}}
\, J^{(\rho \bar{i})} \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)} +
\delta_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}} \,\delta_{j \bar{i}}
\,J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)} \, J^{(\rho \bar{i})}) =
\label{otherrel}
\\
&& T -
\frac{1}{2(k+N+M)} \,\Bigg[ J^{\alpha} \, J^{\alpha} + J^a \, J^a +
J^{u(1)} \, J^{u(1)}
\Bigg]
- \frac{1}{2(k+N)} \, J^{\alpha} \, J^{\alpha} - \frac{1}{2k}\,
J^{u(1)}\, J^{u(1)}.
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
We can regard the $a_8$ term as the product of
$J^b$ with the right hand side of (\ref{otherrel}).
Then the nonzero contributions of the OPE with
$K^a$ can be calculated from the $T$ term
and $J^c \, J^c$ terms in (\ref{otherrel})
by using (\ref{JK}) and (\ref{TK}) because the OPEs between $K^a$ and
both $J^{\alpha}$ and $J^{u(1)}$
do not have any singular terms.
For $a_{12}$ term,
due to the relation in (\ref{1213}),
the second order pole from the OPE
between $K^a(z)$ and $\partial \, K^b(w)$ is given by
$\frac{1}{2} \,
(\partial \, (K^a \, K^b)_{pole-2} + (K^a \, K^b)_{pole-1})(w)$
from the previous section.
For $a_{13}$ term,
the second order pole of the first OPE in (\ref{KJJ}) can combine
with $\partial \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}$
and similarly the operator $ J^{(\rho \bar{i})}$
can be multiplied by the second order pole of the OPE
$K^a(z)$ and $\partial \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}(w)$.
Moreover,
there are also contributions from the second order pole
between the first order pole
of the first OPE in (\ref{KJJ}) and $\partial \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}$
and contributions from the second order pole
between $K^a$ and $\partial \, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}$.
For $a_{17}$ term,
the identities for the quartic products in the $f$ and
$d$ symbols are used \cite{NPB97,Ahn1111}.
We present the complete second order pole in Appendix $D$.
\subsubsection{How to rearrange the second order pole}
At first sight,
because the spin is given by $3$ in this particular pole,
we do not expect that there should be other independent
spin-$3$ current. It is natural to consider the possibility of
spin-$3$ currents, $P^c(w)$ and $W^{(3)}(w)$ with an appropriate
additional $SU(M)$ invariant tensors because the right hand side
of the OPE $K^a(z) \, P^b(w)$
should contain the free indices $a$ and $b$.
Of course, the descendant of (\ref{KP3-1}) with fixed known
coefficient should also appear in the right hand side
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{4} \,
\frac{(k^2-4)(2k+M)(k+2N)(3k+2M+2N)}{2k(k+M)(3k+2M)}
\, a_1 \, i\, f^{a b c} \, \partial \, K^c.
\label{descendant}
\end{eqnarray}
The nontrivial things to check explicitly is to write down
the remaining composite operators in terms of the known currents
for generic $N, M$ and $k$.
The simplest term we can consider is
the $b_3$ term of $W^{(3)}(w)$ in (\ref{W}).
From the $a_7$ term in the second order pole in the OPE
$K^a(z) \, P^b(w)$, the corresponding cubic term in $J^{u(1)}$,
$\delta^{a b} \, J^{u(1)} \, J^{u(1)} \, J^{u(1)}$,
is given by
$ J^{u(1)} \, (K^a \, K^b)_{pole-2}(w)$ and the coefficient is
\begin{eqnarray}
-\frac{4 (k+N) (M+N)}{k M} \, a_7.
\label{3ju1}
\end{eqnarray}
By substituting the $a_7$ in (\ref{avalues}) into (\ref{3ju1}),
then this leads to $-\frac{b_1}{a_1} \, b_3$ with (\ref{interbvalue}).
This implies that there should be
\begin{eqnarray}
- \delta^{a b} \, \frac{a_1}{b_1} \, W^{(3)}(w)
\label{pole2W}
\end{eqnarray}
in the second order pole of the OPE we are considering.
We can check also other simple term.
For example,
the
$a_2$ term of (\ref{spin3exp}), $
d^{a b c} \,
J^{\alpha} \, J^{\alpha} \, J^c(w)$, can be seen from
both $a_1$ and $a_5$ terms in the second order pole.
They are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{2 (2 k+M+N)}{(2 k+M)} \, a_1 - 4\, a_5.
\label{alphaalpha}
\end{eqnarray}
By substituting the $a_5$ value in (\ref{avalues}) into
(\ref{alphaalpha}),
this can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{k (3 k+2 M) (2 k+M+2 N)}{(k+M) (2 k+M)}\, a_2,
\label{coeffa2}
\end{eqnarray}
where the relation (\ref{avalues}) is used.
Then the second order pole should contain, from (\ref{coeffa2}),
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{k(3k+2M)(2k+M+2N)}{(k+M)(2k+M)} \, d^{a b c} \, P^c(w).
\label{pole2P}
\end{eqnarray}
After subtracting (\ref{descendant}), (\ref{pole2W}), and
(\ref{pole2P})
from the second order pole, we have checked that
we are left with the following seven terms for fixed $(N,M)=(5,4)$
\begin{eqnarray}
&& d_{30} \, J^a \, K^b(w) + d_{32} \,
J^b \, K^a(w) + d_{33} \,
f^{a c e} \, f^{b d e} \,
J^c \, K^d(w)
\label{seven}
\\
&& + d_{38} \,
d^{a c e} \, d^{b d e} \, J^d \, K^c(w)
+ d_{39} \,
d^{a c e} \, d^{b d e} \, J^c \, K^d(w)
+ d_{41} \,
\delta^{a b} \,
J^c \, K^c(w)
+ d_{42} \,
i \, f^{a b c} \, \partial K^c(w),
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where the ordering in the coefficients is not important.
Of course, these coefficients are known for the above
fixed values of $(N,M)$.
We have obtained (\ref{seven})
by assuming the possible terms with arbitrary coefficients
in the right hand side of
the second order in the OPE.
Note that the above terms (\ref{seven}) also
arise in the coefficient of $a_{17}$ term of the second order pole.
This implies that the second order pole can be written
in terms of the known currents we mentioned before.
Then the next thing we should consider
is to determine the above seven undetermined coefficients
in terms of $N$, $M$ and $k$.
Let us consider the
$d_{33}$ term in (\ref{seven}).
Recall that there exists a relation
we mentioned several times before
\begin{eqnarray}
f^{a b c} \, f^{c d e} =-\frac{4}{M} \, (\delta^{a e} \, \delta^{b d}-
\delta^{a d} \, \delta^{b e}) - (d^{b d c} \, d^{c a e} -
d^{a d c} \, d^{c b e}).
\label{ffrel}
\end{eqnarray}
When we meet the $f f$ terms, we should always
use this identity in order to collect the independent terms.
Then by remembering the spin-$2$ current, the $d_{33}$ term has
$d^{a b e} \, d^{e c d} \,
J^c \, K^d(w)$, where we can see
$\frac{2 N }{k} \, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} \, d^{a b e} \, d^{e c d} \,
J^c \, J^d \, J^{u(1)}(w)$. We collect
the corresponding terms in the second order pole
as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
-\frac{4 N }{k}\, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}}\, a_3
-\frac{M N}{(2 k+M)} \, a_9
-\frac{2 N }{k} \, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}}\, a_{11}
+ N \, a_7.
\label{LHS}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that there are also contributions from
$a_{17}$ term we do not write down here
but they are cancelled each other.
It turns out that the $f f $ term
with above cubic operators in $J^{u(1)} \, (K^a \, K^b)_{pole-2}$
provides the final contribution
with the help of (\ref{ffrel}).
This should be equal to
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{k (3 k+2 M) (2 k+M+2 N)}{(k+M) (2 k+M)} \, a_9
+ \frac{2 N }{k} \, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}}\, d_{33},
\label{RHS}
\end{eqnarray}
where the first term comes from (\ref{pole2P}).
Therefore, we determine the coefficient $d_{33}$,
by using (\ref{LHS}) and (\ref{RHS}) together with (\ref{avalues}),
as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
d_{33} =
\frac{ (2 k+M)^2 (k+2 N) (3 k+2 M+2 N)}{4 (k+M)^2 (3 k+2 M)}
\, a_1,
\label{d33}
\end{eqnarray}
which can be substituted into (\ref{seven}).
We can move on the term $\delta^{a b} \, J^c K^c$
where there exists $\delta^{a b} \, J^c \, J^c \, J^{u(1)}$
with an appropriate coefficient concerning on the
coefficient $d_{41}$.
From the second order pole, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
-\frac{16 N }{k M} \, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}}\, a_3
+ \frac{4 N}{M} \, a_7- \frac{8 N }{k M}\,
\sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}}\, a_{11}
-\frac{12 N }{k} \, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}}\, a_{17},
\label{lhs}
\end{eqnarray}
which (there are two contributions from
the $a_{17}$ term with (\ref{ffrel})
and the final result by summing over
them is given as above) is equal to
\begin{eqnarray}
-\frac{a_1}{b_1} \, b_5 + \frac{8 N }{k M} \,
\sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} \, d_{33} +
\frac{2 N }{k}\, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}}
\, d_{41}.
\label{rhs}
\end{eqnarray}
The first term is obtained from (\ref{pole2W}).
By equating these two (\ref{lhs}) and (\ref{rhs}) together with
(\ref{d33}),
we have determined the corresponding coefficient as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
d_{41} =
-\frac{ k (2 k+M) (k+2 N) (3 k+2 M+2 N)}{(k+M)^2 (k+2 M) (3 k+2 M)}
\, a_1.
\label{d41}
\end{eqnarray}
Now this can be substituted into the (\ref{seven}) again.
We consider the $d_{30}$ term where there exists
the derivative term $J^a \, \partial \, J^b(w)$.
Recall that there is a relation from the footnote \ref{derinK}.
On the one hand,
we have the following result
\begin{eqnarray}
N \Bigg[ -6 \, a_{17} +\frac{4 }{M} \, a_{11}+
\frac{8 }{M}\, a_8
-\frac{4 (4-M^2) }{M^2} \, a_5
-
\frac{ 2 (k+M+N)}{k M} \, a_{13} \Bigg].
\label{reld30}
\end{eqnarray}
There are two contributions from $a_{17}$ term
as before. For the contributions from
$a_8$ and $a_{11}$, the previous relation (\ref{ffrel})
is used. Note that by combining the contributions
in the coefficient $(a_{13}-a_{12})$ and the coefficient
$a_{12}$, the final contribution from $a_{12}$ term
becomes zero. Then we do not have any contributions
from $a_{12}$ term in (\ref{reld30}).
On the other hand,
this should be equal to
\begin{eqnarray}
N \, d_{30}.
\label{d30con}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that
in (\ref{reld30}), the relation of (\ref{ffrel})
is used in
the second, third and fourth terms of (\ref{reld30}).
Then from (\ref{reld30}) and (\ref{d30con}),
the coefficient can be determined
\begin{eqnarray}
d_{30} =
-\frac{ (k^2+3 k M+M^2+4) (k+2 N)
(3 k+2 M+2 N)}{k M (k+M) (3 k+2 M)} \, a_1,
\label{d30}
\end{eqnarray}
which can be substituted into the (\ref{seven}).
Let us look at the $d_{32}$ term where we have
the derivative term $J^b \, \partial J^a(w)$ with the footnote \ref{derinK}.
We can collect the possible terms
as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& N \Bigg[ \frac{2 (M^2+4) }{M} \, a_3 -
\frac{4 (M^2-4) }{M^2} \, a_5
+\frac{2 (2 k M+M^2+2 M N-4)}{M} \, a_8
\nonumber \\
&&-\frac{2 (k+M+N)}{k M} \, a_{12}
-\frac{2 (2 k+M+N)}{k M} \, a_{13} + 24 \, a_{17} \Bigg].
\label{d32relation1}
\end{eqnarray}
There are two contributions from
both $a_3$ term and $a_8$ term
and the final result can be written as above.
The contribution from $a_5$ term
also appears in $i \, f^{a d e} \, d^{b c d}\,
(K^e \, K^c)_{pole-1}(w)$.
Note that the additional contribution from $a_{12}$ term
can be found in $\frac{1}{2} \, (K^a \, K^b)_{pole-1}(w)$.
From the three places of $a_{17}$ term, the final
result for this coefficient is given above.
On the other hand, there exists
\begin{eqnarray}
N \, \Big( - \, d_{32} +\frac{4 }{M} \, d_{33} \Big).
\label{d32relation2}
\end{eqnarray}
Then we arrive at the
following result, by using (\ref{d32relation1}) and
(\ref{d32relation2}) which are equal to each other,
\begin{eqnarray}
d_{32} =\frac{ (k^3-2 k^2 M-3 k M^2+4 k-M^3+4 M)
(k+2 N) (3 k+2 M+2 N)}{k M (k+M)^2 (3 k+2 M)} \, a_1.
\label{d32}
\end{eqnarray}
Then this coefficient can be substituted in (\ref{seven}).
For the $d_{39}$ term, we have
the derivative term $d^{a c e} \, d^{e b d} \, J^c \partial \, J^d(w)$.
We can collect the possible terms as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
N \Bigg[ -\frac{(8 k+M^2 N+4 M)}{M (2 k+M)} \,a_5
+ 2 \, a_8 -\frac{ (2 k+M+2 N)}{2 (2 k+M)} \, a_{13}
+ \, a_{11} \Bigg].
\label{reld39}
\end{eqnarray}
The two contributions from $a_{12}$
are cancelled each other.
Similarly, those from $a_{17}$
can be also cancelled.
After simplifying the contributions from
the $a_{5}$ term, the net result comes from
$i \,f^{a d e} \, d^{b c d} \, (K^e \, K^c)_{pole-1}$
as above.
This should be equal to
\begin{eqnarray}
N \, d_{39}.
\label{39}
\end{eqnarray}
Then from (\ref{reld39}) and (\ref{39})
by taking them to be equal to each other, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
d_{39} =-\frac{(k^2+k M+4) (k+2 N) (3 k+2 M+2 N)}{4 k (k+M) (3 k+2 M)}
\, a_1,
\label{d39}
\end{eqnarray}
which can be substituted into the (\ref{seven}).
Similarly,
the corresponding terms for the $d_{42}$ term
which involves various different kind of coefficients by
considering the term $f^{a b c}\, J^c \, \partial \, J^{u(1)}(w)$
can be obtained
\begin{eqnarray}
&& N \, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}}\,\Bigg[ \frac{4 M }{k}\, a_3
+\frac{2 (M^2-4) (k+N)}{k M}\,
a_5+
\frac{4 (k+N) }{k}\, a_8
\nonumber \\
&&-\frac{2 M }{k} \, a_{11}
-\frac{ (k+N) }{k} \, a_{12}
+\frac{ N }{k} \, a_{13}
+\frac{4 }{k} \, a_{16}
+ \frac{2 (M^2+6) }{k}
\, a_{17} \, \Bigg].
\label{d42rel}
\end{eqnarray}
The $a_{3}$ term and $a_{11}$ term
can be obtained by changing the
ordering of the two operators.
After we simplify all the contributions from
the $a_{5}$ term, the final result comes from
$i \,f^{a d e} \, d^{b c d} \, (K^e \, K^c)_{pole-1}$
as above. Note that there are contributions from
various places corresponding to the $a_{12}$ and $a_{13}$ terms.
Then the above should be equal to
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{2 N}{k}\, \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}}\, \Bigg[ \frac{1}{4} \,
\frac{(k^2-4)(2k+M)(k+2N)(3k+2M+2N)}{2k(k+M)(3k+2M)}
\, a_1
+ d_{42} \Bigg].
\label{d42rel1}
\end{eqnarray}
Then it is easy to obtain the following result from
(\ref{d42rel}) and (\ref{d42rel1})
\begin{eqnarray}
d_{42} =-\frac{ (k-2) (k+2) M (k+2 N) (3 k+2 M+2 N)}{8 k (k+M)
(3 k+2 M)} \, a_1.
\label{d42}
\end{eqnarray}
This can be substituted in (\ref{seven}).
For the final coefficient, we use a little different method.
It is straightforward to calculate the OPEs between $T(z)$
and each term of (\ref{seven}) respectively.
The third order pole of these (except the $d_{41}$ term) has the form
$i \, f^{a b c} K^c(w)$.
By requiring that the expression (\ref{seven})
should be a quasi primary operator,
there exists for the vanishing of the third order pole
\begin{eqnarray}
d_{30} - d_{32} + M\, d_{33} - \frac{(M^2-4)}{M} \, d_{38}
+ \frac{(M^2-4)}{M} \, d_{39} + 4\, d_{42}=0.
\label{d30d42}
\end{eqnarray}
This (\ref{d30d42}) implies that we obtain the coefficient
$d_{38}$ by using (\ref{d30}), (\ref{d32}), (\ref{d33}), (\ref{d39}),
and (\ref{d42}) as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
d_{38} =-\frac{ (k^2+k M+4)
(k+2 N) (3 k+2 M+2 N)}{4 k (k+M) (3 k+2 M)} \, a_1,
\label{d38}
\end{eqnarray}
which can be substituted in (\ref{seven}).
We can also check the above result by following previous method
after extracting the corresponding terms from the second order pole.
Therefore, by substituting (\ref{d30}),
(\ref{d32}), (\ref{d33}), (\ref{d38}), (\ref{d39}),
(\ref{d41}), and (\ref{d42})
into the previous expression
(\ref{seven}) the known quasi spin-$3$ operator
can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
Q^{a b}(w) & \equiv & \frac{N (k+2N) (
3k +2M+2N)}{6 (k+M)(3k+2M)} \, a_1\, \Bigg[
-\frac{6 (4+k^2+3 k M+M^2)}{k M N} \, J^a \, K^b \nonumber \\
& + &
\frac{6 (4k +k^3 + 4 M-2 k^2 M-3 k M^2 -M^3)}{
k(k+M) M N} \,
J^b \, K^a \nonumber \\
& + & \frac{3(2k+M)^2}{2(k+M)N} \,
f^{a c e} \, f^{b d e} \,
J^c \, K^d
+ \frac{3(4k +k^3+4M)}{2k(k+M)N} \,
d^{a c e} \, d^{b d e} \, J^d \, K^c \nonumber \\
& - & \frac{3(4+k^2+k M)}{2 k N} \,
d^{a c e} \, d^{b d e} \, J^c \, K^d
\nonumber \\
& - & \frac{6k(2k+M)}{(k+M)(k+2M)N} \,
\delta^{a b} \,
J^c \, K^c
- \frac{3(k^2-4)M}{4k N} \,
i \, f^{a b c} \, \partial K^c \Bigg](w).
\label{Qab}
\end{eqnarray}
By multiplying $f$ or $d$ symbols into (\ref{Qab}),
we obtain the primary operator having a single index
\footnote{Under the large $k$ limit,
the coefficients in (\ref{Qab}) become
$\frac{ k (\lambda^2-4)}{3 \lambda^2 M}\, a_1$, $-\frac{ k
(\lambda^2-4)}{3 \lambda^2 M}\, a_1$,$-\frac{ k
(\lambda^2-4)}{3 \lambda^2 }\, a_1$,$-\frac{ k
(\lambda^2-4)}{12 \lambda^2 }\, a_1$,$\frac{ k
(\lambda^2-4)}{12 \lambda^2 }\, a_1$,$\frac{
2(\lambda^2-4)}{3 \lambda^2 }\, a_1$, and $\frac{ k
(\lambda^2-4) M}{24 \lambda^2 }\, a_1$ respectively.}.
We observe that the OPEs between the operator (\ref{Qab})
and $J^{u(1)}(w)$ (or $J^{\alpha}(w)$) are regular
because this operator consists of the spin-$1,2$ currents.
We can check the primary condition for the spin-$3$ operator
having the two indices
\begin{eqnarray}
T(z) \, Q^{a b}(w) = \frac{1}{(z-w)^2} \, 3 \, Q^{a b}(w) + \frac{1}{(z-w)}
\, \partial \, Q^{a b}(w) + \cdots.
\label{TQ}
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, the second order pole can be described as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
(K^a \, P^b)_{pole-2}(w) =
\frac{1}{4} \,
\frac{(k^2-4)(2k+M)(k+2N)(3k+2M+2N)}{2k(k+M)(3k+2M)}
\, a_1 \, i\, f^{a b c} \, \partial \, K^c(w)
\nonumber \\
&& - \delta^{a b} \, \frac{a_1}{b_1} \, W^{(3)}(w)
+\frac{k(3k+2M)(2k+M+2N)}{(k+M)(2k+M)} \, d^{a b c} \, P^c(w)
+ Q^{a b}(w),
\label{KP2}
\end{eqnarray}
where the spin-$3$ primary (\ref{TQ})
operator $Q^{ab}(w)$ is given by (\ref{Qab}).
Compared to the third order pole in (\ref{KP3}) where
there exists the term $f^{a b c} \, K^c(w)$,
the second order pole in (\ref{KP2}) has both $d^{a b c}\, P^c(w)$
and $\delta^{ab} \, W(w)$ terms which are symmetric under
the interchange between the index $a$ and $b$
as well as some descendant.
We expect that
this alternating feature will appear through the whole singular
terms in the given OPEs.
\subsection{The first order pole and charged
quasi primary spin-$4$ current}
Compared to other singular terms described in previous
subsections, the first order pole
can be obtained by simple contraction between the operators.
We present this in Appendix $E$.
We expect that there exists a new quasi spin-$4$ current
in this singular term.
In the third order pole, the field content is given by
$i \, f^{ a b c}\, K^c(w)$.
Along the line of this behavior,
by introducing the following quantity
\begin{eqnarray}
i \, f^{a b c} \, (K^a \, P^b)_{pole-1}(w) \equiv R^c(w),
\label{Rdef}
\end{eqnarray}
and subtracting the
corresponding
quantity from the descendants with a multiplication
of $i \, f^{a b c}$,
a new quasi spin-$4$ current is given by
\footnote{We have the nontrivial fourth order pole
in the OPE between $T(z)$ and $\hat{R}^a(w)$
which is given by $
-\frac{288 (k-2) (k+2)^2 (k+6) (k+10)}{5 k (k+4) (3 k+8)}\, a_1 \,
K^a(w)$ for $(N,M)=(5,4)$. By adding
$i\, f^{a b c} \, (J^b \, \partial \, K^c -2 \partial \, J^b \, K^c-\frac{i}{10} \,
f^{b c d} \, \partial^2 \, K^d)(w)$ into
this new quasi primary spin-$4$ current
and removing the fourth order pole above, we can make
a primary spin-$4$ current at least for $(N,M)=(5,4)$.
For generic $(N,M)$ case, we should
find out the above fourth order pole
for the general case. Then
we can easily fix the above relative coefficient we want to add above.
See also the footnote
\ref{quasiandprimary}. }
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{R}^c(w) & \equiv &
R^c(w) -\frac{1}{3}\, i\, f^{a b c} \, \partial \, Q^{a b}(w)
\nonumber \\
&+ & \frac{M(k^2-4)(2k+M)(k+2N)(3k+2M+2N)}{20k(k+M)(3k+2M)}
\, a_1 \, \partial^2 \, K^c(w),
\label{Rhatab}
\end{eqnarray}
where $Q^{ab}(w)$ is given by (\ref{Qab}).
When the $f$ symbols meet the Kronecker delta or $d$ symbols
by two index contractions,
we get zero.
Let us emphasize that
this new quasi spin-$4$ current is completely determined
via the left hand side of (\ref{Rdef}) from Appendix $E$ and
the two terms of the right hand side of (\ref{Rhatab}).
Then the first order pole is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
(K^a \, P^b)_{pole-1}(w) & = &
\frac{1}{20} \,
\frac{(k^2-4)(2k+M)(k+2N)(3k+2M+2N)}{2k(k+M)(3k+2M)}
\, a_1 \, i\, f^{a b c} \, \partial^2 \, K^c(w)
\nonumber \\
& - &
\frac{1}{3}
\delta^{a b} \, \frac{a_1}{b_1} \, \partial \, W^{(3)}(w)
+\frac{1}{3} \,
\frac{k(3k+2M)(2k+M+2N)}{(k+M)(2k+M)} \, d^{a b c} \, \partial \, P^c(w)
\nonumber \\
& + & \frac{1}{3} \partial \, Q^{a b}(w)
+ R^{a b}(w),
\label{KPpole1}
\end{eqnarray}
where we introduce the
operator $R^{a b}(w)$ which is given by
the first order pole subtracted by the descendant terms.
Then how we can connect this with the above quasi spin-$4$ current?
From the relation
\begin{eqnarray}
(K^a \, P^b)_{pole-1}(z)=
-\frac{1}{2M} \, i\, f^{a b c } \, R^c(w) + S^{a b}(w),
\label{KPpole1other}
\end{eqnarray}
and by equating (\ref{KPpole1}) and (\ref{KPpole1other}) each other,
we can write down the above $R^{a b}(w)$ in terms of
$R^c(w)$, $S^{a b}(w)$ and other known operators.
Note that the above behavior can be seen from
the first order pole of the OPE between the spin-$2$ current and
itself (\ref{fullKK}).
This (\ref{KPpole1other})
can be seen from the fixed $(N,M)=(5,4)$ case.
In other words,
\begin{eqnarray}
R^{a b} = -\frac{1}{2M} \, i\, f^{a b c } \, \hat{R}^c(w)
+ \mbox{other terms}.
\label{Rab}
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, the $R^{a b}(w)$ contains the previous quasi spin-$4$
current in (\ref{Rhatab})
and can be treated as similar quasi spin-$4$ current
with two indices. We can easily see that
the overall factor $\frac{1}{2M}$ in (\ref{Rab})
can be checked by multiplying $i \, f^{a b d}$
into (\ref{KPpole1other}) and using (\ref{Rdef})
and (\ref{Rhatab}).
When we substitute (\ref{Rab}) into (\ref{KPpole1})
and use (\ref{Rhatab}), then the above ``other terms'' can be read off
explicitly. Note that the left hand side of (\ref{KPpole1})
is given by
Appendix $E$ in terms of coset realization.
Although the expression of $S^{a b}(w)$
can be determined for general $N$ and $M$
by following the procedure we have described in the construction of
$Q^{a b}(w)$ in (\ref{Qab}), it will be
rather nontrivial and complicated due to the fact that
there are tensorial structures having five indices.
Instead we present them for fixed $(N, M)=(5,4)$ as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& S^{a b}(w) \Bigg|_{N=5,M=4}
\equiv -\frac{1}{3}\, \frac{a_1}{b_1}\,
\delta^{a b} \, \partial \, W^{(3)}(w) + \frac{k (k+7)}{(k+4)}\,
d^{a b c}\, \partial P^c(w)
\nonumber \\
&& +\frac{ (k+7)}{2 (k+2) (k+4)}\,
\Bigg[-(3 k+8)\,
d_{4AA2}^{d c b a}+i\, k \,
(d_{4SA}^{c a d b}+
d_{4SA}^{c b d a}) \Bigg] \, J^c \, P^d(w)
\nonumber \\
&& +\frac{(k+6) (k+10)}{(k+4)^2 (3 k+8)}\,
a_1 \,\Bigg[-\frac{3 (7 k-4)}{40 k }\,
d_{51}^{d b e c a} -\frac{3 (7 k-4)}{
40 k } \, d_{51}^{e a d c b}\nonumber \\
&& +\frac{3
(5 k^2+33 k+4)}{80 k } \,
d_{51}^{e d c b a} -\frac{3
(20 k^2+59 k+12)}{40 k } \, d_{52}^{d b e c a}
\nonumber \\
&& -\frac{3 (10 k^2+21 k-12)}{
40 k } \, d_{52}^{e b d c a}
-\frac{3 (15 k^2+23 k-36)}{80 k }
\, d_{52}^{e d c b a} \nonumber \\
&& + \frac{3 i (k+2)}{4 }\,
f^{a b c} \, \delta^{d e}+\frac{3 i (k+4) }{8 }
\, f^{a b e} \, \delta^{d c} +\frac{3 i (k+4) }{k }\,
f^{a e d} \, \delta^{b c} \Bigg] \, J^c \, J^d \, K^e(w)
\nonumber\\
&&+ \frac{(k+6) (k+10)}{ (k+4)^2 (3 k+8)}\,
a_1 \, \Bigg[
-\frac{3 (10 k^3+75 k^2+346 k+568)}{40 k
} \, \partial \, J^a\, K^b \nonumber \\
&& -\frac{3(k+4)^2 }{8 }\,
J^a \, \partial \, K^b +\frac{3
(10 k^3-20 k^2-149 k-132)}{40 k }\,
\partial \, J^b\, K^a
+ \frac{3 (k^2-4 k-16)}{8 } \,
J^b \, \partial \, K^a
\nonumber \\
&& + \frac{3 (20 k^3+165 k^2+277 k-44)}{
40 k }\,
f^{a c e} \, f^{b d e} \, \partial J^c \, K^d + \frac{3 k (k+2) }{4 }
\,
f^{a c e} \, f^{b d e} \, J^c \, \partial \, K^d
\nonumber \\
&& + \frac{3 (10 k^3+5 k^2-78 k-104)}{
40 k}\,
d^{a c e} \, d^{e b d} \, \partial \, J^d \, K^c +
\frac{3 k^2 }{8 } \,
d^{a c e} \, d^{e b d} \, \, J^d \, \partial \, K^c
\nonumber \\
&&
-\frac{3 (2 k^3+6 k^2-9 k-20)}{8 k }
\,
d^{a c e} \, d^{e b d} \, \partial \, J^c \, K^d
-\frac{3 k (k+4)}{8 }
\,
d^{a c e} \, d^{e b d} \, J^c \, \partial \, K^d
\nonumber \\
&&-\frac{3 (45 k^3+233 k^2+268 k+32)}{
40 k (k+8) } \, \delta^{a b} \, \partial J^c
\, K^c
-\frac{3 k^2 }{2 (k+8) }
\, \delta^{a b} \, J^c
\, \partial \, K^c
\Bigg](w).
\label{Sab}
\end{eqnarray}
It is rather nontrivial to extract this expression
without any unwanted terms like as $J^{u(1)}(w)$,
$J^{\alpha}(w)$, $J^{(\rho \bar{i})}(w)$, or $J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}(w)$
explicitly.
The other unwanted spin-$1$ currents can be absorbed in
the new quasi primary current in (\ref{Rhatab}).
Note that the operator contents in (\ref{Sab})
consist of the spin-$1,2,3$ currents and some of the derivative terms
can be seen from the derivative of $Q^{a b}(w)$ in (\ref{Qab}).
This implies that the right hand side of (\ref{Sab})
depends on the adjoint operators (or singlet operator) living in $SU(M)$
\footnote{We can check the following properties.
The $J^a \, W^{(3)}(w)$ is a primary spin-$4$ operator and the
$J^a \, P^b(w) -\frac{1}{6} \, i\, f^{a b c} \, \partial \,
P^c(w)$ is a primary operator. On the other hand,
$J^a \, \partial \, K^b(w) -2 \partial \, J^a \, K^b(w)-\frac{i}{10} \,
f^{a b c} \, \partial^2 \, K^c(w)$ is quasi primary spin-$4$
operator and the fourth order pole in the OPE between
the stress energy tensor and this operator is given by
$-\frac{21}{5}\, i \, f^{a b c} \, K^c(w)$.
\label{quasiandprimary}}.
Moreover, the OPE between the spin-$1$ current
and the above quasi primary
spin-$4$ current for fixed $(N,M)=(5,4)$ is described by
\begin{eqnarray}
J^a(z) \, \hat{R}^b(w) & = &
-\frac{1}{(z-w)^3} \, \Bigg[ \frac{28
(k-2) (k+2)^2 (k+6) (k+10)}{5 k (k+4) (3 k+8)}\,
a_1 \Bigg]\, i \, f^{a b c} \, K^c(w)
\nonumber \\
&+&
\frac{1}{(z-w)^2} \, \Bigg[
\frac{ (k+2) (k+6) (k+10)}{(k+4)^2 (3 k+8)}\,
\Bigg(-\frac{(k+4) (7 k+4)}{k }\,
a_1\, J^a \, K^b \nonumber \\
&- &
\frac{ (11 k^2+16 k-16)}{k }
\, a_1\, J^b \, K^a +
\frac{6 (k-4) (k+2)}{k }
\, a_1 \,
f^{a c e}\, f^{b d e } \, J^c \, K^d \nonumber \\
&-& \frac{ (5 k^2-8 k-16)}{k }
\,
a_1 \,d^{a c e}\, d^{e b d}\, J^d \, K^c
\nonumber \\
&-& \frac{(k+4)^2}{k }
\, a_1 \, d^{a c e} \, d^{e b d} \, J^c \, K^d
- \frac{6 k^2 }{(k+8) }
\, a_1 \, \delta^{a b} \, J^c \, K^c \nonumber \\
&+& \frac{ (k-2) (k+4) (7 k+24)}{5 k }
\, a_1 \, i\, f^{a b c} \, \partial \, K^c \Bigg) \nonumber \\
&-& \frac{4 k (k+7) (3 k+8)}{(k+2) (k+4)}\, d^{a b c} P^c
\Bigg](w) +
\frac{1}{(z-w)} \, i \,
f^{a b c} \, \hat{R}^c(w) +\cdots.
\label{JRhat}
\end{eqnarray}
We observe that there exists a factor $(k+10)$
which comes from the factor $(k+2N)$.
The first order pole is what we have expected.
Contrary to the spin-$2,3$ currents,
there are more singular terms in addition to
the first order pole in (\ref{JRhat}).
In principle, the above calculation can be done for any $N$ and $M$
but it will take time to complete this computation.
\subsection{The final OPE}
In summary, we present the OPE between
the charged spin-$2$ current and the charged spin-$3$ current
as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
K^a(z) \, P^b(w) & = &
\frac{1}{(z-w)^3} \,
\Bigg[\frac{(k^2-4)(2k+M)(k+2N)(3k+2M+2N)}{2k(k+M)(3k+2M)}
\Bigg]
\, a_1 \, i\, f^{a b c} \, K^c(w)
\nonumber \\
&+& \frac{1}{(z-w)^2} \, \Bigg[
\frac{1}{4} \,
\frac{(k^2-4)(2k+M)(k+2N)(3k+2M+2N)}{2k(k+M)(3k+2M)}
\, a_1 \, i\, f^{a b c} \, \partial \, K^c
\nonumber \\
& + & Q^{a b} - \delta^{a b} \, \frac{a_1}{b_1} \, W^{(3)}
+\frac{k(3k+2M)(2k+M+2N)}{(k+M)(2k+M)} \, d^{a b c} \, P^c
\Bigg](w)
\nonumber \\
&+& \frac{1}{(z-w)} \, \Bigg[
\frac{1}{20} \,
\frac{(k^2-4)(2k+M)(k+2N)(3k+2M+2N)}{2k(k+M)(3k+2M)}
\, a_1 \, i\, f^{a b c} \, \partial^2 \, K^c
\nonumber \\
& + & \frac{1}{3} \partial \, Q^{a b} -
\frac{1}{3}
\delta^{a b} \, \frac{a_1}{b_1} \, \partial \, W^{(3)}
+\frac{1}{3} \,
\frac{k(3k+2M)(2k+M+2N)}{(k+M)(2k+M)} \, d^{a b c} \, \partial \, P^c
\nonumber \\
&+& R^{a b} \Bigg](w) + \cdots.
\label{KPfinal}
\end{eqnarray}
In the right hand side of (\ref{KPfinal}), there exists
an overall factor $a_1$ \footnote{The structure constant in the third
order becomes $-\frac{k^2(\lambda^2-4)}{3\lambda^2} \, a_1$
when we take the infinity limit of $k$.
The one appearing in charged spin-$3$ current of
the second order pole becomes $\frac{3 k}{\lambda}$. }.
Although
the explicit form for
the quasi primary spin-$4$ current $\hat{R}^c(w)$ is determined
via the known currents and coset operators,
the explicit form for the $R^{a b}$ for general $(N,M)$
is not known but it is known for $(N,M)=(5,4)$
because we do not know how Appendix (\ref{KPfirstorder})
can be written in terms of the known currents.
Their operator contents are known but
the relative coefficients are known for $(N,M)=(5,4)$.
Or if we interpret $R^{a b}$ itself as
the whole new charged quasi primary spin-$4$ current
(without splitting the quasi primary spin-$4$ current
with a single free index and others),
we do not worry about the fact that
this is written in terms of coset realization \footnote{
For the first order pole of the OPE in (\ref{fullKK}),
we can treat the sum of four quasi primary spin-$3$ operators
(after subtracting the descendant terms)
and a single primary spin-$3$ current as the whole
single quasi primary spin-$3$ current having two free indices.
Then we do not need to specify the above four quasi primary
spin-$3$ currents in terms of multiple products between the
known currents.}.
\section{ The OPE between the charged spin-$3$
current and itself
with $(N,M)=(5,4)$}
\subsection{The sixth, fifth, fourth order poles}
For the sixth order pole we expect to have the
Kronecker delta $\delta^{ab}$ term.
For the fifth order pole, there exists $i \, f ^{a b c} \, J^c(w)$ term.
For the fourth order pole, there are symmetric
$\delta^{ a b}$ and $d^{a b c}$ tensor terms and other symmetric
tensor terms in (\ref{fullKK}) as well as the descendant term.
\subsection{The third order pole}
We can take the operator contents
in the first order pole of (\ref{fullKK})
at the third order pole of this OPE.
In other words, in addition to the descendant terms,
there are $ i \, f^{a b c} \, P^c(w)$
and the quasi primary spin-$3$ operator
including the stress energy tensor.
Compared to (\ref{fullKK}),
the other two kinds of quasi primary spin-$3$ operators
do not appear in this OPE.
\subsection{The second and first order poles}
Then we obtain the OPE as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& P^a(z) \, P^b(w) =
\frac{1}{(z-w)^6}\,
\Bigg[\frac{15(k^2-4)(k^2-1)(k+6)(k+10)(2k+9)}{2k(k+4)(3k+8)}\Bigg]
\, a_1^2 \, \delta^{a b}
\nonumber \\
&& +
\frac{1}{(z-w)^5}\,
\Bigg[\frac{15(k^2-4)(k^2-1)(k+6)(k+10)(2k+9)}{2k^2
(k+4)(3k+8)}\Bigg]
\, a_1^2 \, i \, f^{a b c} \, J^c(w)
\nonumber \\
&& +
\frac{1}{(z-w)^4} \, \Bigg[ \frac{3(k^2-4)(k+5)(k+6)(k+9)(k+10)}{4k(k+4)} \,
a_1^2 \, \delta^{a b} \, T \nonumber \\
&&+ \frac{3(k^2-4)(k+6)(k+7)(k+10)}{4(k+4)^2} \,
a_1^2\, d^{a b c } \, K^c \nonumber \\
&&+ \frac{1}{2} \,
\frac{15(k^2-4)(k^2-1)(k+6)(k+10)(2k+9)}{2k^2
(k+4)(3k+8)}\, a_1^2\,
i\, f^{a b c} \, \partial \, J^c
\nonumber \\
&&+ \frac{(k+6)(k+10)}{(k+4)(3k+8)}\, \Bigg( \frac{15(k-2)(2k+9)}{8} \,
a_1^2 \, d^{a b c d}_{4SS1} -
\frac{15(k^2-4)(2k+9)}{8k} \,
a_1^2 \,
d^{a b c d}_{4SS2} \nonumber \\
&& - \frac{3(k-2)(180+191k+44k^2+3k^3)}{
8k} \, a_1^2 \, \delta^{a b} \, \delta^{c d}
- \frac{15(k^2-4)(2k+9)}{2k^2 } \, a_1^2
\, \delta^{a c} \, \delta^{b d}
\Bigg) \nonumber \\
&& \times\, \frac{1}{2} \, (J^c \, J^d + J^d \, J^c)
\Bigg](w) \nonumber \\
&&+
\frac{1}{(z-w)^3} \, \Bigg[
\frac{1}{2} \, \frac{3(k^2-4)(k+5)(k+6)(k+9)(k+10)}{4k(k+4)} \,
a_1^2 \, \delta^{a b} \, \partial \, T \nonumber \\
&&+ \frac{1}{2} \, \frac{3(k^2-4)(k+6)(k+7)(k+10)}{4(k+4)^2} \,
a_1^2\, d^{a b c } \, \partial \, K^c \nonumber \\
&&+
\frac{1}{6} \,
\frac{15(k^2-4)(k^2-1)(k+6)(k+10)(2k+9)}{2k^2
(k+4)(3k+8)}\, a_1^2\,
i\, f^{a b c} \, \partial^2 \, J^c
\nonumber \\
&&+ \frac{1}{2} \,
\frac{(k+6)(k+10)}{(k+4)(3k+8)}\,
\Bigg( \frac{15(k-2)(2k+9)}{8} \,
a_1^2 \, d^{a b c d}_{4SS1} -
\frac{15(k^2-4)(2k+9)}{8k} \,
a_1^2 \,
d^{a b c d}_{4SS2} \nonumber \\
&& - \frac{3(k-2)(180+191k+44k^2+3k^3)}{
8k} \, a_1^2 \, \delta^{a b} \, \delta^{c d}
- \frac{15(k^2-4)(2k+9)}{2k^2} \, a_1^2
\, \delta^{a c} \, \delta^{b d}
\Bigg) \nonumber \\
&& \times\, \frac{1}{2} \, \partial \, (J^c \, J^d + J^d \, J^c)
\nonumber \\
&& + \frac{ (15 k^6+278 k^5+1648 k^4+2208 k^3-10480 k^2
-37088 k-34560)}{2 k (k+4)^2 (3 k+8)}
\, a_1\, i \, f^{a b c} \, P^c \nonumber \\
&& + \frac{3 (k^2-4) (k+5) (k+6) (k+9) (k+10)}{4 k^2 (k+4)}
\, a_1^2 \, (T \, J^a -\frac{1}{2}\,
\partial^2 \, J^a)\Bigg](w) \nonumber \\
&& + {\cal O}\Bigg(\frac{1}{(z-w)^2}\Bigg)
+ \cdots.
\label{papb}
\end{eqnarray}
In the second order pole, there exist spin-$4$ quasi primary operators
in addition to the descendant terms as usual.
We expect that there will be symmetric terms,
$\delta^{a b} \, W^{(4)}(w)$ where the neutral
primary spin-$4$ current will be
presented in next section and $d^{a b c}\, \hat{R}^c(w)$
by recalling the second order pole of (\ref{KPfinal}).
We observe that in the second order pole
there exists a term $
J^{\alpha=1}\, J^{\alpha=1}\, J^{\alpha=22}\, J^{\alpha=23}(w)$
which is one of the terms in the neutral
primary spin-$4$ current $W^{(4)}(w)$ for the equal indices
$a=b$.
So far we do not obtain the explicit form for the second order pole
due to the fact that there are two many candidates with various
tensorial structures at this singular terms.
We expect that there is a new primary field of spin-$5$
in the first order pole.
\section{ The OPE between the uncharged higher spin-$3$
current and itself}
\subsection{For fixed $(N,M)=(5,4)$ case}
\subsubsection{The sixth, fifth, fourth and third order poles}
We expect that the highest order pole contains
the central term.
We observe that this contains the factor $(k+10)$
which is given by $(k+2N)$ for general $N$.
There will be no fifth order pole because we are considering
the OPE between the spin-$3$ current and itself.
The fourth order pole should contain the spin-$2$ current as usual.
It turns out that
there is also the quadratic term $J^a \, J^a(w)$.
Then the third order pole
should contain the descendant terms.
\subsubsection{The second and first order poles
with the presence of uncharged primary spin-$4$ current}
The second order pole
can provide us to have a new primary current of spin-$4$.
It turns out that
the final OPE for fixed $(N,M)=(5,4)$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
W^{(3)}(z) \, W^{(3)}(w) & = &
\frac{1}{(z-w)^6} \frac{\hat{c}}{3}
+ \frac{1}{(z-w)^4} 2 \, \hat{T} (w)
+\frac{1}{(z-w)^3} \partial \, \hat{T} (w)
\nonumber \\
&+& \frac{1}{(z-w)^2} \Bigg[ \frac{3}{10}\, \partial^2 \, \hat{T} +
\frac{16 (k+4) (k+5) (k+9)}{3 (37 k^3+216 k^2+337 k+510)} \,
\Big(\hat{T} \, \hat{T} -
\frac{3}{10} \, \partial^2 \, \hat{T} \Big) \nonumber \\
& + & W^{(4)} \Bigg](w)
\nonumber \\
&+&
\frac{1}{(z-w)} \Bigg[
\frac{1}{15}\, \partial^3 \, \hat{T} +
\frac{1}{2} \,\frac{16 (k+4) (k+5) (k+9)}{3 (37 k^3+216 k^2+337 k+510)}\,
\partial \, \Big(\hat{T} \, \hat{T} -
\frac{3}{10} \, \partial^2 \, \hat{T} \Big)
\nonumber \\
& + & \frac{1}{2}\, \partial \, W^{(4)} \Bigg](w)
+ \cdots,
\label{spin3spin3-1}
\end{eqnarray}
where
the $b_1^2$ of the overall constant in the neutral primary
spin-$3$ current
$W^{(3)}$ is fixed as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
b_1^2 = \frac{8k(k+8)}{27(k^2-4)(k+5)^2(k+6)(k+9)^2(k+10)}.
\label{b1b1}
\end{eqnarray}
In (\ref{b1b1}), the requirement we impose is
that the central term of (\ref{spin3spin3-1}) should be equal to
$\frac{\hat{c}}{3}$ with (\ref{chatThat}).
As described before, there exists a $J^a \, J^a(w)$ term in the
fourth order pole.
Note that the modified central charge and stress energy tensor
are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{c} & \equiv & c- \frac{15 k }{(k+4)}= \frac{20(k^2-1)(2k+9)}{(k+4)(k+5)(k+9)},
\nonumber \\
\hat{T} & \equiv & T- \frac{1}{2(k+4)} \, J^a \, J^a.
\label{chatThat}
\end{eqnarray}
We can easily see that the OPE between the spin-$1$ current and
the modified stress energy tensor is regular
\begin{eqnarray}
J^a(z) \, \hat{T}(w) =0 + \cdots.
\label{Regular}
\end{eqnarray}
We can calculate the OPE between
the stress energy tensor and the $J^a \, J^a(w)$ term
and this leads to the central charge $\frac{15 k }{(k+4)}$.
Due to the fact that there is a relation in (\ref{Regular}),
we obtain the modified central charge is given by (\ref{chatThat}).
Therefore, the spin-$1$ current is decoupled from the modified
stress energy tensor according to (\ref{Regular}).
See also \cite{AP1812} where the $U(1)$ spin-$1$ current is
decoupled
from the stress energy tensor, spin-$3,4$ currents in the specific
model.
We have explicit form for the primary spin-$4$ current \footnote{
Then we have
$T(z) \, W^{(4)}(w) =\frac{1}{(z-w)^2}\, 4 W^{(4)}(w) +
\frac{1}{(z-w)}\, \partial \, W^{(4)}(w) +\cdots $.}
as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
W^{(4)}(w) & = &
-\frac{9 (k+2) (k+5) (k+9) (53 k^4+800 k^3+3409 k^2+3078 k-3600)}{
2 k (k+8) (37 k^3+216 k^2+337 k+510)}
\, b_1^2 \nonumber \\
&\times & J^{\alpha=1}\, J^{\alpha=1}\, J^{\alpha=1}\, J^{\alpha=1}(w)
+\mbox{other 9330 terms},
\label{w4}
\end{eqnarray}
together with (\ref{b1b1}).
We can also check that the regularity between the spin-$1$
current and this spin-$4$ current (\ref{w4})
\begin{eqnarray}
J^a(z) \, W^{(4)}(w) = 0 + \cdots.
\label{regular1}
\end{eqnarray}
This implies that the spin-$1$ current is decoupled.
We will observe in next section that
the regularity between the spin-$1$
current and this spin-$3$ current
\begin{eqnarray}
J^a(z) \, W^{(3)}(w) = 0 + \cdots.
\label{regular2}
\end{eqnarray}
This fact can be seen from the closure of the OPE between
$K^a(z)$ and $W^{(3)}(w)$.
Therefore, we have the spin-$2,3,4$ currents $\hat{T}$, $W^{(3)}$
and $W^{(4)}$,
having the regularity
behavior in (\ref{Regular}), (\ref{regular1}) and (\ref{regular2}).
The OPE between the spin-$2$ current and itself
takes the standard form with modified central charge.
The (quasi)primary condition under the stress energy tensor
is preserved when we modify the stress energy tensor
because the $J^a \, J^a(z)$ term does not spoil the spin-$3,4$
currents according to the regularity.
\subsection{For general $(N,M)$ case}
The coefficient appearing in the
the quasi spin-$4$ operator
$(\hat{T} \, \hat{T} -\frac{3}{10} \, \partial^2 \,
\hat{T})$
is fractional function of $k$
and both numerator and denominator
are polynomials of $k$. The highest power is given by
three. We can express this coefficient in terms of
the central charge. It turns out that
this is equal to the well known quantity
$\frac{32}{(5\hat{c} +22)}$ for fixed $N$ and $M$
with (\ref{chatThat}).
Because the structure constant depends only on the central charge,
we expect that when we change the different values
of $N$ and $M$, the OPE of (\ref{spin3spin3-1})
still satisfies together with the corresponding
central charge. The structure constants do not change
and are given by function of central charge as above.
Therefore, we obtain the general OPE for arbitrary
$N$ and $M$ by realizing
modified central charge written in terms of $N$, $M$ and $k$.
We claim that the OPE between the neutral spin-$3$ current and itself
is described as
\begin{eqnarray}
W^{(3)}(z) \, W^{(3)}(w) & = &
\frac{1}{(z-w)^6} \frac{\hat{c}}{3}
+ \frac{1}{(z-w)^4} 2 \, \hat{T} (w)
+\frac{1}{(z-w)^3} \partial \, \hat{T} (w)
\nonumber \\
&+& \frac{1}{(z-w)^2} \Bigg[ \frac{3}{10}\, \partial^2 \, \hat{T} +
\frac{32}{(5\hat{c} +22)} \Big(\hat{T} \, \hat{T} -
\frac{3}{10} \, \partial^2 \, \hat{T} \Big) + W^{(4)} \Bigg](w)
\nonumber \\
&+&
\frac{1}{(z-w)} \Bigg[
\frac{1}{15}\, \partial^3 \, \hat{T} +
\frac{1}{2} \,
\frac{32}{(5\hat{c} +22)} \partial \, \Big(\hat{T} \, \hat{T} -
\frac{3}{10} \, \partial^2 \, \hat{T} \Big) +
\frac{1}{2}\, \partial \, W^{(4)} \Bigg](w)
\nonumber \\
& + & \cdots.
\label{Spin3Spin3}
\end{eqnarray}
where
the modified central charge and modified stress
energy tensor for generic $(N,M)$ are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{c} & = & c-\frac{k (M^2-1)}{(k+M)} =
\frac{(k^2-1)M N (2k +M+N)}{(k+M)(k+N)(k+M+N)},
\nonumber \\
\hat{T}(w) & = &
T(w)- \frac{1}{2(k+M)} \, J^a \, J^a(w).
\label{modified}
\end{eqnarray}
The central charge in (\ref{Spin3Spin3}) is fixed by
manipulating the overall constant $b_1^2$ in
the spin-$3$ current (\ref{W}).
Once we fix the structure constant in the fourth order pole
as two, then the corresponding descendant terms with known
coefficients are determined automatically.
Moreover, the first order pole can be determined
from the information of the second order pole.
Because the additional term in the
modified central charge in (\ref{modified}) under the infinity limit of
$k$ contributes to $-(M^2-1)$ which can be ignored,
the modified central charge
behaves as $ \hat{c} \rightarrow M \, (1-\lambda^2) \, k$
where $\lambda \equiv \frac{k}{(k+N)}$ \cite{CH1812}.
The coefficient of the quadratic $J^a \, J^a(w)$ in (\ref{modified})
becomes $-\frac{1}{2 k}$ under the infinity limit of $k$.
We expect from the experience of \cite{Ahn1111,AK1308}
that the neutral primary spin-$4$ current contains
$d^{a b e}\, d^{c d e}\, J^a \, J^b \, J^c \, J^d(z)$
as well as other terms.
\section{ The OPE between the charged (higher) spin
currents and the uncharged higher spin-$3$
current}
\subsection{ The OPE $J^a(z) \, W^{(3)}(w)$}
We can calculate the OPE between $J^a(z)$ and $W^{(3)}(w)$.
The third order pole is given by
$\Big[2(k+M) \, a_{10}+ N \, (a_{12}+a_{13})\Big]\, J^a(w)$
which vanishes by imposing the condition (\ref{interbvalue}).
Furthermore it turns out, under the condition of (\ref{interbvalue}), that
the nontrivial second order pole is
\begin{eqnarray}
J^a(z) \, W^{(3)}(w) & = & \frac{1}{(z-w)^2} \,
\Bigg[ \frac{N}{2(2k+M)} \, (-3(k+N) \, (k+2N) \, b_1 + M \, (k+2M) \,
b_7)
\nonumber \\
& + & \frac{M}{2} \, (3(k+M) \, b_2 + N \, b_7)\Bigg]
\, d^{a b c } \, J^b \, J^c(w) + \cdots.
\label{JWpole2}
\end{eqnarray}
According to the discussion of next subsection,
the coefficients $b_2$ and $b_7$ can be determined completely
in terms of $b_1$ and leads to the vanishing of
second order pole in (\ref{JWpole2}).
Therefore, the spin-$1$ current is decoupled. In other words,
\begin{eqnarray}
J^a(z) \, W^{(3)}(w) & = & 0 + \cdots.
\label{regularjw}
\end{eqnarray}
In addition to the modified stress energy tensor (\ref{modified})
with (\ref{Regular}) and the spin-$4$ current (\ref{w4})
with (\ref{regular1}),
this neutral spin-$3$ current with (\ref{regularjw})
belongs to the generators
of $W$ algebra.
\subsection{ The OPE $K^a(z) \, W^{(3)}(w)$}
For the calculation of $b_7$ term in the second order pole
of the OPE $K^a(z) \, W^{(3)}(w)$, the following identity
\begin{eqnarray}
\mbox{Tr} (t^a \, t^b \, t^c \, t^d) = \frac{1}{M} \, \delta^{a b}\, \delta^{cd}
+ \frac{1}{4} \, (i \, f + d)^{a b e} \, (i \, f +d)^{e c d}
\label{traceabcd}
\end{eqnarray}
is used.
It is rather nontrivial to calculate the OPEs between
the composite operators (evaluated at $z$) appearing
in the first order pole in the first equation of (\ref{KJJ})
and $\delta_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}}\, t^b_{j \bar{i}}\, J^{(\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j)}(w)$.
We focus on the particular singular terms in the second order pole.
It is rather nontrivial to calculate the contributions from
$b_7$ and $b_8$ terms.
We can collect $J^a \, J^{u(1)} \, J^{u(1)}(w)$ term coming from $b_5, b_7$
and $b_8$ terms
as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& 2M \frac{2 N}{k} \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} b_5
-\frac{4}{k M} (k+N)(M+N) b_7 + \frac{4}{k} N (2k +M+2N)
\sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} b_8 \nonumber \\
&& = C_{K^a \, W}^{P^a} \, a_4,
\label{JJu1Ju1}
\end{eqnarray}
where the corresponding coefficient of $P^a(w)$ is given by $a_4$
and the coefficient of $P^a(w)$ is denoted by $C_{K^a \, W}^{P^a}$
we should determine.
For the $d^{a b c} \, J^b \, J^c \, J^{u(1)}(w)$ term coming from $b_2, b_5, b_7$
and $b_8$ terms
we have
\begin{eqnarray}
&& 3 M \frac{2N}{k} \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} b_2 - 2M \frac{N}{(2k+M)} b_5
+ \frac{2N(4k^2+ 2 k M + 4 k N + M N)}{k(2k+M)} \sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}} b_7
\nonumber \\
&& - 2N \frac{(2k+M+2N)}{(2k+M)} \, b_8 = C_{K^a \, W}^{P^a} \, a_9,
\label{JJJu1}
\end{eqnarray}
where the corresponding coefficient of $P^a(w)$ is given by $a_9$
in the right hand side.
Moreover,
the $d^{a b c} \, d^{c d e} \, J^b \, J^d \, J^e(w)$ term
leads to the following relation
\begin{eqnarray}
- 3 M \, \frac{N}{(2k+M)} \, b_2 - N \, \frac{(2k+M+2N)}{(2k+M)} \,
b_7
= C_{K^a \, W}^{P^a} \, \frac{3}{2} \, a_{17},
\label{JJJ}
\end{eqnarray}
where the corresponding coefficient of $P^a(w)$ is $\frac{3}{2} a_{17}$.
By solving the equations (\ref{JJu1Ju1}), (\ref{JJJu1}) and (\ref{JJJ})
together with (\ref{avalues}) and (\ref{interbvalue}), we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
b_2 & = & -\frac{N(k+N)(k+2N)}{M(k+M)(k+2M)} \, b_1,
\qquad
b_7 = \frac{3(k+N)(k+2N)}{M(k+2M)} \, b_1,
\nonumber \\
C_{K^a \, W}^{P^a} & = & - \frac{12(3k+2M)(k+N)(k+M+N)}{M(k+2M) } \, \frac{b_1}{a_1}.
\label{b2b7X}
\end{eqnarray}
Then all the coefficients in the neutral spin-$3$ current are
completely fixed.
See Appendix $F$.
From the term of
$ i\, f^{a b c}\, \delta_{\rho \bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma}}\, t^c_{j \bar{i}} \,
J^b \, J^{u(1)}\, J^{(\rho\bar{i})}\, J^{\bar{\sigma} \def\Si{\Sigma} j}(w)$
associated with $a_7$ term of (\ref{spin3exp}),
the following relation satisfies
\begin{eqnarray}
2 \, a_7 \, C_{K^a \, W}^{J^b \,P^c} = 4\, \Bigg[ b_5 +
\sqrt{\frac{M+N}{M N}}\, b_7-b_8 \Bigg].
\label{rreal}
\end{eqnarray}
Then by substituting (\ref{avalues}), (\ref{interbvalue})
and (\ref{b2b7X}) into (\ref{rreal}),
we obtain the structure constant
\begin{eqnarray}
C_{K^a \, W}^{J^b \,P^c} = \frac{24
(k+N) (k+M+N)}{ M(k+2M)}\, \frac{b_1}{a_1}.
\label{stru}
\end{eqnarray}
Also other terms can be checked.
See Appendix $G$.
Therefore, we have the following OPE between the charged spin-$2$
current and the uncharged spin-$3$ current
\begin{eqnarray}
K^a(z) \, W^{(3)}(w) & = & -\frac{1}{(z-w)^2} \,
\Bigg[
\frac{12(3k+2M)(k+N)(k+M+N)}{M(k+2M) } \Bigg]
\, \frac{b_1}{a_1} \, P^a(w)
\nonumber \\
& + &
\frac{1}{(z-w)} \Bigg[ -\frac{1}{3}\,
\frac{12(3k+2M)(k+N)(k+M+N)}{M(k+2M) } \, \frac{b_1}{a_1} \, \partial \, P^a
\nonumber \\
& + & \frac{24 (k+N) (k+M+N)}{ M(k+2M)}\, \frac{b_1}{a_1} \,
\Big(i \, f^{a b c} \, J^b \, P^c +\frac{M}{3} \partial \, P^a\, \Big) \, \Bigg](w) \nonumber \\
& + & \cdots,
\label{KW}
\end{eqnarray}
where the relation (\ref{stru}) is used.
Note that the last line in (\ref{KW}) is a primary operator
written in terms of the known spin-$1$ and spin-$3$ currents.
Compared to the one in (\ref{KPfinal}),
the OPE structure is rather simple because
in this case, there exists only one free index.
Under the large $k$ limit, the structure constant
in the second order pole becomes $\frac{36k^2}{\lambda^2 M}$
and the one in the last line of (\ref{KW}) leads to
$\frac{24 k}{\lambda^2 M}$.
\subsection{ The OPE $P^a(z) \, W^{(3)}(w)$ with $(N,M)=(5,4)$ }
\subsubsection{The sixth, fifth, fourth
and third order poles}
Because the free index of this OPE
is given by the index $a$, there will no singular terms
in sixth and fifth order poles.
The nonzero singular terms appear in the fourth
order pole. The natural candidate is given by the charged spin-$2$
current $K^a(w)$.
In the third order pole,
there will be a quasi charged spin-$3$ operator
in addition to the descendant term.
It turns out that
there exists a $i\, f^{a b c}\, J^b \, K^c(w)$ term with
derivative term which is a primary.
\subsubsection{The second and first order poles}
The quasi charged spin-$4$ current can also arise
and the composite operators between the spin-$1$ operator
and the spin-$3$ current with appropriate tensor structures occur.
We can consider the derivative terms with free index $a$
without any difficulty.
We summarize the OPE as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& P^a(z) \, W^{(3)}(w) =
\nonumber \\
&& - \frac{1}{(z-w)^4} \,
\Bigg[\frac{9(k-2)(k+2)^2(k+5)(k+6)(k+9)(k+10)}{4 k (k+4)(k+8)}\Bigg]
\, a_1 \, b_1\, K^a(w)
\nonumber \\
&& +
\frac{1}{(z-w)^3} \, \Bigg[
- \frac{1}{2} \, \frac{9(k-2)(k+2)^2(k+5)(k+6)(k+9)(k+10)}{4 k (k+4)(k+8)}
\, a_1 \, b_1\, \partial \, K^a \nonumber \\
&& +
\frac{9(k-2)(k+2)(k+5)(k+6)(k+9)(k+10)}{8 k (k+4)(k+8)}
\, a_1 \, b_1\, \nonumber \\
& & \times \Big( i \, f^{a b c} \, J^b \, K^c + \frac{M}{2} \, \partial K^a \Big)
\Bigg](w)
\nonumber \\
&& +
\frac{1}{(z-w)^2} \, \Bigg[
- \frac{3}{20} \, \frac{9(k-2)(k+2)^2(k+5)(k+6)(k+9)(k+10)}{4 k (k+4)(k+8)}
\, a_1 \, b_1\, \partial^2 \, K^a \nonumber \\
&& +
\frac{1}{2} \,
\frac{9(k-2)(k+2)(k+5)(k+6)(k+9)(k+10)}{8 k (k+4)(k+8)}
\, a_1 \, b_1\, \nonumber \\
&& \times \partial \,
\Big( i\, f^{a b c} \, J^b \, K^c + \frac{M}{2} \, \partial K^a \Big)
+ R_2^a \, \Bigg](w)
+ {\cal O}\Bigg(\frac{1}{(z-w)}\Bigg)+
\cdots.
\label{PW}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that there is a $(k+10)$ factor.
A quasi primary spin-$4$ takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}
R_2^a(w) & \equiv & \frac{ 3(k+5) (k+9)}{(k+8)} \,
b_1\, \Bigg[ \frac{ (k+4)}{8 }\,
R^a(w) -\frac{ (k+4) }{k }\,
\frac{a_1}{b_1}\, J^a \ W^{(3)}(w) \nonumber \\
& + & \frac{ k (k+7) (3 k+8)}{2 (k+2) (k+4)}
\, d^{a b c} \, J^b\, P^c(w) \Bigg]
\nonumber \\
& + & \frac{9(k+2)(k+5) (k+6) (k+9) (k+10)}{(k+4) (k+8)(3 k+8)}\,
a_1\, b_1 \,
\Bigg[
\frac{ k }{8 (k+4) } \, d_{4SS2}^{b c d a}\, J^b \, J^c\, K^d
\nonumber \\
& + &
\frac{ (k^2+16)}{16 k (k+4) }\,
d_{4AA1}^{b a c d}\ J^b \, J^c \, K^d
+ \frac{ (k^2+6 k+16)}{4 (k+4) (k+8) }
\, \delta^{b a}\, \delta^{c d} \, J^b \, J^c \,K^d
\nonumber \\
& + & \frac{1 }{8 }\,
\delta^{b c} \, \delta^{d a} \, J^b \, J^c \, K^d
+ \frac{ (k-2) (k^2+3 k-8)}{20 k }\, \partial^2 \, K^a\nonumber \\
& - & \frac{ (k-2) (k+8) }{16 k }
\, i\, f^{a b c} \,J^b \, \partial \, K^c - \frac{
(k^2+k-16)}{8 k }
\, i\, f^{a b c} \, \partial \, J^b \, K^c \Bigg](w),
\label{r2a}
\end{eqnarray}
where $R^a(w)$ is given by (\ref{Rdef}).
Again by using the relation (\ref{Rhatab}),
we can rewrite the above in terms of quasi primary spin-$4$ current.
Compared to the previous OPE between the spin-$3$ current and itself
(\ref{papb}), the OPE structure is rather simple.
We expect that
in the first order pole there will be no new (quasi)primary field.
Although the construction in (\ref{KPfinal}) provides the information
on the quasi primary spin-$4$ current, due to the presence of
free two indices, we should multiply the $f$ symbols into the
first order pole. On the other hands, the construction in (\ref{PW})
is rather complicated because the spins of the left hand side are
given by three and three. Nonetheless, due to the one single
free index, once we have determined the second order pole, then
the quasi primary spin-$4$ current is determined without manipulating
further. After subtracting the descendant terms, we are left with
the quasi primary spin-$4$ current.
\section{ Conclusions and outlook}
In particular,
we have constructed i) the OPE between the charged spin-$2$ current
and itself in (\ref{fullKK}) with (\ref{KKcoeff}),
ii) the OPE between the charged spin-$2$ current and the
charged spin-$3$ current in (\ref{KPfinal}) where the first order pole
is known for $(N,M)=(5,4)$ case by rearranging it in terms of
the known operators,
iii) the OPE between the neutral spin-$3$ current and itself
(\ref{Spin3Spin3}) where the neutral primary spin-$4$ current
is known for $(N,M)=(5,4)$ and iv) the OPE
between the charged spin-$2$ current and the neutral spin-$3$
current in (\ref{KW}).
In doing this, we have determined the charged
quasi primary spin-$4$ current
in (\ref{Rhatab}) together with
(\ref{Rdef}) and Appendix (\ref{KPfirstorder})
in terms of coset realization completely.
In the OPE between the charged spin-$3$ current
and the neutral spin-$3$ current for fixed $(N,M)=(5,4)$
values, we have checked that the above
charged quasi primary spin-$4$ current
(\ref{Rhatab}) occurs at the second order pole of this OPE.
We have some evidence for the presence of the above
neutral primary spin-$4$ current in the second order pole in the
OPE between the charged spin-$3$ current and itself
for fixed $(N,M)=(5,4)$ by focusing on the particular nontrivial
term.
Under the presence of the charged higher spin currents,
the algebra obtained from the whole charged and neutral higher spin
currents leads to the one in an extension of \cite{GG1011}.
The algebra coming from the neutral ones is closed. Its extension
is closed and the right hand side contains
the whole charged and neutral higher spin
currents in general.
We list the possible open problems along the line of this paper
as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item More OPEs
So far, the charged spin-$2,3,4$ currents
and the neutral spin-$3$ current
are known in terms of coset realization.
It is an open problem to determine
the neutral spin-$4$ current in terms of coset realization
for generic $(N,M)$. Moreover, some of the OPEs we have presented
in this paper
do not have their complete expressions. In doing this, the
new quasi primary spin-$5$ current will be determined.
In the bulk theory side, it is an open problem to construct
an extension of the higher spin algebra studied in
\cite{AK2009,AKK1910} for general $M$
by adding the $SO(2 N M)$ factor in
the numerator of the coset (\ref{coset}).
It is better to oberve how the case $M=2$ and the case $M=4$,
where the nontrivial $SU(M)$ invariant tensors can occur,
appear explicitly.
\item Three point functions
Because the charged spin-$2,3,4$ currents
and the neutral spin-$3$ current
are known explicitly, it is natural to
ask what are the three-point functions
by evaluating the zero mode eigenvalue equations of these
currents in the large $N$ limit.
The relevant primary states in the coset (\ref{coset})
are given by $(\Lambda_{N+M}; \Lambda_N, m)$
where $\Lambda_L$ represents the highest weight of
$SU(L)$ and $m$ is the $U(1)$ charge \cite{CH1906}.
Recall that the previous relevant works are given in
\cite{GH,CY,AKP,Ahn1111,AK1308} and we will keep track of
the nonsinglet parts of the construction.
The nontrivial part is to identify the $SU(M)$ adjoint indices
in the three point functions explicitly.
\item Orthogonal group
So far we have considered the special unitary group
in the coset model. We can apply the present results
for the unitary group to the orthogonal group \cite{CHU1906-1}
where they decompose the $SU(M)$ generators into $\frac{M(M-1)}{2}$
antisymmetric matrices and $(M^2-1)-\frac{M(M-1)}{2}$ traceless
symmetric matrices. For the former, we do have spin-$1$ current
and for the latter, we can associate with the spin-$2$ current.
Then the nontrivial OPE between the spin-$1$ current and the spin-$2$
current will give us the nontrivial structure constant whose indices
are mixed together at the
first order pole. This will be an extension of \cite{Ahn1106,GV}.
We need to classify the various invariant tensors in this
context correctly.
\item Supersymmetric case
By the additional $SO(2 N M)$ factor, which leads to
$N M$ complex fermions, in the numerator of
(\ref{coset}), the ${\cal N}=2$ supersymmetric model is studied
in \cite{CH1906} where the spin contents are given by
one $U(1)$ spin-$1$ current, two $(M^2-1)$ spin-$1$ currents,
$2M^2$ spin-$s$ currents ($s=2,3, \cdots, n$),
$M^2$ spin-$(n+1)$ currents and $2M^2$ spin-$(s-\frac{1}{2})$
currents ($s=2, 3, \cdots, (n+1)$). Note that
the standard $U(1)$ spin-$1$ current,
two spin-$\frac{3}{2}$ currents
and spin-$2$ stress energy tensor of
${\cal N}=2$ superconformal algebra can
be seen from the above spin contents.
It is natural to observe how the previous works in
\cite{Ahn1206,Ahn1208} can be generalized in this enlarged model.
Furthermore, for the particular level
$k=N$ or $k=N+M$ \cite{CHR1406},
we expect to have the supersymmetric models
and it is an open problem to observe how an extension of
\cite{Ahn1211,Ahn1305} arises. See also the relevant work in
\cite{AK1607} for different supersymmetry
and there are some partial lists on the
supersymmetric cases in
\cite{CG1203,Henneaux:2012ny,
Hanaki:2012yf,Candu:2012tr,
Creutzig:2012xb,Gaberdiel:2013vva,Gaberdiel:2014vca,
Datta:2017ert,
Eberhardt:2018plx,Castroetal}.
Due to the complex fermions, the (higher) spin currents
will contain the bosonic currents as well as these complex
fermions.
Moreover, it is known that under the superalgebra
description on \cite{BBSS}, we have similar coset construction.
Then it is an open problem to consider the coset construction
\cite{CH1906}
where the numerator is given by the superalgebra.
\end{itemize}
\vspace{.7cm}
\centerline{\bf Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank C. Peng for the general discussion
on the higher spin square \cite{GG1406,GG1501,GG1512} and
Y. Hikida for the discussions on his papers
\cite{CHR1306,CH1812,CH1906,CHR1406}.
This work was supported by
the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) grant
funded by the Korea government(MSIT)(No. 2020R1F1A1066893).
CA acknowledges warm hospitality from
the School of Liberal Arts (and Institute of Convergence Fundamental
Studies), Seoul National University of Science and Technology.
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
Recently there has been some rapid progress in the Elliott program of classification
of separable amenable $C^*$-algebra s. For example, all unital separable amenable simple
Jiang-Su stable $C^*$-algebra s in the UCT class have been classified up to isomorphisms by
the Elliott invariant (see \cite{GLN}, \cite{GLN2}, \cite{EGLN}, and \cite{TWW}, for example).
Let $A$ be a unital ${\cal Z}$-stable $C^*$-algebra, where ${\cal Z}$ is the Jiang-Su algebra.
It was shown by M. R\o rdam (\cite{Rrzstable}) that $A$ either has stable rank one, i.e.,
the invertible elements in $A$ are dense in $A,$ or $A$ is purely infinite.
As a consequence, in the finite case, by \cite{Rf1} and \cite{Rf2}, $A$ has the cancellation of projections
and $U(A)/U_0(A)=K_1(A).$ There are other regular properties for ${\cal Z}$-stable $C^*$-algebra s (see also
\cite{Winter-Z-stable-02}).
It is these regular properties that make the class of unital separable amenable simple ${\cal Z}$-stable
$C^*$-algebra s classifiable.
One may expect that non-unital simple ${\cal Z}$-stable $C^*$-algebra s have similar
properties. Indeed, by M. R\o rdam (\cite{Rrzstable}), non-unital simple ${\cal Z}$-stable $C^*$-algebra s
also have strict comparison for positive elements and nice picture of Cuntz semigroups (see \cite{ESR-Cuntz}).
It is shown by L. Robert (\cite{Rlz}) that, if $A$ is a simple stably projectionless ${\cal Z}$-stable $C^*$-algebra,
then $A$ has almost stable rank one, i.e., the invertible elements in ${\tilde A},$ the unitization of $A,$ are dense in
$A.$ If $A$ is a separable simple ${\cal Z}$-stable $C^*$-algebra\, which
is not stably projectionless, then $A$ must have stable rank one.
So we will mainly consider stably projectionless simple $C^*$-algebra s.
There is a fundamental difference between unital simple $C^*$-algebra s and stably projectionless simple $C^*$-algebra s.
In \cite{GLII}, we show that there is a unique separable amenable simple stably projectionless
${\cal Z}$-stable $C^*$-algebra\, ${\cal Z}_0$
in the UCT class with a unique tracial state such that $K_i({\cal Z}_0)=K_i(\mathbb{C})$ ($i=0,1$).
Let $A$ be any finite separable amenable simple $C^*$-algebra. Then
$A\otimes {\cal Z}_0$ is a separable
amenable simple stably projectionless ${\cal Z}$-stable $C^*$-algebra\, such that $K_i(A\otimes {\cal Z}_0)=K_i(A)$ ($i=0,1$) and
$T(A\otimes {\cal Z}_0)=T(A).$ This means that there is a rich class of separable simple amenable
stably projectionless ${\cal Z}$-stable $C^*$-algebra s.
There are also separable amenable stably projectionless simple $C^*$-algebra s which cannot be
written as $A\otimes {\cal Z}_0$ for any separable simple amenable $C^*$-algebra\, $A$ (see \cite{GLIII}).
More recently a classification theorem for non-unital separable simple amenable ${\cal Z}$-stable $C^*$-algebra s
with stable rank one in the UCT class
was presented in the original version of \cite{GLIII}. The motivation of this note is to provide
a technical result that removes the condition of stable rank one.
We will not, however, prove that, in general, a separable simple stably projectionless
${\cal Z}$-stable $C^*$-algebra\, has stable rank one. Instead, we will show that
these $C^*$-algebra s have nice properties which will lead to a reduction theorem, i.e., every
separable amenable simple stably projectionless $C^*$-algebra\, in the UCT class has rationally generalized tracial rank one
without assuming that $A\otimes Q$ has stable rank one. Therefore, as in \cite{GLIII},
the additional condition of stable rank one in the classification theorem mentioned above is removed.
We begin with the question whether a non-unital separable simple ${\cal Z}$-stable $C^*$-algebra\, $A$
still has the cancellation of projections for $\tilde A$ and the property
$U(\tilde A)/U_0(\tilde A)=K_1(A).$
In this note, we first show that, indeed, $U(\tilde A)/U_0(\tilde A)=K_1(A)$ (see Corollary \ref{C3}).
One notices that we study the unitary group of $M_n(\tilde A)$ not that of $M_n(A)$ as $M_n(A)$ has no unitaries.
Naturally we study the Cuntz semigroup ${\rm Cu}(\tilde A)$ of $\tilde A,$ not ${\rm Cu}(A)$ when $A$ is stably projectionless
but $K_0(A)\not=\{0\}.$ To make the strict comparison more meaningful, we assume that $A$ has continuous scale.
It should be noted that $\tilde A$ is not ${\cal Z}$-stable and
we do not know whether $\tilde A$ has stable rank one.
We do not even know whether ${\rm Cu}(\tilde A)$ has cancellation of projections.
Nevertheless,
we will show that, in the case that $A$ has continuous scale,
indeed,
${\rm Cu}(\tilde A)$ has the strict comparison and
a weak cancellation property.
These two aforementioned
properties (one for $K_1$ and one for ${\rm Cu}(\tilde A)$) are proved
without assuming $A$ has stable rank one.
L. Robert shows (\cite{Rl}) that the augmented Cuntz semigroup ${\rm Cu}^\sim$ classifies homomorphism s
from 1-dimensional noncommutative CW complexes with trivial $K_1$-groups to $C^*$-algebra s of stable rank one.
This result played an important role in the proof of the fact
that every unital separable finite simple $C^*$-algebra\, with finite nuclear dimension in the UCT class has rationally generalized tracial rank at most one.
Since unital separable simple amenable ${\cal Z}$-stable $C^*$-algebra s in the UCT class with rationally generalized tracial rank at most one are previously shown
to be classified by the Elliott invariant, this latter result leads to the classification
of all unital separable simple amenable $C^*$-algebra s of finite nuclear dimension in the UCT class (see \cite{EGLN}).
The additional condition that $C^*$-algebra s have stable rank one in the classification
results for non-unital simple $C^*$-algebra s mentioned above was used to apply
the following existence result of L. Robert (\cite{Rl}):
Let $C$ be a 1-dimensional noncommutative CW complex with $K_1(C)=\{0\}$ and with a strictly positive element $e_C.$
If
$\lambda: {\rm Cu}^\sim(C)\to {\rm Cu}^\sim(A)$ is a morphism in ${\bf Cu}$
with $\lambda([e_C])\le [a]$ for some $a\in A_+,$ then there exists a homomorphism\,
$\phi: C\to A$ such that ${\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi)=\lambda.$
As mentioned in the abstract, we show, without assuming $A$ has stable rank one,
that there is a sequence of homomorphism s $\phi_k: C\to A$
such that $\lim_{k\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_k)=\lambda,$
if, in addition, $A$ is an exact separable simple
${\cal Z}$-stable $C^*$-algebra\, and $\lambda([c])\not=0$ for any $c\in C_+\setminus \{0\}$
(see Definition \ref{DappCu}).
It turns out that this weaker version of existence theorem will be sufficient for the purpose
of proving that every separable simple amenable stably projectionless $C^*$-algebra\, in the UCT class has
rationally generalized tracial rank at most one. Therefore, we are able to remove the redundant condition of stable rank one
in the original version of \cite{GLIII}.
Together with the classification theorem in \cite{GLIII}, every finite
separable simple amenable ${\cal Z}$-stable $C^*$-algebra\, in the UCT class, in fact, has stable rank one.
Let $C$ be a 1-dimensional NCCW complex. L. Robert shows
that there are 1-dimensional NCCW complexes $C_0, C_1,...,C_n$
such that $C_0=C_0((0,1]),$ $C_n=C,$ $C_i$ is either stably isomorphic to $C_{i-1},$
or $C_i$ is the unitization of $C_{i-1},$ or $C_{i-1}$ is the unitization of $C_i,$
$i=1,2,...,n.$
Let $B$ be a separable simple stably projectionless
${\cal Z}$-stable $C^*$-algebra. Then $B$ has almost stable rank one.
We first show that, for $C=C_0,$ a homomorphism\, $h$ can be produced
so that ${\rm Cu}^\sim(h)$ will be the given $\lambda.$ We then show our approximate version
of existence theorem holds for $C^*$-algebra s $C_1$ and beyond. However, this process
requires to change the target algebra $B$ to $M_n(\tilde B)$ (for any integer $n\ge 1$).
The problem is that we do not know whether $M_n(\tilde B)$ has stable rank one.
Let $\phi, \psi: C\to M_n(\tilde B)$ be homomorphism s such that ${\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi)={\rm Cu}^\sim(\psi).$
Suppose that $e\in M_k(C)$ is a nonzero projection and $p=\phi(e)$ and $q=\psi(e).$
Note that
$[p]=[q]$ in $\in {\rm Cu}^\sim(\tilde B)$ if and only if
there is an integer $1\le m$ ($\le 2$) such that
$
p\oplus 1_m\sim q\oplus 1_m
$
in the Cuntz semigroup of $\tilde B.$
However,
the classification of homomorphism s by ${\rm Cu}^\sim$ is not possible without $p\sim q.$
We will not attempt to prove that the functor ${\rm Cu}^\sim$
(introduced by Robert) classifies homomorphism s from 1-dimensional noncommutative
CW complexes.
The existence part of Theorem 1.0.1 of \cite{Rl} depends on the uniqueness part of that.
Nevertheless, we will find a way to circumvent this to obtain an approximate version of existence theorem
without the uniqueness theorem.
The paper is organized as follows: In section 2, we list some basics regarding the notion of almost stable rank one
and other notations. In section 3, we show that, with slightly more general assumption,
$U(\tilde A)/U_0(\tilde A)=K_1(A)$ for any separable simple ${\cal Z}$-stable $C^*$-algebra\, $A.$
In section 4, we present some crucial technical statements about comparison
in $M_n(\tilde A)$ (for any integer $n\ge 1$)
involving unitaries.
We show that ${\rm Cu}(\tilde A)$ has the strict comparison and a weak
cancellation when $A$ has continuous scale.
In section 5, we start some discussion of
approximation in augmented Cuntz semigroups and perturbation of homomorphism s. In section 6, we deal with
unitization. Finally we present the main results in section 7.
{{{\bf{Acknowledgement}}: This research
%
is partially supported by a NSF grant (DMS 1954600)}}
and the Research Center for Operator Algebras in East China Normal University.
%
%
%
\section{Basics}
\begin{df}[\cite{Rlz}]\label{Dastr1}
If $C$ is a unital $C^*$-algebra, let $GL(C)$ be the group of invertible elements of $C.$
A $C^*$-algebra\, $A$ is said to have almost stable rank one,
if $GL(\tilde B)$ is dense in $B$ for every hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra\, $B$ of $A,$
where $\tilde B$ is the unitization of $B,$ if $B$ is not unital.
If $A$ has almost stable rank one, by the definition, every hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra\, of $A$ has almost stable rank one.
\end{df}
For a separable simple $C^*$-algebra\, $A,$ if $A$ does not have stable rank one, but
has almost stable rank one, then $A$ must be projectionless, by the following
observation which is known.
\begin{prop}\label{P1}
Let $A$ be a $\sigma$-unital $C^*$-algebra\, which has almost stable rank one.
Then $A$ has stable rank one, if $A$ has a nonzero full projection.
If $A$ is simple and $M_n(A)$ has almost stable rank one for each $n,$ then $A$ either has stable rank one,
or $A$ is stably projectionless.
Moreover, if $A$ is simple and has almost stable rank one, then ${\rm Ped}(A),$
the Pedersen ideal of $A,$ has no infinite elements
(see Definition 1.1 of \cite{LZ}), and $\tilde A$ is finite.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Fix an integer $n\ge 1.$ Suppose that $M_n(A)$ has almost stable rank one.
Let $p\in M_n(A)$ be a nonzero full projection.
By the definition, the invertible elements of $pM_n(A)p$ is dense in $pM_n(A)p.$
So $pM_n(A)p$ has stable rank one. By \cite{Br}, since $A$ is $\sigma$-unital, $pM_n(A)p$
is stably isomorphic to $A.$ Therefore $A$ has stable rank one. Note that the above works for $n=1.$
This proves the first part of the statement.
Suppose that $A$ is simple and has almost stable rank one. If $A$ has stable rank one, $\tilde A$ has stable rank one.
Then $A$ and $\tilde A$
are stably finite. In particular, ${\rm Ped}(A)$ has no infinite elements.
Now suppose that $A$ does not have stable rank one but has almost stable rank one.
If ${\rm Ped}(A)$ has an infinite element, by Theorem 1.2 of \cite{LZ},
$A$ has a non-trivial projection. By the first part of the proposition, $A$ has stable rank one.
A contradiction.
If $\tilde A$ is not finite, there is $v\in \tilde A$
such that $vv^*=1$ and $v^*v\not=1.$ Then $1-v^*v\in A$ is a non-zero projection. By what has been
proved, this would imply that $A$ has stable rank one.
\end{proof}
The following is a non-unital version of a result of R\o rdam (\cite{Rrzstable})
which follows from Theorem 6.7 of \cite{Rrzstable} and a result of L. Robert (Theorem 1.2 \cite{Rlz}).
\begin{thm}\label{astrk1z}
Let $A$ be a $\sigma$-unital simple ${\cal Z}$-stable $C^*$-algebra. Then one and only one of the following must occur:
(1) $A$ is purely infinite,
(2) $A$ has stable rank one,
(3) $A$ does not have stable rank one, but has almost stable rank one and is stably projectionless.
Moreover $A$ has a non-zero {\rm 2}-quasitrace.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that neither does $A$ have stable rank one, nor $A$ is purely infinite.
Note, since $A$ is ${\cal Z}$-stable, so is $M_n(A)$ for each $n\in \mathbb{N}.$
If $M_n(A)$ contains a non-zero projection $p$ for some $n\in \mathbb{N},$ then $B:=pM_n(A)p,$ as a unital hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra,
is also ${\cal Z}$-stable (Corollary 3.1 of \cite{TW}). By Theorem 4.5 of \cite{Rrzstable}, $W(B)$ is almost unperforated. If $B$ does not have stable rank one, then, by Corollary 3.6 of \cite{BP95}, $M_k(B)$ does not have stable rank one for any $k.$
Therefore, by Theorem 6.7 of \cite{Rrzstable}, none of $M_k(B)$ are finite. Then, by Corollary 5.1 of \cite{Rrzstable}
(see also Proposition 4.9 of \cite{FL}),
$B$ is purely infinite. By the assumption at the very beginning,
$M_n(A)$ has no non-zero projection for all $n.$
In other words, $A$ is stably projectionless.
Then, by \cite{Rlz}, $A$ has almost stable rank one. Moreover, by Corollary 5.1 of \cite{Rrzstable} (see Proposition 4.9 of \cite{FL}), $A$ has a non-zero
2-quasitrace.
\end{proof}
We do not know, at the moment, that case (3) of Theorem \ref{astrk1z} can actually occur.
\begin{prop}\label{Pmatrixsr1}
Let $A$ be a $C^*$-algebra\, which has almost stable rank one.
Then, for any integer $n\ge 1,$ $GL(M_n(\tilde A))$ is dense in $M_n(A).$
Moreover, $GL((\tilde A\otimes {\cal K})^\sim)$ is dense in $A\otimes {\cal K}.$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We prove the first part by induction. Suppose that $GL(M_n(\tilde A))$ is dense in
$M_n(A).$ We will show that $GL(M_{n+1}(\tilde A))$ is dense
in $M_{n+1}(A).$
Let $x\in M_{n+1}(A).$ Put $p:={\rm diag}(1_{\tilde A},\overbrace{0,0,...,0}^{{n}}).$
Let $a=pxp,$ $b=(1-p)x(1-p),$ $c=px(1-p)$ and $d=(1-p)xp.$
Hence we may write
\begin{eqnarray}
x=\begin{pmatrix} a & c\\ d & b\end{pmatrix}.
\end{eqnarray}
Let $\varepsilon>0.$ By the inductive assumption, there is $b'\in GL(M_n(\tilde A))$
such that $\|b-b'\|<\varepsilon.$ Note
\begin{eqnarray}
c(b')^{-1}d=px(1-p) (b')^{-1} (1-p)xp\in p(M_n(A))p\, (=A).
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore (since $A$ has almost stable rank one) there is
$z\in GL(\tilde A)$ such that $\|z-(a-c(b')^{-1}d)\|<\varepsilon.$
Set $a'=z+c(b')^{-1} d\in \tilde A.$ Then
\begin{eqnarray}
\|a-a'\|=\|a-c(b')^{-1}d-z\|<\varepsilon.
\end{eqnarray}
Moreover,
$a'-c(b')^{-1}d=z.$
Put
$$
y=a' +b'+c+d=\begin{pmatrix} a' & c\\ d & b'\end{pmatrix}.
$$
Then $y\in M_{n+1}(\tilde A)$ and $\|x-y\|<\varepsilon.$
It follows from Lemma 3.1.5 of \cite{Lnbook} (see the proof of Lemma 3.4 of \cite{Rf1}) that
$y$ is invertible.
For the last part, let $a\in A\otimes {\cal K}$ and $1>\varepsilon>0.$
Viewing $M_n(A)$ as a $C^*$-subalgebra\, of $A\otimes {\cal K},$ we may assume that $a\in M_n(A)$
for some large $n.$ By what has been proved, we have an invertible element
$b\in M_n(\tilde A)$ such that $\|b-a\|<\varepsilon.$ Write $b=(c_{i,j})_{n\times n}$
with $c_{i,j}={\alpha}_{i,j}+a_{i,j},$ where ${\alpha}_{i,j}\in \mathbb{C}$ and $a_{i,j}\in A.$ Let $E_n$ be
the identity of $M_n(\tilde A).$ Put $x:=b+\varepsilon\cdot (1_{(A\otimes {\cal K})^\sim}-E_n).$
Then $x\in GL((\tilde A\otimes {\cal K})^\sim)$ and $\|a-x\|<\varepsilon.$
\end{proof}
\begin{df}\label{Dher}
Let $A$ be a $C^*$-algebra.
Denote by $A^{\bf 1}$ the unit ball of $A.$
Let $a\in A_+.$ Denote by ${\rm Her}(a)$ the hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra\, $\overline{aAa}.$
If $a, b\in A_+,$ we write $a\lesssim b,$
($a$ is Cuntz smaller than $b$),
if there exists a sequence of $x_n\in A$ such that $a=\lim_{n\to\infty} x_n^*x_n$
and $x_nx_n^*\in {\rm Her}(b).$ {{If $a\lesssim b$ and $b\lesssim a$, then we say $a$ is Cuntz equivalent to $b$
and write $a\sim b.$}} The Cuntz equivalence class represented by $a$ will
be denoted by $[a].$ So we write $[a]\le [b],$ if $a\lesssim b.$ Also $[a]\ll [b]$ means
that, if for any increasing sequence $\{x_n\}$ such that $[b]\le \sup_n x_n,$ then $[a]\le x_n$ for some $n.$
It is well known that, for any $0<\varepsilon<\|a\|,$ $[(a-\varepsilon)_+]\ll [a]$ (see the middle of the proof of Lemma 2.1.1 of \cite{Rl} and
Theorem 1 of \cite{CEI}).
Denote by ${\rm Cu}(A)$ the Cuntz semigroup of $A$ (equivalence classes in $A\otimes {\cal K}$).
An element $x\in {\rm Cu}(A)$ is {\it compact}, if $x\ll x.$
In what follows, we will also use the augmented semigroup ${\rm Cu}^\sim(A)$
introduced in \cite{Rl} and the revised version in \cite{RS}. We refer the reader to
\cite{Rl} and \cite{RS} for details of the definition of ${\rm Cu}^\sim$ and the related terminologies.
\end{df}
\begin{df}\label{Dqtr}
Let $A$ be a $C^*$-algebra. Denote by $QT(A)$ the set of 2-quasitraces of $A$ with norm 1,
and by $T(A)$ the tracial state space of $A.$ Both could be empty in general.
For any (non-unital) separable $C^*$-algebra\, $A,$ denote by ${\rm Ped}(A)$ the Pedersen ideal of $A.$
Suppose that $B$ is a full hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra\, of $A$ such that $B\subset {\rm Ped}(A).$
If $\tau\in QT(B),$
we will continue to write $\tau$ for $\tau\otimes {\rm Tr},$ where ${\rm Tr}$ is the densely defined
trace on ${\cal K}.$ We write $QT_0(B)$ for the set of all 2-quasitraces of $B$
with the norm at most one.
Since $A$ is stably isomorphic to $B,$ $\tau\in QT_0(B)$ gives
a densely defined 2-quasitrace of $A.$ Denote by ${\widetilde{QT}}(A)$ the set of all densely defined 2-quasitraces on $A$
with the topology given in \cite{ESR-Cuntz} (see the paragraph above Theorem 4.4 of \cite{ESR-Cuntz}).
In most cases, we will consider only those $C^*$-algebra s with the property that every
2-quasitrace is a trace, for example, $A$ is exact.
If $\tau\in {\widetilde{QT}}(A),$ we will also continue to write $\tau$ on
$A\otimes {\cal K}$ for $\tau\otimes {\rm Tr},$ where ${\rm Tr}$ is the standard (densely defined)
trace on ${\cal K}.$ So we will view ${\widetilde{QT}}(A)$ the set of densely defined
2-quasitraces on $A\otimes {\cal K}.$
\end{df}
\begin{df}\label{Daff}
Let $S$ be a convex subset of a convex topological cone (which has zero)
(such as $\widetilde{QT}(A)$).
Let ${\rm Aff}(S)$ be the set of all
real valued continuous affine functions on $S$ with the property that,
if $0\in S,$ then $f(0)=0.$
Define (see \cite{Rl})
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm Aff}_+(S)&=&\{f: {\rm Aff}(S): \,
f(\tau)>0\,\,{\rm for}\,\,\tau\not=0\}\cup \{0\},\\
{\rm LAff}_+(S)&=&\{f:S\to [0,\infty]: \exists \{f_n\}, f_n\nearrow f,\,\,
f_n\in {\rm Aff}_+(S)\}\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\,\\
{\rm LAff}^{\sim}_+(S) &=&\{f_1-f_2: f_1\in {\rm LAff}_+(S)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, f_2\in
{\rm Aff}_+(S)\}.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that $0\in {\rm LAff}_+(S).$ For the most part of this paper,
$S=T(A),$ or $S={\widetilde{QT}}(A)$
in the above definition will be used.
In particular, if $S={\widetilde{QT}}(A)$ and $f\in {\rm LAff}_+(S),$ then $f(0)=0.$
\end{df}
\begin{df}\label{Dfep}
For any $\varepsilon>0,$ define $f_\varepsilon\in C([0,\infty))_+$ by
$f_\varepsilon(t)=0$ if $t\in [0, \varepsilon/2],$ $f_\varepsilon(t)=1$ if $t\in [\varepsilon, \infty)$ and
$f_\varepsilon(t)$ is linear in $(\varepsilon/2, \varepsilon).$
Let $A$ be a $C^*$-algebra\, and $\tau$ be in ${\widetilde{QT}(A)}.$
For each $a\in A_+$ define $d_\tau(a)=\lim_{\varepsilon\to 0} \tau(f_\varepsilon(a)).$
Note that $f_\varepsilon(a)\in {\rm Ped}(A)$ for all $a\in A_+.$
Recall that $A$ is said to have the Blackadar strict comparison for positive elements,
if $a, \, b\in (A\otimes {\cal K})_+,$ then $a\lesssim b$ whenever $d_\tau(a)<d_\tau(b)$ for all
non-zero
$\tau\in {\widetilde{QT}}(A).$
Let $A$ be a separable stably finite simple $C^*$-algebra.
There is an
order preserving homomorphism\,
$\iota: {\rm Cu}(A)\to {\rm LAff}_+(\widetilde{QT}(A))$ defined by
$\iota([a])=d_\tau(a)$ for all $\tau\in \widetilde{QT}(A)$ and for all $a\in (A\otimes {\cal K})_+.$
Let ${\rm Cu}_+(A)$ be the sub-semigroup
of those elements in ${\rm Cu}(A)$ which cannot be represented by non-zero projections (see Proposition 6.4
of \cite{ESR-Cuntz}) and let
$V(A)$ be the Murray-von Neumann equivalence classes of projections
in $A\otimes {\cal K}.$
If $A$ has the strict comparison, $\iota|_{{\rm Cu}_+(A)}$ is surjective and is an order isomorphism,
following Corollary 6.8 of \cite{ESR-Cuntz},
we write ${\rm Cu}(A)=(V(A)\setminus \{0\})\sqcup {\rm LAff}_+(\widetilde{QT}(A)),$
where
the mixed addition and the order are defined
in the paragraph
above Corollary 6.8 of \cite{ESR-Cuntz}
(see also page 10 of \cite{TT}).
In particular, if $x\in V(A)\setminus \{0\}$ and $y\in {\rm LAff}_+(\widetilde{QT}(A)),$
then $x+y=x$ if $y=0,$ and
$x+y=\iota(x)+y,$ if $y\not=0,$ and,
$x\le y,$ if $\iota(x)(t)< y(t)$ for all $t\not=0,$ and $y\le x,$ if $y\le \iota(x).$
\end{df}
\begin{df}\label{Dregular}
A separable simple $C^*$-algebra\, $A$ is said to be {\it regular}, if $A$ is purely infinite, or
if $A$ has almost stable rank one and ${\rm Cu}(A)=(V(A)\setminus \{0\})\sqcup {\rm LAff}_+({\widetilde{QT}}(A))$
(see \ref{Dfep} above). By \cite{Br}, for any non-zero hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra\, $B$ of $A,$
$B\otimes {\cal K}\cong A\otimes {\cal K}.$ Therefore ${\rm Cu}(B)={\rm Cu}(A).$
Hence, if $A$ is a separable regular simple $C^*$-algebra, then every non-zero
hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra\, of $A$ is regular (see the last paragraph of \ref{Dqtr}).
Except
\ref{C2} and \ref{C3}, we only consider the case that $A$ is finite.
By \cite{Rlz} (also Theorem \ref{astrk1z} above) and Theorem 6.6 of \cite{ESR-Cuntz}, if $A$ is a separable simple ${\cal Z}$-stable $C^*$-algebra, then $A$ is regular. Recall that a separable simple $C^*$-algebra\, is said to be pure (introduced by Winter in \cite{Winter-Z-stable-02}
with non-unital version in subsection 6.3 of \cite{RS}) if ${\rm Cu}(A)$ is almost unperforated and
almost divisible.
While it is not used in this paper, we would like to mention that
a finite regular simple $C^*$-algebra\, is pure, and,
a separable simple $C^*$-algebra\, which has almost stable rank one is regular if and only if it is pure
as shown in subsection 6.3 of \cite{RS} (see also Theorem 6.2 of \cite{TT} and Corollary 5.8 of \cite{ESR-Cuntz}, and
I.1.4 of \cite{Alf}).
We use the term ``regular" only for the convenience here.
\iffalse
If $A$ is a finite separable regular simple $C^*$-algebra, then $A$ has the following strict comparison:
If $a, b\in (A\otimes {\cal K})_+,$ and $d_\tau(a)<d_\tau(b)$ for all $\tau\in {\widetilde{QT}}(A)\setminus \{0\},$ then
\begin{eqnarray}
a\lesssim b.
\end{eqnarray}
Let ${\tilde{T}}(A)$ be the cone of densely defined,
positive lower semi-continuous traces on $A$ equipped with the topology
of point-wise convergence on elements of the Pedersen ideal ${\rm Ped}(A)$ of $A.$
Later we will assume that $A$ is separable, $QT(A)=T(A)$ and $M_n(A)$ has almost stable rank one
for all $n.$
Then ${\rm LAff}_+({\widetilde{QT}}(A))={\rm LAff}_+(\tilde{T}(A)).$
Let $a\in {\rm Ped}(A)_+\setminus \{0\}.$ Then $B={\rm Her}(a)$ is algebraically simple.
Then $B$ is also regular. Note that $\tau\mapsto d_\tau(a)$ is a function in ${\rm LAff}_+({\tilde T}(A)).$
Choose $f\in {\rm Aff}_+(\tilde{T}(A))$ such that $f(\tau)<d_\tau(a)$ for all $\tau\in \tilde{T}(A)\setminus \{0\}.$
Then there is $c\in (A\otimes {\cal K})_+$ such that $c\lesssim a.$
Then there is $b\in B_+$ such that $d_\tau(b)=f(\tau)$ for all $\tau\in {\tilde T}(A).$ By Theorem 5.3 of \cite{eglnp}, ${\rm Her}(b)$ has continuous scale. Note also
${\rm Her}(b)\otimes {\cal K}\cong A\otimes {\cal K}.$
In the case that $QT(A)=T(A)$ and $T(A)$ is compact,
we may replace ${\rm LAff}_+({\tilde{T}}(A))$ by ${\rm LAff}_+(T(A))$ (they are not the same set)
as ${\tilde T}(A)$ is a convex topological cone with the metrizable Choquet simplex $T(A)$ as its base.
By the proof of Theorem 6.13 of \cite{RS}, if $A$ has almost stable rank one, $A$ has stable rank at most 2.
By \cite{Rlz}, if $A$ is a {{finite}} separable simple ${\cal Z}$-stable $C^*$-algebra, then $A$ is regular
(see also Theorem 6.5 of \cite{ESR-Cuntz}),
These facts will be used throughout these notes.
\fi
\end{df}
We would like to state the following version of a result of R\o rdam. Note
that we do not assume that $M_n(A)$ has almost stable rank one.
\begin{lem}\label{LRordam1}
Let $A$ be a $C^*$-algebra\, which has almost stable rank one,
$a$ and $b\in M_n(A)_+$ for some integer $n\ge 1$
(or in $(A\otimes {\cal K})_+$). Suppose
that $a\lesssim b,$ then, for any $\varepsilon>0,$ there is a unitary $U\in M_n(\tilde A)$
(or $U\in (\tilde A\otimes {\cal K}\widetilde)$)
such that
\begin{eqnarray}
U^*f_\varepsilon(a)U\in {\rm Her}(b).
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition \ref{Pmatrixsr1}, $GL(M_n(\tilde A))$ is dense in $M_n(A)$
(or $GL((\tilde A\otimes {\cal K})\widetilde)$ is dense in $A\otimes {\cal K}$).
Then the proof of (iv) $\Rightarrow$ (v) in Proposition 2.4 of \cite{Rr2} (applying Theorem 5 of \cite{Pedjot87})
works here.
\end{proof}
The following is taken from the proof of 1.5 of \cite{LinHilbert}.
But it is also known (see \cite{Rlz}).
\begin{lem}\label{LuniH}
Let $A$ be a $C^*$-algebra\,
which has almost stable rank one.
Suppose that $a\in (A\otimes {\cal K})_+$ (or $a\in A_+$), $b\in A_+,$ and $a\lesssim b$ in ${\rm Cu}(A).$
Suppose that $1/4>\varepsilon>0$ and $f_{\varepsilon/4}(a)\in {\rm Her}(b).$
Then, for any $0<\eta<\varepsilon/4,$ there is a unitary $u\in (\tilde A\otimes {\cal K}\widetilde)$ (or $u\in \tilde A$) such
that $uf_{\eta}(a)u^*\in {\rm Her}(b)$ and $uf_\varepsilon(a)=f_\varepsilon(a).$
Moreover,
there is a partial isometry $v\in (A\otimes {\cal K})^{**}$ (or $v\in A^{**}$) such that $vc, cv^*\in A\otimes {\cal K}$
(or in $A$) for all $c\in {\rm Her}(a),$
$vav^*\in {\rm Her}(b)$ and $vf_{\varepsilon}(a)=f_{\varepsilon}(a).$
Furthermore, without assuming $f_{\varepsilon/4}(a)\in {\rm Her}(b),$
there is also a partial isometry $v\in (A\otimes {\cal K})^{**}$ (or $v\in A^{**}$) such that
$vc, cv^*\in A\otimes {\cal K}$ (or in $A$), $v^*vc=c=cv^*v$ and $vcv^*\in {\rm Her}(b)$ for all $c\in {\rm Her}(a).$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
There is a unitary $w_1\in (\tilde A\otimes {\cal K}\widetilde)$ (or $w_1\in {\tilde A}$) such that $b_1:=w_1f_{\eta/8}(a)w_1^*\in {\rm Her}(b).$
By Lemma \ref{LRordam1}. Denote $a_1:=w_1f_{\varepsilon/4}(a)w_1^*\in {\rm Her}(b).$
Note that $a_1b_1=a_1.$ Therefore
\begin{eqnarray}
\|(b_1-1)w_1f_{\varepsilon/4}(a)\|=\|(b_1-1)w_1f_{\varepsilon/4}(a)w_1^*\|=0.
\end{eqnarray}
In other words,
$
b_1w_1f_{\varepsilon/4}(a)^{1/2}=w_1f_{\varepsilon/4}(a)^{1/2}.
$
It follows that $y_1:=w_1f_{\varepsilon/4}(a)^{1/2}\in {\rm Her}(b).$ Moreover,
\begin{eqnarray}
y_1^*y_1=f_{\varepsilon/4}(a)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, y_1y_1^*=w_1f_{\varepsilon/4}(a)w_1^*.
\end{eqnarray}
In what follows, for any $d\in A_+^{\bf 1}$ and $1>\delta>0,$ $e_\delta(d)$ denotes
the open spectral projection of $d$ associated with the interval $(\delta, 1].$
Since ${\rm Her}(b)$ has almost stable rank one, by Theorem 5 of \cite{Pedjot87},
there is a unitary $z_1\in {\widetilde{{\rm Her}(b)}}$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{1010-8}
z_1e_{1/4}(|y_1|)=w_1e_{1/4}(|y_1|)=w_1(f_{\varepsilon/4}(a)^{1/2}).
\end{eqnarray}
Note that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{1010-9}
e_{1/4}(|y_1|)=e_{1/4}(f_{\varepsilon/4}(a)^{1/2})=e_{\delta_1}(a)
\end{eqnarray}
for some $\delta_1\in (\varepsilon/8, \varepsilon/4).$ By \eqref{1010-8} and \eqref{1010-9},
\begin{eqnarray}\label{1010-10}
z_1^*w_1e_{\delta_1}(a)=z_1^*(z_1e_{1/4}(|y_1|))=e_{1/4}(|y_1|)=e_{\delta_1}(a).
\end{eqnarray}
Write $z_1={\alpha}\cdot 1_{\tilde {\rm Her}(b)}+b'$ for some $b'\in {\rm Her}(b).$
Replacing $z_1$ by ${\alpha}\cdot 1+b',$ we may view $z_1$ as a unitary
in $(\tilde A\otimes {\cal K}\widetilde)$ (or in $\tilde A$).
Put
$u_1:=z_1^*w_1\in (\tilde A\otimes {\cal K}\widetilde)$ (or $u_1\in \tilde A$).
Then, for any $x\in \overline{f_{2\delta_1}(a)(A\otimes {\cal K})},$ by \eqref{1010-10},
$u_1x=u_1e_{\delta_1}(|y_1|)x=z_1^*w_1e_{\delta_1}(a)x=e_{\delta_1}(a)x=x.$
In particular, $u_1f_{\varepsilon}(a)=f_{\varepsilon}(a).$ We also have, since $z_1\in {\rm Her}(b)^\sim,$
\begin{eqnarray}
u_1f_{\eta}(a)u_1^*=z_1^*(w_1f_{\eta}(a)w_1^*)z_1\le z_1^*b z_1\in {\rm Her}(b).
\end{eqnarray}
This proves the first part of the lemma.
To see the second part of the lemma, let $\eta_n=\varepsilon/4^{n+1}.$
By virtue of the first part of the lemma, we obtain a sequence
of unitaries $\{u_n\}\subset (\tilde A\otimes {\cal K}\widetilde)$ (or in $\tilde A$) such that
\begin{eqnarray}
u_nb_{n-1}u_n^*\in {\rm Her}(b), u_nx=x\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, x\in {\rm Her}(b_{n-1}),
\end{eqnarray}
where $b_0=f_\varepsilon(a),$ $b_n=u_nf_{\eta_n}(b_{n-1})u_n^*$ for $n=1,2,....$
Note
\begin{eqnarray}
\|u_{n+1}(u_n \cdots u_1f_{\eta_n}(a)-(u_n \cdots u_1f_{\eta_n}(a)))\|
=\|(u_{n+1}-1)(u_n \cdots u_1f_{\eta_n}(b)\|\\
=\|(u_{n+1}-1)(u_n \cdots u_1)f_{\eta_n}(b)(u_1^*\cdots u_n^*)\|=\|(u_{n+1}-1)b_n\|=0.
\end{eqnarray}
In other words,
$u_{n+1}u_n\cdots u_1f_{\eta_n}(a)=u_n\cdots u_1f_{\eta_n}(a).$
Moreover, $u_{n+1}u_n\cdots u_1f_{\varepsilon}(a)=f_{\varepsilon}(a)$ for all $n.$
It follows that $\lim_{n\to\infty} u_{n+1}u_n\cdots u_1 x$ converges in norm for all $x\in {\rm Her}(a)$
and $\lim_{n\to\infty} u_{n+1}u_n\cdots u_1xu_1^*\cdots u_n^*u_{n+1}^*$ converges in
norm to an element in ${\rm Her}(b).$
Choose a strictly positive $x$ of ${\rm Her}(a)_+$ with $\|x\|=1$ and $xf_\varepsilon(a)=f_\varepsilon(a).$
Let $z=\lim_{n\to\infty} u_{n+1}u_n\cdots u_1x\in A.$
Then $zz^*=\lim_{n\to\infty} u_{n+1}u_n\cdots u_1x^2u_1^*\cdots u_n^*u_{n+1}^*\in {\rm Her}(b).$
Let $z=vx^{1/2}$ be the polar decomposition in $(A\otimes {\cal K})^{**}$ (or in
$A^{**}$). Then $v$ is a partial isometry
and, since $x$ is a strictly positive element of ${\rm Her}(a),$
$vc, cv^*\in A,$ $v^*vc=c=cv^*v,$ $vcv^*\in {\rm Her}(b)$ for all $c\in {\rm Her}(a),$ and
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
vf_\varepsilon(a)=vx^{1/2}f_\varepsilon(a)=\lim_{n\to\infty} u_{n+1}\cdots u_1 x^{1/2}f_\varepsilon(a)
= \lim_{n\to\infty} u_{n+1}\cdots u_1f_\varepsilon(a)=f_\varepsilon(a).
\end{eqnarray}
One also notices that the third part of the lemma holds from the proof above as we may replace $a$ by $u_1au_1^*$
with $u_1f_{\varepsilon/4}(a)u_1^*=f_{\varepsilon/4}(u_1au_1^*)\in {\rm Her}(b).$
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{Pxxxx}
Let $A$ be a $C^*$-algebra\, which has almost stable rank one, and $a\in (A\otimes {\cal K})_+$
(or $a\in A_+$) and $b\in A_+.$ Then
$a\lesssim b$ if and only if there is $x\in A\otimes {\cal K}$ (or $x\in A$) such that
$x^*x=a$ and $xx^*\in {\rm Her}(b).$
Moreover, if $a_1, a_2,...,a_n$ are mutually orthogonal elements in $A_+$
such that $a_i\sim a_1$ in ${\rm Cu}(A)$ for $i=1,2,...,n,$ and
$a:=\sum_{i=1}^n a_i\lesssim b,$ then
there is a hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra\, $A_1\subset {\rm Her}(b)$
such that there is an isomorphism $\phi: M_n(A_2)\to A_1$ where $A_2={\rm Her}(d)$ for some
$d\in {\rm Her}(b)$ such that $\phi^{-1}(d)=d$ and there is $z\in A$ such that $z^*z=a_1$ and $zz^*=d.$
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
The first part follows from Lemma \ref{LuniH}.
In fact, in the second part of Lemma \ref{LuniH}, we choose $x=va^{1/2}.$
Then $x^*x=a^{1/2}v^*va^{1/2}=a$ and $xx^*=vav^*\in {\rm Her}(b).$
By Lemma \ref{LuniH}, there is $v\in A^{**}$ such that ${\bar a}:=vav^*\in {\rm Her}(b)$
and $vc,cv\in {\rm Her}(b)$ and $v^*vc=c$ for all $c\in {\rm Her}(a).$
Let $y_0=va_1v^*.$ Then, by the first part of this lemma, there is $z\in A$ such
that $z^*z=a_1$ and $b_1:=zz^*\in {\rm Her}(y_1).$
Note that $b_1\sim va_iv^*$ in ${\rm Her}({\bar a})\subset {\rm Her}(b),$ $i=1,2,...,n.$
Thus we have $x_i\in {\rm Her}({\bar a})$ such that $x_i^*x_i=b_1$ and $x_ix_i^*\in {\rm Her}(va_iv^*),$
$i=1, 2,..., n.$ Note that $x_1x_1^*=x_1^*x_1=b_1.$ Put $A_1={\rm Her}(\sum_{i=1}^n x_ix_i^*).$
One then checks that $A_1=M_n(A_2),$ where $A_2={\rm Her}(b_1).$ The corollary follows.
\end{proof}
We would like to end this section with the following folklore.
\begin{lem}\label{Lfolk}
Let $A$ be a $C^*$-algebra\, and $0\le a\le b\le 1$ be elements in $A.$
Then, for any $0<\varepsilon<\varepsilon'<\|a\|,$ there exists $z\in A$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
(a-\varepsilon)_+\lesssim (b-\varepsilon)_+,\,\,\, (a-\varepsilon')_+\le z^*z \,\,\,\text{and}\,\,\, zz^*\in {\rm Her}((b-\varepsilon)_+).
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Choose $0<\varepsilon<\varepsilon'<\varepsilon''<\|a\|$ and define $g\in C_0((0,1])$ such
that $g(t)=1$ for $t\in [\varepsilon'', 1]$ and $(t-\varepsilon')_+\le g(t)\le 1$ for $t\in (\varepsilon', \varepsilon''),$ $g(t)=0$ if $t\in (0, \varepsilon').$
Then $(a-\varepsilon')_+\le g(a)$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
(\varepsilon') g(a) \le g(a)^{1/2} a g(a)^{1/2}\le g(a)^{1/2} b g(a)^{1/2}.
\end{eqnarray}
It follows that
\begin{eqnarray}
g(a)^{1/2}((b-\varepsilon)_+) g(a)^{1/2}\ge g(a)^{1/2}(b-\varepsilon)g(a)^{1/2}\\
=g(a)^{1/2}bg(a)^{1/2} -\varepsilon g(a)\ge (\varepsilon'-\varepsilon) g(a).
\end{eqnarray}
Thus
\begin{eqnarray}
(a-\varepsilon')_+\le g(a)\le (1/(\varepsilon'-\varepsilon))g(a)^{1/2}(b-\varepsilon)_+ g(a)^{1/2}\lesssim (b-\varepsilon)_+.
\end{eqnarray}
Since the above holds for any $0<\varepsilon<\varepsilon',$ $(a-\varepsilon)_+\lesssim (b-\varepsilon)_+.$
Let\\ $z= (1/(\varepsilon'-\varepsilon))^{1/2}(b-\varepsilon)_+^{1/2}g(a)^{1/2}.$
Then
\begin{eqnarray}
g(a)\le z^*z\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, zz^*= (1/(\varepsilon'-\varepsilon))(b-\varepsilon)_+^{1/2} g(a)(b-\varepsilon)_+^{1/2}\in {\rm Her}((b-\varepsilon)_+).
\end{eqnarray}
\end{proof}
\section{Unitary groups}
The main purpose of this section is to present a $K_1$-cancellation result for separable
regular simple $C^*$-algebra s.
\begin{df}\label{Dpi}
Let $A$ be a $C^*$-algebra. Denote by $\tilde A$ the $C^*$-algebra\, generated by $A$ and $\mathbb{C}\cdot 1_{\tilde A},$ where
$1_{\tilde A}$ is not in $A.$ Denote by $\pi_\mathbb{C}^A: \tilde A\to \mathbb{C}\cdot 1_{\tilde A}=\mathbb{C}$ the quotient map.
We also write $\pi_\mathbb{C}^A$ for the extension from $M_n(\tilde A)$ to $M_n.$
\end{df}
\begin{df}\label{Du0}
Let $A$ be a unital $C^*$-algebra. Denote by $U(A)$ the unitary group of $A$ and by $U_0(A)$
the path connected component of $U(A)$ containing $1_A.$
\end{df}
\begin{prop}\label{Lmatrix}
Let $A$ be a $C^*$-algebra\, and $u\in U_0(M_n(\tilde A))$ be a unitary
with the form $u={\alpha}\cdot 1_{M_n(\tilde A)}+a$ for some ${\alpha}\in \mathbb{T}$ and $a\in M_n(A).$
Then $u\in U_0(M_n(A)^\sim).$
In particular, if ${\alpha}=1,$ then
$u=\exp(ib_1)\exp(ib_2)\cdots \exp(ib_m)$
for some $b_1, b_2,...,b_m\in M_n(A)_{s.a.}.$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Replacing $u$ by $u{\bar {\alpha}},$ we may assume that $\pi_\mathbb{C}^{A}(u)=1_n:=1_{M_n}.$
Let $u=\exp(i h_1)\exp(ih_2)\cdots \exp(i h_k),$ where $h_j\in M_n(\tilde A)_{s.a.}.$
For each $h_j,$ there is a scalar self-adjoint matrix $a_j\in M_n(\mathbb{C}\cdot 1_{\tilde A})$
such that $\pi_\mathbb{C}^{A}(h_j)=\pi_\mathbb{C}^{A}(a_j).$
Note that, since $\pi_\mathbb{C}^{A}(u)=1_n,$
$$
\exp(ia_1)\exp(ia_2)\cdots \exp(ia_k)=1_n.
$$
Define, for $t\in [0,1],$
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
u(t)=\exp(i th_1)\exp(i th_2)\cdots \exp(ith_k)\exp(-ita_k)\exp(-ita_{k-1})\cdots \exp(-ita_1).
\end{eqnarray}
Then $u(1)=u(\exp(ia_1)\exp(ia_2)\cdots \exp(ia_k))^*=u$ and $u(0)=1_n.$
However,
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
\pi_\mathbb{C}^{A}(u((t)))=\exp(i ta_1)\exp(ita_2)\cdots \exp(ita_k)\exp(-ita_k)\exp(-it a_{k-1})\cdots \exp(-ita_1)=1_n.
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore $u(t)\in M_n(A)^\sim$ for all $t\in [0,1].$
Suppose that ${\alpha}=1.$ Since now $u\in U_0(M_n(A)^\sim),$ $u=\exp(ih_1)\exp(i h_2)\cdots \exp(i h_m)$
for some $h_1,h_2,...,h_m\in M_n(A)^\sim.$
Let $\pi_\mathbb{C}^A(h_j)=\lambda_j\cdot 1_{M_n},$ where $\lambda_i\in \mathbb{T},$ $j=1,2,...,m.$
Then $\sum_{j=1}^m \lambda_j=2k\pi$ for some integer $k.$
Choose $b_j=h_j-\lambda_j\,(=h_j-\lambda_j 1_{M_n}),$ $j=1,2,...,m.$ Then $b_j\in M_n(A).$ Note
$\lambda_j\cdot 1_{M_n}$
is in the center of $M_n(A)^\sim.$
Then
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
\exp(ib_1)\exp(ib_2)\cdots \exp(i b_m)=\exp(i h_1)\exp(ih_2)\cdots \exp(i h_m)\exp(i\sum_{j=1}^m -\lambda_j)
=u.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{proof}
\iffalse
\begin{lem}\label{LLinjU}
Let $A$ be a $C^*$-algebra\, which has almost stable rank one and $u\in \tilde A$ be a unitary
with the form $u={\alpha}\cdot 1_{\tilde A}+x$ for some ${\alpha}\in \mathbb{T}$ and $x\in {\rm Her}(a)$
for some $a\in A_+.$
Suppose that there are $x_i\i A_+$ such that $x_i^*x_i=x_1^*x_1=x_1x_1^*$ ($i=1,2,...,n\ge 4$) and
$x_ix_i^*\perp x_jx_j^*,$ if $i\not=j$ and $a\lesssim b:=\sum_{i=1}^n x_ix_i^*.$
Then there is $y\in {\rm Her}(c),$ where $c=x_2^*x_2+x_2x_2^*,$
such that $v:={\alpha}\cdot 1_{\tilde A}+y$ is a unitary and $uU^*v^*U\in U_0(\tilde A)$
for some unitary $U\in U(\tilde A).$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $1/2>\varepsilon>0.$ Choose $1/2>\delta>0$ such
that
\begin{eqnarray}
\|f_\delta(a)xf_\delta(a)-x\|<\varepsilon/4
\end{eqnarray}
It is standard that there is a unitary $u_1\in \mathbb{C}\cdot 1_{\tilde A}+{\rm Her}(f_\delta(a))$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{LLinjU-1}
\|u_1-u\|<\varepsilon.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that ${\rm Her}(b)\cong M_n({\rm Her}(x_1^*x_1)).$ Put $B:={\rm Her}(x_1^*x_1).$
Since $A$ has almost stable rank one, by Lemma 3.2 of \cite{eglnp}, there is a unitary $U\in \tilde A$ such
that $U^*f_\delta(a)U\in {\rm Her}(b).$ Let $u_2:=U^*u_1U.$ Then
$u_2\in {\rm Her}(b)^\sim.$ Write ${\rm Her}(b)=M_n(B).$ Since $GL(\tilde B)$ is dense in
$B,$ by (the proof of) Theorem 6.13 of \cite{RS}, $B$ has stable rank at most 2.
It follows Proposition 5.3 of \cite{Rf2} that there exists a unitary $v_0\in M_2(\tilde B)$
such that $u_2v^*\in U_0(M_n(\tilde B)),$ where
$v_1:={\rm diag}(1,1,0,0)+v_0.$ Let $w\in M_2(\mathbb{C}\cdot 1_{\tilde B})$ be the scalar matrix
such that $\pi_\mathbb{C}^{\tilde B}(v_0)=\pi_\mathbb{C}^{\tilde B}(w).$ By replacing
$v_0$ by $v_0w^*,$ we may assume that $\pi_\mathbb{C}^{\tilde B}(v_0)=1_2.$ In other words,
$v_0\in M_2(B)^\sim.$
It follows that $\pi_\mathbb{C}^{{\rm Her}(b)^\sim}(uv^*)=1.$ Then, by Lemma \ref{Lmatrix},
$u_1v_1^*\in U_0(\tilde A).$ Hence $U^*u_1U(U^*v_1U).$
It follows from \eqref{LLinjU-1}
that $u_1v^*\in U_0(\tilde A).$ Therefore
Note that $v$ has the required form.
\end{proof}
\fi
Note, in the following statement, that the unital $C^*$-algebra\, $\tilde A$ is not divisible in any sense.
\begin{lem}\label{Lshrink}
Let $A$ be a finite regular simple $C^*$-algebra\, which has no nonzero projections, $u\in U(\tilde A),$ and $a_1,a_2,..., a_m\in A_{s.a.}.$ Then, for any $a\in A_+\setminus \{0\},$
any $\varepsilon>0,$ there is an integer $n_0\ge 2$ such that, for any integer $n\ge n_0,$ there is a hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra\, $B\subset A,$ and
a unitary $v\in \mathbb{C}\cdot 1_{\tilde A}+B,$ $b_1, b_2,...,b_m\in B$ such that
$B=U^*(M_n({\rm Her}((c-\eta)_+)){{)}}U$
for some unitary $U\in M_n(\tilde A)$ and
for some
$0<\eta<\|c\|,$ where
$c\in {\rm Her}(a)_+$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\|v-u\|<\varepsilon\,\,\,\text{and}\,\,\, \|a_j-b_j\|<\varepsilon/2(m+1),\,\,1\le j\le m.
\end{eqnarray}
Moreover, we may assume that $4[c]\le [a].$
(Note that here we identify $A$ with the first corner of $M_n(A).$)
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Fix a strictly positive element of $e_A$ of $A$ with $\|e_A\|=1.$
Write $u={\alpha}\cdot 1_{\tilde A}+x$ for some $x\in A$ and ${\alpha}\in \mathbb{T}.$
Let $1/2>\varepsilon>0.$ Choose $1/2>\delta>0$ such
that
\begin{eqnarray}
\|f_\delta(e_A)xf_\delta(e_A)-x\|<\varepsilon/4\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, \|f_\delta(e_A)a_jf_\delta(e_A)-a_j\|<\varepsilon/2(m+1),\,\,j=1,2,...,m.
\end{eqnarray}
Choose $b_j:=f_\delta(e_A)a_jf_\delta(e_A),$ $1\le j\le m.$
Let $A_1=\mathbb{C}\cdot 1_{\tilde A}+{\rm Her}(f_\delta(e_A)).$
It is standard to find a unitary $v\in A_1$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{LLinjU-1}
\|v-u\|<\varepsilon.
\end{eqnarray}
Let $D={\rm Her}(f_{\delta/2}(e_A)).$ Note that $D\subset {\rm Ped}(A).$
Choose $0<\delta_0<\delta/2$ such that $f_{\delta_0}(a)\not=0.$
Since both $f_{\delta_0}(a)$ and $f_{\delta/16}(e_A)$ are in ${\rm Ped}(A),$
there is an integer $k>2$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}
(k-1)[a]\ge (k-1)[f_{\delta_0}(a)]\ge [f_{\delta/16}(e_A)].
\end{eqnarray}
Choose $n_0=4k.$
Let $n\ge n_0.$ Let $c_0\in A\otimes {\cal K}$ with $0\le c_0\le 1$ such that $d_\tau(c_0)=(1/n)d_\tau(f_{\delta/8}(e_A))$ for all $\tau\in {\widetilde{QT}}(A).$
Thus
\begin{eqnarray}
4d_\tau(c_0)<d_\tau(a)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in {\widetilde{QT}}(A)\setminus \{0\}.
\end{eqnarray}
It follows that $4[c_0]\le [a]$ in ${\rm Cu}(A).$
Since $A$ has almost stale rank one, by the first part of Lemma \ref{LuniH}, there is $c\in {\rm Her}(a)_+$
such that $c\sim c_0$ and $d_\tau(c)=(1/n)\tau(f_{\delta/8}(e_A))$ for all $\tau\in {\widetilde{QT}}(A).$
Since
${\rm Cu}(A)=(V(A)\setminus\{0\})\sqcup {\rm LAff}_+(\widetilde{QT}(A))$ and $A$ has no non-zero
projection,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{LLinjU-10}
4[c]\le [a]\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, [f_{\delta/8}(e_A)]=n[c].
\end{eqnarray}
We now view $A$ as a $C^*$-subalgebra\, of $M_n(A)$ (as the first corner of $M_n(A)$).
Let
$$
c_1:={\rm diag}(\overbrace{c, c,...,c}^{n}).
$$
Then, by \eqref{LLinjU-10}, $f_{\delta/2}(e_A)\ll f_{\delta/8}(e_A)\lesssim c_1.$ Therefore there is $0<\eta_0<1$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{LLinjU-18}
f_{\delta/2}(e_A)\lesssim f_{\eta_0}(c_1).
\end{eqnarray}
Choose $0<\eta<\eta_0/2.$
Since $A$ has almost stable rank one, from the last part of \eqref{LLinjU-10}, by Lemma \ref{LRordam1},
there is
a unitary $U_1\in M_n(\tilde A)$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
c_2:=U_1(c_1-\eta)_+U_1^*\in A.
\end{eqnarray}
By \eqref{LLinjU-18}, since $A$ has almost stable rank one, applying Lemma \ref{LRordam1} again,
there is a unitary $U_2\in \tilde A$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
U_2^*f_\delta(e_A)U_2\in {\rm Her}(c_2).
\end{eqnarray}
Put $c_3=U_2c_2U_2^*.$ Put $U={\rm diag}(\overbrace{U_2, 1_{\tilde U},...,1_{\tilde U}}^{n-1})U_1.$
Then $f_\delta(e_A)\in {\rm Her}(c_3).$ Moreover,
$B:={\rm Her}(c_3)=U^*M_n({\rm Her}((c-\eta)_+))U^*.$ Then $v\in \mathbb{C}\cdot 1_{\tilde A}+{\rm Her}(c_3).$
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{C1}
Let $A$ be a finite separable regular simple $C^*$-algebra\, and let $u\in \tilde A$ be a unitary.
If ${\rm diag}(u,1)\in U_0(M_2(\tilde A)),$ then
$u\in U_0(\tilde A).$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Note that, if $A$ has a nonzero projection, then, by Proposition \ref{P1},
$A$ has stable rank one. Then the lemma follows from Theorem 2.10 of \cite{Rf2}.
So we now assume that $A$ has no nonzero projection.
We may assume that $\pi_\mathbb{C}^{A}({\rm diag}(u,1))=1_2.$ By the second part of Proposition \ref{Lmatrix},
we may write $u=\exp(ib_1)\exp(i b_2)\cdots \exp(i b_m)$
for some $b_j\in M_2(A)_{s.a.},$ $1\le j\le m.$
Let $1/2>\varepsilon>0.$
By virtue of Lemma \ref{Lshrink}, without loss of generality, we may assume that
$u\in 1_{\tilde A}+B$ and there are $a_1, a_2,...,a_m\in M_2(B)_{s.a.}$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\|{\rm diag}(u,1)-\exp(ia_1)\exp(ia_2)\cdots \exp(ia_m)\|<\varepsilon,
\end{eqnarray}
where $B=U^*M_n({\rm Her}(c))U\subset A$
for some
$c\in A_+,$
$n\ge 4,$
and where $U\in M_n(\tilde A)$ (recall that we identify $A$ with the first corner of $M_n(A)$).
Put $C=U^*{\rm Her}(c)U.$
Write $u=1_{\tilde A}+b$ for some $b\in B.$ Let $u_1:=1_{\tilde B}+b\in \tilde B$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
v_1:=(1_{\tilde B}+\sum_{n=1}^\infty {ia_1^n\over{n!}})\cdot (1_{\tilde B}+\sum_{n=1}^\infty {ia_2^n\over{n!}})\cdot \cdots
\cdot (1_{\tilde B}+\sum_{n=1}^\infty{ia_m^n\over{n!}}).
\end{eqnarray}
Hence
\begin{eqnarray}
\|{\rm diag}(u_1, 1_{\tilde B})-v_1\|<\varepsilon.
\end{eqnarray}
Thus ${\rm diag}(u_1,1_{\tilde B})\in U_0(M_2(B)^\sim).$
Recall that $A$ has almost stable rank one.
Thus the set of invertible elements of $\tilde C$ is dense in $C=U^*{\rm Her}(c)U,$ $C$ has stable rank at most 2 (see the proof of
Theorem 6.13 of \cite{RS}),
by Theorem 2.10 of \cite{Rf2},
the map from $U(M_n(\tilde C))/U_0(M_n(\tilde C))$
to $U(M_{2n}(\tilde C))/U_0(M_{2n}(\tilde C))$ is injective. It follows that
$u_1\in U_0(M_n(\tilde C)).$ By Lemma \ref{Lmatrix}, $u_1\in U_0(M_n(C)^\sim )=U_0(\tilde B).$
It follows that $u\in U_0(\tilde A).$
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}\label{TK1}
Let $A$ be a separable finite regular simple $C^*$-algebra\, and let $u\in U(\tilde A).$
(1) For any $a\in A_+\setminus \{0\},$ there is a unitary $v\in \mathbb{C}\cdot 1_{\tilde A}+{\rm Her}(a)$
such that $uv^*\in U_0(\tilde A).$
(2) If $u={\alpha}\cdot 1_{\tilde A}+x$ for some ${\alpha}\in \mathbb{T}$ and $x\in D$ for some hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra\, $D$ of $A$
and $u\in U_0(\tilde A),$ then $v={\alpha}\cdot 1_{\tilde D}+x\in U_0(\tilde D).$
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
If $A$ has stable rank one, the theorem is well known and follows from
the fact (\cite{Br}) that every nonzero (full) hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra\, $D$ of $A$ is stably isomorphic
to $A$ and the inclusion $\iota: D\to A$ induces an isomorphism on $K_1(D),$ and then apply
Theorem 2.10 of \cite{Rf2}.
We will prove the case that $A$ is not assumed to have stable rank one. Therefore we assume
$A$ has no nonzero projection (see Proposition \ref{P1}).
For (1), by Lemma \ref{Lshrink}, without loss of generality, we may assume
$u=1_{\tilde A}+b$ for some $b\in B,$ where $B=U^*M_n({\rm Her}((c-\eta)_+))U\subset A$
for some $0<\eta<\|c\|,$ and $c\in {\rm Her}(a)_+,$
$n>8$ and $4[c]\le [a],$ and where $U\in U(M_n(\tilde A)).$
Put $C=U^*{\rm Her}((c-\eta)_+)U$ and $u_1:=1_{\tilde B}+b.$
Since $GL(\tilde C)$ is dense in
$C,$ by (the proof of) Theorem 6.13 of \cite{RS}, $C$ has stable rank at most 2.
It follows from Proposition 5.3 of \cite{Rf2} that there exists a unitary $v_0\in M_2(\tilde C)$
such that $u_1v_1^*\in U_0(M_n(\tilde C)),$ where
$v_1:={\rm diag}(v_0,\overbrace{1_{\tilde C},1_{\tilde C},...,1_{\tilde C}}^{n-2}).$
Let $w\in M_2(\mathbb{C}\cdot 1_{\tilde C})$ be the scalar matrix
such that $\pi_\mathbb{C}^{C}(v_0)=\pi_\mathbb{C}^{C}(w).$ By replacing
$v_0$ by $v_0w^*,$ we may assume that $\pi_\mathbb{C}^{C}(v_0)=1_{M_2(\tilde C)}.$
Hence $v_0\in M_2(C)^\sim.$ Write $v_0=1_{M_2(\tilde C)}+y$ for some $y\in M_2(C).$
It follows that $\pi_\mathbb{C}^{B}(u_1v_1^*)=1.$ Then, by Lemma \ref{Lmatrix},
$u_1v_1^*\in U_0(\tilde B).$ Let $v_2:=1_{\tilde A}+y.$
Then
$
uv_2^*\in U_0(\tilde A).
$
Since $4[c]\le [a]$ and $A$ has almost stable rank one, by Lemma 3.2 of \cite{eglnp}, there is a unitary $V\in \tilde A$
such that (note that $\eta>0$)
\begin{eqnarray}
V^*M_2(C)V\subset {\rm Her}(a).
\end{eqnarray}
Then
$V^*yV\in {\rm Her}(a).$
Define $v=V^*v_2V.$ Then $v$ has the form described in the lemma.
Put $W:=V^*uv_2^*V.$ Since $uv_2^*\in U_0(\tilde A), $ one has
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{pmatrix} W & 0\\ 0 &1\end{pmatrix}\in U_0(M_2(\tilde A)).
\end{eqnarray}
Applying Lemma \ref{C1}, one concludes $W\in U_0(\tilde A).$
Thus
\begin{eqnarray}\label{TK1-10}
(V^*uV)v^*\in U_0(\tilde A).
\end{eqnarray}
There exists a continuous path of unitaries $\{H(t):t\in [0,1]\}\subset U(M_2(\tilde A))$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}
H(0)=\begin{pmatrix} V^*uV & 0\\
1 & 0\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} v^* & 0 \\ 0 & 1\end{pmatrix}
\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\,
H(1)=\begin{pmatrix} u & 0\\ 1& 0\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} v^* & 0 \\ 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix} uv^* & 0 \\ 0 & 1\end{pmatrix}.
\end{eqnarray}
By \eqref{TK1-10}, $H(0)\in U_0(M_2(\tilde A)).$ Therefore ${\rm diag}(uv^*,1)\in U_0(M_2(\tilde A)).$
Applying Lemma \ref{C1} again, one obtains $uv^*\in U_0(\tilde A).$
To see part (2), we may assume that ${\alpha}=1.$
Let $\iota: D\to A$ be the inclusion map. Since $D$ is a full hereditary $C^*$-algebra\, and $A$ is separable,
it follows that
$D$ is stably isomorphic to $A$ and $\iota_{*1}: K_1(D)\to K_1(A)$ is an isomorphism (see, for example, Corollary 2.10 of \cite{Br}).
Let $u_1=1_{\tilde D}+x.$ Then $\iota_{*1}([u_1])=[u]$ is zero in $K_1(A)$ from the assumption that $u
\in U_0(\tilde A).$ Thus
$[u_1]$ is zero in $K_1(D).$
Therefore, for some integer $n\ge 1,$
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm diag}(u_1, \overbrace{1_{\tilde D},..., 1_{\tilde D}}^{2n+1})\in U_0(M_{2n}(\tilde D)).
\end{eqnarray}
Since $D$ is a finite separable regular simple $C^*$-algebra, by repeatedly applying Lemma \ref{C1},
we conclude that $u_1\in U_0(\tilde D).$
\iffalse
Fix a strictly positive element $e_A$ of $A$
with $\le e_A\le 1$ and a strictly positive element $e_B$ of $B$ with $0\le e_B\le 1.$
Let $1/16>\varepsilon>0.$
Put $B_\delta={\rm Her}(f_\delta(e_B))$ for $0<\delta<\varepsilon.$
We may assume that unitary $u_1= 1_{\tilde A}+x_b$ with $x_b\in B_\delta$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\|u_1-u\|<\varepsilon/2.
\end{eqnarray}
One still has $u_1\in U_0(\tilde A).$
It follows $u_1=\prod_{j=1}^m \exp(i h_j)$
for $h_j=\mu_j+h_{0,j},$ where $\mu_j\in \mathbb{R}$ and $h_{0,j}\in A_{s.a.},$ $j=1,2,...,m.$
Choose $\varepsilon_0>0$ such that, for any pair $a_1,a_2\in D_{s.a.}$ (for any unital $C^*$-algebra\, $D$),
if $\|a_1-a_2\|<\varepsilon_0,$
then
\begin{eqnarray}
\|\exp(ia_1)-\exp(ia_2)\|<\varepsilon/128(m+1).
\end{eqnarray}
Choose $0<\eta<\varepsilon$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\|f_\eta(e_A)f_{\delta/2}(e_B)f_\eta(e_A)-f_{\delta/2}(e_B)\|<\varepsilon/64\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\,\\
\|h_{0,j}-f_{\eta}(e_A)h_{0,j}f_\eta(e_A)\|<\varepsilon_0,\,\,\, j=1,2,...,m.
\end{eqnarray}
Put $e_0:=f_\eta(e_A)f_{\delta/2}(e_B)f_\eta(e_A).$
It follows that
\begin{eqnarray}
\|f_\eta(e_A)x_bf_\eta(e_A)-x_b\|<\varepsilon/16\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\,
\|\prod_{j=1}^m\exp(i h_j)-\prod_{j=1}^m \exp(i h_j')\|<\varepsilon/2,
\end{eqnarray}
where $h_{0,j}'=f_\eta(e_A)h_{0,j}f_\eta(e_A),$ $j=1,2,...,m.$
Then one obtain a unitary $u_2\in \mathbb{C}\cdot 1_{\tilde A}+A_\eta,$
where $A_\eta={\rm Her}(f_{\eta/2}(e_A)),$ such that
$u_2=1_{\tilde A}+x_a,$
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\|u_2-u_1\|<\varepsilon/2,\,\, \|u_2-u\|<\varepsilon\\
&&\|x_a-e_0x_be_0\|<\varepsilon/2\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, \|u_2-\prod_{j=1}^m \exp(i h_j')\|<\varepsilon,
\end{eqnarray}
$h_j'=\mu_j\cdot 1_{\tilde A}+h_{0,j}',$ $j=1,2,...,m.$
Put $u_3=\prod_{j=1}^m \exp(i h_j').$
There exists an integer $n\ge 1$ such
that
\begin{eqnarray}
e_A\lesssim {\rm diag}(\overbrace{e_B, e_B,...,e_B}).
\end{eqnarray}
By Lemma \ref{LRordam1}, there exists a unitary $U_1\in M_n(\tilde A)$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}
U_1^*f_{\eta/2}(e_A)U_1\in B_1,
\end{eqnarray}
where $B_1$ is the hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra\, of $M_n(\tilde A)$ generated by ${\rm diag}((\overbrace{e_B, e_B,...,e_B}).$
Note we may write $B_1=M_n(B).$ Put
\begin{eqnarray}
u_4:=1_{\tilde B_1}+U_1^*x_aU_1\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, u_5:=\prod_{j=1}^m \exp(i H_j),
\end{eqnarray}
where $H_j=\mu_j\cdot 1_{\tilde B_1}+U_1^*h_{0,j}U_1,$ $j=1,2,...,m.$
Note that
\begin{eqnarray}
e_0=f_{\eta}(e_A)f_{\delta/2}(e_B)f_{\eta}(e_A)\lesssim f_{\delta/2}(e_B).
\end{eqnarray}
Choose a sufficiently small $\eta_0>0.$ Then, since $B_1$ is a hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra\, of $M_n(A)$ which
has almost stable rank one, there
is a unitary $U_2\in \tilde B_1$ such
that
\begin{eqnarray}
U_2^*U_1^*f_{\eta_0}(e_0)U_1U_2\in B_0,
\end{eqnarray}
where $B_0=\{{\rm diag}(x, 0,...,0): x\in B\}.$ By choosing small $\eta_0,$ one obtains
another unitary $u_6\in 1_{\tilde B}+y_0$ such
that $y_0\in B_0,$
\begin{eqnarray}
\|y_0-U_2^*U_1^*x_aU_1U_2\|<\varepsilon/2,\,\,
\|u_6-U_2^*u_4U\|<\varepsilon/2\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, \|u_6-U_2^*u_5U_2\|<\varepsilon/2.
\end{eqnarray}
Since $U_2^*u_5U_2\in U_0(\tilde B_1),$ $u_6\in U_0(\tilde B_1).$
By Lemma
\begin{eqnarray}
1_{\tilde B}+y_0\in U_0(B)
\end{eqnarray}
\fi
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{C2}
Let $A$ be a separable regular simple $C^*$-algebra. Then
the map
\begin{eqnarray}
U(M_n(\tilde A))/U_0(M_n(\tilde A))\to U(M_{n+1}(\tilde A))/U_0(M_{n+1}(\tilde A))
\end{eqnarray}
is an isomorphism. In particular, $U(\tilde A)/U_0(\tilde A)=K_1(A).$
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
The finite case follows immediately from Theorem \ref{TK1}.
Suppose that $A$ is a purely infinite simple $C^*$-algebra. By the comment before Remark 3.1
of \cite{BP95}, $eAe$ is extremally rich for any projection $e\in A.$ Applying Proposition 5.4
of \cite{BP95}, one concludes that $A$ is extremally rich. Since $\mathbb{C}$ has stable rank one,
by Proposition 6.8 of \cite{BP95}, $\tilde A$ is extremally rich. By \cite{Z}, $A$ has real rank zero,
and, hence,
$\tilde A$ has real rank zero. By theorem 6.10 of \cite{BP2}, the corollary follows (when $A$
is a purely infinite
simple $C^*$-algebra).
\iffalse
, and $u\in U(M_n(\tilde A))$ for some $n>1.$
By multiplying a scalar unitary matrix, we may assume that
$u\in 1+ M_n(A).$ Since $A$ is purely infinite, by \cite{Z}, it has real rank zero,
therefore, for any $1>\varepsilon>0,$ there is a projection $p$ of the form ${\rm diag}(e,e,...,e)$
($e$ repeats $n$ times).
for some projection $e\in A,$ and a unitary $v\in pM_n(A)p$
such that $\|u-z\|<\varepsilon,$ where $z=(1_{M_n}-p)+v.$ Since $pM_n(A)p$ is a unital purely infinite
simple $C^*$-algebra\, there is a continuous path $\{v(t): t\in [0,1]\}\subset pM_n(A)p$
such that $v(0)=v$ and $v(1)={\rm diag}(v_1,e,....,e),$ where $v_1\in U(eAe).$
This implies that from $U(A)/U_0(A)$ to $U(M_n(A))/U_0(M_n(A))$ is surjective.
The injectivity follow from Theorem 1.9 of \cite{Cu} and \cite{BP}.
\fi
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{C3}
Let $A$ be a separable simple ${\cal Z}$-stable $C^*$-algebra. Then
the map
\begin{eqnarray}
U(M_n(\tilde A))/U_0(M_n(\tilde A))\to U(M_{n+1}(\tilde A))/U_0(M_{n+1}(\tilde A))
\end{eqnarray}
is an isomorphism. In particular, $U(\tilde A)/U_0(\tilde A)=K_1(A).$
\end{cor}
\iffalse
\section{One-dimensional NCCWs}
\iffalse
\begin{lem}\label{Lboundary}
Let $A$ be a $C^*$-algebra, $e\in A$ be a nonzero projection and $a\in C([0,1], A)$ be such that
$0\le a\le 1,$ $a(0)$ is a projection, and $a(0)\ge e.$
Then, there exists $1>\delta>0$ and a unitary $u\in C([0,\delta], A)^\sim$ (if $A$ is unital,
$u\in C([0,\delta], A)$) such
that
\begin{eqnarray}
u^*e'u\in B_0\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, u(0)=1,
\end{eqnarray}
where $B_0$ is the hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra\, of $C([0,\delta], A)$
generated by $a|_{[0,\delta]}$ and $e'(t)=e$ for all $t\in [0, \delta].$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $0<\eta<1/4.$
Then, there is $0<\delta<1/2$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\|e'-a(t)^{1/2}e a(t)^{1/2}\|<\eta/2\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, t\in [0,\delta].
\end{eqnarray}
Let $e'(t)=e$ for all $t\in [0,\delta].$
Put $c=a(t)^{1/2}ea(t)^{1/2}|_{[0, \delta]}.$ There is a continuous function $g\in C_0((0,1])$
with $0\le g\le 1$ $g(t)=1$ for all $t\in [3/4,1]$ such that
$q:=g(c)$ is a projection
\begin{eqnarray}
\|e'-g(c)\|<\eta.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that $q(0)=g(c(0))=c(0)=e$ and $q=g(c)\in B_0.$
Put, for $t\in [0,\delta],$
\begin{eqnarray}
z(t)=1-e'(t)-q(t)+2eq(t)
\end{eqnarray}
Then $u(t)=z(t)|z(t)|^{-1}$ ($t\in [0,\delta]$) is a unitary such
that
\begin{eqnarray}
u(t)eu(t)^*=q(t)\in B_0.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that $z(0)=1.$ Therefore $u(0)=1.$
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{Loldlemma}
Let $p\in C([0,1], M_n)\subset C([0,1], {\cal K})$ and $q$ in $C([0,1], {\cal K})$
be projections.
Suppose that $p$ and $q$ have the same rank and $u_0,\, u_1\in {\tilde{\cal K}}$
are unitaries such that
\begin{eqnarray}
u_0^*p(0)u_0=q(0)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, u^*_1p(1)u_1=q(1).
\end{eqnarray}
Then there is a unitary $u\in C([0,1], {\cal K})^\sim$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}
u(0)=u_0,\,\, u(1)=u_1\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, u^*pu=q.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let us prove first the case that $p, q\in C([0,1], M_n)$ and $u_0, v_0\in M_n$
for some integer $n\ge 1.$
Step 1: Note any unitary in $M_n$ has a gap at least $d=\pi/n.$
Choose $\delta>0$ in Lemma 2.6.11 of \cite{Linbook}
associated with $\varepsilon=1/16.$
Let $0=t_0<t_1<\cdots <t_m=1$ be a partition of $[0,1]$
such that
$\|q(t)-q(t')\|<\delta/2$ and $\|p(t)-p(t')\|<\delta/2,$
if $t, t'\in [t_{i-1}, t_i],$ $i=1,2,...,n.$
We may assume that $\delta<\varepsilon.$
There are unitaries $v_i\in M_n$ with $v_0=u_0$ and $v_m=u_1$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{oldlemma-1}
v_i^*p(t_i)v_i=q(t_i),\,\,i=0,1,...,m.
\end{eqnarray}
Note
\begin{eqnarray}
\|v_{i+1}v_i^*p(t_i)-p(t_i)v_{i+1}v_i^*\|<\delta/2,\,\,i=0, 1,...,n.
\end{eqnarray}
By Cor. 1.17 of \cite{Lincbms}, there exists a $z_i(t)\in C([t_{i-1}, t_i], M_n),$ $i=1,2,...,n,$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}
z_i(t_i)=v_iv_{i-1}^*,\, \, z_i(t_{i-1})=1_n,\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\,\\\label{oldlemma-2}
\|z_i(t)p(t_{i-1})-p(t_{i-1})z_i(t)\|<\varepsilon\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, t\in [t_{i-1}, t_i].
\end{eqnarray}
Define $w(t)=z_i(t)v_{i-1}$ for $t\in [t_{i-1}, t_i],$ $i=1,2,...,n.$
Then $w(0)=v_0=u_0,$ $u(t_i)=z_i(t_i)v_{i-1}=v_i,$ $i=1,2,...,n.$
So $w\in C([0,1], M_n)$ is a unitary, and by \eqref{oldlemma-1} and \eqref{oldlemma-2} such that
\begin{eqnarray}
w^*(t)p(t)w(t)\approx_{\delta/2} v_{i-1}^*z_i(t)p(t_{i-1})z_i(t)^*z_{i-1}\approx_{\varepsilon} v_{i-1}^*p(t_{i-1})v_{i-1}\\
=q(t_{i-1})\approx_{\delta/2} q(t)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, t\in [t_{i-1}, t_i],\,\,i=1,2,...,n.
\end{eqnarray}
In other words,
\begin{eqnarray}
\|w(t)^*p(t)w(t)-q(t)\|<2\varepsilon\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, t\in [0,1].
\end{eqnarray}
Moreover,
\begin{eqnarray}
w(0)^*p(0)w(0)=v_0^*p(0)v_0=q(0)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, w(1)^*p(1)w(1)=q(1)
\end{eqnarray}
Step 2: Put $p'=w^*pw$ and
$x:=1_n-p'-q+2p'q.$ Then $z$ is invertible in $C([0,1], M_n).$ Put $z:=x|x|^{-1}$ and $u=zw.$
Then $z\in C([0,1], M_n)$ is a unitary such that
\begin{eqnarray}
u^*pu=z^*p'z=q.
\end{eqnarray}
Moreover
\begin{eqnarray}
x(0)=1_n-w^*(0)p(0)w(0)-q(0)+2w^*(0)p(0)w(0)q(0)=1_n\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\,
x(1)=1_n.
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore $z(0)=1_n=z(1).$
Hence $u(0)=z(0)w(0)=w(0)=u_0$ and $u(1)=z(1)w(1)=v_n=u_1.$
Step 3: Now consider the general case.
Write $u_0=\lambda_1+x_0$ and $u_1=\lambda_2+x_1,$
where $|\lambda_1|=|\lambda_2|=1$ and $x_0, x_1\in {\cal K}.$
By replacing $u_0$ by $\lambda_0^*u_0$ and $u_1$ by $\lambda_1^*u_1,$
we may assume that $\lambda_0=\lambda_1=1.$
Let $1/2^6>\varepsilon>0.$
Choose $0<\delta<\varepsilon$ such that, if $t-t'|<\delta,$
\begin{eqnarray}
\|p(t)-p(t')\|<\varepsilon/2\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, \|q(t)-q(t')\|<\varepsilon/2.
\end{eqnarray}
There is a projection $q_1\in C([0,1], M_N)$ for some $N\ge 1$
such that $\|q_1-q\|<\varepsilon.$
Consider projections $e_n=1_{M_n}\in {\cal K},$ $n=1,2,....$
Since $\lim_{n\to\infty}\|e_nx_i-x_ie_n\|=0,$ $i=0,1,$
a standard argument shows that there are unitaries
$u_0'=1+x_0'$ and $u_1'=1+x_1'$ such that $x_0', x_1'\in M_{N_1}$ for some integer $N_1\ge 1$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\|u_0'-u_0\|<\varepsilon/4\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, \|u_1'-u_1'\|<\varepsilon/4.
\end{eqnarray}
We may assume that $N_1=N.$
Put $u_{0,1}=E_Nu_0'E_N$ and $u_{1,1}=E_Nu_1'E_N.$
Thus we obtain a projection $q_2\in C([0,1], M_N)$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\|q_2-q\|<2\varepsilon, \,\, (u_0')^*p(\delta)u_0'=q_2(\delta)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, (u_1')^*p(1-\delta)u_1'=q_2(1-\delta).
\end{eqnarray}
By what has been proved, we obtain a unitary
$z\in C([\delta,1-\delta], M_N)$ with $z(\delta)=u_{0,1}$ and $z(1-\delta)=u_{1,1}$
such that $z^*pz|_{[\delta, 1-\delta]}={q_2}|_{[\delta, 1-\delta]}.$
There is a unitary $w\in C([0,1], {\cal K})^\sim$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}
w(0)=u_0,\, \, w(t)=(1-E_n)+z(t)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, t\in [\delta, 1-\delta], w(1)=u_1\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\,\\
\|w(t)-w(0)\|<\varepsilon\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, t\in [0,\delta]\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, \|w(t)-w(1)\|<\varepsilon\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, t\in [1-\delta, 1].
\end{eqnarray}
We then have
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
\|w^*pw-q\|<6\varepsilon<1/2, \,\,w(0)^*p(0)q(0)=u_0^*p(0)u_0=q(0)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, w(1)^*q(1)w(1)=q(1).
\end{eqnarray}
Put $p_1=w^*pw$ and
$\zeta=1-p_1-q+2p_1q.$ Then $\zeta$ is invertible.
Put $y=\zeta|\zeta|^{-1}.$ Then $y\in C([0,1], {\cal K})^\sim$ is a unitary
and, with $u=wy,$
\begin{eqnarray}
u^*pu=y^*p_1y=q.
\end{eqnarray}
Moreover,
\begin{eqnarray}
\zeta(0)=1-p_1(0)-q(0)+2p_1(0)q(0)=1-q(0)-q(0)+2q(0)=1\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\,\zeta(1)=1.
\end{eqnarray}
It follows that $y(0)=1=y(1).$
Therefore
\begin{eqnarray}
u(0)=w(0)y(0)=u_0\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, u(1)=w(1)y(1)=u_1
\end{eqnarray}
as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{Lkeyembedding}
Let $A\in {\cal C}_0.$ For any full element $a\in (A\otimes {\cal K})_+$
there exists a full element $e\in A_+$ such that
$e\lesssim a.$ Moreover, there exists a unitary $u\in M(A\otimes {\cal K})$
such that $u^*eu\in {\rm Her}(a).$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Write
\begin{eqnarray}
A=\{ (f,g)\in C([0,1], F_2)\oplus F_1: f(0)=\phi_0(g)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, f(1)=\phi_1(g)\},
\end{eqnarray}
where $F_1$ and $F_2$ are finite dimensional $C^*$-algebra s and $\phi_i: F_1\to F_2$
are homomorphism s, $i=0,1.$
Let $\pi_e: A\to F_1$ be the quotient map, and $\pi_t: A\to F_2$
be the point evaluation at $t\in [0,1].$
We write $F_1=M_{k_1}\oplus M_{k_2}\oplus \cdots \oplus M_{k_l}$
and $F_2=M_{n(1)}\oplus M_{n(2)}\oplus \cdots \oplus M_{n(r)}.$
We also use $\phi_{i,j}: F_1\to M_{n(j)}$ for the composition of $\phi_i$ and
quotient map from $F_2$ to $M_{n(j)},$ $i=0,1.$
Let us retain $\pi_e,\pi_t, \phi_0, \phi_1$ for their stable extensions.
Since $a$ is full, upon replacing $a$ by $f(a)$
for some strictly positive function in $f\in C_0((0,1]),$ we may assume
that $\pi_e(a)$ is a projection and $\pi_e(a)\ge b_e$ for some minimal projection $b_e=(b_{e,1}, b_{e,2},...,b_{e,l})\in F_1$
(such that $b_{e,j}$ is a rank one projection, $j=1,2,...,l$).
For each $t\in [0,1],$
let us write
\begin{eqnarray}
\pi_t(a)=(a_1(t), a_2(t),...,a_r(t)),\,\, {\rm where}\,\, a_i(t)\in (M_{n(i)})_+,
i=1,2,...,r.
\end{eqnarray}
(It is possible that $a_i(0)=0$ for some $i$ and
$a_j(1)=0$ for some $j.$)
Since $a$ is full, $a_i(t)\not=0$ for all $t\in (0,1).$
There is $1/16>\delta>0$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
&&{\rm rank}(a_i(t))\ge {\rm rank}(a_i(0))\,\, {\rm for}\,\, t\in [0, \delta] \,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\,\\
&& {\rm rank}(a_i(t))\ge {\rm rank}(a_i(1))\,\,
{\rm for}\,\, y\in [1-\delta,1],
\end{eqnarray}
for $i=1,2,...,r.$
Write
$\phi_i(b_e)=(b_{i,1},b_{i,2},...,b_{i,r}),$ $i=0,1.$
Note $b_{i,j}=0$ if and only if $\phi_{i,j}=0,$ $i=0,1.$
Applying Lemma \ref{Lboundary},
one obtains unitaries $u_0\in C([0,\delta], F_2\otimes {\cal K})^\sim $ and $u_1\in C([1-\delta, 1], F_2\otimes {\cal K})^\sim$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Lkeyrank-n1}
u_0(0)=1,\,\,u_0*\phi_0(b_e)u_0\in B_0,\,\, u_1(1)=1,\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, u_1^*\phi_1(b_e)u_1\in B_1,
\end{eqnarray}
where $B_0$ is the hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra\, of $C([0,\delta], F_2\otimes {\cal K})$ generated
by $a(t)$ ($t\in [0,\delta]$) and $B_1$ is the hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra\, of $C([1-\delta, 1], F_2\otimes {\cal K})$
generated by $a(t)$ ($t\in [1-\delta,1]$), respectively.
Choose a unitary $u\in C([0,1], F_2\otimes {\cal K})^\sim$
such that $u(t)=u_0(t)$ for $t\in [0,\delta]$ and $u(t)=u_1(t)$ for $t\in [1-\delta, 1].$
Since $u(0)=1=u(1),$ $u\in {\widetilde{A\otimes {\cal K}}}.$
Replacing $a$ by $uau^*,$ without loss of generality, we may assume
that
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi_0(b_e)\in B_0\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, \phi_1(b_e)\in B_1,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\phi_0(b_e)$ and $\phi_1(b_e)$ are viewed as constant projections
in $C([0,\delta], F_2)$ and $C([1-\delta,1], F_2),$ respectively.
Note that $b_{i,j}$ is either a rank one projection or zero, $i=0,1.$
In all cases, since $a$ is full,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Lkeyrank-1}
&&
{\rm rank}(a_i(t))\ge
\max\{1, {\rm rank}(b_{0,i})\}\,\,{\rm for}\,\,t\in (0,\delta]\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\,\\\label{Lkeyrank-2}
&&
{\rm rank}(a_i(t))\ge \max\{1, {\rm rank}(b_{1,i})\},\,\,{\rm for}\,\, t\in [1-\delta,1).
\end{eqnarray}
Define $b(t)=b=(b_1,b_2,...,b_r)\in C([0,1], F_2)$ as follows:
Choose a
rank one projection $b_i'(t)\in C([0,1], M_{n(i)})$
such that, (1) if $b_{0,i}=b_{1,i}=0,$ let $b_i(t)=b_i$ a constant rank one projection;
(2) if $b_{0,i}=0$ and $b_{1,i}\not=0,$ choose a rank one projection $b_{1,i,0}\le b_{1,i},$
then define
$b_i(t)=b_{1,i,0}$ for all $t\in [0,1];$
(3) if $b_{0,i}\not=0$ and $b_{1,i}=0,$ let $b_i(t)=b_{0,i,0}$ for all $t\in [0,1],$
where $b_{0,i,0}\le b_{0,i}$ is a rank one projection;
(4) if $b_{0,i}\not=0$ and $b_{1,i}\not=0,$ choose a rank one projection
$b_{0,i,0}\le b_{0,i}$ and a rank one projection $b_{1,i,0}\le b_{1,i}.$
Define a rank one projection $b_i(t)\in C([0,1], M_{k(i)})$
such that $b_i(t)=b_{0,i,0}$ for $t\in [0,\delta]$ and $b_i(t)=b_{1,i,0}$ for
$t\in [1-\delta,1].$
Define
\begin{eqnarray}
e'(t)=\begin{cases} (1-2t/\delta)\phi_0(b_e)+(2t/\delta) b\, & t\in [0,\delta/2];\\
b & t\in [\delta/2, 1-\delta/2];\\
2(1-t)b/\delta+ 2(t-1+\delta/2)\phi_1(b_e)/\delta & t\in (1-\delta/2, 1].\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
Clearly $e'(t)\in C([0,1], F_2).$
We check that $e'(0)=\phi_0(b_e)$ and $e'(1)=\phi_1(b_e).$ So
$e'(t)\in A.$ Write $e'(t)=(e_1'(t), e_2'(t),...,e_r'(t))$ for $t\in [0,1].$
Note that $e'_i(t)\not=0$ for all $t\in [0,1],$ $i=1,2,...,r.$
It follows that $e'$ is full in $A.$
Note that, in $[\delta/2, 1-\delta/2],$ $e_i'(t)$ is a rank one projection, $i=1,2,...,r.$
In $(0, \delta/2],$ by the construction,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Lkeyrank-10}
e'_i(t)=(1-2t/\delta)(b_{0,i}-b_{0,i,0})+b_{0,i,0} \,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, {\rm rank}(e_i'(t))\le {\rm rank}(b_{0,i}),
\end{eqnarray}
if $b_{0,i}\not=0,$ and,
if $b_{0,i}=0,$ ${\rm rank}(e_i'(t))=1,$ and
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Lkeyrank-11}
e'_i(t)=(2t/\delta)b_{1,i,0}.
\end{eqnarray}
Note since $K_1(A)=\{0\},$ in this case, $b_{1,i}\not=0.$
In $[1-\delta/2, 1],$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Lkeyrank-12}
e'_i(t)= (2(t-1+\delta/2)/\delta)(b_{1,i}-b_{1,i,0})
+b_{1,i,0} \,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, {\rm rank}(e_i(t))\le {\rm rank}(b_{1,i}),
\end{eqnarray}
if $b_{1,i}\not=0,$ and,
if $b_{1,i}=0,$ ${\rm rank}(e_i(t))=1$
and
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Lkeyrank-13}
e_i'(t)=2(1-t)b_{0,i,0}/\delta.
\end{eqnarray}
Then, combining with \eqref{Lkeyrank-1} and \eqref{Lkeyrank-2},
we have, on $[0,\delta/2],$ and $[1-\delta/2, 1],$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Lkeyrank-15}
{\rm rank}(e_i'(t))\le {\rm rank}(a_i(t))\,\,\,i=1,2,...,r,\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\,
\pi_e(e')\le \pi_e(a).
\end{eqnarray}
Since $a$ is full and $e_i'(t)$ is a rank one projection in $[\delta/2, 1-\delta/2],$
$i=1,2,...,r.$
Combining with \eqref{Lkeyrank-13}, working in ${\tilde A},$ applying 3.18 of \cite{GLN},
\begin{eqnarray}
e'\lesssim a.
\end{eqnarray}
Choose $0<\eta<\delta/64.$ Then, since $A$ has stable rank one,
there is a unitary $W\in (A\otimes {\cal K})^\sim$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Lkeyad-10-1}
W^*f_\eta(e')W\in \overline{a(A\otimes {\cal K})a}.
\end{eqnarray}
Note
\begin{eqnarray}
f_\eta(e'(t))=e(t)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, t\in [\delta/2, 1-\delta/2].
\end{eqnarray}
For $t\in [0,\delta/2],$ if $b_{0,i}\not=0,$ by \eqref{Lkeyrank-10},
\begin{eqnarray}
f_\eta(e_i'(t))=f_\eta((1-2t/\delta))(b_{0,i}-b_{0,i,0})+b_{0,i,0}.
\end{eqnarray}
For $t\in [1-\delta/2,1],$ if $b_{1,i}\not=0,$ by \eqref{Lkeyrank-12},
\begin{eqnarray}
f_\eta(e'_i(t))=f_\eta((2(t-1+\delta/2)/\delta))(b_{1,i}-b_{1,i,0})+b_{1,i,0}.
\end{eqnarray}
Choose $\delta_0=\eta/4.$ Then
\begin{eqnarray}
&&1-2t/\delta_0\le 1=f_\eta((1-2t/\delta)) \,\,{\rm in}\,\, [0,\delta_0/2]\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\,\\
&& 2(1-t)/\delta_0\le 1=f_\eta((2(t-1+\delta/2)/\delta))\,\,{\rm in}\,\,[1-\delta_0/2, 1].
\end{eqnarray}
Define
\begin{eqnarray}
e(t)=\begin{cases} (1-2t/\delta_0)\phi_0(b_e)+(2t/\delta_0) b\, & t\in [0,\delta_0/2];\\
b & t\in [\delta_0/2, 1-\delta_0/2];\\
2(1-t)b/\delta_0+ 2(t-1+\delta_0/2)\phi_1(b_e)/\delta_0 & t\in (1-\delta_0/2, 1].\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
Write $e=(e_1,e_2,...,e_r)$ and
$W=(W_1,W_2,...,W_r)$ in $(A\otimes {\cal K})^\sim,$
where $W_j\in C([0,1], {\cal K})^\sim.$
Then, for those $j$ such that both $b_{0,j}\not=0$ and $b_{1,j}\not=0,$
\begin{eqnarray}
W_j^*e_jW_j\in \overline{a(t,j)(A\otimes {\cal K})a(t,j)}.
\end{eqnarray}
If $b_{0,j}=0$ (and $b _{1,j}\not=0$),
then, if $t>\eta/32,$ $(2t/\delta)>(\eta/16)/\delta>\eta.$ So, $f_\eta((2t/\delta)b_{1,j,0})=b_{1,j0}.$
By \eqref{Lkeyrank-11} and \eqref{Lkeyad-10-1},
\begin{eqnarray}
W_j^*b_{1,j,0}W_j|_{[\eta/32, 1] }\in {\rm Her}(a_j(t)|_{[\eta/32, 1]}).
\end{eqnarray}
Note also if $t\in (\eta/32, \delta_0/2),$ $(2t/\delta_0)>{\eta/16\over{\eta/4}}=1/4.$
If $t=\eta/32=\delta_0/8,$ $(2t/\delta_0)=1/4.$
Therefore, for $t\in (\eta/32, \delta_0/2),$
\begin{eqnarray}
W_j^*f_{1/2}((2t/\delta_0)b_{1,j,0})W_j|_{(\eta/32, \delta_0/2]}\in {\rm Her}(a_j(t)|_{\eta/32, \delta_0/2]}.
\end{eqnarray}
But $f_{1/2}((2t/\delta_0)b_{1,j,0})=0$ if $t\in (0, \eta/32].$
It follows that
\begin{eqnarray}
W_j^*f_{1/2}(e_j)W_j|_{(0, 1-\delta]}\in {\rm Her}(a_j)|_{(0,1-\delta]}.
\end{eqnarray}
Put $d_j=W_j^*e_jW_j.$ Then $f_{1/2}(d_j)|_{0, 1-\delta]}\in {\rm Her}(a_j)|_{(0,1-\delta]}.$
Since $e_j\lesssim a_j$ in $C_0((0, 1-\delta])\otimes {\cal K},$ by Lemma \ref{LuniH},
for any $n,$ there is a unitary $X_n\in (C((0, 1-\delta])\otimes {\cal K})^\sim$
such that, for all $n\ge 2,$
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\hspace{-0.6in}X_n^*e_jX_n|_{(\eta/2^{n+5}, 1-\delta]}\in {\rm Her}(a_j)|_{(\eta/2^{n+5}, 1-\delta]},\,\,\,
X_n^*e_j|_{\eta/2^{n+4}, 1-\delta]}=X_{n-1}^*e_j|_{(\eta/2^{n+4}, 1-\delta]}\\
&&\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, X_ne_j|_{(\eta/32, 1-\delta]}=W_j^*e_jW_j|_{(\eta/32, 1-\delta]}.
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, we obtain a partial isometry $w_j\in C((0,1-\delta], {\cal K}^\sim).$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}
&&w_j^*e_j(t)w_j|_{(0,1-\delta]}\in {\rm Her}(a_j|_{(0, 1-\delta]}), \\
&&w_j(t)^*e_j(t)w_j(t)=W_j(t)^*e_j(t)W_j\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, t\in [\delta/2, 1-\delta/2].
\end{eqnarray}
Let $q_j(t)=w_j^*(t)b_{1,i,0}w_j(t)$ for $t\in (0,1].$
For any $0<t_0<\delta/2,$ by Lemma \ref{Loldlemma},
there is a unitary $Z_j(t)\in C([t_0, \delta/2], {\cal K})^\sim$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
Z_j^*(t)b_{1,i,0}Z_j(t)=q_j(t)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, t\in [t_0, \delta/2]\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, Z_j(\delta/2)=W_j(\delta/2).
\end{eqnarray}
By applying Lemma \ref{Loldlemma} again, for any $0<t'<t_0,$ there is a unitary $Z_j^{t'}(t)\in C([t',t_1], {\cal K})^\sim,$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}
{Z^{t'}_j}^*(t)b_{1,i,0}Z_j(t)=q_j(t)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, t\in [t',t_0]\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, Z_j^{t'}(t_0)=Z_j(t_0).
\end{eqnarray}
By repeated application of Lemma \ref{Loldlemma}, we obtain a unitary $Z_j(t)\in C((0,\delta/2], {\cal K}^\sim)$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}
Z_j^*(t)b_{1,i,0}Z_j(t)=q_j(t)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, t\in (0, \delta/2]
\end{eqnarray}
Define $W_j'(t)=W_j(t)$ for $t\in [\delta/2, 1]$ and $W_j'(t)=Z_j(t)$ for $t\in (0,1].$
Then,
\begin{eqnarray}
W_j'(t)^*e_j(t)W_j(t)\in \overline{a(t,j)(A\otimes {\cal K})a(t,j)}.
\end{eqnarray}
If $b_{1,j}=0,$ the same argument produces a unitary $W_j'\in C([0,1), {\cal K}^\sim)$
such that $W_j'(t)=W_j(t)$ for $t\in [0, 1-\delta/2]$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
W_j'(t)^*e_j(t)W_j(t)\in \overline{a(t,j)(A\otimes {\cal K})a(t,j)}.
\end{eqnarray}
Put $W_j'=W_j$ if both $b_{0,j}$ and $b_{1,j}\not=0.$
Define $U=(W_1', W_2', ...,W_r').$
Then
\begin{eqnarray}
U^*eU\in {\rm Her}(a).
\end{eqnarray}
Note that $W_j(t)\in {\cal K}^\sim$ for all $t\in (0,1)$ and $W_j(t)$ is continuous on $(0,1)$ for all $j.$ Moreover,
Note $W_j'(0)=W_j(0)$ and $W_j'$ is continuous at $0,$ if $\phi_{0,j}\not=0,$
and $W_j'(1)=W_j(1),$ and $W_j'$ is continuous at $1,$ if $\phi_{1,j}\not=0.$
One is ready to check that $U\in M(A\otimes {\cal K}).$
\end{proof}
\fi
\begin{lem}\label{LheredC0}
Let $A, C\in {\cal I}_0$ be such that there is an isomorphism
$\phi:A\otimes {\cal K}\cong C\otimes {\cal K}.$
Then there exists an integer $n\ge 1$ and an injective homomorphism\, $\iota: \phi(A)\to M_n(C)$
such that $\iota\circ \phi(A)$ is a full $C^*$-subalgebra\, of $M_n(C)$
and ${\rm Cu}^\sim(\iota)={\rm Cu}^\sim(\operatorname{id}_{\phi(A)}).$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $e_A\in A_+^{\bf 1}$ be a strictly positive element.
Put $A_1=\phi(A).$ Then $A_1$ is a full hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra\, of $C\otimes {\cal K}$
as isomorphisms preserve the full hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra s.
Then $A_1={\rm Her}(\phi(e_A)).$
Write
$$
C=\{(f,b)\in C([0,1], F_2)\oplus F_1: f(0)= \phi_0(a)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, f(1)=\phi_1(a)\},
$$
where $F_1$ and $F_2$ are finite dimensional $C^*$-algebra s, and $\phi_i: F_1\to F_2$
is a homomorphism, $i=0,1.$
Therefore, for each $t\in (0,1),$
$\phi(e_A)(t)$ has finite rank.
Hence there is a strictly positive element
$c\in M_n(C)$ such that $d_\tau(\phi(e_A))\le d_\tau(c)$
for all $\tau\in T(C).$
Working in ${\tilde C}$ if $C$ is not unital,
by 3.18 of \cite{GLN}, $\phi(e_A)\lesssim c$ in ${\rm Cu}(C).$
Note that $\phi(A)$ is full hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra\, $C\otimes{\cal K}.$
Since $C\otimes {\cal K}$ has stable rank one, by Theorem 1.0.1 of \cite{Rl},
there is homomorphism\, $\iota: \phi(A)\to M_n(C)$ such
that ${\rm Cu}^\sim (\iota)={\rm id}_{{\rm Cu}^\sim(C)}.$
Note, if $\iota(c)=0$ for some $c\in C_+,$ then ${\rm Cu}^\sim (\iota)([c])=0.$
Thus, $\iota$ is injective.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{Lminimal}
Let $A, C\in {\cal C}_0$ such that there is an isomorphism
$\phi:A\otimes {\cal K}\cong C\otimes {\cal K}.$
\iffalse
(1) Then there exists an integer $n\ge 1$ and a partial isometry
$w\in (C_0\otimes {\cal K})^{**}$ such that
$wa, aw^*\in C_0\otimes {\cal K}$ for all $a\in \phi(A),$
$waw^*\in M_n(C_0)$ for all $a\in \phi(A)$ and
$w\phi(A)w^*$ is a full hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra\, of $C_0((0,1])\otimes M_n.$
\fi
There is a full hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra\, $C^0\subset C$ and
an embedding
$j: C^0\to A$ which extends to $j^s: C^0\otimes {\cal K}\cong A\otimes {\cal K}$
and ${\rm Cu}^\sim(j)={\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi^{-1}).$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $e_A\in A_+^{\bf 1}$ be a strictly positive element.
\iffalse
Put $A_1=\phi(A).$ Then $A_1$ is a full hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra\, of $C_0\otimes {\cal K}$
as isomorphisms preserve the full hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra s.
Then $A_1={\rm Her}(\phi(e_A)).$
Write
$$
C=\{(f,b)\in C([0,1], F_2)\oplus F_1: f(0)= \phi_0(a)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, f(1)=\phi_1(a)\},
$$
where $F_1$ and $F_2$ are finite dimensional $C^*$-algebra s, and $\phi_i: F_1\to F_2$
is a homomorphism, $i=0,1.$
Therefore, for each $t\in (0,1),$
$\phi(e_A)(t)$ has finite rank.
Hence there is a strictly positive element
$c\in M_n(C)$ such that $d_\tau(\phi(e_A))\le d_\tau(c)$
for all $\tau\in T(C).$
Working in ${\tilde C}$ if $C$ is not unital,
by 3.18 of \cite{GLN}, $\phi(e_A)\lesssim c$ in ${\rm Cu}(C).$
Since $C\otimes {\cal K}$ has stable rank one,
there is a partial isometry $w\in
(C\otimes {\cal K})^{**}$ as described in the lemma.
\fi
Let $\{e_{i,j}\}$ be a system of matrix units for ${\cal K}$ and put $s=\phi^{-1}.$
We note that
$\phi(e_A)$
is a full element of $C\otimes {\cal K}.$
By Lemma \ref{Lkeyembedding},
let $c_0\in C$ be a full element such that there is a unitary $U\in M(C\otimes K)$ such that
$U^*c_0U\in {\rm Her}(\phi(e_A)).$ Let $C^0={\rm Her}(c_0).$
By \cite{Br1}, there is an isomorphism $s_0: C^0\otimes {\cal K}\cong C\otimes {\cal K}.$
Moreover there is a partial isometry $V\in M(C\otimes {\cal K})$ such that $V^*s_0(c_0)V=c_0.$
Let $s: M(C\otimes {\cal K})\to M(A\otimes {\cal K})$ be the extension (of $s.$).
Put $s_1:=s\circ s_0.$ Then $s_1: C^0\otimes {\cal K}\to A\otimes {\cal K}$ is an isomorphism.
Then $s(VU)^*s_1(c_0)s(VU)\in {\rm Her}(e_A).$
Denote by $p_{c_0}$ the range projection of $c_0.$
$s_1(p_{c_0})$ the range projection of $s_1(c_0\otimes e_{1,1}).$
Since the range projection of $c_0\otimes e_{1,1}$ is in $M(C^0)\subset M(C^0\otimes {\cal K}),$
$s_1(e_{1,1})\in M(A\otimes {\cal K}).$ It follows that $w=s(U^*V^*)s_1(e_{1,1})\in M(A\otimes {\cal K}).$
Therefore ${\bar e}_{1,1}:=ww^*=s(U^*V^*p_{c_0}VU)\in M(A\otimes {\cal K}).$
Denote by $p_A$ the range projection of $A\otimes e_{1,1}.$ Then since $U^*c_0U\in {\rm Her}(\phi(e_A),$
$p_A\ge {\bar e}_{1,1}.$ Moreover $p_A\in M(A\otimes {\cal K}).$
Let $P=1-p_A$ in $M(A\otimes {\cal K}).$
Then we may write $1-{\bar e}_{11}=((p_A-{\bar e}_{1,1})\otimes 1)\oplus ({\bar e}_{1,1}\otimes P)$ which
is Murray-Von Neumann equivalent to $((p_A-{\bar e}_{1,1})\otimes 1)\oplus ({\bar e}_{1,1}\otimes 1)=p_A\otimes 1$
in $M(A\otimes {\cal K}).$
Note also $1-s_1(p_{c_0})$ is Murray-Von Neumann equivalent to $1,$ as $s_1(C^0\otimes {\cal K})=A\otimes {\cal K}.$
It follows that there is a partial isometry
$W_1\in M(A\otimes {\cal K})$ such that $W_1^*W_1=(1-s_1(p_{c_0}))$ and $W_1W_1^*=1-{\bar e}_{1,1}$ (see also Lemma 2.5 of \cite{Br1}).
Define $W=W_1\oplus w.$ Then $W\in M(A\otimes {\cal K})$ is a unitary. Set
$j={\mathrm{Ad}}\, W\circ s.$ Note $j(C^0)\subset A$ and
${\mathrm{Cu}}^\sim(j)={\mathrm{Cu}}^\sim(\phi^{-1}).$
\iffalse
For any homomorphism\, $\phi: {\widetilde{D}}\to B$ (for some $C^*$-algebra\, $B$), denote by $\phi$ again
for the extension from ${\widetilde{D}}\otimes {\cal K}\to B\otimes {\cal K}.$
Define $\phi_{C_0}=\phi\circ j: C_0([0,1))\otimes {\cal K}\to B\otimes {\cal K}.$
If $\psi: R \to A$ (for any $C^*$-algebra\,) is a homomorphism\, let $\psi^\sim: \widetilde{D}=\widetilde{R}\to \widetilde{A}$ be the extension.
We will use $\psi_{C_0}:=\psi^\sim\circ j: C_0([0,1))\otimes {\cal K}\to \widetilde{A}\otimes {\cal K}.$
By 2.6 of \cite{GLII}, there is a partial isometry $v\in (C_0\otimes {\cal K})^{**}$
such that $vc, cv^*\in C_0\otimes {\cal K}$ for all $c\in C_0\otimes e_{1,1}$ and
$vcv^*\in \phi(A)$ for all $c\in C_0\otimes e_{1,1}.$
Define $j: C_0\to A$ defined by
$j(c)=\phi^{-1}(vcv^*).$ Note $\phi\circ j(c)=vcv^*$ for all $c\in C_0\otimes e_{1,1}.$
Since $C_0\otimes {\cal K}$ has stable rank one,
the lemma follows.
\fi
\end{proof}
\fi
\section{Comparison in $\tilde B$}
The main purpose of this section is to present Theorem \ref{LcomparisonU}
and Theorem \ref{TBtildC}.
\begin{NN}\label{41}
Let $A$ be a separable simple $C^*$-algebra\, and let ${\tilde{T}}(A)$ be the cone of densely defined
positive lower semi-continuous traces on $A$ equipped with the topology
of point-wise convergence on elements of the Pedersen ideal ${\rm Ped}(A)$ of $A.$
By Proposition 3.4 of \cite{TT}, $\widetilde{T}(A)$ has a Choquet simplex $T_e$ as its base. Let $f$ be a lower semicontinuous affine function
on $\widetilde{T}(A)$ such that $f(t)>0$ for all $t\in \widetilde{T}(A)\setminus \{0\}.$
Then, a standard compactness argument shows that ${\rm inf}\{f(t): t\in T_e\}>0.$
By I.1.4 of \cite{Alf}, together with a standard compactness argument,
one obtains an increasing sequence $f_n\in {\rm Aff}_+(\widetilde{T}(A))$ such
that $\lim_{n\to\infty}f_n(t)=f(t)$ for all $t\in \widetilde{T}(A).$ In other words,
$f\in {\rm LAff}_+(\widetilde{T}(A)).$
Now suppose that $A$ is a finite separable regular simple $C^*$-algebra.
It follows that $M_n(A)$ has almost stable rank one, for all $n\in \mathbb{N}.$
Let us assume that every densely defined 2-quasitrace is a trace.
Then ${\rm LAff}_+({\widetilde{QT}}(A))={\rm LAff}_+(\tilde{T}(A)).$
Let $a\in {\rm Ped}(A)_+\setminus \{0\}.$ Then $C={\rm Her}(a)$ is algebraically simple.
Choose $f\in {\rm Aff}_+(\tilde{T}(A))\setminus \{0\}$ such that $f(\tau)<d_\tau(a)$ for all $\tau\in \tilde{T}(A)\setminus \{0\}.$
Then there is $c\in (A\otimes {\cal K})_+$ such that $d_\tau(c)=f(\tau)$ for all $\tau\in {\tilde T}(A),$ and
$c\lesssim a.$ Since $A$
has almost stable rank one,
by \ref{Pxxxx},
there exists $x\in A\otimes {\cal K}$ such that
$xx^*=c$ and $b:=x^*x\in C_+.$ Note that $d_\tau(b)=f(\tau)$ for all $\tau\in {\tilde T}(A).$ By Theorem 5.3 of \cite{eglnp}, ${\rm Her}(b)$ has continuous scale. Note also that
${\rm Her}(b)\otimes {\cal K}\cong A\otimes {\cal K}.$
In the case that $QT(A)=T(A)$ and $T(A)$ is compact,
the map $f\mapsto f|_{T(A)}$ is affine and continuous, and an order isomorphism
from ${\rm LAff}_+(\tilde T(A))$ onto ${\rm LAff}_+(T(A))$ as ${\tilde T}(A)$ is a convex topological cone with the metrizable Choquet simplex $T(A)$ as its base (note $0\in {\rm Aff}_+(T(A))$--see \ref{Daff}). Therefore, since $A$ is regular (see \ref{Dregular}), in this case, ${\rm Cu}(A)=(V(A)\setminus\{0\})\sqcup {\rm LAff}_+(T(A)).$
\end{NN}
\begin{NN}\label{151}
Throughout this section, $B$ is, unless otherwise stated, a finite separable stably projectionless simple $C^*$-algebra\,
with continuous scale such that
$M_n(B)$ is regular for each integer $n\ge 1,$ and $QT(B)=T(B)$
(for example, $B$ is an exact finite separable simple stably projectionless ${\cal Z}$-stable $C^*$-algebra\, with continuous scale
-- see \ref{Dregular}).
Note that, by (the proof of) Theorem 6.13 of \cite{RS}, $B$ has stable rank at most two.
Also, since $B$ has continuous scale, $T(B)$ is compact (see Theorem 5.3 of \cite{eglnp}).
We also
have, as $B$ is stably projectionless, ${\rm Cu}(B)={\rm LAff}_+(T(B)).$
If $a\in (\tilde B\otimes {\cal K})_+\setminus \{0\},$ $\hat{a}(\tau):=\tau(a)$ for all $\tau\in T(B)$ is a function
in ${\rm LAff}_+(T(B))$
(or for all $\tau\in T(\tilde B)$ as a function in ${\rm LAff}_+(\tilde B)$)
and $\widehat{[a]}(\tau):=d_\tau(a)$ for all $\tau\in T(B)$ is a function ${\rm LAff}_+(T(B))$
(or for $\tau\in T(\tilde B)$ as a function in ${\rm LAff}_+(T(\tilde B))$).
Note that $\widehat{[a]}$ is a lower semicontinuous
affine functions in ${\rm LAff}_+(T(B))$ with values in $(0, \infty].$
Note that, if $a, b\in (B\otimes {\cal K})_+$ and $d_\tau(a)\le d_\tau(b)$ for all $\tau\in T(B),$
then $a\lesssim b$ (recall that $B$ is stably projectionless). In particular, $B$ has strict comparison
for positive elements.
Moreover, if $a, b\in (B\otimes {\cal K})_+$ and $[a]\le [b]$ in ${\rm Cu}^\sim(B),$
then, as $B$ has stable rank at most 2, by Corollary 4.10 of \cite{RS},
\begin{eqnarray}
[a]+2[1_{\tilde B}]\le [b]+2[1_{\tilde B}] \,\,\,{\rm in}\,\, {\rm Cu}(\tilde B).
\end{eqnarray}
It follows that
$d_\tau(a)\le d_\tau(b)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).$
Therefore $a\lesssim b,$ or $[a]\le [b]$ in ${\rm Cu}(B).$ This also implies that ${\rm Cu}(B)$ is
orderly embedded into ${\rm Cu}^\sim(B).$
These facts will be repeatedly used.
\end{NN}
Note that $\tilde B$ is unital.
Suppose that
$B\not={\rm Ped}(B).$ Let $a=d+b,$ where
$d\in M_r(\mathbb{C}\cdot 1_{\tilde B})_+\setminus\{0\}$ and $b\in {\rm Ped}(B)_+.$
Then
$\tau(a)=\infty$ for those $\tau\in {\tilde T}(B)$ which is not bounded (see the last part of 4.9
of \cite{EGLN}).
If $B$ is stable, then $\tau(a)=\infty$
for all $\tau\in {\tilde T}(B).$
Therefore, it is more than convenient
to consider a hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra\, of $B$ which has continuous scale (see \ref{41}).
\begin{df}\label{Dcu=}
Let $A$ be a unital $C^*$-algebra\, with stable rank at most $m$ ($m\ge 1$).
Denote by ${\rm Cu}(A)^{\circeq}$ the set of equivalence classes
of elements in ${\rm Cu}(A)$ with the following equivalence relation:
$x\circeq y$ if and only if $x+m[1_A]=y+m[1_A]$ in ${\rm Cu}(A).$
%
The the map $x\to (x, 0)$ gives an order embedding
from ${\rm Cu}(A)^{\circeq}$ to ${\rm Cu}^\sim (A)$ (see 3.1 of \cite{Rl}, Subsection
4.2 and Corollary 4.10 of \cite{RS}). So, in this unital case, we may view ${\rm Cu}(A)^{\circeq}\subset {\rm Cu}^\sim(A).$
Let $B$ be a non-unital stably finite $C^*$-algebra\, with continuous scale and let $\tau_\mathbb{C}$ be the tracial state of $\tilde B$
that vanishes on $B.$
Define
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm LAff}_+(T(\tilde B))^\diamond=\{f\in {\rm LAff}_+(T(\tilde B)): f(\tau_\mathbb{C})\in \{0\}\cup \mathbb{N}\cup \{\infty\}\}.
\end{eqnarray}
%
%
\iffalse
Recall (see A.5 of \cite{eglnkk0}) that $S(\tilde B)$ is the sub-semigroup of ${\rm Cu}(\tilde B)$ of those
elements $x\in {\rm Cu}(\tilde B)$ which is a supremum of an increasing sequence
$\{[a_n]\},$ where $\widehat{[a_n]}\in {\rm Aff}_+(T(B))$ and $[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(a_n)]<\infty$ and
$[a_n]$ are not represented by projections (see also property O4 in page 5 of \cite{Rl}).
By Theorem A.6 of \cite{eglnkk0}, when $A$ satisfies the assumption of \ref{151},
the natural map $[x]\mapsto \widehat{[x]}$ is surjective from $S(\tilde B)$ onto ${\rm LAff}_+(\tilde B)^\diamond.$
\fi
%
\end{df}
\begin{lem}[Theorem A.6 of \cite{eglnkk0} and Theorem 6.11 of \cite{RS}]\label{TcomparisonintdA}
Let $B$ be in \ref{151}.
Then ${\rm Cu}(\tilde B)^{\circeq}=(K_0(\tilde B)_+\setminus \{0\})\sqcup {\rm LAff}_+(T(\tilde B))^\diamond$
(see lines above Theorem 6.11 of \cite{RS} --also at the end of \ref{Dfep}).
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By the assumption, applying Theorem 6.11 of \cite{RS}, one obtains
${\rm Cu}^\sim(B)=K_0(B)\sqcup {\rm LAff}_+^\sim(T(B))$ (see also
I.1.4 of \cite{Alf} and the first part of \ref{41}). Note that, as in the proof of Theorem 6.13 of \cite{RS},
$B$ has stable rank at most 2. So, the definition of ${\rm Cu}^\sim(B)$ in \cite{RS} coincides with
that in \cite{Rl} (see subsection 4.2 of \cite{RS}).
Let $x, y\in {\rm Cu}(\tilde B)$ which are not represented by projections and are represented
by elements $a, b\in (\tilde B\otimes {\cal K})_+$ such that $[\pi_\mathbb{C}^{B}(a)]=n[1_{\tilde B}]$
and $[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(b)]=m[1_{\tilde B}]$
for some integers $n, m\ge 0,$ respectively. Suppose that $d_\tau(a)=d_\tau(b)$
for all $\tau\in T(\tilde B).$ We will show that $x\circeq y.$ Let $\tau_\mathbb{C}$ be the tracial state of $T(\tilde B)$
which vanishes on $B.$ The condition $d_{\tau_\mathbb{C}}(a)=d_{\tau_\mathbb{C}}(b)$ implies that $n=m.$
It then follows from Theorem 6.11 of \cite{RS} that there exists $k$ ($=2$)
such that (in ${\rm Cu}(\tilde B)$)
\begin{eqnarray}
[a]+n[1_{\tilde B}]+k[1_{\tilde B}]=[b]+n[1_{\tilde B}]+k[1_{\tilde B}].
\end{eqnarray}
Thus $x\circeq y$ (see also Corollary 4.10 of \cite{RS}).
Now consider the case that $[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(a)]=\infty=[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(b)].$
Then, for any $1>\varepsilon>0,$ $f_\varepsilon(a)\in {\rm Ped}(B\otimes {\cal K}).$
Hence
$[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(f_\varepsilon(a))]<\infty.$ Also, there is $0<\eta<\varepsilon,$ as
$[a]$ is not represented by a projection and $B$ is simple,
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau(f_\varepsilon(a))<\tau(f_{\eta}(a))\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
For $\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(b),$ since $0$ is the only non-isolated point of the spectrum of $\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(b),$
one may find $g\in C_0((0,\|b\|])_+$ such
that $[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(g(b))]=[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(f_\varepsilon(a))].$ Let $m:=[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(f_\varepsilon(a))]<\infty.$
Note that $T(B)$ is compact. One then can find $0<\delta<\eta/2$ such that $[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(f_\delta(b))]= [\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(f_\eta(a))]$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau(f_\varepsilon(a)) < \tau(f_\eta(a))<d_\tau(f_\delta(b))\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
Consider $C:=\overline{f_{\delta/4}(b)(B\otimes {\cal K})f_{\delta/4}(b)}$ and let $\{e_n\}$ be
an approximate identity for $B\otimes {\cal K}.$
Then
\begin{eqnarray}
\tau(f_{\delta/4}(b)^{1/2}e_nf_{\delta/4}(b)^{1/2})\nearrow \tau(f_{\delta/4}(b))\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
It follows that (recall $T(B)$ is compact) there is $n_0\ge 1$ such
that, for all $n\ge n_0,$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{TcomparisonintdA-1}
\tau(f_{\delta/4}(b)^{1/2}e_nf_{\delta/4}(b)^{1/2})>\tau(f_{\delta/2}(b))\ge d_\tau(f_\delta(b))> d_\tau(f_\varepsilon(a))
\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
Choose $b'=f_{\delta/4}(b)^{1/2}e_{n_0+1}f_{\delta/4}(b)^{1/2}+g(b).$
Then $[b']\le [b]$ in ${\rm Cu}(\tilde B).$
We also have $[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(b')]=[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(g(b)]=[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(f_\varepsilon(a))]=m.$
It follows from \eqref{TcomparisonintdA-1} that
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau(b')>d_\tau(f_\varepsilon(a))\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
It follows that
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau(b')-m\ge d_\tau(f_\varepsilon(a))-m\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
It follows from Theorem 6.11 of \cite{RS} that in ${\rm Cu}^\sim(B),$
\begin{eqnarray}
(b', m)\ge (f_\varepsilon(a),m)
\end{eqnarray}
which means that, for some integer $k\ge 1,$ in ${\rm Cu}(\tilde B),$
\begin{eqnarray}
[b]+m[1_{\tilde B}]+k[1_{\tilde B}]\ge [b']+m[1_{\tilde B}]+k[1_{\tilde B}]\ge [f_\varepsilon(a)]+m[1_{\tilde B}]+k[1_{\tilde B}].
\end{eqnarray}
Since $B$ has stable rank at most two, by Corollary 4.10 of \cite{RS},
$[b]+2[1_{\tilde B}]\ge [f_\varepsilon(a)]+2[1_{\tilde B}].$
Since the above holds for all $0<\varepsilon<1,$ one concludes that
\begin{eqnarray}
[b]+2[1_{\tilde B}]\ge [a]+2[1_{\tilde B}].
\end{eqnarray}
The same argument also shows that
\begin{eqnarray}
[a]+2[1_{\tilde B}]\ge [b]+2[1_{\tilde B}].
\end{eqnarray}
It follows that $[a]\circeq [b].$
This shows that the map from ${\rm Cu}(\tilde B)^\circeq$ to $(K_0(\tilde B)_+\setminus \{0\})\sqcup {\rm LAff}_+(T(\tilde B))^\diamond$
is an order embedding.
The map is surjective follows from the first part of Theorem A.6 (and Def.~A.5) of \cite{eglnkk0}.
%
%
%
\iffalse
%
Now let $f\in {\rm LAff}_+(T(\tilde B))^\diamond$ be such that $f(\tau_\mathbb{C})=n$ for some integer $n\ge 1.$
Set $g:=(f-n)|_{T(B)}.$ Then $g\in {\rm LAff}_+^\sim(T(B)).$
It follows from Theorem 6.11 of \cite{RS} that there exists $a\in (\tilde B\otimes {\cal K})_+$
with $[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(a)]=m<\infty$ such that $\widehat{[a]}-m=g.$
Then $\hat{a}\in {\rm LAff}_+(T(B))$ and there are $a_k\in (\tilde B\otimes {\cal K})_+$ with
$[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(a_k)]=n[1_{\tilde B}]$ such that $\hat{a_k}\in {\rm Aff}_+(T(B))$ and
$\hat{a}=\sup\{\hat{a_k}: k \}.$
It then follows Theorem 6.11 of \cite{RS} such that $x+m[1_{\tilde B}]=\sup\{[a_n]\}+m[1_{\tilde B}]$
(see also the second paragraph of \cite{RS}), where $m=2.$
Thus there is an element $y\in S(\tilde B),$ where $S(\tilde B)$ is the sub-semigroup
of ${\rm Cu}(\tilde B)$ generated by elements in ${\rm Cu}(B)$ and
those $z\in {\rm Cu}(\tilde B)$ which is a supremum of an increasing sequence
$\{y_n\}$ such that $\hat{y_n}\in {\rm Aff}_+(T(B)),$
such that
$y\circeq x$ (see Theorem A.6 of \cite{eglnkk0}). Since every element $x\in {\rm Cu}(\tilde B)$ which is not represented
by a projection
is a supremum of elements $\{x_n\}$ with $[\pi_C^{B}(x_n)]<\infty,$ we conclude
that, for every $x\in {\rm Cu}^\sim(\tilde B),$ there is $y\in S(\tilde B)$
such that $x\circeq y.$ Then the conclusion follows from Theorem A.6 of \cite{eglnkk0}.
\fi
%
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{Linvdense}
Let $A$ be a $C^*$-algebra\,
which has almost stable rank one.
Suppose
that $a\in M_r(A)$ and $b\in M_r(\tilde A)$ (for some $r\ge 1$).
Then ${\rm dist}(x, LG(M_{2r}(\tilde A))=0,$ where $LG(M_{2r}(\tilde A))$ is the set of invertible
elements in $M_{2r}(\tilde A)$ and $x=\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ 0 & 0\end{pmatrix}.$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
For any $\varepsilon>0,$ by Proposition \ref{Pmatrixsr1}, there is an invertible element $y\in M_r(\tilde A)$ with
the inverse $y^{-1}$ such that $\|a-y\|<\varepsilon.$
Put
\begin{eqnarray}
z:=\begin{pmatrix} y & b\\ 0 & \varepsilon\end{pmatrix}\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, w:=\begin{pmatrix} y^{-1} &0\\ 0 & 1/\varepsilon\end{pmatrix}.
\end{eqnarray}
Then $\|x-z\|<\varepsilon$ and $w$ is invertible and
\begin{eqnarray}
zw=\begin{pmatrix} 1 & b/\varepsilon\\mbox{\large \bf 0} & 1\end{pmatrix}.
\end{eqnarray}
Since $\begin{pmatrix} 0 & b/\varepsilon\\ 0 &0\end{pmatrix}$ is a nilpotent, $zw$ is invertible.
As $w$ is invertible, $z$ is invertible.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{Linvt}
Let $B$ be as in \ref{151}. Suppose that $a,b\in M_r(B)_+$ and $c, d\in M_r(\tilde B)_+$
such that $a\lesssim b$ (in $M_r(B)$) and $c\lesssim d$ (in $M_r(\tilde B)$)
for some integer $r\ge 1.$ Suppose also
that $b\perp d.$
Then, for any $\eta>0$ and $\varepsilon>0,$ there is a unitary $U\in M_{2r}(\tilde B),$ $\delta>0,$
and $h\in {\rm Her}(f_{\delta}(b+d))_+$ with $\|h\|\le 1$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\| U^*f_\eta(a+c)U-h\|<\varepsilon.
\end{eqnarray}
%
\end{lem}
(We identify $M_r(\tilde B)$ with the hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra\,
$\{ \begin{pmatrix} b & 0\\
0 & 0\end{pmatrix}\in M_{2r}(\tilde B): b\in M_r(\tilde B)\}.$)
\begin{proof}
Fix $1>\eta>0.$ There are $x_1\in M_r(B)$ and $x_2\in M_r(\tilde B)$
such that (see \ref{Pxxxx})
\begin{eqnarray}\label{invt-100}
x_1^*x_1=a,\,\,\, x_1x_1^*\in {\rm Her}(b),\,\, \|x_2^*x_2-c\|<\eta/4,\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\,
x_2x_2^*\in {\rm Her}(d).
\end{eqnarray}
Put ${x:=\begin{pmatrix} x_1 & 0\\ x_2 & 0\end{pmatrix}}.$ Then
${x^*x=\begin{pmatrix}{{x_1^*x_1}}+x_2^*x_2 & 0\\ 0 &0\end{pmatrix}}.$
By Proposition 2.2 of \cite{Rr2}, there is $r\in M_r(\tilde B)$
such that $r^*(x_1^*x_1+x_2^*x_2)r=f_{\eta/2}(a+c).$
Let $y=\begin{pmatrix} x_1r & 0\\ x_2 r & 0\end{pmatrix}.$
Then
${y^*y=\begin{pmatrix}f_{\eta/2}(a+c) & 0\\ 0 &0\end{pmatrix}}.$
Let $y=v|y|$ be the polar decomposition of $y$ in $M_{2r}(\tilde B)^{**}.$ By applying Lemma \ref{Linvdense} above
and Theorem 5 of \cite{Pedjot87}, there is, for any $\sigma>0,$ a unitary $W\in M_{2r}(\tilde B)$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
Wf_{\sigma}(|y|)=vf_{\sigma}(|y|).
\end{eqnarray}
We choose a sufficiently small $\sigma$ so that
\begin{eqnarray}
Wf_\eta(a+c)^{1/2}=vf_\eta(a+c)^{1/2}.
\end{eqnarray}
Then
\begin{eqnarray}
Wf_{\eta}(a+c)W^*= vf_\eta(a+c)v^*\le f_{\eta/4}(yy^*).
\end{eqnarray}
Note that
(see I.1.11 of \cite{BH})
\begin{eqnarray}
yy^*=\begin{pmatrix} x_1rr^*x_1^* & x_1rr^*x_2^*\\ x_2rr^*x_1^* & x_2rr^*x_2^*\end{pmatrix}\le 2\begin{pmatrix}
x_1rr^*x_1^* & 0\\ 0 & x_2rr^*x_2^*\end{pmatrix}.
\end{eqnarray}
Thus $yy^*\in {\rm Her}( f),$ where $f:=\begin{pmatrix} b^{1/2} & 0 \\ 0 & d^{1/2}\end{pmatrix}.$
%
%
Put $z:=\begin{pmatrix} b^{1/2} & d^{1/2} \\ 0 & 0\end{pmatrix}.$
Then (recall $b\perp d$)
\begin{eqnarray}
zz^*=b+d\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, z^*z=\begin{pmatrix} b & 0 \\ 0 & d\end{pmatrix}.
\end{eqnarray}
For any $1>\varepsilon>0,$
choose $0<\delta<1/2$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\|f_{\delta}(|z|)Wf_\eta(a+c)W^*f_{\delta}(|z|)-Wf_\eta(a+c)W^*\|<\varepsilon.
\end{eqnarray}
Let $z=u|z|$ be the polar decomposition of $z$ in $M_{2r}(\tilde B)^{**}.$
By Lemma \ref{Linvdense} above and Theorem 5 of \cite{Pedjot87} again, there is a unitary $W_1\in M_{2r}(\tilde B)$ such that
$W_1f_\delta(|z|)=uf_\delta(|z|).$ It follows that
\begin{eqnarray}
W_1 f_{\delta}(|z|)W_1^*=f_{\delta}(b+d).
\end{eqnarray}
Let $h=W_1f_{\delta}(|z|)Wf_\eta(a+c)W^*f_{\delta}(|z|)W_1^*\in {\rm Her}(f_{\delta}(b+d))_+.$ Then $\|h\|\le 1$ and
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
\|W_1W f_\eta(a+c)W^*W_1-h\|<\varepsilon.
\end{eqnarray}
%
%
%
%
\end{proof}
%
%
%
%
%
%
\begin{df}[A.1 of \cite{eglnkk0}]\label{Domega}
Let $B$ be a separable $C^*$-algebra\, with compact $T(B)\not=\emptyset.$
Let $a\in M_n(\tilde B)_+$ define
\begin{eqnarray}
\omega([a])=\inf \{\sup\{d_\tau(a)-\tau(c): \tau\in T(B)\}: 0\le c\le 1\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, c\in \overline{aM_n(\tilde B)a}\}.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that $\widehat{[a]}$ is continuous on $T(B)$ if and only
if $\omega([a])=0,$ and if $a\sim b,$ then $\omega([a])=\omega([b]).$
(see A.1 of \cite{eglnkk0}). If $B$ has continuous scale and $p\in M_n(\tilde B)$ is a projection,
then $\hat{p}$ and $\widehat{1_{M_n(\tilde B)}-p}$ are both lower semicontinuous. Thus both
are continuous.
%
%
\iffalse
Let $p\in M_n(\tilde B)$ be a projection. If $a\in pM_n(\tilde B)p$ and $b\in (1-p)M_n(\tilde B)(1-p),$
then $\omega([a+b])\le \omega([a])+\omega([b]).$
Let $\varepsilon>0.$ There is $c\in {\rm Her}(a+b)_+$ with $0\le c\le 1$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\tau(c)>d_\tau(a+b)-\omega([a+b])-\varepsilon\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
Put $c_1=pcp+(1-p)c(1-p).$ One checks that $c_1\in {\rm Her}(a+b).$ Moreover,
$\tau(c)=\tau(pcp)+\tau((1-p)c(1-p))$ for all $\tau\in T(B).$
Then, for all $\tau\in T(B),$
\begin{eqnarray}
\omega([a+b])+\varepsilon>d_\tau(a+b)-\tau(c)=d_\tau(a)+d_\tau(b)-\tau(pcp)-\tau((1-p)c(1-p))\\
=(d_\tau(a)-\tau(pcp))+(d_\tau(b)-\tau((1-p)c(1-p)).
\end{eqnarray}
Thus $\omega([a+b])+\varepsilon\ge \sup_{\tau\in T(B)}\{d_\tau(a)-\tau(pcp)\}.$
We conclude that $\omega([a+b])\ge \omega([a]).$
\fi
\end{df}
%
%
%
\begin{lem}\label{Lorthog}
Let $B$ be a nonunital simple $C^*$-algebra\, and $a\in M_n(\tilde B)_+$ with $0\le a\le 1$
such that $0$ is not an isolated point of\, ${\rm sp}(a).$
Then, for any $1/2>\delta_0>0,$ there exists $0<\delta<\delta_0$ such that
there is an element
$b\in {\rm Her}(f_{\delta}(a))_+\setminus \{0\}$
such that $b\perp f_{\delta_0}(a)$ and there is a nonzero element $c\in M_n(B)_+\cap {\rm Her}(b)_+.$
Moreover, if $T(B)$ is a nonempty compact set, then
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Lorthog-1}
\inf\{\tau(c): \tau\in T(B)\}>0.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The existence of $b$
follows from the spectral theory immediately.
For the existence of $c,$ note, since $b\not=0,$
$\overline{bM_n(B)b}\not=\{0\}.$ Choose $c\in \overline{bM_n(B)b}_+\setminus \{0\}.$
By the simplicity of $M_n(B),$ $\tau(c)>0$ for all $\tau\in T(B).$ Since
we also assume that $T(B)$ is compact, inequality \eqref{Lorthog-1} holds.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}[Compare Lemma A.3 of \cite{eglnkk0}]\label{LLcomparisonU}
Let $B$ be as in \ref{151} and
$a, b\in M_r(\tilde B)_+$ (where $r\ge 1$ is an integer).
Suppose that $\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(a)\lesssim \pi_\mathbb{C}^B(b)$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau(a)
+4\omega([b])
<d_\tau(b)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
Then, for any $1>\eta>0,$ there exists a sequence of unitaries
$U_n\in M_{2r}(\tilde B)$ and a sequence of elements $h_n\in {\rm Her}(b)_+$ with $\|h_n\|\le 1$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{T48eq}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\|U_n^*f_\eta(a)U_n-h_n\|=0.
\end{eqnarray}
%
In particular, $a\lesssim b.$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let us assume that $0\le a, \, b\le 1.$
It suffices to prove that \eqref{T48eq} holds for $f_{\eta_1}(a)$ in place of $a$ for any $0<\eta_1<1.$
If $[a]$ is represented by a projection,
then $d_\tau(a)$ is continuous. So
\begin{eqnarray}
\inf\{d_\tau(b)-d_\tau(a): \tau\in T(B)\}>4\omega([b]).
\end{eqnarray}
Otherwise,
for any fixed $0<\eta_1<1/2,$
there exist
$\eta_1>\eta_1/2>\eta_2>\eta_2/2>\eta_3>0$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau((a-\eta_1)_+)<\tau(f_{\eta_2}(a))<d_\tau((a-\eta_3)_+) <d_\tau(a)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
Then
\begin{eqnarray}
\inf\{d_\tau(b)-d_\tau(f_{\eta_1}(a)): \tau\in T(B)\}> 4\omega([b]).
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, in both cases, we may assume, without loss of generality\, (replacing $a$ by $f_{\eta_1}(a)$) that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{1131-1}
\inf\{d_\tau(b):\tau\in T(B)\}>d=\inf\{d_\tau(b)-d_\tau(a): \tau\in T(B)\}>4\omega(b).
\end{eqnarray}
By applying Lemma A.2 of \cite{eglnkk0},
one obtains non-zero elements
$b_0\in M_r(B)_+$ and $b_1, {{b'}}\in M_r(\tilde B)_+$ with $b_0\perp b_1$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
&&b_0+b_1\le b',\,\,\, [b'] =[b], \,\,\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(b_1)=\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(b'),\\\label{Ldecomp-n1}
&&2\omega([b])<d_\tau(b_0)<d/2,\,\,\, d_\tau(b_1)>d_\tau(b)-d/2\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B),
\end{eqnarray}
and, for any $c_n'\in M_r(B)_+$ with $c_n'\in \overline{b_1M_r({\widetilde B})b_1}$ and $d_\tau(c_n')\nearrow d_\tau(b_1)$ on $T(B),$
there exists $n_0\ge 1$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Notef1-10}
d_\tau(b_1)-d_\tau(c_n')<\omega([b])+(1/64)\inf\{\tau(b_0):\tau\in T(B)\} \,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
In fact, the proof of Lemma A.2 of \cite{eglnkk0} states that $b'=g_{1, \eta_1}(b)$ for some strictly positive function
$g_{1,\eta_1}$ on $(0, \|b\|]$ as in the proof of Lemma A.2 of \cite{eglnkk0} (we replace $a$ by $b$ and $a'$ by $b'$).
Recall from A.1 of \cite{eglnkk0} that $\omega([b'])=\omega([b]).$
Moreover, $[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(b_1)]=[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(b)].$
Replacing $b$ by $b',$ without loss of generality, we may assume that $b_0+b_1\le b.$
We may also assume $0\le b_0+b_1\le b\le 1.$
Note, for any integer $m\ge 1,$ that $b_0+b_1^{1/m}\le b_0^{1/m}+b_1^{1/m}=(b_0+b_1)^{1/m}\le b^{1/m}.$
By choosing large $m,$ we may assume that $\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(b_1^{1/m})=\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(b^{1/m})=p_1$ is a projection.
Replacing $b_1$ by $b_1^{1/m}$ and $b$ by $b^{1/m},$
we may further assume that $\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(b_1)=\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(b)=p_1.$
Similarly, we may assume that $\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(a):=p_2$ is also a projection. Since $\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(a)\lesssim \pi_\mathbb{C}^B(b),$
there is a scalar matrix $U_0\in M_r(\mathbb{C} \cdot 1_{\tilde B})$
such that $\pi_\mathbb{C}^{B}(U_0^*aU_0)\le p_1.$ Hence we may also assume that $p_2\le p_1.$
We may further assume that there are integers $m_2\le m_1$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
p_i={\rm diag}(\overbrace{1,1,...,1}^{m_i},0,\cdots, 0),\,\,\,i=1,2.
\end{eqnarray}
Let $P_i={\rm diag}(\overbrace{1_{\tilde B}, 1_{\tilde B},...,1_{\tilde B}}^{m_i},0,\cdots 0),$ $i=1,2.$
Put $d_0=\inf\{\tau(b_0):\tau\in T(B)\}.$ Note that the above
holds for the case that $\omega([b])=0.$
Note that $(b_1-1/n)_+\le b_1$ and $d_\tau((b_1-1/n)_+)\nearrow d_\tau(b_1),$
so
by \eqref{Notef1-10},
for some $\delta_1>0,$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Notef1-11+}
d_\tau(b_1)-d_\tau(f_{\delta}(b_1))<\omega([b])+d_0/64\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B)
\end{eqnarray}
and
all
$0<\delta<\delta_1.$
We also assume $\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(f_\delta(b_1))=p_1$ ($0<\delta\le \delta_1$).
\iffalse
Since $f_\delta(b_1)f_{\delta/2}(b_1)=f_\delta(b_1),$
this also implies that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Notef1-11}
d_\tau(b_1)-\tau(f_{\delta}(b_1))<\omega(b)+d_0/64\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B)
\end{eqnarray}
for all $0<\delta<\delta_1/2.$
\fi
\iffalse
Put $g(t)=t$ for $t\in [0,1]$ and $g(t)=1$ for $t\ge 1.$
Consider $g(a)$ and $g(b).$ We note that $0$ is still a limit point of the spectrum of $g(a)$ and $g(b).$
Now $\|g(a)\|, \|g(b)\|\le 1.$ Note that $\pi(g(a))=\pi(a)$ and $\pi(g(b))=\pi(b).$
Let
\begin{eqnarray}
d=\inf\{d_\tau(b)-f(\tau): \tau\in T(B)\}>0.
\end{eqnarray}
Since $d_\tau(b)$ is continuous on $T(B),$ there is $\delta_0>0$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Notef1-3}
0<d_\tau(b)-\tau(f_\delta(b))<d/16\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
By applying Lemma ,
\fi
Let $\{e_n\}$ be an approximate identity for $B$
such that $e_ne_{n+1}=e_{n+1}e_n=e_n,$ $n=1,2,....$
Put
\begin{eqnarray}\label{48-eq1202-1}
E_n
{\rm diag}(e_n, e_n,...,e_n)\in M_r(B),\,\,\, n=1,2,....
\end{eqnarray}
Then $\{E_n\}$ is an approximate identity for $M_r(B),$ and
for all $i$ and $n,$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{LcomparisonU-10}
E_nP_i=P_iE_n\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, E_n(1-E_k)=0=(1-E_k)E_n, \,{\rm if}\,\, \,\,k\ge n+1.
\end{eqnarray}
We have $b_1^{1/2}E_nb_1^{1/2}\nearrow b_1$ (in the strict topology). Let $c_n= E_n^{1/2}b_1E_n^{1/2},$ $n=1,2,....$
It follows that $d_\tau(c_n)\nearrow d_\tau(b_1)$ on $T(B).$
By the construction of $b_1,$ there exists $n_0\ge 1$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Notef1-8n}
d_\tau(b_1)-d_\tau(b_1^{1/2}E_nb_1^{1/2})=d_\tau(b_1)-d_\tau(c_n)<\omega([b])+d_0/64
\end{eqnarray}
for all $\tau\in T(B)$ and for all $n\ge n_0.$
One then computes, by \eqref{Notef1-8n}, \eqref{Ldecomp-n1} and \eqref{1131-1}, that, for $n\ge n_0,$
for all $\tau\in T(B),$
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
&&\hspace{-0.4in}d_\tau(c_n)>d_\tau(b_1)-\omega([b])-d_0/64>d_\tau(b)-d/2-\omega([b])-d_0/64\\\label{Notef1-8}
&&>d_\tau(a)+d/2-\omega([b])-d_0/64>d_\tau(a)+d/4-d_0/64>d_\tau(a).
\end{eqnarray}
Since $0\le a\le 1$ and $\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(a)=\pi_\mathbb{C}^{B}(P_2),$ for any $0<\eta<1/2,$
$\pi_\mathbb{C}^{B}(f_{\eta/2}(a))=\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(a)=p_2.$
Put $a_k=E_k f_{\eta/2}(a)E_k,$ $k=1,2,....$ Then, by \eqref{Notef1-8},
$a_k\lesssim c_n$ for any $k\ge 1$ and $n\ge n_0,$
as $B$ has the strict comparison.
On the other hand,
since $\pi_\mathbb{C}^{B}(f_{\eta/2}(a))=\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(a)=\pi_\mathbb{C}^{B}(P_2)$ and
$\pi_\mathbb{C}^{B}(b_1)=\pi_\mathbb{C}^{B}(P_1),$
$$
b_1=P_1+b_{00},\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, f_{\eta/2}(a)=P_2+a_{00}
$$
for some $b_{00}, a_{00}\in M_r(B)_{s.a.}.$
For any $\varepsilon>0,$ there is $k_{00}\ge 1$ such that, if $k\ge k_{00},$
$$
(1-E_k)b_1\approx_{\varepsilon} (1-E_k)P_1\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, E_k^{1/2}b_{00}\approx_\varepsilon b_{00} \approx_\varepsilon b_{00}E_k^{1/2}\approx_{\varepsilon} E_k^{1/2}b_{00}E_k^{1/2}
$$
Thus, by also \eqref{LcomparisonU-10}, $E_k(P_1+b_{00})=E_k^{1/2}P_1E_k^{ 1/2}+ E_kb_{00}\approx_{3\varepsilon} E_k^{1/2}b_1E_k^{1/2}.$
%
Therefore, (with a similar consideration for $P_2+a_{00}$)
\begin{eqnarray}\label{LcomparisonU-11}
&& \lim_{k\to\infty}\|(E_k^{1/2}b_1E_k^{1/2}+(1-E_k)^{1/2}P_1(1-E_k)^{1/2})-b_1\|=0\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, \\\label{LcomparisonU-12}
&& \lim_{k\to\infty}\|(E_k^{1/2}f_{\eta/2}(a)E_k^{1/2}+(1-E_k)^{1/2}P_2(1-E_k)^{1/2})-f_{\eta/2}(a)\|=0.
\end{eqnarray}
Put $x_k:=E_k^{1/2}f_{\eta/2}(a)E_k^{1/2}+(1-E_k)^{1/2}P_2(1-E_k)^{1/2}$ and $y_k:=E_k^{1/2}b_1E_k^{1/2}+(1-E_k)^{1/2}P_1(1-E_k)^{1/2},$ $k=1,2,....$
Since $y_n\to b_1,$ we may also assume (by Proposition 2.2 of \cite{Rr2})
that, for all $n\ge n_0,$
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{\delta_1/8}(y_n)\lesssim b_1.
\end{eqnarray}
Since, for any fixed $\delta_0>0,$
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{k\to\infty}\|f_{\delta_0}(y_k)-f_{\delta_0}(b_1)\|=0,
\end{eqnarray}
we may assume, without loss of generality, for all $k\ge 1,$ $\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(f_{\delta_1/2}(y_k))=p_1=\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(f_{\delta_1/2}(b_1))$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
\tau(f_{\delta_1/2}(y_k))\ge \tau(f_{\delta_1/2}(b_1))-d_0/64 \,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
It follows
by
\eqref{Notef1-11+} (with $\delta=\delta_1/2$) that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Notef1-19}
\tau(f_{\delta_1/2}(y_k))>d_\tau(b_1)-\omega([b])-3d_0/64\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
Since $M_r(B)$ has continuous scale, there is $k_0\ge n_0$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Notef1-20}
d_\tau(1-E_{n})\le \tau(1-E_{n-1})<{{d_0/64}} \,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, \,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, n\ge k_0.
\end{eqnarray}
It follows that, for $k\ge k_0,$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Notef1-21}
&&\tau(f_{\delta_1/2}(y_k))\le d_\tau(y_k)\le d_\tau(c_k)+d_0/64\\
&&=d_\tau(b_1^{1/2}E_kb_1^{1/2})+d_0/64\le d_\tau(b_1)+d_0/64 \,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
Let $g_{\delta_1}\in C_0((0,1])_+$ with $1\ge g(t)>0$ for all $t\in (0, \delta_1/4),$
$g_{\delta_1}(t)\ge t$ for $t\in (0, \delta_1/16),$ $g_{\delta_1}(t)=1$ for $t\in (\delta_1/16, \delta_1/8)$
and $g_{\delta_1}(t)=0$ if $t\ge \delta_1/4.$
Since $g_{\delta_1}(y_k)f_{\delta_1/2}(y_k)=0,$ by
\eqref{Notef1-21},
we conclude that, for $k\ge k_0,$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Notef1-22}
d_\tau(g_{\delta_1}(y_k))+\tau(f_{\delta_1/2}(y_k))\le d_\tau(y_k)\le d_\tau(b_1)+d_0/64\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
Then, by \eqref{Notef1-19} and \eqref{Ldecomp-n1}, for all $k\ge k_0,$
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau(g_{\delta_1}(y_k))&\le&(d_\tau(b_1)-\tau(f_{\delta_1/2}(y_k)))+d_0/64\\\label{Notef1-22+}
&\le & \omega([b])+3d_0/64+d_0/64=\omega([b])+d_0/16<d_0
\end{eqnarray}
for all $ \tau\in T(B).$
Moreover, since $\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(y_k)=p_1=\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(f_{\delta_1/2}(y_k))$ for
all $k,$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Notef1-19+}
g_{\delta_1}(y_k)\in M_r(B).
\end{eqnarray}
It should be noted and will be used later that, for any $0\le x\le 1,$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Notef1-5}
x\le f_{\delta}(x)+g_{\delta_1}(x)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, 0<\delta<\delta_1/8.
\end{eqnarray}
Note, for all $k>n+1\ge n>n_0,$ that $c_n\perp (1-E_k)^{1/2}P_1(1-E_k)^{1/2},$
\begin{eqnarray}
a_{k}\lesssim c_n\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, (1-E_k)^{1/2}P_2(1-E_k)^{1/2}\lesssim (1-E_k)^{1/2}P_1(1-E_k)^{1/2}.
\end{eqnarray}
Put $y_{k,n}':=c_n+(1-E_k)^{1/2}P_1(1-E_k)^{1/2},$ $k=1,2,....$
There exists a function $\chi\in C_0((0,\|a\|)$ with $0\le \chi\le 1$ such
that $\chi(f_{\eta/2})=f_\eta.$
For any $\varepsilon>0,$ there exists $\delta_2>0$ such that, if $0\le e_1,e_2\le 1$
be elements in a $C^*$-algebra\, with $\|e_1-e_2\|<\delta_2,$ then
$\|\chi(e_1)-\chi(e_2)\|<\varepsilon/32.$
By Lemma \ref{Linvt}, for any fixed
$k\ge n+1>n\ge n_0,$
there are $\delta_k>0$ and a unitary
$V\in M_{2r}(\tilde B)$ and
$h_k\in {\rm Her}(f_{\delta_k}(y_{k,n}'))_+$ with $\|h_k\|\le 1$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{LcomparisonU-30}
\|V^*f_{\eta/2}(x_k)V-h_k\|<\min\{\varepsilon/32, \delta_2\}.
\end{eqnarray}
By \eqref{LcomparisonU-12}, choose $k_{m,1}\ge k_0$ such that, for all $k\ge k_{m,1},$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{LcomparisonU-31}
\|\chi(f_{\eta/2}(x_k))-\chi(f_{\eta/2}(a))\|<\varepsilon/32.
\end{eqnarray}
Thus we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{1130-eq-1}
\|V^*f_{\eta}(a)V-\chi(h_k)\|<3\varepsilon/32.
\end{eqnarray}
\iffalse
Fix an $\eta>0.$
Then there exists $k_1\ge k_0+2$ such that, since $\lim_{k\to\infty}\|y_k-a\|=0,$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Notef1-26}
(a-\eta)_+\lesssim y_k=E_kaE_k+(1-E_k)P_2(1-E_k).
\end{eqnarray}
Note that this holds regardless of whether $\langle a\rangle$ represented by a projection or not.
Fix any $n\ge k_0\ge n_0,$.
By
\eqref{Notef1-8},
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau(E_kaE_k)&=&d_\tau(a^{1/2}E_k^2a^{1/2})\le d_\tau(a)
<d_\tau(c_n)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B)
\end{eqnarray}
{{and}} for any $k.$
Since $B$ has strict comparison,
\begin{eqnarray}
E_kaE_k{{\lesssim}} c_n
\end{eqnarray}
for any $n\ge k_0$ and any $k.$
Choose $k\ge \max\{k_1, n\}+2.$ In particular, $E_n$ and $(1-E_k)$ are mutually
orthogonal.
Then
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Notef1-30}
(a-\eta)_+ &\lesssim &y_k \lesssim E_kaE_k+ (1-E_k)P_2(1-E_k)\\
&\lesssim & c_n+(1-E_k)P_2(1-E_k) \le c_n+(1-E_k)P_1(1-E_k) \\
&=& c_n+P_1(1-E_k)^2P_1\le c_n +P_1(1-E_n)^2P_1\\
&=& c_n+(1-E_n)P_1(1-E_n)=x_n.
\end{eqnarray}
%
%
%
\fi
%
%
Recall (see \eqref{LcomparisonU-10}), for $n>n_0$ and $k\ge \max\{k_{m,1}, k_0, n+1\},$
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\hspace{-0.4in}y_k'=E_n^{1/2}b_1E_n^{1/2}+(1-E_k)^{1/2}P_1(1-E_k)^{1/2}=E_n^{1/2}b_1E_n^{1/2}+P_1(1-E_k)P_1\\
&&\hspace{-0.2in}\le E_n^{1/2}b_1E_n^{1/2}+P_1(1-E_n)P_1=E_n^{1/2}b_1E_n^{1/2}+(1-E_n)^{1/2}P_1(1-E_n)^{1/2}=y_n.
\end{eqnarray}
By \eqref{Notef1-5},
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Notef1-33}
y_n\le f_{\delta_1/8}(y_n)+g_{\delta_1}(y_n):={\bar y}_n
\end{eqnarray}
Thus $h_k\in {\rm Her}({\bar y}_n).$ Choose $\varepsilon'>0$ such
that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{1130-eq2}
\|f_{\varepsilon'}({\bar y}_n)\chi(h_k)f_{\varepsilon'}({\bar y}_n)-\chi(h_k)\|<\varepsilon/16.
\end{eqnarray}
By \eqref{Notef1-22+}
and the strict comparison of $B,$
$g_{\delta_1}(y_n) \lesssim b_0.$
Recall $b_1\perp b_0$ and $f_{\delta_1/8}(y_n)\lesssim b_1.$
By applying Lemma \ref{Linvt} again, we obtain a unitary $W\in M_{2r}(\tilde B)$ and
${\bar h}\in {\rm Her}(b_1+b_0)\subset {\rm Her}(b)_+$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\|W^*f_{\varepsilon'}({\bar y}_n)W-{\bar h}\|<\varepsilon/8.
\end{eqnarray}
Let $U=VW.$ Then, by \eqref{1130-eq-1}, \eqref{1130-eq2},
\begin{eqnarray}
U^*f_\eta(a)U\approx_{3\varepsilon/32} W^*\chi(h_k)W\approx_{\varepsilon/16} W^*f_{\varepsilon'}({\bar y}_n)\chi(h_k)f_{\varepsilon'}({\bar y}_n)W\\
=W^*f_{\varepsilon'}({\bar y}_n)WW^*\chi(h_k)WW^*f_{\varepsilon'}({\bar y}_n)W\approx_{\varepsilon/4} {\bar h}(W^*\chi(h_k)W){\bar h}.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that ${\bar h}(W^*\chi(h_k)W){\bar h}\in {\rm Her}(b).$ This proves the first part of the lemma.
To see the last part, let $0<\sigma<1/2,$ the first part and Proposition of 2.2 of \cite{Rr2} imply that, for large $n,$
\begin{eqnarray}
f_\sigma(U_n^*f_\eta(a)U_n)\lesssim b.
\end{eqnarray}
It follows that $f_\sigma(f_\eta(a))\sim U_n^*f_\sigma(f_\eta(a))U_n=f_\sigma(U_n^*f_\eta(a)U_n)\lesssim b$
for all $0<\sigma<1/2.$ Hence $f_\eta(a)\lesssim b$ (for all $0\le \eta<1/2$) which implies $a\lesssim b.$
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{1202-1}
Let $B$ be as in \ref{151} and let $a\in M_r(\tilde B)_+$ with $0\le a\le 1.$
Then there exists a sequence $0\le a_n\le 1$ in ${\rm Her}(a)$
such that $[a_n]\le [a_{n+1}],$ $a=\sup\{[a_n]: n\in \mathbb{N}\}$
and $\lim_{n\to\infty}\omega([a_n])=0.$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
If there is a sequence $t_n\in (0,1)$ such that $t_{n+1}<t_n$ and $\lim_{n\to\infty}t_n=0$
and $t_n\not\in {\rm sp}(a)$ for all $n,$ then one obtains an increasing
sequence of projections $\{p_n\}$ such that $p_n\in {\rm Her}(a),$ and such that
for any $0<\varepsilon<1,$ $f_{{\varepsilon}}(a)\le p_n$ for all sufficiently large $n.$ Let $a_n:=p_n.$
Then $\omega([p_n])=0$ and $[a]=\sup\{[a_n]: n\in \mathbb{N}\}.$
Thus we assume that $[0,\eta_0]\subset {\rm sp}(a)$ for some $\eta_0\in (0,1].$
As in the proof of Lemma \ref{LLcomparisonU}, we may assume
that, for some integer $m\ge 1,$
\begin{eqnarray}
\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(a)={\rm diag}(\overbrace{1,1,...,1}^m,0,\cdots, 0):=p.
\end{eqnarray}
Let $P:={\rm diag}(\overbrace{1_{\tilde B}, 1_{\tilde B},...,1_{\tilde B}}^m, 0,...,0).$
Let $\{e_n\}$ and $\{E_n\}$ be as in the proof \ref{LLcomparisonU} of (see \eqref{48-eq1202-1}).
Note that $E_kP=PE_k$ for all $k.$
As in the proof of \ref{LLcomparisonU}, if $0<\eta<\eta_0/16,$ then
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{k\to\infty}\|(E_k^{1/2}aE_k^{1/2}+(1-E_k)^{1/2}P(1-E_k)^{1/2}-a\|=0\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\,\\\label{Lomega-9}
\lim_{k\to\infty}\|(E_k^{1/2}f_{\eta}(a)E_k^{1/2}+(1-E_k)^{1/2}P(1-E_k)^{1/2}-f_{\eta}(a)\|=0.
\end{eqnarray}
Note $\pi_\mathbb{C}^B((1-E_k)^{1/2}P(1-E_k)^{1/2})=p=\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(f_\eta(a)).$
Note also that, since $f_\eta(a)^{1/2}E_kf_\eta(a)^{1/2}\nearrow f_\eta(a)$ (in the strict topology),
$(E_k^{1/2}f_\eta(a)E_k^{1/2})^{\widehat{}}\nearrow \widehat{f_\eta(a)}$ uniformly on $T(B)$ (by Dini's theorem).
We may therefore assume that, if $k\ge k_\eta$ (for some $k_\eta\ge 1$),
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Lomega-20}
(E_k^{1/2}f_{\eta}(a)E_k^{1/2})^{\widehat{}}(\tau)>\widehat{f_{\eta}(a)}(\tau)-\sigma(\eta)/16 \,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\sigma(\eta)=\min\{\inf \{\tau(f_{\eta}(a))-d_\tau(f_{4\eta}(a)):\tau\in T(B)\}, \eta/16\}>0$
(recall $[0,\eta_0]\subset {\rm sp}(a)$).
Moreover, since $M_r(B)$ has continuous scale, we may assume, for all $k\ge k_\eta,$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Lomega-20-1}
{[1-E_{k+1}]}^{\widehat{}}\le (1-E_k)^{\widehat{}}<\sigma(\eta)/16.
\end{eqnarray}
Put $a_{\eta, k}:=E_k^{1/2}f_\eta(a)E_k^{1/2}.$
%
Choose $0<\delta(\eta)<\sigma(\eta)/16r.$ Then, by \eqref{Lomega-20}, for any $k\ge k_{\eta, 1}$
for some $k_{\eta, 1}\ge k_\eta+1,$
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
&&\hspace{-0.4in}\tau( f_{\delta(\eta)}(a_{\eta,k}))\ge \tau((a_{\eta,k}-\delta(\eta))_+)
>\tau(a_{\eta,k}-\delta(\eta))\\ \label{Lomega-21}
&&=\tau(a_{\eta,k})-r\delta(\eta)>
\tau(f_{\eta}(a))-\sigma(\eta)/8\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
By \eqref{Lomega-9} and Proposition 2.2 of \cite{Rr2},
there is $k_{\eta,2}\ge k_{\eta,1}$ such that, for all $k\ge k_{\eta,2},$
there is
$x_{\delta/8,\eta}\in {\rm Her}(f_{\eta}(a))$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{newnumber411}
f_{\delta(\eta)/8}((1-E_k)^{1/2}P(1-E_k)^{1/2}+E_k^{1/2}f_{\eta}(a)E_k^{1/2})\sim x_{\delta/8,\eta}.
\end{eqnarray}
Since $B$ is stably projectionless, for any {{nonzero}} $0\le b\le 1$ in $M_r(B),$
${\rm sp}(b)=[0,1].$ Thus
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Lomega-8}
d_\tau(f_{\delta(\eta)}(a_{\eta,k})))<\tau(f(a_{\eta,k}))<d_\tau(f_{\delta(\eta)/2}(a_{\eta, k}))\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B),
\end{eqnarray}
where $0\le f\le 1$ is in $C_0((0,1])$ such that
$f(t)=1$ for $t\in [\delta(\eta)/2, 1],$ $ f(t)=0$ for $t\in (0, \delta(\eta)/4].$
Since ${\rm Cu}(B)={\rm LAff}_+(T(B)),$ there is
$c_{k,\eta,\delta(\eta)}\in M_r(B)_+$ with $\|c_{k, \eta, \delta(\eta)}\|\le 1$
such that, for all $\tau\in T(B),$ $d_\tau(c_{n,\eta, \delta(\eta)})=\tau(f(a_{\eta,k}))$ which is continuous on $T(B).$
Since $B$ has strict comparison, by \eqref{Lomega-8}, $c_{k, \eta, \delta(\eta)}\lesssim f_{\delta(\eta)/2}(a_{\eta, k}).$
Since
$M_r(B)$ has almost stable rank one, by Lemma \ref{Pxxxx}, we may assume that
$c_{k, \eta, \delta(\eta)}\in {\rm Her}(f_{\delta(\eta)/2}(a_{\eta, k})).$
Note that $(1-E_{k+1})E_k=0$ and $P(1-E_k)^{1/2}=(1-E_k)^{1/2}P$ for all $k.$
In particular, \\
$P(1-E_{k+1})P=(1-E_{k+1})^{1/2}P(1-E_{k+1})^{1/2}\perp a_{\eta,k}.$
By Lemma \ref{Lfolk}, there exists $z\in M_r(\tilde B)$ such that
(see also \eqref{newnumber411})
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
&&\hspace{-0.7in} f_{\delta(\eta)/2}((1-E_{k+1})^{1/2}P(1-E_{k+1})^{1/2})+c_{k, \eta, \delta(\eta)}\le f_{\delta(\eta)/4}(P(1-E_{k+1})P) +f_{\delta(\eta)/4}(a_{\eta,k})\\
&&= f_{\delta(\eta)/4}(P(1-E_{k+1})P) +a_{\eta,k})
\sim z^*z,\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\,\\
&&z^*z\lesssim f_{\delta(\eta)/8}(P(1-E_k)P +a_{\eta,k})\\
&&= f_{\delta(\eta)/8}((1-E_k)^{1/2}P(1-E_k)^{1/2} +E_k^{1/2}f_{\eta}(a)E_k^{1/2})
\sim x_{\delta/8, \eta}\in {\rm Her}(f_\eta(a)).
\end{eqnarray}
Define $b_{k, \eta, \delta(\eta)}:= f_{\delta(\eta)/2}((1-E_{k+1})^{1/2}P(1-E_{k+1})^{1/2})+c_{k, \eta, \delta(\eta)}$ for $k\ge k_{\eta, 2}.$
From the displays above, there is $y_{k,\eta, \delta(\eta)}\in {\rm Her}(f_\eta(a))$ such that $b_{k, \eta, \delta}\sim y_{k, \eta, \delta(\eta)}.$
By \eqref{Lomega-8} and \eqref{Lomega-21}, we have, for $k\ge k_{\eta,2},$ and for all $\tau\in T(B),$
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\hspace{-0.4in}d_\tau(y_{k, \eta, \delta(\eta)})=d_\tau(b_{k, \eta, \delta(\eta)})>d_\tau( c_{k, \eta, \delta(\eta)})\\\label{Lomega-22}
&&\ge {[f_{\delta(\eta)}(E_k^{1/2}f_\eta(a)E_k^{1/2})]}^{\widehat{}}(\tau)\ge \tau(f_{\delta(\eta)}(a_{\eta,k}))>
\tau(f_{\eta}(a))-\sigma(\eta)/8.
\end{eqnarray}
Since ${[c_{k,\eta, \delta(\eta)}]}^{\widehat{}}$ is continuous on $T(B),$ for $k\ge k_{\eta,\delta},$
by \eqref{Lomega-20-1}\\ (recall $f_{\delta(\eta)/2}((1-E_{k+1})^{1/2}P(1-E_{k+1})^{1/2})\perp c_{k, \eta, \delta(\eta)}$),
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Lomega-23}
\omega([y_{k, \eta, \delta(\eta)}])<\sigma(\eta)/16\le \eta/32.
\end{eqnarray}
Combing (recall the definition of $\sigma(\eta)$) \eqref{Lomega-23} and \eqref{Lomega-22}, for all $\tau\in T(B),$
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\hspace{-0.8in}d_\tau(f_{8\eta}(a)) +4\omega([y_{k, \eta, \delta(\eta)}])
\le \tau(f_{4\eta}(a))+4\omega([y_{k, \eta, \delta(\eta)}])
<\tau(f_\eta(a))-\sigma(\eta)+4\omega([y_{k, \eta, \delta(\eta)}])\\
&&<\tau(f_\eta(a))-5\sigma(\eta)/16<d_\tau(y_{k, \eta, \delta(\eta)}).
\end{eqnarray}
We also have
$
[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(f_{2\eta}(a))]\le [\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(f_\eta(a))]=p=[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B((1-E_{k_{\eta,2}})P)]=
[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(y_{k_{\eta,2}, \eta, \delta(\eta)})].
$
By Lemma \ref{LLcomparisonU},
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Lomega-40}
f_{8\eta}(a)\lesssim y_{k_{\eta,2}, \eta, \delta(\eta)}.
\end{eqnarray}
For each fixed $0<\eta<1/8,$ there exists $\mu_\eta>0$
such that (recall $[0, \eta_0]\subset {\rm sp}(a)$)
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Lomega-24}
\tau(f_{\eta/4}(a))>d_\tau(f_\eta(a))+\mu_\eta\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
Choose $0<\eta'<\eta/16$ such that $\eta'<\mu_\eta/4.$
Then, for $k\ge k_{\eta', 2},$ and for all $\tau\in T(B),$ by \eqref{Lomega-22}, \eqref{Lomega-24},
(and recall the definition of $\sigma(\eta')$ and $y_{k_{\eta, 2}, \eta, \delta(\eta)}\in {\rm Her}(f_{\eta}(a))$), and \eqref{Lomega-23},
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\hspace{-0.6in}{[y_{k_{\eta', 2}, \eta', \delta(\eta')}]}^{\widehat{}}(\tau)\ge \tau(f_{\eta'}(a))-\sigma(\eta')/8\ge d_\tau(f_{\eta}(a))+\mu_\eta/2
\ge {[y_{k_{\eta, 2}, \eta, \delta(\eta)}]}^{\widehat{}}(\tau)+\mu_\eta/2\\
&&>{[y_{k_{\eta, 2}, \eta, \delta(\eta)}]}^{\widehat{}}(\tau)+\eta'
\ge {[y_{k_{\eta, 2}, \eta, \delta(\eta)}]}^{\widehat{}}(\tau)+4\omega([y_{k_{\eta',2}, \eta', \delta(\eta')}])\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
Recall $\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(f_{\delta(\eta)}((1-E_k)^{1/2}P(1-E_k)^{1/2}))=p$ for all $k$ and
for all $\delta(\eta)<1/2.$
It follows from Lemma \ref{LLcomparisonU} (or from Lemma A.3 of \cite{eglnkk0})
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{8\eta}(a)\lesssim y_{k_{\eta, 2}, \eta, \delta(\eta)}\lesssim y_{k_{\eta', 2}, \eta', \delta(\eta')}.
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, we obtain a sequence $\{c_n\}$ which is a subsequence of $\{ y_{k_{\eta, 2}, \eta, \delta(\eta)}\}\in {\rm Her}(a)$
(with $\eta\to 0$)
such that
\begin{eqnarray}
[c_n]\le [c_{n+1}]\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, \lim_{n\to\infty}\omega([c_n])=0\,{\rm(see} \,\,\eqref{Lomega-23}{\rm).}
\end{eqnarray}
Put $x=\sup\{[c_n]: n\in \mathbb{N}\}$ (see Theorem 1 of \cite{CEI}). Then, by \eqref{Lomega-40},
$[f_{8\eta}(a)]\le x$ for all $0<\eta<\min\{\eta_0, 1/16\}.$ It follows that $[a]\le x.$
Since each $c_n\in {\rm Her}(a),$
$x\le [a].$ It follows that $x=[a].$
\end{proof}
\iffalse
\begin{lem}\label{Lomegaapp}
Let $B$ be a separable simple $C^*$-algebra\, with nonempty compact $T(B)$ and
let $a\in M_m(\tilde B)_+$ with $0\le a\le 1$ (for some integer $m\ge 1$).
%
Then, for any $1/2>\varepsilon>0,$
there is $1/2>\delta_0>0$ such that, for all $0<\delta_1<\delta\le \delta_0,$
\begin{eqnarray}
\omega([f_\delta(a]))<\omega([a])+\varepsilon\,\,\,\text{and}\,\,\, d_\tau(f_{\delta_1}(a))-\tau(f_{\delta}(a))<\omega([a])+\varepsilon
\,\,\,\text{for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Since $\{f_{1/n}(a)\}$ forms an approximate identity of ${\rm Her}(a),$ there is an integer $N\ge 1$ such that, if $n\ge N,$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Lomegaapp-1}
0<d_\tau(a)-\tau(f_{1/n}(a))<\omega([a])+\varepsilon/2\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
It follows that
\begin{eqnarray}
0<d_\tau(f_{1/n}(a))-\tau(f_{1/n}(a))\le d_\tau(a)-\tau(f_{1/n}(a))<\omega([a])+\varepsilon/2\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
Choose $\delta_0=1/N.$ Then, for any $0<\delta\le \delta_0,$
$\omega([f_\delta(a)])<\omega([a])+\varepsilon.$
By the virtue of \eqref{Lomegaapp-1}, we also have, if $0<\delta_1<\delta\le \delta_0,$
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
0\le d_\tau(f_{\delta_1}(a))-\tau(f_{\delta}(a))<d_\tau(a)-\tau(f_\delta(a))<\omega([a])+\varepsilon.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{proof}
\f
\iffalse
To see (2), from the above, for any $\varepsilon>0,$ there is $\delta_0>0$ such that, for any $0<\delta\le \delta_0,$
\begin{eqnarray}
\tau(f_\delta(a))>d_\tau(a)-\omega([a])-\varepsilon/2\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B),
\end{eqnarray}
and, by Lemma \ref{Lorthog}, there is $0<\varepsilon_0<\min\{\omega([a])/4, \varepsilon/2\}$ and $0<\delta_1<\delta_0/4$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\tau(f_{\delta_1}(a))>d_\tau(f_{\delta_0}(a))+\varepsilon_0\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
Note that,
$\tau(f_{\delta_1}(a)^{1/2}E_n^2f_{\delta_1}(a))\nearrow \tau(f_{\delta_1}(a))$ for all $\tau\in T(B).$
Recall that, any $x\in M_r(\tilde B)_+$ has the form
$x=s+x_0,$ where $s$ is a scalar matrix and $x_0\in M_r(B)_{s.a.}.$ Therefore
$\tau(x)$ is always continuous on $T(B)$ ((note that $\tau(1_{\tilde B})=1$ for all $\tau\in T(B)$).
Now since $T(B)$ is compact, $\tau(f_{\delta_1}(a))$ is continuous on $T(B),$
by the Dini theorem,
\begin{eqnarray}
\tau(f_{\delta_1}(a)^{1/2}E_n^2f_{\delta_1}(a)^{1/2})\nearrow \tau(f_{\delta_1}(a)) \,\,\,{\text{uniformly\,\, on}}\,\, T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore there exists $n_0\ge 1$ such that, for all $n\ge n_0,$
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau(f_{\delta_0}(a))&<&\tau(f_{\delta_1}(a)^{1/2}E_n^2f_{\delta_1}(a)^{1/2})\\
&=&\tau(E_nf_{\delta_1}(a)E_n)
\le
d_\tau(E_naE_n)=d_\tau(c_n)\,\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, for $n\ge n_0,$
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau(c_n)\ge d_\tau(f_{\delta_0})\ge \tau(f_{\delta_0}(a))>d_\tau(a)-\omega([a])-\varepsilon\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
\end{proof}
\fi
%
%
\iffalse
\begin{prop}\label{Pbadingood}
Let $B$ be as in \ref{151} and $b\in (\tilde B\otimes {\cal K})_+.$
Suppose that $[b]\in S(\tilde B).$ Then
there exists a sequence of $b_n\in {\rm Her}(b)$ with $[b_n]\le [b_{n+1}]$
(for all $n$) such that $[b]=\sup\{[b_n]:n\in \mathbb{N}\},$
$[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(b_n)]<\infty$ and $\lim_{n\to\infty}\omega([b_n])=0.$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Since $[b]\in S(\tilde B),$ there exists
a sequence $\{a_n\}\subset (\tilde B\otimes {\cal K})_+$ such that $[a_n]\le [a_{n+1}],$
$[b]=\sup_n\{[a_n]: n\in \mathbb{N}\}$ and $\widehat{[a_n]}\in {\rm Aff}_+(T(B)),$ and $[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(a_n)]<\infty.$
By Proposition 2.2 of \cite{Rr2}, for any $0<\varepsilon_n<1/2^n,$
there exists $x_n\in B\otimes {\cal K}$ such that
$x_n^*x_n=f_{\varepsilon_n}(a_n)$ and $x_nx_n^*\in {\rm Her}(b).$ Put $b_n=x_nx_n^*.$
Note that $b_n\sim f_{\varepsilon_n}(a_n).$ In particular, $[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(b_n)]<\infty.$
Recall $\omega([a_n])=0.$
By choosing sufficiently small $\varepsilon_n$ for each $n,$
applying Lemma \ref{Lomegaapp} (see also the end of A.1 of \cite{eglnkk0}), we may assume
that $\lim_{n\to\infty}\omega([b_n])=0.$ Since $[a_n]\le [a_{n+1}],$
for each $n,$ after $b_n$ is chosen, by choosing even smaller $\varepsilon_{n+1},$ since
$f_{\varepsilon_n}(a_n)\ll a_{n+1},$
we may assume that $[b_n]\le [b_{n+1}].$
\end{proof}
\fi
In the following statement, it should be noted that
we do not assume that $\tilde B$ has almost stable rank one.
One of the features of the following statement is the existence of the unitaries $U_n$
which compensates the absence of the cancellation for our late purposes.
\begin{thm}\label{LcomparisonU}
Let $B$ be as in \ref{151} and
$a, b\in M_r(\tilde B)_+$ (where $r\ge 1$ is an integer).
Suppose that $\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(a)\lesssim \pi_\mathbb{C}^B(b),$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau(a) <d_\tau(b)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
Then, for any $1>\eta>0,$ there exists a sequence of unitaries
$U_n\in M_{2r}(\tilde B)$ and a sequence of elements $h_n\in {\rm Her}(b)_+$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\|U_n^*f_\eta(a)U_n-h_n\|=0.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
First consider the case that $[a]=[p]$ for some projection $p\in M_r(\tilde B).$
Then $d_\tau(a)=\tau(p)$ is continuous on $T(B).$
Put
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma:=(1/2)\inf\{d_\tau(b)-\tau(p):\tau\in T(B)\}>0.
\end{eqnarray}
Since $\tau(f_{1/2^n}(b))\nearrow d_\tau(b),$ as $n\to\infty,$ there exists $n_0\ge 1$ such that,
for all $n\ge n_0,$
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau(a)+\sigma<\tau(f_{1/2^n}(b))\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, [\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(f_{1/2^n}(b))]=[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(b)].
\end{eqnarray}
By Lemma \ref{1202-1},
there exists a sequence of elements $b_n\in {\rm Her}(b)_+$ with $0\le b_n\le 1$ and an integer $N\ge 1$
such that, for all $n\ge N$ (as $[f_{1/2^{n_0+1}}(b)]\ll [b]$),
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{1/2^{n_0+1}}(b)\lesssim b_n \,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, \lim_{n\to\infty}\omega([b_n])=0.
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, there exists $n_1\ge N+n_0,$ for all $n\ge n_1$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{LcomparisonU-50}
d_\tau(a)+4\omega([b_n])<d_\tau(b_n)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, [\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(a)]\le [\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(b_n)].
\end{eqnarray}
Applying Lemma \ref{LLcomparisonU}, for any $\eta>0,$ there exist
a sequence of unitaries $U_n\in M_{2r}(\tilde B)$ and a sequence of elements
$h_n\in {\rm Her}(b_{n_1})_+$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\|U_n^*f_\eta(a)U_n-h_n\|=0.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that $h_n\in {\rm Her}(b_{n_1})_+\subset {\rm Her}(b)_+.$
Next consider the case that $[a]$ cannot be represented by a projection.
It follows that $0$ is not an isolated point.
Fix $0<\eta<1.$ Choose $0<\varepsilon<\eta/4,$ by Lemma
\ref{Lorthog}, there exists $\sigma_0>0$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau(f_{\varepsilon/2}(a))+\sigma_0<d_\tau(f_{\eta/4}(a))<d_\tau(b)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
Choose $b_n\in {\rm Her}(b)_+$ above.
Then, there exists $n_2\ge 1$ such that, for all $n\ge n_2,$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{LcomparisonU-50+}
d_\tau(f_{\varepsilon/2}(a))+4\omega([b_n])<d_\tau(b_n)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, [\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(f_{\varepsilon/2}(a))]\le [\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(b_n)].
\end{eqnarray}
Applying Lemma \ref{LLcomparisonU}, one obtains a sequence of unitaries $U_n\in M_{2r}(\tilde B)$
and a sequence of elements $h_n\in {\rm Her}(b_{n_2})_+\subset {\rm Her}(b)_+$ such
that
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\|U_n^*f_\eta(a)U_n-h_n\|=0.
\end{eqnarray}
Theorem follows.
\end{proof}
\iffalse
Fix an $\varepsilon_0>0.$
Put $a_1=f_{\varepsilon_0}(a).$
Fix $\eta_1>0.$ By applying \ref{Lbt1}, there exists
$\eta_1>\eta_2>\eta_3>0$ and a continuous function $f: \overline{T(B)}^w\to \mathbb{R}^+$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau((a-\eta_1)_+)<f(\tau)<d_\tau((a-\eta_2)_+)<d_\tau(b)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in \overline{T(B)}^w.
\end{eqnarray}
Let
\begin{eqnarray}
d=\inf\{d_\tau(b)-f(\tau): \tau\in T(B)\}>0.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that $\tau(b^{1/k})\nearrow d_\tau(b).$ Since $d_\tau(b)$ is continuous,
there exists $k_0>0$ such that, for all $k\ge k_0,$
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau(b)-\tau(b^{1/k})>d/32\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
By replacing $b$ by $b^{1/k},$ we may assume that
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau(b)-\tau(b)>d/32\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
Note that $\tau(b^{1/k})$ is continuous.
By the same compact argument used in the proof of \ref{Lbt}, there exists $k$ so that
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau((a-\eta_1)_+)<f(\tau)<\tau(b^{1/k})\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in \overline{T(B)}^w.
\end{eqnarray}
Let $\{e_n\}$ be an approximate identity for $\mathrm{M}_N(A)$
such that $e_ne_{n+1}=e_ne_{n+1}=e_n,$ $n=1,2,....$ By choosing along the diagonal,
we may assume that $e_nP_i=P_ie_n,$ $i=1,2,$ for all $n.$
The same argument shows that there exists $n_0\ge 1$ such that, for all $n\ge n_0,$
\begin{eqnarray}
\tau((e_nbe_n))=\tau*b^{1/2}>f(\tau)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, d_\tau(b)- \tau(e_nbe_n)<d/16\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
Choose a small $\eta_3>0$ such that, for any $\eta_3>\varepsilon>0,$
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau(b)-\tau(\tau((b-\varepsilon)_+)>d/8\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, n\ge n_0,
\end{eqnarray}
where
$b_n=(e_nbe_n-\varepsilon)_+.$
It follows that
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau(f_{\varepsilon}(b_n))>d_\tau(a)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, n\ge n_0.
\end{eqnarray}
By replacing $b$ by $b',$ we may assume that $b=b'.$
By repeating this compactness argument, there exists $\varepsilon_n>0$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau(f_{\varepsilon/n}(e_nbe_n))\ge \tau((f_{\varepsilon_n}(e_nbe_n))^{1/k})>f(\tau)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in \overline{T(B)}^w.
\end{eqnarray}
Put $a_1=(a-\eta_1)_+.$
It follows that
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\lim_{k\to\infty}\|e_ka_1e_k+(1-e_k)P(1-e_k)-a_1\|=0\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\,\\
&&\lim_{k\to\infty}\|e_kbe_k+(1-e_k)P(1-e_k)-b\|=0.
\end{eqnarray}
Fix an $\eta_3>0$ and $\varepsilon>0.$ There exists $k_0\ge 1$ such that, for all $k\ge k_0,$
\begin{eqnarray}
(a_1-\eta_3)_+\lesssim (e_ka_1e_k)+(1-e_k)P(1-e_k),
\end{eqnarray}
applying \ref{Lrorm}
We may also assume that, for each large $n\ge \max\{n_0,k_0\}.$ by applying \ref{Lrorm} again,
by choosing possibly even smaller $\varepsilon_n,$ we may also assume that
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{\varepsilon/n}(e_nbe_n)\lesssim e_nbe_n.
\end{eqnarray}
Since, for any $k,$ $e_ka_1e_k\lesssim a_1,$
we have, for all $n\ge n_0$
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau(e_ka_1e_k)<d_\tau(f_{\varepsilon_n}(e_nbe_n))\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in \overline{T(B)}^w
\end{eqnarray}
for all $k.$ By strict comparison, for all $k>n\ge n_0,$
$e_ka_1a_k\lesssim f_{\varepsilon_n}(e_nbe_n)).$
We also assume that $\varepsilon>\varepsilon_n\searrow 0.$
Fix a $k\ge n+1.$ By applying \ref{Lalmstr1}, since $A$ has almost stable rank one,
there is unitary $u\in {\mathrm{M}}_n({\widetilde A})$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
u^*(f_\varepsilon(e_ka_1e_k))^{1/2}u\in \overline{f_{\varepsilon_n}(e_nbe_n)\mathrm{M}_N(A)f_{\varepsilon_n}(e_nbe_n)}.
\end{eqnarray}
Put $z_n=f_{\varepsilon}(e_ka_1e_k)^{1/2}u.$ Note that $\|z_n\|\le 1.$
then
\begin{eqnarray}
z_nf_{\varepsilon_n/2}(e_nbe_n)z_n^*
&=&uu^*f_{\varepsilon}(e_ka_1e_k)^{1/2}uf_{\varepsilon_n/2}(e_nbe_n)u^*f_{\varepsilon}(e_ka_1e_k)^{1/2}uu^*\\
&=&uu^*f_{\varepsilon}(e_ka_1e_k)uu^*=f_\varepsilon(e_ka_1e_k).
\end{eqnarray}
Note that ($k\ge n+1$)
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\hspace{-0.4in}(1-e_k)P_1(1-e_k)(1-e_n)P_2(1-e_n)\\
&&=(1-e_k)P_1(1-e_k)P_n(1-e_n)=(1-e_k)P_1P_2(1-e_k)\\
&&=(1-e_k)P_1(1-e_k)=(1-e_n)P_2(1-e_n)(1-e_k)P_1(1-e_k).
\end{eqnarray}
Put $s_n=(1-e_k)f_{\varepsilon}.$
In $\mathrm{M}_2({\mathrm{M}}_n(A)),$
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\hspace{-0.3in}f_{\varepsilon}((e_ka_1e_k)\oplus (1-e_k)P_1(1-e_k))
=f_{\varepsilon}((e_ka_1e_k))\oplus f_{\varepsilon}((1-e_k)P_1(1-e_k))\\
&&=z_n^*f_{\varepsilon_n/2}(e_nbe_n)z_n\oplus (1-e_k)f_{\varepsilon}((1-e_k)P_2(1-e_k))(1-e_k)
\end{eqnarray}
\fi
\iffalse
\begin{lem}\label{LcomparisonU}
Let $B$ be as in \ref{151} and
$a, b\in M_r(\tilde B)_+$ (where $r\ge 1$ is an integer).
Suppose that $\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(a)\lesssim \pi_\mathbb{C}^B(b)$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau(a)
<d_\tau(b)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
Then, for any $1>\eta>0,$ there exists a sequence of unitaries
$U_n\in M_{2r}(\tilde B)$ and a sequence of elements $h_n\in {\rm Her}(b)_+$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\|U_n^*f_\eta(a)U_n-h_n\|=0.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Replacing $b$ by $g(b)$ for some strictly positive function of $g\in C_0((0, \infty)),$
we may assume that $p_1:=\pi_\mathbb{C}^{B}(b)$ is a projection.
Since the rank of $\pi_\mathbb{C}^{B}(a)$ is no more than that of $\pi_\mathbb{C}^{B}(b),$
the same reasoning implies that we may also assume that $p_2:=\pi_\mathbb{C}^{B}(a)$ is
a projection and there is a scalar matrix $U_0\in M_r(\mathbb{C} \cdot 1_{\tilde B})$
such that $\pi_\mathbb{C}^{B}(U_0^*aU_0)\le p_1.$
Without loss of generality, we may assume that $p_2\le p_1.$
We may further assume that there are integers $m_2\le m_1$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
p_i={\rm diag}(\overbrace{1,1,...,1}^{m_i},0,\cdots, 0),\,\,\,i=1,2.
\end{eqnarray}
Let $P_i={\rm diag}(\overbrace{1_{\tilde B}, 1_{\tilde B},...,1_{\tilde B}}^{m_i},0,\cdots 0),$ $i=1,2.$
%
\iffalse
%
%
Let $\{e_n\}$ be an approximate identity for $B$ such that
$e_{n+1}e_n=e_ne_{n+1}=e_n,$ $n=1,2,....$
Put $E_n={\rm diag}(\overbrace{e_n, e_n,...,e_n}^r),$ $n=1,2,....$
Thus, for all $i$ and $n,$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{LcomparisonU-10}
E_nP_i=P_iE_n\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, E_n(1-E_k)=0=(1-E_k)E_n, {\rm if}\,\, \,\,k\ge n+1.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that $b^{1/2}E_n^2b^{1/2}\nearrow b$ (in the strict topology).
Define $c_n=E_nbE_n,$ $n=1,2,....$
Fix $0<\eta<1/2.$ Note $f_{\eta/4}(a)=P_2+a_{00}',$ where $a_{00}'\in M_r(B)_{s.a.}.$
Since $B$ has continuous scale, this implies that $\tau(f_{\eta/4}(a))$ is a continuous affine function
on $T(B).$ Since $d_\tau(c_n)\nearrow d_\tau(b)$ for all $\tau\in T(B),$
$\tau(f_{\eta/4}(a))<d_\tau(b)$ for all $\tau\in T(B),$
and $T(B)$ is compact,
by a standard compact argument, there is $n_0\ge 1$ such that, for all $n\ge n_0,$
\begin{eqnarray}
\hspace{-0.2in}d_\tau(f_{\eta/2}(a))\le \tau(f_{\eta/4}(a))<d_\tau(c_n)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, for any $k,$ and any $n\ge n_0,$
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau(E_k f_{\eta/2}(a)E_k)\le d_\tau(f_{\eta/2}(a))<d_\tau(c_n)
\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
Put $a_k=E_k f_{\eta/2}(a)E_k,$ $k=1,2,....$ Then $a_k\lesssim c_n$ for any $k\ge 1$ and $n\ge n_0,$
as $B$ has the strict comparison.
%
%
\iffalse
If $\widehat{[a]}$ is continuous on $T(B),$ choose
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_0=(1/2)\inf\{(d_\tau(b)-d_\tau(a): \tau\in T(B)\}>0.
\end{eqnarray}
Fix $1/2>\eta>0$ (note $[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(f_\eta(a))]=[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(a)]$).
For any $\varepsilon>0.$ Let $\varepsilon_0=\min\{\varepsilon/2, \sigma_0/2\}, $ if $0$ is an isolated point in
${\rm sp}(a)$ in which case $\widehat{[a]}$ is continuous since we may replace $a$ by a projection.
Otherwise, there is a nonzero $a_0\in {\rm Her}(a)_+\setminus \{0\}$ with $0\le a_0\le 1$ and $a_0\perp f_{\eta/2}(a)$
(see \ref{Lorthog}).
Choose
\begin{eqnarray}
\varepsilon_0=\min\{\varepsilon/2, \inf\{\tau(a_0): \tau\in T(B)\}\}>0.
\end{eqnarray}
Then,
by (2) of Lemma \ref{Lomegaapp},
there exists $n_0\ge 1$ such that, for all $n\ge n_0,$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{LcomparisonU-10+}
d_\tau(c_n)> d_\tau(b)-\omega([b])-\varepsilon_0 \,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
Note that, for all $k\ge 1,$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{LcomparisonU-11}
d_\tau(E_kf_{\eta/2}(a)E_k)=d_\tau(f_{\eta/2}(a)^{1/2}E_kf_{\eta/2}(a)^{1/2})\le d_\tau(a)+2\omega([b])<d_\tau(b)
\end{eqnarray}
If $\omega([b])=0,$ we also have, for all $k\ge 1,$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{LcomparisonU-12}
d_\tau(E_kf_{\eta/2}(a)E_k)+\varepsilon_0<d_\tau(b)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, by \eqref{LcomparisonU-10}, for all $n\ge n_0,$
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau(E_kf_{\eta/2}(a)E_k)<d_\tau(c_n)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B) \,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, \,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, k.
\end{eqnarray}
%
%
\fi
%
%
%
On the other hand,
since $\pi_\mathbb{C}^{B}(f_{\eta/2}(a))=\pi_C^B(a)=\pi_\mathbb{C}^{B}(P_2)$ and
$\pi_\mathbb{C}^{B}(b)=\pi_\mathbb{C}^{B}(P_1),$
$$
b=P_1+b_{00},\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, f_{\eta/2}(a)=P_2+a_{00}
$$
for some $b_{00}, a_{00}\in M_r(B)_{s.a.}.$
Thus, also by \eqref{LcomparisonU-10},
\begin{eqnarray}\label{LcomparisonU-11}
&& \lim_{k\to\infty}\|(E_kbE_k+(1-E_k)P_1(1-E_k))-b\|=0\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\,\\\label{LcomparisonU-12}
&& \lim_{k\to\infty}\|E_kf_{\eta/2}(a)E_k+(1-E_k)P_2(1-E_k)-f_{\eta/2}(a)\|=0.
\end{eqnarray}
Put $x_k:=E_kf_{\eta/2}(a)E_k+(1-E_k)P_2(1-E_k)$ and $b_k:=E_kbE_k+(1-E_k)P_1(1-E_k),$ $k=1,2,....$
Note, for all $k>n+1\ge n>n_0,$ since $B$ has strict comparison,
\begin{eqnarray}
\hspace{-0.4in} a_{k}\lesssim c_n, \, (1-E_k)P_2(1-E_k)\lesssim (1-E_k)P_1(1-E_k)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, c_n\perp (1-E_k)P_1(1-E_k).
\end{eqnarray}
By Lemma \ref{Linvt}, for any $\varepsilon_1>0,$ and $\varepsilon_2>0,$ and any fixed
$k\ge n+1>n\ge n_0,$
there are $\delta>0$ and a unitary
$V\in M_{2r}(\tilde B)$ and
$h\in {\rm Her}(f_\delta(b_k))_+$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{LcomparisonU-30}
\|V^*f_{\varepsilon_1}(x_k)V-h_k\|<\varepsilon_2.
\end{eqnarray}
Since $\|V^*f_\varepsilon(x_k)V\|\le 1,$ we may assume that $\|f\|\le 1.$
For each fixed $m,$ by \eqref{LcomparisonU-12}, choose $k_{m,1}> n+1$ such that, for all $k\ge k_{m,1},$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{LcomparisonU-31}
\|f_\varepsilon(x_k)-f_\varepsilon(a)\|<1/2^{m+2}.
\end{eqnarray}
Then, by \eqref{LcomparisonU-11}, choose $k_m\ge k_{m,1}$ such that, for all $k\ge k_m,$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{LcomparisonU-33}
\|f_{\delta}(b_k)-f_{\delta}(b)\|<1/2^{m+4}.
\end{eqnarray}
It follows that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{LcomparisonU-34}
\|f_{\varepsilon_m}(b)f_mf_{\varepsilon_m}(b)-f_m\|<1/2^m.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that $f_{\varepsilon_m}(b)f_mf_{\varepsilon_m}(b)\in {\rm Her}(b).$
Combining \eqref{LcomparisonU-30}, \eqref{LcomparisonU-31},
and \eqref{LcomparisonU-34},
one obtains a
sequence of unitaries $U_n$ and a sequence elements $h_n\in {\rm Her}(b)_+$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\|U_n^*f_\eta(a)U_n-h_n\|=0.
\end{eqnarray}
\fi
\end{proof}
\fi
\iffalse
%
%
\iffalse
\begin{lem}\label{Lpq}
Let $A$ be a separable $C^*$-algebra\, and let $a\in A$ with $0\le a\le 1.$
Suppose that $p\in {\rm Her}(a)$ is a projection.
Then there exists an element $0\le b\le 1$ in ${\rm Her}(a)$ such that
$bp=pb=0$ and $b+p$ is a strictly positive element of ${\rm Her}(a).$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Since $p\in {\rm Her}(a),$ $b:=(1-p)a(1-p)=a-ap-(pa-pap)
\in {\rm Her}(a).$
Then $b\perp p.$ Since (by considering $((1-p)a^{1/2}-pa^{1/2})((1-p)a^{1/2}-pa^{1/2})^*$)
$$
a\le 2((1-p)a(1-p)+pap)\le 2((1-p)a(1-p)+p),
$$
$b+p$ is a strictly positive element.
\end{proof}
%
\fi
%
%
%
\begin{lem}\label{Lapproxcont}
Let $B$ be as in \ref{151}. For any $a\in M_r(\tilde B)_+$ for some integer $r\ge 1,$
there exists a sequence of elements $a_n\in {\rm Her}(a)$ with $0\le a_n\le 1$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\omega([a_n])=0
\end{eqnarray}
and, for any $\varepsilon>0,$ there exists $N\ge 1$ such
that, when $n\ge N,$
\begin{eqnarray}
f_\varepsilon(a)\lesssim a_n.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
First, by Lemma \ref{TcomparisonintdA} (and Theorem A.6 of \cite{eglnkk0}), there is an element $b\in M_m(\tilde B)$ with $0\le b\le 1$
such that $[b]\circeq [a]$ and,
\begin{eqnarray}
\widehat{[b]}=\widehat{[a]} \,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, [b]=\sup\{[b_n]: n\in \mathbb{N}\},
\end{eqnarray}
where $[b_n]\le [b_{n+1}]$ in ${\rm Cu}(\tilde B)$ and
$\omega([b_n])=0$ for all $n.$
Let us assume that $r=m.$
Note that $[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(b)]=[\pi_\mathbb{C}^b(a)]$ (in ${\rm Cu}(M_r)$).
Since ${\rm Cu}^\sim(\pi_\mathbb{C}^B)([b])=\sup\{{\rm Cu}^\sim(\pi_\mathbb{C}^B)([b_n]): n\in \mathbb{N}\},$ we may assume
that, for all $n,$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Lapproxcont-01}
[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(b_n)]=[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(b)]=[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(a)].
\end{eqnarray}
By (1) of Lemma \ref{Lomegaapp}, choose $1/2>\delta_n>0$ such that, for $0<\delta<\delta_n,$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Lapproxcont-1}
\omega([f_{\delta_n}(b_n)])<1/2^{n+1}\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, \sup\{d_\tau(f_{\delta_n/4}(b_n))-f_{\delta_n}(b_n): \tau\in T(B)\}<1/2^{n+1}.
\end{eqnarray}
Note, by Lemma \ref{TcomparisonintdA} (and $B$ has stable rank at most 2), in ${\rm Cu}(\tilde B),$
\begin{eqnarray}
[a]+2[1_{\tilde B}]=[b]+2[1_{\tilde B}].
\end{eqnarray}
Put $p:={\rm diag}(0_m, 1_{\tilde B}, 1_{\tilde B})\in M_{m+2}(\tilde B)$ and
$a_0:=a\oplus p,$ $b_0:=b\oplus p, b_n'=b_n\oplus p\in M_{m+2}(\tilde B).$
Applying Proposition 2.2 of \cite{Rr2}, for each $n\ge 1,$ there is
$x_n\in M_{m+2}(\tilde B)$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Lapproxcont-n}
f_{\delta_n/4}(b_n')=x_n^*x_n\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, x_nx_n^*\in {\rm Her}(a_0).
\end{eqnarray}
We may assume that $0<\delta_n<1/2^{2n}$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(f_{\delta_n/2}(b_n')]=[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(b_n')].
\end{eqnarray}
By \eqref{Lapproxcont-01}, this also implies that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Lapproxcont-02}
[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(f_{\delta_n/2}(b_n)]=[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(b)]=[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(a)].
\end{eqnarray}
Moreover, since $[b_n]\le [b_{n+1}],$ one may also choose $\delta_n$ (by choosing $\delta_{n+1}$
sufficiently small, after $\delta_n$ has been chosen) so that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Lapproxcont-2}
d_\tau(f_{\delta_n/2}(b_n'))<d_\tau(f_{\delta_{n+1}/2}(b_{n+1}'))\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
Note also, since $[b]=\sup\{[b_n]:n\in \mathbb{N}\},$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Lapproxcont-3}
\lim_{n\to\infty}d_\tau(f_{\delta_n}(b_n'))=d_\tau(b_0)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(\tilde B).
\end{eqnarray}
Let $x_n=v_n|x_n|$ be the polar decomposition in $M_{m+2}(\tilde B)^{**}.$
Put $c_n=v_nf_{\delta_n}(b_n')v_n^*.$
Note that
$c_n\in {\rm Her}(a_0)$ and, by \eqref{Lapproxcont-1},
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\omega([c_n])=0
\end{eqnarray}
%
If $0$ is an isolated point in ${\rm sp}(a_0),$ then we may assume
$a_0$ is a projection. This implies that, we may assume that $b$ is a projection.
Then $\widehat{[a]}$ is continuous. Hence we may choose $a_n:=a.$
So we assume that $0$ is not an isolated point of ${\rm sp}(a_0).$
Then $0$ is not an isolated point of ${\rm sp}(a).$
Note that, for all $\tau\in T(\tilde B),$
\begin{eqnarray}
\tau(c_n)=\tau(pc_np)+\tau((1-p)c_n(1-p))\to d_\tau(b_0)=d_\tau(a_0) \,\,\,{\rm as}\,\,\, n\to\infty.
\end{eqnarray}
Since $pc_np\le p$ and $(1-p)c_n(1-p)\lesssim a,$
it follows that
\begin{eqnarray}
(d_\tau(a)-\tau((1-p)c_n(1-p)))+\tau(p-(pc_np))\to 0.
\end{eqnarray}
Since $0\le c_n\le 1,$ this implies that
$d_\tau((1-p)c_n(1-p))\to d_\tau(a)$ as $n\to\infty$ for all $\tau\in T(\tilde B)$ (not just $T(B)$).
By \eqref{Lapproxcont-02}, we may assume that, for all $n,$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{201127-1}
[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B((1-p)c_n(1-p))]=[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(a)].
\end{eqnarray}
Since $0$ is not an isolated point of ${\rm sp}(a),$ for any
fixed $\varepsilon>0.$ there exists $0<\varepsilon_0<\varepsilon/16$ such that, there
exists $N\ge 1$ such that,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Lapproxcont-9}
d_\tau(f_{\varepsilon/8}(a))<\tau(f_{\varepsilon_0}(a))<d_\tau((1-p)c_n(1-p))\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, n\ge N\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
(for the first inequality, see Lemma \ref{Lorthog}),
and
\begin{eqnarray}
[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(f_{\varepsilon/4}(a)]=[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(a)].
\end{eqnarray}
Put $a_n=(1-p)c_n(1-p).$ Since $p, c_n\in {\rm Her}(a_0),$
$a_n\in {\rm Her}(a).$
By the end of \ref{Domega},
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\omega([a_n])=\lim_{n\to\infty}\omega([(1-p)c_n^-(1-p)])\le \lim_{n\to\infty}\omega([c_n])=0.
\end{eqnarray}
Since $T(B)$ is compact,
by \eqref{Lapproxcont-9}, we may assume that, for all $n,$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Lapproxcont-10}
d_\tau(f_{\varepsilon/4}(a))+4\omega([a_n])<d_\tau(a_n)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
By \eqref{Lapproxcont-10} and \eqref{201127-1}, applying Lemma A.3 of \cite{eglnkk0}, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
f_\varepsilon(a)\lesssim a_n.
\end{eqnarray}
\iffalse
It follows from Lemma \ref{LLcomparisonU} that there is a sequence of unitaries $U_k\in M_{2(m+2)}(\tilde B)$
such
that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Lapproxcont-10++}
U_kf_\varepsilon(a_0)U_k^*\in M_{m+2}(\tilde B)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\,
\lim_{k\to\infty}\|U_kf_\varepsilon(a_0)U_k^*-h_k\|=0,
\end{eqnarray}
where $h_k\in {\rm Her}(c_n^-)$ and $0\le h_k\le 1.$
It follows that
$c_nh_k=h_k.$
Let $d_n:=U_{k(n)}^*c_nU_{k(n)}$
for some large $k(n)$ such that (see the second part of \eqref{Lapproxcont-10++})
\begin{eqnarray}
\|f_\varepsilon(a_0)d_n-f_\varepsilon(a_0)\|<1/2^{2n+5}.
\end{eqnarray}
Recall that $f_\varepsilon(a_0)=f_\varepsilon(a)\oplus p.$
It follows that
\begin{eqnarray}
\|d_np-p\|<1/2^{2n+5}.
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Lapproxcont-4}
\|pd_np-p\|<1/2^{2n+5}\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, \|pd_n^+p-p\|<1/2^{2n+5}.
\end{eqnarray}
There is a projection $q\in {\rm Her}(d_n)$ such
that $\|q-p\|<1/2^{2n+2}.$
It is well known that there is a unitary $u\in {\rm Her}(a_0)^\sim$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\|u-1\|<1/2^{2n}\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, u^*qu=p.
\end{eqnarray}
Then, by Lemma \ref{Lpq}, $(1-p)u^*d_nu(1-p)+p$ is a strictly positive element of $u^*{\rm Her}(d_n)u.$
Put $a_n:= (1-p)u^*d_nu(1-p),$ $n=1,2,....$ Observe that $a_n\in {\rm Her}(a).$
Recall $\tau(p)=2$ for all $\tau\in T(B).$ By A.1 of \cite{eglnkk0}, since $a_n+p\sim d_n,$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Lapproxcont-14}
\omega([a_n])=\omega([a_n+p])=\omega([d_n])=\omega([c_n])\to 0\,\,\, \text{as}\,\, n\to\infty.
\end{eqnarray}
By \eqref{Lapproxcont-9},
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Lapproxcont-15}
d_\tau(f_{\varepsilon/4}(a))<\tau(f_{\varepsilon_0}(a))<d_\tau(a_n)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, n\ge N\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
Note, by \eqref{Lapproxcont-2}, $
\widehat{[a_n]}\le \widehat{[a_{n+1}]}.$
Then, by \eqref{Lapproxcont-14} and \eqref{Lapproxcont-15},
one also has, for sufficiently large $n,$
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau(f_{\varepsilon/4}(a))+4\omega([a_n])<d_\tau(a_n)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
It follows from Lemma A.3 of \cite{eglnkk0} that (see also \eqref{Lapproxcont-02})
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{\varepsilon/4}(a)\lesssim a_n.
\end{eqnarray}
\fi
%
\end{proof}
\fi
%
\iffalse
One of the feature of the following statement is the existence of the unitaries $U_n$ in the statement
which compensates the absence of the cancellation for our late purposes.
\begin{thm}\label{LcomparisonU}
Let $B$ be as in \ref{151} and
$a, b\in M_r(\tilde B)_+$ (where $r\ge 1$ is an integer).
Suppose that $\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(a)\lesssim \pi_\mathbb{C}^B(b)$ and
\begin{eqnarray}\label{411-1}
d_\tau(a) <d_\tau(b)\,\,\,\text{for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
Suppose that $[b]\in S(\tilde B).$
Then, for any $1>\eta>0,$ there exists a sequence of unitaries
$U_n\in M_{2r}(\tilde B)$ and a sequence of elements $h_n\in {\rm Her}(b)_+$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\|U_n^*f_\eta(a)U_n-h_n\|=0.
\end{eqnarray}
%
Moreover, if $[a]$ is not compact, then conclusion still holds if condition \eqref{411-1}
is replaced by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{411-2}
d_\tau(a)\le d_\tau(b)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
First consider the case that $[a]=[p]$ for some projection $p\in M_r(\tilde B).$
Then $d_\tau(a)=\tau(p)$ is continuous on $T(B).$
Put
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma:=(1/2)\inf\{d_\tau(b)-\tau(p):\tau\in T(B)\}>0.
\end{eqnarray}
Since $\tau(f_{1/2^n}(b))\nearrow d_\tau(b),$ as $n\to\infty,$ there exists $n_0\ge 1$ such that,
for all $n\ge n_0,$
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau(a)+\sigma<\tau(f_{1/2^n}(b))\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, [\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(f_{1/2^n}(b))]=[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(b)].
\end{eqnarray}
Since $[b]\in S(\tilde B),$ by Proposition \ref{Pbadingood},
there exists a sequence of elements $b_n\in {\rm Her}(b)_+$ with $0\le b_n\le 1$ and an integer $N\ge 1$
such that, for all $n\ge N,$
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{1/2^{n_0+1}}(b)\lesssim b_n \,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, \lim_{n\to\infty}\omega([b_n])=0.
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, there exists $n_1\ge N+n_0,$ for all $n\ge n_1$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{LcomparisonU-50}
d_\tau(a)+4\omega([b_n])<d_\tau(b_n)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, [\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(a)]\le [\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(b_n)].
\end{eqnarray}
Applying Lemma \ref{LLcomparisonU}, for any $\eta>0,$ there exist
a sequence of unitaries $U_n\in M_{2r}(\tilde B)$ and a sequence of elements
$h_n\in {\rm Her}(b_{n_1})_+$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
U_n^*f_\eta(a)U_n\in M_r(\tilde B)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, \lim_{n\to\infty}\|U_n^*f_\eta(a)U_n-h_n\|=0.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that $h_n\in {\rm Her}(b_{n_1})_+\subset {\rm Her}(b)_+.$
Next consider the case that $[a]$ cannot be represented by a projection
(and we will only use \eqref{411-2}).
It follows that $0$ is not an isolated point.
Fix $0<\eta<1.$ Choose $0<\varepsilon<\eta/4,$ by Lemma
\ref{Lorthog}, there exists $\sigma_0>0$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau(f_{\varepsilon/2}(a))+\sigma_0<d_\tau(f_{\eta/4}(a))\le d_\tau(b)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
Choose the above $b_n\in {\rm Her}(b)_+.$
Then, there exists $n_2\ge 1$ such that, for all $n\ge n_2,$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{LcomparisonU-50+}
d_\tau(f_{\varepsilon/2}(a))+4\omega([b_n])<d_\tau(b_n)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, [\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(f_{\varepsilon/2}(a))]\le [\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(b_n)].
\end{eqnarray}
Applying Lemma \ref{LLcomparisonU}, one obtains a sequence of unitaries $U_n\in M_{2r}(\tilde B)$
and a sequence of elements $h_n\in {\rm Her}(b_{n_2})_+\subset {\rm Her}(b)_+$ such
that
\begin{eqnarray}
U_n^*f_\eta(a)U_n\in M_r(\tilde B)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, \lim_{n\to\infty}\|U_n^*f_\eta(a)U_n-h_n\|=0.
\end{eqnarray}
Lemma follows.
\end{proof}
\fi
\iffalse
We now arrive the following theorem (see Theorem A.6 of \cite{eglnkk0}).
\begin{thm}\label{TBtildC}
Let $B$ be as \ref{151}. Then, for any $a, b\in (\tilde B\otimes {\cal K})_+,$
if $[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(a)]\le [\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(b)]$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau(a)<d_\tau(b)\,\,\,\text{for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B),
\end{eqnarray}
then
$
a\lesssim b.
$
Moreover, if $[a]$ is not represented by a projection, then
$d_\tau(a)\le d_\tau(b)$ for all $\tau\in T(\tilde B)$ implies that $a\lesssim b.$
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
For the first part, we note that,
for any $\varepsilon>0,$ there exists $\delta>0$ such
that
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau(f_\varepsilon(a))<d_\tau(f_\delta(b))\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, [\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(f_\varepsilon(a))]\le [\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(f_\delta(b))].
\end{eqnarray}
With this observation, we reduce the general case to the case
that $a, b\in M_r(\tilde B)_+$ with $0\le a, \, b\le 1.$
Fix $\varepsilon>0.$ Choose $0<\eta<\varepsilon/8.$
Applying Theorem , we obtain a sequence of unitaries $\{U_n\}\subset M_{2r}(\tilde B)$ and
a sequence of elements $h_n\in {\rm Her}(b)_+$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\|U_n^*f_\eta(a)U_n-h_n\|=0.
\end{eqnarray}
Put $d_n:=U_n^*f_\eta(a)U_n.$ By applying Proposition 2.2 of \cite{Rr2}, there is $0<\delta<\eta/4$
and large $n$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
f_\delta(d_n)\lesssim b.
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore
\begin{eqnarray}
f_\delta(f_\eta(a))\lesssim b.
\end{eqnarray}
It follows that
\begin{eqnarray}
f_\varepsilon(a)\lesssim f_\delta(f_\eta(a))\lesssim b.
\end{eqnarray}
Hence $a\lesssim b.$
%
%
Now suppose that
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau(a)\le d_\tau(b)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(\tilde B).
\end{eqnarray}
If $[a]$ is not represented by a projection, then, by Lemma \ref{Lorthog},
for any $1>\varepsilon>0,$
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau(f_\varepsilon(a))<d_\tau(b)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, [\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(f_\varepsilon(a))]\le [\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(b)].
\end{eqnarray}
By what has been proved above,
$f_\varepsilon(a)\lesssim b$ for all $1>\varepsilon>0.$ Therefore $a\lesssim b.$
\end{proof}
\fi
\iffalse
Combining Theorem \ref{TBtildC} and Lemma \ref{TcomparisonintdA}, we have the following description
of the ${\rm Cu}(\tilde B).$ Note all exact separable simple stably projectionless ${\cal Z}$-stable
$C^*$-algebra s satisfy the assumption of the corollary below.
\begin{cor}\label{CtdBcomp}
Let $B$ be a separable stably projectionless simple $C^*$-algebra\, such that $M_n(B)$ has almost stable rank one
with continuous scale, and such that $QT(B)=T(B)$ and ${\rm Cu}(B)={\rm LAff}_+(T(B)).$
Then, ${\rm Cu}(\tilde B)=V(\tilde B)\sqcup {\rm LAff}_+(T(\tilde B))^\diamond.$
\end{cor}
\fi
%
\iffalse
\begin{cor}\label{CCCC}
Let $B$ be as in \ref{151} and
$a, b\in M_r(\tilde B)_+$ (where $r\ge 1$ is an integer).
Suppose that $\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(a)\lesssim \pi_\mathbb{C}^B(b),$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau(a) <d_\tau(b)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
Then $a\lesssim b.$
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
For any $0<\eta<1/2,$ by Lemma \ref{LcomparisonU}, there is $h\in {\rm Her}(b)_+$
and a unitary $U\in M_{2r}(\tilde B)$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\|U^*f_{\eta/4}(a)U-h\|<\eta/8.
\end{eqnarray}
By Proposition 2.2 of \cite{Rr2}, this implies that
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{\eta/4}(f_{\eta/4}(a))\sim U^*f_{\eta/4}((f_{\eta/4}(a))U=f_{\eta/4}(U^*f_{\eta/4}(a)U)\lesssim h\lesssim b.
\end{eqnarray}
Since this holds for all $0<\eta<1/2,$ $a\lesssim b.$
\end{proof}
\fi
We now arrive at the following theorem (see Theorem A.6 of \cite{eglnkk0}).
\begin{thm}\label{TBtildC}
Let $B$ be as in \ref{151}. Then, for any $a, b\in (\tilde B\otimes {\cal K})_+,$
if $[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(a)]\le [\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(b)]$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau(a)<d_\tau(b)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B),
\end{eqnarray}
then
$
a\lesssim b.
$
Moreover, if $[a]$ is not represented by a projection, then
$d_\tau(a)\le d_\tau(b)$ for all $\tau\in T(\tilde B)$ implies that $a\lesssim b.$
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
For the first part, we note that,
for any $\varepsilon>0,$ there exists $\delta>0$ such
that
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau(f_\varepsilon(a))<d_\tau(f_\delta(b))\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, [\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(f_\varepsilon(a))]\le [\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(f_\delta(b))].
\end{eqnarray}
With this observation, we reduce the general case to the case
that $a, b\in M_r(\tilde B)_+$ with $0\le a, \, b\le 1.$
For this case, for any $0<\eta<1/2,$ by Lemma \ref{LcomparisonU}, there is $h\in {\rm Her}(b)_+$
and a unitary $U\in M_{2r}(\tilde B)$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\|U^*f_{\eta/4}(a)U-h\|<\eta/8.
\end{eqnarray}
By Proposition 2.2 of \cite{Rr2}, this implies that
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{\eta/4}(f_{\eta/4}(a))\sim U^*f_{\eta/4}((f_{\eta/4}(a))U=f_{\eta/4}(U^*f_{\eta/4}(a)U)\lesssim h\lesssim b.
\end{eqnarray}
Since this holds for all $0<\eta<1/2,$ one has $a\lesssim b.$
Now suppose that
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau(a)\le d_\tau(b)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(\tilde B).
\end{eqnarray}
If $[a]$ is not represented by a projection, then, by Lemma \ref{Lorthog},
for any $1>\varepsilon>0,$
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau(f_\varepsilon(a))<d_\tau(b)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, [\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(f_\varepsilon(a))]\le [\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(b)].
\end{eqnarray}
By what has been proved above,
$f_\varepsilon(a)\lesssim b$ for all $1>\varepsilon>0.$ Therefore $a\lesssim b.$
\end{proof}
Combining Theorem \ref{TBtildC} and Lemma \ref{TcomparisonintdA}, we have the following description
of the ${\rm Cu}(\tilde B).$ Note that all {{finite}} exact separable simple stably projectionless ${\cal Z}$-stable
$C^*$-algebra s satisfy the assumption of the corollary below.
\begin{cor}\label{CtdBcomp}
Let $B$ be a separable stably projectionless simple $C^*$-algebra\, with continuous scale such that $M_n(A)$ has almost stable rank one
(for all $n\in \mathbb{N}$), and such that $QT(B)=T(B)$ and ${\rm Cu}(B)={\rm LAff}_+(T(B)).$
Then, ${\rm Cu}(\tilde B)=(V(\tilde B)\setminus \{0\})\sqcup {\rm LAff}_+(T(\tilde B))^\diamond.$
\end{cor}
\begin{rem}\label{Rcomparison}
If both $x$ and $y$ are not compact in ${\rm Cu}(\tilde B)$ and
$x\circeq y,$ or equivalently $x+k[1_{\tilde B}]=y+k[1_{\tilde B}]$ in ${\rm Cu}(\tilde B)$ for some integer $k,$
then, by Theorem \ref{TBtildC}, $x=y.$ So ${\rm Cu}(\tilde B)$ has the weak version of cancellation.
However, we still do not have the cancellation for projections. In other words, if
$p\oplus e\sim q\oplus e$ for some nonzero projection $e,$ we do not know that $p\sim q.$
Nevertheless, if $[p\oplus e]+x\le [q\oplus e]$ for some $x\in {\rm Cu}(\tilde A)_+\setminus \{0\},$ then $[p]\le [q],$ by Theorem \ref{TBtildC}.
\end{rem}
\iffalse
We would like to mention the following:
\begin{prop}\label{CtdBcomp}
Let $B$ be as in \ref{151} and let $b\in (\tilde B\otimes {\cal K})_+$ such that $[b]$ is not compact.
Then there is $a\in (\tilde B\otimes {\cal K})_+$ with
$\widehat{[a]}=\widehat{[b]}$ in ${\rm LAff}_+(T(\tilde B))^{\diamond}$ and $[a]\circeq [b]$ such that $[a]\in S(\tilde B)$ and
$b\lesssim a$ in ${\rm Cu}(\tilde B).$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma \ref{TcomparisonintdA} and by the end of (see Theorem A.6 of \cite{eglnkk0}), there exists
$a\in (\tilde B\otimes {\cal K})_+$ such that $[a]\in S(\tilde B)$ and $\widehat{[a]}=\widehat{[b]}$
in ${\rm LAff}_+(T(\tilde B))^{\diamond}.$
By Lemma \ref{TcomparisonintdA},
$[b]\circeq [a].$ The assumption that
$[b]$ cannot be represented by a projection also means that $0$ is not an isolated point in
the spectrum of $b.$
Then, for any $\varepsilon>0,$ there is $0<\delta<\varepsilon$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
&&d_\tau(f_{\varepsilon}(b))<\tau(f_\delta(b))<d_\tau(a)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\,\\
&&{[}\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(f_\delta(b)){]}<\infty\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, [\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(f_\delta(b))]\le [\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(a)].
\end{eqnarray}
By Theorem A.6 of \cite{eglnkk0}, $f_\varepsilon(b)\lesssim a.$ Since this holds for all $0<\varepsilon<1,$
$b\lesssim a.$
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}\label{Rcomparison}
If both $x, y\in S(\tilde B)$ and both are not compact, and $x+z=y+z$ for some
$z\in {\rm Cu}(\tilde B)$ with $\widehat{z}(\tau)<\infty$ for all $\tau\in T(\tilde B)$ as an
element in ${\rm LAff}_+( T(\tilde B))^\diamond,$ then $x=y.$
This, in particular, holds, whenever $\widehat{x}$ and $\widehat{y}$ are continuous.
If $p$ is a projection in $\tilde B\otimes {\cal K},$ and $q\in \tilde B\otimes {\cal K}$
such that $[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(q)]\le [\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(p)]$ and
$\tau(q)<\tau(p)$ for all $\tau\in T(B),$ then, by Corollary A.4 of \cite{eglnkk0}, $q\lesssim p.$
%
However, in general, we do not know if $[q]\oplus [e]=[p]\oplus [e]$ implies $[p]=[q]$ in ${\rm Cu}(\tilde B).$
\end{rem}
\fi
\section{Approximation}
In this section we will present Lemma \ref{Llimintmaps} (see also the last part of Remark \ref{Rcountexample}).
\begin{df}\label{DappCu}
Let $A$ and $B$ be $C^*$-algebra s and $\lambda: {\rm Cu}^\sim(A)\to {\rm Cu}^\sim (B)$ be a morphism in ${\bf Cu}$
(see \cite{Rl}).
Suppose that $\phi_n: A\to B$ is a sequence of homomorphism s.
We say ${\rm Cu}(\phi_n)$ converges to $\lambda$ and
write $\lim_{n\to\infty} {\rm Cu}(\phi_n)=\lambda,$ if, for any finite subset $G\subset {\rm Cu}^\sim(A),$
there exists $N\ge 1$ such that, for all $n\ge N,$
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_n)(x)\le \lambda(y)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, \lambda(x)\le {\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_n)(y),
\end{eqnarray}
whenever $x, y\in G$ and $x\ll y.$
Let $G_0\subset K_0(A)\subset {\rm Cu}^\sim(A)$ (see 6.1 of \cite{RS}) be a finite subset. Then $\lim_{n\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_n)=\lambda$
implies that, there is an integer $n_0\ge 1$ such that, for all $n\ge n_0,$
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_n)(x)=\lambda(x)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, x\in G_0
\end{eqnarray}
as $x\ll x$ in ${\rm Cu}^\sim(A).$
We write $\lim_{n\to \infty}^w{\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_n)=\lambda,$ if
for any finite subset $G\subset {\rm Cu}^\sim(A),$ there exists $n_0\ge 1$ such that, for all $n\ge n_0,$
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_n)(z)=\lambda(z)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, z\in G\cap K_0(A)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\,\\
{\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_n)(x)\le \lambda(y)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, \lambda(x)\le {\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_n)(y),
\end{eqnarray}
whenever $x, y\in G$ and $x\ll y$ and both $x$ and $y$ are not compact.
\end{df}
\begin{lem}\label{LappCum}
Let $C$ be a separable $C^*$-algebra\, of stable rank one
and $B$ be
a $C^*$-algebra\, with finite stable rank.
Suppose that $\lambda: {\rm Cu}^\sim(C)\to {\rm Cu}^\sim(B)$ is a morphism in ${\bf Cu}$ and
there exists a sequence of homomorphism s $\phi_n: C\to B$ such
that
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{n\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_n)=\lambda.
\end{eqnarray}
Suppose that
$\psi_n: C\to B$ is a sequence of homomorphism s such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{LappCum-1}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\|\psi_n(a)-\phi_n(a)\|=0\,\,\,\text{for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, a\in C.
\end{eqnarray}
Then
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{n\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim(\psi_n)=\lambda.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $G\subset {\rm Cu}^\sim(C)$ be a finite subset.
Let $S=\{(f, g): f, g\in G, f\ll g\}.$
Suppose that $(f,g)\in S.$
We claim, in this case, that
there is $h\in {\rm Cu}^\sim(C)$ such
that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{59}
f\ll h \ll g.
\end{eqnarray}
Recall that $C$ has stable rank one.
We may assume that $f=[a^f]-m_f[1_{\tilde C}]$
and $g=[a^g]-m_g[1_{\tilde C}],$ where $a^f, a^g\in M_r((\tilde C))_+$
with $\|a^f\|\le 1$ and $\|a^g\|\le 1$ for
some integer $r\ge 1,$ and, rank of $\pi_\mathbb{C}^{C}(a^f)$ is $m_f\le r,$
and rank of $\pi_\mathbb{C}^{C}(a^g)$ is $m_g\le r.$
Therefore
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Lunithm-10}
[a^f\oplus 1_{m_g}]\ll [a^g \oplus 1_{m_f}]
\end{eqnarray}
(in the ${\rm Cu}(\tilde C)$),
where $1_{m_f}$ and $1_{m_g}$ are identities of $M_{m_f}(\tilde C)$ and $M_{m_g}(\tilde C)$ respectively.
By \eqref{Lunithm-10}, there is $1/2>\varepsilon>0$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
[a^f\oplus 1_{m_g}]\ll [f_{\varepsilon}(a^g)\oplus 1_{m_f}]\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\,
[f_{\varepsilon}(a^g)]\ll [a^g].
\end{eqnarray}
Moreover, by choosing smaller $\varepsilon,$
we may assume that $\pi_\mathbb{C}^{C}(f_\varepsilon(a^g))=f_{\varepsilon}(\pi_\mathbb{C}^{C}(a^g))$ has the same rank as
that of $[\pi_\mathbb{C}^{ C}(a^g)]=m_g.$ Put $a^h=f_\varepsilon(a^g)$ and $h=[a^h]-m_g[1_{\tilde C}].$
Then
\begin{eqnarray}\label{512}
f\ll h\ll g.
\end{eqnarray}
Define ${\bar f}={\rm diag}(a^f, 1_{m_g}),$ ${\bar h}={\rm diag}(a^h, 1_{m_f})$ and
${\bar g}={\rm diag}(a^g, 1_{m_f}).$ Note that, in ${\rm Cu}(\tilde {{C}}),$
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bar f}\ll {\bar h}\ll {\bar g}.
\end{eqnarray}
Choose $0<\delta<\varepsilon/4$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{LappCum-5}
{\bar f}\le f_{\delta}({\bar h})\le {\bar h}\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, {\bar h}\le f_\delta({\bar g})\le {\bar g}.
\end{eqnarray}
Let $\phi_n^\sim, \psi_n^\sim: M_r(\tilde C)\to M_r(\tilde B)$ be the (unital) extensions of $\phi_n$ and $\psi_n,$
respectively.
We claim that, for each $(f,g)\in S,$ there is an integer $N\ge 1$ such that, for all $n\ge N,$
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm Cu}^\sim(\psi_n)(f)\le \lambda(g)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, \lambda(f)\le {\rm Cu}^\sim (\psi_n).
\end{eqnarray}
Write $\lambda(f)=\lambda(f)_+-m_{\lambda,f}[1_{\tilde B}]$ and
$\lambda(g)=\lambda(g)_+-m_{\lambda, g}[1_{\tilde B}],$ where $\lambda(f)_+=[a_{\lambda,f}]$
and $\lambda(g)_+=[a_{\lambda,g}]$
for some $a_{\lambda, f}, a_{\lambda,g}\in M_r(\tilde B)_+$ (by enlarge $r$ if necessary),
and $[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(a_{\lambda, f})]=m_{\lambda, f}$ and $[\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(a_{\lambda, g})]=m_{\lambda, g}$ are
integers.
Note, by \eqref{LappCum-1}, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\|\psi_n^\sim(c)-\phi_n^\sim(c)\|=0\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, c\in M_r(\tilde C).
\end{eqnarray}
Then, by \eqref{LappCum-5} and by repeated application of Proposition 2.2 of \cite{Rr2}, there exists
an integer $N\ge 1$ such that, if ${{n}}\ge N,$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{LappCum-11}
\psi_n^\sim({\bar f})\lesssim \psi_n^\sim(f_{\delta}({\bar h}))\lesssim \phi_n^\sim({\bar h})\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\,
\phi_n^\sim ({\bar h})\lesssim \phi_n^\sim (f_{\delta}({\bar g}))\lesssim \psi_n^\sim({\bar g}).
\end{eqnarray}
Assume that $B$ has stable rank $K.$
Since $\lim_{n\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim (\phi_n)=\lambda,$ we may also assume, if $n\ge N,$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{LappCum-12}
&&{[}\phi_n^\sim(a^h){]} +(m_{\lambda, g}+K)[1_{\tilde B}]\le \lambda(g)_++(m_g+K)[1_{\tilde B}]\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\,\\\label{LappCum-12+}
&&\lambda(f)_++(m_g+K)[1_{\tilde B}]\le [\phi_n^\sim(a^h)]+(m_{\lambda, f}+K)[1_{\tilde B}]
\end{eqnarray}
for all $(f, g)\in S.$ Combining \eqref{LappCum-11}, \eqref{LappCum-12} and \eqref{LappCum-12+}, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
&&\hspace{-0.3in}[\psi_n^\sim(a^f)]+(m_g+m_{\lambda, g}+K)[1_{\tilde B}]=[\psi_n^\sim({\bar f})]+(m_{\lambda, g}+K)[1_{\tilde B}]\le
[\psi_n^\sim(f_{\delta}({\bar h})]+(m_{\lambda, g}+K)[1_{\tilde B}]\\\nonumber
&&\le {[}\phi_n^\sim(a^h){]}
+(m_f+m_{\lambda,g}+K)[1_{\tilde B}]\le \lambda(g)_++(m_g+K)[1_{\tilde B}]+m_f[1_{\tilde B}]\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\,\\\nonumber
&&\hspace{-0.3in}\lambda(f)_+ +(m_f+m_g+K)[1_{\tilde B}]\le [\phi_n^\sim(a^h)]+(m_{\lambda,f}+m_f+K)[1_{\tilde B}]=[\phi_n^\sim({\bar h})]+(m_{\lambda,f}+K)[1_{\tilde B}]\\\nonumber
&&\le [\psi_n^\sim({\bar g})]+(m_{\lambda, f}+K)[1_{\tilde B}]
=[\psi_n^\sim(a^g)]+(m_f+m_{\lambda, f}+K)[1_{\tilde B}].
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, for all $n\ge N,$ and, for all $(f,g)\in S,$
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
{\rm Cu}^\sim(\psi_n)(f)\le \lambda(g)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, \lambda(f)\le {\rm Cu}^\sim(\psi_n)(g).
\end{eqnarray}
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{Llimintmaps}
Let $C$ be a separable semiprojective $C^*$-algebra\,
with a strictly positive element $e_C$ and $B$ be as in \ref{151}.
(1) Let
$\lambda: {\rm Cu}^\sim(C)\to {\rm Cu}^\sim(\tilde B)$
be a morphism in ${\bf Cu}$ with $\lambda([e_C])\le [b]$ for some $b\in M_N(\tilde B)_+$ (and $N\ge 1$),
and let $\phi_k: C\to M_N(\tilde B)$
be a sequence of homomorphism s such that $\lim_{k\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_k)=\lambda,$
then
exists a sequence of homomorphism s $\psi_k: C\to \overline{bM_N(\tilde B)b}$
such
that
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{k\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim(\psi_k)=\lambda,
\end{eqnarray}
if, in addition,
(i) $\lambda([e_C])^{\widehat{}}(\tau)< \widehat{[b]}(\tau)$ for all $\tau\in T(B),$ or
(ii) $\lambda([e_C])$ is not a compact element in ${\rm Cu}^\sim(\tilde B).$
\iffalse
%
%
(i) If $\lambda([e_C])^{\widehat{}}(\tau)< \widehat{[b]}(\tau)$ for all $\tau\in T(B),$
then exists a sequence of homomorphism s $\psi_k: C\to \overline{bM_N(\tilde B)b}$
such
that
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{k\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim(\psi_k)=\lambda.
\end{eqnarray}
(ii) If $\lambda([e_C])$ is not a compact element in ${\rm Cu}^\sim(\tilde B),$
then conclusion of (i) also holds;
%
\fi
(2) If $\lambda: {\rm Cu}^\sim(C)\to {\rm Cu}^\sim(B)$ is a morphism in ${\bf Cu},$ $\lambda([e_C])\le [b]$
for some $b\in M_N(B)_+,$ and there exists a sequence of homomorphism s
$\phi_k: C
\to M_N(B)$ such that
$\lim_{k\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_k)=\lambda,$ then
there exists a sequence of homomorphism s $\psi_k: C\to \overline{bM_N(B)b}$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{n\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim(\psi_n)=\lambda.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let us consider case (1) first.
For any $\varepsilon>0,$ there exists $k(\varepsilon)\ge 1$ such that
$[\phi_k(f_{\varepsilon/4}(e_C))]\le \lambda([f_{\varepsilon/16}(e_C)])\le \lambda([e_C])$ for all $k\ge k(\varepsilon).$ Put $a(k,\varepsilon):=\phi_k(f_{\varepsilon/4}(e_C)).$
For case (i), we have
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau(a(k,\varepsilon))<d_\tau(b)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
For case (ii), let $e\in (\tilde B\otimes {\cal K})_+$ be such that $[e]=\lambda([e_C]).$
Then $e\not\sim p$ for any projection. In other words, we may assume
that $0$ is not an isolated point in ${\rm sp}(e).$
Moreover, since $\lambda$ is a morphism in ${\bf Cu},$ it maps compact elements to compact elements.
Hence $[e_C]$ cannot be represented by a projection. It follows
that 0 is not an isolated point in ${\rm sp}(e_C).$
Choose $\eta>0$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
[\lambda(f_{\varepsilon/16}(e_C))]\le [f_\eta(e)].
\end{eqnarray}
For any $\eta>0,$
there is a nonzero element $c\in {\rm Her}(e)_+$ such that $c\perp f_{\eta}(e)$
(see Lemma \ref {Lorthog}).
Since $B$ is simple, $\tau(c)>0$ for all $\tau\in T(B).$
It follows that
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau(f_{\eta}(e))<d_\tau(b)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
Thus we also have
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau(a(k, \varepsilon))<d_\tau(b)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
Recall that $\lambda([e_C])\le [b]$ implies that ${\rm Cu}^\sim(\pi_\mathbb{C}^B)\circ \lambda([e_C])\le [\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(b)].$
Thus, in both case (i) and (ii),
by Theorem \ref{LcomparisonU}, there exist a sequence of unitaries $U_n\in M_{2N}(\tilde B)$
and a sequence of elements $h_n\in {\rm Her}(b)_+$ with $\|h_n\|\le 1$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Llimintmaps-1-0}
\|U_n^*f_\varepsilon(\phi_{k(\varepsilon)}(e_C))U_n-h_n\|<1/2^{n+1},\,\,\, n=1,2,....
\end{eqnarray}
Put $\varepsilon_n>0$ such
that $\lim_{n\to\infty}\varepsilon_n=0.$
One obtains a sequence of elements $e_n\in {\rm Her}(b)_+$ with $\|e_n\|=1$
and a sequence of uniaries $V_n\in M_{2N}(\tilde B)$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Llimintmaps-1}
&& \|e_nV_n^*f_{\varepsilon_n}\phi_{k(\varepsilon_n)}(e_C)V_ne_n-V_n^*f_{\varepsilon_n}(\phi_{k(\varepsilon_n)}(e_C))V_n\|<1/2^n,\,\,n=1,2,....
\end{eqnarray}
Put $C_n=\overline{f_{2\varepsilon_n}(e_C)Cf_{\varepsilon_n}(e_C)},$
$\Phi_n: C\to M_{2N}(\tilde B)$ by $\Phi_n(c)=V_n^*\phi_{k(\varepsilon_n)}(c)V_n,$ and
contractive completely positive linear map s $L_n: C\to {\rm Her}(b)$ such that $L_n(c)=e_nV_n^*\phi_{k(\varepsilon_n)}(f_{\varepsilon_n}(e_C)cf_{\varepsilon_n}(e_C))V_ne_n$
for $c\in C.$ Then
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\|L_n(c)L_n(c')-L_n(cc')\|=0\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, c, c'\in C.
\end{eqnarray}
Since $C$ is semiprojective, there exists a sequence of homomorphism s $\psi_n: C\to {\rm Her}(b)$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\|\psi_n(c)-L_n(c)\|=0\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, c\in C.
\end{eqnarray}
Let $\Phi_n^\sim, \psi_n^\sim: \tilde C\to \tilde B$ be the usual unitization of $\Phi_n$ and $\psi_n,$
respectively.
Then, by \eqref{Llimintmaps-1}, for a fixed $m,$ on $\mathbb{C}\cdot 1_{\tilde C}+C_m,$
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\|\psi_n^\sim(c)-\Phi_n^\sim(c)\|=0\,\, (\text{for all}\,\, c\in \mathbb{C}\cdot 1_{\tilde C}+C_m).
\end{eqnarray}
Note that $V_n$ are unitaries in $M_2(\tilde B).$ Hence ${\rm Cu}^\sim(\Phi_n)={\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_{k(\varepsilon_n)}).$
It follows from Lemma \ref{LappCum} that
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{n\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim(\psi_n)=\lambda.
\end{eqnarray}
For case (2), we work in $B.$
By the end of \ref{151},
$\lambda([e_C])\le [b]$ in ${\rm Cu}(B).$
%
Then, instead of \eqref{Llimintmaps-1-0},
since $B$ has almost stable rank one,
by Lemma \ref{LRordam1},
there is, for each $k,$ a unitary
$U\in \tilde M_{2N}(\tilde B)$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
U^*f_\varepsilon(\phi_k(e_C))U\in {\rm Her}(b).
\end{eqnarray}
The rest of the proof is similar but simpler.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}\label{Rcountexample}
Let $\phi: C\to M_n(\tilde B)$ be a homomorphism\, such that $[\phi(e_C)]\le [b]$ in ${\rm Cu}^\sim(\tilde B)$
for some $b\in \tilde B_+,$ where $e_C$ is a strictly positive element of $C.$
Since we do not know whether ${\rm Cu}^\sim(\tilde B)$ has the cancellation, in the case that $[\phi(e_C)]$
is represented by a projection,
there might not be any $d\in \tilde B_+$
such that $[d]=[\phi(e_C)]$ in ${\rm Cu}^\sim(\tilde B).$ In that case, there would not be any
homomorphism\, $\psi: C\to \tilde B_+$ such that ${\rm Cu}^\sim(\psi)={\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi).$
Suppose that there is $d\in \tilde B_+$ such that $[d]=[\phi(e_C)]$ in ${\rm Cu}^\sim(\tilde B).$
We still do not know $d\sim \phi(e_C)$ in ${\rm Cu}(\tilde B)$ without knowing the cancellation in ${\rm Cu}^\sim(\tilde B).$
Suppose that $[\phi(e_C)]$ is not a compact element.
In an ideal situation, say there is $x\in M_n(\tilde B)$ such that $x^*x=\phi(e_C)$ and $xx^*\in {\rm Her}(d),$ then
one obtains a partial isometry $v\in M_n(\tilde B)^{**}$ such that
$v^*v\phi(c)=\phi(c)v^*v=\phi(c)$ for all $c\in C$ and $v\phi(c)v^*\in {\rm Her}(d).$
Define $\psi: C\to {\rm Her}(d)$ by $\psi(c)=v\phi(c)v^*$ for all $c\in C.$ Then
${\rm Cu}(\psi)={\rm Cu}(\phi).$ However, ${\rm Cu}^\sim(\psi)$ may not be the same as ${\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi)$
(see Example \ref{Counexm} below).
It is crucial that we have unitaries $U_n$ in Theorem \ref{LcomparisonU}.
Let us assume that $\lambda([e_C])$ is compact and $\lambda([e_C])\le [b]$ for some $b\in \tilde B_+.$
Suppose that $[\lambda([e_C])\not=[1_{\tilde B}].$ Since $B$ is stably projectionless, $\tilde B$
has only one nonzero projection $1_{\tilde B}.$ To see this, let $p\in \tilde B$ be a nonzero
projection. Then $p\not\in B.$ Therefore $\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(p)=\pi_\mathbb{C}^B(1_{\tilde B}).$
This implies that $1_{\tilde B}-p\in B.$ Since $B$ is stably projectionless, $p=1_{\tilde B}.$
Therefore, in this case, $\lambda([e_C])$ cannot be represented
by an element in $\tilde B.$ Consequently, there will be no sequence of homomorphism s $\psi_k: C\to \tilde B$ such
that $\lim_{k\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim(\psi_k)=\lambda.$ Even if $\lambda([e_C])=[1_{\tilde B}]$ in ${\rm Cu}^\sim(\tilde B)$
and $\phi_k: C\to M_N(\tilde B)$ is a sequence of homomorphism s such that $\lim_{k\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_k)=\lambda,$
and each $\psi_k(e_C)$ is a projection so that $[\psi_k(e_C)]=\lambda([e_C])=[1_{\tilde B}]$ in
${\rm Cu}^\sim(\tilde B),$ one may not have $\psi_k(e_C)\sim 1_{\tilde B}$ in ${\rm Cu}(\tilde B).$ It is then
impossible to perturb $\phi_k$ into homomorphism s $\psi_k: C\to \tilde B$ such that
$\lim_{k\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim(\psi_k)=\lambda.$
\end{rem}
\iffalse
\begin{lem}\label{Lminimal}
Let $A, C\in {\cal C}_0$ such that there is an isomorphism
$\phi:A\otimes {\cal K}\cong C\otimes {\cal K}.$
\iffalse
(1) Then there exists an integer $n\ge 1$ and a partial isometry
$w\in (C_0\otimes {\cal K})^{**}$ such that
$wa, aw^*\in C_0\otimes {\cal K}$ for all $a\in \phi(A),$
$waw^*\in M_n(C_0)$ for all $a\in \phi(A)$ and
$w\phi(A)w^*$ is a full hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra\, of $C_0((0,1])\otimes M_n.$
\fi
There is a full hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra\, $C^0\subset C$ and
an embedding
$j: C^0\to A$ which extends to $j^s: C^0\otimes {\cal K}\cong A\otimes {\cal K}$
and ${\rm Cu}^\sim(j)={\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi^{-1}).$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $e_A\in A_+^{\bf 1}$ be a strictly positive element.
\iffalse
Put $A_1=\phi(A).$ Then $A_1$ is a full hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra\, of $C_0\otimes {\cal K}$
as isomorphisms preserve the full hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra s.
Then $A_1={\rm Her}(\phi(e_A)).$
Write
$$
C=\{(f,b)\in C([0,1], F_2)\oplus F_1: f(0)= \phi_0(a)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, f(1)=\phi_1(a)\},
$$
where $F_1$ and $F_2$ are finite dimensional $C^*$-algebra s, and $\phi_i: F_1\to F_2$
is a homomorphism, $i=0,1.$
Therefore, for each $t\in (0,1),$
$\phi(e_A)(t)$ has finite rank.
Hence there is a strictly positive element
$c\in M_n(C)$ such that $d_\tau(\phi(e_A))\le d_\tau(c)$
for all $\tau\in T(C).$
Working in ${\tilde C}$ if $C$ is not unital,
by 3.18 of \cite{GLN}, $\phi(e_A)\lesssim c$ in ${\rm Cu}(C).$
Since $C\otimes {\cal K}$ has stable rank one,
there is a partial isometry $w\in
(C\otimes {\cal K})^{**}$ as described in the lemma.
\fi
Let $\{e_{i,j}\}$ be a system of matrix units for ${\cal K}$ and put $s=\phi^{-1}.$
We note that
$\phi(e_A)$
is a full element of $C\otimes {\cal K}.$
By Lemma \ref{Lkeyembedding},
let $c_0\in C$ be a full element such that there is a unitary $U\in M(C\otimes K)$ such that
$U^*c_0U\in {\rm Her}(\phi(e_A)).$ Let $C^0={\rm Her}(c_0).$
By \cite{Br1}, there is an isomorphism $s_0: C^0\otimes {\cal K}\cong C\otimes {\cal K}.$
Moreover there is a partial isometry $V\in M(C\otimes {\cal K})$ such that $V^*s_0(c_0)V=c_0.$
Let $s: M(C\otimes {\cal K})\to M(A\otimes {\cal K})$ be the extension (of $s.$).
Put $s_1:=s\circ s_0.$ Then $s_1: C^0\otimes {\cal K}\to A\otimes {\cal K}$ is an isomorphism.
Then $s(VU)^*s_1(c_0)s(VU)\in {\rm Her}(e_A).$
Denote by $p_{c_0}$ the range projection of $c_0.$
$s_1(p_{c_0})$ the range projection of $s_1(c_0\otimes e_{1,1}).$
Since the range projection of $c_0\otimes e_{1,1}$ is in $M(C^0)\subset M(C^0\otimes {\cal K}),$
$s_1(e_{1,1})\in M(A\otimes {\cal K}).$ It follows that $w=s(U^*V^*)s_1(e_{1,1})\in M(A\otimes {\cal K}).$
Therefore ${\bar e}_{1,1}:=ww^*=s(U^*V^*p_{c_0}VU)\in M(A\otimes {\cal K}).$
Denote by $p_A$ the range projection of $A\otimes e_{1,1}.$ Then since $U^*c_0U\in {\rm Her}(\phi(e_A),$
$p_A\ge {\bar e}_{1,1}.$ Moreover $p_A\in M(A\otimes {\cal K}).$
Let $P=1-p_A$ in $M(A\otimes {\cal K}).$
Then we may write $1-{\bar e}_{11}=((p_A-{\bar e}_{1,1})\otimes 1)\oplus ({\bar e}_{1,1}\otimes P)$ which
is Murray-Von Neumann equivalent to $((p_A-{\bar e}_{1,1})\otimes 1)\oplus ({\bar e}_{1,1}\otimes 1)=p_A\otimes 1$
in $M(A\otimes {\cal K}).$
Note also $1-s_1(p_{c_0})$ is Murray-Von Neumann equivalent to $1,$ as $s_1(C^0\otimes {\cal K})=A\otimes {\cal K}.$
It follows that there is a partial isometry
$W_1\in M(A\otimes {\cal K})$ such that $W_1^*W_1=(1-s_1(p_{c_0}))$ and $W_1W_1^*=1-{\bar e}_{1,1}$ (see also Lemma 2.5 of \cite{Br1}).
Define $W=W_1\oplus w.$ Then $W\in M(A\otimes {\cal K})$ is a unitary. Set
$j={\mathrm{Ad}}\, W\circ s.$ Note $j(C^0)\subset A$ and
${\mathrm{Cu}}^\sim(j)={\mathrm{Cu}}^\sim(\phi^{-1}).$
\iffalse
For any homomorphism\, $\phi: {\widetilde{D}}\to B$ (for some $C^*$-algebra\, $B$), denote by $\phi$ again
for the extension from ${\widetilde{D}}\otimes {\cal K}\to B\otimes {\cal K}.$
Define $\phi_{C_0}=\phi\circ j: C_0([0,1))\otimes {\cal K}\to B\otimes {\cal K}.$
If $\psi: R \to A$ (for any $C^*$-algebra\,) is a homomorphism\, let $\psi^\sim: \widetilde{D}=\widetilde{R}\to \widetilde{A}$ be the extension.
We will use $\psi_{C_0}:=\psi^\sim\circ j: C_0([0,1))\otimes {\cal K}\to \widetilde{A}\otimes {\cal K}.$
By 2.6 of \cite{GLII}, there is a partial isometry $v\in (C_0\otimes {\cal K})^{**}$
such that $vc, cv^*\in C_0\otimes {\cal K}$ for all $c\in C_0\otimes e_{1,1}$ and
$vcv^*\in \phi(A)$ for all $c\in C_0\otimes e_{1,1}.$
Define $j: C_0\to A$ defined by
$j(c)=\phi^{-1}(vcv^*).$ Note $\phi\circ j(c)=vcv^*$ for all $c\in C_0\otimes e_{1,1}.$
Since $C_0\otimes {\cal K}$ has stable rank one,
the lemma follows.
\fi
\end{proof}
\fi
\iffalse
\begin{lem}\label{Lexitencestep}
(1) Let $A, C\in {\cal C}_0$ such that ${\rm Cu}^\sim$ classifies
homomorphism s from $C$ to $B$
for any $B$ in \ref{151}.
Suppose that $A\otimes {\cal K}\cong C\otimes {\cal K}.$
Then ${\rm Cu}^\sim$ classifies homomorphism s from $A$ to $B$
(2) Suppose ${\rm Cu}^\sim$ classifies homomorphism s from $C$ to ${\tilde B}.$
Then
homomorphism s $\phi: C\otimes {\cal K}\to
{\tilde B}\otimes {\cal K}$ that satisfy $\phi_i(C\otimes e_{1,1})\subset {\tilde B}\otimes e_{1,1}$ has property
(U).
(3) Suppose that ${\rm Cu}^\sim$
every full hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra\, $C_1\subset C$ classifies homomorphism s from $C_1$
to ${\tilde B},$ and suppose that there exists a full hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra\, $C_1\subset C$ and
an isomorphism $j: C_1\otimes {\cal K}\to A\otimes {\cal K}$ such that
$j(C_1\otimes e_{1,1})\subset A\otimes e_{1,1}.$
Then ${\rm Cu}^\sim$ classifies homomorphism s from $A$ to ${\tilde B}.$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\iota: A\otimes {\cal K}\cong C\otimes {\cal K}$ be an isomorphism.
For (1), let us first prove the uniqueness part of \ref{Apd-1}.
Fix $\varepsilon>0$ and a finite subset ${\cal F}\subset A^{\bf 1}.$
We may assume that, without loss of generality, there is $0<\eta<\varepsilon/4$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{\eta}(e_A)x=x=xf_\eta(e_A)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, x\in {\cal F}.
\end{eqnarray}
Let ${\cal F}_1={\cal F}\cup\{e_A, f_{\eta/2}(e_A), f_{\varepsilon}(e_A)\}.$
Choose $\delta>0$ such that, for any pair of positive elements $a, b\in C^{\bf 1}$
(in any $C^*$-algebra\, $C$), $\|a^{1/2}-b^{/12}\|<\varepsilon/32$
if $\|a-b\|<\delta.$ Put $\delta_1=\min\{\delta,\varepsilon\}/32.$
Without loss of generality, we may assume that $\iota({\cal F})\subset M_m(C)$ for some integer $m\ge 1.$
Consider homomorphism s $\phi_1,\phi_2: A\to B$ be homomorphism s such that
such that $\phi_i([e_A])\le [e_B],$ where $e_A$ and $e_B$ are strictly positive elements
of $A$ and $B,$ respectively.
Let $\phi_1^s, \phi_2^s: A\otimes {\cal K}\to B\otimes {\cal K}$ be
the stable extensions.
Since $C\in {\cal C}_{0,1}$ and $M_m(B)$ is also a $C^*$-algebra\, in \ref{151},
by \ref{Lprojeq}, ${\rm Cu}^\sim$ classifies homomorphism s from $M_m(C)$ to $M_m(B).$
Let $G\subset {\rm Cu}(C)$ be a finite subset
associated with $\delta_1$ (in place $\varepsilon$) and $\iota({\cal F}_1)$ (for $M_m(A)$ and $M_m(B)$).
Put $G_1={\rm Cu}^\sim(\iota^{-1})(G).$
Assume
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_1)(g)\ll {\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_2)(g')\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\,
{\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_2)(g)\ll {\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_1)(g')
\end{eqnarray}
for all $g,g'\in G_1$ with $g\ll g'.$
Therefore
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Lexitencestep-10}
\hspace{-0.2in}{\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_1^s\circ \iota^{-1})(f)\ll {\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_2^s\circ \iota^{-1}(f'))\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\,
{\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_2^s\circ \iota^{-1})(f)\ll {\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_1^s\circ \iota^{-1})(f')
\end{eqnarray}
for all $f, f'\in G$ with $f\ll f'.$
Thus there
is a unitary $U\in {\widetilde{M_m(B)}}$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Lexitencestep-11}
\|U^*\phi_1^s\circ \iota^{-1}(g)U-\phi_2^s\circ \iota^{-1}(g)\|<\delta_1\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, g\in \iota({\cal F}_1).
\end{eqnarray}
This is the same as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{PII2-10}
\|U^*\phi_1(x)U-\phi_2(x)\|<\delta_1\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\,
\|U\phi_2(x)U^*-\phi_1(x)\|<\delta_1\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, x\in {\cal F}_1.
\end{eqnarray}
Let $Z=\phi_2(f_{\eta/2}(e_A))^{1/2}U^*f_{\eta/2}(\phi_1(e_A))^{1/2}\in B.$
Note that, for $x\in {\cal F},$
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
Z\phi_1(x)Z^*&=&\phi_2(f_{\eta/2}(e_A))^{1/2}U^*f_{\eta/2}(\phi_1(e_A))^{1/2}\phi_1(x)f_{\eta/2}(\phi_1(e_A))^{1/2}U\phi_2(f_{\eta/2}(e_A))^{1/2}\\\nonumber
&=&\phi_2(f_{\eta/2}(e_A))^{1/2}U^*\phi_1(x)U\phi_2(f_{\eta/2}(e_A))^{1/2}\\
&\approx_{\delta_1}&
\phi_2(f_{\eta/2}(e_A))^{1/2}\phi_2(x)\phi_2(f_{\eta/2}(e_A))^{/12}
=\phi_2(x).
\end{eqnarray}
Also, by \eqref{PII2-10}
\begin{eqnarray}
Z^*Z&=&f_{\eta/2}(\phi_1(e_A))^{1/2}U\phi_2(f_{\eta/2}(e_A))^{1/2}\phi_2(f_{\eta/2}(e_A))^{1/2}U^*f_{\eta/2}(\phi_1(e_A))^{1/2}\\
&&\approx_{\delta_1}f_{\eta/2}(\phi_1(e_A))^{1/2}\phi_1(f_{\eta/2}(e_A))f_{\eta/2}(\phi_1(e_A))^{1/2}=f_{\eta/2}(\phi_1(e_A))^2.
\end{eqnarray}
It follows that
\begin{eqnarray}
\|(Z^*Z)^{1/2}-f_{\eta/2}(\phi_1(e_A))\|<\varepsilon/32.
\end{eqnarray}
Write $Z=W(Z^*Z)^{1/2}$ as a polar decomposition of $Z$ in $B^{**}.$
Choose $\sigma>0$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
f_\sigma((Z^*Z)^{1/2})(Z^*Z)^{1/2}\approx_{\varepsilon/16} (Z^*Z)^{1/2}\approx_{\varepsilon/32} f_{\eta/2}(\phi_1(e_A)).
\end{eqnarray}
Since $B$ has almost stable rank one, there is a unitary $u\in {\tilde B}$ such
that $Wf_\sigma((Z^*Z)^{1/2})=uf_\sigma((Z^*Z)^{1/2}) .$
One estimates
that, for all $x\in {\cal F},$
\begin{eqnarray}
u\phi_1(x)u^*&=&uf_{\eta/2}(\phi_1(e_A))\phi_1(x)f_{\eta/2}(\phi_1(e_A))u\\
&\approx_{\varepsilon/8}&uf_\sigma((Z^*Z)^{1/2})(Z^*Z)^{1/2}\phi_1(x)(Z^*Z)^{1/2}f_\sigma((Z^*Z)^{1/2})u^*\\\nonumber
&=&Wf_\sigma((Z^*Z)^{1/2})(Z^*Z)^{1/2}\phi_1(x)(Z^*Z)^{1/2}f_\sigma((Z^*Z)^{1/2})W^*\\
&\approx_{\varepsilon/8}&W(Z^*Z)^{1/2}\phi_1(x)(Z^*Z)^{1/2}W^*\\
&=&Z\phi_1(x)Z^*\approx_{\delta_1} \phi_2(x).
\end{eqnarray}
For the existence part of (1), in this case, let $\gamma: {\rm Cu}^\sim(A)\to {\rm Cu}^\sim(B)$ be
a morphism in ${\bf Cu}$ such that $\gamma([e_A])\le [e_B].$
Consider $\gamma\circ {\rm Cu}^\sim(\iota^{-1}): {\rm Cu}^\sim(C)\to {\rm Cu}^\sim(B).$
Let $e_C$ be a strictly positive element of $C.$
By \ref{LheredC0}, there exists $w_1\in (C\otimes {\cal K})^{**}$
such that $w_1^*a, a w_1\in C\otimes {\cal K},$ $w_1^*aw_1\in
M_n(C)$ for all $a\in {\rm Her}(\iota(e_A))$
for some integer $n\ge 1.$ In particular, ${\rm Cu}^\sim(\iota_1)={\rm Cu}^\sim(\iota),$
where $\iota_1(a):=w_1^*\iota(a)w_1$ for all $a\in A.$
Therefore ${\rm Cu}^\sim(\iota^{-1}\circ \iota_1)={\rm Cu}^\sim({\rm id}_A).$
It follows from Lemma \ref{Lprojeq} that there is a homomorphism\, $\phi: M_n(C)\to M_m(B)$
such that ${\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi)=\gamma\circ {\rm Cu}^\sim(\iota^{-1}|_{M_n(C)}).$
Define $\psi:=\phi\circ \iota_1: A\to M_m(B).$ Then
${\rm Cu}^\sim(\psi)=\gamma.$ So $\psi(e_A)\lesssim e_B.$
By Proposition 2.6 of \cite{GLII}, there is a partial isometry $w\in M_m(B)^{**}$ such that
$wx, xw^*\in B,$ and $w^*wx=xw^*w=x$ for all $x\in {\rm Her}(\psi(e_A)).$
Define $\psi_1: A\to B$ by $\psi_1(a)=w^*\psi(a)w$ for all $a\in A.$
We still have ${\rm Cu}^\sim(\psi_1)={\rm Cu}^\sim(\psi)=\gamma.$
For (2), let ${\cal H}$ be the collection of homomorphism s $h: C\otimes {\cal K}\to {\tilde B}\otimes {\cal K}$
such that $h(C\otimes e_{1,1})\subset {\tilde B}\otimes e_{1,1}.$
Let $\varepsilon>0$ and ${\cal F}\subset C\otimes {\cal K}$ be a finite subset.
Without loss of generality, we may assume that ${\cal F}\subseteq {\mathrm{M}}_n(C).$
Furthermore we may write ${\cal F}=\{(c_{i,j})_{n\times n}: c_{i,j}\in {\cal G}\},$
where ${\cal G}\subset C$ is a finite subset.
Let $G\subset {\rm Cu}^\sim(C)$ be associated with $\varepsilon/n^2$ (in place of $\varepsilon$)
and ${\cal G}$ in place of ${\cal F}$ for homomorphism s from $C$ to ${\tilde B}.$
Suppose that $\phi_1, \phi_2\in {\cal H}$ satisfying
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_1)(g)\ll {\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_2)(g')\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\,
{\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_2)(g)\ll {\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_1)(g')
\end{eqnarray}
for all $g, g'\in G$ and $g\ll g'.$
Since ${\rm Cu}^\sim$ classifies homomorphism s from $C$ to ${\tilde B},$ there exists a unitary
$u\in {\widetilde A}$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\|u^*\phi_1(a)u-\psi_1(a)\|<\varepsilon/n^2\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, a\in {\cal G}.
\end{eqnarray}
We may assume that $\pi(u)=1,$ where $\pi: {\widetilde A}\to \mathbb{C}$ is the quotient map.
Define
$$
U={\rm diag}(\overbrace{u,u,...,u}^n, 1,1,...).
$$
Then $U\in (A\otimes {\cal K})^\sim.$ Moreover,
\begin{eqnarray}
\|U^*\phi(c)U-\psi(c)\|<\varepsilon\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, c\in {\cal F}.
\end{eqnarray}
To prove (3), denote $C=C_1$ and
let $\iota:=j^{-1}.$
For the property (U),
we use the same proof in part (1) and then apply (2).
Indeed, with $\iota:=j^{-1},$ we repeat and keep the same lines of part (1) (for property (U))
up to \eqref{Lexitencestep-10} but replacing $B$ by ${\tilde B}.$
Then, note that part (2) holds for $M_m(C)$ (in place of $C\otimes {\cal K}$),
one obtains a unitary $U\in M_m({\tilde B})$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Lexitencestep-15}
\|U^*\phi_1^s\circ \iota^{-1}(g)U-\phi_2^s\circ \iota^{-1}(g)\|<\delta_1\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, g\in \iota({\cal F}_1).
\end{eqnarray}
The rest of proof follows exactly the same lines as in the above proof (replacing $B$ by ${\tilde B}$)
for property (U) in part (1).
For the existence part, suppose that $\gamma: {\rm Cu}^\sim(A)\to {\rm Cu}^\sim({\tilde B})$
is a morphism in ${\bf Cu}$ such that $\gamma([e_A])\le [1_{\tilde B}].$
Since ${\rm Cu}^\sim$ classifies homomorphism s from $C$ to ${\tilde B},$
there exists a homomorphism\, $\phi: C\to {\tilde B}$ such that ${\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi)=\gamma\circ j.$
We also use $\phi$ for the stable extension. Put $\psi:=\phi\circ j^{-1}.$
Define $e_n=\phi(f_{1/2^n}(j^{-1}(e_A))),$ $n=1,2,....$ Note $\gamma([ e_A])\le
[ 1_{\tilde{B}} ].$
It follows from Proposition 2.4 of \cite{Rr11} that there exists $x_n\in \widetilde{B}\otimes {\cal K}$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
e_n=x_n^*1_{\widetilde{B}}x_n,\,\,\, n=1,2,....
\end{eqnarray}
Put $y_n=1_{\widetilde{B}}x_n.$ Let $y_n=v_n|y_n|$ be the polar decomposition
of $y_n$ in $(\widetilde{B}\otimes {\cal K})^{**}.$ Then $v_nb\in \widetilde{B}\otimes {\cal K}$ for all $b\in \overline{e_n(\widetilde{B}\otimes {\cal K})e_n}$
and $v_n^*bv_n\in \widetilde{B}$ for all $b\in \overline{e_n(\widetilde{B}\otimes {\cal K})e_n},$
$n=1,2,...$ Define $\psi_n: A\to \widetilde{B}$ by $\psi_n(a)=v_n^*e_n\phi(j^{-1}(a))e_nv_n$ for all $a\in A.$
We also use $\psi_n$ and $\psi$ for the unital and then stable extensions.
Note that $[\psi_n(a)]\le [\psi(a)]$ for all $a\in ({\tilde A}\otimes {\cal K})_+.$
Since $A$ is semiprojective, there exists, for each large $n,$
a homomorphism\, $h_n: A\to \widetilde{B}$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\|h_n(a)-\psi_n(a)\|=0\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, a\in A.
\end{eqnarray}
We continue to denote $h_n$ for the unital extension from ${\tilde A}$ to ${\tilde B}$
as well as its stable extension (from ${\tilde A}$ to ${\tilde B}$).
Now fix a finite subset $G\subset {\rm Cu}^\sim(A).$
Suppose that $g, g'\in G$ with $g\ll g'.$
Let $a_g, a_{g'}\in ({\tilde A}\otimes {\cal K})_+$ such that
$g=[a_g]-n_g[1_{\tilde A}]$ and $g'=[a_{g'}]-n_{g'}[1_{\tilde A}]$
(for all such pairs in $G$).
Note that $A$ has stable rank one. One has
\begin{eqnarray}
[a_g]+n_{g'}[1_{\tilde A}]\ll [a_{g'}]+n_g[1_{\tilde A}]
\end{eqnarray}
Put
$a^g=a_g\oplus 1_{n_g}$ and $a^{g'}=a_{g'}\oplus 1_{n_g}.$
There exists $0<\delta_0<1/2$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
a^g\lesssim f_{\delta_0}(a^{g'})
\end{eqnarray}
for all such pairs of $g$ and $g'$ in $G.$
Since $\lim_{n\to\infty} \|e_n^*\psi(a)e_n-\psi(a)\|=0,$ we claim, there exists $N\ge 1$
such that, for all $m,\, n\ge N,$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Cuntzll15-0}
{\rm Cu}^\sim(h_n)(g)\ll {\rm Cu}^\sim(h_m)(g').
\end{eqnarray}
To see this, choose $0<\delta_2<\delta_1<\delta_0.$
By repeated application of ?, there exists an integer $N\ge 1$ such that, if $m,n\ge N,$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Cuntzll15}
h_n(a^g)\lesssim h_n(f_{\delta_0}(a^{g'})\lesssim \psi_n(f_{\delta_1}(a^{g'}))\le \psi(f_{\delta_1}(a^{g'})
\lesssim h_m(f_{\delta_2}(a^{g'})\le \psi(a^{g'})
\end{eqnarray}
for all such pairs of $g$ and $g'$ in $G.$
Therefore
\begin{eqnarray}
[h_n(a^g)]-n_g[1_{\tilde B}]\le h_m(a^{g'})-n_{g'}[1_{\tilde B}]
\end{eqnarray}
which gives \eqref{Cuntzll15-0}.
Let ${\cal F}_n\subset A$ be finite subsets such that ${\cal F}_n\subset {\cal F}_{n+1}$ and
$\cup_{n=1}^{\infty}{\cal F}_n$ is dense in $A.$
Since we have shown that homomorphism s from $A$ to ${\tilde B}$ has property (U), by \eqref{Cuntzll15-0}
(for every such $G$),
there exists a
subsequence $\{n_k\}$ and
a sequence of unitaries $u_k\in \widetilde{B}$ such
that,
\begin{eqnarray}
\|{\mathrm{Ad}}\,u_{k+1}\circ h_{n_{k+1}}(d)-{\mathrm{Ad}}\, u_k\circ h_{n_k}(d)\|<1/2^k\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, d\in {\cal F}_k,\,\, k=1,2,....
\end{eqnarray}
It follows that $({\mathrm{Ad}}\, u_k\circ h_{n_k}(a))_{k=1}^{\infty}$ a Cauchy sequence for each $a\in A.$
Let $H(a)$ be the limit. Then $H$ defines a unital homomorphism\, from $A$ to $\widetilde{B}.$
By \eqref{Cuntzll15},
\begin{eqnarray}
\psi(f_{\delta_1}(a^{g'}))\lesssim h(a^{g'})\lesssim \psi(a^{g'}).
\end{eqnarray}
It follows ${\rm Cu}^\sim(H)(g)={\rm Cu}^\sim(\psi)(g),$ or ${\rm Cu}^\sim(H)=\gamma.$
\end{proof}
\fi
\section{Unitization}
The following is a result of L. Robert.
\begin{lem}[Lemma 3.2.1 of \cite{Rl}]\label{Lunitalext}
Let $A$ be a $C^*$-algebra\, of stable rank one and $B$ be a unital $C^*$-algebra\, with finite stable rank.
Let $e_A\in A$ be a strictly positive element. Let ${\alpha}: {\rm Cu}^\sim(A)\to {\rm Cu}^\sim(B)$
be a morphism in ${\bf Cu}$ such that ${\alpha}([e_A])\le [1_B].$
Then there exists a unique morphism ${\alpha}^\sim: {\rm Cu}^\sim(\tilde A)\to {\rm Cu}^\sim(B)$
in ${\bf Cu}$
such that ${\alpha}([1_{\tilde A}])=[1_B].$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We keep the same notation in the proof of Lemma 3.2.1 of \cite{Rl}.
For any $[a]\in W(\tilde A)$ such that $[\pi(a)]=n<\infty,$ one defines, for any integer $m,$ (in ${\rm Cu}^\sim(B)$)
\begin{eqnarray} \label{Rl33}
{\alpha}^\sim([a]-m[1_{\tilde C}])={\alpha}([a]-n[1_{\tilde C}])+(n-m)[1_{\tilde B}].
\end{eqnarray}
(Note that, by subsection 4.2 of \cite{RS}, the revised definition of ${\rm Cu}^\sim(B)$ is the same as that
defined in \cite{Rl}).
The exactly the same proof first shows that such ${\alpha}^\sim$ is uniquely defined, additive
and {{sends positive elements to positive elements.}} Let $a_1,a_2\in (\tilde A\otimes {\cal K})_+$ with
$[a_1], [a_2]\in W(\tilde A)$ be such that $[a_1]\le [a_2].$
{{We also use $\pi: \tilde A\to \mathbb{C}$ as in the proof of Lemma 3.2.1 of \cite{Rl}.}}
If $[\pi(a_1)]=[\pi(a_2)],$ as in the proof of Lemma 3.2.1 of \cite{Rl}, ${\alpha}^\sim([a_1])\le {\alpha}^\sim([a_2]).$
Consider now the case $[\pi(a_1)]<[\pi(a_2)].$
Let $1>\varepsilon>0.$ Choose $0<\delta<\varepsilon/8$ such that $\pi(f_{2\delta}(a_1))=\pi(a_1)$ and $\pi(f_{2\delta}(a_1))$
is a projection. We may also assume that $\pi(f_{2\delta}(a_1))< \pi(a_2),$ by
replacing $a_2$ with $u^*g(a_2)u$ for some strictly positive functions in $C_0((0, \|a_2\|])$
and a scalar unitary $u\in {\cal K}^\sim.$
Without loss of generality, we may further assume that $f_\delta(a_1)\in {\rm Her}(a_2)$ (see Proposition 2.4 of \cite{Rr2}).
Choose $a_3\le a_2$ such that $\pi(a_3)\perp \pi(f_{2\delta}(a_1))$ and $[\pi(a_3)]+[\pi(f_{2\delta}(a_1)]=[\pi(a_2)].$
Put $c=(1_{(A\otimes {\cal K})^\sim}-f_{\delta/2}(a_1))a_3(1_{(A\otimes {\cal K})^\sim}-f_{\delta/2}(a_1)).$
Then $\pi(c)\perp \pi(f_{2\delta}(a_1))$ and
$\pi(c)=\pi(a_3).$
Now $[c]\in W(\tilde A)$ and
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Unt-409}
[(a_1-\delta)_+]+[c]\le [a_2]\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, [\pi(a_1-\delta)_+]+[\pi(c)]=[\pi(a_2)].
\end{eqnarray}
Let $n_{1,\delta}=[\pi((a_1-\delta)_+)].$
%
%
Then, since ${\alpha}^\sim $ maps positive elements to positive elements
and is additive, by \eqref{Rl33} and \eqref{Unt-409}, as in the proof
of Lemma 3.2.1 of \cite{Rl}, one computes that
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\hspace{-0.9in}{\alpha}^\sim([(a_1-\delta)_+])\le {\alpha}^\sim([(a_1-\delta)_+])+{\alpha}^\sim ([c])
={\alpha}^\sim([(a_1-\delta)_+]+[c])\\
&& \le {\alpha}([(a_1-\delta)_+]+[c]-n_{1,\delta}[1]-[\pi(c)][1])+ (n_{1, \delta}+[\pi(c)])[1]
\le {\alpha}^\sim ([a_2]).
\end{eqnarray}
As in the proof of Lemma 3.2.1 of \cite{Rl}, it follows that ${\alpha}^\sim$ preserves the order.
One then proceeds the rest of the proof of
Lemma 3.2.1 of \cite{Rl}.
%
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
In \ref{Counexm}, it will be shown that there are homomorphism s $\phi, \psi: A\to B$ such that ${\rm Cu}(\phi)={\rm Cu}(\psi)$ but
${\rm Cu}(\phi^\sim)\not={\rm Cu}(\psi^\sim).$ It may be worth noticing
that Lemma \ref{Lunitalext} deals with a different situation.
\end{rem}
\begin{df}
Let $F_1$ and $F_2$ be two finite dimensional $C^*$-algebra s.
Suppose that there are (not necessary unital) homomorphism s
$\phi_0, \phi_1: F_1\to F_2.$
Define
\begin{eqnarray}\label{dd63}
A=A(F_1, F_2,\phi_0, \phi_1)
=\{(f,g)\in C([0,1], F_2)\oplus F_1: f(0)=\phi_0(g)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, f(1)=\phi_1(g)\}.
\end{eqnarray}
Denote by ${\cal C}$ the class of all $C^*$-algebra s of the form $A=A(F_1, F_2, \phi_0, \phi_1).$
These $C^*$-algebra s {{are called Elliott-Thomsen building blocks as well as
one dimensional non-commutative CW complexes (see \cite{ELP1} and \cite{point-line}).}}
Denote by ${\cal I}_0$ the subclass of $C^*$-algebra s $C$ in ${\cal C}$
such that $K_1(C)=\{0\}.$
All $C^*$-algebra s in ${\cal C}$ have stable rank one (see, for example, Lemma 3.3 of \cite{GLN}) and are semiprojective (see
Theorem 6.22 of \cite{ELP1}).
\end{df}
\begin{lem}\label{LheredC0}
Let $A, C\in {\cal I}_0$ be $C^*$-algebra s such that there is an isomorphism
$\phi:A\otimes {\cal K}\cong C\otimes {\cal K}.$
Then there exists an integer $n\ge 1$ and an injective homomorphism\, $\iota: \phi(A)\to M_n(C)$
such that $\iota\circ \phi(A)$ is a full $C^*$-subalgebra\, of $M_n(C)$
and ${\rm Cu}^\sim(\iota)={\rm Cu}^\sim(\operatorname{id}_{\phi(A)}).$
\end{lem}
(Note that we identify $A$ with the first corner $A\otimes e_{1,1}$ of $A\otimes {\cal K}.$)
\begin{proof}
Let $D$ be a liminal $C^*$-algebra.
Denote by ${\rm Irr}(D)$ the set of irreducible representations of $D.$
If $d\in D_+$ and $\xi\in {\rm Irr}(D),$ let us denote $r_\xi(d)$
the rank of $\xi(d)$ (with value in $\{0\}\cup \mathbb{N}\cup \{\infty\}$).
Let $e_A\in A_+^{\bf 1}$ be a strictly positive element of $A.$
There is $N\ge 1$ such that
$$
1\le \inf\{ r_\xi(e_A): \xi\in {\rm Irr}(A\otimes {\cal K})\}\le \sup\{r_\xi(e_A): \xi\in {\rm Irr}(A\otimes {\cal K})\}\le N,
$$
viewing $A$ as a hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra\, of $A\otimes {\cal K}.$
\iffalse
$d_{\tau\otimes {\rm Tr}}(e_A)\le N$
for all $\tau\in T(A),$ where ${\rm Tr}$ is the densely defined trace on ${\cal K},$ viewing
$A$ as a hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra\, of $A\otimes {\cal K}.$
\fi
Put $A_1=\phi(A).$ Then $A_1$ is a full hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra\, of $C\otimes {\cal K}$
as isomorphisms preserve the full hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra s.
Hence $A_1={\rm Her}(\phi(e_A)).$ Note that, since $\phi$ is an isomorphism,
$$
1\le \inf\{ r_\xi(\phi(e_A)): \xi\in {\rm Irr}(C\otimes {\cal K})\}\le \sup \{ r_\xi(\phi(e_A)): \xi\in {\rm Irr}(C\otimes {\cal K})\} \le N.
$$
\iffalse
there exists
$N\ge 1$ such that
$d_{\tau\otimes Tr}(\phi(e_A))\le N$ for all $\tau\in T(B),$
where $Tr$ is the densely defined trace on ${\cal K}.$
Write
$$
C=\{(f,b)\in C([0,1], F_2)\oplus F_1: f(0)= {\psi}_0(b)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, f(1)={{\psi}}_1(b)\},
$$
where $F_1$ and $F_2$ are finite dimensional $C^*$-algebra s, and ${{\psi_i}}: F_1\to F_2$
is a homomorphism, $i=0,1.$
\fi
Fix a strictly positive element $e_C\in C.$
Then, there is $N_1\ge 1$ such that
$$
1\le \inf\{ r_\xi(e_C): \xi\in {\rm Irr}(C)\}\le \sup\{ r_\xi(e_C): \xi\in {\rm Irr}(C)\}\le N_1.
$$
Let $\{e_{i,j}\}\subset {\cal K}$ be a system of matrix units
and $E_j=\sum_{i=1}^je_{i,i}$ (for $j\ge 1$).
Put $c_n:=e_C\otimes E_n.$ Then $r_\xi(c_n)=n\cdot r_\xi(e_C).$
Therefore there is an integer $n\ge 1$
such that $d_\tau(\phi(e_A))< d_\tau(c_n)$
for all $\tau\in T(C).$
Working in ${\tilde C}$ if $C$ is not unital,
by 3.18 of \cite{GLN}, $\phi(e_A)\lesssim c_n$ in ${\rm Cu}(C).$
Note that $\phi(A)$ is a full hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra\, $C\otimes{\cal K}.$
Since $C\otimes {\cal K}$ has stable rank one, by Theorem 1.0.1 of \cite{Rl},
there is a homomorphism\, $\iota: \phi(A)\to M_n(C)$ such
that ${\rm Cu}^\sim (\iota)={\rm id}_{{\rm Cu}^\sim(C)}.$
Note, if $\iota(c)=0$ for some $c\in C_+,$ then ${\rm Cu}^\sim (\iota)([c])=0.$
Thus, $\iota$ is injective.
To see $\iota\circ \phi(A)$ is full, one needs to show that $\iota\circ \phi(e_A)$ is full
in $M_n(C).$ But $\iota\circ \phi(e_A)\sim \phi(e_A)$ and $\phi(e_A)$ is full
since $\phi$ is an isomorphism.
\end{proof}
We will use the following known and easy fact.
\begin{lem}\label{Lproj}
Let $B$ be as in \ref{151}. Suppose that $b\in M_n(\tilde B)_+$ is such that $[b]$ is a compact element in
${\rm Cu}^\sim(B).$ Then there is $g\in C_0((0, \|b\|])$ such that $g(b)$ is a projection.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By Theorem 6.1 of \cite{RS} (recall $B$ has stable rank at most 2), there is a projection $p\in M_N(\tilde B)$ for some integer $N\ge 1$ such
that $[b]=[p]$ in ${\rm Cu}^\sim (\tilde B).$
If $0$ is not an isolated point of ${\rm sp}(b),$ for any $\varepsilon>0,$ there is a nonzero element $c\le b$ such that $c\perp f_\varepsilon(b).$
Since $B$ is simple, $\tau(c)\not=0$ for any $\tau\in T(B).$ It follows that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Lproj-1}
d_\tau(f_\varepsilon(b))<d_\tau(p)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
However, since $p$ is compact, for all small $\varepsilon,$ $[p]\le [f_\varepsilon(b)]$ in ${\rm Cu}(\tilde B)^{\circeq}.$
This contradicts with \eqref{Lproj-1}. So
$0$ must be an isolated point of ${\rm sp}(b).$ Thus there is a such $g$ so that $g(b)$ is a projection.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}\label{Lunithm}
Let $C$ be a $C^*$-algebra\, in ${\cal I}_0$ with a strictly positive element $e_C$ and $B$ be a simple $C^*$-algebra\, which satisfies conditions in \ref{151}.
Suppose that $\lambda: {\rm Cu}^\sim (\tilde C)\to {\rm Cu}^\sim (\tilde B)$ is a morphism in ${\bf Cu}$ such that
$\lambda([1_{\tilde C}])=[b]$ for some (compact element) $b\in M_n(\tilde B)_+$ (for some integer $n\ge 1$).
Suppose also that there exists a sequence of homomorphism s $\phi_k: C\to M_n(\tilde B)$
such that $\lim_{k\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim (\phi_k)=\lambda|_{{\rm Cu}^\sim(C)}.$
(1) If $\lambda([e_C])$ is not a compact element,
then there exists a sequence of homomorphism s $\psi_k: \tilde C\to \overline{bM_n(\tilde B)b}$
such that
$$
\lim_{k\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim(\psi_k)=\lambda.
$$
(2) If $\lambda([e_C])$ is a compact element and $\lambda([c])\not=0$ for any $c\in C_+\setminus \{0\},$
then there exists a sequence of homomorphism s $\psi_k: \tilde C\to M_n(\tilde B)$ such that
$$
\lim_{k\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim(\psi_k)=\lambda.
$$
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Consider case (2) first.
If $\lambda([e_C])$ is a compact element, then,
for all sufficiently small $0<\varepsilon<1,$
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda([e_C])\le \lambda([f_\varepsilon(e_C)])\le \lambda([e_C]).
\end{eqnarray}
Let $g\in C_0((0,\|e_C\|])_+$ with the support in $(0, \varepsilon/2].$ Then
$\lambda([g(e_C)])=0.$
The assumption on $\lambda$
implies that $g(e_C)=0.$
It follows that $C$ is unital. Since $[e_C]=[1_C]\ll [1_C],$ this implies
that $[\phi_k(1_C)]=\lambda([1_C])$ (for all large $k$).
Let $e_0:=1_{\tilde C}-1_C.$ By Lemma \ref{Lproj}, we may assume that $b=p$
for some projection $p\in M_n(\tilde B).$ If $\lambda([e_0])=0,$ then $\lambda([1_C])=\lambda([1_{\tilde C}]).$
Define $\psi_k: \tilde C\to M_n(\tilde B)$ by ${\psi_k}|_{C}=\phi_k$ and
$\psi_k(1_{\tilde C})=\phi_k(1_C).$ (Warning: we only have $[\psi_k(1_{\tilde C})]+2[1_{\tilde B}]=
[p]+2[1_{\tilde B}]$ in ${\rm Cu}(\tilde B)$ for large $k.$)
If $\lambda([e_0])\not=0,$ then, for each $k,$
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau(\phi_k(1_C))\le d_\tau(p)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(\tilde B)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, d_\tau(\phi_k(1_C))<d_\tau(p)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(B).
\end{eqnarray}
It follows from Corollary A.4 of \cite{eglnkk0} that (since $\hat{p}$ is continuous on $T(B)$)
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi_k(1_C)\lesssim p\,\,\,\hspace{0.2in} {{{\rm in}\,\,\, {\rm Cu}(\tilde B).}}
\end{eqnarray}
There is a partial isometry $v_k\in M_n(\tilde B)$ such that $v_kv_k^*=\phi_k(1_C)$ and $v_k^*v_k\le p.$
Define $\psi_k: \tilde C\to pM_n(A)p$ by
$\psi_k(c)=v_k^*\phi_k(c)v_k$ for all $c\in C$ and $\psi_k(1_{\tilde C})=p.$
Since $C$ is unital, ${\rm Cu}^\sim({\psi_k}|_{C})={\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_k).$ It follows
from Lemma \ref{Lunitalext} that (2) holds.
For (1), we assume that
$\lambda([e_C])$ is not a compact element.
Again, by Lemma \ref{Lproj} and the fact $1_{\tilde C}$ is a projection, we may assume $b=p$ is a projection.
By Lemma \ref{Llimintmaps} ((ii) of (1)), we may assume that there is a sequence of homomorphism s $\phi_k$ which maps
$C$ into $\overline{pM_n(\tilde B)p}$ such that $\lim_{k\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_k)=\lambda|_{{\rm Cu}^\sim(C)}.$
Define $\psi_k: \tilde C\to \overline{pM_n(\tilde B)p}$
such that ${\psi_k}|_C=\phi_k$ and $\psi_k(1_{\tilde C})=p.$ Then
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
{\rm Cu}^\sim({\psi_k}|_{C})={\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_k)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, \,\,{\rm{(see\,\,\, Lemma\,\, \ref{Lunitalext})}}\,\,
\lim_{k\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim({\psi_k})=\lambda.
\end{eqnarray}
%
\end{proof}
\iffalse
Let $G\subset {\rm Cu}^\sim(C)$ be a finite subset.
Let $S=\{(f, g): f, g\in G, f\ll g\}.$
Suppose that $(f,g)\in S$ such that $g$ is not compact, i.e., it is not an element in $K_0(C)$
(see Theorem 6.1 of \cite{RS}). We claim, in this case,
there is $h\in {\rm Cu}^\sim(C)$ such
that
\begin{eqnarray}
f\ll h \ll g\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, h\not=g.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that $C$ has stable rank one (see, for example, 3.5 of \cite{GLN}). We may assume that $f=[a]-m_1[1_{\tilde C}]$
and $g=[d]-m_2[1_{\tilde C}],$ where $a, d\in (\tilde C\otimes {\cal K})_+$ and rank of $\pi_\mathbb{C}^{\tilde C}(a)=m_1<\infty$
and rank of $\pi_\mathbb{C}^{\tilde C}(d)=m_2<\infty.$ Therefore
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Lunithm-10}
d\oplus 1_{m_1}\ll a \oplus 1_{m_2}
\end{eqnarray}
(in the ${\rm Cu}(\tilde C)$),
where $1_{m_1}$ and $1_{m_2}$ are identities of $M_{m_1}(\tilde C)$ and $M_{m_2}(\tilde C)$ respectively.
By \eqref{Lunithm-10}. there is $1/2>\varepsilon>0$ such that $f_{\varepsilon}(a)\oplus 1_{m_2}\ge d\oplus 1_{m_1}.$
Note that $0$ is not an isolated point in $sp(a).$ So $[f_{\varepsilon}(a)]\not=[a].$
Moreover, by choosing smaller $\varepsilon,$
we may assume that $\pi_\mathbb{C}^{\tilde C}(f_\varepsilon(a))=f_{\varepsilon}(\pi_\mathbb{C}^{\tilde C}(a))$ has the same rank as
that of $\pi_\mathbb{C}^{\tilde C}(a)=m_1.$
It follows that $[f_{\varepsilon}(a)\oplus 1_{m_2}]\not=[a]+m_2.$
For any $0<\eta<\varepsilon/8,$ $f_{\eta}(a)\ll a.$
Suppose that $[a]=\sup\{[a_n]: a_n\lesssim a\}.$
Then, $d_\tau(a_n)\ne d_\tau(a)$ for all $\tau\in T(\tilde A),$ a compact convex set.
Since $\hat{a}$ is lower semicontinuous on $T(\tilde A)$ and $\tau(f_{\eta/2}(a))$
is continuous on $T(\tilde A),$ there is $N\ge 1$ such
that
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau(a_n)\ge \tau(f_{\eta/2}(a))\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(\tilde A).
\end{eqnarray}
It follows that $d_\tau(a_n)\ge d_\tau(f_\eta(a))$ for all $\tau\in T(\tilde A).$
By 3.18 of \cite{GLN},
\begin{eqnarray}
f_\eta(a)\lesssim a_n\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, n\ge N.
\end{eqnarray}
This implies that $f_\eta(a)\ll a.$
A similar argument shows that $f_{\varepsilon/2}(a)\ll f_{\varepsilon/8}(a).$ Note $[\pi_\mathbb{C}^{\tilde C}(f_{\varepsilon/8}(a))]=m_1.$
Choose $h=[f_{\varepsilon/8}(a)]-m_1[1_{\tilde C}].$
Then we have
\begin{eqnarray}
d+1_{m_1}\le f_{\varepsilon}(a)+1_{m_2}\ll f_{\varepsilon/8}(a)+1_{m_2}\ll a +1_{m_2}.
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore
\begin{eqnarray}
f\ll h\ll g.
\end{eqnarray}
This proves the claim.
If $C$ is unital, then, $[\phi_k(1_C)]=[\lambda(1_C)]$ (for all large $k.$).
So there are projections $p, e\in M_n(\tilde B)$ such that $[p]=\lambda([1_C])\le [b]=[e].$
It is important that, by Corollary A.4 of \cite{eglnkk0}, $\phi_k(1_C)\lesssim e,$ since $\hat{e}$ is continuous on $T(B).$
Therefore there is a partial isometry $v\in M_n(\tilde B)$ such that
$v^*\phi_k(1_C)v\le e.$ Put $\psi_k: \tilde C\to e{\tilde B}e$ defined by $\psi_k(c)=v^*\phi_k(c)v$
for all $c\in C$ and $\psi_k(1_{\tilde C})=e.$
Since $C$ has stable rank one and is unital,
${\rm Cu}^\sim(\psi_k|_{C})={\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_k).$ It then follows
that ${\rm Cu}^\sim(\psi)=\lambda.$
Now we assume that $C$ is not unital.
Choose $G_1$ to be a finite subset of $G$ such that, if $(f,g)\in S$ and if
$g$ is not compact, there is $h\not=g$ such that $f\ll h\ll g.$
Also, choose an integer $k\ge 1$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Lunithm-11}
&&\hspace{-0.7in}{\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_k)(f)\le \lambda(h)\le {\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi)(g), \,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, \lambda(f)\le {\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_k)(h)\le \lambda(g)
\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, (f,g)\in S.
\end{eqnarray}
Since $[b]$ is compact,
by Theorem 6.1, there is a projection $e\in M_N(\tilde B)$ such that $[e]=[b]$ in
${\rm Cu}^\sim(\tilde B).$ It follows that $d_\tau(b)=d_\tau(e)$ for all $\tau\in T(\tilde B).$
It follows that $d_\tau(b)$ is continuous on $T(B).$
Note that, for any $\varepsilon>0,$ $f_\varepsilon(b)\lesssim b.$ Since $[b]$ is compact,
$[b]=[f_\varepsilon(b)]$ for all sufficiently small $\varepsilon.$ In particular, $d_\tau(f_\varepsilon(b))$ is continuous
on $T(B)$ (for small $\varepsilon$). By Corollary A.4, $b\lesssim f_\varepsilon(b).$ Choose a function
in $g\in C_0((0,\|b\|])_+$ with $\|g\le 1$ with support in $(0, \varepsilon/2),$
Then $d_\tau(g_{\varepsilon/2}(b))=0$ for all $\tau\in T(\tilde B).$ Since $B$ is simple, this implies
that $g_{\varepsilon/2}(b)=0.$
It follows that $0$ is an isolated
point in ${\rm sp}(b).$ Therefore we may assume that $e\in M_n(\tilde B).$
Since $\widehat{[e]}$ is continuous, by Lemma \ref{Llimintmaps}, there exist a sequence
of homomorphism s $\Phi_{k,m}: C\to eM_n(\tilde B)e$ such that,
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{m\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim(\Phi_{k,m})={\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_k).
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, choosing large $m,$ we may assume that, for $(f,g)\in S,$
\begin{eqnarray}
&&{\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_k)(f)\le {\rm Cu}^\sim(\Phi_{k,m})(h)\le {\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_k)(g)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\,\\
&&{\rm Cu}^\sim(\Phi_{k,m})(f)\le {\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_k)(h)\le {\rm Cu}^\sim(\Phi_{k,m})(g).
\end{eqnarray}
Combining the above with \eqref{Lunithm-10}, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm Cu}^\sim(\Phi_{k,m})(f)\le {\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_k)(h)\le \lambda(g)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\,
\lambda(f)\le {\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_k)(h)\le {\rm Cu}^\sim(\Phi_{k,m})(g).
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, there is a sequence $\psi_k: C\to eM_n(\tilde B)e$ (from $\{\Phi_{k,m}\}$) such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{k\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim (\psi_k)=\lambda|_{{\rm Cu}^\sim(C)}.
\end{eqnarray}
\fi
The condition that $\lambda([c])\not=0$ for all $c\in C_+\setminus \{0\}$ may be called
``strictly positive".
\begin{cor}\label{corunithm}
Let $C$ be a $C^*$-algebra\, in ${\cal I}_0$ with a strictly positive element $e_C$ and $B$ be a simple $C^*$-algebra\, which satisfies conditions in \ref{151}.
Suppose that $\lambda: {\rm Cu}^\sim (C)\to {\rm Cu}^\sim (\tilde B)$ is a morphism in ${\bf Cu}$ such that
$\lambda([e_C])\le [e]$ for some nonzero projection $e\in M_n(\tilde B)$ (for some $n\in \mathbb{N}$).
Suppose also that there exists a sequence of homomorphism s $\phi_k: C\to M_n(\tilde B)$
such that $\lim_{k\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim (\phi_k)=\lambda.$
Then there exists a sequence of homomorphism s $\psi_k: \tilde C\to M_{n}(\tilde B)$
such that
$$
\lim_{k\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim({\psi_k}|_{C})=\lambda.
$$
Moreover, if $\lambda([e_C])$ is not a compact element, then we may require that
$\psi_k(C)\subset eM_n(\tilde B)e.$
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Define ${\psi_k}|_C=\phi_k$ and $\psi_k(1_{\tilde C})=1_n.$ Then the first part of the statement
follows.
For the second part, we note that,
since $B$ is simple and stably proectionless, and $e\in M_n(\tilde B)$ is a nonzero projection,
$e$ is a full element in $M_n(\tilde B).$ It follows that $eM_n(\tilde B)e\otimes {\cal K}\cong \tilde B\otimes {\cal K}.$
Put $D=eM_n(\tilde B)e.$
By theorem
5.5 of \cite{RS}, ${\rm Cu}^\sim(D)\cong {\rm Cu}^\sim (\tilde B).$
Then the second
part of the corollary follows from
part (1) of Theorem \ref{Lunithm}.
%
\iffalse
If $\lambda([e_C])$ is a compact element, then, there is $k_0\ge 1$ such that
$\phi_k(C)$ is unital for all $k\ge k_0,$ by Lemma \ref{Lproj}.
Put $C_k:=C/{\rm ker}\phi_k,$ $k=1,2,...$ Let $p_k$ be the unit of $\phi_k(C)$ and let $1_{m}$ be
the identity of $M_m(\tilde B)$ for integer $m\ge 1.$
Then $[p_k]\le [1_n]\le [1_{n+1}].$ It follows from Corollary A.4 of \cite{eglnkk0} that
\begin{eqnarray}
p_k\lesssim 1_{n+1}.
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore there is a partial isometry $v_k\in \tilde B\otimes {\cal K}$ such that $v_k^*p_kv_k\le 1_{n+1}.$
Define $\psi_k: \tilde C\to M_{n+1}(\tilde B)$ such that $\psi_k(c)=v_k^*\phi_k(c)v_k$ for all $c\in C$ and $\psi_k(1_{\tilde C})
=v_k^*p_kv_k,$ $k=1,2,....$
Note that, since $C_k$ is unital, ${\rm Cu}^\sim({\psi_k}|_{C})={\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_k)$ for
each $k.$ Thus $\lim_{k\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim({\psi_k}|_{C})=\lambda.$
\fi
\end{proof}
\begin{exm}\label{Counexm}
By Theorem 5.27 of \cite{GLIII}, there is a separable simple stably projectionless $C^*$-algebra\, $A$ with nontrivial $K_0(A)$ and with
continuous scale such that
${\rm ker}\rho_A=K_0(A)$ and $A=\lim_{n\to\infty}(C_n, \phi_n),$
where $C_n\in {\cal I}_0$ and $\phi_{n, \infty}: C_n\to C$ is injective.
Choose $C_n$ so that ${\phi_{n, \infty}}_{*0}(K_0(C_n))\not=0.$ This also implies that $K_0(C_n)\not=\{0\}.$
Note that, since $A$ is stably projectionless, $C_n$ is also stably projectionless.
Let $B:=A\otimes {\cal W},$ where ${\cal W}$ is the unique separable amenable $KK$-contractible $C^*$-algebra\,
with a unique tracial state (see \cite{eglnkk0}). Then $B$ has continuous scale and $T(B)=T(A),$
and $B$ is $KK$-contractible. By the classification theorem in \cite{eglnkk0}, $B$ is in fact
a simple inductive limit of Razak algebras. Then, by Proposition 6.2.3 of \cite{Rl},
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
{\rm Cu}^\sim(B) ={{\{0\}}}\sqcup {\rm LAff}_+^\sim (T(B))=\{0\}\sqcup {\rm LAff}_+^\sim(T(A))\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, {\rm Cu}^\sim(A)=K_0(A)\sqcup {\rm LAff}_+^\sim(T(A)).
\end{eqnarray}
By Theorem 1.0.1 of \cite{Rl}, there is a homomorphism\, $j: A\to B$ such that
$$
{\rm Cu}(j)|_{K_0(A)}=0\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\,
{\rm Cu}^\sim(j)|_{{\rm LAff}_+^\sim(T(A))}={\rm id}_{{\rm LAff}_+^\sim(T(A))}.
$$
There is also
a homomorphism\,
$
\iota: B\to A$ such that ${\rm Cu}^\sim(\iota)|_{{\rm LAff}_+^\sim(T(B))}={\rm id}|_{{\rm LAff}_+^\sim(T(B))}.
$
Let $\psi:=\iota\circ j\circ \phi_{n, \infty}:C_n\to A.$ Note ${\rm Cu}^\sim(\iota\circ j)|_{{\rm LAff}_+^\sim(T(A))}=
\operatorname{id}_{{\rm LAff}_+^\sim(T(A))}.$
Since $C_n$ is stably projectionless,
one has $${\rm Cu}(\psi)={\rm Cu}(\phi_{n, \infty}).$$
But, since $\psi_{*0}=0$ and ${\phi_{n, \infty}}_{*0}\not=0,$
$${\rm Cu}^\sim(\psi)\not={\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_{n, \infty})\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\,
{\rm Cu}(\psi^\sim)\not={\rm Cu}(\phi_{n, \infty}^\sim).$$
\end{exm}
\section{Existence}
\begin{lem}\label{LembedingC0}
Let $A$ be a separable simple stably projectionless $C^*$-algebra\,
with continuous scale such
that $M_m(A)$ has almost stable rank one for all $m\ge 1.$
Suppose also $QT(A)=T(A)$ and ${\rm Cu}(A)={\rm LAff}_+(T(A)).$
Then, for any ${\bf Cu}$ morphism $\lambda: {\rm Cu}^\sim (C_0((0,1])))\to {\rm Cu}^\sim(\tilde A)$
with $\lambda([e_C])\le [a]$ for some $a\in M_n(\tilde A)_+$ (for some integer $n\ge 1$),
where
$e_C$ is a strictly positive element of $C_0((0,1]),$ and $\lambda([c])\not=0$ for any $c\in C_0\otimes {\cal K}_+\setminus \{0\},$
there is a homomorphism\, $h: C_0((0,1])\to M_n(\tilde A)$ such that
${\rm Cu}^\sim(h)=\lambda.$
Moreover, if $\lambda: {\rm Cu}^\sim(C_0((0, 1])))\to {\rm Cu}^\sim (A)$ with $\lambda([e_C])\le [a]$
for some $a\in M_n(A)_+,$ then there exists a homomorphism\, $h: C_0((0,1]))\to M_n(A)$
such that ${\rm Cu}^\sim(h)=\lambda.$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Recall that $A$ shares the same condition that $B$ has in \ref{151}.
Put $C_0:=C_0((0,1]).$ Recall that $K_i(C_0)=\{0\},$ $i=0,1.$
Note that, since $C_0$ has stable rank one, ${\rm Cu}(C_0)$ is orderly embedded into
${\rm Cu}^\sim(C_0).$ So ${\rm Cu}^\sim(C_0)_+={\rm Cu}(C_0)$ (see Lemma 3.1.2 of \cite{Rl}).
Note also that $\tilde A$ is unital and has stable rank at most 2 (see the proof of Theorem 6.13 of \cite{RS}).
Thus $\lambda$ maps ${\rm Cu}(C_0)$ to ${\rm Cu}(\tilde A)^{\circeq}$ (see Lemma \ref{TcomparisonintdA}
and Corollary \ref{CtdBcomp}).
Therefore it suffices to show that there is a homomorphism\, $h: C_0\to M_n(\tilde A)$
such that ${\rm Cu}(h)=\lambda|_{{\rm Cu}(C_0)}.$
Recall, by Theorem \ref{TcomparisonintdA}, that
$ {\rm Cu}(\tilde A)^{\circeq}=(K_0(\tilde A)_+\setminus \{0\})\sqcup{\rm LAff}_+(T(\tilde A))^\diamond.$
%
Suppose that $\lambda([c])$ is compact
for some non-zero $c\in (C_0\otimes {\cal K})_+.$ Note
$[c]=\sup\{[f_{1/2^n}(c)]: n\in\mathbb{N}\}.$ It follows,
for some $n\ge1,$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{LembedingC0-n1}
\lambda([c])\le \lambda([f_{1/2^n}(c)]).
\end{eqnarray}
However, since $C_0$ is stably projectionless, there is $c_0\in {\rm Her}(c)_+\setminus\{0\}$
such that $c_0\perp f_{1/2^n}(c).$ By the assumption, $\lambda([c_0])\not=0.$
This contradicts with \eqref{LembedingC0-n1} as $C_0$ has stable rank one.
Hence $\lambda([c])$ is not compact for any
$[c]\in C_0\otimes {\cal K}_+\setminus \{0\}.$
Thus
$\lambda({\rm Cu}(C_0))\subset {\rm LAff}_+(T(\tilde A))^\diamond$ (see Theorem 6.1 of \cite{RS}).
It follows from Theorem 2.8 of \cite{eglnkk0} that there is a separable simple
$C^*$-algebra\, $A_1$ which is an inductive limit of Razak algebras with continuous scale such that $T(A_1)=T(A).$
Note that $K_i(A_1)=\{0\},$ $i=0,1.$
By Theorem A.26 of \cite{eglnkk0}, there is an embedding $\iota: A_1\to A$ which maps strictly positive elements
to strictly positive elements such that $\iota$ induces an affine homeomorphism
$\iota_T: T(A)\to T(A_1).$
Let $\iota^\sim: (A_1)^\sim\to \tilde A$
be the unital extension. We also write $\iota^\sim$ for
the extension from $M_n(A_1^\sim)$ to $M_n(\tilde A)$
for each integer $n\ge 1.$ Thus $\iota^\sim$ induces an isomorphism
$\iota^{\sharp\sim}$ form ${\rm LAff}_+(T(A_1^\sim))$ onto ${\rm LAff}_+(T(\tilde A)).$
Since ${A_1}^\sim$ has stable rank one,
it follows from Theorem 1.0.1 of \cite{Rl} that there is a
homomorphism\, $\phi:C\to M_n(\tilde A_1)$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi)=(\iota^{\sharp\sim})^{-1}\circ \lambda.
\end{eqnarray}
Define $h: C\to A$ by $h=\iota^\sim\circ \phi.$ Then ${\rm Cu}^\sim(h)=\lambda.$
%
For the ``Moreover" part, we first note that ${\rm Cu}(A)={\rm LAff}_+(T(A)),$ as $A$ is stably projectionless.
Therefore, working in ${\rm Cu}(A),$ the above argument also works and produces
a homomorphism\, $\phi: C\to M_n(A)$ such that ${\rm Cu}(\phi)=\lambda.$ This part also follows from \cite{Rlz}.
%
%
\iffalse
={\rm LAff}_+(T(A))$ is order embedded into
${\rm LAff}_+(T(\tilde A))$ in a natural way (
K_0(A)\sqcup {\rm LAff}^\sim(T(A))$
(see ? of \cite{Rl}).
$\widehat{[a]}(\tau)=0$
we note that, by Theorem 5.3 of \cite{RS}, ${\rm Cu}^\sim(A)$ is ordered embedded into
${\rm Cu}^\sim(\tilde A).$ So we may view $\lambda$ maps into ${\rm Cu}^\sim(\tilde A).$ In the above argument,
by Theorem 1.0.1 of \cite{Rl}, $\phi$ maps
$C$ into $M_n(A_1),$ a $C^*$-subalgebra\, of $M_n(\tilde A_1),$ as $\iota^\shap^{-1}(\hat{[a]})$ is in ${\rm Cu}^\sim(A_1).$
\fi
%
\end{proof}
\iffalse
\begin{lem}\label{Llimintmaps}
Let $C$ and $B$ be $C^*$-algebra s
and $\phi: A\to B$ be a homomorphism. Suppose that
$C$ is semiprojective, $e_C\in C$ is a strictly positive element,
and $b\in B_+,$ and $\phi(e_C)\lesssim b.$
Then there exists a sequence of homomorphism s $\phi_n: C\to \overline{bBb}$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{n\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_n)={\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi).
\end{eqnarray}
\iffalse
Moreover, suppose that either $C$ is unital, or there exists a sequence of
positive elements $\varepsilon_n\to 0$ such that $f_{\varepsilon_n}(e_C)\ll e_C.$
Then, if there exists a sequence of homomorphism s $\psi_n: C\to B$ such that
$\lim_{n\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim(\psi_n)=\lambda$
for some ${\bf Cu}$ morphism $\lambda: {\rm Cu}^\sim(C)\to {\rm Cu}^\sim(B)$
with $\lambda([e_C])\le [b]$ and $\psi_n(e_C)\lesssim b,$ there exists a sequence
of homomorphism s $\phi_n: A\to \overline{bBb}$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{n\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_n)=\lambda.
\end{eqnarray}
\fi
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We may assume that $\|e_C\|=1.$
Fix $1>\varepsilon>0.$ There is, by Proposition 2. 4 of \cite{Ro2}, $\delta>0$ and $r\in B$ such
that
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi(f_{\varepsilon/4}(e_C))=r^*f_\delta(b)r.
\end{eqnarray}
Put $x=f_\delta(b)^{1/2}r.$ Let $x=v(x^*x)^{1/2}$ be the polar decomposition of $x$ in $B^{**}.$
Note that $x^*x=\phi(f_{\varepsilon/2}(e_C)).$
Define $L_\varepsilon: C\to B$ be defined by $L_\varepsilon(c)=v\phi(f_{\varepsilon/2}(e_C)^{1/2} cf_{\varepsilon/2}(e_C))v^*$
for all $c\in C.$ Then $L\varepsilon(C)\subset {\rm Her}(b).$
It should be noted that, for any $c\in C_\varepsilon:={\rm Her}(f_{\varepsilon}(e_C)^{1/2})\subset C,$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Llimitmap-10}
[L_{\varepsilon}(c)]=[\phi(c)].
\end{eqnarray}
Moreover, ${L_\varepsilon}|_{C_\varepsilon}$ is a homomorphism\, Choose a subsequence $\varepsilon_n\to 0,$
one obtains, as $C$ is semiprojective, a sequence of homomorphism s $\phi_n: C\to B$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\|\phi_n(c)-L_{\varepsilon_n}(c)\|=0.
\end{eqnarray}
Combing with \eqref{Llimitmap-10}, one obtains
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{n\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_n)={\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi).
\end{eqnarray}
For the second part, in the case that $C$ is unital,
the assumption that $\lim_{n\to\infty}({\rm Cu}^\sim(\psi_n)=\lambda$
implies that $[\psi_n(1_C)]=\lambda([1_C])$ as $[1_C]\ll [1_C].$
for each fixed $m\ge 1,$ let $C_m={\rm Her}.$
\end{proof}
\fi
%
%
\begin{df}
Let ${\cal A}_0$ be the family of $C^*$-algebra s in ${\cal I}_0$ which consists of one $C^*$-algebra\, $C_0((0,1]).$
A $C^*$-algebra\, $A$ is in ${\cal A}_n$ if $A\in {\cal I}_0$ and, if $A\otimes {\cal K}\cong B\otimes {\cal K},$ or, if $A=\tilde B,$
or if $\tilde A=B$
for some
$B\in {\cal A}_{n-1},$ $n=1,2,....$
\end{df}
\begin{thm}\label{TTEXTC0}
Let $C\in {\cal I}_0$ be a $C^*$-algebra\,
and let $A$ be a separable simple stably projectionless $C^*$-algebra\,
with continuous scale such
that $M_m(A)$ has almost stable rank one for all $m\ge 1.$
Suppose also $QT(A)=T(A)$ and ${\rm Cu}(A)={\rm LAff}_+(T(A)).$
Let $e_C$ and $e_A$ be strictly positive elements of $C$ and $A,$ respectively.
(1) Suppose that there is a morphism $\lambda: {\rm Cu}^\sim(C)\to {\rm Cu}^\sim(A)$ in ${\bf Cu}$
such that $\lambda([e_C])\le n[e_A]$ for some integer $n\ge 1$ and $\lambda([c])\not=0$
for any $c\in C_+\setminus \{0\}.$
Then there is an integer $m\ge n$ and a sequence of homomorphism s $\phi_k: C\to M_m(A)$ such that
$\lim_{k\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_k)=\lambda.$
(2) Also, if there is a morphism
$\lambda: {\rm Cu}^\sim(C)\to {\rm Cu}^\sim (\tilde A)$ in {\bf Cu} such that $\lambda([e_C])\le n[1_{\tilde A}]$
and $\lambda([c])\not=0$ for all $c\in (C\otimes {\cal K})_+
\setminus \{0\},$
then there exists an integer $m\ge n$ and a sequence of homomorphism s $\phi_k: C\to M_m(\tilde A)$ such that
$\lim_{k\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim (\phi_k)=\lambda.$
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
It follows from (the proof of) Proposition 5.2.2 of \cite{Rl} that, $C\in {\cal A}_m$ for some $m\ge 0.$
By Lemma \ref{LembedingC0}, the lemma holds for any $C^*$-algebra\, $C\in {\cal A}_0$ and any $A$ which meets the requirement of the lemma.
Assume that lemma holds for any $C^*$-algebra\, $C$ in ${\cal A}_{m-1}.$ It suffices to show that the lemma holds
for any $C^*$-algebra\, $C$ in ${\cal A}_m$ and any $A$ as described in the lemma.
%
Fix $C\in {\cal A}_m.$
Case (I) : Suppose that $h: C\otimes {\cal K}\to B\otimes {\cal K}$ is an isomorphism for some $B\in {\cal A}_{m-1}.$
In situation (2), suppose that $\lambda: {\rm Cu}^\sim(C)\to {\rm Cu}^\sim(\tilde A)$ is a morphism in ${\bf Cu}$
such that $\lambda([e_C])\le n[1_{\tilde A}].$
By Lemma \ref{LheredC0}, there is an injective homomorphism\, $\iota: h(C)\to M_L(B)$ for
some integer $L\ge 1$ such that ${\rm Cu}^\sim(\iota)={\rm Cu}^\sim(\operatorname{id}_{h(C)}).$
Since $B\in {\cal A}_{m-1},$ by the inductive assumption, there exists an integer $m_0\ge n$ and a
sequence of homomorphism s $\psi_k: M_L(B)\to M_{Lm_0}(\tilde A)$ such
that
$$
\lim_{k\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim(\psi_k)=\lambda\circ {\rm Cu}^\sim(h^{-1}).
$$
Define $\phi_k: C\to M_{Lm_0}(\tilde A)$ by
$\phi_k(c)=\psi_k\circ \iota\circ h(c)$ for all $c\in C.$ It follows that
$$
\lim_{k\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_k)=\lambda.
$$
In situation (1), $\lambda$ maps ${\rm Cu}^\sim(C)$ to ${\rm Cu}^\sim(A),$ then the argument above also works
(but $\psi_k$ maps $M_L(B)$ into $M_{Lm_0}(A)$).
%
%
\iffalse
We first consider the case that $C$ is a full hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra\, of $B.$ Let $e_B$ be a strictly positive element of $B.$
Since $e_C$ is full in $B,$ then, for any irreducible representation $\pi$ of $B,$
$\pi(e_C)\not=0.$ Since the set $\{{\rm rank}\pi(e_B): \pi\in {\rm Irr}(B)\}$ is bounded
(where ${\rm Irr}(B)$ is the set of irreducible representations of $B$), by 3.18 of \cite{GLN}, there exists $N\ge 1$
such that $N[e_C]\ge [e_B]$ (in ${\rm Cu}(\tilde B)$). It follows that $\lambda([e_B])\le Nn[1_{\tilde A}].$
By the assumption that $B\in {\cal A}_{m-1},$ we obtain an integer $L\ge Nn$ and a sequence of homomorphism s
$h_k: B\to M_L(\tilde A)$ such that
$\lim_{k\to \infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim(h_k)=\lambda.$
Then choose $\phi_k=h_k|_C.$
In general, by what has been just proved and by Lemma \ref{Lminimal}, we may assume that there is an isomorphism
$\phi: B\otimes {\cal K}\to C\otimes {\cal K}$ such that $\phi(B)\subset C.$ Then $\phi(e_B)$
is full in $C.$ Note $\phi(B\otimes {\cal K})=C\otimes {\cal K}.$
Then, using the argument above, there is an integer $N\ge 1$ such that $N[\phi(e_B)]\ge [e_C].$
Since $B\otimes {\cal K}$ has stable rank one, for any $1>\varepsilon_m>0,$ by Proposition 2.4 (v) of \cite{Rr2}, there
is a unitary $U_m\in C\otimes {\cal K}^\sim $ such that
$U_m^*f_{\varepsilon_m}(e_C)U_m\in M_N(\phi(e_B)).$ Put $C_n=\overline{f_{\varepsilon_m}(e_C)Cf_{\varepsilon_m}(C)}.$
Since $B\in {\cal A}_{m-1},$ there exists a sequence of homomorphism s $\psi_{k,m}: M_N(\phi(e_B))\to M_{Nn}(\tilde A)$
such that $\lim_{k\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim(\psi_{k,m})=\lambda.$
Define $\psi_{k,m}': C\to M_N(\phi(e_B))$ by $\psi_{k,m}'(c)=\psi_{k,m}(U_m^*f_{\varepsilon_m}(e_C)cf_{\varepsilon_m}(e_C)U_m)$
for all $c\in C.$ Let $\varepsilon_m=1/2^{m+1},$ $m=1,2,...$ Then, since $C$ is semiprojective, we obtain a
sequence of homomorphism s $\psi_m: C\to M_{Nn}(\tilde A)$ such that (for some any $k_m\to \infty$).
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{m\to\infty}\|\psi_m(c)-\psi_{k_m, m}(c)\|=0.
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, by choosing a subsequence of $\{k_m\},$ we also have
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{m\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim(\psi_m)=\lambda.
\end{eqnarray}
If $\lambda: {\rm Cu}^\sim(C)\to {\rm Cu}^\sim(A),$ for the special case above,
${\rm Im}(h_k)\subset M_L(A).$ It follows that ${\rm Im}(\phi_k)\subset M_L(A).$
For general case, ${\rm Im}(\psi_{k,m})\subset M_{Nn}(A).$ Hence
${\rm Im}(\phi_k)\subset M_{Nn}(A).$
%
%
%
\fi
%
Case (II): $C=\tilde B$ for some $B\in {\cal A}_{m-1}.$ Note that $C$ is unital
and $A$ is stably projectionless.
Hence $\lambda: {\rm Cu}^\sim(C)\to {\rm Cu}^\sim(\tilde A).$ (We do not need
to consider the case $\lambda: {\rm Cu}^\sim \to {\rm Cu}^\sim (A).$)
Let $e_B\in B$ be a strictly positive element.
Note that ${\rm Cu}^\sim(B)$ is orderly embedded into ${\rm Cu}^\sim(\tilde B)$
(see Proposition 3.1.6 of \cite{Rl}).
Since $B\in {\cal A}_{m-1}$ and $\lambda([e_B])\le \lambda([e_C])\le n[1_{\tilde A}],$
by the inductive assumption, there is an integer $m_0\ge n$ and a sequence of homomorphism s $\psi_k: B\to M_{m_0}(\tilde A)$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{k\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim(\psi_k)=\lambda|_{{\rm Cu}^\sim(B)}.
\end{eqnarray}
If $\lambda([e_B])$ is not compact, we apply part (1) of Theorem \ref{Lunithm} to obtain the desired
maps $\phi_k.$
If $\lambda([e_B])$ is compact,
since $\lambda$ is strictly positive, by (2) of
Theorem \ref{Lunithm}, there is also a sequence of homomorphism s $\phi_k: C=\tilde B\to M_{nm_0}(\tilde A)$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{k\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_k)=\lambda.
\end{eqnarray}
Case (3): $\tilde C=B$ for some $B\in {\cal A}_{m-1}.$
Let $\lambda: {\rm Cu}^\sim(C)\to {\rm Cu}^\sim (\tilde A)$ be such that $\lambda([e_C])\le n[1_{\tilde A}].$
By Lemma \ref{Lunitalext}, there is an extension $\lambda^\sim: {\rm Cu}^\sim (\tilde C)\to {\rm Cu}^\sim(\tilde A)$ in
${\bf Cu}$ such that $\lambda^\sim|_{{\rm Cu}^\sim(C)}=\lambda$ and
$\lambda(1_{\tilde C})=(n+1)[1_{\tilde A}].$
Consider the following splitting short exact sequence (see Proposition 3.1.6 of \cite{Rl}):
\begin{eqnarray}
0\to {\rm Cu}^\sim(C)\to {\rm Cu}^\sim(\tilde C)\stackrel{{\rm Cu}^\sim(\pi_\mathbb{C}^C)}{\to} {\rm Cu}^\sim(\mathbb{C})\to 0,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\pi_\mathbb{C}^C: \tilde C\to \mathbb{C}$ is the quotient map (and its extension).
Let $a\in (\tilde C\otimes {\cal K})_+\setminus \{0\}.$ If $\pi_\mathbb{C}^C(a)=0,$
then $\lambda^\sim([a])=\lambda([a])\not=0.$
If $\pi_\mathbb{C}^C(a)\not=0,$ then, by the definition,
$\lambda^\sim([a])\not=0.$ Thus $\lambda^\sim([a])\not=0$
for any $a\in (\tilde C\otimes {\cal K})_+\setminus \{0\}.$
Since $B\in {\cal A}_{m-1},$ by the assumption, there exists a sequence of homomorphism s $h_k: B=\tilde C\to M_{L}(\tilde A)$
for some $L\ge n$
such that $\lim_{k\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim(h_k)=\lambda^\sim.$
Choose $\phi_k:={h_k}|_{C}.$ Then
$\lim_{k\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_k)=\lambda.$
If $\lambda: {\rm Cu}^\sim (C)\to {\rm Cu}^\sim(A)$ with $\lambda([e_C])\le n[e_A],$
then, since ${\rm Cu}^\sim(A)\to {\rm Cu}^\sim (\tilde A)$ is an order embedding, by Theorem 5.3 of \cite{RS},
one may view $\lambda: {\rm Cu}^\sim (C)\to {\rm Cu}^\sim(\tilde A).$
It follows from Lemma \ref{Lunitalext}, there is an extension $\lambda^\sim: {\rm Cu}^\sim(\tilde C)\to
{\rm Cu}^\sim (\tilde A)$ such that $\lambda^\sim|_{{\rm Cu}^\sim(C)}=\lambda$ and
$\lambda^\sim([1_{\tilde C}])=(n+1)[1_{\tilde A}].$ As proved above, $\lambda^\sim$ is strictly positive, i.e., $\lambda^\sim([c])\not=0$ for any $c\in (\tilde C\otimes {\cal K})_+\setminus \{0\}.$
Since $B\in {\cal A}_{m-1},$ there exists a sequence of homomorphism s
$h_k: B=\tilde C\to M_L(\tilde A)$ such that $\lim_{k\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim(h_k)=\lambda^\sim.$
Define $\phi_k={h_k}|_{C}.$
Then $\lim_{k\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_k)=\lambda.$
%
%
%
\iffalse
%
Note that $\lambda([e_C])\le n([e_A]).$ Therefore,
\begin{eqnarray}
\widehat{\lambda([e_C])}(\tau)<\widehat{n[e_A]}(\tau)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(A).
\end{eqnarray}
Since $\widehat{n[e_A]}$ is continuous on $T(\tilde B),$ by (1) of Lemma \ref{Llimintmaps},
we may assume that $\phi_k$ maps $C$ into $M_n(B).$
\fi
%
%
\iffalse
One then notes that, for any $\varepsilon>0,$ $\phi_k'([f_{\varepsilon/4}(e_C)])\le n[e_A]$
for all large $k.$ It follows that
\begin{eqnarray}
d_\tau(\phi_k'([f_{\varepsilon/4}(e_C)))<nd_\tau(e_A)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(A).
\end{eqnarray}
Since $A$ has the strict comparison,
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi_k'(f_{\varepsilon/4}(e_C))\lesssim {\rm diag}(\overbrace{e_A, e_A,...,e_A}^n).
\end{eqnarray}
By Lemma 3.2 of \cite{eglnp},
there exists a unitary $U\in M_n(\tilde A)$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}
U^*\phi_k'(f_{\varepsilon}(e_C)U\in M_n(A).
\end{eqnarray}
It follows, since $C$ is semiprojective, that there is a sequence of homomorphism s
$\phi_k: C\to M_n(A)$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{k\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim(\psi_k)=\lambda.
\end{eqnarray}
\fi
This completes the induction. Theorem follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{CEXTmaps}
Let $C\in {\cal I}_0$ be a $C^*$-algebra\, with a strictly positive element $e_C$
and let $A$ be a finite separable simple stably projectionless $C^*$-algebra\, which
is ${\cal Z}$-stable with continuous scale such that $QT(A)=T(A).$
Suppose that there is a morphism $\lambda: {\rm Cu}^\sim(C)\to {\rm Cu}^\sim(A)$ in ${\bf Cu}$
such that $\lambda([e_C])\le [a]$ for some $a\in A_+$ and $\lambda([c])\not=0$
for all $c\in C_+\setminus \{0\}.$
Then
there exists a sequence of homomorphism s $\phi_k: C\to
\overline{aAa}$
such that
$\lim_{k\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim (\phi_k)=\lambda.$
Moreover, there exists a sequence of injective homomorphism s $\phi_k: C\to
\overline{aAa}$
such that
$\lim_{k\to\infty}^w {\rm Cu}^\sim (\phi_k)=\lambda.$
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
{{Recall that $A$ satisfies the condition that $B$ satisfies in \ref{151}.}}
Let $e_A\in A$ be a strictly positive element. Then $\widehat{[e_A]}$ is continuous on $T(A).$
It follows from Theorem \ref{TTEXTC0} that there exists an integer $m\ge 2$ and a sequence of homomorphism s
$\psi_k: C\to M_m(A)$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{k\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim(\psi_k)=\lambda.
\end{eqnarray}
Since $A$ is stably projectionless and $\lambda$ is strictly positive, $\lambda([e_C])$ is not compact.
Applying (2) of Lemma \ref{Llimintmaps}, we
obtain a sequence of homomorphism s $\phi_k': C\to A$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{k\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_k')=\lambda.
\end{eqnarray}
To see the last part of the statement and to make homomorphism s injective, for each $k\ge 1,$ choose $0<\varepsilon_k<1/2^{k+1}$
and define $L_k: C\to A_k:={\rm Her}(f_{\varepsilon_k}(a))$ by
\begin{eqnarray}
L_k(c)=f_{\varepsilon_k}(a)\phi_k(c)f_{\varepsilon_k}(a)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, c\in C.
\end{eqnarray}
Since $C$ is semiprojective, by choosing small $\varepsilon_k,$ one obtains
a homomorphism\, $\phi_k'': C\to A_k$ such that (see also Theorem \ref{LappCum})
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\lim_{k\to\infty}\|\phi_k''(c)-\phi_k(c)\|=0\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, c\in C\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\,\\\label{CEXTmaps-4}
&& \lim_{k\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim (\phi_k'')=\lambda.
\end{eqnarray}
Choose a nonzero function in $g_k\in C_0((0,1])_+$ with support in $(0, \varepsilon_k/3)$
and nowhere zero in $(0,\varepsilon_k/3).$
Put $B_k={\rm Her}(g_k(a)).$ Since $A$ is stably projectionless, we may assume
that $B_k$ is nonzero. Note also $B_k\perp A_k.$
Put
\begin{eqnarray}\label{CEXTmaps-5--}
\sigma_k:=\sup\{d_\tau(g_k): \tau\in T(A)\}>0.
\end{eqnarray}
Since $A$ has continuous scale, we have
that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{CEXTmaps-5}
\lim_{k\to\infty}\sigma_k=0.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that $B_k$ is a hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra\, of $A$ and therefore it is also ${\cal Z}$-stable (Cor. 3.1 of \cite{TW}).
Choose a nonzero hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra\, $D_k\subset B_k$ which has continuous scale (see Remark 5.3 of \cite{eglnp}).
By Theorem 6.11 of \cite{RS}, ${\rm Cu}^\sim(D_k)=K_0(D_k)\sqcup {\rm LAff}_+^\sim(T(D_k)).$
By Corollary A.8 of \cite{eglnkk0} and Theorem 4.1 of \cite{GLIII}, there exists $\tau_0\in T(D_k)$ such that
$\rho_{D_k}(x)(\tau_0)=0$ for all $x\in K_0(D_k),$ where $\rho_{D_k}: K_0(D_k)\to {\rm Aff} (T(D_k))$
is the usual paring. Recall ${\cal W}$ is the unique separable $KK$-contractible
amenable simple ${\cal Z}$-stable $C^*$-algebra\, with a unique tracial state $\tau_W.$
Define
$\gamma: {\rm Cu}^\sim(D_k)\to {\rm Cu}^\sim ({\cal W})$ by
$\gamma|_{K_0(D_k)}=0$ and $\gamma(f)(\tau_W)=rf(\tau_0)$ for all $f\in
{\rm LAff}_+^\sim(\tilde T(D_k))$ for a choice of $0<r<1.$
{{Recall ${\rm Cu}^\sim(D_k)={\rm Cu}^\sim (A).$}}
Note that $\gamma \circ \lambda([c])\not=0$ for all $c\in C_+
\setminus \{0\}.$ We choose $r$ so that $\gamma\circ \lambda([e_C])(\tau_W)<1.$
By Theorem 1.0.1 of \cite{Rl}, there is an injective homomorphism\, (since $\gamma\circ\lambda$ is strictly positive)
$h_k: C\to {\cal W}$ such that ${\rm Cu}^\sim(h_k)=\gamma\circ \lambda.$
Let $E$ be a separable $KK$-contractible amenable simple ${\cal Z}$-stable $C^*$-algebra\, with $T(E)=T(D_k)$
and has stable rank one (see Theorem 2.8 of \cite{eglnkk0}).
Let $h_{E,D}: E\to {{D_k}}$ be a nonzero homomorphism\, given by Theorem A.26 of \cite{eglnkk0}
so that $h_{E,D}$ induces the identification of $T(E)=T(D).$
Let $\eta: {\rm Cu}^\sim({\cal W})\to {\rm Cu}^\sim (E)$ be defined by
$\eta(f)(\tau)=f(\tau_W)$ for all $f\in {\rm LAff}_+^\sim(\tilde T({\cal W})).$ Applying Theorem 1.0.1 of \cite{Rl} again,
there is a monomorphism $h_{W, E}: {\cal W}\to E$ such that ${\rm Cu}^\sim(h_{W, E})=\eta.$
Define $h_{k, C, D}:=h_{E, D}\circ h_{W, E}\circ h_k: C\to D_k.$ Then $h_{k,C, D}$ is an injective homomorphism.
Define $\phi_k: C\to {\rm Her}(a)$ by
$\phi_k(c)=\phi_k'(c)+h_{k,C, D}(c)$ for all $c\in C.$ Recall that $D_k\perp B_k.$
The map $\phi_k$ is injective. It remains to show that $\lim_{k\to\infty}^w{\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_k)=\lambda.$
Since $h_{k,C, D}$ factors through ${\cal W},$
${\rm Cu}^\sim(h_{k,C, D})|_{K_0(C)}=0.$ Note here we view $K_0(A)$ as a subset
of ${\rm Cu}^\sim(C)$ (see subsection 6.1 and Theorem 6.1 of \cite{RS}).
Then,
by \eqref{CEXTmaps-4}, for any finite subset $G\subset {\rm Cu}^\sim(C),$
there exists $N\ge 1$ such that, for any $k\ge N$ (see also \ref{DappCu}),
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Inj-200}
{\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_k)(x)=\lambda(x)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, x\in G\cap K_0(C).
\end{eqnarray}
Let $f,g \in G,$ $f\ll g$ be such that neither $f$ nor $g$ are compact.
Recall, by Theorem 5.3 of \cite{RS}, that ${\rm Cu}^\sim (A)$ is orderly embedded into ${\rm Cu}^\sim(\tilde A).$
Let $\lambda^\sim: {\rm Cu}^\sim(\tilde C)\to {\rm Cu}^\sim(\tilde A)$ be the unique extension of
$\lambda$ given by Lemma \ref{Lunitalext}. As in the proof of case (3) in the proof of Theorem \ref{TTEXTC0},
$\lambda^\sim$ is strictly positive.
Let ${\bar f}$ and ${\bar g}$ be as in the proof of \ref{LappCum} with $\|{\bar f}\|, \|{\bar g}\|\le 1.$
We also retain other notations in the proof \ref{LappCum} related to $f$ and $g.$
Since $f$ and $g$ are not compact elements, by (ii) of Theorem 6.1 of \cite{RS},
neither are ${\bar f}$ and ${\bar g}.$
Since $\lambda^\sim$ is strictly positive,
$\lambda^\sim ({\bar f})$ and $\lambda^\sim ({\bar g})$ are not compact.
Let $d_f, d_g\in M_r(\tilde A)_+$ (for some $r\ge 1$) such that
$[d_f]=\lambda^\sim({\bar f}),$ and $[d_g]=\lambda^\sim({\bar g}).$
Note, as $\lambda^\sim$ is the unique extension of $\lambda,$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Inj-n-100}
\lambda^\sim({\bar f})=\lambda(f)+m_f[1_{\tilde A}]+m_g[1_{\tilde A}]\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\,
\lambda^\sim({\bar g})=\lambda(g)+m_g[1_{\tilde A}]+m_f[1_{\tilde A}]
\end{eqnarray}
(see \eqref{Rl33}).
Then (recall that $[d_g]$ cannot be represented by a projection), there is $0<\delta<1/2$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Inj-1}
&&
\pi_\mathbb{C}^C(f_{\delta}(d_g))=\pi_\mathbb{C}^C(d_g),\,\,\, d_\tau(f_{\delta/2}(d_g))>\tau(f_{\delta}(d_g))\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(A)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\,\\
&&{[}{\bar f}{]}\ll [f_{2\delta}(d_g)]\le [d_g].
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, by \eqref{CEXTmaps-4}, there exists an integer $N_1\ge 1$ such that, for $k\ge N_1,$
\begin{eqnarray}
[\phi_k'^\sim({\bar f})]\le [f_{2\delta}(d_g)].
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore (see also \eqref{Inj-1})
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Inj-99}
d_\tau(\phi_k'^\sim({\bar f}))<\tau(f_\delta(d_g))<\tau(f_{\delta/2}(d_g))\le d_\tau(f_{\delta/2}(d_g))\le d_\tau({\bar g})\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(A)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\,\\
d_\tau(\phi_k'^\sim({\bar f}))\le \tau(f_\delta(d_g))\le \tau(f_{\delta/2}(d_g))\le d_\tau(f_{\delta/2}(d_g))\le d_\tau({\bar g})\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(\tilde A).
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the lower semicontinuous function $\widehat{[f_{\delta/2}(d_g)]}-\widehat{f_\delta(d_g)}$
is strictly positive
on the compact set $T(A).$
It follows
that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Inj-20}
\eta:=\inf\{d_\tau(f_{\delta/2}(d_g))-\tau(f_\delta(d_g)):\tau\in T(A)\}>0.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that we may assume that ${\bar f}\in M_{r+m_g}(\tilde C)$ (see the lines below \eqref{512} and lines below
\eqref{59} in
the proof
of \ref{LappCum}).
We may also assume, for all $k\ge N_1,$
\begin{eqnarray}
(r+m_g)\sigma_k<\eta/4.
\end{eqnarray}
For any $1/2>\varepsilon_0>0,$
write
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{\varepsilon_0}({\bar f})=S+c_{f, \varepsilon_0},
\end{eqnarray}
where $S\in M_{r+m_g}(\mathbb{C})_+$ and $c_{f, \varepsilon_0}\in M_{r+m_g}(C)_{s.a.}$
and $\|S\|\le 1$ and $\|c_{f, \varepsilon_0}\|\le 2.$
Recall (identifying $S$ with the scalar matrix),
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Inj-10}
\phi_k'^\sim(f_{\varepsilon_0}({\bar f}))=S+\phi_k'(c_{f,\varepsilon_0}) \,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\, \phi_k^\sim (f_{\varepsilon_0}({\bar f}))=S+\phi_k'^\sim (c_{f, \varepsilon_0})+h_{k, C, D}(c_{f, \varepsilon_0}).
\end{eqnarray}
We estimate that, by \eqref{CEXTmaps-5--}, for all $\tau\in T(A).$
\begin{eqnarray}
|\tau(h_{k, C,D}((c_{f, \varepsilon_0})))|\le 2 (r+m_g)\sigma_k<\eta/2.
\end{eqnarray}
Combining this with \eqref{Inj-10}, \eqref{Inj-99}, and \eqref{Inj-20},
we obtain, for any $1/2>\varepsilon_0>0,$ if $k\ge N_1,$
\begin{eqnarray}
&&d_\tau(\phi_k^\sim(f_{\varepsilon_0}({\bar f})))<d_{\tau}(d_g)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(A)\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\,\\
&&d_{\tau}(\phi_k^\sim (f_{\varepsilon_0}({\bar f})))\le d_\tau(d_g) \,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, \tau\in T(\tilde A).
\end{eqnarray}
It follows from
Theorem \ref{TBtildC},
if $k\ge N_1$ (in ${\rm Cu}(\tilde A)$),
$
[\phi_k^\sim(f_{\varepsilon_0}({\bar f}))]\le
[d_g].
$
Since $N_1$ does not depend on $\varepsilon_0,$ this implies
that (in ${\rm Cu}(\tilde A)$)
$
{\rm Cu}(\phi_k^\sim)({\bar f})\le [d_g].
$
In other words (see also \eqref{Inj-n-100} and the lines below \eqref{59}), if $k\ge N_1,$
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_k)(f)+(m_f+m_g+2)[1_{\tilde A}]=[\phi_k(a^f)]+m_g[1_{\tilde A}]\le \lambda(g)+(m_g+m_f+2)[1_{\tilde A}]
\end{eqnarray}
(recall that $A$ has stable rank at most 2).
Thus, if $k\ge N_1,$
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_k)(f)\le \lambda(g).
\end{eqnarray}
The same argument shows that, if $k\ge N_1,$
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda(f)\le {\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_k(g)).
\end{eqnarray}
Hence, combining with the last two displays and \eqref{Inj-200}, one obtains
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
{\lim}^w_{n\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_k)=\lambda.
\end{eqnarray}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\end{proof}
\iffalse
\begin{rem}\label{Rsqueeze}
One can do a little better in Theorem \ref{TTEXTC0}.
Suppose that $C\in {\cal I}_0$ and $B$ be as in \ref{151}, and
$\lambda: {\rm Cu}^\sim(C)\to {\rm Cu}^\sim (\tilde B)$ be a morphism in ${\bf Cu}$
such that $\lambda(x)\not=0$ for all $x\in {\rm Cu}^\sim(C)_+\setminus \{0\}$ and
$\lambda([e_C])\le [b]$ for some $b\in M_n(\tilde B)_+$
and $b_0\in \tilde B_+\setminus \{0\}$
and $b_1=b\oplus b_0.$
Then there exists a sequence of homomorphism s $\phi_k: C\to \overline{b_1M_n(\tilde B)b_1}$
such that
\begin{eqnarray} \label{Rsq-1}
\lim_{k\to\infty} {\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_k)=\lambda.
\end{eqnarray}
This follows Theorem \ref{TTEXTC0} and Theorem \ref{Llimintmaps}.
Moreover, if $\lambda([e_C])$ is not a compact element, then there exists
a sequence of homomorphism s $\phi_k: C\to \overline{bM_n(\tilde B)b}$ such that \eqref{Rsq-1} holds.
In general, one might have the situation that there are two projections
$p, q\in M_n(\tilde B)$ such that $[p]\circeq [q]$ but $p\not\sim q$ in ${\rm Cu}(\tilde B).$
\end{rem}
\fi
\iffalse
Now we consider two homomorphism s $\phi_1, \phi_2: A\to {\tilde B}.$
Then
The property (U)
follows from the combination of
Lemma \ref{Lminimal} and
Corollary A.21 of \cite{eglnkk0}.
Now suppose that $\gamma: {\rm Cu}^\sim(A)\to {\rm Cu}^\sim({\tilde B})$ such that
$\gamma([e_A])\le [1_{\tilde B}],$ where $e_A$ is a strictly positive element of $A.$
Since ${\tilde A}\cong {\tilde D},$ and
part (a) of Lemma A.22 of \cite{eglnkk0},
there exists a homomorphism\, $\phi: C_0\otimes{\cal K}\to {\tilde B}\otimes {\cal K}$ such
that ${\rm Cu}(\phi)=\gamma$ and $\phi(C_0\otimes e_{1,1})\subset {\tilde B}.$
Note $[\phi(e_A)]\lesssim [1_{\tilde B}].$
Define $e_n=\psi(f_{1/2^n}(e_A)),$ $n=1,2,....$ Note $\gamma([ e_A])\le
[ 1_{\tilde{B}} ].$
It follows from Proposition 2.4 of \cite{Rr11} that there exists $x_n\in \widetilde{B}\otimes {\cal K}$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
e_n=x_n^*1_{\widetilde{B}}x_n,\,\,\, n=1,2,....
\end{eqnarray}
Put $y_n=1_{\widetilde{B}}x_n.$ Let $y_n=v_n|y_n|$ be the polar decomposition
of $y_n$ in $(\widetilde{B}\otimes {\cal K})^{**}.$ Then $v_nb\in \widetilde{B}\otimes {\cal K}$ for all $b\in \overline{e_n(\widetilde{B}\otimes {\cal K})e_n}$
and $v_n^*bv_n\in \widetilde{B}$ for all $b\in \overline{e_n(\widetilde{B}\otimes {\cal K})e_n},$
$n=1,2,...$ Define $\psi_n: A\to \widetilde{B}$ by $\psi_n(a)=v_n^*e_n\psi(a)e_nv_n$ for all $a\in A.$
We will now identify $A$ with a full hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra\, of $C_0\otimes M_n.$
Since $A$ is semiprojective, there exists, for each large $n,$
a homomorphism\, $h_n: A\to \widetilde{B}$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\|h_n(a)-\psi_n(a)\|=0\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, a\in A.
\end{eqnarray}
Since $\lim_{n\to\infty} \|e_n^*\psi(a)e_n-\psi(a)\|=0,$ it is easy to compute that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Next-n1}
\lim_{n\to\infty}d_w( \mathrm{Cu}({h_n}|_{C_0}), \mathrm{Cu}(\phi|_{C_0}))=0.
\end{eqnarray}
Let ${\cal F}_n\subset A$ be finite subsets such that ${\cal F}_n\subset {\cal F}_{n+1}$ and
$\cup_{n=1}^{\infty}{\cal F}_n$ is dense in $A.$
It follows from Lemma A.21 of \cite{eglnkk0} that
there exists a
subsequence $\{n_k\}$ and
a sequence of unitaries $u_k\in \widetilde{B}$ such
that,
\begin{eqnarray}
\|{\mathrm{Ad}}\,u_{k+1}\circ h_{n_{k+1}}(d)-{\mathrm{Ad}}\, u_k\circ h_{n_k}(d)\|<1/2^k\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, d\in {\cal F}_k,\,\, k=1,2,....
\end{eqnarray}
It follows that $({\mathrm{Ad}}\, u_k\circ h_{n_k}(a))_{k=1}^{\infty}$ a Cauchy sequence for each $a\in A.$
Let $H(a)$ be the limit. Then $H$ defines a unital homomorphism\, from $A$ to $\widetilde{B}.$
By \eqref{Next-n1}, $\mathrm{Cu}(H|_{C_0})=\mathrm{Cu}(\phi|_{C_0}).$
Since $A\otimes {\cal K}\cong C_0\otimes {\cal K},$ we then have
$\mathrm{Cu}(H)=\gamma|_{\mathrm{Cu}(A)}.$ By part (b) of Corollary A.22 of \cite{eglnkk0},
again, since $A\otimes {\cal K}\cong C_0\otimes {\cal K},$ ${\rm Cu}^\sim(H)=\gamma.$
Case (2):
${\tilde A}\cong {\tilde D}$ and $D\otimes {\cal K}\cong C_0\otimes {\cal K}.$
Let $\phi_1, \phi_2: A\to B$ be two homomorphism s with
${\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_1)={\rm Cu}^\sim (\phi_2).$
Let $\phi_1^\sim: \phi_2^\sim: {\tilde A}\to {\tilde B}$ be the unital extensions.
Then, by \ref{LCUsim}, ${\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_1^\sim)={\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_2^\sim).$
Let $j: C_0\to D$ be the embedding given by Lemma \ref{Lminimal}. We also denote $j: C_0\otimes {\cal K}\to D\otimes {\cal K}$
the extension.
Therefore ${\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_1^\sim\circ j)={\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_2^\sim\circ j).$
Let $\psi_1, \psi_2: C_0\otimes {\cal K}\to {\tilde B}\otimes {\cal K}$
be the stable extension of $\phi_1^\sim \circ j$ and $\phi_2^\sim\circ j.$
Note that ${\rm Cu}^\sim(\psi_1)={\rm Cu}^\sim(\psi_2).$
If $\phi_1, \phi_2: A\to {\tilde B}$ are two homomorphism s, then we also use
$\phi_1^\sim$ and $\phi_2^\sim$ for the unital extensions.
Fix $\varepsilon>0$ and finite subset ${\cal S}\subset {\widetilde{D}}.$
We may assume that ${\cal S}=\{g+r\cdot 1_{\widetilde{D}}: g\in {\cal G}, r\in K\},$
where ${\cal G}\subset D$ is a finite subset and $K$ is a finite subset of $\mathbb{C}.$
Let ${\cal F}=j^{-1}({\cal G}).$ Note $j(C_0([0,1))\otimes e_{11})\subset D.$
By applying Corollary A.21 of \cite{eglnkk0},
there exists a unitary $u\in \widetilde{B}$ and integer $n\ge 1$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\|U^*\psi_1^\sim\circ j(f)U-\psi_2^\sim\circ j(f)\|<\eta\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, f\in {\cal F},
\end{eqnarray}
where $U={\text{diag}}(\overbrace{u,u,...u}^n,1,1,...).$
This implies that
\begin{eqnarray}
\|U^*\phi_1^\sim(g)U-\phi_2^\sim(g)\|<\varepsilon\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, g\in {\cal G}.
\end{eqnarray}
Since $\phi_1^\sim(g),\, \phi_2^sim(g)\in \widetilde{B}$ for all $g\in {\cal G},$ we actually have
\begin{eqnarray}
\|u^*\phi_1^\sim(g)u-\phi_1^\sim(g)\|<\varepsilon\,\,\,\,\text{for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, g\in {\cal G}.
\end{eqnarray}
Since both $\phi_1^\sim$ and $\phi_2^\sim$ are unital and $u^*r\cdot 1_{\widetilde{B}}u=r\cdot 1_{\widetilde{B}},$
we finally conclude
\begin{eqnarray}
\|u^*\phi_1^\sim(a)u-\phi_2^\sim(a)\|<\varepsilon\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, a\in {\cal S}.
\end{eqnarray}
This implies that $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ are approximately unitarily equivalent.
Now let $\gamma: {\rm Cu}^\sim(A)\to {\rm Cu}^\sim(B)$ be a given morphism in ${\bf Cu}.$
Let $\gamma^\sim: {\rm Cu}^\sim({\tilde A})\to {\rm Cu}^\sim({\tilde B})$ be the unique extension.
Since $D\otimes {\cal K}\cong C_0\otimes {\cal K},$ by the second part of Lemma \ref{Lminimal} and by
part (a) of Lemma A.22 of \cite{eglnkk0}, there is a homomorphism\, $\phi_C: C_0\otimes {\cal K}\to {\tilde B}\otimes {\cal K}$
such
that ${\rm Cu}(\phi_C)=\gamma\circ {\rm Cu}(j)$ and $\phi(C_0\otimes e_{1,1})\subset {\tilde B}.$
Then $\psi:=\phi_C\circ j^{-1}: D\otimes {\cal K}\to {\tilde B}\otimes {\cal K}$ is a homomorphism\, such
that ${\rm Cu}^\sim(\psi)=\gamma|_{{\rm Cu}(D)}.$
Note $[\phi(e_D)]\lesssim [1_{\tilde B}],$ where $e_D$ is a strictly positive element of $D.$
Replacing $A$ by $D$ in the proof of Case (2) above. Define $h_n^\sim: {\tilde D}\to {\tilde B}$ the unital extension of
$h_n.$ The same proof (see also the proof of Theorem 2.5 of \cite{eglnkk0}) shows that there exists
a homomorphism\, $H: {\tilde D}\to {\tilde B}$ such that ${\rm Cu}(H|_D)=\gamma|_{{\rm Cu}(D)}.$
By Proposition 3.16 of \cite{RI}, ${\rm Cu}^\sim(D)$ maps into ${\rm Cu}^\sim ({\tilde D})$ injectively.
Since $D\otimes {\cal K}\cong C_0\otimes {\cal K},$
${\rm Cu}^\sim(H|_D)=\gamma|_{{\rm Cu}^\sim(D)}.$
Since $H(1_{\tilde D})=1_{\tilde B},$ one has
${\rm Cu}(H)=\gamma^\sim({\rm Cu}({\tilde D})).$ Since ${\tilde D}$ is unital and $H(1_{\tilde D})=1_{\tilde D},$
one checks that ${\rm Cu}^\sim(H)=\gamma^\sim|_{{\rm Cu}^\sim({\tilde D})}=\gamma^\sim.$
For the final assertion that ${\rm Cu}^\sim$ classifies homomorphism s from ${\tilde A}$ to ${\tilde B}$
(for all $A$ mentioned in the lemma) follows from Proposition \ref{Cunitalzation}.
\end{proof}
\fi
\iffalse
\begin{df}\label{DI0}
Denote by ${\cal C}_{0,1}$ the class of $C^*$-algebra s in Lemma \ref{Lglii-R}.
\end{df}
\begin{thm}\label{PII2}
Let $A$ be in ${\cal C}_0.$
(1) $ Suppose that A\otimes {\cal K}\cong D\otimes {\cal K}$ for some $D\in {\cal C}_{0,1}.$
Then ${\rm Cu}^\sim$ classifies homomorphism s from $A$ to $B$ for any
$B$ in \ref{151}.
(2) Suppose there is an isomorphism $j:
D\otimes {\cal K}\cong A\otimes {\cal K}$
such that $j(D)\subset A.$
Then ${\rm Cu}^\sim$ classifies homomorphism s from $A$ to ${\tilde B}$ for any $B$ in \ref{151}.
(3) Suppose that $A_1\in {\cal C}_0$ and ${\tilde A_1}\cong {\tilde A},$ where $A$ is in (2).
Then ${\rm Cu}^\sim$ classifies homomorphism s from $A_1$ to ${\tilde B}.$
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
For (1), let $\iota: A\otimes {\cal K}\cong D\otimes {\cal K}$ be an isomorphism.
Since $A\in {\cal C}_0$ one checks that we may assume that $\iota(A)$
is a full hereditary $C^*$-subalgebra\, of $M_n(D)$ and
$\iota^{-1}(M_n(D))\subset M_m(A)$ is also a full hereditary
$C^*$-subalgebra.
Let $\phi_1,\phi_2: A\to B$ be homomorphism s such that ${\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_1)={\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_2)$
such that $\phi_i([e_A])\le [e_B],$ where $e_A$ and $e_B$ are strictly positive elements
of $A$ and $B,$ respectively.
Let $\phi_1^s, \phi_2^s: A\otimes {\cal K}\to B\otimes {\cal K}$ be
the stable extensions.
Let $\varepsilon>0$ and ${\cal F}\subset A^{\bf 1}$ be a finite subset.
We may assume that, without loss of generality, there is $0<\eta<\varepsilon/4$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{\eta}(e_A)x=x=xf_\eta(e_A)\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, x\in {\cal F}.
\end{eqnarray}
Let ${\cal F}_1={\cal F}\cup\{e_A, f_{\eta/2}(e_A), f_{\varepsilon}(e_A)\}.$
Choose $\delta>0$ such that, for any pair of positive elements $a, b\in C^{\bf 1}$
(in any $C^*$-algebra\, $C$), $\|a^{1/2}-b^{/12}\|<\varepsilon/32$
if $\|a-b\|<\delta.$ Put $\delta_1=\min\{\delta,\varepsilon\}/32.$
Since $D\in {\cal C}_{0,1}$ and $M_m(B)$ is also a $C^*$-algebra\, in \ref{151},
by \ref{Lprojeq}, there is a unitary $U\in {\widetilde{M_m(B)}}$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\|U^*\phi_1^s\circ \iota^{-1}(g)U-\phi_2^s\circ \iota^{-1}(g)\|<\delta_1\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, g\in \iota({\cal F}_1).
\end{eqnarray}
This is the same as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{PII2-10}
\|U^*\phi_1(x)U-\phi_2(x)\|<\delta_1\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\,
\|U\phi_2(x)U^*-\phi_1(x)\|<\delta_1\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, x\in {\cal F}_1.
\end{eqnarray}
Let $Z=\phi_2(f_{\eta/2}(e_A))^{1/2}U^*f_{\eta/2}(\phi_1(e_A))^{1/2}\in B.$
Note that, for $x\in {\cal F},$
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
Z\phi_1(x)Z^*&=&\phi_2(f_{\eta/2}(e_A))^{1/2}U^*f_{\eta/2}(\phi_1(e_A))^{1/2}\phi_1(x)f_{\eta/2}(\phi_1(e_A))^{1/2}U\phi_2(f_{\eta/2}(e_A))^{1/2}\\\nonumber
&=&\phi_2(f_{\eta/2}(e_A))^{1/2}U^*\phi_1(x)U\phi_2(f_{\eta/2}(e_A))^{1/2}\\
&\approx_{\delta_1}&
\phi_2(f_{\eta/2}(e_A))^{1/2}\phi_2(x)\phi_2(f_{\eta/2}(e_A))^{/12}
=\phi_2(x).
\end{eqnarray}
Also, by \eqref{PII2-10}
\begin{eqnarray}
Z^*Z&=&f_{\eta/2}(\phi_1(e_A))^{1/2}U\phi_2(f_{\eta/2}(e_A))^{1/2}\phi_2(f_{\eta/2}(e_A))^{1/2}U^*f_{\eta/2}(\phi_1(e_A))^{1/2}\\
&&\approx_{\delta_1}f_{\eta/2}(\phi_1(e_A))^{1/2}\phi_1(f_{\eta/2}(e_A))f_{\eta/2}(\phi_1(e_A))^{1/2}=f_{\eta/2}(\phi_1(e_A))^2.
\end{eqnarray}
It follows that
\begin{eqnarray}
\|(Z^*Z)^{1/2}-f_{\eta/2}(\phi_1(e_A))\|<\varepsilon/32.
\end{eqnarray}
Write $Z=W(Z^*Z)^{1/2}$ as a polar decomposition of $Z$ in $B^{**}.$
Choose $\sigma>0$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
f_\sigma((Z^*Z)^{1/2})(Z^*Z)^{1/2}\approx_{\varepsilon/16} (Z^*Z)^{1/2}\approx_{\varepsilon/32} f_{\eta/2}(\phi_1(e_A)).
\end{eqnarray}
Since $B$ has almost stable rank one, there is a unitary $u\in {\tilde B}$ such
that $Wf_\sigma((Z^*Z)^{1/2})=uf_\sigma((Z^*Z)^{1/2}) .$
One estimates
that, for all $x\in {\cal F},$
\begin{eqnarray}
u\phi_1(x)u^*&=&uf_{\eta/2}(\phi_1(e_A))\phi_1(x)f_{\eta/2}(\phi_1(e_A))u\\
&\approx_{\varepsilon/8}&uf_\sigma((Z^*Z)^{1/2})(Z^*Z)^{1/2}\phi_1(x)(Z^*Z)^{1/2}f_\sigma((Z^*Z)^{1/2})u^*\\\nonumber
&=&Wf_\sigma((Z^*Z)^{1/2})(Z^*Z)^{1/2}\phi_1(x)(Z^*Z)^{1/2}f_\sigma((Z^*Z)^{1/2})W^*\\
&\approx_{\varepsilon/8}&W(Z^*Z)^{1/2}\phi_1(x)(Z^*Z)^{1/2}W^*\\
&=&Z\phi_1(x)Z^*\approx_{\delta_1} \phi_2(x).
\end{eqnarray}
For the existence part of (1), let $\gamma: {\rm Cu}^\sim(A)\to {\rm Cu}^\sim(B)$ be
a morphism in ${\bf Cu}$ such that $\gamma([e_A])\le [e_B].$
Consider $\gamma\circ {\rm Cu}^\sim(\iota^{-1}): {\rm Cu}^\sim(D)\to {\rm Cu}^\sim(B).$
Since $[\iota^{-1}(e_D\otimes 1_n)]\le [e_A\otimes 1_m],$
$\gamma\circ {\rm Cu}^\sim(\iota^{-1})([e_D\otimes 1_n])\le [e_B\otimes 1_m].$
It follows from Lemma \ref{Lprojeq} that there is a homomorphism\, $\phi: M_n(D)\to M_m(B)$
such that ${\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi)=\gamma\circ {\rm Cu}^\sim(\iota^{-1}).$
Define $\psi:=\phi\circ \iota|_A: A\to M_m(B).$ Then
${\rm Cu}^\sim(\psi)=\gamma.$ So $\psi(e_A)\lesssim e_B.$
By Proposition 2.6 of \cite{GLII}, there is a partial isometry $w\in M_m(B)^{**}$ such that
$wx, xw^*\in B,$ and $w^*wx=xw^*w=x$ for all $x\in {\rm Her}(\psi(e_A)).$
Define $\psi_1: A\to B$ by $\psi_1(a)=w^*\psi(a)w$ for all $a\in A.$
We still have ${\rm Cu}^\sim(\psi_1)={\rm Cu}^\sim(\psi)=\gamma.$
For (2), let $\phi_1,\phi_2: A\to {\tilde B}$ be homomorphism s such that
${\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_1)={\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_2).$
Let $\varepsilon>0$ and ${\cal F}\subset A^{\bf 1}$ be a finite subset.
Let $\phi_i^s: A\otimes {\cal K}\to {\tilde B}\otimes {\cal K}$ be the stable extension, $i=1,2.$
Put $\psi_i:=\phi_i^s\circ j: D\to {\tilde B}$ as well as its stable extension, $i=1,2.$
Let ${\cal F}_1=j^{-1}({\cal F}).$ To simplify notation (with a possible error no more than $\varepsilon/2$), without loss of generality,
we may assume that ${\cal F}_1\subset M_n(D)$ for some integer $n\ge 1.$
There is a finite subset ${\cal G}\subset D^{\bf 1}$ such that
${\cal F}_1\subset \{(g_{i,j})_{n\times n}: a_{i,j}\in {\cal G} \}.$ There is a unitary
$u\in {\tilde B}$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\|u^*\psi_1(d)u-\psi_2(d)\|<\varepsilon/4n^2\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, d\in {\cal F}_1.
\end{eqnarray}
Put $U=u\otimes 1_n.$
Then
\begin{eqnarray}
\|U^*\phi_1(a)U-\phi_2(a)\|<\varepsilon/4\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, a\in {\cal F}.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
\end{cor}
\fi
\begin{df}\label{DlambdaT}
Let $C$ be a separable $C^*$-algebra\, such that $T(C)\not=\emptyset$ and $QT(C)=T(C).$
Let $B$ be a separable simple $C^*$-algebra\, with continuous scale such that $QT(B)=T(B)$ and
${\rm Cu}(B)={\rm LAff}_+(T(B)).$
Let $\lambda:{\rm Cu}^\sim(C)\to {\rm Cu}^\sim(B)$ be a
morphism in ${\bf Cu}$ such that
$\lambda([e_C])\le [e_B],$ where $0\le e_C\le 1$ and $0
\le e_B\le 1$ are strictly positive elements of $C$ and $B,$ respectively.
Let $T_0(C)$ and $T_0(B)$ be the sets of all
traces on $C$ and $B$ with norm no more than $1,$ respectively.
Let $a\in C_+$ with $\|a\|\le 1.$ For each $n$ consider
$x_n=\sum_{k=1}^{2^n} (1/2^n) p_{(t_{k,n}, 1]},$ where $t_{k,n}=k/2^n$ and
$p_{(t_{k,n},1]}$ is the open spectral projection of $a$ associated with the $(t_{k,n},1]$ in
$C^{**}.$ Note that $d_\tau((a-t_{k,n})_+)=\tau(p_{(t_{k,n},1]})$ for all $\tau\in T_0(C)$ and
$\tau(x_n)=\sum_{k=1}^{2^n} (1/2^n)d_\tau((a-t_{k,n})_+)$
for all $\tau\in T_0(C).$
Moreover,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Integral-1}
\sup\{|\tau(x_n)-\tau(a)|: \tau\in T_0(C)\}\le 1/2^n.
\end{eqnarray}
For each $s\in T_0(B),$ define, for each $a\in M_r(C)_+$ (for integer $r\ge 1$),
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda_T(s)(a)=\int_0^{\infty} \lambda([(a-t)_+])^{\widehat{}}(s)dt.
\end{eqnarray}
By Proposition 4.2 of \cite{ESR-Cuntz}, $\lambda_T(s)$ defines a lower semi-continuous quasitrace on $C\otimes {\cal K}.$
Note that $B$ has continuous scale. So $e_B\in {\rm Ped}(B).$ Since $\lambda([e_C])\le [e_B],$
if $a\in M_r(C)_+,$
$\lambda([(a-t)_+])^{\widehat{}}(s)\le r\|a\|$ for all $t\in [0, \|a\|]$ and $s\in T(B).$
Since $QT(C)=T(C),$ $\lambda_T(s)$ is in $T_0(C).$
Proposition 4.2 of \cite{ESR-Cuntz} also implies that the map $s\mapsto \lambda_T(s)$ is the
affine continuous map from $T_0(B)$ to $T_0(C)$ induced
by $\lambda.$
Note
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Approtrace-1}
\lambda_T(s)(a)=\lim_{n\to\infty}(\sum_{k=1}^{2^n} (1/2^n)\lambda([(a-t_{k,n})_+])^{\widehat{}}(s)).
\end{eqnarray}
Moreover, for $a\in C_+$ with $\|a\|\le 1,$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Apptrace-0}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\sup\{|\lambda_T(s)(a)-(\sum_{k=1}^{2^n} (1/2^n)\lambda([(a-t_{k,n})_+])^{\widehat{}}(s))|:s\in T(B)\}=0.
\end{eqnarray}
Let $\phi: C\to A$ be a homomorphism. Then, for any $a\in C_+$ with $\|a\|\le 1,$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Approtrace-2}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\sup\{|\tau(\phi(c))-\sum_{k=1}^{2^n}(1/2^n)\tau(\phi(f_{1/2^{n+3}}(a-t_{k, n})_+))|:\tau\in T(B)\}=0.
\end{eqnarray}
Now suppose that $B$ is stably projectionless and $\lambda$ is strictly positive.
If $\phi_k: C\to B$ is a sequence of injective homomorphism s such that $\lim^w_{n\to\infty}{\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_k)=\lambda,$
then, for each fixed $a\in C_+$ with $\|a\|\le 1$ and $n>1,$ there is $N\ge 1$ such that, when $j\ge N,$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Approtrace-3}
&&\hspace{-0.4in}\lambda([(a-t_{k,n})_+])\le [\phi_j(f_{1/2^{n+2}}((a-t_{k+1, n})_+)]\\
&&\le [\phi_j(f_{1/2^{n+3}}((a-t_{k+1, n})_+)]
\le \lambda([a-t_{k+1,n})_+),\,\,\,k=1,2,...,2^n.
\end{eqnarray}
It follows that, for all $\tau\in T(B),$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Approtrace-5}
\lambda([(a-t_{k,n})_+])^{\widehat{}}(\tau)\le \tau(\phi_j(f_{1/2^{n+3}}((a-t_{k+1, n})_+)
\le \lambda([a-t_{k+1,n})_+)^{\widehat{}}(\tau).
\end{eqnarray}
By \eqref{Approtrace-2}, \eqref{Apptrace-0}, and \eqref{Approtrace-5},
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Apptrcace-100}
\lim_{k\to\infty}\sup\{|\tau(\phi_k)(a)-\lambda_T(\tau)(a)|: \tau\in T_0(B)\}=0.
\end{eqnarray}
\iffalse
Let $A$ and $B$ be separable simple $C^*$-algebra s with continuous scale such that ${\rm Cu}(A)={\rm LAff}_+(T(A))$ and
${\rm Cu}^\sim(A)=K_0(A)\sqcup {\rm LAff}_+^\sim (T(A)),$ ${\rm Cu}(B)={\rm LAff}_+(T(B)),$ and ${\rm Cu}^\sim (B)=K_0(B)\sqcup {\rm LAff}_+^\sim(T(B)).$
Suppose that $A$ has stable rank one and $B$ has almost stable rank one.
Suppose that $\lambda: {\rm Cu}^\sim(A)\to {\rm Cu}^\sim (B)$ such that $\lambda([e_A])\le [e_B],$
where $e_A$ and $e_B$ are strictly positive elements of $A$ and $B,$ respectively.
It follows that $\lambda$ maps ${\rm Cu}(A)$ into ${\rm Cu}^\sim(B)_+.$ Suppose
also that $B$ is stably projectionless. Then $\lambda$ maps ${\rm Cu}(A)$ into ${\rm LAff}_+(T(A)).$
In other words, $\lambda$ maps ${\rm LAff}_+(T(A))$ into ${\rm LAff}_+(T(B)).$
\fi
\end{df}
Recall that if $A$ is a finite exact separable simple
${\cal Z}$-stable $C^*$-algebra\, then $A$ satisfies the conditions in the following statement.
\begin{thm}\label{Cinductive}
Let $C=\lim_{n\to\infty} C_n$ with a strictly positive element $e_C,$ where each $C_n\in {\cal I}_0$ and
each map $\iota_n: C_n\to C_{n+1}$ is injective, and let
$A$ be a separable simple
$C^*$-algebra\,
with continuous scale and with a strictly positive element $e_A$ such
that $M_m(A)$ has almost stable rank one for all $m\ge 1$ and
$QT(A)=T(A),$ and ${\rm Cu}(A)={\rm LAff}_+(T(A)).$
Suppose that $\lambda: {\rm Cu}^\sim(C)\to {\rm Cu}^\sim(A)$
is a morphism in ${\bf Cu}$
such that $\lambda([e_C])\le [e_A]$ and $\lambda([c])\not=0$ for
any $c\in C_+\setminus \{0\}.$ Then there exists a sequence of contractive completely positive linear map s
$L_n: C\to A$
and a sequence of injective homomorphism s $h_n: C_n\to A$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
&&\lim_{n\to\infty}\|L_n(ab)-L_n(a)L_n(b)\|=0\,\,\,\text{for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, a, b\in C,\\\nonumber
&& \,\text{and, for each fixed $m,$}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\|L_n(\iota_{m, \infty}(c))-h_n(\iota_{m,n}(c))\|=0\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, c\in C_m,\\\nonumber
&&\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\,
\lim_{n\to\infty} \sup_{\tau\in T(A)}\|\tau(L_n(a))-\lambda_T(\tau)(a)\|=0\,\,\,\text{for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, a\in C.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We first assume that $A$ is stably projectionless.
For each $k,$ consider ${\alpha}_k:=\lambda\circ {\rm Cu}^\sim(\iota_{k, \infty}).$
By Corollary \ref{CEXTmaps}, there exists a sequence
of injective homomorphism s $\phi_{k,n}: C_k\to A$ such that $\lim_{n\to\infty}^w{\rm Cu}^\sim(\phi_{k,n})={\alpha}_k.$
Then (see \eqref{Apptrcace-100})
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\sup\{|\tau\circ \phi_{k,n}(c)-{{\alpha}_k}_T(\tau)(c)|: \tau\in T_0(A)\}=0\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, c\in C_k.
\end{eqnarray}
One obtains a sequence of injective homomorphism s
$h_n: C_n\to A$ and, since $C$ is amenable, a sequence of
contractive completely positive linear map s $L_n: C\to A$
such that, for any fixed $m,$
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
&&\lim_{n\to\infty}\|L_n(\iota_{m, \infty}(c))-h_n(\iota_{m,n}(c))\|=0\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, c\in C_m, \\\nonumber
&&\lim_{n\to\infty}\|L_n(ab)-L_n(a)L_n(b)\|=0\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, a, b\in C\,\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\,\\\nonumber
&&\lim_{n\to\infty} \sup_{\tau\in T(B)}\|\tau(L_n(a))-\lambda_T(\tau)(a))\|=0\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, a\in C.
\end{eqnarray}
If $A$ is not stably projectionless, by Proposition \ref{P1}, $A$ has stable rank one.
Then, by
Theorem 1.0.1 of \cite{Rl}, there is a homomorphism\, $H: C\to A$ such
that ${\rm Cu}^\sim(H)=\lambda.$ Choose $L_n=H$ and $h_n=H\circ \iota_{n, \infty}.$
Then this case also follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{MCC}
Let $C=\lim_{n\to\infty} (C_n, \iota_n)$ be as in Theorem \ref{Cinductive} which is simple and has continuous scale
and $A$ be a finite exact separable simple stably projectionless ${\cal Z}$-stable $C^*$-algebra\, with continuous scale.
Suppose
that there is an isomorphism
\begin{eqnarray}\label{MCC-1}
\Gamma: (K_0(C), T(C), r_C)\cong (K_0(A), T(A), r_A).
\end{eqnarray}
Then there exists a sequence of contractive completely positive linear map s $L_n: C\to A$
and a sequence of injective homomorphism s $h_n: C_n\to A$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\lim_{n\to\infty}\|L_n(ab)-L_n(a)L_n(b)\|=0\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, a, b\in C,\\
&&\hspace{-0.1in}\lim_{n\to\infty} \sup_{\tau\in T(B)}\|\tau(L_n(a))-\lambda_T(\tau)(a)\|=0\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, a\in C\\
&&{\text{and,\,\,for each fixed $m,$}}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\|L_n(\iota_{m, \infty}(c))-h_n(\iota_{m,n}(c))\|=0\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, c\in C_m,\\
&&\lim_{n\to\infty} \sup_{\tau\in T(B)}\|\tau(h_n(\iota_{m,n}(c)))-\lambda_T(\tau)(\iota_{m,\infty}(c))\|=0
\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,\,all}\,\,\, c\in C_m,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\lambda_T: T(A)\to T(C)$ is the affine homeomorphism given
by $\Gamma.$
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition 6.2.3 of \cite{Rl}, ${\rm Cu}^\sim(C)=K_0(C)\sqcup {\rm LAff}_+^\sim(T(C)).$
Also, by Theorem 6.1.1 of \cite{RS} (see also subsection 6.3 of \cite{RS}), ${\rm Cu}^\sim(A)=K_0(A)\sqcup {\rm LAff}_+^\sim(T(A)).$
Let $e_C$ and $e_A$ be strictly positive elements of $C$ and $A,$ respectively.
By \eqref{MCC-1}, there is an isomorphism $\lambda: {\rm Cu}^\sim(C)\to {\rm Cu}^\sim(A)$
(in ${\bf Cu}$) such that $\lambda([e_C])=[e_A].$
Thus, the corollary follows from Theorem \ref{Cinductive} immediately.
\end{proof}
Corollary \ref{MCC} plays an important role in achieving
the following
theorem which was first proved with the additional condition that $A$ has stable rank one.
The only place where we need the condition that $A$ has stable rank one
was to have a homomorphism\, $h: C\to A,$ where
$C=\lim_{n\to\infty}(C_n, \iota_n),$ $C_n\in {\cal I}_0$ and $\iota_n: C_n\to C_{n+1}$
are injective, $C$ has continuous scale, and $(K_0(C), T(C), r_C)=(K_0(A), T(A), r_A)$
such that $[h]$ induces the identification map on $(K_0(C), T(C), r_C).$
Note the identification map on the invariant set gives
a strictly positive morphism $\lambda: {\rm Cu}^\sim(C)\to {\rm Cu}^\sim(A)$ with $\lambda([e_C])=[e_A],$
where $e_C$ and $e_A$ are strictly positive elements of $C$ and $A,$ respectively.
So the existence of such $h$ follows from Theorem 1.0.1 of \cite{Rl}. In fact,
one only needs an approximate version of Robert's result.
Without assuming $A$ has stable rank one, one may not apply the result of L. Robert.
However, one can apply Corollary \ref{MCC} to obtain a sequence of homomorphism s $h_k$ that approximates $\lambda$ which
improves the original version of the following theorem.
\begin{thm}[Theorem 7.12 of \cite{GLIII}]\label{Treduction}
Let $A$ be separable amenable simple
{{stably projectionless}} $C^*$-algebra\, with continuous scale such that
$T(A)\not=\{0\}$ and satisfying
the UCT.
Then $A\otimes Q$ has generalized tracial rank one.
\end{thm}
\providecommand{\href}[2]{#2}
|
\section{Introduction}
Processing the enormous amount of row data, which resulted due to the past decades information technology revolution, requires efficient computation platforms and CMOS downscaling has been sufficient to keep improving processing performance to match this requirements \cite{ITRS}. However, due to the technological difficulties: (i) leakage wall \cite{cmosscaling2}, (ii) reliability wall \cite{cmosscaling1}, and (iii) cost wall \cite{cmosscaling2}, CMOS downscaling becomes very difficult at the nanoscale, which eventually will soon lead to the end of Moore's law. Therefore, new technologies have been explored to find an alternative for CMOS, e.g. memristors \cite{memristor}, graphene devices \cite{Yande1,Yande2}, and spintronics \cite{survey2}. Magnonics, a subset of spintronics, exploits Spin Waves (SWs) interactions to perform logic operations and appears to be a promising technology because of its attractive features \cite{survey1,survey2,ITRS}: (i) low power consumption as it doesn't need charge movement, (ii) acceptable delay, (iii) scalability down to the $nm$ range.
Different spin wave logic gates have already been demonstrated \cite{logic21,logic12,logic11,logic17,logic25,logic4,logic16,logic18,logic24,Magnon_transistor, logic1, logic13,logic14,logic20, Abdulqader,logic19,logic2,logic3,logic100,logic101}. The first experimental spin wave logic gate was designed based on the Mach-Zender interferometer \cite{logic21}. Subsequently, XNOR, NAND, and NOR gates were designed using the same approach \cite{logic12,logic11,logic17}. Also, NOT, OR, and AND gates were built using three terminal transmission line devices \cite{logic25}\cite{logic4}\cite{logic16}\cite{logic18}. Different than the previously mentioned work, a nano-channel re-configurable spin wave device was employed to design voltage-controlled XNOR and NAND gates \cite{logic24}. Further, an XOR gate was designed by embedding two magnon transistors in the Mach-Zehnder interferometer arms \cite{Magnon_transistor}. In contrast to the aforementioned schemes, which encode information in amplitude, other proposals make use spin wave phase to encode the information \cite{logic1}. Consequently, buffer, inverter, (N)AND, (N)OR, XOR and Majority gates were built by embedding information in the spin wave phase and using both amplitude and phase to detect the information at the output \cite{logic1}. Additionally, different spin wave Majority gate geometries were suggested to decrease the back propagation of the spin waves \cite{logic13,logic14,logic20}. Also, a cross structure was used to design (N)OR gates \cite{logic19}. Several experimental results for Majority gates designs were also achieved \cite{logic2,logic3,logic100,logic101}. Despite these magnonics technology stpdf forward, state-of-the-art gates provide only one output thus they cannot provide fanout capabilities, which are crucial for the effective implementation of large practically relevant circuits. Note that, if the output of such a gate should be fed to multiple following gates inputs, it must be multiple times replicated, which results in substantial area and energy consumption overheads.
The problem of fanout is solved in this paper and multi-input multi-output Programmable Logic Gate (PLG) structures are proposed. The outputs can be the same or different depending on the design of the structure. This work main contributions are:\\
\begin{itemize}
\item Development and design of a $2$-input $4$-output PLG, which can evaluate any $4$-element subset of the $2$-input Boolean function set \{AND, NAND, OR, NOR, XOR, and XNOR\}. For example, one such PLG gate can parallelly evaluate the set of $2$-input logic functions \{OR, NOR, XOR, XNOR\} on the same input combination.
\item Development and design of an output energy balanced $2$-input $4$-output PLG. The balanced $4$-output structure generates output SWs with the same energy, which implies intrinsic fanout capability. Therefore, the same function, e.g., X(N)OR, can be captured at different outputs and an up to $4$ fanout can be achieved without requiring gate replication.
\item Functional validation and performance evaluation. We simulate different gate configurations, i.e., $4$-output AND/OR, $4$-output XOR/XNOR, output energy balanced $4$-output AND/OR, and output energy balanced $4$-output XOR/XNOR by means of OOMMF simulations. We compare our proposal with the state-of-the-art work functionally equivalent counterparts and demonstrate that our approach provides $3\times$ and $16\times$ energy reduction, when compared with conventional SW and CMOS implementations, respectively.
\end{itemize}
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section \ref{sec:Basics of spin-wave technology} explains SW fundamentals and the associated computing paradigm. Section \ref{sec:Proposed programmable logic gate system design} introduces the proposed $2$-input $4$-output PLG structures. Section \ref{sec:Simulation Setup and Experiments} presents the simulation platform and utilized parameters. Section \ref{sec:Results and discussion} describes and provides the simulation results, and assesses the proposed structures against current state-of-the-art designs. Also, fanout achievement, balance spin wave strength, variability and thermal noise effects are discussed. Section \ref{sec:Conclusion} concludes the paper.
\section{Spin-Wave Based Technology Basics}
\label{sec:Basics of spin-wave technology}
This section provides SW physics fundamentals and presents the SW interaction based computation paradigm.
\subsection{Spin-Wave Fundamentals}
\label{sec:spin-wave fundamentals}
In a magnetic material, the magnetization can be exploited for memory or computation purposes. For example, in a magnetic equilibrium state, the magnetization is static which can be utilized to design spintronic memory devices. When the magnetization is out of equilibrium, it is subjected to a dynamical motion due to the magnetic torque. The mathematical description of this magnetization dynamics is given by the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert (LLG) equation \cite{LL_eq}\cite{G_eq}:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:1}
\frac{d\vec{M}}{dt} =-\abs{\gamma} \mu_0 \left (\vec{M} \times \vec{H}_{eff} \right ) + \frac{\alpha}{M_s} \left (\vec{M} \times \frac{d\vec{M}}{dt}\right ),
\end{equation}
where $\gamma$ is the gyromagnetic ratio, $\alpha$ the damping factor, $M$ the magnetization, $M_s$ the saturation magnetization, and $H_{eff}$ the effective field which contains the different magnetic interactions
\begin{equation} \label{eq:2}
H_{eff}=H_{ext}+H_{ex}+H_{demag}+H_{ani},
\end{equation}
where $H_{ext}$ is the external field, $H_{ex}$ the exchange field, $H_{demag}$ the demagnetizing field, and $H_{ani}$ the magneto-crystalline field.
For small magnetization perturbations Equation (\ref{eq:1}) can be linearised and has wave-like solutions. These weak wave-like solutions are called Spin Waves and can be seen as a collective excitation of the magnetization. Just like any other wave, a spin wave is completely described by its amplitude $A$, phase $\phi$, frequency $f$, wavelength $\lambda$, and wavenumber $k=\frac{2\pi}{\lambda}$ as it can be observed in Figure \ref{fig:SW_characterstics}. The relation between the frequency $f$ and wavenumber $k$ is called the dispersion relation and is very important for the design of magnonic devices \cite{dispersionrelation}.
There are different SW types, each of which with its own properties. The static magnetization orientation with respect to the wave propagation direction determines which SW type gets excited \cite{Magnetostatics_ref3}. In this work, Forward Volume Spin Waves (FVSW) are utilized, which corresponds to the case with static magnetization orientation out-of-plane. As a result, this type provides isotropic spin wave in plane propagation, which benefits circuits design that require different direction SW propagation \cite{Magnetostatics_ref3}. Note that this is not the case for the other SW types.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{SW_parameters.pdf}
\caption{Spin Wave Parameters}
\label{fig:SW_characterstics}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig14.pdf}
\caption{a) Spin Wave device b) Constructive and Destructive Interference}
\label{fig:spin_wave_device}
\end{figure}
\subsection{SW Computation Paradigm}
\label{sec:SW Computation Paradigm}
Figure \ref{fig:spin_wave_device}a presents a generic SW logic device that consists of four regions: excitation stage I, waveguide B, functional region FR, and detection stage O \cite{Magnonic_crystals_for_data_processing} . In the excitation stage SW are generated by means of microstrip antennas \cite{ref101,Magnonic_crystals_for_data_processing}, magnetoelectric cells \cite{ excitation1,excitation2} or spin orbit torque \cite{ref100,excitation4}). The waveguide is the medium for SW propagation and can be made of different magnetic materials, e.g., Permalloy, Yttrium iron garnet, CoFeB \cite{Magnonic_crystals_for_data_processing}. The selected waveguide material is an important choice as this fundamentally influences the SW properties. In the functional region, SWs can be amplified, normalized or interfere with other SWs. In the detection stage, the spin wave is captured and converted to the electrical domain via microstrip antennas \cite{ref101,Magnonic_crystals_for_data_processing}, magnetoelectric cells \cite{ excitation1,excitation2} or spin orbit torque \cite{ref100,excitation4}.
During SW excitation, its amplitude and phase can be utilized to encode information. This can be done simultaneously at different spin wave frequencies \cite{parallel_data_processing1}, which potentially allows for parallel data processing. The interaction between SWs in the same waveguide is governed by the interference principle. To explain the interference principle, we make use of two SW interference as discussion vehicle. The interference result is constructive when they have the same phase $\Delta \phi=0$, whereas if they are out of phase $\Delta \phi=\pi$, the interference is destructive as depicted in Figure \ref{fig:spin_wave_device}b. Consequently, if more than two waves coexist in the waveguide, the majority principle governs the interference result. For example, if 3 SWs are present in a waveguide and at most one SW has phase $\pi$ while the others have phase $0$ the interference result will be a SW with $\phi=0$, whereas a SW with $\phi=\pi$ will be the result if two or all SWs have phase $\pi$. We note that the implementation of such a $3$-input Majority gate in CMOS requires $18$ transistors \cite{logic1,logic9}, while it can be directly implementation in the SW domain by the interference of $3$ SWs. More complex interference cases exist if the propagated SWs have different $A$, $\lambda$, and $f$, which might be of interest for designing novel magnonic computing systems. However, in this paper, we only focus on the simplest case, i.e., excited SWs have the same $A$, $\lambda$, and $f$ and can take two discrete phases $\phi=0$ and $\phi=\pi$. Logic $0$ refers to a SW with $\phi=0$, and a Logic $1$ refers to a SW with $\phi=\pi$.
\section{$2$-input $4$-output Programmable Logic Gate}
\label{sec:Proposed programmable logic gate system design}
This section introduces the novel $2$-input $4$-output programmable logic SW gate structures.
\subsection{Unbalanced $2$-input $4$-output Programmable Logic Gate}
Figure \ref{fig:FO4} presents the proposed $2$-input $4$-output PLG. The structure has a ladder shape with two data inputs $I_1$ and $I_2$, and two controls inputs $C_1$ and $C_2$. The outputs $O_1$, $O_2$, $O_3$, and $O_4$ correspond to the detection cells where the gate results are obtained. The excitation and detection stages can be voltage-encoded (or current-encoded) depending on the utilized excitation/detection method. As mentioned previously, there are multiple options for the SWs excitation and detection, e.g., microstrip antennas \cite{ref101,Magnonic_crystals_for_data_processing}, magnetoelectric cells \cite{ excitation1,excitation2,excitation2,excitation3}, spin orbit torque \cite{ref100,excitation4}.
In principle, the structure is generic and functions correctly if the input SWs have the same amplitude $A$, wavelength $\lambda$, and frequency $f$ regardless of their values, while the chosen $A, \lambda,$ and $f$ values determine its dimensions.
To guarantee a proper behaviour, the structure dimensions must be precisely determined. For example, if SWs should interfere constructively when they have the same phase and destructively for opposite phases the dimensions must be $d_3=d_4=d_5=\ldots=d_8= n \times \lambda$ (where n=0, 1, 2, 3, \ldots). When the opposite behaviour is desired, SWs interfering constructively when they are out of phase and destructively when they are in phase, then the dimensions should be $d_3=d_4=d_5=\ldots=d_8= (n+\frac{1}{2}) \times \lambda$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{Structure2.pdf}
\caption{$2$-input $4$-output SW Programmable Logic Gate}
\label{fig:FO4}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\caption{$2$-input Programmable Gate Behaviour}
\label{table:9}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Output detection method & $C_1$ & $C_2$ & $O_1$ & $O_2$ & $O_3$ & $O_4$ \tabularnewline
\hline
\multirow{4}{8em}{Output detection by SW phase} & $0$ & $0$ & (N)AND & (N)AND & (N)AND & (N)AND \tabularnewline \cline{2-7}
& $0$ & $1$ & (N)AND & (N)OR & (N)AND & (N)OR \tabularnewline \cline{2-7}
& $1$ & $0$ & (N)OR & (N)AND & (N)OR & (N)AND \tabularnewline \cline{2-7}
& $1$ & $1$ & (N)OR & (N)OR & (N)OR & (N)OR \tabularnewline
\hline
\multirow{4}{8em}{Output detection by thresholding} & $0$ & $0$ & X(N)OR & X(N)OR & - & - \tabularnewline \cline{2-7}
& $0$ & $1$ & X(N)OR & X(N)OR & - & - \tabularnewline \cline{2-7}
& $1$ & $1$ & X(N)OR & X(N)OR & - & - \tabularnewline \cline{2-7}
& $1$ & $1$ & X(N)OR & X(N)OR & - & - \tabularnewline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Moreover, two ways of output detection exist: (i) Phase Detection (PD) and (ii) Threshold Detection (TD). Depending on a predefined phase, PD is performed as follows: if output SW phase is $\phi=0$ the output is logic $0$ and logic $1$ if $\phi=\pi$. For TD the Magnetization Spinning Angle (MSA) is measured and compared with a predefined threshold value such that if MSA is larger than the threshold, the output is logic $1$, and logic $0$ otherwise. The MSA is calculated as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:3}
MSA = \arctan \left(\frac{\sqrt{(\overline{m_x})^2+(\overline{m_y})^2}}{M_s}\right),
\end{equation}
where $\overline{m_x}$ and $\overline{m_x}$ are the mean of the magnetization on $x$ and $y$ directions, respectively.
Further, the position of the PLG outputs $O_1$, $O_2$, $O_3$, and $O_4$ must be also accurately determined to obtain the desired results at the outputs. If the used detection method is phase detection, the result can be the logic gate output itself or its inverted version depending on the position. If the direct logic function is of interest, the distances must be $d_{1}=d_{2}=d_{9}=d_{10}= n \times \lambda$ whereas if the complement is of interest, the distances should be $d_{1}=d_{2}=d_{9}=d_{10}= (n+\frac{1}{2}) \times \lambda$. Whereas if the used detection method is threshold detection, the output should be as close as possible from the last interference point to have strong spin wave. In this case, if the complement is of interest, then the aformentioned condition can be flipped such that if MSA is less than the threshold, the output is logic $1$, and logic $0$ otherwise.
Table \ref{table:9} summarizes the logic gates behaviors of the structure in Figure \ref{fig:FO4} depending on the control signal values and the output detection methods. If PD is utilized, (N)AND and/or (N)OR gates are implemented. In contrast, XOR and/or XNOR gates are obtained if TD is utilized. Furthermore, both mechanisms can be utilized in the same time, i.e., some outputs can PD captured and others TD captured. Therefore, some outputs can be (N)AND or (N)OR gate and the others can be XOR or XNOR gate. However, the XOR/XNOR functionality cannot be obtained at $O_3$ and $O_4$ because they receive amplitude unbalanced SW due to the fact that $I_3$ and $I_4$ are closer to $O_3$ and $O_4$ than to $O_1$ and $O_2$. The unbalance SW amplitude also causes unbalance in the output energy as it clarified in Section \ref{sec:Results and discussion}. Therefore, to enable full gate flexibility a balance PLG design is needed as will be introduced in the following subsection.
Depending on the desired functionality the PLG can simultaneously evaluate up to $4$ $2$-input different basic Boolean functions. Note that the structure in Figure \ref{fig:FO4} can be extended and can have multiple inputs.
To illustrate the PLG operation principle, we consider a $2$-input AND/OR $C_1=0$ and $C_2=1$ with phase based output detection. All excited SWs have the same amplitude, frequency, and wavelength. If logic $0$ is applied on both inputs $I_1$ and $I_2$, then SWs with phase of $0$ are excited at $I_1$ and $I_2$. The SWs propagate in both sides of the excitation cells. Once the SW excited at $I_1$ arrives to the left arm, it constructively interferes with the SW excited at $C_1$. Then, the result propagates and interferes constructively with the SW excited at $I_2$. The result of interference further propagates to be captured at $O_1$. The captured result is logic $0$ as the interferences resulted in a SW with phase of $0$ at the output. The same result is captured at $O_3$ as the spin wave propagates in both directions. In the case when logic $0$ is applied on $I_1$ and logic $1$ on $I_2$ the SW excited at $I_1$ constructively interferes with the SW excited at $C_1$. The resulted SW propagates to interfere destructively with the SW excited at $I_2$. The result obtained from the interference is a SW with phase of $0$, which is captured at $O_1$ and $O_3$ resulting in a logic $0$. If logic $1$ is applied on $I_1$ and logic $0$ is applied on $I_2$, then the SW excited at $I_1$ interferes destructively with the SW excited at $C_1$, which results in a very low SW energy (if not vanishing each other). Thus, the only SW in the device is the one excited from $I_2$, which propagates to the outputs $O_1$ and $O_3$ and captured as a logic $0$ because it has a $0$ phase. Finally, if logic $1$ is applied on both inputs $I_1$ and $I_2$, then it is similar to the previous case and the SW excited from $I_2$ is the only SW in the waveguide. Thus, the captured result at the outputs $O_1$ and $O_3$ is logic $1$ because the resulted SW has a $\pi$ phase. The same analysis can be followed to reach to the result in gates' right arm.
If TD is utilized to capture the results the performed function becomes XOR/XNOR. In this approach, the output SW phase is ignored and MSA or amplitude is the desired information. Therefore, if output MSA is greater than the threshold a logic $1$ is generated and a logic $0$ otherwise. Following this approach an XOR gate is implemented. If XNOR is desired, then condition must be flipped, i.e., the output is logic $1$ when the MSA is less than the threshold and the output is logic $0$, otherwise.
\subsection{Balanced $2$-input $4$-output Programmable Logic Gate}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{Structure3.pdf}
\caption{$2$-input $4$-output Output Energy Balanced SW Programable Logic Gate}
\label{fig:OEBFO4}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\caption{2-input Programmable Gate Behaviour}
\label{table:10}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Output detection method & $C_1$ & $C_2$ & $O_1$ & $O_2$ & $O_3$ & $O_4$ \tabularnewline
\hline
\multirow{4}{8em}{Output detection by SW phase} & $0$ & $0$ & (N)AND & (N)AND & (N)AND & (N)AND \tabularnewline \cline{2-7}
& $0$ & $1$ & (N)AND & (N)OR & (N)AND & (N)OR \tabularnewline \cline{2-7}
& $1$ & $0$ & (N)OR & (N)AND & (N)OR & (N)AND \tabularnewline \cline{2-7}
& $1$ & $1$ & (N)OR & (N)OR & (N)OR & (N)OR \tabularnewline
\hline
\multirow{4}{8em}{Output detection by thresholding} & $0$ & $0$ & X(N)OR & X(N)OR & X(N)OR & X(N)OR \tabularnewline \cline{2-7}
& $0$ & $1$ & X(N)OR & X(N)OR & X(N)OR & X(N)OR \tabularnewline \cline{2-7}
& $1$ & $1$ & X(N)OR & X(N)OR & X(N)OR & X(N)OR\tabularnewline \cline{2-7}
& $1$ & $1$ & X(N)OR & X(N)OR & X(N)OR & X(N)OR \tabularnewline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
As previously mentioned due to the lack of symmetry the $4$ outputs are not fully equivalent in terms of computation capabilities. To circumvent this limitation we proposed a symmetric energy balanced $4$-input PLG depicted in Figure \ref{fig:OEBFO4}. To balance the output energies and be able to capture the result of all possible logic functions at all outputs, we relocate the control inputs in the middle of the vertical waveguide such that each gate input is located at the same distance from all the four gate outputs. Therefore, the waves propagate towards $O_1$, $O_2$, $O_3$, and $O_4$ on equal length paths, which means that the rich the outputs with the same (amplitude) energy. The previously described design procedures is in place and all logic functions are feasible at each outputs as demonstrated by Table \ref{table:10}. An extra advantage of this structure is that when computing the same function it can provide a clean maximum fanout of $4$, or when computing $2$ functions each of them can be produced with a fanout of $2$.
\section{Simulation Setup}
\label{sec:Simulation Setup and Experiments}
In the following lines an overview of the simulation platform and used parameters are provided.
The Object Oriented MicroMagnetic Framework (OOMMF) is a micromagnetic simulator, which solves numerically the LLG equation \cite{OOMMF} . This software is used to validate the proposed structures. $Fe_{60}Co_{20}B_{20}$ is utilized as waveguide material and its parameters are presented in Table \ref{table:2} \cite{parameters}. The width of the waveguide is $50$ nm and the thickness is $1$ nm. The static magnetization is out-of-plane by Perpendicular Magnetic Anisotropy (PMA) and no external magnetic field is require as the PMA field is larger than the magnetic saturation \cite{parameters}. The spin wave wavelength of $\lambda = 110$ nm is chosen to be larger than the width of the waveguide. Once, the wavelength is determined, the distances can be calculated and become $ d_3 = d_4 = d_5 = d_6= d_7= d_8 = 110$ nm for the structure in Figure \ref{fig:FO4} and $ d_3 = d_4 = d_5 = d_6 = 110$ nm for the structure in Figure \ref{fig:OEBFO4}. Also, as $\lambda =110$ nm, and $k=2\pi/\lambda=57$ rad/$\mu$m, the SW frequency becomes $f = 9$ GHz according to the dispersion relation.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Parameters}
\label{table:2}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
Parameters & Values \\
\hline
Magnetic saturation $M_s$ & $1.1$ $\times$ $10^6$ A/m \\
\hline
Perpendicular anisotropy constant $k_{ani}$ & $8.3177$ $\times$ $10^5$ J/$m^3$\\
\hline
damping constant $\alpha$ & $0.004$ \\
\hline
Waveguide thickness $t$ & $1$ nm \\
\hline
Exchange stiffness $A_{exch}$ & $18.5$ pJ/m \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{Results and Discussion}
\label{sec:Results and discussion}
This section provides OOMMF simulation results and gate performance evaluation and comparison with equivalent state-of-the-art SW and CMOS counterparts. A discussion about fanout achievement, balance spin wave strength and variability and thermal noise effect issues are also included.
\subsection{Simulation Results}
\label{subsec:Results}
\subsubsection*{\textbf{$2$-input $4$-output AND/OR gates}}
Figure \ref{fig:results3}a presents simulation results for the $2$-input $4$-output AND/OR gates for $4$ cases $I_1I_2$ $=$ {$00$ $01$ $10$ $11$}. The outputs $O_1$, $O_2$, $O_3$, and $O_4$ are placed at $d_1$$=$$d_2$$=$$d_9$$=$$d_{10}$$=$$220$nm (n=2). Also simulation results for $2$-input AND/AND gates are presented in Figures \ref{fig:results3}b. As it is clear in Figure \ref{fig:results3}a that the left arm provides the AND gate functionality at outputs $O_1$ and $O_3$, whereas the right arm provides the OR gate functionality at outputs $O_2$ and $O_4$. Taking $O_1$ and $O_3$ as an example, if inputs $I_1I_2$$=$$00$, $I_1I_2$$=$$01$, $I_1I_2$$=$$10$, then the output $O_1$$=$$0$ and $O_3$$=$$0$. In contrast, $O_1$$=$$1$ and $O_3$$=$$1$ for the input combination $I_1I_2$$=$$11$. The OR gate functionality is obtained from $O_2$ and $O_4$. In addition, NAND and NOR gates can be captured by changing the reading positions to be at $3\lambda/2$, i.e., $d_1$$=$$d_2$$=$$d_9$$=$$d_{10}$=$165$nm (n=1). Likewise, Figure \ref{fig:results3}b can be analyzed. Also, $2$-input (N)OR/(N)OR gates can be obtained in the same manner but with $C_1$$=$$C_2$$=$$1$. Therefore, the structure can provide AND, NAND, OR, and NOR gate functionalities while each gate column being able to provide AND (OR) in its direct and inverted format or in the same format with a fanout of $2$.
\subsubsection*{\textbf{$2$-input $4$-output XOR/XNOR gates}}
Table \ref{table:5} presents normalized MSAs at the outputs $O_1$, $O_2$, $O_3$, and $O_4$ for $C_1$$=$$C_2$$=$$0$ and $C_1$$=$$C_2$$=$$1$ and for different inputs combination $I_1I_2$ $=$ {$00$ $01$ $10$ $11$} for the structure in Figure \ref{fig:FO4}. Note that the results for the cases $C_1 C_2$ $=$ {$01$ $10$} are exhibiting the same behaviour.
Table \ref{table:5} indicate that the outputs $O_1$ and $O_2$ can provide XOR or XNOR logic gates if an appropriate threshold is set to detect logic $0$ and logic $1$. On the other hand, $O_3$ and $O_4$ cannot provide these logic gates. As it can be observed from the table, the XOR gate can be implemented at $O_1$ and $O_2$ by averaging the $O_1$ and $O_2$ normalized MSAs for input combinations 10 and 11, which is $0.35$. The XOR gate can be obtained by setting the condition that the normalized MSA is greater than $0.35$ for logic $0$ and logic $1$, otherwise. By reversing the condition, the XNOR gate is obtained at $O_1$ and $O_2$. As it is clear from the Table, the four outputs don't have the same MSA and cannot provide XOR and XNOR functionalities (only $O_1$ and $O_2$ can). Thus, to balance the output energies and to enable XOR and XNOR in all four outputs, we place the control inputs as depicted in Figure \ref{fig:OEBFO4}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{results3.pdf}
\caption{$2$-input $4$-output a) AND/OR Gate b) AND/AND Gate}
\label{fig:results3}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{$2$-input $4$-output Gate Normalized Outputs MSAs}
\label{table:5}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Cases} & $O_1/I_1$ & $O_2/I_1$ & $O_3/I_1$ & $O_4/I_1$ \tabularnewline \hline
$C_1=C_2$ & $I_2$& $I_1$& & & & \tabularnewline
\hline
\centering $0$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0.9$ & $0.9$ & $1$ & $1$\tabularnewline
\hline
\centering $0$ & $0$ & $1$ & $0.25$ & $0.25$ & $0.45$ & $0.43$\tabularnewline
\hline
\centering $0$ & $1$ & $0$ & $0.32$ & $0.32$ & $0.26$ & $0.27$ \tabularnewline
\hline
\centering $0$ & $1$ & $1$ & $0.38$ & $0.39$ & $0.33$ & $0.33$ \tabularnewline
\hline
\centering $1$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0.38$ & $0.39$ & $0.33$ & $0.33$ \tabularnewline
\hline
\centering $1$ & $0$ & $1$ & $0.32$ & $0.32$ & $0.26$ & $0.27$ \tabularnewline
\hline
\centering $1$ & $1$ & $0$ & $0.25$ & $0.25$ & $0.45$ & $0.43$ \tabularnewline
\hline
\centering $1$ & $1$ & $1$ & $0.9$ & $0.9$ & $1$ & $1$\tabularnewline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsubsection*{\textbf{$2$-input $4$-output balanced AND/OR gates}}
The simulation results for $2$-input $4$-output balanced AND/OR gate for $4$ cases $I_1I_2$ $=$ {$00$ $01$ $10$ $11$} are presented in Figure \ref{fig:results4}a. The simulation results of the $2$-input AND/AND gates are presented in Figures \ref{fig:results4}b. By inspecting Figure \ref{fig:results4}a, the left arm provides the AND gate functionality in the two outputs $O_1$ and $O_3$. On the other hand, the right arm provides the OR gate results in the two outputs $O_2$ and $O_4$. These are placed with $O_1$ and $O_3$ at distances $d_1$$=$$d_2$$=$$d_7$$=$$d_8$$=$$110$nm (n=1). The same line of thinking as the previous $2$-input cases can be followed to analyze the results. Taking $O_1$ and $O_3$ as an example, if the inputs are $I_1I_2$$=$$00$, $I_1I_2$$=$$01$, $I_1I_2$$=$$10$, then the output becomes $O_1$$=$$0$ and $O_3$$=$$0$. Also, $O_1$$=$$1$ and $O_3$$=$$1$ for the input combination $I_1I_2$$=$$11$. The OR gate result is obtained from $O_2$. In addition, NAND and NOR gates can be captured by placing the reading positions at $\lambda/2$, i.e., $d_1$$=$$d_2$=$d_7$$=$$d_8$=$55$nm (n=0). Therefore, the structure can provide AND, NAND, OR, and NOR gates. Likewise, Figure \ref{fig:results4}b can be analyzed. Also, $2$-input (N)OR/(N)OR gates can be obtained in the same manner but with $C_1$$=$$C_2$$=$$1$. Thus, the structure can provide AND, NAND, OR, and NOR gate functionalities and each gate column isable to provide AND (OR) in its direct and inverted format or in the same format with a fanout of $2$.
\subsubsection*{\textbf{$2$-input $4$-output balanced XOR/XNOR gates}}
Table \ref{table:6} presents the normalized MSAs at the outputs $O_1$, $O_2$, $O_3$, and $O_4$ for $C_1$$=$$C_2$$=$$0$ and $C_1$$=$$C_2$$=$$1$ and for different inputs combination $I_1I_2$ $=$ {$00$ $01$ $10$ $11$} for the balanced $4$-output structure. Note that the cases $C_1 C_2$ $=$ {$01$ $10$} results are exhibiting the same behaviour.
Table \ref{table:6} indicates that XOR and XNOR can be now implemented at all four outputs by making use of the same threshold value $0.38$ obtained by averaging the normalized $O_1$, $O_2$, $O_3$, and $O_4$ MSA for input combinations 01 and 11. To implement the XOR gate, the condition must be: if the normalized MSA is larger than $0.38$, then outputs equal to logic $0$ and logic $1$ otherwise. The XNOR gate can be captured by flipping the condition. Therefore, the structure can provide different combinations of XOR, XNOR and enable a fanout value up to $4$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{results4.pdf}
\caption{$2$-input $4$-output balanced a) AND/OR Gate b) AND/AND Gate}
\label{fig:results4}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{$2$-input $4$-output Balanced Gate Normalized Outputs MSAs}
\label{table:6}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Cases} & $O_1/I_1$ & $O_2/I_1$ & $O_3/I_1$ & $O_4/I_1$ \tabularnewline \hline
$C_1=C_2$ & $I_2$& $I_1$& & & & \tabularnewline
\hline
$0$ & $0$ & $0$ & $1$ & $1$ & $1$ & $1$\tabularnewline
\hline
$0$ & $0$ & $1$ & $0.33$ & $0.33$ & $0.33$ & $0.33$\tabularnewline
\hline
$0$ & $1$ & $0$ & $0.3$ & $0.3$ & $0.3$ & $0.3$ \tabularnewline
\hline
$0$ & $1$ & $1$ & $0.43$ & $0.43$ & $0.43$ & $0.43$ \tabularnewline
\hline
$1$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0.43$ & $0.43$ & $0.43$ & $0.43$ \tabularnewline
\hline
$1$ & $0$ & $1$ & $0.3$ & $0.3$ & $0.3$ & $0.3$ \tabularnewline
\hline
$1$ & $1$ & $0$ & $0.33$ & $0.33$ & $0.33$ & $0.33$\tabularnewline
\hline
$1$ & $1$ & $1$ & $1$ & $1$ & $1$ & $1$\tabularnewline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Discussion}
\label{subsec:Discussion}
In the sequel, the proposed PLG is assessed and compared with the state-of-the-art SW and $16$ nm CMOS counterparts. In addition, fanout achievement, geometric scalability, balanced spin wave strength, and variability and thermal noise effects are discussed.
\subsubsection*{\textbf{Comparison}}
We evaluated the proposed $4$-output PLG structure in terms of energy and delay, and compare it with state-of-the-art SW \cite{Excitation_table_ref16} and $16$ nm CMOS \cite{16nmCMOS} functionally equivalent designs. We followed the assumptions made in \cite{Excitation_table_ref16} to make a fair comparison: (i) SW excitation and detection cells are ME cells, which have an area of $48$~nm $\times$ $48$~nm, (ii) pulse signals are used to excite spin waves, (iii) No energy and delay are accounted for the output ME cell because the structures output are fed to the following SW gates, (v) $0.42$~ns ME cell switching delay, $C_{ME}=1$ fF, $V_{ME}=119$ mV, Energy=$I \times C_{ME} \times V_{ME}^2$ (where $I$ is the number of excitation cells), and SW $\lambda = 48$~nm, (vi) The SW propagation delay is negligible. Note that the made assumptions might not reflect the reality of the current spin wave based technology due to the early stage development of the technology, but their discussion is not part of this paper.
Moreover, we assumed that AND, OR, XOR, and XNOR $16$ nm CMOS logic gates constitute CMOS PLG. Also, the energy and delay numbers were estimated based on the energy and delay numbers for the logic gates, which were taken from \cite{16nmCMOS}.
Our evaluation results are presented in Table \ref{table:6}. As it is clear form the Table, compared to $16$ nm CMOS, the proposed gate is $11$x slower and consumes $16$x less energy. In addition, the design in \cite{Excitation_table_ref16} is performing slightly better in performance, but the Majority gate in \cite{Excitation_table_ref16} can provide maximally one output. Therefore, if more outputs are needed, the circuit must be replicated multiple times, thus needs more energy. For instance, when using the design in \cite{Excitation_table_ref16}, if the output is needed $4$ times the structure must be replicated $4$ times leading to an energy consumption of $173$ aJ. Our $4$-output structure consumes $57.6$ aJ, therefore it needs $3$x less energy for the same computation without encoring any delay overhead.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Comparison with SW and CMOS}
\label{table:7}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& PLG CMOS & MAJ gate SW & Proposed SW PLG \tabularnewline \hline
Technology & 16 nm CMOS & SW & SW \tabularnewline
\hline
Implemented function & AND, OR, XOR & MAJ gate & (N)AND, (N)OR, X(N)OR \tabularnewline
\hline
Number of used cell & $26$ transistors & $4$ ME cells & $8$ ME cells \tabularnewline
\hline
Max. No. output capability & \textgreater $4$ & $1$ & $4$ \tabularnewline
\hline
Delay (ns) & $0.047$ & $0.42$ & $0.42$ \tabularnewline
\hline
Energy (aJ) & $923$ & $43.3$ & $57.6$ \tabularnewline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsubsection*{\textbf{Fanout Achievement}}
If not only multi-output is desired, but also fanout capability, then all outputs must have the same energy level. The $4$-output structure presented in Figure \ref{fig:FO4}, can achieve $2$ times a fanout of $2$ but not a fanout of $4$ because the normalized $O_1$, $O_2$, $O_3$, and $O_4$ MSA are not the same in all cases as presented in Table \ref{table:5}. In contrast, the balanced $4$-output structure depicted in Figure \ref{fig:OEBFO4} has fanout of 4 capability because all outputs have the same MSAs as indicated in Table \ref{table:6}. Also, as an additional example, we used the proposed PLG to implement a fanout of $4$ $3$-input Majority gate. The simulation results for this implementation are presented in Figure \ref{fig:results5}. By inspecting the Figure, the outputs $O_1$, $O_2$, $O_3$, and $O_4$ are the same for all input cases. The same line of thinking as the previous cases can be followed to analyze the results. If inputs $I_1I_2I_3$$=$$000$, $I_1I_2I_3$$=$$001$, $I_1I_2I_3$$=$$010$, and $I_1I_2I_3$$=$$100$, then the outputs are $O_1$$=$$0$, $O_2$$=$$0$, $O_3$$=$$0$, and $O_4$$=$$0$. Also, $O_1$$=$$1$, $O_2$$=$$1$, $O_3$$=$$1$, and $O_4$$=$$1$ for the input combinations $I_1I_2I_3$$=$$011$, $I_1I_2I_3$$=$$101$, $I_1I_2I_3$$=$$110$, and $I_1I_2I_3$$=$$111$. Thus the Majority behaviour is delivered and as according to Table \ref{table:6} all outputs exhibit the same energy level a fanout of $4$ $3$-input Majority gate is achieved.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{results5.pdf}
\caption{Fanout of $4$ $3$-input Majority Gate Simulation Results. SW phase is color encoded: Red presents logic $1$ and blue logic $0$. }
\label{fig:results5}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection*{\textbf{Balance Spin Wave Strength}}
It was observed that both control and data inputs have unbalanced contribution to the output. The path for SWs originating from data input contains a bent, which is associated with additional energy loss. The path of SWs originating from the control inputs is straight and thus less energy is lost. Therefore, data inputs have smaller contribution to the outputs. As a result, in order to balance the contribution of the inputs to the outputs, the data inputs must be excited at higher energy than the control inputs $C_1$ and $C_2$. In addition, it was noticed that all outputs are affected by all inputs such that $O_2$ is affected by control inputs $C_1$ and $O_1$ is also affected by $C_2$. This might create wrong results when different functions are desired at $O_1$ and $O_2$. Therefore, in order to have a working gate, it must be ensured that $C_2$ has less effect on output $O_1$ when compared to the combined effect of $C_1$, $I_1$, and $I_2$. Furthermore, it must be ensured that the contribution of $C_2$, $I_1$, and $I_2$ on output $O_2$ is larger than the contribution of $C_1$.
\subsubsection*{\textbf{Variability and Thermal Noise Effect}}
Our main target in this paper is to validate the proof of concept of the proposed structures, regardless of the variability and the thermal noise effect. However, in \cite{DC,DC9}, edge roughness and trapezoidal cross section of the waveguide were presented to test their effect on the gate functionality. It was demonstrated that the gate functions correctly under their presence and they only have a small effect \cite{DC,DC9}. Furthermore, the thermal noise effect was analized in \cite{DC} and concluded that it has a small effect and the gate correct functionality at different temperatures. Thus, we don't expect a noticeable effect of variability and thermal noise on the proposed structures. However, the investigation of such phenomena is subject of future work.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:Conclusion}
In conclusion, a novel ladder shaped $2$-input $4$-output programmable logic gate structure was proposed. We introduced the gate structure and demonstrated that, by adjusting the gate output detection method, it can parallelly evaluate any $4$-element subset of the $2$-input Boolean function set \{AND, NAND, OR, NOR, XOR, and XNOR\}. Furthermore, we adjusted the structure such that all its $4$ outputs produce SWs with the same energy and demonstrated that it can evaluate Boolean function sets while providing fanout capabilities ranging from $1$ to $4$. We validated our approach by instantiating and simulating different gate configurations such as $4$-output AND/OR, $4$-output XOR/XNOR, output energy balanced $4$-output AND/OR, and output energy balanced $4$-output XOR/XNOR by means of Object Oriented Micromagnetic Framework (OOMMF) simulations. We evaluated the performance of our proposal in terms of delay and energy consumption and compared it against existing state-of-the-art SW and $16$~nm CMOS counterparts. The results indicated that, for the same functionality, our approach provides $3\times$ and $16\times$ energy reduction, when compared with conventional SW and CMOS implementations, respectively.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
This work has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program within the FET-OPEN project CHIRON under grant agreement No. 801055. It has also been partially supported by imec's industrial affiliate program on beyond-CMOS logic. F.V. acknowledges financial support from Flanders Research Foundation (FWO) through grant No.~1S05719N.
|
\section{Introduction}
Given the observed human 3D skeletal sequences, the goal of human motion prediction is to predict plausible and consecutive future human motion which convey abundant clues about the person’s intention, emotion and identity.
Effectively predicting the human motion plays an important role in wide visual computing applications such as human-machine interfaces~\cite{koppula2013anticipating}, smart surveillance~\cite{saquib2018pose}, virtual reality~\cite{elhayek2018fully}, healthcare applications~\cite{yuminaka2016non}, autonomous driving~\cite{paden2016survey} and visual human-object tracking~\cite{gong2011multi}.
However, predicting plausible future human motion is a very challenging task due to the non-linear and highly spatial-temporal dependencies of human body parts during movements~\cite{wang2007gaussian}.Considering the time-series property of human motion sequence, recent deep learning based methods formulated the human motion prediction task as a sequence-to-sequence problem and achieved remarkable progresses by using chain-structured Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) to capture the temporal dependencies frame-by-frame among motion sequence.
However, recent literature \cite{tang2018long} indicated that the chain-structured RNNs suffer from error accumulation in temporal modeling and deficiency in spatial dynamic description, leading to problems such as imprecise pose and mean pose in motion prediction.
Feed-forward deep networks ~\cite{mao2019learning} are regarded as alternative solutions for human motion prediction task by learning rich representation from all input motion sequences at once. The holistic reasoning of the human motion sequences leads to more consecutive and plausible predictions than chain-structured RNNs.
Unfortunately, current feed-forward deep networks adopt singe-stage architecture and tend to generate the predicted motion coarsely thus yielding unsatisfactory performance, especially for complex aperiodic actions (e.g., Direction or Greeting in H3.6m dataset). The reason is that it is difficult to guide the network to focus more on detailed information when directly predicting the future human motion from limited input information.
To address the above issues, we propose a novel Adversarial Refinement Network (ARNet) which resorts to a coarse-to-fine framework. We decompose the human motion prediction problem into two stages: coarse motion prediction and finer motion refinement. By joint reasoning of the input-output space of the coarse predictor, we achieve to take both the historical motion sequences and coarse future prediction as input not just one-sided information to polish the challenging human motion prediction task. The coarse-to-fine design allows the refinement module to concentrate on the complete motion trend brought by the historical input and coarse prediction, which are ignored in previous feed-forward deep networks used for human motion prediction.
Given different actions performed by diverse persons fed to the refinement network in training and testing, the coarse prediction results tend to be influenced by generalization error, which makes it difficult for the refinement network to obtain the fine prediction robustly. We therefore enhance the refinement network with adversarial error distribution augmentation. During training, we deliberately introduce the error distribution by learning through the adversarial mechanism among different subjects based on the coarse prediction. In testing, our cascaded refinement network alleviates the prediction error from the coarse predictor resulting in a finer prediction. Our adversarial component acts as regularization to
let our network refine the coarse prediction well.
Different from the previous work \cite{gui2018adversarial} which casts the predictor as a generator and introduces discriminator to validate the prediction results, our adversarial training strategy aims to generate error distribution which acts as implicit regularization for better refinement instead of directly generating the skeleton data as prediction. The error augmentation is achieved by a pair of adversarial learning based generator and discriminator.
Consequently, the proposed ARNet achieves state-of-the-art results on several standard human motion prediction benchmarks over diverse actions categories, especially over the complicated aperiodic actions as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:human-motion-prediction-task}.
Our contributions are summarized as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}
\setlength{\parsep}{0pt}
\setlength{\parskip}{0.2pt}
\item We propose a coarse-to-fine framework to decompose the difficult prediction problem into coarse prediction task and refinement task for more accurate human motion prediction.
\item We design an adversarial learning strategy to produce reasonable error distribution rather than random noise to optimize the refinement network.
\item The proposed method is comprehensively evaluated on multiple challenging benchmark datasets and outperforms state-of-the-art methods especially on complicated aperiodic actions.
\end{itemize}
\section{Related Work}
\subsection{Human Motion Prediction}
With the emergence of large scale open human motion capture (mocap) datasets, exploring different deep learning architectures to improve human motion prediction performance on diverse actions has become a new trend.
Due to the inherent temporal-series nature of motion sequence, the chain-structured Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) are natively suitable to process motion sequences. The Encoder-Recurrent-Decoder (ERD) model \cite{fragkiadaki2015recurrent} simultaneously learned the representations and dynamics of human motion. The spatial-temporal graph is later employed in \cite{jain2016structural} to construct the Structural-RNNs (SRNN) model for human motion prediction.
The residual connections in RNN model (RRNN) \cite{martinez2017human} helped the decoder model prior knowledge of input human motion. Tang et al. \cite{tang2018long} adopted the global attention and Modified Highway Unit (MHU) to explore motion contexts for long-term dependencies modeling.
However, these chain-structured RNNs suffer from either frozen mean pose problems or unnatural motion in predicted sequences because of the weakness of RNNs in both long-term temporal memory and spatial structure description.
Feed-forward deep network as an emerging framework has shown the superiority over chain-structured RNNs.
Instead of processing input frame by frame like chain-structured RNNs, feed-forward deep networks feed all the frames at once, which is a promising alternative for feature extraction to guarantee the integrity and smoothness of long-term temporal information in human motion prediction \cite{tang2018long}.
In this paper, our ARNet is on the basis of feed-forward deep network.
\subsection{Prediction Refinement}
Refinement approaches learn good feature representation from the coarse results in output space and infer the precise location of joints in a further step by recovering from the previous error, which have achieved promisingly improvement in human pose related work.
Multi-stage refinement network \cite{tome2017lifting} associated the coarse pose estimation and refinement in one go to improve the accuracy of 3D human pose estimation by jointly processing the belief maps of 2D joints and projected 3D joints as the inputs to the next stage. Cascaded Pyramid Network (CPN) \cite{chen2018cascaded} introduced refinement after the pyramid feature network for sufficient context information mining to handle the occluded and invisible joints estimation problems. Another trend of refinement mechanism performed coarse pose estimation and refinement separately. PoseRefiner\cite{fieraru2018learning} refined the given pose estimation by modelling hard pose cases. Posefix \cite{moon2019posefix} proposed an independent pose refinement network for arbitrary human pose estimator and refined the predicted keypoints based on error statistics prior. Patch-based refinement \cite{wan2019patch} utilised the retain fine details from body part patches to improve the accuracy of 3D pose estimation.
In contrast to the previous work, we further adopt the benefits of refinement network to deal with the problems in 3D human motion prediction via a creative coarse-to-fine manner.
\subsection{Adversarial Learning}
Inspired by the minimax mechanism of Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) \cite{goodfellow2014generative}, adversarial learning has been widely adopted to train neural networks~\cite{deng2019irc,balaji2019conditional,vankadari2019unsupervised}.
Several attempts have been proposed to perform data augmentation in the way of adversarial learning, which mainly rely on the pixel manipulation through image synthesis~\cite{chu2019weakly} or a serious of specific image operations~\cite{zhang2020adversarial}.
The adversarial learning based data augmentation shows powerful potential for model performance improvement. In \cite{frid2018gan}, the results of image recognition achieved promising improvement due to the image synthesis data augmentation.
In human motion prediction, \cite{gui2018adversarial} adopted a predictor with two discriminators to keep the fidelity and continuity of human motion predicted sequences by adversarial training.
In this work, we introduce an online data augmentation scheme in the motion space to improve generalization and optimize the refinement network.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{figs/fig2.jpg}
\caption{{\bf The overall framework of our ARNet.} The proposed coarse-to-fine module consists of coarse predictor and refinement network as shown in the top part. The bottom part illustrates the dedicated adversarial error augmentation module which consists of coarse predictor with a pair of error generator and discriminator. The observed human motion sequence of Subject I and Subject II are separately fed to the weight-shared coarse predictors to obtain corresponding coarse human motion prediction. Then the generator in the adversarial error augmentation module adopts the coarse prediction of Subject I as the conditional information to generate fake motion error of Subject II in an adversarial manner. After that, the augmented error distribution and the real coarse prediction are both utilised to optimize the refinement network for fine human motion prediction }
\label{fig:net-structure}
\end{figure}
\section{Methodology}
\subsection{Overall Framework}
The overall framework of our ARNet is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:net-structure}.
The coarse-to-fine module consists of a coarse predictor $\mathcal{P}$ and a refinement network $\mathcal{R}$.
In the context of human motion prediction, given N frames of observed human motion at once, the coarse predictor $\mathcal{P}$ aims to forecast the following T frames of human motion.
The input human motion sequences $\mathit{X}=\left \{x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{n}\right\}$ are first fed into the predictor $\mathcal{P}$ to obtain coarse future human motion $\mathit{Y}=\left \{y_{1},y_{2},...,y_{n}\right\}$, where $x_{i}, y_{i}\in\mathbb{R}^{K}$ are $K$ dimensional joint features represented as exponential map of joint angle in each frame.
Then in the adversarial error augmentation module, we adopt a pair of generator and discriminator to produce fake motion error calculated from the coarse prediction from a person (subject I) and the real motion error from another person (subject II) as the conditional information for the next stage fine prediction.
During training, we deliberately introduce the error distribution by learning through the adversarial mechanism among different subjects based on the coarse prediction. In testing, our cascaded refinement network alleviates the prediction error from the coarse predictor resulting in a finer prediction.
\subsection{Refinement Network}
Given the input motion sequence, we adopt a Graph Convolutional Network (GCN) \cite{kipf2016semi,yan2018spatial}, a popular feed-forward deep network which is specialized in dealing with the graph structured data, to initially model the spatial-temporal dependencies among the human poses and obtain the coarse human motion prediction.
We construct a $K$ nodes graph $G = (V,E)$, where $V =\left \{v_{i}|i=1,...,K\right \}$ denotes the node set and $E = \left \{e_{i,j}|i,j=1,...,K\right \}$ denotes the edge set.
The main idea of Graph Convolutional Network is that, each $d$ dimensional node representations $H_v^l\in\mathbb{R}^d$ is updated by feature aggregation of all its neighbors defined by the weighted adjacency matrix $A^l\in\mathbb{R}^{K\times K}$ on the $l$-th Graph Convolutional layer.
Therefore, the spatial structure relationships between the nodes could be fully encoded and the $l$-th Graph Convolution layer outputs a $K \times d$ matrix $H^{l+1} \in\mathbb{R}^d$:
\begin{equation}
H^{l+1} = \sigma(A^lH^lW^l)
\end{equation}
where $\sigma(\cdot)$ denotes an activation function and $W^l \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times \hat{d}}$ denotes the trainable weight matrix.
The network architecture of our predictor is similar to \cite{mao2019learning}, which is the state-of-the-art feed-forward baseline on human motion prediction.
In order to improve the human motion prediction performance in a further step, we construct a coarse-to-fine framework, which cascades N-stage refinement network on top of the preliminary predictor, to process the complete future information of the output from human motion predictor iteratively.
Given the input human motion sequences $H_I $, we initially obtain the coarse human motion prediction sequences $H_{\mathcal{P}} = \mathit{f}_p(H_I)$ from the preliminary predictor and forward the fusion of historical and future sequences as the inputs to the refinement network.
As a result, we output the final refined human motion prediction sequences by error correction of initially coarse prediction $H_{\mathcal{R}} = \mathit{f}_r(H_{\mathcal{P}} + H_I)$.
\subsection{Adversarial Learning Enhanced Refinement Network}
Considering that the human motion sequences collected by different actors in datasets contain variations, especially for complicated aperiodic actions, various error scenarios will occur.
To improve the error-correction ability and robustness of our refinement network, we additionally introduce an adversarial learning mechanism to generate challenging error cases which are fed to the refinement network together with the coarse prediction.
We randomly choose 1 person's actions sequences (Subject II) from the 6 subjects' actions sequences in the training dataset and feed it to the predictor in another branch to get the independent coarse prediction sequences for every epoch as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:net-structure}.
Then the real error is able to be computed from this person's coarse prediction sequences and the corresponding ground-truth.
To augment this person's error cases to the other 5 people, we utilise a generator that produces fake human motion error to fool the discriminator. The discriminator constantly tries to distinguish between real error cases and fake error cases so as to transfer different persons' error to other subjects in the mocap dataset.
This augmentation provides rich error cases as input to our refinement network, leading to better generalization performance on the testing dataset.
We train the networks following the standard GAN pipeline.
During training, the adversarial error generator generates error bias which will be added on the coarse prediction and then fed to refinement network.
The adversarial refinement network effectively learns from the coarse prediction with adversarial error augmentation. During testing, the coarse prediction without added error is fed directly to the adversarial refinement network and get finer prediction as final results.
\subsection{Training Loss}
In this section, we describe the training loss functions for different modules. Notably, in order to achieve joint reasoning of the input-output space of the coarse predictor, our ARNet defines the loss function in predictor and refinement network separately to achieve simultaneous supervision.
Following~\cite{mao2019learning}, we optimize the coarse predictor network parameters with the mean-squared loss, which is denoted as the prediction loss $\mathcal{L_P}$.
Suppose $K$ is the number of joints in each frame, $N$ is the number of input frames and $T$ is the number of predicted frames, then $\mathcal{L_P}$ can be written as:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L_P} = \frac{1}{(N+T)K}\sum_{n=1}^{N+T}\sum_{k=1}^{K}||h^{'}_{k,n}-h_{k,n}||
\end{equation}
where $h_{k,n}$ and $h^{'}_{k,n}$ respectively represent the ground-truth and predicted joint $k$ in frame n.
For the refinement network to produce the refined human motion sequences, we also adopt the mean-squared loss to optimize the network parameters.
The mean-squared loss $\mathcal{L_R}$ can be written as:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L_R} = \frac{1}{(N+T)K}\sum_{n=1}^{N+T}\sum_{k=1}^{K}||h^{''}_{k,n}-h_{k,n}||
\end{equation}
where $h_{k,n}$ indicates the ground-truth joint in frame $n$, $h^{''}_{k,n}$ is the refined corresponding joint. Our refiner is trained by minimizing the loss function.
The goal of our refinement network is to refine the coarse human motion prediction by utilizing the sequence-level refinement with the adversarial learning based error distribution augmentation. We utilise the minimax mechanism of adversarial loss to train the GAN:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L_D} = \boldsymbol{E}[\mathit{log\mathcal{D}(\delta_{real})}]+\boldsymbol{E}[\mathit{log(1-\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{G}(\delta_{fake})}]
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L_G} = \boldsymbol{E}[\mathit{log(1-\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{G}(\delta_{fake})}]
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{L_D}$ denotes the discriminator loss, $\mathcal{L_G}$ is the generator loss, and $\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mathit{\delta}}}$ represents the error distribution.
In summary, we gather the predictor and refinement network together to train the whole network in an end-to-end way. As we adopt the adversarial refinement network behind the coarse predictor, the objective function consists of two parts:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L_P} + \boldsymbol{s} * \mathcal{L_R}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{L_P}$ denotes the prediction loss, $\mathcal{L_R}$ denotes the refinement loss, and the number of refinement stage $\boldsymbol{s}$ used in our adversarial refinement network will be shown in the ablation studies.
\section{Experiments}
\subsection{Datasets and Evaluation Metrics}
\subsubsection{H3.6m Dataset.}
Human 3.6 Million (H3.6m) dataset \cite{h36m_pami} is the largest and most challenging mocap dataset which has 15 different daily actions performed by 7 males and females, including not only simple periodic actions such as walking and eating, but also complex aperiodic actions such as discussion and purchase. Following previous methods~\cite{LiZLL18,mao2019learning}, the proposed algorithm is trained on subject 1,6,7,8,9,11 and tested on subject 5. There are 25 frames per second and each frame consists of a skeleton of 32 joints. Except for removing the global translations and rotations, some of the joints that do not move (\textit{i.e.}, joints that do not bend) will be ignored as previous work \cite{mao2019learning}.
\subsubsection{CMU-Mocap Dataset.}
To be more convincing, we also conduct experiments on the CMU-Mocap dataset~\cite{LiZLL18}.
In order to achieve fair comparisons, we employ the same experimental settings as \cite{LiZLL18,mao2019learning}, including the pre-processing, data representation and training/testing splits.
\subsubsection{3DPW Dataset.}
Recently, the 3D Pose in the Wild dataset (3DPW)~\cite{vonMarcard2018} is released which contains around 51k frames with 3D annotations. The dataset is challenging as the scenarios are composed of indoor and outdoor activities. We follow \cite{vonMarcard2018,mao2019learning} to split the dataset for comparable experimental results.
\subsubsection{Evaluation Metrics.}
In order to make fair and comprehensive comparisons with previous work, we adopt the Mean Angle Error (MAE) between the predicted frames and the ground-truth frames in the angle space as the quantitative evaluation and visualize the prediction as the qualitative evaluation, which are the common evaluation metrics in human motion prediction~\cite{mao2019learning}.
\subsection{Implementation Details}
The proposed algorithm is implemented on Pytorch \cite{paszke2017automatic} and trained on a NVIDIA Tesla V100 GPU. We adopted the Adam \cite{kingma2014adam} optimizer to train our model for about 50 epochs. The learning rate was set to 0.002 and the batch size was 256.
To tackle the long-term temporal memory problems, we encode the complete time series by using Discrete Cosine Transform (DCT) \cite{akhter2009nonrigid} and discard the high-frequency jittering to maintain complete expression and smooth consistency of temporal domain information \cite{mao2019learning} at one time.
\subsection{Quantitative Comparisons}
We conduct quantitative comparisons on three human mocap datasets including H3.6m, 3DPW and CMU-Mocap between our ARNet and the state-of-the-art baselines. For fair comparisons with previous work \cite{dong2019retrospecting,gui2018adversarial,LiZLL18,mao2019learning,martinez2017human}, we feed 10 frames as inputs to predict the future 10 frames (400ms) for short-term prediction and the future 25 frames (1000ms) for long-term prediction.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{Short-term (80ms,160ms,320ms,400ms) human motion prediction measured in mean angle error (MAE) over 15 actions on H3.6m dataset}
\resizebox{1.0\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{lcccc|cccc|cccc|cccc}
& \multicolumn{4}{c}{Walking} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Eating} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Smoking} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Discussion} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{milliseconds} & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 \\
\hline
Zero-velocity \cite{martinez2017human} & 0.39 & 0.68 & 0.99 & 1.15 & 0.27 & 0.48 & 0.73 & 0.86 & 0.26 & 0.48 & 0.97 & 0.95 & 0.31 & 0.67 & 0.94 & 1.04 \\
Residual sup. \cite{martinez2017human} & 0.28 & 0.49 & 0.72 & 0.81 & 0.23 & 0.39 & 0.62 & 0.76 & 0.33 & 0.61 & 1.05 & 1.15 & 0.31 & 0.68 & 1.01 & 1.09 \\
convSeq2Seq \cite{LiZLL18} & 0.33 & 0.54 & 0.68 & 0.73 & 0.22 & 0.36 & 0.58 & 0.71 & 0.26 & 0.49 & 0.96 & 0.92 & 0.32 & 0.67 & 0.94 & 1.01 \\
Retrospec \cite{dong2019retrospecting}& 0.28 & 0.45 & 0.62 & 0.68 & 0.21 & 0.34 & 0.53 & 0.68 & 0.26 & 0.50 & 0.96 & 0.93 & 0.29 & 0.64 & 0.90 & 0.96 \\
AGED \cite{gui2018adversarial} & 0.22 & 0.36 & 0.55 & 0.67 & 0.17 & \textbf{0.28} & 0.51 & 0.64 & 0.27 & 0.43 & \textbf{0.82} & 0.84 & 0.27 & 0.56 & \textbf{0.76} & \textbf{0.83} \\
LTraiJ \cite{mao2019learning} & \textbf{0.18} & \textbf{0.31} & \textbf{0.49} & 0.56 & \textbf{0.16} & 0.29 & 0.50 & 0.62 & \textbf{0.22} & \textbf{0.41} & 0.86 & \textbf{0.80} & \textbf{0.20} & \textbf{0.51} & 0.77 & 0.85\\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{c}{ARNet (Ours)} & \textbf{0.18} & \textbf{0.31} & \textbf{0.49} & \textbf{0.55} & \textbf{0.16} & \textbf{0.28} & \textbf{0.49} & \textbf{0.61} & \textbf{0.22} & 0.42& 0.86 & 0.81 & \textbf{0.20} & \textbf{0.51} & 0.81 & 0.89 \\
\hline
\\
& \multicolumn{4}{c}{Direction} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Greeting} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Phoning} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Posing} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{milliseconds} & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 \\
\hline
Zero-velocity \cite{martinez2017human} & 0.39 & 0.59 & 0.79 & 0.89 & 0.54 & 0.89 &1.30 & 1.49 & 0.64 & 1.21 &1.65 &1.83 & 0.28 & 0.57 & 1.13 & 1.37 \\
Residual sup. \cite{martinez2017human} & 0.26 & 0.47 & 0.72 & 0.84 & 0.75 &1.17 & 1.74 & 1.83 &0.23 &0.43 &0.69 &0.82 & 0.36 & 0.71 & 1.22 & 1.48 \\
convSeq2Seq \cite{LiZLL18} & 0.39 & 0.60 & 0.80 & 0.91 & 0.51 & 0.82 & 1.21 & 1.38 & 0.59 & 1.13 & 1.51 & 1.65 & 0.29 & 0.60 & 1.12 & 1.37 \\
Retrospec \cite{dong2019retrospecting}& 0.40 & 0.61 & 0.77 & 0.86 & 0.52 & 0.86 & 1.26 & 1.43 & 0.59 & 1.11 & 1.47 & 1.59 & 0.26 & 0.54 & 1.14 & 1.41 \\
AGED \cite{gui2018adversarial} & \textbf{0.23}& \textbf{0.39} & \textbf{0.63}& \textbf{0.69} & 0.56 & 0.81 & 1.30 & 1.46 & \textbf{0.19} &\textbf{0.34} &\textbf{0.50} & \textbf{0.68} & 0.31& 0.58 & 1.12 & 1.34 \\
LTraiJ \cite{mao2019learning} & 0.26 & 0.45 & 0.71 & 0.79 & 0.36 & 0.60 & 0.95 & 1.13 & 0.53 & 1.02 & 1.35 & 1.48 & 0.19 & 0.44 & 1.01 & 1.24 \\\hline
\multicolumn{1}{c}{ARNet (Ours)} & \textbf{0.23} & 0.43 &0.65 & 0.75 & \textbf{0.32} & \textbf{0.55} & \textbf{0.90} & \textbf{1.09} & 0.51 & 0.99& 1.28 & 1.40 & \textbf{0.17} & \textbf{0.43} & \textbf{0.97} & \textbf{1.20} \\
\hline
\\
& \multicolumn{4}{c}{Purchases} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Sitting} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Sitting Down} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Taking Photo} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{milliseconds} & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 \\ \hline
Zero-velocity \cite{martinez2017human} & 0.62 & 0.88 & 1.19 & 1.27 & 0.40 & 1.63 & 1.02 & 1.18 & 0.39 & 0.74 & 1.07 & 1.19 & 0.25 & 0.51 & 0.79 & 0.92 \\
Residual sup. \cite{martinez2017human} & 0.51 & 0.97 & 1.07 & 1.16 & 0.41 & 1.05 & 1.49 & 1.63 & 0.39 & 0.81 & 1.40 & 1.62 & 0.24 & 0.51 & 0.90 & 1.05 \\
convSeq2Seq \cite{LiZLL18}& 0.63 & 0.91 & 1.19 & 1.29 & 0.39 & 0.61 & 1.02 &1.18 & 0.41 & 0.78 & 1.16 & 1.31 & 0.23 & 0.49 & 0.88 & 1.06 \\
Retrospec \cite{dong2019retrospecting}& 0.59 & 0.84 & 1.14 & 1.19 & 0.40 & 0.64 & 1.04 & 1.22 & 0.41 & 0.77 & 1.14 & 1.29 & 0.27 & 0.52 & 0.80 & 0.92 \\
AGED \cite{gui2018adversarial}& 0.46& 0.78& 1.01& \textbf{1.07} & 0.41 & 0.76 & 1.05 & 1.19 & 0.33 & 0.62 & 0.98 & 1.10 & 0.23 & 0.48 & 0.81 & 0.95 \\
LTraiJ \cite{mao2019learning} & 0.43 & 0.65 & 1.05 & 1.13 & 0.29 & 0.45 & \textbf{0.80} & \textbf{0.97} & 0.30 & \textbf{0.61} & 0.90 & 1.00 & 0.14 & 0.34 & 0.58 & 0.70 \\\hline
\multicolumn{1}{c}{ARNet (Ours)} & \textbf{0.36} & \textbf{0.60} & \textbf{1.00} & 1.11 & \textbf{0.27} & \textbf{0.44} & \textbf{0.80} & \textbf{0.97} & \textbf{0.29} & \textbf{0.61}& \textbf{0.87} & \textbf{0.97} & \textbf{0.13} & \textbf{0.33} & \textbf{0.55} & \textbf{0.67} \\
\hline
\\
& \multicolumn{4}{c}{Waiting} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Walking Dog} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Walking Together} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Average} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{milliseconds} & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 \\
\hline
Zero-velocity \cite{martinez2017human} & 0.34 & 0.67 & 1.22 & 1.47 & 0.60 & 0.98 & 1.36 & 1.50 & 0.33 & 0.66 & 0.94 & 0.99 & 0.40 & 0.78 & 1.07 & 1.21 \\
Residual sup. \cite{martinez2017human} & 0.28 & 0.53 & 1.02 & 1.14 & 0.56 & 0.91 & 1.26 & 1.40 & 0.31 & 0.58 & 0.87 & 0.91 & 0.36 & 0.67 & 1.02 & 1.15 \\
convSeq2Seq \cite{LiZLL18}&0.30 & 0.62 & 1.09 & 1.30 & 0.59 & 1.00 & 1.32 & 1.44 & 0.27 & 0.52 & 0.71 & 0.74 & 0.38 & 0.68 & 1.01 & 1.13 \\
Retrospec \cite{dong2019retrospecting}& 0.33 & 0.65 & 1.12 & 1.30 & 0.53 & 0.87 & 1.16 & 1.33 & 0.28 & 0.52 & 0.68 & 0.71 & 0.37 & 0.66 & 0.98 & 1.10 \\
AGED \cite{gui2018adversarial}& 0.24 & 0.50 & 1.02 & \textbf{1.13} & 0.50 & 0.81 & 1.15 & \textbf{1.27} & 0.23 & 0.41 & 0.56 & 0.62 & 0.31 & 0.54 & 0.85 & 0.97 \\
LTraiJ \cite{mao2019learning} & 0.23 & 0.50 & 0.91 & 1.14 & 0.46 & 0.79 & 1.12 & 1.29 & 0.15 & 0.34 & \textbf{0.52} & \textbf{0.57} & {0.27} & {0.51} & {0.83} & {0.95} \\\hline
\multicolumn{1}{c}{ARNet (Ours)} & \textbf{0.22} & \textbf{0.48} & \textbf{0.90} & \textbf{1.13} & \textbf{0.45} & \textbf{0.78} & \textbf{1.11}& \textbf{1.27} & \textbf{0.13} & \textbf{0.33} &{0.53} & {0.58} & \textbf{0.25} & \textbf{0.49} & \textbf{0.80} & \textbf{0.92}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\label{table-short-motion}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Short-term Prediction on H3.6m.}
H3.6m is the most challenging dataset for human motion prediction. Table~\ref{table-short-motion} shows the quantitative comparisons for short-term human motion prediction between our ARNet and a series of baselines including Zero-velocity \cite{martinez2017human}, RRNN\cite{martinez2017human}, convSeq2Seq\cite{LiZLL18}, Retrospec\cite{dong2019retrospecting}, AGED \cite{gui2018adversarial} and LTraiJ \cite{mao2019learning} on H3.6m dataset. We computed the mean angle error (MAE) on 15 actions by measuring the euclidean distance between the ground-truth and prediction at 80ms, 160ms, 320ms, 400ms for short-term evaluation. The results in bold show that our method outperforms both of the state-of-the-art chain-structured baseline AGED and the feed-forward baseline LTraiJ.
Compared with the state-of-the-art feed-forward baseline LTraiJ \cite{mao2019learning}, in Table~\ref{table-short-motion}, the proposed ARNet clearly outperforms the feed-forward baseline LTraiJ on average for short-term human motion prediction. Different from LTraiJ which adopts the single-stage predictor without refinement network, our ARNet obtains better performance especially on aperiodic actions (e.g. Directions, Greeting, Phoning and so on). It is difficult to model this type of actions which involved multiple small movements and high acceleration during human motion especially at the end of human limbs. In addition, due to the stable change of periodic behavior, the traditional feed-forward deep network can also achieve competitive results on periodic actions (such as walking, eating and smoking), but we note that our ARNet further improves the accuracy of prediction. The results validate that the coarse-to-fine design enables our ARNet to correct the error joints in human motion prediction and outperform the existing feed-forward baseline on almost all actions.
Compared with the state-of-the-art chain-structured baseline AGED \cite{gui2018adversarial}, which utilises chain-structured RNNs as the predictor with two different discriminators, our ARNet still outperforms it on almost all action categories for short-term human motion prediction within 400ms as shown in Table ~\ref{table-short-motion}. The results show the superiority of our ARNet over the best performing chain-structured methods for short-term human motion prediction tasks.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{figs/13.jpg}
\caption{{\bf Visual comparisons for short-term human motion prediction on H3.6m dataset.} We compare our proposed ARNet with the state-of-the-art feed-forward baseline LTraiJ ~\cite{mao2019learning} which is the best performing method for short-term prediction (400ms). The left few frames represent the input human motion sequence. From top to bottom, we show the final predictions obtained by the feed-forward baseline LTraiJ represented as green-purple skeletons and our proposed ARNet represented as red-blue skeletons respectively on two challenging aperiod actions (e.g.,Direction and Greeting). Marked in red circles, our predictions better match the ground-truth shown as the gray dotted skeletons}
\label{fig:human-motion-prediction-task}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{ Long-term (560ms, 1000ms) human motion prediction on H3.6m dataset}
\resizebox{0.8\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{lcc|cc|cc|cc|cc}
~ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Walking} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Eating} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Smoking} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Discussion}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{Average} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{milliseconds} & 560 & 1000 & 560 & 1000 & 560 & 1000 & 560 & 1000& 560 & 1000 \\
\hline
Zero-velocity \cite{martinez2017human} & 1.35 & 1.32 & 1.04 & 1.38 & 1.02 & 1.69 & 1.41 & 1.96 & 1.21 & 1.59\\
Residual sup. \cite{martinez2017human} & 0.93 & 1.03 & 0.95 & 1.08 & 1.25 & 1.50 & 1.43 & 1.69 & 1.14 & 1.33\\
AGED \cite{gui2018adversarial} & 0.78 & 0.91 & 0.86& \textbf{0.93} & 1.06 & \textbf{1.21} & \textbf{1.25} & \textbf{1.30}& 0.99 & \textbf{1.09}\\
Retrospec \cite{dong2019retrospecting} & NA & 0.79 & NA & 1.16 & NA & 1.71 & NA & 1.72 & NA & 1.35\\
LTraiJ \cite{mao2019learning} & \textbf{0.65} & \textbf{0.67} & 0.76 & 1.12 & 0.87 & 1.57 & 1.33 & 1.70 & 0.90 & 1.27\\
\hline
ARNet (Ours) & \textbf{0.65} & 0.69 & \textbf{0.72} & 1.07 & \textbf{0.86} & 1.51 & \textbf{1.25} & 1.68 &\textbf{0.88} &1.24 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\label{table-long-motion}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Long-term Prediction on H3.6m.}
Additionlly, we also quantitatively evaluate the long-term prediction performance of our proposed ARNet at 560ms and 1000ms as shown in Table~\ref{table-long-motion}. The results measured in MAE demonstrate that our method still outperforms the state-of-art feed-forward baseline LTraiJ \cite{mao2019learning} in long-term human motion prediction on almost action categories as shown in bold. Nevertheless, the MAE of the chain-structured AGED \cite{gui2018adversarial} is lower than ours in 1000 milliseconds. We will further examine the results by visualizing the motion sequences obtained by our proposed ARNet and the chain-structured baseline AGED in the later section to provide a qualitative comparison.
\subsubsection{3DPW $\&$ CMU-Mocap.}
We also conduct experiments on other two human mocap datasets to prove the robustness of our method. Table~\ref{table-short-long-3dpw} shows that our method consistently achieves promising improvements compared with other baselines on 3DPW dataset which contains indoor and outdoor activities for both short-term and long-term human motion predictions. As for CMU-Mocap dataset, the results in Table~\ref{table-short-motion-cmu} illustrate that our method has better performance on almost action types and outperforms the state-of-the-art methods on average.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{ Short-term and long-term human motion predictions on 3DPW dataset}
\resizebox{0.5\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{l|ccccc}
\multicolumn{1}{c}{milliseconds} & 200 & 400 & 600 & 800 & 1000 \\
\hline
Residual sup.~\cite{martinez2017human} & 1.85 & 2.37 & 2.46 & 2.51 & 2.53 \\
convSeq2Seq~\cite{LiZLL18} & 1.24 & 1.85 & 2.13 & 2.23 & 2.26 \\
LTraiJ \cite{mao2019learning} & 0.64 & \textbf{0.95} & 1.12 & 1.22 & 1.27 \\
\hline
ARNet (Ours) & \textbf{0.62} & \textbf{0.95} & \textbf{1.11} & \textbf{1.20} & \textbf{1.25} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\label{table-short-long-3dpw}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Short-term and long-term human motion predictions on CMU-Mocap dataset}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{lccccc|ccccc|ccccc}
& \multicolumn{5}{c}{Basketball} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{Basketball Signal} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{Directing Traffic} \\
milliseconds& 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 1000 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 1000 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 1000 \\
\hline
Residual sup. \cite{martinez2017human} & 0.50 & 0.80 & 1.27 & 1.45 & 1.78 & 0.41 & 0.76 & 1.32 & 1.54 & 2.15 & 0.33 & 0.59 & 0.93 & 1.10 & 2.05 \\
convSeq2Seq \cite{LiZLL18} & 0.37 & 0.62 & 1.07 & 1.18 & 1.95 & 0.32 & 0.59 & 1.04 & 1.24 & 1.96 & 0.25 & 0.56 & 0.89 & 1.00 & 2.04 \\
LTraiJ \cite{mao2019learning} & 0.33 & 0.52 & 0.89 & \textbf{1.06} & \textbf{1.71} & 0.11 & 0.20 & 0.41 & 0.53 & 1.00 & 0.15 & 0.32 & 0.52 & 0.60 & 2.00 \\
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{l}{ARNet (Ours)} & \textbf{0.31} & \textbf{0.48} & \textbf{0.87} & 1.08 & \textbf{1.71} & \textbf{0.10} & \textbf{0.17} & \textbf{0.35} & \textbf{0.48} & \textbf{1.06} & \textbf{0.13} & \textbf{0.28} & \textbf{0.47} & \textbf{0.58}& \textbf{1.80} \\
\hline
\\
& \multicolumn{5}{c}{Jumping} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{Running} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{Soccer} \\
milliseconds& 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 1000 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 1000 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 1000\\
\hline
Residual sup. \cite{martinez2017human}& 0.33 & 0.50 & 0.66 & 0.75 & 1.00 & 0.29 & 0.51 & 0.88 & 0.99 & 1.72 & 0.56 & 0.88 & 1.77 & 2.02 & 2.4 \\
convSeq2Seq \cite{LiZLL18} & \textbf{0.28} & \textbf{0.41} & \textbf{0.52} & \textbf{0.57} & \textbf{0.67} & 0.26 & 0.44 & 0.75 & 0.87 & 1.56 & 0.39 & 0.6 & 1.36 & 1.56 & 2.01 \\
LTraiJ \cite{mao2019learning} & 0.33 & 0.55 & 0.73 & 0.74 & 0.95 & 0.18 & 0.29 & 0.61 & 0.71 & 1.40 & 0.31 & 0.49 & 1.23 & 1.39 & 1.80 \\
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{l}{ARNet (Ours)} & 0.30 & 0.50 & 0.60 & 0.61 & 0.72 & \textbf{0.16} & \textbf{0.26} & \textbf{0.57} & \textbf{0.67} & \textbf{1.22} & \textbf{0.29} & \textbf{0.47} & \textbf{1.21} & \textbf{1.38} & \textbf{1.70} \\
\hline
\\
& \multicolumn{5}{c}{Walking} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{Washwindow} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{Average} \\
milliseconds & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 1000 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 1000 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 1000 \\
\hline
Residual sup. \cite{martinez2017human} & 0.35 & 0.47 & 0.60 & 0.65 & 0.88 & 0.30 & 0.46 & 0.72 & 0.91 & 1.36 & 0.38 & 0.62 & 1.02 & 1.18 & 1.67\\
convSeq2Seq \cite{LiZLL18} & 0.35 & 0.44 & 0.45 & 0.50 & 0.78 & 0.30 & 0.47 & 0.80 & 1.01 & 1.39 & 0.32 & 0.52 & 0.86 & 0.99 & 1.55\\
LTraiJ \cite{mao2019learning} & 0.33 & 0.45 & 0.49 & 0.53 & 0.61 &0.22 & 0.33 & 0.57 & 0.75 & 1.20 & 0.25 & 0.39 & 0.68 & 0.79 & 1.33\\
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{l}{ARNet (Ours)} & \textbf{0.32} & \textbf{0.41} & \textbf{0.39} & \textbf{0.41} & \textbf{0.56} & \textbf{0.20} & \textbf{0.27} & \textbf{0.51} & \textbf{0.69} & \textbf{1.07} & \textbf{0.23} & \textbf{0.37} & \textbf{0.65} & \textbf{0.77} & \textbf{1.29} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\label{table-short-motion-cmu}
\end{table}
\subsection{Qualitative Visualizations}
\subsubsection{Short-term Prediction on H3.6m.} To evaluate our method qualitatively, we firstly visualize the representative comparisons on Directions and Greeting which belong to challenging aperiodic actions in H3.6m dataset as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:human-motion-prediction-task}.
Given 10 observed frames for each action as motion seeds, which are represented as green-purple skeletons at the left part, we compare our ARNet represented as red-blue skeletons with the best quantitatively performing feed-forward baseline LTraiJ \cite{mao2019learning} shown as green-purple skeletons for short-term prediction (400 million seconds) as illustrated in Table~\ref{table-short-motion}.
The dotted rectangles mark that our predictions better match the ground-truth which is represented as gray dotted skeletons. The qualitative comparison further demonstrates that our ARNet possesses the ideal error-correction ability to generate high-quality prediction, especially for the joints at the end of body which contain multiple small movements on aperiodic actions.
\subsubsection{Long-term Prediction on H3.6m.} Figure~\ref{fig:long-term-comparisons} visualizes the comparisons between chain-structured baselines RRNN \cite{martinez2017human} and AGED \cite{martinez2017human} on Phoning, which belongs to aperiodic actions in H3.6m dataset for long-term prediction (4 seconds). As marked by the red rectangles, our proposed ARNet is still able to predict the motion dynamics when the RRNN converges to mean pose. Meanwhile, the AGED drifts away on the foot joints compared with the ground-truth. The visualised results demonstrate that our ARNet outperforms the chain-structured baselines in long-term prediction.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{figs/fig3.jpg}
\caption{{\bf Visual comparisons for long-term human motion prediction on H3.6m dataset.} From top to bottom,we show the corresponding ground-truth shown in grey skeletons, the final predictions obtained by RRNN \cite{martinez2017human} , AGED \cite{gui2018adversarial} and our approach on Phoning which belongs to the aperiodic action. The left gray skeletons represent the input motion sequences. Marked in red rectangles, the baseline RRNN converges to mean pose and the baseline AGED drifts away on the foot joints compared with the ground-truth. Our ARNet generates more accurate long-term human motion prediction relatively. Best viewed in color with zoom
}
\label{fig:long-term-comparisons}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Ablation study for refined model design and adversarial training strategy. We compared the results measured in MAE of our model with the 1-stage CoarseNet, the 2-stage CoarseNet without future information as refinement and the 2-stage RefineNet with traditional training strategy on H3.6m dataset }
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{lcccccc|cccccc|cccccc}
& \multicolumn{6}{c}{Direction} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{Posing} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{Greeting} \\
milliseconds & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 560 & 1000 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 560 & 1000 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 560 & 1000\\
\hline
1-stage CoarseNet & 0.26 & 0.45 & 0.71 & 0.79 &0.88 &1.29 &0.19 &0.44 &1.01 &1.24 &1.44 &1.64 &0.36 &0.60 &0.95 &1.13 &1.51 &1.70 \\
2-stage CoarseNet & 0.25 & 0.45 & 0.67 & 0.78 &0.88 &1.30 &0.19 &0.46 & 1.01 & 1.26 &1.42 &1.68 & 0.34 & 0.60 &0.94 &1.11 &1.66 &1.92 \\
2-stage RefineNet & 0.25 & 0.44 & 0.67 & 0.77 &0.86 &1.27 &0.19 &0.43 & 0.99 & 1.23 &1.42 &1.63 & 0.34 & 0.58 &0.92 &1.10 &1.49 &1.63 \\
ARNet & \textbf{0.23} & \textbf{0.43} & \textbf{0.65} & \textbf{0.75} & \textbf{0.85} &\textbf{1.23} &\textbf{0.17} &\textbf{0.43} & \textbf{0.97} & \textbf{1.20} &\textbf{1.41} &\textbf{1.60} &\textbf{ 0.31} & \textbf{0.55} &\textbf{0.90} &\textbf{1.08} &\textbf{1.46} &\textbf{1.56} \\
\hline
\\
& \multicolumn{6}{c}{Greeting} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{Phoning} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{Average(on 15 actions)}\\
milliseconds & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 560 & 1000 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 560 & 1000 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 560 & 1000 \\ \hline
1-stage CoarseNet &0.36 &0.60 &0.95 &1.13 &1.51 &1.70 &0.53 &1.02 &1.35 &1.48 &1.45 &1.68 &0.27 &0.51 &0.83 &0.95 &1.18&1.59 \\%2_stage walking and eating performance not good;
2-stage CoarseNet & 0.34 & 0.60 &0.94 &1.11 &1.66 &1.92 &0.53 &1.02 &1.34 &1.48 &1.58 &1.98 &0.27&0.52 &0.83 &0.95 &1.20 &1.61 \\
2-stage RefineNet & 0.34 & 0.58 & 0.94 & 1.10 &1.48 &1.64 &0.52 &1.01 & 1.33 & 1.46 &1.42 &1.65 & 0.27 & 0.50 &0.82 &0.94 &1.17 &1.58 \\
ARNet &\textbf{ 0.31} & \textbf{0.55} &\textbf{0.90} &\textbf{1.08} &\textbf{1.46} &\textbf{1.56} &\textbf{0.50} &\textbf{0.99} &\textbf{1.28} &\textbf{1.40} &\textbf{1.41} &\textbf{1.60} &\textbf{0.25} &\textbf{0.49} &\textbf{0.80} &\textbf{0.92} &\textbf{1.16} &\textbf{1.57}
\\\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\label{refiner_contribution}
\end{table}
\section{Ablation Studies}
\subsection{Different Components in Our ARNet}
In order to verify the effectiveness of the different components in our model, we perform comprehensive ablation studies as shown in Table~\ref{refiner_contribution}. Specifically, we compare our ARNet with three baselines: the 1-stage CoarseNet, the 2-stage CoarseNet without future information as refinement and the 2-stage RefineNet with future information and traditional training strategy. The 1-stage CoarseNet denotes that there only exists single coarse predictor module without other components in the whole framework. We utilize the LTraiJ network \cite{mao2019learning} as our coarse predictor. Due to the coarse-to-fine 2-stage structure of our ARNet, the inference time of our ARNet is 56.2ms, which is slightly longer than the 45.4ms of 1-stage CoarseNets on GPU V100. Moreover, another baseline is the 2-stage CoarseNet without future information refinement, which increase the number of layers by simply cascading two 1-stage CoarseNets, utilise the same training strategy as the single coarse predictor by back-propagating the gradient all the way to the beginning. Although the parameters of our ARNet is same as the 2-stage CoarseNet which is twice that of 1-stage CoarseNets, the results show that stacking multi-layers with traditional training strategy fails to improve the performance in a further step and even achieved worse prediction due to over-fitting occurred in stacked feed-forward deep network. Then, the 2-stage RefineNet without adversarial error augmentation leads to improvement over the previous two baselines. Our adversarial refinement network shows the superior performance compared with single-stage model, 2-stage model without refinement and refinement network without adversarial training strategy.
\subsection{Multi-stage Analysis}
We also evaluate the impact of number of stages adopted in our adversarial refinement model by calculating the MAE over 15 actions. The foregoing results in the Table~\ref{number_stage} indicate that the 2-stage refined model design, in general, utilising the output space of previous stage, is simple enough to learn the rich representation and achieves superior results in most cases. The reason is that concatenating more than 2 stages refinement module faces up over-fitting problems and fails to further improve the human motion prediction performance. Taking the efficiency and simplicity into account, we employ the 2-stage adversarial refinement network as the final model design.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Ablation study of adversarial refinement network with different number of stages. We compared the results measured in MAE on H3.6m dataset}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc|cccccc|cccccc}
& \multicolumn{6}{c}{Direction} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{Posing} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{Greeting} \\
milliseconds& 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 560 & 1000 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 560 & 1000 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 560 & 1000 \\ \hline
2-stage & \textbf{0.23} & \textbf{0.43} & \textbf{0.65} & \textbf{0.75} & 0.85 &\textbf{1.23} &\textbf{0.17} &\textbf{0.43} & \textbf{0.97} & \textbf{1.20} &\textbf{1.41} &\textbf{1.60} & \textbf{0.31} & 0.55 &0.90 & \textbf{1.08} &\textbf{1.46} &\textbf{1.56} \\
3-stage & 0.25 & 0.46 & 0.64 & 0.75 & \textbf{0.84} &1.50 &0.18 &0.44 & 1.00 & 1.25 &1.71 &2.64 & 0.32 & \textbf{0.54} &\textbf{0.89} &1.12 &1.52 &1.75 \\
4-stage & 0.25 & 0.46 & 0.68 & 0.77 &1.02 &1.70 &0.19 &0.46 & 1.05& 1.28 &1.86 &3.03 & 0.33 & 0.56 &0.93 &1.15 &1.56 &1.82 \\
\hline
\\
& \multicolumn{6}{c}{Greeting} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{Phoning} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{Average(on 15 actions)}\\
milliseconds& 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 560 & 1000 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 560 & 1000 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 560 & 1000 \\ \hline
2-stage & \textbf{0.31} & 0.55 &0.90 & \textbf{1.08} &\textbf{1.46} &\textbf{1.56} &\textbf{0.50} &\textbf{0.99} &\textbf{1.28} &\textbf{1.40} &\textbf{1.41} &\textbf{1.60} & \textbf{0.25} & \textbf{0.49} & \textbf{0.80} & \textbf{0.92} &\textbf{1.16} &\textbf{1.57} \\
3-stage & 0.32 & \textbf{0.54} &\textbf{0.89}&1.12 &1.52 &1.75 &0.52 &1.02 &1.36 &1.45 &1.49 &1.80 &0.25 &0.49 &0.83 &0.95 &1.17 &1.58 \\
4-stage & 0.33 & 0.56 &0.93 &1.15 &1.56 &1.82 &0.52 &0.99 & 1.33 & 1.48 & 1.49 &1.76 &0.27 &0.50 &0.83 &0.95 &1.17 &1.58
\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\label{number_stage}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusions}
In this paper, we introduce an Adversarial Refinement Network (ARNet) to forecast more accurate human motion sequence in a coarse-to-fine manner. We adopt a refinement network behind the single-stage coarse predictor to generate finer human motion.
Meanwhile, we utilise an adversarial learning strategy to enhance the generalization ability of the refinement network.
Experimental results on the challenging benchmark H3.6m, CMU-Mocap and 3DPW datasets show that our proposed ARNet outperforms the state-of-the-art approaches in both short-term and long-term predictions especially on the complex aperiodic actions. Our adversarial refinement network shows promising potential for feed-forward deep network to deal with rich representation in a further step on other areas.
~\\
\noindent\textbf{Acknowledgement.}
The work described in this paper was supported by grants from City University of Hong Kong(Project No. 9220077 and 9678139).
\bibliographystyle{splncs}
|
\section{Introduction}
In this paper, we study the \textsc{Minimum Connected Dominating Set} (\textsc{Min-CDS}) problem in grid graphs. Given a connected graph $G=(V,E)$, a \emph{connected dominating set} (CDS) is a subset $S$ of $V$ which induces a connected subgraph in $G$ such that every vertex of $G$ is either in $S$ or adjacent to a vertex in $S$. The \textsc{Min-CDS} problem asks for a CDS of minimum size. This is a well studied problem in combinatorial optimisation. The \emph{connected domination number} of $G$ is the minimum size of a connected dominating set of $G$. This problem is equivalent to the \textsc{Maximum Leaf Spanning Tree} (\textsc{MLST}) problem, which is the problem of finding a spanning tree of $G$ with maximum number of leaves. A graph has a spanning tree with $k$ leaves if and only if it has a connected dominating set of size $|V|-k$. These problems are known to be NP-complete~\cite[ND2, Appendix 2]{garey}, and have been widely studied and have applications in areas such as networking, circuit layout, etc (See \cite{uses1} for example). A common theme in the study of any NP-complete problem is to consider the problem in special classes of inputs with more structure than the general case and try to understand whether the problem remains NP-complete or admits a polynomial time solution. \textsc{Min-CDS} is known to be NP-complete when it is restricted to planar bipartite graphs of maximum degree $4$~\cite{bipartiteNP}. It is also known to be NP-complete for unit disk graphs~\cite{lichtenstein1982planar} and subgraphs of grid graphs~\cite[Theorem 6.1]{CLARK1990165}. When viewed in terms of approximation algorithms, the minimum connected dominating set and maximum leaf spanning tree problems are not equivalent. The MLST problem is MAX-SNP-hard which makes a Polynomial Time Approximation Scheme (PTAS) unlikely~\cite{MLSTApprox}, but linear time $3$-approximation algorithms~\cite{lu1998approximating} and $2$-approximation algorithms~\cite{solis20172} exist. A PTAS exists for the \textsc{Min-CDS} problem on unit disk graphs~\cite{du2012polynomial,hunt1998nc}. The complexity of this problem for complete grid graphs remains unknown.
By comparison, the computation of the domination number of an $n \times m$ grid graph is a well studied problem. Chang~\cite{chang} devoted their PhD thesis to calculating the domination number of grids and Gonçalves et al~\cite{griddomset1} solved this problem in 2011 by proving it to be $\floor*{\frac{(n+2)(m+2)}{5}}-4$ for $16 \leq m \leq n$. Hence it is natural to ask the following questions about the connected domination number of grid graphs:
\begin{itemize}
\item Can we come up with a closed form expression for the connected domination number of an $n \times m$ grid?
\item Can we design an algorithm that takes $n,m$ as input, with run-time polynomial in $n,m$ that outputs the domination number of an $n \times m$ grid?
\end{itemize}
An answer for the first question would imply an answer for the second one, but not vice versa. A partial answer can be obtained by showing lower and upper bounds on the connected domination number. Upper bounds can be obtained using constructions or heuristic algorithms. Fujie~\cite{FUJIE20031931} came up with a general construction of a spanning tree of a grid with a large number of leaves which leads to an upper bound on the connected domination number. Li and Tolouse~\cite{gridbounds} determined the optimum maximum leaf spanning tree for grid graphs with up to 4 rows and with 6 rows. The only known general lower bound is $\ceil*{\frac{mn}{3}}$. This was obtained by Li and Tolouse using an easy counting argument and by Fujie using a mathematical programming approach.
In this paper, we come up with improved lower bounds on the connected domination number of a grid. We show a lower bound of $\ceil*{\frac{mn+2\ceil*{\frac{\min \{m,n\}}{3}}}{3}}$ for arbitrary $m,n \geq 4$ (Theorem \ref{mainthm}). To our knowledge, this is the first non-trivial result of this kind. Our proof also leads to some insight on the structure of the optimum connected dominating set of a grid.
\subsection{Preliminaries and Terminology}
We first introduce the definitions and notations that we will use in the rest of the paper. For all definitions and notations not defined here, we refer to~\cite{west}. Let $G=(V,E)$ be a connected graph. A leaf refers to a vertex of degree $1$ in $G$. The open neighbourhood of a subset $S$ of $V$ in $G$ is defined to be the set of all vertices adjacent to a vertex in $S$ which are not in $S$ and denoted by $N_G(S)$. The closed neighbourhood of $S$ in $G$, $N_G[S]$ is defined to be $N_G(S) \cup S$. $G[S]$ denotes the subgraph of $G$ induced by $S$. A set $S$ is called a connected dominating set of $G$ if $N_G[S]=V$ and $G[S]$ is a connected subgraph of $G$. The size of the minimum connected dominating set of $G$ is called its connected domination number and is denoted by $\gamma_c(G)$. The maximum leaf number of $G$ is the number of leaves in the maximum leaf spanning tree of $G$. The connected domination number and the maximum leaf number add up to $|V|$. A connected dominating set of $G$ can be obtained by deleting the leaves of a spanning tree of $G$.
The notation $[i]$ denotes the set $\{1,2,\dots,i\}$. The $n \times m$ grid graph $G_{n,m}$ is the graph with the vertex set $[n] \times [m]$ with two vertices $(i_1,j_1)$ and $(i_2,j_2)$ being adjacent if and only if $|i_i-i_2|+|j_1-j_2|=1$. It can also be defined as a unit disk graph in which the disks have the integer points mentioned as centers and radius $1/2$. For the reminder of the paper, we just use $G$ instead of $G_{n,m}$ without any ambiguity. We assume whenever necessary that $G$ is embedded in a larger grid graph. Specifically, we embed $G$ in $G'$ which is a grid graph with two additional rows and columns. The vertex set of $G'$ is $\{0,1,\dots,n+1\} \times \{0,1,\dots,m+1\}$ with the same incidence relation as $G$.
$S$ is a connected dominating set of $G$. $l$ is the number of leaves in the graph $G[S]$. It has no relation to the number of leaves in the corresponding spanning tree of $G$. For any $v \in G$ we define the \emph{loss function} of that vertex to be $\ell(v)=|N[v] \cap S|-1$. The loss function of the set $S$ is defined to be $\ell(S)=\sum_{v \in N_{G'}[S]}\ell(v)$. The \emph{boundary} of $G_{n,m}$ is defined to be the set of points in $G_{n,m}$ which have three neighbours or less in $G_{n,m}$ (excluding the points themselves). The \emph{excess function} $e(S)$ is defined to be the number of points in $S$ present in the boundary of $G$. These definitions are inspired by similar definitions in~\cite{griddomset1}.
\section{Bounds on the connected domination number}
\subsection{Known upper bounds}\label{const}
Upper bounds for $\gamma_c(G)$ can be easily obtained by constructing spanning trees for $G$ with a large number of leaves, which leads to an upper bound for the maximum leaf number of $G$, and a corresponding lower bound on the connected domination number. Fujie gave a construction of a spanning tree with a large number of leaves~\cite[Lemma 2]{FUJIE20031931}. We reproduce their construction here:
Let $D_1$ be a CDS of $G_{n,m}$ with the following vertices-
\begin{align*}
&(1,2),(2,2),\dots,(n,2)\\
&(1,m-1),(2,m-1),\dots (n,m-1)\\
&(2,3),(2,4),\dots,(2,m-2)\\
&(i,3k+2) \text{ for } i=3,4,\dots,n,k=1,2,\dots,\floor*{\frac{m-4}{3}}
\end{align*}
Let $D_2$ be a CDS with the following vertices-
\begin{align*}
&(2,1),(2,2),\dots,(2,m)\\
&(n-1,1),(n-1,2),\dots (n-1,m)\\
&(3,2),(4,2),\dots,(m-2,2)\\
&(3k+2,i) \text{ for } k=1,2,\dots,\floor*{\frac{n-4}{3}},i=3,4,\dots,m
\end{align*}
Hence, we have the following upper bound on $\gamma_c(G)$:
\begin{equation} \label{fujie}
\gamma_c(G) \leq \min \left\{2n+(m-4)+\floor*{\frac{m-4}{3}}(n-2), 2m+(n-4)+\floor*{\frac{n-4}{3}}(m-2) \right\}
\end{equation}
Fig. \ref{cons} describes an example for the constructions for the graph $G_{7,11}$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.40]
\foreach \i in {0,...,10}
\foreach \j in {0,...,6}{
\draw (\i,\j) circle(3pt); }
\draw[gray] (0,0) grid (10,6);
\foreach \i in {0,...,10}
\foreach \j in {0,...,6}{
\fill[white] (\i,\j) circle(3pt); }
\foreach \i in {0,...,6}{
\fill[black] (1,\i) circle(3pt); }
\foreach \i in {0,...,6}{
\fill[black] (9,\i) circle(3pt); }
\foreach \i in {2,...,8}{
\fill[black] (\i,1) circle(3pt); }
\foreach \i in {2,...,6}{
\fill[black] (4,\i) circle(3pt); }
\foreach \i in {2,...,6}{
\fill[black] (7,\i) circle(3pt); }
\end{tikzpicture}
\qquad
\qquad
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.40]
\foreach \i in {0,...,10}
\foreach \j in {0,...,6}{
\draw (\i,\j) circle(3pt); }
\draw[gray] (0,0) grid (10,6);
\foreach \i in {0,...,10}
\foreach \j in {0,...,6}{
\fill[white] (\i,\j) circle(3pt); }
\foreach \i in {0,...,10}{
\fill[black](\i,1) circle(3pt);}
\foreach \i in {0,...,10}{
\fill[black](\i,5) circle(3pt);}
\foreach \i in {2,...,10}{
\fill[black](\i,4) circle(3pt);}
\foreach \i in {2,...,4}{
\fill[black](1,\i) circle(3pt);}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{$D_1$ and $D_2$ for $G_{7,11}$ (Black vertices present in CDS)}
\label{cons}
\end{figure}
\subsection{New lower bounds}
Proving lower bounds would require combinatorial arguments, which will be the main contribution of this paper. In \cite{griddomset1} the authors introduced a combinatorial parameter called the loss function to prove lower bounds on the domination number of a grid. The loss and excess functions which we have defined are inspired by that definition. Using these parameters, we prove a sequence of lower bounds on $|S|$, each an improvement on the previous one, culminating in theorem \ref{mainthm}.
Our approach is to obtain lower bounds in $\ell(S)$ and $e(S)$ parametrized by $l$ and then combine them to obtain absolute lower bounds on $\ell(S)+e(S)$. This will, in turn lead to lower bounds on $|S|$.
$G[S]$ can be divided into a number of horizontal and vertical line segments, with each vertical line segment connected to at least one horizontal line segment and vice versa as the graph is connected. The vertices, called \emph{joins} where a horizontal line segment meets a vertical line segment can be of degree $2$, $3$ or $4$. When the join is of degree $2$, we refer to the horizontal line segment and vertical line segment that meet at the vertex as a \emph{bend}.
Let $d_3$ and $d_4$ be the number of vertices in $G[S]$ with degree $3$ and $4$ respectively and $d_2$ be the number of bends. Note that here $d_2$ counts only those degree $2$ vertices which form a bend. We make the following observation on the number of leaves in $G[S]$:
\begin{lemma} \label{handshake}
For any CDS $S$ of $G$: $l \leq d_3+2d_4+2 $
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The well known handshake lemma states that for a graph $G=(V,E)$ $\sum_{v \in V} \delta(v)=2|E|$. We apply this for $G[S]$. The number of vertices of degree $2$ is $|S|-d_3-d_4-l$ and as $G[S]$ is connected, the number of edges in $G[S]$ is at least $|S|-1$.
\begin{align*}
3d_3+4d_4+2(|S|-d_3-d_4-l)+l=2|E| \geq 2(|S|-1)&\\
\implies l \leq d_3+2d_4+2&
\end{align*}
\qed
\end{proof}
We now relate the parameters $\ell(S)$ and $e(S)$ to the size of a connected dominating set:
\begin{lemma}
For any $m,n\geq 3$, $G_{n,m}$ has a minimum CDS that does not contain any corner of $G_{n,m}$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider a CDS $S$ of $G_{n,m}$ which contains the corner point $(1,1)$. As $G[S]$ is a connected subgraph, $S$ must contain either $(1,2)$ or $(2,1)$. There exists a maximal horizontal or vertical line segment in $G[S]$ containing $(1,1)$. Assume $G[S]$ contains the path $(1,1),(1,2),\dots, (1,k)$ As $G[S]$ is connected, one of these points must contain a neighbour in $S$. Let $(1,i)$ be the first such point with a neighbour $(2,i)$. Now, for all $j < i$, we replace $(1,j)$ in $S$ with $(2,j)$ to obtain a new CDS of $G$ with the same number of points. As $n,m \geq 4$, $(2,1)$ which replaces $(1,1)$ is not a corner point. We perform a similar procedure with the path $(1,1),(2,1),\dots,(k,1)$ if $S$ does not contain the point $(1,2)$, and repeat this for all four corner points of $G$ to obtain a new CDS for $G_{n,m}$ with the same number of points as $S$.
\qed
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{bnd}
For a CDS $S$ of $G$: $nm = 5|S|-\ell(S)-e(S)$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For a set $S$ which dominates $G$, consider the set $N_{G'}[S]$, which is its closed neighbourhood in $G'$. Any point in $S$ dominates $5$ points including itself, and for each $v \in N_{G'}[S]$, the number of points which dominate $v$ is $1+\ell(v)$. Hence, $|N_{G'}[S]|=5|S|-\ell(S)$.
As no point in $S$ is a corner point of $G$ (see previous lemma), every point in the boundary of $G$ dominates exactly one point in $G'$ outside $G$. Thus the number of points in $N_{G'}[S]$ outside $G$ is $e(S)$. Hence, $mn=|N_{G'}[S]|-e(S)$ and this proves the lemma.\qed
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\foreach \i in {0,...,2}
\foreach \j in {0,...,2}{
\draw (\i,\j) circle(3pt);}
\fill[black] (1,1) circle(3pt);
\fill[black] (2,1) circle(3pt);
\fill[black] (0,1) circle(3pt);
\fill[black] (1,0) circle(3pt);
\fill[black] (1,0) circle(3pt);
\draw (1,1) circle(3pt) node[black, above left] {\textbf{P}};
\draw (0,0) circle(3pt) node[black, above right] {\textbf{Q}};
\draw (2,0) circle(3pt) node[black, above left] {\textbf{R}};
\draw (0,1)--(1,1);
\draw (1,0)--(1,1);
\draw (1,1)--(2,1);
\end{tikzpicture}
\quad
\quad
\begin{tikzpicture}
\foreach \i in {0,...,2}
\foreach \j in {0,...,2}{
\draw (\i,\j) circle(3pt);}
\fill[black] (1,1) circle(3pt);
\fill[black] (2,1) circle(3pt);
\fill[black] (0,1) circle(3pt);
\fill[black] (1,0) circle(3pt);
\fill[black] (1,2) circle(3pt);
\draw (1,1) circle(3pt) node[black, above left] {\textbf{P}};
\draw (0,0) circle(3pt) node[black, above right] {\textbf{Q}};
\draw (2,0) circle(3pt) node[black, above left] {\textbf{R}};
\draw (0,2) circle(3pt) node[black, below right] {\textbf{S}};
\draw (2,2) circle(3pt) node[black, below left] {\textbf{T}};
\draw (0,1)--(1,1);
\draw (1,0)--(1,1);
\draw (1,1)--(2,1);
\draw (1,1)--(1,2);
\end{tikzpicture}
\quad
\quad
\begin{tikzpicture}
\foreach \i in {0,...,2}
\foreach \j in {0,...,2}{
\draw (\i,\j) circle(3pt);}
\fill[black] (1,1) circle(3pt);
\fill[black] (1,0) circle(3pt);
\fill[black] (0,2) circle(3pt);
\fill[black] (1,2) circle(3pt);
\draw (0,1) circle(3pt) node[black, above right] {\textbf{P}};
\draw (0,2)--(1,2);
\draw (1,2)--(1,1);
\draw (1,1)--(1,0);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The three different types of joins}
\label{joins}
\end{figure}
\begin{lemma} \label{main}
$\ell(S) \geq 2|S|-l+d_2+3d_3+6d_4$ and $e(S) \geq 4$ if $m,n \geq 4$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider the four corners of the grid, the points $(1,1), (n,1), (1,m)$ and $(n,m)$. These points have to be dominated by a point in $S$, and all their neighbours in $G$ are in the boundary of $G$. As both $n$ and $m$ are greater than or equal to $4$, two corner points cannot be dominated by the same point in $S$, and hence $e(S) \geq 4$.
For any point $v$ in $S$ which is not a leaf in $G[S]$, $\ell(v) \geq 2$. This is because it has at least $2$ neighbours in $S$. If $v$ is a leaf, $\ell(v)=1$. Hence, if $l$ is the number of leaves of $S$, $\ell(S) \geq 2|S|-l$. In addition to this, consider a vertex of degree $3$ as in Fig. \ref{joins}. The loss function of the point $P$ is at least $3$ and the loss function of $Q$ and $R$ is at least $1$. For the vertex of degree $4$ shown, the loss function of $P$ is at least $4$ and the loss functions of $Q,R,S$ and $T$ are each at least $1$. For the bend shown, the loss function of the point $P$ is at least $1$. Hence, $\ell(S) \geq 2|S|-l+d_2+3d_3+6d_4$. \qed
\end{proof}
Putting these observations together, we get our first bound on $e(S)+\ell(S)$:
\begin{lemma}[Parametrized bound 1]
Consider any CDS $S$ for $G$, with $G[S]$ having $l$ leaves. Then $\ell(S)+e(S) \geq 2|S|+2l-2$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This follows from the fact that $\ell(S)+e(S) \geq 2|S|-l+3d_3+6d_4+4$ (lemma \ref{main}) and $d_3+2d_4 \geq l-2$ (lemma \ref{handshake}). \qed
\end{proof}
From this bound it is easy to derive the already known lower bound of $\ceil*{\frac{mn}{3}}$ for $\gamma_c(G)$:
\begin{theorem}[Bound 1]
For any CDS $S$ of $G$:
\begin{equation*}
|S| \geq \ceil*{\frac{mn}{3}}
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
As $S$ must have at least $2$ leaves, $\ell(S)+e(S) \geq 2|S|+2$. We can now use this in lemma \ref{bnd}:
\begin{align*}
mn \leq 5|S|-2|S|-2=3|S|-2\\
\implies |S| \geq \ceil*{\frac{mn}{3}}
\end{align*}\qed
\end{proof}
We have not used any structural information on $G[S]$ yet. Specifically, we have not used the fact that it might contain bends. Next, we use the fact that the connected dominating set must contain a certain minimum number of joins to show a new bound on $\ell(S)+e(S)$. We first prove the following simple lemma on the structure of $G[S]$. We say that the horizontal line segments \emph{span} the height of the graph if the subgraph induced by their closed neighbourhood contains a point from every row of $G$ and we say that the vertical line segments \emph{span} the width of the graph if the subgraph induced by their closed neighbourhood contains a point from every column of $G$.
\begin{lemma}
$G[S]$ either has at least $\ceil*{\frac{n}{3}}$ horizontal line segments which span the width of $G$ or $\ceil*{\frac{m}{3}}$ vertical line segments which span the height of $G$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Any horizontal line segment dominates an area that spans at most three rows. Hence, if $S$ has less than $\ceil*{\frac{n}{3}}$ horizontal line segments, there exists at least one row which is not dominated by any of the points in the horizontal line segments. The rows not dominated by horizontal line segments must be dominated by the vertical line segments. Any vertical line segment can dominate an area which spans at most $3$ columns and hence there must be at least $\ceil*{\frac{m}{3}}$ vertical line segments in $S$. Similarly, if $S$ has less than $\ceil*{\frac{m}{3}}$ vertical line segments, it must have at least $\ceil*{\frac{n}{3}}$ horizontal line segments. \qed
\end{proof}
We use this lemma to prove the following bound on the number of joins in $G[S]$.
\begin{lemma}\label{joins1}
Let $d_2$, $d_3$ and $d_4$ denote the number of bends, joins of degree $3$ and joins of degree $4$ respectively.
\begin{equation*}
d_2+d_3+d_4 \geq \ceil*{\frac{\min \{m,n\}}{3}}
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Either the horizontal line segments dominate an area that spans the entire height of the graph or the vertical line segments dominate an area that spans the width of the graph. We assume the latter without loss of generality. Each of these vertical line segments must be connected to a point in the previous or next column in the grid. Hence, each of these must contain either a bend, a degree $3$ join or a degree $4$ join. From the previous lemma, we know that there are at least $\ceil*{\frac{m}{3}}$ vertical line segments and the result follows. \qed
\end{proof}
We use these two lemmas to obtain two new lower bounds on $\ell(S)+e(S)$ parametrized by the number of leaves, which we can then combine to obtain an improved lower bound for $|S|$.
\begin{lemma}[parametrized bound 2]\label{pb2}
Consider any CDS $S$ for $G$, with $G[S]$ having $l$ leaves. Then
$\ell(S)+e(S) \geq 2|S|+\ceil*{\frac{\min \{m,n\}}{3}}+l$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We know that $e(S) \geq 4$ and $\ell(S) \geq 2|S|-l+3d_3+6d_4+d_2$, and because $d_2 +d_3+d_4 \geq \ceil*{\frac{\min \{m,n\}}{3}}$,
\begin{equation*}
\ell(S) \geq 2|S|-l+\ceil*{\frac{\min \{m,n\}}{3}}+2d_3+5d_4 \geq 2|S|-l+\ceil*{\frac{\min \{m,n\}}{3}}+2(d_3+2d_4+2)-4
\end{equation*}
We now use the fact that $l \leq d_3+2d_4+2$ to prove the lemma \qed
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}[parametrized bound 3] \label{pb3}
Consider any CDS $S$ for $G$, with $G[S]$ having $l$ leaves. Then
$\ell(S)+e(S) \geq 2|S|+2\ceil*{\frac{\min \{m,n\}}{3}}+2-l$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We can assume without loss of generality that the vertical lines span the width of the grid. Every vertical line must contain a join. Hence, at least $\ceil*{\frac{m}{3}}-d_3-d_4$ of them must have one or more bends. A vertical line with only one bend must also contain a leaf. This implies that the number of bends is at least $2\left(\ceil*{\frac{\min \{m,n\}}{3}}-d_3-d_4\right)-l$. We use this in our estimation of $\ell(S)$:
\begin{align*}
\ell(S) \geq & 2|S|-l+d_2+3d_3+6d_4 \\
\geq & 2|S|-l+3d_3+6d_4+2\left(\ceil*{\frac{\min \{m,n\}}{3}}-d_3-d_4\right)-l \\
\geq & 2|S|+2\ceil*{\frac{\min \{m,n\}}{3}} +d_3+2d_4+2-2l-2\\
\geq & 2|S| +2\ceil*{\frac{\min \{m,n\}}{3}}-l-2
\end{align*}
Using the fact that $e(S) \geq 4$, the result follows.\qed
\end{proof}
Combining the previous two parametrized bounds leads to the following lower bound on $|S|$ which is an improvement over the currently known bound of $|S| \geq \ceil*{\frac{mn}{3}}$:
\begin{theorem}[Bound 2]
For a CDS $S$ of $G$:
\begin{equation*}
|S| \geq \ceil*{\frac{mn+\ceil*{\frac{3}{2}\ceil*{\frac{\min \{m,n\}}{3}}}+1}{3}}
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The lower bound in lemma \ref{pb2} increases with $l$ and the bound in lemma \ref{pb3} decreases with $l$. As they both lower bound $\ell(S)+e(S)$, $\ell(S)+e(S)$ is always greater than or equal to $2|S|+\ceil*{\frac{3}{2}\ceil*{\frac{\min \{m,n\}}{3}}}+1$.
From Lemma \ref{bnd},
\begin{equation*}
mn = 5|S|-\ell(S)-e(S) \geq 5|S| -\left( 2|S|+\ceil*{\frac{3}{2}\ceil*{\frac{\min \{m,n\}}{3}}}+1 \right)
\end{equation*}
This means that $3|S| \geq mn+\ceil*{\frac{3}{2}\ceil*{\frac{\min \{m,n\}}{3}}}+1$ which proves the theorem.\qed
\end{proof}
This bound can be further improved by counting the number of bends in $G[S]$ more carefully. In the proof of lemma \ref{pb3}, we used the fact that the number of bends is at least $2\left(\ceil*{\frac{\min \{m,n\}}{3}}-d_3-d_4\right)-l$. In the following lemma, we improve on that:
\begin{lemma}
Consider a CDS $S$ of $G$. The number of bends in $S$ is at least $2\left( \ceil*{\frac{\min \{m,n \}}{3}}-l+1\right)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We first assume that $G[S]$ has no vertices of degree $4$. If it does, we can just treat a vertex of degree $4$ as two vertices of degree $3$. Hence, the number of vertices of degree $3$ has to be at least $l-2$. As before, we can assume without loss of generality that the vertical lines dominate an area that spans the width of the grid and that there are $\ceil*{\frac{m}{3}}$ vertical lines. Some of these lines have one or more degree $3$ vertices and some of them have bends.
Observe that a vertical line with only one join must contain a leaf. Every join in a vertical line must be paired with another join or be paired with a leaf as shown in Fig.~\ref{deg3}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\foreach \i in {0,...,2}
\foreach \j in {0,...,2}{
\draw (\i,\j) circle(3pt);}
\fill[black] (1,2) circle(3pt);
\fill[black] (1,1) circle(3pt);
\fill[black] (1,0) circle(3pt);
\fill[black] (2,2) circle(3pt);
\fill[black] (0,2) circle(3pt);
\fill[black] (0,0) circle(3pt);
\draw (0,2)--(1,2);
\draw (1,2)--(1,1);
\draw (1,1)--(1,0);
\draw (1,2)--(2,2);
\draw (0,0)--(1,0);
\end{tikzpicture}
\qquad
\begin{tikzpicture}
\foreach \i in {0,...,2}
\foreach \j in {0,...,2}{
\draw (\i,\j) circle(3pt);}
\fill[black] (1,2) circle(3pt);
\fill[black] (1,1) circle(3pt);
\fill[black] (1,0) circle(3pt);
\fill[black] (2,2) circle(3pt);
\fill[black] (0,2) circle(3pt);
\fill[black] (0,0) circle(3pt);
\fill[black] (2,0) circle(3pt);
\draw (0,2)--(1,2);
\draw (1,2)--(1,1);
\draw (1,1)--(1,0);
\draw (1,2)--(2,2);
\draw (0,0)--(1,0);
\draw (1,0)--(2,0);
\end{tikzpicture}
\qquad
\begin{tikzpicture}
\foreach \i in {0,...,2}
\foreach \j in {0,...,2}{
\draw (\i,\j) circle(3pt);}
\fill[black] (1,2) circle(3pt);
\fill[black] (1,1) circle(3pt);
\fill[black] (1,0) circle(3pt);
\fill[black] (2,2) circle(3pt);
\fill[black] (0,2) circle(3pt);
\draw (0,2)--(1,2);
\draw (1,2)--(1,1);
\draw (1,1)--(1,0);
\draw (1,2)--(2,2);
\end{tikzpicture}
\qquad
\begin{tikzpicture}
\foreach \i in {0,...,2}
\foreach \j in {0,...,2}{
\draw (\i,\j) circle(3pt);}
\fill[black] (1,2) circle(3pt);
\fill[black] (1,1) circle(3pt);
\fill[black] (1,0) circle(3pt);
\fill[black] (0,2) circle(3pt);
\draw (0,2)--(1,2);
\draw (1,2)--(1,1);
\draw (1,1)--(1,0);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{}
\label{deg3}
\end{figure}
Out of all the vertices of degree $3$, let $t_1$ be the number of vertices not paired with a bend or a degree $3$ vertex, $t_2$ be the number of bend-degree $3$ vertex pairs, and $t_3$ be the number of degree $3$ vertex- degree $3$ vertex pairs. Hence, it is clear that out of the vertical lines, at most $(l-2)-t_3$ contain vertices of degree $3$. Hence there are at least $\left( \ceil*{\frac{m}{3}}-(l-2)+t_3\right)$ vertical lines without vertices of degree $3$ and these vertical lines contain at most $l-t_1$ leaves. Consider such a vertical line. It can have only one bend if and only if it has a leaf and hence there can be at most $(l-t_1)$ of such columns. We have already counted $t_2$ bends. Hence, we can bound the number of bends:
\begin{align*}
d_2 &\geq 2\left( \ceil*{\frac{m}{3}}-(l-2)+t_3-(l-t_1)\right)+t_2+(l-t_1)\\
&=2\ceil*{\frac{m}{3}}-3l+4+t_1+t_2+2t_3
\end{align*}
$t_1+t_2+2t_3 \geq l-2$ as every vertex of degree $3$ belongs in at least one of the three categories mentioned and the lemma follows. \qed
\end{proof}
We now have the necessary material to prove the main result of our paper.
\begin{theorem}[Main Theorem] \label{mainthm}
For a CDS $S$ of $G$:
\[ |S| \geq \ceil*{\frac{mn+2\ceil*{\frac{\min \{m,n\}}{3}}}{3}} \]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
\begin{align*}
\ell(S) \geq & 2|S|-l+d_2+3d_3+6d_4\\
\geq & 2|S|-l+3d_3+6d_4+6+2\left( \ceil*{\frac{\min \{m,n\}}{3}}-l+1\right)-6\\
\geq & 2|S|+2\ceil*{\frac{\min \{m,n\}}{3}}-4
\end{align*}
We have used the fact that $d_3+2d_4+2\geq l$. As $e(S) \geq 4$, $\ell(S)+e(S) \geq 2|S|+2\ceil*{\frac{\min\{m,n\}}{3}}$, the theorem follows. \qed
\end{proof}
\subsection{Gap between lower and upper bounds}
In this section, we compare the gap between the lower and upper bounds obtained. To do that, we have to consider this case by case, for reminders $n$ and $m$ leave on division by $3$. We assume $m \leq n$. Let $L$ denote the lower bound obtained in theorem \ref{mainthm}. We let $L=\frac{mn}{3}+\frac{2m}{9}$, omitting the ceiling functions as they would only increase $L$ by at most $2$. Out of the two CDS's we constructed in section \ref{const}, $D_1$ and $D_2$, the upper bound is given by the construction of smaller size. If $m$ is divisible by $3$, $|D_1|\leq |D_2|$, and the gap between the lower and upper bounds is $\frac{m}{9}$. If $m$ is not divisible by $3$ and $n$ is however, then $|D_2| \leq |D_1|$ and the gap is $\frac{n}{3}-\frac{2m}{9}$. Similarly, we can analyse the other cases using Table \ref{tab1} and Table \ref{tab2}. The new lower bound is closest to the constructions in the case that $m$ is divisible by $3$.
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$m\mod{3}$ & $|D_1|$ &$|D_1|-\frac{mn}{3}$ & $|D_1|-L$ \\
\hline
$0$ & $\frac{mn}{3}+\frac{m}{3}$ & $\frac{m}{3}$ & $\frac{m}{9}$\\
\hline
$1$ & $\frac{mn}{3}+\frac{m}{3}+\frac{2n}{3}-\frac{4}{3}$ & $\frac{m}{3}+\frac{2n}{3}-\frac{4}{3}$& $\frac{m}{9}+\frac{2n}{3}-\frac{4}{3} $\\
\hline
$2$ & $\frac{mn}{3}+\frac{m}{3}+\frac{n}{3}-\frac{2}{3}$ & $\frac{m}{3}+\frac{n}{3}-\frac{2}{3}$& $\frac{m}{9}+\frac{n}{3}-\frac{2}{3}$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Gaps between $|D_1|$ and $L$}
\label{tab1}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$n \mod 3$ & $|D_2|$ &$|D_2|-\frac{mn}{3}$& $|D_2|-L$ \\
\hline
$0$ & $\frac{mn}{3}+\frac{n}{3}$ & $\frac{n}{3}$ & $\frac{n}{3}-\frac{2m}{9}$ \\
\hline
$1$ & $\frac{mn}{3}+\frac{n}{3}+\frac{2m}{3}-\frac{4}{3}$& $\frac{n}{3}+\frac{2m}{3}-\frac{4}{3}$& $\frac{n}{3}+\frac{4m}{9}-\frac{4}{3}$ \\
\hline
$2$ & $\frac{mn}{3}+\frac{m}{3}+\frac{n}{3}-\frac{2}{3}$ & $\frac{m}{3}+\frac{n}{3}-\frac{2}{3}$& $\frac{m}{9}+\frac{n}{3}-\frac{2}{3}$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Gaps between $|D_2|$ and $L$}
\label{tab2}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusions and further research}
In this paper, we come up with improved lower bounds on the connected domination number of a grid. The question of finding a closed form expression however, remains open. We have broadly used the following approach to prove lower bounds on $|S|$. Using the fact that $G$ is a grid graph, we obtained some structural results for any connected set that dominates $G$, which lead to lower bounds on the number of bends, vertices of degree $3$ and vertices of degree $4$ in $G[S]$. We then used lemma \ref{main} to get lower bounds on $|S|$. This approach however, does not capture the full picture. Consider Fujie's construction detailed in section \ref{const}. There are no bends or vertices of degree $4$ and the number of vertices of degree $3$ is $\ceil*{\frac{m}{3}}$ or $\ceil*{\frac{n}{3}}$, and our techniques have already accounted for this. There is still a gap between our lower bound and this upper bound because $e(S)=\ceil*{\frac{m}{3}}+2$ and $\ceil*{\frac{n}{3}}+2$ for these constructions, while we have used a lower bound of $4$ for $e(S)$. While this is the best possible lower bound for $e(S)$ separately, it might be possible to obtain better lower bounds for $\ell(S)+e(S)$ by trying to lower bound the sum of two quantities, rather than lower bound each quantity separately as we have done.
An approach to this problem which we have not pursued here would be to design an algorithm or an approximation algorithm that returns the size of the minimum connected dominating set of an $n \times m$ grid in time polynomial in $n$ and $m$. It is important to note that an approximation algorithm would lead to an \emph{upper bound} on the connected domination number of the grid, while our work has focused on lower bounds. The constructions described in section \ref{const} for example, would lead to a trivial approximation algorithm. The gap between our current lower and upper bounds is linear in $m$ and $n$, which means that this would be asymptotically better than any $(1+\epsilon)$-approximation algorithm (the input size is $O(mn)$). A non-constructive approach to obtaining upper bounds, for example using the probabilistic method could also be tried.
Our approach has been completely analytical. In \cite{griddomset1} the authors used a computational approach to answer the analogous questions about the domination number of grids, using dynamic programming algorithms to calculate the minimum value of a similar loss function near the boundary of the grid. The connected dominating set problem is one of a more `global' nature than the dominating set problem, as it involves connectivity as a constraint. This entails a very different set of challenges and a computational approach to the problem would likely require new techniques.
\bibliographystyle{splncs04}
|
\section{Introduction}
In order to confirm predictions from the standard model of particle
physics~\cite{Aoyama:2019ryr,Aoyama:2020ynm}
and/or probe beyond the standard
model~\cite{Giudice:2012ms,Czarnecki:2001pv}, magnetic moments/$g$-factors of fermions
have been measured intensively.
For instance, measurements for
the electron $g$-factor~\cite{Hanneke:2008tm,Odom:2006zz,VanDyck:1987ay}
and
the muon $g$-factor~\cite{Muong-2:2021ojo,Bennett:2006fi,Bailey:1978mn}
have been conducted with very high accuracy.
For the case of the electron,
one can resolve a one-electron quantum transition
in current quantum optical
technologies~\cite{Brown:1985rh,DUrso:2003ilf,Hanneke:2010au} and
it enables us to measure the electron $g$-factor with remarkable small
uncertainty, which is $2.8 \times 10^{-13}$ for $g/2$.
Considering this current sensitivity,
effects of gravity on the $g$-factor measurements
may not be negligible.
Furthermore, discrepancies between theoretical predictions and experimental results were reported
both for the electron~\cite{Hanneke:2008tm} and the muon~\cite{Muong-2:2021ojo}.
Therefore it would be important to explore the possibility that effects of gravity could reconcile the
discrepancies.
Actually, gravitational effects on the \textit{g}-factor of the
electron or the muon have been studied
intensively~\cite{Morishima:2018bqz,Visser:2018omi,Nikolic:2018dap,Venhoek:2018biz,Laszlo:2018llb,Jentschura:2018mlv,Ulbricht:2019dzm}.
In order to investigate effects of gravity,
it is crucial to consider the equivalence principle appropriately, namely
we need to use a coordinate moving with an observer bound on the
surface of the Earth~\cite{Ni:1978zz,Ito:2020wxi}.
This aspect was emphasized
qualitatively in~\cite{Visser:2018omi,Nikolic:2018dap,Venhoek:2018biz}
and investigated quantitatively
in~\cite{Laszlo:2018llb,Notari:2019qcx,Ulbricht:2019dzm}.
\cite{Laszlo:2018llb} and \cite{Notari:2019qcx} analyzed some
general relativistic effects
with the use of the Fermi-Walker transport in equations of motion
for the case of the muon.
\cite{Ulbricht:2019dzm} evaluated an inertial effect,
an acceleration relative to (local) inertial frames, which is
characterized by $|\bm{a}| = 9.81 \, {\rm m/s}^{2}$
in the case of the gravity of Earth, in
a Hamiltonian of a Dirac particle by taking the non-relativistic limit
for the case of the electron.
However in \cite{Ulbricht:2019dzm}, other effects of Earth's gravity were missed.
Moreover, \cite{Ulbricht:2019dzm} has not studied a spin-orbit coupling induced by $\bm{a}$, which
actually gives rise to a leading correction among corrections from $\bm{a}$ as we will see.
In this paper,
we study all linear order general relativistic effects, namely
inertial effects of the acceleration, the rotation due to the Earth
and tidal effects due to weak gravitational fields.
In particular, we evaluate magnitude of the general relativistic corrections
for the case of the electron \textit{g}-factor measurements.
To this end, we first take the non-relativistic limit of a Hamiltonian
for a Dirac particle (mass $m$) up to the order of $1/m$
in the Foldy-Wouthuysen-like expansion~\cite{Foldy:1949wa,Bjorken:1965zz,Ito:2020wxi}
on a proper reference frame~\cite{Ni:1978zz,Ito:2020wxi}.
We mention that analyzing the Hamiltonian is more useful than equations of motion
because it enables us to access special effects like a spin-orbit coupling, which
can not be derived in equations of motion.
Next, we apply the obtained Hamiltonian to the situation of
Penning trap experiments where a Dirac particle experiences
the cyclotron motion the spin precession
in a cavity, i.e., a geonium atom, and estimate
magnitude of the effects of gravity.
As a result, it turns out that
effects of the Earth's rotation is dominant among
the general relativistic corrections.
It can be detected if
the current sensitivity is improved by 4 orders of magnitude.
The paper is organized as follows.
In the section \ref{proref},
we introduce a proper reference frame and
consider the Dirac equation in the coordinate.
Then a Hamiltonian in the proper reference frame is obtained.
In the section \ref{nonrela}, we take the non-relativistic limit
of the Hamiltonian up to the order of $1/m$.
This manifests all linear order
inertial and gravitational effects on a non-relativistic Dirac particle.
In the section \ref{eacheffect},
we apply the non-relativistic Hamiltonian to the case of Penning trap
experiments and analyze the inertial and gravitational effects on
the cyclotron motion and the spin precession.
In the section \ref{detectability},
we consider a particular case of an electron $g$-factor measurement
to probe the detectability of the general relativistic corrections.
The final section is devoted to the conclusion.
In the appendix \ref{review},
a brief review of Penning trap experiments is given
for reference.
\section{Dirac equation in a proper reference frame}
\label{proref}
In this section, we investigate inertial and gravitational effects on
a Dirac particle bound on the surface of the Earth perturbatively.
To this end, we use a proper reference frame~\cite{Ni:1978zz,Ito:2020wxi}.
A proper reference frame for an observer who is accelerating
against the center of the Earth,
$|\bm{a}| = 9.81 \, {\rm m/s}^{2}$, and rotating
due to the Earth's rotation,
$|\bm{\omega}| = 7.27 \times 10^{-5} \, {\rm rad/s}$,
relative to (local) inertial frames can be
constructed with the use of the Fermi-Walker
transport~\cite{Ni:1978zz,Ito:2020wxi}.
Then the metric in the frame is obtained perturbatively in powers of
$ax \ll 1$, $\omega x \ll 1$ and
(the Riemann tensor $\times xx$) $\ll$ 1, where
$x$ represents a typical scale of a system.
In this paper, we use the term ``inertial'' for $a_{i}$ and $\omega_{i}$,
and ``gravitational'' for the curvature.
Up to the quadratic order for $x$, the metric is given by
\begin{empheq}[left=\empheqlbrace]{align}
g_{00} &= - 1 -2 a_{i} x^{i} - R_{0i0j} x^{i} x^{j} , \nonumber \\
\label{met033}
g_{0i} &= - \omega_{k} \epsilon_{0ijk} x^{j} -\frac{2}{3} R_{0jik} x^{j} x^{k} , \\
g_{ij} &= \delta_{ij} - \frac{1}{3} R_{ikjl} x^{k} x^{l} , \nonumber
\end{empheq}
where the anti symmetric tensor is assigned as $\epsilon_{0123} = 1$.
The Riemann tensor is evaluated at $\bm{x} = 0$, so that
it only depends on time $x^{0}$.
At this occasion,
we have not specified the source of the curvature.
The origin of the spatial coordinates
is set on the center of gravity
of a system, which traces a worldline of a freely falling particle in the limit of $\bm{a} = \bm{\omega} = \bm{0}$.
In the case of a geonium atom,
the origin should be
at the center of the cyclotron motion explained in the
appendix \ref{review}.
We now consider the Dirac equation in the proper reference frame by
using the metric (\ref{met033}).
The Dirac equation in curved spacetime is given by~\cite{Birrell:1982ix}
\begin{equation}
i \gamma^{\hat{\alpha}} e^{\mu}_{\hat{\alpha}} \left( \partial_{\mu} - \Gamma_{\mu}
- i e A_{\mu} \right) \psi = m \psi \ , \label{dira}
\end{equation}
where $\gamma^{\hat{\alpha}}$, $e$, $m$, $A_{\mu}$ are the gamma matrices,
an electromagnetic charge, a mass
and an vector potential, respectively.
The tetrad $e^{\mu}_{\hat{\alpha}}$ is defined to satisfy
\begin{equation}
e^{\hat{\alpha}}_{\mu} e^{\hat{\beta}}_{\nu} \eta_{\hat{\alpha}\hat{\beta}} = g_{\mu\nu} \ . \label{tetrad}
\end{equation}
Note that $\eta_{\hat{\alpha}\hat{\beta}}$ is the Minkowski metric of a local inertial frame and
hat is used for the frame.
More explicitly, for the metric (\ref{met033}),
the tetrads are constructed as
\begin{equation}
e^{\hat{\alpha}}_{0} = \delta^{\hat{\alpha}}_{0} \left( 1 + a_{i} x^{i} \right)
- \frac{1}{2} \delta^{\hat{\alpha}}_{\alpha} R^{\alpha}_{\ k0l}\ ,
\quad
e^{\hat{\alpha}}_{i} = \delta^{\hat{\alpha}}_{0}
\omega_{k} \epsilon_{0ijk} x^{j}
+ \delta^{\hat{\alpha}}_{i}
- \frac{1}{6} \delta^{\hat{\alpha}}_{\alpha} R^{\alpha}_{\ kil}x^{k} x^{l}c \ .
\label{tet}
\end{equation}
The spin connection is defined by
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_{\mu}
= -\frac{i}{2} e^{\hat{\alpha}}_{\nu} \sigma_{\hat{\alpha}\hat{\beta}}
\left( \partial_{\mu} e^{\nu\hat{\beta}} + \Gamma^{\nu}_{\lambda\mu} e^{\lambda\hat{\beta}} \right),
\label{spicone}
\end{equation}
where
$\sigma_{\hat{\alpha}\hat{\beta}} = \frac{i}{4} [ \gamma_{\hat{\alpha}}, \gamma_{\hat{\beta}} ] $ is
a generator of the Lorentz group and
$\Gamma^{\mu}_{\nu\lambda}$ is the Christoffel symbol.
For the metric (\ref{met033}), the spin connection
at the linear order for inertial and gravitational terms
can be calculated as follows:
\begin{empheq}[left=\empheqlbrace]{align}
\label{spi0}
\Gamma_{0} &= -\frac{1}{2} \gamma^{\hat{0}} \gamma^{\hat{i}} a_{i}
- \frac{1}{4} \gamma^{\hat{i}} \gamma^{\hat{j}} \omega_{k} \epsilon_{0ijk}
- \frac{1}{2} \gamma^{\hat{0}} \gamma^{\hat{i}} R_{0i0j} x^{j}
- \frac{1}{4} \gamma^{\hat{i}} \gamma^{\hat{j}} R_{ij0k} x^{k}
\ , \quad \\
\label{spii}
\Gamma_{i} &=
- \frac{1}{4} \gamma^{\hat{0}} \gamma^{\hat{i}}
\omega_{k} \epsilon_{0ijk}
-
\frac{1}{4} \gamma^{\hat{0}} \gamma^{\hat{j}} R_{0jik} x^{k}
- \frac{1}{8} \gamma^{\hat{j}} \gamma^{\hat{k}} R_{jkil} x^{l}
\ .
\end{empheq}
Here we have rewritten $\delta_{\hat{\alpha}}^{\mu} \gamma^{\hat{\alpha}}$ as $\gamma^{\hat{\mu}}$ and
we will do so throughout.
On the other hand,
the Dirac equation (\ref{dira}) can be rewritten as
\begin{eqnarray}
i \gamma^{0} \partial_{0} \psi &=& \left[ i \gamma^{0} \left( \Gamma_{0} + i e A_{0} \right)
- i \gamma^{j} \left( \partial_{j} - \Gamma_{j} - i e A_{j} \right)
+ m \right] \psi \nonumber \\
&=& \gamma^{0} H \psi \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where we defined a Hamiltonian $H$ and the gamma matrices in curved spacetime,
$\gamma^{\mu} = e^{\mu}_{\hat{\alpha}} \gamma^{\hat{\alpha}}$,
satisfying the relation
\begin{equation}
\{ \gamma^{\mu} , \gamma^{\nu} \} = - 2 g^{\mu\nu} \ .
\end{equation}
Let us express the Hamiltonian in terms of the gamma matrices of the local inertial frame
instead of those of curved spacetime.
Because of $\gamma^{0}\gamma^{0} = -g^{00}$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
H = (g^{00})^{-1} \left[ i g^{00} \left( \Gamma_{0} + i e A_{0} \right)
+ i \gamma^{0}\gamma^{j} \left( \partial_{j} - \Gamma_{j} - i e A_{j} \right)
- \gamma^{0} m \right] \ . \label{hamihami}
\end{equation}
Using Eqs.\,(\ref{met033}) and (\ref{tet}), we calculate
\begin{eqnarray}
(g^{00})^{-1} \gamma^{0} \gamma^{j}
&\simeq&
- \gamma^{\hat{0}} \gamma^{\hat{j}}
\left( 1 + a_{i} x^{i} \right)
+ \gamma^{\hat{i}} \gamma^{\hat{j}} \omega_{k}
\epsilon_{0ilk} x^{l}
- \gamma^{\hat{0}} \gamma^{\hat{j}}
- \frac{1}{2} R_{0kjl} x^{k} x^{l}
\nonumber \\
&& - \frac{1}{6} \gamma^{\hat{0}} \gamma^{\hat{a}} R_{jkal} x^{k} x^{l}
- \frac{1}{2} \gamma^{\hat{0}} \gamma^{\hat{j}} R_{0k0l} x^{k}x^{l}
+ \frac{1}{6} \gamma^{\hat{a}} \gamma^{\hat{j}} R_{ak0l} x^{k} x^{l} \ . \label{000j}
\end{eqnarray}
Similarly, we have
\begin{equation}
(g^{00})^{-1} \gamma^{0} \simeq
- \gamma^{\hat{0}} \left( 1 + a_{i} x^{i} \right)
- \gamma^{\hat{i}} \omega_{k} \epsilon_{0ilk} x^{l}
- \frac{1}{2} \gamma^{\hat{0}} R_{0k0l} x^{k}x^{l}
+ \frac{1}{6} \gamma^{\hat{a}} R_{ak0l} x^{k} x^{l} \ . \label{000}
\end{equation}
Therefore using Eqs.\,(\ref{spi0}), (\ref{spii}),
(\ref{000j}) and (\ref{000}) in the Hamiltonian
(\ref{hamihami}), we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
H &=& - \frac{i}{2} \gamma^{\hat{0}} \gamma^{\hat{i}} \left( a_{i}
+ R_{0i0j} x^{j} \right)
- \frac{i}{4} \gamma^{\hat{i}} \gamma^{\hat{j}} R_{0ikj} x^{k}
- \frac{i}{8} \gamma^{\hat{0}} \gamma^{\hat{i}} \gamma^{\hat{j}} \gamma^{\hat{k}} R_{jkil} x^{l}
- eA_{0} \nonumber \\
&& + \Big[ \gamma^{\hat{0}} \gamma^{\hat{i}}
\Big( \delta^{j}_{i} \left( 1 + a_{i}x^{i} \right) + \theta^{j}_{i} \Big)
- \gamma^{\hat{i}} \gamma^{\hat{j}} \left(
\omega_{k} \epsilon_{0ilk} x^{l}
+ \frac{1}{6} R_{ik0l} x^{k} x^{l} \right)
+ \frac{1}{2} R_{0kjl} x^{k} x^{l}
\Big]
\left( -i \partial_{j} - eA_{j} \right) \nonumber \\
&& + \left[ \gamma^{\hat{0}}
\left(1 + a_{i}x^{i} + \frac{1}{2} R_{0k0l} x^{k} x^{l} \right)
- \gamma^{\hat{i}} \left( \omega_{k} \epsilon_{0ijk} x^{j}
+ \frac{1}{6} R_{ik0l} x^{k} x^{l} \right)
\right] m \ , \label{HHH}
\end{eqnarray}
where we defined
\begin{equation}
\theta^{j}_{i} =
\frac{1}{2} \delta^{j}_{i} R_{0k0l} x^{k}x^{l}
+ \frac{1}{6} R_{jkil} x^{k} x^{l} \ .
\end{equation}
The above Hamiltonian is a 4$\times$4 matrix and contains both the fermion and the anti-fermion.
What we want to consider is the fermion particle with a non-relativistic velocity.
In order to take the non-relativistic limit of the Hamiltonian for the fermion,
we need to separate the fermion and the anti-fermion while expanding the Hamiltonian
in powers of $1/m$.
In the next section, we will explicitly show how to perform this.
\section{Non-relativistic limit of the Hamiltonian}
\label{nonrela}
In the previous section, the (non-relativistic) Hamiltonian of
a Dirac field in the proper reference frame was derived.
We take the non-relativistic limit of the Hamiltonian (\ref{HHH})
on the assumption that a fermion has a velocity well below the speed of light,
which is usual in experiments on the Earth like
the electron \textit{g}-factor measurements~\cite{Hanneke:2008tm,Odom:2006zz}.
The Hamiltonian (\ref{HHH}) can be divided into the even part, the odd part and
the terms multiplied by $m$:
\begin{eqnarray}
H &=& -\frac{i}{2} \alpha^{i} \left( a_{i}
+ R_{0i0j} x^{j} \right)
+ \frac{i}{8} \alpha^{i} \alpha^{j} \alpha^{k} R_{jkil} x^{l}
+ \alpha^{j}
\Big( \delta^{j}_{i} \left( 1 + a_{i}x^{i} \right) + \theta^{j}_{i} \Big)
\Pi_{j}
\nonumber \\
&& - eA_{0}
- \frac{i}{4} \alpha^{i} \alpha^{j}
\left( \omega_{k} \epsilon_{0ijk} - R_{0ikj} x^{k} \right)
+\bigg[
\frac{1}{2} R_{0kjl} x^{k} x^{l}
+ \alpha^{i} \alpha^{j} \left( \omega_{k} \epsilon_{0ilk} x^{l}
%
+ \frac{1}{6} R_{ik0l} x^{k} x^{l} \right) \bigg]
%
\Pi_{j}
\nonumber \\
&& + \left[ \beta
\left(1 + a_{i}x^{i} + \frac{1}{2} R_{0k0l} x^{k} x^{l} \right)
- \beta \alpha^{i} \left( \omega_{k} \epsilon_{0ijk} x^{j}
+ \frac{1}{6} R_{ik0l} x^{k} x^{l} \right)
\right] m \nonumber \\
&=& \mathcal{O} + \mathcal{E} +
\left[ \beta
\left(1 + a_{i}x^{i} + \frac{1}{2} R_{0k0l} x^{k} x^{l} \right)
- \beta \alpha^{i} \left( \omega_{k} \epsilon_{0ijk} x^{j}
+ \frac{1}{6} R_{ik0l} x^{k} x^{l} \right)
\right] m \ ,
\label{HHHH}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have defined $\beta = \gamma^{\hat{0}}$, $\alpha^{i} = \gamma^{\hat{0}} \gamma^{\hat{i}}$ and
$\Pi_{j} = -i \partial_{j} - eA_{j}$ for brevity.
The even part, $\mathcal{E}$, means that the matrix has only block diagonal elements and
the odd part, $\mathcal{O}$, means that the matrix has only block off-diagonal elements.
Literally, a product of two even (odd) matrices is even and
a product of even and odd matrices becomes odd.
In order to take the non-relativistic limit of the Hamiltonian,
we need to diagonalize the Hamiltonian (\ref{HHHH}) and expand the upper block diagonal part in powers of $1/m$.
More precisely, $1/m$ stands for two dimensionless parameters, $(m x)^{-1}$ and $v/c$.
Here, $x$ represents a typical length scale of
the system, $v$ is the velocity of the fermion particle and
$c$ denotes the speed of light.
Assuming $1/m x \ll 1 $ and $v/c \ll 1$,
which hold in the electron \textit{g}-factor
measurements~\cite{Hanneke:2008tm,Odom:2006zz},
we will perform the $1/m$ expansion.
This can be carried out both in flat spacetime~\cite{Foldy:1949wa,Bjorken:1965zz}
and in curved spacetime~\cite{Ito:2020wxi}
by repeating unitary transformations order by order in powers of
$1/m$.
We will follow the procedure shown in~\cite{Ito:2020wxi}.
A unitary transformation to a spinor field is
\begin{equation}
\psi' = e^{iS} \psi \ ,
\end{equation}
where $S$ is a time-dependent Hermitian 4 $\times$ 4 matrix.
Observing that
\begin{eqnarray}
i \frac{\partial \psi'}{\partial t} &=& i \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \left( e^{iS} \psi \right) \nonumber \\
&=& e^{iS} \left( i \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t} \right)
+ i \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial t} e^{iS} \right) \psi \nonumber \\
&=& \left[ e^{iS} H e^{-iS} + i \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial t} e^{iS} \right) e^{-iS} \right]
\psi' \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
we see that the Hamiltonian after the unitary transformation is
\begin{equation}
H' = e^{iS} H e^{-iS} + i \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial t} e^{iS} \right) e^{-iS} \ . \label{traH}
\end{equation}
Taking $S$ to be proportional to powers of $1/m$,
the transformed Hamiltonian (\ref{traH}) can be expanded
in powers of $S$ up to arbitrary order of $1/m$:
\begin{eqnarray}
H' &=& H + i \big[ S,H \big] - \frac{1}{2} \big[ S,\big[S,H \big] \big]
- \frac{i}{6} \big[S,\big[S, \big[S , H \big] \big] \big] + \cdots \nonumber \\
&& - \dot{S} - \frac{i}{2} \big[ S,\dot{S} \big]
+ \cdots \ . \label{newH}
\end{eqnarray}
First, we eliminate the off-diagonal part of the Hamiltonian (\ref{HHHH}) at the order of $m$ by a
unitary transformation.
Then we will drop the higher order terms with respect to
$a_{i}$, $\omega_{i}$ and the Riemann tensor.
We assume that the time derivative of the Riemann tensor
is small enough to neglect.
Notice that the time derivative of the spatial coordinate $x^{i}$
is a higher order of $v/c$ and thus we also neglect it%
\footnote{
The Hermiticity of the non-relativistic Hamiltonian
is guaranteed when the metric is time independent~\cite{Huang:2008kh}.
}.
To cancel the last term in the square bracket of (\ref{HHHH}),
we take
\begin{equation}
S = - \frac{i}{2m}\beta
\left[ - \beta \alpha^{i} \left( \omega_{k} \epsilon_{0ijk} x^{j}
+ \frac{1}{6} R_{ik0l} x^{k} x^{l} \right)m \right] \ .
\end{equation}
We then obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
i \big[ S,H \big] &\simeq&
\beta \alpha^{i} \left( \omega_{k} \epsilon_{0ijk} x^{j}
+ \frac{1}{6} R_{ik0l} x^{k} x^{l} \right) m
- \frac{1}{2} \big[ \alpha^{i} , \alpha^{j} \big]
\left( \omega_{k} \epsilon_{0ilk} x^{l}
+ \frac{1}{6} R_{ik0l} x^{k} x^{l} \right) \Pi_{j}
\nonumber \\
&& + \frac{i}{2} \alpha ^{i} \alpha^{j} \left( -\omega_{k} \epsilon_{0jik}
+ \frac{1}{3} R_{0ikj} x^{k}
+ \frac{1}{6} R_{0jik} x^{k} \right)
\ . \label{SH}
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, from Eqs.\,(\ref{newH}) and (\ref{SH}), we have the transformed Hamiltonian
with accuracy mentioned above:
\begin{eqnarray}
H' &\simeq& H + i \big[ S,H \big] \nonumber \\
&=& \mathcal{O} + \mathcal{E}' +
\beta
\left(1 + a_{i}x^{i} + \frac{1}{2} R_{0k0l} x^{k} x^{l} \right) m \ ,
\label{HHHHH}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have used the relation $\big\{ \alpha^{i} ,\alpha^{j} \big\} = 2 \delta^{ij}$
and $\mathcal{E}'$ is defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{E}' = &-& eA_{0}
+ \frac{i}{8} [ \alpha^{i}, \alpha^{j} ] \omega_{k} \epsilon_{0ijk}
+ \omega_{k} \epsilon_{0ijk} x^{j} \Pi_{i} \nonumber \\
&+& \frac{i}{6} R_{0iki} x^{k}
+
\frac{2}{3} R_{0kil} x^{k} x^{l} \Pi_{i}
-\frac{i}{8} [\alpha^{i},\alpha^{j}]
R_{ijk0} x^{k} \ .
\end{eqnarray}
One can see that only even terms remain at the order of $m$, as expected.
Next, let us focus on the order of $m^{0}$ and eliminate the odd terms by a unitary transformation.
In order to do so, we choose the Hermitian operator to be
\begin{equation}
S' = -\frac{i}{2m} \beta \left[
\mathcal{O}
- \alpha^{i} \left(
a_{j}x^{j} \Pi_{i} - \frac{i}{2} a_{i}
+ \frac{1}{2} R_{0k0l} x^{k} x^{l} \Pi_{i}
- \frac{i}{2} R_{0k0i} x^{k} \right) \right] \ .
\end{equation}
First of all,
\begin{equation}
i \big[ S',H' \big] \simeq
- \mathcal{O} + i \big[ S',\mathcal{O} \big] + i \big[ S',\mathcal{E}' \big] \ ,
\label{S,H}
\end{equation}
Furthermore, up to the order of $1/m$, we find
\begin{equation}
- \frac{1}{2} \big[ S',\big[S',H' \big] \big] \simeq
- \frac{i}{2} \big[ S', \mathcal{O} \big]
\ ,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
- \dot{S}' \simeq
\frac{i}{2m} \beta \dot{\mathcal{O}}
- \frac{i}{m} \beta \alpha^{i} a_{j} x^{j} e \dot{A}_{i} \ .
\end{equation}
Therefore, the unitary transformed Hamiltonian is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
H'' &\simeq& H' + i \big[ S',H' \big] - \frac{1}{2} \big[ S',\big[S',H' \big] \big] - \dot{S}' \nonumber \\
&\simeq& H'
+ \frac{i}{2} \big[ S',\mathcal{O} \big]
+ i \big[ S',\mathcal{E}' \big]
- \dot{S}' \nonumber \\
&\simeq&
\frac{i}{m} \alpha^{i} a_{j} x^{j} e E_{i}
- \frac{i}{4m} \beta \alpha^{j} R_{0k0l} x^{k} x^{l} e E_{j}
+ \frac{1}{2m} \beta \left( \big[ \mathcal{O}, \mathcal{E}' \big]
+ i \dot{\mathcal{O}} \right) \nonumber \\
&& + \mathcal{E}'
+ \frac{1}{2m} \beta \mathcal{O}^{2}
+ \frac{i}{2m} \beta \left( a^{i} + R_{0k0i} x^{k} \right) \Pi_{i}
+ \frac{i}{8m} \beta \big[ \alpha^{i}, \alpha^{j} \big] \left( a^{i} +
R_{0k0i} x^{k} \right) \Pi_{j}
\nonumber \\
&&
- \frac{1}{2m} \beta \alpha^{i} \alpha^{j} \left( a_{k} x^{k}
+ \frac{1}{2} R_{0k0l} x^{k} x^{l} \right)
\Pi_{i} \Pi_{j}
+ \frac{1}{8m} \beta R_{0i0i}
\nonumber \\
&& + \beta \left(1 + a_{i}x^{i} + \frac{1}{2} R_{0k0l} x^{k} x^{l} \right) m
\nonumber \\
&=& \mathcal{O}' + \mathcal{E}''
+ \beta \left(1 + a_{i}x^{i} + \frac{1}{2} R_{0k0l} x^{k} x^{l} \right) m \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $E_{j} \equiv \partial_{j} A_{0} - \dot{A}_{j}$ is an electric field.
We see that $\mathcal{O}'$ consists of only terms of the order of $1/m$, so that
odd terms at the order of $m^{0}$ have been eliminated correctly.
Finally, again,
we can eliminate the odd term $\mathcal{O}'$ by an appropriate
unitary transformation.
The resultant Hamiltonian consists of only even terms up to the order of $1/m$,
which we want to get.
Thus, up to the order of $1/m$, we have
\begin{equation}
H''' \simeq \mathcal{E}''
+ \beta \left(1 + a_{i}x^{i} + \frac{1}{2} R_{0k0l} x^{k} x^{l} \right)
m \ , \label{H'''}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{E}''$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{E}'' &=&
- eA_{0}
- \frac{i}{8} [ \alpha^{i}, \alpha^{j} ] \omega_{k} \epsilon_{0ijk}
- \omega_{k} \epsilon_{0ijk} x^{j} \Pi_{i}
+ \frac{i}{6} R_{0iki} x^{k}
+ \frac{2}{3} R_{0kil} x^{k} x^{l} \Pi_{i}
-\frac{i}{8} [\alpha^{i},\alpha^{j}] R_{ijk0} x^{k}
\nonumber \\
&& + \frac{1}{2m} \beta \mathcal{O}^{2}
+ \frac{i}{2m} \beta \left( a^{i} + R_{0k0i} x^{k} \right) \Pi_{i}
+ \frac{i}{8m} \beta \big[ \alpha^{i}, \alpha^{j} \big] \left( a^{i} +
R_{0k0i} x^{k} \right) \Pi_{j}
\nonumber \\
&&
- \frac{1}{2m} \beta \alpha^{i} \alpha^{j} \left( a_{k} x^{k}
+ \frac{1}{2} R_{0k0l} x^{k} x^{l} \right)
\Pi_{i} \Pi_{j} + \frac{1}{8m} \beta R_{0i0i} \label{E''} \ .
\end{eqnarray}
Moreover, the first term in the second line of Eq.\,(\ref{E''}) can be evaluated as
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{2m} \beta \mathcal{O}^{2} &\simeq&
\frac{1}{2m} \beta
\Big( \delta_{ij} \left( 1 + 2 a_{k}x^{k} \right) + 2 \theta_{ij} \Big)
\Pi_{i} \Pi_{j}
+ \frac{i}{8m}\beta \big[ \alpha^{i} ,\alpha^{j} \big] \epsilon_{0ilm} e B^{m}
\Big( \delta_{lj}(1 + 2 a_{k}x^{k}) + 2 \theta_{lj} \Big) \nonumber \\
&& -\frac{i}{4m}\beta \big[ \alpha^{i} ,\alpha^{j} \big]
\left( a_{i} \Pi_{j} +
\frac{1}{4} R_{lmji} + \delta^{l}_{j}R_{0i0m} \right) x^{m} \Pi_{l}
+ \frac{i}{12 m}\beta R_{kikj} x^{j} \Pi_{i}
\nonumber \\
&&
+ \frac{1}{4m} \beta R_{0i0i}
+ \frac{1}{16m} \beta \alpha^{i} \alpha^{j} \alpha^{k} \alpha^{l} R_{ijkl}
- \frac{i}{16m} \beta \big\{ \alpha^{i} , \alpha^{j} \alpha^{k} \alpha^{l} \big\}
R_{kljm} x^{m} \Pi_{i} \ ,
\label{Ono2}
\end{eqnarray}
where $B^{i} \equiv \frac{1}{2} \epsilon_{0ijk} (\partial_{j}A_{k} - \partial_{k}A_{j})$
is a magnetic field%
\footnote{In general, an external magnetic field itself would be modified by inertial and gravitational effects
as was explicitly shown for a simple system like a Hydrogen atom~\cite{Parker:1980hlc,Parker:1980kw,Perche:2020lzz}.
We ignore such corrections since there is no way to evaluate them model-independently, namely
they depend on detail of a mechanism for creating an external magnetic field.
}.
Using Eqs.\,(\ref{E''}), (\ref{Ono2}) and the relation,
$\big[ \alpha^{i} ,\alpha^{j} \big] = 2 i \epsilon_{0ijk} \sigma^{k}$,
in the transformed Hamiltonian (\ref{H'''}),
we finally arrive at the Hamiltonian for a non-relativistic fermion up to the order of $1/m$:
\begin{eqnarray}
H''' &=&
\left( 1 + a_{i}x^{i} + \frac{1}{2} R_{0k0l} x^{k} x^{l} \right) m
- eA_{0} - \omega_{k} \epsilon_{0ijk} x^{i} \Pi_{j}
- \omega_{i} S^{i}
+ \frac{i}{6} R_{0iki} x^{k}
+ \frac{2}{3} R_{0kil} x^{k} x^{l} \Pi_{i}
\nonumber \\
&& + \frac{1}{2m}
\left[ \delta_{ij} \left( 1 + a_{k} x^{k} + \frac{1}{2} R_{0k0l} x^{k}x^{l} \right)
+ \frac{1}{3} R_{jkil} x^{k} x^{l} \right] \Pi_{i} \Pi_{j} \nonumber \\
&& - \frac{e}{m} S^{i} B^{j} \left[ \delta_{ij}
\left( 1 + a_{k} x^{k} +
\frac{1}{2} R_{0k0l} x^{k} x^{l} + \frac{1}{6} R_{mkml} x^{k} x^{l} \right)
- \frac{1}{6} R_{ikjl} x^{k} x^{l} \right] \nonumber \\
&& + \frac{1}{2} \epsilon_{0ijl} S^{l} R_{ijk0} x^{k}
+\frac{1}{2m} \epsilon_{0ijk} a^{i} \Pi^{j} S^{k}
+ \frac{1}{4m} \epsilon_{0ijk} S^{k}
\left( R_{ijlm} + 2 \delta_{jm} R_{0i0l} \right) x^{l} \Pi_{m} \nonumber \\
&& + \frac{i}{2m} a_{i} \Pi^{i}
+ \frac{1}{8 m} \left( 3 R_{0i0i} - R_{ijij} \right)
+ \frac{i}{2 m} \left( R_{0i0j} - \frac{1}{3} R_{kikj} \right) x^{i} \Pi_{j}
\ .
\label{Hddd}
\end{eqnarray}
A spin $S^{i} = \sigma^{i}/2$ has been defined above.
The terms for inertial effects coincide with an earlier
work~\cite{Singh:2000xq}.
On the other hand, two of the terms for gravitational effects are updated
compared with the previous work~\cite{Ito:2020wxi} where there was a miscalculation.
The first parenthesis represents the rest mass and its corrections due to
inertial and gravitational effects.
The inertial one is recognized as an usual inertial force
and the gravitational one is the leading order gravitational modification
to a particle trajectory as we will see later.
The third term~\cite{Werner:1979gi} corresponds to the Coriolis force.
The fourth term is the spin-rotation coupling~\cite{Mashhoon:1988zz},
which modifies the magnetic moment, i.e., \textit{g}-factor.
The third line also represents corrections of the magnetic moment
due to gravity.
The fifth and the sixth terms are gravitational corrections
at the order of $m^{0}$.
The second line shows that the kinetic terms are modified by
inertial and gravitational effects.
The first term in the fourth line is a gravitational effect on
the spin.
Other terms in the fourth line
are the inertial spin-orbit coupling~\cite{Hehl:1990nf}
and the gravitational spin-orbit coupling~\cite{Ito:2020wxi}, respectively.
The fifth line consists of corrections from inertial and gravitational effects
at the order of $1/m$.
\section{Particle trajectory and spin kinematics in gravity}
\label{eacheffect}
In this section, we
investigate the inertial and the gravitational effects in
the Hamiltonian (\ref{Hddd})
to trajectories and spin kinematics of a Dirac particle in the presence of
an external magnetic field.
In the sections \ref{PT} and \ref{SK}, we will show that
the cyclotron and the Larmor frequencies are corrected according to modifications of
particle trajectories and spin kinematics, respectively.
In the section \ref{SO}, it will turn out that the spin-orbit couplings modify the cyclotron and the Larmor frequencies simultaneously.
\subsection{Particle trajectries}\label{PT}
In terms of the canonical momentum $p_{j} = \Pi_{j} + eA_{j}$,
a part concerned with particle trajectories in the Hamiltonian (\ref{Hddd}) is
\begin{eqnarray}
H_{{\rm orbit}} &=&
\left( 1 + a_{i}x^{i} + \frac{1}{2} R_{0k0l} x^{k} x^{l} \right) m
- eA_{0} - \omega_{k} \epsilon_{0ijk} x^{i}
\left( p_{j} - eA_{j} \right)
+ \frac{i}{2m} a_{i} \left( p_{i} - eA_{i} \right) \nonumber \\
&& + \frac{1}{2m}
\left[ \delta_{ij} \left( 1 + a_{k} x^{k} + \frac{1}{2} R_{0k0l} x^{k}x^{l} \right)
+ \frac{1}{3} R_{jkil} x^{k} x^{l} \right]
\left( p_{i} - eA_{i} \right) \left( p_{j} - eA_{j} \right)
\ ,
\label{Horbit}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have neglected higher order terms with respect to
$(m x)^{-1}$ and $v/c$ in several parts.
From the Hamiltonian, one can derive the classical
equation of motion for a particle
in the presence of an external magnetic field:
\begin{equation}
\ddot{x}^{i} =
- a^{i}
- R_{0i0j} x^{j}
+ \left[
\left\{ \delta_{ij}
\left( 1 + a_{m}x^{m} + \frac{1}{2} R_{0m0n} x^{m}x^{n} \right)
+ \frac{1}{3} R_{imjn} x^{m}x^{n} \right\}
\frac{e}{m}B^{l}
+ 2 \delta_{ij} \omega^{l}
\right] \epsilon_{0jkl} \dot{x}^{k} \ , \label{eqmo}
\end{equation}
where a dot denotes a derivative with respect to $x^{0}$.
Note that we neglected an external electric field, which should exist
in actual Penning trap experiments (see the appendix \ref{review})
because it is unnecessary to examine effects of gravity up to
the order of $1/m$.
Because of the magnetic field,
the particle experiences the cyclotron motion with the
frequency $2\pi f_{c} = eB/m$.
The square bracket in Eq.\,(\ref{eqmo}) shows that
the frequency is directly modified by
the inertial and the gravitational effects.
The second term of the right-hand side in Eq.\,(\ref{eqmo})
also modifies the cyclotron frequency as we will see soon.
For concreteness, let us consider the gravitational potential of the Earth,
$\phi = - G \frac{M}{|\bm{x} - \bm{x}_{0}|}$, as the source of
the curvature.
$G$ is the gravitational constant, $M$ is the mass of the Earth and
$\bm{x}_{0}$ denotes the center of the Earth.
Then a component of the Riemann tensor which is evaluated
at $\bm{x}=0$ is
\begin{equation}
R_{0i0j} = \phi_{,ij} =
- 3G\frac{M}{x_{0}^{5}} x_{0}^{i} x_{0}^{j}
+ G\frac{M}{x_{0}^{3}} \delta_{ij} \ .
\end{equation}
This indicates that
$R_{0i0j}x^{i}x^{j} \ll a_{i}x^{i}
= - G\frac{M}{x_{0}^{3}} x_{0}^{i}x^{i}$.
Therefore the curvature tensors in the square bracket are negligible compared
with the inertial effects.
Then, the corrections
to the cyclotron frequency
in the square brackets of Eq.\,(\ref{eqmo}) can be estimated as
\begin{equation}
\tilde{f}_{c} \simeq f_{c}
\left( 1 + a_{i}x_{cy}^{i} \pm \frac{2\omega}{2\pi f_{c}} \cos\theta \right) \ ,
\label{tilde}
\end{equation}
where $\theta$ is an angle between $B^{i}$ and $\omega^{i}$,
and $x_{cy}$ represents a position vector for the cyclotron motion.
At the third term,
the upper sign is for a positive charge fermion
(negative charge anti-fermion) and
the lower sign is for a negative charge fermion
(positive charge anti-fermion).
Next, we evaluate the second term of the right-hand side in Eq.\,(\ref{eqmo}).
To this end, we consider the equation:
\begin{eqnarray}
\ddot{x}^{i} &=&
- a^{i}
- R_{0i0j} x^{j}
+ \frac{e}{m}B^{l}
\epsilon_{0ikl} \dot{x}^{k} \nonumber \\
&=&
- a^{i}
+ \left[
3G\frac{M}{x_{0}^{5}}
x^{i}_{0} x^{j}_{0} x^{j}
- G\frac{M}{x_{0}^{3}} x^{i}
\right]
+ \frac{e}{m}B^{l}
\epsilon_{0ikl} \dot{x}^{k}
\ . \label{eqmo2}
\end{eqnarray}
We now take the direction of the magnetic field to be the $z$-direction
$\bm{B} = (0,0,B^{z})$ and
assume that $\bm{x}_{0}=(0,0,z_{0})$, namely
the magnetic field is perpendicular to the Earth's surface.
Then the cyclotron orbit is on the $x$-$y$ plane and the equations of motion
are
\begin{subequations}
\begin{empheq}[left=\empheqlbrace]{align}
\ddot{x} &= - G\frac{M}{x_{0}^{3}} x
+ \frac{eB^{z}}{m} \dot{y} \ , \label{xeqmo} \\
\ddot{y} &= - G\frac{M}{x_{0}^{3}} y
- \frac{eB^{z}}{m} \dot{x} \ , \label{yeqmo} \\
\ddot{z} &= - a^{z} + 2G\frac{M}{x_{0}^{3}} z \ . \label{zeqmo}
\end{empheq}
\end{subequations}
In Eq.\,(\ref{zeqmo}), the first term is for the free fall motion.
The second term is a tidal effect and
modifies the axial frequency $f_{z}$ explained
in the appendix \ref{review}.
However, it is not relevant because the observed $g$-factor
(\ref{gfac}) is not affected by modulation of $f_{z}$.
Eqs.\,(\ref{xeqmo}) and (\ref{yeqmo}) represent the cyclotron motion
with a gravitational modification and they can be solved as
\begin{subequations}
\begin{empheq}[left=\empheqlbrace]{align}
x & = C_{1} \cos (-2\pi f_{+}t) + C_{2} \cos(-2\pi f_{-}t) \ , \\
y & = C_{1} \sin(-2\pi f_{+}t) + C_{2} \sin(-2\pi f_{-}t) \ ,
\end{empheq}
\end{subequations}
where $C_{1}$ and $C_{2}$ are integration constants and
\begin{equation}
2\pi f_{\pm} = \frac{2\pi f_{c} \pm
\sqrt{ (2\pi f_{c})^{2} + 4GM/x_{0}^{3}}}{
2 } \ . \label{pm}
\end{equation}
A modified cyclotron frequency should be the plus sign and it can be approximated as
\begin{equation}
f_{+} \simeq f_{c} +
\frac{ GM / x_{0}^{3}}{(2\pi f_{c})^{2}} \ .
\end{equation}
Together with Eq.\,(\ref{tilde}), we find that
the total modification to the cyclotron frequency is
\begin{equation}
\bar{f}_{c}^{(A)}
=
f_{c} \left( 1 + a_{i}x_{cy}^{i}
\pm \frac{2\omega}{2\pi f_{c}} \cos\theta
+ \frac{ GM / x_{0}^{3}}{(2\pi f_{c})^{2}}
\right) \ . \label{cymodi}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Spin kinematics}\label{SK}
In the Hamiltonian (\ref{Hddd}),
the dynamics of a spin in the presence of the magnetic field and gravity is
determined by
\begin{eqnarray}
H_{{\rm spin}} &=&
\frac{1}{2} \epsilon_{0ijl} S^{l} R_{ijk0} x^{k}
- \omega_{i} S^{i} \nonumber \\
&&- \frac{e}{m} S^{i} B^{j} \left[ \delta_{ij}
\left( 1 + a_{k} x^{k} +
\frac{1}{2} R_{0k0l} x^{k} x^{l} + \frac{1}{6} R_{mkml} x^{k} x^{l} \right)
- \frac{1}{6} R_{ikjl} x^{k} x^{l} \right]
\ .
\label{Hspin}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the spin-orbit couplings will be treated in the next subsection independently.
As discussed in the previous subsection,
the contribution from the curvature terms is negligible compared with
the inertial effects.
Moreover, the component of the curvature, $R_{ijk0}$, is zero
for the gravitational potential of the Earth.
Then, from the Hamiltonian Eq.\,(\ref{Hspin}), one can derive the
Heisenberg equation of motion:
\begin{equation}
\dot{S}^{a} = - \epsilon_{0aib} S^{b}
\left[ \frac{e}{m}B^{i} \left( 1 + a_{k}x^{k} \right)
+ \omega_{i} \right] \ .
\end{equation}
It shows that
the spin precession is induced by the external magnetic field
with the Larmor frequency, $2\pi f_{{s}} = eB/m$, but
the frequency is modified by the inertial effects.
Notice that we do not consider loop corrections to the magnetic moment, i.e.,
$g$-factor is replaced by $2$.
The modified Larmor frequency is estimated as
\begin{equation}
\bar{f}_{s}^{(B)} = f_{s} \left( 1 + a_{i} x_{cy}^{i}
\pm \frac{\omega}{2\pi f_{s}} \cos\theta \right) \ .
\label{spimodi}
\end{equation}
At the third term, again,
the upper sign is for a positive charge fermion
(negative charge anti-fermion) and
the lower sign is for a negative charge fermion
(positive charge anti-fermion).
\subsection{Spin-orbit coupling}\label{SO}
So far, we have studied how the cyclotron and the Larmor frequencies are
modified by gravity individually.
However there are the inertial and the gravitational
spin-orbit couplings, those are
\begin{equation}
H_{{\rm spin-orbit}} =
\frac{1}{2m} \Pi_{i} \Pi_{i}
- \frac{e}{m} S^{i} B^{i}
+ \frac{1}{2m} \epsilon_{0ijk} a^{i} \Pi^{j} S^{k}
+ \frac{1}{4m} \epsilon_{0ijk} S^{k}
\left( R_{ijlm} + 2 \delta_{jm} R_{0i0l} \right) x^{l} \Pi_{m}
\ , \
\label{Hspinorbit}
\end{equation}
where we have incorporated the free parts of
the kinetic and the spin precession terms.
The third and the fourth terms stand for the inertial and the gravitational
spin-orbit couplings, respectively.
They would make the energy levels split as in the case
of a Hydrogen atom.
Let us investigate the energy split in details.
First of all, as mentioned in the previous subsections,
the gravitational spin-orbit coupling terms should be smaller
than the inertial one as long as we consider the Earth as a source of the curvature.
Thus, we neglect them.
When we set the magnetic field to be along with the $z$-direction,
$\bm{B} = (0,0,B^{z})$, the Hamiltonian can be rewritten as follows:
\begin{equation}
H_{{\rm spin-orbit}} =
(2\pi f_{c}) \left( \alpha^{\dagger} \alpha + \frac{1}{2} \right)
- (2\pi f_{s}) S^{z}
- \Delta
\left( \alpha S_{+}
+ \alpha^{\dagger} S_{-} \right)
\ .
\label{Hspinorbit2}
\end{equation}
Here again, we have set $\bm{a} = (0,0,a_{z})$ by assuming that the
magnetic field is perpendicular to the Earth's surface.
The coupling constant
\begin{equation}
\Delta=\sqrt{\frac{2\pi f_{c}}{8m}} a \ , \label{Delta}
\end{equation}
has been defined for brevity.
We also defined creation and annihilation operators for
the cyclotron motion,
\begin{equation}
\alpha = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2eB^{z}}} \left( -i \Pi_{x} + \Pi_{y} \right) \ , \quad
\alpha^{\dagger} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2eB^{z}}} \left( i \Pi_{x} + \Pi_{y} \right) \ ,
\end{equation}
($[\alpha , \ \alpha^{\dagger}] = 1$) and ladder operators for the spin,
\begin{equation}
S_{+} = S^{x} - i S^{y} \ , \quad S_{-} = S^{x} + i S^{y} \ .
\end{equation}
The Hamiltonian (\ref{Hspinorbit2}) is nothing but the
Jaynes-Cummings model~\cite{1443594}.
We have implicitly set, $2\pi f_{c} = 2\pi f_{s} = eB/m$, in
Eq.\,(\ref{Hspinorbit2}) since
the inertial spin-orbit interaction is our sole concern now and other corrections are negligible, at least, at the linear order.
Without the spin-orbit coupling in the Hamiltonian (\ref{Hspinorbit2}),
the eigenstates are specified by
$\ket{n}\ket{g}$ and $\ket{n}\ket{e}$, where
$n$ is an eigenvalue of the number operator $\alpha^{\dagger} \alpha$ and
$\ket{g}$ ($\ket{e}$) represents the ground (excited) state for the spin.
Then we find that the two states, $\ket{n}\ket{e}$ and $\ket{n+1}\ket{g}$
are degenerates.
However, in fact, this degeneracy is resolved
due to the presence of the spin-orbit coupling.
Diagonalizing the Hamiltonian (\ref{Hspinorbit2}) in the subspace spanned by
$\ket{n}\ket{e}$ and $\ket{n+1}\ket{g}$,
one can obtain the split energy levels
\begin{equation}
E_{n} = 2\pi f_{c} \left( n + 1 \right) \pm
\frac{1}{2} \Delta \sqrt{ \left( n+1 \right) } \label{enelevel}
\ .
\end{equation}
Eq.\,(\ref{enelevel}) shows that the each pair of the degenerated states is split by
$\Delta\sqrt{n+1}$.
Therefore if we observe energy transitions for larger $n$,
the energy split becomes larger.
The diagonalized energy levels are depicted in Fig.\,\ref{split}.
In the case of the Penning trap experiments,
we observe one quantum transition from the ground state $\ket{0}\ket{g}$.
Therefore,
following dressed cyclotron and Larmor frequencies are detected,
\begin{equation}
\bar{f}_{c}^{(C)} = f_{c}\left( 1
- \frac{1}{4\sqrt{2}}
\frac{a}{\sqrt{(2 \pi f_{c})m}} \right) \ ,
\quad
\bar{f}_{s}^{(C)} = f_{s}\left( 1
+ \frac{1}{4\sqrt{2}}
\frac{a}{\sqrt{(2 \pi f_{s})m}} \right) \ .
\label{somodi}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=10.0cm]{split2.pdf}
\caption{The diagonalized energy levels are depicted.
The degenerated states, $\ket{n}\ket{e}$ and $\ket{n+1}\ket{g}$, are split
by $\Delta\sqrt{n+1}$ due to the spin-orbit coupling.}
\label{split}
\end{figure}
\section{Detectability in electron $g$-factor measurements}
\label{detectability}
In this section,
we reveal how the general relativistic corrections investigated
in the previous section appear in the observed $g$-factor (\ref{gfac}) in
Penning trap experiments.
Furthermore, we estimate magnitude of the
corrections and discuss its detectability
in a concrete case of the electron $g$-factor
measurement~\cite{Hanneke:2008tm}.
As is discussed in the appendix \ref{review},
the observed $g$-factor
in Penning trap experiments is Eq.\,(\ref{gfac}).
On the other hand, we revealed the general relativistic corrections on
the cyclotron and the Larmor frequencies in the
previous sections, from Eqs.\,(\ref{cymodi}), (\ref{spimodi}) and (\ref{somodi}),
that is
\begin{empheq}[left=\empheqlbrace]{align}
\label{51}
\bar{f}_{c} & = f_{c} \left( 1 + a_{i}x_{cy}^{i}
\pm \frac{2\omega}{2\pi f_{c}} \cos\theta
- \frac{1}{4\sqrt{2}}
\frac{a}{\sqrt{(2 \pi f_{c})m}}
+ \frac{ GM / x_{0}^{3}}{(2\pi f_{c})^{2}}
\right) \ , \\
\label{52}
\bar{f}_{s} & = f_{s} \left( 1 + a_{i} x_{cy}^{i}
\pm \frac{\omega}{2\pi f_{s}} \cos\theta
+ \frac{1}{4\sqrt{2}}
\frac{a}{\sqrt{(2 \pi f_{c})m}} \right) \ .
\end{empheq}
From the above equations, general relativistic corrections on
the observed $g$-factor can be read:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\delta g}{2} &=& \frac{\bar{f}_{s}}{\bar{f}_{c}}
- \frac{f_{s}}{f_{c}} \nonumber \\
&\simeq&
\mp \frac{\omega}{2\pi f_{c}} \cos\theta
+ \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}
\frac{a}{\sqrt{(2 \pi f_{c})m}}
- \frac{ GM / x_{0}^{3}}{(2\pi f_{c})^{2}} \ . \label{modimodi}
\label{deltag}
\end{eqnarray}
One can find that the second terms in the right-hand side of
Eqs.\,(\ref{51}) and (\ref{52}) canceled out.
Each term in Eq.\,(\ref{modimodi}) has different dependence on $f_{c}$ and $m$.
Therefore, their magnitude change depending on situations.
We now estimate the magnitude of the general relativistic corrections
in Eq.\,(\ref{deltag}),
in particular for~\cite{Hanneke:2008tm}.
The experiment was conducted in
the Harvard University whose longitude is $42.4^{\circ}$.
Thus, the angle between the Earth's rotation vector $\bm{\omega}$ and
the magnetic field $\bm{B}$
which is assumed to be perpendicular to the surface of the Earth would be
$\theta \simeq 0.674 \, {\rm rad}$.
Furthermore, using values, $\omega = 7.27 \times 10^{-5} \, {\rm rad/s}$,
$a = 9.81 \, {\rm m/s}^{2}$,
$G = 6.67 \times 10^{-11}\, {\rm m^{3}/kg \, s^{2}}$,
$M = 5.97 \times 10^{24} \, {\rm kg}$,
$x_{0} = 6.38 \times 10^{6} \, {\rm m}$,
$m = 511 \, {\rm keV}$
and
$f_{c} = f_{s} = eB/m \simeq 150 \, {\rm GHz}$ (see~\cite{Hanneke:2008tm}),
we can estimate each correction.
The result is summarized in Table~\ref{electron}.
From Table~\ref{electron}, we see that the correction from the tidal effect is much smaller than other effects of inertial ones
as expected.
It should be mentioned that the correction from the the gravity of Earth, $\bm{a}$, is much larger than the previous report~\cite{Ulbricht:2019dzm} where effects of $\bm{a}$ on the electron $g$-factor was studied.
It is because that they investigated a correction from non linear contribution of $\bm{a}$ but
did not focus on the spin-orbit coupling induced by $\bm{a}$, which is linear order contribution.
Table~\ref{electron} shows that the effects of Earth's rotation cause
the most largest correction to the electron $g$-factor%
\footnote{In \cite{Notari:2019qcx} where general relativistic corrections to the muon $g$-factor is mainly studied,
rough estimation of effects of the Earth's rotation on the electron $g$-factor is given.
Although that estimation is one order of magnitude bigger than our result, we believe that the discrepancy largely comes from a missing factor of $1/2\pi$ in their calculation.}
in the case of~\cite{Hanneke:2008tm}.
It can be detected if the current uncertainty
$g/2 \simeq 2.8 \times 10^{-13}$~\cite{Hanneke:2008tm} is improved
by 4 orders of magnitude.
Therefore it would be important to consider the effects of gravity for
future more accurate experiments~\cite{Gabrielse:2019cgf,Fan:2020enk}.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=13.6cm]{electron.pdf}
\caption{The general relativistic corrections in
Eq.\,(\ref{deltag}) for the case of the electron $g$-factor
measurement~\cite{Hanneke:2008tm} are listed.
}
\label{electron}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion}
Electron $g$-factor measurements have been operated with remarkable high
accuracy~\cite{Hanneke:2008tm,Odom:2006zz,VanDyck:1987ay}.
Effects of gravity may not be negligible at the current sensitivity,
so that quantitative and comprehensive study of general relativistic
corrections in $g$-factor measurements is desired.
In the first part of this paper, we revealed all linear order
inertial and gravitational effects on a Dirac particle
up to the order of $1/m$ in a proper reference frame, which is represented by the Hamiltonian (\ref{Hddd}).
The Hamiltonian (\ref{Hddd}) is useful to investigate gravitational and inertial effects on any systems consistent
with approximations we have made as it partly has been done for the case of a Hydrogen atom~\cite{Parker:1980hlc,Parker:1980kw,Perche:2020lzz}%
\footnote{\cite{Perche:2020lzz} appeared after
the submission of our paper on arXiv.}.
In the later part of this paper, we applied the Hamiltonian (\ref{Hddd}) to
Penning trap experiments where a Dirac particle experiences
the cyclotron motion and the spin precession in a cavity,
i.e., a geonium atom, and evaluated
the magnitude of the effects of gravity.
It turned out that gravity modifies the cyclotron motion and
the spin precession in various ways.
These effects were investigated in the section \ref{eacheffect} in details.
Importantly, each general relativistic correction
has different dependence on the cyclotron frequency
$f_{c} = eB/m$ and the mass $m$.
Therefore, the magnitude of each contribution can differ
in situations.
In the section \ref{detectability},
we considered an electron $g$-factor measurement and
estimated the magnitude of each correction.
The result is summarized in Table~\ref{electron}.
The most largest correction comes from the effects of the rotation of
the Earth and it can be detected if the current sensitivity is improved
by 4 orders of magnitude.
Therefore it would be important to consider the effects of gravity for
future more accurate experiments~\cite{Gabrielse:2019cgf,Fan:2020enk}.
Finally, we mention that
our discussion can be applied to cases for $g$-factor measurements of
positron~\cite{Gabrielse:2019cgf,VanDyck:1987ay,Schwinberg:1981ev},
the proton~\cite{Rodegheri:2012zz,DiSciacca:2012uz} and
the antiproton~\cite{DiSciacca:2013hya,Gabrielse:1999kc} in parallel.
It is explicitly shown in Eq.\,(\ref{deltag}) that
the proton and the antiproton (the electron and the positron)
should take the minus (plus) sign.
For the case of the muon~\cite{Muong-2:2021ojo,Bennett:2006fi,Bailey:1978mn},
we need a more careful consideration because the velocity of the muon
is in special relativistic regime.
In the present paper, we have focused on general relativistic effects that
are leading order with respect to $v/c$ and neglected higher order terms.
Therefore, the accuracy of the approximation would be worse if we
apply the discussion to the case of the muon.
However, of course, since $v/c < 1$ is satisfied even for the case of
the muon, our result would still be valid to estimate magnitude of general
relativistic corrections in the muon $g$-factor measurements.
\begin{acknowledgments}
A.\,I\,. was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers JP17H02894, JP17K18778 and
National Center for Theoretical Sciences.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
Metal-semiconductor hybrid nanostructure (HNS) shows unique properties that can supersede the combined function of individual material because of its synergistic behavior. A metal nanoparticle (NP) when excited at its localized surface plasmon resonance (LSPR), can modify the local field distribution around it. The light-matter interaction in a semiconductor quantum dots (QD) can be enhanced by placing it near to the metal NP. Such enhancement can increase the efficiency of semiconductor devices like photodetector, solar cells, LED etc\cite{Plasmon-enhanced-detector-2018,Plasmon-enhanced-devices,Hybrid_plasmon_spectroscopy_Jiang_AdvanceMat_2014}. It is also possible that charges excited in the metal NP can move to the semiconductor QD in ultrafast time scale\cite{Samanta-ultrafast-AgCdTe-JPCC-2016,Counting_electron_Jayabalan_2019}. Such charge transfer can further increase the efficiency of light harvesting devices\cite{LED_MRSbulletin_2013,Wu632}. Conversely, metal NP can act as an electron sink that can disturb the electron-hole recombination process in the semiconductor QD resulting in quenching of PL\cite{Au-electron-sink-2013-AppliedCatalysisB,Electron-sink-2013-JMCA}. The carrier dynamics that takes place between metal NP and semiconductor QD plays a vital role in determining the final optical response of HNS. The ultrafast response of hybrid can have both the plasmonic and excitonic contributions. Both of these contributions have different physical origin and are usually described by different physical theories. In the case of isolated metal NPs, ultrafast optical response can be explained by the increase in temperature of free electrons\cite{Jayabalan-2011-JOSAB}. On the other hand, in the case of isolated semiconductor QDs, it is explained by band to band absorption, band filling, inter and intra band relaxation, etc \cite{Ultrafast-Absorption-II-VI-Nanowires-2009-JPCC}. In semiconductor QDs, both radiative and non-radiative processes contribute to the total carrier dynamics, while in metal NP only non-radiative processes contribute. Thus the various dynamical processes that occurs in individual materials in HNS as well as their synergistic interaction complicates the understanding of its complete optical response. Nonetheless, it is important to comprehend the basic interactions between these individual constituents for designing an HNS focused toward a particular application.
In this article, we study the origin of the ultrafast optical response of metal-semiconductor HNS using a colloidal mixture of Ag NP and CdTe QD, labeled as Ag-nCdTe, using ultrafast transient spectroscopy. Ag-nCdTe HNS formed by Ag NPs and CdTe QDs is an excellent candidate to study the optical response under a strong exciton-plasmon coupling regime because the plasmon band of Ag NP is well separated from the band edge emission of CdTe QD. Besides, CdTe QDs has a fast electron injection time constant compared to other II-VI semiconductor like CdSe\cite{CdSe-CdTe-ACSnano-2009}. To reveal the origin of optical process in HNS, we excite the carriers in Ag-nCdTe hybrid system and probe the carrier dynamics near Ag NP plasmon peak and exciton peak in CdTe QD. We study the changes in optical properties with respect to the plasmonic response by keeping the concentration of CdTe QDs in colloid low enough such that we do not get any measurable response from the bare CdTe QDs colloid. The ultrafast dynamics of Ag-nCdTe when probed at plasmon peak of Ag NP and deep conduction band in CdTe QD is different from that when probed near to the band edge of the CdTe QD and away from the plasmon band. We have also studied the PL spectra and time-resolved PL of Ag-nCdTe hybrid colloid and compared it with that of bare CdTe QD colloid. Lastly the origin of the observed optical response is explained using electromagnetic theory, two temperature model and hot-electron transport process.
\section{Results and Discussions}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Fig01-ExtinctionCoefficient.jpg}
\caption{Extinction spectra of the colloidal solutions of Ag NP, CdTe QD and Ag-nCdTe hybrid.}
\label{ExtincCoeff}
\end{figure}
The individual colloidal solutions of Ag NPs and CdTe QDs dispersed in water were prepared and characterized separately. The volume fraction of CdTe QDs and Ag NPs in water in the individual colloids were of the order of $10^{-6}$ and $10^{-7}$, respectively. Fig.\ref{ExtincCoeff} shows the extinction spectra of Ag NP and CdTe QD colloids. The extinction spectrum of Ag NP colloid shows a well-known single LSPR peak at 413 nm, which is typical for small Ag spherical particles in water\cite{Absorption_Scattering_small_particles_borhen_1983}. The average size of Ag NPs corresponding to the LSPR is found to be 17 nm using Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) topography measurement. The extinction spectrum of CdTe QD colloid shows the lowest energy excitonic peak, the 1s-1s transition, at 560 nm. The average size of the CdTe QDs estimated using Peng's formula is $\sim$ 3.4 nm and also confirmed by AFM measurement \cite{Pengs_cdte_quantum_dots_size_2003}. In the final colloidal solution, CdTe QDs are capped with thiol-glycolic acid (TGA) and Ag NPs are capped by trisodium citrate. Due to the low volume fractions and in presence of capping agents, the individual particles are expected to be well separated in their respective colloidal solutions.
A mixing ratio of $\gamma$ = 0.56, where $\gamma$ is defined as the ratio of volume of as-prepared Ag NP colloid to that of CdTe QD colloid ($\gamma$ = V$_{P}$/V$_{D}$) was used to prepare HNS colloidal sample.
Although the capping agents TGA and trisodium citrate develops negative charges on CdTe QD and Ag NP; once mixed, the CdTe QDs get attached to the Ag NPs due to the higher affinity of TGA to the metal surface\cite{Ligand_exciton_photovoltaic_PbS_Jin_PCCP_2017, TGA_CdTe_Europium_surface_coordinated_emission_Gallagher_inorganic_chemistry_2013}. Thus, self-assembled Ag-nCdTe hybrid nanostructures of negatively charged CdTe QDs and Ag NPs are expected to form in the mixed colloid. Based on our previous study, at the mixing ratio of $\gamma$ = 0.56, in the Ag-nCdTe hybrid, each of the Ag NP is completely surrounded by 32 CdTe QDs\cite{Sabina-JAP-2018}.
Once these CdTe QDs surrounds the Ag NP surface, further attachment of CdTe QDs to the same Ag NP is prevented thus making a stable HNS in the mixed solution. Ideally in the Ag-nCdTe HNS sample it is expected that there are only HNS with no individual particles. Fig.\ref{ExtincCoeff} also shows the measured extinction spectrum of Ag-nCdTe hybrid colloids and is different from that of both of its constituent colloids\cite{Sabina-JAP-2018}. The Ag-nCdTe hybrid has an increasing absorption strength towards UV regime similar to that of a bare CdTe QD colloid. Additionally, the Ag-nCdTe hybrid has an increased absorption in the longer wavelength regime (starting from $\sim$ 600 nm). The excitonic peak in case of Ag-nCdTe colloid also got bleached compared to the bare CdTe QD colloid. Various groups have reported similar changes in the extinction spectrum in metal-semiconductor HNS when compared to that of individuals\cite{Ag_cdte_selforganized_electrostatic_interaction_Wang_Spect_Acta_2005,Hybrid_Optoelectronics_Nahar_ACSNano_2015,Luminescent_CdTe_QD_2003,XIA2008166, Enhanced_PL_CdTe_Ag}. The increase in the absorption cross-section in the longer wavelength of Ag-nCdTe is attributed to the defect states created by the attachment of Ag NP to CdTe QD. On the other hand, the presence of MNP also dissociates the excitons in the semiconductor QD resulting in the reduction of exciton peak strength.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Fig02-Setup.jpg}
\caption{Schematic of the pump-probe setup used for the measurement of transient transmission from the samples.}
\label{Setup}
\end{figure}
To study the ultrafast transient phenomena in Ag-nCdTe hybrid nanostructure, transient transmission measurement were carried out in two-color pump-probe geometry (Fig.\ref{Setup}) using a 1 kHz Ti-Sapphire laser of pulse duration $\sim$ 35 fs operated at 800 nm wavelength\cite{Durga2020Filter}. In this setup, the output of the femtosecond oscillator-amplifier was split into two beams using a beam splitter. One of these beams was converted to 400 nm by second-harmonic generation in a Beta-barium Borate crystal and was used as the pump beam. The other beam from the beam splitter was fed to an optical parametric amplifier (OPA). The OPA output, centered either at 408 nm or 550 nm, was used as the probe beam. The wavelength of the pump beam was chosen such that it excites the sample near the LSPR of the Ag NP in water. Similarly, the probe was chosen such that it can measure the changes in the optical properties near the LSPR of Ag NP or near the band edge of the CdTe QD. The pump fluence at the sample location was 2.1 $\mu$Jmm$^{-2}$. Throughout the measurement, the colloidal samples were circulated in a 1 mm flow cell to avoid any thermal damage.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Fig03-Transient408nm.jpg}
\caption{Transient transmission of Ag NPs and Ag-nCdTe hybrid colloidal samples when excited at 400 nm and probe at 408 nm. Inset shows the normalized curve of the same data.}
\label{Fig:400-408}
\end{figure}
Fig.\ref{Fig:400-408} shows the transient transmission ($\Delta T/T$) measured for the colloidal samples of bare Ag NP and Ag-nCdTe hybrid colloid when probed at 408 nm. Both Ag NP and Ag-nCdTe hybrid colloids showed measurable change in the transmission of the sample at intensity used in the measurement. The magnitude of $\Delta T/T$ in both the colloids start increasing with the arrival of the pump pulse, reaching a maximum by about 450 fs. At later time delay, $\Delta T/T$ reduces, leaving a residue even up to 100 ps. However, the peak of $\Delta T/T$ of Ag-nCdTe colloid when probed at 408 nm is only 10\% of that of Ag NP colloid. Further, the reduction in the amplitude of fast component is much higher than that of the longer decay component. This difference in the reduction in the magnitudes can be clearly seen in the normalized plot of the $\Delta T/T$ (inset of Fig.\ref{Fig:400-408}). Relatively, the long decay time component is much more in the case of Ag-nCdTe hybrid compared to that of bare Ag NP colloid. For the number density of CdTe QD same as that in the Ag-nCdTe hybrid, CdTe QD colloid did not show any measurable $\Delta T/T$ signal. Thus, the finite $\Delta T/T$ measured for the Ag-nCdTe hybrid should be attributed to the contribution by the Ag NP and the synergistic interaction between Ag NP and CdTe QDs.
Let us first look at the origin of transient transmission signal from Ag NP colloid. Over the decades, the origin of ultrafast optical response of the bare metal NP colloid has been studied by several groups\cite{Landua-damping-guillon-2004-ultrafast,Counting_electron_Jayabalan_2019,Non-equilibrium-electron-dynamics-nobel-PRB-2000,Electron-dynamics-Chemical-Physics-2000,Higher-nonlinearity-JOSAB-Jayabalan_2011}. When an ultrashort pulse excites an Ag NP at or near its LSPR, the absorbed energy creates a non-thermal energy distribution among the electrons which changes to thermal distribution in about 300 fs to 500 fs\cite{Non-equilibrium-electron-dynamics-nobel-PRB-2000,Landua-damping-guillon-2004-ultrafast}. At the end of the thermalization, the temperature of the free electrons is much higher than that of lattice. As the temperature of the free electrons increases, the real part of the dielectric constant of metal also increases\cite{Higher-nonlinearity-JOSAB-Jayabalan_2011}. It is well known that the peak of LSPR of metal nanosphere occur at a wavelength where $\varepsilon_m^r$ = - 2 $\varepsilon_h$. Here, $\varepsilon_m^r$ is the real part of dielectric constant of the metal and $\varepsilon_h$ is the dielectric constant of the host medium (water in the present case). Once hit by an ultrashort pulse, an increase in temperature of electrons will cause the LSPR peak to shift towards a longer wavelength causing a change in the transmission of the Ag NP colloid \cite{Higher-nonlinearity-JOSAB-Jayabalan_2011,Non-equilibrium-electron-dynamics-nobel-PRB-2000,Electron-dynamics-Chemical-Physics-2000}. Therefore the maximum in $\Delta T/T$ occur after the thermalization of electrons which is about $\sim$ 450 fs after the excitation by the pump pulse for the present Ag NP colloid. Further, when probed on the blue side (408 nm), a red-shift of LSPR will cause an increase in transmission (positive $\Delta T/T$). At later times the hot electrons heat the lattice through electron-phonon (e-ph) interaction, together reaching a much lower temperature than the initial hot electrons\cite{Electron-dynamics-Chemical-Physics-2000}. The cooling of electron can be observed as a nearly exponential decay of the magnitude of $\Delta T/T$ in picosecond timescales \cite{Electron-dynamics-Chemical-Physics-2000,Higher-nonlinearity-JOSAB-Jayabalan_2011}. An exponential fit to the measured data in the case of Ag NP colloid yields the e-ph thermalization time to be 2.3 ps at the pump fluence of 2.1 $\mu$Jmm$^{-2}$. At the end of e-ph thermalization, the temperature of the particle is higher than that of the surrounding host. At later times, the particle cools by delivering heat to the host which takes few hundreds of picoseconds\cite{Hot-electron-relaxation-JPCB-2002,Heat-transfer-medium-ChemPhys-2005}. This leaves a small residual, $\Delta T/T$, even after 100 ps delay between the pump and probe pulses.
Let us now look at the origin of the ultrafast optical response of the Ag-nCdTe hybrid colloid. In a metal-semiconductor hybrid, when a metal NP interacts with semiconductor QD, the optical response of the combined nanostructure is expected to be very different from that of the individual components. When excited at the LSPR, the local field near the metal NP can be much higher than the applied; such a large field can increase the absorption in semiconductor QD\cite{Absorption_enhancement_NanoLett_2012,Luo2019}. It is also possible that excited carriers may get transported from metal NP to semiconductor QD or vice versa\cite{Counting_electron_Jayabalan_2019}. Additionally, energy exchange processes like foster resonance energy transfer (FRET) and plasmon-induced resonance energy transfer (PIRET) are also possible in the hybrid system\cite{Energy_transfer_Qd_Au_2004,Controlling_PIRET_Metal_TiO2_JPCC_2015}. Coupling between the metal NP and semiconductor QD is also known to introduce additional defect states in the hybrid nanostructures\cite{Hybrid_Optoelectronics_Nahar_ACSNano_2015,Luminescent_CdTe_QD_2003}. The individual contribution from each of these above mentioned processes to the optical response of the hybrid depends on the shape, size and material of the individual components, the properties of linking molecules and their spatial distribution. To understand the origin of the optical response of the hybrid arising due to their synergistic interaction, it is necessary to understand changes in the LSPR of Ag NP due to the presence of CdTe QDs.
It is well known that the LSPR response of a metal NP depends strongly on the dielectric constant of the surrounding medium. To understand the effect of the presence of CdTe QD on the optical response of Ag NP, we have calculated the optical response of the combined hybrid nanostructure using the T-matrix technique. T-matrix is a numerical technique to calculate the optical response of a collection of small spherical particles distributed in space using the dielectric constant of the individual particles. It should be noted that the optical response calculated using the T-matrix technique considers only electromagnetic interaction between the Ag NP and CdTe QD. However in a real metal-semiconductor hybrid, there is not only electromagnetic interaction but several other charge and energy exchange processes mentioned earlier. Thus a calculation which assumes only the electromagnetic interaction between the metal and semiconductor would not mimic the true properties of the hybrid. Nevertheless, such calculation would give some insight into the contribution from electromagnetic interaction to the final optical response of the HNS. In the T-matrix calculations, we used the experimentally measured sizes of the Ag NP and CdTe QD. In the case of Ag, the size of NP is sufficiently large enough to neglect the quantum confinement effects, and the bulk dielectric constants ($\varepsilon$) reported by Johnson and Christy\cite{Optical-constant-JohnsonChristy-prb-1972} were directly used for the T-matrix calculation. On the other hand, quantum confinement effect plays a vital role in modifying the dielectric constant of the CdTe QDs. Therefore to account for the quantum confinement effect, we estimate the modified dielectric constant of CdTe QD using the method reported by Marcelo Alves-Santos {\it et.al.} \cite{Dielectric-function-CdTe-trial-error-JPCC-2010}. This method uses a trial and error procedure to estimate the dielectric constants of CdTe QD using its bulk counterpart with the experimentally measured absorption spectrum. Figure.\ref{Fig:TmatrixAgnCdTe} shows the calculated extinction cross-section of a Ag NP surrounded by 32 CdTe QDs using T-matrix technique. For comparison, we have also shown the calculated extinction spectra of a single Ag NP in water and 32 non-interacting CdTe QDs. As expected, the optical response of Ag-nCdTe colloid is quite different with a strong red-shifted LSPR peak of about 75 nm compared to that of Ag NP colloid Further, the peak strength of LSPR peak for Ag NP also reduces to about 65\% of that of Ag NP. Such red-shift of LSPR peak and reduction in peak strength has been observed earlier in the hybrid formed by Ag nanoplate and CdTe QDs\cite{Counting_electron_Jayabalan_2019}. Thus, an excitation at 400 nm would only weakly excite the LSPR in case of Ag-nCdTe hybrid.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Fig05-T-Matrix.jpg}
\caption{The extinction cross-section calculated using T-Matrix technique for a single Ag NP in water (orange), 32 non-interacting CdTe QDs and the hybrid nanostructure Ag-nCdTe (1 Ag surrounded in all directions by 32 CdTe QDs).}
\label{Fig:TmatrixAgnCdTe}
\end{figure}
It is well established that the peak change in $\Delta T/T$ directly depends on the amount of energy absorbed by the metal NP\cite{Higher-nonlinearity-JOSAB-Jayabalan_2011,Counting_electron_Jayabalan_2019}. Any change in the amount of absorbed energy in presence of CdTe QDs should change the transient response of Ag NP in Ag-nCdTe hybrid. A comparison between the calculated extinction spectra of Ag NP and Ag-nCdTe hybrid can give an idea about the change in the absorbed energy when excited at 400 nm. The numerically calculated LSPR peak of Ag NP in water is at 393 nm while in the experiment, it is at 413 nm. Taking into account of such shift, the absorption in Ag NP in the hybrid should be only 4\% of that of bare Ag NP at 400 nm. The measured peak change in $\Delta T/T$ of Ag-nCdTe hybrid colloid is about 10\% of that of Ag NP colloid (Fig.\ref{Fig:400-408}). Further, an exponential decay fit to the measured $\Delta T/T$ in case of Ag-nCdTe gives 1.3 ps while it is 2.3 ps in case Ag NP colloid. The e-ph thermalization time depends on the absorbed energy in Ag NP. Thus a reduction in absorbed energy should also reduce the decay time of $\Delta T/T$ as observed in the case of Ag-nCdTe hybrid. Therefore, it looks tempting to attribute the observed changes in $\Delta T/T$ to the reduction in absorbed energy in Ag NP when surrounded by CdTe QDs in the hybrid colloid.
If the observed changes in $\Delta T/T$ is only due to such reduction in absorption as predicted by electromagnetic theory, the measured dynamics in Ag-nCdTe colloid can be explained using a two-temperature model (TTM), which works well for pure Ag NP colloid\cite{Higher-nonlinearity-JOSAB-Jayabalan_2011, Non-equilibrium-electron-dynamics-nobel-PRB-2000, Electron-dynamics-Chemical-Physics-2000}. Under low excitation conditions, change in dielectric constant of Ag NP is proportional to the temperature of the electrons\cite{Higher-nonlinearity-JOSAB-Jayabalan_2011}. The relation between the electron temperature (T$_{e}$) and lattice temperature (T$_{l}$) in TTM is given by following differential equations:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial T_{e}}{\partial t} &=& -\frac{g}{C_{e}}\left( T_{e}-T_{l}\right) + \frac{Q(t)}{C_{e}} \label{Eq:TTM1} \\
\frac{\partial T_{l}}{\partial t} &=& \frac{g}{C_{1}}\left( T_{e}-T_{l}\right)
\label{Eq:TTM2}
\end{eqnarray}
where, $g$ represents e-ph coupling constant, $Q(t)$ is the absorbed power density, which is proportional to the pump intensity and $C_e$ (=$\gamma T_e$) and $C_l$ is the specific heat capacities of the free electrons and lattice respectively. Using the typical values reported for $g$, $C_l$, and $\gamma$ the Eq.\ref{Eq:TTM1} and Eq.\ref{Eq:TTM2} were solved numerically to obtain the time dependence of $T_e$. This estimated $T_e$ multiplied with a proportionality constant $C$ was then fit to the decay part of the measured $\Delta T/T$ with $Q$ and $C$ as fitting parameters. Figure.\ref{Fig:TTM-AgnCdTe} shows the best fit obtained for the decay part of the measured $\Delta T/T$ of Ag NP colloid. To fit the $\Delta T/T$ of Ag-nCdTe colloid, we keep all the parameters same as that used in the fitting of Ag NP colloid including the constant $C$ and reduce only $Q(t)$ until the peak $\Delta T/T$ matches that of the Ag-nCdTe colloid. The transient curve thus obtained is also shown in Fig.\ref{Fig:TTM-AgnCdTe}. Clearly, for the corresponding peak change, the fast decay time should have been much smaller than that observed in the experiment. Further, the magnitude of the long decay component for Ag-nCdTe should also be much lower than that observed in the experiment (inset of Fig.\ref{Fig:400-408}). Thus, the measured transient signal in Ag-nCdTe hybrid could not be just attributed to the transient plasmonic response of Ag NP in the hybrid colloid. This suggests that the presence of CdTe QDs coupled with Ag NP in the Ag-nCdTe hybrid do play a role in dictating the final optical response. Several groups have measured the optical response of pure CdTe QDs \cite{Ultrafast-CdTe-PCCP-2010,Ultrafast-CdTeQD-JPCC-2010,Samanta-ultrafast-AgCdTe-JPCC-2016}. When CdTe QD colloid is pumped at 400 nm and probed on the red-side close to 400 nm, it shows a small increase in transmission (positive $\Delta T/T$). This increase in the transmission is attributed to the band-filling effect when carriers are excited into the conduction band of CdTe QD from its valance band \cite{Ultrafast-Absorption-II-VI-Nanowires-2009-JPCC,Ultrafast-CdTe-PCCP-2010}. Note that the bare CdTe QD colloid having same number density as that of Ag-nCdTe hybrid colloid, did not show any measurable signal. Nonetheless, an increased absorption in CdTe QD in presence of Ag NP near to it can contribute to the increased signal. Further, hot carriers from Ag NP can also get transported to CdTe QD in femtosecond time scale which can further increasing the transient response of CdTe QD in Ag-nCdTe hybrid. However, since all these proceseses contributes positively to the measured $\Delta T/T$, it is difficult to distinguish between the various contributions.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Fig06-TTM-AgnCdTe.jpg}
\caption{The TTM fit to the experimental $\Delta T/T$ measured for Ag NP colloid and Ag-nCdTe colloid. The data for Ag-nCdTe is increased by 10 times to make it comparable with the Ag NP.}
\label{Fig:TTM-AgnCdTe}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Fig04-Transient550.jpg}
\caption{Transient transmission of Ag NPs and Ag-nCdTe hybrid colloidal samples when excited at 400 nm and probe at 550 nm. Inset shows the normalized curve of the same data.}
\label{Fig:400-550}
\end{figure}
When excited at 400 nm and probed close to the exciton peak, the CdTe QD colloid show a much larger positive $\Delta T/T$ signal when compared to that of probing near 400 nm\cite{Ultrafast-CdTe-PCCP-2010,Ultrafast-CdTeQD-JPCC-2010,Samanta-ultrafast-AgCdTe-JPCC-2016}. Further, when probed on the red-side of LSPR and well away from the LSPR, Ag NP shows a weak negative $\Delta T/T$. Hence it should be possible to distinguish various processes if probed close to the 1s-1s exciton transition of the CdTe QD, i.e. at 550 nm. Figure.\ref{Fig:400-550} shows the transient transmission signal measured for the colloidal samples of bare Ag NP and Ag-nCdTe hybrid colloid when probed at 550 nm. The transmission of both the samples reduces with the arrival of the pump pulse ($\Delta T/T$ is negative). Once again a maximum of $|\Delta T/T|$ occurs by about 450 fs after the arrival of the pump pulse. Both the negative $\Delta T/T$ and the delayed maximum are the signature of plasmonic contribution from Ag NP. In the next few tens of picoseconds, the $\Delta T/T$ of Ag NP colloid recovers with a time constant of 2.4 ps which is nearly same as that of e-ph thermalization time observed at 408 nm probing. On the other hand, in case of Ag-nCdTe colloid, the $\Delta T/T$ changes sign near about 3 ps, becoming positive at later times. This positive signal which could be a signature of the CdTe QD response, remains more or less constant up to 100 ps. The negative contribution of plasmonic response of Ag NP to the $\Delta T/T$ of Ag-nCdTe recovers within few picoseconds and is much faster than the positive contribution of CdTe QD. Thus at longer delays, the sign of $\Delta T/T$ becomes positive explaining the observed signal in $\Delta T/T$ at delays more than 3 ps in Fig.\ref{Fig:400-550}. To estimate the time constants the measured $\Delta T/T$ of Ag-nCdTe colloid at 550 nm was fit to the equation:
\begin{equation}
F(t) = \frac{1}{2} \mathcal{E}\left[ t/\tau_{r} \right)\left[- Ae^{ t/\tau_{1}} + B \left( 1-e^{ t/\tau_{1}} \right) + C \right],
\label{Eq:Fitting2}
\end{equation}
where, $\mathcal{E}$ is the error function. The first decay term corresponds to the plasmonic response of Ag NP and has a negative amplitude while the second term can be attributed to the positive contribution of band filling effect in CdTe QDs. We find that Eq.\ref{Eq:Fitting2} fits well to the measured $\Delta T/T$ with a time constant $\tau_{1}$ = 1.3 ps. This time constant is same as that of the decay constant of Ag-nCdTe hybrid when probed at 408 nm. Thus a model with enhanced absorption in CdTe QDs along with hot carrier dynamics in Ag NP can explain the observed changes in the measured transient $\Delta T/T$ at these probe wavelengths.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Fig07-PL}
\caption{({\it a}) Photoluminescence spectra and ({\it b}) time-resolved photoluminescence of CdTe QD and Ag-nCdTe hybrid colloids. The inset shows the amplitudes of the best fit parameters obtained by fitting Eq.\ref{Eq:TriExpNSPL} to the experimental data.}
\label{Fig:PL}
\end{figure}
Now, let us look at the effect of presence of Ag NP on the photoluminescence (PL) properties of the CdTe QDs. The PL measurement was carried out by exciting the sample at 405 nm. The PL emitted by the sample was collected using lens combination and detected by using a spectrograph(for spectrum measurement) or a fast photodetector-oscilloscope system(for dynamics). The photodetector has a rise time of 300 ps and the oscilloscope has a bandwidth of 1 GHz. The decay time estimated for the later part of the instrument response function (IRF) is 350 ps. If the field enhancement due to Ag NP increases the absorption in CdTe QD, after oscillation more number of electrons and holes should be present in the CdTe QD coupled to an Ag NP when compared to that of a bare CdTe QD. If all these electrons and holes recombine radiatively, there should be an increase in the PL emission from Ag-nCdTe hybrid compared to that of bare CdTe QD colloid. Figure.\ref{Fig:PL}({\it a}) shows the measured PL spectrum of CdTe QD colloid and Ag-nCdTe hybrid colloids. We find that the integrated area under the PL curve of Ag-nCdTe hybrid did not increase rather it got quenched to nearly 70\% of that of CdTe QD colloid. Figure.\ref{Fig:PL}({\it b}) shows the time-resolved PL measured for CdTe QD and Ag-nCdTe hybrid colloids. The time-resolved PL is fitted to tri-exponential function convoluted with the experimental IRF ($I_{IRF}$), given by
\begin{eqnarray}
F(t) = \left(I_{IRF} (\otimes) \sum_{i = 1,2,3}{A_{i} e^{\frac{-t}{\tau_{i}}} }\right)
\label{Eq:TriExpNSPL}
\end{eqnarray}
where A$_{i}$ is the signal amplitude corresponding to the decay time, $\tau_{i}$. Figure.\ref{Fig:PL}({\it b}) also shows the best fit obtained by fitting Eq.\ref{Eq:TriExpNSPL} to the experimental data. The fast decay time, $\tau_1$ = 0.23 ns, obtained for CdTe QD colloid could be attributed to Auger like non-radiative relaxations while the other decay times 7 ns and 65 ns could be attributed to the raditive relaxation to the band-to-band recombination and defect state emission, respectively\cite{Auger_CdTe_PCCP_2013, Effect_Chloride_Passivation_CdTe_Binks_2015,Surface_related_emission_CdSe_Wang_2003,PL_Upconversion_CdTe_Xiao_2003}. The amplitude of each of these components are shown in inset of Fig.\ref{Fig:PL}({\it b}). The Ag-nCdTe hybrid also shows similar three component PL decay and the corresponding amplitudes are also shown in inset of Fig.\ref{Fig:PL}({\it b}). When compared with the CdTe QD colloid, the Ag-nCdTe hybrid shows an increase in the non-radiative component ($A_{1}$) while the radiative components $A_{2}$ and $A_{3}$ decreases. Although carrier density in CdTe QD is increased due to the presence of the Ag NP, such increase in carrier density can also increase Auger like recombinations\cite{Multiphoton_enhancement_CdSe_Au_film_Moyer_2013,SinglePhoton_emission_JPCC_2011}. In Auger recombination the electron and hole recombination energy is transferred non-radiatively to carriers deep into their corresponding bands. These deeply excited carriers then relax non-radiatively. Consequently, a fast quenching of radiative relaxation is observed in Ag-nCdTe hybrid colloid (Fig.\ref{Fig:PL}({\it a}).
\section{Conclusion}
A hybrid formation between a metal and semiconductor is known to significantly alter the static optical responses like absorption and PL spectra. We find that both non-radiative and radiative components of the individual entities also gets significantly altered when Ag NP and CdTe QD are brought in close contact. Transient transmission measurements performed by exciting at 400 nm and probing at two different wavelengths shows that the contribution of CdTe QD to the transient response got increased in presence of Ag NP. However, such increase in the CdTe QD response did not result in increasing the radiative emission from the CdTe QDs. This work provides significant insight into the various relaxation processes that leads to the charge transport and PL quenching mechanisms in metal-semiconductor hybrids.
\section{Acknowledgment}
The authors are thankful to Tarun Kumar Sharma for fruitful suggestions and encouragement. The authors, Sabina Gurung and Durga Prasad Khatua, are thankful to RRCAT, Indore, under HBNI program, Mumbai, for the financial support.
\bibliographystyle{rsc}
|
\section{Introduction}
The possibility of heat extraction from materials via anti-Stokes fluorescence (ASF) was first suggested by Pringsheim in 1929~\cite{pringsheim1929zwei}. Nearly seven decades later, in 1995, Epstein et al. reported the first experimental observation of laser-induced ASF cooling of a solid in Yb-doped ZBLANP (ZrF\textsubscript{4} –BaF\textsubscript{2} –LaF\textsubscript{3} –AlF\textsubscript{3} –NaF–PbF\textsubscript{2})~\cite{epstein1995observation}. Several attempts have since confirmed laser cooling in various solid-state materials, primarily in rare-earth-doped (RE-doped) crystals and glasses. Laser cooling of RE-doped crystals has been the most successful so far~\cite{seletskiy2010laser, nemova2010laser,seletskiy2016laser}; the record cooling of a Yb-doped YLiF\textsubscript{4} (Yb:YLF) crystal was reported at the University of New Mexico in 2016~\cite{melgaard2016solid}. Several RE-doped glasses have been successfully cooled over the years~\cite{Gosnell:99, PhysRevB.62.3213, hoyt2000observation, thiede2005cooling, fernandez2006anti, nguyen2013towards, peysokhan2019measuring, peysokhan2020characterization}; Yb-doped silica glasses are the most recent additions to the list of successfully cooled RE-doped materials~\cite{mobini2019laser,mobini2020laser, Knall:20, Knall:2020}. Although laser-cooling of RE-doped silica was thought to be elusive over the years, recent investigations pointed out its possibility~\cite{PhysRevApplied.11.014066,10.1117/12.2510889,8426483} and eventually led to its experimental observation~\cite{mobini2019laser,mobini2020laser,10.1117/12.2545233,10.1117/12.2548506, Knall:20, Knall_20_comp, Knall:2020}. In all these reports, the temperature drop of the laser-cooled Yb-doped silica was less than 1\,K. Here we present, to the best of our knowledge, the lowest temperature achieved so far in laser cooling of Yb-doped silica glass by more than 6\,K.
There are many potential applications for optical cooling through ASF. In principle, it can be used for compact, vibration-free refrigeration systems~\cite{Gosnell:99, seletskiy2016laser}, e.g., when precision cooling is demanded in low-thermal-noise detectors and reference cavities of ultra-stable lasers, or even in physiological applications~\cite{zhou2016laser}. One can even envision laser-cooled silica's potential usage as the substrate in silicon photonics devices~\cite{zhu2010high, mobini2019heatcc, jalali2006silicon, soref2010mid}. Another important potential application for ASF cooling is in radiation-balanced fiber lasers (RBFLs), where anti-Stokes fluorescence cooling balances the waste heat generated in the laser~\cite{sbowman, NEMOVA20092571, bowman_min, Nemova:11, Mobini:18, Yang:19}. Historically, RE-doped ZBLAN glasses have been more amenable to the stringent requirements needed for laser cooling. Unfortunately, ZBLAN fibers are low in mechanical durability and chemical stability and hard to cleave and splice, so they are generally less desirable than silica fibers. However, the recent advances in laser cooling of Yb-doped silica glass open a potential pathway for future application in RBFLs. Of course, much more substantial cooling is required to make a viable impact on fiber laser designs; this paper is a step in that direction.
\section{Review of the recent results}
The cooling efficiency, $\eta_{\rm c}$, characterizes the potential of a material to cool via laser-induced anti-Stokes fluorescence. It is defined as the net power density (per unit volume) extracted from the material ($p_{\rm net}$) per unit total absorbed power density ($p_{\rm abs}$). The cooling efficiency is a function of the pump laser wavelength $\lambda_{\rm p}$ and can be expressed as~\cite{mobini2020laser}
\begin{align}
\label{Eq:cooleff}
\eta_{\rm c}(\lambda_{\rm p})=\dfrac{p_{\rm net}}{p_{\rm abs}}=\dfrac{\lambda_{\rm p}}{\lambda_{\rm f}}\eta_{\rm ext}\,\eta_{\rm abs}(\lambda_{\rm p})-1.
\end{align}
The mean fluorescence wavelength is represented as $\lambda_{\rm f}$. The external quantum efficiency, $\eta_{\rm ext}$, and the absorption efficiency, $\eta_{\rm abs}$, are defined as:
\begin{align}
\eta_{\rm ext}=\dfrac{\eta_{\rm e} W_{\rm r}}{\eta_{\rm e} W_{\rm r}+W_{\rm nr}},\qquad
\eta_{\rm abs}(\lambda_{\rm p})=\dfrac{\alpha_{\rm r}(\lambda_{\rm p})}{\alpha_{\rm r}(\lambda_{\rm p})+\alpha_{\rm b}},
\end{align}
where $W_{\rm r}$ and $W_{\rm nr}$ are radiative and non-radiative decay rates of the excited state in RE dopant, respectively, and $\eta_{\rm e}$ is the fluorescence extraction efficiency. $\alpha_{\rm b}$ is the background absorption coefficient and $\alpha_{\rm r}(\lambda_{\rm p})$ is the resonant absorption coefficient due to the RE dopants. Note that the attenuation due to scattering, including Rayleigh scattering, does not contribute to the material's heating; therefore, $\alpha_{\rm b}$ represents only the background absorption and not the total parasitic attenuation.
For net solid-state optical refrigeration, the cooling efficiency must be positive; therefore, we must show that $\eta_{\rm c}>0$ is reachable over a range of $\lambda_{\rm p}$. The laser pump wavelength $\lambda_{\rm p}$ cannot be much longer than $\lambda_{\rm f}$; otherwise, the pump absorption cross-section would become too small. This would result in a small $\alpha_{\rm r}$ and hence a small $\eta_{\rm abs}$ and a negative cooling efficiency.
In practice, to observe net cooling, $\lambda_{\rm p}$ can only be slightly longer than $\lambda_{\rm f}$, and both $\eta_{\rm ext}$ and $\eta_{\rm abs}$ must be near unity. To realize the $\eta_{\rm abs}\sim 1$ limit for $\lambda_{\rm p}\gsim\lambda_{\rm f}$, one must increase the RE dopant density to achieve $\alpha_{\rm r}(\lambda_{\rm p})\gg\alpha_{\rm b}$. However, increasing the RE dopant density results in an increase in the non-radiative decay rate, $W_{\rm nr}$, primarily because of the RE clustering and quenching, hence decreasing the external quantum efficiency, $\eta_{\rm ext}$. This unfortunate circle of undesirable influences was recently overcome in Yb-doped silica--it was shown that by adding certain modifiers such as Al, P, F, and Ce, the quenching concentration of silica glass could be increased significantly~\cite{Jesper,Arai,PhysRevApplied.11.014066}. The result was the successful cooling of high-Yb-concentration silica as a fiber preform by Mobini et al.~\cite{mobini2019laser,mobini2020laser} up to 0.7\,K, and as an optical fiber by Knall et al.~\cite{Knall:20} up to 50\,mK.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{Min.png}
\caption{This figure shows the value of $-\eta_c\,\alpha_r(\lambda)$, which is proportional to $\Delta T$ at a fixed input laser power (in the low-absorption regime), versus the pump laser wavelength for our sample.}
\label{Fig:OptDeltaT}
\end{figure}
To investigate the cooling efficiency as a function of the pump wavelength and obtain the optimum value of $\lambda_{\rm p}$ for maximum cooling, we performed laser-induced thermal modulation spectroscopy (LITMoS) test~\cite{seletskiy2016laser,Rostami:19} on our Yb-doped silica samples~\cite{mobini2020laser}. In Fig.~\ref{Fig:OptDeltaT}, we show $-\eta_{\rm c} \alpha_{\rm r}$ as a function of $\lambda_{\rm p}$ for the sample used in this paper (same as sample A in Ref.~\cite{mobini2020laser} but some of the cladding is removed; see Table~\ref{tab:values}). This quantity is proportional to the change in the sample temperature for a fixed pump laser power. Figure~\ref{Fig:OptDeltaT} shows that the maximum temperature drop can be obtained at around 1035\,nm. At the time when we carried out our experiments for Refs.~\cite{mobini2019laser,mobini2020laser}, the only viable high-power source in our laboratory was a 1053\,nm laser. In this paper, as we will explain later, we are using a $\lambda_{\rm p}=1035$\,nm source to achieve a higher temperature drop.
\section{Power cooling experiment}
The samples that we laser-cooled in our experiments reported in Refs.~\cite{mobini2019laser,mobini2020laser} were surrounded by undoped (no Yb-doping) silica glass cladding regions, which provides significant thermal load. The cooling in our experiments was achieved in spite of this large thermal load. For this work, we chose sample A used in Ref.~\cite{mobini2020laser} and removed most of its undoped cladding region to reduce the thermal load and enhance the cooling effect. Moreover, we built a high-power source at the optimum cooling wavelength of 1035\,nm as described below.
The characteristics of the (fiber preform) sample are listed in Table~\ref{tab:values}. The Yb$_2$O$_3$ concentration is measured by electron probe micro-analysis. The Yb density is calculated from the measured Yb$_2$O$_3$ concentration. The error for the Yb$_2$O$_3$ concentration is related to the applied method's uncertainty in this concentration range. OH$^-$ concentration and parasitic background absorption ($\alpha_b$) are measured by the cut-back method in the fiber form, for which the errors express the repeatability of the measurement setup.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{\bf Properties of the Yb-doped silica glass sample}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline
Parameter & Value & Error\\
\hline
Codopants & Al, P & -\\
Yb$_2$O$_3$ [mol\%] & 0.12 & $\pm 0.01$\\
Yb density [10$^{25}$ m$^{-3}$] & 5.3 & $\pm 0.4$\\
OH$^-$ concentration [ppm] & 3.0 & $\pm 0.5$\\
Core diameter [mm] & 1.7 & $\pm 0.1$\\
Cladding diameter [mm] & 2.9 & $\pm 0.1$\\
Length [mm] & 15.1 & $\pm 0.1$\\
$\alpha_b$ [dB km$^{-1}$] & 10 & $\pm 2$
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:values}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{Setup.png}
\caption{A wavelength-tunable continuous-wave Ti:Sapphire laser is coupled to a homemade fiber amplifier's input through a 20X microscope objective. The amplified laser light is collimated again by a lens with the focal length of f=5\,cm. The collimated light is then filtered by a stack of two one-micron long-pass dichroic mirrors. The filtered and collimated light is coupled to the Yb-doped silica glass sample by a lens with the focal length of f=12\,cm. The sample is held inside a vacuum chamber. The upper-left inset shows a sketch of the Yb-doped silica glass sample supported by a set of thin silica fibers to minimize the heat load.}
\label{fig:setup}
\end{figure*}
To make a high-power source at the nearly optimum $\lambda_{\rm p}=1035$\,nm wavelength, we have designed and built a fiber amplifier to amplify the output of our continuous-wave tunable Ti:Sapphire laser. The fiber amplifier's gain medium is a 1.2\,m piece of Yb-doped double-cladding fiber pumped by a high-power diode laser at the wavelength of 976\,nm. The amplifier's input is approximately 300\,mW, and the amplified output of the fiber amplifier is on the order of $\sim$20\,W at 1035\,nm wavelength. We note that any residual diode pump power at the 976\,nm wavelength can be a significant source of heating in the material because the Yb-silica sample's absorption peaks at 976\,nm. Therefore to observe laser cooling, a spectrally pure laser light is essential. To reduce the fiber amplifier's 976\,nm pump leakage in the output as much as possible, we implement a cladding mode stripper scheme at the fiber amplifier's end. We also use a stack of two 1000\,nm wavelength long-pass dichroic mirrors to filter out the rest of the 976\,nm pump leakage.
The experimental setup for the power cooling experiment is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:setup}. The Ti:Sapphire laser is tuned to 1035\,nm wavelength, which is then amplified by the fiber amplifier. The output laser light is then collimated and filtered. The collimated light is coupled to the sample through a long-focal-length lens from the outside of the vacuum chamber. The vacuum chamber pressure is maintained at $10^{-6}$ torr during the power cooling experiment to minimize the convective heat transfer. A spectrometer captures the sample's fluorescence through a KCl salt window mounted in the chamber. Likewise, the thermal images are recorded via a thermal camera through the thermally transparent KCl salt window, and the images are post-processed to measure the changes in the sample's temperature~\cite{mobini2020laser}. The mean fluorescence wavelength is calculated from the fluorescence emission measured by an optical spectrum analyzer and is found to be $\lambda_{\rm f}=1010$\,nm. In order to decrease the thermal contact on the sample, the sample is mounted on very thin glass fibers. To minimize the back-reflection into the fiber amplifier, the sample and chamber windows are tilted slightly, and a beam block is used to capture the laser after exiting the sample.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{Temp2.png}
\caption{The sample's temperature change is plotted as a function of time when exposed to the high-power 1035\,nm laser light. The red dots correspond to the experimental results, and the blue dashed line represents the fitting of the exponential function in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:TemporalTemDffeq-Sol}) to the experimental data. The insets show two thermal images corresponding to before laser exposure and after the final temperature stabilization, respectively.}
\label{Fig:tempvstime}
\end{figure}
The red dots in Fig.~\ref{Fig:tempvstime} show the sample's temperature evolution, measured by the thermal camera, as a function of exposure time to the 20\,W laser light at 1035\,nm. The temperature drop is $\Delta T=T_{s}-T_{0}$, where $T_{s}$ is the sample temperature and $T_0 \approx 23$\,C\textdegree{} is the ambient temperature. The thermal camera saturates at $\Delta T \approx -6\,{\rm K}$, so the temperature may have dropped below the saturation value (see section~\ref{sec:DLT}). In this power cooling experiment, the sample's temperature evolution as a function of time follows the following exponential form (see Ref.~\cite{mobini2020laser} for a derivation):
\begin{align}
\label{Eq:TemporalTemDffeq-Sol}
\Delta T(t)=\Delta T_{\rm max}(e^{-t/\tau_{\rm c}}-1),
\end{align}
where we use the following definitions:
\begin{align}
\label{Eq:DTmax}
\Delta T_{\rm max}=\eta_{\rm c}\dfrac{P_{\rm abs}}{4\epsilon \sigma T_{0}^3 A}, \quad\quad \tau_{\rm c}=\dfrac{\rho V c_{\rm v}}{4\epsilon \sigma T_{0}^3 A}.
\end{align}
$V$ is the sample volume, $\epsilon=0.85$ is the emissivity of the implemented Yb-doped silica glass fiber preform, $\sigma=5.67\times 10^{-8}\,{\rm W}\cdot{\rm m}^{-2}\cdot{\rm K}^{-4}$ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant,
$T_{0}$ is the ambient temperature,
$A$ is the surface area of the sample,
$\rho=2.2 \times 10^{3}\,{\rm kg}\cdot{\rm m}^{-3}$ is the silica glass mass density,
and $c_{v}=741\,{\rm J}\cdot{\rm kg}^{-1}\cdot {\rm K}^{-1}$ is the specific heat of the silica glass.~\cite{yoder,karimi2018theoretical,mafi:20}. $P_{\rm abs}$ is the absorbed laser power that can be estimated from the Beer-Lambert law in a single pass~\cite{powerl1998physics,Peysokhan:19}:
\begin{align}
P_{\rm abs}=P_{\rm in}\left(1-e^{-\alpha_{\rm r}(\lambda_{\rm p}) l}\right)\approx P_{\rm in}\alpha_{\rm r}(\lambda_{\rm p}) l.
\label{Eq:Pabs}
\end{align}
$P_{\rm in}$ is the input power coupled into the fiber preform at $z=0$ and $l$ is the sample length. In fact, by combining Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:DTmax}) and~(\ref{Eq:Pabs}), we can see that $\Delta T_{\rm max}\propto \eta_{\rm c}\alpha_{\rm r}$, which is the vertical axis in Fig.~\ref{Fig:OptDeltaT} used to estimate the optimum pump laser wavelength. By fitting the exponential form in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:TemporalTemDffeq-Sol}) to the experimental data (red dots) in Fig.~\ref{Fig:tempvstime}, we obtain $\Delta T_{\rm max}=6.02\pm 0.01\,{\rm K}$ and $\tau_{\rm c}\approx 166\pm 1 \,{\rm s}$--the error-bars are estimated by the fitting procedure. The dashed blue line is the theoretical fit and agrees with the experiment quite well. Using the measured value of $\eta_c\approx 0.016$ at $\lambda_p\approx 1035\,{\rm nm}$ reported in Ref.~\cite{mobini2020laser} for Sample A, we use Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:DTmax}) and~(\ref{Eq:Pabs}) to estimate $\Delta T_{\rm max}\approx 9\,{\rm K}$. This theoretical estimate is consistent with the measured fitted value of $\Delta T_{\rm max}=6.02\pm 0.01\,{\rm K}$, because the heat conduction from the fiber-holder contact and also the parasitic heating from fiber facet imperfections are not included in the theoretically ideal form of Eq.~(\ref{Eq:DTmax}). Moreover, the fitted value for $\tau_{\rm c}$ agrees quite well with the measurement reported in Ref.~\cite{mobini2020laser}, once the difference in geometry is taken into account ($\tau_{\rm c}\approx 175\,{\rm s}$ versus $\tau_{\rm c}\approx 166\,{\rm s}$). The goodness of the fitting in Fig.~\ref{Fig:tempvstime} indicates that despite the satuartion of the camera, the actual value of $\Delta T_{\rm max}$ cannot be much larger than $6\,{\rm K}$.
\section{Differential Luminescence Thermometry}
\label{sec:DLT}
The thermal camera that we use in our experiments gets saturated at around 6\,K below the ambient temperature and the pixels become black. To cross-check the temperature measurements and see if the sample temperature drops more than 6\,K below the ambient temperature, we use an alternative temperature measurement method dubbed as Differential Luminescence Thermometry (DLT). In this technique, the variation in luminescence intensity distribution with temperature is used to determine the sample's temperature. This variation is due to the temperature-dependence of the Boltzmann population of the crystal field levels of the emitting state and the homogeneous linewidth of the individual crystal field transitions~\cite{Patterson:10}. DLT has been successfully used to measure temperature variations on the order of tens of Kelvin~\cite{melgaard2016solid}; however, it can be quite noisy and less accurate for smaller temperature variations such as those reported here. The reason is that unlike semiconductors where substantial spectral shifts are observed as a function of the temperature~\cite{Babakdlt}, the 4f electrons in REs are shielded from the environment in a solid.
For DLT, the temperature-dependent emission spectral density $S(\lambda,T)$ is obtained in real-time and is referenced to a spectrum at the starting temperature $T_0$. The normalized differential spectrum is defined as:
\begin{align}
\Delta S(\lambda,T,T_0)= \frac{S(\lambda,T)}{S_{\rm max}(T)} - \frac{S(\lambda,T_0)}{S_{\rm max}(T_0)}.
\end{align}
Normalization to the spectral peak $S_{\rm max}$ is performed to eliminate the effect of input power fluctuations. The scalar DLT signal is given by
\begin{align}
{\rm S}_{\rm DLT}(T,T_0)=\int_{\lambda_1}^{\lambda_2} d\lambda \lvert \Delta S(\lambda,T,T_0) \lvert,
\end{align}
where the limits of integration bracket the sample's spectral emission, eliminating possible contributions from the spurious laser line scattering; we choose $\lambda_1=895\,{\rm nm}$ and $\lambda_2=955\,{\rm nm}$. The temperature drop from the ambient, $\Delta T$, is linearly proportional to ${\rm S}_{\rm DLT}$: $\Delta T = \gamma\cdot{\rm S}_{\rm DLT}$, where $\gamma$ is the proportionality constant. To use DLT for temperature measurements, we first perform a calibration measurement by mounting the sample on a variable-temperature cold plate while pumping the sample with the Ti:Sapphire laser and collecting the spectrum. We find that for our sample $\gamma=-34\pm 2\,{\rm K}$.
We use the DLT calibration result to measure the sample's temperature evolution over time while being exposed to the 20\,W laser light at 1035\,nm by collecting the emission spectral density every ten seconds. The results are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:TempVsTimeDLT}. The DLT data points are in blue dots where the error-bars are due to the error in $\gamma$ as estimated from the calibration. The results are compared with the thermal camera measurements in red dots. The DLT results are quite noisy as expected; however, the trend agrees with the temperature values from the thermal camera and also hint that the sample is cooled slightly more than 6\,K below the ambient temperature, consistent with the results presented in the previous section.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{ThermalDLT.png}
\caption{The sample's temperature change is plotted as a function of time when exposed to the high-power 1035\,nm laser light. The bue dots are based on the DLT method and the red dots represent the temperature measurements using the thermal camera.}
\label{fig:TempVsTimeDLT}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
Here we present, to the best of our knowledge, the lowest temperature achieved so far in laser cooling of Yb-doped silica glass by more than 6\,K. This result constitutes almost an order of magnitude improvement compared with the previous result of 0.7\,K reported by Mobini et al.~\cite{mobini2019laser,mobini2020laser}. The improvement was achieved by using a laser light at the near-optimal wavelength of 1035\,nm (rather than 1053\,nm), nearly doubling the pump power to 20\,W, and reducing the undoped cladding diameter of the fiber preform from 10.7\,mm to 2.9\,mm hence decreasing the thermal load. Future improvements are possible by increasing the pump power and implementing a multi-pass scheme, and improving material specifications. A video clip of the cooling evolution of the sample is presented as the Supplementary. The video shows the temporal evolution of the sample's temperature as captured by the thermal camera in the high-power laser cooling experiment. The thermal image of the sample gets darker as the sample cools due to the exposure to high-power laser.
\section*{Funding}
This material is based upon work supported by
the Air Force Office of Scientific Research under award number
FA9550-16-1-0362 titled Multidisciplinary Approaches to
Radiation Balanced Lasers (MARBLE).
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The authors would like to acknowledge R. I. Epstein, M. P. Hehlen, and S. D. Melgaard for helpful discussions.
\section*{Author contributions}
M.P. and A.M. wrote the manuscript and all authors contributed to its final editing. M.P., A.A, and S.R. conducted all the experiments and analyzed the data; S.K., S.H., C.H., J.N., N.H., T.S., and R.E. are responsible for the production and characterization of the silica glass preforms and A.T. supervised their work. A.F. and E.M. helped in making the fiber amplifier. A.M. and M.S.-B. led and supervised the laser cooling aspects of the work and participated in the data analysis.\\
\noindent\textbf{Disclosures.} The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
|
\chapter*{Preface}
This textbook is intended for use by students of physics, physical
chemistry, and theoretical chemistry. The reader is presumed to have a
basic knowledge of atomic and quantum physics at the level provided, for
example, by the first few chapters in our book {\it The Physics of Atoms
and Quanta}. The student of physics will find here material which should
be included in the basic education of every physicist. This book should
furthermore allow students to acquire an appreciation of the breadth and
variety within the field of molecular physics and its future as a
fascinating area of research.
\vspace{1cm}
\begin{flushright}\noindent
June 2016\hfill Walter Olthoff\\
Program Chair\\
ECOOP 2016
\end{flushright}
\chapter*{Organization}
ECOOP 2016 is organized by the department of Computer Science, Univeristy
of \AA rhus and AITO (association Internationa pour les Technologie
Object) in cooperation with ACM/SIGPLAN.
\section*{Executive Commitee}
\begin{tabular}{@{}p{5cm}@{}p{7.2cm}@{}}
Conference Chair:&Ole Lehrmann Madsen (\AA rhus University, DK)\\
Program Chair: &Walter Olthoff (DFKI GmbH, Germany)\\
Organizing Chair:&J\o rgen Lindskov Knudsen (\AA rhus University, DK)\\
Tutorials:&Birger M\o ller-Pedersen\hfil\break
(Norwegian Computing Center, Norway)\\
Workshops:&Eric Jul (University of Kopenhagen, Denmark)\\
Panels:&Boris Magnusson (Lund University, Sweden)\\
Exhibition:&Elmer Sandvad (\AA rhus University, DK)\\
Demonstrations:&Kurt N\o rdmark (\AA rhus University, DK)
\end{tabular}
\section*{Program Commitee}
\begin{tabular}{@{}p{5cm}@{}p{7.2cm}@{}}
Conference Chair:&Ole Lehrmann Madsen (\AA rhus University, DK)\\
Program Chair: &Walter Olthoff (DFKI GmbH, Germany)\\
Organizing Chair:&J\o rgen Lindskov Knudsen (\AA rhus University, DK)\\
Tutorials:&Birger M\o ller-Pedersen\hfil\break
(Norwegian Computing Center, Norway)\\
Workshops:&Eric Jul (University of Kopenhagen, Denmark)\\
Panels:&Boris Magnusson (Lund University, Sweden)\\
Exhibition:&Elmer Sandvad (\AA rhus University, DK)\\
Demonstrations:&Kurt N\o rdmark (\AA rhus University, DK)
\end{tabular}
\begin{multicols}{3}[\section*{Referees}]
V.~Andreev\\
B\"arwolff\\
E.~Barrelet\\
H.P.~Beck\\
G.~Bernardi\\
E.~Binder\\
P.C.~Bosetti\\
Braunschweig\\
F.W.~B\"usser\\
T.~Carli\\
A.B.~Clegg\\
G.~Cozzika\\
S.~Dagoret\\
Del~Buono\\
P.~Dingus\\
H.~Duhm\\
J.~Ebert\\
S.~Eichenberger\\
R.J.~Ellison\\
Feltesse\\
W.~Flauger\\
A.~Fomenko\\
G.~Franke\\
J.~Garvey\\
M.~Gennis\\
L.~Goerlich\\
P.~Goritchev\\
H.~Greif\\
E.M.~Hanlon\\
R.~Haydar\\
R.C.W.~Henderso\\
P.~Hill\\
H.~Hufnagel\\
A.~Jacholkowska\\
Johannsen\\
S.~Kasarian\\
I.R.~Kenyon\\
C.~Kleinwort\\
T.~K\"ohler\\
S.D.~Kolya\\
P.~Kostka\\
U.~Kr\"uger\\
J.~Kurzh\"ofer\\
M.P.J.~Landon\\
A.~Lebedev\\
Ch.~Ley\\
F.~Linsel\\
H.~Lohmand\\
Martin\\
S.~Masson\\
K.~Meier\\
C.A.~Meyer\\
S.~Mikocki\\
J.V.~Morris\\
B.~Naroska\\
Nguyen\\
U.~Obrock\\
G.D.~Patel\\
Ch.~Pichler\\
S.~Prell\\
F.~Raupach\\
V.~Riech\\
P.~Robmann\\
N.~Sahlmann\\
P.~Schleper\\
Sch\"oning\\
B.~Schwab\\
A.~Semenov\\
G.~Siegmon\\
J.R.~Smith\\
M.~Steenbock\\
U.~Straumann\\
C.~Thiebaux\\
P.~Van~Esch\\
from Yerevan Ph\\
L.R.~West\\
G.-G.~Winter\\
T.P.~Yiou\\
M.~Zimmer\end{multicols}
\section*{Sponsoring Institutions}
V. Meyer Inc., Reading, MA, USA\\
The Hofmann-International Company, San Louis Obispo, CA, USA\\
Kramer Industries, Heidelberg, Germany
\tableofcontents
\mainmatter
\part{Hamiltonian Mechanics}
\title{Hamiltonian Mechanics unter besonderer Ber\"ucksichtigung der
h\"ohereren Lehranstalten}
\titlerunning{Hamiltonian Mechanics}
\author{Ivar Ekeland\inst{1} \and Roger Temam\inst{2}
Jeffrey Dean \and David Grove \and Craig Chambers \and Kim~B.~Bruce \and
Elsa Bertino}
\authorrunning{Ivar Ekeland et al.}
\tocauthor{Ivar Ekeland, Roger Temam, Jeffrey Dean, David Grove,
Craig Chambers, Kim B. Bruce, and Elisa Bertino}
\index{Ekeland, I.}
\index{Temam, R.}
\index{Dean, J.}
\index{Grove, D.}
\index{Chambers, C.}
\index{Kim, B.}
\index{Bertino, E.}
\institute{Princeton University, Princeton NJ 08544, USA,\\
\email{<EMAIL>},\\ WWW home page:
\texttt{http://users/\homedir iekeland/web/welcome.html}
\and
Universit\'{e} de Paris-Sud,
Laboratoire d'Analyse Num\'{e}rique, B\^{a}timent 425,\\
F-91405 Orsay Cedex, France}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
The abstract should summarize the contents of the paper
using at least 70 and at most 150 words. It will be set in 9-point
font size and be inset 1.0 cm from the right and left margins.
There will be two blank lines before and after the Abstract. \dots
\keywords{computational geometry, graph theory, Hamilton cycles}
\end{abstract}
\section{Fixed-Period Problems: The Sublinear Case}
With this chapter, the preliminaries are over, and we begin the search
for periodic solutions to Hamiltonian systems. All this will be done in
the convex case; that is, we shall study the boundary-value problem
\begin{eqnarray*}
\dot{x}&=&JH' (t,x)\\
x(0) &=& x(T)
\end{eqnarray*}
with $H(t,\cdot)$ a convex function of $x$, going to $+\infty$ when
$\left\|x\right\| \to \infty$.
\subsection{Autonomous Systems}
In this section, we will consider the case when the Hamiltonian $H(x)$
is autonomous. For the sake of simplicity, we shall also assume that it
is $C^{1}$.
We shall first consider the question of nontriviality, within the
general framework of
$\left(A_{\infty},B_{\infty}\right)$-subquadratic Hamiltonians. In
the second subsection, we shall look into the special case when $H$ is
$\left(0,b_{\infty}\right)$-subquadratic,
and we shall try to derive additional information.
\subsubsection{The General Case: Nontriviality.}
We assume that $H$ is
$\left(A_{\infty},B_{\infty}\right)$-sub\-qua\-dra\-tic at infinity,
for some constant symmetric matrices $A_{\infty}$ and $B_{\infty}$,
with $B_{\infty}-A_{\infty}$ positive definite. Set:
\begin{eqnarray}
\gamma :&=&{\rm smallest\ eigenvalue\ of}\ \ B_{\infty} - A_{\infty} \\
\lambda : &=& {\rm largest\ negative\ eigenvalue\ of}\ \
J \frac{d}{dt} +A_{\infty}\ .
\end{eqnarray}
Theorem~\ref{ghou:pre} tells us that if $\lambda +\gamma < 0$, the
boundary-value problem:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\dot{x}&=&JH' (x)\\
x(0)&=&x (T)
\end{array}
\end{equation}
has at least one solution
$\overline{x}$, which is found by minimizing the dual
action functional:
\begin{equation}
\psi (u) = \int_{o}^{T} \left[\frac{1}{2}
\left(\Lambda_{o}^{-1} u,u\right) + N^{\ast} (-u)\right] dt
\end{equation}
on the range of $\Lambda$, which is a subspace $R (\Lambda)_{L}^{2}$
with finite codimension. Here
\begin{equation}
N(x) := H(x) - \frac{1}{2} \left(A_{\infty} x,x\right)
\end{equation}
is a convex function, and
\begin{equation}
N(x) \le \frac{1}{2}
\left(\left(B_{\infty} - A_{\infty}\right) x,x\right)
+ c\ \ \ \forall x\ .
\end{equation}
\begin{proposition}
Assume $H'(0)=0$ and $ H(0)=0$. Set:
\begin{equation}
\delta := \liminf_{x\to 0} 2 N (x) \left\|x\right\|^{-2}\ .
\label{eq:one}
\end{equation}
If $\gamma < - \lambda < \delta$,
the solution $\overline{u}$ is non-zero:
\begin{equation}
\overline{x} (t) \ne 0\ \ \ \forall t\ .
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Condition (\ref{eq:one}) means that, for every
$\delta ' > \delta$, there is some $\varepsilon > 0$ such that
\begin{equation}
\left\|x\right\| \le \varepsilon \Rightarrow N (x) \le
\frac{\delta '}{2} \left\|x\right\|^{2}\ .
\end{equation}
It is an exercise in convex analysis, into which we shall not go, to
show that this implies that there is an $\eta > 0$ such that
\begin{equation}
f\left\|x\right\| \le \eta
\Rightarrow N^{\ast} (y) \le \frac{1}{2\delta '}
\left\|y\right\|^{2}\ .
\label{eq:two}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}
\vspace{2.5cm}
\caption{This is the caption of the figure displaying a white eagle and
a white horse on a snow field}
\end{figure}
Since $u_{1}$ is a smooth function, we will have
$\left\|hu_{1}\right\|_\infty \le \eta$
for $h$ small enough, and inequality (\ref{eq:two}) will hold,
yielding thereby:
\begin{equation}
\psi (hu_{1}) \le \frac{h^{2}}{2}
\frac{1}{\lambda} \left\|u_{1} \right\|_{2}^{2} + \frac{h^{2}}{2}
\frac{1}{\delta '} \left\|u_{1}\right\|^{2}\ .
\end{equation}
If we choose $\delta '$ close enough to $\delta$, the quantity
$\left(\frac{1}{\lambda} + \frac{1}{\delta '}\right)$
will be negative, and we end up with
\begin{equation}
\psi (hu_{1}) < 0\ \ \ \ \ {\rm for}\ \ h\ne 0\ \ {\rm small}\ .
\end{equation}
On the other hand, we check directly that $\psi (0) = 0$. This shows
that 0 cannot be a minimizer of $\psi$, not even a local one.
So $\overline{u} \ne 0$ and
$\overline{u} \ne \Lambda_{o}^{-1} (0) = 0$. \qed
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
Assume $H$ is $C^{2}$ and
$\left(a_{\infty},b_{\infty}\right)$-subquadratic at infinity. Let
$\xi_{1},\allowbreak\dots,\allowbreak\xi_{N}$ be the
equilibria, that is, the solutions of $H' (\xi ) = 0$.
Denote by $\omega_{k}$
the smallest eigenvalue of $H'' \left(\xi_{k}\right)$, and set:
\begin{equation}
\omega : = {\rm Min\,} \left\{\omega_{1},\dots,\omega_{k}\right\}\ .
\end{equation}
If:
\begin{equation}
\frac{T}{2\pi} b_{\infty} <
- E \left[- \frac{T}{2\pi}a_{\infty}\right] <
\frac{T}{2\pi}\omega
\label{eq:three}
\end{equation}
then minimization of $\psi$ yields a non-constant $T$-periodic solution
$\overline{x}$.
\end{corollary}
We recall once more that by the integer part $E [\alpha ]$ of
$\alpha \in \bbbr$, we mean the $a\in \bbbz$
such that $a< \alpha \le a+1$. For instance,
if we take $a_{\infty} = 0$, Corollary 2 tells
us that $\overline{x}$ exists and is
non-constant provided that:
\begin{equation}
\frac{T}{2\pi} b_{\infty} < 1 < \frac{T}{2\pi}
\end{equation}
or
\begin{equation}
T\in \left(\frac{2\pi}{\omega},\frac{2\pi}{b_{\infty}}\right)\ .
\label{eq:four}
\end{equation}
\begin{proof}
The spectrum of $\Lambda$ is $\frac{2\pi}{T} \bbbz +a_{\infty}$. The
largest negative eigenvalue $\lambda$ is given by
$\frac{2\pi}{T}k_{o} +a_{\infty}$,
where
\begin{equation}
\frac{2\pi}{T}k_{o} + a_{\infty} < 0
\le \frac{2\pi}{T} (k_{o} +1) + a_{\infty}\ .
\end{equation}
Hence:
\begin{equation}
k_{o} = E \left[- \frac{T}{2\pi} a_{\infty}\right] \ .
\end{equation}
The condition $\gamma < -\lambda < \delta$ now becomes:
\begin{equation}
b_{\infty} - a_{\infty} <
- \frac{2\pi}{T} k_{o} -a_{\infty} < \omega -a_{\infty}
\end{equation}
which is precisely condition (\ref{eq:three}).\qed
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
Assume that $H$ is $C^{2}$ on $\bbbr^{2n} \setminus \{ 0\}$ and
that $H'' (x)$ is non-de\-gen\-er\-ate for any $x\ne 0$. Then any local
minimizer $\widetilde{x}$ of $\psi$ has minimal period $T$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We know that $\widetilde{x}$, or
$\widetilde{x} + \xi$ for some constant $\xi
\in \bbbr^{2n}$, is a $T$-periodic solution of the Hamiltonian system:
\begin{equation}
\dot{x} = JH' (x)\ .
\end{equation}
There is no loss of generality in taking $\xi = 0$. So
$\psi (x) \ge \psi (\widetilde{x} )$
for all $\widetilde{x}$ in some neighbourhood of $x$ in
$W^{1,2} \left(\bbbr / T\bbbz ; \bbbr^{2n}\right)$.
But this index is precisely the index
$i_{T} (\widetilde{x} )$ of the $T$-periodic
solution $\widetilde{x}$ over the interval
$(0,T)$, as defined in Sect.~2.6. So
\begin{equation}
i_{T} (\widetilde{x} ) = 0\ .
\label{eq:five}
\end{equation}
Now if $\widetilde{x}$ has a lower period, $T/k$ say,
we would have, by Corollary 31:
\begin{equation}
i_{T} (\widetilde{x} ) =
i_{kT/k}(\widetilde{x} ) \ge
ki_{T/k} (\widetilde{x} ) + k-1 \ge k-1 \ge 1\ .
\end{equation}
This would contradict (\ref{eq:five}), and thus cannot happen.\qed
\end{proof}
\paragraph{Notes and Comments.}
The results in this section are a
refined version of \cite{smit:wat};
the minimality result of Proposition
14 was the first of its kind.
To understand the nontriviality conditions, such as the one in formula
(\ref{eq:four}), one may think of a one-parameter family
$x_{T}$, $T\in \left(2\pi\omega^{-1}, 2\pi b_{\infty}^{-1}\right)$
of periodic solutions, $x_{T} (0) = x_{T} (T)$,
with $x_{T}$ going away to infinity when $T\to 2\pi \omega^{-1}$,
which is the period of the linearized system at 0.
\begin{table}
\caption{This is the example table taken out of {\it The
\TeX{}book,} p.\,246}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{r@{\quad}rl}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\rule{0pt}{12pt}
Year}&\multicolumn{2}{l}{World population}\\[2pt]
\hline\rule{0pt}{12pt}
8000 B.C. & 5,000,000& \\
50 A.D. & 200,000,000& \\
1650 A.D. & 500,000,000& \\
1945 A.D. & 2,300,000,000& \\
1980 A.D. & 4,400,000,000& \\[2pt]
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{theorem} [Ghoussoub-Preiss]\label{ghou:pre}
Assume $H(t,x)$ is
$(0,\varepsilon )$-subquadratic at
infinity for all $\varepsilon > 0$, and $T$-periodic in $t$
\begin{equation}
H (t,\cdot )\ \ \ \ \ {\rm is\ convex}\ \ \forall t
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
H (\cdot ,x)\ \ \ \ \ {\rm is}\ \ T{\rm -periodic}\ \ \forall x
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
H (t,x)\ge n\left(\left\|x\right\|\right)\ \ \ \ \
{\rm with}\ \ n (s)s^{-1}\to \infty\ \ {\rm as}\ \ s\to \infty
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\forall \varepsilon > 0\ ,\ \ \ \exists c\ :\
H(t,x) \le \frac{\varepsilon}{2}\left\|x\right\|^{2} + c\ .
\end{equation}
Assume also that $H$ is $C^{2}$, and $H'' (t,x)$ is positive definite
everywhere. Then there is a sequence $x_{k}$, $k\in \bbbn$, of
$kT$-periodic solutions of the system
\begin{equation}
\dot{x} = JH' (t,x)
\end{equation}
such that, for every $k\in \bbbn$, there is some $p_{o}\in\bbbn$ with:
\begin{equation}
p\ge p_{o}\Rightarrow x_{pk} \ne x_{k}\ .
\end{equation}
\qed
\end{theorem}
\begin{example} [{{\rm External forcing}}]
Consider the system:
\begin{equation}
\dot{x} = JH' (x) + f(t)
\end{equation}
where the Hamiltonian $H$ is
$\left(0,b_{\infty}\right)$-subquadratic, and the
forcing term is a distribution on the circle:
\begin{equation}
f = \frac{d}{dt} F + f_{o}\ \ \ \ \
{\rm with}\ \ F\in L^{2} \left(\bbbr / T\bbbz; \bbbr^{2n}\right)\ ,
\end{equation}
where $f_{o} : = T^{-1}\int_{o}^{T} f (t) dt$. For instance,
\begin{equation}
f (t) = \sum_{k\in \bbbn} \delta_{k} \xi\ ,
\end{equation}
where $\delta_{k}$ is the Dirac mass at $t= k$ and
$\xi \in \bbbr^{2n}$ is a
constant, fits the prescription. This means that the system
$\dot{x} = JH' (x)$ is being excited by a
series of identical shocks at interval $T$.
\end{example}
\begin{definition}
Let $A_{\infty} (t)$ and $B_{\infty} (t)$ be symmetric
operators in $\bbbr^{2n}$, depending continuously on
$t\in [0,T]$, such that
$A_{\infty} (t) \le B_{\infty} (t)$ for all $t$.
A Borelian function
$H: [0,T]\times \bbbr^{2n} \to \bbbr$
is called
$\left(A_{\infty} ,B_{\infty}\right)$-{\it subquadratic at infinity}
if there exists a function $N(t,x)$ such that:
\begin{equation}
H (t,x) = \frac{1}{2} \left(A_{\infty} (t) x,x\right) + N(t,x)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\forall t\ ,\ \ \ N(t,x)\ \ \ \ \
{\rm is\ convex\ with\ respect\ to}\ \ x
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
N(t,x) \ge n\left(\left\|x\right\|\right)\ \ \ \ \
{\rm with}\ \ n(s)s^{-1}\to +\infty\ \ {\rm as}\ \ s\to +\infty
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\exists c\in \bbbr\ :\ \ \ H (t,x) \le
\frac{1}{2} \left(B_{\infty} (t) x,x\right) + c\ \ \ \forall x\ .
\end{equation}
If $A_{\infty} (t) = a_{\infty} I$ and
$B_{\infty} (t) = b_{\infty} I$, with
$a_{\infty} \le b_{\infty} \in \bbbr$,
we shall say that $H$ is
$\left(a_{\infty},b_{\infty}\right)$-subquadratic
at infinity. As an example, the function
$\left\|x\right\|^{\alpha}$, with
$1\le \alpha < 2$, is $(0,\varepsilon )$-subquadratic at infinity
for every $\varepsilon > 0$. Similarly, the Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
H (t,x) = \frac{1}{2} k \left\|k\right\|^{2} +\left\|x\right\|^{\alpha}
\end{equation}
is $(k,k+\varepsilon )$-subquadratic for every $\varepsilon > 0$.
Note that, if $k<0$, it is not convex.
\end{definition}
\paragraph{Notes and Comments.}
The first results on subharmonics were
obtained by Rabinowitz in \cite{fo:kes:nic:tue}, who showed the existence of
infinitely many subharmonics both in the subquadratic and superquadratic
case, with suitable growth conditions on $H'$. Again the duality
approach enabled Clarke and Ekeland in \cite{may:ehr:stein} to treat the
same problem in the convex-subquadratic case, with growth conditions on
$H$ only.
Recently, Michalek and Tarantello (see \cite{fost:kes} and \cite{czaj:fitz})
have obtained lower bound on the number of subharmonics of period $kT$,
based on symmetry considerations and on pinching estimates, as in
Sect.~5.2 of this article.
\section{Introduction}
The automatic processing of text to derive insights has been widely used in the industry. It can be used to process product or movie reviews in order to derive a general sentiment. Other applications include analysis of tweets to derive perception of a brand or thoughts of people on a specific topic. All of these applications can be boiled down to classification or summarization tasks. The state of the art NLP techniques performs very well on these tasks for single language texts. However, they may not perform well on code-mixed text due to the unavailability of enough labeled data. The code-mixed text has become relevant these days because of different social media platforms \cite{gamback2016comparing} \cite{barman2014code}. Most of these platforms prefer English as the preferred medium of communication. In a multi-lingual country like India people tend to mix local language with English while using social media platforms. This is because people are more comfortable in local languages. It is natural to describe local terms or entities in local languages which result in code-mixing. Code-mixing essentially allows us to borrow terms from different languages thus aiding ease of communication. A local touch can be given to the movie reviews, product reviews, and comments by adding some details in the local language. All of these factors have led to a rise in the popularity of code-mixed text \cite{khanuja2020gluecos}. In order to understand such code-mixed text, it is important to identify the language used in different parts of text followed by language-specific processing \cite{das2015code}. In this work, we present different approaches for language identification in code-mixed text. In the code-mixed text, languages can be interleaved in different forms. One form of code-mixing is represented in this example, \textit{"this is not union budget, ye to aam admi ka budget hai"} with language tagged as "eng eng eng eng eng hin hin hin hin hin hin hin". Another form can be seen as \textit{"maine aaj WhatsApp and Facebook uninstall kiya h"} tagged as "hin hin eng eng eng eng hin hin". It is challenging to determine the language of individual words as the same word can be used in both Hindi and Engish depending on the context. For example English words like \textit{"are"} and \textit{"maze"} can also be used in Hindi as \textit{"are mai ghar jaa raha hu"}, and \textit{"appke to maze hai"}. To make it more challenging the social media text is normally noisy where words are written in different ways just to emphasize them. For example the in word \textit{"good"} the letter \textit{'o'} can be repeated multiple times to get different variations like \textit{"the movie was gooood"}. This makes it important to consider different input representations. The sentence can be processed word by word or character by character. The more recent form of representation is sub-word where a word is split into logical sub-word units \cite{kudo2018subword}. The character and sub-word based representations are more agnostic to noisy text variations as compared to word representation which will treat each variation as a separate word. The focus of our work is to evaluate the performance of these input representations. This is the first work to explore sub-word based representations for Hi-En language identification. The task is to determine the language of each word in the sentence. The task is formulated as a token classification task. The deep learning models based on convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and long short term memory (LSTM) networks are the most popular techniques used for token classification. We use these simple models in combination with different input representations to evaluate their effectiveness. These models are often used with a conditional random field (CRF) to improve the performance. However, the work is restricted to simple architectures with a focus on input representation. We show that sub-word based representation coupled with these simple models perform better than other complex architectures reported in the literature. Simple architectures are also favorable as it reduces runtime speed and complexity. The language identification module should be fast and efficient as it will often be followed by other NLP modules. With this perspective, we experiment with single-layer CNN and LSTM models. The experiments show that these architectures are sufficient to reach desired accuracy levels. The main contributions of this work are:
\begin{itemize}
\item The effectiveness of character, sub-word, and word-based representations are evaluated for the task of Hindi-English language identification.
\item The combinations of popular model architectures and input representations are also compared.
\end{itemize}
\section{Related Work}
In this section, we review some of the deep learning-based approaches used for code mixed language identification. Simple feed-forward neural networks utilizing character n-gram and lexicon features have shown to produce a good performance for this task \cite{zhang2018fast}. Although the task can be performed at the word level, it is a common practice to use neighboring words contextual information to aid the classification process \cite{samih2016multilingual}. The word vectors can be directly passed to a bi-directional LSTM to encode the contextual information. Alternatively, both word vectors and character-based word vectors can be provided to the LSTM. The character-based word representations can be generated using another CNN or LSTM \cite{mandal2018language}. Multi-channel CNNs are commonly used to capture such character-based word representations \cite{kim2014convolutional}. The primary motive behind using character-based representation is to avoid the out of vocabulary problem. It also helps in better classification of words that have very low representation in the training data. There have been few works related to code mixed Hindi-English languages applying similar concepts \cite{veena2018character}. The Bengali-English code mixed text has also been equally explored in literature \cite{chanda2016unraveling}. Other Indian languages like Telugu and the Assamese have also be analyzed from the code-mixing perspective \cite{gundapu2018word} \cite{sarmaidentifying}. We have limited ourselves to Hindi-English text because of the lack of standardized and meaningful data sets in other languages.
We study the usage of plain word embedding and its combination with character-based word embedding. Sub-word based representations are also evaluated to highlight its importance in identifying code-mixed languages.
\section{Dataset}
The ICON 2017 code mixed sentiment analysis data set is used for evaluation \cite{patra2018sentiment}. The data set also has each and every word tagged with its corresponding language. The sentiment tags are ignored and only language information is used for the experiments. The code mixed text in this data set was extracted from twitter and manually annotated for sentiment and language. There are a total of 12936 training sentences and 5525 test sentences. The split is predefined and the results reported are using the same split. A small validation set comprising of 10\% of train sentences is using for hyper-parameter tuning of the models. There are around 80k Hindi and English tokens individually in the train data. In the test data, there are around 30k tokens in each class.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.23]{input_representations_3.png}
\caption{Input Representations}
\label{fig:word_embed}
\end{figure}
\section{Input Representations}
The input representations evaluated in this work are characters, sub-words, and words. The structure of each representation is shown in Figure \ref{fig:word_embed}.
\subsection{Word representation}
The word embeddings are the default representations used for processing text. In this approach, each word is considered as a token and the sentence can be seen as a series of tokens. Each token is represented using a 300-dimensional vector also known as the word vector. This distributed representation allows us to capture the semantic relationship between individual words. The sentence can now be seen as a series of word vectors that are processed using CNN or LSTM to get their contextual representations. The output of CNN or LSTM is again a series of vectors but these vectors now encode the contextual information as opposed to word vectors. This contextual vector is passed through dense layers to get final predictions. So, each word corresponds to a time step, and for each time step its corresponding label in terms of language id is predicted.
\subsection{Character representation}
Another approach is to use character-based representations to augment the word vectors. The idea is to use another shallow network to process each word character by character. The series of characters can now be seen as a time series that is passed through CNN to get contextual character representation. The representations are max-pooled over time to get corresponding word representations. These character-based word representations are then concatenated with token-based word representations discussed earlier and then processed using neural networks. Simply using character-based word representations performs similar to the first word-based approach at a cost of increased complexity. So we only report results for model where character representations are used in conjunction with word embeddings. The usage of character-based word embeddings mitigates the out of vocabulary problem to some extent. The token-based word representations for unknown words will be mapped to a single unk token and the neural network will have to rely on contextual information to make predictions. Whereas the character-based word representations will always give us meaningful representations since the number of characters is fixed and known.
\subsection{Sub-word representation}
The final representation strategy explored here is the sub-word embeddings \cite{kudo2018sentencepiece}. This can be seen as an intermediate form with granularity somewhere between words and characters. Some of the possible sub words for word "hello" are "hell/o", "he/llo", and "he/l/l/o". This type of representation is very useful to mitigate the open vocabulary problem. The exact sub word split is determined by the statistical character n-gram properties of the training corpus. We train a uni-gram based subword model using Google sentence piece tokenizer \cite{kudo2018subword}. The subword vocab size is set to 12k. This subword model is used to split each word into constituent sub words. The first subword of each word is assigned the parent language label. The subsequent subwords are assigned a dummy label. The problem is again formulated as a token classification problem where we are only concerned about the label of the first sub-word token of each word. However, during cross-entropy training, all the tokens contribute to the loss. The masking of loss from dummy labels is not explored in this work.
\section{Model Architecture}
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{CNN}: This is a basic CNN model based on 1D convolutions. The word or sub-word embeddings of 300 dimensions are passed through a single 1D convolution. The kernel size is 4 and the number of filters is 64. This is followed by two dense layers of size 100 and 1. The output of the individual time step is subjected to a dense layer so as to have a prediction for each word. The convolutional layer and dense layers are followed by relu and sigmoid activation functions respectively in all the models described here. Adam is used as an optimizer. The binary cross-entropy is used as the loss function as there are two output classes. The optimizer and loss function are common across all the models.
\item \textbf{Multi-CNN}: In this model, three parallel 1D convolutions are applied on the word or sub-word embeddings. The filter sizes are 2, 3, and 4 with 64 filters each. The output of these convolutions is concatenated. This is followed by two dense layers of size 100 and 1.
\item \textbf{LSTM}: This is a basic LSTM model. A single Bi-LSTM with 300 hidden units is used. The word or sub-word embeddings of 300 dimensions are passed through this layer. The output at each time step is subjected to two dense layers of size 100 and 1. A dropout of 0.4 is used in the recurrent layer.
\item \textbf{CNN+LSTM}: This combines the basic CNN and LSTM models sequentially. The 1D CNN as described above is followed by the Bi-LSTM layer. The output is then subjected to two dense layers.
\item \textbf{CharCNN+LSTM}: The three parallel convolutions as described in the Multi-CNN network is used to process characters. The output of each convolutional layer is max-pooled over time and concatenated to produce word embedding of size 192 dimension. The time axis corresponds to the number of characters in the word. The word embedding generated by this multi-cnn network is then concatenated with 300 dimension learnable word embeddings as used in previous models. The concatenated representations are passed through a single Bi-LSTM layer and dense layers. The post embedding setup is the same as the basic LSTM model described above.
\end{itemize}
\begin{table}
\caption{Classification metrics of different models and input combinations}\label{tab1}
\label{tab:1}
\begin{tabular}{p{2.6cm}p{2cm}p{1cm}p{1.5cm}p{1.5cm}p{1.5cm}p{1cm}}
\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
\textbf{Model} & \textbf{Input} & \textbf{lang} & \textbf{precision} & \textbf{recall} & \textbf{f1-score} & \textbf{acc} \\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
CNN & word & en & 90.42 & 92.15 & 91.27 & 91.49 \\
& & hi & 90.52 & 90.87 & 91.69 & \\
& sub-word & en & 95.21 & 94.97 & 95.09 & 93.86 \\
& & hi & 91.62 & 92.01 & 91.81 & \\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
Multi-CNN & word & en & 91.68 & 91.00 & 91.34 & 91.66 \\
& & hi & 91.64 & 92.28 & 91.96 & \\
& sub-word & en & 95.60 & 94.99 & 95.30 & 94.13 \\
& & hi & 91.71 & 92.69 & 92.20 & \\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
LSTM & word & en & 91.25 & 91.40 & 91.33 & 91.61 \\
& & hi & 91.95 & 91.81 & 91.88 & \\
& sub-word & en & \textbf{95.15} & \textbf{96.13} & \textbf{95.64} & \textbf{94.52}\\
& & hi & \textbf{93.41} & \textbf{91.81} & \textbf{92.60} & \\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
CNN+LSTM & word & en & 91.36 & 91.61 & 91.48 & 91.76 \\
& & hi & 92.13 & 91.90 & 92.02 & \\
& sub-word & en & 95.82 & 95.17 & 95.50 & 94.39 \\
& & hi & 92.01 & 93.06 & 92.54 & \\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
CharCNN+LSTM & char+word & en & 91.94 & 93.06 & 92.49 & 92.71 \\
& & hi & 93.44 & 92.39 & 92.91 & \\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{Results and Discussion}
A combination of models and input representations is evaluated on the ICON 2017 data set. The word and sub-word representations are used as input to CNN and LSTM based models. The models used are simple CNN, simple LSTM, Multi-CNN, and CNN+LSTM. The character representations are used with the CharCNN+LSTM model. In this model, characters are processed using Multi-CNN and passed to LSTM along with word representation. This model architecture was chosen as it performs better than other variations of character embedding based models. Their variations can have either CNN or LSTM for processing characters and the main network can again be based on either CNN or LSTM. The metrics used for evaluation are precision, recall, f1-score, and overall accuracy. Table \ref{tab1} shows the results for model and input combinations. The LSTM model utilizing subword embeddings performs the best. Augmentation of character-based word embeddings with vanilla word embeddings boosts the performance of word-based models. Thus performance-wise word $<$ char + word $<$ sub-word relationship holds. From the model perspective CNN $<$ Multi-CNN $<=$ LSTM when the only word or sub-word embeddings are considered. The CNN+LSTM gives the best score when word embeddings are given as input to the models. In general sub-word based models are significantly better as compared to models utilizing word and character representations. This is primarily because sub words not only handle unknown words but also go well with the noisy data.
\section{Conclusion}
In this work, we study different deep learning approaches for language identification in Hindi-English code mixed text. The problem can be seen as a token classification problem. A combination of different models and input representations are compared for their effectiveness. The models include simple CNN, simple LSTM, multi-channel CNN, CNN+LSTM, and charCNN+LSTM. The input representations used are characters, words, and subwords. We show that sub-word based models are superior as compared to word and character-based approaches. The sub word representation when coupled with simple LSTM performs the best. Just changing the input representation helps basic models achieve high performance. The sub word representation helps tackle the out of vocabulary problem and at the same time handles noisy data well. These attributes are very analogous with the data set explored in this work.
\bibliographystyle{splncs03}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{intro}
\noindent Recently, we proposed in \cite{CMAM1}, \cite{CMAM2}, \cite{arXiv_Wmp} and \cite{ArXiv_JCH} a new vision to consider the error estimate applied to finite elements approximation. Mainly, we derived two probability laws by considering the approximation error as a random variable whose support is determined by the considered error estimate. As a consequence, the relative accuracy between two Lagrange finite elements $P_{k_1}$ and $P_{k_2}, (k_1<k_2),$ is therefore analyzed as random variable too.\\ [0.2cm]
This new point of view enabled us to get some distance with the classical results which usually compares the relative accuracy between two finite elements $P_{k_1}$ and $P_{k_2}, (k_1<k_2),$ by the help of the asymptotic speed of convergence when the mesh size $h$ goes to zero to conclude: Since $h^{k_2}$ goes faster to zero than $h^{k_1}$, then the $P_{k_2}$ finite element is more accurate the $P_{k_1}$ one.\\ [0.2cm]
The probability laws we derived confirmed our suspicion, (see also our previous different approaches in \cite{AsCh11}, \cite{AsCh13} and \cite{AsCh16}), that when $h$ is set to a \underline{fixed} value, one cannot affirm the same asymptotic conclusion we recalled above. Indeed, since in the error estimates, the upper bound of the approximation error is constituted by an unknown constant which depends, among others, on a given semi-norm of the unknown exact solution, the numerical comparison between the two error approximations associated to $P_{k_1}$ and $P_{k_2}$ cannot be achieved.\\ [0.2cm]
As a consequence, to determine the smallest of the two concerned approximation errors is an open-ended question which remains. \\ [0.2cm]
From this starting point and by considering a given approximation error as a positive number whose position is unknown within the interval determined by the upper bound of the error estimate, we considered this position as the result of a random variable since the approximation error depends on the approximation, and so, on quantitative uncertainties generated by the process of the mesh generator. \\ [0.2cm]
Aside the new insights we got from these probability laws, we also implemented practical cases \cite{Fitting Stat_Heaviside} to appreciate the quality of the fit between these probability laws and the corresponding statistical frequencies. \\ [0.2cm]
There, despite the fact we showed that the two probability laws globally behave well like the corresponding statistical frequencies, the fit was not enough precise. Then, we identified the reasons of this unsatisfactory result, basically due to the too much rigidity of the probabilistic assumptions we considered to derive these laws. \\ [0.2cm]
It's the reason why we have developed a new generation of probabilistic model based on the generalized Beta prime distribution which enables us to derive, under probabilistic acceptable hypothesis, the probability law of the relative accuracy between two Lagrange finite elements. \\ [0.2cm]
In this paper, we will motivate the probabilistic framework we build to get this law and we will show how it fits well with several examples. This is a significant confirmation to assess the relevance of considering the error estimates like random variables in a suitable probabilistic environment. \\ [0.2cm]
The paper is organized as follows. We recall in Section \ref{Geo_and_Proba} the mathematical problem we consider and a corollary of Bramble-Hilbert lemma from which we derived the previous probabilistic laws. In Section \ref{First_Comparison}, we show a typical result we got between numerical statistics and these probability laws. Then, in Section \ref{New probabilistic_law}, we derive the new probability law which evaluates the relative error accuracy between two finite elements $P_{k_1}$ and $P_{k_2}, (k_1<k_2).$ by the help of the generalized Beta prime distribution. Finally, in Section \ref{Stat_Proba} we show with several examples the appropriateness of fit between the Generalized Beta prime probabilistic law and the corresponding statistical frequencies. Concluding remarks follow.
\section{The abstract problem and the corresponding finite element error estimate}\label{Geo_and_Proba}
\noindent We consider an open bounded and non empty subset $\Omega$ of $\mathbb{R}^{n}$, and we denote by $\Gamma$ its boundary assumed to be $C^1- $piecewise. We also introduce an Hilbert space $V$ endowed with a norm $ \left\|.\right\|_{V}$, and a bilinear, continuous and $V-$elliptic form $a(\cdot,\cdot)$ defined on $V \times V$. Finally, $l(\cdot)$ denotes a linear continuous form defined on~$V$.\\ [0.2cm]
Let $u \in V$ be the unique solution to the second order elliptic variational formulation
\begin{equation}\label{VP}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\mbox{Find } u \in V \mbox{ solution to:} \\[0.1cm]
a(u,v) = l(v), \quad\forall v \in V\,.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
In this paper, we will restrict ourselves to the simple case where $V$ is the usual Sobolev space of distributions $H^1(\Omega)$. More general cases can be found in \cite{ChAs20}.\\ [0.2cm]
Let us introduce now $V_h$ a finite-dimensional subset of $V$, and consider $u_{h}\in V_{h}$ an approximation of $u$, solution to the approximate variational formulation
\begin{equation}\label{VP_h}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\mbox{Find } u_{h} \in V_h \mbox{ solution to:} \\[0.1cm]
a(u_{h},v_{h}) = l(v_{h}),\quad \forall v_{h} \in V_h.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
In what follows, we are interested in evaluating error bounds for finite element methods. Hence, we first assume that the domain $\Omega$ is exactly covered by a mesh ${\mathcal T}_h$ composed by $N_{s}$ n-simplexes $K_{j}, (1 \leq j \leq N_{s}),$ which respects classical rules of regular discretization, (see for example \cite{ChaskaPDE} for the bidimensional case or \cite{RaTho82} in $\mathbb{R}^n$). We also denote by $P_k(K_{j})$ the space of polynomial functions defined on a given n-simplex $K_{j}$ of degree less than or equal to $k$, ($k \geq$ 1). \\ [0.2cm]
So, we remind the result of \cite{RaTho82} from which our study is developed. Let $\|.\|_{1}$ be the classical norm in $H^1(\Omega)$ and $|.|_{k+1}$ the semi-norm in $H^{k+1}(\Omega)$, and $h$ is the mesh size, namely the largest diameter of the elements of the mesh ${\mathcal T}_h$, then we have:
\begin{lemma}\label{Thm_error_estimate}
Suppose that there exists an integer $k \geq 1$ such that the approximation $u_h$ of $V_h$ is a continuous piecewise function composed by polynomials which belong to $P_k(K_{j}), (1\leq j\leq N_{s})$. \\ [0.2cm]
Then, if the exact solution $u$ to (\ref{VP}) belongs to $H^{k+1}(\Omega)$, we have the following error estimate:
\begin{equation}\label{estimation_error}
\|u_h-u\|_{1} \hspace{0.1cm} \leq \hspace{0.1cm} \mathscr{C}_k\,h^k \, |u|_{k+1}\,,
\end{equation}
where $\mathscr{C}_k$ is a positive constant independent of $h$.
\end{lemma}
Let us now consider two families of Lagrange finite elements $P_{k_1}$ and $P_{k_2}$ corresponding to a set of values $(k_1,k_2)\in \mathbb{N}^2$ such that $0< k_1 < k_2$. \\[0.1cm]
The two corresponding inequalities given by (\ref{estimation_error}), assuming that the solution $u$ to (\ref{VP}) belongs to $H^{k_2+1}(\Omega)$, are:
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\begin{eqnarray}
\|u^{(k_1)}_h-u\|_{1,\Omega} \hspace{0.1cm} & \leq & \hspace{0.1cm} \mathscr{C}_{k_1} h^{k_1}\, |u|_{k_1+1,\Omega}, \label{Constante_01} \\%[0.1cm]
\|u^{(k_2)}_h\hspace{-0.09cm}-u\|_{1,\Omega} \hspace{0.1cm} & \leq & \hspace{0.1cm} \mathscr{C}_{k_2} h^{k_2}\, |u|_{k_2+1,\Omega}\,, \label{Constante_02}
\end{eqnarray}
where $u^{(k_1)}_h$ and $u^{(k_2)}_h$ respectively denotes the $P_{k_1}$ and $P_{k_2}$ Lagrange finite element approximations of $u$.\\[0.2cm]
Now, if one considers a given mesh for the finite element of $P_{k_2}$ which would contains whose of $P_{k_1}$ then, for the particular class of problems where the variational formulation (\ref{VP}) is equivalent to a minimization formulation, (see for example \cite{ChaskaPDE}), one can show that the approximation error of $P_{k_2}$ is always lower than the one of $P_{k_1}$, and $P_{k_2}$ is more accurate than $P_{k_2}$ for all values of the mesh size $h$.\\ [0.2cm]
Then, for a given mesh size value of $h$, we consider two independent meshes for $P_{k_1}$ and $P_{k_2}$ built by a mesh generator. So, usually, to compare the relative accuracy between these two finite elements, one asymptotically considers inequalities (\ref{Constante_01}) and (\ref{Constante_02}) to conclude that, when $h$ goes to zero, $P_{k_2}$ finite element is more accurate that $P_{k_1}$, since $h^{k_2}$ goes faster to zero than $h^{k_1}$. \\ [0.2cm]
However, for any application $h$ has a fixed value and this way of comparison is not valid anymore. Therefore, our point of view will be to determine the relative accuracy between two finite elements $P_{k_1}$ and $P_{k_2}, (k_1<k_2)$, for any given value of $h$ for which two independent meshes have to be considered.\\ [0.2cm]
To this end, let us set:
\begin{equation}\label{beta_ki}
\beta_{k_1} = \mathscr{C}_{k_1}h^{k_1} |u|_{k_1+1,\Omega} \mbox{ and } \beta_{k_2} = \mathscr{C}_{k_2}h^{k_2} |u|_{k_2+1,\Omega}.
\end{equation}
Therefore, instead of (\ref{Constante_01}) and (\ref{Constante_02}), we consider in the sequel the two next inequalities:
\begin{eqnarray}
\|u^{(k_1)}_h-u\|_{1,\Omega} & \leq & \beta_{k_1}, \label{Constante_01_2} \\%[0.1cm]
\|u^{(k_2)}_h\hspace{-0.09cm}-u\|_{1,\Omega} & \leq & \beta_{k_2}. \label{Constante_02_2}
\end{eqnarray}
Now, as we explained in \cite{CMAM1}, there is no {\em a priori} available information to surely or better specify the relative position between the aproximation errors $\|u^{(k_1)}_h-u\|_{1,\Omega}$ and $\|u^{(k_2)}_h-u\|_{1,\Omega}$ which respectively live in the interval $[0, \beta_{k_1}]$ and $[0, \beta_{k_2}]$. \\ [0.2cm]
Moreover, we also motivated in \cite{CMAM1} that we have to deal with finite element methods where quantitative uncertainties have to be taken into account in their calculations. This mainly comes from the way the mesh grid generator will process the mesh to compute the approximation $u^{(k_i)}_h, (i=1,2)$, leading to a partial non control of the mesh, even for a given maximum mesh size. As a consequence, the corresponding grid is \emph{a priori} random, and the corresponding approximation $u^{(k_i)}_h, (i=1,2),$ too. \\ [0.2cm]
\noindent For these reasons, let us recall the convenient probabilistic framework we introduced in \cite{CMAM1} to consider the possible values of the norm $\|u^{(k)}_h-u\|_{1,\Omega}$ viewed as a random variable defined as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item For a fixed value of the mesh size $h$, a {\em random trial} corresponds to the grid constitution and the associated approximation $u^{(k)}_h$.
\item The probability space ${\bf\Omega}$ contains therefore all the possible results for a given random trial, namely, all of the possible grids that the mesh generator may processed, or equivalently, all of the corresponding associated approximations $u^{(k)}_h$.
\end{itemize}
Then, for a fixed value of $k$, we define by $X^{(k)}$ the random variable as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
X^{(k)} : & {\bf\Omega} & \hspace{0.1cm}\rightarrow \hspace{0.2cm}[0,\beta_k] \noindent \\%[0.2cm]
& \boldsymbol{\omega}\equiv u^{(k)}_h & \hspace{0.1cm} \mapsto \hspace{0.2cm}\displaystyle X^{(k)}(\boldsymbol{\omega}) = X^{(k)}(u^{(k)}_h) = \|u^{(k)}_h-u\|_{1,\Omega}. \label{Def_Xi_h}
\end{eqnarray}
In the sequel, for simplicity, we will set: $X^{(k)}(u^{(k)}_h)\equiv X^{(k)}(h)$. \\ [0.2cm]
So, our interest is to evaluate the probability of the event
\begin{equation}\label{objectif}
\left\{\|u^{(k_2)}_h-u\|_{1,\Omega} \leq \|u^{(k_1)}_h-u\|_{1,\Omega}\right\} \equiv \left\{X^{(k_2)}(h) \leq X^{(k_1)}(h)\right\},
\end{equation}
which will enable us to estimate the more likely accurate between two finite elements of order $k_1$ and $k_2$, $(k_1<k_2)$.\\ [0.2cm]
Now, in \cite{ArXiv_JCH}, regarding the absence of information concerning the more likely or less likely values of the norm $\|u^{(k_i)}_h-u\|_{1,\Omega}, (i=1,2),$ in the interval $[0, \beta_{k_i}], (i=1,2)$, we assumed that the two random variables $X^{(k_i)}, (i=1,2),$ have a uniform distribution on their respective interval $[0, \beta_{k_i}]$, and also, that they are independent as well.\\ [0.2cm]
Then, this probabilistic framework enabled us to get in a more general context, (see Theorem 3.1 in \cite{ArXiv_JCH}), the density of probability of the random variable $Z$ defined by $Z=X^{(k_2)}-X^{(k_1)}$, and as a consequence, the ${\cal P}_{k_1,k_2} \equiv Prob\left\{ X^{(k_2)} \leq X^{(k_1)}\right\}$ which corresponds to the value of the entire cumulative distribution function $F_Z(z)$ at $z=0$ defined by:
\begin{equation}\label{fonction repartition_FZ}
F_Z(z) = \int_{-\infty}^{z}f_Z(z) dz.
\end{equation}
For the purpose of the present work, the same results may be obtained by elementary adaptations of the results of Theorem 3.3 in \cite{ArXiv_JCH} to get the corresponding probability law given by:
\begin{flushleft}
$\displaystyle \hspace{1.5cm}{\cal P}_{k_1,k_2}(h) \, = \,\left| \mbox{\hfill \begin{minipage}[h]{8cm}
\vspace{-0.4cm}
\begin{eqnarray}
\hspace{-0.5cm}\displaystyle 1-\frac{1}{2}\!\left(\!\frac{\!\!h}{h^{*}_{k_1,k_2}}\!\right)^{\!\!k_2-k_1} & \hspace{-0.2cm}\mbox{ if }\hspace{-0.2cm} & \hspace{0.1cm} 0 \leq h \leq h^{*}_{k_1,k_2}, \label{CMAM1}\\[0.2cm]
\hspace{-0.5cm}\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}\!\left(\!\frac{h^{*}_{k_1,k_2}}{\!\!h}\!\right)^{\!\!k_2-k_1} & \hspace{-0.2cm}\mbox{ if }\hspace{-0.2cm} & h \geq h^{*}_{k_1,k_2},\label{CMAM2}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{minipage}
}
\right.$
\end{flushleft}
where $h^{*}_{k_1,k_2}$ is defined by:
\begin{equation}\label{h*}
\displaystyle h^{*}_{k_1,k_2} \equiv\left( \frac{\mathscr{C}_{k_1}|u|_{k_1+1,\Omega}}{\mathscr{C}_{k_2}|u|_{k_2+1,\Omega}}\right)^{\frac{1}{k_2-k_1}}.
\end{equation}
The shape of this law looks like to a "sigmoid" curve as one can see in Figure \ref{Sigmoid_Curve}.\\ [0.2cm]
We already remarked in \cite{CMAM2} that the probability law (\ref{CMAM1})-(\ref{CMAM2}) can asymptotically - when $k_2-k_1$ goes to infinity - leads to the limit situation we defined as the "two-steps" model, (see Figure \ref{Sigmoid_Curve}). \\ [0.2cm]
But, we also proved in \cite{CMAM1} that under suitable probabilistic assumptions, one can directly derive this "two-steps" probabilistic law for all non zero integers $k_1$ and $k_2$ to finally get the following probability law:
\begin{equation}\label{Heaviside_Prob}
\displaystyle {\cal P}_{k_1,k_2}(h)= \left |
\begin{array}{ll}
\hspace{0.1cm} 1 & \mbox{ if } \hspace{0.1cm} 0 < h < h^{*}_{k_1,k_2}, \medskip \\
\hspace{0.1cm} 0 & \mbox{ if } \hspace{0.1cm} h> h^{*}_{k_1,k_2}.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
The next section is dedicated to the analysis of the fit between statistical data and the above probability laws (\ref{CMAM1})-(\ref{CMAM2}) and (\ref{Heaviside_Prob}).
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=10.cm]{Sigmoid_2_V2.jpg}
\caption{General shape of probabilistic law (\ref{CMAM1})-(\ref{CMAM2}) together with the limit Heaviside case (\ref{Heaviside_Prob}).} \label{Sigmoid_Curve}
\end{figure}
\section{Comparison between numerical statistics and the relative error accuracy probability law}\label{First_Comparison}
\noindent This section is devoted to the comparison between the theoretical probability law (\ref{CMAM1})-(\ref{CMAM2}) and the statistics one can get from a particular case of the variational formulation (\ref{VP}). \\ [0.2cm]
Indeed, since we already showed in \cite{Fitting Stat_Heaviside}, the "two-steps" law (\ref{Heaviside_Prob}) fits well several numerical cases. However this law is a bit rough and cannot really follow the variations of the convexity of the statistical data, (see below). It is the reason why we also tested the accuracy of the fit with the "sigmoid" law given by (\ref{CMAM1})-(\ref{CMAM2}).
More precisely, we considered numerical approximations we implemented for the so-called Poisson-Dirichlet partial differential equation defined in the open unit square $\Omega$ of $\mathbb{R}^2$, where we choose to build the solution by the help of the famous Runge function given by $$f(t)=\displaystyle\frac{1}{1+\alpha t^2},$$ where $\alpha$ is a real parameter, (\cite{Rossi}, \cite{Eppe87}). \\ [0.2cm]
So, to numerically check the accuracy of the fit between a given probability law and the corresponding statistical data produced by numerical simulations, we considered two finite element $P_{k_1}$ and $P_{k_2}$ ($k_1<k_2$) and we fixed a given number of meshes to be built by the generator of meshes, each of them associated to a same given mesh size $h$. \\ [0.2cm]
Then, to evaluate the relative accuracy between the two concerned finite elements, we tested for each mesh if $\|u^{(k_2)}_h-u\|_{1}$ is lower than $\|u^{(k_1)}_h-u\|_{1}$. Then, we repeated the same process for different values of $h$ which gave us a function of $h$, namely, the frequency of cases when the approximation error associated to $P_{k_2}$ finite element is lower than the one computed with the $P_{k_1}$ one. In all cases, we use the FreeFem++ package~\cite{Hech12} to compute the $P_{k_i}, (i=1,2),$ finite element approximations. \\ [0.2cm]
\noindent Now, to motivate the next section, let us recall a typical result we got in \cite{Fitting Stat_Heaviside}. To this end, we consider here the particular numerical test we implemented to analyze the relative accuracy between the $P_1$ and $P_3$ finite elements. We considered 100 meshes for each value of $h$ and we fixed the parameter $\alpha$ of the Runge function to value of 3000. \\ [0.2cm]
Then, in Figure \ref{P1P3alpha3000}, for the different concerned values of the mesh size $h$, let us plot on the results obtained by the statistical frequencies corresponding to the cases such that the finite element $P_{k_2}$ is more accurate that the $P_{k_1}$ one (red), together with the corresponding "sigmoid" probability law (blue).\\ [0.2cm]
The "sigmoid" curve showed in Figure \ref{P1P3alpha3000} was computed by the help of the Excel solver to statistically determine the value of $h^{*}_{k_1,k_2}$ by a least squares adjustment between the two concerned curves.\\ [0.2cm]
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=12.cm]{Stat-Sigmoid-V2.jpg}
\caption{$P_1$ versus $P_3$ for the Runge function with $\alpha=3000$. Comparison between the statistical frequencies (blue) and the "Sigmoid law (orange)} \label{P1P3alpha3000}
\end{figure}
As one can see, the fit between the statistics and the probability law is not satisfactory. The same gaps were observed for other simulations corresponding to different sets of parameter values and for several pairs of finite elements $P_{k_1}$ and $P_{k_2}$. \\ [0.2cm]
So, one could expect to get a better fit that the one provided by the "Sigmoid" probability law (\ref{CMAM1})-(\ref{CMAM2}). This is the purpose of the next section where we will show how to enrich the "sigmoid" which only depends on one parameter, namely, $h^{*}_{k_1,k_2}$.
\section{The new probability law for the relative error accuracy between two finite elements $P_{k_1}$ and $P_{k_2}, (k_1<k_2).$}\label{New probabilistic_law}
\noindent This section is devoted to the new probabilistic law we will derive to evaluate the relative error accuracy between two finite elements $P_{k_1}$ and $P_{k_2}, (k_1<k_2)$.
To motivate the new position we will consider, let us proceed to a couple of remarks:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The first one concerns the assumptions we took into account in the previous works that enabled us to derive the "Sigmoid" probability law. Since we would like to get a more precise fit between the probabilistic law and the statistical data, we will relax the hypothesis of uniformity we applied to the densities of the random variables $X^{(k_i)}(h), (i=1,2)$, (see \cite{ArXiv_JCH}, \cite{CMAM1} and \cite{ChAs20}).
\item To choose the shape of these densities, first of all, we will consider the one of the random variable $Z=X^{(k_2)}-X^{(k_1)}$. Indeed, since our goal is to get for the cumulative distribution function $F_Z$ defined by (\ref{fonction repartition_FZ}), at the point $z=0$, a curve whose shape looks like a "Sigmoid", we will enrich our modeling process by adding more degrees of freedom. More precisely, if the "Sigmoid" probability law (\ref{CMAM1})-(\ref{CMAM2}) contains one parameter which is $h^{*}_{k_1,k_2}$, we will now consider a density $f_Z$ for the random variable $Z$ such that the corresponding value of its cumulative distribution function $F_Z$ at the point $z=0$ will include two exogenous parameters to be statistically estimated.
\end{enumerate}
Keeping in mind these remarks, we begin by introducing the probability density function $f_X$ of the normalized Beta random variable $X$ defined by:
\begin{equation}
\displaystyle\forall x \in [0,1]: f_X(x;p,q) \equiv \frac{x^{p-1}(1-x)^{q-1}}{\displaystyle\int_{0}^{1}u^{p-1}(1-u)^{q-1}du} = \frac{\Gamma(p+q)}{\Gamma(p)\Gamma(q)}x^{p-1}(1-x)^{q-1},
\end{equation}
where $p$ and $q$ are two parameters of shape which belong to $\mathbb{R}^{*}_{+}$ and $\Gamma(.)$ denotes the classical Gamma function. \\ [0.2cm]
Among the numerous features of the Beta distribution, let us mention one of them which particularly motivates us to consider it for our objectives. Indeed, depending on the two parameters $p$ and $q$, the shapes of its corresponding cumulative distribution are very rich and include the shape of the "Sigmoid" curve we are looking for fitting the statistics when one considers the case of the Runge solution to the Laplacian-Dirichlet problem in the unit square of $\mathbb{R}^2$.\\ [0.2cm]
However, one cannot directly apply the Beta distribution to get the probability law we are looking for. More precisely, two main features have to be taken into account:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If the support of the Beta density $f_X$ of the random variable $X$, denoted $Supp X$, is include in $[0,1]$, the one of the random variable $Z$ is $[-\beta_{k_1}, \beta{k_2}]$, since $Z=X^{(k_2)}-X^{(k_1)}$ and $Supp\,X^{(k_i)}\subset [0,\beta_{k_i}], (i=1;2)$. This will drive us to a suitable transformation of the density $f_X$ to guarantee the correct support of the density $f_Z$ of $Z$.
\item Given that we are looking for a probability law of the event $\displaystyle\left\{X^{(k_2)} \leq X^{(k_1)}\right\}$ as a function of $h$ which belongs to $[0, +\infty[$, then we will also apply consequently another transformation of the density $f_Z$ to assure this property for the support of $h$.
\end{enumerate}
So, to achieve these transformations we establish the following results:
\begin{lemma}\label{New_f_Z}
Let $Z$ be the random variable defined by $Z\equiv X^{(k_2)}-X^{(k_1)}$, where $X^{(k_i)}, (i=1,2),$ are defined by (\ref{Def_Xi_h}). Let $X \sim B(p,q)$ be the Beta distribution parameterized by two given shape parameters $(p,q) \in \mathbb{R}^{*2}$. Assume that $Z$ is defined by:
\begin{equation}\label{Decomp_Z}
Z=-\beta_{k_1}+(\beta_{k_1}+\beta_{k_2})X.
\end{equation}
Then, the probability density function $f_Z$ of the $Z$ is given by:
\begin{equation}\label{f_Z}
\displaystyle f_{Z}(z)= \frac{\Gamma(p+q)}{\Gamma(p)\Gamma(q)}\,\frac{\beta_{k_1}^{p-1}\beta_{k_2}^{q-1}}{(\beta_{k_1}+\beta_{k_2})^{p+q-1}}\left(1+\frac{z}{\beta_{k_1}}\right)^{\!p-1}
\!\!\left(1-\frac{z}{\beta_{k_2}}\right)^{\!q-1}\mathbbm{1}_{[-\beta_{k_1},\beta_{k_2}]}(z),
\end{equation}
where $\mathbbm{1}_{[-\beta_{k_1},\beta_{k_2}]}$ is the indicator function of the interval $[-\beta_{k_1},\beta_{k_2}]$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{prooff}
Since we already noticed, the support of $f_{Z}$ is clearly within $[-\beta_{k_1},\beta_{k_2}]$ as soon as those of $X^{(k_i)}$ are in $[0,\beta_{k_i}]$.\\ [0.2cm]
Now, let us evaluate the cumulative distribution function $F_Z(z)$ of the random variable $Z$ defined by (\ref{Decomp_Z}):
\begin{eqnarray}
\displaystyle F_Z(z) & = & \displaystyle Prob\left\{\frac{}{}\!Z\leq z\right\} = Prob\left\{\frac{}{}\!\!-\beta_{k_1}+(\beta_{k_1}+\beta_{k_2})X \leq z\right\} \\[0,2cm]
& = & Prob\left\{\frac{}{}\!\!X \leq \displaystyle\frac{z+\beta_{k_1}}{\beta_{k_1}+\beta_{k_2}}\right\} =\frac{\Gamma(p+q)}{\Gamma(p)\Gamma(q)}\int_{0}^{\frac{z+\beta_{k_1}}{\beta_{k_1}+\beta_{k_2}}}u^{p-1}(1-u)^{q-1}du. \label{FZ_to_derive}
\end{eqnarray}
Then, we derive $F_Z(z)$ given by (\ref{FZ_to_derive}) which leads to the expression (\ref{f_Z}) of the density $f_Z$.
\end{prooff}
\begin{remark}
Let us give the meaning of this result. Since we already mentioned, in our previous works (see for example \cite{CMAM1} and \cite{ArXiv_JCH}) we assumed the random variables $X^{(k_i)}$ to be uniformly distributed on their support $[0,\beta_{k_i}]$. This lead us to consequently derived the density $f_Z$ of the random variable $Z$, (see Theorem 3.1 in \cite{ArXiv_JCH}). \\ [0.2cm]
Here, Lemma \ref{New_f_Z} may be interpreted about the new assumption we implicitly made on the random variables $X^{(k_i)}$. Indeed, if we rewrite $Z$ like: $$Z=\beta_{k_2}X - (\beta_{k_1}-\beta_{k_1}X),$$
then by setting:
\begin{equation}\label{New_Xki}
X^{(k_1)} \equiv \beta_{k_1} - \beta_{k_1}X \hspace{0.1cm} \mbox{ and } \hspace{0.1cm} X^{(k_2)} = \beta_{k_2}X,
\end{equation}
we observe that each support of $X^{(k_i)}$ belongs to $[0,\beta_{k_i}]$, on the one hand, and the difference $X^{(k_2)}-X^{(k_1)}$ is equal to $Z$, on the other hand. \\ [0.2cm]
In other words, the choice we consider here to write the random variable $Z$ given by (\ref{Decomp_Z}) as a dimensional Beta distribution on $[-\beta_{k_1}, \beta_{k_2}]$, (which corresponds to alter the location and scale of the standard Beta distribution), consequently modifies the hypothesis of uniformity of the two variables $X^{(k_i)}$ to the one of a non dimensional Beta distributions.
\end{remark}
We are now in position to derive the new probability distribution ${\cal P}_{k_1,k_2}(h)$ to evaluate the more likely accurate between two Lagrange finite elements $P_{k_1}$ and $P_{k_2}, (k_1<k_2)$.
This is the purpose of the following Theorem.
\begin{theorem}\label{New_GBP_Law_Th}
Let $X^{(k_i)}, (i=1,2),$ be the two random non dimensional Beta distribution variables defined by (\ref{New_Xki}) and $Z$ the corresponding random variable defined by (\ref{Decomp_Z}). \\ [0.2cm]
Then, ${\cal P}_{k_1,k_2}(h)$ is the cumulative distribution function of a generalized Beta prime random variable $H$, whose density of probability $f_H$, is defined by four parameters $(p,q,k_2-k_1, h^{*}_{k_1,k_2})$, and we have:
\begin{equation}\label{New_Law}
\displaystyle{\cal P}_{k_1,k_2}(h) = Prob\{H\geq h\} = \int_{h}^{+\infty} f_H(s;q,p,k_2-k_1, h^{*}_{k_1,k_2})\, ds,
\end{equation}
where:
\begin{equation}\label{fH}
\displaystyle f_H(s;q,p,k_2-k_1, h^{*}_{k_1,k_2}) = \frac{\Gamma(p+q)}{\Gamma(p)\Gamma(q)} \, \frac{(k_2-k_1)}{h^{*}_{k_1,k_2}} \, \left(\frac{s}{h^{*}_{k_1,k_2}}\!\right)^{q(k_2-k_1)-1}\left[1+\left(\frac{s}{h^{*}_{k_1,k_2}}\!\right)^{k_2-k_1}\right]^{-p-q}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{prooff}
Since we are looking for a random variable $H$ whose support has to be $[0,+\infty[$, which is associated to ${\cal P}_{k_1,k_2}(h)$ equals to $F_Z(0)$, on the one hand, and (\ref{FZ_to_derive}) was derived by the help of the dimensionless Beta distribution $B(p,q)$ whose support belongs to $[0,1]$, on the other hand, we set the following change of variable in (\ref{FZ_to_derive}):
$$ \displaystyle s=\frac{u}{1-u},$$
and we get:
\begin{equation}\label{F-Z_to_derive_2}
\displaystyle F_{Z}(z) =\frac{\Gamma(p+q)}{\Gamma(p)\Gamma(q)}\int_{0}^{\frac{z+\beta_{k_1}}{\beta_{k_2}-z}}s^{p-1}(1+s)^{-p-q}\,ds.
\end{equation}
Now, let us set in (\ref{F-Z_to_derive_2}) $z=0$. Then, by using $\beta_{k_i}, (i=1,2),$ given by (\ref{beta_ki}) and $h^{*}_{k_1,k_2}$ by (\ref{h*}), we obtain:
\begin{eqnarray}
\displaystyle F_{Z}(0) \hspace{0.1cm} = \hspace{0.1cm} {\cal P}_{k_1,k_2}(h) & = & \displaystyle \frac{\Gamma(p+q)}{\Gamma(p)\Gamma(q)}\int_{0}^{\frac{\beta_{k_1}}{\beta_{k_2}}}s^{p-1}(1+s)^{-p-q}\,ds, \\[0.2cm]
& = & \frac{\Gamma(p+q)}{\Gamma(p)\Gamma(q)}\int_{0}^{(h^{*}_{k_1,k_2}/h)^{k_2-k_1}}s^{p-1}(1+s)^{-p-q}\,ds.\label{F-Z_to_derive_3}
\end{eqnarray}
A last change of variables $t=\frac{1}{s}$ in (\ref{F-Z_to_derive_3}) leads to:
\begin{equation}\label{F-Z_to_derive_4}
\displaystyle F_{Z}(0) = \frac{\Gamma(p+q)}{\Gamma(p)\Gamma(q)} \int_{(h/h^{*}_{k_1,k_2})^{k_2-k_1}}^{+\infty} t^{q-1}(1+t)^{-p-q}\,dt.
\end{equation}
Finally, by considering the probability of the complementary event considered in (\ref{F-Z_to_derive_4}) as a function of $h$, (namely, $1-{\cal P}_{k_1,k_2}(h)$), after derivation with respect to $h$, we get the density $f_H$ defined in (\ref{fH}) which is a generalized prime Beta probability density function parameterized by $(q,p,k_2-k_1, h^{*}_{k_1,k_2})$, (see for example \cite{Gavin_E_Crooks}). \\ [0.2cm]
In other words, we have:
\begin{equation}\label{Equiv}
Prob\left\{X^{(k_1)}\leq X^{(k_2)}\right\} = 1 - Prob\left\{X^{(k_2)}\leq X^{(k_1)}\right\}(h) = \int_{o}^{h}f_H(s;q,p,k_2-k_1, h^{*}_{k_1,k_2}) ds,
\end{equation}
and $\displaystyle{\cal P}_{k_1,k_2}(h)$ in (\ref{New_Law}) is deduced by complementarity.
\end{prooff}
\begin{remark}$\frac{}{}$
\begin{enumerate}
\item From (\ref{New_Law})-(\ref{fH}), or equivalently by (\ref{F-Z_to_derive_3}), we observe the asymptotic behavior of the probability of the event $\displaystyle\left\{X^{(k_1)}\leq X^{(k_2)}\right\}$ when $h$ when the mesh size $h$ goes to 0. \\ [0.2cm]
%
Clearly, it goes to 0 when $h$ goes itself to 0. In other words, we found with the new probabilistic law the classical result which claims that $P_{k_2}$ finite element is always more accurate the $P_{k_1}$ one, since from (\ref{Constante_01}) and (\ref{Constante_02}), $h^{k_2}$ goes faster to zero than $h^{k_1}$ when $k_1<k_2$. \\ [0.2cm]
%
Here, by (\ref{F-Z_to_derive_3}) the same property is expressed in terms of probability, namely: the event $\displaystyle\left\{X^{(k_1)}\leq X^{(k_2)}\right\}$ is an almost never one, or equivalently, the event $\displaystyle\left\{X^{(k_2)}\leq X^{(k_1)}\right\}$ is an almost surely one since its probability is equal to 1.
%
\item From (\ref{New_Law}) and since the positivity of the density $f_H$, we conclude that $\displaystyle{\cal P}_{k_1,k_2}(h)$ is a decreasing function of $h$. This property was already observed with the "Sigmoid" model in \cite{CMAM1} and \cite{ArXiv_JCH} when uniformity of the random variables $X^{(k_i)}, (i=1,2),$ was assumed. \\ [0.2cm]
%
In other words, this property claims that the event $\displaystyle\left\{P_{k_2} \mbox{ is more accurate than } P_{k_1}\right\}$ is not an absolute reality and the more $h$ increases the less this property is less likely. Moreover, when $h$ becomes great, asymptotically the event $\displaystyle\left\{P_{k_2} \mbox{ is more accurate than } P_{k_1}\right\}$ in an almost never one !
\end{enumerate}
\end{remark}
\section{Numerical comparison between the Generalized Beta prime probabilistic law and statistical frequencies}\label{New_Stat}\label{Stat_Proba}
\noindent This section in devoted to evaluate the quality of the fit between the statistical frequencies we presented in Section \ref{First_Comparison} processed by the help of the Runge function and the corresponding probabilities computed by the help of the generalized Beta prime distribution (\ref{New_Law}) that we derived in Theorem \ref{New_GBP_Law_Th}.\\ [0.2cm]
To this end, let us explain how we processed to determine the four parameters $(q,p,k_2-k_1,h^{*}_{k_1,k_2})$ of the density $f_H$. First of all, we considered and fixed two finite elements, for example $P_1$ and $P_3$, and so, $k_2-k_1=2$. \\ [0.2cm]
Regarding the three other parameters, $p,q$ and $h^{*}_{k_1,k_2}$, we have implemented again an optimization based on least squares adjustment to minimize the sum of the squares of the differences between the statistical frequencies and the corresponding values computed by the generalized Beta prime model presented above. Once more, this was computed by the help of the Excel solver.\\ [0.2cm]
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=12.cm]{Stat-BetaPrime.jpg}
\caption{$P_1$ versus $P_3$ for the Runge function with $\alpha=3000$. Comparison between the statistical frequencies (blue) and the Generalized Beta Prime law (red)} \label{Good_Fit}
\end{figure}
Then, we can observe that the least squares algorithm found the optimal parameters $p$, $q$ and $h^{*}_{k_1,k_2}$ such that the fit between the statistical frequencies and the Generalized Beta Prime law (\ref{New_Law}) is very satisfactory, (see Figure \ref{Good_Fit}). \\ [0.2cm]
This a clearly due to the the richness and the flexibility of this distribution, providing two degrees of freedom $p$ and $q$ in addition to the "Sigmoid" law, we motivated in Section \ref{New probabilistic_law} for describing the randomness values of the approximation errors $\|u^{(k_i)}_h-u\|_{1,\Omega}, (i=1,2),$ within their respective interval $[0,\beta_{k_i}], (i=1,2)$.\\ [0.2cm]
Another example to appreciate the accuracy of the fit may be achieved by comparing the results implemented with the two Lagrange finite elements $P_1$ and $P_4$. In this case, as one can see again in Figure \ref{P1P4-Sigmoid vs GBP}, when the "Sigmoid" law only describes the global trend of the statistical frequencies, the generalized Beta prime law perfectly fits with the corresponding data.\\ [0.2cm]
\begin{figure}[htbp!]
\begin{tabular}{lr}
{
\hspace*{-0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{P1P4-Runge2000-Sigmoid.jpg}
}
&
\hspace*{-0.5cm}
{
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{P1P4-Runge2000-GBPrime.jpg}
}
\end{tabular}
\caption{$P_1$ versus $P_4$, Sigmoid (left) and Generalized Beta Prime (right).} \label{P1P4-Sigmoid vs GBP}
\end{figure}
This difference of the quality of the fit between the "Sigmoid" law and the generalized Beta prime law becomes all the more important when one considers $P_2$ finite elements versus $P_3$ one. Indeed, in this case, $k_2-k_1$ is equal to one and the "Sigmoid" law becomes a linear function of $h$ when $h\leq h^{*}_{k_1,k_2}$ in formula (\ref{CMAM1}). On the other hand, one more time, as one can see in Figure \ref{P2P3-Sigmoid vs GBP}, the generalized Beta prime law fit very well with the statistical frequencies.\\ [0.2cm]
\begin{figure}[htbp!]
\begin{tabular}{lr}
{
\hspace*{-0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{P2P3-Runge2000-Sigmoid.jpg}
}
&
\hspace*{-0.5cm}
{
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{P2P3-Runge2000-GBPrime.jpg}
}
\end{tabular}
\caption{$P_2$ versus $P_3$, Sigmoid (left) and Generalized Beta Prime (right).} \label{P2P3-Sigmoid vs GBP}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
\noindent In this paper, we derived a new family of probabilistic laws to compare the accuracy between two Lagrange finite elements $P_{k_1}$ and $P_{k_2}, (k_1<k_2)$. Based on a new probabilistic approach we already introduced in \cite{ArXiv_JCH}, we extended these previous results to improve the fit between the statistical frequencies obtained by implementing practical cases and the corresponding probabilities.\\ [0.2cm]
We recall in Section \ref{First_Comparison} the main problems we got regarding the accuracy of the previous probabilistic laws we derived in \cite{ArXiv_JCH},\cite{CMAM1} or \cite{arXiv_Wmp}, and we identify the gaps we observed with the comparable statistics. \\ [0.2cm]
Then, in Section \ref{New probabilistic_law} we motivated and derived the new probabilistic law based on the generalized Beta Prime law. Then, we analyzed in Section \ref{Stat_Proba} the quality of the fit we got between the corresponding probabilities which corrected the main observed deficiencies described above.\\ [0.2cm]
Finally, this new probabilistic law together with the statistical validation we processed, significantly confirms the relevance to consider the approximation errors like random variables defined in an adapted probabilistic framework. Of course, one must keep in mind that this approach is not limited to finite elements error estimates, but might be fruitful for any kind of error estimates one must deal with other types of numerical approximations. \\ [0.2cm]
\textbf{\underline{Homages}:} The authors want to warmly dedicate this research to pay homage to the memory of Professors Andr\'e Avez and G\'erard Tronel who largely promote the passion of research and teaching in mathematics.
|
\section{Howe correspondance and cuspidal support}\label{HoweCorrespondanceCuspidalSupport}
Theorem 3.7 of \cite{AMR} states that the Howe correspondence is compatible with unipotent Harish-Chandra series. In this section, we generalize this theorem to arbitrary Harish-Chandra series. The proof follows that of Theorem 2.5 in \cite{Kudla}.
We fix two Witt towers, $\mathscr{T}$ and $\mathscr{T}'$, such that $(G_m,G'_{m'})$ is a type I dual pair for any $G_m\in\mathscr{T}$ and $G'_{m'}\in\mathscr{T}'$.
Let $D$ be a field equal to $\mathbb{F}_q$ when the dual pair is symplectic-orthogonal, and equal to $\mathbb{F}_{q^2}$ when the pair is unitary. Let $W_m$ be the underlying $D$-vector space of $G_m$. Let $P_k$ be the stabilizer in $G_m$ of the totally isotropic subspace of $W_m$, spanned by the $k$ first vectors of a hermitian base, $k \leq m$. Denote by $N_k$ its unipotent radical, $\GL_k=\GL(D)$ and $M_k=\GL_k\times G_{m-k}$ the standard Levi subgroup of $P_k$. Denote by $\GL'_{k'}$, $P'_{k'}$, $N'_{k'}$, and $M'_{k'}$ the analogous groups for $G'_{m'}$.
Finally, denote by $\mathbf{R}_G$, the natural representation of the group $G\times G$ on the space $\mathscr{S}(G)$. This representation is isomorphic to the one obtained by inducing the trivial representation of $G$ to $G\times G$ (diagonal inclusion). It decomposes as
$$
\mathbf{R}_G = \sum_{\pi\in\mathscr{E}(G)} \pi\otimes \tilde{\pi},
$$
where $\tilde{\pi}$ denotes the contragredient representation of $\pi$.
\begin{prop}\label{coinv-submod}\cite[Corollary 1]{Epequin2}
Let $\prescript{*}{}{R}_k\otimes 1$ and $1\otimes\prescript{*}{}{R}'_{k'}$ be the parabolic restriction functor from $G_m\times G'_{m'}$ to $M_k\times G'_{m'}$ and $G_m\times M'_{k'}$ respectively.
\emph{a)} The representation $(\prescript{*}{}{R}_k\otimes 1)(\omega_{m,m'})$ decomposes as :
$$
\bigoplus_{i=0}^{\min\{k,m'\}} R_{\GL_{k-i}\times \GL_i \times G_{m-k}\times M'_i}^{M_k\times G'_{m'}} 1_{\GL_{k-i}}\otimes \mathbf{R}_{\GL_{i}}\otimes\omega_{m-k,m'-i}.
$$
\emph{b)} Likewise, the representation $(1\otimes\prescript{*}{}{R}'_{k'})(\omega_{m,m'})$ decomposes as :
$$
\bigoplus_{i=0}^{\min\{k',m\}} R_{M_i\times \GL_{k'-i}\times\GL_i\times G'_{m'-k'}}^{G_m\times M'_{k'}} 1_{\GL_{k'-i}}\otimes\mathbf{R}_{\GL_{i}}\otimes\omega_{m-i,m'-k'}.
$$
\end{prop}
Let $G_m$ be a type I group in the Witt tower $\mathscr{T}$. The set of standard Levi subgroups of $G_m$ can be parametrized by sequences $\mathbf{t}=(t_1,\ldots,t_r)$, such that $|\mathbf{t}|= \sum_{i=1}^r t_i$ is not greater than $m$. The corresponding Levi subgroup is equal to $\GL_{t_1}\times \cdots \times \GL_{t_r} \times G_{m-|\mathbf{t}|}$.
For this Levi subgroup, we denote parabolic induction by $R_{\mathbf{t}}$ and parabolic restriction by $\prescript{*}{}{R_{\mathbf{t}}}$. The Harish-Chandra series corresponding to the representation $\sigma_1\otimes\cdots\otimes\sigma_r\otimes\varphi$ of this Levi is denoted by $\mathscr{E}(G_m,\boldsymbol{\sigma}\otimes\varphi)_\mathbf{t}$, where $\boldsymbol{\sigma}=\sigma_1\otimes\cdots\otimes\sigma_r$. Finally, for a cuspidal representation $\pi$ of $G_m$, we denote by $\pi'$ (resp. $m'(\pi)$) its first occurrence (resp. first occurrence index) \cite{AM}.
Proposition \ref{coinv-submod} is a key result in the proof of the following.
\begin{thm}\label{HoweHarish-Chandra}\cite[Theorem 3]{Epequin2}
The image of $\mathscr{E}(G_m,\boldsymbol{\sigma}\otimes\varphi)_\mathbf{t}$ by the correspondence $\Theta_{m,m'}$ is spanned by a single series $\mathscr{E}(G'_{m'},\boldsymbol{\sigma}'\otimes\varphi')_{\mathbf{t}'}$ whenever $m'\geq m'(\varphi)$ and is zero otherwise. In the first case, if $|\mathbf{t}'|\geq |\mathbf{t}|$ then $\boldsymbol{\sigma}'=\boldsymbol{\sigma}\otimes 1$ and $\mathbf{t}'=\mathbf{t}\cup 1^d$; if $|\mathbf{t}'| < |\mathbf{t}|$ then $\boldsymbol{\sigma}=\boldsymbol{\sigma}'\otimes 1$ and $\mathbf{t}=\mathbf{t}'\cup 1^d$, where $d=\vert\vert\mathbf{t}'\vert-\lvert\mathbf{t}\vert\rvert$.
\end{thm}
In \cite{Epequin2} we showed how this result implies Theorem 3.7 in \cite{AMR}. The latter basically says that the Howe correspondence preserves unipotent Harish-Chandra series. We also used Theorem \ref{HoweHarish-Chandra} to obtain the bijective correspondence $\theta$ we present in Section \ref{SectionExtremalRepresentations}. However, this was not necesary, we can define $\theta$ using only the Lusztig correspondence (as done below).
\begin{comment}
If we ask for the representation $\boldsymbol{\sigma}\otimes\varphi$ of $\GL_{\mathbf{t}}\times G_l$ to be also unipotent, then $\mathbf{t}$ becomes $\mathbf{t}=(1^{m-l})$, the representation $\boldsymbol{\sigma}$ becomes the trivial representation of the torus $\GL_1^{m-l}$ of diagonal matrices, and $\boldsymbol{\sigma}'$ becomes the trivial representation of the torus $\GL_1^{m'-m'(\varphi)}$. Therefore, as a particular case of Theorem \ref{HoweHarish-Chandra} we get Theorem 3.7 in \cite{AMR}. Let $\mathscr{E}(G_m)_\varphi$ denote the series $\mathscr{E}(G_m,1\otimes\varphi)_{1^{m-l}}$.
\begin{cor}\label{HoweUnipotentHC}
The Howe correspondence $\Theta_{m,m'}$ sends representations in the series $\mathscr{E}(G_m)_\varphi$ to representations spanned by $\mathscr{E}(G'_{m'})_{\varphi'}$ whenever $m'\geq m'(\varphi)$, and to zero otherwise. Moreover, the representation $\varphi$ is unipotent if and only if the same holds for $\varphi'$.
\end{cor}
\end{comment}
\section{Howe correspondence and Lusztig correspondence}\label{HoweLusztigCorrespondence}
The purpose of this section is to see the effect of the Lusztig correspondence on the Howe correspondence for type I dual pairs.
\subsection{Centralizers of rational semisimple elements}\label{CentralizersSection}
Let $\mathbf{G}$ be a reductive group defined over $\mathbb{F}_q$, and $C_\textbf{G}(x)$ be the centralizer of a rational element $x$ in $\textbf{G}$. Denote by $G$ and $C_G(x)$ their groups of rational elements.
Assume that $\mathbf{G}$ is also connected. In Proposition 5.1 of \cite{Lusztig}, Lusztig found a bijection
\begin{align}\label{LusztigBijection}
\mathfrak{L}_s : \mathscr{E}(G,(s)) \simeq \mathscr{E}(C_{G^*}(s),(1)).
\end{align}
where $s$ is a rational semisimple element of $\textbf{G}^*$. Aubert, Michel and Rouquier extended this bijection to even orthogonal groups (Proposition 1.7 of \cite{AMR}). It is known as the \emph{Lusztig bijection} or \emph{Lusztig correspondence}. Taking $s=1$ yields a bijection between the series of unipotent representations of $G$ with that of its dual :
\begin{align}\label{UnipotentLusztigBijection}
\mathfrak{L}_1 : \mathscr{E}(G,1) \simeq \mathscr{E}(G^*,1),
\end{align}
We can also extend (\ref{LusztigBijection}) by linearity in order to obtain an isometry between the categories $\mathscr{R}(G,(s))$ and $\mathscr{R}(C_{G^*}(s),(1))$ spanned by the Lusztig series $\mathscr{E}(G,(s))$ and $\mathscr{E}(C_{G^*}(s),(1))$ respectively.
Following Section 1.B in \cite{AMR}, let $\mathbf{G}$ be a classical group of rank $n$, and $\mathbf{T}_n=\mathbb{F}_q^n$. Let $s$ be a rational semisimple element of its Langlands dual $\mathbf{G^*}$. By definition, a rational semisimple element is conjugate to an element $(\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_n)$ in $\mathbf{T}_n$. Let $\nu_\lambda(s)$ the number of times $\lambda$ appears in this list. There is a decomposition
$$
C_\mathbf{G^*}(s)=\prod\mathbf{G}_{[\lambda]}(s),
$$
where $[\lambda]$ is the orbit of $\lambda$ by the action of the Frobenius endomorphism, intersected with $\{\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_n\}$. Each $\mathbf{G}_{[\lambda]}(s)$ is a reductive quasi-simple group of rank $|[\lambda]|\nu_\lambda(s)$. Moreover, if $\lambda\neq \pm 1$, then $\mathbf{G}_{[\lambda]}(s)$ is a unitary or general linear group (possibly over some finite extension of $\mathbb{F}_q$). Additionally :
\noindent (1) If $\mathbf{G}=\boldsymbol{\GL}_n$ is unitary, then $\mathbf{G}_{[\pm 1]}(s)$ is a unitary group.
\noindent (2) If $\mathbf{G}=\boldsymbol{\SO}_{2n+1}$, then $\mathbf{G}_{[-1]}(s)=\boldsymbol{\Or}_{2\nu_{-1}(s)}$, and $\mathbf{G}_{[1]}(s)=\boldsymbol{\SO}_{2\nu_1(s)+1}$.
\noindent (3) If $\mathbf{G}=\boldsymbol{\Or}_{2n}$, then $\mathbf{G}_{[\pm 1]}(s)=\boldsymbol{\Or}_{2\nu_{\pm 1}(s)}$.
In all cases we see that $\mathbf{G}_{[1]}(s)$ is a group of the same kind as $\mathbf{G}$, but of smaller rank.
\begin{comment}
\begin{lem}\label{LeviCentralizer}
Let $\mathbf{L}$ be a Levi complement of the parabolic subgroup $\mathbf{P}$ of $\mathbf{G}$, both groups being rational. If $s$ is a semisimple element of $L$, then $\mathbf{L}_{[\lambda]}(s)$ is a Levi subgroup of the parabolic $\mathbf{P}_{[\lambda]}(s)$ of $\mathbf{G}_{[\lambda]}(s)$. Moreover, these groups are also rational.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Since $C_\textbf{G}(s)$ has maximal rank in $\mathbf{G}$, Proposition 2.2 in \cite{Digne-Michel} implies that $C_\textbf{P}(s) = P \cap C_\textbf{G}(s)$ is a parabolic subgroup of $C_\textbf{G}(s)$.
The subgroup $\mathbf{P}_{[\lambda]}(s)$ of $\mathbf{G}_{[\lambda]}(s)$ is parabolic because the quotient $\mathbf{G}_{[\lambda]}(s)/\mathbf{P}_{[\lambda]}(s)$ is projective. Indeed, this quotient is closed in the projective variety $C_\textbf{G}(s)/C_\textbf{P}(s)$.
Proposition 2.2 asserts also that $C_\textbf{L}(s) = L \cap C_\textbf{G}(s)$ is a Levi subgroup of $C_\textbf{P}(s)$, whence $\mathbf{L}_{[\lambda]}(s)$ is a Levi subgroup of $\mathbf{P}_{[\lambda]}(s)$. The final assertion is obvious.
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\subsection{Weil representation and Lusztig correspondence}
Consider a type I dual pair $(G,G')$. Let $m$ (resp. $m'$) be the Witt index of $G$ (resp. $G'$). According to Proposition 2.3 in \cite{AMR}, if $s$ is a rational semisimple element in $\mathbf{G}^*$, then there is a rational semisimple element $s'$ in $\mathbf{G'}^*$, such that the Howe correspondence relates $\mathscr{E}(G,(s))$ and $\mathscr{E}(G',(s'))$. Moreover, in this case, $s'=(s,1)$ if $m\leq m'$, and $s=(s',1)$ otherwise. In particular, there is some $l\leq\min(m,m')$, and $t$ in $\mathbf{T}_l$ with eigenvalues different from $1$, such that $s=(t,1)$, and $s'=(t,1)$. Let $\omega_{G,G',t}$ denote the projection of the Weil representation $\omega_{G,G'}$ onto $\mathscr{R}(G,(s))\otimes\mathscr{R}(G',(s'))$, and $\mathbf{T}_{l,0}$ the subset of $\mathbf{T}_l$ whose elements have all their eigenvalues different from $1$. Proposition 2.4 in \cite{AMR} asserts that
$$
\omega_{G,G'}=\bigoplus_{l=0}^{\min(m,m')}\bigoplus_{t\in\mathbf{T}_{l,0}}\omega_{G,G',t}.
$$
We now endeavour to study the effect of the Lusztig correspondence on the Weil representation $\omega_{G,G',t}$. We treat unitary and symplectic-orthogonal groups independently.
\subsubsection{Unitary pairs}
Suppose that $\mathbf{G}$ is a unitary group. Let $s$ be a rational semisimple element in $\mathbf{G}^*$, let $\mathbf{G}_\#$ denote the product of $\mathbf{G}_{[\lambda]}(s)$ for $\lambda\neq 1$, and $\mathbf{G}_{(1)}$ be the Langlands dual of $\mathbf{G}_{[1]}(s)$. The groups of rational elements of $\mathbf{G}_\#$ and $\mathbf{G}_{(1)}$ will be denoted by $G_\#$ and $G_{(1)}$ respectively. Considering the decomposition of centralizers discussed above, and since by (\ref{UnipotentLusztigBijection}) the unipotent Lusztig series of $\mathbf{G}_{(1)}$ and $\mathbf{G}_{[1]}$ can be identified, we obtain a modified Lusztig bijection
\begin{align}\label{UnitaryPanBijection}
\Xi_s : \mathscr{E}(G,(s))\simeq \mathscr{E}(G_\#,1)\times \mathscr{E}(G_{(1)},1).
\end{align}
For $\pi$ in $\mathscr{E}(G,(s))$ we will denote by $\pi_\#$ and $\pi_{(1)}$ the (unipotent) representations of $G_\#$ and $G_{(1)}$ such that
$$
\Xi_s(\pi)=\pi_\#\otimes \pi_{(1)}
$$
Let $(G,G')$ be a unitary dual pair, and $s$ (resp. $s'$) be a semisimple element of $G^*$ (resp. $G^{'*}$).
\begin{prop}\label{UnitaryPanGroups}
The groups $G_\#$ and $G'_\#$ are isomorphic. Moreover, the pair $(G_{(1)},G'_{(1)})$ can be identified with a unitary dual pair.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Both assertions in the statement above follow from the explicit decomposition of centralizers given in the Section \ref{CentralizersSection}. The isomorphism between $G_\#$ and $G'_\#$ is a consequence of the fact that $s$ and $s'$ have the same eigenvalues different from 1 (with same multiplicities). Concerning the second assertion, it suffices to state that $G_{[1]}$ and $G'_{[1]}$ are unitary groups.
\end{proof}
Finally, the Weil representation $\omega_{G,G',t}$ can be described in terms of a correspondence between unipotent characters, defined either by $\mathbf{R}_{G_\#,1}$, or by the unipotent projection of the Weil representation of the smaller unitary dual pair $(G_{(1)},G'_{(1)})$.
\begin{thm}\label{UnitaryReductionUnipotentCase}\cite[Th\'eor\`eme 2.6]{AMR}
Let $t$ belong to $\mathbf{T}_{l,0}$. For a linear or unitary pair $(G,G')$, the representation $\omega_{G,G',t}$ is the image by the Lusztig correspondance
$$
\mathscr{E}(G\times G',(s\times s')) \simeq \mathscr{E}(C_{G^*}(s)\times C_{G^{'*}}(s'),1),
$$
of the representation
$$
\mathbf{R}_{G_\#,1}\otimes \omega_{G_{(1)},G'_{(1)},1}.
$$
\end{thm}
\subsubsection{Symplectic-orthogonal pairs}
Suppose that $\mathbf{G}$ is a symplectic, or an even-orthogonal group. Let $s$ be a rational semisimple element in $\mathbf{G}^*$, let $\mathbf{G}_\#$ denote the product of $\mathbf{G}_{[\lambda]}(s)$ for $\lambda\neq \pm 1$, let $\mathbf{G}_{(-1)}=\mathbf{G}_{[-1]}(s)$, and $\mathbf{G}_{(1)}$ be the Langlands dual of $\mathbf{G}_{[1]}(s)$. Again, considering the decomposition of centralizers discussed above, and that since by (\ref{UnipotentLusztigBijection}) the unipotent Lusztig series of $\mathbf{G}_{(1)}$ and $\mathbf{G}_{[1]}(s)$ can be identified, we obtain a modified Lusztig bijection
\begin{align}\label{Symplectic-OrthogonalPanBijection}
\Xi_s : \mathscr{E}(G,(s))\simeq \mathscr{E}(G_\#,1)\times\mathscr{E}(G_{(-1)},1)\times\mathscr{E}(G_{(1)},1).
\end{align}
For $\pi$ in $\mathscr{E}(G,(s))$ we will denote by $\pi_\#$, $\pi_{(-1)}$ and $\pi_{(1)}$ the (unipotent) representations of $G_\#$, $G_{(-1)}$ and $G_{(1)}$ such that
$$
\Xi_s(\pi)=\pi_\#\otimes \pi_{(-1)}\otimes\pi_{(1)}.
$$
Let $(G,G')$ be a symplectic-orthogonal dual pair, and $s$ (resp. $s'$) be a semisimple element of $G^*$ (resp. $G^{'*}$).
\begin{prop}\label{Symplectic-OrthogonalPanGroups}
The groups $G_\#$ and $G_{(-1)}$ are isomorphic to $G'_\#$ and $G'_{(-1)}$ respectively. Moreover, the pair $(G_{(1)},G'_{(1)})$ is a symplectic orthogonal dual pair.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The proof of the first assertion is the same as that of Proposition \ref{UnitaryPanGroups}, with the difference that the groups $\boldsymbol{G}_{[-1]}(s)$ and $\boldsymbol{G}'_{[-1]}(s')$ are in this case isomorphic to $\boldsymbol{\Or}_{2\nu_{-1}(t)}$. For the second assertion, since $\mathbf{G}$ is symplectic, the group $\mathbf{G}_{[1]}(s)$ is special odd orthogonal and hence its dual is again symplectic. Likewise, the group $\mathbf{G}'_{[1]}(s')$ is even orthogonal, and so is its dual.
\end{proof}
As for unitary pairs, we now describe the Weil representation $\omega_{G,G',t}$ for symplectic-orthogonal pairs.
\begin{thm}\label{Symplectic-OrthogonalReductionUnipotentCase}\cite[Theorem 6.9 and Remark 6.10]{Pan5}
Let $t$ belong to $\mathbf{T}_{l,0}$. For a symplectic orthogonal dual pair $(G,G')$ the representation $\omega_{G,G',t}$ is the image by the Lusztig correspondence
$$
\mathscr{E}(G\times G',(s\times s')) \simeq \mathscr{E}(C_{G^*}(s)\times C_{G^{'*}}(s'),1).
$$
of the representation
$$
\mathbf{R}_{G_\#,1}\otimes \mathbf{R}_{G_{(-1)},1}\otimes\omega_{G_{(1)},G'_{(1)},1}.
$$
\end{thm}
\begin{comment}
\subsection{Unipotent Harish-Chandra series}
Theorems \ref{UnitaryReductionUnipotentCase} and \ref{Symplectic-OrthogonalReductionUnipotentCase} show how the study of the Howe correspondence can be brought to the study of a correspondence between unipotent representations of a smaller dual pair of the same kind. In this section we will use this result to show how to describe the Howe correspondence between Harish-Chandra series, stated in Theorem \ref{HoweHarish-Chandra}, in terms of unipotent Harish-Chandra series.
Our first result concerns the $\mathbb{F}_q$-rank of certain rational Levi subgroups (see Definition 8.3 in \cite{Digne-Michel}). In its statement $\epsilon_\mathbf{G}=(-1)^{\mathbb{F}_q-\rank}$. We provide the proof for lack of reference.
\begin{lem}\label{RationalLeviFqRank}
If $\mathbf{M}$ is a rational Levi contained in a rational parabolic subgroup of $\mathbf{G}$, then $\epsilon_\mathbf{M}$ is equal to $\epsilon_\mathbf{G}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By definition, we need to prove the equality between the $\mathbb{F}_q$-rank of $\mathbf{M}$ and $\mathbf{G}$. Let $\mathbf{P}$ be the rational parabolic containing $\mathbf{M}$, and consider a rational maximal torus $\mathbf{T}$ of $\mathbf{M}$. We can choose a rational Borel subgroup $\mathbf{B}$ of $\mathbf{G}$ contained in $\mathbf{P}$ and containing $\mathbf{T}$. Since it is also contained in the rational Borel subgroup $\mathbf{B}\cap\mathbf{M}$ of $\mathbf{M}$, the $\mathbb{F}_q$-rank of $\mathbf{M}$ and $\mathbf{G}$ are equal.
\end{proof}
Let now $(G_m,G'_{m'})$ be a type I dual pair. Theorem \ref{HoweHarish-Chandra} asserts that, for a cuspidal pair $(\mathbf{L},\rho)$ of $\mathbf{G}_m$, we can find a unique cuspidal pair $(\mathbf{L}',\rho')$ of $\mathbf{G}'_{m'}$ such that $\Theta_{m,m'}$ sends the series $\mathscr{E}(G_m,\rho)_L$ to the category $\mathscr{R}(G'_{m'},\rho')_{L'}$ spanned by $\mathscr{E}(G'_{m'},\rho')_{L'}$.
\begin{prop}
Let $\omega_{m,m',\rho}$ denote the projection of the Weil representation $\omega_{m,m'}$ onto $\mathscr{R}(G_m,\rho)\otimes\mathscr{R}(G'_{m'},\rho')$. Then
$$
\omega_{m,m'}=\bigoplus_{(\mathbf{L},\rho)}\omega_{m,m',\rho},
$$
where the sum runs over all rational conjugacy classes of cuspidal pairs of $G_m$.
\end{prop}
As before, we will treat unitary and symplectic-orthogonal pairs independently.
\subsubsection{Unitary pairs}
Let $\mathbf{L}$ be a rational Levi contained in a rational parabolic of a unitary group $\mathbf{G}$. Let $\mathbf{L^*}$ be its dual, and denote by $L^*$ the group of rational points, let $s$ be a rational semisimple element of $\mathbf{L^*}$. In view of Lemma \ref{LeviCentralizer} [MODIFY STATEMENT], it makes sense to consider the parabolic induction functors $R_{C_{L^*}(s)}^{C_{G^*}(s)}$, $R_{L_\#(s)}^{G_\#(s)}$, and $R_{L_{(1)}(s)}^{G_{(1)}(s)}$. The following result (cf. Proposition 8.25 in \cite{CE}) shows the effect of the Lusztig bijection on parabolic induction.
\begin{prop}\label{UnitaryLusztigHarish-Chandra}
Parabolic induction $R_L^G$ sends the series $\mathscr{E}(L,(s))$ to $\mathscr{R}(G,(s))$. Furthermore, the following diagram is commutative:
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzcd}
\mathscr{E}(L,(s)) \arrow[d, "R_L^G"] \arrow[r, "\Xi^{L}_s", "\sim" swap]
& \mathscr{E}(L_\#(s),1)\times \mathscr{E}(L_{(1)}(s),1) \arrow[d, "R_{L_\#(s)}^{G_\#(s)}\times R_{L_{(1)}(s)}^{G_{(1)}(s)}"] \\
\mathscr{R}(G,(s)) \arrow[r, "\sim" swap, "\Xi^{G}_s"]
& \mathscr{R}(G_\#(s),1)\otimes \mathscr{R}(G_{(1)}(s),1).
\end{tikzcd}
\end{center}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $\pi$ belong to $\mathscr{E}(L,(s))$. Since $\mathbf{L}$ is a product of linear and unitary groups, central functions in $L$ are uniform. Therefore we can express $\pi$ as a linear combination $\pi=\sum_{s\in T} n_T R_T^L(s)$ of Deligne-Lusztig characters with integral coefficients. Transitivity of Lusztig induction implies that $R_L^G(\pi) = \sum_{s\in T} n_T R_T^G(s)$, this representation belongs to $\mathscr{R}(G,(s))$, whence the first statement.
Applying the Lusztig bijection we obtain
$$
\mathfrak{L}^G_s \circ R_L^G(\pi)= \epsilon_\mathbf{G}\epsilon_{C_\mathbf{G^*}(s)}\sum_{s\in T} n_ T R_{T^*}^{C_{G^*}(s)}(1),
$$
this representation belongs to $\mathscr{R}(C_{G^*}(s),(1))$. On the other side, inducing the representation $\mathfrak{L}^L_s(\pi)= \epsilon_\mathbf{L}\epsilon_{C_\mathbf{L^*}(s)}\sum_{s\in T} n_T R_{T*}^{C_{L^*}(s)}(1)$ to $C_{G^*}(s)$, we obtain
$$
R_{C_{L^*}(s)}^{C_{G^*}(s)} \circ \mathfrak{L}^L_s(\pi)= \epsilon_\mathbf{L}\epsilon_{C_{\mathbf{L^*}}(s)}\sum_{s\in T} n_T R_{T^*}^{C_{G^*}(s)}(1).
$$
By Lemma \ref{LeviCentralizer} the group $C_\mathbf{L^*}(s)$ is a rational Levi contained in a rational parabolic subgroup of $C_\mathbf{G^*}(s)$. Proposition \ref{RationalLeviFqRank} implies that $\epsilon_\mathbf{L}$ and $\epsilon_{C_\mathbf{L^*}(s)}$ are equal to $\epsilon_\mathbf{G}$ and $\epsilon_{C_\mathbf{G^*}(s)}$ respectively. The commutativity of the diagram follows.
\end{proof}
Let $(G,G')=(G_m,G'_{m'})$ be a unitary dual pair. Let $(\mathbf{L},\rho)$ be a cuspidal pair for $G$ and $(\mathbf{L}',\rho')$ be the cuspidal pair of $G'$ related to it by the Howe correspondence. Let $s$ (resp. $s'$) be a semisimple element of $L^*$ (resp. $(L')^*$) whose Lusztig series contains $\rho$ (resp. $\rho'$).
\begin{prop}\label{UnitaryDecompositionCuspidalPairViaXi}
The pairs $(L_\#(s),\rho_\#)$ and $(L'_\#(s'),\rho'_\#)$ are isomorphic.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
According to Theorem \ref{HoweHarish-Chandra}, $L = \GL_\mathbf{t}\times T_r\times G_l$, $L' = \GL_\mathbf{t}\times T_{r'}\times G'_{l'}$, $\rho = \boldsymbol{\sigma}\otimes 1\otimes \varphi$ and $\rho' = \boldsymbol{\sigma}\otimes 1\otimes \varphi'$, where $\boldsymbol{\sigma}=\sigma_1\otimes\ldots\otimes\sigma_d$ is a product of non-trivial cuspidal representations and $\varphi'$ denotes the first occurrence of $\varphi$.
Taking $s = s_{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\times 1\times s_\varphi$ and $s' = s_{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\times 1\times s_{\varphi'}$, where $s_\varphi$, $s_{\varphi'}$ and $s_{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}=s_1\times\cdots\times s_d$ are semisimple elements of $G_l$, $G'_{l'}$ and $GL_\mathbf{t}$ whose Lusztig series contain $\varphi$, $\varphi'$ and $\boldsymbol{\sigma}$, we have isomorphisms $L_\#(s) = (G_l)_\#(s_\varphi)\times (GL_\mathbf{t})_\#(s_{\boldsymbol{\sigma}})$, and $L' = (G'_{l'})_\#(s_{\varphi'})\times (GL_\mathbf{t})_\#(s_{\boldsymbol{\sigma}})$. Since $(G_l)_\#(s_\varphi)$ is isomorphic to $(G'_{l'})_\#(s_{\varphi'})$ (see Lemma \ref{UnitaryPanGroups}), the groups $L_\#(s)$ and $L'_\#(s')$ are isomorphic. Theorem \ref{UnitaryReductionUnipotentCase} applied to the pair $(G_l,G_{l'})$ implies that $\varphi_\#\simeq\varphi'_\#$. This completes the proof. [REPLACE L BY L*]
\end{proof}
The preceding proposition allows us to identify the Harish-Chandra series $\mathscr{E}(G_\#(s),\rho_\#)_{L_\#(s)}$ and $\mathscr{E}(G'_\#(s'),\rho'_\#)_{L'_\#(s')}$. Denote by $\mathbf{R}_{G_\#(s),\rho_\#}$ the projection of the representation $\mathbf{R}_{G_\#(s)}$ onto the series $\mathscr{E}(G_\#(s)\times G_\#(s),\rho_\#\otimes\rho_\#)_{L_\#(s)\times L_\#(s)}$. The following is the main theorem of this section.
\begin{thm}\label{UnitaryHC-UnipotentHC}
The representation $\omega_{m,m',\rho}$ is identified with $\mathbf{R}_{G_\#(s),\rho_\#}\otimes \omega_{m-l,m'-l,\rho_{(1)}}$ via the bijection
\begin{align}\label{UnitaryHC-UnipotentHCBijection}
\mathscr{E}(G\times G',\rho\otimes\rho')_{L\times L'}\simeq \mathscr{E}(C_{G^*}(s)\times C_{(G')^*}(s'),\rho_u\otimes \rho'_u)_{C_L(s)\times C_{L'}(s')},
\end{align}
where $s$ and $s'$ are rational semisimple elements of $L$ and $L'$ whose Lusztig series contain $\rho$ and $\rho'$ respectively.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition \ref{UnitaryLusztigHarish-Chandra}, the induced representation $R_{L\times L'}^{G\times G'}(\rho\otimes\rho')$ belongs to $\mathscr{R}(G\times G',(s\times s'))$. Therefore the Harish-Chandra series $\mathscr{E}(G\times G',\rho\otimes\rho')_{L\times L'}$ is contained in $\mathscr{E}(G\times G',(s \times s'))$.
Let $\pi$ and $\pi'$ be irreducible representations of $G$ and $G'$ respectively. Proposition \ref{UnitaryLusztigHarish-Chandra} implies that
$$
\langle \pi_u\otimes \pi'_u, R_{C_L(s)}^{C_G(s)}(\rho_u) \otimes R_{C_{L'}(s')}^{C_{G'}(s')} (\rho'_u)\rangle
=
\langle \pi,R_{C_L(s)}^{C_G(s)}\rho\rangle\langle\pi',R_{C_{L'}(s')}^{C_{G'}(s')} \rho'\rangle.
$$
This means that the bijection Theorem \ref{UnitaryReductionUnipotentCase} restricts to (\ref{UnitaryHC-UnipotentHCBijection}). The statement about the representation $\omega_{m,m',\rho}$ also follows.
\end{proof}
From the proof we also realize that the Howe correspondence for the unitary dual pair $(G_{(1)}(s),G'_{(1)}(s'))$ sends the Harish-Chandra series $\mathscr{E}(G_{(1)}(s),\rho_{(1)})_{L_{(1)}}$ to the series $\mathscr{R}(G'_{(1)}(s'),\rho'_{(1)})_{L'_{(1)}}$.
\subsubsection{Symplectic-orthogonal pairs}
Let $\mathbf{G}$ be a symplectic or even orthogonal group, let $\mathbf{L^*}$ be the dual of a rational Levi $\mathbf{L}$ contained in a rational parabolic of $\mathbf{G}$. Let $s$ be a rational semisimple element of $\mathbf{L^*}$. Due to Lemma \ref{LeviCentralizer}, it makes sense to consider the parabolic induction functors $R_{C_{L^*}(s)}^{C_{G^*}(s)}$, $R_{L_\#(s)}^{G_\#(s)}$, $R_{L_{[-1]}(s)}^{G_{[-1]}(s)}$, and $R_{L_{(1)}(s)}^{G_{(1)}(s)}$. The following proposition shows the effect of the Lusztig bijection on parabolic induction.
\begin{prop}\label{Symplectic-OrthogonalLusztigHarish-Chandra}
Parabolic induction $R_L^G$ sends the series $\mathscr{E}(L,(s))$ to $\mathscr{R}(G,(s))$. Furthermore, the following diagram is commutative:
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzcd}
\mathscr{E}(L,(s)) \arrow[d, "R_L^G"] \arrow[r, "\Xi^{L}_s", "\sim" swap]
& \mathscr{E}(L_\#(s),1)\times \mathscr{E}(L_{[-1]}(s),1)\times\mathscr{E}(L_{(1)}(s),1) \arrow[d, "R_{L_\#(s)}^{G_\#(s)}\times R_{L_{[-1]}(s)}^{G_{[-1]}(s)}\times R_{L_{(1)}(s)}^{G_{(1)}(s)}"] \\
\mathscr{R}(G,(s)) \arrow[r, "\sim" swap, "\Xi^{G}_s"]
& \mathscr{R}(G_\#(s),1)\otimes \mathscr{R}(G_{[1]}(s),1)\otimes\mathscr{R}(G_{(1)}(s),1).
\end{tikzcd}
\end{center}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Using the same arguments as in the proof of Proposition \ref{UnitaryLusztigHarish-Chandra} we can prove that the uniform projection of $\mathfrak{L}^G_s \circ R_L^G$ and $R_{C_{L^*}(s)}^{C_{G^*}(s)} \circ \mathfrak{L}^L_s$ agree. That is
\begin{align}\label{Symplectic-OrthogonalLusztigHarish-ChandraEquality}
\mathfrak{L}^G_s \circ R_L^G(\pi)^\sharp = R_{C_{L^*}(s)}^{C_{G^*}(s)} \circ \mathfrak{L}^L_s(\pi)^\sharp,
\end{align}
for all $\pi$ in $\mathscr{E}(L,(s))$.
If $G$ is a symplectic group, then according to Proposition 3.3 in \cite{Pan5}, the equality (\ref{Symplectic-OrthogonalLusztigHarish-ChandraEquality}) implies that the representations $\mathfrak{L}^G_s \circ R_L^G(\pi)$ and $R_{C_{L^*}(s)}^{C_{G^*}(s)} \circ \mathfrak{L}^L_s(\pi)$ are indeed equal.
If $G$ is an even-orthogonal group, Proposition 3.5 in \cite{Pan5} guarantees that $\mathfrak{L}^G_s \circ R_L^G(\pi)$ and $R_{C_{L^*}(s)}^{C_{G^*}(s)} \circ \mathfrak{L}^L_s(\pi)$ agree up to twisting by the $\sgn$ character. However, according to Remark 6.10 in the same paper, by specifying the choice of the Lusztig correspondences in the diagram, we can actually lift the incertitude introduced by this character [CHECK].
\end{proof}
Let $(G,G')=(G_m,G'_{m'})$ be a symplectic-orthogonal dual pair. Let $(\mathbf{L},\rho)$ be a cuspidal pair for $G$ and $(\mathbf{L}',\rho')$ be the cuspidal pair of $G'$ related to it by the Howe correspondence. Let $s$ (resp. $s'$) be a semisimple element of $L^*$ (resp. $L^{'*}$) whose Lusztig series contains $\rho$ (resp. $\rho'$).
\begin{prop}\label{Symplectic-OrthogonalDecompositionCuspidalPairViaXi}
The pairs $(L_\#(s),\rho_\#)$ and $(L_{[-1]}(s),\rho_{[-1]})$ are isomorphic to $(L'_\#(s'),\rho'_\#)$ and $(L'_{[-1]}(s'),\rho'_{[-1]})$ respectively.
\end{prop}
From the above result we can dentify the Harish-Chandra series $\mathscr{E}(G_\#(s),\rho_\#)_{L_\#(s)}$, and $\mathscr{E}(G_{[-1]}(s),\rho_{[-1]})_{L_{[-1]}(s)}$ with $\mathscr{E}(G'_\#(s'),\rho'_\#)_{L'_\#(s')}$, and $\mathscr{E}(G'_{[-1]}(s'),\rho'_{[-1]})_{L'_{[-1]}(s')}$ respectively. Denote by $\mathbf{R}_{G_\#(s),\rho_\#}$ (resp. $\mathbf{R}_{G_{[-1]}(s),\rho_{[-1]}}$) the projection of the representation $\mathbf{R}_{G_\#(s)}$ onto the series $\mathscr{E}(G_\#(s)\times G_\#(s),\rho_\#\otimes\rho_\#)_{L_\#(s)\times L_\#(s)}$ (resp. $\mathscr{E}(G_{[-1]}(s)\times G_{[-1]}(s),\rho_{[-1]}\otimes\rho_{[-1]})_{L_{[-1]}(s)\times L_{[-1}(s)}$). The following is the main theorem of this section.
\begin{thm}\label{Symplectic-OrthogonalHC-UnipotentHC}
The representation $\omega_{m,m',\rho}$ is identified with $\mathbf{R}_{G_\#(s),\rho_\#}\otimes \mathbf{R}_{G_{[-1]}(s),\rho_{[-1]}} \otimes \omega_{m-l,m'-l,\rho_{(1)}}$ via the bijection
\begin{align}\label{Symplectic-OrthogonalHC-UnipotentHCBijection}
\mathscr{E}(G\times G',\rho\otimes\rho')_{L\times L'}\simeq \mathscr{E}(C_{G^*}(s)\times C_{(G')^*}(s'),\rho_u\otimes \rho'_u)_{C_L(s)\times C_{L'}(s')},
\end{align}
where $s$ and $s'$ are rational semisimple elements of $L$ and $L'$ whose Lusztig series contain $\rho$ and $\rho'$ respectively.
\end{thm}
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
As a consequence we have the following result. Its proof is the same as Corollary \ref{HoweLusztig} and will be omited.
\begin{cor}\label{CorollaryHC-HCUnipotent}
The following diagram is commutative :
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzcd}
\mathscr{E}(G_m,\rho)_L \arrow[d, "\Theta^\flat_{m,m'}"] \arrow[r, "\Xi^{G_m}_s" swap, "\sim"]
& \mathscr{E}(G_\#(s),\rho_\#)_{L_\#}\times \mathscr{E}(G_{m-l},\rho_{m-l})_{L_{m-l}} \arrow[d, "\iota\hspace{0.05cm}\otimes\hspace{0.05cm}\Theta^\flat_{m-l,m'-l}"] \\
\mathscr{R}(G'_{m'},\rho')_{L'} \arrow[r, "\sim", "\Xi^{G'_{m'}}_{s'}" swap]
& \mathscr{R}(G_\#(s),\rho_\#)_{L_\#}\otimes \mathscr{R}(G'_{m'-l},\rho'_{m'-l})_{L'_{m'-l}}.
\end{tikzcd}
\end{center}
\end{cor}
\end{comment}
\section*{Introduction}
Let $\mathbb{F}_q$ be a finite field with $q$ elements and odd characteristic. A pair of reductive subgroups of $\Sp_{2n}(q)$, where each one is the centralizer of the other, is called \emph{reductive dual pair}. We focus our attention on \emph{irreducible} dual pairs (cf. \cite{Kudla}). One such pair can be \emph{linear} $(\GL_m(q),\GL_{m'}(q))$, \emph{unitary} $(\U_m(q),\U_{m'}(q))$ or \emph{symplectic-orthogonal} $(\Sp_{2m}(q),\Or_{m'}(q))$, with $n=mm'$ in all cases. The last two are also called \emph{type I} dual pairs, and the groups belonging to them are called \emph{type I groups}.
For a reductive dual pair $(G_m,G'_{m'})$, Roger Howe defined the a correspondence $\Theta_{m,m'} : \mathscr{R}(G_m)\rightarrow\mathscr{R}(G'_{m'})$ between their categories of complex representations. Known as \emph{Howe correspondance}, it arises from the restriction to $G_m\times G'_{m'}$ of the \emph{Weil representation} $\omega$ of the symplectic group $\Sp_{2n}(q)$ (cf. \cite{Howe}).
Let $\mathbf{G}$ be a connected reductive group defined over $\mathbb{F}_q$, and $\mathbf{G}^*$ its dual group. Denote by $G$ and $G^*$ their groups of rational points. In \cite{Lusztig3} Lusztig defined a partition of the set $\mathscr{E}(G)$ of irreducible representations of $G$ into \emph{Lusztig series} $\mathscr{E}(G,(s))$. These series are parametrized by rational conjugacy classes of semisimple elements $s$ of $G^*$. The elements of $\mathscr{E}(G,(1))$ are called \emph{unipotent representations} of $G$.
In general, the Howe correspondence is not compatible with unipotent representations. Therefore, we make use of a similar correspondance $\Theta^\flat_{m,m'}:\mathscr{R}(G_m)\rightarrow\mathscr{R}(G'_{m'})$ arising from a Weil representation $\omega^\flat$ introduced by G\'erardin in \cite{Gerardin}. This correspondence preserves unipotent representations (cf. Proposition 2.3 in \cite{AMR}). Since in this paper we only work with this modified Howe correspondence we will drop the superscript and denote $\Theta^\flat_{m,m'}$, and $\omega^\flat$ by $\Theta_{m,m'}$, and $\omega$ respectively.
In \cite{Lusztig4} Lusztig found that, for every irreducible representation $\pi$ of a connected reductive group $\mathbf{G}$, there is a unique rational unipotent class $\mathscr{O}_{\pi}$ in $\mathbf{G}$ which has the property that $\sum_{x\in \mathscr{O}_{\pi}(q)}\pi(x)$ is non trivial, and that has maximal dimension among classes with this property. This class is called the \emph{unipotent support} of $\pi$. Such classes are ordered by the relation given by $\mathcal{O}'\preceq\mathcal{O}$, if and only if $\mathcal{O}'\subset\overline{\mathcal{O}}$, referred to as the \emph{closure order}.
In \cite{Epequin} we defined a bijective mapping $\theta_{G,G'}:\mathscr{E}(G,1)\rightarrow\mathscr{E}(G',1)$ between the unipotent series of the members of a type I dual pair $(G,G')$; in such a way that, for a unipotent representation $\pi$ of $G$
-- The representation $\theta_{G,G'}(\pi)$ occurs in $\Theta_{G,G'}(\pi)$.
-- If $\pi'$ belongs to $\Theta_{G,G'}(\pi)$, then $\mathcal{O}_{\theta(\pi)}\preceq\mathcal{O}_{\pi'}$
The last item above asserts that $\theta_{G,G'}(\pi)$ has the smallest unipotent support among irreducible representations in $\Theta_{G,G'}(\pi)$, it is in this sense minimal.
We want to extend this definition to the whole set of irreducible representations. Naturally, any attempt to do this must make use of the \emph{Lusztig bijection}. This bijection, known as well as the \emph{Lusztig correspondence} is a one-to-one map between the series $\mathscr{E}(G,(s))$ and the series $\mathscr{E}(C_{G^*}(s),(1))$, of unipotent representations of the centralizer $C_{G^*}(s)$. For classical groups, this centralizer can be expressed as a product of smaller reductive groups.
For instance, when $G$ is a unitary group
$$
C_{G^*}(s) \simeq G_\#\times G_{(1)}
$$
where $G_\#$ is a product of linear or unitary groups, and $G_{(1)}$ is a unitary group. We obtain in this way a modified Lusztig correspondence $\Xi_s$ sending $\pi \in \mathscr{E}(G,(s))$ to $\pi_\#\otimes\pi_{(1)}\in \mathscr{E}(G_\# \times G_{(1)},1)$. For a unitary dual pair $(G,G')$ this bijection fits in the commutative diagram
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzcd}
\mathscr{E}(G,(s)) \arrow[d, "\Theta_{G,G'}"] \arrow[r, "\Xi_{s}", "\sim" swap]
& \mathscr{E}(G_\#\times G_{(1)},1) \arrow[d, "\iota\hspace{0.05cm}\otimes\hspace{0.05cm}\Theta_{G_{(1)},G'_{(1)}}"] \\
\mathscr{R}(G',(s')) \arrow[r, "\Xi_{s'}", "\sim" swap]
& \mathscr{R}(G_\#\times G'_{(1)},1).
\end{tikzcd}
\end{center}
This motivates us to define $\theta_{G,G'}(\pi)$, for $\pi$ in $\mathscr{E}(G)$, to be the unique irreducible representation of $G'$ such that
$$
\Xi_{s'}(\theta_{G,G'}(\pi))=\tilde{\pi}_\#\times \theta_{G_{(1)},G'_{(1)}}(\pi_{(1)}).
$$
We also define such a mapping $\theta_{G,G'}:\mathscr{E}(G)\rightarrow\mathscr{E}(G')$, for symplectic-orthogonal pairs. As we could expect, this bijection also selects representations with smallest unipotent supports. This is our first result (Theorem \ref{IncreasingLusztig}).
\begin{thm*}
Let $\pi$, $\tau$ belong to $\mathscr{E}(G,(s))$, and $\pi_u$, $\tau_u$ denote the corresponding unipotent representations of $C_{G^*}(s)$. If $\mathcal{O}_{\pi_u}\preceq\mathcal{O}_{\tau_u}$ then $\mathcal{O}_{\pi}\preceq\mathcal{O}_{\tau}$. In particular, for $\pi$ in $\mathscr{E}(G)$, the subrepresentation $\theta_{G,G'}(\pi)$ of $\Theta_{G,G'}(\pi)$ has the smallest unipotent support.
\end{thm*}
In a recent paper \cite{Howe-Gurevich}, Howe and Gurevich presented the notion of rank for representations of finite symplectic groups (see Section \ref{SupportRank}). This conduced to the introduction of the \emph{eta} correspondence. Consider a dual pair $(G,G')$ formed by one orthogonal and one symplectic group; and suppose the pair is in the stable range. Howe and Gurevich show that for $\rho$ in $\mathscr{E}(G)$, there is a unique irreducible representation in $\Theta_{G,G'}(\rho)$ of maximal rank, it is denoted by $\eta(\rho)$.
The correspondences $\theta$ and $\eta$ are defined in different ways. The former chooses a subrepresentation of $\Theta$ with smallest unipotent support, whereas the latter selects one with greatest rank. In \cite{Pan3}, Shu-Yen Pan shows that these two agree on their common domain of definition (the stable range), i.e. among the irreducible constituents of $\Theta(\pi)$, the representation with the smallest unipotent support is the one having the greatest rank. This points out to an inverse relation between these two features. We discuss this in Section \ref{SupportRank}.
In \cite{GHJ}, Gerber, Hiss and jacon introduced the notion of \emph{weak cuspidality} for modular representations in non-defining (including zero) characteristic. The spirit of the definition is the same as for cuspidal representations: the vanishing of parabolic restriction functors. For weakly cuspidal representations we nonetheless restrict our attention to certain kind of parabolic subgroups, called \emph{pure} by the authors. This yields a weak Harish-Chandra theory that refines the usual one. Moreover, for representations of unitary groups in prime characteristic, this new definition provides a natural partition of the set of unipotent representations (see Proposition \ref{CoreWeaKHC}), in the same way usual series do for ordinary unipotent representations.
A natural question arises: how does the Howe correspondence behaves with respect to this weak Harish-Chandra theory? We provide an answer to this question for ordinary representations. We first prove that the Howe correspondence respects weak cuspidality in case of first occurrence. This is our second result.
\begin{thm*}
Let $(G_m,G'_{m'})$ be a type I dual pair, and $\pi$ be an irreducible weakly cuspidal representation of $G_m$, and let $m'(\pi)$ be its first occurrence index.
1. If $m'<m'(\pi)$, then $\Theta_{m,m'}(\pi)$ is empty
2. The representation $\Theta_{m,m'(\pi)}(\pi)$ is irreducible and weakly cuspidal
3. If $m'>m'(\pi)$, then none of the constituents of $\Theta_{m,m'}(\pi)$ is weakly cuspidal
\end{thm*}
The proof of this result can divided in two independent parts: existence and uniqueness, each making use of different tools. The former relies on the computation of coinvariants of the Weil representation presented in Section \ref{HoweCorrespondanceCuspidalSupport}. The latter, on the study of orbits and stabilizers for the action of a block diagonal subgroup of a type I group on the set of maximal isotropic subspaces of the underlying module of this group. We need to mention that the proof is inspired by the equivalent result for cuspidal representations, but that it is more refined. Indeed, for cuspidal representations, the uniqueness proof used the fact that the stabilizers above are contained in a direct product of parabolic subgroups. For weakly cuspidal representations this is not enough, we had to calculate this stabilizers explicitly. In order to do so we had first to find explicit representatives for the orbits (which is also not needed in the cuspidal setting).
From the last theorem above, the work required to establish the agreement between the Howe correspondence and weak cuspidal support is very much the same required in the cuspidal setting.
\section{Minimal representations}\label{SectionExtremalRepresentations}
Let $\mathbf{G}$ be a reductive group defined over $\mathbb{F}_q$, and $\mathbf{P}=\mathbf{L}\mathbf{U}$ be a Levi decomposition of the rational parabolic subgroup $\mathbf{P}$. For a cuspidal representation $\rho$ of $L$ set
$$
W_\mathbf{G}(\rho) = \{x\in N_{G}(\mathbf{L})/L : {}^x\rho=\rho\}.
$$
By Corollary 5.4 in \cite{HL} and Corollary 2 in \cite{Geck}, there is an isomorphism
\begin{align}\label{Howlett-Lehrer}
\End_G(R_\mathbf{L}^\mathbf{G}(\rho)) \simeq \mathbb{C}[W_\mathbf{G}(\rho)].
\end{align}
In particular, irreducible representations in the Harish-Chandra series $\mathscr{E}(G,\rho)_L$ are indexed by irreducible representations of $W_\mathbf{G}(\rho)$.
When $G$ is a type I group and $\rho$ is a cuspidal unipotent representation, the group $ W_\mathbf{G}(\rho)$ above is a type B Weyl group. It is known that irreducible representations of these groups are parametrized by bipartitions. We denote by $\rho_{\mu,\lambda}$ the representation in $\mathscr{E}(W_r)$ corresponding to the bipartition $(\mu,\lambda)$ of $r$.
For every irreducible representation $\pi$ of a connected reductive group $G$, there is a unique rational unipotent class $\mathscr{O}_{\pi}$ in $G$ which has the property that $\sum_{x\in \mathscr{O}_{\pi}(q)}\pi(x)$ is non trivial, and that has maximal dimension among classes with this property. This class, introduced by Lusztig in \cite{Lusztig4} is called the \emph{unipotent support} of $\pi$.
We now introduce a partial order on the set of unipotent conjugacy classes. It is crucial for results below.
\begin{defi}
The relation on the set of unipotent conjugacy classes of $G$, given by $\mathcal{O}'\preceq\mathcal{O}$, if and only if $\mathcal{O}'\subset\overline{\mathcal{O}}$, is a partial order. We refer to it as the \emph{closure order}.
\end{defi}
Let $(G,G')$ be a type I dual pair. In \cite{Epequin} we defined a bijective correspondence $\theta_{G,G'}:\mathscr{E}(G,1)\rightarrow\mathscr{E}(G',1)$ between the unipotent series of $G$ and $G'$, in such a way that, for a unipotent representation $\pi$ of $G$
-- The representation $\theta(\pi)$ occurs in $\Theta(\pi)$.
-- If $\pi'$ belongs to $\Theta(\pi)$, then $\mathcal{O}_{\theta(\pi)}\preceq\mathcal{O}_{\pi'}$
The last item above asserts that $\theta_{G,G'}(\pi)$ has the smallest unipotent support among irreducible representations in $\Theta_{G,G'}(\pi)$, it is in this sense ``minimal''.
Before extending this to arbitrary representations, we recall the definition for unipotent representations. We work with symplectic orthogonal and unitary pairs independently.
\subsection{Unitary pairs}
Unipotent representations of the unitary groups $\U_n(q)$ are known to be indexed by partitions of $n$. Moreover, those belonging to the same Harish-Chandra series share a common $2$-\emph{core} and are therefore determined by their $2$-\emph{quotient} (of parameter one) \cite{AMR}. If we let $R_\mu$ be the representation of $\U_n(q)$ indexed by the partition $\mu$ of $n$, then the bijection issued from (\ref{Howlett-Lehrer}) relates $R_\mu$ to $\rho_{\mu(0),\mu(1)}$, where $(\mu(0),\mu(1))$ is the 2-quotient (of parameter 1) of $\mu$.
Let $(G_m,G'_{m'})$ denote a unitary dual pair. According to Theorem 3.7 in \cite{AMR} the Howe correspondance relates the unipotent series $\mathscr{E}(G_m)_\varphi$ to the series $\mathscr{R}(G'_{m'})_{\varphi'}$, where $\varphi'$ is the first occurrence of $\varphi$. Moreover, since $\varphi\in\mathscr{E}(G_l)$ and $\varphi'\in\mathscr{E}(G'_{l'})$ are cuspidal and unipotent, the integers $l$ and $l'$ are triangular, i.e. $l=k(k+1)/2$ and $l'=k'(k'+1)/2$ for some $k$ and $k'$. From the discussion in the previous paragraph, the theta correspondence between the series above can be identified to a correspondence between $\mathscr{E}(W_r)$ and $\mathscr{R}(W_{r'})$, for suitable $r$ and $r'$. We can now define a bijection $\theta:\mathscr{E}(W_r)\rightarrow\mathscr{E}(W_{r'})$ issued from the one above :
-- $\theta(\lambda,\mu)=((r'-r)\cup\mu,\lambda)$, if $k$ is odd or zero.
-- $\theta(\lambda,\mu)=(\mu,(r'-r)\cup\lambda)$, otherwise
Let $\mathcal{O}_\mu$ be the unipotent support of the unipotent character $R_\mu$. The closure order among unipotent supports agrees with the dominance order on the indexing partition \cite{Taylor}, i.e. $\mathcal{O}_\mu\preceq\mathcal{O}_\nu$ if and only if $\mu\leq\nu$. The definition of $\theta$ made above is done so that the unipotent support is at its smallest. Indeed, if $\theta(\mu)$ is the partition whose 2-quotient is $\theta(\mu(0),\mu(1))$, then for all representations $R_{\mu'}$ in $\Theta(R_\mu)$ we have $\theta(\mu)\leq \mu'$. We obtain in this way a bijection $\theta_{G,G'}$ between the set of unipotent characters of $G$ and $G'$.
Let $\iota$ be an involution of sending a representation $\pi$ to its dual $\tilde{\pi}$. For the definition in the general case we use Theorem \ref{UnitaryReductionUnipotentCase}, which we can express as a commutative diagram
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzcd}
\mathscr{E}(G,(s)) \arrow[d, "\Theta_{G,G'}"] \arrow[r, "\Xi_{s}", "\sim" swap]
& \mathscr{E}(G_\#\times G_{(1)},1) \arrow[d, "\iota\hspace{0.05cm}\otimes\hspace{0.05cm}\Theta_{G_{(1)},G'_{(1)}}"] \\
\mathscr{R}(G',(s')) \arrow[r, "\Xi_{s'}", "\sim" swap]
& \mathscr{R}(G_\#\times G'_{(1)},1).
\end{tikzcd}
\end{center}
This motivates us to define $\theta_{G,G'}:\mathscr{E}(G)\rightarrow\mathscr{E}(G')$ by
$$
\Xi_{s'}(\theta_{G,G'}(\pi))=\tilde{\pi}_\#\times \theta_{G_{(1)},G'_{(1)}}(\pi_{(1)}).
$$
The representation $\theta_{G_{(1)},G'_{(1)}}(\pi_{(1)})$ has alredy been defined since $\pi_{(1)}$ is unipotent. We are therefore extending the definition of $\theta_{G,G'}$ to the whole set of irreducible representations, so that it is congruent with the Lusztig correspondence. It is only natural to ask if this extension also selects representations with smallest possible unipotent support. The answer is provided in a subsequent section.
\subsection{Symplectic-orthogonal pairs}
Let $(G_m,G'_{m'})$ be a dual pair $(\Sp_{2m}(q),\Or_{2m'}^\epsilon)$. Again, according to Theorem 3.7 in \cite{AMR}, the Howe correspondence $\Theta_{m,m'}$ relates the unipotent Harish-Chandra series $\mathscr{E}(G_m)_\varphi$ to the series $\mathscr{E}(G'_{m'})_{\varphi'}$, where $\varphi'$ is the first occurrence of $\varphi$. Moreover, since $\varphi\in\mathscr{E}(G_l)$ and $\varphi'\in\mathscr{E}(G'_{l'})$ are cuspidal and unipotent, $l=k(k+1)$ and $l'=k^{'2}$ for some $k$ and $k'$. Again, thanks to (\ref{Howlett-Lehrer}), both these series can be identified to the set of representations of certain Weyl groups of type B. Hence, the correspondence between unipotent representations becomes a correspondence between the set of irreducible representations of a pair $(W_r,W_{r'})$ of type B Weyl groups, for suitable $r$ and $r'$. We now define the one-to-one correspondence $\theta: \Irr(W_r)\rightarrow\Irr(W_{r'})$ as follows :
-- $\theta(\lambda,\mu)=(\lambda,(r'-r)\cup\mu)$, when $k =\frac{1}{2}( \epsilon-1)$ mod $2$.
-- $\theta(\lambda,\mu)=((r'-r)\cup\lambda,\mu)$, otherwise.
Using the Springer correspondence to calculate the unipotent support, in \cite{Epequin} we are able to prove that the choice above is made so that the support of $\theta(\pi)$ it the smallest in $\Theta(\pi)$ for unipotent $\pi$. We obtain in this way a bijection $\theta_{G,G'}$ between the set of unipotent characters of $G$ and $G'$.
Again, Let $\iota$ be an involution of sending a representation to its dual. For the general case, we use Theorem \ref{Symplectic-OrthogonalReductionUnipotentCase}, which again we express as a commutative diagram
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzcd}
\mathscr{E}(G,(s)) \arrow[d, "\Theta_{G,G'}"] \arrow[r, "\Xi_{s}", "\sim" swap]
& \mathscr{E}(G_\#\times G_{(-1)}\times G_{(1)},1) \arrow[d, "\iota\hspace{0.05cm}\otimes\hspace{0.05cm}\iota\hspace{0.05cm}\otimes\hspace{0.05cm}\Theta_{G_{(1)},G'_{(1)}}"] \\
\mathscr{R}(G',(s')) \arrow[r, "\Xi_{s'}", "\sim" swap]
& \mathscr{R}(G_\#\times G_{(-1)}\times G'_{(1)},1).
\end{tikzcd}
\end{center}
This moves us to define $\theta_{G,G'}(\pi)$ to be the representation such that
$$
\Xi_s(\theta_{G,G'}(\pi))=\tilde{\pi}_\#\otimes\tilde{\pi}_{(-1)}\otimes\theta_{G_{(1)},G'_{(1)}}(\pi_{(1)}).
$$
We stress that the representation $\theta_{G_{(1)},G'_{(1)}}(\pi_{(1)})$ has already been defined since $\pi_{(1)}$ is unipotent. We are therefore extending the definition of $\theta$ from unipotent to arbitrary representations making sure it is compatible with the Lusztig correspondence. Again, it seems reasonable to ask if this extension also selects a representation with smallest unipotent support. We provide the answer in the following section.
\subsection{Lusztig correspondence and unipotent support}
Assume $G$ is a connected reductive group. Let $P$ be a parabolic subgroup of $G$ with Levi decomposition $P=LU$. Following \cite{Spaltenstein} we introduce an induction functor on unipotent classes from $L$ to $G$ as follows : for a unipotent class $\mathcal{O}$ in $L$, there exists a unique unipotent class $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}$ of $G$ such that $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}\cap \mathcal{O}U$ is dense in $\mathcal{O}U$. We say that $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}$ is the class obtained inducing $\mathcal{O}$ from $L$ to $G$, and we write $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}=\Ind_L^G(\mathcal{O})$. This definition does not depend on the parabolic $P$ containing $L$. Moreover, according to Proposition II.3.2 in \cite{Spaltenstein}\begin{align}\label{InductionClosure}
\overline{\Ind_L^G(\mathcal{O})}=\bigcup_{x\in G}x\overline{\mathcal{O}U}x^{-1}
\end{align}
Let $s$ be a rational semisimple element of $\mathbf{G^*}$, and let $G(s)$ be the Langlands dual of $C_{G^*}(s)$. Since the unipotent series of these two groups can be identified, we have a Lusztig bijection between the series of $G$ defined by $s$ and the unipotent series of $G(s)$. Denote by $\rho_u$ the unipotent representation of $G(s)$ corresponding to $\rho$ in $\mathscr{E}(G,(s))$. If the group $C_{G^*}(s)$ can be identified to a Levi subgroup of $G^*$ then, according to Proposition 4.1 in \cite{GM}
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{O}_{\rho} = \Ind_{G(s)}^G(\rho_u),
\end{align*}
i.e. the unipotent supports of corresponding characters are related by the induction of classes defined above.
For both symplectic-orthogonal and unitary dual pairs $(G,G')$, we have first defined the bijection $\theta_{G,G'}$ on the set of unipotent representations combinatorially. We have then used the Lusztig correspondence to extend this definition to all irreducible representations. In the unipotent case the definition was made so as to minimize the unipotent support. If we aim at proving that this also holds for arbitrary representations, we must study the effect of the Lusztig correspondence on the unipotent support. The following result addresses this issue. As in (\ref{LusztigBijection}), we consider the Lusztig correspondence between the series $\mathscr{E}(G,(s))$ and $\mathscr{E}(C_{G^*}(s),1)$.
\begin{thm}\label{IncreasingLusztig}
Let $\pi$, $\tau$ belong to $\mathscr{E}(G,(s))$, and $\pi_u$, $\tau_u$ denote the corresponding unipotent representations of $C_{G^*}(s)$. If $\mathcal{O}_{\pi_u}\preceq\mathcal{O}_{\tau_u}$ then $\mathcal{O}_{\pi}\preceq\mathcal{O}_{\tau}$. In particular, for $\pi$ in $\mathscr{E}(G)$, the subrepresentation $\theta_{G,G'}(\pi)$ of $\Theta_{G,G'}(\pi)$ has the smallest unipotent support.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We consider first the case where the centralizer of $s$ in $G^*$ is a Levi subgroup of $G^*$. From the discussion of centralizers in Section \ref{CentralizersSection}, this is the case for type A groups.
Let $L$ be a Levi subgroup contained in the parabolic $P=LU$. Take two unipotent classes $\mathcal{O}$ and $\mathcal{O}'$ in $L$, such that $\mathcal{O}'$ is contained in the closure $\overline{\mathcal{O}}$. This implies that $\mathcal{O}'U$ is contained in $\overline{\mathcal{O}U}$. Hence, due to (\ref{InductionClosure}) above :
$$
\overline{\Ind_L^G(\mathcal{O}')}=\bigcup_{x\in G}x\overline{\mathcal{O}'U}x^{-1}\subset\bigcup_{x\in G}x\overline{\mathcal{O}U}x^{-1}=\overline{\Ind_L^G(\mathcal{O})},
$$
whence $\Ind_L^G(\mathcal{O}')\preceq\Ind_L^G(\mathcal{O})$. Since in this case, as discussed above, the supports of $\pi$, and $\tau$ are obtained inducing those of $\pi_u$, and $\tau_u$ respectively, the result holds.
In the general case, the unipotent support of characters corresponding by the Lusztig bijection are related by the generalized induction defined in \cite{Spaltenstein}; as proven in Proposition 4.5 of \cite{GM}. The result follows from the fact that this induction is increasing (Remarque III.12.4.2 in \cite{Spaltenstein}).
\end{proof}
\section{Unipotent support and rank}\label{SupportRank}
In a recent paper \cite{Howe-Gurevich}, Howe and Gurevich presented the notion of rank for representations of finite symplectic groups. This conduced to the introduction of the \emph{eta} correspondence, defined by the property of ``having maximal rank''; as explained below.
Let $\mathscr{L}_{n}(q)$ the group of symmetric matrices of size $n$ with coefficients in $\mathbb{F}_q$; or equivalently, of symmetric bilinear forms over a $\mathbb{F}_q$-vector space of dimension $n$ . Consider the \emph{Siegel parabolic} $P$ of $\Sp_{2n}(q)$, with Levi decomposition $P=LN$, where $L\simeq\GL_n(q)$ and
$$
N = \left\{ \left(\begin{matrix}
1 & A\\
0 & 1
\end{matrix}\right) \mbox{ : } A \mbox{ belongs to } \mathscr{L}_n(q)\right\}.
$$
We identify the group $N$ to the group $\mathscr{L}_{n}(q)$. Being abelian, all its irreducible representations are one-dimensional. Moreover, fixing a non-trivial additive character $\psi$ of $\mathbb{F}_q$, we can define a bijection between $N$ and $\mathscr{E}(N)$ relating a symmetric $A$ to $\psi_A$; the latter being defined by $\psi_A(B)=\psi(\tr(AB))$, for $B$ symmetric.
Let $\rho$ be a representation of $\Sp_{2n}(q)$. The restriction of $\rho$ to $N$ decomposes as a weighted sum of representations $\psi_A$, for $A$ symmetric. The orbits of the action of $L$ on $N$ can be identified with the orbits of $\GL_n(q)$ on $\mathscr{L}_{n}(q)$, i.e. with equivalence classes of symmetric matrices. The coefficients on the sum above are therefore constant on these classes. The first major invariant of a symmetric bilinear form is its rank. It is well known that, over
finite fields of odd characteristic, there are just two isomorphism classes of symmetric bilinear forms of a given rank $r$. We denote by $\mathscr{O}_r^+$ and $\mathscr{O}_r^-$, the two equivalence classes of symmetric matrices of rank $r$. The restriction of $\rho$ to $N$ decomposes as :
$$
\rho\rvert_N = \sum_{r=0}^n\sum_\pm m_{r\pm} \sum_{A\in\mathscr{O}_r^\pm}\psi_A
$$
\begin{defi}
-- The \emph{rank} of the character $\psi_A$ is defined as the rank of $A$.
-- The \emph{rank} of $\rho$, denoted by $\rk(\rho)$, is defined as the greatest $k$ such that the restriction to $N$ contains characters of rank $k$, but of no higher rank.
\end{defi}
Consider the dual pair $(G,G') = (O^\pm_{2k}, Sp_{2n'})$ where $2k \leq n'$, i.e., the dual pair is in stable range. Howe and Gurevich show that for $\rho$ in $\mathscr{E}(O^\pm_{2k}(q))$, there is a unique irreducible representation in $\Theta_{G,G'}(\rho)$ of rank $2k$; all other constituents having smaller rank. This gives rise to a mapping called the \emph{eta} correspondence :
$$
\eta : \mathscr{E}(O_{2k}^\pm(q)) \rightarrow \mathscr{E}(Sp_{2n'}(q)).
$$
We now have two one-to-one correspondences $\theta$ and $\eta$ between the set of irreducible representations $\mathscr{E}(G)$ of $G$, and the corresponding set $\mathscr{E}(G')$ of $G'$. They are defined in different ways. The former chooses a subrepresentation of $\Theta$ with smallest unipotent support, whereas the latter selects one with greatest rank. In \cite{Pan3}, Shu-Yen Pan shows that these two ``theta relations'' agree on their common domain of definition (the stable range). This amounts to say that, among the irreducible constituents of $\Theta(\pi)$, the representation with the smallest unipotent support is the one having the greatest rank. This points out to an inverse relation between these two features. We could ask if this also holds for all representations. This is indeed the case for unipotent representations, the proof is based on results yet to be published by Shu Yen Pan (he has managed to calculate the rank of a unipotent representation in terms of its associated symbol). The general case still needs to be settled.
\begin{conj}\label{InverseRelation}
Let $\pi$ and $\tau$ be two representations of $G$. If $\mathcal{O}_\pi \preceq\mathcal{O}_\tau$ then $\rk(\tau)\leq \rk(\pi)$.
\end{conj}
The statement in the previous theorem is the best we can hope for. That is to say, we cannot ask the reverse implication to hold as well. The unipotent support is a geometrical object attached to a representation, whereas its rank is just a number. Since the closure order is a partial order, the reverse implication would tell us that the rank of the latter determines the former.
\section{Howe correspondence and weak Harish-Chandra theory}
\subsection{Weak Harish-Chandra theory}
Let $G = G_n$ a type I group. For an integer $0\leq r\leq n$, the \emph{pure standard} Levi subgroup $M_{r,n-r}$ of $G$ is a subgroup of the form
$$
M_{r,n-r} = G_{n-r}\times \GL_1 \times \ldots\times \GL_1
$$
where the linear group appears $r$ times. A Levi subgroup of $G$ is called \emph{pure} if it is conjugated to a pure standard Levi.
By the very definition, the set of pure Levi subgroups is stable by $G$-conjugation. It can also be proven \cite[Proposition 2.2]{GHJ} that if $M$ and $M'$ are pure Levi then the intersection $\prescript{x}{}{M}\cap M'$ is pure as well. This property is crucial in showing that Harish-Chandra philosophy holds when we focus on set of pure Levi subgroups.
Let $\pi$ be a representation of $G$, we say that $\pi$ is \emph{weakly cuspidal} if the parabolic restriction of $\pi$ to a proper pure Levi subgroup is trivial, i.e. $\prescript{*}{}{R}_M^G(\pi) = 0$ for every pure Levi subgroup $M$. A pair $(M,\pi)$, where $M$ is a pure Levi subgroup and $\pi$ is a weakly cuspidal representation of $M$, is called a \emph{weakly cuspidal pair}. As in the usual cuspidal setting, these pairs provide a partition of the set of irreducible representations of $G$. Indeed, defining the \emph{weak Harish-Chandra series} corresponding by $(M,\pi)$, as the set of irreducible subrepresentations of the parabolic induced $R_M^G(\pi)$, we have.
\begin{prop}\cite[Proposition 2.3]{GHJ}
\begin{itemize}
\item[a)] The weak Harish-Chandra series partition the set of (isomorphism classes of) irreducible $G$-representations.
\item[b)] Every weak Harish-Chandra series is contained in some usual Harish-Chandra series.
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}
Item (b) implies that every usual Harish-Chandra series is partitioned into weak Harish-Chandra series, and hence shows that weak series refine the usual theory. These definitions are made for characteristic zero representations. However, the same applies to non-defining prime characteristic.
In the non-zero characteristic case, weak Harish-Chandra prove better suited for studying unipotent representations. Let $l$ be a prime different from $p$, and $G_n$ denote the unitary group $U_{2n}(q)$ or $U_{2n+1}(q)$. From the work of Geck \cite{Geck2} we know that irreducible unipotent representations in characteristic $l$ of $G_n$ are (just as in trivial characteristic) labelled by partitions of $n$. Calling $\pi_\mu$ the unipotent representation corresponding to the partition $\mu$ we get a result analogous to \cite[Appendice, proposition p. 224]{FS}.
\begin{prop}\label{CoreWeaKHC}
If the unipotent representations $\pi_\mu$ and $\pi_\nu$ of $G_n$ lie in the same weak Harish-Chandra series, then $\mu$ and $\nu$ have the same 2-core.
\end{prop}
This result was originally part of a series of conjectures stated in \cite{GHJ}, the main of which (Conjecture 5.7) is now a theorem \cite{DVV}.
\subsection{Orbits and stabilizers on a quotient space}
Let $W_1$ be a symplectic space spanned by $\{ e_1,\ldots, e_{n_1},e'_{n_1},\ldots,e'_1\}$, and $W_2$ spanned by $\{f_1,\ldots, f_{n_2},f'_{n_2},\ldots,f'_1\}$; let $W_n=W_1\operp W_2$ be their orthogonal sum. Using these basis, we identify symplectic transformations with symplectic matrices.
Let $\mathfrak{X}_k(W)$ denote the set of isotropic $k$-dimensional subspaces of a symplectic space $W$. Fix the maximal isotropic space $X_n$ spanned by $\{e_1,\ldots,e_{n_1},f_1,\ldots,f_{n_2}\}$, and let $P_n$ be the parabolic subgroup of $\Sp_{2n}$, formed by those matrices stabilizing $X_n$. Using this Lagrangian we identify the quotient $\Sp_{2n}/P_n$ with the set $\mathfrak{X}_n(W_n)$ of maximal isotropic subpaces of $W_n$.
Basic linear algebra shows that the set of maximal isotropic subspaces of $W_n$ can be identified to the the set of triplets $(U_1, U_2,\phi)$ where $U_1$ belongs to $\mathfrak{X}_{d_1}(W_{n_1})$, $U_2$ belongs to $\mathfrak{X}_{d_2}(W_{n_2})$, $\phi : U_1^\perp/U_1\rightarrow U_2^\perp/U_2$ is an isomorphism, and $d_1-d_2 = n_1-n_2$. Moreover, the action of $(x_1,x_2)$ in $\Sp_{2n_1}\times\Sp_{2n_2}$ on $\mathfrak{X}_n(W_n)$ corresponds to the following action
\begin{align}\label{ActionTriplets}
(x_1,x_2):(U_1, U_2,\phi) \mapsto (x_1U_1,x_2U_2,x_2\circ\phi\circ x_1^{-1}).
\end{align}
on the set of triplets.
Let $i = 1,\ldots,\min\{n_1,n_2\}$, and suppose that $n_2\leq n_1$. Let $K_n$ be a matrix of size $n$ with $1$'s on the antidiagonal and $0$'s elsewhere. Finally, let
\begin{comment}
$$
V_i = \left[\begin{matrix}
1 & T_i\\
0 & 1
\end{matrix}\right]
\left[\begin{matrix}
0 & K_n\\
-K_n & 0
\end{matrix}\right]
\mbox{, where }
T_i =\left[\begin{array}{c|c|c}
& 0 & 0\\
\hline
\begin{matrix}
& 0_{n_2-i} \\
K_i &
\end{matrix} & 0 & 0\\
\hline
& \begin{matrix}
& 0_{n_2-i} \\
K_i &
\end{matrix} &
\end{array}\right]
$$
\end{comment}
$$
V_i = \left[\begin{matrix}
1 & 0\\
T_i & 1
\end{matrix}\right]
\mbox{, where }
T_i =\left[\begin{array}{c|c|c}
& \begin{matrix}
& K_i \\
0_{n_2-i} &
\end{matrix} & \\
\hline
& & \begin{matrix}
& K_i \\
0_{n_2-i}
\end{matrix} \\
\hline
0 & &
\end{array}\right]
$$
Proposition 3.4 in \cite{Kudla} asserts that the different $V_i P_n$ for $i=1,\ldots,n_2$ form a set of representatives for the action of $\Sp_{2n_1}\times\Sp_{2n_2}$ on $\Sp_{2n}/P_n$. We are interested in calculating their stabilizers.
The coset $V_i P_n$ corresponds to the maximal isotropic subspace $V_i X_n$. The isotropic spaces in the triplet $(U_1,U_2,\phi)$ corresponding to the latter are
\begin{align*}
U_1 = V_iX_n\cap W_1 \mbox{, and } U_2 = V_iX_n\cap W_2.
\end{align*}
An easy calculation shows that
\begin{align*
U_1^\perp/U_1=\langle e_{n_1-i+1},\ldots,e_{n_1},e'_{n_1},\ldots,e'_{n_1-i+1}\rangle\\
U_2^\perp/U_2=\langle f_{n_2-i+1},\ldots,f_{n_2},f'_{n_2},\ldots,f'_{n_2-i+1}\rangle.
\end{align*}
Using coordinates in these basis, we define the isomorphism
$$
\phi : U_1^\perp/U_1\rightarrow U_2^\perp/U_2 \mbox{, } \phi(z)=Kz,
$$
where $K$ is of size $2i$. Using the description (\ref{ActionTriplets}) of the action of $\Sp_{2n_1}\times\Sp_{2n_2}$ on the set of triplets, we see that $(x_1,x_2)$ belongs to the stabilizer $(\Sp_{2n_1}\times\Sp_{2n_2})^{V_iP_n}$ of $V_iP_n$, if and only if
\begin{align}\label{EquivalenceStabilizer}
x_1U_1=U_1, \mbox{ }x_2U_2=U_2\mbox{, }x_2\phi = \phi x_1.
\end{align}
As before, let $P_k$, $k=1,\ldots,m$ be the stabilizer in $\Sp_{2m}$ of the totally isotropic space spanned by the first $k$ vectors of a symplectic base. The first two equalities on (\ref{EquivalenceStabilizer}) above tell us that
$$
x_1\in P_{n_1-i}\subset \Sp_{2n_1}, \mbox{ and } x_2\in P_{n_2-i}\subset \Sp_{2n_2}.
$$
Elements $x$ in the parabolic $P_k$ factorize as a product $x=m(a,A)u$, for $a\in \GL_k$, $A\in\Sp_{2(m-k)}$, $u$ in the unipotent radical $N_k$ of $P_k$, and $ m(a,A)=\diag(a,A,K{}^ta^{-1}K)$.
Hence, we can express $x_1$, $x_2$ as a product $x_1=m(a_1,A_1)u_1$, $x_2=m(a_2,A_2)u_2$, for suitable $a_1$, $a_2$, $A_1$, $A_2$, $u_1$, and $u_2$. The last equality on (\ref{EquivalenceStabilizer}) becomes the identity $A_2K=KA_1$ in $\Sp_{2i}$.
The same discussion can be put forward for even-orthogonal groups, in this case the orbit representatives are
\begin{comment}
$$
V_i = \left[\begin{matrix}
1 & T_i\\
0 & 1
\end{matrix}\right]
\left[\begin{matrix}
0 & K_n\\
K_n & 0
\end{matrix}\right]
\mbox{, where }
T_i =\left[\begin{array}{c|c|c}
& 0 & 0\\
\hline
\begin{matrix}
& 0_{n_2-i} \\
-K_i &
\end{matrix} & 0 & 0\\
\hline
& \begin{matrix}
& 0_{n_2-i} \\
K_i &
\end{matrix} &
\end{array}\right].
$$
\end{comment}
$$
V_i = \left[\begin{matrix}
1 & 0\\
T_i & 1
\end{matrix}\right]
\mbox{, where }
T_i =\left[\begin{array}{c|c|c}
& \begin{matrix}
& K_i \\
0_{n_2-i} &
\end{matrix} & \\
\hline
& & \begin{matrix}
& -K_i \\
0_{n_2-i}
\end{matrix} \\
\hline
0 & &
\end{array}\right].
$$
Let $G_m$ be $\Sp_{2m}$ or $\Or^\pm_{2m}$. We summarize the above results in the following proposition.
\begin{prop}\label{OrbitStabilizer}
The matrices $V_iP_m$, for $i=1,\ldots,\min\{m_1,m_2\}$ form a set of representatives for the orbits of $G_{m_1}\times G_{m_2}$ in $G_{m}/P_m$. Moreover the stabilizer of $V_iP_m$ in $G_{m_1}\times G_{m_2}$ is the subgroup of $P_{m_1-i}\times P_{m_2-i}$ given by
$$
(G_{m_1}\times G_{m_2})^{V_iP_m} = \left\{
\begin{array}{lc}
& a_k\in\GL_{m_k-i} \\
(m(a_1,A_1)u_1,m(a_2,A_2)u_2) : & u_k\in N_k \\
& A_2=KA_1K
\end{array}
\right\}
$$
\end{prop}
\subsection{First occurrence of weakly cuspidal representations}
In this section we endeavour to study the effect the Howe correspondence has on weakly cuspidal representations in the case of first occurrence. We also comment on the relation between the correspondence and weak series.
Let $G_m$ and $P_m$ be as in Proposition \ref{OrbitStabilizer}.
\begin{lem}\cite[Corollary 3.3]{Kudla}\label{KudlaCoinvariants}
If $(\omega,S)$ is a model for the Weil representation, then space of $G_m$--coinvariants $S_{G_m}$ is isomorphic to a submodule of $\Ind_{P_m}^{G_m}(1)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{thm}\label{WeakFirstOccurrence}
Let $(G_m,G'_{m'})$ be a type I dual pair, and $\pi$ be an irreducible weakly cuspidal representation of $G_m$, and let $m'(\pi)$ be its first occurrence index.
1. If $m'<m'(\pi)$, then $\Theta_{m,m'}(\pi)$ is empty
2. The representation $\Theta_{m,m'(\pi)}(\pi)$ is irreducible and weakly cuspidal
3. If $m'>m'(\pi)$, then none of the constituents of $\Theta_{m,m'}(\pi)$ is weakly cuspidal
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
To avoid the excessive use or apostrophes we swap the groups in the dual pair and consider the pair $(G'_{m'},G_m)$ instead.
Consider a weakly cuspidal representation $\pi'$ of $G'_{m'}$. The proof of the item 1 in the statement is the definition of the first occurrence index. The proof of the other two items can be divided in two independent parts : existence and uniqueness. The methods used in each are different.
\subsubsection{Existence}
We prove that if $\pi'\otimes\pi$ appears in the oscillator representation $\omega_{m',m(\pi')}$, then $\pi$ is weakly cuspidal.
Assume that $\pi$ is not weakly cuspidal. In this case we can find an irreducible representation $\varphi_1$ of $G_{m(\pi')-1}$ such that $\pi\vert R_{M_1}^{G_{m}}(\chi_1\otimes\varphi_1)$. Using Frobenius reciprocity we have
\begin{align*}
0 & \neq \langle\omega_{m',m},\pi'\otimes\pi\rangle \leq \langle\omega_{m',m},\pi'\otimes R_{M_1}^{G_{m}}(\chi_1\otimes \varphi_1)\rangle \\
& = \langle 1\otimes\prescript{*}{}{R}_{M_1}^{G_{m}}(\omega_{m',m}),\pi'\otimes \chi_1\otimes \varphi_1\rangle.
\end{align*}
Proposition \ref{coinv-submod} implies that the last term above is bounded by
$$
\langle \omega_{m',m-1}\otimes 1_{\GL_1}, \pi'\otimes \chi_1\otimes \varphi_1 \rangle + \langle \mathbf{R}_{\GL_1}\otimes\omega_{m'-1,m-1}, \prescript{*}{}{R}_{M'_1}^{G'_{m'}}(\pi')\otimes \chi_1\otimes \varphi_1\rangle.
$$
Since $\pi'$ is weakly cuspidal the second term in this sum must be trivial. The first term yields $\varphi_1\vert \Theta_{m',m(\pi')-1}(\pi')$, which contradicts the minimality of $m(\pi')$.
\subsubsection{Uniqueness} In order to establish uniqueness we prove that at most one weakly cuspidal irreducible representation can appear in the union of $\Theta_{m',m}(\pi')$ for all non negative $m$.
Let $\pi_1$, and $\pi_2$ belong to $\Theta_{m',m_1}(\pi')$, and $\Theta_{m',m_2}(\pi')$ respectively. Following the arguments in Section 3 of \cite{Kudla}, it can be shown that the representation $\pi_1\otimes\tilde{\pi}_2$ is a constituent of the space of $G'_{m'}$--coinvariants $S_{G'_{m'}}$ of the Weil representation. Therefore, from Lemma \ref{KudlaCoinvariants} the representation $\pi_1\otimes\tilde{\pi}_2$ is a constituent of
$$
\Ind_{P_{m}}^{G_{m}}(1)\vert_{G_{m_1}\times G_{m_2}}=\bigoplus_{i=1}^{\min\{m_1,m_2\}}\Ind_{(G_{m_1}\times G_{m_2})^{V_iP_{m}}}^{G_{m_1}\times G_{m_2}}(1),
$$
where the $V_iP_{m}$, for $i = 1,\ldots,\min\{m_1,m_2\}$, are the representatives of the orbits of $G_{m_1}\times G_{m_2}$ in $G_{m}/P_{m}$, described above. By transitivity
\begin{align*}
\Ind_{(G_{m_1}\times G_{m_2})^{V_iP_{m}}}^{G_{m_1}\times G_{m_2}}(1)
= \Ind_{P_{m_1-i}\times P_{m_2-i}}^{G_{m_1}\times G_{m_2}}\circ\Ind_{(G_{m_1}\times G_{m_2})^{V_iP_{m}}}^{P_{m_1-i}\times P_{m_2-i}}(1).
\end{align*}
Moreover, from the explicit description of stabilizers already established,
\begin{align*}
\Ind_{(G_{m_1}\times G_{m_2})^{V_iP_{m}}}^{P_{m_1-i}\times P_{m_2-i}}(1) =
1_{\GL_{m_1-i}}\otimes 1_{N_{m_1-i}}\otimes 1_{\GL_{m_2-i}}\otimes 1_{N_{m_2-i}} \otimes \mathbf{R}_{G_{i}},
\end{align*}
whence we deduce
\begin{align*}
\Ind_{(G_{m_1}\times G_{m_2})^{V_iP_{m}}}^{G_{m_1}\times G_{m_2}}(1) = R_{M_{m_1-i}\times M_{m_2-i}}^{G_{m_1}\times G_{m_2}}(1_{\GL_{m_1-i}}\otimes 1_{\GL_{m_2-i}}\otimes \mathbf{R}_{G_{i}}).
\end{align*}
Since $1_{\GL_k}$ is a subrepresentation of $R_{\GL_1^k}^{\GL_k}(1)$, the character on the righthand side of the last equality is a constituent of
\begin{align*}
& R_{M_{m_1-i}\times M_{m_2-i}}^{G_{m_1}\times G_{m_2}} (R_{\GL_1^{m_1-i}}^{\GL_{m_1-i}}(1)\otimes R_{\GL_1^{m_2-i}}^{\GL_{m_2-i}}(1)\otimes\mathbf{R}_{G_{i}})\\
& = R_{M_{m_1-i}\times M_{m_2-i}}^{G_{m_1}\times G_{m_2}}\circ R_{M_{m_1-i,i}\times M_{m_2-i,i}}^{M_{m_1-i}\times M_{m_2-i}}(1_{\GL_1^{m_1-i}}\otimes 1_{\GL_1^{m_2-i}} \otimes \mathbf{R}_{G_{i}})\\
& = R_{M_{m_1-i,i}\times M_{m_2-i,i}}^{G_{m_1}\times G_{m_2}}(1_{\GL_1^{m_1-i}}\otimes 1_{\GL_1^{m_2-i}} \otimes \mathbf{R}_{G_{i}})
\end{align*}
We must now distinguish the following two cases.
(a) If $m_1\neq m_2$ then, for all $i=1\ldots,\min\{m_1,m_2\}$, one of the Levi subgroups $M_{m_1-i,i}$ or $M_{m_2-i,i}$ is going to be proper in $G_{m_1}$ or $G_{m_2}$ respectively. In this case
$$
\langle \Ind_{P_{m}}^{G_{m}}(1)\vert_{G_{m_1}\times G_{m_2}}, \pi_1\otimes \tilde{\pi}_2\rangle=0
$$
since $\pi_1$ and $\pi_2$ are both weakly cuspidal.
(b) If $m_1=m_2=k$, then for all $i=1\ldots,k$,
$$
\langle \Ind_{P_{m}}^{G_{m}}(1)\vert_{G_{m_1}\times G_{m_2}}, \pi_1\otimes \tilde{\pi}_2\rangle\leq 1.
$$
Indeed,
-- In case $0\leq i < k$, the Levi subgroups $M_{k-i,i}$ and $M_{k-i,i}$ are proper, and again
$$
\langle \Ind_{(G_{k}\times G_{k})^{V_iP_{m}}}^{G_{k}\times G_{k}}(1), \pi_1\otimes \tilde{\pi}_2\rangle=0
$$
-- In case $i = k$, we get
$$
\langle \Ind_{(G_{k}\times G_{k})^{V_iP_{m'}}}^{G_{k}\times G_{k}}(1), \pi_1\otimes \tilde{\pi}_2\rangle \leq \langle \mathbf{R}_{G_{k}},\pi_1\otimes\tilde{\pi}_2\rangle=\langle \pi_1,\pi_2 \rangle.
$$
Uniqueness follows from Items (a) and (b).
\end{proof}
Now that we have proven that the Howe correspondence preserves weak cuspidality on the first occurrence, we can ask whether it also behaves nicely with respect to weak Harish-Chandra series. It turns out that this is indeed the case. The statement and proof of this result is very much the same as Theorem \ref{HoweHarish-Chandra} and it will be therefore ommited.
|
\section{Introduction}
Very recently, the LHCb Collaboration reported the observation of a tetraquark candidate $X(6900)$ with a configuration of $cc\bar{c}\bar{c}$ in the di-$J/\psi$ invariant mass spectrum~\cite{Aaij:2020fnh}. Its mass and width are about 6.9 GeV and 80$\sim$ 170 MeV, respectively. In addition to this, it shows that there exist a broad structure above threshold ranging from 6.2 to 6.8 GeV, and some vague structures around 7.2 GeV. The narrow enhancement $X(6900)$, if confirmed, should be one of the best candidates for the QCD exotics. This observation immediately attracts attention from the community, and also raises very crucial questions on the underlying dynamics.
Tetraquarks of fully-heavy systems, such as $cc\bar{c}\bar{c}$ and $bb\bar{b}\bar{b}$, are peculiarly interesting due to their unique properties. Since the light quark degrees of freedom are absent in the leading order interactions, the short-distance color interactions between the heavy quarks (antiquarks) become dominant and they may favor to form genuine color-singlet tetraquark states rather than loosely bound hadronic molecules which in many cases involve long-distance light hadron exchanges as the binding mechanism. Based on different prescriptions for the heavy quark and/or antiquark interactions early theoretical studies of the fully-heavy systems can be found in the literature~\cite{Ader:1981db,Iwasaki:1975pv,Zouzou:1986qh,Heller:1985cb,Lloyd:2003yc,Barnea:2006sd}. In recent years the experimental progresses have initiated intensive explorations and systematic investigations of the fully-heavy tetraquarks~\cite{Wang:2017jtz,Karliner:2016zzc,Berezhnoy:2011xn,Bai:2016int,Anwar:2017toa,Esposito:2018cwh,Chen:2016jxd,
Wu:2016vtq,Hughes:2017xie,Richard:2018yrm,Debastiani:2017msn,Wang:2018poa,Richard:2017vry,Vijande:2009kj,Deng:2020iqw,Ohlsson,
Wang:2019rdo,Bedolla:2019zwg,Chen:2020lgj,Chen:2018cqz,Liu:2019zuc}. However, some of the major conclusions from these studies turn out to be very controversial. For instance, in Refs.~\cite{Wang:2017jtz,Karliner:2016zzc,Berezhnoy:2011xn,Bai:2016int,Anwar:2017toa,Esposito:2018cwh,Debastiani:2017msn,Wang:2018poa} the $T_{(cc\bar{c}\bar{c})}$ or $T_{(bb\bar{b}\bar{b})}$ states were predicted to have masses below the thresholds of heavy charmonium or bottomonium pairs. It means that they would be ``stable" since direct decays into heavy quarkonium pairs via quark rearrangements are forbidden. In contrast, some studies showed that stable bound tetraquark states made of $cc\bar{c}\bar{c}$ or $bb\bar{b}\bar{b}$ are unlikely to exist~\cite{Wu:2016vtq,Lloyd:2003yc,Ader:1981db,Hughes:2017xie,Richard:2018yrm,Richard:2017vry,Liu:2019zuc,Deng:2020iqw,Wang:2019rdo,Chen:2016jxd,Chen:2018cqz,liu:2020eha} since the predicted masses are larger than the thresholds of the corresponding heavy quarkonium pairs.
Since the observation of $X(6900)$ there have been various interpretations based on different phenomenological prescriptions~\cite{liu:2020eha,Wang:2020gmd,Garcilazo:2020acl,Giron:2020wpx,Sonnenschein:2020nwn,Maiani:2020pur,Richard:2020hdw,Chao:2020dml,Maciula:2020wri,Karliner:2020dta,Wang:2020dlo,Dong:2020nwy,Ma:2020kwb,Du:2020bqj,Cao:2020gul,Zhu:2020snb,Guo:2020pvt,Zhu:2020xni,Weng:2020jao}. In potential model calculations the enhancement $X(6900)$ is interpreted as either first radial excitation states of $0^{++}/2^{++}$ or the first orbital excitation state of $0^{-+}/1^{-+}$ according to their mass locations in the spectrum. However, for any of these possibilities it is nontrivial to answer why the width of $X(6900)$ is quite narrow taking into account its mass is far above the di-$J/\psi$ threshold. Moreover, it is difficult to answer why only one state stands out significantly in the di-$J/\psi$ spectrum while most of the others are hard to identify.
While these controversies indicate our lack of knowledge on the non-perturbative QCD in a broad range of physics, we propose in this work that $X(6900)$ can be a pole structure produced by the Pomeron exchange mechanism between vector charmonia, i.e. between $J/\psi$-$\psi(2S)$. Such a mechanism introduces a novel and observable dynamics to the fully-heavy tetraquark system and can naturally explain why only a few of structures appear in the spectrum due to the coupled-channel interactions.
As follows, we first briefly introduce the Pomeron exchange dynamics and explain why it can play a crucial role in vector charmonium scatterings. We then introduce a coupled-channel formalism to extract the pole information driven by the strong $J/\psi$-$J/\psi$ and $J/\psi$-$\psi(2S)$ interactions. Discussions and conclusions will be presented in the last part.
\subsection{Formalism}
The production of di-$J/\psi$ through the double-parton scattering (DPS) processes~\cite{Aaij:2020fnh} suggests that the $J/\psi$ pairs are mainly produced by separate $J/\psi$ production processes. Thus, it is natural to consider both direct $J/\psi$ productions and feed-down contributions from other heavier charmonium productions which can contribute to the di-$J/\psi$ spectrum. Since the charmonium exchanges are highly suppressed and the light meson exchanges are forbidden at leading order in the di-charmonium scatterings we are left with the multi-gluon interactions. A successful phenomenology describing such a dynamic process is the so-called Pomeron exchange model and it may play a leading role in this special case.
It should be mentioned that Ref.~\cite{Du:2020bqj} implemented the unitarity and causality constraints to investigate the coupled-channel effects arising from the $J/\psi$-$J/\psi$, $J/\psi$-$\psi(2S)$, and $J/\psi$-$\psi(1D)$ channels. By assuming that the vector charmonium scatterings are driven by a separable short-distance potential the di-$J/\psi$ spectrum can be fitted by pole structures which are dynamically generated. However, it is not clear what would be the origin of such a short-distance potential.
In our approach we stress that it is crucial to understand the mechanism accounting for the $J/\psi$-$J/\psi$ interactions. Therefore, instead of assuming an effective potential for the charmonium interactions, we explicitly study the origin of the dynamics for the near threshold vector charmonium scatterings. We state in advance that the Pomeron exchange dynamics can naturally explain the di-$J/\psi$ spectrum. Moreover, there are novel dynamic features arising from the Pomeron exchange mechanism in the two vector charmonium scatterings.
The Pomeron exchange model has been successfully applied to accounts for the diffractive behaviors in hadron collisions and vector meson photo or electroproductions on the nucleon~\cite{Donnachie:1984xq,Donnachie:1987pu,Pichowsky:1996jx,Laget:1994ba,Zhao:1999af}. It is different from the $t$-channel pole contributions since it does not have a pole in the positive angular momentum complex plane. It behaves rather like a positive charge conjugation isoscalar photon, i.e. $J^{PC}=1^{-+}$, and different from those $t$-channel meson exchanges.
The Regge trajectory of the Pomeron exchange is
\begin{equation}
i \mathcal{G}(s,t)=(\alpha' s)^{\alpha(t)-1} \ ,
\end{equation}
where $\alpha(t)=1+\epsilon'+\alpha' t$ with $\epsilon'=0.08$ a small positive quantity indicating the dominance of the $C=+1$ Pomeron exchange in the $t$ channel, and $\alpha'=0.25$ GeV$^{-2}$ as commonly adopted value.
The Pomeron-charmonium coupling is described by the vertex $F_{\alpha}(t)=2 \beta_V \gamma_{\alpha}f(t)$ as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig1}, where the factor of 2 arises because the Pomeron interacts with the constituent quark and antiquark within the meson with the same strength $\beta_V$.
One special feature with the Pomeron exchange mechanism in two vector charmonium scatterings is that both $t$ and $u$ channel scatterings are allowed if the initial states are not identical. It means that contributions from hard gluon exchanges would become sizeable. The Pomeron coupling to the vector charmonia ($J/\psi$ or $\psi(2S)$) is parametrized out as a commonly adopted form~\cite{Pichowsky:1996jx}:
\begin{equation}
\tilde{t}^{\nu \sigma \alpha}(V)= {\cal F}_V(t) ((p_2^{\alpha}+p_4^{\alpha}) \ g^{\nu \sigma}-2p_2^{\sigma} \ g^{\nu \alpha}),
\end{equation}
where ${\cal F}_V(t)$ is the form factor describing the momentum transfer dependence of the coupling strength. We adopt a commonly used form~\cite{Donnachie:2002en} as follows:
\begin{equation}
{\cal F}_V(t)=(2 \beta_{c}) \exp(\frac{t}{2\lambda_{V}^2}),
\end{equation}
where $\beta_{c}=1.169 \text{GeV}^{-1}$ is the coupling between Pomeron and the $c$ quark in meson. It is determined by fitting the experimental data for $J/\psi$ photoproduction~\cite{Chekanov:2002xi}. The parameter $\lambda_V=1.2$ GeV is a typical energy scale reflecting the Pomeron-valence-quark interaction range.
As an example, the $J/ \psi-\psi'$ scattering amplitude can be expressed as:
\begin{eqnarray}
T_{t}^{\mathcal{P}}&=&\tilde{t}^{\mu \rho}_ {\alpha}(\psi') \tilde{t}^{\nu \sigma \alpha}(J/ \psi) \mathcal{G}(s,t) \ \epsilon_{\psi^{'} \mu} \ \epsilon_{J/ \psi \nu} \ \epsilon_{\psi^{'} \rho}^{*}\ \epsilon_{J/ \psi \sigma}^{*} \nonumber \\
&=&[g^{\mu \rho} g^{\nu \sigma}(2s+t-p_{1}^{2}-p_{2}^{2}-p_{3}^{2}-p_{4}^{2})\nonumber\\
&&-2 p_{2}^{\sigma}g^{\mu \rho} g^{\nu \sigma}(p_{1}^{\nu}+p_{3}^{\nu})-2p_{1}^{\rho}(p_{2}^{\mu}g^{\nu \sigma}-2p_{2}^{\sigma}g^{\mu \nu}+p_{4}^{\mu}g^{\nu \sigma})] \nonumber \\
&& \times\ {\cal F}_{J/ \psi}(t) {\cal F}_{\psi'}(t) \mathcal{G}(s,t) \ \epsilon_{\psi^{'} \mu} \ \epsilon_{J/ \psi \nu} \ \epsilon_{\psi^{'} \rho}^{*}\ \epsilon_{J/ \psi \sigma}^{*} \nonumber \\
T_{u}^{\mathcal{P}}&=&\tilde{t}^{\mu \sigma}_{ \alpha}(\psi') \tilde{t}^{\nu \rho \alpha}(J/ \psi) \mathcal{G}(s,u) \ \epsilon_{\psi^{'} \mu} \ \epsilon_{J/ \psi \nu} \ \epsilon_{\psi^{'} \rho}^{*}\ \epsilon_{J/ \psi \sigma}^{*} \nonumber \\
&=&[g^{\mu \sigma} g^{\nu \rho}(s-t)- \ 2g^{\mu \sigma}p_{2}^{\rho}(p_{1}^{\nu}+p_{4}^{\nu})\nonumber\\
&&- 2 p_{1}^{\sigma} (p_{2}^{\mu}g^{\nu \rho}- \ 2 p_{2}^{\rho}g^{\mu \nu}+p_{3}^{\mu}g^{\nu \rho})] \nonumber \\
&& \times {\cal F}_{J/ \psi}(u) {\cal F}_{\psi'}(u) \mathcal{G}(s,u) \ \epsilon_{\psi^{'} \mu} \ \epsilon_{J/ \psi \nu} \ \epsilon_{\psi^{'} \rho}^{*}\ \epsilon_{J/ \psi \sigma}^{*},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\epsilon_{\psi^{'} \mu}$, $\epsilon_{J/ \psi \nu}$, $\epsilon_{\psi^{'} \rho}^{*}$, and $\epsilon_{J/ \psi \sigma}^{*}$ denote the polarization vectors for the initial and final vector charmonia, respectively.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\subfigure[ ~$t$ channel process]{
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{fig1-a.eps}
}
\quad
\subfigure[ ~$u$ channel process]{
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{fig1-b.eps}
}
\caption{Illustrative diagrams for (a) $t$ channel and (b) $u$ channel Pomeron exchanges in $J/ \psi \ \psi' \to J/\psi \ \psi' $.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
Our attention is paid to the near-threshold region of the di-charmonium scatterings where the $S$-wave coupling is the most important contribution. Note that the $S$-wave couplings between two vector charmonia have access to $J^{PC}=0^{++}$, $1^{++}$ and $2^{++}$. Thus, we extract the $S$-wave vertex functions using the following projection operators
\begin{eqnarray}\label{proj-oper}
\mathcal{P}^{(0)}&=&\frac{1}{4} \epsilon_{\mu}(p_{1})\epsilon^{\mu}(p_{2}) \epsilon_{\nu}(p_{3})\epsilon^{\nu}(p_{4}), \nonumber \\
\mathcal{P}^{(1)}&=&\frac{1}{2} [\epsilon_{\mu}(p_{1})\epsilon_{\nu}(p_{2})\epsilon^{\mu}(p_{3})\epsilon^{\nu}(p_{4})\nonumber\\
&&-\epsilon_{\mu}(p_{1})\epsilon_{\nu}(p_{2})\epsilon^{\nu}(p_{3})\epsilon^{\mu}(p_{4})], \nonumber \\
\mathcal{P}^{(2)}&=&\frac{1}{2} [\epsilon_{\mu}(p_{1})\epsilon_{\nu}(p_{2})\epsilon^{\mu}(p_{3})\epsilon^{\nu}(p_{4})\nonumber\\
&&+\epsilon_{\mu}(p_{1})\epsilon_{\nu}(p_{2})\epsilon^{\nu}(p_{3})\epsilon^{\mu}(p_{4})]\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{1}{4} \epsilon_{\mu}(p_{1})\epsilon^{\mu}(p_{2}) \epsilon_{\nu}(p_{3})\epsilon^{\nu}(p_{4}).
\end{eqnarray}
For the kinematic region between the di-$J/\psi$ and di-$\psi(2S)$ threshold, the threshold mass difference is much smaller than the mass of di-$J/\psi$. Therefore, we can further simplify the problem by assuming that the main contributions from the Pomeron exchanges are within the kinematic region close to be on-shell, and the vertex couplings read
\begin{eqnarray}
T_{t}^{\mathcal{P}}&=&[g^{\mu \rho} g^{\nu \sigma}(2s+t-p_{1}^{2}-p_{2}^{2}-p_{3}^{2}-p_{4}^{2})] \nonumber\\
&\times &\ {\cal F}_{J/ \psi}(t) {\cal F}_{\psi'}(t) \mathcal{G}(s,t) \epsilon_{\psi^{'} \mu} \ \epsilon_{J/ \psi \nu} \ \epsilon_{\psi^{'} \rho}^{*}\ \epsilon_{J/ \psi \sigma}^{*} \nonumber \\
T_{u}^{\mathcal{P}}&=&[g^{\mu \sigma} g^{\nu \rho}(s-t)] \ {\cal F}_{J/ \psi}(u) {\cal F}_{\psi'}(u) \mathcal{G}(s,u) \nonumber\\
&\times& \ \epsilon_{\psi^{'} \mu} \ \epsilon_{J/ \psi \nu} \ \epsilon_{\psi^{'} \rho}^{*}\ \epsilon_{J/ \psi \sigma}^{*}.
\end{eqnarray}
The strong couplings near the thresholds of di-charmonium via the Pomeron exchanges also call for the implementation of unitarity and causality in the description of the near-threshold $S$-wave interactions between the charmonia.
Note that explicit $t$-dependence appears in the Pomeron exchange potential. This will increase the difficulty in the unitarization of the scattering amplitude. Since we only focus on the $S$-wave amplitudes in the vector charmonium scatterings we adopt the technique developed by Ref.~\cite{Molina:2008jw} to define an effective separable potential by integrating out the angular part of the Pomeron exchange:
\begin{equation}\label{separa-pot}
V(s)=\frac{1}{2} \int V(s,t) d (\cos{\theta}),
\end{equation}
where $V(s,t)$ is the sum of the $t$ and $u$ channel amplitudes. The coupled-channel $T$-matrix can then be expressed as
\begin{equation}
T(s)=\frac{V(s)}{1-\tilde{G}(s) V(s)} \ ,
\label{T-matrix}
\end{equation}
where the loop function $\tilde{G}(s)$~\cite{Guo:2014iya,Cao:2017lui}
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{G}&=& \int \frac{d^{4}q}{(2 \pi)^{4}} \frac{i^{2}\exp{(-2 \vec{q}^2 / \Lambda^{2})}}{[q^{2}-M_{J/ \psi}^{2}+i \epsilon][(P-q)^{2}-M_{ \psi'}^{2}+i \epsilon]}\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{i}{4M_{J/ \psi}M_{ \psi'}}\left[-\frac{\mu \Lambda}{(2\pi)^{3/2}}+\frac{\mu k}{2\pi}\exp{(-2k^{2}/\Lambda^{2})}\right.\nonumber\\
&&\times\left. [erfi(\frac{\sqrt{2}k}{\Lambda})-i]\right],
\end{eqnarray}
where a cut-off function $\exp{(-2 \vec{q}^2 / \Lambda^{2})}$ has been included to regularize the divergence; $k\equiv\sqrt{2\mu(\sqrt{s}-M_{J/ \psi}-M_{ \psi'})}$, with $\mu\equiv M_{J/ \psi} M_{ \psi'}/(M_{J/ \psi}+ M_{ \psi'})$ as the reduced mass; $\Lambda=0.7$ GeV is the form factor parameter; $erfi(\frac{\sqrt{2}k}{\Lambda})$ is the imaginary error function.
For three coupled channels, i.e. $J/\psi$-$J/\psi$, $J/\psi$-$\psi(2S)$, and $\psi(2S)$-$\psi(2S)$, the potential can be expressed as,
\begin{equation}
V(s)
=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
V_{11} & V_{12} & V_{13} \\
V_{21} & V_{22} & V_{23} \\
V_{31} & V_{32} & V_{33}
\end{array}
\right) \ ,
\end{equation}
where $V_{ij}$ denotes the Pomeron exchange potentials including both the $t$ and $u$ channels for each process. The loop integral function $G$ for $\{J/ \psi J/ \psi, \psi(2S)J/ \psi ,\psi(2S)\psi(2S)\}$ is written as
\begin{equation}
G(s)
=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
G_{1} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & G_{2} &0 \\
0 & 0& G_{3}
\end{array}
\right).
\end{equation}
To evaluate the coupled-channel contributions to the di-$J/\psi$ channel at LHCb, we adopt the same prescription of the energy spectrum as Ref.~\cite{Dong:2020nwy}, and the transition amplitude (labelled as channel 1) is written as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}_{1}=P(\sqrt{s})(1+\sum {r_{i}G_{i}(s)}T_{i1}(s)),
\label{di-Jpsi-amp}
\end{equation}
with $T_{i1}(s)$ being the element of the $T$-matrix in Eq.~(\ref{T-matrix}). The ratios $r_{i}$ describe the different production strengths for different channels, which can be a complex quantity. The function $P(\sqrt{s})$ parametrize out the energy spectrum of the short-distance production as follows:
\begin{equation}
P(\sqrt{s})=\alpha e^{-\beta s} ,
\label{distribution}
\end{equation}
with $\beta=0.0123 \ GeV^{-2}$~\cite{Dong:2020nwy} and $\alpha$ as an adjustable parameter. The di-$J/\psi$ spectrum is then calculated by
\begin{equation}
\Gamma(s)=\frac{|\vec{p}_{J/ \psi}|}{8 \pi s} |\mathcal{M}_{1}|^{2},
\end{equation}
where $\vec{p}_{J/ \psi}$ is the three-momentum of the final $J/ \psi$ in the center of mass frame of the initial states.
\section{Results}
We first search for the pole structures in the $T$-matrix for single channels. It shows that resonance poles can be produced by the Pomeron exchange potential for the vector charmonium pairs. For both $J^{PC}=0^{++}$ and $2^{++}$ the resonance poles are located at the same position due to the approximation made in Eq.~(\ref{separa-pot}). For the di-$J/\psi$ and $J/\psi$-$\psi(2S)$ system, the resonance poles are located at $6278-i 80$ and $6860-i 74$ MeV, respectively, on the second Riemann sheet of the relevant channel. Similarly, we obtain a resonance pole for the $\psi(2S)$-$\psi(2S)$ system which is located at $7427-i 73$ MeV. However, there is no pole structure found for $1^{++}$. It should be emphasized that although more elaborate treatment of the potential may change the exact pole positions, their locations remain to be near the thresholds of the corresponding single channels.
In Figs.~\ref{di-jpsi-xs} (a) and (b) the spectra for the single channel scatterings, i.e. $J/\psi J/\psi\to J/\psi J/\psi$ and $J/\psi\psi(2S)\to J/\psi\psi(2S)$, respectively, are illustrated for these three quantum numbers. Strong threshold enhancements are produced for both $0^{++}$ and $2^{++}$, while the spectrum for $1^{++}$ turns to be smooth. Such a behavior can be understood due to the cancellation between the two terms in the $1^{++}$ projection operator in Eq.~(\ref{proj-oper}). It actually leads to a vanishing amplitude for the equal mass scatterings, i.e. $J/\psi$-$J/\psi$ and $\psi(2S)$-$\psi(2S)$, and smooths out the amplitude for the $J/\psi$-$\psi(2S)$ channel.
Proceeding to the numerical calculations of the di-$J/\psi$ spectrum, we note that the unknown parameter are $r_{i}$ introduced in Eq.~(\ref{di-Jpsi-amp}) and $\alpha$. In Ref.~\cite{Dong:2020nwy} $r_{i}=1$ is adopted which means that the coupled channels have the same strengths contributing to the di-$J/\psi$ channel. In our case we require that the $X(6900)$ structure is saturated by the coupled-channel results. This will change the relative strengths of $r_i$. It is also possible that $r_i$ carry complex phases to each other if one notices that many higher resonance channels can feed down to the di-$J/\psi$ spectrum via the DPS processes.
In Fig.~\ref{xs-couple-channel} (a) we plot the coupled-channel di-$J/\psi$ spectrum with $r_{1} : r_{2} :r_{3}=1:2e^{-i\pi/2}:1$. It shows that the $X(6900)$ enhancement can be well reproduced and another peak $X(6300)$ can be identified. Due to the interferences between the two poles for either $0^{++}$ and $2^{++}$ a dip structure appears around 6.8 GeV which seems to be consistent with the data. One also notices that the $2^{++}$ partial wave contributions are smaller than the $0^{++}$ ones. This is because the cross sections have taken into account the spin average for the initial states with fixed quantum numbers.
It should be pointed out that since we have only considered the $S$-wave scatterings we do not expect to describe the whole spectrum in our model. The cross section deficit in Fig.~\ref{xs-couple-channel} (a) can be filled by other contributions. In particular, as shown by various model studies~\cite{Debastiani:2017msn,Wu:2016vtq,Liu:2019zuc,liu:2020eha,Deng:2020iqw,Bedolla:2019zwg}, a dense tetraquark spectrum seems to be inevitable. They may not be narrow enough for observation, but can contribute to the smooth cross sections as a background.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\subfigure[ ]{
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{fig2-a.eps}
}
\quad
\subfigure[ ]{
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{fig2-b.eps}
}
\caption{Scattering cross section for (a) $J/ \psi J/ \psi \to J/ \psi J/ \psi$ and (b) $J/ \psi \psi' \to J/ \psi \psi'$ via the Pomeron exchange with partial wave $0^{++}$ (dot-dashed), $1^{++}$ (dotted), and $2^{++}$ (dashed), respectively. Note that the $1^{++}$ wave vanishes in (a).}
\label{di-jpsi-xs}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\subfigure[ ]{
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{fig3-a.eps}
}
\quad
\subfigure[ ]{
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{fig3-b.eps}
}
\caption{(a) The coupled-channel di-$J/ \psi$ energy spectrum compared with the LHCb data~\cite{Aaij:2020fnh}. (b) Prediction for the $J/ \psi$-$\psi'$ energy spectrum. Spectra for the exclusive partial waves, i.e. $0^{++}$, $1^{++}$, and $2^{++}$, are denoted by the dot-dashed, dotted, and dashed lines, respectively. The total cross sections are shown by the solid lines. The dot-dot-dashed line in (a) is the background extracted from the LHCb data~\cite{Aaij:2020fnh}.}
\label{xs-couple-channel}
\end{figure}
It is natural to make a prediction of the $J/\psi$-$\psi'$ energy spectrum based on our coupled-channel formalism and the amplitude is
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}_{2}=P(\sqrt{s})(1+\sum {r_{i}G_{i}(s)}T_{i2}(s)) \ .
\label{coupled-channel-Jpsi-psip-amp}
\end{equation}
The calculation results are shown in Fig.~\ref{xs-couple-channel} (b). Although the background effects are not considered, we predict the existence of an enhancement around 6.9 GeV in the $J/\psi$-$\psi'$ spectrum which can be studied at LHCb in the future.
\section{Conclusion}
Based on the scenario of the Pomeron exchanges in the vector charmonium scatterings near the thresholds of $J/\psi$-$J/\psi$, $J/\psi$-$\psi(2S)$, and $\psi(2S)$-$\psi(2S)$, we provide a dynamic explanation for the enhancement $X(6900)$ observed by LHCb in the di-$J/\psi$ spectrum in a coupled-channel model. We find that $X(6900)$ can be explained as a dynamically generated resonance pole structure due to the coupled-channel interactions between $J/\psi$-$J/\psi$, $J/\psi$-$\psi(2S)$ and $\psi(2S)$-$\psi(2S)$. The Pomeron exchange mechanism has a novel feature in the two different heavy quarkonium system that both the $t$ and $u$-channel Pomeron exchanges can contribute to the transition amplitude. This is crucial for the interactions between the two heavy quarkonia since it introduces a much stronger short-distance contribution to the interaction potential for those two-body heavy quarkonium systems. Note that in such systems the light quark exchanges are forbidden at leading order, and in most cases they are unable to provide strong enough couplings. Moreover, this mechanism can evade controversial difficulties between the observation of very few near-threshold structures and the absence of many states predicted by potential quark models. Further implications of this novel mechanism in other processes will be explored and can be searched for in future experiments.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
This work is supported, in part, by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 11425525, 11521505, 11775078, U1832173, and 11705056), DFG and NSFC funds to the Sino-German CRC 110 ``Symmetries and the Emergence of Structure in QCD'' (NSFC Grant No. 12070131001, DFG Project-ID 196253076), Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Grant No. XDB34030302), and National Key Basic Research Program of China under Contract No. 2020YFA0406300.
\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
|
\section{Introduction}
We work over an algebraically closed field $\mathbf{k}$ of characteristic $0$.
As a fundamental building block of non-isomorphic surjective endomorphisms, the rationally connected projective variety plays a significant role in the equivariant minimal model program.
Let $f\colon X\to X$ be a surjective endomorphism on a projective variety.
In a joint work by Meng and the second author, generalizing \cite{fakhruddin2003questions}*{Question 4.4}, they asked the following question (cf.~\cite{meng2020rigidity}*{Question 1.2}), which characterizes toric varieties from dynamical viewpoints.
Recall that $f$ is $q$-\textit{polarized} if $f^*H \sim qH$ for some ample Cartier divisor $H$ on $X$ and integer $q > 1$, \textit{int-amplified} if $f^*L - L$ is ample for some ample Cartier divisor $L$ on $X$, and \textit{amplified} if $f^*L - L$ is ample for some (not necessarily ample) Cartier divisor $L$ on $X$ (cf.~\cite{krieger2017cohomological}); see \cite{meng2018building}*{Propositions 1.1, 2.9} and \cite{meng2020building}*{Theorem 1.1} for the equivalent definitions.
Clearly, ``polarized'' $\Rightarrow$ ``int-amplified'' $\Rightarrow$ ``amplified''.
\begin{que}\label{main-ques}
Let $X$ be a rationally connected smooth projective variety.
Suppose that $X$ admits an int-amplified (or polarized) endomorphism $f$.
Is $X$ a toric variety?
\end{que}
For the surface case, Nakayama confirmed Sato's conjecture that a rational smooth projective surface admitting a non-isomorphic endomorphism is toric (cf.~\cite{nakayama2002ruled}*{Theorem 3});
hence Question~\ref{main-ques} is also considered as a higher dimensional analogue of Sato's conjecture.
Besides, Question~\ref{main-ques} is known to be true under the further assumption that $f$ has totally invariant ramifications (cf.~\cite{meng2020rigidity}*{Theorem 1.4}, \cite{meng2019characterizations}*{Corollary 1.4} and \cite{hwang2011endomorphisms}*{Theorem 1.2}).
Moreover, Meng, Zhang and the second author recently answered Question~\ref{main-ques} affirmatively for smooth Fano threefolds (cf.~\cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Theorem 1.4}):
\begin{thm}\label{thm-threefold-class}
Let $Y$ be a smooth Fano threefold admitting an (int-)amplified endomorphism $g$.
Then $Y$ is toric.
Further, after iteration, either of the following holds.
\begin{enumerate}[label=\textbf{(\Alph*)}]
\item If $\rho(Y) \leq 2$, then $Y$ is either $\mathbb{P}^3$, a (toric) splitting $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle over $\mathbb{P}^2$, or a (toric) blow-up of $Y':=\mathbb{P}^3$ along a $(g|_{Y'})^{-1}$-invariant line (cf.~\cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Theorem 5.1}).
\item If $\rho(Y) \geq 3$, then $Y$ admits a conic bundle over a toric surface $Z$ which factors as $Y\xrightarrow{\varphi}Y'\xrightarrow{p_0}Z$ where $\varphi$ is a (toric) blow-up of a (not necessarily Fano) splitting $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle $Y'$ over $Z$ along disjoint curves which are intersections of $(g|_{Y'})^{-1}$-invariant prime divisors (cf.~\cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Theorems 6.1 and 8.1}).
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
Note that, when $X$ is a smooth Fano variety, the surjective endomorphism $f$ on $X$ being amplified is equivalent to being int-amplified (cf.~\cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Lemma 2.6}).
\end{rem}
In this paper, we shall give a positive answer to Question~\ref{main-ques} for smooth Fano fourfolds admitting conic bundles.
Recall that a fibration $\tau$ of smooth projective varieties is a \textit{conic bundle} if every fibre of $\tau$ is isomorphic to a (possibly reducible or nonreduced) conic curve in $\mathbb{P}^2$ (cf.~Notation~\ref{notation-conic-bundle}).
Theorem~\ref{thm-main} and Corollary~\ref{cor-splitting} below are our main results.
\begin{thm}\label{thm-main}
Let $X$ be a smooth Fano fourfold admitting a conic bundle.
Then the following are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $X$ is a toric variety.
\item $X$ admits a polarized endomorphism.
\item $X$ admits an (int-)amplified endomorphism.
\end{enumerate}
In particular, $X$ is rational if one of the above equivalent conditions holds.
\end{thm}
Corollary \ref{cor-splitting} below is a generalization of \cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Theorem 6.4}, and it follows from Theorem~\ref{thm-main}.
In contrast, \cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Theorem 6.4} is the main ingredient in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm-threefold-class} (cf.~\cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Proof of Theorem 8.1}).
\begin{cor}\label{cor-splitting}
Let $f \colon X \to X$ be an (int-)amplified endomorphism of a smooth Fano fourfold.
Suppose that $X$ admits a conic bundle $\tau \colon X \to Y$ which factors as $X \xrightarrow{\pi} W \xrightarrow{\tau_0} Y$ where $\pi$ is a composition of blow-ups along disjoint smooth projective surfaces and $\tau_0$ is an elementary conic bundle (cf.~Notation~\ref{notation-elementary}).
Then $W$ is a splitting $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle over $Y$ (cf.~Notation~\ref{notation-alg-spl-bundle}).
\end{cor}
We briefly explain the strategy for the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm-main} $(3) \Rightarrow (1)$.
Let $\tau \colon X \to Y$ be a conic bundle.
By Theorem~\ref{thm-structure-mmp}, $\tau$ factors through an elementary conic bundle $\tau_0 \colon W \to Y$.
If one of the following holds: (1) $\rho(X) - \rho(Y) \neq 2$;
(2) $Y \cong \mathbb{P}^3$ or the blow-up of a line on $\mathbb{P}^3$;
or (3) $Y$ is a $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle over $\mathbb{P}^2$, $\mathbb{F}_0$ or $\mathbb{F}_1$ (cf.~Notation~\ref{notation-Hirzebruch}), then $W$ is a splitting $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle.
Otherwise, after replacing $\tau$ by a new conic bundle $\widehat{\tau}$ if necessary, our new $\widehat{\tau}_0$ is a splitting $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle (cf.~Theorem~\ref{thm-splitting}).
Choosing a suitable equivariant minimal model program for $\tau$, one can verify that $X$ is a toric blow-up of a splitting $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle over $Y$;
hence $X$ is toric (cf.~\cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Proposition 2.9} and Theorem~\ref{thm-main-int-to-toric}).
\begin{rem}[Difference with previous papers]
\label{rem-difference}
In the joint work \cite{meng2020nonisomorphic} of the second author, the Fano threefold case was dealt with by using the known surface theory and the important paper \cite{mori1983fano} for threefolds.
The Fano fourfold case here is considerably harder.
First, when showing the smoothness of elementary conic bundles, the discriminant and its self-intersection are less known in higher dimension (cf.~Lemma~\ref{lem-no-3-comp}).
Second, when $Y$ is imprimitive, the induced contraction $W \to W'$ may not be $K_W$-negative and $W'$ is possibly not $\mathbb{Q}$-factorial (cf.~Remark~\ref{rem-reduction-lem}); hence a suitable new conic bundle is required (cf.~Theorem~\ref{thm-splitting}).
Finally, when proving the splitting-ness of $\mathbb{P}_Y(\mathcal{E}) \to Y$, previous results (for surfaces) on ``walls'' do not work any more (cf.~\cite{qin1993equivalence}).
So we introduce the generalized tool inspired by \cite{greb2017compact} (cf.~Lemmas~\ref{lem-locally-finite-walls}, \ref{lem-semistable-split}).
Accordingly, more investigations for Fano threefolds are needed (cf.~Claims~\ref{claim-nonempty-wall-P2} $\sim$ \ref{claim-nonempty-wall-F1} and \ref{claim-nonempty-wall-P3}).
\end{rem}
Inspired by Mori's motivating result for threefolds (cf.~\cite{mori1982threefolds}*{Theorem 3.5}), we propose the following question.
The dynamical conditions are imposed so as to eliminate the higher dimensional special fibres.
Then the Fano contraction $\tau$ being equi-dimensional (of relative dimensional one) implies that it is an elementary conic bundle (cf.~Lemma~\ref{lem-blowup-or-conic}).
\begin{que}
Let $f \colon X \to X$ be a polarized or int-amplified endomorphism of a rationally connected smooth projective variety.
Suppose that $\tau \colon X \to Y$ is a Fano contraction of a ($K_X$-negative) extremal ray such that $\dim X = \dim Y + 1$.
Is $\tau$ a conic bundle?
\end{que}
\par \noindent
\textbf{Acknowledgements.}
The authors would like to thank Professor De-Qi Zhang and Doctor Sheng Meng for many inspiring discussions.
The authors are supported by President's Scholarships of NUS.
\section{Preliminaries}
\begin{notn}\label{notation}
Let $X$ be a projective variety.
We use the following notation throughout this paper.
\begin{enumerate}[label=\arabic*),ref=2.1\,(\arabic*),leftmargin=1.5em]
\item The symbols $\sim$ (resp.~$\equiv$) denote the \textit{linear equivalence} (resp.~\textit{numerical equivalence}) on $\mathbb{Q}$- (or $\mathbb{R}$-) Cartier divisors.
\item
Let $\operatorname{N}^1(X)$ be the space of $\mathbb{R}$-Cartier divisors modulo numerical equivalence $\equiv$, and $\rho(X) \coloneqq \dim_{\mathbb{R}}\operatorname{N}^1(X)$ the \textit{Picard number} of $X$.
Let $\operatorname{N}_1(X)$ be the dual space of $\operatorname{N}^1(X)$ consisting of $1$-cycles, $\mathrm{Amp}(X)$ the cone of \textit{ample divisors} in $\operatorname{N}^1(X)$ and $\overline{\operatorname{NE}}(X)$ the \textit{Mori cone} of pseudo-effective $1$-cycles in $\operatorname{N}_1(X)$.
\item Let $f \colon X \to X$ be a surjective endomorphism.
A subset $D \subseteq X$ is \textit{$f^{-1}$-invariant} (resp.~\textit{$f^{-1}$-periodic}) if $f^{-1}(D) = D$ (resp.~$f^{-s}(D) = D$ for some $s \geq 1$).
\item A surjective endomorphism $f \colon X \to X$ is \textit{amplified} if $f^*L - L$ is ample for some (not necessarily ample) Cartier divisor $L$ on $X$, \textit{int-amplified} if $f^*L - L$ is ample for some ample Cartier divisor $L$ on $X$, and \textit{polarized} if $f^*H \sim qH$ for some ample Cartier divisor $H$ on $X$ and integer $q > 1$;
see \cite{krieger2017cohomological}, \cite{meng2020building} and \cite{meng2018building}.
\item A normal projective variety $X$ is of \textit{Fano type}, if there is an effective Weil $\mathbb{Q}$-divisor $\Delta$ on $X$ such that the pair $(X, \Delta)$ has at worst klt singularities and $-(K_X + \Delta)$ is an ample $\mathbb{Q}$-Cartier divisor.
If $\Delta = 0$, we say that $X$ is a \textit{(klt) Fano variety}.
\item A smooth Fano surface is usually called a \textit{del Pezzo surface}.
The \textit{degree} of a del Pezzo surface is defined as the self-intersection number of its canonical divisor.
\item \label{notation-Hirzebruch}
Denote by $\mathbb{F}_d \coloneqq \mathbb{P}_{\mathbb{P}^1}(\mathcal{O} \oplus \mathcal{O}(-d))$ the Hirzebruch surface of degree $d$ with $d \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$.
\item A smooth Fano threefold is \textit{imprimitive} if it is isomorphic to the blow-up of another smooth Fano threefold along a smooth irreducible curve (cf.~\cite{mori1983fano}*{Definition 1.3}).
\item A normal projective variety $X$ of dimension $n$ is a \textit{toric variety} if $X$ contains a \textit{big torus} $T = (k^*)^n$ as an (affine) open dense subset such that the natural multiplication action of $T$ on itself extends to an action on the whole variety.
In this case, $B \coloneqq X \setminus T$ is a divisor;
the pair $(X, B)$ is said to be a \textit{toric pair}.
\item Let $\pi \colon X \to W$ be the blow-up of a smooth toric variety $W$ along a smooth closed subvariety $S$.
We say that $\pi$ is a \textit{toric blow-up} if there exists some big torus $T$ acting on $W$ with $T(S) = S$.
In this case, $X$ is still toric.
\item \label{notation-conic-bundle}
A fibration $\tau \colon X \to Y$ of smooth projective varieties is a \textit{(regular) conic bundle} if every fibre of $\tau$ is a conic, i.e., it is isomorphic as a scheme to the zeros of a nontrivial section $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^2}(2)$.
If $X$ is further assumed to be Fano, then $\tau$ is a \textit{Fano conic bundle}.
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\alph*),ref=2.1\,(11\,\alph*)]
\item \label{notation-discriminant}
Denote by $\Delta_{\tau} \coloneqq \{y \in Y \mid \tau \text{ is not smooth over } y \}$ the \textit{discriminant} of $\tau$, which is a reduced divisor on $Y$ (cf.~\cite{sarkisov1983conic}*{Proposition 1.8 an Corollary 1.9}).
\item There is a double cover $\sigma \colon \widetilde{\Delta_{\tau}} \to \Delta_{\tau}$, which is {\'e}tale over the regular locus of $\Delta_{\tau}$ (cf.~\cite{beauville1977varietes}*{Proposition 1.5} or \cite{sarkisov1983conic}*{\S 1.17}).
\item \label{notation-elementary}
A conic bundle $\tau \colon X \to Y$ is said to be \textit{elementary}, if $\rho(X) = \rho(Y) + 1$; in this case, the double cover $\sigma$ in (b) is nontrivial over each irreducible component $D_i \subseteq \Delta_{\tau}$;
hence $\sigma^{-1}(D_i)$'s are all connected (cf.~\cite{sarkisov1983conic}*{\S 1.17}).
\item Let $\mathcal{E}$ be a locally free sheaf of rank $3$ on a smooth projective variety $Y$, and $\pi \colon \mathbb{P}_Y(\mathcal{E}) \to Y$ the standard projection.
An irreducible reduced (possibly singular) divisor $V$ such that the generic fibre of $\pi|_V$ is a smooth rational curve is called an \textit{embedded conic} over $Y$ (cf.~\cite{sarkisov1983conic}*{Definition 1.1 and \S 1.5}).
\end{enumerate}
\item \label{notation-alg-spl-bundle}
A fibration $\tau \colon X \to Y$ is a (smooth) \textit{$\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle}, if $\tau$ is a conic bundle and $\Delta_{\tau} = \emptyset$.
A fibration $\tau \colon X \to Y$ is an \textit{algebraic $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle}, if $X \cong \mathbb{P}_Y(\mathcal{E})$ for some locally free sheaf $\mathcal{E}$ of rank $2$ on $Y$.
An algebraic $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle $X \coloneqq \mathbb{P}_Y(\mathcal{E}) \xrightarrow{\tau} Y$ is a \textit{splitting $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle} if $\mathcal{E}$ is a direct sum of two invertible sheaves.
\item For a prime divisor $D$ on $X$, the inclusion $i \colon D \hookrightarrow X$ induces a pushforward of $1$-cycles $i_* \colon \operatorname{N}_1(D) \to \operatorname{N}_1(X)$ with the image a linear subspace.
The \textit{Lefschetz defect} $\delta_X$ is defined as $\delta_{X} \coloneqq \max \{\mathrm{codim}_{\operatorname{N}_1(X)} i_*(\operatorname{N}_1(D)) \mid D \subseteq X \text { is a prime divisor}\}$ (cf.~\cite{casagrande2012picard}).
\item \label{notation-walls}
Fix a locally free sheaf $\mathcal{E}$ of rank $2$ on a smooth Fano threefold $Y$.
For every saturated subsheaf $\mathcal{F} \subseteq \mathcal{E}$, i.e., $\mathcal{E}/\mathcal{F}$ is torsion free (so $\mathcal{F}$ is reflexive and thus locally free), denote by $\xi_{\mathcal{F}} \coloneqq 2c_1(\mathcal{F}) - c_1(\mathcal{E})$ and define the set
\[
W_{\mathcal{E}}(\mathcal{F}) \coloneqq \{H^2 \mid H \in \mathrm{Amp}(Y), H^2 \cdot \xi_{\mathcal{F}} = 0\} \subseteq P(Y) \coloneqq \{H^2 \mid H \in \mathrm{Amp}(Y)\}.
\]
to be a \textit{generalized wall} of $P(Y) \subseteq \operatorname{N}_1(Y)$ with respect to $\mathcal{E}$ (cf.~\cite{greb2017compact}*{Section 6}).
\end{enumerate}
\end{notn}
In the rest of this section, we gather several results to be used frequently in the subsequent sections.
We begin with Lemmas~\ref{lem-equiv-MMP} $\sim$ \ref{thm-bh}, which are on endomorphisms.
\begin{lem}\label{lem-equiv-MMP}
Let $f \colon X \to X$ be a surjective endomorphism on a normal projective variety.
Then any finite sequence of a minimal model program starting from $X$, is $f$-equivariant (after iteration), if either of the following conditions is satisfied.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The (closed) Mori cone $\overline{\operatorname{NE}}(X)$ has only finitely many extremal rays (this holds when $X$ is of Fano type) (cf.~\cite{kollar1998birational}*{Theorem 3.7} and \cite{zhang2010polarized}*{Lemma 2.11}).
\item $X$ admits an int-amplified endomorphism (cf.~\cite{meng2020semi}*{Theorem 1.1}).
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{lem}(cf.~\cite{meng2020building}*{Theorem 1.1})
\label{lem-intamplified}
Let $f$ be a surjective endomorphism of a projective variety $X$.
Then the following are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $f$ is int-amplified, i.e., $f^*L - L$ is ample for some ample Cartier divisor $L$ on $X$.
\item All the eigenvalues of $f^*|_{\operatorname{N}^1(X)}$ are of modulus greater than $1$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{lem}\label{lem-split-pdt}
Let $f \colon X \to X$ be an int-amplified endomorphism on the product space $X \coloneqq X_1 \times X_2$ such that $f$ splits into $f_1 \times f_2$ after iteration (this is the case when both $X_i$ are of Fano type).
Then every $f^{-1}$-periodic prime divisor $D$ is of the form $D_1 \times X_2$ or $X_1 \times D_2$ where $D_i$ is some prime divisor on $X_i$ for $i=1,2$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $R_f$ and $R_{f_i}$ be the ramification divisors of $f$ and $f_i$, respectively.
After iteration, we assume $f^*D = qD$ for some $q > 1$ (cf.~Lemma~\ref{lem-intamplified});
thus $D$ is a component of $R_f$.
Since $f$ splits, we have $R_f = p_1^* R_{f_1} + p_2^* R_{f_2}$ with $p_i$ being the natural projections.
Hence, $D$ is of the form $D_1 \times X_2$ or $X_1 \times D_2$ where $D_i$ is some prime divisor on $X_i$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}(cf.~\cite{broustet2014singularities}*{Theorem 1.4} and \cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Theorem 2.11})
\label{thm-bh}
Let $f \colon X \to X$ be an int-amplified endomorphism on a normal projective variety.
Let $\Delta$ be an $f^{-1}$-invariant reduced divisor such that $K_X + \Delta$ is $\mathbb{Q}$-Cartier.
Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item $(X, \Delta)$ has at worst log canonical singularities, and
\item $-(K_X + \Delta)$ is effective.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
Lemma~\ref{lem-blowup-or-conic} below was first proved in \cite{ando1985extremal}*{Theorems 2.3 and 3.1} and then reformulated in \cite{wisniewski1991contractions}*{Theorem 1.2}.
\begin{lem}\label{lem-blowup-or-conic}
Let $\chi \colon X \to X'$ be a contraction of a $K_X$-negative extremal ray of a smooth projective variety $X$.
If every fibre of $\chi$ is of dimension $\leq 1$, then $X'$ is smooth and either
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\chi$ is a conic bundle, or
\item $\chi$ is a blow-up of $X'$ along a smooth subvariety of codimension $2$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{lem}[cf.~\cite{casagrande2012picard}*{Theorem 1.1}]\label{lem-leftschetz-defect}
Let $X$ be a smooth Fano fourfold and $\delta_X$ its Lefschetz defect.
If $\delta_X \ge 4$, then $X \cong S_1 \times S_2$ with $S_i$ being del Pezzo surfaces.
If $\delta_X = 3$, then there exists a conic bundle $X \to Y$ such that $\rho(X) - \rho(Y) = 3$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The first assertion is a direct consequence from \cite{casagrande2012picard}*{Theorem 1.1}.
For the second assertion, see \cite{casagrande2012picard}*{Step 3.3.15 of Proof of Proposition 3.3.1}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}[cf.~\cite{wisniewski1991contractions}*{pp. 156, Corollary}]
\label{lem-base-Fano}
Let $\tau \colon X \to Y$ be a conic bundle.
If $X$ is smooth Fano and either $\dim Y \leq 3$ or $\rho(Y) = 1$, then $Y$ is also smooth Fano.
\end{lem}
\begin{lem}[cf.~\cite{romano2019non}*{Theorem 4.2}]
\label{lem-Rom4.2}
Let $X$ be a smooth Fano fourfold and $\tau \colon X \to Y$ a conic bundle which factors as $X \xrightarrow{\pi} W \xrightarrow{\tau_0} Y$ where $\pi$ is a composition of blow-ups along disjoint smooth projective surfaces and $\tau_0$ is an elementary conic bundle.
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\arabic*),ref=2.9\,(\arabic*)]
\item \label{lem-Rom4.2-geq-4}
If $\rho(X) - \rho(Y) \geq 4$, then $X \cong S_1 \times S_2$,
where $S_i$ are del Pezzo surfaces.
\item \label{lem-Rom4.2-=3}
If $\rho(X) - \rho(Y) = 3$, then $\tau_0$ is a smooth $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle, and there exists a smooth $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle $p \colon Y \to Z$ with $Z$ being a del Pezzo surface.
\item \label{lem-Rom4.2-=2}
If $\rho(X) - \rho(Y) = 2$, and $\tau_0$ is singular, then there exists a smooth $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle $p \colon Y \to Z$ with $Z$ being a del Pezzo surface.
\item \label{lem-split-P^1-bundle}
If $X\cong S_1\times S_2$ with $S_i$ being del Pezzo surfaces (this is the case when (1) occurs), then $\tau_0$ is a splitting $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
(1) $\sim$ (3) follow from \cite{romano2019non}*{Theorem 4.2}.
So we only need to show (4).
If $X \cong S_1 \times S_2$, then it is clear that $W \cong S_1' \times S_2'$ is a product of del Pezzo surfaces with $S_1' = \mathbb{F}_0$ or $\mathbb{F}_1$ and $Y \cong \mathbb{P}^1 \times S_2'$.
Hence $\tau_0$ is induced by the pull-back of a splitting $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle ($\mathbb{F}_0$ or $\mathbb{F}_1$) over $\mathbb{P}^1$ under the base change;
thus $\tau_0$ is also a splitting $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle.
\end{proof}
Lemma~\ref{lem-blowup-basechange} below is known to experts and we rewrite it here for readers' convenience.
\begin{lem}\label{lem-blowup-basechange}
Let $W \to Z$ be a flat morphism of algebraic varieties.
Let $C \subseteq Z$ be a closed subscheme and $D$ the inverse image of $C$ in $W$.
Let $W'$ be the blow-up of $W$ along $D$ and $Z'$ the blow-up of $Z$ along $C$.
Then $W' \cong W \times_Z Z'$.
\end{lem}
In what follows, we prove two lemmas that naturally complement Notation~\ref{notation-conic-bundle}.
Lemma~\ref{lem-no-3-comp} was first proved in \cite{sarkisov1983conic}*{Proposition 1.16}.
It shows, at each singular point of the discriminant of a conic bundle, there are precisely two components intersecting transversally.
\begin{lem}\label{lem-no-3-comp}
Let $D_i \subseteq \Delta_{\tau}$ $(i = 1, 2, 3)$ be three distinct irreducible components (if exists) of a conic bundle $\tau \colon X \to Y$.
Then $D_1 \cap D_2 \cap D_3 = \emptyset$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose the contrary that there exists $v \in D_1 \cap D_2 \cap D_3 \subseteq \operatorname{Sing} \Delta_{\tau}$.
Choose an affine open neighbourhood $U \subseteq Y$ of $v$ with local coordinates $y_i$ such that one can write the local equation of $X_U \coloneqq \tau^{-1}(U) \subseteq U \times \mathbb{P}^2_{x_0, x_1, x_2}$ in the form $Q_U \coloneqq \sum_{0 \leq i, j \leq 2} a_{ij} x_i x_j = 0$, where $x_i$ are the coordinates in $\mathbb{P}^2$ and $a_{ij} \in \mathcal{O}_Y(U)$.
Locally, $\Delta_{\tau}$ is given by the determinant equation $\det Q_U = 0$.
Since $\Delta_{\tau}$ has at least three components near $v$, we have $\det Q_U \in \mathfrak{m}_v^3$.
It follows that $\operatorname{rk} (\partial^2 \det Q_U/\partial y_i \partial y_j)_v = 0$, contradicting \cite{sarkisov1983conic}*{Proposition 1.8 5.c}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{lem-embedded-stable-under-BC}
Let $\tau \colon X \to Y$ be a conic bundle, and $\pi \colon Y' \to Y$ a morphism such that $\pi(Y') \not\subset \Delta_{\tau}$.
Then the morphism $\tau' \colon X' \to Y'$ by the base change is an embedded conic.
In particular, if $Y'\subseteq Y$ is a smooth closed subvariety not contained in $\Delta_{\tau}$, and $\Delta_{\tau'} \coloneqq \Delta_{\tau}|_{Y'}$ is a reduced divisor with simple normal crossings on $Y'$, then $\tau'$ is also a conic bundle.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Since $\tau$ is a conic bundle, $\mathcal{E} \coloneqq \tau_* \mathcal{O}(-K_X)$ is locally free of rank $3$ on $Y$ (cf.~\cite{hartshorne1977algebraic}*{Chapter \RomanNumeralCaps{3}, Corollary 12.9}).
Let $X' \coloneqq X \times_Y Y'$, $\widetilde{X} \coloneqq \mathbb{P}_Y(\mathcal{E})$ and $\widetilde{X'} \coloneqq \mathbb{P}_{Y'}(\pi^*\mathcal{E})$.
\[
\xymatrix@C=3.5pc{
\widetilde{X'} \ar[r]^q \ar@/_2pc/[dd]_{\varphi'} &\widetilde{X} \ar@/^2pc/[dd]^{\varphi} \\
X' \ar[r]^p \ar@{^{(}->}[u]^{i'} \ar[d]_{\tau'} &X \ar@{^{(}->}[u]_i \ar[d]^{\tau} \\
Y' \ar[r]_{\pi} &Y
}
\]
Clearly, the generic fibre of $\tau'$ is an irreducible rational curve by the base change.
By \cite{sarkisov1983conic}*{\S 1.5}, $X$ embeds into $\widetilde{X}$ and $\tau = \varphi \circ i$.
Then $\widetilde{X'} \cong \widetilde{X} \times_Y Y'$ with $\varphi'$ and $q$ being the natural projections.
Since $\pi \circ \tau' = \varphi \circ i \circ p$, our $\tau'$ factors through $\varphi'$ by the universal property and we get the morphism $i'$.
Then $i'$ is an embedding since $X' \cong X \times_{\widetilde{X}} \widetilde{X'}$;
hence $\tau'$ is an embedded conic.
The second part follows from the first part, $\tau$ being a (regular) conic bundle and \cite{sarkisov1983conic}*{Corollary 1.11}.
\end{proof}
At the end of this section, we recall the following lemma, which works in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem-semistable-split} under dynamical assumptions.
Note that the system of walls given by \cite{greb2017compact}*{Theorem 6.6} yields an obvious stratification of $P(X)$ into connected chambers.
\begin{lem}(cf.~\cite{greb2017compact}*{Proposition 6.5 and Theorem 6.6})\label{lem-locally-finite-walls}
There is a homeomorphism from $\mathrm{Amp}(Y)$ to $P(Y)$ (cf.~Notation~\ref{notation-walls}).
The set of walls $\{W_{\mathcal{E}}(\mathcal{F})\}_{\mathcal{F}}$ is locally finite in $P(Y)$, i.e., there are only finitely many walls $W_{\mathcal{E}}(\mathcal{F})$ in each compact set $K \subseteq P(Y)$.
\end{lem}
\section{Totally periodic subvarieties on Fano threefolds}
In this section, we shall study \cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Question 1.8} for Fano threefolds.
The main results are Theorem~\ref{thm-TID-Fano-3fold} (confirming the divisor case) and Proposition~\ref{pro-ti-curves}.
\begin{thm}\label{thm-TID-Fano-3fold}
Let $Y$ be a smooth Fano threefold admitting an int-amplified endomorphism $g$.
Then $Y$ is toric and there is a toric pair $(Y, \Delta)$ such that $\Delta$ contains the union $\Sigma$ of all the $g^{-1}$-periodic prime divisors.
Further, every $g^{-1}$-periodic prime divisor is a smooth rational surface.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
By \cite{meng2020semi}*{Corollary 3.8}, there are only finitely many $g^{-1}$-periodic subvarieties;
hence we may assume that they are all $g^{-1}$-invariant, after iteration.
Further, $(Y, \Sigma)$ is lc and $-(K_Y + \Sigma)$ is effective (cf.~Lemma~\ref{thm-bh}).
By Theorem~\ref{thm-threefold-class}, $Y$ is toric.
We shall treat all cases of $Y$ in Theorem~\ref{thm-threefold-class} and replace $g$ by a power if necessary (cf.~Lemma \ref{lem-equiv-MMP}).
\par \vskip 0.3pc \noindent
\textbf{Case (1):} $Y \cong \mathbb{P}^3$.
Then $\Sigma$ is a union of at most four planes (cf.~\cite{horing2017totally}*{Corollary 1.2}, \cite{nakayama2010polarized}*{Theorem 1.5\,(5)} and Lemma~\ref{thm-bh}).
Since $(Y, \Sigma)$ is lc, the boundary $\Sigma$ is a simple normal crossing divisor (cf.~\cite{kollar1998birational}*{Lemma 2.29});
thus $\Sigma$ is contained in a tetrahedron $\Delta$ (looking like \tikztetrahedron) in $\mathbb{P}^3$.
Clearly, $(Y, \Delta)$ is a toric pair.
\par \vskip 0.3pc \noindent
\textbf{Case (2):} $\pi \colon Y \to Z \cong \mathbb{P}^3$ is a (toric) blow-up along an $(h \coloneqq g|_Z)^{-1}$-invariant line $L$ after iteration.
Then, $\Sigma$ consists of the $\pi$-exceptional divisor $E$ and the $\pi$-strict transform of the $h^{-1}$-invariant divisor $\Sigma_Z \coloneqq \pi_*\Sigma$ on $Z$ (cf.~\cite{cascini2020polarized}*{Lemma 7.5}).
\begin{claim}\label{claim-L-subseteq-intersection}
There exists a reduced divisor $\Delta_Z$ containing $\Sigma_Z$ such that $(Z, \Delta_Z)$ is a toric pair and $L$ is contained in the intersection of toric boundary components of $(Z, \Delta_Z)$.
\end{claim}
\noindent
\textbf{Proof of Claim~\ref{claim-L-subseteq-intersection}.}
If $\Sigma_Z$ has at most one component, then we can choose a suitable $\Delta_Z$ satisfying the condition of our claim.
Assume $D_1, D_2, \cdots$ are irreducible components of $\Sigma_Z$ and denote $\ell_{ij} \coloneqq D_i \cap D_j$.
If $L = \ell_{ij}$, we are done (cf.~\textbf{Case (1)});
hence we assume this is not the case.
If $L \not\subset D_i$, $L\not\subset D_j$ but $L \cap \ell_{ij} \neq \emptyset$,
then the three $g^{-1}$-invariant prime divisors $E, \pi^*D_i$ and $\pi^*D_j$ intersect along the curve $\pi^{-1}(L\cap\ell_{ij})$, contradicting Lemma~\ref{thm-bh}.
Hence, for each $\ell_{ij}$, either $L \cap \ell_{ij} = \emptyset$, or $L$ is contained in $D_i$ or $D_j$.
If $\Sigma_Z$ consists of two components, then we can choose a suitable $\Delta_Z$ satisfying the condition.
Note that there are at most two $(g|_L)^{-1}$-invariant points in $L$ by Lemma~\ref{thm-bh}.
If $\Sigma_Z$ has at least three components, then $L$ must lie in one of them;
otherwise, $L$ intersects them at three distinct points by assumption, which are $(g|_L)^{-1}$-invariant after iteration, a contradiction.
Assume $L \subseteq D_1$.
Then $L \cap \ell_{1i} \cap \ell_{1j} = \emptyset$ by Lemma~\ref{thm-bh} since they are $(g|_{D_1})^{-1}$-invariant.
Hence if $\Sigma_Z$ has three components, we may choose another plane $D \supseteq L$ such that $\Delta_Z = \Sigma_Z + D$.
Finally, if $\Sigma_Z$ has four components, then $L$ intersects $\ell_{1i}$ $(i = 2, 3, 4)$ at three distinct points, a contradiction to Lemma~\ref{thm-bh} again.
\par \vskip 0.3pc \noindent
\textbf{We come back to the proof of Case (2).}
By Claim~\ref{claim-L-subseteq-intersection}, $(Y, \Delta \coloneqq \pi_*^{-1} \Delta_Z + E)$ is a toric pair.
For $E \neq D \subseteq \Delta$, if $L \subseteq \pi(D)$, then $D = \pi_*^{-1}(\pi(D)) \cong \mathbb{P}^2$ by \textbf{Case (1)};
if $L \not\subset \pi(D)$, then $D = \pi^{-1}(\pi(D)) \cong \mathbb{F}_1$.
On the other hand, $Y$ admits another Fano contraction to $L' \cong \mathbb{P}^1$ along which, $E$ dominates $L'$.
So $E$ admits two (distinct) rulings and hence $E\cong\mathbb{F}_0$.
As a result, each component of $\Sigma_Z$ is smooth rational.
\par \vskip 0.3pc \noindent
\textbf{Case (3):} $\pi \colon Y \to Y'$ is a (toric) blow-up along disjoint curves $C_i$ which are intersections of $(g|_{Y'})^{-1}$-invariant prime divisors, and $Y' \to Z$ is a splitting $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle over a smooth toric surface.
By \cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Theorem 3.3}, there exists a reduced divisor $\Delta_{Y'}$ containing all the $(g'\coloneqq g|_{Y'})^{-1}$-periodic prime divisors such that $(Y', \Delta_{Y'})$ is a (smooth) toric pair.
Let $\sum E_i$ be the sum of $\pi$-exceptional divisors.
Then $(Y, \Delta_Y \coloneqq \sum E_i + \pi_*^{-1} \Delta_{Y'})$ is a toric pair.
Note that $Y$ is a conic bundle over $Z$ (cf.~Theorem \ref{thm-threefold-class}).
So every ($g^{-1}$-invariant) $\pi$-exceptional divisor $E_i$ is a $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle over $C_i \cong \mathbb{P}^1$ (cf.~\cite{mori1983fano}*{Proposition 6.3}, \cite{cascini2020polarized}*{Lemma 7.5} and \cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Corollary 3.4}).
Hence every $g^{-1}$-invariant prime divisor ($\neq E_i$) is the smooth blow-up of a component of $\Delta_{Y'}$, and thus smooth rational.
\end{proof}
As an application of Theorem~\ref{thm-TID-Fano-3fold}, the following corollary slightly generalizes \cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Theorem 3.3} to higher dimensional cases.
The proof is the same as \cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Theorem 3.3} after replacing \cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Theorem 3.2} by Theorem~\ref{thm-TID-Fano-3fold}.
\begin{cor}\label{cor-splitting-to-toric}
Let $\tau \colon X \to Y$ be a splitting $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle over a smooth Fano threefold $Y$.
Suppose that $X$ admits an int-amplified endomorphism $f$.
Then $X$ is toric and there is a toric pair $(X, \Delta)$ such that $\Delta$ contains the union $\Sigma$ of all the $f^{-1}$-periodic prime divisors.
\end{cor}
At the end of this section, we show the following proposition, which takes a first glance at the totally periodic curves of an int-amplified endomorphism on Fano threefolds.
So far, we are only able to deal with the case when $Y$ admits a conic bundle.
It is conjectured that every totally periodic curve on $\mathbb{P}^3$ is linear (cf.~e.g.,~\cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Conjecture 1.9}).
\begin{prop}\label{pro-ti-curves}
Let $Y$ be a smooth Fano threefold admitting a conic bundle and an int-amplified endomorphism $g$.
Then every $g^{-1}$-periodic curve is smooth rational.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $C$ be a $g^{-1}$-periodic curve.
Let $Y \to Z$ be the conic bundle, which factors as $Y \xrightarrow{\varphi} Y' \xrightarrow{p_0} Z$ such that $\varphi$ is the blow-up of $W$ along a disjoint union of some $(g|_{Y'})^{-1}$-periodic smooth curves, and $p_0$ is an algebraic $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle over a smooth rational surface $Z$ (cf.~\cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Theorem 6.2}).
By Lemma~\ref{lem-equiv-MMP}, we may assume that both $\varphi$ and $p_0$ are $g$-equivariant and $C$ is $g^{-1}$-invariant after iteration.
Suppose that $C$ is contained in some ($g^{-1}$-invariant) $\varphi$-exceptional prime divisor $E$.
Then $C$ is a $(g|_E)^{-1}$-invariant curve on the smooth rational surface $E$ (cf.~Theorem~\ref{thm-TID-Fano-3fold});
thus $C$ is a smooth rational curve by \cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Corollary 3.4}.
Suppose that $C$ is not contained in the exceptional locus of $\varphi$.
Then $C$ is birational to its image $C' \coloneqq \varphi(C)$ on $Y'$, which is $(g|_{Y'})^{-1}$-invariant (after iteration) by \cite{cascini2020polarized}*{Lemma 7.5}.
If $p_0$ contracts $C'$, then $C'\cong\mathbb{P}^1$.
If $p_0$ does not contract $C'$, then $p_0(C')$ is $(g|_Z)^{-1}$-periodic and hence a smooth rational curve (cf.~\cite{cascini2020polarized}*{Lemma 7.5} and \cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Corollary 3.4}).
After iteration, $C'$ is contained in the $g^{-1}$-invariant smooth rational surface $F' \coloneqq p_0^{-1}(p_0(C'))$.
Then $C'$, as a $(g|_{F'})^{-1}$-invariant curve on $F'$, is also smooth rational by \cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Corollary 3.4}.
In both cases, $\varphi|_C$ is an isomorphism.
Indeed, taking the normalization $\widetilde{C} \to C \to C'$, the composition is birational and thus an isomorphism, which forces $\widetilde{C} \cong C$.
So $C$ is smooth rational and our proposition holds.
\end{proof}
\section{Elementary Fano conic bundles}
\label{section-elementary-Fano-conic}
The whole section is devoted to proving the smoothness of an elementary Fano conic bundle with the dynamical assumption.
To be more precise, we shall prove the following:
\begin{thm}\label{thm-elementary-smoothness}
Let $\tau \colon X \to Y$ be an elementary Fano conic bundle from a smooth fourfold $X$.
Suppose that $X$ admits an int-amplified endomorphism $f$.
Then $\Delta_{\tau} = \emptyset$, i.e., $\tau$ is a smooth (and hence an algebraic) $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle.
\end{thm}
\begin{notn}\label{notation-main-reduction-mmp}
We will assume and use the following notation throughout this section.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $X$ is a smooth Fano fourfold, and $\tau \colon X \to Y$ is an elementary conic bundle;
hence $Y$ is a smooth Fano threefold (cf.~Lemma~\ref{lem-base-Fano}).
\item $f \colon X \to X$ is int-amplified and it descends to an int-amplified endomorphism $g \coloneqq f|_Y$ on $Y$ after iteration (cf.~Lemmas~\ref{lem-equiv-MMP} and \ref{lem-intamplified}).
\item We use $E_{\bullet}$ to denote the exceptional locus $\mathrm{Exc}(\bullet)$ for simplicity.
\end{enumerate}
\end{notn}
Before proving Theorem~\ref{thm-elementary-smoothness}, we prepare two lemmas (cf.~Lemmas~\ref{lem-Z-to-minimal} and \ref{lem-Y-to-minimal}).
\begin{lem}[cf.~\cite{casagrande2008quasi}*{Theorem 3.14}]
\label{lem-Z-to-minimal}
Let $p \colon Y \to Z$ be a $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle over a smooth projective surface $Z$ and $\phi \colon Z \to Z'$ the blow-up of a point $Q$ on a smooth projective surface $Z'$.
Then $Z'$ is Fano.
Moreover, one has the following commutative diagram
\[
\xymatrix{
Y \ar[r]^{\varphi} \ar[d]_{p} &Y' \ar[d]^{p'} \\
Z \ar[r]_{\phi} &Z'
}
\]
where $\varphi$ is the blow-up of a smooth Fano threefold $Y'$ along a smooth rational curve, the exceptional divisor $E_{\varphi} = p^*E_{\phi}$, and $p'$ is a Fano contraction and further a $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
First, $Z$ is Fano (cf.~Lemma~\ref{lem-base-Fano}) and thus $Z'$ is also Fano by the ramification divisor formula of $\phi$.
Let $R_{\phi}$ (resp. $R_p$) be the extremal ray of $\overline{\operatorname{NE}}(Z)$ (resp.~$\overline{\operatorname{NE}}(Y)$) contracted by $\phi$ (resp. $p$).
Given that $Y$ is Fano and thus $\overline{\operatorname{NE}}(Y)$ is polyhedral, there is an extremal ray $R_{\varphi}$ of $\overline{\operatorname{NE}}(Y)$ such that $p_* R_{\varphi} = R_{\phi}$ and $R_{\varphi} \cap R_p = \{0\}$.
Denote by $\varphi \colon Y \to Y'$ the ($K_Y$-negative) contraction of $R_{\varphi}$.
By the rigidity lemma (cf.~\cite{debarre2001higher}*{Lemma 1.15}), $\phi \circ p$ factors through $\varphi$ and we get the above commutative diagram.
By \cite{casagrande2008quasi}*{Theorem 3.14\,(v)}, $\varphi$ is the blow-up of a smooth Fano threefold $Y'$ along a smooth rational curve with $E_{\varphi} = p^*E_{\phi}$.
By Theorem~\ref{thm-TID-Fano-3fold}, $E_{\varphi}$ being $g^{-1}$-invariant is smooth rational.
Since the fibre of $p'$ over $Q$ is $\varphi(E_{\varphi}) \cong \mathbb{P}^1$ and every other fibre of $p'$ (which is isomorphic to the corresponding fibre of $p$) is $\mathbb{P}^1$,
our $p'$ is a $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{lem-Y-to-minimal}
Suppose $Y$ is imprimitive.
Then one has the following commutative diagram
\[
\xymatrix{
X \ar[r]^{\chi} \ar[d]_{\tau} &X' \ar[d]^{\tau'} \\
Y \ar[r]_{\varphi} &Y'
}
\]
such that the following assertions hold.
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\arabic*),ref=4.4\,(\arabic*)]
\item $\varphi$ is the blow-up of a smooth Fano threefold $Y'$ along a smooth curve $C$.
\item \label{lem-Y-to-minimal-blow-up} $\chi$ is the blow-up of a smooth Fano fourfold $X'$ along a smooth projective surface.
\item The exceptional divisor $E_{\chi} = \tau^*E_{\varphi}$.
\item \label{lem-Y-to-minimal-conic}
$\tau'$ is an elementary Fano conic bundle and $X \cong X' \times_{Y'} Y$.
In particular, if $\tau'$ is a smooth $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle, then so is $\tau$.
\item The above commutative diagram is $f$-equivariant after replacing $f$ by a power.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
(1) follows from the imprimitivity of $Y$.
Let $R_{\varphi}$ be the $K_Y$-negative extremal ray contracted by $\varphi$.
Since $\overline{\operatorname{NE}}(X)$ is rational polyhedral and $\tau$ is a $K_X$-negative contraction of an extremal ray $R_{\tau}$, there is an extremal ray $R_{\chi}$ of $\overline{\operatorname{NE}}(X)$ such that $\tau_* R_{\chi} = R_{\varphi}$ and $R_{\chi} \cap R_{\tau} = \{0\}$, noting that faces of $\overline{\operatorname{NE}}(Y)$ are in bijection with the faces of $\overline{\operatorname{NE}}(X)$ containing $R_{\tau}$.
Since $X$ is Fano, there exists a $K_X$-negative contraction $\chi \colon X \to X'$ of $R_{\chi}$.
By the rigidity lemma, $\varphi\circ\tau$ factors through $\chi$.
So (5) follows from Lemma~\ref{lem-equiv-MMP}.
We claim that all the fibres of $\chi$ have dimension $\leq 1$.
Indeed, if there exists a fibre component $F_0$ of $\chi$ with $\dim F_0 \geq 2$, then $\varphi(\tau(F_0))$ is a point.
Since $R_{\chi} \cap R_{\tau} = \{0\}$, the restriction $\tau|_{F_0}$ is finite; thus $\tau(F_0)$ cannot be contracted to a point along $\varphi$ by (1).
Hence our claim holds.
Since $\tau_* R_{\chi} = R_{\varphi}$, we have $\tau(E_{\chi}) \subseteq E_{\varphi}$;
then $\chi$ is birational with $E_{\chi} \subseteq \tau^* E_{\varphi}$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem-blowup-or-conic}, $\chi$ is the blow-up along a smooth projective surface.
Since $\tau^* E_{\varphi}$ is irreducible (cf.~\cite{kollar1998birational}*{Theorem 3.7}), (3) is proved.
Next we show that $X'$ is Fano.
Suppose the contrary.
Then it follows from \cite{wisniewski1991contractions}*{Proposition 3.4} that there exists an extremal ray $R_1\neq R_{\chi}$ of $\overline{\operatorname{NE}}(X)$ such that $E_{\chi} \cdot R_1 < 0$; thus the locus of $R_1$ is contained in $E_{\chi}$.
By (3), $R_1$ is not contracted by $\tau$.
Denote by $\chi_1 \colon X \to X_1$ the ($K_X$-negative) contraction of $R_1$.
\textbf{We claim that all fibres of $\chi_1$ have dimension $\leq 1$.} Indeed, if there exists a fibre component $F_0$ of $\chi_1$ such that $\dim F_0 \geq 2$,
then $E_{\chi} \cong \mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$ (cf.~\cite{wisniewski1991contractions}*{Proof of Proposition 3.6\,(ii)}).
As a result, $\chi_1|_{E_{\chi}}$ is a Fano contraction onto $\mathbb{F}_0$, a contradiction to $\dim F_0\ge 2$.
So our claim holds.
Then, it follows from Lemma~\ref{lem-blowup-or-conic} that $\chi_1$ is the blow-up of smooth $X_1$ along a smooth surface with $E_{\chi_1} = E_{\chi}$ and $E_{\chi} \to \chi_1(E_{\chi})$ is a smooth $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle.
Since the ruling $\chi_1|_{E_{\chi}}$ gives rise to a ruling on $E_{\varphi}$ different from $\varphi|_{E_{\varphi}}$, we see that $E_{\varphi} \cong \mathbb{F}_0$.
Moreover, for a fibre $\ell_1$ of $\chi_1$, by the projection formula, we have $E_{\varphi} \cdot \tau(\ell_1) = E_{\chi} \cdot \ell_1 = -1$.
Therefore, $E_{\varphi}|_{E_{\varphi}} \cong \mathcal{O}_{E_{\varphi}}(-1,-1)$ and thus $Y'$ is not Fano (cf.~\cite{mori1983fano}*{Lemma 4.4}), a contradiction to (1).
So our assumption is absurd and (2) is proved.
Note that $\tau'$ is an elementary Fano contraction.
For any point $y' \in Y' \setminus C$, we have $X'_{y'} \cong X_{\varphi^{-1}(y')}$ and hence $\dim X'_{y'} = 1$.
On the other hand, $\chi(E_{\chi}) = \tau'^{-1}(C) \to C$ is flat (onto a smooth curve) and hence also has fibre dimension one.
By Lemma~\ref{lem-blowup-or-conic}, $\tau'$ is an elementary (flat) conic bundle.
So (4) follows from Lemma~\ref{lem-blowup-basechange}.
\end{proof}
\noindent
\textbf{Now we begin to prove Theorem~\ref{thm-elementary-smoothness}.}
In view of Lemmas~\ref{lem-Z-to-minimal}, \ref{lem-Y-to-minimal} and Theorem~\ref{thm-threefold-class}, to prove Theorem~\ref{thm-elementary-smoothness}, it suffices to focus on the following cases: (1) $Y \cong \mathbb{P}^3$;
(2) $p \colon Y \to Z \cong \mathbb{P}^2$ is a splitting $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle;
and (3) $p \colon Y \to Z \cong \mathbb{F}_0$ is a splitting $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle.
Suppose the contrary that $\Delta_{\tau} \neq \emptyset$.
By \cite{cascini2020polarized}*{Lemma 7.4}, $g^{-1}(\Delta_{\tau}) = \Delta_{\tau}$.
After iteration, we may assume that each component $D_i$ of $\Delta_{\tau}$ is $g^{-1}$-invariant.
By Theorem~\ref{thm-TID-Fano-3fold}, $\Delta_{\tau}$ is contained in some toric boundary of $Y$ and thus $\Delta_{\tau}$ has simple normal crossings.
\begin{thm}\label{thm-smooth-P3}
Suppose that $Y \cong \mathbb{P}^3$.
Then $\Delta_{\tau} = \emptyset$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
By \cite{horing2017totally}*{Corollary 1.2}, each component $D_i \cong \mathbb{P}^2$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem-no-3-comp} and the ampleness of each $D_i$, we see that $\Delta_{\tau}$ has at most two components.
However, both $D_i \cong \mathbb{P}^2$ and $D_i \setminus (D_i \cap D_j) \cong \mathbb{P}^2 \setminus \mathbb{P}^1$ are simply connected;
thus there is no nontrivial {\'e}tale cover over them.
This contradicts our $\tau$ being elementary (cf.~Notation~\ref{notation-conic-bundle}).
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}\label{thm-smooth-P1-bundle-over-P2}
Suppose that $p \colon Y \to Z \cong \mathbb{P}^2$ is a splitting $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle.
Then $\Delta_{\tau} = \emptyset$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Up to a twist, we may write $Y = \mathbb{P}_Z(\mathcal{F})$ where $\mathcal{F} \cong \mathcal{O}_Z \oplus \mathcal{O}_Z(a)$ with $-2 \leq a \leq 0$ by an easy calculation (cf.~\cite{szurek1990fano}).
There are two possibilities:
\par \vskip 0.3pc \noindent
\textbf{Case 1: $\Delta_{\tau}$ contains no section of $p$.} Then each component $D_i$ of $\Delta_{\tau}$, being the pullback of some line on $Z \cong \mathbb{P}^2$, is a $g^{-1}$-invariant Hirzebruch surface by Theorem~\ref{thm-TID-Fano-3fold}.
Since $D_i \cong \mathbb{F}_d$ and $D_i \setminus (D_i \cap D_j) \cong \mathbb{A}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$ are both simply connected,
the double cover $\sigma \colon \widetilde{\Delta_{\tau}} \to \Delta_{\tau}$ being nontrivial implies that
$\Delta_{\tau}$ is the pullback of a union of three $(g|_Z)^{-1}$-periodic lines with no common intersection (looking like \tikztriangle) on $Z \cong \mathbb{P}^2$ (cf.~Lemma~\ref{thm-bh}).
If $p$ is a trivial bundle with $Y \cong Z \times T \cong Z \times \mathbb{P}^1$, then after iteration, $g = g|_Z \times g|_T$ with $g|_T$ being polarized on $T$ (cf.~Lemma~\ref{lem-intamplified}).
So we can pick a $g|_T$-periodic point $t \in T$ (cf.~\cite{fakhruddin2003questions}*{Theorem 5.1}) and define $S \coloneqq Z \times \{t\} \cong \mathbb{P}^2$, a $g$-periodic section of $p$.
If $p$ is nontrivial, then we take $S$ to be the ``negative section'' of this splitting $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle such that $\mathcal{O}_Y(S)|_S = \mathcal{O}_S(a)$, which is $g^{-1}$-periodic (cf.~\cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Lemma 2.3}).
In both cases, $g|_S$ is int-amplified after iteration.
Then the base change $\tau_S \colon X_S \coloneqq X \times_Y S \to S$ is proper and flat.
Moreover, $S \not\subset \Delta_{\tau}$ and $\Delta_{\tau_S} = \Delta_{\tau}|_S$ is a loop consisting of three rational curves on $S$ with simple normal crossings.
By Lemma~\ref{lem-embedded-stable-under-BC}, $X_S$ is smooth and $\tau_S$ is a conic bundle.
Since $S \cong \mathbb{P}^2$ and $\Delta_{\tau_S} \neq \emptyset$, one has $\rho(X_S/S) = 1$ (cf.~\cite{mori1983fano}*{Corollary 6.4}).
On the other hand, $X_S$ is Fano.
Indeed, for any curve $C \subseteq X_S$, we have
\[
K_{X_S} \cdot C = (K_X + X_S)|_{X_S} \cdot C = K_X \cdot C + X_S \cdot C = K_X \cdot C + (S \cdot \tau_* C)_Y < 0,
\]
since $\mathcal{O}_{Y}(S)|_S \cong \mathcal{O}(a)$ with $a \leq 0$.
Since $\overline{\operatorname{NE}}(X_S)$ has only two extremal rays, our $-K_{X_S}$ is ample.
So we apply \cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Theorem 4.1} to conclude $\Delta_{\tau_S} = \emptyset$, a contradiction.
\par \vskip 0.3pc \noindent
\textbf{Case 2: $\Delta_{\tau}$ contains at least one section $S$ of $p$.}
Then $S \cong \mathbb{P}^2$ and $S \setminus (S \cap D_i) \cong \mathbb{P}^2 \setminus \mathbb{P}^1$ are both simply connected where $D_i$ is a vertical component (if exists).
So there exist at least two components $D_1, D_2$ of $\Delta_{\tau}$, which are the pullback of some lines $\ell_1, \ell_2$ on $Z \cong \mathbb{P}^2$.
Given that $\ell_1 \cap \ell_2$ is nonempty in $\mathbb{P}^2$, so is $S \cap D_1 \cap D_2$.
But this violates Lemma~\ref{lem-no-3-comp}.
So we finish the proof of our theorem.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}\label{thm-smooth-P1-bundle-over-P1xP1}
Suppose that $p \colon Y \to Z \cong \mathbb{F}_0$ is a splitting $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle.
Then $\Delta_{\tau} = \emptyset$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
According to \cite{szurek1990fano}, up to a twist, we may write $Y = \mathbb{P}_Z(\mathcal{F})$ where $\mathcal{F} \cong \mathcal{O}_Z \oplus \mathcal{O}_Z(a, b)$ with $(a, b) = (0, 0), (0, -1), (-1, -1)$ or $\mathcal{F} \cong \mathcal{O}_Z \oplus \mathcal{O}_Z(1, -1)$.
\par \vskip 0.3pc \noindent
\textbf{Case 1: $\Delta_{\tau}$ contains no section of $p$.}
Then, similar to the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm-smooth-P1-bundle-over-P2}, $\Delta_{\tau}$ is the pullback of a loop (looking like \tikzsharp) on $Z$.
If $\mathcal{F} \cong \mathcal{O}_Z \oplus \mathcal{O}_Z(1, -1)$, then for a general fibre $\ell$ of the first projection $Z \to \mathbb{P}^1$, one has $\mathcal{F}|_{\ell} \cong \mathcal{O}_{\ell} \oplus \mathcal{O}_{\ell}(-1)$.
Hence $H \coloneqq p^* \ell \cong \mathbb{P}_{\ell}(\mathcal{F}|_{\ell})\cong\mathbb{F}_1$, and $\tau_H \colon \tau^* H \to H$ is a Fano conic bundle with $\Delta_{\tau_H} = \Delta_{\tau}|_H$ being two fibres (cf.~Lemma~\ref{lem-embedded-stable-under-BC}), a contradiction to \cite{mori1983fano}*{Corollary 6.7}.
In the remaining cases, $S|_S$ is anti-nef, and then with the same proof as in Theorem~\ref{thm-smooth-P1-bundle-over-P2}, we can deduce a contradiction to \cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Theorem 4.1}.
\par \vskip 0.3pc \noindent
\textbf{Case 2: $\Delta_{\tau}$ contains at least one section $S\cong\mathbb{F}_0$ of $p$.}
After iteration, we may assume that $Y \to Z \coloneqq Z_1 \times Z_2 \to Z_i \cong \mathbb{P}^1$ is $g$-equivariant (cf.~Lemma~\ref{lem-equiv-MMP}).
Take a general point $z \in Z$ and let $Y_z \coloneqq p^{-1}(z)$ be its (movable) fibre.
By Lemma~\ref{thm-bh}, we have $\Delta_{\tau} \cdot Y_z \leq -K_Y \cdot Y_z = 2$;
thus $\Delta_{\tau}$ contains at most two sections of $p$.
Since $S$ is simply connected, there exists a component $D_1 = p^* \ell_1 \subseteq \Delta_{\tau}$, with some curve $\ell_1$ on $Z$ (cf.~Notation~\ref{notation-elementary}).
By \cite{cascini2020polarized}*{Lemma 7.5}, $\ell_1$ is $(g|_Z)^{-1}$-periodic.
So we may assume $\ell_1$ is $\{\cdot\} \times \mathbb{P}^1$ (cf.~\cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Lemma 3.1}).
Clearly, $D_1\cong\mathbb{F}_d$ for some $d\ge 0$, and both $S \setminus (S \cap D_1) \cong \mathbb{A}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$ and $D_1 \setminus (S \cap D_1) \cong \mathbb{F}_d \setminus (\text{a section of } \mathbb{F}_d)$ are simply connected.
On the other hand, by Lemma~\ref{lem-no-3-comp}, any three components of $\Delta_{\tau}$ have no common intersection.
So the double cover $\sigma \colon \widetilde{\Delta_{\tau}} \to \Delta_{\tau}$ being nontrivial implies that $\Delta_{\tau}$ consists of exact two sections of $p$, and two disjoint components $D_1, D_2$ which are pullbacks of some curves $\ell_1, \ell_2$ on $Z$, respectively.
In particular, $\ell_2$ is of the form $\{\cdot\} \times \mathbb{P}^1$.
Take a $g|_{Z_2}$-periodic point $\{z_2\} \in Z_2$ (cf.~Lemma~\ref{lem-intamplified} and \cite{fakhruddin2003questions}*{Theorem 5.1}) and define $L_{z_2} \coloneqq Z_1 \times \{z_2\}$.
Then $Y_{z_2} \coloneqq p^* L_{z_2}$ is a Hirzebruch surface and $X_{z_2} \coloneqq (p \circ \tau)^* L_{z_2}$ is a Fano threefold admitting an int-amplified endomorphism after iteration.
Since $Y_{z_2} \not\subset \Delta_{\tau}$ and $\Delta_{\tau_{z_2}} = \Delta_{\tau}|_{Y_{z_2}}$ is a loop of four rational curves (looking like \tikzsharp) on $Y_{z_2}$ with simple normal crossings, by Lemma~\ref{lem-embedded-stable-under-BC}, $X_{z_2}$ is smooth and $\tau_{z_2} \colon X_{z_2} \to Y_{z_2}$ is a conic bundle.
Since $\Delta_{\tau_{z_2}}$ is connected and ample on $Y_{z_2}$, we have $\rho(X_{z_2}/Y_{z_2}) = 1$ (cf.~\cite{mori1983fano}*{Corollary 6.4}).
By \cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Theorem 4.1}, $\Delta_{\tau_{z_2}} = \emptyset$, a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[\textbf{End of Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm-elementary-smoothness}.}]
Theorem~\ref{thm-elementary-smoothness} follows from Theorems~\ref{thm-smooth-P3} $\sim$ \ref{thm-smooth-P1-bundle-over-P1xP1} and \cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Lemma 2.12}, noting that $Y$ is rational (cf.~\cite{zhang2012rationality}*{Theorem 1.2}).
\end{proof}
\section{Main reduction for non-elementary conic bundles}
\label{section-main-reduction}
In this section, we shall study non-elementary (singular) conic bundles.
The main results are Theorem~\ref{thm-structure-mmp} and Lemma~\ref{lem-key-reduction}; see \cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Theorem 6.2} for the threefold case.
\begin{thm}[Equivariant minimal model for conic bundles]
\label{thm-structure-mmp}
Let $X$ be a smooth Fano fourfold and $\tau \colon X \to Y$ a conic bundle.
Suppose $X$ admits an int-amplified endomorphism $f$.
Then, after iteration, there exists an $f$-equivariant minimal model program
\[
\xymatrix{
X = X_0 \ar[r]^-{\pi_1} &X_1 \ar[r]^{\pi_2} &X_2 \ar[r]^{\pi_2} &{\cdots} \ar[r]^-{\pi_r} &X_r \eqqcolon W \ar[r]^-{\tau_0} &Y
}
\]
such that the following assertions hold.
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\arabic*),ref=5.1\,(\arabic*)]
\item $r = \rho(X) - \rho(Y) - 1$ and each $X_i$ is a smooth manifold.
\item \label{thm-structure-mmp-algebraic}
$\tau_0 \colon W = \mathbb{P}_Y(\mathcal{E}) \to Y$ is an algebraic $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle over a smooth Fano threefold $Y$.
\item There are $r$ disjoint prime divisors $D_1, \cdots, D_r$ on $Y$ and $r$ pairs of prime divisors $E_i, \widetilde{E_i}$ on $X$ such that $\tau^* D_i = E_i + \widetilde{E_i}$ and $D_i \cap D_j = \emptyset$ for $i \neq j$.
\item $\tau_0$ is smooth and $\Delta_{\tau} = \bigsqcup_{i=1}^{r} D_i$ with each $D_i$ a $(g:=f|_Y)^{-1}$-invariant smooth rational connected component of $\Delta_{\tau}$.
Moreover, $\tau$ has reduced fibres over $\bigcup_{i=1}^rD_i$.
\item The composition $X_i \to Y$ is a conic bundle with the discriminant $D_{i+1} \cup \cdots \cup D_r$.
\item The composition $\pi=\pi_r\circ\cdots\circ\pi_1 \colon X \to W$ is the blow-up of $W$ along $r$ disjoint union of $(f|_W)^{-1}$-invariant smooth rational surfaces $\bigcup_{i=1}^r \overline{D_i}$ with $\tau_0|_{\overline{D_i}} \colon \overline{D_i} \cong D_i$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
First, by Lemma~\ref{lem-base-Fano}, $Y$ is smooth Fano.
By \cite{romano2019non}*{Propositions 3.4, 3.5}, we may run a relative minimal model program $X \to X_1 \to \cdots \to X_i \to \cdots \to X_r$ of $X$ over $Y$ which is $f$-equivariant after iteration (cf.~Lemma~\ref{lem-equiv-MMP}), such that (1) and (3) hold.
We will show the smoothness of $\tau_0$ in the following two paragraphs.
By Lemma~\ref{lem-Rom4.2} and Theorem~\ref{thm-elementary-smoothness}, we only need to consider the case $r = 1$, i.e., $\pi = \pi_1$ is a single blow-up along a smooth projective surface.
Suppose the contrary that $\tau_0$ is singular, i.e., $\Delta_{\tau_0} \neq \emptyset$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem-Rom4.2-=2}, there exists a (smooth) $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle $p \colon Y \to Z$ to a smooth rational surface.
After iteration, we may assume $f$ descends to an int-amplified endomorphism $f|_Z$ on $Z$ and $\Delta_{\tau}$ is $g^{-1}$-invariant on $Y$ (cf.~Lemmas~\ref{lem-equiv-MMP}, \ref{lem-intamplified} and \cite{cascini2020polarized}*{Lemma 7.4}).
By \cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Theorem 3.3}, each component of $\Delta_{\tau}$ is either a section of $p$ or the pullback of some $(f|_Z)^{-1}$-periodic (rational) curve on $Z$ (cf.~\cite{cascini2020polarized}*{Lemma 7.5}).
Suppose that $\Delta_{\tau_0}$ contains a section $S$ of $p$.
Since $S \cong Z$ is simply connected, the nontrivial double cover $\widetilde{\Delta_{\tau_0}} \to \Delta_{\tau_0}$ (cf.~Notation~\ref{notation-conic-bundle}) implies that there is another irreducible (vertical) component $F$ of $\Delta_{\tau_0}$ intersecting $S$.
Then, $F$ is the pullback of some $(f|_Z)^{-1}$-periodic (rational) curve on $Z$.
But now there is no $D_1$ disjoint from $\Delta_{\tau_0}$, a contradiction.
Hence each component of $\Delta_{\tau}$ is a pullback of some curve $C_i$ on $Z$.
Since $C_i$'s are $(f|_Z)^{-1}$-periodic, there is a toric pair $(Z, \Delta_Z)$ such that each $C_i \subseteq \Delta_Z$ (cf.~\cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Theorem 3.2}).
Clearly, $\Delta_Z$ is a simple loop of smooth rational curves.
Since $D_1$ is disjoint from the connected $\Delta_{\tau_0}$, there is some $C_i$ such that $p^{-1}(C_i) \subseteq \Delta_{\tau_0}$ and $C_i$ intersects exact one of other $C_j$'s.
However, $p^{-1}(C_i) \setminus (p^{-1}(C_i \cap C_j)) \cong \mathbb{A}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$ being simply connected contradicts the existence of the nontrivial double cover (cf.~Notation \ref{notation-conic-bundle}).
Therefore, $\tau_0$ is a smooth $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle.
Since $\tau_0$ is smooth, by \cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Lemma 2.12}, $W = \mathbb{P}_Y(\mathcal{E})$ for some locally free sheaf $\mathcal{E}$ of rank $2$ over $Y$, since $Y$ is rational (cf.~\cite{zhang2012rationality}*{Theorem 1.2}).
So (2) is proved.
Let $f_i \coloneqq f|_{X_i}$.
Since the exceptional divisor $\mathrm{Exc}(\pi_i)$ is $f_{i-1}^{-1}$-invariant and the surface $D_i' \subseteq X_i$ blown up by $\pi_i$ is $f_i^{-1}$-invariant,
its image $\overline{D_i}$ on $W$ is $f_r^{-1}$-invariant, and its image $D_i$ on $Y$ is $g^{-1}$-periodic (cf.~\cite{cascini2020polarized}*{Lemma 7.5}).
In particular, Theorem~\ref{thm-TID-Fano-3fold} implies that $D_i$ is rational for all $i$.
Together with (3), (4) $\sim$ (6) are proved.
\end{proof}
From now on till the end of this section, we assume Notation~\ref{notation-main-reduction-mmp} except that our $\tau$ here may not be elementary.
We shall prove Lemma~\ref{lem-key-reduction} below, which generalizes Lemma~\ref{lem-Y-to-minimal}.
\begin{lem}\label{lem-key-reduction}
Let $\tau \colon X \to Y$ be a Fano conic bundle, which factors as $X \xrightarrow{\pi} W \xrightarrow{\tau_0} Y$ where $\pi$ is the blow-up along disjoint surfaces and $W = \mathbb{P}_Y(\mathcal{E}) \to Y$ is an algebraic $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle.
Suppose that $Y$ is imprimitive.
Then we have the following commutative diagram
\[
\xymatrix@C=5pc{
X \ar[r]^{\chi} \ar@/_2pc/[dd]_{\tau} \ar[d]^{\pi} \ar@[blue][dr]^{\color{blue} \eta} &X' \ar@[blue][d]_{\color{blue} \pi'} \ar@/^2pc/[dd]^{\tau'} \\
W \ar[d]^{\tau_0} \ar@[blue][r]_{\color{blue} \psi} &{\color{blue} W'} \ar@[blue][d]_{\color{blue} \tau_0'} \\
Y \ar[r]_{\varphi} &Y'
}
\]
such that the following assertions hold.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\varphi$ is the blow-up of a smooth Fano threefold $Y'$ along a smooth curve $C$.
\item $\chi$ is the blow-up of a smooth fourfold $X'$ along a smooth projective surface.
\item The above commutative diagram is $f$-equivariant after replacing $f$ by a power.
\end{enumerate}
Moreover, if the exceptional divisor $E_{\varphi} \not\subset \operatorname{Supp} \Delta_{\tau}$, then the following assertions hold.
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*),ref=5.2\,(\roman*)]
\item $\psi$ is a $K_W$-negative contraction and is a blow-up along a smooth projective surface.
\item $E_{\psi} = \tau_0^*E_{\varphi}$ and $E_{\chi} = \pi^*E_{\psi} = \tau^*E_{\varphi}$.
\item \label{lem-key-reduction-W'}
$\tau_0': W' = \mathbb{P}_{Y'}(\mathcal{E}') \to Y'$ is an algebraic $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle such that $\mathcal{E} = \varphi^*\mathcal{E}'$.
\item $X'$ is Fano, and $\tau'$ is a Fano conic bundle.
\item $W \cong W'\times_{Y'} Y$ and $X \cong X' \times_{Y'} Y \cong X'\times_{W'}W$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
(1) follows from the imprimitivity of $Y$.
Let $R_{\varphi}$ be the $K_Y$-negative extremal ray contracted by $\varphi$.
Since $\tau$ (resp.~$\tau_0$) is a $K_X$ (resp.~$K_W$)-negative contraction of an extremal face $F_{\tau}$ of $\overline{\operatorname{NE}}(X)$ (resp.~ $F_{\tau_0}$ of $\overline{\operatorname{NE}}(W)$), there are extremal rays $R_{\psi}$ and $R_{\chi}$ of $\overline{\operatorname{NE}}(W)$ and $\overline{\operatorname{NE}}(X)$, respectively such that $\tau_* R_{\chi} = (\tau_0)_* R_{\psi} = R_{\varphi}$ and $R_{\chi} \cap F_{\tau} = R_{\psi} \cap F_{\tau_0} = \{0\}$ (cf. Proof of Lemma \ref{lem-Y-to-minimal}).
Since $X$ is Fano, there exists a $K_X$-negative contraction $\chi \colon X \to X'$ of $R_{\chi}$.
By the rigidity lemma (cf.~\cite{debarre2001higher}*{Lemma 1.15}),
$\varphi\circ\tau$ factors through $\chi$.
Then, the same proof of Lemma \ref{lem-Y-to-minimal-blow-up} shows (2) (here, $X'$ may not be Fano).
Similarly, there exists a contraction $\eta \colon X \to W'$ of the $K_X$-negative extremal face $F_{\eta}$ containing the $\pi$-contracted extremal face $F_{\pi}$ such that $\pi_* F_{\eta} = R_{\chi}$.
By the rigidity lemma several times, we see that $\eta$ factors through $\pi$, $\eta$ factors though $\chi$, and $\tau'$ factors through $\pi'$.
So we get the commutative diagram and (3) follows from Lemma~\ref{lem-equiv-MMP}.
\textbf{From now on, we further assume that $E_{\varphi} \not\subset \operatorname{Supp} \Delta_{\tau}$.}
Then $\tau^* E_{\varphi}$ is irreducible.
Since $\tau_* E_{\chi} \subseteq E_{\varphi}$, it follows that $\tau^* E_{\varphi} = E_{\chi}$ (cf.~\cite{kollar1998birational}*{Theorem 3.7}).
With the same proof of Lemma \ref{lem-Y-to-minimal-blow-up}, our $X'$ is Fano.
Note that different components of $E_{\pi}$ are disjoint from each other;
hence $E_{\pi} \cdot \ell_{\pi} < 0$ for every fibre $\ell_{\pi}$ of $\pi$.
Since $E_{\chi} \cdot \ell_\pi = 0$ by the projection formula, our \textbf{$E_{\chi}$ is not a component of $E_{\pi}$}.
Let $\ell_{\psi} \in R_{\psi}$ be a curve on $W$, and $\ell_{\chi} \in R_{\chi}$ a curve on $X$.
Then $\pi_* \ell_{\chi} = a \ell_{\psi}$ for some $a \in \mathbb{Z}_{> 0}$, and we have
\[
K_W \cdot (a \ell_{\psi}) = \pi^* K_W \cdot \ell_{\chi} = (K_X - E_{\pi}) \cdot \ell_{\chi} < 0.
\]
Here, $E_{\pi} \cdot \ell_{\chi} \geq 0$;
otherwise, $E_{\chi}$ will coincide with some component of $E_{\pi}$ by (2), a contradiction.
So $\psi$ is a $K_W$-negative contraction.
Applying \cite{casagrande2008quasi}*{Theorem 3.14} for the diagram $\tau_0' \circ \psi = \varphi \circ \tau_0$, (i) and (ii) are proved.
With the same proof of Lemma~\ref{lem-Y-to-minimal-conic}, $\tau_0'$ is an elementary conic bundle.
Note that, outside the curve $C \subseteq Y'$ blown up by $\varphi$, every fibre of $\tau_0'$ is a smooth conic since so is $\tau_0$.
Thus the divisor $\Delta_{\tau_0'}\subseteq C$, which is absurd (cf.~Notation~\ref{notation-discriminant}).
Hence, $\tau_0'$ is a smooth $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle.
By (3) and \cite{zhang2012rationality}*{Theorem 1.2}, $Y'$ is rational;
thus $W' = \mathbb{P}_{Y'}(\mathcal{E}')$ for some locally free sheaf $\mathcal{E}'$ of rank $2$ on $Y'$ (cf.~\cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Lemma 2.12}).
By Lemma~\ref{lem-blowup-basechange}, $W \cong W' \times_{Y'} Y$, hence up to a twist, $\mathcal{E} = \varphi^* \mathcal{E}'$, which implies (iii).
\textbf{We claim that $\tau'$ is equidimensional.}
Consider the behaviour of $\pi'$ and note that $E_{\pi'} \subseteq \chi(E_{\pi})$ is a disjoint union of prime divisors.
On the one hand, outside $\psi(E_{\psi})$, the fibres of $\pi'$ have dimension $\leq 1$ since so are fibres of $\pi$ over $W \setminus E_{\psi}$.
On the other hand, $(\pi')^{-1}(\psi(E_{\psi})) = \chi(E_{\chi})$ is a smooth surface by (1);
thus the fibres of $\pi'$ over $\psi(E_{\psi})$ have dimension $\leq 1$.
So, all fibres of $\pi'$ have dimension $\leq 1$ and it follows from $X'$ being Fano, Lemma~\ref{lem-blowup-or-conic} and the induction on $\rho(X'/W')$ that $\pi'$ is the blow-up along disjoint surfaces $S'$ on $W'$.
Moreover, $S'$ is the image under $\psi$ of the surfaces blown up by $\pi$ by the above diagram;
hence $S'$ is the union of subsections of $\tau_0'$.
This further implies the fibres of $\tau'$ over $C$ are of dimension $1$ and our claim holds.
Since $X'$ is Cohen-Macaulay and $Y'$ is smooth, our $\tau'$ is flat.
By (iii) and Lemma~\ref{lem-blowup-basechange}, (iv) and (v) are proved.
So we complete the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem-key-reduction}.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}\label{rem-reduction-lem}
Removing the condition ``$E_{\varphi} \not\subset \operatorname{Supp}\Delta_{\tau}$'', we still have the commutative diagram in Lemma~\ref{lem-key-reduction}.
However, in this case, $\psi$ is possibly not a $K_W$-negative contraction;
hence Lemma~\ref{lem-blowup-or-conic} cannot be applied and $W'$ may not even be $\mathbb{Q}$-factorial!
\end{rem}
\section{Conic bundles onto \texorpdfstring{$\mathbb{P}^1$}{P1}-bundles over rational surfaces}
\label{section-splitting-ness-to-surface}
In this section, we consider the conic bundles with the base isomorphic to a $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle over a rational surface.
Theorem~\ref{thm-splitting-P1-bundle-over-minimal} is our main result in this section.
\begin{notn}\label{notation-splitting}
We follow the notations below throughout this section.
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\arabic*),ref=6.1\,(\arabic*)]
\item\label{notation-splitting-factor} $\tau \colon X \to Y$ is a conic bundle from a smooth Fano fourfold $X$, which factors as $X \xrightarrow{\pi} W \xrightarrow{\tau_0} Y$ where $\pi$ is a composition of blow-ups along disjoint smooth projective surfaces and $\tau_0$ is an elementary conic bundle.
\item By Theorem~\ref{thm-structure-mmp}, $Y$ is a smooth Fano threefold and $W = \mathbb{P}_Y(\mathcal{E})$ with $\mathcal{E}$ being a locally free sheaf of rank $2$ on $Y$.
\item $f \colon X \to X$ is an int-amplified endomorphism.
After iteration, $f$ descends to $g \coloneqq f|_Y$ and $h \coloneqq f|_W$, which are both int-amplified (cf.~Lemmas~\ref{lem-equiv-MMP} and \ref{lem-intamplified}).
\item $p \colon Y \to Z$ is a $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle over a smooth rational surface $Z$.
By \cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Theorem 6.4}, $Y = \mathbb{P}_Z(\mathcal{F})$ with $\mathcal{F}$ being a splitting locally free sheaf of rank $2$ on $Z$.
\[
\xymatrix@C=2.5pc{
{f \ \rotatebox[origin=c]{-90}{$\circlearrowright$}\ X} \ar[r]_-{\pi} \ar@/^0.8pc/[rr]^-{\tau}
&{h \ \rotatebox[origin=c]{-90}{$\circlearrowright$}\ W} \ar[r]_-{\tau_0}
&{g \ \rotatebox[origin=c]{-90}{$\circlearrowright$}\ Y} \ar[r]_-{p}
&Z
}
\]
\item For each $z \in Z$, let $Y_z \coloneqq p^{-1}(z)$, $X_z \coloneqq (p \circ \tau)^{-1}(z)$ and $W_z \coloneqq (p \circ \tau_0)^{-1}(z)$.
\item We use $E_{\bullet}$ to denote the exceptional locus $\mathrm{Exc}(\bullet)$ for simplicity.
\end{enumerate}
\end{notn}
\begin{thm}\label{thm-splitting-P1-bundle-over-minimal}
In the setting of Notation~\ref{notation-splitting}, suppose that $Z$ is isomorphic to $\mathbb{P}^2$, $\mathbb{F}_0$ or $\mathbb{F}_1$.
Then $\tau_0$ is a splitting $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle.
\end{thm}
In what follows, we generalize \cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Lemma 6.3} to the following higher dimensional case.
The proof of Lemma~\ref{lem-fibre-fano} will last till the paragraph before Lemma \ref{lem-semistable-split}.
\begin{lem}\label{lem-fibre-fano}
$p \circ \tau_0 \colon W \to Z$ is a fibre bundle such that fibres are either all $\mathbb{F}_0$ or all $\mathbb{F}_1$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
First, note that each fibre $W_z\cong \mathbb{F}_d$ for some $d \geq 0$.
So the lemma is equivalent to showing that $d \leq 1$, i.e., $W_z$ is Fano, since $\mathbb{F}_0$ and $\mathbb{F}_1$ cannot deform to each other.
Let $r \coloneqq \rho(X) - \rho(W)$.
If $r = 0$, then $W=X$ is Fano;
hence our lemma follows from the adjunction formula.
So we may assume $r > 0$.
By Theorem~\ref{thm-structure-mmp}, $\Delta_{\tau}$ is a disjoint union of $r$ smooth $g^{-1}$-invariant surfaces $D_i$, and $\pi$ is the blow-up of $W$ along the disjoint union $\bigsqcup_{i=1}^{r} \overline{D_i}$ of
$h^{-1}$-invariant surfaces $\overline{D_i}$.
Write $\tau^{-1}(D_i) = \tau^* D_i = E_i + \widetilde{E_i}$ where $E_i$ is the $\pi$-exceptional divisor with center $\overline{D_i}$ and $\widetilde{E_i}$ is the $\pi$-strict transform of $\tau_0^{-1}(D_i)$.
Let $S_i \coloneqq E_i \cap \widetilde{E_i}$, which is $f^{-1}$-invariant.
Then $\pi|_{\widetilde{E_i}} \colon \widetilde{E_i} \cong \tau_0^{-1}(D_i)$ and $\pi|_{S_i} \colon S_i \cong\overline{D_i}$.
By Theorem~\ref{thm-TID-Fano-3fold}, $\Delta_{\tau}$ is contained in some toric boundary of $Y$.
We shall discuss case by case in terms of $\Delta_{\tau}$.
\par \vskip 0.3pc \noindent
\textbf{Case 1: $\Delta_{\tau}$ contains at least one section of $p$.}
Then the $g^{-1}$-invariant $\Delta_{\tau}$ consists of either one or two disjoint sections of $p$ (cf.~Theorem \ref{thm-structure-mmp} and \cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Theorem 3.3}).
Hence, for every $z \in Z$, the fibre $Y_z \not\subset \Delta_{\tau}$.
Then every surface $\overline{D_i}$ blown up by $\pi$ is either disjoint from $W_z$ or intersects with $W_z$ at some points;
otherwise, $\tau_0(W_z \cap \overline{D_i})$ being a curve contradicts $Y_z \not\subset \Delta_{\tau}$.
So $X_z$ is the blow-up of $W_z$ along several points $\bigsqcup_{i=1}^{r} \overline{D_i}\cap W_z$ and hence $X_z$ is smooth and irreducible.
Since $X$ is Fano and $p\circ\tau$ is flat, each $X_z$ is a del Pezzo surface by the adjunction formula.
Then $W_z$ is also Fano by the ramification divisor formula.
So our lemma holds in this case.
\par \vskip 0.3pc \noindent
\textbf{Case 2: $\Delta_{\tau}$ contains no section of $p$.}
Then $\Delta_{\tau}$ consists of prime divisors $D_i$, each of which is the pullback of a smooth rational curve on $Z$ along $p$ (cf.~\cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Corollary 3.4}).
We may assume $Y_z \subseteq D_i$ for some $i$;
otherwise, $W_z \cong X_z$ being Fano follows from the adjunction.
Without loss of generality, we may further assume $Y_z \subseteq D_1$ and $\pi$ factors as $X \xrightarrow{\pi_1} X_1 \to W$ where $\pi_1$ is the blow-up with $E_{\pi_1} = E_1 = \pi^{-1}(\overline{D_1})$.
If $X_1$ is Fano, then we are done by induction on $r$.
Thus we may assume that $X_1$ is not Fano.
Let $H_z \coloneqq (\pi|_{\widetilde{E_1}})^{-1}(W_z) \cong W_z$ and
\[
\ell_z \coloneqq S_1 \cap H_z = (E_1 \cap \widetilde{E_1}) \cap H_z = (\pi|_{\widetilde{E_1}})^{-1}(W_z \cap \overline{D_1}),
\]
which is a cross-section of the ruling $H_z\cong W_z \to Y_z$; see the following picture.
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\cubex}{4}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\cubey}{2}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\cubez}{2}
\draw (0,0,0) -- ++(-\cubex,0,0) -- ++(0,-\cubey,0) -- ++(\cubex,0,0) -- cycle;
\draw (0,0,0) -- ++(0,0,-\cubez) -- ++(0,-\cubey,0) -- ++(0,0,\cubez) -- cycle;
\draw (0,0,0) -- ++(-\cubex,0,0) -- ++(0,0,-\cubez) -- ++(\cubex,0,0) -- cycle;
\draw[dashed] (-\cubex,-\cubey,-\cubez) -- ++(\cubex,0,0);
\draw[dashed] (-\cubex,-\cubey,-\cubez) -- ++(0,\cubey,0);
\draw[dashed] (-\cubex,-\cubey,-\cubez) -- ++(0,0,\cubez);
\draw[fill=yellow,opacity=0.6] (-\cubex/2,0,-\cubez) -- ++(0,0,\cubez) -- ++(0,-\cubey,0);
\draw[fill=yellow,opacity=0.6,dashed] (-\cubex/2,0,-\cubez) -- ++(0,-\cubey,0) -- ++(0,0,\cubez);
\draw[fill=black!20,opacity=0.5] (0,0,-\cubez/2) -- ++(-\cubex/2,0,0) -- ++(0,-\cubey,0) -- ++(\cubex/2,0,0) -- cycle;
\node at (-\cubex*3/4,0,-\cubez*3/5) {\scriptsize $E_1$};
\node at (-\cubex/4,0,-\cubez*3/4) {\scriptsize $\widetilde{E_1}$};
\node at (-\cubex/2,-\cubey*3/4,-\cubez/4) {\scriptsize $S_1$};
\node at (-\cubex/4,-\cubey/2,-\cubez/4) {\scriptsize $H_z$};
\node at (-\cubex/2,-\cubey*2/5,-\cubez/2) {\scriptsize $\ell_z$};
\draw (\cubex*5/4,0,0) -- ++(-\cubex/2,0,0) -- ++(0,-\cubey,0) -- ++(\cubex/2,0,0) -- cycle;
\draw (\cubex*5/4,0,0) -- ++(0,0,-\cubez) -- ++(0,-\cubey,0) -- ++(0,0,\cubez) -- cycle;
\draw (\cubex*5/4,0,0) -- ++(-\cubex/2,0,0) -- ++(0,0,-\cubez) -- ++(\cubex/2,0,0) -- cycle;
\draw[dashed] (\cubex*3/4,-\cubey,-\cubez) -- ++(\cubex/2,0,0);
\draw[fill=yellow,opacity=0.6] (\cubex*3/4,0,-\cubez) -- ++(0,0,\cubez) -- ++(0,-\cubey,0);
\draw[fill=yellow,opacity=0.6,dashed] (\cubex*3/4,0,-\cubez) -- ++(0,-\cubey,0) -- ++(0,0,\cubez);
\draw[fill=black!20,opacity=0.5] (\cubex*5/4,0,-\cubez/2) -- ++(-\cubex/2,0,0) -- ++(0,-\cubey,0) -- ++(\cubex/2,0,0) -- cycle;
\node at (\cubex,-\cubey/2,-\cubez/4) {\scriptsize $W_z$};
\node at (\cubex*3/4,-\cubey*3/4,-\cubez/4) {\tiny $\overline{D_1}$};
\draw (\cubex*2,0,0) -- ++(0,0,-\cubez) -- ++(0,-\cubey,0) -- ++(0,0,\cubez) -- cycle;
\draw[blue] (\cubex*2,0,-\cubez/2) -- ++(0,-\cubey,0);
\node at (\cubex*2,-\cubey/2,-\cubez*0.47) {\tiny $Y_z$};
\node at (\cubex*2,-\cubey*3/4,-\cubez/4) {\tiny $D_1$};
\draw[->] (\cubex/4,-\cubey/2,-\cubez/4) -- ++(\cubex/3,0,0);
\draw[->] (\cubex*3/2,-\cubey/2,-\cubez/4) -- ++(\cubex/3,0,0);
\node at (\cubex*0.43,-\cubey*2/5,-\cubez/4) {\scriptsize $\pi$};
\node at (\cubex*1.67,-\cubey*2/5,-\cubez/4) {\scriptsize $\tau_0$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\begin{claim}\label{key-claim-fano}
$(\ell_z \cdot S_1)_{\widetilde{E_1}} = 0$.
\end{claim}
Suppose Claim \ref{key-claim-fano} for the time being.
Then we have
$$(\ell_z^2)_{H_z} = (\ell_z \cdot S_1|_{H_z})_{H_z} = (\ell_z \cdot S_1)_{\widetilde{E_1}} = 0.$$
Since $\ell_z$ is an (irreducible) cross-section of the ruling $H_z\to Y_z$, our $H_z \cong \mathbb{F}_0$ (cf.~\cite{hartshorne1977algebraic}*{Chapter \RomanNumeralCaps{5}, Proposition 2.20}).
As a result, $W_z \cong H_z \cong \mathbb{F}_0$ and hence our lemma follows.
So we are only left to show Claim~\ref{key-claim-fano}.
\par \vskip 0.3pc \noindent
\textbf{Proof of Claim~\ref{key-claim-fano}.}
Since $X_1$ is not Fano and our $S_1\cong\overline{D_1}$ has Picard number $2$, by \cite{wisniewski1991contractions}*{Proposition 3.6}, either of the following cases occurs:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\arabic*), ref=(\arabic*)]
\item \label{W91_3.6_P1xP1}
$S_1 \cong \overline{D_1} \cong \mathbb{F}_0$ and $E_1 \cong S_1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$ is a trivial bundle;
\item \label{W91_3.6_P1-bundle}
$X$ admits another blow-down $\pi_1' \colon X \to X_1'$ onto a smooth fourfold $X_1'$ which contracts the divisor $E_1$ to a smooth surface $S' \subseteq X_1'$.
\end{enumerate}
If Case \ref{W91_3.6_P1xP1} holds, then we have $E_1 \cong \mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$ and hence
\begin{align*}
(\ell_z \cdot S_1)_{\widetilde{E_1}} = (\ell_z \cdot E_1|_{\widetilde{E_1}})_{\widetilde{E_1}} = \ell_z \cdot E_1 = -\ell_z \cdot \widetilde{E_1} = -(\ell_z \cdot \widetilde{E_1}|_{E_1})_{E_1} = -(\ell_z \cdot S_1)_{E_1} = 0,
\end{align*}
noting that $(E_1 + \widetilde{E_1}) \cdot \ell_z = (D_1 \cdot Y_z)_Y = 0$ by the projection formula.
So Claim~\ref{key-claim-fano} holds for Case \ref{W91_3.6_P1xP1}.
From now on, we assume Case \ref{W91_3.6_P1-bundle}.
\begin{claim}\label{claim-section-is-contracted}
Under the condition of Case \ref{W91_3.6_P1-bundle}, $S_1$ is contracted by $\pi_1'$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Suppose the contrary that $\pi_1'(S_1) = S'$.
Note that $\rho(S') = \rho(E_1) - 1 = \rho(\overline{D_1}) = 2$, hence $S'\cong S_1$ is a (rational) ruled surface.
Note also that the ruling of $\pi|_{E_1}$ induces a natural ruling on $S'$ since $\pi_1'$ does not contract any fibre of $\pi$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem-equiv-MMP}, $\pi_1'$ is $f$-equivariant after iteration.
Take a general $f|_{S'}$-periodic fibre of $S' \to \mathbb{P}^1$ (cf.~\cite{fakhruddin2003questions}*{Theorem 5.1}) and denote its $\pi_1'$-inverse image in $E_1 \subseteq X$ by $T$, which is an $f$-periodic Hirzebruch surface.
After iteration, we may assume $f(T) = T$.
On the one hand, $T$ contains a fibre of $\pi$ since every fibre of $S'\to \mathbb{P}^1$ is dominated by a fibre of $E_1 \to \overline{D_1}$.
Hence, considering $\rho(T) = \rho(\overline{D_1}) = 2$, $\pi(T)$ is a curve.
Since $S_1 \cong \pi(S_1) = \overline{D_1}$, we have $\pi(T) = \pi(c \coloneqq S_1 \cap T) \cong \mathbb{P}^1$ on $\overline{D_1}$.
So $\pi|_T$ gives another ruling of $T$ different from $\pi_1'|_T$;
thus $T \cong \mathbb{F}_0$.
On the other hand, since $\pi_1'(S_1) = S'$, we see that $c$ is an $(f|_T)^{-1}$-invariant curve.
By \cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Lemma 3.1}, $c = \{\cdot\} \times \mathbb{P}^1$ or $\mathbb{P}^1 \times \{\cdot\}$.
Nevertheless, this is impossible since $c$ is neither a fibre of $\pi$ nor $\pi_1'$.
\end{proof}
\noindent
\textbf{End of the proof of Claim~\ref{key-claim-fano} (and Lemma~\ref{lem-fibre-fano}).}
By Claim~\ref{claim-section-is-contracted}, $S_1$ is contracted to a curve, since the dimension of each fibre of $\pi_1'$ is no more than one.
If $\ell_z$ is contracted, then we have $E_1 \cdot \ell_z < 0$ since $E_1$ is $\pi_1'$-anti-ample.
Then
\[
(K_{E_1} \cdot \ell_z)_{E_1} = (K_X + E_1) \cdot \ell_z < 0.
\]
So $\pi_1'|_{E_1}$ is a Fano contraction.
In particular, $(\ell_z \cdot S_1)_{E_1} = 0$ by the cone theorem.
If $\ell_z$ is not contracted by $\pi_1'$, then $\overline{D_1} \cong S_1 \cong \mathbb{F}_0$ since the Hirzebruch surface $S_1$ admits another ruling (induced by $\pi_1'|_{S_1}$).
In this case, for $c'$ being a fibre of $\pi_1'|_{S_1}$, we have
\[
(K_{\overline{D_1}} \cdot \pi(c'))_{\overline{D_1}} = (K_{S_1} \cdot c')_{S_1} = ((K_{E_1} + S_1) \cdot c')_{E_1} = (K_{E_1} \cdot c')_{E_1},
\]
since $(S_1 \cdot c')_{E_1} = 0$ by the cone theorem and $\pi|_{S_1}$ is an isomorphism.
So $E_1 \cong \overline{D_1} \times \mathbb{P}^1$ (cf.~\cite{wisniewski1991contractions}*{Remark following Lemma 3.3}).
With the same argument as in Case \ref{W91_3.6_P1xP1}, $(\ell_z \cdot S_1)_{E_1} = 0$.
Now Claim~\ref{key-claim-fano} is proved and we have finished the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem-fibre-fano}.
\end{proof}
The following lemma contributes to showing the splitting-ness of $\mathcal{E}$.
We recall Notation~\ref{notation-walls} and Lemma~\ref{lem-locally-finite-walls} for the related notations and properties.
\begin{lem}\label{lem-semistable-split}
Suppose Notation \ref{notation-splitting} and
the existence of the following exact sequence
\begin{equation}\label{eq-exact-sq-stable}
0 \to \mathcal{F}_1 \to \mathcal{E} \to \mathcal{Q} \to 0,
\tag{$\dagger$}
\end{equation}
with $\mathcal{F}_1$ and $\mathcal{Q}$ being invertible sheaves such that the wall $W_{\mathcal{E}}(\mathcal{F}_1) \neq \emptyset$.
Then $\mathcal{E}$ splits.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Since $W_{\mathcal{E}}(\mathcal{F}_1) \neq \emptyset$, there exists $A_0\in \textup{Amp}(Y)$ such that $\xi_{\mathcal{F}_1} \cdot A_0^2 = 0$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem-locally-finite-walls}, we can take a sufficiently small convex compact neighbourhood $\widehat{K}$ of $A_0 \in \mathrm{Amp}(Y)$ and let $K \subseteq P(Y)$ be its homeomorphic image such that all the walls in $K$ pass through $A_0^2$.
Since $\xi_{\mathcal{F}_1} \cdot H^2 = 0$ for each $H \in W_{\mathcal{E}}(\mathcal{F}_1)$, there is a chamber $\mathcal{C}$ in $K$ such that for any ample ($\mathbb{R}$-Cartier) divisor $A$ with $A^2\in \mathcal{C}$, we have $\xi_{\mathcal{F}_1} \cdot A^2 < 0$.
Fix one such $A_1$.
If $\mathcal{E}$ is $A_1$-semistable, then by our dynamical assumption and \cite{amerik2003endomorphisms}*{Proposition 2.4}, $\mathcal{E}$ splits and our lemma holds.
Suppose that $\mathcal{E}$ is not $A_1$-semistable.
Let $\mathcal{F}_2$ be a maximal destabilizing (saturated invertible) sheaf associated to $A_1$.
Then one has $\xi_{\mathcal{F}_2} \cdot A_1^2 > 0$ by definition; thus $\mathcal{F}_2\not\subset\mathcal{F}_1$.
Consider the natural restriction of the exact sequence \eqref{eq-exact-sq-stable} to $\mathcal{F}_2$.
Since $\mathcal{F}_2\not\subset\mathcal{F}_1$ and $\mathcal{Q}$ is locally free, the map $\mathcal{F}_2\to \mathcal{Q}$ is an injection.
If $c_1(\mathcal{F}_2) = c_1(\mathcal{Q})$, then it is easy to verify $\mathcal{E} = \mathcal{F}_1 \oplus \mathcal{F}_2$, which shows the splitting-ness of our $\mathcal{E}$.
If $c_1(\mathcal{F}_2) < c_1(\mathcal{Q})$, then
\[
\xi_{\mathcal{F}_2} \cdot A_0^2 < \xi_{\mathcal{Q}} \cdot A_0^2 = -\xi_{\mathcal{F}_1} \cdot A_0^2 = 0 < \xi_{\mathcal{F}_2} \cdot A_1^2.
\]
This in turn implies that $(x_0 A_0 + (1 - x_0)A_1)^2$ lies in the wall $W_{\mathcal{E}}(\mathcal{F}_2)$ for some $0 < x_0 < 1$.
However, $x_0 A_0 + (1 - x_0)A_1 \in \widehat{K}$ by the convexity;
hence $(x_0 A_0 + (1 - x_0) A_1)^2 \in K$, a contradiction to the choice of $K$, noting that $W_{\mathcal{E}}(\mathcal{F}_2)$ does not pass through $A_0^2$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm-splitting-P1-bundle-over-minimal}]
We divide the proof into the following three cases in terms of $Z$.
\par \vskip 0.5pc \noindent
\textbf{Case A: $Z \cong \mathbb{P}^2$.}
We may write $Y = \mathbb{P}_Z(\mathcal{F})$ where $\mathcal{F} \cong \mathcal{O}_Z \oplus \mathcal{O}_Z(-k)$ with $k = 0, 1$ or $2$ (cf.~\cite{szurek1990fano}).
Let $F \coloneqq p^*L$ be the ``fibre'' class of $p$ where $L$ is any line on $Z \cong \mathbb{P}^2$ and $S$ the section class of $Y$ such that $\mathcal{O}_Y(S)|_S \cong \mathcal{O}_S(-k)$ (with respect to the surjection $\mathcal{F} \to \mathcal{O}_Z(-k)$).
If $k = 1$ or $2$, then $S|_S$ is not pseudo-effective and hence $S$ is $f^{-1}$-periodic (cf.~\cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Lemma 2.3});
if $k = 0$, let $S$ be an $f$-periodic section (cf.~\cite{fakhruddin2003questions}*{Theorem 5.1}).
In both cases, we may assume
$S$ is $f$-invariant after iteration.
Up to a twist, we assume $c_1(\mathcal{E}) = aS + bF$ with $-1 \leq a,b \leq 0$.
Then $\mathcal{O}_{Y_z}(c_1(\mathcal{E}|_{Y_z})) \cong \mathcal{O}_{Y_z}(a)$ for any $z \in Z$.
Applying $\mathbb{P}_{Y_z}(\mathcal{E}|_{Y_z}) = W_z \cong \mathbb{F}_c$ with $c \leq 1$ by Lemma~\ref{lem-fibre-fano}, we have $\mathcal{E}|_{Y_z} \cong \mathcal{O}_{Y_z} \oplus \mathcal{O}_{Y_z}(a)$ for any $z \in Z$.
Thus the function $z \mapsto h^0(Y_z,\mathcal{E}|_{Y_z})$ is constant and the natural morphism $ p^*p_*\mathcal{E} \to \mathcal{E}$ has domain a locally free sheaf, which is an evaluation map on every fibre (cf.~\cite{hartshorne1977algebraic}*{Chapter \RomanNumeralCaps{3}, Corollary 12.9}).
Since $a\le 0$, the global sections of $\mathcal{E}|_{Y_z}$ are constant.
Then we have an exact sequence with $\mathcal{Q}$ being a vector bundle.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-evaluation-sequence-P2}
0 \to p^*p_*\mathcal{E} \to \mathcal{E} \to \mathcal{Q} \to 0
\tag{$\ast$}
\end{equation}
\textbf{\textit{Suppose that $a = 0$.}}
Then $p_*\mathcal{E}$ is locally free of rank $2$;
thus $p^*p_*\mathcal{E}\cong\mathcal{E}$ and $W \cong Y' \times_Z Y$ with $Y'=\mathbb{P}_Z(p_*\mathcal{E})$ by the base change.
Since $h|_{Y'}$ is int-amplified (cf.~Lemma~\ref{lem-intamplified}) and $Z \cong \mathbb{P}^2$, we have $p_*\mathcal{E}$ and hence $\mathcal{E}$ split (cf.~\cite{amerik2003endomorphisms}*{Proposition 3}).
\textbf{\textit{Suppose that $a = -1$.}}
Then $p_*\mathcal{E}$ is a line bundle, say $\mathcal{O}_Z(e)$ for some $e \in \mathbb{Z}$.
Hence $\mathcal{F}_1 \coloneqq p^*p_*\mathcal{E} \cong \mathcal{O}_Y(eF)$ and $\mathcal{Q} \cong \mathcal{O}_Y(-S + (b-e)F)$.
Note that
\[
\operatorname{Ext}^1(\mathcal{Q}, p^*p_*\mathcal{E}) = H^1(Y, S + (2e-b)F) = H^1(Y, K_Y + (S - K_Y) + (2e-b)F).
\]
Using the relative canonical bundle formula, we have
\begin{align*}
S - K_Y \equiv S-(-2S + p^*(K_Z + \det\mathcal{F})) = 3S + (3 + k)F = \frac{5}{2}S + (3 + k)F + \frac{1}{2}S
\end{align*}
where $\mathcal{O}_Y(S)|_S \cong \mathcal{O}_S(-k)$ with $k = 0, 1, 2$.
Then one can easily verify that $\frac{5}{2}S + (3+k)F$ is nef and big for any $k = 0, 1, 2$.
Since $\frac{1}{2}S$ has the support with only normal crossings, by the Kawamata--Viehweg vanishing theorem (cf.~e.g.,~\cite{kollar1998birational}*{Theorem 2.64}), $\operatorname{Ext}^1(\mathcal{Q}, p^*p_*\mathcal{E})$ vanishes if $t \coloneqq 2e - b \geq 0$, noting that $F$ is nef on $Y$.
So $t \geq 0$ implies that \eqref{eq-evaluation-sequence-P2} and hence $\mathcal{E}$ split.
Therefore, we may assume that $t < 0$.
Let $\xi_{\mathcal{F}_1} \coloneqq 2c_1(p^*p_*\mathcal{E}) - c_1(\mathcal{E}) \sim S + tF$.
Then our theorem for the case $Z\cong\mathbb{P}^2$ follows from Claim~\ref{claim-nonempty-wall-P2} and Lemma~\ref{lem-semistable-split}.
\begin{claim}\label{claim-nonempty-wall-P2}
$W_{\mathcal{E}}(\mathcal{F}_1) \neq \emptyset$ when $t < 0$.
\end{claim}
\noindent
\textbf{Proof of Claim~\ref{claim-nonempty-wall-P2}.}
Note that up to a multiple, any ample divisor on $Y$ can be written as $D = D(u) \coloneqq S + uF$ with $u > k$.
So we have the following:
\begin{align*}
\xi_{\mathcal{F}_1} \cdot D(u)^2 = (S + tF) \cdot (S + uF)^2 = (u - (k - t))^2 - t^2 + kt.
\end{align*}
Since $k - t > k$ and $-t^2 + kt = t(k - t) < 0$, there exists $u' > k$ such that $\xi_{\mathcal{F}_1} \cdot D(u')^2 = 0$ by the continuity, which completes the proof of our claim.
\par \vskip 0.5pc \noindent
\textbf{Case B: $Z \cong \mathbb{F}_0$.}
First, we may write $Y = \mathbb{P}_Z(\mathcal{F})$ where $\mathcal{F} \cong \mathcal{O}_Z \oplus \mathcal{O}_Z(-k_1,-k_2)$ with $0 \leq k_1, k_2 \leq 1$ (resp.~$\mathcal{O}_Z \oplus \mathcal{O}_Z(1, -1)$) (cf.~\cite{szurek1990fano}).
Note that these Fano threefolds $Y$ with $\rho(Y) = 3$ has exactly $3$ extremal rays in $\overline{\operatorname{NE}}(Y)$.
Let $F_i \coloneqq p^*L_i$ be the ``fibre'' class of $p$ where $L_1 \cong \mathcal{O}_{Z}(1, 0)$ and $L_2 \cong \mathcal{O}_Z(0,1)$, and $S$ the section class of $p$ such that $\mathcal{O}_Y(S)|_S \cong \mathcal{O}_S(-k_1, -k_2)$ (resp.~$\mathcal{O}_S(1, -1)$).
Similar to \textbf{Case A}, we may assume our $S$ is $f$-invariant after iteration.
Up to a twist, we assume $c_1(\mathcal{E}) = aS + b_1 F_1 + b_2 F_2$ with $-1 \leq a, b_i \leq 0$.
Then we have $\mathcal{E}|_{Y_z} \cong \mathcal{O}_{Y_z} \oplus \mathcal{O}_{Y_z}(a)$ for any $z \in Z$ and we get the exact sequence \eqref{eq-evaluation-sequence-P2} again, noting that the global sections of $\mathcal{E}|_{Y_z}$ are constant.
\textit{\textbf{Assume first that $a = -1$.}}
Then $p_*\mathcal{E}$ is a line bundle, say $\mathcal{O}_Z(e_1, e_2)$ for some $e_i \in \mathbb{Z}$.
Hence $\mathcal{F}_1 \coloneqq p^*p_*\mathcal{E} \cong \mathcal{O}_Y(e_1 F_1 + e_2 F_2)$ and $\mathcal{Q} \cong \mathcal{O}_Y(-S + (b_1 - e_1)F_1 + (b_2 - e_2)F_2)$.
Then
\begin{align*}
\operatorname{Ext}^1(\mathcal{Q}, p^*p_*\mathcal{E}) &= H^1(Y, K_Y + (S - K_Y) + (2e_1 - b_1)F_1 + (2e_2 - b_2)F_2).
\end{align*}
Applying the relative canonical bundle formula, we have
\[
S - K_Y \equiv S - (-2S + p^*(K_Z + \det\mathcal{F})) = 3S + (2 + k_1)F_1 + (2 + k_2)F_2 ~(\textup{resp.~} 3S + F_1 + 3F_2).
\]
Using the three extremal rays of $\overline{\operatorname{NE}}(Y)$, we can verify that $S - K_Y$ (resp.~$S - K_Y - F_1$) is nef and big, noting that the bigness follows from the nefness and the positive self-intersection, and when $\mathcal{F} \cong \mathcal{O}_Z \oplus \mathcal{O}_Z(1,-1)$, the two horizontal extremal curves lie in distinct sections of $p$.
By the Kawamata--Viehweg vanishing theorem (cf.~e.g.,~\cite{kollar1998birational}*{Theorem 2.64}), $\operatorname{Ext}^1(\mathcal{Q}, p^*p_*\mathcal{E})$ vanishes if $t_i \coloneqq 2e_i - b_i \geq 0$ for $i = 1, 2$ (resp.~$t_1 \geq -1$ and $t_2 \geq 0$).
Therefore, $t_i \geq 0$ $(i = 1, 2)$ (resp.~$t_1 \geq -1$ and $t_2 \geq 0$) implies that \eqref{eq-evaluation-sequence-P2} and hence $\mathcal{E}$ split.
So we may assume $t_i < 0$ for some $i$ (resp.~$t_1 < -1$ or $t_2 < 0$).
Let $\xi_{\mathcal{F}_1} \coloneqq 2c_1(p^*p_*\mathcal{E}) - c_1(\mathcal{E}) \sim S + t_1 F_1 + t_2 F_2$.
Then our theorem for the case $Z \cong \mathbb{F}_0$ and $a = -1$ follows from Claim~\ref{claim-nonempty-wall-P1xP1} and Lemma~\ref{lem-semistable-split}.
\begin{claim}\label{claim-nonempty-wall-P1xP1}
$W_{\mathcal{E}}(\mathcal{F}_1) \neq \emptyset$ when $t_i < 0$ for some $i$ (resp.~$t_1 < -1$ or $t_2 < 0$).
\end{claim}
\noindent
\textbf{Proof of Claim~\ref{claim-nonempty-wall-P1xP1}.}
Recall that $Y = \mathbb{P}_Z(\mathcal{F})$ with $\det\mathcal{F} = \mathcal{O}(-k_1, -k_2)$ with $k_i = 0$ or $1$ (resp.~$\mathcal{O}(1,-1)$).
Then up to a multiple, any ample divisor $D$ on $Y$ can be written as $D = D(u_1, u_2) \coloneqq S + u_1 F_1 + u_2 F_2$ with $u_i > k_i$ (resp.~$u_1 > 0$ and $u_2 > 1$).
Hence,
\begin{align*}
\xi_{\mathcal{F}_1} \cdot D(u_1, u_2)^2
&= (S + t_1 F_1 + t_2 F_2) \cdot (S + u_1 F_1 + u_2 F_2)^2 \\
&= 2(u_1 - (k_1-t_1)) (u_2 - (k_2-t_2)) - 2 t_1 t_2 + t_1 k_2 + t_2 k_1 \\
(\textup{resp.}~ &= 2(u_1 + (t_1 + 1))(u_2 + (t_2 - 1)) - 2t_1 t_2 + t_1 - t_2).
\end{align*}
Since $u_i > k_i$ for each $i$ (resp.~$u_1 > 0$ and $u_2 > 1$) and $t_j < 0$ for some $j$ (resp.~$t_1 < -1$ or $t_2 < 0$), there exist $u_i' > k_i$ (resp.~$u_1' > 0$ and $u_2' > 1$) such that $\xi_{\mathcal{F}_1} \cdot D(u_1', u_2')^2 = 0$ by the continuity.
So our claim holds.
\textit{\textbf{We still need to consider the case $a = 0$.}}
Now $p_*\mathcal{E}$ is locally free of rank $2$ and one gets the following commutative diagram such that $p^*p_*\mathcal{E} \cong \mathcal{E}$ and $W \cong Y \times_Z Y'$.
\[
\xymatrix@C=3pc{
X \ar[r] \ar[rd]^{\pi} \ar[rdd]_{\tau} &X_{r-1} \ar[r]^{q_{r-1}} \ar[d]_{\pi_r} &T \ar[d]^{\phi} \\
&W = \mathbb{P}_Y(\mathcal{E}) \ar[r]_q \ar[d]_{\tau_0} &Y' \coloneqq \mathbb{P}_Z(p_*\mathcal{E}) \ar[d]^{p'} \\
&Y \ar[r]_p &Z
}
\]
Clearly, $q \colon W \to Y'$ is also a (smooth) $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle.
Let $r \coloneqq \rho(X) - \rho(W)$ and $\overline{D} \coloneqq \bigsqcup_{i=1}^{r} \overline{D_i} \subseteq W$ be the blown up centres of $\pi$, each component of which is of dimension $2$.
$1^{\circ} \colon$ If $\dim q(\overline{D_i}) = 2$ for all $1 \leq i \leq r$, then each $\overline{D_i}$, as an $h^{-1}$-invariant divisor on $q^{-1}(q(\overline{D_i}))$, is a subsection of $q$;
hence $q \circ \pi$ is a conic bundle and hence $Y'$ is a smooth Fano threefold (cf.~Lemma~\ref{lem-base-Fano}).
$2^{\circ} \colon$ Otherwise, after rearranging the blow-ups, we may assume that $q(\overline{D_r}) \eqqcolon C$ is a curve in $Y'$, where $\overline{D_r}$ is the blow-up centre of $\pi_r$.
\textbf{We claim that $\overline{D_r} = q^{-1}(C)$ in this case.}
Note that $\tau_0(\overline{D_r})$ is a divisor on $Y$ and thus $p'(C) = p \circ \tau_0(\overline{D_r})$ cannot be a point.
Let $F = p'^{-1}(p'(C))$, a Hirzebruch surface.
Note also that $\overline{D_r} \subseteq q^{-1}(F)$ is a (prime) divisor, and $q|_{q^{-1}(F)} \colon q^{-1}(F) \to F$ is a $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle by the base change.
Then $q^{-1}(C) = \left(q|_{q^{-1}(F)}\right)^{-1}(C) \supseteq \overline{D_r}$ is irreducible;
hence they coincide and our claim holds.
Let $T$ be the blow-up of $Y'$ along the curve $C$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem-blowup-basechange}, $X_{r-1} \cong T \times_{Y'} W$ and we denote by $q_{r-1} \colon X_{r-1} \to T$ the natural projection.
Then $q_{r-1}$ is a $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle.
Note that $p' \circ \phi \colon T \to Z$ is a conic bundle and $\rho(X) - \rho(X_{r-1}) = r - 1$.
By induction, $Y'$ is dominated by a smooth Fano threefold.
No matter $1^{\circ}$ or $2^{\circ}$ occurs, the above commutative diagram is $f$-equivariant after iteration (cf.~Lemma~\ref{lem-equiv-MMP}).
Hence, $p_*\mathcal{E}$ splits by \cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Theorem 6.4} and then $\mathcal{E} = p^*p_*\mathcal{E}$ splits.
This completes the proof for the case $Z \cong \mathbb{F}_0$.
\par \vskip 0.5pc \noindent
\textbf{Case C: $Z \cong \mathbb{F}_1$.}
Denote by $c$ and $\ell$ the negative section and a fibre of the Hirzebruch surface $Z$, respectively.
We may write $Y = \mathbb{P}_Z(\mathcal{F})$ where $\mathcal{F} \cong \mathcal{O}_Z \oplus \mathcal{O}_Z(-k(C + \ell))$ with $k = 0$ or $1$ (cf.~\cite{szurek1990fano}).
Let $C \coloneqq p^*c$, $L \coloneqq p^*\ell$ be two ``fibre'' classes, and $S$ the section class of $p$ such that $\mathcal{O}_Y(S)|_S \cong \mathcal{O}_Z(-k(C + \ell))$.
Similar to \textbf{Case A}, we may assume our $S$ is $f$-invariant after iteration.
Up to a twist, we may assume $c_1(\mathcal{E}) = aS + b_1 C + b_2 L$ with $-1 \leq a, b_i \leq 0$.
Then, $\mathcal{O}_{Y_z}(c_1(\mathcal{E}|_{Y_z})) \cong \mathcal{O}_{Y_z}(a)$ for any $z \in Z$, and we get the exact sequence \eqref{eq-evaluation-sequence-P2} again, noting that the global sections of $\mathcal{E}|_{Y_z}$ are constant.
\textbf{\textit{Assume that $a = -1$.}}
Then $p_*\mathcal{E}$ is a line bundle, say $\mathcal{O}_Z(e_1 c + e_2 \ell)$ for some $e_i \in \mathbb{Z}$.
So $\mathcal{F}_1 \coloneqq p^*p_*\mathcal{E} \cong \mathcal{O}_Y(e_1 C + e_2 L)$ and $\mathcal{Q} \cong \mathcal{O}_Y(-S + (b_1 - e_1) C + (b_2 - e_2) L)$.
Similar to \textbf{Case B}, one can verify that
\[
S - K_Y \equiv S-(-2S + p^*(K_Z + \det\mathcal{F})) = 3S + (2 + k)C + (3 + k)L
\]
is nef and big for $k = 0, 1$ and then $\operatorname{Ext}^1(\mathcal{Q}, p^*p_*\mathcal{E})$ vanishes if $t_i \coloneqq 2e_i - b_i \geq 0$ for $i = 1, 2$.
So $t_i \geq 0$ $(i = 1, 2)$ implies that \eqref{eq-evaluation-sequence-P2} and hence $\mathcal{E}$ split.
Therefore, we assume $t_i< 0$ for some $i$.
Let $\xi_{\mathcal{F}_1} \coloneqq 2c_1(p^*p_*\mathcal{E}) - c_1(\mathcal{E}) \sim S + t_1 C + t_2 L$.
Then our theorem for the case $Z \cong \mathbb{F}_1$ and $a = -1$ follows from Claim~\ref{claim-nonempty-wall-F1} and Lemma~\ref{lem-semistable-split}.
\begin{claim}\label{claim-nonempty-wall-F1}
$W_{\mathcal{E}}(\mathcal{F}_1) \neq \emptyset$ when $t_i < 0$ for some $i$.
\end{claim}
\noindent
\textbf{Proof of Claim~\ref{claim-nonempty-wall-F1}.}
Note that any ample divisor $D$ on $Y$ can be written as $D = D(u_1, u_2) \coloneqq S + u_1 C + u_2 L$ with $u_2 > u_1 > k$ after replacing $D$ by a multiple.
So
\begin{align*}
\xi_{\mathcal{F}_1} \cdot D(u_1, u_2)^2
= u_1^2 + 2(u_1 - (k - t_1)) ((u_2 - u_1) - (k - t_2)) - (k - 2t_1)(k - t_2).
\end{align*}
If $t_1 < 0$, taking $k < u_1 < k - t_1$ and $u_2 - u_1 \gg 1$, we have $\xi_{\mathcal{F}_1}\cdot D(u_1,u_2)<0$.
If $t_2 < 0$, taking $u_1 = k - t_2$ and $0 < u_2 - u_1 \ll k - t_2$, we have $\xi_{\mathcal{F}_1} \cdot D(u_1, u_2)^2 \simeq t_2 (k - t_2) < 0$.
In both cases, there exist $u_2' > u_1' > k$ such that $\xi_{\mathcal{F}_1} \cdot D(u_1', u_2')^2 = 0$;
hence our claim holds.
\textbf{\textit{The case $a = 0$}} has the same proof as in \textbf{Case B}.
We have completed the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm-splitting-P1-bundle-over-minimal}.
\end{proof}
\section{Conic bundles over (the blow-up of) \texorpdfstring{$\mathbb{P}^3$}{P3}}
\label{section-splitting-ness-to-P3}
In this section, we shall study conic bundles over $\mathbb{P}^3$ or the blow-up of $\mathbb{P}^3$ along a line.
Our main results are Theorems~\ref{thm-splitting-over-P3} and \ref{thm-splitting-over-P3-blowup} below.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm-splitting-over-P3}
Let $X$ be a smooth Fano fourfold admitting an int-amplified endomorphism $f$.
Suppose that $X$ admits a conic bundle $\tau \colon X \to Y \cong \mathbb{P}^3$, which factors as $X \xrightarrow{\pi} W \xrightarrow{\tau_0} Y$ as in Notation \ref{notation-splitting-factor}.
Then $\tau_0$ is a splitting $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
By Theorem \ref{thm-structure-mmp-algebraic}, $W=\mathbb{P}_Y(\mathcal{E})$ for some locally free rank 2 sheaf $\mathcal{E}$ on $Y$.
So our theorem follows from Lemmas~\ref{lem-equiv-MMP}, \ref{lem-intamplified} and \cite{amerik2003endomorphisms}*{Proposition 3}.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}\label{thm-splitting-over-P3-blowup}
Let $X$ be a smooth Fano fourfold admitting an int-amplified endomorphism $f$.
Suppose that $X$ admits a conic bundle $\tau \colon X \to Y$ with $\varphi \colon Y \to Y' \cong \mathbb{P}^3$ being the blow-up along a line.
Suppose further that $\tau$ factors as $X \xrightarrow{\pi} W \xrightarrow{\tau_0} Y$ as in Notation \ref{notation-splitting-factor}.
Then $\tau_0$ is a splitting $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle.
\end{thm}
\begin{lem}\label{lem-bundle-over-P2-Fano}
Let $q \colon Y \to Z \cong \mathbb{P}^2$ be a conic bundle from a smooth Fano threefold $Y$.
Suppose that $q$ factors as $Y \xrightarrow{\varphi} Y' \xrightarrow{q_0} Z$, where $\varphi$ is the blow-up of a smooth threefold $Y'$ along a smooth curve $C$ and $q_0 \colon Y' \to Z$ is a splitting $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle.
Then $Y'$ is Fano.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose the contrary that $Y'$ is not Fano.
Then $K_{Y'} \cdot C = 0$ (cf.~\cite{mori1983fano}*{Lemma 4.4 and Proposition 4.5}).
After twisting, we may assume $Y' = \mathbb{P}_Z(\mathcal{F})$ with $\mathcal{F} \cong \mathcal{O}_Z \oplus \mathcal{O}_Z(a)$ and $a \leq 0$.
Then by the relative canonical bundle formula,
\[
K_{Y'} = -2\xi + q_0^*(K_Z + \det\mathcal{F}) \sim -2\xi + (a - 3) q_0^*H,
\]
where $H \subseteq Z$ is a line and $\xi \cong \mathcal{O}_{Y'}(1)$ is the tautological divisor which is a section of $q_0$ (with respect to the surjection $\mathcal{F} \to \mathcal{O}_Z(a)$;
thus $\mathcal{O}_{Y'}(\xi)|_{\xi} \cong \mathcal{O}_{\xi}(a)$).
Then we have
\[
0 = K_{Y'} \cdot C = -2(\xi \cdot C) + (a - 3)H \cdot (q_0)_* C < -2(\xi \cdot C).
\]
This implies $\xi \cdot C < 0$ and hence $C \subseteq \xi$.
Take a curve $\ell \subseteq \varphi^{-1}(\xi) \subseteq Y$ such that $\varphi_*\ell \equiv tC$ on $\xi \cong \mathbb{P}^2$ for some $t \in \mathbb{Z}_{> 0}$.
Then $E_{\varphi} \cdot \ell \geq 0$ and
\[
K_Y \cdot \ell = \varphi^* K_{Y'} \cdot \ell + E_{\varphi} \cdot \ell \geq K_{Y'} \cdot \varphi_*\ell = (K_{Y'}|_{\xi} \cdot tC)_{\xi} = t K_{Y'} \cdot C = 0,
\]
This is absurd and our lemma is proved.
\end{proof}
In the rest of this section, we will focus on the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm-splitting-over-P3-blowup}.
During the proof,
we stick to Notation~\ref{notation-splitting} except that our $p$ here is a $\mathbb{P}^2$-bundle.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm-splitting-over-P3-blowup}]
By Lemma~\ref{lem-key-reduction} and Theorem~\ref{thm-splitting-over-P3}, we may assume $E_{\varphi} \subseteq \operatorname{Supp} \Delta_{\tau}$.
Further, we have the following $f$-equivariant commutative diagram after iteration.
\[
\xymatrix@C=2.5pc{
X \ar[r]^-{\pi} \ar[rd]_{\tau} &W = \mathbb{P}_Y(\mathcal{E}) \ar[d]^{\tau_0} \ar@[blue][r]^{\color{blue} \psi} &{\color{blue} W' = \mathbb{P}_{Y'}(\mathcal{E}')} \ar@[blue][d]_{\color{blue} \tau_0'} \\
&Y \ar[d]_{p} \ar[r]^-{\varphi} &{Y' \cong \mathbb{P}^3} \\
&Z \cong \mathbb{P}^1
}
\]
Note that there is a (smooth) $\mathbb{P}^2$-bundle $p \colon Y \to Z \cong \mathbb{P}^1$ and $\Delta_{\tau} \subseteq Y$ is a disjoint union of $r$ components with $r = \rho(X) - \rho(W)$.
Since every $(f|_{Y'})^{-1}$-invariant prime divisor on $Y'$ is an (ample) hyperplane (cf.~\cite{horing2017totally}*{Corollary 1.2}), we have $r = 1$ (i.e., $\Delta_{\tau} = E_{\varphi}$), and $\pi$ is a single blow-up along a surface $\overline{S} \subseteq W$ (cf.~\cite{cascini2020polarized}*{Lemma 7.5}).
For each $z\in Z$, the fibre $X_z$ is a (smooth) Fano threefold and $\pi|_{X_z}$ is the blow-up of $W_z=\mathbb{P}_{Y_z}(\mathcal{E}|_{Y_z})$
along a (smooth) rational curve $C_z \coloneqq W_z|_{\overline{S}}$.
Take an $f|_Z$-periodic point $z_0 \in Z$ (cf.~\cite{fakhruddin2003questions}*{Theorem 5.1}).
After iteration, $f$ restricts to an int-amplified endomorphism on $W_{z_0} \cong \mathbb{P}_{Y_{z_0}}(\mathcal{E}|_{Y_{z_0}})$.
Hence, it follows from \cite{amerik2003endomorphisms}*{Proposition 3} that $\mathcal{E}|_{Y_{z_0}}$ splits, noting that $Y_{z_0} \cong \mathbb{P}^2$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem-bundle-over-P2-Fano}, $W_{z_0}$ is Fano.
Note that $(p \circ \tau_0)|_{\overline{S}}$ is flat onto a smooth curve $Z$.
Then the $C_z$'s are numerically equivalent on $\overline{S}$ and hence on $W$.
Now for every $z \in Z$, applying the adjunction, we have
\[
(K_{W_z} \cdot C_z)_{W_z} = (K_W|_{W_z} \cdot C_z)_{W_z} = K_W \cdot C_z = K_W \cdot C_{z_0} = (K_{W_{z_0}} \cdot C_{z_0})_{W_{z_0}} < 0.
\]
Therefore, every $W_z$ is Fano (cf.~\cite{mori1983fano}*{Lemma 4.4 and Proposition 4.5}).
On the other hand, Fano $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundles over $\mathbb{P}^2$ cannot deform to each other (cf.~e.g.,~\cite{mori1983fano}).
As a result, for all $z \in Z$, $W_z \cong \mathbb{P}_{Y_z}(\mathcal{E}|_{Y_{z}}) \cong \mathbb{P}_{Y_z}(\mathcal{O} \oplus \mathcal{O}(-k))$ with $k = 0, 1$ or $2$ (cf.~\cite{szurek1990fano}).
Let $F \cong \mathbb{P}^2$ and $S \cong \mathbb{F}_0$ be the fibre class of $p$ and the exceptional divisor of $\varphi$, respectively.
Up to a twist, we can write $c_1(\mathcal{E}) = aS + bF$ with $-1 \leq a, b \leq 0$.
Then $\mathcal{O}_{Y_z}(c_1(\mathcal{E}|_{Y_z})) \cong \mathcal{O}_{Y_z}(a)$.
By assumption, $S = E_{\varphi} = \Delta_{\tau}$; hence $\tau^*S = E + \widetilde{E}$ with $E = E_{\pi}$ being $\pi$-exceptional.
Now we refer to Lemma~\ref{lem-key-reduction} and use the notations therein.
By the projection formula, $(E + \widetilde{E}) \cdot \ell_{\chi} <0$, where $\ell_{\chi} \cong \mathbb{P}^1$ is a fibre of $\chi$ lying in $R_{\chi}$.
Since $\chi$ is a divisorial contraction, the locus of $R_{\chi}$ either equals $E$ or equals $\widetilde{E}$.
In both cases, $E \cap \widetilde{E}$ is contracted to a curve (cf.~Claim~\ref{claim-section-is-contracted}).
So we may assume $\ell_{\chi}\subseteq E \cap \widetilde{E}$.
If the locus of $R_{\chi}$ equals $\widetilde{E}$, then $\widetilde{E} \cdot \ell_{\chi} = -1$ since $\chi$ is a blow-up.
Since $\tau|_{\widetilde{E} \cap E}$ is an isomorphism, for a fibre $\ell_{\varphi}$ of $\varphi$, we have
\[
(E + \widetilde{E}) \cdot \ell_{\chi} = \tau^* S \cdot\ell_\chi= S \cdot \ell_{\varphi} = -1.
\]
So $E \cdot \ell_{\chi} = 0$ and thus $K_W\cdot\ell_{\psi}=K_X\cdot\ell_\chi<0$.
Then, $\psi$ is a $K_W$-negative contraction.
By Lemma~\ref{lem-key-reduction-W'} (or \cite{casagrande2008quasi}*{Theorem 3.14} for $\tau_0' \circ \psi = \varphi \circ \tau_0$), we have $\mathcal{E} = \varphi^* \mathcal{E}'$.
Since $f|_{W'}$ is int-amplified, $\mathcal{E}'$ and hence $\mathcal{E}$ split (cf.~\cite{amerik2003endomorphisms}*{Proposition 3}).
Thus we may assume that the locus of $R_{\chi}$ equals $E$, $E \cdot \ell_{\chi} = -1$, and then $\widetilde{E} \cdot \ell_{\chi} = 0$.
Then $\chi|_{\widetilde{E}}$ induces a divisorial contraction contracting $E \cap \widetilde{E}$, noting that $K_{\widetilde{E}} \cdot \ell_{\chi} = K_X \cdot \ell_{\chi} < 0$.
Let $H \coloneqq \pi_*^{-1}(\tau_0^{-1}\ell_{\varphi}) \subseteq \widetilde{E}$ be the $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle over $\ell_{\varphi} \cong \mathbb{P}^1$.
Since $H \cap (E \cap \widetilde{E})$ is contracted by $\chi$, our $\chi|_H$ is a (smooth) blow-down on $H$;
hence $\mathbb{P}_{\ell_{\varphi}}(\mathcal{E}|_{\ell_{\varphi}}) = \tau_0^{-1}(\ell_{\varphi}) \cong H \cong \mathbb{F}_1$.
Now $c_1(\mathcal{E})|_{\ell_{\varphi}} = (aS + bF)|_{\ell_{\varphi}} = b - a$ and $-1 \leq a, b \leq 0$ imply $b - a = \pm 1$.
Since $W_z=\mathbb{P}_{Y_z}(\mathcal{E}|_{Y_{z}}) \cong \mathbb{P}_{Y_z}(\mathcal{O} \oplus \mathcal{O}(-k))$ with $k = 0, 1$ or $2$, there are three cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $a = -1, b = 0, c_1(\mathcal{E}) = -S$ and $\mathcal{E}|_{Y_z} = \mathcal{O} \oplus \mathcal{O}(-1)$ for all $z \in Z$;
\item $a = 0, b = -1, c_1(\mathcal{E}) = -F$ and $\mathcal{E}|_{Y_z} = \mathcal{O} \oplus \mathcal{O}$ for all $z \in Z$;
\item $a = 0, b = -1, c_1(\mathcal{E}) = -F$ and $\mathcal{E}|_{Y_z} = \mathcal{O}(1) \oplus \mathcal{O}(-1)$ for all $z \in Z$.
\end{enumerate}
In Case (3), replacing $\mathcal{E}$ by $\mathcal{E} \otimes \mathcal{O}_Y(-S)$, we may assume
\begin{enumerate}[label=($\arabic*'$), start=3]
\item $a = -2, b = -1, c_1(\mathcal{E}) = -2S - F$ and $\mathcal{E}|_{Y_z} = \mathcal{O} \oplus \mathcal{O}(-2)$ for all $z \in Z$.
\end{enumerate}
In all the cases, the function $z \mapsto h^0(Y_z,\mathcal{E}|_{Y_z})$ is constant on $Z$.
With the same argument as in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm-splitting-P1-bundle-over-minimal}, global sections of $\mathcal{E}|_{Y_z}$ are constant in the cases: (1), (2) and ($3'$).
Then we get the same exact sequence \eqref{eq-evaluation-sequence-P2}.
If Case (2) occurs, then $\mathcal{E}|_{Y_z} \cong \mathcal{O} \oplus \mathcal{O}$ for all $z$;
hence $p_*\mathcal{E}$ is locally free of rank $2$ (on $\mathbb{P}^1$) and splits always, which implies that $\mathcal{E} \cong p^*p_*\mathcal{E}$ splits.
If Cases (1) or ($3'$) occur, then $p_*\mathcal{E}$ is a line bundle, say $\mathcal{O}_Z(e)$ for some $e \in \mathbb{Z}$.
Then $\mathcal{F}_1 \coloneqq p^*p_*\mathcal{E} \cong \mathcal{O}_Y(eF)$ and $\mathcal{Q} \cong \mathcal{O}_Y(aS + (b - e)F)$.
Note that
\[
\operatorname{Ext}^1(\mathcal{Q}, p^*p_*\mathcal{E}) = H^1(Y, -aS + (2e - b)F) = H^1(Y, K_Y + (-aS - K_Y) + (2e - b)F).
\]
Since $(-aS - K_Y) + (2e - b)F \equiv (3 - a)S + (4 - b)F + 2eF$, it is nef and big (for both cases (1) and ($3'$)) when $e \geq 0$.
By the Kawamata--Viehweg vanishing theorem (cf.~e.g.,~\cite{kollar1998birational}*{Theorem 2.64}), $\operatorname{Ext}^1(\mathcal{Q}, p^*p_*\mathcal{E})$ vanishes if $e \geq 0$.
So $e \geq 0$ implies that \eqref{eq-evaluation-sequence-P2} and hence $\mathcal{E}$ split.
Therefore, we may assume $e < 0$.
Then $\xi_{\mathcal{F}_1} \coloneqq 2 c_1(p^*p_*\mathcal{F}_1) - c_1(\mathcal{E}) \sim -aS + (2e - b)F$.
Since $e < 0$, no matter (1) or ($3'$) occurs, $2e - b < 0$.
So our theorem follows from Claim~\ref{claim-nonempty-wall-P3} and Lemma~\ref{lem-semistable-split}.
\begin{claim}\label{claim-nonempty-wall-P3}
$W_{\mathcal{E}}(\mathcal{F}_1) \neq \emptyset$ when $t \coloneqq 2e - b < 0$.
\end{claim}
\noindent
\textit{\textbf{Proof of Claim~\ref{claim-nonempty-wall-P3}.}}
Note that any ample divisor $D$ on $Y$ can be written as $D = D(u) \coloneqq S + uF$ with $u > 1$ after replacing $D$ by a multiple.
So we have the following:
\begin{align*}
\xi_{\mathcal{F}_1} \cdot D(u)^2
= -aS^3 + (-2au + t) S^2 \cdot F = -2a(u - 1) + t.
\end{align*}
The last equality is due to $\mathcal{O}_Y(S)|_S \cong \mathcal{O}_S(-1, 1)$, noting that for a fibre $C_0$ of $p|_S$ (which is the second ruling of $S$ different from $\varphi|_S$), we have $S \cdot C_0 = 1$ by the ramification divisor formula of $\varphi$ and the adjunction formula.
Since $-2a > 0$ and $t < 0$, there exists a real number $u_0 > 1$ such that $\xi_{\mathcal{F}_1} \cdot D(u_0)^2 = 0$.
So our claim holds.
\end{proof}
\section{Splitting-ness of algebraic \texorpdfstring{$\mathbb{P}^1$}{P1}-bundles}
\label{section-splittingness}
Combining with the results in Sections \ref{section-splitting-ness-to-surface} and \ref{section-splitting-ness-to-P3}, our main focus in this section is Theorem~\ref{thm-splitting}, which is a key to proving Theorem~\ref{thm-main}.
\begin{thm}\label{thm-splitting}
Let $X$ be a smooth Fano fourfold admitting an int-amplified endomorphism $f$.
Suppose that $\tau \colon X \to Y$ is a conic bundle which factors as $X \xrightarrow{\pi} W \xrightarrow{\tau_0} Y$ as in Notation \ref{notation-splitting-factor}.
If one of the following holds, then $\tau_0$ is a splitting $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle.
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\arabic*), ref=(\arabic*)]
\item $\rho(X)-\rho(W) \neq 1$, i.e., either $\tau = \tau_0$ is elementary or $\rho(X)-\rho(W) \geq 2$;
\item $Y \cong \mathbb{P}^3$ or the blow-up of a line on $\mathbb{P}^3$;
\item $Y$ is a $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle over $\mathbb{P}^2$, $\mathbb{F}_0$ or $\mathbb{F}_1$.
\end{enumerate}
Furthermore, if $\tau_0$ is not a splitting $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle, then $(\ddagger)$ there exists another conic bundle $\widehat{\tau} \colon X \to \widehat{W} \to \widehat{Y}$ with $\widehat{\tau}_0 \colon \widehat{W} \to \widehat{Y}$ being elementary such that $\rho(X)-\rho(\widehat{W}) = 2$.
In particular, $\widehat{W}$ is a splitting $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle over $Y$.
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}\label{rem-before-split}
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\arabic*)]
\item We assume Notation \ref{notation-splitting} (except $p$) throughout this section.
\item \label{rem-before-split-2} The first part of Theorem~\ref{thm-splitting} follows from Theorems~\ref{thm-splitting-P1-bundle-over-minimal}, \ref{thm-splitting-over-P3}, \ref{thm-splitting-over-P3-blowup}, and \ref{thm-splitting-W=X}, \ref{thm-splitting-r-geq-2}.
\item We are unable to show the splitting-ness of $\tau_0$ when $\pi$ is a single blow-up, since Lemma~\ref{lem-key-reduction} cannot be applied if $E_{\varphi}\subseteq\Delta_{\tau}$;
see Remark~\ref{rem-reduction-lem}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{rem}
\begin{thm}\label{thm-splitting-W=X}
Suppose that $X = W$ (which is Fano).
Then $\tau_0$ is a splitting $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
By Theorem \ref{thm-threefold-class} and Lemmas~\ref{lem-Z-to-minimal}, \ref{lem-Y-to-minimal}, we only need to consider when $Y$ is $\mathbb{P}^3$ or a $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle over $\mathbb{P}^2$ or $\mathbb{F}_0$.
This is clear by Theorems~\ref{thm-splitting-over-P3} and \ref{thm-splitting-P1-bundle-over-minimal}.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}\label{thm-splitting-r-geq-2}
Suppose that $\rho(X)-\rho(W) \geq 2$.
Then $\tau_0$ is a splitting $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
If $\rho(X)-\rho(W) \geq 3$, then $X$ is a product of del Pezzo surfaces and thus our theorem follows (cf.~Lemma~\ref{lem-Rom4.2}).
So we may assume that $\rho(X)-\rho(W) = 2$ and $X$ does not split.
By Lemma~\ref{lem-Rom4.2-=3}, $Y$ is a smooth $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle over a del Pezzo surface $Z$.
By Lemmas~\ref{lem-Z-to-minimal} and \ref{lem-key-reduction}, we have the following $f$-equivariant commutative diagram after iteration,
\begin{align}\label{diagram-case(b)}
\xymatrix@C=5pc{
X \ar[r]^{\chi} \ar@/_2pc/[dd]_{\tau} \ar[d]^{\pi} \ar[dr]^{\eta} &X' \ar[d]_{\pi'} \ar@/^2pc/[dd]^{\tau'} \\
W \ar[d]^{\tau_0} \ar[r]_{\psi} &W' \ar[d]_{\tau_0'} \\
Y \ar[r]_{\varphi} \ar[d]^p &Y' \ar[d]_{p'} \\
Z \ar[r]_{\phi} &Z'
}
\end{align}
where $\phi$ is the blow-up of a point on a Fano surface $Z'$ and $\varphi$ is the blow-up of a smooth curve on a smooth Fano threefold $Y'$ with the exceptional locus $E_{\varphi} = p^* E_{\phi}$.
By Theorem~\ref{thm-splitting-P1-bundle-over-minimal}, we may further assume $Z$ is a toric Fano surface with degree $6$ or $7$ (cf.~\cite{nakayama2002ruled}*{Theorem 3}).
We claim that $E_{\varphi}$ and $\Delta_{\tau}$ have no common component.
Suppose the contrary that there exists a surface $S$ which is a component of both $E_{\varphi}$ and $\Delta_{\tau}$.
Note that $S$ is a $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle over $C \coloneqq \varphi(S)$ and hence $\rho(S) = 2$.
Consider the proper transform $D \coloneqq \pi_*^{-1}(\tau_0^* S)$, which is a prime divisor of Picard number $3$ on $X$.
Note also that $\rho(X) = \rho(Z) + 4 \geq 7$.
Then the Lefschetz defect $\delta_X \geq 4$ and hence $X \cong S_1 \times S_2$ with $S_i$ being del Pezzo surfaces (cf.~Lemma \ref{lem-leftschetz-defect}), contradicting our assumption at the beginning of the proof.
By Lemma~\ref{lem-key-reduction}, $\tau'$ is a Fano conic bundle, $W' = \mathbb{P}_{Y'}(\mathcal{E}')$ and $\mathcal{E} = \varphi^*\mathcal{E}'$;
thus our theorem follows from Theorem~\ref{thm-splitting-P1-bundle-over-minimal} \textbf{Case A: $Z \cong \mathbb{P}^2$} (and the induction on $\rho(Z)$).
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm-splitting}]
By Remark \ref{rem-before-split} \ref{rem-before-split-2}, we only need to show the second part.
Since $\tau_0$ is not a splitting $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle, we have $\rho(X)-\rho(W) = 1$ (and hence $\Delta_{\tau}$ is irreducible) by the first part.
In the light of Theorems~\ref{thm-threefold-class}, \ref{thm-splitting-P1-bundle-over-minimal}, \ref{thm-splitting-over-P3}, \ref{thm-splitting-over-P3-blowup} and Lemma~\ref{lem-base-Fano}, we may further assume either of the following.
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\alph*)]
\item $Y$ admits a non-elementary conic bundle $Y \to Z$ to a smooth Fano surface $Z$;
\item $Y$ is a smooth $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle over $Z$ where $Z$ is a del Pezzo surface with degree $6$ or $7$.
\end{enumerate}
Note that, in both cases, $Z$ is a toric Fano surface (cf.~\cite{nakayama2002ruled}*{Theorem 3}).
\par \vskip 0.5pc \noindent
\textbf{\textit{Suppose that (a) occurs.}}
We will use \cite{mori1983fano}*{Proposition 9.10}.
Then $\rho(Z) \leq 2$ and we have two small cases: (i) $\Delta_{\tau}$ is not $\varphi$-exceptional, or (ii) $\Delta_{\tau}$ is $\varphi$-exceptional.
If (i) occurs, Lemma~\ref{lem-key-reduction} and Theorem~\ref{thm-splitting-P1-bundle-over-minimal} would imply $\mathcal{E}$ splits, a contradiction.
If (ii) occurs, then we have the following commutative diagram
\begin{align}
\xymatrix{
X \ar[r]_{\pi} \ar@/^1pc/[rr]^{\tau} &W \ar[r]_{\tau_0} &Y \ar[r]_{\varphi} \ar@/^1pc/[rr]^{p} &Y' \ar[r]_{p_0} &Z
}
\end{align}
where $Y'$ is a smooth Fano threefold, $Z\cong\mathbb{P}^2$, $\mathbb{F}_0$ or $\mathbb{F}_1$, $\tau$ and $p$ are singular conic bundles, and $\tau_0$ and $p_0$ are smooth $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundles (cf.~Theorem \ref{thm-structure-mmp} and \cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Theorem 6.2}).
\textbf{We claim that the Lefschetz defect $\delta_X \geq 3$.}
Let $D_{Y'}$ be a section of $p_0$ and disjoint from $\varphi(\Delta_{\tau})$ (cf.~Theorem \ref{thm-threefold-class} \textbf{(B)}).
Then the irreducible divisor $\tau^*\varphi_*^{-1} D_{Y'}$ has Picard number $\rho(Z) + 1$.
On the other hand, the inequality $\rho(X) \geq \rho(Z) + 4$ implies that $\delta_X \geq \rho(X) - \rho(\tau^*\varphi_*^{-1} D_{Y'}) \geq 3$;
hence our claim holds.
By Lemma \ref{lem-leftschetz-defect}, there exists another Fano conic bundle $X \to \widehat{Y}$ such that $\rho(X)-\rho(\widehat{Y}) = 3$.
Together with Theorems~\ref{thm-structure-mmp} and \ref{thm-splitting-r-geq-2}, $(\ddagger)$ holds.
\par \vskip 0.5pc \noindent
\textbf{\textit{Suppose that (b) occurs.}}
Then we also have two small cases: (i') $\Delta_{\tau}$ is a section of $p \colon Y \to Z$, or (ii') $\Delta_{\tau}$ is the pullback of an $(f|_Z)^{-1}$-invariant curve on $Z$ (cf.~Corollary~\ref{cor-splitting-to-toric}).
If (i') happens, then we have the commutative diagram (\ref{diagram-case(b)}).
Since $\Delta_{\tau}$ is the section of $p$, it is not $\varphi$-exceptional.
Hence $X' \to Y'$ is a Fano conic bundle, $W \cong W' \times_{Y'} Y$ and $\varphi(\Delta_{\tau})$ is a section of $Y' \to Z'$ (cf.~Lemma~\ref{lem-key-reduction}).
After one more reduction if necessary, we may assume $Z' \cong \mathbb{P}^2$.
So $\mathcal{E}'$ and hence $\mathcal{E}$ split by Theorem~\ref{thm-splitting-P1-bundle-over-minimal}, a contradiction.
If (ii') happens, then choosing a rational curve $C$ disjoint from $p(\Delta_{\tau})$ in $Z$ (this is doable by considering $Z$ as blow-ups from $\mathbb{P}^2$), we have $\rho(X) - \rho(\tau^*p^*C) = \rho(Z) \geq 3$.
Applying Lemma \ref{lem-leftschetz-defect} again, there exists another Fano conic bundle $X \to \widehat{Y}$ such that $\rho(X) - \rho(\widehat{Y}) = 3$.
By Theorem~\ref{thm-splitting-r-geq-2}, we have $(\ddagger)$.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm-main} and Corollary~\ref{cor-splitting}}
\label{section-proof-of-main-thm}
To prove Theorem~\ref{thm-main}, we begin with the theorem below.
For its proof, we follow the idea of \cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Proof of Theorem 8.1}.
\begin{thm}\label{thm-main-int-to-toric}
Let $X$ be a smooth Fano fourfold admitting a conic bundle $\tau \colon X \to Y$.
Suppose that $X$ admits an int-amplified endomorphism $f$.
Then $X$ is toric.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We follow the notations in Theorem~\ref{thm-structure-mmp}.
If $\rho(X)-\rho(Y)= 1$, then $X$ is a splitting $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle over the smooth toric Fano threefold $Y$ (cf.~Lemma~\ref{lem-base-Fano}, Theorems~\ref{thm-splitting-W=X} and \ref{thm-threefold-class}); thus $X$ is toric by \cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Proposition 2.9}.
If $\rho(X)-\rho(Y) \geq 4$, then $X$ is a product of del Pezzo surfaces (cf.~Lemma~\ref{lem-Rom4.2-geq-4}); hence $f = f_1 \times f_2$ after iteration, noting that $\overline{\operatorname{NE}}(X)$ is rational polyhedral.
So it follows from Lemma~\ref{lem-intamplified} and \cite{nakayama2002ruled}*{Theorem 3} that both $S_i$ are toric.
As a result, $X$ is also toric.
In the following, we may assume $r \coloneqq \rho(X) - \rho(Y) - 1 = 1$ or $2$.
By Theorem~\ref{thm-structure-mmp}, $\tau^{-1}(D_i) = E_i \cup \widetilde{E_i}$, and $E_i$, $\widetilde{E_i}$ are (smooth) $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundles over $D_i$, with $E_i \cap \widetilde{E_i}\cong D_i$ being an $f^{-1}$-invariant surface.
\par \vskip 0.3pc \noindent
\textbf{Case: $r = 2$.} By Theorem~\ref{thm-splitting-r-geq-2}, $X_r = \mathbb{P}_Y(\mathcal{E})$ is a splitting $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle over $Y$;
hence after a suitable twisting, we may assume $\mathcal{E} = \mathcal{O}_Y \oplus \mathcal{L}$ with $\mathcal{L}$ being trivial or not pseudo-effective.
We claim that there is an $f^{-1}$-invariant section $S$ of $\tau$ dominating $Y$.
Note that $\pi(E_1 \cap \widetilde{E_1})$ is an $f_{r}^{-1}$-invariant subsection over $Y$ (not contracted by $\tau_{0}$) and $\pi(E_1 \cup \widetilde{E_1}) = \tau_{0}^{-1}(D_1)$ is a $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle over $D_1$.
If $\tau_0$ is a trivial bundle so that $X_{r} = Y \times Z \cong Y \times \mathbb{P}^1$, then $\pi(E_1 \cup \widetilde{E_1}) \cong D_1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$.
Now $\pi(E_1\cap \widetilde{E_1})$ is contained in an $f_{r}^{-1}$-invariant horizontal section $S_{r}$ of $\tau_0$ (cf.~\cite{cascini2020polarized}*{Lemma 7.5} and Lemma~\ref{lem-split-pdt} applied to $\pi(E_1 \cup \widetilde{E_1})$).
If $\tau_0$ is not a trivial bundle, then some section $S_{r}$ has $S_{r}|_{S_{r}} \cong \det \mathcal{E} = \mathcal{L}$ being not pseudo-effective and hence is $f_{r}^{-1}$-invariant after iteration by \cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Lemma 2.3}.
In both cases, let $S \subseteq X$ be the proper transform of $S_{r}$.
Note that the surfaces in $W$ blown up by $\pi$ are either contained in $S_r$ or disjoint from $S_r$.
Indeed, if there is some $\overline{D_i}$ intersects $S_r$ along a curve $C$, which is also $f_r^{-1}$-invariant,
then the three $f_r^{-1}$-invariant prime divisors $\overline{D_i}$, $\tau_0^{-1}(\tau_0(C))$ and $\tau_0^{-1}(\tau_0(\overline{D_i})) \cap S_r$ in the $f_r^{-1}$-invariant smooth projective threefold $\tau_0^{-1}(\tau_0(\overline{D_i}))$ will have a common intersection curve $C$, a contradiction to Lemma~\ref{thm-bh}.
So we get the $f^{-1}$-invariant section $S \cong S_{r}$ of $\tau$.
Since $\pi(S) = Y$, we have $(E_i \cup \widetilde{E_i}) \cap S \neq \emptyset$.
Hence we may assume $S\cap E_i \neq \emptyset$ for each $i$.
By Theorem~\ref{thm-structure-mmp} (cf.~\cite{romano2019non}*{Remark 3.6}), after iteration, there is an $f$-equivariant birational morphism $\pi' \colon X \to X'$ over $Y$ contracting all the $E_i$ with $f' \coloneqq f|_{X'}$, such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item the induced morphism $\tau_0' \colon X' \to Y$ is an algebraic $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle;
\item $\pi'$ is the blow-up of $X'$ along $2$ smooth projective surfaces $D_i' \coloneqq F_i' \cap S'$, where $F_i' \coloneqq (\tau_0')^{-1}(D_i)$ and $S' \coloneqq \tau_0'(S)$ are $(f')^{-1}$-invariant prime divisors.
\end{enumerate}
Since $\rho(X) - \rho(X') = 2$, it follows from Theorem~\ref{thm-splitting-r-geq-2} that $X'$ is a splitting $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle over $Y$;
thus $X'$ is toric (cf.~\cite{meng2020nonisomorphic}*{Proposition 2.9}).
By Corollary~\ref{cor-splitting-to-toric}, there is a toric pair $(X', \Delta')$ such that $\Delta'$ contains all the $(f')^{-1}$-invariant prime divisors (including $F_i', S'$).
By the construction, $\pi'$ is the composition of toric blow-ups of the intersection of prime divisors in the toric boundary starting from $(X', \Delta')$.
Thus $X$ is toric.
\par \vskip 0.3pc \noindent
\textbf{Case: $r = 1$.}
By Theorem~\ref{thm-structure-mmp}, $\tau$ factors as $\tau_0 \colon X_1 \to Y$ (resp.~$\widetilde{\tau}_0 \colon \widetilde{X_1} \to Y$).
If both $\tau_0$ and $\widetilde{\tau}_0$ are splitting $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundles, then we are done with the same argument as above.
Otherwise, by Theorem~\ref{thm-splitting}, there exists another conic bundle $X \to \widehat{Y}$ such that $\rho(X)-\rho(\widehat{Y}) = 3$.
So we reduce to \textbf{Case: $r = 2$} and our theorem holds.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm-main}]
Clearly, (2) implies (3).
By Theorem~\ref{thm-main-int-to-toric}, (3) implies (1).
Since every projective toric variety has a polarized endomorphism (cf.~\cite{nakayama2002ruled}*{Lemma 4} and \cite{meng2020rigidity}*{Proof of Theorem 1.4}), (1) implies (2).
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary~\ref{cor-splitting}]
By Theorem~\ref{thm-structure-mmp}, $W = \mathbb{P}_Y(\mathcal{E})$ for some locally free sheaf $\mathcal{E}$ of rank $2$ on $Y$.
By Theorem~\ref{thm-main}, $X$ is toric.
Fix a toric action $G$ on $X$ such that it descends to a unique action $G_Y$ on $Y$ which is $\tau$-equivariant (cf.~\cite{brion2011automorphism}*{Proposition 2.1}).
Since $X$ is toric and $X \to W$ has connected fibres, by \cite{brion2011automorphism}*{Proposition 2.1} again, $W$ is toric with the (uniquely descended) toric action $G_W$ on $W$.
By \cite{druel1999structures}*{Lemma 1}, $\mathcal{E}$ splits.
\end{proof}
\begin{bibdiv}
\begin{biblist}
\bib{amerik2003endomorphisms}{article}{
author={Amerik, Ekaterina},
title={On endomorphisms of projective bundles},
date={2003},
journal={Manuscripta Mathematica},
volume={111},
number={1},
pages={17\ndash 28},
url={https://doi.org/10.1007/s00229-002-0347-z},
}
\bib{ando1985extremal}{article}{
author={Ando, Tetsuya},
title={On extremal rays of the higher dimensional varieties},
date={1985},
journal={Inventiones mathematicae},
volume={81},
number={2},
pages={347\ndash 357},
url={https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01389057},
}
\bib{beauville1977varietes}{inproceedings}{
author={Beauville, Arnaud},
title={Vari{\'e}t{\'e}s de prym et jacobiennes interm{\'e}diaires},
date={1977},
booktitle={Annales scientifiques de l'{\'e}cole normale sup{\'e}rieure},
volume={4e s{\'e}rie, 10},
publisher={Elsevier},
pages={309\ndash 391},
url={http://www.numdam.org/item/ASENS_1977_4_10_3_309_0},
}
\bib{broustet2014singularities}{article}{
author={Broustet, Ama{\"e}l},
author={H{\"o}ring, Andreas},
title={Singularities of varieties admitting an endomorphism},
date={2014},
journal={Mathematische Annalen},
volume={360},
number={1-2},
pages={439\ndash 456},
url={https://doi.org/10.1007/s00208-014-1015-9},
}
\bib{brion2011automorphism}{article}{
author={Brion, Michel},
title={On automorphism groups of fiber bundles},
date={2011},
journal={Publicaciones Matem{\' a}ticas del Uruguay},
volume={12},
pages={39\ndash 66},
}
\bib{casagrande2008quasi}{article}{
author={Casagrande, Cinzia},
title={Quasi-elementary contractions of Fano manifolds},
date={2008},
journal={Compositio Mathematica},
volume={144},
number={6},
pages={1429\ndash 1460},
}
\bib{casagrande2012picard}{article}{
author={Casagrande, Cinzia},
title={On the Picard number of divisors in Fano manifolds},
date={2012},
journal={Annales scientifiques de l'{\'E}cole Normale Sup{\'e}rieure},
volume={Ser.~4, 45},
number={3},
pages={363\ndash 403},
url={http://www.numdam.org/item/ASENS_2012_4_45_3_363_0},
}
\bib{cascini2020polarized}{article}{
author={Cascini, Paolo},
author={Meng, Sheng},
author={Zhang, De-Qi},
title={Polarized endomorphisms of normal projective threefolds in arbitrary characteristic},
date={2020},
journal={Mathematische Annalen},
volume={378},
pages={637\ndash 665},
url={https://doi.org/10.1007/s00208-019-01877-6},
}
\bib{debarre2001higher}{book}{
author={Debarre, Olivier},
title={Higher-dimensional algebraic geometry},
series={Universitext},
publisher={Springer-Verlag, New York},
date={2001},
ISBN={0-387-95227-6},
}
\bib{druel1999structures}{article}{
author={Druel, St{\'e}phane},
title={Structures de contact sur les vari{\'e}t{\'e}s toriques},
date={1999},
journal={Mathematische Annalen},
volume={313},
number={3},
pages={429\ndash 435},
url={http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s002080050268},
}
\bib{fakhruddin2003questions}{article}{
author={Fakhruddin, Najmuddin},
title={Questions on self maps of algebraic varieties},
organization={Citeseer},
date={2003},
journal={Journal of the Ramanujan Mathematical Society},
pages={109\ndash 122},
}
\bib{greb2017compact}{article}{
author={Greb, Daniel},
author={Toma, Matei},
title={Compact moduli spaces for slope-semistable sheaves},
date={2017},
journal={Algebraic Geometry},
volume={4},
number={1},
pages={40\ndash 78},
}
\bib{hartshorne1977algebraic}{book}{
author={Hartshorne, Robin},
title={Algebraic geometry},
series={Graduate Texts in Mathematics},
publisher={Springer-Verlag, New York},
date={1977},
volume={52},
ISBN={0-387-90244-9},
}
\bib{hwang2011endomorphisms}{article}{
author={Hwang, Jun-Muk},
author={Nakayama, Noboru},
title={On endomorphisms of Fano manifolds of Picard number one},
date={2011},
ISSN={1558-8599},
journal={Pure and Applied Mathematics Quarterly},
volume={7},
number={4},
pages={1407\ndash 1426},
url={https://doi-org/10.4310/PAMQ.2011.v7.n4.a15},
}
\bib{horing2017totally}{article}{
author={H{\"o}ring, Andreas},
title={Totally invariant divisors of endomorphisms of projective spaces},
date={2017},
ISSN={1432-1785},
journal={Manuscripta Mathematica},
volume={153},
number={1-2},
pages={173\ndash 182},
url={https://doi.org/10.1007/s00229-016-0881-8},
}
\bib{kollar1998birational}{book}{
author={Koll{\'a}r, J{\'a}nos},
author={Mori, Shigefumi},
title={Birational geometry of algebraic varieties},
series={Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics},
publisher={Cambridge University Press},
date={1998},
}
\bib{krieger2017cohomological}{article}{
title={Cohomological Conditions on Endomorphisms of Projective Varieties},
author={Krieger, Holly},
author={Reschke, Paul},
journal={Bulletin de la Soci{\'e}t{\'e} Math{\'e}matique de France},
volume={145},
number={3},
pages={449--468},
year={2017},
publisher={Soci{\'e}t{\'e} Math{\'e}matique de France},
}
\bib{meng2020building}{article}{
author={Meng, Sheng},
title={Building blocks of amplified endomorphisms of normal projective varieties},
date={2020},
journal={Mathematische Zeitschrift},
volume={294},
number={3},
pages={1727\ndash 1747},
url={https://doi.org/10.1007/s00209-019-02316-7},
}
\bib{mori1983fano}{inproceedings}{
author={Mori, Shigefumi},
author={Mukai, Shigeru},
title={On Fano 3-folds with $B_2 \geq 2$},
date={1983},
booktitle={Algebraic varieties and analytic varieties},
publisher={Mathematical Society of Japan},
address={Tokyo, Japan},
pages={101\ndash 129},
url={https://doi.org/10.2969/aspm/00110101},
}
\bib{mori1982threefolds}{inproceedings}{
title={Threefolds whose canonical bundles are not numerically effective},
author={Mori, Shigefumi},
booktitle={Algebraic Threefolds},
pages={155\ndash 189},
year={1982},
publisher={Springer},
}
\bib{meng2018building}{article}{
author={Meng, Sheng},
author={Zhang, De-Qi},
title={Building blocks of polarized endomorphisms of normal projective varieties},
date={2018},
ISSN={0001-8708},
journal={Advances in Mathematics},
volume={325},
pages={243\ndash 273},
url={http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001870817303468},
}
\bib{meng2019characterizations}{article}{
author={Meng, Sheng},
author={Zhang, De-Qi},
title={Characterizations of toric varieties via polarized endomorphisms},
date={2019},
ISSN={1432-1823},
journal={Mathematische Zeitschrift},
volume={292},
pages={1223\ndash 1231},
url={https://doi.org/10.1007/s00209-018-2160-8},
}
\bib{meng2020semi}{article}{
author={Meng, Sheng},
author={Zhang, De-Qi},
title={Semi-group structure of all endomorphisms of a projective variety admitting a polarized endomorphism},
date={2020},
journal={Mathematical Research Letters},
volume={27},
number={2},
pages={523\ndash 549},
}
\bibitem[MZg20]{meng2020rigidity}
{Sheng Meng and Guolei Zhong,
\textit{Rigidity of rationally connected smooth projective varieties from dynamical viewpoints},
{(2020)},
{available at 2005.03983},
}
\bib{meng2020nonisomorphic}{article}{
author={Meng, Sheng},
author={Zhang, De-Qi},
author={Zhong, Guolei},
title={Non-isomorphic endomorphisms of Fano threefolds},
date={2020},
eprint={2008.10295},
}
\bib{nakayama2002ruled}{article}{
author={Nakayama, Noboru},
title={Ruled surfaces with non-trivial surjective endomorphisms},
date={2002},
journal={Kyushu Journal of Mathematics},
volume={56},
number={2},
pages={433\ndash 446},
}
\bib{nakayama2010polarized}{article}{
author={Nakayama, Noboru},
author={Zhang, De-Qi},
title={Polarized endomorphisms of complex normal varieties},
date={2010},
journal={Mathematische Annalen},
volume={346},
number={4},
pages={991\ndash 1018},
url={https://doi.org/10.1007/s00208-009-0420-y},
note={\textbf{arXiv:0908.1688v1}},
}
\bib{qin1993equivalence}{article}{
author={Qin, Zhenbo},
title={Equivalence classes of polarizations and moduli spaces of sheaves},
date={1993},
journal={Journal of Differential Geometry},
volume={37},
number={2},
pages={397\ndash 415},
}
\bib{romano2019non}{article}{
author={Romano, Eleonora~Anna},
title={Non-elementary Fano conic bundles},
date={2019},
journal={Collectanea Mathematica},
volume={70},
number={1},
pages={33\ndash 50},
url={https://doi.org/10.1007/s13348-018-0218-x},
}
\bib{sarkisov1983conic}{article}{
author={Sarkisov, Victor~G},
title={On conic bundle structures},
date={1983},
journal={Mathematics of the USSR-Izvestiya},
volume={20},
number={2},
pages={355\ndash 390},
}
\bib{szurek1990fano}{article}{
author={Szurek, Micha{\l}},
author={Wi{\'s}niewski, Jaros{\l}aw~A},
title={Fano bundles of rank $2$ on surfaces},
date={1990},
journal={Compositio Mathematica},
volume={76},
number={1-2},
pages={295\ndash 305},
url={http://www.numdam.org/item/CM_1990__76_1-2_295_0},
}
\bib{wisniewski1991contractions}{article}{
author={Wi{\'s}niewski, Jaros{\l}aw~A},
title={On contractions of extremal rays of Fano manifolds},
date={1991},
journal={Journal f{\"u}r die reine und angewandte Mathematik},
volume={417},
pages={141\ndash 158},
}
\bib{zhang2010polarized}{article}{
author={Zhang, De-Qi},
title={Polarized endomorphisms of uniruled varieties.~with an appendix by Y.~Fujimoto and N.~Nakayama},
date={2010},
journal={Compositio Mathematica},
volume={146},
number={1},
pages={145\ndash 168},
}
\bib{zhang2012rationality}{article}{
author={Zhang, De-Qi},
title={Rationality of rationally connected threefolds admitting non-isomorphic endomorphisms},
date={2012},
journal={Transactions of the American Mathematical Society},
volume={364},
number={12},
pages={6315\ndash 6333},
}
\end{biblist}
\end{bibdiv}
\end{document} |
\section{Introduction}
During the last decade, the investigation and control of spin-orbital coupling (SOC) have become the subjects of
intensive research in both condensed matter and cold atom systems after the discovery of the topological insulators
\cite{kane,zhang}. In the condensed matter side, there are increasing number of
new quantum materials with significant SOC, including several new 4d or 5d transition metal oxides and heterostructures of transition metal systems \cite{SLrev1,SLrev3}. In the cold atom side,
several groups worldwide \cite{soexp,sofermigas,sobecgas} have also successfully generated
a 1D (SOC) to neutral atoms. However, one of the main limitations to extend 1D SOC to a 2D SOC is the associated heating rates.
Recently, there are some advances \cite{expk40,expk40zeeman,clock,2dsocbec,ben} to overcome this difficulty
in generating 2D Rashba SOC for cold atoms in both continuum and optical lattices and also in a Zeeman field.
In view of these recent experimental advances,
it becomes topical and important to investigate what would be new phenomena due to the interplay
among strong interactions, SOC and a Zeeman field in both cold atoms and condensed matter systems.
In \cite{rh}, we studied interacting spinor bosons at integer fillings loaded in a square optical lattice in the presence of non-Abelian gauge fields. In the strong coupling limit, it leads to the spin $ S=N/2 $ Rotated Ferromagnetic Heisenberg model (RFHM)
( Eq.\ref{rhgeneral} with $ \vec{H}=0 $ )
which is a new class of quantum spin models to describe quantum magnetisms in cold atom systems or some materials with strong SOC.
Along the anisotropic line $ (\alpha=\pi/2, 0 < \beta < \pi/2) $ of the 2d SOC, there is an exact $ U(1)_{soc} $ symmetry.
We identified a new spin-orbital entangled commensurate ground state: the Y-x state.
It supports not only commensurate magnons (C$_0$,C$_{\pi}$),
but also a new gapped elementary excitation: in-commensurate magnon ( IC- ).
The IC- magnons may become the seeds to drive possible new classes of quantum C-IC transitions under various external probes.
In \cite{rhh}, by performing the microscopic calculations, we explored the dramatic effects of
an external longitudinal Zeeman field $H$ applied to the RFHM Eq.\ref{rhgeneral} along the anisotropic SOC line
$ (\alpha=\pi/2, 0 < \beta < \pi/2) $ which keeps the $ U(1)_{soc} $ symmetry.
We find that the interplay among the strong interactions, SOC and the Zeeman field leads to a
whole new classes of magnetic phenomena in quantum phases ( especially the non-coplanar incommensurate Skyrmion crystals (IC-SkX) ),
excitation spectra ( especially inside the IC-SkX ), quantum phase transitions ( especially the quantum Commensurate to incommensurate (C-IC) transitions ), which may have wide and important applications in both cold atoms and various materials with SOC.
Our main results are summarized in Fig.1.
In \cite{rhtran}, we studied the response to a transverse field of the RFHM Eq.\ref{rhgeneral} along the anisotropic SOC line
$ (\alpha=\pi/2, 0 < \beta < \pi/2) $. Because the transverse field explicitly breaks the $ U(1)_{soc} $ symmetry,
so the response is quite different than that in a longitudinal field.
However, the approach used in \cite{rh,rhh,rhtran} is exact symmetry analysis plus microscopic spin wave expansion,
so can not be used to study the nature of all these quantum phase transitions. A complete independent symmetry based phenomenological
effective action is needed to achieve this goal.
In this work, starting from symmetry principle, we construct various effective actions to study all these quantum phases and
phase transitions in Fig.1.
We recover all these quantum phases and their excitations discovered by the microscopic calculations in \cite{rh,rhh,rhtran},
most importantly, explore the nature of all the quantum phase transitions,
therefore provide deep insights into the global phase diagram in Fig.1.
Furthermore, we find a new type of dangerously irrelevant operator:
it is irrelevant near the QCP, but marginal in the symmetry breaking ground state. So it does not change the ground state, but
changes its excitation spectrum to an exotic form.
This is in sharp contrast to the known dangerously irrelevant operator \cite{scaling,sachdev,aue,NOFQD}:
it is irrelevant near the QCP, but relevant in the symmetry breaking ground state. So it change both the ground state and the excitation spectrum. We name the known one and the new one as Type-I and Type-II dangerously irrelevant operator respectively.
The Z-x state to the IC-SkX transition at $ h=h_{c1} $ is in the same universality class as the $ z=2 $ SF-Mott transition,
but there is a type-II dangerously irrelevant operator which leads to one exotic Goldstone mode
inside the IC-SkX phase near $ h_{c1} $.
However, at the mirror symmetry point, the Type-II dangerously irrelevant operator is absent, the exotic Goldstone mode recovers to the conventional one. The FM state to the IC-SkX transition at $ h=h_{c2} $ in the middle range
$ \beta_1 < \beta < \beta_2=\pi/2- \beta_1 $ of SOC is in the same universality class as a $ z=2 $ two-component SF-Mott
transition in the Ising limit with a $ U(1)_{soc} \times U(1)_{ic} $ symmetry, the extra $ U(1)_{ic} $ symmetry comes from
the magnon condensation at two IC- momenta. There are also two type-II dangerously irrelevant operators
which lead to one exotic gapless Goldstone mode and one gapped exotic roton mode inside the IC-SkX phase near $ h_{c2} $.
However, at the mirror symmetry point, the two Type-II dangerously irrelevant operators are absent,
there is a quartic Umklapp term which breaks the extra $ U(1)_{ic} $ symmetry explicitly, the exotic Goldstone and roton mode
recover to the conventional ones. The FM state to the canted phase transition at $ h=h_{c2} $ in the left ( or ) right range
$ 0 < \beta < \beta_1 $ ( or $ \beta_2 < \beta < \pi/2 $ ) of SOC is
in the same universality class of $ z=1 $ boosted SF-Mott transition.
It is the SOC which leads to the boost which, in turn, leads to one exotic Goldstone mode and one exotic Higgs mode inside the canted phase.
However, at the $ \beta=0 $ Abelian point which maps to a FM in the presence of a staggered Zeeman field along $ x $- axis,
the boost is absent, the transition reduces to the $ z=1 $ 3d XY class, the exotic Goldstone and Higgs modes recover to the conventional ones.
Inside the canted phase, as the SOC increases at a fixed Zeeman field, the transition from the canted phase to the IC-SkX phase
is a novel class of quantum Lifshitz transition with the anisotropic dynamic exponent $ ( z_x=3/2, z_y=3 ) $.
There is an order parameter fractionization (OPF) from one complex order parameter to TWO from the left ( canted to IC-SkX ),
or equivalently, an order parameter reduction (OPR) from TWO complex order parameters to one from the right ( IC-SkX to canted ).
Finite temperature transitions above all these quantum phases and QPTs are presented.
We also examine carefully the relations between the quantum spins and the order parameters which involve
linearly the unitary transformation below $ h_{c1} $ and Bogliubov transformation above $ h_{c2} $.
We also show that these relations still hold phenomenologically when $ h_{c1} < h < h_{c2} $ inside the IC-SkX phase,
despite the two transformations are not defined anymore in the range of the Zeeman field.
We argue that it is the exotic form of the gapless Goldstone mode which leads to un-quantized thermal Hall conductivities even at zero
temperature limit. While the mirror symmetry at $ \beta=\pi/4 $ dictates the vanishing of the thermal Hall conductivities.
The dynamic spin-spin correlation functions are evaluated by using these relations.
Transverse fields which explicitly break the $ U(1)_{soc} $ symmetry are also discussed.
In view of recent impressive experimental advances in generating 2d SOC for cold atoms in optical lattices, these new many-body phenomena
can be explored in the current and near future cold atom experiments.
Some implications to various SOC materials such as MnSi, Fe$_{0.5}$Co$_{0.5}$Si with a strong Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya (DM) interaction in a Zeeman field, especially the recently discovered 4d Kitaev materials $ \alpha-Ru Cl_3 $ in a Zeeman field are discussed.
Some future perspectives are outlined.
Despite there are many previous works on the Boson-Einstein condensation (BEC) of bosons, there are very little works on
magnon condensation in a quantum magnet which is very much different from the BEC.
There is a previous work \cite{z2} phenomenologically assuming the magnon condensation with a $ U(1)_s $ spin-rotation symmetry
is in the same universality class as a 2d $ z=2 $ zero density SF-Mott transition. This spin $ U(1)_s $ symmetry mimics the charge conservation
symmetry of the bosons.
This assumption is confirmed in appendix F.
Our work here in the longitudinal field also has one $ U(1)_{soc} $ symmetry, however, it is a spin-orbital coupled $ U(1)_{soc} $ symmetry, so very much different than the spin $ U(1)_s $ symmetry. Indeed,
as demonstrated in the main text and summarized above, the magnon condensation with SOC is also dramatically different than that
without SOC \cite{z2}. Of course, the BEC of spinor bosons with SOC \cite{pifluxgold,pifluxqsl,NOFQD,SFnon,SFQAH} is
also dramatically different than that without SOC.
Due to the SOC, the response dramatically depends on the orientation of the magnetic field, in the main text, we focus on the longitudinal
field, in the appendix E, we will discuss the two transverse fields.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{globalphase.eps}
\hspace{1cm}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{contourline.eps}
\caption{ Quantum Phases and phase transitions of RFHM in a longitudinal Zeeman field Eq.\eqref{rhh} achieved by the
combination of the effective actions here and the microscopic SWE \cite{rhh}
(a) Below $ h_{c1} $ is the spin-orbital correlated (collinear) Z-x state.
Above $ h_{c2} $ is the (collinear) Z-FM state. Note the three different pieces of $ h_{c2} $.
On the left, $ h_L $ is one canted (co-planar) state. On the right, $ h_R $ is another
canted (co-planar) state. Surrounded by the four commensurate phases is the in-commensurate Skyrmion crystal (non-coplanar) phase (IC-SkX)
with non-vanishing Skyrmion density.
There is a multi-critical ( M ) point where the ( collinear ) Z-FM, the ( co-planar ) canted phase and the ( non-co-planar ) IC-SkX phase meet.
The phases on the left $ \beta < \pi/4 $ are related to the right $ \beta > \pi/4 $ by the Mirror transformation. The center $ \beta = \pi/4 $ respects the Mirror symmetry. At $\beta=\pi/4$, the IC-SkX reduces to a $2\times4$ commensurate SkX where
only the spins (with two different lengths) in the $XY$ plane are shown.
There is one C-C transition from the Z-FM to the canted phase at $ ( h_{c2}, 0 < \beta < \beta_1 ) $ with the dynamic exponent $ z=1 $.
There are three different kinds of C-IC transitions at $ h_{c1} $, $ ( h_{c2}, \beta_1 < \beta < \beta_2 ) $ and $ h_L $ ( or $ h_R $ )
from the Z-x, Z-FM and canted phase to the IC-SkX with the dynamic exponents $ z=2 $, $ z=2 $ and $ (z_x=3/2, z_y=3 ) $ respectively.
For the two transverse fields, see appendix E.
(b) The orbital ordering wavevectors of the two collinear, two coplanar and the non-coplanar phases.
The constant contour plot of the minima $ (0, k_y^0 ) $ of the C-IC magnons in the Z-x state at $ h < h_{c1} $ and Z-FM state
at $ h>h_{c2} $, connected by the orbital ordering wavevectors ( dashed line ) inside the IC-SkX. }
\label{globalphase}
\end{figure}
The spin $ S=N/2 $ Rotated Ferromagnetic Heisenberg model
at a generic SOC parameters $ ( \alpha, \beta) $ in a Zeeman field $ \vec{H} $ along any direction is \cite{rh}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{H}_{RH} = -J\sum_i
[\mathbf{S}_i R(\hat{x},2\alpha)\mathbf{S}_{i+\hat{x}}
+\mathbf{S}_i R(\hat{y},2\beta)\mathbf{S}_{i+\hat{y}}]
- \vec{H} \cdot \sum_i \vec{S}
\label{rhgeneral}
\end{eqnarray}
where the $ R(\hat{x}, 2 \alpha), R(\hat{y}, 2 \beta)$ are
two $ SO(3) $ rotation matrices around the $ \hat{x}, \hat{y} $ spin axis by angle $ 2 \alpha, 2 \beta $
putting along the two bonds $ x,y $ respectively, $H$ is the Zeeman field
which could be induced by the Raman laser in the cold atom set-ups
\cite{expk40,expk40zeeman,clock,2dsocbec,ben}.
Following \cite{rhh}, we focus on studying the phenomena along the line $ (\alpha=\pi/2, 0<\beta<\pi/2 ) $
and in the Zeeman field along the longitudinal $ y $ direction.
After rotating spin $Y$ axis to $Z$ axis by the global rotation $R(\hat{x},\pi/2)$,
(or equivalently, one can just put $ \beta \sigma_z $ along the $ y $ bonds in the square lattice ),
the Hamiltonian Eqn.\ref{rhgeneral} along the line $ ( \alpha=\pi/2, 0<\beta<\pi/2) $
in the $ H $ field along $ y $ direction can be written as:
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{H} = -J\sum_i[\frac{1}{2}(S_i^+S_{i+x}^+ + S_i^-S_{i+x}^-)
-S_i^zS_{i+x}^z + \frac{1}{2}(e^{i2\beta}S_i^+S_{i+y}^-+e^{-i2\beta}S_i^-S_{i+y}^+)
+S_i^zS_{i+y}^z] - H \sum_i S_i^z
\label{rhh}
\end{eqnarray}
where the Zeeman field $H$ is along the $ z $ direction after the global rotation.
The symmetry of the Hamiltonian Eq.\ref{rhh} is generated by \cite{symmetrydiffer}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Translation by one lattice site in $x$ or $y$ direction:
$\mathcal{T}_x: S_i\to S_{i+\hat{x}}$
and $\mathcal{T}_y: S_i\to S_{i+\hat{y}}$.
\item Space reflection with respect to $y$ axis:
$\mathcal{I}_y: S_{i}\to S_{\bar{i}}$,
where $i=(i_x,i_y)$ and $\bar{i}=(-i_x,i_y)$.
\item Spin reflection symmetry:
$\mathcal{P}_z: S_i\to R_z(\pi) S_i$
\item Spin-orbital reflection:
$\mathcal{T}\circ\mathcal{I}_x\circ\mathcal{P}_x$ and
$\mathcal{T}\circ\mathcal{I}_x\circ\mathcal{P}_y$.
\item Spin-orbital coupled $ U(1)_{soc} $ spin-rotation:
$\mathcal{R}: S_i\to R_z((-1)^{i_x}\phi)S_{i}$
\item* Enlarged mirror symmetry at $ \beta=\pi/4 $:
$\mathcal{T}\circ\mathcal{M}$,
where $\mathcal{M}: S_i\to R_x(\pi)R_z(i_y\pi) S_i$.
It maps Hamiltonian SOC parameter $\beta\to\pi/2-\beta$.
$\mathcal{T}\circ\mathcal{M}
: (S_i^x,S_i^y,S_i^z)\to(-(-1)^{i_y}S_i^x,(-1)^{i_y}S_i^y,S_i^z)$
\end{enumerate}
Some of these symmetries are broken in the Z-x, canted and IC-SkX phases, but preserved in the Z-FM state.
They are quite crucial to construct the corresponding effective actions to be presented in the following.
We will take $ 2SJ $ as the energy unit, so all the physical quantities
such as the Zeeman field $ H $, the magnon dispersion $ \omega_k $ and the gap $ \Delta $ will
be dimensionless after taking their ratios over $ 2SJ $.
We will first focus on the left half of Fig.\ref{globalphase} with $ 0 < \beta < \pi/4 $,
then study the right half using the Mirror transformation $ {\cal M} $.
The mirror center $ \beta=\pi/4 $ respects the Mirror symmetry.
\section{Quantum phase transition at the lower critical field $h_{c1}$}
The spin wave expansion (SWE) in the Z-x state below $ h_{c1} $ was performed in \cite{rhh} and reviewed
in the appendix A.
Dropping the higher branch $\alpha_\mathbf{k}$ in Eq.\ref{betak}, it is the
$\beta_\mathbf{k}$ magnon condensation at $\mathbf{K}_0=(0,k_0)$ which leads to the QPT from the Z-x state to the IC-SkX at $ h_{c1} $ in the whole range of $ 0 < \beta < \pi/2 $. The order parameter takes the form:
\begin{equation}
\langle \beta_\mathbf{k}\rangle
=\psi\delta_{\mathbf{k},\mathbf{K}_0},~~~~\langle \alpha_\mathbf{k}\rangle=0
\label{drop}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{K}_0=(0,k_0)$ and $\psi$ is a complex order parameter.
One must use the unitary transformation Eq.\eqref{unitaryTrans} to establish the connection between
the transverse quantum spin and the order parameter:
\begin{align}
S_{A,i}^+
=\sqrt{2S}\langle a_i\rangle
=c\psi e^{ik_0i_y}\quad
S_{B,j}^-
=\sqrt{2S}\langle b_j\rangle
=s\psi e^{ik_0j_y}
\label{k0iyjy}
\end{align}
where $c=c_{\mathbf{K}_0}$ and $s=s_{\mathbf{K}_0}$ are evaluated at $\mathbf{K}_0=(0,k_0)$.
It is easy to see that $ \langle \psi \rangle =0 $ at $ h< h_{c1} $ gives back to the Z-x state.
$ \langle \psi \rangle \neq 0 $ at $ h< h_{c1} $ leads to the IC-SkX state.
The Z-x state spontaneously break the translation along the $x-$ direction by one lattice site
to two lattice site, i.e. $\mathcal{T}_x\to(\mathcal{T}_x)^2$, but still keeps all the other symmetries of the Hamiltonian listed in the introduction. After incorporating this fact, one can study how $\psi$ transform under the symmetries of the Hamiltonian:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Translation:
$(\mathcal{T}_x)^2: \psi(x,y)\to \psi(x,y)$
and $\mathcal{T}_y: \psi(x,y)\to e^{ik_0}\psi(x,y)$;
\item Space reflection:
$\mathcal{I}_y: \psi(x,y)\to \psi(-x,y)$;
\item Spin reflection:
$\mathcal{P}_z: \psi(x,y)\to -\psi(x,y)$;
\item Spin-orbital reflection:
$\mathcal{T}\circ\mathcal{I}_x\circ\mathcal{P}_x:
\psi(x,y)\to -\psi^\ast(x,-y)$ and
$\mathcal{T}\circ\mathcal{I}_x\circ\mathcal{P}_y:
\psi(x,y)\to \psi^\ast(x,-y)$;
\item Spin-orbital $ U(1)_{soc} $ rotation:
$\mathcal{R}: \psi(x,y)\to e^{i\phi_0}\psi(x,y)$;
\item Enlarged mirror symmetry at $\beta=\pi/4$:
$\mathcal{T}\circ\mathcal{M}:
\psi(x,y)\to -\psi^\ast(x,y)$.
\end{enumerate}
Combining the mirror symmetry at $\beta=\pi/4$ with the spin-orbital reflection leads to the fact that
$\mathcal{I}_x\circ\mathcal{P}_x\circ\mathcal{M}$ maps $\psi(x,y)$ to $\psi(x,-y)$ for $\beta=\pi/4$.
It dictates an odd derivative in $\partial_y$ is absent at $\beta=\pi/4$, but may appear when away from $\beta=\pi/4$.
The $\mathcal{I}_y$ at a general $\beta$ dictates an odd derivative in $\partial_x$ is always absent.
The above symmetry analysis suggests the following effective action in the continuum limit with the dynamic exponent $z=2$
\begin{align}
\mathcal{S}_\text{low}
= \int d\tau d^2r
[\psi^\ast\partial_\tau\psi
+v_x^2|\partial_x\psi|^2
+v_y^2|\partial_y\psi|^2
-\mu|\psi|^2
+U|\psi|^4
+iV|\psi|^2\psi^*\partial_y\psi +\cdots ]
\label{z2single}
\end{align}
Our microscopic calculation shows that $ \mu=h-h_{c1} $, $U>0 $ and $ V\propto\sin (2k_0)$ which
vanishes at $ \beta=\pi/4 $ dictated by the mirror symmetry.
Due to the factoring of $ e^{ik_0i_y} $ in Eq.\ref{k0iyjy}, the odd derivative in $ \partial_y $ term first appears in the
interaction $ V $ term.
\subsection{ The spin-orbital order of the IC-SkX state }
At mean field level, we can substitute $\psi =\psi_0=\sqrt{\rho_0}e^{i\phi_0}$
to the effective action Eq.\ref{z2single} and obtain
\begin{align}
\mathcal{S}_0=-\mu\rho_0+U\rho_0^2
\end{align}
When $\mu<0$ at $ h < h_{c1} $, it is in the Z-x state with $ \langle \psi \rangle =0$.
When $\mu>0$ at $ h > h_{c1} $, it is in the IC-SkX state with $ \langle \psi \rangle =\sqrt{\rho_0}e^{i\phi_0}$
where $\rho_0=\sqrt{\mu/2U}$ and $\phi_0$ is a arbitrary angle due to U(1)$_\text{soc}$ symmetry.
Combining Eq.\ref{k0iyjy} with the constraint $|\mathbf{S}_i|^2=S^2$, one obtain
the spin-orbital order of the IC-SkX phase above $ h_{c1} $:
\begin{eqnarray}
S_i^+&=&(\sqrt{\rho_0}/2)[c+s+(-1)^{i_x}(c-s)]e^{(-1)^{i_x}i(k_0i_y+\phi_0)} \nonumber \\
S_i^z&=& [\sqrt{S^2-\rho_0c^2}-\sqrt{S^2-\rho_0s^2}
+(-1)^{i_x}(\sqrt{S^2-\rho_0c^2}+\sqrt{S^2-\rho_0s^2})]
\label{ordercs}
\end{eqnarray}
where the sign $\pm\sqrt{S^2-|S^+|^2}$ is chosen such
that $S_i^z$ reproduce the Z-x order when $\rho_0\to0$.
It leads to the spin-orbital order in the IC-SkX phase when $h<h_*$ which
is the fixed point in IC-SkX phase where one of the two sublattices $S_i^z=0$.
One can also calculate
\begin{align}
\lim_{h\to h_{c1}^-}\frac{|S_A^+|}{|S_B^+|}
=\lim_{h\to h_{c1}^-}\frac{c}{s}
=[2-\cos2\beta\cos k_0-\sqrt{(2-\cos2\beta\cos k_0)^2-1}]
\label{hc1ratiocs}
\end{align}
which indeed matches the ratio $|S_A^+|/|S_B^+|$ calculated by SWE from $h^{+}_{c1}$ shown in Eq.\ref{hc1ratio}.
It is important to stress that the quantum spin in Eq.\ref{ordercs} is linearly related to the magnon operator, in contrast to
many other cases where the quantum spin is quadratically represented in terms of spinon operators.
Amazingly, despite the unitary matrix element $ c $ and $ s $ are only well defined inside the Z-x state below $ h < h_{c1} $.
We can still take them as two phenomenological parameters in Eq.\ref{ordercs} inside the IC-SkX above $ h > h_{c1} $.
It matches the microscopic SWE calculations in \cite{rhh}.
\subsection{Excitation spectrum: exotic Goldstone mode inside the IC-SkX phase}
When $\mu<0$, $ \langle \psi \rangle =0$ inside the Z-x state, expanding the effective action upto second order in $ \psi $ leads to:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{S}_2
&=\int d\tau d^2r
[\psi^\ast\partial_\tau \psi
+v_x^2|\partial_x \psi|^2
+v_y^2|\partial_y \psi|^2-\mu| \psi|^2]
\end{align}
which leads to the gapped excitation spectrum
\begin{align}
\omega_\mathbf{k}
=-\mu+v_x^2k_x^2+v_y^2k_y^2
\label{Zxex}
\end{align}
which matches the results achieved by the microscopic SWE calculation in \cite{rhh}.
When $\mu>0$, $ \langle \psi \rangle = \sqrt{\rho_0}e^{i\phi_0} $ inside the IC-SkX state,
by writing the fluctuations in the polar coordinate
$\psi=\sqrt{\rho_0+\delta\rho}e^{i(\phi_0+\delta\phi)}$, one can expand the action up to the second order in the fluctuations:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{S}_2
&=\int d\tau d^2r
\Big(i\delta\rho\partial_\tau\delta\phi
+\frac{1}{4\rho_0}[v_x^2(\partial_y\delta\rho)^2+v_y^2(\partial_y\delta\rho)^2]
+\rho_0[v_x^2(\partial_x\delta\phi)^2+v_y^2(\partial_y\delta\phi)^2]
+U(\delta\rho)^2
-V\rho_0\delta\rho\partial_y\delta\phi
\Big)
\end{align}
where one can see the odd derivative in $ \partial_y $ term turns into a quadratic term inside the IC-SkX phase.
Integrating out $\delta\rho$ leads to
\begin{align}
\mathcal{S}_2
&=\int d\tau d^2r
\Big(
\frac{1}{4U}[(\partial_\tau-i\rho_0V\partial_y)\phi]^2
+\rho_0[v_x^2(\partial_x\delta\phi)^2+v_y^2(\partial_y\delta\phi)^2]
\Big)
\end{align}
where one can see the odd derivative in $ \partial_y $ term sneaks into $ \partial_\tau $ term inside the IC-SkX phase
and behaves like a boost term to be discussed in Sec.IV.
It leads to the exotic Goldstone mode due to the $ U(1)_{soc} $ symmetry breaking:
\begin{align}
\omega_\mathbf{k}
=\sqrt{4U\rho_0(v_x^2k_x^2+v_y^2k_y^2)}-V\rho_0 k_y
\label{Goldhc1}
\end{align}
which recovers the conventional Goldstone mode at the mirror symmetric point $ \beta=\pi/4 $ where $ V=0 $.
\subsection{ QPT: Type-II dangerously irrelevant operators away from the mirror symmetric point }
At the mirror symmetric point $ \beta=\pi/4 $, $ V=0 $, so the
effective action Eq.\ref{z2single} is in the same universality class as the $ z=2 $ zero density SF-Mott transition
where the interaction $ U $ term is marginally irrelevant.
When away from the mirror symmetric point, the $ V $ term moves in.
However, simple power counting shows that it is irrelevant near the $ z=2 $ zero density SF-Mott QCP.
However, inside the IC-SkX phase, as shown in Eq.\ref{Goldhc1}, it modifies the spectrum of the Goldstone mode
by an extra linear term, so it is marginal and plays a crucial role inside the phase.
This is sharp contrast to the well known dangerously irrelevant operator which is irrelevant near the QCP, but
relevant inside the phase and changes the ground state. We call this new type of dangerously irrelevant operator Type -II, while the known one as Type-I. For example, the Type-I appears and leads to the $ N=2 $ XY-AFM phase presented in \cite{NOFQD}.
So the universality class for the QPT at $h_{c1}$ is nothing but the $z=2$ 2d SF-Mott transition at the mirror symmetric point,
plus a Type-II dangerous irrelevant operator away from it.
\section{Quantum phase transition at the upper critical field $h_{c2}$ in the middle range $\beta_1<\beta<\beta_2$. }
The SWE in the FM state above $ h_{c2} $ was also performed in \cite{rhh} and reviewed in appendix B2.
It is the $\alpha_\mathbf{k}$ magnon condensation in Eq.\ref{alphak} which leads to the QPT from the FM state to the IC-SkX at $
h_{c2} $ in the middle range $\beta_1<\beta<\beta_2$. The order parameter takes the form:
\begin{equation}
\langle \alpha_\mathbf{k}\rangle =\psi_1\delta_{\mathbf{k},\mathbf{K}_1}
+\psi_2\delta_{\mathbf{k},\mathbf{K}_2}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{K}_1=(0,k_0), \mathbf{K}_2=(\pi,k_0)$ and $\psi_1, \psi_2$ are the two complex order parameters.
One must use the Bogoliubov transformation Eq.\eqref{bogoliubovTrans} to establish the connection between the transverse quantum spin
and the two complex order parameters:
\begin{align}
\langle S_i^+\rangle
\propto
u[\psi_1+(-1)^{i_x}\psi_2]e^{ik_0i_y}
+v[\psi_1^\ast-(-1)^{i_x}\psi_2^\ast]e^{-ik_0i_y}
\label{pmk0y}
\end{align}
where $u=u_{\mathbf{K}_1}=u_{\mathbf{K}_2}$
and $v=v_{\mathbf{K}_1}=-v_{\mathbf{K}_2}$.
Because the Z-x state breaks no symmetry of the Hamiltonian, so
one can study how $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$ transform under the symmetries of the Hamiltonian listed in the Introduction:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Translation:
$\mathcal{T}_x: (\psi_1,\psi_2)(x,y)\to (\psi_1,-\psi_2)(x,y)$
and $\mathcal{T}_y: (\psi_1,\psi_2)(x,y)\to (e^{ik_0}\psi_1,e^{ik_0}\psi_2)(x,y)$;
\item Space reflection:
$\mathcal{I}_y:
(\psi_1,\psi_2)(x,y)
\to (\psi_1,\psi_2)(-x,y)$;
\item Spin reflection:
$\mathcal{P}_z:
(\psi_1,\psi_2)(x,y)
\to (-\psi_1,-\psi_2)(x,y)$;
\item Spin-orbital reflection:
$\mathcal{T}\circ\mathcal{I}_x\circ\mathcal{P}_x:
(\psi_1,\psi_2)(x,y)
\to (-\psi_1^\ast,-\psi_2^\ast)(x,-y)$\\ and
$\mathcal{T}\circ\mathcal{I}_x\circ\mathcal{P}_y
: (\psi_1,\psi_2)(x,y)
\to (\psi_1^\ast,\psi_2^\ast)(x,-y)$;
\item Spin-orbital $ U(1)_{soc} $ rotation:
$\mathcal{R}: (\psi_1,\psi_2)(x,y)
\to (\psi_1\cos\phi+i\psi_2\sin\phi,
\psi_2\cos\phi+i\psi_1\sin\phi)(x,y)$;
\item Enlarged mirror symmetry at $\beta=\pi/4$:
$\mathcal{T}\circ\mathcal{M}:
(\psi_1,\psi_2)(x,y)
\to(-\psi_1^\ast,-\psi_2^\ast)(x,y)$.
\end{enumerate}
where
the notation $(\psi_1,\psi_2)(x,y)$ means $(\psi_1(x,y),\psi_2(x,y))$.
Combining the mirror symmetry at $\beta=\pi/4$ with the spin-orbital reflection leads to the fact that
$\mathcal{I}_x\circ\mathcal{P}_x\circ\mathcal{M}$ maps $(\psi_1,\psi_2)(x,y)$ to $(\psi_1,\psi_2)(x,-y)$
for $\beta=\pi/4$. It dictates an odd derivative in $\partial_y$ is absent at $\beta=\pi/4$, but may appear when away from $\beta=\pi/4$.
The $\mathcal{I}_y$ at a general $\beta$ dictates an odd derivative in $\partial_x$ is always absent.
The above symmetry analysis suggests
the following two-component effective action with the dynamic exponent $z=2$ in the continuum limit,
\begin{align}
\mathcal{S}_{12}
=\int d\tau d^2r
[&\sum_{\alpha=1,2}
(\psi_\alpha^\ast\partial_\tau\psi_\alpha
+v_x^2|\partial_x\psi_\alpha|^2
+v_y^2|\partial_y\psi_\alpha|^2)
-\mu(|\psi_1|^2+|\psi_2|^2)
+U(|\psi_1|^2+|\psi_2|^2)^2
-A(\psi_1\psi_2^\ast+\psi_1^\ast\psi_2)^2\nonumber\\
&+iV_1(|\psi_1|^2+|\psi_2|^2)
(\psi_1^\ast\partial_y\psi_1+\psi_2^\ast\partial_y\psi_2)
+iV_2(\psi_1\psi_2^\ast+\psi_1^\ast\psi_2)
(\psi_1\partial_y\psi_2^\ast+\psi_1^\ast\partial_y\psi_2)]
\label{12basis}
\end{align}
Our microscopic calculation shows that $ \mu=h_{c2}-h, U=h(u^2+v^2)^2+2(1+h) > A=(4+h) > 0 $.
Furthermore, $ V_1, V_2 \propto\sin (2k_0)$, both of which vanish at $ \beta=\pi/4 $ dictated by the Mirror symmetry.
Due to the factoring out of $ e^{\pm ik_0i_y} $ in Eq.\ref{pmk0y}, the odd derivative in $\partial_y$ term first appears
in the interaction $ V_1, V_2 $ terms.
In fact, as suggested by Eq.\ref{pmk0y}, the physics may become more transparent in the new basis:
\begin{align}
\psi_+=(\psi_1+\psi_2)/\sqrt{2},\quad
\psi_-=(\psi_1-\psi_2)/\sqrt{2}
\end{align}
where the above effective action becomes \cite{exclude}
\begin{align}
\mathcal{S}_{\pm}
=\int d\tau d^2r
[&\sum_{\alpha=+,-}
(\psi_\alpha^\ast\partial_\tau\psi_\alpha
+v_x^2|\partial_x\psi_\alpha|^2
+v_y^2|\partial_y\psi_\alpha|^2)
-\mu(|\psi_+|^2+|\psi_-|^2)
+U(|\psi_+|^2+|\psi_-|^2)^2
-A(|\psi_+|^2-|\psi_-|^2)^2\nonumber\\
&+iV_1(|\psi_+|^2+|\psi_-|^2)
(\psi_+^\ast\partial_y\psi_++\psi_-^\ast\partial_y\psi_-)
+iV_2(|\psi_+|^2-|\psi_-|^2)
(\psi_+\partial_y\psi_+^\ast-\psi_-^\ast\partial_y\psi_-)]
\label{pmbasis}
\end{align}
which enjoys a $ U(1)_{soc} \times U(1)_{ic} $ symmetry when $k_0/\pi$ is an irrational number \cite{irrational}.
The first SOC $ U(1)_{soc} $ maps
$(\psi_+,\psi_-)\to(e^{i\phi_0}\psi_+,e^{-i\phi_0}\psi_-)$, while the second $ U(1)_{ic} $ is generated by
the whole family of $\mathcal{T}^n_y, n=1,2,3.......$ which maps
$(\psi_+,\psi_-) \to (e^{i k_0 n }\psi_+,e^{i k_0 n}\psi_-)$. Because $k_0/\pi$ is an irrational number,
so $ \theta_0= k_0 n $ becomes a continuous variable leading to a new emergent $ U(1)_{ic} $ symmetry.
However, if $k_0/\pi=p/q$ with $p$ and $q$ are two coprime positive integers \cite{irrational},
then $(\mathcal{T}_y)^{2q}=1$ and
the action should include an extra Umklapp term:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{S}_\text{Um}
&=\int d\tau d^2r\{
[B_q(\psi_1^2-\psi_2^2)^q+c.c.]
+[iC_q(\psi_1^2-\psi_2^2)^{q-1}
(\psi_1\partial_y\psi_2-\psi_2\partial_y\psi_1)+c.c.]+\cdots\} \\ \nonumber
&=2^q\int d\tau d^2r\{
[B_q(\psi_+\psi_-)^{q}+c.c.]
+[iC_q(\psi_+\psi_-)^{q-1}(\psi_+\partial_y\psi_-)+c.c.]+\cdots\}
\label{umterm}
\end{align}
which breaks explicitly only the $ U(1)_{ic} $, but not the $ U(1)_{soc} $ symmetry. The $B_q,C_q$ maybe complex for $\beta\neq\pi/4$ and $\cdots$ means high order terms with power $2nq$ ($n>1$).
At the mirror symmetric point $ \beta=\pi/4 $, $k_0=\pi/2$ with $q=2$, then $\mathcal{S}_\text{Um}$ is quartic order in $\psi_{1,2}$ .
So one must consider this $ B_2 $ term at $ \beta=\pi/4 $ where the mirror symmetry dictates $ C_2=0 $ and also the absence of the
two type-II dangerously irrelevant $ V_1,V_2 $ terms.
\begin{align}
\mathcal{S}_M
=\int d\tau d^2r
[&\sum_{\alpha=+,-}
(\psi_\alpha^\ast\partial_\tau\psi_\alpha
+v_x^2|\partial_x\psi_\alpha|^2
+v_y^2|\partial_y\psi_\alpha|^2)
-\mu(|\psi_+|^2+|\psi_-|^2)
+U(|\psi_+|^2+|\psi_-|^2)^2 \\ \nonumber
& -A(|\psi_+|^2-|\psi_-|^2)^2+ B_2 (\psi_+\psi_-)^{2}+c.c. ]
\label{pmbasisM}
\end{align}
In the regime $0\leq k_0\leq\pi/2$ in Fig.2a, $q\geq 2$, so $\mathcal{S}_\text{Um}$ becomes higher order
when $\beta<\pi/4$ with $ q>2 $. Then it become highly irrelevant in the renormalization group (RG) sense, so can be dropped \cite{contrastNOFQD}.
\subsection{ The spin-orbital order of the ground state }
The $ \psi_{\pm} $ basis is good for symmetry analysis （ see Sec.C）. However,
the saddle point solution $ (\langle\psi_-\rangle=0, \langle\psi_+\rangle \neq 0 $ or
$ ( \langle\psi_-\rangle \neq 0, \langle\psi_+\rangle=0 ) $ inside the IC-SkX phase,
so it is not convenient to investigate quantum fluctuations in the polar coordinate \cite{singular}. Here, we get back to the $(\psi_1,\psi_2)$ basis.
At mean-field level, we can substitute
$\psi_\alpha\to\sqrt{\rho_\alpha}e^{i\phi_\alpha}, \alpha=1,2$
to the effective action Eq.\ref{12basis}
\begin{align}
\mathcal{S}_0\propto
-\mu(\rho_1+\rho_2)
+U(\rho_1+\rho_2)^2
-4A\rho_1\rho_2\cos^2(\phi_1-\phi_2) \\ \nonumber
=-\mu(\rho_++\rho_-)
+U(\rho_++\rho_-)^2
-A(\rho_+-\rho_-)^2
\end{align}
When $\mu=h_{c2}-h <0$, it is in the Z-FM phase with $ \langle \psi_1 \rangle = \langle \psi_2 \rangle=0$.
When $\mu>0$, it is in the IC-SkX phase with $ \langle \psi_1 \rangle= \langle \psi_2 \rangle=\sqrt{\rho_0/2}e^{i\phi_0}$
and $\rho_1=\rho_2=\rho_0/2=\sqrt{\mu/8(U-A)}$.
It is easy to see the symmetry breaking pattern is described by the coset \cite{socsdw}:
\begin{equation}
U(1)_{soc} \times U(1)_{ic}/[U(1)_{soc} \times U(1)_{ic}]_D
\label{coset}
\end{equation}
where the diagonal ( D ) means $ y \to y+n, \phi_0 \to \phi_0 - n k^0_y $
generated by $ \mathcal{T}^{n}_y \times \mathcal{R}( n k^0_y ) $ for any integer $ n $ \cite{iclead}.
The coset dictates only one Goldstone mode. Note that the IC-SkX phase breaks all other symmetries
of the Hamiltonian except $\mathcal{I}_x$ and $ [U(1)_{soc} \times U(1)_{ic}]_D $.
For the commensurate case $k_0/\pi=p/q$, we may also include the Umklapp contribution:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{S}_0\propto
-\mu(\rho_1+\rho_2)
+U(\rho_1+\rho_2)^2
-4A\rho_1\rho_2\cos^2(\phi_1-\phi_2)
+B_q[(\rho_1e^{i2\phi_1}-\rho_2e^{i2\phi_2})^q
+c.c.]
\end{align}
When $A\gg|B_q|$, the mean field solution $ \langle \psi_1 \rangle = \langle \psi_2 \rangle=0$ for $\mu<0$
and $ \langle \psi_1 \rangle= \langle \psi_2 \rangle=\sqrt{\rho_0/2}e^{i\phi_0}$ for $\mu>0$ still holds.
This fact can be best seen in the $(\psi_+,\psi_-)$ basis:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{S}_0\propto
-\mu(\rho_++\rho_-)
+(U-A)(\rho_++\rho_-)^2
+4\rho_+\rho_-\{A+2B_q(4\rho_+\rho_-)^{q/2-1}\cos[q(\phi_++\phi_-)]\}
\end{align}
where $ \rho_+ + \rho_-=\rho_0 $.
When $A>2|B_q|\rho_0^{q-2} $,
the last term is always non-negative which ensures $\rho_+\rho_-=0$ in the mean field ground-state.
Combing Eq.\ref{pmk0y} with the constraint $|\mathbf{S}_i|^2=S^2$, one obtain the spin-orbital order of the IC-SkX phase below $ h_{c2} $
\begin{eqnarray}
S_i^+&=&\sqrt{\rho_0/2}[u+v+(-1)^{i_x}(u-v)]e^{(-1)^{i_x}i(k_0i_y+\phi_0)} \\ \nonumber
S_i^z&=&[\sqrt{S^2-2\rho_0u^2}+\sqrt{S^2-2\rho_0u^2}
+(-1)^{i_x}(\sqrt{S^2-2\rho_0u^2}-\sqrt{S^2-2\rho_0u^2})]/2
\label{orderuv}
\end{eqnarray}
where the sign $\pm\sqrt{S^2-|S^+|^2}$ is chosen such
that $S_i^z$ reproduce the Z-FM when $\rho_0\to0$.
It leads to the spin-orbital order in the IC-SkX phase when $ h_*< H < h_{c2} $ which
is the fixed point in the IC-SkX phase where one of the two sublattices $S_i^z=0$.
After identifying the even/odd $i_x$ to be $A$/$B$ sub-lattice, one can also calculate
\begin{equation}
\lim_{h\to h_{c2}^+}\frac{|S_A^+|}{|S_B^+|}
=\lim_{h\to h_{c2}^+} \frac{v}{u}
=\sqrt{\sin^42\beta+\sin^22\beta}
-\sqrt{\sin^42\beta-\cos^22\beta}
\label{hc2ratiouv}
\end{equation}
which indeed matches the ratio $|S_A^+|/|S_B^+|$
calculated using the SWE from below $ h^{-}_{c2}$ shown in Eq.\ref{hc2ratio}.
It is important to stress that the quantum spin in Eq.\ref{pmk0y}
( or Eq.\ref{orderuv} ) is linearly related to the magnon operator, in contrast to
many other cases where the quantum spin is quadratically represented in terms of spinon operators.
Amazingly, despite the Bogliubov transformation matrix element $ u $ and $ v $ are only well defined above $ h > h_{c2} $.
We can still take the two as two phenomenological parameters in Eq.\ref{pmk0y} ( or Eq.\ref{orderuv} ) inside the IC-SkX below $ h < h_{c2} $.
It indeed matches the microscopic calculation using SWE in \cite{rhh}.
Note that Eq.\ref{orderuv} takes the identical form as Eq.\ref{ordercs} after replacing the
Bogliubov transformation matrix elements $ u,v$ by the unitary transformation matrix elements $ c,s $.
It is remarkable that one can extend the unitary transformation matrix elements $ c,s $ in the Z-x phase above $ h_{c1} $ and
the Bogliubov transformation matrix elements $ u, v $ in the FM state below $ h_{c2} $ and reach the same spin-orbital
structure of the IC-SkX phase in Eq.\ref{ordercs} and Eq.\ref{orderuv} respectively.
\subsection{Excitation spectrum: exotic gapless Goldstone and gapped roton mode }
When $\mu<0$, it is in the Z-FM state with $ \langle \psi_{\alpha} \rangle = 0, \alpha=1,2 $, expanding the effective action
upto the second order in $\psi_\alpha$ leads to:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{S}_2
=\int d\tau d^2r
\sum_{\alpha=1,2}
(\psi_\alpha^\ast\partial_\tau \psi_\alpha
+v_x^2|\partial_x \psi_\alpha|^2
+v_y^2|\partial_y \psi_\alpha|^2
-\mu|\psi_\alpha|^2)
\end{align}
which lead to 2 degenerate gapped modes
\begin{align}
\omega_{1,2}=-\mu+v_x^2k_x^2+v_y^2k_y^2
\label{gapmiddle}
\end{align}
which matches the result achieved by SWE in \cite{rhh}.
When $\mu>0$, it is in IC-SkX state with $ \langle \psi_\alpha \rangle = \sqrt{\rho_\alpha}e^{i\phi_\alpha}, \alpha=1,2$,
one may write the fluctuations in the polar coordinate as
$\psi_\alpha=\sqrt{\rho_0/2+\delta\rho_\alpha}e^{i(\phi_0+\delta\phi_\alpha)}$
and expand the action upto the second order in the fluctuations.
It turns out to be convenient to introduce
$\delta\rho_\pm=(\delta\rho_1\pm\delta\rho_2)/\sqrt{2}$
and $\delta\phi_\pm=(\delta\phi_1\pm\delta\phi_2)/\sqrt{2}$ where the action becomes
\begin{align}
\mathcal{S}_2
&=\int d\tau d^2r\Big(
i\delta\rho_+\partial_\tau\delta\phi_+
+\frac{1}{2\rho_0}
[v_x^2(\partial_x\delta\rho_+)
+v_y^2(\partial_y\delta\rho_+)]
+\frac{\rho_0}{2}
[v_x^2(\partial_x\delta\phi_+)
+v_y^2(\partial_y\delta\phi_+)]
+2(U-A)(\delta\rho_+)^2 \\ \nonumber
&+i\delta\rho_-\partial_\tau\delta\phi_-
+\frac{1}{2\rho_0}
[v_x^2(\partial_x\delta\rho_-)
+v_y^2(\partial_y\delta\rho_-)]
+\frac{\rho_0}{2}
[v_x^2(\partial_x\delta\phi_-)
+v_y^2(\partial_y\delta\phi_-)]
+2A(\delta\rho_-)^2
+2A\rho_0^2(\delta\phi_-)^2 \\ \nonumber
&-V_1\rho_0[4\delta\rho_+\partial_y\delta\phi_+
+2\delta\rho_-\partial_y\delta\phi_-]
-V_2\rho_0[4\delta\rho_+\partial_y\delta\phi_+
-2\delta\rho_-\partial_y\delta\phi_-]\Big)
\end{align}
which leads to one exotic gapless Goldstone and one exotic gapped roton mode
\begin{eqnarray}
\omega_{+,\mathbf{k}}
&=&\sqrt{4\rho_0(U-A)(v_x^2k_x^2+v_y^2k_y^2)}
-(4V_1+2V_2)\rho_0k_y, \\ \nonumber
\omega_{-,\mathbf{k}}
&=&\sqrt{16\rho_0^2A^2+8\rho_0A(v_x^2k_x^2+v_y^2k_y^2)}
-(4V_1-2V_2)\rho_0k_y
\label{GoldRoton}
\end{eqnarray}
where the Goldstone mode achieved from below $ h_{c2} $ takes the same form as that in Eq.\ref{Goldhc1}
achieved from above $ h_{c1} $. While the gapped roton mode corresponds to the higher branch $\alpha_\mathbf{k}$
in Eq.\ref{drop} which is ignored in the effective action Eq.\ref{z2single}.
This match is a good check on the consistency between
the effective action from $ h_{c2} $ down and that from $ h_{c1} $ up.
At the mirror symmetric point $\beta=\pi/4$ ( $k_0=\pi/2$ ) which dictates $V_1=V_2=C_2=0$.
Eq.\ref{pmbasisM} in the $ \psi_{1,2} $ representation becomes:
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{S}_2
& = &\int d\tau d^2r\Big(
i\delta\rho_+\partial_\tau\delta\phi_+
+\frac{1}{2\rho_0}
[v_x^2(\partial_x\delta\rho_+)
+v_y^2(\partial_y\delta\rho_+)]
+\frac{\rho_0}{2}
[v_x^2(\partial_x\delta\phi_+)
+v_y^2(\partial_y\delta\phi_+)]
+2(U-A)(\delta\rho_+)^2 \\ \nonumber
& + & i\delta\rho_-\partial_\tau\delta\phi_-
+\frac{1}{2\rho_0}
[v_x^2(\partial_x\delta\rho_-)
+v_y^2(\partial_y\delta\rho_-)]
+\frac{\rho_0}{2}
[v_x^2(\partial_x\delta\phi_-)
+v_y^2(\partial_y\delta\phi_-)]
+2A(\delta\rho_-)^2
+2A\rho_0^2(\delta\phi_-)^2 \\ \nonumber
& + & 4B_2\cos4\phi_0[(\delta\rho_-)^2-\rho_0^2(\delta\phi_-)^2]
-8B_2\sin4\phi_0(\delta\rho_-)(\delta\phi_-)\Big)
\end{eqnarray}
where one can see the $ B_2 $ term are endowed with a $ \phi_0 $ dependence and
only affects the gapped roton $ - $ mode, but not the gapless Goldstone $ + $ mode.
This is expected, because this $ B_2 $ term breaks only the $ U(1)_{ic} $, but not the $ U(1)_{soc} $ symmetry.
The excitations can be extracted as:
\begin{align}
\omega_{+,\mathbf{k}}
&=\sqrt{4\rho_0(U-A)(v_x^2k_x^2+v_y^2k_y^2)}, \\ \nonumber
\omega_{-,\mathbf{k}}
&=\sqrt{16\rho_0^2(A^2-4B_2^2)+8\rho_0A(v_x^2k_x^2+v_y^2k_y^2)}
\end{align}
which recover to the conventional form and are independent of $ \phi_0 $ as expected.
It also indicate the Umklapp term at $ \beta=\pi/4 $ does not affect the Goldstone mode, but decrease the roton gap.
\subsection{ QPT: Two Type-II dangerously irrelevant operators away from the mirror symmetric point }
When away from the mirror symmetric point, the Umklapp terms drop out, but the $ V_1, V_2 $ term move in.
The symmetry is enlarged to $ U(1)_{soc} \times U(1)_{ic} $ which is
spontaneously broken down to $ [ U(1)_{soc} \times U(1)_{ic}]_D $ in the IC-SkX phase leading to
one Goldstone mode. In fact, there is also a $ Z_2 $ exchange symmetry between $ \psi_1 $ and $ \psi_2 $
( or $ \psi_+ $ and $ \psi_- $ ) which is also broken inside the IC-SkX phase.
The universality class can be best seen in the $ \psi_{\pm} $ basis Eq.\ref{pmbasis}.
Because it is the Ising limit, so the saddle point solution
$ \langle\psi_-\rangle=0 $ or $\langle\psi_+\rangle=0 $ still respects $ [ U(1)_{soc} \times U(1)_{ic}]_D $
generated by $ \mathcal{T}^{n}_y \times \mathcal{R}( n k^0_y ) $. The two different solutions correspond to
the exchange of A and B sublattices in the IC-SkX phase. As shown above, the Two Type-II dangerously irrelevant
operators $ V_1, V_2 $ modify both the Goldstone and the roton mode to the exotic form.
In one appendix of \cite{pifluxqsl}, we studied the SF-Mott transition in a one component boson at integer filling
subject to a $ \pi $ flux and reached the same effective action as Eq.\ref{pmbasis} upto to the quartic order, also in Ising limit.
However, there are no dangerously irrelevant operators.
In \cite{dual1}, we studied the SF to charge density wave (CDW) transition
one component boson at half filling in a honeycomb lattice with nearest neighbor repulsive interaction.
We also reached a similar effective action as Eq.\ref{pmbasis}, also in the Ising limit, with $ \psi_{\pm} $ standing for
the vortex degree of freedoms hopping in a dual triangular lattice which couple to a gapless fluctuating $ U(1) $ gauge field.
The saddle point solution $ \langle\psi_-\rangle=0, \langle\psi_+\rangle \neq 0 $ or
$ \langle\psi_-\rangle \neq 0, \langle\psi_+\rangle=0 $ correspond to the two CDW states which breaks
the $ U(1) $ gauge symmetry, open a gap through the Higgs mechanism. There are no dangerously irrelevant operators either.
At the mirror symmetric point $ \beta=\pi/4 $, the $ V_1, V_2 $ term drop out, but the Umklapp term Eq.\ref{umterm} move in Eq.\ref{pmbasisM}.
It remains in the Ising limit where one of $ \psi_{\pm} $ vanishes. So the Umklapp term will not change the universality class.
Due to the absence of the two Type-II dangerously irrelevant operators, the Goldstone and roton modes recover to the conventional ones.
\section{ Quantum phase transition at $h_{c2}$ and in the left range $0<\beta<\beta_1$: Order parameter reduction }
The SWE in the FM state above $ h_{c2} $ leads to Eq.\ref{alphak}.
It is the $\alpha_\mathbf{k}$ magnon condensation which leads to the QPT from the FM state to the canted phase at $
h_{c2} $ in the left range $ 0<\beta<\beta_1 $. In contrast to the middle range presented in the previous section, the condensation happens at
the two commensurate momentum $ 0 $ and $\mathbf{Q}=\mathbf{K}_2-\mathbf{K}_1=(\pi,0)$, so the order parameter takes the form:
\begin{equation}
\langle \alpha_\mathbf{k}\rangle =\psi_1\delta_{\mathbf{k},0} +\psi_2\delta_{\mathbf{k},\mathbf{Q}}
\label{cantalpha}
\end{equation}
where $\psi_1, \psi_2$ are the two complex order parameters.
One must use the Bogoliubov transformation Eq.\eqref{bogoliubovTrans} to establish the connection between the quantum spin
and the two complex order parameters:
\begin{align}
\langle S_i^+\rangle
\propto
u[\psi_1+(-1)^{i_x}\psi_2]
+v[\psi_1^\ast-(-1)^{i_x}\psi_2^\ast]
\propto
(\psi_1+\psi_1^\ast)+(-1)^{i_x}(\psi_2-\psi_2^\ast)
=\psi_R+(-1)^{i_x}i\psi_I
\label{compact}
\end{align}
where we have used the fact $u=u_{0}=u_{\mathbf{Q}}=\infty$
and $v=v_{0}=-v_{\mathbf{Q}}=\infty$, but their ratio $u/v=1$, so they can be factored out.
In fact, the Bogoliubov transformation matrix elements $ u, v $ are only finite at IC-momentum, but diverge at C-momentum.
Naively, similar to the last section, one may still need to use the two complex order parameters $ \psi_1, \psi_2 $ to construct
the effective action. However, Eq.\ref{compact} shows that the relevant order parameter maybe just ONE complex field as
$\psi=\psi_1+\psi_1^\ast+\psi_2-\psi_2^\ast$ whose real part $\psi_R=\Re \psi=\psi_1+\psi_1^\ast$ and
imaginary part $\psi_I=\Im \psi=-i(\psi_2-\psi_2^\ast)$ can be used to determine the quantum spin uniquely.
This observation is further substantiated by the crucial fact that under $ U(1)_{soc} $, $ \psi \rightarrow e^{ i \phi_0 } \psi $
as shown in the item 4 below. One may call this new phenomenon as order parameter reduction (OPR) from 2 to 1 which simplifies the following analysis considerably. Intuitively, one may also think $ \psi $ as a composite operator consisting of two components $ \psi_1, \psi_2 $,
one leads to its real part, the other leads to its imaginary part. The two components will emerge as two independent ones when getting into
a IC-phase. This fractionization process indeed happens as shown in Sec V.
Because the Z-FM state breaks no symmetry of the Hamiltonian, so one can study how the single order parameter $\psi$
transform under symmetries of $\mathcal{H}$,
\begin{enumerate}
\item Translation:
$\mathcal{T}_x: \psi(x,y)\to \psi^\ast(x,y)$
and $\mathcal{T}_y: \psi(x,y)\to \psi(x,y)$;
\item Space reflection:
$\mathcal{I}_y: \psi(x,y)\to \psi(-x,y)$;
\item Spin reflection:
$\mathcal{P}_z: \psi(x,y)\to -\psi(x,y)$;
\item Spin-orbital reflection:
$\mathcal{T}\circ\mathcal{I}_x\circ\mathcal{P}_x:
\psi(x,y)\to -\psi^\ast(x,-y)$ and
$\mathcal{T}\circ\mathcal{I}_x\circ\mathcal{P}_y:
\psi(x,y)\to \psi^\ast(x,-y)$;
\item Spin-orbital $ U(1)_{soc} $ rotation:
$\mathcal{R}: \psi(x,y)\to e^{i\phi_0}\psi(x,y)$;
\item Enlarged mirror symmetry at $\beta=\pi/4$:
$\mathcal{T}\circ\mathcal{M}:
\psi(x,y)\to -\psi^\ast(x,y)$.
( of course, $\beta=\pi/4$ is beyond this regime )
\end{enumerate}
The above symmetry analysis leads to
the following one complex component boosted effective action with the dynamic exponent $z=1$ In the continuum limit:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{S}
=\int d\tau d^2r
[(\partial_\tau\psi^*-ic\partial_y\psi^*)
(\partial_\tau\psi-ic\partial_y\psi)
+v_x^2|\partial_x\psi|^2
+v_y^2|\partial_y\psi|^2
-\mu|\psi|^2+U|\psi|^4]
\label{boostleft}
\end{align}
where one need to realize
$ (\partial_\tau\psi^*-ic\partial_y\psi^*)(\partial_\tau\psi-ic\partial_y\psi) \neq |(\partial_\tau\psi-ic\partial_y\psi)|^2 $.
Our microscopic calculation shows that $ \mu=h_{c2}-h, U > 0 $ and
$c\propto\sin2\beta$. Due to the magnon condensations at only the two C-momenta, the odd derivative in $\partial_y$ terms only appear
in the combination with $ \partial_{\tau} -ic \partial_y $ which specifies the kinetic term in Eq.\ref{boostleft}.
Note that $ c=0 $ vanishes at the Abelian point $\beta=0$.
This is because that at the Abelian point $\beta=0$, in addition to the $ U(1)_{soc} $ symmetry, there is an enlarged space reflection $\mathcal{I}_x:\psi(x,y)\to \psi(x,-y)$.
See also appendix E.
\subsection{ The spin-orbital order of the ground state }
At the mean-field level, we can substitute $\psi\to\sqrt{\rho_0}e^{i\phi_0}$ into the effective action Eq.\ref{boostleft}
\begin{align}
\mathcal{S}=-\mu\rho_0+U\rho_0^2
\end{align}
When $\mu= h_{c2}-h <0$, it is in the Z-FM state with $ \langle \psi \rangle =0$.
When $\mu>0$, it is in the canted phase with $ \langle \psi \rangle=\sqrt{\rho_0}e^{i\phi_0}$
where $\rho_0=\mu/2U$ and $\phi_0$ is a arbitrary angle due to the U(1)$_\text{soc}$ symmetry.
Taking the real and imaginary part of $ \langle \psi \rangle $, then combing Eq.\ref{compact} with the constraint $|\mathbf{S}_i|^2=S^2$, one obtain
the spin-orbital order of the canted phase as:
\begin{align}
\langle S_i^+\rangle=\sqrt{\rho_0}[\cos\phi_0+(-1)^{i_x}i\sin\phi_0],
\quad \langle S_i^z\rangle=\sqrt{S^2-\rho_0}
\label{cantorder}
\end{align}
where the sign of $\pm\sqrt{S^2-|S^+|^2}$ is
chosen such that $S_i^z$ reproduces the Z-FM order when $\rho_0\to0$.
It is obvious Eq.\eqref{cantorder} indeed matches the spin-orbital order of the canted phase
achieved by the microscopic SWE calculations in \cite{rhh}.
Remarkably, despite we only use one complex order parameter $ \psi $,
one can still use its real and imaginary part to stand for the transverse quantum spin with TWO
C- ordering wavevectors $ (0,0) $ and $\mathbf{Q}=\mathbf{K}_2-\mathbf{K}_1=(\pi,0)$.
\subsection{ Excitation spectrum: Exotic Goldstone mode and Higgs mode }
In the Z-FM phase, $\mu < 0$, one can write $\psi=\psi_R+i \psi_I$ as its real part and imaginary part
and expand the action upto second order
\begin{align}
\mathcal{S}
=\int d\tau d^2r
\sum_{\alpha=R,I}
[(\partial_\tau \psi_\alpha
-ic\partial_y \psi_\alpha)^2
+v_x^2(\partial_x \psi_\alpha)^2
+v_y^2(\partial_y \psi_\alpha)^2
-\mu( \psi_\alpha)^2]
\end{align}
which lead to 2 degenerate gapped modes
\begin{align}
\omega_{R,I}=\sqrt{-\mu+v_x^2k_x^2+v_y^2k_y^2}-ck_y
\label{gapleft}
\end{align}
which match the results achieved by SWE in \cite{rhh}.
Eq.\ref{gapleft} can be contrasted to Eq.\ref{gapmiddle}, both are gapped modes in the Z-x phase.
The difference is that the latter is expanded around the two true in-commensurate minima $\mathbf{K}_1=(0,k_0), \mathbf{K}_2=(\pi,k_0)$
whose constant contour is shown in Fig.1b and indicates the dynamic exponent $ z=2 $
while the former is expanded around the two commensurate momentum $ (0,0) $ and $ (\pi,0) $ which are not the true minima
until hitting the left segment of $ h_{c2} $
as shown in Fig.1b, it indicates the dynamic exponent $ z=1 $.
In the canted phase, $\mu>0$, we can write the fluctuations in the polar coordinates
$\psi=\sqrt{\rho_0+\delta\rho}e^{i(\phi_0+\delta\phi)}$
and expand the action up to the second order in the fluctuations:
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{S}
& = & \frac{1}{2\rho_0}\int d\tau d^2r\Big(
[(\partial_\tau-ic\partial_y)\delta\rho]^2
+[v_x^2(\partial_x\delta\rho_+)+v_y^2(\partial_y\delta\rho)]
+4\rho_0U(\delta\rho)^2 \\ \nonumber
& + &\rho_0^2[(\partial_\tau+ic\partial_y)\delta\phi]^2
+\rho_0^2[v_x^2(\partial_x\delta\phi)^2
+v_y^2(\partial_y\delta\phi)^2]
\Big)
\label{GoldHiggsact}
\end{eqnarray}
which due to $ z=1 $, leads to one gapless Goldstone mode and one gapped Higgs mode \cite{cavity}
\begin{eqnarray}
\omega_{\text{H}}
& = & \sqrt{4\rho_0U+v_x^2k_x^2+v_y^2k_y^2}-c k_y \\ \nonumber
\omega_{\text{G}}
& = & \sqrt{v_x^2k_x^2+v_y^2k_y^2}-c k_y
\label{GoldHiggs}
\end{eqnarray}
where the Goldstone mode reproduce the superfluid mode
and the Higgs mode reproduce the "roton" mode achieved by SWE in \cite{rhh}.
Note that it is the $ z=1 $ which ensures the separation of the real part from the imaginary part when $ \mu <0 $ in the Z-x phase in Eq.\ref{gapleft} and the separation of the Higgs mode from the Goldstone mode when $ \mu > 0 $ in the canted phase in Eq.\ref{GoldHiggs}.
Intuitively, one can say the two degenerate gapped modes in Eq.\ref{gapleft} turn into the Goldstone mode and the Higgs mode in Eq.\ref{GoldHiggs}
through the QPT from the Z-x phase to the canted phase at $ h_{c2} $.
\subsection{The QCP: a boosted SF-Mott transition }
If putting $ c=0 $ in the effective action Eq.\ref{boostleft}, it is nothing but a 3D XY universality class which respects the
Lorentz invariance. If $ c > 0 $, it can be transformed back into a 3D XY universality class in a boosted frame along $ y- $ axis by
performing a Galileo transformation $ y^{\prime}= y- ct, t^{\prime}=t $.
In the imaginary time $ \tau= it $, it implies $ \partial^{\prime}_y \to \partial_y,
\partial^{\prime}_\tau \to \partial_\tau -i c \partial_y $. So the effective action becomes the same as
the 2d SF-Mott transition with $ z=1 $ in a boosted frame.
However, the action at $ c=0 $ is Lorentz invariant instead of Galileo invariant, so the Galileo boost must lead to some dramatic effects.
Indeed, as to be discussed in Sec.V, it is the boost which drives the quantum Lifshitz transition from
the canted phase to the IC-SkX phase at $ \beta=\beta_L $.
The $ z=1 $ is protected by the Lorentz invariance at $ c=0 $.
Any $ c > 0 $ breaks Lorentz invariance. So the action is neither Lorentz invariant nor Galileo invariant.
The mechanism for how a SOC generates such a boost is not known and need to be investigated further.
The $ c $ term is marginal at $ h_{c2} $ suggesting a line of fixed points.
The interaction $ U $ term is marginally irrelevant at $ c=0 $.
How does the fact change along the fixed line need to be determined by RG calculations.
If the dynamic exponent $ z=1 $ receives anomalous dimension need to be examined also \cite{S:un}.
At the Abelian point $ \beta=0 $, $ c=0 $, the boost disappears, so the transition at $ h_{c2} $ is nothing but
the 3d $XY$ universality class. In fact, as shown in \cite{rh,rhh,rhtran}, the Hamiltonian at this Abelian point
can be mapped to a FM Heisenberg model in a staggered Zeeman field along $ x-$ direction. As shown in the appendix F,
it is dramatically different than the AFM in a uniform field which has the dynamic exponent $ z=2 $.
\subsection{ Contrast to a putative supersolid }
In the previous works on putative supersolids in a continuum system driven by the roton collapse \cite{SS1,SS2,SS3,SSrev},
There is a crucial coupling term which couples the lattice phonon modes to the SF mode.
$ i a_{\alpha \beta} u_{\alpha \beta}\partial_{\tau} \theta $ where
$ u_{\alpha \beta}= \frac{1}{2} ( \partial_{\alpha} u_{\beta} + \partial_{\beta} u_{\alpha} ) $ is the linearized strain tensor.
The factor of $ i $ is important in this coupling. By integration by parts, this term can also be
written as $ a_{\alpha \beta} (\partial_{\tau} u_{\beta} \partial_{\alpha} \theta
+ \partial_{\tau} u_{\alpha} \partial_{\beta} \theta ) $ which has the clear
physical meaning of the coupling between the SF velocity
$ \partial_{\alpha} \theta $ and the velocity of the lattice vibration $ \partial_{\tau} u_{\beta} $. It is
this coupling between the phonon mode and the superfluid mode which leads to
the two gapless low energy modes inside the SS. They have
their own characteristics which could be detected by experiments. The two gapless modes result from
$ U(1)_c \times U(1)_l \to 1 $ symmetry breaking, the first is the phase, the second the lattice translational symmetry breaking.
In a contrast, the coset Eq.\ref{coset} only leads to one gapless mode and one roton mode.
So the second term $ -i2c \partial_{\tau} \psi^{*} \partial_y \psi $ in Eq.\ref{boostleftM} is very similar to
such a coupling in the putative supersolid.
\section{Quantum Lifshitz transition at the left critical field $\beta_{L}$: Order parameter fractionization}
Inside the canted phase at a fixed $ h $, as the SOC parameter increases,
there is a quantum Lifshitz transition from the canted phase to the IC-SkX driven by the instability
of the Goldstone mode in Eq.\ref{GoldHiggsact} ( Fig.1 ). Because the gapped Higgs mode remains un-critical across
the transition, one can simply drop it. Although the Goldstone mode to the quadratic order in Eq.\ref{GoldHiggsact} is enough
inside the canted phase. When studying the transition to the IC-SkX, one must incorporate higher derivative terms and
also higher order terms to the Goldstone mode in Eq.\ref{GoldHiggsact}. A simple symmetry analysis leads to the following bosonic quantum Lifshitz transition at the left critical
SOC parameter $\beta_L$ (Fig.1) which extends Eq.\ref{GoldHiggsact} to include higher derivative terms and
also higher order terms:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{S}_L
=\int d\tau d^2r
[(\partial_\tau\phi-ic\partial_y\phi)^2
+v_x^2(\partial_x\phi)^2
+v_y^2(\partial_y\phi)^2
+a(\partial_y^2\phi)^2
+b(\partial_y\phi)^4]
\label{boosttoright}
\end{equation}
where $a,b>0$ and $c\propto\sin(2\beta)$, especially $ v^2_y- c^2 =\beta-\beta_L $ is the tuning parameter.
At a fixed $ h $, as $ \beta $ increases, the boost $ c $ also increases. When $ c $ reaches the value of $ v_y $,
it signifies an instability of the Goldstone mode which drives the quantum Lifshitz transition from the canted phase to the IC-SkX phase. \cite{morederivative}. A simple scaling shows that when $ z=1 $ inside the canted phase $ [a]=-2, [b]=-3 $, so they are irrelevant
inside the canted phase, but become important near the transition as to be shown in the following.
\subsection{ Obtain the spin-orbital order of the IC-SkX from the canted phase: Order parameter fractionization }
The mean-field state can be written as $\phi=\phi_0+k_0 y$.
Substituting it to the effective action Eq.\ref{boosttoright}, we obtain
\begin{align}
\mathcal{S}_{0}
\propto(v_y^2-c^2)k_0^2+bk_0^4
\end{align}
At a lower boost $c^2 < v_y^2 $, $k_0=0$ is in the C- Canted phase.
At a high boost $ c^2 > v_y^2 $, $k_0^2=(c^2-v_y^2)/2b$ is inside the IC-SkX phase with the modulation $ k_0 $ along the $ y-$ axis.
The sign of $k_0$ is determined by the sign of $c$, i.e. $k_0=\mathrm{sgn}(c)\sqrt{k_0^2}$.
Substituting $\phi=\phi_0+k_0y$ back to the phase of the complex order parameter leads to
$ \psi=\psi_1+\psi_1^\ast+\psi_2-\psi_2^\ast = \tilde{\psi} e^{i(\phi_0+k_0y)}$,
which admits a physical solution \cite{admit} with
$\psi_\alpha=\tilde{\psi}_\alpha e^{ik_0y}, \alpha=1,2 $.
Thus Eq.\ref{compact} in the canted phase turns into:
\begin{align}
\langle S_i^+\rangle
=u[\tilde{\psi}_1+(-1)^{i_x}\tilde{\psi}_2]e^{ik_0i_y}
+v[\tilde{\psi}_1^\ast-(-1)^{i_x}\tilde{\psi}_2^\ast]e^{-ik_0i_y}
\end{align}
where we put back the two phenomenological parameters $ u $ and $ v $.
This is because $u/v\neq 1$ any more due to a nonzero $k_0$. Thus it reproduces the IC-SkX phase in Eq.\ref{pmk0y} when $c^2>v_y^2$.
This is equivalent to shift the two condensation wave-vectors in Eq.\ref{cantalpha} to
$\langle\alpha_\mathbf{k}\rangle
=\tilde{\psi}_1\delta_{\mathbf{k},0+(0,k_0)}
+\tilde{\psi}_2\delta_{\mathbf{k},\mathbf{Q}+(0,k_0)}$ at the very beginning.
So in the C-IC quantum Lifshitz transition from the canted phase to the IC-SkX phase,
the order parameter fractionize from One complex order parameter $ \psi =\psi_1+\psi_1^\ast+\psi_2-\psi_2^\ast $ into
TWO independent ones $ \psi_1, \psi_2 $. This fractionization \cite{admit} is caused by the appearance of the IC- \cite{notOPF}.
One may also look at the quantum Lifshitz transition from the dual point of view:
there is a IC-C transition from the IC-SkX phase to the canted phase,
the TWO complex order parameters $ \psi_1, \psi_2 $ confine into just One complex order parameter
$ \psi= \psi_1+\psi_1^\ast+\psi_2-\psi_2^\ast $.
The dynamic exponent changes from $ z=1 $ to $ z=2 $, the Higgs mode in Eq.\ref{GoldHiggs} in the canted phase
automatically changes to the roton mode in Eq.\ref{GoldRoton} inside the IC-SKX phase.
In fact, the order parameter fractionization (OPF) already shows its sign even above the $ h_{c2} $
inside the Z-FM phase: Eq.\ref{gapleft} containing 2 degenerate gapped modes with real and imaginary part
above canted phase evolve into Eq.\ref{gapmiddle} containing the 2 degenerate gapped modes with two complex order parameters
above the IC-SkX phase.
\subsection{ The excitation spectrum in the canted phase and IC-SkX phase }
At a low boost $c^2<v_y^2$, the quantum phase fluctuation can be written as $\phi=\phi_0+\delta\phi$.
Expanding the action upto second order leads to:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{S}_{2c}
=\int d\tau d^2r
[(\partial_\tau\phi-ic\partial_y\phi)^2
+v_x^2(\partial_x\phi)^2
+v_y^2(\partial_y\phi)^2]
\label{s2cant}
\end{align}
which reproduces the gapless Goldstone mode in Eq.\ref{GoldHiggs} inside the canted phase:
\begin{align}
\omega_\mathbf{k}
=\sqrt{v_x^2 k_x^2+v_y^2k_y^2}-ck_y
\end{align}
At a high boost $ c^2>v_y^2 $, the quantum phase fluctuations can be written as $ \phi=\phi_0+k_0y+\delta\phi $.
Expanding the action upto the second order in the phase fluctuations leads to
\begin{align}
\mathcal{S}_{2ic}
=\int d\tau d^2r
[(\partial_\tau\phi-ic\partial_y\phi)^2
+v_x^2(\partial_x\phi)^2
+(v_y^2+6bk_0^2)(\partial_y\phi)^2]
\label{s2ic}
\end{align}
which reproduces the gapless Goldstone mode in Eq.\ref{GoldRoton} or Eq.\ref{Goldhc1} inside the IC-SkX phase:
\begin{align}
\omega_\mathbf{k}
&=\sqrt{v_x^2 k_x^2+(v_y^2+6bk_0^2)k_y^2+ak_y^4}-ck_y \\ \nonumber
&=\sqrt{v_x^2 k_x^2+(3c^2-2v_y^2)k_y^2+ak_y^4}-ck_y
\end{align}
where one can see $3c^2-2v_y^2>= 2(c^2-v_y^2)+ c^2 > c^2 $ when $c^2>v_y^2$,
thus the $\omega_\mathbf{k}$ is stable in IC-SkX phase.
\subsection{The exotic QCP scaling with the dynamic exponents $ (z_x=3/2, z_y=3 ) $ }
It is instructive to expand the first kinetic term in Eq.\ref{boosttoright} as:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{S}
=\int d\tau d^2r
[Z(\partial_\tau\phi)^2
-2iv_y\partial_\tau\phi\partial_y\phi
+v_x^2(\partial_x\phi)^2 + \gamma (\partial_y \phi)^2
+a(\partial_y^2\phi)^2
+b(\partial_y\phi)^4]
\label{ab}
\end{align}
where $ Z $ is introduced to keep track of the renormalization of $ (\partial_\tau\phi)^2 $ and
$ \gamma= v^2_y- c^2 =\beta- \beta_L $ is the tuning parameter.
The scaling $ \omega \sim k^3_y, k_x \sim k^2_y $ leads to the exotic the dynamic exponents $ (z_x=3/2, z_y=3 ) $.
Then one can get the scaling dimension of $ [\gamma]=2 $ which is relevant, as expected, to tune the transition.
One can also find that $ [Z]=[b]=-2 < 0 $, so both are leading irrelevant operators\cite{morederivative} which
determine the finite $ T $ bahaviours ( see Sec.VI-3 ）.
Setting $ Z=b=0 $ in Eq.\ref{ab} leads to the fixed action
at the QCP where $ \gamma=0 $. It is instructive to compare Eq.\ref{ab} with Rokhsar-Kivelson's Quantum Dimer (QD) model in a square lattice
in its height representation \cite{dimer,dimer1,dimer2}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}_{QD} & = & \kappa ( \partial_\tau \chi )^2 + \rho_s ( \nabla \chi)^2 + K ( \nabla^2 \chi)^2
+ u ( \nabla \chi)^4 \nonumber \\
& + & \lambda \cos 2 \pi\chi + \cdots
\label{qd}
\end{eqnarray}
At the QCP $ \rho_s=0 $, there is a line of fixed point controlled by the parameter $ K $ with the dynamic exponent $ z=2 $
describing the transitions between various VBS.
The main differences are (1) The monopole term $ \lambda \cos 2 \pi \phi $ is absent in Eq.\ref{ab}.
While the boost term $ -2iv_y\partial_\tau\phi\partial_y\phi $ is absent in the QD model Eq.\ref{qd}.
(2) Here, the dynamic exponent is anisotropic with $ (z_x=3/2, z_y=3 ) $ due to the boost term, while that $ z=2 $ is
isotropic in the QD model. (3) Of course, our system is a quantum spin one.
(3) Because $ U(1)_{soc} $ is broken in both the canted phase and IC-SkX phase, the phase windings or vortex excitations in $ \phi $ may not be important in Eq.\ref{ab}. But it is important in Eq.\ref{qd} encoded in the monopole term.
This monopole term is Type-I dangerously irrelevant near the RK point, it sets up the periodicity of $ \chi \rightarrow \chi + 1 $,
so it is responsible for various VBS
and also possible in-complete devil staircases of all the in-commensurate VBS phases in the tilted side $ \rho_s < 0 $.
For both complete and in-complete devil staircases at a generic $ (\alpha, \beta ) $ and also more contrasts with the QD model from
different perspectives, but no Zeeman field, see \cite{devil}.
\subsection{ Multi-critical point M }
Expanding the kinetic term in Eq.\ref{boostleft} leads to
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{S}
=\int d\tau d^2r
[ Z | \partial_\tau \psi |^2 -i2c \partial_{\tau} \psi^{*} \partial_y \psi
+v_x^2|\partial_x\psi|^2+ a |\partial^2_y\psi|^2 +\gamma |\partial_y\psi|^2 -\mu|\psi|^2+U|\psi|^4]
\label{boostleftM}
\end{equation}
where $ \mu= h_{c2}-h $ and $ \gamma= v^2_y-c^2 $.
Moving along $ h_{c2} $ in the left range $ 0 < \beta < \beta_1 $, $ \gamma $ decreases until reaching the Multi-critical (M) point $ \gamma =0 $. So there are two relevant operators $ \mu $ and
$ \gamma $, with the scaling dimensions $ [\gamma]=2, [\mu]=4 $ respectively.
Then there is a order parameter fractionization (OPF) at the $ M $ point:
one complex order parameter $ \psi $ splits into $ \psi_1, \psi_2 $, C to IC transition,
dynamic exponent changes from $ z=1 $ to $ z=2 $ through the M point with $ (z_x=3/2, z_y=3 )
$.
\section{ Finite Temperature phase transitions and quantum critical regimes }
Any experiments are performed at finite temperatures which are controlled by the quantum phases and phase transitions at $ T=0 $ in Fig.1 and Fig.2. The experiments in \cite{halfinteger,unquantized} examined carefully the interplay of the temperature against the Zeeman field.
Here, we discuss the effects of finite temperatures.
The thermodynamic quantities at a small finite $ T $ was discussed in \cite{rhh}. Here,
we focus on the spin-spin correlation functions at a finite $ T $.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{htzxnew.eps}
\hspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=4.5cm]{htzx2new.eps}
\caption{ (Color online) Finite temperature phase transitions above the three quantum C-IC transition at $ T=0 $.
The zero temperature QPT with various dynamic exponents and associated QC regimes are also indicated.
OC means one component $ z=2 $ with one type-II dangerously operators.
TC means Two component $ z=2 $ with TWO type-II dangerously operators. OPF means the order parameter fractionization.
(a) At a fixed $ \beta $. At $ T=0 $, there is a quantum C-IC transition from the Z-x to the IC-SkX at $ h=h_{c1} $ and
from the IC-SkX to the FM at $ h=h_{c2} $ shown in Fig.1. There is a finite temperature Ising transition $ T_2 $ above the Z-x state.
The IC-SkX has only an algebraic ( denoted as AB in the figure ) order in the transverse spin components before
getting to the $ Z-x $ state at $ T=T_{KT} $, then melt into the FM state at $ T_2 $.
As shown in the text, the transition at $ T_{KT} $ is the same universality class as the Koterlitz-Thouless (KT) transition,
even away from the mirror symmetric point $ \beta=\pi/4 $ where $ T_{KT} $ reaches the maximum value.
as shown as the black dot in (b).
(b) At a fixed $ h $. At $ T=0 $, there is a quantum C-IC transition from the canted phase to the IC-SkX at $ \beta_L $ and
from the IC-SkX to the mirror reflected canted phase at $ \beta_R=\pi/2-\beta_L $ shown in Fig.1.
There is a finite temperature KT transition above the canted state, even away from the two Abelian points $ \beta=0, \pi/2 $
where $ T_{KT} $ reaches the maximum. There is a mirror symmetry about $ \beta=\pi/4 $ where the IC-SkX reduces to the $ 2 \times 4 $ SkX and the $ T_{KT} $ reaches the maximum.
Replacing the IC-SkX in (b) by the FM leads to (c) where there is a C-C transition from the canted to the FM state at $ T=0 $ in Fig.1.
As argued in \cite{rhh}, all the critical temperatures $ T_c \sim \Delta \sim 2S J = NJ \sim N \times 0.2 nK $ where the $ N $ is the number of atoms per site, so all the critical temperatures can be easily increased above the experimentally reachable temperatures simply by increasing the number of spinor atoms on every lattice site. Fig.2a can be contrasted to the experimental temperature versus Zeeman field phase diagrams in \cite{halfinteger,unquantized}. }
\label{htzx}
\end{figure}
As argued in \cite{rh}, there is only one finite temperature phase transition in the Ising universality class \cite{rhtran} above the $ Z-x $ phase. The FM state breaks no symmetries of the Hamiltonian, so no transitions above it. So we only need to discuss
the finite temperature transitions above the canted phase and IC-SkX state as shown in Fig.\ref{htzx}a.
At a finite temperature, setting the quantum fluctuations ( the $ \partial_{\tau} $ term ) vanishing, in Eq.\ref{s2cant} or Eq.\ref{s2ic},
then both equations reduce to
\begin{align}
\mathcal{S}_{KT}
=\int d^2r
[ v_x^2(\partial_x\phi)^2 + \gamma (\partial_y\phi)^2]
\label{KT}
\end{align}
where $ \gamma= v^2_y- c^2 $ inside the canted phase and $ \gamma=2(c^2-v_y^2) $ inside the IC-SkX phase.
It indicates the finite temperature phase transition is still in Kosterlize-Thouless (KT) universality class, despite the exotic form of the
spectrum of the Goldstone mode.
{\sl 1. The canted phases: }
In the canted phase, from \ref{s2cant}, one can see that at any $ T>0 $, the Goldstone mode fluctuations
Eq.\ref{GoldHiggs} lead to $ \langle S^{+} \rangle=0 $ in Eq.\ref{cantorder},
so the transverse spin correlation functions display algebraic orders at the two ordering wavevectors $ \vec{Q}_1=(0,0) $ and $ \vec{Q}_2=(\pi,0) $.
So there is only one finite temperature phase transition $ T_{KT} $ driven by the topological defects
in the phase $ \phi $ in Eq.\ref{KT} above the canted phase to destroy the algebraic order ( Fig.2b,c ).
The transverse Bragg spectroscopy in the canted phase at $ T=0 $ will display sharp peaks at $ \vec{Q}_1=(0,0) $ and $ \vec{Q}_2=(\pi,0) $.
However at $ 0 < T < T_{KT} $, the transverse peaks at $ \vec{Q}_1 $ and $ \vec{Q}_2 $ will be replaced by some power law singularities \cite{socsdw}. At $ T > T_{KT} $, the power law singularities disappear.
{\sl 2. The IC-SkX phase: }
In the IC-SkX phase, from \ref{s2cant}, one can see that at any $ T>0 $, the Goldstone mode fluctuations Eqn.\ref{Goldhc1}
( or Eqn.\ref{GoldRoton} also lead to $ \langle S^{+} \rangle=0 $ in Eq.\ref{orderuv} ( or Eq.\ref{ordercs} ),
so the transverse spin correlation functions also display algebraic orders at the four
in-commensurate ordering wavevectors $ (0, \pm k^{0}_y ) $ and $ (\pi, \pm k^{0}_y ) $.
So there are two finite temperature phase transitions above the IC-SkX state:
one transition $ T_{KT} $ in the transverse spin sector to destroy the algebraic order, then
another Ising $ Z_2 $ transition in the longitudinal spin sector $ T_2 $ to destroy the $ A $ and $ B $ sublattice $ Z_2 $
symmetry breaking as shown in Fig.1a.
We also expect $ T_{KT} < T_{2} $. Of course, at all the quantum phase transition boundaries in Fig.1, $ T_{KT}=T_{2}=0 $.
The elastic longitudinal Bragg spectroscopy in the IC-SkX at $ T=0 $ will display a sharp peak at $ (\pi,0) $,
while the transverse Bragg spectroscopy will display sharp peaks at the four
in-commensurate ordering wavevectors $ (0, \pm k^{0}_y ) $ and $ (\pi, \pm k^{0}_y ) $.
However at $ 0 < T < T_{KT} $, the transverse peaks at $ (0, \pm k^{0}_y ) $ and $ (\pi, \pm k^{0}_y ) $ will be
replaced by some power law singularities \cite{socsdw},
the longitudinal peak remains sharp. At $ T_{KT} < T < T_{2} $, the power law singularities disappear, but the longitudinal peak remains sharp.
When $ T > T_2 $, the longitudinal peak disappears.
Following the procedures \cite{scaling,tqpt}, one can also derive the scaling functions of spin-spin correlation functions
at finite temperatures across the three C-IC quantum transitions in Fig.\ref{htzx}a,b and also the C-C transition from the canted phase to the FM at the left or right segment of $ h_{c2} $ in Fig.2c.
{\sl 3. The quantum critical regimes }
The QC scaling at $ h_{c1} $ with $ z=2 $ in Fig.2a was derived in \cite{z2}.
The one type-II dangerously irrelevant operator $ V $ will not affect
the leading order scalings. Unfortunately, the universality class at $ T=0, h= h_{c2} $ with $ z=2 $ in Fig.2a is still un-known, so the QC scaling remains to be determined. The QC scaling at $ \beta_L $ with $ z=(3/2,3) $
in Fig.2b can be derived by using the two leading irrelevant operators $ Z $ and $ b $
in the effective action Eq.\ref{ab}. Unfortunately, the universality class at $ T=0, \beta=\beta_L $ in Fig.2c is still un-known, so the QC scaling remains to be determined.
\section{ Implications to materials with strong SOC in a Zeeman field }
Although the RFHM was derived as the strong coupling model of interacting spinor boson Hubbard model at integer fillings in the presence of SOC,
we may just treat it as an effective lattice quantum spin model which incorporate competitions among
Heisenberg term, Kitaev term and Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya ( DM ) term. As shown in \cite{rh}, when expanding the two $R$ matrices in Eqn.\ref{rhgeneral}, one can see that it leads to
a Heisenberg + Kitaev ( strictly speaking, the quantum compass model in a square lattice ) + Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya (DM) interaction
\begin{equation}
H_{s}=-J [\sum_{\langle i j \rangle } J^a_{H} \vec{S}_{i} \cdot \vec{S}_{j}
+\sum_{\langle i j \rangle a } J^{a}_{K} S^{a}_{i} S^{a}_{j}
+\sum_{\langle i j \rangle a } J^{a}_{D} \hat{a} \cdot \vec{S}_{i} \times \vec{S}_{j} ]
\end{equation}
where $ \hat{a}= \hat{x}, \hat{y} $, $ J^{x}_H=\cos 2 \alpha, J^{y}_H=\cos 2 \beta $;
$ J^{x}_K= 2 \sin^2 \alpha, J^{y}_K= 2 \sin^2 \beta $ and $ J^{x}_D=\sin 2 \alpha, J^{y}_D=\sin 2 \beta $.
Along the whole solvable line $ (\alpha=\pi/2, \beta ) $, we can write:
\begin{equation}
J^{x}_H=-1, J^{y}_H=\cos 2 \beta;~~~~~
J^{x}_K= 2, J^{y}_K= 2 \sin^2 \beta;~~~~~
J^{x}_D=0, J^{y}_D=\sin 2 \beta
\end{equation}
It is easy to see $ J^{y}_H > 0 $ when $ \beta < \pi/4 $, $ J^{y}_H < 0 $ when $ \beta > \pi/4 $ and vanishes at $ \beta=\pi/4 $.
When $ \beta > \pi/4 $, the FM Kitaev term dominates, plus a AFM Heisenberg term in both bonds, plus a DM term in XZ plane
$ J \sin 2 \beta ( S_{ix}S_{jz}- S_{iz}S_{jx}) $.
So the RFHM could be an alternative to the minimal $ (J,K,I) $ model used in \cite{kitaevlattice}
or to the minimal $ (J,K, \Gamma ) $ model used in \cite{kim} to fit the experimental data phenomenologically.
One common thing among all the three models is that it is dominated by FM Kitaev term, plus a small AFM Heisenberg term.
The difference comes from the third term which, in our model is the crucial DM term.
The Zeeman field adds a new dimension to these competitions which lead to the IC-SkX state in the center regime in Fig.1 and Fig.2.
So RFHM + H can be used to not only to describe cold atom systems as described in details in \cite{rhh},
but also the universal features of some strongly correlated materials which host some of these interactions.
The IC-SkX phase in Fig.\ref{globalphase} can be realized in some materials with a strong Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya (DM) interaction.
Indeed, a 2D skyrmion lattice has been observed between $ h_{c1}=50$ mT and $ h_{c2}=70$ mT
in some chiral magnets \cite{sky4} MnSi or a thin film of Fe$_{0.5}$Co$_{0.5}$Si \cite{sky4}.
The effective actions Eq.\ref{z2single} and \ref{pmbasis} or \ref{pmbasisM} may be used to describe
the transitions near $ h_{c1} $ and $ h_{c2} $.
Recently, there are flurries of theoretical and experimental researches to investigate the response of so called
Kitaev materials to a Zeeman field. For example, in the 4d Kitaev material $ \alpha-Ru Cl_3 $, the ground state was shown
experimentally to have a Zig-Zag order.
In the application of a parallel magnetic field to the Zig-Zag magnetization \cite{angleH} at temperature as low to 2 $ K $,
the system stays in the Zig-Zag order upto a lower critical field $ \mu_0 h_{c1} \sim 7 $ T,
becomes fully polarized above a upper critical field $ \mu_0 h_{c2} \sim 9 $ T. Most interestingly,
in the intermediate field range $ h_{c1} < \mu_0 H^{*}_{l} < h_{c2} $, there is a possible field-induced quantum spin liquid (QSL) ground state
displaying half-integer quantized thermal Hall conductivity plateau \cite{halfinteger} similar to those discovered in Fractional quantum Hall systems near $ \nu=5/2 $ \cite{NonFQHE}.
It hints a topologically protected chiral Majorana fermion edge mode.
This edge mode is a direct consequence of the bulk Ising non-Abelian anyons in the Kitaev honeycomb lattice model subject to
a small Zeeman field along $ [111] $ direction .
The thermal Hall conductivity measurements in \cite{unquantized} between the ordering temperature of the Zig-Zag phase at $ T_N\sim 7 $ K and
the characteristic temperature of the Kitaev interaction $ J_K/k_B \sim 80 $ K also shows signatures compatible with the itinerant Majorana fermions.
This exciting, although still controversial discovery inspires further experimental and theoretical investigations.
For example, by performing un-controlled parton construction mean field theory, the authors in \cite{spinon} suggested that when the Kitaev model subjects to a Zeeman field along $ [111] $ direction, there could be a intermediate gapless $ U(1) $ QSL phase at
an $ h_{c1} < h < h_{c2} $ with spinon Fermi surface
which shows un-quantized thermal Hall conductivity.
They also argued that the topological transitions at $ h_{c1} $ and $ h_{c2} $
are similar to the transition from a weak BCS pairing $ p_x+i p_y $ superconductor to a metal, then to a
band insulator respectively. They also alerted to the readers that the gauge field fluctuations may be ignored in the
gapped non-Abelian phase, but may be important in the gapless $ U(1) $ QSL phase, but very difficult to handle in a controlled way.
Unfortunately, despite many appealing theoretical proposals summarized in \cite{spinon}, there is not a consistent and coherent theoretical framework
which puts the Zig-Zag phase, the bulk gapped Kitaev non-abelian spin liquid phase with the half-integer quantized thermal Hall conductivity and
the gapless putative spinon Fermi surface with an un-quantized thermal Hall conductivity in
the same temperature versus the parallel Zeeman field phase diagram.
Obviously, despite the Zig-Zag phase is a magnetic ordered ( therefore boring ) phase, it is
the parent state, takes a large portion of the phase diagram, can not be ignored in giving a
consistent description of experimental data in $ \alpha-Ru Cl_3 $.
Here, instead of directly working on Kitaev honeycomb lattice model,
we take an alternative approach to study the interplay of the Zeeman field and SOC in a different strongly correlated quantum spin model called Rotated Heisenberg model along its solvable line with the $ U(1)_{soc} $ symmetry \cite{rh,rhh,rhtran}.
The global phase diagram Fig.1 achieved by both controlled microscopic SWE and symmetry based phenomenological effective actions
is on a square lattice, so not directly relevant to the current experiments \cite{halfinteger} yet.
However, it does gives some physics universal to the competitions among
AFM Heisenberg interaction, FM Kitaev interaction, DM term and the Zeeman term.
For example, it indicates the interplay does lead to a highly non-trivial
intermediate phase sandwiched between the magnetic ordered phase below the low critical field $ h < h_{c1} $
and the fully polarized FM phase above the upper critical field $ h > h_{c2} $. Here, the intermediate phase
is the canted phase at a small SOC and the IC-SkX phase at a large SOC.
The Z-x phase in a square lattice at a low field maybe used to mimic the Zig-Zag phase at a low field in a honeycomb lattice.
Of course, the Z-FM phase at a high field always exists in any case.
The IC-SkX phase could be easily melt into a QSL under some further quantum fluctuations. An extra SOC parameter in a honeycomb lattice
may provide such quantum fluctuations.
A future study on a honeycomb lattice with either spinor bosons or fermions \cite{rafhm} could be directly relevant.
If the IC-SkX indeed melts into a QSL, then the transitions at $ h_{c1} $ and $ h_{c2} $ will become
two Topological transitions driven by the condensation of spinons or $ Z_2 $ flux or some fermions instead of some order parameter condensations.
{\sl 1. The thermal Hall conductivities in all the phases in Fig.1 and Fig.2 }
Here, the thermal carriers are bosons instead of fermions in \cite{spinon}.
As argued in \cite{thermalhigh}, one needs to break both Time reversal and the particle-hole (PH) symmetry to get a non-vanishing thermal Hall
conductivities.
We expect that the extra term of the gapless Goldstone mode Eq.\ref{GoldHiggs} in the canted phase and Eq.\ref{GoldRoton} ( or Eq.\ref{Goldhc1} ) inside the canted phase
leads to un-quantized thermal Hall conductivities $ \kappa_{xy}/T $ even as $ T \rightarrow 0 $ limit.
However, as shown in the previous sections, the extra term vanishes at the Mirror symmetric point $ \beta=\pi/4 $ and also at the Abelian point,
so does the thermal Hall conductivity. So the thermal Hall conductivity should also change sign at the Mirror symmetric point.
Interestingly, as said above, the Heisenberg term $ J^y_H $ also changes from FM to AFM at $ \beta=\pi/4 $.
While the material is thought to be in the AFM side with $ \beta > \pi/4 $.
Both Z-x and Z-FM phases are gapped phases, to the quadratic order in Eq.\ref{Zxex} or Eq.\ref{gapmiddle}, thermal Hall conductivities vanish.
However, expanding the dispersions to higher orders, various skewness \cite{thermalhigh} may move in,
even so, they show at most exponentially suppressed thermal Hall conductivities $ \kappa_{xy}/T \sim c e^{-\Delta/T} $ where
the coefficient $ c $ is also suppressed at a low $ T $ and the $ \Delta $
is the gap in the two phases respectively.
These behaviours match those in the Zig-Zag and FM state in the $ \alpha-Ru Cl_3 $
in the low and high Zeeman field respectively.
It remains challeging for the $ (J,K,I) $ or the minimal $ (J,K, \Gamma ) $ model to naturally explain the Thermal Hall conductivities observed
in the experiments.
\section{Conclusions and discussions }
From symmetry analysis, plus some inputs from the microscopic SWE calculations achieved in \cite{rh,rhh,rhtran},
we constructed various effective actions to describe the transitions
(1) The C-IC transition from the Z-x to the IC-SkX at $ h_{c1} $:
It has a single complex order parameter with the dynamic exponents $ z=2 $ and one Type-II dangerously irrelevant operator.
(2) The C-IC transition from the Z-FM to the IC-SkX at $ h_{c2} $ in the middle of SOC $ \beta_1 < \beta < \beta_2 $:
It has two complex order parameters with the dynamic exponents $ z=2 $ and two Type-II dangerously irrelevant operators.
(3) The C-C transition from the Z-FM to the canted phase at $ h_{c2} $ in the left of SOC $ 0 < \beta < \beta_{1} $
It takes a boosted form with the dynamic exponents $ z=1 $ and has an order parameter reduction (OPR) from two to one complex order parameter.
(4) Finally, the C-IC transition from the canted to the IC-SkX at $ \beta_L $: It has an order parameter fractionization (OPF)
from one to TWO complex order parameters with the dynamic exponent $ (z_x=3/2,z_y=3 ) $.
(1) to (4) close the whole cycle in Fig.1.
All the 4 effective actions reach consistent descriptions on the IC-SkX phase centered in the phase diagram.
Our mean field analysis on these effective actions reproduced all the 5 ground states,
the quantum fluctuations above the mean field reproduced all the excitations such as Goldstone, roton and Higgs modes
above the ground states. Furthermore, we investigate the nature of all the 4 QPTs.
Recently, we also performed both microscopic and phenomenological effective actions to study Zeeman field induced
quantum phase transitions of spinor bosons in the presence of $ \pi $ flux \cite{pifluxgold,pifluxqsl}
or in bosonic quantum Anomalous Hall systems \cite{NOFQD}.
Of course, the magnon condensations in the presence of SOC presented here with $ U(1)_{soc} $
and \cite{devil} without $ U(1)_{soc} $ is a different class of problems than the BEC in the presence of SOC in \cite{pifluxgold,pifluxqsl,NOFQD}.
We identify carefully the relation between the quantum spin and the order parameters in various effective actions.
It is important in the following way:
(1) In the spinor boson case \cite{NOFQD}, the quantum spin is quadratically represented in terms of the two components
complex order parameters $ \psi_1, \psi_2 $,
it is the Zeeman field which directly tunes the relative magnitude between the two components.
Here, near $ h=h_{c2} $, there are also two components complex order parameters $ \psi_1, \psi_2 $,
the Zeeman field $ h $ is implicitly embedded in the chemical potential term $ \mu=h_{c2}- h $.
Counter-intuitively, as shown in Sec.IV, the $ \psi_1, \psi_2 $ always has equal amplitude, independent of the Zeeman field.
(2) The ratio of the quantum spins in A/B sublattice is determined by the two generalized Bogliubov matrix elements $ u, v $.
Even if getting to the $ \psi_{\pm} $ basis, it is always in the Ising limit where one of them vanishes, also independent of
the Zeeman field. This is one of the crucial difference between the BEC of bosons and BEC of magnons:
in the former, the quantum spin is quadratically represented in terms of the order parameter,
in the latter, the quantum spin is linearly represented in terms of the order parameter, whose coefficients involve
unitary transformation ( here below $ h_{c1} $ ) or Bogliubov transformation ( here above $ h_{c2} $ ).
Even the two transformations are well defined only below $ h_{c1} $ or above $ h_{c2} $ respectively.
The relation can be phenomenologically continued into $ h_{c1} < h < h_{c2} $ and match the microscopic SWE calculations.
(3) Although the universality classes of the transitions are completely determined by the order parameters,
these relations are important to identify the correct spin-orbital orders of the states, also in evaluating the spin-spin
correlation functions inside all the 5 phases, also near the QCP at a finite temperature
which can be directly detected by all kinds of Bragg spectroscopy \cite{lightatom1,braggbog,braggangle,braggeng,braggsingle,braggsoc}.
(4) There is an order parameter fractionization (OPF) from one complex order parameter to two in the C-IC transition from canted
to IC-SkX phase with the $ (z_x=3/2,z_y=3 ) $. There is also a dynamic exponent change from $ z=1 $ to $ z=2 $,
Higgs mode to Roton mode. This fractionization is different, but related to the quantum spin fractionization into spinons plus a $ Z_2 $ flux
when the systems gets into a quantum spin liquid phase from a magnetic ordered phase.
For example, there could be a topological phase transition from a FM state to a $ Z_2 $ QSL in the spinor bosons in the presence of $ \pi $ flux \cite{pifluxgold,pifluxqsl}.
We also develop a new concept: Type-II dangerously irrelevant operators which considerably enrich the previously known
Type-I dangerously irrelevant operators. It is instructive to look at the history associated with Type-II in different contexts:
Type-II superconductors hosting a mixed vortex state in the presence of magnetic field was discovered after the Type-I superconductor.
Type-II Weyl fermions \cite{weyl} hosting a Fermi-surface with non-zero density of states was discovered after the Type-I Weyl points with vanishing density of states.
More recently, a Type-II deformation to a order from quantum disorder (OFQD) state leads to the nearly OFQD (NOFQD) phenomena.
While a Type-I deformation to a OFQD state acts trivially.
One can summarize the two different sources of the extra "doppler" shift term \cite{doppler} in the Goldstone, roton or Higgs modes in Eq.\ref{Goldhc1},\ref{GoldRoton}, \ref{GoldHiggs}.
(1) For IC-momentum, it is due to the Type-II dangerously irrelevant operators, the number of which is equal to
the number of IC- momenta condensations: one $ V $ near $ h_{c1} $ for Eq.\ref{Goldhc1} and two $ V_1, V_2 $ near $ h_{c2} $
for Eq.\ref{GoldRoton}.
(2) For C-momentum, it is due to boosted term in the kinetic energy. This is the case for Eq.\ref{GoldHiggs}.
In fact, as shown in Sec.II and III, the effects of the dangerously irrelevant operators inside the symmetry broken
IC-SkX phase can be transformed into the boosted form inside the kinetic energy.
The spin-spin correlation functions in Z-x phase is evaluated in the appendix D. It can be similarly evaluated in all the other phases.
The qualitative behaviours of the thermal Hall conductivity $ \kappa_{xy}/T $
in all the phases in Fig.1 or Fig.2 were outlined in VII. In view of its importance in the 4d 0r 5d Kitaev materials
\cite{halfinteger,unquantized}, the quantum Hall effects near $ \nu=5/2 $ \cite{NonFQHE} and underdoped cuprates \cite{cu,cu2}, following the
methods developed in \cite{ther1,ther2,ther3}, we will study its quantitative behaviours, especially in the QC regimes
in Fig.1 and Fig.2 in a separate publication \cite{S:un}
The $ U(1)_{soc} $ symmetry only holds along the $ (\alpha=\pi/2, \beta) $ SOC line and the longitudinal Zeeman field.
It may not hold in any general SOC systems. Here there could be many ways to break the $ U(1)_{soc} $ symmetry explicitly.
One way is to apply a transverse field as discussed in appendix E.
Another way is to look at a generic $ (\alpha,\beta) $, or one can apply both at the same time \cite{partial}.
In \cite{devil}, we studied various magnon condensations in a generic $ (\alpha,\beta) $ which has no $ U(1)_{soc} $ symmetry.
As expected, it is quite different than the magnon condensation with the $ U(1)_{soc} $ symmetry addressed in this paper.
Some crucial differences between the two were spelled out in the appendix F in \cite{devil}.
Especially, we showed that the Z-x state remains stable in a large SOC parameter regime near $ \pi/2 $, just changes from the exact to the classical ground state. In fact, it is the most robust
quantum phase in the whole global phase diagram in the generic $ (\alpha,\beta) $. So we expect some features
in Fig.1 will remain when the $ U(1)_{soc} $ symmetry is broken.
It would be interesting to look at how the phases and QPTs in Fig.1, especially the IC-SkX phase evolve
when the $ U(1)_{soc} $ symmetry was explicitly broken.
Of course, the Goldstone mode inside the canted phase and the IC-SkX phase will be gapped due to
the explicit $ U(1)_{soc} $ symmetry breaking \cite{angleH}.
As mentioned at the end of Sec.VII, if extending the results to a honeycomb lattice with either bosons or fermions,
the IC-SkX likely melts into a QSL, then the transitions at $ h_{c1} $ and $ h_{c2} $ will become
two Topological transitions driven by the condensation of spinons or flux or some sort of fermions.
Then it may be directly relevant to current trends searching for QSL driven by a Zeeman field in 4d or 5d Kitaev materials.
{\bf Acknowledgements}
We thank Dapeng Yu for hospitality during the authors visit at Institute for Quantum Science and Engineering, Shenzhen 518055, China.
J.Ye thank Dr. Zhong Ruidan for experimental data related discussions.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{Sec_Intro}
In the present paper, we are interested in exploring sharp lifespan estimates for the weakly coupled system of semilinear classical damped wave equations in the critical case, namely,
\begin{align}\label{Eq_Coupled_Damped_Waves}
\begin{cases}
u_{tt}-\Delta u+u_t=|v|^p,&x\in\mathbb{R}^n,\ t\in(0,T),\\
v_{tt}-\Delta v+v_t=|u|^q,&x\in\mathbb{R}^n,\ t\in(0,T),\\
(u,u_t,v,v_t)(0,x)=(\varepsilon u_0,\varepsilon u_1,\varepsilon v_0,\varepsilon v_1)(x),&x\in\mathbb{R}^n,
\end{cases}
\end{align}
where the power exponents $p,q>1$ satisfy the following critical condition:
\begin{align}\label{Critical_Condition}
\alpha_{\max}(p,q):=\frac{\max\{p,q\}+1}{pq-1}=\frac{n}{2}
\end{align}
for any $n\geqslant 1$, $T>0$ and the positive constant $\varepsilon$ describes the size of initial data. Under this critical condition, every non-trivial local (in time) weak solution blows up in finite time. For this reason, a natural question is that whether or not one can describe more detailed information of the lifespan. More specifically, our main motivation of this paper is to report sharp estimates for the lifespan $T=T_\varepsilon$ of solutions to the weakly coupled system \eqref{Eq_Coupled_Damped_Waves} under the critical condition \eqref{Critical_Condition}. Here, the lifespan $T_\varepsilon$ of solutions is understood as the quantity defined by
\begin{align}\label{Lifespan_Defn}
T_\varepsilon:= \sup& \left\{T\in (0,\infty) : \mbox{there exists a unique local (in time) solution} (u,v) \ \mbox{to \eqref{Eq_Coupled_Damped_Waves}}\right.\notag\\
&\left. \qquad\qquad\qquad \mbox{on } [0,T) \mbox{ with a fixed parameter }\varepsilon>0\right\}.
\end{align}
There are a lot of related works begun from 1995 in the original paper \cite{Li-Zhou-1995} in terms of the study of the Cauchy problem \eqref{Eq_Coupled_Damped_Waves}. However, to the best knowledge of authors, the sharp lifespan estimates in the critical case \eqref{Critical_Condition} are completely open even for the semilinear weakly coupled reaction-diffusion systems (see \cite{Fuji-Iked-Waka-2020}). We will partially give answers to the above question in some spatial dimensions by the following sharp estimates:
\begin{align}\label{Sharp_Lifespan}
T_{\varepsilon}\sim\begin{cases}
\exp\left( C\varepsilon^{-(p-1)} \right)&\mbox{if}\ \ p=q,\\
\exp\left(C\varepsilon^{-(pq-p_{\mathrm{Fuj}}(n))}\right) &\mbox{if}\ \ p\neq q,
\end{cases}
\end{align}
where $C>0$ is a constant independent of $\varepsilon$. Here, $p_{\mathrm{Fuj}}(n):=1+2/n$ stands for the well-known Fujita exponent.
Let us now recall several historical background related to our model \eqref{Eq_Coupled_Damped_Waves}. Over the recent decades, the Cauchy problem for semilinear damped wave equation
\begin{align}\label{Eq_Single_Semilinear_Damped_Wave}
\begin{cases}
u_{tt}-\Delta u+u_t=|u|^p,&x\in\mathbb{R}^n,\ t\in(0,T),\\
(u,u_t)(0,x)=(\varepsilon u_0,\varepsilon u_1)(x),&x\in\mathbb{R}^n,
\end{cases}
\end{align}
with $p>1$ has been widely studied. The critical exponent, which is the threshold between global (in time) existence of small data weak solution and blow-up of solutions even for small data, to the single semilinear damped wave equation \eqref{Eq_Single_Semilinear_Damped_Wave} is the so-called \emph{Fujita exponent}
\begin{align*}
p_{\mathrm{Fuj}}(n):=1+\frac{2}{n}
\end{align*}
for any $n\geqslant 1$. We should remember that the Fujita exponent is well-known as the critical exponent for the corresponding semilinear heat equation (see \cite{Fujita-1966} and references therein)
\begin{align*}
\begin{cases}
w_t-\Delta w=|w|^p,&x\in\mathbb{R}^n,\ t\in(0,T),\\
w(0,x)= \varepsilon w_0(x),&x\in\mathbb{R}^n.
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
Motivated by diffusion phenomenon (see, for example, \cite{Nish-2013,Ikehata-Nishi-2003}), which is a bridge between the asymptotic behavior of solutions to the damped wave equation and that of solutions to the heat equation, one proved that these corresponding critical exponents coincide. In particular, concerning the critical exponent for the semilinear damped wave equation \eqref{Eq_Single_Semilinear_Damped_Wave}, we refer the interested readers to \cite{Zhan-2001,Todo-Yord-2001,Nishihara-2003,Nara-2004,Ikeh-Tani-2005} and references therein. Additionally, to derive the critical regularity of nonlinear terms for the semilinear damped wave equation, the authors in \cite{Eber-Gira-Reis-2020} considered the equation of \eqref{Eq_Single_Semilinear_Damped_Wave} with nonlinearities $\omega(|u|)|u|^{p_{\mathrm{Fuj}}(n)}$ on the right-hand side, where $\omega$ stands for a suitable modulus of continuity. According to the works \cite{Kira-Qafs-2002,Nish-2011,Iked-Ogaw-2016,Lai-Zhou-2019,Fuji-Iked-Waka-2019,Iked-Waka-2020}, the sharp lifespan estimates for all spatial dimensions have been investigated, particularly,
\begin{align*}
T_{\varepsilon}\sim \begin{cases}
C\varepsilon^{-\frac{2(p-1)}{2-n(p-1)}}&\mbox{if}\ \ 1<p<p_{\mathrm{Fuj}}(n),\\
\exp\left(C\varepsilon^{-(p-1)}\right)&\mbox{if}\ \ p=p_{\mathrm{Fuj}}(n),
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
where $C=C(n,p,u_0,u_1)$ is a positive constant independent of $\varepsilon$. In some sense, the story of the sharp lifespan estimates for the single semilinear damped equation \eqref{Eq_Single_Semilinear_Damped_Wave} has been completed in 2019 by the paper \cite{Lai-Zhou-2019}.
Let us turn to the weakly coupled system of semilinear damped wave equations \eqref{Eq_Coupled_Damped_Waves}. The critical condition \eqref{Critical_Condition}, the so-called critical curve in the $p-q$ plane, to our model \eqref{Eq_Coupled_Damped_Waves} can be described by the following figure:
\begin{figure}[http]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\fill[domain=2:4.8,color=black!10!white] plot[smooth, tension=.7] coordinates {(1.2,5.3) (1.7,3.6) (2.5,2.5)}--(1.2,5.3) -- (1,5.3) -- (1,1) -- (2.5,2.5)--cycle;
\fill[domain=2:4.8,color=black!10!white] plot[smooth, tension=.7] coordinates {(2.5,2.5) (3.6,1.7) (5.3,1.2)}--(5.3,1.2) -- (5.3,1) -- (1,1) -- (2.5,2.5)--cycle;
\fill[domain=2:4.8,color=black!20!white] plot[smooth, tension=.7] coordinates {(1.2,5.3) (1.7,3.6) (2.5,2.5)}--(2.5,2.5) -- (5.3,5.3) -- (1.2,5.3)--cycle;
\fill[domain=2:4.8,color=black!20!white] plot[smooth, tension=.7] coordinates {(2.5,2.5) (3.6,1.7) (5.3,1.2)}--(5.3,1.2) -- (5.3,5.3) -- (2.5,2.5)--cycle;
\draw[->] (-0.2,0) -- (5.8,0) node[below] {$p$};
\draw[->] (0,-0.2) -- (0,5.4) node[left] {$q$};
\draw[dashed, color=black] (0, 0)--(5.3,5.3);
\node[right] at (3.3,3.3) {{$\leftarrow$ $p=q$}};
\node[left] at (0,-0.2) {{$0$}};
\draw[fill] (1,0) circle[radius=1pt];
\draw[fill] (2.5,2.5) circle[radius=1pt];
\node[below] at (1,0) {{$1$}};
\draw[fill] (0,1) circle[radius=1pt];
\node[left] at (0,1) {{$1$}};
\draw[fill] (2.5,0) circle[radius=1pt];
\node[below] at (2.5,0) {{$p_{\mathrm{Fuj}}(n)$}};
\draw[fill] (0,2.5) circle[radius=1pt];
\node[left] at (0,2.5) {{$p_{\mathrm{Fuj}}(n)$}};
\node[left, color=red] at (4.3,4.5) {{$\leftarrow$ $\alpha_{\max}(p,q)=\frac{n}{2}$}};
\node[left, color=red] at (9,1.4) {{$\longleftarrow$ Blow-up in finite time}};
\draw[dashed, color=black] (0, 1)--(5.6, 1);
\draw[dashed, color=black] (1, 0)--(1, 5.4);
\draw[dashed, color=black] (2.5,0)--(2.5,2.5);
\draw[dashed, color=black] (0,2.5)--(2.5,2.5);
\draw[color=red] plot[smooth, tension=.7] coordinates {(1.2,5.3) (1.7,3.6) (2.5,2.5)};
\draw[color=red] plot[smooth, tension=.7] coordinates {(2.5,2.5) (3.6,1.7) (5.3,1.2)};
\fill[color=black!20!white] (6,5)--(6.4,5)--(6.4,4.6)--(6,4.6)--cycle;
\node[right] at (6.5,4.8) {{Global solution existence}};
\fill[color=black!10!white] (6,4.4)--(6.4,4.4)--(6.4,4)--(6,4)--cycle;
\node[right] at (6.5,4.2) {{Blow-up in finite time}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The critical curve for the coupled system \eqref{Eq_Coupled_Damped_Waves} in the $p-q$ plane}
\label{imggg}
\end{figure}
\noindent To be specific, the authors in \cite{Sun-Wang-2007} obtained the critical condition \eqref{Critical_Condition} for $n=1,3$. More precisely, if $\alpha_{\max}(p,q)<n/2$, then there exists a unique global (in time) small data Sobolev solution, whereas if $\alpha_{\max}(p,q)\geqslant n/2$, then every non-trivial local (in time) weak solution, in general, blows up in finite time. Afterwards, the same desired results for the dimensional cases $n=1,2,3$ were generalized in \cite{Nara-2009,Takeda-2009}, especially, some of decay estimates for solutions in time were improved for $n=3$. Finally, the recent papers \cite{Nish-Waka-2014,Nish-Waka-2015} demonstrated the critical condition \eqref{Critical_Condition} for any spatial dimensions $n\geqslant 1$, where the almost sharp estimates for the lifespan in the subcritical case $\alpha_{\max}(p,q)>n/2$ were found out, namely,
\begin{align*}
\varepsilon^{-\frac{1}{\alpha_{\max}(p,q)-\frac{n}{2}}+\epsilon_0}\lesssim T_{\varepsilon}\lesssim \varepsilon^{-\frac{1}{\alpha_{\max}(p,q)-\frac{n}{2}}}
\end{align*}
for any small number $\epsilon_0>0$. Hereafter the unexpressed multiplicative constants may depend on $n,p,q,u_0,u_1,v_0,v_1$ but are independent of $\varepsilon$. The authors also claimed some lower bound estimates for the lifespan in the critical case $\alpha_{\max}(p,q)=n/2$, nevertheless, it seems to be far from the (almost) sharp estimates. Again, we stress out that not only for the weakly coupled system of semilinear damped wave equations but also for the weakly coupled system of semilinear reaction-diffusion equations, both sharp upper bound and lower bound estimates of the lifespan in the critical case, i.e. under the critical condition \eqref{Critical_Condition}, are still completely open as far as the authors know. For this reason, our purpose of this paper is to give a positive answer, i.e. the sharp estimates \eqref{Sharp_Lifespan}, for these open problems.
To explore upper bound estimates for the lifespan of solutions to \eqref{Eq_Coupled_Damped_Waves} in the critical case \eqref{Critical_Condition}, we will employ the so-called \emph{test function method}, motivated by the recent studies \cite{Iked-Soba-2019,Dao-Reis-2020}. By constructing two test functions with suitable scaling (different from the scaling of the single semilinear damped wave equation in \cite{Iked-Soba-2019}), we will derive a system of two nonlinear differential inequalities with their initial values. Then, after dealing with these nonlinear inequalities, we will arrive at upper bound estimates for the lifespan with the help of some parameter-dependent auxiliary functionals.
To derive lower bound estimates for the lifespan of solutions to \eqref{Eq_Coupled_Damped_Waves}, we will introduce suitable Sobolev spaces with their corresponding norms carrying suitable polynomial-logarithmic type time-dependent weighted functions. Under this frame, employing the classical Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality, we will get lower bound estimates for the lifespan in $n=1,2$, which are the same as the upper ones. From this observation, these obtained results are to conclude the sharpness of lifespan estimates immediately.
Since our approaches also can be applicable to the weakly coupled system of semilinear reaction-diffusion equations, we will propose some remarks in Section \ref{Section_Concluding_Remarks} on the sharp lifespan estimates for solutions in the critical case. Actually, it brings a possible answer for the question proposed in \cite{Fuji-Iked-Waka-2020}.
\medskip
\noindent\textbf{Notation:} Throughout this paper, we write $f\lesssim g$ when there exists a positive constant $C$ such that $f\leqslant Cg$. Moreover, $B_r$ stands for the ball around the origin with radius $r$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$.
\section{Main results}
To begin with this section, let us introduce some definitions of solutions to the semilinear Cauchy problem \eqref{Eq_Coupled_Damped_Waves}, which are to provide well-defined notations for the lifespan of corresponding solutions.
\begin{defn}\label{Defn_mild}
The pair of functions $(u,v)$ is called a mild solution to the Cauchy problem \eqref{Eq_Coupled_Damped_Waves} on $[0,T)$ with $T>0$, if
\begin{align}\label{Supp_01}
(u,v)\in\mathcal{C}\big([0,T),H^1(\mathbb{R}^n)\big)\times \mathcal{C}\big([0,T),H^1(\mathbb{R}^n)\big)
\end{align}
carrying its initial data satisfies the following integral systems:
\begin{align}\label{Represen_00}
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle{u(t,x)=\varepsilon(\partial_t+1)\mathcal{H}(t,\nabla)u_0(x)+\varepsilon\mathcal{H}(t,\nabla)u_1(x)+\int_0^t\mathcal{H}(t-\tau,\nabla)|v(\tau,x)|^p\mathrm{d}\tau,}\\
\displaystyle{v(t,x)=\varepsilon(\partial_t+1)\mathcal{H}(t,\nabla)v_0(x)+\varepsilon\mathcal{H}(t,\nabla)v_1(x)+\int_0^t\mathcal{H}(t-\tau,\nabla)|u(\tau,x)|^q\mathrm{d}\tau,}
\end{cases}
\end{align}
for any $t\in[0,T)$ with the operator
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{H}(t,\nabla):=\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{t}{2}}\frac{\sin\left(t\sqrt{|\nabla|^2-1/4}\,\right)}{\sqrt{|\nabla|^2-1/4}}.
\end{align*}
It can be defined by the use of Fourier transforms
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{H}(t,\nabla)=\mathcal{F}_{\xi\to x}^{-1}\left(\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{t}{2}}\frac{\sin\left(t\sqrt{|\xi|^2-1/4}\,\right)}{\sqrt{|\xi|^2-1/4}}\right).
\end{align*}
\end{defn}
The lifespan of a mild solution in the sense of Definition \ref{Defn_mild} is denoted by $T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{m}}$, whose definition is similar to \eqref{Lifespan_Defn}.
\begin{defn}\label{Defn_Weak}
The pair of functions $(u,v)$ is called a weak solution to the Cauchy problem \eqref{Eq_Coupled_Damped_Waves} on $[0,T)$ with $T>0$, if
\begin{align}\label{Supp_02}
(u,v)\in L_{\mathrm{loc}}^q\big([0,T)\times\mathbb{R}^n\big)\times L_{\mathrm{loc}}^p\big([0,T)\times\mathbb{R}^n\big)
\end{align}
satisfies the following integral equalities:
\begin{align}\label{Integral_01}
&\int_0^T\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left(\partial_t^2\Psi_1(t,x)-\Delta\Psi_1(t,x)-\partial_t\Psi_1(t,x)\right)u(t,x)\mathrm{d}x\mathrm{d}t\notag\\
&\qquad=\int_0^T\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\Psi_1(t,x)|v(t,x)|^p\mathrm{d}x\mathrm{d}t+ \varepsilon\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\big(\Psi_1(0,x)(u_0(x)+u_1(x))-\partial_t\Psi_1(0,x)u_0(x)\big)\mathrm{d}x,
\end{align}
as well as
\begin{align}\label{Integral_02}
&\int_0^T\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left(\partial_t^2\Psi_2(t,x)-\Delta\Psi_2(t,x)-\partial_t\Psi_2(t,x)\right)v(t,x)\mathrm{d}x\mathrm{d}t\notag\\
&\qquad=\int_0^T\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\Psi_2(t,x)|u(t,x)|^q\mathrm{d}x\mathrm{d}t+ \varepsilon\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\big(\Psi_2(0,x)(v_0(x)+v_1(x))-\partial_t\Psi_2(0,x)v_0(x)\big)\mathrm{d}x,
\end{align}
for any $\Psi_1,\Psi_2\in\mathcal{C}_0^{\infty}([0,T)\times\mathbb{R}^n)$.
\end{defn}
The lifespan of a weak solution in the sense of Definition \ref{Defn_Weak} is denoted by $T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}}$, whose definition is similar to \eqref{Lifespan_Defn}.
\begin{remark} \label{Lifespan.Relation.Remark}
\fontshape{n}
\selectfont
We notice that if $(u,v)$ is a mild solution to \eqref{Eq_Coupled_Damped_Waves} in the sense of Definition \ref{Defn_mild}, then $(u,v)$ is also a weak solution to \eqref{Eq_Coupled_Damped_Waves} in the sense of Definition \ref{Defn_Weak}. This statement can be easily indicated by the standard density argument (see, for example, Proposition 3.1 in \cite{Iked-Waka-2013}). Therefore, the following relation is obviously true:
\begin{align} \label{Lifespan.Relation}
T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{m}}\leqslant T_{\varepsilon}\leqslant T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}}.
\end{align}
For this reason, we want to underline in advance that the proof of sharp lifespan results comes from estimating $T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}}$ from the above and $T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{m}}$ from the below.
\end{remark}
Concerning upper bound estimates for the lifespan $T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}}$ to \eqref{Eq_Coupled_Damped_Waves} in the critical case for all $n\geqslant 1$, we state the following result.
\begin{theorem}\label{Thm_Upper_Bound}
Let us assume that initial data $u_j,v_j \in \mathcal{C}^\infty_0(\mathbb{R}^n)$ with $j=0,1$ satisfy
\begin{align}\label{Assumption_Initial_data}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}(u_0(x)+ u_1(x))\mathrm{d}x>0 \ \ \text{and}\ \ \int_{\mathbb{R}^n}(v_0(x)+ v_1(x))\mathrm{d}x>0.
\end{align}
If $p,q>1$ fulfill the critical condition \eqref{Critical_Condition} and $1<p,q\leqslant n/(n-2)$ if $n\geqslant 3$, then there exists a positive constant $\varepsilon_0$ such that for any $\varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon_0]$ the lifespan $T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}}$ of weak solutions to the Cauchy problem \eqref{Eq_Coupled_Damped_Waves} possesses the following upper bounds:
\begin{align}\label{Lifespan}
T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}} \leqslant\begin{cases}
\mathrm{exp}\left(C\varepsilon^{-(p-1)}\right) &\text{if}\ \ p=q, \\
\mathrm{exp}\left(C\varepsilon^{-\max\left\{\frac{p(pq-1)}{p+1},\frac{q(pq-1)}{q+1}\right\}}\right) &\text{if}\ \ p\neq q,
\end{cases}
\end{align}
where $C$ is a positive constant independent of $\varepsilon$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark} \label{remark2.1}
\fontshape{n}
\selectfont
Regarding the special case $p=q$ in our model \eqref{Eq_Coupled_Damped_Waves}, the critical condition \eqref{Critical_Condition} can be reduced to $p=q=p_{\mathrm{Fuj}}(n)$. Under this situation, our obtained result in \eqref{Lifespan} exactly coincides with the sharp upper bound estimate for the lifespan of solutions to the single semilinear damped wave equation \eqref{Eq_Single_Semilinear_Damped_Wave} in the critical case $p=p_{\mathrm{Fuj}}(n)$. Involving the latter issue, one may see \cite{Li-Zhou-1995,Lai-Zhou-2019,Iked-Soba-2019} for more details.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
\fontshape{n}
\selectfont
The condition $1<p,q\leqslant n/(n-2)$ if $n\geqslant 3$, appearing in Theorem \ref{Thm_Upper_Bound}, is to guarantee the local (in time) existence of solutions (see Proposition 2.1 in \cite{Nish-Waka-2015}).
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
\fontshape{n}
\selectfont
Concerning the non-symmetric case $p\neq q$ in Theorem \ref{Thm_Upper_Bound}, from the critical condition \eqref{Critical_Condition} we get $\max\{p,q\}=n(pq-1)/2-1$, so that we may rewrite
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{exp}\left(C\varepsilon^{-\max\left\{\frac{p(pq-1)}{p+1},\frac{q(pq-1)}{q+1}\right\}}\right)= \mathrm{exp}\left(C\varepsilon^{-(pq-p_{\mathrm{Fuj}}(n))}\right).
\end{align*}
In other words, it provides a way to see the lifespan estimates as in \eqref{Sharp_Lifespan}. This new discovery is one of the cores of this paper.
\end{remark}
To guarantee the sharpness of the derived lifespan estimates \eqref{Lifespan}, we have to estimate the lifespan $T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{m}}$ from the below. Thus, we turn to lower bound estimates in the subsequent theorem.
\begin{theorem}\label{Thm_Lower_Bound}
Let us assume that initial date belong to the following classical energy space with additional $L^1$ regularity:
\begin{align*}
\left((u_0,u_1),(v_0,v_1)\right) \in \mathcal{D}:= \left(\left(H^1(\mathbb{R}^n)\cap L^1(\mathbb{R}^n)\right) \times \left(L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)\cap L^1(\mathbb{R}^n)\right)\right)^2
\end{align*}
for $n=1,2$ with the corresponding norm
\begin{align*}
J[u_0,u_1,v_0,v_1]:= \left\|\left((u_0,u_1),(v_0,v_1)\right)\right\|_{\mathcal{D}} &= \|u_0\|_{H^1(\mathbb{R}^n)}+ \|u_0\|_{L^1(\mathbb{R}^n)}+ \|u_1\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}+ \|u_1\|_{L^1(\mathbb{R}^n)} \\
&\quad + \|v_0\|_{H^1(\mathbb{R}^n)}+ \|v_0\|_{L^1(\mathbb{R}^n)}+ \|v_1\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}+ \|v_1\|_{L^1(\mathbb{R}^n)}.
\end{align*}
Moreover, we suppose that $p,q$ fulfill the critical condition \eqref{Critical_Condition} with $p,q\geqslant 2$ if $n=1,2$. Then, there exists a positive constant $\varepsilon_0$ such that for any $\varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon_0]$ the lifespan $T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{m}}$ of mild solutions to the Cauchy problem \eqref{Eq_Coupled_Damped_Waves} enjoys the following lower bounds:
\begin{align}\label{Lifespan_Lower}
T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{m}} \geqslant\begin{cases}
\mathrm{exp}\left(c\varepsilon^{-(p-1)}\right) &\text{if}\ \ p=q, \\
\mathrm{exp}\left(c\varepsilon^{-\max\left\{\frac{p(pq-1)}{p+1},\frac{q(pq-1)}{q+1}\right\}}\right) &\text{if}\ \ p\neq q,
\end{cases}
\end{align}
where $c$ is a positive constant depending on $n$ and $J[u_0,u_1,v_0,v_1]$ only.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
\fontshape{n}
\selectfont
Similarly to Remark \ref{remark2.1}, our achieved result in \eqref{Lifespan_Lower} in the symmetric case $p=q=p_{\mathrm{Fuj}}(n)$ also exactly coincides with the sharp lower bound estimate for the lifespan of solutions to the single semilinear damped wave equation \eqref{Eq_Single_Semilinear_Damped_Wave} in the critical case $p=p_{\mathrm{Fuj}}(n)$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
\fontshape{n}
\selectfont
Summarizing the derived results in Theorems \ref{Thm_Upper_Bound} and \ref{Thm_Lower_Bound} combined with the relation \eqref{Lifespan.Relation}, we claim that the sharp lifespan estimates $T_{\varepsilon}$ for solutions to the Cauchy problem \eqref{Eq_Coupled_Damped_Waves} in the critical case \eqref{Critical_Condition} are given by
\begin{align*}
T_{\varepsilon}\sim\begin{cases}
\exp\left( C\varepsilon^{-(p-1)} \right)&\mbox{if}\ \ p=q,\\
\exp\left(C\varepsilon^{-(pq-p_{\mathrm{Fuj}}(n))}\right) &\mbox{if}\ \ p\neq q,
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
in low spatial dimensions, with a positive constant $C$ independent of $\varepsilon$. It seems also interesting to generalize these lower bound estimates for higher spatial dimensions by introducing weighted Sobolev spaces as well as employing some weighted decay estimates with respect to spatial variables. Namely, we conjecture that the sharp lifespan estimates above still hold for any $n\geqslant 1$. However, this purpose is beyond the scope of our paper.
\end{remark}
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{Thm_Upper_Bound}}\label{Sec_Proof_Upper}
\subsection{Setting and test functions}\label{SubSec_Test_Fun}
Let us define the size of supports for initial data by
\begin{align*}
r_0&:=\max\left\{ |x|: x\in\mathrm{supp}\, u_0\cup \mathrm{supp}\, u_1 \right\},\\
r_1&:=\max\left\{ |x|: x\in\mathrm{supp}\, v_0\cup \mathrm{supp}\, v_1 \right\}.
\end{align*}
\begin{remark}
\fontshape{n}
\selectfont
We do not use finite propagation speed of solutions to damped wave equations. One recognizes that the support conditions of initial data will give remarkable contributions to catching the upper bound estimates for the lifespan of solutions. For this reason, it would provide an effective way to generalize our approach to some models without hyperbolic structure, for example, the weakly coupled system for reaction-diffusion equations \eqref{Eq_Coupled_Heats}.
\end{remark}
\noindent Without loss of generality, we assume
\begin{align*}
R_0:=\sqrt[4]{2\max\left\{r_0^4,r_1^4\right\}}<\sqrt{T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}}}.
\end{align*}
We now introduce a test function $\eta=\eta(s)$ such that
\begin{align*}
\eta\in\mathcal{C}_0^{\infty}([0,\infty))\ \ \mbox{and}\ \ \eta(s):=\begin{cases}
1&\mbox{if}\ \ s\in[0,1/2],\\
\mbox{decreasing}&\mbox{if}\ \ s\in(1/2,1),\\
0&\mbox{if}\ \ s\in[1,\infty).
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
Moreover, another test function $\eta^*=\eta^*(s)$ is also introduced by
\begin{align*}
\eta^*(s):=\begin{cases}
0&\mbox{if}\ \ s\in[0,1/2),\\
\eta(s)&\mbox{if}\ \ s\in[1/2,\infty).
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
Next, for a large parameter $R\in(0,\infty)$, we take $\psi_R=\psi_R(t,x)$ and $\psi_R^*=\psi_R^*(t,x)$, which are defined, respectively, by
\begin{align*}
\psi_R(t,x):=\left(\eta\left(\frac{t^2+|x|^4}{R^4}\right)\right)^{\mu+2}\ \ \mbox{and}\ \ \psi_R^*(t,x):=\left(\eta^*\left(\frac{t^2+|x|^4}{R^4}\right)\right)^{\mu+2}
\end{align*}
with a positive constant $\mu$ fulfilling
\begin{align*}
\mu\geqslant \max \left\{ \frac{2}{p-1},\frac{2}{q-1} \right\}.
\end{align*}
\subsection{Upper bound estimates for the lifespan}\label{SubSec_Upper_Bound}
By multiplying the test function $\psi_R$ on the both sides of the first and second equations in the Cauchy problem \eqref{Eq_Coupled_Damped_Waves} as well as integrating the resultants over $\mathbb{R}^n$, we obtain
\begin{align}\label{Eq_01}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|v(t,x)|^p\psi_R(t,x)\mathrm{d}x&=\frac{\mathrm{d}^2}{\mathrm{d}t^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}u(t,x)\psi_R(t,x)\mathrm{d}x+\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left(u(t,x)\psi_R(t,x)-2u(t,x)\partial_t\psi_R(t,x)\right)\mathrm{d}x\notag\\
&\quad+\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}u(t,x)\left(\partial_t^2\psi_R(t,x)-\Delta\psi_R(t,x)-\partial_t\psi_R(t,x)\right)\mathrm{d}x,
\end{align}
and similarly,
\begin{align*}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|u(t,x)|^q\psi_R(t,x)\mathrm{d}x&=\frac{\mathrm{d}^2}{\mathrm{d}t^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}v(t,x)\psi_R(t,x)\mathrm{d}x+\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left(v(t,x)\psi_R(t,x)-2v(t,x)\partial_t\psi_R(t,x)\right)\mathrm{d}x\notag\\
&\quad+\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}v(t,x)\left(\partial_t^2\psi_R(t,x)-\Delta\psi_R(t,x)-\partial_t\psi_R(t,x)\right)\mathrm{d}x,
\end{align*}
where we used integration by parts with respect to spatial variables and $\psi_R(t,x)\equiv0$ as $|x|\to\infty$ from the support condition. From straightforward computations, we observe
\begin{align*}
\partial_t\psi_R(t,x)&=\frac{2(\mu+2)t}{R^4}\left(\eta\left(\frac{t^2+|x|^4}{R^4}\right)\right)^{\mu+1}\eta'\left(\frac{t^2+|x|^4}{R^4}\right),\\
\partial_t^2\psi_R(t,x)&=\frac{2(\mu+2)}{R^4}\left(\eta\left(\frac{t^2+|x|^4}{R^4}\right)\right)^{\mu+1}\eta'\left(\frac{t^2+|x|^4}{R^4}\right)\\
&\quad+\frac{4(\mu+1)(\mu+2)t^2}{R^8}\left(\eta\left(\frac{t^2+|x|^4}{R^4}\right)\right)^{\mu}\left(\eta'\left(\frac{t^2+|x|^4}{R^4}\right)\right)^2\\
&\quad+\frac{4(\mu+2)t^2}{R^8}\left(\eta\left(\frac{t^2+|x|^4}{R^4}\right)\right)^{\mu+1}\eta''\left(\frac{t^2+|x|^4}{R^4}\right),
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\partial_{x_k}^2\psi_R(t,x)&=\frac{4(\mu+2)(|x|^2+2x_k^2)}{R^4}\left(\eta\left(\frac{t^2+|x|^4}{R^4}\right)\right)^{\mu+1}\eta'\left(\frac{t^2+|x|^4}{R^4}\right)\\
&\quad+\frac{16(\mu+1)(\mu+2)|x|^4x_k^2}{R^8}\left(\eta\left(\frac{t^2+|x|^4}{R^4}\right)\right)^{\mu}\left(\eta'\left(\frac{t^2+|x|^4}{R^4}\right)\right)^2\\
&\quad+\frac{16(\mu+2)|x|^4x_k^2}{R^8}\left(\eta\left(\frac{t^2+|x|^4}{R^4}\right)\right)^{\mu+1}\eta''\left(\frac{t^2+|x|^4}{R^4}\right).
\end{align*}
Due to the fact that
\begin{align*}
\eta'\left(\frac{t^2+|x|^4}{R^4}\right)\not\equiv0,\ \ \eta''\left(\frac{t^2+|x|^4}{R^4}\right)\not\equiv0 \ \ \mbox{for}\ \ \frac{R^4}{2}<t^2+|x|^4<R^4,
\end{align*}
as well as $\eta\in\mathcal{C}_0^{\infty}([0,\infty))$, we are able to state
\begin{align*}
\left|\partial_t^2\psi_R(t,x)-\Delta\psi_R(t,x)-\partial_t\psi_R(t,x)\right|&\lesssim\frac{1}{R^2}(\psi_R^*(t,x))^{\frac{\mu+1}{\mu+2}}+\frac{R^2+1}{R^4}(\psi_R^*(t,x))^{\frac{\mu}{\mu+2}}\\
&\lesssim \frac{1}{R^2}(\psi_R^*(t,x))^{\frac{\mu}{\mu+2}}.
\end{align*}
In the above estimate, we have utilized $0<\psi_R^*(t,x)< 1$ and $R\gg1$. Taking account of $R\in[R_0,\sqrt{T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}}})$ and integrating \eqref{Eq_01} over $(0,T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}})$, we may deduce
\begin{align*}
\int_0^{T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|v(t,x)|^p\psi_R(t,x)\mathrm{d}x\mathrm{d}t&\leqslant \left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left(u_t(t,x)\psi_R(t,x)+u(t,x)\partial_t\psi_R(t,x)\right)\mathrm{d}x\right)\Big|_{t=0}^{t=T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}}}\\
&\quad+\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left(u(t,x)\psi_R(t,x)-2u(t,x)\partial_t\psi_R(t,x)\right)\mathrm{d}x\right)\Big|_{t=0}^{t=T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}}}\\
&\quad+\frac{1}{R^2}\int_0^{T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|u(t,x)|(\psi_R^*(t,x))^{\frac{\mu}{\mu+2}}\mathrm{d}x\mathrm{d}t.
\end{align*}
The consideration $R\in[R_0,\sqrt{T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}}})$ leads to
\begin{align*}
2\max\{ r_0^4,r_1^4 \}=R_0^4\leqslant R^4\leqslant (T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}})^2,
\end{align*}
so that
\begin{align*}
\psi_R(T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}},x)=\partial_t\psi_R(T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}},x)=0\ \ &\mbox{for any}\ \ x\in\mathbb{R}^n,\\
\psi_R(0,x)=1\ \ &\mbox{for any}\ \ x\in B_{r_0}.
\end{align*}
In other words, we have
\begin{align}\label{Eq_03}
&\varepsilon\underbrace{\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}(u_0(x)+u_1(x))\mathrm{d}x}_{=:I_0[u_0,u_1]}+\int_0^{T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|v(t,x)|^p\psi_R(t,x)\mathrm{d}x\mathrm{d}t\notag\\
&\qquad \leqslant\frac{1}{R^2}\int_0^{T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|u(t,x)|(\psi_R^*(t,x))^{\frac{\mu}{\mu+2}}\mathrm{d}x\mathrm{d}t\notag\\
&\qquad \leqslant\frac{1}{R^2}\left(\int_{\mathrm{supp}\,\psi_R^*}\mathrm{d}(x,t)\right)^{\frac{1}{q'}}\left(\int_0^{T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|u(t,x)|^q(\psi_R^*(t,x))^{\frac{q\mu}{\mu+2}}\mathrm{d}x\mathrm{d}t\right)^{\frac{1}{q}}\notag\\
&\qquad \lesssim R^{n-\frac{n+2}{q}}\left(\int_0^{T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|u(t,x)|^q(\psi_R^*(t,x))^{\frac{q\mu}{\mu+2}}\mathrm{d}x\mathrm{d}t\right)^{\frac{1}{q}},
\end{align}
where the support conditions for initial data since $\mathrm{supp}\,u_0\cup\mathrm{supp}\,u_1\subset B_{r_0}$ were used as well as the following attention should be recognized:
$$ \mathrm{supp}\,\psi^*_R \subset \left([0,R^2] \times B_R\right) \backslash \left\{(t,x) \,:\, t^2+|x|^4 \leqslant\frac{R^4}{2}\right\}. $$
Repeating the same procedure as the above, it holds
\begin{align}\label{Eq_04}
&\varepsilon\underbrace{\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}(v_0(x)+v_1(x))\mathrm{d}x}_{=:I_0[v_0,v_1]}+\int_0^{T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|u(t,x)|^q\psi_R(t,x)\mathrm{d}x\mathrm{d}t\notag\\
&\qquad \lesssim R^{n-\frac{n+2}{p}}\left(\int_0^{T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|v(t,x)|^p(\psi_R^*(t,x))^{\frac{p\mu}{\mu+2}}\mathrm{d}x\mathrm{d}t\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}.
\end{align}
Let us introduce two auxiliary functionals as follows:
\begin{align*}
Y_q(R):=\int_0^Ry_q(r)r^{-1}\mathrm{d}r\ \ \mbox{with}\ \ y_q(r):=\int_0^{T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|u(t,x)|^q(\psi_r^*(t,x))^{\frac{q\mu}{\mu+2}}\mathrm{d}x\mathrm{d}t,\\
Y_p(R):=\int_0^Ry_p(r)r^{-1}\mathrm{d}r\ \ \mbox{with}\ \ y_p(r):=\int_0^{T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|v(t,x)|^p(\psi_r^*(t,x))^{\frac{p\mu}{\mu+2}}\mathrm{d}x\mathrm{d}t.
\end{align*}
The change of variable $s=(t^2+|x|^4)/r^4$ yields
\begin{align}
Y_q(R)&=\int_0^R \left(\int_0^{T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|u(t,x)|^q(\psi_r^*(t,x))^{\frac{q\mu}{\mu+2}}\mathrm{d}x\mathrm{d}t\right)\,r^{-1}\mathrm{d}r \nonumber \\
&=\frac{1}{4}\int_0^{T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|u(t,x)|^q\int_{(t^2+|x|^4)/R^4}^{\infty}(\eta^*(s))^{q\mu}s^{-1}\mathrm{d}s\mathrm{d}x\mathrm{d}t \nonumber \\
&\leqslant \frac{1}{4} \int_0^{T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|u(t,x)|^q\left(\int_{1/2}^1 (\eta^*(s))^{\mu q}s^{-1}\mathrm{d}s\right)\mathrm{d}x\mathrm{d}t, \label{Eq_05}
\end{align}
where we considered the support condition for $\eta^*(s)$ in the third line of the chain estimates above. Thus, one may arrive at
\begin{align}
Y_q(R)&\leqslant\frac{1}{4} \int_0^{T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|u(t,x)|^q\sup_{r \in (0,R)}\left(\eta^*\left(\frac{t^2+|x|^4}{r^4}\right)\right)^{\mu q} \left(\int_{1/2}^1 s^{-1}\mathrm{d}s\right)\mathrm{d}x\mathrm{d}t \nonumber \\
&\leqslant\frac{\log 2}{4} \int_0^{T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|u(t,x)|^q \left(\eta^*\left(\frac{t^2+|x|^4}{R^4}\right)\right)^{\mu q}\mathrm{d}x\mathrm{d}t \nonumber \\
&\leqslant\frac{\log 2}{4}y_q(R). \label{Eq_06}
\end{align}
In addition, using the property $\eta^*(s)\equiv \eta(s)$ for any $s\in[1/2,1]$ in \eqref{Eq_05} we also verify the following estimate:
\begin{align}
Y_q(R) &\lesssim \int_0^{T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|u(t,x)|^q \left(\eta\left(\frac{t^2+|x|^4}{R^4}\right)\right)^{\mu q}\mathrm{d}x\mathrm{d}t, \nonumber \\
&\lesssim \int_0^{T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|u(t,x)|^q\left(\psi_R(t,x)\right)^{\frac{q\mu}{\mu+2}}\mathrm{d}x\mathrm{d}t. \label{Eq_07}
\end{align}
By the similar fashion, one gets
\begin{align}
Y_p(R)&\leqslant\frac{\log 2}{4}y_p(R), \label{Eq_08} \\
Y_p(R)&\lesssim \int_0^{T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|v(t,x)|^p\left(\psi_R(t,x)\right)^{\frac{p\mu}{\mu+2}}\mathrm{d}x\mathrm{d}t. \label{Eq_09}
\end{align}
To derive adaptable functionals, we recall
\begin{align*}
\mu\geqslant \max \left\{ \frac{2}{p-1},\frac{2}{q-1} \right\}=\frac{2}{\min\{p,q\}-1}, \ \ \text{i.e.}\ \ \frac{\min\{p,q\}\,\mu}{\mu +2}\geqslant 1
\end{align*}
to show from \eqref{Eq_07} and \eqref{Eq_09} that
\begin{align}
Y_q(R)&\lesssim \int_0^{T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|u(t,x)|^q\psi_R(t,x)\mathrm{d}x\mathrm{d}t,\label{Eq_10}\\
Y_p(R)&\lesssim \int_0^{T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|v(t,x)|^p\psi_R(t,x)\mathrm{d}x\mathrm{d}t.\label{Eq_11}
\end{align}
In what follows, we denote by $C_j$ with $j\in \mathbb{N}$ positive constants independent of $R$ and $\varepsilon$. According to the estimates \eqref{Eq_03}, \eqref{Eq_04}, \eqref{Eq_10}, \eqref{Eq_11} and the facts that
\begin{align*}
y_p(R)= RY'_p(R),\ \ y_q(R)= RY'_q(R),
\end{align*}
we conclude the following coupled system of nonlinear differential inequalities:
\begin{align}
Y'_p(R)&\geqslant C_1\delta R^{n+1-np}\left(Y_q(R)+\varepsilon I[v_0,v_1]\right)^p,\label{Pre_Frame_1}\\
Y'_q(R)&\geqslant C_2\delta R^{n+1-nq}\left(Y_p(R)+\varepsilon I[u_0,u_1]\right)^q,\label{Pre_Frame_2}
\end{align}
for any $R\in[R_0,\sqrt{T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}}})$. Here, a constant $\delta \in (0,1]$ will be chosen later. By considering our assumption on initial data \eqref{Assumption_Initial_data}, we have derived the differential frames
\begin{align*}
Y'_p(R)&\geqslant C_1\delta R^{n+1-np}(Y_q(R))^p,\\
Y'_q(R)&\geqslant C_2\delta R^{n+1-nq}(Y_p(R))^q,
\end{align*}
for any $R\in[R_0,\sqrt{T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}}})$, with their initial values (from the integration of the inequalities \eqref{Pre_Frame_1} and \eqref{Pre_Frame_2} over $[R_0,R]$, respectively)
\begin{align}
Y_p(R)&\geqslant \varepsilon^p C_1\delta (I[v_0,v_1])^p\int_{R_0}^{R}\rho^{n+1-np}\mathrm{d}\rho, \nonumber \\
Y_q(R)&\geqslant \varepsilon^q C_2\delta (I[u_0,u_1])^q\int_{R_0}^{R}\rho^{n+1-nq}\mathrm{d}\rho, \label{Eq_*}
\end{align}
under the restriction \eqref{Critical_Condition}.
Without loss of generality, we will focus on the treatment of the case $\max\{p,q\}=q\neq p$ only due to the fact is that the case $\max\{p,q\}=p\neq q$ can be also treated in the same way. The rest case $p=q$ will be shown later. Namely, to get started, the condition \eqref{Critical_Condition} can be written by
\begin{equation}
\frac{q+1}{pq-1}=\frac{n}{2}\ \ \mbox{and}\ \ q>1+\frac{2}{n}. \label{Eq_**}
\end{equation}
Let us now set up the two auxiliary functions $ \phi_1(R):= R^{n+1-np}$ and $\phi_2(R):= R^{n+1-nq}$ to re-express the differential frames above in the following way:
\begin{align}
Y_p'(R) &\geqslant C_1\delta\phi_1(R) (Y_q(R))^{p}, \label{Eq_12} \\
Y_q'(R) &\geqslant C_2\delta\phi_2(R) (Y_p(R))^{q}. \label{Eq_13}
\end{align}
Multiplying \eqref{Eq_12} by $Y_q'(R)$ and then carrying out integration by parts over $[R_0,R]$ give
\begin{align*}
&Y_p(R)Y_q'(R)- Y_p(R_0)Y_q'(R_0)- \int_{R_0}^R Y_p(s)Y_q''(s)\mathrm{d}s \\
&\qquad \geqslant \frac{C_1\delta}{p+1} \phi_1(R) (Y_q(R))^{p+1}- \frac{C_1\delta}{p+1} \phi_1(R_0) (Y_q(R_0))^{p+1} - \frac{C_1\delta}{p+1} \int_{R_0}^R \phi'_1(s) (Y_q(s))^{p+1}\mathrm{d}s.
\end{align*}
By the aid of the relation
\begin{align}\label{Yq''}
Y_q''(s)= \frac{y_q'(s)- Y_q'(s)}{s},
\end{align}
one gains
\begin{align}
&Y_p(R)Y_q'(R)+ \int_{R_0}^R \frac{Y_p(s)Y_q'(s)}{s}\mathrm{d}s- \int_{R_0}^R \frac{Y_p(s)y_q'(s)}{s}\mathrm{d}s \nonumber \\
&\qquad \geqslant \frac{C_1\delta}{p+1} \phi_1(R) (Y_q(R))^{p+1}+ \left(Y_p(R_0)Y_q'(R_0)- \frac{C_1\delta}{p+1} \phi_1(R_0) (Y_q(R_0))^{p+1}\right) \nonumber \\
&\qquad \quad - \frac{C_1\delta}{p+1} \int_{R_0}^R \phi'_1(s) (Y_q(s))^{p+1}\mathrm{d}s. \label{Eq_14}
\end{align}
Let us devote our consideration to the estimate for the right-hand side (RHS) of \eqref{Eq_14}. In the first stage, we need to opt a constant $\delta=\delta(C_1,R_0,p)$ fulfilling
\begin{align}\label{Choice_delta}
0< \delta\leqslant\min\left\{\frac{(p+1)Y_p(R_0)Y_q'(R_0)}{C_1\phi_1(R_0)(Y_q(R_0))^{p+1}},1\right\}
\end{align}
so that we may conclude that
\begin{align*}
Y_p(R_0)Y_q'(R_0)- \frac{C_1\delta}{p+1} \phi_1(R_0) (Y_q(R_0))^{p+1} \geqslant 0.
\end{align*}
Noticing that $Y'_q(R_0)=y_q(R_0)/R_0>0$, the range of $\delta$ in \eqref{Choice_delta} is not empty. Subsequently, it implies
\begin{align}
\text{RHS of }\eqref{Eq_14} &\geqslant \frac{C_1\delta}{p+1} \phi_1(R) (Y_q(R))^{p+1}- \frac{C_1\delta}{p+1} \int_{R_0}^R \phi'_1(s) (Y_q(s))^{p+1}\mathrm{d}s \nonumber \\
&= \frac{C_1\delta}{p+1} \phi_1(R) (Y_q(R))^{p+1}- \frac{C_1\delta}{p+1}(n+1-np) \int_{R_0}^R s^{n-np} (Y_q(s))^{p+1}\mathrm{d}s. \label{Eq_15}
\end{align}
Concerning the sign for the last term in the previous inequality, our next arguments are divided into two cases separately as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Case 1}: When $1+ \frac{1}{n}\leqslant p<1+\frac{2}{n}$, we have $n+1-np\leqslant0$. Then, by \eqref{Eq_15} it is obvious to catch the estimate
\begin{equation*}
\text{RHS of }\eqref{Eq_14}\geqslant \frac{C_1\delta}{p+1} \phi_1(R) (Y_q(R))^{p+1}.
\end{equation*}
\item \textbf{Case 2}: When $1< p< 1+ \frac{1}{n}$, we get $n+1-np> 0$. Then, setting $h_1=h_1(s)$ in the integrand of (\ref{Eq_15}) by
$$ h_1(s):= s^{n-np} (Y_q(s))^{p+1}, $$
we can calculate straightforwardly in this way
\begin{align*}
h'_1(s) &= (n-np) s^{n-np-1} (Y_q(s))^{p+1}+ (p+1)s^{n-np} (Y_q(s))^{p}Y'_q(s) \\
&= s^{n-np-1} (Y_q(s))^{p}\left((n-np)Y_q(s)+ (p+1)sY'_q(s)\right) \\
&= s^{n-np-1} (Y_q(s))^{p}\left((n-np)Y_q(s)+ (p+1)y_q(s)\right),
\end{align*}
where we noticed again that the relation $y_q(s)= sY'_q(s)$ holds. By using the derived estimate \eqref{Eq_06}, we can proceed as follows:
\begin{align*}
h'_1(s) &\geqslant \left((n-np)\frac{\log 2}{4}+ (p+1)\right)s^{n-np-1} (Y_q(s))^{p}y_q(s) \\
&> \left(p+1- \frac{\log 2}{4}\right)s^{n-np-1} (Y_q(s))^{p}y_q(s) \geqslant 0
\end{align*}
due to the strict inequality $n-np> -1$. As a result, $h_1= h_1(s)$ is a strictly increasing function so that we derive
\begin{equation}
\int_{R_0}^R s^{n-np} (Y_q(s))^{p+1}\mathrm{d}s \leqslant R^{n-np} (Y_q(R))^{p+1}(R-R_0) \leqslant\phi_1(R) (Y_q(R))^{p+1}. \label{Eq_17}
\end{equation}
Both the estimates \eqref{Eq_15} and \eqref{Eq_17} lead to
\begin{equation}
\text{RHS of }\eqref{Eq_14}\geqslant \frac{C_1\delta n(p- 1)}{p+1} \phi_1(R) (Y_q(R))^{p+1}. \label{Eq_18}
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
Let us now come back to control the left-hand side (LHS) of \eqref{Eq_14}. At first, thanks to the non-decreasing property of $y_q= y_q(s)$, indeed,
\begin{align*}
y_q'(s)=-\frac{4q\mu}{s^5}\int_0^{T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|u(t,x)|^q\left(\eta^*\left(\frac{t^2+|x|^4}{s^4}\right)\right)^{q\mu-1}\left(\eta^*\left(\frac{t^2+|x|^4}{s^4}\right)\right)'(t^2+|x|^4)\mathrm{d}x\mathrm{d}t\geqslant0
\end{align*}
with the help of non-increasing property of $\eta^*$, for any $s \in [R_0,R]$, one achieves
\begin{equation}
\text{LHS of }\eqref{Eq_14} \leqslant Y_p(R)Y_q'(R)+ \int_{R_0}^R \frac{Y_p(s)Y_q'(s)}{s}\mathrm{d}s. \label{Eq_19}
\end{equation}
Putting $h_2=h_2(s)$ in the integrand of the last term in \eqref{Eq_19} by
$$ h_2(s):= \frac{Y_p(s)Y_q'(s)}{s} $$
and noticing the equality \eqref{Yq''} we show that
\begin{align*}
h'_2(s) &= \frac{Y'_p(s)Y_q'(s)s+ Y_p(s)Y''_q(s)s- Y_p(s)Y_q'(s)}{s^2} \\
&= \frac{Y'_p(s)Y_q'(s)s+ Y_p(s) \left(y'_q(s)- Y'_q(s)\right)- Y_p(s)Y_q'(s)}{s^2}.
\end{align*}
Moreover, thanks to $y'_q(s)\geqslant 0$ and $y_p(s)=sY'_p(s)$, we deduce
\begin{align*}
h'_2(s) \geqslant \frac{Y_q'(s)\left(Y'_p(s)s- 2Y_p(s)\right)}{s^2} &= \frac{Y_q'(s)\big(y_p(s)- 2Y_p(s)\big)}{s^2} \\
&\geqslant \left(1- \frac{\log 2}{2}\right)\frac{y_p(s)Y_q'(s)}{s^2} \geqslant 0,
\end{align*}
where we have employed the obtained inequality \eqref{Eq_08}. This means that $h_2= h_2(s)$ is a non-decreasing function. In other words, it follows
\begin{equation}
\int_{R_0}^R \frac{Y_p(s)Y_q'(s)}{s}\mathrm{d}s \leqslant\frac{Y_p(R)Y_q'(R)}{R}(R-R_0)\leqslant Y_p(R)Y_q'(R). \label{Eq_20}
\end{equation}
For this reason, one may combine \eqref{Eq_19} and \eqref{Eq_20} to get
\begin{equation}
\text{LHS of }\eqref{Eq_14} \leqslant2Y_p(R)Y_q'(R). \label{Eq_21}
\end{equation}
Summarizing, the link of these derived estimates \eqref{Eq_14}, \eqref{Eq_18} and \eqref{Eq_21} is to indicate that
$$ Y_p(R)Y_q'(R) \geqslant C_0 \phi_1(R) (Y_q(R))^{p+1}, $$
which is equivalent to
\begin{equation}
Y_p(R) \geqslant \frac{C_0 \phi_1(R) (Y_q(R))^{p+1}}{Y_q'(R)} \label{Eq_22}
\end{equation}
for $R\geqslant R_0$. Hence, substituting \eqref{Eq_22} into \eqref{Eq_13} entails
$$ Y_q'(R) \geqslant \frac{C_3 (\phi_1(R))^{q}\phi_2(R)\,(Y_q(R))^{q(p+1)}}{(Y_q'(R))^{q}}, $$
which implies immediately
\begin{align*}
Y_q'(R) &\geqslant C_3^{\frac{1}{q+1}} (\phi_1(R))^{\frac{q}{q+1}}(\phi_2(R))^{\frac{1}{q+1}}(Y_q(R))^{\frac{q(p+1)}{q+1}} \\
& = C_3^{\frac{1}{q+1}}R^{1-\frac{n(pq-1)}{q+1}} (Y_q(R))^{\frac{q(p+1)}{q+1}}\\
&= C_3^{\frac{1}{q+1}}R^{-1} (Y_q(R))^{\frac{q(p+1)}{q+1}}
\end{align*}
in our case \eqref{Eq_**}. Clearly, the above estimate is to verify the following:
\begin{equation}
\frac{Y_q'(R)}{(Y_q(R))^{\frac{q(p+1)}{q+1}}} \geqslant C_3^{\frac{1}{q+1}}R^{-1}.\label{Eq_23}
\end{equation}
Then, considering $R\geqslant R_0^2$ we take integration of two sides of \eqref{Eq_23} over $[\sqrt{R},R]$ to obtain
\begin{align*}
-\frac{q+1}{pq-1} (Y_q(s))^{-\frac{pq-1}{q+1}}\Big|_{s=\sqrt{R}}^{s=R} &= \frac{n}{2}\left((Y_q(\sqrt{R}\,))^{-\frac{2}{n}}- (Y_q(R))^{-\frac{2}{n}}\right) \\
&\geqslant C_3^{\frac{1}{q+1}}\left(\log R- \log(\sqrt{R}\,)\right)= \frac{1}{2}C_3^{\frac{1}{q+1}}\log R.
\end{align*}
Therefore, it holds
\begin{align}\label{Eq_16}
\log R\leqslant n C_3^{-\frac{1}{q+1}} \left(Y_q(\sqrt{R}\,)\right)^{-\frac{2}{n}}.
\end{align}
By recalling the inequality \eqref{Eq_*}, it is obvious to catch the estimate
$$ Y_q(\sqrt{R}\,) \geqslant \varepsilon^q C_4\delta (I[u_0,u_1])^q $$
since we are in the situation $n+1-nq<-1$ from \eqref{Eq_**} as well as $R\geqslant R_0$ to ensure the boundedness of the integral in \eqref{Eq_*}. Hence, one arrives at the next estimate by the combination of the last two inequalities
$$\log \sqrt{T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}}}=\lim\limits_{R\uparrow \sqrt{T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}}}} \log R\leqslant C_5\varepsilon^{-\frac{2q}{n}}= C_5\varepsilon^{-\frac{q(pq-1)}{q+1}}, $$
where we note that $\frac{2}{n}= \frac{pq-1}{q+1}$. This is to show the desired upper bound of lifespan estimate for mild solutions to the Cauchy problem \eqref{Eq_Coupled_Damped_Waves}.
We remark that in the special case $p=q=p_{\mathrm{Fuj}}(n)$, one finds from \eqref{Eq_*} the following estimate:
\begin{align*}
Y_q(R)\geqslant C_6\varepsilon^{p_{\mathrm{Fuj}}(n)}\log R.
\end{align*}
Then, we combine the previous inequality with \eqref{Eq_16} to obtain
\begin{align*}
\log \sqrt{T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}}}=\lim\limits_{R\uparrow \sqrt{T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{w}}}}\log R\leqslant C_7\varepsilon^{-\frac{2}{n}}=C_7\varepsilon^{-(p-1)}.
\end{align*}
Finally, taking the action of the exponential function gives the completeness of our proof.
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{Thm_Lower_Bound}}\label{Sec_Proof_Lower}
\subsection{Philosophy of our approach}
With the same reason of the proof of Theorem \ref{Thm_Upper_Bound}, we are going to focus on the case $p< q$ only, and we will give some remarks for the special case $p=q$. For the sake of brevity, we put
\begin{align*}
\gamma(p,q):= \frac{q-p}{pq-1}>0\ \ \mbox{and}\ \ \alpha(p,q):=\frac{n(p-1)}{2q}>0
\end{align*}
because of the hypothesis $p<q$ and $p>1$, respectively.
First of all, we introduce the evolution spaces $Y_1(T)$ and $Y_2(T)$ as follows:
\begin{align*}
Y_j(T)=\mathcal{C}([0,T],H^1(\mathbb{R}^n))\ \ \mbox{for}\ \ j=1,2,
\end{align*}
carrying their corresponding norms
\begin{align*}
\|u\|_{Y_1(T)}:=\sup\limits_{t\in[0,T]}\left((1+t)^{-\gamma(p,q)} (\log(\mathrm{e}+t))^{\alpha(p,q)}\mathcal{M}[u](t)\right)\ \ \mbox{and}\ \ \|v\|_{Y_2(T)}:=\sup\limits_{t\in[0,T]}\left(\mathcal{M}[v](t)\right),
\end{align*}
where we define
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{M}[w](t):=(1+t)^{\frac{n}{4}}\|w(t,\cdot)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}+(1+t)^{\frac{n}{4}+\frac{1}{2}}\|\nabla w(t,\cdot)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)},
\end{align*}
with $w=u$ or $w=v$. With the last definitions, we can introduce the solution space $X(T)$ of the weakly coupled system \eqref{Eq_Coupled_Damped_Waves} by
$$ X(T)= Y_1(T) \times Y_2(T), $$
endowed with the norm
$$ \|(u,v)\|_{X(T)}:=\|u\|_{Y_1(T)}+ \|v\|_{Y_2(T)}. $$
Because different power nonlinearities have different influence on lifespan estimates, we can allow the effect of the loss of decay in comparison with the corresponding homogeneous linear problem (see Proposition \ref{Estimates_Linear_Damped_Waves} later). Particularly, in our consideration $p<p_{\mathrm{Fuj}}(n)<q$, we take a loss $(1+t)^{-\gamma(p,q)}(\log(\mathrm{e+t}))^{\alpha(p,q)}$ in the norm of $\|u\|_{Y_1(T)}$. As we can see in Section \ref{Sec.4.2}, this polynomial-logarithmic loss of decay plays an essential role in our proof.
Let us now denote by $\mathcal{H}_0(t,x)$ and $\mathcal{H}_1(t,x)$, the fundamental solutions to the following linearized Cauchy problem:
\begin{align} \label{Eq_Linear_Damped_Waves}
\begin{cases}
w_{tt}-\Delta w+w_t= 0,&x\in\mathbb{R}^n,\ t\in(0,T),\\
(w,w_t)(0,x)=( w_0, w_1)(x),&x\in\mathbb{R}^n,
\end{cases}
\end{align}
for $w=u$ or $w=v$, so that we can represent the solution formula to the corresponding homogeneous linear Cauchy problem for \eqref{Eq_Coupled_Damped_Waves} by
$$
\begin{cases}
u^{\lin}(t,x):= \varepsilon \mathcal{H}_0(t,x)\ast_{(x)} u_{0}(x)+ \varepsilon \mathcal{H}_1(t,x)\ast_{(x)} u_{1}(x),\\
v^{\lin}(t,x):= \varepsilon \mathcal{H}_0(t,x)\ast_{(x)} v_{0}(x)+ \varepsilon \mathcal{H}_1(t,x)\ast_{(x)} v_{1}(x),
\end{cases}
$$
where $\ast_{(x)}$ stands for the convolution with respect to spatial variables $x$. Then, heavily motivated by Duhamel's principle, the solution to \eqref{Eq_Coupled_Damped_Waves} can be written in this form
$$
\begin{cases}
u(t,x)=u^{\lin}(t,x)+\displaystyle\int_{0}^{t}\mathcal{H}_1(t-\tau,x)\ast_{(x)} |v(\tau,x)|^{p}\mathrm{d}\tau=:u^{\lin}(t,x)+u^{\non}(t,x),
\\
v(t,x)=v^{\lin}(t,x)+\displaystyle\int_{0}^{t} \mathcal{H}_1(t-\tau,x)\ast_{(x)} |u(\tau,x)|^{q}\mathrm{d}\tau=:v^{\lin}(t,x)+v^{\non}(t,x),
\end{cases}
$$ where is an equivalent way to represent the mild solution \eqref{Represen_00}.
The main point of our approach to indicate the desired lower bound estimates for the lifespan relies on the proof of a pair of inequalities as follows:
\begin{align}
\|u\|_{Y_1(T)} &\leqslant\varepsilon c_0+ c^u_1 (\log(\mathrm{e}+t))^{\alpha(p,q) }\,\|v\|_{Y_2(T)}^{p}, \label{Ineq.01} \\
\|v\|_{Y_2(T)} &\leqslant\varepsilon c_0+ c^v_1 (\log(\mathrm{e}+t))^{1-\alpha(p,q) q}\,\|u\|_{Y_1(T)}^{q}, \label{Ineq.02}
\end{align}
for all $t\in [0,T]$, where $c_0=c_0(n,J[u_0,u_1,v_0,v_1])$ and $c^u_1,c^v_1$ are two positive constants independent of $T$.
To end this part, we recall the following propositions which are useful to prove Theorem \ref{Thm_Lower_Bound} in the next subsection.
\begin{prop}[Lemma $1$ in \cite{Matsumura}] \label{Estimates_Linear_Damped_Waves}
Let $n\geqslant 1$ and $k=0,1$. Then, the mild solutions to the linear Cauchy problem to \eqref{Eq_Linear_Damped_Waves} fulfill the following $(L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)\cap L^1(\mathbb{R}^n))-L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)$ and $L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)-L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)$ estimates:
\begin{align*}
\left\|\nabla^k w(t,\cdot)\right\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)} &\lesssim (1+t)^{-\frac{n}{4}- \frac{k}{2}}\left(\|w_0\|_{L^1(\mathbb{R}^n)}+ \|w_0\|_{H^k(\mathbb{R}^n)}+ \|w_1\|_{L^1(\mathbb{R}^n)}+ \|w_1\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}\right), \\
\left\|\nabla^k w(t,\cdot)\right\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)} &\lesssim (1+t)^{- \frac{k}{2}}\left(\|w_0\|_{H^k(\mathbb{R}^n)}+ \|w_1\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}\right).
\end{align*}
\end{prop}
\begin{prop}[The classical Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality in \cite{ReissigEbert,Friedman}] \label{Classical_GN_In}
Let $r\in[1,\infty]$. It holds
\begin{align*}
\|f\|_{L^r(\mathbb{R}^n)}\lesssim\|f\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}^{1-\beta}\|\nabla f\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}^{\beta}
\end{align*}
for $f\in \mathcal{C}_0^1(\mathbb{R}^n)$, where $\beta=n\left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{r}\right)$ and $\beta\in[0,1]$.
\end{prop}
\subsection{Lower bound estimates for the lifespan} \label{Sec.4.2}
In order to prove that the solution to \eqref{Eq_Coupled_Damped_Waves} satisfies the inequalities \eqref{Ineq.01} and \eqref{Ineq.02}, at first one deduces immediately the following estimate from the definition of the norm of $X(T)$ and Proposition \ref{Estimates_Linear_Damped_Waves}:
$$ \|(u^{\lin},v^{\lin})\|_{X(T)}\leqslant\varepsilon c_0(n,J[u_0,u_1,v_0,v_1]),$$
where is guaranteed by the fact
\begin{align*}
(1+t)^{-\gamma(p,q)}(\log(\mathrm{e}+t))^{\alpha(p,q)}\lesssim 1
\end{align*}
for any $t\in [0,T]$ due to $\gamma(p,q)>0$. Clearly, to achieve our aim, it suffices to demonstrate only
\begin{align}
\|u^{\non}\|_{Y_1(T)} &\leqslant c^u_1 (\log(\mathrm{e}+t))^{\alpha(p,q) }\,\|v\|_{Y_2(T)}^{p}, \label{Ineq.03} \\
\|v^{\non}\|_{Y_2(T)} &\leqslant c^v_1 (\log(\mathrm{e}+t))^{1-\alpha(p,q) q}\,\|u\|_{Y_1(T)}^{q}, \label{Ineq.04}
\end{align}
instead of \eqref{Ineq.01} and \eqref{Ineq.02}. Actually, by using the classical Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality from Proposition \ref{Classical_GN_In}, we may derive
\begin{align*}
\|\,|u(\tau,\cdot)|^q\|_{L^1(\mathbb{R}^n)} &\lesssim (1+\tau)^{-\frac{n}{2}(q-1)+\gamma(p,q)q} (\log(\mathrm{e}+\tau))^{-\alpha(p,q) q}\|u\|_{Y_1(T)}^q \\
&= (1+\tau)^{-1} (\log(\mathrm{e}+\tau))^{-\alpha(p,q) q}\|u\|_{Y_1(T)}^q,\\
\|\,|u(\tau,\cdot)|^q\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)} &\lesssim (1+\tau)^{-\frac{n}{4}(2q-1)+\gamma(p,q)q} (\log(\mathrm{e}+\tau))^{-\alpha(p,q) q}\|u\|_{Y_1(T)}^q \\
&= (1+\tau)^{-1-\frac{n}{4}} (\log(\mathrm{e}+\tau))^{-\alpha(p,q) q}\|u\|_{Y_1(T)}^q,
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\|\,|v(\tau,\cdot)|^p\|_{L^1(\mathbb{R}^n)} &\lesssim (1+\tau)^{-\frac{n}{2}(p-1)}\|v\|_{Y_2(T)}^p= (1+\tau)^{-1+\gamma(p,q)}\|v\|_{Y_2(T)}^p,\\
\|\,|v(\tau,\cdot)|^p\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)} &\lesssim (1+\tau)^{-\frac{n}{4}(2p-1)}\|v\|_{Y_2(T)}^p= (1+\tau)^{-1-\frac{n}{4}+\gamma(p,q)}\|v\|_{Y_2(T)}^p,
\end{align*}
for any $\tau\in[0,T]$. Let us sketch the proof of verification for these above estimates. On the one hand, we have utilized the relation from the critical curve
$$ \frac{q+1}{pq-1}=\frac{n}{2}\ \ \Rightarrow\ \ -\frac{n}{2}(q-1)+\gamma(p,q)q=-1,\ \ -\frac{n}{2}(p-1)=-1+\gamma(p,q) $$
in the powers of $(1+\tau)$.
On the other hand, the following conditions must be satisfied due to the application of the classical Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality:
\begin{align*}
2\leqslant p,q\leqslant \infty \ \ \mbox{if}\ \ n=1,2.
\end{align*}
The first step is concerned with controlling the nonlinear integral terms $u^{\non}(t,\cdot)$ and $v^{\non}(t,\cdot)$ in the $L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)$ norm. By using the $(L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)\cap L^1(\mathbb{R}^n))-L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)$ estimate in $[0,t/2]$ and the $L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)-L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)$ estimate in $[t/2,t]$ from Proposition \ref{Estimates_Linear_Damped_Waves}, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\|u^{\non}(t,\cdot)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)} &\lesssim \int_0^{t/2}(1+t-\tau)^{-\frac{n}{4}}\|\,|v(\tau,\cdot)|^p\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)\cap L^1(\mathbb{R}^n)}\mathrm{d}\tau+ \int_{t/2}^t \|\,|v(\tau,\cdot)|^p\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}\mathrm{d}\tau\\
&\lesssim (1+t)^{-\frac{n}{4}}\,\|v\|_{Y_2(T)}^p\int_0^{t/2}(1+\tau)^{-1+\gamma(p,q)}\mathrm{d}\tau + (1+t)^{-1-\frac{n}{4}+\gamma(p,q)}\,\|v\|_{Y_2(T)}^p\int_{t/2}^t \mathrm{d}\tau\\
&\lesssim (1+t)^{-\frac{n}{4}+\gamma(p,q)}\,\|v\|_{Y_2(T)}^p,
\end{align*}
where we employed the asymptotic relations $1+t-\tau \approx 1+t$ if $[0,t/2]$ and $1+\tau \approx 1+t$ if $[t/2,t]$ in the second inequality of the previous chain above. In other words, one gets
\begin{align}
(1+t)^{-\gamma(p,q)+\frac{n}{4}} (\log(\mathrm{e}+t))^{\alpha(p,q) }\|u^{\non}(t,\cdot)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)} &\lesssim (\log(\mathrm{e}+t))^{\alpha(p,q) }\,\|v\|_{Y_2(T)}^p. \label{Estimate_1}
\end{align}
The similar strategy to the previous one leads to
\begin{align*}
\|v^{\non}(t,\cdot)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)} &\lesssim \int_0^{t/2}(1+t-\tau)^{-\frac{n}{4}}\|\,|u(\tau,\cdot)|^q\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)\cap L^1(\mathbb{R}^n)}\mathrm{d}\tau + \int_{t/2}^t \|\,|u(\tau,\cdot)|^q\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}\mathrm{d}\tau\\
&\lesssim (1+t)^{-\frac{n}{4}}\,\|u\|_{Y_1(T)}^q\int_0^{t/2}(1+\tau)^{-1} (\log(\mathrm{e}+\tau))^{-\alpha(p,q) q}\mathrm{d}\tau\\
&\quad+ (1+t)^{-1-\frac{n}{4}} (\log(\mathrm{e}+t))^{-\alpha(p,q) q}\,\|u\|_{Y_1(T)}^q\int_{t/2}^t \mathrm{d}\tau\\
&\lesssim (1+t)^{-\frac{n}{4}} (\log(\mathrm{e}+t))^{1-\alpha(p,q) q}\,\|u\|_{Y_1(T)}^q
\end{align*}
due to the choice the parameter $\alpha(p,q)$ satisfying
\begin{align*}
\alpha(p,q) q=\frac{n}{2}(p-1)=\frac{(q+1)(p-1)}{pq-1}=1-\gamma(p,q)<1.
\end{align*}
As a consequence, the following estimate holds:
\begin{align}
(1+t)^{\frac{n}{4}}\|v^{\non}(t,\cdot)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}&\lesssim (\log(\mathrm{e}+t))^{1-\alpha(p,q) q}\,\|u\|_{Y_1(T)}^q. \label{Estimate_2}
\end{align}
In the second step, let us turn to the estimates for the gradient of solution. By repeating the same manner and analogous arguments as we dealt with $\|u^{\non}(t,\cdot)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}$ and $\|v^{\non}(t,\cdot)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}$, one also notices
\begin{align}
(1+t)^{-\gamma(p,q)+\frac{n}{4}+\frac{1}{2}} (\log(\mathrm{e}+t))^{\alpha(p,q) }\|\nabla u^{\non}(t,\cdot)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)} &\lesssim (\log(\mathrm{e}+t))^{\alpha(p,q) }\,\|v\|_{Y_2(T)}^p, \label{Estimate_3}\\
(1+t)^{\frac{n}{4}+\frac{1}{2}}\|\nabla v^{\non}(t,\cdot)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}&\lesssim (\log(\mathrm{e}+t))^{1-\alpha(p,q) q}\,\|u\|_{Y_1(T)}^q. \label{Estimate_4}
\end{align}
All in all, by the definition of the corresponding norms in $Y_1(T)$ and $Y_2(T)$ we can link the obtained estimates from \eqref{Estimate_1} to \eqref{Estimate_4} to claim \eqref{Ineq.03} and \eqref{Ineq.04} automatically.
Afterwards, motivated by the approach in \cite{Iked-Ogaw-2016} we determine
\begin{align*}
T^*:=\sup\left\{T\in[0,T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{m}})\,\, \text{ such that }\,\, F(T):= \|(u,v)\|_{X(T)}\leqslant M\varepsilon \right\}
\end{align*}
with a sufficiently large constant $M>0$, which will be defined in next steps. Thanks to the fact $\|u\|_{Y_1(T^*)}\leqslant \|(u,v)\|_{X(T^*)}\leqslant M\varepsilon$, it holds from \eqref{Ineq.02} that
\begin{align}
\|v\|_{Y_2(T^*)}\leqslant \varepsilon c_0+ c^v_1 M^q (\log(\mathrm{e}+T^*))^{1-\alpha(p,q) q}\varepsilon^q, \label{Estimate_5}
\end{align}
where the restriction $1-\alpha(p,q) q>0$ was used again. Then, substituting the estimate \eqref{Estimate_5} into the inequality \eqref{Ineq.01} results
\begin{align*}
\|u\|_{Y_1(T^*)}&\leqslant \varepsilon c_0+ (\log(\mathrm{e}+T^*))^{\alpha(p,q) }\left(c_2 \varepsilon^{p}+ c_3 M^{pq}(\log(\mathrm{e}+T^*))^{p(1-\alpha(p,q) q)}\varepsilon^{pq}\right)\\
&\leqslant \varepsilon\left(c_0+ c_2(\log(\mathrm{e}+T^*))^{\alpha(p,q)}\varepsilon^{p-1}+ c_3 M^{pq}(\log(\mathrm{e}+T^*))^{p-\alpha(p,q) (pq-1)}\varepsilon^{pq-1} \right)
\end{align*}
with two positive constants $c_2= c_2(c_0,c^u_1,p)$ and $c_3= c_3(c^u_1,c^v_1,p)$. Here, we recall $\alpha(p,q)>0$ to deduce the increasing property of the logarithmic function. So, we can take a large constant $M>0$ such that $0<c_0 < M/8$ to enjoy
\begin{align*}
\|u\|_{Y_1(T^*)}&< \frac{3}{8}M\varepsilon,
\end{align*}
providing that
\begin{align*}
8c_2 M^{-1}(\log(\mathrm{e}+T^*))^{\alpha(p,q)}\varepsilon^{p-1}< 1\ \ \mbox{and}\ \ 8c_3 M^{pq-1}(\log(\mathrm{e}+T^*))^{p-\alpha(p,q) (pq-1)}\varepsilon^{pq-1}< 1.
\end{align*}
What's more, it holds from \eqref{Estimate_5} that
\begin{align*}
\|v\|_{Y_2(T^*)}\leqslant \varepsilon\left(c_0+ c^v_1 M^q (\log(\mathrm{e}+T^*))^{1-\alpha(p,q) q}\varepsilon^{q-1}\right)< \frac{1}{4}M\varepsilon,
\end{align*}
when we consider
\begin{align*}
8c^v_1 M^{q-1} (\log(\mathrm{e}+T^*))^{1-\alpha(p,q) q}\varepsilon^{q-1}< 1.
\end{align*}
Collecting the above two estimates, we know
\begin{align}\label{Ineq_Contri}
F(T^*)= \|(u,v)\|_{X(T^*)}= \|u\|_{Y_1(T^*)}+\|v\|_{Y_2(T^*)}< \frac{5}{8}M\varepsilon< M\varepsilon.
\end{align}
Note that $F=F(T)$ is a continuous function for any $T\in(0,T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{m}})$. Thus, it follows from \eqref{Ineq_Contri} that there exists a time $T_0\in(T^*,T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{m}})$ satisfying $F(T_0)\leqslant M\varepsilon$ so that the contradiction appears to the definition of $T^*$. In other words, we have to pose that one of the following estimates are true:
\begin{align*}
&8c_2 M^{-1}(\log(\mathrm{e}+T^*))^{\alpha(p,q)}\varepsilon^{p-1}\geqslant1,\\
&8c_3 M^{pq-1}(\log(\mathrm{e}+T^*))^{p-\alpha(p,q) (pq-1)}\varepsilon^{pq-1}\geqslant 1,\\
&8c^v_1 M^{q-1}(\log(\mathrm{e}+T^*))^{1-\alpha(p,q) q}\varepsilon^{q-1}\geqslant 1.
\end{align*}
Then, we can find the blow-up time
\begin{align*}
T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{m}}\geqslant\exp\left(c \varepsilon^{-\min\left\{ \frac{p-1}{\alpha(p,q)},\frac{pq-1}{p-\alpha(p,q)(pq-1)},\frac{q-1}{1-\alpha(p,q) q} \right\}}\right)=
\exp\big(c \varepsilon^{- \frac{p-1}{\alpha(p,q)}}\big)
\end{align*}
where $c$ is a positive constant independent of the small parameter $\varepsilon$. Here, we pay attention to the condition $p-\alpha(p,q) (pq-1)>0$ when $\alpha(p,q) q<1$ holds. Thus, we may rewrite the lower bound estimates by
\begin{align*}
T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{m}}\geqslant \mathrm{exp}\left(c\varepsilon^{-\frac{q(pq-1)}{q+1}}\right).
\end{align*}
By this way, we can achieve our aim to show the really sharp lifespan in the case $p<q$.
The special case $p=q$ would be dealt more simply (without any logarithmic weighted function) with an analogous procedure to the proof of the case $p<q$ by setting $\gamma(p,q)=0$ and $\alpha(p,q)=0$. More precisely, from \eqref{Estimate_5} one arrives at
\begin{align*}
\|v\|_{Y_2(T^*)}\leqslant \varepsilon \left(c_0+ c^v_1 M^p \log(\mathrm{e}+T^*) \varepsilon^{p-1}\right).
\end{align*}
Again, following some arguments used in \cite{Iked-Ogaw-2016} we obtain
\begin{align*}
T_{\varepsilon,\mathrm{m}}\geqslant \exp\left(c\varepsilon^{-(p-1)}\right).
\end{align*}
Hence, our proof is completed.
\section{Concluding remarks}\label{Section_Concluding_Remarks}
\begin{remark}
\fontshape{n}
\selectfont
We will give an application of our methods to the weakly coupled system of semilinear reaction-diffusion equations in this remark. As we know, this system can describe a model for heat propagations in a two-component combustible mixture. More precisely, let us consider the following Cauchy problem for two scalar functions $\tilde{u}=\tilde{u}(t,x)$, $\tilde{v}=\tilde{v}(t,x)$ standing for the temperatures of the interacting components:
\begin{align}\label{Eq_Coupled_Heats}
\begin{cases}
\tilde{u}_{t}-\Delta \tilde{u}=|\tilde{v}|^p,&x\in\mathbb{R}^n,\ t\in(0,T),\\
\tilde{v}_{t}-\Delta \tilde{v}=|\tilde{u}|^q,&x\in\mathbb{R}^n,\ t\in(0,T),\\
(\tilde{u},\tilde{v})(0,x)=(\varepsilon \tilde{u}_0,\varepsilon \tilde{v}_0)(x),&x\in\mathbb{R}^n,
\end{cases}
\end{align}
where $p,q>1$ satisfy the critical condition $\alpha_{\max}(p,q)=n/2$ for any $n\geqslant 1$ (see \cite{Esco-Herr-1991,Esco-Levi-1995,Moch-Huan-1998,Ishi-Kawa-Sie-1998,Renc-2000,Umed-2003,Aoya-Tsut-Yama-2007} and references therein, particularly, a complete introduction in \cite{Fuji-Iked-Waka-2020}). Here, thermal conductivity is supposed constant and equal for both substances. For one thing, by following the same approach as the proof of Theorem \ref{Thm_Upper_Bound}, we also can conclude the same upper bound estimates for the lifespan of solutions to \eqref{Eq_Coupled_Heats}. We assume that $\tilde{u}_0,\tilde{v}_0\in\mathcal{C}_0^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ enjoy
$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\tilde{u}_0(x)\mathrm{d}x>0 \ \ \text{as well as}\ \ \int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\tilde{v}_0(x)\mathrm{d}x>0. $$
Then, the upper bound estimates for the lifespan $\widetilde{T}_{\varepsilon}$ of weak solutions to \eqref{Eq_Coupled_Heats} under the situation $\alpha_{\max}(p,q)=n/2$ fulfill the same estimates as \eqref{Lifespan}. For another thing, since our approach to deal with the lower bound estimates depends on some decay estimates for solutions, we expect that following the same procedure as the proof of Theorem \ref{Thm_Lower_Bound} associated with some well-known $L^{r}(\mathbb{R}^n)-L^{m}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ estimates with $1\leqslant m\leqslant r\leqslant \infty$ allows one to derive the same lower bound estimates for the lifespan as \eqref{Lifespan_Lower} to \eqref{Eq_Coupled_Heats} in the critical case $\alpha_{\max}(p,q)=n/2$. Together with these expectations, we may believe that the sharp lifespan estimates $\widetilde{T}_{\varepsilon}$ for solutions to the reaction-diffusion systems \eqref{Eq_Coupled_Heats} in low spatial dimensions with $\alpha_{\max}(p,q)=n/2$ are defined by
\begin{align*}
\widetilde{T}_{\varepsilon}\sim\begin{cases}
\exp\left( C\varepsilon^{-(p-1)} \right)&\mbox{if}\ \ p=q,\\
\exp\left(C\varepsilon^{-(pq-p_{\mathrm{Fuj}}(n))}\right) &\mbox{if}\ \ p\neq q,
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
where $C>0$ is a constant independent of $\varepsilon$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
\fontshape{n}
\selectfont
Throughout this paper, we have succeeded in deriving not only some upper bound estimates but also some lower bound estimates of solutions to the Cauchy problem for the weakly coupled system of semlinear damped wave equations in the critical case. Clearly, this is to state that the obtained lifespan estimates in this work are actually sharp. More generally, we expect that our approach utilized in this paper can be applied to study lifespan estimates of solutions to the Cauchy problem for other weakly coupled systems of semilinear parabolic-like evolution equations in the critical case, for example, weakly coupled systems of semilinear wave equations with time-dependent damping terms \cite{Djau-Reis-2018,Djau-Reis-2019,Chen-Palmieri-2019}, or weakly coupled systems of semilinear $\sigma$-evolution equations with damping terms \cite{D'Abbicco2015,Dao-2019} for some suitable parameters.
\end{remark}
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This research of the second author (Tuan Anh Dao) is funded (or partially funded) by the Simons Foundation Grant Targeted for Institute of Mathematics, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology. The authors thank Alessandro Palmieri (University of Pisa) and Ya-guang Wang (Shanghai Jiao Tong University) for their suggestions in the preparation of the paper.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Some scenarios Beyond the Standard Model of particle physics (BSM) include a new light feebly interacting particle $X$, which can be produced in $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}X$ decays. In a hidden sector portal framework the new $X$ particle mediates interactions between standard model (SM) and hidden sector fields~\cite{PBC19}. In the Higgs portal scenario, $X$ is a scalar that mixes with the SM Higgs boson; this is realised in inflationary~\cite{Bezrukov10}, scale invariant~\cite{Clarke13}, and relaxion~\cite{Banerjee20} models, which additionally have cosmological implications.
A massless $X$ particle would have the properties of a neutral boson arising from the spontaneous breaking of a global $U(1)$ symmetry~\cite{PDG18}: $X$ may then acquire mass through explicit symmetry breaking. One example, arising from the breaking of a Peccei-Quinn (PQ) symmetry, is an axion~\cite{Weinberg78,Wilczeck82}, which would be a signature of the PQ mechanism and credibly solve the strong CP problem~\cite{PecciQuinn77_1,PecciQuinn77_2}. Such an axion could be flavor non-diagonal~\cite{Hindmarsh99}.
Alternatives, from breaking of the lepton number and flavour symmetries respectively, are majorons~\cite{GelminiRoncadelli81} or familons~\cite{Wilczeck82,DavidsonWali82}.
A QCD axion with mass $\mathcal{O}(10^{-4}\,\text{eV})$ could be a dark matter candidate, and specific axion models can also solve the SM flavor problem~\cite{Calibbi16}.
In a broader class of models, $X$ is considered as an
axion-like particle (ALP) that acts as a pseudoscalar mediator~\cite{DolanEtAl15}.
Alternatively the introduction of a light, feebly-coupled, spin-1 boson can effectively generate through its axial couplings the phenomenology related to an invisible spin-0 ALP~\cite{Feyet06}.
Searches for $X$ production in the $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}X$ decay have the potential to constrain many BSM models.
The $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}X$ decay is characterised by an incoming $K^{+}$, an outgoing $\pi^{+}$ and missing energy-momentum, as is the rare $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}\nu\bar{\nu}$ decay.
An interpretation of the NA62 $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}\nu\bar{\nu}$ studies using 2017 data~\cite{NA62PNN17} in terms of a search for the $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}X$ decay is presented here.
Upper limits are established on $\text{BR}(K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}X)$ and interpreted in terms of two BSM scenarios.
\section{Beamline, detector and dataset}
\label{sec:NA62DetectorInfo}
The NA62 experiment, beamline and detector are described in detail in~\cite{NA62Detector17} and a schematic of the detector is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:NA62Detector}.
A right-handed coordinate system, $(x,y,z)$, is defined with the target at the origin and the beam travelling towards positive $z$, the $y$ axis is vertical (positive up) and the $x$-axis is horizontal (positive left).
A $400\,\text{GeV/}c$ proton beam extracted from the CERN Super Proton Synchrotron (SPS) impinges on a beryllium target creating a $75\,\text{GeV/}c$ secondary hadron beam with a $1\%$ rms momentum spread and a composition of $70\%$ pions, $23\%$ protons and $6\%$ kaons. Kaons ($K^{+}$) are positively tagged with $70\,\text{ps}$ timing precision by the KTAG detector, a differential Cherenkov counter filled with nitrogen gas.
The momentum and position of the $K^{+}$ are measured by the GigaTracker (GTK), a spectrometer formed of three silicon pixel tracker stations and a set of four dipole magnets. GTK measurements have momentum, direction and time resolutions of $0.15\,\text{GeV}/c$, $16\,\mu\text{rad}$ and $100\,\text{ps}$, respectively.
After traversing the GTK magnets, a magnetized scraper used to sweep away muons, and a bending magnet (B), the beam at the FV entrance has a rectangular profile of $52\times24\,\text{mm}^{2}$ and a divergence of $0.11\,\text{mrad}$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{Figures/NA62Detector2017_JCSedit_KpiX_v4.pdf}
\caption{Schematic top view of the NA62 beamline and detector.
The “CHOD” label indicates both the CHOD and NA48-CHOD hodoscopes described in the text. Also shown is the trajectory of a beam particle in vacuum which crosses all the detector apertures, thus avoiding interactions with material. A dipole magnet between MUV3 and SAC deflects the beam particles out of the SAC acceptance.
}
\label{fig:NA62Detector}
\end{center}
\vspace{-15pt}
\end{figure}
The experiment is designed to study $K^{+}$ decays occurring in the $60\,\text{m}$ fiducial volume (FV) starting $2.6\,\text{m}$ downstream of GTK3 and housed inside a $117\,\text{m}$ long vacuum tank, containing a magnetic spectrometer, and ending at the ring imaging Cherenkov counter (RICH).
Momentum and position measurements for charged particles produced in $K^{+}$ decays in the FV are provided by the magnetic spectrometer composed of four STRAW tracking stations, two on either side of a dipole magnet (M).
This spectrometer provides a momentum measurement with resolution $\sigma_{p}/p$ of $0.3$--$0.4\%$. The RICH is filled with neon gas at atmospheric pressure and provides particle identification for charged particles, and a time measurement with a precision better than $100\,\text{ps}$.
Two adjacent scintillator hodoscopes (CHOD and NA48-CHOD), provide time measurements for charged particles with a $200\,\text{ps}$ resolution.
A system of veto detectors is key to the experiment. Interactions of beam particles in GTK3 are detected by the charged particle anti-counter (CHANTI), formed of six stations of scintillator bar counters.
Downstream, a photon veto system is used to reject the $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{0}$ background.
This analysis selects $\pi^{+}$ particles with momenta in the range $15$--$35\,\text{GeV/}c$. This means that a $\pi^{0}$ from the $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{0}$ background has momentum of at least $40\,\text{GeV/}c$ and the subsequent $\pi^{0}\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$ decay, $\text{BR}=98.8\%$, produces two energetic photons which can be detected with high efficiency.
There are twelve large angle veto (LAV) stations positioned to ensure hermetic coverage for photon emission angles of $8.5$--$50\,\text{mrad}$.
The liquid krypton calorimeter (LKr) provides coverage for $1$--$8.5\,\text{mrad}$.
The small angle photon veto (SAV) covers angles below $1\,\text{mrad}$ using two sampling calorimeters of shashlyk design (IRC and SAC).
Downstream of the LKr are two hadronic sampling calorimeters (MUV1 and MUV2). Together with the LKr, these provide particle identification information through the pattern of energy deposition. Electrons/positrons produce electromagnetic showers that are well-contained in the LKr, which has a depth of 27 radiation lengths. Pions may pass through the LKr without losing all of their energy and can produce a hadronic shower in MUV1 and MUV2. In contrast, muons are minimum ionising particles in the calorimetric system.
The MUV3 detector is positioned downstream of a $0.8\,\text{m}$ iron absorber and consists of a plane of scintillator tiles.
It provides measurements of muons with $400\,\text{ps}$ time resolution.
A two-level trigger system is employed with a hardware level 0 (L0) selection followed by a level 1 (L1) decision made by software algorithms.
The primary trigger stream of the experiment is dedicated to collection of $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}\nu\bar{\nu}$ events and uses information from the CHOD, RICH, LKr, MUV3 at L0~\cite{L0TriggerPaper} and KTAG, LAV, STRAW at L1~\cite{NA62PNN17}.
The NA48-CHOD also provides a $99\%$ efficient minimum bias trigger, used for collection of $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{0}$ events that are used for normalisation.
The data sample collected in 2017 for the study of the $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}\nu\bar{\nu}$ decay is used for this analysis.
\section{Signal selection}
\label{sec:SignalSel}
The observable for the $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}X$ search is the reconstructed squared missing mass
\begin{equation*}
m^2_\mathrm{miss} = ( P_{K} - P_{\pi})^{2} \,,
\end{equation*}
where $P_{K}$ and $P_{\pi}$ are the $K^{+}$ and $\pi^{+}$ 4-momenta, derived from the measured 3-momenta of the GTK and STRAW tracks under the $K^{+}$ and $\pi^{+}$ mass hypotheses, respectively.
The event selection is identical to that used for the $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}\nu\bar{\nu}$ measurement~\cite{NA62PNN17} and is summarised below.
Candidate events must have fewer than three reconstructed STRAW tracks with no negatively charged tracks.
Only one track can fulfil additional criteria to become a $\pi^{+}$ candidate but, for example, an additional out-of-time halo muon track may exist.
The time assigned to the $\pi^{+}$ candidate is calculated using the mean times measured in the STRAW, NA48-CHOD and RICH weighted by their respective measured resolutions.
A $\pi^{+}$ candidate track must have momentum in the range $15$--$35\,\text{GeV}/c$ and be within the sensitive regions of the downstream detectors (RICH, CHODs, LKr and MUV1,2,3) with geometrically and time-coincident associated signals recorded in the CHODs, LKr and RICH.
The candidate track must be consistent with the $\pi^{+}$ hypothesis for the RICH reconstructed mass and likelihood.
The candidate must also satisfy a multivariate classifier based on calorimetric information.
On average, for $15$--$35\,\text{GeV}/c$ tracks, the two methods achieve $\pi^{+}$ identification efficiencies of $82\%$ and $78\%$, with probabilities of misidentification of $\mu^{+}$ as $\pi^{+}$ of $2.3\times10^{-3}$ and $6.3\times10^{-6}$, respectively. A MUV3 veto condition rejects events with signals geometrically associated with the track within a time window of $7\,\text{ns}$.
No signals are allowed in any LAV station (or SAV) within $3\,(7)\,\text{ns}$ of the $\pi^{+}$ time.
No LKr clusters are allowed beyond a distance of $100\,\text{mm}$ from the $\pi^{+}$ impact point within cluster-energy dependent time windows of $10$ to $100\,\text{ns}$.
The STRAW, CHODs and LKr are used to veto events with additional activity, including tracks produced by photon interactions upstream of the calorimeters and partially reconstructed multi-track decays.
Overall rejection of $\pi^{0}\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$ decays is achieved with an inefficiency of $1.3\times10^{-8}$.
A $K^{+}$ is tagged upstream by the KTAG if Cherenkov photons are detected within $2\,\text{ns}$ of the $\pi^{+}$ track time in at least five out of its total of eight sectors.
A GTK track is associated with the $K^{+}$ if its time is within $0.6\,\text{ns}$ of the KTAG time and the closest distance of approach (CDA) to the $\pi^{+}$ track is less than $4\,\text{mm}$. The $K^{+}$/$\pi^{+}$ matching is based on time coincidence and spatial information and has an efficiency of $75\%$.
The average probability for wrong (accidental) association with pileup GTK tracks is $1.3\%$ ($3.5\%$) when the $K^{+}$ track is (is not) correctly reconstructed.
Upstream backgrounds arise from a combination of early $K^{+}$ decays (upstream of the FV), beam particle interactions in the GTK stations, additional GTK tracks, and large-angle $\pi^{+}$ scattering in the first STRAW station. To minimise such backgrounds, the vertex formed between the selected $K^{+}$ and $\pi^{+}$ tracks must be inside the FV with no additional activity in the CHANTI within $3\,\text{ns}$ of the $\pi^{+}$ candidate time. Additionally, a `box cut' is applied requiring that the projection of the $\pi^{+}$ candidate track back to the final collimator (COL) is outside the area defined by $|x|<100\,\text{mm}$ and $|y|<500\,\text{mm}$.
The $m^2_\mathrm{miss}$ observable is used to discriminate between a peaking two-body $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}X$ signal and backgrounds.
Two signal regions are defined, called region 1 and region 2, to minimise large backgrounds from $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{0}$, $K^{+}\rightarrow\mu^{+}\nu_{\mu}$ and $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ decays.
The reconstructed $m^2_\mathrm{miss}$ for region 1 must be between $0$ and $0.01\,\text{GeV}^{2}/c^{4}$ and that for region 2 between $0.026$ and $0.068\,\text{GeV}^{2}/c^{4}$.
Additional momentum-dependent constraints supplement the definition of the signal regions using alternative squared missing mass variables, constructed either by replacing the GTK measurement of the beam 3-momentum with the average beam momentum and direction, or the STRAW 3-momentum measurement with one measured by the RICH under the $\pi^{+}$ mass hypothesis.
These requirements reject events with incorrect reconstruction of $m^2_\mathrm{miss}$ due to momenta mismeasurements and improve background rejection, but decrease acceptance at the boundaries of the signal regions.
\section{Signal and background models}
\label{sec:SignalAndBkgModels}
\mbox{\textsc{Geant4}}\xspace-based~\cite{Geant4} Monte Carlo simulations of $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}X$ decays are performed with the assumption that $X$ is stable, for $X$ masses covering the search range at $1.4\,\,\text{MeV}/c^{2}$ intervals.
This value corresponds to intervals of the squared missing mass that are always smaller than its resolution. These simulations include decay kinematics, interactions in material, and the responses of the detectors.
In this study, a scan is performed searching for $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}X$ signals with $X$ mass, $m_{X}$, in the ranges $0$--$110\,\text{MeV/}c^{2}$ and $154$--$260\,\text{MeV/}c^{2}$. These $m_{X}$ ranges extend beyond the $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}\nu\bar{\nu}$ signal regions because of the resolution of the reconstructed $m^2_\mathrm{miss}$ observable.
The resolution of $m^2_\mathrm{miss}$, $\sigma_{m^2_{\text{miss}}}$, as a function of simulated $m_{X}$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ResAccSES} (left).
The reconstructed $m^2_\mathrm{miss}$ resolution for a control sample of selected $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^0$ events is found to be $4\%$ better in simulations than in data. The resolution derived from simulations is therefore corrected by increasing it by $4\%$ and a systematic uncertainty of $10\%$ is assigned to the $m^2_\mathrm{miss}$ resolution.
The acceptance for the selection described in section~\ref{sec:SignalSel}, as obtained using simulations, is displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:ResAccSES} (centre).
The single event sensitivity, $\text{BR}_{SES}$, defined as the branching ratio corresponding to the observation of one signal event, is calculated by following the procedure adopted for the $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}\nu\bar{\nu}$ analysis using the $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{0}$ decay for normalisation~\cite{NA62PNN17}; the resulting values are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ResAccSES} (right).
The uncertainty of $BR_{SES}$ is $10\%$ and is mainly systematic. The largest contributions to this uncertainty are associated with the trigger efficiency, signal and normalisation reconstruction and selection efficiencies~\cite{NA62PNN17}, and differences between $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}\nu\bar{\nu}$ and $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}X$ kinematics.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.325\textwidth]{Figures/KpiXFinalPlots_Updated_Res_vsMx_EB_vFinal.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.325\textwidth]{Figures/KpiXFinalPlots_Updated_Acc_Smooth_F_EB_vFinal.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.325\textwidth]{Figures/KpiXFinalPlots_Updated_SES_smooth_EB_vFinal.pdf}
\caption{
Resolution of the $m^2_\mathrm{miss}$ observable (left), acceptance (centre) and single event sensitivity,
$\text{BR}_{SES}$, (right) for $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}X$, as functions of mass hypothesis $m_{X}$.
}
\label{fig:ResAccSES}
\end{figure}
The sensitivity for low $X$ masses is limited by the $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}\nu\bar{\nu}$ signal region definition $m^2_\mathrm{miss}>0$, which is necessary to suppress the background from $K^{+}\rightarrow\mu^{+}\nu_{\mu}$ decays.
This effect reduces the acceptance by half for $m_{X}=0$, and equivalently at each signal region boundary (Fig.~\ref{fig:ResAccSES} centre).
The acceptance for $X$ with finite lifetime, $\tau_{X}$ and $m_{X}\ne 0$, is computed under the following assumptions: $X$ decays only to visible SM particles; decays upstream of MUV3 are detected with $100\%$ efficiency.
The efficiency is
$99.9\%$, and the uncertainty in this quantity is included in the systematic
uncertainty.
The acceptance for a set of $\tau_{X}$ values is calculated by weighting simulated events by the probability that $X$ does not decay upstream of MUV3.
The acceptance increases as a function of lifetime reaching a plateau for $\tau_{X}>10\,\text{ns}$.
For $m_{X}<20\,\text{MeV/}c^{2}$, losses of acceptance at lower lifetimes are compensated by the increase in the Lorentz factor.
The background contributions for the $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}X$ search are the same as for the $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}\nu\bar{\nu}$ analysis with the addition of the $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}\nu\bar{\nu}$ decay itself, which becomes the dominant background. The SM description of the $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}\nu\bar{\nu}$ decay is assumed.
The total expected background and the reconstructed $m^2_\mathrm{miss}$ distributions for each component are obtained from auxiliary measurements, as described in~\cite{NA62PNN17}. The resulting numbers of background events in the signal regions are summarised in Table~\ref{tab:bkg}.
The contributions from kaon decays other than $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}\nu\bar{\nu}$ are grouped in the row \textit{other $K^+$ decays},
and their distribution in $m^2_\mathrm{miss}$ is known with good accuracy.
For the \textit{upstream background}, an additional systematic uncertainty of $30\%$ is included, to account for the uncertainty in the estimation of its distribution in $m^2_\mathrm{miss}$ resulting from the limited size of the control sample used for the auxiliary measurements.
The total background is described, as a function of the reconstructed $m^2_\mathrm{miss}$, by fitting polynomial functions to the expectations
in signal regions 1 and 2, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:BkgShape}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\vspace{-10pt}
\includegraphics[width=1.\textwidth]{Figures/Fig3_italic.pdf}
\vspace{-10pt}
\caption{
Distributions of the expected reconstructed squared missing mass, $m^2_\mathrm{miss}$, for background processes,
obtained from simulations and data-driven procedures, displayed as stacked histograms with bin width $0.00067\,\text{GeV}^{2}/c^{4}$.
In each signal region, the polynomial function used to describe the total background is shown.}
\label{fig:BkgShape}
\end{figure}
\input{Tables/BkgTable_R12_30pc.tex}
\section{Statistical analysis}
The search procedure involves a fully frequentist hypothesis-test using a shape analysis with observable $m^2_\mathrm{miss}$ and an unbinned profile likelihood ratio test statistic.
Each $X$ mass hypothesis is treated independently.
The parameter of interest, $\text{BR}(K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}X)$, is related to the expected number of signal events, $n_{S}$, by $\text{BR}(K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}X)=n_{S}\times\text{BR}_{SES}$.
The likelihood function has the form:
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{L} =
\frac{(n_{tot})^n e^{-n_{tot}}}{n!}
\times \prod_{j}^{n} \Bigg[ \frac{n_B}{n_{tot}} f_{B} \Big(m^2_\mathrm{miss},_{j}\Big) + \frac{n_{S}}{n_{tot}} f_{S} \Big(m^2_\mathrm{miss},_{j}|\mu_{X},\sigma_{X}\Big) \Bigg] \times
\prod^{N_{\text{nuis}}}_{i} \mathcal{C}_{i}(p_{\text{meas}}^{i}|p_{\text{nuis}}^{i}) \
\end{equation*}
where $n$ is the observed number of events, $n_{tot}=n_B+n_S$ and
$n_{B}$ is the expected number of background events; $f_{B}(m^2_\mathrm{miss})$ is a polynomial function of $m^2_\mathrm{miss}$ normalised to unity which describes the total background in the signal region relevant for a certain mass hypothesis $m_X$; and $f_{S}(m^2_\mathrm{miss}|\mu_{X},\sigma_{X})$ is the Gaussian function, normalised to unity, with parameters $\mu_{X}$ and $\sigma_{X}$ obtained from a fit to the distribution of the reconstructed simulated events.
Index $j$ runs over the $n$ observed events and their reconstructed $m^2_\mathrm{miss}$ are denoted $m^2_\mathrm{miss},_{j}$.
The $N_{\text{nuis}}$ nuisance parameters considered, $p_{\text{nuis}}^{i}$, are $n_{B},\,\text{BR}_{SES},\,\mu_{X},\,\sigma_{X}$,
and are estimated by auxiliary measurements.
These estimations, $p_{\text{meas}}^{i}=\hat{n}_{B},\,\hat{\text{BR}}_{SES},\,\hat{\mu}_{X},\,\hat{\sigma}_{X}$, are treated as global observables ~\cite{LogLikelihoodStats}.
The constraint terms, $\mathcal{C}_{i}(p_{\text{meas}}^{i}|p_{\text{nuis}}^{i})$, are the probability density functions describing the distribution of each nuisance parameter.
The constraint term for $n_{B}$ is a Poisson distribution with mean value
$(\hat{n}_{B}/\sigma_{B})^{2}$ where $\hat{n}_{B}$ and $\sigma_{B}$ are the central value and uncertainty of the background expectation~\cite{CousinsEtAl07}.
The constraint term for $\text{BR}_{SES}$ is a log-normal function with parameters corresponding to a relative uncertainty of $10\%$.
A Gaussian constraint term is used for $\mu_{X}$, with relative uncertainty depending on the mass hypothesis $m_{X}$.
A log-normal constraint term is used for $\sigma_{X}$, with the mean corresponding to the estimated value after the $4\%$ correction (described in Section~\ref{sec:SignalAndBkgModels}), and relative uncertainty of 10\%.
The normalised polynomial functions, describing the background distribution in $m^2_\mathrm{miss}$, are considered to be known exactly.
For each mass hypothesis the fully frequentist test is performed
according to the CLs method~\cite{Read02} to exclude the presence of a signal with $90\%$ confidence level (CL)
for the observed data.
A cross-check was performed, using single bin counting experiments in windows of width equal to four times $\sigma_{m^2_{\text miss}}$ around each mass hypothesis, with a hybrid frequentist treatment using a log-likelihood ratio test statistic. A comparable expected sensitivity was obtained.
\section{Results and discussion}
Two candidate $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}X$ events are observed~\cite{NA62PNN17} at reconstructed $m_{\text{miss}}$ values of $196$ and $252\,\text{MeV}/c^{2}$.
Upper limits are established on $\text{BR}(K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}X)$ at $90\%$ CL for each $X$ mass hypothesis:
expected and observed upper limits, assuming stable or invisibly decaying $X$, are displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:KpiXBrUL} (left). The observed upper limits are compared to the previous results from the E787/E949 experiments~\cite{BNL09} in Fig.~\ref{fig:KpiXBrUL} (right), as a function of $m_{X}$ and for different values of $\tau_{X}$, assuming $X$ decays to visible SM particles.
The strongest limits of $5\times10^{-11}$ are obtained at large $X$ masses ($160$--$250\,\text{MeV}/c^{2}$) and long $X$ lifetimes ($>5\,\text{ns}$).
Under the assumption of stable or invisibly decaying $X$ these upper limits improve by a factor of $\mathcal{O}(10)$ in signal region 2, and are competitive in region 1. For unstable $X$, assuming decays only to visible SM particles, the same pattern holds in general. However, in region 1 the limits obtained improve across an increasingly large range of mass hypotheses as the assumed lifetime becomes shorter.
Despite differences in experimental set-up between E787/E949 (stopped $K^{+}$ decay-at-rest) and NA62 (highly boosted $K^{+}$ decay-in-flight), the two results exhibit similar dependence on $\tau_{X}$.
This is because the ratios of the Lorentz factor for the $X$ particle to the decay length are similar in the two experiments.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\hspace{-20pt} \vspace{-5pt}
\includegraphics[width=1.14\textwidth]{Figures/Fig4left_italic2.pdf}
\caption*{}
\label{fig:NA62BRUL}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1.05\textwidth]{Figures/KpiXFinalPlots_Updated_BrULobs_NA62BNL_Lifetimes_logy_absLeg_EB_vFinal.pdf}
\caption*{}
\label{fig:BrULlifetimes}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{-21pt}
\caption{
Left: upper limits on $\text{BR}(K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}X)$ for each mass hypothesis, $m_{X}$, tested. Right: model-independent observed upper limits as functions of the mass and lifetime assumed for $X$ for NA62 (this work, solid lines) and E787/E949~\cite{BNL09} (dashed lines).
}
\label{fig:KpiXBrUL}
\end{figure}
In a Higgs portal model with a dark sector scalar mixing with the Higgs boson, $X$ production and decay are driven by the mixing parameter $\sin^{2}\theta$ (model BC4~\cite{PBC19,Winkler}).
This gives rise to $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}X$ decays with branching ratio proportional to $\sin^{2}\theta$.
The constraints derived on $\sin^{2}\theta$ from this search, alongside results from other studies, are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:KpiX_ScalarBC4}.
In a scenario where $X$ is an ALP with couplings proportional to SM Yukawa couplings (model BC10~\cite{PBC19,DolanEtAl15}) the $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}X$ decay occurs with a branching ratio proportional to the square of the coupling constant $g_{Y}$. The constraints on $g_{Y}$ derived from this and other searches are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:KpiX_ALPBC10}.
If $X$ decays only to invisible particles, such as dark matter, bounds on the coupling parameter ($\sin^{2}\theta$ or $g_{Y}$ for the scalar and ALP models, respectively) are directly derived from its relationship with the branching ratio, with results shown in the right-hand panels of Figs.~\ref{fig:KpiX_ScalarBC4} and~\ref{fig:KpiX_ALPBC10}.
If $X$ decays only to visible SM particles, $\tau_{X}$ is inversely proportional to the coupling parameters~\cite{DolanEtAl15,Winkler}, limiting the reach of this analysis for large coupling because of lower acceptance for shorter lifetimes.
The $X\rightarrow e^{+}e^{-}$ decays dominate the visible decay width up to the di-muon threshold beyond which an additional channel opens and $\tau_{X}$ decreases, limiting the sensitivity of this search.
The model-dependent relationship between the lifetime and coupling therefore determines the shape of the exclusion regions shown in the left-hand panels of Figs.~\ref{fig:KpiX_ScalarBC4} and~\ref{fig:KpiX_ALPBC10}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\hspace{-20pt}
\includegraphics[width=1.05\textwidth]{Figures/PBCScalarModel_forKpiX_all.pdf}
\caption*{}
\label{fig:KpiX_ScalarBC4_Visible}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1.05\textwidth]{Figures/PBCScalarModel_forKpiX_inv_all.pdf}
\caption*{}
\label{fig:KpiX_ScalarBC4_Invisible}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{-17pt}
\caption{
Excluded regions of the parameter space $(m_{S},\sin^{2}\theta)$ for a dark scalar, $S$, of the BC4 model~\cite{PBC19} decaying only (left) to visible SM particles as in the BC4 model and (right) invisibly.
The exclusion bound from the present search for the decay $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}S$ is labelled as ``$K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}+\text{inv.}$'' and is shaded in red.
In the $\pi^{0}$ mass region the independent NA62 search for $\pi^{0}\rightarrow\text{invisible}$ decays~\cite{NA62pi0inv} provides constraints, shown in purple.
Other bounds, shown in grey, are derived from the experiments E949~\cite{BNL09}, CHARM~\cite{Winkler}, NA48/2~\cite{NA48Kpimumu}, LHCb~\cite{LHCbBKmumu_a,LHCbBKmumu_b} and Belle~\cite{BelleBKmumu}.
}
\label{fig:KpiX_ScalarBC4}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\hspace{-20pt}
\includegraphics[width=1.05\textwidth]{Figures/PBCAxionModel_forKpiX_all.pdf}
\caption*{}
\label{fig:KpiX_ALPBC10_Visible}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1.05\textwidth]{Figures/PBCAxionModel_forKpiX_inv_all.pdf}
\caption*{}
\label{fig:KpiX_ALPBC10_Invisible}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{-17pt}
\caption{
Excluded regions of the parameter space $(m_{a},g_{Y})$ for an ALP, $a$, of the BC10 model~\cite{PBC19} decaying only (left) to visible particles and (right) invisibly.
The exclusion bound from the present search for the decay $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}a$ is labelled as ``$K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}+\text{inv.}$'' and is shaded in red.
In the $\pi^{0}$ mass region the independent NA62 search for $\pi^{0}\rightarrow\text{invisible}$ decays~\cite{NA62pi0inv} provides constraints, shown in purple.
Other bounds, shown in grey, are derived from the experiments E949~\cite{BNL09}, $K_{\mu2}$~\cite{Kmu2ALP}, CLEO~\cite{CLEO_ALP}, CHARM~\cite{CHARM_ALP}, KTeV~\cite{KTeV}, LHCb~\cite{LHCbBKmumu_a,LHCbBKmumu_b} and from Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN)~\cite{PBC19}.
}
\label{fig:KpiX_ALPBC10}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
A search for the $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}X$ decay, where $X$ is a long-lived feebly interacting particle, is performed through an interpretation of the $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}\nu\bar{\nu}$ analysis of data collected in 2017 by the NA62 experiment at CERN.
Two candidate $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}X$ events are observed, in agreement with the expected background. Upper limits on $\text{BR}(K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}X)$ are established at $90\%$ CL, with the strongest limits of $5\times10^{-11}$ at large $X$ masses ($160$--$250\,\text{MeV}/c^{2}$) and long $X$ lifetimes ($>5\,\text{ns}$), improving on current results by up to a factor of $\mathcal{O}(10)$.
An interpretation of these results to constrain BSM models is presented in scenarios where $X$ is a dark scalar mixing with the Higgs boson or is an ALP with couplings to fermions.
\clearpage
\section*{Acknowledgements}
\input{acknow202010}
|
\section{Introduction}
\IEEEPARstart{R}{econfigurable} intelligent surfaces (RISs), also
known as intelligent reflecting surfaces, have gained popularity as
a revolutionary technology for achieving spectrum efficient, energy
efficient, and cost effective wireless communication \cite{2019_IEEEAccess_RIS_review},
\cite{2019_ArXiv_IRS_Toward_YCL}, \cite{2020_ArXiv_IRS_Tutorial_QWu}.
RISs can alter or reconfigure the propagation environment so that
the performance of wireless communications can be significantly improved
\cite{2020_CM_TowardIRS_QWu}. For these reasons RIS is considered
a potentially important technology for use in future 6G communications
\cite{rajatheva2020white}.
An RIS consists of a large number of reconfigurable passive elements,
where each element is able to introduce phase shift to the scattered
signal. By collaboratively adjusting the phase shifts of all passive
elements of the RIS, the scattered signals can add coherently with
the signals from other paths at the desired receiver to boost the
received signal power. Alternatively the signal paths can also be
made to destructively add at non-intended receivers to suppress interference
as well as enhance security and privacy. In contrast with amplify-and-forward
(AF) relay technology \cite{2010_TIT_AF}, RIS has several advantages
including low cost, low power consumption, contributing no active
additive thermal noise or self-interference enabling full-duplexing
operation. In addition, RIS exhibits potential features such as being
low profile, light weight, and having conformal geometry, making them
straightforward to deploy.
Due to the potential advantages, RIS has been investigated in various
wireless communication systems including multiple-input single-output
(MISO) \cite{2019_TWC_RIS_CHuang}, \cite{2019_TWC_IRS_QWu}, multiple-input
multiple-output (MIMO) \cite{2020_WCL_IRS_MIMO_Beamform}, multicell
\cite{2020_TWC_IRS_MIMO_Multicell}, and multigroup multicast \cite{2020_TSP_IRS_Multigroup_Multicast}.
Specifically, for RIS aided MISO systems, in \cite{2019_TWC_RIS_CHuang}
energy efficiency is maximized by optimizing phase shifts while in
\cite{2019_TWC_IRS_QWu} the transmit power is minimized by jointly
optimizing active and passive beamforming. For RIS aided MIMO systems,
in \cite{2020_WCL_IRS_MIMO_Beamform} spectral efficiency is maximized
based on a sum-path-gain maximization criterion. For RIS aided multicell
MIMO systems, the weighted sum rate maximization problem is considered
in \cite{2020_TWC_IRS_MIMO_Multicell} and it is shown that the cell-edge
performance can be significantly enhanced by RIS. For RIS aided multigroup
multicast communication systems, the sum rate of multiple multicasting
groups is maximized in \cite{2020_TSP_IRS_Multigroup_Multicast}.
Furthermore, RIS has also been investigated to provide performance
enhancement in orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) \cite{2020_ToC_IRS_OFDM},
\cite{2020_WCL_IRS_OFDM}, non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) \cite{2020_CL_IRS_NOMA},
and emerging areas such as secure wireless communication \cite{2020_JSAC_IRS_Robust_Secure},
backscatter communication \cite{2020_WCL_LIS_BackScatter}, simultaneous
wireless information and power transfer (SWIPT) \cite{2020_JSCA_IRS_SWIPT},
\cite{2020_WCL_IRS_SWIPT_QWu}, spectrum sharing \cite{2020_CL_IRS_spectrum_Sharing},
cognitive radio \cite{2021_ToC_IRS_CognitiveRadio}, unmanned aerial
vehicle (UAV) communication \cite{2020_IEEEAccess_IRS_UAV}, millimeter
wave \cite{2020_WCL_IRS_mmwave_Secure}, \cite{2020_WCL_IRS_mmwave_Terahertz},
and mobile edge computing \cite{2020_JSAC_IRS_MEC}. In addition,
research on optimizing RIS aided wireless systems with discrete phase
shifts \cite{2019_PACRIM_IRS_DiscretePhaseShift}, \cite{2020_ToC_IRS_Discrete_Phase},
statistic and imperfect channel state information (CSI) \cite{2019_TVT_LIS_Statistic_CSI},
\cite{2020_TSP_IRS_GuiZhou} and deep learning \cite{2020_JSAC_RIS_DeepReinLearning},
\cite{2020_WCL_IRS_DRL} has also been conducted.
While the vast majority of research on RIS has been devoted to system
level optimization \cite{2019_TWC_RIS_CHuang}-\cite{2020_WCL_IRS_DRL},
developing models that satisfy the necessary electromagnetic (EM)
equations while providing tractable and useful RIS aided communication
models still remains an open problem. There are only a few published
results analyzing the physical and EM properties of RIS. In \cite{2020_WCL_IRS_Physical_Prop_Larsson},
physical optics is utilized to obtain expressions for the scattered
field from a passive metallic surface and accordingly an RIS pathloss
model is derived. In addition, in \cite{2020_TWC_RIS_PathLossModelMeasure}
a free-space pathloss model for an RIS aided wireless communication
is introduced from the perspective of EM theory and experimentally
verified in a microwave anechoic chamber. In addition to the pathloss
models, practical phase shift models of RIS accounting for lumped
inductance and capacitance are proposed in \cite{2020_ICC_IRS_PhaseShiftModel},
\cite{2020_CL_IRS_PracticalModel}, and the optimization based on
the practical phase shift models are also provided. However, the limitation
of \cite{2020_WCL_IRS_Physical_Prop_Larsson}, \cite{2020_TWC_RIS_PathLossModelMeasure},
\cite{2020_ICC_IRS_PhaseShiftModel}, \cite{2020_CL_IRS_PracticalModel}
is that they only focus on very specific physical and EM properties
of RIS. Therefore, how to derive a straightforward and tractable yet
EM based RIS aided communication model remains an open problem.
In addition to the RIS aided communication modeling issue, another
challenge in enabling the promise of RIS is that the signal power
received from the RIS is limited (or equivalently the composite transmitter-RIS-receiver
channel gain is very low). As shown in \cite{2020_WCL_IRS_Physical_Prop_Larsson},
the signal power received from an RIS is proportional to the square
of RIS area and to $1/\left(d_{i}r\right)^{2}$ where $d_{i}$ is
the distance between the transmitter and RIS and $r$ is the distance
between the RIS and receiver. In addition, comparisons with massive
MIMO \cite{2019_CAMSAP_IRS_PowerScaling} and decode-and-forward relays
\cite{2020_WCL_IRS_DF} indicate that RIS needs a large number of
elements to be competitive. Therefore, it remains a challenge to develop
an efficient RIS architecture to improve the received signal power.
In this paper, we derive a straightforward and tractable yet EM based
RIS aided communication model using a rigorous scattering parameter
network analysis. It has been inspired by previous results on MIMO
antennas \cite{2004_TWC_Jensen} and here it is extended to RIS. We
also propose efficient RIS architectures, namely fully connected and
group connected reconfigurable impedance networks, to improve the
received signal power. The contributions of the paper are summarized
as follows.
\textit{First}, we derive a physical and EM compliant RIS aided communication
model using scattering parameter network analysis. This is the first
paper to characterize and model RIS from the perspective of scattering
parameters. Using scattering parameters is beneficial for accounting
for the scattering mechanism of RIS. The derived model is general
enough that it accounts for the impedance mismatch and mutual coupling
at the transmitter, RIS, and receiver. Additionally, assuming perfect
matching and no mutual coupling, we can simplify the model and achieve
a straightforward and tractable RIS aided communication model. The
conventional RIS model used in \cite{2019_TWC_RIS_CHuang}-\cite{2020_WCL_IRS_DRL}
for example is a particular instance of the proposed model.
\textit{Second}, we investigate the RIS architecture and propose two
new architectures based on fully connected and group connected reconfigurable
impedance networks, that are respectively modeled using complex symmetric
unitary and block diagonal matrices with each block being complex
symmetric unitary. Those two architectures are more general than the
conventional single connected reconfigurable impedance network used
in \cite{2019_TWC_RIS_CHuang}-\cite{2020_WCL_IRS_DRL}, which is
modeled using a diagonal matrix with each entry having a unit modulus.
In sharp contrast with the conventional single connected architecture
that only adjusts the phases of the impinging waves, our proposed
fully and group connected architectures can adjust not only the phases
but also the magnitudes of the impinging waves. This is the first
paper to introduce fully connected and group connected networks and
show the benefit over a single connected network.
\textit{Third}, we derive the scaling law of the received signal power
of a single-input single-output (SISO) RIS aided system as a function
of the number of RIS elements. Both line-of-sight (LoS) and Rayleigh
fading channels have been considered. It shows the power gain of the
fully connected and group connected reconfigurable impedance network
over the single connected reconfigurable impedance network in Rayleigh
fading channels can be up to 1.62. Given the same received signal
power, it is shown that using fully connected and group connected
reconfigurable impedance networks can reduce the number of RIS elements
by up to 21\%, which is beneficial for reducing the cost and area
of RIS, especially when the number of RIS elements is large. In addition,
it shows that the group connected reconfigurable impedance network
with small group size can provide most of the performance enhancement
and come close to the fully connected case while maintaining low complexity.
\textit{Fourth}, we optimize the scattering matrix of the reconfigurable
impedance network in RIS to maximize the received signal power in
the SISO RIS aided system. We also evaluate the received signal power
in channel models with distance-dependent pathloss and Rician fading
channels, which is more general than the channel model used in previous
scaling law analysis. The numerical results show that the fully connected
and group connected reconfigurable impedance networks can increase
the received signal power by up to 48\% and 34\%, respectively.
\textit{Organization}: Section II provides the scattering parameter
network analysis and proposes the fully connected and group connected
reconfigurable impedance network. Section III provides the RIS aided
communication model. Section IV provides the scaling laws for the
SISO RIS aided system. Section V evaluates the performance of the
proposed RIS and Section VI provides conclusions and details possible
future work.
\textit{Notation}: Bold lower and upper letters denote vectors and
matrices, respectively. Letters not in bold font represent scalars.
$\Re\left\{ a\right\} $, $\left|a\right|$, and $\arg\left(a\right)$
refer to the real part, modulus, and phase of a complex scalar $a$,
respectively. $\left[\mathrm{\mathbf{a}}\right]_{i}$ and $\left\Vert \mathbf{a}\right\Vert $
refer to the $i$th element and $l_{2}-$norm of vector $\mathrm{\mathbf{a}}$,
respectively. $\mathrm{\mathbf{A}}^{T}$, $\mathrm{\mathbf{A}}^{H}$,
and $\left[\mathrm{\mathbf{A}}\right]_{i,j}$ refer to the transpose,
conjugate transpose, and $\left(i,j\right)$th element a matrix $\mathrm{\mathbf{A}}$,
respectively. $\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{C}$ denote real and complex
number set, respectively. $j=\sqrt{-1}$ denotes imaginary unit. $\mathbf{0}$
and $\mathbf{I}$ denote an all-zero matrix and an identity matrix,
respectively, with appropriate dimensions. $\chi_{k}$ denotes the
chi distribution with $k$ degrees of freedom. $\mathcal{CN}\left(\mathbf{0},\mathbf{I}\right)$
denotes the distribution of a circularly symmetric complex Gaussian
random vector with mean vector $\mathbf{0}$ and covariance matrix
$\mathbf{I}$ and $\sim$ stands for \textquotedblleft distributed
as\textquotedblright . $\mathbf{A}\preceq\mathbf{B}$ means that $\mathbf{B}-\mathbf{A}$
is positive semi-definite. diag$\left(a_{1},...,a_{N}\right)$ refers
to a diagonal matrix with diagonal elements being $a_{1},...,a_{N}$.
diag$\left(\mathrm{\mathbf{A}}_{1},...,\mathrm{\mathbf{A}}_{N}\right)$
refers to a block diagonal matrix with blocks being $\mathrm{\mathbf{A}}_{1},...,\mathrm{\mathbf{A}}_{N}$.
\section{Network Analysis}
In this section, we use scattering parameter network theory to analyze
RIS aided wireless communication systems. A brief review of the basic
concepts of reflection coefficient and scattering parameter network
theory is provided in the Appendix.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{Figures/IRS4}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{\label{fig:System-diagram}System diagram of RIS aided wireless communication
system.}
\end{figure}
A system diagram of an RIS aided wireless communication system is
shown in Fig. \ref{fig:System-diagram}. There are $N_{T}$ antennas
at the transmitter, $N_{R}$ antennas at the receiver, and $N_{I}$
antennas at the RIS. In total, there are $N=N_{T}+N_{I}+N_{R}$ antennas
embedded in the wireless channel, which can be modeled as an $N$-port
network. The $N$-port network can be characterized by a scattering
matrix $\mathbf{S}$ where $\mathbf{S}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times N}$
and $\mathbf{S}=\mathbf{S}^{T}$ due to the reciprocity, so that we
have
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{b}=\mathbf{S}\mathbf{a},\label{eq:b=00003DSa}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{a},\mathbf{b}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times1}$ refer to the
incident and reflected waves at the $N$ ports, respectively. Particularly,
we can partition $\mathbf{a}$ and $\mathbf{b}$ as
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{a}=\left[\begin{array}{l}
\mathbf{a}_{T}\\
\mathbf{a}_{I}\\
\mathbf{a}_{R}
\end{array}\right],\:\mathbf{b}=\left[\begin{array}{l}
\mathbf{b}_{T}\\
\mathbf{b}_{I}\\
\mathbf{b}_{R}
\end{array}\right],
\end{equation}
where the subscripts $T$, $I$, and $R$ refer to the transmitter,
RIS, and receiver, respectively, and $\mathbf{a}_{i}=\left[a_{i,1},a_{i,2},\ldots,a_{i,N_{i}}\right]^{T}\in\mathbb{C}^{N_{i}\times1}$
and $\mathbf{b}_{i}=\left[b_{i,1},b_{i,2},\ldots,b_{i,N_{i}}\right]^{T}\in\mathbb{C}^{N_{i}\times1}$
for $i\in\left\{ T,I,R\right\} $ refer to the incident and reflected
waves of the antennas at the transmitter/RIS/receiver. Accordingly,
we can partition $\mathbf{S}$ as
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{S}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
\mathbf{S}_{TT} & \mathbf{S}_{TI} & \mathbf{S}_{TR}\\
\mathbf{S}_{IT} & \mathbf{S}_{II} & \mathbf{S}_{IR}\\
\mathbf{S}_{RT} & \mathbf{S}_{RI} & \mathbf{S}_{RR}
\end{array}\right],
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{S}_{TT}\in\mathbb{C}^{N_{T}\times N_{T}}$, $\mathbf{S}_{II}\in\mathbb{C}^{N_{I}\times N_{I}}$,
$\mathbf{S}_{RR}\in\mathbb{C}^{N_{R}\times N_{R}}$ refer to the scattering
matrices of the antenna arrays at the transmitter, RIS, and receiver,
respectively. The diagonal entries of $\mathbf{S}_{TT}$, $\mathbf{S}_{II}$,
and $\mathbf{S}_{RR}$ refer to the antenna reflection coefficients
while the off-diagonal entries refer to antenna mutual coupling. $\mathbf{S}_{RT}\in\mathbb{C}^{N_{R}\times N_{T}}$,
$\mathbf{S}_{IT}\in\mathbb{C}^{N_{I}\times N_{T}}$, and $\mathbf{S}_{RI}\in\mathbb{C}^{N_{R}\times N_{I}}$
refer to the transmission scattering matrices from the transmitter
to receiver, from the transmitter to RIS, and from RIS to the receiver,
respectively.
\subsection{Transmitter and Receiver}
At the transmitter, for $n_{T}=1,\ldots,N_{T}$, the $n_{T}$th transmit
antenna is connected in series with a voltage source, denoted as $v_{s,n_{T}}$,
and a source impedance, denoted as $Z_{T,n_{T}}$. Therefore, $\mathbf{a}_{T}$
and $\mathbf{b}_{T}$ are related by
\begin{align}
\mathbf{a}_{T} & =\mathbf{b}_{s,T}+\mathbf{\Gamma}_{T}\mathbf{b}_{T},\label{eq:atbt}
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{b}_{s,T}=\frac{1}{2}\left[v_{s,1},v_{s,2},\ldots,v_{s,N_{T}}\right]^{T}\in\mathbb{C}^{N_{T}\times1}$
refers to the wave source vector and $\mathbf{\Gamma}_{T}\in\mathbb{C}^{N_{T}\times N_{T}}$
is a diagonal matrix with its $\left(n_{T},n_{T}\right)$th entry
referring to the reflection coefficient of the $n_{T}$th source impedance,
i.e.
\begin{equation}
\left[\mathbf{\Gamma}_{T}\right]_{n_{T},n_{T}}=\frac{Z_{T,n_{T}}-Z_{0}}{Z_{T,n_{T}}+Z_{0}},
\end{equation}
where $Z_{0}$ refers to the reference impedance used for computing
the scattering parameter, and usually set as $Z_{0}=50\:\Omega$.
At the receiver, for $n_{R}=1,\ldots,N_{R}$, the $n_{R}$th receive
antenna is connected in series with a load impedance, denoted as $Z_{R,n_{R}}$.
Therefore, $\mathbf{a}_{R}$ and $\mathbf{b}_{R}$ are related by
\begin{align}
\mathbf{a}_{R} & =\mathbf{\Gamma}_{R}\mathbf{b}_{R},\label{eq:arbr}
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{\Gamma}_{R}\in\mathbb{C}^{N_{R}\times N_{R}}$ is a
diagonal matrix with its $\left(n_{R},n_{R}\right)$th entry referring
to the reflection coefficient of the $n_{R}$th load impedance, i.e.
\begin{equation}
\left[\mathbf{\Gamma}_{R}\right]_{n_{R},n_{R}}=\frac{Z_{R,n_{R}}-Z_{0}}{Z_{R,n_{R}}+Z_{0}}.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Reconfigurable Intelligent Surface}
At the RIS, the $N_{I}$ antennas are connected to a $N_{I}$-port
reconfigurable impedance network. Therefore, $\mathbf{a}_{I}$ and
$\mathbf{b}_{I}$ are related by
\begin{align}
\mathbf{a}_{I} & =\boldsymbol{\Theta}\mathbf{b}_{I},\label{eq:aibi}
\end{align}
where $\boldsymbol{\Theta}\in\mathbb{C}^{N_{I}\times N_{I}}$ refers
to the scattering matrix of the $N_{I}$-port reconfigurable impedance
network. According to \cite{pozar2009microwave}, $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$
can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\Theta}=\left(\mathbf{Z}_{I}+Z_{0}\mathbf{I}\right)^{-1}\left(\mathbf{Z}_{I}-Z_{0}\mathbf{I}\right),\label{eq:gammaI =00003D (ZI-Z0)(ZI+Z0)-1}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{Z}_{I}\in\mathbb{C}^{N_{I}\times N_{I}}$ refers to
the impedance matrix of the $N_{I}$-port reconfigurable impedance
network. The $N_{I}$-port reconfigurable impedance network is constructed
with reconfigurable and passive elements so that it can reflect the
incident signal with a reconfiguration that can be adapted to the
channel. The $N_{I}$-port reconfigurable impedance network is also
reciprocal so that we have symmetry where $\mathbf{Z}_{I}=\mathbf{Z}_{I}^{T}$
and $\boldsymbol{\Theta}=\boldsymbol{\Theta}^{T}$. According to the
circuit network topology, the $N_{I}$-port reconfigurable impedance
network can be classified into three categories.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{Figures/4_port_IRS4}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{\label{fig:4-element IRS}(a) 4-element RIS with single connected
reconfigurable impedance network and (b) 4-element RIS with fully
connected reconfigurable impedance network.}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Single Connected Reconfigurable Impedance Network}
In this category, each port of the $N_{I}$ ports of the reconfigurable
impedance network are not connected to the other ports. An illustrative
example, for a 4-element RIS with a 4-port single connected reconfigurable
impedance network, is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:4-element IRS}(a). Generally,
for $n_{I}=1,\ldots,N_{I}$, the $n_{I}$th port is connected to ground
with a reconfigurable impedance $Z_{n_{I}}$, so that in total there
are $N_{I}$ reconfigurable impedance components in the network. Hence,
$\mathbf{Z}_{I}$ is a diagonal matrix given by $\mathbf{Z}_{I}=\mathrm{diag}\left(Z_{1},Z_{2},...,Z_{N_{I}}\right)$
and according to \eqref{eq:gammaI =00003D (ZI-Z0)(ZI+Z0)-1}, $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$
is also a diagonal matrix given by
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\Theta}=\mathrm{diag}\left(\left[\boldsymbol{\Theta}\right]_{1,1},\left[\boldsymbol{\Theta}\right]_{2,2},...,\left[\boldsymbol{\Theta}\right]_{N_{I},N_{I}}\right),\label{eq:diag(gamma)}
\end{equation}
where the $\left(n_{I},n_{I}\right)$th entry of $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$,
denoted as $\left[\boldsymbol{\Theta}\right]_{n_{I},n_{I}}$, is the
reflection coefficient of the reconfigurable impedance $Z_{n_{I}}$,
i.e.
\begin{equation}
\left[\boldsymbol{\Theta}\right]_{n_{I},n_{I}}=\frac{Z_{n_{I}}-Z_{0}}{Z_{n_{I}}+Z_{0}},\label{eq:Fi Zi}
\end{equation}
so that we have an equivalent constraint that $\left|\left[\boldsymbol{\Theta}\right]_{n_{I},n_{I}}\right|\leq1$.
Furthermore, to increase the power scattered by RIS, $Z_{n_{I}}$
is purely reactive for $n_{I}=1,\ldots,N_{I}$, i.e. $Z_{n_{I}}=jX_{n_{I}}$
where $X_{n_{I}}$ denotes the reconfigurable reactance. Therefore
\begin{equation}
\left[\boldsymbol{\Theta}\right]_{n_{I},n_{I}}=\frac{jX_{n_{I}}-Z_{0}}{jX_{n_{I}}+Z_{0}}=e^{j\theta_{n_{I}}},\label{eq:ej_theta}
\end{equation}
where $0\leq\theta_{n_{I}}\leq2\pi$ denotes phase shift. Hence, we
have an equivalent unit modulus constraint of $\left|\left[\boldsymbol{\Theta}\right]_{n_{I},n_{I}}\right|=1$.
The single connected reconfigurable impedance network and the corresponding
constraints \eqref{eq:diag(gamma)}, \eqref{eq:ej_theta} have been
widely adopted in RIS aided wireless communication system designs
and optimizations \cite{2019_TWC_RIS_CHuang}-\cite{2020_WCL_IRS_DRL}.
\subsubsection{Fully Connected Reconfigurable Impedance Network}
In this paper, we propose a more general reconfigurable impedance
network, which is denoted as the fully connected reconfigurable impedance
network, to further improve the signal power received from RIS and
enhance the performance of RIS. In this category, each port of the
$N_{I}$ ports of the reconfigurable impedance network is connected
to other ports. An illustrative example, for a 4-element RIS with
a 4-port fully connected reconfigurable impedance network, is shown
in Fig. \ref{fig:4-element IRS}(b). Generally, for $n_{I}=1,\ldots,N_{I}$,
the $n_{I}$th port is connected to ground with a reconfigurable impedance
$Z_{n_{I}}$ and the $n_{I}$th port is connected to the $m_{I}$th
port, for $m_{I}=n_{I}+1,\ldots,N_{I}$, with a reconfigurable impedance
$Z_{n_{I},m_{I}}$, so that in total there are $N_{I}\left(N_{I}+1\right)/2$
reconfigurable impedance components in the network. Therefore, $\mathbf{Z}_{I}$
is a full matrix and, following \cite{ShanpuShen2016_TAP_Impedancematching},
$\mathbf{Z}_{I}$ can be obtained from the following relationship
\begin{equation}
\left[\mathbf{Z}_{I}^{-1}\right]_{n_{I},m_{I}}=\begin{cases}
-Z_{n_{I},m_{I}}^{-1} & ,n_{I}\neq m_{I}\\
Z_{n_{I}}^{-1}+\sum_{k\neq n_{I}}Z_{n_{I},k}^{-1} & ,n_{I}=m_{I}
\end{cases},\label{eq:ZI-1}
\end{equation}
where $Z_{n_{I},m_{I}}=Z_{m_{I},n_{I}}$ due to the symmetric $\mathbf{Z}_{I}$.
According to \eqref{eq:ZI-1}, we can implement an arbitrary impedance
matrix $\mathbf{Z}_{I}$ by selecting proper impedance $Z_{n_{I}}$
and $Z_{n_{I},m_{I}}$. Subsequently, $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$ can be
found by \eqref{eq:gammaI =00003D (ZI-Z0)(ZI+Z0)-1}. According to
network theory \cite{pozar2009microwave}, $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$
is a full matrix satisfying the constraints
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\Theta}=\boldsymbol{\Theta}^{T},\:\boldsymbol{\Theta}^{H}\boldsymbol{\Theta}\preceq\boldsymbol{\mathrm{I}}.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, to increase the power scattered by RIS, $Z_{n_{I}}$
and $Z_{n_{I},m_{I}}$ are purely reactive. That is $Z_{n_{I}}=jX_{n_{I}}$
and $Z_{n_{I},m_{I}}=jX_{n_{I},m_{I}}$ where $X_{n_{I}}$ and $X_{n_{I},m_{I}}$
denote the reconfigurable reactances, so that we have $\mathbf{Z}_{I}=j\mathbf{X}_{I}$
where $\mathbf{X}_{I}\in\mathbb{R}^{N_{I}\times N_{I}}$ denotes the
reactance matrix of the $N_{I}$-port reconfigurable impedance network
and $\mathbf{X}_{I}=\mathbf{X}_{I}^{T}$. Hence, $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$
is given by
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\Theta}=\left(j\mathbf{X}_{I}+Z_{0}\mathbf{I}\right)^{-1}\left(j\mathbf{X}_{I}-Z_{0}\mathbf{I}\right),\label{eq:transform S to X}
\end{equation}
so that according to \cite{pozar2009microwave} we have equivalent
constraints
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\Theta}=\boldsymbol{\Theta}^{T},\:\boldsymbol{\Theta}^{H}\boldsymbol{\Theta}=\boldsymbol{\mathrm{I}},\label{eq:gamma unitary constraint}
\end{equation}
which shows that $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$ is a complex symmetric unitary
matrix. The single connected reconfigurable impedance network \eqref{eq:diag(gamma)},
\eqref{eq:ej_theta} is a special case of the fully connected reconfigurable
impedance network \eqref{eq:gamma unitary constraint}, so that the
fully connected reconfigurable impedance network is more general and
is expected to provide better RIS performance.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{Figures/Group_Connection3}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{\label{fig:8-element }8-element RIS with group connected reconfigurable
impedance network (a) having 4 groups with group size of 2 and (b)
having 2 groups with group size of 4.}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Group Connected Reconfigurable Impedance Network}
For the fully connected reconfigurable impedance network, when $N_{I}$
becomes large, the number of reconfigurable impedance components becomes
huge (increasing quadratically with $N_{I}$) and the circuit topology
will become intricate. This limits its practical use and therefore
we also propose a group connected reconfigurable impedance network
to achieve a good tradeoff between performance enhancement and complexity.
Two illustrative examples, for an 8-element RIS with a group connected
reconfigurable impedance network having 4 groups and 2 groups, are
shown in Fig. \ref{fig:8-element }(a) and (b), respectively. In Fig.
\ref{fig:8-element }(a), the 8 elements in RIS are divided into 4
groups and each group has 2 elements and uses a 2-port fully connected
reconfigurable impedance network. In Fig. \ref{fig:8-element }(b),
the 8 elements in RIS are divided into 2 groups and each group has
4 elements and uses a 4-port fully connect reconfigurable impedance
network. Generally, for $N_{I}$-element RIS, we can divide it into
$G$ groups with each group having $N_{G}=\frac{N_{I}}{G}$ elements.
We refer to $N_{G}$ as the group size. For the $g$th group, a $N_{G}$-port
fully connected reconfigurable impedance network with impedance matrix
of $\mathbf{Z}_{I,g}\in\mathbb{C}^{N_{G}\times N_{G}}$ is used. Therefore,
$\mathbf{Z}_{I}$ is a block diagonal matrix given by
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{Z}_{I}=\mathrm{diag}\left(\mathbf{Z}_{I,1},\mathbf{Z}_{I,2},...,\mathbf{Z}_{I,G}\right).
\end{equation}
Subsequently $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$ can be found by \eqref{eq:gammaI =00003D (ZI-Z0)(ZI+Z0)-1}.
According to \eqref{eq:gammaI =00003D (ZI-Z0)(ZI+Z0)-1} and \cite{pozar2009microwave},
$\boldsymbol{\Theta}$ is a block diagonal matrix satisfying the constraints
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\Theta}=\mathrm{diag}\left(\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{1},\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{2},...,\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{G}\right),\label{eq:diag(group)}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{g}=\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{g}^{T},\:\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{g}^{H}\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{g}\preceq\boldsymbol{\mathrm{I}},\:\forall g.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, to increase the power scattered by RIS, $\mathbf{Z}_{I,g}$
are purely reactive, i.e. $\mathbf{Z}_{I,g}=j\mathbf{X}_{I,g}$ where
$\mathbf{X}_{I,g}\in\mathbb{R}^{N_{G}\times N_{G}}$ denotes the reactance
matrix of the $N_{G}$-port reconfigurable impedance network and $\mathbf{X}_{I,g}=\mathbf{X}_{I,g}^{T}$.
Accordingly, $\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{g}$ can be found as
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{g}=\left(j\mathbf{X}_{I,g}+Z_{0}\mathbf{I}\right)^{-1}\left(j\mathbf{X}_{I,g}-Z_{0}\mathbf{I}\right),\label{eq:transform S to X BLOCK}
\end{equation}
so that according to \cite{pozar2009microwave} we have equivalent
constraints
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{g}=\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{g}^{T},\:\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{g}^{H}\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{g}=\boldsymbol{\mathrm{I}},\:\forall g.\label{eq:group gamma unitary constraint}
\end{equation}
Therefore, $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$ is a block diagonal matrix with
each block being a complex symmetric unitary matrix. For an $N_{I}$-port
group connected reconfigurable impedance network, there are in total
$N_{I}\left(N_{G}+1\right)/2$ reconfigurable impedance components.
When the group size $N_{G}=1$, it becomes the single connected reconfigurable
impedance network. When the group size $N_{G}=N_{I}$, it becomes
the fully connected reconfigurable impedance network.
Comparisons between the single connected, fully connected, and group
connected reconfigurable impedance networks will be shown in the following
sections.
\section{RIS Aided Communication Model}
We have analyzed the fundamental relationships between the incident
and reflected waves of the antennas at the transmitter, receiver,
and RIS. In this section, we establish the RIS aided communication
model based on these relationships.
\subsection{General RIS Aided Communication Model}
We first consider a general RIS aided communication model. Combining
\eqref{eq:atbt}, \eqref{eq:arbr}, and \eqref{eq:aibi}, we can relate
$\mathbf{a}$ and $\mathbf{b}$ in a compact form as
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{a}=\mathbf{b}_{s}+\mathbf{\Gamma}\mathbf{b},\label{eq:a =00003D bs+Fb}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{b}_{s}$ and $\mathbf{\Gamma}$ are respectively given
by
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{b}_{s}=\left[\begin{array}{c}
\mathbf{b}_{s,T}\\
\mathbf{0}\\
\mathbf{0}
\end{array}\right],\:\mathbf{\Gamma}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
\mathbf{\Gamma}_{T} & \mathbf{0} & \mathbf{0}\\
\mathbf{0} & \boldsymbol{\Theta} & \mathbf{0}\\
\mathbf{0} & \mathbf{0} & \mathbf{\Gamma}_{R}
\end{array}\right].\label{eq:gamma_and_theta}
\end{equation}
Substituting \eqref{eq:b=00003DSa} into \eqref{eq:a =00003D bs+Fb},
we have that
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\mathbf{b}}=\mathbf{S}\left(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{\Gamma}\mathbf{S}\right)^{-1}\mathbf{b}_{s}.
\end{equation}
We define $\mathbf{T}\triangleq\mathbf{S}\left(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{\Gamma}\mathbf{S}\right)^{-1}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times N}$
and partition $\mathbf{T}$ as
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{T}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
\mathbf{T}_{TT} & \mathbf{T}_{TI} & \mathbf{T}_{TR}\\
\mathbf{T}_{IT} & \mathbf{T}_{II} & \mathbf{T}_{IR}\\
\mathbf{T}_{RT} & \mathbf{T}_{RI} & \mathbf{T}_{RR}
\end{array}\right],
\end{equation}
so that we can find $\mathbf{\mathbf{b}}_{T}$ and $\mathbf{\mathbf{b}}_{R}$
as
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\mathbf{b}}_{T}=\mathbf{T}_{TT}\mathbf{b}_{s,T},\:\mathbf{\mathbf{b}}_{R}=\mathbf{T}_{RT}\mathbf{b}_{s,T}.\label{eq:bt}
\end{equation}
We define the voltage vector at the transmitter as $\mathbf{v}_{T}\triangleq\left[v_{T,1},v_{T,2},\ldots,v_{T,N_{T}}\right]^{T}\in\mathbb{C}^{N_{T}\times1}$
where $v_{T,n_{T}}$ refers to the voltage across the $n_{T}$th transmit
antenna. We also define the voltage vector at the receiver as $\mathbf{v}_{R}\triangleq\left[v_{R,1},v_{R,2},\ldots,v_{R,N_{R}}\right]^{T}\in\mathbb{C}^{N_{R}\times1}$
where $v_{R,n_{R}}$ refers to the voltage across the $n_{R}$th receive
antenna. With the incident and reflected waves, we can find $\mathbf{v}_{T}$
and $\mathbf{v}_{R}$ as
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{v}_{T}=\mathbf{a}_{T}+\mathbf{b}_{T},\:\mathbf{v}_{R}=\mathbf{a}_{R}+\mathbf{b}_{R}.\label{eq:vr}
\end{equation}
More details about the relationship between the voltages and the incident
and reflected waves of an $N$-port network can be found in the Appendix.
Utilizing \eqref{eq:atbt}, \eqref{eq:arbr}, and \eqref{eq:bt}-\eqref{eq:vr},
we can relate $\mathbf{v}_{T}$ and $\mathbf{v}_{R}$ by
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{v}_{R}=\left(\mathbf{\Gamma}_{R}+\mathbf{I}\right)\mathbf{T}_{RT}\left(\mathbf{I}+\mathbf{\Gamma}_{T}\mathbf{T}_{TT}+\mathbf{T}_{TT}\right)^{-1}\mathbf{v}_{T}.
\end{equation}
Defining $\mathbf{v}_{T}$ as the transmit signal $\mathbf{x}$ and
$\mathbf{v}_{R}$ as the receive signal $\mathbf{y}$, we can find
the channel matrix of the RIS aided wireless communication system
as
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{H}=\left(\mathbf{\Gamma}_{R}+\mathbf{I}\right)\mathbf{T}_{RT}\left(\mathbf{I}+\mathbf{\Gamma}_{T}\mathbf{T}_{TT}+\mathbf{T}_{TT}\right)^{-1},\label{eq:H general}
\end{equation}
so that we have $\mathbf{y}=\mathbf{H}\mathbf{x}$ (ignoring the additive
white Gaussian noise (AWGN) at the receiver). According to \eqref{eq:gamma_and_theta}
and $\mathbf{T}\triangleq\mathbf{S}\left(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{\Gamma}\mathbf{S}\right)^{-1}$,
the submatrice $\mathbf{T}_{TT}$ and $\mathbf{T}_{RT}$ are functions
of $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$, denoted as $\mathbf{T}_{TT}\left(\boldsymbol{\Theta}\right)$
and $\mathbf{T}_{RT}\left(\boldsymbol{\Theta}\right)$, so that from
\eqref{eq:H general} the channel matrix $\mathbf{H}$ is also a function
of $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$, denoted as $\mathbf{H}\left(\boldsymbol{\Theta}\right)$.
Hence, we can optimize $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$ to intelligently control
the channel $\mathbf{H}\left(\boldsymbol{\Theta}\right)$ and enhance
the wireless system performance.
The general communication model \eqref{eq:H general} includes the
effects of impedance mismatching and mutual coupling at the transmitter,
RIS, and receiver. However, generally it is difficult to find expressions
for $\mathbf{T}_{TT}\left(\boldsymbol{\Theta}\right)$ and $\mathbf{T}_{RT}\left(\boldsymbol{\Theta}\right)$
due to the matrix inversion operation. Subsequently, it is difficult
to find the expressions of $\mathbf{H}\left(\boldsymbol{\Theta}\right)$,
which makes it difficult to obtain insight into the role of RIS in
the communication model and to optimize $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$ of
RIS. Considering this issue, in the following, we consider a special
case to simplify the expression of $\mathbf{\mathbf{H}\left(\boldsymbol{\Theta}\right)}$.
\subsection{RIS Aided Communication Model with Perfect Matching and No Mutual
Coupling}
We consider a special case that assumes the antenna arrays at the
transmitter, RIS, and receiver are perfectly matched and have no mutual
coupling, i.e. $\mathbf{S}_{TT}=\mathbf{0}$, $\mathbf{S}_{II}=\mathbf{0}$,
and $\mathbf{S}_{RR}=\mathbf{0}$. In practice, this assumption can
be approximately achieved by individually matching each antenna to
the reference impedance $Z_{0}$ and keeping the antenna spacing larger
than half-wavelength. It is also assumed that the source impedance
at the transmitter $Z_{T,n_{T}}$ and the load impedance at the receiver
$Z_{R,n_{R}}$ are all reference impedances $Z_{0}$ so that $\mathbf{\Gamma}_{T}=\mathbf{0}$
and $\mathbf{\Gamma}_{R}=\mathbf{0}$. With these two assumptions,
we can simplify
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{S}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
\mathbf{0} & \mathbf{S}_{TI} & \mathbf{S}_{TR}\\
\mathbf{S}_{IT} & \mathbf{0} & \mathbf{S}_{IR}\\
\mathbf{S}_{RT} & \mathbf{S}_{RI} & \mathbf{0}
\end{array}\right],\:\mathbf{\Gamma}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
\mathbf{0} & \mathbf{0} & \mathbf{0}\\
\mathbf{0} & \boldsymbol{\Theta} & \mathbf{0}\\
\mathbf{0} & \mathbf{0} & \mathbf{0}
\end{array}\right],\label{eq:simplified S and Gamma}
\end{equation}
so that accordingly we can simplify $\left(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{\Gamma}\mathbf{S}\right)^{-1}$
as
\begin{equation}
\left(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{\Gamma}\mathbf{S}\right)^{-1}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
\mathbf{I} & \mathbf{0} & \mathbf{0}\\
\boldsymbol{\Theta}\mathbf{S}_{IT} & \mathbf{I} & \boldsymbol{\Theta}\mathbf{S}_{IR}\\
\mathbf{0} & \mathbf{0} & \mathbf{I}
\end{array}\right].\label{eq:(I-GammaS)-1}
\end{equation}
Making use of \eqref{eq:simplified S and Gamma} and \eqref{eq:(I-GammaS)-1},
we can simplify the expression of $\mathbf{T}=\mathbf{S}\left(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{\Gamma}\mathbf{S}\right)^{-1}$
and then write that
\begin{align}
\mathbf{T}_{TT} & =\mathbf{S}_{TI}\boldsymbol{\Theta}\mathbf{S}_{IT},\label{eq:Ttt}\\
\mathbf{T}_{RT} & =\mathbf{S}_{RT}+\mathbf{S}_{RI}\boldsymbol{\Theta}\mathbf{S}_{IT}.\label{eq:Trt}
\end{align}
Substituting \eqref{eq:Ttt} and \eqref{eq:Trt} into \eqref{eq:H general}
and making use of $\mathbf{\Gamma}_{T}=\mathbf{0}$ and $\mathbf{\Gamma}_{R}=\mathbf{0}$,
we can simplify the channel matrix $\mathbf{H}$ as
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{H}=\left(\mathbf{S}_{RT}+\mathbf{S}_{RI}\boldsymbol{\Theta}\mathbf{S}_{IT}\right)\left(\mathbf{I}+\mathbf{S}_{TI}\boldsymbol{\Theta}\mathbf{S}_{IT}\right)^{-1}.
\end{equation}
The term $\mathbf{S}_{TI}\boldsymbol{\Theta}\mathbf{S}_{IT}$ refers
to the second order reflections between the transmitter and RIS and
back to the transmitter. However, in most applications, there is no
need to consider these second order reflections because the power
of the second reflection $\mathbf{S}_{TI}\boldsymbol{\Theta}\mathbf{S}_{IT}$
is extremely small, and is proportional to the square of the pathloss
between the transmitter to RIS. Hence, in most applications, we can
approximate $\left(\mathbf{I}+\mathbf{S}_{TI}\boldsymbol{\Theta}\mathbf{S}_{IT}\right)^{-1}$
as $\mathbf{I}$ without affecting the accuracy, and then simplify
$\mathbf{H}$ as
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{H}=\mathbf{S}_{RT}+\mathbf{S}_{RI}\boldsymbol{\Theta}\mathbf{S}_{IT}.\label{eq: Channel in S}
\end{equation}
The transmission scattering matrices $\mathbf{S}_{RT}$, $\mathbf{S}_{IT}$,
and $\mathbf{S}_{RI}$ are equivalently the channel matrices from
the transmitter to receiver, from the transmitter to RIS, and from
the RIS to receiver, respectively. To show the equivalence, we consider
the impedance matrix of the $N$-port network
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{Z}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
\mathbf{Z}_{TT} & \mathbf{Z}_{TI} & \mathbf{Z}_{TR}\\
\mathbf{Z}_{IT} & \mathbf{Z}_{II} & \mathbf{Z}_{IR}\\
\mathbf{Z}_{RT} & \mathbf{Z}_{RI} & \mathbf{Z}_{RR}
\end{array}\right].
\end{equation}
Since we assume perfect matching and no mutual coupling, we have $\mathbf{Z}_{TT}=\mathbf{Z}_{II}=\mathbf{Z}_{RR}=Z_{0}\mathbf{I}$
and following \cite{pozar2009microwave} we can derive
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{S}_{ij}=\frac{\mathbf{Z}_{ij}}{2Z_{0}},\label{eq:sij=00003Dzij/2Z0}
\end{equation}
for $ij\in\left\{ RT,RI,IT\right\} $. We take $\mathbf{Z}_{RT}$
as an example to see the details. The $\left(n_{R},n_{T}\right)$th
entry of $\mathbf{Z}_{RT}$, denoted as $\left[\mathbf{Z}_{RT}\right]_{n_{R},n_{T}}$,
refers to the trans-impedance between the $n_{T}$th transmit antenna
and $n_{R}$th receive antenna. To find $\left[\mathbf{Z}_{RT}\right]_{n_{R},n_{T}}$,
we excite the $n_{T}$th transmit antenna with current $i_{T,n_{T}}$
and keep all the other antennas open circuited, and then measure the
open-circuit voltage $v_{R,n_{R}}^{\mathrm{open}}$ at the $n_{R}$th
receive antenna. Using the multipath propagation based model, we have
that
\begin{equation}
v_{R,n_{R}}^{\mathrm{open}}=\underset{\left[\mathbf{Z}_{RT}\right]_{n_{R},n_{T}}}{\underbrace{\left(\sum_{l=1}^{\mathscr{L}_{RT}}e_{R,n_{R}}\left(\Omega_{R,l}\right)\beta_{RT,l}e_{T,n_{T}}\left(\Omega_{T,l}\right)\right)}}i_{T,n_{T}},\label{eq:multiple path prog}
\end{equation}
where $e_{T,n_{T}}\left(\cdot\right)$ and $e_{R,n_{R}}\left(\cdot\right)$
denote the open-circuit radiation pattern of the $n_{T}$th transmit
antenna and the $n_{R}$th receive antenna, respectively. We assume
a channel with $\mathcal{\mathscr{L}}_{RT}$ paths for propagation
from transmitter to receiver with the $l$th path characterized by
departure and arrival angles $\Omega_{T,l}$ and $\Omega_{R,l}$,
respectively, and a complex channel gain $\beta_{RT,l}$. Therefore,
from \eqref{eq:sij=00003Dzij/2Z0} and \eqref{eq:multiple path prog},
we show that $\mathbf{S}_{RT}$ is equivalently the channel matrix
from the transmitter to receiver. Similarly, we can show that $\mathbf{S}_{IT}$
and $\mathbf{S}_{RI}$ are the channel matrices from the transmitter
to RIS and from the RIS to receiver, respectively. We use auxiliary
notations $\mathbf{H}_{RT}=\mathbf{S}_{RT}$, $\mathbf{H}_{IT}=\mathbf{S}_{IT}$,
and $\mathbf{H}_{RI}=\mathbf{S}_{RI}$ to facilitate understanding,
so that we can rewrite \eqref{eq: Channel in S} as
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{H}=\mathbf{H}_{RT}+\mathbf{H}_{RI}\boldsymbol{\Theta}\mathbf{H}_{IT}.\label{eq:perfectmatchign H}
\end{equation}
Furthermore, assuming there are LoS and non-LoS (NLoS) paths in \eqref{eq:multiple path prog},
we can model $\mathbf{H}_{RT}$, $\mathbf{H}_{IT}$, and $\mathbf{H}_{RI}$
as Rician fading, i.e.
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{H}_{ij}=\sqrt{L_{ij}}\left(\sqrt{\frac{K_{ij}}{1+K_{ij}}}\mathbf{H}_{ij}^{\mathrm{LoS}}+\sqrt{\frac{1}{1+K_{ij}}}\mathbf{H}_{ij}^{\mathrm{NLoS}}\right),\label{eq:Rician Channel Model}
\end{equation}
for $ij\in\left\{ RT,RI,IT\right\} $ where $L_{ij}$ refers to the
pathloss, $K_{ij}$ refers to the Rician factor, $\mathbf{H}_{ij}^{\mathrm{LoS}}$
and $\mathbf{H}_{ij}^{\mathrm{NLoS}}$ represent the small-scale LoS
and NLoS (Rayleigh fading) components, respectively.
The simplified $\mathbf{H}$ \eqref{eq:perfectmatchign H} is a linear
function of $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$ and together with
\begin{enumerate}
\item the single connected reconfigurable impedance network which satisfies
the constraint that $\boldsymbol{\Theta}=\mathrm{diag}\left(e^{j\theta_{1}},e^{j\theta_{2}},...,e^{j\theta_{N_{I}}}\right)$,
\item the fully connected reconfigurable impedance network which satisfies
the constraints that $\boldsymbol{\Theta}=\boldsymbol{\Theta}^{T}$,
$\boldsymbol{\Theta}^{H}\boldsymbol{\Theta}=\boldsymbol{\mathrm{I}}$,
\item the group connected reconfigurable impedance network which satisfies
the constraints that $\boldsymbol{\Theta}=\mathrm{diag}\left(\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{1},\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{2},...,\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{G}\right)$,
$\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{g}=\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{g}^{T}$, $\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{g}^{H}\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{g}=\boldsymbol{\mathrm{I}}$,
$\forall g$,
\end{enumerate}
make up our proposed RIS aided communication model. Based on this
model, we can optimize $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$ to intelligently control
the channel $\mathbf{H}\left(\boldsymbol{\Theta}\right)$ and enhance
the wireless system performance. Note that, the conventional RIS aided
communication model used in \cite{2019_TWC_RIS_CHuang}-\cite{2020_WCL_IRS_DRL}
is a special case of our proposed model that corresponds to the single
connected reconfigurable impedance network. Importantly, in sharp
contrast with the conventional single connected architecture \cite{2019_TWC_RIS_CHuang}-\cite{2020_WCL_IRS_DRL}
that only adjusts the phases of the impinging waves using a diagonal
scattering matrix, our proposed group and fully connected architectures
enable scattering matrices to be block diagonal or full and can consequently
adjust not only the phases but also the magnitudes of the impinging
waves. This leads to significant performance gains in fading channels
as it will appear in Sections IV and V.
\begin{rem}
It is worthwhile to clarify the differences between our proposed model
with the RIS aided communication model proposed in recent work \cite{2020_ArXiv_RIS_MutualImpedance}.
There are four differences. \textit{First}, compared with using impedance
parameter in \cite{2020_ArXiv_RIS_MutualImpedance}, we have found
it is more natural to use the reflection coefficient and scattering
parameter to account for the scattering mechanism of RIS and derive
the RIS aided communication model. \textit{Second}, our general RIS
aided communication model \eqref{eq:H general} includes the effects
of impedance mismatching and mutual coupling at the transmitter, RIS,
and receiver, which is more general than \cite{2020_ArXiv_RIS_MutualImpedance}.
\textit{Third}, we clearly explain the physical significance of the
phase shifts and the unit modulus constraint. \textit{Fourth}, we
go beyond the single connected reconfigurable impedance network (the
main focus in \cite{2020_ArXiv_RIS_MutualImpedance}) and propose
more general fully connected and group connected reconfigurable impedance
networks.
\end{rem}
\section{Scaling Law}
In order to obtain insights into the fundamental limits of single,
fully, and group connected reconfigurable impedance networks in RIS,
we quantify how the received signal power scales as a function of
the number of RIS elements $N_{I}$. For simplicity, we consider a
SISO RIS aided system ($N_{T}=1$, $N_{R}=1$) with perfect matching
and no mutual coupling in the following. The transmit signal is $x\in\mathbb{C}$
with $\mathrm{E}\left[\left|x\right|^{2}\right]=P_{T}$. According
to \eqref{eq:perfectmatchign H}, the received signal $y$ can be
expressed as
\begin{equation}
y=\left(h_{RT}+\mathbf{h}_{RI}\boldsymbol{\Theta}\mathbf{h}_{IT}\right)\mathbf{x}+n,
\end{equation}
where $h_{RT}\in\mathbb{C}$, $\mathbf{h}_{IT}\in\mathbb{C}^{N_{I}\times1}$,
and $\mathbf{h}_{RI}\in\mathbb{C}^{1\times N_{I}}$ denote the channel
from the transmitter to the receiver, from the transmitter to the
RIS, and from the RIS to the receiver, respectively, and $n$ is the
AWGN. For simplicity, we assume the transmit power $P_{T}=1$ and
omit the direct channel $h_{RT}$, so that we can express the received
signal power as $P_{R}=\left|\mathbf{h}_{RI}\boldsymbol{\Theta}\mathbf{h}_{IT}\right|^{2}$.
\subsection{Single Connected Reconfigurable Impedance Network}
For the single connected reconfigurable impedance network \eqref{eq:diag(gamma)},
\eqref{eq:ej_theta}, it is obvious that the optimal $\boldsymbol{\Theta}^{\star}$
is
\begin{align}
\boldsymbol{\Theta}^{\star} & =\mathrm{diag}\left(e^{j\theta_{1}^{\star}},e^{j\theta_{2}^{\star}},...,e^{j\theta_{N_{I}}^{\star}}\right),\label{eq:optimal single connected-1}\\
\theta_{n_{I}}^{\star} & =-\arg\left(\left[\mathbf{h}_{RI}\right]_{n_{I}}\left[\mathbf{h}_{IT}\right]_{n_{I}}\right),\forall n_{I},\label{eq:optimal single connected-2}
\end{align}
which achieves the maximum received signal power
\begin{equation}
P_{R}^{\mathrm{Single}}=\left(\sum_{n_{I}=1}^{N_{I}}\left|\left[\mathbf{h}_{RI}\right]_{n_{I}}\left[\mathbf{h}_{IT}\right]_{n_{I}}\right|\right)^{2}.\label{eq:maximum Power single}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Fully Connected Reconfigurable Impedance Network}
For the fully connected reconfigurable impedance network \eqref{eq:gamma unitary constraint},
using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and that $\boldsymbol{\Theta}^{H}\boldsymbol{\Theta}=\boldsymbol{\mathrm{I}}$,
we can find an upper bound for the maximum received signal power $P_{R}^{\mathrm{Fully}}$
as
\begin{equation}
P_{R}^{\mathrm{Fully}}\leq\bar{P}_{R}^{\mathrm{Fully}}=\left\Vert \mathbf{h}_{RI}\right\Vert ^{2}\left\Vert \mathbf{h}_{IT}\right\Vert ^{2}.\label{eq:upper bound of fully}
\end{equation}
The key to achieve the upper bound $\bar{P}_{R}^{\mathrm{Fully}}$
is that we need to find a complex symmetric unitary matrix $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$
satisfying
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mathbf{h}_{RI}^{H}}{\left\Vert \mathbf{h}_{RI}\right\Vert }=\boldsymbol{\Theta}\frac{\mathbf{h}_{IT}}{\left\Vert \mathbf{h}_{IT}\right\Vert }.\label{eq:optimial fully}
\end{equation}
However, it is difficult to derive a closed-form solution for the
optimal $\boldsymbol{\Theta}^{\star}$ which satisfies the equation
\eqref{eq:optimial fully} and achieves the upper bound. Hence, we
directly optimize $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$ to approach the upper bound
using the quasi-Newton method as detailed in the next section. Numerical
results using the Monte Carlo method confirms that the upper bound
\eqref{eq:upper bound of fully} is tight.
It is also worthwhile to compare the maximum received signal power
of the single connected and fully connected reconfigurable impedance
networks. From \eqref{eq:maximum Power single} and \eqref{eq:upper bound of fully},
using Cauchy-Schwarz inequality we can deduce that
\begin{equation}
P_{R}^{\mathrm{Single}}\leq\bar{P}_{R}^{\mathrm{Fully}},\label{eq:single<fully}
\end{equation}
and the equality is achieved if and only if
\begin{equation}
\left|\left[\mathbf{h}_{RI}\right]_{n_{I}}\right|=\alpha\left|\left[\mathbf{h}_{IT}\right]_{n_{I}}\right|,\:\forall n_{I},\label{eq:equal conditions}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha$ can be any positive scalar. In other words, when the
channel gains (the modulus) of $\mathbf{h}_{RI}$ and $\mathbf{h}_{IT}$
are linearly independent, the fully connected reconfigurable impedance
network can achieve a higher received signal power than the single
connected case.
We also provide physical explanations to account for the better performance
of the fully connected case. For the single connected case, each port
of the reconfigurable impedance network is not connected to other
ports. As a result, only the phase of the elements of the vector $\boldsymbol{\Theta}\mathbf{h}_{IT}$
can be adjusted. Therefore the best that RIS can achieve is to make
the two channel vectors $\mathbf{h}_{RI}$ and $\mathbf{h}_{IT}$
element-wise in phase. However, for the fully connected case, each
port of the reconfigurable impedance network is connected to each
other. As a result, the phase and magnitude of the elements of the
vector $\boldsymbol{\Theta}\mathbf{h}_{IT}$ can be jointly adjusted
so that the RIS can align the two channel vectors $\mathbf{h}_{RI}$
and $\mathbf{h}_{IT}$ in the same direction to achieve a better performance.
Intuitively speaking, the single connected case is analogous to the
equal-gain combining while the fully connected case is analogous to
the maximum ratio combining. Namely, instead of adjusting only the
phase of the impinging wave as in the single connected architecture,
the fully connected architecture can adjust not only the phases but
also the magnitudes of the impinging waves.
\subsection{Group Connected Reconfigurable Impedance Network}
For the group connected reconfigurable impedance network \eqref{eq:diag(group)},
\eqref{eq:group gamma unitary constraint}, we can rewrite the received
signal power as
\begin{equation}
P_{R}=\left|\sum_{g=1}^{G}\mathbf{h}_{RI,g}\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{g}\mathbf{h}_{IT,g}\right|^{2},
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{h}_{RI}=\left[\mathbf{h}_{RI,1},\mathbf{h}_{RI,2},\ldots,\mathbf{h}_{RI,G}\right]$
with $\mathbf{h}_{RI,g}\in\mathbb{C}^{1\times N_{G}}$ and $\mathbf{h}_{IT}=\left[\mathbf{h}_{IT,1},\mathbf{h}_{IT,2},\ldots,\mathbf{h}_{IT,G}\right]^{T}$
with $\mathbf{h}_{IT,g}\in\mathbb{C}^{N_{G}\times1}$. Using the triangle
inequality, Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, and that $\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{g}^{H}\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{g}=\boldsymbol{\mathrm{I}}$
$\forall g$, we can find an upper bound for the maximum received
signal power $P_{R}^{\mathrm{Group}}$ as
\begin{equation}
P_{R}^{\mathrm{Group}}\leq\bar{P}_{R}^{\mathrm{Group}}=\left(\sum_{g=1}^{G}\left\Vert \mathbf{h}_{RI,g}\right\Vert \left\Vert \mathbf{h}_{IT,g}\right\Vert \right)^{2}.\label{eq:upper bound in PR}
\end{equation}
The key to achieve the upper bound $\bar{P}_{R}^{\mathrm{Group}}$
is that we need to find a complex symmetric unitary matrix $\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{g}$
satisfying
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mathbf{h}_{RI,g}^{H}}{\left\Vert \mathbf{h}_{RI,g}\right\Vert }=\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{g}\frac{\mathbf{h}_{IT,g}}{\left\Vert \mathbf{h}_{IT,g}\right\Vert },\forall g.
\end{equation}
However, it is difficult to derive a closed-form solution for the
optimal $\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{g}^{\star}$ achieving the upper bound.
Similar to the fully connected case, we directly optimize $\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{g}$
$\forall g$ to approach the upper bound using the quasi-Newton method
and numerical results using the Monte Carlo method confirm that the
upper bound \eqref{eq:upper bound in PR} is tight.
The group connected case can be viewed as a tradeoff between the single
connected and fully connected cases so that it is straightforward
to show that $P_{R}^{\mathrm{Single}}\leq\bar{P}_{R}^{\mathrm{Group}}\leq\bar{P}_{R}^{\mathrm{Fully}}$.
In the next subsections, we investigate $P_{R}^{\mathrm{Single}}$,
$P_{R}^{\mathrm{Fully}}$, and $P_{R}^{\mathrm{Group}}$ with LoS
and Rayleigh fading channels.
\subsection{Line-of-Sight Channel}
Assuming $\mathbf{h}_{RI}$ and $\mathbf{h}_{IT}$ are both LoS channels,
we have that $\mathbf{h}_{RI}=\left[e^{j\phi_{1}},\ldots,e^{j\phi_{N_{I}}}\right]$
and $\mathbf{h}_{IT}=\left[e^{j\psi_{1}},\ldots,e^{j\psi_{N_{I}}}\right]^{T}$.
In this case, it is obvious that the optimal $\boldsymbol{\Theta}^{\star}$
for the single, fully, and group connected reconfigurable impedance
networks are the same and given by
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\Theta}^{\star}=\mathrm{diag}\left(e^{-j\left(\phi_{1}+\psi_{1}\right)},...,e^{-j\left(\phi_{N_{I}}+\psi_{N_{I}}\right)}\right).
\end{equation}
Therefore, the single, fully, and group connected reconfigurable impedance
networks have the same performance with LoS channel such that
\begin{equation}
P_{R}^{\mathrm{Single}}=P_{R}^{\mathrm{Fully}}=P_{R}^{\mathrm{Group}}=N_{I}^{2}.\label{eq:scaling law-LOS}
\end{equation}
This is consistent with that the equality in \eqref{eq:single<fully}
that can be achieved when \eqref{eq:equal conditions} is satisfied.
\subsection{Rayleigh Fading Channel}
Assuming $\mathbf{h}_{RI}$ and $\mathbf{h}_{IT}$ are independent
and identically distributed (i.i.d.) Rayleigh fading channels, we
have $\mathbf{h}_{RI}\sim\mathcal{CN}\left(\boldsymbol{0},\mathbf{I}\right)$
and $\mathbf{h}_{IT}\sim\mathcal{CN}\left(\boldsymbol{0},\mathbf{I}\right)$.
We first consider the group connected case. We rewrite $\bar{P}_{R}^{\mathrm{Group}}$
as
\begin{align}
\bar{P}_{R}^{\mathrm{Group}} & =\sum_{g=1}^{G}\left\Vert \mathbf{h}_{RI,g}\right\Vert ^{2}\left\Vert \mathbf{h}_{IT,g}\right\Vert ^{2}\nonumber \\
& +\sum_{g_{1}\neq g_{2}}\left\Vert \mathbf{h}_{RI,g_{1}}\right\Vert \left\Vert \mathbf{h}_{IT,g_{1}}\right\Vert \left\Vert \mathbf{h}_{RI,g_{2}}\right\Vert \left\Vert \mathbf{h}_{IT,g_{2}}\right\Vert ,
\end{align}
Taking the expectation and making use of the i.i.d. Rayleigh fading
assumption of $\mathbf{h}_{RI}$ and $\mathbf{h}_{IT}$, we can find
the average $\bar{P}_{R}^{\mathrm{Group}}$ as
\begin{align}
\mathrm{E}\left[\bar{P}_{R}^{\mathrm{Group}}\right] & =G\mathrm{E}\left[\left\Vert \mathbf{h}_{RI,1}\right\Vert ^{2}\right]^{2}+G\left(G-1\right)\mathrm{E}\left[\left\Vert \mathbf{h}_{RI,1}\right\Vert \right]^{4}.
\end{align}
Making use of the moment of $\chi_{2N_{G}}$ distribution, we have
that $\mathrm{E}\left[\left\Vert \mathbf{h}_{RI,1}\right\Vert \right]=\Gamma\left(N_{G}+\frac{1}{2}\right)/\Gamma\left(N_{G}\right)$
and $\mathrm{E}\left[\left\Vert \mathbf{h}_{RI,1}\right\Vert ^{2}\right]=N_{G}$
where $\Gamma\left(x\right)$ refers to the gamma function. With $G=N_{I}/N_{G}$
and the expressions of moments, $\mathrm{E}\left[\bar{P}_{R}^{\mathrm{Group}}\right]$
is given by
\begin{align}
\mathrm{E}\left[\bar{P}_{R}^{\mathrm{Group}}\right] & =N_{I}N_{G}+\frac{N_{I}}{N_{G}}\left(\frac{N_{I}}{N_{G}}-1\right)\left(\frac{\Gamma\left(N_{G}+\frac{1}{2}\right)}{\Gamma\left(N_{G}\right)}\right)^{4}.\label{eq:scaling law Rayleigh-group}
\end{align}
The single and fully connected reconfigurable impedance networks can
be viewed as two special cases of the group connected reconfigurable
impedance network, i.e. the group size $N_{G}=1$ and $N_{G}=N_{I}$.
Therefore, from \eqref{eq:scaling law Rayleigh-group}, we can straightforwardly
derive that
\begin{align}
\mathrm{E}\left[P_{R}^{\mathrm{Single}}\right] & =N_{I}+N_{I}\left(N_{I}-1\right)\Gamma\left(1.5\right)^{4},\label{eq:scaling law Rayleight-single}\\
\mathrm{E}\left[\bar{P}_{R}^{\mathrm{Fully}}\right] & =N_{I}^{2}.\label{eq:scaling law Rayleigh-fully}
\end{align}
From \eqref{eq:scaling law Rayleight-single}, we can deduce that
$\mathrm{E}\left[P_{R}^{\mathrm{Single}}\right]\rightarrow N_{I}^{2}\Gamma\left(1.5\right)^{4}=N_{I}^{2}\pi^{2}/16$
when $N_{I}\rightarrow\infty$, which is consistent with existing
results \cite{2019_TWC_IRS_QWu} indicating that the RIS has a squared
power gain. For the single, group, and fully connected reconfigurable
impedance networks, we directly optimize $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$ to
maximize the received signal power using the quasi-Newton method as
detailed in the next section. Using the Monte Carlo method, we optimize
$\boldsymbol{\Theta}$ for each channel realization and find the average
received signal power. The comparisons between the optimized result
and the upper bound (or the closed-form solution) for the single,
group, and fully connected reconfigurable impedance networks are shown
in Fig. \ref{fig:upperbound_Optimization}. We can observe that the
optimized average received signal power is the same as the upper bound
for the group and fully connected cases, which shows the upper bounds
\eqref{eq:upper bound of fully} and \eqref{eq:upper bound in PR}
are tight. Therefore, we can conclude that $\mathrm{E}\left[P_{R}^{\mathrm{Group}}\right]=\mathrm{E}\left[\bar{P}_{R}^{\mathrm{Group}}\right]$
and $\mathrm{E}\left[P_{R}^{\mathrm{Fully}}\right]=\mathrm{E}\left[\bar{P}_{R}^{\mathrm{Fully}}\right]$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{Figures/UpBound_Optimization-RIS}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{\label{fig:upperbound_Optimization}Average received signal power
versus the number of RIS elements.}
\end{figure}
Additionally, we can observe that 1) the group connected case achieves
higher average received signal power than the single connected case,
2) the larger the group size is, the higher the average received signal
power is, and 3) the fully connected case achieves the highest power.
The higher received power of the fully and group connected architectures
in Rayleigh fading channel comes from their ability to adjust both
the phases and the magnitudes of the impinging waves. To quantify
the increase in the received signal power, we can find the power gain
of the group and fully connected cases over the single connected case,
which are respectively given by
\begin{align}
\mathcal{G}^{\mathrm{Group}} & =\frac{N_{G}+\frac{\left(N_{I}-N_{G}\right)}{N_{G}^{2}}\left(\frac{\Gamma\left(N_{G}+\frac{1}{2}\right)}{\Gamma\left(N_{G}\right)}\right)^{4}}{1+\left(N_{I}-1\right)\Gamma\left(1.5\right)^{4}},\label{eq:gain}\\
\mathcal{G}^{\mathrm{Fully}} & =\frac{N_{I}}{1+\left(N_{I}-1\right)\Gamma\left(1.5\right)^{4}}.
\end{align}
When $N_{I}\rightarrow\infty$, the limits of the power gain are
\begin{align}
\underset{N_{I}\rightarrow\infty}{\mathrm{lim}}\mathcal{G}^{\mathrm{Group}} & =\frac{1}{N_{G}^{2}}\left(\frac{\Gamma\left(N_{G}+\frac{1}{2}\right)}{\Gamma\left(N_{G}\right)\Gamma\left(1.5\right)}\right)^{4}\label{eq:Fully Gain}\\
\underset{N_{I}\rightarrow\infty}{\mathrm{lim}}\mathcal{G}^{\mathrm{Fully}} & =\frac{1}{\Gamma\left(1.5\right)^{4}}=\frac{16}{\pi^{2}}.
\end{align}
The power gains $\mathcal{G}^{\mathrm{Group}}$ and $\mathcal{G}^{\mathrm{Fully}}$
versus $N_{I}$ are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:powerGain}. We can observe
that the power gain increases with the group size. For $N_{G}=2$,
3, 4, 6, 8, the power gain is around 1.26, 1.37, 1.43, 1.49, 1.52,
respectively. However, increasing the group size cannot increase the
power gain without limit. For the fully connected case (the maximum
group size), we can find that the limit of the power gain is around
1.62, which is consistent with \eqref{eq:Fully Gain}. Comparing $\mathcal{G}^{\mathrm{Group}}$
and $\mathcal{G}^{\mathrm{Fully}}$, we find that small group size
$N_{G}$, such as 2, 3, 4, achieves satisfactory power gain while
maintaining low complexity. Therefore, the group connected reconfigurable
impedance network with small group size is more useful in practice.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{Figures/PowerGain-RIS}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{\label{fig:powerGain}Power gain of the group connected and fully
connected reconfigurable impedance networks over the single connected
reconfigurable impedance network.}
\end{figure}
Given the same average received signal power, the number of RIS elements
required by the group connected or fully connected reconfigurable
impedance network (denoted as $N_{I}^{\mathrm{Group}}$ and $N_{I}^{\mathrm{Fully}}$)
is less than that required by the single connected reconfigurable
impedance network (denoted as $N_{I}^{\mathrm{Single}}$). When the
number of RIS elements is large, from \eqref{eq:gain}, we can deduce
that
\begin{equation}
\left(N_{I}^{\mathrm{Single}}\right)^{2}=\mathcal{G}^{\mathrm{Group}}\left(N_{I}^{\mathrm{Group}}\right)^{2}.
\end{equation}
The percentage decrease in the number of RIS elements is given by
\begin{equation}
\delta=\frac{N_{I}^{\mathrm{Single}}-N_{I}^{\mathrm{Group}}}{N_{I}^{\mathrm{Single}}}=1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathcal{G}^{\mathrm{Group}}}},
\end{equation}
which can also be applied to the fully connected case by replacing
$\mathcal{G}^{\mathrm{Group}}$ with $\mathcal{G}^{\mathrm{Fully}}$.
Therefore, for $N_{G}=2$, 3, 4, 6, 8, we have $\delta=11\%$, 14\%,
16\%, 18\%, 19\%, respectively. For the fully connected case, we have
$\delta=21\%$. Such reduction in the number of RIS elements is beneficial
for reducing the cost and area of RIS, especially when the number
of RIS elements is large. Similarly, we find for small group sizes
$N_{G}$, such as 2, 3, 4, they achieve the greatest relative RIS
element reduction while maintaining low complexity, demonstrating
that the group connected reconfigurable impedance network with small
group size is more useful in practice.
To conclude, comparing the performance of the three RIS architectures
in LoS and Rayleigh fading channels, we show the gains of fully and
group connected cases appear when the channel gains (the modulus)
of $\mathbf{h}_{RI}$ and $\mathbf{h}_{IT}$ are linear independent.
\section{Performance Evaluation}
In this section, we formulate the received signal power maximization
in an RIS aided SISO system with the fully connected and group connected
reconfigurable impedance networks, and evaluate the performance in
a realistic channel model. The received signal power is given by $P_{R}=P_{T}\left\Vert h_{RT}+\mathbf{h}_{RI}\boldsymbol{\Theta}\mathbf{h}_{IT}\right\Vert ^{2}.$
We first consider the group connected reconfigurable impedance network
in the RIS, corresponding to the constraints \eqref{eq:diag(group)},
\eqref{eq:group gamma unitary constraint}. Maximizing $P_{T}\left\Vert h_{RT}+\mathbf{h}_{RI}\boldsymbol{\Theta}\mathbf{h}_{IT}\right\Vert ^{2}$
is equivalent to maximizing $\left\Vert \mathbf{h}_{RI}\boldsymbol{\Theta}\mathbf{h}_{IT}\right\Vert ^{2}$
since $\mathbf{h}_{RI}\boldsymbol{\Theta}\mathbf{h}_{IT}$ can always
be made in phase with $h_{RT}$. Therefore, we can equivalently formulate
the received signal power maximization problem with the group connected
reconfigurable impedance network as
\begin{align}
\underset{\boldsymbol{\Theta},\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{g}}{\mathsf{\mathrm{max}}}\;\; & \left\Vert \mathbf{h}_{RI}\boldsymbol{\Theta}\mathbf{h}_{IT}\right\Vert ^{2}\label{eq:MISO OP3 Objective}\\
\mathsf{\mathrm{s.t.}}\;\;\; & \boldsymbol{\Theta}=\mathrm{diag}\left(\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{1},\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{2},...,\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{G}\right),\label{eq:MISO OP3 Constraint-1}\\
& \boldsymbol{\Theta}_{g}^{H}\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{g}=\boldsymbol{\mathrm{I}},\:\forall g,\\
& \boldsymbol{\Theta}_{g}=\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{g}^{T},\:\forall g.\label{eq:MISO OP3 Constraint-2}
\end{align}
The constraints \eqref{eq:MISO OP3 Constraint-1}-\eqref{eq:MISO OP3 Constraint-2}
indicate that $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$ is a block diagonal matrix with
each block being a complex symmetric unitary matrix, which makes the
optimization difficult. To handle that, we leverage the relationship
between the scattering matrix $\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{g}$ and the reactance
matrix $\mathbf{X}_{I,g}$, as provided in \eqref{eq:transform S to X BLOCK},
to equivalently rewrite the problem \eqref{eq:MISO OP3 Objective}-\eqref{eq:MISO OP3 Constraint-2}
as
\begin{align}
\underset{\boldsymbol{\Theta},\mathbf{X}_{I,g}}{\mathsf{\mathrm{max}}}\;\; & \left\Vert \mathbf{h}_{RI}\boldsymbol{\Theta}\mathbf{h}_{IT}\right\Vert ^{2}\label{eq:MISO OP4 Objective}\\
\mathsf{\mathrm{s.t.}}\;\;\; & \boldsymbol{\Theta}=\mathrm{diag}\left(\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{1},\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{2},...,\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{G}\right),\label{eq:MISO OP4 Contraint-1}\\
& \boldsymbol{\Theta}_{g}=\left(j\mathbf{X}_{I,g}+Z_{0}\mathbf{I}\right)^{-1}\left(j\mathbf{X}_{I,g}-Z_{0}\mathbf{I}\right),\:\forall g,\label{eq:MISO OP4 Contraint-12}\\
& \mathbf{X}_{I,g}=\mathbf{X}_{I,g}^{T},\:\forall g,\label{eq:MISO OP4 Contraint-2}
\end{align}
which can be transformed to an unconstrained optimization problem.
Specifically, substituting \eqref{eq:MISO OP4 Contraint-1} and \eqref{eq:MISO OP4 Contraint-12}
into the objective \eqref{eq:MISO OP4 Objective}, we can express
the objective \eqref{eq:MISO OP4 Objective} as a function of $\mathbf{X}_{I,g}$
$\forall g$. Since $\mathbf{X}_{I,g}$ can be an arbitrary $N_{G}\times N_{G}$
real symmetric matrix, $\mathbf{X}_{I,g}$ is a function of the $N_{G}\left(N_{G}+1\right)/2$
entries in the upper triangular part, i.e. $\left[\mathbf{X}_{I,g}\right]_{i,j}$
for $i\leq j$, and there is no constraint for $\left[\mathbf{X}_{I,g}\right]_{i,j}$
for $i\leq j$. Therefore, we can express the objective \eqref{eq:MISO OP4 Objective}
as a function of $\left[\mathbf{X}_{I,g}\right]_{i,j}$ for $i\leq j$
and all $g$. Subsequently we can transform the problem \eqref{eq:MISO OP4 Objective}-\eqref{eq:MISO OP4 Contraint-2}
to an unconstrained problem which optimizes $N_{I}\left(N_{G}+1\right)/2$
unconstrained variables $\left[\mathbf{X}_{I,g}\right]_{i,j}$ for
$i\leq j$ and all $g$. To solve the unconstrained optimization problem,
we can use the quasi-Newton method in MATLAB to directly optimize
$\left[\mathbf{X}_{I,g}\right]_{i,j}$ for $i\leq j$ and all $g$,
and then find a stationary point of the problem \eqref{eq:MISO OP4 Objective}-\eqref{eq:MISO OP4 Contraint-2}.
Using the quasi-Newton method with BFGS update, the computational
complexity for each iteration is $\mathcal{O}\left(N_{I}^{2}\left(N_{G}+1\right)^{2}/4\right)$
\cite{nocedal2006numerical_optimization}. The single and fully connected
reconfigurable impedance networks can be viewed as two special cases
of the group connected reconfigurable impedance network, i.e. the
group size $N_{G}=1$ and $N_{G}=N_{I}$. Therefore, we can follow
the same approach to solve the received signal power maximization
problem with single and fully connected cases.
We now evaluate the performance of the RIS aided SISO system with
the single, fully, and group connected reconfigurable impedance networks.
We consider a two-dimensional (2D) coordinate system as shown in Fig.
\ref{fig:channel}. A single-antenna transmitter is located at (0,
0) and a single-antenna receiver is located at (52, 0). A uniform
linear array (ULA) at the RIS are located in $x$-axis. The antenna
spacing is half wavelength and the center of the array is located
at (50, 2). The distance-dependent pathloss model is given by
\begin{equation}
L_{ij}\left(d_{ij}\right)=C_{0}\left(\frac{d_{ij}}{D_{0}}\right)^{-\alpha_{ij}}
\end{equation}
where $C_{0}$ refers to the pathloss at the reference distance $D_{0}=1$
meter (m), $d_{ij}$ refers to the distance, and $\alpha_{ij}$ refers
to the pathloss exponent for $ij\in\left\{ RT,RI,IT\right\} $. For
the small-scale fading, we assume that the transmitter-receiver and
RIS-receiver channels are both Rayleigh fading channels, and assume
that the transmitter-RIS channel is Rician fading as provided in \eqref{eq:Rician Channel Model}.
We set $\alpha_{RT}=3.5$, $\alpha_{IT}=2$, $\alpha_{RI}=2.8$, $C_{0}=-30$
dB, and $P_{T}=10$ W.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm]{Figures/RIS_Channel}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{\label{fig:channel}2D coordinate system for the SISO RIS aided system.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{Figures/Average_Power_Rician0dB-RIS}
\par\end{centering}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{Figures/Average_Power_Rician3dB-RIS}
\par\end{centering}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{Figures/Average_Power_Rician10dB-RIS}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{\label{fig:average_power_Rician}Average received signal power versus
the number of RIS elements with different Rician factors of the transmitter-RIS
channel.}
\end{figure}
Using the Monte Carlo method, we compute the average received signal
power achieved after optimizing the single, fully, and group connected
reconfigurable impedance networks. The average received signal power
versus the number of RIS elements with different Rician factors of
the transmitter-RIS channel is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:average_power_Rician}.
We can make the following observations. \textit{First}, the group
connected reconfigurable impedance network achieves a higher received
signal power than the single connected reconfigurable impedance network.
The fully connected reconfigurable impedance network achieves the
highest received signal power. This demonstrates the benefit of the
group and fully connected reconfigurable impedance networks. \textit{Second},
the larger the group size is, the higher the received signal power
is, which indicates that we can trade complexity for signal power
enhancement. \textit{Last}, the received signal power of the fully
connected reconfigurable impedance network does not change with the
Rician factor. Indeed, it can be deduced from the scaling laws \eqref{eq:scaling law-LOS}
and \eqref{eq:scaling law Rayleigh-fully} in that the received signal
power is always $N_{I}^{2}$. However, the received signal power of
the single connected case increases with the Rician factor. Indeed,
we can deduce from the scaling laws \eqref{eq:scaling law-LOS} and
\eqref{eq:scaling law Rayleight-single} in that the single connected
case achieves a higher power in the LoS channel compared to Rayleigh
fading channels.
We also plot the power gains of the group and fully connected reconfigurable
impedance networks over the single connected reconfigurable impedance
network with different Rician factors of the transmitter-RIS channel
in Fig. \ref{fig:Power_gain_Rician}. We find that the power gain
decreases with the Rician factor. To show the tradeoff between performance
and complexity for the single, group, and fully connected reconfigurable
impedance networks, we quantify the complexity from two perspectives,
1) the circuit topology complexity, which refers to the number of
reconfigurable impedance components in the reconfigurable impedance
network, and 2) the optimization computational complexity, which refers
to the computational complexity for optimizing the reconfigurable
impedance networks with different constraints of $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$.
A comprehensive comparison of the single, group, and fully connected
reconfigurable impedance networks in terms of the power gain at different
Rician factors, the circuit topology complexity, and the optimization
computational complexity is summarized in Table. \ref{tab:Comprehensive-Comparison-of}.
We can conclude that the power gain can be enhanced by introducing
more reconfigurable components and more optimization computations,
i.e. trading circuit topology complexity and optimization computational
complexity for performance enhancement. Particularly, the group connected
reconfigurable impedance network with group size of 2 achieves a good
tradeoff between complexity and performance enhancement, which uses
half more reconfigurable impedance components and 1.25 times more
computations to improve the received signal power by around 20\%.
In addition, given the same received signal power, using the group
connected reconfigurable impedance network can reduce the number of
RIS elements. For example, for the group size of 2 and 4 with Rician
factor of 0 dB, the number of RIS elements can be reduced by 9.5\%
and 13.6\%, respectively. Such reduction of the number of RIS elements
is beneficial for reducing the cost and area of RIS, especially when
the number of RIS elements is large.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{Figures/Power_gain_Rician0dB-RIS}
\par\end{centering}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{Figures/Power_gain_Rician3dB-RIS}
\par\end{centering}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{Figures/Power_gain_Rician10dB-RIS}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{\label{fig:Power_gain_Rician}Power gains of the group connected and
fully connected reconfigurable impedance networks over the single
connected reconfigurable impedance network with different Rician factors
of the transmitter-RIS channel.}
\end{figure}
\begin{table*}[t]
\caption{\label{tab:Comprehensive-Comparison-of}Comprehensive Comparison of
single connected, group connected, and fully connected reconfigurable
impedance network.}
\begin{centering}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{} & & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{{\scriptsize{}Power Gain}} & {\scriptsize{}Circuit } & {\scriptsize{}Optimization }\tabularnewline
\cline{3-5} \cline{4-5} \cline{5-5}
& {\scriptsize{}Group Size} & {\scriptsize{}Rician } & {\scriptsize{}Rician } & {\scriptsize{}Rician } & {\scriptsize{}Topology } & {\scriptsize{}Computational}\tabularnewline
& & {\scriptsize{}Factor 0 dB} & {\scriptsize{}Factor 3 dB} & {\scriptsize{}Factor 10 dB} & {\scriptsize{}Complexity} & {\scriptsize{}Complexity}{\footnotesize{}$^{\dagger}$}\tabularnewline
\hline
{\scriptsize{}Single Connected} & {\scriptsize{}1} & {\scriptsize{}1} & {\scriptsize{}1} & {\scriptsize{}1} & {\scriptsize{}$N_{I}$} & {\scriptsize{}$\mathcal{O}\left(N_{I}^{2}\right)$}\tabularnewline
\hline
{\scriptsize{}Group Connected} & {\scriptsize{}2} & {\scriptsize{}1.22} & {\scriptsize{}1.20} & {\scriptsize{}1.14} & {\scriptsize{}1.5$N_{I}$} & {\scriptsize{}$\mathcal{O}\left(2.25N_{I}^{2}\right)$}\tabularnewline
\hline
{\scriptsize{}Group Connected} & {\scriptsize{}4} & {\scriptsize{}1.34} & {\scriptsize{}1.31} & {\scriptsize{}1.21} & {\scriptsize{}2.5$N_{I}$} & {\scriptsize{}$\mathcal{O}\left(6.25N_{I}^{2}\right)$}\tabularnewline
\hline
{\scriptsize{}Fully Connected} & {\scriptsize{}$N_{I}$} & {\scriptsize{}1.48} & {\scriptsize{}1.42} & {\scriptsize{}1.30} & {\scriptsize{}$N_{I}\left(N_{I}+1\right)/2$} & {\scriptsize{}$\mathcal{O}\left(N_{I}^{2}\left(N_{I}+1\right)^{2}/4\right)$}\tabularnewline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\par\end{centering}
{\scriptsize{}$^{\dagger}$ The computational complexity for each
iteration using quasi-Newton method with BFGS update.}{\scriptsize\par}
\end{table*}
\section{Conclusions and Future Work}
We use scattering parameter network analysis to derive a physical
and EM compliant yet straightforward and tractable RIS aided communication
model. The proposed general RIS aided communication model fully considers
the effects of impedance mismatching and mutual coupling at the transmitter,
RIS, and receiver, and thus is more comprehensive than the conventional
RIS aided communication model \cite{2020_CM_TowardIRS_QWu}, \cite{rajatheva2020white},
\cite{2019_TWC_RIS_CHuang}-\cite{2020_WCL_IRS_DRL} which does not
consider these effects. Furthermore, the proposed general model can
be reduced to the conventional RIS aided communication model \cite{2020_CM_TowardIRS_QWu},
\cite{rajatheva2020white}, \cite{2019_TWC_RIS_CHuang}-\cite{2020_WCL_IRS_DRL}
under special conditions.
Using the proposed RIS model we also develop new RIS architectures
based on group and fully connected reconfigurable impedance networks,
which are more general and efficient than previously utilized single
connected architecture \cite{2020_CM_TowardIRS_QWu}, \cite{rajatheva2020white},
\cite{2019_TWC_RIS_CHuang}-\cite{2020_WCL_IRS_DRL}. In sharp contrast
with the single connected architecture that only adjusts the phases
of the impinging waves using a diagonal scattering matrix, our proposed
group and fully connected architectures enable scattering matrices
to be block diagonal or full and can adjust not only the phases but
also the magnitudes of the impinging waves, so as to provide better
performance in RIS aided systems.
We derive the scaling law of the received signal power of a SISO RIS
aided system as a function of the number of RIS elements in both LoS
and Rayleigh fading channels. It shows that using fully and group
connected reconfigurable impedance networks can increase the received
signal power by up to 62\% compared with the single connected case.
It also indicates that given the same received signal power, using
fully connected and group connected reconfigurable impedance networks
can reduce the number of RIS elements by up to 21\%. We also formulate
the received signal power maximization problem in the SISO RIS aided
system and evaluate the received signal power in a realistic model
with distance-dependent pathloss and Rician fading channel. The numerical
results show that the fully and group connected reconfigurable impedance
networks can increase the received signal power by up to 48\% and
34\%, respectively.
Future research avenues include, but are not limited to, the following
areas:
1) Developing efficient channel estimation methods. For the proposed
RIS aided communication model with perfect matching and no mutual
coupling, the channel matrix \eqref{eq:perfectmatchign H} is exactly
the same as the conventional RIS aided communication model \cite{2020_CM_TowardIRS_QWu},
\cite{rajatheva2020white}, \cite{2019_TWC_RIS_CHuang}-\cite{2020_WCL_IRS_DRL},
so that we can use the channel estimation methods for conventional
RIS aided communication model \cite{2019_TWC_IRS_QWu}, \cite{2019_ICASSP_IRS_WET}
to estimate the channel matrix. For the general RIS aided communication
model, from the channel matrix expression \eqref{eq:H general}, we
need to first measure the impedance mismatch $\mathbf{\Gamma}_{T}$
and $\mathbf{\Gamma}_{R}$ and mutual coupling $\mathbf{S}_{TT}$,
$\mathbf{S}_{II}$, and $\mathbf{S}_{RR}$ by a vector network analyzer
and then use the channel estimation methods \cite{2019_TWC_IRS_QWu},
\cite{2019_ICASSP_IRS_WET} to estimate the channel matrix. In the
future, we can develop more efficient channel estimation methods for
the proposed RIS aided communication models.
2) Extending to multi-user and multi-cell scenarios. Previous work
on multi-user \cite{2019_TWC_IRS_QWu} and multi-cell scenarios \cite{2020_TWC_IRS_MIMO_Multicell}
only use RIS with the single connected architecture to minimize the
transmit power and maximize the weight sum rate, respectively. In
the future, we can consider using the fully and group connected architectures,
which are more general than the single connected architecture, to
further decrease the transmit power in multi-user scenario and increase
the weighted sum rate in multi-cell scenario.
3) Optimizing with discrete values of $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$. For
the single connected architecture, we have $\boldsymbol{\Theta}=\mathrm{diag}\left(e^{j\theta_{1}},e^{j\theta_{2}},...,e^{j\theta_{N_{I}}}\right)$
and we can restrict the continuous $\theta_{n_{I}}\in\left[0,2\pi\right]$
to discrete values, which is called discrete phase shifts. The optimization
with discrete phase shifts has been well studied in \cite{2019_PACRIM_IRS_DiscretePhaseShift},
\cite{2020_ToC_IRS_Discrete_Phase}. Inspired by the discrete phase
shifts, in the future we can consider the design and optimization
of discrete values of matrix $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$ for the fully
and group connected architectures.
\section*{Appendix}
Scattering parameter network theory \cite{pozar2009microwave} is
useful to model and analyze wireless systems. This theory has been
used to accurately characterize MIMO wireless systems in previous
work \cite{2004_TWC_Jensen}, \cite{2004_TAP_Jensen}, \cite{2006_TAP_BKLau_impedance_matching}
for example. In this appendix, we briefly review the concept of reflection
coefficient and scattering parameters to help provide some background
\cite{pozar2009microwave}.
\subsection*{A. Reflection Coefficient}
Consider an arbitrary 1-port network as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:A-transmission-line}.
The 1-port network can be a source impedance, or a load impedance,
or an antenna impedance, and it can be constructed from wires, transmission
lines, circuits, antennas, or more generally it can be any linear
electromagnetic system \cite{pozar2009microwave}. Assume that an
incident voltage wave, denoted as $a_{1}$, is input into the 1-port
network. The incident voltage wave will be reflected by the 1-port
network and subsequently a reflected voltage wave, denoted as $b_{1}$,
is generated. Therefore, the voltage across the port, denoted as $v_{1}$,
is the sum of the incident and reflected voltage waves, i.e. $v_{1}=a_{1}+b_{1}$,
and the current through the port, denoted as $i_{1}$, is described
by $i_{1}=\left(a_{1}-b_{1}\right)/Z_{0}$ where $Z_{0}$ is a chosen
reference impedance and usually it is set as $Z_{0}=50\:\Omega$.
We define the ratio of the reflected and incident voltage waves as
the reflection coefficient of the 1-port network, which is denoted
as $\Gamma$ and given by
\begin{equation}
\Gamma=\frac{b_{1}}{a_{1}}=\frac{Z-Z_{0}}{Z+Z_{0}},
\end{equation}
where $Z=v_{1}/i_{1}$ denotes the input impedance of the 1-port network.
$\Gamma$ and $Z$ have a one-to-one correspondence relationship so
that $\Gamma$ can completely characterize any input impedance of
a 1-port network. For a passive input impedance $\mathfrak{\Re}\left\{ Z\right\} \geq0$,
we have that $\left|\Gamma\right|\leq1$. Particularly, for a pure
reactive input impedance $\mathfrak{\Re}\left\{ Z\right\} =0$, we
have that $\Gamma=e^{j\theta}$ and $\left|\Gamma\right|=1$, which
is helpful to increase the power of scattered wave and is the key
property of RIS (the phase shift and the unit modulus constraint).
It should also be noted that the reflection coefficient can characterize
any 1-port network no matter how it is constructed. Particularly,
the reflection coefficient of an antenna characterizes how much of
the incident wave the antenna can radiate, which is an important parameter
in antenna design for wireless systems.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{Figures/Reflection_Coefficient}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{\label{fig:A-transmission-line}An arbitrary $1$-port network.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm]{Figures/SParameter}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{\label{fig:Smatrix}An arbitrary $N$-port network.}
\end{figure}
\subsection*{B. Scattering Parameters}
Generalizing the concept of the 1-port network, we consider an arbitrary
$N$-port network as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:Smatrix}, where $a_{n}$
refers to the wave incident on the $n$th port and $b_{n}$ refers
to the wave reflected from the $n$th port. Denote $\mathbf{a}=\left[a_{1},a_{2},\ldots,a_{N}\right]^{T}$
and $\mathbf{b}=\left[b_{1},b_{2},\ldots,b_{n}\right]^{T}$. The scattering
parameter matrix $\mathbf{S}$ is defined in relation to these incident
and reflected waves as $\mathbf{b}=\mathbf{S}\mathbf{a}$. Similar
to the impedance or admittance parameter matrix for an $N$-port network,
the scattering parameter matrix can completely characterize the network
as seen at its $N$ ports. While the impedance and admittance parameter
matrices relate the total voltages and currents at the ports, the
scattering parameter matrix relates the waves incident on the ports
to those reflected from the ports. In particular, at the $n$th port,
the voltage and current are related with the incident and reflected
waves by $v_{n}=a_{n}+b_{n}$ and $i_{n}=\left(a_{n}-b_{n}\right)/Z_{0}$.
Therefore, the scattering matrix $\mathbf{S}$ can be one-to-one converted
to the impedance matrix $\mathbf{Z}$ through
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{S}=\left(\mathbf{Z}+Z_{0}\mathbf{I}\right)^{-1}\left(\mathbf{Z}-Z_{0}\mathbf{I}\right).\label{eq:ZtoS}
\end{equation}
For a 1-port network, the scattering matrix $\mathbf{S}$ reduces
to a scalar, which is essentially the reflection coefficient as introduced
in Appendix A.
It should be noted that scattering parameters can characterize any
$N$-port network. It does not matter if the $N$-port network is
constructed from wires, transmission lines, circuits, antennas, or
more generally it can be any linear electromagnetic system. Particularly,
for SISO wireless systems, the single transmit antenna and single
receive antenna embedded in the wireless channel can be viewed as
a 2-port network, where the $\left[\mathbf{S}\right]_{2,1}$ parameter
in the $2\times2$ scattering matrix $\mathbf{S}$ is the channel
gain between two antennas. Moreover, the scattering parameter network
analysis can accurately characterize MIMO wireless systems, as shown
in \cite{2004_TWC_Jensen}, \cite{2004_TAP_Jensen}, \cite{2006_TAP_BKLau_impedance_matching}.
In practice, scattering parameters can be measured by a vector network
analyzer \cite{pozar2009microwave} and have been widely used in the
measurements of microwave circuit and component, antennas, and wireless
systems. To conclude, reflection coefficient and scattering parameters
are suitable and accurate for modeling wireless systems.
|
\section{Introduction}
Site density-functional theory (SDFT) provides statistical mechanics description of
\textit{molecular} many-body systems in terms of the density averages of atomic sites in the molecule.
The concept is similar to electronic structure DFT, but applied to nuclei degrees of
freedom, treated classically. From practical point of view, the main advantage of
SDFT is that it provides direct approximation of phase space averages,
thus avoiding numerical expense of sampling with
molecular dynamics or Monte-Carlo methods.
Despite the classical nature of the problem, development of
practically applicable SDFT approaches for molecular systems
has proven to be challenging. While the problem has been analyzed some thirty years ago by
Chandler, McCoy, and Singer
in what is known as a CMS approach,\cite{Chandler1986a,Chandler1986b}
applying these ideas
in practice has not been easy.
The primary reason is the multi-scale nature of interactions, comprised of strong localized interactions
that bind atoms into molecules (intra-molecular) and
weak long range interactions between molecular units (inter-molecular).
Given the distinct disparity of the two scales, they cannot be properly treated within the same approximation scheme, which presents significant theoretical
challenges.
Currently most SDFT applications are based on 3D-RISM\cite{Beglov1997} approach, which has been applied quite successfully to a wide range of chemical
and biological molecular systems \cite{ Chuev2006,Imai2007,Ikuta2007,Chuev2009,Howard2010,
Palmer2011,Fedotova2014,Yesudas2015,Fedotova2015,Terekhova2015,Phanich2016,Fedotova2017a,Roy2017,Maruyama2017,Fedotova2017,Hasegawa2017,
Hay2018,Fedotova2019,Cao2019,Fedotova2020,Fedotova2020a}. The key assumption in the method is that correlation effects in molecular liquids can be represented by second order density expansion around homogeneous reference system.
While this approximation works well for inter-molecular interactions, it is poorly suited for description of stiff intra-molecular potentials (aka chemical bonds).\cite{Chuev2020}
Recognizing this issue, we have developed an approach\cite{Valiev2018} that from the outset separated the treatment of intra- and inter-molecular interactions, employing an implicit scheme for the construction of density functional, akin to Kohn-Sham scheme in electronic structure DFT. The approach has shown promising results in curing the existing artifacts of RISM methods.\cite{Chuev2020}
The present work extends our previous investigation in two important ways. We show that our implicit scheme of construction density functional can be reformulated as a mixed or dual space formulation. The latter provides the flexibility to apply density-based representation only to part of the overall interactions, and retain conventional field-based treatment for the rest. Taking this approach in conjunction with homogeneous density approximation for inter-molecular interactions, we then demonstrate how our original molecular liquid can be transformed to resemble the effective simple fluid mixture. The overall process can be thought of as a renormalization procedure, such that the details of interaction at the intra-molecular scale are propagated to long range inter-molecular scale via effective interaction parameters. Applications to several representative types of diatomic liquids show that resulting approach provides much better accuracy than existing RISM methods, yet retaining computational simplicity of the latter.
The paper is organized as follows. We start by describing dual space formulation for molecular liquid systems and resulting system of self-consistent equations (Sections IIA and IIB). The renormalization procedure along with corresponding computational implementation is described in Section IIC and IID. Finally, in Section III we provide illustrative applications to various types of diatomic liquids.
\section{Methodology}
\subsection{Dual space representation}
Let us consider inhomogeneous molecular liquid consisting of a single molecule type with $M$ distinct atom sites. We assume that the interactions between atomic sites ($U$) can be separated into intra-molecular ($U_m$) and inter-molecular ($U_l$) contributions. The system is also subject to an external site dependent potential $v_\alpha(\mathbf{r}_{i\alpha})$, where
$\mathbf{r}_{i\alpha}$ denotes coordinates of site $\alpha$ in molecule $i$.
The natural starting point for the statistical mechanics analysis of the system is given by the grand thermodynamic potential or, as we will refer to it, a field functional:
\begin{equation}
\label{W[j]}
\Omega[\bm{\xj}] = - \frac{1}{\beta }\ln \mathbb{Tr} \: e^{
- \beta
(
U(\{\mathbf{r}_{i\alpha}\})
+
\sum v_\alpha(\mathbf{r}_{i\alpha})
+
\sum \xj_\alpha(\mathbf{r}_{i\alpha})
)
}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb{Tr}$ denotes grand canonical average
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{Tr}\left[ \ldots \right] = \sum\limits_{N = 0}^\infty
\frac{e^{\beta\mu N}}{\Lambda^{3N} N!}\int {\left[ \ldots \right]} \prod\limits_{i\alpha} d{{\bf{r}}_{i\alpha}}
\end{equation}
The field functional is defined of over the space of auxiliary fields $\bm{\xj}(\bm{r})\equiv\{\xj_{\alpha}(\bm{r})\}$, with original system located at the point where $\bm{\xj}(\bm{r})=0$.
One may say that it provides \textit{field-based representation} of the system.
Alternatively, the system can be also analyzed in the density domain - the premise behind the SDFT approach.\cite{Chandler1986a} The transformation from field to density based view is facilitated by the fact that the two variables form a conjugate pair
\begin{equation}
\label{dW/dJ}
\frac{{\delta \Omega[\bm{\xj}]}}{{\delta {\xj_\alpha}({\bf{r}})}} = {\rho _\alpha}({\bf{r}}),
\end{equation}
which, via the Legendre transform, leads to the definition of the density functional $\Gamma[\bm{\rho}]$
\begin{equation}
\label{gamma_def}
\Gamma[\bm{\rho}]=\Omega[\bm{\xj}]-\bm{\xj}\cdot\bm{\rho}
\end{equation}
Here $\bm{\xj}$ itself is considered to be a functional of $\bm{\rho}$ by virtue of (\ref{dW/dJ}), with dot product representing integration and summation over site coordinates and indices.
\begin{eqnarray}
\boldsymbol{J}\cdot\boldsymbol{\rho} &\equiv& \sum_{_{\alpha}}\int {J}_{\alpha}(\mathbf{r}) \rho_\alpha(\mathbf{r})d\mathbf{r}
\label{product}
\end{eqnarray}
One of the main advantages of working in density space is that solution can now be posed as a variational problem
\begin{equation}
\label{var}
\frac{\delta \Gamma[\bm{\rho}]}{\delta \bm{\rho}({\bf{r}})}=0
\end{equation}
Density-based presentation has been used widely in the theory of simple liquids. \cite{Evans1979}
However, its application to systems such as molecular fluids has been challenging. The main complication is that unlike generating functional the functional form of the density functional is generally unknown.
The approach that we use in this work, builds up upon ideas presented in our earlier
investigation\cite{Valiev2018} and looks at the molecular liquid problem from the standpoint of mixed field/density representation. The main idea behind this dual space formulation, is to enable the use of different domains, field or density, when evaluating contributions from different parts of the interaction potential. In the case of molecular liquid, the intra-molecular correlations can be easily analyzed in field domain, but exceedingly difficult to treat in density representation. On the other hand, overwhelming success of density based methods in simple liquids, indicates that density domain is a natural setting for the treatment of long range inter-molecular interactions. One of the mechanisms, by which we can formally separate the two contributions consists in defining an intermediate, molecular gas system. By construction, the latter contains only intra-molecular contributions ($U=U_m$) that can be analyzed in field domain using by means of the field functional
\begin{align}
\Omega_m[\bm{\xj}] = \Omega[\bm{\xj}]\big\vert_{U=U_m}
\label{Wm_general}
\end{align}
At the same time the inter-molecular interactions in density space can be identified as
\begin{align}
\Upsilon_l[\bm{\rho}] = \Gamma[\bm{\rho}] - \Gamma_m[\bm{\rho}]
\label{upsilon}
\end{align}
where $\Gamma_m[\bm{\rho}]= \Gamma[\bm{\rho}]\big\vert_{U=U_m}$ refers to the same molecular gas system.
The two contributions can be combined by defining the following dual space functional (see Appendix \ref{app:sec_M})
\begin{align}
\mathcal{M}[\bm{\xj},\bm{\rho}]=\Omega_{m}\left[\bm{\xj}\right]+\Upsilon_l[\bm{\rho}]
-\bm{\xj} \cdot \bm{\rho}
\label{M-functional}
\end{align}
It should be understood that in the definition of dual space functional, $\bm{\xj}$ and
$\bm{\rho}$ are playing role of \textit{independent variables}. The solution to our molecular liquid system is obtained at the extremum of $\mathcal{M}[\bm{\xj},\bm{\rho}]$
\begin{equation}
\frac{\delta \mathcal{M}[\bm{\xj},\bm{\rho}]}{\delta \bm{\xj}({\bf{r}})}=0
\label{M_extremum-J}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\delta \mathcal{M}[\bm{\xj},\bm{\rho}]}{\delta \bm{\rho}({\bf{r}})}=0
\label{M_extremum_rho}
\end{equation}
In particular one can explicitly verify that the above conditions are completely equivalent to the implicit SDFT procedure presented earlier.\cite{Valiev2018}
For the purposes of this work, we will take one extra step and explicitly separate
external potential $\bm{v}(\mathbf{r})$ by shifting the auxiliary potential as
$\bm{\xj}(\mathbf{r}) \rightarrow \bm{\xj}(\mathbf{r}) - \bm{v}(\mathbf{r})$.
As a result of this transformation the intra-molecular contribution can be expressed simply as
\begin{equation}
\label{Wm[j]}
\Omega_m[\bm{\xj}] = - \frac{1}{\beta }\ln \mathbb{Tr} \: e^{
- \beta
(
U_m(\{\mathbf{r}_{i\alpha}\})
+
\sum \xj_\alpha(\mathbf{r}_{i\alpha})
)
}
\end{equation}
and we acquire an additional external potential contribution in the dual space functional
\begin{align}
\mathcal{M}[\bm{\xj},\bm{\rho}]=\Omega_{m}\left[\bm{\xj}\right]+\Upsilon_l[\bm{\rho}]
-\bm{\xj} \cdot \bm{\rho} + \bm{v} \cdot \bm{\rho}
\label{M-functional-1}
\end{align}
\subsection{Self-consistent equations}
The ability to separate the treatment of intra- and inter-molecular contributions into their respective, field and density, domains significantly simplifies the analysis of the molecular liquid problem and results in the self-consistent procedure akin to electronic structure DFT. We will illustrate this in the context of cluster-based expression\cite{Valiev2018} of molecular gas field functional $\Omega_m[\bm{\xj}]$
\begin{equation}
\Omega_m[\bm{\xj}] =
\Omega_m^{id}[\bm{\xj}]
+
\Delta\Omega_m^{}[\bm{\xj}]
\label{Wm_cluster}
\end{equation}
Here the 1st term represents an ideal gas contribution
\begin{align}
\Omega_m^{id}[\bm{\xj}] = -\frac{\rho_0}{\beta}
\left( 1 +
\sum_{\alpha=1}^M \int f_{\alpha}({\bf{r}}) d{\bf r}
\right)
\end{align}
where
$\bm{f}$ represent the so-called Mayer functions
\begin{align}
\label{f}
\bm{f}(\mathbf{r})=
e^{
-\beta
\bm{\xj}(\mathbf{r})
}
-1
\end{align}
The second term contains remaining correlation contributions
\begin{equation}
\Delta\Omega_m[\bm{\xj}] =
-\frac{\rho_0}{\beta}
\sum_{s=2}^{M}
\frac{\mathtt{Tr}[\bm{D}^{(s)}\bm{f}^{s}] }{s !}
\label{Wm_cluster}
\end{equation}
where $\bm{D}^{(s)}$ denote intra-molecular correlation functions.
The density of the molecular gas system can be obtained as a functional derivative of $\Omega_m[\bm{\xj}]$ with respect to $\bm{\xj}$ (cf. (\ref{dW/dJ}))
\begin{align}
\bm{\rho}_m([\bm{\xj}],{\bf{r}})=
\rho_0
\left (
1+\bm{\xi}([\bm{\xj}],{\bf{r}})
\right)
e^{-\beta
\bm{J}({\bf{r}})
}
\label{rho_m}
\end{align}
where we defined a correlation hole functional as
\begin{align}
\label{xi}
\bm{\xi}([\bm{\xj}],{\bf{r}}) = -\frac{\beta}{\rho_0}\frac{\delta \Delta\Omega_m[\bm{\xj}]}{\delta \bm{f}({\bf{r}})}
= \sum_{s=2}^{M}
\frac{\mathtt{Tr}[\mathbb{D}^{(s)}\bm{f}^{s-1}] }{(s-1) !}
\end{align}
With the above results at hand, let us now consider the first extremum condition for $\mathcal{M}[\bm{\xj},\bm{\rho}]$, see Eq.(\ref{M_extremum-J}).
Performing variation with respect to $\bm{\xj}$ we immediately obtain the following important relationship
\begin{align}
\boldsymbol{\rho}({\bf r})=
\bm{\rho}_m([\bm{\xj}],{\bf{r}})
\label{rho_condition}
\end{align}
The above result essentially states that density of our molecular liquid system $\bm{\rho}({\bf r})$ can be represented as the density of the molecular gas system $\bm{\rho}_m({\bf r})$ at some (yet unknown) external field $\bm{\xj}({\bf r})$.
The situation in that sense is very similar to the Kohn-Sham procedure in electronic structure DFT. Of course, Eq. (\ref{rho_condition}) only provides half of the solution, we still do not know at which $\bm{\xj}({\bf r})$ the equality (\ref{rho_condition}) takes place. The answer to that question is provided by the second variational condition (\ref{M_extremum_rho}). Application of the latter shows that the required field $\bm{\xj}({\bf r})$ consists of two components
\begin{align}
\bm{J}({\bf{r}}) = \bm{\upsilon}({\bf{r}}) + \bm{\phi}_l([\bm{\rho}],{\bf{r}})
\label{scf_potential}
\end{align}
First one is the original external potential experienced by the system, and second is the inter-molecular correlation potential
\begin{align}
\bm{\phi}_l([\bm{\rho}],{\bf{r}}) = \frac{\delta \Upsilon_l[\bm{\rho}]}{\delta \bm{\rho}({\bf{r}})}
\label{phi_l}
\end{align}
The inter-molecular correlation potential can be viewed as an analog of exchange-correlation potential in Kohn-Sham density functional theory. It depends on the density and together with Eq. (\ref{rho_condition}) sets up a self-consistent system of equations
\begin{numcases}
\bm{\rho}({\bf r})=
\rho_0
\left (
1+\bm{\xi}([\bm{\xj}],{\bf r})
\right)
e^{-\beta
\bm{J}({\bf{r}})
}
\label{rho_scf}
\\
\bm{J}({\bf{r}}) = \bm{\upsilon}({\bf{r}}) + \bm{\phi}_l([\bm{\rho}],{\bf{r}})
\label{J_scf}
\end{numcases}
The remaining issue of evaluation of inter-molecular correlation will be discussed in the next section.
\subsection{Renormalization procedure for inter-molecular interactions}
\label{sec:renormalization}
Evaluation of inter-molecular contributions on their own, in density domain, proves instrumental in building connections between molecular liquid and simple liquid problems. One particular technique, commonly used in the theory simple liquids, is the 2nd order expansion of excess free energy functional around homogeneous system, also known as HNC approximation. The excess free energy functional maps directly onto the inter-molecular correlation functional,
and it seems reasonable to employ the same approach in our case as well. Expanding the inter-molecular correlation functional
in terms of density fluctuation,
$\Delta\bm{\rho}(\mathbf{r}) = \bm{\rho}(\mathbf{r})-\rho_0$,
and keeping only the 2nd order terms we obtain
\begin{align}
\Upsilon_l[\bm{\rho}] = \Upsilon_l[\rho_0] +\frac{1}{2\beta\rho_0}
\iint
\Delta\bm{\rho}(\mathbf{r})
\left[
\mathbf{S}^{-1}(|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}'|) - \mathbf{S}_m^{-1}(|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}'|)
\right]
\Delta\bm{\rho}(\mathbf{r}')
d\mathbf{r}d\mathbf{r}'
\label{HNC}
\end{align}
Here $\mathbf{S}$ and $\mathbf{S}_m$ stand for structure factors for molecular liquid and molecular gas homogeneous systems respectively:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{S}_m = \bm{1} + \mathbf{D}^{(2)},
\qquad
\mathbf{S} = \mathbf{S}_m + \rho_0\mathbf{H}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{H}$ inter-molecular correlation
function, whose elements can be obtained from site-site radial distribution functions as $H_{\alpha\alpha'}(r)=g_{\alpha\alpha'}(r)-1$.
The corresponding expression for the inter-molecular correlation potential can be obtained
from (\ref{phi_l}) and written in reciprocal space as
\begin{align}
\bm{\phi}_l(\mathbf{k}) =
\frac{1}{\beta\rho_0}
\left[
\mathbf{S}^{-1}(k)
-
\mathbf{S}_m^{-1}(k)
\right ]
\Delta\bm{\rho}(\mathbf{k})
\label{phi_hnc_kspace}
\end{align}
Formally speaking, the above equations provide a perfectly valid extension of HNC approximation to molecular liquids. Yet, in practical applications, evaluation of inter-molecular potential as given by (\ref{phi_hnc_kspace}), will encounter significant numerical problems. The issue lies in in molecular structure factor $\mathbf{S}_m$, which becomes ill-conditioned for low $k$-values and completely degenerate for $k=0$:
\begin{align}
\lim_{k\rightarrow 0} [\mathbf{S}_m(k)]_{\alpha\beta} = 1,
\qquad \forall \alpha,\beta
\end{align}
While this issue may at first appear as a mere numerical inconvenience of HNC approximation, the roots of the problem run much deeper than that and reflect inherent multi-scale nature of the molecular liquid problem. Indeed, one of the major tenets of site-density description is that atomic site densities are treated as independent first class entities. This view is indeed very much appropriate and arguably necessary at the microscopic level. Yet from macroscopic perspective, our system is made from molecules, and it is precisely this discord between the two views that is being manifested here. To put in this on quantitative grounds, we observe that by virtue of being part of the same molecule, the atomic site densities in the limit of $k\rightarrow 0$, will start approaching the same value and eventually become degenerate
\begin{align}
\lim _{k \rightarrow 0}\rho_{\alpha}(\mathbf{k}) = \int \rho_{\alpha}(\mathbf{r}) d\mathbf{r} = N, \qquad \forall \alpha
\label{rho_limit}
\end{align}
At the same time, the density equation (see (\ref{rho_scf})) in this limit reduces to simple linear response expression
\begin{align}
\Delta\bm{\rho}(\mathbf{k}) \approx
- \beta\rho_0\mathbf{S}_m(k)\bm{J}(\mathbf{k})
\label{rho_response}
\end{align}
Thus the only way to satisfy degeneracy condition (\ref{rho_limit}) in general case, is for the structure factor $\mathbf{S}_m$ itself to become degenerate.
In other words, the degeneracy of molecular structure factor plays an essential role in ensuring the proper transition between microscopic and macroscopic scales for the molecular liquid problem.
To address the problem highlighted above we follow the common strategy of reformulating the problem in terms of some new renormalized variables. The intent is to transform the original "bare" system into an effective one, such that the divergent terms can be compartmentalized into new interaction parameters. The simplest effective model for the molecular liquid system is that based on the simple fluid mixture, where each atomic site maps into a different component. The transformation is accomplished by defining the following variable
\begin{align}
\bm{\bar{c}}(\mathbf{k}) = \frac{1}{\rho_0}\mathbf{S}_m(k)\mathbf{S}^{-1}(k)\Delta\bm{\rho}(\mathbf{k})
\label{c_bar}
\end{align}
We can observe that in the absence of intra-molecular correlations
($\mathbf{S}_m\rightarrow \mathbf{1}$), it reduces to a familiar direct correlation
function from simple liquid theory, $ \bm{c} = \mathbf{S}^{-1}\Delta\bm{\rho}/\rho_0 $.\textbf{\cite{Henderson1992}} In that sense, $\bm{\bar{c}}$ may be referred to as renormalized direct correlation function, however, in the context of this work, we choose to call it renormalized response function. Formulated in terms of $\bm{\bar{c}}$, the expression for inter-molecular correlation potential becomes
\begin{align}
\beta\bm{\phi}_l({\bf{k}})= -
\mathbf{\bar{H}}(\mathrm {k})
\bm{\bar{c}}({\bf{k}})
\label{phi_renorm}
\end{align}
The above indeed identical in structure to simple fluid mixture expression, with interaction mediated by renormalized inter-molecular correlation functions (RCF)
\begin{align}
\bf{\bar{H}}(\mathrm {k})& \equiv
\mathbf{S}_m^{-1}(\mathrm {k} )\mathbf{H}(\mathrm {k})\mathbf{S}_m^{-1}(\mathrm {k} )
\label{H_bar}
\end{align}
We should note that similar functions were previously obtained as a result of partial wave expansion of the molecular Ornstein–Zernike equation.\cite{Ten-no1999}
The density or the closure equation in terms of new variables takes the following form
\begin{equation}
\bm{\bar c}({\bf r})=
\left [
1+\bm{\xi}(\bm{\phi}_l,{\bf r})
\right]
e^{-\beta (\bm{\upsilon}({\bf{r}})+\bm{\phi}_l({\bf{r}}))}+\beta [\bm{S}_m \ast\bm{\phi}_l]({\bf{r}}) - 1
\label{closure_renorm}
\end{equation}
Relations (\ref{closure_renorm}) and (\ref{phi_renorm}) form a complete set of self-consistent equations for the analysis of inhomogeneous molecular
liquids within homogeneous approximations. In particular, we note that low-$k$ values the solution can be obtained trivially as $
\bm{\bar c}(\mathbf{k}) = -\beta\mathbf{S}_m\bm{\upsilon}(\mathbf{k})$.
This implies that similar to site densities, renormalized response functions asymptotically at large distances also become degenerate and tending to the same value: $
\lim_{r\rightarrow \infty} {\bar c}_{\alpha}(\mathbf{r}) = -\beta\sum_{\alpha'=1}^{M} \upsilon_{\alpha'}(\mathbf{r})$.
The above should be contrasted with similar behaviour of direct correlation function in simple liquids: $
\lim_{r\rightarrow \infty} c(\mathbf{r}) = -\beta \upsilon(\mathbf{r})$.
The renormalization procedure presented above shifts the numerical problem of ill-conditioned structure factors to a more physical one - construction of proper effective correlation functions, i.e. RCF's. The latter still exhibit divergences for
low-$k$ values, which can be dealt it one of two ways. The first is based on regularization of their low-$k$ behaviour. Second, arguably more fundamental, way involves RCF's directly from MD simulations or approximately from liquid state theories. These issues will be discussed in more details on example applications to diatomic molecular liquids.
\subsection{Computational procedures}
The self-consistent procedure for solving renormalized site-density theory (RSDFT) equations (\ref{phi_renorm}) and (\ref{closure_renorm}) is quite similar to that in 3D-RISM\cite{Beglov1997}, employing Fast Fourier Transformation (FFT) for calculation of convolution type integrals in reciprocal space. The two major differences are the additional calculations related to correlation hole $\bm{\xi}$ and renormalized correlation function $\mathbf{\bar{H}}$, see Eqns. (\ref{xi}) and (\ref{H_bar}).
As we discussed in our previous work\cite{Chuev2020} the correlation hole plays a critical role in capturing chemical bond effects. For diatomic liquids considered here, it takes particular simple form as
\begin{equation}
\xi_{\alpha}({\bf k})= \sum_{\alpha'}(1-\delta_{\alpha\alpha'}) d(k) f_{\alpha'}({\bf k})
\end{equation}
where $d(k)$ is the intra-molecular pair-correlation function
\begin{align}
d(k) = \frac{\sin(kl)}{kl}
\label{d-function}
\end{align}
and $l$ is the bond length. As suggested by the above expression, during calculations, $\bf{\xi}$ is first assembled in $k$-space and then transformed into real space using Fast Fourier Transform (FFT).
Evaluation of renormalized correlation function (\ref{H_bar}) involves several steps. First we determine bare correlation functions from radial distribution function obtained from molecular dynamics (MD) simulations of homogeneous system, $H_{\alpha\beta}(r) = g_{\alpha\beta}(r) - 1$.
Due to finite size of the simulation box and finite duration of MD simulations, the resulting correlation functions is noisy, and we smooth it out using the procedure described in the previous work.\cite{Chuev2013,Chuev2014} In the next step we assemble $\mathbf{\bar{H}}$ from (\ref{H_bar}) using analytical expression of inverse of intra-molecular structure factor. As discussed previously, the latter
will diverge at $k=0$ as
$
\mathbf{S}_m^{-1}(k) \sim O\left( k^{-2} \right)$,
To regularize the corresponding divergence in
$\mathbf{\bar{H}}(k) \sim O\left( k^{-2} \right)$, we use a simple modification
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\bar{H}}(k) \rightarrow \mathbf{\bar{H}}(k)
\frac{k^2}{k^2+k_0^2}
\label{h_bar_renorm}
\end{equation}
where $k_0$ is a cutoff parameter.
As a result of this modification the behaviour around $k=0$ becomes
$ \mathbf{\bar{H}}(k) \sim O\left( (k^2+k_0^2)^{-1} \right)$. The cutoff parameter $k_0$ is chosen such that short-ranged behaviour of site densities is not affected, i.e. $k_0\sigma <<1$, where
$\sigma$ is a characteristic scale of oscillations in site densities. Our
numerical tests have indicated that $k_0 \le 0.03 $\AA$^{-1}$ does not affect the quality of
the calculations for the systems under the consideration.
Aside additional calculations of $\bf{\xi}$ and $\bf{\bar{H}}$, the overall computational procedure is very similar to that used in 3D-RISM,
involving iterative solution with the use of FFT and the DIIS methods \cite{Kovalenko1999}.
All the calculations have been performed with the use of NWChem package \cite{Apra2020} which involves the
1D-RISM code \cite{Chuev2012}.
We have utilized equidistant real space grid consisting of $2^{16}$ points with the grid step equal to $0.02$\AA.
Based on the initial value for $\bm{\phi}_l({\bf{r}})=0$, we evaluate
self-consistent potential $\bm{J}(\bm{r})$ (\ref{J_scf}) and Mayer function $\bm{f}(\bm{r})$ (\ref{f}). Next, using FFT we transform Mayer function into reciprocal space and calculate the correlation hole $\bf{\xi}(\bm{k})$ (\ref{xi}). Next, we evaluate the renormalized response functions by (\ref{closure_renorm}). Using FFT we obtain $\bm{\bar{c}}({\bf{k}})$ and calculate
new value of intermolecular correlation potential $\bm{\phi}_l({\bf{k}})$ by (\ref{phi_renorm}). Finally we obtain a new guess for $\bm{\phi}_l({\bf{r}})$, making the inverse FFT.
The iteration procedure is stopped when the relative changes in the norm of $\bm{\phi}_l(r)$ was less than predefined threshold, set to $10^{-6}$ in our case. The final site densities can be determined as
\begin{equation}
\bm{\rho}({\bf{r}})/\rho_0= \bm{\bar c}({\bf{r}})-\beta [\bm{S}_m \ast\bm{\phi}_l]({\bf{r}}) + 1
\end{equation}
Molecular dynamics calculations were based on the AMBER package \cite{Amber14} with
force field parameters are given in Table~1. All the simulations have been performed at $T=300$K. For N$_2$ simulations system was enclosed into 90 \text{\AA} cubic box containing 16050 solvent molecules, and for HCl simulation - 55 \text{\AA} cubic box containing 388 solvent molecules.
\begin{table}[h!]
Table 1. Force field parameters of solute and solvent sites
\begin{tabular}{|p{4cm}|p{3cm}|p{3cm}|p{3cm}|}
\hline\hline
\diagbox{sites}{parameters} & $\epsilon$ (kcal/mol)&$\sigma$ (\AA)& $q$(e) \\ \hline
\multicolumn{4}{|c|}{\textit{$N_2$ solvent ($\rho_0=0.022\AA^{-3}$ \quad $l=1.135\AA$)}} \\
N & 0.17 & 3.25 & 0 \\
\hline
\multicolumn{4}{|c|}{\textit{$HCl$ solvent with auxiliary site ($\rho_0=0.0234\AA^{-3}$ \quad $l=1.3\AA)$ }}
\\
H & 0.0397 & $1.8*10^{-4}$ & 0 \\
Cl & 0.5138 & 3.35 & 0 \\
\hline
\multicolumn{4}{|c|}{\textit{polar $HCl$ solvent ($\rho_0=0.0234\AA^{-3}$ \quad $l=1.3\AA$) }}
\\
H & 0 (0.0397)$^{a}$ & $1.8\cdot 10^{-4}$ & 0.2 \\
Cl & 0.5138 & 3.35 & -0.2 \\
\hline
\multicolumn{4}{|c|}{\textit{Solute Parameters}} \\ \hline
N$_s$ & 0.17 & 1.625 & 0 \\
N$_l$ & 0.17 & 6.52 & 0 \\
S & 0.0397 & 0.00 & 0 \\
L & 0.5138 & 3.35 & 0 \\
$Li^{+}$ & 0.0165 & 1.56 & 1.0 \\
$Cl^{-}$ & 0.5138 & 3.35 & -0.2\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{Example Applications}
\subsection{Liquid nitrogen}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=7in]{FigN2-1.png}
\caption{Comparison of bare ($H_{NN}$) and renormalized ($\bar H_{NN}$) correlation correlation functions for liquid nitrogen at $T=300 $K obtained from MD simulations and RISM calculations.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
Our first application involved $N_2$ liquid, with thermodynamic input data and force field parameters provided in Table~1. We note that, given identical atomic sites in this case, the matrix elements of bare correlation function become equal to each other, $H_{ij}(r) = H_{NN}(r)$. The resulting renormalized correlation function in $k$-space given by
\begin{equation}
\bar H_{NN}(r)=\frac{2}{\pi^2} \int \frac{H_{NN}(k)}{[1+d(k)]^2}\frac{\sin(kr)}{r}kdk
\end{equation}
The comparison between bare and renormalized correlation functions is provided on Fig. 1. We observe that the main difference between the two functions is inside the nitrogen core region. The renormalized correlation function in this region acquires an additional oscillations related to additional intra-molecular correlations introduced through the renormalization procedure.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=7.1in]{FigN2-2.png}
\caption{Dimensionless site densities $\rho(r)/\rho_0$ for solutes $N_s$ (a) and $N_l$(b) solvated in liquid $N_2$ at $T=300$K which are obtained by the RSDFT (lines) and from the MD simulations (circles).
}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
Using the above RCF, we have performed density profile calculations of inhomogeneous N$_2$ liquid for two different size solutes, N$_s$ and N$_l$. Results of these calculations together with the data obtained from the MD simulations are shown on Fig. 2. Overall, we observe a very good agreement between density profiles calculated with the MD and the RSDFT methods. For small solute (N$_s$) the two data sets are essentially the same. For larger solute (N$_l$), the RSDFT density profile is shifted slightly towards the solute. The reason for these differences likely comes from HNC approximation, which becomes less accurate for larger perturbations introduced by N$_l$ solute.
\subsection{Auxiliary site model for diatomic liquids}
In the auxiliary site model of diatomic liquids only one atomic site is physical, i.e. participating in all the interactions. The other site is auxiliary and is subject to only intra-molecular interactions, which come from its chemical (in this case rigid) bond to the physical site. The interest to this model is twofold. First, it provides the simplest way to include molecular features into simple liquid primitive models. Second, this model, as we demonstrate below, can be rigorously mapped to a simple liquid system, and hence all the molecular
properties of such liquid can be derived from the data on the behaviour of the corresponding simple liquid.
As a particular example of such system, we consider HCl-like diatomic liquid, where H and Cl represent auxiliary and physical sites correspondingly (see Table~1 for parameters). Per our procedure, we again calculate renormalized correlation functions from MD simulations of homogeneous systems. The results of these calculations are presented on Fig. 3. We observe that the hydrogen-hydrogen and hydrogen-chlorine renormalized correlation functions ($\bar{H}_{HH}$ and $\bar{H}_{HCl}$) are essentially zero. Qualitatively, this result can be understood by recalling that our renormalization procedure essentially reduces molecular liquid system to an effective simple fluid mixture consisting of atomic sites (see Section \ref{sec:renormalization}). Given the auxiliary nature of H-site, it is thus not surprising that it does not partake in the latter, and that our effective system contains only Cl sites. To put this on more quantitative ground, we note that the following relationships hold true for our auxiliary site model
\begin{eqnarray}
{H}_{HH}(k)=d^2(k)H_{ClCl}(k) \qquad {H}_{HCl}(k)=d(k)H_{ClCl}(k)
\label{Mo3}
\end{eqnarray}
Substituting this into (\ref{H_bar}) we obtain the expected result
\begin{align}
\bar{H}_{HH}(k) &= \bar{H}_{HCl}(k) = 0
\nonumber
\\
\bar{H}_{ClCl}(k) &= H_{ClCl}(k)
\label{H_bar_HCl}
\end{align}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=7in]{FigHCl0-1.png}
\caption{Site-site radial distribution functions $g_{ij}(r)$, bare correlation functions $H_{ij}(r)$, and renormalized correlation functions $\bar H_{ij}(r)$
for nonpolar $HCl$ at $T=300$K obtained from MD simulations (symbols and dashed lines) and by the 1D RISM-HNC equations (solid lines).}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=7.2in]{FigHCl0-2.png}
\caption{Dimensionless site densities $\rho(r)/\rho_0$ for solutes $S1$ (a) and $L2$ (b) solvated in nonpolar $HCl$ at $T=300^0$K, obtained by the RSDFT (solid lines), RISM (dashed lines) and from the MD simulations (symbols).}
\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
Based on the above RCF, we evaluate the site density profiles for two spherical solutes $S$ and $L$ (force field parameters are given in Table~1). The results are presented in Fig.~4 together along with data obtained from the MD simulations and also RISM theory.
We observe that RSDFT results are in excellent agreement with MD results. The
RISM on other hand shows sizeable deviations for small distances due to improper description of the correlation hole effect.\cite{Chuev2020}
One important property of the auxiliary site model of inhomogeneous diatomic liquids is that the densities of the auxiliary and physical sites are related as\cite{Chuev2020}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rho}_{H}(k)=d(k)\rho_{Cl}(k)
\label{Mo}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=7.2in]{FigHCl0-3.png}
\caption{Differences between the calculated and projected
(\ref{Mo} ) hydrogen site densities for solutes $S$ (a) and $L$ (b)
solvated in HCl molecular liquid at $T=300$K. The dashed lines correspond to the RISM,
solid lines to the RSDFT, whereas the symbols to the data obtained from the MD simulations.}
\label{fig5}
\end{figure}
The above relationship, along with our earlier results for renormalized correlation function, suggests that analysis of the inhomogenous molecular liquid with auxiliary sites can be reduced to that of
simple liquid consisting involving only physical site. To demonstrate this, we have performed standard integral equation theory (IET) calculations for inhomogeneous simple liquid consisting only of Cl atoms, under the same density and temperature as our molecular liquid. The resulting density of the H site, computed through Eq.(\ref{Mo}), was then compared with MD, RSDFT, and RISM data (see Fig.~5). We observe that this simple liquid based procedure is indeed in an excellent agreement with both MD and RSDFT predictions. The deviations from RISM predictions at small distances stem from the inaccuracies of latter as have been discussed above.
\subsection{Polar diatomic liquid}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=7in]{FigHClc-1.png}
\caption{Site-site radial distribution functions $g(r)$ and renormalized
correlation functions $\bar H(r)$
for polar $HCl$ at $T=300$K obtained from MD simulations (symbols) and by the 1D RISM-HNC equations (lines).}
\label{fig6}
\end{figure}
As our final application, we consider a polar
diatomic liquid, which is obtained by adding charges to auxiliary site model considered in the previous section. These types of systems are particularly difficult to treat with existing RISM methods, due to delicate balance between Coulomb forces on, now charged, auxiliary H site and its chemical bond to physical
site. The problem is illustrated on Fig. 6, which compares of RDF's
obtained by MD and RISM approaches. While RISM does a reasonable job in describing $g_{ClCl}$, the accuracy of distributions involving H site are markedly worse. A particular worrisome feature is the appearance of artificial peak in
$g_{ClH}$ RDF at ~1.8 {\AA}. Aside the fact that this is not observed in MD simulation, such peak would result in Cl-Cl distance of 3.1 {\AA}, which would be highly improbable according to the same RISM calculation.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=7.1in]{FigHClc-2.png}
\caption{Site density distributions for polar HCl liquid in the presence solutes of cation $Li^+$ (a) and anion $Cl^-$ (b) solutes obtained by the RSDFT (solid lines), RISM (dashed lines) and MD simulations (circles).}
\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
As indicated on Fig. 6, the renormalized correlation functions $\mathbf{\bar{H}}$ for polar HCl liquid no longer resemble those found in the auxiliary model. None of the components vanish and all exhibit much slow decay consistent with Coulomb interactions. To test performance of RSDFT calculations we considered two types of charged solutes - small cation (Li$^+$) and large anion (Cl$^-$). The resulting site densities are shown on Fig. 7.
As in all the cases considered earlier, we have an excellent agreement between RSDFT and MD data. For both cation and anion solutes, RSDFT corrects the existing deficiencies of RISM approach. This improvement comes simply as a result of consistent treatment of intra-molecular correlation effects. This should be contrasted with a posteriori corrections utilized in RISM applications, such as repulsive bridge correction \cite{Du2000,Kovalenko2000b}. While the latter may mimic negative correlation hole effect \cite{Chuev2020} for anion case, it will certainly make matters worse for cation case, where correlation hole effect is of the opposite sign.
\section{Discussion and Conclusions}
Dual space formulation introduced in this work builds upon conventional SDFT approach, incorporating independent field variable into site-density representation. Similar ideas have been used in the past in simple liquid theory.\cite{Caillol_2002} In our case this gives as a flexibility to evaluate
intra-molecular interactions in more appropriate field based representation, which significantly
simplifies analysis of molecular liquid system. As a result of this, the SDFT analysis of the molecular liquid problem reduces to the solution of system of self-consistent equations, similar to Kohn-Sham equations in electronic structure DFT.
Focusing on a particular case of density-based homogeneous reference expansion of inter-molecular interactions, we demonstrate that site density description at the long range (low-k regime) scale becomes ill-conditioned or quasi-degenerate, ultimately resulting in divergences. In hindsight, such behaviour was to be expected, reflecting a simple fact that as we approach macroscopic scale, the atomistic details become difficult to resolve. To mitigate this issue, we define new collective variables, renormalized response functions, which are natural generalizations of direct correlation functions used in simple fluids. Transformation to these new variables can be viewed as a renormalization procedure that makes our molecular liquid system to look more like a simple fluid mixture. The interaction in the latter are driven by dressed or renormalized inter-molecular correlation functions (RCF's), providing, in essence, a mechanism to propagate details of interactions at the molecular scale to long range inter-molecular scale.
The developed renormalization procedure delegates the problem of quasi-degeneracy of site-density basis to the construction of proper RCFs. With a clear meaning as effective interactions, the RCF's present a physically appealing way to bypass numerical problems. The particular procedure utilized in this work regularizes RCF's by changing their asymptotic behavior at low-k wave limit. The latter does not affect the quality of solution when a regularization parameter is small enough.
The resulting approach, which we refer to as renormalized SDFT or in short RSDFT, was applied to several types of diatomic liquids, probing various potential scenarios (identical atomic sites, auxiliary atom type, and charged species). We demonstrate that RSDFT, being as computationally efficient as the 3D-RISM approach, yields substantially better results especially in the case of auxiliary sites and hydrogen bonded solutes.
In work we have considered only 2nd order terms in the density expansion
of inter-molecular correlation functional. Given that such expansion is only applied to inter-molecular part of the interaction potential, and not to the entirety of it as done in RISM methods, it should captures major portion of inter-molecular correlation effects. This is clearly evidenced in our application results as well. Still the inclusion of higher order bridge corrections may prove to be necessary and can be investigated within our proposed framework.
The diatomic molecular liquids considered in this work provides just the first initial
test for the performance of our approach. While this may already prove useful
in extending existing primitive models of molecular solutions, ability to treat general poly-atomic systems would be important next step. Our framework has no limitations in that respect, yet the computations of correlation hole involving angular degrees of freedom may require some care.
\acknowledgments
We would like to thank Chris Mundy, Greg Schenter and Shawn Kathmann for helpful discussions. M.V. was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Division of Chemical Sciences, Geosciences, and Biosciences. PNNL is operated by Battelle Memorial Institute for the United States Department of Energy under DOE Contract Number DE-AC05-76RL1830. The reported study was also partially funded by the RFBR (G.N.Ch. and M.V.F.).
|
\section{Introduction}
Spatially distributed networks (SDNs) consist of a large amount of agents, and each agent
is equipped with subsystems for limited data processing and
direct communication link to its ``neighboring" agents
within communication range.
SDNs appear in (wireless) sensor networks,
smart grids, social network and many real world applications
\cite{Yick08}--\cite{Cheng17}.
In this letter, we describe the topological structure of an SDN by a
finite graph
${\mathcal G}:=(V, E)$,
and its communication range $L$ by the maximal geodesic distance
such that direct communication link between agents $i,j\in V$ exists whenever
$\rho(i,j)\le L$, where the geodesic distance
$\rho(i,j)$ is the number of edges in a shortest path connecting $i, j\in V$.
As SDNs do not have a central facility,
data processing on SDNs
should be designed at the agent/vertex level with direct data exchanging between neighboring vertices in the communication range.
Matrices on SDNs appear as filters in graph signal processing,
transition matrices in Markov chains, state matrices in dynamic systems,
sensing matrices in sampling theory, and in many more applications \cite{gleichsimareview2015, Cheng17}--\cite{cheng2020}.
In the literature, their
eigenspaces have been used to understand the
communicability between vertices, spectral
clustering for the network and influence of a vertex on the
network \cite{gleichsimareview2015, langville2006}, \cite{Ma2010}--\cite{qu2017}.
In this letter, we consider complex-valued matrices
${\bf A}=(A(i,j))_{i,j\in V}$ on the graph ${\mathcal G}=(V, E)$
with limited geodesic-width $\omega({\bf A})$, which is the smallest nonnegative integer such that $A(i, j)=0$ for all $i, j\in V$ satisfying $\rho(i, j)>\omega({\bf A})$.
For a matrix
with small geodesic-width,
we propose a distributed iterative algorithm
to determine eigenvectors associated with its given eigenvalue, see Section \ref{sec:power_eigenvalues}. The proposed algorithm is based on the preconditioned gradient descent approach in \cite{cheng2020}
for inverse filtering, and it can be implemented on SDNs with communication range
larger than geodesic-width of the matrix.
Moreover, the algorithm
has its computational cost and communication expense
for subsystems equipped at every agent of the SDN being independent on the order of the graph ${\mathcal G}$.
In this letter, we also consider finding principal eigenvectors associated with the minimal/maximal eigenvalue of a Hermitian matrix,
and eigenvectors of a polynomial filter of graph shifts, see Sections \ref{sec:power_singularvalue} and \ref{polynomialfilter.section}.
\vspace{-.06in}
\section{A distributed iterative algorithm for determining eigenvectors}\label{sec:power_eigenvalues}
\vspace{-.02in}
Let ${\mathcal G}=(V, E)$ be a connected, undirected and unweighted graph of order $N$.
Denote the set of all $s$-hop neighbors of a vertex $i\in V$ by $B(i, s)=\{j\in V, \ \rho(j,i)\le s\}, s\ge 0$.
For a complex-valued matrix ${\bf A}=(A(i,j))_{i,j\in V}$ with small geodesic-width $ \omega({\bf A})$, we denote its Hermitian transpose by
${\bf A}^*$ and define
the diagonal preconditioning matrix ${\bf P}_{\bf A}$
with diagonal elements
\vspace{-.6em}\begin{eqnarray} \label{da.def}
&\hskip-0.08in { P}_{\bf A}(i, i) := & \hskip-0.08in \max_{k\in B(i, \omega({\bf A}))} \Big\{
\max \Big( \sum_{j\in B(k, \omega({\bf A}))} |A(j, k)|, \nonumber\\
& \hskip.08in&\qquad
\sum_{j\in B(k, \omega({\bf A}))} |A(k, j)|\Big)\Big\},\ i\in V
\vspace{-.6em}\end{eqnarray}
\cite{cheng2020}. In this section, we introduce a distributed iterative algorithm to find eigenvectors of a complex-valued matrix.
\begin{theorem}\label{maintheorem1.thm}
{\rm Let ${\bf A}$ be a complex-valued matrix on the graph ${\mathcal G}$ of order $N$,
${\bf P}_{\bf A}$ be the diagonal matrix in \eqref{da.def},
and
${\bf Q}$ be a nonsingular diagonal matrix such that
\vspace{-.5em}\begin{equation}
\label{maintheorem1.thm.eq1}
{\bf Q}- {\bf P}_{\bf A}\ {\rm is \ positive\ semidefinite}.
\vspace{-.5em}\end{equation}
Then for any initial
${\bf x}_0\in {\mathbb C}^N$,
the sequence ${\bf x}_n, n\ge 0$, defined inductively by
\vspace{-.6em}\begin{equation}\label{maintheorem1.thm.eq2}
{\bf x}_{n+1}= ({\bf I}- {\bf Q}^{-2} {\bf A}^* {\bf A}){\bf x}_{n},
\vspace{-.5em} \end{equation}
converges exponentially to
either the zero vector or an eigenvector associated with the zero eigenvalue of the matrix ${\bf A}$.
}\end{theorem}
The proof of Theorem \ref{maintheorem1.thm} will be given in Appendix \ref{proof.appendix}.
Take a positive constant $c$ and define
a diagonal matrix ${\bf Q}_c={\rm diag} (Q_c(i,i))_{i\in V}$ by
\vspace{-.5em}
\begin{equation}\label{distributedQii.def}
Q_c(i,i)=\max(P_{\bf A}(i, i), c), \ i\in V.
\vspace{-.5em}\end{equation}
Then ${\bf Q}_c$ is a nonsingular diagonal matrix satisfying
\eqref{maintheorem1.thm.eq1}
and it can be constructed at the vertex level, since
the preconditioning matrix ${\bf P}_{\bf A}$ can, see
\cite[Algorithm II.1]{cheng2020}.
Let ${\bf H}=(H(i,j))_{i,j\in V}$ be a matrix with small geodesic-width $\omega({\bf H})$ and $\lambda$ be its eigenvalue.
By selecting a random
initial ${\bf x}_0$ with entries i.i.d.
on $[0, 1]$, and applying the iterative algorithm
\eqref{maintheorem1.thm.eq2} to the matrix ${\bf A}={\bf H}-\lambda {\bf I}$ or $\lambda {\bf I}-{\bf H}$,
we obtain from the proof of Theorem \ref{maintheorem1.thm} that the limit of the sequence ${\bf x}_n, n\ge 0$, is a nonzero vector (and hence
an eigenvector associated with the eigenvalue $\lambda$) almost surely.
Following the terminology in \cite{cheng2020}, we call the above algorithm to find eigenvectors
as a {\em preconditioned gradient descent algorithm}, PGDA for abbreviation.
The proposed PGDA is designed to implement distributedly and synchronously at the vertex level, see Algorithm \ref{preconditioningmatrix.algorithm}.
For the implementation of Algorithm \ref{preconditioningmatrix.algorithm},
every vertex $i\in V$ is required to have
the information of its $\omega({\bf H})$-hop neighbors,
equipped direct communication link with its $\omega({\bf H})$-hop neighbors,
and need memory to store the eigenvalue $\lambda$, the iteration number $M$, the $i$-th diagonal entry of the matrix ${\bf Q}$,
and entries $H(i,j)$ and $H(j,i),j\in B(i,\omega({\bf H}))$
in the $i$-th row and column of the matrix ${\bf H}$. Moreover, the computational cost and communication expense
for each vertex are independent on the order $N$ of the graph ${\mathcal G}$.
With the selection of the preconditioning matrix
as in \eqref{maintheorem1.thm.eq1}, we conclude that the proposed PGDA can be
applied for an SDN with communication range $L$ to find eigenvectors associated with an {\bf arbitrary} given eigenvalue for a matrix
${\bf H}$ with geodesic-width $\omega({\bf H})\le L$.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{Realization of the PGDA
at a vertex $i\in V$. }
\label{preconditioningmatrix.algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE {\bf Inputs}: The total iteration number $M$, the geodesic-width $\omega({\bf H})$ of the matrix ${\bf H}=(H(i,j))_{i,j\in V}$,
the set $B(i,\omega({\bf H}))$ of $\omega({\bf H})$-hop neighbors of the vertex $i$,
the eigenvalue $\lambda$ of the matrix ${\bf H}$,
entries $H(i,j)$ and $H(j, i), j \in B(i,\omega({\bf H}))$ in the $i$-th row and column
of the matrix ${\bf H}$, and the $i$-th diagonal entry $Q(i,i)$ of the matrix ${\bf Q}$.
\STATE{
\bf Pre-iteration}: \ Compute $A(i, j)= H(i,j)-\lambda \delta(i,j)$
and $\tilde A(j,i)=(Q(i,i))^{-2} \big(\overline {H(j,i)}-\bar \lambda \delta(j,i)\big)$ for $j\in B(i, \omega({\bf H}))$, where $\delta$ is the Kronecker delta.
\STATE{
\bf Initial}:
Select the $i$-th component $x_0(i)\in [0, 1]$ of the initial vector ${\bf x}_0$ randomly, and set $n=0$.
\STATE{\bf Iteration}: \
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\bf 1.}] Send $x_n(i)$ to all neighbors $k\in B(i,\omega({\bf H}))\backslash \{i\}$ and receive $x_n(k)$ from neighbors $k\in B(i,\omega({\bf H}))\backslash \{i\}$.
\item [{\bf 2.}] Evaluate $\tilde x_n(i)=\sum_{j\in B(i,\omega({\bf H}))} A(i,j) x_n(j)$.
\item [{\bf 3.}] Send $\tilde x_n(i)$ to all neighbors $k\in B(i,\omega({\bf H}))\backslash \{i\}$ and receive $\tilde x_n(k)$ from neighbors $k\in B(i,\omega({\bf H}))\backslash \{i\}$.
\item [{\bf 4.}] Evaluate $\widehat{ x}_n(i)=\sum_{j\in B(i,\omega({\bf H}))} \tilde A(j,i) \tilde x_n(j)$.
\item[{\bf 5.}] Set $x_{n+1}(i)=x_n(i)-\widehat {x}_n(i)$ and $n=n+1$.
\item [{\bf 6.}] return to step 1 if $n\le M$, go to Output otherwise.
\end{itemize}
\STATE {\bf Output}: $ u(i)\approx x_{M}(i)$, where ${\bf u}=(u(i))_{i\in V}$ is the eigenvector.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
For a left stochastic matrix on a network, principal eigenvectors associated with eigenvalue $1$
have positive entries by Perron-Frobenius theorem, and they
have been used
to determine the influence of a vertex, see \cite{gleichsimareview2015, langville2006} and references therein.
Let ${\bf W}=(W(i,j))_{i,j\in V}$ be the hyperlink matrix on a network described by a graph ${\mathcal G}=(V, E)$, where weights
$W(i,j)=0$ for $(i,j)\not\in E$ and
$W(i,j)=1/d_j$ for $(i,j)\in E$, the reciprocal of the degree $d_j$ of a vertex $j$. The matrix ${\bf W}$ is a left stochastic matrix with
$1$ as the leading eigenvalue.
Applying the proposed PGDA to the hyperlink matrix ${\bf W}$, we can locally evaluate principal eigenvectors of the hyperlink matrix and hence identify the local influence of a vertex on its neighborhood.
\section{Principal eigenvectors of Hermitian matrices}\label{sec:power_singularvalue}
In this section, we consider finding eigenvectors
associated with the minimal/maximal eigenvalue
of a Hermitian matrix
on a graph ${\mathcal G}=(V, E)$ of order $N$
in a distributed manner.
\begin{theorem}\label{symmetricmain.thm}
{\rm Let ${\bf A}=(A(i,j))_{i,j\in V}$ be a positive semidefinite matrix on the graph ${\mathcal G}$ with its geodesic-width
$\omega({\bf A})$,
and ${\bf Q}^{\rm sym}={\rm diag}(Q^{\rm sym}(i,i))_{ i\in V}$ be a nonsingular diagonal matrix
satisfying
\vspace{-.5em}
\begin{equation} \label{symmetricmain.thm.eq1}
Q^{\rm sym}(i,i)\ge \sum_{j\in B(i, \omega({\bf A}) )}|A(i,j)|,\ i\in V.
\vspace{-.4em} \end{equation}
Then for any ${\bf x}_0\in \mathbb C^N$, the sequence ${\bf x}_n, n\ge 1$, defined by
\vspace{-.4em} \begin{equation}\label{symmetricmain.thm.eq2}
{\bf x}_{n+1}= ({\bf I}- ({\bf Q}^{\rm sym})^{-1} {\bf A}) {\bf x}_n,
\vspace{-.4em} \end{equation}
converges exponentially to
either the zero vector or an eigenvector associated with the zero eigenvalue of the matrix ${\bf A}$.
}
\end{theorem}
\vspace{-.3em}
\begin{IEEEproof}
Following the argument in \cite[Theorem III.1]{cheng2020} and applying \eqref{symmetricmain.thm.eq1},
we obtain that
${\bf Q}^{\rm sym}-{\bf A}$
is positive semidefinite.
This together with the positive semidefiniteness of the matrix ${\bf A}$ implies that
all eigenvalues of the Hermitian matrix ${\bf B}^{\rm sym}:={\bf I}-({\bf Q}^{\rm sym})^{-1/2}{\bf A}({\bf Q}^{\rm sym})^{-1/2}$
are in the unit interval $[0, 1]$, cf. \eqref{maintheorem1.thm.pfeq3} in Appendix \ref{proof.appendix}.
Applying similar argument used in the proof of Theorem \ref{maintheorem1.thm} with ${\bf Q}$ and ${\bf A}^*{\bf A}$ replaced by
$({\bf Q}^{\rm sym})^{1/2}$ and ${\bf A}$ respectively, we obtain
\vspace{-.3em}
\begin{equation}\label{symmetricmain.thm.pfeq1}
\|({\bf Q}^{\rm sym})^{1/2}({\bf x}_n-{\bf u})\|_2\le \|({\bf Q}^{\rm sym})^{1/2}{\bf x}_0\|_2 r^n,\ \ n\ge 0
\vspace{-.3em}\end{equation}
for some vector ${\bf u}\in {\mathbb C}^N$, where $r$ is the largest eigenvalue of ${\bf B}^{\rm sym}$ in $[0, 1)$.
This together with the nonsingularity of the matrix ${\bf Q}^{\rm sym}$ proves the exponential convergence of
${\bf x}_n, n\ge 0$.
Taking limit in \eqref{symmetricmain.thm.eq2} proves
${\bf A}{\bf u}={\bf 0}$, and hence completes the proof.
\end{IEEEproof}
Let ${\bf H}$ be a Hermitian matrix with minimal eigenvalue $\lambda_{\min}$ and maximal eigenvalue $\lambda_{\max}$.
Then ${\bf A}_1={\bf H}-\lambda_{\min}{\bf I}$ and ${\bf A}_2=\lambda_{\max}{\bf I} - {\bf H}$ have eigenvalue zero and they are positive semidefinite. Then applying the iterative algorithm \eqref{symmetricmain.thm.eq2} to ${\bf A}_1$ (resp. ${\bf A}_2$)
with a random initial ${\bf x}_0$ having entries i.i.d on $[0, 1]$,
we obtain the principal eigenvectors associated with minimal (resp. maximal) eigenvalues of the Hermitian matrix ${\bf H}$ by Theorem \ref{symmetricmain.thm}.
For a positive semidefinite matrix ${\bf A}=(A(i,j))_{i,j\in V}$ with geodesic-width $\omega({\bf A})$,
a nonsingular diagonal matrix ${\bf Q}_c^{\rm sym}={\rm diag}(Q_c^{\rm sym}(i,i))_{ i\in V}$ satisfying
\eqref{symmetricmain.thm.eq1} can be constructed at the vertex level by setting
\vspace{-.4em}
\begin{equation}\label{distributedQsymmetricii.def}
Q_c^{\rm sym}(i,i)=\max\Big(\sum_{j\in B(i, \omega({\bf A}) )}|A(i,j)|, c\Big), \ i\in V,
\vspace{-.4em} \end{equation}
where $c$ is a positive constant, cf. \eqref{distributedQii.def}. With the above selection of the preconditioning matrix in \eqref{symmetricmain.thm.eq2}, we can find eigenvectors associated with minimal/maximal eigenvalues of a
Hermitian matrix by the distributed iterative algorithm \eqref{symmetricmain.thm.eq2} implementable at the vertex level,
see Algorithm
\ref{Qsym.algorithm}.
Following the terminology in \cite{cheng2020}, we call the algorithm \eqref{symmetricmain.thm.eq2} with a random initial
having entries i.i.d on $[0, 1]$
as a {\em symmetric preconditioned gradient descent algorithm}, SPGDA for abbreviation.
Comparing with Algorithm \ref{preconditioningmatrix.algorithm} to find eigenvectors of an arbitrary matrix,
the Algorithm \ref{Qsym.algorithm} to find principal eigenvectors of a Hermitian matrix
has less computational cost and
communication expense
in each iteration. Our numerical simulations
in Section \ref{sec:power_polynomial} also indicate that it may have faster convergence.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{Realization of the SPGDA at a vertex $i\in V$. }
\label{Qsym.algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE {\bf Inputs}: The total iteration number $M$,
the geodesic-width $\omega({\bf A})$ of the positive semidefinite matrix ${\bf A}$,
the set $B(i,\omega({\bf A}))$ of $\omega({\bf A})$-hop neighbors of the vertex $i$,
entries $A(i,j), j \in B(i,\omega({\bf A}))$ in the $i$-th row
of the matrix ${\bf A}$ and the $i$-th entry $Q^{\rm sym}(i,i)$ of the diagonal matrix ${\bf Q}^{\rm sym}$.
\STATE{
\bf Pre-iteration}: \ Evaluate $\tilde A(i, j)=(Q^{\rm sym}(i,i))^{-1} A(i,j)$, $j\in B(i, \omega({\bf A}))$.
\STATE{
\bf Initial}:
Select
$x_0(i)$ randomly in $[0, 1]$,
and set $n=0$.
\STATE{\bf Iteration}: \
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\bf 1.}] Send $x_n(i)$ to all neighbors $k\in B(i,\omega({\bf A}))\backslash \{i\}$ and receive $x_n(k)$ from neighbors $k\in B(i,\omega({\bf A}))\backslash \{i\}$.
\item [{\bf 2.}] Evaluate $ x_{n+1}(i)=x_n(i)-\sum_{j\in B(i,\omega({\bf A}))} \tilde A(i,j) x_n(j)$ and set $n=n+1$.
\item [{\bf 3.}] return to step 1 if $n\le M$, go to Output otherwise.
\end{itemize}
\STATE {\bf Output}: $ u(i)\approx y_{M}(i)$, where ${\bf u}=(u(i))_{i\in V}$.
\end{algorithmic}
\vspace{-.03in}
\end{algorithm}
\vspace{-.08in}
\section{Eigenvectors of polynomial filters}
\label{polynomialfilter.section}
Graph filter is a fundamental concept in graph signal
processing and it has been
used in many applications such as denoising and consensus of multi-agent systems
\cite{shuman13, Ortega18, Waheed18, shuman18, Emirov20, cheng2020, hammod11}--\cite{jiang19}.
An elementary graph filter is a {\em graph shift}, which has $1$ as its geodesic-width. Graph filters
in most of literature are designed to be polynomials
\vspace{-0.6em}\begin{equation}\label{MultiShiftPolynomial}
{\bf A}=h({\bf S}_1, \ldots, {\bf S}_d)=\sum_{ l_1=0}^{L_1} \cdots \sum_{ l_d=0}^{L_d} h_{l_1,\dots,l_d}{\bf S}_1^{l_1}\cdots {\bf S}_d^{l_d}
\vspace{-0.6em}\end{equation}
of commutative graph
shifts ${\bf S}_1,...,{\bf S}_d$, i.e., ${\bf S}_k{\bf S}_{k'}={\bf S}_{k'}{\bf S}_k$ for all $1\le k,k'\le d$,
where the multivariate polynomial
$h(t_1, \ldots, t_d)=\sum_{ l_1=0}^{L_1} \cdots \sum_{ l_d=0}^{L_d} h_{l_1,\dots,l_d} t_1^{l_1} \ldots t_d^{l_d}$
has polynomial coefficients $h_{l_1,\dots,l_d}$, $0\le l_k\le L_k, 1\le k\le d$
\cite{Leus17}--\cite{mario19}, \cite{jiang19}--\cite{ Emirov19}.
On the graph ${\mathcal G}=(V, E)$, a polynomial filter ${\bf A}$ in \eqref{MultiShiftPolynomial}
can be represented by a matrix ${\bf A} = (A(i,j))_{i,j\in V}$, which
has geodesic-width no more than the degree of the polynomial $h$, i.e., $\omega({\bf A})\le \sum_{k=1}^d L_k$.
Then we can apply the PGDA (resp. the SPGDA if ${\bf A}$ is Hermitian) to find eigenvectors associated with any given eigenvalue (resp.
the minimal/maximal eigenvalues) on SDNs with communication range $L\ge \sum_{k=1}^d L_k$.
In this section, we propose iterative algorithms to determine eigenvectors associated with a polynomial graph filter, which can be implemented on an SDN with {\bf $1$} as its communication range, i.e., direct communication exists between all adjacent vertices.
Observe that
\vspace{-0.4em}
\begin{equation} \label{MultiShiftPolynomial.polynomial2}
{\bf A}^*=\sum_{ l_1=0}^{L_1} \cdots \sum_{ l_d=0}^{L_d} \overline{ h_{l_1,\dots,l_d}} ({\bf S}_d^*)^{l_d}\cdots ({\bf S}_1^*)^{l_1}
\vspace{-0.4em}\end{equation}
is a polynomial graph filter of commutative shifts ${\bf S}_1^*,...,{\bf S}_d^*$.
Then applying Algorithm II.2 in \cite{Emirov20} to implement the filtering procedure associated with polynomial graph filters ${\bf A}$ and ${\bf A}^*$, we can
implement each iteration in the PGDA \eqref{maintheorem1.thm.eq2} and the SPGDA \eqref{symmetricmain.thm.eq2} in finite steps with each step including data exchanging between adjacent vertices only, see Algorithm \ref{onehopeigenvalue.algorithm} to determine eigenvectors associated with eigenvalue zero. This concludes that
eigenvectors for a polynomial graph filter
on SDNs with communication range $1$ can be obtained by applying Algorithm \ref{onehopeigenvalue.algorithm} in each iteration.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{Realization of each iteration in the iterative algorithms \eqref{maintheorem1.thm.eq2} and \eqref{symmetricmain.thm.eq2} at a vertex $i\in V$ for a polynomial filter ${\bf A}$. }
\label{onehopeigenvalue.algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE {\bf Inputs}: Polynomial coefficients $h_{l_1,\ldots, l_d}, 0\le l_1\le L_1, \ldots, 0\le l_d\le L_d$ of the polynomial filter ${\bf A}$ in \eqref{MultiShiftPolynomial}, the set ${\mathcal N}_i$
of all adjacent vertices $j$ of the vertex $i$,
entries $S_k(i,j)$ and $S_k(j,i), j\in {\mathcal N}_i$
of
graph shifts ${\bf S}_k, 1\le k\le d$, the $i$-th diagonal entry $Q(i,i)$ of the matrix ${\bf Q}$,
and
the $i$-th entry $x_{n}(i)$ of the input vector ${\bf x}_{n}=(x_{n}(k))_{k\in V}$ at $n$-th iteration,
\STATE{\bf 1}: \ Apply Algorithm II.2 in \cite{Emirov20} to implement the polynomial filter procedure ${\bf x}\longmapsto {\bf A}{\bf x}$
at the vertex $i$.
The input is the $i$-th entry $x_n(i)$ of ${\bf x}_n$ and
the output is the $i$-th entry $\hat x_n(i)$
of $\hat {\bf x}_n={\bf A}{\bf x}_n
=:(\hat x_n(k))_{k\in V}$.
\STATE{\bf 2}: \ Apply Step 1 with the matrix ${\bf A}$ replaced by its complex conjugate ${\bf A}^*$ and
the input $x_n(i)$ by $\hat x_n(i)$.
The output is the $i$-th entry $\check{x}_n(i)$ of the vector $\check{\bf x}_n= {\bf A}^*\hat {\bf x}_n
=:(\check{x}_n(k))_{k\in V}$.
\STATE{\bf 3}: \ Evaluate $x_{n+1}(i)=x_{n}(i)- (Q(i,i))^{-2} \check{x}_n(i) $
and $\tilde x_{n+1}(i)=x_{n}(i)- (Q(i,i))^{-1} \hat{x}_n(i)$.
\STATE {\bf Outputs}: The outputs $x_{n+1}(i)$ and $\tilde x_{n+1}(i)$ are the $i$-th entry of ${\bf x}_{n+1}$
at $n$-th iteration in \eqref{maintheorem1.thm.eq2} and \eqref{symmetricmain.thm.eq2} respectively.
\end{algorithmic}
\vspace{-.03in}
\end{algorithm}
Now it remains to construct diagonal
matrices satisfying \eqref{maintheorem1.thm.eq1} and \eqref{symmetricmain.thm.eq1} on SDNs with communication range $1$.
For the polynomial graph filter ${\bf A}$ in \eqref{MultiShiftPolynomial}, define
diagonal matrices
$\widehat {\bf Q}_c={\rm diag} (\widehat {Q}_c(i,i))_{i\in V}$ and ${\widehat {\bf Q}}_c^{\rm sym}={\rm diag} ({\widehat {Q}}^{\rm sym}_c(i,i))_{i\in V} $ by
\begin{equation}\label{Rprecondition.def}
\vspace{-0.6em}
\hskip-.15in\widehat Q_c(i,i)= \max_{\rho(j,i)\le L} \max\Big\{\sum\limits_{k\in V}\widehat A(j,k),\sum\limits_{k\in V}\widehat A(k,j), c\Big\}\hskip-.05in
\vspace{-0.4em}\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{Rpreconditionsym.def}
\vspace{-0.6em} {\widehat Q}_c^{\rm sym}(i,i)= \max\Big\{\sum\limits_{k\in V}\widehat A(j,k), c \Big\}, \ i\in V,
\vspace{-0.2em} \end{equation}
where $c$ is a positive number, $|{\bf S}_k|=(|S_k(i,j)|)_{i,j\in V}, 1\le k\le d$, and
\vspace{-0.8em}
\begin{equation*}\label{MultiShiftPolynomial2}
( \widehat A(i,j))_{i,j\in V}=:\widehat {\bf A}:=\sum_{ l_1=0}^{L_1} \cdots \sum_{ l_d=0}^{L_d} |h_{l_1,\dots,l_d}| |{\bf S}_1|^{l_1}\cdots |{\bf S}_d|^{l_d}.
\vspace{-0.6em}
\end{equation*}
One may verify that
$|A(i,j)|\le \widehat A(i,j)$ for all $i,j\in V$.
Therefore the matrices $\widehat {\bf Q}_c$ in
\eqref{Rprecondition.def} and ${\widehat {\bf Q}}_c^{\rm sym}$
in \eqref{Rpreconditionsym.def}
satisfy \eqref{maintheorem1.thm.eq1}
and
\eqref{symmetricmain.thm.eq1} respectively. Moreover,
as shown in Algorithm \ref{onehopconstruction.algorithm}, they can be
constructed at the vertex level in finite steps such that in each step, each vertex needs to exchange data with adjacent vertices only.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{Construction of diagonal entries $\widehat Q_c(i, i)$ and
${\widehat Q}_c^{\rm sym}(i, i)$
at a vertex $i\in V$ for a polynomial filter ${\bf A}$. }
\label{onehopconstruction.algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE {\bf Inputs}: The positive constant $c$,
polynomial coefficients $h_{l_1,\ldots, l_d}, 0\le l_1\le L_1, \ldots, 0\le l_d\le L_d$, of the polynomial filter ${\bf A}$, entries $S_k(i,j)$ and $S_k(j,i)$ for all $1\le k\le d$ and $j\in {\mathcal N}_i$, the set of all adjacent vertices of the vertex $i$.
\STATE{\bf 1}: \ Apply Algorithm II.2 in \cite{Emirov20} to implement the polynomial filter procedure ${\bf 1}\longmapsto \widehat {\bf A}{\bf 1}$
at the vertex $i$.
The input is the $i$-th entry $1$ of the all-one vector ${\bf 1}$ and
the output is the $i$-th entry $a_1(i)$
of the vector $\widehat {\bf A}{\bf 1}=:(a_1(k))_{k\in V}$.
\STATE{\bf 2}: \
Apply Step 1 with the same input but the filter $\widehat {\bf A}$ replaced by $\widehat {{\bf A}^*}$.
The output is the $i$-th entry
$a_2(i)$ of the vector $\widehat {{\bf A}^*}{\bf 1}=:(a_2(k))_{k\in V}$.
\STATE{\bf 3}: \ Evaluate $q_0(i)=\max (a_1(i), a_2(i), c) $ and set $l=0$.
\STATE {{\bf 4}: {\bf Finite-step iteration}}: \
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\bf 4a)}] Send $q_l(i)$ to all adjacent vertices $k\in {\mathcal N}_i$ and receive $q_l(k)$ from all adjacent vertices $k\in {\mathcal N}_i$.
\item [{\bf 4b)}] Compare $q_l(i)$ with $q_l(k), k\in {\mathcal N}_i$ and define $q_{l+1}(i)=\max(q_l(i), \max_{k\in {\mathcal N}_i} q_l(k))$ and set $l:=l+1$.
\item [{\bf 4c)}] Return to step 1 if $l\le L_1+\ldots+L_d$, go to Outputs otherwise.
\end{itemize}
\STATE {\bf Outputs}: $\widehat Q_c(i, i)=q_L(i)$ and
${\widehat Q}_c^{\rm sym}(i, i)=\max(a_1(i), c)$.
\end{algorithmic}\vspace{-.03in}
\end{algorithm}
\vspace{-.1in}
\section{Numerical Simulations}\label{sec:power_polynomial}
Let ${\mathcal G}_{N}=(V_{N}, E_{N}), N\ge 2$, be random geometric graphs
with $N$ vertices
deployed on
$[0, 1]^2$ and an undirected edge between two vertices in $V_N$ existing if their physical
distance is not larger than
$\sqrt{2/N}$
\cite{jiang19, Nathanael2014}.
In this section, we consider finding eigenvectors associated with maximal eigenvalue $1$ of
lowpass spline filters ${\bf H}_{0, m}^{\rm spln}=({\bf I}-{\bf L}^{\rm sym}/2)^m, m\ge 1$,
where ${\bf L}^{\rm sym}$ is the symmetric normalized Laplacian matrix on
the graph ${\mathcal G}_N$
\cite{jiang19,dragotti2017}.
In the simulations, we take $c=0.01$ and use PGDA and PGDA1h to denote the
PGDA with ${\bf A}$ replaced by ${\bf I}-{\bf H}_{0, m}^{\rm spln}$ and ${\bf Q}$ by ${\bf Q}_c$ in \eqref{distributedQii.def} and $\widehat {\bf Q}_c$
in \eqref{Rprecondition.def}
respectively, and similarly we use SPGDA and SPGDA1h to denote the SPGDA with ${\bf A}$ replaced by ${\bf I}-{\bf H}_{0, m}^{\rm spln}$ and ${\bf Q}$ by
${\bf Q}_c^{\rm sym}$ in \eqref{distributedQsymmetricii.def} and $\widehat{\bf Q}_c^{\rm sym}$ in \eqref{Rpreconditionsym.def}
respectively.
For the sequences
${\bf x}_n, n\ge 0$, in the PGDA, SPGDA, PGDA1h and SPGDA1h and their limits ${\bf u}$, define
convergence errors
${\rm CE}(n)={\rm log}_{10}\|\tilde {\bf x}_{n}-\tilde {\bf u} \|_2$
and normalized residues
${\rm NR}(n)={\rm log}_{10}\|({\bf I}-{\bf H}_{0, m}^{\rm spln}) \tilde {\bf x}_{n}\|_2, n\ge 0,$
in the logarithmic scale, where $\tilde {\bf x}_{n}= {\bf x}_n /\|{\bf x}_n\|_2$, $\tilde {\bf u}={\bf u}/\|{\bf u}\|_2$, and
$\|{\bf x}\|_2=\big(\sum_{j\in V} |x(j)|^2\big)^{1/2}$ for ${\bf x}=(x_j)_{j\in V}$.
Shown in
Figure \ref{fig2} are the average of convergence errors
${\rm CE}(n)$
and normalized residues
${\rm RE}(n), n\ge 0,$
over 500 trials. This demonstrates the exponential convergence
of the sequence ${\bf x}_n, n\ge 0$, in the proposed distributed iterative algorithms
to eigenvectors
associated with eigenvalue $1$ of lowpass spline filters,
which is proved in
Theorems \ref{maintheorem1.thm} and \ref{symmetricmain.thm}.
For a matrix ${\bf A}$ on a graph ${\mathcal G}=(V, E)$, define its Schur norm by
$\|{\bf A}\|_{\mathcal S}=\max_{i\in V} P_{\bf A}(i,i)$, where $P_{\bf A}(i,i), i\in V$, are given by \eqref{da.def}
\cite{Cheng17, cheng2020}.
For the case that the constant $c$
in
\eqref{distributedQii.def} and \eqref{distributedQsymmetricii.def} is so chosen that
$c\ge \|{\bf A}\|_{\mathcal S}$,
the preconditioning matrices ${\bf Q}_c$ and
${\bf Q}_c^{\rm sym}$ become a multiple of the identity matrix ${\bf I}$ and
the corresponding PGDA and SPGDA are
the conventional gradient descent algorithm
and its symmetric version
respectively \cite{Leus17, shuman18, Emirov20, cheng2020, sihengTV15}.
We denote the above
algorithms with $c=\|{\bf A}\|_{\mathcal S}$
by GDASchur and SGDASchur respectively, see Figure \ref{fig2} for their performance.
Since $1$ is the maximal eigenvalue of matrices ${\bf H}_{0, m}^{\rm spln}, m\ge 1$,
we can use
the conventional power iteration method with entries of the initial ${\bf x}_0$ randomly selected in $[0, 1]$, POWER for abbreviation,
to find principal eigenvectors
\cite{golubbook2013}.
Presented in
Figure \ref{fig2} is its performance.
From Figure \ref{fig2}, we observe that
the centralized algorithm POWER has fastest convergence
to find eigenvectors
of matrices ${\bf H}_{0, m}^{\rm spln}, 2\le m\le 4$,
as followed are the distributed algorithm SPGDA, the centralized algorithm SPGDASchur and the distributed algorithm SPGDA1h,
the next are the distributed algorithm PGDA and the centralized algorithm GDASchur, and the distributed algorithm PGDA1h has slowest convergence.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=28mm, height=20mm]{CEplotm2new.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=28mm, height=20mm]{CEplotm3new.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=28mm, height=20mm]{CEplotm4new.jpg}
\\
\includegraphics[width=28mm, height=20mm]{REplotm2new.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=28mm, height=20mm]{REplotm3new.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=28mm, height=20mm]{REplotm4new.jpg}
\caption{
Plotted on the first and second rows are
average over 500 trials of the convergence errors ${\rm CE}(n)$ and normalized residues ${\rm RE}(n), 1\le n\le 4000$,
in the
logarithmic scale, while from left to right
are lowpass spline filters ${\bf H}_{0, m}^{\rm spln}$ of orders $m=2, 3, 4$ on the random geometric graph ${\mathcal G}_{512}$.
}
\label{fig2}
\end{center}
\vspace{-.5em}
\end{figure}
\begin{appendices}
\renewcommand{\thesectiondis}[2]{\Alph{section}:}
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{maintheorem1.thm}}
\label{proof.appendix}
By nonsingularity of the matrix ${\bf Q}$, it suffices
to prove
\begin{equation}\label{maintheorem1.thm.pfeq0}
\|{\bf Q}({\bf x}_n-{\bf u})\|_2\le \|{\bf Q}{\bf x}_0\|_2 r^n,\ \ n\ge 0\end{equation}
for some ${\bf u}$ satisfying ${\bf A}{\bf u}={\bf 0}$, where $r\in (0, 1)$.
Set ${\bf B}={\bf I}- {\bf Q}^{-1}{\bf A}^* {\bf A} {\bf Q}^{-1}$ and
let ${\bf u}_i$ be orthonormal eigenvectors associated with eigenvalues $\gamma_i$ of the Hermitian matrix ${\bf B}$ that
satisfy
\begin{equation} \label{maintheorem1.thm.pfeq2}
{\bf B} {\bf u}_i=\gamma_i {\bf u}_i,\ \ 1\le i\le N.
\end{equation}
Following the argument in \cite[Theorem II.1]{cheng2020} and applying \eqref{maintheorem1.thm.eq1},
we obtain that
${\bf Q}^2-{\bf A}^*{\bf A}$ is positive semidefinite.
This together with nonsingularity of the matrix ${\bf Q}$ implies that
\begin{equation} \label{maintheorem1.thm.pfeq3}
0\le \gamma_i\le 1, \ 1\le i\le N.
\end{equation}
Write
$ {\bf Q} {\bf x}_0=\sum_{i=1}^N \langle {\bf Q} {\bf x}_0, {\bf u}_i\rangle {\bf u}_i$,
where $\langle \cdot, \cdot\rangle$ is the standard inner product on ${\mathbb C}^N$.
By \eqref{maintheorem1.thm.eq2}, we have that
${\bf Q} {\bf x}_n={\bf B} {\bf Q} {\bf x}_{n-1}, \ n\ge 1$.
Therefore
\vspace{-.5em}
\begin{equation} \label{maintheorem1.thm.pfeq5}
{\bf Q}{\bf x}_n= {\bf B}^n {\bf Q}{\bf x}_0=\sum_{i=1}^N \gamma_i^n \langle {\bf Q} {\bf x}_0, {\bf u}_i\rangle {\bf u}_i, \ n\ge 0.
\vspace{-.5em} \end{equation}
Define ${\bf u}=\sum_{\gamma_i=1} \langle {\bf Q} {\bf x}_0, {\bf u}_i\rangle {\bf Q}^{-1}{\bf u}_i$.
Then by \eqref{maintheorem1.thm.pfeq3}, \eqref{maintheorem1.thm.pfeq5}
and the orthonormality of ${\bf u}_i, 1\le i\le N$, we obtain
\vspace{-.5em}
\begin{eqnarray}
\hskip-0.08in \|{\bf Q}({\bf x}_n-{\bf u})\|_2 & \hskip-0.08in = & \hskip-0.08in
\Big(\sum_{0\le \gamma_i<1} |\langle {\bf Q} {\bf x}_0, {\bf u}_i\rangle |^2 \gamma_i^{2n}\Big)^{1/2}\nonumber\\
\hskip-0.08in & \hskip-0.08in \le & \hskip-0.08in r^{n} \|{\bf Q}{\bf x}_0-{\bf Q}{\bf u}\|_2\le r^{n} \|{\bf Q}{\bf x}_0\|_2 ,
\vspace{-.5em}\end{eqnarray}
where $r= \max_{0\le \gamma_i<1} \gamma_i$.
This proves \eqref{maintheorem1.thm.pfeq0} and the desired exponential convergence of the sequence ${\bf x}_n, n\ge 0$.
Taking the limit in \eqref{maintheorem1.thm.eq2} and applying the convergence in \eqref{maintheorem1.thm.pfeq0} yields ${\bf Q}^{-2}{\bf A}^* {\bf A} {\bf u}={\bf 0}$.
This proves that ${\bf A}{\bf u}={\bf 0}$ and completes the proof.
\end{appendices}
\newpage
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
We consider a finite connected network, represented by a
finite graph $G$ with $m$ edges $\me _1,\dots,\me _m$ and $n$
vertices $\mv_1,\dots,\mv_n$.
We normalize and parametrize the edges on the interval $[0,1]$. We denote by $\Gamma(\mv_i)$ the set of all the indices of the edges
having an endpoint at $\mv _i$, i.e.,
\[\Gamma(\mv _i)\coloneqq\left\{j\in \{1,\ldots,m\}: \me _j(0)=\mv _i\hbox{ or } \me _j(1)=\mv _i\right\}.\]
Denoting by $\Phi\coloneqq(\phi_{ij})_{n\times m}$
the so-called incidence matrix of the graph $G$, see Subsection \ref{subsec:systeq} for more details, we aim to analyse the existence, uniqueness and regularity of solutions of the problem
\begin{equation}\label{eq:stochnet}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
\dot{u}_j(t,x) & = (c_j u_j')'(t,x)-p_j(x)u_j(x,t)&&\\
&\quad +\beta_j^2u(x,t)- u(x,t)^3&&\\
&\quad + g_j(t,x,u_j(t,x))\frac{\partial w_j}{\partial t}(t,x), &&t\in(0,T],\; x\in(0,1),\; j=1,\dots,m, \\
u_j(t,\mv _i)& = u_\ell (t,\mv _i)\eqqcolon q_i(t), &&t\in(0,T],\; \forall j,\ell\in \Gamma(\mv _i),\; i=1,\ldots,n,\\
\left[M q(t)\right]_{i} & = -\sum_{j=1}^m \phi_{ij}\mu_{j} c_j(\mv_i) u'_j(t,\mv_i), && t\in(0,T],\; i=1,\ldots,n,\\
u_j(0,x) & = \mathsf{u}_{j}(x), &&x\in [0,1],\; j=1,\dots,m,
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $\frac{\partial w_j}{\partial t}$ are independent space-time white noises. The reaction terms in \eqref{eq:stochnet} are classical Allen-Cahn nonlinearities $h_j(\eta)=-\eta^3+\beta_j^2 \eta$ with $\beta_j>0$, $j=1,\dots, m$. Note that $h_j=-H_j'$ where $H_j(\eta)=\frac14(\eta^2-\beta_j^2)^2$ is a double well potential for each $j$ with potential barrier height ${\beta_j^4}/{4}$. The diffusion coefficients $g_j$ are assumed to be locally Lipschitz continuous and of linear growth.
The coefficients of the linear operator satisfy standard smoothness assumptions, see Subsection \ref{subsec:systeq}, the matrix $M$ satisfies Assumptions \ref{as:M} and $\mu_j$, $j=1,\dots, m$, are positive constants. The classical Allen-Cahn equation belongs to the class of phase field models and is a classical tool to model processes involving thin interface layers between almost homogeneous regions, see \cite{AC79}. It is a particular case of a reaction-diffusion equation of
bistable type and it can be used to study front propagations as in \cite{BBS92} . Effects due to, for example,
thermal fluctuations of the system can be accounted for by adding a Wiener type noise in the equation, see \cite{Co70}.
While deterministic evolution equations on networks are well studied, see, \cite{Al84,Al94,BFN16,BFN16b,Be85,Be88,Be88b,BN96,Ca97,CF03,EK19,Ka66,KMS07,KS05,Lu80,MS07,Mu07,MR07,Mu14} which is, admittedly, a rather incomplete list, the study of their stochastic counterparts is surprisingly scarce despite their strong link to applications, see e.g. \cite{BMZ08,BM10,Tu06} and the references therein. In \cite{BMZ08} additive L\'evy noise is considered that is square integrable with drift being a cubic polynomial. In \cite{BZ14} multiplicative square integrable L\'evy noise is considered but with globally Lipschitz drifts $f_j$ and diffusion coefficients and with a small time dependent perturbation of the linear operator. Paper \cite{BM10} treats the case when the noise is an additive fractional Brownian motion and the drift is zero. In \cite{CP17a} multiplicative Wiener perturbation is considered both on the edges and vertices with globally Lipschitz diffusion coefficient and zero drift and time-delayed boundary condition. Finally, in \cite{CP17}, the case of multiplicative Wiener noise is treated with bounded and globally Lipschitz continuous drift and diffusion coefficients and noise both on the edges and vertices.
In all these papers the semigroup approach is utilized in a Hilbert space setting and the only work that treats non-globally Lipschitz continuous drifts on the edges, similar to the ones considered here, is \cite{BMZ08} but the noise is there additive and square-integrable. In this case, energy arguments are possible using the additive nature of the equation which does not carry over to the multiplicative case. Therefore, we use an entirely different tool set based on the semigroup approach for stochastic evolution equations in Banach spaces \cite{vNVW08}, or for the classical stochastic reaction-diffusion setting \cite{KvN12,KvN19}, see also, \cite{BG99,BP99,Ce03,Pe95}. We are able to rewrite \eqref{eq:stochnet} in a form that fits into this framework. After establishing various embedding and isomorphy results of function spaces and interpolation spaces, we may use \cite[Theorem 4.9]{KvN19} to prove our main existence and uniqueness result, Theorem \ref{thm:SAC}, which guarantees existence and uniqueness of solutions with sample paths in the space of continuous functions on the graph, denoted by $B$ in the paper (see Definition \ref{def:b}); that is, in the space of continuous functions that are continuous on the edges and also across the vertices. When the initial data is sufficiently regular, then Theorem \ref{thm:SAC} also yields certain space-time regularity of the solution.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{sec:determnetwork} we collect partially known semigroup results for the linear deterministic version of \eqref{eq:stochnet}. In Subsection \ref{subsec:KVN} we first recall an abstract result from \cite{KvN12,KvN19} regarding abstract stochastic Cauchy problems in Banach spaces. In order to utilize the abstract framework in our setting we prove various preparatory results in Subsection \ref{subsec:prep}: embedding and isometry results are contained in Lemma \ref{lem:ApmaxW0G}, Lemma \ref{lem:Biso} and Corollary \ref{cor:fractionalspaceincl}, and a semigroup result in Proposition \ref{prop:mcAonC}. Subsection \ref{subsec:main} contains our main results where we first consider the abstract stochastic It\^o equation corresponding to a slightly more general version of \eqref{eq:stochnet}. An existence and uniqueness result for the abstract stochastic It\^o problem is contained in Theorem \ref{theo:SCPnsolcont} followed by a space-time regularity result in Theorem \ref{theo:Holderreg}. These are then applied to the It\^o equation corresponding \eqref{eq:stochnet} to yield the main result of the paper, Theorem \ref{thm:SAC}, concerning the existence, uniqueness and space-time regularity of the solution of \eqref{eq:stochnet}.
\section{Heat equation on a network}\label{sec:determnetwork}
\subsection{The system of equations}\label{subsec:systeq}
We consider a finite connected network, represented by a
finite graph $G$ with $m$ edges $\me _1,\dots,\me _m$ and $n$
vertices $\mv_1,\dots,\mv_n$.
We normalize and parametrize the edges on the interval $[0,1]$.
The structure of the network is given by the $n\times m$ matrices
$\Phi^+\coloneqq(\phi^+_{ij})$ and $\Phi^-\coloneqq(\phi^-_{ij})$ defined by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fiijpm}
\phi^+_{ij}\coloneqq\left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
1, & \hbox{if } \me _j(0)=\mv _i,\\
0, & \hbox{otherwise},
\end{array}
\right.
\qquad\hbox{and}\qquad
\phi^-_{ij}\coloneqq\left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
1, & \hbox{if } \me _j(1)=\mv _i,\\
0, & \hbox{otherwise,}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
for $i=1,\ldots ,n$ and $j=1,\ldots m.$ We denote by $\me _j(0)$ and $\me _j(1)$ the $0$ and the $1$ endpoint of the edge $\me _j$, respectively.
We refer to~\cite{KS05} for terminology. The $n\times m$ matrix
$\Phi\coloneqq(\phi_{ij})$ defined by \[\Phi\coloneqq\Phi^+-\Phi^-\] is known in
graph theory as \emph{incidence matrix} of the graph $G$. Further,
let $\Gamma(\mv_i)$ be the set of all the indices of the edges
having an endpoint at $\mv _i$, i.e.,
\[\Gamma(\mv _i)\coloneqq\left\{j\in \{1,\ldots,m\}: \me _j(0)=\mv _i\hbox{ or } \me _j(1)=\mv _i\right\}.\]
For the sake of simplicity, we will denote the values of a continuous function defined on the (parameterized) edges of the graph, that is of
\[f=\left(f_1,\ldots ,f_m\right)^{\top}\in \left(C[0,1]\right)^m\cong C\left([0,1],\real^m\right)\]
at $0$ or $1$ by $f_j(\mv_i)$ if $\me _j(0)=\mv _i$ or $\me _j(1)=\mv _i$, respectively, and $f_j(\mv_i)\coloneqq0$ otherwise, for $j=1,\ldots ,m$.
We start with the problem
\begin{equation}\label{netcp}
\left\{\begin{array}{rclll}
\dot{u}_j(t,x)&=& (c_j u_j')'(t,x)-p_j(x)u_j(t,x), &t> 0,\; x\in(0,1),\; j=1,\dots,m, & (a)\\[0.1cm]
u_j(t,\mv _i)&=&u_\ell (t,\mv _i)\eqqcolon q_i(t), &t> 0,\; \forall j,\ell\in \Gamma(\mv _i),\; i=1,\ldots,n,& (b)\\[0.1cm]
\left[M q(t)\right]_{i} &=& -\sum_{j=1}^m \phi_{ij}\mu_{j} c_j(\mv_i) u'_j(t,\mv_i), &t> 0,\; i=1,\ldots,n,& (c)\\[0.1cm]
u_j(0,x)&=&\mathsf{u}_{j}(x), &x\in [0,1],\; j=1,\dots,m & (d)
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
on the network. Note that $c_j(\cdot)$, $p_j(\cdot)$ and $u_j(t,\cdot)$ are
functions on the edge $\me_j$ of the network, so that the
right-hand side of~$(\ref{netcp}a)$ reads in fact as
\[(c_j u_j')'(t,\cdot)=\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left( c_j\frac{\partial}{\partial x}u_j\right)(t,\cdot)-p_j(\cdot)u_j(t,\cdot), \qquad t\geq 0,\; j=1,\ldots,m.\]
The functions $c_1,\ldots,c_m$ are (variable) diffusion coefficients or conductances, and we assume that
\[0<c_j\in C^1[0,1],\quad j=1,\ldots,m.\]
The functions $p_1,\ldots,p_m$ are nonnegative, continuous functions, hence
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pjpos}
0\leq p_j\in C[0,1],\quad j=1,\ldots,m.
\end{equation}
Equation~$(\ref{netcp}b)$ represents the continuity of the values attained by the system at the vertices in each time instant, and we denote by $q_i(t)$ the common functions values in the vertice $i$, for $i=1,\ldots,n$ and $t>0$.
In $(\ref{netcp}c)$, $M\coloneqq\left(b_{ij}\right)_{n\times n}$ is a matrix satisfying the following
\begin{asum}\label{asum:M1}
The matrix $M=\left(b_{ij}\right)_{n\times n}$ is real, symmetric and negative semidefinite, $M\not\equiv 0$.
\end{asum}
On the left-hand-side, $[Mq(t)]_{i}$ denotes the $i$th coordinate of the vector $M q(t)$. On the right-hand-side, the coefficients
\[0<\mu_j,\quad j=1,\ldots,m\]
are strictly positive constants that influence the distribution of impulse happening in the ramification nodes according to the Kirchhoff-type law~$(\ref{netcp}c)$.
We now introduce the $n\times m$ \emph{weighted incidence matrices}
\[\Phi^+_w\coloneqq(\omega^+_{ij})\text{ and }\Phi^-_w\coloneqq(\omega^-_{ij})\]
with entries
\begin{equation}\label{eq:matrixFiw}
\omega^+_{ij}\coloneqq\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\mu_j c_j(\mv_i), & \hbox{if } \me _j(0)=\mv _i,\\
0, & \hbox{otherwise},
\end{array}
\right. \qquad\hbox{and}\qquad \omega^-_{ij}\coloneqq\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\mu_j c_j(\mv_i), & \hbox{if } \me _j(1)=\mv _i,\\
0, & \hbox{otherwise}.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
With these notations, the Kirchhoff law $(\ref{netcp}c)$ becomes
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Kir}
Mq(t)=-\Phi_w^+ u'(t,0)+\Phi_w^- u'(t,1), \qquad t\geq 0.
\end{equation}
In equation~$(\ref{netcp}d)$ we pose the initial conditions on the edges.
\subsection{Spaces and operators}
We are now in the position to rewrite our system in form of an abstract Cauchy problem, following the concept of \cite{KMS07}. First we consider the (real) Hilbert space
\begin{equation}\label{eq:E2}
E_2\coloneqq\prod_{j=1}^m L^2(0,1; \mu_j dx)
\end{equation}
as the \emph{state space} of the edges, endowed with the natural inner product
\[\langle u,v\rangle_{E_2}\coloneqq \sum_{j=1}^m \int_0^1 u_j(x)v_j(x) \mu_j dx,\qquad
u=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}u_1\\ \vdots\\
u_m\end{smallmatrix}\right),\;v=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}v_1\\ \vdots\\
v_m\end{smallmatrix}\right)\in E_2.\]
Observe that $E_2$ is isomorphic to $\left( L^2(0,1)\right)^m$ with equivalence of norms.
We further need the \emph{boundary space} $\real^{n}$ of the vertices. According to $(\ref{netcp}b)$ we will consider such functions on the edges of the graph those values coincide in each vertex. Therefore we introduce the \emph{boundary value operator}
\[L\colon\left(C[0,1]\right)^m\subset E_2\to \real^n\]
with
\begin{align}\label{eq:Ldef}
D(L) & = \left\{u\in \left(C[0,1]\right)^m: u_j(\mv _i)=u_\ell (\mv _i),\; \forall j,\ell\in \Gamma(\mv _i),\; i=1,\ldots,n\right\};\notag\\
L u & \coloneqq\left(q_1,\ldots ,q_n\right)^{\top}\in \real^n,\quad q_i=u_j(\mv _i)\text{ for some } j\in \Gamma(\mv _i),\; i=1,\ldots,n.
\end{align}
The condition $u(t,\cdot)\in D(L)$ for each $t>0$ means that $(\ref{netcp}b)$ is for the function $u(\cdot,\cdot)$ satisfied.
On $E_2$ we define the operator
\begin{equation}\label{eq:opAmax}
A_{max}\coloneqq\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{d}{dx}\left(c_1 \frac{d}{dx}\right)-p_1 & & 0\\
& \ddots &\\
0 & & \frac{d}{dx}\left(c_m \frac{d}{dx}\right)-p_m \\
\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
with domain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:domAmax}
D(A_{max})\coloneqq\left(H^2(0,1)\right)^m\cap D(L).
\end{equation}
This operator can be regarded as \emph{maximal} since no other boundary condition except continuity is supposed for the functions in its domain.
We further define the so called \emph{feedback operator} acting on $D(A_{max})$ and having values in the boundary space $\real^{n}$ as
\begin{align}\label{eq:opC}
D(C) & = D(A_{max});\\
C u & \coloneqq-\Phi_w^+ u'(0)+\Phi_w^- u'(1),
\end{align}
compare with \eqref{eq:Kir}.
With these notations, we can finally rewrite \eqref{netcp} in form of an abstract Cauchy problem. Define
\begin{align}\label{eq:amain}
A&\coloneqq A_{max}\\
D(A)&\coloneqq\{u\in E_2:u\in D(A_{max})\text{ and } MLu=Cu\},
\end{align}
see the definitions above.
Using this, \eqref{netcp} becomes
\begin{equation}\label{eq:acp}
\left\{\begin{array}{rcll}
\dot{u}(t)&=& A u(t), &t> 0,\\
u(0)&=&\mathsf{u},
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
with $\mathsf{u}=(\mathsf{u}_1,\dots ,\mathsf{u}_m)^{\top}$.
\subsection{Well-posedness of the abstract Cauchy problem}
To prove well-posedness of \eqref{eq:acp} we define a bilinear form on the Hilbert space $E_2$ with domain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:domform}
D\left(\ea\right)=V\coloneqq \left(H^1(0,1)\right)^m\cap D(L).
\end{equation}
as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:form}
\ea(u,v)\coloneqq\sum_{j=1}^m\int_0^1 \mu_j c_j(x) u'_j(x) v'_j(x) dx+\sum_{j=1}^m\int_0^1 \mu_j p_j(x)u_j(x)v_j(x) dx-\langle M q,r\rangle_{\real^n},
\end{equation}
where $Lu=q$ and $Lv=r$.
The next definition can be found e.g. in \cite[Section 1.2.3]{Ou05}.
\begin{definition}
From the form $\ea$ -- using the Riesz representation theorem -- we can obtain a unique operator
$\left(B,D(B)\right)$ in the following way:
\begin{align*}
D(B)&\coloneqq \left\{u\in V:\exists v\in E_2 \hbox{ s.t. } \ea(u,\varphi)=\langle v,\varphi\rangle_{E_2}\; \forall \varphi\in V\right\},\\
Bu&\coloneqq-v.
\end{align*}
We say that the operator $\left(B,D(B)\right)$ is \emph{associated with the form $\ea$}.
\end{definition}
In the following, we will claim that the operator associated with the form $\ea$ is $(A,D(A)).$ Furthermore, we will state results regarding how the properties of $\ea$ and the matrix $M$ carry on the properties of the operator $A$, obtaining the well-posedness of the abstract Cauchy-problem \eqref{eq:acp} on $E_2$ and even on $L^p$-spaces of the edges. The proofs of these statements combine techniques of \cite{Mu07} (where no $p_j$'s on the right-hand-side of $(\ref{netcp}b)$ are considered) and techniques of \cite{MR07} (where $p_j$'s are considered for the heat equation but the matrix $M$ is diagonal).
\begin{proposition}
The operator associated to the form $\ea$ \eqref{eq:domform}--\eqref{eq:form} is $(A,D(A))$ in \eqref{eq:amain}.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We can proceed similarly as in the proofs of \cite[Lemma 3.4]{Mu07} and \cite[Lemma 3.3]{MR07}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:eaprop}
The form $\ea$ is densely defined, continuous, closed and accretive, hence $(A,D(A))$ is densely defined, dissipative and sectorial. Furthermore, $\ea$ is symmetric, hence the operator $(A,D(A))$ is self-adjoint.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The first three properties of $\ea$ (densely defined, continuous and closed) follow analogous to the proof of \cite[Lemma 3.2]{MR07}. Since $M$ is dissipative (that is, negative semidefinite), and $p_j\geq 0$, $j=1,\dots ,m$, the form $\ea$ is accretive, see the proofs of \cite[Proposition 3.2]{Mu07} and \cite[Lemma 3.2]{MR07}. The symmetricity of $\ea$ follows from the fact that $M$ is real and symmetric, see the proof of \cite[Corollary 3.3]{Mu07}. The properties of $A$ follow now by \cite[Proposition 1.24, 1.51, Theorem 1.52]{Ou05}.
\end{proof}
As a corollary we obtain well-posedness of \eqref{eq:acp}.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:determL2}
Assuming Assumption \ref{asum:M1} on the matrix $M$, the operator $\left(A, D(A)\right)$ defined in \eqref{eq:amain} generates a $C_0$ analytic, compact semigroup of contractions $\left(T_2(t)\right)_{t\geq 0}$ on $E_2.$ Hence, the abstract Cauchy problem \eqref{eq:acp} is well-posed on $E_2$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The claim follows from Proposition \ref{prop:eaprop} and the fact that $\left(A, D(A)\right)$ is resolvent compact. This is true since $V$ is densely and compactly embedded in $E_2$ by the Rellich--Khondrakov Theorem, and we can use \cite[Theorem 1.2.1]{Da90}.
\end{proof}
In the following we will extend the semigroup $\left(T_2(t)\right)_{t\geq 0}$ on $L^p$-spaces. To this end we define
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Ep}
E_p\coloneqq\prod_{j=1}^m L^p(0,1; \mu_j dx),\quad p\in[1,\infty]
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Epnorm}
\|u\|_{E_p}^p\coloneqq\sum_{j=1}^m \|u_j\|_{L^p(0,1; \mu_j dx)}^p,\quad u\in E_p,\quad p\in[1,\infty),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Einftynorm}
\|u\|_{E_{\infty}}\coloneqq\max_{j=1,\dots ,m} \|u_j\|_{L^{\infty}(0,1)},\quad u\in E_{\infty}.
\end{equation}
We can characterize features of the semigroup $\left(T_2(t)\right)_{t\geq 0}$ by those of $(\e^{tM})_{t\geq 0}$, the semigroup generated by the matrix $M$ -- hence, by properties of $M$. In particular, the following holds.
\begin{proposition}
The semigroup $\left(T_2(t)\right)_{t\geq 0}$ on $E_2$ associated with $\ea$ enjoys the following properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\left(T_2(t)\right)_{t\geq 0}$ is positive if and only if the matrix $M$ has positive off-diagonal -- that is, if it generates a positive matrix semigroup $(\e^{tM})_{t\geq 0}$;
\item Since $M$ is negative semidefinite, the semigroup $\left(T_2(t)\right)_{t\geq 0}$ is contractive on $E_{\infty}$ if and only if
\[b_{ii}+\sum_{k\neq i}|b_{ik}|\leq 0,\quad i=1,\dots ,n,\]
that is $(\e^{tM})_{t\geq 0}$ is $\ell^{\infty}$-contractive.
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
It follows using analogous techniques as in the proof of \cite[Theorem 3.5]{Mu07} and \cite[Lemma 4.1, Proposition 5.3]{MR07}
\end{proof}
To obtain the desired extension of the semigroup on $L^p$-spaces, we assume the following on the matrix $M.$
\begin{asum}\label{as:M}
For the matrix $M=\left(b_{ij}\right)_{n\times n}$ we assume the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $M$ satisfies Assumption \ref{asum:M1};
\item For $i \neq k,$ $b_{ik}\geq 0$, that is, $M$ has positive off-diagonal;
\item \[\sum_{k\neq i}b_{ik}\leq -b_{ii},\quad i=1,\dots ,n.\]
that is, the matrix is \emph{diagonally dominant}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{asum}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:sgrextend}
If $M$ satisfies Assumptions \ref{as:M} then the semigroup $(T_2(t))_{t\geq 0}$ extends to a family of compact, contractive, positive one-parameter semigroups $(T_p(t))_{t\geq 0}$ on $E_p$, $1\leq p\leq \infty$. Such semigroups are strongly continuous if $p\in[1,\infty)$, and analytic of angle $\frac{\pi}{2}-\arctan\frac{\vert p-2\vert}{2\sqrt{p-1}}$ for $p\in(1,\infty)$.
Moreover, the spectrum of $A_p$ is independent of $p$, where $A_p$ denotes the generator of $(T_p(t))_{t\geq 0}$, $1\leq p\leq \infty$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
It follows by \cite[Section 7.2]{Ar04} as in \cite[Theorem 4.1]{Mu07} and \cite[Corollary 5.6]{MR07}.
\end{proof}
We also can prove that the generators of the semigroups in the spaces $E_p,\, 1\leq p \leq \infty$ have in fact the same form as in $E_2$, with appropriate domain.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:opAp}
For all $p\in [1,\infty]$ the generator $A_p$ of the semigroup
$(T_p(t))_{t\geq 0}$ is given by the operator defined in~\eqref{eq:opAmax} with
domain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:domAp}
D(A_p)=\left\{u\in \prod _{j=1}^m W^{2,p}(0,1;\mu_j dx)\cap D(L):MLu=Cu\right\}.
\end{equation}
In particular, $A_p$ has compact resolvent for $p\in [1,\infty]$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
See \cite[Proposition 4.6]{Mu07} and \cite[Lemma 5.7]{MR07}.
\end{proof}
As a summary we obtain the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}\label{theo:determLp}
The first order problem~\eqref{netcp} is well-posed on $E_p$, $p\in[1,\infty)$, i.e., for all initial data
$\mathsf{u}\in E_p$ the problem~\eqref{netcp} admits a unique mild solution that continuously depends on the initial data.
\end{theorem}
\section{The stochastic Allen-Cahn equation on networks}\label{sec:stochnetwork}
\subsection{An abstract stochastic Cauchy problem}\label{subsec:KVN}
Let $(\Omega,\mathscr{F},\mathbb{P})$ is a complete probability space endowed with a right continuous filtration $\mathbb{F}=(\mathscr{F}_t)_{t\in [0,T]}$. Let $(W_H(t))_{t\in [0,T]}$ be a cylindrical Wiener process, defined on $(\Omega,\mathscr{F},\mathbb{P})$, in some Hilbert space $H$ with respect to the filtration $\mathbb{F}$; that is,
$(W_H(t))_{t\in [0,T]}$ is $(\mathscr{F}_t)_{t\in [0,T]}$-adapted and for all $t>s$, $W_H(t)-W_H(s)$ is independent of $\mathscr{F}_s$.
To be able to handle the stochastic Allen-Cahn equation on networks, first we cite a result of M.~Kunze and J.~van Neerven, regarding the following abstract equation
\begin{equation}\tag{SCP}\label{eq:SCP}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
d X(t)&=[A X(t)+F(t,X(t))]dt+G(t,X(t))d W_{H}(t)\\
X(0)&=\xi,
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
see \cite[Section 3]{KvN12}.
If we assume that $(A, D(A))$ generates a strongly continuous, analytic semigroup $S$ on the Banach space $E$ with $\Vert S(t)\Vert\leq K\e^{\omega t}$, $t\geq 0$ for some $K\geq 1$ and $\omega\in\real$, then for $\omega'>\omega$ the fractional powers $(\omega'-A)^{\alpha}$ are well-defined for all $\alpha\in(0,1).$ In particular, the fractional domain spaces
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fractdom}
E^{\alpha}\coloneqq D((\omega'-A)^{\alpha}),\quad \|v\|_{\alpha}\coloneqq\|(\omega'-A)^{\alpha}v\|,\quad v\in D((\omega'-A)^{\alpha})
\end{equation}
are Banach spaces. It is well-known (see e.g. \cite[$\mathsection$II.4--5.]{EN00}), that up to equivalent norms, these spaces are independent of the choice of $\omega'.$
For $\alpha\in(0,1)$ we define the extrapolation spaces $E^{-\alpha}$ as the completion of $E$ under the norms $\|v\|_{-\alpha}\coloneqq\|(\omega'-A)^{-\alpha}v\|$, $v\in E$. These spaces are independent of $\omega'>\omega$ up to an equivalent norm.
We fix $E^0\coloneqq E$.
\begin{remark}\label{rem:omega0}
If $\omega=0$ (hence, the semigroup $S$ is bounded), then by \cite[Proposition 3.1.7]{Haase06}
we can choose $\omega'=0$. That is,
\[E^{\alpha}\cong D((-A)^{\alpha}),\quad \alpha\in [0,1),\]
when $D((-A)^\alpha)$ is equipped with the graph norm.
\end{remark}
To obtain the desired result for the solution of \eqref{eq:SCP}, one has to impose the following assumptions for the mappings in (SCP). These are -- in the first and third cases slightly simplified versions of -- Assumptions (A1), (A5), (A4), (F'), (F'') and (G'') in \cite{KvN12}. Let $B$ be a Banach space, $\|\cdot \|$ will denote $\|\cdot\|_{B}$. For $u\in B$ we define the \emph{subdifferential of the norm at} $u$ as the set
\begin{equation}\label{eq:subdiff}
\partial\|u\|\coloneqq\left\{u^*\in B^*:\|u^*\|=1\text{ and }\langle u,u^*\rangle=1\right\}
\end{equation}
which is not empty by the Hahn-Banach theorem. Furthermore, let $E$ be a UMD Banach space of type $2$.
\begin{assum}$ $\label{assum:mainvN}
\begin{enumerate}
\item $(A, D(A))$ is densely defined, closed and sectorial on $E$.
\item For some $0\leq \theta <\frac{1}{2}$ we have continuous, dense embeddings \[E^{\theta}\hookrightarrow B\hookrightarrow E.\]
\item Let $S$ be the strongly continuous analytic semigroup generated by $(A, D(A))$. Then $S$ restricts to a strongly continuous contraction semigroup $S^{B}$ on $B$, in particular, $A|_{B}$ is dissipative.
\item The map $F\colon [0,T]\times\Omega\times B\to B$ is locally Lipschitz continuous in the sense that for all $r>0$, there exists a constant $L_{F}^{(r)}$ such that
\[\left\|F(t,\omega,u)-F(t,\omega,v)\right\|\leq L_{F}^{(r)}\|u-v\|\]
for all $\|u\|,\|v\|\leq r$ and $(t,\omega)\in [0,T]\times \Omega$ and there exists a constant $C_{F,0}\geq 0$ such that
\[\left\|F(t,\omega,0)\right\|\leq C_{F,0},\qquad t\in[0,T],\; \omega\in\Omega.\]
Moreover, for all $u\in B$ the map $(t,\omega)\mapsto F(t,\omega,u)$ is strongly measurable and adapted.\\
Finally, for suitable constants $a,b\geq 0$ and $N\geq 1$ we have
\[\langle A u+F (t,u+v), u^*\rangle\leq a(1+\|v\|)^N+b\|u\|\]
for all $u\in D(A|_{B})$, $v\in B$ and $u^*\in\partial\|u\|,$ see \eqref{eq:subdiff}.
\item There exist constants $a'',\, b'',\, m'>0$ such that the function $F\colon [0,T]\times\Omega\times B\to B$ satisfies
\[\langle F (t,\omega, u+v)-F (t,\omega, v), u^*\rangle\leq a''(1+\|v\|)^{m'}-b''\|u\|^{m'} \]
for all $t\in[0,T]$, $\omega\in\Omega$, $u,v\in B$ and $u^*\in\partial\|u\|,$ and
\[\left\|F(t,v)\right\|\leq a''(1+\|v\|)^{m'}\]
for all $v\in B.$
\item Let $\gamma(H,E^{-\kappa_G})$ denote the space of $\gamma$-radonifying operators from $H$ to $E^{-\kappa_G}$ for some $0\leq \kappa_G<\frac{1}{2}$, see e.g. \cite[Section 3.1]{KvN12}.
Then the map $G\colon [0,T]\times\Omega\times B\to \gamma(H,E^{-\kappa_G})$ is locally Lipschitz continuous in the sense that for all $r>0$, there exists a constant $L_{G}^{(r)}$ such that
\[\left\|G(t,\omega,u)-G(t,\omega,v)\right\|_{\gamma(H,E^{-\kappa_G})}\leq L_{G}^{(r)}\|u-v\|\]
for all $\|u\|,\|v\|\leq r$ and $(t,\omega)\in [0,T]\times \Omega$.
Moreover, for all $u\in B$ and $h\in H$ the map $(t,\omega)\mapsto G(t,\omega,u)h$ is strongly measurable and adapted.\\[0.2cm]
Finally, $G$ is of linear growth, that is, for suitable constant $c',$
\[\left\|G(t,\omega,u)\right\|_{\gamma(H,E^{-\kappa_G})}\leq c'\left(1+\|u\|\right)\]
for all $(t,\omega,u)\in [0,T]\times \Omega\times B.$
\end{enumerate}
\end{assum}
Recall that a \emph{mild solution} of \eqref{eq:SCP} is a solution of the following implicit equation
\begin{align}\label{eq:mildsol}
X(t)&=S(t)\xi+\int_0^tS(t-s)F(s,X(s))\ds+\int_0^tS(t-s)G(s,X(s))\,dW_H(s)\notag\\
&\eqqcolon S(t)\xi+S\ast F(\cdot,X(\cdot))(t)+S\diamond G(\cdot,X(\cdot))(t)
\end{align}
where
\[S\ast f(t)=\int_0^tS(t-s)f(s)\ds\]
denotes the "usual" convolution, and
\[S\diamond g(t)=\int_0^tS(t-s)g(s)\,dW_{H}(s)\]
denotes the stochastic convolution with respect to $W_{H}.$
The result of Kunze and van Neerven that will be useful for our setting is the following. We note that this was first proved in \cite[Theorem 4.9]{KvN12} but with a typo in the statement which was later corrected in the recent arXiv preprint \cite[Theorem 4.9]{KvN19}.
\begin{theorem}\cite[Theorem 4.9]{KvN19}\label{theo:KvN4.9}
Suppose that Assumptions \ref{assum:mainvN} hold and let $2<q<\infty$, $0\leq \theta<\frac{1}{2}$, $0\leq \kappa_G<\frac{1}{2}$ satisfy
\[\theta+\kappa_G<\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{q}.\]
Then for all $\xi\in L^q(\Omega,\mathscr{F}_0,\mathbb{P}; B)$ there exists a unique global mild solution
\[X\in L^q\left(\Omega,C([0,T];B)\right)\]
of \eqref{eq:SCP}. Moreover, for some constant $C>0$ we have
\[\mathbb{E}\|X\|^q_{C([0,T];B)}\leq C\cdot\left(1+\mathbb{E}\|\xi\|^q\right).\]
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Preparatory results}\label{subsec:prep}
In order to apply the abstract result of Theorem \ref{theo:KvN4.9} to the stochastic Allen-Cahn equation on a network we need to prove some preparatory results using the setting of Section \ref{sec:determnetwork}.
On the edges of the graph $G$ we will consider continuous functions that satisfy the continuity condition in the vertices, see Subsection \ref{subsec:systeq}. We will refer to such functions as \emph{continuous functions on the graph} $G$ and denote them by $C(G).$
\begin{definition}\label{def:b}
We define
\begin{equation}\label{eq:CG}
C(G)\coloneqq D(L),
\end{equation}
see \eqref{eq:Ldef}, which can be looked at as the Banach space of all continuous functions on the graph $G$, hence the norm on $C(G)$ can be defined as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:normCG}
\|u\|_{C(G)}=\max_{j=1,\dots ,m}\sup_{[0,1]}|u_j|,\quad u\in C(G).
\end{equation}
This space will play the role of the space $B$ in our setting, hence we set
\begin{equation}\label{eq:spB}
B\coloneqq C(G)\text{ and }\|\cdot\|_{C(G)}\coloneqq\|\cdot\|_{B}.
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
We will show that for $\theta$ big enough the continuous, dense embeddings
\[E_p^{\theta}\hookrightarrow B\hookrightarrow E_p\]
hold, where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fractdomEp}
E_p^{\theta}\text{ is defined for the operator }A_p\text{ on the Banach space }E_p\text{ as in \eqref{eq:fractdom}.}
\end{equation}To do so, we first need a technical lemma, and define the maximal operator on $E_p$ as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:opApmax}
A_{p,max}\coloneqq\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{d}{dx}\left(c_1 \frac{d}{dx}\right)-p_m & & 0\\
& \ddots &\\
0 & & \frac{d}{dx}\left(c_m \frac{d}{dx}\right)-p_m \\
\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
with domain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:domApmax}
D(A_{p,max})\coloneqq \left(\prod _{j=1}^m W^{2,p}(0,1;\mu_j dx)\right)\cap D(L),
\end{equation}
see \eqref{eq:opAmax} \eqref{eq:domAmax} in $E_2.$ Hence, the domain of $A_{p,max}$ only contains the continuity condition in the nodes.
Furthermore, define
\begin{equation}\label{eq:W0G}
W_0(G)\coloneqq \prod _{j=1}^m W_{0}^{2,p}(0,1;\mu_j dx),
\end{equation}
where
\[W_{0}^{2,p}(0,1;\mu_j dx)=W^{2,p}(0,1;\mu_j dx)\cap W_{0}^{1,p}(0,1;\mu_j dx),\qquad j=1,\dots ,m.\]
That is, $W_0(G)$ contains such vectors of functions that are twice weakly differentiable on each edge and continuous on the graph with Dirichlet boundary conditions.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:ApmaxW0G}
\begin{equation}
D(A_{p,max})\cong W_0(G)\times\real^n,
\end{equation}
where the isomorphism is taken for $D(A_{p,max})$ equipped with the operator graph norm.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We will use the setting of \cite{Gr87} for $A=A_{p,max}$, $X=E_p$ and the boundary operator $L:D(L) \subset E_p\to\real^n \eqqcolon Y$. Denote
\[A_0\coloneqq {A_{p,max}\mid}_{\ker L},\]
which is the operator \eqref{eq:opApmax} with Dirichlet boundary conditions. Hence, it is a generator on $E_p.$ Clearly
\begin{equation}\label{eq:A0W0}
D(A_0)=W_0(G)
\end{equation}
holds.
We now choose $\la\in\rho(A_0)$. Using \cite[Lemma 1.2]{Gr87} we have that
\[D(A_{p,max})=D(A_0)\oplus \ker(\la-A_{p,max}).\]
Furthermore, the map
\begin{equation}\label{eq:LkerAiso}
L\colon \ker(\la-A_{p,max})\to\real^n
\end{equation}
is an onto isomorphism, having the inverse
\[D_{\la}\coloneqq (L\mid_{\ker(\la-A_{p,max})})^{-1}\colon \real^n\to \ker(\la-A_{p,max})\]
called \emph{Dirichlet-operator}, see \cite[(1.14)]{Gr87}. By \cite[(1.15)]{Gr87},
\[D_{\la} L\colon D(A_{p,max})\to \ker(\la-A_{p,max})\]
is the projection in $D(A_{p,max})$ onto $\ker(\la-A_{p,max})$ along $D(A_0)$. Since $D_{\la}L$ is continuous, by the properties of the direct sum, see e.g. \cite[Theorem 2.5]{RD18}, we obtain that
\[D(A_{p,max})\cong D(A_0)\times \ker(\la-A_{p,max})\]
holds. Now using \eqref{eq:A0W0} and that \eqref{eq:LkerAiso} is an isomorphism, the claim follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:Biso}
For the space $B$ defined in \eqref{eq:spB}
\[B\cong \left(C_0[0,1]\right)^m\times\real^n\]
holds.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $u\in B$ arbitrary and $r\coloneqq Lu\in\real^n.$ We can define the unique $v^u\in B$ such that $v^u_j$ is a first order polynomial for each $j=1,\dots ,m$ taking values
\[v^u_j(\mv_i)=r_i,\quad \text{ for }\me_j\in\Gamma(\mv_i)\; j=1,\dots ,m,\; i=1,\dots ,n.\]
Then $Lv^u=r$ and
\[u-v^u\in \left(C_0[0,1]\right)^m.\]
Denote
\[B_1\coloneqq\left\{v^u:u\in B\right\}\subset B\]
a closed subspace. Clearly,
\[\left(C_0[0,1]\right)^m\cap B_1=\{0_{B}\}\]
and if $u\in B$ then $u=(u-v^u)+v^u$ with $u-v^u\in \left(C_0[0,1]\right)^m$ and $v^u\in B_1$. Hence
\[B= \left(C_0[0,1]\right)^m\oplus B_1.\]
By the construction of $v^u$ follows that since $L:B\to\real^n$ is onto,
\[L\mid_{B_1}\colon B_1\to\real^n\]
is a bijection. The operator $L\mid_{B_1}$ is also bounded for the norm of $B$ induced on $B_1$. Hence, by the open mapping theorem, it is an isomorphism. Denoting its inverse by
\[L_1\coloneqq \left(L\mid_{B_1}\right)^{-1}\colon \real^n\to B_1,\]
we obtain that
\[L_1L\colon B\to B_1\]
is the continuous projection from $B$ onto $B_1$ along $\left(C_0[0,1]\right)^m.$ Hence, we can use \cite[Theorem 2.5]{RD18} and obtain
\[B\cong \left(C_0[0,1]\right)^m\times\real^n.\]
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:fractionalspaceincl}
Let $E_p^{\theta}$ defined in \eqref{eq:fractdomEp}. If $\theta> \frac{1}{2p}$ then the following continuous, dense embeddings are satisfied:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Ethetaincl}
E_p^{\theta}\hookrightarrow B\hookrightarrow E_p.
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition \ref{prop:sgrextend} the operator $(A_p,D(A_p))$ generates a positive, contraction semigroup on $E_p$.
It follows from \cite[Theorem in $\mathsection$4.7.3]{Ar04} and \cite[Proposition in $\mathsection$4.4.10]{Ar04} that for the complex interpolation spaces
\begin{equation}\label{eq:inclpf2}
D((\omega'-A_p)^{\theta})\cong [D(\omega'-A_p),E_p]_{\theta}
\end{equation}
holds for any $\omega'>0$. Therefore,
\begin{equation}
E_p^{\theta}=D((\omega'-A_p)^{\theta})\cong [D(\omega'-A_p),E_p]_{\theta}\cong [D(A_p),E_p]_{\theta}.
\end{equation}
Defining $(A_{p,max},D(A_{p,max}))$ as in \eqref{eq:opApmax}, \eqref{eq:domApmax}
we have that
\[D(A_p)\hookrightarrow D(A_{p,max})\]
holds. Hence
\begin{equation}\label{eq:inclpf3}
E_p^{\theta}\hookrightarrow \left[D(-A_{p,max}),E_p\right]_{\theta}.
\end{equation}
By Lemma \ref{lem:ApmaxW0G},
\begin{equation}\label{eq:inclpf4}
D(-A_{p,max})\cong W_0(G)\times\real^n
\end{equation}
holds, where $W_0(G)$ is defined in \eqref{eq:W0G}. Since $E_p\cong E_p\times\{0_{\real^n}\}$, using general interpolation theory, see e.g. \cite[Section 4.3.3]{Triebel78}, we have that for $\theta>\frac{1}{2p}$
\[\left[W_0(G)\times\real^n,E_p\times\{0_{\real^n}\}\right]_{\theta}\hookrightarrow \left(\prod _{j=1}^m W_{0}^{2\theta,p}(0,1;\mu_j dx)\right)\times \real^n.\]
Thus, by \eqref{eq:inclpf3} and \eqref{eq:inclpf4}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:interpol}
E_p^{\theta} \hookrightarrow \left(\prod _{j=1}^m W_{0}^{2\theta,p}(0,1;\mu_j dx)\right)\times\real^n
\end{equation}
holds. Hence,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:inclpf5}
E_p^{\theta} \hookrightarrow \left(C_0[0,1]\right)^m\times\real^n
\end{equation}
is true.
Applying Lemma \ref{lem:Biso} we obtain that for $\theta>\frac{1}{2p}$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:inclpf6}
E_p^{\theta}\hookrightarrow B
\end{equation}
is satisfied. The continuity of the embedding $B\hookrightarrow E_p$ is clear. It follows from Proposition \ref{prop:mcAonC} that $D(A_p)$ is a dense subspace of $B$ and then so is $E_p^{\theta}$ for $\theta>\frac{1}{2p}$. Since $B\cong \left(C_0[0,1]\right)^m\times\real^n$ by Lemma \ref{lem:Biso} and $E_p\cong E_p\times\{0_{\real^n}\}$, the space $B$ is also dense in $E_p$ and the claim follows.
\end{proof}
In the following we will prove that the part of the operator $(A_p,D(A_p))$ in $B$ is the generator of a strongly continuous semigroup on $B.$
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:mcAonC}
The part of $(A_p,D(A_p))$ in $B$ generates a positive strongly continuous semigroup of contractions on $B$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
1. We first prove that the semigroup $(T_p(t))_{t\geq 0}$ leaves $B$ invariant. We take $u\in B\subset E_p$ and use that $(T_p(t))_{t\geq 0}$ is analytic on $E_p$ (see Proposition \ref{prop:sgrextend}). . Hence, $T_p(t)u\in D(A_p).$ The explicit form \eqref{eq:domAp} of $D(A_p)$ shows that $D(A_p)\subset B$ and hence also
\[T_p(t)u\in B\] holds.
2. In the next step we prove that $(T_p(t)|_{B})_{t\geq 0}$ is a strongly continuous semigroup. By \cite[Proposition I.5.3]{EN00}, it is enough to prove that there exist $K>0$ and $\delta>0$ and a dense subspace $D\subset B$ such that
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item $\|T_p(t)\|_{B}\leq K$ for all $t\in[0,\delta]$, and
\item $\lim_{t\downarrow 0}T_p (t)u=u$ for all $u\in D$.
\end{enumerate}
To verify (a), we obtain by Proposition \ref{prop:sgrextend} that for $u\in B$
\[\|T_p(t)u\|_{B}= \|T_p(t)u\|_{E_{\infty}}= \|T_{\infty}(t)u\|_{E_{\infty}}\leq \|u\|_{E_{\infty}}= \|u\|_{B},\]
hence
\[\|T_p(t)\|_{B}\leq 1=:K,\quad t\geq 0.\]
To prove (b) we first set $p=2$. Taking $\omega>0$ arbitrary, we obtain that the form
\[\ea_{\omega}(u,v)\coloneqq \ea(u,v)+\omega \cdot\langle u,v\rangle_{E_2},\quad u,v\in V\]
is coercive, symmetric and continuous, see \cite[Remark 7.3.3]{Haase06} and Proposition \ref{prop:eaprop}. For the form-domain $V$ defined in \eqref{eq:domform}, equipped with the usual $(H^1(0,1))^m$-norm, we have that
\[V=D((\omega-A_2)^{\sfrac{1}{2}})\]
holds with equivalence of norms (see e.g.~\cite[Proposition 5.5.1]{Ar04}). We also have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:isom}
V=D((\omega-A_2)^{\sfrac{1}{2}})=D((-A_2)^{\sfrac{1}{2}})
\end{equation}
with equivalent norms, where we used \cite[Proposition 3.1.7]{Haase06} for the second equality and norm equivalence. Notice that the subspace $(C^{\infty}[0,1])^m\cap B$ (the infinitely many times differentiable functions on the edges that are continuous across the vertices) is contained in $V$ and is dense in $B$ by the Stone--Weierstrass theorem. Hence, $V$ and thus $D((-A_2)^{\sfrac{1}{2}})$ is dense in $B$. Defining $D\coloneqq D((-A_2)^{\sfrac{1}{2}})$, for $u\in D$ there exist $C_1, C_2>0$ such that
\begin{align}
\|T_2 (t)u-u\|_{B}&\leq C_1\cdot \|T_2 (t)u-u\|_{\left(H^1(0,1)\right)^m} \\
&\leq C_2\cdot \left(\|T_2 (t)(-A_2)^{\sfrac{1}{2}}u-(-A_2)^{\sfrac{1}{2}}u\|_{E_{2}}+\|T_2 (t) u-u\|_{E_{2}}\right)\to 0,\quad t\downarrow 0.
\end{align}
In the first inequality we have used Sobolev embedding and in the second one the norm equivalence in \eqref{eq:isom} and the the fact that $T_2 (t)$ and $(-A_2)^{\sfrac{1}{2}}$ commute on $D((-A_2)^{\sfrac{1}{2}})$. Summarizing 1. and 2., and using that clearly $B$ is continuously embedded in $E_p$, we can apply \cite[Proposition in Section II.2.3]{EN00} for $(A_2,D(A_2))$ and $Y=B$, and obtain that the part of $(A_2,D(A_2))$ in $B$ generates a positive strongly continuous semigroup of contractions on $B$. Since the semigroups in Proposition \ref{prop:sgrextend} are consistent, the same is true for $(T_p(t))_{t\geq 0}$ for any $p\in [1,\infty].$
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{prop:determcont}
The first order problem \eqref{netcp} is well-posed on $B$, i.e., for all initial data $\mathsf{u}\in B$ the problem~\eqref{netcp} admits a unique mild solution that continuously depends on the initial data.
\end{corollary}
\subsection{Main results}\label{subsec:main}
In this subsection we first apply the above results to the following stochastic evolution equation, based on \eqref{netcp}. This corresponds to a slightly more general version of \eqref{eq:stochnet}, see \eqref{eq:stochneteq} later.
Let $(\Omega,\mathscr{F},\mathbb{P})$ be a complete probability space endowed with a right-continuous filtration $\mathbb{F}=(\mathscr{F}_t)_{t\in [0,T]}$ for some $T>0$ given. We consider the problem
\begin{equation}\label{eq:stochsys}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
\dot{u}_j(t,x)& = (c_j u_j')'(t,x)-p_j(x)u_j(t,x)&&\\
&\quad + f_j(t,x,u_j(t,x))&&\\
&\quad +g_j(t,x,u_j(t,x))\dfrac{\partial w_j}{\partial t}(t,x), &&t\in(0,T],\; x\in(0,1),\; j=1,\dots,m, && (a)\\
u_j(t,\mv _i)& =u_\ell (t,\mv _i)\eqqcolon q_i(t), &&t\in(0,T],\; \forall j,\ell\in \Gamma(\mv _i),\; i=1,\ldots,n,&& (b)\\
\left[M q(t)\right]_{i} & = -\sum\nolimits_{j=1}^m \phi_{ij}\mu_{j} c_j(\mv_i) u'_j(t,\mv_i), &&t\in(0,T],\; i=1,\ldots,n,&& (c)\\
u_j(0,x)& =\mathsf{u}_{j}(x), &&x\in [0,1],\; j=1,\dots,m, && (d)
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $\frac{\partial w_j}{\partial t}$, $j=1,\dots ,m$, are independent space-time white noises on $[0,1]$; written as formal derivatives of independent cylindrical Wiener-processes $(w_j(t))_{t\in [0,T]}$, defined on $(\Omega,\mathscr{F},\mathbb{P})$, in the Hilbert space $L^2(0,1; \mu_j dx)$ with respect to the filtration $\mathbb{F}$.
The functions $f_j\colon[0,T]\times \Omega\times [0,1]\times \real\to\real$ are polynomials of the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fjdef}
f_j(t,\omega,x,\eta)=-a_{j,2k+1}(t,\omega,x)\eta^{2k+1}+\sum_{l=0}^{2k}a_{j,l}(t,\omega,x)\eta^l,\quad \eta\in\real,\, j=1,\dots ,m
\end{equation}
for some fixed integer $k$. For the coefficients we assume that there are constants $0<c\leq C<\infty$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:assa_j}
c\leq a_{j,2k+1}(t,\omega,x)\leq C,\;\left|a_{j,l}(t,\omega,x)\right|\leq C,\text{ for all }j=1,\dots ,m,\;l=0,2,\dots ,2k,
\end{equation}
for all $x\in [0,1]$, $t\in[0,T]$ and almost all $\omega\in\Omega$, see \cite[Example 4.2]{KvN12}. The coefficients $a_{j,l}\colon [0,T]\times \Omega\times [0,1]\to\real$ are jointly measurable and adapted in the sense that for each $j$ and $l$ and for each $t\in[0,T]$, the function $a_{j,l}(t,\cdot)$ is $\mathscr{F}_t\otimes \mcB_{[0,1]}$-measurable, where $\mcB_{[0,1]}$ denotes the sigma-algebra of the Borel sets on $[0,1].$
We further assume a technical assumption regarding the graph structure that will play and important role in our setting.
\begin{asum}\label{asum:F}
For the coefficients in \eqref{eq:fjdef} we assume that
\[\left(a_{1,l}(t,\omega,\cdot),\dots ,a_{m,l}(t,\omega,\cdot)\right)^{\top}\in B\text{ for all }l=1,\dots ,2k+1,\]
$t\in[0,T]$ and almost all $\omega\in\Omega$.
\end{asum}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:exfj}
If the coefficients in \eqref{eq:fjdef} do not depend on $j$ -- that is, they are the same on different edges --, and satisfy
\[a_{l}(t,\omega,\cdot)=a_{j,l}(t,\omega,\cdot)\in C[0,1],\quad t\in[0,T],\omega\in\Omega,\quad j=1,\dots m,\; l=1,\dots ,2k+1\]
and
\[a_{l}(t,\omega,0)=a_l(t,\omega,1),\text{ for all }l=1,\dots 2k+1,\]
then Assumption \ref{asum:F} is fulfilled. This is the case e.g. if $a_l's$ are constant (not depending on $x$).
\end{remark}
For the functions $g_j$ we assume
\begin{align}\label{eq:gidef}
&g_j\colon [0,T]\times \Omega\times [0,1]\times\real\to \real,\quad j=1,\dots ,m \text{ are locally Lipschitz continuous}\notag\\
&\text{and of linear growth in the fourth variable,}\notag\\
&\text{uniformly with respect to the first three variables.}
\end{align}
We further assume that the functions are jointly measurable and adapted in the sense that for each $j$ and $t\in[0,T]$, $g_j(t,\cdot)$ is $\mathscr{F}_t\otimes \mcB_{[0,1]}\otimes \mcB_{\real}$-measurable, where $\mcB_{[0,1]}$ and $\mcB_{\real}$ denote the sigma-algebras of the Borel sets on $[0,1]$ and $\real$, respectively.
The above assumptions on the coefficients on the edges, except for Assumption \ref{asum:F} which is specific for the graph setting, are analogous to those in \cite[Section 5]{KvN12} and \cite[Section 5]{KvN19}.
\medskip
To handle system \eqref{eq:stochsys}, we rewrite it in the form of the abstract stochastic Cauchy-problem \eqref{eq:SCP}. To do so, we specify the functions appearing in \eqref{eq:SCP} corresponding to \eqref{eq:stochsys}.
The operator $(A, D(A))=(A_p, D(A_p))$ will be the generator of the strongly continuous analytic semigroup $S\coloneqq (T_p(t))_{t\geq 0}$ on the Banach space $E\coloneqq E_p$ for some large $p\geq 2$, see Proposition \ref{prop:sgrextend} and Lemma \ref{lem:opAp}. Hence, $E$ is a UMD space of type $2$.
For the function $F\colon [0,T]\times \Omega\times B\to B$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Fdef}
F(t,\omega,u)(s)\coloneqq \left(f_1(t,\omega,s,u_1(s)),\dots ,f_m(t,\omega,s,u_m(s))\right)^{\top}, \quad s\in[0,1].
\end{equation}
Since $B$ is an algebra, Assumption \ref{asum:F} assures that $F$ maps $[0,T]\times \Omega\times B$ into $B.$
To define the operator $G$ we argue in analogy with \cite[Section 5]{KvN19}. First define
\[
H\coloneqq E_2
\]
the product $L^2$-space, see \eqref{eq:E2}, which is a Hilbert space. We further define the multiplication operator $\Gamma\colon [0,T]\times B\to\mathcal{L}(H)$ as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Gammadef}
\left[\Gamma(t,u)h\right](s)\coloneqq\begin{pmatrix}
g_1(t,s,u_1(s)) & \hdots & 0\\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
0 & \hdots &g_m(t,s,u_m(s))
\end{pmatrix}\cdot\begin{pmatrix}
h_1(s)\\
\vdots\\
h_m(s)
\end{pmatrix},\quad s\in(0,1),
\end{equation}
for $u\in B$, $h\in H$. Because of the assumptions \eqref{eq:gidef} on the functions $g_j$, $\Gamma$ clearly maps into $\mathcal{L}(H).$
Let $(A_2,D(A_2))$ be the generator on $H=E_2,$ see Proposition \ref{prop:determL2}, and pick $\kappa_G\in(\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{2})$.
By \eqref{eq:interpol} in the proof of Corollary \ref{cor:fractionalspaceincl} we have that there exists a continuous embedding
\begin{equation}\label{eq:imath}
\imath\colon E_2^{\kappa_G} \to \left(\prod _{j=1}^m H_{0}^{2\kappa_G}(0,1;\mu_j dx)\right)\times\real^n\eqqcolon \mathcal{H},
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{H}$ is a Hilbert space. Applying the steps \eqref{eq:inclpf5} and \eqref{eq:inclpf6} of Corollary \ref{cor:fractionalspaceincl} we obtain that $\mathcal{H}\hookrightarrow B$ holds, and by \eqref{eq:Ethetaincl}, there exists a continuous embedding
\begin{equation}\label{eq:jmath}
\jmath\colon \mathcal{H}\to E_p
\end{equation}
for $p\geq 2$ arbitrary.
Let $\nu>0$ arbitrary and define now $G$ by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Gdef}
(\nu-A_p)^{-\kappa_G}G(t,u)h\coloneqq \jmath\, \imath\, (\nu-A_2)^{-\kappa_G}\Gamma(t,u)h,\quad u\in B,\; h\in H.
\end{equation}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:Gprop}
Let $p\geq 2$ and $\kappa_G\in(\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{2})$ be arbitrary. Then the operator $G$ defined in \eqref{eq:Gdef} maps $[0,T]\times B$ into $\gamma (H,E_p^{-\kappa_{G}})$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We can argue as in \cite[Section 10.2]{vNVW08}. Using \cite[Lemma 2.1(4)]{vNVW08}, we obtain in a similar way as in \cite[Corollary 2.2]{vNVW08}) that $\jmath \in\gamma (\mathcal{H},E_p)$, since $2\kappa_G>\frac{1}{2}$ holds. Hence, by the definition of $G$ and the ideal property of $\gamma$-radonifying operators, the mapping $G$ takes values in $\gamma (H,E_p^{-\kappa_{G}})$.
\end{proof}
The driving noise process $W_H$ is defined by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Wdef}
W_H(t)=\begin{pmatrix}
w_1(t)\\
\vdots\\
w_m(t)
\end{pmatrix}, \,t\in [0,T],
\end{equation}
and thus $(W_H(t))_{t\in [0,T]}$ is a cylindrical Wiener process, defined on $(\Omega,\mathscr{F},\mathbb{P})$, in the Hilbert space $H$ with respect to the filtration $\mathbb{F}$.
\medskip
We will state now the result regarding system \eqref{eq:SCP} corresponding to \eqref{eq:stochsys}.
\begin{theorem}\label{theo:SCPnsolcont}
Let $F$, $G$ and $W$ defined in \eqref{eq:Fdef}, \eqref{eq:Gdef} and \eqref{eq:Wdef}, respectively. Let $q > 4$ be arbitrary. Then for every $\xi\in L^q(\Omega,\mathscr{F}_0,\mathbb{P};B)$ a unique mild solution $X$ of equation \eqref{eq:SCP} exists globally and belongs to $L^q(\Omega; C([0,T];B))$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The condition $q > 4$ allows us to choose $2 \leq p < \infty$, $\theta\in [0,\frac{1}{2})$ and $\kappa_G\in (\frac14 ,\frac12)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:thetap}
\theta>\frac{1}{2p}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:thetakappaG}
0 \leq \theta+ \kappa_G < \frac12 - \frac1q.
\end{equation}
We will apply Theorem \ref{theo:KvN4.9} with $\theta$ and $\kappa_G$ having the properties above. To this end we have to check Assumptions \ref{assum:mainvN} for the mappings in \eqref{eq:SCP}, taking $A=A_p$ and $E=E_p$ for the $p$ chosen above. Assumption $(1)$ is satisfied because of the generator property of $A_p$, see Proposition \ref{prop:sgrextend}.
Assumption $(2)$ is satisfied since \eqref{eq:thetap} holds and we can use Corollary \ref{cor:fractionalspaceincl}.
Assumption $(3)$ is satisfied by the statement of Proposition \ref{prop:mcAonC}.
Using that the functions $f_j$ are polynomials of the 4th variable of the same degree $2k+1$ (see \eqref{eq:fjdef}), a similar computation as in \cite[Example 4.2]{KvN12} and \cite[Example 4.5]{KvN12}, using techniques from \cite[Section 4.3]{DPZ92}, shows that Assumptions $(4)$ and $(5)$ are satisfied for $F$ with $N=m'=2k+1$. By Proposition \ref{prop:Gprop}, $G$ takes values in $\gamma (H,
E_p^{-\kappa_{G}})$ with $H=E_2$ and $\kappa_G$ chosen above. Using the assumptions \eqref{eq:gidef} on the functions $g_j$ and the proof of \cite[Theorem 10.2]{vNVW08}, we obtain that $G$ is locally Lipschitz continuous and of linear growth as a map $[0,T]\times B\to \gamma (H,E_p^{-\kappa_{G}})$, hence Assumption $(6)$ holds.
\end{proof}
In the following theorem we will state a result regarding H\"older regularity of the mild solution of \eqref{eq:SCP} corresponding to \eqref{eq:stochsys}, see \eqref{eq:mildsol}.
\begin{theorem}\label{theo:Holderreg}
Let $q > 4$ be arbitrary, $\lambda, \eta>0$ and $p\geq 2$ such that $\lambda+\eta>\frac{1}{2p}$. We assume that $\xi\in L^{(2k+1)q}(\Omega;E_p^{\lambda+\eta})$, where $k$ is the constant appearing in \eqref{eq:fjdef}. If the inequality
\begin{equation}\label{eq:thmHolderreglaeta}
\lambda+\eta<\frac{1}{4}-\frac{1}{q}
\end{equation}
is fulfilled, then the mild solution $X$ of \eqref{eq:SCP} from Theorem \ref{theo:SCPnsolcont} satisfies
\[X\in L^q(\Omega;C^{\lambda}([0,T],E_p^{\eta})).\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Using the continuous embedding \eqref{eq:Ethetaincl}, we have that
\[\xi\in L^{(2k+1)q}(\Omega;B)\]
holds. Since $(2k+1)q>4$, by Theorem \ref{theo:SCPnsolcont} there exists a global mild solution
\[X\in L^{(2k+1)q}(\Omega; C([0,T],B)).\]
This solution satisfies the following implicit equation (see \eqref{eq:mildsol}):
\begin{equation}\label{eq:proofmildsol}
X(t)=S(t)\xi+S\ast F(\cdot,X(\cdot))(t)+S\diamond G(\cdot,X(\cdot))(t),
\end{equation}
where $S$ denotes the semigroup generated by $A_p$ on $E_p$, $\ast$ denotes the usual convolution, $\diamond$ denotes the stochastic convolution with respect to $\mcW.$ In the following we have to estimate the $L^q(\Omega;C^{\lambda}([0,T],E_p^{\eta}))$-norm of $X$, and we will do this using the triangle-inequality in \eqref{eq:proofmildsol}.
For the $q$th power of the first term we have
\begin{align}\label{eq:Sxi}
\mathbb{E}\|S(\cdot)\xi\|_{C^{\lambda}([0,T],E_p^{\eta})}^q &=\mathbb{E}\left(\sup_{t,s\in[0,T]}\frac{\|S(t)\xi-S(s)\xi\|_{E_p^{\eta}}}{|t-s|^{\lambda}}\right)^q\notag\\
&\leq\mathbb{E}\left(\sup_{h\in[0,T]}\frac{\|S(h)\xi-\xi\|_{E_p^{\eta}}}{|h|^{\lambda}}\right)^q\notag\\
&=\mathbb{E}\left(\sup_{h\in[0,T]}\frac{\|S(h)(-A_p)^{\eta}\xi-(-A_p)^{\eta}\xi\|_{E_p}}{|h|^{\lambda}}\right)^q.
\end{align}
By assumption, $(-A_p)^{\eta}\xi\in D((-A_p)^{\lambda})$ holds. Applying \cite[Proposition II.5.33]{EN00} we obtain that $(-A_p)^{\eta}\xi$ lies in the H\"older space of order $\lambda$ on $E_p$, denoted by $C^{\lambda}_{p}$. Hence,
\[\sup_{h\in[0,T]}\frac{\|S(h)(-A_p)^{\eta}\xi-(-A_p)^{\eta}\xi\|_{E_p}}{|h|^{\lambda}}=\|(-A_p)^{\eta}\xi\|_{\mathsf{F}_{p,\lambda}}<\infty,\]
where $\|\cdot\|_{\mathsf{F}_{p.\lambda}}$ denotes the Favard norm of order $\lambda$ on $E_p$, see \cite[Definition II.5.10]{EN00}. Furthermore, because of the continuous inclusion $D((-A_p)^{\lambda})\hookrightarrow C^{\lambda}_{p}$, we have that there exists $c=c(\lambda)$ such that
\[\|(-A_p)^{\eta}\xi\|_{\mathsf{F}_{p,\lambda}}\leq c\cdot\|(-A_p)^{\eta}\xi\|_{E_p^{\lambda}}=c\cdot \|(-A_p)^{\lambda+\eta}\xi\|_{E_p}.\]
Hence,
\[\mathbb{E}\|S(\cdot)\xi\|_{C^{\lambda}([0,T],E_p^{\eta})}^q \leq c\cdot \mathbb{E}\|(-A_p)^{\lambda+\eta}\xi\|^q_{E_p}<\infty\]
by assumption.
To estimate the $q$th power of the second term
\[\mathbb{E}\|S\ast F(\cdot,X(\cdot))\|_{C^{\lambda}([0,T],E_p^{\eta})}^q\]
we choose $\theta>\frac{1}{2p}$ such that
\[\lambda+\eta+\theta<1-\frac{1}{q}.\]
We will use \cite[Lemma 3.6]{vNVW08} with this $\theta$, $\alpha=1$, and $q$ instead of $p$, and obtain that there exist constants $C\geq 0$ and $\ve>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:est2nd1}
\|S\ast F(\cdot,X(\cdot))\|_{C^{\lambda}([0,T],E_p^{\eta})}\leq CT^{\ve}\|F(\cdot,X(\cdot))\|_{L^q(0,T;E_p^{-\theta})}.
\end{equation}
We have to estimate the expectation of the $q$th power on the right-hand-side of \eqref{eq:est2nd1}. By Corollary \ref{cor:fractionalspaceincl} we obtain
\[B\hookrightarrow E_p\hookrightarrow E_p^{-\theta},\]
since $\theta>\frac{1}{2p}$ holds and $(\omega'-A_p)^{-\theta}$ is an isomorphism between $E_p^{-\theta}$ and $E_p$. Using this and Assumptions \ref{assum:mainvN}(5) with $m'=2k+1$ (which holds by the proof of Theorem \ref{theo:SCPnsolcont}), we have
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}\|F(\cdot,X(\cdot))\|^q_{L^q(0,T;E_p^{-\theta})}&=\mathbb{E}\int_0^T\|F(s,X(s))\|^q_{E_p^{-\theta}}\ds\\
& \lesssim \mathbb{E}\int_0^T\|F(s,X(s))\|^q_{B}\ds\\
& \lesssim \mathbb{E}\int_0^T(1+\|X(s)\|^{(2k+1)q}_{B})\ds\\
& \lesssim 1+\mathbb{E}\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\|X(t)\|^{(2k+1)q}_{B},
\end{align}
where $\lesssim$ denotes that the expression on the left-hand-side is less or equal to a constant times the expression on the right-hand-side.
This implies that for each $T>0$ there exists $C_T>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:SastF}
\left(\mathbb{E}\|S\ast F(\cdot,X(\cdot))\|_{C^{\lambda}([0,T],E_p^{\eta})}^q\right)^{\frac{1}{q}}
\leq C_T\cdot \left(1+\|X(t)\|_{L^{(2k+1)q}(\Omega; C([0,T],B))}^{2k+1}\right),
\end{equation}
and the right-hand-side is finite.
To estimate the stochastic convolution term in \eqref{eq:proofmildsol} we first fix $0<\alpha<\frac{1}{2}$ such that
\[\lambda+\eta+\frac{1}{4}<\alpha-\frac{1}{q}\]
holds. We now choose $\kappa_G\in(\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{2})$ such that
\[\lambda+\eta+\kappa_G<\alpha-\frac{1}{q}\]
is satisfied. Applying \cite[Proposition 4.2]{vNVW08} with $\theta=\kappa_G$ and $q$ instead of $p$, we have that there exist $\ve>0$ and $C\geq 0$ such that
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}\left\|S\diamond G(\cdot,X(\cdot))\right\|^q_{C^{\lambda}([0,T],E_p^{\eta})} \leq C^qT^{\ve q}\int_0^T\mathbb{E}\left\|s\mapsto (t-s)^{-\alpha}G(s,X(s))\right\|^q_{\gamma(L^2(0,t;H),E_p^{-\kappa_G})}\dt.
\end{equation}
In the following we proceed similarly as done in the proof of \cite[Theorem 4.3]{KvN12}, with $N=1$ and $q$ instead of $p.$ Since $E_p^{-\kappa_G}$ is a Banach space of type $2$ (because $E_p$ is of that type), the continuous embedding
\[ L^2(0,t;\gamma(H,E_p^{-\kappa_G}))\hookrightarrow \gamma(L^2(0,t;H),E_p^{-\kappa_G})\]
holds.
Using this, Young's inequality and the properties of $G$, respectively, we obtain the following estimates
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}\left\|S\diamond G(\cdot,X(\cdot))\right\|^q_{C^{\lambda}([0,T],E_p^{\eta})} &\lesssim T^{\ve q}\int_0^T\mathbb{E}\left\|s\mapsto (t-s)^{-\alpha}G(s,X(s))\right\|^q_{L^2(0,t;\gamma(H,E_p^{-\kappa_G}))}\dt\\
&=T^{\ve q}\mathbb{E}\int_0^T\left(\int_0^t (t-s)^{-2\alpha}\left\|G(s,X(s))\right\|^2_{\gamma(H,E_p^{-\kappa_G})}\ds\right)^{\frac{q}{2}}\dt\\
&\leq T^{\ve q}\left(\int_0^T t^{-2\alpha}\dt\right)^{\frac{q}{2}}\mathbb{E}\int_0^T \left\|G(t,X(t))\right\|^q_{\gamma(H,E_p^{-\kappa_G})}\dt \\
&\leq T^{(\frac{1}{2}-\alpha+\ve)q}(c')^q\cdot \mathbb{E}\int_0^T\left(1+\|X(t)\|_{B}\right)^q\dt\\
&\lesssim T^{(\frac{1}{2}-\alpha+\ve)q+1}(c')^q\cdot\left(1+\mathbb{E}\|X(t)\|^q_{C([0,T],B)}\right).
\end{align}
Hence, for each $T>0$ there exists constant $C'_{T}>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:SdiamondG}
\left(\mathbb{E}\left\|S\diamond G(\cdot,X(\cdot))\right\|^q_{C^{\lambda}([0,T],E_p^{\eta})}\right)^{\frac{1}{q}}
\leq C'_{T}\cdot\left(1+\|X(t)\|_{L^{(2k+1)q}(\Omega; C([0,T],B))}\right)^{2k+1}
\end{equation}
In summary, by \eqref{eq:Sxi}, \eqref{eq:SastF} and \eqref{eq:SdiamondG}, we obtain that $X\in L^q(\Omega;C^{\lambda}([0,T],E_p^{\eta}))$ holds, hence the proof is completed.
\end{proof}
We are now in the position to finally consider \eqref{eq:stochnet}. Let
\begin{equation}\label{eq:betamax}
\beta\coloneqq \max_{1\leq j\leq m}\beta_j.
\end{equation}
We also introduce
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fdef}
f_j(\eta)\coloneqq f(\eta)=-\eta^3+\beta^2 \eta.
\end{equation}
and
\[\varrho_j\coloneqq \beta^2-\beta_j^2\geq 0,\]
With these notations, we can rewrite \eqref{eq:stochnet} in an equivalent form as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:stochneteq}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
\dot{u}_j(t,x)&= (c_j u_j')'(t,x)-\tilde{p}_j(x)u_j(t,x)&&\\
&\quad +f_j(u_j(t,x))&&\\
&\quad +g_j(t,x,u_j(t,x))\frac{\partial w_j}{\partial t}(t,x), &&t\in(0,T],\; x\in(0,1),\; j=1,\dots,m, \\
u_j(t,\mv _i)&=u_\ell (t,\mv _i)\eqqcolon q_i(t), &&t\in(0,T],\; \forall j,\ell\in \Gamma(\mv _i),\; i=1,\ldots,n,\\
\left[M q(t)\right]_{i} &= -\sum\nolimits_{j=1}^m \phi_{ij}\mu_{j} c_j(\mv_i) u'_j(t,\mv_i), && t\in(0,T],\; i=1,\ldots,n,\\
u_j(0,x)&=\mathsf{u}_{j}(x), &&x\in [0,1],\; j=1,\dots,m,
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
with $\tilde{p}_j(x):=p_j(x)+\varrho_j$, $j=1,\dots m.$
We define the operator $A_p$ on $E_p$ as in \eqref{eq:opAmax} with $\tilde{p}_j$'s instead of $p_j$'s and with domain \eqref{eq:domAp}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:SAC}
Let $F$, $G$ and $W$ defined in \eqref{eq:Fdef}, \eqref{eq:Gdef} and \eqref{eq:Wdef}, respectively, for the system \eqref{eq:stochneteq}. Let $q > 4$ be arbitrary. Then for every $\xi\in L^q(\Omega,\mathscr{F}_0,\mathbb{P};B)$ a unique mild solution $X$ of equation \eqref{eq:SCP} corresponding to \eqref{eq:stochneteq}, which is equivalent to \eqref{eq:stochnet}, exists globally and belongs to $L^q(\Omega; C([0,T];B))$. Let $\lambda, \eta>0$, $p\geq 2$ be arbitrary constants such that $\lambda+\eta>\frac{1}{2p}$. If $\xi\in L^{3q}(\Omega;E_p^{\lambda+\eta})$ and the inequality
\[\lambda+\eta<\frac{1}{4}-\frac{1}{q}\]
is fulfilled, then
$X\in L^q(\Omega;C^{\lambda}([0,T],E_p^{\eta})).$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
First note that the coefficients $\tilde{p}_j$ stay nonnegative as the constants $\varrho_j$ are nonnegative. Furthermore, the nonlinear terms $f_j=f$ in \eqref{eq:fdef} are of the form \eqref{eq:fjdef} with $k=1$ and constant coefficients. Hence, Assumption \ref{asum:F} is fullfilled by Remark \ref{rem:exfj}. The statement then follows from Theorems \ref{theo:SCPnsolcont} and \ref{theo:Holderreg}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Concluding remarks}
In equation (\ref{eq:stochsys}a) we could have prescribed coloured noise instead of white noise on the edges of the graph. That is, we could set
\begin{equation}\label{eq:stochsysmod}
\begin{aligned}
\dot{u}_j(t,x)&= (c_j u_j')'(t,x)-p_j(x)u_j(t,x)\\
&\quad + f_j(t,x,u_j(t,x))\\
&\quad +g_j(t,x,u_j(t,x))R_j\dfrac{\partial w_j}{\partial t}(t,x), \qquad t\in(0,T],\; x\in(0,1),\; j=1,\dots,m,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
with $R_j\in \gamma (L^2(0,1;\mu_j dx),L^p(0,1;\mu_j dx))$. Then we define
\[R\coloneqq \begin{pmatrix}
R_1 & \hdots & 0\\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
0 & \hdots &R_m
\end{pmatrix}\in \gamma (H,E_p)\]
with $H=E_2$ and $p\geq 2$ arbitrary. Using this, we can define the operator $G:[0,T]\times B\to \gamma(H,E_p)$ as
\[G(t,u)h\coloneqq \Gamma(t,u)Rh,\quad h\in H,\]
where the operator $\Gamma:[0,T]\times B\to \mathcal{L}(H)$ is defined in \eqref{eq:Gammadef}. It is easy to see that $G$ satisfies Assumptions \ref{assum:mainvN}(6) with $\kappa_G=0$. For example, if $u,v\in B$ with $\|u\|,\|v\|\leq r$, then
\begin{align}
\|G(t,u)-G(t,v)\|_{\gamma (H,E_p)}&\leq \|\Gamma(t,u)-\Gamma(t,v)\|_{\mathcal{L}(E_p)}\cdot\|R\|_{\gamma (H,E_p)}\\
&\leq L^{(r)}\cdot\|u-v\|_{B}\cdot\|R\|_{\gamma (H,E_p)}
\end{align}
where $L^{(r)}$ is the maximum of the Lipschitz-constants of the functions $g_j$ on the ball of radius $r$.
If setting \eqref{eq:stochsysmod} instead of (\ref{eq:stochsys}a), Theorem \ref{theo:SCPnsolcont} remains true as stated; that is, for $q>4$, but one may use a simpler Hilbert space machinery; that is, one may set $p=2$ in the proof. However, in the coloured noise case, Theorem \ref{theo:SCPnsolcont} is true also for $q>2$. But this can only be shown by choosing $p>2$ large enough in the proof and hence, in this case, the Banach space arguments are crucial.
In Theorem \ref{theo:Holderreg}, if one takes $p=2$ (Hilbert space) and $q>4$, then the statement is true for $\la+\eta>\frac14$ with
\begin{equation}\label{eq:thmHolderreglaetamod}
\la+\eta<\frac12-\frac1q
\end{equation}
instead of \eqref{eq:thmHolderreglaeta}.
In this case $R$ will be a Hilbert-Schmidt operator whence the covariance operator of the driving process is trace-class. However, the statement of the theorem remains true for $q>2$ as well assuming \eqref{eq:thmHolderreglaetamod} instead of \eqref{eq:thmHolderreglaeta}, but only for the Banach space $E_p$ for $p$ large enough so that $\la+\eta>\frac{1}{2p}$.
The statements of Theorem \ref{thm:SAC} could also be changed accordingly.\vspace{0.5cm}
\section*{Acknowledgements} The authors would like to thank the anonymous referee for her/his useful comments that helped them to improve the presentation of the paper.
M. Kovács acknowledges the support of the Marsden Fund of the Royal Society of New
Zealand through grant no. 18-UOO-143, the Swedish Research Council (VR) through grant
no. 2017-04274 and the NKFIH through grant no. 131545.
|
\section{Introduction}
\input{sec-1-introduction.tex}
\section{Preliminaries}\label{sec:preliminaries}
\input{sec-2-preliminaries.tex}
\section{Data-driven controller design for rational systems}\label{sec:dd_controller_design}
\input{sec-3-data-driven-controller-design.tex}
\section{Beyond polynomial basis functions}\label{sec:general_nonlinearities}
\input{sec-4-general-nonlinearities.tex}
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:conclusion}
\input{sec-5-conclusion.tex}
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
\section{Introduction}
Many systems in natural and engineering tasks possess nonlinear dynamic components which cannot be neglected for controller design with good practical performance as well as rigorous guarantees. Therefore, a standard procedure is to first obtain an accurate nonlinear system model using either a first-principles approach or system identification and then apply established nonlinear controller design techniques~\cite{khalil:2002}. However, the identification of nonlinear systems can be challenging and time-consuming. Thus, learning and direct data-driven methods for nonlinear systems have received increasing attention in the last decades~\cite{hou:wang:2013}.
For linear time-invariant (LTI) systems, the work in~\cite{willems:rapisarda:markovsky:demoor:2005} provides a promising framework for data-driven control.
Based on this result, \cite{depersis:tesi:2019} design state- and output-feedback controllers using only measured data, \cite{waarde:camlibel:mesbahi:2020} provide an improvement for controller design based on noisy data, and~\cite{berberich:scherer:allgower:2020} develop a framework for combining data and possibly available prior knowledge for controller design.
Since all of these works focus on LTI systems, an immediate question is whether Willems et al.'s fundamental lemma~\cite{willems:rapisarda:markovsky:demoor:2005} and related works can also be extended to nonlinear systems.
Extensions of the fundamental lemma have been developed for Hammerstein and Wiener systems~\cite{berberich:allgower:2020}, for second-order Volterra systems~\cite{rueda-escobedo:schiffer:2020}, and for flat nonlinear systems~\cite{alsalti:berberich:lopez:allgower:muller:2021}.
The work in~\cite{lian:wang:jones:2021} uses the Koopman operator~\cite{koopman:neumann:1932} to first lift a nonlinear system to an infinite-dimensional linear system and then use linear design methods based on a finite-dimensional approximation, however, without any closed-loop guarantees.
A popular approach for model-based nonlinear control relies on sum-of-squares (SOS) optimization, which reformulates nonnegativity conditions as semi-definite programs (SDP)~\cite{parrilo:2000}.
In~\cite{martin:allgower:2020}, SOS methods are applied to analyze discrete-time polynomial systems w.r.t. dissipativity properties using noisy data.
Similarly, the recent papers~\cite{guo:depersis:tesi:2020a,guo:depersis:tesi:2020b} extend the results in~\cite{depersis:tesi:2019,waarde:camlibel:mesbahi:2020} to design stabilizing controllers for continuous-time polynomial systems based on noisy data.
In~\cite{dai:sznaier:2021}, a similar control problem is solved using different technical arguments based on Rantzer's Dual Lyapunov approach.
Another important class of nonlinear systems is that of systems with rational dynamics, comprising, e.g., enzyme kinetics~\cite{holmberg:1982} or biochemical reactors~\cite{strogatz:2018}.
In general, identification for such systems can be challenging~\cite{evans:chapman:chappell:godfrey:2002}.
In the present paper, we consider data-driven controller design for nonlinear continuous-time systems with possibly non-polynomial system dynamics.
To this end, we first extend the results of~\cite{depersis:tesi:2019,waarde:camlibel:mesbahi:2020,berberich:scherer:allgower:2020,guo:depersis:tesi:2020b} to derive a purely data-driven system parametrization of unknown rational systems.
We then exploit this parametrization for robust controller design, adapting existing robust control techniques based on linear matrix inequalities (LMI) in~\cite{scherer:weiland:2000}.
This leads to an SOS-based controller design procedure with robust stability and performance guarantees for all rational systems consistent with the data.
Furthermore, we show that within the proposed framework we are also able to design stabilizing controllers for nonlinear systems with non-polynomial basis functions by lifting them to an extended state-space with polynomial dynamics.
\pubidadjcol
\emph{Outline:}
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{sec:preliminaries}, we state the problem setting and introduce some required notation for SOS optimization.
The data-driven representation of the class of rational systems used throughout most of this paper is presented in Section \ref{sec:dd_controller_design}.
Based on this, we develop data-driven controller design procedures for closed-loop stability and performance using S-procedure relaxations and we apply the developed technique to numerical examples.
Section~\ref{sec:general_nonlinearities} extends the results to nonlinear systems with non-polynomial basis functions.
Finally, we conclude the paper in Section~\ref{sec:conclusion}.
\emph{Notation:}
We write $I_p$ for the $p\times p$ identity matrix where we omit the index if the dimension is clear from the context.
For a matrix $A$, we denote by $A^{\perp}$ a matrix spanning the left-kernel of $A$, i.e., $A^\perp A=0$.
If $A$ is symmetric, then we write $A\succeq0$ if $A$ is positive semidefinite.
Matrix blocks which can be inferred from symmetry are denoted by $\star$ and we abbreviate $V^\top UV$ by writing $[\star]^\top UV$.
Further, we write $\lVert x\rVert_2$ for the Euclidean norm of a vector $x$.
Finally, $\otimes$ denotes the Kronecker product.
\subsection{Problem setting}\label{sec:problem_setting}
Throughout most of the paper, we consider continuous-time systems with rational system dynamics of the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:rational_system_dynamics}
\begin{aligned}
\xdot
&= f_r(x) + g_r(x) u \\
&= \begin{bmatrix}
\frac{a_1(x)}{d_1(x)} \\
\vdots \\
\frac{a_n(x)}{d_n(x)}
\end{bmatrix}
+ \begin{bmatrix}
\frac{b_{11}(x)}{e_{11}(x)} & \cdots & \frac{b_{1m}(x)}{e_{1m}(x)} \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\frac{b_{n1}(x)}{e_{n1}(x)} & \cdots & \frac{b_{nm}(x)}{e_{nm}(x)}
\end{bmatrix} u
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
with the state vector $x(t)\in\bbR^n$, its derivative $\xdot(t)\in\bbR^n$, and the control input $u(t)\in\bbR^m$, all at time $t\geq 0$, where we omit the time index to keep the notation simple.
Further, $d_i(x)$, $b_{ij}(x)$, $e_{ij}(x)$, $i=1,\dots,n$ and $j=1,\dots,m$, are polynomials with degree greater than or equal to zero, and $a_i(x)$, $i=1,\dots,n$, are polynomials with degree greater than zero.
The latter is necessary because, for simplicity, we assume the origin to be a steady-state.
Any $\dot{x}$, $x$, $u$ satisfying~\eqref{eq:rational_system_dynamics} also fulfill the polynomial equation
\begin{multline}\label{eq:rational_system_dynamics2}
p(x) \xdot
= \begin{bmatrix}
a_1(x) p_1(x) \\ \vdots \\ a_n(x) p_n(x)
\end{bmatrix}
\\
+ \begin{bmatrix}
b_{11}(x)p_{11}(x) & \cdots & b_{1m}(x)p_{1m}(x) \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
b_{n1}(x)p_{n1}(x) & \cdots & b_{nm}(x)p_{nm}(x)
\end{bmatrix} u
\end{multline}
with
\begin{gather*}
p(x) = \prod_{i=1}^nd_i(x)\prod_{j=1}^m e_{ij}(x),\\
p_i(x) = \frac{p(x)}{d_i(x)}, \qquad
p_{ij}(x) = \frac{p(x)}{e_{ij}(x)}\,.
\end{gather*}
We assume $p(x)\neq 0$ for all $x\in\bbR^n$ which is equivalent to assuming $d_i(x),e_{ij}(x)\neq 0$ for all $i,j$, and thus, implies that the vector field in \eqref{eq:rational_system_dynamics} is globally defined. Then, we define
\begin{gather*}
\begin{bmatrix \begin{bmatrix}
Z_p(x) \\ 1
\end{bmatrix} = p(x),
\quad
\cA Z(x) = \begin{bmatrix}
a_1(x) p_1(x) \\
\vdots \\
a_n(x) p_n(x)
\end{bmatrix},
\\
\cB H(x) = \begin{bmatrix}
b_{11}(x)p_{11}(x) & \cdots & b_{1m}(x)p_{1m}(x) \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
b_{n1}(x)p_{n1}(x) & \cdots & b_{nm}(x)p_{nm}(x)
\end{bmatrix},
\end{gather*}
where $\cA\in\bbR^{n\times N_z}$, $\cB\in\bbR^{n\times N_u}$ and $\cP\in\bbR^{1\times N_p}$ are unknown parameters representing the coefficients of the polynomials in~\eqref{eq:rational_system_dynamics2}, $Z(x)$ is an $N_z\times 1$ vector of monomials in $x$, $Z_p(x)$ is an $N_p \times 1$ vector of monomials in $x$, and $H(x)$ is an $N_u \times m$ matrix of monomials in $x$.
For instance, in case that the system dynamics~\eqref{eq:rational_system_dynamics} are of a scalar and second-order polynomial form, then we have $Z(x)=H(x)=\begin{bmatrix}x& x^2\end{bmatrix}^\top$ and $Z_p(x)=\emptyset$.
Throughout this paper, we assume that $Z(x)$, $Z_p(x)$, and $H(x)$ are known, although our arguments remain valid if they are over-approximated, i.e., if additional monomials are added which are not present in the actual unknown system dynamics.
This translates into assuming that the basis functions of the numerators and denominators in~\eqref{eq:rational_system_dynamics} are known or over-approximated.
Moreover, $Z(x)$ and $Z_p(x)$ only contain monomials with a minimum degree of one such that $Z(x)$ is zero if and only if $x=0$ and we can decompose $Z(x)$ as $Z(x)=Y(x)x$ for a matrix $Y(x)$ of dimension $N_z \times n$, and similarly for $Z_p(x)$.
Using these definitions, we can rewrite~\eqref{eq:rational_system_dynamics2} as \begin{equation}\label{eq:rational_system_dynamics3}
\begin{bmatrix}\cP&1\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}Z_p(x)\\1\end{bmatrix}
\xdot = \cA Z(x) + \cB H(x) u\,,
\end{equation}
where $\cP$, $\cA$, and $\cB$ are unknown parameters and $Z_p(x)$, $Z(x)$, and $H(x)$ are known polynomial basis matrices.
This representation is advantageous over~\eqref{eq:rational_system_dynamics} because it is linearly parametrized in the unknown variables.
In this paper, we present an approach for designing polynomial state-feedback controllers $u(x)=K(x)Z(x)$ for the considered rational System \eqref{eq:rational_system_dynamics} with robust stability guarantees, using no model knowledge but only one open-loop data trajectory.
However, instead of assuming that the data are generated exactly by the rational system dynamics~\eqref{eq:rational_system_dynamics}, i.e., they satisfy~\eqref{eq:rational_system_dynamics3}, we allow for a perturbation of~\eqref{eq:rational_system_dynamics3} taking the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:rational_system_dynamics4}
\begin{bmatrix}\cP&1\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}Z_p(x)\\1\end{bmatrix}
\xdot = \cA Z(x) + \cB H(x) u+B_ww\,,
\end{equation}
where $w(t)\in\mathbb{R}^{m_w}$, $t\geq0$, describes an unknown disturbance sequence perturbing the polynomial equation~\eqref{eq:rational_system_dynamics3}.
We assume that the matrix $B_w$ is known and has full column rank.
If $B_w$ does not satisfy the rank assumption, the disturbance can be transformed into $\tilde{w} = B_w w$ with $\tilde{B}_w = I$ and a quadratic noise bound on the sequence of $\tilde{w}$.
In this paper, we use a finite input-state-trajectory $\{x(t_k),\xdot(t_k),u(t_k)\}_{k=1}^{N}$ with sampling times $\{t_k\}_{k=1}^{N}$ satisfying~\eqref{eq:rational_system_dynamics4} for some unknown disturbance $\{\what(t_k)\}_{k=1}^{N}$ which satisfies a known quadratic bound defined via the matrix $
\hat{W} = \begin{bmatrix}
\what(t_1) & \what(t_2) & \cdots & \what(t_{N})
\end{bmatrix}
$.
\begin{assumption}\label{ass:noise_bound}
The noise generating the data satisfies $\hat{W}\in\cW$, where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ass_noise_bound}
\cW \coloneqq \left\{W\in\bbR^{m_w\times N} \mathrel{\Big|} \begin{bmatrix}
W^\top\\I
\end{bmatrix}^\top
\begin{bmatrix}
Q_w & S_w \\ S_w^\top & R_w
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
W^\top\\I
\end{bmatrix}\succeq 0 \right\}
\end{equation}
for known matrices $Q_w\in\bbR^{N\times N}$, $S_w\in\bbR^{N\times m_w}$, and $R_w\in\bbR^{m_w\times m_w}$, where $Q_w \prec 0$.
\end{assumption}
This is a common assumption in the literature, e.g.,~\cite{depersis:tesi:2019,waarde:camlibel:mesbahi:2020,berberich:scherer:allgower:2020} use the same noise bound or a special case thereof for data-driven control of linear systems. With Assumption~\ref{ass:noise_bound},
we require that the unknown noise sequence affecting the measurements lies within a known set $\cW$ and thus, we obtain a quadratic bound on the matrix $\hat{W}$. This assumption includes various relevant scenarios such as, e.g., bounds on the maximal singular value $\sigma_\mathrm{max}(\hat{W})\leq \wbar_\sigma$, or norm bounds, $\|\what(t_k)\|_2\leq \wbar$ for $k=1,\dots,N$. The latter leads to the choice $Q_w = -I$, $S_w = 0$, and $R_w=\wbar^2NI$.
We note that, in general, requiring measurements of the state derivative $\{\xdot(t_k)\}_{k=1}^N$ as above can be restrictive.
However, the values do not need to be known exactly since inaccuracies, possibly resulting from a finite-difference estimation step, can be translated into a disturbance as in~\eqref{eq:rational_system_dynamics4}.
More precisely, if $\xdot$ is affected by bounded measurement noise, then also the corresponding disturbance in~\eqref{eq:rational_system_dynamics4} is bounded with the resulting bound depending on $\{p(x(t_k))\}_{k=1}^N$, i.e., a guaranteed bound can be computed if an upper bound on $p(x(t_k))$ is available.
Further, in the considered problem setting, the noise affecting the measured data does not enter the rational system dynamics~\eqref{eq:rational_system_dynamics} directly, but rather the polynomial equation~\eqref{eq:rational_system_dynamics4}.
The proposed approach can handle disturbances entering the rational system dynamics \eqref{eq:rational_system_dynamics} directly if a bound as in Assumption~\ref{ass:noise_bound} is available for the \emph{transformed} disturbance $p(x)w$.
Such a bound always exists if the measured data are finite, but, as above, it can only be computed in practice if an upper bound on $p(x)$ is available.
Extending the presented results to different noise scenarios is challenging and an interesting issue for future research.
Finally, we note that assuming availability of input-state measurements as done above and, e.g., in~\cite{guo:depersis:tesi:2020a,guo:depersis:tesi:2020b} can be restrictive.
We expect an extension of our results to output-feedback design based on noisy input-output data to be straightforward by using an extended state vector containing the first $n$ derivatives of the input and output, cf. also~\cite{depersis:tesi:2019,berberich:scherer:allgower:2020}.
\subsection{SOS optimization}
For a vectorial index $\alpha\in\bbN_0^n$, we write $|\alpha|=\alpha_1 + \cdots + \alpha_n$. Then, we define for a vector $x\in\bbR^n$ the monomial $
x^\alpha = x_1^{\alpha_1}\cdots x_n^{\alpha_n}
$ and let $\bbR[x]$ denote the set of all polynomials $s(x)$ in the variable $x$ with real coefficients, i.e., $
s(x) = \sum_{\alpha\in\bbN_0^n,|\alpha|\leq d}s_\alpha x^\alpha
$ with $s_\alpha\in\bbR$ for $|\alpha|\leq d\in\bbN_0$. The degree of the polynomial $s(x)$ is defined as the largest $d$ such that $s_\alpha\neq 0$ for some $\alpha\in\bbN_0^n$ with $|\alpha|=d$. Moreover, we denote $\bbR[x]^{p\times q}$ as the set of all $p\times q$-matrices with elements in $\bbR[x]$. The degree of a polynomial matrix is defined as the largest degree of an element of this matrix. We collect all monomials $x^\alpha$ for $|\alpha|\leq d$ in the polynomial vector $z_d(x)$ of length $l(n,d)\coloneqq \binom{n+d}{d}$ with $
z_d(x) = \begin{bmatrix}
1 & x_1 & \cdots & x_n & x_1^2 & x_1x_2 & \cdots & x_n^d
\end{bmatrix}^\top \in \bbR[x]^{l(n,d)}
$.
\begin{definition}[SOS polynomial matrix]
A polynomial matrix $S(x)\in\bbR[x]^{p\times p}$ is said to be an SOS matrix if there exists a matrix $T(x)\in\bbR[x]^{q\times p}$ with $q\in\bbN$ such that $
S(x) = T(x)^\top T(x)
$. For $p=1$, $S(x)$ is called an SOS polynomial.
\end{definition}
Verifying nonnegativity of a polynomial matrix is difficult in general. Since the SOS property implies nonnegativity of the polynomial matrix, SOS matrices are especially interesting from a computational perspective as we can verify the SOS property via an LMI feasibility condition. This is also known as the Gram matrix method \cite{choi:lam:reznick:1994}.
\begin{proposition}[SOS decomposition]
Let a polynomial matrix $S(x)\in\bbR[x]^{p\times p}$ have degree $2d$. Then, $S(x)$ is an SOS matrix if and only if there exists a real matrix $\Lambda=\Lambda^\top\succeq 0$ such that
$
S(x) = [z_d(x)\otimes I_p]^\top \Lambda [z_d(x)\otimes I_p]
$.
\end{proposition}
A detailed proof of this proposition can be found in \cite{chesi:garulli:tesi:vicino:2009}. It is obvious that the characterization of $S(x)$ being SOS is an affine constraint on the matrix $\Lambda$. Verifying the SOS property hence amounts to solving an LMI feasibility problem. Thus, SOS methods provide a computational tool to guarantee global nonnegativity of $S(x)\in\bbR[x]^{p\times p}$, i.e., if $S(x)$ is SOS then $S(x)\succeq 0$ for all $x\in\bbR^n$.
\section{Preliminaries}\label{sec:preliminaries}
In this section, we introduce the problem setting (Section~\ref{sec:problem_setting}) and we provide required background on SOS optimization (Section~\ref{sec:SOS_optimization}).
\subsection{Problem setting}\label{sec:problem_setting}
\input{sec-2-1-problem-setting.tex}
\subsection{SOS optimization}\label{sec:SOS_optimization}
\input{sec-2-2-SOS-optimization.tex}
\section{Data-driven system parametrization}\label{sec:dd_system_parametrization}
In the following, we provide a simple data-driven parametrization of all rational Systems \eqref{eq:rational_system_dynamics} which are consistent with the measured data $\{x(t_k),\xdot(t_k),u(t_k)\}_{k=1}^{N}$ and with the noise bound $\hat{W}\in\cW$.
We denote the set of all open-loop matrices $A$, $B$, and $P$ which are consistent with the data and the noise bound by
\begin{multline*}
\Sigma_{A,B,P} \coloneqq
\left\{
\begin{bmatrix \mathrel{\Big|} Z_p(P, X, \Xdot)
\right. \\
\left.
= AZ(X) + BH(X,U) + B_wW,\,W\in\cW
\right\},
\end{multline*}
where $X = \begin{bmatrix}
x(t_1) & \cdots & x(t_{N})
\end{bmatrix}$, $U$, $\Xdot$, $Z(X)$ are defined analogously, and
\begin{align*}
Z_p(P,X,\Xdot) &= (I_n \kron P) \hZ_p(X,\Xdot) + \Xdot, \\
\hZ_p(X,\Xdot) &= \begin{bmatrix}
\tZ_p(x(t_1))\xdot(t_1) & \cdots & \tZ_p(x(t_{N}))\xdot(t_N)
\end{bmatrix},\\
H(X,U) &= \begin{bmatrix}
H(x(t_1))u(t_1) & \cdots & H(x(t_{N}))u(t_{N})
\end{bmatrix},
\end{align*}
with $\tZ_p(x) = I_n \kron Z_p(x)$.
Note that the set $\Sigma_{A,B,P}$ also contains the \emph{true} matrices $\cA$, $\cB$ and $\cP$ of the system, i.e., $\begin{bmatrix}
\cA & \cB & \cP
\end{bmatrix}\in\Sigma_{A,B,P}$. Moreover, we define the set
{\small
\begin{equation*}
\cM \coloneqq \left\{\begin{bmatrix \mathrel{\Bigg|}
\left[\star\right]^\top
\begin{bmatrix}
\oQ_w & \oS_w \\ \oS_w^\top & \oR_w
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix^\top \\
(I_n \kron P)^\top
\end{bmatrix} \\
I
\end{bmatrix}
\succeq 0 \right\},
\end{equation*}
}
where
\begin{equation*}
\begin{bmatrix}
\oQ_w & \oS_w \\ \oS_w^\top & \oR_w
\end{bmatrix} =
\begin{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
-\begin{bmatrix}
Z(X)\\H(X,U)
\end{bmatrix}\\\hZ_p(X, \Xdot)
\end{bmatrix} & 0 \\
\Xdot & B_w
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
Q_w & S_w \\ S_w^\top & R_w
\end{bmatrix}
\left[\star\right]^\top,
\end{equation*}
which depends on the noise bound and on the measured data through $\Xdot$, $Z(X)$, $H(X,U)$, $\hZ_p(X,\Xdot)$. Then, the following theorem establishes that $\cM$ is an equivalent parametrization of $\Sigma_{A,B,P}$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:set_equivalence}
Suppose Assumption \ref{ass:noise_bound} is satisfied. Then, it holds that $\Sigma_{A,B,P}=\cM$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Note that $\begin{bmatrix\in\cM$ if and only if
{
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cM}
\begin{bmatrix}F^\top\\B_w^\top \end{bmatrix}^\top
\begin{bmatrix}
Q_w & S_w \\ S_w^\top & R_w
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}F^\top\\B_w^\top \end{bmatrix}
\succeq 0\,,
\end{equation}
}
where we abbreviate
%
\begin{align*}
F=Z_p(P,X,\Xdot) - A Z(X) - B H(X,U).
\end{align*}
(i) \textbf{Proof of $\Sigma_{A,B,P}\subseteq \cM$:}
Suppose that $\begin{bmatrix\in\Sigma_{A,B,P}$, i.e., there exists $W\in\cW$ such that $Z_p(P,X,\Xdot) = AZ(X) + BH(X,U) + B_wW$. Then, $W\in\cW$ together with \eqref{eq:ass_noise_bound} implies with multiplication from the left and right by $B_w$ and its transpose, respectively,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{bmatrix}
(B_wW)^\top \\
B_w^\top
\end{bmatrix}^\top
\begin{bmatrix}
Q_w & S_w \\ S_w^\top & R_w
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
(B_wW)^\top \\
B_w^\top
\end{bmatrix}
\succeq 0\,.
\end{equation*}
Replacing $
B_wW
= Z_p(P, X, \Xdot)
- A Z(X) - B H(X,U)
$, we deduce that $\begin{bmatrix$ satisfies Inequality \eqref{eq:cM} and hence, $\begin{bmatrix\in\cM$.
(ii) \textbf{Proof of $\cM\subseteq\Sigma_{A,B,P}$:}
Let $\begin{bmatrix\in\cM$, i.e., $\begin{bmatrix$ satisfies Inequality \eqref{eq:cM}. Multiplying Inequality \eqref{eq:cM} from the left and right by $B_w^\perp$ and its transpose, respectively, we obtain
{\small
\begin{equation*}
\left(
B_w^\perp
\big(
Z_p(P,X,\Xdot)
- A Z(X) - B H(X,U)
\big)
\right)
Q_w
\left[\star\right]^\top
\succeq 0\,.
\end{equation*}
}
Since $Q_w \prec 0$, this implies $
B_w^\perp
\big(
Z_p(P,X,\Xdot)
- AZ(X) - BH(X,U)
\big) = 0
$, i.e., there exists $W$ such that $
Z_p(P,X,\Xdot)
- AZ(X) - BH(X,U)
= B_w W
$. Substituting this into Inequality \eqref{eq:cM} yields
\begin{equation*}
\begin{bmatrix}
(B_wW)^\top \\
B_w^\top
\end{bmatrix}^\top
\begin{bmatrix}
Q_w & S_w \\ S_w^\top & R_w
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
(B_wW)^\top \\
B_w^\top
\end{bmatrix}
\succeq 0\,.
\end{equation*}
Since $B_w$ has full column rank, this implies $W\in\cW$ and hence, $\begin{bmatrix\in\Sigma_{A,B,P}$.
\end{proof}
Via Theorem \ref{thm:set_equivalence}, we can formulate a \emph{single} quadratic matrix inequality equivalently describing all systems consistent with the data, i.e., satisfying the data equation $Z_p(P,X,\Xdot) = AZ(X) + BH(X,U) + B_w W$ for some $W\in\cW$.
The key idea is to choose basis matrices $Z(x)$, $Z_p(x)$, and $H(x)$ such that the resulting polynomial system description \eqref{eq:rational_system_dynamics4} is linear in the unknown parameters and hence, we can follow a similar approach as in the corresponding results for linear systems (compare \cite{waarde:camlibel:mesbahi:2020,berberich:scherer:allgower:2020}).
We note that an analogous approach is used for data-driven control of polynomial systems in~\cite{guo:depersis:tesi:2020b} and, in particular, Theorem~\ref{thm:set_equivalence} reduces to the corresponding result in~\cite{guo:depersis:tesi:2020b} for polynomial systems.
\subsection{Robust stability}\label{sec:dd_controller_design_stabilization}
Next, we design polynomial state-feedback controllers for System \eqref{eq:rational_system_dynamics} taking the form $u(x)=K(x)Z_K(x)$ with some polynomial matrix $K(x)\in\bbR[x]^{m\times N_K}$ and a known vector of monomials $Z_K(x)\in\bbR[x]^{N_K}$, $Z_K(x)=Y_K(x)x$, which may differ from $Z(x)$.
To this end, we employ the parametrization provided by Theorem~\ref{thm:set_equivalence} to achieve robust closed-loop stability for all rational systems consistent with the measured data and the noise bound.
In the following, we abbreviate
\begin{gather*}
q_1(x) = \begin{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
Y(x) \\ H(x)K(x)Y_K(x)
\end{bmatrix} \\ 0
\end{bmatrix},
\quad
q_2(x) = \begin{bmatrix}
0 \\ I_n \kron Z_p(x)
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{gather*}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:cl_stability_sos}
Suppose Assumption \ref{ass:noise_bound} holds. If there exist an $n\times n$ matrix $\cY\succ 0$, a polynomial matrix $K(x)\in\bbR[x]^{m\times N_K}$, and a scalar $\tau\geq0$ such that the matrix polynomial
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cl_stability_condition_sos}
Q(x) = -
\left[\star\right]^\top
\left[
\def1.15}\begin{array}{cc|cc{1.15}\begin{array}{cc|cc}
\eps I & \cY & 0 & 0 \\
\cY & 0 & 0 & 0 \\\hline
0 & 0 & \tau \oQ_w & \tau \oS_w \\[1ex]
0 & 0 & \tau \oS_w^\top & \tau \oR_w
\end{array}
\right]
\left[
\def1.15}\begin{array}{cc|cc{1.0}\begin{array}{cc}
I & q_2(x)^\top \\
0 & q_1(x)^\top \\\hline
0 & I \\
I & 0
\end{array}
\right]
\end{equation}
is SOS for some $\eps\geq 0$, then the controller $u(x) = K(x) Z_K(x)$ globally stabilizes System \eqref{eq:rational_system_dynamics} for all $\begin{bmatrix\in\Sigma_{A,B,P}$.
Moreover, if $Q(x)$ is SOS for some $\eps>0$, then the controller globally asymptotically stabilizes System \eqref{eq:rational_system_dynamics} for all $\begin{bmatrix\in\Sigma_{A,B,P}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Consider the Lyapunov function candidate $V(x)=x^\top\cX x$, $\cX=\cY^{-1}$ for System \eqref{eq:rational_system_dynamics}. This candidate is clearly positive definite since $\cX\succ 0$. We show $\Vdot(x) \leq -\eps \|\cX x\|_2$, which implies stability with respect to the origin for $\eps \geq 0$ and asymptotic stability for $\eps > 0$.
Using that $Q(x)\succeq 0$ for all $x\in\bbR^n$, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
-\begin{bmatrix}
I \\
\begin{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix^\top \\
(I_n \kron P)^\top
\end{bmatrix}
\end{bmatrix} ^\top
Q(x)
\begin{bmatrix}
I \\
\begin{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix^\top \\
(I_n \kron P)^\top
\end{bmatrix}
\end{bmatrix} \preceq 0
\end{equation*}
for all $x\in\bbR^n$.
Then, applying the S-procedure (cf.~\cite{scherer:weiland:2000,boyd:vandenberghe:2004}) yields for all~$x\in\bbR^n$
{\normalsize
\begin{multline}\label{eq:cl_stability_condition_s_procedure}
x^\top\cX
\left(
(AY(x) + BH(x)K(x)Y_K(x))\cY p(x) + p(x)^2\eps I
\right.\\
\left.
+ p(x)\cY
(AY(x) + BH(x)K(x)Y_K(x))^\top
\right)
\cX x
\leq 0, \\
\forall \begin{bmatrix\,:\,
\left[\star\right]^\top
\begin{bmatrix}
\oQ_w & \oS_w \\ \oS_w^\top & \oR_w
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix^\top \\
(I_n \kron P)^\top
\end{bmatrix} \\ I
\end{bmatrix} \succeq 0\,,
\end{multline}
}
where the first inequality is obtained by additionally multiplying with $x^\top\cX$ and its transpose from left and right, respectively, and by using that $(I_n \kron P)(I_n \kron Z_p(x))+I_n=p(x)I_n$.
%
Let now $\begin{bmatrix\in\Sigma_{A,B,P}$. By Theorem~\ref{thm:set_equivalence}, this implies $\begin{bmatrix\in\cM$ and hence, together with \eqref{eq:cl_stability_condition_s_procedure}, $Z(x)=Y(x)x$, and $Z_K(x)=Y_K(x)x$,
\begin{multline*}
\hspace*{-7pt}
p(x)\left(
x^\top\cX (AZ(x)+BH(x)K(x)Z_K(x)) + p(x) \eps \|\cX x\|_2
\right.\\
\left.
+ (AZ(x)+BH(x)K(x)Z_K(x))^\top\cX x
\right)
\leq 0\,.
\end{multline*}
The system dynamics~\eqref{eq:rational_system_dynamics} imply $p(x)\xdot = AZ(x)+BH(x)K(x)Z_K(x)$ such that we obtain the Lyapunov inequality $p(x)^2(x^\top\cX \xdot + \xdot^\top\cX x + \eps \|\cX x\|_2) \leq 0$.
%
Using that $p(x)^2\neq0$ for all $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$, this implies stability for any $\begin{bmatrix\in\Sigma_{A,B,P}$.
Asymptotic stability follows for $\eps>0$, which thus concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
Note that the polynomial matrix $Q(x)$ in~\eqref{eq:cl_stability_condition_sos} is not linear in the decision variables $\cY$ and $K(x)$ and hence, for a practical implementation, it needs to be transformed into a linear SOS condition.
This is possible following standard steps from model-based robust control of linear systems (compare~\cite{scherer:weiland:2000}): Defining the new variable $L(x)=K(x)Y_K(x)\cY$,
$Q(x)$ is linear in the decision variables $\cY$, $L(x)$, and $\tau$. After finding variables $\cY$, $L(x)$, and $\tau$ such that $Q(x)$ is SOS, a controller stabilizing the unknown system can be implemented as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:stabilizing_input}
u(x) = K(x)Z_K(x) = K(x) Y_K(x) x = L(x)\cY^{-1} x\,.
\end{equation}
Hence, Theorem~\ref{thm:cl_stability_sos} provides a simple and direct method to design a controller which robustly stabilizes the rational System~\eqref{eq:rational_system_dynamics} for all matrices which are consistent with the data and the noise bound. Moreover, the number of decision variables of the proposed SOS program is independent of the data length which allows us to consider large data sets for the controller design.
More precisely, the feasibility problem in Theorem~\ref{thm:cl_stability_sos} has overall $1+\frac{n(n+1)}{2}+mN_K$ decision variables, i.e., the number of decision variables scales quadratically with the system order $n$ as in standard robust control and linearly with the number of monomials in $Z_K(x)$.
Theorem~\ref{thm:cl_stability_sos} reduces to a recently obtained result in~\cite{guo:depersis:tesi:2020b} for polynomial system dynamics, i.e., if $d_i(x)=e_{ij}(x)=1$ for all $i=1,\dots,n$ and $j=1,\dots,m$.
The above result is not a straightforward consequence of the result in~\cite{guo:depersis:tesi:2020b} due to the role of the polynomial $p(x)$ in the proof.
More precisely, only by combining the bound on $\begin{bmatrix}A&B&P\end{bmatrix}$ in Theorem~\ref{thm:set_equivalence} with the fact that a quadratic Lyapunov function is used, we can obtain~\eqref{eq:cl_stability_condition_s_procedure} via the identity
\begin{align*}
(I_n \kron P)(I_n \kron Z_p(x))+I_n=p(x)I_n
\end{align*}
in the proof.
If, e.g., more general polynomial Lyapunov functions $V(x) = Z(x)^\top\cX(x)Z(x)$ are used, the partial derivatives $\frac{\partial Z(x)}{\partial x}$ prohibit this argument and thus, an extension of our results to polynomial Lyapunov functions is an interesting issue for future research.
An additional advantage of our approach is that the above arguments follow the line of LMI-based robust control techniques from~\cite{scherer:weiland:2000} and it is straightforward to extend them to more general problem formulations such as including prior knowledge on the system (cf.~\cite{berberich:scherer:allgower:2020}) or designing a controller which not only stabilizes the closed loop but also enforces a desired performance specification.
To this end, we consider robust quadratic performance (cf. \cite{scherer:weiland:2000}) with index $\begin{bmatrix}
Q_p & S_p \\ S_p^\top & R_p
\end{bmatrix}$, $R_p\succ 0$, for the system $\xdot = f_r(x) + g_r(x)u + B_p w_p$ and performance output $z_p = C Z(x) + Du + D_p w_p$.
That is, for any trajectory of this system there exists $\delta >0$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\int_0^{\infty}
\left[\star\right]^\top
\begin{bmatrix}
Q_p & S_p \\ S_p^\top & R_p
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
w_p(t) \\ z_p(t)
\end{bmatrix}
\dd t
\leq -\delta^2 \int_0^\infty \|w_p(t)\|_2^2 \dd t\,.
\end{equation*}
For instance, $Q_p=-\gamma^2 I$, $S_p=0$, $R_p=I$ corresponds to an $\cL_2$-gain bound $\gamma$ on $w_p \mapsto z_p$.
Following similar arguments as in Theorem \ref{thm:cl_stability_sos}, it can be shown that robust quadratic performance holds for the channel $w_p \mapsto z_p$ if there exist variables $\cY$, $L(x)$ and $\tau$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:performance_sos}
\left[
\def1.15}\begin{array}{cc|cc{1.15}\begin{array}{cc|cc}
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\multirow{2}{*}{$Q(x)$}}
& \star
& \star
\\
&
& \star
& \star
\\\hline
-B_p^\top - S_p q_3(x)
& -B_p^\top q_2(x)^\top
& -\cQ_p
& \star
\\
q_3(x)
& q_3(x)q_2(x)^\top
& D_p
& R_p^{-1}
\end{array}
\right]
\end{equation}
is SOS, where $q_3(x) = CY(x)\cY + DL(x)$ and $\cQ_p = Q_p + S_p D_p + D_p^\top S_p^\top$.
If this problem is feasible, then the controller in \eqref{eq:stabilizing_input} guarantees quadratic performance robustly for all rational systems which are consistent with the measured data and the noise level. The proof of this fact is omitted due to space reasons.
We note that the authors in \cite{martin:allgower:2020} use related tools to analyze \emph{discrete-time} polynomial systems w.r.t. dissipativity properties but an extension to controller design in discrete-time is challenging.
\subsection{Numerical example}\label{sec:dd_controller_design_examples}
Finally, we illustrate the applicability of the proposed approach with two numerical examples: an academic example as well as a realistic model used for drug distribution \cite{chappell:godfrey:vajda:1990}. For the latter, we also incorporate performance specifications.
The simulations in this paper are implemented in \textsc{Matlab} using YALMIP~\cite{lofberg:2004} with its SOS module~\cite{lofberg:2009} and the solver MOSEK~\cite{mosek:2020}.
\begin{example}\label{ex_1}
Consider the rational system
\begin{equation}\label{eq:exmp_system}
\begin{aligned}
\xdot_1 &= \frac{x_2^2}{1+x_1^2} + u_1\,,\\
\xdot_2 &= x_1 x_2 + x_2 u_2\,.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
According to \eqref{eq:rational_system_dynamics2}, any trajectory of this system also satisfies
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
(1+x_1^2)\xdot_1 &= x_2^2 + (1 + x_1^2)u_1\,,\\
(1+x_1^2)\xdot_2 &= x_1 x_2 + x_1^3 x_2 + (x_2 + x_1^2x_2) u_2 \,.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
Following Section~\ref{sec:problem_setting}, we define the true (unknown) system matrices $
\cA = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1
\end{bmatrix}
$, $
\cB = \begin{bmatrix}
1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 1
\end{bmatrix}
$, and $
\cP = 1
$, and the vectors of monomials $
Z(x) = \begin{bmatrix}
x_1 & x_2 & x_2^2 & x_1 x_2 & x_1^3 x_2
\end{bmatrix}^\top
$, $
Z_p(x) = x_1^2
$, and $
H(x) = \begin{bmatrix}
1 & x_1^2 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & x_2 & x_1^2 x_2
\end{bmatrix}^\top
$.
%
For the data generation, we consider $B_w=I$ and noise sampled uniformly from the ellipse $\|\what(t_k)\|_2 \leq \wbar$, $k=1,\dots,N$, leading to the choices $Q_w=-I$, $S_w=0$, and $R_w=\wbar^2NI$ as introduced in Section~\ref{sec:problem_setting}.
\begin{table*}[!t]
\vspace{4pt}
\centering
\caption{Number of feasible designs for Example \ref{ex_1}.}
\label{tab:exmp_1}
\vspace*{-5pt}
\begin{tabular}{c|ccccccc}
$N$ & $\wbar = \num{1e-6}$ & $\wbar = \num{1e-4}$ & $\wbar = \num{1e-3}$ & $\wbar = \num{2e-3}$ & $\wbar=\num{5e-3}$ & $\wbar = \num{1e-2}$ & $\wbar = \num{1e-1}$ \\\hline
$20$ & $20$ & $19$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ \\
$100$ & $19$ & $15$ & $1$ & $0$ & $0$ & $1$ & $0$ \\
$1000$ & $20$ & $19$ & $14$ & $13$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ \\
$10000$ & $20$ & $20$ & $20$ & $17$ & $20$ & $19$ & $9$ \\
$20000$ & $19$ & $20$ & $20$ & $18$ & $18$ & $17$ & $19$
\end{tabular}
\vspace*{-15pt}
\end{table*}
%
Since the considered system is open-loop unstable, we generate the data via concatenation of multiple trajectories of length $N_d=5$. More precisely, we measure $d=N/N_d$ trajectories with data matrices $\{\Xdot_1,X_1,U_1\},\ldots,\{\Xdot_d,X_d,U_d\}$, which are affected by noise matrices $\hat{W}_1,\ldots,\hat{W}_d$, respectively, and we define $
\Xdot = \begin{bmatrix}
\Xdot_1 & \cdots & \Xdot_d
\end{bmatrix}
$, $
X = \begin{bmatrix}
X_1 & \cdots & X_d
\end{bmatrix}
$, $
U = \begin{bmatrix}
U_1 & \cdots & U_d
\end{bmatrix}
$, and consider a noise bound of the form $
\begin{bmatrix}
\hat{W}_1 & \cdots & \hat{W}_d
\end{bmatrix}\in\cW
$. We use equidistant data points generated by the true system dynamics with sampling rate $T_s = 0.001$ and initial state drawn uniformly from the interval $[-1,1]^2$. At each time step, we inject an input sampled uniformly from $[-5,5]^2$.
%
In the following, we analyze the feasibility of Theorem~\ref{thm:cl_stability_sos} for different data lengths and noise bounds with $Z_K(x)=Z(x)$.
%
Since Theorem~\ref{thm:cl_stability_sos} provides conditions for \emph{robust} stabilization of all systems consistent with the data and hence, only sufficient conditions for stabilization of~\eqref{eq:exmp_system}, the feasibility can vary when considering different noise instances satisfying the same bound.
Therefore, for each combination of noise level $\wbar$ and data length $N$, we perform $20$ experiments and record how often the resulting SOS condition on $Q(x)$ is feasible with $\eps=\num{1e-7}$ and leads to an asymptotically stabilizing controller.
Table~\ref{tab:exmp_1} displays the number of successful designs of the controller according to our requirements.
%
First, note that the approach requires the data to be sufficiently rich, i.e., it does not lead to a stabilizing controller if the data length is too small.
The definition of $\oQ_w$ requires at least $N \geq N_z + N_u + nN_p=11$ samples but due to the noise, even more samples are required.
Generally, the feasibility of the conditions in Theorem~\ref{thm:cl_stability_sos} improves for increasing data lengths and deteriorates for increasing noise levels.
The improvement in the data length is not strictly monotone since the noise bound in Assumption~\ref{ass:noise_bound} does not exactly capture the actual pointwise-in-time noise bound.
Interestingly, even for the considered \emph{two-dimensional} example, conservatism is reduced and robustness is increased if the number of data points is as large as $N=20000$.
%
Finally, we note that the number of decision variables of the proposed approach is independent of the data length and hence, the SOS problem in~\eqref{eq:cl_stability_condition_sos} can be solved in less than fifteen seconds on a standard Intel Core i7 notebook even for $N=20000$.
\end{example}
\begin{example}\label{ex_2}
To demonstrate the practicality of our approach, we also apply it to a two-compartment model used to describe a drug distribution \cite{chappell:godfrey:vajda:1990}, i.e., the system
\begin{equation}\label{eq:exmp_system_2}
\begin{aligned}
\xdot_1 &= -\frac{x_1}{5+x_1} - x_1 + x_2 + u\,,\\
\xdot_2 &= x_1 - x_2\,.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Note that this system violates our standing assumption $p(x)\neq0$ for all $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$.
Nevertheless, as we show in the following, the presented approach can be used to successfully design a robust controller with local closed-loop stability and good practical performance.
For the data generation, we proceed as for Example~\ref{ex_1} with $\wbar=\num{1e-1}$ and $d=40$ trajectories of length $N_d=5$ sampled uniformly from $x(t_0)\in[-2,2]^2$, $u(t_k)\in[-5,5]$ and $\|\what(t_k)\|_2 \leq \wbar$ for $k=1,\dots,N_d$.
We choose $Q_p=-\gamma^2 I$, $S_p=0$, $R_p=I$, $B_p=I$, and $z_p=x$ such that our design objective is an $\cL_2$-gain bound of $\gamma=400$ on the channel $w_p\mapsto x$.
Then, we solve \eqref{eq:performance_sos} to obtain a controller.
The phase portrait of the resulting closed-loop behavior with the controller designed using \eqref{eq:performance_sos} is depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:exmp_closed_loop}. It shows that the controller stabilizes the system at the origin for $x\in(-5,5)\times(-5,15)$ even though $p(x)\neq 0$ is not satisfied globally.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{exmp_vector_plot_performance_small.pdf}
\vspace*{-22pt}
\caption{Vector plot of the closed-loop system in Example \ref{ex_2} with trajectories starting at different initial conditions ({\color{red}$\circ$}) converging to the origin ({\color{red}$*$}).}
\label{fig:exmp_closed_loop}
\vspace*{-16pt}
\end{figure}
To illustrate the benefits of the performance criterion, we also compute a stabilizing controller based on \eqref{eq:cl_stability_condition_sos}. Compared to this controller, the controller computed via \eqref{eq:performance_sos} leads to a $20\%$ reduction of the $\cL_2$-norm of the performance output $z_p$.
For this example, \eqref
{eq:performance_sos} is solvable in less than one second.
\end{example}
\section{Data-driven controller design}\label{sec:dd_controller_design}
In this section, we design polynomial state-feedback controllers for nonlinear systems with rational dynamics based only on measured data.
In Section~\ref{sec:dd_system_parametrization}, we first provide a data-driven system parametrization based on measured data. Next, in Section~\ref{sec:dd_controller_design_stabilization}, we provide SOS-based design procedures with robust closed-loop stability and performance, which we apply to numerical examples in Section~\ref{sec:dd_controller_design_examples}.
\subsection{Data-driven system parametrization}\label{sec:dd_system_parametrization}
\input{sec-3-1-data-driven-system-parametrization.tex}
\subsection{Controller design for robust stability and performance}\label{sec:dd_controller_design_stabilization}
\input{sec-3-2-robust-stability.tex}
\subsection{Numerical example}\label{sec:dd_controller_design_examples}
\input{sec-3-3-numerical-example.tex}
\subsection{Problem setting}\label{sec:nonlinear_systems}
In the following, we consider nonlinear systems
\begin{equation}\label{eq:nonlinear_system_dynamics}
\xidot = f(\xi) + g(\xi)u,
\end{equation}
where the nonlinear functions $f\func,g\func$ can be written as linear combinations of known basis functions $\{\psi_i(\xi)\}_{i=1}^L$.
Under suitable assumptions on these basis functions, \eqref{eq:nonlinear_system_dynamics} can be lifted to a polynomial system in an extended state-space.
The idea was presented in \cite{gu:2011} as part of a model order reduction method and was recently applied in the context of system identification \cite{qian:kramer:peherstorfer:willcox:2020} and extended dynamic mode decomposition \cite{netto:susuki:krishnan:zhang:2020}. To the best of our knowledge, this work is the first which uses this idea for data-driven control.
The main concept is to exploit the invariance of the chosen basis functions, i.e., the fact that the derivatives of the basis functions can be described solely in terms of the basis functions themselves. To this end, we include each basis function as an additional state coordinate and thus, we obtain the dynamics of the extended state by building the Lie derivative of each basis function w.r.t. \eqref{eq:exmp_nonlinear_dynamics}. Due to the above-described invariance property of the basis functions, we can substitute each nonlinearity, i.e., composition of the basis functions, by the respective state coordinates corresponding to the basis functions.
This so-called \emph{polynomialization} leads to a system representation of \eqref{eq:nonlinear_system_dynamics} which has a larger state dimension but can be described by a polynomial function linear in $u$ \cite[Thm. 1]{gu:2011}.
Since $f\func$ and $g\func$ are assumed to be linear in the basis functions, we find $\{\psi_i(\xi)\}_{i=1}^L$ and define $x=\Psi(\xi)=\begin{bmatrix}
\psi_1(\xi) & \cdots & \psi_L(\xi)
\end{bmatrix}^\top$ such that System \eqref{eq:nonlinear_system_dynamics} can be polynomialized leading to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:nonlinear_system_dynamics2}
\xdot = A Z(x) + B H(x) u \,,
\end{equation}
where $Z(x)\in\bbR[x]^{N_z}$ and $H(x)\in\bbR[x]^{N_u\times m}$.
Possible basis functions consist of a composition of suitable \emph{elementary} functions, e.g., the functions listed in Table~\ref{tab:elementary_functions}.
Note that, due to invariance, some elementary functions can only be chosen in pairs, e.g., since $\cos(x)$ is the derivative of $\sin(x)$.
The approach is not limited to the elementary functions in Table~\ref{tab:elementary_functions}, but qualifies for every elementary function $z(x)$ whose gradient $\dpartial{z(x)}{x}$ is polynomial in $z$. Nonlinear systems linear in such basis functions are common in, e.g., chemical rate equations, circuit simulation and mechanical applications.
\begin{example}
Consider the nonlinear system $\xidot = \tanh(\xi) + u$. By introducing $\psi(\xi)=\tanh(\xi)$ and $x=(\xi,\psi(\xi))$, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\xdot_1 &= x_2 + u\,, \\
\xdot_2 &= \dpartial{\psi(\xi)}{\xi}\xidot = (1-\tanh(\xi)^2)(\tanh(\xi) + u) \\
&= x_2 - x_2^3 + (1-x_2^2)u\,,
\end{align*}
which is polynomial in $x$ and linear in $u$.
\end{example}
In general, the polynomialization is not unique, i.e., by introducing more basis functions we obtain a larger state dimension but a possibly smaller polynomial degree.
Note that the complexity of the robust control approach presented in Section~\ref{sec:dd_controller_design} scales both with the system dimension and the degree of the polynomials, leading to a trade-off for a suitable choice of the polynomialization.
Polynomialization allows us to consider general nonlinear systems with possibly non-polynomial basis functions in the framework of direct data-driven control of polynomial systems.
Similar to the discussion in Section~\ref{sec:problem_setting}, we allow for a perturbation in the measured data taking the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:nonlinear_system_dynamics3}
\xdot = A Z(x) + B H(x) u + B_w w\,,
\end{equation}
where $w$ describes an unknown disturbance sequence perturbing the polynomial equation \eqref{eq:nonlinear_system_dynamics2}.
Hence, designing a stabilizing controller for the nonlinear system \eqref{eq:nonlinear_system_dynamics} reduces to controller design of the polynomial system \eqref{eq:nonlinear_system_dynamics3}. Since System~\eqref{eq:nonlinear_system_dynamics3} is a special case of System~\eqref{eq:rational_system_dynamics4} with $P=Z_p(x)=\emptyset$ and $p(x)=1$, we can apply Theorem~\ref{thm:cl_stability_sos} for controller design.
\begin{table}[!t]
\vspace{4pt}
\centering
\caption{Elementary functions for polynomialization.}
\label{tab:elementary_functions}
\vspace*{-5pt}
\begin{tabular}{c|cc}
\hline
Function & Lie derivative \\\hline
$z = e^x$ & $\zdot = z \xdot$ \\\hline
$z = \frac{1}{x + a}$, $a\in\bbR$ & $\zdot = -z^2 \xdot$ \\\hline
$z_1 = \sin(x)$ & $\zdot_1 = -z_2 \xdot$ \\
$z_2 = \cos(x)$ & $\zdot_2 = -z_1 \xdot$ \\\hline
$z_1 = \ln(x)$ & $\zdot_1 = z_2 \xdot$ \\
$z_2 = x^{-1}$ & $\zdot_2 = -z_2^2 \xdot$ \\\hline
$z_1 = \sqrt{x}$ & $\zdot_1 = \frac{1}{2} z_2 \xdot$ \\
$z_2 = \frac{1}{\sqrt{x}}$ & $\zdot_2 = -\frac{1}{2}z_2^3 \xdot$ \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace*{-15pt}
\end{table}
\begin{remark}
Generally, polynomialization introduces some conservatism, i.e., System \eqref{eq:nonlinear_system_dynamics} can be described by \eqref{eq:nonlinear_system_dynamics2} but not vice versa.
For equivalence, we would need to explicitly include equality constraints ensuring the dependencies of the basis functions.
Nevertheless, the presented approaches allows us to design controllers for unknown systems \eqref{eq:nonlinear_system_dynamics} with general nonlinear basis functions using only measured data.
As we illustrate with the following example, this allows us to solve practically relevant control problems which cannot be handled using existing approaches.
\end{remark}
\section{Beyond polynomial basis functions}\label{sec:general_nonlinearities}
In this section, we propose a data-driven control approach for systems which are linear in general, possibly non-polynomial basis functions.
The main idea relies on lifting the nonlinear system to an extended state-space with polynomial dynamics and then applying the results of Section~\ref{sec:dd_controller_design} for robust controller design.
\input{sec-4-1-problem-setting.tex}
\input{sec-4-2-numerical-example.tex}
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:conclusion}
We proposed a data-driven control method with robust stability and performance guarantees for unknown nonlinear systems with possibly non-polynomial dynamics.
To this end, we exploited that we can rewrite the system dynamics in a structure linear in the unknown parameters and derived a stabilizing feedback controller using SOS methods.
In our stability condition, we employed a parametrization of all systems consistent with the measured data and the introduced noise bound, and we extended the results to closed-loop performance.
The number of decision variables of our approach is independent of the data length and thus, the procedure remains computationally tractable for medium-scale state-space dimensions.
Since the framework also allows for non-polynomial basis functions, we were not only able to design controllers for rational systems but also nonlinear dynamics containing nonlinearities such as $\sin(x)$, $\sqrt{x}$, or $\exp(x)$.
|
\section{Introduction}
The information technology revolution caused rapid increase of the amount of raw data, together with the requirements of efficient computing platforms for their processing \cite{data1}. CMOS downscaling has been efficient to meet these requirements \cite{ITRS}; however, CMOS downscaling becomes very difficult due to different walls: (i) leakage wall \cite{cmosscaling2}, (ii) reliability wall \cite{cmosscaling1}, and (iii) cost wall \cite{cmosscaling1,cmosscaling2}, which implies that Moore's law will come to the end soon. Hence, different technologies have been explored recently, e.g., graphene devices \cite{Yande1}, memristors \cite{memristor}, and spintronics \cite{ITRS}. One of the spintronics technologies is Spin Wave (SW) technology, which stands apart as one of the most promising technologies because \cite{SW,SW1,ITRS,parallelism}: (i) It consumes ultra-low power because SW computing is based on wave interference without the need for charge movement.
(ii) It has an acceptable delay determined by the group velocity of the spin wave. (iii) It is highly scalable because the SW wavelength can reach down to the nanometer range at rf-frequencies. Hence, the design of spin wave based logic gates is of great interest.
Given the potentially low energy consumption of the SW based computing paradigm, a large number of different SW logic gate structures have been presented \cite{logic12,logic11,logic24,logic1,logic25,logic4,logic16,logic18,logic13,logic19,logic3,logic21}. The first experimental work using SW amplitude detection is considered to be a Mach-Zehnder interferometer based NOT gate\cite{logic21}, while XNOR, NAND, NOT, and NOR gates based on a Mach-Zehnder interferometer were also suggested \cite{logic11,logic12}. Furthermore, transmission line based NOT, OR, and AND gates were presented \cite{logic25}\cite{logic4}\cite{logic16}\cite{logic18}, and parallel voltage controlled re-configurable nano-channels based XNOR and NAND gates were discussed \cite{logic24}. Bent waveguides and transmission lines were utilized to design (N)AND, (N)OR, XOR, Majority Gates \cite{logic1,logic13}. In addition, it was suggested that a (N)OR gate can be built with a crossbar structure \cite{logic19}. However, the previous works' gates don't provide more than one output, which is a crucial gate feature for an efficient utilization of SW based technology to build larger circuits. Moreover, if the spin wave logic gate output is taken as input for multiple following logic gates in a circuit, then the logic gate must be replicated multiple times which gives significant energy overhead. While the previously mentioned proposals don't provide more than one output, it has been suggested in \cite{fanout,fanout10} that by adding one arm and making use of one extra transducer, a fanout of $2$ is achieved. However, this proposal requires an extra cell to excite spin waves and thus again results in energy overhead. Furthermore, the spin waves must be excited at different energy levels which might add energy overhead and complexity to the gate design. In short, the aforementioned designs will add relatively large energy overhead and complexity to the designs in order to achieve the fanout of 2.
The aforementioned limitations are solved in this paper and a Fanout of $2$ (FO2) triangle shape $3$-input Majority gate and a 2-input XOR gate are proposed. The fanout is enabled without the need for an extra transducer and all spin waves are excited at the same energy level resulting in a relatively large energy saves. The main contributions of this work are:
\begin{itemize}
\item Developing and designing FO2 logic gates: FO2 $3$-input Majority gate is proposed. Also, it is possible to make use of this structure to implement $2$-input (N)AND, and (N)OR gates by making one of the inputs as control input and the other two as data inputs. Moreover, $2$-input X(N)OR structure is proposed by removing the third input.
\item Validating the proposed logic gates functionality: MuMax3 software is used to validate the logic gates structures.
\item Demonstrating the superiority: The proposed logic gates are evaluated and compared with the state-of-the-art SW, and \SI{16}{nm} and \SI{7}{nm} CMOS logic gates. The results demonstrate that the proposed logic gates save energy of $25$\%-$50$\% in comparison with the state-of-the-art SW logic gates while having the same delay. In addition, the proposed SW logic gates provide energy reduction of $43$x-$0.8$x when compared to the \SI{16}{nm} and \SI{7}{nm} CMOS counterparts while having delay overhead of $11$x-$40$x.
\end{itemize}
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section \ref{sec:Basics of spin-wave technology} gives the basics and the fundamentals of the spin wave based technologies and the spin wave computing paradigm. The next Section \ref{sec:FO2 SW Logic Gates} explains the proposed fanout of 2 Majority and XOR gates. Section \ref{sec:Simulation Setup and Results} provides the simulation setup, results and performance evaluation of the proposed gates, in addition to the discussion about variability, and thermal noise effects. Finally, the paper is concluded in Section \ref{sec:Conclusion}.
\section{SW technology background}
\label{sec:Basics of spin-wave technology}
This section provides the basic spin-wave theory and spin-wave based computation paradigm.
\subsection{Spin Wave Fundamentals}
\label{sec:spin-wave fundamentals}
Magnetic materials can be utilized for memory or computing aims by making use of the magnetization state. For instance, spintronic memory device are based on the magnetization orientation which can take two stable states representing either logic 0 or 1. It is also possible to exploit the dynamical behavior of the magnetization. This magnetization dynamics is expressed by equation \ref{eq:1} which is known as the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert (LLG) equation \cite{LL_eq}\cite{G_eq}:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:1}
\frac{d\vec{M}}{dt} =-\abs{\gamma} \mu_0 \left (\vec{M} \times \vec{H}_{eff} \right ) + \frac{\alpha}{M_s} \left (\vec{M} \times \frac{d\vec{M}}{dt}\right ),
\end{equation}
where $\gamma$ is the gyromagnetic ratio, $\alpha$ the damping factor, $\vec{M}$ the magnetization, $M_s$ the saturation magnetization, and $\vec{H}_{eff}$ the effective field which is equal to the summation of the external field, the exchange field, the demagnetizing field, and the magneto-crystalline field.
For weak perturbations, equation \ref{eq:1} can be linearised and has wave-like solutions. These solutions are known as spin waves and can be seen as collective excitations of the magnetization. As indicated in Figure \ref{fig:SW_characterstics}, SWs are characterized by a wavelength $\lambda$, a wave number $k$ ($k=2\pi/\lambda$), a phase $\phi$, an amplitude $A$, and a frequency $f$. The wavelength and frequency respectively characterise the spin precession period in space and in time. The relation between $f$ and $k$ is the dispersion relation of the wave and is crucial for the design of any spin wave device\cite{dispersionrelation}.
Different spin wave types exist; each with its own features. The direction of wave propagation with respect to the direction of the static magnetization determines which SW type is excited \cite{Magnetostatics_ref3}. These waves are formed when the static magnetization orientation is out-of-plane and results in isotropic spin wave propagation in the plane. Note that this is not the case for the other spin wave types. Therefore, FVSW are promising for circuit design as the same propagation behavior in different directions is required inside the circuit \cite{Magnetostatics_ref3}. While this holds true for many SW based circuit design but some logic elements make use of the non-reciprocity and the anisotropy (non-reciprocity is strongly sought in the acoustic waveguide domain, the spin wave multiplexer makes use of the spin wave anisotropy).
\subsection{Spin Wave Computing Paradigm}
\label{sec:Spin Wave Computing Paradigm}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{SW_parameters.pdf}
\caption{Spin Wave Parameters.}
\label{fig:SW_characterstics}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig14.pdf}
\caption{a) Spin Wave Device, b) Constructive and Destructive Interference.}
\label{fig:spin_wave_device}
\end{figure}
As any other waves, also SWs interfere with each other. This fundamental phenomenon can be utilized for direct logic function evaluations without requiring the traditional Boolean algebra formalism \cite{SW}. Generally speaking, after their generation, multiple SWs coexist and interact in various ways, depending on their amplitude, wavelength, phase, and frequency within the same waveguide \cite{SW}. The simplest case, but with the highest practical relevance due to its natural support for majority function evaluation, occurs when SWs with the same amplitude, wavelength, and frequency are interacting \cite{SW}. For example, if two such SWs interfere, the resulting SW amplitude is dependent on the phase difference: SWs with the same phase interfere constructively and SWs with different phases interfere destructively, i.e., no output SW is generated, as indicated in Figure \ref{fig:spin_wave_device}a. It is clear that if SWs carry digital information this can be processed by means of those interference patterns. For example, the interference of an odd number equal amplitude and wavelength SWs having phases of $0$ or $\pi$ results in a majority function evaluation. Note that the Full Adder (a fundamental processor design building block) carry out is computed as a $3$-input majority and most of the error detection and correction schemes rely on $n$-input majorities \cite{SW}.
Conceptually speaking, a SW device includes $4$ stages: SW creation, propagation, processing, and detection. In the first stage, spin waves are excited in the localised excitation region and then they propagate through the waveguide. When traveling through the waveguide the SW can be manipulated or exposed to different factors within the so-called Functional Region and finally a detector is required to produce the output value \cite{SW,Magnonic_crystals_for_data_processing,Magnonics}. A generic SW device is presented in Figure \ref{fig:spin_wave_device}b.
\section{FO2 SW Logic Gates}
\label{sec:FO2 SW Logic Gates}
In the following lines, the proposed triangle shape fanout of 2 Majority and XOR gates are described.
\subsection{Proposed FO2 SW Majority Gate}
\label{subsec:Proposed FO2 SW Majority Gate}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{fig1.pdf}
\caption{Fan-out of 2 MAJ3 Gate.}
\label{fig:structure1}
\end{figure}
We developed a novel triangle shape fanout of 2 (FO2) 3-input Majority gate (MAJ3) structure, illustrated in Figure 9. The device consists of 3 inputs $I_1$, $I_2$, and $I_3$ corresponding to the excitation cells and 2 outputs $O_1$ and $O_2$ corresponding to the detection cells. Depending on the used method, excitation and detection cells can be voltage encoded or current encoded cells. Many existing options can be used for the excitation and detection cells, e.g., microstrip antennas \cite{SW,ref101,Magnonic_crystals_for_data_processing}, magnetoelectric cells \cite{SW,excitation1,excitation2,excitation2,excitation3}, spin orbit torques \cite{SW,ref100,excitation4}. In contrast to the ladder shape structure \cite{fanout}, the proposed triangle shape structure doesn’t need the replication of one of its inputs to enable fanout capability and thus is more energy efficient as will be demonstrated in the performance evaluation subsection (Subsection \ref{subsec:Discussion}).
To simplify the interference pattern, the width of the waveguide must be equal or less than wavelength $\lambda$. All SWs are excited with the same amplitude and frequency to obtain the desired pattern at the interference point. The proposed structure is generic and its dimensions are indicated in Figure \ref{fig:structure1}. The structure dimensions must be chosen accurately to provide the desired functionality. For example, if the desired interference is to constructively interfere if the SWs have the same phase and destructively interfere when SWs are out of phase, then dimensions $d_1$, $d_2$ and $d_3$ must be n$\lambda$ (where n=0,1,2,3,\ldots). Whereas if the opposite behaviour is desired, such that the SWs interfere destructively when they have the same phase and constructively interfere when they are out of phase, then the dimensions $d_1$, $d_2$ and $d_3$ must be (n+1/2)$\lambda$.
The logic gate provides a fan-out of 2 because of the structure symmetry. The outputs $O_1$ and $O_2$ must be captured at the same distance ($d_4$) from the last interference point. Furthermore, this distance must be chosen precisely such that if the desired output has to give logic inversion then $d_4$ must be (n+1/2)$\lambda$, whereas if the desired results has to give the non-inverted output then $d_4$ must be n$\lambda$.
The proposed gate operates as follows: (i) At $I_1$, $I_2$, and $I_3$, SWs are excited with the suitable phase ($0$ for logic $0$ and phase $\pi$ for logic $1$). (ii) The excited SWs at $I_1$ and $I_2$ propagate diagonally until reaching the crossing points where they interfere with each other constructively or destructively depending on their phases. (iii) The resulting SWs propagate to interfere constructively or destructively at both interfering points with the SW excited at $I_3$. (iv) Once the resulted SWs reach the outputs $O_1$ and $O_2$, they are interpreted by means of phase detection. Depending on a predefined phase, phase detection is performed as follows: a $0$ SW phase corresponds to a logic $0$ and a phase of $\pi$ to logic $1$. Because of the symmetry and the SWs’ isotropic propagation through this structure, the two SWs reaching $O_1$ and $O_2$ are identical, which means that a fanout of 2 is achieved.
Furthermore, the proposed structure can be utilized to implement (N)AND and (N)OR gates of $I_1$ and $I_2$ if $I_3$ is fixed to logic $0$ for (N)AND gate and logic $1$ for the (N)OR gate realization.
Moreover, we note that, if only one MAJ3 gate is required the structure can be simplified by removing one of its sides either the right or left one. Also, the gate fan-out capabilities can be extended beyond 2 by using directional couplers \cite{DC} to split the spin wave into multiple arms and using repeaters \cite{Interconnect4} to regenerate a strong SW in the different waveguides. Additionally, more inputs can be added below $I_2$ or above $I_1$ and $I_3$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{fig2.pdf}
\caption{Fan-out of 2 XOR Gate.}
\label{fig:structure2}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Proposed FO2 SW XOR Gate}
\label{subsec:Proposed FO2 SW XOR Gate}
It is interesting to note that the triangle structure is versatile and becomes an XOR gate by removing the third input as depicted in Figure \ref{fig:structure2}. While the operation principle and the design stpdf are the same as in the previous case, threshold-based detection must be utilized to obtain the XOR functionality. The threshold detection is based on a predefined threshold such that if the received SW magnetization is larger than the predefined threshold, this is logic $0$, and logic $1$ otherwise. If the XNOR is desired, the condition can be flipped such that if the received SW magnetization is larger than the predefined threshold, this is logic $1$, and logic $0$ otherwise.
The same design stpdf hold true for the XOR gate except for the output detection because it depends on threshold detection and thus the SW amplitude is the important one in this case. Therefore, the output must be detected as close as possible from the last interference point and thus $d_2$ must be as small as possible to capture stronger spin wave.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{fig3.pdf}
\caption{Fan-in of $3$ Fanout of 2 Majority Gate MuMax3 Simulation.}
\label{fig:results1}
\end{figure}
\section{Simulation Setup and Results}
\label{sec:Simulation Setup and Results}
This section provides the simulation setup, simulation results as well as performance evaluation and discussion about the variability and thermal noise impact.
\subsection{Simulation Setup}
We validated the structure by means of MuMax3 \cite{mumax} simulations using a \SI{50}{nm} wide $Fe_{60}Co_{20}B_{20}$ waveguide with thickness of \SI{1}{nm}. The spin wave wavelength is chosen to be \SI{55}{nm} which is larger than the waveguide width and therefore results in clear interference patterns. Once the wavelength is determined, the dimensions of the device in Figure \ref{fig:structure1} can be calculated and become $d_1$=\SI{330}{nm}, $d_2$=\SI{880}{nm}, $d_3$=\SI{220}{nm}, and $d_4$=\SI{55}{nm}. Likewise, the dimensions of the device in Figure \ref{fig:structure1} can be determined to be $d_1$=\SI{330}{nm}, and $d_2$=\SI{40}{nm}. Moreover, from the SW dispersion relation and for $k$=$2\pi/\lambda$=\SI{50}{rad/\mu m}, a SW frequency of \SI{10}{GHz} was determined. In addition, the following parameters are used: magnetic saturation $M_s$=\SI{1100}{kA/m}, exchange stiffness $A_\mathrm{ex}$=\SI{18.5}{ pJ/m}, damping constant $\alpha$=$0.004$, and perpendicular anisotropy constant $k_\mathrm{ani}$= \SI{0.832}{MJ/m^3} \cite{parameters}.
\subsection{Performed Simulations}
Two main experiments are performed: (i) FO2 Majority gate implementation, and (ii) FO2 X(N)OR implementation.
\begin{itemize}
\item 3-input FO2 Majority gate implementation: The three inputs $I_1$, $I_2$ and $I_3$ are used to generate spin waves that propagate through the waveguide. The interference results are captured at $O_1$ and $O_2$ based on phase detection.
\item 2-input FO2 X(N)OR implementation: here two inputs $I_1$ and $I_2$ are used instead of three as in the previous case. Threshold detection is utilized to capture the output.
\end{itemize}
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Fan-in of $3$ Fanout of 2 Majority Gate Normalized Output Magnetization.}
\label{table:2}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Cases} & $O_1$ & $O_2$ \\ \hline
$I_3$ & $I_2$ & $I_1$& & \\
\hline
$0$ & $0$ & $0$ & $1$ & $1$ \\
\hline
$0$ & $0$ & $1$ & $0.083$ & $0.084$ \\
\hline
$0$ & $1$ & $0$ & $0.16$ & $0.16$ \\
\hline
$0$ & $1$ & $1$ & $0.164$ & $0.164$ \\
\hline
$1$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0.164$ & $0.164$ \\
\hline
$1$ & $0$ & $1$ & $0.16$ & $0.16$ \\
\hline
$1$ & $1$ & $0$ & $0.083$ & $0.084$ \\
\hline
$1$ & $1$ & $1$ & $1$ & $1$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Fan-in of $2$ Fanout of 2 XOR Gate Normalized Output Magnetization.}
\label{table:3}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Cases}&$O_1$&$O_2$\\ \hline
$I_2$ & $I_1$& & \\
\hline
$0$ & $0$ & $0.99$ & $1$ \\
\hline
$0$ & $1$ & $\approx 0$ & $\approx 0$ \\
\hline
$1$ & $0$ & $\approx 0$ & $\approx 0$ \\
\hline
$1$ & $1$ & $1$ & $1$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Simulation results}
\subsection*{3-input FO2 Majority gate implementation based on phase detection}
Figure \ref{fig:results1} a to h present the MuMax3 simulation results for the 3-input 2-output Majority gate for \{$I_1$,$I_2$,$I_3$\}=\{$0$,$0$,$0$\}, \{$0$,$0$,$0$\},\{$0$,$0$,$1$\},\{$0$,$1$,$0$\}, \{$0$,$1$,$1$\}, \{$1$,$0$,$0$\}, \{$1$,$0$,$1$\}, \{$1$,$1$,$0$\}, and \{$1$,$1$,$1$\}, respectively, where blue represents logic $0$ and red logic $1$. This clearly indicates the correct functionality of the FO2 MAJ3 gate. $O_1$ and $O_2$ provide logic $0$ for the input patterns \{$I_1$,$I_2$,$I_3$\}=\{$0$,$0$,$0$\},\{$0$,$0$,$1$\},\{$0$,$1$,$0$\}, and \{$1$,$0$,$0$\}, whereas they provide logic $1$ for the input combinations \{$I_1$,$I_2$,$I_3$\}=\{$0$,$1$,$1$\},\{$1$,$0$,$1$\},\{$1$,$1$,$0$\}, and \{$1$,$1$,$1$\}.
To demonstrate the equivalence of the two outputs, i.e. FO2 achievement, we extracted the output SWs energy from MuMax3 simulations for all possible input patterns. The normalized magnetization values at $O_1$ and $O_2$ are presented in Table \ref{table:2}. From this table, it is seen that the outputs are the same for all cases, which implies that a fanout of 2 has been successfully achieved.
\subsection*{2-input FO2 X(N)OR implementation based on threshold detection}
Table \ref{table:3} presents the triangle shaped XOR gate normalized magnetization values at the outputs $O_1$ and $O_2$ and for different input combinations \{$I_1$,$I_2$\} $=$ \{$00$,$01$,$10$,$11$\}.
As it is clear from Table \ref{table:3}, an XOR or XNOR logic gate can be implemented if a suitable threshold is chosen to detect logic $0$ and logic $1$ at the outputs. The appropriate threshold in this case is $0.5$ because for \{$I_1$,$I_2$\} being \{$0$,$0$\} and \{$1$,$1$\} magnetization are approximately $1$ while they are approximately $0$ when the inputs are \{$0$,$1$\} and \{$1$,$0$\}. By applying the aforementioned principle to obtain XOR on the data in Table \ref{table:3}, the outputs $O_1$ and $O_2$ are logic $0$ at \{$I_1$,$I_2$\}=\{$0$,$0$\} and \{$1$,$1$\} because their amplitude is larger than $0.5$ and they ($O_1$ and $O_2$) are logic $1$ at \{$I_1$,$I_2$\}=\{$0$,$1$\} and \{$1$,$0$\} because their magnetization are less than $0.5$. As stated previously, the XNOR can be captured by flipping the condition. Thus, both FO2 XOR and FO2 XNOR can be captured from the proposed structure.
\subsection{Performance Evaluation and Discussion}
\label{subsec:Discussion}
In this Subsection, we evaluate the energy of the proposed logic gates and discuss the variability and thermal effect.
\subsection*{Performance Evaluation}
The proposed $2$-input FO2 XOR and $3$-input FO2 Majority gates are evaluated in terms of energy and delay and compared with the state-of-the-art spin wave \cite{fanout,fanout10}, \SI{16}{nm} CMOS \cite{16nmCMOS}, and \SI{7}{nm} CMOS \cite{7nmCMOS}. To evaluate the performance and to make fair comparison with \cite{fanout10}, the following assumptions are made: (i) ME cells are used to excite and detect SWs. (ii) The energy consumption and delay of the ME cells are \SI{34.4}{nW} and \SI{0.42}{ns}, respectively \cite{Excitation_table_ref16}. (iii) SWs propagation delay in the waveguide is neglected. (iv) SWs propagation loss can be neglected in comparison with the loss in the transducers. (v) The output is passed directly to be used by another SW gate. (vi) Pulse signals are used to excite SWs with pulse duration \SI{100}{ps}. Note that the energy consumption in \cite{fanout10} are re-evaluated based on \SI{100}{ps} pulse signal excitation in order to make a fair comparison. Due to the early stage development of SW technology, these assumptions might be optimistic and they might need re-evaluation in the near future.
Furthermore, it was assumed that a $3$-input CMOS Majority gate is built from $4$ NAND gates \cite{7nmCMOS,16nmCMOS}. In addition, the energy and delay were estimated with respect to the provided numbers in \cite{7nmCMOS,16nmCMOS} for the XOR and MAJ gates calculations.
Table \ref{table:4} presents the evaluation results. As it can be observed from the Table, the proposed Majority gate is $13$x and $20$x slower than the \SI{16}{nm}, and \SI{7}{nm} CMOS counterparts, respectively, but provides $11$x, and $1.6$x energy consumption reductions in comparison with \SI{16}{nm}, and \SI{7}{nm} CMOS counterparts, respectively. Also, the proposed XOR gate saves $43$x, and $0.8$x energy in comparison with \SI{16}{nm}, and \SI{7}{nm} CMOS counterparts, respectively, and is $13$x, and $40$x slower than \SI{16}{nm}, and \SI{7}{nm} CMOS XOR gate. Also, note that SW gates use less number of devices than CMOS which means small real estate chip area. To conclude, SW might lose at the end against CMOS, but the economical benefits will determine which one will win especially that SW technology still is immature technology. Note that assessment and evaluation of complex circuits which were designed using SW technology are available in \cite{Excitation_table_ref16}. For example, the evaluation results in \cite{Excitation_table_ref16} for $32$-bit hybrid CMOS-SW divider showed that the area-delay-power product is $800$x better than $32$-bit \SI{10}{CMOS} divider. This indicates that although SW technology is slow technology but the power and area improvements is much higher and will compensate the slowness \cite{Excitation_table_ref16}. However, SW technology is still immature technology, and these benchmarks might need re-evaluation in the future.
On the other hand, when comparing with the SW Majority gate \cite{fanout}, the proposed triangle shape Majority structure saves $25$\% energy while keeping the same delay. Also, the proposed XOR structure saves $50$\% energy while keeping the same delay when compared with the SW XOR gate in \cite{fanout,fanout10}. This is because of the fact that extra ME cells are required to enable the fanout capability in \cite{fanout,fanout10}. We also note that, for proper gate operation in the ladder shape structure \cite{fanout,fanout10}, inputs may have to be excited at different energy levels depending on whether they have a straight path to the outputs or face bent regions at the edges. In contrast, the proposed triangle shape structure doesn’t require an extra ME cell to achieve the fanout capability, which saves energy and allows for equal energy inputs excitation. Note that the complexity of fabricating such devices are not clear until now due to the early stage development of spin wave based technology.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Performance Comparison.}
\label{table:4}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\centering Designs & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{CMOS \cite{16nmCMOS,7nmCMOS}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{SW \cite{fanout10}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{This work} \tabularnewline \hline
\centering Technology & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{ \centering \scriptsize 16nm CMOS} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\centering \scriptsize 7nm CMOS} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{SW} & \multicolumn{2}{m{0.8cm}|}{SW} \tabularnewline
\hline
\centering Implemented function & \centering MAJ & \centering XOR & \centering MAJ & \centering XOR & \centering MAJ & \centering XOR & \centering MAJ & \centering XOR\tabularnewline
\hline
\centering Used cell No. & \centering $16$ & \centering $8$ & \centering $16$ & \centering $8$ & \centering $6$ & \centering $6$ & \centering $5$ & \centering $4$ \tabularnewline
\hline
\centering Delay (ns) & \centering $0.03$ & \centering $0.03$ & \centering $0.02$ & \centering $0.01$ & \centering $0.4$ & \centering $0.4$ & \centering $0.4$ & \centering $0.4$ \tabularnewline
\hline
\centering Energy (aJ) & \centering $466$ & \centering $303$ & \centering $16.4$ & \centering $5.4$ & \centering $13.7$ & \centering $13.7$ & \centering $10.3$ & \centering $6.9$ \tabularnewline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection*{Variability and Thermal Effect}
Validating the proposed logic gates and proofing the concept are the main targets of this paper. Thus, variability and thermal noise effect were not taken into account. However, waveguide trapezoidal cross section and edge roughness effects were examined in \cite{DC}; furthermore, it was presented in \cite{DC,DC9} that the gate functionality is correct in their presence. Moreover, thermal noise was introduced in micromagnetic simulations of majority gates \cite{DC,DC9}. It was demonstrated that the gates function correctly at different temperatures and the different temperature has only limited impact. Although we expect that the variability and thermal noise will have limited effect on the gate, it will not disturb the gate functionality. We will explore deeply the variability and thermal noise effects on the proposed gates in the near future.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:Conclusion}
Novel FO2 spin wave Majority and XOR gates were proposed in this paper. It was demonstrated that by using phase detection, a Majority gate is implemented, whereas the XOR is implemented by threshold detection. Also, the proposed logic gates were validated by means of MuMax3 simulations. The proposed logic gates were assessed and compared with the state-of-the-art spin wave, and \SI{16}{nm} and \SI{7}{nm} CMOS logic gates. Our evaluation indicated that the proposed logic gates save $25$\%-$50$\% energy while having the same delay with respect to the state-of-the-art spin wave counterparts. Whereas the result indicated that the proposed logic gates decrease the energy consumption of $43$x-$0.8$x when compared to the \SI{16}{nm} and \SI{7}{nm} CMOS counterparts while having delay overhead of $11$x-$40$x.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No. 801055 "Spin Wave Computing for Ultimately-Scaled Hybrid Low-Power Electronics" – CHIRON. It has also been partially supported by imec’s industrial affiliate program on beyond-CMOS logic. F.V. acknowledges financial support from the Research Foundation–-Flanders (FWO) through grant No.~1S05719N.
|
\subsection{Notation}
For two integers $i$ and $j$, ${i:j}$ indicates the sequence $i,i+1,\dots,j$. For two sets $S$ and $Q$, $S\setminus Q$ denotes the difference of set $Q$ and $S$. Moreover, $\abs{S}$ indicates the size of the set.
For a matrix $A$ with elements $A_{ij}$, $\abs{A}$ denotes the matrix with elements $|A_{ij}|$. The normalized matrix is then defined as $A_\nor\triangleq{\abs{A}}/{\max\{\abs{A}\}}$.
For a random process \bb{X}, the randomly generated time series with $n$ elements is expressed by $X_1^n=X_1,\dots,X_n$, or simply $X^n$, and $x_i\in\mathcal{X}$ denotes the realization of the $i$-th sample.
If the process is indexed with $(m)$, i.e., $\bb{X}_{(m)}$, we use $X^n_{(m)}$ to show the time series. A random process corresponds to a node in the graph representation of a network.
For two random variables $X$ and $Y$, the mutual information between them is expressed as $I(X;Y)$, and $H(X)$ stands for the entropy of $X$.
\subsection{Vehicular traffic flow}
Vehicular flow conventionally denotes the number of cars passing by a specific point on the road per unit of time. Among parameters to monitor traffic, the flow of vehicles plays an important role in controlling the behavior of the system. Many aspects of the traffic at a certain point, such as congestion or patterns of rush hour, can be captured directly from the data of one sensor. However, as the transportation infrastructure is physically connected, the traffic flow at one point can effectively influence another point in a local area. Although the effect of a direct physical link could be expressed with models, it seems non-trivial to capture indirect links in spite of their possibly dominant influence. Furthermore, models would get complicated as the scale changes from microscopic to mesoscopic and macroscopic.
By analyzing time series data from different sensors, we can infer statistical influences among sensors on a network. A conventional undirected graph which reveals the connection between two points is the correlation graph, in which an undirected link between two nodes exists if they are correlated. In this work, we are interested in testing if the signal at one sensor is causally controlling the signal at another sensor. For instance, if the highway is in free flow, the changes in flow are sensed with a delay at a downstream location, while in a case of congestion the effect propagates backward.
Directed information is a well-established information-theoretic measure to test the existence of such causal links. Based on this notion, the concept of directed information graph (DIG) is proposed; in the following, we review its characteristics.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.25\textwidth}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[]
\node[shape=circle,draw=black,fill=gray!70,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=8pt] (X) at (0,0) {};
\node (XT) at (-0.5,0) {$\bb{X}$};
\node[shape=circle,draw=black,fill=gray!70,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=8pt] (Z) at (1,1) {};
\node (XT) at (0.7,1.3) {$\bb{Z}$};
\node[shape=circle,draw=black,fill=gray!50,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=8pt] (Y) at (2,0) {};
\node (XT) at (2.5,0) {$\bb{Y}$};
\draw [-latex,thick] (X) -- (Z);
\draw [-latex,thick] (Z) -- (Y);
\draw [-latex,thick,dashed] (X) --node [midway,below]{?} (Y);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Proxy effect.}
\end{subfigure}
\qquad\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.25\textwidth}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[]
\node[shape=circle,draw=black,fill=gray!70,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=8pt] (X) at (0,0) {};
\node (XT) at (-0.5,0) {$\bb{X}$};
\node[shape=circle,draw=black,fill=gray!70,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=8pt] (Z) at (1,1) {};
\node (XT) at (0.7,1.3) {$\bb{Z}$};
\node[shape=circle,draw=black,fill=gray!50,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=8pt] (Y) at (2,0) {};
\node (XT) at (2.5,0) {$\bb{Y}$};
\draw [-latex,thick] (Z) -- (X);
\draw [-latex,thick] (Z) -- (Y);
\draw [-latex,thick,dashed] (X) --node [midway,below]{?} (Y);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Cascade effect.}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Effects of latent node $\bb{Z}$ on causal link between $\bb{X}$ and $\bb{Y}$.}
\label{fig:effects}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Directed information graph}
\label{sec:DIG}
Consider three random processes $\bb{X},\bb{Y}$, and $\bb{Z}$; then the \emph{directed information rate} from $\bb{X}$ to $\bb{Y}$ \emph{causally conditioned} on $\bb{Z}$ is defined as:
\begin{align}
I(\co{\bb{X}\to \bb{Y}}{\bb{Z}})&\triangleq \lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}I(Y_{i}\,;\, X_{1}^{i}|Y_{1}^{i-1},Z_{1}^{i}). \label{eq:DI_def}
\end{align}
The definition in~\eqref{eq:DI_def} is based on non-strictly causal dependency. In this sense, instantaneous effects between two nodes appear in both causal directions; in other words, both $I(\co{\bb{X}\to \bb{Y}}{\bb{Z}})$ and $I(\co{\bb{Y}\to \bb{X}}{\bb{Z}})$ share the common terms $I(Y_{i}\,;\, X_{i}|X_{1}^{i-1},Y_{1}^{i-1},Z_{1}^{i})$, $\forall i\in\{1:n\}$, by the chain rule of the mutual information.
Without considering the effect of $\bb{Z}$, a causal link exists from $\bb{X}$ to $\bb{Y}$ if and only if $I(\bb{X}\to \bb{Y})>0$ (given that the mutual information is always non-negative). However, the signal from \bb{Y} may become causally independent of $\bb{X}$ if the signal from $\bb{Z}$ is known.
In fact there are two possible cases where the knowledge of $\bb{Z}$ can change the causal relation from $\bb{X}$ to $\bb{Y}$: the \textit{proxy effect} (Figure~\ref{fig:effects}.a) and the \textit{cascade effect} (Figure~\ref{fig:effects}.b). In the first scenario, information does flow from $\bb{X}$ to $\bb{Y}$ but not directly; thus, by causally conditioning on $\bb{Z}$, the directed information from $\bb{X}$ to $\bb{Y}$ becomes zero.
However, without conditioning, $I(\bb{X}\to \bb{Y})$ is positive and we would wrongly assume that there is a direct causation from $\bb{X}$ to $\bb{Y}$.
In the second scenario, the node $\bb{Z}$ affects both two other nodes,which causes a statistical correlation between them. If the effect on $\bb{X}$ appears before the one in $\bb{Y}$, we will detect a positive $I(\bb{X}\to \bb{Y})$ and we would again incorrectly assume that a causal link exists between them.
These two examples motivate the notion of directed information graph in which there exists a causal link from $\bb{X}$ to $\bb{Y}$ if and only if $I(\co{\bb{X}\to \bb{Y}}{\bb{Z}})>0$.
Extending this definition to larger networks requires the assumption that $\bb{Z}$ is a hyper-node (collection of several nodes) which represents the whole network excluding $\bb{X}$ and $\bb{Y}$ (Figure~\ref{fig:hyperNode}).
To detect edges in a DIG, the causally conditioned directed information is estimated for each pair of nodes and a threshold test on the value indicates the existence of directed links. In the following section, we review methods for estimating the directed information.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[shape=circle,draw=black,fill=gray!70,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=8pt] (X) at (0,0) {};
\node (XT) at (-0.5,0) {$\bb{X}$};
\node[shape=circle,draw=black,fill=gray!70,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=8pt] (Y) at (1,1) {};
\node (XT) at (0.7,1.3) {$\bb{Y}$};
\node[shape=circle,draw=black,fill=gray!50,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=8pt] (Z1) at (1.2,-0.2) {};
\node[shape=circle,draw=black,fill=gray!50,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=8pt] (Z2) at (1.9,0.3) {};
\node[shape=circle,draw=black,fill=gray!50,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=8pt] (Z2) at (2.1,-.6) {};
\node (XT) at (2.5,0.2) {$\bb{Z}$};
\draw [red] plot [smooth cycle,dashed] coordinates {(0.9,-0.2) (2.1,0.55) (2.25,-.8) };
\draw [-latex,thick] (X) -- (Y);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Causally conditioned directed information between $\bb{X}$ and $\bb{Y}$ requires the history of the hyper-node $\bb{Z}$.}
\label{fig:hyperNode}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Estimation}
Various techniques have been suggested to estimate information-theoretic measures such as entropy, and mutual and directed information. In this paper, we focus on two methods in which the probability distribution is estimated and subsequently used to compute the measure: the \emph{empirical} and \emph{context tree} (CT) estimators.
In general, the joint distribution $P(X^i,Y^i,Z^i)$ for any $i\in\{1: n\}$ is needed in order to estimate~\eqref{eq:DI_def}, where $n\to\infty$.
The following assumptions ensure consistency of the estimation while they make the computations feasible.
\begin{assumption}
\label{asm:Markov}
For a graph with three nodes $(\bb{X},\bb{Y},\bb{Z})$ the following should hold true:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\alph*)]
\item $\bb{X},\bb{Y}$, and $\bb{Z}$ are jointly stationary irreducible Markov of order $k$.
\item All transition probabilities $Q(X_{k+1},Y_{k+1},Z_{k+1}|X^{k},Y^{k},Z^{k})$ are positive.
\item For any pairs of nodes such as $\bb{X}$ and $\bb{Y}$, the Markov chain
\begin{align}
\bar X_{i} \,\rule[0.5ex]{1em}{0.55pt}\, (\bar X_{i-k}^{i-1}\bar Y_{i-k}^i) \,\rule[0.5ex]{1em}{0.55pt}\, (\bar X_{1}^{i-k-1}\bar Y_{1}^{i-k-1}) \nonumber
\end{align} must hold for $k<i\leq n$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{assumption}
If Assumption~\ref{asm:Markov} holds true, the directed information in~\eqref{eq:DI_def} can be simplified as:
\begin{align}
I(\co{\bb{X}\to \bb{Y}}{\bb{Z}})=I({Y_{k+1};X^{k+1}}|{Y^k,Z^{k+1}}), \label{eq:DI_Markov}
\end{align}
and estimating $P(X^{k+1},Y^{k+1},Z^{k+1})$ is sufficient.
Note that if only Assumption~\ref{asm:Markov}.a and \ref{asm:Markov}.b hold, the quantity in~\eqref{eq:DI_Markov} is in fact an upper bound for the directed information in~\eqref{eq:DI_def}:
\begin{align}
&I(\co{\bb{X}\to \bb{Y}}{\bb{Z}})=\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=k+1}^{n}I(Y_{i}\,;\, X_{1}^{i}|Y_{1}^{i-1},Z_{1}^{i}) \nonumber\\
&\quad= \lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=k+1}^{n} \left[H(Y_{i}|Y_{1}^{i-1},Z_{1}^{i}) - H(Y_{i} |X_{1}^{i}, Y_{1}^{i-1},Z_{1}^{i})\right] \nonumber\\
&\quad= I({Y_{k+1};X^{k+1}}|{Y^k,Z^{k+1}})- \lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=k+1}^{n}I(Y_{i};Y_{1}^{i-k-1},Z_{1}^{i-k-1}|Y_{i-k}^{i-1},Z_{i-k}^{i})\nonumber\\
&\quad\leq I({Y_{k+1};X^{k+1}}|{Y^k,Z^{k+1}}).
\end{align}
\subsubsection{Plug-in empirical estimator}
In this method, the distribution $P(X^{k+1},Y^{k+1},Z^{k+1})$ is estimated empirically, by counting the patterns in the observation.
Then by plugging-in the empirical distribution into~\eqref{eq:DI_Markov}, we obtain an estimate of the directed information, denoted $\hat{I}_\emp(\co{\bb{X}\to \bb{Y}}{\bb{Z}})$.
For a pair of nodes, the plug-in estimator $\hat{I}_\emp(\bb{X}\to \bb{Y})$ is shown to be consistent with probability one (almost surely) when the source is stationary ergodic and both $(\bb{X},\bb{Y})$ and $\bb{Y}$ are Markov sources~\cite[Thm.~1]{quinn2011estimating}. The extension to networks with more than two nodes implies that the plug-in estimator $\hat{I}_\emp(\co{\bb{X}\to \bb{Y}}{\bb{Z}})$ is consistent with probability one if $(\bb{X},\bb{Y},\bb{Z})$ and $(\bb{Y},\bb{Z})$ are ergodic stationary Markov sources of the same order (Assumption~\ref{asm:Markov}).
To test a graph structure, it is required to perform a threshold test on all links, i.e., the estimated conditional directed information should be above a predefined threshold $I_\trh$. We say the graph is detected correctly if the adjacency matrix of the estimated graph is equal to the one of the true underlying graph. The performance of such a test is addressed in the following theorem. It indicates that using the empirical estimator, the type I and type II errors of testing DIG are asymptotically zero, given a proper choice of $I_\trh$.
\begin{theorem}[\citet{Mol2017TestforDIG}]
Consider a network of $M$ sensors. For a directed information graph with adjacency matrix $V$ of size ${M\times M}$, if Assumption~\ref{asm:Markov} holds, the performance of the test for the hypothesis $V^*$ is bounded as:
\begin{align}
P_F &\leq 1-P_G\left(\frac{R}{2},I_{th}\right), \nonumber\\
P_D &\geq \max\!\left\{1-W_0\!\left[1-P_G\left(\frac{R}{2},I_{th}\right)\right],0\right\},
\end{align}
using the plug-in estimation of $n$ samples with $n\to\infty$. The function $P_G$ is the \emph{regularized gamma function}, and $W_0=M(M-1)-W_1$ with $W_1$ denoting the number of directed edges in the hypothesis graph, and $R=\abs{\mathcal{X}}^{M\,k}( \abs{\mathcal{X}}^{M}-1)$. Finally, $I_{th}$ is the threshold value used to decide the existence of an edge, and its order is $\mathcal{O}(1)$.
\end{theorem}
\subsubsection{Context tree estimator}
Although the empirical estimator is consistent in evaluating the distribution, as the dimension of the model increases, it requires more samples to achieve good estimates. Consequently, in practice, it is crucial to reduce the computational complexity of the estimation. In addition, by the Markov assumption (Assumption~\ref{asm:Markov}.a), we consider all patterns of sequence with a depth $k$, while in practice some patterns may rarely appear compared to others, and computing all possible patterns would not be efficient. To address this, the context tree algorithm was proposed by~\citet{willems1995context,willems1998context} for a class of stationary ergodic finite-alphabet sources, and shown to be linear in the number of samples ($n$).
In~\citet{jiao2013universal}, the estimation of the directed information based on CT is investigated and the consistency is assured with probability one, as long as the source is irreducible aperiodic Markov (Assumption~\ref{asm:Markov}).
The estimated directed information can be computed in several ways (\citet{jiao2013universal}); each estimator has a different convergence speed and behavior with respect to $n$. In our method, we have chosen our CT estimator to be
\begin{align}
\hat I_\ct(\co{\bb{X}\to \bb{Y}}{\bb{Z}})\triangleq \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n} D\!\left(\co{\hat{P}_\ct(y_i|X^i,Y^{i-1},Z^i)}{\hat{P}_{CT}(y_i|Y^{i-1},Z^i)}\right),
\label{eq:DI_est}
\end{align}
where $D(\co{\cdot}{\cdot})$ is the relative entropy where we average over different choices of $y_i$,
and $\hat{P}_\ct(\cdot)$ is the estimated distribution based on the context tree method. Note that the estimator is non-negative due to the non-negativity of the relative entropy.
\subsection{Estimation of memory depth}
\label{Subsec:Est_depth}
For both estimators, the maximum memory depth $d$ for which the causal effects are taken into consideration--through $\hat{P}(X^{d+1},Y^{d+1},Z^{d+1})$--needs to be determined. If the source is Markov, one can fix any memory greater than the order of the Markov process. However, in real data where the process is unknown, determining the memory depth is not trivial. In simple traffic scenarios where the physical location of the sensors and average speeds of the vehicles are available, an approximate depth can be calculated. Nevertheless, our approach to determine the memory depth is data-driven, depends only on the traffic flows, and it is based on statistics of signals from each sensor.
Motivated by spatio-temporal analysis, for any pair of nodes $\bb{X}$ and $\bb{Y}$, we evaluate the cross-covariance between traffic flows and the location of the peak determines how much delay is required such that the signals become statically correlated:
\begin{align}
\cov_{X,Y}(\tau)&=\frac{1}{n-\tau}\sum_{i=1}^{n-\tau}(X_{i+\tau}-\mu_X)(Y_i-\mu_Y)\qquad \tau\in\{0,\dots,n-1\}\\
d_{XY}&=\underset{\tau}{\operatorname{arg\,max}} \{\cov_{X,Y}(\tau)\},
\end{align}
where $\mu_X$ and $\mu_Y$ are the sample means.
Then we choose the depth $d$ for estimation to be the maximum among all computed delays.
Choosing an insufficient depth will likely cause an erroneous estimation with either of the estimators in this paper. In the sequel, we only discuss the effects on the plug-in empirical estimator due to its simplicity, and later comment on the CT estimator.
Consider a network with three nodes $\{\bb{X},\bb{Y},\bb{Z}\}$ which fulfills Assumption~\ref{asm:Markov}, and suppose we estimate the causal link from $\bb{X}$ to $\bb{Y}$.
Let us indicate the empirical estimator with the assumption of a $d$-th order Markov process as
\begin{equation}
\hat{I}_\emp^{(d)}(\co{\bb{X}\to \bb{Y}}{\bb{Z}})\triangleq \hat I_\emp({Y_{d+1};X_1^{d+1}}|{Y_1^d,Z_1^{d+1}}).
\end{equation}
Note that in the limit of large number of samples, this estimation is consistent.
If the estimated depth were $\hat d=k-1$, i.e., one order smaller than the true value, then the empirical plug-in estimator is given by
\begin{align}
\hat I^{(k-1)}_\emp(\co{\bb{X}\to \bb{Y}}{\bb{Z}})=\hat I_\emp({Y_{k+1};X_2^{k+1}}|{Y_2^k,Z_2^{k+1}}).
\end{align}
Therefore, the (asymptotical) difference between $\hat I^{(k)}_\emp$ and $\hat I^{(k-1)}_\emp$ is:
\begin{align}
& \hat I_\emp({Y_{k+1};X_1^{k+1}}|{Y_1^k,Z_1^{k+1}})-\hat I_\emp({Y_{k+1};X_2^{k+1}}|{Y_2^k,Z_2^{k+1}})\nonumber\\
&\qquad= H(Y_{k+1}|Y_1^k, Z_1^{k+1})-H(Y_{k+1}|X_1^{k+1}, Y_1^k, Z_1^{k+1})\nonumber\\
&\qquad\quad -H(Y_{k+1}|Y_2^k, Z_2^{k+1})+H(Y_{k+1}|X_2^{k+1}, Y_2^k, Z_2^{k+1})\label{eq:I_diff}\\
&\qquad= I(Y_{k+1};X_1,Y_1,Z_1|X_2^{k+1},Y_2^k,Z_2^{k+1})-I(Y_{k+1};Y_1,Z_1|Y_2^k,Z_2^{k+1}).\label{DI_d_diff}
\end{align}
In the case of the CT estimator, estimating $P(X_2^{k+1},Y_2^{k+1},Z_2^{k+1})$, i.e., the marginal of the joint probability corresponding to the $k$-th order Markov, is consistent only if we use the algorithm proposed in~\cite{willems1998context}. The proof of consistency for $\hat I_\ct^{(k-1)}$ requires a deeper analysis which is not the focus of this paper.
To understand how the trade-off in \eqref{DI_d_diff} behaves, consider the \emph{full network} $\{\bb{X},\bb{Y},\bb{Z}\}$ and the \emph{sub-network} $\{\bb{Y},\bb{Z}\}$ in the following extreme cases. If the \emph{sub-network} is Markov of order $k-1$ (while the whole network is of order $k$) the difference in \eqref{DI_d_diff} is positive, so the estimation of the directed information is always below the true value. On the other hand, \eqref{DI_d_diff} becomes strictly negative when the \emph{full network} is Markov of order $k-1$ and the \emph{sub-network} is not. Trivially, if the Markov property with order $k-1$ holds for both of them, the difference is zero.
Erroneous estimations are also possible in less extreme scenarios as we see next.
Consider three sensors $\bb{X}$, $\bb{Y}$, and $\bb{Z}$ in a network such that:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lin_Pois_model}
\left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
X_i &= \,a_1\,Z_{i-1}+N_i,\\
Y_i &= \,a_2\,X_{i-1}+a_3\,Z_{i}+N'_i,\\
Z_i &= \,a_4\,Z_{i-2}+N''_i,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $N$, $N'$, and $N''$ are independent random Poisson noises\footnote{%
The Poisson model is a conventional way to express links of traffic as queues (\citet{vandaele2000queueing}), and we have also used it to validate our method in Section~\ref{Sec:Poisson}.}; the coefficients in~\eqref{eq:lin_Pois_model} can be chosen to ensure stability of the system.
It is easy to see that the whole network and the sub-network $\{\bb{Y},\bb{Z}\}$ are both second order Markov processes, and thus our previous analysis regarding~\eqref{DI_d_diff} does not hold.
For this model, a consistent estimator of $I(\co{\bb{X}\to \bb{Y}}{\bb{Z}})$ should consider a depth $d=2$.
In the following, we show that with $n\to\infty$, estimators with smaller depths produce varying outputs, in particular:
\begin{equation}
\hat I_\emp^{(0)}(\co{\bb{X}\to \bb{Y}}{\bb{Z}}) \leq \hat I_\emp^{(2)}(\co{\bb{X}\to \bb{Y}}{\bb{Z}}) \leq \hat I_\emp^{(1)}(\co{\bb{X}\to \bb{Y}}{\bb{Z}}).
\label{eq:depth}
\end{equation}
In other words, by choosing the depth to be $d=1$ we get an upper bound for the correct estimator, while choosing $d=0$ yields a lower bound.
The right inequality in~\eqref{eq:depth} can be proved as follows
\begin{align}
&\hat I_\emp^{(2)}(\co{\bb{X}\to \bb{Y}}{\bb{Z}}) - \hat I_\emp^{(1)}(\co{\bb{X}\to \bb{Y}}{\bb{Z}})\nonumber\\
&\hspace{.3cm}= H(Y_i|Y_{i-2}^{i-1},Z_{i-2}^i) -H(Y_i|X_{i-2}^i,Y_{i-2}^{i-1},Z_{i-2}^i) -H(Y_i|Y_{i-1},Z_{i-1}^i) \nonumber\\
&\hspace{.7cm} +H(Y_i|X_{i-1}^i,Y_{i-1},Z_{i-1}^i)\nonumber\\
&\hspace{.3cm}= H(a_2 N_{i-1} +N'_{i}) -H(N'_{i}) -H(a_1a_2Z_{i-2}+a_2N_{i-1}+N'_{i}| Y_{i-1}, Z_{i-1}^i) \nonumber\\
&\hspace{.7cm} +H(N'_{i}) \nonumber\\
&\hspace{.3cm}\leq H(a_2 N_{i-1} +N'_{i}) -H(a_2N_{i-1}+N'_{i}| a_2N_{i-2}+N'_{i-1}, Z_{i-2}^{i-1}, N''_{i}) \nonumber\\
&\hspace{.3cm}=0,
\end{align}
where the inequality holds since conditioning on $N''_{i}$ reduces the entropy, and the final equality is due to $a_2 N_{i-1} +N'_{i}$ being independent of the quantities in the conditioning.
On the other hand, the left inequality in~\eqref{eq:depth} is trivial if we note that
\begin{align}
&\hat I^{(0)}(\co{\bb{X}\to \bb{Y}}{\bb{Z}})\nonumber\\
&\hspace{.3cm}= I(X_i ;Y_i|Z_i) \nonumber\\
&\hspace{.3cm}= I(a_1Z_{i-1}+N_{i} ;\, a_1a_2Z_{i-2}+a_2N_{i-1}+N'_{i}| a_4Z_{i-2}+N''_{i}) \nonumber\\
&\hspace{.3cm}= 0.
\end{align}
The preceding analysis shows that, in this particular example, the choice of estimator depth may substantially change the final estimated graph.
Assume first that the coefficient $a_2$ is very small, which induces a small value of $I(\co{\bb{X}\to \bb{Y}}{\bb{Z}})$, and further assume that we are only interested in finding strong connections between nodes.
In this case, the choice $d=1$ may increase the estimated value of the directed information above the desired threshold, and thus we determine a causal connection $\bb{X}\to \bb{Y}$ when it was not the case.
On the contrary, if we are interested in detecting all causal connections and we choose $d=0$, we will fail to detect this relationship.
\subsection{Quantization}
The estimation cost is affected by the dimension of the data, in the sense of number of nodes and range of values that the vehicular flow can take. To picture the effect of range, note that the computational complexity of the empirical estimator is polynomial in the alphabet size of the flow values.
To resolve this issue, the data of each sensor can be initially quantized to $r$ levels.
In consequence, we no longer estimate for the true traffic data, but a quantized value of that. Nevertheless, it makes sense as small variations in the number of cars have low impact on the overall flow of a link.
There is a trade-off in choosing $r$ between complexity and accuracy of the estimation which depends on the data and computational resources. Hereafter and with a slight abuse of terminology, we consider all traffic flows to be quantized.
To estimate the joint distribution of few random variables, we combine them into one with a larger alphabet. For example, $X$ and $Y \in \mathcal{X} \triangleq \{ 0,1,\dots,\abs{\mathcal{X}}-1 \}$ can be combined in a new random variable $W\triangleq\abs{\mathcal{X}}Y+X$ with alphabet size $\abs{\mathcal{X}}^2$.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{Detecting Directed Information Graph}
\label{alg:DIG}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Procedure{Estimate\_DIG}{$X_{(1)},X_{(2)},\dots,X_{(M)}$}
\State {$r \gets$ Fix number of quantization levels}
\State {$\alpha \gets$ Fix threshold for test}
\For {every pair of $(m,l)$}
\State {$\cov_{m,l}$ $\gets$ cross\_covariance($X_{(m)},X_{(l)}$)}
\State {$d_{m,l}$ $\gets$ $|$position of peak of $\cov_{m,l}|$}
\EndFor
\State {$d \gets$ $\max\limits_{m,l}$\{$d_{m,l}$\}}
\For {every $m\in [1:M]$}
\State {$X_{(m)} \gets$ Quantize($X_{(m)},r$)}
\EndFor
\For {every pair of $(m,l)$}
\State Compute $\hat P(X_{(m)}^{d+1},X_{(l)}^{d+1}|X_{\{1:M\}\setminus\{m,l\}}^{d+1})$
\State $I(m,l) \gets \hat I(\co{\bb{X}_{(m)}\to \bb{X}_{(l)}}{\bb{X}_{\{1:M\}\setminus\{m,l\}}})$
\State $H(m,l) \gets \hat H(\co{\bb{X}_{(l)}}{\bb{X}_{\{1:M\}\setminus\{m,l\}}})$
\State $G_{m,l} \gets \hat I(m,l)/H(m,l)$
\EndFor
\State {$G_\nor$ $\gets$ normalize $G$}
\State {$DIG \gets (G_\nor\geq \alpha)$}
\State\Return {G, DIG}
\EndProcedure
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Test for the directed information graph}
The DIG can be created by applying a threshold test on the estimated values of directed information. It is however difficult to determine a proper value for the threshold given that we are a priori unaware of the range of values of the directed information, which may also vary depending on the quantization levels. Note that for any $n$, by the definition in~\eqref{eq:DI_est}, $\hat I_{CT}(\co{\bb{X}\to\bb{Y}}{\bb{Z}})\leq \hat H_{CT}(\co{\bb{Y}}{\bb{Z}})$ holds true where:
\begin{align}
\hat{H}_{CT}(\co{\bb{Y}}{\bb{Z}})&\triangleq -\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \sum_{y_i}\hat{P}_{CT}(y_i|X^i,Y^{i-1},Z^i)\log\left(\hat{P}_{CT}(y_i|Y^{i-1},Z^i)\right),\label{eq:H_ct}
\end{align}
and $\hat I_{\emp}(\co{\bb{X}\to\bb{Y}}{\bb{Z}})\leq \hat H_{\emp}(\co{\bb{Y}}{\bb{Z}})$ by the following definition:
\begin{align}
\hat{H}_{\emp}(\co{\bb{Y}}{\bb{Z}})&\triangleq - \sum_{y^{k+1},z^{k+1}}\hat{P}_\emp(y^{k+1},z^{k+1})\log\left(\hat{P}_\emp(y_{k+1}|y^{k},z^{k+1})\right).
\label{eq:H_est}
\end{align}
As a result, we are able to normalize the causally conditioned directed information from $\bb{X}$ to $\bb{Y}$ for either of the estimators as:
\begin{equation}
\hat I^*_{X \to Y}\triangleq \frac{\hat I(\co{\bb{X}\to\bb{Y}}{\bb{Z}})}{\hat H(\co{\bb{Y}}{\bb{Z}})},
\label{eq:I_norm}
\end{equation}
where $\hat I$ and $\hat H$ correspond to the same estimator.
We can construct an adjacency matrix $G$ of the network using~\eqref{eq:I_norm}, where the off-diagonal entries are given by $\hat I^*_{X \to Y}$.
By the definition of the DIG, detecting links is performed by a threshold test on the entries of $G$. We may adjust the threshold to detect significant causal links in the graph or just the strongest ones. The detection steps are presented in Algorithm~\ref{alg:DIG}.
\subsection{Synthetic data (Poisson model)}
\label{Sec:Poisson}
Motivated by queue models for roads such as in~\citet{vandaele2000queueing}, we simulate road data by considering the roads as buffers in which traffic is injected following an i.i.d.\ Poisson distributed random variable with mean $\lambda$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\textnormal{Pr}\!\left(X_{(1),i}=x\right)=e^{-\lambda}\frac{\lambda^x}{x!},
\end{equation}
for the incoming traffic at node $\bb{X}_{(1)}$. Each car proceeds independently of the others and the traffic propagates through the network. Finally, a random Poisson noise with mean $\mu_{(j)}$ is independently added at each sensor $\bb{X}_{(j)}$; the noise represents unobserved cars from side roads or instrumental error of the sensors. For each case, we generated $n=10^6$ samples.
Assume that the maximum time distance between sensors is one. In real scenarios, if the sensors are too close, it may happen that the same car appears in two consecutive sensors in one time slot.
By the definition of the directed information~\eqref{eq:DI_def}, such instantaneous events are accounted for in the information flowing in both directions.
To verify this, in the synthetic model we also investigate the case where the cars can only appear in two successive sensors with one step delay, i.e., removing any instantaneous effect.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.35\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.85\linewidth]{Pics/Row.png}
\caption{Traffic on a single road.}
\label{fig:Sim_Row}
\end{subfigure}
~\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.35\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.85\linewidth]{Pics/Merge.png}
\caption{Merging traffic scenario.}
\label{fig:Sim_Merge}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Synthetic models.}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Sensors in sequence:}
In this setup, four sensors are located consecutively with equal distance.
To model both the rush hour and the low traffic period of a normal road, the mean of the input traffic alternates every 20 samples between $\lambda=5$ and $\lambda=1$ periodically. The noise parameters are $\mu_{(j)}=1,\, \forall j$.
In the first scenario (S-I), each car appears at the next sensor with one frame delay, while in the second scenario (S-II), a car is allowed to appear simultaneously in two consecutive sensors.
\textbf{Merging traffic:}
In this scenario, two flows merge into one; we consider here three sensors as in Figure~\ref{fig:Sim_Merge}. The injected traffic ($\bb{X}_{(1)}$, $\bb{X}_{(2)}$) is assumed to be two independent Poisson random variables with means alternating periodically between $5$ and $1$, and the mean for the additive noise is set to be $\mu_{(j)}=1, \, \forall j$.
Furthermore, by allowing only the cars from $\bb{X}_{(1)}$ to reach $\bb{X}_{(3)}$ instantaneously (less than the sampling time), we expect to detect flow of information in the backward direction $\bb{X}_{(3)}\to \bb{X}_{(1)}$ due to the definition~\eqref{eq:DI_def} (see also the discussion therein).
In a real traffic scenario, besides this instantaneous effect, a backward flow (with respect to the direction of traffic on the road) is expected to appear also when there is a congestion. However, in order to have a better control on the queue model and avoid complexity, we did not consider capacity for the link and model the congestion.
\begin{table}
\caption{Estimated $G_\nor$ for Poisson queue model using Algorithm~\ref{alg:DIG}.}
\label{tab:res_Simul}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c | c | c}
S-I & S-II & S-III \\ \hline
\rule{0pt}{40pt}
$\begin{bmatrix}\cg{0} & \mathbf{1} & \cg{0} & \cg{0}\\ \cg{0} & \cg{0} & \mathbf{0.9}& \cg{0} \\ \cg{0} & \cg{0} & \cg{0}& \mathbf{1} \\ \cg{0} & \cg{0} & \cg{0}& \cg{0} \end{bmatrix}$
&$\begin{bmatrix}\cg{0} & \mathbf{1} & \cg{0.1} & \cg{0}\\\mathbf{0.6} & \cg{0} & \mathbf{0.4}& \cg{0} \\ \cg{0} & \cg{0.2} & \cg{0}& \mathbf{0.5} \\ \cg{0} & \cg{0} & \cg{0.3}& \cg{0} \end{bmatrix}$
& $\begin{bmatrix}\cg{0} & \cg{0.1} & \mathbf{0.7}\\ \cg{0.1} & \cg{0} & \mathbf{1}\\ \mathbf{0.5} & \cg{0.1} & \cg{0}\end{bmatrix}$
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.3\textwidth}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[]
\tikzstyle{nod} = [draw=none,fill=none,right]
\node (T) [nod] at (0,1) {};
\node (T2) [nod] at (0,-1) {};
\node (S1) [nod] at (0,0) {$\bb{X}_{(1)}$};
\node (S2) [nod] at (2,0) {$\bb{X}_{(2)}$};
\node (S3) [nod] at (4,0) {$\bb{X}_{(3)}$};
\node (S4) [nod] at (6,0) {$\bb{X}_{(4)}$};
\draw [thick,-latex] (S1) -- (S2);
\draw [thick,-latex] (S2) -- (S3);
\draw [thick,-latex] (S3) -- (S4);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{S-I.}
\end{subfigure}
\qquad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.3\textwidth}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[]
\tikzstyle{nod} = [draw=none,fill=none,right]
\node (T) [nod] at (0,2) {};
\node (T2) [nod] at (0,0) {};
\node (S1) [nod] at (0,1) {$\bb{X}_{(1)}$};
\node (S2) [nod] at (2,1) {$\bb{X}_{(2)}$};
\node (S3) [nod] at (4,1) {$\bb{X}_{(3)}$};
\node (S4) [nod] at (6,1) {$\bb{X}_{(4)}$};
\draw [thick,-latex] (S1) to[bend left=15] (S2);
\draw [thick,-latex] (S2) to[bend left=15] (S1);
\draw [thick,-latex] (S2) -- (S3);
\draw [thick,-latex] (S3) -- (S4);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{S-II.}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{0.55\columnwidth}{!}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[]
\tikzstyle{nod} = [draw=none,fill=none,right]
\node (S1) [nod] at (0,1) {$\bb{X}_{(1)}$};
\node (S2) [nod] at (0,-1) {$\bb{X}_{(2)}$};
\node (S3) [nod] at (3,0) {$\bb{X}_{(3)}$};
\draw [thick,-latex] (S1) to[bend right=10] (S3);
\draw [thick,-latex] (S2) to[bend left=5] (S3);
\draw [thick,-latex] (S3) to[bend right=15] (S1);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{S-III.}
\label{fig:DIG_Simul_Merge}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Estimated DIG from synthetic data (Poisson model) with $d=1$ and threshold $\alpha=0.4$.}
\label{fig:DIG_Simul}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Pics/CoD}
\caption{The computed CoD for each pair of nodes and different time shifts $\tau$, corresponding to scenarios S-I, S-II and S-III respectively from left.}
\label{fig:COD}
\end{figure}
The graphs are estimated using Algorithm~\ref{alg:DIG} with the context tree estimator and two levels of quantization; the adjacency matrix $G$ and $G_\nor$ are computed.
Table~\ref{tab:res_Simul} states the normalized matrix $G_\nor$, with stronger links indicated with boldface (values above or equal to $\alpha=0.4$).
Finally the DIG is depicted for each scenario in Figure~\ref{fig:DIG_Simul}.
It can be observed how the instantaneous effect changes the flow of information in all links.
Note that in S-II a car can be fast enough to be observed at all sensors in one frame, while in S-III, only one link allows fast cars and that is the link where we observe a backward flow.
To complete our discussion, the values of CoD, defined as
$$CoD_{\bb{X}_{(i)},\bb{X}_{(j)}}(\tau)=\left[\frac{\bE{(X_{(i),t} -\mu_{\bb{X}_{(i)}})(X_{(j),t+\tau} -\mu_{\bb{X}_{(j)}})}}{\sigma_{\bb{X}_{(i)}} \sigma_{\bb{X}_{(j)}}}\right]^2,$$
are computed for each pair of nodes in Figure~\ref{fig:COD}. $\mu_{\bb{X}}$ and $\sigma_{\bb{X}}$ denote mean and standard deviation of $\bb{X}$ respectively. The location of peak indicates the time shift in which two traffic flows are alike, while the value of peak determines similarity in the corresponding time shift. However, It is non-trivial to obtain the causality and extent of the effect from one node to another by the values of CoD. Additionaly, CoD does not isolate the effect from other nodes in the transportaion network and exhibits only a pairwise relation (see the discussion corresponding to Figure~\ref{fig:effects})
\subsection{Synthetic data (CTM model)}
\label{Sec:CTM}
We consider the scenario of sensors on a single road (C-I) and merging traffic (C-II).
The traffic dynamics are modeled according to a modification of the well-known Cell Transmission Model (\cite{daganzo1994cell}),
where we divide the road into a number of cells and track the evolution of traffic density in each of them,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:CTMPHI}
\rho_{i,l}(t+1) = \rho_{i,l}(t) + \frac{T}{L}\left( \Phi_{i,l}^+(t) - \Phi_{i,l}^-(t)\right), \quad i\in\{1: N_l\}, \ l\in\{1: K\}.
\end{equation}
Here $\rho_{i,l}(t)$ is the traffic density in cell $i$ of link $l$ at time $t$, $L$ the cell length, $T$ is the length of the time step, $N_l$ the number of cells in link $l$, $K$ the number of links in the considered road network, and $\Phi_{i,l}^+(t)$ and $\Phi_{i,l}^-(t)$ are the total flow during one time step into and out of cell $i$ of link $l$, respectively.
In scenario (C-I), we consider $K=1$ link with $N_1=100$ cells, and in scenario (C-II), we have $K=2$, $N_1=200$, $N_2=100$, and link $2$ merges into cell ${C_{2\rightarrow 1}=100}$ of link $1$.
The flows between cells are given by
\begin{align}
\Phi_{i,l}^-(t) = \Phi_{i+1,l}^+(t) &= \min\left(D_{i,l}(t), S_{i+1,l}(t)\right),\nonumber\\
D_{i,l}(t) &= \min\left(V_{i,l}(t)\rho_{i,l}(t), Q_{i,l}^{\max}\right),\nonumber\\
S_{i,l}(t) &= \min\left(W_{i,l}(t)\left(P_{i,l} - \rho_{i,l}(t)\right), Q_{i,l}^{\max}\right),
\end{align}
for $(i,l)$, $i\in\{1: N_l\}$, except for the two cells before and one cell after the merge, in which case we have
\begin{align}
\Phi_{C_{2\rightarrow 1}-1,1}^-(t) &= \min\left(D_{C_{2\rightarrow 1}-1,1}(t), S_{C_{2\rightarrow 1},1}(t)\frac{\rho_{C_{2\rightarrow 1}-1,1}(t)}{\rho_{C_{2\rightarrow 1}-1,1}(t)+\rho_{N_2,2}(t)}\right),\nonumber\\
\Phi_{N_2,2}^-(t) &= \min\left(D_{N_2,2}(t), S_{C_{2\rightarrow 1},1}(t)\frac{\rho_{N_2,2}(t)}{\rho_{C_{2\rightarrow 1}-1,1}(t)+\rho_{N_2,2}(t)}\right),\nonumber\\
\Phi_{C_{2\rightarrow 1},1}^+(t) &= \Phi_{C_{2\rightarrow 1}-1,1}^-(t) + \Phi_{N_2,2}^-(t),
\end{align}
effectively assuming proportional priority is assumed to the two merging roads.
The flow into the first cells of each link, $\Phi_{1,l}^+$ is defined externally.
In order to add stochasticity to the model, free flow speed $V_{i,l}(t)$ and congestion wave speed $W_{i,l}(t)$ of each cell are taken as uniformly distributed random variables: ${V_{i,l}(t) \sim \mathcal{U}(V_{\min}, V_{\max})}$ and ${W_{i,l}(t) \sim \mathcal{U}(W_{\min}, W_{\max})}$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.47\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{Pics/CTM_Highway.png}
\caption{Sensors on a row (C-I).}
\label{Fig:CTM_row}
\end{subfigure}\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.47\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{Pics/CTM_Merge.png}
\caption{Model for merging traffic (C-II).}
\label{Fig:CTM_merge}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{The CTM model for scenarios of a sequential sensors and merging traffic. Sensors are mounted at indicated cells. }
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{Estimated matrix $G_\nor$ for scenarios C-I and C-II, with $d=6$ and $d=4$, respectively.}
\label{tab:res_CTM}
\begin{tabular}{c | c }
C-I & C-II \\ \hline
\rule{0pt}{50pt}
$\begin{bmatrix}\cg{0} & \mathbf{1} & \cg{0.6} & \cg{0.6}\\ \cg{0.6} & \cg{0} & \mathbf{0.8} & \cg{0.6} \\ \cg{0.5} & \cg{0.6} & \cg{0}& \mathbf{0.9} \\ \cg{0.4} & \cg{0.6} & \cg{0.6}& \cg{0} \end{bmatrix}$
&$\begin{bmatrix}\cg{0} &\cg{0.6}& \mathbf{1} & \\ \cg{0.5} & \cg{0} & \mathbf{1} \\ \cg{0.5} & \cg{0.6} & \cg{0}\end{bmatrix}$
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Among all cells in scenario C-I we have chosen four at the beginning of the link to avoid the saturation due to the congestion which is propagating backward (Figure~\ref{Fig:CTM_row}). On the other hand, in C-II, we are interested in seeing the behavior at the merging point and three sensors are chosen accordingly (Figure~\ref{Fig:CTM_merge}).
We simulated $n=10^4$ samples for the two scenarios with the CT method and estimated the corresponding adjacency matrices using Algorithm~\ref{alg:DIG}.
We obtained the DIGs with similar $G_\nor$ as in the Poisson model (Table~\ref{tab:res_CTM}).
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Pics/Fresno_final.png}
\label{fig:Real_Row}
\caption{Sensors installed on interstate 5 south, Fresno, CA.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Pics/SanDiego_new.png}
\label{fig:Real_Merge}
\caption{Sensors installed on interstate 15 north and road 163 north, San Diego, CA.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Real data}
\label{Sec:real}
To further test our estimator, traffic data for three different scenarios from the California Department of Transportation~(Caltrans)\footnote{Available at \url{http://pems.dot.ca.gov}.} is used. The data is aggregated traffic flow for every 5 minutes, extracted from installed sensors at the interstate 5 south in Fresno (R-I), the interstate 15 north in San Diego (R-II), and the downtown area of San Jose (R-III).
We collected data from January 2017 to June 2019, every day, 24 hours. To avoid missing the cars that change lane, the aggregated data of all lanes in one side of the road is considered.
In the first setup, three sensors are chosen sequentially on the interstate 5 south, Fresno, CA such that, with an average speed, the distances between the sensors are approximately 5 and 25 minutes, respectively. As a result, the suggested depth to detect all causal links is $d=6$. However, estimated depth according to Algorithm~\ref{alg:DIG} is $d=5$.
In the second setup, we selected three sensors on a merging traffic scenario in San Diego, where the highway 160 north merges into the interstate 15 north. Despite the distance between sensors being approximately 5 minutes, the estimated depth obtained by cross-correlation is $d=6$.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{Estimated matrix $G_\nor$ for scenarios R-I and R-II, with $d=5$ and $d=6$, respectively.}
\label{tab:Real}
\begin{tabular}{c | c}
R-I & R-II \\ \hline
\rule{0pt}{50pt}
$\begin{bmatrix}\cg{0} & \mathbf{1} & \cg{0.6} \\ \cg{0.6} & \cg{0} & \mathbf{0.7} \\ \cg{0.5} & \cg{0.5} & \cg{0}\end{bmatrix}$
&$\begin{bmatrix}\cg{0} & \cg{0.3} & \mathbf{1}\\ \cg{0.3} & \cg{0} & \mathbf{0.7} \\ \cg{0.5} & \cg{0.4} & \cg{0}\end{bmatrix}$
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table~\ref{tab:Real} contains the matrix $G_\nor$ estimated by the context tree method.
The initial hypothesis for causal structure for R-I is having two directed link $1\to 2$ and $2\to 3$, while for R-II we expect the main effects to be from sensors $1\to 3$ and $2\to 3$.
The estimated adjacency matrices confirm the initial hypothesis for both cases with a proper choice of the threshold.
However, $G_\nor$ reveals a non-negligible causal effect in other links that could be explained with the following ad hoc hypothesis. The existence of vehicles that appear in several sensors in the period of $d$ time steps (instantaneous observations in the controlled simulated scenarios S-II and S-III) results in a bidirectional dependency among sensors which appears in the values of the directed information. By changing the notion of causality to be strict, we may isolate such effects, forming a potential future research direction.
In Figure~\ref{fig:depth}, the values of $I(\co{\bb{X}_{(i)}\to \bb{X}_{(j)}}{\bb{X}_{\{1,2,3\}\setminus\{i,j\}}})$ for the scenario R-I are shown for different choices of $d$ and $i,j$.
We note that all the values seem to have converged when $d=6$ which validates the estimation we have used for the depth of the Markov model.
Furthermore, the trend of values before convergence can be explained by the discussion in Section~\ref{Subsec:Est_depth} for an insufficient memory depth of the estimator.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{Pics/Row.jpg}
\caption{Estimated values of the directed information for different choices of model depth $d$ in scenario R-I.}
\label{fig:depth}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Pics/SanJose.png}
\caption{Sensors installed on highways in the downtown area of San Jose, CA. An arrow indicates physical direction of the lane(s) where a sensor is mounted. Note that there is no direct path from $\bb{X}_{(2)}$ to $\bb{X}_{(3)}$ since the major traffic from $\bb{X}_{(2)}$ passes above a bridge.}
\label{fig:Real_Mix}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.3\textwidth}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[]
\tikzstyle{nod} = [draw=none,fill=none,right]
\node (S1) [nod] at (0,0) {$\bb{X}_{(1)}$};
\node (S3) [nod] at (2,1) {$\bb{X}_{(3)}$};
\node (S5) [nod] at (2,-1) {$\bb{X}_{(5)}$};
\node (S4) [nod] at (3.75,-1) {$\bb{X}_{(4)}$};
\node (S2) [nod] at (3.75,1) {$\bb{X}_{(2)}$};
\node (S6) [nod] at (5.5,1) {$\bb{X}_{(6)}$};
\node (S7) [nod] at (5.5,-1) {$\bb{X}_{(7)}$};
\draw [thick,-latex] (S1) -- (S3);
\draw [thick,-latex] (S1) -- (S5);
\draw [thick,-latex] (S5) -- (S4);
\draw [thick,-latex] (S6) -- (S2);
\draw [thick,-latex] (S7) -- (S4);
\draw [thick,-latex] (S1) to[bend right=10] (S2);
\draw [thick,-latex] (S6) -- (S5);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{fig:SanJose_physical}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{.3cm}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[]
\tikzstyle{nod} = [draw=none,fill=none,right]
\node (T) [nod] at (6,0) {};
\node (S1) [nod] at (0,0) {$\bb{X}_{(1)}$};
\node (S3) [nod] at (2,1) {$\bb{X}_{(3)}$};
\node (S5) [nod] at (2,-1) {$\bb{X}_{(5)}$};
\node (S4) [nod] at (3.75,-1) {$\bb{X}_{(4)}$};
\node (S2) [nod] at (3.75,1) {$\bb{X}_{(2)}$};
\node (S6) [nod] at (5.5,1) {$\bb{X}_{(6)}$};
\node (S7) [nod] at (5.5,-1) {$\bb{X}_{(7)}$};
\draw [thick,-latex] (S1) -- (S3);
\draw [thick,-latex] (S1) -- (S5);
\draw [thick,-latex] (S2) -- (S6);
\draw [thick,-latex] (S4) -- (S7);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{fig:DIG_SanJose_7s}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{.3cm}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.3\textwidth}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[]
\tikzstyle{nod} = [draw=none,fill=none,right]
\node (T) [nod] at (6,0) {};
\node (S1) [nod] at (0,0) {$\bb{X}_{(1)}$};
\node (S3) [nod] at (2,1) {$\bb{X}_{(3)}$};
\node (S5) [nod] at (2,-1) {$\bb{X}_{(5)}$};
\node (S4) [nod] at (3.75,-1) {$\bb{X}_{(4)}$};
\node (S2) [nod] at (3.75,1) {$\bb{X}_{(2)}$};
\node (S6) [nod] at (5.5,1) {$\bb{X}_{(6)}$};
\draw [thick,-latex] (S1) -- (S3);
\draw [thick,latex-latex] (S1) -- (S5);
\draw [thick,dashed,-latex] (S4) -- (S6);
\draw [thick,latex-latex] (S6) -- (S2);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{}
\label{fig:DIG_SanJose_6s}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{(a) shows the major connections of the roads in R-III. The DIG is estimated with $d=3$ and threshold $\alpha=0.7$ in (b) and (c). Sensor $\bb{X}_{(7)}$ is excluded in (c) to experiment effect of latent node.}
\label{fig:DIG_SanJose}
\end{figure}
The last real-world scenario (R-III) is a combination of sensors mounted in San Jose, CA in a more complex road structure (Figure~\ref{fig:Real_Mix}). The most direct physical connections among sensors, depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:SanJose_physical} as a directed graph, are expected to be detected as causal links.
The DIG is estimated from the aggregated data using Algorithm~\ref{alg:DIG} with $\alpha=0.7$ and memory depth of $3$. The obtained graph for the whole network is depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:DIG_SanJose_7s} and shows that most of the expected links are indeed correctly detected.
The missing edges $\bb{X}_{(1)}\to\bb{X}_{(2)}$, $\bb{X}_{(5)}\to\bb{X}_{(4)}$ and $\bb{X}_{(6)}\to\bb{X}_{(5)}$ correspond to indirect highway connections so the links were not significant, while the backward links can be due to back propagation of downstream congestion.
Moreover, we have limited the number of sensors in order to provide a simple visual result; this, in turn, implies that not all the inbound and outbound traffic of the network is accounted for and it is possible to miss part of the flow, which may result in an inaccurate estimation of the causal links.
In fact, DIG heavily depends on the nodes included in the network. In other words, latent nodes which are excluded can affect the overall estimation due to the creation of fictitious causal links among other nodes. Such phenomena are explained as cascade and proxy effects in Section~\ref{sec:DIG}. To observe this, we designed the following experiment.
\subsubsection*{Latent node experiment}
The aim of this experiment is to show the effect of excluding the sensor $\bb{X}_{(7)}$ from the estimation. The obtained graph is depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:DIG_SanJose_6s} where we observe an unexpected link $\bb{X}_{(4)} \to \bb{X}_{(6)}$ (indicated with a dashed line).
A possible explanation is that both $\bb{X}_{(6)}$ and $\bb{X}_{(7)}$ are mounted on the same direction on two parallel major highways, so a hidden variable such as rush hour flow or an unaccounted sensor upstream can make them dependent (i.e., share information) as in the cascade effect.
As a result, without considering $\bb{X}_{(7)}$, it is inferred that a link exists between $\bb{X}_{(4)}$ and $\bb{X}_{(6)}$, i.e., there is a flow of information.
The above experiment suggests that in order to have an accurate estimation for complex networks, it is necessary to include as many sensors as possible in the network. Although we have shown how directed information works as a measure of causality in synthetic scenarios and more isolated real world cases (R-I and R-II), with larger networks, the algorithm becomes computationally expensive and dealing with the consequent issues requires further investigation.
\section{Introduction}
\input{Introduction}
\section{Methods}
\label{sec:methods}
\input{MainResult}
\section{Results and validations}
\label{sec:results}
\input{Sim}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:concl}
\input{Conc}
\section*{References}
|
\section{Introduction}
The field of optical trapping, initiated by Arthur Ashkin~\cite{Ashkin1970-ATP} received the Nobel Prize in physics in 2018. The topic area describes the control and manipulation of mesoscale particles using the momentum of light. The added feature of including light fields with spin or orbital angular momentum has fuelled the topic of rotating as well as translating trapped particles. It has been widely applied across the sciences and has made particular impacts in areas spanning fundamental physics~\cite{Ashkin1970-ABD, Spesyvtseva2016} to biological sciences~\cite{Ashkin1987, Ashkin1992-FSG, Wang1997, MacDonald2003, Pang2014, Craig2015, Ritchie2015}. This opens up the prospect of new studies including those in microfluidics, namely cellular microrheology and rotational dynamics for the burgeoning area of levitated optomechanics.
From the fundamental physics standpoint, the area of levitated optomechanics has emerged as a powerful way to explore the boundary between classical and quantum physics with mesoscopic particles well isolated from their environs~\cite{Chang2012, Gieseler2012, Monteiro2013, Neumeier2015}. In turn, this has led to the recent demonstration of cooling of a particle to the quantum ground state~\cite{Deli2020}. In other work, the motion of trapped particles has elucidated fundamental concepts for both the linear and angular momentum of light by using a trapped particle as a probe of the incident field~\cite{RodrguezSevilla2018, Stout1997, GarcesChavez2003}.
In the area of biological science, the use of optical traps as calibrated force transducers has led to the measurement of exquisite, minuscule forces associated with a range of linear and rotary molecular motors~\cite{Arita2020}. However the challenge of understanding how cells respond to their environment requires the probing of viscosity at the nanoscale, and this length scale is not yet accessible through the transfer of sufficient optical torque to induce rotation of nanoparticles.
Currently, birefringent particles are often used as the optical rotation probes for local rheology measurements. However, given the small difference of the refractive indices between the optical paths of birefringent particles and optical torque in proportion to $a^3 \sim a^6$ with $a$ being the characteristic size of the particle~\cite{Liu2005}, the optical torque becomes negligible as the size of the birefringent particle reduces, especially below the sub-micron scale. Smaller nano-scale probes of viscosity should unlock cellular environmental responses as they can be taken up more readily in cells, with future applications as minimally invasive probes of the intracellular environment.
From the material science point of view, there has been considerable development of nanoparticles with complex and bespoke compositions including metallic particles or high refractive index materials. Such more complex nanoparticles offer great promise for novel applications, and the emergence of new synthesis capabilities at the mesoscale are becoming more accessible. In this domain core-shell nanoparticles~\cite{GhoshChaudhuri2011, Gawande2015, ElToni2016} can be utilised to develop novel materials to perform multiple tasks and functions.
Here we investigate the optical forces and torques acting on non-concentric asymmetrical core-shell spherical particles (eccentric spherical core-shell nanoparticles). This is the first study of its type and opens up a hitherto unrecognised area of exerting optical torques and initiating rotation for spherical particles of very small size. Although the use of spin angular momentum is already a powerful tool, standard techniques rely on a polarisation change through the trapped object, which can be prohibitively small for particles below a micron in diameter. Accordingly, rotation studies have been performed with larger particles~\cite{Arita2016}. These studies include viscosity measurements. Conversely, as we show, non-concentric core-shell spherical particle of sizes 50-500 nm in diameter may undergo rotation. In this case, the determination of viscosity is straightforward when compared to multiparticle aggregates that can be rotated but would be more complex to model~\cite{Bang2020}. This is crucial for future studies in cellular environments incompatible with larger particles, for example and benefit from a straightforward route to determine viscosity from the system.
To date, the majority of studies of the optomechanical response of trapped particles have focused on particles that comprise of a single homogenous (typically dielectric) material. By tailoring the material property of the particle new modalities may be envisaged that cannot be readily achieved using shaped light alone with dielectric objects~\cite{Spesyvtseva2016}. Core shell particles offer new opportunities for optomechanical forces. A key example is combining the advantage of core-shell particle and optical trapping, which can open up a promising direction of nanotechnology for scientific, engineering, biological and medical applications. For instance, Jannasch \emph{et al}~\cite{Jannasch2012} enhanced optical forces to the nanonewton level by coating a titania particle with a silica shell, which is useful for biological studies ~\cite{Craig2015}. Spadaro \emph{et al}~\cite{Spadaro2015} studied how the relative thickness between the core and shell can affect the optical force on a Au–PEG core–shell particle. Ali \emph{et al}~\cite{Ali2020} investigated the effects of the chirality of the core-shell particle on the optical torque under a circularly polarised beam. So far, most studies of optical trapping of concentric core-shell nanoparticles have been directed to increasing trapping force by adding a shell with different refractive index to the core particle (for example creating an anti-reflection coating). Our work is thus distinguished in this regard as we show, breaking centro-symmetry in such systems leads to increased optical torques.
In the context of optomechanics we may ask: what is the effect of breaking the restriction of centro-symmetry? A number of research studies have demonstrated the synthesis of eccentric spherical core-shell particles with different materials. For example, using gold cores, researchers have built nanoscale eccentric core-shell particles with different shells, including Au@SiO$_2$~\cite{Chen2010}, Au@TiO$_2$~\cite{Seh2011} and Au@polymer~\cite{Chen2008}. Other than using Au as the core, with a polymer as the shell, different types of semiconductor, metal and dielectric materials have also been used as the core material for the synthesis of nanometric eccentric core-shell particles, such as Fe$_2$O$_3$@polymer, Fe$_3$O$_4$@polymer, SnO$_2$@polymer~\cite{Li2012} and silica@polymer~\cite{Li2017}. Other compositions of eccentric core-shell particles were also developed, for instance, Ag@Ag$_2$S eccentric core-shell particles in nanometer size~\cite{Robinson2019} and TiO$_2$@SiO$_2$ non-concentric core-shell particles at the micron scale~\cite{Demirors2009}.
We explore Gaussian illumination on three types eccentric core-shell particles at the sub-micron scale: a gold nanoparticle coated with a silica shell (Au@SiO$_2$)~\cite{Chen2010, Li2014, Liu2017}, a titanium dioxide nanoparticle with a silica shell (TiO$_2$@SiO$_2$)~\cite{Demirors2009, Chemin2018} and a silicon dioxide particle with a titanium dioxide shell (SiO$_2$@TiO$_2$)~\cite{Rosales2020}. These are chosen as representative nanoparticles that may be fabricated with eccentric cores. We show that the optomechanical response of an eccentric spherical eccentric core-shell particle is richer than for a centro-symmetric symmetric particle, in particular due to the exertion of optical torques, as demonstrated in Sec.~3. This optomechanical response of such an eccentric core-shell particle can expand its remit in optical traps, namely inducing appreciable rotation rates in nanometre-sized spherical particles which opens up the prospect for nanorheology, which is the key motivation of this study.
\section{Eccentric core-shell particle with Gaussian beam illumination}
We consider particles where both the core and shell are spherical, and where the centers do not align, as shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig:fig1problem} (a).
To induce optical effects, we firstly consider a trapping beam with Gaussian profile and linear polarisation. The focal position of the trapping beam is set at the origin, and the beam propagates along the $z$-axis with its electric field linearly polarising along the $x$-axis, as shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig:fig1problem} (b).
The centre of the particle’s shell is fixed at the origin (the focal point of the beam), and the core-centre is varied on the $xz$ plane. The distance between the core-centre and shell-center is denoted as $h$, and the angle from the line connecting core-center and shell-center to the electric field polarisation direction ($x$ axis) is $\theta$, so that when $\theta = 90^{\mathrm{o}}$ the centre line measured from the shell-centre to the core-centre is along the beam propagation direction and when $\theta = 270^{\mathrm{o}}$ it is opposite to the beam propagation direction.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\subfloat[]{ \includegraphics[width=0.35\textwidth]{Fig1a_particle.png}} \hspace{10mm}
\subfloat[]{ \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Fig1b_sketch.png}}
\caption{(a) Sketch of the geometric composition of the eccentric core-shell particle; (b) The electric field magnitude of the electric field of the Gaussian beam on the $xz$ plane. The beam propagates along the $z$-axis and its electric field is linearly polarised along the $x$-axis.} \label{Fig:fig1problem}
\end{figure*}
When the beam is not highly focused, its Gaussian profile and the corresponding incoming electric and magnetic fields, $\boldsymbol{E}^{\mathrm{inc}}$ and $\boldsymbol{H}^{\mathrm{inc}}$, are well described by the approximate expressions given by Barton and Alexander~\cite{Barton1989, Barton1997}. Assuming a linearly polarised single colour Gaussian beam propagating along the $z$ direction with its focal point locating at the origin in a source-free homogeneous medium with relative permittivity $\epsilon$ and permeability $\mu$, we may write the electric and magnetic fields as
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:EHinc}
\begin{align}
E_{x}^{\mathrm{inc}} = & E_{0} \bigg \{ 1 + s^2(-\varrho^2 \vartheta^2 - \mathrm{i} \varrho^4 \vartheta^3 - 2\vartheta^2 \xi^2) \nonumber \\
& \qquad \quad + s^4 \left[ 2\varrho^4\vartheta^4 + 3\mathrm{i} \varrho^6 \vartheta^5 - 0.5 \varrho^8 \vartheta^6 + (8 \varrho^2\vartheta^4 + 2 \mathrm{i} \varrho^4 \vartheta^5) \xi^2 \right] \bigg \}\psi_0 e^{\mathrm{i} kz},
\end{align}
\begin{align}
E_{y}^{\mathrm{inc}} = & E_{0} \left\{s^2(-2\vartheta^2 \xi \eta) + s^4 \left[ 8\varrho^2\vartheta^4 + 2\mathrm{i} \varrho^4 \vartheta^5) \xi \eta \right]
\right\}\psi_0 e^{\mathrm{i} kz},
\end{align}
\begin{align}
E_{z}^{\mathrm{inc}} = & E_{0} \left\{s(-2\vartheta \xi) + s^3\left[ (6\varrho^2 \vartheta^3 +2 \mathrm{i} \varrho^4 \vartheta^4)\xi \right] \right. \nonumber \\
& \qquad + \left. s^5 \left[ -20\varrho^4\vartheta^5 - 10\mathrm{i} \varrho^6 \vartheta^6 + \varrho^8 \vartheta^7 \right] \xi
\right\}\psi_0 e^{\mathrm{i} kz},
\end{align}
\begin{align}
H_{x}^{\mathrm{inc}} = & \frac{k}{\mu_0 \mu \omega} E_{0} \left\{s^2(-2\vartheta^2 \xi \eta) + s^4 \left[ 8\varrho^2\vartheta^4 + 2\mathrm{i} \varrho^4 \vartheta^5) \xi \eta \right]
\right\}\psi_0 e^{\mathrm{i} kz},
\end{align}
\begin{align}
H_{y}^{\mathrm{inc}} = & \frac{k}{\mu_0 \mu \omega} E_{0} \bigg \{ 1 + s^2(-\varrho^2 \vartheta^2 - \mathrm{i} \varrho^4 \vartheta^3 - 2\vartheta^2 \eta^2) \nonumber \\
& \qquad \quad + s^4 \left[ 2\varrho^4\vartheta^4 + 3\mathrm{i} \varrho^6 \vartheta^5 - 0.5 \varrho^8 \vartheta^6 + (8 \varrho^2\vartheta^4 + 2 \mathrm{i} \varrho^4 \vartheta^5) \eta^2 \right] \bigg \}\psi_0 e^{\mathrm{i} kz},
\end{align}
\begin{align}
H_{z}^{\mathrm{inc}} = & \frac{k}{\mu_0 \mu \omega} E_{0} \left\{s(-2\vartheta \eta) + s^3\left[ (6\varrho^2 \vartheta^3 +2 \mathrm{i} \varrho^4 \vartheta^4)\eta \right] \right. \nonumber \\
& \qquad + \left. s^5 \left[ -20\varrho^4\vartheta^5 - 10\mathrm{i} \varrho^6 \vartheta^6 + \varrho^8 \vartheta^7 \right] \eta
\right\}\psi_0 e^{\mathrm{i} kz},
\end{align}
In Eq.~(\ref{eq:EHinc}), $\omega$ is the angular frequency of the light beam, $k=\lambda/2\pi$ is the optical wave number with $\lambda$ the optical wavelength, $s = 1/(kw_0)$ with beam waist radius $w_0$, $\xi = x/w_0$, $\eta = y/w_0$, and $E_0$ is the electric field amplitude at the focal point of the beam ($x=y=z=0$) that is related to the beam power $P_0$ as
\end{subequations}
\begin{align}
|E_{0}|^{2} = \frac{4P_0}{\pi w_0^{2} (1+s^2+1.5s^4)} \sqrt{\frac{\mu_0\mu}{\epsilon_0\epsilon}},
\end{align}
with $\epsilon_0$ and $\mu_0$ the free space permittivity and permeability, respectively.
Also, functions $\varrho$, $\vartheta$ and $\psi_0$ are, respectively, defined as
\begin{align}
\varrho=\sqrt{\xi^2+\eta^2}, \qquad \vartheta = \frac{kw_0^2}{2z - \mathrm{i} kw_0^2}, \qquad \psi_0 = -\mathrm{i} \vartheta e^{\mathrm{i} \varrho^2 \vartheta}.
\end{align}
If the trapping beam with Gaussian profile is not linearly polarised but circularly polarised, the electric and magnetic fields can be also described based on Eq.~(\ref{eq:EHinc})~\cite{Barton1997}, as detailed in Sec.~SI-2 in the supporting information~\cite{Sun2020SI}.
The scattered fields, $\boldsymbol{E}^{\mathrm{sca}}$ and $\boldsymbol{H}^{\mathrm{sca}}$, and the transmitted fields in the particles are calculated by using the robust field only surface integral method~\citep{Sun2017-RMF, Klaseboer2017-FOI, Sun2020-PEC, Sun2020-DIEL}, which is ideally suited to calculating the electric and magnetic fields efficiently and accurately on particle surfaces.
By obtaining the surface electric and magnetic fields accurately, we then calculate the optical force by integrating the time-average Maxwell’s stress tensor over the surface of the shell, $S_{\text{shell}}$, as
\begin{align}\label{eq:force_tot}
F_{i} = &\int_{S_{\text{shell}}} \frac{1}{2} \Big\{\text{Real} \left[ (D_{i}E_{j}^{*} + E_{i}D_{j}^{*} + B_{i}H_{j}^{*} + H_{i}B_{j}^{*}) n_{j} - (D_{j}E_{j}^{*} + B_{j}H_{j}^{*} )n_{i} \right] \Big\} \mathrm{d} S.
\end{align}
In Eq.~(\ref{eq:force_tot}), subscript $i =1,2,3$ is the $i$th component of the vector field, subscript $j =1,2,3$ is the $j$th component of the vector field, superscript $^*$ indicates the conjugate of the field. Also, $F_{i}$ is the optical force, $n_i$ is the unit normal vector on surface $S_{\text{shell}}$, $E_{i}$ is the $i$th component of electric field, $D_{i}$ is the $i$th component of electric displacement, $H_{i}$ is the $i$th component of magnetizing field, and $B_{i}$ is the $i$th component of magnetic field. In Eqs.~(\ref{eq:force_tot}) and~(\ref{eq:torque_tot}), the Einstein notation is used, and the 1st, 2nd and 3rd components correspond to the $x$, $y$ and $z$ components of field, respectively.
The optical torque can be calculated by
\begin{align}\label{eq:torque_tot}
N_{i} = & \int_{S_{\text{shell}}} \varepsilon_{ijk} r^{c}_{j} \frac{1}{2} \Big\{\text{Real} \left[ (D_{k}E_{l}^{*} + E_{k}D_{l}^{*} + B_{k}H_{l}^{*} + H_{k}B_{l}^{*}) n_{l} - (D_{l}E_{l}^{*} + B_{l}H_{l}^{*} )n_{k} \right] \Big\} \mathrm{d} S.
\end{align}
where subscript $l =1,2,3$ is the $l$th component of the vector field, subscript $k =1,2,3$ is the $k$th component of the vector field, $\varepsilon_{ijk}$ is the Levi-Civita symbol, and $r^{c}_{j}$ is the location vector of a point on the shell surface to the centre of mass of the core-shell particle. The centre of mass of the core-shell particle is on the centre line between the centre of the core and that of the shell which distance to the centre of the shell, $h_c$, can be calculated by $h_c = h(\rho_{\text{core}} - \rho_{\text{shell}})/(\rho_{\text{core}} + \rho_{\text{shell}})$ where $\rho_{\text{core}} $ is the density of the core and $\rho_{\text{shell}}$ is the density of the shell.
\section{Results and discussion}
We study the optomechanical response of three types of eccentric core-shell particles held with a trapping beam with a Gaussian profile, namely Au@SiO$_2$, TiO$_2$@SiO$_2$ and SiO$_2$@TiO$_2$. The densities, refractive indices and extinction coefficients of Au, SiO$_2$ and TiO$_2$ are listed in Table~\ref{tab:nk}. For our purposes, we assume that the particle has been trapped with the centre of the shell located at the focal point of the beam. We can therefore concentrate on how the orientation of the core particle will affect the optical trapping of the eccentric core-shell particle. In this section, we focus on the optical torque acting on the nanoscale eccentric spherical core-shell particle for the case of both a linearly polarised and a circularly polarised Gaussian beam. The case of linear polarisation may lead to an optical torque wrench~\cite{Santybayeva2016} with the particle aligning with the field or continuously rotating as the polarisation itself is rotated. For a circularly polarised trapping beam we would see continuous rotation. For the cases of continuous rotation, the particle may reach a terminal angular velocity once the applied optical torque matches the rotational Stokes drag. The optical trapping forces of the eccentric core-shell spherical particles are discussed in detail in Sec.~SI-1 in the Supporting Information~\cite{Sun2020SI}.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{ \bf Densities, refractive indices $n$ and extinction coefficients $k$ of Au~\cite{Raki1998}, SiO$_2$~\cite{Malitson1965} and TiO$_2$~\cite{Bodurov2016} }
\begin{tabular}{l | c | c | c | c | c }
\hline
& Density (g/cm$^3$) & \multicolumn{4}{c}{$n + \mathrm{i} k$} \\
\cline{3-6}
& & $\lambda$=532 nm & $\lambda$=775 nm & $\lambda$=840 nm & $\lambda$=1064 nm \\
\hline
Au & 19.30 & 0.54+$\mathrm{i}$2.14 & 0.18+$\mathrm{i}$4.51 & 0.20+$\mathrm{i}$5.02 & 0.31+$\mathrm{i}$6.63 \\
SiO$_2$ & 2.50 & 1.46 & 1.45 & 1.45 & 1.45 \\
TiO$_2$ & 4.23 & 2.17 & 2.10 & 2.09 & 2.07 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:nk}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\centering{}
\subfloat[Au@SiO$_2$, $a_{\text{Au}}$=60nm, $a_{\text{SiO}_{2}}$=90nm, $h$=25nm]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Fig2a_H2O_Ny_l_Gb1000_Au_25_SiO2.png}}
\subfloat[TiO$_2$@SiO$_2$, $a_{\text{TiO}_{2}}$=60nm, $a_{\text{SiO}_{2}}$=90nm, $h$=25nm]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Fig2b_H2O_Ny_l_Gb1000_TiO2_25_SiO2.png}}
\subfloat[SiO$_2$@TiO$_2$, $a_{\text{SiO}_{2}}$=60nm, $a_{\text{TiO}_{2}}$=90nm, $h$=25nm]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Fig2c_H2O_Ny_l_Gb1000_SiO2_25_TiO2.png}} \\
\subfloat[Au@SiO$_2$, $a_{\text{Au}}$=60nm, $a_{\text{SiO}_{2}}$=90nm, $h=10$ nm]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Fig2d_H2O_Ny_l_Gb1000_Au_10_SiO2.png}}
\subfloat[TiO$_2$@SiO$_2$, $a_{\text{TiO}_{2}}$=60nm, $a_{\text{SiO}_{2}}$=90nm, $h=10$ nm]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Fig2e_H2O_Ny_l_Gb1000_TiO2_10_SiO2.png}}
\subfloat[SiO$_2$@TiO$_2$, $a_{\text{SiO}_{2}}$=60nm, $a_{\text{TiO}_{2}}$=90nm, $h=10$ nm]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Fig2f_H2O_Ny_l_Gb1000_SiO2_10_TiO2.png}} \\
\subfloat[Au@SiO$_2$, $a_{\text{Au}}$=30nm, $a_{\text{SiO}_{2}}$=45nm, $h=10$ nm]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Fig2g_H2O_Ny_l_Gb1000_Au_10_SiO2_45.png}}
\subfloat[TiO$_2$@SiO$_2$, $a_{\text{TiO}_{2}}$=30nm, $a_{\text{SiO}_{2}}$=45nm, $h=10$ nm]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Fig2h_H2O_Ny_l_Gb1000_TiO2_10_SiO2_45.png}}
\subfloat[SiO$_2$@TiO$_2$, $a_{\text{SiO}_{2}}$=30nm, $a_{\text{TiO}_{2}}$=45nm, $h=10$ nm]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Fig2i_H2O_Ny_l_Gb1000_SiO2_10_TiO2_45.png}}
\caption{Optical torque acting on three types of eccentric core-shell particles in water with $n_{\text{water}}=1.33$ under the linearly polarised Gaussian beam illumination with different wavelength $\lambda$ and beam waist radius fixed at $w_0=1$ $\mu$m. The Au@SiO$_2$ particles show the most pronounced effects due to the larger refractive index contrast, with approximately one order of magnitude greater optical torque than for the all dielectric particles. Interestingly both TiO$_2$@SiO$_2$ and SiO$_2$@TiO$_2$ particles show comparable optical torques with approximately inverted responses as a function of particle orientation.
} \label{Fig:torque}
\end{figure*}
In Fig.~\ref{Fig:torque}, we show the optical torques acting on three types of eccentric core-shell particles embedded in water under a linearly polarised Gaussian beam for a few different wavelength values, with a fixed beam waist radius $w_0=1~\mu$m. We chose readily available standard wavelengths of $\lambda=532$~nm, $\lambda=775$~nm, $\lambda=840$~nm, and $\lambda=1064$~nm.
Also, these wavelengths avoid the consequence of surface plasmon resonance for Au@SiO$2$ in water with $a_{\text{SiO}_{2}}=90$ nm and $a_{\text{Au}}=60$ nm that happens at wavelength around 640 nm.
We can see, from Fig.~\ref{Fig:torque}, that as the wavelength becomes longer, the magnitude of the optical torque decreases. Also, the optical torque exerted on Au@SiO$_2$ is nearly one order of magnitude higher than that on TiO$_2$@SiO$_2$ or SiO$_2$@TiO$_2$. This is mainly because the difference of the refractive index between Au and SiO$_2$ is higher than that between TiO$_2$ and SiO$_2$ (see Table~\ref{tab:nk}). Also, the trend of optical torque along with the orientation of the core particle, $\theta$ on TiO$_2$@SiO$_2$ with $n_{\text{core}}>n_{\text{shell}}>n_{\text{medium}}$ is opposite to that on SiO$_2$@TiO$_2$ with $n_{\text{shell}}>n_{\text{core}}>n_{\text{medium}}$, as shown in the second and third columns of Fig.~\ref{Fig:torque}. This is another indicator of how the material refractive index can affect the optomechanical response of an eccentric core-shell particle. Similar to the optical force perpendicular to the beam direction, the maximum optical torques appear at $\theta=0^{\mathrm{o}}$ and $\theta=180^{\mathrm{o}}$ for the core-shell particle with shell radius 90 nm and core radius 60 nm. For Au@SiO$_2$ and TiO$_2$@SiO$_2$ eccentric core-shell particles, when $\theta=0^{\mathrm{o}}$, the optical torque will rotate the eccentric particle counter-clockwise if we define that the beam propagation direction is pointing at 12 o'clock, and when $\theta=180^{\mathrm{o}}$ the optical torque will rotate them clockwise. However, for SiO$_2$@TiO$_2$, the direction of the optical torque flips relative to Au@SiO$_2$ or TiO$_2$@SiO$_2$.
As expected, the optical torque increases as the core particle is positioned further away from the centre of the shell (i.e. the system is further from centrosymmetry). From the synthesis point of view, moderate asymmetry with small $h$ may be easier to achieve. In the first two rows of Fig~\ref{Fig:torque}, we demonstrated the optical torques on Au@SiO$_2$, TiO$_2$@SiO$_2$ and SiO$_2$@TiO$_2$ with $h=25$ nm (top row) for high asymmetry and $h=10$ nm (middle row) for moderate asymmetry when the shell radius is 90~nm and the core radius 60~nm. The optical torques with $h=25$~nm are more than twice those with $h=10$ nm. By using the Stokes drag of a sphere in fluid, $N_y = 8\pi \mu a_{\text{shell}}^{3} \Omega$ where $\mu$ is the viscosity of water and $\Omega$ is the particle rotation frequency, we can estimate the possible largest rotation frequency of the eccentric core-shell particles, when held by a linearly polarised Gaussian beam, for different wavelengths, each with a fixed beam power of $P_0 = $ 20 mW. Such a rotation can be achieved by using the optical torque wrench~\cite{Santybayeva2016}. We observe that even for small particle sizes where the radius is 90 nm (diameter of 180 nm), the Au@SiO$_2$ eccentric core-shell particle can be rotated at frequencies of a few hundred Hz with 532~nm. For $\lambda= 1064$~nm, the rotation frequency of the Au@SiO$_2$ can reach up to 61 Hz with $h=25$ nm and 22 Hz with $h=10$ nm. As to TiO$_2$@SiO$_2$ and SiO$_2$@TiO$_2$ eccentric core-shell particles, the potential rotation frequencies can still range from a few Hz to 50~Hz. Our results are summarised in Table~\ref{tab:frequency}.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\caption{\bf Potential maximum rotation frequency $\Omega$ (in Hz) by using the optical torque wrench~\cite{Santybayeva2016} for three types of eccentric spherical core-shell particles suspended in water ($n=1.33$) and illuminated with a linearly polarised Gaussian beam at different wavelengths, $\lambda$. The beam waist radius is 1$\mu$m and beam power is $P_0 = $ 20 mW in all cases}
\resizebox{1.0\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{l | c | c | c | c | c | c | c | c | c}
\hline
& \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Au@SiO$_2$} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{TiO$_2$@SiO$_2$} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{SiO$_2$@TiO$_2$} \\
\cline{2-10}
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$a_\text{shell}$=90 nm} & $a_\text{shell}$=45 nm & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$a_\text{shell}$=90 nm} &
$a_\text{shell}$=45 nm&
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$a_\text{shell}$=90 nm} &
$a_\text{shell}$=45 nm \\
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$a_\text{core}$=60 nm} & $a_\text{core}$=30 nm & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$a_\text{core}$=60 nm} &
$a_\text{core}$=30 nm &
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$a_\text{core}$=60 nm} &
$a_\text{core}$=30 nm \\
\cline{2-10}
& $h$=25 nm & $h$=10 nm & $h$=10 nm & $h$=25 nm & $h$=10 nm & $h$=10 nm & $h$=25 nm & $h$=10 nm & $h$=10 nm \\
\hline
$\lambda$=532 nm & 807 & 327 & - & 130 & 53 & 8 & 170 & 67 & 17 \\
$\lambda$=775 nm & 407 & 169 & 24 & 28 & 11 & 2 & 52 & 20 & 5 \\
$\lambda$=840 nm & 234 & 95 & 17 & 20 & 8 & 1 & 39 & 15 & 4 \\
$\lambda$=1064 nm & 61 & 22 & 9 & 7 & 3 & 1 & 17 & 6 & 2 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\label{tab:frequency}
\end{table*}
If the particle size is reduced by half, for instance $a_{\text{shell}}=45$~nm and $a_{\text{core}}=30$~nm, the optical torques on the eccentric core-shell particles are still observable, as shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig:torque}(g,h,i). Note that in Fig.~\ref{Fig:torque}(g), we did not show the optical torque with $\lambda=532$ nm since that wavelength is close to the surface plasmon resonance wavelength that is around 550 nm for Au@SiO$_2$ core-shell particle in water when $a_{\text{SiO}_{2}}=45$ nm and $a_{\text{Au}}=30$ nm. Based on the Stokes drag, the rotation frequency of such a small particle with diameter less than 100~nm can be a few Hz when the optical torque wrench beam power is only 20~mW, as displayed in Table~\ref{tab:frequency}. This result is significant for practical applications, in particular biological applications, as particle sizes below 100 nm are potentially more bio-compatible than larger particles. Furthermore, using such low powers for optical rotation should reduce potential issues associated with photo toxicity. Also, we would like to emphasise that in practice, the optical trapping location of the particle is not at the focal point of beam in most cases due to the field gradient. We consider a few cases when the geometrical centre of the core-shell particle is located at different positions relative to be focus of beam along the beam propagation direction, denoted as $(0,0,z^c_{\text{shell}})$. As shown in detail in Sec.~SI-1.4 in the Supporting Information~\cite{Sun2020SI}, we find that the magnitude of the trapping force $F_z$ changes significantly when $z^c_{\text{shell}}$ varies from $z^c_{\text{shell}}=0$ $\mu$m to $z^c_{\text{shell}}=1$ $\mu$m, $z^c_{\text{shell}}=2$ $\mu$m and $z^c_{\text{shell}}=4$ $\mu$m while the magnitude of the optical torque $N_y$ does not show an obvious variation. This indicates that we can observe the optical rotation of the eccentric core-shell in nanoscale in practical experiments. This indicates that the optical rotation of nanoscale eccentric core-shell particles should be observable in realistic experimental scenarios, performed with current technology.
To date, the most popular demonstration of optical rotation of small particle is to use a circularly polarised Gaussian beam to rotate a birefringent particle at the micro-scale since a birefringent particle has two nonparallel optical paths with different refractive indices. We calculated the optical torque under the Gaussian illumination with circular polarisation on an eccentric spherical core-shell particle at nanoscale with a dielectric core embedded in a dielectric shell, such as TiO$_2$@SiO$_2$ and SiO$_2$@TiO$_2$. The mathematical description of the illumination beam is given in Sec.~SI-2 of the Supporting Information~\cite{Sun2020SI}. Fig.~\ref{Fig:Ncp_TiO2SiO2} demonstrates how the optical torques acting on an eccentric TiO$_2$@SiO$_2$ and an eccentric SiO$_2$@TiO$_2$ core-shell particle at nanoscale emerged in water ($n_{\text{medium}}=1.33$) change with respect to the variation of the orientation, $\theta$, when the shell is located at the focus of the Gaussian beam with circular polarisation. In this case, when $\theta$ changes, the optical torques along all three directions, $N_x$, $N_y$ and $N_z$, appear in which $N_x$ and $N_y$ are induced by the asymmetry of the eccentric spherical core-shell particle which $N_z$ is mainly due to the circular polarisation of the beam. Since in our calculations, we set variation of the geometrical feature (asymmetry) of the eccentric core-shell particle to happen in the $xz$ plane, $N_y$ is the dominating torque relative to $N_x$ as shown in the first and the second column of Fig.~\ref{Fig:Ncp_TiO2SiO2}. Relative to Fig.~\ref{Fig:torque}, we can see that the amplitude of $N_y$ under the circularly polarised Gaussian beam is in the same order as that under the linearly polarised Gaussian beam, as shown in the second column of Fig.~\ref{Fig:Ncp_TiO2SiO2}. Nevertheless, we find that the magnitude of torque $N_z$ that is induced by the circular polarisation of the beam is much weaker when compared to the magnitude of torque $N_y$ that is introduced by the asymmetry of the eccentric core-shell particle, as presented in second and third columns of Fig.~\ref{Fig:Ncp_TiO2SiO2}. As such, we can conclude that the idea to exploit the asymmetry of eccentric core-shell particle for optical rotation is more robust and general when compared to solely using the circular polarisation of the trapping beam.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering{}
\subfloat[TiO$_2$@SiO$_2$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Fig3a_cp10H2O_Nx_l_Gb1000_TiO2_25_SiO2.png}}
\subfloat[TiO$_2$@SiO$_2$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Fig3b_cp10H2O_Ny_l_Gb1000_TiO2_25_SiO2.png}}
\subfloat[TiO$_2$@SiO$_2$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Fig3c_cp10H2O_Nz_l_Gb1000_TiO2_25_SiO2.png}} \\
\subfloat[SiO$_2$@TiO$_2$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Fig3d_cp10H2O_Nx_l_Gb1000_SiO2_25_TiO2.png}}
\subfloat[SiO$_2$@TiO$_2$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Fig3e_cp10H2O_Ny_l_Gb1000_SiO2_25_TiO2.png}}
\subfloat[SiO$_2$@TiO$_2$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Fig3f_cp10H2O_Nz_l_Gb1000_SiO2_25_TiO2.png}}
\caption{Optical torque on (a-c) an eccentric TiO$_2$@SiO$_2$ core-shell particle and (d-f) an eccentric SiO$_2$@TiO$_2$ in water ($n_{\text{medium}} = 1.33$) illuminated by a circularly polarised Gaussian beam with waist radius of $w_0=1$ $\mu$m. The geometric features of the eccentric core-shell particle are $a_{\text{shell}}=90$ nm, $a_{\text{core}}=60$ nm and $h=25$ nm. The magnitude of torque $N_y$ that is introduced by the asymmetry of the eccentric core-shell particle is much higher than that of torque $N_z$ which is induced by the circular polarisation of the beam.
} \label{Fig:Ncp_TiO2SiO2}
\end{figure*}
To confirm that the rotation of an eccentric core-shell particle is an observable phenomenon, we studied the scattered light from the particle, $P^{\mathrm{sca}}$ from the side of the linearly polarised light beam. The scattered light is collected by a circular objective with radius of 3.75~mm with centre located at (0.13~mm, 0, 0), as shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig:fig1problem}b (indicated by the eye). The power obtained by the objective can be calculated by integrating the time-average Poynting vector over the objective as $P^{\mathrm{sca}} = \int_{S_{\text{objective}}} \frac{1}{2} \{\text{Real} [ \boldsymbol{E}^{\mathrm{sca}} \times (\boldsymbol{H}^{\mathrm{sca}})^{*} ] \} \mathrm{d} {\boldsymbol{S}}$. Fig.~\ref{Fig:SnPower} presents the light power (photon counts) at the far field perpendicular to the beam propagation when an eccentric core-shell particle with $a_{\text{shell}}=90$~nm and $a_{\text{core}}=60$~nm trapped by a Gaussian beam with wavelength of 532 nm and beam waist radius of 1~$\mu$m. From this figure, we can see that the scattered light power, $P^{\mathrm{sca}}$ varies along with the orientation of the core, which can be used to monitor the rotation of the eccentric core-shell particles in practical experiments.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering{}
\subfloat[Au@SiO$_2$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Fig4a_H2O_SnPower_l_Gb1000_Au_SiO2.png}}
\subfloat[TiO$_2$@SiO$_2$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Fig4b_H2O_SnPower_l_Gb1000_TiO2_SiO2.png}}
\subfloat[SiO$_2$@TiO$_2$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Fig4c_H2O_SnPower_l_Gb1000_SiO2_TiO2.png}}
\caption{The scattered power along with the orientation of the core when $\lambda = 532$ nm that is collected by an objective facing the beam polarisation direction. The objective is a circular plane with radius of 3.75 mm which centre is located at (0.13 mm, 0, 0). In all cases, the power in the scattered beam varies by of order $1\%$, as a function of particle orientation, which is readily detectable.
} \label{Fig:SnPower}
\end{figure*}
\section{Conclusion}
We numerically studied the optomechanical response of an eccentric core-shell particle with sub-micron size trapped by a Gaussian beam with fixed beam waist radius $w_0=1$ $\mu$m (more detailed results can found in the supplementary material~\cite{Sun2020SI}). We considered three types of core-shell particles: Au@SiO$_2$, TiO$_2$@SiO$_2$ and SiO$_2$@TiO$_2$ together with different optical trapping light beam wavelengths: $\lambda=532$ nm, $\lambda = 775$ nm, $\lambda=840$ nm and $\lambda=1064$ nm. One exciting observation is that such an eccentric spherical core-shell particle with diameter of 180 nm (Au@SiO$_2$) can be rotated at over 800 Hz for a moderate illumination power of 20 mW. For the same power, a 90 nm diameter particle (SiO$_2$@TiO$_2$) can be rotated at over 10 Hz. Optical rotation of such a small particle with such moderate light powers is not achievable with currently used birefringent particles. This indicates that the use of eccentric sub-micron scale core-shell particles will find use in fundamental and applied studies in optical trapping where researchers seek rotation of nanometric sized objects. This could include the areas of levitated optomechanics and biophotonics, where the particle may perform as an optical torque wrench or enable the local measurement of nano-viscosity in complex fluids, a path way to \textit{nanorheology}. This is highly relevant to gain an understanding of how cells respond to stimuli from their surrounding environment.
\begin{acknowledgement}
QS and ADG acknowledge support of the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Nanoscale BioPhotonics (CNBP) (Grant No. CE140100003). KD acknowledges the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (Grant EP/P030017/1). QS acknowledges the support of an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (Grant No. DE150100169), and ADG acknowledges the support of an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (Grant No. FT160100357). This research was undertaken with the assistance of resources from the National Computational Infrastructure (NCI Australia), an NCRIS enabled capability supported by the Australian Government (Grant No. LE160100051).
\end{acknowledgement}
\begin{suppinfo}
The following files are available free of charge.
\begin{itemize}
\item Supporting information for optical forces and torques on eccentric nanoscale core-shell particles~\cite{Sun2020SI}
\end{itemize}
\end{suppinfo}
\section{Optomechanical response of an eccentric spherical core-shell particle under the Gaussian illumination with linear polarisation}
Here we provide the detailed optomechanical response of an eccentric spherical core-shell particle under the Gaussian illumination with linear polarisation, as described in Sec. 2 of the main text. The asymmetry of the particle is introduced by the displacement between the core-centre and shell centre. The beam waist radius is set as $w_0=1$ $\mu$m when the beam propagates along $z$-axis and polarises along $x$-axis. The distance between the core-centre and shell-center is $h$, and the angle from the line connecting core-center and shell-center to the $x$ axis is $\theta$, so that when $\theta = 90^{\mathrm{o}}$ the centre line measured from the shell-centre to the core-centre is along the beam propagation direction.
\begin{figure*}
\centering{}
\subfloat[$\theta = 0^{\mathrm{o}}$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig1a_Ex000.png}}
\subfloat[$\theta = 45^{\mathrm{o}}$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig1b_Ex045.png}}
\subfloat[$\theta = 315^{\mathrm{o}}$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig1c_Ex315.png}} \\
\subfloat[$\theta = 0^{\mathrm{o}}$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig1d_Ez000.png}}
\subfloat[$\theta = 45^{\mathrm{o}}$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig1e_Ez045.png}}
\subfloat[$\theta = 315^{\mathrm{o}}$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig1f_Ez315.png}} \\
\subfloat[$\theta = 0^{\mathrm{o}}$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig1g_Hy000.png}}
\subfloat[$\theta = 45^{\mathrm{o}}$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig1h_Hy045.png}}
\subfloat[$\theta = 315^{\mathrm{o}}$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig1i_Hy315.png}}
\caption{Electric and magnetic fields of when a linearly polarised Gaussian beam is incident on an eccentric Au@SiO$_2$ core-shell particle in air. The wavelength of the beam is 532 nm and its waist radius is 1 $\mu$m. The radius of the Au core is 60 nm, that of the SiO$_2$ shell is 90 nm, and the displacement between the centre of the Au core and the centre of the SiO$_2$ shell, $h=25$ nm. The refractive indices of air, SiO$_2$ and Au are $n_{\text{air}} = 1.0$, $n_{\text{SiO}_{2}} = 1.46$ and $n_{\text{Au}} = 0.54 + \mathrm{i} 2.14$, respectively. (a-c) The $x$ component of the electric field; (d-f) The $z$ component of the electric field; (g-i) The $y$ component of the magnetic field at different orientation of the Au core.
} \label{Fig:EHfield}
\end{figure*}
It is intuitive that the interactions between an eccentric core-shell nanoparticle and external electromagnetic field should be a function of the particle orientation. Take an eccentric Au@SiO$_2$ particle with the shell radius $a_{\text{shell}}=90$ nm and core radius $a_{\text{core}}=60$ nm as an example, when it is under the illumination of a linearly polarised Gaussian beam in air, by using the computational model detailed in Sec. 2 in the main text, Fig.~\ref{Fig:EHfield} shows the total electric and magnetic fields in the surrounding medium and the transmitted electric and magnetic fields in the particles as the centre of Au core is located at different position relative to the centre of the SiO$_2$ shell, when the shell centre is fixed at the focus of the beam. The wavelength of the beam is 532 nm, and the displacement between the centre of the Au core and the centre of the SiO$_2$ shell, $h=25$ nm. The contour plots of the $x$ component of the electric field in the top row of Fig.~\ref{Fig:EHfield} indicate that we will expect a force perpendicular to the wave propagation. Also, under a propagating wave, if the particle size is not very small when compared to the light wavelength, the effects of phase across the particle cannot be ignored. Together with the asymmetry given by the eccentric core-shell allocation, a torque acting on this particle will appear as shown by the contour plots of the $z$ component of the electric field and the $y$ component of the magnetic field in the middle and bottom rows of Fig.~\ref{Fig:EHfield}.
The total electric and magnetic fields in the surrounding medium are the superposition of the incident field and the scattered field as $\boldsymbol{E} = \boldsymbol{E}^{\mathrm{inc}} + \boldsymbol{E}^{\mathrm{sca}}$ and $\boldsymbol{H} = \boldsymbol{H}^{\mathrm{inc}} + \boldsymbol{H}^{\mathrm{sca}}$. Introducing the above relationships into Eqs. (4) and (5) in the main text, we notice that the optical force and torque have three parts: one from the indecent field, one from the scattered field and one from the interactions between the scattered and incident fields as
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
F^{\mathrm{inc}}_{i} =& \int_{S_{\text{shell}}} \frac{1}{2} \Big\{ \text{Real} \left[ (D^{\mathrm{inc}}_{i}E^{\mathrm{inc},*}_{j} + E^{\mathrm{inc}}_{i}D^{\mathrm{inc},*}_{j} + B^{\mathrm{inc}}_{i}H^{\mathrm{inc},*}_{j} + H^{\mathrm{inc}}_{i}B^{\mathrm{inc},*}_{j}) n_{j} \right. \nonumber \\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad \quad \left. - (D^{\mathrm{inc}}_{j}E^{\mathrm{inc},*}_{j} + B^{\mathrm{inc}}_{j}H^{\mathrm{inc},*}_{j} )n_{i} \right] \Big\} \mathrm{d} S \label{eq:force_inc} \\
F^{\mathrm{sca}}_{i} =& \int_{S_{\text{shell}}} \frac{1}{2} \Big\{ \text{Real} \left[ (D^{\mathrm{sca}}_{i}E^{\mathrm{sca},*}_{j} + E^{\mathrm{sca}}_{i}D^{\mathrm{sca},*}_{j} + B^{\mathrm{sca}}_{i}H^{\mathrm{sca},*}_{j} + H^{\mathrm{sca}}_{i}B^{\mathrm{sca},*}_{j}) n_{j} \right. \nonumber \\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad \quad \left. - (D^{\mathrm{sca}}_{j}E^{\mathrm{sca},*}_{j} + B^{\mathrm{sca}}_{j}H^{\mathrm{sca},*}_{j} )n_{i} \right] \Big\} \mathrm{d} S \label{eq:force_sca} \\
F^{\mathrm{ext}}_{i} =& \int_{S_{\text{shell}}} \frac{1}{2} \Big\{ \text{Real} \left[ (D^{\mathrm{inc}}_{i}E^{\mathrm{sca},*}_{j} + E^{\mathrm{inc}}_{i}D^{\mathrm{sca},*}_{j} + B^{\mathrm{inc}}_{i}H^{\mathrm{sca},*}_{j} + H^{\mathrm{inc}}_{i}B^{\mathrm{sca},*}_{j}) n_{j} \right. \nonumber \\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad \quad + (D^{\mathrm{sca}}_{i}E^{\mathrm{inc},*}_{j} + E^{\mathrm{sca}}_{i}D^{\mathrm{inc},*}_{j} + B^{\mathrm{sca}}_{i}H^{\mathrm{inc},*}_{j} + H^{\mathrm{sca}}_{i}B^{\mathrm{inc},*}_{j}) n_{j} \nonumber \\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad \quad \left. - (D^{\mathrm{inc}}_{j}E^{\mathrm{sca},*}_{j} + B^{\mathrm{inc}}_{j}H^{\mathrm{sca},*}_{j} )n_{i} - (D^{\mathrm{sca}}_{j}E^{\mathrm{inc},*}_{j} + B^{\mathrm{sca}}_{j}H^{\mathrm{inc},*}_{j} )n_{i} \right] \Big\} \mathrm{d} S \label{eq:force_ext}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}\label{eq:force}
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:torque}
\begin{align}
N^{\mathrm{inc}}_{i} =& \int_{S_{\text{shell}}} \varepsilon_{ijk} r^{c}_{j}\frac{1}{2} \Big\{ \text{Real} \left[ (D^{\mathrm{inc}}_{k}E^{\mathrm{inc},*}_{l} + E^{\mathrm{inc}}_{k}D^{\mathrm{inc},*}_{l} + B^{\mathrm{inc}}_{k}H^{\mathrm{inc},*}_{l} + H^{\mathrm{inc}}_{k}B^{\mathrm{inc},*}_{l}) n_{l} \right. \nonumber \\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad \quad \left. - (D^{\mathrm{inc}}_{l}E^{\mathrm{inc},*}_{l} + B^{\mathrm{inc}}_{l}H^{\mathrm{inc},*}_{l} )n_{k} \right] \Big\} \mathrm{d} S \label{eq:torque_inc} \\
N^{\mathrm{sca}}_{i} =& \int_{S_{\text{shell}}} \varepsilon_{ijk} r^{c}_{j}\frac{1}{2} \Big\{ \text{Real} \left[ (D^{\mathrm{sca}}_{k}E^{\mathrm{sca},*}_{l} + E^{\mathrm{sca}}_{k}D^{\mathrm{sca},*}_{l} + B^{\mathrm{sca}}_{k}H^{\mathrm{sca},*}_{l} + H^{\mathrm{sca}}_{k}B^{\mathrm{sca},*}_{l}) n_{l} \right. \nonumber \\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad \quad \left. - (D^{\mathrm{sca}}_{l}E^{\mathrm{sca},*}_{l} + B^{\mathrm{sca}}_{l}H^{\mathrm{sca},*}_{l} )n_{k} \right] \Big\} \mathrm{d} S \label{eq:torque_sca} \\
N^{\mathrm{ext}}_{i} =& \int_{S_{\text{shell}}} \varepsilon_{ijk} r^{c}_{j}\frac{1}{2} \Big\{ \text{Real} \left[ (D^{\mathrm{inc}}_{k}E^{\mathrm{sca},*}_{l} + E^{\mathrm{inc}}_{k}D^{\mathrm{sca},*}_{l} + B^{\mathrm{inc}}_{k}H^{\mathrm{sca},*}_{l} + H^{\mathrm{inc}}_{k}B^{\mathrm{sca},*}_{l}) n_{l} \right. \nonumber \\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad \quad + (D^{\mathrm{sca}}_{k}E^{\mathrm{inc},*}_{l} + E^{\mathrm{sca}}_{k}D^{\mathrm{inc},*}_{l} + B^{\mathrm{sca}}_{k}H^{\mathrm{inc},*}_{l} + H^{\mathrm{sca}}_{k}B^{\mathrm{inc},*}_{l}) n_{l} \nonumber \\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad \quad \left. - (D^{\mathrm{inc}}_{l}E^{\mathrm{sca},*}_{l} + B^{\mathrm{inc}}_{l}H^{\mathrm{sca},*}_{l} )n_{k} - (D^{\mathrm{sca}}_{l}E^{\mathrm{inc},*}_{l} + B^{\mathrm{sca}}_{l}H^{\mathrm{inc},*}_{l} )n_{k} \right] \Big\} \mathrm{d} S \label{eq:torque_ext}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Based on the numerical experiments set up in our work, since the shell is spherical and its centre is fixed at the focus of the incident Gaussian beam, the force and torque due to the incident fields $\boldsymbol{E}^{\mathrm{inc}}$ and $\boldsymbol{H}^{\mathrm{inc}}$ are zeros: $\boldsymbol{F}^{\mathrm{inc}} = \boldsymbol{0}$ and $\boldsymbol{N}^{\mathrm{inc}} = \boldsymbol{0}$. It is worth mentioning that if the particle is not located at the focus of beam, there will be optical force generated from the incident field (gradient force). As such, in this work, we investigated the total optical force and torque, $\boldsymbol{F}$ and $\boldsymbol{N}$ defined in Eqs.~(4) and (5) in the main text, respectively, and those from the scattered field, $\boldsymbol{F}^{\mathrm{sca}}$ and $\boldsymbol{N}^{\mathrm{sca}}$ defined in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:force_sca}) and (\ref{eq:torque_sca}), respectively, and those from the interaction between the scattered field and the incident field $\boldsymbol{F}^{\mathrm{ext}}$ and $\boldsymbol{N}^{\mathrm{ext}}$ defined in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:force_ext}) and (\ref{eq:torque_ext}), respectively.
\subsection{Optical force along the beam propagation direction}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering{}
\subfloat[]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig2a_00Air_Fz_l0532_Gb1000.png}}
\subfloat[]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig2b_00Air_FzSca_l0532_Gb1000.png}}
\subfloat[]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig2c_00Air_FzExt_l0532_Gb1000.png}} \\
\subfloat[]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig2d_10H2O_Fz_l0532_Gb1000.png}}
\subfloat[]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig2e_10H2O_FzSca_l0532_Gb1000.png}}
\subfloat[]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig2f_10H2O_FzExt_l0532_Gb1000.png}}
\caption{Optical force along the direction of incident beam propagation on the eccentric Au@SiO$_2$ core-shell particle under the linearly polarised Gaussian beam illumination. (a-c) in air with $n_{\text{air}}=1$; (d-f) in water with $n_{\text{water}}=1.33$. The shell radius is $a_{\text{shell}}=90$ nm, the core radius is $a_{\text{core}}=60$ nm, the beam wavelength is $\lambda=532$ nm, and the beam waist radius is $w_0=1$ $\mu$m.
} \label{Fig:Fz_h}
\end{figure*}
Let us first consider the optical force along the beam propagation or the trapping force. Taking an Au@SiO$_2$ eccentric core-shell particle with the shell radius $a_{\text{shell}}=90$ nm and core radius $a_{\text{core}}=60$ nm which shell centre is at the focal point of the Gaussian beam as an example. Fig.~\ref{Fig:Fz_h} shows how the asymmetry, $h$, can affect the trapping force $F_z$ and its components $F_z^{\mathrm{sca}}$ and $F_z^{\mathrm{ext}}$ when an eccentric Au@SiO$_{2}$ core-shell particle illuminated by a beam with wavelength $\lambda=532$ nm. The top row of Fig.~\ref{Fig:Fz_h} shows the variations of $F_z$ , $F_z^{\mathrm{sca}}$ and $F_z^{\mathrm{ext}}$ along with the Au core orientation, $\theta$ when the surrounding medium is air with $n_{\text{air}}=1$. In Fig.~\ref{Fig:Fz_h}(a), we can see that when the distance, $h$, between the Au core-centre and the SiO$_2$ shell-centre increases, the total optical force along the wave propagation, $F_z$ becomes larger and larger at all orientation angle $\theta$. It is noticeable that the force curves have two local minima when the orientation angle $\theta=90^{\mathrm{o}}$ and $\theta=270^{\mathrm{o}}$, respectively, where $F_{z}$ is larger at $\theta=90^{\mathrm{o}}$ compared to that at $\theta=270^{\mathrm{o}}$. The trends of the optical force along the wave propagation due to the interaction between the scattered field and the incident field, $F_z^{\mathrm{ext}}$ behaves the same, as shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig:Fz_h}(c). It is noticeable that the magnitude of this part of the optical force, $F_z^{\mathrm{ext}}$ is higher than the net optical force, $F_z$. This is due to the fact that the optical force from the scattered field shows a tractor effect (opposite to the wave propagation direction), as shown in Figs~\ref{Fig:Fz_h}(b). Nevertheless, the optical force from the scattered field, $F_z^{\mathrm{sca}}$ is much smaller relative to that from the interaction between the incident and the scattered field, $F_z^{\mathrm{ext}}$.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering{}
\subfloat[Au@SiO$_{2}$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig3a.png}}
\subfloat[Au@SiO$_{2}$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig3b.png}}
\subfloat[Au@SiO$_{2}$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig3c.png}} \\
\subfloat[TiO$_2$@SiO$_{2}$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig3d.png}}
\subfloat[TiO$_2$@SiO$_{2}$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig3e.png}}
\subfloat[TiO$_2$@SiO$_{2}$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig3f.png}} \\
\subfloat[SiO$_2$@TiO$_{2}$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig3g.png}}
\subfloat[SiO$_2$@TiO$_{2}$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig3h.png}}
\subfloat[SiO$_2$@TiO$_{2}$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig3i.png}}
\caption{Optical force along the direction of incident beam propagation on three types of eccentric core-shell particles in water under a linearly polarised Gaussian beam illumination with beam waist radius as $w_0=1$ $\mu$m. The geometrical features of the core-shell particle are $a_{\text{shell}}=90$ nm, $a_{\text{core}}=60$ nm and $h=25$ nm.
} \label{Fig:Fz_lambda}
\end{figure*}
When the surrounding medium is water with $n_{\text{water}} = 1.33$, the variations of the optical forces, $F_{z}$ due to the asymmetry of the Au core change accordingly because of the difference of the ratio of the relative refractive indices between the SiO$_2$ shell and the surrounding medium. One obvious difference is that $\theta=90^{\mathrm{o}}$ becomes the orientation of Au core corresponding to the maximum optical force along the wave propagation, as shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig:Fz_h}(d). Also, when the asymmetry $h$ of the eccentric particle becomes larger, the net optical force along the beam propagation, $F_z$ increases at most orientations of the Au core except for a small range around $\theta = 270^{\mathrm{o}}$ which is the effect from the force component due to the scattered field, $F_z^{\mathrm{sca}}$ as displayed in Fig.~\ref{Fig:Fz_h}(e). When comparing Figs.~\ref{Fig:Fz_h}(e-f), we can see that the optical force from the interaction between the incident and the scattered field, $F_z^{\mathrm{ext}}$ dominates that from the scattered field, $F_z^{\mathrm{sca}}$. Converting the magnitude of the optical trapping force, $F_z$ in Fig.~\ref{Fig:Fz_h}(d), we obtain the $Q$-factor, $Q = F_z \, c/(n_{\text{medium}}P_0)$ with $c$ being the speed of light, larger than 0.029 which is reasonable.
Fig.~\ref{Fig:Fz_lambda} presents the effect of wavelength on the optical force along the Gaussian beam propagation for three types of eccentric core-shell particles in water: Au@SiO$_{2}$, TiO$_2$@SiO$_{2}$ and SiO$_2$@TiO$_{2}$. Four wavelengths, $\lambda=532$ nm, $\lambda=775$ nm, $\lambda=840$ nm and $\lambda=1064$ nm are under consideration when the linearly polarised Gaussian beam waist radius is fixed as $w_0=1$ $\mu$m. As the wavelength becomes larger and larger, the magnitudes of the net optical force, $F_z$ decreases. From the first and second rows of Fig.~\ref{Fig:Fz_lambda}, we can clearly see that the optical force from the interaction between the scattered and incident fields, $F_z^{\mathrm{ext}}$ dominates the force from the scattered field, $F_z^{\mathrm{sca}}$ for Au@SiO$_{2}$ and TiO$_2$@SiO$_{2}$. However, for SiO$_2$@TiO$_{2}$, the magnitude of these two parts are in the same order and they are competing with each other. The net force $F_z$ shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig:Fz_lambda}(g) indicates that the optical force from the interaction between the scattered and incident fields, $F_z^{\mathrm{ext}}$ overcomes the force from the scattered field, $F_z^{\mathrm{sca}}$.
\subsection{Optical force perpendicular to the beam propagation}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering{}
\subfloat[]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig4a_00Air_Fx_l0532_Gb1000.png}}
\subfloat[]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig4b_00Air_FxSca_l0532_Gb1000.png}}
\subfloat[]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig4c_00Air_FxExt_l0532_Gb1000.png}} \\
\subfloat[]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig4d_10H2O_Fx_l0532_Gb1000.png}}
\subfloat[]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig4e_10H2O_FxSca_l0532_Gb1000.png}}
\subfloat[]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig4f_10H2O_FxExt_l0532_Gb1000.png}}
\caption{Optical force perpendicular to the direction of incident beam propagation on the eccentric Au@SiO$_2$ core-shell particle under the linearly polarised Gaussian beam illumination. (a-c) in air with $n_{\text{air}}=1$; (d-f) in water with $n_{\text{water}}=1.33$. The shell radius is $a_{\text{shell}}=90$ nm, the core radius is $a_{\text{core}}=60$ nm, the beam wavelength is $\lambda=532$ nm, and the beam waist radius is $w_0=1$ $\mu$m.
} \label{Fig:Fx_h}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\centering{}
\subfloat[Au@SiO$_{2}$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig5a.png}}
\subfloat[Au@SiO$_{2}$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig5b.png}}
\subfloat[Au@SiO$_{2}$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig5c.png}} \\
\subfloat[TiO$_2$@SiO$_{2}$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig5d.png}}
\subfloat[TiO$_2$@SiO$_{2}$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig5e.png}}
\subfloat[TiO$_2$@SiO$_{2}$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig5f.png}} \\
\subfloat[SiO$_2$@TiO$_{2}$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig5g.png}}
\subfloat[SiO$_2$@TiO$_{2}$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig5h.png}}
\subfloat[SiO$_2$@TiO$_{2}$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig5i.png}}
\caption{Optical force perpendicular to the direction of incident beam propagation on three types of eccentric core-shell particles in water under a linearly polarised Gaussian beam illumination with beam waist radius as $w_0=1$ $\mu$m. The geometrical features of the core-shell particle are $a_{\text{shell}}=90$ nm, $a_{\text{core}}=60$ nm and $h=25$ nm.
} \label{Fig:Fx_lambda}
\end{figure*}
As the core particle is not concentric with the centre of the shell, there will be an optical force perpendicular to the beam propagation direction. Fig.~\ref{Fig:Fx_h} displays the optical force perpendicular to a linearly polarised Gaussian beam with its light wavelength as $\lambda=532$ nm illuminating on an eccentric Au@SiO$_2$ core-shell particle. We, firstly, would like to point out that compared to the optical force along the beam propagation axis $F_z$, $F_x$ can be deemed as a secondary effect since the magnitude of $F_x$ is 2 orders lower than that of $F_z$.
The variation trends of such a force, $F_x$ and its components, $F_x^{\mathrm{sca}}$ and $F_x^{\mathrm{ext}}$ with respect to the orientation of the Au core, $\theta$ are quite similar for air or water as the surrounding medium. It is intuitive to consider that the maximum value of this optical force, $F_x$ appears when the core particle is at the maximum displacement from the beam axis at $\theta=0^{\mathrm{o}}$ and $\theta=180^{\mathrm{o}}$ which is demonstrated in Fig.~\ref{Fig:Fx_h}. If the surrounding medium is air, the orientation of the Au core corresponding to the largest value of $F_x$ is shifted a little away from $\theta=0^{\mathrm{o}}$ or $\theta=180^{\mathrm{o}}$ as displayed in ~\ref{Fig:Fx_h}(a). This is because the change of the refractive index of the surrounding medium tuned the scattered field that consequently affects the optical force, $F_x$. Unlike the force along the beam propagation, $F_z$ in which the contribution of the interaction between the scattered and incident fields is dominating, for the optical force perpendicular to the beam direction, $F_x$, both the force from the scattered field, $F_x^{\mathrm{sca}}$ and that from the interaction of the scattered and incident fields, $F_x^{\mathrm{ext}}$ have similar contributions to the net $F_x$ for the Au@SiO$_2$ core-shell particle when $\lambda=532$ nm.
The optical force perpendicular to beam propagation under different wavelengths on three types of eccentric core-shell particles with $h=25$ nm are shown in Fig.~{\ref{Fig:Fx_lambda}}. For the Au@SiO$_2$ core-shell particle at long wavelengths, the force from the scattered field, $F_x^{\mathrm{sca}}$ competes with that from the interaction of the scattered and incident fields, $F_x^{\mathrm{ext}}$, as shown in Figs.~{\ref{Fig:Fx_lambda}}(b-c). As to the TiO$_2$@SiO$_{2}$ and SiO$_2$@TiO$_{2}$ core-shell particles, the net force, $F_x$ is dominated by the contribution from the scattered field, $F_x^{\mathrm{sca}}$ for all the wavelengths under consideration, as displayed in the second and third rows of Fig.~{\ref{Fig:Fx_lambda}}.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering{}
\subfloat[]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig6a_00Air_Ny_l0532_Gb1000.png}}
\subfloat[]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig6b_00Air_NySca_l0532_Gb1000.png}}
\subfloat[]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig6c_00Air_NyExt_l0532_Gb1000.png}} \\
\subfloat[]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig6d_10H2O_Ny_l0532_Gb1000.png}}
\subfloat[]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig6e_10H2O_NySca_l0532_Gb1000.png}}
\subfloat[]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig6f_10H2O_NyExt_l0532_Gb1000.png}}
\caption{Optical torque perpendicular to the direction of incident beam propagation on the eccentric Au@SiO$_2$ core-shell particle under the linearly polarised Gaussian beam illumination. (a-c) in air with $n_{\text{air}}=1$; (d-f) in water with $n_{\text{water}}=1.33$. The shell radius is $a_{\text{shell}}=90$ nm, the core radius is $a_{\text{core}}=60$ nm, the beam wavelength is $\lambda=532$ nm, and the beam waist radius is $w_0=1$ $\mu$m.
} \label{Fig:Ny_h}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Optical torque}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\centering{}
\subfloat[Au@SiO$_{2}$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig7a.png}}
\subfloat[Au@SiO$_{2}$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig7b.png}}
\subfloat[Au@SiO$_{2}$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig7c.png}} \\
\subfloat[TiO$_2$@SiO$_{2}$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig7d.png}}
\subfloat[TiO$_2$@SiO$_{2}$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig7e.png}}
\subfloat[TiO$_2$@SiO$_{2}$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig7f.png}} \\
\subfloat[SiO$_2$@TiO$_{2}$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig7g.png}}
\subfloat[SiO$_2$@TiO$_{2}$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig7h.png}}
\subfloat[SiO$_2$@TiO$_{2}$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig7i.png}}
\caption{Optical torque perpendicular to the direction of incident beam propagation on three types of eccentric core-shell particles in water under a linearly polarised Gaussian beam illumination with beam waist radius as $w_0=1$ $\mu$m. The geometrical features of the core-shell particle are $a_{\text{shell}}=90$ nm, $a_{\text{core}}=60$ nm and $h=25$ nm.
} \label{Fig:Ny_lambda}
\end{figure*}
The direction of the optical torque is perpendicular to the plane constructed by the light propagation direction and its electric field polarisation direction. Fig.~\ref{Fig:Ny_h} illustrates how the asymmetry, $h$ and orientation, $\theta$ of the Au core affect the optical torque on an eccentric Au@SiO$_2$ core-shell particle under the illumination of a linearly polarised Gaussian beam with wavelength as $\lambda=532$~nm. As shown in Figs.~\ref{Fig:Ny_h}(b-c) and (e-f), when the displacement $h$ between the centre of the Au core and that of the SiO$_2$ shell increases, the optical torques due to the scattered field and the interaction between the incident and scattered fields become more and more significant. However, these two effects are out of phase (180 degree difference) along the orientation angle of the Au core, $\theta$, when the surrounding medium is air, as shown in Figs.~\ref{Fig:Ny_h}(b) and (c). This leads to a small net optical torque as presented in Fig.~\ref{Fig:Ny_h}(a). When the surrounding medium is water, the optical torques due to the scattered field and the interaction between the incident and scattered fields are in phase along with the orientation angle of the Au core, $\theta$. As such, the total optical torque on the eccentric Au@SiO$_2$ core-shell particle in water is more significant relative to that in air.
Fig.~\ref{Fig:Ny_lambda} shows the effect of wavelength on the optical torque acting on three types of eccentric core-shell particles with $h=25$ nm under the illumination of a linearly polarised Gaussian beam in water. As displayed in the first row of Fig.~\ref{Fig:Ny_lambda}, for the Au@SiO$_2$ eccentric core-shell particle, the optical torque from the scattered field, $N_y^{\mathrm{sca}}$ and that from the interaction between the scattered and incident fields, $N_y^{\mathrm{ext}}$ are in phase with respect to the orientation of the Au core, $\theta$, which leads to a significant net optical torque, $N_y$. As to the TiO$_2$@SiO$_{2}$ eccentric core-shell particle, net optical torque, $N_y$ is dominated by the interaction between the scattered and incident fields, $N_y^{\mathrm{ext}}$; while for the SiO$_2$@TiO$_{2}$ eccentric core-shell particle, the contribution from the scattered field dominates.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering{}
\subfloat[$F_x$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{sFig8a_offc10H2O_Fx_0532_LP_Gb1000_Au_25_SiO2.png}}
\subfloat[$F_z$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{sFig8b_offc10H2O_Fz_0532_LP_Gb1000_Au_25_SiO2.png}}
\subfloat[$N_y$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{sFig8c_offc10H2O_Ny_0532_LP_Gb1000_Au_25_SiO2.png}} \\
\subfloat[$F_x$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{sFig8d_offc10H2O_Fx_1064_LP_Gb1000_Au_25_SiO2.png}}
\subfloat[$F_z$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{sFig8e_offc10H2O_Fz_1064_LP_Gb1000_Au_25_SiO2.png}}
\subfloat[$N_y$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{sFig8f_offc10H2O_Ny_1064_LP_Gb1000_Au_25_SiO2.png}}
\caption{Optical force and torque an eccentric Au@SiO$_2$ core-shell particle in water ($n_{\text{medium}} = 1.33$) under a circular polarised Gaussian beam illumination with beam waist radius as $w_0=1$ $\mu$m when the geometric centre of the shell locates at different positions along the beam propagation direction: (a-c) $\lambda$=532 nm and (d-f) $\lambda$=1064 nm. The geometric features of the eccentric core-shell particle are $a_{\text{shell}}=90$ nm, $a_{\text{core}}=60$ nm and $h=25$ nm.
} \label{Fig:offcenAu@SiO2}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{When the eccentric core-shell particle is away from the focal point of the beam}
In the previous sections, we demonstrate the optomechanical response of an eccentric spherical core-shell particle under the linearly polarised Gaussian illumination when the centre of the shell is trapped at the focus of the beam. Nevertheless, in practice, the optical trapping location of the particle is not at the focal point of beam in most cases due to the field gradient. We then consider a few cases when the geometrical centre of the eccentric core-shell particle is at different positions relative to the beam focus along the beam propagation direction, denoted as $(0,0,z^c_{\text{shell}})$. From Figs.~\ref{Fig:offcenAu@SiO2} and \ref{Fig:offcenTiO2@SiO2}, we can see that the magnitude of the trapping force $F_z$ changes significantly when $z^c_{\text{shell}}$ varies from $z^c_{\text{shell}}=0$ $\mu$m to $z^c_{\text{shell}}=1$ $\mu$m, $z^c_{\text{shell}}=2$ $\mu$m and $z^c_{\text{shell}}=4$ $\mu$m, while the magnitude of the optical torque $N_y$ does not show an obvious variation. This indicates that the optical rotation of nanoscale eccentric core-shall particles should be observable in realistic experiments using current technology.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering{}
\subfloat[$F_x$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{sFig9a_offc10H2O_Fx_0532_LP_Gb1000_TiO2_25_SiO2.png}}
\subfloat[$F_z$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{sFig9b_offc10H2O_Fz_0532_LP_Gb1000_TiO2_25_SiO2.png}}
\subfloat[$N_y$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{sFig9c_offc10H2O_Ny_0532_LP_Gb1000_TiO2_25_SiO2.png}} \\
\subfloat[$F_x$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{sFig9d_offc10H2O_Fx_1064_LP_Gb1000_TiO2_25_SiO2.png}}
\subfloat[$F_z$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{sFig9e_offc10H2O_Fz_1064_LP_Gb1000_TiO2_25_SiO2.png}}
\subfloat[$N_y$]{ \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{sFig9f_offc10H2O_Ny_1064_LP_Gb1000_TiO2_25_SiO2.png}}
\caption{Optical force and torque an eccentric TiO$_2$@SiO$_2$ core-shell particle in water ($n_{\text{medium}} = 1.33$) under a circular polarised Gaussian beam illumination with beam waist radius as $w_0=1$ $\mu$m when the geometric centre of the shell locates at different positions along the beam propagation direction: (a-c) $\lambda$=532 nm and (d-f) $\lambda$=1064 nm. The geometric features of the eccentric core-shell particle are $a_{\text{shell}}=90$ nm, $a_{\text{core}}=60$ nm and $h=25$ nm.
} \label{Fig:offcenTiO2@SiO2}
\end{figure*}
\section{Optical torques on an eccentric spherical core-shell particle under a Gaussian beam with circular polarisation}
Circularly polarised Gaussian beams have commonly been used to optically rotate microscale birefringent particles. In this section, we explore the optical torques acting on an eccentric core-shell particle under the Gaussian illumination with circular polarisation. Suppose a circularly polarised beam with Gaussian profile propagates along $z$ direction, such a beam can be described as:
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:EHinc_circular}
\begin{align}
E_{x}^{\mathrm{inc}} = & \quad \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2} E_{0} \bigg \{ 1 + s^2(-\varrho^2 \vartheta^2 - \mathrm{i} \varrho^4 \vartheta^3 - 2\vartheta^2 \xi^2) \nonumber \\
& \qquad \quad + s^4 \left[ 2\varrho^4\vartheta^4 + 3\mathrm{i} \varrho^6 \vartheta^5 - 0.5 \varrho^8 \vartheta^6 + (8 \varrho^2\vartheta^4 + 2 \mathrm{i} \varrho^4 \vartheta^5) \xi^2 \right] \bigg \}\psi_0 e^{\mathrm{i} kz} \nonumber \\
& + \frac{\mathrm{i} \sqrt{2}}{2} E_{0} \left\{s^2(-2\vartheta^2 \xi \eta) + s^4 \left[ 8\varrho^2\vartheta^4 + 2\mathrm{i} \varrho^4 \vartheta^5) \xi \eta \right]
\right\}\psi_0 e^{\mathrm{i} kz},
\end{align}
\begin{align}
E_{y}^{\mathrm{inc}} = & \quad \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2} E_{0} \left\{s^2(-2\vartheta^2 \xi \eta) + s^4 \left[ 8\varrho^2\vartheta^4 + 2\mathrm{i} \varrho^4 \vartheta^5) \xi \eta \right]
\right\}\psi_0 e^{\mathrm{i} kz} \nonumber \\
& + \frac{\mathrm{i} \sqrt{2}}{2} E_{0} \bigg \{ 1 + s^2(-\varrho^2 \vartheta^2 - \mathrm{i} \varrho^4 \vartheta^3 - 2\vartheta^2 \eta^2) \nonumber \\
& \qquad \quad + s^4 \left[ 2\varrho^4\vartheta^4 + 3\mathrm{i} \varrho^6 \vartheta^5 - 0.5 \varrho^8 \vartheta^6 + (8 \varrho^2\vartheta^4 + 2 \mathrm{i} \varrho^4 \vartheta^5) \eta^2 \right] \bigg \}\psi_0 e^{\mathrm{i} kz},
\end{align}
\begin{align}
E_{z}^{\mathrm{inc}} = & \quad \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2} E_{0} \left\{s(-2\vartheta \xi) + s^3\left[ (6\varrho^2 \vartheta^3 +2 \mathrm{i} \varrho^4 \vartheta^4)\xi \right] \right. \nonumber \\
& \qquad + \left. s^5 \left[ -20\varrho^4\vartheta^5 - 10\mathrm{i} \varrho^6 \vartheta^6 + \varrho^8 \vartheta^7 \right] \xi
\right\}\psi_0 e^{\mathrm{i} kz} \nonumber \\
& + \frac{\mathrm{i} \sqrt{2}}{2} E_{0} \left\{s(-2\vartheta \eta) + s^3\left[ (6\varrho^2 \vartheta^3 +2 \mathrm{i} \varrho^4 \vartheta^4)\eta \right] \right. \nonumber \\
& \qquad + \left. s^5 \left[ -20\varrho^4\vartheta^5 - 10\mathrm{i} \varrho^6 \vartheta^6 + \varrho^8 \vartheta^7 \right] \eta
\right\}\psi_0 e^{\mathrm{i} kz},
\end{align}
\begin{align}
H_{x}^{\mathrm{inc}} = & \quad \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2} \frac{k}{\mu_0 \mu \omega} E_{0} \left\{s^2(-2\vartheta^2 \xi \eta) + s^4 \left[ 8\varrho^2\vartheta^4 + 2\mathrm{i} \varrho^4 \vartheta^5) \xi \eta \right]
\right\}\psi_0 e^{\mathrm{i} kz} \nonumber \\
& - \frac{\mathrm{i} \sqrt{2}}{2} \frac{k}{\mu_0 \mu \omega} E_{0} \bigg \{ 1 + s^2(-\varrho^2 \vartheta^2 - \mathrm{i} \varrho^4 \vartheta^3 - 2\vartheta^2 \xi^2) \nonumber \\
& \qquad \quad + s^4 \left[ 2\varrho^4\vartheta^4 + 3\mathrm{i} \varrho^6 \vartheta^5 - 0.5 \varrho^8 \vartheta^6 + (8 \varrho^2\vartheta^4 + 2 \mathrm{i} \varrho^4 \vartheta^5) \xi^2 \right] \bigg \}\psi_0 e^{\mathrm{i} kz},
\end{align}
\begin{align}
H_{y}^{\mathrm{inc}} = & \quad \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2} \frac{k}{\mu_0 \mu \omega} E_{0} \bigg \{ 1 + s^2(-\varrho^2 \vartheta^2 - \mathrm{i} \varrho^4 \vartheta^3 - 2\vartheta^2 \eta^2) \nonumber \\
& \qquad \quad + s^4 \left[ 2\varrho^4\vartheta^4 + 3\mathrm{i} \varrho^6 \vartheta^5 - 0.5 \varrho^8 \vartheta^6 + (8 \varrho^2\vartheta^4 + 2 \mathrm{i} \varrho^4 \vartheta^5) \eta^2 \right] \bigg \}\psi_0 e^{\mathrm{i} kz} \nonumber \\
& - \frac{\mathrm{i} \sqrt{2}}{2} \frac{k}{\mu_0 \mu \omega} E_{0} \left\{s^2(-2\vartheta^2 \xi \eta) + s^4 \left[ 8\varrho^2\vartheta^4 + 2\mathrm{i} \varrho^4 \vartheta^5) \xi \eta \right]
\right\}\psi_0 e^{\mathrm{i} kz},
\end{align}
\begin{align}
H_{z}^{\mathrm{inc}} = & \quad \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2} \frac{k}{\mu_0 \mu \omega} E_{0} \left\{s(-2\vartheta \eta) + s^3\left[ (6\varrho^2 \vartheta^3 +2 \mathrm{i} \varrho^4 \vartheta^4)\eta \right] \right. \nonumber \\
& \qquad + \left. s^5 \left[ -20\varrho^4\vartheta^5 - 10\mathrm{i} \varrho^6 \vartheta^6 + \varrho^8 \vartheta^7 \right] \eta
\right\}\psi_0 e^{\mathrm{i} kz} \nonumber \\
& - \frac{\mathrm{i} \sqrt{2}}{2} \frac{k}{\mu_0 \mu \omega} E_{0} \left\{s(-2\vartheta \xi) + s^3\left[ (6\varrho^2 \vartheta^3 +2 \mathrm{i} \varrho^4 \vartheta^4)\xi \right] \right. \nonumber \\
& \qquad + \left. s^5 \left[ -20\varrho^4\vartheta^5 - 10\mathrm{i} \varrho^6 \vartheta^6 + \varrho^8 \vartheta^7 \right] \xi
\right\}\psi_0 e^{\mathrm{i} kz},
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Using Eq.~(\ref{eq:EHinc_circular}) as the incident field and following the simulation demonstrated in Sec. 2 of the main text, we can get the optomechanical response of an eccentric core-shell particle under the illumination of a Gaussian beam with circular polarisation.
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\centering{}
\subfloat[$a_{\text{shell}}=90$ nm, $a_{\text{core}}=60$ nm, $h=25$ nm]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig10a_cp10H2O_Nx_l_Gb1000_Au_25_SiO2.png}}
\subfloat[$a_{\text{shell}}=90$ nm, $a_{\text{core}}=60$ nm, $h=10$ nm]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig10b_cp10H2O_Nx_l_Gb1000_Au_10_SiO2.png}}
\subfloat[$a_{\text{shell}}=45$ nm, $a_{\text{core}}=30$ nm, $h=10$ nm]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig10c_cp10H2O_Nx_l_Gb1000_Au_10_SiO2_45.png}} \\
\subfloat[$a_{\text{shell}}=90$ nm, $a_{\text{core}}=60$ nm, $h=25$ nm]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig10d_cp10H2O_Ny_l_Gb1000_Au_25_SiO2.png}}
\subfloat[$a_{\text{shell}}=90$ nm, $a_{\text{core}}=60$ nm, $h=10$ nm]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig10e_cp10H2O_Ny_l_Gb1000_Au_10_SiO2.png}}
\subfloat[$a_{\text{shell}}=45$ nm, $a_{\text{core}}=30$ nm, $h=10$ nm]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig10f_cp10H2O_Ny_l_Gb1000_Au_10_SiO2_45.png}} \\
\subfloat[$a_{\text{shell}}=90$ nm, $a_{\text{core}}=60$ nm, $h=25$ nm]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig10g_cp10H2O_Nz_l_Gb1000_Au_25_SiO2.png}}
\subfloat[$a_{\text{shell}}=90$ nm, $a_{\text{core}}=60$ nm, $h=10$ nm]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig10h_cp10H2O_Nz_l_Gb1000_Au_10_SiO2.png}}
\subfloat[$a_{\text{shell}}=45$ nm, $a_{\text{core}}=30$ nm, $h=10$ nm]{ \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{sFig10i_cp10H2O_Nz_l_Gb1000_Au_10_SiO2_45.png}}
\caption{Optical torques on an eccentric Au@SiO$_2$ core-shell particle in water with $n_{\text{medium}} = 1.33$ under a circular polarised Gaussian beam illumination with beam waist radius as $w_0=1$ $\mu$m.
} \label{Fig:Ncp_AuSiO2}
\end{figure*}
As discussed in the main text, to compare with the case of birefringent particles, we calculated the optical torque on a nanoscale eccentric spherical core-shell particle which is composed by a dielectric core and a dielectric shell, such as TiO$_2$@SiO$_2$ and SiO$_2$@TiO$_2$. Our results show that the optical torque that is perpendicular the beam direction due to the asymmetry of the eccentric spherical core-shell particle is much higher than the optical torque along the wave propagation direction due to the circular polarisation of the beam.
We also consider another type of eccentric spherical core-shell particle that has a metallic core in a dielectric shell, for example Au@SiO$_2$. Fig.~\ref{Fig:Ncp_AuSiO2} demonstrates how the optical torques acting on an eccentric spherical Au@SiO$_2$ core-shell particle in water ($n_{\text{medium}}=1.33$) change with respect to the orientation of the Au core, $\theta$, when the geometrical centre of the SiO$_2$ shell is trapped at the beam focus. Due to the eccentricity and refractive index profile, torques $N_x$ and $N_y$ appear and vary with respect to $\theta$. In our simulations, as the eccentric feature (asymmetry), $\theta$, varies in the $xz$ plane, $N_y$ is the dominating torque relative to $N_x$, as shown in the first and second rows of Fig.~\ref{Fig:Ncp_AuSiO2}. Comparing Fig.~\ref{Fig:Ncp_AuSiO2} (d) and Fig.~\ref{Fig:Ny_lambda} (a), we can see that the amplitude of $N_y$ under the circularly polarised Gaussian illumination is in the same order as that under the linearly polarised Gaussian beam. Due to the circular polarisation, the torque along the wave propagation, $N_z$, also appears. As shown in the third row of Fig.~\ref{Fig:Ncp_AuSiO2}, the magnitude of $N_z$ is in the same order as $N_y$. Such an enhanced torque $N_z$ acting on the Au@SiO$_2$ eccentric spherical core-shell particle relative to that on the TiO$_2$@SiO$_2$ eccentric spherical core-shell particle is mainly due to the strong absorption of the Au core at the wavelengths under consideration. We would like also to mention that the noticeable optical torque $N_z$ acting on such a Au@SiO$_2$ particle by using the circular polarisation beam can be achievable when using the concentric core-shell particle, as listed in Table~\ref{tab:Au@SiO2con}. Nevertheless, the rotation of a fully symmetric particle is hard to observe from its steady scattered pattern at the far field, which makes it not an ideal probe for the local measurement of nanoscale environments.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\caption{\bf Non-dimensional optical torque $\hat{N}_z \equiv N_z/[\epsilon_0 E_0^2 (a_{\text{SiO}_{2}})^3]$ on concentric Au@SiO$_2$ core-shell particle ($h=0$) under the illumination of Gaussian beam with circular polarisation and waist radius as 1$\mu$m in water at different wavelengths, $\lambda$, and the corresponding rotation frequency $\Omega$ (in Hz) when the beam power is $P_0 = $ 20 mW.}
\resizebox{1.0\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{l | c | c | c | c | c | c | c | c | c | c | c | c | c | c | c | c }
\hline
& \multicolumn{8}{c|} {$a_\text{shell}$=90 nm, $a_\text{shell}$=45 nm} & \multicolumn{8}{c} {$a_\text{shell}$=60 nm, $a_\text{shell}$=30 nm} \\
\cline{2-17}
& \multicolumn{2}{c|} {$z^{c}$=0 $\mu$m} & \multicolumn{2}{c|} {$z^{c}$=1 $\mu$m} & \multicolumn{2}{c|} {$z^{c}$=2 $\mu$m} & \multicolumn{2}{c|} {$z^{c}$=4 $\mu$m} & \multicolumn{2}{c|} {$z^{c}$=0 $\mu$m} & \multicolumn{2}{c|} {$z^{c}$=1 $\mu$m} & \multicolumn{2}{c|} {$z^{c}$=2 $\mu$m} & \multicolumn{2}{c} {$z^{c}$=4 $\mu$m} \\
\cline{2-17}
& $\hat{N}_z$ & $\Omega$ & $\hat{N}_z$ & $\Omega$ & $\hat{N}_z$ & $\Omega$ & $\hat{N}_z$ & $\Omega$ & $\hat{N}_z$ & $\Omega$ & $\hat{N}_z$ & $\Omega$ & $\hat{N}_z$ & $\Omega$ & $\hat{N}_z$ & $\Omega$ \\
\hline
$\lambda$=775 nm & 0.313 & 594 & 0.303 & 575 & 0.276 & 523 & 0.202 & 383 & 0.169 & 314 & 0.163 & 303 & 0.148 & 275 & 0.109 & 202 \\
$\lambda$=840 nm & 0.216 & 407 & 0.208 & 392 & 0.186 & 350 & 0.131 & 247 & 0.123 & 227 & 0.118 & 218 & 0.106 & 195 & 0.075 & 138 \\
$\lambda$=1064 nm & 0.109 & 205 & 0.102 & 192 & 0.086 & 162 & 0.053 & 99 & 0.070 & 125 & 0.066 & 118 & 0.056 & 100 & 0.035 & 62 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\label{tab:Au@SiO2con}
\end{table*}
\end{document} |
\section{#1}\setcounter{equation}{0}}
\renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
\newcommand{\begin{equation}}{\begin{equation}}
\newcommand{\end{equation}}{\end{equation}}
\newcommand{\begin{eqnarray}}{\begin{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\end{eqnarray}}{\end{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\nonumber}{\nonumber}
\newcommand{{\underline{1}}}{{\underline{1}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{2}}}{{\underline{2}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{a}}}{{\underline{a}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{b}}}{{\underline{b}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{c}}}{{\underline{c}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{d}}}{{\underline{d}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{i}}}{{\underline{i}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{j}}}{{\underline{j}}}
\newcommand{\ku}{{\underline{k}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{l}}}{{\underline{l}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{I}}}{{\underline{I}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{J}}}{{\underline{J}}}
\newcommand{{\mathbb R}}{{\mathbb R}}
\newcommand{{\mathbb C}}{{\mathbb C}}
\newcommand{{\mathbb Q}}{{\mathbb Q}}
\newcommand{{\mathbb Z}}{{\mathbb Z}}
\newcommand{{\mathbb N}}{{\mathbb N}}
\def\dt#1{{\buildrel {\hbox{\LARGE .}} \over {#1}}}
\newcommand{\bm}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath$#1$}}
\def\double #1{#1{\hbox{\kern-2pt $#1$}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{m}}}{{\hat{m}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{n}}}{{\hat{n}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{p}}}{{\hat{p}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{q}}}{{\hat{q}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{r}}}{{\hat{r}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{a}}}{{\hat{a}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{b}}}{{\hat{b}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{c}}}{{\hat{c}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{d}}}{{\hat{d}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{e}}}{{\hat{e}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{M}}}{{\hat{M}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{N}}}{{\hat{N}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{A}}}{{\hat{A}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{B}}}{{\hat{B}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{C}}}{{\hat{C}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{i}}}{{\hat{i}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{j}}}{{\hat{j}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{k}}}{{\hat{k}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{l}}}{{\hat{l}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{\alpha}}}{{\hat{\alpha}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{\beta}}}{{\hat{\beta}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{\gamma}}}{{\hat{\gamma}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{\delta}}}{{\hat{\delta}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{\rho}}}{{\hat{\rho}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{\tau}}}{{\hat{\tau}}}
\newcommand{{\dot\gamma}}{{\dot\gamma}}
\newcommand{{\dot\delta}}{{\dot\delta}}
\newcommand{{\tilde{\sigma}}}{{\tilde{\sigma}}}
\newcommand{{\tilde{\omega}}}{{\tilde{\omega}}}
\renewcommand{\Bar}{\overline}
\newcommand{{\underline{\alpha}}}{{\underline{\alpha}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{\beta}}}{{\underline{\beta}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{\gamma}}}{{\underline{\gamma}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{\delta}}}{{\underline{\delta}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{\rho}}}{{\underline{\rho}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{\tau}}}{{\underline{\tau}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{\ad}}}{{\underline{\ad}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{\bd}}}{{\underline{\bd}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{\gd}}}{{\underline{{\dot\gamma}}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{\dd}}}{{\underline{{\dot\delta}}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{\dot{\rho}}}}{{\underline{\dot{\rho}}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{\dot{\tau}}}}{{\underline{\dot{\tau}}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{\hal}}}{{\underline{{\hat{\alpha}}}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{\hbe}}}{{\underline{{\hat{\beta}}}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{\hga}}}{{\underline{{\hat{\gamma}}}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{\hde}}}{{\underline{{\hat{\delta}}}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{\hrh}}}{{\underline{{\hat{\rho}}}}}
\newcommand{{\nabla}}{{\nabla}}
\newcommand{{\bar{\nabla}}}{{\bar{\nabla}}}
\newcommand{{\bar{\sigma}}}{{\bar{\sigma}}}
\newcommand{{\theta}}{{\theta}}
\newcommand{{\bar{\theta}}}{{\bar{\theta}}}
\newcommand{{\bar{\theta}}}{{\bar{\theta}}}
\newcommand{{\dot{\rho}}}{{\dot{\rho}}}
\newcommand{{{\tau}}}{{{\tau}}}
\newcommand{{\dot{\ta}}}{{\dot{{{\tau}}}}}
\newcommand{{(u^+u^-)}}{{(u^+u^-)}}
\newcommand{{{\bar{\zeta}}}}{{{\bar{\zeta}}}}
\newcommand{{\bm L}}{{\bm L}}
\newcommand{{\bm R}}{{\bm R}}
\newcommand{{\boxplus}}{{\boxplus}}
\newcommand{{\boxminus}}{{\boxminus}}
\newcommand{{\oplus}}{{\oplus}}
\newcommand{{\ominus}}{{\ominus}}
\newcommand{{\overline{I}}}{{\overline{I}}}
\newcommand{{\overline{J}}}{{\overline{J}}}
\newcommand{{\overline{K}}}{{\overline{K}}}
\newcommand{{\overline{L}}}{{\overline{L}}}
\newcommand{{\overline{M}}}{{\overline{M}}}
\newcommand{{\overline{N}}}{{\overline{N}}}
\newcommand{{\overline{P}}}{{\overline{P}}}
\newcommand{{\overline{Q}}}{{\overline{Q}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{I}}}{{\underline{I}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{J}}}{{\underline{J}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{K}}}{{\underline{K}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{L}}}{{\underline{L}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{M}}}{{\underline{M}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{N}}}{{\underline{N}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{Q}}}{{\underline{Q}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{P}}}{{\underline{P}}}
\newcommand{{\mathbb D}}{{\mathbb D}}
\newcommand{{\mathbb \DB}}{{\mathbb \bar{D}}}
\newcommand{{\mathbb S}}{{\mathbb S}}
\newcommand{{\bf D}}{{\bf D}}
\newcommand{{\bar{\bfD}}}{{\bar{{\bf D}}}}
\newcommand{{\bm D}}{{\bm D}}
\newcommand{{\bar{\bmD}}}{{\bar{{\bm D}}}}
\newcommand{\bm{\nabla}}{\bm{\nabla}}
\newcommand{\bar{\bm{\nabla}}}{\bar{\bm{\nabla}}}
\def\mathsurround=0pt{\mathsurround=0pt}
\def\fracm#1#2{\hbox{\large{${\frac{{#1}}{{#2}}}$}}}
\def\eqalign#1{\,\vcenter{\openup2\jot \mathsurround=0pt
\ialign{\strut \hfil$\displaystyle{##}$&$
\displaystyle{{}##}$\hfil\crcr#1\crcr}}\,}
\newif\ifdtup
\def\panorama{\global\dtuptrue \openup2\jot \mathsurround=0pt
\everycr{\noalign{\ifdtup \global\dtupfalse
\vskip-\lineskiplimit \vskip\normallineskiplimit
\else \penalty\interdisplaylinepenalty \fi}}}
\def\eqalignno#1{\panorama \tabskip=\humongous %
eqalignno
\halign to\displaywidth{\hfil$\displaystyle{##}$
\tabskip=0pt&$\displaystyle{{}##}$\hfil
\tabskip=\humongous&\llap{$##$}\tabskip=0pt
\crcr#1\crcr}}
\def\eqalignnotwo#1{\panorama \tabskip=\humongous
\halign to\displaywidth{\hfil$\displaystyle{##}$
\tabskip=0pt&$\displaystyle{{}##}$
\tabskip=0pt&$\displaystyle{{}##}$\hfil
\tabskip=\humongous&\llap{$##$}\tabskip=0pt
\crcr#1\crcr}}
\def\de{{\nabla}}
\def{\bar{\nabla}}} % \bar{del{{\bar{\nabla}}}
\def\sp#1{{}^{#1}}
\def\sb#1{{}_{#1}}
\def{\cal M}{{\cal M}}
\def{\cal R}{{\cal R}}
\def{\cal Y}{{\cal Y}}
\def{\cal F}{{\cal F}}
\def{\bar{\de}}{{\bar{\de}}}
\newcommand{\begin{subequations}}{\begin{subequations}}
\newcommand{\end{subequations}}{\end{subequations}}
\newcommand{\boxedalign}[1]{%
\[\fbox{%
\addtolength{\linewidth}{-2\fboxsep}%
\addtolength{\linewidth}{-2\fboxrule}%
\begin{minipage}{\linewidth}\vspace{-8pt}%
\begin{align}#1\end{align}%
\end{minipage}\nonumber%
}\]
}
\newcommand{{\bar i}}{{\bar i}}
\newcommand{{\bar j}}{{\bar j}}
\newcommand{{\bar k}}{{\bar k}}
\newcommand{{\bar l}}{{\bar l}}
\newcommand{{\bar p}}{{\bar p}}
\newcommand{{\bar q}}{{\bar q}}
\newcommand{{\bar 1}}{{\bar 1}}
\newcommand{{\bar 2}}{{\bar 2}}
\newcommand{{\bar 0}}{{\bar 0}}
\newcommand{{\bar n}}{{\bar n}}
\newcommand{{\bar m}}{{\bar m}}
\newcommand{{\bar 4}}{{\bar 4}}
\newcommand{{\rm L}}{{\rm L}}
\newcommand{{\rm R}}{{\rm R}}
\newcommand{{{\bm s}}}{{{\bm s}}}
\newcommand{{{\bar{\mu}}}}{{{\bar{\mu}}}}
\newcommand{{{\bm S}}}{{{\bm S}}}
\newcommand{{\bar{\varphi}}}{{\bar{\varphi}}}
\newcommand{{\bar{\xi}}}{{\bar{\xi}}}
\newcommand{{\bar{\lambda}}}{{\bar{\lambda}}}
\newcommand{{\bm{\xi}}}{{\bm{\xi}}}
\newcommand{{\bm{\xb}}}{{\bm{{\bar{\xi}}}}}
\newcommand{{\bm{\omega}}}{{\bm{\omega}}}
\newcommand{\eqinbox}[1]{%
\[\fbox{%
\addtolength{\linewidth}{-2\fboxsep}%
\addtolength{\linewidth}{-2\fboxrule}%
\begin{minipage}{\linewidth}\vspace{-8pt}%
\begin{align}#1\end{align}%
\end{minipage}\nonumber%
}\]
}
\newcommand{\notag \\}{\notag \\}
\newcommand{\varepsilon}{\varepsilon}
\numberwithin{equation}{section}
\newcommand{{\nabla}}{{\nabla}}
\newcommand{{\mathrm{c.c.}}}{{\mathrm{c.c.}}}
\newcommand{{\veps}}{{\varepsilon}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{Sp}}{\mathsf{Sp}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{SU}}{\mathsf{SU}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{SL}}{\mathsf{SL}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{GL}}{\mathsf{GL}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{SO}}{\mathsf{SO}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{O}}{\mathsf{O}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{U}}{\mathsf{U}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{S}}{\mathsf{S}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{PSU}}{\mathsf{PSU}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{PSL}}{\mathsf{PSL}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{OSp}}{\mathsf{OSp}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{Spin}}{\mathsf{Spin}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{Mat}}{\mathsf{Mat}}
\begin{document}
\begin{titlepage}
\begin{flushright}
November, 2020 \\
\end{flushright}
\vspace{5mm}
\begin{center}
{\Large \bf
Generalised superconformal higher-spin multiplets
}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
{\bf Sergei M. Kuzenko, Michael Ponds and Emmanouil S. N. Raptakis} \\
\vspace{5mm}
\footnotesize{
{\it Department of Physics M013, The University of Western Australia\\
35 Stirling Highway, Perth W.A. 6009, Australia}}
~\\
\vspace{2mm}
~\\
Email: \texttt{
<EMAIL>, <EMAIL>, <EMAIL>}\\
\vspace{2mm}
\end{center}
\begin{abstract}
\baselineskip=14pt
We propose generalised $\mathcal{N}=1$ superconformal higher-spin (SCHS) gauge multiplets
of depth $t$, $\Upsilon_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}^{(t)}$, with $n\geq m \geq 1$.
At the component level, for $t>2$ they contain generalised conformal higher-spin (CHS) gauge fields with depths $t-1$, $t$ and $t+1$. The supermultiplets with $t=1$ and $t=2$ include both ordinary and generalised CHS gauge fields.
Super-Weyl and gauge invariant actions describing the dynamics of $\Upsilon_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}^{(t)}$ on conformally-flat superspace backgrounds are then derived. For the case $n=m=t=1$, corresponding to the maximal-depth conformal graviton supermultiplet, we extend this action to Bach-flat backgrounds. Models for superconformal non-gauge multiplets, which are expected to play an important role in the Bach-flat completions of the models for $\Upsilon^{(t)}_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}$, are also provided. Finally we show that, on Bach-flat backgrounds, requiring gauge and Weyl invariance does not always determine a model for a CHS field uniquely.
\end{abstract}
\vspace{5mm}
\vfill
\vfill
\end{titlepage}
\newpage
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
\setcounter{footnote}{0}
\tableofcontents{}
\vspace{1cm}
\bigskip\hrule
\allowdisplaybreaks
\section{Introduction}
Ever since its inception in 1985 \cite{FT}, conformal higher-spin (CHS) theory has been the recipient of sustained interest from the physics community. There are a number of reasons for this,
including a consistent Lagrangian formulation of bosonic CHS fields at the cubic \cite{FL,FL2} and full non-linear level \cite{Tseytlin, Segal} (see \cite{ BJM1, BJM2, Bonezzi} for later developments).
One of its central open problems is the construction of gauge invariant models for CHS fields on curved gravitational backgrounds, where much effort has been directed \cite{NT, GrigorievT,KMT, BeccariaT, Manvelyan, KP19, KP19-2, KPR}. As is well known, consistent models for conformal spin-$3/2$ and spin-$2$ fields may be formulated at most on Bach-flat backgrounds.
While this is thought also to be true for spins greater than two, recent studies \cite{GrigorievT, BeccariaT, KP19-2, KPR} indicate that in this case it is necessary to switch on non-minimal couplings to subsidiary conformal fields.
Given positive integers $n\geq m \geq 1$, an ordinary conformal gauge field $h_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)} (x)$ on curved space is characterised by the gauge transformation
\begin{align}
\delta_{\ell}h_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}=\nabla_{(\alpha_1(\ad_1}\ell_{\alpha_{2}\dots\alpha_{n})\ad_{2}\dots\ad_m)}~,
\end{align}
and carries conformal weight $\big(2-\frac{1}{2}(n+m)\big)$. Here $\nabla_{\alpha\ad}$ is the conformally covariant derivative \eqref{10.1}. Due to their low conformal weights and consequently high derivative Lagrangians, CHS fields are notoriously difficult to work with. This is why no closed form models for spin $s>2$ have been constructed on Bach-flat backgrounds. However, there exists a broader class of conformal gauge fields, the so-called generalised ones $h^{(t)}_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}$. The latter carry the conformal weight $\big( t+1-\frac{1}{2}(n+m)\big)$ and are characterised by gauge transformations with depth $t$
\begin{align}
\delta_{\ell}h^{(t)}_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}=\nabla_{(\alpha_1(\ad_1}\cdots\nabla_{\alpha_t\ad_t}\ell^{(t)}_{\alpha_{t+1}\dots\alpha_{n})\ad_{t+1}\dots\ad_m)}~,\qquad 1\leq t \leq \text{min}(n,m)~. \label{1}
\end{align}
By virtue of their relatively high conformal weights and consequently lower derivative Lagrangians, they can provide a much friendlier environment with which to study CHS theory in. Indeed, gauge invariant actions on Bach-flat backgrounds have been explicitly derived for conformal spin $s=5/2$ and $s=3$ gauge fields with maximal depth \cite{KP19-2}.
Historically, the first generalised conformal field appeared in the seminal work by Deser and Nepomechie \cite{DeserN1, DeserN2}, where they discussed the maximal-depth conformal graviton (corresponding to the case with $n=m=t=2$).
The concept was later extended to tensors of a generic symmetry type by Vasiliev in \cite{Vasiliev}, where the corresponding conformal and gauge invariant actions in $d$-dimensional Minkowski space $\mathbb{M}^d$ were also given (see \cite{BG,Barnich,GrigorievH,Skvortsov,Mkrtchyan} for more recent related studies). In the cases $d=3,4,$ these actions were lifted to conformally-flat backgrounds in \cite{KP19}.
Superconformal higher-spin (SCHS) gauge multiplets contain CHS fields at the component level. Hence, an effective method of studying various CHS models is to study the corresponding SCHS models which induce them. In the case of minimal depth CHS fields, such studies have already been initiated \cite{KMT, KP19, KPR}. However, the supersymmetric multiplets containing generalised CHS gauge fields have not yet appeared in the literature, neither at the superspace nor component level. It is therefore of interest to elaborate on generalised SCHS multiplets and their gauge invariant actions on curved backgrounds, which is the main subject of this paper.
Another reason for the interest drawn by generalised CHS fields is their role in the context of the AdS/CFT correspondence. More specifically, it is known \cite{BG} that generalised CHS fields in $\mathbb{M}^d$ may be identified with the boundary values of partially massless fields \cite{DeserN1, DeserN2, Higuchi1, Higuchi2, Higuchi3, Metsaev2, DeserW1, DeserW2, DeserW3, DeserW4, Zinoviev, DNW ,Vasiliev2006, Metsaev4,Brust} propagating in the bulk of AdS$_{d+1}$. In this work we will not comment further on these issues, however it should be mentioned that several publications on the supersymmetric partially massless side of this story have appeared recently \cite{Hinterbichler1,Hinterbichler2,Buchbinder, BHKP}.
This paper is organised as follows. In section \ref{section2} we present the generalised depth-$t$ superconformal gauge multiplets and derive their corresponding gauge and super-Weyl invariant actions on conformally-flat superspace backgrounds. Section \ref{section3} is devoted to extending gauge invariance of the action for the simplest supermultiplet containing the maximal depth conformal graviton to Bach-flat backgrounds. A new family of superconformal non-gauge multiplets is introduced in section \ref{section4} and their super-Weyl invariant actions are given. In addition to offering some concluding remarks, in section \ref{section5} we demonstrate that the model for the conformal hook field in a Bach-flat background is not determined uniquely by gauge and Weyl invariance. Throughout the entire paper we make use of conformal (super)space; appendix \ref{appendixA} summarises the relevant formulae. Appendix \ref{appendixB} discusses potential superspace realisations of the conformal hook models.
\section{Generalised superconformal models} \label{section2}
To begin with, we recall the structure of $\mathcal{N}=1$ superconformal higher-spin multiplets
\cite{KMT,KP19,KR}. For $n\geq m >0$, such a multiplet is
formulated in terms of a prepotential $\Psi_{\alpha (n) \ad (m)} $, and its conjugate for $n\neq m$, defined modulo the gauge transformation
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta_{ \xi, \eta} \Psi_{\alpha (n) \ad (m)}
=
\bm{\nabla}_{(\alpha_1}\xi_{\alpha_2 \dots \alpha_n)\ad(m)}
+\bar \bm{\nabla}_{(\ad_1} \eta_{\alpha(n) \ad_2 \dots \ad_{m} )}~,
\label{1.3}
\end{eqnarray}
with unconstrained gauge parameters $\xi_{\alpha(m-1)\ad(n)}$ and $ \eta_{\alpha (m) \ad (n-1)} $. Here $\bm{\nabla}_A=(\bm{\nabla}_{a},\bm{\nabla}_{\alpha},\bar{\bm{\nabla}}^{\ad})$
are the covariant derivatives of $\mathcal{N}=1$ conformal superspace, see appendix \ref{appendixA} for more details. In the $n=m$ case one can consistently define the prepotential to be real, $H_{\alpha(n) \ad(n)}:=\Psi_{\alpha(n) \ad(n)} = \bar H_{\alpha(n) \ad(n)}$.\footnote{In Minkowski superspace, such gauge superfields with $n>1$ were introduced for the first time in \cite{HST}. The $n=1$ case corresponds to conformal supergravity \cite{FZ2}.}
For $n>m=0$, the prepotential $\Psi_{\alpha(n)}$ is defined modulo the gauge transformation
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{ConfHSgravitino}
\delta_{\xi,\lambda} \Psi_{\alpha(n)} = \bm{\nabla}_{(\alpha_{1}} \xi_{\alpha_2 \dots \alpha_n)} + \lambda_{\alpha{(n)}} ~, \qquad \bar{\bm{\nabla}}_{\ad} \lambda_{\alpha{(n)}} = 0 ~,
\end{eqnarray}
where the parameter $\xi_{\alpha(n-1)} $ is complex unconstrained, while $\lambda_{\alpha(n)}$ is covariantly
chiral. Superconformal gauge-invariant actions for the multiplets \eqref{1.3} were constructed in \cite{KMT}
in Minkowski superspace, while for arbitrary conformally flat backgrounds they were derived in \cite{KP19}.
Superconformal gauge-invariant actions for the multiplets \eqref{ConfHSgravitino} with $n>1$ were derived in \cite{KPR}
for conformally flat backgrounds. The action for the superconformal gravitino multiplet, which corresponds to $n=1$ in \eqref{ConfHSgravitino}, was described earlier in Bach-flat backgrounds \cite{KMT} (see also \cite{KPR}).
A specific feature of $\Psi_{\alpha (n) \ad (m)} $ with $n\geq m > 0$ is the presence of only a single spinor derivative in its gauge transformations \eqref{1.3}.
In this section we generalise these multiplets by increasing the number of spinor derivatives appearing in their gauge transformations.
\subsection{Generalised superconformal prepotentials and field strengths}
A depth-$t$ SCHS
multiplet $\Upsilon^{(t)}_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}$, with $n\geq m \geq 1$, is defined modulo gauge transformations
of the form
\begin{align}
\delta_{\zeta}\Upsilon^{(t)}_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}=\big[\bm{\nabla}_{(\alpha_1},\bar{\bm{\nabla}}_{(\ad_1}\big]\bm{\nabla}_{\alpha_2\ad_2}\cdots\bm{\nabla}_{\alpha_t\ad_t}\zeta^{(t)}_{\alpha_{t+1}\dots\alpha_n)\ad_{t+1}\dots\ad_{m})}~,
\label{depth}
\end{align}
where $\zeta^{(t)}_{\alpha(n-t)\ad(m-t)}$ is unconstrained and $1\leq t \leq \text{min}(n,m)$.
If we require that both the prepotential and its corresponding gauge parameter are primary,
\begin{align}
K_B\Upsilon^{(t)}_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}=0~,\qquad K_B\zeta^{(t)}_{\alpha(n-t)\ad(m-t)}=0~,
\end{align}
then the Weyl weight and $\mathsf{U}(1)_{R}$ charge carried by $\Upsilon^{(t)}_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}$ must take the values
\begin{align}
\mathbb{D}\Upsilon^{(t)}_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}=\big[t-\frac{1}{2}(n+m)\big]\Upsilon^{(t)}_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}~,\qquad Y\Upsilon^{(t)}_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}=\frac{1}{3}(n-m)\Upsilon^{(t)}_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}~. \label{2.3}
\end{align}
For $n=m$ this allows us to choose both $\Upsilon^{(t)}_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}$ and $\zeta^{(t)}_{\alpha(n-t)\ad(m-t)}$ to be real, in which case we will make use of the definition
\begin{align}
H^{(t)}_{\alpha(n) \ad(n)} := \Upsilon^{(t)}_{\alpha(n) \ad(n)}=\bar{H}^{(t)}_{\alpha(n)\ad(n)}~. \label{2.4}
\end{align}
From the prepotential and its conjugate one may construct higher-derivative descendants
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\hat{\mathfrak{W}}_{\alpha(n+m-t+1)\ad(t-1)}^{(t)}(\Upsilon)&=\bigg(\bar{\bm{\nabla}}^{\bd_1}\bm{\nabla}_{(\alpha_1}-\frac{\text{i}t}{m-t+1}\bm{\nabla}_{(\alpha_1}{}^{\bd_1}\bigg)\bm{\nabla}_{\alpha_2}{}^{\bd_2}\cdots\bm{\nabla}_{\alpha_{m-t+1}}{}^{\bd_{m-t+1}} \label{Weyl1}\notag\\
&~~~\times\Upsilon_{\alpha_{m-t+2}\dots\alpha_{n+m-t+1})\ad(t-1)\bd(m-t+1)}~, \\
\check{\mathfrak{W}}_{\alpha(n+m-t+1)\ad(t-1)}^{(t)}(\bar{\Upsilon})&=\bigg(\bar{\bm{\nabla}}^{\bd_1}\bm{\nabla}_{(\alpha_1}-\frac{\text{i}t}{n-t+1}\bm{\nabla}_{(\alpha_1}{}^{\bd_1}\bigg)\bm{\nabla}_{\alpha_2}{}^{\bd_2}\cdots\bm{\nabla}_{\alpha_{n-t+1}}{}^{\bd_{n-t+1}} \label{Weyl2}\notag\\
&~~~\times\bar{\Upsilon}_{\alpha_{n-t+2}\dots\alpha_{n+m-t+1})\ad(t-1)\bd(n-t+1)}~.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
They are the higher-depth analogues of the linearised higher-spin super-Weyl tensors since they both prove be primary in a generic background
\begin{align}
K_B\hat{\mathfrak{W}}_{\alpha(n+m-t+1)\ad(t-1)}^{(t)}(\Upsilon)=0~, \qquad K_B \check{\mathfrak{W}}_{\alpha(n+m-t+1)\ad(t-1)}^{(t)}(\bar{\Upsilon})=0~.
\end{align}
In addition, when restricted to conformally-flat backgrounds,
\begin{align}
W_{\alpha(3)}=0 \label{ConfFBBG}~
\end{align}
where $W_{\alpha(3)}$ is the super-Weyl tensor (see appendix \ref{appendixA} for more details), it is possible to show that they are invariant under the higher-depth gauge transformations \eqref{depth},
\begin{align}
\delta_{\zeta}\hat{\mathfrak{W}}_{\alpha(n+m-t+1)\ad(t-1)}^{(t)}(\Upsilon)=0~, \qquad \delta_{\zeta} \check{\mathfrak{W}}_{\alpha(n+m-t+1)\ad(t-1)}^{(t)}(\bar{\Upsilon})=0~.
\end{align}
In principle one can instead consider supermultiplets $\hat{\Upsilon}^{(t)}_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}$ with the gauge freedom
\begin{align}
\delta_{\hat{\zeta}}\hat{\Upsilon}^{(t)}_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}=\bm{\nabla}_{(\alpha_1}\bar{\bm{\nabla}}_{(\ad_1}\bm{\nabla}_{\alpha_2\ad_2}\cdots\bm{\nabla}_{\alpha_t\ad_t}\hat{\zeta}^{(t)}_{\alpha_{t+1}\dots\alpha_{n})\ad_{t+1}\dots\ad_m)}~.
\end{align}
In order for $\hat{\Upsilon}^{(t)}_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}$ to be primary it must have Weyl weight $\big(t-\frac{1}{2}(n+m)\big)$ and $\mathsf{U}(1)_{R}$ charge $\frac{1}{3}\big(n-m+2t\big)$. In this case one may consistently define $\hat{\Upsilon}^{(t)}_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}$ to be longitudinal anti-linear, $\bm{\nabla}_{(\alpha_1}\hat{\Upsilon}^{(t)}_{\alpha_2\dots\alpha_{n+1)}\ad(m)}=0$. However, these supermultiplets possess several undesirable features. In particular, it is not possible to impose a reality condition similar to \eqref{2.4}, nor does it seem possible to construct gauge and super-Weyl invariant actions describing their dynamics. It is for this reason that we will focus only on the supermultiplets $\Upsilon^{(t)}_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}$.
\subsection{Generalised superconformal actions}
Using the field strengths \eqref{Weyl1} and \eqref{Weyl2}, one may construct the action functional
\begin{align}
S_{\text{Skeleton}}^{(n,m,t)}[\Upsilon,\bar{\Upsilon}]=\text{i}^{n+m+2}\int\text{d}^{4|4}z\, E \, \hat{\mathfrak{W}}^{\alpha(n+m-t+1)\ad(t-1)}_{(t)}(\Upsilon)\check{\mathfrak{W}}_{\alpha(n+m-t+1)\ad(t-1)}^{(t)}(\bar{\Upsilon}) +\text{c.c.}~, \label{HDaction}
\end{align}
which is locally superconformal (on any background) and gauge invariant on conformally-flat backgrounds. The overall coefficient of $\text{i}^{n+m+2}$ in \eqref{HDaction} has been chosen because of the identity
\begin{align}
\text{i}^{n+m+1}\int\text{d}^{4|4}z\, E \, \hat{\mathfrak{W}}^{\alpha(n+m-t+1)\ad(t-1)}_{(t)}(\Upsilon)\check{\mathfrak{W}}_{\alpha(n+m-t+1)\ad(t-1)}^{(t)}(\bar{\Upsilon}) +\text{c.c.} ~=~ 0~,
\end{align}
which holds in conformally-flat backgrounds up to an irrelevant total derivative.
The action \eqref{HDaction} may be recast into the alternative forms
\begin{align}
S_{\text{Skeleton}}^{(n,m,t)}[\Upsilon,\bar{\Upsilon}]&=\text{i}^{n+m+2}\int\text{d}^{4|4}z\, E \, \bar{\Upsilon}^{\alpha(m)\ad(n)}_{(t)}\hat{\mathfrak{B}}_{\alpha(m)\ad(n)}^{(t)}(\Upsilon) +\text{c.c.} \notag\\
&= \text{i}^{n+m+2}\int\text{d}^{4|4}z\, E \,\Upsilon^{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}_{(t)}\check{\mathfrak{B}}_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}^{(t)}(\bar{\Upsilon}) +\text{c.c.}
\end{align}
where we have made use of the following definitions
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\hat{\mathfrak{B}}_{\alpha(m)\ad(n)}^{(t)}(\Upsilon)&= \bigg(\bm{\nabla}^{\beta_1}\bar{\bm{\nabla}}_{(\ad_1}-\frac{\text{i}t}{n-t+1}\bm{\nabla}_{(\ad_1}{}^{\beta_1}\bigg)\bm{\nabla}_{\ad_2}{}^{\beta_2}\cdots\bm{\nabla}_{\ad_{n-t+1}}{}^{\beta_{n-t+1}}
\notag\\
&\phantom{=}\times\hat{\mathfrak{W}}^{(t)}_{\beta(n-t+1)\alpha(m)\ad_{n-t+2}\dots\ad_n)}(\Upsilon)~, \label{Bach1}\\
\check{\mathfrak{B}}_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}^{(t)}(\bar{\Upsilon})&=\bigg(\bm{\nabla}^{\beta_1}\bar{\bm{\nabla}}_{(\ad_1}-\frac{\text{i}t}{m-t+1}\bm{\nabla}_{(\ad_1}{}^{\beta_1}\bigg)\bm{\nabla}_{\ad_2}{}^{\beta_2}\cdots\bm{\nabla}_{\ad_{m-t+1}}{}^{\beta_{m-t+1}}
\notag\\
&\phantom{=}\times\check{\mathfrak{W}}^{(t)}_{\beta(m-t+1)\alpha(n)\ad_{m-t+2}\dots\ad_m)}(\bar{\Upsilon})~. \label{Bach2}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The two tensors \eqref{Bach1} and \eqref{Bach2} are primary in a generic background. Additionally, in any conformally-flat background, they may be shown to possess the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Both $\hat{\mathfrak{B}}_{\alpha(m)\ad(n)}^{(t)}$ and $\check{\mathfrak{B}}_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}^{(t)}$ are invariant under the gauge transformations \eqref{depth},
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\delta_{\zeta}\hat{\mathfrak{B}}_{\alpha(m)\ad(n)}^{(t)}(\Upsilon)=0~,\qquad\delta_{\zeta}\check{\mathfrak{B}}_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}^{(t)}(\bar{\Upsilon})=0~.
\end{align}
\item Both $\hat{\mathfrak{B}}_{\alpha(m)\ad(n)}^{(t)}$ and $\check{\mathfrak{B}}_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}^{(t)}$ are `partially conserved',
\begin{align}
0&=\big[\bm{\nabla}^{\beta_1},\bar{\bm{\nabla}}^{\bd_1}\big]\bm{\nabla}^{\beta_2\bd_2}\cdots\bm{\nabla}^{\beta_t\bd_t}\hat{\mathfrak{B}}_{\beta(t)\alpha(m-t)\bd(t)\ad(n-t)}^{(t)}(\Upsilon)~,\\
0&=\big[\bm{\nabla}^{\beta_1},\bar{\bm{\nabla}}^{\bd_1}\big]\bm{\nabla}^{\beta_2\bd_2}\cdots\bm{\nabla}^{\beta_t\bd_t}\check{\mathfrak{B}}_{\beta(t)\alpha(n-t)\bd(t)\ad(m-t)}^{(t)}(\bar{\Upsilon})~.
\end{align}
\item $\hat{\mathfrak{B}}_{\alpha(m)\ad(n)}^{(t)}$ and $\check{\mathfrak{B}}_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}^{(t)}$ are related by complex conjugation as follows,\footnote{This relation contains non-trivial information. Its direct check is quite time consuming. }
\begin{align}
\overline{\hat{\mathfrak{B}}}^{(t)}_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}(\bar{\Upsilon}):=\overline{\big(\hat{\mathfrak{B}}_{\alpha(m)\ad(n)}^{(t)}(\Upsilon)\big)}&=\check{\mathfrak{B}}^{(t)}_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}(\bar{\Upsilon})~.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\end{enumerate}
On account of these properties, both \eqref{Bach1} and \eqref{Bach2} may be interpreted as the higher-depth analogues of the higher-spin linearised super-Bach tensors given in \cite{KPR}.
\subsection{Wess-Zumino gauge for minimal depth supermultiplets}
\label{WZsubsec}
For the supermultiplets with depth $t>1$, the presence of vector derivatives in the gauge transformations \eqref{depth} prevents one from constructing a Wess-Zumino gauge. Consequently, all component fields are present in this case, some of which are depth $t-1$, $t$ and $t+1$ CHS gauge fields. However in the special case $t=1$, when the depth assumes its minimal value,\footnote{Unlike the non-supersymmetric case, minimal depth SCHS fields do not correspond to the ordinary SCHS fields described at the beginning of this section (see eq. \eqref{1.3}). } this is no longer an obstruction and the multiplet shortens. It is therefore of interest to elaborate on the construction of the corresponding Wess-Zumino gauge.
We restrict our analysis to bosonic backgrounds \eqref{Bbackground} which are conformally-flat \eqref{ConfFBBG}. Together these conditions imply that the (bosonic) Weyl tensor $C_{abcd}$ vanishes
\begin{eqnarray}
\quad W_{\alpha(3)} = 0 \quad\implies\quad C_{abcd}=0 ~.
\end{eqnarray}
The minimal depth supermultiplets, which we hereby denote $\Upsilon_{\alpha(n) \ad(m)}:=\Upsilon^{(1)}_{\alpha(n) \ad(m)}$, have Weyl weight and $\mathsf{U}(1)_R$ charge given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbb{D} \Upsilon_{\alpha(n) \ad(m)} = \big[ 1 - \frac{1}{2} (n+m) \big] \Upsilon_{\alpha(n) \ad(m)} ~, \quad Y \Upsilon_{\alpha(n) \ad(m)} = \frac{1}{3} (n-m) \Upsilon_{\alpha(n) \ad(m)} ~.
\end{eqnarray}
Additionally, they are defined modulo the gauge freedom
\begin{align}
\delta_{\zeta}\Upsilon_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}=\big[\bm{\nabla}_{(\alpha_1},\bar{\bm{\nabla}}_{(\ad_1}\big]\zeta_{\alpha_{2}\dots\alpha_n)\ad_{2}\dots\ad_{m})}~. \label{depth1}
\end{align}
By making use of \eqref{depth1}, one may choose a Wess-Zumino gauge such that there are twelve non-vanishing primary component fields:
\begin{subequations} \label{2.16}
\begin{eqnarray}
\psi_{\alpha(n+1)\ad(m)} &=& \bm{\nabla}_{(\alpha_1} \Upsilon_{\alpha_2 \dots \alpha_{n+1}) \ad(m)}| ~, \label{2.16a} \\
\omega_{\alpha(n)\ad(m+1)} &=& \bar{\bm{\nabla}}_{(\ad_1} \Upsilon_{\alpha(n) \ad_2 \dots \ad_{m+1})}| ~, \label{2.16b} \\
A_{\alpha(n) \ad(m)} &=& - \frac{1}{4} \bm{\nabla}^2 \Upsilon_{\alpha(n) \ad(m)} | ~, \label{2.16c} \\
B_{\alpha(n) \ad(m)} &=& - \frac{1}{4} \bar{\bm{\nabla}}^2 \Upsilon_{\alpha(n) \ad(m)} | ~, \label{2.16d} \\
h_{\alpha(n+1) \ad(m+1)} &=& \frac{1}{2} \big[ \bm{\nabla}_{(\alpha_1} , \bar{\bm{\nabla}}_{(\ad_1} \big] \Upsilon_{\alpha_2 \dots \alpha_{n+1}) \ad_2 \dots \ad_{m+1})} | ~, \label{2.16e} \\
\chi_{\alpha(n+1) \ad(m-1)} &=& \frac{1}{2} \big[\bm{\nabla}_{(\alpha_1} , \bar{\bm{\nabla}}^{\bd} \big] \Upsilon_{\alpha_2 \dots \alpha_{n+1}) \ad(m-1) \bd} | ~, \label{2.16f}\\
\rho_{\alpha(n-1) \ad(m+1)} &=& \frac{1}{2} \big[\bm{\nabla}^\beta , \bar{\bm{\nabla}}_{(\ad_1} \big] \Upsilon_{\alpha(n-1) \beta \ad_2 \dots \ad_{m+1} )} | ~, \label{2.16g}\\
\varphi_{\alpha(n+1)\ad(m)} &=& - \frac{1}{4} \bm{\nabla}_{(\alpha_1} \bar{\bm{\nabla}}^2 \Upsilon_{\alpha_2 \dots \alpha_{n+1}) \ad(m)} | + \frac{{\rm i}}{2}\frac{2m+1 }{m} \nabla_{(\alpha_1}{}^{\bd} \omega_{\alpha_2 \dots \alpha_{n+1}) \ad(m) \bd} ~,\label{2.16h}\\
\gamma_{\alpha(n) \ad(m+1)} &=& -\frac{1}{4} \bar{\bm{\nabla}}_{(\ad_1} \bm{\nabla}^2 \Upsilon_{\alpha(n) \ad_2 \dots \ad_{m+1})}| - \frac{{\rm i}}{2}\frac{2n+1 }{n} \nabla^{\beta}{}_{(\ad_1} \psi_{\alpha(n) \beta \ad_2 \dots \ad_{m+1})} ~, \label{2.16i}\\
\Phi_{\alpha(n) \ad(m-1)} &=& - \frac{1}{4} \bar{\bm{\nabla}}^{\bd} \bm{\nabla}^2 \Upsilon_{\alpha(n) \ad(m-1) \bd}| - \frac{{\rm i}}{2}\frac{2m+1 }{m+n+1} \nabla^{{\beta\bd}} \psi_{\alpha(n) \beta \ad(m-1) \bd} ~, \label{2.16j}\\
\Gamma_{\alpha(n-1) \ad(m)} &=& - \frac{1}{4} \bm{\nabla}^{\beta} \bar{\bm{\nabla}}^2 \Upsilon_{\alpha(n-1) \beta \ad(m)} | + \frac{{\rm i}}{2}\frac{2n+1 }{m+n+1} \nabla^{{\beta\bd}} \omega_{\alpha(n-1) \beta \ad(m) \bd}~, \label{2.16k}\\
V_{\alpha(n) \ad(m)} &=& \frac{1}{32} \{ \bm{\nabla}^2 , \bar{\bm{\nabla}}^2 \} \Upsilon_{\alpha(n) \ad(m)} | + \frac{{\rm i}}{4}\frac{n}{m} \nabla^{\beta}{}_{(\ad_1} \chi_{\alpha(n) \beta \ad_2 \dots \ad_m)} \nonumber \\
&& - \frac{{\rm i}}{4}\frac{m}{n} \nabla_{(\alpha_1}{}^{\bd} \rho_{\alpha_2 \dots \alpha_n) \ad(m) \bd} ~.\label{2.16l}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
For all values of $n$ and $m$ the gauge transformation laws for the first five fields of \eqref{2.16} are
\begin{subequations}
\label{gtWZ}
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta_{\epsilon} \psi_{\alpha(n+1) \ad(m)} &=& \nabla_{(\alpha_1 (\ad_1} \epsilon_{\alpha_2 \dots \alpha_{n+1}) \ad_2 \dots \ad_m)} ~, \\
\delta_{\eta} \omega_{\alpha(n) \ad(m+1)} &=& \nabla_{(\alpha_1 (\ad_1} \eta_{\alpha_2 \dots \alpha_{n}) \ad_2 \dots \ad_{m+1})} ~, \\
\delta_{\lambda} A_{\alpha(n) \ad(m)} &=& \nabla_{(\alpha_1 (\ad_1} \lambda_{\alpha_2 \dots \alpha_n) \ad_2 \dots \ad_m)} ~, \\
\delta_{\mu} B_{\alpha(n) \ad(m)} &=& \nabla_{(\alpha_1 (\ad_1} \mu_{\alpha_2 \dots \alpha_n) \ad_2 \dots \ad_m)} ~, \\
\delta_{\xi} h_{\alpha(n+1) \ad(m+1)} &=& \nabla_{(\alpha_1 (\ad_1} \nabla_{\alpha_2 \ad_2} \xi_{\alpha_3 \dots \alpha_{n+1}) \ad_3 \dots \ad_{m+1})} ~,
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
revealing that \eqref{2.16a}--\eqref{2.16d}
are all depth-1 CHS fields, whilst \eqref{2.16e}
is a depth-2 CHS field.
In general, the class (i.e. generalised CHS, conformal non-gauge\footnote{See section \ref{section4} for further explanation of non-gauge conformal fields.} etc.) and residual gauge transformations of the remaining component fields \eqref{2.16f} - \eqref{2.16l} depends upon the values of $n$ and $m$. We will now consider each of the distinct cases in turn.
It should be noted that for $n=m$, the reality condition \eqref{2.4} may be imposed and, as a result, the component structure \eqref{2.16} simplifies significantly. In particular,
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\bar{\omega}_{\alpha(n+1) \ad(n)} &= \psi_{\alpha(n+1) \ad(n)}~,\qquad \qquad \bar{\gamma}_{\alpha(n+1) \ad(n)} = \varphi_{\alpha(n+1) \alpha(n)} ~, \\
\bar{B}_{\alpha(n) \ad(n)} &= A_{\alpha(n) \ad(n)}~, \qquad\qquad ~~\bar{\Gamma}_{\alpha(n) \ad(n-1)} = \Phi_{\alpha(n) \ad(n-1)} ~, \\
\bar{h}_{\alpha(n+1) \ad(n+1)} &= h_{\alpha(n+1) \ad(n+1)} ~, \qquad \qquad \bar{V}_{\alpha(n) \ad(n)} = V_{\alpha(n) \ad(n)} ~,\\
\bar{\rho}_{\alpha(n+1) \ad(n-1)} &= \chi_{\alpha(n+1) \ad(n-1)} ~.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The special case $n=m=1$ will be examined separately, and in more detail, in section \ref{WZMDSpin2}.
For $n > m=1$, we find that $\rho_{\alpha(n-1) \ad(2)}$ and $\gamma_{\alpha(n) \ad(2)}$ are depth-1 and depth-2 CHS fields
\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta_{\tau} \rho_{\alpha(n-1) \ad(2)} &=& \nabla_{(\alpha_1 (\ad_1} \tau_{\alpha_2 \dots \alpha_{n-1}) \ad_2)} ~,\\
\delta_{\theta} \gamma_{\alpha(n) \ad(2)} &=& \nabla_{(\alpha_1 (\ad_1} \nabla_{\alpha_2 \ad_2)} \theta_{\alpha_3 \dots \alpha_n) } ~,
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
whilst $\chi_{\alpha(n+1)}$, $\varphi_{\alpha(n+1) \ad}$, $\Phi_{\alpha(n)}$, $\Gamma_{\alpha(n-1) \ad}$ and $V_{\alpha(n) \ad}$ are non-gauge fields.
Finally, if $n\geq m > 1$ then $\rho_{\alpha(n-1)\ad(m+1)}$ and $\chi_{\alpha(n+1)\ad(m-1)}$ have depth-1, whilst $\gamma_{\alpha(n)\ad(m+1)}$, $\varphi_{\alpha(n+1)\ad(m)}$ and $V_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}$ have depth-2,
\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta_{\tau} \rho_{\alpha(n-1) \ad(m+1)} &=& \nabla_{(\alpha_1 (\ad_1} \tau_{\alpha_2 \dots \alpha_{n-1}) \ad_2\dots\ad_{m+1})} ~,\\
\delta_{\theta} \gamma_{\alpha(n) \ad(m+1)} &=& \nabla_{(\alpha_1 (\ad_1} \nabla_{\alpha_2 \ad_2} \theta_{\alpha_3 \dots \alpha_n) \ad_3\dots\ad_{m+1})} ~,\\
\delta_{\sigma} \chi_{\alpha(n+1) \ad(m-1)} &=& \nabla_{(\alpha_1 (\ad_1} \sigma_{\alpha_2 \dots\alpha_{n+1}) \ad_2 \dots \ad_{m-1})} ~, \\
\delta_{\kappa} \varphi_{\alpha(n+1) \ad(m)} &=& \nabla_{(\alpha_1 (\ad_1} \nabla_{\alpha_2 \ad_2} \kappa_{\alpha_3\dots\alpha_{n+1})\ad_3 \dots \ad_{m})} ~,\\
\delta_{\ell} V_{\alpha(n) \ad(m)} &=& \nabla_{(\alpha_1 (\ad_1} \nabla_{\alpha_2 \ad_2} \ell_{\alpha_3 \dots \alpha_n) \ad_3 \dots \ad_{m})} ~.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
The only non-gauge fields in this case are $\Phi_{\alpha(n) \ad(m-1)}$ and $\Gamma_{\alpha(n-1) \ad(m)}$.
\section{Maximal-depth conformal graviton supermultiplet} \label{section3}
The maximal-depth conformal graviton supermultiplet is described by the weightless real primary superfield\footnote{In this section we drop all labels referring to the depth since we deal only with $t=1$.} $H_{\alpha\ad}$ which is inert under $\mathsf{U}(1)_{R}$ transformations,
\begin{subequations}\label{gengrav}
\begin{align}
K_{B}H_{\alpha\ad}=0~,\qquad \mathbb{D}H_{\alpha\ad}=0~,\qquad YH_{\alpha\ad}=0~,\qquad H_{\alpha\ad}=\bar{H}_{\alpha\ad}~,
\end{align}
and which is defined modulo the depth-1 gauge transformations
\begin{align}
\delta_{\zeta}H_{\alpha\ad}=\big[\nabla_{\alpha},\bar{\nabla}_{\ad}\big]\zeta~. \label{gt2}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Here the real gauge parameter $\zeta$ is primary and unconstrained.
This corresponds to the generalised supermultiplet of section \ref{section2} with $n=m=1$ and is called the maximal-depth conformal graviton supermultiplet because, as will be shown shortly, it contains the maximal-depth conformal graviton at the component level.
\subsection{Gauge invariant action in Bach-flat background}
The linearised super-Weyl tensor associated with $H_{\alpha\ad}$, and its corresponding gauge variation under \eqref{gt2}, is given by
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\mathfrak{W}_{\alpha(2)}(H)&=\bigg(\bar{\bm{\nabla}}^{\bd}\bm{\nabla}_{(\alpha_1}-\text{i}\bm{\nabla}_{(\alpha_1}{}^{\bd}\bigg)H_{\alpha_2)\bd} ~,\\
\delta_{\zeta}\mathfrak{W}_{\alpha(2)}(H)&= 3\bigg(2W_{\alpha(2)}{}^{\beta}\bm{\nabla}_{\beta}\zeta+\bm{\nabla}_{\beta}W_{\alpha(2)}{}^{\beta}\zeta\bigg)~.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
It follows that the skeleton action
\begin{align}
\label{HSkeleton}
S_{\text{Skeleton}}[H]=\frac{1}{3}\int \text{d}^{4|4} z\, E \, \mathfrak{W}^{\alpha(2)}(H)\mathfrak{W}_{\alpha(2)}(H) +\text{c.c.}
\end{align}
(here we have chosen a different overall normalisation as compared to \eqref{HDaction}) has gauge variation proportional to the background super-Weyl tensor
\begin{align}
\delta_{\zeta}S_{\text{Skeleton}}[H]=2\int\text{d}^{4|4}z\, E \, \zeta\bigg\{3\bm{\nabla}_{\gamma}W^{\gamma\alpha(2)}\mathfrak{W}_{\alpha(2)}(H)-2W^{\gamma\alpha(2)}\bm{\nabla}_{\gamma}\mathfrak{W}_{\alpha(2)}(H)\bigg\} +\text{c.c.}
\end{align}
It is possible to restore gauge invariance to the skeleton by supplementing it with the non-minimal primary action
\begin{align}
S_{\text{NM}}[H]=\int\text{d}^{4|4}z\, E \, H^{\alpha\ad}W_{\alpha}{}^{\beta(2)}\bm{\nabla}_{\beta}H_{\beta\ad}+\text{c.c.}
\end{align}
The action which is gauge invariant in a Bach-flat background may then be shown to be
\begin{align}
S[H]=S_{\text{Skeleton}}[H]-3S_{\text{NM}}[H]~,\qquad \delta_{\zeta}S[H]\bigg|_{B_{\alpha\ad}=0}=0~, \label{3.77}
\end{align}
where $B_{\alpha\ad}$ is the super-Bach tensor \eqref{super-Bach}.
\subsection{The component action}
\label{WZMDSpin2}
In this subsection we employ the Wess-Zumino gauge constructed in section \ref{WZsubsec} for the purpose of reducing \eqref{3.77} to components. While this gauge fixing was realised only on conformally-flat backgrounds \eqref{ConfFBBG}, what follows applies more generally to backgrounds satisfying \eqref{Bbackground}.
Examining \eqref{2.16} we find that in the Wess-Zumino gauge $H_\aa$ contains seven non-vanishing primary fields
\begin{subequations}
\label{HComponents}
\begin{eqnarray}
\psi_{\alpha(2)\ad} &=& \bm{\nabla}_{(\alpha_1} H_{\alpha_2) \ad}| ~, \\
A_{\aa} &=& - \frac{1}{4} \bm{\nabla}^2 H_{\aa} | ~, \\
h_{\alpha(2) \ad(2)} &=& \frac{1}{2} \big[ \bm{\nabla}_{(\alpha_1} , \bar{\bm{\nabla}}_{(\ad_1} \big] H_{\alpha_2) \ad_2)} | ~, \\
\chi_{\alpha(2)} &=& \frac{1}{2} \big[\bm{\nabla}_{(\alpha_1} , \bar{\bm{\nabla}}^{\ad} \big] H_{\alpha_2) \ad} | ~, \\
\varphi_{\alpha(2)\ad} &=& - \frac{1}{4} \bm{\nabla}_{(\alpha_1} \bar{\bm{\nabla}}^2 H_{\alpha_2) \ad} | + \frac{3 {\rm i}}{2} \nabla_{(\alpha_1}{}^{\bd} \bar{\psi}_{\alpha_2) \ad \bd} ~, \\
\Phi_\alpha &=& - \frac{1}{4} \bar{\bm{\nabla}}^{\ad} \bm{\nabla}^2 H_{\aa}| - \frac{{\rm i}}{2} \nabla^{{\beta\bd}} \psi_{\alpha \beta \bd} ~, \\
V_{\aa} &=& \frac{1}{32} \{ \bm{\nabla}^2 , \bar{\bm{\nabla}}^2 \} H_{\aa} | + \frac{{\rm i}}{4} \nabla^{\beta}{}_{\ad} \chi_{\alpha \beta} - \frac{{\rm i}}{4} \nabla_{\alpha}{}^{\bd} \bar{\chi}_{\ad \bd} ~.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
Both $h_{\alpha(2)\ad(2)}$ and $V_{\alpha\ad}$ are real whilst all other component fields are complex. Associated with \eqref{HComponents} are the following gauge fixing conditions
\begin{subequations}
\label{Hgfc}
\begin{eqnarray}
\big[ \bm{\nabla}_{\alpha} , \bar{\bm{\nabla}}_{\ad} \big] \zeta | &=& 0 ~, \\
\bar{\bm{\nabla}}_{\ad} \bm{\nabla}^2 \zeta | &=& 3 {\rm i} \nabla_{\aa} \bm{\nabla}^{\alpha} \zeta | =: \frac{3}{2} \nabla_{\aa} \epsilon^{\alpha} ~, \\
\{ \bm{\nabla}^2 , \bar{\bm{\nabla}}^2 \} \zeta | &=& - 4 \Box \zeta | =: 2 \Box \xi ~.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
The residual gauge transformations \eqref{gtWZ} are generated by the fields $\lambda := - \frac{1}{4} \bm{\nabla}^2 \zeta|$, $\epsilon_{\alpha}$ and $\xi$
\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta_{\lambda} A_\aa &=& \nabla_{\aa} \lambda ~, \\
\delta_{\epsilon} \psi_{\alpha(2) \ad} &=& \nabla_{(\alpha_1 \ad} \epsilon_{\alpha_2)} ~, \\
\delta_\xi h_{\alpha(2) \ad(2)} &=& \nabla_{(\alpha_1 (\ad_1} \nabla_{\alpha_2) \ad_2)} \xi ~. \label{333}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
Using the above definitions, the action \eqref{3.77} may be readily reduced to components
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{MaxDepthSpin2ComponentAction}
S[H] &=& - \int {\rm d}^4 x \, e\, \bigg\{ \frac{3}{4} \bigg[\mathfrak{C}^{\alpha(3) \ad}(h) \mathfrak{C}_{\alpha(3) \ad}(h) -h^{\alpha(2)\ad(2)}C_{\alpha(2)}{}^{\beta(2)}h_{\beta(2)\ad(2)}\bigg] \nonumber\\
&+& \frac{3 {\rm i}}{2} \bigg[\hat{\mathfrak{C}}^{\alpha(3)} (\psi) \check{\mathfrak{C}}_{\alpha(3)} (\bar{\psi})-\psi^{\alpha(2)\ad}\bigg(C_{\alpha(2)}{}^{\beta(2)}\nabla_{\beta}{}^{\bd}\bar{\psi}_{\beta\ad\bd}-\nabla_{\beta}{}^{\bd}C_{\alpha(2)}{}^{\beta(2)}\bar{\psi}_{\beta\ad\bd}\bigg)\bigg] \nonumber\\
&+& 2 \hat{\mathfrak{C}}^{\alpha(2)} (A) \check{\mathfrak{C}}_{\alpha(2)} (\bar{A}) - 2 {\rm i} \bar{\varphi}^{\alpha \ad(2)} \mathfrak{X}_{\alpha \ad(2)}(\varphi) + \frac{1}{4} \bar{\chi}^{\ad(2)} \mathfrak{X}_{\ad(2)} (\chi) - \frac{ {\rm i}}{2} \bar{\Phi}^{\ad} \mathfrak{X}_\ad(\Phi)\nonumber \\
&-& 2 V^{\aa} V_{\aa} \bigg\} + \text{c.c.} \\
&\equiv& - \frac{3}{4} S[h] + \frac{3}{2} S[\psi, \bar{\psi}] + 8 S[A,\bar{A}] - 2 S[\varphi , \bar{\varphi}] + \frac{1}{4} S[\chi,\bar{\chi}] + \frac{1}{2} S[\Phi, \bar{\Phi}] - 2 S[V] \nonumber ~.
\end{eqnarray}
This action has been expressed in a manifestly conformal and gauge invariant (in a Bach-flat background) form by using the field strengths associated with each conformal field,
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\hat{\mathfrak{C}}_{\alpha(3)} (\psi)&=\nabla_{(\alpha_1}{}^{\bd}\psi_{\alpha_2\alpha_3)\bd}~, \qquad\qquad\quad \mathfrak{C}_{\alpha(3)\ad}(h)=\nabla_{(\alpha_1}{}^{\bd}h_{\alpha_2\alpha_3)\ad\bd} ~,\\
\check{\mathfrak{C}}_{\alpha(3)} (\bar{\psi})&=\nabla_{(\alpha_1}{}^{\bd_1}\nabla_{\alpha_2}{}^{\bd_2}\bar{\psi}_{\alpha_3)\bd(2)}~,\qquad ~\mathfrak{X}_{\ad(2)}(\chi)=\nabla_{(\ad_1}{}^{\beta_1}\nabla_{\ad_2)}{}^{\beta_2}\chi_{\beta(2)} ~,\\
\hat{\mathfrak{C}}_{\alpha(2)} (A)&=\nabla_{(\alpha_1}{}^{\bd}A_{\alpha_2)\bd}~, \qquad\qquad\quad \phantom{..}\mathfrak{X}_{\alpha \ad(2)}(\varphi)=\nabla_{(\ad_1}{}^{\beta}\varphi_{\beta\alpha\ad_2)}~,\\
\check{\mathfrak{C}}_{\alpha(2)} (\bar{A})&=\nabla_{(\alpha_1}{}^{\bd}\bar{A}_{\alpha_2)\bd}~, \qquad \qquad \qquad ~\phantom{..} \mathfrak{X}_\ad(\Phi)=\nabla_{\ad}{}^{\beta}\Phi_{\beta}~,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
along with the non-minimal counter terms necessary for gauge invariance.
The analysis above indicates that the component action decomposes into a (diagonal) sum of gauge invariant actions -- denoted $S[h], S[\psi,\bar{\psi}]$ and $S[A,\bar{A}]$ -- describing a maximal-depth conformal graviton $h_{\alpha(2)\ad(2)}$ \cite{KP19}, a conformal gravitino $\psi_{\alpha(2)\ad}$ and a complex Maxwell field $A_{\alpha\ad}$ respectively. In addition, there are also several non-gauge fields \cite{KPR} $\chi_{\alpha(2)}, \varphi_{\alpha(2)\ad}$ and $\Phi_{\alpha}$ present, the latter of which describes a massless Weyl spinor. The vector field $V_\aa$ is auxiliary and is only present to ensure off-shell supersymmetry.
Upon degauging and converting to vector notation, the action $S[h]$ for the depth-2 conformal graviton in \eqref{MaxDepthSpin2ComponentAction} may be shown to to be proportional to (see \cite{KP19-2} for more details)
\begin{align}
S[h]\propto\int \text{d}^4x \, e \,\bigg\{&h^{ab}\Box h_{ab}-\frac{4}{3}\mathcal{D}_{a}h^{ab}\mathcal{D}^{c}h_{bc}-2R_{ab}h^{ac}h_{c}{}^{b}+\frac{1}{6}Rh^{ab}h_{ab}+2C_{abcd}h^{ac}h^{bd}\bigg\}~. \label{788.9}
\end{align}
Here $\mathcal{D}_a$ is the torsion-free Lorentz covariant derivative and
$h_{ab}$ is symmetric and traceless. This action is invariant under the (degauged version of the) gauge transformations \eqref{333}
\begin{align}
\delta_{\xi}h_{ab}=\big(\mathcal{D}_a\mathcal{D}_b-\frac{1}{2}R_{ab}\big)\xi-\frac{1}{4}\eta_{ab}\big(\Box-\frac 12 R\big)\xi~. \label{88.88}
\end{align}
This action has appeared in various forms
over the past forty years, see in particular \cite{DeserN1, DeserN2, EO, Sachs, BT2015, DeserW6, KP19}. We refer the reader to \cite{KP19-2} for a more thorough account of its history.
For a more detailed analysis on the gauge invariant action $S[\psi,\bar{\psi}]$ for the conformal gravitino on Bach-flat backgrounds see \cite{KP19}. The overall sign of the action \eqref{HDaction} has been chosen so that the Maxwell action in \eqref{MaxDepthSpin2ComponentAction},
\begin{align}
S[A,\bar{A}]=- \frac{1}{2} \int \text{d}^4x \, e \, F^{ab}(A)F_{ab}(\bar{A})~,\qquad F_{ab}(A):=\mathcal{D}_{a}A_{b}-\mathcal{D}_{b}A_{a}~,
\end{align}
comes with canonical sign.
Finally, we would like to point out that the action \eqref{3.77} may be recast into the form
\begin{align}
S[H]=\frac{3}{2}\int \text{d}^{4|4}z H^{\alpha\ad}&\bigg\{\frac{3}{2}D^{\beta}\bar{D}^2D_{\beta}H_{\alpha\ad}-\frac{1}{2}\big[D_{\alpha},\bar{D}_{\ad}\big]\big[D_{\beta},\bar{D}_{\bd}\big]H^{\beta\bd} \nonumber\\
&~-4\partial_{\alpha\ad}\partial^{\beta\bd}H_{\beta\bd}-\frac{1}{4}\big\{D^2,\bar{D}^2\big\} H_{\alpha\ad}\bigg\}
\label{3.15}
\end{align}
in Minkowski superspace and defines a superconformal field theory.
The action is invariant under the gauge transformation
$\delta_{\zeta}H_{\alpha\ad}=\big[D_{\alpha},\bar{D}_{\ad}\big]\zeta$, which is the flat-superspace form of \eqref{gt2}.
There exists a model for linearised supergravity constructed in \cite{BGLP} with a larger gauge freedom
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta H_{\alpha\ad}=\big[D_{\alpha},\bar{D}_{\ad}\big]\zeta + \lambda_{\alpha\ad} + \bar \lambda_{\alpha\ad}~,
\qquad \bar D_\bd \lambda_{\alpha\ad} =0~,
\end{eqnarray}
than that which the action \eqref{3.15} possesses. However, the $\lambda$ gauge symmetry proves to be incompatible with
the superconformal invariance.
\section{Superconformal non-gauge models} \label{section4}
In Bach-flat backgrounds, conformal non-gauge fields\footnote{Conformal non-gauge fields were first described in $\mathbb{M}^d$ by Vasiliev \cite{Vasiliev} and on curved backgrounds in \cite{ KPR}.} $\chi_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}$ play an essential role in ensuring gauge invariance in models for the following three CHS fields: (i) conformal maximal-depth spin-3 \cite{KP19-2}; (ii) conformal maximal-depth spin-5/2\cite{KP19-2}; and (iii) conformal (minimal-depth) hook field\cite{KPR}.
Common to all three of these models is the presence of non-gauge fields $\chi_{\alpha(n)}$ with $m=0$. Such fields may be found sitting within the so-called chiral non-gauge supermultiplets $\Omega_{\alpha(n)}$ (reviewed below). The latter were first introduced in \cite{KPR}, where $\Omega_{\alpha}$ played an important role in ensuring gauge invariance of the supersymmetric extension of (iii). However, non-gauge fields with $m> 0$ were also important in models for (i) and (ii), and these are not contained within $\Omega_{\alpha(n)}$ at the component level. This motivates the search for superconformal non-gauge multiplets containing $\chi_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}$ for any $n$ and $m$.
\subsection{Chiral supermultiplets}
Chiral non-gauge superfields and their corresponding kinetic actions were proposed in \cite{KPR}. For convenience we now recall the main elements of these models.
A primary non-gauge chiral superfield $\Omega_{\alpha(n)}$, with $n\geq 1$, satisfies
\begin{subequations}\label{7.11+12}
\begin{align}
K_B\Omega_{\alpha(n)}=0~,\qquad \bar{\bm{\nabla}}_{\ad}\Omega_{\alpha(n)}=0~, \label{7.11}
\end{align}
Consistency of these two conditions with the superconformal algebra demands that the Weyl weight and $\mathsf{U}(1)_{R}$ charge of $\Omega_{\alpha(n)}$ are related by
\begin{align}
\mathbb{D}\Omega_{\alpha(n)}=\Delta\Omega_{\alpha(n)}~, \qquad
Y\Omega_{\alpha(n)}=-\frac{2}{3}\Delta\Omega_{\alpha(n)}~. \label{7.12}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
If we choose $\Delta=1-\frac{1}{2}n$, then it can be shown that the composite scalar superfield defined by
\begin{align}
\mathcal{F}^{(n)}\big(\Omega,\bar{\Omega}\big)=&\sum_{k=0}^{n}(-1)^k\bm{\nabla}_{\alpha_1\ad_1}\cdots\bm{\nabla}_{\alpha_k\ad_k}\Omega^{\alpha(n)}\bm{\nabla}_{\alpha_{k+1}\ad_{k+1}}\cdots\bm{\nabla}_{\alpha_n\ad_n}\bar{\Omega}^{\ad(n)} \notag\\
-\frac{\text{i}}{2}&\sum_{k=1}^{n}(-1)^{n+k}\bm{\nabla}_{\alpha_1}\bm{\nabla}_{\alpha_2\ad_2}\cdots\bm{\nabla}_{\alpha_k\ad_k}\Omega^{\alpha(n)}\bar{\bm{\nabla}}_{\ad_1}\bm{\nabla}_{\alpha_{k+1}\ad_{k+1}}\cdots\bm{\nabla}_{\alpha_n\ad_n}\bar{\Omega}^{\ad(n)}
\label{F-Lagrangian}
\end{align}
is primary in a generic background. The superconformal properties of $\mathcal{F}^{(n)}$ may therefore be summarised as follows
\begin{align}
K_{A}\mathcal{F}^{(n)}=0~,\qquad \mathbb{D}\mathcal{F}^{(n)}=2\mathcal{F}^{(n)}~,\qquad Y\mathcal{F}^{(n)}=0~.
\end{align}
Furthermore, one can show that it satisfies the complex conjugation property
\begin{align}
\overline{\mathcal{F}^{(n)}}=(-1)^n\mathcal{F}^{(n)}~.
\end{align}
It follows that the action functional
\begin{align}
S_{\text{Chiral}}^{(n)}[\Omega,\bar{\Omega}]=\text{i}^{n}\int \text{d}^{4|4}z\, E \, \mathcal{F}^{(n)}\big(\Omega,\bar{\Omega}\big) \label{7.16}
\end{align}
is real and super-Weyl invariant.
When written as an integral over the chiral subspace, this action simplifies to
\begin{align}
S_{\text{Chiral}}^{(n)}[\Omega,\bar{\Omega}]=-\frac{~\text{i}^{n}}{4}\int {\rm d}^4x {\rm d}^2 \theta \, \cE\, \Omega^{\alpha(n)}\bar{\bm{\nabla}}^2\bm{\nabla}_{\alpha_1\ad_1}\cdots\bm{\nabla}_{\alpha_n\ad_n}\bar{\Omega}^{\ad(n)}~.
\end{align}
\subsection{Longitudinal linear supermultiplets} \label{section4.2}
A superfield $\Omega_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}$, with $n \geq m$, is said to be longitudinal linear if it obeys the constraint
\begin{align}
\bar{\bm{\nabla}}_{(\ad_1}\Omega_{\alpha(n)\ad_2\dots\ad_{m+1})}=0~\quad \implies \quad \bar{\bm{\nabla}}^2\Omega_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}=0~.
\end{align}
Similar to the chiral case, requiring $\Omega_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}$ to be primary fixes its $\mathsf{U}(1)_{R}$ charge in terms of its conformal weight as follows
\begin{align}
\mathbb{D}\Omega_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}=\Delta \Omega_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}~, \qquad Y\Omega_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}=-\frac{2}{3}(\Delta+m)\Omega_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}~.
\end{align}
Choosing $\Delta=1-\frac{1}{2}(n-m)$ allows one to construct the following superconformal action
\begin{align}
S_{~||}^{(n,m)}[\Omega,\bar{\Omega}]=\text{i}^{m+n}\int\text{d}^{4|4}z\, E \, \mathcal{F}^{(n,m)}(\Omega,\bar{\Omega})~,\label{long}
\end{align}
where $\mathcal{F}^{(n,m)}(\Omega,\bar{\Omega})$ is the composite scalar superfield
\begin{align}
\mathcal{F}^{(n,m)}(\Omega,\bar{\Omega})=&\sum_{k=0}^{n-m}(-1)^k\bm{\nabla}_{\ad_1}{}^{\beta_1}\cdots\bm{\nabla}_{\ad_k}{}^{\beta_k}\bar{\Omega}^{\alpha(m)\ad(n)}\notag\\[-12pt]
&\phantom{\sum_{k=0}^{n-m}(-1)^k}\times\bm{\nabla}_{\ad_{k+1}}{}^{\beta_{k+1}}\cdots\bm{\nabla}_{\ad_{n-m}}{}^{\beta_{n-m}}\Omega_{\alpha(m)\beta(n-m)\ad_{n-m+1}\dots\ad_{n}} \notag\\[-10pt]
-\frac{\text{i}}{2}&\sum_{k=1}^{n-m}(-1)^{n+m+k}\bar{\bm{\nabla}}_{\ad_1}\bm{\nabla}_{\ad_2}{}^{\beta_2}\cdots\bm{\nabla}_{\ad_k}{}^{\beta_k}\bar{\Omega}^{\alpha(m)\ad(n)}\notag\\[-12pt]
&\phantom{\sum_{k=0}^{n-m}(-1)^k}\times\bm{\nabla}^{\beta_1}\bm{\nabla}_{\ad_{k+1}}{}^{\beta_{k+1}}\cdots\bm{\nabla}_{\ad_{n-m}}{}^{\beta_{n-m}}\Omega_{\alpha(m)\beta(n-m)\ad_{n-m+1}\dots\ad_{n}}~,
\end{align}
possessing the properties
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
K_{A}\mathcal{F}^{(n,m)}=0~,&\qquad \mathbb{D}\mathcal{F}^{(n,m)}=2\mathcal{F}^{(n,m)}~,\qquad Y\mathcal{F}^{(n,m)}=0~, \\[5pt]
&~~~ \overline{\mathcal{F}^{(n,m)}}=(-1)^{n+m}\mathcal{F}^{(n,m)}~.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
When written in the chiral subspace the action \eqref{long} takes the form
\begin{align}
S_{~||}^{(n,m)}&[\Omega,\bar{\Omega}]=-\frac{\text{i}^{m+n}}{4}\int\text{d}^{4}x\text{d}^2\theta \, \cE \, \bigg\{ \Omega_{\alpha(m)\beta(n-m)\bd(m)}\bar{\bm{\nabla}}^2\bm{\nabla}_{\ad_1}{}^{\beta_1}\cdots\bm{\nabla}_{\ad_{n-m}}{}^{\beta_{n-m}}\bar{\Omega}^{\alpha(m)\ad(n-m)\bd(m)} \notag\\
&+\frac{2m}{m+1}\bm{\nabla}_{\ad_1}{}^{\beta_1}\cdots\bm{\nabla}_{\ad_{n-m}}{}^{\beta_{n-m}}\bar{\bm{\nabla}}_{{\dot\delta}}\bar{\Omega}^{\alpha(m)\ad(n-m){\dot\delta}\bd(m-1)}\bar{\bm{\nabla}}^{{\dot\gamma}}\Omega_{\alpha(m)\beta(n-m)\bd(m-1){\dot\gamma}} \bigg\}~.
\end{align}
The non-vanishing independent component fields of $\Omega_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}$ are defined according to
\begin{subequations}\label{4.13}
\begin{align}
A_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}&:=\Omega_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}| ~,\label{4.13a}\\
B_{\alpha(n-1)\ad(m)}&:= \bm{\nabla}^{\beta}\Omega_{\alpha(n-1)\beta\ad(m)}|~, \label{4.13b}\\
C_{\alpha(n+1)\ad(m)}&:= \bm{\nabla}_{(\alpha_1}\Omega_{\alpha_2\dots\alpha_{n+1})\ad(m)}|~,\label{4.13c}\\
D_{\alpha(n)\ad(m-1)}&:= \bar{\bm{\nabla}}^{\bd}\Omega_{\alpha(n)\ad(m-1)\bd}|~,\label{4.13d}\\
E_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}&:=-\frac{1}{4}\bm{\nabla}^2\Omega_{\alpha(n)\ad(m)}|~,\label{4.13e}\\
F_{\alpha(n-1)\ad(m-1)}&:=\frac{1}{2}\big[\bm{\nabla}^{\beta},\bar{\bm{\nabla}}^{\bd}\big]\Omega_{\alpha(n-1)\beta\ad(m-1)\bd}|+\text{i}\frac{m+1}{n+1}\bm{\nabla}^{\beta\bd}\Omega_{\alpha(n-1)\beta\ad(m-1)\bd}|~,\label{4.13f}\\
G_{\alpha(n+1)\ad(m-1)}&:=\frac{1}{2}\big[\bm{\nabla}_{(\alpha_1},\bar{\bm{\nabla}}^{\bd}\big]\Omega_{\alpha_2\dots\alpha_{n+1})\ad(m-1)\bd}|~,\label{4.13g}\\
H_{\alpha(n)\ad(m-1)}&:= -\frac{1}{4}\bar{\bm{\nabla}}^{\bd}\bm{\nabla}^2\Omega_{\alpha(n)\ad(m-1)\bd}|+\text{i}\frac{m-n}{m}\bm{\nabla}^{\beta\bd}\bm{\nabla}_{(\beta}\Omega_{\alpha_1\dots\alpha_{n})\ad(m-1)\bd}|~.\label{4.13h}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The first two fields, \eqref{4.13a} and \eqref{4.13b}, are primary and have the same conformal weight as that of a maximal depth CHS field of the same rank (though the former do not have any gauge symmetry). The next four fields \eqref{4.13c} -- \eqref{4.13f}
are all primary and are conformal non-gauge. However, the last two fields \eqref{4.13g} and \eqref{4.13h} are not able to be defined so that they are primary. Instead they transform non-trivially under a $K$-transformation,
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
K_{\beta\bd}G_{\alpha(n+1)\ad(m-1)}&=8\text{i}(m+1)\ve_{\beta(\alpha_1}A_{\alpha_2\dots\alpha_{n+1})\ad(m-1)\bd}~, \\
K_{\beta\bd}H_{\alpha(n)\ad(m-1)}&=-4\text{i}n\frac{m+1}{n+1}\ve_{\beta(\alpha_1}B_{\alpha_2\dots\alpha_n)\ad(m-1)\bd}~,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
and do not correspond to typical (i.e. generalised CHS or non-gauge) conformal fields.\footnote{See, however, \cite{Metsaev, Metsaev3} where various conformal fields were defined to transform non-trivially under special conformal transformations.}
Here we do not give the corresponding component action, since it is not illuminating. Rather it suffices to give a few comments regarding its structure. First, by setting $m=0$ in the above models, one recovers the rank-$n$ chiral non-gauge models from the previous section. Being chiral, the component content of these supermultiplets is simple and there are only four non-vanishing fields, all of which turn out to be conformal and non-gauge \cite{KPR}. The component action is also simple in the sense that it consists only of the kinetic terms for the four non-gauge fields and is diagonal. However, the longitudinal linear supermultiplets have twice as many component fields, and not all of them are primary but instead transform into one another under Weyl transformations. Thus, in order to maintain Weyl invariance, the component action necessarily becomes non-diagonal, resulting in a much more complicated structure.
\section{Discussion} \label{section5}
It has been conjectured that lower-spin conformal fields are neccesary in ensuring gauge invariance of minimal depth CHS fields on Bach-flat backgrounds \cite{GrigorievT}. Indeed, in support of this proposal, there have appeared various fully worked examples of CHS models (with fields of varying depth) where a coupling between the parent CHS field and subsidiary conformal non-gauge fields were crucial for gauge invariance\cite{KP19-2,KPR}. Therefore, we expect that the longitudinal linear non-gauge supermultiplets, presented in section \ref{section4.2}, will play an equally important role in ensuring the gauge invariance of various SCHS fields on super-Bach flat backgrounds.\footnote{In such models it would be interesting to better understand the role of the non-primary component fields \eqref{4.13g} and \eqref{4.13h} present in the longitudinal linear supermultiplets.}
Of the few existing examples of complete gauge invariant models, those describing conformal gauge fields with depth greater than one constitute the majority. This is because their construction is more tractable as compared to their minimal depth cousins, on account of their lower-derivative skeletons. In this paper we have described, for the first time, the supersymmetric analogues of these generalised (i.e. higher-depth) CHS gauge fields and their gauge invariant actions on conformally-flat backgrounds. In doing so we have initiated a program to investigate their Bach-flat completions, beginning with the maximal depth graviton supermultiplet detailed in section \ref{section3}.
This supermultiplet is the lowest rank member of a family of depth one supermultiplets. The latter are particularly interesting because they have shortened multiplets and contain a collection of depth one (i.e. ordinary) and depth two CHS fields, as well as non-gauge conformal fields.
Understanding the ingredients that are necessary in constructing gauge invariant models for (S)CHS fields (of all depths) in Bach-flat backgrounds is an important technical problem. Moreover, given the necessity of subsidiary fields, there is no reason to expect that the requirements of gauge and Weyl invariance should determine the Bach-flat completion of a generic (S)CHS model uniquely. Indeed, we now give an example of such a scenario, and demonstrate that there exists an infinite family of Bach-flat completions for the conformal pseudo-graviton (also known as a traceless hook field).
The latter is described by the field $h_{\alpha(3)\ad}$, and its conjugate $\bar{h}_{\alpha\ad(3)}$, possessing the properties
\begin{align}
K_{\beta\bd}h_{\alpha(3)\ad}&=0~,\qquad \mathbb{D}h_{\alpha(3)\ad}=0~, \notag\\
\delta_{\ell}&h_{\alpha(3)\ad}=\nabla_{(\alpha_1\ad}\ell_{\alpha_2\alpha_3)}~.
\end{align}
The sector consisting of only the pseudo-graviton is given by
\begin{align}
S[h,\bar{h};\Gamma]=S_{\text{Skeleton}}[h,\bar{h}]+\Gamma S_{\text{NM},1}[h,\bar{h}]-\frac{1}{2}S_{\text{NM},2}[h,\bar{h}]\label{hook0}
\end{align}
where $\Gamma\in\mathbb{R}$ is a free parameter and\footnote{The linearised Weyl tensors corresponding to the pseudo-graviton take the form $\hat{\mathfrak{C}}_{\alpha(4)}(h)=\nabla_{(\alpha_1}{}^{\bd}h_{\alpha_2\alpha_3\alpha_4)\bd}$ and $\check{\mathfrak{C}}_{\alpha(4)}(\bar{h})=\nabla_{(\alpha_1}{}^{\bd_1}\nabla_{\alpha_2}{}^{\bd_2}\nabla_{\alpha_3}{}^{\bd_3}\bar{h}_{\alpha_4)\bd(3)}$.}
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
S_{\text{Skeleton}}[h,\bar{h}]&= \int\text{d}^4x\, e \, \hat{\mathfrak{C}}^{\alpha(4)}(h)\check{\mathfrak{C}}_{\alpha(4)}(\bar{h})+\text{c.c.}~, \\
S_{\text{NM},1}[h,\bar{h}]&= \int\text{d}^4x\, e \, h^{\alpha(3)\ad}C_{\alpha(3)}{}^{\beta}\bar{C}_{\ad}{}^{\bd(3)}\bar{h}_{\beta\bd(3)} +\text{c.c.}~,\\
S_{\text{NM},2}[h,\bar{h}]&= \int\text{d}^4x\, e \,h^{\alpha(3)\ad}\bigg\{5C_{\alpha(3)}{}^{\gamma}\nabla_{\gamma}{}^{\bd}\nabla^{\beta\bd}\bar{h}_{\beta\bd(2)\ad}+6C_{\alpha(2)}{}^{\gamma(2)}\nabla_{\gamma}{}^{\bd}\nabla_{\gamma}{}^{\bd}\bar{h}_{\alpha\ad\bd(2)}\notag\\
& -6\nabla_{\gamma}{}^{\bd}C_{\alpha(2)}{}^{\beta\gamma}\nabla_{\alpha}{}^{\bd}\bar{h}_{\beta\bd(2)\ad}+2\nabla^{\delta\bd}C_{\alpha(3)}{}^{\beta}\nabla_{\delta}{}^{\bd}\bar{h}_{\beta\bd(2)\ad}-4\nabla^{\beta\bd}\nabla_{\gamma}{}^{\bd}C_{\alpha(3)}{}^{\gamma}\bar{h}_{\beta\bd(2)\ad} \notag\\
&+\nabla_{\gamma}{}^{\bd}C_{\alpha(3)}{}^{\gamma}\nabla^{\beta\bd}\bar{h}_{\beta\bd(2)\ad}\bigg\} +\text{c.c.}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The action \eqref{hook0} is gauge invariant up to terms quadratic in the Weyl tensor, which is why $\Gamma$ remains free at this stage. In order to ensure gauge invariance to all orders, it is necessary to introduce some other conformal field transforming non-trivially under the pseudo-graviton gauge transformations. In \cite{KPR} use was made of the non-gauge field $\chi_{\alpha(2)}$ with the properties
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
K_{\beta\bd}\chi_{\alpha(2)}=0&~, \qquad \mathbb{D}\chi_{\alpha(2)}=\chi_{\alpha(2)}~, \\
\delta_{\ell}\chi_{\alpha(2)}&=C_{\alpha(2)}{}^{\beta(2)}\ell_{\beta(2)}~.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Then the action which is gauge invariant in a Bach-flat background takes the form
\begin{align}
S_{\text{Hook}}[h,\chi]=S[h,\bar{h};\Gamma=1]-2S[h,\chi]+S[\chi,\bar{\chi}]~, \label{hook1}
\end{align}
where
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
S[h,\bar{\chi}]&=\int\text{d}^4x\, e \, h^{\alpha(3)\ad}\bigg\{C_{\alpha(3)}{}^{\gamma}\nabla_{\gamma}{}^{\bd}\bar{\chi}_{\bd\ad}-\nabla_{\gamma}{}^{\bd}C_{\alpha(3)}{}^{\gamma}\bar{\chi}_{\bd\ad}\bigg\}+\text{c.c.}~, \\
S[\chi,\bar{\chi}]&= \int\text{d}^4x\, e \, \bar{\chi}^{\ad(2)}\nabla_{\ad}{}^{\alpha}\nabla_{\ad}{}^{\alpha}\chi_{\alpha(2)}+\text{c.c.}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
However, it turns out that this action is not unique, and one can instead use a different non-gauge field $\varphi_{\alpha(4)\ad(2)}$, with the properties
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
K_{\beta\bd}\varphi_{\alpha(4)\ad(2)}=0~,& \qquad \mathbb{D}\varphi_{\alpha(4)\ad(2)}=\varphi_{\alpha(4)\ad(2)}~, \\
\delta_{\ell}\varphi_{\alpha(4)\ad(2)}&=C_{\alpha(4)}\bar{\ell}_{\ad(2)}~, \label{hihello}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
to achieve gauge invariance. In this case, the gauge invariant action takes the form
\begin{align}
S_{\text{Hook}}[h,\varphi]=S[h,\bar{h};\Gamma=3]+2S[h,\varphi]-S[\varphi,\bar{\varphi}]~, \label{hook2}
\end{align}
where
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
S[h,\varphi]&= \int\text{d}^4x\, e \, h^{\alpha(3)\ad}\bigg\{\bar{C}_{\ad}{}^{{\dot\gamma}\bd(2)}\nabla_{{\dot\gamma}}{}^{\beta}\varphi_{\alpha(3)\beta\bd(2)}-\nabla_{{\dot\gamma}}{}^{\beta}\bar{C}_{\ad}{}^{{\dot\gamma}\bd(2)}\varphi_{\alpha(3)\beta\bd(2)}\bigg\}+\text{c.c.}~, \\
S[\varphi,\bar{\varphi}]&=\int\text{d}^4x\, e \, \bar{\varphi}^{\alpha(2)\ad(4)}\nabla_{\ad}{}^{\alpha}\nabla_{\ad}{}^{\alpha}\varphi_{\alpha(4)\ad(2)}+\text{c.c.}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
In fact, by using both of the fields $\chi_{\alpha(2)}$ and $\varphi_{\alpha(4)\ad(2)}$, one can construct a one-parameter family of gauge invariant actions for the pseudo-graviton described by
\begin{align}
S_{\text{Hook}}[h,\chi,\varphi;\Gamma]=S[h,\bar{h};\Gamma]~+~&(\Gamma-3)S[h,\bar{\chi}]-\frac{1}{2}(\Gamma-3)S[\chi,\bar{\chi}] \notag\\
~+~&(\Gamma-1)S[h,\varphi]-\frac{1}{2}(\Gamma-1)S[\varphi,\bar{\varphi}]~.~~~~~~~~~ \label{hook3}
\end{align}
The actions \eqref{hook1} and \eqref{hook2} may be recovered by setting $\Gamma=1$ and $\Gamma=3$ respectively. In appendix \ref{appendixB} we illustrate the utility of the longitudinal linear non-gauge supermultiplets by proposing various ways that one can realise supersymmetric extensions of the new one-parameter family of models \eqref{hook3}.
Finally, it would be interesting to investigate the possible non-linear completions of the model \eqref{788.9} for the generalised conformal graviton using cohomological techniques along the lines of \cite{Boulanger1, Boulanger2}. Given the similarity of the generalised conformal graviton to the partially massless graviton, and the various no-go theorems regarding self-interactions of the latter (see for instance \cite{deRham, Joung, Rosen} and references therein), the supermultiplet \eqref{gengrav} could play an important role in such an analysis (cf. the discussions in \cite{Hinterbichler1, Boulanger3}).
\noindent
{\bf Acknowledgements:}\\
The work of SMK is supported in part by the Australian
Research Council, project No. DP200101944.
The work of MP and ESNR is supported by the Hackett Postgraduate Scholarship UWA,
under the Australian Government Research Training Program.
|
\section{Introduction}
In quantum mechanics, dissipation of a system is usually treated by system-bath Liouvillian dynamics, capturing an interplay between unitary evolution and decay processes that result from a coupling between the system and its environment which is known as bath or reservoir. For such system-reservoir interacting cases, dissipation is to be considered as a boundary for coherent dynamics, leading to a doorway for open quantum systems. An open quantum many-body system may be viewed as an out-of-equilibrium counterpart of an equilibrium system. The methods of theoretical exploration of open quantum systems are not as well-established as those of idealized closed quantum systems.
Nevertheless research into dissipative or open quantum systems over the years has led to the development of several theoretical formalisms such as Gutzwiller \cite{PhysRevB.44.10328} and cluster mean-field \cite{PhysRevLett.97.187202,clus1,clus2}, corner-space renormalization \cite{corner1,corner2}, full configuration-interaction Monte Carlo \cite{PhysRevLett.109.230201,monte}, Keldysh formalism \cite{PhysRevLett.110.195301,Keldysh1,Keldysh2}, matrix product operator and tensor-network techniques \cite{ten1,ten2,ten3,ten4} etc.
In recent times, a number of theoretical studies on quantum phase transition (QPT) in a variety of physical platforms \cite{Zoller2,Zoller1,Casteels16,Casteels17,ciuti13,ciuti14,Biondi2} under nonequilibrium situations have been carried out. More specifically, dissipative many-body quantum phenomena \cite{Zoller1,Zoller2} have been studied using cold atoms \cite{Baumann1,Baumann2,Esslinger,Carmichael1}, spin ensembles \cite{Keldysh2,corner2,corner3}, Josephson junctions \cite{two1,santra2}, superconducting circuits \cite{Carmichael2,Wallraff,Houck}, semiconductor \cite{Jacqmin,Rodriguez,dpt}, interacting polaritons in a Kerr nonlinear cavity \cite{polariton:2006}. Three decades ago, pioneering theoretical work on QPT between superfluid (SF) and Mott-insulator (MI) was carried out by Fisher's group \cite{Fisher}. Subsequently, experimental demonstration of QPT has been reported \cite{Greiner,Baumann1,Takahashi1} in an optical lattice loaded with an atomic Bose-Einstein condensate. For ultracold atoms in traps or optical lattices, various kinds of losses can be controllably generated with external fields or particles, leading to dissipative engineering of driven many-body quantum systems \cite{dissipative:engineering}. One-body particle loss \cite{santra2} is implemented by applying electron beam in a controlled manner. Two-body loss \cite{Takahashi1,Takahashi2,Syassen08,Rempe} is a fundamental property of a many-body system and related to inelastic collisions. In ultracold atom optical lattices, two-body loss has been engineered by controlled photoassociation \cite{Takahashi1,Takahashi2}. Three-body dissipation \cite{three1,three2,three3} has been realized by Feshbach resonance with controllable strength of three-body recombination.
In order to obtain a dynamical or nonequilibrium phase of a dissipative many-body system, an external field is required as a drive. In quantum optics, a coherent drive has enormous utility as a one or two-photon pump \cite{two1,two2}, opening up new vistas in
light-matter interactions. A nonequilibrium system exhibits DPT \cite{immam12,Fazio17,biella18} when the Liouvillian spectral gap closes in some well-defined limit analogous to thermodynamic limit. Recent experimental observation of nonequilibrium phase transition or DPT \cite{dpt} in a driven system has given a tremendous impetus to the field.
One of the key issues in the context of DPT in a driven open quantum systems is the role of higher order quantum fluctuations as the system is driven towards the transition point. In particular, the study of two-particle correlations is important as they carry crucial information about the quantum statistical properties of the system. In a ramarkable recent experiment, Fink {\it et al.} \cite{dpt} have explored the decay dynamics of HBT type two-particle correlation function $g^{(2)}(\tau)$ as a possible signature of a DPT in a driven nonlinear optical system of cavity polaritons. They have observed critical slowing of the decay of $g^{(2)}(\tau)$ as the system is driven towards the phase transition point. Sciolla {\it et al.} \cite{kollath:prl:2015} have shown that the two-time two-particle correlations can be used as a probe for complex non-stationary dynamics of dissipative many-body systems. The bunching of
continuously pumped photon Bose-Einstein condensate in terms of HBT correlations has been experimentally demonstrated by Schmitt {\it et al.} \cite{weitz:prl:2014}. Casteels, Fazio and Ciuti \cite{Fazio17} have theoretically examined the behavior $g^{(2)}(0)$ as a function of drive strength when a nonlinear photon mode is driven towards a DPT. $g^{(2)}(\tau)$ has been also theoretically studied for a strongly pumped dissipative BHM of a coupled array of nonlinear cavities \cite{ciuti14}. Syassen {\it et al.} \cite{Syassen08} have experimentally demonstrated that strong dissipation can inhibit loss and drive a cold molecular gas on an optical lattice into a strongly correlated system characterized by $g^{(2)}(0)$ which is much less than unity.
Here we carry out a detailed theoretical study on the HBT correlations of a driven dissipative BHM. Depending on the system parameters, the correlations show oscillatory decay. We characterize the frequency of the oscillations by analyzing the Fourier transform of the temporal correlations into the frequency domain in terms of the Liouvillian spectral decomposition. To the best of our knowledge, the oscillations in the decay of HBT correlations and their frequency charaterization in terms of the system parameters of a driven dissipative BHM have not been studied so far. This will be important to gain further insight into the role of two-particle correlations in DPT of the model.
To ascertain the occurrence of DPT in our model, we calculate Wigner distribution \cite{Wigner} of the system and examine its features reflecting the steady-state quantum states. Our results show that for the parameters at which the system exhibits DPT, the oscillations in HBT correlations die down and the decay shows critical slowing, in consistent with the earlier results \cite{dpt}. The Fourier transform shows a single-peak spectral structure with the peak lying at zero frequency. Slightly away from the phase transition point, the oscillations revive and the spectral structure shows multiple peaks or dips depending on the system parameters. Our results show that, below certain drive strength, the Fourier transform shows a prominent two-peak structure. As the drive strength exceeds that strength,
Fourier spectrum exhibits either a Lorenzian-like single-peak structure or a structure with two-dips. We show that the width of the single-peak structure is minimum at the phase transition point. The positions of the two symmetrical peaks are found to be equal to the imaginary parts of the Liouvillian gap while their HWHM is given by the real part of the gap. We discuss in some detail the quantum statistical properties of the model in terms of the HBT correlation function and its Fourier transform and highlight their characteristic features at or near the DPT.
The paper is organized as follows. We describe our theoretical methods for a generic driven dissipative BHM in Sec. \ref{sec2}. The results and their interpretations are presented in Section \ref{sec3}.
Finally, in Sec. \ref{sec6}, we draw conclusions, highlighting the future prospects of our study.
\section{Theoretical methods}\label{sec2}
\subsection{The model and its solution}
The Hamiltonian of a driven Bose-Hubbard model ($\hbar =1$) is $\hat H = \hat H_{ BH} + \hat H_{ drive}$ where
\begin{equation}
\hat H_{ BH}=-\frac{J}{z}\sum_j\left(\hat b_j^{\dagger} \hat b_{j+1}+\rm {H.c.}\right)+\frac{U}{2}\sum_j\hat b_j^{\dagger}\hat b_j^{\dagger}\hat b_j\hat b_j+ \sum_j\epsilon_0 \hat b_j^{\dagger} \hat b_{j}
\label{eq1}
\end{equation}
is the standard Bose-Hubbard part with $\hat b_j$ and $\hat b_j^{\dagger}$ representing the bosonic annihilation and creation operators acting on {\em j}th site. Here $J$ is the hopping coefficient between nearest-neighbor sites, $z$ is the coordination number, $U$ is the on-site interaction parameter. The last term on the right hand side of the above equation denotes the on-site term with $\epsilon_0$ being the on-site single-particle energy which is assumed to be same for all sites. For a system of coupled nonlinear cavities, $\epsilon_0 = \hbar \omega_c$ where $\omega_c$ is is the cavity frequency. In case of equilibrium Bose-Hubbard physics of massive particles on a lattice, this on-site term is usually absorbed into the chemical potential. The driving part $\hat H_{ drive}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\hat H_{ drive}(t)=\sum_j\left(F \hat b_j^{\dagger}e^{-i\omega_p t}+F^* \hat b_je^{i\omega_p t}\right)
\end{equation}
where $F$ is the one-boson driving amplitude and $\omega_p$ is the pump frequency. To eliminate the explicit time-dependency of Hamiltonian, we may write it in a reference frame rotating at the pump frequency $\omega_p$, leading to the effective Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
\hat H_{ eff}=-\frac{J}{z}\sum_j\left(\hat b_j^{\dagger} \hat b_{j+1}+\rm {H.c.} \right)+\frac{U}{2}\sum_j\hat b_j^{\dagger}\hat b_j^{\dagger}\hat b_j\hat b_j- \hbar \sum_j\Delta\omega\hat b_j^{\dagger} \hat b_{j}+\sum_j\left(F \hat b_j^{\dagger}+F^* \hat b_j\right)
\label{eq5}
\end{equation}
where $\Delta\omega=\omega_p-\epsilon_0/\hbar$ is the detuning between the pump and the system.
The dissipation is incorporated in the dynamics through the Lindblad master equation
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial{\hat\rho}}{\partial t}=-i\left[\hat H_{ eff},\hat\rho\right]+\mathcal{D}\left[\hat\rho\right]
\label{eq4}
\end{equation}
of the density matrix $\hat{\rho}$. Here the dissipation of the system is described by the standard superoperator term
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{D}\left[\hat\rho\right]=\frac{\Gamma}{2}\sum_j\left[2\hat O_j \hat\rho \hat O_j^{\dagger}-\left\{\hat O_j^{\dagger}\hat O_j,\hat\rho\right\}\right]
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma$ is the damping rate and $\hat O_j$ is a quantum jump operator constructed using the combination of system operators $\hat{b}_j$ and $\hat{b}_j^{\dagger}$ depending on the nature of the dissipation process. Here $\left\{ \hat{A}, \hat{B}\right \}$ denotes an anti-commutator between the operators $\hat{A}$ and $\hat{B}$.
To solve the Liouville equation we make an approximation by decoupling \cite{Sheshadri,Buonsante,Cole} the hopping term
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat b_j^{\dagger} \hat b_{j+1} &\approx& \langle\hat b_j^{\dagger}\rangle\hat b_{j+1}+\hat b_j^{\dagger}\langle\hat b_{j+1}\rangle-\langle\hat b_j^{\dagger}\rangle\langle\hat b_{j+1}\rangle \nonumber \\
&=& \left(\psi^{*}\hat b_{j+1}+\psi\hat b_j^{\dagger}\right)-|\psi|^2
\end{eqnarray}
where $\psi$=$\langle\hat b_{j+1}\rangle$ is a bosonic coherence and site-independent. Although this approximation is not fully reliable in all physical situations as pointed out in Ref.\cite{ciuti14}, it enables one to obtain good qualitative results for the phase diagram in equilibrium BHM. In this homogeneous mean-field approximation, the hopping or tunneling term is approximated, rendering the problem effectively to a single-site dynamics. However, this approximation accounts for the on-site interaction term exactly. In the momentum space, this amounts to retaining only the zero-momentum states and neglecting all finite-momentum states. So, this is a good approximation to calculate the steady-state or dynamical properties or fluctuations around steady-state at zero temperature or zero momentum when the tunneling term is small. In the context of our model, this approximation is expected to be reasonably good as long as the tunneling matrix element $J$ is not large compared to the strength of the drive. This kind of decoupling approximation is previously used to study the dynamics of a driven dissipative photonic Bose-Hubbard model \cite{ciuti13,Carmichael2}. The Hamiltonian then takes the form $\hat{H}_{eff}=\sum_j\hat {H}_0(j)$, where
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat H_{0}(j) &=& \beta^*\hat b_j+\beta \hat b_j^{\dagger}-\Delta\omega \hat b_j^{\dagger}\hat b_j+\frac{U}{2}\hat b_j^{\dagger}\hat b_j^{\dagger}\hat b_j\hat b_j+\frac{J}{z}|\psi|^2
\end{eqnarray}
where $\beta=F-\psi J/z$ represents modified drive of the system. Under the decoupling approximation, the density matrix is product separable over the site indices. So, the density matrix for
$j$-th site $\rho(j)$ is same for all sites, and henceforth for simplicity we omit the site index $(j)$ in all the operators. Within the Born-Markov approximation we then obtain the Lindblad master in the following form
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial{\hat\rho}}{\partial t}=-i\left[\hat H_{0},\hat\rho \right]+\frac{\Gamma}{2}\left[2\hat b \hat\rho \hat b^{\dagger}-\left\{\hat b^{\dagger}\hat b,\hat\rho\right\}\right]
\label{eq8}
\end{equation}
We numerically solve the master equation (\ref{eq8}) at steady state ($t\rightarrow \infty$) to obtain the steady-state the density matrix $\hat\rho^{ss}$.
We use Fock basis $|n\rangle$ and obtain a set of coupled algebraic equations. Further details of our numerical method of solution are given in appendix \ref{a1}.
For small $U$, the observable quantities of our system are found to converge when the basis set is relatively large. In contrast, for a large value of $U$, convergence happens with a small basis set. In our numerical calculations, we ensure the independence of the size of Fock basis for all our results by choosing a sufficiently large basis set.
Since our objective is to study second order quantum correlation and its spectral characteristics at and near a dynamical or non-equilibrium phase transition, we first semi-classically determine a transition point from mono- to bi-stable regime. In the full quantum treatment, it is well-known that there is no bi-stable regime \cite{ciuti13}, but the signature of semi-classical phase transition is manifested in the quantum treatment in a different way. Towards this end, we calculate the time evolution of the bosonic coherence $\psi$ given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left({\hat\rho}\hat b\right)=-i\left[\hat{H}_{0},\hat\rho \right]\hat b+\mathcal{D}\left[\hat\rho\right]\hat b \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
taking trace on both sides, we get
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial t}&=&-i\left[F+ \left\lbrace U|\psi|^2-\left(\frac{J}{z}+\Delta\omega+i\frac{\Gamma}{2} \right) \right \rbrace \right]
\label{eq13}
\end{eqnarray}
This equation resembles to single-mode Gross-Pitaevskii (GP) equation \cite{Stringari,Carusotto,Carusotto2}. The GP equation for a dilute Bose system of photons in a single mode cavity has a similar structure.
At steady state, the value of $\psi$ is given by solving the equation
\begin{equation}
\psi= \frac{F}{\frac{J}{z}+\Delta\omega-U|\psi|^2+i\frac{\Gamma}{2}}
\end{equation}
Taking modulus on both sides, we obtain a third order polynomial equation of the mean-field mean number density $n_{mf}=|\psi|^2$ which is
\begin{equation}
U^2n_{mf}^3-2U\left(J+\Delta\omega\right)n_{mf}^2+\left[\left(J+\Delta\omega\right)^2+\frac{\Gamma^2}{4}\right]n_{mf}-F^2=0
\label{eq15}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}ccc@{}}
\hspace{-.2in}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{phase1.eps} & \hspace{-.25in}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{phase2.eps} & \hspace{-.25in}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{phase3.eps}
\end{tabular}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}ccc@{}}
\hspace{-.2in}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{nmf1.eps} & \hspace{-.25in}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{nmf2.eps} & \hspace{-.25in}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{nmf3.eps}
\end{tabular}
\caption{ Top row represents ($U$ vs. $F$) phase space diagram of the semi-classical Eq. (\ref{eq15}) for the fixed parameters $\Delta\omega=2, J=0$ (a), $\Delta\omega=2, J=1$ (b), and $\Delta\omega=0.2, J=1$ (c). The bistable region is marked with yellow color, the gray shaded part represents the monostable region.
Bottom row displays the variation of the mean-field density $n_{mf}$ as a function of the drive $F$ for $U=1$ with $\Delta\omega=2, J=0$ (d), $\Delta\omega=2, J=1$ (e), and $\Delta\omega=0.2, J=1$ (f). All roots of Eq. (\ref{eq15}) are real inside the black vertical (dashed) lines.}
\label{Figure 4.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Two-time Hanbury Brown-Twiss correlation function}
To bring forth the connection between Liouvillian spectral properties and two-particle correlations of a driven dissipative many-body system, we here briefly discuss the method of calculating HBT type two-particle correlations of the system. The evolution of the density matrix $\hat{\rho}$ governed by the Liouvillian Eq.(\ref{eq8}) can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\frac{d \hat{\rho}}{d t} = \hat{\mathcal M} \hat{\rho}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\mathcal M}$ is the Liouvillian super-operator. In some suitable basis, one can diagonalize $\hat{\mathcal M}$ as demonstrated by Briegel and Englart \cite{Briegel} and also by Barnett and Stenholm \cite{Barnett}. As $\hat{\mathcal M}$ is non-Hermitian, a dual conjugate $\check{\mathcal M}$ can be constructed such that ${\rm Tr}\{\mathcal O\hat{\mathcal M}\hat\rho\}={\rm Tr}\{(\check{\mathcal M}\mathcal O)\hat\rho\}$ for an observable $\mathcal O$. $\check{\mathcal M}$ has the same eigenvalue as $\hat{\mathcal M}$. Let $u^{\mu}$ ($\mu = 1,2, \cdots$) be an eigenstate with eigenvalue $\lambda_{\mu}$, satisfying the eigenvalue equation $\hat{\mathcal M} u^{\mu} = \lambda_{\mu} u^{\mu} $(alternatively $\check{\mathcal M}$ $v^{\mu'}$=$\lambda_{\mu'}v^{\mu'}$). A steady-state of the system corresponds to the eigenstate with zero eigenvalue. Let us denote this eigenstate by $u^{\mu=0}$. So, the steady-state density matrix $\hat{\rho}^{ss} = \hat{\rho}(t \rightarrow \infty) \equiv u^{0}$ is given by $\hat{\mathcal M} \hat{\rho}^{ss} = 0$. The eigenvalues with nonzero real part appear in complex conjugate pairs. The real part of a eigenvalue is non-positive and the eigenvalue whose real part has the lowest magnitude is called the Liouvillian gap.
The on-site HBT correlation function of a lattice is defined by
\begin{equation}
g^{(2)}(\tau)=\frac{\langle \hat b^{\dagger}(t)\hat b^{\dagger}(t+\tau)\hat b(t+\tau)\hat b(t) \rangle}{\langle \hat b^{\dagger}(t)\hat b(t) \rangle \langle \hat b^{\dagger}(t+\tau)\hat b(t+\tau) \rangle}
\end{equation}
The physical interpretation of $g^{(2)}(\tau)$ is that it measures the probability of detecting a particle at time $t$ and another particle after time delay $\tau$.
For stationary processes or at steady-state of the system, the HBT function depends only on the difference $\tau$ between the two times. For $\tau=0$, we have equal-time second order correlation function $g^{(2)}(0)=\frac{\langle \hat b^{\dagger}\hat b^{\dagger}\hat b\hat b \rangle}{\langle \hat b^{\dagger}\hat b\rangle^2}$ which characterizes the nature of particle distribution.
We calculate the normalized $g^{(2)}(\tau)$ at steady-state condition ($t\rightarrow\infty$) using quantum regression theorem \cite{Lax}.
Explicitly,
\begin{equation}
g^{(2)}(\tau)=\frac{{\rm Tr}\left[\hat b^{\dagger}(0)\hat b(0)e^{\mathcal{\hat M}\tau}\left(\hat b(0)\hat \rho(t\rightarrow\infty)\hat b^{\dagger}(0)\right)\right]}{\left({\rm Tr}\left[\hat b^{\dagger}(0)\hat b(0)\hat\rho(t\rightarrow\infty)\right]\right)^2}
\end{equation}
Here $\mathcal{\hat M}$ is the Liouvillian matrix with infinite dimension. However, to numerically calculate the eigenvalues, we truncate the matrix upto $N^2$ such that if we increase $N$ the results remain convergent. Here $N$ is the total number of Fock basis states.
We define a function $Q(\tau)=g^{(2)}(\tau)- g^{(2)}(\infty)$. Since ${\rm lim}_{\tau \rightarrow \pm \infty} g^{(2)}(\tau) = 1$, the on-site number fluctuation will be reduced below standard quantum limit when $Q(\tau=0)< 0 $, implying sub-Poissonian bosonic statistics. We define frequency-domain \cite{Cirac,Betzholz} two-particle correlation function by
\begin{equation}
{\cal F}(\omega) = \Gamma \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} Q(\tau) \exp[ i \omega \tau] d\tau = \Gamma \left [\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} g^{(2)}(\tau) \exp[ i \omega \tau] d\tau - 2 \pi g^{(2)}(\infty) \delta(\omega)\right]
\label{ft}
\end{equation}
As derived in the Appendix \ref{a2}, we have
\begin{equation}
{\cal F}(\omega) = 2 \Gamma \sum_{\mu = 1}^{N^2} \left [ \frac{W_{\mu} |\lambda_{\mu r}| }{(\omega + \lambda_{\mu i})^2 + \lambda_{\mu r}^2 } \right ]
\label{fu15}
\end{equation}
where $\lambda_{\mu i}$ and $\lambda_{\mu r}$ are the real and imaginary parts, respectively, of the eigenvalue $\lambda_{\mu}$, and $W_{\mu}$ is a weight factor as defined in the appendix.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}ccc@{}}
\hspace{-.2in}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{n2.eps} & \hspace{-.2in}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{nc2.eps} & \hspace{-.2in}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{r2.eps}
\end{tabular}
\caption{\small Plotted are the mean particle number $\bar n$ (a), coherent density $n_{\rm coh}$ (b), the coherent fraction $n_{\rm coh}/\bar{n}$ (c) as a function of $F$ for $\Delta\omega=2$, $J=1$, $U=0.01$ (red solid), $U=1$ (blue dashed) and $U=10$ (green dashed-dotted).}
\label{nbar}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}ccc@{}}
\hspace{-.2in}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{wig4.eps} & \hspace{-.2in}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{wig5.eps} & \hspace{-.2in}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{wig6.eps}
\end{tabular}
\caption{\small The steady-state Wigner functions $W(z)$ as a function of the real and imaginary parts of the coherent field $z$ for $J=1$, $\Delta\omega=2$, $U=1$, $F=0.02$ (a), $F=1.17$ (b) and $F=1.8$ (c). The subplots (a) and (c) present Wigner functions below and above the transition point, respectively; while the subplot (b) presents the same at the transition point. White color corresponds to high values, and red corresponds to zero (a different scale is used for the different panels).}
\label{Wigner}
\end{figure}
\section{Results and discussion}\label{sec3}
For our numerical work, we take $\hbar\Gamma$ as the unit of energy and therefore scale all the energy quantities with this unit.
We first identify the parameter space where bi-stability occurs by analyzing the roots of the semi-classical Eq. (\ref{eq15}). There are three real and positive roots for any set of parameters if it satisfies the condition $\left(J+\Delta\omega\right)>\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}$, but this does not happen always. It can be understood by taking the derivative of the left side of Eq. (\ref{eq15}). We have scanned the solutions of Eq. (\ref{eq15}) for a wide range of system parameters.
Fig. \ref{Figure 4.} shows the mono- and bi-stability ($S$-shaped curve) of the semi-classical mean number density $n_{ mf}$. The system has two kinds of stability: (i) when three roots are real and positive then the system enters into a bi-stable region and (ii) when only one real root is survived then the system becomes mono-stable. In the bi-stable regime, two roots are associated with two high density phases and the remaining root defines low density phase. The semi-classical GP equation (\ref{eq13}) captures only one high-density and one low-density phase which are stable and another high density phase that is always unstable, in consistence with the generalized {\em P} representation of Drummond and Walls \cite{Drummond}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}ccc@{}}
\hspace{.2in}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{N_all_test.eps}
\end{tabular}
\caption{\small Variation of relaxation time ($-1/\lambda_g$) as a function of $(\tilde F -\tilde F_c)$ for different values of $N$. The parameters are $U=1$ and $\Delta\omega=2$.}
\label{scaletime}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}ccc@{}}
\hspace{-.2in}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{g202.eps}
\vspace{-0.4in}
\end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{@{}ccc@{}}
\hspace{-.2in}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{g204.eps}
\end{tabular}
\caption{\small The normalized equal-time second order correlation function $g^{(2)}(0)$ as a function $F$ for $\Delta\omega=2$ (a) and $\Delta\omega=0.2$ (b). The other fixed parameters are $J=1$, $U=0.01$ (red solid), $U=1$ (blue dashed) and $U=10$ (green dashed-dotted). }
\label{g20}
\end{figure}
Next we carry out full quantum mechanical treatment. We define the mean particle number per lattice site by $\bar n = \frac{1}{N_{lat}} \sum_j {\rm Tr}\left[\hat b_j^{\dagger}\hat b_j \hat\rho^{ss}\right]=n_{ coh}+n_{ nc}$, where $N_{lat}$ denotes the number of lattice sites, $n_{ coh}$=$|\psi|^2$ is the coherent and $n_{nc}$ is the non-coherent part of the density. At a small on-site repulsion, the system's behavior is dominated by coherent number fluctuation in each site but as the ratio $\frac{U}{J}$ increases the on-site number fluctuation drastically reduces. In Fig. \ref{nbar}, we present the variation of the mean particle number $\bar n$ as a function of $F$. In contrast to the semi-classical treatment depicted in Fig. \ref{Figure 4.}, bi-stable nature is absent in quantum treatment. Instead, we notice that when $U$ becomes comparable to $\Delta\omega$ there exists a sudden discontinuous jump from one to another semi-classical branch at a critical drive strength $F=F_c$, indicating the onset of a first order DPT. In Fig. \ref{nbar}(a), this critical behaviour occurs at $F_c=1.1$ for $U=1$ and $\Delta\omega=2$.
We now calculate the steady-state Wigner distribution to further illustrate quantum signature of DPT. It is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
W(z,z^*)=\frac{1}{\pi^2}\int d^2\nu e^{\nu^* z-\nu z^*} {\rm Tr}\left[\rho^{ss}e^{\nu a^{\dagger}-\nu^*a}\right]
\end{eqnarray}
where $z$ and $\nu$ are coherent states and $\int d^2z W(z)=1$.
A close inspection into steady-state Wigner distribution function displayed in Fig. \ref{Wigner} reveals the signatures of DPT. Below the transition point, the function has a single symmetrical-peak structure that corresponds to the mono-stable nature of the system. This is an evidence for a valid single-valued root of the semi-classical Eq. (\ref{eq15}). Above the transition point, the well-known bimodal shape appears providing a quantum signature of the semi-classical bi-stability. Right at the transition point, the shape of the distribution begins to deform indicating the switch-over from one to the other phase.
Another way to analyze critical behavior associated with a DPT \cite{Fazio17} is to introduce an equivalence of thermodynamic limit by employing a dimensionless parameter $N$ and defining the scaled interaction parameter $\tilde U=NU$ and scaled drive strength $\tilde F=F/\sqrt N$ such that in the limit $N\rightarrow\infty$ the quantity $UF^2$ remains constant; and to study the variation of the inverse of the Liouvillian gap $\lambda_g$ as a function of $\tilde F$ near the critical drive strength $\tilde{F}_c$. In stark contrast to a second order phase transition \cite{sachdev}, a first order DPT has different behavior as $\tilde F$ approaches to $\tilde F_c$ \cite{dpt,Fazio17}. For a first order DPT, it is experimentally found that $-1/ \lambda_g$ as a function of ($\tilde F-\tilde F_c$) shows a power law behavior over a limited range away from $\tilde F_c$ and an exponential decay near $\tilde F_c$ \cite{dpt}. Furthermore, it was experimentally shown that the critical value of the drive strength $F_c$ is that value of $F$ for which the bunching $(g^{(2)}(\tau)> 0)$ has the longest duration \cite{dpt}. Fig. \ref{scaletime} illustrates the scaling behavior of the relaxation time ($-1/ {\lambda_g}$) as a function of $\tilde{F}$ near $\tilde{F_c}$ for the first order DPT corresponding to the dashed curve in Fig. \ref{nbar}(a).
We have fitted the curve for $N>>1$ with a weighted power law
\begin{equation}
-\frac{1}{\lambda_g}\sim \left(\frac{\tilde F -\tilde F_c}{f}\right)^{-\alpha}
\end{equation}
As shown in Fig. \ref{scaletime}, we have found a reasonably good fit with this power law over a limited range of $\tilde F$ slightly away from $\tilde F_c$ with the exponent $\alpha=0.18$ and $f=12.7$. Remarkably, our results show that as $N\rightarrow\infty$, the relaxation time becomes insensitive to $N$.
Next, we present our results on HBT two-particle correlation functions and analyze their characteristic features at and near the DPT point. In Fig. \ref{g20} we display the steady-state correlation $g^{(2)}(0)$ as a function of $F$. We notice that when the input parameters $U$, $J$ and $\Delta \omega$ are set at values that correspond to the phase transition point (as per our observations in Figs. \ref{nbar}, \ref{Wigner} and \ref{g20}), $g^{(2)}(0)$ as a function of $F$ shows
a prominent peak structure (blue-dashed curve of Fig. \ref{g20} (a)). The peak exceeds 2 meaning the occurrence of strong non-classical fluctuations and super-bunching at the transition point. Perhaps, this super-bunching behavior forms a benchmark of the first order DPT as is also observed earlier by several authors \cite{dpt,Houck,ten2,Fazio17}. For small $U$ (red solid curve), $g^{(2)}(0)$ as a function of $F$ varies very little near unity implying coherent nature of the two-particle correlation. In contrast, when $U$ is large, $g^{(2)}(0)$ is much smaller than unity for low values of $F$ meaning that the system has strong anti-bunching character with sub-Poissonian particle distribution.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}ccc@{}}
\hspace{-.2in}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{gt1.eps} & \hspace{-.15in}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{gt2.eps} & \hspace{-.15in}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{gt3.eps}
\end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{@{}ccc@{}}
\hspace{-.2in}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{ft1.eps} & \hspace{-.15in}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{ft2.eps} & \hspace{-.15in}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{ft3.eps}
\end{tabular}
\caption{ The two-time correlation function $Q(\tau)$ and its Fourier transform $\mathcal{F}(\omega)$ are plotted as a function of time delay $\tau$ and frequency $\omega$, respectively, for three different values of $F$. The other parameters are kept fixed at $U=1$, $\Delta\omega=2$ and $J=1$. The Liouvillian eigenvalues associated with the gap is calculated to be $\lambda_2 = -0.5\pm 1.9998i$ (a, d),
$\lambda_1 = -0.2921 + 0i$ (b, e)
and $\lambda_2 = -0.8575 \pm 3.1229i$ (c, f). The positions of the peaks or dips correspond to the imaginary parts of $\lambda_1$ or $\lambda_2$, while the HWHM of the peaks or dips correspond to the real part of the eigenvalues (see text). }
\label{g2t}
\end{figure}
The upper panel of Fig. \ref{g2t} shows the temporal behavior of $ Q(\tau) = g^{(2)}(\tau) - g^{(2)} (\infty)$ while the lower panel of this figure displays
its Fourier transform $\mathcal{F}(\omega)$ as defined in Eq. (\ref{fu15}).
The subplot \ref{g2t}(b) illustrates the temporal evolution of two particle correlation $Q(\tau)$ and the subplot \ref{g2t}(e) shows the corresponding frequency-domain correlation $\mathcal{F}(\omega)$ when the system parameters are set at the transition point. In comparison to other subplots for which the input parameters are chosen away from the transition point, the decay of $g^{(2)}(\tau)$ as shown in Fig. \ref{g2t} (b) is non-oscillatory and much slower. The corresponding spectral-domain correlation $\mathcal{F}(\omega)$ shown in Fig. \ref{g2t} (e) shows a prominent single-peak structure with the peak lying at zero frequency. We have found that the HWHM of the zero-frequency peak structure is minimum when the parameters are set at the phase transition point. As the subplots (a), (c), (d) and (f) of Fig. \ref{g2t} illustrate, for parameters away from the phase transition point, $Q(\tau)$ as a function of $\tau$ exhibits
oscillatory decay and the corresponding frequency-domain correlation $\mathcal{F}(\omega)$ as a function of $\omega$ shows spectral structures that are characteristically quite different from that at the phase transition point. Figure \ref{g2f2} displays again the time- and frequency-domain two-particle correlations $Q(\tau)$ and $\mathcal{F}(\omega)$ for $U=10$, $\Delta \omega =2$, $J=1$ and two different values of $F=1, 10$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{p.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{pf.eps}
\caption{\small Same as in Fig. \ref{g2t} but for $U=10$, $\Delta\omega=2$, $J=1$, $F=1$ (a and c) and $F=10$ (b and d). For (a) $\lambda_2 =-0.6268 \pm 2.6188 i$ and for (b) $\lambda_2 =-0.6859 \pm 17.0303 i$. In (c), the two peaks are located at $\omega_{\pm} \approx \pm 2.62$. In (d) the two dips appear at $\omega_{\pm}\approx \pm17$.}
\label{g2f2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}ccc@{}}
\hspace{.2in}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{lr.eps} & \hspace{-.1in}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{realu10.eps}
\end{tabular}
\caption{\small The real parts of two low lying eigenvalues of the Liouvillian superoperator $\hat{\mathcal M}$ are plotted as a function of $F$ for the parameters (a) $U=1$ and (b) $U=10$. The other fixed parameters are $J=1$ and $\Delta\omega=2$.}
\label{liou}
\end{figure}
In contrast to the case of $F=1$, $Q(\tau)$ for $F=10$ exhibits greater oscillations. The $\mathcal{F}(\omega)$ for $F=1$ shows a prominent peak at zero frequency and two side dips at frequencies $\pm 2.62$ into the negative regime. In contrast, $\mathcal{F}(\omega)$ for $F=10$ shows two prominent side dips at frequencies $\pm 17 $ and the peak at zero frequency disappears. The dip structures signify anti-bunching or non-classical nature of the two-particle correlations. Similar dip-like structures have been previously observed in frequency-domain correlations between intensity fluctuations of two optical fields in the context of electromagnetically-induced transparency \cite{Martinelli.PhysRevA.94.012503}.
In order to further explain the spectral features observed in Figs. \ref{g2t} and \ref{g2f2}, we have calculated a few low-lying eigenvalues of the Liouvillian super-operator. The frequency-domain two-particle correlation function $\mathcal{F}(\omega)$ is given by Eq. (\ref{fu15}) which is a sum of Lorenzian functions with different spectral weight factors. The eigenvalue which has minimum non-zero real part (in absolute magnitude) is denoted
as $\lambda_g$ or Liovillian gap. In Fig. \ref{liou} we have plotted the real part of two eigenvalues as continuous functions of $F$. The blue dashed curve corresponds to the eigenvalue with zero imaginary part while the red solid curve corresponds to non-zero imaginary parts. Since complex eigenvalues appear in complex conjugates, the red curve corresponds to two equal and opposite imaginary parts.
Let us denote the eigenvalues with non-zero imaginary part but with finite real part as $\lambda_{2}$ while the eigenvalue with zero imaginary part as $\lambda_1$. Figure \ref{liou}(a) shows that the ${\rm Re}[\lambda_1]$ and
${\rm Re}[\lambda_2]$ as a function of $F$ have a crossing point at a low value of $F$. So, below the crossing point, the red solid curve is the Liouvillian gap, but above the crossing point, the blue-dashed curve serves as the gap. So, below the crossing point, the eigenvalue corresponding to the red-dashed curve having equal and opposite nonzero imaginary parts primarily determines the nature of the spectral features in $\mathcal{F}(\omega)$ vs. $\omega$ curves. Above the crossing point but $F$ and $U$ being not very large, the spectral features are primarily determined by the Liouvillain gap with zero imaginary part. For large $U$, as Fig. \ref{liou}(b) shows, ${\rm Re}[\lambda_1]$ and
${\rm Re}[\lambda_2]$ have two crossing points. So, for $F$ ranging between the two crossing points, both zero- and nonzero frequencies will dominate in the spectrum as the Fig. \ref{g2f2} (c) indicates while for large $F$, zero-frequency part will be suppressed as Fig. \ref{g2f2} (d)
illustrates. The positions of the spectral peaks or dips are found to coincide with the imaginary parts of $\lambda_1$ or $\lambda_2$ while the HWHM of the peak or dip structures is given by the real part of $\lambda_1$ or $\lambda_2$.
\section{conclusions} \label{sec6}
In conclusion, we have studied the time- and frequency-domain HBT two-particle correlations of a driven dissipative Bose-Hubbard model (BHM)
and analyzed in detail the various temporal and spectral features of the correlation that reflect quantum statistical properties of the system at, below and above the DPT of the model. Our results show that except at or very near to the phase transition point, $g^{(2)}(\tau)$ in general exhibits oscillatory decay leading to multiple peak- or dip-structures in the correlation function in the frequency domain. The details of spectral structures such as the central frequencies of the peak- or dip-structures and their widths are explained in terms of the Liouvillian eigenvalues and eigenfunctions. We have shown that right at the phase transition point, the correlation spectrum has a single Lorenzian with zero central frequency and minimum HWHM. Our results further show that the quantum statistical properties of the steady-state can be controlled by tuning on-site interaction $U$, the detuning $\Delta \omega$ and the drive strength $F$. For small $U$ and small $F$ the system at steady-state exhibits coherent or bunching behavior while strongly driven steady-state in the strong interaction regime ($U >\!> 1$) can exhibit strong anti-bunching or strongly correlated phase. In this paper, we have carried out our investigation under a homogeneous mean-field approximation. Going beyond this approximation and taking into account spatial inhomogeneity in a driven dissipative many-body system will be important step forward to explore an interplay between HBT and density-density or current-current correlations of the model, which we hope to address in our future communications.
\begin{acknowledgments}
One of us (SM) acknowledges a support from Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, Govt. of India.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
The drift diffusion equations are the most widely used model to describe
semiconductor devices. From the point of view of applications, there
is great interest in replacing laboratory testing by numerical simulation
in order to minimize development costs. For the current state of technology,
the drift diffusion equations represent a realistic compromise between
computational efficiency (to solve this nonlinear system of partial
differential equations) and an accurate description of the underlying
device physics.
The name {\em drift diffusion equations} of semiconductors originates
from the type of dependence of the current densities on the carrier
densities and the electric field. The current densities are the sums of
drift terms and diffusion terms.
It is worth mentioning that, with the increased miniaturization of
semiconductor devices, one comes closer and closer to the limits of
validity of the drift diffusion equation. This is due to
the fact that in ever smaller devices the assumption that the
free carriers can be modeled as a continuum becomes invalid. On the
other hand, the drift diffusion equations are derived by a scaling limit
process, where the mean free path of a particle tends to zero.
The mathematical modeling of semiconductor equations has developed
significantly, together with their manufacturing. The {\em basic
semiconductor device equations} where first presented, in the level
of completeness described in this paper, by W. Van Roosbroeck (see
\cite{VanR}) in 1950. Since then they have been subject of intensive
mathematical and numerical investigation (cf. \cite{MRS} for an overview).
This paper is devoted to the investigation of inverse problems related
to stationary drift-diffusion equations modeling semiconductor devices.
In this context we analyze several inverse problems related to the
identification of doping profiles. In all these inverse problems the
parameter to be identified corresponds to the so called {\em doping profile}
(a parameter function in a system of PDE's). However, the reconstruction
problems are related to data generated by different types of measurement
techniques.
The paper is organized as follows. In section~\ref{sec:sceq} we describe
the stationary and transient drift diffusion equations. Some existence
and uniqueness results (needed further in the text) are presented and
some particular models (derived from different simplification assumptions)
are investigated. In Section~\ref{sec:idp} the inverse doping problems are
presented. We address the inverse problems modeled by the voltage-current
map, by capacitance measurements, and by Laser-beam-induced measurements.
We also address the identification issue for some of the inverse problems
mentioned above. In Section~\ref{sec:num} we present some new numerical
results for an identification problem related to the voltage-current map
(linearized unipolar case). The results are obtained using the
Landweber-Kaczmarz method.
There are other relevant inverse problems for semiconductor equations that
are not covered in this paper:
\begin{itemize}
\item The inverse problem of identifying transistor contact resistivity of planar
electronic devices, such as MOSFETs (metal oxide semiconductor field-effect
transistors) is treated in \cite{FC}. It is shown that a one-point boundary
measurement of the potential is sufficient to identify the resistivity from
a one-parameter monotone family, and such identification is both stable and
continuously dependent on the parameter. Because of the device
miniaturization, it is impossible to measure the contact resistivity in a direct way
to satisfactory accuracy. There are extensive experimental and simulation
studies for the determination of contact resistivity by certain accessible
boundary measurements.
\item A similar problem of determining the contact resistivity of a semiconductor device
from a single voltage measurement is investigated in \cite{BF}. It can be modeled
as an inverse problem for the elliptic differential equation $\Delta V -
p \chi(S)u = 0$ in $\Omega \subset \mathcal R^2$, $\partial V / \partial n
= g \geq 0$ but $g \not\equiv 0$ on $\partial\Omega$, where $V(x)$ is the
measured voltage, $S \subset \Omega$ and $p>0$ are unknown. In this paper,
the authors consider the identification of $p$ when the contact location $S$
is also known.
\item The problem of optimal design of devices, where the aim is to find a
doping profile that can reach certain design goals, e.g., maximum drive
current while keeping the leakage current below a certain threshold. From a
computational point of view, this problem exhibits many similarities to the
inverse doping problems considered in this paper, with the difference that in
optimal design one usually has to solve the drift-diffusion equations for only
one or two different applied voltages. We refer to \cite{BuPi,HiPi01,St}
\end{itemize}
\section{Semiconductor equations} \label{sec:sceq}
The basic semiconductor
device equations consist of the Poisson equation (\ref{eq:VanR1}),
the continuity equations for electrons (\ref{eq:VanR2}) and holes
(\ref{eq:VanR3}), and the current relations for electrons
(\ref{eq:VanR4}) and holes (\ref{eq:VanR5}). For some applications,
in order to account for thermal effects in semiconductor devices, its
also necessary to add to this system the heat flow equation (\ref{eq:VanR6}).
\begin{eqnarray}
&& {\rm div} (\epsilon \nabla V) = q(n - p - C) \label{eq:VanR1} \\
&& {\rm div}\, J_n = q ( \partial_t n + R) \label{eq:VanR2} \\
&& {\rm div}\, J_p = q (-\partial_t p - R) \label{eq:VanR3} \\
&& J_n = q ( D_n(E,T) \nabla n - \mu_n(E,T) n \nabla V) \label{eq:VanR4} \\
&& J_p = q (-D_p(E,T) \nabla p - \mu_p(E,T) p \nabla V) \label{eq:VanR5} \\
&& \rho\ c(T)\ \partial_t T - H = {\rm div}\,k(T) \nabla T, \label{eq:VanR6}
\end{eqnarray}
defined in a domain $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^d$ ($d=1,2,3$) representing
the semiconductor device. Here $V$ denotes the electrostatic potential
($- \nabla V$ is the electric field, $E=\vert\nabla V\vert$), $n$ and $p$ are the concentration
of free carriers of negative charge (electrons) and positive charge (holes)
respectively, and $J_n$ and $J_p$ are the densities of the electron and the
hole current respectively. $D_n$ and $D_p$ are the diffusion coefficients
for electrons and holes respectively. $\mu_n$ and $\mu_p$ represent the
mobilities of electrons and holes respectively. The positive constants
$\epsilon$ and $q$ denote the permittivity coefficient (for silicon)
and the elementary charge respectively. The function $R = R(n,p,x)$ denotes
the recombination-generation rate. The function $C = C(x)$ represent the
doping concentration, which is produced by diffusion of different materials
into the silicon crystal and by implantation with an ion beam.
The constants $\rho$ and $c$ represent the specific mass density and
specific heat of the material. $k$ and $H$ denote the thermal
conductivity and the locally generated heat.
This set of equations is considered in a domain $\Omega \subset
\mathbb{R}^d$ ($d=1,2,3$) representing the semiconductor device. We
assume the boundary $\partial\Omega$ of $\Omega$ to be divided into two
nonempty disjoint parts: $\partial\Omega = \overline{\partial\Omega_N} \cup
\overline{\partial\Omega_D}$. The Dirichlet part of the boundary $\partial\Omega_D$
models the Ohmic contacts, where the potential $V$ as well as the
concentrations $n$ and $p$ are prescribed. The Neumann part
$\partial\Omega_N$ of the boundary corresponds to insulating surfaces,
thus a zero current flow and a zero electric field in the normal
direction are prescribed.
In the next subsection, when we turn our attention to the stationary
drift-diffusion equations, we shall discuss in more detail the system
(\ref{eq:VanR1})--(\ref{eq:VanR6}) as well as corresponding boundary
conditions. Detailed expositions of the subject of modeling,
analysis and simulation of semiconductor equations can be found in the
books of S. Selberherr \cite{Se}, P. Markowich \cite{Ma} and P. Markowich
et al \cite{MRS}.
\subsection{Stationary drift diffusion equation}
We shall consider system (\ref{eq:VanR1}) -- (\ref{eq:VanR6}) under the
following assumptions: Thermal effects will not be taken into account, i.e. we
shall work under the assumption of constant particle temperature. Further, we
consider the carrier concentrations $n$ and $p$ and the potential $V$
as time-independent functions.
Under the above assumptions, if we substitute the current relations for
electrons and holes (\ref{eq:VanR4}) and (\ref{eq:VanR5}) into the
corresponding continuity equations (\ref{eq:VanR2}) and (\ref{eq:VanR3}),
we obtain a coupled system of partial differential equations, the so
called {\em stationary drift diffusion equation}:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm div} (\epsilon_s \nabla V) & = & q(n - p - C),\ {\rm in}\ \Omega
\label{eq:stat-dd-1} \\
{\rm div} (D_n \nabla n - \mu_n n \nabla V) & = & R,\ {\rm in}\ \Omega
\label{eq:stat-dd-2} \\
{\rm div} (D_p \nabla p - \mu_p p \nabla V) & = & R,\ {\rm in}\ \Omega .
\label{eq:stat-dd-3}
\end{eqnarray}
Next we briefly discuss the modeling of the recombination-generation rate.
The {\em bandgap} is relatively large for semiconductors (gap between
valence and conduction band), and a significant amount of energy is
necessary to transfer electrons from the valence and to the conduction
band. This process is called generation of electron-hole pairs. On the
other hand, the reverse process corresponds to the transfer of a
conduction electron into the lower energetic valence band. This process
is called recombination of electron-hole pairs. In our model these
phenomena are described by the {\em recombination-generation rate} $R$. Various
models can be found in the literature (see, e.g., \cite{Se}). For the sake
of simplicity, we shall consider either the {\em Shockley Read Hall rate}
$$ R_{SRH} \ = \ \protect\displaystyle\frac{n p - n_i^2}{\tau_p(n+n_i) + \tau_p(p+n_i)} $$
or the {\em Auger recombination-generation rate}
$$ R_{AU} \ = \ (C_n n + C_p p) \, (n p - n_i^2) \, , $$
where $n_i$ denotes the intrinsic density, $\tau_n$ and $\tau_p$ are the
lifetimes of electrons and holes respectively (see Table~\ref{tab:typ-val}
for some typical values for recombination generation parameters).
In both cases we can write
$$ R \ = \ {\cal R}(n,p,x) \, (n p - n_i^2) \, . $$
\begin{table}
\begin{center} \begin{tabular}{cl}
\hline \\[-2.3ex]
{ Parameter} & { \hfil Typical value \hfil} \\[0.3ex]
\hline \\[-2.0ex]
$\epsilon_s$ & $11.9 \ \epsilon_0$ \\
$\mu_n$ & $\approx 1500 \ {\rm cm}^2 \ {\rm V}^{-1} \ {\rm s}^{-1}$ \\
$\mu_p$ & $\approx 450 \ {\rm cm}^2 \ {\rm V}^{-1} \ {\rm s}^{-1}$ \\
$C_n$ & $2.8 \times 10^{-31} \ {\rm cm}^6 {\rm / s}$ \\
$C_p$ & $9.9 \times 10^{-32} \ {\rm cm}^6 {\rm / s}$ \\
$\tau_n$ & $10^{-6}\, {\rm s}$ \\
$\tau_p$ & $10^{-5}\, {\rm s}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular} \end{center}
\caption{Properties of silicon at room temperature (physical constants:
Permittivity in vacuum $\epsilon_0 = 8.85 \times 10^{-14} {\rm As \, V}^{-1}
\, {\rm cm}^{-1}$; Elementary charge $q = 1.6 \times 10^{-19} {\rm As}$).}
\label{tab:typ-val}
\end{table}
Now we shall introduce the boundary conditions. As already mentioned,
the boundary $\partial\Omega$ of $\Omega$ is divided in two nonempty
parts: $\partial\Omega = \partial\Omega_N \cup \partial\Omega_D$. Due to
the thermal equilibrium assumption it follows $np = n_i^2$, and the assumption of vanishing space charge
density gives $n-p-C = 0$, for $x \in \partial\Omega_D$. On the Dirichlet part of the boundary this implies
the following type of boundary conditions:
\begin{eqnarray}
V & \hskip-2.6cm
= \ V_D(x) \ := \ \ U(x) + V_{\rm bi}(x) & \rm on \ \partial\Omega_D
\label{eq:dd-dbc1} \\[1ex]
n & \hskip-0.4cm
= \ n_D(x) \ := \
\protect\textstyle\frac{1}{2} \left( C(x) + \sqrt{C(x)^2 + 4 n_i^2} \right) &
\rm on \ \partial\Omega_D \label{eq:dd-dbc2} \\
p & = \ p_D(x) \ := \
\ \protect\textstyle\frac{1}{2} \left(-C(x) + \sqrt{C(x)^2 + 4 n_i^2} \right) &
\rm on \ \partial\Omega_D, \label{eq:dd-dbc3}
\end{eqnarray}
where $U(x)$ is the applied potential, (differences in $U(x)$ between
different segments of $\partial\Omega_D$ correspond to the applied bias
between these two contacts), $V_{\rm bi}(x) := U_T \, \ln
\big( \frac{n_D(x)}{n_i} \big)$ and $U_T$ is the thermal voltage.
Since the Neumann part of the boundary $\partial\Omega_N = \partial\Omega
- \partial\Omega_D$ models insulating or artificial surfaces, a zero
current flow and a zero electric field in the normal direction are
prescribed. Thus, the following homogeneous boundary conditions are
supplied (in terms of $J_n$ and $J_p$):
\begin{eqnarray}
\nabla V \cdot \nu & = & 0 \ \ \rm on \ \partial\Omega_N
\label{eq:dd-nbc1} \\
J_n \cdot \nu & = & 0 \ \ \rm on \ \partial\Omega_N
\label{eq:dd-nbc2} \\
J_p \cdot \nu & = & 0 \ \ \rm on \ \partial\Omega_N \, .
\label{eq:dd-nbc3}
\end{eqnarray}
Next we briefly address the modeling of the doping profile. The function
$C(x)$ models a preconcentration of ions in the crystal, so $C(x) = C_{+}(x)
- C_{-}(x)$ holds, where $C_{+}$ and $C_{-}$ are concentrations of negative
and positive ions respectively. In those subregions of $\Omega$ in which the
preconcentration of negative ions predominate (P-regions), we have
$C(x) < 0$. Analogously, we define the N-regions, where $C(x) > 0$ holds.
The boundaries between the P- and N-regions (where $C$ change sign) are
called P-N junctions. An example of a device with a very simple P-N
junction is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:diode}, where a two-dimensional
P-N diode is represented.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{ \epsfxsize10cm \epsfbox{diode.pdf} }
\caption{P-N diode. Example of P-N junction.} \label{fig:diode}
\vskip-5cm \unitlength1cm
\centerline{
\begin{picture}(13,5)
\put(0.7,4){$\partial\Omega_N$}
\put(11.5,4){$\partial\Omega_N$}
\put(9,6.1){$\partial\Omega_N$}
\put(3,6){$\Gamma_1 \subset \partial\Omega_D$}
\put(6,1.3){$\partial\Omega_D$}
\put(3.5,4.5){\bf P-region}
\put(7.5,3.0){\bf N-region}
\end{picture} }
\end{figure}
Now we introduce an important special change of variables, in order to rewrite
system (\ref{eq:stat-dd-1})--(\ref{eq:stat-dd-3}) as well as boundary
conditions (\ref{eq:dd-dbc1})--(\ref{eq:dd-dbc3}) and
(\ref{eq:dd-nbc1})--(\ref{eq:dd-nbc3}) in a more convenient way. This
variable transformation is (partially) motivated by the Einstein relations
$$ D_n \ = \ U_T \, \mu_n, \ \ \ \ \ D_p \ = \ U_T \, \mu_p, $$
which are a standard assumption about the mobilities and diffusion
coefficients. The so called {\em Slotboom variables} $(u,v)$ are
defined by the relations
\begin{equation} \label{eq:slotboom}
n(x) \ = \ n_i\, \exp\left(\frac{ V(x)}{U_T}\right)\, u(x),\ \ \
p(x) \ = \ n_i\, \exp\left(\frac{-V(x)}{U_T}\right)\, v(x) \, .
\end{equation}
For convenience, we rescale the potential and the mobilities:
$$ V(x) \ \leftarrow \ V(x) / U_T,\ \ \
\tilde\mu_n \ := \ q U_T \mu_n,\ \ \ \tilde\mu_p \ := \ q U_T \mu_p \, . $$
Note that the current relations now read:
$$ J_n \ = \ \tilde\mu_n n_i \, e^{ V} \nabla u,\ \ \ \ \
J_p \ = \ - \tilde\mu_p n_i \, e^{-V} \nabla v \, . $$
Therefore, we can write the stationary drift diffusion equation in the
form
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda^2 \, \Delta V & \hskip-0.3cm \label{eq:dd-sys1}
= \ \delta^2 \big(e^V u - e^{-V} v \big) - C(x), & {\rm in}\ \Omega \\[1ex]
{\rm div}\, J_n & \hskip-0.4cm \label{eq:dd-sys2}
= \ \delta^4 \, Q(V,u,v,x) \, (u v - 1), & {\rm in}\ \Omega \\[1ex]
{\rm div}\, J_p & \label{eq:dd-sys3}
= \ - \delta^4 \, Q(V,u,v,x) \, (u v - 1), & {\rm in}\ \Omega \\[1ex]
V & \hskip-1.9cm = \ V_D \ = \ U + V_{\rm bi} , & \rm on \ \partial\Omega_D
\label{eq:dd-sys4} \\
u & \hskip-2.55cm = \ u_D \ = \ e^{-U} , & \rm on \ \partial\Omega_D
\label{eq:dd-sys5} \\
v & \hskip-2.85cm = \ v_D \ = \ e^{U} , & \rm on \ \partial\Omega_D
\label{eq:dd-sys6} \\
\nabla V \cdot \nu & \hskip-4.5cm = \ 0 & \rm on \ \partial\Omega_N
\label{eq:dd-sys7} \\
J_n \cdot \nu & \hskip-4.5cm = \ 0 & \rm on \ \partial\Omega_N
\label{eq:dd-sys8} \\
J_p \cdot \nu & \hskip-4.5cm = \ 0 & \rm on \ \partial\Omega_N \, ,
\label{eq:dd-sys9}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\lambda^2 := \epsilon/(q U_T)$, $\delta^2 := n_i$ and the function
$Q$ is defined implicitly by the relation $Q(V,u,v,x) = {\cal R}(n,p,x)$.
Notice the applied potential has also to be rescaled: $U(x) \leftarrow U(x) / U_T$.
\subsection{Some existence and uniqueness results for stationary drift
diffusion equation} \label{ssec:ex-uniq}
In this subsection we discuss the solution theory for the system of
drift diffusion equations (\ref{eq:dd-sys1})--(\ref{eq:dd-sys9}). First
we present an existence result, which can be found in the monography
\cite[Theorem 3.3.16]{MRS}.
\begin{propo} \label{prop:MRS-3316}
Let $\kappa > 1$ be a constant satisfying
$$ \kappa^{-1} \ \le \ u_D(x)\, ,\ v_D(x) \ \le \ \kappa, \
\forall x \, \in \, \partial\Omega_D \, , $$
and let $-\infty < C_m \leq C_M < + \infty$. Then for any \ $C \in
\{ L^\infty(\Omega)\, ; \ C_m \le C(x) \le C_M,\ x \in \Omega \}$
\ the boundary value problem (\ref{eq:dd-sys1})--(\ref{eq:dd-sys9})
admits a weak solution $(V,u,v) \in ( H^1(\Omega) \cap L^\infty(\Omega) )^3$
satisfying
$$ \kappa^{-1} \ \le \ u(x)\, ,\ v(x) \ \le \ \kappa, \
\forall x \, \in \, \Omega \, , $$
furthermore
\begin{eqnarray*}
V(x) & \ge & \min \left( \inf_{\partial\Omega_D} V_D \, ,\ U_T
\ln \left[ \frac{1}{2\kappa n_i} (C_m + (C_m^2 + 4 n_i^2)^{1/2} ) \right]
\right) ,\ {\rm in}\ \Omega \\
V(x) & \le & \max \left( \sup_{\partial\Omega_D} V_D \, ,\ U_T \ln
\left[ \frac{\kappa}{2 n_i} (C_M + (C_M^2 + 4 n_i^2)^{1/2} ) \right]
\right) ,\ {\rm in}\ \Omega \, .
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{propo}
{\it Sketch of the proof:} \\
Solving the Poisson equation and the continuity equations (three elliptic
mixed boundary value problems), one at a time, it is possible to define
an operator in an appropriate $L^2$--space, whose fixed point is a weak
solution of (\ref{eq:dd-sys1})--(\ref{eq:dd-sys9}). The existence of a
fixed point is established by the Schauder Fixed point operator, once one
proves that the fixed point operator is completely continuous, which is
accomplished by the use of standard elliptic theory. \hfill $\Box$
\bigskip
As far as uniqueness of solutions of system
(\ref{eq:dd-sys1})--(\ref{eq:dd-sys9}) is concerned, a corresponding result
can be obtained if the applied voltage is small (in the norm of
$L^\infty(\partial\Omega_D) \cap H^{3/2}(\partial\Omega_D)$). The
following uniqueness result corresponds to \cite[Theorem 2.4]{BEMP}.
\begin{propo} \label{prop:BEMP-24}
Let the voltage $U$ be such that $\|U\|_{L^\infty(\partial\Omega_D)}
+ \|U\|_{H^{3/2}(\partial\Omega_D)}$ is sufficiently small. Then system
(\ref{eq:dd-sys1})--(\ref{eq:dd-sys9}) has a unique solution $(V,u,v) \in
( H^1(\Omega) \cap L^\infty(\Omega) )^3$.
\end{propo}
Since existence and uniqueness of solutions for system
(\ref{eq:dd-sys1})--(\ref{eq:dd-sys9}) can be guaranteed for
small applied voltages only, it is reasonable to consider instead of
this system its linearized version around the equilibrium point
$U \equiv 0$ instead. We shall follow this approach through a large part of this paper.
Under stronger assumptions on the boundary parts $\partial\Omega_D$,
$\partial\Omega_N$ as well as on the boundary conditions $V_D$, $u_D$,
$v_D$, it is even possible to show $H^2$-regularity for a solution $(V,u,v)$
of (\ref{eq:dd-sys1})--(\ref{eq:dd-sys9}). Next we shall discuss a
corresponding result; for the proof details we refer to the monography
by Markowich \cite{Ma}. First we have to consider the following assumptions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[A1)] $\Omega$ is a bounded domain of class $C^{0,1}$ in $\mathcal R^d$
and the $(d-1)$-dimensional Lebesgue measure of $\partial\Omega_D$ is
positive;
\item[A2)] The Dirichlet boundary data $(V_D,u_D,v_D)$ in
(\ref{eq:dd-sys4})--(\ref{eq:dd-sys6}) satisfy
$$ (V_D,u_D,v_D) \in (H^2(\Omega))^3, \ (V_D,u_D,v_D)|_{\partial\Omega_D}
\in (L^\infty(\partial\Omega_D))^3\, . $$
Furthermore, $(V_D,u_D,v_D)|_{\partial\Omega_N} = (0,0,0)$ and there is
$U_+ \ge 0$ such that
$$ e^{-U_+} \le \protect\displaystyle\inf_{\partial\Omega_D} u_D, \ \inf_{\partial\Omega_D} v_D;
\ \ \protect\displaystyle\sup_{\partial\Omega_D} u_D, \ \sup_{\partial\Omega_D} v_D \le
e^{U_+}\, ; $$
\item[A3)] The doping profile satisfies $C \in L^\infty(\Omega)$;
\item[A4)] The function $Q$ in (\ref{eq:dd-sys2}), (\ref{eq:dd-sys3}) is such
that $Q(\cdot,\cdot,\cdot,x) \in C^1(\mathcal R \times (0,\infty)^2)$ for all
$x \in \Omega$; $Q(V,u,v,\cdot)$, $\nabla_{(V,u,v)}Q(V,u,v,\cdot) \in L^\infty
(\Omega)$ uniformly for $(V,u,v)$ in bounded sets of $\mathcal R \times
(0,\infty)^2$; $Q(V,u,v,x) \ge 0$ in $\mathcal R \times (0,\infty)^2 \times
\Omega$;
\item[A5)] The mobilities $\mu_n$, $\mu_p$ satisfy:
$\mu_n = \mu_n(x)$, $\mu_p = \mu_p(x)$, $\mu_n, \mu_p \in W^{1,\infty}
(\Omega)$; functions $\mu_n$, $\mu_p$ are both positive and uniformly
bounded (away from zero) in $\Omega$;
\item[A6)] The solution of
$$ \Delta w = f \ {\rm in} \ \Omega\, , \ \ \ \ w|_{\partial\Omega_D} =
w_\nu|_{\partial\Omega_N} = 0\, , $$
satisfies \ $\| w \|_{2,q,\Omega} \le K_1 \| f \|_{q,\Omega}$ for every
$f \in L^q(\Omega)$ with $q=2$ and $q=3/2$.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{propo} \mbox{\bf \cite[Theorem 3.3.1]{Ma}}
\label{prop:Ma-331}
Let's assume that assumptions A1) -- A6) hold. Then every weak solution
$(V,u,v) \in (H^1(\Omega) \cap L^\infty(\Omega))^3$ satisfies
$$ (V,u,v) \in (H^2(\Omega))^3 \, . $$
\end{propo}
Notice that, in the 2-dimensional case, assumption $A6)$ can only be
satisfied (for $q=2$) if the angle between the Neumann and Dirichlet
parts of $\partial\Omega$ is smaller than $\pi/2$. Otherwise, the
solutions of the elliptic mixed boundary value problems in $A6)$
will not belong to any space $H^{1+\epsilon}(\Omega)$, $\epsilon>0$
(see \cite{Gr} for details).
If assumption $A6)$ holds only for $q=2$, it is still possible to prove
$H^2$-regularity for the solution $V$ of the Poisson equation. However,
it is not possible to prove square-integrability of all second derivatives
of $u$ and $v$, but this is usually not needed for the formulation of the
inverse problem.
\subsection{The equilibrium case}
In this subsection we analyze the equilibrium case for the stationary
drift diffusion equations, which corresponds to the assumption
$U(x) \equiv 0$. In this particular case several simplifications are
possible. It is immediate to see that the solution of
(\ref{eq:dd-sys1})--(\ref{eq:dd-sys9}) is of the form
$(V=V^0, u \equiv 1, v \equiv 1)$, where
\begin{equation} \label{eq:poiss-equil}
\left\{ \begin{array}{rcll}
\lambda^2 \, \Delta V^0 & = & e^{V^0} - e^{-V^0} - C(x)
& {\rm in}\ \Omega \\
V^0 & = & V_{\rm bi}(x) & {\rm on}\ \partial\Omega_D \\
\nabla V^0 \cdot \nu & = & 0 & {\rm on}\ \partial\Omega_N \, .
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
As already mentioned in subsection (\ref{ssec:ex-uniq}), we shall be
interested in the linearized drift diffusion system at the equilibrium.
Keeping this in mind, we compute the derivative of the solution of
(\ref{eq:dd-sys1})--(\ref{eq:dd-sys9}) with respect to the voltage $U$ at $U \equiv 0$ in the direction
$h$. This directional derivative is given by the solution $(\hat V,
\hat u, \hat v)$ of
\begin{equation} \label{eq:poiss-equil-lin}
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\lambda^2 \, \Delta \hat V \ = \ e^{V^0} \hat u + e^{-V^0} \hat v
+ \big(e^{V^0} + e^{-V^0}\big) \hat V & {\rm in}\ \Omega \\[1ex]
{\rm div}\, (\mu_n e^{V^0} \nabla \hat u) \ = \ Q_0(V^0,x)
(\hat u + \hat v) & {\rm in}\ \Omega \\[1ex]
{\rm div}\, (\mu_p e^{-V^0} \nabla \hat v) \ = \ Q_0(V^0,x)
(\hat u + \hat v) & {\rm in}\ \Omega \\[1ex]
\hat V \ = \ h & {\rm on}\ \partial\Omega_D \\[1ex]
\hat u \ = \ -h & {\rm on}\ \partial\Omega_D \\[1ex]
\hat v \ = \ h & {\rm on}\ \partial\Omega_D \\
\protect\displaystyle\frac{\partial V^0}{\partial\nu} \ = \
\protect\displaystyle\frac{\partial \hat u}{\partial\nu}\ = \
\protect\displaystyle\frac{\partial \hat v}{\partial\nu}\ = \ 0 & {\rm on}\
\partial\Omega_N \, ,
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
where $Q_0(V^0,x) \ = \ Q(V^0,1,1,x)$. Notice that, in the linearized
case close to equilibrium, the solutions $(\hat u, \hat v)$ of the
continuity equations do not depend on the electrostatic potential
$\hat V$.
\subsection{Unipolar and bipolar cases} \label{ssec:ubc}
In this subsection we introduce two special cases, which are going to
play a key rule in the modeling of some of the inverse problems analyzed in
this paper. We start by introducing the operator called {\em voltage-current}
(V--C) map:
$$ \begin{array}{rcl}
\Sigma_C: H^{3/2}(\partial\Omega_D) & \to & H^{1/2}(\Gamma_1) \\
U & \mapsto & J\cdot\nu|_{\Gamma_1}\ =\ (J_n+J_p)\cdot\nu |_{\Gamma_1}\, ,
\end{array} $$
where $\Gamma_1 \subset \partial\Omega_D$ (see Figure~\ref{fig:diode}
for an example). The map $\Sigma_C$ takes the applied voltage $U$ into
the outflow current density on $\Gamma_1$. The linearized unipolar case (close
to equilibrium) corresponds to the model obtained from the unipolar drift diffusion
equations by linearizing the V--C map at $U \equiv 0$. This simplification
is motivated by the fact that the V--C map can only be defined as a single-valued function in a
neighborhood of $U=0$. Furthermore, the following assumptions are also taken
into account
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\it i)}] The concentration of holes satisfy $p = 0$ (or, equivalently,
$v = 0$ in $\Omega$);
\item[{\it ii)}] No recombination-generation rate is present, i.e.
${\cal R} = 0$ (or $Q = 0$).
\end{itemize}
Under this assumptions, system (\ref{eq:dd-sys1})--(\ref{eq:dd-sys9})
reduces to the decoupled system:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:unipolar}
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\lambda^2 \, \Delta V^0 \ = \ e^{V^0} - C(x) & {\rm in}\ \Omega \\
{\rm div}\, (e^{V^0} \nabla \hat{u}) \ = \ 0 & {\rm in}\ \Omega \\[1ex]
V^0 \ = \ V_{\rm bi}(x) & {\rm on}\ \Omega_D \\
\hat{u} \ = \ U(x) & {\rm on}\ \Omega_D \\[1ex]
\nabla V^0 \cdot \nu \ = \ 0 & {\rm on}\ \Omega_N \\
\hat{J}_n \cdot \nu \ = \ 0 & {\rm on}\ \Omega_N
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
The inverse problem of identifying the doping profile in the linearized
unipolar model (\ref{eq:unipolar}) corresponds to identification of $C(x)$
from the map
$$ \Sigma_C'(0): U \mapsto (\hat{J}_n \cdot \nu) |_{\Gamma_1} \, , \qquad \hat{J}_n := \mu_n e^{V_0} \nabla \hat{u}. $$
Notice that, since $V = V_{\rm bi}$ is known at $\partial\Omega_D$,
the current data (output) $J_n \cdot \nu = \mu_n e^{V^0} u_\nu$ can be
directly replaced by the Neumann data $u_\nu$.
We shall return to this identification problem in Section~\ref{sec:idp},
where the inverse problem described above is considered as a generalization
of the well known {\em electrical impedance tomography} or {\em inverse
conductivity problem} (see, e.g., \cite{Bo,Is} for a survey on these inverse
problems).
Next we concentrate on deriving the so called {\em bipolar case}. As in
the unipolar case, we will be interested in reconstructing the doping
profile $C$ in (\ref{eq:dd-sys1})--(\ref{eq:dd-sys9}) from the linearized
V--C map at $U \equiv 0$. This is an interesting case, due to the fact that
the Poisson Equation and the continuity equations decouple.
From (\ref{eq:poiss-equil-lin}) we see that the Gateaux derivative of
the V--C map $\Sigma_C$ at the point $U=0$ in the direction $\Phi$ is
given by the expression
$$ \Sigma'_C(0) \Phi \ := \ \left( \mu_n \, e^{V_{\rm bi}} \hat{u}_\nu -
\mu_p \, e^{-V_{\rm bi}} \hat{v}_\nu \right) |_{\Gamma_1} \, , $$
where $(u,v)$ solve
\begin{equation} \label{eq:bip-lin}
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
{\rm div}\, (\mu_n e^{V^0} \nabla \hat{u}) \ = \ Q_0(V^0,x) (\hat{u} + \hat{v})
& {\rm in}\ \Omega \\
{\rm div}\, (\mu_p e^{-V^0} \nabla \hat{v}) \ = \ Q_0(V^0,x) (\hat{u} + \hat{v})
& {\rm in}\ \Omega \\[1ex]
\hat{u} \ = \ -\Phi & {\rm on}\ \partial\Omega_D \\
\hat{v} \ = \ \Phi & {\rm on}\ \partial\Omega_D \\
\protect\displaystyle\frac{\partial \hat{u}}{\partial \nu} \ = \
\frac{\partial \hat{v}}{\partial \nu} \ = \ 0 & {\rm on}\ \partial\Omega_N
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
and $V^0$ is the solution of the equilibrium problem (\ref{eq:poiss-equil}).
Notice that the solution of the Poisson equation can be computed a priori,
since it does not depend on $\Phi$. The linear operator $\Sigma'_C(0)$
is continuous. Actually we can prove more: since $(u,v)$ depend
continuously (in $H^2(\Omega)^2$) on the boundary data $\Phi$ (in
$H^{3/2} (\partial\Omega_D)$), it follows from the boundedness and
compactness of the trace operator $\gamma: H^2(\Omega) \to
H^{1/2}(\Gamma_1)$ that $\Sigma'_C(0)$ is a bounded and compact
operator. The application $\Sigma_C'(0)$ maps the Dirichlet data for
$(u,v)$ to a weighted sum of their Neumann data and can be compared with the
identification problem in the electrical impedance tomography.
\subsection{Flipped bipolar case} \label{ssec:fbc}
In this subsection we introduce another special case, which will be
relevant for the formulation of the inverse problem related to the {\em
laser-beam-induced current} (LBIC) measurements. We start by introducing
the LBIC functional defined by the boundary integral
$$ \begin{array}{rcl}
\mathcal{I}: L^2(\Omega) & \to & \mathcal{R} \\
g & \mapsto & \protect\displaystyle\int_{\Gamma_1}
\left\{ \mu_n e^{V^0} \hat{u}_\nu - \mu_p e^{-V^0} \hat{v}_\nu \right\} ds
\end{array} $$
where $\Gamma_1 \subset \partial\Omega_D$ is defined as in Subsection%
~\ref{ssec:ubc}, $V^0$ is the solution of the equilibrium problem
(\ref{eq:poiss-equil}) and $(u,v)$ solve
\begin{equation} \label{eq:fbip-lin1}
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
{\rm div}\, (\mu_n e^{V^0} \nabla \hat{u}) \ = \ Q_0(V^0,x) (\hat{u} + \hat{v}) + g
& {\rm in}\ \Omega \\
{\rm div}\, (\mu_p e^{-V^0} \nabla \hat{v}) \ = \ Q_0(V^0,x) (\hat{u} + \hat{v}) + g
& {\rm in}\ \Omega \\[1ex]
\hat{u} \ = \ \hat{v} \ = \ 0 & {\rm on}\ \partial\Omega_D \\
\protect\displaystyle\frac{\partial \hat{u}}{\partial \nu} \ = \
\frac{\partial \hat{v}}{\partial \nu} \ = \ 0 & {\rm on}\ \partial\Omega_N
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
Notice that the only differences between systems (\ref{eq:fbip-lin1}) and
(\ref{eq:bip-lin}) (from the bipolar case) are: 1) the $L^2(\Omega)$ function
$g$, appearing on the right hand side of the linearized continuity
equations and representing the applied laser beam (see Section~\ref{sec:idp}
for details on the problem formulation); 2) the Dirichlet boundary condition
at $\partial\Omega_D$.
The inverse problem of reconstructing the doping profile from measurements
of the LBIC functional was considered in \cite{FI1,FI2}. An alternative
representation for the functional $\mathcal I$ was derived in \cite{FI1}.
Analyzing the variational formulation of the system constituted by
(\ref{eq:poiss-equil}) and (\ref{eq:fbip-lin1}) and using standard
functional analytical arguments as well as basic elliptic theory (see
\cite{GT}), the authors proved that the LBIC functional can be written as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:lbic-repr}
\mathcal I(g) \ = \ \langle} \newcommand{\bipl}{\Big\langle \hat \tilde{v} - \tilde{u}, \, g \rangle} \newcommand{\bipr}{\Big\rangle_{L^2(\Omega)} \, ,
\end{equation}
where $V^0$ is defined as before and $(\hat u, \hat v)$ solve the system
\begin{equation} \label{eq:fbip-lin2}
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
{\rm div}\, (\mu_n e^{V^0} \nabla \tilde{u}) \ = \ Q_0(V^0,x)
(\tilde{u} - \tilde{v}) & {\rm in}\ \Omega \\
{\rm div}\, (\mu_p e^{-V^0} \nabla \tilde{v}) \ = \ Q_0(V^0,x)
(\tilde{v} - \hat \tilde{u}) & {\rm in}\ \Omega \\[1ex]
\tilde{u} \ = \ \tilde{v} \ = \ 1 & {\rm on}\ \Gamma_1 \\
\tilde{u} \ = \ \tilde{v} \ = \ 0 & {\rm on}\ \partial\Omega_D / \Gamma_1 \\
\protect\displaystyle\frac{\partial \tilde{u}}{\partial \nu} \ = \
\frac{\partial \tilde{u}}{\partial \nu} \ = \ 0 & {\rm on}\ \partial\Omega_N
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
We shall refer to system (\ref{eq:poiss-equil}), (\ref{eq:fbip-lin2})
as {\em flipped bipolar case}. As in the bipolar case, the solution of the
Poisson equation can be computed a priori, since $V^0$ does not depend
on $g$. Therefore, to evaluate $\mathcal I$ in (\ref{eq:lbic-repr}) one
needs only to solve the coupled system (\ref{eq:fbip-lin2}). Moreover,
from the representation formula (\ref{eq:lbic-repr}), it follows that
$\mathcal I$ is a linear continuous functional on $L^2(\Omega)$.
\section{Inverse doping problem} \label{sec:idp}
The so called {\em inverse doping profile} corresponds to the problem
of identifying a doping profile $C(x)$ in system
(\ref{eq:dd-sys1})--(\ref{eq:dd-sys9}) from indirect measurements. In
practical applications, the following types of measurements are available (cf. \cite{Khetal95}):
\begin{enumerate}
\item Current flow through a contact $\Gamma_1 \subset \partial\Omega_D$:
$$ I(U) \ = \ \int_{\Gamma_1} (J_n + J_p) .\nu \, ds \, , $$
where $U \in H^{3/2}(\partial\Omega_D)$ \ with \ $\| U \|$ \ small. \\
Under the (idealized, but technologically realizable) assumption that we not only know the averaged
flow through $\Gamma_1$, but the actual flow $J \cdot \nu$ on $\Gamma_1$,
this type of measurement corresponds to the voltage-current map introduced
in Subsection~\ref{ssec:ubc}:
$$ \Sigma_C(U) \ := \ (J_n + J_p) \cdot \nu \big|_{\Gamma_1} \ \in \
H^{1/2}(\Gamma_1)\, . $$
\item Mean capacitance of a contact $\Gamma_1 \subset \partial\Omega_D$:
$$ Cap(U) \ = \ \frac{\partial}{\partial U}
\left( \int_{\Gamma_1} \nabla V . \nu \, ds \right) \, . $$
We shall consider the idealized (but again technologically realizable) data corresponding to measurements of the
variation of the electric flux (in the normal outward direction) with respect
to an applied voltage $U$ at $\partial\Omega_D$. This data corresponds to
the so called {\em capacitance measurements}
$$ {\cal T}_C(U) \ := \ \frac{\partial }{\partial U} \ \frac{\partial V}{\partial\nu} \Big|_{\Gamma_1}
= \frac{\partial \hat{V}}{\partial\nu} \Big|_{\Gamma_1}
\ \in \ H^{1/2}(\Gamma_1) \, , $$
here $V$ is the solution of the Poisson equation for an applied voltage
$U \in H^{3/2}(\partial\Omega_D)$.
\item Measurements of the total current $i(x)$ flowing out through one
contact induced by a laser beam applied at different locations $x \in \Omega$:
$$ i(x) \ := \ \, \mathcal I( \delta(\cdot - x)) \ = \
\hat v(x) - \hat u(x)\, , $$
where $\mathcal I$ is the LBIC functional defined in Subsection~%
\ref{ssec:fbc}, and $(\hat u, \hat v)$ is the solution of system
(\ref{eq:fbip-lin2}). These data correspond to the so called {\em
laser-beam-inducted current measurements}.
\end{enumerate}
In all cases we assume that $\Gamma_1 \subset \partial\Omega_D$ is
sufficiently regular with non zero measure. The first step in the
investigation of the inverse problems modeled by operators $\Sigma_C$
and ${\cal T}_C$ consists in analyzing whether these operators are
well defined in appropriate spaces. The next three subsections are devoted
to the analysis of each of these operators. In the last subsection we
discuss in details the inverse problem related to the V--C map for the
linearized unipolar case close to equilibrium and its relation with the
electrical impedance tomography.
\subsection{The voltage-current map} \label{ssec:vcmap}
in this subsection we analyze the V--C map introduced above.
The map $\Sigma_C$ takes (for a fixed doping profile $C$) the
applied voltage $U$ into the corresponding current density.
The non-linear operator $\Sigma_C$ is well-defined, when
considered as a map between suitable Sobolev spaces. This
assertion is a consequence of the following result:
\begin{propo} \mbox{\bf \cite[Proposition 3.1]{BEMP}}
\label{prop:bemp31}
For each applied voltage $U \in B_r(0) \subset H^{3/2}(\partial\Omega_D)$
with $r>0$ sufficiently small, the current $J \cdot \nu \in H^{1/2}
(\Gamma_1)$ is uniquely defined. Furthermore, $\Sigma_C:
H^{3/2}(\partial\Omega_D) \to H^{1/2}(\Gamma_1)$ is continuous
and is continuously differentiable in $B_r(0)$.
\end{propo}
{\it Sketch of the proof:} \\
The first part of the proof follows basically from the uniqueness of
solutions for system (\ref{eq:dd-sys1})--(\ref{eq:dd-sys9}) in
$H^2(\Omega)^3$ together with regularity properties of the {\em
Neumann trace operator} $\gamma: H^2(\Omega) \to H^{1/2}(\Gamma_1)$.
The Fr\'echet-differentiability follows from standard estimates of the
residual in the Taylor expansion of the operator $\Sigma_C$. \hfill $\Box$
\bigskip
By iterating the argumentation in Proposition~\ref{prop:bemp31}, one
can even prove that $\Sigma_C$ is of class $C^\infty$ in $B_r(0)
\subset H^{3/2}(\partial\Omega_D)$ for $r$ sufficiently small.
Proposition~\ref{prop:bemp31} establishes a basic property to consider
the inverse problem of reconstructing the doping profile $C$ from the
V--C map. In the sequel we shall consider two possible inverse problems
for the V--C map.
In the first inverse problem we assume that, for each $C$, the output
corresponds to the map $\Sigma_C$. A realistic experiment corresponds
to measure, for given $\{ U_j \}_{j=1}^N$, with $\|U_j\|=1$, the outputs
$$ \big\{ \Sigma_C(t U_j)\ |\ \ j=1,\cdots,N; \ \ t \in [0,r] \big\} \, . $$
This data corresponds to the assumption that the amplitude of an applied
voltage $U_j$ can be varied continuously in a practical experiment. In
practice, the functions $U_j$ are chosen to be piecewise constant.
Notice that, for fixed $U_j$, the continuity of $\Sigma_C$ implies the
continuity of the function $t \mapsto \Sigma_C (t U_j)$. Therefore,
we have
$$ \Sigma_C(\cdot U_j) \ \in \ C(0,r; H^{1/2}(\Gamma_1)) \ \subset \
L^2(0,r; L^2(\Gamma_1)) \, . $$
This allow the following abstract formulation of the inverse problem for
the V--C map:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ip-abstract}
F(C) \ = \ Y \, ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{enumerate}
\item[1)] Parameter: \ $C = C(x) \ \in \ L^2(\Omega) =: \mathcal X$;
\vskip-5ex
\item[2)] Output: \ $Y = \big\{ \Sigma_C(\cdot U_j) \big\}_{j=1}^N \in
[L^2((0,r) \times \Gamma_1)]^N =: \mathcal Y$;
\vskip-5ex
\item[3)] Parameter-to-output map: \ $F: \mathcal X \to \mathcal Y$.
\end{enumerate}
The domain of definition of the operator $F$ is
$$ D(F) := \{ C \in L^2(\Omega) ; \, C_m \le C(x) \le C_M,
\mbox{ a.e. in } \Omega \} \, , $$
where $\underline{C}$ and $\overline{C}$ are appropriate positive constants.
This choice of spaces is motivated by Propositions~\ref{prop:BEMP-24}
and~\ref{prop:Ma-331}, which guarantee, for each $t \|U_j\| < r$ ($r$
small) and \ $C \in D(F)$, the existence and uniqueness of a $H^2$-%
solution $(V,n,p)$ for system (\ref{eq:dd-sys1})--(\ref{eq:dd-sys9}).
Therefore, the map
$$ \begin{array}[t]{rcl}
F: D(F) \subset {\mathcal X} & \to & {\mathcal Y} \\
C & \mapsto & \big\{ \Sigma_C(\cdot U_j) \big\}_{j=1}^N \end{array} $$
is well defined. Furthermore, $F$ is also Fr\'echet-differentiable in
$D(F)$. Indeed, we already know that the map $(V,u,v) \mapsto J \cdot \nu
|_{\Gamma_1}$ is continuously differentiable (this is included in the
proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:bemp31}). Thus, it is enough to verify
the differentiability of the map $\mathcal U_j: D(F) \ni C \mapsto (V,u,v)
\in H^2(\Omega)^3$, for fixed $U_j$. The variation of the solution $(V,u,v)$
of system (\ref{eq:dd-sys1})--(\ref{eq:dd-sys9}) with respect to a
variation of the doping profile $C$ can be deduced similarly as in
(\ref{eq:poiss-equil-lin}). To prove Fr\'echet-differentiability of
$\mathcal U_J$, we only have to estimate the residual in the Taylor
expansion of this map, as in the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:bemp31}.
This inverse problem is addressed in the literature as identification
of doping profiles from {\em full voltage-current data}. Next we shall
investigate a different formulation of the same inverse problem related
to the V--C map.
In practical applications, the V--C map can only be defined in a
neighborhood of $U=0$ (due to hysteresis defects for large applied
voltages). This motivates the analysis of the problem of identifying
the doping profile $C$ from the linearized V--C map at $U=0$. (see
unipolar and bipolar cases in Subsection~\ref{ssec:ubc}).
As described in Subsection~\ref{ssec:ubc}, the Gateaux derivative of
the V--C map at $U=0$ in direction $\Phi$ is given by
$$ \Sigma'_C(0) \Phi \ = \ \left( \mu_n \, e^{V_{\rm bi}} u_\nu -
\mu_p \, e^{-V_{\rm bi}} v_\nu \right) |_{\Gamma_1} \, , $$
where $(u,v)$ solve the system in (\ref{eq:bip-lin}) and $V^0$ is
the solution of the equilibrium case (\ref{eq:poiss-equil}). In
Subsection~\ref{ssec:ubc} we have already verified the boundedness and
compactness of $\Sigma'_C(0)$. Contrary to the case of full data, the
solution of the Poisson equation can be computed {\em a priori}, since
it is independent of $\Phi$.
The next step to complete the setup of this second inverse problem for
the V--C map is to define the problem data. The data for the problem
can be obtained from the full V--C data:
$$ Y \ := \ \big\{ \Sigma'_C(0) U_j \big\}_{j=1}^N \ \in \
\big[ L^2(\Gamma_1) \big]^N \, . $$
In the literature, this inverse problem in called identification of
doping profiles from {\em reduced voltage-current data}. Notice that
the functions $U_j$ are defined as before. Therefore, we obtain for
the inverse problem with reduced data the same abstract formulation
as in (\ref{eq:ip-abstract}) with
\begin{enumerate}
\item[1)] Parameter: \ $C = C(x) \ \in \ L^2(\Omega) =: \mathcal X$;
\vskip-5ex
\item[2)] Output: \ $Y = \big\{ \Sigma_C'(\cdot U_j) \big\}_{j=1}^N \in
\big[ L^2(\Gamma_1) \big]^N =: \mathcal Y$;
\vskip-5ex
\item[3)] Parameter-to-output map: \ $F: \mathcal X \to \mathcal Y$.
\end{enumerate}
The domain of definition of the operator $F$ is the same as in the case
of full data. Notice that the parameter-to-output operator for reduced
data is given by:
$$ F : \begin{array}[t]{rcl}
D(F) \subset \mathcal X & \to & \mathcal Y \\
C & \mapsto & \big\{ \Sigma'_C(0) U_j \big\}_{j=1}^N
\end{array} $$
Analogously as in the full V--C data case, one can prove that the
non-linear parameter-to-output operator is well defined and Fr\'echet
differentiable in its domain of definition $D(F)$.
As already observed, the solution of the Poisson equation can be
computed {\em a priori}. The remaining problem (coupled system for
$(u,v)$) is quite similar to the problem of {\em electrical impedance
tomography}. In this inverse problem the aim is to identify the
conductivity $q = q(x)$ in the equation:
$$ -{\rm div}\,(q \nabla u) \ = \ f \ \ {\rm in}\ \Omega \, , $$
from measurements of the {\em Dirichlet-to-Neumann map}, which maps
the applied voltage $u|_{\partial\Omega}$ to the electrical flux
$q u_\nu|_{\partial\Omega}$. The application $\Sigma_C'(0)$ maps the
Dirichlet data for $\hat{u}$ and $\hat{v}$ to the weighted sum of their
Neumann data. It can be seen as the counterpart of electrical impedance
tomography for common conducting materials.
We close this subsection discussing yet another inverse problem for
the capacitance measurements. This problem again concerns the reduced
V--C map and arrises in a limiting case of the drift diffusion equations,
called limit of {\em zero space charge}, which is mathematically represented
by the scaling limit $\lambda \to 0$. In this case the Poisson equation reduces to an algebraic
relation between $V$ and $C$ and existence of solutions of the zero-space-charge problem in $L^\infty(\Omega)$
has been proven in \cite{MRS}.
Notice that, in the limiting case $\lambda = 0$, without further regularity
assumptions on the doping profile $C$ we can only guarantee $H^1$ regularity
for a solution $(u,v)$ of (\ref{eq:bip-lin}). Therefore, $J \cdot \nu \in
H^{-1/2}(\Gamma_1)$ follows.
However, as already observed in \cite{BEMP}, if $\nabla C \in L^p(\Omega)$
for $p$ sufficiently large ($p \ge 6$), one can show that the reduced V--C
map exists and maps continuously to $L^2(\Gamma_1)$.
From the Poisson equation in equilibrium we obtain $\sinh V = 2C$ and the
linearized continuity equations can be written in the form
\begin{equation} \label{eq:zsc-lin}
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
{\rm div}\, (\mu_n a \nabla \hat u) \ = \ q(a,x) (\hat u + \hat v)
& {\rm in}\ \Omega \\
{\rm div}\, (\mu_p a^{-1} \nabla \hat v) \ = \ q(a,x) (\hat u + \hat v)
& {\rm in}\ \Omega \\[1ex]
u \ = \ -\Phi & {\rm on}\ \partial\Omega_D \\
v \ = \ \Phi & {\rm on}\ \partial\Omega_D \\
\protect\displaystyle\frac{\partial u}{\partial \nu} \ = \
\frac{\partial v}{\partial \nu} \ = \ 0 & {\rm on}\ \partial\Omega_N
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
where
$$ a \, = \, a(C) \, = \, e^{{\rm arcsinh }(2C)} \, ,\ \ \ \
q(a,x) \, = \, Q(\ln(a), 1, 1, x) \, . $$
Thus, in this limiting case, the inverse doping profile problem reduces
to the identification of the conductivity $a$ in the coupled system
(\ref{eq:zsc-lin}) from the reduced V--C map. Once we have reconstructed
the coefficient $a$, the doping profile can be obtained from the relation
$C = \frac{1}{2} \sinh( \ln a)$.
\subsection{Capacitance measurements}
In this subsection we address the inverse problem modeled by the
operator ${\cal T}_C$, introduced at the beginning of Section~\ref{sec:idp}.
The operator ${\cal T}_C$ maps an applied voltage $U$ at $\partial\Omega_D$
to the idealized data corresponding to the Neumann trace of the electric
potential $\hat V$ at $\Gamma_1 \subset \partial\Omega_D$, i.e.
$$ \begin{array}{rcl}
{\cal T}_C: H^{3/2}(\partial\Omega_D) & \to & H^{1/2}(\Gamma_1) \\
U & \mapsto & \protect\displaystyle\frac{\partial \hat V}{\partial\nu} \Big|_{\Gamma_1}
\end{array} $$
where $\hat V$ solves:
$$ \left\{ \begin{array}{rcll}
\lambda^2 \, \Delta \hat V & = & \big( e^{V^0} + e^{-V^0} \big)\, \hat V
+ e^{V^0} \hat u + e^{-V^0} \hat v & \mbox{ in } \Omega \\
\hat V & = & U & \mbox{ on } \partial\Omega_D \\
\nabla \hat V \cdot \nu & = & 0 & \mbox{ on } \partial\Omega_N
\end{array} \right. $$
here $V^0$ is the solution the equilibrium case (\ref{eq:poiss-equil}) and
$(\hat u, \hat v)$ is the solution of the system
$$ \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
{\rm div}\, (\mu_n e^{V^0} \nabla \hat u) \ = \ Q_0(V^0,x)
(\hat u + \hat v) & \mbox{ in } \Omega \\
{\rm div}\, (\mu_p e^{-V^0} \nabla \hat v) \ = \ Q_0(V^0,x)
(\hat u + \hat v) & \mbox{ in } \Omega \\[1ex]
\hat u \ = \ -U & \mbox{ on } \partial\Omega_D \\
\hat v \ = \ U & \mbox{ on } \partial\Omega_D \\
\protect\displaystyle\frac{\partial \hat u}{\partial \nu} \ = \
\frac{\partial \hat v}{\partial \nu} \ = \ 0
& \mbox{ on } \partial\Omega_N
\end{array} \right. $$
Using {\em a priori estimates} of the solution of the Poisson equation,
we conclude that $\hat V$ depends continuously on the boundary data as
well as on the functions $\hat u$ and $\hat v$, appearing on the right
hand side of the PDE. Further, we know that the map $U \mapsto (\hat u,
\hat v)$ is well-defined. Therefore, we can deduce the well-definedness
of the application ${\cal T}_C$, for each doping profile $C$ in
$$ \{ C \in L^2(\Omega) ; \, C_m \le C(x) \le C_M,
\mbox{ a.e. in } \Omega \} \, . $$
The continuity of ${\cal T}_C$ can be proved in an analogous way.
Furthermore, repeating the argumentation used for the operator
$\Sigma'(0)$, one can prove boundedness and compactness of the linear
operator ${\cal T}_C$.
To obtain the abstract formulation of the inverse problem related to
the operator ${\cal T}_C$, we take into account the more realistic case
of a finite number of measurements:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[1)] Parameter: \ $C = C(x) \ \in \ L^2(\Omega) =: \mathcal X$;
\vskip-5ex
\item[2)] Output: \ $Y = \big\{ {\cal T}_C(U_j) \big\}_{j=1}^N \in
\big[ L^2(\Gamma_1) \big]^N =: \mathcal Y$;
\vskip-5ex
\item[3)] Parameter-to-output map: \ $F: \mathcal X \to \mathcal Y$;
\end{enumerate}
for fixed $U_j \in H^{3/2}(\partial\Omega_D)$ with $\| U_j \|$ small.
The domain of definition of the operator $F$ is the same as in the case
of the V--C map. The parameter-to-output operator is defined by
$$ \begin{array}[t]{rcl}
F: \ D(F) \subset \mathcal X & \to & \mathcal Y \\
C & \mapsto & \big\{ {\cal T}_C U_j \big\}_{j=1}^N
\end{array} $$
The well-definedness of the operator $F$ follows from the one of
${\cal T}_C$. The Fr\'echet-differentiability of the parameter-to-output
operator can be proved analogously as in the case of full voltage-current
data.
\subsection{Laser-beam-inducted current measurements} \label{ssec:up-lbic}
In this subsection we analyze the inverse problem related to the
laser-beam-inducted current (LBIC) image. This is a newly developed
non-destructive optical technique for the detection of semiconductor
properties. In this technique a laser beam is applied to the semiconductor
body to induce currents to flow through the ohmic contacts on the boundary.
The LBIC image consists of measurements of the local current $i(x)$ flowing
out through one contact ($\Gamma_1 \subset \partial\Omega_D$) induced by a
laser beam applied at location $x$ for all $x \in \Omega$. This image,
considered as a mapping $\Omega \ni x \mapsto i(x) \in \mathcal R$, is
considered to contain information about the doping profile. Therefore,
the relation between the LBIC image and the doping profile can be modeled
as an inverse problem for the system of drift-diffusion equations.
Let $(V^0, \hat u, \hat v)$ be the solution of system (\ref{eq:poiss-equil}),
(\ref{eq:fbip-lin2}). According to the representation formula
(\ref{eq:lbic-repr}), the LBIC image can be rewritten in the form
$$ i(x) \ = \ \tilde{v}(x) - \tilde{u}(x) \, ,\ x \in \Omega\, . $$
The equilibrium potential $V^0$ satisfying (\ref{eq:poiss-equil}) is
determined uniquely by the doping profile $C(x)$ and vice versa. Therefore,
reconstructing the doping profile $C(x)$ from the LBIC image is equivalent
to reconstructing the exponential of equilibrium potential $e^{V^0}$ from
the representation $i(x)$ of the LBIC image.
In \cite{FI1,FI2} the uniqueness of the inverse problem is analyzed. In
\cite{FI2} a one dimensional problem is considered and the non-uniqueness
of the inverse problem is proven. We shall next address this result.
A measurement $i(x)$ for $x \in \Omega$ is said to be attainable, if
$i(x) = \hat v(x) - \hat u(x)$ with $(\hat u, \hat v)$ being the solution
of (\ref{eq:fbip-lin2}) for some potential $V^0$. Let us for a moment
consider the one dimensional version of system (\ref{eq:fbip-lin2}) for
$\Omega = (0,1)$
\begin{equation} \label{eq:fbip-lin-1D}
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
(\mu_n e^{V^0} \tilde{u}')' \ = \ Q_0(V^0,x)
(\tilde{u} - \tilde{v}) & x \in (0,1) \\
(\mu_p e^{-V^0} \hat \tilde{v}')' \ = \ Q_0(V^0,x)
( \tilde{v} - \tilde{u}) & x \in (0,1) \\[1ex]
\tilde{u}(0) \ = \ \tilde{v}(0) \ = \ 1 & \\
\tilde{u}(1) \ = \ \tilde{v}(1) \ = \ 0 &
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
In this case, the objective is to reconstruct $V^0$ (or alternatively
$e^{V^0}$) from given $i(x) = \tilde{u}(x) - \tilde{v}(x)$. The next result
establishes a necessary and sufficient condition for attainability of
a measurement $i(x)$.
\begin{propo} \mbox{\bf \cite[Theorem 2.1]{FI2}}
\label{prop:if2-21}
A measurement $i(x)$ is attainable if and only if there exists constants
$c_1$ and $c_2$ so that the equation
\begin{equation} \label{eq:fi-c1c2}
\left( c_1 - \frac{Q_0}{\mu_n} I(x) \right) Y(x) + i'(x) -
\left( c_2 + \frac{Q_0}{\mu_p} I(x) \right) Y(x)^{-1} \ = \ 0\, ,
\end{equation}
has a positive solution $Y(x)$ for each $x \in (0,1)$, and $Y(x)$ satisfies
the integral equation
$$ 1 + \int_0^1 \left( c_1 - \frac{Q_0}{\mu_n} I(x) \right) Y(x) dx
\ = \ 0\, . $$
Here $I(x) = \int_0^x i(\xi) d\xi$. Furthermore, if $i(x)$ is attainable
then the constants $c_1$ and $c_2$ are nonpositive.
\end{propo}
{\it Sketch of the proof:} \\
To prove the necessity, one integrates the differential equations in
(\ref{eq:fbip-lin-1D}) and obtain a representation for $i'(x)$. The
attainability of $i(x)$ follows from the fact that $Y(x) = e^{-V^0(x)}$
satisfies both the quadratic equation and the integral equation of the
proposition.
To prove the sufficiency, one sets
\begin{eqnarray*}
\hat u(x) & = & 1 + \int_0^x \left(c_1 - \frac{Q_0}{\mu_n} I(\xi)\right)
Y(\xi) d\xi \\
\hat v(x) & = & 1 + \int_0^x \left(c_2 - \frac{Q_0}{\mu_p} I(\xi)\right)
Y(\xi)^{-1} d\xi
\end{eqnarray*}
and obtain in a straightforward way that $(\hat u, \hat v)$ solve
(\ref{eq:fbip-lin-1D}) for $V^0(x) = - \ln Y(x)$. From an obvious
substitution follows $\hat v - \hat u = \int_0^x i'(\xi) d\xi$.
\hfill $\Box$
\bigskip
According to this result, the attainability of a measurement $i(x)$ is
equivalent to the solvability of a quadratic equation for $Y(x)$. Notice
that, if the constants $c_1$ and $c_2$ are known, then the potential is
obtained simply by $V^0(x) = - \ln Y(x)$.
A first identifiability result is given in \cite{FI1}. In this paper, the
authors prove that $i(x) \equiv 0$ if and only if $V^0(x) \equiv c$, for
some real constant $c$ (see Theorem~3.2 in the reference above). Therefore,
in general there is no uniqueness for the inverse problem. Using
Proposition~\ref{prop:if2-21}, the same authors manage to extend this
first non-uniqueness result for the one-dimensional case presented above,
as follows
\begin{propo} \mbox{\bf \cite[Theorem 2.3]{FI2}}
\label{prop:if2-23}
Let $i(x) \in C^1_0[0,1]$ be an attainable measurement and $V^0$ be the
corresponding potential. Moreover, assume that the constants $c_1$ and
$c_2$ found by Proposition~\ref{prop:if2-21} with respect to $Y(x) =
e^{-V^0(x)}$ satisfy
$$ c_1 \ < \ \frac{Q_0}{\mu_n} I_{\rm min} \ \ \ and \ \ \
c_2 \ < \ -\frac{Q_0}{\mu_p} I_{\rm max} \, , $$
where $I_{\rm min}$ and $I_{\rm max}$ are respectively the maximum and the
minimum of $I(x)$ in $[0,1]$. Then there is a one-parameter family
$\{ V(x)\}$, containing $V^0$ and strictly monotone in the parameter, that
produces the same measurement $i(x) = \hat v(x) - \hat u(x)$ from system
(\ref{eq:fbip-lin-1D}).
\end{propo}
\bigskip
Proposition~\ref{prop:if2-23} characterizes the nonuniqueness of the
one-dimensional inverse problem for the LBIC operator. Therefore, more
information is needed to possibly recover $V^0(x)$ from $i(x)$ uniquely.
In the LBIC technique it is reasonable to assume that doping profile is
known on the boundary where the ohmic contacts are made ($\partial
\Omega_D \subset \partial\Omega$).
Thus, if we assume that $V^0$ is given at $x=0$, we gain another constraint
for $c_1$ and $c_2$, namely
\begin{equation} \label{eq:fi-constr}
c_1 e^{-V^0(0)} - i'(0) - c_2 e^{V^0(0)} \ = \ 0 \, .
\end{equation}
This additional constraint ensures the unique recovery of $V^0(x)$ from
the LBIC image $i(x)$ among the monotone one-parameter family $\{ V(x)\}$
described in Proposition~\ref{prop:if2-23}. Notice that this class of
potentials does not include all possible solutions to the inverse
problem. Therefore, the above constraint does not lead to uniqueness
of solutions of the one-dimensional inverse problem in general.
In \cite{FI2} the authors also propose an algorithm for the reconstruction
of $V^0(x)$ from $i(x)$ based on Proposition~\ref{prop:if2-23} and the
additional constraint (\ref{eq:fi-constr}). As discussed above, it is enough
to reconstruct the constants $c_1$ and $c_2$. The proposed algorithm consists
in a Gauss-Newton method for the minimization of a least square functional
$J$ associated to the residual of the pairs $(c_1, c_2)$ in both
(\ref{eq:fi-c1c2}) and (\ref{eq:fi-constr}), namely
$$ J(c_1,c_2) \ := \ \frac{1}{2} \big( J_1(c_1,c_2)^2 +
J_2(c_1,c_2)^2 \big)\, , $$
where
\begin{eqnarray*}
J_1(c_1,c_2) & := & \frac{1}{2} \int_0^1 \sqrt{ i'(x)^2 + 4
\left(c_1 - \frac{Q_0}{\mu_n} I(\xi)\right)
\left(c_2 - \frac{Q_0}{\mu_p} I(\xi)\right) }\ dx - 1 \\[1ex]
J_2(c_1,c_2) & := & \Big( c_1 e^{-V^0(0)} - i'(0) - c_2 e^{V^0(0)} \Big)
e^{-|V^0(0)|} \, .
\end{eqnarray*}
In \cite{FIR}, a similar model based on the drift diffusion equations is
used in order to analyze several parameter identification problems
for semiconductor diodes by LBIC imaging. Numerical methods are developed
for the simulation of the LBIC images of a diode as well as for the
identification of parameters (junction depth, diffusion length equilibrium
potential) from the LBIC image by least-squares formulation.
\subsection{Inverse doping profile: Identification}
\label{ssec:up-id}
In this subsection we consider the identification question related to the
inverse doping profile problem, i.e. we shall focus on the following
fundamental issue concerning the parameter identification problems:
\begin{quote}
{\em Is the available data enough to determine uniquely the doping profile,
or (alternatively) which set of data is sufficient to determine uniquely
the doping profile?}
\end{quote}
In the one-dimensional case (i.e. $\Omega = (0,L)$) the identification
problem was considered in \cite{BEM}. One can assume that the voltage is
applied at $x=0$ and the measurements of both current and capacitance
are taken at $x=L$. Therefore, a single measurement (reduced data) consists
of two real numbers and full data, in this case, correspond to measure
the current and/or the capacitance as a function of the applied voltage
$U \in (-r,r)$, with appropriate $r \in \mathcal R$.
Arguing with the dimensionality of the parameter and data spaces as well as
with structural properties of the operators $\Sigma_C$ and $\mathcal T_C$,
the authors are able to fully analyze the one-dimensional inverse doping
profile problem. The corresponding results are summarized in the following
proposition.
\begin{propo}
Let us consider the inverse doping profile for system (\ref{eq:dd-sys1})--%
(\ref{eq:dd-sys9}) at the one-dimensional dimensional domain $\Omega = (0,L)$.
The following assertion hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If one has access only to restricted data, even if it is possible to
measure both, current and capacitance, the data are not sufficient to identify
the doping profile;
\item If one has access to full data, it is not possible to uniquely identify
the doping profile neither from current measurements nor from capacitance
measurements.
\end{enumerate}
\end{propo}
One should notice that the doping profile $C = C(x)$ in this case is a
function of a one-dimensional space variable.
In the same paper, the authors also consider the transient case of the
one-dimensional inverse doping profile problem. They prove, under special
assumptions, that if both current and capacitance measurement are
available, then the doping profile can be uniquely reconstructed from
the data. Since we consider only the stationary drift-diffusion system
in this paper, we shall not investigate this result here. For details,
we refer to \cite[Theorem~3]{BEM}.
In the one-dimensional case, the special problem in which the doping profile
is a piecewise constant function of position is treated in \cite{BEM}. In
this very particular case, the domain $\Omega$ can be split as $\bar\Omega
= \bar\Omega_n \cup \bar\Omega_p$, such that $C(x) \equiv C_+$ in $\Omega_n$
and $C(x) \equiv C_-$ in $\Omega_p$. This problem is also known as {\em
identification of P-N junctions}. The authors prove that reduced current
data suffice to uniquely identify the exact location of the P-N junctions
(i.e., $\bar\Omega_n \cap \bar\Omega_p$) if the number of junctions is lower
or equal to two (see \cite[Theorem~4]{BEM}).
The two-dimensional case is considered in \cite{BEMP,BEM}. Particularly
interesting is the inverse problem related to the V--C map for the
linearized unipolar case close to equilibrium (see Subsection~%
\ref{ssec:ubc}), which can be directly related to the inverse problem in electrical
impedance tomography.
The inverse problem in the unipolar case corresponds to the determination
of the doping profile $C$ from the map
\begin{equation} \label{eq:sigma_C}
\Sigma_C'(0):
\begin{array}[t]{rcl}
H^{3/2}(\partial\Omega_D) & \to & H^{1/2}(\Gamma_1) \\
U & \mapsto & (\hat{J}_n\cdot\nu) |_{\Gamma_1}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where $(u,V^0)$ is the solution of the system in (\ref{eq:unipolar}).
As already observed in Subsection~\ref{ssec:ubc}, it follows from the
fact that $V^0|_{\partial\Omega_D} = V_{\rm bi}$ is a known function,
that the current data $J_n\cdot\nu |_{\Gamma_1}$ can be directly
substituted by the Neumann data $u_\nu |_{\Gamma_1}$.
Therefore, the inverse problem can be divided in 2 steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[1)] Define $\gamma := e^{V^0}$ and identify $\gamma$ in
$$ \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
{\rm div} (\gamma \nabla u) \ = \ 0 & {\rm in}\ \Omega \\
u \ = \ U & {\rm on}\ \partial\Omega_D \\
u_\nu \ = \ 0 & {\rm on}\ \partial\Omega_N
\end{array} \right. $$
from the Dirichlet-to-Neumann map: \ $u|_{\partial\Omega_D} \mapsto
u_\nu |_{\Gamma_1};$
\item[2)] Obtain the doping profile $C(x)$ from: \ $C = \gamma -
\lambda^2 \Delta \, (\ln \gamma)$.
\end{enumerate}
The identification problem in 1) corresponds to the {\em electrical
impedance tomography} (or {\em inverse conductivity problem}) in elliptic
equations with mixed boundary data. For the case of the full
Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator, i.e. $\Gamma_1 = \partial\Omega_D =
\partial\Omega$, this inverse problem has been intensively analyzed
in the literature over the last fifteen years. Using different
regularity assumptions on the conductivity $\gamma$, many authors
proved that the coefficient $\gamma(x)$ of the elliptic equation
$\nabla \cdot (\gamma\nabla u) = 0$ is uniquely determined by the
corresponding Dirichlet-to-Neumann map on the boundary (a historical
overview can be found in \cite{Bo}).
In the sequel we mention a result due to A. Nachman for two-dimensional
domains. The proof of this theorem gives a constructive procedure for
recovering $\gamma$ from the Dirichlet-to-Neumann map.
\begin{propo} {\bf \cite[Theorem~1]{Na}}
\label{pr:Na-1}
Let $\Omega$ be bounded and Lipschitz. Further, let \ $\gamma_i \in
L^\infty(\Omega) \cap W^{2,p}(\Omega)$, $i=1,2$, for some $p > 1$ with
positive lower bound. Then, the equality of the Dirichlet-to-Neumann maps
$$ \Lambda_i : \begin{array}[t]{rcl}
H^{1/2}(\partial\Omega) & \to & H^{-1/2}(\partial\Omega) \\
u & \mapsto & u_\nu
\end{array} $$
for the solutions of \ ${\rm div} (\gamma_i \nabla u) = 0$, \
implies $\gamma_1 = \gamma_2$.
\end{propo}
According to Proposition~\ref{prop:Ma-331}, $H^2$-regularity of the
solution $(V,u,v)$ of system (\ref{eq:dd-sys1})--(\ref{eq:dd-sys9})
can be obtained under stronger regularity assumptions on both the mixed
boundary conditions, and the domain. Using this regularity result, it is
possible to adapt Proposition~\ref{pr:Na-1} for the identification problem
in the unipolar case for the operator $\Sigma_C'(0): H^{3/2}(\partial\Omega_D)
\to H^{1/2}(\Gamma_1)$ in the idealized case $\Gamma_1 = \partial\Omega_D
= \partial\Omega$, as follows
\begin{propo} {\bf \cite[Theorem~4.2]{BEMP}} \label{pr:ident-up}
Let $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^2$ be bounded and Lipschitz. Further,
let $\Gamma_1 = \partial\Omega_D = \partial\Omega$. Then, given two
doping profiles $C_1, C_2 \in D(F)$, the equality \ $\Sigma'_{C_1}(0) =
\Sigma'_{C_2}(0)$ implies \ $C_1 = C_2$.
\end{propo}
If we consider the solution of (\ref{eq:dd-sys1})--(\ref{eq:dd-sys9})
to be only in $H^1$ (see Proposition~\ref{prop:MRS-3316}), we can
alternatively consider the following identifiability result from Brown
and Uhlmann for $W^{1,p}(\Omega)$, $p > 2$, conductivities:
\begin{propo} {\bf \cite[Theorem~4.1]{BU}}
Let $\Omega$ be bounded and Lipschitz. Further, let $\gamma_1$ and
$\gamma_2$ be two conductivities with $\nabla\gamma_i$ in $L^p(\Omega)$,
$p>2$. Then, the equality of the Dirichlet-to-Neumann maps
$$ \Lambda_i :
\begin{array}[t]{rcl}
H^{1/2}(\partial\Omega) & \to & H^{-1/2}(\partial\Omega) \\
u & \mapsto & u_\nu
\end{array} $$
for the solutions of \ ${\rm div} (\gamma_i \nabla u) = 0$, \
implies $\gamma_1 = \gamma_2$.
\end{propo}
Using this identifiability result, it is
possible to deduce, for the operator $\Sigma'_{C}(0):
H^{1/2}(\partial\Omega_D) \to H^{-1/2}(\Gamma_1)$ an analog
result to the one presented in Proposition~\ref{pr:ident-up}.
Notice that this result is particularly interesting for the case
of zero space charge (see Subsection~\ref{ssec:vcmap}) for the
V--C map, allowing to prove identifiability of doping profiles
$C \in L^\infty(\Omega) \cap W^{1,p}(\Omega)$.
\section{Numerical experiments} \label{sec:num}
In this section we derive a numerical method to identify the doping profile
in the linearized unipolar case close to equilibrium (\ref{eq:unipolar}).
In this particular case, due to the assumptions $p \equiv 0$ and $Q
\equiv 0$, the Poisson equation and the continuity equation for the electron
density $n$
decouple, and we have to identify $C = C(x)$ in
$$
\left\{ \hskip-0.2cm \begin{array}{rcl@{\ }l}
\lambda^2 \, \Delta V^0 & = & e^{V^0} - C(x) & {\rm in}\ \Omega \\
V^0 & = & V_{\rm bi}(x) & {\rm on}\ \partial\Omega_D \\
\nabla V^0 \cdot \nu & = & 0 & {\rm on}\ \partial\Omega_N \\
\end{array} \right.
\hskip0.4cm
\left\{ \hskip-0.2cm \begin{array}{rcl@{\ }l}
{\rm div}\, (e^{V^0} \nabla \hat{u}) & = & 0 & {\rm in}\ \Omega \\
\hat{u} & = & U(x) & {\rm on}\ \partial\Omega_D \\
\nabla \hat{u} \cdot \nu & = & 0 & {\rm on}\ \partial\Omega_N \, .
\end{array} \right.
$$
Notice that, due to the relation $\hat{J} \cdot \nu = \mu_n e^{V^0} \hat{u}$, the
Neumann boundary condition $\hat{J}_n \cdot \nu |_{\partial\Omega_N} = 0$
in (\ref{eq:unipolar}) can be substituted by $\nabla \hat{u} \cdot \nu = 0$ on
$\partial\Omega_N$. As already observed in Subsection~\ref{ssec:up-id},
we can write $\gamma(x) := e^{V^0(x)}$; solve the parameter identification
problem
\begin{equation} \label{eq:num-d2n}
\left\{ \begin{array}{rcll}
{\rm div}\, (\gamma \nabla \hat{u}) & = & 0 & {\rm in}\ \Omega \\
\hat{u} & = & U(x) & {\rm on}\ \Omega_D \\
\nabla \hat{u} \cdot \nu & = & 0 & {\rm on}\ \Omega_N \, ,
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
for the function $\gamma$; and finally evaluate
$$ C(x) \ = \ \gamma - \lambda^2 \, \Delta (\ln \gamma) \, . $$
Since the evaluation of $C$ from $\gamma$ can be explicitely performed
(a direct problem) and is a well posed procedure, we shall focus on
the problem of identifying the function parameter $\gamma$ in
(\ref{eq:num-d2n}). Therefore, the inverse problem of identifying the
doping profile $C(x)$ in the linearized unipolar model (\ref{eq:unipolar})
corresponds to the identification of $\gamma(x)$ in (\ref{eq:num-d2n})
from the Dirichlet to Neumann (DtN) map
$$ \Lambda_\gamma : \begin{array}[t]{rcl}
H^{3/2}(\partial\Omega_D) & \to & H^{1/2}(\Gamma_1) \\
U & \mapsto & \gamma\, \protect\displaystyle\frac{\partial u}{\partial\nu} \Big|_{\Gamma_1}
\end{array} $$
As we saw in Subsection~\ref{ssec:up-id}, the DtN operator is given by
$\Lambda_\gamma = \Sigma_C'(0)$.
Notice that, due to the nature of the physical problem related to the
drift-diffusion equations, we can consider as {\em inputs} for the DtN
map only functions of the type:
$$ U \ = \ \left\{ \begin{array}{rl}
\tilde U, & \mbox{ at }\ \partial\Omega_D \backslash \Gamma_1 \\
0, & \mbox{ at }\ \Gamma_1 \end{array} \right. . $$
Furthermore, the {\em outputs} or measurements are only available at
$\Gamma_1$. This is the basic difference between the parameter
identification problem in (\ref{eq:num-d2n}) and the inverse problem
in {\em electrical impedance tomography}, i.e. the fact that both
Dirichlet (input) and Neumann (output) are prescribed only at specific
parts of the boundary. For this special inverse problem (with mixed
boundary data) there are so far no analytical results concerning
identifiability and the few numerical results in the literature are
those discussed in \cite{BEMP, BEM, FIR}.
We shall work with a reduced set of data, as described in Subsection~%
\ref{ssec:vcmap}, i.e. within the following framework:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[1)] Parameter: \ $\gamma = \gamma(x) \ \in \ H^2(\Omega) =: \mathcal X$;
\vskip-5ex
\item[2)] Input (fixed): \ $U_j \in H^{1/2}(\partial\Omega_D)$, \
$U_j |_{\Gamma_1} = 0$, \ $1 \le j \le N$;
\item[3)] Output (data): \ $Y = \big\{ \gamma
\frac{\partial \hat{u}_j}{\partial \nu} |_{\Gamma_1} \big\}_{j=1}^N \in
[L^2(\Gamma_1)]^N =: \mathcal Y$; \\
(here $u_j$ is the solution of (\ref{eq:num-d2n}) for $U = U_j$)
\vskip-5ex
\item[4)] Parameter-to-output map: \ $F: \mathcal X \to \mathcal Y$.
\end{enumerate}
The domain of definition of the operator $F$ is
$$ D(F) := \{ \gamma \in H^2(\Omega) ; \, \gamma(x) \ge \gamma_- > 0,
\mbox{ in } \Omega \} \, , $$
where $\gamma_-$ is an appropriate positive constant.
We shall denote the noisy data by $Y^\delta$ and assume that the data error
is bounded by
$$ \| Y - Y^\delta \| \ \le \ \delta\, . $$
Thus, we are able to represent the inverse doping problem in the abstract
form
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ip-dd}
F(\gamma) \ = \ Y^\delta \, .
\end{equation}
A common technique to solve the inverse problem in (\ref{eq:ip-dd}) is
the output least-square family of methods. Basically, all output
least-square methods minimize iteratively the residual functional
related to (\ref{eq:ip-dd}) with some Newton-type method \cite{Ba,Ba1,Ba2,
BG,BG1,DES,EHN,Ha,Ho,Ka,Ka1,Sc}. In the literature, one can find several
applications of such methods for the {\em electrical impedance tomography
problem} (see, e.g., \cite{Bo1,DL,Do,YWT}).
A simple and robust iterative method to solve the problem in (\ref{eq:ip-dd})
is the so called {\em Landweber iteration} \cite{DES,EHN,ES,HNS}, in which
the k-step is described by
$$ \gamma^\delta_{k+1} \ = \ \gamma_k^\delta - F'(\gamma_k^\delta)^*
\big( F(\gamma_k^\delta) - Y^\delta \big)\, . $$
This iteration is known to generate a regularization method for the inverse
problem, the stopping index playing the rule of the regularization parameter
(for regularization methods see, e.g., \cite{EHN,EKN,ES,Mo,TA}).
For our numerical experiments, we propose an iterative method of adjoint
type in order to solve the identification problem (\ref{eq:num-d2n}), the
so called {\em Landweber--Kaczmarz method}. This method derives from the
coupling of the strategies of the Landweber iteration and the Kaczmarz
method. The Kaczmarz method is a fixed point algorithm which has been
proven to be efficient for solving inverse problems in Tomography
\cite{Bau,BS,Gro,Ki,Nt}. For a detailed analysis of the method we refer to
\cite{Bau,Me} for the finite dimensional setting and to \cite{BR,Mc,Mc1}
for the infinite dimensional setting.
A detailed analysis of the Landweber--Kaczmarz method can be found in
\cite{KS}. It is worth mentioning that this method has already been
successfully applied to the {\em electrical impedance tomography} problem
\cite{Na}. To formulate the method, we need first define the
parameter-to-output maps
\begin{enumerate}
\item[4')] Operators \ $ \mathcal F_j$ for $j = 1, \dots, N$:
$$ \mathcal F_j: \begin{array}[t]{rcl}
H^2(\Omega) & \to & L^2(\Gamma_1) \\ \gamma & \mapsto & \gamma \frac{\partial \hat{u}_j}{\partial \nu}|_{\Gamma_1}
\end{array} $$
\end{enumerate}
Now, setting $Y_j := \mathcal F_j(\gamma)$ for $1 \le j \le N$, the
Landweber--Kaczmarz iteration can be written as:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:land-kacz}
\gamma^\delta_{k+1} \ = \ \gamma_k^\delta
- \mathcal F_k'(\gamma_k^\delta)^*
\big( \mathcal F_k (\gamma_k^\delta) - Y^\delta_k \big)\, ,
\end{equation}
for $k = 1, 2, \dots$, where we adopted the notation
$$ \mathcal F_k := \mathcal F_j, \ \ Y^\delta_k := Y^\delta_j,
\ \ {\rm with} \ \ k = i \cdot N + j, \ \ {\rm and}\ \
\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
i = 0, 1, \dots \\ j = 1, \dots, N
\end{array} \right. \, . $$
Each step of the Landweber--Kaczmarz method consists in one step of the
Landweber iteration with respect to the $j$-th component of the residual
$F(\gamma) - Y$. These steps are performed in a cyclic way for each one of
the residual components $\mathcal F_j(\gamma) - Y_j$, $j=1,\cdots,N$.
As far as the implementation of the method is concerned, it is enough to describe
the general step of the Landweber iteration. The variational
formulation of the iterative step in (\ref{eq:land-kacz}) reads
\begin{equation} \label{eq:land-cacz-var}
\langle} \newcommand{\bipl}{\Big\langle \gamma_{k+1} - \gamma_k, \ h \rangle} \newcommand{\bipr}{\Big\rangle_{L^2(\Omega)} \ = \ -
\langle} \newcommand{\bipl}{\Big\langle \mathcal F'_k(\gamma_k) h , \ \mathcal F_k(\gamma_k) - Y_k \rangle} \newcommand{\bipr}{\Big\rangle
_{L^2(\Omega)} \, ,
\end{equation}
where $h \in H^1(\Omega)$ is a test function (to simplify the notation
we set $\delta = 0$, i.e. $Y^\delta_k = Y_k$ and $\gamma^\delta_k =
\gamma_k$).
In order to compute the inner product on the right hand side of
(\ref{eq:land-cacz-var}), we use the identity:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:adj-form}
\langle} \newcommand{\bipl}{\Big\langle \mathcal F'(\gamma) h , z \rangle} \newcommand{\bipr}{\Big\rangle_{L^2(\Gamma_1)} \ = \
\int_{\Omega} h \, \nabla G(\gamma) \cdot \nabla \Phi(\gamma) \, dx ,
\end{equation}
for $z \in L^2(\Gamma_1)$, where the $H^1(\Omega)$-function $\Phi(a)$ solves
$$
\left\{ \begin{array}{rl}
- \nabla( a(x) \nabla w) \ = \ 0 , & {\rm in} \ \Omega \\
w \ = \ z , & {\rm on} \ \Gamma_1 \\
w \ = \ 0 , & {\rm on} \ \partial\Omega / \Gamma_1
\end{array} \right.
$$
and the $H^1(\Omega)$-function $G(a)$ solves
$$
\left\{ \begin{array}{rl}
- \nabla( a(x) \nabla w) \ = \ 0 , & {\rm in} \ \Omega \\
a(x) w_\nu \ = \ 0 , & {\rm on} \ \partial\Omega_N \\
w \ = \ g , & {\rm on} \ \partial\Omega_D
\end{array} \right.
$$
Indeed, since the Fr\'echet derivative of the operator
$$ \begin{array}[t]{rcl}
\Psi: H^2(\Omega) & \to & H^{1/2}(\partial\Omega) \\
a & \mapsto & a w_\nu |_{\partial\Omega}
\end{array}
\ \ \ \ {\rm where}\ \ \ \
\left\{ \begin{array}{rl}
- \nabla( a(x) \nabla w) \ = \ f , & {\rm in} \ \Omega \\
w \ = \ g , & {\rm on} \ \partial\Omega
\end{array} \right.
$$
in the direction $h \in H^2(\Omega)$ is given by
$$ \Psi'(a) \cdot h \ = \ (h G_\nu(a) + a \psi_\nu)\, , $$
where
$$ \left\{ \begin{array}{rcll}
- \nabla( a(x) \nabla \psi) & = & \nabla(h(x) \nabla G(a)), & {\rm in}
\ \Omega \\
\psi & = & 0 , & {\rm on} \ \partial\Omega
\end{array} \right. $$
we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\langle} \newcommand{\bipl}{\Big\langle \mathcal F'(\gamma) h, z \rangle} \newcommand{\bipr}{\Big\rangle_{L^2(\Gamma_1)} & = &
\int_{\Gamma_1} z \, \big( h (G(\gamma))_\nu + \gamma \psi_\nu \big) \\
& \hskip-4cm = & \hskip-2cm
\int\limits_{\Gamma_1} z \, h \, (G(\gamma))_\nu
+ \int\limits_{\Gamma_1} \Phi(\gamma) \gamma \psi_\nu
+ \int\limits_{\partial\Omega_D/\Gamma_1} \Phi(\gamma) \gamma \psi_\nu
+ \int\limits_{\partial\Omega_N} \Phi(\gamma) \gamma \psi_\nu \\
& \hskip-4cm = & \hskip-2cm
\int_{\Gamma_1} z \, h \, (G(\gamma))_\nu
+ \int_{\Omega} \nabla( \gamma \nabla \psi) \Phi(\gamma)
+ \int_{\Omega} \gamma \, \nabla \psi \cdot \nabla \Phi(\gamma) \\
& \hskip-4cm = & \hskip-2cm
\int_{\Gamma_1} z \, h \, (G(\gamma))_\nu
- \int_{\Omega} \nabla(h \nabla G(\gamma)) \Phi(\gamma)
+ \int_{\partial\Omega} \psi \big( \gamma (\Phi(\gamma))_\nu \big) \\
& \hskip-4cm \ & \hskip-2cm
- \int_{\Omega} \psi \nabla \big( \gamma \nabla \Phi(\gamma) \big) \\
& \hskip-4cm = & \hskip-2cm
\int_{\Gamma_1} z \, h \, (G(\gamma))_\nu
- \left[ \int_{\Gamma_1} h \, (G(\gamma))_\nu \Phi(\gamma)
+ \int_{\partial\Omega / \Gamma_1}
h \, (G(\gamma))_\nu \Phi(\gamma) \right] \\
& \hskip-4cm \ & \hskip-2cm
+ \int_{\Omega} h \, \nabla G(\gamma) \cdot \nabla \Phi(\gamma) \\
\end{eqnarray*}
and (\ref{eq:adj-form}) follows. Therefore, the term on the right hand
side of (\ref{eq:land-cacz-var})can be evaluated by using formula
(\ref{eq:adj-form}) with $z = \mathcal F_k(\gamma_k) - Y_k$.
For the concrete numerical test performed in this paper, $\Omega \subset
\mathcal R^2$ is the unit square, and the boundary parts are defined as
follows
$$ \Gamma_1 \ := \ \{ (x,1) \, ;\ x \in (0,\protect\textstyle\frac{1}{2}) \} \, ,\ \ \
\partial\Omega_D \ := \ \Gamma_1 \cup \{ (x,0) \, ;\ x \in (0,1) \} $$
$$ \partial\Omega_N \ := \ \{ (0,y) \, ;\ y \in (0,1) \} \cup
\{ (1,y) \, ;\ y \in (0,1) \} \cup
\{ (x,1) \, ;\ x \in (\protect\textstyle\frac{1}{2},1) \} \, . $$
The fixed inputs $U_j \in H^{1/2}(\partial\Omega_D)$, are chosen to be
piecewise linear functions supported in $\partial\Omega_D / \Gamma_1$
$$ U_j(x) \ := \ \left\{ \begin{array}{rl}
1 - \frac{1}{h} |x - x_j| , & |x - x_j| \le h \\
0, & {\rm else} \end{array} \right. $$
where the points $x_j$ are equally spaced in the interval $(0,1)$. The
doping profile $C = C(x)$ to be reconstructed corresponds to the function
$\bar\gamma(x)$ shown in Figure~\ref{fig:exsol-incond}~(a). In this
figure, as well as in the forthcoming ones, $\Gamma_1$ appears in the
lower right part of the picture and $\partial\Omega_D / \Gamma_1$ appears
on the top (the origin corresponds to the upper right corner).
\begin{figure}
\centerline{ \epsfysize4cm \epsfbox{bild/exactcoef.pdf} \hfill
\epsfysize4cm \epsfbox{bild/initcond.pdf} }
\centerline{\hfil (a) \hskip5cm (b) \hfil}
\caption{Picture (a) shows the exact coefficient $\bar\gamma(x)$ to
be reconstructed. On picture (b), the initial condition for the
Landweber-Kaczmarz iteration is shown.} \label{fig:exsol-incond}
\end{figure}
To generate the problem data, one has to solve the direct problem in
(\ref{eq:num-d2n}) for each input function $U_j$, $j=1,\cdots,N$. In
order to avoid the so called {\em inverse crimes}, these problems are
solved using adaptive mesh regularization and a piecewise linear finite element base
with approximately 8000 nodal points. This mesh is different from the
one used to solve the mixed elliptic boundary value problems, related
to the implementation of the Landweber--Kaczmarz method. These problems
are solved using a multigrid finite element method at uniformly refined
grids with approximately 2000 nodal points.
We still have to take into account an important issue concerning the
stability of the numerical implementation. Due to the particular geometry
of $\Omega$ (note that $\partial\Omega_D$ and $\partial\Omega_N$ meet at
angles of $\pi$ and $\pi/2$), both the solution of the direct elliptic
(mixed) problems as well as the solution of the boundary value problems
involved in the implementation of the Landweber--Kaczmarz method are not
in $H^2(\Omega)$ (see remark at the end of Subsection~\ref{ssec:ex-uniq}).
Because of this lack of regularity in the solution of the elliptic
boundary value problems, the numeric implementation of the
Landweber--Kaczmarz method has shown to be very unstable. After a
few iterative steps the sequence $\gamma_k$ became unbounded, the main
singularity appearing near the boundary (note that we assume $C$, or
equivalently $\gamma$, to be known at the boundary) close to the
contact points between $\partial\Omega_D$ and $\partial\Omega_N$.
This phenomena could be observed even if we started the iteration
with $\gamma_0(x) = \gamma^\dag(x)$, the exact solution of the inverse
problem.
In order to avoid the instability described above, we make the additional
assumption that the doping profile is known in a thin strip close to
$\partial\Omega$. Therefore, we only have to reconstruct the values
of $\gamma(x)$ at a subdomain $\tilde\Omega \subset\subset \Omega$.
With this extra assumption, the numerical implementation becomes stable
and we are able to characterize (numerically) the exact solution
$\gamma^\dag(x)$ as a fixed point of the Landweber--Kaczmarz iteration.
It is worth mentioning that this sort of assumption is very common in
the literature (see, e.g., \cite{Bo} and the references therein) and has
been used since the early investigations of the electrical impedance
tomography, in order to insure extra regularity for both numerical and
analytical approaches (see \cite{Sc1}).
In Figure~\ref{fig:exsol-incond}~(b) the initial condition for the
Landweber--Kaczmarz method is shown. Comparing the initial condition
with the exact solution, one can observe that the values of $\gamma_0(x)$
and $\gamma^\dag(x)$ coincide close to $\partial\Omega$. This is in
accordance with the assumption above. Close to the boundary
$\partial\Omega$, the values of $\gamma_k$ are not iterated, and we
actually have $\gamma_k = \gamma^\dag$ at $\Omega / \tilde\Omega$.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{ \epsfysize4cm \epsfbox{bild/sA-source.pdf} \hfill
\epsfysize4cm \epsfbox{bild/sB-source.pdf} }
\centerline{\hfil (a) \hskip5cm (b) \hfil}
\caption{Pictures (a) and (b) show different pairs of (Dirichlet,Neumann)
data used in separate runs of the Landweber--Kaczmarz iteration.}
\label{fig:single-source}
\end{figure}
Concerning the amount of information used in the reconstruction,
we implemented (for comparison purposes) the Landweber--Kaczmarz
iteration in the case where a single pair of Dirichlet and Neumann
data was available. In this case, the Landweber--Kaczmarz method
reduces to the Landweber iterative method. This experiment is
interesting, since it shows that the quality of the reconstruction
is better at the part of the domain $\Omega$ which is closer to the
support of the applied voltage.
In Figure~\ref{fig:evol-sA} we present the evolution of the Landweber
iteration for $N=1$ and
$$ U_1(x) \ := \ \left\{ \begin{array}{rl}
1 - 8 |x - \frac{6}{8}| , & |x-\frac{6}{8}| \le \frac{1}{8} \\
0, & {\rm else} \end{array} \right. $$
The solution of the direct problem corresponding to this choice of $U_1$
is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:single-source}~(a).
In Figure~\ref{fig:evol-sB} we present the evolution of the Landweber
iteration for $N=1$ and
$$ U_1(x) \ := \ \left\{ \begin{array}{rl}
1 - 8 |x - \frac{2}{8}| , & |x-\frac{2}{8}| \le \frac{1}{8} \\
0, & {\rm else} \end{array} \right. $$
The solution of the direct problem corresponding to this choice of $U_1$
is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:single-source}~(b).
In Figure~\ref{fig:evol-s9} we present the reconstruction results obtained
by the Landweber--Kaczmarz iteration for $N=9$, i.e. nine pair of Dirichlet
and Neumann Data. We implemented the method with different amounts of
data (i.e. different values of $N$). For $N \ge 5$ the numerical results
were very close. The results correspond to exact data, i.e. no noise
was introduced. The numerics have shown to be sensible with respect to
noise. Even though, we were able to obtain some acceptable results
for noisy data. In Figure~\ref {fig:evol-s9-er} we present the results
obtained with a noise level of 10\% (white noise).
\section*{Acknowledgment}
M.B. and H.E. acknowledge financial support from the Austrian National
Science Foundation FWF through project SFB F 013/08.
A.L. is on leave from Department of Mathematics, Federal University of
St.\,Cata\-rina, Brazil; his work is supported by the Austrian Academy
of Sciences and CNPq, grant 305823/2003-5.
P.M. acknowledges support from the Austrian National Science Foundation
FWF through his Wittgenstein Award.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has become one of the most serious global pandemics. COVID-19 is caused by the infection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which can be transmitted via breathing, coughing, sneezing, or other means. A recent report \cite{covid19_fatalityrate} showed that, by March 2021, more than 120 million people around the world would have been infected with COVID-19, with a fatality rate of over 2$\%$.
To diagnose COVID-19, the real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT–PCR) test is routinely used. However, RT-PCR is time-consuming, and a series of tests may be required to exclude the possibility of false negatives, which means that there is an urgent need for alternative methods for the fast and accurate diagnosis of COVID-19. Chest computed tomography (CT) has been strongly recommended for the early recognition and evaluation of suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection \cite{xu2020chest}. Chest CT scans are very useful for the auxiliary diagnosis of the typical radiographic features of COVID-19, including ground-glass opacity and consolidation \cite{chung2020ct}. Therefore, the qualitative assessment of infection in CT scans could provide important information in the fight against the spread of COVID-19. Image segmentation has proven to be effective in COVID-19 CT image analysis \cite{gozes2020rapid,shan2020lung,shen2020quantitative}, but it remains challenging because (1) the diversity in the size and distribution of infection leads to a large number of false negative segmentation results, and (2) ground-glass opacity and consolidation are similar in appearance, this small inter-class difference makes the segmentation more difficult \cite{shi2020radiological}.
Deep learning based automatic segmentation is a powerful technique for medical imaging analysis \cite{shi2020review}. The excellent performance can be attributed to the availability of large volumes of labeled training data. However, it is time-consuming and laborious to collect a sufficient number of COVID-19 CT images with annotations due to concerns over patient privacy \cite{adler2012sharing,sharma2019preserving} and lack of experts \cite{dai2019transfer}. To tackle this issue, some methods have employed parameterized transformation to augment the limited annotated COVID-19 CT images for supervised learning \cite{zheng2020deep,huang2020serial,qi2020machine,zhou2020automatic,elharrouss2020encoder,xu2020gasnet,ouyang2020dual,oulefki2021automatic}. Despite parameterized transformation can solve the problem of data shortage to some extent, but networks trained on limited data still suffer from the poor generalization to unseen datasets due to the insufficient data diversity. Besides, several works have explored to construct new networks suitable for small-scale labeled COVID-19 data \cite{fan2020inf,qiu2020miniseg,laradji2020weakly}, of which the high performance relies on the carefully designed network structure, thus losing scalability and flexibility.
More recently, some efforts have been devoted to generating synthetic COVID-19 CT data for promoting computer-aided diagnosis ability of COVID-19 \cite{liu20203d,jiang2020covid,li2020ct}, which made it possible to train deep models on synthetic images and computer-generated annotations. Nevertheless, as the work \cite{9413443} shows, a model directly trained with the synthetic data may fail to produce precise results for real COVID-19 CT images due to the domain shift. In view of the fact that (1) existing supervised and semi-supervised methods are limited by small-scale COVID-19 CT data; (2) the synthetic COVID-19 CT data is not available directly for training due to domain shift problem. A natural and
practical question comes up: how to properly utilize the potential of synthetic data to improve the segmentation performance on COVID-19 CT images?
To address above issues, we propose a novel unsupervised domain adaptation based segmentation network for COVID-19 CT infection segmentation task. The contributions of this paper can be summarized as follows: (1) we propose to make full use of synthetic data and limited unlabeled real COVID-19 CT images to jointly train the segmentation network, so as to introduce richer diversity; (2) we design a domain adaptation module to align the two domains and overcome the domain shift. It effectively improves the generalization capability of segmentation network; (3) we propose an unsupervised adversarial training scheme, in which the cross-domain adversarial loss will guide the segmentation network to learn domain-invariant feature, thus improving the segmentation performance. In the meanwhile, our training scheme is very flexible, as it can be arbitrarily combined with any segmentation network with encoder-decoder structure.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{Realted works}, we review previous related works. Section \ref{Methodology} discusses the main components and training scheme of our proposed method, while Section \ref{Experiments} describes our experiments on real COVID-19 CT images. Finally, Section \ref{Conclusion} concludes the paper.
\section{Related works}
\label{Realted works}
\noindent \textbf{COVID-19 infection segmentation.}
Medical imaging such as CT has played an important role in the fight against COVID-19. As an essential step in the processing and assessment of CT images, segmentation can identify the regions of interest, such as ground-glass opacity, consolidation, and the lung \cite{shi2020review}. Recently, deep learning based segmentation methods have been utilized in COVID-19 CT diagnosis \cite{zheng2020deep,huang2020serial,qi2020machine,zhou2020automatic,elharrouss2020encoder,xu2020gasnet,ouyang2020dual,oulefki2021automatic,fan2020inf,qiu2020miniseg,laradji2020weakly}. For instance, Ouyang et al. \cite{ouyang2020dual} developed a 3D CNN network for COVID-19 infection segmentation, and proposed a dual-sampling attention mechanism to alleviate the imbalanced problem of data. Oulefki et al. \cite{oulefki2021automatic} presented a multilevel thresholding procedure based on Kapur entropy to improve the COVID-19 segmentation performance. Fan et al. \cite{fan2020inf} presented a semi-supervised segmentation method based on random selection propagation strategy, which requires only a few labeled images and primarily utilizes unlabeled data. Qiu et al. \cite{qiu2020miniseg} proposed a lightweight network to solve the overfitting problem caused by the limited training data for COVID-19 segmentation. Laradji et al. \cite{laradji2020weakly} proposed a new COVID-19 segmentation model using point-level rather than full image-level annotations, which overcame the labeling issue to some extent. Most previous works are trained with a supervised or semi-supervised manner, thus the performance is limited by the scale of the labeled data. Furthermore, since the infection areas of COVID-19 could be small with large variations of shapes and textures, segmenting the areas of infection is still a challenging task.
\noindent \textbf{Unsupervised medical segmentation.}
To deal with the lack of annotated data, unsupervised segmentation techniques have attracted growing interest. Most existing proposals employ clustering, which divides a medical image into different groups according to the similarity of the image intensity. For example, Jose et al. \cite{jose2014brain} proposed a method based on K-means clustering to segment abnormal brain regions. Cheng et al. \cite{ouyang2020self} utilized a clustering algorithm to generate superpixel-based pseudo-labels to provide supervision for the segmentation network. However, these clustering based methods heavily depend on the pixel intensity, which means different areas but with similar intensity are likely to be mistakenly segmented into the same class. This is undesired in COVID-19 infection segmentation, because ground-glass opacity and consolidation may not be distinguished as they have similar appearance. Some studies regard the unsupervised medical segmentation task as an unsupervised deformable registration process \cite{shan2017unsupervised,de2019deep,xu2019deepatlas}. Despite the success of these methods, they are insufficient for COVID-19 segmentation since there are large variations of infection on CT images, such as irregular shapes and ambiguous boundaries \cite{wang2020noise}.
\noindent \textbf{Domain adaptation.} Domain adaptation aims to reduce the shift between two distributions \cite{patel2015visual,wang2018deep}, it has been widely employed in conjunction with the use of synthetic data for real-world tasks \cite{lee2020strdan,kim2020learning,shao2020domain,yang2020one,hsu2020progressive}. There are several different strategies proposed to gain better domain adaptation. Some studies utilize maximum mean discrepancy (MMD) \cite{gretton2012kernel} to minimize differences between feature distributions \cite{ghifary2014domain,yan2017mind,haeusser2017associative}, but its effect is limited by whether the distributions follows Gaussian distribution. Another strategy is self-training, which utilizes predictions from an ensemble model as pseudo-labels for unlabeled data to train the current model \cite{li2018disaster,zou2018unsupervised,spadotto2021unsupervised}. There is increasing interest in the use of adversarial training to achieve domain adaptation \cite{vu2019advent,tzeng2017adversarial,pan2020unsupervised,park2020fusion}. This approach reduces the domain shift by forcing the features from different domains to fool the discriminator, thus leading to features from different domains exhibiting a similar distribution. For medical image segmentation, domain adaptation has also demonstrated positive effects \cite{perone2019unsupervised,degel2018domain,zhang2018task,ren2018adversarial,kamnitsas2017unsupervised}. For instance, Degel et al. \cite{degel2018domain} minimized segmentation loss with a domain discriminator to encourage feature domain-invariance across ultrasound datasets for left atrium segmentation. Christian et al. \cite{perone2019unsupervised} addressed the domain shift by extending the self-ensembling method to MRI image segmentation. Kamnitsas et al. \cite{kamnitsas2017unsupervised} employed adversarial learning and utilized synthetic data and sufficient labeled data for brain lesion segmentation.
The domain adaption technology has achieved some impressive success, especially in the medical imaging field. Therefore, we consider exploiting this novel technology to solve COVID-19 CT infection segmentation task in this paper.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{figure_1.pdf}
\caption{Overview of the proposed network. Our network consists of two parts: the segmentation network including a \textcolor{myblue}{feature extractor}, a \textcolor{myyellow}{pixel-wise classifier}, as well as the domain adaptation module (DA) including a \textcolor{mygreen}{generator} and a \textcolor{myred}{discriminator}. The black solid lines with one-way arrow indicate the data flow and the dashed lines denote reconstruction and adversarial loss. The feature extractor and pixel-wise classifier together perform the segmentation task. The DA module is introduced to overcome the domain shift through adversarial training in image space.}
\label{fig:overall}
\end{figure*}
\section{Methodology}
\label{Methodology}
\subsection{Overview of the proposed method}
As shown in Figure \ref{fig:overall}, our method consists of two parts: the segmentation network composed of a feature extractor ${f(\cdot)}$ and a pixel-wise classifier ${c(\cdot)}$, as well as the domain adaptation module including a generator ${g(\cdot)}$ and a discriminator ${d(\cdot)}$. The source dataset (the synthetic data) and target dataset (the COVID-19 CT images without annotations) are denoted as $\{\mathcal{X}_S, \mathcal{Y}_S\}$ and $\{\mathcal{X}_T\}$, respectively. We first forward the two inputs $X_S$ and $X_T$ to ${f(\cdot)}$, generating feature maps $F_S$ and $F_T$. Then, the ${c(\cdot)}$ takes $F_S$ as input and produces an image-sized segmentation map $\hat{Y}_S$, which is used to optimize segmentation network together with $Y_S$. To overcome the domain shift, we align the distributions of the source and target data using domain adaptation module in the image space. We utilize ${g(\cdot)}$ to reconstruct the inputs conditioned on the feature maps $F_S$ and $F_T$. We then feed the outputs of ${g(\cdot)}$ and $X_S$, $X_T$ to the discriminator ${d(\cdot)}$ and classify them as real or fake within- or cross-domain. The gradients of the cross-domain adversarial loss are propagated from ${d(\cdot)}$ to ${f(\cdot)}$, which leads ${f(\cdot)}$ to learn transferable feature representations applicable to both the source and target domains.
\subsection{Network structure}
\label{Network structure}
\noindent \textbf{Feature extractor.} We build a feature extractor that follows the typical architecture of convolutional neural network. It is composed of four $3\times3$ convolutional layers, and each is followed with a $2\times2$ max pooling operation. Given a source image ${X_S}$ and a target image ${X_T}$, the feature extractor shares the weights and produces feature maps $F_S$ and $F_T$, as shown in equation (\ref{eq1}),
\begin{equation}
\left. F_\delta=f(X_\delta), \delta\in{(S,T)}\right.
\label{eq1}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\delta\in{(S,T)}$ denotes whether the term stems from the source domain or target domain. The learned features are then sent to the classifier and generator. The former is used to generate pixel-level segmentation results, while the latter is projected into image space for further domain adaptation.
\noindent \textbf{Pixel-wise classifier.} With the learned feature maps, the pixel-wise classifier converts low-resolution, semantically strong features into pixel-wise classification results, i.e., a class label is assigned to each pixel. We build a classifier that contains three upsampling layers, and each layer is followed by a concatenation with the correspondingly cropped feature map from the feature extractor. It takes $F_S$ as input and produces segmentation map $\hat{Y}_S$ with the same size as ${X_S}$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\left. \hat{Y}_S=c(F_S)\right.
\label{eq2}
\end{equation}
As discussed later, in order to make our network have the pixel-level discriminative ability, we use the above predicted segmentation map to calculate the segmentation loss in a supervised manner. Because we can only access the annotations of the source data, we feed only the feature maps of the source domain to the classifier to obtain the segmentation map.
\noindent \textbf{Domain adaptation module.} Unlike recent adversarial based domain adaptation approaches for segmentation tasks that directly calculate the adversarial loss in feature space. Here, we utilize the generator to project the intermediate feature maps to image space for robust adversarial training. Given the feature maps $F_S$ and $F_T$, the generator shares the weights and produces the reconstructions of source image ${X_S}$ and target image ${X_T}$. The reconstructions ${G_S}$, ${G_T}$, and ${X_S}$, ${X_T}$ are then sent to the discriminator and classified as real or fake. The reconstruction process is formulated as equation (\ref{eq3}),
\begin{equation}
\left. G_\delta=g(F_\delta), \delta\in{(S,T)}\right.
\label{eq3}
\end{equation}
Image-space reconstruction is more robust than feature map when applied to the calculation of adversarial loss. This is particularly so for our infection segmentation task, where the differences in the intensity and texture between the source and target images are not that significant. Sub-section \ref{Ablation study} provides detailed verification of the effectiveness of the image-space training.
The design of our domain adaptation module is inspired by PatchGAN \cite{zhu2017unpaired}. Our generator consists of four upsampling layers, each layer is composed of a $3\times3$ transposed convolutional layer and two residual blocks \cite{he2016deep}. Our discriminator includes two $4\times4$ convolutional layers, and the first layer is followed by nine residual blocks. For each input, the output of domain adaptation module is a probability map, in which the value of each pixel indicates the possibility that each patch in the input is real or fake. Compared with a normal discriminator whose output is only real numbers, our discriminator is more helpful for retaining detailed information.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{figure_2.pdf}
\caption{Training process for the proposed network. The solid lines indicate the data flow, and the dashed lines indicate the gradient flow.}
\label{flowchart}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Training and testing process.}
Our goal is to train a segmentation network that produces a competitive performance on real COVID-19 CT images even if no annotations are provided. We use the annotated synthetic images as the source and unlabeled real COVID-19 CT images as the target to jointly train the network, and update the parameters using segmentation loss, adversarial loss, and reconstruction loss. The segmentation loss is defined over adequately annotated source domain images, allowing the network to develop pixel-level discriminative ability. The adversarial loss can be divided into within-domain loss and cross-domain loss. The latter is used to guide the update of the feature extractor, thus allowing the feature extractor to identify the necessary features that should be extracted from the target domain. The reconstruction loss is utilized to ensure the fidelity of the reconstructions.
\noindent \textbf{Generator update.} The generator takes the learned features $F_S$ and $F_T$ as input, and reconstruct $X_S$ and $X_T$ as $G_S$ and $G_T$ conditioned on these feature maps. Intuitively, if the reconstruction is sufficiently accurate, there should be a low $L1$ loss between the reconstruction $G_\delta$ and input $X_\delta$. We also optimize the generator using adversarial loss, which forces the discriminator to classify $G_S$ and $G_T$ as real, thus fooling the discriminator. The object function of the generator can be represented by equation (\ref{eq4}),
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
L_{G}=&\underbrace{\sum_\delta\sum_j{\left\|G_\delta-X_\delta \right\|}_1}_{reconstruction\;loss} -& \\
&\underbrace{\sum_\delta\sum_i{Y_{(\delta,real)}}logD(G_\delta)}_{within\-/domain\;adv\;loss}, \delta\in{(S,T)}&
\end{aligned}
\label{eq4}
\end{equation}
\noindent where index $i$ indicates the pixel location in the output probability map of discriminator and label map, index $j$ indicates the pixel location in the input and reconstruction.
\noindent \textbf{Discriminator update.} Given $X_S$, $X_T$, $G_S$, or $G_T$, the patch discriminator produces a 4-D probability map for each input. We calculate the adversarial loss using the cross-entropy loss between the output probability map and the label map $Y_{(\delta,\gamma)}, \delta\in(S,T), \gamma\in(real,fake)$. Therefore, the optimization process for the discriminator is as follows,
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
L_{D}=&\underbrace{-\sum_\delta\sum_i{Y_{(\delta,real)}}logD(X_\delta)}_{within\-/domain\;adv\;loss} -& \\
&\underbrace{\sum_\delta\sum_i{Y_{(\delta,fake)}}logD(G_\delta)}_{within\-/domain\;adv\;loss}, \delta\in{(S,T)} &
\end{aligned}
\label{eq5}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $Y_{(\delta,\gamma)}$ is the $64\times64$ label map, in which each value corresponds to the label of each patch, indicating whether each patch of the input image belongs to the category of source-real, source-fake, target-real, or target-fake.
\noindent \textbf{Feature extractor and classifier update.} The updating of the feature extractor and classifier is a crucial process in our network for domain adaptation. We optimize these two components with the following combination of loss terms,
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
L_{F}=&\underbrace{-\sum_c\sum_{j}Y_Slog(\hat{Y}_S)}_{segmentation\;loss} -& \\ &\underbrace{\alpha\sum_\delta\sum_i{Y_{(\neg\delta,real)}}logD(G_\delta)}_{cross\-/domain\;adv\;loss}, \delta\in{(S,T)}&
\end{aligned}
\label{eq6}
\end{equation}
\noindent where the first term is the segmentation loss. This is the pixel-wise cross-entropy loss calculated between the segmentation map and the annotation of the source domain. Index $c$ is the number of the categories in the segmentation results (four categories in our work: background, consolidation, ground-glass opacity, and the lung).
Directly minimizing the segmentation loss in equation (\ref{eq6}) leads to good segmentation performance with the source images, but when tested on the target images, the performance will be significantly lower due to the domain shift. To overcome this problem, we introduce cross-domain adversarial loss to our network. Please note that, unlike the updating process for the generator and discriminator shown in equations (\ref{eq4}) and (\ref{eq5}), where the adversarial loss is calculated within the source or target domain. Here, the adversarial loss is cross-domain, and the gradients of the cross-domain adversarial loss can lead to a reversed domain classification. We utilize these gradients to update the feature extractor. To be more specific, the cross-domain adversarial losses are used to ensure that, when target features are passed to the generator, source-like images can be reconstructed, when source features are passed to the generator, target-like images can be reconstructed. Through this constraint domain alignment, the learned features from the two domains will exhibit a similar distribution, thus enabling the feature extractor to learn the common representations of the two domains.
In Figure \ref{flowchart}, we illustrate the training process for each module in the network with the direction of the data flow and gradient flow. For each iteration, the randomly sampled ${X_\delta,\delta\in{(S,T)}}$ are sent to the network. The generator, discriminator, feature extractor, and classifier are then iteratively updated in turn. Note that, unlike the updating of the generator and discriminator, the adversarial loss used to update the feature extractor and classifier is cross-domain. Except for the segmentation loss, all the other losses are calculated in the source domain and target domain. During the testing process, we only use the trained feature extractor and classifier. The network takes the real CT images of COVID-19 cases as input and generates the predicted segmentation map.
\section{Experiments}
\label{Experiments}
\subsection{Experimental settings}
\noindent \textbf{Dataset.} The source data comes from our previous work \cite{jiang2020covid}, which was designed to generate high-quality and realistic COVID-19 lung CT images for use in deep learning based medical imaging tasks. The dataset contains 10,200 synthetic 2D CT images with corresponding pixel-wise annotations. There are four categories in the annotation map: ground-glass opacity, consolidation, the lung, and background. The first two are the most common characteristics used for COVID-19 diagnosis in lung CT imaging. The target data is taken from the COVID-19 CT segmentation dataset \cite{covid19_dataset} collected by the Italian Society of Medical and International Radiology. It contains 9 CT volumes from confirmed COVID-19 patients, and each volume contains $\sim$200 slices. We reformated all 3D volumes into 2D slices with a size of $512\times512$. Small rotations, shearings, gamma transforms, and intensity normalizations are used for data augmentation, and there are a total of 12,000 slices after pre-processing. We employ $70\%$ slices as the unlabeled target data for training, while the remaining $30\%$ slices are used for testing segmentation performance. We follow the patient-level split rule when we separate the target data into training set and test set.
\noindent \textbf{Implementation details.} We use PyTorch \cite{paszke2017automatic} for implementation. Our network is trained with 100K iterations using Adam optimizer \cite{kingma2014adam}. The hyperparameters are set at $\alpha=0.1$ and $l_r=1.0\times10^{-5}$. The batch size is 1, and for every 10K iterations, the $l_r$ is reduced by ${20\%}$. The network training is accelerated with an NVIDIA RTX 2080Ti and an Intel(R) Core i7-9700K CPU.
\noindent \textbf{Evaluation metrics.}
For quantitative evaluation, we adopted the three most commonly used evaluation metrics in medical imaging analysis: the dice similarity coefficient (Dice), sensitivity (Sen), and specificity (Spe) \cite{fenster2006evaluation,milletari2016v}. The dice similarity coefficient is an overlap index that indicates the similarity between the prediction and the ground truth. Sensitivity and specificity are two statistical metrics for the performance of binary medical image segmentation tasks. The former measures the percentage of actual positive pixels correctly predicted to be positive, while the latter measures the proportion of actual negative pixels correctly predicted to be negative. These metrics are defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
Dice = \frac{2\times{T\!P}}{2\times{T\!P}+{F\!P}+F\!N}\qquad
\end{aligned}
\label{eq7}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
Sen = \frac{T\!P}{T\!P+F\!N}\qquad
\end{aligned}
\label{eq8}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
Spe = \frac{T\!N}{T\!N+F\!P}\qquad
\end{aligned}
\label{eq9}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $T\!P$, $F\!P$, $T\!N$, and $F\!N$ represent the pixel number of true positive, false positive, true negative, and false negative in the prediction respectively.
\begin{table*}
\caption{Quantitative results for the two-class segmentation of COVID-19 CT images. Infection considers both ground-glass opacity and consolidation. \\(The highest evaluation score is marked in bold. $\uparrow$ indicates that a higher number is better.)}
\label{tab:two-class}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{2.5mm}{
\begin{tabular}{lllllll}
\hline
\multirow{2}*{Methods} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Ground-glass opacity} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Consolidation} \\ \cline{2-7}
~ & Dice (\%) $\uparrow$ & Sen (\%) $\uparrow$ & Spe (\%) $\uparrow$ & Dice (\%) $\uparrow$ & Sen (\%) $\uparrow$ & Spe (\%) $\uparrow$ \\
\hline
Source-only & 80.60$\pm$0.48 & 78.86$\pm$0.52 & 99.60$\pm$0.01 & 61.75$\pm$0.50 & 66.73$\pm$0.51 & 99.83$\pm$0.01 \\
Self-ensembling \cite{perone2019unsupervised} & 82.43$\pm$0.36 & 80.18$\pm$0.47 & 99.53$\pm$0.01 & 65.16$\pm$0.78 & 66.58$\pm$1.26 & 99.26$\pm$0.01 \\
SSL \cite{ouyang2020self} & 78.34$\pm$0.87 & 71.37$\pm$0.53 & 99.47$\pm$0.01 & 73.83$\pm$0.91 & \textbf{81.30$\pm$0.82} & 99.44$\pm$0.01 \\
Ours & \textbf{85.34$\pm$0.36} & \textbf{82.13$\pm$0.41} & \textbf{99.87$\pm$0.01} & \textbf{74.67$\pm$0.57} & 68.69$\pm$0.39 & \textbf{99.97$\pm$0.01} \\
Target-only & 88.73$\pm$0.98 & 87.55$\pm$1.34 & 99.84$\pm$0.02 & 84.58$\pm$0.80 & 84.71$\pm$0.94 & 99.94$\pm$0.01 \\
\end{tabular}}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{2.5mm}{
\begin{tabular}{lllllll}
\hline
\multirow{2}*{} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Infection} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Lung} \\ \cline{2-7}
~ & Dice (\%) $\uparrow$ & Sen (\%) $\uparrow$ & Spe (\%) $\uparrow$ & Dice (\%) $\uparrow$ & Sen (\%) $\uparrow$ & Spe (\%) $\uparrow$ \\
\hline
Source-only & 78.82$\pm$0.61 & 70.99$\pm$0.86 & 99.80$\pm$0.01 & 89.60$\pm$0.62 & 92.38$\pm$0.23 & 97.89$\pm$0.15 \\
Self-ensembling \cite{perone2019unsupervised} & 80.43$\pm$0.47 & 80.74$\pm$0.51 & 99.63$\pm$0.01 & 93.53$\pm$0.29 & 90.47$\pm$0.10 & 99.61$\pm$0.01 \\
SSL \cite{ouyang2020self} & 79.15$\pm$0.51 & 78.77$\pm$0.50 & \textbf{99.81$\pm$0.01} & 94.59$\pm$0.19 & \textbf{93.47$\pm$0.13} & 97.60$\pm$0.01 \\
Ours & \textbf{86.54$\pm$0.39} & \textbf{85.54$\pm$0.43} & 99.80$\pm$0.01 & \textbf{95.75$\pm$0.25} & 93.11$\pm$0.26 & \textbf{99.74$\pm$0.01} \\
Target-only & 91.50$\pm$0.43 & 92.56$\pm$0.52 & 99.81$\pm$0.01 & 97.62$\pm$0.15 & 97.38$\pm$0.16 & 99.69$\pm$0.02 \\
\hline \\
\end{tabular}}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Quantitative results for multi-class segmentation of COVID-19 CT images. Infection considers both ground-glass opacity and consolidation. \\(The highest evaluation score is marked in bold. $\uparrow$ means a higher number is better.)}
\label{tab:multi-class}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{3mm}{
\begin{tabular}{lllllll}
\hline
\multirow{2}*{Methods} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Ground-glass opacity} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Consolidation} \\ \cline{2-7}
~ & Dice (\%) $\uparrow$ & Sen (\%) $\uparrow$ & Spe (\%) $\uparrow$ & Dice (\%) $\uparrow$ & Sen (\%) $\uparrow$ & Spe (\%) $\uparrow$ \\
\hline
Source-only & 79.16$\pm$0.56 & 73.65$\pm$0.41 & 99.81$\pm$0.01 & 61.42$\pm$0.45 & 57.54$\pm$0.67 & 99.82$\pm$0.01 \\
MinEnt \cite{vu2019advent} & 79.72$\pm$0.42 & 71.83$\pm$0.48 & 99.87$\pm$0.01 & \textbf{75.33$\pm$0.41} & 67.23$\pm$0.68 & \textbf{99.97$\pm$0.01} \\
AdvEnt \cite{vu2019advent} & 81.99$\pm$0.38 & 76.68$\pm$0.45 & 99.83$\pm$0.01 & 64.07$\pm$0.74 & 54.18$\pm$0.98 & 99.95$\pm$0.01 \\
IntraDA \cite{pan2020unsupervised} & 79.30$\pm$0.34 & 69.17$\pm$0.35 & \textbf{99.88$\pm$0.01} & 62.33$\pm$0.88 & 57.80$\pm$1.00 & \textbf{99.97$\pm$0.01} \\
Ours & \textbf{86.31$\pm$0.27} & \textbf{85.37$\pm$0.26} & 99.81$\pm$0.01 & 74.55$\pm$0.30 & \textbf{67.44$\pm$0.32} & {99.95$\pm$0.01} \\
Target-only & 87.54$\pm$0.27 & 86.83$\pm$0.34 & 99.82$\pm$0.01 & 84.88$\pm$0.42 & 82.79$\pm$0.62 & 99.96$\pm$0.01 \\
\end{tabular}}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{3mm}{
\begin{tabular}{lllllll}
\hline
\multirow{2}*{} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Infection} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Lung} \\ \cline{2-7}
~ & Dice (\%) $\uparrow$ & Sen (\%) $\uparrow$ & Spe (\%) $\uparrow$ & Dice (\%) $\uparrow$ & Sen (\%) $\uparrow$ & Spe (\%) $\uparrow$ \\
\hline
Source-only & 76.98$\pm$0.30 & 70.92$\pm$0.47 & 99.66$\pm$0.01 & 88.54$\pm$0.32 & 93.47$\pm$0.16 & 97.41$\pm$0.08 \\
MinEnt \cite{vu2019advent} & 80.91$\pm$0.27 & 72.61$\pm$0.30 & 99.86$\pm$0.01 & 95.55$\pm$0.01 & \textbf{95.62$\pm$0.01} & 99.33$\pm$0.01 \\
AdvEnt \cite{vu2019advent} & 81.12$\pm$0.28 & 74.55$\pm$0.35 & 99.82$\pm$0.01 & 95.69$\pm$0.06 & 95.41$\pm$0.05 & 99.41$\pm$0.01 \\
IntraDA \cite{pan2020unsupervised} & 77.34$\pm$0.32 & 67.76$\pm$0.43 & \textbf{99.89$\pm$0.01} & 95.27$\pm$0.07 & 95.01$\pm$0.06 & 99.35$\pm$0.01 \\
Ours & \textbf{86.15$\pm$0.29} & \textbf{84.29$\pm$0.31} & 99.81$\pm$0.01 & \textbf{96.13$\pm$0.07} & 94.61$\pm$0.09 & \textbf{99.67$\pm$0.01} \\
Target-only & 89.55$\pm$0.35 & 88.57$\pm$0.29 & 99.82$\pm$0.01 & 97.12$\pm$0.13 & 97.04$\pm$0.18 & 99.59$\pm$0.01 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=15cm, height=8.7cm]{figure_3.pdf}
\caption{Qualitative results for two-class segmentation task. Columns 1 and 2 present the input real COVID-19 CT images and corresponding ground truth, while Column 3 to 6 are segmentation results of Source-only, Self-ensembling\cite{perone2019unsupervised}, SSL\cite{ouyang2020self}, and our proposed method. The first to last rows are the results when taking ground-glass opacity (a), consolidation (b), infection (c) and the lung (d) as the segmentation object, respectively.}
\label{fig:two-class}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=17cm, height=11cm]{figure_4.pdf}
\caption{Qualitative results for multi-class segmentation task. Columns 1 and 2 show the input real COVID-19 CT images and corresponding ground truth, in which the ground-glass opacity is marked in blue, consolidation is marked in green, and the lung is marked in red. Columns 3 to 7 are the segmentation results for the Source-only, MinEnt\cite{vu2019advent}, AdvEnt\cite{vu2019advent}, IntraDA\cite{pan2020unsupervised}, and our proposed method, respectively.}
\label{fig:multi-class}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Quantitative results}
\label{Quantitative results}
\noindent \textbf{Evaluation on two-class segmentation task.} In this section, we compare the segmentation performance of our proposal with two state-of-the-art unsupervised medical image segmentation methods: Self-ensembling \cite{perone2019unsupervised} and SSL \cite{ouyang2020self}. Because these methods are designed for two-class segmentation, we train our proposed approach as a two-class segmentation network, e.g., by taking the ground-glass opacity as the object to segment and other classes as the background.
Table \ref{tab:two-class} presents the experimental results when taking each category as the segmentation object. The results are reported as the mean $\pm$ error interval (calculated based on 95\% confidence interval). Our proposed method outperforms the reported methods across most metrics. Compared with the second-best method Self-ensembling \cite{perone2019unsupervised}, the proposed method produces a 6.11\% improvement in the dice similarity score for infection. Different with other compared methods, which utilize consistency loss to minimize the discrepancy between predictions in the source and target domain or employ superpixel-based pseudo-labels for supervision, our proposed approach attempts to learn the more discriminative feature representations when dealing with the challenging medical segmentation task.
\noindent \textbf{Evaluation on multi-class segmentation task.} As an assistant diagnostic tool, our model is expected to provide more detailed information about the infected areas and the lung. Therefore, we extend our method to a multi-class segmentation task, and compare it with state-of-the-art domain adaptation based segmentation methods MinEnt \cite{vu2019advent}, AdvEnt \cite{vu2019advent}, and IntraD \cite{pan2020unsupervised}. It should be noted that the metrics for each category are calculated by taking the other categories as background. More specifically, even though the network is trained for a multi-class segmentation task, we employ two classes (the object and background) when calculating the metrics.
Table \ref{tab:multi-class} shows the quantitative results on real CT images from COVID-19 cases. Our proposed approach outperforms the compared methods across most metrics. Compared with the second-best method AdvEnt \cite{vu2019advent}, our proposal produces a $5.03\%$ improvement in the dice similarity score for infection. When excluding the domain adaptation module of our network, and only using the base feature extractor and classifier trained with the source data (source-only), we observe a significant drop in performance (Dice: $86.15\%\rightarrow76.98\%$ for infection), clearly illustrating the effectiveness of our domain adaptation strategy, which employs adversarial training to learn the true features of the infection from real COVID-19 CT images. It can also be observed that, even without access to the ground truth for the real CT images, our proposed method achieves results that are comparable to the target-only method trained with the target data in a supervised manner. Moreover, our proposal achieves the highest performance in lung segmentation. This proves that the proposed method is also suitable for large-area tissues or organ segmentation.
\subsection{Qualitative results}
Figure \ref{fig:two-class} shows the qualitative results for two-class segmentation of real COVID-19 CT images. We train our method as a two-class segmenter for ground-glass opacity, consolidation, infection, and the lung respectively. It is obvious that the proposed domain adaptation based segmentation network can learn the discriminative features by employing the adversarial training, so as to accurately segment the object areas. The Self-ensembling \cite{perone2019unsupervised} can handle the large object segmentation such as (a) and (d), but demonstrates a poor performance for the relatively small consolidation shown in (b). SSL \cite{ouyang2020self} relies on the superpixel-based pseudo labels for supervision during training, so it fails to capture the details of ground-glass opacity in (a).
Figure \ref{fig:multi-class} displays the qualitative results for multi-class segmentation of real COVID-19 CT cases. It is obvious that there are a large number of mis-segmented areas in the visualization results of the source-only (baseline) model. This is mainly due to the differences in the texture and intensity between the synthetic data and the real COVID-19 CT images. We observe a significant improvement in performance when introducing cross-domain adversarial learning in our proposed approach, which confirms the importance of adversarial training based domain adaptation. MinEnt \cite{vu2019advent} attempts to minimize the entropy value of the model output directly to overcome the domain gap. However, compared with our proposed method, MinEnt fails to capture the fine-grained details of the infection in (a) and (b). AdvEnt \cite{vu2019advent} conducts adversarial training on entropy map and it is quite sensitive to the influence of irrelevant areas, for example, there is obvious noise in the results (d) and (e). IntraDA \cite{pan2020unsupervised} relies on the pseudo labels for training, thus it fails to separate the ground-glass opacity and consolidation in (a).
Our domain adaptation based segmentation network outperforms the baseline method and other state-of-the-art methods. It produces a performance that is close to the ground truth with fewer mis-segmented infection areas, especially for consolidation, which is relatively small and challenging to segment. The success of the proposed method is attributed to our adversarial training scheme, through which our network can learn the true features of target data under the constraint of cross-domain adversarial loss. This scheme allows our network to more clearly distinguish the real features of ground-glass opacity and consolidation even without access to ground truth annotations of the target data. In addition, our proposed method also performs best in terms of lung segmentation, which proves that our method can be generalized. That is, it can be used not only for COVID-19 infection segmentation, but also for other organs.
\begin{table*}\centering
\caption{Ablation study of different feature map selection strategies. \\(The highest evaluation score is marked in bold. $\uparrow$ means a higher number is better. GGO: ground-glass opacity)}
\label{tab:ablation-1}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{2mm}{
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline
\multirow{2}*{1} & \multirow{2}*{2} & \multirow{2}*{3} & \multirow{2}*{4} & \multirow{2}*{5} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Dice (\%) $\uparrow$} \\ \cline{6-9}
~ & ~ & ~ & ~ & ~ & GGO & Consolidation & Infection & Lung \\
\hline
$\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & 83.43$\pm$0.40 & 67.35$\pm$0.36 & 83.30$\pm$0.23 & 95.69$\pm$0.07 \\
$\times$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\times$ & 85.36$\pm$0.28 & \textbf{74.83$\pm$0.40} & 84.24$\pm$0.16 & 96.11$\pm$0.08 \\
$\times$ & $\times$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & \textbf{86.31$\pm$0.27} & 74.55$\pm$0.30 & \textbf{86.15$\pm$0.29} & \textbf{96.13$\pm$0.07} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}\centering
\caption{Ablation study of different components in the proposed network. \\(The highest evaluation score is marked in bold. $\uparrow$ means a higher number is better. GGO: ground-glass opacity)}
\label{tab:ablation-2}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{2mm}{
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\hline
\multirow{2}*{Network configuration} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Dice (\%) $\uparrow$} \\ \cline{2-5}
~ & GGO & Consolidation & Infection & Lung \\
\hline
w/o adversarial training & 79.16$\pm$0.56 & 61.42$\pm$0.45 & 79.98$\pm$0.30 & 88.54$\pm$0.32 \\
w/o skip connections & 78.56$\pm$0.48 & 61.71$\pm$0.63 & 78.81$\pm$0.24 & 94.11$\pm$0.01 \\
Feature space training & 81.87$\pm$0.33 & 52.61$\pm$0.43 & 79.52$\pm$0.41 & 92.33$\pm$0.22 \\
\textbf{Ours} & \textbf{86.31$\pm$0.27} & \textbf{74.55$\pm$0.30} & \textbf{86.15$\pm$0.29} & \textbf{96.13$\pm$0.07} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Ablation study}
\label{Ablation study}
In order to assess the important settings and components of our method, we conduct ablation experiments following the multi-class experimental settings in sub-section \ref{Quantitative results}. The evaluation criterion is the dice similarity coefficient.
\noindent \textbf{Comparison of different feature map selection strategies.} As described in sub-section \ref{Network structure}, the generator takes three different feature maps from the feature extractor as the input and maps them to the image space. Then, the output of the generator is used to calculate the adversarial loss, which is crucial for domain-invariant feature learning. Therefore, the selection strategy for the feature maps will affect the segmentation performance. Because there are four down-sampling operations in our feature extractor, we have a total of five sizes including the original image (1:$512\times512$, 2:$256\times256$, 3:$128\times128$, 4:$64\times64$, 5:$32\times32$). We conduct a series of experiments using different combinations. From Table \ref{tab:ablation-1}, it can be observed that our network achieves the highest performance when the generator takes high-level feature maps as the input. This proves that the high-level semantic information is more helpful for domain adaptation than the rich details in the low-level features maps. We adopt this setting for our network.
\noindent \textbf{Effect of different components in our network.} Table \ref{tab:ablation-2} shows how the different components of our network influence the segmentation performance. The bold line corresponds to our proposed method, while the other methods differ from our proposed approach in the following respects. (1) w/o adversarial training: the source-only baseline corresponds to $\alpha$=0. Here, the domain adaptation module is excluded and only the feature extractor and classifier are used. (2) w/o skip connections: the skip connections between the feature extractor and classifier are removed, which are essential for preserving the fine-grained details in the segmentation. (3) feature space training: the domain adaptation module is removed and pixel-level adversarial loss for the feature maps is calculated, which is then used to update the feature extractor and classifier. The experimental results show that the domain adaptation module is critical to ensuring the excellent performance of our network. In addition, compared with feature space training, calculating the adversarial loss on image space is more efficient.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{Conclusion}
In this paper, we proposed a novel unsupervised domain adaptation based method for COVID-19 infection segmentation in CT images. We considered a challenging situation in which abundant synthetic annotated medical images are available, but no annotations are available for real COVID-19 lung CT images. We introduced unsupervised adversarial training to our network to correlate the features between real COVID-19 CT images and synthetic images. The cross-domain adversarial loss enforces the features learned by feature extractor from the two domains closer, thus the network can learn the common representations of two domains and retain the diagnostic information (i.e., the features of COVID-19 infection). Experimental results on CT images of COVID-19 cases demonstrated that our proposal outperforms baseline and state-of-the-art approaches. We also demonstrated the effectiveness of our network in lung segmentation. Our proposed method has great potential for use in diagnosing COVID-19 by quantifying the infected areas of the lung.
\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec: Introduction}
A quench, or sudden change in a system's Hamiltonian, is a useful way of probing nonequilibrium physics, in particular the nonequilibrium steady state that may occur in the long-time limit (with the system size taken to infinity first). In this paper we extend our wavefunction formalism for quench dynamics and nonequilibrium steady states \cite{CulverAndrei_PRB1} to quantum impurity models with charge fluctuations, focusing on the interacting resonant level model and the Anderson impurity model. In the former case, we find the exact time-evolving wavefunction; in the latter case, we find the nonequilibrium steady state for large or small Coulomb repulsion. We then use these wavefunctions to compute some physical quantities. This computation leads to complex mathematical expressions which require us to expand in some parameter to make them accessible in the thermodynamic limit.
Let us recall the basic setup of our quench, as described in our previous paper \cite{CulverAndrei_PRB1}. The system consists of a quantum impurity coupled to any number of leads (reservoirs of electrons), which are held at arbitrary temperatures and chemical potentials. The leads themselves are noninteracting; it is the coupling between the leads and the impurity that makes this a many-body problem. Prior to $t=0$, the impurity is decoupled, and the system is in a very simple state: a Fermi sea in each lead filling up to the chemical potential (or more generally, a finite-temperature Fermi distribution in each lead). The quench at $t=0$ consists of turning on the coupling between the impurity and the leads.
Previously, we used our formalism for calculating the many-body wavefunction and expectation values in the Kondo model, in which the quantum impurity has only a fluctuating spin. Here we present an extension of our formalism to models in which both the spin and the charge of the impurity can fluctuate. We set up a general formalism, focusing in particular on two models. The first is the interacting resonant level model (IRL), in which the impurity is a spinless fermion $d^\dagger$ that has tunneling and Coulomb interaction with any number of leads:
\begin{multline}
H_{\text{IRL}} = - i \int_{-L/2}^{L/2}dx\ \sum_{\gamma=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}} \psi_{\gamma}^\dagger(x) \frac{d}{dx} \psi_{\gamma}(x) + \epsilon d^\dagger d \\
+ \sum_{\gamma=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}}\left[\frac{v}{\sqrt{N_{\text{leads}}}} \psi_{\gamma}^\dagger(0) d + \text{ h.c.}\right]\\
+ U\sum_{\gamma=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}} \psi_{\gamma}^\dagger(0)\psi_{\gamma}(0) d^\dagger d.\label{eq: H multilead IRL}
\end{multline}
With a view towards universal low energy physics, we have followed the usual steps of taking the wide-band limit and ``unfolding'' the leads, resulting in a one-dimensional model with linear dispersion. We have also assumed equal tunneling and Coulomb interaction strength for each lead.
The second model we focus on is the Anderson impurity model (AIM), again with any number of leads with equal tunneling to the dot:
\begin{multline}
H_{\text{AIM}} = -i \int_{-L/2}^{L/2 } dx\ \sum_{\gamma=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}} \psi_{\gamma a}^\dagger(x) \frac{d}{dx}\psi_{\gamma a}(x) + \epsilon d_a^\dagger d_a \\
+ \sum_{\gamma=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}} \left[\frac{v}{\sqrt{N_{\text{leads}}}} \psi_{\gamma a}^\dagger(0) d_a + \text{ h.c.} \right]+ U n_{\uparrow} n_{\downarrow}.\label{eq: H multilead AIM}
\end{multline}
In this case, the impurity is a single spin-$1/2$ fermion $d_a^\dagger$ with a Coulomb energy cost $U$ to having both spins present. We again are considering the wide-band limit.
The nonequilibrium physics of these models has been studied by a great variety of approaches, usually in the case $N_{\text{leads}}=2$ that is most relevant to transport experiments. The IRL has been studied by, for instance, a nonequilibrium version of the Bethe ansatz \cite{MehtaAndrei, *MehtaEtAl_erratum}; perturbative, NRG, and Anderson-Yuval Coulomb gas methods \cite{BordaEtAl}; Hershfield density matrix \cite{Doyon}; conformal field theory and integrability \cite{BoulatSaleur}; time-dependent DMRG and integrability \cite{BoulatSaleurSchmitteckert}; and functional renormalization group and real-time renormalization group in frequency space \cite{KarraschEtAl}. There is still more literature on the AIM out of equilibrium; the reader may see the references in Ref. \cite{AshidaEtAl} for an extensive list (that also includes work on the related nonequilibrium Kondo problem).
In the quench setup we consider, the first challenge is to find the many-body wavefunction following the quench. One of our main results is the exact solution of this problem in the case of the multilead IRL. We show that in the long-time limit, the time-evolving wavefunction becomes a nonequilibrium steady state (NESS): a solution of the time-independent Schrodinger equation with the boundary condition of incoming plane waves (the Fermi seas of the leads). In addition, the time-independent version of our formalism yields this NESS directly, without following the quench dynamics. In the AIM, we use the time-independent formalism to find the NESS in the limits of small $U$ (which we use as a check, comparing with Keldysh perturbation theory) and $U\to\infty$.
NESS wavefunctions for the IRL and AIM have previously been obtained by Nishino and collaborators \cite{NishinoEtAl_PRLonIRL, NishinoEtAl_PRBonIRL,NishinoHatanoOrdonez,ImamuraEtAl}; our more general approach recovers some of their results in special cases. We discuss these special cases in more detail below.
We emphasize that the NESS wavefunctions in this paper differ in an essential way from Bethe ansatz wavefunctions. The key point is that Bethe ansatz wavefunctions are well-suited to quantization on a ring with periodic boundary conditions, which is most natural for equilibrium problems (one can enumerate states and calculate the partition function). In contrast, the NESS wavefunctions in this paper are simple on the ``incoming'' side $(x<0)$ and complicated on the ``outgoing'' side ($x>0$)---they are scattering ``in'' states. These wavefunctions permit the evaluation of observables directly in steady state nonequilibrium, without the need to follow the real-time dynamics that establish the steady state.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \ref{sec: Wavefunction formalism for charge fluctuations}, we present our wavefunction formalism for models with charge fluctuations. This presentation begins with the noninteracting resonant level model as a warmup, then proceeds to the one-lead IRL as the first nontrivial application of our approach. Then, the approach is presented in a more formal and general way, in both time-dependent and time-independent forms, and results are presented for the multilead IRL and the multilead AIM. In Sec. \ref{sec: Evaluation of observables}, we use our wavefunctions to calculate observables. We calculate the impurity occupancy in the IRL at leading order in $U$, verifying that the steady state equilibrium answer agrees with a calculation in the literature and presenting some new results in steady state nonequilibrium. We also calculate the steady-state current in the two-lead AIM for small $U$ (obtaining an answer that we have verified with Keldysh perturbation theory) and for $U\to\infty$ with small $\Delta \equiv \frac{1}{2}|v|^2$ (recovering a scaling law well known from the equilibrium case). We conclude in Sec. \ref{sec: Conclusion and outlook} with a summary and outlook.
\section{Wavefunction formalism for charge fluctuations}\label{sec: Wavefunction formalism for charge fluctuations}
We present a reformulation of the many-body Schrodinger equation (time-dependent or time-independent) that allows us to calculate wavefunctions in the IRL and AIM. Our formalism takes care of much of the combinatorial bookkeeping involved in solving for an $N$-body wavefunction in order to isolate the hard part of the interacting problem, which we find is a certain family of differential equations that we call ``inverse problems.'' The equivalence of the many-body Schrodinger equation to these inverse problems holds under fairly general conditions; in some one-dimensional quantum impurity models with linear spectrum, the inverse problems can be solved in closed form.
We present our formalism first in a specific example: the one-lead IRL. We warm up in Sec. \ref{sec: Noninteracting case: The resonant level model} with the noninteracting resonant level, which provides a starting point for our calculations in both the IRL and the AIM. In Sec. \ref{sec: Time-evolving wavefunction of the one-lead IRL}, we present the time-evolving wavefunction of the one-lead IRL. This example motivates the more general formalism for time evolution that we set up in Sec. \ref{sec: General formalism}; we also give a brief account of the time-independent version of the formalism in Sec. \ref{sec: Time-independent formalism}. In Sec. \ref{sec: Time-evolving wavefunction of the multilead IRL}, we present the time-evolving wavefunction of the multilead IRL, and in Sec. \ref{sec: NESS of the multilead AIM for small or large U} we present the NESS of the multilead AIM for small or large $U$.
\subsection{Noninteracting case: The resonant level model}\label{sec: Noninteracting case: The resonant level model}
We consider first the one-lead RLM:
\begin{multline}
H^{(0)} = - i \int_{-L/2}^{L/2}dx\ \psi^\dagger(x) \frac{d}{dx} \psi(x) + \epsilon d^\dagger d \\
+\left[ v \psi^\dagger(0) d + \text{ h.c.}\right].\label{eq: one-lead RLM}
\end{multline}
We use the following notation throughout the rest of the paper:
\begin{equation}
\Delta = \frac{1}{2}|v|^2,\ z = \epsilon - i\Delta,\ \mathcal{T}(k) = \frac{2\Delta}{k-z}. \label{eq: RLM basic notation}
\end{equation}
We begin by defining the time evolution of the momentum creation operators $c_k^\dagger\equiv \frac{1}{\sqrt{L}}\int_{-L/2}^{L/2}dx\ e^{i k x} \psi^\dagger(x)$ as follows:
\begin{equation}
c_k^\dagger(t) \equiv e^{-i H^{(0)} t } c_k^\dagger e^{i H^{(0)} t}.
\end{equation}
The point is that, since $H^{(0)}$ annihilates the empty state $|0\rangle$, the time evolution of an initial state with arbitrary momenta is given by $e^{-i H^{(0)} t} c_{k_N}^\dagger \dots c_{k_1}^\dagger |0\rangle =c_{k_N}^\dagger(t) \dots c_{k_1}^\dagger(t) |0\rangle $. This same approach was used by Gurvitz in noninteracting Floquet models \cite{Gurvitz}; our approach will be to use the $c_k^\dagger(t)$ operators as a basic ingredient in constructing the wavefunction in an interacting model. We emphasize that our calculation is done in the Schrodinger picture.
A straightforward calculation yields the following explicit form in the regime of interest ($0\le t < L/2$):
\begin{multline}
c_k^\dagger(t) = e^{-i k t}c_k^\dagger
+ \frac{1}{\sqrt{L}}\int dx\ F_k(t-x)\\
\times \left( \Theta(0<x<t) \psi^\dagger(x) + \frac{i}{v} \delta(x) d^\dagger \right),\label{eq: ckdagger(t) RLM}
\end{multline}
where
\begin{equation}
F_k(t) = - i \mathcal{T}(k)\left( e^{-ik t} - e^{-i z t} \right).\label{eq: Fk RLM}
\end{equation}
Let us make one comment on this solution. Due to the linearity of the spectrum, the wavefunction is discontinuous at $x=0$, and one therefore needs a prescription to make sense of $\delta(x)$ multiplying a discontinuous function. Here and in all wavefunction calculations in this paper, the prescription we use is to average the two limits of the discontinuous function as $x\to 0^\pm$. This has the effect of replacing, e.g., $\Theta(x)\delta(x) \to \frac{1}{2} \delta(x)$. This prescription has been used successfully in equilibrium calculations with the Bethe ansatz \cite{AndreiFuruyaLowenstein}.
In the infinite time limit, the $c_k^\dagger(t)$ operators create scattering ``in'' states: that is, states with an incoming plane wave ($e^{i kx}$ for $x<0$). This infinite time limit must be taken in a particular sense, removing a trivial overall phase factor and taking the limit \emph{pointwise}: A limit is reached at each point $x$ but not uniformly for all $x$. We send $L\to\infty$ before $t\to\infty$, removing the prefactor $1/\sqrt{L}$ to convert from Kronecker delta normalization to Dirac delta normalization. The result is
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&c_{k,\text{in}}^\dagger \equiv \lim_{t\to\infty} e^{i k t} \lim_{L\to\infty} \sqrt{L} \Biggr( \int dx\ \{ \psi(x), c_k^\dagger(t) \} \psi^\dagger(x) \notag \\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad+\{ d ,c_k^\dagger(t) \} d^\dagger \Biggr) \\
&=c_k^\dagger + \int dx\ F_{k,\text{in}}(x) \left( \Theta(0<x) \psi^\dagger(x) + \frac{i}{v}\delta(x)d^\dagger\right),\label{eq: ckindagger RLM}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $c_k^\dagger=\int dx\ e^{ikx} \psi^\dagger(x)$ in the second line (i.e., Dirac normalized), and
\begin{equation}
F_{k,\text{in}}(x) = -i \mathcal{T}(k) e^{i k x}.
\end{equation}
From the electron part of the wavefunction $c_{k,\text{in}}^\dagger|0\rangle$, we can see that $\mathcal{T}(k)$ is the bare $\mathcal{T}$ matrix for a single electron crossing the impurity. The corresponding bare $\mathcal{S}$ matrix is $\mathcal{S}= 1 - i\mathcal{T}(k) = \frac{k -\epsilon - i\Delta}{k-\epsilon + i \Delta}$, in agreement with Bethe ansatz.
We proceed to the simplest multilead RLM, in which an arbitrary number of leads indexed by $\gamma = 1,\dots, N_{\text{leads}}$ all tunnel to the dot with the same tunneling coefficient:
\begin{multline}
H^{(0)} = - i \int_{-L/2}^{L/2}dx\ \sum_{\gamma=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}} \psi_{\gamma}^\dagger(x) \frac{d}{dx} \psi_{\gamma}(x) + \epsilon d^\dagger d \\
+\sum_{\gamma=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}}\left[ \frac{v}{\sqrt{N_{\text{leads}}}} \psi_{\gamma}^\dagger(0) d + \text{ h.c.}\right].
\end{multline}
After a unitary rotation, the Hamiltonian separates into $N_{\text{leads}}-1$ free fermion fields and a copy of the RLM, with the latter involving the ``even'' combination $c_{ek} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{N_{\text{leads}}}}\sum_{\beta=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}}c_{\beta k}$. The time evolution of operators is straightforward in this rotated basis, seeing as the free fermion fields evolve by phase factors and the RLM field evolves according to Eq. \eqref{eq: ckdagger(t) RLM}. Rotating back to the original basis, we obtain
\begin{multline}
c_{\gamma k}^\dagger(t) = e^{-i k t}c_{\gamma k}^\dagger + \frac{1}{N_{\text{leads}}\sqrt{L}}\int dx\ F_k(t-x) \\
\times \left( \Theta(0<x<t)
\sum_{\beta=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}} \psi_{\beta}^\dagger(x) + \frac{i\sqrt{N_{\text{leads}}}}{v} \delta(x) d^\dagger \right),\label{eq: ckdagger(t) mcRLM}
\end{multline}
where $c_{\gamma k}^\dagger(t) =\frac{1}{\sqrt{L}}\int_{-L/2}^{L/2} dx\ e^{i kx} \psi_{\gamma}^\dagger(x)$. Taking the long-time limit in the same way as in the one-lead case yields
\begin{multline}
c_{\gamma k,\text{in}}^\dagger = c_{\gamma k}^\dagger + \frac{1}{N_{\text{leads}}}\int dx\ F_{k,\text{in} }(x) \\
\times \left( \Theta(0<x)
\sum_{\beta=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}} \psi_{\beta}^\dagger(x) + \frac{i\sqrt{N_{\text{leads}}}}{v} \delta(x) d^\dagger \right),\label{eq: cgammakindagger mcRLM}
\end{multline}
where the momentum creation operators here are Dirac normalized [$c_{\gamma k}^\dagger =\int dx\ e^{i kx} \psi_{\gamma}^\dagger(x)$].
\subsection{Time-evolving wavefunction of the one-lead IRL}\label{sec: Time-evolving wavefunction of the one-lead IRL}
To the one-lead resonant level model Hamiltonian $H^{(0)}$ of the previous section, we add a Coulomb interaction between the dot and the charge density at $x=0$ to arrive at the one-lead IRL:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
H^{(1)} &= U \psi^\dagger(0)\psi(0)d^\dagger d,\\
H &= H^{(0)} + H^{(1)}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
We present the exact time-evolving wavefunction of this model given an initial state $c_{k_N}^\dagger \dots c_{k_1}^\dagger|0\rangle$ with arbitrary momenta. We use this model to illustrate a more general method which is detailed in the next section.
We wish to find the following time-dependent wavefunction:
\begin{equation}
|\Psi(t) \rangle \equiv e^{-i H t} \left( \prod_{j=1}^N c_{k_j}^\dagger \right) |0 \rangle.
\end{equation}
Equivalently, we need to solve the differential equation
\begin{equation}
\left( H - i \frac{d}{dt} \right)|\Psi(t) \rangle =0,
\end{equation}
with the initial condition
\begin{equation}
|\Psi(t=0) \rangle = c_{k_N}^\dagger \dots c_{k_1}^\dagger |0 \rangle.\label{eq: initial condition IRL}
\end{equation}
In the noninteracting case ($U=0$), the full solution is given by a product of the time-dependent creation operators of the RLM [Eq. \eqref{eq: ckdagger(t) RLM}]:
\begin{equation}
|\Psi^0(t)\rangle = \left( \prod_{j=1}^N c_{k_j}^\dagger(t) \right)|0\rangle.
\end{equation}
The method we introduce is a way of systematically adding a finite number of correction terms to $|\Psi^0(t)\rangle$ to form the full solution $|\Psi(t)\rangle$ for arbitrary coupling $U$. A basic ingredient in the solution is a set of ``crossing states'' $|\Phi_{k_1 \dots k_n}(t)\rangle$, which are called such because they are built from single-particle $\mathcal{T}$-matrices for electrons crossing the origin---both the RLM $\mathcal{T}$ matrix $\mathcal{T}(k)$ [Eq. \eqref{eq: RLM basic notation}] and the $\mathcal{T}$ matrix $\mathcal{T}_U$ for a single electron scattering off a potential $U\delta(x)$ (though such a potential is not present in the Hamiltonian). The full solution $|\Psi(t)\rangle$ is built from $c_k^\dagger(t)$ operators acting on crossing states.
We begin by defining two operators that, roughly speaking, measure the failure of the $c_k^\dagger(t)$ operators to describe the full time evolution:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
A_k(t) &\equiv [ H, c_k^\dagger(t)] - i \frac{\partial }{\partial t} c_k^\dagger(t),\\
B_{k_1 k_2}(t) &\equiv \{A_{k_2}(t), c_{k_1}^\dagger(t)\}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
A short calculation yields these operators in explicit form. The first is
\begin{multline}
A_k(t)
= \frac{1}{\sqrt{L}}U d^\dagger \psi^\dagger(0)\\
\times \left[-i \mathcal{T}(k) \left( e^{-i kt} - e^{-i zt} \right)\left( \frac{i}{v} \psi(0) - \frac{1}{2} d \right)- e^{-i k t} d \right],
\end{multline}
and the second is the antisymmetrization of a ``reduced'' operator:
\begin{equation}
B_{k_1 k_2} (t) = B_{k_1 k_2}^{(\text{red})}(t) - B_{k_2 k_1}^{(\text{red})}(t),\label{eq: B in terms of Bred IRL}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
B_{k_1 k_2}^{(\text{red})}(t) = - \frac{U}{Lv} \mathcal{T}(k_1) \left( e^{-i k_1 t}- e^{-i z t} \right)e^{-i k_2 t} d^\dagger \psi^\dagger(0).
\end{equation}
The reduced operator is not uniquely defined, since one can add any symmetric function, but this is a convenient choice.
We note two properties of these operators for later reference:
\begin{itemize}
\item Any $A(t)$ annihilates the empty state:
\begin{equation}
A_k(t) |0\rangle= 0.\label{eq: A annihilates 0 IRL}
\end{equation}
\item Any $B(t)$ commutes with any momentum creation operator:
\begin{equation}
[ B_{k_1 k_2}(t), c_{k_3}^\dagger(t)] = 0.\label{eq: B commutes IRL}
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
The case of $N=1$ is noninteracting: With $|\Psi^0(t)\rangle = c_{k_1}^\dagger(t)|0\rangle$, we have $(H-i\frac{d}{dt})|\Psi^0(t)\rangle= A_{k_1}(t) |0\rangle$, which vanishes due to \eqref{eq: A annihilates 0 IRL}. We present the cases of $N=2$, $3$, and $4$ in detail, then proceed to general $N$.
\subsubsection{Two electrons}
For $N=2$, the freely-evolving state is $|\Psi^0(t)\rangle = c_{k_2}^\dagger(t)c_{k_1}^\dagger(t)|0\rangle$. Bringing $(H- i\frac{d}{dt})$ past the momentum operators to annihilate the empty state yields
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\left(H - i \frac{d}{d t} \right) |\Psi^0(t)\rangle &= A_{k_2}(t)c_{k_1}^\dagger(t) | 0 \rangle
+ c_{k_2}^\dagger(t) A_{k_1}(t) | 0 \rangle\\
&= B_{k_1 k_2}(t) |0\rangle,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where we used Eq. \eqref{eq: A annihilates 0 IRL}. The $N=2$ problem thus reduces to constructing a state $|\Phi_{k_1 k_2}(t)\rangle$ which is the ``inverse of $B_{k_1 k_2}(t)|0\rangle$'' in the following precise sense:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\left(H - i \frac{d}{dt}\right) |\Phi_{k_1 k_2}(t)\rangle &= - B_{k_1 k_2}(t) |0\rangle, \label{eq: Phi2 Schrod IRL}\\
|\Phi_{k_1 k_2}(t=0)\rangle &= 0. \label{eq: Phi2 initial condition IRL}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Given such a state (which we explicitly construct below), the $N=2$ solution is immediate:
\begin{equation}
|\Psi(t) \rangle = |\Psi^0(t)\rangle + |\Psi^2(t)\rangle,
\end{equation}
where $|\Psi^2(t)\rangle = |\Phi_{k_1 k_2}(t)\rangle$. The point of these manipulations is that the state $|\Phi_{k_1 k_2}(t)\rangle$ will appear again in the solution for larger $N$.
Recalling Eq. \eqref{eq: B in terms of Bred IRL}, we write
\begin{equation}
|\Phi_{k_1 k_2}(t)\rangle \equiv |\chi_{k_1 k_2}(t)\rangle -|\chi_{k_2 k_1}(t)\rangle,\label{eq: Phi2 in terms of chi2 IRL}
\end{equation}
where the unsymmetrized crossing state $|\chi_{k_1 k_2}(t)\rangle$ is required to vanish at $t=0$ and satisfy
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&\left(H - i \frac{d}{dt}\right) |\chi_{k_1 k_2}(t)\rangle = - B_{k_1 k_2}^{(\text{red})}(t) |0\rangle\\
&=\frac{U}{Lv} \mathcal{T}(k_1) \left( e^{-i k_1 t}- e^{-i z t} \right)e^{-i k_2 t} d^\dagger \psi^\dagger(0) |0\rangle.\label{eq: chi2 Schrod IRL}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
We make the following ansatz for the unsymmetrized crossing state:
\begin{multline}
|\chi_{k_1 k_2}(t) \rangle = \frac{1}{L} \int dx_1 dx_2\ F_{k_1 k_2}(t,x_1,x_2) \\
\times \biggr[ \Theta(0<x_2<x_1<t) \psi^\dagger(x_2) \\
+ \frac{i}{v} \delta(x_2)\Theta(0<x_1 <t) d^\dagger \biggr] \psi^\dagger(x_1)|0\rangle,\label{eq: n=2 ansatz IRL}
\end{multline}
where we use the notation $\Theta(x_n < \dots < x_1) = \Theta(x_1 - x_2) \dots \Theta(x_n- x_{n-1})$, and where $F_{k_1 k_2}$ is a smooth function to be determined below. Since an ansatz of similar form occurs throughout our calculations in both the IRL and AIM, we describe it in some detail.
The state $|\chi_{k_1 k_2}(t)\rangle$ should vanish outside the forward ``light cone,'' seeing as the effect of the quench travels rightward from the origin at the Fermi velocity (which we have set to unity). The ordering $x_2<x_1$ is a convenience and no loss of generality. The state vanishes at $t=0$ by construction; to see this, we note that the overlap of $|\chi_{k_1 k_2}(t=0) \rangle$ with any reasonable state yields an integral of the form $\int_{-L/2}^{L/2}dx_1 dx_2\ \Theta(0<x_2<x_1<0)X(x_1,x_2)$ with some nonsingular function $X$, and this integral vanishes. (In other words, the position space wavefunction of $|\chi_{k_1 k_2}(t=0) \rangle$ is nonsingular and vanishes everywhere except on a set of measure zero and hence is equivalent to the identically zero function.)
The only part of Eq. \eqref{eq: n=2 ansatz IRL} remaining that requires explanation is the impurity-electron part of the wavefunction, i.e., $d^\dagger \psi^\dagger(x_1)$. This term is chosen so that acting on it with the tunneling term of $H$ produces an exact cancellation with the action of the kinetic term minus $i\frac{d}{dt}$ on the Heaviside function in the electron-electron part, i.e., $\psi^\dagger(x_2) \psi^\dagger(x_1)$. In particular, we have
\begin{multline}
\int dx_1 dx_2\ F_{k_1 k_2}(t,x_1,x_2) \biggr[ -i \left(\frac{\partial }{\partial t} + \frac{\partial}{\partial x_1} +\frac{\partial}{\partial x_2} \right) \\
\times \Theta(0<x_2<x_1<t) \biggr] \psi^\dagger(x_2)\psi^\dagger(x_1)|0\rangle\\
+ v \psi^\dagger(0) d \int dx_1dx_2\ F_{k_1 k_2}(t,x_1,x_2) \frac{i}{v} \delta(x_2)\\
\times \Theta(0<x_1<t)d^\dagger \psi^\dagger(x_1)|0\rangle = 0. \label{eq: convenient cancellation}
\end{multline}
This cancellation is desirable because we want $(H-i\frac{d}{dt})|\chi_{k_1 k_2}(t)\rangle$ to be of the form $\psi^\dagger(0)d^\dagger |0\rangle$ in order to match the right-hand side of Eq. \eqref{eq: chi2 Schrod IRL}. Proceeding, we find
\begin{widetext}
\begin{multline}
\left(H - i \frac{d}{dt} \right)|\chi_{k_1 k_2}(t) \rangle = \frac{1}{L} \Biggr\{ \int dx_1 dx_2\ \left[ -i \left(\frac{\partial }{\partial t} + \frac{\partial}{\partial x_1} +\frac{\partial}{\partial x_2} \right)F_{k_1 k_2}(t,x_1,x_2) \right]\\
\Theta(0<x_2<x_1<t)\psi^\dagger(x_2)\psi^\dagger(x_1)\\
+ \frac{i}{v} \int dx_1\ \left[ \left( -i \frac{\partial}{\partial t} -i \frac{\partial}{\partial x_1} +z \right)F_{k_1 k_2}(t,x_1,0) \right]
\Theta(0<x_1<t) d^\dagger \psi^\dagger(x_1)\\
+\frac{i}{v}\left( -i + \frac{1}{2} U \right) F_{k_1 k_2}(t,0,0) d^\dagger \psi^\dagger(0) \Biggr\} |0\rangle,\label{eq: action on chi2 IRL}
\end{multline}
\end{widetext}
where the averaging prescription has been used [see the comment below Eq. \eqref{eq: Fk RLM}] to replace $\delta(x_2)\Theta(0<x_2<x_1<t) \to \frac{1}{2}\delta(x_2)\Theta(0<x_1<t)$. Comparing to Eq. \eqref{eq: chi2 Schrod IRL}, we see that it suffices for the function $F_{k_1 k_2}$ to satisfy the following three requirements:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&\left(\frac{\partial }{\partial t} + \frac{\partial}{\partial x_1} +\frac{\partial}{\partial x_2} \right)F_{k_1 k_2}(t,x_1,x_2) = 0, \label{eq: first requirement n=2 IRL}\\
&\left[ -i \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial}{\partial x_1} \right) +z \right]F_{k_1 k_2}(t,x_1,0)= 0, \label{eq: second requirement n=2 IRL}\\
&\left( 1 + \frac{i}{2} U \right) F_{k_1 k_2}(t,0,0) = U\ \mathcal{T}(k_1)\left( e^{-i k_1 t} - e^{-i z t} \right)\notag\\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \times e^{-i k_2 t}. \label{eq: third requirement n=2 IRL}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The first requirement will hold if $F_{k_1k_2}$ is a function of the coordinate differences only $(t-x_1, t-x_2,x_1-x_2)$, while the second requirement will hold if $F_{k_1 k_2}(t,x_1,0)$ is a function of $t-x_1$ times $e^{-i z x_1}$. From the third requirement, we can then read off
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
F_{k_1 k_2}(t,x_1,x_2) &= \mathcal{T}_U \mathcal{T}(k_1)\left( e^{-i k_1 (t -x_1)}- e^{-i z(t-x_1)} \right) \notag \\
&\qquad \times e^{-i k_2 (t-x_1)}e^{-i z(x_1- x_2)},\\ \label{eq: F n=2 IRL}
\text{where }\mathcal{T}_U &= \frac{U}{1+ i U/2}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The quantity $\mathcal{T}_U$ is exactly the $\mathcal{T}$ matrix for a single electron, with linear spectrum, scattering on a potential $U \delta(x)$. Recalling the antisymmetrization in Eq. \eqref{eq: Phi2 in terms of chi2 IRL}, we see that $|\Phi_{k_1 k_2}(t)\rangle$ is built from the free $\mathcal{T}$-matrices $T_U$, $\mathcal{T}(k_1)$, and $\mathcal{T}(k_2)$. This is why we refer to $|\Phi_{k_1 k_2}(t)\rangle$ as a ``crossing state.''
\subsubsection{Three electrons.}
For $N=3$, the freely-evolving state is $|\Psi^0(t)\rangle = c_{k_3}^\dagger(t)c_{k_2}^\dagger(t)c_{k_1}^\dagger(t)|0\rangle$, and we find
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&\left(H - i \frac{d}{dt} \right) |\Psi^0(t)\rangle =A_{k_3}(t) c_{k_2}^\dagger(t) c_{k_1}^\dagger(t) | 0 \rangle\notag\\
&+ c_{k_3}^\dagger(t) A_{k_2}(t) c_{k_1}^\dagger(t) | 0 \rangle
+ c_{k_3}^\dagger(t)c_{k_2}^\dagger(t) A_{k_1}(t)| 0 \rangle\\
&\qquad = c_{k_3}^\dagger(t) B_{k_1 k_2}(t)- c_{k_2}^\dagger(t)B_{k_1 k_3}(t) |0\rangle\notag \\
&\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad + c_{k_1}^\dagger(t) B_{k_2 k_3}(t) | 0 \rangle,\label{eq: leftover terms N=3 IRL}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where we used Eq. \eqref{eq: A annihilates 0 IRL} and Eq. \eqref{eq: B commutes IRL}. To cancel these leftover terms, we reuse the same crossing state $|\Phi_{k_1 k_2}(t)\rangle$ that appeared in the two electron case, defining
\begin{multline}
|\Psi^2(t)\rangle = c_{k_3}^\dagger(t) |\Phi_{k_1 k_2}(t)\rangle -c_{k_2}^\dagger(t) |\Phi_{k_1 k_3}(t)\rangle \\
+c_{k_1}^\dagger(t) |\Phi_{k_2 k_3}(t)\rangle .
\end{multline}
The point is that, if we bring $(H-i\frac{d}{dt})$ to the right of the $c_k^\dagger(t)$ operators in $|\Psi^2(t)\rangle$, then by the condition Eq. \eqref{eq: Phi2 Schrod IRL} that the crossing state satisfies, we obtain exactly what we need to cancel the leftover terms on the right-hand side of Eq. \eqref{eq: leftover terms N=3 IRL}. Bringing $(H-i\frac{d}{dt})$ to the right generates new commutators:
\begin{multline}
\left( H- i\frac{d}{dt} \right) \left( |\Psi^0(t)\rangle + |\Psi^2(t)\rangle \right)= A_{k_3}(t) |\Phi_{k_1 k_2}(t)\rangle\\ -A_{k_2}(t) |\Phi_{k_1 k_3}(t)\rangle +
A_{k_1}(t) |\Phi_{k_2 k_3}(t)\rangle.
\end{multline}
We are thus presented with a new ``inverse problem,'' namely to find a state $|\Phi_{k_1 k_2 k_3}(t)\rangle$ that satisfies
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&\left(H - i \frac{d}{dt} \right) |\Phi_{k_1 k_2 k_3}(t) \rangle = -\Biggr( A_{k_3}(t) |\Phi_{k_1 k_2}(t)\rangle\notag\\
&\qquad - A_{k_2}(t) |\Phi_{k_1 k_3}(t)\rangle + A_{k_1}(t) |\Phi_{k_2 k_3}(t)\rangle\Biggr),\\
&|\Phi_{k_1 k_2 k_3}(t =0) \rangle = 0.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Given such a state, the full solution is $|\Psi(t)\rangle = |\Psi^0(t)\rangle+|\Psi^2(t)\rangle+|\Psi^3(t)\rangle$, where $|\Psi^3(t)\rangle = |\Phi_{k_1 k_2 k_3}(t)\rangle.$ This exhibits the pattern that continues to all $N$: the states $|\Psi^1(t)\rangle,\dots, |\Psi^{N-1}(t)\rangle$ are built from crossing states that have been encountered already (up to $N-1$), while $|\Psi^N(t)\rangle$ requires a new crossing state.
It is again convenient to write the new crossing state as an antisymmetrized sum over permutations:
\begin{multline}
|\Phi_{k_1 k_2 k_3}(t)\rangle = \sum_{\sigma \in \text{Sym}(3)}(\sgn \sigma) |\chi_{k_{\sigma_1} k_{\sigma_2} k_{\sigma_3}}(t)\rangle,
\end{multline}
where the unsymmetrized crossing state $|\chi_{k_1 k_2 k_3}(t)\rangle$ must vanish at $t=0$ and satisfy [recall Eq. \eqref{eq: Phi2 in terms of chi2 IRL}]
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&\left(H - i \frac{d}{dt} \right) |\chi_{k_1 k_2 k_3}(t) \rangle = - A_{k_3}(t) |\chi_{k_1 k_2}(t)\rangle \label{eq: Phi3 Schrod IRL}\\
&\qquad =\frac{1}{L^{3/2}} \frac{i}{v} U \int dx_1\ F_{k_1 k_2}(t,x_1,0) \notag\\
&\qquad \qquad \times e^{-i k_3 t}
\Theta(0<x_1<t) d^\dagger \psi^\dagger(0) \psi^\dagger(x_1)|0\rangle.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
To find the unsymmetrized crossing state, we extend our previous ansatz \eqref{eq: n=2 ansatz IRL} to include another electron:
\begin{multline}
|\chi_{k_1 k_2 k_3}(t) \rangle = \frac{1}{L^{3/2}} \int dx_1 dx_2 dx_3\ F_{k_1 k_2 k_3}(t,x_1,x_2,x_3) \\
\times \biggr[ \Theta(0<x_3<x_2<x_1<t) \psi^\dagger(x_3) \\
+ \frac{i}{v} \delta(x_3)\Theta(0<x_2<x_1 <t) d^\dagger \biggr] \psi^\dagger(x_2) \psi^\dagger(x_1)|0\rangle.\label{eq: n=3 ansatz IRL}
\end{multline}
We require that $F_{k_1 k_2 k_3}(t,x_1,x_2,x_3)$ is a function of coordinate differences only and that $F_{k_1 k_2 k_3}(t,x_1,x_2,0)$ equals $e^{-i z x_1}$ times a function of $t-x_1$ and $t-x_2$; then we obtain (see Appendix \ref{sec: Full calculation of nth crossing state} for the full calculation)
\begin{multline}
\left(H - i \frac{d}{dt}\right)|\chi_{k_1 k_2 k_3}(t)\rangle = \frac{1}{L^{3/2}}\frac{i}{v}\left(-i + \frac{1}{2}U \right)\\
\times \int dx_1\ F_{k_1 k_2 k_3}(t,x_1,0,0) \Theta(0<x_1<t)\\
\times d^\dagger \psi^\dagger(0) \psi^\dagger(x_1)|0\rangle.
\end{multline}
Thus, $F_{k_1 k_2 k_3}$ must also satisfy
\begin{multline}
\left(- i + \frac{1}{2} U \right)F_{k_1 k_2 k_3}(t,x_1,0,0) = U F_{k_1 k_2}(t,x_1,0)\\
\times e^{-i k_3 t} .
\end{multline}
We can build a suitable function using the $n=2$ solution:
\begin{multline}
F_{k_1 k_2 k_3}(t,x_1,x_2,x_3) = i \mathcal{T}_U F_{k_1 k_2}(t,x_1,x_3)\\
\times
e^{-i k_3 (t -x_2)}.
\end{multline}
\subsubsection{Four electrons.}
This is a sufficient number to illustrate all properties of the general $N$ solution. For $N=4$, the freely-evolving state is $|\Psi^0(t)\rangle = c_{k_4}^\dagger(t)c_{k_3}^\dagger(t)c_{k_2}^\dagger(t)c_{k_1}^\dagger(t)|0\rangle$, and following the same steps as before yields
\begin{equation}
|\Psi(t) \rangle = |\Psi^0(t) \rangle+|\Psi^2(t) \rangle+|\Psi^3(t) \rangle + |\Psi^4(t) \rangle,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{widetext}
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
|\Psi^2(t) \rangle &= c_{k_4}^\dagger(t) c_{k_3}^\dagger(t) |\Phi_{k_1 k_2}(t) \rangle - c_{k_4}^\dagger(t) c_{k_2}^\dagger(t) |\Phi_{k_1 k_3}(t) \rangle +c_{k_3}^\dagger(t) c_{k_2}^\dagger(t) |\Phi_{k_1 k_4}(t) \rangle \notag\\
&\qquad \qquad + c_{k_4}^\dagger(t) c_{k_1}^\dagger(t) |\Phi_{k_2 k_3}(t) \rangle - c_{k_3}^\dagger(t) c_{k_1}^\dagger(t) |\Phi_{k_2 k_4}(t) \rangle + c_{k_2}^\dagger(t) c_{k_1}^\dagger(t) |\Phi_{k_3 k_4}(t) \rangle, \\
|\Psi^3(t)\rangle &= c_{k_4}^\dagger(t) |\Phi_{k_1 k_2 k_3}(t)\rangle - c_{k_3}^\dagger(t) |\Phi_{k_1 k_2 k_4}(t)\rangle +c_{k_2}^\dagger(t) |\Phi_{k_1 k_3 k_4}(t)\rangle- c_{k_1}^\dagger(t) |\Phi_{k_2 k_3 k_4}(t)\rangle,\\
|\Psi^4(t)\rangle &= |\Phi_{k_1 k_2 k_3k_4} (t) \rangle,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $|\Phi_{k_1 k_2 k_3 k_4}(t)\rangle$ is a new crossing state, which must vanish at $t=0$ and satisfy
\begin{multline}
\left(H - i \frac{d}{dt} \right) |\Phi_{k_1 k_2 k_3 k_4}(t) \rangle = -\Biggr( B_{k_3 k_4}(t) |\Phi_{k_1 k_2}(t) \rangle - B_{k_2 k_4}(t) |\Phi_{k_1 k_3}(t) \rangle +B_{k_2 k_3}(t) |\Phi_{k_1 k_4}(t) \rangle \\
+ B_{k_1 k_4}(t) |\Phi_{k_2 k_3}(t) \rangle - B_{k_1 k_3}(t) |\Phi_{k_2 k_4}(t) \rangle + B_{k_1 k_2}(t) |\Phi_{k_3 k_4}(t) \rangle \Biggr)\\
-\Biggr( A_{k_4}(t) |\Phi_{k_1 k_2 k_3}(t)\rangle - A_{k_3}(t) |\Phi_{k_1 k_2 k_4}(t)\rangle +A_{k_2}(t) |\Phi_{k_1 k_3 k_4}(t)\rangle- A_{k_1}(t) |\Phi_{k_2 k_3 k_4}(t)\rangle \Biggr).
\end{multline}
\end{widetext}
There are two types of terms that $(H-i\frac{d}{dt})|\Phi_{k_1 k_2 k_3 k_4}(t)\rangle$ must cancel: the $B(t)$ terms, which come from bringing $H- i\frac{d}{dt}$ past the creation operators in $|\Psi^2(t)\rangle$, and the $A(t)$ terms, which come from the same process in $|\Psi^3(t)\rangle$. We deal with these separately by introducing two types of unsymmetrized crossing states, $|\chi_{k_1 k_2 | k_3 k_4}(t)\rangle$ and $|\chi_{k_1 k_2 k_3 k_4}(t)\rangle$ (the four momenta are either separated by a vertical line, or not), that are each required to vanish at $t=0$. We write the full crossing state as an antisymmetrization:
\begin{multline}
|\Phi_{k_1 k_2 k_3k_4} (t) \rangle = \sum_{\sigma \in \text{Sym}(4)}( \sgn \sigma) \biggr( |\chi_{k_{\sigma_1} k_{\sigma_2} | k_{\sigma_3}k_{\sigma_4}} (t) \rangle\\
+|\chi_{k_{\sigma_1} k_{\sigma_2} k_{\sigma_3}k_{\sigma_4}} (t) \rangle \biggr).
\end{multline}
Then it suffices for the unsymmetrized crossing states to satisfy
\begin{multline}
\left(H-i\frac{d}{dt}\right) |\chi_{k_1 k_2| k_3 k_4}(t)\rangle =
- B_{k_3 k_4}^{(\text{red})}(t) |\chi_{k_1 k_2}(t)\rangle = \\
\frac{1}{L^2} \frac{U}{v} \int dx_1 dx_2\ F_{k_1 k_2}(t,x_1,x_2) \mathcal{T}(k_3)\left( e^{-i k_3 t}- e^{-i z t} \right)\notag\\
\times e^{-i k_4 t} \Theta(0<x_2<x_1<t)d^\dagger \psi^\dagger(0) \psi^\dagger(x_2)\psi^\dagger(x_1)|0\rangle,
\end{multline}
and
\begin{multline}
\left(H-i\frac{d}{dt}\right) |\chi_{k_1 k_2 k_3 k_4}(t)\rangle =
- A_{k_4}(t) |\chi_{k_1 k_2 k_3}(t)\rangle =\\
\frac{1}{L^2}\frac{i}{v} U \int dx_1 dx_2\ F_{k_1 k_2 k_3}(t,x_1,x_2,0) e^{-i k_4 t}\\
\times \Theta(0<x_2<x_1<t) d^\dagger \psi^\dagger(0) \psi^\dagger(x_2)\psi^\dagger(x_1) |0\rangle.
\end{multline}
Extending Eq. \eqref{eq: n=3 ansatz IRL} to one more electron, we make the following ansatz:
\begin{widetext}
\begin{multline}
|\chi_{k_1 k_2 | k_3 k_4 }(t) \rangle = \frac{1}{L^2} \int dx_1 dx_2 dx_3 dx_4\ F_{k_1 k_2 | k_3 k_4}(t,x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4) \biggr[ \Theta(0<x_4<x_3<x_2<x_1<t) \psi^\dagger(x_4) \\
+ \frac{i}{v} \delta(x_4)\Theta(0<x_3<x_2<x_1 <t) d^\dagger \biggr] \psi^\dagger(x_3) \psi^\dagger(x_2) \psi^\dagger(x_1)|0\rangle,\label{eq: n=4 ansatz IRL}
\end{multline}
\end{widetext}
with the same ansatz for $|\chi_{k_1 k_2 k_3 k_4}(t)\rangle$ (with $F_{k_1 k_2 | k_3 k_4}$ replaced by $F_{k_1 k_2 k_3 k_4}$). We require that each $F(t,x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)$ is a function of coordinate differences only and that each $F(t,x_1,x_2,x_3,0)$ is of the form $e^{-i z x_j}$ times a function of $t-x_1,t-x_2$, and $t-x_3$; then (see Appendix \ref{sec: Full calculation of nth crossing state} for the full calculation)
\begin{multline}
\left(H - i \frac{d}{dt} \right)|\chi(t)\rangle = \frac{1}{L^2}\frac{i}{v} \left( -i + \frac{1}{2} U \right) \\
\times F(t,x_1,x_2,0,0) \Theta(0<x_2<x_1<t)\\ \times d^\dagger \psi^\dagger(0)\psi^\dagger(x_2)\psi^\dagger(x_1)|0\rangle,
\end{multline}
where $|\chi(t)\rangle$ and $F$ each have the subscript $(k_1,k_2| k_3,k_4)$ or $(k_1,k_2, k_3, k_4)$. Comparing, we see that the two $F$ functions must satisfy
\begin{multline}
\left( 1 + \frac{i}{2} U \right) F_{k_1 k_2 | k_3 k_4 }(t,x_1,x_2,0,0) = \\
U F_{k_1 k_2}(t,x_1,x_2) \mathcal{T}(k_3)\left( e^{-i k_3 t}- e^{-i z t} \right)e^{-i k_4 t},
\end{multline}
and
\begin{multline}
\left( -i + \frac{1}{2} U \right) F_{k_1 k_2 k_3 k_4 }(t,x_1,x_2,0,0) =\\
U F_{k_1 k_2 k_3}(t,x_1,x_2,0) e^{-i k_4 t}.
\end{multline}
The solutions are
\begin{multline}
F_{k_1 k_2 | k_3 k_4}(t,x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4) = F_{k_1 k_2}(t,x_1,x_2)\\
\times F_{k_3 k_4}(t,x_3,x_4),
\end{multline}
and
\begin{multline}
F_{k_1 k_2 k_3 k_3}(t,x_1, x_2,x_3,x_4) =
\left(i\mathcal{T}_U\right)^2\\
\times F_{k_1 k_2}(t,x_1,x_4) e^{-i k_3 (t-x_2)} e^{-i k_4 (t-x_3)}.
\end{multline}
\subsubsection{Solution for general N.}
From the above calculations, the pattern has emerged. The full wavefunction is a sum over subsets of the initial $N$ momenta; the chosen subset is put into a crossing state, which is then acted on by a product of $c_k^\dagger(t)$ operators that have the remaining momenta. Each crossing state $|\Phi_{k_1 \dots k_n}(t)\rangle$ is the antisymmetrization of unsymmetrized crossing states in which the $n$ momenta are separated into any number of ``cells'' of length two or greater---for instance, $|\Phi_{k_1 k_2 k_3 k_4 k_5 k_6}(t)\rangle$ would include $|\chi_{k_1 k_2 k_3 k_4 k_5 k_6}(t)\rangle$, $|\chi_{k_1 k_2 | k_3 k_4 k_5 k_6}(t)\rangle$, $|\chi_{k_1 k_2 k_3 k_4 | k_5 k_6}(t)\rangle$, and $|\chi_{k_1 k_2 | k_3 k_4| k_5 k_6}(t)\rangle$ (all antisymmetrized). Each new cell is associated with a $B^{(\text{red})}(t)$ operator, while the $A(t)$ operator extends the last cell by one. The unsymmetrized crossing states are given by the $n$-electron generalization of Eq. \eqref{eq: n=4 ansatz IRL}. Each new cell leads to a $F_{k_1 k_2}(t,x_1,x_2)$-type term, and any cell can be extended by changing the second $x$ coordinate of the $F_{k_1 k_2}$ function to the last coordinate of the cell and multiplying by a factor of the form $i\mathcal{T}_U e^{-i k_3 (t-x_2)}$. For example,
\begin{multline}
F_{k_1 k_2 k_3 | k_4 k_5 k_6 k_7 }(t,x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5,x_6,x_7) = \\
i\mathcal{T}_U F_{k_1 k_2}(t,x_1,x_3) e^{-i k_3 (t-x_2)}\\
\times \left(i\mathcal{T}_U\right)^2 F_{k_4 k_5}(t,x_4,x_7) e^{-i k_6 (t-x_5)} e^{-i k_7 (t-x_6)}.
\end{multline}
We now present this solution in more detail, leaving the proof to Appendix \ref{sec: Full calculation of nth crossing state}. For general $N$, we have
\begin{multline}
|\Psi(t) \rangle = |\Psi^0(t)\rangle + \sum_{n=2}^N \sum_{1\le m_1 < \dots < m_n \le N} \\
\times (-1)^{m_1+\dots+m_n + 1}
\left( \prod_{\substack{ j=1 \\ j \ne m_{\ell}\ \forall \ell }}^N c_{k_j}^\dagger(t) \right) \\
\times|\Phi_{k_{m_1} \dots k_{m_n}} (t) \rangle,\label{eq: wavefn construction IRL}
\end{multline}
where the terms in the summation over $n$ are exactly the $|\Psi^2(t)\rangle$, $|\Psi^3(t)\rangle$, etc. states discussed above. The sign factor comes from bringing the quantum numbers $(k_{m_1},\dots,k_{m_n})$ to the left of the full list $(k_1,\dots,k_N)$. To define the crossing states, we first write $\mathcal{A}$ as a shorthand for complete antisymmetrization in momenta---i.e., $\mathcal{A}\ X(k_1,\dots,k_n) = \sum_{\sigma \in \text{Sym}(n) }(\sgn \sigma) X(k_{\sigma_1}, \dots, k_{\sigma_n})$ for any function $X$. Then we have
\begin{widetext}
\begin{equation}
|\Phi_{k_1\dots k_n}(t) \rangle = \mathcal{A} \sum_{s=1}^{n/2} \sum_{\substack{2\le j_1 < \dots < j_s \le n \\ j_s =n,\ \text{each } j_{m+1} - j_m \ge 2 } } |\chi_{k_1 \dots k_{j_1} | \dots | k_{j_{s-1}+1 } \dots k_n } (t)\rangle,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{multline}
|\chi_{k_1 \dots k_{j_1} | \dots | k_{j_{s-1} + 1} \dots k_n}(t)\rangle = \frac{1}{L^{n/2}}\int dx_1\dots dx_n\ F_{k_1 \dots k_{j_1} | \dots | k_{j_{s-1} + 1} \dots k_n}(t,x_1,\dots, x_n)\\
\times \biggr[ \Theta(0<x_n<\dots < x_1< t) \psi^\dagger(x_n)
+ \frac{i}{v} \delta(x_n)\Theta(0<x_{n-1}<\dots < x_1<t) d^\dagger \biggr] \psi^\dagger(x_{n-1}) \dots \psi^\dagger(x_1)|0\rangle.\label{eq: n ansatz IRL}
\end{multline}
\end{widetext}
Before constructing the function $F$ for a general number of cells $s$, we first define it in the special case of $s=1$, i.e., a single cell:
\begin{multline}
F_{k_1 \dots k_n}(t,x_1,\dots,x_n)= \left( i \mathcal{T}_U \right)^{n-2} F_{k_1 k_2}(t,x_1,x_n) \\
\times \prod_{j=2}^n\ e^{-i k_j(t-x_{j-1})},\label{eq: single-celled F IRL}
\end{multline}
where $F_{k_1 k_2}(t,x_1,x_2)$ is given in Eq. \eqref{eq: F n=2 IRL}. Then, the function for general $s\ge1$ is a product of single-celled functions:
\begin{multline}
F_{k_1 \dots k_{j_1} | \dots | k_{j_{s-1} + 1} \dots k_n}(t,x_1,\dots,x_n) =\\
\prod_{m=1}^s F_{k_{j_{m-1} + 1} \dots k_{j_m} } (t, x_{j_{m-1}+1},\dots, x_{j_m} ), \label{eq: F product of cells IRL}
\end{multline}
where $j_0\equiv 1$ and $j_s\equiv n$. This completes the construction of the general crossing state, and thus the full many-body wavefunction.
\subsubsection{The NESS.} In the long-time limit, the time-evolving wavefunction becomes a NESS: a solution to the time-independent Schrodinger equation with the boundary condition of incoming plane waves with momenta $k_1,\dots,k_N$. As mentioned above Eq. \eqref{eq: ckindagger RLM}, this long-time limit must be taken in a pointwise sense, removing a trivial phase factor and rescaling by $L$ appropriately (see also a similar calculation in the Kondo model in the previous paper \cite{CulverAndrei_PRB1})
\begin{equation}
\langle x |\Psi_{\text{NESS}} \rangle = \lim_{\substack{t\to\infty, L\to \infty \\ t \ll L}} L^{N/2} e^{i E t} \langle x | \Psi(t) \rangle,
\end{equation}
where $E= k_1 + \dots + k_N$ and $|x\rangle = \psi^\dagger(x_N) \dots \psi^\dagger(x_1) |0\rangle$. The overlap of the NESS with a basis state with the dot occupied is obtained similarly. The result of taking this limit in the IRL wavefunction can essentially be read off by deleting the factors of $L$ and time-dependent phases, sending $t\to\infty$ in the Heaviside functions, and removing all terms in the $F$ functions that decay exponentially in time. For completeness, we now provide the NESS explicitly.
Define the following time-independent version of the basic function \eqref{eq: F n=2 IRL} that appeared in the time-dependent solution:
\begin{equation}
F_{k_1 k_2,\text{in}}(x_1,x_2) = \mathcal{T}_U \mathcal{T}(k_1)e^{i (k_1+k_2)x_1} e^{-i z(x_1- x_2)}.\\ \label{eq: F n=2 IRL NESS}
\end{equation}
Then, define the time-independent version of the single-celled function \eqref{eq: single-celled F IRL}:
\begin{multline}
F_{k_1 \dots k_n,\text{in} }(x_1,\dots,x_n)= \left( i \mathcal{T}_U \right)^{n-2} F_{k_1 k_2,\text{in} }(x_1,x_n) \\
\times \prod_{j=2}^n\ e^{i k_j x_{j-1}}.\label{eq: single-celled F IRL NESS}
\end{multline}
The time-independent function $F$ for an arbitrary number of cells is then defined as in Eq. \eqref{eq: F product of cells IRL}. We can then write the NESS wavefunction as follows:
\begin{widetext}
\begin{equation}
|\Psi_{\text{NESS}} \rangle = \left( \prod_{j=1}^N c_{k_j,\text{in}}^\dagger \right) |0\rangle + \sum_{n=2}^N \sum_{1\le m_1 < \dots < m_n \le N} (-1)^{m_1+\dots+m_n + 1}
\left( \prod_{\substack{ j=1 \\ j \ne m_{\ell}\ \forall \ell }}^N c_{k_j,\text{in}}^\dagger \right)|\Phi_{k_{m_1} \dots k_{m_n} ,\text{in}} \rangle,
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
|\Phi_{k_1\dots k_n,\text{in}} \rangle = \mathcal{A} \sum_{s=1}^{n/2} \sum_{\substack{2\le j_1 < \dots < j_s \le n \\ j_s =n,\ \text{each } j_{m+1} - j_m \ge 2 } } |\chi_{k_1 \dots k_{j_1} | \dots | k_{j_{s-1}+1 } \dots k_n ,\text{in} }\rangle,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{multline}
|\chi_{k_1 \dots k_{j_1} | \dots | k_{j_{s-1} + 1} \dots k_n,\text{in}}\rangle =\int dx_1\dots dx_n\ F_{k_1 \dots k_{j_1} | \dots | k_{j_{s-1} + 1} \dots k_n ,\text{in} }(x_1,\dots, x_n)\\
\times \biggr[ \Theta(0<x_n<\dots < x_1) \psi^\dagger(x_n)
+ \frac{i}{v} \delta(x_n)\Theta(0<x_{n-1}<\dots < x_1) d^\dagger \biggr] \psi^\dagger(x_{n-1}) \dots \psi^\dagger(x_1)|0\rangle.
\end{multline}
\end{widetext}
Applying the time-independent version of our formalism (see Sec. \ref{sec: Time-independent formalism}) confirms that $|\Psi_{\text{NESS}}\rangle$ is an energy eigenstate with energy $E = k_1 + \dots + k_N$. Alternatively, the time-independent formalism can be used to find $|\Psi_{\text{NESS}}\rangle$ directly, without following the time evolution; the calculation is very similar to the time-dependent case.
\subsection{General formalism}\label{sec: General formalism}
We now generalize the calculation of the previous section to a method that can be applied to a broader class of problems. The key point is to write the many-body wavefunction as a sum of time-dependent creation operators acting on crossing states, then to identify the ``inverse problems'' that the crossing states must solve in order for the Schrodinger equation to be satisfied. This takes care of much of the bookkeeping and isolates the hard part of the interacting problem, namely the calculation of the crossing states.
We consider a Hilbert space consisting of any states produced by fermionic ``field operators'' $c_\alpha^\dagger$ acting on an empty state $|0\rangle$ that is annihilated by any field operator. (Note that $\alpha$ is a label for any quantum numbers; $d^\dagger$ in the IRL counts as a ``field operator.'')
We wish to find the time evolution of an initial state with arbitrary quantum numbers $\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_N$:
\begin{equation}
|\Psi(t) \rangle \equiv e^{-i H t} c_{\alpha_N}^\dagger \dots c_{\alpha_1}^\dagger |0 \rangle.
\end{equation}
Equivalently, we need to solve the differential equation
\begin{equation}
\left( H - i \frac{d}{dt} \right)|\Psi(t) \rangle =0,
\end{equation}
with the initial condition
\begin{equation}
|\Psi(t= 0) \rangle = \left( \prod_{j=1}^N c_{\alpha_j}^\dagger \right) |0 \rangle.\label{eq: initial condition}
\end{equation}
The starting point of the construction is to find the time-evolving operators that would describe the full time evolution in the absence of interaction. We take the Hamiltonian to be
\begin{equation}
H = H^{(0)} + H^{(1)},
\end{equation}
where the time evolution of the field operators under $H^{(0)}$ is assumed to be known:
\begin{equation}
c_\alpha^\dagger(t) \equiv e^{-i H^{(0)} t} c_\alpha^\dagger e^{i H^{(0)} t},\label{eq: cdagger(t) simplest}
\end{equation}
and where both $H^{(0)}$ and $H^{(1)}$ annihilate the empty state:
\begin{equation}
H^{(0)} |0\rangle = H^{(1)} |0\rangle = 0. \label{eq: H annihilates 0}
\end{equation}
Thus, in the noninteracting case ($H^{(1)}=0$), the full solution is given by a product of $c_\alpha^\dagger(t)$ operators:
\begin{equation}
|\Psi^0(t)\rangle \equiv \left(\prod_{j=1}^N c_{\alpha_j }^\dagger(t) \right) |0\rangle.\label{eq: Psi0(t)}
\end{equation}
The time-evolving state $|\Psi^0(t)\rangle$ satisfies the initial condition \eqref{eq: initial condition}; each term that we will add to it in order to reach the full solution (with $H^{(1)}$ included) will be required to vanish at $t=0$. We define
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&A_\alpha(t) \equiv [ H, c_\alpha^\dagger(t)] - i \frac{\partial }{\partial t} c_\alpha^\dagger(t) = [H^{(1)}, c_{\alpha}^\dagger(t)],\\
&B_{\alpha_1 \alpha_2}(t) \equiv \{A_{\alpha_2}(t), c_{\alpha_1}^\dagger(t)\}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Generalizing from the IRL, we assume that these operators have the following properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item Any $A(t)$ annihilates the empty state:
\begin{equation}
A_{\alpha}(t) |0\rangle= 0.\label{eq: A annihilates 0}
\end{equation}
\item Any $B(t)$ commutes with any field creation operator:
\begin{equation}
[ B_{\alpha_1 \alpha_2}(t), c_{\alpha_3}^\dagger(t)] = 0.\label{eq: B commutes}
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
When $H^{(0)}$ is quadratic, the $c_{\alpha}^\dagger(t)$ operators are linear combinations of field operators; then the above conditions are met whenever the interaction $H^{(1)}$ is a sum of terms of the form $c_{\alpha_1}^\dagger c_{\alpha_2}^\dagger c_{\alpha_1'}c_{\alpha_2'}$ [since we have, schematically, $A(t) \sim c^\dagger c^\dagger c$ and $B(t) \sim c^\dagger c^\dagger$]. Thus, the formalism of this section can in principle be applied to a fairly general class of number-conserving Hamiltonians with a quartic interaction term. In particular, we have not yet specialized to one-dimensional quantum impurity problems with linearized spectrum. These additional restrictions seem to become necessary when we seek exact solutions to the differential equations for the crossing states.
It is straightforward to show that $B_{\alpha_1 \alpha_2}(t)$ is antisymmetric under exchange of the quantum numbers $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ \footnote{We have $B_{\alpha_1 \alpha_2}(t) + B_{\alpha_2 \alpha_1}(t) = [H, \{ c_{\alpha_1}^\dagger(t), c_{\alpha_2}^\dagger(t) \} ] -i \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \{ c_{\alpha_1}^\dagger(t), c_{\alpha_2}^\dagger(t) \} =0 $.}; hence, it can be written in terms of a ``reduced'' operator:
\begin{equation}
B_{\alpha_1 \alpha_2}(t) = B_{\alpha_1 \alpha_2}^{(\text{red})}(t) - B_{\alpha_2 \alpha_1}^{(\text{red})}(t).
\end{equation}
While $B_{\alpha_1 \alpha_2}^{(\text{red})}(t) = \frac{1}{2}B_{\alpha_1 \alpha_2}(t)$ is always an option, it can happen that the calculation is simpler with a different choice (as we saw in the IRL).
Our approach will be to bring $H$ past all of the $c_\alpha^\dagger(t)$ operators to its right at the cost of commutators [$A_\alpha(t)$ operators], then to bring each $A_\alpha(t)$ to the right of the remaining $c_{\alpha}^\dagger(t)$ operators at the cost of anticommutators [$B_{\alpha_1 \alpha_2}(t)$ operators]; then each $B(t)$ can be brought to the right due to Eq. \eqref{eq: B commutes}. The IRL calculation in the previous section provides explicit examples of these manipulations for $N=2,3,4$. We now give a summary of the general $N$ case, leaving the proof to Appendix \ref{sec: Proof of general formalism}.
We commute $H$ past each $c_\alpha^\dagger(t)$ operator to find
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&\left( H - i \frac{d }{dt} \right) |\Psi^0(t)\rangle = \sum_{m_2=1}^N c_{\alpha_N}^\dagger(t) \dots\notag\\
&\qquad \left( [H, c_{\alpha_{m_2}}^\dagger(t)] - i \frac{\partial}{\partial t} c_{\alpha_{m_2}}^\dagger(t)\right) \dots c_{\alpha_1}^\dagger(t) |0\rangle \\
&=\sum_{1\le m_1 < m_2 \le N} (-1)^{m_1+m_2+1} \left( \prod_{j =1,j \ne m_1,m_2}^n c_{\alpha_j}^\dagger(t)\right)\notag\\
&\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \times B_{\alpha_{m_1}\alpha_{m_2}}(t) |0\rangle.\label{eq: leftover from Psi0}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
To cancel this, we define a state $|\Psi^2 (t)\rangle$ as
\begin{multline}
|\Psi^2(t)\rangle = \sum_{1\le m_1 < m_2 \le N} (-1)^{m_1+m_2+1} \\
\times \left( \prod_{j =1,j \ne m_1,m_2}^n c_{\alpha_j}^\dagger(t)\right) |\Phi_{\alpha_{m_1}\alpha_{m_2}}(t)\rangle,
\end{multline}
where the crossing state $|\Phi_{\alpha_1 \alpha_2}(t)\rangle$ vanishes at $t=0$ and satisfies
\begin{equation}
\left(H - i\frac{d}{dt} \right) |\Phi_{\alpha_1 \alpha_2}(t)\rangle = - B_{\alpha_1 \alpha_2}(t) |0\rangle.\label{eq: Phi2 Schrod}
\end{equation}
The point is that if $H-i\frac{d}{dt}$ were to act only on $|\Phi_{\alpha_1 \alpha_2}(t)\rangle$, then $(H- i\frac{d}{dt})|\Psi^{(2)}(t)\rangle$ would cancel the right-hand side of Eq. \eqref{eq: leftover from Psi0}. To reach the $|\Phi_{\alpha_1 \alpha_2}(t)\rangle$ state, though, $H - i\frac{d}{dt}$ must commute past each $c_\alpha^\dagger(t)$ operator; we therefore obtain
\begin{multline}
\left( H - i \frac{d}{d t} \right) \left(|\Psi^0(t)\rangle + |\Psi^2(t)\rangle \right) =\\
\sum_{1\le m_1 < m_2 < m_3\le N} (-1)^{m_1 + m_2 +m_3 + 1}\\
\times
\left( \prod_{\substack{j=1 \\ j\ne m_1, m_2,m_3 }}^N c_{\alpha_j }^\dagger(t) \right) \Biggr( A_{\alpha_{m_3}}(t) |\Phi_{\alpha_{m_1}\alpha_{m_2} }(t) \rangle\\ -A_{\alpha_{m_2}}(t) |\Phi_{\alpha_{m_1}\alpha_{m_3} }(t) \rangle
+A_{\alpha_{m_1}}(t) |\Phi_{\alpha_{m_2}\alpha_{m_3} }(t) \rangle\Biggr). \label{eq: leftover from Psi0 + Psi2}
\end{multline}
Note that this equation has a similar structure to Eq. \eqref{eq: leftover from Psi0}, but with $N-3$ of the $c_\alpha^\dagger(t)$ operators appearing instead of $N-2$. To cancel the new leftover terms, we need a new crossing state $|\Phi_{\alpha_1 \alpha_2 \alpha_3}(t)\rangle$---that vanishes at $t=0$ and satisfies Eq. \eqref{eq: Phi3 Schrod IRL} with each $k_j$ replaced by $\alpha_j$---from which we can construct $|\Psi^3(t)\rangle$ to cancel the right-hand side of Eq. \eqref{eq: leftover from Psi0 + Psi2}. This results in new terms to cancel, in which at most $N-4$ of the $c_{\alpha}^\dagger(t)$ operators appear in any particular term; we build $|\Psi^4(t)\rangle$ from a new crossing state $|\Phi_{\alpha_1 \alpha_2 \alpha_3 \alpha_4}(t)\rangle$, and so on. This process terminates when we reach $|\Psi^N(t)\rangle$ and all $N$ of the $c_\alpha^\dagger(t)$ operators are eliminated.
Let us state the general result (proven in Appendix \ref{sec: Proof of general formalism}). The full time-evolving wavefunction can be written as
\begin{multline}
|\Psi(t) \rangle = |\Psi^0(t)\rangle + \sum_{n=2}^N \sum_{1\le m_1 < \dots < m_n \le N} \\
\times (-1)^{m_1+\dots+m_n + 1}
\left( \prod_{\substack{ j=1 \\ j \ne m_{\ell}\ \forall \ell }}^N c_{\alpha_j}^\dagger(t) \right) \\
\times|\Phi_{\alpha_{m_1} \dots \alpha_{m_n}} (t) \rangle,\label{eq: wavefn construction}
\end{multline}
where the terms in the summation over $n$ are exactly the $|\Psi^2(t)\rangle$, $|\Psi^3(t)\rangle$, etc. states discussed above. The crossing states are antisymmetrizations of unsymmetrized crossing states in which the quantum numbers are separated into cells of length two or greater. Writing $\mathcal{A}$ as a shorthand for complete antisymmetrization of $\alpha_j$ quantum numbers---i.e., $\mathcal{A}\ X(\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_n) = \sum_{\sigma \in \text{Sym}(n) }(\sgn \sigma) X(\alpha_{\sigma_1}, \dots, \alpha_{\sigma_n})$ for any function $X$---we claim that the following requirements are sufficient for Eq. \eqref{eq: wavefn construction} to satisfy the time evolution problem:
\begin{widetext}
\begin{equation}
|\Phi_{\alpha_1\dots\alpha_n}(t) \rangle = \mathcal{A} \sum_{s=1}^{n/2} \sum_{\substack{2\le j_1 < \dots < j_s \le n \\ j_s =n,\ \text{each } j_{m+1} - j_m \ge 2 } } |\chi_{\alpha_1 \dots \alpha_{j_1} | \dots | \alpha_{j_{s-1}+1 } \dots \alpha_{j_n} } (t)\rangle,\label{eq: crossing state as antisymmetrization}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{multline}
\left(H - i \frac{d}{d t} \right)|\chi_{\alpha_1 \dots \alpha_{j_1} | \dots | \alpha_{j_{s-1}+1 } \dots \alpha_n } (t)\rangle =
\begin{cases}
-B_{\alpha_{n-1} \alpha_n}^{(\text{red})}(t)|\chi_{\alpha_1 \dots \alpha_{j_1} | \dots | \alpha_{j_{s-2}+1 } \dots \alpha_{n-2}} (t)\rangle & j_{s-1} = n-2\\
- A_{\alpha_n}(t) |\chi_{\alpha_1 \dots \alpha_{j_1} | \dots | \alpha_{j_{s-1}+1 } \dots \alpha_{n-1}} (t)\rangle & n\ge 3 \text{ and } j_{s-1} \le n-3,\\
\end{cases}\label{eq: general aux state Schrod}
\end{multline}
and
\begin{equation}
|\chi_{\alpha_1 \dots \alpha_{j_1} | \dots | \alpha_{j_{s-1}+1 } \dots \alpha_n } (t=0 )\rangle =0. \label{eq: general aux state initial condition}
\end{equation}
\end{widetext}
Throughout, $j_0 \equiv 0$ and the sum over $s$ goes over only integer values. We set $|\chi(t)\rangle \equiv |0\rangle$ so that for $n=2$, Eq. \eqref{eq: general aux state Schrod} recovers Eq. \eqref{eq: Phi2 Schrod} after antisymmetrizing.
Thus, we have transformed the original many-body Schrodinger equation to the problem of finding states that satisfy Eq. \eqref{eq: general aux state Schrod} and Eq. \eqref{eq: general aux state initial condition}.
\subsection{Time-independent formalism}\label{sec: Time-independent formalism}
It is convenient in some problems to solve for the infinite time limit of the wavefunction directly, without following the detailed time evolution. Here, we present the formalism of the previous section in a time-independent form. Although it is not strictly necessary, we formulate the entire discussion in terms of scattering theory.
As in standard scattering theory, the passage from the time-dependent to the time-independent picture results in the initial condition in time (at $t=0$ in our setup, usually $t=-\infty$ in scattering theory) becoming a time-independent boundary
condition in space (e.g., incoming plane waves).
We write the Hamiltonian as $H = H^{(0)} + H^{(1)} = h + \mathcal{V}$, where $h$ is the noninteracting Hamiltonian from the point of view of scattering theory. That is, $h$ describes the propagation of plane waves, not including any tunneling to the impurity or scattering off a potential. For instance, $h= -i \int dx\ \psi^\dagger(x)\frac{d}{dx}\psi(x)$ in the IRL. (Note that we work in infinite volume.) We write $h= \int d\alpha\ E_\alpha c_{\alpha}^\dagger c_{\alpha}$, where the $c_\alpha$ operators are Dirac normalized and where the integral over $\alpha$ can also include a sum over discrete quantum numbers. The term $H^{(0)}$ contains $h$ and any other quadratic terms, and $H^{(1)}$ contains interaction terms.
The Lippmann-Schwinger equation for scattering ``in'' states is $|\Psi_{\text{in}} \rangle = |\Psi\rangle + \frac{1}{h - E + i \eta}\mathcal{V}|\Psi_{\text{in}}\rangle$, where $|\Psi \rangle \equiv c_{\alpha_N}^\dagger\dots c_{\alpha_1}^\dagger |0\rangle$ is an eigenstate of $h$ with energy $E\equiv E_{\alpha_1} + \dots +E_{\alpha_N}$. This is equivalent to the time-independent Schrodinger equation
\begin{equation}
\left( H - E \right) |\Psi_\text{in} \rangle = 0,
\end{equation}
with the boundary condition of incoming plane waves with quantum numbers $\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_N$.
The noninteracting Hamiltonian $H^{(0)}$, which includes \emph{quadratic} terms such as impurity tunneling and potential scattering, has a set of scattering operators $c_{\alpha,\text{in}}^\dagger$ that satisfy
\begin{equation}
[H^{(0)}, c_{\alpha,\text{in}}^{ \dagger}] -E_\alpha c_{\alpha,\text{in}}^{ \dagger} = 0
\end{equation}
and that create scattering ``in'' states corresponding to $c_{\alpha}^\dagger$. [See Eq. \eqref{eq: ckindagger RLM} for these operators in the case of the RLM.] The solution to the Lippman-Schwinger equation in the special case of no interaction ($H^{(1)} = 0$) is given by a product of these operators:
\begin{equation}
|\Psi_{\text{in}}^0\rangle =
c_{\alpha_N, \text{in}}^{\dagger} \dots c_{\alpha_1,\text{in}}^{ \dagger} |0\rangle.
\end{equation}
To include the interaction term $H^{(1)}$, we proceed in much the same way as in the time-dependent case. The main point is to isolate the core difficulty of the interacting problem, which is in this case to find time-independent crossing states satisfying the appropriate ``inverse problems.'' We begin by defining time-independent versions of the $A$ and $B$ operators:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
A_{\alpha,\text{in}} &= [H, c_{\alpha,\text{in}}^{\dagger} ] - E_\alpha c_{\alpha,\text{in}}^{\dagger}, \\
B_{\alpha_1 \alpha_2, \text{in}} &= \{ A_{\alpha_2,\text{in}},c_{\alpha_1,\text{in}}^{\dagger} \} = B_{\alpha_1 \alpha_2, \text{in}}^{(\text{red})} - B_{\alpha_2 \alpha_1,\text{in}}^{(\text{red})}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
As in the time-dependent case, we assume that $H^{(0)}|0\rangle = H^{(1)}|0\rangle = A_{\alpha,\text{in}}|0\rangle = 0$ and that $B_{\alpha_1 \alpha_2, \text{in}}$ commutes with any $c_{\alpha,\text{in}}^\dagger$. The same manipulations yield an exact reformulation of the Lippmann-Schwinger equation. We have the following representation of the wavefunction [the time-independent version of Eq. \eqref{eq: wavefn construction}]
\begin{multline}
|\Psi_{\text{in}} \rangle = |\Psi_{\text{in}}^0\rangle + \sum_{n=2}^N \sum_{1\le m_1 < \dots < m_n \le N} \\
\times (-1)^{m_1+\dots+m_n + 1}
\left( \prod_{\substack{ j=1 \\ j \ne m_{\ell}\ \forall \ell }}^N c_{\alpha_j,\text{in} }^{ \dagger} \right) \\
\times|\Phi_{\alpha_{m_1} \dots \alpha_{m_n}, \text{in}} \rangle,
\end{multline}
where the crossing states are given by
\begin{widetext}
\begin{equation}
|\Phi_{\alpha_1\dots\alpha_n,\text{in}} \rangle = \mathcal{A} \sum_{s=1}^{n/2} \sum_{\substack{2\le j_1 < \dots < j_s \le n \\ j_s =n,\ \text{each } j_{m+1} - j_m \ge 2 } } |\chi_{\alpha_1 \dots \alpha_{j_1} | \dots | \alpha_{j_{s-1}+1 } \dots \alpha_{j_n},\text{in} }\rangle.
\end{equation}
The unsymmetrized crossing states must satisfy
\begin{multline}
\left(H - \sum_{\ell=1}^n E_{\alpha_{\ell}} \right)|\chi_{\alpha_1 \dots \alpha_{j_1} | \dots | \alpha_{j_{s-1}+1 } \dots \alpha_n ,\text{in} }\rangle =
\begin{cases}
-B_{\alpha_{n-1} \alpha_n,\text{in}}^{(\text{red})}|\chi_{\alpha_1 \dots \alpha_{j_1} | \dots | \alpha_{j_{s-2}+1 } \dots \alpha_{n-2},\text{in}}\rangle & j_{s-1} = n-2\\
- A_{\alpha_n,\text{in}} |\chi_{\alpha_1 \dots \alpha_{j_1} | \dots | \alpha_{j_{s-1}+1 } \dots \alpha_{n-1},\text{in}}\rangle & n\ge 3,\ j_{s-1} \le n-3
\end{cases}
\end{multline}
\end{widetext}
where $j_0 \equiv 1$, $|\chi_{ , \text{in}}\rangle = |0\rangle$, and the sum over $s$ goes over only integer values; also, each $|\chi_{\alpha_1 \dots \alpha_{j_1} | \dots | \alpha_{j_{s-1}+1 } \dots \alpha_n ,\text{in} } \rangle$ must satisfy the boundary condition of having \emph{no} plane waves coming in from infinity (since the incoming $\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_N$ quantum numbers are already accounted for in $|\Psi_{\alpha_1 \dots \alpha_N,\text{in}}^0\rangle$). This last condition is the time-independent analog of the initial condition that crossing states vanish at $t=0$ [Eq. \eqref{eq: general aux state initial condition}].
While we have specified incoming boundary conditions, the entire procedure carries through with any other choice of boundary conditions (e.g., outgoing). In principle, the formalism may even apply to the problem of finding energy eigenstates in a finite-volume system.
\subsection{Time-evolving wavefunction of the multilead IRL}\label{sec: Time-evolving wavefunction of the multilead IRL}
As another application of our general formalism, we find the exact time-evolving wavefunction of the simplest version of the multilead IRL, in which each lead has the same tunneling and Coulomb interaction with the dot:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
H^{(0)} &= - i \int_{-L/2}^{L/2}dx\ \sum_{\gamma=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}} \psi_{\gamma}^\dagger(x) \frac{d}{dx} \psi_{\gamma}(x) + \epsilon d^\dagger d \notag\\
&\qquad +\left[ \sum_{\gamma=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}}\frac{v}{\sqrt{N_{\text{leads}}}} \psi_{\gamma}^\dagger(0) d + \text{ h.c.}\right],\\
H^{(1)} &= U\sum_{\gamma=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}} \psi_{\gamma}^\dagger(0)\psi_{\gamma}(0) d^\dagger d, \label{eq: H1 mcIRL}\\
H &= H^{(0)} + H^{(1)}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Before presenting our results, we recall some prior work from Nishino \emph{et al}. \cite{NishinoEtAl_PRLonIRL, NishinoEtAl_PRBonIRL, NishinoHatanoOrdonez, NishinoEtAl_doubledot1, NishinoEtAl_doubledot2}. References \cite{NishinoEtAl_PRLonIRL}, \cite{NishinoEtAl_PRBonIRL}, and \cite{NishinoHatanoOrdonez} present the NESS wavefunction in the two-lead case. The results seem to agree with ours for $N=2,3$ electrons (when we take the steady state limit of the wavefunction that we find below); while Nishino \emph{et al}. obtained the general $N$ case as well, it is not written explicitly. Reference \cite{NishinoHatanoOrdonez} allows the tunnelings and Coulomb interactions to be lead dependent, which is a more general case than we consider here; also, Refs. \cite{NishinoEtAl_doubledot1} and \cite{NishinoEtAl_doubledot2} present NESS wavefunctions for $N=2,3$ electrons with two-leads and two quantum dots. We expect that our formalism should also apply to these other variations of the IRL.
We present the exact time evolution of an arbitrary initial state with the dot unoccupied:
\begin{equation}
|\Psi_{\gamma_1 k_1 \dots \gamma_N k_N}(t) \rangle \equiv e^{-i H t} c_{\gamma_N k_N}^\dagger \dots c_{\gamma_1 k_1}^\dagger |0\rangle,
\end{equation}
where the lead indices $\gamma_j$ and momenta $k_j$ are arbitrary. Since the calculation is similar to the one-lead case (Sec. \ref{sec: Time-evolving wavefunction of the one-lead IRL}), we present only the main points (see Ref. \cite{Culver_thesis} for details).
The $A(t)$ and $B(t)$ operators of the multilead model are found to be
\begin{multline}
A_{\gamma k}(t) = -\frac{U}{\sqrt{L}}\biggr[ e^{-i k t} d^\dagger \psi_\gamma^\dagger(0) d + \frac{1}{N_{\text{leads}}} F_k(t) \sum_{\beta=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}} \\
\times d^\dagger \psi_{\beta}^\dagger(0) \left( \frac{1}{2}d - \frac{i\sqrt{N_{\text{leads}}}}{v}\psi_{\beta}(0) \right)\biggr],
\end{multline}
and
\begin{equation}
B_{\gamma_1 k_1 \gamma_2 k_2}^{(\text{red})}(t) = -\frac{i}{\sqrt{N_{\text{leads}}}} \frac{U}{Lv} F_{k_1}(t) e^{-i k_2 t} d^\dagger \psi_{\gamma_2}^\dagger(0).
\end{equation}
The conditions that we need in order to apply the general formalism [Eqs. \eqref{eq: H annihilates 0}, \eqref{eq: A annihilates 0}, \eqref{eq: B commutes}] are easily verified. Thus, the wavefunction takes the general form of Eqs. \eqref{eq: wavefn construction} and \eqref{eq: crossing state as antisymmetrization}, with the generic quantum number $\alpha$ replaced by $\gamma k$, and we only need to specify the unsymmetrized crossing states that solve the inverse problems of the model [Eqs. \eqref{eq: general aux state Schrod} and \eqref{eq: general aux state initial condition}].
As we mentioned in Sec. \ref{sec: Noninteracting case: The resonant level model}, the noninteracting Hamiltonian $H^{(0)}$ separates under rotation into $N_{\text{leads}} - 1$ free fermion fields and a single copy of the one-lead RLM. This separation breaks down once the interaction term $H^{(1)}$ is included. However, it turns out that some ingredients of the one-lead solution can be reused. By similar calculations as in the one-lead case, we find that the first unsymmetrized crossing state is the following generalization of Eq. \eqref{eq: n=2 ansatz IRL}:
\begin{multline}
|\chi_{\gamma_1 k_1 \gamma_2 k_2}(t)\rangle = \frac{1}{N_{\text{leads}} L}\int dx_1 dx_2\ F_{k_1 k_2}(t,x_1,x_2)\\ \times \biggr[ \Theta(0<x_2<x_1<t) \sum_{\beta=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}}\psi_\beta^\dagger(x_2)\\
+ \frac{i\sqrt{N_{\text{leads}}}}{v}\delta(x_2)\Theta(0<x_1<t)d^\dagger \biggr] \psi_{\gamma_2}^\dagger(x_1)|0\rangle,\label{eq: chi n=2 mcIRL}
\end{multline}
where $F_{k_1 k_2}$ is the same function as in the one-lead case, Eq. \eqref{eq: F n=2 IRL}. For the general case---an unsymmetrized crossing state with $n\ge 2 $ quantum numbers---we find
\begin{widetext}
\begin{multline}
|\chi_{\gamma_1 k_1 \dots \gamma_{j_1} k_{j_1} | \dots | \gamma_{j_{s-1} + 1} k_{j_{s-1} + 1} \dots \gamma_n k_n}(t)\rangle =\\
\frac{1}{L^{n/2}}\int dx_1\dots dx_n\ \sum_{\beta_1,\dots,\beta_n=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}} F_{\gamma_1 k_1 \dots \gamma_{j_1} k_{j_1} | \dots | \gamma_{j_{s-1} +1}k_{j_{s-1} + 1} \dots \gamma_n k_n}^{\beta_1 \dots \beta_n}(t,x_1,\dots, x_n)\\
\times \biggr[ \Theta(0<x_n<\dots < x_1< t) \psi_{\beta_n}^\dagger(x_n)
+ \frac{i}{\sqrt{N_{\text{leads}}} v} \delta(x_n)\Theta(0<x_{n-1}<\dots < x_1<t) d^\dagger \biggr] \psi_{\beta_{n-1}}^\dagger(x_{n-1}) \dots \psi_{\beta_1}^\dagger(x_1)|0\rangle, \label{eq: n ansatz mcIRL}
\end{multline}
\end{widetext}
where the function $F$, now with lead indices, is defined as follows. In the simplest case of a single cell ($s=1$), we define
\begin{multline}
F_{\gamma_1 k_1 \dots \gamma_n k_n }^{\beta_1 \dots \beta_n}(t,x_1,\dots,x_n)=\\
\frac{1}{N_{\text{leads}}}F_{k_1 \dots k_n }(t,x_1,\dots,x_n)\prod_{\ell=1}^{n-1}\delta_{\gamma_{\ell+1}}^{\beta_\ell},
\end{multline}
where $F$ on the right-hand side is as in the one-lead solution [Eq. \eqref{eq: single-celled F IRL}]. Then the full solution, with an arbitrary number of cells, is given by a product
\begin{multline}
F_{\gamma_1 k_1 \dots \gamma_{j_1} k_{j_1} | \dots | \gamma_{j_{s-1}+ 1 } k_{j_{s-1} + 1} \dots \gamma_n k_n }^{\beta_1 \dots \beta_n }(t,x_1,\dots, x_n) = \\
\prod_{m=1}^s F_{\gamma_{j_{m-1} + 1} k_{j_{m-1} + 1} \dots \gamma_{j_m} k_{j_m} }^{\beta_{j_{m-1}+1} \dots \beta_{j_m} } (t, x_{j_{m-1}+1},\dots, x_{j_m} ),
\end{multline}
where $j_0 \equiv 0$ and $j_s \equiv n$.
\subsection{NESS of the multilead AIM for small or large \texorpdfstring{$U$}{U}.}\label{sec: NESS of the multilead AIM for small or large U}
In this section, we apply the time-independent version of our formalism (Sec. \ref{sec: Time-independent formalism}) to the multilead AIM, considered directly in the infinite volume limit:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
H^{(0)} &= - i \int dx\ \sum_{\gamma=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}} \psi_{\gamma a}^\dagger(x) \frac{d}{dx} \psi_{\gamma a}(x) + \epsilon d_a^\dagger d_a \notag\\
& +\sum_{\gamma=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}}\left[\frac{v}{\sqrt{N_{\text{leads}}}} \psi_{\gamma a}^\dagger(0) d_a + \text{ h.c.}\right],\\
H^{(1)} &= U n_{\uparrow}n_{\downarrow},\\
H_{\text{finite }U} &= H^{(0)} + H^{(1)}.\label{eq: HfiniteU mcAIM}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
In Ref. \cite{ImamuraEtAl}, Imamura \emph{et al}. find the two electron NESS in the one-lead case---a result that we reproduce below and extend to arbitrary $N$ electrons in the cases of small and large $U$.
In the limit $U\to\infty$, it is convenient to use the auxiliary boson technique \cite{Coleman}, according to which we write the following Hamiltonian:
\begin{multline}
H_{\text{infinite } U} = - i \int dx\ \sum_{\gamma=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}} \psi_{\gamma a}^\dagger(x) \frac{d}{dx} \psi_{\gamma a}(x) +\epsilon d_a^\dagger d_a
\\
+ \sum_{\gamma=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}}\left[ \frac{v}{\sqrt{N_{\text{leads}}}} \psi_{\gamma a}^\dagger(0) b^\dagger d_a + \text{ h.c.} \right],\label{eq: H multilead AIM infU}
\end{multline}
which has a conserved charge $Q \equiv b^\dagger b + d_a^\dagger d_a$; working in the subspace $Q=1$ imposes the constraint that the dot cannot be doubly occupied, which is equivalent to sending $U\to\infty$ in $H_{\text{finite }U}$.
In either case ($U$ finite or infinite), the same unitary transformation as in Sec. \ref{sec: Noninteracting case: The resonant level model} isolates the interacting sector of the model:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&H_{e,\text{finite }U} = - i \int dx\ \psi_{ea}^\dagger(x) \frac{d}{dx} \psi_{e a}(x) +\epsilon d_a^\dagger d_a \notag\\
&+\left[ v \psi_{e a}^\dagger(0) d + \text{ h.c.}\right]+ U n_{\uparrow}n_{\downarrow} ,\\
&H_{e,\text{infinite }U} = - i \int dx\ \psi_{ea}^\dagger(x) \frac{d}{dx} \psi_{e a}(x) +\epsilon d_a^\dagger d_a \notag \\
&\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad + \left[ v \psi_{ea}^\dagger(0) b^\dagger d_a + \text{ h.c.} \right].\label{eq: He AIM infU}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The model thus decouples into a copy of the one-lead AIM and $N-1$ free fermions. We can use this decoupling to show that the crossing states that we need for the multilead model are related to the crossing states of the even sector by simple prefactors (see our previous paper \cite{CulverAndrei_PRB1} for a similar calculation in the Kondo model with $N_{\text{leads}}=2$):
\begin{multline}
|\Phi_{\gamma_1 k_1 a_1 \dots \gamma_n k_n a_n,\text{in}}\rangle =\\
\left( \frac{1}{N_{\text{leads}}}\right)^{n/2} |\Phi_{e k_1 a_1 \dots e k_n a_n,\text{in}}\rangle.
\end{multline}
Thus, it suffices to solve the scattering problem with incoming ``even'' plane waves. We can then reuse the same crossing states to read off the solution to the scattering problem with incoming plane waves in the original multilead basis.
\paragraph{Solution for small $U$.}
In the finite $U$ case, a short calculation yields
\begin{equation}
A_{e k a,\text{in}} \equiv [H_e, c_{e k a,\text{in}}^\dagger ] - k c_{e k a,\text{in}}^\dagger = \frac{U}{v}\mathcal{T}(k) d_a^\dagger d_b^\dagger d_b,\label{eq: Ae Anderson}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
B_{e k_1 a_1 e k_2 a_2,\text{in}} \equiv \{ A_{e k_2 a_2,\text{in} }, c_{e k_1 a_1,\text{in} }^\dagger \} \\
= B_{e k_1 a_1 e k_2 a_2,\text{in}}^{(\text{red})} - B_{e k_2 a_2 e k_1 a_1,\text{in}}^{(\text{red})},
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where
\begin{equation}
B_{e k_1 a_1 e k_2 a_2,\text{in}}^{(\text{red})} = \frac{1}{2v^2} U \mathcal{T}(k_1) \mathcal{T}(k_2) P_{- a_1 a_2}^{\ b_1 b_2}d_{b_2}^\dagger d_{b_1}^\dagger,\label{eq: Bered Anderson}
\end{equation}
and where $P_- = \frac{1}{2} \left( I - P \right)$ is the antisymmetric spin projection operator ($I_{a_1 a_2}^{b_1 b_2} \equiv \delta_{a_1}^{b_1}\delta_{a_2}^{b_2}$, $P_{a_1 a_2}^{b_1 b_2}\equiv \delta_{a_1}^{b_2}\delta_{a_2}^{b_1}$).
Our task is to find a state $|\chi_{e k_1 a_1 e k_2 a_2,\text{in}} \rangle$ that has no incoming plane waves and that satisfies:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&\left( H - k_1 - k_2\right) |\chi_{e k_1 a_1 e k_2 a_2,\text{in} }\rangle = - B_{e k_1 a_1 e k_2 a_2, \text{in}}^{({\text{red}})}|0\rangle\\
&= -\frac{U}{2v^2} \mathcal{T}(k_1)\mathcal{T}(k_2) P_{- a_1 a_2}^{\ b_1 b_2}d_{b_2}^\dagger d_{b_1}^\dagger|0\rangle.\label{eq: inverse problem n=2 AIM}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Given such a state, the solution to the two electron scattering problem is
\begin{multline}
|\Psi_{e k_1 a_1 e k_2 a_2,\text{in} }\rangle = c_{e k_2 a_2,\text{in}}^\dagger c_{e k_1 a_1,\text{in}}^\dagger|0\rangle \\
+ |\chi_{e k_1 a_1 e k_2 a_2,\text{in} }\rangle - |\chi_{e k_2 a_2 e k_1 a_1,\text{in} }\rangle.
\end{multline}
We make the ansatz:
\begin{multline}
|\chi_{e k_1 a_1 e k_2 a_2,\text{in}} \rangle = \int dx_1 dx_2\ F_{e k_1 a_1 e k_2 a_2}^{b_1 b_2}(x_1,x_2) \\
\times \biggr[ \Theta(0< x_2 < x_1) \psi_{e b_2}^\dagger(x_2)\psi_{e b_1}^\dagger(x_1) \\
+ \frac{i}{v}\delta(x_2) \Theta(0< x_1) d_{b_2}^\dagger \psi_{e b_1}^\dagger(x_1) \\
-\frac{1}{2 v^2} \delta(x_1)\delta(x_2) d_{b_2}^\dagger d_{b_1}^\dagger \biggr] |0\rangle, \label{eq: ansatz n=2 AIM}
\end{multline}
where $F_{e k_1 a_1 e k_2 a_2}$ is a smooth function that is determined shortly. By construction, this ansatz vanishes when any position variable is to the left of the origin; this guarantees that there are no incoming waves from $x=-\infty$. As the model contains only right movers, there is no possibility of waves coming in from $x=+\infty$; hence, this ansatz does not disturb the scattering boundary condition satisfied by $|\Psi_{\text{in}}^0\rangle$. Furthermore, this ansatz is chosen so that certain terms that are not of the form we want ($d_{b_2}^\dagger d_{b_1}^\dagger|0\rangle$) cancel automatically when we act on it with $H - k_1 -k_2$ [see Eq. \eqref{eq: convenient cancellation} for a similar calculation in the IRL case]. A straightforward calculation yields
\begin{widetext}
\begin{multline}
\left( H - k_1 -k_2 \right) |\chi_{e k_1 a_1 e k_2 a_2,\text{in}} \rangle =\\
\int dx_1 dx_2\ \left\{ \left[ -i \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x_1} +\frac{\partial}{\partial x_2} \right) - k_1 -k_2 \right] F_{e k_1 a_1 ek_2 a_2}^{b_1 b_2}(x_1,x_2 ) \right\}\Theta(0<x_2 < x_1 ) \psi_{e b_2}^\dagger(x_2)\psi_{e b_1}^\dagger(x_1) |0\rangle\\
+ \frac{i}{v} \int dx_1\ \left[ \left( -i \frac{\partial}{\partial x_1} - k_1 -k_2 +z \right) F_{e k_1 a_1 ek_2 a_2}^{b_1 b_2}(x_1,0 ) \right] \Theta(0<x_1 ) d_{b_2}^\dagger \psi_{e b_1}^\dagger(x_1) |0\rangle\\
-\frac{1}{2v} \left( F_{e k_1 a_1 ek_2 a_2}^{b_1 b_2 }(0,0) + F_{e k_1 a_1 ek_2 a_2}^{b_2 b_1 }(0,0) \right) \Theta(0<x_1 ) d_{b_2}^\dagger \psi_{e b_1}^\dagger(0) |0\rangle\\
-\frac{1}{2 v^2} \left( - k_1-k_2 +2 z + U \right) F_{e k_1 a_1 ek_2 a_2}^{b_1 b_2 }(0,0) d_{b_2}^\dagger d_{b_1}^\dagger |0\rangle.\label{eq: H-E on chi2 Anderson}
\end{multline}
\end{widetext}
To get the desired result $\left( H - k_1 -k_2 \right) |\chi_{e k_1 a_1 e k_2 a_2,\text{in}} \rangle = - B_{e k_1 a_1 e k_2 a_2,\text{in}}^{(\text{red})}|0\rangle$, we require that the first three terms of Eq. \eqref{eq: H-E on chi2 Anderson} all vanish and that the fourth matches Eq. \eqref{eq: inverse problem n=2 AIM}; this leads to the following requirements on the function $F$:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&\left[ -i \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x_1} +\frac{\partial}{\partial x_2} \right) - k_1 -k_2 \right] F_{e k_1 a_1 ek_2 a_2}^{b_1 b_2} =0 ,\\
&\left( -i \frac{\partial}{\partial x_1} - k_1 -k_2 +z \right) F_{e k_1 a_1 ek_2 a_2}^{b_1 b_2}(x_1,0 ),\\
&F_{e k_1 a_1 ek_2 a_2}^{b_1 b_2}(0,0)+ F_{e k_1 a_1 ek_2 a_2}^{b_2 b_1}(0,0)= 0,\\
&\left( -k_1 -k_2 +2 z + U\right)F_{e k_1 a_1 ek_2 a_2}^{b_1 b_2 }(0,0) =\notag\\
&\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad U \mathcal{T}(k_1) \mathcal{T}(k_2) P_{- a_1 a_2}^{\ b_1 b_2}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
A function that meets these requirements is
\begin{multline}
F_{e k_1 a_1 e k_2 a_2}^{b_1 b_2}(x_1,x_2) = - \mathcal{T}(k_1) \mathcal{T}(k_2) \frac{U \mathcal{T}\left(\frac{k_1 + k_2 -U}{2} \right)}{4\Delta}\\
\times
e^{i(k_1 + k_2) x_1}e^{-i z (x_1 -x_2)}P_{- a_1 a_2}^{\ b_1 b_2}.\label{eq: F n=2 AIM}
\end{multline}
The Schrodinger equation with the boundary condition (of incoming plane waves) can be expected to have a unique solution; hence, this is the answer.
Collecting all terms of the wavefunction, we have exact agreement with the two electron NESS obtained in Ref. \cite{ImamuraEtAl}. As another check, we have repeated the calculation in finite volume with the time-dependent formalism and found exactly this answer in the steady state and infinite volume limit [where the limit is taken pointwise, with factors of $L$ and the free evolution phase factor removed as in Eq. \eqref{eq: ckindagger RLM}] \cite{Culver_thesis}.
In Eq. \eqref{eq: F n=2 AIM}, we see a similar structure as appeared in the IRL solution: The two electrons are bound together over a distance scale of order $1/\Delta$ [compare to Eq. \eqref{eq: F n=2 IRL}].
\paragraph{Solution for $U\to\infty$.} We present the final results only; details can be found in Ref. \cite{Culver_thesis}. We set $H \equiv H_{\text{infinite }U}$ throughout this section. Our time-independent formalism (Sec. \ref{sec: Time-independent formalism}) carries through straightforwardly with the state $b^\dagger|0\rangle$ replacing $|0\rangle$ and the scattering ``in'' operators given by
\begin{multline}
c_{\gamma k a,\text{in}}^\dagger \equiv c_{\gamma k a}^\dagger + \frac{1}{N_{\text{leads}}} \int dx\ F_{k,\text{in}}(x) \Biggr[ \Theta(0<x)\\
\times \sum_{\gamma=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}} \psi_{\gamma a}^\dagger(x) +\frac{i\sqrt{N_{\text{leads}}}}{v} \delta(x) d_a^\dagger b\Biggr].\label{eq: cgammakaindagger AIM infU}
\end{multline}
The unsymmetrized crossing states are given by
\begin{widetext}
\begin{multline}
|\chi_{e k_1 a_1 \dots e k_{j_1} a_{j_1} | \dots | e k_{j_{s-1} + 1}a_{j_{s-1} + 1} \dots e k_n a_n,\text{in} }\rangle = \int dx_1\dots dx_n\ F_{e k_1 a_1 \dots e k_{j_1} a_{j_1} | \dots | e k_{j_{s-1} + 1}a_{j_{s-1} + 1} \dots e k_n a_n}^{b_1 \dots b_n}(x_1,\dots,x_n )\\
\times \biggr[ \Theta(0<x_n < \dots < x_1 ) \psi_{e b_n}^\dagger(x_n)
+ \frac{i}{v} \delta(x_n)\Theta(0<x_{n-1} < \dots < x_1 ) d_{b_n}^\dagger b \biggr]\psi_{e b_{n-1}}^\dagger(x_{n-1}) \dots \psi_{e b_1}^\dagger(x_1) b^\dagger |0\rangle,\label{eq: ansatz general n AIM infU}
\end{multline}
\end{widetext}
where the function $F$ is now to be specified. First, we define $F$ in the special case of $s=1$, i.e., a single cell:
\begin{multline}
F_{e k_1 a_1 \dots e k_\ell a_\ell}^{b_1 \dots b_\ell}(x_1,\dots, x_\ell) =
(2i)^{\ell -2} \delta_{a_1}^{c_1}\delta_{c_\ell}^{b_\ell} \mathcal{T}(k_1)e^{i k_1 x_1} \\
\times \left[ \prod_{m=2}^\ell \mathcal{T}(k_m) P_{- c_{m-1} a_m}^{\ b_{m-1} c_m} e^{i k_m x_{m-1}} \right] e^{-i z(x_1 - x_\ell)}.\label{eq: F single-celled AIM infU}
\end{multline}
It is straightforward to check that $\ell=2$ agrees with the $U\to\infty$ limit of the finite $U$ function, Eq. \eqref{eq: F n=2 AIM}. The function for general $s\ge1$ is a product of single-celled functions:
\begin{multline}
F_{e k_1 a_1 \dots e k_{j_1} a_{j_1} | \dots | e a_{j_{s-1} + 1} k_{j_{s-1} + 1} \dots e k_n a_n}^{b_1 \dots b_n}(x_1,\dots,x_n) =\\
\prod_{m=1}^s F_{e k_{j_{m-1} + 1} a_{j_{m-1} + 1} \dots e k_{j_m} a_{j_m} }^{b_{j_{m-1}+1} \dots b_{j_m} } ( x_{j_{m-1}+1},\dots, x_{j_m} ), \label{eq: F product of cells AIM}
\end{multline}
where $j_0\equiv 1$ and $j_s\equiv n$. Note that the spin matrices multiply in the same diagonal manner as in the Kondo wavefunction found in our previous paper \cite{CulverAndrei_PRB1}. Note also that we have a factor of $e^{-i z(x_1-x_\ell)}$, indicating that electrons are bound together on a distance scale $1/\Delta$. The single-celled function describes $\ell$ electrons bound together, and the full function with a general partition has some number of these cells.
\section{Evaluation of observables}\label{sec: Evaluation of observables}
We present some results of using the IRL and AIM wavefunctions to calculate expectation values of observables. We focus in particular on these expectation values in the steady state, accessed either by taking the long-time limit after the quench or by evaluating directly in the NESS.
Though the wavefunctions presented in the previous section are exact for any fixed number $N$ of electrons, the number of terms grows rapidly with $N$, making the evaluation of observables in the thermodynamic limit a formidable task. (Note that taking the thermodynamic limit is essential to obtain physical results, since we linearized the spectrum.) At present, we can calculate this limit only by making an expansion in some parameter. In the IRL, this parameter is the Coulomb interaction $U$, while in the AIM, it can either be $U$ or (in the limit $U\to\infty$) the tunneling parameter $\Delta$. In each case, we evaluate an observable to the leading order by keeping just the $|\Psi^0\rangle$ and $|\Psi^2\rangle$ terms of the wavefunction (i.e., putting at most two quantum numbers into a crossing state), which makes the thermodynamic limit tractable.
\subsection{Dot occupancy in the multilead IRL}\label{sec: Dot occupancy in the multilead IRL}
We evaluate the expectation value of the dot occupancy to the leading order in the interaction strength $U$. We show that the steady state occupancy is a universal function of the external parameter $\epsilon_d$ (which is defined below in terms of the bare parameter $\epsilon$ that appears in the Hamiltonian) and the temperatures and chemical potentials of the leads. This universal function is parameterized by two RG invariants: $U$ and an emergent energy scale $T_K$.
We compare our results with the literature and provide a general discussion of the RG flow of the IRL, emphasizing universal aspects. We then specialize to the zero temperature case. We verify that our answer agrees with the equilibrium Bethe ansatz result for the occupancy as a function of applied field in the multilead model, and then we present some results in two steady-state nonequilibrium regimes of the two-lead model with the leads separated by a bias voltage.
\subsubsection{Evaluation.}
Our task is to evaluate
\begin{equation}
\langle n_d \rangle_t \equiv \langle \Psi(t) | d^\dagger d |\Psi(t)\rangle,
\end{equation}
where $|\Psi(t) \rangle = e^{-i H t} |\Psi\rangle$ and $|\Psi\rangle= c_{\gamma_N k_N}^\dagger \dots c_{\gamma_1 k_1}^\dagger |0\rangle$. Note that $|\Psi\rangle$ is normalized to unity. The initial quantum numbers are arbitrary for the moment, though we later specialize to the case of a Fermi sea in each lead.
We begin by expanding the wavefunction to first order in $U$:
\begin{equation}
|\Psi(t)\rangle = |\Psi^0(t)\rangle + |\Psi^2(t)\rangle + O(U^2),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
|\Psi^0(t)\rangle &= \left( \prod_{j=1}^N c_{\gamma_j k_j}^\dagger(t) \right) |0\rangle, \\
|\Psi^2(t) \rangle &= \sum_{1\le m_1 < m_2 \le N} (-1)^{m_1 + m_2 +1 } \left( \prod_{\substack{j=1 \\ j\ne m_1,m_2}}^N c_{\gamma_j k_j}^\dagger(t) \right)\notag\\
&\qquad \times |\Phi_{\gamma_{m_1} k_{m_1} \gamma_{m_2} k_{m_2}}(t)\rangle.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The occupancy to leading order is therefore
\begin{equation}
\langle n_d \rangle_t = \langle n_d \rangle_t^{(0)} + \langle n_d \rangle_t^{(1)},
\end{equation}
where $\langle n_d \rangle_t^{(0)} = \langle \Psi^0(t) | d^\dagger d | \Psi^0(t)\rangle$ and $\langle n_d \rangle_t^{(1)} = 2\ \text{Re}\left( \langle \Psi^0(t)| d^\dagger d|\Psi^2(t)\rangle\right)$ (where $|\Psi^2(t)\rangle$ is to be expanded to first order in $U$; we will see that this expansion is simple). The main tool in the calculation is Wick's theorem combined with the fact that the time-evolving field operators have canonical anticommutation relations: $\{ c_{k'}(t), c_k^\dagger(t)\} = \delta_{k k'}$. Using these, we obtain the following for the noninteracting (zeroth order in $U$) part of the answer:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\langle n_d\rangle_t^{(0)} &= \sum_{j=1}^N | \{ d, c_{\gamma_j k_j}(t)\}|^2 \\
&= \frac{1}{L}\sum_{j=1}^N \left|\frac{i}{v\sqrt{N_{\text{leads}}}}F_{k_j}(t)\right|^2,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $F_k$ is given by Eq. \eqref{eq: Fk RLM}.
Next, we specialize to the case of interest (filled Fermi seas in each lead) and then take the thermodynamic limit. We describe this step in some detail now, since it occurs again in our subsequent calculations. Specializing the $N$ initial quantum numbers to describe filled Fermi seas at zero temperature is equivalent to the following replacement:
\begin{equation}
\sum_{m=1}^N X(\gamma_m,k_m) = \sum_{\gamma=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}} \sum_{k \in \mathcal{K}_\gamma } X(\gamma,k),\label{eq: sum replacement rule no spin}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{K}_\gamma$ is the set of allowed momenta in lead $\gamma$ (i.e., ranging from $-D$ to $\mu_\gamma$) and $X$ is any function. If the sum $\sum_{m=1}^N$ comes with a prefactor $1/L$ (as it always will in our calculations), then the sum over momenta in a given lead $\gamma$ becomes an integral $\int_{-D}^D \frac{dk}{2\pi}\ \Theta(\mu_\gamma- k) (\dots)$ in the thermodynamic limit. To generalize to arbitrary lead temperatures, we replace the step function by the Fermi function $f_\gamma(k) = \left[ e^{(k-\mu_\gamma)/T_\gamma} +1 \right]^{-1}$. All together, the prescription for taking the thermodynamic limit and including temperature is
\begin{multline}
\frac{1}{L}\sum_{m=1}^N X(\gamma_m,k_m) \overset{\text{therm. limit}}{\longrightarrow}\\
\sum_{\gamma=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}} \int_{-D}^D\frac{dk}{2\pi}\ f_\gamma(k) X(\gamma,k).
\end{multline}
This generalizes to the higher-order summations we encounter in the interacting case, as well; for instance, a double sum $\frac{1}{L^2} \sum_{m_1,m_2=1}^N X(\gamma_{m_1}k_{m_1}, \gamma_{m_2}k_{m_2})$ becomes $\sum_{\gamma_1,\gamma_2=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}}\int_{-D}^D \frac{dk_1}{2\pi}\frac{dk_2}{2\pi}\ f_{\gamma_1}(k_1)f_{\gamma_2}(k_2) X(\gamma_1 k_1, \gamma_2 k_2)$. We have confirmed the above prescription for generalizing to arbitrary temperatures by setting up the calculation with an initial density matrix and verifying that the same result is obtained \cite{Culver_thesis}.
Thus, we obtain the noninteracting contribution to the occupancy in the thermodynamic limit:
\begin{equation}
\langle n_d \rangle_t^{(0)} \overset{\text{therm. limit}}{\longrightarrow} \frac{1}{N_{\text{leads}}}\sum_{\gamma=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}}\int_{-D}^D \frac{dk}{2\pi}\ f_\gamma(k) \frac{|F_k(t)|^2}{2\Delta}.
\end{equation}
In Ref. \cite{Iyer_thesis}, $\langle n_d\rangle_t^{(0)}$ is calculated in the one-lead model at zero temperature; our result agrees in this special case. In the steady state (s.s.) limit, we find
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&\langle n_d \rangle_{\text{s.s.}}^{(0)} \equiv \lim_{t\to\infty} \langle n_d\rangle_t^{(0)}\\
&\qquad =\frac{1}{N_{\text{leads}}}\sum_{\gamma=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}} \int_{-D}^D \frac{dk}{2\pi}\ f_\gamma(k) \frac{|\mathcal{T}(k)|^2}{2\Delta} \label{eq: occupancy mcRLM}\\
&= \frac{1}{N_{\text{leads}}}\sum_{\gamma=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}} \int_{-D}^D \frac{dk}{2\pi}\ f_\gamma(k) \frac{2\Delta}{(k-\epsilon)^2 + \Delta^2}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
In the equilibrium limit (equal temperatures and chemical potentials in all leads), we recover the standard occupancy of the RLM. In the two-lead model at zero temperature with a voltage drop across the leads, our answer agrees with Ref. \cite{KarraschEtAl}.
We proceed to the leading correction in $U$. Again using Wick's theorem and the anticommutation relation, and canceling some sign factors, we obtain
\begin{multline}
\langle n_d\rangle_t^{(1)} = 2 \text{Re} \Biggr\{ \sum_{1 \le m_1 < m_2 \le N} \Bigg[ \{ c_{\gamma_{m_2} k_{m_2}}(t), d^\dagger\} \\
\times \langle 0 | c_{\gamma_{m_1} k_{m_1}}(t) d | \Phi_{\gamma_{m_1} k_{m_1} \gamma_{m_2} k_{m_2}}(t)\rangle
- (m_1 \leftrightarrow m_2) \Bigg]\Biggr\}.
\end{multline}
It is advantageous to consider the ``off-diagonal'' case, in which the quantum numbers on either side of the matrix element that appears in the previous equation are arbitrary. By fermionic antisymmetry, the matrix element must be the antisymmetrization of some function $\Omega(t;\gamma_1' k_1',\gamma_2' k_2'; \gamma_1 k_1,\gamma_2 k_2)$ as follows:
\begin{multline}
\{ c_{\gamma_1' k_1'}(t), d^\dagger\} \langle 0| c_{\gamma_2' k_2'}(t) d|\Phi_{\gamma_1 k_1 \gamma_2 k_2}(t) \rangle =\\
\frac{1}{L^2} \sum_{\sigma, \sigma' \in \text{Sym}(2)} (\sgn \sigma)
(\sgn \sigma')\\
\times \Omega(t;\gamma_{\sigma_1'}' k_{\sigma_1'}',\gamma_{\sigma_2'}' k_{\sigma_2'}'; \gamma_{\sigma_1} k_{\sigma_1},\gamma_{\sigma_2} k_{\sigma_2}),\label{eq: nd term in terms of Omega IRL}
\end{multline}
where the factor of $1/L^2$ is inserted for the convenience of taking the thermodynamic limit. The key point is that $\Omega$ (which we write explicitly below) does not depend on $L$, due to the fact that the crossing state vanishes outside the forward ``light cone'' in position space. Relabelling summation variables, we obtain
\begin{multline}
\langle n_d \rangle_t^{(1)} = \frac{1}{L^2} \sum_{m_1,m_2=1}^N \sum_{\sigma \in \text{Sym}(2)} (\sgn \sigma)\\
\times 2\text{Re}\left[ \Omega(t;\gamma_{m_1}k_{m_1},\gamma_{m_2}k_{m_2}; \gamma_{\sigma_{m_1}} k_{\sigma_{m_1}},\gamma_{\sigma_{m_2}} k_{\sigma_{m_2}}) \right]\\
\overset{\text{therm. limit}}{\longrightarrow} \sum_{\gamma_1,\gamma_2=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}} \int_{-D}^D \frac{dk_1}{2\pi}\frac{dk_2}{2\pi}\ f_{\gamma_1}(k_1)f_{\gamma_2}(k_2) \sum_{\sigma \in \text{Sym}(2)} \\
\times (\sgn \sigma) 2\text{Re}\left[ \Omega(t;\gamma_1 k_1,\gamma_2 k_2; \gamma_{\sigma_1} k_{\sigma_1},\gamma_{\sigma_2} k_{\sigma_2}) \right].\label{eq: nd^1 mcIRL}
\end{multline}
Recall that the crossing state is given by $|\Phi_{\gamma_1 k_1 \gamma_2 k_2}(t)\rangle = |\chi_{\gamma_1 k_1 \gamma_2 k_2}(t)\rangle - |\chi_{\gamma_2 k_2 \gamma_1 k_1}(t)\rangle $, with $\chi$ given by Eq. \eqref{eq: chi n=2 mcIRL}. Then from Eq. \eqref{eq: nd term in terms of Omega IRL} and Eq. \eqref{eq: ckdagger(t) RLM}, we can read off
\begin{multline}
\Omega(t;\gamma_1' k_1',\gamma_2' k_2'; \gamma_1 k_1,\gamma_2 k_2) = \frac{1}{2N_{\text{leads}}\Delta}\\
\times \int dx_1\ F_{k_1 k_2}(t,x_1,0)
\biggr[\delta_{\gamma_1'}^{\gamma_2} e^{i k_1'(t-x_1)} \\
+ \frac{1}{N_{\text{leads}}}F_{k_1'}^*(t-x_1) \biggr]
F_{k_2'}^*(t) \Theta(0<x_1<t),\label{eq: Omega as integrals mcIRL}
\end{multline}
where $F_{k_1 k_2}$ is given by Eq. \eqref{eq: F n=2 IRL} with $\mathcal{T}_U \to U$ (since we work to leading order in $U$).
We focus on the steady state limit. Including the zeroth order answer \eqref{eq: occupancy mcRLM}, we find the following result for the occupancy to first order in $U$ (see Sec. \ref{sec: Dot occupancy in the multilead IRL Appendix} in the Appendix for details):
\begin{widetext}
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\langle n_d \rangle_{\text{s.s.}} &\equiv \lim_{t\to\infty} \langle n_d\rangle_t \\
&=\langle n_d\rangle_{\text{s.s.}}^{(0)}
+\frac{U}{2N_{\text{leads}} \Delta} \Biggr\{ \left[\frac{1}{2\pi \Delta}\sum_{\gamma_1=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}} \left( D+ \mu_{\gamma_1}\right) - \langle n_d\rangle_{\text{s.s.}}^{(0)} \right] \sum_{\gamma_2=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}}\int_{-D}^D \frac{dk_2}{2\pi}\ f_{\gamma_2}(k_2) |\mathcal{T}(k_2)|^2 \text{Re}\left[ \mathcal{T}(k_2)\right]\notag\\
&\qquad - \frac{1}{\Delta} \sum_{\gamma_1,\gamma_2=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}}\int_{-D}^{D} \frac{dk_1}{2\pi}\frac{dk_2}{2\pi}\ f_{\gamma_1}(k_1)f_{\gamma_2}(k_2) \text{Re}\left[ \mathcal{T}(k_1)\right]
|\mathcal{T}(k_2)|^2 \left(\delta_{\gamma_1}^{\gamma_2} - \frac{1}{2N_{\text{leads}}} |\mathcal{T}(k_2)|^2 \right)\Biggr\} + O(U^2),\label{eq: occupancy bare mcIRL}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\end{widetext}
where error terms exponentially small in bandwidth---$O\left(e^{-\frac{D-|\mu_\gamma|}{T}} \right)$---have been dropped.
As usual in a field theory calculation, this answer diverges as the bandwidth is sent to infinity. In this case, there is both a linear and a logarithmic divergence. In the next section, we perform the necessary steps---re-expressing the answer in terms of physical parameters rather than bare parameters---to get a meaningful result.
\subsubsection{Universality in and out of equilibrium}
To obtain universal results, we take the scaling limit, in which all energy scales are much smaller than the bandwidth.
We replace the bare parameter $\epsilon$ by a physical parameter $\epsilon_d$ by making the following shift:
\begin{equation}
\epsilon = \epsilon_d - U \sum_{\gamma=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}} (D+\mu_\gamma)/(2\pi) + U \Delta/2. \label{eq: epsilon shift mcIRL}
\end{equation}
To explain this, we recall that the interaction term of the IRL would usually take the normal ordered form $H_{\text{conventional}}^{(1)} = \sum_{\gamma=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}} U :\psi_\gamma^\dagger(0) \psi_\gamma(0): \left(d^\dagger d - 1/2\right)$, which corresponds to half-filling in the lattice model. Relative to our $H^{(1)}$ [Eq. \eqref{eq: H1 mcIRL}], this shifts the dot energy by $U \sum_{\gamma=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}} (D+\mu_\gamma)/(2\pi)$ and introduces a potential scattering term $-\frac{1}{2}U\psi^\dagger(0)\psi(0)$ (there is also an overall energy shift that has no effect). The point is that with $H_{\text{conventional}}^{(1)}$ as the interaction term, the equilibrium resonance is at $\epsilon_{\text{conventional}}=0$. Though we can shift our $\epsilon$ easily enough, our calculation does not include the potential scattering term. We find, however, that at least to the leading order in $U$, the equilibrium resonance can be fixed at $\epsilon_d=0$ by including another shift: the $\Delta$-dependent term in Eq. \eqref{eq: epsilon shift mcIRL}.
In the above argument, we assumed that the normal ordering in $H_{\text{conventional}}^{(1)}$ was done relative to the initial state of the quench (free Fermi seas in each lead with arbitrary chemical potentials), so that $ \psi_{\gamma}^\dagger(0) \psi_{\gamma}(0) - :\psi_{\gamma}^\dagger(0)\psi_{\gamma}(0):\ = \frac{1}{2\pi} \sum_{\gamma=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}} (D +\mu_\gamma )$. Had we instead done normal ordering relative to the noninteracting \emph{equilibrium} ground state, then all $\mu_\gamma$ would be set to zero in Eq. \eqref{eq: epsilon shift mcIRL} and our answers below would be modified. We suggest that the prescription we use is the appropriate generalization beyond the equilibrium case.
Working to first order in $U$ and using Eq. \eqref{eq: occupancy mcRLM} and the identity $\frac{\partial}{\partial \epsilon} |\mathcal{T}(k)|^2 = \frac{1}{\Delta} |\mathcal{T}(k)|^2 \text{Re}\ \mathcal{T}(k)$, we obtain
\begin{widetext}
\begin{multline}
\langle n_d \rangle_{\text{s.s.}} = \langle n_d\rangle_{\text{s.s.}}^{(0)} + \frac{U}{2N_{\text{leads}}\Delta}\Biggr[ \left( \frac{1}{2}- \langle n_d\rangle_{\text{s.s.}}^{(0)} \right)\sum_{\gamma=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}} \int_{-D}^D \frac{dk}{2\pi}\ f_\gamma(k) |\mathcal{T}(k)|^2 \text{Re} \left[ \mathcal{T}(k) \right]\\
- \frac{1}{\Delta} \sum_{\gamma_1,\gamma_2=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}} \int_{-D}^{D} \frac{dk_1}{2\pi} \frac{dk_2}{2\pi}\ f_{\gamma_1}(k_1)f_{\gamma_2}(k_2) \text{Re}\left[ \mathcal{T}(k_1) \right] |\mathcal{T}(k_2)|^2 \left(\delta_{\gamma_1}^{\gamma_2} - \frac{1}{2N_{\text{leads}}} |\mathcal{T}(k_2)|^2 \right)\Biggr] +O(U^2) ,\label{eq: occupancy mcIRL}
\end{multline}
\end{widetext}
where each $\mathcal{T}$ matrix is now evaluated with $\epsilon_d$ instead of the original $\epsilon$ [i.e., $\mathcal{T}(k) = 2\Delta(k- \epsilon_d + i \Delta)^{-1}$], including in the free occupancy $\langle n_d \rangle_{\text{s.s}}^{(0)}$ as given in Eq. \eqref{eq: occupancy mcRLM}.
Since $\mathcal{T}(k)\sim 1/k$ for large $k$, the second line of \eqref{eq: occupancy mcIRL} diverges logarithmically for large $D$. This encodes the emergence of a universal scale through the Callan-Symanzik equation:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&\left( D \frac{\partial}{\partial D} + \beta_\Delta \Delta \frac{\partial }{\partial \Delta} \right) \langle n_d \rangle_{\text{s.s.}} = O(1/D), \label{eq: CS eqn mcIRL}\\
&\qquad \text{where }\beta_\Delta = - \frac{U}{\pi} + O(U^2). \label{eq: beta fn mcIRL}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
To see that the Callan-Symanzik equation holds, we note
\begin{multline}
D \frac{\partial}{\partial D} \langle n_d \rangle_{\text{s.s.}} \overset{D\to\infty}{\longrightarrow}
\frac{U}{2\piN_{\text{leads}} \Delta} \sum_{\gamma_2=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}}\int_{-\infty}^\infty\frac{dk_2}{2\pi}\ f_{\gamma_2}(k)\\
\times |\mathcal{T}(k_2)|^2\left(1 - \frac{1}{2} |\mathcal{T}(k_2)|^2 \right),\label{eq: D term in CS mcIRL}
\end{multline}
which follows from $D\mathcal{T}(\pm D)\overset{D\to\infty}{\longrightarrow} \pm 2 \Delta$ and simple properties of the Fermi function. Then we obtain the beta function as in Eq. \eqref{eq: beta fn mcIRL} from Eq. \eqref{eq: occupancy mcRLM} and the identity $\Delta \frac{\partial}{\partial \Delta} \left( \frac{1}{\Delta}|\mathcal{T}(k)|^2 \right) = \frac{1}{\Delta} |\mathcal{T}(k)|^2\left(1 - \frac{1}{2} |\mathcal{T}(k)|^2\right)$.
Now that we are focusing on the large bandwidth regime, we can confirm that $\epsilon_d=0$ is the location of the equilibrium resonance in Eq. \eqref{eq: occupancy mcIRL}. Setting all $f_\gamma(k) = f(k)$ (i.e., all chemical potentials $\mu_\gamma$ set to $0$) and $\epsilon_d=0$, we have $\langle n_d\rangle_{\text{s.s.}}^{(0)} = 1/2 +O(1/D)$ and $\int_{-D}^D dk\ f(k) |\mathcal{T}(k)|^2\left(1 - \frac{1}{2} |\mathcal{T}(k)|^2\right) = O(1/D)$ (shown numerically), so that $\langle n_d\rangle_{\text{s.s.}} =1/2$.
The Callan-Symanzik equation encodes the fact that for large bandwidth, $\langle n_d \rangle_{\text{s.s.}}$ takes a universal form, depending only on the external parameters ($\epsilon_d$ and the temperatures and chemical potentials of the leads) and on two scaling invariants. The first invariant is an emergent energy scale
\begin{equation}
T_K = \left( 1 - \frac{U}{\pi}\right) D \left(\frac{\Delta}{D}\right)^{\frac{1}{1+U/\pi}}. \label{eq: TK mcIRL}
\end{equation}
It can be verified that $\left( D \frac{\partial}{\partial D} + \beta_\Delta \Delta \frac{\partial }{\partial \Delta} \right) T_K = 0$ and that $T_K = \Delta$ for $U=0$. The $U$-dependent overall scale of $T_K$ is arbitrary (as we discuss in more detail below), and we have chosen it so that the equilibrium susceptibility of the dot at $\epsilon_d=0$ takes the form \cite{KarraschEtAl, CamachoSchmitteckertCarr} $-\frac{\partial}{\partial \epsilon_d}\rvert_{T=\epsilon_d=0}\langle n_d\rangle_{\text{s.s.}} = 1/(\pi T_K)$. The second scaling invariant is the coupling constant $U$ (or equivalently, the parameter $\alpha$ defined below). Thus, staying always in the large bandwidth regime from now on, we can write
\begin{equation}
\langle n_d \rangle_{\text{s.s.}} = f_{\text{universal}}\left(U; \left\{ \frac{T_\gamma}{T_K}\right\};\left\{\frac{\mu_\gamma}{T_K}\right\};\frac{\epsilon_d}{T_K}\right),\label{eq: nd is universal mcIRL}
\end{equation}
where the brackets indicate all the channels: $\left\{\frac{T_\gamma}{T_K}\right\} = (T_1/T_K,\dots, T_{N_{\text{leads}}}/T_K)$, $\left\{\frac{\mu_\gamma}{T_K}\right\} = (\mu_1/T_K,\dots, \mu_{N_{\text{leads}}}/T_K)$. Below, we evaluate this universal function to leading order in $U$ in a few regimes at zero temperature. First, we make some general comments on the RG flow of the model and compare our results with the literature.
\subsubsection{RG discussion}
The RG flow of the model is the following:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial U}{\partial \ln D} & = 0,\\
\frac{\partial \ln \Delta}{\partial \ln D} &= \beta_\Delta(U) = -\frac{U}{\pi} + O(U^2).
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The $U$ parameter, which does not flow, determines the direction of flow of $\Delta$ through the beta function $\beta_\Delta(U)$. If $\beta_\Delta(U)$ is negative, then $\Delta$ increases as the bandwidth $D$ is reduced. While our calculation is only to first order in $U$, it is known to all orders that $D\frac{\partial U}{\partial D}=0$, i.e., $U$ does not flow.
While the RG flow of the IRL has been studied by many methods, the most direct comparison we can make to the literature is to other works that have found the flow from the evaluation of an expectation value to leading order in $U$. In particular, previous work on the two-lead IRL driven by bias has found linear and logarithmic divergences in the charge current. In Ref. \cite{Doyon}, the linear divergences are removed by a redefinition of $\epsilon$ which we expect to be equivalent to what we did above (although an equation is not given). In Ref. \cite{NishinoEtAl_PRBonIRL}, these divergences are removed by the same shift of $\epsilon$ that we used above (in the special case $N_{\text{leads}} = 2$), albeit without the additional shift that we included to put the resonance at $\epsilon_d=0$. In either case, the logarithmic divergences are accounted for by the Callan-Symanzik equation, as we did above, with the same result \eqref{eq: beta fn mcIRL} for the beta function at leading order.
For further comparison with the literature, let us rewrite our equation for $T_K$ [Eq. \eqref{eq: TK mcIRL}] in another form:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
T_K &= \left( 1 - \frac{U}{\pi}\right) D \left(\frac{\Delta}{D}\right)^{\alpha/2},\\
&\qquad \text{where } \alpha = \frac{2}{1+ U/\pi}.\label{eq: alpha mcIRL}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The exponent $\alpha$ in the RG invariant $T_K$ [Eq. \eqref{eq: TK mcIRL}] has been much discussed in the literature. Various answers for $\alpha$ as a function of $U$ [or as a function of the single particle phase shift, which is $\delta_U = \arctan(U/2)$ in our case] have been found. Our answer, Eq. \eqref{eq: alpha mcIRL}, agrees with some Bethe ansatz calculations, but not all, and a different answer has been obtained by bosonization. See Table I in Ref. \cite{CamachoSchmitteckertCarr} for a summary of the literature. While all calculations agree that $\alpha=2$ for zero coupling (or zero phase shift), there is disagreement already at the first order correction.
For the purpose of calculating universal quantities, the precise dependence of $\alpha$ on the coupling constant is only meaningful within a particular cutoff scheme. This theory has two RG invariants, which we choose as $T_K$ and $U$, and they determine results by values assigned to them. The final outputs of a field theory calculation are functions such as $f_{\text{universal}}$ that have RG invariants as inputs. The numerical values of the RG invariants are not themselves calculable in field theory. Instead, one fixes the value of the RG invariants by fitting universal functions to data. One of the advantages of doing a field theory calculation (on what is ultimately a lattice system) is that one has a great freedom to choose a cutoff scheme that makes the calculation of universal functions more convenient; the price one pays is that \emph{only} these universal functions can be compared meaningfully with a lattice system.
One technical caveat is that the functional form of $\alpha$ \emph{does} matter insofar as it determines the possible values $\alpha$ can take. This point does not seem to arise in the IRL, seeing as all of the forms of $\alpha$ in the literature permit $\alpha$ to range from $-\infty$ to $\infty$ given $U$ ranging from $-\infty$ to $\infty$. Note that our calculation in this paper is only consistent for $\alpha$ in a narrow range around $\alpha=2$, since we took $U$ to be small; however, the Bethe ansatz result for $\alpha$ is given by the same Eq. \eqref{eq: alpha mcIRL} with no restriction on $U$.
In Ref. \cite{CamachoSchmitteckertCarr}, Camacho \emph{et al}. use bosonization, and hence have a different functional form of $\alpha$ in terms of $U$. They emphasize, however, that their final answer for $\langle n_d \rangle_{\text{equilibrium}}$ at zero temperature agrees exactly with the Bethe ansatz answer once both are expressed as functions of $\alpha$ and $\epsilon_d/T_K$. This agrees with our discussion in the previous paragraph. To disprove our claim, it would be necessary to find another universal function whose form differs between the bosonization and Bethe ansatz calculations, even after the invariants $\alpha$ and $T_k$ are fixed by matching the answers for, e.g., $\langle n_d \rangle_{\text{equilibrium}}$.
A stronger claim of Camacho in Ref. \cite{Camacho_thesis} is that the formula for $\alpha$ in terms of $U$ (or rather, in terms of the phase shift $\delta_U$) is scheme independent, contrary to what we find in Eq. \eqref{eq: alpha mcIRL}. Though we have not examined the argument in detail, we wonder if the unconventional cutoff schemes employed in this paper and in the Bethe ansatz might somehow be outside the range of cutoff schemes considered in the bosonization calculation of Ref. \cite{Camacho_thesis}. (These cutoff schemes are unconventional in that the Hamiltonian formally has all energies.)
Similar comments apply to the $U$-dependent prefactor in $T_K$---its precise dependence on $U$ can differ between schemes.
\subsubsection{Evaluation at zero temperature}
We evaluate the steady state occupancy \eqref{eq: occupancy mcIRL} at zero temperature. We then use RG improvement to extract the universal function \eqref{eq: nd is universal mcIRL} in a few specific regimes.
The standard method for finding a universal function from a perturbative result is RG improvement: One changes the original parameters $(D,\Delta)$ to new parameters $(D', \Delta')$ with the same value of $T_K$, where $D'$ is chosen so as to eliminate large logarithms in the perturbation series. The net effect is to delete these large logarithms and to replace $\Delta$ by the ``running'' coupling constant $\Delta'$. Note that this replacement is only valid on the part of the answer that satisfies the Callan-Symanzik equation---thus, one must first take $D$ to be large before applying RG improvement.
In the zero temperature limit, the momentum integrals in Eq. \eqref{eq: occupancy mcIRL} can all be carried out analytically to yield
\begin{equation}
\langle n_d \rangle_{\text{s.s.}}^{(0)} = \frac{1}{2} -\frac{1}{N_{\text{leads}} \pi} \sum_{\gamma=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}} \arctan\frac{\epsilon_d - \mu_\gamma}{\Delta},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{widetext}
\begin{multline}
\langle n_d \rangle_{\text{s.s.}} = \langle n_d\rangle_{\text{s.s.}}^{(0)} + \frac{U}{N_{\text{leads}} \pi} \Biggr[ -\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{1}{2} - \langle n_d \rangle_{\text{s.s.}}^{(0)}\right) \sum_{\gamma=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}} |\mathcal{T}(\mu_\gamma)|^2 + \sum_{\gamma_1=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}} \Bigg( \frac{1}{\pi N_{\text{leads}}} \sum_{\gamma_2=1}^{N_{\text{leads}}} \frac{\epsilon_d - \mu_{\gamma_2}}{\Delta}|\mathcal{T}(\mu_{\gamma_2})|^2\\
+\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{\pi}\arctan\frac{\epsilon_d - \mu_{\gamma_1}}{\Delta} - \langle n_d \rangle_{\text{s.s.}}^{(0)} \Bigg) \ln \frac{D}{\sqrt{(\epsilon_d-\mu_{\gamma_1})^2 + \Delta^2}} \Biggr].\label{eq: nd zero temp mcIRL}
\end{multline}
\end{widetext}
Note that there are large logarithms with many different scales involved, so that there is no one choice of $D'$ that will eliminate all of them in the general case (arbitrary chemical potentials $\mu_\gamma$). We proceed to specialize to some specific regimes in which there are just one or two different large logs to be eliminated.
\paragraph{Equilibrium.}
Setting all chemical potentials to zero, we find
\begin{multline}
\langle n_d \rangle_{\text{s.s.}} =
\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{\pi} \arctan \frac{\epsilon_d}{\Delta }\\
+\frac{U}{\pi^2}\frac{\Delta}{\epsilon_d^2 +\Delta^2} \left[\epsilon_d \ln \frac{D}{\sqrt{\epsilon_d^2 + \Delta^2} }- \Delta \arctan\frac{\epsilon_d}{\Delta} \right].
\end{multline}
The large logarithm is to be eliminated by the self-consistent choice $D' = \sqrt{\epsilon_d^2 + (\Delta')^2}$, which determines the running coupling:
\begin{equation}
\Delta' = \left\{ 1 + \frac{U}{\pi} \left[1 - \frac{1}{2} \ln \left(1 + \frac{\epsilon_d^2}{T_K^2}\right) \right] \right\} T_K.
\end{equation}
We thus obtain a universal answer, valid to leading order in $U$:
\begin{multline}
\langle n_d \rangle_{\text{s.s.}} =\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{\pi}\arctan \frac{\epsilon_d}{T_K}
+\frac{U}{2\pi^2(1+\epsilon_d^2/T_K^2)}\\
\times \left[ 2\left( \frac{\epsilon_d}{T_K} - \arctan \frac{\epsilon_d}{T_K}\right)-\frac{\epsilon_d}{T_K}\ln \left(1+ \frac{\epsilon_d^2}{T_K^2} \right) \right],\label{eq: ndeq univ mcIRL}
\end{multline}
which agrees with the leading order expansion of the exact equilibrium result from Bethe ansatz \cite{Ponomarenko} (see Appendix \ref{sec: Equilibrium occupancy of the IRL from the literature}). This confirms, at least in the zero temperature limit and to this order, that in the long-time limit following the quench, the occupancy thermalizes.
We emphasize that the output of our field theory calculation is a two-parameter \emph{family} of functions of the physical quantity $\epsilon_d$, parameterized by $U$ and $T_K$. Redefinitions of $U$ and $T_K$ can change the details of the parametrization, but not the full family of functions that is obtained by letting $U$ and $T_K$ range over all allowed values. We brought our answer to the form \eqref{eq: ndeq univ mcIRL} as a convenient way of showing that the full family of functions agrees with the Bethe ansatz result in the parameter range we consider: $U$ small (or equivalently, $\alpha$ close to $2$) and $T_K$ arbitrary.
In the $U$-dependent part of Eq. \eqref{eq: ndeq univ mcIRL}, only the coefficients of the arctangent and logarithm terms have universal meaning. Replacing the term $U\Delta/2$ by $a U$ (with a varying parameter $a$) in the shift \eqref{eq: epsilon shift mcIRL} controls a term proportional to $1/(1+\epsilon_d^2/T_K^2)$; we took $a=1/2$ to eliminate this term, putting the resonance at $\epsilon_d=0$. [This choice also puts the resonance at $\epsilon_d =0$ for arbitrary temperature, as we showed below Eq. \eqref{eq: D term in CS mcIRL}.] Similarly, we can adjust the coefficient of the $(\epsilon_d/T_K)/(1+\epsilon_d^2/T_K^2)$ term in Eq. \eqref{eq: ndeq univ mcIRL} by varying a parameter $b$ in $T_K = [1+ b U]D(\Delta/D)^{2\alpha}$; this term controls the dot susceptibility at $\epsilon_d=0$, and our choice of $b=-1/\pi$ normalizes $T_K$ according to $T_K^{-1} = - \pi \frac{\partial}{\partial \epsilon_d}\rvert_{T=\epsilon_d=0} \langle n_d\rangle_{\text{s.s}}$.
\paragraph{Out of equilibrium---two leads at $\epsilon_d=0$.} Consider the two-lead model with the leads separated by a bias voltage $V$ and with the dot potential set to zero---that is, $N_{\text{leads}}=2$, $\mu_1 = 0$, $\mu_2=-V$, and $\epsilon_d=0$. (The case of arbitrary $\epsilon_d$ is also possible, but messier.) The occupancy \eqref{eq: nd zero temp mcIRL} contains two large logarithms, $\ln\frac{D}{\Delta}$ and $\ln\frac{D}{\sqrt{\Delta^2 + V^2}}$; we can choose $D'$ to cancel either one, with the same final result (see Fig. \ref{fig: nd and deltand} as well):
\begin{multline}
\langle n_d\rangle_{\text{s.s.}} = \frac{1}{2} - \frac{\arctan\frac{V}{T_K}}{2\pi}+ \frac{U}{2\pi^2} \Biggr\{\frac{\frac{V^2}{T_K^2}\arctan \frac{V}{T_K}}{2\left( 1 + \frac{V^2}{T_K^2}\right)} \\
-\left( \arctan \frac{V}{T_K}- \frac{\frac{V}{T_K}}{1+\frac{V^2}{T_K^2}}\right)\left[ 1 - \frac{1}{4} \ln\left( 1+ \frac{V^2}{T_K^2} \right) \right] \Biggr\}.\label{eq: ndnoneq univ 2leadIRL}
\end{multline}
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\subfloat{%
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig1.eps}%
}\hfill
\subfloat{%
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig2.eps}%
}
\caption{Left: the steady state occupancy $n_d \equiv \langle n_d \rangle_{\text{s.s.}}$ at zero temperature in the two-lead IRL, either as a function of dot potential $\epsilon_d$ or voltage $V$. The leads are held at chemical potentials $\mu_1 =0$ and $\mu_2=-V$. The equilibrium ($V=0$) curves are given by Eq. \eqref{eq: ndeq univ mcIRL} and in fact are independent of the number of leads, in agreement with the Bethe ansatz answer from the literature (Appendix \ref{sec: Equilibrium occupancy of the IRL from the literature}). The nonequilibrium ($V\ne0$) curves are given by Eq. \eqref{eq: ndnoneq univ 2leadIRL}. In both cases, we compare the noninteracting occupancy ($\rho U =0$) with the weakly interacting occupancy (first order in $\rho U = 0.1$), where $\rho=1/(2\pi)$ is the density of states per unit length. Right: the weakly interacting case with the noninteracting occupancy subtracted, i.e., $\delta n_d \equiv n_d - n_d \rvert_{U=0}$. In equilibrium, $\delta n_d$ reaches finite limits as $\epsilon_d/T_K \to\pm\infty$. Out of equilibrium, $|\delta n_d|$ grows logarithmically as $V/T_K \to\pm\infty$, indicating that some resummation of the series in $\rho U$ is needed to make sense of the extremely large voltage regime.}\label{fig: nd and deltand}
\end{figure*}
The particular numbers that appear in this answer become meaningful once the values of $U$ and $T_K$ are fixed by, e.g., matching the equilibrium answer \eqref{eq: ndeq univ mcIRL} with data. Note that the contribution of the interaction begins at order $V^2$, beyond linear response.
The leading correction in $U$ in Eq. \eqref{eq: ndnoneq univ 2leadIRL} grows logarithmically with voltage as $V/T_K\to \pm \infty$; this is a consequence of the fact that no choice of $D'$ can cancel both of the large logarithms. This implies that some resummation of the series in $U$ is needed to make sense of the regime of very large voltage. We can characterize the scale at which the $U$ series breaks down out of equilibrium as the voltage $V_0$ for which the $U$ correction term ($\delta n_d$ in Fig. \ref{fig: nd and deltand}) equals $1/2$; the result is $V_0 \sim T_K e^{2/(\rho U)}$, where $\rho=1/(2\pi)$ is the density of states per unit length in our convention. The number $2$ in the exponent is not sharply defined, since we had to make an arbitrary choice for what value of the $U$ correction is large enough to say that the series breaks down. Though our calculation sends the bandwidth $D\to \infty$, we suggest that this scale $V_0$ could also be significant in the lattice model if it lies in the universal regime, i.e., if $V_0 \ll D_{\text{lattice}}$. The scale $V_0$ may be connected to the power law dependence on $U$ seen in Ref. \cite{KarraschEtAl}.
\paragraph{Out of equilibrium---two leads close to the particle-hole symmetric point.} We again consider the two-lead model with the leads separated by a bias voltage $V$, this time with $\epsilon_d$ close to halfway between the two chemical potentials. That is, we set $\mu_1 = \epsilon_d + V/2$ and $\mu_2 = \epsilon_d - V/2 - \delta V$. For $\delta V=0$, the steady state occupancy is its free value, $1/2$. Self-consistently setting $D' = \sqrt{(\Delta')^2 + V^2/4}$, we obtain the following correction for small $\delta V$:
\begin{multline}
\langle n_d\rangle_{\text{s.s.}} =\frac{1}{2}
- \frac{1 }{2\pi\left(1 + \frac{V^2}{4 T_K^2} \right)} \Biggr\{ 1 + \frac{U}{\pi}\\
\times \Bigg[ \frac{\frac{V^2}{4T_K^2} + \frac{1}{2} \left( 1-\frac{V^2}{4T_K^2}\right)\ln\left(1+ \frac{V^2}{4T_K^2}\right)}{1 + \frac{V^2}{4 T_K^2}}\\
- \frac{V}{2T_K}\arctan \frac{V}{2T_K} \Bigg] \Biggr\}\frac{\delta V}{T_K}.
\end{multline}
As before, this expression is valid for $V \ll T_K e^{1/(2U)}$ (in addition to requiring $U$ and $\delta V/T_K$ to be small).
\subsection{Steady state current in the two-lead AIM}\label{sec: Steady state current in the two-lead AIM}
We evaluate the steady state current in the two-lead AIM in the approximation that no more than two quantum numbers can be in a crossing state. We see below that this approximation encompasses both the regime of weak coupling (small $U/\Delta$) and strong coupling with weak tunneling ($U\to\infty$ with small $\Delta/|\epsilon-\mu_\gamma|$). Our result for small $U$ agrees with a calculation that we did using Keldysh perturbation theory (see Appendix \ref{sec: Perturbative check the current in the Anderson model}), and our result for large $U$ reproduces a well-known scaling law.
Throughout this section, $H = H_{\text{finite } U}$ is the two-lead AIM given by Eq. \eqref{eq: HfiniteU mcAIM} (with $N_{\text{leads}} = 2$). We work directly in the steady state limit, which means in particular that the system size is infinite. We therefore use Dirac normalized operators: $c_{\gamma k a}^\dagger = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dx\ e^{i k x}\psi_{\gamma a}^\dagger(x)$.
\subsubsection{Setup and reduction to an overlap}
The current operator in the AIM for electrons leaving lead $\gamma$ (with $\gamma=1,2$) is well known to be $\widehat{I}_\gamma \equiv \frac{iv }{\sqrt{2}} \psi_{\gamma a}^\dagger(0) d_a + \text{h. c.}$ (see, e.g., Ref. \cite{MeirWingreen}). Since the two currents are equal and opposite in the steady state ($I_1 =-I_2$), we can consider the symmetrized operator
\begin{equation}
\widehat{I}_{\text{Sym}} = \frac{i}{2\sqrt{2}} v \left( \psi_{1 a}^\dagger(0) - \psi_{2 a}^\dagger(0) \right) d_a + \text{h.c.}
\end{equation}
Our task is to evaluate this operator in the nonequilibrium steady state. That is, we wish to evaluate
\begin{equation}
\langle \widehat{I}_{\text{Sym}} \rangle \equiv \mathcal{N}^{-1} \langle \Psi_\text{in} | \widehat{I}_{\text{Sym}} | \Psi_\text{in} \rangle,\label{eq: ISym expectation value def}
\end{equation}
where the normalization factor $\mathcal{N} \equiv \langle \Psi| \Psi\rangle$ is discussed in more detail below, and where $|\Psi_\text{in}\rangle$ is the Lippmann-Schwinger ``in'' state corresponding to two Fermi seas. That is,
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&|\Psi_\text{in} \rangle = |\Psi \rangle + \frac{1}{E - h +i \eta}\mathcal{V} |\Psi_{\text{in}}\rangle,\label{eq: Psi_in LS form AIM}\\
&\text{where }|\Psi \rangle = c_{\gamma_N k_N a_N}^{ \dagger} \dots c_{\gamma_1 k_1 a_1}^{\dagger} |0\rangle,\\
&h = -i \int dx\ \sum_{\gamma=1,2} \psi_{\gamma a}^\dagger(x) \frac{d}{dx} \psi_{\gamma a}(x),\\
& \mathcal{V} = H - h.\label{eq: mathcalV AIM}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The quantum numbers $(\gamma_j,k_j,a_j)$ are arbitrary for the moment; they will later be specialized to describe two Fermi seas with an applied bias voltage appearing as the difference of the chemical potentials.
To simplify the calculation, we now write the expectation value of the current operator (i.e., a matrix element) as the derivative of an overlap, using an approach that we have presented in more generality in Ref. \cite{Culver_thesis}. The idea is to add the current operator $\widehat{I}_{\text{Sym}}$ to the Hamiltonian as a source term in such a way that we can read off the wavefunction for the Hamiltonian (with source) from our previous results.
Let $\overline{\phi}$ be a real variable (the bar is a label and does not signify complex conjugation) and consider the following $\overline{\phi}$-dependent Hamiltonian:
\begin{multline}
\overline{H} = H + \bigg[ \frac{v}{\sqrt{2}} \left( e^{i \frac{1}{2} \overline{\phi} } -1 \right) \psi_{1a}^\dagger(0) d_a \\
+ \frac{v}{\sqrt{2}} \left( e^{-i \frac{1}{2} \overline{\phi} } -1 \right) \psi_{2a}^\dagger(0) d_a + \text{ h.c.} \bigg].\label{eq: Hbar as H + source}
\end{multline}
Note that setting $\overline{\phi}=0$ recovers the original Hamiltonian. From here on, an overbar means that a quantity depends on $\overline{\phi}$, and removing the bar corresponds to setting $\overline{\phi}= \phi \equiv 0$.
We are interested in the expectation value of $\widehat{I}_{\text{Sym}}$ in some eigenstate $|\Psi(E)\rangle$ of $H$ with energy $E$. Since we work in infinite volume, the energy varies continuously, so there is also a family of eigenstates $|\Psi(E')\rangle$ with varying energy $E'$. Let $|\overline{\Psi}(E)\rangle$ be any $\overline{\phi}$-dependent family of eigenstates of $\overline{H}$ (with energy $E$) such that $|\overline{\Psi}(E) \rangle \rvert_{\overline{\phi} = 0} = |\Psi(E)\rangle$ (a condition that is built-in to our notation). Then we have the following expression for the unnormalized expectation value:
\begin{multline}
\langle \Psi(E)| \widehat{I}_{\text{Sym}} |\Psi(E) \rangle =\\
\lim_{E'\to E}\left( E - E'\right) \frac{\partial}{\partial \overline{\phi}}\biggr \rvert_{\overline{\phi}=0} \langle \Psi(E') | \overline{\Psi} (E)\rangle.\label{eq: deriv formula first AIM}
\end{multline}
Naively, the right-hand side appears to be zero; however, we find in practice that the $\overline{\phi}$ derivative produces a $1/(E-E')$ pole that cancels the prefactor.
The proof of Eq. \eqref{eq: deriv formula first AIM} follows from noting that $\widehat{I}_{\text{Sym}} = \frac{\partial}{\partial \overline{\phi}} | _{\overline{\phi} = 0} (\overline{H} -H)$ and dropping the term $\langle \Psi(E') | (\overline{H} - H) \frac{\partial}{\partial \overline{\phi}} |\overline{\Psi}(E)\rangle|_{\overline{\phi}=0}$. In principle, it must be checked that $\frac{\partial}{\partial \overline{\phi}} |\overline{\Psi}(E)\rangle$ is not too singular as $\overline{\phi}\to 0$; this is not an issue in our calculation below, since the dependence on $\overline{\phi}$ will be analytic. To avoid any possible issues with order of limits, we will apply Eq. \eqref{eq: deriv formula first AIM} before taking the thermodynamic limit.
The eigenstate of interest is $|\Psi(E)\rangle = |\Psi_{\text{in}}\rangle$, which has energy $E= \sum_{j=1}^N k_j$. A convenient choice for the $E'$-dependent states $|\Psi(E')\rangle $ is to simply let the momenta vary; thus, we write $|\Psi_{\text{in}}'\rangle$ for same Lippmann-Schwinger state \eqref{eq: Psi_in LS form AIM} with momenta $k_1,\dots,k_N$ replaced by $k_1',\dots,k_N'$. Then the energy $E' = \sum_{j=1}^N k_j'$ varies continuously.
We have a considerable freedom in constructing the $\overline{\phi}$-dependent states $|\overline{\Psi}(E)\rangle$. It is convenient to bring the $\overline{\phi}$-dependent Hamiltonian \eqref{eq: Hbar as H + source} to the same form as the original Hamiltonian, allowing us to use the wavefunction already obtained. To do this, we define a convenient set of $\overline{\phi}$-dependent fields by a unitary transformation:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&\begin{pmatrix}
\overline{c}_{1 k a}\\
\overline{c}_{2 k a}
\end{pmatrix}
= \mathcal{U}^\dagger \overline{\mathcal{U}}
\begin{pmatrix}
c_{1k a}\\
c_{2ka }
\end{pmatrix}
,\\
&\text{where } \overline{\mathcal{U}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
\begin{pmatrix}
e^{- i\frac{1}{2} \overline{\phi}} & -e^{i\frac{1}{2} \overline{\phi}} \\
e^{-i \frac{1}{2} \overline{\phi} } & e^{i \frac{1}{2} \overline{\phi}}
\end{pmatrix}
,\\
&\text{which implies } \mathcal{U} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & -1 \\
1 & 1
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Then we have
\begin{multline}
\overline{H} = -i \int_{-L/2}^{L/2 } dx\ \sum_{\gamma=1,2} \overline{\psi}_{\gamma a}^\dagger(x) \frac{d}{dx}\overline{\psi}_{\gamma a}(x) + \epsilon d_a^\dagger d_a \\
+ \left[\frac{v}{\sqrt{2}} \sum_{\gamma=1,2}\overline{\psi}_{\gamma a}^\dagger(0) d_a + \text{ h.c.} \right]+ U n_{\uparrow} n_{\downarrow},\label{eq: HBar twoleadAIM}
\end{multline}
which is the same Hamiltonian already considered, with each unbarred electron field replaced by the corresponding barred field. We know the ``in'' states of this Hamiltonian provided that the incoming plane waves are in the barred basis. Hence, it is convenient to let the $\overline{\phi}$-dependent family of eigenstates be as in Eqs. \eqref{eq: Psi_in LS form AIM}-\eqref{eq: mathcalV AIM}, with a bar over everything:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&|\overline{\Psi}(E)\rangle \equiv |\overline{\Psi}_\text{in} \rangle = |\overline{\Psi} \rangle + \frac{1}{E - \overline{h} +i \eta}\overline{\mathcal{V}} |\overline{\Psi}_{\text{in}}\rangle,\\
&\text{where }|\overline{\Psi}\rangle = \overline{c}_{\gamma_N k_N a_N }^{\dagger} \dots \overline{c}_{\gamma_1 k_1 a_1}^{ \dagger} |0\rangle,\\
&\overline{h} = -i \int dx\ \sum_{\gamma=1,2} \overline{\psi}_{\gamma a}^\dagger(x) \frac{d}{dx} \overline{\psi}_{\gamma a}(x),\\
& \overline{\mathcal{V}} = \overline{H} - \overline{h}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
By construction, these states satisfy the required condition, namely they reduce to the original state of interest \eqref{eq: Psi_in LS form AIM} at $\overline{\phi}=0$. Eq. \eqref{eq: deriv formula first AIM} then yields
\begin{equation}
\langle \widehat{I}_{\text{Sym}}\rangle =
\mathcal{N}^{-1} \lim_{\text{all } k_j' \to k_j} \left(E - E'\right) \frac{\partial }{\partial \overline{\phi} }\biggr\rvert_{\overline{\phi} = 0}\langle \Psi_\text{in}' |\overline{\Psi}_\text{in} \rangle.\label{eq: deriv formula second AIM}
\end{equation}
Thus, the calculation reduces to finding the overlap $\langle \Psi_\text{in}' |\overline{\Psi}_\text{in} \rangle$ for $\overline{\phi}$ near $0$ and $E'$ near $E$.
In the expectation value \eqref{eq: ISym expectation value def}, one may have expected the normalization factor $\mathcal{N}$ to be $\langle \Psi_{\text{in}}| \Psi_{\text{in}}\rangle$; however, comparison with the time-dependent version of the calculation shows that the correct normalization is $\mathcal{N} = [2\pi\delta(0)]^N = \langle \Psi | \Psi\rangle$. The full overlap $\langle \Psi_{\text{in}}| \Psi_{\text{in}}\rangle$ seems to contain additional delta function terms beyond the noninteracting norm $[2\pi\delta(0)]^N$ (though it could be that these terms have no effect in the thermodynamic limit).
\subsubsection{Evaluation}\label{sec: Evaluation AIM current}
We evaluate the right-hand side of Eq. \eqref{eq: deriv formula second AIM} with the wavefunction truncated so that no more than two quantum numbers can be assigned to a crossing state---that is, $|\overline{\Psi}_\text{in}\rangle = |\overline{\Psi}_\text{in}^0\rangle + |\overline{\Psi}_\text{in}^2 \rangle$ and $_{\text{in}}\langle \Psi'| = {}_{\text{in}}\langle \Psi'^0| + {}_{\text{in}}\langle \Psi'^2| $. We work to first order in the crossing state, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\langle \widehat{I}_{\text{Sym}} \rangle = \langle \widehat{I}_{\text{Sym}} \rangle^{(0,0)} + \langle \widehat{I}_{\text{Sym}} \rangle^{(0,2)} +\langle \widehat{I}_{\text{Sym}} \rangle^{(2,0)},\label{eq: current as 00+02+20 AIM}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{multline}
\langle \widehat{I}_{\text{Sym}} \rangle^{(\ell_1,\ell_2)} = [\langle \Psi|\Psi\rangle]^{-1} \lim_{\text{all } k_j' \to k_j} \left(E - E'\right) \\
\times \frac{\partial }{\partial \overline{\phi} }\biggr\rvert_{\overline{\phi} = 0}\langle \Psi_\text{in}'^{\ell_1} |\overline{\Psi}_\text{in}^{\ell_2} \rangle.
\end{multline}
The term $\langle \widehat{I}_{\text{Sym}} \rangle^{(2,2)}$ is not kept as it involves the product of two crossing states. We will see below that in the small $U$ regime, expanding in crossings amounts to expanding in $U$, and our calculation is to first order \footnote{More generally, the pattern seems to be that a crossing state with $n$ quantum numbers is $O(U^{n-1})$.}. For $U\to\infty$, the expansion in crossings appears to be an expansion in powers of $\Delta$.
The terms of the wavefunction that we need are
\begin{equation}
|\overline{\Psi}_{\text{in}}^0\rangle = \left( \prod_{j=1}^N \overline{c}_{\gamma_j k_j a_j ,\text{in}}^\dagger \right) |0\rangle,\label{eq: Psi0Bar AIM}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{multline}
|\overline{\Psi}_{\text{in}}^2\rangle = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{1\le m_1 < m_2 \le N} (-1 )^{m_1 +m_2 +1} \\
\times \left( \prod_{\substack{j=1 \\ j\ne m_1,m_2}}^N \overline{c}_{\gamma_j k_j a_j ,\text{in}}^\dagger \right) |\overline{\Phi}_{e k_{m_1}a_{m_1} e k_{m_2} a_{m_2} ,\text{in} }\rangle.
\end{multline}
We can take the adjoint, remove the bar, and relabel each $k_j\to k_j'$ to get $\langle \Psi_{\text{in}}'| = \langle \Psi_{\text{in}}'^{0}|+ \langle \Psi_{\text{in}}'^{2}|$.
The first contribution to the current, $\langle \widehat{I}_{\text{Sym}} \rangle^{(0,0)}$, is the noninteracting part, and we find that it agrees with the standard RLM answer. For $N$ electrons, we obtain (see Appendix \ref{sec: The current in the two-lead AIM})
\begin{equation}
\langle \widehat{I}_{\text{Sym}} \rangle^{(0,0)} = \frac{1}{2\pi \delta(0)}\sum_{m=1}^N \frac{1}{4} (-1)^{\gamma_m-1} |\mathcal{T}(k_m)|^2 .\label{eq: current N electrons RLM}
\end{equation}
The Dirac delta term comes from the overlap of two plane waves of equal momenta (e.g., $\{ c_{1k'\uparrow}, c_{1k\uparrow}^\dagger\}$ with $k'=k$); we should thus identify $2\pi \delta(0)$ with the system size $L$ (which is formally infinite). Taking the arbitrary $N$ quantum numbers to describe two filled Fermi seas replaces
\begin{equation}
\sum_{m=1}^N X(\gamma_m,k_m,a_m) \to \sum_{\gamma=1,2} \sum_{k \in \mathcal{K}_\gamma } \sum_a X(\gamma,k,a),\label{eq: sum replacement rule with spin}
\end{equation}
where $X$ is any function and $\mathcal{K}_\gamma$ is the set of momenta in the Fermi sea of lead $\gamma$ [spaced by $\delta k \leftrightarrow 1/\delta(0)$ and cut off by $|k| < D$]. We can then generalize to include temperature; see Eq. \eqref{eq: sum replacement rule no spin} and the comments below. We thus obtain
\begin{equation}
\langle \widehat{I}_{\text{Sym}} \rangle^{(0,0)}\overset{\text{therm. limit}}{\longrightarrow} \int_{-D}^{D}\frac{dk}{2\pi}\ \left[ f_1(k) - f_2(k) \right] \frac{1}{2}|\mathcal{T}(k)|^2,
\end{equation}
which is twice the standard spinless RLM answer, as expected from spin degeneracy.
The same identification $1/\delta(0) \leftrightarrow \delta k$ was used by Nishino \emph{et al}. For further justification, we have repeated the calculation in our time-dependent formalism, which permits us to work in a finite system size $L$ before sending $L\to\infty$; the final result for the current is the same in the steady state limit. This is similar to how calculations with non-normalizable states in single-particle scattering theory are justified by considering the long-time limit of time-evolving wave packets.
We proceed to calculate the contribution from the first crossing. We show only the main steps here, leaving many details in Appendix \ref{sec: The current in the two-lead AIM}. We only need to calculate $\langle \widehat{I}_{\text{Sym}} \rangle^{(0,2)}$, since $\langle \widehat{I}_{\text{Sym}} \rangle^{(2,0)}$ turns out to be the complex conjugate. Using Wick's theorem and noting that $\langle \Psi | \Psi\rangle = [2\pi \delta(0)]^N$, we obtain the following after some calculation:
\begin{widetext}
\begin{multline}
\langle \widehat{I}_{\text{Sym}} \rangle^{(0,2)} = [2\pi \delta(0)]^{-2} \frac{1}{4} \sum_{m_1,m_2=1}^N \lim_{\substack{ k_{m_1}'\to k_{m_1} \\ k_{m_2}'\to k_{m_2} } } (k_{m_1} + k_{m_2} - k_{m_1}' - k_{m_2}' ) \frac{\partial}{\partial \overline{\phi}}\biggr\rvert_{\overline{\phi} =0}\\
\times \langle 0| c_{\gamma_{m_1} k_{m_1}' a_{m_1},\text{in}} c_{\gamma_{m_2} k_{m_2}' a_{m_2},\text{in}} | \overline{\Phi}_{e k_{m_1} a_{m_1} e k_{m_2} a_{m_2},\text{in}}\rangle,\label{eq: I02 AIM intermediate step}
\end{multline}
\end{widetext}
where we have used the antisymmetry of the operators and crossing state to replace the original sum over $m_1<m_2$ with an unrestricted sum with an extra factor of $1/2$. After taking the limits $k_{m_1}'\to k_{m_1}$ and $k_{m_2}'\to k_{m_2} $, we again have a summation in which it is clear how to take the thermodynamic limit using \eqref{eq: sum replacement rule with spin} and the identification $\delta k \leftrightarrow 1/\delta(0)$. Collecting terms, we find the following answer for the current:
\begin{widetext}
\begin{multline}
\langle \widehat{I}_{\text{Sym}}\rangle = \int_{-D}^D \frac{dk}{2\pi}\ \left[f_1(k) - f_2(k) \right] \frac{1}{2}|\mathcal{T}(k)|^2 -\frac{1}{16\Delta^2} \int_{-D}^D \frac{dk_1}{2\pi}\frac{dk_2}{2\pi}\ \left[f_1(k_1) + f_2(k_1)\right] \left[f_1(k_2) - f_2(k_2) \right]\\
\times\text{Im}\left\{ U \mathcal{T}\left( \frac{k_1 + k_2 -U}{2} \right) \mathcal{T}^*(k_1)\mathcal{T}(k_2) \left[\mathcal{T}(k_1) + \mathcal{T}(k_2) \right] \right\} + (\text{higher crossings}).\label{eq: current up to first crossing AIM}
\end{multline}
\end{widetext}
What does this ``expansion in crossings'' really mean? While we cannot give a general answer, we can at least understand this result for the current by examining the limits of small and large $U$.
\subsubsection{Small \texorpdfstring{$U$}{U} regime}
Expanding to first order in $U$ replaces $U \mathcal{T}\left[ (k_1 +k_2 -U)/2\right] \to U \mathcal{T}\left[ (k_1 +k_2 )/2\right]$. Then, using the simple identities $\mathcal{T}\left[ (k_1 +k_2 )/2\right]\left[ \mathcal{T}(k_1) + \mathcal{T}(k_2)\right] = 2 \mathcal{T}(k_1)\mathcal{T}(k_2)$ and $\text{Im}\left[ \mathcal{T}(k)^2\right] = |\mathcal{T}(k)|^2 \text{Re}\left[ \mathcal{T}(k)\right]$, we obtain
\begin{multline}
\langle \widehat{I}_{\text{Sym}}\rangle = \int_{-D}^D \frac{dk}{2\pi}\ \left[f_1(k) - f_2(k) \right] \frac{1}{2}|\mathcal{T}(k)|^2 \\
+ \frac{U}{8 \Delta^2} \int_{-D}^D \frac{dk_1}{2\pi}\frac{dk_2}{2\pi}\ \left[f_1(k_1) + f_2(k_1) \right]\left[f_1(k_2) - f_2(k_2) \right] \\
\times |\mathcal{T}(k_1)|^2 |\mathcal{T}(k_2)|^2 \text{Re}\left[\mathcal{T}(k_2) \right] + O(U^2). \label{eq: current small U AIM}
\end{multline}
This calculation mainly serves as a check on our formalism. We have verified Eq. \eqref{eq: current small U AIM} by calculating the steady state current with Keldysh perturbation theory (see Appendix \ref{sec: Perturbative check the current in the Anderson model}). Indeed, the agreement also holds if we allow a magnetic field on the dot, i.e., a spin-dependent dot energy $\epsilon_a$ (which modifies the crossing state \cite{Culver_thesis}).
We note that the small $U$ expansion of the AIM has been used in the literature to explore the neighborhood of the strong coupling fixed point of the Kondo model both in and out of equilibrium. This proceeds by, e.g., assuming the impurity is in a singlet state by a choice of Green's function \cite{HershfieldDaviesWilkins_PRB}, expanding about the Hartree-Fock solution \cite{Matsumoto}, or using a Fermi liquid theory approach \cite{Oguri}. In contrast, our result \eqref{eq: current small U AIM} describes the AIM itself in the regime of small $U/\Delta$.
Since $\mathcal{T}(k)\sim 1/k$ for large $|k|$, there are no divergences in Eq. \eqref{eq: current small U AIM} as the bandwidth $D$ is sent to infinity. This is consistent with prior work on the AIM (see, e.g., Ref. \cite{Haldane_pert}).
\subsubsection{Infinite U regime: Expansion in tunneling}
If we instead send $U\to\infty$, then $U \mathcal{T}\left[ (k_1 + k_2 -U)/2 \right] \to -4\Delta$, leaving
\begin{multline}
\langle \widehat{I}_{\text{Sym}}\rangle = \int_{-D}^D \frac{dk}{2\pi}\ \left[f_1(k) - f_2(k) \right] \frac{1}{2}|\mathcal{T}(k)|^2 \\
+\frac{1}{4\Delta} \int_{-D}^D \frac{dk_1}{2\pi}\frac{dk_2}{2\pi}\ \left[ f_1(k_1) + f_2(k_1) \right]\left[f_1(k_2) - f_2(k_2) \right]\\
\times \text{Im}\left\{ \mathcal{T}^*(k_1)\mathcal{T}(k_2) \left[\mathcal{T}(k_1) + \mathcal{T}(k_2) \right] \right\} \\
+ (2 \text{ or more crossings}).\label{eq: current bare infU AIM}
\end{multline}
This expansion in crossings appears to capture the regime of small $\Delta$. We note first that Eq. \eqref{eq: current bare infU AIM} satisfies the following Callan-Symanzik equation:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&\left( D\frac{\partial}{\partial D} + \beta_\epsilon \epsilon \frac{\partial}{\partial \epsilon} \right) \langle \widehat{I}_{\text{Sym}}\rangle = O(1/D), \label{eq: CS eqn AIM}\\
&\text{where: } \beta_{\epsilon} = -\frac{ \Delta}{\pi \epsilon} + O\left( \frac{\Delta^2}{\epsilon^2} \right).\label{eq: beta fn AIM}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
To show this, we proceed similarly as in the multilead IRL calculation [see Eq. \eqref{eq: D term in CS mcIRL} and below]. Under $D\frac{\partial}{\partial D}$, the only terms that survive for large bandwidth are those with $k_1$ integrated (since the $k_2$ Fermi functions cancel at $k_2= -\infty$) and a single $\mathcal{T}$ matrix in $k_1$ [since $\mathcal{T}(k) \sim 2\Delta/k$ for large $|k|$]. Thus, we obtain
\begin{multline}
D\frac{\partial}{\partial D} \langle \widehat{I}_{\text{Sym}}\rangle \overset{D\to\infty}{
\longrightarrow}\\
-\frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-\infty}^\infty\frac{dk_2}{2\pi}\ \left[f_1(k_2) - f_2(k_2)\right] \text{Im}\left[ \mathcal{T}(k_2)^2\right].
\end{multline}
Then \eqref{eq: beta fn AIM} follows from the identity $\frac{\partial}{\partial \epsilon} |\mathcal{T}(k)|^2 = \frac{1}{\Delta} |\mathcal{T}(k)|^2 \text{Re}\ \mathcal{T}(k) = -\frac{1}{\Delta} \text{Im}\left[ \mathcal{T}(k)^2\right]$. The associated scaling invariants are $\Delta$ and
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_d \equiv \epsilon + \frac{\Delta}{\pi} \ln \frac{D}{\Delta},\label{eq: scaling invariant AIM}
\end{equation}
which is the standard result \cite{Haldane_PRL, Hewson}.
To clarify the meaning of the expansion in crossings, we consider the zero temperature limit with a voltage drop across the leads: $\mu_1=0$ and $\mu_2=-V$. Then the conductance is given by
\begin{multline}
\frac{dI}{dV}=\frac{1}{\pi}\frac{\Delta^2}{(\epsilon + V)^2 + \Delta^2} \biggr[ 1 -\frac{ \Delta(\epsilon+V)}{\pi^2 (\epsilon + V)^2 + \Delta^2}\\
\times \left(\ln \frac{D}{\sqrt{(\epsilon +V)^2 +\Delta^2}} +\ln \frac{D}{\sqrt{\epsilon^2 +\Delta^2}} + \text{finite}\right) \biggr],
\end{multline}
where the omitted terms are finite as $D\to\infty$ (or involve additional crossings). It is seen here that the contribution from the first crossing (i.e., two quantum numbers in the crossing state) starts at the third order in $\Delta$, while the RLM contribution is second order. By further calculation, we find that the next contribution (allowing three quantum numbers to be in crossing states) starts at another order higher ($\Delta^4$).
Strictly speaking, our result should be interpreted as a power series in $\Delta$, meaning that we should keep only up to order $\Delta^3$. It is interesting to note, however, that when $\langle \widehat{I}_{\text{Sym}}\rangle$ is calculated to the leading order in crossings (as we did above), the Callan-Symanzik equation \eqref{eq: CS eqn AIM} holds \emph{to all orders} in $\Delta$. Our demonstration of the Callan-Symanzik equation did not expand in $\Delta$. The expansion in crossings can be thought of as a particular resummation of terms of the $\Delta$ expansion; the fact that the Callan-Symanzik equation holds exactly suggests that this resummation may be a useful one.
While much work has been done on the infinite-$U$ AIM, the most direct comparison we can make to the literature is to Ref. \cite{SivanWingreen}, in which the current is calculated analytically for $U\to\infty$ up to order $\Delta^3$. Our result here disagrees beyond the first order in $\Delta$. In particular, Ref. \cite{SivanWingreen} finds a small Kondo peak beginning to develop at zero bias, which we do not. However, a true comparison can only be made once both answers are expressed in terms of RG invariants, and the result of Ref. \cite{SivanWingreen} does not seem to have the standard quantity given in Eq. \eqref{eq: scaling invariant AIM} as a scaling invariant.
\section{Conclusion and outlook}\label{sec: Conclusion and outlook}
In this paper, we presented a method for calculating many-body wavefunctions. We applied the time-dependent version of the method to find the time-evolving wavefunction for the interacting resonant level model with any number of leads. We also applied the time-independent version to find the nonequilibrium steady state wavefunction of the Anderson impurity model in the two limits of small $U$ and infinite $U$. The methods of Bethe ansatz and the integrability properties of the models studied made no obvious appearance in the calculations.
As a preliminary application of these wavefunctions to the evaluation of observables, we found the steady state occupancy of the multilead IRL to leading order in the interaction $U$. We demonstrated universality in and out of equilibrium, verified our answer in the zero temperature equilibrium limit by comparison with the literature, and presented results out of equilibrium. In the two-lead AIM, we used the NESS wavefunction to evaluate the steady state current first for small $U$, then for infinite $U$ with small $\Delta$. This provided an example of how we can calculate observables directly in steady state nonequilibrium without following the time evolution. Our IRL results can also be obtained this way.
It is our hope that further technology for the evaluation of observables using these wavefunctions can be developed so that some nonperturbative results can be found in the thermodynamic limit. Also, the general reformulation of the many-body Schrodinger equation that we presented could be of wider use, beyond exact solutions of quantum impurity models.
\begin{acknowledgments}
We are grateful to Chung-Hou Chung, Piers Coleman, Garry Goldstein, Yashar Komijani, Yigal Meir, Andrew Mitchell, Achim Rosch, and Hubert Saleur for helpful discussions. We have benefited from working on related problems with Huijie Guan, Paata Kakashvili, Christopher Munson, and Roshan Tourani. A.B.C. acknowledges support from the Samuel Marateck Fellowship in Quantum Field Theory Physics and the Excellence Fellowship (both from Rutgers University). This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1410583.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) are deep learning-based methods that have been successfully applied in graph analysis. It is one of the most important machine learning tools for solving graph problems. Unlike other machine learning data, graphs are non-Euclidean data. Many real-world problems can be modeled as graphs, such as knowledge graphs, protein-protein interaction networks, social networks, etc. The neural networks like Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) or Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) cannot directly apply to graph data. Hence, GNNs have received more and more attention. Some GNN models have been proposed and obtain promising results on some graph tasks, such as node classification \cite{DBLP:conf/iclr/KipfW17,DBLP:conf/nips/HamiltonYL17,DBLP:conf/iclr/VelickovicCCRLB18,DBLP:journals/pr/ManessiRM20}, link prediction \cite{DBLP:conf/ijcai/ZhangSZK19} and clustering \cite{DBLP:conf/nips/YingY0RHL18}.
However, most of the GNNs suffer the low expressive power problem due to their shallow architectures. Some works \cite{DBLP:conf/nips/LuanZCP19,DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1908-05081} have been proposed to solve this problem. The design of deep GNNs requires a huge amount of human effort for neural architecture tuning. GNN models are usually very sensitive to the hyperparameters, for different tasks, we might also need to adjust the hyperparameters to obtain the optimal result. For example, the activation function needs to be carefully selected to avoid features degradation \cite{DBLP:conf/nips/LuanZCP19}, the number of attention heads of GAT \cite{DBLP:conf/iclr/VelickovicCCRLB18} needs to be carefully selected for different data, etc. The variants of GNNs may have a better performance in some specific problems. It is impossible to explore all possibilities manually.
We notice that the Neural Architecture Search (NAS) has archived great success in designing the CNNs and RNNs for many computer vision and language modeling tasks \cite{DBLP:conf/iclr/ZophL17,DBLP:conf/icml/RealMSSSTLK17,DBLP:conf/isnn/LiK19}. Many NAS methods for CNNs and RNNs have been proposed recently. For example, Zoph et al. \cite{DBLP:conf/iclr/ZophL17} apply reinforcement learning to design CNNs for image classification problems. They use a recurrent network controller to generate CNN models and use the validation result of the CNN models as a reward to update the controller. Real et al. \cite{DBLP:conf/icml/RealMSSSTLK17} design an evolutionary algorithm to evolve the CNN models from scratch and obtain state-of-the-art results. However, these works cannot be applied to GNNs directly.
Inspired by the success of NAS in designing CNNs and RNNs, recent works \cite{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1904-09981,DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1909-03184} are tried to apply NAS methods to design GNN models for citation networks. They propose to use reinforcement learning to design the GNN models. However, their proposed method can only generate fixed-length GNN models, and the generated GNN models only have shallow architectures. The deep GNNs generated by their methods will suffer the over-smoothing problem.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{figures/mutation.png}
\caption{Graph neural network architecture evolution example. The GNN architecture can be encoded by six states, i.e., Attention Function, Attention Head, Hidden Dimension, Aggregation Function, Activation Function and Skip Connection.}
\label{fig:mutation}
\end{figure}
To overcome the above-mentioned problem, we propose a new AutoGraph method that applies an evolutionary algorithm to automatically generate deep GNNs. We first design a new search space and schema for the GNN model, which allows GNN with various layers and covers most of the state-of-the-art models. Then we apply evolutionary algorithm and mutation operations to evolve the initial GNN models. Next, we demonstrate a method to search for the best hyperparameters for the new GNN models which allow us to fairly compare the generated models and improve the robustness of our method. Finally, we conduct experiments on both transductive and inductive learning tasks and compare our method with baseline GNNs and the models generated by other reinforcement learning and random search strategies. The results show that we can generate state-of-the-art models for all test data efficiently. In summary, our contributions are:
\begin{itemize}
\item To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to study deep GNNs by using NAS. Our method can automate the architecture engineering process for deep GNNs, which can save many human efforts.
\item Experiment results show that our proposed method can search for deep GNN models for different tasks efficiently.
\item The GNN models generated by our method can outperform the handcrafted state-of-the-art GNN models.
\end{itemize}
\section{Related Work}
Inspired by CNNs \cite{lecun1998gradient,DBLP:conf/nips/KrizhevskySH12} and graph embedding \cite{DBLP:journals/tkde/CuiWPZ19,DBLP:conf/www/0004ZMK20}, GNNs are proposed to collectively aggregate information from graph structure. It is first proposed in \cite{DBLP:journals/tnn/ScarselliGTHM09}. GNNs have been widely applied for graph analysis \cite{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1812-08434,DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1901-00596} recently. The target of GNNs is to learn a representation of each node $\mathbf{h}_v \in \mathbb{R}^s$ which contains information for its neighborhood. The $\mathbf{h}_v$ also called a state embedding of a node. It can be used to produce an output $\mathbf{o}_v$, e.g., the node labels. They can defined as follows \cite{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1812-08434}:
\begin{align}
\mathbf{h}_v &= f(\mathbf{x}_v,\mathbf{x}_{co[v]},\mathbf{h}_{ne[v]},\mathbf{x}_{ne[v]}),\\
\mathbf{o}_v &= g(\mathbf{h}_v,\mathbf{x}_v),
\end{align}
where $f$ is the transition function that updates the node state according to the neighborhood, $g$ is the output function that generates output from the node state and features. $\mathbf{x}_v$,$\mathbf{x}_{co[v]}$,$\mathbf{x}_{ne[v]}$,$\mathbf{h}_{ne[v]}$ are the features of $v$, the features of its edges, the features and the states of its neighborhood, respectively.
Let $\mathbf{H}$, $\mathbf{O}$, $\mathbf{X}$ and $\mathbf{X}_N$ be the stacked vectors of $\mathbf{h}_v$, $\mathbf{o}_v$, all features (node features, edge features, neighborhood features, etc.) and all the node features. Then the state embedding and output can be defined as:
\begin{align}
\mathbf{H} &= F(\mathbf{H},\mathbf{X}), \\
\mathbf{O} &= G(\mathbf{H},\mathbf{X}_N).
\end{align}
Due to the shallow learning mechanisms of most GNNs, one major problem of GNNs is the low expressive power limit. The main challenge of this problem is that most of the deep GNNs would suffer from the over-smoothing issue, i.e., the deep model would aggregate more and more node and edge information from neighbors which would lead to the representation of node and edge indistinguishable. Some works have been proposed to solve this problem recently. For example, in the work of \cite{DBLP:conf/nips/LuanZCP19}, the authors show that the Tanh activation function may be more suitable for deep GNNs and they also propose a DenseNet like architecture to alleviate the vanish-gradient problem.
To automate neural network exploration, some NAS methods have been proposed. Due to the substantial effort of human experts for discovering the state-of-the-art neural network architectures, there has been a growing interest in developing an automatic algorithm to design the neural network architecture automatically. Recently, the architectures generated by NAS have achieved state-of-the-art results in tasks like image classification, object detection or semantic segmentation. Most of the NAS methods are based on Reinforcement Learning (RL) \cite{DBLP:conf/iclr/ZophL17,DBLP:conf/cvpr/ZophVSL18,DBLP:conf/icml/PhamGZLD18} and Evolutionary Algorithm (EA) \cite{DBLP:conf/icml/RealMSSSTLK17,DBLP:conf/aaai/RealAHL19}.
Although the aforementioned NAS methods have successfully designed CNN or RNN architectures for image and language modeling tasks, the GNN is very different from CNN or RNN. Thus they cannot be directly applied to the GNN architecture search. Gao et al. \cite{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1904-09981} and Zhou et al. \cite{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1909-03184} propose a new schema to encode the GNN architecture and apply reinforcement learning to search for GNN models, but their methods cannot generate deep GNNs and their methods are not efficient and robust enough.
\section{Method}
In this section, we first define the AutoGraph problem. Then we describe our search space and schema to represent GNN architectures. Next, we show our evolutionary algorithm for the AutoGraph. Finally, we show a method to improve the robustness of the search process.
\subsection{Problem Statement}
The AutoGraph problem can be formally defined as follows. Given search space $\mathcal{A}$, the target of our algorithm is to search the optimal GNN architecture $\alpha \in \mathcal{A}$ which minimizes the validation loss $\mathcal{L}_{val}$. It can be written as follows:
\begin{align}
\text{min}_{\alpha}\quad &\mathcal{L}_{val}(w^*(\alpha),\alpha), \\
\text{s.t. }\quad &w^{*}(\alpha) = \text{argmin}_w\ \mathcal{L}_{train}(w,\alpha),
\end{align}
where $w^{*}$ denotes the optimal parameters learned for the architecture in the training set. This is a bilevel optimization problem \cite{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1904-09981}.
We propose an efficient method to solve this problem based on the evolutionary algorithm. Each generated architecture is trained and obtains the optimal weight of $w^*$ in the training set, then it is evaluated in the validation set. At last, the best architecture in the validation set is reported. The following sections explain the process in more detail.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{figures/skipconnection.png}
\caption{Graph skip connection example. Binary connection status can be encoded to [$0$,$2^{k-1}$), $k$ is the current layer number.}
\label{fig:skipconnection}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Search Space}
Many state-of-the-art GNNs would suffer from the over-smoothing problem which makes the representation of even distant nodes indistinguishable \cite{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1812-08434}. The recent work \cite{DBLP:conf/nips/LuanZCP19} shows that Tanh is better than ReLU for keeping linear independence among column features for GNNs. They propose a densely-connected graph network which is similar to DenseNet as follows:
\begin{align}
&\mathbf{H_0} = \mathbf{X}, \quad \mathbf{H_{l+1}} = f(L[\mathbf{H_0},\mathbf{H_1},...,\mathbf{H_l}]W_l), \quad l = 0,1,..,n-1, \\
&\mathbf{C} = g([\mathbf{H_0},\mathbf{H_1},..,\mathbf{H_n}]W_n), \\
&\mathrm{output} = \mathrm{softmax}(L^p\mathbf{C}W_C),
\end{align}
where $f$ and $g$ are activation functions; $W_l \in \mathbb{R}^{(\sum_{i=0}^{l}F_i)*F_{l+1}}$, $W_n \in \mathbb{R}^{(\sum_{i=0}^nF_i)*F_C}$ and $W_C \in \mathbb{R}^{F_C*F_O}$ are learnable parameters, $F_i$ is the number of input channels in layer $i$. This architecture stacks all the outputs of previous layers as the input of current layers. It can increase the variety of features for each layer, encourage the feature reuse, alleviate the vanishing gradient problem. However, concatenating all the outputs of previous layers will cause the parameters of the GNNs to increase exponentially.
Inspired by this, we allow each layer of our generated GNN models to connect to a various number of previous layers. To generate deep GNNs, we also allow our method to add a new layer to the GNN model during the searching process. So we define the search space and schema of our method as follows. We first apply the same setting of \textbf{Attention Function}, \textbf{Attention Head}, \textbf{Hidden Dimension}, \textbf{Aggregation Function} and \textbf{Activation Function} in \cite{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1904-09981}. Then we introduce two new states:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Skip Connection.} It has been observed that most GNN models deeper than two layers could not perform well because of the noisy information from expanding neighbors. This problem usually can be addressed by skip connection. Inspired by Luan et al. \cite{DBLP:conf/nips/LuanZCP19}, we allow skip connections between any previous layers to the current layer. For each previous layer, $0$ represents no skip connection, $1$ represents there is a skip connection between that layer to the current layer, e.g., Fig. \ref{fig:skipconnection}.
\item \textbf{Layer Add\footnote{``Layer Add" state is only used in the evolutionary process}.} This state is only used during the mutation process. When this state is selected, we duplicate the current layer and add the new layer after the current layer. This state allows our method to extend the depth of GNNs automatically.
\end{itemize}
Noted that most of the GNN layers can be represented by the above first six states, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:mutation}. The above search space can cover a wide variety of state-of-the-art GNN models. If the skip connections are applied then the input dimension of the current layer would be the sum of all the output dimensions of the connected layers.
\subsection{Evolutionary Algorithm}
Inspired by Real et al. \cite{DBLP:conf/aaai/RealAHL19}, we apply the Aging Evolution Algorithm to search for the deep GNNs. Similar to most of the evolutionary algorithms, our algorithm can be divided into three stages, i.e., initialization, mutation and updating. In the initialization stage, we randomly generate $P$ GNN models with two layers. $P$ is the size of the population. The initial $P$ models are trained and evaluated. Then they are added to the population.
In the mutation stage, we sample $S$ candidates from the population. The candidate with the highest score in the sample set is selected to apply mutation. We randomly select one state in the search space and change it to a new value in the state set. Then the newly generated candidate is trained and evaluated. Next, the new candidate needs to be added to the population. Since we need to keep the population size unchanged, we would select the oldest candidate in the population and remove it before we add the new candidate to the population. This is the main difference between the Aging Evolution Algorithm and other evolutionary algorithms.
We allow multiple skip connections for each layer. The skip connection between the previous layer $i$ to the current layer $k$ can be represented by binary $c_{i,k}$. Since there is always a connection between layer $k-1$ to layer $k$, we only need to consider $i \in 0,1,..,k-2$ ($0$ represents the input of the network). Thus, the skip connections state of layer $k$ can be represented as
\begin{equation}
S_k = \sum_{i=0}^{k-2} c_{i,k} \cdot 2^i ,\quad c_{i,k} \in {0, 1}, \quad k >= 2.
\end{equation}
Then the possible state of $S_k$ is [$0$,$2^{k-1}$). When $k=1$, i.e., the current layer is the first layer, the skip connection state would be always $0$. Figure \ref{fig:skipconnection} shows an example of skip connection representation. To avoid a significant change of the GNN model, each mutation operation will only change one state of the model. During the search process, every evaluated GNN model is added to the history list. After the whole search process is finished, the model with the highest score in the history list will be reported.
\subsection{GNNs Evaluation}
We notice that the GNN model is sensitive to change in hyperparameters, such as the learning rate and weight decay. The best performance of a GNN architecture can be achieved at different learning rates, weight decay and iteration number. If we use the same hyperparameters to train and evaluate different GNN architectures, we may miss the best GNN model because the hyperparameters are not set properly. To fairly compare the architecture, we apply the hyperparameters tuning for each generated GNN model.
The work of Bergstra et al. \cite{DBLP:conf/nips/BergstraBBK11} shows that the Tree-structured Parzen Estimator Approach (TPE) performs well on the hyperparameter search. We use the TPE algorithm to search the hyperparameters for each GNN model. To avoid overfitting and speed up the search process. We allow early stops during the training process. For each GNN architecture, we will use the best performance reported by the TPE algorithm as the performance of the architecture. The comparison between different GNN models is based on the performance of their best hyperparameter settings.
\section{Experiments}
We conduct experiments in both transductive and inductive learning tasks. For the transductive learning task, we test our method on the Cora, Citeseer and Pubmed datasets. For the inductive learning task, we test on the protein-protein interaction (PPI) dataset. Our method is evaluated in the following aspects:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Performance.} We evaluate the performance of our AutoGraph method by comparing the generated GNN model with the handcrafted state-of-the-art GNN models.
\item \textbf{Efficiency.} We analyze the efficiency of our method by comparing it with other search strategies, i.e., GraphNAS (a reinforcement learning-based method) and random search.
\item \textbf{Scalability.} We analyze the scalability of our method by comparing the performance of GNN models with different layers.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Experimental Setup}
The configuration of our method in the experiments is set as follows. The population size is 100. The max evaluation architecture is 2,000. The maximum training iterations is 1,000. As described in the Methods, the mutation probabilities are uniform. The generated GNN architecture is trained with the ADAM optimizer. The maximum hyperparameters search number for the TPE algorithm is 50. We run the search algorithm in four RTX 2080 Ti GPU cards. For each task, the best model which has the lowest validation loss is selected as our GNN model to compare with other baseline models.
\subsection{Datasets}
\textbf{Transductive Learning.} In transductive learning tasks, the same graphs are observed during training and testing. The experiment datasets for the transductive learning are Cora, Citeseer and Pubmed. In these datasets, the nodes represent the documents and the edges (undirected) represent citations. The features of the nodes are got by the bag-of-words representation of the documents. The Cora dataset contains 2,708 nodes and 5,429 edges. We will use 140 nodes for training, 500 nodes for validation and 1,000 nodes for testing. The Citeseer dataset contains 3,327 nodes and 4,732 edges. The training, validation and test set separations are the same as the setup of \cite{DBLP:conf/iclr/VelickovicCCRLB18}.
\textbf{Inductive Learning.} In inductive learning tasks, the graphs in training and testing are different. The experiment dataset for inductive learning is the protein-protein interaction (PPI). The graphs in this dataset represent different human tissues. There are 20 graphs in the training set, two in the validation set and two in the test set. The data in the test set is completely unobserved during training.
The statistical detail of transductive learning and inductive learning datasets is shown in Table \ref{tab:datasets}. The Cora, Citeseer and Pubmed datasets are classification problems. The PPI dataset is a multi-label problem.
\begin{table*}[tb]
\centering
\caption{Dataset Statistic}
\label{tab:datasets}
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c|c}
\toprule
& \textbf{Cora} & \textbf{Citeseer} & \textbf{Pubmed} & \textbf{PPI}\\
\midrule
\textbf{Task} & \textit{Transductive} & \textit{Transductive} & \textit{Transductive} & \textit{Inductive} \\
\midrule
\textbf{\# Nodes} & 2,708 (1 graph) & 3,327 (1 graph) & 19,717 (1 graph) & 56,944 (24 graphs)\\
\hline
\textbf{\# Edges} & 5,429 & 4,732 & 44,338 & 818,716 \\
\hline
\textbf{\# Features/Node} & 1,433 & 3,703 & 500 & 50 \\
\hline
\textbf{\# Classes} & 7 & 6 & 3 & 121 (multi-label) \\
\hline
\textbf{\# Training Nodes} & 140 & 120 & 60 & 44,906 (20 graphs) \\
\hline
\textbf{\# Validation Nodes} & 500 & 500 & 500 & 6,514 (2 graphs) \\
\hline
\textbf{\# Test Nodes} & 1,000 & 1,000 & 1,000 & 5,524 (2 graphs) \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Baseline Methods}
We compare the GNN model generated by our approach with the following state-of-the-arts methods:
\begin{itemize}
\item Chebyshev \cite{DBLP:conf/nips/DefferrardBV16}. This method removes the need to compute the eigenvectors of the Laplacian by using $K$-localized convolution to define a graph convolutional neural network.
\item GCN \cite{DBLP:conf/iclr/KipfW17}. This method alleviates the problem of overfitting by limiting the layer-wise convolution operation to $K = 1$.
\item GAT \cite{DBLP:conf/iclr/VelickovicCCRLB18}. This method introduces the attention mechanism to GNN. It obtains good results in many graph tasks.
\item LGCN \cite{DBLP:conf/kdd/GaoWJ18}. It introduces regular convolutional operations to GNN.
\item GraphSAGE \cite{DBLP:conf/nips/HamiltonYL17}. This method can be applied to inductive tasks. It samples and aggregates features from a node's neighborhood.
\item GeniePath \cite{DBLP:conf/aaai/LiuCLZLSQ19}. It uses an adaptive path layer which consists of two complementary functions.
\end{itemize}
We use the public released implementations of these methods to do the comparisons. The evaluation metric for transductive learning tasks is accuracy. For the inductive learning task, we use the micro-F1 score.
To evaluate the efficiency of our method, we also compare our method with GraphNAS and random search. GraphNAS applies a reinforcement learning controller to generate GNN models. For the random search baseline, we randomly sample GNN models from the same search space in our approach.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{Experiment results on Cora, Citeseer and Pubmed}
\label{tab:tranductive_result}
\begin{tabular}{>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{3cm}| >{\centering\arraybackslash}m{3cm}| >{\centering\arraybackslash}m{3cm}| >{\centering\arraybackslash}m{3cm}}
\toprule
\textbf{Models} & \textbf{Cora} & \textbf{Citeseer} & \textbf{Pubmed} \\
\midrule
Chebyshev & $81.2\%$ & $69.8\%$ & $74.4\%$ \\
GCN & $81.5\%$ & $70.3\%$ & $79.0\%$ \\
GAT & $83.0\pm 0.7\%$ & $72.5\pm 0.7\%$ & $79.0\pm 0.3\%$ \\
LGCN & $83.3\pm 0.5\%$ & $73.0\pm 0.6\%$ & $79.5\pm 0.2\%$ \\
GraphNAS & $83.3\pm 0.6\%$ & $73.5\pm 1.0\%$ & $78.8\pm 0.5\%$ \\
\hline
AutoGraph & $\bm{83.5\pm 0.4\%}$ & \bm{$74.4\pm 0.4\%$} & $\bm{80.3\pm 0.3\%}$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[tbp]
\centering
\caption{Experiment results on PPI}
\label{tab:inductive_result}
\begin{tabular}{>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{3cm}| >{\centering\arraybackslash}m{3cm}}
\toprule
\textbf{Models} & \textbf{micro-F1} \\
\midrule
GraphSAGE (lstm) & $0.612$ \\
GeniePath & $0.979$ \\
GAT & $0.973\pm 0.002$ \\
LGCN & $0.772\pm 0.002$ \\
GraphNAS & $0.985\pm 0.004$ \\
\hline
AutoGraph & \bm{$0.987 \pm 0.003$} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Results}
After our algorithm generates 2,000 GNN models, the model which has the lowest loss in the validation set is selected and tested on the test set. The experiment results of transductive learning datasets are summarized in Table \ref{tab:tranductive_result}. The results of the inductive learning dataset are summarized in Table \ref{tab:inductive_result}.
\textbf{Performance.}
For the transductive learning tasks, we compare the classification accuracy with the above-mentioned GNN model and GraphNAS. From Table \ref{tab:tranductive_result} we can see that our generated model can get the state-of-the-art result in all transductive datasets.
For the inductive task, we compare the micro-F1 score with the popular GNN models and GraphNAS. The result shows that our method also performs well in the inductive dataset.
\begin{table}[bt]
\centering
\caption{Search Strategies Comparison}
\label{tab:search_strategies}
\begin{tabular}{>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{3cm}| >{\centering\arraybackslash}m{3cm}| >{\centering\arraybackslash}m{3cm}| >{\centering\arraybackslash}m{3cm}}
\toprule
\textbf{Method} & \textbf{Accuracy} & \textbf{Time (GPU hours)} & \textbf{Best GNN Layers} \\
\midrule
Random Search & $81.8 \pm 0.5\%$ & 10 & 2\\
GraphNAS & $83.3 \pm 0.6\%$ & 10 & 2 \\
\hline
AutoGraph & $\bm{83.5 \pm 0.4\%}$ & \bm{$3$} & \bm{$4$} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\textbf{Efficiency.}
To evaluate the effectiveness of our search method, we compare our method with different search strategies, i.e., random search and reinforcement learning-based search method\textemdash GraphNAS \cite{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1904-09981}. Since GraphNAS does not do the hyperparameters tuning when evaluating the GNNs, we also disable our hyperparameters tuning during the search process. During the training process, we record the generated architectures and their performance. From the Table \ref{tab:search_strategies}, we can see that our method can search for a better GNN model with less time and our method can generate deeper GNNs.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figures/layers_comparison.png}
\caption{Comparison of the GNN models with different layers on Cora}
\label{fig:layers_comparison}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Scalability.}
We know that most of the handcraft GNNs would suffer from the over-smoothing problem. We compare the performance of the GNNs generated by our method with different layers. Figure \ref{fig:layers_comparison} shows the best performance of the GNNs generated by our method from two layers to nine layers. We can see that our generated GNN models have good performance in deep architectures.
\section{Discussion \& Conclusion}
In this work, we study the problem of AutoGraph. We present an efficient evolutionary algorithm to search for GNN models. We can see that our method can generate deep GNNs which alleviate the over-smoothing problem. The experiments show that the generated models can outperform current handcraft state-of-the-art models. In summary, we can see our proposed method has the following advantages:
\begin{itemize}
\item It can save substantial efforts to explore good GNN models for different graph tasks.
\item Our generated GNN models can get state-of-the-art results.
\item Our approach can generate deep GNN models which can alleviate the over-smoothing problem.
\end{itemize}
Although our proposed method can design state-of-the-art GNNs for graph tasks, it is remarkable that there are still many improvements that can be made. The first problem is that the search process is time-consuming. We notice that some approaches to reduce the search time have been proposed in NAS for CNNs. However, most of them cannot be directly applied to GNNs, we need to design a proper improvement method for GNNs. The second problem is that the search space in our method is still limited, we can try to design a better search space to explore more novel GNNs. We will focus on these two problems in our future works.
\bibliographystyle{splncs04}
|
\section{Introduction}
Remarkable progress has been achieved in various segmentation tasks ranging from semantic segmentation \cite{long2015fully, chen2017deeplab, chen2018encoder} to panoptic segmentation \cite{kirillov2019panoptic, cheng2020panoptic}. These achievements normally take advantage of large-scale dataset that is costly and difficult to obtain, especially in real-world scenarios. In conventional semantic segmentation, abundant pixel-wise annotations are required to train a good segmentation model. Much efforts have been made to reduce the need of annotation in the segmentation community. Recently, few-shot segmentation arouses much attention which aims to transfer knowledge learnt on base class to segment objects of novel class given few support images.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.3in, height=1.15in]{intro1.png}
\includegraphics[width=3.3in, height=1.15in]{intro2.png}
\caption{Existing methods (upper) focus on extracting prototypes on the support images. BiOpt (lower) targets to estimate query prototypes which leverages semantic information on the unlabeled query image by inner optimization.}
\label{figure:abstract}
\end{figure}
Few-shot segmentation methods with prototype learning can be split into two branches. One is to concatenate support prototypes with query feature maps and output predicted masks through a segmentation head such as ASPP \cite{zhang2019canet, zhang2019pyramid, PMMs2020}. The other treats few-shot segmentation as the problem of pixel-wise classification. Feature vectors at each spatial location are assigned class labels of the nearest support prototype \cite{Wang_2019_ICCV, liu2020part}.
These approaches commonly learn prototypes from the support images, Fig. \ref{figure:abstract} (upper). The extracted support prototypes are deemed as the discriminative representation for foreground and background classes. Then the query image is segmented by pixel-wise comparison between feature vectors and support prototypes.
It is problematic when object appearances are significantly different among support and query images, especially in 1-shot scenarios displayed in Fig. \ref{figure:case}. Large foreground regions on the query image can not be segmented since the support prototypes lack semantic information on the query image. It is crucial to leverage knowledge on the query image into prototype estimation. However, due to the unavailability of query mask, existing methods fail to directly learn semantic knowledge on the unlabeled query image.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in, height=1.5in]{case.png}
\caption{Appearance and scale variation of support and query images in 1-shot episodes. Baseline model, where prototypes are extracted from the support images, fails to segment foreground objects on the query image. Best viewed in color with zoom in.}
\label{figure:case}
\end{figure}
In this paper, we propose the Bi-level Optimization (BiOpt) method to inductively estimate query prototypes.
Which is to say that, given a task $T=<(I_s, \mathcal{M}_s), I_q>$, we propose to extract query prototypes $P_q$ on the unlabeled query image $I_q$ in inductive setting. No additional unlabeled images are used in prototype estimation.
Fig. \ref{figure:abstract} (lower) gives an overview of BiOpt, clearly showing the difference between recent approaches and BiOpt.
They focus on directly extracting discriminative support prototypes $P_s$ on the support images such as prototype mixture \cite{PMMs2020} and part-aware prototype generation \cite{liu2020part}.
In contrast, BiOpt can inductively estimate query prototypes that leverage semantic information of target regions on the query image. Support images are used to guide prototype initialization during optimization, Fig. \ref{figure:init}.
Learning target is decomposed into two levels: inner objective to estimate query prototypes $P_q$ on each task and outer objective to learn a discriminative embedding space $\phi$ across tasks.
Query prototypes are supposed to have satisfying segmentation performance which can be directly measured by the segmentation loss. Based on this consideration, we expect to learn query prototypes by minimizing cross-entropy loss on the query image. Difficulty in inner optimization is the unavailability of query mask, aka the inner target. Furthermore, how to initialize query prototypes is another key issue in the inner loop. An init module is accordingly designed to initialize query prototypes and set an inner target for inner optimization reasonably. Then we iteratively update query prototypes by gradient descent. Optimized after inner procedure, our model can leverage knowledge from the unlabeled query image in prototype estimation. Outer optimization is further applied to learn a discriminative embedding space across different tasks. We follow the common practice that minimizes cross-entropy loss between predicted mask and ground-truth on the query images. Final prediction is obtained by annotating each vector on the query feature map with the class label of the nearest query prototype estimated in the inner loop. BiOpt enables to train models in an end-to-end manner and the train procedure is built in nested loops, Fig. \ref{figure:framework}.
The proposed inner optimization mechanism is feasible which can be directly applied at test.
We validate our method on PASCAL-$5^i$ and COCO-$20^i$ (including split-A and split-B). To our best knowledge, we are the first to give comprehensive results on all splits with three backbones. More than that, our BiOpt algorithm consistently outperforms the state-of-the-arts by large margins. Main contributions of this work are summarized as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item [1)] We propose a novel method BiOpt for inductive few-shot segmentation. The model can leverage semantic knowledge from the query image, which differs from most existing methods that focus on extracting prototypes only from the support images.
\item [2)] We design a nested optimization algorithm to estimate the query prototypes on each task. In the inner loop, both support and query features are first exploited for good prototype initialization, and prototypes are optimized iteratively on the unlabeled query image. In the outer loop, we use the query prototypes obtained through inner optimization for prediction to optimize feature extractor.
\item [3)] Extensive experiments on PASCAL-$5^i$ and COCO-$20^i$ demonstrate the superiority of our proposed method. BiOpt achieves state-of-the-art results on 1-shot COCO-$20^i$ and 5-shot PASCAL-$5^i$ under all settings.
\end{itemize}
\section{Related Work}
\textbf{Semantic Segmentation}
aims to associate each pixel in the image to a category label based on semantic understanding.
FCN \cite{long2015fully} first proposed the fully convolutional architecture which replaces the final fully connected layer with the convolutional layer.
To obtain more accurate prediction, they also propose to use the deconvolution layer to increase the size of predicted masks.
U-Net \cite{ronneberger2015u} used a symmetric encoder-decoder architecture to better extract low level features.
In DeepLab-v1 \cite{chen14semantic}, the dilated convolution was proposed to reduce the information loss caused by the pooling layer.
In order to better segment objects of different scales, DeepLab-v2 \cite{chen2017deeplab} proposed the ASPP module to fuse the features extracted from different scales.
These semantic segmentation methods rely on much pixel-wisely annotated training images that are usually expensive and hard to obtain.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5.3in, height=3.45in]{framework.pdf}
\caption{End-to-end training framework of Bi-level Optimization (BiOpt). BiOpt is capable of leveraging semantic knowledge from the query image into prototype learning. In the inner loop, reasonably initialized query prototypes and target mask are first given by the init module. Then the query prototypes $P_q$ are learnt by iterative optimization. In the outer loop, $\phi$ is optimized across different tasks to learn discriminative embeddings.}
\label{figure:framework}
\end{figure*}
\textbf{Few-Shot Learning}
targets to recognize novel classes from limited training images \cite{vinyals2016matching,snell2017prototypical,sung2018learning,lee2019meta}.
ProtoNet \cite{snell2017prototypical} suggested that each class can be represented by a prototype in the feature space.
The classification problem can be performed by assigning label to the nearest prototype.
MAML \cite{finn2017model} and Reptile \cite{nichol2018first} proposed to learn a good model initialization which enables fast adaptation on novel tasks.
Optimization procedure is similarly designed in these methods. Optimal solution of each sub task is found in inner optimization and the model is trained through outer loop for generalization on different tasks.
This optimization procedure is also adopted by MetaOptNet \cite{lee2019meta}. In the inner loop, it finds optimal classifier, and in outer loop, feature extractor is optimized given the classification weights.
Inspired by these meta learning methods, we use bi-level optimization to solve few-shot segmentation problem.
\textbf{Few-Shot Segmentation}
targets to perform semantic segmentation in few-shot scenarios.
This problem is recently proposed by OSLSM \cite{shaban2017one}. It provided a baseline in the few-shot segmentation community by using FCN for dense pixel-level prediction on a test image.
PL \cite{dong2018few} suggested to solve few-shot segmentation with prototype learning based on ProtoNet \cite{snell2017prototypical}. Recent prototype based methods \cite{PMMs2020, liu2020part} point out the limitation of single prototype in segmenting query images.
focus on learning prototypes by correlating diverse object parts. RPMMs \cite{PMMs2020} mixed prototypes by Expectation-Maximization algorithm to correlate diverse object parts on the support images. PPNet \cite{liu2020part} decomposed the single class representation into a set of part-aware prototypes to capture fine-grained parts on support features. PANet \cite{Wang_2019_ICCV} bi-directionally estimated prototypes to learn a consistent embedding space.
It can be seen that existing methods focus on exploiting knowledge from the support images.
We find that support prototypes show unsatisfying segmentation performance when handling large appearance and scale variation between support and query objects.
To deal with it, we propose to estimate query prototypes by leveraging semantic information on the unlabeled query image.
\section{Problem Setup}
In few-shot segmentation, we aim to learn a model that can perform segmentation on novel objects from limited labeled images per class.
The problem of few-shot segmentation is formed in meta tasks, also called episodes.
Training tasks $\mathcal{T}^{tr}$ are constructed from the base classes $\mathcal{C}_{base}$ and test tasks $\mathcal{T}^{te}$ are sampled from the novel classes $\mathcal{C}_{novel}$. Two class sets are disjoint which is to say that, $\mathcal{C}_{novel}$ remains unseen before the test.
Each task is formally composed of a support set $\mathcal{S}$ and a query set $\mathcal{Q}$.
In the $N$-way $K$-shot setting, the support set $\mathcal{S}=\{(I_s, \mathcal{M}_s)\}$ contains $K$ support images $I_s\in \mathbbm{R}^{H\times W\times 3}$ with ground-truth masks $\mathcal{M}_s\in \mathbbm{R}^{H\times W\times 1}$ for each of $N$ classes. The query set $\mathcal{Q}=\{(I_q, \mathcal{M}_q)\}$ has $N_q$ query images $I_q$ from these $N$ classes, with ground-truth masks $\mathcal{M}_q$ available in training but unknown in test.
The segmentation model is trained episodically on $\mathcal{T}^{tr}$, learning to perform segmentation in few-shot scenarios. After episodic training, the model is test on $\mathcal{T}^{te}$ for evaluation.
\section{Bi-Level Optimization}
In few-shot segmentation, the general objective of prototype based methods is to learn an embedding space $\phi$ where emperical segmentation loss is minimum given a base learner $\mathcal{A}$. Learning objective can be formulated as:
\begin{equation}
\min_{\phi} \mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{T}^{tr}} [\mathcal{L}_{seg}( \mathcal{Q}; P, \phi) ], {\rm {where}} \; P = \mathcal{A}(\mathcal{S}; \phi)
\end{equation}
The base learner $\mathcal{A}$ extracts prototypes $P$ on the support images with ground-truth masks by masked average pooling \cite{zhang2019canet}, prototype mixture \cite{PMMs2020} or part-aware prototype generation \cite{liu2020part}. Main problem solved in these approaches is how to extract representative prototypes on the \textit{support} images $I_s$. It will lead to unsatisfying segmentation performance when the appearance of objects on $I_s$ and $I_q$ varies significantly, Fig. \ref{figure:case}. Unlike these methods, we challenge to estimate query prototypes on the unlabeled query image into prototype computation, achieving satisfying results in the above mentioned situation.
\subsection{Our Objective}
Our objective is to extract query prototypes in inductive setting, without importing additional unlabeled images as in \cite{liu2020part}.
Since the query masks are unknown in test, the model should be capable of leveraging knowledge on the unlabeled query image.
The nested training process is designed where inner loops are accordingly set to mimic the test scenarios at the training stage.
The objective is decomposed into two levels and achieved in corresponding loops.
1) \textbf{The inner objective} is to learn query prototypes \textbf{$P_q$} from the unlabeled query image on each task.
2) \textbf{The outer objective} is to learn a discriminative embedding space \textbf{$\phi$} across tasks.
\subsubsection{Inner Objective}
In this paper, we propose to build a base learner which can directly estimate prototypes from the unlabeled query image:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
P = \mathcal{A}(\mathcal{Q}; \mathcal{S}, \phi)
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:newprototype}
\end{equation}
where $P\in \mathbbm{R}^{C\times (N+1)}$ includes background class.
Existing approaches aim to obtain prototypes that have the minimum distance to feature vectors in the region or subregion of target classes, on the support images. Differently, we expect the prototypes to have the minimum segmentation loss on the query image which is an explicit indicator of segmentation result. The objective is formulated as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\min_{P_q} \sum_{(x,y)} \mathcal{L}_{CE}(softmax (\, Cos(Q^{(x,y)}, P_q), {\mathcal{M}}_q^{(x,y)}) )
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:innerobjective}
\end{equation}
where $(x,y)$ are spatial locations on feature maps $Q = \phi (I_q) \in \mathbbm{R}^{H\times W\times C}$.
$Cos(\cdot)$ is cosine similarity operator and $\mathcal{L}_{CE}$ is cross-entropy loss.
Note the ground-truth $\mathcal{M}_q$ is unavailable in the inner loop. It is consistent with test scenarios.
Therefore, we use $\mathit{M}_q \in \mathbbm{R}^{H\times W\times 1}$ as substituted ground-truth in inner optimization.
The way to build target mask $\mathit{M}_q$ is introduced in the next subsection.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in, height=1.6in]{init.pdf}
\caption{The init module fully exploits knowledge from both support and query features, providing reasonably initialized query prototypes $P^0_q$ into the inner loop. MAP denotes the masked average pooling operation.}
\label{figure:init}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Outer Objective}
Few-shot segmentation model is expected to generalize well to novel classes. It is usually solved by minimizing empirical error on base classes. Our model is optimized across tasks $\mathcal{T}^{tr}$ over base classes with the outer objective:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\min_{\phi} \ \sum_{\mathcal{T}^{tr}} \mathcal{L}_{CE}(softmax(\, Cos(\phi (I_q), P_q)), \mathcal{M}_q)
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:outerobjective}
\end{equation}
where $P_q$ is given after the inner loop and $\mathcal{M}_q$ is the ground-truth mask.
Through outer optimization, our model can learn a good embedding space where features are discriminative for different classes.
\subsection{BiOpt Algorithm}
\label{sec:algo}
Framework of our BiOpt is shown in Fig. \ref{figure:framework} and the algorithm is described in detail in this subsection.
BiOpt trains a segmentation model end-to-end through nested loops.
\textbf{Inner Optimization}
Given embedding function $\phi$, usually a deep neural network, there are two variables $P_q$ and $\mathit{M}_q$ to be determined in the inner objective. Query prototype $P_q$ is the variable to be optimized in the inner loop and $\mathit{M}_q$ is the substituted target mask in loss computation. How to initialize $P_q$ before inner optimization and how to set the target are two problems we solve in the following.
We propose an init module as displayed in Fig. \ref{figure:framework} for initializing query prototypes. It fully exploits semantic knowledge from annotated support images and unlabeled query images to find a good initialization.
The support prototypes $P_s$ are first computed by masked average pooling, denoted by MAP operator in figure. Temporary query mask $M'$ can be given by pixel-wise comparison with $P_s$ and temporary query prototypes $P'$ can be similarly computed. $M'$ and $P'$ are roughly computed but contains discriminative information on the query image to some extent. To leverage these information without importing much noises, we feed $P'$ and $P_s$ into a weight generator and initialize query prototypes as:
\begin{equation}
P^0_q = \omega \cdot P_s + (1-\omega) \cdot P'
\label{eq:initialization}
\end{equation}
where $w\in \mathbb{R}^{C\times (N+1})$ is generated from weight generator which consists of a concatenation operator, a fully-connected layer and a sigmoid function.
Consequently, the target mask can be set as:
\begin{equation}
\mathit{M}_q^{(x,y)} = \arg \max_{c} \; \frac{exp(-\alpha \cdot Cos(Q^{(x,y)}, P_{q,c}^0))}{\sum_{c\in\mathcal{C}^T} exp(-\alpha \cdot Cos(Q^{(x,y)}, P_{q,c}^0))}
\label{eq:targetmask}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha$ is a scalar parameter fixed at 20 at training. $\alpha$ is omitted in other equations of mask prediction for brevity. $\mathcal{C}^T$ is the semantic class space on task $T$.
We can set better initialization and target mask in this way and verify it in experiments.
Given initialized query prototypes $P^0_q$ and target mask $\mathit{M}_q$, we iteratively update prototypes by gradient descent in the inner loop.
\begin{equation}
P^i_q = P^{i-1}_q - \nabla \mathcal{L}_{CE}( softmax (\, Cos(Q, P^{i-1}_q)), \mathit{M}_q)
\label{eq:innerupdate}
\end{equation}
Optimized query prototypes $P_q$ approximate to the expected prototypes by ensuring small segmentation loss on the query image.
\textbf{Outer optimization}
Final prediction $\hat{\mathcal{M}}_q$ is similarly computed as in Eq. \ref{eq:targetmask} where prototypes are substituted by optimized $P_q$.
To strengthen regularization of the training process, we impose constraints on two intermediate results $M'$ and $\mathit{M}_q$. The model is overall trained by minimizing segmentation loss as:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{seg} = \mathcal{L}_{CE}(M', \mathcal{M}_q) + \mathcal{L}_{CE}(\mathit{M}_q, \mathcal{M}_q) + \mathcal{L}_{CE}(\hat{\mathcal{M}}_q, \mathcal{M}_q)
\end{equation}
Our BiOpt is feasible at both training and test phases.
At the training stage, the model is trained end-to-end. It can learn query prototypes in the inner loop where tasks are set to mimic test scenarios.
At the test stage, we apply inner optimization on each task and infer by the optimized query prototypes.
The proposed BiOpt algorithm for few-shot segmentation is summarized in Algorithm \ref{alg}.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Bi-Level Optimization (BiOpt)}
\label{alg}
\begin{algorithmic}
\REQUIRE {Tasks $\mathcal{T}^{tr}=\{(I_s, I_q, \mathcal{M}_s, \mathcal{M}_q)\}$ on $\mathcal{C}_{base}$}
\STATE {Initialize feature extractor $\phi$}
\FOR{j in Outer Loops}
\STATE {Get feature maps $S$, $Q$ = $\phi(I_s)$, $\phi(I_q)$}
\STATE {Compute $P_s $, $M'$, $P'$, and generate weight $\omega$}
\STATE {Initialize query prototypes $P^0_{q}$ by Eq. \ref{eq:initialization}}
\STATE {Set target mask $\textit{M}_q$ by Eq. \ref{eq:targetmask}}
\FOR{i in Inner Loops}
\STATE{Update $P_q^i$ by Eq. \ref{eq:innerupdate}}
\ENDFOR
Compute $\hat{\mathcal{M}}_q = softmax(\, Cos(Q, P_q)) $
\STATE {Update $\phi^j = \phi^{j-1} - \nabla \mathcal{L}_{seg}$ }
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\section{Experiments}
\subsection{Setup}
\textbf{Dataset}
Two benchmarks PASCAL-$5^i$ \cite{shaban2017one} and COCO-$20^i$ \cite{nguyen2019feature} are utilized in this paper. PASCAL-$5^i$ is derived from PASCAL VOC 2012 \cite{everingham2010the} which is split into 4 disjoint folds with 5 categories per fold. We use the dataset provided by \cite{zhang2019canet} in experiments.
COCO-$20^i$ is a more challenging dataset derived from MS COCO \cite{lin2014microsoft}. We denote the split proposed in \cite{nguyen2019feature} as split-A while the split in \cite{hu2019attention} as split-B. 80 classes are divided into 4 folds in both splits. Results are reported on all splits in this paper. All images are resized to 417$\times$417 in experiments.
\textbf{Network}
We conduct comprehensive experiments on three networks: VGG-16 \cite{simonyan2015very}, ResNet-50 and ResNet-101 \cite{he2016deep}. Following previous works \cite{shaban2017one,Wang_2019_ICCV}, networks are initialized by the pretrained weights on ILSVRC \cite{russakovsky2015imagenet}. In the last two blocks in ResNets, strides of the last two blocks are set to 1 and dilated convolutions with rates of 2 and 4 are used for larger reception fields. Layers after the 4-th block and the last ReLU layer are removed for prototype computation.
\textbf{Implementation Detail}
We train 10,000 epochs on PASCAL-$5^i$ and 20,000 epochs on COCO-$20^i$. Batch size is set to 8 in 1-shot experiments and 2 in 5-shot experiments.
In outer optimization, our model is trained by SGD with the learning rate of 7e-3, momentum of 0.9 and weight decay of 5e-4. The learning rate is reduced by 0.1 after 10,000 iterations on COCO derivatives. 1,000 episodes are randomly sampled for evaluation. $N_q = 1$ in all experiments. At both training and evaluation phases, the learning rate in inner optimization is 0.1 and the number of inner steps is set to 10. Random crop is used for data augmentation as in \cite{zhang2019canet}.
\textbf{Evaluation}
In few-shot segmentation, the model is trained on three folds and evaluated on the rest fold.
Mean-IoU and binary-IoU are frequently used evaluation protocols. Mean-IoU measures the averaged IoU score on all foreground classes. Binary-IoU treats all foreground objects as one class and the background is viewed as one class.
\textbf{Baseline}
We train a baseline model for comparison to show the effectiveness of bi-level optimization. It extracts prototypes from the support images by masked average pooling and directly predicts on the query image.
\begin{table*}[]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lccccccccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Methods}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Backbone}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{1-shot}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{5-shot}} \\
& & Fold 1 & Fold 2 & Fold 3 & Fold 4 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} \textbf{Mean} } & Fold 1 & Fold 2 & Fold 3 & Fold 4 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} \textbf{Mean}} \\
\hline
OSLSM \cite{shaban2017one} & \multirow{7}{*}{VGG-16} & 33.60 & 55.30 & 40.90 & 33.50 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} 40.80} & 35.90 & 58.10 & 42.70 & 39.10 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} 43.95} \\
co-FCN \cite{rakelly2018conditional} & & 36.70 & 50.60 & 44.90 & 32.40 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} 41.10} & 37.50 & 50.00 & 44.10 & 33.90 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} 41.40} \\
SG-One \cite{zhang2020sg} & & 40.20 & 58.40 & 48.40 & 38.40 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} 46.30 } & 41.90 & 58.60 & 48.60 & 39.40 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} 47.10} \\
PANet \cite{Wang_2019_ICCV} & & 42.30 & 58.00 & 51.10 & 41.20 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} 48.10 } & 51.80 & 64.60 & 59.80 & 46.50 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} 55.70} \\
FWB \cite{nguyen2019feature} & & 47.04 & 59.64 & 52.51 & 48.27 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} 51.90 } & 50.87 & 62.86 & 56.48 & 50.09 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} 55.08} \\
RPMMs \cite{PMMs2020} & & 47.14 & 65.82 & 50.57 & 48.54 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} 53.02 } & 50.00 & 66.46 & 51.94 & 47.64 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} 54.01} \\
\textbf{BiOpt} & & 50.01 & 63.41 & 56.73 & 43.60 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} \textbf{53.44} } & 56.27 & 65.65 & 63.15 & 49.42 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} \textbf{58.62} } \\
\hline
CANet \cite{zhang2019canet} & \multirow{5}{*}{ResNet-50} & 52.50 & 65.90 & 51.30 & 51.90 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} 55.40 } & 55.50 & 67.80 & 51.90 & 53.20 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} 57.10} \\
PGNet \cite{zhang2019pyramid} & & 56.00 & 66.90 & 50.60 & 50.40 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} 56.00} & 57.70 & 68.70 & 52.90 & 54.60 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} 58.50} \\
RPMMs \cite{PMMs2020} & & 55.15 & 66.91 & 52.61 & 50.68 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} 56.34} & 56.28 & 67.34 & 54.52 & 51.00 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} 57.30} \\
PPNet \cite{liu2020part} & & 48.58 & 60.58 & 55.71 & 46.47 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} 52.84} & 58.85 & 68.28 & 66.77 & 57.98 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} 62.97} \\
\textbf{BiOpt} & & 56.21 & 64.63 & 57.95 & 48.61 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} \textbf{56.85} } & 61.32 & 69.45 & 67.74 & 58.11 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} \textbf{64.16} } \\
\hline
FWB \cite{nguyen2019feature} & \multirow{4}{*}{ResNet-101} & 51.30 & 64.49 & 56.71 & 52.24 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} 56.19} & 54.84 & 67.38 & 62.16 & 55.30 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} 59.92} \\
PPNet \cite{liu2020part} & & 52.71 & 62.82 & 57.38 & 47.74 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} 55.16} & 60.25 & 70.00 & 69.41 & 60.72 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} 65.10} \\
DAN \cite{wang2020few} & & 54.70 & 68.60 & 57.80 & 51.60 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} \textbf{58.20} } & 57.90 & 69.00 & 60.10 & 54.90 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} 60.50} \\
\textbf{BiOpt} & & 58.16 & 64.82 & 59.12 & 49.23 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} 57.83} & 62.72 & 73.27 & 68.20 & 57.00 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} \textbf{65.30} } \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Mean-IoU results on 1-way \textbf{PASCAL-$5^i$}. The best result over four folds is marked in bold.}
\label{tb:pascal}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Comparison with the State-of-the-arts}
To give a fair comparison with the state-of-the-arts, we conduct comprehensive experiments on PASCAL-$5^i$ and COCO-$20^i$ of two splits. In addition, we report detailed results with three backbones. Mean-IoU results are displayed in Table \ref{tb:pascal} and Table \ref{tb:coco}.
\subsubsection{PASCAL-$5^i$}
We provide comprehensive mean-IoU results in Table \ref{tb:pascal} to fairly compare with the state-of-the-arts using the same backbones.
Model performance is usually measured by the mean results over four folds which are denoted in orange color.
It can be seen from Table \ref{tb:pascal} that our method achieves the best performance in most settings, except for 1-shot with ResNet-101.
With VGG-16 as the embedding network, BiOpt outperforms state-of-the-arts by a margin of 0.42\% in 1-shot and 2.92\% in 5-shot.
PANet \cite{Wang_2019_ICCV} proposed the alignment loss to exploit the query image. We improve it by 5.34\% which demonstrates that BiOpt can estimate better query prototype by proposed inner optimization.
Recent literature mainly reports results on the ResNet-50 network, which has better performance than VGG-16.
Compared with existing methods with ResNet-50 as backbone, BiOpt improves the segmentation performance by 0.51\% and 1.19\% on 1-shot and 5-shot tasks respectively.
RPMMs \cite{PMMs2020} and PPNet \cite{liu2020part} are recently proposed to learn support prototypes by mixing semantic information from spatial parts on the support images. In comparison with these methods, performance of BiOpt is superior which indicates the effectiveness of estimating query prototypes.
Table \ref{tb:biou} gives binary-IoU results with ResNet-50. We achieve 70.74\% (1-shot) and 75.66\% (5-shot) on PASCAL-$5^i$.
\subsubsection{COCO-$20^i$}
Table \ref{tb:coco} compares the results on COCO-$20^i$ dataset with existing methods.
On COCO-$20^i$-A, we achieve the state-of-the-art performance in 1-shot setting
BiOpt brings improvements by 2.18\% (VGG-16) and 5.9\% (ResNet-50) compared with PANet.
On COCO-$20^i$-B, our method is superior to existing methods on all backbones.
PPNet \cite{liu2020part} and RPMMs \cite{PMMs2020} provide competitive results by exploiting a set of support prototypes.
However, BiOpt shows better performance especially in 1-shot, which achieves 26.96\%, 33.15\%, 34.57\% respectively.
BiOpt is the first work to provide binary-IoU results on COCO-$20^i$ of two splits, as shown in Table \ref{tb:biou}.
It serves as a baseline for future research.
\begin{table*}[]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lllllllllllc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Methods}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Backbone}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{1-shot}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{5-shot}} \\
& & Fold 1 & Fold 2 & Fold 3 & Fold 4 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} \textbf{Mean} } & Fold 1 & Fold 2 & Fold 3 & Fold 4 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} \textbf{Mean}} \\
\hline
\multicolumn{12}{c}{split-A} \\
\hline
PANet \cite{Wang_2019_ICCV} & VGG-16 & 28.70 & 21.20 & 19.10 & 14.80 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} 20.90} & 39.43 & 28.30 & 28.20 & 22.70 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} \textbf{29.70}} \\
PANet \cite{Wang_2019_ICCV}* & ResNet-50 & 31.50 & 22.58 & 21.50 & 16.20 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} 22.95} & 45.85 & 29.15 & 30.59 & 29.59 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} 33.80} \\
PPNet \cite{liu2020part} & ResNet-50 & 36.48 & 26.53 & 25.99 & 19.65 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} 27.16} & 48.88 & 31.36 & 36.02 & 30.64 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} \textbf{36.73}} \\
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & VGG-16 & 32.95 & 24.29 & 18.58 & 16.51 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} \textbf{23.08} } & 38.08 & 27.52 & 27.30 & 21.83 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} 28.68} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & ResNet-50 & 38.63 & 29.61 & 23.52 & 23.62 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} \textbf{28.85}} & 47.44 & 34.42 & 31.89 & 27.90 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} 35.41} \\
\multirow{-3}{*}{\textbf{BiOpt}} & ResNet-101 & 41.55 & 29.83 & 25.30 & 24.74 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} \textbf{30.36}} & 49.22 & 33.81 & 31.47 & 33.25 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} \textbf{36.94}} \\
\hline
\multicolumn{12}{c}{split-B} \\
\hline
PPNet \cite{liu2020part} & ResNet-50 & 28.09 & 30.84 & 29.49 & 27.70 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} 29.03} & 38.97 & 40.81 & 37.07 & 37.28 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} 38.53} \\
RPMMs \cite{PMMs2020} & ResNet-50 & 29.53 & 36.82 & 28.94 & 27.02 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} 30.58} & 33.82 & 41.96 & 32.99 & 33.33 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} 35.52} \\
FWB \cite{nguyen2019feature} & VGG-16 & 18.35 & 16.72 & 19.59 & 25.43 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} 20.02 } & 20.94 & 19.24 & 21.94 & 28.39 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} 22.63} \\
FWB \cite{nguyen2019feature} & ResNet-101 & 16.98 & 17.98 & 20.96 & 28.85 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} 21.19} & 19.13 & 21.46 & 23.93 & 30.08 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} 23.05} \\
\hline
& VGG-16 & 24.61 & 30.84 & 25.96 & 26.41 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} \textbf{26.96}} & 29.29 & 34.90 & 31.87 & 30.14 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} \textbf{31.55}} \\
& ResNet-50 & 32.23 & 36.05 & 32.00 & 32.33 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} \textbf{33.15}} & 37.96 & 44.43 & 36.24 & 37.12 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} \textbf{38.94}} \\
\multirow{-3}{*}{\textbf{BiOpt}} & ResNet-101 & 34.28 & 38.50 & 34.75 & 30.76 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} \textbf{34.57}} & 38.49 & 46.18 & 35.81 & 38.98 & {\color[HTML]{D34F00} \textbf{39.87}} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Mean-IoU results on 1-way \textbf{COCO-$20^i$}. * Results are reported in \cite{liu2020part}. The best result with different backbone is marked in bold.}
\label{tb:coco}
\end{table*}
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\hline
Methods & Dataset & 1-shot & 5-shot \\
\hline
PANet \cite{Wang_2019_ICCV} & \multirow{5}{*}{PASCAL-$5^i$} & 66.50 & 70.70 \\
CANet \cite{zhang2019canet} & & 66.20 & 69.60 \\
PGNet \cite{zhang2019pyramid} & & 69.90 & 70.50 \\
PPNet \cite{liu2020part} & & 69.19 & 75.76 \\
BiOpt & & 70.74 & 75.66 \\
\hline
BiOpt & COCO-$20^i$-A & 64.11 & 66.40 \\
BiOpt & COCO-$20^i$-B & 66.52 & 69.01 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Binary-IoU on PASCAL-$5^i$ and COCO-$20^i$. Compared with methods on ResNet-50.}
\label{tb:biou}
\end{table}
\subsection{Ablation Study}
In this subsection, we perform ablation study to inspect the effect of different components in our method. All experiments are implemented on ResNet-50.
\textbf{Inner Optimization}
We conduct experiments on 1-shot PASCAL-$5^i$ to evaluate the effectiveness of our bi-level optimization strategy in Table \ref{tb:innerablation}. Baseline results are shown in the first row where mean-IoU on four folds is 51.70\%.
Bottom two lines show results of the baseline model equipped with our proposed inner optimization mechanism.
The performance is consistently improved by auxiliary optimization during the inner loop. Especially initialized through our init module, mean-IoU result is increased by a large margin of 5.15\% over four folds. It indicates that our model can estimate effective query prototype through inner optimization.
\begin{table}[]
\begin{tabular}{llccccc}
\toprule
Baseline & Fold 1 & Fold 2 & Fold 3 & Fold 4 & Mean \\
\hline
& 49.88 & 60.81 & 50.81 & 45.66 & 51.70 \\
+ InOpt$\dag$ & 53.69 & 62.43 & 54.74 & 48.17 & 54.76 \\
+ InOpt & 56.21 & 64.63 & 57.95 & 48.61 & 56.85 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Ablation study on 1-shot PASCAL-$5^i$. InOpt$\dag$ refers to set $P_s$ as the initialized prototype and $M'$ as the target mask in the inner loop. InOpt is the inner optimization strategy described in the main paper.}
\label{tb:innerablation}
\end{table}
\textbf{Inner Step}
Fig. \ref{tb:innerstep} shows mean-IoU results with different inner steps. Result with 0 inner loop is actually the result of the baseline model, 49.88\%. With step ranging from 1 to 10, performance of InOpt$\dag$ is raised from 53.29\% to 53.69\%, in the blue line. Similarly in the orange line, result 55.80\% to 56.21\%
We observe that our model shows stable performance towards different steps, free from fine-tuning hyper-parameters in experiments. Furthermore, the proposed inner optimization brings significant improvements over the baseline model.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.9in, height=1.9in]{innerloop.png}
\caption{Results with different numbers of inner steps.}
\label{tb:innerstep}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Multi-scale Test}
Following common practice in few-shot segmentation \cite{zhang2019pyramid, zhang2019pyramid}, the query image is re-scaled by [0.7, 1, 1.3] in the test. Multi-scale results on PASCAL-$5^i$ and COCO-$20^i$-A are provided in Table \ref{tb:multiscale}. We report mean scores over four folds on each dataset. The improvement caused by multi-scale evaluation is up to 0.84\% on 5-shot PASCAL-$5^i$. On 1-shot COCO-$20^i$-A, the result is merely raised by 0.09\% in multi-scale test.
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{PASCAL-$5^i$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{COCO-$20^i$-A} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & 1-shot & 5-shot & 1-shot & 5-shot \\
\hline
w/o & 56.04 & 63.17 & 28.76 & 34.61 \\
w/ & 56.85 & 64.16 & 28.85 & 35.41 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Multi-scale test on PASCAL-$5^i$ and COCO-$20^i$-A.}
\label{tb:multiscale}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.6in, height=4.95in]{visualization.pdf}
\caption{Qualitative visualization of 1-shot episodes on PASCAL-$5^i$ and COCO-$20^i$. Best viewed in color with zoom in.}
\label{figure:visualization}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.6in, height=1.75in]{1shot_loss.jpg}
\caption{Visualization of training loss on PASCAL-$5^i$.}
\label{figure:losscurve}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Visualization}
\textbf{Training Loss}
We visualize training loss of baseline and our BiOpt in Fig. \ref{figure:losscurve}. Orange curve denotes the convergence of our 1-shot model which is optimized through nested loops. Training loss of the base model which is optimized without inner optimization is colored in light blue. It reflects the advantage of the proposed algorithm of bi-level optimization in speeding up convergence. Moreover, training loss of our model is lower after convergence. Our model is supposed to achieve better segmentation performance which is consistent with the conclusion drawn from above Table \ref{tb:innerablation}.
\textbf{Qualitative Visualization}
We display some prediction results in Fig. \ref{figure:visualization}. Our model gives precise segmentation in diverse scenarios. When objects on the support and query images have large appearance and scale variance, clearly seen in the first and last episodes on COCO-$20^i$, BiOpt is able to precisely segment the target object on the query image. Foreground and background objects are separated by our model in these hard episodes. BiOpt is capable of segmenting continuous target regions, such as the \textit{bicycle} on PASCAL-$5^i$.
It demonstrates that our model is capable of estimating representative prototypes by leveraging semantic information on the query image.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we propose the Bi-level Optimization (BiOpt) algorithm for few-shot segmentation. Learning objective is decomposed into two levels and our model is optimized in nested loops. In the inner loop, the model is optimized to learn representative prototypes on the unlabeled query image in each task. In the outer loop, the model is optimized to learn a discriminative embedding space across different tasks.
The advantage of BiOpt is enabling a model capable of leveraging semantic knowledge on the query image into prototype computation in inductive setting.
We conduct extensive experiments on two benchmarks, furthermore, our BiOpt consistently achieves new state-of-the-art performance in few-shot segmentation.
{\small
\bibliographystyle{ieee_fullname}
|
\section{Fourier matrices for $G(d,1,n)$}
\label{sec:fourier_d1n}
In \cite{cuntz-fusion}, Cuntz noticed that the Fourier matrices defined by Malle \cite{unipotente} can be expressed using tensor products of exterior powers $\bigwedge^nS$. Since we constructed a categorification of these exterior powers using representations of the quantum enveloping algebra of $\mathfrak{gl}_n$ at an even root of unity, we now explore the categorification of the Fourier matrices for $G(d,1,n)$. We fix $d\geq 1$ an integer.
Since we will simultaneously consider different values of $n$, we will add a subscript $n$ to the various objects considered in the previous sections. For example, we will denote the $\mathfrak{gl}_n$-weight $\rho$ by $\rho_n$, the Weyl group $W$ of $\mathfrak{gl}_n$ by $W_n$ and so on.
\subsection{Fourier matrices and exterior powers}
\label{sec:fourier_ext}
We follow the presentation of \cite[Section 3]{cuntz-fusion}. Let $m\in \mathbb{N}$, $Y$ be a totally ordered set with $md+1$ elements and $\pi \colon Y \rightarrow \mathbb{N}$ be a map. Let $w_1<\ldots < w_r$ be such that $\pi(Y)=\{w_1,\ldots,w_r\}$ and $n_i=\lvert \pi^{-1}(w_i) \rvert$. Then we have $\sum_{i=1}^rn_i =md+1$.
We consider the set $\Psi$ of maps $f \colon Y \rightarrow \{0,\ldots,d-1\}$ such that $f$ is strictly increasing on $\pi^{-1}(i)$ for each $i\in\mathbb{N}$. If $f\in \Psi$, we define a sign $\varepsilon(f)\in\{\pm 1\}$ by
\[
\varepsilon(f) = (-1)^{\left\lvert\{ (y,y') \in Y\times Y\ \middle\vert\ y<y'\text{ and } f(y)<f(y')\}\right\rvert}.
\]
We consider the subset $\Xi$ of functions $f\in \Psi$ such that $\sum_{y\in Y}f(y) \equiv m\binom{d}{2}\ [d]$ and remark that $\Xi$ has $\frac{1}{d}\prod_{i=1}^r\binom{d}{n_i}$ elements. Such functions can be interpreted as symbols in the sense of \cite{unipotente}, which parameterize unipotent characters for the complex reflection group $G(d,1,n)$. For such a function $f\in\Xi$, we denote by $f_i=(f_{i,1},\ldots,f_{i,n_i})$ the ordered tuple obtained from $f(\pi^{-1}(w_i))$. The datum of the function $f$ is equivalent to the data of $f_1,\ldots, f_r$. The Fourier matrix is defined as the matrix indexed by $\Xi$ with entries
\[
\mathcal{S}_{f,g} = (-1)^{m(d-1)}i^{-\binom{d-1}{2}m}\sqrt{d}\varepsilon(f)\varepsilon(g)\prod_{i=1}^r\overline{\left(\bigwedge\nolimits^{n_i}S\right)_{f_i,g_i}},
\]
and to each function $f\in \Xi$, Malle also associate an eigenvalue of the Frobenius:
\[
\Fr(f) = \zeta_{12d}^{md(1-d^2)}\prod_{y\in Y}\zeta_{12d}^{-6(f(y)^2+df(y))},
\]
where $\zeta_{12d}^d = \zeta$. We denote by $\mathcal{T}$ the diagonal matrix indexed by $\Xi$ with entries given by the eigenvalues of the Frobenius. Note that, up to a scalar, the eigenvalue of the Frobenius $\Fr(f)$ coincides with $\prod_{i=1}^r\overline{(\bigwedge^{n_i} T)_{f_i}}$.
\begin{proposition}[{\cite[4.15]{unipotente},\cite[Proposition 5.1]{cuntz-fusion}}]
\label{prop:ST_d1n}
Let $Y$, $\pi$ and $\Xi$ as above and the associated matrices $\mathcal{S}$ and $\mathcal{T}$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The matrix $\mathcal{S}$ is symmetric and unitary.
\item The matrices $\mathcal{S}$ and $\mathcal{T}$ satisfy
\[
\mathcal{S}^4=\id,\quad (\mathcal{S}\mathcal{T})^3=\id\quad\text{and}\quad \mathcal{S}^2\mathcal{T}=\mathcal{T}\mathcal{S}^2.
\]
\item For $1\leq i \leq r$ choose $p_i$ such that $f_0\in \Psi$ defined by $(f_0)_{i}=i^{(p_i)}$ is in $\Xi$. Then the structure constants
\[
{}_{f_0}N_{f,g}^h = \sum_{k\in \Xi}\frac{\mathcal{S}_{f,k}\mathcal{S}_{g,k}\overline{\mathcal{S}_{h,k}}}{\mathcal{S}_{f_0,k}}
\]
are integers for every $f,g$ and $h\in \Xi$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Symmetric center of some Deligne tensor products}
\label{sec:cat_fourier_d1n}
Recall the that the category $\mathcal{D}_{n,\xi^{-1}}$ of \cref{sec:symmetric_center} is obtained from $\mathcal{C}_{n,\xi^{-1}}$ by adding isomorphisms and that the symmetric center of $\mathcal{D}_{n,\xi^{-1}}$ is tensor generated by $\varepsilon_n = X((d-n)\omega_1+\varpi_n)$ which satisfies $\varepsilon\otimes \varepsilon \simeq \mathbf{1}$ in $\mathcal{D}_{n,\xi^{-1}}$. We consider a Deligne tensor product of the categories $\mathcal{D}_{n,\xi^{-1}}$ associated with the representations the quantum enveloping algebra of $\mathfrak{gl}_n$ at a root of unity.
Let $\mathcal{D}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}=\mathcal{D}_{n_1,\xi^{-1}} \boxtimes \ldots \boxtimes \mathcal{D}_{n_r,\xi^{-1}}$ for $\underline{n} = (n_1,\ldots,n_r)$ such that $1\leq n_i \leq d$ and $\sum_{i=1}^nn_i \equiv 1 [d]$. This category is a braided fusion category admitting many pivotal structures. Its simple objects are of the form $X(\underline{\lambda}) = X(\lambda_1)\boxtimes \cdots \boxtimes X(\lambda_r)$ with $\lambda_i \in C_{n_i,d}$. Its symmetric center has $2^r$ simple objects given by $\varepsilon_{\underline{\delta}} = \varepsilon_{n_1}^{\otimes \delta_1}\boxtimes \cdots \boxtimes \varepsilon_{n_r}^{\otimes \delta_r}$, where $\underline{\delta} = (\delta_1,\ldots,\delta_r) \in \{0,1\}^r$ and $\varepsilon_{n_i}$ is the unique simple transparent object of $\mathcal{D}_{n_i,\xi^{-1}}$ non-isomorphic to the unit object. The category $\mathcal{D}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$ has a natural $(\mathbb{Z}/2d\mathbb{Z})^r$-grading: a simple object $X(\underline{\lambda})$ sits in degree $(\langle\lambda_i,\varpi_{n_i}\rangle)_{1\leq i \leq r}$.
Consider now $\mathcal{E}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$ the full subcategory with simple objects $X(\underline{\lambda})$ satisfying $\sum_{i=1}^r \langle\lambda_i,\varpi_{n_i}\rangle \equiv 0 [d]$. Thanks to the grading, it is easily seen that the category $\mathcal{E}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$ is stable under the tensor product and is thus a braided fusion category.
From the construction of the fusion datum of \cref{sec:fourier_ext} and the results of \cref{sec:ext_powers}, we expect that the category $\mathcal{E}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$ gives a categorification of the fusion datum of \cref{sec:fourier_ext}. We first determine the symmetric center of $\mathcal{E}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$ in order to ensure that its $S$-matrix has rank $\frac{1}{d}\prod_{i=1}^r\binom{d}{n_i}$.
Since $\varepsilon_i$ is of degree $d$, the objects $\varepsilon_{\underline{\delta}}$ for $\underline{\delta}\in\{0,1\}^d$ are in the symmetric center of $\mathcal{E}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$, and there are no other simple transparent objects:
\begin{proposition}
The symmetric center of $\mathcal{E}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$ is the full subcategory with simple objects $\varepsilon_{\underline{\delta}}$ for $\underline{\delta}\in\{0,1\}^d$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We use the same strategy as in the proof of \cref{prop:symmetric_center}. The same proof shows that if $X$ is a transparent simple object, then for any simple object $Y$ the morphism $\theta_{X\otimes Y}$ is a scalar multiple of the identity, where $\theta$ is the pivotal structure obtained from the tensor product of the pivotal structures $\theta_{0,-}$. We now fix such a transparent simple object $X(\underline{\lambda})$ and consider for $1 \leq i \leq r$ the simple object $Y_i=X(\underline{\mu}^{(i)})$ where
\[
\mu_j^{(i)} =
\begin{cases}
-\varpi_{n_j} & \text{ if } j\neq i,\\
\varpi_1 - \varpi_{n_j}& \text{ if } j=i.
\end{cases}
\]\
Since $\sum_{j=1}^rn_j \equiv 1 [d]$, the object $Y_i$ is in $\mathcal{E}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$. As in the proof of \cref{prop:symmetric_center}, considering decomposition of the tensor product $X(\underline{\lambda})\otimes Y_i$ shows that $X(\lambda_i)$ is invertible and therefore $X(\underline{\lambda})$ is also invertible.
We hence may and will suppose that for every $1 \leq i \leq r$, there exists $1 \leq l_i \leq n_i$ and $s_i \in \mathbb{Z}$ such that $\lambda_i = (d-n_i)\varpi_{l_i} + s_i \varpi_{n_i}$. We aim to show that $l_i\equiv s_i [d]$ for every $1 \leq i \leq r$. Then $X(\underline{\lambda})$ is transparent if and only if $\theta_{X(\underline{\lambda})\otimes Y(\underline{\mu})} = \theta_{X(\underline{\lambda})} \theta_{Y(\underline{\mu})}$ for any $\underline{\mu}$ which is equivalent to
\begin{multline*}
\sum_{j=1}^r\langle\sh^{l_j}(\mu_j) + (d-n_j)\varpi_{l_j} + s_j\varpi_{n_j},\sh^{l_j}(\mu_j) + (d-n_j)\varpi_{l_j} + s_j\varpi_{n_j}+2\rho\rangle \equiv \\
\sum_{j=1}^r\langle\mu_j,\mu_j+2\rho\rangle+\langle(d-n_j)\varpi_{l_j} + s_j\varpi_{n_j},(d-n_j)\varpi_{l_j} + s_j\varpi_{n_j}+2\rho\rangle\ [2d].
\end{multline*}
As in the proof of \cref{prop:symmetric_center}, one may show that this is the equivalent to
\[
\sum_{j=1}^r (s_j-l_j)\langle\mu_j,\varpi_{n_j}\rangle \equiv 0 [d].
\]
We once again choose $\underline{\mu}=\underline{\mu}^{(i)}$ so that $\langle\mu_j^{(i)},\varpi_{n_j}\rangle = \delta_{i,j}-n_j$. Hence if $X(\underline{\lambda})$ is transparent, we obtain that $\sum_{j=1}^r n_j(l_j-s_j) + (s_i-l_i) \equiv 0 [d]$. But as $X(\underline{\lambda})$ is in $\mathcal{E}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$, we have $\sum_{j=1}^rn_j(s_j-l_j) \equiv 0 [d]$ and hence $(s_i-l_i) \equiv 0 [d]$ for every $1 \leq i \leq r$. This shows that $X(\underline{\lambda})$ is isomorphic to an object of the form $\varepsilon_{\underline{\delta}}$.
\end{proof}
It is readily seen that $\varepsilon_{\underline{\delta}}$ is in non trivial degree if there exist $1\leq i \leq r$ such that $\delta_i=1$. Therefore tensoring by $\varepsilon_{\underline{\delta}}\not\simeq \mathbf{1}$ has no fixed points on the set of simple objects. As in \cref{sec:symmetric_center}, we want to (super)modularize the category $\mathcal{E}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$ and therefore we need that $\varepsilon_{\underline{\delta}}$ has a twist equal to $1$ for the chosen pivotal structure and every $\underline{\delta}\in\{0,1\}^r$. We thus equip $\mathcal{D}_{n_i,\xi^{-1}}$ with a pivotal structure of the form $a_{2p_i+d,-}$ for some $p_i\in \mathbb{Z}$. The category $\mathcal{E}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$ is then equipped with a pivotal structure that we will denote by $a_{2\underline{p}+d,-}$; the corresponding twist will be denoted by $\theta_{2\underline{p}+d,-}$.
\begin{corollary}
The symmetric center of $\mathcal{E}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$ equipped with the pivotal structure $a_{2\underline{p}+d,-}$ is tensor generated by the objects $\varepsilon_{\underline{\delta}}$ for $\delta\in \{0,1\}^r$. Moreover, $\varepsilon_{\underline{\delta}}$ is of quantum dimension $\prod_{\substack{1 \leq i \leq r\\ n_i\equiv d [2]}}(-1)^{\delta_i}$ and of twist $1$.
The (super)modularization $\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$ of $\mathcal{E}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$ has its objects parameterized by the set
\[
\tilde{E}_{\underline{n},d}=\left\{\underline{\lambda} \in \tilde{C}_{n_1,d}\times \cdots \times \tilde{C}_{n_r,d}\ \middle\vert\ \sum_{i=1}^r\langle\lambda_i,\varpi_{n_i}\rangle \equiv 0 [d]\right\}.
\]
\end{corollary}
Note that the resulting category $\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$ is a superfusion category as soon there exists $i$ such that $n_i$ and $d$ have the same parity. We summarize the results on the category $\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$ and its modular invariants.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:modular_inv_d1n}
Recall that we endow the category the category $\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$ with the pivotal structure $a_{2\underline{p}+d,-}$. Then there exists a fourth root of unity $\omega$ such that the renormalized $S$-matrix of $\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$ is given by
\[
\mathbb{S}_{\underline{\lambda},\underline{\mu}} = \frac{\omega}{\sqrt{d}}\prod_{i=1}^r\xi^{-\langle\lambda_i+\mu_i,(2p_i+d)\varpi_{n_i}\rangle-2p_in_i(p_i+n_i-1)}\frac{\sum_{w\in W_{n_i}}(-1)^{l(w)}\xi^{-2\langle w(\lambda_i+\rho_{n_i}),\mu_i+\rho_{n_i}\rangle}}{\sqrt{d}^{n_i}}
\]
for any $\underline{\lambda},\underline{\mu}\in \tilde{E}_{\underline{n},d}$. The twist on the simple object $X(\underline{\lambda})$ is given by multiplication by $\xi^{-\sum_{i=1}^r\langle\lambda_i,\lambda_i+2\rho+(2p_i+d)\varpi_{n_i}\rangle}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
This follows immediately from \cref{thm:modular_data_gln}. The extra $\sqrt{d}$ at the denominator comes from the fact we work with the modularization of the subcategory $\mathcal{E}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$ and not with the modularization of the whole category $\mathcal{D}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$. Indeed, $\dim(\mathcal{E}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}) = \dim(\mathcal{D}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}})/d$ thanks to the grading.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Fourier matrix and eigenvalues of the Frobenius as modular invariants}
\label{sec:fourier_modular_inv_d1n}
Finally, as expected, we recover the Fourier matrix $\mathcal{S}$ and the eigenvalues of the Frobenius $\mathcal{T}$ of \cref{sec:fourier_ext} from the category $\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$. We choose the integers $p_1,\ldots,p_r$ as in \cref{prop:ST_d1n}, that is such that $f_0$ defined by $(f_0)_i =i^{(p_i)}\in I_{n_i,d}$ is in $\Xi$. This condition amounts to
\[
\sum_{i=1}^r \left(p_in_i + \binom{n_i}{2}\right) \equiv m\binom{d}{2} [d].
\]
Using the various maps $\tilde{\iota}_p$ from \cref{sec:relationship}, we define a map $\tilde{\iota}_{\underline{n},\underline{p}} \colon \Xi \rightarrow \tilde{E}_{\underline{n},d}$ by
\[
\tilde{\iota}_{\underline{n},\underline{p}}(f)_i = \tilde{\iota}_{n_i,p_i}(f_i),
\]
where $f_i\in I_{n_i,d}$ is as in \cref{sec:fourier_ext}. Note that $\tilde{\iota}_{\underline{n},\underline{p}}(f)$ is indeed in $\tilde{E}_{\underline{n},d}$ since
\[
\sum_{i=1}^r\langle\tilde{\iota}_{n_i,p_i}(f_i),\varpi_n\rangle = \sum_{y\in Y}f(y) - \sum_{i=1}^r \left(p_in_i + \binom{n_i}{2}\right) \equiv 0 [d],
\]
the last equality following from the fact that $f\in \Xi$ and that the integers $p_1,\ldots,p_r$ are chosen such that $f_0 \in \Xi$. The map $\tilde{\iota}_{\underline{n},\underline{p}}$ is bijective since for every $p$ the map $\tilde{\iota}_{p}$ is bijective and that $\lvert \Xi \rvert = \frac{1}{d}\prod_{i=1}^r\binom{d}{n_i} = \lvert\tilde{E}_{\underline{n},d}\rvert$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:categorification_d1n}
We keep the above notations. The (super)category of $\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$ is a categorification of the modular datum defined by $\mathcal{S}$ and $\mathcal{T}$: there exist a fourth root of unity $\omega$ and signs $(\sigma_f)\in\{\pm 1\}^{\Xi}$ with $\sigma_{f_0}=1$ such that
\[
\mathbb{S}_{X(\tilde{\iota}_{\underline{n},\underline{p}}(f)),X(\tilde{\iota}_{\underline{n},\underline{p}}(g))} = \omega\sigma_f\sigma_g\mathcal{S}_{f,g} \quad\text{and}\quad \theta_{d+2\underline{p},X(\tilde{\iota}_p(a))}= \Fr(f_0)^{-1}\mathcal{T}_f.
\]
The (super)Grothendieck ring of $\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$ is then isomorphic to the ring defined by $\mathcal{S}$ with unit parameterized by $f_0$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The proof is similar to the one of \cref{thm:categorification} using the modular invariants of $\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$ given in \cref{prop:modular_inv_d1n}, and is then omitted.
\end{proof}
As a corollary, we obtain an independent proof of the integrality of the structure constants defined by the matrix $\mathcal{S}$, and moreover that the absolute value of these structure constants also define an associative ring.
Finally, note that if we choose for $f_0$ the special symbol as in \cite[Bemerkung 2.25]{unipotente}, then it moreover satisfies $\Fr(f_0) = 1$ and the eigenvalues of the Frobenius coincide with the twist in $\tilde{E}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$.
\subsection{Ennola $d$-ality}
\label{sec:ennola}
Given an element $f\in \Xi$, Malle has defined a polynomial $\gamma_f(q)$ which behavior is similar to the degrees of the unipotent characters of a finite group of Lie type. In particular, a property similar to the Ennola duality exists, but ii is rather a $d$-ality. There exists a bijection $E \colon \Xi \rightarrow \Xi$ such that, up to a sign, the polynomials $\gamma_{f}(\zeta q)$ and $\gamma_{E(f)}(q)$ coincide up to a sign. Therefore $E^d$ is the identity. This bijection is defined explicitly by Malle \cite[Folgerung 3.11]{unipotente} in terms of $d$-symbols, and we give the translation in terms of functions in $\Xi$. Let $f\in \Xi$. Its Ennola transform is the unique function $E(f)\in \Xi$ such that $E(f)_i$ is given by reducing modulo $0$ and sorting increasingly the set $f(\pi^{-1}(w_i))+w_i-\sum_{k=1}^r w_kn_k$. It is easily checked that $E(f)$ indeed belongs to $\Xi$.
\begin{proposition}
Let $\eta$ be the invertible object $X(\underline{\eta})$ with $\eta_i = (w_i-\sum_{k=1}^r w_kn_k)\varpi_{n_i}$. Then the objects $X(\tilde{\iota}_{\underline{n},\underline{p}}(f))\otimes \eta$ and $X(\tilde{\iota}_{\underline{n},\underline{p}}(E(f)))$ are isomorphic in $\mathcal{E}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$: the Ennola $d$-ality is given by tensoring by an invertible object of trivial $d$-th tensor power.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
It is clear that $\eta$ is indeed an object in $\mathcal{E}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$, that is that $\sum_{i=1}^r\langle\eta_i,\varpi_{n_i}\rangle \equiv 0 [d]$.
As $X(\eta_i)$ is a tensor power of $\det_{n_i,\xi^{-1}}$, it suffices to show that for every $1 \leq i \leq r$ we have $\iota_{\underline{n},\underline{p}}(f)+\eta_i \sim \iota_{\underline{n},\underline{p}}(E(f))$, which is immediate by definition of $\eta$.
\end{proof}
\section{Fourier matrices for $G(d,d,n)$}
\label{sec:fourier_ddn}
\subsection{Symmetric center of some Deligne tensor products}
\label{sec:cat_fourier_ddn}
As in \cref{sec:cat_fourier_d1n}, we consider of the categories $\mathcal{D}_{\xi^{-1}}$ associated with the representations the quantum enveloping algebra of $\mathfrak{gl}_n$ at a root of unity.
We consider the Deligne tensor product $\mathcal{D}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}=\mathcal{D}_{n_1,\xi^{-1}} \boxtimes \ldots \boxtimes \mathcal{D}_{n_r,\xi^{-1}}$ for $\underline{n} = (n_1,\ldots,n_r)$ such that $1\leq n_i \leq d$ and $\sum_{i=1}^nn_i \equiv 0 [d]$. Consider now $\mathcal{E}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$ the full subcategory with simple objects $X(\underline{\lambda})$ satisfying $\sum_{i=1}^r \langle\lambda_i,\varpi_{n_i}\rangle \equiv 0 [d]$. Thanks to the grading, it is easily seen that the category $\mathcal{E}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$ is stable under the tensor product and is thus a braided fusion category.
We consider the same categories as those introduced in \cref{sec:cat_fourier_d1n}, but the assumption on the integers $n_1,\ldots,n_r$ will change drastically the structure of the category $\mathcal{E}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$, notably its symmetric center. As before, since $\varepsilon_i$ is of degree $d$, the objects $\varepsilon_{\underline{\delta}}$ for $\underline{\delta}\in\{0,1\}^d$ are in the symmetric center of $\mathcal{E}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$. But these objects do not generate the symmetric center of $\mathcal{E}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$. Let $\varepsilon_{\cycl}$ be the object $X(\varpi_{n_1})\boxtimes \cdots\boxtimes X(\varpi_{n_r})=\det_{n_1,\xi^{-1}}\boxtimes \cdots \boxtimes \det_{n_r,\xi^{-1}}$ which is a simple object of $\mathcal{E}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$ since $\sum_{i=1}^r n_i \equiv 0 [d]$.
\begin{proposition}
The symmetric center of $\mathcal{E}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$ is the full subcategory with simple objects $\varepsilon_{\underline{\delta}}\boxtimes \varepsilon_{\cycl}^{\otimes r}$ for $\underline{\delta}\in\{0,1\}^d$ and $0 \leq r < s$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Once again, we show that a transparent object is invertible, using the same strategy. For a transparent simple object $X(\underline{\lambda})$, we consider and consider for $1 \leq i < j \leq r$ the simple object $Y_{i,j}=X(\underline{\mu}^{(i,j)})$ where
\[
\mu_k^{(i,j)} =
\begin{cases}
\varpi_1 & \text{ if } k = i,\\
\varpi_{n_{j}-1}-\varpi_{n_j} & \text{ if } k=j, \\
0 & \text{ otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\]
The object $Y_{i,j}$ is in $\mathcal{E}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$. As in the proof of \cref{prop:symmetric_center}, considering decomposition of the tensor product $X(\underline{\lambda})\otimes Y_{i,j}$ shows that both $X(\lambda_i)$ and $X(\lambda_j)$ are invertible and therefore $X(\underline{\lambda})$ is also invertible.
We hence may and will suppose that for every $1 \leq i \leq r$, there exists $1 \leq l_i \leq n_i$ and $s_i \in \mathbb{Z}$ such that $\lambda_i = (d-n_i)\varpi_{l_i} + s_i \varpi_{n_i}$. Then, as in the proof of \cref{prop:symmetric_center}, $X(\underline{\lambda})$ is transparent if and only if for all $\underline{\lambda}$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^r \langle\lambda_i,\varpi_{n_i}\rangle \equiv 0 [d]$, we have
\[
\sum_{k=1}^r (s_k-l_k)\langle\lambda_k,\varpi_{n_k}\rangle \equiv 0 [d].
\]
Choosing $\underline{\lambda} = \underline{\mu}^{(i,j)}$ as above, we find that $s_i-l_i \equiv s_j-l_j [d]$. Therefore, the value residue class modulo $d$ of $s_i-l_i$ does not depend on $i$. Let $0 \leq t < d$ and $m_i\in\mathbb{Z}$ be such that $s_i-l_i = m_i d + t$. Then we have
\[
X((d-n_i)\varpi_{l_i} + s_i \varpi_{n_i}) \simeq \det_{n_i,\xi^{-1}}^{\otimes d m_i +t}\otimes \varepsilon_{n_i}^{\otimes l_i},
\]
and therefore, since $\det_{n_i,\xi^{-1}}^{\otimes d}\simeq \varepsilon_{n_i}^{\otimes n_i}$, we obtain that $X(\underline{\lambda})$ is isomorphic in $\mathcal{E}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$ to the tensor product of $\varepsilon_{\cycl}^{t}$ and $\varepsilon_{\underline{\delta}}$ for some $\underline{\delta}\in\{0,1\}^r$.
\end{proof}
It is readily seen that $\varepsilon_{\underline{\delta}}$ is in non trivial degree if there exist $1\leq i \leq r$ such that $\delta_i=1$. Therefore tensoring by $\varepsilon_{\underline{\delta}}\not\simeq \mathbf{1}$ has no fixed points on the set of simple objects. As in \cref{sec:symmetric_center}, we want to (super)modularize the category $\mathcal{E}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$ and therefore we need that $\varepsilon_{\underline{\delta}}$ has a twist equal to $1$ for the chosen pivotal structure and evert $\underline{\delta}\in\{0,1\}^r$. We thus equip $\mathcal{D}_{n_i,\xi^{-1}}$ with a pivotal structure of the form $a_{d+2p_i,-}$ for some $p_i\in \mathbb{Z}$. The category $\mathcal{E}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$ is then equipped with a pivotal structure that we will denote by $a_{d+2\underline{p},-}$; the corresponding twist will be denoted by $\theta_{d+2\underline{p},-}$.
\begin{corollary}
The symmetric center of $\mathcal{E}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$ equipped with the pivotal structure $a_{d+2\underline{p},-}$ is equivalent to $\Rep((\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})^r,\underline{z})$ with $z_i = 1$ if $n_i\equiv d [2]$ and $z_i=0$ if $n_i\not\equiv d [2]$.
The (super)modularization $\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$ of $\mathcal{E}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$ has its objects parametrized by the set
\[
\tilde{E}_{\underline{n},d}=\left\{\underline{\lambda} \in \tilde{C}_{n_1,d}\times \cdots \times \tilde{C}_{n_r,d}\ \middle\vert\ \sum_{i=1}^r\langle\lambda_i,\varpi_{n_i}\rangle \equiv 0 [d]\right\}.
\]
\end{corollary}
Note that the resulting category $\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$ is a superfusion category as soon there exists $i$ such that $n_i$ and $d$ have the same parity. We summarize the results on the category $\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$ and its modular invariants.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:modular_inv_d1n}
Recall that we endow the category the category $\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$ with the pivotal structure $a_{d+2\underline{p},-}$. Then there exists a fourth root of unity $\omega$ such that the renormalized $S$-matrix of $\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$ is given by
\[
\mathbb{S}_{\underline{\lambda},\underline{\mu}} = \frac{\omega}{\sqrt{d}}\prod_{i=1}^r\xi^{-\langle\lambda_i+\mu_i,(2p_i+d)\varpi_{n_i}\rangle-2p_i^2n_i}\frac{\sum_{w\in W_{n_i}}(-1)^{l(w)}\xi^{-2\langle w(\lambda_i+\rho_{n_i}),\mu_i+\rho_{n_i}\rangle}}{\sqrt{d}^{n_i}}
\]
for any $\underline{\lambda},\underline{\mu}\in \tilde{E}_{\underline{n},d}$. The twist on the simple object $X(\underline{\lambda})$ is given by $\xi^{-\sum_{i=1}^r\langle\lambda_i,\lambda_i+2\rho+(2p_i+d)\varpi_{n_i}\rangle}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
This follows immediately from \cref{thm:modular_data_gln}. The extra $\sqrt{d}$ at the denominator comes from the fact we work with the modularisation of the subcategory $\mathcal{E}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$ and not with the modularization of the whole category $\mathcal{D}_{\underline{n},\xi^{-1}}$.
\end{proof}
\section{Categorical prolegomena}
\label{sec:cat_prol}
Our base field is the field of complex numbers $\mathbb{C}$, but most of the materials of this section remains true over an algebraically closed field of characteristic $0$.
\subsection{Fusion algebras from $S$-matrices}
\label{sec:fusion_alg}
We start by recollection a some basic facts on the notion of a fusion algebra.
Let $I$ be a finite set and $\mathbb{S}$ a square matrix with complex entries indexed by $I$. We suppose that $\mathbb{S}$ is symmetric and unitary, and that there exists $i_0\in I$ such that $\mathbb{S}_{i_0,i}\neq 0$ for every $i\in I$. We also suppose that for every $i,j,k\in I$, the number
\begin{equation}
N_{i,j}^k = \sum_{l\in I}\frac{\mathbb{S}_{i,l}\mathbb{S}_{j,l}\overline{\mathbb{S}_{k,l}}}{\mathbb{S}_{i_0,l}} \in \mathbb{Z}.\label{eq:verlinde}
\end{equation}
is an integer.
To such a matrix $\mathbb{S}$, we associate a $\mathbb{Z}$-algebra $A_{\mathbb{S}}$, which is free as a $\mathbb{Z}$-module with basis $(b_i)_{i\in I}$. The product is defined on the basis by
\[
b_i\cdot b_j = \sum_{k\in I}N_{i,j}^k b_k
\]
and is linearly extended to $A_{\mathbb{S}} = \bigoplus_{i\in I}\mathbb{Z} b_i$. It is easily checked that this multiplication is associative and that $b_{i_0}$ is the unit element. The algebra $A_{\mathbb{S}}$ is the \emph{fusion algebra} associated with the matrix $\mathbb{S}$ and the integers $(N_{i,j}^k)_{i,j,k\in I}$ are the structure constants with respect to the basis $(b_i)_{i\in I}$. Note that multiplying $\mathbb{S}$ by any complex number $\omega$ of module $1$ leads to an isomorphic fusion algebra $A_{\omega \mathbb{S}}\simeq A_{\mathcal{S}}$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:change_signs}
Let $\Sigma$ be a diagonal matrix with entries $(\sigma_i)_{i\in I}$ with $\sigma_i\in\{\pm 1\}$. Let $\mathbb{S}'$ be the matrix $\Sigma \mathbb{S} \Sigma^{-1}$. Denote by $(b_i)_{i \in I}$ the basis of $A_{\mathbb{S}}$ and by $(b_i')_{i\in I}$ the basis of $A_{\mathbb{S}'}$. Then $b_i \mapsto \sigma_{i_0}\sigma_i b'_i$ is an algebra isomorphism between $A_{\mathbb{S}}$ and $A_{\mathbb{S}'}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If we denote by $(N_{i,j}^k)_{i,j,k\in I}$ (resp. $(N_{i,j}^{'k})_{i,j,k\in I}$) the structure constants of $A_{\mathbb{S}}$ (resp. $A'_{\mathbb{S}}$), we have that
\[
N_{i,j}^{'k} = \sigma_i\sigma_j\sigma_k\sigma_{i_0} N_{i,j}^k,
\]
for any $i,j,k\in I$. The lemma follows easily from this equality.
\end{proof}
Therefore, conjugation by a diagonal matrix of signs translates into a change of signs of the basis of the fusion algebra. Given a matrix $\mathbb{S}$ we are interested in the following question:
\begin{question}
\label{qu:change_signs}
Does it exist a collection of signs such that the algebra $A_{\mathbb{S}'}$, obtained from $\mathbb{S}'$ as in \cref{lem:change_signs}, has non-negative structure constants?
\end{question}
It is usually not easy to give an answer to this question since the structure constants might be tedious to compute. Nevertheless, we will later give some examples of such matrices $\mathbb{S}$ and answer to this question via categorical methods.
\subsection{Modular data and fusion algebras}
\label{sec:modular_data}
We now define the notion of a modular datum, which is inspired from \cite{gannon,lusztig-exotic}.
\begin{definition}
A \emph{modular datum} is a quadruple $(I,i_0,\mathbb{S},\mathbb{T})$, where $I$ is a finite set, $i_0$ is an element of $I$ called \emph{special} or \emph{distinguished}, $\mathbb{S}$ is a complex matrix with entries indexed by $I$, and $\mathbb{T}$ is a complex diagonal matrix with entries indexed by $I$ satisfying the following conditions:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathbb{S}$ is symmetric and unitary,
\item $\mathbb{S}$ and $\mathbb{T}$ define a projective representation of $SL_2(\mathbb{Z})$: there exists $\xi \in \mathbb{C}^*$ such that
\[
\mathbb{S}^4=\id,\quad (\mathbb{ST})^3=\xi\id,\quad\text{and}\quad \mathbb{S}^2\mathbb{T}=\mathbb{T}\mathbb{S}^2,
\]
\item for all $i\in I$, $\mathbb{S}_{i_0,i}\neq 0$,
\item for all $i,j,k\in I$, we have
\[
N_{i,j}^k = \sum_{l\in I}\frac{\mathbb{S}_{i,l}\mathbb{S}_{j,l}\overline{\mathbb{S}_{k,l}}}{\mathbb{S}_{i_0,l}} \in \mathbb{Z}.
\]
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
Note that by renormalizing $\mathbb{T}$ by a third root of $\xi$, one can obtain a genuine representation of $SL_{2}(\mathbb{Z})$.
Since the matrix $\mathbb{S}$ of a modular datum $(I,i_0,\mathbb{S},\mathbb{T})$ satisfies the conditions of \cref{sec:fusion_alg}, we have at our disposal the fusion algebra $A_{\mathbb{S}}$. Even if this algebra depends only on $\mathbb{S}$, we will call it the fusion algebra associated with the modular datum $(I,i_0,\mathbb{S},\mathbb{T})$.
\subsection{Non-degenerate and slightly degenerate categories}
\label{sec:non-deg_sl-deg}
Using modular categories, one can try to categorify a modular datum whose fusion ring has non-negative structure constants. In \cite{slightly-deg}, the author explains how slightly degenerate pivotal fusion categories provides a broader framework for the categorifications of modular data where the fusion ring may have negative structure constants. We quickly recall these categorical notions, and the main results of \cite{slightly-deg}.
\subsubsection{Pivotal fusion categories}
For the definition of a fusion category, we refer to \cite[Definition 4.1.1]{egno}. The tensor product will be denoted by $\otimes$, the unit object by $\mathbf{1}$, and the associativity and unit constraints will be omitted. The set of isomorphism classes of simple objects of a fusion category $\mathcal{C}$ is denoted by $\Irr(\mathcal{C})$ and its Grothendieck ring by $\Gr(\mathcal{C})$. The latter is a free abelian group with generators given by $([X])_{\in\Irr(\mathcal{C})}$ and the multiplication is given by the tensor product:
\[
[X][Y] = \sum_{Z\in \Irr(\mathcal{C})}N_{X,Y}^Z[Z],
\]
where $N_{X,Y}^Z$ denotes the multiplicity of the simple object $Z$ in the tensor product $X\otimes Y$.
The \emph{left dual} (resp. \emph{right dual}) $(X^*,\ev_X,\coev_X)$ (resp. $({}^*X,\ev'_X,\coev'_X)$) of an object $X$ consists of the datum of an object $X^*$, a evaluation map $\ev_X\colon X^*\otimes X \rightarrow \mathbf{1}$ (resp. $\ev'_X\colon X\otimes {}^*X \rightarrow \mathbf{1}$) and a coevaluation map $\coev_X\colon\mathbf{1}\rightarrow X\otimes X^*$ (resp. $\coev'_X\colon\mathbf{1}\rightarrow {}^*X\otimes X$) satisfying
\begin{align*}
(\id_X\otimes \ev_X)\circ (\coev_X\otimes \id_X) &= \id_X &\text{and}&& (\ev_X\otimes\id_{X^*})\circ(\id_{X^*}\otimes\coev_{X})&=\id_{X^*}\\
\intertext{(resp.}
(\ev'_X\otimes \id_X)\circ (\id_X\otimes \coev'_X) &= \id_X &\text{and}&& (\id_{X^*}\otimes\ev'_{X})\circ(\coev'_{X}\otimes\id_{X^*})&=\id_{X^*}).
\end{align*}
Left (resp. right) duals are unique up to unique isomorphism and a monoidal category is said to be rigid if every object admits a left and a right dual. Recall that, by definition, a fusion category is rigid.
If $X$ and $Y$ have left duals, we also have the notion of a \emph{left dual map} for any $f\in\Hom_{\mathcal{C}}(X,Y)$. It is a map $f^*\in\Hom_{\mathcal{C}}(Y^*,X^*)$ and is defined by
\[
f^* = (\ev_{Y}\otimes \id_{X^*}) \circ (\id_{Y^*}\otimes f \otimes \id_{X^*}) \circ (\id_{Y^*}\otimes \coev_X).
\]
A rigid monoidal category is said to be \emph{pivotal} if there exists a natural isomorphism $a_X\colon X\rightarrow X^{**}$ compatible with the tensor product, that is $a_{X\otimes Y} = a_X \otimes a_Y$, up to the usual identification between $(X\otimes Y)^{**}$ and $X^{**}\otimes Y^{**}$.
In a pivotal fusion category we have at our disposal the \emph{right quantum trace} of an endomorphism. Given $f\in\End_{\mathcal{C}}(X)$, its right quantum trace is the unique scalar $\Tr(f)$ such that the composition
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
\mathbf{1}\ar[r,"\coev_X"] & X\otimes X^* \ar[r,"(a_X\circ f)\otimes \id_X"] &[3em] X^{**}\otimes X^* \ar[r,"\ev_{X^*}"] & \mathbf{1}
\end{tikzcd}
\]
is equal to $\Tr(f)\id_{\mathbf{1}}$. The \emph{right quantum dimension} $\dim(X)$ of an object $X$ is simply the right quantum trace of the identity morphism. There also exists a notion of left quantum trace and left quantum dimension. A pivotal structure is said to be \emph{spherical} if $\dim(X) = \dim(X^*)$ for every object, or equivalently if the left and right quantum traces coincide. Most of the pivotal structures we will consider in \cref{sec:qgl} are not spherical.
\begin{remark}
We choose the above convention for right quantum traces which is different to \cite[Definition 4.7.1]{egno}. Our convention follows from graphical calculus, where the right quantum trace of an endomorphism is obtained by closing a diagram on the right.
\end{remark}
Simple objects of a fusion category have a non-zero quantum dimension and we define the categorical dimension of such a fusion category $\mathcal{C}$ by
\[
\dim(\mathcal{C}) = \sum_{X\in \Irr(\mathcal{C})}\lvert \dim(X) \rvert^2.
\]
It is a positive real number.
\subsubsection{Braided categories, degeneracy and twist}
A \emph{braiding} on a monoidal category is the datum of a binatural isomorphism $c_{X,Y}\colon X\otimes Y \rightarrow Y\otimes X$ such that the hexagon axioms are satisfied:
\[
c_{X\otimes Y,Z} = (c_{X,Z}\otimes \id_Y)\circ(\id_X\otimes c_{Y,Z})
\quad \text{and} \quad
c_{X,Y\otimes Z} = (\id_Y\otimes c_{X,Z})\circ(c_{X,Y}\otimes \id_Z).
\]
As an immediate consequence, the Grothendieck ring of a braided fusion category is commutative.
\medskip
A simple object $X$ of a braided category is said to be \emph{transparent} if $c_{Y,X}\otimes c_{X,Y} = \id_{X\otimes Y}$ for every object $Y$. The \emph{symmetric center} $\mathcal{Z}_{\sym}(\mathcal{C})$ of a braided category $\mathcal{C}$ is the full subcategory of $\mathcal{C}$ whose objects are the transparent objects of $\mathcal{C}$.
We say that a braided fusion category is \emph{non-degenerate} if its symmetric center is tensor generated by the unit object $\mathbf{1}$. We say that a braided fusion category is \emph{slightly degenerate} if its symmetric center is equivalent to the symmetric category $\sVect$ of finite dimensional super vector spaces, with braiding $c_{V,W}(v\otimes w) = (-1)^{\lvert v\rvert\lvert w \rvert} w\otimes v$ for any super vector spaces $V,W$, $v\in V$ and $w\in W$.
\medskip
We now define the $S$-matrix of a braided fusion category which will play a prominent role.
\begin{definition}
The \emph{$S$-matrix} of a braided pivotal fusion category $\mathcal{C}$ is the matrix $S=(S_{X,Y})_{X,Y\in\Irr(\mathcal{C})}$ indexed by $\Irr(\mathcal{C})$ with entries given by the left quantum trace of the double braiding:
\[
S_{X,Y} = \Tr(c_{Y,X}\circ c_{X,Y}).
\]
\end{definition}
If a simple object $X$ is transparent, then for all $Y\in \Irr(\mathcal{C})$ one have $S_{X,Y} = \dim(X)\dim(Y)$. The converse is also true.
\begin{proposition}[{\cite[Proposition 8.20.5]{egno}}]
Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a braided fusion category. Then an object $X\in Irr(\mathcal{C})$ is transparent if and only if for all $Y\in \Irr(\mathcal{C})$ one has $S_{X,Y} = \dim(X)\dim(Y)$.
\end{proposition}
\medskip
In a rigid braided category, there always exists an isomorphism $u_X\colon X\rightarrow X^{**}$, called the \emph{Drinfeld morphism} which is given by the following composition
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
X \ar[r,"\id_X\otimes \coev_{X^*}"] &[3em] X\otimes X^* \otimes X^{**} \ar[r,"c_{X,X^*}\otimes \id_{X^{**}}"] &[3em] X^*\otimes X \otimes X^{**} \ar[r,"\ev_X\otimes \id_{X^{**}}"] &[3em] X^{**}.
\end{tikzcd}
\]
However, this morphism is not a pivotal structure, but satisfies
\[
u_X\otimes u_Y = u_{X\otimes Y}\circ c_{Y,X} \circ c_{X,Y}.
\]
We now suppose that $\mathcal{C}$ is a braided pivotal fusion category. The composition of the Drinfeld morphism and of the pivotal structure give rise to an endofunctor $\theta=a\circ u^{-1}$ of the identity. This endofunctor is a \emph{twist}, that is satisfies
\[
\theta_{X\otimes Y} = \theta_X\otimes \theta_Y \circ c_{Y,X} \circ c_{X,Y}
\]
and the pivotal structure $a$ is spherical if and only if $\theta_{X^*} = (\theta_X)^*$ for every object $X$, that is $a$ is spherical structure if and only if $\theta$ is a \emph{ribbon}.
\subsubsection{Non-degenerate and slightly degenerate categories}
\label{sec:slightly-deg}
Under some assumptions on the symmetric center of a braided pivotal fusion category, the $S$-matrix and the twist give rise to a modular datum, with fusion algebra related to the Grothendieck ring of the category.
\medskip
\boitegrise{\textbf{Hypothesis:} We assume that the category $\mathcal{C}$ is non-degenerate.}{0.8\textwidth}
There exists an invertible object $\bar{\mathbf{1}}$ such that $S_{\bar{\mathbf{1}},Y} = \dim(\bar{\mathbf{1}})\dim(Y^*)$ for every simple object $Y$, see \cite[\S 2.4]{slightly-deg}. Denote by $\mathbb{T}$ the diagonal matrix with entries $(\delta_{X,Y}\theta_X)_{X,Y\in \Irr(\mathcal{C})}$, where we have identified $\theta_X$ and the unique scalar $\lambda$ such that $\theta_X=\lambda\id_X$.
We define the renormalized matrix $\mathbb{S}$ as
\[
\mathbb{S}=\frac{S}{\sqrt{\dim(\mathcal{C})}\sqrt{\dim(\bar{\mathbf{1}})}},
\]
where $\sqrt{\dim(\bar{\mathbf{1}})}$ is a square root of $\dim(\bar{\mathbf{1}})$.
\begin{proposition}[{\cite[Theorem 2.22]{slightly-deg}}]
Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a non-degenerate braided pivotal fusion category. Then $(\Irr(\mathcal{C}),\mathbf{1},\mathbb{S},\mathbb{T})$ is a modular datum. The associated fusion algebra $A_{\mathbb{S}}$ is isomorphic to the Grothendieck ring of $\mathcal{C}$.
\end{proposition}
\medskip
\boitegrise{\textbf{Hypothesis:} We assume that the category $\mathcal{C}$ is slightly degenerate. We also suppose that the twist of the simple transparent non-unit object of $\mathcal{C}$ is of quantum dimension $-1$ and of twist $1$.}{0.8\textwidth}
Denote by $\varepsilon$ the unique simple transparent of $\mathcal{C}$ such that $\varepsilon\not\simeq \mathbf{1}$. Then $\varepsilon\otimes \varepsilon \simeq \mathbf{1}$, $\dim(\varepsilon)=-1$ and $\theta_\varepsilon=1$.
Tensoring by $\varepsilon$ has no fixed points on $\Irr(\mathcal{C})$ and then we choose a subset $J\subseteq \Irr(\mathcal{C})$ containing one element for each orbit of simple object under tensorization by $\varepsilon$. We will make the assumption that $\mathbf{1}\in J$ (hence $\varepsilon \not\in J$). There again exists an invertible object $\bar{\mathbf{1}}\in J$ such that $S_{\bar{\mathbf{1}},Y} = \dim(\bar{\mathbf{1}})\dim(Y^*)$ for every simple object $Y$. We consider the submatrix $\tilde{S}$ of $S$ whose entries are indexed by $J$. Since $\Irr(\mathcal{C}) = J \sqcup J\otimes \varepsilon$, we have
\[
S =
\begin{pmatrix}
\tilde{S} & -\tilde{S}\\
-\tilde{S} & \tilde{S}
\end{pmatrix}.
\]
Denote by $\tilde{\mathbb{T}}$ the diagonal matrix with entries $(\delta_{X,Y}\theta_X)_{X,Y\in J}$, where we have once again identified $\theta_X$ and the unique scalar $\lambda$ such that $\theta_X=\lambda\id_X$.
We define the renormalized matrix $\tilde{\mathbb{S}}$ as
\[
\tilde{\mathbb{S}}=\frac{\tilde{S}}{\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}\dim(\mathcal{C})}\sqrt{\dim(\bar{\mathbf{1}})}},
\]
where $\sqrt{\dim(\bar{\mathbf{1}})}$ is a square root of $\dim(\bar{\mathbf{1}})$.
\begin{proposition}[{\cite[Theorem 3.7]{slightly-deg}}]
Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a slightly degenerate braided pivotal fusion category. Then $(J,\mathbf{1},\tilde{\mathbb{S}},\tilde{\mathbb{T}})$ is a modular datum. The associated fusion algebra $A_{\tilde{\mathbb{S}}}$ is isomorphic to the quotient $\Gr(\mathcal{C})/([\varepsilon]+[\mathbf{1}])$ of the Grothendieck ring of $\mathcal{C}$.
\end{proposition}
The two quotients $\Gr(\mathcal{C})/([\varepsilon]+[\mathbf{1}])$ and $\Gr(\mathcal{C})/([\varepsilon]-[\mathbf{1}])$ have a basis indexed by $J$ and are both quotients of $\Gr(\mathcal{C})$:
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
& \Gr(\mathcal{C}) \ar[dl,two heads,"{[\varepsilon]=-[\mathbf{1}]}"'] \ar[dr,two heads,"{[\varepsilon]=[\mathbf{1}]}"] &\\
\Gr(\mathcal{C})/([\varepsilon]+[\mathbf{1}]) & & \Gr(\mathcal{C})/([\varepsilon]-[\mathbf{1}])
\end{tikzcd}
\]
One can easily describe their structure constants using the structure constants of $\Gr(\mathcal{C})$: for $X,Y,Z\in J$, the structure constant of $\Gr(\mathcal{C})/([\varepsilon]+[\mathbf{1}])$ are given by $N_{X,Y}^Z-N_{X,Y}^{Z\otimes \varepsilon}$ and the structure constant of $\Gr(\mathcal{C})/([\varepsilon]-[\mathbf{1}])$ are given by $N_{X,Y}^Z+N_{X,Y}^{Z\otimes \varepsilon}$. Hence, if $N_{X,Y}^ZN_{X,Y}^{\varepsilon\otimes Z}=0$ for every $X,Y,Z\in \Irr(\mathcal{C})$, the structure constants of $\Gr(\mathcal{C})/([\varepsilon]-[\mathbf{1}])$ are the absolute values of the structure constant of $\Gr(\mathcal{C})/([\varepsilon]+[\mathbf{1}])$. The condition $N_{X,Y}^ZN_{X,Y}^{\varepsilon\otimes Z}=0$ for every $X,Y,Z\in \Irr(\mathcal{C})$ follows often from a grading on the category $\mathcal{C}$ such that $\varepsilon$ sits in non-trivial degree.
\medskip
We can now easily give an answer to \cref{qu:change_signs} for the fusion algebra $A_{\tilde{\mathbb{S}}}\simeq \Gr(\mathcal{C})/([\varepsilon]+[\mathbf{1}])$. Indeed, the answer is positive if and only if the slightly degenerate category $\mathcal{C}$ is equivalent to $\mathcal{C}_0 \boxtimes \sVect$, where $\sVect$ is the category of super vector spaces and $\mathcal{C}_0$ is a non-degenerate braided category. From the categorical point of view, changing a sign of a basis element $[X]$ of $\Gr(\mathcal{C})/([\varepsilon]+[\mathbf{1}])$ amounts to pick $\varepsilon \otimes X$ instead of $X$ in the set $J$.
\medskip
To a slightly degenerate category $\mathcal{C}$ as above, one can attach a non-degenerate braided pivotal supercategory $\tilde{\mathcal{C}}$ by adding an odd isomorphism between $X$ and $X\otimes \varepsilon$, see \cite[Section 4]{slightly-deg} for more details. This procedure can be thought as a super version of modularization procedure for degenerate braided pivotal fusion categories, due to Bruguières \cite{bruguieres} and independently Müger \cite{muger-galois}. In this case, the ring $\Gr(\mathcal{C})/([\varepsilon]+[\mathbf{1}])$ is seen as the super Grothendieck ring of $\tilde{\mathcal{C}}$.
\section{Quantum $\mathfrak{gl}_n$ and its representations}
\label{sec:qgl}
In order to produce slightly degenerate categories, we consider categories of representations of the universal enveloping algebra of the reductive Lie algebra $\mathfrak{gl}_n$, with the deformation parameter being an even root of unity. The semisimplification of the category of tilting modules will provide a semisimple category, as in the case of a simple Lie algebra, but with an infinite number of simple objects. Nevertheless, the symmetric center has an infinite number of non-isomorphic simple objects, and killing the one-dimensional transparent objects will produce a non-degenerate of a slightly degenerate category.
\subsection{Root system for $\mathfrak{gl}_n$}
\label{sec:root_system}
We set up some notations for the root system of $\mathfrak{gl}_n$. Let $P=\mathbb{Z}^n$ be the weight lattice of $\mathfrak{gl}_n$ with standard basis $\varepsilon_1,\ldots,\varepsilon_n$. We equip it with the usual scalar product, which is given by $\langle\varepsilon_i,\varepsilon_j\rangle = \delta_{i,j}$. We also define the simple roots $\alpha_i = \varepsilon_i-\varepsilon_{i+1}$ for every $1\leq i < n$, which span over $\mathbb{Z}$ the root lattice $Q$. Fro $1 \leq j \leq n$, let $\varpi_j=\varepsilon_1+\cdots+\varepsilon_j$ be the fundamental roots which satisfy for every $1 \leq i < n$ and $1 \leq j \leq n$, $\langle\varpi_j,\alpha_i\rangle=\delta_{i,j}$.
The symmetric groups in $n$ letters $W$ acts on $P$ by permuting the coordinates and the scalar product $\langle -,- \rangle$ is $W$-equivariant. Let $l$ be the length function of $W$ for its usual Coxeter structure and we denote by $w_0$ the longest element of $W$ which is given by $w_0(k) = n+1-k$.
Let $P^+$ be the set of dominant integral weights
\[
P^+=\left\{\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i\varepsilon_i\in P\ \middle\vert\ \lambda_1\geq \lambda_2\geq\cdots\geq \lambda_n\right\}.
\]
Note that every fundamental weight is in $P^+$. Let $\rho=\varpi_1+\ldots+\varpi_{n-1}=\sum_{i=1}^n(n-i)\varepsilon_i$, which is again an element of $P^+$.
\subsection{Rational form of quantum $\mathfrak{gl}_n$}
\label{sec:rational_form}
In this section, we fix $q$ an indeterminate over $\mathbb{Z}$, let $\mathcal{A}=\mathbb{Z}[q,q^{-1}]$ and $\Bbbk=\mathbb{Q}(q)$ its field of fractions. In $\mathcal{A}$, we define the following elements
\begin{align*}
[n] &= \frac{q^n-q^{-n}}{q-q^{-1}}, & [n]! &= \prod_{i=1}^n[i], & \qbinom{n}{k} &= \frac{[n]!}{[k]![n-k]!},
\end{align*}
for any $n \in \mathbb{N}$ and $0 \leq k \leq n$.
\begin{definition}
The \emph{quantum enveloping algebra} $\mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$ of $\mathfrak{gl}_n$ is the $\mathbb{Q}(q)$ algebra generated by $E_i,F_i,L_j^{\pm 1}$ for $1\leq i < n$ and $1\leq j \leq n$ subject to the following relations
\begin{align*}
L_iL_i^{-1}&=L_i^{-1}L_i=1, & L_iL_j&=L_jL_i,\\
L_iE_j &= q^{\langle\varepsilon_i,\alpha_j\rangle}E_jL_i, & L_iF_j &= q^{-\langle\varepsilon_i,\alpha_j\rangle}F_jL_i,
\end{align*}
\[
[E_i,F_j] = \delta_{i,j}\frac{K_i-K_i^{-1}}{q-q^{-1}},
\]
where $K_i=L_iL_{i+1}^{-1}$, and subject to the quantum Serre relations
\begin{align*}
E_iE_j&=E_jE_i, & F_iF_j&=F_jF_i, & \text{if }\lvert i-j\rvert > 1, \\
E_i^2E_j&-[2]E_iE_jE_i + E_jE_i^2 = 0, & F_i^2F_j&-[2]F_iF_jF_i + F_jF_i^2 = 0, & \text{if }\lvert i-j\rvert = 1.
\end{align*}
\end{definition}
Note that $\mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{sl}_n)$ is isomorphic to the $\mathbb{Q}(q)$-subalgebra generated by $E_i,F_i$ and $K_i$ for $1\leq i < n$. For any $\lambda\in P$, we also define $L_\lambda = \prod_{i=1}^nL_i^{\lambda_i}$ so that $L_i=L_{\varepsilon_i}$ and $K_i=L_{\alpha_i}$. It is trivial, but nonetheless crucial, to check that $L_{\varpi_n}$ is a central element in $\mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$.
Let $\mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)^{<0}$ (resp. $\mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)^{\leq 0}$) be the subalgebra generated by $(F_i)_{1 \leq i < n}$ (resp. $(F_i,L_j)_{1\leq i < n, 1 \leq j \leq n}$), $\mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)^{>0}$ (resp. $\mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)^{\geq 0}$) be the subalgebra generated by $(E_i)_{1 \leq i < n}$ (resp. $(E_i,L_j)_{1\leq i < n, 1 \leq j \leq n}$) and $\mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)^0$ be the subalgebra generated by $(L_i)_{1 \leq i \leq n}$. It is a well-known fact that $\mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$ has the following triangular decomposition, as a $\mathbb{Q}(q)$-vector space
\[
\mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n) \simeq \mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)^{<0} \otimes \mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)^0 \otimes \mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)^{>0},
\]
the isomorphism being given by multiplication.
We endow the algebra $\mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$ with a comultiplication $\Delta$, a counit $\varepsilon$ and an antipode $S$ which turn $\mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$ into a Hopf algebra. These are given on the generators by
\begin{align*}
\Delta(E_i) &= E_i\otimes K_i+1\otimes E_i,& \Delta(F_i) &= F_i\otimes 1 + K_i^{-1}\otimes F_i,& \Delta(L_i)&=L_i\otimes L_i,\\
\varepsilon(E_i) &=0, & \varepsilon(F_i) &= 0, & \varepsilon(L_i) &= 1,\\
S(E_i)&= -E_iK_i^{-1},& S(F_i) &= -K_iF_i,& S(L_i)&=L_i^{-1}.
\end{align*}
We also note that $S^2$ is given by conjugation by $L_{2\rho}$: for any $x\in\mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$,
\[
S^{2}(x) = L_{2\rho}xL_{2\rho}^{-1}.
\]
The quantum group $\mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$ has the same quasi-$R$-matrix as $\mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{sl}_n)$. It is an element $\Theta=\sum_{\lambda\in Q\cap P^+}\Theta_\lambda$ in a completion of $\mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)^{>0}\otimes \mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)^{<0}$, see \cite[Chapter 7]{jantzen} for more details. We just give here some important properties of this quasi-$R$-matrix. Let $\Psi$ be the algebra automorphism of $\mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)\otimes \mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$ given by
\begin{align*}
\Psi(E_i\otimes 1) &= E_i\otimes K_i^{-1},& \Psi(F_i\otimes 1) &= F_i\otimes K_i,& \Psi(L_i\otimes 1) &= L_i\otimes 1,\\
\Psi(1\otimes E_i) &= K_i^{-1}\otimes E_i,& \Psi(1\otimes F_i) &= K_i\otimes F_i,& \Psi(1\otimes L_i) &= 1\otimes L_i.\\
\end{align*}
Then one has
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:theta_comult}
\Theta \Delta(x) = (\Psi\circ \Delta^{\op})(x)\Theta,
\end{equation}
for any $x\in \mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$, where $\Delta^{\op}$ denotes the opposite comultiplication. Moreover $\Theta$ is invertible and satisfies
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:theta_yb}
(\Delta\otimes \id)(\Theta) = \Psi_{23}(\Theta_{13})\Theta_{23}\quad\text{and}\quad(\id\otimes \Delta)(\Theta) = \Theta_{12}(\Theta_{13})\Theta_{12}.
\end{equation}
Finally, one may give an explicit form of $\Theta$, see for example \cite[\S 10.1.D]{chari-pressley}.
\subsection{Lusztig's restricted integral form}
\label{sec:integral_form}
Following \cite[\S 9.3.A]{chari-pressley}, we define an integral version of $\mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$ over $\mathcal{A}$, which will be suitable for specializations at roots of unity.
\begin{definition}
The Lusztig's restricted integral form $\mathcal{U}_q^{\mathcal{A}}(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$ of $\mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$ is the $\mathcal{A}$-subalgebra of $\mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$ generated by
\begin{align*}
E_i^{(n)} &= \frac{E^n}{[n]!}, & F_i^{(n)}&=\frac{F^n}{[n]!}, &L_j& & \text{and}&& \qbinom{L_j ; c}{t} &= \prod_{s=1}^{t}\frac{q^{c+1-s}L_j-q^{s-c-1}L_j^{-1}}{q^s-q^{-s}},
\end{align*}
for $1\leq i < n$ and $1 \leq j \leq n$.
\end{definition}
We denote by $\mathcal{U}_q^{\mathcal{A}}(\mathfrak{gl}_n)^{?} = \mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)^{?}\cap \mathcal{U}_q^{\mathcal{A}}(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$ for $? \in \{{<}0,{\leq}0 , 0 ,{\geq}0, {>}0\}$. The restricted integral form still has a triangular decomposition as an $\mathcal{A}$-module
\[
\mathcal{U}_q^{\mathcal{A}}(\mathfrak{gl}_n) \simeq \mathcal{U}_q^{\mathcal{A}}(\mathfrak{gl}_n)^{<0} \otimes \mathcal{U}_q^{\mathcal{A}}(\mathfrak{gl}_n)^0 \otimes \mathcal{U}_q^{\mathcal{A}}(\mathfrak{gl}_n)^{>0}.
\]
The comultiplication, counit and antipode restricts to the integral form and endow it with a structure of a Hopf algebra. Using the explicit form of the quasi-$R$-matrix $\Theta$, one may show that it lies in (a completion of) $\mathcal{U}_q^{\mathcal{A}}(\mathfrak{gl}_n)^{>0}\otimes \mathcal{U}_q^{\mathcal{A}}(\mathfrak{gl}_n)^{<0}$.
\subsection{Representations}
\label{sec:rep}
Since $\mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$ is a Hopf algebra, the tensor product of two $\mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$-modules is still an $\mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$-module. Using the antipode $S$, we also equip the dual $V^*$ of an $\mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$-module $V$ with a structure of an $\mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$-module:
\[
(x\cdot\varphi)(v) = \varphi(S(x)\cdot v),
\]
for any $x\in\mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$, $v\in V$ and $\varphi \in V^*$.
\subsubsection{Rational representations}
For an $\mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$-module $M$ and $\lambda\in P$, we define the $\lambda$-weight space of $M$ as
\[
M_\lambda=\left\{m\in M\ \middle\vert\ L_im = q^{\langle\lambda,\varepsilon_i\rangle},\ \text{for all } 1 \leq i \leq n\right\}.
\]
We will only consider weight modules of type $1$: these modules are direct sums of their weight spaces as defined above. For any $\lambda\in P$, the Verma module of highest weight $\lambda$ is
\[
M(\lambda) = \mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)\otimes_{\mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)^{\geq 0}} \mathbb{Q}(q)v_\lambda,
\]
where $\mathbb{Q}(q)v_\lambda$ is the one dimensional representation of $\mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)^{\geq 0}$ given by
\[
E_i\cdot v_\lambda = 0 \quad \text{and} \quad L_j\cdot v_\lambda = q^{\langle\varepsilon_j,\lambda\rangle}v_\lambda,
\]
for every $1\leq i < n$ and $1 \leq j \leq n$.
\begin{proposition}
If $\lambda\in P^+$ then $M(\lambda)$ has a unique irreducible finite dimensional quotient $L(\lambda)$. Moreover, every irreducible finite dimensional weight module is isomorphic to a $L(\lambda)$ for a unique $\lambda\in P^+$: irreducible finite dimensional weight modules are parameterized by $P^+$.
\end{proposition}
For $\lambda=k\varpi_n$, it is easy to see that $L(\lambda)$ is one-dimensional, and we will denote by $\moddet{q}$ the module $L(\varpi_n)$. Note that $\moddet{q}^*\simeq L(-\varpi_n)$ and therefore setting $\moddet{q}^{\otimes k} = L(k\varpi_n)$ is coherent with the fact that $\moddet{q}^k\otimes\moddet{q}^l\simeq\moddet{q}^{k+l}$.
It is clear that if $\lambda\in P^+$ then $-w_0(\lambda)\in P^+$. Moreover, we have $L(\lambda)^*\simeq L(-w_0(\lambda))$.
\subsubsection{A $\mathbb{Z}$-grading}
\label{sec:grading}
Since the element $L_{\varpi_n}$ is central in $\mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$, it induces a $\mathbb{Z}$-grading on the category of finite dimensional representations of $\mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$: a simple object $L(\lambda)$ is of degree $\langle\lambda,\varpi_n\rangle$. Since $L_{\varpi_n}$ is group-like, this grading is of course compatible with the tensor product: every simple summand of a $L(\lambda)\otimes L(\mu)$ is of degree $\langle\lambda,\varpi_n\rangle + \langle\mu,\varpi_n\rangle$.
\subsubsection{Braiding and pivotal structures}
\label{sec:braiding}
Using the quasi-$R$-matrix $\Theta$, we define a braiding on the category of finite dimensional weight modules. For $M$ and $M'$ two finite dimensional weight modules, we let $\Theta_{M,M'}\colon M\otimes M' \rightarrow M\otimes M'$ be the $\mathbb{Q}(q)$-linear isomorphism given by the action of $\Theta$. Since $M$ and $M'$ are finite dimensional, only a finite number of $\Theta_\lambda$ acts non-trivially: $\Theta_\lambda(M_\mu\otimes M'_{\mu'})\subset M_{\mu+\lambda}\otimes M'_{\mu'-\lambda}$.
Now consider the map $f_{M,M'}\colon M\otimes M' \rightarrow M\otimes M'$ given by
\[
f_{M,M'}(m\otimes m') = q^{\langle\mu,\mu'\rangle}m\otimes m'
\]
for every $m\in M_\mu$ and $m\in M'_{\mu'}$. One easily check on the generators of $\mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$ that for every $x\in \mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)\otimes \mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$, any $m\in M$ and $m\in M'$ one has
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:action_f}
x\cdot f(m\otimes m') = f(\Psi(x)\cdot (m\otimes m')).
\end{equation}
We then define $c_{M,M'} = \tau\circ f_{M,M'} \circ \Theta_{M,M'}$, where $\tau(m\otimes m') = m'\otimes m$. Combining \eqref{eq:theta_comult} and \eqref{eq:action_f}, one obtains that $c_{M,M'}$ is an $\mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$-equivariant map.
Using \eqref{eq:theta_yb} and \eqref{eq:action_f}, one shows that $c_{-,-}$ satisfy the hexagon axioms:
\[
c_{L,M\otimes N}=(\id_M\otimes c_{L,N})\circ(c_{L,M}\otimes \id_{N})\quad\text{and}\quad c_{L\otimes M,N}=(c_{L,N}\otimes \id_M)\circ(\id_L\otimes c_{M,N}).
\]
\begin{proposition}
The family of maps $c_{M,M'}$ endow the category of finite dimensional weight modules over $\mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$ with a structure of a braided category.
\end{proposition}
\medskip
We now turn to pivotal structures on the category of finite dimensional weight modules over $\mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$. Since the square of the antipode is given by conjugation by $L_{2\rho}$, the map $a_M \colon M \rightarrow M^{**}$ sending $m\in M$ to $a_M(m)\in M^{**}$ defined by
\[
a_M(m)(\varphi) = \varphi(L_{2\rho} \cdot m)
\]
for any $\varphi \in M^*$ is an isomorphism of $\mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$-modules. But conjugation by the element $L_{2\rho}L_{k\varpi_n}$ also gives the square of the antipode since $L_{k\varpi_n}$ is central. We define therefore analogously an isomorphism $a_{k,M} \colon M \rightarrow M^{**}$.
\begin{proposition}
The family of maps $a_{k,M}$ endow the category of finite dimensional weights modules over $\mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$ with a structure of a pivotal category. Moreover, the pivotal structure is spherical if and only if $k=1-n$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The twist associated to the pivotal structure $a_k$ is given on the simple object $L(\lambda)$ by multiplication by $q^{\langle\lambda,\lambda+2\rho+p\varpi_n\rangle}$. Since $L(\lambda)^*\simeq L(-w_0(\lambda))$, the pivotal structure is spherical if and only if for all $\lambda\in P^+$, we have $q^{\langle\lambda,\lambda+2\rho+k\varpi_n\rangle}=q^{\langle-w_0(\lambda),-w_0(\lambda)+2\rho+k\varpi_n\rangle}$. As $q$ is an indeterminate over $\mathbb{Q}$ the last condition is equivalent to $\langle\lambda,\lambda+2\rho+k\varpi_n\rangle=\langle-w_0(\lambda),-w_0(\lambda)+2\rho+k\varpi_n\rangle$. But $-w_0(\rho) = \rho+(1-n)\varpi_n$ so that
\[
\langle-w_0(\lambda),-w_0(\lambda)+2\rho+k\varpi_n\rangle = \langle\lambda,\lambda+2\rho+k\varpi_n\rangle +2((1-n)-k)\langle\lambda,\varpi_n\rangle.
\]
Therefore the pivotal structure $a_{k,-}$ is spherical if and only if $k=1-n$.
\end{proof}
The right quantum trace with respect to the pivotal structure $a_{k,-}$ is denoted $\Tr_k$, the associated quantum dimension by $\dim_k$ and the associated twist by $\theta_{k,-}$.
\subsubsection{Integral representations}
Since we work with Lusztig's restricted integral form, we need to adapt slightly the definition of a weight space. Given $M$ an $\mathcal{U}_q^{\mathcal{A}}(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$-module and $\lambda\in P$, the $\lambda$-weight space of $M$ is
\[
M_\lambda=\left\{m\in M\ \middle\vert\ L_i\cdot m = q^{\langle\lambda,\varepsilon_i\rangle}m,\ \qbinom{L_i;0}{t}\cdot m = \qbinom{\langle\lambda,\varepsilon_i\rangle}{t} m,\text{ for all } 1 \leq i \leq n \text{ and } t\in \mathbb{N}\right\}.
\]
We will again only consider weight modules, that is modules which are sum of their weight spaces.
There also exists an integral version of the representations $M(\lambda)$ and $L(\lambda)$. Denote by $M^{\mathcal{A}}(\lambda)$ (resp. $L^{\mathcal{A}}(\lambda)$) the $\mathcal{U}_q^{\mathcal{A}}(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$-submodule of $M(\lambda)$ (resp. of $L(\lambda)$) generated by $v_\lambda$. Then
\[
M^{\mathcal{A}}(\lambda)\otimes_{\mathcal{A}}\mathbb{Q}(q) \simeq M(\lambda)\quad\text{and}\quad L^{\mathcal{A}}(\lambda)\otimes_{\mathcal{A}}\mathbb{Q}(q) \simeq L(\lambda).
\]
The module $L(\lambda)$ is the integral Weyl module of highest weight $\lambda$.
\medskip
Similarly to the braiding described above for finite dimensional weight modules over $\mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$ one defines a braiding structure on the category of finite dimensional weight modules over $\mathcal{U}_q^{\mathcal{A}}(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$: we have already seen that the quasi-$R$-matrix $\Theta$ lies in the Lusztig's restricted integral form of $\mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$. One also has the family of pivotal structures $a_{k,-}$.
\subsection{Specialization, tilting modules and semisimplification}
\label{sec:tilting}
Let $d> 0$ be an integer and $\xi=\exp(i\pi/d)$. We define the quantum group $\mathcal{U}_\xi(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$ as the specialization of Lusztig's restricted integral form:
\[
\mathcal{U}_\xi(\mathfrak{gl}_n) = \mathcal{U}_q^{\mathcal{A}}(\mathfrak{gl}_n)\otimes_{\mathcal{A}}\mathbb{C},
\]
where we see $\mathbb{C}$ as an $\mathcal{A}$-algebra via the $\mathbb{Z}$-linear map $q\mapsto \xi$. Since $\xi$ is a primitive $2d$-th root of unity, we have extra relations in this specialization: for example $E_i^d=F_i^d=0$.
\medskip
The construction of a fusion category from the quantum enveloping algebra of a simple Lie algebra extends to our situation with $\mathfrak{gl}_n$, which is only a reductive Lie algebra. We recall quickly the main steps of this construction:
\begin{enumerate}
\item We have at our disposal the specialization of the Weyl module $L(\lambda)\otimes_{\mathcal{A}}\mathbb{C}$. We say that a module $M$ over $\mathcal{U}_\xi(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$ is tilting if both $M$ and $M^*$ have a filtration by specializations of Weyl modules.
\item One shows that the category of tilting modules is stable under direct sum, tensor product and duality.
\item We semisimplify the monoidal category of tilting modules by killing negligible modules with respect to the pivotal structure $a_{0,-}$ (or equivalently any $a_{k,-}$), see \cite{etingof-ss} for a description of this procedure.
\end{enumerate}
When doing these steps with the quantum enveloping algebra of a simple Lie algebra, one obtains a fusion category, with a braiding and a pivotal (even spherical) structure. Here, since we work with $\mathfrak{gl}_n$, we do not have a finite number of simple objects. Let us denote by $\mathcal{C}_\xi$ the category obtained with this procedure. One shows that the simple objects are given by the images of the $L(\lambda)\otimes_{\mathcal{A}} \mathbb{C}$ for $\lambda$ in the alcove
\[
C_{n,d} =\left\{ \lambda\in P^+\ \middle\vert \langle\lambda,\varepsilon_1-\varepsilon_n\rangle \leq d-n\right\}.
\]
In order to distinguish the simple objects of $\mathcal{C}_\xi$ with the Weyl modules, we denote by $X(\lambda)$ the simple object in $\mathcal{C}_\xi$ parameterized by $\lambda\in C_{n,d}$. We nonetheless use the notation $\moddet{\xi}^{\otimes k}$ for $X(k\varpi_n)$. The category $\mathcal{C}_\xi$ inherits the $\mathbb{Z}$-grading from \cref{sec:grading}. Note that this grading is not obtained from the action of the element $L_{\varpi_n}$ since $L_{\varpi_n}^{2d} = 1$ and we would only obtain a grading by the group $\mathbb{Z}/2d\mathbb{Z}$.
Note that $\mathcal{C}_\xi$ is non-zero if and only if $d\geq n$. From now on, we will always work under this assumption. Even if $d=n$, we have an infinite number of simple objects since $\varpi_n$ and its multiples are in $C_{n,d}$. The tensor product of $X(\varpi_i)$ with $X(\lambda)$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:tensor_fundamental}
X(\varpi_i)\otimes X(\lambda) \simeq \bigoplus_{\substack{1\leq j_1 < \cdots < j_i \leq n\\\lambda+\varepsilon_{j_1}+\cdots+\varepsilon_{j_i}\in C_{n,d}}}X(\lambda+\varepsilon_{j_1}+\cdots+\varepsilon_{j_i}),
\end{equation}
see \cite[(3.2)]{andersen-stroppel}. It is also easy to check that the invertible objects are exactly of the form $X((d-n)\varpi_i+r\varpi_n)$ for some $1 \leq i \leq n$ and $r\in \mathbb{Z}$. Moreover,
\[
X((d-n)\varpi_i+r\varpi_n) \otimes X(\lambda) \simeq X(\sh^i(\lambda) + (d-n)\varpi_i+r\varpi_n),
\]
where $\sh(\lambda) = \lambda_n\varepsilon_1 + \sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\lambda_i\varepsilon_{i+1}$ if $\lambda=\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i\varepsilon_i$.
The category $\mathcal{C}_\xi$ is braided, with braiding given by (the image of) $c_{-,-}$. We also have at our disposal several pivotal structures, given by (the image of) $a_{k,-}$. As before, the right quantum trace with respect to the pivotal structure $a_{k,-}$ is denoted $\Tr_k$ and the quantum dimension by $\dim_k$.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:S-mat-gln}
The $S$-matrix of $\mathcal{C}_\xi$ is given by
\[
S_{X(\lambda),X(\mu)}=\xi^{\langle\lambda+\mu,k\varpi_n\rangle}\frac{\sum_{w\in W}(-1)^{l(w)}\xi^{2\langle w(\lambda+\rho),\mu+\rho\rangle}}{\sum_{w\in W}(-1)^{l(w)}\xi^{2\langle w(\rho),\rho\rangle}},
\]
for all $\lambda,\mu\in C_{n,d}$.
The value of the twist associated with the pivotal structure $a_{k,-}$ on the simple object $X(\lambda)$ is given by $\xi^{\langle\lambda,\lambda+2\rho+k\varpi_n\rangle}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
It suffices to do it for the pivotal structure $a_{0,-}$. Indeed, the quantum trace $\Tr_k$ of an element $f\in\End(X)$ is given by
\[
\Tr_k(f) = \Tr(L_{k\varpi_n}L_{2\rho}f),
\]
where $\Tr$ is the usual trace. Since $L_{k\varpi_n}$ is group-like and central, it acts by a scalar on $X(\lambda)\otimes X(\mu)$, and it is easy to check on the highest weight vector $v_\lambda\otimes v_\mu$ that $L_{k\varpi_n}\cdot v_\lambda\otimes v_\mu= \xi^{\langle\lambda+\mu,k\varpi_n\rangle}v_\lambda\otimes v_\mu$. The formula for $p=0$ is obtained using the same arguments as in \cite[Theorem 3.3.20]{bakalov-kirillov}.
\end{proof}
Note that since $\xi$ is a $2d$-th root of unity, the pivotal structure $a_{k,-}$ is spherical if $k\equiv 1-n\ [d]$ and $a_{k,-}=a_{l,-}$ if $k\equiv l\ [2d]$ since $L_{2d\varpi_n}$ acts by $1$ on any $X(\lambda)$.
\subsection{Symmetric center and modularization}
\label{sec:symmetric_center}
The category $\mathcal{C}_\xi$ has an infinite number of simple objects and we aim to produce out of it a fusion or superfusion category with invertible $S$-matrix. Therefore we need to determine the symmetric center of $\mathcal{C}_\xi$ because having an invertible $S$-matrix is equivalent to having a trivial symmetric center.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:symmetric_center}
The simple objects belonging to symmetric center of $\mathcal{C}_\xi$ are the $X((d-n)\varpi_i+ r\varpi_n)$ with $1 \leq i \leq n$ and $r\equiv i \ [d]$. The symmetric center of $\mathcal{C}_\xi$ is then pointed and tensor generated by $X((d-n)\varpi_1+\varpi_n)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We will use the same strategy as in \cite[Section 4]{bruguieres} by proving first that a transparent simple object is invertible and then detecting the transparent objects among the invertible ones.
\medskip
Let $X$ be a transparent simple object. Then it satisfies $c_{Y,X}\circ c_{X,Y}=\id_{X\otimes Y}$ for all object $Y$. We now use the ribbon $\theta_{1-n,-}$ and obtain that $\theta_{1-n,X}\otimes \theta_{1-n,Y} = \theta_{1-n,X\otimes Y}$. Now suppose that moreover $Y$ is simple, and that $X\otimes Y \simeq \bigoplus_{i}Z_i$. Taking the quantum trace $\Tr_{1-n}$, we obtain that $\theta_{1-n,X}\theta_{1-n,Y}\sum_{i}\dim_{1-n}(Z_i)=\sum_{i}\dim_{1-n}(Z_i)$. The twist being a power of $\xi$, by taking the norm we find that
\[
\left\lvert\sum_{i}\dim_{1-n}(Z_i)\right\rvert = \left\lvert\sum_{i}\theta_{1-n,Z}\dim_{1-n}(Z_i)\right\rvert.
\]
But with the spherical structure $a_{1-n,-}$, the quantum dimension of any simple object is a positive real number, and therefore
\[
\sum_{i}\dim_{1-n}(Z_i) = \left\lvert\sum_{i}\theta_{1-n,Z_i}\dim_{1-n}(Z_i)\right\rvert.
\]
By the case of equality in the triangle inequality, we deduce that the argument of $\theta_{1-n,Z_i}\dim_{1-n}(Z_i)$ does not depend on $i$. Since $\dim_{1-n}(Z_i)>0$ and $\theta_{1-n,Z_i}$ is a root of unity, we deduce that $\theta_{1-n,Z_i}$ does not depend on $i$ so that $\theta_{1-n,X\otimes Y}$ is a scalar multiple of $\id_{X\otimes Y}$. It is then also true for any twist $\theta_{k,-}$: we check that $\theta_{k,X(\lambda)} = \xi^{(k+n-1)\langle\lambda,\varpi_n\rangle}\theta_{1-n,X(\lambda)}$ and it remains to check that $\langle\lambda,\varpi_n\rangle$ only depends on $X$ and $Y$ if $X(\lambda)$ is a summand of $X\otimes Y$. But this is immediate since $\langle\lambda,\varpi_n\rangle$ is equal to the degree of $X\otimes Y$ for the $\mathbb{Z}$-grading.
Now, we show that a simple object $X$ such that $\theta_{0,X\otimes Y}$ is a scalar for any simple object $Y$ is invertible. If $d=n$ then any simple object is invertible, so we may and will suppose that $d> n$. Suppose that $X\simeq X(\lambda)$, we take $Y=X(\varpi_1)$ and look at the decomposition of $X\otimes X(\varpi_1)$. Thanks to \eqref{eq:tensor_fundamental}, it is given by
\[
X(\lambda)\otimes X(\varpi_1) \simeq \bigoplus_{\substack{1 \leq j \leq n\\\lambda+\varepsilon_j\in C_{n,d}}}X(\lambda+\varepsilon_j).
\]
Suppose that there exists $1\leq i < j \leq n$ such that $\lambda+\varepsilon_i\in C_{n,d}$ and $\lambda+\varepsilon_j \in C_{n,d}$. Since $\theta_{0,X\otimes Y}$ is a scalar, we have $\theta_{0,X(\lambda+\varepsilon_i)}=\theta_{0,X(\lambda+\varepsilon_j)}$, that is
\[
\langle\lambda+\varepsilon_i,\lambda+\varepsilon_i+2\rho\rangle \equiv \langle\lambda+\varepsilon_j,\lambda+\varepsilon_j+2\rho\rangle\ [2d],
\]
which is equivalent to $2\lambda_i+2(n-i)+1\equiv 2\lambda_j+2(n-j)+1\ [2d]$. Then $\lambda_{i}-\lambda_{j} \equiv i-j\ [d]$ and since $d-n \geq \lambda_i-\lambda_j \geq 0$ we have $\lambda_i-\lambda_j = d+i-j$. As $0 > i-j > -n$, this leads to a contradiction.
Hence there exists a unique $1 \leq i \leq n$ such that $\lambda+\varepsilon_i \in C_{n,d}$ and this is possible if and only if $\lambda=(d-n)\varpi_i+r\varpi_n$ for some $r$ and $X$ is thus invertible.
\medskip
We finally determine the transparent objects among the invertible ones. Let $1 \leq i \leq n$ and $X=X((d-n)\varpi_i+r\varpi_n)$ be an invertible object. Since $X\otimes X(\lambda) \simeq X(\sh^i(\lambda) + (d-n)\varpi_i + r\varpi_n)$, the object $X$ is transparent if and only if $\theta_{0,X(\sh^i(\lambda) + (d-n)\varpi_i + r\varpi_n)} = \theta_{0,X}\theta_{0,X(\lambda)}$ for all $\lambda\in C_{n,d}$. This last equality is equivalent to
\begin{multline*}
\langle\sh^i(\lambda) + (d-n)\varpi_i + r\varpi_n,\sh^i(\lambda) + (d-n)\varpi_i + r\varpi_n+2\rho\rangle \equiv \\
\langle\lambda,\lambda+2\rho\rangle+\langle(d-n)\varpi_i + r\varpi_n,(d-n)\varpi_i + r\varpi_n+2\rho\rangle\ [2d].
\end{multline*}
Going back to the definition of $\rho$, we find that $X$ is transparent if and only of for all $\lambda\in C_{n,d}$ we have $(r-i)\langle\lambda,\varpi_n\rangle\equiv 0 \ [d]$. If $n=d$ there is no condition on $r$ and $i$ and then every object is transparent. If $d>d$, taking $\lambda=\varpi_1$, we see that $r\equiv i\ [d]$ so that the only transparent objects in $\mathcal{C}_\xi$ are the $X((d-n)\varpi_i+r\varpi_n)$ with $r\equiv i \ [d]$.
Finally, we need to check that $X((d-n)\varpi_i+r\varpi_n)$ is a tensor power of $X((d-n)\varpi_1+\varpi_n)$. We remark that $X((d-n)\varpi_1+\varpi_n)^{\otimes n}\simeq \det_q^{\otimes d}$, so that, by tensoring to a suitable power of $\det_q^{\otimes d}$, we may and will suppose that $0 \leq r < d$. Then $i=r$ and $X((d-n)\varpi_i+i\varpi_n)\simeq X((d-n)\varpi_1+\varpi_n)^{\otimes i}$.
\end{proof}
If we want to kill the symmetric center by a process of modularization, we have to check that every simple object in the symmetric center is of twist $1$ for the chosen pivotal structure. Let us denote by $\varepsilon$ the object $X((d-n)\varpi_1 + \varpi_n)$ which tensor generates the symmetric center.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:gen_center}
We endow $\mathcal{C}_\xi$ with the pivotal structure $a_{k,-}$. The quantum dimension and the twist of $\varepsilon$ are respectively $(-1)^{k+n-1}$ and $(-1)^{d+k}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $\varepsilon$ is an invertible object, the quantum dimension of $\varepsilon$ with respect to the spherical structure $a_{1-n,-}$ is $1$ since the quantum dimension of a simple object is positive with respect to this spherical structure. Therefore the quantum dimension of $\varepsilon$ with respect to the pivotal structure $a_{k,-}$ is $\xi^{\langle(d-n)\varpi_1+\varpi_n,(k+n-1)\varpi_n\rangle}=(-1)^{k+n-1}$.
Concerning the twist, we only have to check that
\[
\langle (d-n)\varpi_1+\varpi_n,(d-n)\varpi_1+\varpi_n+2\rho+k\varpi_n\rangle \equiv d(k+d)\ [2d],
\]
which is an easy computation.
\end{proof}
Since we want the twist of objects in the symmetric center to be equal to $1$, we will always choose from now on a pivotal structure of the form $a_{2p+d,-}$ with $p\in \mathbb{Z}$. The object $\varepsilon^{\otimes 2}$ is always of quantum dimension and twist equal to $1$ so that we can apply the modularization procedure of Bruguières and Müger. We then obtain a fusion category $\mathcal{D}_\xi$ with symmetric center generated by the image of $\varepsilon$. Tensoring by $\varepsilon^{\otimes 2}$ does not have fixed points on the set of simple objects since this object sits in non-trivial degree for the $\mathbb{Z}$-grading. Thus the modularization procedure only add isomorphism between some simple objects and the image in $\mathcal{D}_\xi$ of every simple object in $\mathcal{C}_{\xi}$ is still a simple object.
The structure of the symmetric center depends now on the parity of $n+d$:
\begin{itemize}
\item if $n\not\equiv d\ [2]$ then the symmetric center of $\mathcal{D}_\xi$ is equivalent, as a pivotal category to $\Rep(\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})$ and $\mathcal{D}_\xi$ is then modularizable. We then obtain a non-degenerate fusion category $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_\xi$ from the modularization of $\mathcal{D}_\xi$.
\item if $n\equiv d\ [2]$ then the symmetric center of $\mathcal{D}_\xi$ is equivalent, as a pivotal category to $\sVect$ and $\mathcal{D}_\xi$ is then slightly degenerate. We then obtain a non-degenerate superfusion category $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_\xi$ from the supermodularization of $\mathcal{D}_\xi.$
\end{itemize}
The simple objects of $\tilde{D}_\xi$ are then parameterized by the orbits of $\Irr(\mathcal{C}_\xi)$ under tensorization by $\varepsilon$.
\subsection{Modular data arising from $\tilde{D}_\xi$}
\label{sec:mod_data_gln}
We turn to the computation of the modular invariants of the category $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_\xi$. First, we determine a suitable subset of $C_{n,d}$ for the pasteurization of simple objects of $\tilde{\mathcal{C}_\xi}$. This amounts to choose a representative of each orbit of isomorphism classes of simple objects of $\mathbb{C}_\xi$ under tensorization by $\varepsilon$. We say that two weights $\lambda\sim_{\elem}\mu$ in $C_{n,d}$ if $\lambda=\sh(\mu)+(d-n)\varpi_1+\varpi_n$ or $\mu=\sh(\lambda)+(d-n)\varpi_1+\varpi_n$. We then define an equivalence relation $\sim$ on $C_{n,d}$ as the reflexive and transitive closure of $\sim_{\elem}$. It is almost immediate to see that if $\lambda\sim \mu$ then there exists $0 <q k \leq n$ and $r \in \mathbb{Z}$ such that $\mu=\sh^k(\lambda)+(d-n)\varpi_k +(rd+k)\varpi_n$. Note that $\lambda\sim\mu$ if and only if $X(\lambda)\simeq X(\mu)$ in $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_\xi$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:equiv-weights}
Let $\lambda\in C_{n,d}$. Then there exists a unique $\lambda'\in C_{n,d}$ such that $\lambda'\sim \lambda$ and $d-n\geq \lambda'_1\geq\cdots\geq \lambda'_n\geq 0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First notice that for every $\lambda\in C_{n,d}$ we have $\lambda\sim \lambda+d\varpi_n$ since $\varepsilon^{\otimes n}\simeq \det_\xi^{\otimes d}$.
Now fix $\lambda\in C_{n,d}$. By adding or subtracting a multiple of $d\varpi_n$, we may and will suppose that $d-n \geq \lambda_1 > -n$. If moreover $\lambda_n\geq 0$, we have nothing to prove. Otherwise, let $1\leq k \leq n$ be minimal such that $\lambda_k\leq k-n-1$. Since $\lambda_n < 0$ the integer $k$ is well defined, and since $\lambda_1>-n$, we have $k\geq 2$. Let $\lambda'=\sh^{n+1-k}(\lambda)+(d-n)\varpi_{n+1-k}+(n+1-k)\varpi_n$. Then $\lambda'\sim \lambda$ and we have $\lambda'_1 = \lambda_k + d+1-k \leq d-n$ be definition of $k$. Finally, $\lambda'_n = \lambda_{k-1}+n+1-k \geq 0$ again by definition of $k$.
\medskip
For the uniqueness, suppose that $\lambda\sim\mu$ with $0\leq \lambda_i \leq d-n$ and $0\leq \mu_i \leq d-n$ for all $1 \leq i \leq n$. If $d=n$, there is nothing to do since $\lambda=\mu=0$. Therefore, we suppose $d>n$. Since $\lambda\sim \mu$ we have $-(d-n) \leq \lambda_i-\mu_j \leq d-n$ for all $1 \leq i,j \leq n$. There also exists $0 < k \leq n$ and $r \in \mathbb{Z}$ such that $\mu=\sh^k(\lambda)+(d-n)\varpi_k + (rd+k)\varpi_n$. We want to show that $k=n$ and $r=-1$.
Suppose that $k<n$. Therefore, by choosing suitably $i$ and $j$ we have $-(d-n) \leq rd+k \leq d-n$ and $-(d-n) \leq rd+k+d-n \leq d-n$. This implies that $-(d-n) \leq rd+k \leq 0$ and $0 \leq rd+k+d-n < d$. But as $0 \leq k+d-n < d$ we obtain that $r=0$ and then $k \leq 0$, which is a contradiction.
Then $k=n$ and $\lambda = \mu + (r+1)d\varpi_n$. As $\lvert \lambda_i - \mu_i \rvert < d$, we necessarily have $r=-1$, which ends the prove of uniqueness.
\end{proof}
Let $\tilde{C}_{n,d}$ be the subset of $C_{n,d}$ consisting of dominant integral weights $\lambda$ satisfying $d-n\geq\lambda_1\geq\cdots\geq\lambda_n\geq 0$. We will therefore use the set $\tilde{C}_{n,d}$ to parameterize simple objects in $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_\xi$. This also shows that the rank of $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_\xi$ is equal to $\binom{d}{n}$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:cat-dimension}
The categorical dimension of $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_\xi$ is
\[
\dim(\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_\xi) = (-1)^{n(n-1)/2}\frac{d^n}{\left(\prod_{i=1}^{n-1}(\xi^i-\xi^{-i})^{n-i}\right)^2}.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since the simple object $\moddet{\xi}$ is invertible, tensoring by $\moddet{\xi}$ does not change the square norm $\lvert X \rvert^2$ of a simple object $X$.
Note that we have a bijection between the simple objects of the fusion category associated with $\mathfrak{sl}_n$ and the set of $\lambda\in C_{n,d}$ with $\lambda_n=0$. Moreover, the squared norm of the object $X(\lambda)$ is the same if we restrict to $\mathfrak{sl}_n$. Therefore, by \cite[Theorem 3.3.20]{bakalov-kirillov}
\[
\sum_{\substack{\lambda\in C_{n,d}\\\lambda_n=0}}\lvert X(\lambda)\rvert ^2 = (-1)^{n(n-1)/2}\frac{nd^{n-1}}{\left(\prod_{i=1}^{n-1}(\xi^i-\xi^{-i})^{n-i}\right)^2}.
\]
Consider now the category $\mathcal{C}'_\xi$ obtained from $\mathcal{C}_\xi$ by adding isomorphisms between powers of $\moddet{\xi}^{2d}$. Its objects can be parameterized by $\{\lambda\in C_{n,d}\ \vert\ 0\leq \lambda_n < 2d\}$, so that its categorical dimension is equal to
\[
\dim(\mathcal{C}'_\xi)=2d \sum_{\substack{\lambda\in C_{n,d}\\\lambda_n=0}}\lvert X(\lambda)\rvert ^2 = (-1)^{n(n-1)/2}\frac{2nd^n}{\left(\prod_{i=1}^{n-1}(\xi^i-\xi^{-i})^{n-i}\right)^2}.
\]
Note that $\mathcal{C}_\xi'$ inherits of a $\mathbb{Z}/2dn\mathbb{Z}$-grading since $\det_\xi^{\otimes 2d}$ sits in degree $2dn$. As $\varepsilon$ is of order $2n$ in $\mathcal{C}'_\xi$ and none of its non-trivial tensor power is of degree $0$, we find that the (super)dimension of $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_\xi$ is equal to $\dim(\mathcal{C}'_\xi)/2n$, which ends the proof.
\end{proof}
Since the category $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_\xi$ is pivotal but not necessarily not spherical, we need to determine the invertible object $\bar{\mathbf{1}}$ among the $X(\lambda)$, $\lambda\in \tilde{C}_{n,d}$ and its quantum dimension.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:1-bar}
Let $p\in \mathbb{Z}$ and we equip $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_\xi$ with the pivotal structure $a_{2p+d,-}$. The object $\bar{\mathbf{1}}$ is isomorphic to $\moddet{\xi}^{-(2p+n-1)}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The object $\bar{\mathbf{1}}$ is determined by $\dim_{2p+d}(X(\lambda)^*)\dim_{2p+d}(\bar{\mathbf{1}}) = S_{\bar{\mathbf{1}},X(\lambda)}$ for all $\lambda\in C_{n,d}$. We first compute the quantum dimension of $X(\lambda)^*$ by using the fact that $X(\lambda)^*\simeq X(-w_0(\lambda))$
\[
\dim_{2p+d}(X(\lambda)^*) = \xi^{-\langle w_0(\lambda),(2p+d)\varpi_n\rangle}\frac{\sum_{w\in W}(-1)^{l(w)}\xi^{2\langle w(-w_0(\lambda)+\rho),\rho\rangle}}{\sum_{w\in W}(-1)^{l(w)}\xi^{2\langle w(\rho),\rho\rangle}}.
\]
Now we use that $w_0(\rho) = -\rho + (n-1)\varpi_n$ and the fact that $\varpi_n$ is invariant under the action of $W$ to obtain
\[
\langle w(-w_0(\lambda)+\rho),\rho\rangle = \langle ww_0(\lambda+\rho),w_0(\rho)\rangle - \langle \lambda,(n-1)\varpi_n\rangle.
\]
Therefore, by a change of variables in the sum at the numerator, we obtain
\[
\dim_{2p+d}(X(\lambda)^*) = \xi^{-\langle\lambda,(2p+d+2(n-1))\varpi_n\rangle}\frac{\sum_{w\in W}(-1)^{l(w)}\xi^{2\langle w(\lambda+\rho),\rho\rangle}}{\sum_{w\in W}(-1)^{l(w)}\xi^{2\langle w(\rho),\rho\rangle}}.
\]
It is now an easy calculation to show that
\begin{align*}
\frac{S_{\moddet{\xi}^{-(2p+n-1)},X(\lambda)}}{\dim_{2p+d}\left(\moddet{\xi}^{-(2p+n-1)}\right)}
&= \xi^{-\langle\lambda,(2p+d+2(n-1))\varpi_n\rangle}\frac{\sum_{w\in W}(-1)^{l(w)}\xi^{2\langle w(\lambda+\rho),\rho\rangle}}{\sum_{w\in W}(-1)^{l(w)}\xi^{2\langle w(\rho),\rho\rangle}}\\
&= \dim_{2p+d}(X(\lambda)^*),
\end{align*}
which ends the proof.
\end{proof}
The unique $\lambda\in \tilde{C}_{n,d}$ such that $-(2p+d+n-1)\varpi_n \sim \lambda$ is subtle to determine, but we only need the value of its quantum dimension, which is then $\pm\xi^{-2\langle (2p+n-1)\varpi_n,\rho+p\varpi_n\rangle}$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:modular_data_gln}
We endow $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_\xi$ with the pivotal structure $a_{2p+d,-}$. There exists a fourth root of unity $\omega$ such that the renormalized $S$-matrix of $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_\xi$ is given by
\[
\mathbb{S}_{X(\lambda),X(\mu)} = \omega\xi^{\langle\lambda+\mu,(2p+d)\varpi_n\rangle+2pn(p+n-1)}\frac{\sum_{w\in W}(-1)^{l(w)}\xi^{2\langle w(\lambda+\rho),\mu+\rho\rangle}}{\sqrt{d}^n},
\]
for any $\lambda,\mu\in \tilde{C}_{n,d}$. The twist of the object $X(\lambda)$ is given by $\theta_{2p+d,X(\lambda)}=\xi^{\langle\lambda,\lambda+2\rho+(2p+d)\varpi_n\rangle}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We need to compute the suitable renormalization of the $S$-matrix, which is given by the positive square root of the categorical (super)dimension of $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_\xi$ multiplied by a square root of the quantum dimension of $\bar{\mathbf{1}}$.
Thanks to \cref{lem:cat-dimension}, the categorical (super)dimension of $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_\xi$ is given by
\[
\dim(\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_\xi) = (-1)^{n(n-1)/2}\frac{d^n}{\left(\prod_{i=1}^{n-1}(\xi^i-\xi^{-i})^{n-i}\right)^2}.
\]
In order to renormalize the $S$-matrix, we need the positive square root of this dimension. Using Weyl's denominator formula we obtain
\[
\sum_{w\in W}(-1)^{l(w)}\xi^{2\langle w(\rho),\rho\rangle}=\xi^{2\langle\rho,\rho\rangle}\prod_{i=1}^{n-1}(1-\xi^{-2i})^{n-i}=\xi^{\langle(n-1)\varpi_n,\rho\rangle}\prod_{i=1}^{n-1}(\xi^i-\xi^{-i})^{n-i},
\]
so that the desired square root is
\[
i^{n(n-1)/2}\frac{\xi^{\langle(n-1)\varpi_n,\rho\rangle}\sqrt{d}^n}{\displaystyle\sum_{w\in W}(-1)^{l(w)}\xi^{2\langle w(\rho),\rho\rangle}}.
\]
As the dimension of $\bar{\mathbf{1}}$ is $\pm\xi^{-2\langle (2p+n-1)\varpi_n,\rho+p\varpi_n\rangle}$, there exists a fourth root of unity $\omega$ such that
\[
\sqrt{\dim(\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_\xi)}\sqrt{\dim_{2p+d}(\bar{\mathbf{1}})} = \omega\frac{\sqrt{d}^n\xi^{-\langle (2p+n-1)\varpi_n,\rho+p\varpi_n\rangle+\langle(n-1)\varpi_n,\rho\rangle}}{\displaystyle\sum_{w\in W}(-1)^{l(w)}\xi^{2\langle w(\rho),\rho\rangle}}=\omega\frac{\sqrt{d}^n\xi^{-2pn(p+n-1)}}{\displaystyle\sum_{w\in W}(-1)^{l(w)}\xi^{2\langle w(\rho),\rho\rangle}}.
\]
Therefore, using \cref{prop:S-mat-gln} the renormalized $S$-matrix is given by
\[
\mathbb{S}_{X(\lambda),X(\mu)} = \omega\xi^{\langle\lambda+\mu,(2p+d)\varpi_n\rangle+2pn(p+n-1)}\frac{\sum_{w\in W}(-1)^{l(w)}\xi^{2\langle w(\lambda+\rho),\mu+\rho\rangle}}{\sqrt{d}^n}.
\]
The twist has already been computed in \cref{prop:S-mat-gln}.
\end{proof}
If $n\equiv d [2]$ then we have seen that the category $\mathcal{D}_{\xi}$ is slightly degenerate with symmetric center tensor generated by $\varepsilon$. This category inherits a $\mathbb{Z}/2d\mathbb{Z}$-grading from the $\mathbb{Z}$-grading of $\mathcal{C}_\xi$ as the object $\varepsilon^{\otimes 2}$ is of degree $2d$ in $\mathcal{C}_\xi$.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:boxproduct}
Suppose that $n\equiv d [2]$. The category $\mathcal{D}_\xi$ is equivalent to $\mathcal{D}_{\xi,0} \boxtimes \sVect$, where $\mathcal{D}_{\xi,0}$ is a non-degenerate braided fusion category, if and only if $n$ and $d$ are both odd or $n=d$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $n$ and $d$ are both odd and consider the full subcategory $\mathcal{D}_{\xi,0}$ of $\mathcal{D}_\xi$ with objects of even degree in $\mathbb{Z}/2d\mathbb{Z}$. Since $d$ is odd, the object $\varepsilon$ of degree $d$ is not in $\mathcal{C}_\xi$. This shows that for each simple object $X$, either $X$ or $X\otimes \varepsilon$ is in $\mathcal{D}_{\xi,0}$ and that therefore $\mathcal{D}_\xi\simeq \mathcal{D}_{\xi,0} \boxtimes \sVect$.
Suppose that $n=d$. Then the simple objects of $\mathcal{D}_\xi$ are $\mathbf{1}$ and $\varepsilon$ and then $\mathcal{D}_\xi\simeq \sVect$.
Suppose now that both $n$ and $d$ are even, that $n>d$ and that there exists a full subcategory $\mathcal{D}_{\xi,0}$ of $\mathcal{D}_\xi$ such that $\mathcal{D}_\xi\simeq \mathcal{D}_{\xi,0} \boxtimes \sVect$. Since $d>n$, the object $X(\varpi_1)$ is a simple object of $\mathcal{D}_\xi$, and $X(\varpi_1)$ or $X(\varpi_1)\otimes \varepsilon$ is in $\mathcal{D}_{\xi,0}$. Because of \eqref{eq:tensor_fundamental}, the simple object $\varepsilon$ is a direct summand of $X(\varpi_1)^{\otimes d}$. Since $d$ is even, $X(\varpi_1)^{\otimes d}\simeq (X(\varpi_1)\otimes \varepsilon)^{\otimes d}$. Therefore $\varepsilon$ is in $\tilde{\mathcal{D}_\xi}$ which is a contradiction because the only simple transparent object of $\mathcal{D}_{\xi,0}$ is isomorphic to the unit object.
\end{proof}
\section{Exterior powers and Cuntz' positivity conjecture}
\label{sec:ext_powers}
Let $d\geq 1$ be an integer, $1 \leq n\leq d$ be another integer. We keep the notation $\xi=\exp(i\pi/d)$ and let $\zeta=\xi^2=\exp(2i\pi/d)$.
\subsection{Set-up and known results}
\label{sec:set-up_exterior}
We consider the $n$-th exterior power $\bigwedge^n S$ of the matrix $S=\left(\frac{\zeta^{ij}}{\sqrt{d}}\right)_{0\leq i,j < d}$, which is the renormalized character table $S$ of the cyclic group $\mathbb{Z}/d\mathbb{Z}$. We will index the entries of $\bigwedge^n S$ by the set $I_{n,d}$ of $n$-tuples $(i_1,\ldots,i_n)$ with $0\leq i_1 < i_2 < \cdots < i_n < d$. The matrix $\bigwedge^nS$ is symmetric and unitary. For $p\in\mathbb{Z}$ we denote by $i^{(p)}$ the $n$-tuple $(i_1^{(p)},\ldots,i_n^{(k)})$ obtained by reducing modulo $d$ and sorting the tuple $(p,p+1,\ldots,p+n-1)$. If $p\equiv p'\ [d]$ then $i^{(p)}=i^{(p')}$. Explicitly, if $0\leq p < d$,
\[
i^{(p)} =
\begin{cases}
(p,p+1,\ldots,p+n-1) & \text{if } p \leq d-n,\\
(0,1,\ldots,p+n-1-d,p,p+1,\ldots,d-1) & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\]
The entry $(\bigwedge^nS)_{i^{(p)},i}$ is always non-zero since it is a multiple of a Vandermonde determinant. Therefore, we for any $a,b$ and $c$ ordered $n$-tuples, the following complex number:
\[
{}_pN_{a,b}^c=\sum_{k\in I_{n,d}}\frac{(\bigwedge^nS)_{a,k}(\bigwedge^nS)_{b,k}\overline{(\bigwedge^nS)_{c,k}}}{(\bigwedge^nS)_{i^{(p)},k}}.
\]
\begin{proposition}[{\cite[Theorem 4.2]{cuntz-fusion}}]
\label{prop:cuntz-integrality}
For any $p\in\mathbb{Z}$ and $a,b,c \in I_{n,d}$, ${}_pN_{a,b}^c\in \mathbb{Z}$. Therefore, these integers are the structure constants of a $\mathbb{Z}$-algebra.
\end{proposition}
In \cite{cuntz-fusion}, it is proven only for $p=0$, but the same argument applies for any $p\in\mathbb{Z}$ (see \cite[Wahl der Eins]{cuntz-these}). Therefore, the matrix $\bigwedge^nS$ satisfies the hypothesis of \cref{sec:fusion_alg} for any choice of special element $i^{(p)}$ and defines a fusion algebra $A_{n,p}$.
There also exist a $T$-matrix associated with $S$. Let $T$ be the diagonal matrix indexed by $I_{1,d}$ with entries given by $T_a=\zeta_{24}^{d-1}\xi^{a^2+da}$. Then $S$ and $T$ satisfy
\[
S^4=\id,\quad (ST)^3 = \id\quad\text{and}\quad ST=TS,
\]
see \cite[Proposition 5.4]{cuntz-fusion} and similar relations are satisfied by $\bigwedge^nS$ and $\bigwedge^nT$.
\subsection{Cuntz' conjectures}
\label{sec:conj_positivity}
In \cite{cuntz-fusion}, Cuntz has conjectured the following positivity property:
\begin{conjecture}[{\cite[\S 4.3]{cuntz-fusion}}]
\label{conj:cuntz_signs}
Suppose that $1 < n < d$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Suppose moreover that $n$ and $d$ are not both even. Then there exist a choice of signs $(\sigma_a)_{a\in I_{n,d}}\in\{\pm 1\}^{I_{n,d}}$ such that for any $a,b,c\in I_{n,d}$, the integer ${}_pN_{a,b}^c\sigma_a\sigma_b\sigma_c$ is non-negative.
\item Suppose moreover that both $n$ and $d$ are even. Then for all choices of signs $(\sigma_a)_{a\in I_{n,d}}\in\{\pm 1\}^{I_{n,d}}$ there exists $a,b,c\in I_{n,d}$ such that ${}_pN_{a,b}^c\sigma_i\sigma_j\sigma_k$ is negative. However, the absolute values of ${}_pN_{a,b}^c$ define an associative $\mathbb{Z}$-algebra.
\end{enumerate}
\end{conjecture}
He also conjectured in his thesis \cite{cuntz-these} that the fusion ring $A$ defined by $\bigwedge^nS$ is a quotient of a free algebra of rank doubled.
\begin{conjecture}[{\cite[Vermutung 5.1.6]{cuntz-these}}]
\label{conj:cuntz_ring}
Let $A'$ be a free $\mathbb{Z}$-module with basis $\{b_a,b'_a\ \vert \ a \in I_{n,d}\}$ and denote also by $\{b_a\ \vert \ a \in I_{n,d}\}$ the basis of $A$. Let $\pi\colon A' \rightarrow A$ be the $\mathbb{Z}$-module map defined by $\pi(b_a) = b_a$ and $\pi(b_a')=-b_a$. Define also $\varphi \colon A \rightarrow A'$ by
\[
\sum_{a\in I_{n,d}}\lambda_ab_a \mapsto \sum_{a\in I_{n,d}}(\delta_{\lambda_a>0}\lambda_ab_a - \delta_{\lambda_a<0}\lambda_ab'_a).
\]
Then the multiplication on $A'$ defined by $xy = \varphi(\pi(x)\pi(y))$ is associative and its structure constants lie in $\mathbb{N}$.
\end{conjecture}
The ring $A'$ has then two quotients, namely $A$ obtained by identifying $b_i$ and $-b'_i$ and another one $A^{\abs}$ obtained by identifying $b_i$ and $b'_i$. It is clear that $A^{\abs}$ has non-negative structure constants and that its structure constants are the absolute values of the structure constants of $A$. One can depicts the situation by the following diagram
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
& A' \ar[dl,two heads,"b_i=-b'_i"'] \ar[dr,two heads,"b_i=b'_i"] &\\
A & & A^{\abs}
\end{tikzcd}
\]
which is similar to the situation explained in \cref{sec:slightly-deg}.
Note that if one can find a change of basis of $A$ by changing signs such that the structure constants are non-negative, then \cref{conj:cuntz_ring} is almost trivial.
\subsection{Relationship with quantum $\mathfrak{gl}_n$}
\label{sec:relationship}
We now relate the renormalized $S$-matrix of the category $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_\xi$ for $\mathfrak{gl}_n$ introduced in \cref{sec:symmetric_center} with the exterior power $\bigwedge^nS$, up to some signs. The twists will also correspond with the diagonal matrix $\bigwedge^nT$, up to a multiplication by a root of unity. The pivotal structure on $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_\xi$ will depend on the choice of the special element $i^{(p)}$.
We define for every $p\in\mathbb{Z}$ a map $\iota_p\colon I_{n,d} \rightarrow C_{n,d}$ by
\[
a \mapsto w_0\left(\sum_{i=1}^na_{i}\varepsilon_i\right) - \rho - p\varpi_n.
\]
Since $a$ is strictly increasing, $\iota_p(a) \in P^+$. Moreover, $\iota_p(a)_1-\iota_p(a)_n = a_n-a_1-n+1 \leq d-n$, that is $\iota_p(a) \in C_{n,d}$. We then define $\tilde{\iota}_p(a) \in \tilde{C}_{n,d}$ as the unique element in $\tilde{C}_{n,d}$ such that $\tilde{\iota}_p(a)\sim \iota_p(a)$. As $\in_p$ is clearly an injection, so is $\tilde{\iota}_p$. But $\lvert \tilde{C}_{n,d} \rvert = \binom{d}{n} = \lvert I_{n,d} \rvert$ and $\tilde{\iota}_p$ is bijective.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:invertible}
For all $p\in \mathbb{Z}$ and $k\in\mathbb{Z}$ we have $\iota_p(i^{(k)}) \sim \left(k-p\right)\varpi_n$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We may and will suppose that $0 \leq k < d$ since $\lambda\sim \lambda+d\varpi_n$ for any $\lambda\in C_{n,d}$.
We check that
\[
\iota_p(i^{(k)})=
\begin{cases}
\left(k-p\right)\varpi_n & \text{if } 0 \leq k \leq d-n,\\
\displaystyle -p\varpi_n + (d-n)\varpi_{d-k}& \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\]
If $d-n < k < d$, we see that
\[
\iota_p(i^{(k)}) = \sh^{d-k}\left((k-d-p)\varpi_n\right) + (d-n)\varpi_{d-k} + (d-k)\varpi_n\sim \left(k-d-p\right)\varpi_n\sim \left(k-p\right)\varpi_n,
\]
which ends the proof.
\end{proof}
Therefore $\tilde{\iota}_p(i^{(p)}) = 0$ and $X(\tilde{\iota}_p(i^{(-p+1-n)}))\simeq \bar{\mathbf{1}}$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:categorification}
Let $p\in\mathbb{Z}$. We equip the category $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_\xi$ with the pivotal structure $a_{2p+d,-}$. The (super)fusion category $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_\xi$ is a categorification of the modular datum defined by $\bigwedge^nS$ and $\bigwedge^nT$: there exist a fourth root of unity $\omega$ and signs $(\sigma_a)\in\{\pm 1\}^{I_{n,d}}$ with $\sigma_{i^{(p)}}=1$ such that
\[
\mathbb{S}_{X(\tilde{\iota}_p(a)),X(\tilde{\iota}_p(b))} = \omega\sigma_a\sigma_b(\bigwedge\nolimits^nS)_{a,b} \quad\text{and}\quad \theta_{X(\tilde{\iota}_p(a))} = \zeta_*(\bigwedge\nolimits^nT)_{a},
\]
where $\zeta_* = \zeta_{24}^{n(1-d)}\xi^{-\langle\rho,\rho\rangle-pn(p+d)-(2p+d)\binom{n}{2}}$.
The (super)Grothendieck ring of $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_\xi$ is then isomorphic to the ring defined by $\bigwedge^nS$ with unit parameterized by $i^{(p)}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We use the formula of the renormalized $S$-matrix of $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_\xi$ given in \cref{thm:modular_data_gln}. Since for all $a\in C_{n,d}$ we have $\tilde{\iota}_p(a)\sim \iota_p(a)$, there exist a sign $\eta_a\in\{\pm 1\}$ such that for all $a,b\in C_{n,d}$,
\[
\mathbb{S}_{X(\tilde{\iota}_p(a)),X(\tilde{\iota}_p(b))} = \omega\eta_a\eta_b\xi^{\langle\iota_p(a)+\iota_p(b),(2p+d)\varpi_n\rangle+2pn(p+n-1)}\frac{\sum_{w\in W}(-1)^{l(w)}\xi^{2\langle w(\iota_p(a)+\rho),\iota_p(b)+\rho\rangle}}{\sqrt{d}^n}.
\]
Now, for any $w\in W$, we have
\begin{align*}
\langle w(\iota_p(a)+\rho),\iota_p(b)+\rho\rangle
&= \langle ww_0(\sum_{i=1}^na_i\varepsilon_i)-p\varpi_n,w_0(\sum_{i=1}^nb_i\varepsilon_i)-p\varpi_n\rangle \\
&= \sum_{i=1}^na_{w_0^{-1}w^{-1}w_0(i)}b_i - p\sum_{i=1}^n(a_i+b_i) + p^2n,
\end{align*}
so that
\[
\mathbb{S}_{X(\tilde{\iota}_p(a)),X(\tilde{\iota}_p(b))}=\omega\eta_a\eta_b(-1)^{\sum_{i=1}^n(a_i+b_i)}\frac{\sum_{w\in W}(-1)^{l(w)}\prod_{i=1}^n\xi^{a_{w(i)}b_i}}{\sqrt{d}^n}.
\]
We now set $\sigma_a=\eta_a(-1)^{\sum_{j=1}^n a_j}$. We hence find that $\mathbb{S}_{X(\tilde{\iota}_p(a)),X(\tilde{\iota}_p(b))}=\omega \sigma_a\sigma_b (\bigwedge^nS)_{a,b}$. By changing the sign of every $\sigma_a$ if necessary, we have $\sigma_{i^{(p)}}=1$.
For the value of the twist, since $\theta_{2p+d,X(\tilde{\iota}_p(a))}=\theta_{2p+d,X(\iota_p(a))}$, we find that
\[
\theta_{2p+d,X(\tilde{\iota}_p(a))} = \xi^{\langle\iota_p(a),\iota_p(a)+2\rho+(2p+d)\varpi_n\rangle}.
\]
But
\[
\langle\iota_p(a),\iota_p(a)+2\rho+(2p+d)\varpi_n\rangle = \langle w_0(\sum_{i=1}^n a_i\varepsilon_i)-\rho-p\varpi_n,w_0(\sum_{i=1}^n a_i\varepsilon_i)+\rho+p\varpi_n+d\varpi_n\rangle,
\]
and therefore $\theta_{2p+d,X(\tilde{\iota}_p(a))} = \xi^{-\langle\rho,\rho\rangle-pn(p+d)-(2p+d)\binom{n}{2}}\xi^{\sum_{i=1}^n(a_i^2+da_i)}$, which leads to the desired formula.
\end{proof}
As a corollary, we obtain a new proof of \cref{prop:cuntz-integrality} since the signs $\sigma_a$ do not change the integrality of the structure constants ${}_pN_{a,b}^c$.
\begin{corollary}
For any $p$ and $r$, the fusion algebras $A_{n,p}$ and $A_{n,r}$ are isomorphic: the structure of the fusion ring defined bu $\bigwedge^n S$ does not depend on the choice of the special element of the form $i^{(p)}$.
\end{corollary}
\subsection{Proof of Cuntz' conjectures}
Categorification has turned to be a powerful tool to prove positivity conjectures, and the categorical interpretation of the matrix $\bigwedge^n S$ in terms of the category $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_\xi$ will be crucial for proving the conjectures.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:conj_cuntz_signs}
\cref{conj:cuntz_signs} is true.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We start first with the case $n\not\equiv d\ [2]$. The category $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_\xi$ equipped with the pivotal structure $a_{2p+d,-}$ is a non-degenerate fusion category with simple objects $X(\lambda)$ for $\lambda\in \tilde{C}_{n,d}$. The Verlinde formula asserts that the multiplicity of $X(\gamma)$ in $X(\alpha)\otimes X(\beta)$ is given by
\[
\sum_{\kappa \in \tilde{C}_{n,d}}\frac{\mathbb{S}_{\alpha,\kappa}\mathbb{S}_{\beta,\kappa}\bar{\mathbb{S}}_{\gamma,\kappa}}{\mathbb{S}_{0,\kappa}} = {}_p N_{a,b}^c\sigma_a\sigma_b \sigma_c,
\]
where $\tilde{\iota}_p(a)=\alpha, \tilde{\iota}_p(b) = \beta$, and $\tilde{\iota}_p(c)=\gamma$, the equality following from \cref{thm:categorification}. Since a multiplicity in a fusion category is non-negative, we deduce that ${}_p N_{a,b}^c\sigma_a\sigma_b \sigma_c$ is non-negative for all $a,b,c\in I_{n,d}$.
We now turn to the case of $n$ and $d$ odd. Since the category $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_\xi$ is a non-degenerate superfusion category, the same argument only prove that the structure constants are integers. But we have seen in \cref{prop:boxproduct} that in this case, the category $\mathcal{D}_\xi$, whose $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_\xi$ is a supermodularization, is equivalent to $\mathcal{D}_{\xi,0}\boxtimes \sVect$ with $\mathcal{D}_{\xi,0}$ a non-degenerate braided fusion category. The modular invariants of $\mathcal{D}_{\xi,0}$ and $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_\xi$ coincide up to signs, and the end of the proof is similar to the case $n\not\equiv d\ [2]$.
Finally, if both $n$ and $d$ are even, the category $\mathcal{D}_\xi$ is slightly degenerate and since $n>d$, \cref{prop:boxproduct} asserts that the category $\mathcal{D}_\xi$ is not of the form $\mathcal{D}_{\xi,0}\boxtimes \sVect$ for $\mathcal{D}_{\xi,0}$ non-degenerate. Hence we cannot find a change of signs $(\sigma_a)_{a\in I_{n,d}}\in\{\pm 1\}^{I_{n,d}}$ such that for any $a,b,c\in I_{n,d}$, the integer ${}_pN_{a,b}^c\sigma_a\sigma_b\sigma_c$ is non-negative.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:conj_cuntz_ring}
\cref{conj:cuntz_ring} is true.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Only the case of $n$ and $d$ even needs a comment. Since the fusion ring defined by $\bigwedge^nS$ is isomorphic to the quotient of the Grothendieck ring $\Gr(\mathcal{D}_{\xi})$ by the ideal generated by $[\varepsilon]+[\mathbf{1}]$, we easily check that the ring $\Gr(\mathcal{D}_{\xi})$ is isomorphic to the ring $A'$ of \cref{conj:cuntz_ring}. Note that we crucially need that $N_{X,Y}^ZN_{X,Y}^{Z\otimes \varepsilon} = 0$ in $\Gr(\mathcal{D}_{\xi})$, which is true since $\varepsilon$ sits in non trivial degree for the $\mathbb{Z}/2d\mathbb{Z}$-grading.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction and selected results}
According to a classical result of Brzuchowski, Cicho\'n, Grzegorek and Ryll-Nardzewski \cite{BCGRN}, for any $\sigma$-ideal $\I$ with a Borel base on a Polish space $X$, any point-finite family $\J\subseteq\I$ with $\bigcup\J\notin\I$ contains a subfamily $\J'\subseteq \J$ whose union $\bigcup\J'$ does not belong to the smallest $\sigma$-algebra containing all Borel subsets of $X$ and sets in the ideal $\I$. This important result is referred to as the Four Poles Theorem. Some interesting applications of the Four Poles Theorem are described in \cite{CK}.
In this paper we generalize the Four Poles Theorem in various directions. First, we remove any restrictions on the $\sigma$-ideal $\I$, and second, establish a stronger non-measurability property of the union $\bigcup\J'$. Our proof is game-theoretic and exploits the Set-Cover game defined as follows.
Let $\I$ be a $\sigma$-ideal on a set $X$ and $\A$ be a family of subsets of $X$. The Set-Cover Game $\Game_{\A{\setminus}\I,\A}$ is played by two players $\mathsf S$ and $\mathsf C$ (abbreviated from {\sf Set} and {\sf Cover}). The player $\mathsf S$ starts the game selecting a set $S_1\in\A\setminus\I$. The player $\mathsf C$ answers with a countable cover $\C_1\subseteq\A$ of the set $S_1$. At the $n$th inning player $\mathsf S$ chooses a set $S_n\in\A\setminus\I$ such that $S_n$ is contained in some set of the cover $\mathcal C_{n-1}$ of $S_{n-1}$ and player $\mathsf C$ answers with a countable cover $\mathcal C\subseteq\A$ of the set $S_n$. At the end of the game the player $\mathsf C$ is declared the winner of the Set-Cover game $\Game_{\A{\setminus}\I,\I}$ if the intersection $\bigcap_{n\in\w}S_n$ is not empty. In the other case the player $\mathsf S$ wins the game ${\mathbf\Game}_{\A{\setminus}\I,\A}$.
The family $\A$ is called {\em $\I$-winning} if the player $\mathsf C$ has a winning strategy in the Set-Cover game ${\mathbf\Game}_{\A{\setminus}\I,\A}$.
For a subset $S\subseteq X$ we write $\A(S)=\{A\in\A:A\subseteq S\}$. A set $S\subseteq X$ is called {\em $\I$-positive} if $S\notin\I$.
The main result of this paper is the following theorem generalizing the Four Poles Theorem.
\begin{theorem}\label{t:main1} Let $\I$ be a $\sigma$-ideal on a set $X$ and $\A$ be an $\I$-winning family of subsets of $X$. Let $\J\subseteq\I$ be a point-finite family of subsets of cardinality $|\J|\le\mathfrak c$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For any set $A\in\A$ with $A\cap\bigcup\J\notin\I$ there exist a subfamily $\J'\subseteq\J$ and a set $B\in\A(A)\setminus\I$ such that $B\cap\bigcup\J'\notin\I$ and $\A(B\cap\bigcup\J')\subseteq\I$.
\item For any set $A\in\A(\bigcup\J)\setminus\I$ there exist a subfamily $\J'\subseteq\J$ and a set $B\in\A(A)\setminus\I$ such that $\A(B\cap\bigcup\J')\cup\A(B\setminus\bigcup\J')\subseteq\I$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
Theorem~\ref{t:main1} motivates the problem of recognizing $\I$-winning families $\A$. To answer this problem, we shall prove that so are Polishable families of sets.
\begin{definition} A family $\A$ on a topological space $X$ is {\em Polishable} if for every $A\in\A$ there exist a Polish space $P$ and a continuous surjective map
$f:P\to A$ such that $\{f[B]:B\in\mathcal B\}\subseteq\A$ for some base $\mathcal B$ of the topology of $P$.
\end{definition}
A family $\A$ of subsets of a set $X$ is called {\em multiplicative} if for any finite subfamily $\F\subseteq \A$ we have $\bigcap\F\in\A$. In particular, $X=\bigcap\emptyset\in\A$.
The following theorem will be proved in Section~\ref{s:Polishable}.
\begin{theorem}\label{t:Polish} Every Polishable multiplicative family $\A$ of subsets of a Hausdorff space $X$ is $\I$-winning for any ideal $\I$ on $X$.
\end{theorem}
In Section~\ref{s:Polishable} we shall prove that for any Polish space $X$ the descriptive classes $\mathbf\Sigma^1_1(X)$, $\mathbf\Delta^1_1(X)$, $\mathbf\Sigma^0_\alpha(X)$, $\mathbf\Pi^0_\alpha(X)$, $\mathbf\Delta^0_\beta(X)$ for $1\le\alpha<\beta<\w_1$ are Polishable.
Applying Theorems~\ref{t:main1} and \ref{t:Polish} to the Polishable class $\mathbf\Delta^1_1(X)$ of Borel subsets of a Polish space $X$, we obtain the following generalization of the Four Poles Theorem.
\begin{corollary}\label{c:main} Let $\I$ be a $\sigma$-ideal on a Polish spaces $X$ and $\J\subseteq\I$ be a point-finite subfamily.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\bigcup\J\notin\I$, then there exists a Borel set $B\subseteq X$ and a subfamily $\J'\subseteq\J$ such that $B\cap\bigcup\J'\notin\I$ and $B\cap\bigcup\J'$ contains no $\I$-positive Borel subsets of $X$.
\item If $X=\bigcup\J$, then there exist an $\I$-positive Borel set $B\subseteq X$ and a subfamily $\J'\subseteq\J$ such that the sets $B\cap\bigcup\J'$ and $B\setminus\bigcup\J'$ contain no $\I$-positive Borel subsets of $X$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}
Theorem~\ref{t:main1} will be derived from a more precise and extensive Theorem~\ref{t:main}, which implies also some new results for the classical ideals related to measure and category.
\begin{theorem}\label{t:measure} Let $\lambda$ be a continuous probability $\sigma$-additive Borel measure on a Polish space $X$ and $\mathcal I=\{A\subseteq X:\lambda^*(A)=0\}$. For any subfamily $\J\subseteq\mathcal I$ and any $\e>0$ there exist a Borel set $A\subseteq X$ of measure $\lambda(A)>1-\e$ and a finite partition $\J=\J_1\cup\dots\cup\J_n$ of the set $\J$ such that $\lambda_*(A\cap\bigcup\J_i)=0$ for all $i\in\{1,\dots,n\}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}\label{t:category} Let $X$ be a compact metrizable space having no isolated points and let $\I$ be the $\sigma$-ideal of meager sets in $X$. For any subfamily $J\subseteq\I$ there exists a closed nowhere dense set $D\subseteq X$ such that for any neighborhood $U$ of $D$ in $X$ there exists a finite partition $\J=\J_1\cup\dots\cup\J_n$ of the set $\J$ such that for every $i\in\{1,\dots,n\}$ the set $\bigcup\J_i\setminus U$ contains no non-meager Borel subsets of $X$.
\end{theorem}
Theorem~\ref{t:main1} has interesting applications to $(\A,\I)$-saturated maps. Let $\I$ be a $\sigma$-ideal on a set $X$ and $\A$ be a family of subsets of $X$. A set $S\subseteq X$ is called {\em $(\A,\I)$-saturated} if for any $A\in\A$ with $A\cap S\notin\I$ there exists a set $B\in\A(A\cap S)\setminus\I$.
A function $f:X\to Y$ to a topological space $Y$ is called {\em $(\A,\I)$-saturated} if for any open set $U\subseteq Y$ the preimage $f^{-1}[U]$ is $(\A,\I)$-saturated in $X$.
The following implications of Theorem~\ref{t:main1} will be proved in Section~\ref{s:a}.
\begin{theorem} Let $\I$ be a $\sigma$-ideal on a set $X$ of cardinality $|X|\le\mathfrak c$ and $\A\ni X$ be an $\I$-winning family of subsets of $X$ such that the family $\A\setminus\I$ contains no disjoint uncountable subfamily. For any $(\A,\I)$-saturated map $f:X\to Y$ to a hereditarily paracompact space $Y$ there exists a subspace $Z\subseteq Y$ such that $Z$ contains no uncountable discrete subspaces and $f^{-1}[Y\setminus Z]\in\I$.
\end{theorem}
Another application of Theorem~\ref{t:main1} concerns the automatic continuity of $(\A,\I)$-saturated homomorphisms between topological groups. A family $\A$ of subsets of a group $G$ is called {\em left-invariant} if for any set $A\in\A$ and any $g\in X$ the set $gA$ belongs to the family $\A$. The family $\A\setminus\I$ is defined to have the {\em weak Steinhaus property} if there exists $n\in\IN$ such that for any set $A\in\A\setminus\I$ in $X$ the set $(AA^{-1})^n$ is a neighborhood of the identity in $X$. More information of the (weak) Steinhaus property of ideals can be found in \cite{BJGS}.
\begin{theorem} Assume $\I$ is a left-invariant $\sigma$-ideal on a topological group $X$ of cardinality $|X|\le\mathfrak c$ and $\A\ni X$ be a left-invariant $\I$-winning family of subsets of $X$ such that the family $\A\setminus\I$ has the weak Steinhaus property. Each $(\A,\I)$-saturated homomorphism $h:X\to Y$ to a topological group $Y$ is continuous.
\end{theorem}
\section{Preliminaries}
For a set $A$, let $[A]^{\le \w}=\{S\subseteq A:|S|\le\w\}$ and $A^{<\w}=\bigcup_{n\in\w}A^n$. For any $s\in A^{<\w}$ let
$$A^{<\w}_s=\{t\in A^{<\w}:s\subseteq t\}\mbox{ \ and \ }A^{\w}_s=\{t\in A^{<\w}:s\subset t\}.$$
The set $A^{<\w}$ is a tree with respect to the partial order $\subseteq$. Two elements $s,t\in A^{<\w}$ are called {\em comparable} if $s\subseteq t$ or $t\subseteq s$. In the other case, the elements $s,t$ are called {\em incomparable}.
A subset $L\subseteq A^{<\w}$ is called a {\em chain} if $L$ is linearly ordered by the relation $\subseteq$ (which means that for any $s,t\in L$ either $s\subseteq t$ or $t\subseteq s$).
A nonempty subset $T\subseteq A^{<\w}$ is called a {\em perfect subtree} if for every $t\in T$ the set $T\cap A^{<\w}_t$ contains at least two incomparable elements.
A {\em Cantor scheme} is an indexed family of sets $(X_s)_{s\in 2^{<\w}}$ such that for every $s\in 2^{<\w}$ we have $X_{s\hat{\;}0}\cup X_{s\hat{\;}1}=X_s$ and $X_{s\hat{\;}0}\cap X_{s\hat{\;}1}=\emptyset$.
For a family of sets $\A$, let $\sigma\A=\{\bigcup\mathcal B:\mathcal B\in[\A]^{\le\w}\}$ be the family of countable unions of sets in $\A$.
For a subset $S\subseteq X$ we denote by $\A(S)$ the family $\{A\in\A:A\subseteq S\}$.
Given a set $A$ and a family of sets $\C$, we write $A\prec\C$ if $A\subseteq C$ for some set $C\in\C$.
An {\em ideal} on a set $X$ is a nonempty family $\I$ of subsets of $X$ such that
for any sets $I,J\in\I$, any subset of the union $I\cup J$ belongs to $\I$. The family $\{\emptyset\}$ is the smallest ideal on $X$. An ideal $\I$ on $X$ is called a {\em $\sigma$-ideal} if $\sigma\I=\I$.
\section{$\I$-Lindel\"of and $\I$-ccc families}
\begin{definition}
Let $\I$ be an ideal on a set $X$. A family $\A$ of subsets of $X$ is called
\begin{itemize}
\item {\em $\I$-Lindel\"of} if for any subset $S\subseteq X$, there exists a countable subfamily $\F\subseteq\A(S)$ such that $\A(S\setminus\bigcup\F)\subseteq\I$;
\item {\em $\I$-ccc} if each disjoint subfamily $\F\subseteq\A\setminus\I$ is at most countable.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}\label{l:ccc} Let $\I$ be an ideal on a set $X$ and $\A$ be a family of subsets of $X$. If $\A$ is $\I$-ccc, then $\A$ is $\I$-Lindel\"of.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Assume that $\A$ is $\I$-ccc. Given any subset $S\subseteq X$, use the Kuratowski-Zorn Lemma to find a maximal disjoint family $\mathcal F$ in the family $\A(S)\setminus\I$. Since $\A$ is $\I$-ccc, the family $\mathcal F$ is at most countable. The maximality of the family $\mathcal F$ ensures that $\A(S\setminus \bigcup\F)\subseteq\I$. Therefore, the countable family $\F$ witnesses that the family $\A$ is $\I$-Lindel\"of.
\end{proof}
\begin{problem}\label{prob1} Let $\I$ be a $\sigma$-ideal and $\A$ be an $\I$-Lindel\"of $\sigma$-algebra of subsets of $X$. Is $\A$ $\I$-ccc?
\end{problem}
Below we shall give two partial affirmative answers to Problem~\ref{prob1}.
\begin{proposition} Let $\I$ be an ideal on a set $X$ and $\A$ be a family of subsets of $X$. If $|\sigma\A|<2^{\w_1}$, then the family $\A$ is $\I$-Lindel\"of if and only if it is $\I$-ccc.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} The ``if'' part follows from Lemma~\ref{l:ccc}. To prove the ``only if'' part, assume that $\A$ is $\I$-Lindel\"of but not $\I$-ccc. Then there exists an uncountable family of pairwise disjoint sets $\{B_\alpha\}_{\alpha\in\w_1}\subseteq\A\setminus\I$. By the $\I$-Lindel\"of property, for any subset $\Omega\subseteq\w_1$, there exists a set $\Sigma_\Omega\in\sigma\A$ such $\Sigma_\Omega\subseteq\bigcup_{\alpha\in\Omega}B_\alpha$ and $\A(\bigcup_{\alpha\in\Omega}B_\alpha\setminus\Sigma_\Omega)\subseteq\I$. Since $|\sigma\A|<2^{\w_1}$, there are two distinct subsets $\Omega,\Lambda\subseteq\w_1$ such that $\Sigma_\Omega=\Sigma_\Lambda$. Choose any ordinal $\beta\in \Omega\triangle\Lambda$. If $\beta\in\Omega\setminus\Lambda$, then
$\emptyset=B_\alpha\cap \Sigma_\Lambda=B_\alpha\cap \Sigma_\Omega$ and hence $B_\alpha\in\A(\bigcup_{\alpha\in\Omega}B_\alpha\setminus\Sigma_\Omega)\setminus\I$, which contradicts the choice of the set $\Sigma_\Omega$. If $\beta\in \Lambda\setminus\Omega$, then $B_\alpha\in\A(\bigcup_{\alpha\in\Lambda}B_\alpha\setminus\Sigma_\Lambda)\setminus\I$, which contradicts the choice of the set $\Sigma_\Lambda$.
\end{proof}
Another partial answer to Problem~\ref{prob1} can be obtanied by application of Theorem~\ref{t:main1}.
\begin{proposition} Let $\I$ be a $\sigma$-ideal on a set $X$ and $\A$ be a multiplicative $\I$-winning family of subsets of $X$ such that for every $\Sigma\in\sigma\A$ the set $X\setminus \Sigma$ is $(\A,\I)$-saturated. The family $\A$ is $\I$-ccc if and only if $\A$ is $\I$-Lindel\"of.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} If $\A$ is $\I$-ccc, then $\A$ is $\I$-Lindel\"of by Lemma~\ref{l:ccc}. Now assume that $\A$ is $\I$-Lindel\"of. Assuming that $\A$ is not $\I$-ccc, we can find an uncountable family of pairwise disjoint sets $\{B_\alpha\}_{\alpha\in\w_1}\subseteq\A\setminus\I$. Consider the $\sigma$-ideal
$$\J=\{J\subseteq X:\exists \alpha\in\w_1\;\forall \beta\in[\alpha,\w_1)\;\;J\cap B_\alpha\in \I\}.$$
It is clear that $\I\subseteq\J$, $\{B_\alpha\}_{\alpha\in\w_1}\subseteq\J$ and $\bigcup_{\alpha\in\w_1}B_\alpha\notin\J$. Since $\I\subseteq\J$, the $\I$-winning property of the family $\A$ implies the $\J$-winning property of $\A$. By Theorem~\ref{t:main1}, there exist a set $A\in\A$ and a subset $\Omega\subseteq\w_1$ such that $A\cap\bigcup_{\alpha\in\Omega}B_\alpha\notin\J$ and $\A(A\cap \bigcup_{\alpha\in\Omega}B_\alpha)\subseteq\J$.
By the $\I$-Lindel\"of property of the family $\A$, there exists a set $\Sigma\subseteq\bigcup_{\alpha\in \Omega}B_\alpha$ such that $\Sigma\in\sigma\A$ and $\A(\bigcup_{\alpha\in\Omega}B_\alpha\setminus \Sigma)\subseteq\I$.
We claim that the set $J=\bigcup_{\alpha\in\Omega}B_\alpha\setminus\Sigma$ belongs to the ideal $\J$. This will follow as soon as we check that $J\cap B_\alpha\in\I$ for every $\alpha\in\w_1$. If $\alpha\in\w_1\setminus\Omega$, then $J\cap B_\alpha$ is empty and hence belongs to $\I$. So, we assume that $\alpha\in\Omega$. Assuming that $J\cap B_\alpha\notin\I$, we conclude that $B_\alpha\setminus \Sigma=B_\alpha\cap J\notin\I$. Taking into account that $X\setminus\Sigma$ is $(\A,\I)$-saturated and $B_\alpha\in\A$, we conclude that $\A(B_\alpha\setminus \Sigma)\not\subseteq\I$, which contradicts $\A(\bigcup_{\alpha\in\Omega}B_\alpha\setminus\Sigma)\subseteq\I$. This contradiction shows that $J\cap B_\alpha\in \I$ and hence $J\in\J$. It follows from $J\in\J$ and $A\cap\bigcup_{\alpha\in\Omega}B_\alpha\notin\J$ that $A\cap\Sigma=A\cap\bigcup_{\alpha\in\Omega}B_\alpha\setminus J\notin\J$. The multiplicativity of the family $\A$ and $\Sigma\in\sigma\A$ ensure that $\A(A\cap\Sigma)\not\subseteq\J$ and hence $\A(A\cap\bigcup_{\alpha\in\Omega}B_\alpha)\not\subseteq\J$, which contradicts the choice of $A$ and $\Omega$. This contradiction shows that the family $\A$ is $\I$-ccc.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary} Let $\I$ be a $\sigma$-ideal on a set $X$ and $\A$ be a $\I$-winning $\sigma$-algebra of subsets of $X$. The family $\A$ is $\I$-ccc if and only if $\A$ is $\I$-Lindel\"of.
\end{corollary}
\section{Measurable versus saturated sets}
In this section we assume that $\I$ is a $\sigma$-ideal of subsets of a set $X$ and $\A$ is a family of subsets of $X$.
\begin{definition}
A set $S\subseteq X$ is defined to be
\begin{itemize}
\item {\em $(\A,\I)$-measurable} if there are sets $A_1,A_2\in\A$ such that $A_1\subseteq S\subseteq X\setminus A_2$ and $X\setminus (A_1\cup A_2)\in\I$;
\item {\em $(\A+\I)$} if $S=A\cup I$ for some sets $A\in\A$ and $I\in\I$;
\item {\em $(\A,\I)$-saturated} if for any $A\in\A$ with $A\cap S\notin\I$ we have $\A(A\cap S)\not\subseteq\I$;
\item {\em $(\A\setminus\I)$-Ramsey} if for every $A\in\A\setminus\I$ there exists $B\in\A\setminus\I$ such that $B\subseteq A\cap S$ or $B\subseteq A\setminus S$.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition}\label{p:saturated} Let $S$ be a subset of $X$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The set $S$ is $(\A,\I)$-measurable if and only if $S$ and $X\setminus S$ are $(\A+\I)$.
\item If $\A$ is multiplicative and $S$ is $(\A+\I)$, then $S$ is $(\A,\I)$-saturated.
\item If $S$ and $X\setminus S$ are $(\A,\I)$-saturated, then $S$ and $X\setminus S$ are $(\A\setminus\I)$-Ramsey.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} (1) Assume $S$ is $(\A,\I)$-measurable. Let $A_1,A_2\in \A$ be such that $A_1\subseteq S\subseteq X\setminus A_2$ and $X\setminus (A_1\cup A_2)\in\I$. Notice that
$S=A_1\cup (S\setminus A_1)$ and $S\setminus A_1\subseteq X\setminus (A_1\cup A_2).$ So, $S$ is $(\A+\I)$. To see that $X\setminus S$ is $(\A+\I)$, notice that $S$ is $(\A,\I)$-measurable if and only if $X\setminus S$ is $(\A,\I)$-measurable.
Now assume that $S$ and $X\setminus S$ are $(\A+\I)$. Then $S=A_1\cup I_1$, $X\setminus S=A_2\cup I_2$, where $A_1, A_2\in\A$, $I_1, I_2\in \I$. Notice that $A_1\subseteq S\subseteq X\setminus A_2$ and $X\setminus (A_1\cup A_2)\subseteq I_1\cup I_2\in\I$.
\smallskip
(2) Assume $S$ is $(\A+\I)$. Let $A\in\A$ and $I\in \I$ be such that $S=A\cup I$. Take any $A'\in \A$ with $A'\cap S\notin \I$. Then $A'\cap A\notin\I$ and by multiplicativity $A'\cap A\in\A(A'\cap S)\setminus\I$.
\smallskip
(3) Assume that $S$ and $X\setminus S$ are $(\A,\I)$-saturated. We shall show that $S$ is $(\A\setminus \I)$-Ramsey. Take $A\in\A\setminus\I$. Then $S\cap A\notin\I$ or $S\cap (X\setminus A)\notin\I$. By the $(\A,\I)$-saturatedness, there exists $A'\subseteq A$, $A'\in\A\setminus\I$ such that $A'\subseteq S$ or $A'\subseteq X\setminus S$.
\end{proof}
\begin{example}\label{ex:measurable} Let $X$ be an uncountable Polish space, $\I=[X]^{\le\w}$ be the $\sigma$-ideal of all almost countable sets in $X$ and $\A$ be the family of all Borel subsets of $X$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item A subset $S\subseteq X$ is $(\A,\I)$-measurable if and only if $S$ is Borel.
\item Each analytic subset $A\subseteq X$ is $(\A,\I)$-saturated.
\item Under CH, there exists a non-Borel subset $S\subseteq X$ such that $S$ and $X\setminus S$ are $(\A,\I)$-saturated.
\end{enumerate}
\end{example}
\begin{proof}
(1) If $S$ is $(\A,\I)$-measurable, then $S$ is the union of a Borel set and a countable set. Hence, $S$ is Borel.
\smallskip
(2) Assume that $A$ is analytic. To see that $A$ is saturated, take any Borel subset $B$ of $X$ such that $A\cap B\notin\I$. By \cite[29.1]{Ke} the analytic set $A\cap B$ contains an uncountable compact subset, witnessing that $\A(A\cap B)\not\subseteq\I$.
\smallskip
(3) Assume CH and fix an enumeration $(B_\alpha)_{\alpha\in\w_1}$ of all Borel subsets of $X$. Inductively, we can construct two transfinite sequences $(P_\alpha)_{\alpha\in\w_1}$ and $(Q_\alpha)_{\alpha\in\w_1}$ of compact subsets of $X$ such that for every $\alpha\in\w_1$ the following conditions are satisfied:
\begin{itemize}
\item $(P_\alpha\cup Q_\alpha)\cap\bigcup_{\beta<\alpha}(P_\beta\cup Q_\beta)=\emptyset$;
\item $P_\alpha\cap Q_\alpha=\emptyset$ and $P_\alpha\cup Q_\alpha\subseteq B_\alpha$;
\item if $B_\alpha\setminus\bigcup_{\beta<\alpha}(P_\alpha\cup Q_\alpha)$ is uncountable, then $P_\alpha$ and $Q_\alpha$ are uncountable.
\end{itemize}
We claim that the set $S=\bigcup_{\alpha\in\w_1}P_\alpha$ and its complement $X\setminus S$ are $(\A,\I)$-saturated. First we show that the set $S$ is $(\A,\I)$-saturated. Given any Borel set $B\subseteq X$ with uncountable intersection $B\cap S$, we should prove that $B\cap S$ contains an uncountable Borel subset of $X$. If for some $\alpha\in\w_1$ the intersection $B\cap P_\alpha$ is uncountable, then $B\cap P_\alpha$ is a required uncountable Borel set. So, we assume that $B\cap P_\alpha$ is countable for every countable ordinal $\alpha$.
Find a countable ordinal $\alpha$ such that $B=B_\alpha$. The inductive condition (3) ensures that $B_\alpha\setminus\bigcup_{\beta<\alpha}(P_\beta\cup Q_\beta)$ is countable. Since $\bigcup_{\beta<\alpha}(B_\alpha\cap P_\beta)$ is countable, the set $B_\alpha\setminus\bigcup_{\beta<\alpha}Q_\beta\supseteq B_\alpha\cap S$ is countable, which contradicts the choice of $B$. This contradiction shows that for some $\alpha\in\w_1$ the intersection $B\cap P_\alpha$ is uncountable.
By analogy we can prove that for any Borel set $B\subseteq X$ with uncountable complement $B\setminus S$ there exists $\alpha\in\w_1$ such that $B\cap Q_\alpha$ is an uncountable Borel subset of $B\setminus S$.
\end{proof}
\begin{problem}{\rm Can the set $S$ in Example~\ref{ex:measurable}(3) be constructed in ZFC?}
\end{problem}
\section{Polishable and $\I$-winning classes}\label{s:Polishable}
In this section we prove that Polishable classes are $\I$-winning.
Let us recall that a class $\A$ of subsets of a topological space $X$ is {\em Polishable} if for any set $A\in\A$ there exist a Polish space $P$, a base $\mathcal B$ of the topology of $P$ and a continuous map $f:P\to X$ such that $f[P]=A$ and $f[B]\in\A$ for every basic set $B\in\mathcal B$.
A class $\A$ of subsets of a set $X$ is {\em $\I$-winning} for an ideal $\I$ of subsets of $X$ if the player $\mathsf C$ has a winning strategy in the Set-Cover game $\Game_{\A\setminus\I,\A}$.
A {\em strategy} of the player $\mathsf C$ in the game $\Game_{\A\setminus\I,\A}$ is a function $\strategy\colon(\A\setminus\I)^{<\w}\to[\A]^{\le\w}$ such that $\{X\}=\strategy(\emptyset)$ and $S_n=\bigcup\strategy(S_0,\dots,S_n)$ for every nonempty finite sequence $(S_0,\dots,S_n)\in\mathcal (\A\setminus\I)^{<\w}$ such that $S_i\prec\strategy(S_0,\dots,S_{i-1})$ for all $i\le n$.
A strategy $\strategy\colon(\mathcal A\setminus\I)^{<\w}\to[\A]^{\le\w}$ is {\em winning} if $\bigcap_{n\in\w}S_n\ne\emptyset$ for any sequence $(S_n)_{n\in\w}\in(\A\setminus\I)^\w$ such that $S_n\prec\strategy(S_0,\dots,S_{n-1})$ for all $n\in\w$.
The following theorem is the main result of this section.
\begin{theorem}\label{t:Polishable} Let $\A$ be a multiplicative class of subsets of a Hausdorff topological space $X$. If $\A$ is Polishable, then $\A$ is $\I$-winning for every ideal $\I$ on $X$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Since the class $\A$ is Polishable, for every set $A\in\A$ there exist a Polish space $P_A$, a countable base $\mathcal B_A$ of the topology of $P_A$ and a continuous map $f_A:P_A\to X$ such that $f_A[P_A]=A$ and $\{f[B]:B\in\mathcal B\}\subseteq\A$. We shall assume that the base $\mathcal B_A$ consists of nonempty sets. Let $\rho_A$ be a complete metric generating the topology of the Polish space $P_A$. For every $n\in\w$, let $\mathcal B_{n,A}=\{B\in\mathcal B_A:\diam_{\rho_A}(B)<2^{-n}\}$. Let $\mathcal B=\bigcup_{A\in\A}\mathcal B_A$.
Now we describe a winning strategy for the player $\mathsf C$ in the set-cover game $\Game_{\A\setminus\I,\A}$. The player $\mathsf S$ starts the game selecting a set $S_1\in\A\setminus\I$. The player $\mathsf C$ answers with the countable cover $\strategy(S_1)=\{f_{S_1}[B_1]:B_1\in\mathcal B_{1,S_1}\}$ of $S_1$. Then player $\mathsf S$ selects a set $S_2\in\A\setminus\I$ with $S_2\prec\strategy(S_1)$. The latter condition allows the player $\mathsf C$ to find a set $\Phi_1(S_1,S_2)\in \mathcal B_{1,S_1}$ with $S_2\subseteq f_{S_1}[\Phi_1(S_1,S_2)]$ and suggest the countable cover $\strategy(S_1,S_2)=\{S_2\cap f_{S_1}[B_1]\cap f_{S_2}[B_2]:B_1\in\mathcal B_{2,S_1},\;\overline B_1\subseteq \Phi_1(S_1),\;\;B_2\in\mathcal B_{2,S_2}\}$ of the set $S_2$ to the player $\mathsf S$ who selects a set $S_3\in\mathcal S\setminus\I$ with $S_3\prec\strategy(S_1,S_2)$ and so on.
More formally, we can construct inductively two functions
$\strategy:(\A\setminus\I)^{<\w}\to[\A]^{\le\w}$ and $\Phi:(\A\setminus\I)^{<\w}\to \mathcal B^{<\w}$ such that $\strategy(\emptyset)=\{X\}$ and for every sequence $(S_1,\dots,S_n)\in(\A\setminus\I)^{<\w}$ the following conditions are satisfied:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Phi(S_1,\dots,S_n)=\big(\Phi_i(S_1,\dots,S_n)\big)_{i=1}^n\in \prod_{i=1}^n\mathcal B_{n,S_i}$;
\item if $S_n\prec \strategy(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1})$, then $S_n\subseteq\bigcap_{i=1}^{n-1} f_{S_i}[\Phi_i(S_1,\dots,S_n)]$;
\item $\strategy(S_1,\dots,S_n)$ equals \\ $\left\{S_n\cap \bigcap_{i=1}^n f_{S_i}[B_i]:\;
(B_i)_{i=1}^n\in\big(\prod_{i=1}^{n-1}\{B\in \mathcal B_{n,S_i}:\overline B\subseteq \Phi_i(S_1,\dots,S_n)\}\big)\times\mathcal B_{n,S_n}\right\}$;
\item $\overline{\Phi_i(S_1,\dots,S_n)}\subseteq \Phi_i(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1})$ for every $1\le i<n$.
\end{enumerate}
The multiplicativity of the class $\A$ and the choice of the functions $f_A$ and bases $\mathcal B_A$ guarantee that the function $\strategy$ is a well-defined strategy of the player $\mathsf C$ in the $(\A\setminus\I,\A)$-game.
It remains to prove that this strategy is winning. Take any $\strategy$-admissible sequence $(S_n)_{n=1}^\infty\in (\A\setminus\I)^\w$. The $\strategy$-admissibility of this sequence means that $S_n\prec \strategy(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1})$ for every $n\in\IN$. The inductive conditions (1) and (4) imply that for every $k\in\IN$ the intersection $\bigcap_{n=k}^\infty\Phi_k(S_1,\dots,S_n)$ is not empty and contains a unique point $z_k\in P_{S_k}$. Moreover, every neighborhood of $z_k$ contains all but finitely many sets $\Phi_k(S_1,\dots,S_n)$. The continuity of the map $f_{S_k}:P_{S_k}\to S_k$ and the inductive condition (2) imply that every neighborhood of the point $f_{S_k}(z_k)$ in $S_k$ contains all but finitely many sets $S_n$. This fact and the Hausdorff property of $X$ imply that the set $\{f_{S_k}(z_k):k\in\IN\}$ is a singleton and hence the intersection $\bigcap_{k\in\IN}S_k\supseteq \{f_{S_k}(z_k):k\in\IN\}$ is not empty.
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}
A topological space $X$ is called
\begin{itemize}
\item {\em functionally Hausdorff} if for any distinct points $x,y\in X$ there exists a continuous function $f:X\to\mathbb R$ such that $f(x)\ne f(y)$;
\item {\em analytic} if $X$ is functionally Hausdorff and there exists a continuous surjective function $f:P\to X$ defined on some Polish space $P$;
\item {\em Borel} if $X$ is functionally Hausdorff and there exists a continuous bijective function $f:P\to X$ defined on some Polish space $P$.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition}\label{p:A-Polishable} For any analytic space $X$, the family $\mathbf\Sigma^1_1(X)$ of analytic subspaces of $X$ is Polishable, multiplicative, and $\I$-winning for any $\sigma$-ideal $\I$ on $X$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} The Polishability of the family $\mathbf\Sigma^1_1(X)$ follows from the definition of an analytic space.
To see that the family $\mathbf\Sigma^1(X)$ is multiplicative,
take any analytic subspaces $A_1,A_2\subseteq X$. For every $i\in\{1,2\}$, find a Polish space $P_i$ and a continuous surjective map $f_i:P_i\to A_i$. The Hausdorff property of the space $X$ ensures that the set $P=\{(x,y)\in P_1\times P_2:f_1(x)=f_2(y)\}$ is closed in the Polish space $P_1\times P_2$. Observe that $A_1\cap A_2$ is the image of the Polish space $P$ under the continuous surjective map $f:P\to A_1\cap A_2$, $f:(x,y)\mapsto f_1(x)=f_2(y)$.
By Theorem~\ref{t:Polishable}, the family $\mathbf\Sigma^1_1(X)$ is $\I$-winning for any $\sigma$-ideal $\I$ on $X$.
\end{proof}
By analogy with Proposition~\ref{p:A-Polishable} we can prove the following proposition.
\begin{proposition}\label{p:Borel} For any Borel space $X$, the family $\mathbf\Delta^1_1(X)$ of Borel subspaces of $X$ is Polishable, multiplicative, and $\I$-winning for any $\sigma$-ideal $\I$ on $X$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proposition}\label{p:Borel2} For every Borel space $X$, the family $\mathbf\Delta^1_1(X)$ of Borel subspaces of $X$ coincides with the $\sigma$-algebra of Borel subsets of $X$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} Since the space $X$ is Borel, there exists a Polish space $P$ and a continuous bijective map $f:P\to X$. Then the space $X$ has countable network and hence the subspace $D=\{(x,y)\in X\times X:x\ne y\}$ also has a countable network and hence is Lindel\"of.
Since the Borel space $X$ is functionally Hausdorff, for any distinct points $x,y\in X$ there exists a continuous function $g_{x,y}:X\to \IR$ such that $g_{x,y}(x)\ne g_{x,y}(y)$. By the continuity of $g_{x,y}$, the pair $(x,y)\in D$ has an open neighborhood $O_{x,y}\subseteq D$ such that $g_{x,y}(x')\ne g_{x,y}(y')$ for any $(x',y')\in O_{x,y}$.
Since the space $D$ is hereditarily Lindel\"of, the open cover $\{O_{x,y}:(x,y)\in D\}$ has a countable subcover $\{O_{x,y}:(x,y)\in C\}$. Here $C$ is a suitable countable subset of $D$. Then the continuous function $$g:X\to \mathbb R^C,\quad g:z\mapsto (g_{x,y}(z))_{(x,y)\in C},$$ is injective.
\smallskip
Now we ready to prove that the family $\mathbf\Delta^1_1(X)$ of Borel subspaces of $X$ coincides with the $\sigma$-algebra $\A$
of Borel subsets of $X$. First we prove that $\A\subseteq\mathbf\Delta^1_1(X)$.
Given any Borel set $A\in\A$, we obtain that $f^{-1}[A]$ is a Borel subset of the Polish space $P$. By \cite[13.1]{Ke}, there exists a Polish space $Q$ and a continuous bijective function $g:Q\to f^{-1}[A]$. Then the continuous bijective function $f\circ g:Q\to A$ witnesses that $A\in\mathbf\Delta^0_1(X)$.
Now take any set $A\in\mathbf\Delta^0_1(X)$. Then $A=h[S]$ for some continuous bijective function $h:S\to A$ defined on a Polish space $S$. Since the function $g\circ h:S\to\IR^C$ is injective, we can apply Lusin--Souslin Theorem \cite[Theorem 15.1]{Ke} to conclude that the image $g\circ h[S]$ is a Borel subset of the Polish space $\IR^C$. Then $A=g^{-1}[g\circ h[S]]$ is a Borel subset of $X$, being the preimage of a Borel set under a continuous map.
\end{proof}
Let us recall that for a topological space $X$ by $\mathbf\Sigma^0_1(X)$ and $\mathbf\Pi^0_1(X)$ we denote the classes of open and closed subsets of $X$, respectively. For every countable ordinal $\alpha\ge 2$ the Borel classes $\mathbf\Sigma^0_\alpha(X)$ and $\mathbf\Pi^0_\alpha(X)$ are defined by the recursive formulas:
$$
\begin{aligned}
\mathbf\Sigma^0_\alpha(X)&=\textstyle\{\bigcup\F:\F\subseteq \bigcup_{\beta<\alpha}\mathbf\Pi^0_\beta(X),\;\;|\F|\le\w\big\};\\
\mathbf\Pi^0_\alpha(X)&=\textstyle\{\bigcap\F:\F\subseteq \bigcup_{\beta<\alpha}\mathbf\Sigma^0_\beta(X),\;\;|\F|\le\w\big\}.
\end{aligned}
$$
Let also $\mathbf\Delta^0_\alpha(X)=\mathbf\Sigma^0_\alpha(X)\cap\mathbf\Pi^0_\alpha(X)$.
\begin{proposition} \label{p:polishable}For any Polish space $X$, the classes $\mathbf\Sigma^0_\alpha(X),\mathbf\Pi^0_\alpha(X),\mathbf\Delta^0_\beta(X)$, $1\le\alpha<\beta<\w_1$ are multiplicative and Polishable.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} By \cite[Proposition 22.1]{Ke}, for every countable ordinal $\alpha\ge 1$ the classes $\mathbf\Sigma^0_\alpha(X)$, $\mathbf\Pi^0_\alpha(X)$ and $\mathbf\Delta^0_\alpha(X)$ are multiplicative. Next, we show that for $\alpha\ge 2$, these three classes are Polishable. We start with the classes $\mathbf\Sigma^0_\alpha(X)$ and $\mathbf\Delta^0_\alpha(X)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{l:Sigma-Polishable} Let $\alpha\ge 1$ be a countable ordinal. If $\alpha\ge 2$ or $X$ is zero-dimensional, then for every set $A\in\mathbf\Sigma^0_\alpha(X)$, there exists a closed subspace $P\subseteq\w^\w$ and a continuous bijective function $f:P\to A$ such that for any $s\in\w^{<\w}$ the image $f[P\cap\w^\w_s]$ belongs to the class $\mathbf\Delta^0_\alpha(X)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Fix a complete metric $d$ generating the topology of the Polish space $X$.
By \cite[Theorem 22.21]{Ke}, for the set $A\in\mathbf\Sigma^0_\alpha(X)$, there exists an indexed family of sets $(A_s)_{s\in\w^{<\w}}$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $A_s\in\mathbf\Delta^0_\alpha(X)$ for every $s\in \w^{<\w}$;
\item[(ii)] $A_\emptyset=A$;
\item[(iii)] for every $s\in\w^{<\w}$, the family $(A_{s\hat{\;}i})_{i\in\w}$ is a disjoint cover of $A_s$ by sets of $d$-diameter $<2^{-|s|}$;
\item[(iv)] for every $s\in \w^\w$ the intersection $\bigcap_{n\in\w}A_{s{\restriction}n}$ is a singleton if and only if $A_{s{\restriction}n}\ne\emptyset$ for all $n\in\w$.
\end{itemize}
Consider the closed subset $$P=\{s\in \w^\w:\forall n\in\w\;\;(A_{s{\restriction}n}\ne\emptyset)\}$$of $\w^\w$. Let $f:P\to A$ be the function assigning to each sequence $s\in P$ the unique point of the intersection $\bigcap_{n\in\w}A_{s{\restriction}n}$. The conditions (ii)--(iv) guarantee that the map $f:P\to A$ is well-defined, continuous, and bijective. Observe that the countable family $\mathcal B=\{P\cap\w^\w_s:s\in\w^{<\w}\}$ is a base of the topology of the Polish space $P$, and for every $s\in\w^{<\w}$ the image $f[P\cap\w^\w_s]=A_s$ belongs to the class $\mathbf\Delta^0_\alpha(X)$.
\end{proof}
Lemma~\ref{l:Sigma-Polishable} implies that for every countable ordinal $\alpha\ge 2$, the classes $\mathbf\Sigma^0_\alpha(X)$ and $\mathbf\Delta^0_\alpha(X)$ are Polishable. Moreover, their Polishability is witnessed by bijective functions.
\begin{lemma}\label{l:Sigma-Poli} For every countable ordinal $\alpha\ge 1$ and set $A\in\mathbf\Sigma^0_\alpha(X)$, there exist a Polish space $P$ and a continuous bijective map $f:P\to A$ such that $\{f[B]:B\in\mathcal B\}\subseteq\mathbf\Sigma^0_\alpha(X)$ for some base $\mathcal B$ of the topology of $P$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} If $\alpha\ge2$, then the existence of $P$, $f$ and $\mathcal B$ follows from Lemma~\ref{l:Sigma-Polishable}. For $\alpha=1$, we can take $P=A$, $f:P\to A$ be the identity function and $\mathcal B$ be any base of the topology of $A$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{l:Pi} For every countable ordinal $\alpha\ge 2$ and set $A\in\mathbf\Pi^0_\alpha(X)$, there exist a Polish space $P$ and a continuous bijective map $f:P\to A$ such that $\{f[B]:B\in\mathcal B\}\subseteq\mathbf\Pi^0_\alpha(X)$ for some base $\mathcal B$ of the topology of $P$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Given any set $A\in\mathbf\Pi^0_\alpha(X)$, find a sequence of sets $\{A_n\}_{n\in\w}\subseteq\bigcup_{\xi<\alpha}\mathbf\Sigma^0_\xi(X)$ such that $A=\bigcap_{n\in\w}A_n$. By Lemma~\ref{l:Sigma-Poli}, for every $n\in\w$ there exists a Polish space $P_n$ and a continuous bijective function $f_n:P_n\to A_n$ such that $\{f_n[B]:B\in\mathcal B_n\}\subseteq\bigcup_{\xi<\alpha}\mathbf\Sigma^0_\alpha(X)\subseteq\mathbf\Pi^0_\alpha(X)$ for some base $\mathcal B_n\ni P_n$ of the topology of $P_n$.
Consider the closed subspace
$$P=\{(x_n)_{n\in\w}\in\prod_{n\in\w}P_n:\forall n,m\in\w\quad f_n(x_n)=f_m(x_m)\}$$of the Polish space $\prod_{n\in\w}P_n$ and the continuous bijective map
$$f:P\to A,\quad f:(x_n)_{n\in\w}\mapsto f_0(x_0).$$ Endow the Polish space $P$ with the base
$$\mathcal B=\Big\{P\cap\prod_{n\in\w}B_n:(B_n)_{n\in\w}\in\prod_{n\in\w}\mathcal B_n,\quad|\{n\in\w:B_n\ne P_n\}|<\w\Big\}.$$ For every $B\in\mathcal B$, there exists a sequence $(B_n)_{n\in\w}\in\prod_{n\in\w}\mathcal B_n$ such that the set $F=\{n\in\w:B_n\ne P_n\}$ is finite and $B=P\cap\prod_{n\in\w}B_n$. It follows that $f[B]=A\cap \bigcap_{n\in F}f_n[B_n]\in\Pi^0_\alpha(X)$.
\end{proof}
Lemma~\ref{l:Pi} implies that for every countable ordinal $\alpha\ge 2$ the Borel class $\mathbf\Pi^0_\alpha(X)$ is Polishable. It remains to prove the Polishability of the class $\mathbf\Pi^0_1(X)$ of closed subsets of $X$. Given any set $A\in\Pi^0_1(X)$, we conclude that the space $A$ is Polish and hence is the image of a zero-dimensional Polish space $P$ under a closed continuous map $f:P\to X$ (see \cite[4.5.9]{Eng}). Since the space $P$ is zero-dimensional, the family $\mathcal B$ of all clopen sets in $P$ is a base of the topology of $P$. Since the map $f$ is closed, for every $B\in\mathcal B$ the image $f[B]$ is a closed subset of $F$ and hence $f[B]\in\mathbf\Pi^0_1(F)\subseteq\mathbf\Pi^0_1(X)$.
\end{proof}
It would be interesting to find examples of non-metrizable spaces $X$ whose algebra of Borel subsets is $\{\emptyset\}$-winning. One of possible candidates are fragmentable compact spaces.
Let us recall \cite[5.0.1]{Fab} that a compact Hausdorff space $X$ is {\em fragmentable} if there exists a metric $\rho$ on $X$ such that for every $\e>0$, every non-empty subset $A\subseteq X$ contains a nonempty relatively open subset of $\rho$-diameter $<\e$.
\begin{problem} Let $X$ be a fragmentable compact Hausdorff space. Is the family of Borel subsets of $X$ $\{\emptyset\}$-winning?
\end{problem}
\section{Main Result}
In this section we prove the main technical result of this paper, Theorem~\ref{t:main}. It involves a general version of the Set-Cover game $\Game_{\mathcal S,\C}$, which is played by two players $\mathsf{S}$ and $\mathsf{C}$ on a set $X$, endowed with two families of subsets $\mathcal S$ and $\mathcal C$.
The player $\mathsf S$ starts the game choosing a set $S_0\in\mathcal S$ and the player $\mathsf C$ answers suggesting a countable cover $\mathcal C_0\subseteq\mathcal C$ of $S_0$. At the $n$-th inning player $\mathsf S$ selects a set $S_n\in\mathcal S$ with $S_n\prec \mathcal C_{n-1}$ and player $\mathsf C$ answers with a countable cover $\mathcal C_n\in\mathcal C$ of the set $S_n$. At the end of the game, the player $\mathsf C$ is declared the winner if the intersection $\bigcap_{n\in\w}S_n$ is not empty. Otherwise the player $\mathsf S$ wins the game. This game is called the {\em Set-Cover game} and is denoted by $\Game_{\mathcal S,\C}$.
A {\em strategy} of the player $\mathsf C$ in the game $\Game_{\mathcal S,\mathcal C}$ is a function $\strategy\colon{\mathcal S}^{<\w}\to[\mathcal C]^{\le\w}$ such that $\{X\}=\strategy(\emptyset)$ and $S_n=\bigcup\strategy(S_0,\dots,S_n)$ for every nonempty finite sequence $(S_0,\dots,S_n)\in\mathcal S^{<\w}$ such that $S_i\prec\strategy(S_0,\dots,S_{i-1})$ for all $i\le n$.
Let $\strategy\colon{\mathcal S}^{<\w}\to[\mathcal C]^{\le\w}$ be a strategy of the player $\mathcal C$ in the game $\Game_{\mathcal S,\mathcal C}$. A sequence $(S_n)_{n\in\w}\in\mathcal S^\w$ is called $\strategy$-{\em admissible} if $S_n\prec \strategy(S_0,\dots,S_{n-1})$ for every $n\in\IN$.
A strategy $\strategy\colon\mathcal S^{<\w}\to[\mathcal C]^{\le\w}$ is {\em winning} if for any $\strategy$-admissible sequence $(S_n)_{n\in\w}\in\mathcal S^\w$, the intersection $\bigcap_{n\in\w} S_n$ is not empty.
\begin{theorem}\label{t:main} Let $\I$ be a $\sigma$-ideal on a set $X$ and $\mathcal S,\mathcal C$ be two families of subsets of a set $X$ such that the player $\mathsf C$ has a winning strategy in the game $\Game_{\mathcal S\setminus\I,\mathcal C}$. For every point-finite subfamily $\mathcal J\subseteq\I$ of cardinality $0<|\mathcal J|\le\mathfrak c$, there exists a Cantor scheme $(\mathcal J_s)_{s\in 2^{<\w}}$ with $\mathcal J_\emptyset=\mathcal J$ that has the following properties.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For any set $S\subseteq X$ with $S\cap\bigcup\J\notin\I$, the set $\{t\in 2^{<\w}: S\cap \bigcup\J_t\notin\I\}$ is a perfect subtree of the tree $2^{<\w}$.
\item For any $\sigma\in 2^{<\w}$ and $S\in\mathcal S$ with $S\cap \bigcup\mathcal J_\sigma\notin\I$, there exist a sequence $s\in 2^{<\w}_\sigma$ and a set $C\in\C(S)$ with $C\cap \bigcup\J_s\notin\I$ such that the set $\{t\in 2^{<\w}_s:\mathcal S(C\cap \bigcup\J_t)\not\subseteq\I\}$ is a chain in the tree $2^{<\w}$.
\item For any $\sigma\in 2^{<\w}$ and $S\in\mathcal S$ with $S\cap \bigcup\mathcal J_\sigma\notin\I$, there exist a sequence $s\in 2^{<\w}$ and a set $C\in\C(S)$ such that $\sigma\subset s$, $C\cap\bigcup\J_s\notin\I$ and $\mathcal S(C\cap\bigcup\J_s)\subseteq\I$.
\item For any $\sigma\in 2^{<\w}$ and $S\in\mathcal S(\bigcup\mathcal J_\sigma)\setminus\I$ there exist a sequence $s\in 2^{<\w}_\sigma$ and a set $C\in\C(S\cap \bigcup\J_s)\setminus\I$ such that the set $\{t\in 2^{<\w}_s:\mathcal S(C\cap \bigcup\J_t)\not\subseteq\I\}$ is a chain in the tree $2^{<\w}$.
\item For any $\sigma\in 2^{<\w}$ and $S\in\mathcal S(\bigcup\mathcal J_\sigma)\setminus\I$ there exist a sequence $s\in 2^{<\w}_\sigma$ and a set $C\in\C(S\cap\bigcup\J_s)\setminus\I$ such that either $\mathcal S(C\setminus J)\subseteq\I$ for some $J\in\J$ or $\mathcal S(C\cap \bigcup\J_t)\subseteq\I$ for any sequence $t\in 2^{<\w}$ with $s\subset t$.
\item If the family $\mathcal S$ is multiplicative and $\I$-Lindel\"of, then there exists a decreasing sequence $(\Sigma_n)_{n\in\w}\in(\sigma\mathcal S)^\w$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item for every $n\in\w$ and $s\in 2^n$ we have $\mathcal S(\bigcup\J_s\setminus\Sigma_n)\subseteq\I$;
\item for every $S\in\mathcal S\setminus\I$ there exist $C\in\C(S)\setminus\I$ such that either $\mathcal S(C\cap \Sigma_n)\subseteq\I$ for some $n\in\w$ or $\mathcal S(C\setminus J)\subseteq\I$ for some $J\in\J$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} It is well-known \cite[Theorem 11.4]{JW} that the Cantor cube $2^\w$ contains a subspace $\IB$ of cardinality continuum such that $\IB$ contains no uncountable compact subsets. Since $|\mathcal J|\le\mathfrak c$, there exists an injective function $\xi:\J\to \IB$.
The topology of the Cantor cube $2^\w$ is generated by the base $(2^\w_s)_{s\in 2^{<\w}}$ consisting of the clopen sets
$$2^\w_s=\{t\in 2^\w:s\subseteq t\},\quad s\in 2^{<\w}.$$
For every $s\in 2^{<\w}$, let $\J_s=\xi^{-1}[2^\w_s]$. It is clear that $(\J_s)_{s\in 2^{<\w}}$ is a Cantor scheme with $\J=\J_\emptyset$. In the following six lemmas we shall prove that this Cantor scheme has the properties (1)--(6).
By our assumption, the player $\mathsf C$ has a winning strategy $\strategy:(\mathcal S\setminus\I)^{<\w}\to[\C]^{\le\w}$ in the set-cover game $\Game_{\mathcal S\setminus\I,\C}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{l:1} For any set $S\subseteq X$ with $S\cap\bigcup\J\notin \I$ the set $T=\{t\in 2^{<\w}: S\cap \bigcup\J_t\notin\I\}$ is a perfect subtree of the tree $2^{<\w}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} First observe that $T$ contains the empty sequence and hence $T\ne\emptyset$. Given any $s\in T$ we should find two incomparable elements in the set $T\cap 2^{<\w}_s$. Consider the set $$U=\bigcup_{t\in 2^{<\w}_s\setminus T}(S\cap\textstyle\bigcup\J_t)\in\I.$$ It follows from $s\in T$ that $S\cap\bigcup\J_s\notin\I$ and hence $S\cap\bigcup\J_s\setminus U\notin\I$. Choose any point $x_0\in S\cap\bigcup\J_s\setminus U$ and find a set $J_0\in\J_s$ with $x_0\in J_0$. Since $J_0\in\J\subseteq\I$, the set $S\cap\bigcup\J_s\setminus(U\cup J_0)$ does not belong to the $\sigma$-ideal $\I$ and hence contains some point $x_1$. For this point find a set $J_1\in\J_s$ such that $x_1\in J_1$. Since $x_1\in J_1\setminus J_0$, the sets $J_0,J_1$ are distinct and hence there exist sequences $t_0,t_1\in 2^{<\w}_s$ such that $J_0\in\J_{t_0}$, $J_1\in\J_{t_1}$ and $\J_{t_0}\cap \J_{t_1}=\emptyset$.
It follows that $t_1,t_2$ are incomparable elements of the set $T\cap 2^{<\w}_s$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{l:2} For any $\sigma\in 2^{<\w}$ and $S\in\mathcal S$ with $S\cap \bigcup\mathcal J_\sigma\notin\I$ there exist a sequence $s\in 2^{<\w}_\sigma$ and a set $C\in\C(S)$ such that $C\cap \bigcup\J_s\notin\I$ and the set $\{t\in 2^{<\w}_s:\mathcal S(C\cap \bigcup\J_t)\not\subseteq\I\}$ is a chain in the tree $2^{<\w}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} To derive a contradiction, assume that there exists a sequence $\sigma\in 2^{<\w}$ and a set $S\in\mathcal S$ such that $S\cap\bigcup\mathcal J_\sigma\notin\I$ and for any $s\in 2^{<\w}_\sigma$ and set $C\in\C(S)$ with $C\cap \bigcup\J_s\notin \I$, the set $\{t\in 2^{<\w}_s:\mathcal S(C\cap\bigcup\J_t)\not\subseteq\I\}$ is not a chain in $2^{<\w}$.
Since $S\cap\bigcup\J_\sigma\notin\I$, the countable cover $\strategy(S)$ of $S$ contains a set $C\in\C(S)$ such that $C\cap\bigcup\J_\sigma\notin\I$. By our assumption, the set $\{t\in 2^{<\w}_\sigma:\mathcal S(C\cap\bigcup\J_t)\not\subseteq\I\}$ is not a chain and hence it contains some element $t_\emptyset$. For this element the family $\mathcal S(C\cap\bigcup\J_{t_\emptyset})$ contains some set $S_\emptyset\notin\I$
\begin{claim}\label{cl:ind-2} There exist indexed families $(S_s)_{s\in 2^{<\w}}$ and $(t_s)_{s\in 2^{<\w}}$ such that $S_\emptyset\subseteq S$, $\sigma\subseteq t_\emptyset$ and for every $n\in \IN$ and $s\in 2^n$ the following conditions are satisfied:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] $S_s\in \mathcal S(S_{s{\restriction}(n-1)}\cap\bigcup\J_{t_s})\setminus\I$;
\item[(ii)] $S_s\prec\strategy(S_{s{\restriction}0},\dots,S_{s{\restriction}(n-1)})$;
\item[(iii)] $t_{s\hat{\;}0}$ and $t_{s\hat{\;}1}$ are two incomparable elements of the poset $2^{<\w}_{t_s}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{claim}
\begin{proof} Assume that for some $n\in\w$ and all $s\in \bigcup_{k\le n}2^k$ we have constructed the set $S_s$ and the sequence $t_s$ satisfying the inductive conditions. Given any sequence $s\in 2^n$, we are going to construct sets $S_{s\hat{\;}0}, S_{s\hat{\;}1}$ and sequences $t_{s\hat{\;}0}, t_{s\hat{\;}1}$.
By the inductive condition (i), the set $S_s\in\mathcal S$ has $S_s=S_s\cap\bigcap\J_{t_s}\notin\I$ and then the countable cover $\strategy(S_{s{\restriction}0},\dots,S_s)\subseteq\C$ of set $S_s$ contains a set $C_s\in \C(S_s)$ such that $C_s\cap\bigcup\J_{t_s}\notin\I$.
By our assumption, the set $\{t\in 2^{<\w}_{t_s}:\mathcal S(C_s\cap\J_t)\not\subseteq\I\}$ contains two incomparable sequences $t_{s\hat{\;}0},t_{s\hat{\;}1}$. For every $i\in\{0,1\}$ the family $\mathcal S(C_s\cap\bigcup\J_{t_{s\hat{\;}i}})\setminus\I$ is not empty and hence contains some set $S_{s\hat{\;}i}$. This completes the inductive step.
\end{proof}
\begin{claim}\label{cl2:l2} For every sequence $s\in 2^\w$ the intersection $\bigcap_{n\in\w}\J_{t_{s{\restriction}n}}$ contains a unique element $J_s$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof} Consider the sequence $(S_{s{\restriction}n})_{n\in\w}$. The inductive conditions (i) and (ii) ensure that this sequence is $\strategy$-admissible. Since the strategy $\strategy$ is winning, the intersection $\bigcap_{n\in\w}S_{s{\restriction}n}$ is not empty and hence contains some point $a_s$.
For every $n\in\w$, the condition (i) in Claim~\ref{cl:ind-2} ensures that $a_{s}\in S_{s{\restriction}n}\subseteq\bigcup\J_{t_{s{\restriction}n}}$ and hence $a_s\in J_n$ for some set $J_n\in \J_{t_{s{\restriction}n}}$. Since the family $\J$ is point-finite, the family $\{J_n:n\in\w\}\subseteq\{J\in\J:a_s\in J\}$ is finite. Then for some set $J_s\in\J$ the set $\Omega=\{n\in\w:J_n=J_s\}$ is infinite. It follows that for every $n\in\Omega$ we have $J_s=J_n\in \J_{t_{s{\restriction}n}}$. Since the sequence $(t_{s{\restriction}n})_{n\in\w}$ is an infinite chain in the tree $2^{<\w}$, the sequence $(\J_{t_{s{\restriction}n}})_{n\in\w}$ is decreasing and its intersection $\bigcap\J_{t_{s{\restriction}n}}$ coincides with the singleton $\{J_s\}$.
\end{proof}
The condition (iii) of Claim~\ref{cl:ind-2} implies that the map
$$J_*:2^\w\to \J,\quad J_*:s\mapsto J_{\sigma},$$
is continuous and injective. By the compactness of $2^\w$, the map $J_*$ is a topological embedding. Then $\J$ contains the uncountable compact set $J_*[2^\w]$ and the space $\IB$ contains the uncountable compact set $\xi[J_*[2^\w]]$, which is a desirable contradiction completing the proof of Lemma~\ref{l:2}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{l:3} For any $\sigma\in 2^{<\w}$ and $S\in\mathcal S$ with $S\cap \bigcup\mathcal J_\sigma\notin\I$ there exist a sequence $t\in 2^{<\w}$ and set $C\in \C$ such that $\sigma\subset t$, $C\cap\bigcup\J_s\notin\I$ and $\mathcal S(C\cap\bigcup\J_t)\subseteq\I$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} By Lemma~\ref{l:2}, there exists a sequence $s\in 2^{<\w}_\sigma$ and set $C\in\C(S)$ such that $C\cap\bigcup\J_s\notin\I$ and the set $L=\{t\in 2^{<\w}_s:\mathcal S(C\cap \bigcup\J_t)\not\subseteq\I\}$ is a chain in the tree $2^{<\w}$. By Lemma~\ref{l:1}, the set $T=\{t\in 2^{<\w}:C\cap\bigcup\J_t\notin\I\}$ is a prefect subtree of $2^{<\w}$. Since $s\in T$, there exists a sequence $t\in T\setminus L$ such that $s\subset t$. It follows from $t\in T\setminus L$ that $C\cap\bigcup\J_s\notin\I$ and $\mathcal S(C\cap\bigcup\J_t)\subseteq\I$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{l:4} For any $\sigma\in 2^{<\w}$ and $S\in\mathcal S(\bigcup\mathcal J_\sigma)\setminus\I$ there exist a sequence $s\in 2^{<\w}_\sigma$ and a set $C\in\C(S\cap \bigcup\J_s)\setminus\I$ such that the set $\{t\in 2^{<\w}_s:\mathcal S(C\cap \bigcup\J_t)\not\subseteq\I\}$ is a chain in the tree $2^{<\w}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} To derive a contradiction, assume that there exists a sequence $\sigma\in 2^{<\w}$ and a set $S\in\mathcal S(\bigcup\mathcal J_\sigma)\setminus\I$ such that for any $s\in 2^{<\w}_\sigma$ and $C\in\C(S\cap\bigcup\J_s)\setminus \I$, the set $\{t\in 2^{<\w}_s:\mathcal S(C\cap\bigcup\J_t)\not\subseteq\I\}$ is not a chain in $2^{<\w}$.
\begin{claim}\label{cl:l4} There exist indexed families $(S_s)_{s\in 2^{<\w}}$ and $(t_s)_{s\in 2^{<\w}}$ such that $S_\emptyset\subseteq S$, $\sigma\subseteq t_\emptyset$ and for every $n\in \IN$ and $s\in 2^n$ the following conditions are satisfied:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] $S_s\in \mathcal S(S_{s{\restriction}(n-1)}\cap\bigcup\J_{t_s})\setminus\I$;
\item[(ii)] $S_s\prec\strategy(S_{s{\restriction}0},\dots,S_{s{\restriction}(n-1)})$;
\item[(iii)] $t_{s\hat{\;}0}$ and $t_{s\hat{\;}1}$ are two incomparable elements of the poset $2^{<\w}_{t_s}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{claim}
\begin{proof} To start the inductive construction, use the choice of the sequence $\sigma$ and for the set $C=S$ find a sequence $t_\emptyset\in 2^{<\w}_\sigma$ such that the family $\mathcal S(C\cap\bigcup\J_{t_\emptyset})\setminus\I$ is not empty and hence contains some set $S_\emptyset$.
Now assume that for some $n\in\w$ and all $s\in \bigcup_{k\le n}2^k$ we have constructed the set $S_s$ and the sequence $t_s$ satisfying the inductive conditions. Given any sequence $s\in 2^n$, we are going to construct sets $S_{s\hat{\;}0}, S_{s\hat{\;}1}$ and sequences $t_{s\hat{\;}0}, t_{s\hat{\;}1}$.
Since $S_s\notin\I$, the countable cover $\strategy(S_{s{\restriction}0},\dots,S_s)\subseteq\C$ of set $S_s$ contains a set $C_s\in \C(S_s)\setminus\I\subseteq\C(S\cap\bigcup\J_{t_s})\setminus\I$.
By our assumption, the set $\{t\in 2^{<\w}_{t_s}:\mathcal S(C_s\cap\bigcup\J_t)\not\subseteq\I\}$ contains two incomparable sequences $t_{s\hat{\;}0},t_{s\hat{\;}1}$. For every $i\in\{0,1\}$ the family $\mathcal S(C_s\cap\J_{t_{s\hat{\;}i}})\setminus\I$ is not empty and hence contains some set $S_{s\hat{\;}i}$. This completes the inductive step.
\end{proof}
Repeating the arguments of Claims~\ref{cl:ind-2} and \ref{cl2:l2}, we can show that for every sequence $s\in 2^\w$ the intersection $\bigcap_{n\in\w}\J_{t_{s{\restriction}n}}$ contains a unique element $J_s$, and the function $J_*:2^\w\to\J$, $J^*:s\mapsto J_s$, is injective and continuous. Then $\xi\circ J_*[2^\w]$ is an uncountable compact subspace of the space $\IB$, which contradicts the choice of $\IB$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{l:5} For any $\sigma\in 2^{<\w}$ and $S\in\mathcal S(\bigcup\mathcal J_\sigma)\setminus\I$, there exist a sequence $s\in 2^{<\w}_\sigma$ and a set $C\in\C(S\cap\bigcup\J_s)\setminus\I$ such that either $\mathcal S(C\setminus J)\subseteq\I$ for some $J\in\J$ or $\mathcal S(C\cap \bigcup\J_t)\subseteq\I$ for any sequence $t\in 2^{<\w}$ with $s\subset t$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} To derive a contradiction, assume there exist $\sigma\in 2^{<\w}$ and $S\in\mathcal S(\bigcup\mathcal J_\sigma)\setminus\I$ such that for any $s\in 2^{<\w}_\sigma$ and $C\in\C(S\cap\bigcup\J_s)\setminus\I$ we have: $\mathcal S(C\setminus J)\not\subseteq\I$ for all $J\in\J$, and $\mathcal S(C\cap \bigcup\J_t)\not\subseteq\I$ for some sequence $t\in 2^{<\w}$ with $s\subset t$.
By Lemma~\ref{l:4}, there exists a sequence $s\in 2^{<\w}_\sigma$ and a set $C\in\mathcal C(S\cap\bigcup\J_s)\setminus\I$ such that the set $L=\{t\in 2^{<\w}_s:\mathcal S(C\cap\bigcup\J_t)\not\subseteq\I\}$ is a chain in the tree $2^{<\w}$.
Our assumption guarantees that the chain $L$ is infinite, which implies that $\bigcap_{t\in L}\J_t$ is either empty or a singleton. In any case we can find a set $J_\infty\in\J$ such that $\bigcap_{t\in L}\J_t\subseteq\{J_\infty\}$. By our assumption the family $\mathcal S(C\setminus J_\infty)\setminus\I$ contains some set $S_0$. Let $t_0=s$.
Inductively we shall construct sequences $(S_n)_{n\in\IN}$ and $(t_n)_{n\in\IN}$ such that for every $n\in\IN$ the following conditions are satisfied:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] $S_n\subseteq \mathcal S(S\cap S_{n-1}\cap\bigcup\J_{t_n})\setminus\I$;
\item[(ii)] $S_n\prec\strategy(S_0,\dots,S_{n-1})$;
\item[(iii)] $t_{n-1}\subset t_n$.
\end{enumerate}
Assume that for some $n\in\IN$ a sequence $t_{n-1}\supset t_0=s$ and a set $S_{n-1}\in\mathcal S(S\cap \bigcup\J_{t_{n-1}})\setminus\I$ have been constructed. Since $S_{n-1}\notin\I$, the countable cover $\strategy(S_0,\dots,S_{n-1})$ of $S_{n-1}$ contains a set $C_n\in\C(S_{n-1})\setminus\I$. Since $C_n\in\mathcal C(S\cap\bigcup \J_{t_{n-1}})\setminus\I$, our assumption yields a sequence $t_n\in 2^{<\w}$ such that $t_{n-1}\subset t_n$ and the family $\mathcal S(C_n\cap \bigcup\J_{t_n})\setminus\I$ contains some set $S_n$. This completes the inductive step.
\smallskip
Since the strategy $\strategy$ is winning, the intersection $\bigcap_{n\in\w}S_n$ contains some point $x$. For every $n\in\w$ the inductive condition (i) implies $x\in S_n\subseteq\bigcup\J_{t_n}$ and hence $x\in J_n$ for some $J_n\in\J_{t_n}$. Since the family $\J$ is point-finite, the family $\{J_n:n\in\w\}\subseteq\{J\in\J:x\in J\}$ is finite. Consequently, there exists $J_\infty'\in\J$ such that the set $\Omega=\{n\in\w:J_n=J_\infty'\}$ is infinite. Observe that for every $n\in\Omega$ we have $J'_\infty=J_n\in\J_{t_n}$, which implies that $J'_\infty=\bigcap_{n\in\Omega}\J_{t_n}=\bigcap_{n\in\w}\J_{t_n}=\{J_\infty\}$ and hence $J'_\infty=J_\infty$. Then $x\in J'_\infty=J_\infty$. On the other hand, $x\in S_0\subseteq X\setminus J_\infty$ by the choice of the set $S_0$. This contradiction completes the proof of Lemma~\ref{l:5}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{l:6}If the family $\mathcal S$ is multiplicative and $\I$-Lindel\"of, then there exists a decreasing sequence $(\Sigma_n)_{n\in\w}\in(\sigma\mathcal S)^\w$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] for every $n\in\w$ and $s\in 2^n$ we have $\mathcal S(\bigcup\J_s\setminus\Sigma_n)\subseteq\I$;
\item[(b)] for every $S\in\mathcal S\setminus\I$ there exist $C\in\C(S)\setminus\I$ such that either $\mathcal S(C\cap \Sigma_n)\subseteq\I$ for some $n\in\w$ or $\mathcal S(C\setminus J)\subseteq\I$ for some $J\in\J$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} By the $\I$-Lindel\"of property of the family $\mathcal S$, for every $s\in 2^{<\w}$ there exists a set $\Sigma_s\subseteq \sigma\mathcal S$ such that $\Sigma_s\subseteq \bigcup\J_s$ and $\mathcal S(\bigcup\J_s\setminus \Sigma_s)\subseteq\I$.
For every $n\in\w$ let
$$\Sigma_{n}=\bigcup_{m=n}^\infty\bigcup_{s\in 2^m}\Sigma_s\in\sigma\mathcal S.$$ It is clear that the sequence $(\Sigma_n)_{n\in\w}$ is decreasing.
Observe that for every $n\in\w$ and $s\in 2^n$ we have $\Sigma_s\subseteq \Sigma_n$ and hence
$$\textstyle{\mathcal S(\bigcup\J_s\setminus \Sigma_n)\subseteq \mathcal S(\bigcup\J_s\setminus \Sigma_s)\subseteq\I,}$$by the choice of the set $\Sigma_s$. This shows that the condition (a) holds. It remains to verify the condition (b).
Assume that this condition does not hold, which means that there exists $S\in \mathcal S\setminus\I$ such that for any $C\in\mathcal C(S)\setminus\I$, $n\in\w$ and $J\in\J$ we have $\mathcal S(C\cap \Sigma_n)\not\subseteq\I$ and $\mathcal S(C\setminus J)\not\subseteq \I$. The last condition implies that $\mathcal S(C)\not\subseteq\I$ for any set $C\in\C(S)\setminus\I$.
Let $S_0=S$ and $s_0=\emptyset$. Inductively we construct sequences $(S_n)_{n\in \IN}$, $(s_n)_{n\in \IN}$ such that for every $n\in\IN$ the following conditions are satisfied:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] $|s_n|>|s_{n-1}|$;
\item[(ii)] $S_n\in \mathcal S(S\cap S_{n-1}\cap\Sigma_{s_n})\setminus\I$;
\item[(iii)] $S_n\prec \strategy(S_0,\dots,S_{n-1})$;
\item[(iv)] $\mathcal S(S_n\cap\bigcup \J_t)\subseteq\I$ for any $t\in 2^{<\w}$ with $s_n\subset t$.
\end{enumerate}
Assume that for some $n\in\IN$ we have constructed sets $S_0,\dots,S_{n-1}$ and sequences\break $s_0,\dots,s_{n-1}$ satisfying the inductive conditions (i)--(iv). Since $S_{n-1}\notin\I$, the countable cover $\strategy(S_0,\dots,S_{n-1})\subseteq\C$ of $S_{n-1}$ contains a set $C_n\in\C(S_{n-1})\setminus\I$. Let $m_n=1+|s_{n-1}|$. By the choice of the set $S$, the family $\mathcal S(C_n\cap\Sigma_{m_n})\setminus\I$ contains some set $S_n'$. Since $S_n'=S'_n\cap \Sigma_{m_n}=\bigcup\{S_n'\cap \Sigma_t:t\in 2^{<\w},\;|t|\ge m_n\}$, there exists $t_n\in 2^{<\w}$ such that $|t_n|\ge m_n$ and $S_n'\cap \Sigma_{t_n}\notin\I$. Since the family $\mathcal S$ is multiplicative and $\Sigma_{t_n}\in\sigma\mathcal S$, there exists a set $S_n''\in\mathcal S(S_n'\cap\Sigma_{t_n})\setminus\I$. Since $S_n''\in\mathcal \mathcal S(\bigcup\J_{t_n})\setminus\I$, we can apply Lemma~\ref{l:5} and find a sequence $s_n\in 2^{<\w}_{t_n}$ and a set $C'_n\in\C(S_n''\cap\bigcup\J_{s_n})\setminus\I$ such that either $\mathcal S(C'_n\setminus J)\subseteq\I$ for some $J\in\J$ or $\mathcal S(C'_n\cap\bigcup\J_{t})\subseteq\I$ for any $t\in 2^{<\w}$ with $s_n\subset t$. By the choice of the set $S$, the first alternative is impossible. Consequently, $\mathcal S(C'_n\cap\bigcup\J_{t})\subseteq\I$ for any $t\in 2^{<\w}$ with $s_n\subset t$. By the choice of the set $S$, the family $\mathcal S(C_n')\setminus\I$ contains some set $S_n$. It is easy to see that $S_n$ and $s_n$ satisfy the inductive conditions (i)--(iv).
\smallskip
Since the strategy $\strategy$ is winning, the intersection $\bigcap_{n\in\w}S_n$ contains some point $x$. For every $n\in\w$ we have $x\in S_n\subseteq\bigcup\J_{s_n}$ and hence $x\in J_n$ for some $J_n\in\J_{s_n}$. Since the family $\J$ is point-finite, the set $\{J_n:n\in\w\}\subseteq\{J\in\J:x\in J\}$ is finite. Consequently, there exists $J\in\J$ such that the set $\Omega=\{n\in\w:J=J_n\}$ is infinite. Choose any numbers $n<m$ in $\Omega$ and observe that $J=J_n=J_m\in \J_{s_n}\cap\J_{s_m}$ and $|s_n|<|s_m|$ imply $s_n\subset s_m$. Then $S_m\in\mathcal S(S_n\cap \Sigma_{s_m})\setminus\I\subseteq\mathcal S(S_n\cap \bigcup\J_{s_m})\setminus\I$, which contradicts the inductive condition (iv).
\end{proof}
\end{proof}
\section{Some implications of the main Theorem~\ref{t:main}}
Theorem~\ref{t:main} implies the following corollary.
\begin{corollary}\label{c:main} Let $\I$ be a $\sigma$-ideal on a set $X$ and $\A$ be an $\I$-winning family of subsets of $X$. For every point-finite subfamily $\mathcal J\subseteq\I$ of cardinality $0<|\mathcal J|\le\mathfrak c$, there exists a Cantor scheme $(\mathcal J_s)_{s\in 2^{<\w}}$ with $\mathcal J_\emptyset=\mathcal J$ that has the following properties.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For any set $S\subseteq X$ with $S\cap\bigcup\J\notin\I$, the set $\{t\in 2^{<\w}: S\cap \bigcup\J_t\notin\I\}$ is a perfect subtree of the tree $2^{<\w}$.
\item For any $\sigma\in 2^{<\w}$ and $S\in\A$ with $S\cap \bigcup\mathcal J_\sigma\notin\I$, there exist a sequence $s\in 2^{<\w}_\sigma$ and a set $C\in\A(S)$ with $C\cap \bigcup\J_s\notin\I$ such that the set $\{t\in 2^{<\w}_s:\A(C\cap \bigcup\J_t)\not\subseteq\I\}$ is a chain in the tree $2^{<\w}$.
\item For any $\sigma\in 2^{<\w}$ and $S\in\A$ with $S\cap \bigcup\mathcal J_\sigma\notin\I$, there exist a sequence $s\in 2^{<\w}$ and a set $C\in\A(S)$ such that $\sigma\subset s$, $C\cap\bigcup\J_s\notin\I$ and $\A(C\cap\bigcup\J_s)\subseteq\I$.
\item For any $\sigma\in 2^{<\w}$ and $S\in\A(\bigcup\mathcal J_\sigma)\setminus\I$ there exist a sequence $s\in 2^{<\w}_\sigma$ and a set $C\in\A(S\cap \bigcup\J_s)\setminus\I$ such that the set $\{t\in 2^{<\w}_s:\A(C\cap \bigcup\J_t)\not\subseteq\I\}$ is a chain in the tree $2^{<\w}$.
\item For any $\sigma\in 2^{<\w}$ and $S\in\A(\bigcup\mathcal J_\sigma)\setminus\I$ there exist a sequence $s\in 2^{<\w}_\sigma$ and a set $C\in\A(S\cap\bigcup\J_s)\setminus\I$ such that either $\A(C\setminus J)\subseteq\I$ for some $J\in\J$ or $\A(C\cap \bigcup\J_t)\subseteq\I$ for any sequence $t\in 2^{<\w}$ with $s\subset t$.
\item If the family $\A$ is multiplicative and $\I$-Lindel\"of, then there exists a decreasing sequence $(\Sigma_n)_{n\in\w}\in(\sigma\A)^\w$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item for every $n\in\w$ and $s\in 2^n$ we have $\A(\bigcup\J_s\setminus\Sigma_n)\subseteq\I$;
\item for every $S\in\A\setminus\I$ there exist $C\in\A(S)\setminus\I$ such that either $\A(C\cap \Sigma_n)\subseteq\I$ for some $n\in\w$ or $\A(C\setminus J)\subseteq\I$ for some $J\in\J$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}
By Proposition~\ref{p:polishable}, the family of all Borel subsets of a Borel space $X$ is $\I$-winning for any $\sigma$-ideal $\I$. For this special family, Corollary~\ref{c:main} reads as follows.
\begin{corollary}\label{c:main2} Let $\I$ be a $\sigma$-ideal on a Borel space $X$ and $\mathcal B$ be the family of all Borel subsets of $X$. For every nonempty point-finite subfamily $\mathcal J\subseteq\I$, there exists a Cantor scheme $(\mathcal J_s)_{s\in 2^{<\w}}$ with $\mathcal J_\emptyset=\mathcal J$ that has the following properties.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For any set $S\subseteq X$ with $S\cap\bigcup\J\notin\I$, the set $\{t\in 2^{<\w}: S\cap \bigcup\J_t\notin\I\}$ is a perfect subtree of the tree $2^{<\w}$.
\item For any $\sigma\in 2^{<\w}$ and any Borel set $S\subseteq X$ with $S\cap \bigcup\mathcal J_\sigma\notin\I$, there exist a sequence $s\in 2^{<\w}_\sigma$ and a Borel subset $C\subseteq S$ with $C\cap \bigcup\J_s\notin\I$ such that the set $\{t\in 2^{<\w}_s:\mathcal B(C\cap \bigcup\J_t)\not\subseteq\I\}$ is a chain in the tree $2^{<\w}$.
\item For any $\sigma\in 2^{<\w}$ and any Borel set $S\subseteq X$ with $S\cap \bigcup\mathcal J_\sigma\notin\I$, there exist a sequence $s\in 2^{<\w}$ and a Borel set $C\subseteq S$ such that $\sigma\subset s$, $C\cap\bigcup\J_s\notin\I$ and $\mathcal B(C\cap\bigcup\J_s)\subseteq\I$.
\item For any $\sigma\in 2^{<\w}$ and $S\in\mathcal B(\bigcup\mathcal J_\sigma)\setminus\I$ there exist a sequence $s\in 2^{<\w}_\sigma$ and a Borel set $C\in\mathcal B(S\cap \bigcup\J_s)\setminus\I$ such that the set $\{t\in 2^{<\w}_s:\mathcal B(C\cap \bigcup\J_t)\not\subseteq\I\}$ is a chain in the tree $2^{<\w}$.
\item For any $\sigma\in 2^{<\w}$ and $S\in\mathcal B(\bigcup\mathcal J_\sigma)\setminus\I$ there exist a sequence $s\in 2^{<\w}_\sigma$ and a set $C\in\mathcal B(S\cap\bigcup\J_s)\setminus\I$ such that either $\mathcal B(C\setminus J)\subseteq\I$ for some $J\in\J$ or $\mathcal B(C\cap \bigcup\J_t)\subseteq\I$ for any sequence $t\in 2^{<\w}$ with $s\subset t$.
\item If the family $\mathcal B$ is $\I$-Lindel\"of, then there exists a decreasing sequence $(\Sigma_n)_{n\in\w}\in(\sigma\A)^\w$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item for every $n\in\w$ and $s\in 2^n$ we have $\mathcal B(\bigcup\J_s\setminus\Sigma_n)\subseteq\I$;
\item for every $S\in\A\setminus\I$ there exist a Borel set $C\in\mathcal B(S)\setminus\I$ such that either $\mathcal B(C\cap \Sigma_n)\subseteq\I$ for some $n\in\w$ or $\mathcal B(C\setminus J)\subseteq\I$ for some $J\in\J$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}
Corollary~\ref{c:main}(3,5) has the following implication (which is a reformulation of Theorem~\ref{t:main1}).
\begin{corollary}\label{c:7.3} Let $\I$ be a $\sigma$-ideal on a set $X$ and $\mathcal A$ be an $\I$-winning class of subsets of $X$. Let $\J\subseteq\I$ be a point-finite subfamily such that $|\mathcal J|\le\mathfrak c$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\bigcup\J\notin\I$, then for some $\J'\subseteq\J$ the union $\J'$ is not $(\A,\I)$-saturated and hence is not $(\sigma\A,\I)$-measurable.
\item If $\A(\bigcup\J)\not\subseteq\I$, then for some $\J'\subseteq\J$ the union $\bigcup\J'$ is not $(\A\setminus\I)$-Ramsey.
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} By Corollary~\ref{c:main}, there exists a Cantor scheme $(\J_s)_{s\in 2^{<\w}}$ with $\J_\emptyset=\J$ satisfying the conditions (1)--(5) of Corollary~\ref{c:main}.
\smallskip
1. If $\bigcup\J\notin\I$, then by Corollary~\ref{c:main}(3), there exist a set $C\in\A$ and a sequence $s\in 2^{<\w}$ such that $C\cap\bigcup\J_s\notin\I$ and $\A(C\cap\bigcup\J_s)\subseteq\I$. This means that for the family $\J'=\J_s$, the set $\bigcup\J'$ is not $(\A,\I)$-saturated. By Proposition~\ref{p:saturated}, the set $\bigcup\J'$ is not $(\A,\I)$-measurable.
\smallskip
2. Now assume that $\A(\bigcup\J)\not\subseteq\I$. By Corollary~\ref{c:main}(5), there exist a sequence $s\in 2^{<\w}$ and a set $C\in\A(\bigcup\J_s)\setminus\I$ such that either $\A(C\setminus J)\subseteq\I$ for some $J\in\J$ or $\A(C\cap\J_t)\subseteq\I$ for any sequence $t\in 2^{<\w}$ with $s\subset t$. In the first case we put $\J'=\{J\}$ and obtain that $\A(C\setminus\bigcup\J')=\A(C\setminus J)\subseteq\I$ and $\A(C\cap\bigcup\J')=\A(C\cap J)\subseteq\I$. In the second case, put $\J'=\J_{s\hat{\;}0}$ and observe that $\A(C\cap\J')\subseteq\I$ and $\A(C\setminus\bigcup\J_{s\hat{\;}0})\subseteq\A(C\cap\bigcup\J_{s\hat{\;}1})\subseteq\I$. In both cases we get $\A(C\cap\bigcup\J')\cup\A(C\setminus\bigcup\J')\subseteq\I$, which implies that the set $\bigcup\J'$ is not $(A\setminus\I)$-Ramsey.
\end{proof}
Next, we prove two corollaries of Theorem~\ref{t:main} implying Theorems~\ref{t:measure} and \ref{t:category}.
\begin{corollary} Let $\mu$ be a $\sigma$-additive probability Borel measure on a Borel space $X$ and $\I=\{A\subseteq X:\mu^*(A)=0\}$. For any point-finite subfamily $\J\subseteq\I$, there exists a Cantor scheme $(\mathcal J_s)_{s\in 2^{<\w}}$ with $\J_\emptyset=\J$ and a decreasing sequence of Borel sets $(A_n)_{n\in\w}$ in $X$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\lim_{n\to\infty}\mu(A_n)=0$;
\item for any $n\in\w$ and $s\in 2^n$ the set $\bigcup\J_s\setminus A_n$ contains no $\mu$-positive Borel subsets.
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} By Theorem~\ref{t:Polishable} and Propositions~\ref{p:Borel} and \ref{p:Borel2}, the family $\mathcal B$ of all Borel subsets of $X$ is $\I$-winning.
Since $\I=\{A\subseteq X:\mu^*(A)=0\}$, the family $\mathcal B$ is $\I$-ccc and hence $\I$-Lindel\"of.
By Corollary~\ref{c:main2}, there exists a Cantor scheme $(\J_s)_{s\in 2^{<\w}}$ with $\J_\emptyset=\J$ and a decreasing sequence of Borel sets $(A_n)_{n\in\w}$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] for any $n\in\w$ and $s\in 2^n$ the set $\bigcup\J_s\setminus A_n$ contains no $\mu$-positive Borel sets;
\item[(b)] for any $\mu$-positive Borel set $S\subseteq X$ there exists $n\in\w$ such that $\mu(S\setminus A_n)>0$.
\end{itemize}
The conditions (a) and (b) imply the statements (2) and (1), respectively.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary} Let $\I$ be the $\sigma$-ideal of meager sets in a Polish space $X$. For any point-finite subfamily $\J\subseteq\I$, there exists a Cantor scheme $(\mathcal J_s)_{s\in 2^{<\w}}$ with $\J_\emptyset=\J$ and a decreasing sequence of regular closed sets $(B_n)_{n\in\w}$ in $X$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item for any non-meager Borel set $A\subseteq X$ there exists $n\in\w$ such that $A\setminus B_n$ is non-meager;
\item $\bigcap_{n\in\w}B_n$ is nowhere dense in $X$;
\item for any $n\in\w$ and $s\in 2^n$ the set $\bigcup\J_s\setminus B_n$ contains no non-meager Borel subset of $X$;
\item If $X$ is compact, then for every neighborhood $U\subseteq X$ of $\bigcap_{n\in\w}B_n$ there exists $n\in\w$ such that $B_n\subseteq U$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} Let $\mathcal B$ be the family of Borel sets in $X$. This family is multiplicative, $\I$-winning, and $\I$-Lindel\"of. By Corollary~\ref{c:main2},
there exists a decreasing sequence of Borel sets $(A_n)_{n\in\w}$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] for any non-meager Borel set $A\subseteq X$ there exists $n\in\w$ such that $A\setminus A_n$ is non-meager;
\item[(ii)] for any $n\in\w$ and $s\in 2^n$ the set $\bigcup\J_s\setminus A_n$ contains no non-meager Borel subsets of $X$.
\end{enumerate}
For every $n\in\w$ let $B_n$ be the set of all points $x\in X$ such that for every neighborhood $O_x\subseteq X$ the intersection $O_x\cap A_n$ is not meager in $X$. It is easy to see that the set $B_n$ is regular closed and $A_n\triangle B_n$ is meager. The monotonicity of the sequence $(A_n)_{n\in\w}$ implies that the sequence $(B_n)_{n\in\w}$ is decreasing. The properties (i),(ii) imply the properties (1)--(3). If $X$ is compact, then the condition (4) follows from Theorem 3.10.2(3) in \cite{Eng}.
\end{proof}
\section{Marczewski-Burstin representations}\label{s:mb}
In this section we apply Theorem~\ref{t:main} to families and ideals that admit a Marczewski-Burstin representation. Such representations for various pairs of algebra and ideal were studied e.g. in \cite{BBC}, \cite{BBK}.
\begin{definition} Given any family $\F$ of subsets of a set $X$, consider the families
$$ \mathcal{S}_0(\F)=\{A\subseteq X: \forall F\in \mathcal{F}\;\exists H\in \F\;\;( H\subseteq F\setminus A)\}$$
and
$$\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{F})=\{A\subseteq X: \forall F\in \mathcal{F}\;\exists H\in \mathcal{F}\;\; (H\subseteq F\cap A\;\lor\; H\subseteq F\setminus A)\}.$$
\end{definition}
\begin{definition} Let $\mathcal B$ be an algebra of subsets of a set $X$ and $\I\subseteq\mathcal B$ be an ideal. The pair $(\mathcal B,\I)$ is defined to have a {\em Marczewski-Burstin representation} (briefly, an {\em MB-representation}) if there a family $\F$ of subsets of $X$ such that $$\mathcal{S}_0(\F)=\mathcal{I} \text{ and } \mathcal{S}(\mathcal{F})=\mathcal{B}.$$
\end{definition}
\begin{example}
\begin{enumerate}
\item For the family $\F$ of closed sets of nonzero Lebesgue measure on the real line, the ideal $\s_0(\F)$ coincides with the $\sigma$-ideal $\mathcal N$ of Lebesgue null sets and the algebra $\s(\F)$ coincides with the $\sigma$-algebra of Lebesgue measurable sets in $\IR$.
\item For the family of nonmeager $G_\delta$-subsets of $\IR$, the ideal $\s_0(\F)$ coincides with the $\sigma$-ideal $\M$ of meager subsets of $\IR$ and $\s(\mathcal F)$ coincides with the $\sigma$-algebra of subsets with the Baire property in $\IR$.
\item For the family $\F$ of uncountable compact subsets of $\IR$ the ideal $\s_0(\F)$ coincides with the Marczewski $\sigma$-ideal $s_0$ and the algebra $\s(\F)$ with the $\sigma$-algebra $s$ of Marczewski measurable sets, see \cite{Marczewski}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{example}
\begin{question} Does the pair $(\mathbf\Delta^1_1(\IR),[\IR]^{\le\w})$ admit a MB-representation?
\end{question}
\begin{remark} An example of an algebra and ideal without MB-representations is constructed by Balcerzak, Bartoszewicz and Koszmider in \cite{BBK}.
\end{remark}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop-semimeasurability} Let $X$ be a set and $\A,\F$ be families of subsets of $X$ such that $\F\se\A\se \s(\F)$. A subset $S\subseteq X$ belongs to the algebra $\s(\F)$ if and only if $S$ is $(\A, \s_0(\F))$-saturated.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} Let us assume that $S\in \s(\F)$ and let $A\in\A$ be such that $A\cap S \notin \s_0(\F).$ Since $A\cap S\notin \s_0(\F)$, there exists a set $F\in\F$ such that for any set $E\in\F(F)$ we have $E\cap A\cap S\ne\emptyset$. On the other hand, $\A\se \s(\F)$ implies $S\cap A\in \s(\F)$. Consequently, for the set $F$ there exists a set $E\in\F$ such that $E\subseteq F\cap S\cap A$ or $E\subseteq F\setminus(S\cap A)$. The choice of $F$ ensures that the second alternative is impossible and hence $E\subseteq F\cap S\cap A\subseteq S\cap A$, witnessing that the family $\A(A\cap S)\supseteq\F(\A\cap S)$ contains the set $E\notin\s_0(\F)$. Therefore, the set $S$ is $(\A,\s_0(\F))$-saturated.
\smallskip
Now let assume that $S$ is $(\A,\s_0(\F))$-saturated. Given any set $F\in \F$, we shall find a set $E\in\F$ such that $E\subseteq F\cap S$ or $E\subseteq F\setminus S$. This will prove that $S\in\mathcal S(\F)$. If $F\cap S\in \s_0(\F)$, then exists $E\in \F$ such that $E\se F\setminus S$ and we are done. So, assume that $F\cap S \notin \s_0(\F)$. Since $F\in\F\subseteq\A$ and the set $S$ is $(\A,\s_0(\F))$-saturated, there exists a set $A\in \A(F\cap S)\setminus \s_0(\F)$. Since $A\notin \s_0(\F)$, there exists a set $B\in\F$ such that for every $E\in\F(B)$ we have $E\cap A\ne\emptyset$. Since $A\in \A\subseteq \mathcal S(\F)$, for the set $B$ there exists a set $E\in\F(B)$ such $E\subseteq B\cap A$ or $E\subseteq B\setminus A$. The choice of $A$ ensures that the second alternative is impossible and hence $E\subseteq B\cap A\subseteq A\subseteq F\cap S$.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{MB}
Let $X$ be a Polish space and a pair $(\mathcal{B},\mathcal{I})$ be MB-representable by a family $\mathcal{F}$ consisting of Borel sets. Assume that $\mathcal{B}$ contains all Borel sets.
Let $\mathcal{J} \subseteq \mathcal{I}$ be a point-finite family of subsets of $X$ such that $\bigcup\mathcal{J} \notin \mathcal{I}$. Then there is a subfamily $\mathcal{J}'\subseteq\mathcal{J}$ such that $\bigcup\mathcal{J}'\notin \mathcal{B}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Apply Corollary \ref{c:7.3} and Proposition \ref{prop-semimeasurability} to the family $\A$ of all Borel subsets of $X.$
\end{proof}
Every perfect set in a Polish space can be represented as the body of a some tree and then the defining family $\F$ for the Marczewski ideal $s_0$ can be described as the family of perfect trees in the Baire space. In the same way as for Marczewski ideal we can define $\sigma$-ideals and $\sigma$-fields for the other tree families.
\begin{definition}\label{trees} A tree $T\se \w^{<\w}$ is called
\begin{itemize}
\item {\em perfect} or {\em Sacks} if $(\forall \sigma\in T)(\exists \tau\in T)(\sigma\subseteq \tau\land (\exists n\neq m)( \tau\hat{\;}n\in T \land \tau\hat{\;}m\in T))$;
\item {\em superperfect} or {\em Miller} if $(\forall \sigma\in T)(\exists \tau\in T)(\sigma\subseteq \tau\land (\exists^\infty n)( \tau\hat{\;}n\in T))$;
\item {\em Laver} if there is a node $s\in T$ such that,
for every node $t\in T$ if $s\subseteq t$ then $t$ is infinitely spliting i.e. $\{ n\in\omega:\; s\hat{\;}n\in T\}$ is infinite.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
For any tree $T\se \w^{<\w}$ define a body of $T$ as
$$
[T] = \{ x\in \w^\w:\; \forall n\in \w \;\; x{\restriction}_n \in T \}.
$$
Now define pairs
\begin{itemize}
\item $(m,m_0) = (\s(\F),\s_0(\F))$ where $\F$ is a family of all bodies of Miller trees,
\item $(l,l_0) = (\s(\F),\s_0(\F))$ where $\F$ is a family of all bodies of Laver trees.
\end{itemize}
The ideals $s_0,\ m_0,\ l_0$ were studied e.g. in \cite{Marczewski}, \cite{GSS}, \cite{JMSS}. Applying Corollary~\ref{MB} to the pairs $(s,s_0)$, $(m,m_0)$, $(l,l_0)$ we obtains the following corollary.
\begin{corollary} Let $(t,t_0)\in \{(s,s_0), (m,m_0), (l,l_0)\}.$
Let $\mathcal{J} \subseteq t_0$ be point-finite family of subsets of $\omega^\omega$ such that $\bigcup\mathcal{J} \notin t_0$. Then there is a subfamily $\mathcal{J}'\subseteq\mathcal{A}$ such that $\bigcup\mathcal{J}'\notin t$.
\end{corollary}
Now we discuss Ramsey properties of the space $[\w]^\w$ endowed with the {\em Ellentuck topology}, which is generated by the base consisting of the sets
$$
[a,A]=\{ B\in[\w]^\w:\; a\se B\se a\cup (A\setminus[0,\max a])\}
$$
where $a\in[\w]^{<\w}$ and $A\in[\w]^\w$.
A subset $X\se [\w]^\w$ is defined to be {\em completely Ramsey} if for any $a\in[\w]^{<\w}$ and $A\in[\w]^\w$ there exists $B\in[\w]^\w$ such that $B\se A$ and $[a,B]\se X$ or $[a,B]\cap X =\emptyset.$ The famous Ellentuck Theorem (see \cite{E} or \cite{Matet}) says that a subset $X\se [\w]^\w$ is completely Ramsey if and only if $X$ has the Baire property in $[\w]^\w$ endowed with the Ellentuck topology.
A subset $X\se [\w]^\w$ is called {\em Ramsey null} if for any $a\in[\w]^{<\w}$ and $A\in[\w]^\w$ there exists $B\in[\w]^\w$ such that $B\se A$ and $[a,B]\cap X =\emptyset.$ By $RN$ and $CR$ we define a families of all Ramsey null and completely Ramsey subsets of $[\w]^\w$, respectively.
The pair $(CR,RN)$ is MB-represented by the family
$$
\F = \{ [a,A]:\; a\in [\w]^{<\w} \land A\in [\w]^\w \}.
$$
The following result was obtained earlier in \cite[Corollary 3.9]{Prikry}.
\begin{corollary}[Koumoullis, Prikry]
For any point-finite family $\J$ of Ramsey null sets with $\bigcup\J\notin RN$, there exists a subfamily $\J'\subseteq\J$
such that $\bigcup \J'$ is not completely Ramsey.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} It is enough to apply Corollary \ref{MB} to the family $\F$ defined above.
\end{proof}
\section{Some Applications}\label{s:a}
In this section we present some applications of Theorem~\ref{t:main1} to $(\A,\I)$-saturated functions and homomorphisms.
Let $\I$ be a $\sigma$-ideal on a set $X$ and $\A$ be a family of subsets of $X$. A function $f:X\to Y$ to a topological space $Y$ is called {\em $(\A,\I)$-saturated} if for every open set $U\subseteq Y$ the preimage $f^{-1}[U]$ is $(\A,\I)$-saturated (which means that $\A(A\cap f^{-1}[U])\not\subseteq\I$ for any set $A\in\A$ with $A\cap f^{-1}[U]\notin\I$).
\begin{proposition} Let $\I$ be a $\sigma$-ideal on a set $X$ of cardinality $|X|\le\mathfrak c$ and $\A\ni X$ be an $\I$-ccc $\I$-winning family of subsets of $X$. For any $(\A,\I)$-saturated function $f:X\to Y$ to a topological space $Y$ and any $\sigma$-discrete open cover $\U$ of $Y$ there exists a countable subfamily $\U^+\subseteq\U$ such that $f^{-1}[Y\setminus\bigcup\U^+]\in\I$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} We lose no generality assuming that the function $f$ is surjective and the cover $\U$ consists of nonempty open subsets of $Y$.
Write the cover $\U$ as the countable union $\bigcup_{n\in\w}\U_n$ of discrete subfamilies $\U_n$ in $X$. By the $(\A,\I)$-saturated property of the function $f$, for every $U\in\U$ the preimage $f^{-1}[U]$ is an $(\A,\I)$-saturated subset of $X$.
By the $\I$-ccc property of thefamily $\A$, for every $n\in\w$ the family $\mathcal U_n^+=\{U\in\U_n:f^{-1}[U]\notin\I\}$ is at most countable. We claim that the countable subfamily $\U^+=\bigcup_{n\in\w}\U_n^+$ of $\U$ has the desired property: $f^{-1}[Y\setminus\bigcup\U^+]\in\I$. To derive a contradiction, assume that $f^{-1}[Y\setminus \U^+]\notin\I$. Since $$Y\setminus{\textstyle\bigcup}\U^+\subseteq\bigcup_{n\in\w}{\textstyle\bigcup}(\U_n\setminus\U_n^+),$$there exists $n\in\w$ such that $f^{-1}[\bigcup(\U_n\setminus\U_n^+]\notin\I$. Since the family $\mathcal J=\{f^{-1}[U]:U\in\U_n\setminus\U^+_n\}$ is disjoint and the space $X$ has cardinality $|X|\le\mathfrak c$, the set $\mathcal J$ has cardinality $|\mathcal J|\le\mathfrak |X|\le\mathfrak c$. By Corollary~\ref{c:7.3}, there exist a subfamily $\mathcal J'\subseteq \mathcal J$ whose union $\bigcup\J'$ is not $(\A,\I)$-saturated. Find a subfamily $\V\subseteq\U\setminus\U^+$ such that $\J=\{f^{-1}[U]:U\in\V\}$. By the $(\A,\I)$-saturated property of $f$, the set $\bigcup\J'= f^{-1}[\bigcup\V]$ is $(\A,\I)$-saturated, which contradicts the choice of $\J'$. This contradiction shows that $f^{-1}[Y\setminus\bigcup\U^+]\in\I$.
\end{proof}
A topological space $X$ is defined to have {\em countable spread} if $X$ contains no uncountable discrete subspaces.
\begin{proposition} Let $\I$ be a $\sigma$-ideal on a set $X$ of cardinality $|X|\le\mathfrak c$ and $\A\ni X$ be an $\I$-ccc $\I$-winning family of subsets of $X$. Then for any $(\A,\I)$-saturated function $f:X\to Y$ to a hereditarily paracompact space $Y$ there exists a closed subspace $Z\subseteq Y$ with countable spread such that $f^{-1}[Y\setminus Z]\in\I$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} Let $\tau_Y$ be the topology of the space $Y$ and $$Z=\{z\in Y:\forall U\in\tau_Y\;\;(z\in U\;\Rightarrow\;f^{-1}[U]\notin \I)\}.$$
Let us show that the space $Z$ has countable spread. To derive a contradiction, assume that $Z$ has uncountable spread, which means that $Z$ contains an uncountable discrete subspace $D$. Then $D$ is an open set in its closure $\overline D$ in $X$ and hence the set $F=\overline D\setminus D$ is closed.
Consider the open set $W=X\setminus F$ and its open cover $\mathcal W=\{W\setminus(D\setminus\{x\}):x\in D\}$.
By the paracompactness of $X\setminus F$, there exists an open cover $\U$ of $W$ such that for every $U\in\U$ its $\U$-star $St(U,\U)$ is contained in some set of the cover $\mathcal W$. For every $x\in D$ choose a set $U_x\in\U$ containing $x$. We claim that the family $(U_x)_{x\in D}$ is disjoint. Assuming that $U_x\cap U_y\ne\emptyset$ for two distinct points $x,y\in D$, we conclude that $$y\in U_y\subseteq St(U_x,\U)\subseteq W\setminus (D\setminus\{x\})\subset W\setminus\{y\},$$ which is a contradiction showing that the family $(U_x)_{x\in D}$ is disjoint.
Since $f$ is $(\A,\I)$-saturated, for every $x\in D$ the preimage $f^{-1}[U_x]$ is $(\A,\I)$-saturated. Since $x\in D\subseteq Z$, $f^{-1}[U_x]\notin\I$ and hence $f^{-1}[U_x]$ contains some subset $A_x\in\A\setminus \I$. The disjointness of the family $(U_x)_{x\in D}$ implies the disjointness of the families $(f^{-1}[U_x])_{x\in D}$ and $(A_x)_{x\in D}$. Therefore, $\{A_x\}_{x\in D}$ is an uncountable disjoint subfamily of $\A\setminus\I$, which contradicts the $\I$-ccc property of the family $\A$.
\smallskip
Next, we prove that $f^{-1}[Y\setminus Z]\in\I$. To derive a contradiction, assume that $f^{-1}[Y\setminus Z]\notin\I$. By definition of the set $Z$, every point $y\in Y\setminus Z$ has an open neighborhood $O_y\subseteq Y\setminus Z$ such that $f^{-1}[O_y]\in\I$. By the paracompactness of $Y\setminus Z$, there exists a $\sigma$-discrete open cover $\V$ of $Y\setminus Z$ such that each set $V\in\V$ is contained in some set $O_y$, $y\in Y\setminus Z$. This implies that $f^{-1}[V]\in\I$ for every $V\in\V$. Write $\V$ as the countable union $\bigcup_{n\in\w}\V_n$ of discrete families $\V_n$. Since $\bigcup_{n\in\w}f^{-1}[\bigcup\V_n]=f^{-1}[Y\setminus Z]\notin\I$, there exists $n\in\w$ such that $f^{-1}[\bigcup\V_n]\notin\I$. By Corollary~\ref{c:7.3}, there exists a subfamily $\V'\subseteq \V_n$ such that $f^{-1}[\bigcup\V']$ is not $(\A,\I)$-saturated, which contradicts the $(\A,\I)$-saturated property of the function $f$. This contradiction shows that $f^{-1}[Y\setminus Z]\in\I$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{t:large} Let $\I$ be a left-invariant $\sigma$-ideal on a group $X$ of cardinality $|X|\le\mathfrak c$ and $\A\ni X$ be a left-invariant $\I$-winning family of subsets of $X$. Let $h:X\to Y$ be a surjective homomorphism to a topological group $Y$. If the homomorphism $h$ is $(\A,\I)$-saturated, then for any neighborhood $U\subseteq Y$ of the identity we have $h^{-1}[U]\notin\I$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} To derive a contradiction, assume that $h^{-1}[U]\in \I$ for some open neighborhood $U\subset Y$ of the unit $e\in Y$. By Markov's Theorem \cite[3.9]{AT}, there exists a left-invariant continuous pseudometric $\rho $ on $Y$ such that $\{y\in Y:\rho(y,e)<1\}\subseteq U$. The pseudometric $\rho$ determines an equivalence relation $\sim$ on $Y$ such that $x\sim y$ iff $\rho(x,y)=0$. Let $q:Y\to \tilde Y$ be the quotient map to the quotient set $\tilde Y=Y/_\sim$. The pseudometric $\rho$ determines a unique metric $\tilde\rho$ on $\tilde Y$ such that $\rho(q(x),q(y))=\rho(x,y)$ for all $x,y\in Y$. By the paracompactness of the metric space $(\tilde Y,\tilde\rho)$, there exists a $\sigma$-discrete cover $\U$ of $\tilde Y$ by open sets of $\tilde\rho$-diameter $<1$. Then for every $V\in\U$ we can find $y\in Y$ with $V\subseteq yU$ and conclude that $h^{-1}[V]\subseteq h^{-1}[yU]\in\I$. Write $\U$ as the countable union $\bigcup_{n\in\w}\U_n$ of discrete families $\U_n$. Since $X=\bigcup_{n\in\w}h^{-1}[q^{-1}[\bigcup\U_n]]\notin\I$, for some $n\in\w$ the set $h^{-1}[q^{-1}[\bigcup\U_n]]$ does not belong to the ideal $\I$. By Corollary~\ref{c:7.3}, for some subfamily $\V\subseteq\U_n$ the union $\bigcup_{V\in\V}h^{-1}[q^{-1}[V]]$ is not $(\A,\I)$-saturated, which contradicts the $(\A,\I)$-saturatedness of the homomorphism $h$.
\end{proof}
A topological group $X$ is called {\em $\w$-narrow} if for any nonempty open set $U\subseteq X$ there exists a countable set $C\subseteq X$ such that $CU=X$.
\begin{proposition}\label{t:narrow} Let $\I$ be a left-invariant $\sigma$-ideal on a group $X$ of cardinality $|X|\le\mathfrak c$ and $\A\ni X$ be a left-invariant $\I$-ccc $\I$-winning family of subsets of $X$. Let $h:X\to Y$ be a surjective homomorphism to a topological group $Y$. If the homomorphism $h$ is $(\A,\I)$-saturated, then the topological group $Y$ is $\w$-narrow.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} Assuming that $Y$ is not $\w$-narrow, we can find an open neighborhood $U\subset Y$ of the unit $e\in Y$ such that $CUU^{-1}\ne Y$ for any countable set $C\subseteq Y$. By the Kuratowski--Zorn Lemma, there exists a maximal set $M\subseteq Y$ such that $xU\cap yU=\emptyset$ for any distinct elements $x,y\in M$. The maximality of $M$ implies that $Y\subseteq MUU^{-1}$ and hence $M$ is uncountable. By Proposition~\ref{t:large}, $h^{-1}[U]\notin\I$. The left-invariantness of the ideal $\I$ implies that for every $x\in M$ the set $h^{-1}[xU]$ does not belong to the ideal $\I$, being a left shift of the set $h^{-1}[U]\notin\I$. By the $(\A,\I)$-saturatedness of $h$, the set $h^{-1}[xU]$ is $(\A,\I)$-saturated and hence it contains a set $A_x\in\A\setminus\I$. Then $\{A_x\}_{x\in M}$ is a disjoint subfamily of $\A\setminus\I$, which contradicts the $\I$-ccc property of the family $\A$. This contradiction shows that the topological group $Y$ is $\w$-narrow.
\end{proof}
A family $\F$ of subsets of a topological group $X$ is defined to have the {\em weak Steinhaus property} if there exists $n\in\IN$ such that for every set $B\in\F$ in $X$ the set $(BB^{-1})^n$ is a neighborhood of the identity in $X$.
\begin{proposition} Let $\I$ be a left-invariant $\sigma$-ideal on a topological group $X$ of cardinality $|X|\le\mathfrak c$ and $\A\ni X$ be a left-invariant $\I$-winning family of subsets of $X$. If the family $\A\setminus \I$ has the weak Steinhaus property, then each $(\A,\I)$-saturated homomorphism $h:X\to Y$ to a topological group $Y$ is continuous.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} Since the family $\A\setminus \I$ has the weak Steinhaus property, there exists $n\in\IN$ such that for every set $A\in\A\setminus\I$ in $X$ the set $(AA^{-1})^n$ is a neighborhood of the identity in $X$.
The continuity of the homomorphism $h$ will follow as soon as we show that for any neighborhood $U\subseteq Y$ of the identity, the preimage $h^{-1}[U]$ is a neighborhood of the identity in $X$. Using the continuity of the group operations, find a neighborhood $V\subseteq Y$ of the identity such that $(VV^{-1})^n\subseteq U$. By Proposition~\ref{t:large}, the set $h^{-1}[U]$ does not belong to the ideal $\I$. Since $h$ is $(\A,\I)$-saturated, the set $h^{-1}[U]\notin\I$ is $(\A,\I)$-saturated and hence contains some set $A\in\A\setminus\I$. The choice of $n$ guarantees that $(AA^{-1})^n$ is a neighborhood of the identity in $X$. Since $h$ is a homomorphism, $h[(AA^{-1})^n]\subseteq (VV^{-1})^n\subseteq U$, which implies that $h^{-1}[U]\supseteq (AA^{-1})^n$ is a neighborhood of the identity in $X$.
\end{proof}
|
\section*{Keywords}
Research funding, altmetrics, scientific articles, preprints, research productivity, impact evaluation
\clearpage
\hypertarget{introduction}{%
\section{Introduction}\label{introduction}}
Scientific research generated at universities and research organisations plays an important role in knowledge-based societies \citep{Fleming2019,Poegeetal2019}. The created knowledge drives scientific and technological progress and spills over to the broader economy and society \citep{Jaffe1989,Stephan_2012,Hausman_2020}. The growing importance of science-based industries puts additional emphasis on the question how scientific knowledge is generated and whether public funding can accelerate knowledge creation and its diffusion.
In an effort to promote scientific research, grant competitions as a means of allocating public research funding have become an important policy tool \citep{Froumin2015,Oancea2019}. The goal is to incentivize the generation of ideas and to allocate funding such that it is most likely to deliver scientific progress and eventually economic and social returns\footnote{The importance of competitive research funding increased substantially over the past three decades. The basic idea of promoting such science policy goes back to New Public Management reforms which aimed to increase the returns to public science funding through the selective provision of more funding to the most able researchers, groups and universities (winners in funding competitions), and to create performance incentives at all levels of the university system \citep{KruckenMeier_2006,GlaserVelarde_2018}.}. In light of these developments, it is important to understand whether research grants indeed facilitate additional, relevant research outputs and whether these are accessible to the public.
In particular individual-level analyses are highly interesting since most grants are awarded to individual researchers or to small teams of researchers. The estimation of the effect that a grant has on research outputs is, however, challenging. The main difficulties are the availability of information on all applicants (not only winners) as well as detailed information about the individual researchers (demographic information). Moreover, the non-randomness of the award of a grant through the selection of the most able researchers into the funding program results in the non-comparability of funded and non-funded researchers. The fact that researchers can receive multiple grants at the same time as well as several consecutive grants further challenges the estimation of effects from funding \citep{Jaffe_2002}. Another difficulty stems from finding appropriate measures for research output \citep{Oancea2019}. Publications and citations are easy to count, but likely draw an incomplete picture of research impact, its dissemination and the extent to which funded research contributes to public debates. Moreover, both publication and citation patterns as well as funding requirements are highly field-dependent which makes output analyses in mixed samples or inter-disciplinary programs difficult. \\
In this study, we aim to quantify the effect of the Swiss National Science Foundation's (SNSF)\footnote{The SNSF is Switzerland's main research funding agency. The SNSF is mandated by the Swiss confederation to allocate research funding to eligible researchers at universities, (technical) colleges and research organisations.} project funding (PF) grants on the individual researcher in terms of future scientific publications and their dissemination. Our analyses is based on detailed information on both grants and awardees covering 20'476 research project grants submitted during the period 2005 and 2019.
This study adds to previous work in several dimensions. By focusing on the population of applicants which constitutes a more homogeneous set of researchers than when comparing grant winners to non-applicants and by accounting of individual characteristics of the applicants, our study results are less prone to overlook confounding factors affecting both the likelihood to win a grant as well as research outputs. Information on the evaluation scores submitted in the peer-review process of the grant proposals allows us to compare researchers with similarly rated proposals. In other words, by comparing winning applicants to non-winners and by taking into account the evaluation scores that their applications receive, we can estimate the causal effect of the grant on output while considering that both research ideas as well as grant writing efforts (and skills) are required for winning a grant. By studying a long time-period and accounting for the timing of research grants and outcomes, we can further take into account that there are learning effects from the grant writing itself even for unsuccessful applicants \citep{Ayoubietal_2019}. To benchmark our results to previous studies, we first investigate the impact of grants on publication outputs. In addition, we consider preprints which have become an important mode of disseminating research results quickly, but received so far no attention in research of funding effects. Preprints do not undergo peer-review \citep{Bergetal2016,Serghiou2018}, but help researchers to communicate their results to their community and to secure priority of discovery.
This study goes beyond previous work that mainly considered citation-weighted publication counts, by measuring impact in a researcher's field of study by relative citation ratios (RCR) and field citation ratios (FCR). These metrics account for field-specific citation patterns. Additionally we explicitly explore researchers' altmetric scores as a measure of attention, research visibility and accessibility of research outcomes beyond academia. Altmetrics reflect media coverage, citations on Wikipedia and in public policy documents, on research blogs and in bookmarks of reference managers like Mendeley, as well as mentions on social networks such as Twitter. While altmetrics may reflect fashionable or provocative research, they may indicate accessible insights disseminated through the increasingly important online discussion of research and may therefore measure the general outreach of research \citep{Warrenetal2017}.
Although they are a potentially important measure of dissemination to the wider public and therefore of research impact in the age of digital communication \citep{BORNMANN2014,Konkiel2016,Lazaroiu2017}, the effect of funding on altmetrics has not been investigated so far.
Finally, by explicitly investigating outputs over several years after funding, our study contributes new insights on the persistency of effects. Since a large share of project funding typically goes into wages of doctoral and post-doctoral researchers which require training and learning on the job, there may be a considerable time-lag between the start of the project and the publication of any research results and an underestimation of output effects when considering only immediate outcomes.
The results from our analysis based on different estimation methods show that grant-winning researchers publish about one additional peer-reviewed publication more per year in the three years following funding than comparable but unsuccessful applicants. Moreover, these publications are also influential as measured by the number of citations that they receive later on.
SNSF PF seems to promote timely dissemination as indicated by the higher number of published preprints and researchers' higher altmetrics scores. The funding impact is particularly high for young(er) researchers as well as for researchers at a very late career stage when funding keeps output levels high.
These results add new insights to the international study of funding effects which provided partially ambiguous findings as our review in the next section illustrates. In summary, the results presented in the following stress the important role played by project funding for research outcomes and hence for scientific progress. Institutional funding alone does not appear to facilitate successful research to the same extent as targeted grants which complement institutional core funds.
\subsection{The impact of funding on research outcomes}
The impact of competitive research funding on knowledge generation (typically proxied by scientific publications) has been studied in different contexts and at multiple levels: the institutional level, the research group or laboratory, and the level of the individual researcher.
At the level of the university, \citet{AdamsGriliches_1998} find a positive elasticity of scientific publications to university funding. \cite{Payne_2002} and \cite{PayneSiow_2003}, using congressional earmarks and appropriation committees as instruments for research funding, present similar results. They show that a \$1 million increase in funding yields 10 to 16 additional scientific articles. \cite{Wahls_2018} analyses the impact of project grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States and finds positive institution-level returns (in terms of publications and citation) to funding which, however, diminish at higher levels of funding.
At the laboratory level, the results are rather inconclusive so far which is likely due to heterogeneity in unobserved lab characteristics and the variety of grants and resources that typically fund lab-level research. An analysis of an Italian biotechnology funding program by \cite{Aroraetal_1998} finds a positive average elasticity of research output to funding, but with a stronger impact on the highest quality research groups. These findings, however, seem to be specific to engineering and biotechnology. \citet{CarayolMatt_2004} included a broader set of fields and did not find a strong link between competitive research funding and lab-level outputs.
At the level of the individual researcher, \cite{AroraGambardella_2005} find that research funding from the United States National Science Foundation (NSF) in the field of Economics has a positive effect on publication outcomes (in terms of publication success in highly ranked journals) for younger researchers. For more advanced principle investigators (PIs between 5 and 15 years since PhD), however, they do not find a significant effect of NSF funding when taking the project evaluation
into account. \cite{JacobLefgren_2011} study personal research funding from the NIH and find that grants resulted in about one additional publication over the next five years. These results are close to the estimated effect from public grants of about one additional publications in a fixed post-grant window in a sample of Engineering professors in Germany \citep{HottenrottThorwarth2011}. Likewise, a study on Canadian researchers in nanotechnology \citep{BEAUDRY2012} documents a significant positive relationship between public grants and the number of subsequently published articles.
More recent studies, considered output effects both in terms of quantity and quality or impact. Evaluating the impact of funding by the Chilean National Science and Technology Research Fund on research outputs by the PIs, \cite{BENAVENTE2012} find a positive impact in terms of number of publications of about two additional publications, but no impact in terms of citations to these publications.
In contrast to this, \cite{Beaudry2019} show that there is also an influence of public grants (unlike for private sector funding) on the number of citations for nanotechnology researchers in Canada. In addition, \cite{HottenrottLawson_2017} find that grants from public research funders in the United Kingdom contribute to publication numbers (about one additional publication per year) as well as to research impact (measured by citations to these publications)
even when grants from other private sector sources are accounted for. Results for a sample of Slovenian researchers analysed by \cite{Malietal2017}, however, suggest that public grants result in `excellent publications'\footnote{Excellent publications in this study were for instance papers in the upper quarter of journals included in the Science Citation Index (SCI).} only if researchers' funding comes mostly from one source.
Explicitly looking at research novelty\footnote{Novelty is measured by the extent to which a published paper makes first time ever combinations of referenced journals while taking into account the difficulty of making such combinations.}, \citet{WANG2018} find that projects funded by competitive funds in Japan have on average higher novelty than projects funded through institutional funding.
However, this only holds for senior and male researchers. For junior female researchers, competitive project funding has a negative relation to novelty.
In a study on Switzerland-based researchers, \citet{Ayoubietal_2019} find, in a sample of 775 grant applications for special collaborative, multi-disciplinary and long-term projects, that participating in the funding competition does indeed foster collaborative research with co-applicants. For grant-winners, they observe a lower average number of citations received per paper compared to non-winners (not controlling for other sources of funding that the non-winners receive). The authors relate this finding to the complexity of such interdisciplinary projects, the cost of collaboration, and the fact that also applicants who do not eventually win this particular type of grant publish more as a result of learning from grant writing or through funding obtained from alternative sources.\\
By studying grants distributed via the main Swiss research funding agency, we are capturing the vast majority of competitive research grants in the country. The Swiss research funding system is characterised by a relatively strong centralisation of research funding distribution with the SNSF accounting by far for the largest share of external research funding of universities \citep{Schmidt2008,Jonkers2016}\footnote{Charities and private sector grants do play an increasing, but still relatively minor role in Switzerland \citep{Schmidt2008, Jonkers2016}.}.
To account for major sources outside of Switzerland such as from the European Research Council (ERC), we collected information on Swiss-based researchers who received such funding during our period of analysis.
\section{Empirical model of funding and research outputs}\label{sec:empirical-model}
All of the following is based on the assumption that academic researchers strive to make tangible contributions to their fields of research. The motivations for doing so can be diverse and heterogeneous ranging from career incentives to peer-recognition \citep{Franzoni2011}. We also assume that producing these outputs requires resources (personnel, materials, equipment) and hence researchers have incentives to apply for grants to fund their research. However, research output, that is the success of a researcher in producing results and the frequency with which this happens, also depends on researcher characteristics, characteristics of the research field and the home institution. Research success is also typically path-dependent following a success-breeds-success pattern. Thus, we build on the assumption that a researcher who generates an idea for a research project files a grant application to obtain funding to pursue the project. If the application succeeds, the researcher will spend the grant money and may or may not produce research outputs. The uncertainty is inherent to the research process. The funding agency screens funding proposals and commissions expert-reviews to assess the funding worthiness of the application. If the submitted proposal received an evaluation that is sufficiently good in comparison to the other proposals, funding is granted in accordance with the available funding amount.
This implies that even in case of a rejected grant proposal the researcher may pursue the project idea, but without these dedicated resources available. In many instances funding decisions are made at the margin, with some winning projects being only marginally better than non-wining projects \citep{Gravesd2011,Neufeld2013,Fang2016}. If the funding itself has indeed an effect on research outcomes, we would expect that the funded researcher is more successful in generating outputs both in terms of quantity and quality.
In addition to resource-driven effects, there may also be direct dissemination incentives related to public project funding. On the one hand, funding agencies may encourage or even require dissemination of any results from the funded project. On the other hand, the researchers may have incentives to publish research outcomes to signal project success to the funding agency and win reputation gains valuable for future proposal assessments.
While estimating the contribution of funding to research outputs measured by different indicators, we have to take into consideration that the estimation of the funding effect requires assumptions about output generation by researchers. The extent to which the output produced can be attributed to the funding itself also depends on the econometric model used \citep{Silberzahn2018}. We therefore take a quantitative multi-method approach taking up and adding to methods applied in previous related studies. Comparing the results from different estimation methods also allows an assessment of the sensitivity of our conclusions to specific modelling assumptions. In particular, we estimate longitudinal regression models which aim to account for unobserved heterogeneity between researchers. In addition, we use non-parametric matching methods to explicitly model the selectivity in the grant awarding process.
\subsection{Mixed Effects Models}
We define \(P_{it}\) as the research output of researcher \(i\) in year \(t\) and \(F_{it-1}\) as a binary variable indicating whether this same researcher \(i\) had access to SNSF funding in year \(t-1\). Note that this indicator takes the value one for the entire duration of the granted project. The funding information is lagged by one year as an immediate effect of funding on output is unlikely. Note that, we will differentiate between funding as PI and as co-PI (only).
The general empirical model can then be expressed as
\[P_{it}(\phi) = \phi \ [F_{it-1} + X_{it} + T_t] + v_{i} + \epsilon_{it},\]
with \(\phi\) being the vector of parameters. \(X_{it}\) represents a vector with explanatory factors at \(t\) including observed characteristics of the researcher and the average quality of the grant applications as reflected in the average evaluation score. Further \(T_t\) captures the overall time trend, \(v_i\) is the unobserved individual heterogeneity, and \(\epsilon_{it}\) is the error term.
The specification above describes a production function for discrete outcome following \citet{Blundell}.
As a first estimation strategy, count data models will be used to estimate research outputs, as for example the number of peer reviewed articles or preprints.
Moreover, these models account for unobserved individual characteristics, \(v_i\), which likely predict research outputs besides observable characteristics and are independent from project funding. One way to estimate this unobserved heterogeneity is to use random intercepts for the individuals\footnote{An alternative approach is to employ pre-sample information of the researcher as a proxy for unobservable characteristics, such as a researcher's ability or writing talent which impact research output in the (later) sample period. We conducted such linear feedback models (LFM) as robustness test and present them in Supplement \ref{supp-analyses}}, here the researchers, and account for the hierarchical structure of the information (\emph{e.g.} panel data). Thus, we estimate mixed count models to capture \(v_i\)\footnote{We use the \texttt{lmer} package in \texttt{R} and a negative binomial family.}. The mixed regression models for count data take the following form
\[\log \mbox{E} (P_{it} \ | \ \mbox{data}) = \phi \ [F_{it-1} + X_{it} + T_t]+ v_{i} \ .\]
In addition to count-type outputs, we estimate the effect of funding on continuous output variables such as the average number of yearly citations per article or the researcher's average yearly altmetric score. For these output types we estimate linear regression models based on a comparable model specification with regard to \(F_{it-1}, X_{it}, T_t\) and \(v_{i}\). \\
\subsection{Non-Parametric Treatment Effect Estimation}\label{subsec:empirical-model}
In an alternative estimation approach, we apply a non-parametric technique: The average treatment effect of project funding on scientific outcomes is estimated by an econometric matching estimator which addresses the question of “How much would a funded researcher have published (or how much attention in terms of altmetrics or citations would her research have received) if she had not received the grant?”. This implies comparing the actually observed outcomes to the counterfactual ones to derive an estimate for the funding effect. Given that the counterfactual situation is not observable, it has to be estimated.
For doing so, we employ a nearest neighbor propensity score matching. That is, we pair each grant recipient with a non-recipient by choosing the nearest `twin' based on the similarity in the estimated probability of receiving a grant and the average score that the submitted applications received. Note that we select the twin researcher from the sample of unsuccessful applicants so that matching on both, the general propensity to win (which includes personal and institutional characteristics) and the proposal's evaluation score, allows to match both on individual as well as on proposal (or project idea) characteristics to find the most comparable individuals.
The estimated propensity to win a grant is obtained from a probit estimation on a binary treatment indicator which takes the value of one for each researcher-year combination in which an individual had received project funding. The advantage of propensity score matching compared to exact matching is that it allows to combine a larger set of characteristics into a single indicator avoiding the curse of dimensionality. Nevertheless, introducing exact matching for some key indicators can improve the balancing of the control variables after matching. In particular, we match exactly on the year of the funding round as this allows to have the same post-treatment time window for treated and control individual and also
captures time trends in outputs which could affect the estimated treatment effect. In addition, we match only within a research field to not confound the treatment effect with heterogeneity in resource requirements and discipline differences in output patterns.
We follow a matching protocol as suggested by \cite{GerfinLechner2002} and calculate the Mahalanobis distance between a treatment and a control observation as \[MD_{ij} = (Z_i-Z_j) \Omega^{-1} (Z_i-Z_j) \]
where $\Omega$ is the empirical covariance matrix of the matching arguments (propensity score and evaluation score). We employ a caliper to avoid bad matches by imposing a threshold of the maximum distance allowed between the treated and the control group. That is, a match for researcher $i$ is only chosen if $|Zj - Zi| < \epsilon$, where $\epsilon$ is a pre-specified tolerance.
After having paired each researcher with the most similar non-treated one, any remaining differences in observed outcomes can be attributed to the funding effect. The resulting estimate of the treatment effect is unbiased under the conditional independence assumption \citep{Rubin1977}. In other words, in order to overcome the selection problem, participation and potential outcome have to be independent for individuals with the same set of characteristics $X_{it}$\footnote{In addition to the closeness on $MD$, we use elements of exact matching by requiring that selected control researchers belong exactly to the same subject field and to be observed in the same year as the researchers in the treatment group. This allows to account for different publication patterns across disciplines and also for time trends in funding likelihood and in the outcome variables.}.
Note that by matching on the evaluation score in addition to the propensity score, our approach is similar to the idea of regression discontinuity design (RDD). The advantage of the selected approach is, however, that it allows us to draw causal conclusions for a more representative set of individuals. While RDD designs have the advantage of high internal consistency, this comes at the price of deriving effects estimates only for researchers around the cut-off \citep{delaCuesta2016}. Yet, in our case, this threshold is not constant, but depends on the pool of submitted proposals and there is considerable variation in the evaluation scores that winning proposals receive. In our application, we also expect heterogeneous impacts across researchers so that a local effect might be very different from the effect for researchers away from the threshold for selection \citep{BATTISTIN2008715}.
Using the matched comparison group, the average effect on the treated can thus be calculated as the mean difference of the matched samples:
\[\hat{\alpha}_{TT} = \frac{1}{n^t} \Biggl( \sum_{i}P_{i}{^T} - \sum_{j}\hat{P}_{j}{^C} \Biggr) \]
with $P_i^T$ being the outcome variable in the treated group, $P_j^C$ being the counterfactual for $i$ and $n^T$ is the sample size (of treated researchers).\footnote{As we perform sampling with replacement to estimate the counterfactual situation, an ordinary t-statistic on mean differences after matching is biased, because it does not take the appearance of repeated observations into account. Therefore, we have to correct the standard errors in order to draw conclusions on statistical inference, following \citet{Lechner2001}.}
\hypertarget{data-and-descriptive-analysis}{%
\section{Data and descriptive analysis}\label{data-and-descriptive-analysis}}
Data provided by the SNSF has been used to retrieve a set of researchers of interest. These researchers have applied to the SNSF funding instrument project funding (PF) or Sinergia \footnote{The Sinergia scheme is closely linked to PF, so that we will not differentiate between them in the following.}
as main applicant (\textit{e.g.} PI) or co-applicant\footnote{If granted, a co-applicant is entitled to parts of the funding.} (\textit{e.g.} co-PI). The PF scheme is a bottom-up approach as it funds costs of research projects with a topic of the applicant's own choice.
The study period is dynamic and researcher-specific: it starts with the year in which the SNSF observes the researcher for the first time as (co-)PI to PF or as a career funding grantholder (after the postdoctoral level); the year the independent research career starts. However, this study period has its lower bound in 2005. The period ends in 2019 for everyone, and some researchers are observed for a longer period than others. For each researcher, a pre-sample period is defined, including the five years before the observation started. Pre-sample information on all outcome variables of interest is needed to account for heterogeneity between the individuals in the way that they enter the study in linear feedback models and for matching on ex-ante performance in the non-parametric estimation approach. Further, only researchers who applied at least once after 2010 to the SNSF are included to ensure a minimum research activity.
In a next step, we retrieve a unique Dimensions-identifier (Dim-ID) from the \emph{Dimensions} database \citep{Dimensions} using a person's name, research field, age and information about past and current affiliations\footnote{If Dimensions found more than one ID for a certain name, we used further information on the researcher available to the SNSF to narrow the ID-options down. This supplementary information was, if present the ORCID, the current and previous research institution(s), country and birth year. Only researchers with a unique ID could be used in the following. See Table \ref{tab:percentages_found_not_found} for a comparison of the researchers that were found and not found}.
The Dim-ID enables us to collect disambiguated publication information for these researchers to be used in the empirical analysis.
\hypertarget{variables-and-descriptive-statistics}{%
\subsection{Variables and descriptive statistics}\label{variables-and-descriptive-statistics}}
The original data set comprised 11'228 eligible researchers. 10\% (1'143) of the latter could not be identified in the Dimensions database. Among the researchers found using their name, the supplementary information from the SNSF database (country, ORCID, institution, etc.) did not match in 1\% of the cases, and we were not sure that we found the correct researcher. For 12\% of the researchers found in Dimensions no unique ID could be retrieved. After removing these observations, we observe a total of 8'793 distinct researchers (78\% of the eligible researchers\footnote{Some characteristics on the researchers without unique ID can be found in Table \ref{tab:percentages_found_not_found}}) and the final data set is composed of 82'249 researcher-year observations.
On average researchers are observed for 9.35 years. The maximum observation length, from 2005 to 2019 is 15 years, and 2'319 researchers are observed over this maximal study period. All the publication data was retrieved in September 2020.
\hypertarget{research-funding}{%
\subsubsection{Research funding}\label{research-funding}}
The central interest of the study is the effect
competitive project funding has on a researcher's subsequent research outputs.
The information on SNSF funding indicates whether a researcher had access to SNSF funding as a PI and/or co-PI in a certain year. We differentiate between PIs and Co-PIs to test whether the funding effect differs depending on the role in the project. On average the researchers in our data set are funded by the SNSF for 4.6 years during the observation period; for 3.3 years as PI of a project, see Table \ref{tab:output_baseline}. In total 20'476 distinct project applications (not necessarily funded) are included in the data. On average a PIs is involved in a total of 3.7 project applications (as PI or co-PI); in 3.1 submissions as PI, and in 2.3 submissions as co-PI. About 66\% of all projects in the data have one sole PI applying for funding, 22\% have a PI and a co-PI, 8\% a PI and two co-PIs, and 4\% are submitted by a PI together with three or more co-PIs. Note that the percentage of successful applications in our data set is 48\% over the whole study period (the success rate for the STEM applications is $\sim 60\%$, it is $\sim 44\%$ in SSH and the one of the LS is the lowest with $\sim 40\%$).
These numbers reflect that in the Swiss research funding system, project funding does play an important role, but that institutional core funding is also relatively generous. The latter accounts for - on average - more than 70\% of overall university funding \citep{Schmidt2008,Reale2017}. This allows researchers to sustain in the system without project funding. While overall, institutional funding is quite homogeneous across similar research organisations in the country, it differs between institution types. It is therefore important to account for institutional funding in the following analyses as it provides important complementary resources to researchers \citep{Jonkers2016}.
Moreover, within the different institution types, we also account for the research field and the career stage of researchers as this may also capture individual differences in core budgets. We present sample characteristics in terms of these variables in subsection \ref{confounding-variables}.
Another important aspect to consider when analysing the effect of research funding is funding from other sources, other than institutional funding \citep{HottenrottLawson_2017}. In all European countries the European Research Council (ERC) plays an important role. Hence, we collected data on Swiss-based researchers who received ERC funding and matched them to our sample. Of all the researchers considered in this study only a small fraction (4.2\%) ever received funding by the ERC. Most of these researchers had a PF grant running at the same time (87\%). Figure \ref{fig:erc_evolution} shows the count of observations in the different funding groups in more detail.\footnote{Since only a few cases are identified to hold major international grants but no SNSF funding, we do not differentiate between these groups in the following. Note that the data was retrieved from the ERC Funded Projects Database included only grants acquired since 2007.}
\hypertarget{research-outputs-and-research-funding}{%
\subsubsection{Research outputs}\label{research-outputs-and-research-funding}}
Table \ref{tab:output_baseline} summarises the output measures as well as the funding length. The most straightforward research output measure is the number of (peer-reviewed) articles. On average, a researcher in our data publishes 4.9 articles each year. The annual number of articles is higher in the STEM (5.7) and life sciences (LS) (6.5) than in the Social Science and Humanities (SSH) where researchers published about 1.5 publications per year, on average. See Table \ref{tab:output_baseline_RA} for differences in all output variables (as well as funding and researcher information) by field. In some disciplines, such as biomedical research, physics, or economics, preprints of articles are widely used and accepted \citep{Bergetal2016,Serghiou2018}. As preliminary outputs they are made available early and thus are an interesting additional output, potentially indicating the dissemination and accessibility of research results. The average of the yearly number of preprints is a lot lower than the one of articles (0.4) which is due to preprints being a research output that emerged only rather recently and are more common in STEM fields than in others (see Table \ref{tab:output_baseline_RA}). Another output measure is the number of yearly citations per researcher. This is the sum of all citations of work by a certain researcher during a specific year to all her peer-reviewed articles published since the start of the observation period. Citations to articles published before the start of the observation period are not taken into account. On average a researcher's work in the study period is cited 132.9 times per year. This variable is however substantially skewed with 6.8\% of researchers accounting for 50\% of all citations and highly correlated with the overall number of articles that a researcher published. There are also field differences with the average citation numbers between the Life Sciences (185.2) and the STEM fields (157.7), but both numbers are substantially higher than in the SSH (25.6). The average number of citations per (peer-reviewed) article of a researcher is informative about the average relevance of a researcher's article portfolio. The articles in our sample are cited on average 4.2 times per year.
The \emph{altmetric score} of each article is retrieved as an attention or accessibility measure of published research. Following the recommendation by \cite{Konkiel2016}, we employ a `baskets of metrics' rather than single components of the altmetric score.
This score is a product of Digital Science and represents a weighted count of the amount of attention that is picked up for a certain research output
\footnote{\url{https://help.altmetric.com/support/solutions/articles/6000233311-how-is-the-altmetric-attention-score-calculated-}}.
Note that the average altmetric score for a researcher at \(t\) is the mean of the altmetrics of all articles published in the year \(t\).\footnote{Unfortunately the altmetric cannot be retrieved as a time-dependent variable from Dimensions but only as the altmetric state at the time point of data retrieval (September 2020). Therefore the altmetric informs us on the cumulative importance an article published at \(t\) got until September 2020.} On average a researcher in our sample achieves an altmetric of 13. Similar to citation counts, this variable is heavily skewed. The differences in altmetrics across disciplines are rather small (see Table \ref{tab:output_baseline_RA}). \\
When using simple output metrics like citation counts, it is important to account for field-specific citation patterns. In order to do so, we collect the \textit{relative citation ratio} (RCR) and the \textit{field citation ratio} (FCR). The RCR was developed by the NIH \citep{Hutchins_2016}. As described by \cite{Surkis_2018}, the RCR uses an approach to evaluate an article's citation counts normalized to the citations received by NIH-funded publications in the same area of research and year. The calculation of the RCR implies to dynamically determine the field of an article based on its co-citation network, that is, all articles that have been cited by articles citing the target article.
The advantage of the RCR is to field- and time-normalize the number of citations that an article received. A paper that is cited exactly as often as one would expect based on the NIH-norm receives an RCR of 1 and an RCR larger one indicated that an article is cited more than its expectation given the field and year.
The RCR is only calculated for the articles that are present on PubMed, have at least one citation and are older than two years. Thus, when analysing this output metric, we focus on researchers in the life sciences only. The FCR is calculated by dividing the number of citations a paper has received by the average number received by publications published in the same year and in the same fields of research (FoR) category. Obviously, the FCR is very dependent on the definition of the FoR. Dimensions uses FoR that are closest to the Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification \citep{ANZSRC}. For the calculation of the FCR a paper has to be older than two years. Simlar to the RCR, the FCR is normalized to one and an article with zero citations has an FCR of zero. As the altmetric, the RCR and FCR cannot be retrieved time-dependently but are snapshots at the day of retrieval. We will refer to the average FCR/RCR at $t$, as the average of the FCRs/RCRs of the papers published in $t$. According to \cite{Hutchins_2016}, articles in high-profile journals have average RCRs of approximately 3.
The key difference between the RCR and the FCR is that the FCR uses fixed definition of the research field, while for the RCR a field is relative to each publication considered. Table \ref{tab:output_baseline_RA} shows that the average rates are comparable across fields.
\begin{table}
\caption{Descriptive statistics for the output measures, funding measures and researcher characteristics.}\label{tab:output_baseline}
\centering \small
\begin{tabular}{llrrrl}
\toprule
& \% (Mean) & SD & Min & Max & NAs\\
\midrule
\addlinespace[0.3em]
\multicolumn{6}{l}{\textbf{Output Measures}}\\
\hspace{1em}\# of articles & 4.9 & 7.2 & 0 & 222 & 0\\
\hspace{1em}\# of preprints & 0.4 & 1.5 & 0 & 54 & 0\\
\hspace{1em}\# of citations & 132.9 & 321.1 & 0 & 7'888 & 0\\
\hspace{1em}\# of av. citations & 4.2 & 4.9 & 0 & 146.2 & 0\\
\hspace{1em}Yearly av. altmetric & 13.2 & 44.6 & 1 & 4'211 & 35'237 \\
\hspace{1em}Yearly av. FCR & 6.6 & 12.4 & 0 & 786.5 & 26'345 \\
\hspace{1em}Yearly av. RCR & 1.6 & 3.6 & 0 & 242.2 & 42'352 \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
\addlinespace[0.3em]
\multicolumn{6}{l}{\textbf{Funding Information}}\\
\rowcolor{gray!11}\hspace{1em}\# of years funded & 4.6 & 4.7 & 0 & 15 & 0\\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
\hspace{1em}\# of years funded as PI & 3.3 & 4.5 & 0 & 15 & 0\\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
\hspace{1em} \% of treated observations & 0.5 & & & & \\
\addlinespace[0.3em]
\multicolumn{6}{l}{\textbf{Gender}}\\
\hspace{1em}Female & 23.1\% & & & & 0\\
\hspace{1em}Male & 76.9\% & & & & \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
\addlinespace[0.3em]
\multicolumn{6}{l}{\textbf{Age}}\\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
\hspace{1em}Age at t & 46.6 & 8.3 & & & 96\\
\addlinespace[0.3em]
\multicolumn{6}{l}{\textbf{Institution Type}}\\
\hspace{1em}Cantonal university & 58.8\% & & & & 1'439\\
\hspace{1em}ETH Domain & 23.9\% & & & & \\
\hspace{1em}UAS/UTE/Other & 17.3\% & & & & \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
\addlinespace[0.3em]
\multicolumn{6}{l}{\textbf{Research Area}}\\
\rowcolor{gray!11}\hspace{1em}LS & 38.4\% & & & & 0\\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
\hspace{1em}STEM & 31.6\% & & & & \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
\hspace{1em}SSH & 29.9\% & & & & \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tablenotes}
\small \item Notes: The data contains 82'249 researcher-year observations on 8'793 distinct researchers; \textit{av.} stands for average.
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table}
Figure \ref{fig:outcome_distribution} represents the evolution of the yearly average number of articles, preprints and the altmetric score per researcher depending on the funding status of the year before (as co- and/or PI). The amount of articles published each year has been rather constant or only slightly increasing, while the preprint count increased substantially over the past years. Recent papers also have a higher altmetric scores than older publications, even though they had less time to raise attention.
It is important to note, however, that since we do not account for any researcher characteristics here, the differences between funded and unfunded researchers cannot be interpreted as being the result of funding. Yet, increasing prevalence of preprints and altmetrics suggest that they should be taken into account in funding evaluations.
\begin{figure} {\centering \includegraphics[width=1.05\linewidth]{Fig1.pdf}} \caption{Time trends of the publication and preprint counts as well as the altmetric score by SNSF funding status in the year before.}\label{fig:outcome_distribution}\end{figure}
\hypertarget{confounding-variables}{%
\subsubsection{Confounding variables}\label{confounding-variables}}
Table \ref{tab:output_baseline} further shows descriptive statistics for the gender of the researchers, their biological age, as well their field of research and the institution type. These variables capture drivers of researcher outputs and are therefore taken into account in all our analyses.
Almost 77\% of the researchers are male and about 60\% are employed at cantonal universities, 24\% at technical universities (ETH Domain) and about 17\% at University of Applied Sciences (UAS) and University of Teacher Education (UTE).
The research field and institution type are defined as the area or the type the researcher applies most often to or from. The field of Life Science (LS) has the largest proposal share in the data with about 39\%. These variables serve as confounders together with the pre-sample information on the outcome variables since they may explain differences in output and therefore need to be accounted for. Note that 1'615 researchers in our data did not publish any peer-reviewed papers in the five year pre-sample period. Table \ref{tab:output_baseline_RA} in the Supplementary Material shows how the confounding variables vary between the research fields.
The submitted project proposals are graded on a six-point scale: $1=D, 2=C, 3=BC, 4=B, 5=AB, 6=A$.
We use the information on project evaluation to control for (or match on) average project quality following the approach by \citep{AroraGambardella_2005}. We construct the evaluation score as a rolling average over the last four years of all the grades a researcher `collected' in submitted proposals as PI and co-PI (if no grade was available over the last four years for a certain researcher, we use her all time average). We do so because future research is also impacted by the quality of past and co-occurring projects.
The funding decision is, however, not exclusively based on those grades. It has to take the amount of funding available to the specific call into account. Therefore the ranking of an application among the other competing applications plays an important role and even highly rated projects may be rejected if the budget constraint is reached. Projects graded with an A/AB have good chances of being funded, while projects graded as D are never funded, see Figure \ref{fig:grade_distribution} representing the distribution of the grades among rejected and accepted projects.
Note that the researchers with missing age were deleted since this is an important control variable; the missing institution type were regrouped into unclassified. Additionally, for the analyses, the funding information will be used with a one (or more) year lag and at least one year of observation is lost per researcher. The final sample used for the analyses consists of 72'738 complete observations from 8'282 unique researchers.
\section{Results}\label{results}
\hypertarget{mixed-effects-model---longitudinal-regression-models}{%
\subsection{Mixed effects model - longitudinal regression models}\label{sec:mixed-models}}
Table \ref{tab:model_irr_count} summarises the results of both negative binomial mixed models for the count outcomes (yearly numbers of publications and preprints). The incidence rate ratios (IRR) inform us on the multiplicative change of the baseline count depending on funding status. The model for the publication count was fitted on the whole data set, while the model for the preprint count is fitted on data since 2010, because the number of preprints was rather small in general before. SNSF funding seems to have a significant positive effect on research productivity, regarding yearly publication counts (1.21 times higher for PI than without SNSF funding) as well as yearly preprint counts (1.30 times higher for the PI compared to researchers without SNSF funding).\footnote{Note that we also tested the robustness of this result to when focusing on PF as treatment and adding the researchers with a funded Sinergia project to the control group, but adjusting with a Sinergia dummy variable. The size of funding as PI and co-PI effects and their confidence intervals were comparable.} An `average' researcher without SNSF funding in $t-1$ publishes on average 4.64 articles in $t$. A similar researcher (with all confounding variables kept constant) with SNSF funding as PI in $t-1$ would publish 5.6 articles in $t$.
PIs on an SNSF project publish more. The same is true for male researchers and younger researchers for preprints. Researchers from ETH Domain publish more than the ones from Cantonal Universities. Researchers publish more in recent years. Researchers in the LS publish more peer-reviewed articles compared to other research areas. Regarding preprints, we observe a different picture. Here STEM researchers publish more than researchers in LS.
\begin{table}
\caption{\textbf{Incidence rate ratios} (IRR) of the multivariate \textbf{\textit{Negative Binomial}} models for the article and preprint counts}\label{tab:model_irr_count}
\small
\begin{tabular}[t]{lrllrll}
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{ } & \multicolumn{3}{c}{1. Articles} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{2. Preprints} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{ } & \multicolumn{3}{c}{(72'738 obs.)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{(61'726 obs.)} \\
\cmidrule(l{3pt}r{3pt}){2-4} \cmidrule(l{3pt}r{3pt}){5-7}
& IRR & (95\%-CI) & p-val. & IRR & (95\%-CI) & p-val. \\
\rowcolor{gray!6}
\midrule
Funded PI (t-1) & 1.21 & (1.19; 1.22) & $<$ 0.001 & 1.30 & (1.22; 1.39) & $<$ 0.001\\
\rowcolor{gray!6}
Funded Co-PI (t-1) & 1.11 & (1.09; 1.13) & & 1.10 & (1.02; 1.19) & \\
Eval. score BC-B & 0.98 & (0.96; 1) & 0.026 & 0.79 & (0.74; 0.84) & $<$ 0.001\\
Eval. score C-D & 0.97 & (0.95; 0.99) & & 0.55 & (0.49; 0.61) & \\
\rowcolor{gray!6}
Male (ref.: Female) & 1.46 & (1.37; 1.56) & $<$ 0.001 & 2.12 & (1.76; 2.56) & $<$ 0.001\\
Age (decades) at t & 1.01 & (0.99; 1.03) & 0.502 & 1.16 & (1.09; 1.24) & $<$ 0.001\\
\rowcolor{gray!6}
ETH Domain & 1.06 & (0.98; 1.14) & $<$ 0.001 & 1.44 & (1.21; 1.73) & $<$ 0.001\\
\rowcolor{gray!6}
UAS/UTE or Other & 0.56 & (0.52; 0.61) & & 0.34 & (0.26; 0.45) & \\
\rowcolor{gray!6}
Unclassified & 1.13 & (1.04; 1.22) & & 1.53 & (1.26; 1.86) & \\
Area STEM & 0.71 & (0.67; 0.77) & $<$ 0.001 & 3.10 & (2.63; 3.65) & $<$ 0.001\\
Area SSH & 0.15 & (0.14; 0.16) & & 0.40 & (0.33; 0.49) & \\
\rowcolor{gray!6}
Year 2010-14 & 1.14 & (1.12; 1.16) & $<$ 0.001 & & & \\
\rowcolor{gray!6}
Year 2015-19 & 1.18 & (1.15; 1.21) & & & & \\
\rowcolor{gray!6}
Year 2015-19 & & & & 2.06 & (1.95; 2.17) & $<$ 0.001\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tablenotes}
\small \item Notes: Incidence Rate Ratios (IRR) provided together with their 95\% confidence intervals (CI). The p-values refer to the results of likelihood ratio tests for each variable to be present in the model. For the institution type University serves as reference category, for the fields it is Life Sciences. For the evaluation score the class AB-A serves as reference category and for year it is the period 06-09 for model 1 and 10-14 for model 2.
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table}
Table \ref{tab:model_sum_ols_all} summarises the results of the four linear mixed models for the continuous outcomes: the average yearly number of citations per publication, the yearly average altmetric, the yearly average RCR and the yearly average FCR. Regarding the citation patterns, there is strong evidence that SNSF funding has a positive effect; especially PIs on SNSF projects have their articles cited more frequently (increase in average yearly citations of 0.33 per article for the PIs). Articles by LS researchers are cited most compared to researchers from other fields. This is also the case for researchers from ETH domain and older researchers. For altmetrics and citation ratios, we employ a logarithmic scale to account for the fact that their distributions are highly skewed; we can then interpret the coefficients as percentage change. Regarding altmetrics, research funded by the SNSF gets an attention score that is 5.1\% higher (by September 2020) compared to other researchers. Researchers in LS have by far the highest altmetrics followed by researchers in the SSH. There is no strong evidence for an effect of the funding on the average yearly RCR. This implies that in the short-run research outcomes of SNSF-funded researchers are as often cited as a mixed average of articles funded by the NIH or other important researcher funded world-wide, but also not significantly more than that. Younger researchers and researchers from the ETH domain have higher RCRs. The results also suggest a positive relation between SNSF funding and a researcher's FCR.
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}
\caption{Coefficients and percentage changes from
\textbf{\textit{normal linear mixed}} models for citation measures and altmetrics
of a researcher.}
\label{tab:model_sum_ols_all}
\centering
\resizebox{1.0\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{lrlrrlrrlrrlr}
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{ } & \multicolumn{3}{c}{3. av. citations per publication} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{4. altmetric} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{5. RCR} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{6. FCR} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{ } & \multicolumn{3}{c}{(72'738 obs.)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{(37'273 obs.)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{(23'350 obs.)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{(49'403 obs.)} \\
\cmidrule(l{3pt}r{3pt}){2-4} \cmidrule(l{3pt}r{3pt}){5-7} \cmidrule(l{3pt}r{3pt}){8-10} \cmidrule(l{3pt}r{3pt}){11-13}
& Coef. estimate & 95\%-CI & p-val. & \% & 95\%-CI & p-val. & \% & 95\%-CI & p-val. & \% & 95\%-CI & p-val. \\
\rowcolor{gray!6}
\midrule
Funded PI (t-1) & 0.33 & (0.3; 0.4) & $<$ 0.001 & 5.1 & (1.7; 8.7) & 0.013 & 0.5 & (-1; 2.1) & 0.827 & 2.0 & (0.3; 3.8) & 0.031\\
\rowcolor{gray!6}
Funded Co-PI (t-1) & 0.23 & (0.2; 0.3) & & 1.5 & (-2.5; 5.7) & & 0.0 & (-1.9; 2) & & 2.2 & (0.1; 4.3) & \\
Eval. score BC-B & -0.03 & (-0.1; 0) & $<$ 0.001 & -11.8 & (-15.3; -8.3) & $<$ 0.001 & -3.9 & (-6; -1.8) & $<$ 0.001 & -2.9 & (-4.8; -0.9) & $<$ 0.001\\
Eval. score C-D & -0.20 & (-0.3; -0.1) & & -21.4 & (-25.3; -17.3) & & -8.3 & (-10.6; -6) & & -7.9 & (-10.2; -5.4) & \\
\rowcolor{gray!6}
Male & 0.18 & (0; 0.4) & 0.105 & 10.5 & (5; 16.3) & $<$ 0.001 & 1.5 & (-1.1; 4.2) & 0.256 & 8.3 & (5; 11.8) & $<$ 0.001\\
Age (decades) at t & 0.57 & (0.5; 0.7) & $<$ 0.001 & -2.2 & (-4.3; 0) & 0.053 & -3.1 & (-4.3; -2) & $<$ 0.001 & -11.2 & (-12.4; -10) & $<$ 0.001\\
\rowcolor{gray!6}
ETH Domain & 0.66 & (0.4; 0.9) & $<$ 0.001 & 14.3 & (8.1; 21) & $<$ 0.001 & 7.1 & (3.4; 11.1) & $<$ 0.001 & 8.8 & (5.1; 12.6) & $<$ 0.001\\
\rowcolor{gray!6}
UAS/UTE/Other & -0.96 & (-1.2; -0.7) & & -3.1 & (-9.4; 3.8) & & -5.4 & (-8.5; -2.3) & & -9.8 & (-13.4; -6) & \\
\rowcolor{gray!6}
Unclassified & -0.01 & (-0.3; 0.3) & & 14.2 & (7.5; 21.4) & & 1.8 & (-1.4; 5.1) & & 1.9 & (-1.9; 5.9) & \\
Area STEM & -1.68 & (-1.9; -1.4) & $<$ 0.001 & -36.9 & (-40; -33.6) & $<$ 0.001 & & & & -23.7 & (-26.1; -21.3) & $<$ 0.001\\
Area SSH & -4.20 & (-4.4; -4) & & -27.0 & (-31; -22.8) & & & & & -27.2 & (-29.5; -24.7) & \\
\rowcolor{gray!6}
Year 2010-14 & 0.76 & (0.7; 0.8) & $<$ 0.001 & & & & 0.4 & (-1.1; 1.9) & 0.879 & -5.7 & (-7.4; -4.1) & $<$ 0.001\\
\rowcolor{gray!6}
Year 2015-19 & 1.26 & (1.2; 1.4) & & & & & 0.2 & (-1.5; 1.9) & & -18.7 & (-20.3; -17.1) & \\
\rowcolor{gray!6}
Year 2015-19 & & & & 51.1 & (47.4; 54.9) & $<$ 0.001 & & & & & & \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tablenotes}
\small \item Notes: The coefficients of the models on the logarithmic scale of the outcomes are converted to percentage changes, while the coefficient for the average citation per publications reads as a unit change. The quantities are provided together with a 95\% confidence intervals (CI). For the model for the altmetric score, only data since 2010 is used, as this is a more recent metric. To model the RCR, only researchers from the LS were included so that we do not need to account for the research area. The p-values refer to the results of likelihood ratio tests for each variable to be present in the model. For the institution type University serves as reference category, for the fields it is Life Sciences. For the evaluation score the class AB-A serves as reference category and for year it is the period 06-09 for model 3, 5, 6 and 10-14 for model 4.
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\hypertarget{Non-Parametric}{%
\subsection{Non-Parametric Estimation}\label{non-parametric}}
While the previous estimation approaches modelled unobserved heterogeneity across individuals, the non-parametric matching approach addresses the selection into the treatment explicitly. It accounts for selection on observable factors which may - if not accounted for - lead to wrongly attributing the funding effect to the selectivity of the grant-awarding process. We model a researcher's funding success
as a function of researcher characteristics. In particular, this includes their previous research track record (publication experience and citations) and the average of all evaluation scores for submitted proposals (PI or co-PI) received by the researcher. In addition, we include age, gender, research field and institution type. We obtain the propensity score to be used in the matching process as described in Section \ref{subsec:empirical-model}.
The results from the probit estimation on the funding outcome (success vs. rejection) are presented in Table \ref{tab:probit}. The table first shows the model for the full sample which provides the propensity score for the estimation of treatment effects on articles and citations to these articles, and on preprints. The second model shows the model for the sub-sample of researchers in the LS used for estimating treatment effects on the RCR. The third model shows the estimation for the full sample, but accounting for pre-sample FCR, and provides the propensity score for the estimation of the treatment effect on the FCR. The fourth model controls for pre-sample altmetrics values and serves the estimation of the treatment effect on future altmetrics scores.
Consistent across all specification, the results show that the evaluation score is a key predictor of grant success. The higher the score, the more likely is it that a proposal gets approved. The grant likelihood for male researches is higher than for females as well as for older researchers. The latter result can have various reasons, which are outside the scope of this paper and are being discussed elsewhere\footnote{\cite{Severin2020}, for example, discuss gender biases on the reviewer scores leading to lower grant likelihood for female researchers.}. As expected, past research performance is another strong predictor of grant success where peer-reviewed articles matter more than preprints. In addition to quantity, past research quality (as measured by citations) increases the probability of a proposal being granted. Interesting in more recent years (as shown in model 4), quality rather than quantity appears to predict grant success as it is the average number of citations to pre-period publication rather than their number that explains funding success.
The comparison of the distribution of the propensity score and the evaluation score before and after matching shows that the nearest neighbor matching procedure was successful in balancing the sample in terms of the grant likelihood and - importantly - also the average scores (see Figure \ref{fig:matchingsuccess}). This ensures that we are comparing researchers with funding to researchers without funding that have similarly good ideas (the scores are the same, on average) and are also otherwise comparable in their characteristics predicting a positive application outcome. The balancing of the propensity scores and the evaluation scores in both groups (grant winners and unsuccessful applicants) after each matching are shown in Tables \ref{tab:matchedpub} and \ref{tab:treatment2}. Note that we draw matches for each grant-winner from the control group with replacement and that hence some observations from researchers in the control group are used several times as `twins'. Table \ref{tab:drawing} shows that across the different matched samples less than 10\% of control researcher-year observations are used only once and about 60\% up to 25 times. About 10\% of control group researchers are used very frequently, i.e. more than 160 times.
Tables \ref{tab:matchedpub} and \ref{tab:treatment2} show the estimated treatment effects after matching, i.e. the test for the magnitude and significance of mean differences across groups. Note that the number of matched pairs differs depending on the sample used and that log values of output variables were used to account for the impact of skewness of the raw variable distribution in the mean comparison test.
The magnitude of the estimated effects is comparable to the ones of the parametric estimation models. Researchers with a successful grant publish on average 1.2 articles (exp[0.188]) and about one additional preprint (exp[0.053]) more in the following year, their articles receive 1.7 citations (exp(0.532)) more than articles from the control group. In terms of altmetrics we also see a significant difference in means which is 1.15 (exp[0.138]) points higher in the group of grant receivers. Also, in terms of the FCR and the RCR, there are significant effects on the treatment group. The probability to be among the `highly cited researchers' (as measured by an FCR $>$3) is 5.5 ($\alpha_{TT}=0.055$) percentage points higher in the group of funded researchers. This means publications in $t+1$ are cited at least three times as much as the average in the field.
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}
\centering \small
\caption{Estimation of \textbf{\textit{probit models}} on the funding propensity as PI or Co-PI }
\resizebox{1.0\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{ld{2.0}d{2.0}d{2.0}d{2.0}d{2.0}d{2.0}d{2.0}d{2.0}d{2.0}d{2.0}d{2.0}d{2.0}d{2.0}}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{1. articles} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{2. RCR } & \multicolumn{3}{c}{3. FCR} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{4. altmetrics} \\
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{(All Fields)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{(Life Sciences)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{(All Fields)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{(All since 2010)} \\
& \multicolumn{1}{r}{Coef.} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{SE} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$P>|z|$} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{Coef.} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{SE} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$P>|z|$} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{Coef.} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{SE} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$P>|z|$} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{Coef.} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{SE} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$P>|z|$} \\
\midrule
\rowcolor{gray!11}
ln(pre-sample articles) & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.053} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.012} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.050} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.020} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.012} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.029} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.014} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.038} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{-0.013} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.018} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.484} \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
ln(pre-sample preprints) & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.006} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.028} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.840} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.164} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.159} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.300} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{-0.003} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.030} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.930} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.060} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.037} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.100} \\
ln(pre-sample av. citations) & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.034} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.008} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & & & & & & & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.067} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.013} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} \\
ln(pre-sample RCR) & & & & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.051} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.021} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.013} & & & & & & \\
ln(pre-sample FCR) & & & & & & & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.040} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.009} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & & & \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
ln(pre-sample altmetrics) & & & & & & & \multicolumn{1}{r}{} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{-0.089} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.012} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} \\
Eval.score & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.815} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.007} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.760} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.010} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.798} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.008} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.800} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.010} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
Male researcher & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.120} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.016} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.135} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.027} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.111} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.019} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.102} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.026} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
ln(age) & \multicolumn{1}{r}{1.703} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.038} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{2.041} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.068} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{1.891} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.045} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{1.972} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.062} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} \\
ETH Domain & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.066} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.020} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.156} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.041} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.047} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.023} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.038} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.059} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.030} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.050} \\
UAS/UTE/Other & \multicolumn{1}{r}{-0.271} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.018} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{-0.243} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.033} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{-0.294} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.024} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{-0.268} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.032} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} \\
Unclassified & \multicolumn{1}{r}{-0.521} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.021} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{-0.406} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.034} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{-0.580} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.023} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{-0.635} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.029} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
STEM & \multicolumn{1}{r}{-0.138} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.019} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & & & & \multicolumn{1}{r}{-0.098} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.021} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{-0.118} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.027} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
SSH & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.019} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.019} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.307} & & & & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.053} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.023} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.023} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.114} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.033} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} \\
\cmidrule{1-13} JS Inst. types & \multicolumn{2}{c}{889.44} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{212.92} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{802.72} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{890.49} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
JS fields & \multicolumn{2}{c}{71.42} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{39.26} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ 72.62} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} \\
JS years & \multicolumn{2}{c}{1'469.08} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{797.32} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{1'195.22} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{1'551.61} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
\# observations & \multicolumn{3}{c}{63'680} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{22'999} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{48'729} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{30'360} \\
Log pseudolikelihood & \multicolumn{3}{c}{-24'863.80} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{-9'369.45} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{-18'226.64} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{-10'896.19} \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
Pseudo $R^2$ & \multicolumn{3}{c}{0.361} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{0.341} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{0.363} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{0.367} \\
\midrule
\end{tabular}}
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tablenotes}
\small
\item Notes: The models contain a constant and year dummies (not reported). JS stands for $chi^2$-test of joint significance of the respective factor. For the institution type University serves as reference category, for the fields it is Life Sciences. The specification for preprints is identical to model 1, but for observations since the year 2010 only (n = 52'410 Pseudo $R^2$ = 38.8).
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\label{tab:probit}%
\end{table}%
\end{landscape}
\hypertarget{persistency}{%
\subsection{Persistency of treatment effects}\label{persistency}}
In addition to the effect in the year after funding $(t+1)$, we are interested in the persistency of the effect in the following years up to $(t+3)$.
It is likely that any output effects occur with a considerable time-lag after funding received. The start-up of the research project including the training of new researchers and the set-up of equipment may take some time before the actual research starts.
In principle, we could of course expect the effect to last also longer than three to four years. However, after four years, the treatment effect of one project grant may become confounded by one (or several) follow-up grants.
Tables \ref{tab:matchedpub} and \ref{tab:treatment2} show the results for the different outcome variables also for different time horizons.
The results suggest that the funding has a persistent output effect amounting to about one additional article in each of the three years following the year of funding. The effect on preprints is already significant in the first year, but also turns out to sustain in later years suggesting that research results from the project are probably circulated via this channel. In contrast to these results, we find for altmetrics that they are significantly higher early on, but not in the medium-run.
When looking at citation-based measures as indicators for impact and relevance, we see that the number of citations stays significantly higher in the medium-run, but effect size declines somewhat indicating that researchers publish the most important results earlier after funding. This is also reflected in the results for the average number of citations and the probability to be highly cited. For the FCR, the effect is less persistent as the difference between groups fades after the first year. For the RCR the differences in means is strongest in the first year after the grant and only significant at the 10\% level in {t+3}.
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Treatment effects (after matching): articles and citations}
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{lrrrrrr}
\toprule
& ln(articles+1)$_{t+1}$ & ln(articles+1)$_{t+2}$ & ln(articles+1)$_{t+3}$ & ln(citations+1)$_{t+1}$ & ln(citations+1)$_{t+2}$ & ln(citations+1)$_{t+3}$ \\
\midrule
\rowcolor{gray!11}
Treated & \multicolumn{1}{r}{1.409} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{1.421} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{1.431} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{3.756} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{3.909} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{4.038} \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
SE & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.005} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.005} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.005} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.010} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.011} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.011} \\
Control & \multicolumn{1}{r}{1.221} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{1.227} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{1.274} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{3.223} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{3.482} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{3.670} \\
SE & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.005} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.005} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.005} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.009} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.010} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.010} \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
$\alpha_{TT}$ & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.188} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.194} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.157} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.533} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.427} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.368} \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
Diff. interval & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.175-0.201} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.180-0.207} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.142-0.171} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.505-0.559} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.398-0.455} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.337-0.398} \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
Pr($|T| > |t|$)& \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} \\
\midrule
PS Treated & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.819} & & & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.819} & & \\
PS Control & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.813} & & & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.813} & & \\
Pr($|T| > |t|$) & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.313} & & & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.313} & & \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
ES Treated & \multicolumn{1}{r}{3.929} & & & \multicolumn{1}{r}{3.929} & & \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
ES Control & \multicolumn{1}{r}{3.904} & & & \multicolumn{1}{r}{3.904} & & \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
Pr($|T| > |t|$) & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.405} & & & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.405} & & \\
\# matched & \multicolumn{1}{r}{43'936} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{39'125} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{34'383} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{43'936} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{39'125} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{34'383} \\
\midrule
& ln(av.citations+1)$_{t+1}$ & ln(av.citations+1)$_{t+2}$ & ln(av.citations+1)$_{t+3}$ & highly cited$_{t+1}$ & highly cited$_{t+1}$ & highly cited$_{t+1}$ \\
\midrule
\rowcolor{gray!11}
Treated & \multicolumn{1}{r}{1.488} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{1.521} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{1.546} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.673} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.666} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.658} \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
SE & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.004} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.004} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.004} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.003} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.003} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.003} \\
Control & \multicolumn{1}{r}{1.402} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{1.480} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{1.518} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.618} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.618} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.656} \\
SE & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.004} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.004} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.004} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.003} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.003} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.003} \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
$\alpha_{TT}$ & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.086} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.041} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.028} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.055} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.048} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.002} \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
Diff. interval & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.075-0.097} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.030-0.052} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.016-0.039} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.047-0.062} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.039-0.056} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.007-0.011} \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
Pr($|T| > |t|$) & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<0.001$} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.109} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.327} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.007} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.042} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.941} \\
\midrule
PS Treated & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.819} & & & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.833} & & \\
PS Control & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.813} & & & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.826} & & \\
Pr($|T| > |t|$) & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.313} & & & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.272} & & \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
ES Treated & \multicolumn{1}{r}{3.929} & & & \multicolumn{1}{r}{3.955} & & \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
ES Control & \multicolumn{1}{r}{3.904} & & & \multicolumn{1}{r}{3.930} & & \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
Pr($|T| > |t|$) & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.405} & & & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.476} & & \\
\# matched & \multicolumn{1}{r}{43'936} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{39'125} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{34'383} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{28'936} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{25'436} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{22'059} \\
\midrule
\end{tabular}}
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tablenotes}
\small \item Notes: The table shows sample means and results from t-tests on mean differences after matching. PS stands for Propensity Score and ES stands for Evaluation Score (which is here used as a numeric value). The number of matched pairs declines with each lead due to censoring at the end of the observation period.
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\label{tab:matchedpub}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Treatment effects (after matching): preprints, altmetrics and citation rates}
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{lrrrrrr}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{1}{r}{ln(preprints+1)$_{t+1}$} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{ln(preprints+1)$_{t+2}$} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{ln(preprints+1)$_{t+3}$} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{ln(altmetrics+1)$_{t+1}$} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{ln(altmetrics+1)$_{t+2}$} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{ln(altmetrics+1)$_{t+3}$} \\
\midrule
\rowcolor{gray!11}
Treated & 0.203 & 0.209 & 0.215 & 2.010 & 2.079 & 2.103 \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
SE & 0.003 & 0.003 & 0.003 & 0.007 & 0.008 & 0.009 \\
Control & 0.150 & 0.174 & 0.174 & 1.872 & 2.028 & 1.997 \\
SE & 0.002 & 0.003 & 0.003 & 0.007 & 0.008 & 0.009 \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
$\alpha_{TT}$ & 0.053 & 0.034 & 0.040 & 0.138 & 0.051 & 0.106 \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
Diff. interval & 0.046-0.059 & 0.027-0.042 & 0.032-0.049 & 0.120-0.157 & 0.029-0.073 & 0.082-0.130 \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
Pr($|T| > |t|$) & $<$0.001 & 0.044 & 0.041 & $<$0.001 & 0.368 & 0.108 \\
\midrule
PS Treated & 0.819 & & & 0.845 & & \\
PS Control & 0.814 & & & 0.836 & & \\
Pr($|T| > |t|$) & 0.433 & & & 0.187 & & \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
ES Treated & 3.920 & & & 3.951 & & \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
ES Control & 3.899 & & & 3.906 & & \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
Pr($|T| > |t|$) & 0.507 & & & 0.274 & & \\
\# matched & 35'330 & 30'519 & 25'776 & 22'362 & 17'615 & 15'129 \\
\midrule
& \multicolumn{1}{r}{ln(FCR+1)$_{t+1}$} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{ln(FCR+1)$_{t+2}$} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{ln(FCR+1)$_{t+3}$} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{ln(RCR+1)$_{t+1}$} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{ln(RCR+1)$_{t+2}$} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{ln(RCR+1)$_{t+3}$} \\
\midrule
\rowcolor{gray!11}
Treated & 1.700 & 1.684 & 1.669 & 0.885 & 0.883 & 0.880 \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
SE & 0.004 & 0.005 & 0.005 & 0.004 & 0.004 & 0.004 \\
Control & 1.635 & 1.666 & 1.676 & 0.827 & 0.837 & 0.832 \\
SE & 0.005 & 0.005 & 0.005 & 0.004 & 0.004 & 0.004 \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
$\alpha_{TT}$ & 0.065 & 0.018 & -0.007 & 0.058 & 0.046 & 0.048 \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
Diff. interval & 0.052-0.072 & -0.007-0.020 & 0.012-0.014 & 0.047-0.069 & 0.035-0.057 & 0.036-0.060 \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
Pr($|T| > |t|$) & 0.042 & 0.614 & 0.869 & 0.009 & 0.060 & 0.079 \\
\midrule
PS Treated & 0.833 & & & 0.802 & & \\
PS Control & 0.826 & & & 0.793 & & \\
Pr($|T| > |t|$) & 0.272 & & & 0.306 & & \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
ES Treated & 3.955 & & & 3.659 & & \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
ES Control & 3.930 & & & 3.630 & & \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
Pr($|T| > |t|$) & 0.476 & & & 0.508 & & \\
\# matched & 28'936 & 25'436 & 22'059 & 13'244 & 11'752 & 10'312 \\
\midrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:treatment2}
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tablenotes}
\small \item Notes: The table shows sample means and results from t-tests on mean differences after matching. PS stands for Propensity Score and ES stands for Evaluation Score (which is here used as a numeric value). The number of matched pairs declines with each lead due to censoring at the end of the observation period. The treatment effect on RCR is estimated only for the Life Sciences and for altmetrics only since 2010.
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\subsection{Impact heterogeneity over the academic life-cycle and research fields}
For most outcomes, we find a significant and persistent difference between funded and unfunded researchers, while controlling for other drivers of research outcomes. As shown in earlier studies \citep{AroraGambardella_2005,JacobLefgren_2011}, a grant's impact may depend on the career stage of a researcher. As a proxy for career stage, we use the biological age of the researchers. Additionally, there might be heterogeneity in the funding effect depending on the research fields. We perform interaction tests between (i) the age and the funding and (ii) between the research field and the funding. More specifically, we employ a categorical variable for age and allow for an interaction term with the funding variable in the mixed models presented in Section \ref{sec:mixed-models}. The same procedure is repeated with research field. The interaction tests suggests indeed that there is evidence for a difference in the effect of funding on the article and preprint count depending on the age group (with p-value $<$ 0.001, for both outcomes) and the research field (with p-value of $<$ 0.001 for articles and p-value of 0.0045 for preprints). When we test for those same interaction effects in the continuous outcome models, the results suggest that there is a difference in the funding effect on the average number of citations per article depending on the age group (p-value $<$ 0.001) and the research field (p-value = 0.0242). For altmetrics and the citation ratios, we see no evidence for major differences across age groups (p-value of 0.328 for the altmetric, 0.802 for the RCR and 0.873 for the FCR) nor research fields (p-value of 0.2296 for altmetric and p-value of 0.5124 for FCR\footnote{Note that we did not test the interaction for the RCR outcome, as this analysis was done only for the LS field.}).
To better understand those differences in funding effect, we refer to Figure \ref{fig:interactions_articles} for the article counts and Figure \ref{fig:interactions_citations} for the average number of citations per article. Those figures show the predicted article or citation count depending on the funding group (in $t-1$) and the age group or the research field. For all those subgroups, SNSF funding (as PI) in $t-1$ has a positive effect on the outcome. However the size of this effect differs substantially. The youngest age group ($<$45) seems to benefit considerably from the funding in terms of predicted difference between treatment and control researchers in article count, but also in citation per article (the confidence intervals of funded as PI and no funding do not overlap). More senior funded researchers (45-54 and 55-65 years of age) perform similarly well compared to researchers with the same characteristics but no funding. It is noteworthy that for older researchers (65+) the difference between groups is again higher indicating that funding helps to keep productivity up. We obtain very similar results based on post-estimations with interaction effects in the matched samples from the propensity score matching approach, see Figure \ref{fig:combined_matching_interaction}.
\begin{figure} \centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Fig2.pdf} \label{fig:interactions_articles}
\caption{Predicted yearly number of articles depending on whether or not the researchers were treated (as PI or Co-PI) or not (no funding), given the researcher's age group (left) and the research field (right). \\
{\scriptsize To predict the article count the baseline confounding variables were fixed to Year 2015-19, Male, Evaluation Score Score AB-A, University, LS in the age interaction model and age lower to 45 for the field interaction model.
We see a significant positive percentage change of 78\% for the youngest age group among PIs ($<$ 45) and 115\% for the most senior researchers ($>$ 65) compared to no SNSF funding. Additionally, the effect of funding is largest for STEM researchers (23\% more articles as PI compared to unfunded researchers. The effect in LS and SSH is less prominent, +15\% and +12\% respectively.}}\end{figure}
\begin{figure} \centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Fig3.pdf} \label{fig:interactions_citations}
\caption{Predicted yearly average number of citations per article depending on whether or not the researchers were treated or not, given the researcher's age group (left) and the research field (right).\\
{\scriptsize For the predictions the baseline confounding variables were fixed to Year 2010-14, Male, Evaluation Score Score AB-A, University, LS in the age interaction model and age lower to 45 for the field interaction model.
A significant positive percentage change of 10\% for the youngest age group among PIs ($<$ 45) compared to no SNSF funding can be observed for the average number of citations. The remaining changes in citation number are not significant. Then, the effect of funding is largest for SSH researchers (15\% more citations per article as PI compared to unfunded researchers). The effect in LS and STEM is less prominent, +8\% for both. Note that the intervals however all overlap.}}\end{figure}
For all research areas, SNSF funding has a positive effect on article count and number of citations. STEM researchers however benefit most with a percentage change of 23\% more articles as funded PI compared to no funding; funded (PI) researchers from the LS publish 15\% more articles and the SSH researchers 12\%. This could reflect that in STEM and LS the extent to which research can be successfully conducted is highly funding-dependent, while this is not necessarily the case in the SSH. Yet regarding the number of citations per article, the SSH researchers benefit most (14\% more citations for SSH, 8\% for STEM and 6\% for LS). This suggest that funding may support the quality of research and hence its impact more in the SSH field. Thus, it should be noted that even though SSH researcher publish and are cited less in absolute numbers, we still see a substantial positive effect of SNSF funding on the outcomes. The respective figures for the remaining outcomes can be found in the supplementary material; more specifically Figure \ref{fig:altmetric_interaction} for the altmetric score, Figure \ref{fig:preprint_interaction} for the preprint count and Figure \ref{fig:FCR_interaction} for the FCR.
\hypertarget{conclusions}{%
\section{Conclusions}\label{conclusions}}
Understanding the role played by competitive research funding is crucial for designing research funding policies that best foster knowledge generation and diffusion. By investigating the impact of project funding on scientific output, its relevance and accessibility, this study contributes to research on the effects of research funding at the level of the individual researcher.
Using detailed information - including personal characteristics and the evaluation scores that their submitted projects received by peers - on the population of all project funding applicants at the SNSF during the 2005-2019 period, we estimate the impact of receiving project funding on publication outcomes and their relevance. The strengths of this study are in the detailed information on both researchers and grant proposals. First, the sample consists of both successful as well as unsuccessfully applicants. Therefore researchers who also had a research idea to submit are part of the control group. Second, information on the proposal evaluation scores allows to compare researchers which have submitted project ideas of - on average - comparable quality.
The estimated treatment effects therefore take into account that all applicants may benefit from the competition for funding through participation effects \citep{Ayoubietal_2019}.
Besides these methodological aspects, a key contribution of this study is that - in addition to articles in scientific journals - it is the first to include preprints. Preprints are an increasingly important means of disseminating research results early and without access restrictions \citep{Bergetal2016,Serghiou2018}. Besides this, we investigate relevance and impact in terms of absolute and relative citation measures. In the analysis of citations that published research receives, it is important to account for field-specific citation patterns. We do so by including the RCR and the FCR as measures for relative research impact in a researcher's own field of study as additional outcome measures. Finally, this is the first study to investigate the link between funding and researchers' altmetrics scores which mirror the attention paid to research outcomes in the wider public \citep{BORNMANN2014,Warrenetal2017,Lazaroiu2017}.
The results show a similar pattern across all estimation methods indicating an effect size of about one additional article in each of the three years following the funding. In addition, we find a similarly sized effect on the number of preprints. The comparison across methods suggests that if accounting for important observable researcher characteristics (e.g. age, field, gender and experience) as well as proposal quality (as reflected in evaluation scores) parametric regression results and non-parametric models lead to similar conclusions with regard to publication outputs. Importantly, a significant effect on the number of citations to articles could be observed indicating that funding does not merely translate into more, but only marginally relevant research. Funded research also appears to reach the general public more than other research as indicated by higher average altmetrics in the group of grant-winners. In terms of the RCR and FCR the results indicate that there might be an effect on the funded researchers' overall visibility in the research community. However, the effects on the RCR are not robust to the estimation method used.
The funding program analysed in this study is open to all researchers in Switzerland affiliated with institutions eligible to receive SNSF funding. This allows us to study treatment effect heterogeneity over researchers' life cycle and research field. The results suggest here, that funding is particularly important at earlier career stages where PF facilitates research that would not have been pursued without funding.
With regard to treatment effect heterogeneity across fields, we find the highest effect of funding on the article count for STEM researchers and the highest funding effect on citations in SSH.
While the insights on a positive effect of funding on the number of subsequent scientific articles are in line with previous studies, compared to previous results, the effects that we document here are larger. The reason for that may be related to the fact that the SNSF is the main source of research funding in Switzerland we can therefore identify researchers for the control group who really had no other project grant in the period for which they are considered a control. We also observe co-PIs which may in other studies - due to a focus on PIs or lack of information - be assigned to the control group. Both may lead to an under-estimation of funding effects in previous studies. Moreover, by counting all publications of these researchers, we further take not only articles directly related to the project into account, but also that there are learning spillovers and synergies beyond the project that improve a researcher's overall research performance.
Despite all efforts, this study is not without limitations. First, we do not observe industry funding for research projects which may be important in the engineering sciences \citep{HottenrottThorwarth2011,HottenrottLawson_2017}.
Moreover, the fact that researchers receive grants repeatedly and may switch between treatment and control group over time, makes a simple difference-in-difference analysis difficult. These factors further complicate the assessment of long-term impact of the research outcomes that we observe.
The methods presented here aim to account for the non-randomness of the funding award and the underlying data structure. While we find that the main results are robust to the estimation method used, the reader should keep in mind that time-varying unobserved factors that affect an individual's publication outcomes such as family or health status, involvement in professional services or administrative roles and duties \citep{Fudickar2016} may be not sufficiently accounted for. Moreover, we do not have detailed information on the involved research teams and individual responsibilities within the projects. Therefore we do not investigate the role of team characteristics for any outcome effects. In such an analysis, it would be desirable to study whether and how sole-PI and multiple-PI projects differ and which role different PI profiles play for project success. A more detailed analysis of teams would also be interesting in order to differentiate between group and individual effort. Third, we used preprints and altmetrics as output measures which is novel compared to previous research on funding effects. Since we cannot compare our results to previous ones, we encourage future research on the effects of funding on early publishing and science communication more directly. It should be kept in mind that altmetrics may measure popularity in addition to efforts at dissemination as well as the extent to which authors are embedded in a network, but not the quality of individual research outcomes. Probably more than publications in peer-reviewed journals, preprints and altmetrics may be gamed – for example by repeated sharing of own articles or by `Salami slicing' research outcomes into several preprints.
Finally, it should be noted that we did not investigate several aspects that might be important in impact evaluation in this study. This list includes the role of the funding amount, the degree of novelty of the produced research, as well as treatment effect heterogeneity in terms of individual characteristics other than age.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We are grateful to Tobias Phillip for helpful comments on the study design and on previous versions of this manuscript and to Matthias Egger for an additional careful review of the manuscript prior to submission.
\section*{Data availability}
An anonymized and aggregated data set can be found on Zenodo \\ (doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5011201). In order to anonymise the data we only provide applicants' age as categorical variable.
\section*{Funding}
This work was supported by the SNSF (internal funds).
\section*{Competing interests} None declared.
\newpage
\singlespacing
\section*{Keywords}
Research funding, altmetrics, scientific articles, preprints, research productivity, impact evaluation
\clearpage
\hypertarget{introduction}{%
\section{Introduction}\label{introduction}}
Scientific research generated at universities and research organisations plays an important role in knowledge-based societies \citep{Fleming2019,Poegeetal2019}. The created knowledge drives scientific and technological progress and spills over to the broader economy and society \citep{Jaffe1989,Stephan_2012,Hausman_2020}. The growing importance of science-based industries puts additional emphasis on the question how scientific knowledge is generated and whether public funding can accelerate knowledge creation and its diffusion.
In an effort to promote scientific research, grant competitions as a means of allocating public research funding have become an important policy tool \citep{Froumin2015,Oancea2019}. The goal is to incentivize the generation of ideas and to allocate funding such that it is most likely to deliver scientific progress and eventually economic and social returns\footnote{The importance of competitive research funding increased substantially over the past three decades. The basic idea of promoting such science policy goes back to New Public Management reforms which aimed to increase the returns to public science funding through the selective provision of more funding to the most able researchers, groups and universities (winners in funding competitions), and to create performance incentives at all levels of the university system \citep{KruckenMeier_2006,GlaserVelarde_2018}.}. In light of these developments, it is important to understand whether research grants indeed facilitate additional, relevant research outputs and whether these are accessible to the public.
In particular individual-level analyses are highly interesting since most grants are awarded to individual researchers or to small teams of researchers. The estimation of the effect that a grant has on research outputs is, however, challenging. The main difficulties are the availability of information on all applicants (not only winners) as well as detailed information about the individual researchers (demographic information). Moreover, the non-randomness of the award of a grant through the selection of the most able researchers into the funding program results in the non-comparability of funded and non-funded researchers. The fact that researchers can receive multiple grants at the same time as well as several consecutive grants further challenges the estimation of effects from funding \citep{Jaffe_2002}. Another difficulty stems from finding appropriate measures for research output \citep{Oancea2019}. Publications and citations are easy to count, but likely draw an incomplete picture of research impact, its dissemination and the extent to which funded research contributes to public debates. Moreover, both publication and citation patterns as well as funding requirements are highly field-dependent which makes output analyses in mixed samples or inter-disciplinary programs difficult. \\
In this study, we aim to quantify the effect of the Swiss National Science Foundation's (SNSF)\footnote{The SNSF is Switzerland's main research funding agency. The SNSF is mandated by the Swiss confederation to allocate research funding to eligible researchers at universities, (technical) colleges and research organisations.} project funding (PF) grants on the individual researcher in terms of future scientific publications and their dissemination. Our analyses is based on detailed information on both grants and awardees covering 20'476 research project grants submitted during the period 2005 and 2019.
This study adds to previous work in several dimensions. By focusing on the population of applicants which constitutes a more homogeneous set of researchers than when comparing grant winners to non-applicants and by accounting of individual characteristics of the applicants, our study results are less prone to overlook confounding factors affecting both the likelihood to win a grant as well as research outputs. Information on the evaluation scores submitted in the peer-review process of the grant proposals allows us to compare researchers with similarly rated proposals. In other words, by comparing winning applicants to non-winners and by taking into account the evaluation scores that their applications receive, we can estimate the causal effect of the grant on output while considering that both research ideas as well as grant writing efforts (and skills) are required for winning a grant. By studying a long time-period and accounting for the timing of research grants and outcomes, we can further take into account that there are learning effects from the grant writing itself even for unsuccessful applicants \citep{Ayoubietal_2019}. To benchmark our results to previous studies, we first investigate the impact of grants on publication outputs. In addition, we consider preprints which have become an important mode of disseminating research results quickly, but received so far no attention in research of funding effects. Preprints do not undergo peer-review \citep{Bergetal2016,Serghiou2018}, but help researchers to communicate their results to their community and to secure priority of discovery.
This study goes beyond previous work that mainly considered citation-weighted publication counts, by measuring impact in a researcher's field of study by relative citation ratios (RCR) and field citation ratios (FCR). These metrics account for field-specific citation patterns. Additionally we explicitly explore researchers' altmetric scores as a measure of attention, research visibility and accessibility of research outcomes beyond academia. Altmetrics reflect media coverage, citations on Wikipedia and in public policy documents, on research blogs and in bookmarks of reference managers like Mendeley, as well as mentions on social networks such as Twitter. While altmetrics may reflect fashionable or provocative research, they may indicate accessible insights disseminated through the increasingly important online discussion of research and may therefore measure the general outreach of research \citep{Warrenetal2017}.
Although they are a potentially important measure of dissemination to the wider public and therefore of research impact in the age of digital communication \citep{BORNMANN2014,Konkiel2016,Lazaroiu2017}, the effect of funding on altmetrics has not been investigated so far.
Finally, by explicitly investigating outputs over several years after funding, our study contributes new insights on the persistency of effects. Since a large share of project funding typically goes into wages of doctoral and post-doctoral researchers which require training and learning on the job, there may be a considerable time-lag between the start of the project and the publication of any research results and an underestimation of output effects when considering only immediate outcomes.
The results from our analysis based on different estimation methods show that grant-winning researchers publish about one additional peer-reviewed publication more per year in the three years following funding than comparable but unsuccessful applicants. Moreover, these publications are also influential as measured by the number of citations that they receive later on.
SNSF PF seems to promote timely dissemination as indicated by the higher number of published preprints and researchers' higher altmetrics scores. The funding impact is particularly high for young(er) researchers as well as for researchers at a very late career stage when funding keeps output levels high.
These results add new insights to the international study of funding effects which provided partially ambiguous findings as our review in the next section illustrates. In summary, the results presented in the following stress the important role played by project funding for research outcomes and hence for scientific progress. Institutional funding alone does not appear to facilitate successful research to the same extent as targeted grants which complement institutional core funds.
\subsection{The impact of funding on research outcomes}
The impact of competitive research funding on knowledge generation (typically proxied by scientific publications) has been studied in different contexts and at multiple levels: the institutional level, the research group or laboratory, and the level of the individual researcher.
At the level of the university, \citet{AdamsGriliches_1998} find a positive elasticity of scientific publications to university funding. \cite{Payne_2002} and \cite{PayneSiow_2003}, using congressional earmarks and appropriation committees as instruments for research funding, present similar results. They show that a \$1 million increase in funding yields 10 to 16 additional scientific articles. \cite{Wahls_2018} analyses the impact of project grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States and finds positive institution-level returns (in terms of publications and citation) to funding which, however, diminish at higher levels of funding.
At the laboratory level, the results are rather inconclusive so far which is likely due to heterogeneity in unobserved lab characteristics and the variety of grants and resources that typically fund lab-level research. An analysis of an Italian biotechnology funding program by \cite{Aroraetal_1998} finds a positive average elasticity of research output to funding, but with a stronger impact on the highest quality research groups. These findings, however, seem to be specific to engineering and biotechnology. \citet{CarayolMatt_2004} included a broader set of fields and did not find a strong link between competitive research funding and lab-level outputs.
At the level of the individual researcher, \cite{AroraGambardella_2005} find that research funding from the United States National Science Foundation (NSF) in the field of Economics has a positive effect on publication outcomes (in terms of publication success in highly ranked journals) for younger researchers. For more advanced principle investigators (PIs between 5 and 15 years since PhD), however, they do not find a significant effect of NSF funding when taking the project evaluation
into account. \cite{JacobLefgren_2011} study personal research funding from the NIH and find that grants resulted in about one additional publication over the next five years. These results are close to the estimated effect from public grants of about one additional publications in a fixed post-grant window in a sample of Engineering professors in Germany \citep{HottenrottThorwarth2011}. Likewise, a study on Canadian researchers in nanotechnology \citep{BEAUDRY2012} documents a significant positive relationship between public grants and the number of subsequently published articles.
More recent studies, considered output effects both in terms of quantity and quality or impact. Evaluating the impact of funding by the Chilean National Science and Technology Research Fund on research outputs by the PIs, \cite{BENAVENTE2012} find a positive impact in terms of number of publications of about two additional publications, but no impact in terms of citations to these publications.
In contrast to this, \cite{Beaudry2019} show that there is also an influence of public grants (unlike for private sector funding) on the number of citations for nanotechnology researchers in Canada. In addition, \cite{HottenrottLawson_2017} find that grants from public research funders in the United Kingdom contribute to publication numbers (about one additional publication per year) as well as to research impact (measured by citations to these publications)
even when grants from other private sector sources are accounted for. Results for a sample of Slovenian researchers analysed by \cite{Malietal2017}, however, suggest that public grants result in `excellent publications'\footnote{Excellent publications in this study were for instance papers in the upper quarter of journals included in the Science Citation Index (SCI).} only if researchers' funding comes mostly from one source.
Explicitly looking at research novelty\footnote{Novelty is measured by the extent to which a published paper makes first time ever combinations of referenced journals while taking into account the difficulty of making such combinations.}, \citet{WANG2018} find that projects funded by competitive funds in Japan have on average higher novelty than projects funded through institutional funding.
However, this only holds for senior and male researchers. For junior female researchers, competitive project funding has a negative relation to novelty.
In a study on Switzerland-based researchers, \citet{Ayoubietal_2019} find, in a sample of 775 grant applications for special collaborative, multi-disciplinary and long-term projects, that participating in the funding competition does indeed foster collaborative research with co-applicants. For grant-winners, they observe a lower average number of citations received per paper compared to non-winners (not controlling for other sources of funding that the non-winners receive). The authors relate this finding to the complexity of such interdisciplinary projects, the cost of collaboration, and the fact that also applicants who do not eventually win this particular type of grant publish more as a result of learning from grant writing or through funding obtained from alternative sources.\\
By studying grants distributed via the main Swiss research funding agency, we are capturing the vast majority of competitive research grants in the country. The Swiss research funding system is characterised by a relatively strong centralisation of research funding distribution with the SNSF accounting by far for the largest share of external research funding of universities \citep{Schmidt2008,Jonkers2016}\footnote{Charities and private sector grants do play an increasing, but still relatively minor role in Switzerland \citep{Schmidt2008, Jonkers2016}.}.
To account for major sources outside of Switzerland such as from the European Research Council (ERC), we collected information on Swiss-based researchers who received such funding during our period of analysis.
\section{Empirical model of funding and research outputs}\label{sec:empirical-model}
All of the following is based on the assumption that academic researchers strive to make tangible contributions to their fields of research. The motivations for doing so can be diverse and heterogeneous ranging from career incentives to peer-recognition \citep{Franzoni2011}. We also assume that producing these outputs requires resources (personnel, materials, equipment) and hence researchers have incentives to apply for grants to fund their research. However, research output, that is the success of a researcher in producing results and the frequency with which this happens, also depends on researcher characteristics, characteristics of the research field and the home institution. Research success is also typically path-dependent following a success-breeds-success pattern. Thus, we build on the assumption that a researcher who generates an idea for a research project files a grant application to obtain funding to pursue the project. If the application succeeds, the researcher will spend the grant money and may or may not produce research outputs. The uncertainty is inherent to the research process. The funding agency screens funding proposals and commissions expert-reviews to assess the funding worthiness of the application. If the submitted proposal received an evaluation that is sufficiently good in comparison to the other proposals, funding is granted in accordance with the available funding amount.
This implies that even in case of a rejected grant proposal the researcher may pursue the project idea, but without these dedicated resources available. In many instances funding decisions are made at the margin, with some winning projects being only marginally better than non-wining projects \citep{Gravesd2011,Neufeld2013,Fang2016}. If the funding itself has indeed an effect on research outcomes, we would expect that the funded researcher is more successful in generating outputs both in terms of quantity and quality.
In addition to resource-driven effects, there may also be direct dissemination incentives related to public project funding. On the one hand, funding agencies may encourage or even require dissemination of any results from the funded project. On the other hand, the researchers may have incentives to publish research outcomes to signal project success to the funding agency and win reputation gains valuable for future proposal assessments.
While estimating the contribution of funding to research outputs measured by different indicators, we have to take into consideration that the estimation of the funding effect requires assumptions about output generation by researchers. The extent to which the output produced can be attributed to the funding itself also depends on the econometric model used \citep{Silberzahn2018}. We therefore take a quantitative multi-method approach taking up and adding to methods applied in previous related studies. Comparing the results from different estimation methods also allows an assessment of the sensitivity of our conclusions to specific modelling assumptions. In particular, we estimate longitudinal regression models which aim to account for unobserved heterogeneity between researchers. In addition, we use non-parametric matching methods to explicitly model the selectivity in the grant awarding process.
\subsection{Mixed Effects Models}
We define \(P_{it}\) as the research output of researcher \(i\) in year \(t\) and \(F_{it-1}\) as a binary variable indicating whether this same researcher \(i\) had access to SNSF funding in year \(t-1\). Note that this indicator takes the value one for the entire duration of the granted project. The funding information is lagged by one year as an immediate effect of funding on output is unlikely. Note that, we will differentiate between funding as PI and as co-PI (only).
The general empirical model can then be expressed as
\[P_{it}(\phi) = \phi \ [F_{it-1} + X_{it} + T_t] + v_{i} + \epsilon_{it},\]
with \(\phi\) being the vector of parameters. \(X_{it}\) represents a vector with explanatory factors at \(t\) including observed characteristics of the researcher and the average quality of the grant applications as reflected in the average evaluation score. Further \(T_t\) captures the overall time trend, \(v_i\) is the unobserved individual heterogeneity, and \(\epsilon_{it}\) is the error term.
The specification above describes a production function for discrete outcome following \citet{Blundell}.
As a first estimation strategy, count data models will be used to estimate research outputs, as for example the number of peer reviewed articles or preprints.
Moreover, these models account for unobserved individual characteristics, \(v_i\), which likely predict research outputs besides observable characteristics and are independent from project funding. One way to estimate this unobserved heterogeneity is to use random intercepts for the individuals\footnote{An alternative approach is to employ pre-sample information of the researcher as a proxy for unobservable characteristics, such as a researcher's ability or writing talent which impact research output in the (later) sample period. We conducted such linear feedback models (LFM) as robustness test and present them in Supplement \ref{supp-analyses}}, here the researchers, and account for the hierarchical structure of the information (\emph{e.g.} panel data). Thus, we estimate mixed count models to capture \(v_i\)\footnote{We use the \texttt{lmer} package in \texttt{R} and a negative binomial family.}. The mixed regression models for count data take the following form
\[\log \mbox{E} (P_{it} \ | \ \mbox{data}) = \phi \ [F_{it-1} + X_{it} + T_t]+ v_{i} \ .\]
In addition to count-type outputs, we estimate the effect of funding on continuous output variables such as the average number of yearly citations per article or the researcher's average yearly altmetric score. For these output types we estimate linear regression models based on a comparable model specification with regard to \(F_{it-1}, X_{it}, T_t\) and \(v_{i}\). \\
\subsection{Non-Parametric Treatment Effect Estimation}\label{subsec:empirical-model}
In an alternative estimation approach, we apply a non-parametric technique: The average treatment effect of project funding on scientific outcomes is estimated by an econometric matching estimator which addresses the question of “How much would a funded researcher have published (or how much attention in terms of altmetrics or citations would her research have received) if she had not received the grant?”. This implies comparing the actually observed outcomes to the counterfactual ones to derive an estimate for the funding effect. Given that the counterfactual situation is not observable, it has to be estimated.
For doing so, we employ a nearest neighbor propensity score matching. That is, we pair each grant recipient with a non-recipient by choosing the nearest `twin' based on the similarity in the estimated probability of receiving a grant and the average score that the submitted applications received. Note that we select the twin researcher from the sample of unsuccessful applicants so that matching on both, the general propensity to win (which includes personal and institutional characteristics) and the proposal's evaluation score, allows to match both on individual as well as on proposal (or project idea) characteristics to find the most comparable individuals.
The estimated propensity to win a grant is obtained from a probit estimation on a binary treatment indicator which takes the value of one for each researcher-year combination in which an individual had received project funding. The advantage of propensity score matching compared to exact matching is that it allows to combine a larger set of characteristics into a single indicator avoiding the curse of dimensionality. Nevertheless, introducing exact matching for some key indicators can improve the balancing of the control variables after matching. In particular, we match exactly on the year of the funding round as this allows to have the same post-treatment time window for treated and control individual and also
captures time trends in outputs which could affect the estimated treatment effect. In addition, we match only within a research field to not confound the treatment effect with heterogeneity in resource requirements and discipline differences in output patterns.
We follow a matching protocol as suggested by \cite{GerfinLechner2002} and calculate the Mahalanobis distance between a treatment and a control observation as \[MD_{ij} = (Z_i-Z_j) \Omega^{-1} (Z_i-Z_j) \]
where $\Omega$ is the empirical covariance matrix of the matching arguments (propensity score and evaluation score). We employ a caliper to avoid bad matches by imposing a threshold of the maximum distance allowed between the treated and the control group. That is, a match for researcher $i$ is only chosen if $|Zj - Zi| < \epsilon$, where $\epsilon$ is a pre-specified tolerance.
After having paired each researcher with the most similar non-treated one, any remaining differences in observed outcomes can be attributed to the funding effect. The resulting estimate of the treatment effect is unbiased under the conditional independence assumption \citep{Rubin1977}. In other words, in order to overcome the selection problem, participation and potential outcome have to be independent for individuals with the same set of characteristics $X_{it}$\footnote{In addition to the closeness on $MD$, we use elements of exact matching by requiring that selected control researchers belong exactly to the same subject field and to be observed in the same year as the researchers in the treatment group. This allows to account for different publication patterns across disciplines and also for time trends in funding likelihood and in the outcome variables.}.
Note that by matching on the evaluation score in addition to the propensity score, our approach is similar to the idea of regression discontinuity design (RDD). The advantage of the selected approach is, however, that it allows us to draw causal conclusions for a more representative set of individuals. While RDD designs have the advantage of high internal consistency, this comes at the price of deriving effects estimates only for researchers around the cut-off \citep{delaCuesta2016}. Yet, in our case, this threshold is not constant, but depends on the pool of submitted proposals and there is considerable variation in the evaluation scores that winning proposals receive. In our application, we also expect heterogeneous impacts across researchers so that a local effect might be very different from the effect for researchers away from the threshold for selection \citep{BATTISTIN2008715}.
Using the matched comparison group, the average effect on the treated can thus be calculated as the mean difference of the matched samples:
\[\hat{\alpha}_{TT} = \frac{1}{n^t} \Biggl( \sum_{i}P_{i}{^T} - \sum_{j}\hat{P}_{j}{^C} \Biggr) \]
with $P_i^T$ being the outcome variable in the treated group, $P_j^C$ being the counterfactual for $i$ and $n^T$ is the sample size (of treated researchers).\footnote{As we perform sampling with replacement to estimate the counterfactual situation, an ordinary t-statistic on mean differences after matching is biased, because it does not take the appearance of repeated observations into account. Therefore, we have to correct the standard errors in order to draw conclusions on statistical inference, following \citet{Lechner2001}.}
\hypertarget{data-and-descriptive-analysis}{%
\section{Data and descriptive analysis}\label{data-and-descriptive-analysis}}
Data provided by the SNSF has been used to retrieve a set of researchers of interest. These researchers have applied to the SNSF funding instrument project funding (PF) or Sinergia \footnote{The Sinergia scheme is closely linked to PF, so that we will not differentiate between them in the following.}
as main applicant (\textit{e.g.} PI) or co-applicant\footnote{If granted, a co-applicant is entitled to parts of the funding.} (\textit{e.g.} co-PI). The PF scheme is a bottom-up approach as it funds costs of research projects with a topic of the applicant's own choice.
The study period is dynamic and researcher-specific: it starts with the year in which the SNSF observes the researcher for the first time as (co-)PI to PF or as a career funding grantholder (after the postdoctoral level); the year the independent research career starts. However, this study period has its lower bound in 2005. The period ends in 2019 for everyone, and some researchers are observed for a longer period than others. For each researcher, a pre-sample period is defined, including the five years before the observation started. Pre-sample information on all outcome variables of interest is needed to account for heterogeneity between the individuals in the way that they enter the study in linear feedback models and for matching on ex-ante performance in the non-parametric estimation approach. Further, only researchers who applied at least once after 2010 to the SNSF are included to ensure a minimum research activity.
In a next step, we retrieve a unique Dimensions-identifier (Dim-ID) from the \emph{Dimensions} database \citep{Dimensions} using a person's name, research field, age and information about past and current affiliations\footnote{If Dimensions found more than one ID for a certain name, we used further information on the researcher available to the SNSF to narrow the ID-options down. This supplementary information was, if present the ORCID, the current and previous research institution(s), country and birth year. Only researchers with a unique ID could be used in the following. See Table \ref{tab:percentages_found_not_found} for a comparison of the researchers that were found and not found}.
The Dim-ID enables us to collect disambiguated publication information for these researchers to be used in the empirical analysis.
\hypertarget{variables-and-descriptive-statistics}{%
\subsection{Variables and descriptive statistics}\label{variables-and-descriptive-statistics}}
The original data set comprised 11'228 eligible researchers. 10\% (1'143) of the latter could not be identified in the Dimensions database. Among the researchers found using their name, the supplementary information from the SNSF database (country, ORCID, institution, etc.) did not match in 1\% of the cases, and we were not sure that we found the correct researcher. For 12\% of the researchers found in Dimensions no unique ID could be retrieved. After removing these observations, we observe a total of 8'793 distinct researchers (78\% of the eligible researchers\footnote{Some characteristics on the researchers without unique ID can be found in Table \ref{tab:percentages_found_not_found}}) and the final data set is composed of 82'249 researcher-year observations.
On average researchers are observed for 9.35 years. The maximum observation length, from 2005 to 2019 is 15 years, and 2'319 researchers are observed over this maximal study period. All the publication data was retrieved in September 2020.
\hypertarget{research-funding}{%
\subsubsection{Research funding}\label{research-funding}}
The central interest of the study is the effect
competitive project funding has on a researcher's subsequent research outputs.
The information on SNSF funding indicates whether a researcher had access to SNSF funding as a PI and/or co-PI in a certain year. We differentiate between PIs and Co-PIs to test whether the funding effect differs depending on the role in the project. On average the researchers in our data set are funded by the SNSF for 4.6 years during the observation period; for 3.3 years as PI of a project, see Table \ref{tab:output_baseline}. In total 20'476 distinct project applications (not necessarily funded) are included in the data. On average a PIs is involved in a total of 3.7 project applications (as PI or co-PI); in 3.1 submissions as PI, and in 2.3 submissions as co-PI. About 66\% of all projects in the data have one sole PI applying for funding, 22\% have a PI and a co-PI, 8\% a PI and two co-PIs, and 4\% are submitted by a PI together with three or more co-PIs. Note that the percentage of successful applications in our data set is 48\% over the whole study period (the success rate for the STEM applications is $\sim 60\%$, it is $\sim 44\%$ in SSH and the one of the LS is the lowest with $\sim 40\%$).
These numbers reflect that in the Swiss research funding system, project funding does play an important role, but that institutional core funding is also relatively generous. The latter accounts for - on average - more than 70\% of overall university funding \citep{Schmidt2008,Reale2017}. This allows researchers to sustain in the system without project funding. While overall, institutional funding is quite homogeneous across similar research organisations in the country, it differs between institution types. It is therefore important to account for institutional funding in the following analyses as it provides important complementary resources to researchers \citep{Jonkers2016}.
Moreover, within the different institution types, we also account for the research field and the career stage of researchers as this may also capture individual differences in core budgets. We present sample characteristics in terms of these variables in subsection \ref{confounding-variables}.
Another important aspect to consider when analysing the effect of research funding is funding from other sources, other than institutional funding \citep{HottenrottLawson_2017}. In all European countries the European Research Council (ERC) plays an important role. Hence, we collected data on Swiss-based researchers who received ERC funding and matched them to our sample. Of all the researchers considered in this study only a small fraction (4.2\%) ever received funding by the ERC. Most of these researchers had a PF grant running at the same time (87\%). Figure \ref{fig:erc_evolution} shows the count of observations in the different funding groups in more detail.\footnote{Since only a few cases are identified to hold major international grants but no SNSF funding, we do not differentiate between these groups in the following. Note that the data was retrieved from the ERC Funded Projects Database included only grants acquired since 2007.}
\hypertarget{research-outputs-and-research-funding}{%
\subsubsection{Research outputs}\label{research-outputs-and-research-funding}}
Table \ref{tab:output_baseline} summarises the output measures as well as the funding length. The most straightforward research output measure is the number of (peer-reviewed) articles. On average, a researcher in our data publishes 4.9 articles each year. The annual number of articles is higher in the STEM (5.7) and life sciences (LS) (6.5) than in the Social Science and Humanities (SSH) where researchers published about 1.5 publications per year, on average. See Table \ref{tab:output_baseline_RA} for differences in all output variables (as well as funding and researcher information) by field. In some disciplines, such as biomedical research, physics, or economics, preprints of articles are widely used and accepted \citep{Bergetal2016,Serghiou2018}. As preliminary outputs they are made available early and thus are an interesting additional output, potentially indicating the dissemination and accessibility of research results. The average of the yearly number of preprints is a lot lower than the one of articles (0.4) which is due to preprints being a research output that emerged only rather recently and are more common in STEM fields than in others (see Table \ref{tab:output_baseline_RA}). Another output measure is the number of yearly citations per researcher. This is the sum of all citations of work by a certain researcher during a specific year to all her peer-reviewed articles published since the start of the observation period. Citations to articles published before the start of the observation period are not taken into account. On average a researcher's work in the study period is cited 132.9 times per year. This variable is however substantially skewed with 6.8\% of researchers accounting for 50\% of all citations and highly correlated with the overall number of articles that a researcher published. There are also field differences with the average citation numbers between the Life Sciences (185.2) and the STEM fields (157.7), but both numbers are substantially higher than in the SSH (25.6). The average number of citations per (peer-reviewed) article of a researcher is informative about the average relevance of a researcher's article portfolio. The articles in our sample are cited on average 4.2 times per year.
The \emph{altmetric score} of each article is retrieved as an attention or accessibility measure of published research. Following the recommendation by \cite{Konkiel2016}, we employ a `baskets of metrics' rather than single components of the altmetric score.
This score is a product of Digital Science and represents a weighted count of the amount of attention that is picked up for a certain research output
\footnote{\url{https://help.altmetric.com/support/solutions/articles/6000233311-how-is-the-altmetric-attention-score-calculated-}}.
Note that the average altmetric score for a researcher at \(t\) is the mean of the altmetrics of all articles published in the year \(t\).\footnote{Unfortunately the altmetric cannot be retrieved as a time-dependent variable from Dimensions but only as the altmetric state at the time point of data retrieval (September 2020). Therefore the altmetric informs us on the cumulative importance an article published at \(t\) got until September 2020.} On average a researcher in our sample achieves an altmetric of 13. Similar to citation counts, this variable is heavily skewed. The differences in altmetrics across disciplines are rather small (see Table \ref{tab:output_baseline_RA}). \\
When using simple output metrics like citation counts, it is important to account for field-specific citation patterns. In order to do so, we collect the \textit{relative citation ratio} (RCR) and the \textit{field citation ratio} (FCR). The RCR was developed by the NIH \citep{Hutchins_2016}. As described by \cite{Surkis_2018}, the RCR uses an approach to evaluate an article's citation counts normalized to the citations received by NIH-funded publications in the same area of research and year. The calculation of the RCR implies to dynamically determine the field of an article based on its co-citation network, that is, all articles that have been cited by articles citing the target article.
The advantage of the RCR is to field- and time-normalize the number of citations that an article received. A paper that is cited exactly as often as one would expect based on the NIH-norm receives an RCR of 1 and an RCR larger one indicated that an article is cited more than its expectation given the field and year.
The RCR is only calculated for the articles that are present on PubMed, have at least one citation and are older than two years. Thus, when analysing this output metric, we focus on researchers in the life sciences only. The FCR is calculated by dividing the number of citations a paper has received by the average number received by publications published in the same year and in the same fields of research (FoR) category. Obviously, the FCR is very dependent on the definition of the FoR. Dimensions uses FoR that are closest to the Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification \citep{ANZSRC}. For the calculation of the FCR a paper has to be older than two years. Simlar to the RCR, the FCR is normalized to one and an article with zero citations has an FCR of zero. As the altmetric, the RCR and FCR cannot be retrieved time-dependently but are snapshots at the day of retrieval. We will refer to the average FCR/RCR at $t$, as the average of the FCRs/RCRs of the papers published in $t$. According to \cite{Hutchins_2016}, articles in high-profile journals have average RCRs of approximately 3.
The key difference between the RCR and the FCR is that the FCR uses fixed definition of the research field, while for the RCR a field is relative to each publication considered. Table \ref{tab:output_baseline_RA} shows that the average rates are comparable across fields.
\begin{table}
\caption{Descriptive statistics for the output measures, funding measures and researcher characteristics.}\label{tab:output_baseline}
\centering \small
\begin{tabular}{llrrrl}
\toprule
& \% (Mean) & SD & Min & Max & NAs\\
\midrule
\addlinespace[0.3em]
\multicolumn{6}{l}{\textbf{Output Measures}}\\
\hspace{1em}\# of articles & 4.9 & 7.2 & 0 & 222 & 0\\
\hspace{1em}\# of preprints & 0.4 & 1.5 & 0 & 54 & 0\\
\hspace{1em}\# of citations & 132.9 & 321.1 & 0 & 7'888 & 0\\
\hspace{1em}\# of av. citations & 4.2 & 4.9 & 0 & 146.2 & 0\\
\hspace{1em}Yearly av. altmetric & 13.2 & 44.6 & 1 & 4'211 & 35'237 \\
\hspace{1em}Yearly av. FCR & 6.6 & 12.4 & 0 & 786.5 & 26'345 \\
\hspace{1em}Yearly av. RCR & 1.6 & 3.6 & 0 & 242.2 & 42'352 \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
\addlinespace[0.3em]
\multicolumn{6}{l}{\textbf{Funding Information}}\\
\rowcolor{gray!11}\hspace{1em}\# of years funded & 4.6 & 4.7 & 0 & 15 & 0\\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
\hspace{1em}\# of years funded as PI & 3.3 & 4.5 & 0 & 15 & 0\\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
\hspace{1em} \% of treated observations & 0.5 & & & & \\
\addlinespace[0.3em]
\multicolumn{6}{l}{\textbf{Gender}}\\
\hspace{1em}Female & 23.1\% & & & & 0\\
\hspace{1em}Male & 76.9\% & & & & \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
\addlinespace[0.3em]
\multicolumn{6}{l}{\textbf{Age}}\\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
\hspace{1em}Age at t & 46.6 & 8.3 & & & 96\\
\addlinespace[0.3em]
\multicolumn{6}{l}{\textbf{Institution Type}}\\
\hspace{1em}Cantonal university & 58.8\% & & & & 1'439\\
\hspace{1em}ETH Domain & 23.9\% & & & & \\
\hspace{1em}UAS/UTE/Other & 17.3\% & & & & \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
\addlinespace[0.3em]
\multicolumn{6}{l}{\textbf{Research Area}}\\
\rowcolor{gray!11}\hspace{1em}LS & 38.4\% & & & & 0\\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
\hspace{1em}STEM & 31.6\% & & & & \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
\hspace{1em}SSH & 29.9\% & & & & \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tablenotes}
\small \item Notes: The data contains 82'249 researcher-year observations on 8'793 distinct researchers; \textit{av.} stands for average.
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table}
Figure \ref{fig:outcome_distribution} represents the evolution of the yearly average number of articles, preprints and the altmetric score per researcher depending on the funding status of the year before (as co- and/or PI). The amount of articles published each year has been rather constant or only slightly increasing, while the preprint count increased substantially over the past years. Recent papers also have a higher altmetric scores than older publications, even though they had less time to raise attention.
It is important to note, however, that since we do not account for any researcher characteristics here, the differences between funded and unfunded researchers cannot be interpreted as being the result of funding. Yet, increasing prevalence of preprints and altmetrics suggest that they should be taken into account in funding evaluations.
\begin{figure} {\centering \includegraphics[width=1.05\linewidth]{Fig1.pdf}} \caption{Time trends of the publication and preprint counts as well as the altmetric score by SNSF funding status in the year before.}\label{fig:outcome_distribution}\end{figure}
\hypertarget{confounding-variables}{%
\subsubsection{Confounding variables}\label{confounding-variables}}
Table \ref{tab:output_baseline} further shows descriptive statistics for the gender of the researchers, their biological age, as well their field of research and the institution type. These variables capture drivers of researcher outputs and are therefore taken into account in all our analyses.
Almost 77\% of the researchers are male and about 60\% are employed at cantonal universities, 24\% at technical universities (ETH Domain) and about 17\% at University of Applied Sciences (UAS) and University of Teacher Education (UTE).
The research field and institution type are defined as the area or the type the researcher applies most often to or from. The field of Life Science (LS) has the largest proposal share in the data with about 39\%. These variables serve as confounders together with the pre-sample information on the outcome variables since they may explain differences in output and therefore need to be accounted for. Note that 1'615 researchers in our data did not publish any peer-reviewed papers in the five year pre-sample period. Table \ref{tab:output_baseline_RA} in the Supplementary Material shows how the confounding variables vary between the research fields.
The submitted project proposals are graded on a six-point scale: $1=D, 2=C, 3=BC, 4=B, 5=AB, 6=A$.
We use the information on project evaluation to control for (or match on) average project quality following the approach by \citep{AroraGambardella_2005}. We construct the evaluation score as a rolling average over the last four years of all the grades a researcher `collected' in submitted proposals as PI and co-PI (if no grade was available over the last four years for a certain researcher, we use her all time average). We do so because future research is also impacted by the quality of past and co-occurring projects.
The funding decision is, however, not exclusively based on those grades. It has to take the amount of funding available to the specific call into account. Therefore the ranking of an application among the other competing applications plays an important role and even highly rated projects may be rejected if the budget constraint is reached. Projects graded with an A/AB have good chances of being funded, while projects graded as D are never funded, see Figure \ref{fig:grade_distribution} representing the distribution of the grades among rejected and accepted projects.
Note that the researchers with missing age were deleted since this is an important control variable; the missing institution type were regrouped into unclassified. Additionally, for the analyses, the funding information will be used with a one (or more) year lag and at least one year of observation is lost per researcher. The final sample used for the analyses consists of 72'738 complete observations from 8'282 unique researchers.
\section{Results}\label{results}
\hypertarget{mixed-effects-model---longitudinal-regression-models}{%
\subsection{Mixed effects model - longitudinal regression models}\label{sec:mixed-models}}
Table \ref{tab:model_irr_count} summarises the results of both negative binomial mixed models for the count outcomes (yearly numbers of publications and preprints). The incidence rate ratios (IRR) inform us on the multiplicative change of the baseline count depending on funding status. The model for the publication count was fitted on the whole data set, while the model for the preprint count is fitted on data since 2010, because the number of preprints was rather small in general before. SNSF funding seems to have a significant positive effect on research productivity, regarding yearly publication counts (1.21 times higher for PI than without SNSF funding) as well as yearly preprint counts (1.30 times higher for the PI compared to researchers without SNSF funding).\footnote{Note that we also tested the robustness of this result to when focusing on PF as treatment and adding the researchers with a funded Sinergia project to the control group, but adjusting with a Sinergia dummy variable. The size of funding as PI and co-PI effects and their confidence intervals were comparable.} An `average' researcher without SNSF funding in $t-1$ publishes on average 4.64 articles in $t$. A similar researcher (with all confounding variables kept constant) with SNSF funding as PI in $t-1$ would publish 5.6 articles in $t$.
PIs on an SNSF project publish more. The same is true for male researchers and younger researchers for preprints. Researchers from ETH Domain publish more than the ones from Cantonal Universities. Researchers publish more in recent years. Researchers in the LS publish more peer-reviewed articles compared to other research areas. Regarding preprints, we observe a different picture. Here STEM researchers publish more than researchers in LS.
\begin{table}
\caption{\textbf{Incidence rate ratios} (IRR) of the multivariate \textbf{\textit{Negative Binomial}} models for the article and preprint counts}\label{tab:model_irr_count}
\small
\begin{tabular}[t]{lrllrll}
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{ } & \multicolumn{3}{c}{1. Articles} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{2. Preprints} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{ } & \multicolumn{3}{c}{(72'738 obs.)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{(61'726 obs.)} \\
\cmidrule(l{3pt}r{3pt}){2-4} \cmidrule(l{3pt}r{3pt}){5-7}
& IRR & (95\%-CI) & p-val. & IRR & (95\%-CI) & p-val. \\
\rowcolor{gray!6}
\midrule
Funded PI (t-1) & 1.21 & (1.19; 1.22) & $<$ 0.001 & 1.30 & (1.22; 1.39) & $<$ 0.001\\
\rowcolor{gray!6}
Funded Co-PI (t-1) & 1.11 & (1.09; 1.13) & & 1.10 & (1.02; 1.19) & \\
Eval. score BC-B & 0.98 & (0.96; 1) & 0.026 & 0.79 & (0.74; 0.84) & $<$ 0.001\\
Eval. score C-D & 0.97 & (0.95; 0.99) & & 0.55 & (0.49; 0.61) & \\
\rowcolor{gray!6}
Male (ref.: Female) & 1.46 & (1.37; 1.56) & $<$ 0.001 & 2.12 & (1.76; 2.56) & $<$ 0.001\\
Age (decades) at t & 1.01 & (0.99; 1.03) & 0.502 & 1.16 & (1.09; 1.24) & $<$ 0.001\\
\rowcolor{gray!6}
ETH Domain & 1.06 & (0.98; 1.14) & $<$ 0.001 & 1.44 & (1.21; 1.73) & $<$ 0.001\\
\rowcolor{gray!6}
UAS/UTE or Other & 0.56 & (0.52; 0.61) & & 0.34 & (0.26; 0.45) & \\
\rowcolor{gray!6}
Unclassified & 1.13 & (1.04; 1.22) & & 1.53 & (1.26; 1.86) & \\
Area STEM & 0.71 & (0.67; 0.77) & $<$ 0.001 & 3.10 & (2.63; 3.65) & $<$ 0.001\\
Area SSH & 0.15 & (0.14; 0.16) & & 0.40 & (0.33; 0.49) & \\
\rowcolor{gray!6}
Year 2010-14 & 1.14 & (1.12; 1.16) & $<$ 0.001 & & & \\
\rowcolor{gray!6}
Year 2015-19 & 1.18 & (1.15; 1.21) & & & & \\
\rowcolor{gray!6}
Year 2015-19 & & & & 2.06 & (1.95; 2.17) & $<$ 0.001\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tablenotes}
\small \item Notes: Incidence Rate Ratios (IRR) provided together with their 95\% confidence intervals (CI). The p-values refer to the results of likelihood ratio tests for each variable to be present in the model. For the institution type University serves as reference category, for the fields it is Life Sciences. For the evaluation score the class AB-A serves as reference category and for year it is the period 06-09 for model 1 and 10-14 for model 2.
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table}
Table \ref{tab:model_sum_ols_all} summarises the results of the four linear mixed models for the continuous outcomes: the average yearly number of citations per publication, the yearly average altmetric, the yearly average RCR and the yearly average FCR. Regarding the citation patterns, there is strong evidence that SNSF funding has a positive effect; especially PIs on SNSF projects have their articles cited more frequently (increase in average yearly citations of 0.33 per article for the PIs). Articles by LS researchers are cited most compared to researchers from other fields. This is also the case for researchers from ETH domain and older researchers. For altmetrics and citation ratios, we employ a logarithmic scale to account for the fact that their distributions are highly skewed; we can then interpret the coefficients as percentage change. Regarding altmetrics, research funded by the SNSF gets an attention score that is 5.1\% higher (by September 2020) compared to other researchers. Researchers in LS have by far the highest altmetrics followed by researchers in the SSH. There is no strong evidence for an effect of the funding on the average yearly RCR. This implies that in the short-run research outcomes of SNSF-funded researchers are as often cited as a mixed average of articles funded by the NIH or other important researcher funded world-wide, but also not significantly more than that. Younger researchers and researchers from the ETH domain have higher RCRs. The results also suggest a positive relation between SNSF funding and a researcher's FCR.
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}
\caption{Coefficients and percentage changes from
\textbf{\textit{normal linear mixed}} models for citation measures and altmetrics
of a researcher.}
\label{tab:model_sum_ols_all}
\centering
\resizebox{1.0\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{lrlrrlrrlrrlr}
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{ } & \multicolumn{3}{c}{3. av. citations per publication} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{4. altmetric} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{5. RCR} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{6. FCR} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{ } & \multicolumn{3}{c}{(72'738 obs.)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{(37'273 obs.)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{(23'350 obs.)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{(49'403 obs.)} \\
\cmidrule(l{3pt}r{3pt}){2-4} \cmidrule(l{3pt}r{3pt}){5-7} \cmidrule(l{3pt}r{3pt}){8-10} \cmidrule(l{3pt}r{3pt}){11-13}
& Coef. estimate & 95\%-CI & p-val. & \% & 95\%-CI & p-val. & \% & 95\%-CI & p-val. & \% & 95\%-CI & p-val. \\
\rowcolor{gray!6}
\midrule
Funded PI (t-1) & 0.33 & (0.3; 0.4) & $<$ 0.001 & 5.1 & (1.7; 8.7) & 0.013 & 0.5 & (-1; 2.1) & 0.827 & 2.0 & (0.3; 3.8) & 0.031\\
\rowcolor{gray!6}
Funded Co-PI (t-1) & 0.23 & (0.2; 0.3) & & 1.5 & (-2.5; 5.7) & & 0.0 & (-1.9; 2) & & 2.2 & (0.1; 4.3) & \\
Eval. score BC-B & -0.03 & (-0.1; 0) & $<$ 0.001 & -11.8 & (-15.3; -8.3) & $<$ 0.001 & -3.9 & (-6; -1.8) & $<$ 0.001 & -2.9 & (-4.8; -0.9) & $<$ 0.001\\
Eval. score C-D & -0.20 & (-0.3; -0.1) & & -21.4 & (-25.3; -17.3) & & -8.3 & (-10.6; -6) & & -7.9 & (-10.2; -5.4) & \\
\rowcolor{gray!6}
Male & 0.18 & (0; 0.4) & 0.105 & 10.5 & (5; 16.3) & $<$ 0.001 & 1.5 & (-1.1; 4.2) & 0.256 & 8.3 & (5; 11.8) & $<$ 0.001\\
Age (decades) at t & 0.57 & (0.5; 0.7) & $<$ 0.001 & -2.2 & (-4.3; 0) & 0.053 & -3.1 & (-4.3; -2) & $<$ 0.001 & -11.2 & (-12.4; -10) & $<$ 0.001\\
\rowcolor{gray!6}
ETH Domain & 0.66 & (0.4; 0.9) & $<$ 0.001 & 14.3 & (8.1; 21) & $<$ 0.001 & 7.1 & (3.4; 11.1) & $<$ 0.001 & 8.8 & (5.1; 12.6) & $<$ 0.001\\
\rowcolor{gray!6}
UAS/UTE/Other & -0.96 & (-1.2; -0.7) & & -3.1 & (-9.4; 3.8) & & -5.4 & (-8.5; -2.3) & & -9.8 & (-13.4; -6) & \\
\rowcolor{gray!6}
Unclassified & -0.01 & (-0.3; 0.3) & & 14.2 & (7.5; 21.4) & & 1.8 & (-1.4; 5.1) & & 1.9 & (-1.9; 5.9) & \\
Area STEM & -1.68 & (-1.9; -1.4) & $<$ 0.001 & -36.9 & (-40; -33.6) & $<$ 0.001 & & & & -23.7 & (-26.1; -21.3) & $<$ 0.001\\
Area SSH & -4.20 & (-4.4; -4) & & -27.0 & (-31; -22.8) & & & & & -27.2 & (-29.5; -24.7) & \\
\rowcolor{gray!6}
Year 2010-14 & 0.76 & (0.7; 0.8) & $<$ 0.001 & & & & 0.4 & (-1.1; 1.9) & 0.879 & -5.7 & (-7.4; -4.1) & $<$ 0.001\\
\rowcolor{gray!6}
Year 2015-19 & 1.26 & (1.2; 1.4) & & & & & 0.2 & (-1.5; 1.9) & & -18.7 & (-20.3; -17.1) & \\
\rowcolor{gray!6}
Year 2015-19 & & & & 51.1 & (47.4; 54.9) & $<$ 0.001 & & & & & & \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tablenotes}
\small \item Notes: The coefficients of the models on the logarithmic scale of the outcomes are converted to percentage changes, while the coefficient for the average citation per publications reads as a unit change. The quantities are provided together with a 95\% confidence intervals (CI). For the model for the altmetric score, only data since 2010 is used, as this is a more recent metric. To model the RCR, only researchers from the LS were included so that we do not need to account for the research area. The p-values refer to the results of likelihood ratio tests for each variable to be present in the model. For the institution type University serves as reference category, for the fields it is Life Sciences. For the evaluation score the class AB-A serves as reference category and for year it is the period 06-09 for model 3, 5, 6 and 10-14 for model 4.
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\hypertarget{Non-Parametric}{%
\subsection{Non-Parametric Estimation}\label{non-parametric}}
While the previous estimation approaches modelled unobserved heterogeneity across individuals, the non-parametric matching approach addresses the selection into the treatment explicitly. It accounts for selection on observable factors which may - if not accounted for - lead to wrongly attributing the funding effect to the selectivity of the grant-awarding process. We model a researcher's funding success
as a function of researcher characteristics. In particular, this includes their previous research track record (publication experience and citations) and the average of all evaluation scores for submitted proposals (PI or co-PI) received by the researcher. In addition, we include age, gender, research field and institution type. We obtain the propensity score to be used in the matching process as described in Section \ref{subsec:empirical-model}.
The results from the probit estimation on the funding outcome (success vs. rejection) are presented in Table \ref{tab:probit}. The table first shows the model for the full sample which provides the propensity score for the estimation of treatment effects on articles and citations to these articles, and on preprints. The second model shows the model for the sub-sample of researchers in the LS used for estimating treatment effects on the RCR. The third model shows the estimation for the full sample, but accounting for pre-sample FCR, and provides the propensity score for the estimation of the treatment effect on the FCR. The fourth model controls for pre-sample altmetrics values and serves the estimation of the treatment effect on future altmetrics scores.
Consistent across all specification, the results show that the evaluation score is a key predictor of grant success. The higher the score, the more likely is it that a proposal gets approved. The grant likelihood for male researches is higher than for females as well as for older researchers. The latter result can have various reasons, which are outside the scope of this paper and are being discussed elsewhere\footnote{\cite{Severin2020}, for example, discuss gender biases on the reviewer scores leading to lower grant likelihood for female researchers.}. As expected, past research performance is another strong predictor of grant success where peer-reviewed articles matter more than preprints. In addition to quantity, past research quality (as measured by citations) increases the probability of a proposal being granted. Interesting in more recent years (as shown in model 4), quality rather than quantity appears to predict grant success as it is the average number of citations to pre-period publication rather than their number that explains funding success.
The comparison of the distribution of the propensity score and the evaluation score before and after matching shows that the nearest neighbor matching procedure was successful in balancing the sample in terms of the grant likelihood and - importantly - also the average scores (see Figure \ref{fig:matchingsuccess}). This ensures that we are comparing researchers with funding to researchers without funding that have similarly good ideas (the scores are the same, on average) and are also otherwise comparable in their characteristics predicting a positive application outcome. The balancing of the propensity scores and the evaluation scores in both groups (grant winners and unsuccessful applicants) after each matching are shown in Tables \ref{tab:matchedpub} and \ref{tab:treatment2}. Note that we draw matches for each grant-winner from the control group with replacement and that hence some observations from researchers in the control group are used several times as `twins'. Table \ref{tab:drawing} shows that across the different matched samples less than 10\% of control researcher-year observations are used only once and about 60\% up to 25 times. About 10\% of control group researchers are used very frequently, i.e. more than 160 times.
Tables \ref{tab:matchedpub} and \ref{tab:treatment2} show the estimated treatment effects after matching, i.e. the test for the magnitude and significance of mean differences across groups. Note that the number of matched pairs differs depending on the sample used and that log values of output variables were used to account for the impact of skewness of the raw variable distribution in the mean comparison test.
The magnitude of the estimated effects is comparable to the ones of the parametric estimation models. Researchers with a successful grant publish on average 1.2 articles (exp[0.188]) and about one additional preprint (exp[0.053]) more in the following year, their articles receive 1.7 citations (exp(0.532)) more than articles from the control group. In terms of altmetrics we also see a significant difference in means which is 1.15 (exp[0.138]) points higher in the group of grant receivers. Also, in terms of the FCR and the RCR, there are significant effects on the treatment group. The probability to be among the `highly cited researchers' (as measured by an FCR $>$3) is 5.5 ($\alpha_{TT}=0.055$) percentage points higher in the group of funded researchers. This means publications in $t+1$ are cited at least three times as much as the average in the field.
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}
\centering \small
\caption{Estimation of \textbf{\textit{probit models}} on the funding propensity as PI or Co-PI }
\resizebox{1.0\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{ld{2.0}d{2.0}d{2.0}d{2.0}d{2.0}d{2.0}d{2.0}d{2.0}d{2.0}d{2.0}d{2.0}d{2.0}d{2.0}}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{1. articles} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{2. RCR } & \multicolumn{3}{c}{3. FCR} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{4. altmetrics} \\
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{(All Fields)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{(Life Sciences)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{(All Fields)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{(All since 2010)} \\
& \multicolumn{1}{r}{Coef.} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{SE} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$P>|z|$} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{Coef.} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{SE} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$P>|z|$} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{Coef.} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{SE} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$P>|z|$} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{Coef.} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{SE} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$P>|z|$} \\
\midrule
\rowcolor{gray!11}
ln(pre-sample articles) & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.053} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.012} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.050} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.020} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.012} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.029} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.014} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.038} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{-0.013} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.018} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.484} \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
ln(pre-sample preprints) & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.006} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.028} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.840} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.164} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.159} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.300} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{-0.003} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.030} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.930} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.060} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.037} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.100} \\
ln(pre-sample av. citations) & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.034} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.008} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & & & & & & & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.067} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.013} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} \\
ln(pre-sample RCR) & & & & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.051} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.021} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.013} & & & & & & \\
ln(pre-sample FCR) & & & & & & & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.040} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.009} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & & & \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
ln(pre-sample altmetrics) & & & & & & & \multicolumn{1}{r}{} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{-0.089} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.012} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} \\
Eval.score & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.815} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.007} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.760} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.010} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.798} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.008} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.800} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.010} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
Male researcher & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.120} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.016} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.135} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.027} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.111} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.019} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.102} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.026} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
ln(age) & \multicolumn{1}{r}{1.703} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.038} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{2.041} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.068} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{1.891} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.045} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{1.972} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.062} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} \\
ETH Domain & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.066} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.020} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.156} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.041} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.047} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.023} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.038} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.059} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.030} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.050} \\
UAS/UTE/Other & \multicolumn{1}{r}{-0.271} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.018} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{-0.243} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.033} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{-0.294} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.024} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{-0.268} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.032} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} \\
Unclassified & \multicolumn{1}{r}{-0.521} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.021} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{-0.406} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.034} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{-0.580} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.023} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{-0.635} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.029} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
STEM & \multicolumn{1}{r}{-0.138} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.019} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & & & & \multicolumn{1}{r}{-0.098} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.021} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{-0.118} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.027} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
SSH & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.019} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.019} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.307} & & & & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.053} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.023} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.023} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.114} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.033} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} \\
\cmidrule{1-13} JS Inst. types & \multicolumn{2}{c}{889.44} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{212.92} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{802.72} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{890.49} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
JS fields & \multicolumn{2}{c}{71.42} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{39.26} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ 72.62} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} \\
JS years & \multicolumn{2}{c}{1'469.08} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{797.32} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{1'195.22} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{1'551.61} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
\# observations & \multicolumn{3}{c}{63'680} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{22'999} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{48'729} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{30'360} \\
Log pseudolikelihood & \multicolumn{3}{c}{-24'863.80} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{-9'369.45} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{-18'226.64} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{-10'896.19} \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
Pseudo $R^2$ & \multicolumn{3}{c}{0.361} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{0.341} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{0.363} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{0.367} \\
\midrule
\end{tabular}}
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tablenotes}
\small
\item Notes: The models contain a constant and year dummies (not reported). JS stands for $chi^2$-test of joint significance of the respective factor. For the institution type University serves as reference category, for the fields it is Life Sciences. The specification for preprints is identical to model 1, but for observations since the year 2010 only (n = 52'410 Pseudo $R^2$ = 38.8).
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\label{tab:probit}%
\end{table}%
\end{landscape}
\hypertarget{persistency}{%
\subsection{Persistency of treatment effects}\label{persistency}}
In addition to the effect in the year after funding $(t+1)$, we are interested in the persistency of the effect in the following years up to $(t+3)$.
It is likely that any output effects occur with a considerable time-lag after funding received. The start-up of the research project including the training of new researchers and the set-up of equipment may take some time before the actual research starts.
In principle, we could of course expect the effect to last also longer than three to four years. However, after four years, the treatment effect of one project grant may become confounded by one (or several) follow-up grants.
Tables \ref{tab:matchedpub} and \ref{tab:treatment2} show the results for the different outcome variables also for different time horizons.
The results suggest that the funding has a persistent output effect amounting to about one additional article in each of the three years following the year of funding. The effect on preprints is already significant in the first year, but also turns out to sustain in later years suggesting that research results from the project are probably circulated via this channel. In contrast to these results, we find for altmetrics that they are significantly higher early on, but not in the medium-run.
When looking at citation-based measures as indicators for impact and relevance, we see that the number of citations stays significantly higher in the medium-run, but effect size declines somewhat indicating that researchers publish the most important results earlier after funding. This is also reflected in the results for the average number of citations and the probability to be highly cited. For the FCR, the effect is less persistent as the difference between groups fades after the first year. For the RCR the differences in means is strongest in the first year after the grant and only significant at the 10\% level in {t+3}.
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Treatment effects (after matching): articles and citations}
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{lrrrrrr}
\toprule
& ln(articles+1)$_{t+1}$ & ln(articles+1)$_{t+2}$ & ln(articles+1)$_{t+3}$ & ln(citations+1)$_{t+1}$ & ln(citations+1)$_{t+2}$ & ln(citations+1)$_{t+3}$ \\
\midrule
\rowcolor{gray!11}
Treated & \multicolumn{1}{r}{1.409} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{1.421} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{1.431} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{3.756} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{3.909} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{4.038} \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
SE & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.005} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.005} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.005} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.010} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.011} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.011} \\
Control & \multicolumn{1}{r}{1.221} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{1.227} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{1.274} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{3.223} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{3.482} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{3.670} \\
SE & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.005} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.005} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.005} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.009} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.010} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.010} \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
$\alpha_{TT}$ & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.188} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.194} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.157} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.533} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.427} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.368} \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
Diff. interval & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.175-0.201} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.180-0.207} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.142-0.171} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.505-0.559} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.398-0.455} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.337-0.398} \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
Pr($|T| > |t|$)& \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<$0.001} \\
\midrule
PS Treated & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.819} & & & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.819} & & \\
PS Control & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.813} & & & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.813} & & \\
Pr($|T| > |t|$) & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.313} & & & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.313} & & \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
ES Treated & \multicolumn{1}{r}{3.929} & & & \multicolumn{1}{r}{3.929} & & \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
ES Control & \multicolumn{1}{r}{3.904} & & & \multicolumn{1}{r}{3.904} & & \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
Pr($|T| > |t|$) & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.405} & & & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.405} & & \\
\# matched & \multicolumn{1}{r}{43'936} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{39'125} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{34'383} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{43'936} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{39'125} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{34'383} \\
\midrule
& ln(av.citations+1)$_{t+1}$ & ln(av.citations+1)$_{t+2}$ & ln(av.citations+1)$_{t+3}$ & highly cited$_{t+1}$ & highly cited$_{t+1}$ & highly cited$_{t+1}$ \\
\midrule
\rowcolor{gray!11}
Treated & \multicolumn{1}{r}{1.488} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{1.521} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{1.546} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.673} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.666} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.658} \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
SE & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.004} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.004} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.004} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.003} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.003} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.003} \\
Control & \multicolumn{1}{r}{1.402} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{1.480} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{1.518} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.618} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.618} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.656} \\
SE & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.004} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.004} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.004} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.003} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.003} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.003} \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
$\alpha_{TT}$ & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.086} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.041} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.028} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.055} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.048} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.002} \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
Diff. interval & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.075-0.097} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.030-0.052} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.016-0.039} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.047-0.062} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.039-0.056} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.007-0.011} \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
Pr($|T| > |t|$) & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$<0.001$} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.109} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.327} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.007} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.042} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.941} \\
\midrule
PS Treated & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.819} & & & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.833} & & \\
PS Control & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.813} & & & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.826} & & \\
Pr($|T| > |t|$) & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.313} & & & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.272} & & \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
ES Treated & \multicolumn{1}{r}{3.929} & & & \multicolumn{1}{r}{3.955} & & \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
ES Control & \multicolumn{1}{r}{3.904} & & & \multicolumn{1}{r}{3.930} & & \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
Pr($|T| > |t|$) & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.405} & & & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.476} & & \\
\# matched & \multicolumn{1}{r}{43'936} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{39'125} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{34'383} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{28'936} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{25'436} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{22'059} \\
\midrule
\end{tabular}}
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tablenotes}
\small \item Notes: The table shows sample means and results from t-tests on mean differences after matching. PS stands for Propensity Score and ES stands for Evaluation Score (which is here used as a numeric value). The number of matched pairs declines with each lead due to censoring at the end of the observation period.
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\label{tab:matchedpub}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Treatment effects (after matching): preprints, altmetrics and citation rates}
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{lrrrrrr}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{1}{r}{ln(preprints+1)$_{t+1}$} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{ln(preprints+1)$_{t+2}$} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{ln(preprints+1)$_{t+3}$} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{ln(altmetrics+1)$_{t+1}$} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{ln(altmetrics+1)$_{t+2}$} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{ln(altmetrics+1)$_{t+3}$} \\
\midrule
\rowcolor{gray!11}
Treated & 0.203 & 0.209 & 0.215 & 2.010 & 2.079 & 2.103 \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
SE & 0.003 & 0.003 & 0.003 & 0.007 & 0.008 & 0.009 \\
Control & 0.150 & 0.174 & 0.174 & 1.872 & 2.028 & 1.997 \\
SE & 0.002 & 0.003 & 0.003 & 0.007 & 0.008 & 0.009 \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
$\alpha_{TT}$ & 0.053 & 0.034 & 0.040 & 0.138 & 0.051 & 0.106 \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
Diff. interval & 0.046-0.059 & 0.027-0.042 & 0.032-0.049 & 0.120-0.157 & 0.029-0.073 & 0.082-0.130 \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
Pr($|T| > |t|$) & $<$0.001 & 0.044 & 0.041 & $<$0.001 & 0.368 & 0.108 \\
\midrule
PS Treated & 0.819 & & & 0.845 & & \\
PS Control & 0.814 & & & 0.836 & & \\
Pr($|T| > |t|$) & 0.433 & & & 0.187 & & \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
ES Treated & 3.920 & & & 3.951 & & \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
ES Control & 3.899 & & & 3.906 & & \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
Pr($|T| > |t|$) & 0.507 & & & 0.274 & & \\
\# matched & 35'330 & 30'519 & 25'776 & 22'362 & 17'615 & 15'129 \\
\midrule
& \multicolumn{1}{r}{ln(FCR+1)$_{t+1}$} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{ln(FCR+1)$_{t+2}$} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{ln(FCR+1)$_{t+3}$} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{ln(RCR+1)$_{t+1}$} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{ln(RCR+1)$_{t+2}$} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{ln(RCR+1)$_{t+3}$} \\
\midrule
\rowcolor{gray!11}
Treated & 1.700 & 1.684 & 1.669 & 0.885 & 0.883 & 0.880 \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
SE & 0.004 & 0.005 & 0.005 & 0.004 & 0.004 & 0.004 \\
Control & 1.635 & 1.666 & 1.676 & 0.827 & 0.837 & 0.832 \\
SE & 0.005 & 0.005 & 0.005 & 0.004 & 0.004 & 0.004 \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
$\alpha_{TT}$ & 0.065 & 0.018 & -0.007 & 0.058 & 0.046 & 0.048 \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
Diff. interval & 0.052-0.072 & -0.007-0.020 & 0.012-0.014 & 0.047-0.069 & 0.035-0.057 & 0.036-0.060 \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
Pr($|T| > |t|$) & 0.042 & 0.614 & 0.869 & 0.009 & 0.060 & 0.079 \\
\midrule
PS Treated & 0.833 & & & 0.802 & & \\
PS Control & 0.826 & & & 0.793 & & \\
Pr($|T| > |t|$) & 0.272 & & & 0.306 & & \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
ES Treated & 3.955 & & & 3.659 & & \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
ES Control & 3.930 & & & 3.630 & & \\
\rowcolor{gray!11}
Pr($|T| > |t|$) & 0.476 & & & 0.508 & & \\
\# matched & 28'936 & 25'436 & 22'059 & 13'244 & 11'752 & 10'312 \\
\midrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:treatment2}
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tablenotes}
\small \item Notes: The table shows sample means and results from t-tests on mean differences after matching. PS stands for Propensity Score and ES stands for Evaluation Score (which is here used as a numeric value). The number of matched pairs declines with each lead due to censoring at the end of the observation period. The treatment effect on RCR is estimated only for the Life Sciences and for altmetrics only since 2010.
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\subsection{Impact heterogeneity over the academic life-cycle and research fields}
For most outcomes, we find a significant and persistent difference between funded and unfunded researchers, while controlling for other drivers of research outcomes. As shown in earlier studies \citep{AroraGambardella_2005,JacobLefgren_2011}, a grant's impact may depend on the career stage of a researcher. As a proxy for career stage, we use the biological age of the researchers. Additionally, there might be heterogeneity in the funding effect depending on the research fields. We perform interaction tests between (i) the age and the funding and (ii) between the research field and the funding. More specifically, we employ a categorical variable for age and allow for an interaction term with the funding variable in the mixed models presented in Section \ref{sec:mixed-models}. The same procedure is repeated with research field. The interaction tests suggests indeed that there is evidence for a difference in the effect of funding on the article and preprint count depending on the age group (with p-value $<$ 0.001, for both outcomes) and the research field (with p-value of $<$ 0.001 for articles and p-value of 0.0045 for preprints). When we test for those same interaction effects in the continuous outcome models, the results suggest that there is a difference in the funding effect on the average number of citations per article depending on the age group (p-value $<$ 0.001) and the research field (p-value = 0.0242). For altmetrics and the citation ratios, we see no evidence for major differences across age groups (p-value of 0.328 for the altmetric, 0.802 for the RCR and 0.873 for the FCR) nor research fields (p-value of 0.2296 for altmetric and p-value of 0.5124 for FCR\footnote{Note that we did not test the interaction for the RCR outcome, as this analysis was done only for the LS field.}).
To better understand those differences in funding effect, we refer to Figure \ref{fig:interactions_articles} for the article counts and Figure \ref{fig:interactions_citations} for the average number of citations per article. Those figures show the predicted article or citation count depending on the funding group (in $t-1$) and the age group or the research field. For all those subgroups, SNSF funding (as PI) in $t-1$ has a positive effect on the outcome. However the size of this effect differs substantially. The youngest age group ($<$45) seems to benefit considerably from the funding in terms of predicted difference between treatment and control researchers in article count, but also in citation per article (the confidence intervals of funded as PI and no funding do not overlap). More senior funded researchers (45-54 and 55-65 years of age) perform similarly well compared to researchers with the same characteristics but no funding. It is noteworthy that for older researchers (65+) the difference between groups is again higher indicating that funding helps to keep productivity up. We obtain very similar results based on post-estimations with interaction effects in the matched samples from the propensity score matching approach, see Figure \ref{fig:combined_matching_interaction}.
\begin{figure} \centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Fig2.pdf} \label{fig:interactions_articles}
\caption{Predicted yearly number of articles depending on whether or not the researchers were treated (as PI or Co-PI) or not (no funding), given the researcher's age group (left) and the research field (right). \\
{\scriptsize To predict the article count the baseline confounding variables were fixed to Year 2015-19, Male, Evaluation Score Score AB-A, University, LS in the age interaction model and age lower to 45 for the field interaction model.
We see a significant positive percentage change of 78\% for the youngest age group among PIs ($<$ 45) and 115\% for the most senior researchers ($>$ 65) compared to no SNSF funding. Additionally, the effect of funding is largest for STEM researchers (23\% more articles as PI compared to unfunded researchers. The effect in LS and SSH is less prominent, +15\% and +12\% respectively.}}\end{figure}
\begin{figure} \centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Fig3.pdf} \label{fig:interactions_citations}
\caption{Predicted yearly average number of citations per article depending on whether or not the researchers were treated or not, given the researcher's age group (left) and the research field (right).\\
{\scriptsize For the predictions the baseline confounding variables were fixed to Year 2010-14, Male, Evaluation Score Score AB-A, University, LS in the age interaction model and age lower to 45 for the field interaction model.
A significant positive percentage change of 10\% for the youngest age group among PIs ($<$ 45) compared to no SNSF funding can be observed for the average number of citations. The remaining changes in citation number are not significant. Then, the effect of funding is largest for SSH researchers (15\% more citations per article as PI compared to unfunded researchers). The effect in LS and STEM is less prominent, +8\% for both. Note that the intervals however all overlap.}}\end{figure}
For all research areas, SNSF funding has a positive effect on article count and number of citations. STEM researchers however benefit most with a percentage change of 23\% more articles as funded PI compared to no funding; funded (PI) researchers from the LS publish 15\% more articles and the SSH researchers 12\%. This could reflect that in STEM and LS the extent to which research can be successfully conducted is highly funding-dependent, while this is not necessarily the case in the SSH. Yet regarding the number of citations per article, the SSH researchers benefit most (14\% more citations for SSH, 8\% for STEM and 6\% for LS). This suggest that funding may support the quality of research and hence its impact more in the SSH field. Thus, it should be noted that even though SSH researcher publish and are cited less in absolute numbers, we still see a substantial positive effect of SNSF funding on the outcomes. The respective figures for the remaining outcomes can be found in the supplementary material; more specifically Figure \ref{fig:altmetric_interaction} for the altmetric score, Figure \ref{fig:preprint_interaction} for the preprint count and Figure \ref{fig:FCR_interaction} for the FCR.
\hypertarget{conclusions}{%
\section{Conclusions}\label{conclusions}}
Understanding the role played by competitive research funding is crucial for designing research funding policies that best foster knowledge generation and diffusion. By investigating the impact of project funding on scientific output, its relevance and accessibility, this study contributes to research on the effects of research funding at the level of the individual researcher.
Using detailed information - including personal characteristics and the evaluation scores that their submitted projects received by peers - on the population of all project funding applicants at the SNSF during the 2005-2019 period, we estimate the impact of receiving project funding on publication outcomes and their relevance. The strengths of this study are in the detailed information on both researchers and grant proposals. First, the sample consists of both successful as well as unsuccessfully applicants. Therefore researchers who also had a research idea to submit are part of the control group. Second, information on the proposal evaluation scores allows to compare researchers which have submitted project ideas of - on average - comparable quality.
The estimated treatment effects therefore take into account that all applicants may benefit from the competition for funding through participation effects \citep{Ayoubietal_2019}.
Besides these methodological aspects, a key contribution of this study is that - in addition to articles in scientific journals - it is the first to include preprints. Preprints are an increasingly important means of disseminating research results early and without access restrictions \citep{Bergetal2016,Serghiou2018}. Besides this, we investigate relevance and impact in terms of absolute and relative citation measures. In the analysis of citations that published research receives, it is important to account for field-specific citation patterns. We do so by including the RCR and the FCR as measures for relative research impact in a researcher's own field of study as additional outcome measures. Finally, this is the first study to investigate the link between funding and researchers' altmetrics scores which mirror the attention paid to research outcomes in the wider public \citep{BORNMANN2014,Warrenetal2017,Lazaroiu2017}.
The results show a similar pattern across all estimation methods indicating an effect size of about one additional article in each of the three years following the funding. In addition, we find a similarly sized effect on the number of preprints. The comparison across methods suggests that if accounting for important observable researcher characteristics (e.g. age, field, gender and experience) as well as proposal quality (as reflected in evaluation scores) parametric regression results and non-parametric models lead to similar conclusions with regard to publication outputs. Importantly, a significant effect on the number of citations to articles could be observed indicating that funding does not merely translate into more, but only marginally relevant research. Funded research also appears to reach the general public more than other research as indicated by higher average altmetrics in the group of grant-winners. In terms of the RCR and FCR the results indicate that there might be an effect on the funded researchers' overall visibility in the research community. However, the effects on the RCR are not robust to the estimation method used.
The funding program analysed in this study is open to all researchers in Switzerland affiliated with institutions eligible to receive SNSF funding. This allows us to study treatment effect heterogeneity over researchers' life cycle and research field. The results suggest here, that funding is particularly important at earlier career stages where PF facilitates research that would not have been pursued without funding.
With regard to treatment effect heterogeneity across fields, we find the highest effect of funding on the article count for STEM researchers and the highest funding effect on citations in SSH.
While the insights on a positive effect of funding on the number of subsequent scientific articles are in line with previous studies, compared to previous results, the effects that we document here are larger. The reason for that may be related to the fact that the SNSF is the main source of research funding in Switzerland we can therefore identify researchers for the control group who really had no other project grant in the period for which they are considered a control. We also observe co-PIs which may in other studies - due to a focus on PIs or lack of information - be assigned to the control group. Both may lead to an under-estimation of funding effects in previous studies. Moreover, by counting all publications of these researchers, we further take not only articles directly related to the project into account, but also that there are learning spillovers and synergies beyond the project that improve a researcher's overall research performance.
Despite all efforts, this study is not without limitations. First, we do not observe industry funding for research projects which may be important in the engineering sciences \citep{HottenrottThorwarth2011,HottenrottLawson_2017}.
Moreover, the fact that researchers receive grants repeatedly and may switch between treatment and control group over time, makes a simple difference-in-difference analysis difficult. These factors further complicate the assessment of long-term impact of the research outcomes that we observe.
The methods presented here aim to account for the non-randomness of the funding award and the underlying data structure. While we find that the main results are robust to the estimation method used, the reader should keep in mind that time-varying unobserved factors that affect an individual's publication outcomes such as family or health status, involvement in professional services or administrative roles and duties \citep{Fudickar2016} may be not sufficiently accounted for. Moreover, we do not have detailed information on the involved research teams and individual responsibilities within the projects. Therefore we do not investigate the role of team characteristics for any outcome effects. In such an analysis, it would be desirable to study whether and how sole-PI and multiple-PI projects differ and which role different PI profiles play for project success. A more detailed analysis of teams would also be interesting in order to differentiate between group and individual effort. Third, we used preprints and altmetrics as output measures which is novel compared to previous research on funding effects. Since we cannot compare our results to previous ones, we encourage future research on the effects of funding on early publishing and science communication more directly. It should be kept in mind that altmetrics may measure popularity in addition to efforts at dissemination as well as the extent to which authors are embedded in a network, but not the quality of individual research outcomes. Probably more than publications in peer-reviewed journals, preprints and altmetrics may be gamed – for example by repeated sharing of own articles or by `Salami slicing' research outcomes into several preprints.
Finally, it should be noted that we did not investigate several aspects that might be important in impact evaluation in this study. This list includes the role of the funding amount, the degree of novelty of the produced research, as well as treatment effect heterogeneity in terms of individual characteristics other than age.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We are grateful to Tobias Phillip for helpful comments on the study design and on previous versions of this manuscript and to Matthias Egger for an additional careful review of the manuscript prior to submission.
\section*{Data availability}
An anonymized and aggregated data set can be found on Zenodo \\ (doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5011201). In order to anonymise the data we only provide applicants' age as categorical variable.
\section*{Funding}
This work was supported by the SNSF (internal funds).
\section*{Competing interests} None declared.
\newpage
\singlespacing
|
\section{Introduction}
Algorithms for solving linear programs (LPs) have been the cornerstone of operations research.
Linear programming also has applications in computer science;
Gr\"otschel, Lov\'asz and Schrijver \cite{gls-ellipsoid} give examples of
combinatorial optimization problems that can be solved using linear programming.
Linear programs are especially important in the area of approximation algorithms.
Many optimization problems can be expressed as integer programs.
\emph{Rounding-based} algorithms first solve the LP relaxation of these integer programs,
and then \emph{round} the relaxed solution to get an approximate solution to the original problem
\cite{det-lp-round-daa,rand-lp-round-daa,iterative-methods}.
We study a large and important class of linear programs, called \emph{covering linear programs}.
Our main result is an approximation algorithm, called $\covLPsolveHyp$,
for solving covering LPs.
\begin{definition}
\label{defn:cov-lp}
A linear program is called a covering LP iff it is of the form
\[ \min_{x \in \mathbb{R}^N} c^Tx \textrm{ where } Ax \ge b \textrm{ and } x \ge 0, \]
where $A \in \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}^{m \times N}$ ($m$-by-$N$ matrix over non-negative reals),
$b \in \mathbb{R}^m_{>0}$ %
and $c \in \mathbb{R}^N_{> 0}$. %
Denote this covering LP by $\covLP(A, b, c)$.
\end{definition}
Our motivating application stems from the bin-packing problem.
There are multiple ways of representing bin-packing as an integer LP,
but probably the most useful of them is the \emph{configuration{} LP}
(formally defined in \cref{sec:bin-packing}).
Rounding the configuration{} LP was used in the first linear-time APTAS for bin-packing
by de la Vega and Lueker \cite{bp-aptas}.
It was later used by Karmarkar and Karp \cite{karmarkar-karp} to get an algorithm
for bin-packing that uses $\mathrm{OPT} + O(\log^2(\mathrm{OPT}))$ bins,
and by Hoberg and Rothvoss \cite{hoberg2017logarithmic}
for an algorithm that uses $\mathrm{OPT} + O(\log(\mathrm{OPT}))$ bins.
Bansal, Caprara and Sviridenko \cite{rna} devised the \emph{Round-and-Approx} (R\&A) framework
for solving variants of the bin-packing problem.
The R\&A framework requires an approximate solution to the configuration{} LP.
They used the R\&A framework to get approximation algorithms
for vector bin-packing and 2-dimensional geometric bin-packing.
Improved algorithms were later devised for these bin-packing variants
\cite{bansal2014binpacking,BansalE016},
but those algorithms also use the R\&A framework.
Thus, solving the configuration{} LP of (variants of) bin-packing is an important problem.
In \cref{sec:bin-packing}, we show how to approximately solve the configuration{} LP
of a large class of bin-packing problems.
An implicit covering LP is one where $A$ and $c$ are not given to us explicitly.
Instead, we are given an input $I$, and $A$, $b$, $c$ are defined in terms of $I$.
The configuration{} LP for bin-packing, for example, is defined implicitly.
Such an implicit definition is helpful when $N$, the number of columns in $A$,
is super-polynomial in the input size $|I|$.
We assume that $m$, the number of rows in $A$, is polynomial in $|I|$
and that $b$ has already been computed.
Since $A$ and $c$ are not given to us explicitly, we will assume the presence of certain oracles
that can help us indirectly get useful information about $A$ and $c$.
Our main result is an approximation algorithm $\covLPsolveHyp$
(described in \cref{sec:covLP-solve})
that solves $\covLP(A, b, c)$ in polynomial time using these oracles.
The main implication of our result is that for any $\eps > 0$, we can
$\alpha(1+\eps)$-approximately solve the configuration{} LP of some variants of bin-packing,
using a $(1/\alpha)$-approximation algorithm for the corresponding knapsack problem.
Previous results give us a PTAS for the configuration{} LP
using a PTAS for the corresponding knapsack problem
(see \cref{sec:prior-work} for details).
For many variants of knapsack, a PTAS is not known, so previous results cannot be applied.
Our algorithm, however, works even for polynomially-large $\alpha$.
\subsection{Formal Statement of Our Results}
\paragraph{Preliminaries:}
\begin{itemize}
\item For a non-negative integer $n$, let $[n] := \{1, 2, \ldots, n\}$.
\item Let $\mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}$ be the set of non-negative real numbers.
Let $\mathbb{R}_{> 0} := \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0} - \{0\}$.
\item For a vector $x$, $\support(x) := \{j: x_j \neq 0\}$.
\item For a vector $x$, $x \ge 0$ means that every coordinate of $x$ is non-negative.
\item For a matrix $A$, $A[i, j]$ is the entry in the $i^{\textrm{th}}$ row and $j^{\textrm{th}}$ column of $A$.
\item Let $e_j$ be a vector whose $j^{\textrm{th}}$ component is 1 and all other components are 0.
\item $\poly(n)$ is the set of functions of $n$ that are upper-bounded
by a polynomial in $n$.
\end{itemize}
\begin{definition}[Column oracle]
\label{defn:column-oracle}
The column oracle for $A \in \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}^{m \times N}$
takes $j \in [N]$ as input and returns the $j^{\textrm{th}}$ column of $A$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Cost oracle]
\label{defn:cost-oracle}
The cost oracle for $c \in \mathbb{R}_{> 0}^N$
takes $j \in [N]$ as input and returns $c_j$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Index-finding oracle]
\label{defn:index-find}
Let $A \in \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}^{m \times N}$ and $c \in \mathbb{R}^N_{> 0}$
be implicitly defined in terms of input $I$.
For $j \in [N]$, define the function
$D_j: \mathbb{R}^m_{\ge 0} \mapsto \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}$ as
\[ D_j(y) := y^TA\left(\frac{e_j}{c_j}\right) = \frac{1}{c_j} \sum_{i=1}^m y_iA[i, j] \]
Then for $\eta \in (0, 1]$, an $\eta$-weak index-finding oracle for $I$,
denoted by $\indexFind$, is an algorithm that takes as input $y \in \mathbb{R}^m_{\ge 0}$
and returns $k \in [N]$ such that $D_k(y) \ge \eta \max_{j=1}^N D_j(y)$.
\end{definition}
The algorithm $\covLPsolve$ takes the following inputs:
\begin{itemize}
\item $I$: the input used to implicitly define $\covLP(A, b, c)$.
\item $q$: an upper-bound on $\opt(\covLP(A, b, c))$.
\item $\rho$: an upper-bound on
${\displaystyle q\max_{i=1}^m \max_{j=1}^N \frac{A[i,j]}{b_ic_j}}$.
\item $\eps, \eta \in (0, 1]$.
\end{itemize}
$\covLPsolve$ is also provided a column oracle for $A$, a cost oracle for $c$,
and an $\eta$-weak index-finding oracle.
\Cref{thm:cov-lp-solve,thm:covlps-time} below are our main results,
the proofs of which can be found in \cref{sec:covLP-solve}.
\newcommand*{\thmCovLPSolve}{%
Let $\covLP(A, b, c)$ be implicitly defined in terms of input $I$. Then
\\ $\covLPsolve(I, q, \rho, \eps, \eta)$ returns a
$(1+\eps+\eps^2)/\eta$-approximate solution to $\covLP(A, b, c)$.}
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:cov-lp-solve}
\thmCovLPSolve
\end{theorem}
\newcommand*{m + \ceil{\ln\left(\frac{m}{\eta}\right)}{m + \ceil{\ln\left(\frac{m}{\eta}\right)}
\ceil{\frac{312m\rho(1+\eps)}{\eta\eps^3}\ln\left(\frac{12m}{\eps}\right)}}
\newcommand*{\thmCovLPSolveTime}{%
Let $\covLP(A, b, c)$ be implicitly defined in terms of input $I$,
where $A \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times N}_{\ge 0}$. Let
\begin{align*}
M &:= 3 + 2\lg\left(\frac{1}{\eps}+1\right)
+ \lg\left(\frac{1}{\eta}\right) + \lg\left(\frac{q}{\opt(\covLP(A, b, c))}\right)
\\ U &:= m + \ceil{\ln\left(\frac{m}{\eta}\right) \in \widetilde{O}\left(\frac{m\rho}{\eta\eps^3}\right)
\end{align*}
Then all of the following hold for $\covLPsolve(I, q, \rho, \eps, \eta)$:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\covLPsolve$ makes at most $MU$ calls to the index-finding oracle,
at most $MU$ calls to the column oracle, and at most $MU$ calls to the cost oracle.
\item In $\covLPsolve$, the time taken by non-oracle operations is $O(MUm)$.
\item The solution $\widehat{x}$ returned by $\covLPsolve$ has $|\support(\widehat{x})| \le U$.
\end{itemize}}
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:covlps-time}
\thmCovLPSolveTime
\end{theorem}
\begin{corollary}
Let $r^* = \opt(\covLP(A, b, c))$.
Then to approximately solve $\covLP(A, b, c)$ in polynomial time using $\covLPsolve$,
we need a way to compute $\rho$ and $q$ in polynomial time,
$m, 1/\eps, 1/\eta, \log(q/r^*), \rho \in \poly(|I|)$,
and the oracles should run in $\poly(|I|)$ time.
\end{corollary}
\subsection{The Fractional Covering Problem}
A subsidiary contribution of this paper is an algorithm
for the \emph{fractional covering problem}.
We use that algorithm as a subroutine in $\covLPsolve$.
\begin{definition}[Fractional Covering Problem \cite{plotkin1995fast}]
\label{defn:frac-cov}
Let $A \in \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}^{m \times N}$ be an $m$-by-$N$ matrix
and $b \in \mathbb{R}^m_{> 0}$ be an $m$-dimensional vector.
Let $P \subseteq \mathbb{R}^N$ be a convex polytope
such that $Ax \ge 0$ for all $x \in P$.
The fractional covering problem on input $(A, b, P)$, denoted as $\fcov(A, b, P)$,
requires us to do one of the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item output a feasible solution $x$,
i.e. $x \in P$ such that $Ax \ge b$.
\item claim that $\fcov(A, b, P)$ is unsatisfiable,
i.e. $Ax \ge b$ is not satisfied by any $x \in P$.
\end{itemize}
For $\alpha \in (0, 1]$, an algorithm is said to $\alpha$-weakly solve
$\fcov(A, b, P)$ iff it does one of the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item output an $\alpha$-approximate solution $x$,
i.e. $x \in P$ such that $Ax \ge \alpha b$.
\item claim that $\fcov(A, b, P)$ is unsatisfiable.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
An implicit fractional covering problem is one where $A$, $b$ and $P$
are not given to us explicitly. Instead, we are given an input $I$,
and $A$, $b$, $P$ are defined in terms of $I$.
We give an algorithm $\fracCoverHyp$ (described in \cref{sec:frac-cover})
that weakly solves $\fcov(A, b, P)$ in polynomial time using certain oracles.
$\fracCover$ is obtained by modifying the algorithm of Plotkin, Shmoys and Tardos
\cite{plotkin1995fast} for the fractional covering problem.
Moreover, we use $\fracCover$ as a subroutine in $\covLPsolve$.
\begin{definition}[Product oracle]
\label{defn:product-oracle}
Let $\fcov(A, b, P)$ be a fractional covering problem instance,
where $A, b, P$ are defined implicitly in terms of $I$.
The product oracle for $I$ takes $x \in P$ as input and returns $Ax$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Point-finding oracle]
\label{defn:point-find}
Let $\fcov(A, b, P)$ be a fractional covering problem instance,
where $A, b, P$ are defined implicitly in terms of $I$.
For $\eta \in (0, 1]$, an $\eta$-weak point-finding oracle for $I$,
denoted by $\pointFind$, is an algorithm that takes as input
$y \in \mathbb{R}^m_{\ge 0}$ and returns $\widehat{x} \in P$ such that
$y^TA\widehat{x} \ge \eta \max_{x \in P} y^TAx$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
\label{defn:width}
\[ \width(A, b, P) := \max_{x \in P} \max_{i=1}^m \frac{(Ax)_i}{b_i} \]
\end{definition}
The algorithm $\fracCover$ takes the following inputs:
\begin{itemize}
\item $I$: the input used to implicitly define $\fcov(A, b, P)$.
\item $\rho$: an upper-bound on $\width(A, b, P)$.
\item $\eps, \eta \in (0, 1]$.
\end{itemize}
$\fracCover$ is also provided a product oracle for $A$
and an $\eta$-weak point-finding oracle.
\Cref{thm:frac-cover,thm:frac-cover-time} below are the main results for this problem,
the proofs of which can be found in \cref{sec:frac-cover}.
\newcommand*{\thmFracCover}{%
Let $\fcov(A, b, P)$ be a fractional covering problem instance
where $A, b, P$ are implicitly defined in terms of input $I$.
Then $\fracCover(I, \rho, \eps, \eta)$ will $\eta/(1+\eps)$-weakly solve $\fcov(A, b, P)$,
i.e., if it returns \texttt{null}, then $\fcov(A, b, P)$ is unsatisfiable,
and if it returns a vector $x$, then $x \in P$ and $Ax \ge (\eta/(1+\eps))b$.}
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:frac-cover}
\thmFracCover
\end{theorem}
\newcommand*{\thmFracCoverTime}{%
Let $\fcov(A, b, P)$ be implicitly defined in terms of input $I$,
where $A \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times N}_{\ge 0}$.
Let $\tau$ be an upper-bound on the support of the output of $\pointFind$.
Suppose $\fracCover(I, \rho, \eps, \eta)$ calls the point-finding oracle $T$ times. Then
\[ T \le U := m + \ceil{\ln\left(\frac{m}{\eta}\right) \in \widetilde{O}\left(\frac{m\rho}{\eta\eps^3}\right) \]
Additionally,
\begin{itemize}
\item $\fracCover$ makes at most $T$ calls to the product oracle.
For every input $x$ to the product oracle, $|\support(x)| \le \tau$.
\item The running time of $\fracCover$, excluding the time taken by oracles,
is $O(T(m + \tau))$.
\item The solution $\widehat{x}$ returned by $\fracCover$ has $|\support(\widehat{x})| \le T\tau$.
\end{itemize}}
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:frac-cover-time}
\thmFracCoverTime
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Organization of This Paper}
\Cref{sec:bin-packing} defines the bin-packing problem and its corresponding configuration{} LP,
and shows how to use $\covLPsolve$ to approximately solve the configuration{} LP in polynomial time.
\Cref{sec:prior-work} describes some well-known algorithms for solving LPs
and compares them to our algorithm.
\Cref{sec:frac-cover} describes the $\fracCover$ algorithm and proves
\cref{thm:frac-cover,thm:frac-cover-time}.
\Cref{sec:covLP-solve} describes the $\covLPsolve$ algorithm and proves
\cref{thm:cov-lp-solve,thm:covlps-time}.
\Cref{sec:future-work} describes avenues for further improvement.
\section{The Bin-Packing Problem}
\label{sec:bin-packing}
In this section, we will define the bin-packing problem and its corresponding configuration{} LP.
Then we will see how to apply $\covLPsolve$ to approximately solve the configuration{} LP
in polynomial time.
In the classic bin-packing problem (classic-BP), we are given a set $I$ of $n$ items.
Each item $i$ has a size $s_i \in (0, 1]$.
We want to partition $I$ such that the sum of sizes of items in each partition is at most 1.
Each partition is called a bin, and we want to minimize the number of bins.
We want an algorithm for this problem whose worst-case running time is polynomial in $n$.
See the survey by Coffman et al. on approximation algorithms for bin-packing \cite{coffman2013bin}.
In the classic knapsack problem (classic-KS), we are given a set $I$ of $n$ items.
Each item $i$ has a size $s_i \in (0, 1]$ and a profit $p_i$ associated with it.
We want to select a subset $J \subseteq I$ of items such that
$p(J) := \sum_{i \in J} p_i$ is maximized.
There are many variants of the classic bin-packing problem.
In the 2D geometric bin-packing problem (2GBP) \cite{CKPT17},
we are given a set $I$ of $n$ axis-parallel rectangular items,
and we have to place the items into the minimum number of
rectangular bins without rotating the items, such that no two items overlap.
In the vector bin-packing problem (VBP), we are given a set $I$ of $n$ vectors over
$\mathbb{R}^d_{\ge 0}$ that we have to pack into the minimum number of bins such that
in each bin, the maximum coordinate of the sum of vectors is at most 1.
We can similarly define 2D geometric knapsack (2GKS) and vector knapsack (VKS).
Note that in classic-BP and VBP, we only need to partition the items into bins,
whereas in 2GBP, we also need to decide the position of the items into the bins.
\subsection{Abstract Bin-Packing and the Configuration{} LP}
We will now state the bin-packing problem and the knapsack problem abstractly,
so that our results hold for a large class of their variants.
Let $I$ be a set of $n$ items.
A configuration{} is a packing of some items from $I$ into a bin.
Let $\mathcal{C}$ be the set of all possible configuration{}s of $I$.
In the abstract bin-packing problem (BP),
we have to pack the items into the minimum number of bins, such that
the packing in each bin is according to some configuration{} in $\mathcal{C}$.
The abstract knapsack problem (KS) requires us to choose
the max-profit configuration{} where each item has an associated profit.
Note that we can get different variants of BP and KS by defining $\mathcal{C}$ appropriately.
For example, when $\mathcal{C} = \{X: X \subseteq I \textrm{ and } \sum_{i \in X} s_i \le 1 \}$,
we get classic-BP and classic-KS.
We will now formulate BP as an integer linear program.
Let there be $m$ distinct items in the set $I$ of $n$ items.
Let $b \in \mathbb{R}^m_{> 0}$ be a vector where $b_i$ is the number of items of type $i$.
Therefore, $n = \sum_{i=1}^m b_i$. Let $N := |\mathcal{C}|$.
Let $A$ be an $m$-by-$N$ matrix where $A[i, C]$
is the number of items of type $i$ in configuration{} $C$.
Then $A$ is called the configuration{} matrix of $I$.
Let $\mathbf{1} \in \mathbb{R}^N$ be a vector whose each component is 1.
For every configuration{} $C$, suppose we pack $x_C$ bins according to $C$.
Then the total number of bins used is $\mathbf{1}^Tx$.
The number of items of type $i$ that got packed is
$\sum_{C \in \mathcal{C}} A[i, C] x_C = (Ax)_i$.
Therefore, the optimal solution to BP is given by
the optimal integral solution to $\covLP(A, b, \mathbf{1})$.
$\covLP(A, b, \mathbf{1})$ is called the configuration{} LP of $I$
(also known as the Gilmore-Gomory LP of $I$).
Finding an approximately optimal (not necessarily integral) solution to
the configuration{} LP of $I$ is also an important problem.
The algorithm of Karmarkar and Karp for classic-BP \cite{karmarkar-karp}
requires a $(1+1/n)$-approximate solution to $\covLP(A, b, \mathbf{1})$.
The Round-and-Approx framework of Bansal and Khan \cite{bansal2014binpacking},
which is used to obtain the best-known approximation factor for 2GBP,
requires a $(1+\eps)$-approximate solution to $\covLP(A, b, \mathbf{1})$.
\subsection{Solving the Configuration{} LP using \texorpdfstring{$\covLPsolve$}{covLP-solve}}
\textbf{Indexing convention:}
Instead of using an integer $j \in [N]$ to index the columns in
the configuration{} matrix $A$ and the entries in a feasible solution $x$,
we will index them by the corresponding configuration{} $C$.
Hence, instead of writing $A[i, j]$ and $x_j$, we will write $A[i, C]$ and $x_C$.
Similarly, $\indexFindHyp$ will return a configuration{} instead of an integer.
\begin{lemma}
\label{thm:config-lp-bounds}
Let $\covLP(A, b, \mathbf{1})$ be the configuration{} LP of a bin-packing instance $I$
having $n$ items. Then $1 \le \opt(\covLP(A, b, \mathbf{1})) \le n$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Configuration{}s that contain only a single item are called singleton configuration{}s.
Let $x_C = 0$ when $C$ is not a singleton configuration{} and $x_C = b_i$ when $C$
is a singleton configuration{} of item type $i$.
Then $x$ is a feasible solution to $\covLP(A, b, \mathbf{1})$ and $\mathbf{1}^Tx = n$.
Therefore, $\opt(\covLP(A, b, \mathbf{1})) \le n$.
Let $r^* = \opt(\covLP(A, b, \mathbf{1}))$.
Let $x^*$ be an optimal solution to $\covLP(A, b, \mathbf{1})$.
Let $i$ be an arbitrary number in $[m]$
($m$ is the number of distinct items in $I$).
Since $x^*$ is feasible,
\[ b_i \le (Ax^*)_i = \sum_{C \in \mathcal{C}} A[i, C]x^*_C
\le \sum_{C \in \mathcal{C}} b_ix^*_C = b_ir^*
\implies 1 \le r^* \qedhere \]
\end{proof}
To solve $\covLP(A, b, \mathbf{1})$ using $\covLPsolve$,
we need to compute $q$, an upper-bound on\\$\opt(\covLP(A, b, \mathbf{1}))$,
and $\rho$, an upper-bound on $q\max_{i=1}^m \max_{C \in \mathcal{C}} A[i,C]/(b_i\mathbf{1}_C)$.
By \cref{thm:config-lp-bounds}, we can select $q := n$.
Since $A[i,C] \le b_i$, we can choose $\rho := n$.
The cost oracle simply outputs 1 for every input.
Let $a_C$ be the column of $A$ corresponding to configuration{} $C$.
Then $a_C \in \mathbb{R}^m_{\ge 0}$ and the $i^{\textrm{th}}$ coordinate of $a_C$
is the number of items of type $i$ in configuration{} $C$.
Therefore, for any configuration{} $C$, can get $a_C$ in $O(m)$ time.
For any configuration{} $C$, define the function
$D_C: \mathbb{R}^m_{\ge 0} \mapsto \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}$ as
\[ D_C(y) := y^TAe_C = \sum_{i=1}^m y_iA[i,C] \]
Then for $\eta \in (0, 1]$, an $\eta$-weak index-finding oracle for $I$
is an algorithm that takes as input $y \in \mathbb{R}^m_{\ge 0}$
and returns $\widehat{C} \in \mathcal{C}$ such that
$D_{\widehat{C}}(y) \ge \eta \max_{C \in \mathcal{C}} D_C(y)$.
Note that if we assign profit $y_i$ to items of type $i$,
then $D_C(y)$ is the profit of configuration{} $C$.
Therefore, an $\eta$-weak index-finding oracle
is an $\eta$-approximation algorithm for KS.
Now that we have the oracles ready, we can call
$\covLPsolve(I, n, n, \eps, \eta)$ to get a
$(1+\eps+\eps^2)/\eta$-approximate solution to $\covLP(A, b, \mathbf{1})$.
Let us now look at the time complexity of this solution.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:bplp-time}
Let $I$ be a set of $n$ items, of which there are $m$ distinct items.
Assume we have an $\eta$-approximate algorithm for KS
that runs in time $O(T(m, n))$, for some function $T$ where $T(m, n) \ge m$.
Then $\covLPsolve(I, n, n, \eps, \eta)$ runs in time $O(MUT(m, n))$.
Here $M \in O(\log(n/(\eps\eta)))$ and $U \in \widetilde{O}(mn/(\eta\eps^3))$
(as defined in \cref{thm:covlps-time}).
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By \cref{thm:covlps-time},
the time taken by non-oracle operations is $O(MUm)$,
the time taken by the product oracle is $O(MUm)$,
and the time taken by calls to the algorithm for KS is $O(MUT(m, n))$.
\end{proof}
Therefore, if $T(m, n) \in \poly(n)$, then $\covLPsolve$ gives us a
polynomial-time algorithm for solving the configuration{} LP of $I$.
Note that $\eta$ can be very small here, i.e., this algorithm works
even if the approximation factor of KS is very bad.
As far as we know, all previous algorithms for approximately solving the configuration{} LP
of BP assumed a PTAS for KS.
For many variants of KS, no PTAS is known.
\section{Comparison with Prior Work}
\label{sec:prior-work}
Many algorithms for solving general and special LPs exist.
In this section, we will look at the algorithms that have been used in the past
to solve implicitly-defined covering LPs, especially the configuration{} LP of some variants of BP,
and why they cannot be used for other variants of BP.
\subsection{Ellipsoid Algorithm}
The Ellipsoid algorithm by Khachiyan \cite{khachiyan-ellipsoid},
in addition to being the first polynomial-time algorithm for linear programming,
can solve LPs that are implicitly defined.
Specifically, it uses a \emph{separation oracle},
which takes a vector $x$ as input, and either claims that $x$ is feasible
or outputs a constraint of the LP that is violated by $x$.
This is useful for solving LPs where the number of constraints
is super-polynomial in the input size
(Gr\"otschel, Lov\'asz and Schrijver \cite{gls-ellipsoid}
give many examples of this).
Let us see how the ellipsoid algorithm may be used for solving
the configuration{} LP of a bin-packing instance.
Let $\covLP(A, b, \mathbf{1})$ be implicitly defined in terms of input $I$.
$\covLP(A, b, \mathbf{1})$ has $m$ constraints, where $m \le |I|$,
but the number of variables, $N$, can be super-polynomial.
We therefore compute the dual $D$ of $\covLP(A, b, \mathbf{1})$,
that has $m$ variables and $N$ constraints.
We will solve $D$ using the Ellipsoid algorithm and then use that solution of $D$
to obtain a solution to $\covLP(A, b, c)$.
This is what $D$ looks like:
\[ \max_{y \in \mathbb{R}^m} b^Ty \textrm{ where } A^Ty \le \mathbf{1} \textrm{ and } y \ge 0 \]
The separation oracle for $D$ takes a vector $y$ as input
and checks if $A^Ty \le \mathbf{1}$.
\[ A^Ty \le \mathbf{1}
\iff \max_{C \in \mathcal{C}} (A^Ty)_C \le 1
\iff \max_{C \in \mathcal{C}} \sum_{i=1}^m y_iA[i, C] \le 1 \]
If we interpret $y_i$ as the profit of item $i$,
then $\sum_{i=1}^m y_iA[i, C]$ is the profit of configuration{} $C$.
Therefore, the separation oracle is the decision version of the knapsack problem.
Specifically, the separation oracle should either claim that the optimal profit is at most 1,
or it should output a configuration{} of profit more than 1.
Since the decision version of the knapsack problem is known to be NP-complete,
we cannot design a polynomial-time separation oracle.
Gr\"otschel, Lov\'asz and Schrijver \cite{gls-ellipsoid} gave a variant of
the Ellipsoid algorithm (which we will hereafter refer to as the GLS algorithm)
that can approximately solve an LP using an approximate separation oracle.
Karmarkar and Karp \cite{karmarkar-karp} modified the GLS algorithm to
solve the dual of the configuration{} LP of classic-BP,
and described how to obtain a solution to the configuration{} LP
using a solution to the dual.
Their algorithm, however, requires an FPTAS for classic-KS.
Our algorithm $\covLPsolve$ doesn't have such strict requirements,
and can work with very poorly-approximated algorithms for KS.
\subsection{Plotkin-Shmoys-Tardos Algorithm}
Plotkin, Shmoys and Tardos \cite{plotkin1995fast} gave algorithms for solving
the fractional covering problem (see \cref{defn:frac-cov}) and the fractional packing problem.
Our algorithm $\fracCoverHyp$ is obtained by slightly modifying their algorithm.
The following theorem is their most relevant result to us:
\begin{theorem}[Theorem 3.10 in \cite{plotkin1995fast}]
For $0 < \eps < 1$, given a $(1-\eps/2)$-weak point-finding oracle, the algorithm
of \cite{plotkin1995fast} $(1-\eps)$-weakly solves the fractional covering problem.
\end{theorem}
The above result holds only for a sufficiently small $\eps$.
\cite{plotkin1995fast} doesn't explicitly state how small $\eps$ should be,
but even the optimistic case of $\eps < 1$ tells us that for an $\eta$-weak $\pointFind$,
we require $\eta > 1/2$.
However, we are interested in the case where $\eta$ can be very small.
Moreover, there is a large gap between $(1-\eps/2)$ and $(1-\eps)$
when $\eps$ is large enough. For example, for $\eps = 1/3$,
$\pointFind$ is $5/6$-weak, but their algorithm will only give us a $2/3$-weak solution
to the fractional covering problem.
Our modified algorithm $\fracCover$, on the other hand, outputs a solution
that is roughly $5/6$-weak for this example.
We did not focus on optimizing the running time of our algorithm;
instead, we focused on getting as small an approximation factor as possible.
Our algorithm is, therefore, slower than that of \cite{plotkin1995fast}.
\section{The Fractional Covering Problem}
\label{sec:frac-cover}
Recall that in the problem $\fcovHyp(A, b, P)$, we need to find
$x \in P$ such that $Ax \ge b$ or claim that no such $x$ exists.
Also, $\rho \ge \widthHyp(A, b, P)$.
\subsection{Optimization Version of fcov}
Let us try to frame $\fcov(A, b, P)$ as an optimization problem.
\begin{definition}
\label{defn:ofcov}
For the problem $\fcov(A, b, P)$, let $\lambda(x) := \max_{\lambda} (Ax \ge \lambda b)$.
The problem $\ofcov(A, b, P)$ is defined as
\[ \argmax_{x \in P} \lambda(x) \]
Let $x^*$ be the optimal solution to $\ofcov(A, b, P)$
and let $\lambda^* := \lambda(x^*)$.
Then $x \in P$ is said to be $\eps$-optimal for $\ofcov(A, b, P)$
iff $\lambda(x) \ge (1-\eps)\lambda(x^*)$.
\end{definition}
\begin{claim}
\[ \lambda(x) = \min_{i=1}^m \frac{(Ax)_i}{b_i} \]
So $\lambda(x)$ can be computed using the \hyperref[defn:product-oracle]{product oracle}.
\end{claim}
Note that $\fcov(A, b, P)$ is unsatisfiable iff $\lambda(x^*) < 1$,
and otherwise $x^*$ is a solution to $\fcov(A, b, P)$.
However, we can't directly use this fact to solve $\fcov(A, b, P)$,
since it may be very hard to compute $x^*$.
So instead, we'll compute an $\eps$-optimal solution $\widehat{x}$ to $\ofcov(A, b, P)$.
Then $\lambda(\widehat{x})$ is an approximation to $\lambda(x^*)$,
since $(1-\eps)\lambda(x^*) \le \lambda(\widehat{x}) \le \lambda(x^*)$.
\begin{claim}
\label{thm:opt-to-feas}
If $x$ is $\eps$-optimal for $\ofcov(A, b, P)$, then
\[ \lambda(x) < 1-\eps
\implies \lambda^* \le \frac{\lambda(x)}{1-\eps} < 1
\implies \fcov(A, b, P) \textrm{ has no solution } \]
\[ \lambda(x) \ge 1-\eps
\implies Ax \ge (1-\eps)b
\implies x \textrm{ is } (1-\eps)\textrm{-approx for } \fcov(A, b, P) \]
\end{claim}
We'll now focus on finding an $\eps$-optimal solution to $\ofcov(A, b, P)$.
\subsection{Weak Duality}
\begin{definition}
\label{defn:dfcov}
For the problem $\ofcov(A, b, P)$, define
\[ C(y) := \max_{x \in P} y^T A x. \]
Define the problem $\dfcov(A, b, P)$ as
\[ \argmin_{y \in \mathbb{R}^m_{\ge 0}} \frac{C(y)}{y^Tb} \]
We call it the dual problem of $\ofcov$.
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}[Weak duality]
\label{thm:weak-duality}
Let $\widehat{x} \in P$. Then
\[ \lambda(\widehat{x})y^Tb \le y^TA\widehat{x} \le C(y) \]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\begin{align*}
\lambda(\widehat{x})(y^Tb) &= y^T(\lambda(\widehat{x})b)
\\ &\le y^TA\widehat{x} \tag{$y \ge 0$ and $A\widehat{x} \ge \lambda(\widehat{x})b$}
\\ &\le \max_{x \in P} y^TAx = C(y)
\qedhere \end{align*}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Relaxed Optimality Conditions}
If we could find $x \in P$ and $y \ge 0$ such that $\lambda(x)y^Tb \ge y^TAx \ge C(y)$,
then weak duality would imply that $x$ is optimal for $\ofcov$ and $y$ is optimal for $\dfcov$.
To find approximate optima, we slightly relax these conditions.
\[ \label{eqn:condI} (1+\eps_1)\lambda(x)y^Tb \ge y^TAx \tag{condition $\CondI(\eps_1)$} \]
\[ \label{eqn:condII} C(y) - y^TAx \le \eps_2 C(y) + \eps_3 \lambda(x) y^Tb
\tag{condition $\CondII(\eps_2, \eps_3)$} \]
Condition $\CondII(\eps_2, \eps_3)$ can equivalently be written as
\[ y^TAx \ge (1-\eps_2)C(y) - \eps_3 \lambda(x) y^Tb \]
\begin{lemma}
\label{thm:rlx-to-opt}
Suppose $x \in P$ and $y \ge 0$ satisfy conditions $\CondI(\eps_1)$
and $\CondII(\eps_2, \eps_3)$, where $0 < \eps_1, \eps_2, \eps_3 < 1$.
Let $\eps' := (\eps_1 + \eps_2 + \eps_3)/(1 + \eps_2 + \eps_3)$.
Then $x$ is $\eps'$-optimal for $\ofcov(A, b, P)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By weak duality (\thmdepcref{thm:weak-duality}{}), we get
$\lambda^* \le C(y)/b^Ty$.
Conditions $\CondI(\eps_1)$ and $\CondII(\eps_2, \eps_3)$ give us
\begin{align*}
& (1+\eps_1)\lambda(x) y^Tb \ge y^TAx \ge (1-\eps_2)C(y) - \eps_3\lambda(x) y^Tb
\\ &\implies (1 + \eps_1 + \eps_3)\lambda(x) y^Tb \ge (1-\eps_2)C(y)
\\ &\implies \lambda(x) \ge \frac{1-\eps_2}{1 + \eps_1 + \eps_3} \lambda^*
= (1-\eps')\lambda^*
\\ &\implies x \textrm{ is } \eps'\textrm{-optimal}
\qedhere \end{align*}
\end{proof}
We'll now focus on finding $x \in P$ and $y \ge 0$ such that
conditions $\CondI(\eps_1)$ and $\CondII(\eps_2, \eps_3)$ are satisfied.
\subsection{Dual Fitting}
\begin{definition}
For some $\alpha > 0$, define the vector $y_{\alpha}(x) \in \mathbb{R}^m_{> 0}$ as
\[ y_{\alpha}(x)_i := \frac{1}{b_i}\exp\left( - \frac{\alpha(Ax)_i}{b_i} \right) \]
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}
\label{thm:pot-bounds}
\[ \exp(-\alpha\lambda(x)) \le b^Ty_{\alpha}(x) \le m\exp(-\alpha\lambda(x)) \]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\begin{align*}
b^Ty_{\alpha}(x) &= \sum_{i=1}^m \exp\left(-\frac{\alpha(Ax)_i}{b_i}\right)
\\ &\in [1, m] \max_{i=1}^m \exp\left(-\frac{\alpha(Ax)_i}{b_i}\right)
\\ &= [1, m] \exp\left(-\alpha \min_{i=1}^m \frac{(Ax)_i}{b_i} \right)
= [1, m] \exp(-\alpha \lambda(x))
\qedhere \end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{thm:c1-sat}
Let $0 < \eps < 1$ and let
\[ \beta := \frac{2}{\eps}\ln\left(\frac{4m}{\eps}\right) \]
(note that $\beta \ge 1$). Then
\[ \alpha\lambda(x) \ge \beta \implies (x, y_{\alpha}(x)) \textrm{ satisfies $\CondIHyp(\eps)$} \]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} See lemma 3.2 in \cite{plotkin1995fast}. \end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{thm:width-is-positive}
$\width(A, b, P) = 0 \implies \fcov(A, b, P)$ is unsatisfiable.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We know that $\width(A, b, P) \ge 0$. Suppose $\width(A, b, P) = 0$.
Then $\forall x \in P, Ax = 0$, so $Ax \ge b$ cannot be true.
\end{proof}
\Cref{thm:width-is-positive} means that if $\rho = 0$,
then we know that $\fcov(A, b, P)$ is unsatisfiable.
So we'll assume from now on that $\rho > 0$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:pot-dec}
Let $\eps_{\sigma}, \eps_{\alpha}, \eps_2, \eps_3 \in (0, 1)$ be constants.
Suppose $x \in P$, $\widetilde{x} \in P$, $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}_{> 0}$,
$\eta \in (0, 1]$ and $\sigma \in \mathbb{R}_{> 0}$
satisfy the following properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\lambda(x) > 0$.
\item $(x, y_{\alpha}(x))$ doesn't satisfy condition $\CondIIHyp(\eps_2, \eps_3)$.
Denote $y_{\alpha}(x)$ by $y$ for simplicity.
\item $y^TA\widetilde{x} \ge \eta \hyperref[defn:dfcov]{C}(y)$.
\item $\sigma \le \eps_{\sigma}/(\alpha\rho)$.
Let $\widehat{x} = (1-\sigma)x + \sigma\widetilde{x}$.
Denote $y_{\alpha}(\widehat{x})$ by $\widehat{y}$ for simplicity.
\item ${\displaystyle \alpha \ge \frac{2}{\lambda(x)\eps_{\alpha}}
\ln\left(\frac{4m}{\eps_{\alpha}}\right)}$.
\item ${\displaystyle \eta \ge (1-\eps_2)\left(\frac{1+\eps_{\sigma}}{1-\eps_{\sigma}}\right)}$.
\end{itemize}
Then $\widehat{x} \in P$ and
\[ \frac{b^Ty - b^T\widehat{y}}{b^Ty}
> \alpha\sigma\lambda(x)\eps_3\left(1-\eps_{\sigma}\right) \frac{\eta}{1-\eps_2} \]
\end{theorem}
Intuitively, this means that under certain conditions, a point $x \in P$ can be
replaced by a different point in $P$ such that $b^Ty_{\alpha}(x)$ decreases by a significant factor.
The reasons for choosing such conditions will be apparent on reading
\cref{sec:frac-cover:improve-cover}.
\begin{proof}
\begin{align*}
\sigma &\le \frac{\eps_{\sigma}}{\alpha\rho}
\le \frac{\eps_{\sigma}}{\rho} \frac{\lambda(x)\eps_{\alpha}}{2\ln\left(4m/\eps_{\alpha}\right)}
\tag{$\alpha \ge \frac{2}{\lambda(x)\eps_{\alpha}}\ln\left(\frac{4m}{\eps_{\alpha}}\right)$}
\\ &\le \frac{\eps_{\sigma}\eps_{\alpha}}{2\ln\left(4m/\eps_{\alpha}\right)}
\tag{$\lambda(x) \le \rho$}
\\ &< \frac{1}{2\ln(4m)}
\le \frac{1}{2}
\tag{$\eps_{\sigma}, \eps_{\alpha} < 1$}
\end{align*}
Therefore, $\sigma \le 1$, so $\widehat{x}$ is a convex combination of $x$ and $\widetilde{x}$.
Therefore, $\widehat{x} \in P$.
Let $\lambda_i := (Ax)_i/b_i$, $\widetilde{\lambda}_i := (A\widetilde{x})_i/b_i$
and $\widehat{\lambda}_i := (A\widehat{x})_i/b_i$. Then
\begin{align*}
\widehat{x} - x &= \sigma(\widetilde{x} - x)
& \widehat{\lambda}_i &= (1-\sigma)\lambda_i + \sigma\widetilde{\lambda}_i
& \widehat{\lambda}_i - \lambda_i &= \sigma(\widetilde{\lambda}_i - \lambda_i)
\\ y_i &= \frac{1}{b_i}e^{-\alpha\lambda_i}
& \widehat{y}_i &= \frac{1}{b_i}e^{-\alpha\widehat{\lambda}_i}
\end{align*}
\[ \frac{\widehat{y}_i}{y_i}
= \exp(-\alpha(\widehat{\lambda}_i - \lambda_i))
= \exp(-\alpha\sigma(\widetilde{\lambda}_i - \lambda_i)) \]
Let $\delta := -\alpha\sigma(\widetilde{\lambda}_i - \lambda_i)$.
By definition of $\rho$ and $\widthHyp$, $\lambda_i \le \rho$ and $\widetilde{\lambda}_i \le \rho$.
Therefore, $\smallabs{\widetilde{\lambda}_i - \lambda_i} \le \rho$.
This gives us
$\abs{\delta} = \alpha\sigma\smallabs{\widetilde{\lambda}_i - \lambda_i}
\le \alpha\sigma\rho \le \eps_{\sigma} < 1$.
For $\abs{\delta} \le 1$, we get $e^{\delta} < 1 + \delta + \delta^2
\le 1 + \delta + \abs{\delta}\eps_{\sigma}$.
\begin{align*}
b_i\widehat{y}_i &= b_iy_ie^{\delta}
\\ &< b_iy_i (1 + \delta + \eps_{\sigma}\abs{\delta})
\\ &= b_iy_i - \alpha\sigma y_ib_i(\widetilde{\lambda}_i - \lambda_i)
+ \alpha\sigma\eps_{\sigma}\smallabs{y_ib_i(\widetilde{\lambda}_i - \lambda_i)}
\\ &= b_iy_i - \alpha\sigma (y_i(A\widetilde{x})_i - y_i(Ax)_i)
+ \alpha\sigma\eps_{\sigma}\abs{y_i(A\widetilde{x})_i - y_i(Ax)_i}
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
\implies \frac{b_iy_i - b_i\widehat{y}_i}{\alpha\sigma}
&> (y_i(A\widetilde{x})_i - y_i(Ax)_i) - \eps_{\sigma}\abs{y_i(A\widetilde{x})_i - y_i(Ax)_i}
\\ &\ge (y_i(A\widetilde{x})_i - y_i(Ax)_i) - \eps_{\sigma}(y_i(A\widetilde{x})_i + y_i(Ax)_i)
\\ &= (1-\eps_{\sigma})y_i(A\widetilde{x})_i - (1+\eps_{\sigma})y_i(Ax)_i
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
\implies \frac{b^Ty - b^T\widehat{y}}{\alpha\sigma}
&> (1-\eps_{\sigma})y^TA\widetilde{x} - (1+\eps_{\sigma})y^TAx
\\ &\ge (1-\eps_{\sigma})\eta C(y) - (1+\eps_{\sigma})y^TAx
\end{align*}
Since condition $\CondII(\eps_2, \eps_3)$ is not satisfied, we get
\[ (1-\eps_2)C(y) > y^TAx + \eps_3\lambda(x) b^Ty \]
\begin{align*}
\implies & \frac{b^Ty - b^T\widehat{y}}{\alpha\sigma}
> (1-\eps_{\sigma})\eta C(y) - (1+\eps_{\sigma})y^TAx
\\ &> (1-\eps_{\sigma})\eta \frac{y^TAx + \eps_3\lambda(x) b^Ty}{1-\eps_2}
- (1+\eps_{\sigma})y^TAx
\\ &= \left((1-\eps_{\sigma})\frac{\eta}{1-\eps_2} - (1 + \eps_{\sigma})\right)y^TAx
+ (1-\eps_{\sigma})\frac{\eta\eps_3}{1-\eps_2} \lambda(x) b^Ty
\end{align*}
\[ \eta \ge (1-\eps_2)\frac{1+\eps_{\sigma}}{1-\eps_{\sigma}}
\implies (1-\eps_{\sigma})\frac{\eta}{1-\eps_2} - (1 + \eps_{\sigma}) \ge 0 \]
Therefore,
\begin{align*}
& \frac{b^Ty - b^T\widehat{y}}{\alpha\sigma}
> (1-\eps_{\sigma}) \frac{\eta\eps_3}{1-\eps_2} \lambda(x) b^Ty
\\ &\implies \frac{b^Ty - b^T\widehat{y}}{b^Ty}
\ge \alpha\sigma\lambda(x)\eps_3(1-\eps_{\sigma})\frac{\eta}{1-\eps_2}
\qedhere \end{align*}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Algorithm \texorpdfstring{$\improveCover$}{improve-cover}}
\label{sec:frac-cover:improve-cover}
We'll now start building an algorithm for $\fcov(A, b, P)$,
where $A$, $b$, $P$ are implicitly defined by input $I$.
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{$\improveCover(I, x, \eps_{\sigma}, \eps_1, \eps_2, \eps_3, \rho)$:\\
Requires $x \in P$, $\rho > 0$, $\lambda(x) > 0$, $0 < \eps_{\sigma}, \eps_1, \eps_2, \eps_3 < 1$ and
${\displaystyle (1-\eps_2)\frac{1+\eps_{\sigma}}{1-\eps_{\sigma}} \le \eta \le 1}$.}
\label{algo:improve-cover}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State $\lambda_0 = \lambda(x)
\quad {\displaystyle \alpha := \frac{4}{\lambda_0\eps_1}\ln\left(\frac{4m}{\eps_1}\right)}
\quad {\displaystyle \sigma := \frac{\eps_{\sigma}}{\alpha\rho}}$
\While{$\lambda(x) \le 2\lambda_0$ and $(x, y_{\alpha}(x))$ doesn't satisfy
condition $\CondIIHyp(\eps_2, \eps_3)$}
\State $\widetilde{x} = \pointFindHyp(y_{\alpha}(x))$
\Comment{now $y_{\alpha}(x)^TA\widetilde{x} \ge \eta C(y_{\alpha}(x))$}.
\State \label{alg-line:improve-cover:x-upd}$x = (1-\sigma)x + \sigma\widetilde{x}$
\EndWhile
\State \texttt{success} = \texttt{true} if
$(x, y_{\alpha}(x))$ satisfies condition $\CondIIHyp(\eps_2, \eps_3)$ else \texttt{false}
\State \Return ($x$, \texttt{success})
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{lemma}
\label{thm:improve-cover-invs}
Let $x^{[0]}$ be the initial value of $x$.
Throughout $\improveCover$, the following conditions are satisfied:
\begin{itemize}
\item $x \in P$
\item $b^Ty_{\alpha}(x) \le b^Ty_{\alpha}(x^{[0]})$
\item ${\displaystyle \lambda(x) \ge \frac{3}{4}\lambda_0}$
\item ${\displaystyle \alpha \ge \frac{3}{\lambda(x)\eps_1}\ln\left(\frac{4m}{\eps_1}\right)}$
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
These conditions are satisfied at the beginning of the algorithm.
Assume that the conditions are satisfied at the beginning of the \texttt{while} loop body.
Then the conditions for \thmdepcref{thm:pot-dec}{} are satisfied, so
$\widehat{x} = (1-\sigma)x + \sigma\widetilde{x} \in P$
and $b^Ty_{\alpha}(\widehat{x}) \le b^Ty_{\alpha}(x) \le b^Ty_{\alpha}(x^{[0]})$.
Let $\widehat{\lambda} = \lambda(\widehat{x})$.
By \thmdepcref{thm:pot-bounds}{}, we get
\begin{align*}
& e^{-\alpha\widehat{\lambda}} \le b^Ty_{\alpha}(\widehat{x})
\le b^Ty_{\alpha}(x^{[0]}) \le me^{-\alpha\lambda_0}
\\ &\implies me^{\alpha\widehat{\lambda}} \ge e^{\alpha\lambda_0}
\\ &\implies \lambda_0 - \widehat{\lambda} \le \frac{\ln m}{\alpha}
= \ln m \frac{\lambda_0\eps_1}{4 \ln\left(\frac{4m}{\eps_1}\right)}
\le \frac{\lambda_0}{4}
\\ &\implies \frac{3\lambda_0}{4} \le \widehat{\lambda}
\end{align*}
\[ \alpha = \frac{4}{\lambda_0\eps_1} \ln\left(\frac{4m}{\eps_1}\right)
\ge \frac{3}{\widehat{\lambda}\eps_1} \ln\left(\frac{4m}{\eps_1}\right) \]
Therefore, the conditions are also satisfied after the \texttt{while} loop.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
\label{thm:improve-cover-c1}
Throughout $\improveCover$, $(x, y_{\alpha}(x))$ satisfies condition $\CondIHyp(\eps_1)$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Use ${\displaystyle \alpha
\ge \frac{3}{\lambda(x)\eps_1} \ln\left(\frac{4m}{\eps_1}\right)}$
from \thmdepcref{thm:improve-cover-invs}{}
and \thmdepcref{thm:c1-sat}{}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{thm:improve-cover}
Let $\eps' := (\eps_1 + \eps_2 + \eps_3)/(1 + \eps_1 + \eps_3)$.
If $\improveCover$ terminates and \texttt{success} is \texttt{true},
then $x$ is \hyperref[defn:ofcov]{$\eps'$-optimal} for $\ofcov(A, b, P)$.
If $\improveCover$ terminates and \texttt{success} is \texttt{false},
then $\lambda(x) > 2\lambda_0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By \thmdepcref{thm:improve-cover-c1}{},
$x$ satisfies condition $\CondI(\eps_1)$.
If \texttt{success} is \texttt{true}, then $x$ satisfies condition $\CondIIHyp(\eps_2, \eps_3)$.
So by \thmdepcref{thm:rlx-to-opt}{},
$x$ is $\eps'$-optimal for $\ofcov(A, b, P)$.
If \texttt{success} is \texttt{false}, then $x$ doesn't satisfy
condition $\CondIIHyp(\eps_2, \eps_3)$.
Since the \texttt{while} loop ended, $\lambda(x) > 2\lambda_0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{claim}
\label{thm:ln-lb}
$\forall x \in \mathbb{R}_{> 0}, \ln x > (x-1)/x$.
\end{claim}
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:improve-cover-iters}
Let $T$ be the number of times $\improveCover$ calls $\pointFindHyp$.
Then $T$ is finite and
\[ T \le \ceil{\frac{4\rho}{3\eps_{\sigma}\eps_3\lambda_0}
\left(\ln m + \frac{4}{\eps_1}\ln\left(\frac{4m}{\eps_1}\right)\right)}. \]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $x^{[t]}$ be the value of $x$ after $t$ runs of the \texttt{while} loop.
Let $\psi(t) := b^Ty_{\alpha}(x^{[t]})$.
So $\lambda(x^{[t]}) \le 2\lambda_0$ for all $t < T$.
By \thmdepcref{thm:pot-bounds,thm:improve-cover-invs}{}, we get
\begin{align*}
& e^{-\alpha(2\lambda_0)} \le e^{-\alpha\lambda(x^{[t]})}
\le b^Ty_{\alpha}(x^{[t]}) \le b^Ty_{\alpha}(x^{[0]}) \le me^{-\alpha\lambda_0}
\\ &\implies \frac{\psi(0)}{\psi(t)}
\le \frac{me^{-\alpha\lambda_0}}{e^{-\alpha(2\lambda_0)}} = me^{\alpha\lambda_0}
\end{align*}
Define
\[ \beta := \frac{3}{4}\alpha\sigma\lambda_0\eps_3(1-\eps_{\sigma})\frac{\eta}{1-\eps_2} \]
By \thmdepcref{thm:improve-cover-invs}{},
the conditions for \cref{thm:pot-dec} are satisfied for $x = x^{[j]}$ for all $j < T$.
By \thmdepcref{thm:pot-dec}{},
\[ \forall j < T, \frac{\psi(j+1)}{\psi(j)} < 1 - \beta
\implies \frac{\psi(0)}{\psi(t)} > (1-\beta)^{-t} \]
Therefore,
\[ (1-\beta)^{-t} < \frac{\psi(0)}{\psi(t)} \le me^{\alpha\lambda_0}
\implies t < \frac{\ln m + \alpha\lambda_0}{\ln(1/(1-\beta))}
\iff t \le \ceil{\frac{\ln m + \alpha\lambda_0}{\ln(1/(1-\beta))}} - 1 \]
Since this is true for all $t < T$, we get that $T$ is finite and
\[ T \le \ceil{\frac{\ln m + \alpha\lambda_0}{\ln(1/(1-\beta))}} \]
By \thmdepcref{thm:ln-lb}{}, $\ln((1-\beta)^{-1}) \ge \beta$.
\begin{align*}
\beta &= \frac{3}{4}\alpha\sigma\lambda_0
\left(1-\eps_{\sigma}\right)\frac{\eta\eps_3}{1-\eps_2}
= \frac{3\eps_{\sigma}\lambda_0}{4\rho}
\left(1-\eps_{\sigma}\right)\frac{\eta\eps_3}{1-\eps_2}
\tag{since $\sigma := \eps_{\sigma}/(\alpha\rho)$}
\\ &\ge \frac{3\eps_3\eps_{\sigma}\lambda_0}{4\rho}
\left( 1 + \eps_{\sigma}\right)
> \frac{3\eps_3\eps_{\sigma}\lambda_0}{4\rho}
\tag{${\displaystyle \eta \ge (1-\eps_2)\frac{1+\eps_{\sigma}}{1-\eps_{\sigma}}}$}
\end{align*}
Therefore,
\begin{align*}
T \le \ceil{\frac{\ln m + \alpha\lambda_0}{\ln((1-\beta)^{-1})}}
&\le \ceil{\frac{1}{\beta}\left(\ln m + \frac{4}{\eps_1}\ln\left(\frac{4m}{\eps_1}\right)\right)}
\\ &\le \ceil{\frac{4\rho}{3\eps_3\eps_{\sigma}\lambda_0}
\left(\ln m + \frac{4}{\eps_1}\ln\left(\frac{4m}{\eps_1}\right)\right)}
\qedhere \end{align*}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Algorithm \texorpdfstring{$\fracCover$}{frac-cover}}
\subsubsection{Starting with Good \texorpdfstring{$\lambda(x)$}{lambda(x)}}
The number of iterations within $\improveCover$ depends inversely on $\lambda_0$.
Therefore, we have to ensure that $\lambda_0$ isn't too small.
Let $e_i$ be the $i^{\textrm{th}}$ standard basis vector for $\mathbb{R}^m$.
So $e_i^TAx = (Ax)_i$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{thm:get-seed}
Let $x^{(i)} := \pointFindHyp(e_i)$.
Let $\ddot{x} := \frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m x^{(i)}$.
If $(Ax^{(i)})_i < \eta b_i$ for some $i \in [m]$, then $\fcov(A, b, P)$ is unsatisfiable.
Otherwise, $\lambda(\ddot{x}) \ge \eta/m$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $\pointFind$ is $\eta$-weak,
$(Ax^{(i)})_i \ge \eta \max_{x \in P} (Ax)_i$.
\begin{align*}
(Ax^{(i)})_i < \eta b_i
&\implies \max_{x \in P} (Ax)_i < b_i
\implies \forall x \in P, Ax \not\ge b
\\ &\implies \fcov(A, b, P) \textrm{ is unsatisfiable.}
\end{align*}
Suppose $(Ax^{(i)})_i \ge \eta b_i$ for all $i \in [m]$.
Since each $x^{(i)} \in P$, we get $\ddot{x} \in P$. Also,
\[ (A\ddot{x})_i = \frac{1}{m} \sum_{j=1}^m (Ax^{(j)})_i
\ge \frac{1}{m} (Ax^{(i)})_i \ge \frac{\eta}{m} b_i
\implies \lambda(\ddot{x}) \ge \frac{\eta}{m} \qedhere \]
\end{proof}
\Cref{thm:get-seed} gives us \cref{algo:get-seed} ($\getSeed$).
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{$\getSeed(I, \eta)$}
\label{algo:get-seed}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\For{$i \in [m]$}
\State $x^{(i)} = \pointFindHyp(e_i)$
\Comment{so $e_i^TAx^{(i)} \ge \eta \max_{x \in P} e_i^TAx$.}
\If{$(Ax^{(i)})_i < \eta b_i$}
\State \Return \texttt{null}
\EndIf
\EndFor
\State \Return ${\displaystyle \ddot{x} := \frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m x^{(i)}}$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsubsection{Iteratively Running \texorpdfstring{$\improveCover$}{improve-cover}}
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{$\fracCover(I, \rho, \eps, \eta)$: Returns either $x \in P$ or \texttt{null}.
\\ Requires $\rho \ge \widthHyp(A, b, P)$ and $\eps, \eta \in (0, 1]$.}
\label{algo:frac-cover}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\If{$\rho \texttt{ == } 0$}
\State \label{alg-line:frac-cover:rho}\Return \texttt{null}
\EndIf
\State $x = \getSeedHyp(I, \eta)$
\If{$x \texttt{ == } \texttt{null}$}
\State \label{alg-line:frac-cover:ret-null-1}\Return \texttt{null}
\EndIf
\State Let $\eps_{\sigma} := \eps/(6+5\eps)$ and $\eps_1 := \eps_3 := \eps/3$.
\State Let ${\displaystyle \eps_2 := 1 - \eta\frac{1-\eps_{\sigma}}{1+\eps_{\sigma}}}$
and ${\displaystyle \eps' := \frac{\eps_1 + \eps_2 + \eps_3}{1 + \eps_1 + \eps_3}}$.
\While{\texttt{true}}
\If{$\lambda(x) \ge 1$}\label{alg-line:frac-cover:lambda-check-1}
\State \label{alg-line:frac-cover:ret-exact}\Return $x$
\EndIf
\State $(x, \texttt{success})
= \improveCoverHyp(x, \eps_{\sigma}, \eps_1, \eps_2, \eps_3, \rho)$.
\If{\texttt{success}}
\Comment{$x$ is $\eps'$-optimal.}
\State \label{alg-line:frac-cover:ret-e-opt}%
\Return $x \textrm{ if } \lambda(x) \ge 1-\eps' \textrm{ else } \texttt{null}$
\EndIf
\EndWhile
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{lemma}
\label{thm:epsdash}
In $\fracCover$, $1 - \eps' = \eta/(1+\eps)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\[ 1-\eps' = \frac{1-\eps_2}{1 + \eps_1 + \eps_3}
= \eta \frac{\gamma - \eps_{\sigma}}{\gamma + \eps_{\sigma}}
\frac{1}{1 + \eps_1 + \eps_3}
= \eta \frac{1-\eps/(6+5\eps)}{1+\eps/(6+5\eps)}\frac{1}{1 + 2\eps/3}
= \frac{\eta}{1 + \eps} \qedhere \]
\end{proof}
\restate{\cref{thm:frac-cover}}{\thmFracCover}
\begin{proof}
When $\fracCover$ returns \texttt{null} at \cref{alg-line:frac-cover:rho},
then $\fcov(A, b, P)$ is unsatisfiable by \thmdepcref{thm:width-is-positive}{thm:frac-cover}.
$\getSeed$ and $\improveCover$ have output in $P$.
Therefore, throughout the execution of $\fracCover$, $x \in P$.
When $\fracCover$ returns \texttt{null} at \cref{alg-line:frac-cover:ret-null-1},
it does so because $\getSeed$ returned \texttt{null}.
Then as per \thmdepcref{thm:get-seed}{thm:frac-cover}, $\fcov(A, b, P)$ is unsatisfiable.
When $\fracCover$ returns $x$ at \cref{alg-line:frac-cover:ret-exact},
then $\lambda(x) \ge 1 \implies Ax \ge b$.
$\fracCover$ returns at \cref{alg-line:frac-cover:ret-e-opt} when \texttt{success} is \texttt{true}.
Then by \thmdepcref{thm:improve-cover}{thm:frac-cover}, $x$ would be $\eps'$-optimal.
By \thmdepcref{thm:opt-to-feas}{thm:frac-cover},
we get that if $\fracCover$ returns \texttt{null},
then $\fcov(A, b, P)$ is unsatisfiable.
Otherwise, $x$ is a $(1-\eps')$-approximate solution to $Ax \ge b$,
i.e. $Ax \ge (1-\eps')b$.
By \thmdepcref{thm:epsdash}{thm:frac-cover}, $Ax \ge (\eta/(1+\eps))b$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{thm:fc-pf-calls}
Let $\fcov(A, b, P)$ be implicitly defined by input $I$,
where $A \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times N}_{\ge 0}$.
Suppose $\fracCover(I, \rho, \eps, \eta)$ calls $\pointFindHyp$ $T$ times. Then
\[ T \le U := m + \ceil{\ln\left(\frac{m}{\eta}\right) \in \widetilde{O}\left(\frac{m\rho}{\eta\eps^3}\right) \]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
$\getSeed$ calls $\pointFind$ $m$ times.
The other $T-m$ calls to $\pointFind$ occur inside $\improveCover$.
For $j \ge 0$, let $x^{[j]}$ be the value of $x$ given as input to
the $(j+1)^{\textrm{th}}$ run of $\improveCover$.
Suppose $\improveCover$ is called at least $t$ times.
Then $\lambda(x^{[t-1]}) < 1$ (see \cref{alg-line:frac-cover:lambda-check-1}).
Also, \texttt{success} was \texttt{false} for the first $t-1$ calls to $\improveCover$,
so by \thmdepcref{thm:improve-cover}{},
$\forall j \in [t-1], \lambda(x^{[j]}) > 2\lambda(x^{[j-1]})$.
Therefore, $2^{t-1}\lambda(x^{[0]}) \le \lambda(x^{[t-1]}) < 1$.
By \thmdepcref{thm:get-seed}{},
$\lambda(x^{[0]}) \ge \eta/m$. Therefore,
\begin{align*}
& 2^{t-1} < \frac{m}{\eta}
\implies t-1 < \lg\left(\frac{m}{\eta}\right)
\iff t \le \ceil{\lg\left(\frac{m}{\eta}\right)}
\end{align*}
Therefore, $\improveCover$ is called at most $\ceil{\lg(m/\eta)}$ times.
For each input $x$ to $\improveCover$, $\lambda(x) \ge \eta/m$.
So, by \thmdepcref{thm:improve-cover-iters}{},
the number of times $\pointFind$ is called in each call to $\improveCover$ is at most
\begin{align*}
&\ceil{\frac{4\rho}{3\eps_{\sigma}\eps_3\lambda_0}
\left(\ln m + \frac{4}{\eps_1}\ln\left(\frac{4m}{\eps_1}\right)\right)}
\le \ceil{\frac{4m\rho}{3\eta\eps_{\sigma}\eps_3}
\left(\ln m + \frac{4}{\eps_1}\ln\left(\frac{4m}{\eps_1}\right)\right)}
\\ &= \ceil{\frac{4m\rho}{3\eta}\frac{6+5\eps}{\eps}\frac{3}{\eps}
\left(\ln m + \frac{12}{\eps}\ln\left(\frac{12m}{\eps}\right)\right)}
\le \ceil{\frac{312m\rho(1+\eps)}{\eta\eps^3}\ln\left(\frac{12m}{\eps}\right)}
\end{align*}
This gives us
\[ T \le m + \ceil{\ln\left(\frac{m}{\eta}\right) \qedhere \]
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{thm:fc-time-2}
Let $\fcov(A, b, P)$ be implicitly defined in terms of input $I$,
where $A \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times N}_{\ge 0}$.
Let $\tau$ be an upper-bound on the support of the output of $\pointFindHyp$.
Suppose $\fracCover(I, \rho, \eps, \eta)$ calls $\pointFind$ $T$ times.
Then,
\begin{itemize}
\item $\fracCover$ makes at most $T$ calls to the \hyperref[defn:product-oracle]{product oracle}{}.
For every input $x$ to the product oracle, $|\support(x)| \le \tau$.
\item The running time of $\fracCover$, excluding the time taken by oracles,
is $O(T(m + \tau))$.
\item The solution $\widehat{x}$ returned by $\fracCover$ has $|\support(\widehat{x})| \le T\tau$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
$\getSeed$ calls $\pointFind$ $m$ times.
The other $T-m$ calls to $\pointFind$ occur inside $\improveCover$.
Let $x^{[0]}$ be the output of $\getSeed$.
Assume $x^{[0]}$ is not null (since otherwise the proof is trivial).
For $t \in [T-m]$, in the $t^{\textrm{th}}$ run of
line \ref{alg-line:improve-cover:x-upd} in $\improveCover$,
let $\sigma_t$ be the value of variable $\sigma$,
let $\widetilde{x}^{[t]}$ be the output of $\pointFind$,
and let $x^{[t]}$ be the new value of variable $x$.
Therefore, $x^{[t]} = (1-\sigma_t)x^{[t-1]} + \sigma_t\widetilde{x}^{[t]}$,
and the output of $\fracCover$ is $x^{[T-m]}$.
In $\getSeed$, the product oracle is called $m$ times
--- to compute $(Ax^{(i)})_i$ for $i \in [m]$.
The inputs to these calls have a support of size at most $\tau$.
We can take the mean of these product oracle outputs to get $Ax^{[0]}$.
After $\getSeed$, the product oracle is never called directly --- it is only needed
to compute $\lambda(x^{[t]})$ and $y_{\alpha}(x^{[t]})$
and to check condition $\CondIIHyp(\eps_2, \eps_3)$ for all $0 \le t \le T-m$.
To compute $Ax^{[t]}$, we won't call the product oracle on $x^{[t]}$,
since the support of $x^{[t]}$ can be too large.
Instead, we'll compute it indirectly from $x^{[t-1]}$ and $\widetilde{x}^{[t]}$ using
$Ax^{[t]} = (1-\sigma_t)(Ax^{[t-1]}) + \sigma_t(A\widetilde{x}^{[t]})$.
Note that we already know $Ax^{[0]}$ and $|\support(\widetilde{x}^{[t]})| \le \tau$.
Therefore, we need to call the product oracle $T$ times in $\fracCover$,
and each input to the product oracle has support of size at most $\tau$.
$|\support(x^{[0]})| \le m\tau$, since $x^{[0]}$ is the mean of $m$ outputs of $\pointFind$.
Each modification of $x$ increases $|\support(x)|$ by at most $\tau$.
Therefore, $|\support(x^{[T-m]})| \le T\tau$.
A crucial observation for reducing the running time of the algorithm is that
we don't really need to keep track of intermediate values of $x$;
we only need the final value $x^{[T-m]}$.
This is because $x$ isn't used directly anywhere in the algorithm.
We only need it indirectly in the form of $\lambda(x)$ and $y_{\alpha}(x)$
and for checking if $(x, y_{\alpha}(x))$ satisfies condition $\CondIIHyp(\eps_2, \eps_3)$.
But for these purposes, knowing $Ax$ is enough.
Actually computing $x^{[t]}$ for all $t$, as line \ref{alg-line:improve-cover:x-upd}
in $\improveCover$ suggests, can be wasteful and costly,
since $x^{[t]}$ can have a large support and $T$ can be large.
We will, therefore, compute $x^{[T-m]}$ directly
without first computing the intermediate values of $x$.
On solving the recurrence $x^{[t]} = (1-\sigma_t)x^{[t-1]} + \sigma_t\widetilde{x}^{[t]}$, we get
\[ x^{[T-m]} = \gamma_{T-m}\left(x^{[0]}
+ \sum_{t=1}^{T-m} \frac{\sigma_t\widetilde{x}^{[t]}}{\gamma_t}\right) \]
where $\gamma_t := \prod_{j=1}^t (1-\sigma_j)$.
This way, $x^{[T-m]}$ can be computed in $O(T\tau)$ time.
Other than oracle calls and computing $x^{[T-m]}$,
the time taken by $\fracCover$ is $O(Tm)$:
$O(m)$ in $\getSeed$ and $O(m)$ in each iteration of
the \texttt{while} loop in $\improveCover$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of \cref{thm:frac-cover-time}]
Follows from \thmdepcref{thm:fc-pf-calls,thm:fc-time-2}{thm:frac-cover-time}.
\end{proof}
\section{Covering LPs}
\label{sec:covLP-solve}
Recall that $\covLP(A, b, c)$ is this linear program:
\[ \min_{x \in \mathbb{R}^N} c^Tx \textrm{ where } Ax \ge b \textrm{ and } x \ge 0 \]
where $A \in \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}^{m \times N}$, $b \in \mathbb{R}^m_{>0}$
and $c \in \mathbb{R}^N_{\ge 0}$.
$A, b, c$ are defined implicitly by an input $I$.
Before we try to approximately solve $\covLP(A, b, c)$,
let us see why an optimal solution always exists.
\begin{lemma}
A covering LP is feasible and has bounded objective value.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider $\covLP(A, b, c)$. Let $a_i^T$ be the $i^{\textrm{th}}$ row of $A$.
For any feasible solution $x$, we have $(Ax)_i = a_i^Tx \ge b_i > 0$.
Hence, $a_i \neq 0$. Let
\[ \widehat{x} := \sum_{i=1}^m \frac{b_i}{\norm{a_i}^2} a_i > 0. \]
For all $i, j \in [m]$, we have $a_i^Ta_j \ge 0$. This gives us
\[ (A\widehat{x})_i = a_i^T\widehat{x}
= a_i^T\left(\sum_{j=1}^m \frac{b_j}{\norm{a_j}^2} a_j\right)
\ge a_i^T \left(\frac{b_i}{\norm{a_i}^2} a_i\right) = b_i \]
Therefore, $\widehat{x}$ is feasible for $\covLP(A, b, c)$.
For any feasible solution $x$, we have $c^Tx \ge 0$ because $c > 0$ and $x \ge 0$.
Therefore, $\covLP(A, b, c)$ is bounded.
\end{proof}
We will try to solve $\covLP(A, b, c)$ by binary searching on the objective value $c^Tx$.
Given $r \in \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}$, we want to either
find a feasible solution to $\covLP(A, b, c)$ of objective value $r$,
or claim that no solution exists of objective value $r$.
This is equivalent to $\fcovHyp(A, b, P_r)$,
where $P_r := \{x: c^Tx = r \textrm{ and } x \ge 0\}$.
Let $r^* = \opt(\covLP(A, b, c))$. Then $\fcov(A, b, P_r)$ has a solution iff $r \ge r^*$.
If we could exactly solve $\fcov$, then finding a $(1+\eps)$-approximate solution
to $\covLP(A, b, c)$ is straightforward:
use binary search to find $r$ such that $r^* \le r \le (1+\eps)r^*$,
and then solve $\fcov(A, b, P_r)$ to get a feasible solution $x$ such that $c^Tx = r$.
However, we can't do this because we can't solve $\fcov(A, b, P_r)$ exactly.
Nevertheless, a similar approach can be used to approximately solve $\covLP(A, b, c)$
if we can weakly solve $\fcov(A, b, P_r)$.
\subsection{Solving the Fractional Covering Problem}
$\covLPsolve$ receives the following inputs:
\begin{itemize}
\item $I$: the input used to implicitly define $\covLP(A, b, c)$.
\item $q$: an upper-bound on $\opt(\covLP(A, b, c))$.
\item $\rho$: an upper-bound on
${\displaystyle q\max_{i=1}^m \max_{j=1}^N \frac{A[i,j]}{b_ic_j}}$.
\item $\eps \in (0, 1]$.
\item $\eta \in (0, 1]$.
\end{itemize}
$\covLPsolve$ is also provided a \hyperref[defn:column-oracle]{column oracle}{} for $A$, a \hyperref[defn:cost-oracle]{cost oracle}{} for $c$,
and an $\eta$-weak \hyperref[defn:index-find]{index-finding oracle}{}.
We will now design an algorithm $\fracCovII(I, r, \rho, \eps, \eta)$
that weakly solves $\fcov(A, b, P_r)$ for any $r \in [0, q]$
using these inputs and oracles.
As per \cref{thm:frac-cover}, $\fracCover$ can $\eta/(1+\eps)$-weakly solve
$\fcov(A, b, P_r)$ if we can provide it the following values and oracles:
\begin{itemize}
\item an upper-bound on $\width(A, b, P_r)$.
\item $\eps, \eta \in (0, 1]$.
\item A \hyperref[defn:product-oracle]{product oracle}{}.
\item An $\eta$-weak \hyperref[defn:point-find]{point-finding oracle}{}.
\end{itemize}
Providing $\eta$ and $\eps$ is trivial, since they are inputs to $\covLPsolve$.
We will now prove that $\rho$ is an upper-bound on $\width(A, b, P_r)$
and see how to implement $\pointFind$ using $\indexFind$ and the cost oracle,
and how to implement the product oracle using the column oracle.
\subsubsection{Upper-Bounding Width}
\begin{lemma}
\label{thm:pr-extreme-points}
Let $P_r := \{x: c^Tx = r \textrm{ and } x \ge 0\}$.
Then $P_r$ is bounded, and the extreme points of $P_r$ are
\[ S := \left\{ \frac{r}{c_j} e_j: j \in [N] \right\} \]
Here $e_j$ is the $j^{\textrm{th}}$ standard basis vector of $\mathbb{R}^N$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $j \in [N]$. Then $c^Tx = r \implies c_jx_j \le r \implies x_j \in [0, r/c_j]$.
Therefore, $P_r$ is bounded.
Let $x \in P_r$. Then
\[ x = \sum_{j=1}^N \left(\frac{x_jc_j}{r}\right)\left(\frac{re_j}{c_j}\right) \]
Therefore, all points in $P_r$ can be represented as convex combinations of $S$.
Hence, the set of extreme points of $P_r$ is a subset of $S$.
Since $S$ is a basis of $\mathbb{R}^N$, no point in $S$
can be represented as a linear combination of the other points in $S$.
Therefore, $S$ is the set of extreme points of $P_r$.
\end{proof}
\begin{claim}
\label{thm:lin-opt-extreme}
Let $h: \mathbb{R}^N \mapsto \mathbb{R}$ be a linear function and
$P \subseteq \mathbb{R}^N$ be a polytope.
Then there exists an extreme point $\widehat{x}$ of $P$ such that
$h(\widehat{x}) = \max_{x \in P} h(x)$.
\end{claim}
\begin{lemma}
\label{thm:pr-width}
Let $P_r := \{x: c^Tx = r \textrm{ and } x \ge 0\}$. Then
\[ \width(A, b, P_r) = r \max_{i=1}^m \max_{j=1}^N \frac{A[i, j]}{b_ic_j} \]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $a_i^T$ be the $i^{\textrm{th}}$ row of $A$.
Since a linear function $(a_i^Tx/b_i)$ over polytope $P_r$ is maximized at its extreme points
(see \thmdepcref{thm:lin-opt-extreme,thm:pr-extreme-points}{}), we get
\begin{align*}
\width(A, b, P_r) &= \max_{i=1}^m \max_{x \in P_r} \frac{a_i^Tx}{b_i}
= \max_{i=1}^m \max_{j=1}^N \frac{1}{b_i}a_i^T\left(\frac{r}{c_j}e_j\right)
= r \max_{i=1}^m \max_{j=1}^N \frac{A[i, j]}{b_ic_j}
\qedhere \end{align*}
\end{proof}
Since $r \le q$, we get that $\rho \ge \width(A, b, P_r)$.
\subsubsection{Implementing the Point-Finding Oracle}
\begin{lemma}
\label{thm:point-vs-index}
Let $P_r := \{x: c^Tx = r \textrm{ and } x \ge 0\}$. Then
\[ \max_{x \in P_r} y^TAx = r\max_{j=1}^N y^TA\pfrac{e_j}{c_j} \]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Proof sketch]
Use \thmdepcref{thm:lin-opt-extreme}{} with $h(x) = y^TAx$
and use \thmdepcref{thm:pr-extreme-points}{}.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
\label{thm:point-using-index}
Let $\indexFind$ be an $\eta$-weak for $\fcov(A, b, c)$.
If we set $\pointFind(y) = (r/c_k)e_k$, where $k := \indexFind(y)$,
then $\pointFind$ is $\eta$-weak for $\fcov(A, b, P_r)$,
where $P_r := \{x: c^Tx = r \textrm{ and } x \ge 0\}$.
Here $c_k$ is obtained as $\operatorname{cost-oracle}(k)$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Let $\widetilde{x} = \pointFind(y)$.
Then by \thmdepcref{thm:point-vs-index}{}, we get
\[ y^TA\widetilde{x} = r y^TA\pfrac{e_k}{c_k} \ge r\eta \max_{j=1}^N y^TA\pfrac{e_j}{c_j}
= \eta \max_{x \in P_r} y^TAx \qedhere \]
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Implementing the Product Oracle}
Let $a_j$ be the $j^{\textrm{th}}$ column of $A$. To compute $Ax$, simply use
\[ Ax = \sum_{j=1}^N x_ja_j \]
Therefore, we can implement the product oracle over $A$
using $|\support(x)|$ calls to the column oracle.
\subsubsection{Summary}
The description of $\fracCovII$ is now complete, and we get the following result:
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:frac-cov-2}
Let $\covLP(A, b, c)$ be defined implicitly in terms of $I$.
Let $q$ be an upper-bound on $\opt(\covLP(A, b, c))$ and
$\rho$ be an upper-bound on $q\max_{i=1}^m \max_{j=1}^N A[i,j]/(b_ic_j)$.
Let $P_r := \{x: c^Tx = r \textrm{ and } x \ge 0 \}$.
Let $\indexFindHyp$ be an $\eta$-weak index-finding oracle.
Then we can implement an $\eta$-weak $\pointFindHyp$ for $\fcov(A, b, P_r)$
using a single call to $\indexFind$ and the \hyperref[defn:cost-oracle]{cost oracle}{}.
For the \hyperref[defn:product-oracle]{product oracle}{}, we can compute $Ax$ using $|\support(x)|$
calls to the \hyperref[defn:column-oracle]{column oracle}{}.
Also, for every $\widetilde{x}$ output by $\pointFind$, $|\support(\widetilde{x})| \le 1$.
Furthermore, $\fracCovII(I, r, \rho, \eps, \eta)$ will $\eta/(1+\eps)$-weakly solve
$\fcovHyp(A, b, P_r)$, and\\$\fracCovII(I, r, \rho, \eps, \eta)$ works by
returning the output of $\fracCoverHyp((I, r), \rho, \eps, \eta)$.
\end{theorem}
\thmdep{thm:pr-width,thm:point-using-index,thm:frac-cover}{}
\subsection{Algorithm Based on Binary Search}
Let $r^* := \opt(\covLP(A, b, c))$ and $\mu := \eta/(1+\eps)$.
Note that $r^* > 0$, since every feasible solution is non-zero,
and hence has positive objective value.
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{$\covLPsolve(I, q, \rho, \eps, \eta)$:
\\ Finds a $(1+\delta)/\mu$-approximate solution to $\covLP(A, b, c)$,
where $A, b, c$ are implicitly defined by $I$.
Here $\eps, \eta \in (0, 1]$,
$q$ is an upper-bound on $r^* := \opt(\covLP(A, b, c))$,
$\rho$ is an upper-bound on $q\max_{i=1}^m \max_{j=1}^N A[i,j]/(b_ic_j)$,
$P_r := \{x: c^Tx = r \textrm{ and } x \ge 0 \}$,
and $\indexFindHyp$ is an $\eta$-weak index-finding oracle.}
\label{algo:cov-lp-solve}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State $\delta := \eps^2/(1+\eps)$
\State $\alpha = 0$
\State $\beta = q$
\State $\widehat{x} = \fracCovII(I, q, \rho, \eps, \eta)$
\While{$\beta > (1+\delta)\alpha$}
\State $r = (\alpha+\beta)/2$
\State $\widehat{y} = \fracCovII(I, r, \rho, \eps, \eta)$
\If{$\widehat{y}$ is \texttt{null}}
\State $\alpha = r$
\Else
\State $\beta = r$
\State $\widehat{x} = \widehat{y}$
\EndIf
\EndWhile
\State \Return $(\alpha, \beta, \widehat{x})$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{definition}
Let $g: [0, q] \mapsto \{0, 1\}$ be a function where
\\ $g(r) = 0$ iff $\fracCovII(I, r, \rho, \eps, \eta)$ returns \texttt{null}.
\end{definition}
Every call to $\fracCovII$ in $\covLPsolve$ probes a point $r$ in the interval $[0, q]$
and gives us $g(r)$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{thm:covlps-part}
When $r < \mu r^*$, $g(r)$ is always 0. When $r \ge r^*$, $g(r)$ is always 1.
(When $\mu r^* \le r < r^*$, $g(r)$ may be 0 or 1.)
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $r < \mu r^*$. Assume $g(r) = 1$. This means that $\fracCovII$ returned
a $\mu$-approximate solution $x$ to $\fcov(A, b, P_r)$
(by \thmdepcref{thm:frac-cov-2}{}), i.e.,
$Ax \ge \mu b$ and $c^Tx = r$.
Therefore, $x/\mu$ is feasible for $\covLP(A, b, c)$ and $c^T(x/\mu) = r/\mu < r^*$.
This is a contradiction, since we found a feasible solution to $\covLP(A, b, c)$
of objective value less than the optimum.
Therefore, $g(r) = 0$.
Let $r \ge r^*$ and let $x^*$ be an optimal solution to $\covLP(A, b, c)$.
Therefore, $Ax^* \ge b$ and $c^Tx^* = r^*$.
Let $x := (r/r^*)x^*$. Then $Ax \ge (r/r^*)b \ge b$ and $c^Tx = r$.
Therefore, $x$ is a feasible solution to $\fcov(A, b, P_r)$.
This means $\fcov(A, b, P_r)$ is satisfiable, so $\fracCovII$ cannot return \texttt{null}.
Therefore, $g(r) = 1$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{thm:covlps-invs}
Throughout $\covLPsolve$'s execution,
$g(\alpha) = 0$, $g(\beta) = 1$, $c^T\widehat{x} = \beta$ and $A\widehat{x} \ge \mu b$.
(assuming the \texttt{while} loop body is executed atomically).
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
When $\widehat{y} = \texttt{null}$, then $g(r) = 0$ and $\alpha = r$.
Otherwise, $g(r) = 1$ and $\beta = r$.
$c^T\widehat{x} = \beta$ and $A\widehat{x} \ge \mu b$
follow from $\widehat{x} \neq \texttt{null}$,
$\widehat{x} = \fracCovII(I, \beta, \rho, \eps, \eta)$
and the fact that $\fracCovII$ can $\mu$-weakly solve $\fcov(A, b, P_r)$
(by \thmdepcref{thm:frac-cov-2}{}).
\end{proof}
\restate{\cref{thm:cov-lp-solve}}{\thmCovLPSolve}
\begin{proof}
Let $(\alpha, \beta, \widehat{x}) = \covLPsolve(I, q, \rho, \eps, \eta)$.
By \thmdepcref{thm:covlps-invs}{thm:cov-lp-solve},
$g(\alpha) = 0$, $g(\beta) = 1$, $c^T\widehat{x} = \beta$ and $A\widehat{x} \ge \mu b$.
By \thmdepcref{thm:covlps-part}{thm:cov-lp-solve}, $\alpha < r^*$ and $\beta \ge \mu r^*$.
Since the algorithm terminated, $\beta \le (1+\delta)\alpha$.
This gives us $r^* \le c^T(\widehat{x}/\mu) \le r^*(1+\delta)/\mu$
and $A(\widehat{x}/\mu) \ge b$.
Therefore, $\widehat{x}$ is a $(1+\delta)/\mu$-approximate solution to $\covLP(A, b, c)$.
\[ \frac{1+\delta}{\mu} = \left(1 + \frac{\eps^2}{1+\eps}\right) \frac{1+\eps}{\eta}
= \frac{1+\eps+\eps^2}{\eta} \qedhere \]
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:covlps-iters}
Suppose the \texttt{while} loop in $\covLPsolve$ runs $T$ times. Then
\[ T \le 2 + \lg\pfrac{q}{r^*} + \lg\pfrac{1}{\eta} + 2\lg\left(\frac{1}{\eps} + 1\right) \]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\alpha_t$ and $\beta_t$ denote the values of
$\alpha$ and $\beta$ after $t$ runs of the \texttt{while} loop.
Then $\alpha_0 = 0$ and $\beta_0 = q$.
Suppose $\alpha_t = 0$ for all $t < p$. Then $\beta_{p-1} = q/2^{p-1}$.
$g(\beta_{p-1}) = 1$ by \thmdepcref{thm:covlps-invs}{},
and $\beta_{p-1} \ge \mu r^*$ by \thmdepcref{thm:covlps-part}{}.
Therefore, $p \le \lg(q/(\mu r^*)) + 1$.
Let $p$ be the largest possible such that $\alpha_t = 0$ for all $t < p$.
Then $\alpha_p = q/2^p$ and $\beta_p = \beta_{p-1} = q/2^{p-1}$.
$\beta_t - \alpha_t$ halves in each iteration. So for any $t \ge p$,
$\beta_t - \alpha_t = (\beta_p - \alpha_p)/2^{t-p}$.
Let $t = p + \ceil{\lg(1/\delta)}$.
Assume that $T > t$. Since the \texttt{while} loop ran the $(t+1)^{\textrm{th}}$ time,
$\beta_t > (1+\delta)\alpha_t$.
\[ \frac{\beta_t - \alpha_t}{\alpha_t}
= \frac{\beta_p - \alpha_p}{2^{\ceil{\lg(1/\delta)}}\alpha_t}
\le \frac{q/2^p}{\alpha_p/\delta} = \delta
\implies \beta_t \le (1+\delta)\alpha_t \]
This is a contradiction. Therefore,
\begin{align*}
T &\le p + \ceil{\lg\pfrac{1}{\delta}}
\le 2 + \lg\pfrac{q}{r^*} + \lg\pfrac{1}{\mu\delta}
\\ &= 2 + \lg\pfrac{q}{r^*} + \lg\pfrac{1}{\eta} + 2\lg\left(\frac{1}{\eps} + 1\right)
\qedhere \end{align*}
\end{proof}
\restate{\cref{thm:covlps-time}}{\thmCovLPSolveTime}
\begin{proof}[Proof sketch]
By \thmdepcref{thm:covlps-iters}{thm:covlps-time},
$\covLPsolve$ calls $\fracCovII$ at most $M$ times.
By \thmdepcref{thm:frac-cov-2}{thm:covlps-time}, $\tau = 1$
and every call to $\fracCovII$ results in one call to $\fracCover$,
and every call to $\pointFind$ results in one call to $\indexFind$.
The rest follows from \thmdepcref{thm:frac-cover-time}{thm:covlps-time}.
\end{proof}
\section{Future Work}
\label{sec:future-work}
$\fracCover$ is based on a simplified version of the Plotkin-Shmoys-Tardos
algorithm \cite{plotkin1995fast} for fractional covering.
We did not focus on optimizing the running time of $\fracCover$;
instead, we focused on getting as small an approximation factor as possible,
even when the point-finding oracle could be very weak.
\cite{plotkin1995fast} uses many tricks to get a low running time.
We didn't adapt those tricks to our algorithm,
so our algorithm is not as fast as theirs.
For example, they use different values of $\epsilon$
for each call to $\improveCover$,
and they have fast randomized versions of their algorithms.
The most important of these tricks, in our opinion, is the one
that reduces the dependence on $\rho$.
The number of times our algorithm $\fracCover$ calls the point-finding oracle
varies linearly with $\rho$. But for some applications,
$\rho$ can be super-polynomial in the input size.
Section 4 of \cite{plotkin1995fast} explains a possible approach to fix this.
The number of times their algorithm calls the point-finding oracle
is linear in $\log\rho$.
Another direction of work would be to adapt our techniques to the
fractional packing problem. \cite{plotkin1995fast} already have an algorithm for this,
but their algorithm doesn't work for very small values of $\eta$
(when using a packing analogue of the $\eta$-weak point-finding oracle).
\input{pst.bbl}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
In 2015, V. O.~Manturov~\cite{MN} defined a series of groups $G_{n}^{k}$ for natural numbers $n>k\geq 1$ and formulated the following principle:
\begin{center}
{\em If dynamical systems describing the motion of $n$ particles possess a nice codimension one property depending exactly on $k$ particles, then these dynamical systems admit a topological invariant valued in $G_{n}^{k}$}.
\end{center}
These turn out to be good in studying fundamental groups of configuration and moduli spaces when the initial space admits some geometry (for example, in the Euclidean space one can study codimension 1 properties ``three points are collinear'' or ``four points belong to the same circle/line''). One of our goals is to study when we have just topological spaces.
\begin{definition}\label{def:gnk}
The groups of {\em free $k$-braids} $G_{n}^{k}$ ($n>k\geq 1$) are defined as groups with the set of generators $a_{m}$ which are indexed by all $k$-element subsets of $\{1,\ldots, n\}$, and relations
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(1)]
$(a_{m})^{2}=1$ for any unordered sets $m \subset \{1,\ldots, n\}, Card(m)=k$;
\item[(2)] (far commutativity) $a_{m}a_{m'} = a_{m'}a_{m},$ if $Card(m\cap m') < k-1$;
\item[(3)] (tetrahedron relation) for every set $U=\{i_1,\dots,i_{k+1}\} \subset \{1,\dots, n\}$ of cardinality $(k+1)$, let us denote them by $m^{p}=U\setminus\{i_p\}, p=1,\dots,k+1$. Then
$$a_{m^{1}}\cdots a_{m^{k+1}} = a_{m^{k+1}}\cdots a_{m^{1}}.$$
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
We shall call the words in generators $a_m\in G_n^k$ {\em diagrams of free $k$-braids}. These groups have become a sophisticated tool for researches in knot theory and low dimensional topology~\cite{FKMN}.
\begin{example} \label{examp-g2n}
Let $G^2_n$ be the group defined by the presentation generated by
$\{a_{ij}~|~\{i,j\}\subset\{1,\ldots,n\}, i < j\}$ subject to the following relations:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] $a^2_{ij} = 1$ for all $i \not= j,$
\item[(2)] $a_{ij}a_{kl} = a_{kl}a_{ij}$ for distinct $i, j, k, l,$
\item[(3)] $a_{ij}a_{ik}a_{jk} = a_{jk}a_{ik}a_{ij}$ for distinct $i, j, k.$
\end{itemize}
In particular, the group $G^2_3$ is isomorphic to the group with a presentation $$<a, b, c~|~a^2 = b^2 = (abc)^2 = 1>,$$ where $a = a_{12}, b = a_{13}, c = a_{23}.$ Indeed, the relation $(abc)^2 = 1$ is equivalent to the relation $abc = cab = 1$ because of $a^2 = b^2 = c^2 = 1.$ This obviously yields all the other tetrahedron relations.
\end{example}
\begin{example} \label{examp-g3n}
Let $G^3_n$ be the group given by the presentation generated by
$\{a_{ijk}~|~\{i, j, k\} \subset \{1,\ldots,n\}, |\{i, j, k\}| = 3\}$ subject to the following relations:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] $a_{ijk} = 1$ for all $\{i, j, k\} \subset \{1,\ldots,n\},$
\item[(2)] $a_{ijk}a_{stu} = a_{stu}a_{ijk}$ if $\{i, j, k\}\cap \{s, t, u\} < 2.$
\item[(3)] $a_{ijk}a_{ijl}a_{ikl}a_{jkl} = a_{jkl}a_{ikl}a_{ijl}a_{ijk}$ for distinct $i, j, k, l.$
\end{itemize}
Especially, the group $G^3_4$ is isomorphic to the group with a presentation $$<a, b, c, d ~|~ a^2 = b^2 = c^2 = 1, (abcd)^2 = 1, (acdb)^2 = 1, (adbc)^2 = 1>.$$ Here $a = a_{123}, b = a_{124}, c = a_{134},$ and $d = a_{234}.$
\end{example}
We can give a geometric interpretation to the free $k$-braids in the spirit of Artin's braids: Each free $k$-braid in $G_n^k$ given by a word $w=a_{m_1}\dots a_{m_l}, m_j=\{i_{j1},i_{j2},\dots,i_{jk}\}, j=1,\dots,l$ determines an oriented graph $\Gamma_w$ with $n$ source vertices and $n$ sink vertices of degree $1$, and $l$ vertices of degree $2k$ (with $k$ incoming and $k$ outcoming) edges, see Fig.~\ref{fig:aijk}. The vertices possesses the structure of opposite edges: Each incoming edge is assigned to a unique outcoming edge (the opposite edge).
\begin{figure}
\centering\includegraphics[width=0.2\textwidth]{a_ijk.eps}
\caption{A vertex corresponding to the generator $a_{ijk}$}\label{fig:aijk}
\end{figure}
The relations in the group $G_n^k$ induce transformations (moves) of the free $k$-braid graphs, see Figs.~\ref{fig:involution_relation}--\ref{fig:far_commutativity_relation} for the case $k=3$.
\begin{figure}
\centering\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{involution_relation.eps}
\caption{The involution relation $a_{ijk}^2=1$}\label{fig:involution_relation}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{tetrahedron_relation.eps}
\caption{The tetrahedron relation $a_{ijk}a_{ijl}a_{ikl}a_{jkl}=a_{jkl}a_{ikl}a_{ijl}a_{ijk}$}\label{fig:tetrahedron_relation}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{far_commutativity_relation.eps}
\caption{The far commutativity relation $a_{ijk}a_{klm}=a_{klm}a_{ijk}$}\label{fig:far_commutativity_relation}
\end{figure}
\section{Biquandles for \texorpdfstring{$G_n^k$}{Gnk}}
Biquandles were introduced in~\cite{FRS}. They can be described as rules for colouring edges of link diagrams by elements of some set~\cite{EN}. These rules ensure that the sets of proper colourings of two equivalent link diagrams are isomorphic. We can take this approach to give a definition of biquandles on free $k$-braids.
\begin{definition}\label{def:biquandle_gnk}
A {\em biquandle for free $k$-braids} (or a {\em $k$-biquandle}) is a pair $(X,B)$ where $X$ is some set and $B\colon X^{\times k}\to X^{\times k}$ is a map that satisfies the relations:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\pi\circ B=B\circ\pi$ for any permutation $\pi\in\Sigma_k$. Here we consider the natural action of $\Sigma_k$ on $X^{\times k}$ by permutation of the factors;
\item $B^2=\mathop{id}$;
\item $B_{\{1,\dots,k\}}B_{\{p+1,\dots,k+p\}}=B_{\{p+1,\dots,k+p\}}B_{\{1,\dots,k\}}$ for any $p=2,\dots,k-1$. Here $$B_{\{i_1,\dots,i_k\}}\colon X^{\times 2k-1}\to X^{\times 2k-1}$$ denotes the map which act as $B$ on the factors with indices from the set $\{i_1,\dots,i_k\}$ and as the identity on the others;
\item $B_{\hat 1}B_{\hat 2}\cdots B_{\widehat{k+1}}=B_{\widehat{k+1}}B_{\hat k}\cdots B_{\hat 1}$ where $B_{\hat i}=B_{\{1,\dots,k+1\}\setminus\{i\}}\colon X^{\times k+1}\to X^{\times k+1}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
The definition means that $B$ induces an action $\rho$ of the group $G_n^k$ on the set $X^{\times n}$ with $\rho(a_m)=B_m$.
\begin{definition}\label{def:colouring_gnk}
Let $(X,B)$ be a biquandle on free $k$-braids and $w$ be a diagram of free $k$-braid (i.e. a word in generators $a_m$). Let $\Gamma_w$ be the geometric realization of $w$, $E=E(\Gamma_w)$ be its set of edges, and $c\colon E\to X$ be a colouring of the edges with elements of $X$. We call the colouring $c$ to be {\em good} if for each vertex of degree $2k$ the colours $(x_1,\dots, x_k)$ of the incoming edges are related to the colours $(y_1,\dots,y_k)$ of the opposite outcoming edges by the rule (see Fig.~\ref{fig:biquandle_operator})
\begin{equation}\label{eq:coloring_rule}
(y_1,\dots,y_k)=B(x_1,\dots, x_k)\equiv(b_1(x_1,\dots, x_k),\dots,b_k(x_1,\dots, x_k)).
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}
\centering\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{biquandle_operator.eps}
\caption{Colouring rule of the biquandle}\label{fig:biquandle_operator}
\end{figure}
We denote the set of good colourings by $Col_{(X,B)}(w)$. Given two $n$-tuples of colours $\chi_1,\chi_2\in X^{\times n}$, we define the {\em coloring binding number} $col_{(X,B)}^{\chi_1,\chi_2}(w)$ as the number of good colourings of $w$ which have the colours $\chi_1$ on the incoming edges of the diagram $\Gamma_w$ and the colours $\chi_2$ on the outcoming edges of $\Gamma_w$.
\end{definition}
Note that $col_{(X,B)}^{\chi_1,\chi_2}(w)=0$ or $1$ because the colours of the incoming edges determine uniquely the colours of the other edges of $\Gamma_w$.
The following statement comes immediately from Definitions~\ref{def:gnk},\ref{def:biquandle_gnk} and~\ref{def:colouring_gnk}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:biquandle_gnk_colouring}
Let $w$ and $w'$ be diagrams of free $k$-braids. If $w$ and $w'$ define the same element in $G_n^k$ then for any biquandle for free $k$-braids $(X,B)$ there is a bijection between the sets of good colourings of $w$ and of $w'$ with elements of $X$.
\end{theorem}
Thus, the coloring binding numbers $col_{(X,B)}^{\chi_1,\chi_2}$ are invariants of free $k$-braids.
Now we give some examples of biquandles for free $k$-braids.
\begin{example}[Fundamental $k$-biquandle]
Let $w$ be a diagram of free $k$-braid and $\Gamma_w$ be its geometric realization. Analogously to the fundamental biquandle construction, we can define the {\em fundamental $k$-biquandle} $BQ_f(w)=(X_f(w),B_f(w))$ for the diagram $w$. The set $X_f(w)$ consists of equialence classes of formal words which are results of all possible applications of a formal map $B_f(w)$ to the elements of the set of edges $E(\Gamma_w)$. The equivalence of the words is induced by the relations of Definition~\ref{def:biquandle_gnk} and the equation~\ref{eq:coloring_rule}.
The fundamental $k$-biquandle can be characterized by the following statement.
\begin{theorem}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $w$ be a diagram of free $k$-braid. Then for any $k$-biquandle $(X,B)$ there is a natural bijection between the set of good colouring of $w$ with elements of $X$ and the set of $k$-biquandle homomorphisms from the fundamental $k$-biquandle $BQ_f(w)$ to the $k$-biquandle $(X,B)$.
\item If two diagrams $w$ and $w'$ of free $k$-braids define the same element of $G_n^k$ then their fundamental $k$-biquandles $BQ_f(w)$ and $BQ_f(w')$ are isomorphic.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The first statement of the theorem follows from the definition of the fundamental biquandle. The second statement follows from the universal property of the fundamental biquandle (first statement of the theorem) and Theorem~\ref{thm:biquandle_gnk_colouring}.
\end{proof}
\end{example}
\begin{example}[Gaussian $k$-biquandle]
Let $X=\Z_2$ and $B(x_1,x_2,\dots,x_k)=(x_1+1,x_2+1,\dots, x_k+1)$. It is easy to see $(X,B)$ satisfies the $k$-biquandle conditions.
\end{example}
The previous example can be generalized in the following way. Let $X$ be an arbitrary set and $\tau\colon X\to X$ is an involution on $X$, i.e. $\tau^2=\id_X$. Then the map
$$B(x_1,x_2,\dots, x_k)=(\tau(x_1),\tau(x_2),\dots, \tau(x_k))$$ defines a $k$-biquandle structure on $X$ we call an {\em involution $k$-biquandle}.
We can give a further generalization.
Let $X$ be a set and $\tau\colon X\to X$ is an involution on $X$. Then $\tau$ is a product of independent transpositions $\tau=\prod_i(p_i q_i)$. For any tuple $\mathbf x =(x_1,\dots, x_k)$ we define its multiplicity vector $\mathbf m(\mathbf x)=(m_1(\mathbf x),m_2(\mathbf x),...)$ where $m_i(\mathbf x)$ is the number of elements $x_j$ in $\mathbf x$ which are equal to $p_i$ or $q_i$ for some $i$. Let
$$M_k=\{(m_1,m_2,\dots)\,|\, m_i\in\Z, m_i\ge 0,\ 1\le\sum_i m_i\le k\}$$
be the set of possible notrivial multiplicity vectors and $\mu\subset M_k$ be an arbitrary subset of it. We define a map $B_{\tau,\mu}\colon X^{\times k}\to X^{\times k}$ as following
$$
B_{\tau,\mu}(\mathbf x)=\left\{\begin{array}{cl}\tau(\mathbf x),& m(\mathbf x)\in\mu,\\
\mathbf x,& m(\mathbf x)\not\in\mu.
\end{array}\right.
$$
Here $\tau(x_1,\dots, x_k)=(\tau(x_1),\dots, \tau(x_k))$.
\begin{proposition}
The pair $(X,B_{\tau,\mu})$ is a $k$-biquandle.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The first two properties of $k$-biquandle definition are evident. For the tetrahedron and far commutativity relations note that if $\mathbf x=(x_1,\dots, x_k)$ and $\mathbf x'$ is obtained from $\mathbf x$ by applying $\tau$ to some components of $\mathbf x$ then $m(\mathbf x)=m(\mathbf x')$. This means the condition $m(\mathbf x)\in\mu$ does not change after applying operators $B_{\tau,\mu}$. Therefore, for any subsets $m$ and $m'$ with $k$ elements operators $(B_{\tau,\mu})_m$ and $(B_{\tau,\mu})_{m'}$ commute. Thus, the tetrahedron and far commutativity relations hold.
\end{proof}
We call the biquandle $(X,B_{\tau,\mu})$ a {\em conditional involution $k$-biquandle}.
The direct computation shows the following.
\begin{proposition}
Let $k=3$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $X=\Z_2$. Then there is a unique up to isomorphism nontrivial $3$-biquandle on $X$. This is the Gaussian biquandle.
\item Let $X=\Z_3$. Then there are 7 up to isomorphism nontrivial $3$-biquandles on $X$. They are all conditional involution biquandles.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{example}
Let $X$ be a flat biquandle~\cite{K} with operations $(a,b)\mapsto (b\ast a, a\circ b)$, see Fig.~\ref{fig:flat_biquandle}.
\begin{figure}
\centering\includegraphics[width=0.12\textwidth]{flat_biquandle.eps}
\caption{Flat biquandle}\label{fig:flat_biquandle}
\end{figure}
Then we can define a structure of $k$-biquandle $(X,B)$ on $X$ by the splitting a $k$-crossing (see Fig.~\ref{fig:crossing_resolution}) into $\frac{k(k-1)}2$ double crossings and applying the biquandle operations to the obtained diagram. The result does not depend on the choice of the splitting.
\begin{figure}
\centering\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{crossing_resolution.eps}
\caption{Resolution of a $k$-crossing}\label{fig:crossing_resolution}
\end{figure}
For example, for $k=3$ we have the following formula
$$
B(x_1,x_2,x_3)=((x_1\circ x_2)\circ x_3, (x_2\ast x_1)\circ (x_3\ast(x_1\circ x_2)), (x_3\ast(x_1\circ x_2))\ast(x_2\ast x_1)).
$$
In order to the operator $B$ possesses the properties of Definition~\ref{def:biquandle_gnk} we need to impose the following relations on the flat biquandle operations:
\begin{itemize}
\item $x=(x\circ y)\ast(y\ast x)$ for all $x,y\in X$;
\item $x\ast y=x\circ y$ for all $x,y\in X$
\end{itemize}
when $k\ge 2$, and additionally
\begin{itemize}
\item $x\ast (y\circ z)=x\ast y$ for all $x,y,z\in X$;
\item $(x\circ y)\ast z = (x\circ z)\ast y$ for all $x,y,z\in X$
\end{itemize}
when $k\ge 3$.
\end{example}
\section{Marked graph diagrams and surface-links}\label{sect-mgd}
A {\it marked graph} is a graph $G$ possibly with $4$-valent vertices embedded in $\mathbb R^3$ (or $S^3$) such that it has a finite number of vertices and edges (possibly loops). Each vertex, say $v$, of $G$ is rigid, that is, there exists a small rectangular neighborhood $N(v)$ homeomorphic to $\{(x, y)|-1 \leq x, y \leq 1\},$ where $v$ corresponds to the origin and the edges incident to $v$ are represented by $x^2 = y^2$, and also has a {\it marker} represented by a thickened line segment on $N(v)$ with the core homeomorphic to $\{(x, 0)|-\frac{1}{2} \leq x \leq \frac{1}{2}\}$. A marked graph in $\mathbb R^3$ can be presented as usual by a diagram on $\mathbb R^2$, called a {\it marked graph diagram} (or {\it ch-diagram}), which is a classical link diagram on $\mathbb R^2$ possibly with marked $4$-valent vertices look like
\xy (-5,5);(5,-5) **@{-},
(5,5);(-5,-5) **@{-},
(3,-0.2);(-3,-0.2) **@{-},
(3,0);(-3,0) **@{-},
(3,0.2);(-3,0.2) **@{-},
\endxy. Throughout this paper, a classical link (diagram) is regarded as a marked graph (diagram) without marked vertices.
For a given marked graph diagram $D$, we define $L_-(D)$ and $L_+(D)$ to be the link diagrams obtained from $D$ by replacing every marked vertex \xy (-4,4);(4,-4) **@{-},
(4,4);(-4,-4) **@{-},
(3,-0.2);(-3,-0.2) **@{-},
(3,0);(-3,0) **@{-},
(3,0.2);(-3,0.2) **@{-},
\endxy with \xy (-4,4);(-4,-4) **\crv{(1,0)},
(4,4);(4,-4) **\crv{(-1,0)},
\endxy and \xy (-4,4);(4,4) **\crv{(0,-1)},
(4,-4);(-4,-4) **\crv{(0,1)},
\endxy, respectively, as illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig-nori-mg}. If $D$ has no marked vertices, then we define $L_-(D)=L_+(D)=D$. We call $L_-(D)$ and $L_+(D)$ the {\it negative resolution} and the {\it positive resolution} of $D$, respectively. A marked graph diagram $D$ is said to be {\it admissible} if the negative resolution $L_-(D)$ and the positive resolution $L_+(D)$ are all trivial link diagrams.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{0.55\textwidth}{!}
\includegraphics{mgdor.eps}}
\caption{Resolutions of marked graph diagrams}
\label{fig-nori-mg}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
A {\it surface-link} (or {\it knotted surface}) is a closed 2-manifold smoothly (or piecewise linearly and locally flatly) embedded in the standardly oriented Euclidean $4$-dimensional space $\mathbb R^4$ (or the $4$-sphere $S^4$). A connected surface-link is called a {\it surface-knot}. A $2$-sphere-link is sometimes called a {\it $2$-link}. A connected $2$-link is also called a {\it $2$-knot}.
Two surface-links $\mathcal L$ and $\mathcal L'$ in $\mathbb R^4$ are {\it equivalent} if they are ambient isotopic, i.e., there exists an orientation preserving homeomorphism $h: \mathbb R^4 \to \mathbb R^4$ such that $h(\mathcal L)=\mathcal L'$. It is well known that every surface-link is presented by an admissible marked graph diagram and vice versa (see \cite{KSS},\cite{Lo},\cite{Yo}).
The local transformations on marked graph diagrams depicted in Figure~\ref{fig-oymoves} are called {\it Yoshikawa moves}. (These moves were first announced in \cite{Yo}.)
The Yoshikawa moves $\Omega_1, \Omega_2, \Omega_3, \Omega_4, \Omega'_4$ and $\Omega_5$ are said to be of {\it type I} and the Yoshikawa moves $\Omega_6, \Omega'_6, \Omega_7$ and $\Omega_8$ are said to be of {\it type II}. It is noted that all Yoshikawa moves of type I are realized to ambient isotopies of $\mathbb R^3$, while all Yoshikawa moves of type II are realized to ambient isotopies of $\mathbb R^4$, not $\mathbb R^3$ (see \cite{KSS}).
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{0.65\textwidth}{!}
\includegraphics{ymoves.eps} }
\caption{Yoshikawa moves}\label{fig-oymoves}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Two marked graph diagrams $D$ and $D'$ are said to be {\it Yoshikawa move equivalent} if they can be transformed into each other by a finite sequence of Yoshikawa moves of type I, type II and ambient isotopies of $\mathbb R^2$.
\begin{theorem}[\cite{KK,KJL2,Sw,Yo}]\label{thm-equiv-mgds-ym}
Let $\mathcal L$ and $\mathcal L'$ be two surface-links and let $D$ and $D'$ be two marked graph diagrams presenting $\mathcal L$ and $\mathcal L'$, respectively. Then $\mathcal L$ and $\mathcal L'$ are equivalent if and only if $D$ and $D'$ are Yoshikawa move equivalent.
\end{theorem}
\section{Surface singular braid monoid \texorpdfstring{$SSB_n$}{SSBn} and groups \texorpdfstring{$G^k_n$}{Gnk}}
A marked graph diagram is said to be in {\it braid form} if it is the geometric closure of a singular braid on $n$ strands together with markers on its singular vertices for some integer $n\geq 1$. (The notion of singular braid was developed independently in \cite{Ba} and \cite{Bi}.)
\begin{proposition}[\cite{Ja1}, Proposition 3.2]
For every surface-link, there exists its marked graph diagram in braid form.
\end{proposition}
Let $SSB_n (n\geq 1)$ denote the set of all marked graph diagrams in braid form on $n$ strands. Then $SSB_n$ forms a monoid with some defining relations (see Definition \ref{defn-singularbraid}), which is called the {\it surface singular braid monoid on $n$ strands}. The product $xy$ of two surface singular braids $x$ and $y$ is obtained by putting them end to end as the product of two classical braids. For $n = 1$, this monoid is trivial with one element. Elements of $SSB_n$ are called {\it surface singular braids} (on $n$ strands), and are generated by four types of elementary surface singular braids $a_i, b_i, c_i,$ and $c_i^{-1}$ on $n$ strands for $i = 1,\ldots,n-1$, called the {\it standard generators} of $SSB_n$, where the correspondence of types of crossings and types of marked singular vertices between $i$-th and $(i+1)$-th strand are as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig-ssbgenerators}.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\xy
(20,5);(20,7) **@{-},
(20,13);(20,15) **@{-},
(20,7);(26,13) **@{-},
(20,13);(26,7) **@{-},
(26,5);(26,7) **@{-},
(26,13);(26,15) **@{-},
(23,13);(23,7) **@{-},
(23.2,13);(23.2,7) **@{-},
(22.8,13);(22.8,7) **@{-},
(15,5);(15,15) **@{-}, (6,5);(6,15) **@{-},
(31,5);(31,15) **@{-}, (40,5);(40,15) **@{-},
(11,10)*{\cdots}, (36,10)*{\cdots},
(6,17)*{_{1}}, (20,17)*{_{i}}, (40,17)*{_{n}},
(26,17)*{_{i+1}}, (23,0)*{_{a_i}},
\endxy
\qquad\qquad\qquad
\xy (20,5);(20,7) **@{-},
(20,13);(20,15) **@{-},
(20,13);(26,7) **@{-},
(26,13);(20,7) **@{-},
(26,5);(26,7) **@{-},
(26,13);(26,15) **@{-},
(20,10);(26,10) **@{-},
(20,9.8);(26,9.8) **@{-},
(20,10.2);(26,10.2) **@{-},
(15,5);(15,15) **@{-},
(6,5);(6,15) **@{-}, (31,5);(31,15) **@{-},
(40,5);(40,15) **@{-}, (11,10)*{\cdots}, (36,10)*{\cdots},
(6,17)*{_{1}}, (20,17)*{_{i}}, (40,17)*{_{n}},
(26,17)*{_{i+1}},(23,0)*{_{b_i}},
\endxy}
\vskip 0.5cm
\centerline{ \xy (20,5);(20,7) **@{-},
(20,13);(20,15) **@{-}, (20,7);(26,13) **@{-},
(20,13);(22,11) **@{-}, (24,9);(26,7) **@{-},
(26,5);(26,7) **@{-}, (26,13);(26,15) **@{-},
(15,5);(15,15) **@{-}, (6,5);(6,15) **@{-},
(31,5);(31,15) **@{-}, (40,5);(40,15) **@{-},
(11,10)*{\cdots}, (36,10)*{\cdots},
(6,17)*{_{1}}, (20,17)*{_{i}}, (40,17)*{_{n}},
(26,17)*{_{i+1}}, (23,0)*{_{c_i}},
\endxy
\qquad\qquad\qquad
\xy (20,5);(20,7) **@{-}, (20,13);(20,15) **@{-},
(20,13);(26,7) **@{-}, (20,7);(22,9) **@{-},
(24,11);(26,13) **@{-}, (26,5);(26,7) **@{-},
(26,13);(26,15) **@{-},
(15,5);(15,15) **@{-}, (6,5);(6,15) **@{-},
(31,5);(31,15) **@{-}, (40,5);(40,15) **@{-}, (11,10)*{\cdots}, (36,10)*{\cdots}, (6,17)*{_{1}}, (20,17)*{_{i}}, (40,17)*{_{n}}, (26,17)*{_{i+1}}, (23,0)*{_{c_i^{-1}}},
\endxy}
{}\vspace*{5pt}\caption{The standard generators of $SSB_n$}
\label{fig-ssbgenerators}
\end{figure}
\begin{definition}(\cite{Ja1})\label{defn-singularbraid}
Let $n \in \mathbb Z, n > 1$, and $i, j, k \in \{1,\ldots,n-1\}$ such that $|k-i| = 1$, moreover let $x_i, y_i \in \{a_i, b_i, c_i, c_i^{-1}\}.$ We define $SSB_n$ to be the monoid generated by $a_i, b_i, c_i,$ and $ c_i^{-1} (1\leq i \leq n-1)$ subjected to the following defining relations:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(A1)] $c_ic_i^{-1}=1=c_i^{-1}c_i$,
\item[(A2)] $x_iy_j = y_jx_i$ for $|i-j|>1$,
\item[(A3)] $x_ic_kc_i = c_kc_ix_k,$
\item[(A4)] $x_ic_k^{-1}c_i^{-1} = c_k^{-1}c_i^{-1}x_k,$
\item[(A5)] $a_ib_k = b_ka_i,$
\item[(A6)] $a_ib_{i-2}(c_{i-1}c_{i-2}c_ic_{i-1})^2 = a_ib_{i-2}$ for $i > 2,$
\item[(A7)] $b_ia_{i-2}(c_{i-1}c_{i-2}c_ic_{i-1})^2 = b_ia_{i-2}$ for $i > 2,$
\item[(A8)] $a^2_i= a_i,$
\item[(A9)] $b^2_i= b_i,$
\item[(A10)] $a_ib_ic^2_i= a_ib_i,$
\item[(A11)] $a_ib_k(c_ic_kc_i)^2 = a_ib_k.$
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
For $x \in SSB_n$, we denote $\widehat{x}$ the closure of the surface singular braid $x$ obtained by connecting the $n$ initial points to the corresponding end-points by a collection of $n$ parallel strands as same as the closure of classical braids. Note that the closed surface singular braid $\widehat{x}$ is a marked graph diagram as discussed in the previous section \ref{sect-mgd}. Let $CSB_n$ be the subset of $SSB_n$ consisting of only those elements $x$ such that the closure $\widehat{x}$ is an admissible marked graph diagram, i.e., both the positive resolution $L_+(\widehat{x})$ and the negative resolution $L_-(\widehat{x})$ of $\widehat{x}$ are diagrams of trivial classical links. We consider the following Markov type relations on surface singular braids in $CSB_n$:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(C1)] $x_iS = Sx_i$ for $x_i \in \{a_i, b_i, c_i, c_i^{-1}\} (1\leq i\leq n-1)$ and $S \in CSB_n,$
\item[(C2)] $S = Sx_n$ for $S \in CSB_n$ and $x_n \in \{a_n, b_n, c_n, c_n^{-1}\} \subset CSB_{n+1}.$
\end{itemize}
\begin{proposition}(\cite{Ja1})\label{prop-markov}
Making change in a closed surface singular braid word formulation of a
surface-link by using one of the relations from (A1)-(A11) or (C1)-(C2), we receive a formula of a surface-link of the same type.
\end{proposition}
We remark that Proposition \ref{prop-markov} is a straightforward consequence of Theorem \ref{thm-equiv-mgds-ym}. The following question is still open.
\vskip 0.3cm
\noindent{\bf Question 1.} Whether any pair of marked graph diagrams in braid form of equivalent surface-link can be transformed one another by using only relations (A1)-(A11), (C1) and (C2)?
\vskip 0.3cm
The following proposition gives another useful presentation for the surface singular braid monoid $SSB_n$.
\begin{proposition} (\cite{Ja2}) \label{prop-pres-ssbm}
The monoid $SSB_n (n \geq 2)$ is generated by $a_i, b_i, c_i, c_i^{-1} (1\leq i\leq n-1)$ subjected to the following relations:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(R1)] $c_ic^{-1}_i = 1 = c_i^{-1}c_i,$
\item[(R2)] $x_iy_j = y_jx_i$ for $|i-j| > 1,$ where $x_i, y_i \in \{a_i, b_i, c_i, c_i^{-1}\}$,
\item[(R3)] $a_ic_i = c_ia_i,$
\item[(R4)] $b_ic_i = c_ib_i,$
\item[(R5)] $c_{i+1}c_ic_{i+1} = c_ic_{i+1}c_i$ for $1\leq i < n-1,$
\item[(R6)] $a_{i+1}c_ic_{i+1} = c_ic_{i+1}a_i$ for $1\leq i < n-1,$
\item[(R7)] $b_{i+1}c_ic_{i+1} = c_ic_{i+1}b_i$ for $1\leq i < n-1,$
\item[(R8)] $a_ic_{i+1}c_i = c_{i+1}c_ia_{i+1}$ for $1\leq i < n-1,$
\item[(R9)] $b_ic_{i+1}c_i = c_{i+1}c_ib_{i+1}$ for $1\leq i < n-1,$
\item[(R10)] $a_ib_{i+1} = b_{i+1}a_i$ for $1\leq i < n-1,$
\item[(R11)] $a_ib_i = b_ia_i,$
\item[(R12)] $a_i^2 = a_i,$
\item[(R13)] $b_i^2 = b_i,$
\item[(R14)] $a_ib_ic_i^2 = a_ib_i,$
\item[(R15)] $a_ib_{i+1}(c_ic_{i+1}c_i)^2 = a_ib_{i+1}$ for $1\leq i < n-1,$
\item[(R16)] $a_ib_{i+2}(c_{i+1}c_ic_{i+2}c_{i+1})^2 = a_ib_{i+2}$ for $1\leq i < n-2.$
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
In the rest of the paper, we shall investigate some relationship between the surface singular braid monoid $SSB_n$ and the groups $G_{m}^{k}$ of free $k$-braids, and also $k$-biquandles for $G_m^k$ for some $m$ and $k$?. It is natural to ask the following questions.
\vskip 0.3cm
\noindent{\bf Question 2.} Whether or not there is a homomorphism from $SSB_n$ to $G_{m}^{k}$ for some $m$ and $k$?
\vskip 0.3cm
We give a positive answer to this question in the next section.
\section{Virtual surface singular braid monoid \texorpdfstring{$VSSB_n$}{VSSBn}}
In this section we extend the surface singular braid monoid by adding a new type of crossing --- a virtual crossing (see Fig.~\ref{fig:virtual_crossing}). Then we define a homomorphism from the constructed virtual surface singular braid monoid to the group $G^2_n$ and describe the coloring invariants virtual surface singular braids induced by this homomorphism.
\begin{figure}
\centering\includegraphics[width=0.2\textwidth]{virtual_crossing.eps}
\caption{Virtual crossing}\label{fig:virtual_crossing}
\end{figure}
\begin{definition}
Let $n\ge 2$ be an integer. The {\em virtual surface singular braid monoid} $VSSB_n$ is the monoid with the generators $a_i, b_i, c_i, c_i^{-1}$ and $v_i$, $1\leq i \leq n-1$, and the relations (A1)-(A11) from Definition~\ref{defn-singularbraid} and the virtual relations:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(V1)] $v_ix_j = x_jv_i$ for $|i-j|>1$ and $x_j\in\{a_j, b_j, c_j, c_j^{-1}, v_j\}$,
\item[(V2)] $v_i^2=1$,
\item[(V3)] $x_iv_{i\pm1}v_i = v_{i\pm1}v_ix_{i\pm1}$, $x_j\in\{a_j, b_j, c_j, c_j^{-1}, v_j\}, j=i,i\pm1$
\item[(V4)] $x_iv_i=v_ix_i,$ $x_i\in\{a_i,b_i\}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
Yoshikawa moves for virtual surface-links were found by L. Kauffman~\cite{K1}. Here we adapt those moves to the braid case. The relations (V2),(V3) correspond to the detour move of Kauffman, and the relation (V4) is the commutation relation between virtual crossings and marks.
\end{remark}
Let $\Sigma_n$ be the group of permutations of the set $\{1,\dots,n\}$. There is a homomorphism $\rho_n$ from the monoid $VSSB_n$ to the group $\Sigma_n$:
$$
\rho_n(a_i)=\rho_n(b_i)=1,\quad \rho_n(c_i)=\rho_n(c^{-1}_i)=\rho_n(v_i)=(i\ i+1),\quad i=1,\dots,n-1.
$$
Here $(i\ i+1)$ is the transposition of elements $i$ and $i+1$.
The kernel of the homomorphism $\rho_n$ is a submonoid $VPSSB_n$ in $VSSB_n$. We call it the {\em virtual pure surface singular braid monoid}.
Now, let us define an action of the monoid $VSSB_n$ on the product $G_n^2\times\Sigma_n$. Given an element $(g,\sigma)\in G_n^2\times\Sigma_n$, we define
\begin{gather*}
c_i\cdot(g,\sigma)= c_i^{-1}\cdot(g,\sigma)=(a_{\sigma(i),\sigma(i+1)}g,\sigma\cdot(i\ i+1)),\\
a_i\cdot(g,\sigma)=b_i\cdot(g,\sigma)=(g,\sigma),\quad v_i\cdot(g,\sigma)=(g,\sigma\cdot(i\ i+1)).
\end{gather*}
Then for any $\beta\in VSSB_n$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:VSSB_Gn2_map}
\beta\cdot (1,1)=(\phi_n(\beta),\rho_n(\beta)).
\end{equation}
The direct computations show
\begin{proposition}
1. The map $\phi_n$ defines is a well-defines mapping of the monoid $VSSB_n$ to the set $G_n^2$.
2. The restriction of $\phi_n$ to the virtual pure surface singular braid monoid $VPSSB_n$ is a homomorphism to the group $G_n^2$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{corollary}
Let $(X,B)$ be a $2$-biquandle and $\chi_1,\chi_2\in X^{\times n}$. Then the colouring binding number $col_{(X,B)}^{\chi_1,\chi_2}(\phi_n(\beta))$, $\beta\in VSSB_n$, is an invariant of virtual surface singular braids.
\end{corollary}
\begin{example}
Consider the virtual surface singular braid $\beta=c_1a_2v_3c_2^{-1}b_1c_2^{-1}$, see Fig.~\ref{fig:vssb}. Then
$\phi_4(\beta)=a_{12}a_{23}^2=a_{12}$. Take the Gaussian $2$-biquandle $X=\Z_2$, $B(x_1,x_2)=(x_1+1,x_2+1)$, and choose the colours $4$-tuples $\chi_1=(0,1,0,1)$ and $\chi_2=(0,0,1,1)$. Then $col_{(X,B)}^{\chi_1,\chi_2}(\phi_4(\beta))=1$.
\begin{figure}
\centering\includegraphics[width=0.18\textwidth]{vssb.eps}
\caption{A virtual surface singular braid}\label{fig:vssb}
\end{figure}
\end{example}
Although we constructed a homomorphism from surface singular braids to $G^2_n$, it is trivial in the sense that $\phi_n(\beta)=1$ if $\beta$ is a classical braid, i.e. has no virtual crossings. Thus, the following question remains actual.
\vskip 0.3cm
\noindent{\bf Question 2'.} How to construct a nontrivial homomorphism from $SSB_n$ to $G_{m}^{k}$ for some $m$ and $k\ge 3$?
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The first author was supported under the framework of international cooperation program managed by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2019K2A9A1A06100201). The second and the third authors were supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (19-51-51004-NIF-a).
|
\section{Introduction}\label{intro}
Theory of stochastic differential equations (SDEs) driven by fractional Brownian motion (fBm) is widely studied using different approach (see for instance \cite{Nua2002, Nua2003, NuaRas2002, 3, 4, 5}). These models have many applications in finance, telecommunications, image processing and turbulence; \cite{Nor95, Elwo, 10, Shi99}.\\
One of great interest area in study of fractional SDEs is on investigating the existence, uniqueness and regularity of the density of solutions to SDEs.
When $H > \frac12$, the existence and uniqueness of the solution are obtained by Lyons in \cite{Lyo94}, Zahle in \cite{Zah01}, Nualart-Rasc{a}nu in \cite{NuaRas2002} and by using Young's integration theory in \cite{BaH07}. The problem of existence and uniqueness of solution is considered in \cite{NeuNor08} for a Hurst parameter $H >1/3$, and
extended to $H >1/4$ in \cite{Tin09}.
Recently, when the drift is locally Lipschitz and unbounded in the neighborhood of the
origin, particularly to the mean-reverting stochastic volatility models in finance, the existence and positivity of a unique solution have studied in \cite{zh20}.\\
In the presence of delay in SDEs, Wei and Wang \cite{Wei07} considered the problem of the existence and uniqueness of the solution to stochastic functional differential equations with infinite
delay. Caraballo et al. \cite{Cara11} have studied the existence, uniqueness and exponential asymptotic
behavior of mild solutions to stochastic delay evolution equations driven by a fractional
Brownian motion. In 2015, Boudaoui et al. \cite{BouCar15} showed the existence of mild solutions to stochastic impulsive evolution equations with time delays via a new fixed point analysis approach. It is worth mentioning that in these two last atricles, the diffusion coefficient functions are dependent only on the parameter $t$ and are not dependent onthe state process. More studies have discussed in\cite{FR06} and then in \cite{Bou12} on stochastic delayed differential equations (SDDEs) with fractional Brownian motion when the diffusion functions depend upon the past value of the state process with time delay $\tau$ (actually, as $B=0$ in SDDE (\ref{s1})). \\
The Malliavin calculus is a useful tool to study the regularity of the densities of the
solutions to SDEs. We refer the reader to \cite{2} and \cite{Nua1998} for more details of this
theory. The problem of smoothness of density of the solutions to stochastic differential equations driven by a fractional
Brownian motion with Hurst parameter greater than $1/2$ in the one-dimensional case is solved in \cite{NS06}
by using Doss-S\"{u}ssman methods and in \cite{NS05} and \cite{HN06} under ellipticity assumptions.
Rovira and Ferrante \cite{FR06} established the existence and regularity of density of SDEs with delay via Young's integration. The authors considered a SDE with the diffusion coefficient function depends upon only the past value of solution with time delay; i.e, it depends on $X_{t-\tau}$ for a solution $X(t)$ and time delay $\tau$.
In 2012, the authors \cite{Tin12} have shown the existence of a $C^\infty$-density to a general class of Young delay equations driven by fBm with Hurst parameter $H> 1/2$.\\
The weighted fractional Brownian motion (wfBm) is a general expression for the fractional Brownian motion introduced in Bojdecki et al. \cite{BoGo08}. Due to the memory effects of various phenomena in the real world (such as a wide variety of natural and financial markets), it would be reasonable
to replace fBm by weighted fBm. In this erea, a few studies can be found in some especial subjects; see for instance Bojdecki et al. \cite{BoGo07, BoGo082}, Garz\'{o}n \cite{Ga09}, Shen et al. \cite{Shen16, Shen20}, Yan et al. \cite{YaWa14}, and the references therein.\\
In current paper, we consider the following semi-linear SDDE of the form
\begin{align}\label{s1}
dx(t)&=\Big\{Ax(t)+f( x(t-\tau))\Big\}dt+\Big\{B x(t)+\sigma(x(t-\tau))\Big\}\delta^{a,b}B^{a,b}(t),~~~t\in[0,T],\nonumber\\
{x}(t)&=\xi_0(t), \quad \qquad t \in [-\tau,0],
\end{align}
where $A$ is a $d\times d$-matrix and the stochastic integral is a type of Skorohod integral with respect to weighted fBm. We recall some basic elements of this stochastic calculus in section 3. \\
In the case of weighted fractional Brownian motion, to the best of our knowlege, there is no paper which study the existence and smoothness of the density of the solution to linear SDDE (\ref{s1}).
We are interested to consider Malliavin differentiability and smoothness of the density of the solution to SDDE (\ref{s1}) under the usual globally Lipschitz conditions on coefficient functions.
\begin{assumption}\label{l548}
Let $K_0$ is the largest integer number that $K_0\tau < T$ and $M$ is an integer number such that $K_0+1 < 2M$.
\begin{itemize}
\item Functions $f$ and $\sigma$ are continuous and $2M$-times differentiable, whose their derivatives are bounded with some constant $K_2$.
\item There exist some positive constants $L$ and $K_1$ such that for every $ x,y \in \mathbb{R}^d $ and $ t,s\in[0,T]$
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
|f(y_1)-f(y_2)|^2 +|\sigma(y)-\sigma(x)|^2 &\leq K_1\vert y_1-y_2\vert^2 , \qquad \qquad
|f(y)|^2 +|\sigma(x)|^2 \leq L\left(1+\vert y \vert^2 \right), \qquad
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\end{itemize}
\end{assumption}
In addition, to obtain smoothness of the density, we also assume that the function $\sigma$ has a lower bound greater than zero, confirming a H\"{o}rmander's type condition. \\
Our main approach to prove these problems is inspired from \cite{FR06}. More precisely, we shall construct the solution of SDDE (\ref{s1}) step by step within the intervals $[i\tau, (i+1)\tau]$, for any integer $i=1,\cdots, K_0$, and then in the interval $[K_0\tau, T]$. We successively determine a comprehensive exposition for its Malliavin derivatives thruoghout the steps. This exposition will allow us to achieve some upper bounds for Malliavin derivatives of the solution. \\
In order to obtain these results, the need for suitable upper bound inequality on supremum of stochastic Skorokhod integral generated by wfBm is essential. This inequality is a general type of $L^p$-maximal inequality in \cite{33} on stochastic integral with respect to wfBm (Theorem \ref{l0}).\\
The organization of the article is as follows: In sections 2 and 3, we recall some basic elements of wighted fractional Brownian motion and Malliavin calculus based on this type of stochastic integral. In section 4, we will prove a version of maximal inequality to achieve main results. The existence and uniqueness and Malliavin differentiability of the solution will be established in section 5. Uniformly boundedness of the moments of the solution and its Malliavin deivatives are investigated in section 6. Finally, we discuss the problem of regularity of the density in section 7.
\section{Weighted fractional Brownian motion}
For all parameters $ a,b$ with $ a> -1,~~ |b|< 1 $ and $|b|< a+1$, a weighted fractional Brownian motion, denoted by $ B^{a,b}$, on the complete probability space $ (\Omega,\textit{F}, P)$ is a mean zero Guassian process with simple covariance function\cite{Shen16}:
\begin{equation*}
R^{a,b}(t,s)=E[B^{a,b}(t)B^{a,b}(s)]= \int_0^{s \wedge t}u^{a}[(t-u)^{b}+(s-u)^{b}]du,~~~ s,t\geq 0.
\end{equation*}
This process is $\frac{a+b+1}{2}$-self-similar, long-range dependence with H$ \ddot{o} $lder paths. It is neither a semimartingale nor a Markov process if $ b\neq 0$, and for some constant $c_{a,b}$ and for any $s,t\geq 0$
\begin{equation}\label{bfbm}
c_{a,b}(t\vee s)^a|t-s|^{1+b}\leq E\left[\left(B^{a,b}(t)-B^{a,b}(s)\right)^2\right]\leq K_{a,b}(t\vee s)^a|t-s|^{1+b},
\end{equation}
where $ K_{a,b}=\frac{b}{2\mathbb{B}(a+1,b+1)}$. Some surveys and references could be found in \cite{29, 2, Shen16}.\\
When $-1<b<1$ and $a=0$, covariance of the process coincides particularlly with the covariance of the fractional Brownian motion with Hurst index
$\frac{b+1}{2}$ \cite{28};
\begin{equation*}
E[B^{a,b}(t)B^{a,b}(s)]=\frac{1}{b+1}[t^{b+1}+s^{b+1}-|s-t|^{b+1}].
\end{equation*}
Let $H$ be the Hilbert space defined as the closure of the linear space $ \mathcal{E} $ of indicator functions $\{\mathbf{1}_{[0,t]}, t\in[0,T]\}$ with respect to the inner product
\begin{equation*}
\left\langle \mathbf{1}_{[0,s]}\mathbf{1}_{[0,t]}\right\rangle _{H} =R^{a,b}(t,s).
\end{equation*}
Consider the Gaussian processes $B^{a,b}(u)$ on $H$ such that for every $u_1,u_2 \in H$, $\mathbb{E}(B^{a,b}(u_1)B^{a,b}(u_2)) = \left\langle u_1,u_2\right\rangle _{H}$.
In \cite{Shen16} have been shown that
$\textrm{H}=\{ u : [0,T]\rightarrow \mathbb{R}; \| u\| _{\textrm{H}}< \infty \}$,
where
\begin{equation}\label{inner}
\| u\|^2_{\textrm{H}} =\int_{0}^{T}\int_0^T u(s)u(t)\phi(t,s)dt ds :=\int_{0}^{T}\int_0^T u(s)u(t)b(t\wedge s)^a (t\vee s-t\wedge s)^{b-1}dt ds,
\end{equation}
The map $u \in \mathcal{E} \rightarrow B^{a,b}(u)$ is an isometry from $ \mathcal{E} $ to the Gaussian space generated by $ B^{a,b}$ and it can be extended to $ \textrm{H}$.
We should note that The subspace $|\textrm{H}|$ of measurable functions $u$ equipped by the norm
\begin{equation}\label{lk}
\| u\|^2_{|\textrm{H}|} =\int_0^T\int_0^T |u(s)||u(t)|\phi(t,s)dt ds<\infty,
\end{equation}
is a Banach space and $\mathcal{E}$ is dense in $|\textrm{H}|$. Moreover, Pipiras and Taqqu \cite{32} have shown that as $a+b < 1$
\begin{equation}\label{sub1}
L^2([0,T])\subset L^{2/(a+b+1)}\subset |\textrm{H}| \subset \textrm{H}.
\end{equation}
\section{Preliminaries on Malliavin calculus}
We briefly recall some Malliavin criteria on fractional Brownian motion and wieghted fractional Brownian motion in \cite{2, Duncan, Shen16}.
When $b>0$, we denote by $ \mathcal{S} $ the set of smooth functionals of the form
\begin{equation*}
F=f\left( B^{a,b}(u_{1}),B^{a,b}(u_{2}),\cdots B^{a,b}(u_{n})\right),
\end{equation*}
where $ f \in C^{\infty}_{b} (\mathbb{R}^n)$ (f and all its derivatives are bounded) and $ u_{i} \in \textrm{H},~ i=1,2,\cdots ,n$. For every $F \in \mathcal{S}$, define
\begin{equation*}
D^{a,b}F=\sum_{i=0}^{n} \frac{\partial f}{\partial x_{i}}\left( B^{a,b}(u_{1}),B^{a,b}(u_{2}),\cdots B^{a,b}(u_{n})\right)u_{i}.
\end{equation*}
The derivative operator $D^{a,b}$ is a closable operator from $L^{p}(\Omega)$ into $L^{p}(\Omega,\textrm{H})$ for every $p \geq 1$. We denote by $ \mathbb{D}^{1,p}$ the closure of $ \mathcal{S} $ respect to the norm
\begin{equation*}
\|F\|_{1,p}^p=E|F|^p+E\|D^{a,b}F\|^p_H.
\end{equation*}
For any $k \geq 1$, $k$-times iteration of the derivative operator is expressed by $D^{a,b} \ldots D^{a,b}F$ ($k$-times). For given Hilbert space $V$, the corresponding sobolev space $ \mathbb{D}^{1,p}(V)$ is the domain of the derivative operator of $V$-valued random variable.\\
The adjoint of the derivative operator, called $ \delta^{a,b}( \varphi )$, is characterized by the duality relationship
\begin{equation*}
E\left[F\delta^{a,b}(\varphi)\right]=E\left\langle D^{a,b}F,\varphi\right\rangle_H,
\end{equation*}
for any $F \in \mathcal{S}$.
For every stochastic process $ \varphi \in \mathbb{D}^{1,2}(|\textrm{H}|)$
indefinite Skorohod integral is expressed as
\begin{equation*}
\delta^{a,b}(\varphi)=\int _{0}^T \varphi(s)\delta^{a,b} B^{a,b}(s).
\end{equation*}
In a similar argument of \cite{Shen16, 33}
\begin{equation}\label{sdelta}
\int _0^T \varphi(s)dB^{a,b}(s)= \int _{0}^T \varphi(s)\delta^{a,b} B^{a,b}(s)+b\int_0^T\int_0^T D^{a,b}_t \varphi(s) (t\wedge s)^a (t\vee s-t\wedge s)^{b-1}dt ds,
\end{equation}
providing the second summand is finite. A classical relation is that,
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}\left[\vert\delta^{a,b}(\varphi)\vert^2\right]&= \mathbb{E}\|\varphi\|^{2}_{H}+ \mathbb{E}\int_{[0,T]^4}D^{a,b}_\xi \varphi(r)D^{a,b}(\eta) \varphi(s) \phi(\eta,r)\phi(\xi,s)ds dr d\xi d\eta \nonumber\\
&\leq\mathbb{E}\|\varphi\|^{2}_{|H|}+ \mathbb{E}\int_{[0,T]^4}|D^{a,b}_\xi \varphi(r)||D^{a,b}_\eta \varphi(s)||\phi(\eta,r)||\phi(\xi,s)|ds dr d\xi d\eta. \label{tavan2}
\end{align}
For any $p> 1$ we denote by $ \mathbb{L}^{1,p}_{(a+b+1)/2}$ the set of processes $\varphi$ in $ \mathbb{D}^{1,2}(|\textrm{H}|)$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\| \varphi\|^p_{\mathbb{L}^{1,p}_{(a+b+1)/2}}= \mathbb{E}\| \varphi\|^p_{{L}^{2/(a+b+1)}([0,T])}+\mathbb{E}\|D^{a,b} \varphi\|^p_{{L}^{2/(a+b+1)}([0,T]^2)}<\infty.
\end{equation*}
In view of (\ref{sub1}) and (\ref{tavan2}), one can easily show that for every $\varphi \in \mathbb{L}_{(a+b+1)/2}^{1,p}$
\begin{align}\label{02}
\mathbb{E}\left[|\delta ^{a,b}(\varphi)|^p\right] \leq C_{(a+b+1)/2,p}\left(\|\mathbb{E}\varphi\|_{L^{2/(a+b+1)}([0,T])}^p+\mathbb{E}\|D^{a,b}\varphi\|_{L^{2/(a+b+1)}([0,T]^2)}^p\right)
\end{align}
\section{$L^p$-maximum estimation of Skorokhod integral driven by weighted fractional integrals}
In this section, we shall establish $ L^p$-maximal estimation of the divergence process driven by weighted fractional Brownian motion for every $1<p_0<\infty$. To do this, we will apply some upper bound inequality in \cite{34} to Hardy type operator $ T_{\alpha,\beta}$ of any function $f \in L^{p_0}\Big((a_1,b_1);v\Big)$ defined by
\begin{align*}
T_{\alpha,\beta}f(x)=\int_{a_1}^{x} \frac{u(s)W^{\beta}(s)f(s)w(s)ds}{\left(W(x)-W(s)\right)^{1-\alpha}}, \qquad x\in[0,T],
\end{align*}
where $W$ is a non-negative, strictly increasing and locally absolutely continuous function on interval $I=(a_1,b_1)$ and $\frac{dW(s)}{ds}=w(s)$, and also $u$ is almost everywhere positive locally integrable function as well as $v$ is positive kernel function. \\
Let $ \frac{1}{p_0}+\frac{1}{p'}=1$ and for every $p_0 \leq q <\infty $ denote
\begin{equation*}
A_{\alpha,\beta}= \sup_{z \in I} \Big(\int_{a_1}^{z} u^{p'}(s) W^{p'\beta}(s)w(s)ds\Big)^{\frac{1}{p_0}}\Big(\int_{z}^{b_1} W^{q(\alpha-1)}(s)ds\Big)^{\frac1q}.
\end{equation*}
In Theorem 3.3 of \cite{34} have been shown that for $0 <\alpha <1$ and $\beta \geq 0$ there exists some constant $C$ such that
\begin{align}\label{01}
\left(\int_{a_1}^{b_1}\left(T_{\alpha,\beta}f(x)\right)^{q}v(x)dx\right)^{\frac{1}{q}} \leq C \left(\int_{a_1}^{b_1}\left( f(x)\right)^{p_0}w(x)dx\right)^{\frac{1}{p_0}}.
\end{align}
if and only if $A_{\alpha,\beta} < \infty$.
Now, we establish a $L^{p}$-maximal estimation for the indefinite integral $ \int_{0}^{t} \varphi(s)\delta^{a,b} B^{a,b}(s)$.
\begin{theorem}\label{l0}
For $ a>-1,~ |b|<1$ such that $a+b <1$, let $ u=\{u(t) , t\in [0,T]\}$ be a stochastic process in
$\mathbb{L}^{1,p}_{(a+b+1)/2}$. Then for every $p>\frac{4}{a+b+1}$, there exists some constant $C_1$ such that
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}\left(\sup_{t \in [0,T]}\left|\int_{0}^{t}u(s)\delta^{a,b} B^{a,b}_{s}\right|^{p} \right)
&\leq C_1 T \bigg\{\left(\int_{0}^{T}\left|\mathbb{E}u(s)\right|^{\frac{2p}{p(a+b+1)-2}} ds\right)^{\frac{p(a+b+1)-2}{2}}\\
&+\mathbb{E}\left(\int_0^T\left(\int_0^T\left|D_{s}^{a,b}u(r)\right|^{2/(a+b+1)}dr\right)^{\frac{p(a+b+1)}{p(a+b+1)-2}}ds\right)^{\frac{p(a+b+1)-2}{2}}\bigg\},\\
\end{align*}
where the constant $ C_1 $ depends on $(a+b+1)/2$, $p$ and $ T$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The proof is motivated by the proof of Theorem 4 in \cite{33}. Set a positive constant $\lambda$ such that
$\frac{a+b+1}{2} < \lambda < 1$ and put $a_0= a+b+1$ which is a positive number. Now, using the equality
\begin{align*}
c_{a,b,\lambda}=\int _{r}^{t} t^{\lambda}(t-\theta)^{-a_0}r^{a_0} (\theta-r)^{\lambda-1}d\theta<\infty,
\end{align*}
we know that
\begin{align*}
\int _{0}^{t}u(s)\delta^{a,b} B^{a,b}(s)=c_{a,b,\lambda}^{-1}\int _{0}^{t} u(s) \left(\int_{s}^{t}t^{\lambda} (t-r)^{-a_0}s^{a_0}(r-s)^{\lambda-1}dr\right)\delta^{a,b} B^{a,b}(s).
\end{align*}
One can apply Fubini's stochastic theorem to result
\begin{align*}
\int _{0}^{t}u(s)\delta^{a,b} B^{a,b}(s)=c_{a,b}^{-1}\int _{0}^{t}t^{\lambda} (t-r)^{-a_0} \left(\int_{0}^{r} u(s)s^{a_0}(r-s)^{\lambda-1}\delta^{a,b} B^{a,b}(s)\right)dr.
\end{align*}
From H$ \ddot{o} $lder's inequality for some other constant c
\begin{align*}
\left|\int _{0}^{t}u(s)\delta^{a,b} B^{a,b}(s)\right|^p\leq c^{{-1}}\int _{0}^{t}\left|\int_{0}^{r} u(s)s^{a_0}(r-s)^{\lambda-1}\delta^{a,b} B^{a,b}(s)\right|^p dr.
\end{align*}
Therefore,
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}\left(\sup_{t \in [0,T]}\left|\int _{0}^{t}u(s)\delta^{a,b} B^{a,b}(s)\right|^{p} \right)&\leq
c^{-1}\mathbb{E} \int _{0}^{T}\left|\int_{0}^{r} u(s)s^{a_0}(r-s)^{\lambda-1}\delta^{a,b} B^{a,b}(s)\right|^p dr.
\end{align*}
Using now inequality (\ref{02}) we obtain
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}\left(\sup_{t \in [0,T]}\left|\int _{0}^{t}u(s)\delta^{a,b} B^{a,b}(s)\right|^{p} \right)&\leq c^{-1}C_{\frac{a+b+1}{2}}\bigg\{ \int_{0}^{T}\left(\int_{0}^{r}s^{2}(r-s)^{2(\lambda-1)/a_0}\left|\mathbb{E}u(s)\right|^{2/a_0} ds\right)^{pa_0/2}dr \nonumber\\
&+ \mathbb{E} \int_0^T \left( \int _0^r \int_0^T s^{2}(r-s)^{2(\lambda-1)/a_0} \left|D^{a,b}_\theta u(s)\right|^{2/a_0}d\theta ds\right)^{pa_0/2}dr\bigg\}\nonumber\\
&=: c^{-1}C_{a_0/2}(I_{1}+I_{2}).\\
\end{align*}
To bound the terms $I_{1}$ and $I_{2}$, we apply the Hardy type operator inequality (\ref{01}) for $q=p\frac{(a+b+1)}{2}$, $p_{0}=\frac{pa_0}{pa_0-2}$, $\alpha=1+2\frac{(\lambda-1)}{a_0}$, $\beta=2$, $u(.)=1$, $v(.)=\frac{1}{T}$ and $W(s)=s$. Under our assumptions and the way of choosing $\lambda$, can has $1 < p_0 < q$ and $0 <\alpha <1$ as well as $A_{\alpha,\beta}< \infty$. Consequently,
\begin{align*}
I_{1}&\leq CT \left(\int_{0}^{T}\left|\mathbb{E}u(r)\right|^{\frac{2p_0}{a_0}} dr\right)^{\frac{q}{p_0}},
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
I_{2}&\leq
C \mathbb{E}\left(\int_0^T \left(\int_0^T \left |D_{s}^{a,b}u(r)\right|^{2/a_0}ds\right)^{p_0}dr\right)^{\frac{q}{p_0}},
\end{align*}
which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
According to the proof of this theorem, for any partition $0 \leq t_1 \cdots \leq t_N=T$ and every $0 \leq k \leq N$, the following corollary can be covered, if the weighted function $v$ in the proof of Theorem \ref{l0} replaced by $v=\frac{1}{t_{k+1}-t_k}$.
\begin{corollary}\label{corr1}
Under conditions of Theorem \ref{l0}, for every $0 \leq k \leq N$ and any partition $0 \leq t_1 \cdots \leq t_N=T$, there exists some constant which we denote again $C_1$ such that
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}\left(\sup_{t \in [t_k,t_{k=1}]}\left|\int_{t_k}^{t}u(s)\delta^{a,b} B^{a,b}_{s}\right|^{p} \right)
&\leq C_1 (t_{k+1}-t_k)\bigg\{\left(\int_{t_k}^{t_{k+1}}\left|\mathbb{E}u(s)\right|^{\frac{2p}{p(a+b+1)-2}} ds\right)^{\frac{p(a+b+1)-2}{2}}\\
&+\mathbb{E}\left(\int_{t_k}^{t_{k+1}}\left(\int_{t_k}^{t_{k+1}}\left|D_{s}^{a,b}u(r)\right|^{2/(a+b+1)}dr\right)^{\frac{p(a+b+1)}{p(a+b+1)-2}}ds\right)^{\frac{p(a+b+1)-2}{2}}\bigg\},\\
\end{align*}
\end{corollary}
\begin{corollary}\label{l54} When the function $ u(.)$ is a deterministic function, it is obviously that $ D_{r}u(s)=0$ and therefore for every $p > 4/(a+b+1)$
\begin{equation}\label{1co}
\begin{split}
\mathbb{E}\left(\sup_{t \in [0,T]}\left|\int _{0}^{t}u(s)\delta^{a,d}B^{a,b}(s)\right|^{p}\right) &\leq C_1T \left(\int_{0}^{T}\left|u(s)\right|^{\frac{2p}{p(a+b+1)-2}} ds\right)^{\frac{p(a+b+1)-2}{2}},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and using Young's inequality implies that
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E}\left(\sup_{t \in [0,T]}\left|\int _{0}^{t}u(s)\delta^{a,b}B^{a,b}(s)\right|^{p}\right) \leq C_1T^2 \left(\int_{0}^{T}\left|u(s)\right|^{p}ds\right).
\end{equation*}
\end{corollary}
\section{Existence and Malliavin differentiability of the solution}
As an analythic level, fisrt we show the existence of the solution of Equation (\ref{s1}) step by step in the intervals $[i\tau, (i+1)\tau]$ for any integer $i=1,\cdots, K_0$, and then in the interval $[K_0\tau, T]$. Malliavin differentiability of the solution in the sense of stochastic Skorokhod integral will be concluded, recursively. The uniqueness of the solution can be proved throughout any step.\\
We assume the following conditions on the function $\xi_0(.)$ and also recall two proposition from \cite{Duncan} for future use.
\begin{assumption}\label{assum2}
The measurable function $\xi_0(.)$ is Malliavin Differentiable up to the order $2M+1$ and for every $p \geq 1$, there exists some constant $C_{\xi,p}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup_{0 \leq r \leq \tau}\xi_0(r-\tau)^{p}\Big) \leq C_{\xi,p} < \infty,
\end{equation}
\end{assumption}
Let us recall the Ito's formula has been introduced in \cite{Duncan} which is essential in our modification. Proceeding the proof of Ito's formula therein show that it would be also hold in weighted stochastic integral with inner product $<.,.>_H$ defined in (\ref{inner}) with the kernel function $\phi(.,.)$, as the authors have mentioned in their paper. So, we shall rewrite Ito's formula for wfBm instead of fBm. Recall $\mathcal{L}(0,T)$ as the set of Malliavin differentiable stochastic processes $G$ such that
$\mathbb{E}\| G\|_{H}+\mathbb{E}\|D^{a,b} G\|_{H\otimes H}<\infty$, and for any sequence of partiotion $\pi:0=t^n_0 \leq \cdots \leq t_n^n=T$ of $[0,T]$ such that $\vert \pi \vert \rightarrow 0$ as $n \rightarrow \infty$
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{i=0}^n \mathbb{E}\Big\{ \int_{t_{i}^n}^{t_{i+1}^n}\int_0^T( D_{r}^{a,b}G^\pi_{t_i^n} -D_{r}^{a,b} G_s)\phi(r,s) dr ds\Big\}^2+ \mathbb{E}\Big\{ \| G^\pi - G \|_H \Big\} < \infty
\end{equation*}
\begin{proposition}(Duncan \cite{Duncan}, Theorem 4.3)\label{ito}
Let $\{F_s, s \in [0,T]\} \in \mathcal{L}(0,T)$ be a stochastic process such that for some $\alpha_3 > 1-\frac{b+1}{2}$,
$$\mathbb{E}\Big(\vert F_{s_1}- F_{s_2} \vert^2\Big) \leq c_{F} \vert s_1- s_2\vert^{2\alpha_3}$$
where $\vert s_1-s_2 \vert \leq \delta$ for some $\delta >0$ and
$$\lim_{\vert s_1-s_2\vert \rightarrow 0}\mathbb{E}\Big( \vert (D_{s_1}^{a,b})^\phi ( F_{s_1}- F_{s_2}) \vert^2\Big)=0.$$
in which $(D_{s}^{a,b})^\phi F = \int_0^T \int_0^T D_{r}^{a,b} F .\phi(r,s)dr $.
Assum that $\mathbb{E}(\sup_{0 \leq s \leq T} \vert G_s \vert) < \infty$ and $f:\mathbb{R}_{+}\times \mathbb{R} \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}$
is a function in
$\mathbb{C}_{b}^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}_{+}\times\mathbb{R})$.
If $\eta_t = \xi +\int_0^t G_s ds + \int_0^t F_s \delta^{a,b}B_s^{a,b}, ~ \xi \in \mathbb{R}$ for $t \in [0,T]$ and $\frac{\partial f}{\partial x} (s,\eta_s)F_s \in \mathcal{L}(0,T)$. Then for $t \in [0,T]$
\begin{align*}
f(t, \eta_t)&=f(0,\xi)+ \int_0^t \frac{\partial f}{\partial t} (s,\eta_s) ds + \sum_{k=1}^{n}\int_0^t \frac{\partial f}{\partial x} (s,\eta_s) G_s ds\\
& +\int_0^t \frac{\partial f}{\partial x} (s,\eta_s)F_s \delta^{a,b}B_s^{a,b} + \int_0^t \frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial x^2} (s,\eta_s)F_s (D_s^{a,b})^\phi \eta_s ds,
\end{align*}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proposition}(Duncan \cite{Duncan}, Theorem 4.6)\label{ito1}
Let $\{F^i_s, s \in [0,T]\} \in \mathcal{L}(0,T)$ and the function $f$ satisfy the conditions of Proposition \ref{ito}. Assume
$\eta^k_t = \xi_k +\int_0^t G^k_s ds + \int_0^t F^k_s \delta^{a,b}B_s^{a,b}, ~ \xi \in \mathbb{R^n}$ for $t \in [0,T]$ and $\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_k} (s,\eta_s)F^k_s \in \mathcal{L}(0,T)$. Then for $t \in [0,T]$
\begin{align*}
f(t, \eta^1_t, \cdots, \eta^n_t)&=f(0,\xi_1, \cdots, \xi_n)+ \int_0^t \frac{\partial f}{\partial t} (s,\eta_s) ds + \sum_{k=1}^{n}\int_0^t \frac{\partial f}{\partial x_k} (s,\eta_s) G^k_s ds\\
& +\sum_{k=1}^{n}\int_0^t \frac{\partial f}{\partial x_k} (s,\eta_s)F^k_s \delta^{a,b}B_s^{a,b} +
\sum_{k,l=1}^{n}\int_0^t \frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial x_k \partial x_l} (s,\eta_s)F^k_s (D_s^{a,b})^\phi \eta^l_s ds,
\end{align*}
\end{proposition}
It is worth mentioning that, Theorem 4.2. in \cite{Duncan} can be also rewritten in the sense of weighted fractional Brownian motion, clearly.
\begin{proposition}\label{dfphi}
If $\Big\{F_s, s \in [0,T]\Big\} \in \mathcal{L}(0,T)$ and $\sup_{0 \leq s \leq T} \mathbb{E}\Big(\vert(D_s^{a,b})^\phi F_s \vert^2\Big) < \infty$. Then for $s,t \in [0,T]$
\begin{equation*}
(D_s^{a,b})^\phi \left\{\int_0^t F_u \delta^{a,b}B_u^{a,b}\right\} =\int_0^t (D_s^{a,b})^\phi F_u \delta^{a,b}B_u^{a,b}+ \int_0^t F_u \phi(s,u) du, \quad a.s.
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}
Now, consider the following linear SDE driven by weighted fractional Brownian motion
\begin{align}\label{psiuni}
d\psi(t)&=A\psi(t)dt+B \psi(t)\delta^{a,b}B^{a,b}(t),~ as~~t\in[0,T], \quad and \quad \psi(0)=1.
\end{align}
To show main results, we start with showing that, the SDE (\ref{psiuni}) has a unique solution $\psi(.)$ with an exponential exposition and it has Malliavin derivatives which can be presented as a function of the solution $\psi(.)$.\\
Thanks to Proposition \ref{ito}, following as in the proof of Theorem 2.5. and Lemma 2.2 in \cite{flinear}, one can coclude that the solution of (\ref{psiuni}) is $$\psi(t)=exp\Big\{At+B B^{a,b}(t)-\frac12 B^2\int_0^t\int_0^t \phi(s,s')dsds'\Big\}$$ and $D^{a,b}_r\psi(t)=\psi(t)B1_{0 \leq r \leq t}$ and equivalently $(D^{a,b}_r)^\phi \psi(t)=\psi(t)B \int_0^t \phi(r,s)ds$. This fact leads to the conclusion that, the process $\psi^{-1}$ is the solution to the SDE
\begin{align*}
d\psi^{-1}(t)&=\Big(-A+ B^2\int_0^t\int_0^t \phi(s,s')dsds'\Big)\psi^{-1}(t)dt-B \psi^{-1}(t)\delta^{a,b}B^{a,b}(t),~~~t\in[0,T],\\
\psi^{-1}(0)&=1,
\end{align*}
and $D^{a,b}_r\psi^{-1}(t)=-\psi^{-1}(t)B1_{0 \leq r \leq t}$, which is equivalent to $(D^{a,b}_r)^\phi \psi^{-1}(t)=-\psi^{-1}(t)B \int_0^t \phi(r,s)ds$.
\begin{theorem}\label{psi}
The unique solution $\psi(.)$ has uniformly bounded moments; i.e., there exists some positive constant $C_{p}$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup_{0 \leq t \leq T} \vert \psi(t) \vert^p \Big) \leq C_{p}
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
According to the relation $D^{a,b}_r\psi(t)=\psi(t)B1_{0 \leq r \leq t}$ and inequality (\ref{tavan2}) in connection with inclusion (\ref{sub1}) and then Gronwall's inequality, the uniquenss of the solution $\psi$ is resulted. The boundedness of the $p$-momoents of $\psi(.)$ follows from Theorem 3.3 in \cite{Duncan} and Proposition \ref{ito}), and deduces that there exists some constant $C_p$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup_{0 \leq t \leq T} \vert \psi(t) \vert^p \Big) \leq exp^{\Big\{pAT+\frac12(p^2-p)\int_0^T\int_0^T \phi(s,s')ds ds'\Big\} }\leq C_p.
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{boundpsi}
For every $p \geq 1$, there exists some constant $C_{\psi,p}$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup_{0 \leq r \leq T}\vert \psi(r)^{-1}\vert^p\Big)+\mathbb{E}\left(\int_{0}^{T}\int_{0}^{T}\left|D_{s}^{a,b}\psi^{-1}(r)\right|^p drds \right)\leq C_{\psi,p} < \infty,
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}
As a consequence, the stochastic processes $\psi(.)$ and $\psi^{-1}(.)$ are in $\mathcal{L}(0,T)$ and satisfy the condition of Theorem \ref{ito} with $\alpha_3=(1+b)/2$, applying Equations (\ref{tavan2}) and (\ref{bfbm}).\\
Now, we are ready to construct the solution of Equation (\ref{s1}) in the following theorem and obtain its Malliavin derivative.
\begin{theorem}\label{exists}
Under Assumption \ref{l548} and the first part of Assumption \ref{assum2}, SDE (\ref{s1}) admits a unique solution on $[-\tau, T]$ which is also Malliavin differentiable up to the order $2M$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We will prove the assertion in four steps for the convenience of readers. The uniqueness of the solution throughout any step stands on a similar proof of Theorem \ref{psi} to show the uniqueness of $\psi(.)$ to SDE (\ref{psiuni}).\\
{\bf step 1}. For $t \in [0,\tau]$, define the Gaussian process $$M_0(t)=\int_0^t f(\xi_0(s-\tau)) ds-B\int_0^t\int_0^s \sigma(\xi_0(s-\tau))\phi(u,s)du ds +\int_0^t \sigma(\xi_0(s-\tau) )\delta^{a,b}B^{a,b}(s)$$ and consider the following stochastic differential equation
\begin{equation*}
X_0(t)= \xi_0(0) + \int_0^t AX_0(s) ds + \int_0^t BX_0(s) \delta^{a,b}B^{a,b}(t)+ M_0(t)\quad t \in [0,\tau]
\end{equation*}
To introduce the solution $X_0$, we first denote $Z_0(t):= \xi_0(0) + \int_0^t \psi^{-1}(s) dM_0(s)$. In view of Proposition \ref{dfphi}, since $\psi^{-1} \in \mathcal{L}[0,T]$ and for every $-\tau \leq s < 0$ and $r \geq 0$, we know $D_r^{a,b} \xi_0(s)=0$, therefore for any $0 \leq r \leq t$
\begin{align*}
D_r^{a,b}Z_0(t) &=\psi^{-1}(r)\sigma\Big(\xi_0(r-\tau)\Big)-\int_r^t B\psi^{-1}(s)\left(f(\xi_0(s-\tau))-\int_0^s \sigma(\xi_0(s-\tau))\phi(u,s)du\right) ds \\
& -\int_r^t B
\psi^{-1}(s)\sigma(\xi_0(s-\tau))\delta^{a,b}B^{a,b}(t) \\
& = \psi^{-1}(r)\sigma(\xi_0(r-\tau)) - BZ_0(t)+BZ_0(r).
\end{align*}
It deduce that $D_t^{a,b}Z_0(t)= \psi^{-1}(t)\sigma(\xi_0(t-\tau))$, or equivalently $$(D_t^{a,b})^\phi Z_0(t)= \psi^{-1}(t)\int_0^t \sigma(\xi_0(u-\tau))\phi(u,t) du.$$
Applying Ito's formula (\ref{ito1}) for $U_0(t):=e^{-B\int_0^t \int_0^s \phi(s,u)du ds}\psi(t)Z_0(t)$ and then substituting $(D_t^{a,b})^\phi\psi(t)$ and $(D_t^{a,b})^\phi Z_0(t)$ result
\begin{align*}
dU_0(t) &=e^{-B\int_0^t \int_0^s \phi(s,u)du ds}\Big\{B(\int_0^t \phi(t,u)du )\psi(t)Z_0(t) dt + A\psi(t)Z_0(t) dt
+ B\psi(t)Z_0(t) \delta^{a,b}B^{a,b}(t) \nonumber\\
&+ \psi(t) \psi^{-1}(t)dM_0(t) + (D_t^{a,b})^\phi\psi(t). \psi^{-1}(t) \sigma(\xi_0(t-\tau)) dt+ B\psi(t)(D_t^{a,b})^\phi Z_0(t) dt \Big\} \nonumber \\
& = \Big\{ AU_0(t) +f(\xi_0(s-\tau))\Big\} dt + \Big\{ BU_0(t) + \sigma(\xi_0(s-\tau) )\Big\}\delta^{a,b}B^{a,b}(t).
\end{align*}
It show that for every $0\leq t \leq \tau$, the process $e^{-B\int_0^t \int_0^s \phi(s,u)du ds}\psi(t)Z_0(t)$ is a solution to SDE (\ref{s1}). Next, due to Proposition \ref{dfphi} and the relationship of $ D_r^{a,b}$ and $ (D_t^{a,b})^\phi$ in Proposition \ref{ito}, one deduce that $x(t)$ in the time interval $[0, \tau]$ has a weak derivative satisfying
\begin{equation*}
D_r^{a,b} X_0(t)=B X_0(r)+\int_r^t A D_r^{a,b} X_0(s)ds +\int_r^t B D_r^{a,b} X_0(s)\delta^{a,b}B^{a,b}(s),~~~t\in[0,\tau],
\end{equation*}
for every $0 < r \leq t$. \\
{\bf step 2}. For every $k=1, \cdots, K_0-1$ and for all $k\tau \leq t \leq (k+1)\tau$, define again the Gaussian processes $$M_k(t)=\int_{k\tau}^t f(X_k(s-\tau)ds -B\int_{k\tau}^t\int_0^s \sigma(X_k(s-\tau))\phi(u,s)du ds +\int_{k\tau}^t \sigma(X_k(s-\tau) )\delta^{a,b}B^{a,b}(t),$$ and consider the following stochastic differential equations
\begin{equation*}
X_{k}(t)= X_{k-1}(k\tau) + \int_{k\tau}^t AX_{k}(s) ds + \int_{k\tau}^t BX_{k}(s) \delta^{a,b}B^{a,b}(t)+ M_{k-1}(t), \quad t \in [k\tau,(k+1)\tau].
\end{equation*}
similarly, if we define $Z_k(t):= X_{k-1}(k\tau) + \int_{k\tau}^t \psi^{-1}(s) dM_{k-1}(s)$, as $\psi^{-1} \in \mathcal{L}[0,T]$ and for every $-k\tau \leq s < (k+1)\tau$ and $r \geq k\tau$ we know $D_r^{a,b} X_{k-1}(s)=0$, then for any $k\tau \leq r \leq t$
\begin{align*}
D_r^{a,b}Z_k(t) &=0-\int_r^t B\psi^{-1}(s)\left(f(X_{k-1}(s-\tau))-\int_0^s \sigma(X_{k-1}(s-\tau))\phi(u,s)du\right) ds \\
& -\int_r^t B
\psi^{-1}(s)\sigma(X_{k-1}(s-\tau))\delta^{a,b}B^{a,b}(t) +\psi^{-1}(r)\sigma(X_{k-1}(r-\tau))\\
& = \psi^{-1}(r)\sigma(X_{k-1}(r-\tau)) - BZ_k(t)+BZ_k(r).
\end{align*}
Clearly, it deduce that $D_t^{a,b}Z_k(t)= \psi^{-1}(t)\sigma(X_{k-1}(t-\tau))$, or equivalently
\begin{equation}\label{dphi}
(D_t^{a,b})^\phi Z_k(t)= \psi^{-1}(t)\int_0^t \sigma(X_{k-1}(u-\tau))\phi(u,t) du.
\end{equation}
We employ Ito's formula (\ref{ito1}) for $U_k:=e^{-B\int_0^t \int_0^s \phi(s,u)du ds}\psi(t)Z_k(t)$ and substitute (\ref{dphi}) and get that
\begin{align*}
dU_k(t) &=e^{-B\int_0^t \int_0^s \phi(s,u)du ds}\Big\{B(\int_0^t \phi(t,u)du )\psi(t)Z_k(t) dt + A\psi(t)Z_k(t) dt + B\psi(t)Z_k(t) \delta^{a,b}B^{a,b}(t) \\
&+ \psi(t) \psi^{-1}(t)dM_{k-1}(t) + (D_t^{a,b})^\phi\psi(t). \psi^{-1}(t) \sigma(X_{k-1}(t-\tau)) dt+ B\psi(t)(D_t^{a,b})^\phi Z_k(t) dt \Big\} \\
& = \Big\{ U_k(t) +f((X_{k-1}(t-\tau))\Big\} dt + \Big\{ BU_k(t) + \sigma(X_{k-1}(t-\tau) )\Big\}\delta^{a,b}B^{a,b}(t).
\end{align*}
Thus SDE (\ref{s1}) has the solution $e^{-B\int_0^t \int_0^s \phi(s,u)du ds}\psi(t)Z_k(t)$ for every $k\tau \leq t \leq (k+1)\tau$. Next, Proposition \ref{dfphi} results this solution has also a Malliavin derivative satisfying
\begin{align}
D_r^{a,b} X_{k}(t)&=D_r^{a,b}X_{k-1}(k\tau)+ B X_{k}(r)+\sigma(X_{k-1} (r-\tau))1_{k\tau \leq r \leq t-\tau}\nonumber \\
&+\int_{k\tau\vee r}^t\left(A D_r^{a,b} X_{k}(s)+f'(X_{k-1}(s-\tau))D_r^{a,b}X_{k-1}(s-\tau)1_{ r\leq s-\tau}\right)ds \nonumber\\
&+\int_{k\tau \vee r}^t\left(B D_r^{a,b} X_{k}(s)+\sigma'(X_{k-1}(s-\tau))D_r^{a,b}X_{k-1}(s-\tau)1_{ r\leq s-\tau}\right)\delta^{a,b}B^{a,b}(s),~~~t\in[k\tau ,(k+1)\tau], \label{d1k}
\end{align}
for every $0 \leq r \leq t-\tau$ and also
\begin{equation}\label{d1kd}
D_r^{a,b} X_{k}(t)=B X_{k}(r)+\int_{k\tau \vee r}^t A D_r^{a,b} X_{k}(s)ds +\int_{k\tau \vee r}^t B D_r^{a,b} X_{k}(s)\delta^{a,b}B^{a,b}(s),~~~t\in[k\tau ,(k+1)\tau],
\end{equation}
for every $t-\tau < r \leq t$.\\
{\bf Step 3}. Perform step 2 for $k=K_0$ and result that for every $t \in [K_0\tau, T]$, SDE (\ref{s1}) has a unique solution $e^{-B\int_0^t \int_0^s \phi(s,u)du ds}\psi(t)Z_{K_0}(t)$ for every $K_0\tau \leq t \leq T$ with Malliavin derivative satisfying (\ref{d1k}) and (\ref{d1kd}). In this sense, it is sufficient to define
\begin{equation}\label{defx}
x(t) = \sum_{k=0}^{K_0-1} X_k(t) 1_{k\tau \leq t \leq (k+1)\tau} + X_{K_0}(t) 1_{K_0 \tau \leq t \leq T}.
\end{equation}
Therefore, for every $0 \leq r \leq t-\tau$, $D^{a,b}x(t)$ should satisfy
\begin{align}\label{der}
D_r^{a,b}x(t)&=D_r^{a,b}\xi_0(0)+Bx(r)+\sigma(x (r-\tau))1_{k\tau \leq r \leq t-\tau}\nonumber \\
&+\int_r^t\left\{A D_r^{a,b}x(s)+f'(x(s-\tau))D_r^{a,b}x(s-\tau)1_{0 \leq r\leq s-\tau}\right\}ds \nonumber\\
&+\int_r^t\left(B D_r^{a,b}x(s)+\sigma'(x(s-\tau))D_r^{a,b}x(s-\tau)1_{ 0 \leq r\leq s-\tau}\right)\delta^{a,b}B^{a,b}(s),~~~t\in[0,T],
\end{align}
and for every $t-\tau < r \leq t$,
\begin{equation}\label{der2}
D_r^{a,b}x(t)=Bx(r)+\int_r^t A D_r^{a,b}x(s)ds +\int_r^t B D_r^{a,b}x(s)\delta^{a,b}B^{a,b}(s),~~~t\in[0,T],
\end{equation}
{\bf Step 4}. We continue the steps 1, 2 and 3 for Equation (\ref{der}) instead of Equation (\ref{s1}) to derive Malliavin differentiability of $D_r^{a,b}x(t)$. Finally we repeat this procedure up to the order $2M$, the order of differentiability of the functions $f$ and $g$, to deduce the assertion.
\end{proof}
We end this section by giving a recursively expression for higher order Malliavin derivatives of the solution $x(.)$, provided we continue differentiating of Equations (\ref{d1k}) or (\ref{der}). Our expression deal with the case $0 \leq r_1, \ldots, r_l\leq t-\tau$, the other cases have the same computation. We note that our modification will be useful to obtain some bounds for their moments in the next section.\\
First, let us define the processes $H_{r_l\cdots r_1},G_{r_l\cdots r_1}(s), F_{r_l\cdots r_1}(s)$ for every $2 \leq l \leq 2M$ as follows for simplicity.
\begin{align*}
{1}_{(1,\cdots, l)}& := 1_{r_l > (k-1)\tau} \prod_{i=1}^{l-1}1_{r_i +\tau < r_l}, \quad {1}_{(2,\cdots, l)}:= 1_{r_1> (k-1)\tau} \prod_{i=2}^{l}1_{r_i +\tau < r_1} \\
& {1}_{(1,\cdots, j)}= 1_{r_j > (k-1)\tau} \prod_{i=1, i \neq j}^{l-1}1_{r_i +\tau < r_j} \quad 2 \leq j \leq l-1
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
H_{r_l\cdots r_1}(k)& := B D^{a,b}_{r_l}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_2}X_k(r_1)+ D^{a,b}_{r_l}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_2}\Big(\sigma(X_{k-1}(r_1-\tau))\Big)1_{(2,\cdots, l)}
+B D^{a,b}_{r_{l-1}}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_1}X_k(r_l) \\
&+D^{a,b}_{r_{l-1}}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_1}\Big( \sigma(X_{k-1}(r_l-\tau))\Big){1}_{(1,\cdots, l)}
+B \sum_{j=2}^{l-1} D^{a,b}_{r_{l}}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_{j+1}}D^{a,b}_{r_{j-1}}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_1}X_k(r_j) \\
&+ \sum_{j=2}^{l-1} D^{a,b}_{r_{l}}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_{j+1}}D^{a,b}_{r_{j-1}}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_1}\left( \sigma(X_{k-1}(r_j-\tau))\right)1_{(1,\cdots, j)},
\end{align*}
\begin{equation*}
F_{r_l\cdots r_1}(X_{k-1},s):= D^{a,b}_{r_l}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_1}\{f(X_{k-1}(s-\tau))\}, \qquad G_{r_l\cdots r_1}(X_{k-1},s):= D^{a,b}_{r_l}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_1}\{\sigma(X_{k-1}(s-\tau))\}.
\end{equation*}
Then $l$-th derivative for every $k\tau \leq t \leq (k+1)\tau$ as $k=1,\cdots, K_0$ and also every $0 \leq r_1, \ldots, r_l\leq t-\tau$ satisfies
\begin{align}
D^{a,b}_{r_l}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_1}X_k(t) & =D^{a,b}_{r_l}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_1}X_{k-1}(k\tau)+H_{r_l\cdots r_1}(k) \nonumber \\
&+\int_{k\tau \vee r_1 \vee \cdots \vee r_l}^{t} \left\{ AD^{a,b}_{r_l}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_1}X_k(s) +F_{r_l\cdots r_1}(X_{k-1},s) \prod_{i=1}^l 1_{r_i + \tau < s} \right\}ds \nonumber\\
&+ \int_{k\tau \vee r_1 \vee \cdots \vee r_l}^{t} \left\{BD^{a,b}_{r_l}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_1}X_k(s) +G_{r_l\cdots r_1}(X_{k-1},s) \prod_{i=1}^l 1_{r_i + \tau < s} \right\} \delta^{a,b}B^{a,b}(s),\label{dddl}
\end{align}
and for every $K_0\tau \leq t \leq T$
\begin{align*}
D^{a,b}_{r_l}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_1}X_k(t) & =D^{a,b}_{r_l}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_1}X_{k-1}(k\tau)+ H_{r_l\cdots r_1}(k) \nonumber \\
&+\int_{K_0\tau \vee r_1 \vee \cdots \vee r_l}^{t} \left\{ AD^{a,b}_{r_l}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_1}X_k(s) +F_{r_l\cdots r_1}(X_{k-1},s)\prod_{i=1}^l 1_{r_i + \tau < s} \right\}ds \nonumber\\
&+ \int_{K_0\tau \vee r_1 \vee \cdots \vee r_l}^{t} \left\{BD^{a,b}_{r_l}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_1}X_k(s) +G_{r_l\cdots r_1}(X_{k-1},s)\prod_{i=1}^l 1_{r_i + \tau < s} \right\} \delta^{a,b}B^{a,b}(s).
\end{align*}
According to Step 3 in the proof of Theorem \ref{exists}, for every $0 \leq r_1, \ldots, r_l\leq t-\tau$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{defdddx}
D^{a,b}_{r_l}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_1}x(t) = \sum_{k=0}^{K_0-1} D^{a,b}_{r_l}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_1}X_k(t) 1_{k\tau \leq t \leq (k+1)\tau} + D^{a,b}_{r_l}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_1}X_{K_0}(t) 1_{K_0\tau \leq t \leq T},
\end{equation}
where $X_k(t)=e^{-B\int_0^t \int_0^s \phi(s,u)du ds}\psi(t)Z_{k,r_1,...,r_l}(t)$ in which
$$Z_{k,r_1,...,r_l}(t)=:=D^{a,b}_{r_l}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_1}X_{k-1}(k\tau)+ H_{r_l\cdots r_1}(k)+ \int_{k\tau \vee r_1 \vee \cdots \vee r_l}^t \psi^{-1}(s) dM_{k-1,r_1,...,r_l}(s)$$ and
\begin{align*}
M_{k,r_1,...,r_l}(t)=\int_{k\tau \vee r_1 \vee \cdots \vee r_l}^t & F_{r_l\cdots r_1}(X_k,s) ds-B\int_{k\tau \vee r_1 \vee \cdots \vee r_l}^t \int_0^s G_{r_l\cdots r_1}(X_k,s)\phi(u,s) du ds \\
&+\int_{k\tau \vee r_1 \vee \cdots \vee r_l}^t G_{r_l\cdots r_1}(X_k,s)\delta^{a,b}B^{a,b}(t).
\end{align*}
\section{Bounds of moments to solution and its derivatives}
Construction of the solution of Equation (\ref{s1}) in the proof of Theorem \ref{exists} allow us to show that this solution and its Malliavin derivatives have uniformly bounded $p$-moments for every $p \geq 1$.
\begin{theorem}
For every $p \geq 2$, under Assumptions \ref{l548} and \ref{assum2}, there exists some positive constant $C_{0,p}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{ss}
\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup_{0 \leq t \leq T}\vert x(t) \vert^p\Big) \leq C_{0,p}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Proceeding the steps in the proof of Theorem \ref{exists}, induction on $k=0, \cdots, K_0$ and also the definition of $x(t)$ in Equation (\ref{defx}) show that it is sufficient to derive the uniformly boundedness of moments of processes $Z_k(.)$. To do this, for every $p \geq 2$,
from Assumption \ref{l548} and the fact $D_r\xi_0(s)=0$ for all $r \geq 0$ we obtain
\begin{align}
N_0(\tau) &:=\mathbb{E}\left(\int_{0}^{\tau}\left(\int_{0}^{\tau}\left|D_{s}^{a,b}\Big( \psi^{-1}(r)\sigma(\xi_0(r-\tau))\Big)\right|^{2/(a+b+1)}dr\right)^{\frac{p(a+b+1)}{p(a+b+1)-2}}ds\right)^{\frac{p(a+b+1)-2}{2}}\nonumber\\
&\leq \tau^2 \mathbb{E}\left(\int_{0}^{\tau}\int_{0}^{\tau}\left| D_{s}^{a,b}\psi^{-1}(s)\sigma(\xi_0(s-\tau))\right|^p drds \right)\nonumber\\
& \leq L^{\frac{p}{2}}\tau^2\mathbb{E}\left(\int_{0}^{\tau} \int_{0}^{\tau}\left|D_{s}^{a,b}\psi^{-1}(r)\right|^p(1+\xi_0(r-\tau))^{\frac{p}{2}} drds \right) \nonumber\\
& \leq L^{\frac{p}{2}}\tau^2\mathbb{E}\left(\sup_{0 \leq r \leq \tau} (1+\xi_0(r-\tau))^{\frac{p}{2}}\int_{0}^{\tau} \int_{0}^{\tau}\left|D_{s}^{a,b}\psi^{-1}(r)\right|^p drds \right) \nonumber\\
&\leq 2^{p-2} L^{\frac{p}{2}}\tau^2\left(1+\mathbb{E}(\sup_{0 \leq r \leq \tau}\vert\xi_0(r-\tau)\vert^{p})\right)+\frac12 L^{\frac{p}{2}}\tau^4 \mathbb{E}\left( \int_{0}^{\tau} \int_{0}^{\tau}\left|D_{s}^{a,b}\psi^{-1}(r)\right|^{2p} drds \right), \label{n0}
\end{align}
Substituting $dM_0$ into the definition of $Z_0$ and then applying Corrollary \ref{corr1} and Jensen's inequality result
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup_{0 \leq t \leq \tau}\vert Z_0(t) \vert^p\Big) & \leq 2^p \Big\{\mathbb{E}(\vert \xi_0(0) \vert^p) + \mathbb{E}\Big(\sup_{0 \leq t \leq \tau}\vert \int_0^\tau \psi^{-1}(s)f(\xi_0(s-\tau))ds \vert^p \Big)\nonumber\\
&+ \mathbb{E}\Big(\sup_{0 \leq t \leq \tau}\vert \int_0^\tau \psi^{-1}(s)\sigma(\xi_0(s-\tau)) \delta^{a,b}B^{a,b}(s)\vert^p \Big)\Big\} \nonumber\\
& \leq 2^p \Big\{\mathbb{E}(\vert \xi_0(0) \vert^p) + \mathbb{E}\Big(\sup_{0 \leq t \leq \tau}\vert \psi^{-1}(s) \vert^p\vert \int_0^\tau f(\xi_0(s-\tau))ds \vert^p \Big)\nonumber\\
&+ C_1 \tau\bigg\{\left(\int_{0}^{\tau}\left|\mathbb{E}\Big( \psi^{-1}(s)\sigma(\xi_0(s-\tau))\Big)\right|^{\frac{2p}{p(a+b+1)-2}} ds\right)^{\frac{p(a+b+1)-2}{2}}+N_0(\tau)\bigg\}\Big\} \nonumber\\
& \leq 2^p \Big\{\mathbb{E}(\vert \xi_0(0) \vert^p)+ 2^{p-1} L^{p}\tau^{2p}\int_0^\tau \Big(1+\mathbb{E}(\vert\xi_0(s-\tau)\vert^{2p})\Big) ds +\frac12\mathbb{E}\left(\sup_{0 \leq s \leq \tau} \vert\psi^{-1}(s)\vert^{2p}\right) \nonumber\\
&+ C_1 \tau^2 \int_{0}^{\tau}\Big\vert\mathbb{E}\Big( \psi^{-1}(s)\sigma(\xi_0(s-\tau))\Big)\Big\vert^p ds +C_1\tau N_0(\tau)\Big\}\nonumber\\
&\leq 2^p \Big\{\mathbb{E}(\vert \xi_0(0) \vert^p)+ 2^{p-1} L^{p}\tau^{2p}\int_0^\tau \Big(1+\mathbb{E}(\vert \xi_0(s-\tau \vert^{p})\Big) ds +\frac12\mathbb{E}\left(\sup_{0 \leq s \leq \tau}\vert \psi^{-1}(s)\vert^{2p}\right) \nonumber\\
&+\frac12 C_1 \tau^2 \int_{0}^{\tau}\mathbb{E} (\vert\psi^{-1}(s)\vert^{2p}) ds+\frac12 C_1\tau^2 L^p 2^p \int_{0}^{\tau}\mathbb{E}\Big( 1+\vert \xi_0(s-\tau)\vert^{2p}\Big) ds +C_1\tau N_0(\tau)\Big\}, \label{z0}
\end{align}
where we used the fact $(z+y)^p \leq 2^p( z^p+y^p)$ several times in the above inequalities. Finally, substitue (\ref{n0}) in (\ref{z0}) and then use Assumption \ref{assum2} and Proposition \ref{boundpsi} to deduce that for every $0 \leq t \leq \tau$ the solution $x(t)=e^{-B\int_0^t \int_0^s \phi(s,u)du ds}\psi(t) Z_0(t)$ has uniformly bounded moments.\\
On replacing $\xi_0$ by $X_k$ and repeating a similar computation recurcively on $k$, one derive that for every $k=1, \cdots, K_0-1$
\begin{align*}
N_k(k\tau) &:=\mathbb{E}\left(\int_{k\tau}^{(k+1)\tau}\left(\int_{k\tau}^{(k+1)\tau} D_s^{a,b}\Big(\psi^{-1}(r)\sigma(X_{k-1}(r-\tau))\Big)^{2/(a+b+1)}dr\right)^{\frac{p(a+b+1)}{p(a+b+1)-2}}ds\right)^{\frac{p(a+b+1)-2}{2}}\nonumber\\
&\leq \tau^2 \mathbb{E}\left(\int_{k\tau}^{(k+1)\tau}\int_{k\tau}^{(k+1)\tau}\left| \psi^{-1}(r)\sigma'(X_{k-1}(r-\tau))D_{s}^{a,b}X_{k-1}(r-\tau)+ D_{s}^{a,b}\psi^{-1}(r)\sigma(X_{k-1}(s-\tau))\right|^p dr ds\right)\nonumber\\
& \leq 2^{p-1}\tau^2 K_2^p\mathbb{E}\left(\sup_{k\tau \leq s \leq (k+1)\tau} \vert\psi^{-1}(s)\vert^{2p}\right) +2^{p-1}\tau^2 K_2^p\mathbb{E}\left(\int_{k\tau}^{(k+1)\tau}\int_{k\tau}^{(k+1)\tau}\left| D_{s}^{a,b}X_{k-1}(r-\tau)\right|^{2p} drds \right) \nonumber\\
&+2^{2p-1}L^p\tau^2\left(1+\mathbb{E}(\sup_{k\tau \leq r \leq (k+1)\tau}\vert X_{k-1}(r-\tau)\vert^{p})\right)+2^{p-1}\tau^2 \mathbb{E}\left( \int_{k\tau}^{(k+1)\tau}\int_{k\tau}^{(k+1)\tau}\left|D_{s}^{a,b}\psi^{-1}(r)\right|^{2p} drds \right),
\end{align*}
and also
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup_{k\tau \leq t \leq (k+1)\tau}\vert Z_k(t) \vert^p\Big)
& \leq 2^p \Big\{\mathbb{E}(\vert X_{k-1}(k\tau) \vert^p)+ 2^{p-1} L^{p}\tau^{2p}\int_{k\tau}^{(k+1)\tau} \Big(1+\mathbb{E}(\vert X_{k-1}(s-\tau)\vert^{p})\Big) ds \nonumber\\
&+\frac12\mathbb{E}\left(\sup_{k\tau \leq s \leq (k+1)\tau}\vert \psi^{-1}(s)\vert^{2p}\right)
+\frac12 C_1 \tau^2 \int_{k\tau}^{(k+1)\tau}\mathbb{E} (\vert\psi^{-1}(s)\vert^{2p}) ds \nonumber\\
&+\frac12 C_1\tau^2 L^p 2^p \int_{k\tau}^{(k+1)\tau}\mathbb{E}\Big( 1+\vert X_{k-1}(s-\tau)\vert^{2p}\Big) ds +C_1\tau N_k(k\tau)\Big\}.
\end{align*}
Hence, Proposition \ref{boundpsi} and induction on $k$ deduce the boundedness of moments of $x(.)$ in $[0, K_0\tau]$ and finally by repeating this computation for every $K_0\tau \leq t \leq T$, the claim can be obtained.
\end{proof}
In sequence, since the following computations and results can be exactly repeat for every $K_0 \tau \leq t \leq T$ and $
t -\tau \leq r \leq t$, we just demonstrate the results on $0 \leq t \leq K_0\tau$ and $0 \leq r \leq t-\tau$ as follows.\\
From the definition of the functions $F_{r_l\cdots r_1}(X_k,t) $ and $G_{r_l\cdots r_1}(X_k,t) $, we understand that these processes depend on higher derivatives of the functions $f$ and $\sigma$, respectively, and Malliavin derivatives of $X_{k-1}$ up to the order $l$. Then
$$\vert F_{r_l\cdots r_1}(X_{k-1},t) \vert^p=\mathcal{P}_1\left(f'(X_{k-1}), \cdots, f^{(l)}(X_{k-1}), D_{r_1}^{a,b}X_{k-1}, \cdots, D^{a,b}_{r_l}\ldots D^{a,b}_{r_1} X_{k-1}\right)(t),$$
$$\vert G_{r_l\cdots r_1}(X_{k-1},t) \vert^p=\mathcal{P}_2\left(\sigma'(X_{k-1}), \cdots, \sigma^{(l)}(X_{k-1}), D_{r_1}^{a,b}X_{k-1}, \cdots, D^{a,b}_{r_l}\ldots D^{a,b}_{r_1} X_{k-1}\right)(t),$$
where $\mathcal{P}_1$ and $\mathcal{P}_2$ are polynomial functions. From Assumption \ref{l548} we derive that for every $p \geq 2$, $0 \leq r_1, \cdots r_l \leq T$ and $0 \leq t_1 \leq t_2 \leq T$
\begin{equation}\label{boundF}
\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup_{t_1 \leq t \leq t_2} \vert F_{r_l\cdots r_1}(X_k,t) \vert^p\Big)+\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup_{t_1 \leq t \leq t_2} \vert G_{r_l\cdots r_1}(X_k,t) \vert^p\Big) \leq 2^{lp}K_2\sum_{j=2}^l \mathbb{E}\Big(\sup_{t_1 \leq t \leq t_2}\vert D_{r_j}^{a,b}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_1}X_{k-1}(t-\tau) \vert^{q'_j} \Big)
\end{equation}
where integer numbers $q'_j$ satisfy $1 \leq q'_j \leq p$.
Furthermore, when $l< 2M$, for every $0 \leq r\leq t-\tau$
\begin{equation}\label{GGG}
\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup_{t_1 \leq t \leq t_2} \vert D^{a,b}_r G_{r_l\cdots r_1}(X_k,t) \vert^p\Big) \leq 2^{lp}K_2\sum_{j=1}^{l+1} \mathbb{E}\Big(\sup_{t_1 \leq t \leq t_2}\vert D_{r_j}^{a,b}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_1}X_{k-1}(t-\tau) \vert^{q_{j,G}} \Big)
\end{equation}
in which integer numbers $q_{j,G}$ satisfy $1 \leq q_{j,G} \leq p$. Define the vectors
\begin{align*}
V_i &:=\Big(\sigma^{(i)}(X_{k-1}(r_1-\tau)), \cdots, \sigma^{(i)}(X_{k-1}(r_l-\tau))\Big), \\
W_{j,1}& :=\Big( D_{r_j}^{a,b}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_2}X_{k}(r_1), \cdots, D_{r_j}^{a,b}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_2}X_{k}(r_l)\Big),\nonumber\\
W_{j,2}&:=\Big(D_{r_j}^{a,b}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_2}X_{k-1}(r_1-\tau), \cdots, D_{r_j}^{a,b}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_2}X_{k-1}(r_l-\tau)\Big)\\
w_{j,j'}&:=\Big( D_{r_{j'}}^{a,b}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_{j+1}}D_{r_{j-1}}^{a,b}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_1}X_{k-1}(r_1-\tau), \cdots, D_{r_{j'}}^{a,b}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_{j+1}}D_{r_{j-1}}^{a,b}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_1}X_{k-1}(r_l-\tau)\Big),\\
w^{(1)}_{j,j'}&:=\Big( D_{r_{j'}}^{a,b}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_{j+1}}D_{r_{j-1}}^{a,b}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_1}X_{k}(r_1-\tau), \cdots, D_{r_{j'}}^{a,b}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_{j+1}}D_{r_{j-1}}^{a,b}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_1}X_{k}(r_l-\tau)\Big),\\
v_{j''}& :=\Big( D_{r_{j''}}^{a,b}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_1}X_{k-1}(r_1-\tau), \cdots, D_{r_{j''}}^{a,b}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_1}X_{k-1}(r_l-\tau)\Big),\\
v^{(1)}_{j''}& :=\Big( D_{r_{j''}}^{a,b}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_1}X_{k}(r_1-\tau), \cdots, D_{r_{j''}}^{a,b}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_1}X_{k}(r_l-\tau)\Big),\nonumber
\end{align*}
for every $1 \leq i \leq l$, $2 \leq j \leq l$, $3 \leq j' \leq l$ and $1 \leq j'' \leq l-1$. Therefore $\vert H_{r_l\cdots r_1}\vert^p$ would be a polynomial composition of the elements of these vectors; i.e., there exists some polynomial $\mathcal{P}_3$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\vert H_{r_l\cdots r_1}\vert^p=\mathcal{P}_3\left(V_1, \cdots, V_l, W_{2,1}, W_{2,2} \cdots, W_{l,1}, W_{l,2}, w_{2,3}, w^{(1)}_{2,3}, \cdots, w_{l,l}, w^{(1)}_{l,l}, v_1, v^{(1)}_1, \cdots, v_{l-1}, v^{(1)}_{l-1}\right).
\end{equation*}
We again conclude from Assumption \ref{l548} that for every $p \geq 2$ there exists some constant $c_{p,H_1}$ such that
\begin{align}\label{boundH}
\mathbb{E}\Big(\vert H_{r_l\cdots r_1} \vert^p\Big) \leq c_{p,H_1} \Big(& \sum_{i=1}^{l} \mathbb{E}(\vert V_i \vert^{q_{i}})+\sum_{j=1}^{l-1} \mathbb{E}(\vert v_{j''} \vert^{q_{j''}}+\vert v^{(1)}_{j''} \vert^{q_{j''}})+\sum_{j'=3}^{l}\sum_{j=2}^{l} \Big\{ \mathbb{E}(\vert W_{j,1} \vert^{q_{j,1}})+\mathbb{E}(\vert W_{j,2} \vert^{q_{j,2}})\Big\} \nonumber\\
& +\sum_{j'=3}^{l}\sum_{j=2}^{l} \Big\{ \mathbb{E}(\vert w_{j,j'} \vert^{q_{j,j'}}+\vert w^{(1)}_{j,j'} \vert^{q_{j,j'}})\Big\}\Big),
\end{align}
where all integer numbers $q_{j}, q_{j,1}, q_{j,2}, q_{j,j'}$ and $q_{j''}$ are between 1 and $p$. \\
It is worth mentioning that the order of differentiability in components of vectors $V_i, W_{j,1}, W_{j,2}, w_{j,j'}, w^{(1)}_{j,j'}$ and $v_{j'}, v^{(1)}_{j'}$ are utmost of the order $l-1$. This fact helps us to find some upper bounds for the moments of $D^{a,b}_{u_l}..D^{a,b}_{u_1}x(.)$ that will be demonstrated in Theorem \ref{upperderi}.\\
Now, we are ready to prove some upper bounds for the moments of higher derivatives of the solution to SDDE (\ref{s1}).
\begin{theorem}\label{upperderi}
Under Assumptions \ref{l548} and \ref{assum2}, for every $p \geq 2$ and $1 \leq l \leq M$ there exists some positive constant $C'_{l,p}$ such that $l$-th Malliavin derivative of the solution to SDE (\ref{s1}) satisfies the following inequlity.
\begin{equation}\label{ssd}
\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup_{0 \leq t \leq T}\sup_{0 \leq u_1, \cdots, u_l \leq t} \vert D^{a,b}_{u_l}..D^{a,b}_{u_1} x(t)\vert^p \Big) \leq C'_{l,p}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We show the assertion by induction on $k$. We first take the following computation for every $k=0, \cdots, K_0$ and $1 \leq l < 2M$. Assume $\sup_{0 \leq u_1, \cdots, u_l \leq t} \vert D^{a,b}_{u_l}..D^{a,b}_{u_1} X_{k-1}(t)\vert^p$ is achieved in $u_1=r_1, \cdots , u_l=r_1$, which we omitted dependency of $r_i$s' to $t$ for simplicity without loss of generality. From Equations (\ref{GGG}) and (\ref{boundF})
\begin{align}
2^{-p+1} DN_{k,r_1,...,r_l}& (k\tau) := 2^{-p+1}\mathbb{E}\left(\int_{k\tau}^{(k+1)\tau}\left(\int_{k\tau}^{(k+1)\tau} \vert D_r^{a,b}\Big(\psi^{-1}(s)G_{r_l\cdots r_1}(X_{k-1},s)\Big)\vert^{2/(a+b+1)}ds\right)^{\frac{p(a+b+1)}{p(a+b+1)-2}}dr\right)^{\frac{p(a+b+1)-2}{2}}\nonumber\\
& \leq \tau^4 \mathbb{E}\left(\sup_{0 \leq s \leq T} \vert \psi^{-1}(s)\vert^{2p}\right) +\tau^2 \mathbb{E}\left(\int_{k\tau}^{(k+1)\tau}\int_{k\tau}^{(k+1)\tau}\left| D_{r}^{a,b}G_{r_l\cdots r_1}(X_{k-1},s)\right|^{2p} drds \right) \nonumber\\
&+ \tau^2\mathbb{E}\left(\int_{k\tau}^{(k+1)\tau}\int_{k\tau}^{(k+1)\tau} \vert D_{r}^{a,b}\psi^{-1}(s) \vert^{2p} drds\right) +\tau^2 \mathbb{E}\left(\int_{k\tau}^{(k+1)\tau}\int_{k\tau}^{(k+1)\tau}\left| G_{r_l\cdots r_1}(X_{k-1},s)\right|^{2p} drds \right) \nonumber\\
& \leq \tau^4 \mathbb{E}\left(\sup_{0 \leq s \leq T} \vert \psi^{-1}(s)\vert^{2p} \right)+\tau^2\mathbb{E}\left(\int_{k\tau}^{(k+1)\tau}\int_{k\tau}^{(k+1)\tau} D_{r}^{a,b}\vert \psi^{-1}(s)\vert^{2p} drds\right) \nonumber\\
&+2\tau^2 2^{2lp}K_2^2\sum_{j=1}^{l+1} \mathbb{E}\Big(\sup_{k\tau \leq s \leq (k+1)\tau}\vert D_{r_j}^{a,b}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_1}X_{k-1} (s-\tau)\vert^{2q_{j,G}}\Big). \label{ddnn}
\end{align}
On the other hand, from Theorem \ref{l0}
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup_{k\tau \leq t \leq (k+1)\tau} \vert Z_{k,r_1,...,r_l}(t) \vert^p\Big)
& \leq 3^p \bigg\{2^p\mathbb{E}(\vert D^{a,b}_{r_l}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_1}X_{k-1}(k\tau)\vert^p+ 2^p\mathbb{E}(\vert H_{r_l\cdots r_1}(k)\vert^p)\nonumber\\
&+\frac12 \mathbb{E}\left(\int_{k\tau}^{(k+1)\tau} \vert\psi^{-1}(s)\vert^{2p} \right)+\frac12 \mathbb{E}\left(\int_{k\tau}^{(k+1)\tau} \vert F_{r_l\cdots r_1}(X_{k-1},s) \vert^{2p} ds \right) \nonumber\\
&+ \mathbb{E}\left(\sup_{k\tau \leq t \leq (k+1)\tau} \vert \int_{k\tau}^{t} \psi^{-1}(s)G_{r_l\cdots r_1}(X_{k-1},s) \delta^{a,b}B^{a,b}(s) \vert^{p} \right)\bigg\}\nonumber\\
& \leq 3^p \bigg\{2^p\mathbb{E}(\vert D^{a,b}_{r_l}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_1}X_{k-1}(k\tau)\vert^p+ 2^p\mathbb{E}(\vert H_{r_l\cdots r_1}(k)\vert^p)\nonumber\\
&+\frac12 \tau \mathbb{E}\Big(\sup_{k\tau \leq s \leq (k+1)\tau} \vert F_{r_l\cdots r_1}(X_{k-1},s) \vert^{2p} \Big)
+ \frac12(1+ C_1 \tau) \mathbb{E}\left(\int_{k\tau}^{(k+1)\tau} \vert\psi^{-1}(s)\vert^{2p} ds \right) \nonumber\\
& + \frac12 C_1 \tau \int_{k\tau}^{(k+1)\tau} \mathbb{E} (\vert\ G_{r_l\cdots r_1}(X_{k-1},s) \vert^{2p} ) + C_1 \tau DN_{k,r_1,...,r_l}(k\tau) \bigg\}.\label{zzzp}
\end{align}
Now, sustitute Equations (\ref{boundH}), (\ref{boundF}) and (\ref{ddnn}) in (\ref{zzzp}) and result
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup_{k\tau \leq t \leq (k+1)\tau}& \vert Z_{k,r_1,...,r_l}(t) \vert^p\Big) \nonumber \\
&\leq 3^p \bigg\{2^p\mathbb{E}(\vert D^{a,b}_{r_l}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_1}X_{k-1}(k\tau)\vert^p )+2^p c_{p,H_1} \sum_{j'=3}^{l}\sum_{j=2}^{l} \Big\{ \mathbb{E}(\vert w_{j,j'} \vert^{q_{j,j'}}+\vert w^{(1)}_{j,j'} \vert^{q_{j,j'}})\Big\}\nonumber\\
&+2^p c_{p,H_1} \left(\sum_{i=1}^{l} \mathbb{E}(\vert V_i \vert^{q_{i}})+\sum_{j=1}^{l-1} \mathbb{E}(\vert v_{j''} \vert^{q_{j''}}+\vert v^{(1)}_{j''} \vert^{q_{j''}})+\sum_{j'=3}^{l}\sum_{j=2}^{l} \Big\{ \mathbb{E}(\vert W_{j,1} \vert^{q_{j,1}})+\mathbb{E}(\vert W_{j,2} \vert^{q_{j,2}})\Big\}\right)\nonumber\\
&+\frac12\tau (1+C_1\tau) \mathbb{E}\left(\sup_{0 \leq s \leq T}\vert \psi^{-1}(s)\vert^{2p}\right)\nonumber\\
&+2^{2lp}\frac12 (1+C_1\tau)\tau K_2^2\sum_{j=2}^{l} \mathbb{E}\Big(\sup_{k\tau \leq t \leq (k+1)\tau}\vert D_{r_j}^{a,b}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_2}X_{k-1}(t) \vert^{q_j} \Big) \nonumber\\
&+2^{p}C_1\tau^5\mathbb{E}\left(\sup_{0 \leq s \leq T}\vert \psi^{-1}(s)\vert^{2p}\right) +2^p C_1\tau^3 \mathbb{E}\left(\int_{k\tau}^{(k+1)\tau}\int_{k\tau}^{(k+1)\tau} \vert D_{r}^{a,b}\psi^{-1}(s)\vert^{2p} drds\right) \nonumber\\
&+2^{p+1}C_1\tau^3 2^{2lp}K_2^2\sum_{j=2}^{l+1} \mathbb{E}\Big(\sup_{k\tau \leq s \leq (k+1)\tau}\vert D_{r_j}^{a,b}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_1}X_{k-1} (s-\tau)\vert^{2q_{j,G}}\Big)\label{z1l}
\end{align}
Here it is crucial to mention that in this computation the order of deriatives for all terms in the right hand side of Equation (\ref{z1l}) are utmost of the order $l$, except of the last term which involves $ D_{r_{l+1}}^{a,b}\cdots D^{a,b}_{r_1}X_{k-1} (s-\tau)$. So, we first assume that $k=0$. Applying Assumption \ref{assum2}, Proposition \ref{boundpsi} in Equation (\ref{z1l}) and induction on $l$ deduce that the process $X_1$ is $2M$-times differentiable and their derivatives have bounded $p$-moments. Following by induction on $k$ to result that the process $X_{k+1}$ has Malliavin derivatives of one order less than those of $X_k$ and thier derivatives have uniformly bounded moments. Since $K_0+1 < 2M$, it is sufficient to proceed previous stage $M$ times to obtain the assertion.
\end{proof}
\section{Regularity of the density}
To achieve the reqularity of the density of solution to SDDE (\ref{s1}), we assume that the functions $f$ and $\sigma$ are infinitely differentiable with bounded derivatives; in fact $M=\infty$ in Assumption \ref{l548}. Also we consider the following hypothesis.\\
{\bf Hopothesis H}: There exists some constant $M_0$ such that $\vert \sigma(x) \vert > M_0$ for all $x$.
\begin{theorem}
Under Hypothsis H and assumption $M=\infty$, for every $t \in [0,T]$ the solution of the SDDE (\ref{s1}) has an infinitely differentiable density with respect to Lebesgue's measure on $\mathbb{R}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Fixed $t \in [0,T]$. Theorem \ref{exists} guarantees the infinitly Malliavin diffrentiability of the solution $x(t)$ as $M=\infty$. To prove the second part, we have to show that $\mathbb{E}\Big(\int_0^T \vert D_uX(t)\vert^2 du\Big) < \infty$. By using Malliavin's criterion it is sufficient to check that for every $p \geq 1$ there exists some $\epsilon_0 > 0$ such that for all $\epsilon_1 \leq \epsilon_0$;
\begin{equation*}
P\Big(\int_0^T \vert D_u X(t) \vert^2 du < \epsilon_1 \Big) < \epsilon_1^p
\end{equation*}
To this end, we know
\begin{align*}
P\Big(\int_0^T & \vert D_u X(t) \vert^2 du < \epsilon_1 \Big) \\
& \leq P\Big(\int_{t-\epsilon_1^\theta}^{t} \vert \psi(t) \vert^2\vert \psi(u) \vert^{-2} \vert Bx(u) + \sigma(x(u-\tau)1_{r > \tau}\vert^2 du < \epsilon_1 \Big) \\
&\leq P(A_0, \inf_{0 \leq t \leq T} \psi(r) > \delta, \sup_{0 \leq t \leq T} \psi(r) < \delta^{-1} )
+ P(\inf_{0 \leq t \leq T} \psi(r) \leq \delta)+P(\sup_{0 \leq t \leq T} \psi(r) \geq \delta^{-1})\\
&:=P_{1,\epsilon_1}+P_{2,\epsilon_1}+P_{3,\epsilon_1},
\end{align*}
with $A_0=\left\{ \int_{t-\epsilon_1^\theta}^{t} \vert \psi(t) \vert^2\vert \psi(u) \vert^{-2} \vert Bx(u) + \sigma(x(u-\tau)1_{r > \tau}\vert^2 du < \epsilon_1 \right\}$.
Let $\delta=\epsilon_1^{\frac18}$ and apply Chebyshev's inequality to show that $P_{3,\epsilon_1} \leq \epsilon_1^p$. Indeed,
\begin{equation*}
P_{3,\epsilon_1} \leq \delta^{8p}\mathbb{E}\Big( \sup_{0 \leq t \leq T} \vert \psi(t) \vert^{8p} \Big) \leq \delta^{8p}C_{8p}.
\end{equation*}
From Proposition \ref{boundpsi}, the infimum part being a simple modification of this argument for $\psi^{-1}(.)$ and therefore $P_{2,\epsilon_1} \leq \epsilon_1^p$.
On the other hand,
\begin{align*}
P_{1,\epsilon_1}& \leq P\Big(\int_{t-\epsilon_1^\theta}^{t}\vert Bx(u) + \sigma(x(u-\tau)1_{r > \tau}\vert^2 du < \epsilon_1\delta^{-4} \Big) \\
& \leq P\Big(\int_{t-\epsilon_1^\theta}^{t}\vert Bx(u) + \sigma(x(u-\tau)1_{r > \tau})\vert^2 du < \epsilon_1\delta^{-4}, \int_{t-\epsilon_1^\theta}^{t} \vert Bx(u) \vert \leq \epsilon_1^\gamma \Big) \\
&+ P\Big(\int_{t-\epsilon_1^\theta}^{t} \vert Bx(u) \vert > \epsilon_1^\gamma \Big).
\end{align*}
Since $\vert \sigma(y) \vert > 0$ for all $y$, when $\theta < \frac12$ one can easily see that the first summand in above inequality is vanished. By using Chebyshev's inequality and applying Equation (\ref{ss}), for every $q>1$
\begin{align*}
P\Big(\int_{t-\epsilon_1^\theta}^{t} \vert Bx(u) \vert > \epsilon_1^\gamma \Big) \leq \frac{1}{\epsilon_1^{\gamma q}}\mathbb{E}\Big( \sup_{t-\epsilon_1^\theta \leq u \leq t} \vert Bx(u) \vert^q \Big) \leq B^qC_{0,q}\epsilon_1^{(\theta-\gamma) q}.
\end{align*}
So, choosing $0 < \gamma < \theta < \frac12$ result the assertion.
\end{proof}
\section{Conclusion}
In this article, we demonstrate the problem of existence and uniqueness of solution to a stochastic differential equations with delay driven by weighted fractional Brownian motion. We introduce the solution step by step when proceeding with delay in time. This solution is Malliavin diffrentiable of higher order and its Malliavin derivatives have uniformly bounded moments. The solution has an infinitely differentiable density with respect to Lebesgue's measure on $\mathbb{R}^d$ for $d\geq 1$. Our result allow one apply this result in many applications such as numerical methods, for instance one can easily check that Euler approximation process of the SDDE (\ref{s1}), in continuous version, has Malliavin derivatives with uniformly bounded moments. Also, one can result that the law of Euler approximation process is smooth, which is essential to show weak convergence of approximated process to the true solution. \\
{\bf Acknowledgement}:
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, ornot-for-profit sectors.\\
|
\section{Conclusions}
We propose COCOI, a deep RL method that uses history robot-object interaction samples to infer contact dynamics context, and we show it outperforms baseline in contact-rich manipulation tasks with domain variations. We design and study COCOI on a non-planar pushing task commonly seen in everyday life. Extensive experiments demonstrate the capability of COCOI in a wide range of settings, dynamics properties, and sim-to-real transfer scenarios.
There are many promising future work directions to pursue based on our approach. For example, we study the non-planar pushing task with a single object on the surface. It would be interesting to train manipulation controllers that can perform pushing with multiple objects or in a cluttered environment. In addition, extending our approach to push non-rigid objects such as a piece of cloth is another important direction that can further expand the capability of our controller.
\section{Related Work}
In order to adapt a learning based policy to different task settings, variation of dynamics, and unknown disturbances, previous researchers train policies on randomized environments with possible variations to gain robustness. Rajeswaran et al. \cite{rajeswaran2016epopt}. and Peng et al. \cite{peng2018sim} learn RL policies in randomized simulated environments and directly apply them to different domains. Chebotar et al. leverage real world experiences to adapt the simulation randomization \cite{chebotar2019closing}. Other work aim to derive a representation of the task context for domain specific planning. Rakelly et al. take a meta learning direction to learn patterns within the task to help plan \cite{rakelly2019efficient}. Yu et al. learn a universal policy and use an online system identification module to learn the dynamics parameters \cite{yu2017preparing}. Beyond learning based methods, planning-control framework can also overcome the domain gap. Harrison et al. use model predictive control to track a reference trajectory derived from a learning policy \cite{harrison2020adapt}, and Xu et al. use a robust controller to reject dynamics variation and external disturbances \cite{xu2018zero}\cite{tang2019disturbance}. COCOI is different from previous methods in that we focus on the contact-rich manipulation problem, and use a contact-aware structure to infer the contact dynamics context online.
Another thread of related research is the pushing task \cite{stuber2020let}. Earlier studies on pushing are based on analytical approaches and consider quasi-static planar pushing \cite{mason1986mechanics}. Later, researchers have introduced data driven methods to model pushing physics. Zhou et al. develop a dynamics model for planar friction and design force control method for planar sliding \cite{zhou2016convex}. Yu, Bauza et al created a planar pushing dataset for data-driven modeling \cite{yu2016more, bauza2017probabilistic}. More recent works involve using deep learning to learn object properties \cite{li2018push,ajay2018augmenting, xu2019densephysnet}, but they only focus on planar pushing problems. Stuber et al. \cite{stuber2018feature} and Byravan et al. \cite{byravan2017se3} learn motion models for pushing simple blocks.
On non-planar pushing, the majority of works are still in the exploration stage. Ridge et al. propose an object image fragment matching method for 3D objects \cite{ridge2015self}, albeit for a limited library of objects. Zhu et al. use a simulator as a predictive model \cite{zhu2017information}. Kopicki et al. learn a 3D dynamics model in the PhysX simulator \cite{kopicki2017learning}. These works all rely on carefully selected objects and precise detection and localization; our model takes monocular camera image input and solves a generalized non-planar pushing task for diverse objects.
\section{Learning Basic Pushing Controller}
\label{baseline}
We use Q-learning to train object pushing control policy. The definition of the Q function is
\begin{equation}
Q(\bm{s}, \bm{a}) = \mathop{\mathbb{E}}_{\{(\bm{s_t}, \bm{a_t})\}} \left[\sum^{t = \infty}_{\bm{s}, \bm{a}} \gamma^{t} r_t\right],
\end{equation}
the expected return starting from state $\bm{s}$ and taking $\bm{a}$. The Q function satisfies the Bellman function:
\begin{equation}
Q(\bm{s_t}, \bm{a_t}) = \mathbb{E}_{\bm{s_{t+1}}} [R(\bm{s_t}, \bm{a_t}) + \gamma \cdot Q(\bm{s_{t+1}}, \pi(\bm{s_{t+1}}))]
\end{equation}
where $\pi(\bm{s_{t+1}})$ represents the action selected by the optimal policy at the current iteration and state $\bm{s_{t+1}}$. The optimal policy is defined by:
\begin{equation}
\pi(\bm{s_t}) = \arg\max_{\bm{a} \in A} Q(\bm{s_t}, \bm{a})
\end{equation}
One Q-learning iteration uses the collected data tuples $(\bm{s_t}, \bm{a_t}, \bm{s_{t+1}})$ in two steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Estimate the optimal policy output
\begin{equation}
\pi(\bm{s_{t+1}}) = \arg\max_{\bm{a}\in A} Q(\bm{s_{t+1}}, \bm{a})
\end{equation}
\item Minimize the Bellman error
\begin{equation}
\|Q(\bm{s_t}, \bm{a_t}) - [R(\bm{s_t}, \bm{a_t}) + \gamma \cdot Q(\bm{s_{t+1}}, \pi(\bm{s_{t+1}}))] \|
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figures/single_time.pdf}
\caption{The feed forward neural network Q function for object pushing. The stacked current and initial images are fed into a convolutional neural network (CNN) encoder, and the low dimensional input is fed into a fully connected network (FCN) encoder. The output of these two streams are added together and then fed into another CNN-followed-by-FCN structure, the Q value prediction head.}
\label{fig:feedforward}
\end{figure}
For the object pushing task, we represent the Q function with a two stream deep neural network $Q_{\theta}(\bm{s_t}, \bm{a_t})$ parameterized by $\theta$, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:feedforward}, similiar to \cite{kalashnikov2018qt}. The high dimensional stream feeds stacked current and initial images into a convolutional neural network (CNN) encoder. The low dimensional stream feeds stacked low dimensional state (gripper height and open/close status) and action (designated gripper pose, the gripper open/close command, and a termination boolean) into a fully connected network (FCN) encoder. The outputs of the two streams are added together and fed into another CNN-followed-by-FCN structure to predict the Q function value for the pushing task.
For Q function network training, we adopt QT-Opt, a distributional variant of the Q learning framework for continuous state-action tasks \cite{kalashnikov2018qt, bodnar2019quantile}. Concretely, we use distributed workers to collect data tuples $(\bm{s_t}, \bm{a_t}, \bm{s_{t+1}})$, and we store them into a replay buffer. Each optimization iteration samples a batch of data tuples. For equation (5), the optimal policy output is estimated using an online sampling-based cross entropy method (CEM) based on the current Q function. For equation (6), the Q function network weights are updated using gradient descent with the following loss function:
\begin{equation}
l(\theta) = \|Q_{\theta}(\bm{s_t}, \bm{a_t}) - [R(\bm{s_t}, \bm{a_t}) + \gamma \cdot Q_{\theta}(\bm{s_{t+1}}, \pi(\bm{s_{t+1}}))] \|
\end{equation}
\begin{comment}
In real implementation, we stack the current and initial images along the channel axis to get a depth 6 image. Moreover, a two dimensional vector of the open/close state and the height of the gripper is also included as low dimensional state observation. For the action command, we use a comprehensive action representation containing the designated position and orientation, the gripper open/close command, and a terminating command, with a total of 9 dimensions. \karen{Figure 3 or Figure 4?}
As shown in Fig. 4, first the high dimensional observation and the low dimensional state and action are fed into deep feature encoders to generate representation of the state and action. Then, the state-action representation is passed into another deep neural network, which outputs a one dimensional Q function estimate.
\end{comment}
\section{GAN for Visual Gap Bridging}
\label{sec:cgan}
In order to adapt the RL policy trained in simulation to the real world, we also need to overcome the discrepancy between the rendered, simulated image and the image captured by a real-camera. We adopt RetinaGAN, a generative adversarial network (GAN) approach to generate synthetic images that look realistic with object-detection consistency \cite{retinagan}. See the concurrent submission\footnote{\url{https://retinagan.github.io}} for further details; this work focuses on contact inference independently of the visual discrepancy. Qualitative performance is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:RetinaGAN}. We train the RL policy with simulation data only and directly deploy it on the real robot.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{figures/GAN_pushing.pdf}
\caption{Images of the pushing-in-station setting in simulation, with RetinaGAN visual adaptation, and in the real world.}
\label{fig:RetinaGAN}
\end{figure}
\section{Contact-aware Online Context Inference}
\subsection{Online Context Inference}
The architecture in Fig. 2 has been demonstrated on challenging tasks like grasping \cite{kalashnikov2018qt}. However, given it only has access to a single sensory input, it is not able to infer the dynamics properties of the object, which is necessary for our non-planar pushing task. In this section, we describe online COntext Inference (COI), a module that takes history observation samples and encodes them into a dynamics context representation -- thus equipping the control policy with the ability to infer dynamics of the object.
As shown in Figure \ref{fig:OCO}, COI consists of a set of additional streams in the policy network that encode history sensor observations into a dynamics context representation. Each stream of COI takes a pair of consecutive sensory inputs separated in time by $0.5$s (the sensor update interval in our robot system). We denote each sensory input pair as a tuple $H_{\tau} = (I_{\tau}, I_{\tau+1}, f_{\tau})$, where $I$ and $f$ refer to the camera image and force reading respectively, and $\tau$ represents the time at which the sensor inputs are retrieved. The encoded sensory input for each stream is then averaged to obtain the final dynamics context representation of COI, which is concatenated with the state-action representation to estimate the Q value.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figures/COI_copy_color.pdf}
\caption{
The proposed COntext Inference (COI) module, which works in parallel with the state-action stream. The COI takes as input a history sample consisting of the stacked pre-impact and post-impact images and the force reading, to infer the dynamics representations. The representations of different samples are averaged and concatenated to derive the state-action representation, which is then fed into a final Q value prediction network. Networks with same color share architectures, but not necessarily network weights.}
\label{fig:OCO}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The Contact-aware Sampling Strategy}
\label{CO}
Given an architecture that can process multiple history sensor observation pairs, key questions are:
\begin{enumerate}
\item How many history samples should we include?
\item At what time should we retrieve the sensor observations?
\end{enumerate}
With a higher number of history samples, the policy has more information to infer a potentially less noisy object dynamics representation, at the cost of higher computation time and memory. In our experiments, we found three history samples to be a reasonable number to achieve good inference performance with manageable computation cost.
The timings at which sensor observations are sampled is vital for the performance of COI. An arbitrarily sampled sensor observation pair may contain limited information about the object dynamics (e.g. when gripper is far away from the object) and contribute little to the learning performance. To ensure that each history sample contains useful information, we propose a contact-aware sampling strategy which actively checks the force torque sensor mounted at the robot gripper and only collects a sample when the contact force magnitude is considerably large ($>1$ N), as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:sample}. This strategy guarantees the samples to be representative, in that the gripper and the object are in contact. We call this sampling strategy COntact-aware-COI, or COCOI.
In our experiments, we validate the performance of COCOI by comparing it to a na\"ive strategy: vanilla COI, or VCOI, where history samples are retrieved with a uniform sampling interval, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:sample}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figures/sample.pdf}
\caption{Illustrations of the sampling strategies. For VCOI, the samples are retrieved with a uniform sampling interval. COCOI takes a contact-aware sampling method which actively checks the contact force, and only retrieve samples when the force magnitude is larger than 1 Newton.}
\label{fig:sample}
\end{figure}
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfloat[a][The uniformly distributed sampling strategy]
{
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figures/uniform_sample.pdf}
\label{fig:uniform_sample}
}\\
\subfloat[b][The contact-aware version sampling strategy]
{
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figures/CO_sample.pdf}
\label{fig:CO_sample}
}
\caption{Illustrations of the sampling strategies. Each sample is represented using two arrows since there are two consecutive images captured. The force readings at the previous sensor step is captured as well.}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
\section{Problem Statement}
In this section, we formally define the proposed non-planar pushing task and formulate the problem using a Partially Observable Markov Decision Process (POMDP). We focus on the class of pushing tasks where maintaining the upright pose of the object is critical. For example, when pushing a glass of water on the table, the glass should not tilt and spill. In our work, we assume that an object is randomly placed on a flat surface with an upright initial pose. The task objective is to use the robot end effector to push the object to a random target position on the surface, while maintaining its upright orientation. The object can have irregular shape and mass distribution, and the robot may push at any point on the object, making the contact dynamics physics complicated.
We use state $\bm{s}\in S$ to represent the full task state. In a POMDP, the state is not directly available and can only be inferred using observations. Concretely, we use the image captured using the robot's monocular camera as the high dimensional observation (Fig. \ref{fig:overview}, first and third columns), in which the target location is rendered using a red dot. We also include a low dimensional proprioception observation of the gripper height and open/close status. We use state and observation interchangeably in the following sections. The action $\bm{a} \in A$ contains the designated position and orientation of the gripper, the gripper open/close command, and a termination boolean. The system transition function $T: S \times A \rightarrow S$ follows the physical model, and we use a sparse binary reward function $R: S \times A \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ with value 1 when the distance between the object and the target is smaller than a threshold and the object is upright. The task objective is to maximize the expectation of the discounted cumulative reward, or the return
\begin{equation}
R = \mathop{\mathbb{E}}_{\{(\bm{s_t}, \bm{a_t})\}} \left[\sum^{t = \infty}_{t = 0} \gamma^{t} r_t\right]
\end{equation}
where $\gamma$ is the discount coefficient, and $r_t = R(\bm{s_t}, \bm{a_t})$ is the reward obtained at time $t$.
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{figures/MDP.jpg}
\caption{The structure of the Partially Observable Markov Decision Process (POMDP).\yunfei{probably no need for this figure to save some space.}} \wenhao{+1}
\end{figure}
The proposed non-planar pushing task is different and more challenging than the planar pushing tasks because:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The observation is very limited. The shape and position of the object can only be captured using a single camera visual input that is hard to interpret. The key dynamics properties cannot be inferred from the images, but only through the contact behavior.
\item Unlike planar pushing, the non-planar pushing problem can no longer be analyzed in a 2D plane, and 3D dynamics and stability properties must be considered.
\end{enumerate}
The task poses challenges to traditional planning methods, such that they are unlikely to succeed. Therefore, we propose a RL based solution which learns an end-to-end model that maps the raw sensor data directly to a control policy which pushes the object to the target while maintaining its $\vec{v}$. \karen{Remove all the text talking about why non-planar is challenging. If there's any new insight, move it to the introduction.}
\end{comment}
\section{Introduction}
Contact rich manipulation problems are ubiquitous in the physical world. In millions of years of evolution, humans have developed the remarkable capability to understand environment physics, so as to achieve general contact rich manipulation skills. Combining visual and tactile perception with end-effectors like fingers and palms, humans effortlessly manipulate objects with various shapes and dynamics properties in complex environments. Robots, on the other hand, lack this capability -- due to the difficulty of understanding high dimensional perception and complicated contact physics. Recent development in deep reinforcement learning (RL) has shown great potential towards solving manipulation problems \cite{levine2016end, kalashnikov2018qt, lee2020learning} by leveraging two key advantages. First, the representative capability of a deep neural network structure can capture complicated dynamics models. Second, control policy optimization explores vast contact interactions. However, contact-rich manipulation tasks are generally dynamics-dependent; since the RL policies are trained in a specific dynamics setting, they specialize within the training scenario and are vulnerable to variations of dynamics. Learning a policy that is robust to dynamics variations is pivotal for deployment to scenarios with diverse object dynamics properties.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{figures/overview.png}
\caption{Our method, COCOI, achieves dynamic-aware, non-planar pushing of an upright 3D object. The method is robust against domain variations, including various objects and environments, in both simulation and the real world. The first and second columns show the table simulation setting in the robot's perspective and the third party perspective, respectively. The third column shows the simulated and real world trash bin settings in the robot perspective.}
\label{fig:overview}
\end{figure}
In this work, we design a deep RL method that takes multi-modal perception input and uses deep representative structure to capture contact-rich dynamics properties. The proposed method, Contact-aware Online COntext Inference (COCOI), uses prior camera frames and force readings in a contact-aware way to encode dynamics information into a latent context representation. This allows the RL policy to plan with dynamics-awareness and improves in robustness against domain variations.
We apply COCOI to a novel pushing task where dynamics property reasoning plays a vital role: the robot needs to push an object to a target location while avoiding knocking it over (Fig. \ref{fig:overview}). Prior work in pushing mostly focus on objects inherently stable when pushed on a flat surface. This essentially reduces the task to a 2D planar problem \cite{zhou2016convex} \cite{li2018push}. As a result, they cannot handle our proposed class of ``non-planar pushing tasks'' where real-world 3D objects can move with the full six degrees of freedom during pushing. Despite being commonly seen in everyday life, these tasks have the following challenges:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Visual perception: unlike in planar pushing, where concrete features can be retrieved from a top down view, in non-planar pushing, key information can not be easily extracted from the third angle perspective image.
\item Contact-rich dynamics: the task dynamics properties are not directly observable from raw sensor information. Furthermore, in our non-planar pushing task, dynamics property reasoning is vital to avoid knocking the object over.
\item Generalizable across domain variations: the policy needs to be effective for objects with different appearances, shapes, masses, and friction properties.
\end{enumerate}
The paper is structured as follows: In Section II, we review and compare with related works. We formalize the problem of interest in Section III and describe the RL pushing controller in Section IV. We explain COCOI in Section V and the handling of the sim-to-real visual gap in Section VI. The capability of COCOI is validated with the experiments in Section VII, before we make the conclusions in Section VIII.
\section{Experiments}
\zhuoxu{don't forget to mention: (1) the robot make smart move using learning based policy, such as open the gripper and uses the finger to push (2)}
\begin{comment}
In this Section, we present the experiments that we carried out to validate the effectiveness of COCOI. We aim to validate two major arguments:
\begin{enumerate}
\item COCOI can learn a context representation that assists the Q learning, and achieve state of the art performance on the non-planar pushing task.
\item COCOI can adapt to new, unseen settings such as different dynamics parameters, novel objects, or transfer to the real world.
\end{enumerate}
In order to answer these questions, we realized the pushing task in our PyBullet simulator \cite{coumans2016pybullet} and performed extensive simulation evaluations. Furthermore, we have carried out real world experiments to demonstrate sim-to-real transfer capability.
\end{comment}
\subsection{Setup}
We train the control policies in PyBullet simulation \cite{coumans2016pybullet}. We first define a flat surface randomly placed in front of the robot. The surface can be either a desk surface or a designated flat area inside a trash bin, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:overview}. We use a 3D model set containing 75 different objects, such as cups, bottles, cans, mugs, etc. (Fig. \ref{fig:objects}). We divide the objects into a training set containing 64 objects and an unseen testing set of 11 objects including a stack of cups. Note that the upper cups in the stack have the degrees of freedom to tilt when pushed, which makes the pushing task more challenging. In PyBullet, the contact physics between the robot gripper and the object is modelled using a point contact model with an elliptic friction cone.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.\linewidth]{figures/objects.pdf}
\caption{A subset of the 75 different 3D objects used for training and testing.}
\label{fig:objects}
\end{figure}
At the beginning of each episode, the object and the target position are randomly placed within a rectangular area. We set the object upright on the surface, and the target position is rendered using a red dot. The robot gripper is initialized at a randomized position beside the object. The push policy controls the robot gripper to push the object to the red dot. An episode is considered successful if the object is pushed to within 5 cm of the target, and the object tilting angle remains smaller than 0.1 rad. We also apply a small penalty at each timestep to encourage faster execution. The discount factor $\gamma$ of the POMDP is 0.9.
\subsection{Policy Models}
\label{sec:policy_models}
The deep neural networks for the Q functions are constructed as in Fig. \ref{fig:feedforward} and Fig. \ref{fig:OCO}, and the blocks with the same names share the same network architecture. The detailed architecture is shown in Table I.
\begin{table}[thpb]
\centering
\caption{Architecture of each module in the Q networks}
\label{rl_module_table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\toprule
\textbf{Block name} & \textbf{Architecture} \\ \midrule
Images input & Tensor with shape (472, 472, 6) \\
Low dim state input & 2 dim vector\\
Low dim action input & 7 dim vector\\
Force torque sensor reading & 3 dim vector\\ \midrule
& Conv(64, 6, 2) \\
CNN encoder & MaxPool(3) \\
& Repeat x6: Conv(64, 5, 1) \\
& MaxPool(3) \\ \midrule
& FC(256) \\
FCN encoder & FC(64) \\
& Reshape(1, 1, 64) \\ \midrule
& Conv(64, 3, 1)\\
CNN & MaxPool(2)\\
& Repeat x3: Conv(64, 3, 1)\\ \midrule
state-action representation & (8, 8, 64) dim matrix\\
dynamics context representation & (8, 8, 64) dim matrix \\ \midrule
& FC(64)\\
FCN & FC(64)\\
& Sigmoid \\ \midrule
Q function & 1 dim vector \\\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table*}[thpb]
\centering
\caption{Comparison of success rate for models evaluated with different initial placement settings.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Initial range} & \textbf{0.3m x 0.6m} & \textbf{0.3m x 0.5m} & \textbf{0.3m x 0.4m} & \textbf{0.3m x 0.3m} & \textbf{0.25m x 0.5m} & \textbf{0.25m x 0.5m}\\ \midrule
Baseline & 26.5\% & 34.1\% & 51.1\% & 59.2\% & 40.0\% & 42.5\% \\
COI & 36.0\% & 43.2\% & 63.4\% & 72.2\% & 49.0\% & 50.8\%\\
Oracle & \textbf{43.8\%} & 53.9\% & \textbf{73.8\%} & \textbf{78.2\%} & 60.5\% & 62.4\%\\
COCOI & 43.0\% & \textbf{59.3\%} & 73.2\% & 75.7\% & \textbf{64.7\%} & \textbf{62.6\%}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\label{tab:distance}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[thpb]
\centering
\caption{Comparison of success rate for models evaluated with different dynamics properties settings.}
\label{tab:dynamics}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Model} & \textbf{default setting} & \textbf{0.0-0.5 friction} & \textbf{1.0-1.5 friction} & \textbf{0.5-1.0kg mass} & \textbf{Unseen objects} & \textbf{Cup stack}\\ \midrule
Baseline & 51.1\% & 53.8\% & 32.1\% & 32.6\% & 42.5\% & 26.2\% \\
COI & 63.4\% & 59.6\% & 44.2\% & 44.7\% & 48.3\% & 38.8\% \\
Oracle & \textbf{73.8\%} & 39.6\% & 38.2\% & 41.4\% & \textbf{60.9\%}& 36.5\% \\
COCOI & 73.2\% & \textbf{72.6\%} & \textbf{47.2\%} & \textbf{49.9\%} & 58.9\% & \textbf{43.7\%} \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
We train and compare four models:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The baseline model: the basic feed forward Q function network as described in Section \ref{baseline} and shown in Fig. \ref{fig:feedforward}. This model is the most straightforward and shows the capability of the baseline RL method.
\item The VCOI model: the VCOI method as shown in Figure \ref{fig:OCO}. The history observations are sampled using uniform sampling.
\item The oracle: the architecture of this model is the same as the baseline, but we expand the low dimensional state input with 2 key, unobservable dynamics parameters: the object mass and friction coefficient. We directly extract the ground truth parameter values from the simulator to obtain an oracle model.
\item The COCOI: the proposed COntact-aware Online COntext inference model as shown in Figure \ref{fig:OCO}. The active contact-aware sampling strategy is applied.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Policy Learning and Comparison}
We adopt the QT-Opt framework \cite{kalashnikov2018qt} to train the policies. In the training setting, the objects and goal locations are randomly sampled in a 0.5m $\times$ 0.3m area, the object mass is randomized from 0.05 kg to 0.5 kg, and the friction coefficient is randomized from 0.5 to 1.0. We train the models using stochastic gradient descent, using a learning rate of 0.0001 and momentum of 0.9. We train the models with a batch size of 2048 for 80k steps.
In the early stage of training, we use a rule-based scripted policy, which moves the gripper along the line connects the object and the target, to generate successful episodes and improve the exploration efficiency. This rule-based method only achieves less than 5\% success rate, illustrating the difficulty of the non-planar pushing task. During training, we observe that the policy first obtains the capability to solve easier scenarios where the object-goal distance is short and then gradually learns to push objects that are initialized far from the goal. Fig. \ref{fig:training_log} shows a comparison of training performance for the four models.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{figures/training_log.pdf}
\caption{Training success rate as a function of training steps for the four RL models in Section \ref{sec:policy_models}}.
\label{fig:training_log}
\end{figure}
As shown in Fig. \ref{fig:training_log}, COCOI and the oracle model perform significantly better than VCOI and the baseline model. COCOI reaches even higher success rate than the oracle, which indicates that COCOI is capable to capture more than just the oracle information (object mass and friction coefficient) - there are other factors such as the object shape and contact point that affect the dynamics properties.
\subsection{Performance under Domain Variations}
Overall, the RL policy succeeds in pushing the upright object and learns to perform smart behaviors. For example, the robot can break contact with object when the object leans, and it can open its gripper to use its finger to make subtle impacts. We evaluate pushing performance for the four models on a large variety of settings.
First, the initial range of the object and the target are varied and the results are shown in Table \ref{tab:distance}. COCOI consistently outperforms VCOI and baseline and achieves a similar performance to the oracle. Specifically, COCOI shows an average relative improvement of 50\% and 20\% success rate compared to the baseline and VCOI, respectively.
Second, we fix the initial object placement to 0.4m $\times$ 0.3m and vary dynamics properties. We change the friction coefficient and the object mass to be outside the training range. We also test performance of the models on unseen objects and a stack of cups whose inertia can change during pushing. Evaluation results with these setting variations are reported in Table \ref{tab:dynamics}.
Across different domains, COCOI consistently outperforms other methods. The performance of the oracle model is especially poor in cases where the real friction parameter is not in the range of the training set. This could be due to the policy overfitting to the input dynamics parameters.
\subsection{Interpretation of Context Representations}
To inspect the dynamics context learned by COCOI, we visualize the inferred representations for three settings with different dynamics parameters. For each setting, we run our controller for 20-30 episodes to fill a buffer of 256 dynamics context representations. We then visualize these representations using a combination of principle component analysis (PCA) and t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding (t-SNE) \cite{JMLR:v9:vandermaaten08a} (Fig. \ref{fig:representation_clusters}). The visualization shows clear separation between settings, which indicates COCOI learns to infer the dynamics properties. Also, representations within one episode are grouped closer to each other than to other episodes, suggesting that learned representations are consistent and structured. Moreover, we observe the order of the clusters is consistent with the dynamics properties: the clusters with the largest mass and friction and the smallest mass and friction are farthest apart, while the cluster with intermediate parameters is in the center.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{figures/cluster.pdf}
\caption{t-SNE visulization of the inferred context representation for three different dynamics parameters settings. For each setting, the context representations from a randomly chosen episode is highlighted with a brighter color. The clusters show clear separation and are distributed with an order consistent with the friction magnitude.}
\label{fig:representation_clusters}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Real World Deployment}
\begin{figure}[th]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{figures/sim2real.pdf}
\caption{Visualization of sim-to-real pushing policy transfer.}
\label{fig:sim2real_episodes}
\end{figure}
To test real world deployment, we design a push-in-bin task in both the simulator and in the real world, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:overview}. We adopt the method described in Section \ref{sec:cgan} and train a RetinaGAN model to adapt the simulation images to synthetic images with realistic appearance. We train the pushing policy with COCOI based on synthetic images and run 10 real world pushing episodes. We achieve $90\%$ success, demonstrating the capability of our 3D pushing policy to overcome both the visual and dynamics domain gap. Fig. \ref{fig:sim2real_episodes} shows example sequences in simulation and the real world.
|
\part{}
\twocolumn[
\icmltitle{Improved Confidence Bounds for the Linear Logistic Model and Applications to Bandits}
\icmlsetsymbol{equal}{*}
\begin{icmlauthorlist}
\icmlauthor{Kwang-Sung Jun}{ua}
\icmlauthor{Lalit Jain}{uw}
\icmlauthor{Blake Mason}{uwm}
\icmlauthor{Houssam Nassif}{amazon}
\end{icmlauthorlist}
\icmlaffiliation{ua}{University of Arizona}
\icmlaffiliation{uw}{University of Washington}
\icmlaffiliation{uwm}{University of Wisconsin}
\icmlaffiliation{amazon}{Amazon Inc}
\icmlkeywords{Machine Learning, ICML}
\vskip 0.3in
]
\printAffiliationsAndNotice{}
\begin{abstract}
We propose improved fixed-design confidence bounds for the linear logistic model. Our bounds significantly improve upon the state-of-the-art bound by Li et al. (2017) via recent developments of the self-concordant analysis of the logistic loss (Faury et al., 2020). Specifically, our confidence bound avoids a direct dependence on $1/\kappa$, where $\kappa$ is the minimal variance over all arms' reward distributions. In general, $1/\kappa$ scales exponentially with the norm of the unknown linear parameter $\theta^*$. Instead of relying on this worst case quantity, our confidence bound for the reward of any given arm depends directly on the variance of that arm's reward distribution. We present two applications of our novel bounds to pure exploration and regret minimization logistic bandits improving upon state-of-the-art performance guarantees. For pure exploration we also provide a lower bound highlighting a dependence on $1/\kappa$ for a family of instances.
\end{abstract}
\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{3pt}
\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{3pt}
\setlength{\abovedisplayshortskip}{3pt}
\setlength{\belowdisplayshortskip}{3pt}
\vspace{-2em}
\section{Introduction}
\vspace{-.5em}
Multi-armed bandits algorithms offer a principled approach to solve sequential decision problems under limited feedback~\citet{thompson33onthelikelihood}.
In bandit problems, at each time step, an agent chooses an arm to pull from an available pool of arms and and receives an associated reward.
Under this setting, two major objectives arise: \emph{pure exploration} (aka best-arm identification) where the goal is to identify the arm with the highest average reward; and \emph{regret minimization} where the goal is to maximize the total rewards gained.
Bandit algorithms are widely deployed in industry, with applications spanning news recommendation \citep{li10acontextual}, ads \citep{SawantHVAE18}, online retail \citep{Teo2016airstream}, and drug discovery \citep{kazerouni2019best}.
In such applications, the agent often has access to a feature vector for each arm.
A common assumption is that the reward is a noisy linear measurement of the underlying feature vector of the arm being pulled. In other words, the binary reward received from a pull of the arm $x\in \mathbb{R}^d$ is $y_t = x^\T\theta^\ast +\epsilon$, $\theta^\ast$ is a latent parameter vector, and $\epsilon$ is subGaussian noise.
In this case, there are several algorithms that are near-optimal and/or practical for pure exploration~\cite{xu2018fully,fiez2019sequential} and for regret minimization~\cite{auer2002using,chu11contextual,dani08stochastic,russo14learning}.
Unfortunately, in abundant real-world use-cases the linear reward model is not realistic and instead rewards are binary. For example, the prevalent form of data arising from user interactions is binary click/no-click feedback in the web and e-commerce domains.
Another example is the problem of learning the best candidate from binary pairwise comparisons, used in matching recommender systems~\cite{biswas2019seeker}. In this setting, the agent has access to a set of items (e.g., shoes), and repeatedly chooses a pair of items to present to the user to choose from. The goal of the agent is to infer the user's favorite shoe
In this paper, we use the linear logistic model for binary feedback.
In other words, the binary reward received from a pull of the arm $x\in \mathbb{R}^d$ is $y_t \sim \mathsf{Bernoulli}(\mu(x^\T\theta^\ast))$, where $\mu(z) := (1 + e^{-z})^{-1}$ is the logistic link function.
Existing effective bandit algorithms in the linear feedback setting attempt to estimate $\theta^\ast$ to drive sampling. To do so, they require tight confidence intervals on the estimated mean reward $x^\T{\ensuremath{\theta}}^*$ of arm $x$.
To adapt these algorithms to the logistic model, we require confidence intervals that account for the non-linearity introduced by the link function $\mu$. However, there is a lack of tight confidence intervals in this setting.
Our work builds on previous attempts in this area to a) provide tight confidence intervals, b) adapt existing linear bandit algorithms to the logistic setting. We now detail our contributions:
\textbf{The first variance-dependent fixed design confidence interval for the linear logistic model.} We first consider the \textit{fixed design} setting. Assume we have access to data $(x_s, y_s)_{s=1}^t\subset \mathbb{R}^d\times \{0,1\}$ where the reward $y_s$ is generated according to the logistic model. In addition we assume $y_s$ is conditionally independent from $\{x_i\}_{i=1}^t \setminus \{x_s\}$ given $x_s$.
Let $\hat{\ensuremath{\theta}}_t$ be the maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) of ${\ensuremath{\theta}}^*$.
We propose the first fixed design concentration inequalities such that the width: $i)$ scales with the actual variance instead of the worst-case variance $\kappa^{-1}$ that scales exponentially with $\|\theta^*\|$, and $ii)$ is independent of $d$.
Our bound takes the form of
\begin{align*}
\PP\del{ |x^\T (\hat{\ensuremath{\theta}}_t - {\ensuremath{\theta}}^*)| \le O(\| x \|_{H_t^{-1}({\ensuremath{\theta}}^{\ast})} \sqrt{\log(t/{\ensuremath{\delta}\xspace} )}) }\ge 1-{\ensuremath{\delta}\xspace} ,
\end{align*}
where $H_t({\ensuremath{\theta}}^{\ast})$ is the Fisher information matrix at $\theta^\ast$ matching the asymptotic bound for the MLE
\footnote{
While ${\ensuremath{\theta}}^*$ appears on the RHS as well, our full theorem shows that $\ensuremath{\what{\theta}}\xspace_t$ can be used in place of ${\ensuremath{\theta}}^*$ with a slightly larger constant factor, although this is not useful in bandit analysis.
}
By contrast, the bounds by \citet{li2017provably} take a significantly looser form of $ O(\kappa^{-1}\| x \|_{V_t^{-1}} \sqrt{\log(1/{\ensuremath{\delta}\xspace} )})$ where $V_t$ satisfies $\kappa V_t \preceq H_t({\ensuremath{\theta}}^*)$.
Our improvements in fixed design confidence bounds parallel that of \citet{faury2020improved} for adaptive sampling but reduce a $\sqrt{d}$ factor required by adaptive bounds.
Our confidence bound is a fundamental result in statistical learning. It tightly quantifies the amount of information learned from the training set $\{x_s,y_s\}_{s=1}^t$ that transfers to a test point $x$, in a data-dependent non-asymptotic manner and without distributional assumptions on $\{x_s\}_{s=1}^t$.
We present the full theorem and provide detailed comparisons in Section~\ref{sec:ci}.
\textbf{Improved pure exploration algorithms. }
In Section~\ref{sec:rage} we propose a new algorithm called RAGE-GLM for pure exploration in transductive linear logistic bandits, which is a novel extension of RAGE by \citet{fiez2019sequential}.
RAGE-GLM significantly improves both theoretical and empirical performance over the state-of-the-art algorithm by \citet{kazerouni2019best}, reducing the sample complexity by a multiplicative factor of $\kappa^{-1}$.
We perform empirical evaluations on a pairwise comparison problem
\textbf{Novel fundamental limits for pure exploration.}
While the sample complexity of RAGE-GLM does not have $\kappa^{-1}$ in the leading term of $\log(1/{\ensuremath{\delta}\xspace} )$ where ${\ensuremath{\delta}\xspace} $ is the target failure rate, it has an \emph{additive} dependence on $\kappa^{-1}$.
In Section~\ref{sec:lower_kappa}, we show that such an additive dependence is necessary via a novel \emph{moderate confidence} lower bound that captures the non-asymptotic complexity of learning and is independent of transportation inequality techniques~\cite{kaufmann2016complexity}.
Our results also imply that there are settings where $O(e^d)$ samples are necessary even when gaps are large, a phenomena that does not exist for linear rewards.
\textbf{Improved $K$-armed contextual bandits.}
We employ our confidence bounds to develop improved algorithms for contextual logistic bandits.
The proposed algorithm SupLogistic makes nontrivial extensions over the state-of-the-art algorithm SupCB-GLM by \citet{li2017provably}. The main challenge is to $i)$ handle the confidence width that depends on the unknown ${\ensuremath{\theta}}^*$, and $ii)$ design a novel sample bucket scheme to fix an issue of SupCB-GLM that invalidates its regret bound.
We show that SupCB-GLM enjoys a regret bound of $\tilde{O}( \sqrt{dT\log(K)})$ (ignoring $o(\sqrt{T})$ terms), which is a significant improvement over SupCB-GLM that has an extra $\kappa^{-1}$ factor, along with improvements in the lower-order terms.
Such an improvement parallels that of \citet{faury2020improved} over UCB-GLM of \citet{li2017provably} where they achieve a regret bound $\tilde O(d\sqrt{T})$ that shaves of the factor $\kappa^{-1}$ from UCB-GLM.
We discuss our improved bounds and provide more detailed comparisons in Section~\ref{sec:suplogistic}.
\input{sub-confidence}
\vspace{-.5em}
\section{Transductive Pure Exploration
\label{sec:rage}
\vspace{-.5em}
We now consider the linear logistic pure exploration problem.
Specifically, the learner is given a confidence level ${\ensuremath{\delta}\xspace} \in(0,1)$ and has access to finite arm subsets $\mc{X}, \mc{Z}\subset \mathbb{R}^d$ but not the problem parameter ${\ensuremath{\theta}}^*\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$.
The goal is to discover $z^{\ast} = \arg\max_{z\in \mathcal{Z}} z^{\top}\theta^{\ast}$ with probability at least $1-\delta$ using as few measurements from $\mc{X}$ as possible.
This is a generalization of the standard linear pure exploration~\cite{soare2014best} and is referred to as the transductive setting \cite{fiez2019sequential}.
In each time step $t$, the learner chooses an arm $x_t$, which is measurable with respect to the history $\mathcal{F}_{t-1} = \{(x_s, y_s)_{s< t}\}$, and observes a reward $y_t\in\{0,1\}$.
It stops at a random stopping time $\tau$ and recommends $\hat{z}\in \mathcal{Z}$, where $\tau$ and $\hat{z}$ are both measurable w.r.t.\ the history $\mc{F}_{\tau}$. We assume that $\P(y_t = 1|x_t, \mc{F}_{t-1}) = \mu(x_t^{\top}\theta^{\ast})$. Let $\P_{\theta}, \mathbb{E}_{\theta}$ denote the probability and expectation induced by the actions and rewards when the true parameter is $\theta$.
Formally, we define a $\delta$-PAC algorithm as follows:
\emph{An algorithm for the logistic-transductive-bandit problem is $\delta$-PAC for $(\mc{X}, \mc{Z})$ if $\P_{\theta}(z_{\tau}\neq z^{\ast})\leq \delta\ ,\forall \theta\in \mathbb{R}^d$. }
\textbf{Example: Pairwise Judgements.} As a concrete and natural example, consider an e-commerce application where the goal is to recommend an item from a set of items based on relative judgements by the user. For example, the user may be repeatedly shown two items to compare, and must choose one.
In each round, the system chooses two items $z, z'\in \mc{Z}$, and observes the binary user preference of item $z$ or item $z'$.
A natural model is to give each item $z\in\mc{Z}$ a score $z^{\top}\theta^{\ast}$, with the goal of finding $z^{\ast} = \max_{z\in \mc{Z}} z^{\top}\theta^{\ast}$. The probability the user prefers item $z$ over $z'$ is modeled by $\P(z > z') = \mu((z - z')^{\top}\theta^{\ast})$. Hence the set of measurement vectors is naturally $\mc{X} = \{z - z':z, z'\in \mc{Z}\}$.
Note that our setting is a natural generalization of the dueling bandit setting \citep{Yue2012Dueling}. As far as we are aware, this is the first work to propose the dueling bandit problem as a natural extension of the transductive linear bandit setting under a logistic noise model.
\textbf{Related Work. }
\citet{soare2014best} first proposed the problem of pure exploration in linear bandits with Gaussian noise when $\mc{X}=\mc{Z}$.
\citet{fiez2019sequential} introduced the general transductive setting, provided the RAGE elimination based method which is the main inspiration for our algorithm. RAGE achieves the lower bound up to logarithmic factors with excellent empirical performance.
Other works include \citet{degenne2020gamification, karnin2013almost}, which achieve the lower bound asymptotically.
Finally we mention \citet{katz2020empirical}, which follows a similar approach to \citet{fiez2019sequential} but uses empirical process theory to replace the union bound over the number of arms with a Gaussian width.
Despite its importance in abundant real-life settings, pure-exploration for logisitic bandits has received little attention. The only work we are aware of is \citet{kazerouni2019best} which defines the problem and provides an algorithm motivated by \citet{xu2018fully}.
However, their theoretical and empirical performance are both far behind our proposed algorithm RAGE-GLM as we elaborate more below.
\textbf{Notation.}
Define $\kappa_0 = \min_{x\in \mc{X}} \dot\mu(x^{\top}\theta^{\ast})$, the smallest derivative of the link function among elements in $\mc{X}$ (differing slightly from the previous section).
Let $\Delta_{\mc{X}} = \{\lambda\in \mathbb{R}^{|\mc{X}|}, \lambda\geq 0, \sum_{x\in \mc{X}} \lambda_x = 1\}$ be the probability simplex over $\mc{X}$. Given a design $\lambda\in \Delta_{\mathcal{X}}$, define:
\[H(\lambda, \theta) := \sum_{x\in \mathcal{X}} \lambda_x\dot{\mu}(x^{\top}\theta)xx^{\top},\; A(\lambda) := \sum_{x\in \mathcal{X}} \lambda_x xx^{\top}.\]
\vspace{-.5em}
\subsection{Algorithm}
\vspace{-.5em}
\newcommand{3.5}{3.5}
\newcommand{\text{\textbf{round}}}{\text{\textbf{round}}}
\begin{algorithm}[ht]
\caption{RAGE-GLM }
\label{alg:rage-glm}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Input {$\epsilon$, $\delta$, $\mc{X}$, $\mc{Z}$, $\kappa_0$, effective rounding procedure $\text{\textbf{round}}(n, \epsilon, \lambda)$}
\Initialize{$k=1, \mc{Z}_1 = \mc{Z}, r(\epsilon) = d^2/\epsilon$}
\State {$\hat\theta_0\leftarrow$ \textbf{BurnIn}($\mc{X}, \kappa_0$)} \Comment{Burn-in phase}
\While{$|\mc{Z}_k| > 1$ } \Comment{Elimination phase}
\State $\delta_k = \delta/(2k^2\max\{|\mc{Z}|,|\mc{X}|\} (2+|\mc{X}|))$
\State\label{line:expDesign}$f(\lambda) := \max\Big[
\gamma(d)\max_{x\in \mc{X}} \|x\|_{H(\lambda, \hat{\theta}_{k-1})^{-1}}^2$,
\Statex \hspace*{\fill} $2^{2k}\cdot(3.5)^2
\max_{z,z'\in\mc{Z}_k} \|z-z'\|_{H(\lambda, \hat{\theta}_{k-1})^{-1}}^2
\Big]$
\State $\lambda_k = \argmin_{\lambda\in \Delta_{\mc{X}}} f(\lambda)$
\State{$n_k = \max\{3(1+\epsilon)f(\lambda_k) \log(1/\delta_k), r(\epsilon)\}$}
\State{$x_1, \cdots, x_{n_k}\leftarrow \text{\textbf{round}}(n,\epsilon,\lambda)$}
\State{Observe rewards $y_1, \cdots, y_{n_k}\in \{0,1\}$.}
\State{Compute the MLE $\hat\theta_k$ with $\{(x_i,y_i)\}_{i=1}^{n_k}$. \Comment{Eq~\eqref{eq:mle}}}
\State{$\hat{z}_k = \arg\max_{z\in\mc{Z}_k} \hat\theta_k^\top z$}
\State{$\mc{Z}_{k+1}\leftarrow \mc{Z}_k \setminus \left\{z\in \mc{Z}_k:\hat\theta_k^\top (\hat{z}_k-z) \geq 2^{-k}\right\}$}
\State{$k\gets k+1$}
\EndWhile
\State \Return $\hat{z}_k$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
Our RAGE-GLM algorithm (Alg.~\ref{alg:rage-glm}) proceeds in rounds.
In each round $k$, it maintains a set of active arms $\mathcal{Z}_k$.
It computes an experimental design that is dependent on $\hat{\theta}_{k-1}$, the estimate of $\theta^{\ast}$ from the previous round, and uses this experimental design to draw $n_k$ samples.
Then, the algorithm eliminates any arms verified to be sub-optimal using $\hat{\ensuremath{\theta}}_{k}$. We now go into the algorithmic details.
\textbf{Rounding.} In the $k$-th round, we have $H_k(\theta) := \sum_{s=1}^{n_k}\dot\mu(x_s^{\top}\theta)x_sx_s^{\top}$.\footnote{
We abuse notation in this section and use the subscript $k$ to denote the round, not the number of samples as in section~\ref{sec:ci}.
}
The algorithm utilizes an efficient rounding procedure to ensure that $H_k(\hat{\theta}_{k-1})$ is within a constant factor of $n_k \cdot H(\lambda_k, \hat{\theta}_{k-1})$.
Given distribution $\lambda_{k}$, tolerance $\epsilon$, and a number of samples $n_k \geq r(\epsilon)$, the procedure $\text{\textbf{round}}(n_k, \epsilon, \lambda)$ returns an allocation $\{x_s\}_{s=1}^{n_k}$ such that for any $\theta\in\mathbb{R}^d$, $H_k(\theta)\geq \frac{n_k}{1+\epsilon}H(\lambda, \theta)$.
Efficient rounding procedures with $r(\epsilon) = d^{2}/\epsilon$ are described in \cite{fiez2019sequential}; see the supplementary for more details.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{BurnIn}
\label{alg:rage-burnin}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Input $\mc{X}, \kappa_0$
\Initialize $\lambda_0 = \arg\min_{\lambda\in \Delta_{\mc{X}}}\max_{x\in \mathcal{X}} \|x\|_{A(\lambda)^{-1}}^{2}$
\State $n_0 = 3(1+\epsilon)\kappa_0^{-1}d\gamma(d)\log(2|\cX|(2+|\cX|)/\delta)$
\State $x_1, \cdots, x_{n_0}\leftarrow \text{\textbf{round}}(n_0, \lambda_0, \epsilon)$
\State Observe associated rewards $y_1, \cdots, y_{n_0}$.
\State \Return MLE $\hat{\theta}_0$ \Comment{Use Eq~\eqref{eq:mle}}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\textfloatsep=.8em
\textbf{Burn-In Phase.} The burn-in phase computes $\hat{\theta}_0$, an estimate of $\theta^{\ast}$ to be used in the first round.
To do so, we need to guarantee that $\theta^{\ast}$ is well-estimated in all directions $\mathcal{X}$, i.e., $|x^{\top}(\hat{\theta} - \theta^{\ast})| < 1, \forall x\in\cX$.
Ensuring this requires that we can employ the confidence interval in Theorem~\ref{thm:concentration}.
Thus, burn-in Algorithm~\ref{alg:rage-burnin} must ensure that $\max_{x\in \mathcal{X}}\|x\|^2_{(\sum_{s=1}^{n_0}\dot\mu(x_s^\top\theta^{\ast})x_s x_s^{\top})^{-1}} \leq 1/\gamma(d)$.
As we yet lack information on $\theta^{\ast}$, we take the naive approximation:
\begin{align*}
\sum_{s=1}^{n_0}\dot\mu({\theta^{\ast}}^{\top}x_s)x_s x_s^{\top}
&\geq \frac{n_0}{1+\epsilon}H(\lambda, \theta) \quad \text{(from rounding)}\\
&\geq \frac{n_0}{1+\epsilon}\kappa_0 A(\lambda),
\end{align*}
and instead consider the optimization problem $\min_{\lambda\in \mc{X}}\max_{x\in \mc{X}} \|x\|_{A(\lambda)^{-1}}^2$.
This is a G-optimal experimental design, and has a value of $d$ by the Kiefer-Wolfowitz theorem \citep{soare2014best}. For the burn-in phase we assume we have access to an upper bound on $\kappa_0^{-1}$, which is equivalent to knowing an upper bound on $\|\theta^*\|$.
\textbf{Experimental Design.}
In each round, line~\ref{line:expDesign} of Algorithm~\ref{alg:rage-glm} optimizes a convex experimental design that minimizes two objectives simultaneously. The main objective
is
\begin{equation}
2^{2k}\min_{\lambda\in \Delta_\mc{X}}\max_{z,z'\in \mathcal{Z}_k} \|z-z'\|^2_{H(\lambda, \hat\theta_{k-1})^{-1}}.
\end{equation}
which ensures the the gap $\theta^{\top}(z^{\ast} - z)$ is estimated to an error of $2^{-k}$ for each $z$. This allows us to eliminate arms whose gaps are significantly larger than $2^{-k}$ in each round, guaranteeing that $\mathcal{Z}_k\subset \mathcal{S}_k := \{z:(z^{\ast}-z)^{\top}\theta^{\ast}\leq 2\cdot 2^{-k}\}$.
The other component of line~\ref{line:expDesign} minimizes $\max_{x\in \mc{X}}\|x\|_{H(\lambda, \hat{\theta}_{k-1})^{-1}}^2$
similarly to the burn-in phase. This guarantees that we satisfy the conditions of Theorem~\ref{thm:concentration}.
It additionally guarantees that the estimate $\hat\theta_{k}$ is sufficiently close to $\theta^{\ast}$ for all directions in $\mc{X}$.
Combining this with self-concordance, $|\ddot{\mu}|\leq \dot\mu$, we show that $H(\lambda_k, \theta^{\ast})$ is within a constant factor of $H(\lambda_k, \hat\theta_k)$ (see the supplementary).
We stop when $|\mc{Z}_k|=1$ and return the remaining arm.
\begin{theorem}[Sample Complexity]\label{thm:rage-sc}
Take $\delta < 1/e$ and assume $\|z\|\leq 1/2$ for all $z\in \cZ$.
Define
\begin{align*}
\beta_k = \min_{\lambda\in\Delta_{\mc{X}}}\max\bigg[2^{2k}\max_{z,z'\in \mc{S}_k} \|z-z'\|_{H(\lambda, \theta^{\ast})^{-1}}^2 ,\\\gamma(d)\max_{x}\|x\|_{H(\ensuremath{\lambda},\theta^{\ast})^{-1}}^2\bigg]
\end{align*}
Algorithm~\ref{alg:rage-glm} returns $z^{\ast}$ with probability greater than $1-3\delta$ in a number of samples no more than
\begin{align*}
&O\bigg(\sum_{k=1}^{\lceil\log_2(2/\Delta_{\min})\rceil}\beta_k \log(\max\{|\mc{Z}|, |\mc{X}|\}k^2/\delta)\\
& + d(1+\epsilon)\gamma(d)\kappa_0^{-1}\log(|\mc{X}|/\delta)+ r(\epsilon)\log(\Delta_{\min}^{-1})\bigg)
\end{align*}
where $\Delta_{\min} = \min_{z\neq z^{\ast}\in \mc{Z}} \langle\theta^{\ast}, z^{\ast}-z\rangle$.
\end{theorem}
\textbf{Interpreting the Upper Bound.}
Before comparing our bound with prior work, we show concrete examples that show the strength of our sample complexity bound.
\textbf{Example 1. }
Consider a simple setting where $\mc{Z} = \mc{X}=\{e_1, e_2\}\subset{\mathbb{R}}^2$, and $\theta^{\ast} = (r, r-\epsilon)$, for $r\geq 0$. In this case, $\kappa_0^{-1} = \max_{i\in \{1,2\}} \dot\mu(z_i^{\top}\theta^{\ast})^{-1}\leq e^{r}$. Thus in the burn-in phase, we take roughly $\tilde{O}(e^{r})$ samples.
Now, for small $\epsilon$, the minimizer of $\min_{\lambda\in \Delta_{\mc{X}}} \|e_1 - e_2\|_{H(\theta^{\ast})^{-1}}^2$ places roughly equal mass on $e_1$ and $e_2$, giving an objective value that is roughly bounded by $e^r$. Thus the sample complexity of Algorithm~\ref{alg:rage-glm} is $O(\sum_{k=1}^{\log_2(1/\epsilon)} 2^{2k} e^{r}\log(1/\delta)) \approx \frac{e^{r}}{\epsilon^2}$.
Note this problem is equivalent to a standard best-arm identification algorithm with two Bernoulli arms \citep{kaufmann2015complexity}.
Standard results in Pure Exploration show that a lower bound on this problem is given by the KL-divergence
$\mathsf{KL}({\ensuremath{\mathsf{Bernoulli}}}(\mu(\theta^{\top}\!z_1)), {\ensuremath{\mathsf{Bernoulli}}}(\mu(\theta^{\top}\!z_2)))^{-1} \!\approx\! \frac{e^r}{2\epsilon^2}$ for sufficiently small $\epsilon$.
This shows that our bound is at least no worse than the well-studied unstructured case.
\textbf{Example 2. } We extend the above setting and consider $\mc{X} = \{e_1, e_2, e_1-e_2\}$, $\mc{Z} = \{e_1, e_2\}$ and the same $\theta^{\ast}$. As above, the burn-in phase requires $\kappa^{-1}\approx e^{r}$ samples. Starting from the first round, our computed experimental design will place all of its samples on the third arm. In this case, $\min_{\lambda} \|e_1 - e_2\|_{H(\theta^{\ast})^{-1}}^2 = 1/\dot{\mu}(\epsilon)\leq C$, for small $\epsilon$.\footnote{With $H(\theta^{\ast})^{-1}$ interpreted as a pseudo-inverse.} The main term of the sample complexity becomes
\begin{align*}
O\del{\sum_{k=1}^{\log_2(1/\Delta_{\min})} 2^{2k}\log\frac1\delta}
\leq O\del{\frac{1}{\epsilon^2}\log\frac1\delta}~.
\end{align*}
Hence ignoring burn-in or the additional samples we take in each round to guarantee the confidence interval, the total sample complexity would be $\tilde{O}(\frac{1}{\epsilon^2})$. This is exponentially smaller than in Example 1 and demonstrates the power of an informative arm in reducing the sample complexity.
On the other hand, the burn-in phase, common to all logistic bandit algorithms based on the MLE, may potentially take a number of samples exponential in $r$. This example demonstrates the need for further work on understanding the precise dependence of $\kappa$ in pure exploration. In Section~\ref{sec:lower_kappa}, we take a first step towards this by showing $\kappa^{-1}$ burn-in is unavoidable in some cases.
\textbf{Comparison to past work.}
As $\beta_k$ grows exponentially each round, the first element in the maximum for $\beta_k$ dominates our sample complexity. Focusing on this term while ignoring logarithmic terms and the burn-in samples, the sample complexity in Theorem~\ref{thm:rage-sc} scales as
\begin{align*}\label{eq:pure-exp-ub}
\rho* := \sum_{k=1}^{\log_2(2/\Delta_{\min})} 2^{2k}\min_{\lambda\in \Delta_{\mc{X}}} \max_{z,z'\in \mc{S}_k} \|z-z'\|_{H(\theta^{\ast})}^2~.
\end{align*}
Importantly, this depends on $H(\theta^{\ast})$ instead of a loose bound based on $\kappa^{-1}$. In the supplementary we show
\[\rho*\leq \log\left(\frac{2}{\Delta_{\min}}\right)\min_{\lambda\in \Delta_{\mc{X}}}\max_{z\in \mc{Z}\setminus z^{\ast}} \frac{\|z^{\ast} - z\|_{H(\lambda, \theta^{\ast})^{-1}}^2}{\langle \theta^{\ast}, z^{\ast} - z\rangle^2}.\]
This is reminiscent of a similar quantity that is within a $\log(\cdot)$ factor of being optimal for pure exploration linear bandits \citep{fiez2019sequential}.
We provide a close connection between our upper bound and information theoretic lower bounds in the supplementary, although they do not match exactly.
We also prove a novel lower bound in moderate confidence regimes, which we elaborate more in Section~\ref{sec:lower_kappa}.
We now compare to the result of \citet{kazerouni2019best}. Using a variant of the UGapE algorithm for linear bandits \citep{xu2018fully}, they demonstrate a sample complexity
$\tilde{O}(\frac{d|\mc{X}|}{\kappa^2\Delta^2_{\min}})$ in the setting where $\mc{X} =\mc{Z}$.
This sample complexity, unlike ours, scales linearly with the number of arms, and only captures a dependency on the smallest gap.
We note that one can improve on their sample complexity by using a naive passive algorithm that uses a fixed G-optimal design, along with the trivial bound $H(\lambda, \theta^{\ast})\geq \kappa_0 A(\lambda)$, resulting in $\tilde{O}(d/(\kappa_0\Delta_{\min}^2))$ \citep{soare2014best}.\footnote{This is equivalent to computing the allocation from Algorithm~\ref{alg:rage-burnin}, and sampling until all arms are eliminated.}
In contrast, the bound of Theorem~\ref{thm:rage-sc} only depends on the number of arms logarithmically, captures a local dependence on $\theta^{\ast}$, and has a better gap dependence.
\textbf{Extra samples.}
Algorithm~\ref{alg:rage-glm} potentially samples in each round to ensure the confidence interval is valid (i.e., the first argument of the $\max$ in line~\ref{line:expDesign}).
In our supplementary, we propose RAGE-GLM-2 that removes these samples needed in each round (but not the burn-in samples) by employing the confidence interval of \citet{faury2020improved}. This algorithm has a better asymptotic behavior as $\delta\rightarrow 0$, but could perform worse with large $d$ or $S_\ast$ due to an additional factor of $\sqrt{d}$ and a factor of $S_{\ast}^3$.
\subsection{Experiments}\label{sec:rage_experiments}
This section evaluates the empirical performance of \textbf{RAGE-GLM}, alongside two additional algorithms:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*, noitemsep, topsep=0pt]
\item \textbf{RAGE-GLM-R}: This is a heuristic version of RAGE-GLM that makes two changes. First, it does not do a burn-in in each round and samples from $\lambda_k =\min_{z,z'} \|z-z'\|_{H(\lambda, \hat\theta_{k-1})^{-1}}^2$ directly. Second, to compute the estimate $\hat\theta_k$, it uses all samples up to round $k$.
\item \textbf{Passive Baseline}: This baseline runs the burn-in procedure and then computes the static design $\lambda = \min_{z,z'\in \mc{Z}} \|z-z'\|_{H(\lambda, \hat\theta_{0})^{-1}}^2$. It then proceeds in rounds, drawing $2^k$ samples in round $k$, terminating when we are able to verify that each arm is sub-optimal using the fixed design confidence interval (see Appendix for details). As in the heuristic, we recycle samples over rounds.
\end{itemize}
\textbf{Remark.} We also implemented the algorithm of \cite{kazerouni2019best}. However a) the algorithm was extremely slow to run since an MLE and a convex optimization had to be run each round, b) the confidence bounds do not exploit the true variance. As a result, the algorithm did not terminate on any of our examples.
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}
\begin{subfigure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth]{fig/soare.png}
\caption{Standard Baseline Example}
\label{fig:soare}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
&open&pointy&sporty&comfort\\
\hline
$|\cZ|$&3327&2932&3219&3374\\
\hline
Rage-GLM-R&\textbf{9.17e+07}&\textbf{2.38e+05}&\textbf{2.29e+05}&\textbf{3.34e+06}\\
\hline
Rage-GLM&\textbf{9.17e+07}&\textbf{2.38e+05}&\textbf{2.29e+05}&4.55e+06\\
\hline
Passive&2.69e+08&\textbf{2.38e+05}&\textbf{2.29e+05}&8.54e+06\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Zappos pairwise comparison data, bold indicates a win.}
\label{tab:zappos}
\end{subfigure}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{comment}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth]{fig/soare.png}
\vspace{-1.4em}
\caption{Standard Baseline Example}
\label{fig:soare}
\vspace{-.8em}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\centering
\small
\setlength\tabcolsep{4.1pt}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
&open&pointy&sporty&comfort\\
\hline
$|\cZ|$&3327&2932&3219&3374\\
\hline
RAGE-GLM-R&\textbf{9.17e+07}&\textbf{2.38e+05}&\textbf{2.29e+05}&\textbf{3.34e+06}\\
\hline
RAGE-GLM&\textbf{9.17e+07}&\textbf{2.38e+05}&\textbf{2.29e+05}&4.55e+06\\
\hline
Passive&2.69e+08&\textbf{2.38e+05}&\textbf{2.29e+05}&8.54e+06\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{-.8em}
\caption{Zappos pairwise comparison data, bold indicates a win.}
\label{tab:zappos}
\end{table}
Our first experiment (Fig.~\ref{fig:soare}) is a common baseline in the linear bandits literature. We consider $d+1$ arms in $d$ dimensions with arm $i \in [1,n]$ being the $i$-th basis vector, and arm $i+1$ as $\cos(.1)e_1+\sin(.1)e_2$. We use $d\in \{10,20,30,40,50\}$ and 10 repetitions for each value of $d$. In all instances, all algorithms found the best arm correctly. RAGE-GLM was competitive against the heuristic RAGE-GLM-R and took roughly a factor of 10 less samples compared to Random.
Our next experiment is based on the Zappos pairwise comparison dataset~\cite{finegrained, semjitter}. This dataset consists of pairwise comparisons on 50k images of shoes and 960 dimensional vision-based feature vectors for each shoe. Given a pair of shoes, participants were asked to compare them on the the attributes of ``open'', ``pointy'', ``sporty'' and ``comfort'' obtaining several thousand queries. For each one of these categories, we fit a logistic model to the set of pairwise comparisons after PCA-ing the features down to 25 dimensions (for computational tractability) and used the underlying weights as $\theta^{\ast}$. We then set $\cZ$ to be the set of shoes that were considered in that category and $\cX$ to be 5000 random pairs. Table~\ref{tab:zappos} shows the result. For the ``open'' and ``comfort'' category, RAGE-GLM took about a factor of 3 less samples compared to Random. The large sample complexity for ``open'' is due to an extremely small minimum gap of $O(10^{-4})$. For ``pointy'' and ``sporty'' the empirical gaps were large and all three algorithms terminated after the burn-in phase. Finally, $\kappa$ for all instances was on the order of $0.1$.
See supplementary for a deeper discussion, alongside pictures of winning and informative shoes.
\section{\texorpdfstring{$1/\kappa_0$}{} Is Necessary}
\label{sec:lower_kappa}
In this section, we turn to lower bounds on the sample complexity of pure exploration problems.
\vspace{-0.5em}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:permuation_lower_bound}
Fix $\delta_1 < 1/16$, $d \geq 4$, and $\epsilon \in (0, 1/2]$ such that $d\varepsilon^2 \geq 12.2$. Let $\mc{Z}$ denote the action set and $\Theta$ denote a family of possible parameter vectors.
There exists instances satisfying the following properties simultaneously
\begin{enumerate}
\item $|\mc{Z}| = |\Theta| = e^{\epsilon^2d/4}$ and $\|z\| =1 $ for all $z \in \mc{Z} $.
\item $S =\|\theta_{\ast}\|= O(\epsilon^2d)$
\item Any algorithm that succeeds with probability at least $1-\delta_1$ satisfies
$$\exists {\ensuremath{\theta}}\in\Theta \text{ such that } \mathbb{E}_{\ensuremath{\theta}}[T_{\delta_1}] > \Omega\left(e^{\epsilon^2d/4}\right) = c\left(\frac{1}{\kappa_0}\right)^{\frac{1-\epsilon}{1+3\epsilon}} $$
where $T_{\delta_1}$ is the random variable of the number of samples drawn by an algorithm and $c$ is an absolute constant.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
The implications of this bound are two-fold. Firstly, it shows a family of instances where the dependence on $1/\kappa_0$ in the sample complexity of Algorithm~\ref{alg:rage-glm} is necessary.
Secondly, this bound demonstrates a particular phenomenon of the logistic bandit problem: there are settings where $\kappa_0^{-1} \approx e^d$ samples are needed despite $\theta^\ast \in \mathbb{R}^d$. By contrast, for linear bandits, $O(d/\Delta_{\min}^2)$ samples are always sufficient \cite{soare2014best}. For the instances in the theorem, $\Delta_{\min} \geq \Omega(1-e^{-d})$.
In the appendix, we state a second lower bound that captures the asymptotic sample complexity as $\delta \rightarrow0$, but show that this bound would suggest that only $O(\log(1/\delta))$ samples are necessary, which is vacuous for $\delta > e^{-e^d}$.
Instead, the above \textit{moderate confidence} bound reflects the true sample complexity of the problem for values of $\delta$ seen in practice, e.g. $\delta\approx .05$.
This dichotomy highlights that there are important challenges to logistic bandit problems that are not captured by their asymptotic sample complexity.
In particular, this demonstrates that there exist instances of pure exploration logistic bandits that are \textit{exponentially harder} than their linear counterparts. The proof is in the supplementary, inspired by a construction from \cite{dong2019performance}.
\input{sub-suplinrel}
\vspace{-.5em}
\section{Future work}
\vspace{-.5em}
\label{sec:future}
Our confidence bound utilizes self-concordance and local analysis to significantly improve upon the existing state of the art results for the logistic MLE.
We remove a direct dependence on $\kappa^{-1}$ in the confidence width and relax significantly the requirement on the minimum sample size for the bound to be valid. To better leverage our knowledge burn-in condition, we hope to develop online procedures that adapt to $\theta^{\ast}$ instead of paying a worst case dependence in $\kappa$ to satisfy the burn-in condition.
Furthermore, understanding the optimal burn-in condition is an important open problem with practical implications.
Pure exploration for linear logistic models is largely under-explored, although its applications are abundant.
Exploiting the local nature of the logistic loss and closely working with non-uniform variances that naturally arise from the model is crucial in sample-efficient design of experiments. Our work is an important first step on understanding the true sample complexity of this problem and determining the precise dependence of the sample complexity on $\kappa_0^{-1}$ is an exciting direction.
A major road block to developing practical contextual bandit algorithms is the fact that SupLogistic (and its ancestors like~\citet{auer2002using}) have to maintain independent buckets, and cannot share samples across buckets. It would be interesting to develop new algorithms that do not waste samples, without increasing the regret bound.
\citet{foster20beyond} have proposed such an algorithm but its dependence on the number of arms is sub-optimal.
\subsubsection*{\bibname}}
\newcommand{\sqrtf}[2]{\sqrt{\frac{#1}{#2}}}
\def \mathbbm{1}{\mathbbm{1}}
\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{4pt}
\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{4pt}
\setlength{\abovedisplayshortskip}{4pt}
\setlength{\belowdisplayshortskip}{4pt}
\setlist[itemize]{topsep=.5pt,itemsep=0pt,parsep=2pt}
\setlist[enumerate]{topsep=.5pt,itemsep=0pt,parsep=2pt}
\onecolumn
\section{Improved Confidence Intervals for the Linear Logistic MLE}
\label{sec:ci}
\vspace{-.5em}
In this section we consider the fixed design setting. We assume that we have a fixed $\theta^{\ast}\in \mathbb{R}^d$, a set of measurements $\{(x_s,y_s)\}_{s=1}^{t}\subset \mathbb{R}^d\times \mathbb{R}$ where each $y_s\in \{0,1\}$, and \[P(y_s=1) = \mu(x_{s}^\top\theta^*) = \frac{1}{1+e^{-x^{\top}\theta^{\ast}}}.\]
Let $\eta_s = y_s - \mu(x_s^\T \theta^*)$.
Denote by $\dot\mu(z)$ the first order derivative of $\mu(z)$.
Define $\kappa = \min_{x:~ \norm x \le 1} \dot\mu(x^\T {\ensuremath{\theta}}^*)$.
The maximum likelihood estimate is given by:
\begin{align}\label{eq:mle}
\hat{\theta} \!=\! \argmax_{\theta\in \mathbb{R}^d} \sum_{s=1}^t y_{s}\log\mu(x_s^{\top}\theta)
\!+\!(1\!-\!y_s)\log(1\!-\!\mu(x_s^{\top}\theta))
\end{align}
We also define the Fisher information matrix at $\theta$ as
\begin{align}\label{eq:def-H}
H_t(\theta) = \sum_{s=1}^t \dot\mu(x_s^{\top}\theta) x_sx_s^{\top} ~.
\end{align}
We now introduce our improved confidence interval for the linear logistic model under this fixed design setting.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:concentration}
Let ${\ensuremath{\delta}\xspace} \le e^{-1}$.
Let $\hat{\ensuremath{\theta}}_t$ be the solution of Eq.~\eqref{eq:mle} where, for every $s\in[t]$, $y_s$ is conditionally independent from $\{x_i\}_{i=1}^t \setminus \{x_s\}$ given $x_s$ (i.e. the $x_s$'s are a fixed design).
Fix $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$ with $\|x\|\le1$.
Let $t_{\mathsf{eff}}$ be the number of distinct vectors in $\{x_s\}_{s=1}^t$.
Define ${\gamma(d)} \!=\! d + \ln(6(2\!+\!{\ensuremath{t_\mathsf{eff}}})/{\ensuremath{\delta}\xspace} )$.
Define the event $\cE_{\mathsf{var}} \!=\! \{\forall x', \fr{1}{\sqrt{2.2}}\,\|x'\|_{H_t({\ensuremath{\theta}}^*)^{-1}}
\!\le\! \|x'\|_{H_t(\hat{\ensuremath{\theta}}_t)^{-1}}
\!\le\! \sqrt{2.2}\, \|x'\|_{H_t({\ensuremath{\theta}}^*)^{-1}}\}$.
If ${\xi^2_t} := \max_{s\in[t]} \|x_s\|^2_{H_{t}({\ensuremath{\theta}}^*)^{-1}} \le \fr{1}{\gamma(d)}$,
then
\begin{align*}
\PP\del{\!
|x^\T\!(\hat\theta_t\! -\! \theta^*)| \!\le\! 3.5\|x \|_{\! H_{t} ({\ensuremath{\theta}}^* \! )^{-\! 1}}
\textstyle\!\sqrt{\ln\fr{2(2+{\ensuremath{t_\mathsf{eff}}})}{{\ensuremath{\delta}\xspace} }}
, \cE_{\mathsf{var}}
\!} \!\ge\! 1\!-\!{\ensuremath{\delta}\xspace} .
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
One can see that Theorem~\ref{thm:concentration} implies empirical concentration inequality
$|x^\T\!(\hat\theta_t\! -\! \theta^*)| \!\le\! 5.2\|x \|_{\! H_{t} (
\ensuremath{\what{\theta}}\xspace_t \! )^{-\! 1}} \sqrt{\ln\fr{2(2+{\ensuremath{t_\mathsf{eff}}})}{{\ensuremath{\delta}\xspace} }}$.
This seemingly useful bound is in fact never used in our bandit analysis for technical reasons. Specifically, bandits select arms adaptively, which breaks the fixed design assumption of Theorem~\ref{thm:concentration}, so care is needed for algorithmic design.
\end{remark}
\vspace{-.5em}
Asymptotically, under some conditions we expect for any $x\in \mathbb{R}^d$, $x^{\top}(\hat{\theta} - \theta)\rightarrow N(0, \|x\|^2_{H(\theta^{\ast})^{-1}})$ \cite{lehmann2006theory}.
Our bound matches this asymptotic rate up to constant factors.
\textbf{Comparison to previous work.}
Our theorem is a significant improvement upon \citet{li2017provably}. Their bound depends on $\fr{1}{\kappa}\|x\|_{V_t^{-1}}$, with $V_t := \sum_{s=1}^t x_s x_s^\T$. In general since $\kappa V_t \preceq H_t({\ensuremath{\theta}}^*)$, our bound is tighter and depends on the asymptotic variance. For the bound in \cite{li2017provably} to hold, they require that $\lambda_{\min}(V_t) \geq \Omega(d^2\kappa^{-4})$, which we call the \textit{burn-in} condition.
Recall that $\kappa^{-1} = \Theta(\exp(\|\theta^*\|))$ can be large even for moderate $\theta^*$.
In contrast, our bound's burn-in condition does not directly depend on $\kappa^{-1}$, and more importantly, it is possible to satisfy it without $\kappa^{-1}$ samples in certain cases.
For example, we show in our supplementary a case where a sample size of $\mathsf{polynomial}(\|\theta^*\|) \ll \exp(\|\theta^*\|)$ can satisfy the burn-in condition.
For the sake of comparison, we can use the bound $\xi_t^2\leq \kappa^{-1}\lambda_{\min}(V_t)$ to derive an inferior burn-in condition of $\lambda_{\min}(V_t)\geq \Omega(d\kappa^{-1})$.
This is still a strict improvement over \citet{li2017provably}, saving a factor of $d$ and a cubic factor in $\kappa^{-1}$ as well as shaving off their large constant factor of 512.
We now compare our bound with that of \citet{faury2020improved}.
The proof of Lemma 3 of \citet{faury2020improved}, under the assumption that $\|{\ensuremath{\theta}}^*\|\le S_*$ and with a proper choice of regularization constant, implies the following confidence bound: w.p. at least $1-{\ensuremath{\delta}\xspace} $, $\forall t\ge1, \forall x\in {\mathbb{R}}^d: \|x\|\le1, $
\begin{align*}
x^\T (\hat{\ensuremath{\theta}}_t-{\ensuremath{\theta}}^*) \le \Theta\left(\|x\|_{H_t(\theta^*)^{-1}}S_*^{3/2}\sqrt{(d + \ln(t/{\ensuremath{\delta}\xspace} )})\right)~.
\end{align*}
While their bound also does not directly depend on $\kappa$ it is an anytime confidence bound that holds for all $x\in \mathbb{R}^d$ simultaneously, and in addition allows for an adaptively chosen sequence of measurements. As a result, their bound suffers an additional factor of $\sqrt{d}$. Furthermore, their bound introduces a factor $S_*^{3/2}$ and requires the knowledge of both $S_*$ and $\kappa$.\footnote{We believe the factor $S_*^{3/2}$ can be removed by imposing an assumption on $\xi_t$ like ours.}
In contrast, our bound does not directly depend on the confidence width nor require the knowledge of $S_*$ or $\kappa$ though these quantities may be needed to satisfy the burn-in condition.
\textbf{Tightness of our bound.}
Empirically, we have observed that $\xi_t^2 \le O(1)$ is necessary to control the confidence width as a function of $\|x\|_{H_t({\ensuremath{\theta}}^*)^{-1}}$, but have not found a case where $\xi_t^2$ must be smaller than $O(1/d)$; studying the optimal burn-in condition is left as future work.
We believe one can improve $\log({\ensuremath{t_\mathsf{eff}}})$ to the metric entropy of the measurements $\{x_s\}_{s=1}^t$.
Note that it is possible to remove the burn-in condition if we derive a \textit{regularized} MLE version of Theorem~\ref{thm:concentration}, but this comes with an extra factor of $\sqrt{d}$ in the confidence width, which is not better than the confidence bound of \citet{faury2020improved}.
\vspace{-.5em}
\begin{proof}[Proof Sketch of Theorem~\ref{thm:concentration}]
The novelty of our argument is to exploit the variance term without introducing $\kappa$ explicitly in the confidence width.
We follow the main decomposition of \citet[Theorem 1]{li2017provably} but deviate from their proof by: $i)$ employing Bernstein's inequality rather than Hoeffding's to obtain $H_t({\ensuremath{\theta}}^*)$ in the bound (as opposed to $\kappa^{-1} V_t$); and $ii)$ deriving a novel implicit inequality on $\max_{s\in[t]} |x_s^\T(\ensuremath{\what{\theta}}\xspace_t - {\ensuremath{\theta}}^*)|$.
The latter leads to the significant improvements in both $d$ and $\kappa^{-1}$ in the condition on $\xi_t$.
Let $\alpha_s(\hat{\ensuremath{\theta}}_t,{\ensuremath{\theta}}^*) := \frac{\mu(x_s^\T\hat{\ensuremath{\theta}}_t) - \mu(x_s^\T{\ensuremath{\theta}}^*)}{x_s^\T(\hat{\ensuremath{\theta}}_t - {\ensuremath{\theta}}^*)}$, $\blue{z} := \sum_s^t \eta_s x_s$, and $\blue{G} := \sum_s^t \alpha_s(\hat\theta_t, \theta^*) x_s x_s^\T$.
By the optimality condition of $\hat{\ensuremath{\theta}}_t$, we have:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
z &= G (\hat\theta_t - \theta^*).
\end{split}
\end{align}
We use the shorthand $H := H_t(\theta^*)$ and define $\blue{E} := G-H$.
The main decomposition is
\begin{align}\label{eq:main-decomp}
|x^\T(\hat\theta_t - \theta^*) |
&\!=\! |x^\T (H+E)^{-1} z|
\\&\!\le\! |x^\T H^{-1}z| + |x^\T H^{-1}E (H+E)^{-1}z|~. \nonumber
\end{align}
We bound $x^\T H^{-1} z$ by $O(\|x\|_{H^{-1}}\sqrt{\log(1/{\ensuremath{\delta}\xspace} )})$ which uses Bernstein's inequality and the assumption on $\xi^2_t$.
We control the second term by:
\begin{align}\label{eq:main-decomp-2}
&|x^\T H^{-1}E (H+E)^{-1}z| \nonumber
\\&\le \|x\|_{H^{-1}} \|H^{-1/2} E H^{-1/2}\| \|G^{-1} z\|_{H}
\\&\stackrel{(a)}{\le} \|x\|_{H^{-1}} \|H^{-1/2} E H^{-1/2}\| (1+D) \|z\|_{H^{-1}}\nonumber
\\&\stackrel{(b)}{\le} \|x\|_{H^{-1}} \|H^{-1/2} E H^{-1/2}\| (1+D) \cdot O(\sqrt{d+\log(1/{\ensuremath{\delta}\xspace} )})\nonumber
\\&\stackrel{(c)}{\le} \|x\|_{H^{-1}} D \cdot O(\sqrt{d+\log(1/{\ensuremath{\delta}\xspace} )}), \nonumber
\end{align}
where $(a)$ is by introducing $D := \max_{s\in[t]} |x_s^\T(\ensuremath{\what{\theta}}\xspace - {\ensuremath{\theta}}^*)|$ and using the self-concordance property of the logistic loss~\cite{faury2020improved}, $(b)$ is Bernstein's inequality with a covering argument along with the assumption on $\xi_t$, and $(c)$ is by a novel result employing self-concordance and the assumption to show that $E$ can be bounded by $D\cdot H$.
Our key observation is to apply Eq.~\eqref{eq:main-decomp} for every distinct vector $x$ in $\{x_s\}_{s\in[t]}$ and employ $\|x\|_{H^{-1}} \le \xi_t$ to see:
\begin{align*}
D &= \max_{s\in[t]} |x_s^\T(\ensuremath{\what{\theta}}\xspace - {\ensuremath{\theta}}^*)|
\\&\le O(\xi_t \sqrt{\log(1/{\ensuremath{\delta}\xspace} )}) + \xi_t D \cdot O(\sqrt{d+\log(1/{\ensuremath{\delta}\xspace} )})~.
\end{align*}
The assumption on $\xi_t$ implies $\xi_t O(\sqrt{d+\log(1/{\ensuremath{\delta}\xspace} )}) < 1$. We solve for $D$ to obtain the implicit equation
\begin{align*}
D = O(\xi_t \sqrt{1/{\ensuremath{\delta}\xspace} })~.
\end{align*}
Plugging this back into Eq.~\eqref{eq:main-decomp-2} gives $\|x^\T(\ensuremath{\what{\theta}}\xspace - {\ensuremath{\theta}}^*)\| \le O(\|x\|_{H^{-1}}\sqrt{\log(1/{\ensuremath{\delta}\xspace} )})$, which holds with probability at least $1-\Theta({\ensuremath{t_\mathsf{eff}}}\delta)$, as we use the concentration inequality $\Theta({\ensuremath{t_\mathsf{eff}}})$ times.
To turn this into a statement that holds w.p. at least $1-{\ensuremath{\delta}\xspace} $, we substitute ${\ensuremath{\delta}\xspace} $ with $\Theta({\ensuremath{\delta}\xspace} /{\ensuremath{t_\mathsf{eff}}})$, concluding the proof. See appendix for the statement on $\cE_{\mathsf{var}}$.
\end{proof}
\vspace{-1.2em}
\section{\texorpdfstring{$K$}{}-Armed Contextual Bandits}
\label{sec:suplogistic}
\vspace{-.5em}
We now switch gears and consider the contextual bandit setting where at each time step $t$ the environment presents the learner with an arm set $\cX_t = \{x_{t,1}, \ldots, x_{t,K} \}\subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$
independently of the learner's history.
~\citep{auer2002using}.
The learner then chooses an arm index $a_t\in[K]$ and then receives a reward $y_t\sim{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Bernoulli}}}(\mu(x_{t,a_t}^\T {\ensuremath{\theta}}^*))$, where parameter ${\ensuremath{\theta}}^*$ is unknown to the learner.
Let $x_{t,a^*} = \argmax_{x\in \cX_t} \mu(x_{t,a}^\T {\ensuremath{\theta}}^*)$ be the best arm at time step $t$.
The goal is to minimize the cumulative (pseudo-)regret over the time horizon $T$:
\begin{align}
\mathsf{Reg}_T = \sum_{t=1}^T \mu(x_{t,a^*}^\T {\ensuremath{\theta}}^*) - \mu(x_{t,a_t}^\T {\ensuremath{\theta}}^*).
\end{align}
While the regret $\tilde O(d\sqrt{T} + d^2\kappa^{-1})$ is achievable by~\citet{faury2020improved}\footnote{$\tilde O$ hides poly-logarithmic factors in $T$}, one can aim to achieve an accelerated regret bound when $K=o(e^d)$.
Specifically, \citet{li2017provably} achieve the best-known bound of $\tilde O(\fr{1}{\kappa}\sqrt{dT\ln(K)})$.
However, the factor $1/\kappa$ is exponential w.r.t. $\|{\ensuremath{\theta}}^\ast \|$, which makes the regret impractically large.
Leveraging our new confidence bound, we propose a new algorithm SupLogistic that removes $1/\kappa$ from the leading term: $\tilde O(\sqrt{dT\ln(K)})$.
We assume that $\|x_{t,a}\| \le 1, \forall t\in[T], a\in[K]$, and that $\|{\ensuremath{\theta}}^*\| \le S_*$ where $S_*$ is known to the learner.
We follow \citet{li2017provably} and assume that there exists $\ensuremath{\sigma}\xspace_0^2$ such that ${\lam_{\min}}(\EE[\fr1K \sum_{a\in[K]} x_{t,a} x_{t,a}^\T]) \ge \ensuremath{\sigma}\xspace_0^2$, which is used to characterize the length of the burn-in period in our theorem.
We describe SupLogistic in Alg.~\ref{alg:SupLogistic}, which follows the standard mechanism for maintaining independent samples \citep{auer2002using}.
As the confidence bound is not available until enough samples are accrued, we perform $\tau$ time steps of burn-in sampling and then spread the samples across the buckets $\Psi_1,\ldots,\Psi_S, \Phi$ equally.
Note that our burn-in sampling is different from \citet{li2017provably}. We show in the supplementary that their approach is problematic.
After the burn-in, in each time step $t$, we loop through the buckets $s\in[S]$.
In each loop, we compute ${\ensuremath{\theta}}_{t-1}^{(s)}$, the MLE given in Eq~\eqref{eq:mle}, using the samples in the bucket $\Psi_s(t-1)$.
We compute ${\ensuremath{\theta}}_\Phi$ in the same way using $\Phi$.
Let $X_t = x_{t,a_t}$.
For any ${\ensuremath{\theta}}$, define
\begin{align}
H^{(s)}_{t}({\ensuremath{\theta}}) := \sum_{u\in\Psi_s(t)} {\dot\mu}(X_u^\T {\ensuremath{\theta}}) X_u X_u^\T ~.
\end{align}
The algorithm computes the mean estimate and the confidence width of each arm $a\in[K]$ as follows:
\begin{align}\label{eq:m_w}
\!\!\! m^{(s)}_{t,a} \!:=\! {\langle} x_{t,a}, \theta_{t-1}^{(s)}{\rangle}, w^{(s)}_{t,a} \!:=\! \alpha \sqrt{2.2} \|x_{t,a}\|_{\!H_{t-1}^{(s)}\! (\theta_\Phi)^{- \! 1}}.
\end{align}
For each $s\in[S]$, we check if there is an underexplored arm (step \textbf{(a)}) and pull it.
Otherwise, we pull the arm with the highest empirical mean.
Finally, we filter arms whose empirical means are sufficiently far from the highest empirical mean and go to the next iteration.
The bucketing is important to maintain the validity of the concentration inequality in the analysis, which requires that the data satisfies the fixed design assumption in Theorem~\ref{thm:concentration}.
Our comment on \citet{li2017provably} in our supplementary elaborates more on this issue.
The main challenge of the design of SupLogistic over SupCB-GLM~\cite{li2017provably} is how we use our tight confidence bound, which requires the confidence width to depend on ${\ensuremath{\theta}}^*$ (see Theorem~\ref{thm:concentration}).
Our solution is to use a separate bucket $\Phi$ dedicated for computing the width.
If we do not use $\Phi$ and use the empirical version of Theorem~\ref{thm:concentration}, we would break the fixed design assumption as we collect samples as a function of the rewards from the same bucket.
\textfloatsep=.5em
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{SupLogistic}
\label{alg:SupLogistic}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Input{time horizon $T$, burn-in length $\tau$, and exploration rate $\alpha$}
\Initialize{$S=\lfloor \log_2{T} \rfloor$}
\Initialize{Buckets $\Psi_1=\cdots=\Psi_{S} = \Psi_{S+1} =\varnothing$}
\For{$t\in[\tau]$}
\State{Choose $a_t \in [K]$ uniformly at random.}
\State{Add $a_t$ to the set $\Psi_{((t-1) \!\mod S+1) + 1}$.}
\EndFor
\Initialize{$\Psi_0 = \emptyset$, $\Phi = \Psi_{S+1}$}
\For{$t=\tau+1,\tau+2,\cdots,T$}
\Initialize{$A_1=[K]$, $s=1$, $a_t = \varnothing$.}
\While{$a_t=\varnothing$}
\State Compute $m_{t,a}$ and $w_{t,a}$ \Comment{use Eq~\eqref{eq:m_w}}
\If {$w_{t,a}^{(s)}>2^{-s} \text{ for some } a \in A_s$}
\State $a_t=a$ \Comment{\textbf{(a)}}
\State $\Psi_s \larrow \Psi_s \cup \{t\}$
\ElsIf{$w_{t,a}^{(s)} \le 1/\sqrt{T}, \ \forall\ a \in A_s$}
\State $a_t=\argmax_{a \in A_s} m_{t,a}^{(s)}$ \Comment{\textbf{(b)}}
\State $\Psi_0 \larrow \Psi_0 \cup \{t\}$
\ElsIf{$w_{t,a}^{(s)} \le 2^{-s}, \ \forall \ a \in A_s$}
\State {$A_{s+1} = \{a\in A_s: $ \Comment{\textbf{(c)}}
\\ \hspace{19ex} $m_{t,a}^{(s)} \ge \max_{j \in A_s}\!\! m_{t,j}^{(s)} - 2 \cdot 2^{-s}\}$ }
\State $s \leftarrow s+1$
\EndIf
\EndWhile
\EndFor
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
We present our regret bound in the following theorem whose proof can be found in our supplementary.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:suplogistic}
Let $T\!\ge\! d$, $\tau = \sqrt{dT}$, $\alpha=3.5 \sqrt{\ln(\fr{2(2+\tau)\cdot 2STK}{\delta})}$, and $Z =\fr{d}{\kappa^2} + \fr{\ln^2(K/{\ensuremath{\delta}\xspace} )}{d\kappa^2}$.
Then, w.p. at least $1-{\ensuremath{\delta}\xspace} $,
\begin{align*}
\!\mathsf{Reg}_T
&\le 10 \alpha\sqrt{dT\ln(T/d)\log_2(T)}
\\&\quad+ O\del{\fr{\alpha^2}{\kappa}d\ln\left(\fr{\alpha^2 T}{\kappa}\right) + Z\ln^4(Z)}.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
Our bound improves upon SupCB-GLM \citep{li2017provably} by removing the factor $1/\kappa = \Theta(\exp(S_*))$ in the leading term (i.e., $\sqrt{T}$ term).
Ours further improves the dependence on the non-leading term from $\tilde O(\frac{d^3}{\kappa^4})$ to $\tilde O(\frac{d}{\kappa^2})$.
Such an improvement parallels that of~\citet{faury2020improved} with $\tilde O(d\sqrt{T})$ upon UCB-GLM~\citep{li2017provably} with $\tilde O(\fr1\kappa d\sqrt{T})$.
Compared to Logistic-UCB-2 of \citet{faury2020improved}, our regret bound can be better or worse depending on the problem, which we summarize in three cases.
First, ours has a factor of $\sqrt{d\ln(K)}$ in the $\sqrt{T}$ term, which is a $\sqrt{d}$ factor better than theirs when $K = o(e^d)$.
Secondly, our bound's lower order term scales like $1/\kappa^2$, which is worse than $1/\kappa$ of Logistic-UCB-2.
Thirdly, while Logistic-UCB-2 manages to avoid an exponential dependence on $S_*$ in the leading term, the regret still has a factor $S_*^{1.5}$ and requires the knowledge of $S_*$.\footnote{Which may be removed if their algorithm uses a burn-in phase.}
In contrast, our bound does not depend on $S_*$ in the leading term nor require the knowledge of $S_*$.
\begin{remark}
A parallel work by \citet{abeille20instancewise} achieves a leading term of $d\sqrt{\dot\mu(x_*^\T\theta^*)T}$ in the regret bound where $x_*$ is the best arm that is fixed throughout.
This is possible since their setting assumes a fixed arm set.
In contrast, our setting assumes that the arm set is changing, so the best arm can change in every time step.
For this reason, we do not expect to achieve a factor like $\sqrt{\dot\mu(x_*^\T\theta^*)}$ in the leading term without further assumptions.
\end{remark}
\vspace{-.7em}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
Global warming poses a major threat to the social and economic stability of human civilization.
Paradoxically, most of the currently observed climate changes are mainly driven by human activities. The unrestricted consumption of fossil fuels leads to steadily rising levels of atmospheric CO$_2$ and other greenhouse gases (GHG), resulting in the subsequent trapping of heat in Earth's atmosphere and water bodies \citep[see the][for a summary]{IPCCAR5}. The reduction of GHG emissions is mandatory to limit long-term damage to Earth's climate.
Being able to globally monitor GHG emissions would allow us to (1) obtain a deeper understanding of its effects on the climate and (2) to enforce environmental protection emission quotas and emission trading schemes. However, the direct measurement of the amount of GHG emissions is extremely expensive, especially on large scales. In addition, legal requirements to report industrial emissions vary significantly. A method to globally quantify industrial emissions would improve our picture of GHG emissions, enable their systematic monitoring, and
inform policy makers.
This work investigates the possibility to quantify GHG emissions by using industrial smoke plumes based on satellite imagery as a proxy. The goal of this ongoing project is to establish a pipeline to monitor the state and level of activity of industrial plants using readily available remote sensing data in an effort to estimate their GHG emissions in combination with environmental data.
Our contribution\footnote{The code base for this work is available at \href{https://github.com/HSG-AIML/IndustrialSmokePlumeDetection}{github.com/HSG-AIML/IndustrialSmokePlumeDetection}; the complete data set is available at \href{http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4250706}{zenodo.org}.}
with regard to climate change monitoring is threefold: (1) we compile a large scale annotated data set of active industrial sites with additional segmentation masks for a subset of these smoke plumes, (2) we present a modified ResNet-50 approach able to detect active smoke plumes with an accuracy of 94.3\% and finally, (3) we utilize a U-Net approach to segment smoke plumes and measure their areal projections on average within 5.6\% of human manual annotations.
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:related_work}
The detection of smoke from remote sensing imaging data in the past has mostly been restricted
to the identification of wild fires \citep[see][for a review]{Szapowski2019}. A common method for the
detection of wildfire smoke uses multi-thresholding of multi-spectral imaging data \citep[e.g.,][]{Randriambelo1998},
exploiting the spectral characteristics of smoke plumes by hand-crafting corresponding features.
With the rise of machine learning, supervised and unsupervised learning methods have been implemented
to automatically detect wildfires and their smoke plumes \citep{Jain2020}.
Other efforts to characterize smoke plumes
use physical dispersion or statistical models \citep[see][for a review]{Jerrett2005}, or they utilize ground-based
observations from consumer grade camera systems
in combination with algorithmic solutions \citep{Hsu2018}
or deep learning approaches \citep{Hohberg2015, Hsu2020, Jiao2020}. While
cheap and easy to implement, such camera systems are
severely limited in the wavelength range they can observe in and have to be
deployed for each site individually. Multi-spectral observations from space can monitor large areas and
make use of additional spectral information.
This work focuses on the detection and characterization of smoke
plumes from industrial activities based on Sentinel-2 MultiSpectral Instrument
remote sensing data \citep{MSIuserguide} in an end-to-end deep learning approach.
The advantage of our approach
is the combination of multi-spectral remote sensing data that are available freely and on a global scale
with a flexible learning approach that not only detects smoke, but is able to quantify the
amount of activity using a segmentation model. In contrast to traditional multi-thresholding methods, our deep-learning approach can be easily adopted to other data sets (other continents, other satellites) without the need for labor-intensive hand-crafting of the spectral features of smoke and the background.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=1.55in]{example_panel.png}
\caption{{\small A representative sample of example images.
Each column corresponds to a different location; the top row shows locations when a smoke
plume is present (positive class),
the bottom row shows the same locations during the absence of smoke (negative class).
Red circles indicates the approximate origin of the plume. Our data set samples a wide range of seasonal effects, climate zones, land use types, and natural cloud patterns.}
\label{fig:example_panel}}
\vskip -0.4cm
\end{figure}
\section{Industrial Site Data Set}
\label{sec:data}
We acquire geographic locations of 624 sites from the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register \citep{EPRTR2020}, a pollution reporting entity within the European Union as the foundation of our work.
For each site, we retrieve all available Sentinel-2 satellite imagery \citep{MSIuserguide} taken during 2019. Each raster image consists of all 12 spectral-band channels from the calibrated
(bottom-of-atmosphere) Level-2A reflectances and is cropped to an edge length of 1,200~m, corresponding to 120$\times$120 pixels.
Low-resolution channels are resampled to the highest available resolution (10~m/pixel). A representative set of example images is shown in Figure \ref{fig:example_panel}.
Each image is manually classified based on the presence or absence of smoke plumes anywhere in that image; we further produce segmentation masks for
1,437 random positive images with smoke plumes.
We define as a smoke plume any opaque or semi-transparent cloud that originates from the surface; we make no assumptions on the plume's properties (e.g., its molecular composition or process of origin) other than it being most likely anthrophogenic.
Images (positive and negative) can include partial cloud coverage, however, images that are fully covered by natural clouds are excluded from the data set. We note that despite great care, the annotation process is highly subjective due to the low image resolution (10~m), scene variability caused by weather and illumination differences, and the fact that human annotation is only based on RGB images and does not consider additional spectral information present in the data.
As a result, surface features such as buildings, ice, snow or partially occlusion by natural clouds might confuse a human annotator during the labeling process.
The final data set includes 21,350 images for 624 different locations with
3,750
positive (a smoke plume is present) and 17,600 negative (no smoke plume is visible). For each location at least 1 image (negative only) and up to 96 images (positives and negatives combined) from the time-span during 2019 are available. We split the data into static subsets for
training (70\%), validation (15\%), and testing (15\%) in such a way that data for each location appear only in one of the three subsets.
\section{Classification: Identification of Smoke Plumes}
\label{sec:classification}
We investigate whether it is possible to reliably detect smoke plumes in our data given the challenges of natural clouds, ice and snow reflections, utilizing a ResNet-50 \citep{He2016} architecture as a binary classifier. The architecture is modified to utilize a 12 multi-band channel (all Sentinel-2 channels) input vector and results in a scalar logit.
We use a binary cross-entropy loss function, which is minimized using stochastic gradient descent with momentum.
The training and validation samples are balanced through duplication of the positive samples. Data augmentation is implemented in the form of random image mirroring and flipping, random
image rotations $i\cdot 90^\circ, i \in \{0, 1, 2, 3\}$, and the random cropping of a 90$\times$90~pixel window from each image.
After successful training from scratch we can report an accuracy of 94.3\% on the test data.
The confusion matrix is mostly symmetric with typical [TP/TN/FP/FN] ratios of [46.7\%, 47.6\%, 2.4\%, 3.3\%] underlining the reliable detection of smoke plumes from the Sentinel-2 satellite data.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=1.9in]{activations_1.png}
\includegraphics[height=1.9in]{activations_2.png}
\includegraphics[height=1.9in]{activations_3.png}
\includegraphics[height=1.9in]{activations_4.png}
\includegraphics[height=1.9in]{activations_5.png}
\includegraphics[height=1.9in]{activations_6.png}
\includegraphics[height=1.9in]{activations_7.png}
\includegraphics[height=1.9in]{activations_8.png}
\caption{{\small Evaluation of our classification model. For different examples from our
test sub-sample (columns), we show the true color RGB image (top row), a false color image
(center row, see Section \ref{sec:classification} for details), and the activations of Layer2 in our ResNet implementation
(bottom row, sharing the same scaling across the row). We find that the location of smoke
correlates in most cases with significant aerosol and water vapor signals
and that Layer2 activations fire based on these signals, leading to good localization of the smoke.
\label{fig:class_results}}}
\vskip -0.4cm
\end{figure}
To investigate the decision-making process learned by our model, we sum up the gradients in the model's first convolutional layer (input layer) on a per-input-feature basis and find that in
most cases the mean gradients are highest for channels 1 (aerosols), 9 (water vapor), and 11 (Short-Wave Infrared band 1), which are reasonable since smoke plumes do release small particles and water vapor from the burning of fossil fuels \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Artanto2012}.
In Figure \ref{fig:class_results}, we find that the distribution of signal strength in these channels (center row, false color palette: red = channel 1, green = channel 9, blue = channel 11) correlates well with the locations of smoke plumes.
Our model has learned to distinguish between smoke plumes and natural clouds (see 6th column in Figure \ref{fig:class_results}).
The presence of high-altitude cirrus clouds seems to impede the
detection of smoke plumes (see last column in in Figure
\ref{fig:class_results}).
Finally, we find that activations in \texttt{Layer2} (the second bottleneck block in our ResNet-50) correlate well with the locations of smoke plumes in the image data (see Figure \ref{fig:class_results}, bottom row).
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=1.9in]{segmentation_1.png}
\includegraphics[height=1.9in]{segmentation_2.png}
\includegraphics[height=1.9in]{segmentation_3.png}
\includegraphics[height=1.9in]{segmentation_4.png}
\includegraphics[height=1.9in]{segmentation_5.png}
\includegraphics[height=1.9in]{segmentation_6.png}
\includegraphics[height=1.9in]{segmentation_7.png}
\includegraphics[height=1.9in]{segmentation_8.png}
\caption{{\small Evaluation of our segmentation model. For different examples from our
test sub-sample (columns), we show the RGB image (top row), a false color image
(center row, see Section \ref{sec:classification} for details), and the footprint of the ground-truth labels (red areas)
and predicted labels (green areas). While opaque smoke plumes are easily identified by the
model (columns 1, 3, 4, and 5), semi-transparent smoke is sometimes missed by the model
(columns 2 and 6). We also find that
false negatives (column 8) are often related to high-altitude cirrus clouds and that false positives (column 7)
are mainly caused by human mislabeling (see Section \ref{sec:data}).
\label{fig:seg_results}}}
\vskip -0.4cm
\end{figure}
\section{Semantic Segmentation: Quantifying Smoke Plumes}
\label{sec:segmentation}
We investigate whether it is possible to quantify the amount of smoke present in an image through semantic segmentation; the measurement of the number of pixels occupied by smoke may be used as a proxy for the level of industrial activity in this area.
We utilize a U-Net \citep{Ronneberger2015} implementation in combination with a binary cross entropy loss function and stochastic gradient descent with momentum to learn the segmentation task.
This model is learned on a training data set comprising 70\% of our sample of
1,437 images with manually labeled smoke plumes (see Section \ref{sec:data}) to which we add the same number of negative images (no smoke plumes present). The remaining labeled images are evenly split into a validation subset and a test subset to which we add negative examples in the same way.
The performance is evaluated using both the accuracy metric, in which we consider images that
contain any amount of smoke positive or negative otherwise, and using the Intersection-over-Union (IoU, also known as Jaccard index) metric, in which we ignore images that do not contain smoke labels as those have an ill-defined IoU metric.
Our trained model achieves an accuracy 94.0\% and an IoU of 0.608 based on our test sub-sample. Finally, we find that on average 94.4\% of the area covered by smoke in each positive image is reproduced by our model.
Figure \ref{fig:seg_results} shows example images after running through our segmentation model. We find that the model reliably finds opaque smoke plumes while it is less reliable in finding somewhat transparent smoke plumes; occasionally, surface objects are mistaken as smoke plumes.
We find a saturation training sub-sample IoU of ${\sim}$0.7, which we attribute to the model's issues with semi-transparent clouds, as well as short-comings in the manual annotation of the data (see Section \ref{sec:data}).
We conclude that using our approach we can measure the extent of smoke plumes (on average to within 5.6\% of human performance), which is a prerequisite for estimating actual emission levels from our results. This will be further investigated in future work in the form of an analysis involving smoke plume area estimates from our segmentation model and ground-truth activity metrics from select power plants and other emitters. This process will require to take into account environmental factors \citep[e.g., as provided by][]{ERA5}.
\medskip
\small
|
\section{Introduction}
It is natural to ask how the most successful methods used to colour linear triangle-free graphs (or equivalently, to construct strong Schur partitions) might be modified so as to permit the construction of larger \textbf{weak} Schur partitions.
The author's previous experience indicates that the most successful constructions for 'small' triangle-free graphs can be characterised as special cases having particular unique attributes. Smaller graphs have typically been derived by a range of exhaustive or partial search strategies: and have then been combined or extended by methods involving various forms of 'compounding'. Compound graphs may be derived using periodically repetitive structures (translations) and/or reflections. These techniques usually succeed by vastly reducing the size of the difference sets derived from the subsets comprised in the colouring.
Any strong Schur partition is also a weak Schur partition, so both the size of any maximal weak partitions into $r$ subsets, and their ultimate growth rate as $r$ increases, cannot be less than in the strong case. Previous papers, including \cite{FR-GLRGC}, have demonstrated that the ultimate growth rate for strong Schur partitions, as the number of colours $r$ increases, exceeds 3.27. This author has seen evidence that some constructions become much more difficult when the ratio approaches $(3+\sqrt{13})/2$, which is a little over 3.3.
One immediate observation, when attempting to construct weak Schur partitions, is that translations or reflections are much less useful. If a pair $(x, 2x)$ exists in a single subset $S_i$ in a weak Schur partition, it is clearly not possible in general to feature either of the pairs $(x+a, 2x+a)$ or $(m-x, m-2x)$ in the same subset, since in each case the difference is $x$, and $x \in S_i$.
Some recent work of this topic has succeeded in increasing the known lower bounds by sidestepping these constraints using various algorithms and search constraints - see, for instance, \cite{Rafili}. So far, however, it has apparently not proved possible to demonstrate in this way an infinite sequence of weak Schur partitions with a growth rate above 3, which does not consist simply of strong partitions.
This paper now provides two such sequences. Although one might rightly say that the partitions in these sequences are 'almost' strong partitions, that may simply indicate that there is room for more imaginative constructions.
Notation is defined in section 2.
In section 3, it is proved that, starting from a single specific graph, a series of graphs can be constructed, giving improved values for $WS(s)$ applicable for all $s \ge 6$. Numerical lower bounds are shown for $1 \le r \le 10$.
In section 4, some very brief conclusions are drawn.
\section{Definitions and Notation}
In this paper:
The set of integers $\{1, 2, 3, \dots, n\}$ is sometimes written as a \emph{closed integer interval} $[1, n]$. A partition $p$ of $[1, n]$ into $r$ subsets may be denoted by $p(r; n)$.
If an interval $S = [1, n]$ can be partitioned into $r$ disjoint non-empty subsets $S_i$ for $i = 1, 2, 3, \dots, r$, where no subset contains three \textbf{distinct} integers $a, b, c$, such that $a+b=c$, then each such subset is \emph{weakly sum-free} and that partition is a \emph{weak Schur partition}. The order of the set $S$ is clearly $n$, and is also referred to as the \emph{order of the partition}.
A pair of positive integers $(a, 2a)$ is referred to as a \emph{weak pair}.
For any $r$, $WS(r)$ is the maximum value of $n$ such that a weak Schur partition $p(r; n)$ exists. $WS(r)$ is known as the \emph{weak Schur number}, and its existence is established by Ramsey's Theorem.
\section{Construction of Weak Schur Partitions}
\begin{theorem}
\label{Thm:C-Thm1}
(Construction Theorem)\\
If there is a strong Schur partition of the integers $[1, m]$ into $r$ subsets, then there is a weak Schur partition of $[1, 4m+2]$ into $r+1$ subsets; and a weak Schur partition of $[1, 13m+8]$ into $r+2$ subsets.
\end{theorem}
The theorem depends on two very simple constructions, which are closely related to that used by Schur in $\cite{Sch1}$.
\begin{proof}
As stated above, the repetition or reflection of 'weak pairs' $(a, 2a)$ within a prototype partition, into an extended partition, is not useful in the general case. The first construction minimises this problem by relying on a sequence of partitions, each of which has only the single 'weak pair', $(1, 2)$ in one of its subsets. No other weak pairs are involved.
The first construction takes as its first 'prototype' the following partition of order 6:
$S_1 = \{1, 2, 6\}$\\
$S_2 = \{3, 4, 5\}$.
We also assume the existence of a strong Schur partition $q(r; m)$.
First, $S_1$ is extended to include an arithmetic series with difference 4, and so becomes $T_{r+1} = \{1, 2, 6, 10, \dots, 4m+2\}$.
$S_2$ is used to construct $m$ 'translates' of the numbers 3, 4 and 5 -- giving us $m$ distinct subsets of $[1, 4m+2]$, each of the form $T_i = \{4i-1, 4i, 4i+1\}$. It can be seen that within any one of these subsets $T_i$, the absolute differences are either 1 or 2 and so are members of $S_1$. Therefore each subset $T_i$ is sum-free.
We then form the remaining subsets of the new partition, $S_1, S_2, \dots , S_r$ by taking the unions of all the subsets $T_i$ whose indices are in the same subset in the strong partition $q(r; m)$.
Let us assume that two distinct subsets $T_i, T_j$ (with $i < j$) are included in the same subset of the new weak Schur partition. If so, any difference between a member of $T_j$ and a member of $T_i$ must be in the interval $[4(j-i)-2, 4(j-i)+2]$. Any number in this range is always either (a) a member of the subset $T_{j-i}$; or (b) a member of $S_1$.
Case (a) is the only case we need concern ourselves with. In that case, the partition $q(r; m)$ would not be sum-free if the subset containing $(j-i)$ were the same as that containing both $i$ and $j$. Therefore, every subset in the new partition, which was formed by taking the union of the $T_i$, is also strongly sum-free. Clearly, the subsets in the new partition that consist of unions of the $T_i$ must be of the same cardinality as the subsets in $q(r; m)$ -- i.e. $r$. Therefore, including $T_{r+1}$, we have $r+1$ subsets in the new partition
Lastly we observe that $T_{r+1}$ is weakly sum-free, that the order of the new partition is $4m+2$, and that it is a complete partition of $[1, 4m+2]$.
We omit many details of the proof of the second construction used in the theorem, which partitions the set $[1, 13m+8]$. It follows exactly similar lines to the above, but starts from the following partition of $[1, 21]$ into 3 subsets:
$S_1 = \{1, 2, 4, 8, 21\}$\\
$S_2 = \{3, 5, 6, 7, 18, 19, 20\}$\\
$S_3 = [9, 17]$.
The sets $T_i$ are derived in this case by translation of $[9,17]$. Set $T_{r+1}$ is derived by extending $S_1$ and set $T_{r+2}$ is derived by extending $S_2$, in each case with a period of 13. We note that only values above 4 are included in the basis for these extensions; and that each partition produced in this way contains exactly four weak pairs.
\end{proof}
It is now simple to deduce that if there is an infinite sequence of strong partitions with an ultimate growth rate of (say) $\gamma$, then there is a corresponding sequence of weak partitions with the same ultimate growth rate.
The orders now available for some 'small' partitions are shown in Table 1 below. The history and derivation of the smaller weak Schur partitions is well covered in \cite{EMRS}, and orders of weak partitions shown for $1 \le r \le 5$ are from that source. All are believed to be the largest currently available, and the first four have been shown to be maximal.
The orders of weak partitions for $6 \le r \le 10$ are produced by the construction above and believed to exceed the highest values previously published. The orders shown for the strong partitions (on which the constructions are based) are derived from \cite{FR-GLRGC}. \\
\FloatBarrier
\textbf{Table 1 - Orders of largest available weak and strong Schur partitions}
\includegraphics{NLBWSP_Table1.pdf}
\FloatBarrier
\section{Conclusions}
The construction described here is quite simple and effective, but fairly limited.
All of the partitions demonstrated above have very few weak pairs and so may be said to be only 'trivially weak', with order equal to a fixed multiple of a known strong partition. As a result, we have not shown that the limiting growth rate in the weak case exceeds that in the strong case. Although there is room for a lot more work, this author believes that the limiting growth rates may well be finite and equal, and further are quite likely to be bounded by a number well below 4.
Nor does this paper provide a sequence in which every partition certainly exceeds the maximum possible strong partition: although it might do so if the ultimate growth rate in the strong case can later be shown to be less than 4. For the moment, though, many of the 'small' partitions represent significant improvements over previously demonstrated lower bounds on $WS(r)$.
Despite its limitations, the construction demonstrated in this paper sets a new baseline for constructing infinite sequences of weak Schur partitions in a way that consistently exceeds what is possible in the strong case.
An example of a weak Schur partition $q(6; 642)$ is attached to this pdf as an ancillary file.
\medskip
\subsection*{Dedication}
I dedicate this paper to the memory of my very good friend, the late Paul~A.~Stanway, former Exhibitioner of St.~John's College Cambridge.
|
\section{Introduction and statement of the main results} \label{sec:introduction}
There are several interesting ways to construct operator algebras from locally compact groups. Arguably the best known are the universal group $C^*$-algebra $C^*(G)$ and the reduced group $C^*$-algebra $C^*_r(G)$ of a locally compact group $G$. There is a canonical surjective ${}^*$-homomorphism $C^*(G)\twoheadrightarrow C^*_r(G)$, which is well known to be a ${}^*$-isomorphism if and only if $G$ is amenable. For non-amenable groups $G$, it is natural to investigate whether there are other interesting group $C^*$-algebras that lie between these two extremes.
For our purposes, a group $C^*$-algebra is a $C^*$-completion $A$ of $C_c(G)$ with surjective ${}^*$-homomorphisms from $C^*(G)$ to $A$ and from $A$ to $C^*_r(G)$ that extend the identity map on $C_c(G)$ (see Section \ref{subsec:constructinggroupcstaralgebras} for details):
\begin{equation*}
C^*(G) \twoheadrightarrow A \twoheadrightarrow C^*_r(G).
\end{equation*}
If, moreover, both these canonical surjections are not injective, the algebra $A$ is said to be an exotic group $C^*$-algebra.
Apart from being interesting objects from an intrinsic point of view, group $C^{*}$-algebras of this type and related constructions, such as (exotic) crossed products, have received a lot of attention in recent years, in particular because of their relevance for the study of the Baum-Connes conjecture with coefficients and the strong Novikov conjecture (see e.g.~\cite{MR3514939}, \cite{MR3824785}, \cite{MR3837592}, \cite{antoninietal}).
A natural class of group $C^*$-algebras of a locally compact group $G$ comes from the $L^p$-integrability properties (for different $p$) of matrix coefficients of unitary representations. Let $p \in [1, \infty]$. A unitary representation $\pi \colon G \to \mathcal{U}(\mathcal{H})$ is called an $L^{p+}$-representation if for every $\varepsilon > 0$, sufficiently many of its matrix coefficients are elements of $L^{p+\varepsilon}(G)$. Given $p \in [2,\infty]$, completing the algebra $C_c(G)$ with respect to the natural norm coming from the collection of $L^{p+}$-representations of $G$ yields a group $C^*$-algebra of $G$, denoted by $C^*_{L^{p+}}(G)$ (see Section \ref{subsec:cstarlp} for the precise construction).
In this article, we study the group $C^*$-algebras $C^*_{L^{p+}}(G)$ for certain classes of (non-discrete) totally disconnected locally compact groups $G$ acting on trees. Our starting point is the following result, which shows that given an appropriate locally compact group $G$ acting on a semi-homogeneous tree of sufficiently large degree, the group $C^*$-algebras $C^*_{L^{p+}}(G)$ are pairwise distinguishable for $p \in [2,\infty]$.
\begin{thmA} \label{thm:groupcstaralgebrastrees}
Let $T$ be a semi-homogeneous tree of degree $(d_0,d_1)$ with $d_0,d_1\geq 2$ and $d_0+d_1\geq 5$, and let $G$ be a non-compact, closed subgroup of the automorphism group $\mathrm{Aut}(T)$. Suppose that $G$ acts transitively on the boundary $\partial T$. For $2 \leq q < p \leq \infty$, the canonical quotient map
\[
C^*_{L^{p+}}(G) \twoheadrightarrow C^*_{L^{q+}}(G)
\]
is not injective.
\end{thmA}
We give a proof of this result in Section \ref{sec:sphericalsubcstaralgebras}. It reproves a result of Samei and Wiersma (see \cite[Proposition 4.11 and Example 5.9]{sameiwiersma2}). Our approach is similar to theirs, in the sense that it relies on establishing the integrable Haagerup property for the groups under consideration, which together with the Kunze-Stein property (which is known for these groups) implies the theorem. However, our approach towards the integrable Haagerup property strongly relies on harmonic analysis and representation theory rather on geometric considerations.
Group $C^*$-algebras constructed from $L^p$-integrability properties of matrix coefficients have already been investigated extensively for discrete groups and for Lie groups. The systematic study of such algebras (in the setting of discrete groups) was initiated in \cite{MR3138486}. This lead to an analogue of Theorem \ref{thm:groupcstaralgebrastrees} for (non-amenable) discrete groups containing a non-abelian free subgroup \cite{MR3238088}, \cite{MR3705441}. In the setting of Lie groups, Wiersma proved an analogue of Theorem \ref{thm:groupcstaralgebrastrees} for $\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{R})$ \cite{MR3418075}, which was generalised to the Lie groups $\mathrm{SO}_0(n,1)$ and $\mathrm{SU}(n,1)$ in \cite{sameiwiersma2}. In \cite{delaatsiebenand1}, the second-named and the third-named author generalised this to all classical simple Lie groups with real rank one, including the ones with property (T), which could not be dealt with before.
A related question is whether the algebras $C^*_{L^{p+}}(G)$ are the only group $C^*$-algebras of the groups considered in Theorem \ref{thm:groupcstaralgebrastrees}. A positive answer is too much to hope for, but under two additional assumptions on the groups, we can show that the algebras $C^*_{L^{p+}}(G)$ are the only ones that can be constructed from $G$-invariant ideals in the Fourier-Stieltjes algebra $B(G)$ of $G$ (see Section \ref{subsec:constructinggroupcstaralgebras} for details).
\begin{thmA} \label{thm:ideals}
Let $T$ be a homogeneous tree of degree $d \geq 3$, and let $G$ be a non-compact, closed subgroup of the automorphism group $\mathrm{Aut}(T)$. Suppose that $G$ acts transitively on the vertices of $T$ and on the boundary $\partial T$ and that $G$ satisfies Tits' independence property. If $C^*_{\mu}(G)$ is a group $C^*$-algebra of $G$ such that its dual space $C^*_{\mu}(G)^*$ is a $G$-invariant ideal of $B(G)$, then there exists a unique $p \in [2,\infty]$ such that $B_{L^{p+}}(G)=C^*_{\mu}(G)^*$, where $B_{L^{p+}}(G):=C^*_{L^{p+}}(G)^*$.
\end{thmA}
We also prove this theorem for the totally disconnected group $\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{Q}_p)$, which does not have Tits' independence property.
Group $C^*$-algebras constructed from $G$-invariant ideals in $B(G)$ play an important role in the theory of exotic crossed product functors due to their good behaviour with respect to important invariants, such as K-theory (see \cite{MR3824785}, \cite{MR3837592}). This behaviour plays an important role in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:ideals}, which is given in Section \ref{sec:sphericalsubcstaralgebras}. The strategy of this proof was first used by the third-named author in \cite{siebenand}, where he showed an analogue of Theorem \ref{thm:ideals} for $\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{R})$ and $\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})$. The analogue for $\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{R})$ had already been covered before by representation-theoretic methods in \cite{MR3418075}.
Furthermore, similar methods lead to the following result, the proof of which is also given in Section \ref{sec:sphericalsubcstaralgebras}. This result indicates that canonical (non)-${}^*$-isomorphism of group $C^*$-algebras is very subtle.
\begin{thmA}\label{thm:star_iso}
Let $T$ be a semi-homogeneous tree of degree $(d_0,d_1)$ with $d_0,d_1\geq 2$ and $d_0+d_1\geq 5$, and let $G$ be a non-compact, closed subgroup of the automorphism group $\mathrm{Aut}(T)$. Suppose that $G$ acts transitively on the boundary $\partial T$ and that $G$ satisfies Tits' independence property. Then every group $C^*$-algebra $C^*_\mu(G)$ of $G$ that is distinguishable (as a group $C^*$-algebra) from the universal group $C^*$-algebra of $G$ and whose dual space $C^*_\mu(G)^*$ is a $G$-invariant ideal of $B(G)$ is (abstractly) ${}^*$-isomorphic to the reduced group $C^*$-algebra of $G$.
\end{thmA}
From the work of Bruhat and Tits \cite{MR0327923}, it is known that semi-simple algebraic rank one groups resemble the structure of the groups considered above. Indeed, for every reductive group over a local field, Bruhat and Tits constructed a geometric object -- nowadays called Bruhat-Tits building -- on which the group admits a natural action. These buildings can be viewed as a generalisation of Riemann symmetric spaces, and in the case of groups of rank one, the Bruhat-Tits building is a (semi-)homogeneous tree. In this way, our results may be applied to (appropriate classes of) rank one algebraic groups. In particular, it is known that the action of a simple algebraic group of rank one over a non-Archimedean local field on the boundary of its Bruhat-Tits tree is transitive, so Theorem \ref{thm:groupcstaralgebrastrees} directly applies.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
\noindent We thank Siegfried Echterhoff for interesting discussions and several useful comments, Marc Burger for pointing out \cite{sallyIntroductionAdicFields1998} to us, and Sven Raum for useful remarks on an earlier version of this article.
TdL and TS are supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft - Project-ID 427320536 - SFB 1442, as well as under Germany's Excellence Strategy - EXC 2044 - 390685587, Mathematics Münster: Dynamics - Geometry - Structure.
\section{Group $C^*$-algebras} \label{subsec:unitarydual}
We now recall some basic theory of group $C^*$-algebras. In this section, let $G$ be a locally compact group, equipped with a fixed Haar measure $\mu_G$.
\subsection{Weak containment and the unitary dual} \label{subsec:unitarydual}
A matrix coefficient of a unitary representation $\pi \colon G \to \mathcal{U}(\mathcal{H})$ is an (automatically bounded and continuous) function of the form $\pi_{\xi,\eta} \colon s \mapsto \langle \pi(s)\xi,\eta \rangle$, where $\xi,\eta \in \mathcal{H}$. A matrix coefficient $\pi_{\xi,\eta}$ is called diagonal if $\xi=\eta$, i.e.~if it is of the form $\pi_{\xi,\xi}$ for some $\xi \in \mathcal{H}$.
Let $\pi_1$ and $\pi_2$ be unitary representations of $G$. If every diagonal matrix coefficient of $\pi_1$ can be approximated uniformly on compact subsets of $G$ by finite sums of diagonal matrix coefficients of $\pi_2$, then the representation $\pi_1$ is said to be weakly contained in $\pi_2$.
For a locally compact group $G$, let $\widehat{G}$ denote its unitary dual, i.e.~the set of (unitary) equivalence classes of irreducible unitary representations equipped with the Fell topology. For a subset $S$ of $\widehat{G}$, the closure $\overline{S}$ of $S$ in the Fell topology consists of the elements of $\widehat{G}$ which are weakly contained in $S$. The subspace of $\widehat{G}$ consisting of all elements from $\widehat{G}$ that are weakly contained in the left regular representation $\lambda \colon G \to \mathcal{U}(L^2(G))$ is called the reduced unitary dual and denoted by $\widehat{G}_r$. For details, we refer to \cite{MR0458185}.
\subsection{Constructing group $C^{*}$-algebras} \label{subsec:constructinggroupcstaralgebras}
A group $C^*$-algebra associated with $G$ is a $C^{*}$-completion $C^*_\mu(G)$ of $C_c(G)$ with respect to a $C^*$-norm $\|.\|_{\mu}$ satisfying $\|f\|_u \geq \|f\|_{\mu} \geq \|f\|_r$ for all $f \in C_c(G)$, where $\|.\|_u$ and $\|.\|_r$ are the universal and the reduced $C^*$-norm, respectively. The identity map from $C_c(G)$ to $C_c(G)$ induces canonical surjective ${}^*$-homomorphisms $C^{*}(G) \twoheadrightarrow C^*_\mu(G)$ and $C^*_\mu(G) \twoheadrightarrow C^{*}_r(G)$. If both the quotient map $C^{*}(G) \twoheadrightarrow C^*_\mu(G)$ and the quotient map $C^*_\mu(G) \twoheadrightarrow C^{*}_r(G)$ are non-injective, then the algebra $C^*_\mu(G)$ is called an exotic group $C^*$-algebra. More generally, two group $C^*$-algebras
$C^*_{\mu_1}(G)$ and $C^*_{\mu_2}(G)$ are said to be distinguishable
if the corresponding $C^*$-norms $\|\cdot\|_{\mu_1}$ and $\|\cdot\|_{\mu_2}$
on $C_c(G)$ differ.
One way to construct group $C^*$-algebras, which goes back to \cite{MR3514939}, is by defining a $C^*$-norm that naturally comes from an appropriate subset of the unitary dual. More precisely, if $\widehat{G}$ and $\widehat{G}_r$ are the unitary and the reduced unitary dual (see Section \ref{subsec:unitarydual}), respectively, a subset $S \subset \widehat{G}$ is said to be admissible if $\widehat{G}_r \subset \overline{S}$. For such an admissible $S \subset \widehat{G}$, we can define a $C^*$-norm on $C_c(G)$ by
\[
\|f\|_S:=\sup\{\|\pi(f)\| \mid \pi \in S\}.
\]
The corresponding completion $C^*_S(G)$ is a group $C^{*}$-algebra.
\begin{dfn} \label{dfn:ideal}
Let $G$ be a locally compact group. An ideal of $\widehat{G}$ is a subset $S \subset \widehat{G}$ such that for every $\pi \in S$ and every unitary representation $\rho$ of $G$, the unitary representation $\pi \otimes \rho$ is weakly contained in $S$.
\end{dfn}
Note that non-empty ideals are automatically admissible. Taking $S$ to be an ideal in the above construction has certain analytic advantages, as will be explained below.
In \cite{MR3141810}, another construction of group $C^*$-algebras was described. Recall that the Fourier-Stieltjes algebra $B(G)$ of a locally compact group $G$ is the Banach algebra consisting of matrix coefficients of unitary representations of $G$. The Fourier-Stieltjes algebra $B(G)$ can be identified canonically with the dual space $C^*(G)^*$ of $C^*(G)$ through the pairing given by $\langle \varphi, \, f \rangle = \int \varphi f \mathrm{d}\mu_G$, with $\varphi \in B(G)$ and $f\in C_c(G) \subset C^*(G)$. Let $B_r(G) \subset B(G)$ be the dual space of the reduced group $C^*$-algebra $C^*_r(G)$. If $E \subset B(G)$ is a weak*-closed $G$-invariant subspace of $B(G)$ that contains $B_r(G)$, then
\begin{align*}
C_E^*(G) = C^*(G)/{}^{\perp}E
\end{align*}
is a group $C^*$-algebra. Here ${}^\perp E = \{ x\in C^*(G)\mid \langle\varphi, x\rangle = 0 \; \forall \varphi \in E\}$ denotes the pre-annihilator of $E$.
The two constructions recalled above are closely related: If $C^*_\mu(G)$ is a group $C^*$-algebra of $G$, then $\widehat{C^*_\mu(G)}\subset \widehat{G}$ is a closed ideal in $\widehat{G}$ if and only if the dual space $C^*_\mu(G)^*$ of $C^*_\mu(G)$ is a $G$-invariant ideal in $B(G)$. An explicit proof of this fact (which is well known to experts) can be found in \cite[Proposition 2.2]{delaatsiebenand1}.
\subsection{$L^p$-integrability of matrix coefficients and group $C^*$-algebras} \label{subsec:cstarlp}
We now consider unitary representations with certain $L^p$-integrability conditions on their matrix coefficients.
\begin{dfn} \label{dfn:lpplusrepresentation}
Let $\pi \colon G \to \mathcal{U}(\mathcal{H})$ be a unitary representation, and let $p \in [1, \infty]$.
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item The representation $\pi$ is an $L^{p}$-representation if there exists a dense subspace
$\mathcal{H}_0 \subset \mathcal{H}$ such that for all $\xi,\eta \in \mathcal{H}_0$, we have $\pi_{\xi,\eta}\in L^p(G)$.
\item The representation $\pi$ is an $L^{p+}$-representation if for all $p'\in (p,\infty]$, it is an $L^{p'}$-representation.
\end{enumerate}
\end{dfn}
These (and similar) notions have been studied extensively in the area of harmonic analysis on Lie groups.
We now consider the group $C^*$-algebras associated with these classes of representations. Note that in general, we cannot just take $S$ to be the set of (equivalence classes of) $L^{p+}$-representations and use the first construction above. Indeed, the set $S$ can be empty, e.g.~for non-compact locally compact abelian groups. Therefore, we define the $C^*$-norm in terms of unitary representations that are not necessarily irreducible.
Let $G$ be a locally compact group and $p\in[2,\infty]$. Let $C^*_{L^p}(G)$ and $C^*_{L^{p+}}(G)$ denote the group $C^*$-algebras obtained as the completions $C_c(G)$ with respect to norms
\begin{align*}
\|\cdot \|_{L^p} &\colon C_c(G)\to [0,\infty),\, f \mapsto
\sup \lbrace \|\pi(f)\| \mid \pi \mbox{ is a } L^p\mbox{-representation}\} \mbox { and}\\
\|\cdot \|_{L^{p+}}& \colon C_c(G)\to [0,\infty),\, f \mapsto
\sup \{ \|\pi(f)\| \mid \pi \mbox{ is a } L^{p+}\mbox{-representation}\},
\end{align*}
respectively. This essentially goes back to \cite{MR3138486}, where the algebras $C^*_{L^p}(G)$ were constructed for discrete groups $G$.
It is known that whenever $p\in [2,\infty]$, the dual spaces $\widehat{C^*_{L^{p}}(G)}$ and $\widehat{C^*_{L^{p+}}(G)}$ of $C^*_{L^{p}}(G)$ and $C^*_{L^{p+}}(G)$, respectively, are ideals in $\widehat{G}$ (in the sense of Definition \ref{dfn:ideal}).
Matrix coefficients (being bounded and continuous functions) that are in $L^p(G)$ for some $p \in [1,\infty]$ are automatically in $L^r(G)$ for all $r \geq p$. It follows that whenever $q \leq p$, we have $\norm{\cdot}_{L^{q+}}\geq \norm{\cdot}_{L^{p+}}$. Hence, the identity map on $C_c(G)$ extends to a canonical surjective ${}^*$-homomorphism $C^*_{L^{p+}}(G) \twoheadrightarrow C^*_{L^{q+}}(G)$. In order to find distinguishable group $C^*$-algebras, the relevant question is, under which conditions this map is not injective.
\subsection{Kunze-Stein groups and $L^{p+}$-group-$C^*$-algebras}
The distinguishability of the group $C^*$-algebras $C^*_{L^{p+}}(G)$ is especially well understood for Kunze-Stein groups. The investigation of the $L^{p+}$-group-$C^*$-algebras of such groups goes back to Samei and Wiersma \cite{sameiwiersma2}.
Recall that a locally compact group $G$ is called a Kunze-Stein group if
the convolution product on $C_c(G)$ extends to a bounded bilinear
map
\begin{equation*}
L^p(G)\times L^2(G)\to L^2(G)
\end{equation*}
for every $p\in [1,2)$.
Let us recall an important result on the algebras $C^*_{L^{p+}}(G)$ of Kunze-Stein groups $G$ (see {\cite[Theorem 5.3]{sameiwiersma2}}).
\begin{thm} \label{KS:cor_dual_Lpplus_algebra}
Let $G$ be a Kunze-Stein group and $p\in [2,\infty]$. Then
\begin{align*}
C^*_{L^{p+}}(G)^* \subset L^{p+\varepsilon}(G) \textrm{ for all } \varepsilon > 0.
\end{align*}
\end{thm}
\subsection{K-amenability and group $C^*$-algebras}
One of the key tools in our proofs is that group $C^*$-algebras whose dual space is an ideal in the Fourier-Stieltjes algebra behave particular well under K-theory if the group $G$ is K-amenable. Recall that a locally compact group $G$ is said to be K-amenable if the unit element $1_G$ of the Kasparov ring KK$^G(\mathbb{C},\mathbb{C})$ can be represented by a $\mathbb{C}$-$\mathbb{C}$-Kasparov $G$-module $(X,\gamma,\phi,F)$ such that $\gamma$ is weakly contained in the left regular representation of $G$ (see \cite{MR0716254}, \cite{MR0757995}).
The definition of K-amenability is slightly technical. By \cite[Theorem 1.3]{MR0757995}, the groups under consideration in this article are K-amenable. (More generally, this is true for all second countable locally compact groups with the Haagerup property \cite{MR1703305}). Hence, these technicalities do not play an important role in our arguments.
Specifically, we use the following result (see {\cite{MR3837592}, \cite{MR3824785}).
\begin{thm} \label{CR:thm:KK_eq_abs_grp_alg}
Let $G$ be a $K$-amenable, second countable, locally compact group. If $C^*_\mu(G)$ is a group $C^*$-algebra of $G$ such that
$C^*_\mu(G)^*$ is an ideal in $B(G)$, then the canonical quotient maps
$q \colon C^*(G)\to C^*_\mu(G)$ and $s \colon C^*_\mu(G)\to C^*_r(G)$ are KK-equivalences, i.e.~$[q] \in \mathrm{KK}(C^*(G),C^*_{\mu}(G))$ and $[s] \in \mathrm{KK}(C^*_{\mu}(G),C^*_r(G))$ are invertible.
\end{thm}
\subsection{Group $C^*$-algebras and Gelfand pairs}
Let $G$ be a locally compact group and $K$ a compact subgroup of $G$. A function $\varphi \colon G \to \mathbb{C}$ is said to be $K$-bi-invariant if $\varphi(k_1sk_2)=\varphi(s)$ for all $s \in G$ and $k_1,k_2 \in K$. The pair $(G,K)$ is called a Gelfand pair if the ${}^*$-subalgebra $C_c(K \backslash G / K)$ of $C_c(G)$ consisting of all $K$-bi-invariant elements of $C_c(G)$ is commutative.
Given a Gelfand pair $(G,K)$, a non-trivial $K$-bi-invariant Radon measure $\chi \colon C_c(G) \to \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}$ on $G$ is called spherical if it restricts to an algebra
homomorphism on $C_c(K\backslash G/K)$. Each spherical Radon measure $\chi$ on $G$ is absolutely continuous with respect to the Haar measure $\mu_G$, and there is a $K$-bi-invariant, continuous function $\varphi\in C(G)$ with $\varphi(e) = 1$ such that
\begin{align*}
\chi(f) = \int f(s)\varphi(s^{-1})\mathrm{d}\mu_G(s)
\end{align*}
for all $f\in C_c(G)$. A $K$-bi-invariant continuous function
$\varphi\in C(G)$ with $\varphi(e) = 1$ such that the map $C_c(K\backslash G/K)\to \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}, \, f \mapsto \int f(s)\varphi(s^{-1})\mathrm{d}\mu_G(s)$ forms an algebra homomorphism is called a spherical function for $(G,K)$.
An irreducible unitary group representation $\pi \colon G \to \mathcal{U}(\mathcal{H})$ is called spherical (or class one) for the Gelfand pair $(G, K)$ if the vector space $\mathcal{H}^K$ of $K$-invariant vectors is one-dimensional. We write $(\widehat{G}_K)_1$ for the (equivalence classes of) spherical representations of $G$. The space $(\widehat{G}_K)_1$ is called the spherical unitary dual of $(G,K)$. For details on Gelfand pairs and spherical functions, we refer to \cite{MR2328043}.
Recall that the universal group $C^*$-algebra $C^*(G)$ of $G$ comes together with a canonical unitary group representation $\iota_G \colon G \to \mathcal{UM}(C^*(G))$ (where $\mathcal{M}(C^*(G))$ denotes the multiplier algebra of $C^*(G)$) given by
\[
(\iota_G(s)f)(t)=f(s^{-1}t)
\]
for $f \in C_c(G)$ and $s,t \in G$. The representation $\iota_G$ is called the universal group representation.
Let $G$ be a locally compact group, and let $K$ be a compact subgroup of $G$. Now, let $\mu_K$ be the normalized Haar measure on $K$. By $p_K \in \mathcal{M}(C^*(G))$, let us denote the orthogonal projection defined by
\begin{align*}
p_K x = \int \iota_G(k)x\, \mathrm{d}\mu_K(k)
\end{align*}
for $x\in C^*(G)$. Moreover, for a general group $C^*$-algebra $C^*_\mu(G)$
of $G$, we denote by $p_{K,\mu}\in \mathcal{M}(C^*_\mu(G))$ the orthogonal
projection $\overline{q}(p_K)$, where $q\colon C^*(G)\to C^*_\mu(G)$ is the canonical quotient map and $\overline{q}$ denotes the unique extension of $q$ to a ${}^*$-homomorphism on $\mathcal{M}(C^*(G))$.
We write $C_\mu^*(K\backslash G/K)$ for the completion of $C_c(K\backslash G/K)$ in $C^*_\mu(G)$. It is a commutative sub-C*-algebra of $C^*_\mu(G)$ whenever $(G,K)$ is a Gelfand pair. Moreover, the following holds.
\begin{prp}\label{GA:gelfand:abelian_proj}
For every group $C^*$-algebra $C_\mu^*(G)$ of $G$, we have
\[
C^*_\mu(K\backslash G/K) = p_{K,\mu}C_\mu^*(G)p_{K,\mu}.
\]
In particular, $p_{K,\mu}$ is an abelian projection if $(G,K)$ is a Gelfand pair.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
Let $q \colon C^*(G)\to C^*_\mu(G)$ be the canonical
quotient map, and let $\iota_{G,\mu} := \overline{q}\circ\iota_G$, where
$\overline{q} \colon \mathcal{M}(C^*(G))\to \mathcal{M}(C^*_\mu(G))$ is as above.
For $x\in C_\mu^*(G)$, let $x'\in C^*(G)$ be an element satisfying $q(x') = x$.
We have
\begin{align*}
p_{K,\mu}x = q(p_K x')= q\left( \int \iota_G(k)x'\, \mathrm{d}\mu_K(k)\right) = \int \iota_{G,\mu}(k)x\, \mathrm{d}\mu_K(k).
\end{align*}
Furthermore, since $q$ is the identity on $C_c(G)$, for all $f\in C_c(G)$,
we have $\iota_{G,\mu}(k)f(t) = f(k^{-1}t)$ and $f\iota_{G,\mu}(k) (t) = f(tk)$
for all $k\in K$ and $t\in G$. Hence, the elements
\[
\int \iota_{G,\mu}(k)f\, \mathrm{d}\mu_K(k) = p_{K,\mu}f
\]
and
\[
\int f\iota_{G,\mu}(k)\,\mathrm{d}\mu_K(k) = fp_{K,\mu}
\]
belong to $C_c(G)$. Now the $K$-bi-invariance of $\mu_K$ implies that $p_{K,\mu}fp_{K,\mu}$ lies in $C_c(K\backslash G/K)$.
In other words, we have
\[
p_{K,\mu}C_c(G)p_{K,\mu}\subset C_c(K\backslash G/K).
\]
The argument above also shows that for a function $f\in C_c(K\backslash G/K)$, we have
$p_{K,\mu}fp_{K,\mu} = f$. This implies
$C_c(K\backslash G/K)\subset p_{G,\mu}C_c(G)p_{G,\mu}$.
The compression $E_{K,\mu}\colon C^*_\mu(G)\to C^*_\mu(G),\,
x\mapsto p_{K,\mu}xp_{K,\mu}$ of the identity map on $C_\mu^*(G)$
by $p_{K,\mu}$ is contractive. Hence, we have
$p_{K,\mu}C^*_\mu(G)p_{K,\mu}= E_{K,\mu}(C^*_\mu(G))
\subset C^*_\mu(K\backslash G/K)$. We also have
$C^*_\mu(K\backslash G/K)\subset p_{K,\mu}C^*_\mu(G)p_{K,\mu}$,
which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk}\label{GA:rem:GP_spherical_ideal_morita_eq}
Let $C^*_\mu(G)$ be a group $C^*$-algebra of $G$. We denote by
$C^*_\mu(G,K)$ the closed ideal in $C^*_\mu(G)$
generated by the projection $p_{K,\mu}$ in $\mathcal{M}(C^*_\mu(G))$ and
call it the spherical ideal of $C^*_{\mu}(G)$ for the Gelfand pair
$(G,K)$. The left ideal $C^*_\mu(G)p_{K,\mu}$ and the right ideal $p_{K,\mu} C_\mu^*(G)$ form an imprimitivity $C^*_\mu( G,K)$-$C^*_\mu(K\backslash G/K)$-bi\-mo\-dule and $C^*_\mu(K\backslash G/K)$-$C^*_\mu( G,K)$-bi\-mo\-dule, respectively. They extend, in a canonical way, to a partial imprimitivity $C_\mu^*(G)$-$C^*_\mu(K\backslash G/K)$-bimodule $C^*_\mu(G/K)$ and $C^*_\mu(K\backslash G/K)$-$C_\mu^*(G)$-bi\-mo\-dule $C^*_\mu(K\backslash G)$, respectively.
Note that the spectrum $\reallywidehat{C^*_\mu( G,K)}$ of
$C^*_\mu( G,K)$ can be
be identitfied with the open subset
$\lbrace [\pi]\in \widehat{C^*_\mu(G)}\mid \pi(C^*_\mu( G,K)) \neq 0 \rbrace$ of
$\widehat{C^*_\mu(G)}$ via
the topological embedding
\begin{align*}
\reallywidehat{C^*_\mu( G,K)}\to \widehat{C_\mu^*(G)},\,
[\pi]\mapsto [\overline{\pi}],
\end{align*}
where $\overline{\pi}\colon C_\mu^*(G)\to \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$ is the
unique extension of $\pi\colon C^*_\mu( G,K) \to \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$.
\end{rmk}
\section{Trees and their automorphism groups}
\subsection{Trees and their boundaries}
A tree $T$ is an undirected, connected, acyclic graph (without loops and without multiple edges). We write $V(T)$ for the vertex set and $E(T) \subset \lbrace \lbrace x_0,x_1 \rbrace
\subset V(T)\mid \vert \lbrace x_0,x_1 \rbrace \vert = 2\rbrace$ for the set of
edges. The degree $\mathrm{deg}_T(x)$ of each
vertex $x\in V(T)$ is the number of all edges containing
$x$. A tree $T$ is locally finite if the degree of every vertex of $T$ is finite.
A particularly important class of locally finite trees is the class of semi-homogeneous trees. A tree is called semi-homogeneous of degree $(d_0,d_1)\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}^2$ if each vertex is of degree
$d_0$ or $d_1$ and if for each edge $e$ of $T$, we have
$\lbrace \mathrm{deg}_T(x) \mid x\in e \rbrace = \lbrace d_0,d_1 \rbrace$.
Furthermore, a semi-homogeneous tree of degree $(d_0,d_1)$ is said
to be homogeneous of degree $d_0$ if $d_0 = d_1$.
Given a tree $T$, its vertex set $V(T)$ admits a canonical metric, turning $V(T)$ into a metric space. Indeed, recall that a path $c$ from $x\in V(T)$ to $y\in V(T)$
is a finite sequence $c\colon \lbrace 0,\dots,n\rbrace \to V(T)$, with $n\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}_0$, such that
$c(0) = x$, $c(n) = y$ and $\lbrace c(i-1), c(i)\rbrace \in E(T)$ for all
$1\leq i \leq n$. For all $x,y \in V(T)$, there is a unique injective path from
$x$ to $y$. Such a path is called a geodesic and its range is called a
geodesic segment and is denoted by $[x,y]$. The metric $d_c\colon V(T)\times V(T)\to [0,\infty)$ on $V(T)$, also called the shortest-path metric,
is defined by
\begin{align*}
d_c(x,y) = \vert\, [x,y]\,\vert -1
\end{align*}
for $x,y\in V(T)$,
where $\vert \, [x,y]\, \vert$ denotes the cardinality of the set $[x,y]$.
The metric space $(V(T),d_c)$ has a canonical compactification, which we also recall at this point. An isometry $c\colon \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}_0\to V(T)$, where $\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}_0$ is equipped with the canonical distance, is called a ray or an infinite chain. Two rays $c$ and $c'$ in $T$ are called cofinal (denoted $\sim_{\textrm{cofin}}$) if there exists an $l_0 \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}_0$ and an $m \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}$ such that for all $l \geq l_0$, we have $c({l+m})=c'(l)$. Cofinality defines an equivalence relation on the set of rays.
The boundary $\partial T$ of a tree $T$ is defined as the set of equivalence classes of rays with respect to the relation of cofinality:
\[
\partial T:=\{c\colon\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}_0 \to V(T) \mid \alpha \textrm{ is a ray in $T$ }\}/\sim_{\textrm{cofin}}.
\]
After fixing a vertex $x$ in $T$, every boundary point $\omega\in\partial T$ can be represented by the unique chain starting at $x$ in the equivalence class $\omega$. The range of this chain will be denoted $[x,\omega)$, and $\omega_i(x)$ will denote the $i$-th vertex of $[x,\omega)$, starting with $\omega_0(x)=x$.
The shortest-path metric induces the discrete topology on $T$. The set $T \cup \partial T$ carries a natural compact topology, with respect to which $T$ is dense in $T \cup \partial T$. Indeed, with every $\omega\in\partial T$, we associate the neighbourhood basis $\left\{E_x(y) \mid y\in[x,\omega)\right\}$, where $E_x(y)$ consists of all vertices and endpoints of infinite chains including $y$ but no other vertex from $[x,y]$, and we let $\tau$ denote the topology on $T\cup\partial T$ induced by these neighbourhood bases. Setting $\Omega_x(y)=E_x(y)\cap\partial T$, the sets $\Omega_x(y)$, with $y \in [x,\omega)$, form a neighbourhood basis of $\omega\in\partial T$ with respect to the relative topology on $\partial T$. These topologies do not depend on the choice of the vertex $x$. For $x \in V(T)$ and $n \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}$, the set $\left\{\Omega_x(y) \mid d(x,y)=n\right\}$ is a partition of $\partial T$ into compact open sets.
For details on trees and their boundaries, we refer to \cite{MR1152801}.
\subsection{Automorphism groups of trees}
Let $T$ be a locally finite tree, and let $\mathrm{Aut}(T)$ denote its automorphism group. With respect to the shortest-path metric, every automorphism of $T$ is an isometry of $(V(T),d_c)$ and vice versa. As an isometry group of a proper metric space, $\mathrm{Aut}(T)$ is, equipped with the compact-open topology, a second countable, locally compact group. In fact, every closed subgroup $G$ of $\mathrm{Aut}(T)$ is a locally compact, totally disconnected group. Indeed, for every finite, complete subtree $S$ of $T$, the $S$-fixing group
\begin{equation*}
G_S := \{ g \in G \mid gx=x\; \forall x \in V(S) \}.
\end{equation*}
is a compact open subgroup of $G$, and the set
\begin{align*}
\lbrace G_S\mid S \mbox{ finite, complete subtree of } T \rbrace
\end{align*}
forms a neighbourhood basis of the identity element in $G$.
We first recall the following result, which ensures that whenever $T$ is a locally finite tree and $G$ acts transitively on the boundary $\partial T$ of $T$, the tree is automatically semi-homogeneous. For a proof, we refer to \cite[Proposition 4]{amann}.
\begin{prp} \label{prp:semihomogeneous}
Let $T$ be a locally finite tree such that its boundary $\partial T$ consists of at least three elements. Let $G$ be a non-compact, closed subgroup of $\mathrm{Aut}(T)$ that acts transitively on $\partial T$. Then for every vertex $x$ of $T$, the stabiliser group $G_x$ acts transitively on $\partial T$.
Moreover, the tree $T$ is semi-homogeneous and $G$ has at most two orbits. In case $G$ has two orbits, the $G$-orbits in $V(T)$ are $\lbrace z \in V(T) \mid d_c(z,x) \text{ is even} \rbrace$ and $\lbrace z \in V(T) \mid d_c(z,x) \text{ is odd} \rbrace$ for some vertex $x\in V(T)$.
\end{prp}
The following result is a consequence of Proposition \ref{prp:semihomogeneous}. It goes back to \cite{MR0578650} (see also \cite[Section II.4]{MR1152801}, \cite[Proposition 7]{amann}).
\begin{cor}\label{cor:tree_GP}
Let $G$ be a non-compact, closed subgroup of ${\rm{Aut}}(T)$ which acts transitively on $\partial T$. Furthermore, let $x\in V(T)$ be a vertex. Then for every $s\in G$, the identity
\begin{align*}
\lbrace t\in G \mid d_c(x,tx) = d_c(x,sx) \rbrace = G_x s G_x
\end{align*}
holds.
In particular, $(G,G_x)$ is a Gelfand pair.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Let $s\in G$, and let $t\in G$ be such that $d_c(x,tx) = d_c(x,sx)$. By Proposition \ref{prp:semihomogeneous}, we know that $G_x$ acts transitively on $\partial T$. Hence, it acts transitively on the sphere $\lbrace y\in V(T)\mid d_c(x,y)=d_c(x,sx) \rbrace$. Therefore, there is an
element $k\in G_x$ with $tx=ksx$. This implies that $t\in G_x s G_x$ and therefore
$\lbrace t\in G \mid d_c(x,tx)=d_c(x,sx)\rbrace \subset G_x s G_x$. The other
inclusion is straightforward. Moreover, the identity that we just proved
directly implies that $s^{-1}\in G_x s G_x$ for all $s\in G$. It is well known that this implies that $(G,G_x)$ is a Gelfand pair (see e.g.~\cite[Proposition 8.1.3]{MR2328043}).
\end{proof}
\subsection{Tits' independence property}
Let $T$ be a semi-homogeneous tree. Let $e \in E(T)$ be an edge of $T$, and let $\pi_{e}\colon V(T)\to e$ be
the nearest point projection onto $e$.
The $e$-fixing group
\[
G_{e} = \lbrace s\in G\mid sx = x \; \forall x\in e\rbrace
\]
of a subgroup $G$ of $\mathrm{Aut}(T)$ preserves, for each $x\in e$, the set
\[
T_x=\pi_{e}^{-1}(x) =\lbrace y\in V(T)\mid d_c(y,x)\leq d_c(y,z) \; \forall z\in e\rbrace.
\]
Let $F_x$ be the image of the restriction map
\[
\Phi_x\colon G_{e}\to \mathrm{Sym}(T_x),\, s\mapsto s\vert_{T_x}.
\]
Then the map $ \Phi_{e}\colon G_{e}\to \prod_{x\in e}F_x,\, s\mapsto \Phi_x(s)$
is an injective group homomorphism.
\begin{dfn}
A closed subgroup $G$ of $\mathrm{Aut}(T)$ has Tits' independence property if for each edge $e\in E(T)$, the homomorphism
\begin{align*}
\Phi_{e}\colon G_{e}\to \prod_{x\in e}F_x
\end{align*}
is an isomorphism.
\end{dfn}
This property goes back to Tits \cite{MR0299534}. The definition given here is a characterisation of the property for \emph{closed} subgroups of $\mathrm{Aut}(T)$ (see \cite[Section 1.2]{amann}). Tits introduced this property in order to study simple subgroups of $\mathrm{Aut}(T)$. However, the independence property also has far-reaching consequences for the asymptotic behaviour of matrix coefficients
of certain irreducible unitary group representations, as we will see later.
The automorphism group $\mathrm{Aut}(T)$ as well as the trivial group have
the independence property. Less trivial examples are provided by the
Burger-Mozes universal groups \cite{MR1839488}, which we briefly recall here.
\begin{exm}
We assume $T$ to be a homogeneous tree of degree $d=d_0=d_1\geq 3$. Let $l\colon E(T)\to \lbrace 1,\cdots, d\rbrace$ be a legal
labelling of $T$, i.e.~the map $l_x:=l\vert_{E(x)}\colon E(x)\to \lbrace 1,\ldots,d\rbrace$,
where $E(x)$ denotes the set of edges containing $x\in V(T)$, is a bijection, and
$l_x(e) = l_y(e)$ for every edge $e=\lbrace x,y\rbrace \in E(T)$.
For every automorphism $s\in \mathrm{Aut}(T)$ and any vertex
$x\in V(T)$ the composition $c(s,x)=\ell_{gx} \circ s \circ \ell_x^{-1}$ defines
an element in the symmetric group $\mathrm{Sym}(\lbrace 1,\ldots, d\rbrace)$.
Let $F$ be a subgroup of $\mathrm{Sym}(\lbrace 1,\ldots,d\rbrace)$. Then
\begin{align*}
U^{(\ell)}(F) = \lbrace s\in \mathrm{Aut}(T)\mid
c(s,x)\in F \; \forall x\in V(T) \rbrace
\end{align*}
forms a closed subgroup of $\mathrm{Aut}(T)$. The group
$U^{(\ell)}(F)$ acts transitively on the vertices of $T$ and has Tits'
independence property. Moreover, the group $U^{(\ell)}(F)$ acts transitively on the boundary of $T$ if and only if $F$ acts
$2$-transitively on $\lbrace 1,\ldots,d\rbrace$. For details on these groups, we refer to \cite{MR1839488}.
\end{exm}
\begin{exm}
Let us mention the existence of closed
subgroups of $\mathrm{Aut}(T)$ that do not satisfy Tits' independence property. One class of examples is given by the projective special linear groups $\mathrm{PSL}(2,\mathbb{Q}_p)$ over the $p$-adic numbers acting on its Bruhat-Tits tree (see \cite[Example 6.33]{garridoAutomorphismGroupsTrees2018}).
\end{exm}
\section{Spherical sub-$C^*$-algebras of $L^{p+}$-group $C^*$-algebras} \label{sec:sphericalsubcstaralgebras}
In this section, let $T$ be a semi-homogeneous tree of degree $(d_0,d_1)$ with $d_0,d_1\geq 2$ and $d_0+d_1 \geq 5$, and let $G$ be a non-compact, closed subgroup $G$ of ${\rm{Aut}}(T)$ that acts transitively on the boundary $\partial T$ of $T$. Fix a vertex $o\in V(T)$, let
\[
K:=G_o=\lbrace s\in G\mid so=o\rbrace
\]
be the stabiliser group of $o$, and let $\mu_G$ be the Haar measure on $G$ satisfying $\mu_G(K) =1$.
Without loss of generality, we assume that $\mathrm{deg}_T(o) = d_0$. Furthermore, let
\begin{align*}
\delta = (d_0-1)(d_1-1),
\end{align*}
and let $\kappa$ be the number of $G$-orbits in $V(T)$. By Proposition \ref{prp:semihomogeneous}, the action of $G$ has at most
two orbits in $V(T)$. Hence, we have $\kappa \in \lbrace 1,2\rbrace$ and
$Go=\lbrace x\in V(T)\mid d_c(o,x) \in \kappa \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}_0\rbrace$.
This section is mainly aimed at describing the spherical sub-$C^*$-algebras
$C^*_{L^{p+}}(K\backslash G/K)$ of $C^*_{L^{p+}}(G)$, where $p$ belongs to $[2,\infty]$. The main theorems of this article are also proved in this section.
\subsection{Asymptotic behaviour of spherical functions}
For the description of the spherical sub-$C^*$-algebras, we first need an understanding of the asymptotic behaviour of the spherical functions for the Gelfand pair $(G,K)$.
Let $\vert \cdot \vert \colon G\to [0,\infty)$ be the function
given by $\vert s\vert= d_c(so,o)$ for $s\in G$.
Note that $\vert \cdot\vert$ is $K$-bi-invariant and only takes values
in $\kappa\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}_0$.
\begin{prp}\label{GA:prop:spherical_algebra_auto_grp}
For every $K$-bi-invariant function $f\in C_c(K\backslash G/K)$, there is
a unique function $\dot{f}\in C_c(\kappa\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}_0)$ such that $f = \dot{f}\circ \vert \cdot \vert$.
The map
\begin{align*}
C_c(K\backslash G/K)\to C_c(\kappa \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}_0), \; f\mapsto \dot{f}
\end{align*}
is an isomorphism of vector spaces. Furthermore, for every $f\in C_c(K\backslash G/K)$, the following holds:
\begin{align*}
\int f\mathrm{d}\mu_G = \dot{f}(0)+ \frac{d_0}{d_0-1}\sum_{r\in \kappa\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}} \delta^{\frac{r}{2}}\, \dot{f}(r)
\end{align*}
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
For the first statement, suppose that
$f\in C_c(K\backslash G/K)$ is a $K$-bi-invariant function. Then $f$
factors as a right-$K$-invariant function through the map $G\to Go,\, s\mapsto so$.
Since, moreover, $f$ is left-$K$-invariant, and
since $K$ acts transitively on $\partial B_r(o) = \lbrace x\in V(T)\mid d_c(o,x) = r\rbrace$
for all $r\in \kappa\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}_0$, the function $f$, identified as a function on $Go$, is constant on $\partial B_r(o)$ for all $r\in \kappa \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}_0$. Therefore, there is a unique function $\dot{f}\in C_c(\kappa\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}_0)$
such that $f = \dot{f}\circ \vert \cdot \vert$. This completes the proof of the first statement.
The second statement is evident. Hence, it remains to prove the last
statement. Again, suppose that $f$ is a $K$-bi-invariant function on $G$ with compact support.
Then
\begin{align*}
\int f\,\mathrm{d}\mu_G = \sum_{x\in Go}f'(x) = \sum_{r\in \kappa \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}_0} \vert \partial B_r(o)\vert \dot{f}(r) =\dot{f}(0) + \frac{d_0}{d_0-1} \sum_{r\in \kappa \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}} \delta^{\frac{r}{2}}\, \dot{f}(r),
\end{align*}
where $f'\in C_c(Go)$ denotes the unique function satisfying $f(s)=f'(so)$
for all $s\in G$. Here, we used that the cardinality $\vert\partial B_r(o)\vert$ of $\partial B_r(o)$
for $r\in \kappa\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}$ is equal to $\frac{d_0}{d_0-1}\delta^{\frac{r}{2}}$.
Furthermore, we used that there is a $G$-invariant measure $\mu_{G/K}$ on $G/K$
such that
\begin{align*}
\int f\,\mathrm{d}\mu_G = \int_{G/K}\int_K f(xk)\mathrm{d}\mu_G(k)\,\mathrm{d}\mu_{G/K}(x)
\end{align*}
for all $f\in C_c(G)$. By identifying $G/K$ with $Go$, it is easy to see that
\begin{align*}
\int_{G/K} f(so)\mathrm{d}\mu_{G/K}([s]) = \sum_{x\in Go}f(x)
\end{align*}
for every function $f\in C_c(Go)$.
\end{proof}
The functions in the following proposition play a key role in the analysis of the asymptotic behaviour of the spherical functions for $(G,K)$.
\begin{prp}\label{GA:prop:length_tree_asymp}
Let $z\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}$. The continuous function
\begin{align*}
h_z \colon G\to \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}},\, s\mapsto \delta^{-\frac{1}{2}z\vert s\vert }
\end{align*}
is $K$-bi-invariant and positive definite whenever $z\in [0,\infty)$. Moreover,
for $p\in [1,\infty)$, the function $h_z$ belongs to $L^p(G)$ if and only if $\mathrm{Re}\, z \in
\left(\frac{1}{p},\infty\right)$.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
We have already shown above that $\vert \cdot\vert$ is $K$-bi-invariant. Also, it is known that $\vert \cdot\vert$ is a conditionally negative definite function on $G$ (see e.g. \cite[Example C.2.2]{bekkaKazhdanProperty2008a}). It is therefore a direct consequence of Schoenberg's theorem (see e.g. \cite[Theorem C.3.2]{bekkaKazhdanProperty2008a}) that $h_z$ is positive definite if $z\in[0,\infty)$.
Now assume that
$z\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}$ is an arbitrary complex number. Using Proposition \ref{GA:prop:spherical_algebra_auto_grp}, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\int \vert h_z(s)\vert^p \mathrm{d}\mu_G(s) -1 &=
\frac{d_0}{d_0-1}\sum_{r\in \kappa \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}\delta^{\frac{r}{2}} \,\vert \delta^{-\frac{1}{2}zr}\vert^p \\
&=\frac{d_0}{d_0-1} \sum_{r\in \kappa \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}\delta^{\frac{r}{2}} \, \delta^{-\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Re}(z)rp}\\
&=
\frac{d_0}{d_0-1}\sum_{r\in \kappa \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}\delta^{\frac{1}{2}(1-\mathrm{Re}(z)p)r}
\end{align*}
for $p\in [1,\infty)$.
The right-hand side of the equation converges if and only if
$1-\mathrm{Re}(z) p <0$.
This implies that the above integral is finite if and only if
$\mathrm{Re}\, z\in \left(\frac{1}{p},\infty\right)$.
\end{proof}
The number $\delta$ in the definition of $h_z$ may seem to have been chosen randomly. However, the reason for this choice is, as we will see below, that spherical functions for $(G,K)$ are linear combinations of elements in $\lbrace h_z\mid z\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}} \rbrace$.
We recall two results regarding the Gelfand pair $(G,K)$. The first can be found in \cite[p.~31]{amann}.
\begin{prp}\label{EX:prop:generator_self_adjont}
Let $s\in G$ be an element with $\vert s \vert = m \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}_0$. The function
\begin{align*}
\mu_m = \frac{1}{\vert \partial B_{m} (o) \vert} \mathbf{1}_{KsK},
\end{align*}
where
$\partial B_{m}(o) =
\lbrace x\in V(T) \mid d_c(x,o) = m\rbrace $,
is a self-adjoint element of $C_c(K\backslash G /K)$.
\end{prp}
The second result we recall can be found in \cite[p.~32]{amann}.
\begin{prp}
The set $\lbrace \mu_0,\, \mu_\kappa \rbrace$, where $\kappa$ denotes, as before, the number of $G$-orbits, generates
the ${}^*$-algebra $C_c(K\backslash G/K)$.
Moreover, the following identities hold:
\begin{equation*}
\mu_1\ast \mu_n=
\begin{dcases}
\mu_1 & \text{if } n=0\\
\frac{1}{d_0}\mu_{n-1} + \frac{d_0-1}{d_0}\mu_{n+1} & \text{if } n\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}
\end{dcases}
\end{equation*}
if $\kappa = 1$, and
\begin{equation*}
\mu_2 \ast \mu_n =
\begin{dcases}
\mu_2 & \text{if } n=0\\
\frac{1}{d_0(d_1-1)}\mu_{n-2} + \frac{d_1-2}{d_0(d_1-1)}\mu_{n}+\frac{d_0-1}{d_0} \mu_{n+2}& \text{if } n\in 2\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}
\end{dcases}
\end{equation*}
if $\kappa = 2$.
\end{prp}
Thus, the investigation of $C^*$-completions of the algebra $C_c(K \backslash G / K)$ heavily relies on the investigation of the spectrum of $\mu_\kappa$. Although not essential for the following discussion, the following result might be helpful for a first understanding.
Recall that for a spherical Radon measure
$\chi$ for $(G,K)$, there is a spherical function
$\varphi$ for $(G,K)$ such that $\chi(f) = \int f(s)\varphi(s^{-1})\mathrm{d}\mu_G(s)$ for
all $f\in C_c(K\backslash G/K)$.
\begin{prp}
The spectrum $ \sigma_{C^*(K\backslash G/K)}(\mu_\kappa)$ of $\mu_\kappa$ in $C^*(K\backslash G/K)$ is contained in the compact interval
$[-1,1]$. Moreover, $1\in \sigma_{C^*(K\backslash G/K)}(\mu_\kappa)$.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
Let $\lambda \in \sigma_{C^*(K\backslash G/K)}(\mu_\kappa)$. There is
a character $\chi:C^*(K\backslash G/K)\to \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}$ with $\chi(\mu_\kappa) =
\lambda$. Pulling back $\chi$
to $C_c(G)$ leads to a spherical Radon measure $\tilde{\chi}:C_c(G)\to \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}$.
Hence, there is a positive definite, spherical function $\varphi$ for
$(G,K)$ with $\tilde{\chi}(f)=\int f(s) \varphi(s^{-1})\mathrm{d}\mu_G(s)$
for $f\in C_c(K\backslash G/K)$. Since $\varphi$ is bounded by $1$, we
have
\begin{align*}
\vert \lambda \vert \leq \int \vert \mu_\kappa (s)\varphi(s^{-1})\vert\,
\mathrm{d}\mu_G(s) \leq \int \mu_\kappa(s)\,\mathrm{d}\mu_G(s)
=\tau_0(\mu_\kappa) =1,
\end{align*}
where $\tau_0$ is the trivial group representation of $G$.
\end{proof}
\begin{prp}\label{EX:tree:prop_eigen_eq}
A function $\varphi \in C(K\backslash G/K)$ with $\varphi(e) =1$ is spherical
for $(G,K)$ if and only if
there exists a complex number $\gamma_\varphi\in \mathbb{C}$ such
that
\begin{align*}
\mu_\kappa \ast \varphi = \gamma_\varphi \,\varphi.
\end{align*}
In addition, a spherical function $\varphi$ is uniquely determined by its
eigenvalue $\gamma_\varphi$, and the eigenvalue $\gamma_\varphi$ is a real number if
$\varphi$ is positive definite.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
If $\varphi$ is spherical, the existence of a complex number $\gamma_\varphi$
with $\mu_\kappa \ast \varphi = \gamma_\varphi \,\varphi$ follows from \cite[Theorem 8.2.6]{MR2328043}. The other direction follows from the
fact that the set $\lbrace \mu_0, \mu_\kappa\rbrace$ generates $C_c(K\backslash G/K)$.
Indeed, suppose that there is a complex number $\gamma_\varphi$ with
$\mu_\kappa \ast \varphi = \gamma_\varphi \,\varphi$. Since
$\lbrace \mu_0,\mu_\kappa\rbrace$ generates $C_c(K\backslash G/K)$, for every
function $f\in C_c(K\backslash G/K)$, there are complex numbers $a_0,\dots, a_n \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}$
such that $f= \sum_{i=0}^n a_i (\mu_\kappa)^i$. Thus, we have
\begin{align*}
f\ast \varphi = \sum_{i=0}^n a_i (\mu_\kappa)^i \ast \varphi = \left( \sum_{i=0}^n a_i \gamma_\varphi^i \right) \varphi.
\end{align*}
This implies that $\varphi$ is a spherical function for $(G,K)$ (see e.g.
\cite[Theorem 8.2.6]{MR2328043}).
The second statement is again a consequence of the fact that $\lbrace \mu_0,\mu_\kappa\rbrace$ generates
$C_c(K\backslash G/K)$. Indeed, let $\varphi_1$ and $\varphi_2$
be two spherical functions for $(G,K)$ with
$\mu_\kappa \ast \varphi_i = \lambda \varphi_i$ for $i\in\lbrace 1, 2\rbrace$, where
$\lambda\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}$, and let $\chi_i$ be the spherical
Radon measure
corresponding to $ \varphi_i$. Then we have $\chi_1(\mu_\kappa) =
\mu_\kappa\ast \varphi_1(e) = \mu_\kappa \ast \varphi_2(e)
=\chi_2(\mu_\kappa)$.
Linearity and multiplicativity now lead to the identity $\chi_1\vert_{C_c(K\backslash G/K)} = \chi_2\vert_{C_c(K\backslash G/K)}$.
This implies that $\varphi_1 = \varphi_2$.
Finally, assume that $\varphi$ is a positive definite, spherical function for $(G,K)$. Then
we have $\overline{\varphi(s)}= \overline{\varphi(s^{-1})} = \varphi(s)$ for all
$s\in G$. Hence, $\varphi$ is a real-valued function. Therefore,
$\gamma_\varphi = \mu_\kappa \ast \varphi(e)$ is a real number.
\end{proof}
\begin{dfn}
In the following, let $\varphi_\gamma$ denote the spherical
function for $(G,K)$ satisfying
\begin{align*}
\mu_\kappa \ast \varphi_\gamma = \gamma \, \varphi_\gamma,
\end{align*}
where $\gamma \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}$.
\end{dfn}
\begin{dfn}
For a complex number $z \in \mathbb{C}$, we define
\begin{equation*}
\gamma_o(z) :=
\begin{dcases}
\frac{1}{d_0}\left((d_0-1)^z + (d_0-1)^{1-z}\right) & \mbox{if } \kappa=1, \\
\frac{1}{d_0(d_1-1)}\left( \delta^{z} + \delta^{1-z} + (d_1-2)\right) & \mbox{if } \kappa=2.
\end{dcases}
\end{equation*}
\end{dfn}
In the following, we follow the arguments of \cite{MR0710827} to study the asymptotic behaviour of spherical functions for $(G,K)$.
\begin{prp}\label{GA:prop:fund_sol_tree}
Let $z\in \mathbb{C}$ be a complex number. The $K$-bi-invariant function
$h_z \colon G\to \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}$
satisfies
\begin{align*}
\mu_\kappa \ast h_z (s) = \gamma_o(z) h_z(s)
\end{align*}
for all $s$ with $\vert s\vert \neq 0$.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
There are two cases to consider: the case that $G$ acts transitively on $V(T)$ and
the case that $G$ does not act transitively on $V(T)$. We present the computation for the latter case, so let us assume that $G$ does not act transitively on $V(T)$.
Let $\phi_z\colon 2\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}_0\to \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$ be the function given by
$\phi_z(m) = \delta^{-\frac{1}{2}z m} \vert \partial B_m(o) \vert
$ for $m\in 2\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}_0$.
Then the sequence $(h_z^{(n)})_{n\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}_0} = \left(\sum_{k= 0}^n \phi_z(2k)\mu_{2k}\right)_{n\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}_0}$ converges to $h_z$ uniformly on compact subsets of $G$, which, in turn, implies the uniform convergence of $(\mu_2\ast h_z^{(n)})_{n\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}_0}$ to $\mu_2\ast h_z$ on compact subsets of $G$. We have
\begin{align*}
\mu_2 \ast h_z =&
\sum_{m\in 2\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}_0} \phi_z(m) \mu_2\ast \mu_m\\
=& \sum_{m\in 2\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}
\phi_z(m)
\left(\frac{1}{d_0(d_1-1)}\mu_{m-2} + \frac{d_1-2}{d_0(d_1-1)}\mu_{m}+\frac{d_0-1}{d_0} \mu_{m+2} \right) \\ &+ \phi_z(0)\mu_2
\\
= &\sum_{m\in 2\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}_0}\frac{1}{d_0(d_1-1)}\phi_z(m+2)\mu_m
+ \sum_{m\in 2\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}\frac{d_1-2}{d_0(d_1-1)}\phi_z(m) \mu_m
\\&+ \sum_{m \in \lbrace 4,6,\ldots\rbrace}\frac{d_0-1}{d_0}\phi_z(m-2) \mu_m
+\phi_z(0)\mu_2.
\end{align*}
Since the evaluation at any point in $G$ is continuous with respect to the
uniform convergence on compact subsets of $G$, the assertion follows easily.
Indeed, recall that for $m\in 2\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}$ we have $\vert\partial B_m(o)
\vert = \frac{d_0}{d_0-1}\,\delta^{\frac{m}{2}}$. Hence, we have
\begin{align*}
\phi_z(m) = \frac{d_0}{d_0-1}\delta^{\frac{1}{2}(1-z)m}
\end{align*}
for $m\in 2\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}$. Thus, for $s\in G$, we obtain
\begin{align*}
&\vert \partial B_2(o)\vert \mu_2\ast h_z(s)\\
&=
\frac{1}{d_0(d_1-1)}\frac{d_0}{d_0-1}\delta^{\frac{1}{2}(1-z)(2+2)}
+ \frac{d_1-2}{d_0(d_1-1)}\frac{d_0}{d_0-1}\delta^{\frac{1}{2}(1-z)2}+1\\
&=
\frac{1}{d_0(d_1-1)}\left( \delta^{1-z}+d_1-2
+ (d_1-1)(d_0-1)\delta^{z-1}\right)
\frac{d_0}{d_0-1}\delta^{\frac{1}{2}(1-z)2}\\
&=
\vert \partial B_2(o)\vert \gamma_o(z) \delta^{-\frac{1}{2}z2} =
\vert \partial B_2(o)\vert\gamma_o(z) h_z(s)
\end{align*}
if $m=\vert s\vert =2$, and
\begin{align*}
&\vert \partial B_m(o)\vert \mu_2\ast h_z(s)\\
&=\frac{1}{d_0(d_1-1)}\frac{d_0}{d_0-1}\delta^{\frac{1}{2}(1-z)(m+2)}+
\frac{d_1-2}{d_0(d_1-1)}\frac{d_0}{d_0-1}\delta^{\frac{1}{2}(1-z)m}+
\delta^{\frac{1}{2}(1-z)(m-2)}\\
&= \frac{1}{d_0(d_1-1)}\left( \delta^{1-z}+ d_1-2+ (d_1-1)(d_0-1)\delta^{z-1}\right)\frac{d_0}{d_0-1}\delta^{\frac{1}{2}(1-z)m}\\
&= \vert \partial B_m(o)\vert \gamma_o(z) h_z(s)
\end{align*}
if $m=\vert s\vert \geq 4$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}[{cf. \cite[Theorem 2.2]{MR0710827}}]\label{EX:lemma_representation_of_sph_func}
Let $z\in \mathbb{C}$ be a complex number with $\delta^{-\frac{(1-z)}{2}\kappa}\neq
\delta^{-\frac{z}{2}\kappa}$. Then there are constants $c(z)\neq 0$ depending on $z$ such that
\begin{align*}
\varphi_{\gamma_o(z)} = c(z) h_z + c(1-z) h_{1-z}.
\end{align*}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We again assume that $G$ does not act transitively on $T$. The other case is analogous.
Since $\delta^{-(1-z)}\neq
\delta^{-z}$,
the matrix
\begin{equation*}
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 1 \\
\delta^{-z} & \delta^{-(1-z)}
\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation*}
is invertible. Since $\gamma_o(z) = \gamma_o(1-z)$, the solution $(x(z),y(z))$ of the equation
\begin{equation}\label{EX:eq:spherical_func_as_length_func}
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 1 \\
\delta^{-z} & \delta^{-(1-z)}
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
x(z) \\ y(z)
\end{pmatrix}
= \begin{pmatrix}
1 \\ \gamma_o(z)
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
must be of the form $x(z) = y(1-z)$, as an exchange of $z$ and $1-z$ in
\eqref{EX:eq:spherical_func_as_length_func} shows.
So let $c(z) = x(z)$. Then $c(z) h_z(s) + c(1-z)h_{1-z}(s) = 1$ and
$c(z) h_z(t) + c(1-z) h_{1-z}(t) = \gamma_o(t)$ for every $s,t\in G$
with $\vert s \vert = 0$ and $\vert t\vert = 2$. Let
$\varphi'_z = c(z) h_z + c(1-z) h_{1-z}$. In order to prove that
$\varphi'_z= \varphi_{\gamma_o(z)}$, it is sufficient, by Proposition
\ref{EX:tree:prop_eigen_eq}, to show that $\mu_2 \ast \varphi'_z
= \gamma_o(z) \varphi'_z$. Let $s\in G$ be an element with $\vert s\vert
\neq 0$. Then
\begin{align*}
\mu_2\ast \varphi'_z(s) &= c(z) \mu_2 \ast h_z(s) + c(1-z) \mu_2\ast h_{1-z}(s)\\
&= c(z) \gamma_o(z) h_z(s)+ c(1-z) \gamma_o(z) h_{1-z}(s)\\
&= \gamma_o(z) \varphi'_z(s),
\end{align*}
which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{EX:lemma:spher_func_asympt_tree}\label{GA:lem:asym_of_sphe_func_tree}
Let $z\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}$ be a complex number with $\delta^{-\frac{(1-z)}{2}\kappa}\neq
\delta^{-\frac{z}{2}\kappa}$, let
$p\in (2,\infty)$, and let $q\in (1,2)$ be such that $\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q}=1$. Then $\varphi_{\gamma_o(z)}$ belongs to $L^p(G)$
if and only if $\mathrm{Re}\, z \in \left(\frac{1}{p},\frac{1}{q}\right)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Using Lemma \ref{EX:lemma_representation_of_sph_func}, it is easy to see
that $\varphi_{\gamma_o(z)}$ is unbounded whenever $\mathrm{Re}\, z \not\in [0,1]$.
Now, suppose that
$\mathrm{Re}\, z \in \left(\frac{1}{p},\frac{1}{q}\right)$.
Note that $1-\mathrm{Re}\, z >1-\frac{1}{q} =\frac{1}{p}$. Hence, by Proposition \ref{GA:prop:length_tree_asymp}, the functions
$h_z$ and $h_{1-z}$ belong to $L^p(G)$. Since, due to Lemma \ref{EX:lemma_representation_of_sph_func}, $\varphi_{\gamma_o(z)}$
is a linear combination of $h_z$ and $h_{1-z}$, $\varphi_{\gamma_o(z)}$
belongs to $L^p(G)$.
Suppose that $\mathrm{Re}\, z\in [0,\frac{1}{p}]$. Then
we have $1-\mathrm{Re}\, z \geq 1-\frac{1}{p} =\frac{1}{q} > \frac{1}{p}$.
By Proposition \ref{GA:prop:length_tree_asymp}, $h_z$
does not belong to $L^p(G)$ while $h_{1-z}$ belongs to $L^p(G)$.
This implies that $\varphi_z\not \in L^p(G)$. The remaining case follows from a similar argument.
\end{proof}
In the analysis of the asymptotic behaviour of spherical functions for
$(G,K)$, we have already found some necessary conditions for positive
definiteness of these functions. We now recall Amann's classification of positive definite, spherical functions for automorphism groups with independence property.
First, we recall another description of the spherical functions for $(G,K)$.
For this purpose, let $\omega\in \partial T$ be
a boundary point, and let $G_\omega = P$ be the stabilizer group of $\omega$.
Since $G$ acts transitively on $\partial T$, and since $\partial T$ is compact,
the continuous map $G\to \partial T,\, s\mapsto s\omega$ induces
a $G$-equivariant homeomorphism $G/P\to \partial T$.
Therefore, there is a unique $K$-invariant and
quasi-$G$-invariant Radon probability measure $\nu_o$
on $\partial T$, and we have
\begin{align*}
\int_K f(k\omega)\mathrm{d}\mu_G(k) = \int_{\partial T} f(\omega')\mathrm{d}\nu_o(\omega')
\end{align*}
for all $f\in C(\partial T)$.
Note that for every $s\in G$, the probability measure
$s(\nu_o)= \nu_{so}$ is the $sKs^{-1}= G_{so}$-invariant Radon probability measure. The function
\begin{align*}
P_o \colon G\times \partial T \to (0,\infty),\, (s,\omega')\mapsto
\frac{\mathrm{d}\nu_{so}}{\mathrm{d}\nu_o}(\omega')
\end{align*}
is called the Poisson kernel, which is explicitly given by
\begin{align*}
P_o(s,\omega') = \delta^{\frac{1}{2}\langle so,o; \omega'\rangle},
\end{align*}
where $\langle so,o;\omega'\rangle = d_c(o,u)-d(so,u)$ for any
$u\in [o,\omega')\cap[so,\omega')$ (see \cite[Proposition 1.8.4]{choucrounAnalyseHarmoniqueGroupes1994}).
\begin{dfn}
For $z\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}$, we define $\pi_z\colon G\to \mathcal{B}(L^2(\partial T,\nu_o))$ to be the group representation
of $G$
given by
\begin{align*}
\pi_z(s)f(\omega) = P_o^z(s,\omega)f(s^{-1}\omega)
\end{align*}
for $s\in G$, $f\in L^2(\partial T,\nu_o)$ and $\omega \in \partial T$.
\end{dfn}
A proof of the following result can be found in \cite[Lemma 42]{amann}.
\begin{thm} \label{EX:thm_spherical_func_on_bdy_tree}
Let $G$ be a non-compact, closed subgroup of $\mathrm{Aut}(T)$ that acts transitively on $\partial T$.
Then for each $z\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}$, the function
\begin{align*}
G \to \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}},\, s\mapsto \int P_o^z(s,\omega)\,\mathrm{d}\nu_o(\omega)
= \langle \pi_z(s) \mathbf{1}_{\partial T},\mathbf{1}_{\partial T}\rangle
\end{align*}
is a spherical function for $(G,K)$, and every spherical function for $(G,K)$ is of this form. More precisely,
\begin{align*}
\varphi_{\gamma_o(z)}(s) = \int P_o^z(s,\omega)\mathrm{d}\nu_o(\omega)
\end{align*}
for all $s\in G$.
\end{thm}
The following theorem (see \cite[Theorem 2]{amann}) characterises the positive definite spherical functions on automorphism groups satisfying Tits' independence property.
\begin{thm} \label{GA:thm:tree_classification_pd_sph_func}
Let $G$ be a non-compact, closed subgroup of $\mathrm{Aut}(T)$ that acts transitively on $\partial T$ and that satisfies Tits' independence property. Let
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{P}= \left( \left\{\frac{1}{2}\right\}+i\left[0, \frac{2\pi}{\kappa \log \delta} \right]\right)
\bigcup \left(\left[ 0, \frac{1}{2}\right)+ i\left\{ 0 ,\frac{2\pi}{\kappa\log \delta} \right\} \right).
\end{align*}
Then the map
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{P}\to \mathcal{SP}(K\backslash G/K), \; z \mapsto \varphi_{\gamma_o(z)}
\end{align*}
is a bijection into the set of positive definite, spherical functions
$\mathcal{SP}(K\backslash G/K)$ for $(G,K)$.
\end{thm}
The classification of positive definite, spherical functions for $(G,K)$ can be reformulated as follows.
\begin{rmk}[{cf. \cite[Theorem 2]{amann}}]\label{GA:rem:tree_char_vs_spec_of_mu}
Let $G$ be a non-compact, closed subgroup of $\mathrm{Aut}(T)$ that acts transitively on $\partial T$ and that satisfies Tits' independence property.
The range of the map
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{P}
\to [-1,1], \; z\mapsto \mu_\kappa \ast \varphi_{\gamma_o(z)}(e)
= \gamma_o(z)
\end{equation*}
is the spectrum $\sigma_{C^*(K\backslash G/K)}(\mu_\kappa)$
of $\mu_\kappa$ in $C^*(K\backslash G/K)$.
The following holds:
\begin{equation*}
\sigma_{C^*(K\backslash G/K)}(\mu_\kappa)=
\begin{dcases}
\; [-1,1] & \mbox{ if } \kappa = 1,\\
\; \left[ -\frac{2+(d_0-2)(d_1-1)}{d_0(d_1-1)},1\right]
& \mbox{ if } \kappa = 2.
\end{dcases}
\end{equation*}
Moreover, in the case $\kappa=1$, we have that $\varphi_{-1}=\varphi_{\gamma_o(i\frac{2\pi}{\log \delta})}$ is equal to the group
homomorphism $G\to \mathbb{C},\; s\mapsto (-1)^{\vert s\vert}$. Let $\pi'_\lambda\colon G\to \mathcal{U}(\mathcal{H}_\lambda)$
be the spherical representation of $\varphi_\lambda$ for $\lambda \in [-1,1]$, i.e., $\pi'_\lambda\colon G\to \mathcal{U}(\mathcal{H}_\lambda)$ is the irreducible unitary group representation of $G$ with
$K$-invariant unit vector $\xi\in \mathcal{H}_\lambda$ such that
$\varphi_\lambda = (\pi'_\lambda)_{\xi,\xi}$.
Then the unitary group representation
$\pi'_{-1}\otimes \pi'_{\lambda}$ is
unitary equivalent to $\pi'_{-\lambda}$ (see
\cite[p. 43]{amann}).
\end{rmk}
The previous results depend on the choice of the vertex $o\in V(T)$, i.e.~on the chosen Gelfand pair. This dependence, however, does not apply to the spherical unitary dual, as the following theorem shows.
\begin{thm}[{\cite[Theorem 2]{amann}}]\label{GA:thm:independence_of_vertex}
Let $G$ be a non-compact, closed subgroup of $\mathrm{Aut}(T)$ that acts transitively on $\partial T$ and that satisfies Tits' independence property.
Let $o, o' \in V(T)$ be two vertices. Then $(G,G_o)$ and
$(G, G_{o'})$ are Gelfand pairs, and the spherical unitary duals
$(\widehat{G}_{G_o})_1$ and $(\widehat{G}_{G_{o'}})_1$ coincide.
To be more precise, every spherical unitary representation for $(G,G_o)$ is
a spherical unitary representation for $(G,G_{o'})$.
\end{thm}
The following remark complements Lemma \ref{EX:lemma:spher_func_asympt_tree}.
\begin{rmk}
Let $G$ be a non-compact, closed subgroup of $\mathrm{Aut}(T)$ that acts
transitively on $\partial T$ and that satisfies Tits' independence property.
Then the positive definite spherical function
\begin{align*}
\varphi_{\gamma_o\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)}\colon G\to \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}},\, s\mapsto \int P_o^{\frac{1}{2}}(s,\omega) \,\mathrm{d}\nu_o(\omega)
\end{align*}
belongs to $L^{2+}(G)$.
\end{rmk}
We close this paragraph with the description of the spherical sub-$C^*$-algebras
of the $L^{p+}$-group $C^*$-algebras.
\begin{prp}\label{GA:prp:spectrum_of_mu_in_radial_algs}
Let $G$ be a non-compact, closed subgroup of $\mathrm{Aut}(T)$ that acts
transitively on $\partial T$ and that satisfies Tits' independence property.
Let $p\in [2,\infty)$, and let $q\in (1,2]$ be such that
$\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q}=1$. Then the spectrum
$\sigma_{C^*_{L^{p+}}(K\backslash G/K)}(\mu_\kappa)$ of $\mu_{\kappa}$ in $C^*_{L^{p+}}(K\backslash G/K)$ is equal to
\[
\left\{ \gamma_o(z)\mid z\in \mathcal{P}, \; \mathrm{Re}\;z
\in \left[\frac{1}{p},\frac{1}{q}\right] \right\}.
\]
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
Let $z\in \mathcal{P}$. From Theorem \ref{GA:thm:tree_classification_pd_sph_func}, it follows that the function $\varphi_{\gamma_o(z)}$ is a positive definite function.
Let us denote the GNS-construction of $\varphi_{\gamma_o(z)}$
by $\pi'_{\gamma_o(z)}\colon G\to \mathcal{U}(\mathcal{H}'_{\gamma_o(z)})$. Lemma \ref{EX:lemma:spher_func_asympt_tree}
implies that $\pi'_{\gamma_o(z)}$ extends to a
*-representation of $C^*_{L^{p+}}(G)$ whenever
$\mathrm{Re}\,z\in \left[\frac{1}{p},\frac{1}{q}\right]$. On the other hand, if $\mathrm{Re}\, z \not\in \left[\frac{1}{p},\frac{1}{q}\right]$, then $\pi'_{\gamma_o(z)}$ has a vector state, namely $\varphi_{\gamma_o(z)}$,
that is not in $L^{p+}(G)$. Hence, $\pi'_{\gamma_o(z)}$ does not extend to
$C^*_{L^{p+}}(G)$ by Theorem \ref{KS:cor_dual_Lpplus_algebra}. This implies that
\begin{align*}
\chi_{\varphi_{\gamma_o(z)}}\colon C_c(K\backslash G/K)\to \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}},\,
f\mapsto f\ast \varphi_{\gamma_o(z)}(e)
\end{align*}
extends to a character on $C^*_{L^{p+}}(K\backslash G/K)$ if
and only if $\mathrm{Re}\, z\in \left[\frac{1}{p},\frac{1}{q}\right]$. Hence the result follows from the identity
\[
\sigma_{C^*_{L^{p+}}(K\backslash G/K)}(\mu_\kappa)
=
\left\{ \chi_{\varphi_{\gamma_o(z)}}(\mu_\kappa)\mid
z\in \mathcal{P}, \; \mathrm{Re}\,z \in \left[\frac{1}{p},\frac{1}{q}\right]\right\}.\]
\end{proof}
Note that Proposition \ref{GA:prp:spectrum_of_mu_in_radial_algs} immediately implies Theorem \ref{thm:groupcstaralgebrastrees}.
\subsection{Spherical, special and super-cuspidal representations}
We now elaborate more on the representation theory of the groups under consideration.
Let $T$ be a semi-homogeneous tree of degree $(d_0,d_1)$ with $d_0,d_1\geq 2$ and $d_0+d_1\geq 5$, and $G$ be a non-compact, closed subgroup of $\mathrm{Aut}(T)$ that acts transitively on $\partial T$. Let $\mathcal{C}$ be the set of finite, complete subtrees of $T$ endowed with the inclusion as ordering.
For every element $S\in \mathcal{C}$, the $S$-fixing group $G_S=\lbrace s\in G\mid sx=x \; \forall x\in V(S) \rbrace$ is a compact open subgroup of $G$. The set
\begin{align*}
\lbrace G_S \subset G \mid S\in\mathcal{C}\rbrace
\end{align*}
forms a neighbourhood basis of the identity element of $G$. Note that $G_{S_2}\subset G_{S_1}$ whenever $S_1 \subset S_2$. For every element $S \in \mathcal{C}$, set
\begin{align*}
p_{S} = \frac{1}{\mu_G(G_s)}\mathbf{1}_{G_S}\in C_c(G).
\end{align*}
\begin{prp}
The net $(p_S)_{S\in \mathcal{C}}\in C_c(G)^\mathcal{C}\subset C^*(G)^\mathcal{C}$ is a monotonically increasing approximate identity of $C^*(G)$ that consists of orthogonal projections.
\end{prp}
Let $\pi\colon G\to \mathcal{U}(\mathcal{H})$ be a unitary group representation of $G$. It follows from the continuity of $\pi_*\colon C^*(G) \to \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$ that there is an element $S\in \mathcal{C}$ such that
the orthogonal projection
$
\pi_*\left(p_S\right)$
is non-trivial.
In particular, there is a minimal complete subtree $S\in \mathcal{C}$ of $T$ such that $\pi_*\left(p_S\right)\neq 0$. Let $M_v$ be the set
of minimal complete subtrees of $T$ such that $\pi_*\left(p_S\right)\neq 0$.
\begin{dfn}
Suppose that $G$ satisfies Tits' independence property, and let
$\pi\colon G\to \mathcal{U}(\mathcal{H})$ be an irreducible unitary
group representation of $G$.
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $\pi\colon G\to \mathcal{U}(\mathcal{H})$ is called \emph{spherical} if there exists an element
in $M_v$ that is exactly one vertex.
\item $\pi\colon G\to \mathcal{U}(\mathcal{H})$ is called \emph{special} if it is not spherical and there exists an element in $M_v$ that is an edge.
\item $\pi\colon G\to \mathcal{U}(\mathcal{H})$ is called \emph{super-cuspidal} if it is neither spherical nor special.
\end{enumerate}
\end{dfn}
The following theorem is part of \cite[Theorem 2]{amann}.
\begin{thm}\label{GA:thm:discrete_reps_asymptotic}
Let $G$ be a non-compact, closed subgroup of $\mathrm{Aut}(T)$ that acts
transitively on $\partial T$ and that satisfies Tits' independence property. Then the following holds:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item Every special representation of $G$ is an $L^2$-representation.
\item Every super-cuspidal representation of $G$ is an $L^1$-representation.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\subsection{Decomposition of the unitary dual} As in the previous paragraph, we assume that $T$ is a semi-homogeneous tree of degree $(d_0,d_1)$ with
$d_0,d_1\geq 2$ and $d_0+d_1 \geq 5$. We now prove a decomposition theorem of the unitary dual of automorphism groups of $T$.
\begin{thm}\label{GA:thm:decomposition_grp_alg_auto_grp}
Let $G$ be a non-compact, closed subgroup of $\mathrm{Aut}(T)$ that acts
transitively on $\partial T$ and that satisfies Tits' independence property. Let $o\in V(T)$ be a fixed vertex, and let $K = G_o$. Then there is
a closed ideal $C^*(G)_{\mathrm{disc}}$ in $C^*(G)$ (where ``disc'' stands for ``discrete'') such that
the spectrum $\reallywidehat{C^*(G)_{\mathrm{disc}}}$ consists
of equivalence classes of super-cuspidal and special representations.
Furthermore, we have the following decomposition
\begin{align*}
C^*(G) = C^*(G)_{\mathrm{disc}}\oplus C^*(G,K),
\end{align*}
where $C^*(G,K)$ is the spherical ideal for $(G,K)$ in $C^*(G)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
From Remark \ref{GA:rem:GP_spherical_ideal_morita_eq}, it follows that $(\widehat{G}_K)_1$ is an open subset of $\widehat{G}$. In order to prove the theorem, it suffices to show that $(\widehat{G}_K)_1$ is also a closed subset
of $\widehat{G}$.
By Theorem \ref{GA:thm:independence_of_vertex}, every spherical representation of $G$ defines an equivalence class of $(\widehat{G}_K)_1$. Hence,
the set $\widehat{G}\setminus (\widehat{G}_K)_1$ consists of
equivalence classes of special and super-cuspidal representations.
From Theorem \ref{GA:thm:discrete_reps_asymptotic}, we know that
every super-cuspidal representation is an $L^1$-representation.
By \cite[Corollary 1]{dufloRegularRepresentationNonunimodular1976},
every irreducible $L^1$-representation forms an open point in
$\widehat{G}$. This implies that for every
super-cuspidal representation $\pi\colon G\to \mathcal{U}(\mathcal{H})$ of $G$,
the equivalence class $[\pi]\in \widehat{G}$ does not belong
to the closure of $(\widehat{G}_K)_1$.
Now, suppose that
$\pi\colon G\to \mathcal{U}(\mathcal{H})$ is a special representation of $G$. Recall that
$C^*(G)$ admits an approximate identity $(p_S)_{S\in \mathcal{C}}$
of orthogonal projections given by $p_S= \frac{1}{\mu_G(G_S)}\mathbf{1}_{G_S}$,
where $\mathcal{C}$ denotes the directed set consisting of finite, complete subtrees of $T$ ordered by inclusion. By assumption, there exists an edge $e\in E(T)$
such that $\pi_*(p_e)\neq 0$. Without loss of generality, $o\in e$. Again
by assumption, $\pi_*(p_o) = 0$. Note that $p_o\leq p_e$. Therefore, the ideal $C^*(G,K)$ is contained in the closed ideal
$\langle p_e \rangle_{C^*(G)}$ generated by the projection
$p_e$, and the unital $C^*$-algebra
$p_e C^*(G)p_e$ decomposes into an orthogonal direct sum
$p_oC^*(G)p_o \oplus (p_e-p_o)C^*(G)(p_e-p_o)$. Indeed, this decomposition follows from the fact that $p_oC^*(G)p_o$ is an ideal in $p_e C^*(G)p_e$. Since
$p_e C^*(G)p_e$ is Morita-equivalent to $\langle p_e\rangle_{C^*(G)}$,
and since $p_e C^*(G)p_e = p_oC^*(G)p_o \oplus (p_e-p_o)C^*(G)(p_e-p_o)$,
the spectrum $(\widehat{G}_K)_1$ of $C^*(G,K)$, considered
as a subspace of $\reallywidehat{\langle p_e\rangle_{C^*(G)}}$, is closed.
But this implies that $[\pi]$ does not belong to the closure of $(\widehat{G}_K)_1$ when considered as a subspace of $\widehat{G}$ as well.
We have thus excluded the possibility that super-cuspidal and special representations form points in $\widehat{G}$ that lie in the closure of $(\widehat{G}_K)_1$. Since these points form the complement of $(\widehat{G}_K)_1$ in $\widehat{G}$, it follows that $(\widehat{G}_K)_1$ is closed in $\widehat{G}$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proofs of Theorem \ref{thm:ideals} and \ref{thm:star_iso}}
We are now ready to prove Theorem \ref{thm:ideals} and Theorem \ref{thm:star_iso}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:ideals}]
Let $G$ be a non-compact, closed subgroup of $\mathrm{Aut}(T)$ that
acts transitively on $V(T)$ and on $\partial T$. Furthermore, suppose that
$G$ has Tits' independence property.
The uniqueness statement in Theorem \ref{thm:ideals} relies on Theorem \ref{thm:groupcstaralgebrastrees}. Let $C^*_\mu(G)$ be a group $C^*$-algebra
such that the dual space $C^*_\mu(G)^*$ is an ideal in $B(G)$. We have to show that $C^*_\mu(G)$ is an $L^{p+}$-group-$C^*$-algebra for a suitable
$p\in[2,\infty]$.
For this purpose, let $o\in V(T)$ be any vertex of $T$ and $K= G_o$.
Theorem \ref{GA:thm:decomposition_grp_alg_auto_grp} implies that $\widehat{G}\setminus \widehat{G}_r\subset (\widehat{G}_K)_1$. As was explained before, the group $G$ is $K$-amenable. From Theorem \ref{CR:thm:KK_eq_abs_grp_alg}, it follows that the canonical quotient map $s\colon C_\mu^*(G)\to C^*_r(G)$ induces
an isomorphism $s_*\colon K_i(C^*_\mu(G))\to K_i(C^*_r(G)$
for $i\in \{0,1\}$. By \cite[Lemma 3.3]{siebenand}, this in turn implies that the canonical quotient map $s \vert \colon C^*_\mu(K\backslash G/K)\to C^*_r(K\backslash G/K)$ induces an isomorphism $(s\vert)_*\colon K_i(C^*_\mu(K\backslash G/K))\to K_i(C^*_r(K\backslash G/K))$ for $i\in \{0,1\}$.
Since $\mu_1$ generates the unital $C^*$-algebra
$C^*_{\mu}(K\backslash G/K)$, the Gelfand transformation leads to a
*-iso\-mor\-phism from $C^*_\mu(K\backslash G/K)$ to
$C(\sigma_{C^*_\mu(K\backslash G/K)}(\mu_1))$. Let $r\in \sigma_{C^*_\mu(K\backslash G/K)}(\mu_1)$ be
the largest number in $\sigma_{C^*_\mu(K\backslash G/K)}(\mu_1)$. From Remark \ref{GA:rem:tree_char_vs_spec_of_mu} and the assumption that $G$ acts transitively on $V(T)$, it follows that
$\sigma_{C^*_\mu(K\backslash G/K)}(\mu_1)\subset[-r,r]$ and that
$-r$ belongs to $\sigma_{C^*_\mu(K\backslash G/K)}(\mu_1)$ as well.
By Proposition \ref{GA:prp:spectrum_of_mu_in_radial_algs}, there is an
element $p\in [2,\infty]$ with
\[\sigma_{C^*_{L^{p+}}(K\backslash G/K)}(\mu_1)=[-r,r].\]
It therefore suffices to show that $\sigma_{C^*_\mu(K\backslash G/K)}(\mu_1)=[-r,r]$. In order to do this, let $r_2$ be the spectral radius of $\mu_1$ in
$C^*_r(K\backslash G/K)$. Then we have $\sigma_{C^*_r(K\backslash G/K)}(\mu_1)
= [-r_2,r_2]$, and the quotient map $s\vert$ translates
to the restriction map $\mathrm{res}\colon C(\sigma_{C^*_\mu(K\backslash G/K)}(\mu_1))
\to C([-r_2,r_2])$. The kernel of $\mathrm{res}$ is equal to
$C_0(\sigma_{C^*_\mu(K\backslash G/K)}(\mu_1)\setminus [-r_2,r_2] )$.
From the six-term exact sequence in K-theory and the fact that $\mathrm{res}$
induces isomorphisms in K-theory, it follows that $C_0(\sigma_{C^*_\mu(K\backslash G/K)}(\mu_1)\setminus [-r_2,r_2] )$ has trivial K-theory. So, if there were an element
$t \in [-r,r]$ that would not belong to $\sigma_{C^*_\mu(K\backslash G/K)}(\mu_1)$, then $\sigma_{C^*_\mu(K\backslash G/K)}(\mu_1)\setminus [-r_2,r_2]$ would contain a non-empty compact open subset, so that
\[
K_0(C_0(\sigma_{C^*_\mu(K\backslash G/K)}(\mu_1)\setminus [-r_2,r_2] ))\neq 0.
\]
Hence, we must have that $\sigma_{C^*_\mu(K\backslash G/K)}(\mu_1) = [-r,r]$, which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
We also prove a version of Theorem \ref{thm:ideals} for an important class of groups that do not satisfy Tits' independence property, namely the groups $\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{Q}_q)$. We refer to explicit results on the representation theory of these groups without recalling them explicitly.
\begin{thm}
Let $q$ be an odd prime number, and let $G= \mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{Q}_q)$. Let $C^*_{\mu}(G)$ be a group $C^*$-algebra of $G$ whose dual space is a $G$-invariant ideal of $B(G)$. Then there exists a unique element
$p\in [2,\infty]$ such that
$C^*_{L^{p+}}(G) = C^*_\mu(G)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The group $G$ acts on a homogeneous tree of degree $q+1$. To be more
precise, $G$ is a double cover of the projective special linear group
$\overline{G}=\mathrm{PSL}(2,\mathbb{Q}_q)$, which
is known to be a non-compact, closed subgroup of the automorphism
group of the homogeneous tree $T_q$ of degree $q+1$ (see \cite[Appendix 5)]{MR1152801}. It is also known that
$\overline{G}$ acts transitively on the boundary of $T_q$
(see \cite[p.~133]{MR1152801}).
In particular, $\overline{G}$ is a Kunze-Stein group. It also admits Gelfand pairs. Indeed, the group
\begin{align*}
K:=\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{Z}_q) = \left\{ \begin{pmatrix}
a & b \\
c & d
\end{pmatrix} \in \mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{Q}_q)\; \middle| \;
a,b,c,d\in \mathbb{Z}_q \right\},
\end{align*}
where $\mathbb{Z}_q\subset \mathbb{Q}_q$ denotes the ring of integers, is a maximal compact subgroup of $G$, and the image $\overline{K}$ of
$K$ under the canonical quotient map $G\to \overline{G}$ gives a
stabiliser group of some vertex $o$ of $T_q$ (see \cite[p. 133]{MR1152801}).
Hence, $(\overline{G},\overline{K})$ is a Gelfand pair, from which it follows that $(G,K)$ is a Gelfand pair as well.
It now follows from the classification of the irreducible unitary group
representations of $G$ that $\widehat{G} \setminus \widehat{G}_r \subset (\widehat{G}_K)_1$ (see e.g. \cite{gelcprimefandAutomorphicFunctionsTheory1963} or
\cite{sallyIntroductionAdicFields1998}). Also, it is straightforward to verify that $(\widehat{\overline{G}}_{\overline{K}})_1 = (\widehat{G}_K)_1$.
Futhermore, the restriction of every positive definite, spherical function for $(\mathrm{Aut}(T_q),\mathrm{Aut}(T_q)_o)$
to $\overline{G}$ is a positive definite, spherical function for $(\overline{G},\overline{K})$.
Combined with the results in \cite[Section 14]{sallyIntroductionAdicFields1998}
(see also \cite[p.~80]{choucrounAnalyseHarmoniqueGroupes1994}),
it is straightforward to verify that the kernel of the map
$q \vert \colon C^*(K\backslash G/K)\to C^*_r(K\backslash G/K)$
corresponds to
$\lbrace \varphi_{\gamma_o(s)}\mid s\in [0,\frac{1}{2})\rbrace$.
The theorem thus follows by arguments analogous to the arguments from the proof of the
previous theorem.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk}
The case of groups $G$ not acting transitively on $V(T)$ requires further investigation. In this case it appears plausible that besides the above mentioned group $C^*$-algebras, there are also other group $C^*$-algebras coming from $G$-invariant ideals of the Fourier-Stieltjes algebra $B(G)$.
\end{rmk}
We end this section with a result (Theorem \ref{thm:star_iso}) indicating the subtle nature of canonical (non)-${}^*$-isomorphism of (exotic) group $C^*$-algebras. Indeed, it shows that even though we may have a ``continuum of exotic group $C^*$-algebras'', in the sense that they are pairwise not canonically ${}^*$-isomorphic, these algebras are still abstractly ${}^*$-isomorphic.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:star_iso}]
Let $G$ be a non-compact, closed subgroup of $\mathrm{Aut}(T)$ that acts transitively on $\partial T$ and that satisfies Tits' independence property. Let $o\in V(T)$ be any vertex and $K= G_o$.
By Theorem \ref{GA:thm:decomposition_grp_alg_auto_grp}, we have
$C^*(G) = C^*(G)_{\mathrm{disc}} \oplus C^*(G,K)$, where
the spectrum of $C^*(G)_{\mathrm{disc}}$ consists of $L^2$-representations.
For every group $C^*$-algebra $C^*_\mu(G)$, we have a similar
decomposition $C^*_\mu(G) = C^*_\mu(G)_{\mathrm{disc}}\oplus C^*_\mu(G,K)$
such that the canonical quotient map
$q\colon C^*(G) \to C^*_\mu(G)$ transfers
$C^*(G)_{\mathrm{disc}}$ to $C^*_\mu(G)_{\mathrm{disc}}$
and $C^*(G,K)$ to $C^*_\mu(G,K)$, i.e.~we have $q(C^*(G)_{\mathrm{disc}})=
C^*_\mu(G)_{\mathrm{disc}}$ and $q(C^*(G,K))
=C^*_\mu(G,K)$. Note that $q$ induces a *-iso\-mor\-phism
from $C^*(G)_{\mathrm{disc}}$ to $C^*_\mu(G)_{\mathrm{disc}}$.
Now let $C^*_\mu(G)$ be a group $C^*$-algebra whose dual space is
a proper ideal in $B(G)$. Furthermore, let $s\colon C^*_\mu(G) \to C^*_r(G)$ be the canonical quotient map. A similar argument as above shows
that $s$ induces a *-isomorphism from $C^*_\mu(G)_{\mathrm{disc}}$
to $C^*_r(G)_{\mathrm{disc}}$. Furthermore,
$s$ restricts to a surjective *-homomorphism $\colon C^*_\mu(G,K)\to C^*_r(G,K)$.
It remains to show that $C^*_\mu(G,K)$ and $C^*_r(G,K)$ are *-isomorphic. By Remark \ref{GA:rem:GP_spherical_ideal_morita_eq}, the algebra $C^*_\mu(G,K)$
is Morita-equivalent to $C_\mu^*(K\backslash G/K)$ and
$C^*_r(G,K)$ is Morita-equivalent to $C^*_r(K\backslash G/K)$.
In particular, it follows that $C^*_\mu(G,K)$ and $C^*_r( G,K)$ are separable continuous trace $C^*$-algebras (see e.g. \cite[Corollary IV.1.4.20]{MR2188261}).
Since $C_\mu^*(G)^*$ is an ideal of $B(G)$, every
irreducible unitary group representation of $G$ that extends to $C^*_\mu(G)$ is
infinite dimensional.
From \cite[Corollary IV.1.7.22]{MR2188261}, it follows that
$C^*_\mu( G,K)$ and $C^*_r( G,K)$ are stable $C^*$-algebras.
An argument similar to that from the proof of the previous theorems shows
that the Gelfand spaces $\Delta(C_\mu^*(K\backslash G/K))$ and
$\Delta(C_r^*(K\backslash G/K))$ are homeomorphic (both are perfect,
compact intervals).
From the Dixmier-Douady classification of continuous trace $C^*$-algebras, it follows that $C^*_\mu( G,K)$ and $C^*_r( G,K)$ are Morita-equivalent (see \cite[Theorem IV.1.7.11]{MR2188261}).
This implies that $C^*_\mu( G,K)$ and $C^*_r(G,K)$
are stably *-isomorphic, and since $C^*_\mu( G,K)$ and $C^*_r( G,K)$ are stable, they are actually *-iso\-mor\-phic.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
Emerging applications in robot path planning in unknown and partially known unstructured environments, such as search and rescue missions caused by natural disasters~\cite{nagatani2013emergency,seraj2020coordinated}, inspection of planetary terrains~\cite{husain2013mapping}, and exploration of urban underground environments~\cite{kolvenbach2020towards}, motivate the need for risk-sensitive path planning. In particular, path planning in subterranean environments~\cite{rouvcek2019darpa} incurs higher risks due to lack of Global Positioning System (GPS) signals, the absence of illumination, decentralization, and unpredictable environment topologies~\cite{papachristos2019autonomous,mansouri2020unified} (see Fig. 1).
Motion planning risk can be quantified in multiple ways, such as chance constraints~\cite{ono2015chance,wang2020non}, exponential utility functions~\cite{koenig1994risk}, and distributional robustness~\cite{xu2010distributionally}. However, applications in autonomy and robotics require more ``nuanced assessments of risk''~\cite{majumdar2020should}. Artzner \textit{et. al.}~\cite{artzner1999coherent} characterized a set of natural properties that are desirable for a risk measure. These {\em coherent risk measures} are widely used and accepted in finance and operations research, among other fields.
The conditional value-at-risk (CVaR) is an important example of a coherent risk measure that has received significant attention in decision making problems, such as Markov decision processes (MDPs)~\cite{chow2015risk,chow2014algorithms,prashanth2014policy,bauerle2011markov}. For stochastic discrete-time dynamical systems, a model predictive control (MPC) technique for a class of coherent risk objectives that admit polytopic representation was proposed in~\cite{singh2018framework}. These authors also proposed a Lyapunov condition for risk-sensitive exponential stability in the presence of discretely quantized process noise, but did not include constraints in their formulation. Measurement noise and moving obstacles were considered in~\cite{hakobyan2019risk}, wherein the authors devised an MPC-based scheme for path planning with CVaR safety constraints when a reference
trajectory is generated by RRT$^*$~\cite{karaman2011sampling}, and extended to a Wasserstein distributionally robust formulation in~\cite{hakobyan2020wasserstein}. Risk-sensitive obstacle avoidance has also been tackled through CVaR control barrier functions in \cite{ahmadi2020cvar} with application to bipedal robot locomotion. Moreover, a method based on stochastic reachability analysis was proposed in~\cite{chapman2019risk} to estimate a CVaR-safe set of initial conditions via the solution to an MDP.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=70mm,scale=0.5]{Figures/4096-2731-max.jpg}}
\caption{Spot and Husky robots
exploring a subterranean environment in Valentine Cave, Lava Beds National Monument, California. Obstacle avoidance in unstructured environments incurs higher mission risk due to lack of global positioning~\cite{bouman2020autonomous}.} \label{fig:waypoints}
\end{figure}
Despite the popularity of CVaR in risk-sensitive path planning, CVaR is hard to compute efficiently, even for the sum of arbitrary independent random variables~\cite{ahmadi2012entropic,ahmadi2012addendum}. In most cases, one has to approximate CVaR through sampling methods. Furthermore, CVaR only considers the average worst case performance beyond a threshold, while ignoring the performance before reaching that threshold~\cite{ahmadi2017analytical}.
Entropic value-at-risk (EVaR) is the tightest upper bound on CVaR Value-at-Risk (VaR) in the sense of the Chernoff inequality (and hence a more risk-sensitive measure) and has superior computational properties~\cite{ahmadi2012entropic,ahmadi2017analytical,ahmadi2019portfolio}. Nonetheless, it does not admit a polytopic representation and therefore methods such as the ones proposed in~\cite{singh2018framework} cannot be applied for risk-sensitive path planning. In \cite{Sopasakis2019}, risk-constrained and risk-averse optimal control, amenable to arbitrary coherent risk measures, is considered. The authors reformulate the optimal control optimization as a convex conic program. This formulation, however, does not consider the nonconvex, mixed-integer nature of the optimization problems that is often a result of obstacle avoidance constraints.
In this paper, we go beyond CVaR path planning and propose a framework for receding horizon path planning with risk-sensitive obstacle avoidance and guaranteed performance in terms of EVaR. We consider discrete-time systems and a class of randomly moving obstacles for which we reformulate the MPC optimization as a convex, mixed-integer program. This is done in three steps - first we write the EVaR constraint as a cone constraint, next we reformulate the obstacle avoidance constraints to obtain a mixed-integer relaxation, and lastly we add a discrete state that tracks whether the goal has been reached. This allows us to track waypoints in a way that guarantees feasibility and finite-time task completion. We elucidate the proposed method using two examples.
This paper is organized as follows. The next section briefly reviews some relevant facts on CVaR and EVaR. Section III presents the problem under study in this paper. In Section IV, we propose a reformulation based on convex mixed integer programming to solve the EVaR receding horizon path planning problem and discuss its feasibility properties. In Section V, we introduce an algorithm to follow waypoints using the aforementioned MPC optimization and prove its finite-time completion. Section VI illustrates the method via numerical experiments. Section VII concludes the paper.
\vspace{0.3cm}
\textbf{Notation: } We denote by $\mathbb{R}^n$ the $n$-dimensional Euclidean space, $\mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}$ the non-negative reals, and $\mathbb{N}_{\ge0}$ the set of non-negative integers. Throughout the paper, we use bold font to denote a vector and $(\cdot)^\top$ for its transpose, \textit{e.g.,} $\boldsymbol{a}=(a_1,\ldots,a_n)^\top$, with $n\in \{1,2,\ldots\}$. For vector $\boldsymbol{a}$, we use $\boldsymbol{a}\succeq (\preceq) \boldsymbol{0}$ to denote element-wise non-negativity (non-positivity) and $\boldsymbol{a}\equiv \boldsymbol{0}$ to show all elements of $\boldsymbol{a}$ are zero. For two vectors $a,b \in \mathbb{R}^n$, we denote their inner product by $\langle \boldsymbol{a}, \boldsymbol{b} \rangle$, \textit{i.e.,} $\langle \boldsymbol{a}, \boldsymbol{b} \rangle=\boldsymbol{a}^\top \boldsymbol{b}$. In the MPC problem, we refer to $\boldsymbol{x}(t+k|t)$ as $\boldsymbol{x}_k$. For a finite set $\mathcal{A}$, we denote its power set by $2^\mathcal{A}$.
For a probability space $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, \mathbb{P})$ and a constant $p \in [1,\infty)$, $\mathcal{L}_p(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, \mathbb{P})$ denotes the vector space of real valued random variables $X$ for which $\mathbb{E}|X|^p < \infty$. For two probability density functions $P(X)$ and $Q(X)$, $P \ll Q$ implies that $P$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $Q$, \textit{i.e.,} if $Q(X)=0$, then $P(X)=0$.
\section{Preliminaries}
This section reviews some results on CVaR and EVaR risk measures.
\begin{subsection}{Conditional Value-at-Risk}
For a given confidence level $\alpha \in (0,1)$, value-at-risk ($\mathrm{VaR}_{1-\alpha}$) denotes the $({1-\alpha})$-quantile value of the cost variable $X \in \mathcal{L}_p(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, \mathbb{P})$. $\mathrm{CVaR}_{1-\alpha}$ measures the expected loss in the $({1-\alpha})$-tail given that the particular threshold $\mathrm{VaR}_{1-\alpha}$ has been crossed. $\mathrm{CVaR}_{1-\alpha}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{CVaR}_{1-\alpha}(X):=&\inf_{z \in \mathbb{R}}\mathbb{E}\Bigg[z + \frac{(X-z)^{+}}{1-\alpha}\Bigg],
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $(\cdot)_{+}=\max\{\cdot, 0\}$. A value of $\alpha \simeq 0$ corresponds to a risk-neutral case; whereas, a value of $\alpha \to 1$ is rather a risk-averse case.
\end{subsection}
\begin{subsection}{Entropic Value-at-Risk}
EVaR, derived using the Chernoff inequality for VaR, is the tightest upper bound for VaR and CVaR. It was shown in~\cite{ahmadi2017analytical} that $\mathrm{EVaR}_{1-\alpha}$ and $\mathrm{CVaR}_{1-\alpha}$ are equal only if there are no losses ($X\to -\infty$) below the $\mathrm{VaR}_{1-\alpha}$ threshold. The $\mathrm{EVaR}_{1-\alpha}$ of random variable $X$ is given~by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:evar}
\mathrm{EVaR}_{1-\alpha}(X):= \inf_{z > 0 }\Bigg[z^{-1}\ln\frac{\mathbb{E}[e^{Xz}]}{1-\alpha}\Bigg]
= \sup_{Q\in\mathfrak{D}}\mathbb{E}_Q(X).
\end{equation}
Similar to $\mathrm{CVaR}_{1-\alpha}$, for $\mathrm{EVaR}_{1-\alpha}$, the limit $\alpha \to 0$ corresponds to a risk-neutral case; whereas, $\alpha \to 1$ corresponds to a risk-averse case. In fact, it was demonstrated in~\cite[Proposition 3.2]{ahmadi2012entropic} that $\lim_{{\alpha}\to 1} \mathrm{EVaR}_{{1-\alpha}}(X) = \esssup(X)$.
A property of coherent risk measures is that they can be written as the worst-case expectation over a convex, bounded, and closed set of probability mass (or density) functions. This is the dual representation of a risk measure and the set is referred to as the risk envelope. For EVaR, the risk envelope $\mathfrak{D}$ for a continuous random variable with the pdf $P$ is defined as
\begin{multline}
\mathfrak{D}:= \Big\{Q\ll P\, | \\ \, D_{KL}(Q||P):=\int\frac{dQ}{dP}\bigg(\ln\frac{dQ}{dP}\bigg)dP \leq -\ln(1-\alpha)\Big\}.
\end{multline}
\noindent $D_{KL}(x||y)$ is the KL divergence between the two distributions. For some $x,y \in \mathbb{R}$, $D_{KL}(x||y)$ can be written in the form of the exponential cone, $K_{exp}$:
\begin{equation*}
t\geq x\ln(x/y) \iff (y, x, -t) \in K_{exp}.
\end{equation*}
For a discrete random variable $X \in \{x_1, x_2,\dotsc, x_J\}$ with the pmf given by $p = [p(1), p(2), \dotsc, p(J)]^T$, where $p(j) = \mathbb{P}(X = x_j), j \in \{1,\dotsc, J\}$, the KL divergence is given as
\begin{equation*}
D_{KL}(q||p) := \sum_{j=1}^{J}q(j)\ln\bigg(\frac{q(j)}{p(j)}\bigg), \quad q, p \in \Delta_J.
\end{equation*}
$\Delta_J$ is the probability simplex, $ \Delta_J:= \{q \in \mathbb{R}^J\,|\, q \geq 0, \,\sum_{j=1}^{J}q(j) = 1\}$. Hence, the epigraph of the KL divergence is exponential cone representable \cite{kocuk2020conic} as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:KLcone}
\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak{D}:= \Big\{& q \in \Delta_J \,|\,\exists \delta \in \mathbb{R}^J: \sum_{j=1}^{J}\delta(j) \leq -\ln\alpha, \\
& \big(p(j), q(j), -\delta(j)\big) \in K_{exp},~ \, \forall j\in \{1, \dotsc, J\}\Big\}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{subsection}
\section{Problem Statement}
We consider a class of discrete-time systems given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sys}
\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{x}(t+1) &= A\boldsymbol{x}(t) + B\boldsymbol{u}(t), \\
\boldsymbol{y}(t) &= C\boldsymbol{x}(t) + D\boldsymbol{u}(t),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\boldsymbol{x}(t) \in \mathbb{R}^{n_x}$, $\boldsymbol{y}(t) \in \mathbb{R}^{n_y}$, and $\boldsymbol{u}(t) \in \mathbb{R}^{n_u}$ are the system state, output, and controls at time $t$, respectively.
We consider obstacles with index $l \in\mathcal{L}$ that can be approximated by a convex polytope defined by $m_l$ half-spaces in $\mathbb{R}^{n_x}$
\begin{equation} \label{eq: obs_def}
\mathcal{O}_l = \{\boldsymbol{y} \in \mathbb{R}^{n_x} \,|\,\boldsymbol{c}_{i,l}^{T}\boldsymbol{y} \leq \boldsymbol{d}_{i,l}, \, i=1, \dots, m_l\}.
\end{equation}
We allow each polytopic obstacle $O_l$, $l \in \mathcal{L}$, centered at $\boldsymbol{a}_l$ at time $t$ to move randomly. That is, the point set defining obstacle $O_l$, $l \in \mathcal{L}$, at $t+k$ can be written as a random rotation $R_l(t+k)$ and random translation $w_l(t+k)$ of the $l$th obstacle $\mathcal{O}_l$ from time $t$ to $t+k$ as described below
\begin{equation}\label{eq:obs}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{O}_l(t+k) &= R_l(t+k)\mathcal{O}_l(t) + \boldsymbol{w}_l(t+k)\\
&= \bigg\{\boldsymbol{y}(t+k) = R_l(t+k)(\boldsymbol{y}(t) - \boldsymbol{a}_l) + \boldsymbol{a}_l + \\ &\qquad \boldsymbol{w}_l(t+k) \, | \, \boldsymbol{c}_{i,l}^{T}\boldsymbol{y}(t) \leq \boldsymbol{d}_{i,l}, \, i=1, \dots, m_l\bigg\} \\
&= \bigg\{\boldsymbol{y}(t+k) \, | \,\boldsymbol{c}_{i,l}^{T}\Big(R_l^{-1}(t+k)\big(\boldsymbol{y}(t+k) - \boldsymbol{a}_l \\ & \qquad -\boldsymbol{w}_l(t+k)\big) + \boldsymbol{a}_l\Big) \leq \boldsymbol{d}_{i,l}, \, i=1, \dots, m_l\bigg \}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{assumption}
\textit{The random rotations and translations are given by a joint probability distribution such that the sample space of this joint distribution has cardinality $J$, i.e., $\Omega_l = \{(R_l^1, \boldsymbol{w}_l^1), \dotsc, (R_l^J, \boldsymbol{w}_l^J)\}$. A random rotation and translation is picked from this set with pmf given by $p_l = [p(1), p(2), \dotsc, p(J)]^T$. For this distribution, we also define the index set $\mathcal{J} = \{1, \dotsc, J\}$.}
\end{assumption}
\vspace{0.3cm}
The safe set is defined as the region outside of the polytopic obstacles
\begin{equation}\label{eq:safeset_def}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{S}_l(t) &= \mathbb{R}^{n_y} \backslash \mathcal{O}_l(t) \\
&= \big\{\mathbf{y(t)}\,|\, \exists i \in \{1, \dots, m_l \}, c_{i,l}^T\mathbf{y(t)} \geq d_{i,l}\big\}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\noindent For obstacle avoidance, we aim to minimize the distance to the safe set, which is given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:zeta}
\zeta(\mathcal{S}_l(t)) = \text{dist}(\boldsymbol{y}(t), \mathcal{S}_l(t)):= \min_{\boldsymbol{z} \in \mathcal{S}_l(t)} ||\boldsymbol{y}(t) - \boldsymbol{z}||.
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}
\centering{
\resizebox{0.5\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzstyle{every node}=[font=\large]
\pgfmathdeclarefunction{gauss}{2}{%
\pgfmathparse{1000/(#2*sqrt(2*pi))*((x-.5-8)^2+.5)*exp(-((x-#1-6)^2)/(2*#2^2))}%
}
\pgfmathdeclarefunction{gauss2}{3}{%
\pgfmathparse{1000/(#2*sqrt(2*pi))*((#1-.5-8)^2+.5)*exp(-((#1-#1-6)^2)/(2*#2^2))}
}
\begin{axis}[
no markers, domain=0:16, range=-2:8, samples=200,
axis lines*=center, xlabel=$\zeta$, ylabel=$p(\zeta)$,
every axis y label/.style={at=(current axis.above origin),anchor=south},
every axis x label/.style={at=(current axis.right of origin),anchor=west},
height=5cm, width=17cm,
xtick={0}, ytick=\empty,
enlargelimits=true, clip=false, axis on top,
grid = major
]
\addplot [fill=cyan!20, draw=none, domain=7:15] {gauss(1.5,2)} \closedcycle;
\addplot [very thick,cyan!50!black] {gauss(1.5,2)};
\pgfmathsetmacro\valueA{gauss2(5,1.5,2)}
\draw [gray] (axis cs:5,0) -- (axis cs:5,\valueA);
\pgfmathsetmacro\valueB{gauss2(10,1.5,2)}
\draw [gray] (axis cs:4.5,0) -- (axis cs:4.5,\valueB);
\draw [gray] (axis cs:10,0) -- (axis cs:10,\valueB);
\draw [gray] (axis cs:1,0)--(axis cs:5,0);
\node[below] at (axis cs:7.0, -0.1) {$\mathrm{VaR}_{1-\alpha}(\zeta)$};
\node[below] at (axis cs:5, -0.1) {$\mathbb{E}(\zeta)$};
\node[below] at (axis cs:10, -0.1) {$\mathrm{CVaR}_{1-\alpha}(\zeta)$}; \node[below] at (axis cs:13, -0.1) {$\mathrm{EVaR}_{1-\alpha}(\zeta)$};
\draw [yshift=2cm, latex-latex](axis cs:7,0) -- node [fill=white] {Probability~$1-\alpha$} (axis cs:16,0);
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\caption{Comparison of the mean, VaR, and CVaR for a given confidence $\alpha \in (0,1)$. The axes denote the values of the stochastic variable $\zeta$, i.e., the minimum distance to the safe set as defined in~\eqref{eq:zeta}, and with pdf $p(\zeta)$. The shaded area denotes the $\%(1-\alpha)$ of the area under $p(\zeta)$. If the goal is to minimize $\zeta$, using $\mathbb{E}(\zeta)$ as a performance measure is misleading because tail events with low probability of occurrence are ignored. VaR gives the value of $\zeta$ at the $(1-\alpha)$-tail of the distribution. But, it ignores the values of $\zeta$ with probability below $1-\alpha$. CVaR is the average of the values of VaR with probability less than $1-\alpha$ (average of the worst-case values of $\zeta$ in the $1-\alpha$ tail of the distribution). Note that $\mathbb{E}(\zeta) \le \mathrm{VaR}_{1-\alpha}(\zeta) \le \mathrm{CVaR}_{1-\alpha}(\zeta) \le \mathrm{EVaR}_{1-\alpha}(\zeta)$. Hence, $\mathrm{EVaR}_{1-\alpha}(\zeta)$ is a more risk-sensitive measure.}
}
\label{fig:varvscvar}
\end{figure}
Our goal is to minimize the risk of collision with the randomly moving obstacles by evaluating the EVaR of the distance from the probabilistic safe set and constraining it to be below a certain threshold, $\epsilon_l$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:risksafety}
\mathrm{EVaR}_{1-\alpha}\big[\zeta(\mathcal{S}_l(t))] \leq \epsilon_l, \quad \forall l \in \mathcal{L}.
\end{equation}
The obstacle avoidance constraint (\ref{eq:evarcon}) is an EVaR safety constraint with confidence level $\alpha$ (see Fig. 2 for an illustrative comparison with CVaR and statistical mean) and risk tolerance $\epsilon_l$ for each obstacle~$l \in \mathcal{L}$.
We are now ready to present the problem we are interested in solving in this paper.
\vspace{0.3cm}
\begin{problem}
\textit{
Consider the discrete-time system given by (\ref{eq:sys}) and the randomly moving obstacles $O_l$, $l \in \mathcal{L}$, as defined in~\eqref{eq: obs_def} and~\eqref{eq:obs}. Given an initial condition $x_0 \in \mathbb{R}^{n_x}$, a goal set $\mathcal{X}_f \subset \mathbb{R}^{n_x}$, state constraints $\mathcal{X}\subset \mathbb{R}^{n_x}$, control constraints $\mathcal{U}\subset \mathbb{R}^{n_u}$, an immediate convex cost function $r:\mathbb{R}^{n_x} \times \mathbb{R}^{n_u}\to \mathbb{R}_{\ge0}$, a horizon $K \in \mathbb{N}_{\ge 0}$, and risk tolerances $\epsilon_l$, $l \in \mathcal{L}$, for each obstacle, compute the receding horizon controller $\{u_k \}_{k=0}^{K-1}$ such that $x(K) \in \mathcal{X}_f$ while satisfying the risk-sensitive safety constraints~\eqref{eq:risksafety}, i.e., the solution to the following optimization~\begin{subequations}\label{eq:mpc1}
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\min_{u} \quad &J(x(t), \boldsymbol{u}) := \sum_{k=0}^{K-1}r(\boldsymbol{x}_k, \boldsymbol{u}_k) \quad
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}\label{eq:dyn1}
\textrm{s.t.} \quad &\boldsymbol{x}_{k+1} = A\boldsymbol{x}_k + B\boldsymbol{u}_k
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}\label{eq:dyn2}
&\boldsymbol{y}_k = C\boldsymbol{x}_k + D\boldsymbol{u}_k
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}\label{eq:stcon}
&\boldsymbol{x}_k \in \mathcal{X}, \, \boldsymbol{u}_k \in \mathcal{U},
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}\label{eq:evarcon}
&\mathrm{EVaR}_{1-\alpha}\big[\zeta(\mathcal{S}_l(t+k))\big] \leq \epsilon_l, \forall l \in \mathcal{L},
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
x_K \in \mathcal{X}_F.
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}\label{eq:ic}
&\boldsymbol{x}_0 = \boldsymbol{x}(t),
\end{split}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
}
\end{problem}
\vspace{0.3cm}
Note that although the obstacles $\mathcal{O}_l$ are assumed to be represented by convex polytopes \eqref{eq: obs_def}, the safe set $\mathcal{S}_l(t+k)$ given in~\eqref{eq:safeset_def} is nonconvex. Hence, the minimum distance to $\mathcal{S}_l(t+k)$, $\zeta(\mathcal{S}_l(t+k))$, is also nonconvex. Therefore, the risk-sensitive safety constraint~\eqref{eq:evarcon} is a nonconvex constraint in the decision variable $u$, which renders optimization problem~\eqref{eq:mpc1} nonconvex as well.
The next section will reformulate \eqref{eq:evarcon} as a cone constraint in order to obtain a convex mixed-integer relaxation of \eqref{eq:mpc1}, which yields locally optimal solutions to \eqref{eq:mpc1}. Nonetheless, every such locally optimal solutions satisfies the constraints of optimization~\eqref{eq:mpc1} including the risk-sensitive safety constraint~\eqref{eq:evarcon}.
\section{EVaR Receding Horizon Planning}
This section breaks down the MPC optimization into three parts. First, we rewrite the EVaR constraint in the more tractable form of a cone constraint. Second, we reformulate the nonconvex safe set as a set of disjunctive inequalities that can be relaxed using binary variables. Lastly, we add a discrete state $\psi$ that signals task completion and allows us to prove feasibility of the MPC optimization. The resulting optimization is a convex mixed-integer program.
\subsection{EVaR Constraint Reformulation}
We reformulate the EVaR safety constraint to a cone constraint.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma}
\textit{Let Assumption 1 hold, then the L.H.S. of constraint \eqref{eq:evarcon} is equivalent to
\begin{equation} \label{eq:evar_reformulation}
\begin{aligned}
\min_{s_l, v_l, z_l, h_{l,k}} \, &\eta_l - \beta_l\ln\alpha + \sum_{j=1}^{J}p_l(j)s_l(j) \qquad \\
\textrm{s.t.} \quad & \eta_l \in \mathbb{R}, \, \beta_l \in \mathbb{R}_{\ge0}, \\
& \eta_l-v_l(j) \geq h_{l,k},& \, \forall j \in \mathcal{J},\\
& \beta_l + z_l(j) = 0, & \, \forall j \in \mathcal{J},\\
& \big(s_l(j), v_l(j), z_l(j)\big) \in (K_{exp})_*, & \forall j \in \mathcal{J},\\
& \boldsymbol{y}_k +\frac{\boldsymbol{c}_{i,l}}{||\boldsymbol{c}_{i,l}||}h_{l,k} \in \mathcal{S}_l^j(t+k), & \forall l \in \mathcal{L}, j \in \mathcal{J},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $(K_{exp})_*$ is the dual of the exponential cone.}
\end{lemma}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\begin{proof}
We begin by finding the distance of $\boldsymbol{y}_k$ from the safe set, given by $\zeta(\mathcal{S}_l(t+k))$. To this end, we define a set of variables $h_{l,k}\ge 0$, $l \in \mathcal{L}$ and $k=0,\ldots,K-1$ satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{eq:safeset1}
\boldsymbol{y}_k +\frac{\boldsymbol{c}_{i,l}}{||\boldsymbol{c}_{i,l}||}h_{l,k} = \boldsymbol{z}
\end{equation}
$\forall j \in \mathcal{J}, \forall k \in \{0, \dotsc, K-1\}$ with $i \in \{1, \dotsc, m_l\}$, which is the distance from every $\boldsymbol{y}_k$ to a point $\boldsymbol{z} \in \mathcal{X}$. If $\boldsymbol{z} \in \mathcal{S}_l^j(t+k)$, then minimizing $h_{l,k} $ gives us the smallest line connecting $ \boldsymbol{y}_k$ and $\boldsymbol{z}$, which is the minimum distance to the set $ \mathcal{S}_l^j(t+k)$. Therefore, we obtain
\begin{multline}\label{eq:safeset1}
\zeta(\mathcal{S}_l(t+k)) = \min_{\boldsymbol{z} \in \mathcal{S}_l(t+k)} ||\boldsymbol{y}(t+k) - \boldsymbol{z}|| \\ = \left \lbrace\begin{matrix} \min_{h_{l,k}} & h_{l,k} \qquad \\
\textrm{s.t.}&\boldsymbol{y}_k +\frac{\boldsymbol{c}_{i,l}}{||\boldsymbol{c}_{i,l}||}h_{l,k} \in \mathcal{S}_l^j(t+k), \,~~ \forall j \in \mathcal{J}, \end{matrix} \right.
\end{multline}
and define $h_{l,k}^*$ as the solution to~\eqref{eq:safeset1}.
Next, substitute the dual form of EVaR from \eqref{eq:evar} into the L.H.S. of \eqref{eq:evarcon}. Then replace the risk envelope $\mathfrak{D}$ with the exponential cone representation to yield a discrete probability distribution given by \eqref{eq:KLcone}. That is, $\mathrm{EVaR}_{1-\alpha}(\zeta(\mathcal{S}_l(t+k))) = \max_{Q\in\mathfrak{D}}\mathbb{E}_Q\big[\zeta(\mathcal{S}_l(t+k))\big]=\max_{Q\in\mathfrak{D}}\mathbb{E}_Q\big[h_{l,k}^*\big]$, where in the last equality we used~\eqref{eq:safeset1}. Thus, we have the following exponential cone program for computing EVaR
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dual}
\begin{aligned}
\max\limits_{q, \delta} \quad &\sum\limits_{j=1}^{J} h_{l,k}^* q(j) \\
\textrm{s.t.} \quad & \sum_{j=1}^J q(j) = 1,\\
& \sum_{j=1}^{J} \delta(j) \leq -\ln\alpha,\\
& \big((p_l(j), q(j), -\delta(j)\big) \in K_{exp},~~ \forall j \in \mathcal{J}, \\
& q(j) \in \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}, \, \delta(j) \in \mathbb{R}, \phantom{--iiii}\forall j \in \mathcal{J}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The dual of the above maximization problem is given by~\cite{kocuk2020conic, Sopasakis2019}:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:dualofdual}
\begin{aligned}
\min_{s_l, v_l, z_l} \, &\eta_l - \beta_l\ln\alpha + \sum_{j=1}^{J}p_l(j)s_l(j) \qquad \\
\textrm{s.t.} \quad & \eta_l-v_l(j) \geq h_{l,k}^*,& \, \forall j \in \mathcal{J},\\
& \beta_l + z_l(j) = 0, & \, \forall j \in \mathcal{J},\\
& \eta_l \in \mathbb{R}, \, \beta_l \in \mathbb{R}_{\ge0}, \\
& \big(s_l(j), v_l(j), z_l(j)\big) \in (K_{exp})_*, & \forall j \in \mathcal{J},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\boldsymbol{s, v, z}$ are the dual variables.
We conclude that \eqref{eq:dualofdual} and \eqref{eq:dual} are equivalent because strong duality holds by Slater's condition \cite{2004boyd}. Slater's condition is satisfied by showing \textit{strict feasibility} for \eqref{eq:dual}, i.e., there exists a feasible solution to \eqref{eq:dual} such that the inequality constraints hold with strict inequalities. One such solution is when $q(j) = p(j), \,\delta(j) < 0, \, \forall j\in \mathcal{J}$.
Finally, substituting minimization problem~\eqref{eq:safeset1} for $h^*_{l,k}$ in optimization \eqref{eq:dualofdual} gives \eqref{eq:evar_reformulation}. \end{proof}
\vspace{0.3cm}
Now that we have shown that $\mathrm{EVaR}_{1-\alpha}(\mathcal{S}_l(t+k))$ can be written as a minimization over the variables $\boldsymbol{s_l, v_l, z_l}, h_{l,k}$, we can return to our original MPC problem~\eqref{eq:mpc1} and simplify it as a one-layer optimization.
\vspace{0.3cm}
\begin{theorem}
\textit{Consider the MPC optimization given by~(\ref{eq:mpc1}) with confidence level $\alpha$ and risk tolerances $\epsilon_l$, $l \in \mathcal{L}$. If Assumption 1 holds, then \eqref{eq:mpc1} is equivalent to a minimization over $\mathcal{V} = \{\boldsymbol{u,s_l,v_l,z_l},h_{l,k}\}$ given by}
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:mpc2}
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\min_{\mathcal{V}} \quad &J(\boldsymbol{x}(t), \boldsymbol{u}) := \sum_{k=0}^{K-1}r(\boldsymbol{x}_k, \boldsymbol{u}_k)
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
\textrm{s.t.} \quad & \eta_l - \beta_l\ln\alpha + \sum_{j=1}^{J}p(j)s(j) \leq \epsilon_l \, \forall l \in \mathcal{L},
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
& \eta_l-v_l(j) \geq h_{l, k} \, \phantom{-----ii}\forall j \in \mathcal{J},l \in \mathcal{L},
\end{split}\\
\begin{split} \label{eq:safeset}
& \boldsymbol{y}_k +\frac{\boldsymbol{c}_{i,l}}{||\boldsymbol{c}_{i,l}||}h_{l,k} \in \mathcal{S}_l^j(t+k) \phantom{-} \forall l \in \mathcal{L},
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
& \beta_l + z_l(j) = 0 \,\phantom{------ii} \forall j\in \mathcal{J},l \in \mathcal{L},
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
& \eta_l \in \mathbb{R}, \, \beta_l, h_{l,k} \in \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0} \,\phantom{---ii} \forall l \in \mathcal{L},
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
& \big(s_l(j), v_l(j), z_l(j)\big) \in (K_{exp})_* \,\,\forall j\in \mathcal{J},l \in \mathcal{L},
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
(\ref{eq:dyn1}),(\ref{eq:dyn2}),(\ref{eq:ic}), (\ref{eq:stcon}).
\end{split}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\end{theorem}
\vspace{0.3cm}
\begin{proof}
We can substitute the result from Lemma~\ref{lemma} in~\eqref{eq:mpc1} to get
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:mpc_minmin}
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\min_{\boldsymbol{u}} \quad &J(\boldsymbol{x}(t), \boldsymbol{u}) := \sum_{k=0}^{K-1}r(\boldsymbol{x}_k, \boldsymbol{u}_k) \quad \end{split}\\
\begin{split}
\textrm{s.t.} \quad & (\ref{eq:dyn1}),(\ref{eq:dyn2}),(\ref{eq:ic}), (\ref{eq:stcon}),
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
\eqref{eq:evar_reformulation} \leq \epsilon_l, \quad l \in \mathcal{L}.
\end{split}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Suppose we have an optimal solution to \eqref{eq:mpc_minmin} given by $\boldsymbol{u}^*$. As \eqref{eq:mpc_minmin} is feasible, its constraints must be satisfied; this implies the inner minimization \eqref{eq:evar_reformulation} must also be feasible (with solution $(\boldsymbol{s_l^*, v_l^*, z_l^*}, h_{l,k}^*)$). Hence, $(\boldsymbol{u^*,s_l^*, v_l^*, z_l^*}, h_{l,k}^*)$ must also be a feasible solution to \eqref{eq:mpc2} and give the same objective value. Conversely, consider the optimal solution to \eqref{eq:mpc2} to be given by $(\boldsymbol{u^*,s_l^*, v_l^*, z_l^*}, h_{l,k}^*)$. This $\boldsymbol{u}^*$ must be feasible for \eqref{eq:mpc_minmin} and gives the same objective value. Hence, the above optimization \eqref{eq:mpc_minmin} is equivalent to the one-layer optimization~\eqref{eq:mpc2}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Mixed-Integer Reformulation of the MPC optimization}
This subsection frames the nonconvex safe set as a set of disjunctive inequalities. These inequalities are incorporated in our optimization by introducing a set of binary variables and using the Big-M relaxation~\cite{vecchietti_modeling_2003}.
The safe set~\eqref{eq:safeset_def} is defined as the region outside the obstacle $l$. Given that an obstacle has rotated and translated by $R_l(t+k)$ and $\boldsymbol{w}_l(t+k)$ between times $t$ and $t+k$, we can write the safe set at $t+k$ as the region outside $\mathcal{O}_l(t+k)$ described in \eqref{eq:obs}. It can equivalently be expressed as a result of the rotation and translation of the safe set itself from $t$ to $t+k$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{S}_l^j(t+k) & = \mathbb{R}^{n_y} \backslash \mathcal{O}_l^j(t+k) \\
& = R_l^j(t+k)\mathcal{S}_l(t) + \boldsymbol{w}_l^j(t+k).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
In (\ref{eq:safeset}), $\mathcal{S}_l^j(t+k)$ is a nonconvex set. For some obstacle~$l \in \mathcal{L}$, we can be rewrite \eqref{eq:safeset} as
\begin{equation*}
R_l^j(t+k)^{-1}\bigg(\boldsymbol{y}_k +\frac{\boldsymbol{c}_{i,l}}{||\boldsymbol{c}_{i,l}||}h_{l,k} - \boldsymbol{w}_l^j(t+k)\bigg) \in \mathcal{S}_l^j(t).
\end{equation*}
Given that the obstacles are convex polygons of the form~\eqref{eq: obs_def}, we write the safe region as the union of regions outside of the halfspaces that define an obstacle as follows
{\small
\begin{multline}\label{eq:disjunction}
\bigvee_{i=1}^{m_l} \boldsymbol{c}_{i,l}^T \Bigg[ R_l^j(t+k)^{-1}\bigg(\boldsymbol{y}_k +\frac{\boldsymbol{c}_{i,l}}{||\boldsymbol{c}_{i,l}||}h_{l,k} \\- \boldsymbol{w}_l^j(t+k) - \boldsymbol{a}_l\bigg) + \boldsymbol{a}_l \Bigg] \geq d_{i,l}.
\end{multline}}
The above disjunctive inequalities, however, are hard to enforce. To overcome this difficulty, we relax the constraint using a Big-M reformulation. The reformulation converts the disjunctive inequalities into a set of constraints described using binary variables, $\gamma_i \in \{0,1\}$ and a large positive constant $M$. The value of $M$ depends on the bounds on $h_{l,k}$ (determined from the size of obstacle $l$) and $\boldsymbol{y}_k$ (dependent on the state and control inputs). It can be computed using linear programming. The Big-M relaxation of \eqref{eq:disjunction} is as follows
{\small\begin{subequations} \label{eq:bigM}
\begin{align}
\begin{split}\label{eq:bigM1}
\boldsymbol{c}_{i,l}^T \Bigg[ R_l^j(t+k)^{-1}&\bigg(\boldsymbol{y}_k +\frac{\boldsymbol{c}_{i,l}}{||\boldsymbol{c}_{i,l}||}h_{l,k} - \boldsymbol{w}_l^j(t+k) - \boldsymbol{a}_l\bigg) + \boldsymbol{a}_l \Bigg] \\& \geq d_{i,l} - M\gamma_i, \qquad \, \forall i \in \{1, \dotsc m_l \},
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
\sum_{i = 1}^{m_l} \gamma_i \leq m_l - 1.
\end{split}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}}
\subsection {Task Completion}
In order to steer the system to the target region in finite time, we follow the footsteps of \cite{richards2003robustFeasibility} and define a new discrete state $\psi \in \{ 0, 1\}$, such that $\psi = 0$ implies that the task has been completed at an earlier step or at the current step and $\psi = 1$ means that the task has not yet been completed. The update equation of $\psi$ is then given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:taskCompletion}
\psi_{k+1} = \psi_{k} - \mu_{k},
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\boldsymbol{\mu}_{k} \in \{ 0, 1\}$ is a discrete input.
The goal to drive the system to $(\boldsymbol{x}_{des}, \boldsymbol{u}_{des})$ (this desired position can be replaced by a region as well), is incorporated in the following additional constraints
\begin{equation}\label{eq:terminalState}
\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{x}_{k+1} - \boldsymbol{x}_{des} &\leq \boldsymbol{M}(1 - \mu_{k}), \\
-(\boldsymbol{x}_{k+1} - \boldsymbol{x}_{des}) &\leq -\boldsymbol{M}(1 - \mu_{k}).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Here $\boldsymbol{\mu}_{k} = 1$ if the task of reaching the goal is completed at time step $t+k+1$. Equation \eqref{eq:taskCompletion} implies that $\psi$ jumps from $1 \rightarrow 0$, signaling completion of the task. After the task completion, all other MPC problem constraints can be relaxed by adding the term $M(1 - \psi_{k})$ to them, i.e., any constraints of the form $C_1\boldsymbol{\nu}_k + C_2\gamma_i + C_3 \geq 0$ are modified to $C_1\boldsymbol{\nu}_k + C_2\gamma_i + C_3 + M(1 - \psi_{k})\geq 0, \, \forall i, k$ where $\boldsymbol{\nu}_k = [\boldsymbol{u_k,x_k,y_k,s_k,v_k,z_k,h_k} ,\eta_k,\beta_k] $. We also add the following terminal constraint at time $t + K$ to ensure that the task is completed
\begin{equation} \label{eq:terminalConst}
\psi_{K} = 0.
\end{equation}
Note that the discrete state $\psi$ need not be a binary variable as long as we enforce the constraint,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:discreteStateConst}
0 \leq \psi_{k} \leq 1, \quad k=1,2,\ldots,K.
\end{equation}
The MPC objective function is then modified as
\begin{equation}
\min_{\mathcal{V}} \quad J(t) := \sum_{k=0}^{K-1}\big(r(\boldsymbol{u}_k) + \psi_k\big),
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{V} = \{\boldsymbol{u},v,h,s,z,\mu\}$ and $r(\boldsymbol{u}_k)$ is a convex function of the control input with $r(0) = 0$.
The MPC optimization \eqref{eq:mpc1} has the following convex mixed integer relaxation,
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:mpc3} {\small
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\min_{\mathcal{V}} \quad & J(t) := \sum_{k=0}^{K-1}\big(r(\boldsymbol{u}_k) + \psi_k\big)
\end{split}\\
\textrm{s.t.} \quad \begin{split}
& \eta_{l,k} - \beta_{l,k}\ln\alpha + \sum_{j=1}^{J}p_{l}(j)s_{l,k}(j) \leq \epsilon_l + M_k,
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
& \eta_{l,k}-v_{l,k}(j)+ M_k \geq h_{l, k},
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
& \text{L.H.S.}\eqref{eq:bigM1} + M_k\geq d_{i,l} - M\gamma_{i,l,k}(j),
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
\sum_{i = 1}^{m_l} \gamma_{i,l,k}(j) \leq m_l - 1 + M_k,
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
& -M_k \leq \beta_{l,k} + z_{l,k}(j) \leq M_k,
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
& \beta_{l,k} +M_k, \,h_{l,k}+ M_k \in \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0},
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
& \big(s_{l,k}(j) + M_k, v_{l,k}(j), z_{l,k}(j)\big) \in (K_{exp})_*,
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
(\boldsymbol{x}_k, \boldsymbol{u}_k, \psi_k) \in (\mathcal{X}, \mathcal{U}, 1) \cup (\mathbb{R}^n, \mathbb{R}^n, 0),
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
& (\ref{eq:taskCompletion}), (\ref{eq:terminalState}), (\ref{eq:terminalConst}), (\ref{eq:discreteStateConst}), (\ref{eq:dyn1}),(\ref{eq:dyn2}),(\ref{eq:ic}),
\end{split}
\end{align}}
\end{subequations}
where $M_k = M(1 - \psi_{k})$ and $\mathcal{X}, \mathcal{U}$ are assumed to be convex sets. The constraints must hold $\forall k\in \{1, \dotsc, K-1\},\, l\in \mathcal{L},\, j \in \mathcal{J},$ and $ i \in \{1, \dotsc, m_l\}$.
The above convex, mixed-integer relaxation of a nonconvex optimization problem will give us locally optimal solutions. Next, we will discuss the feasibility properties of this optimization.
\vspace{0.2cm}
\begin{proposition} \label{feasibility}
\textit{ If the optimization \eqref{eq:mpc3} is feasible at time $t = 0$, it is feasible for future time steps.}
\end{proposition}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\begin{proof}
Assume that the feasible solution to \eqref{eq:mpc3} at time $t$ is given by the input sequence $\{\boldsymbol{u}_0^*, \boldsymbol{u}_1^*, \dotsc , \boldsymbol{u}_{K-1}^*\}$ and the state sequence $\{(\boldsymbol{x}_0^*, \psi_0^*), (\boldsymbol{x}_1^*, \psi_1^*), \dotsc , (\boldsymbol{x}_K^*, \psi_K^*)\}$. Recall from the notation section that $\boldsymbol{x}_k := \boldsymbol{x}(t+k|t)$. Applying the first control input leads the system to the next state in the sequence $(\boldsymbol{x}_1^*, \psi_1^*)$, provided that the model of the actual system matches the one in \eqref{eq:mpc3}. The optimization is feasible at time $t+1$ if there exists a feasible input at time $t+K$ that does not violate constraints. Since $\psi_K^* = 0$ by virtue of the terminal constraint, all the constraints in the optimization are relaxed thereafter. Note that the state $\psi_K = 0$ is invariant due to \eqref{eq:taskCompletion} and \eqref{eq:discreteStateConst} and that $\mu_k = 0$ at all time after the task has been completed. Therefore, once the optimization constraints are relaxed, they will remain this way.
A control input $u_K = 0$ ensures that the optimization is feasible. At time $t+1$, a feasible solution to \eqref{eq:mpc3} is given by the control sequence $\{\boldsymbol{u}_1^*, \boldsymbol{u}_2^*, \dotsc , \boldsymbol{u}_{K-1}^*, 0\}$ and the state sequence $\{(\boldsymbol{x}_1^*, \psi_1^*), \dotsc ,(\boldsymbol{x}_K^*, 0), (A\boldsymbol{x}_{K}^*, 0)\}$. Hence, if the optimization \eqref{eq:mpc3} is feasible at time $t$, then it is feasible at time $t+1$. By extension, if the optimization \eqref{eq:mpc3} is feasible at time $t = 0$, it is feasible for all future time steps.
\end{proof}
\section{Waypoint Following Algorithm}
MPC is often used as a tool to plan trajectories locally and it is given a reference trajectory or a set of waypoints from a higher-level global planner like A* or RRT ~\cite{Lopez2017, hakobyan2019cvar}. Let $\{\boldsymbol{w}_1, \boldsymbol{w}_2, \dotsc, \boldsymbol{w}_N\}$ be a given a sequence of waypoints.
We call a waypoint $\boldsymbol{w}_{j+1}$ \textit{K-step reachable} from $\boldsymbol{w}_j$, if there exists a feasible solution to \eqref{eq:mpc3} with $\boldsymbol{x}_0 = \boldsymbol{w}_j$ and $\boldsymbol{x}_{des} = \boldsymbol{w}_{j+1}$.
\begin{algorithm}[t!]
\caption{Follow waypoints}\label{waypoint_alg}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE Number of waypoints visited, $W = 0$
\WHILE{$W < N$}
\STATE Initialize $(\boldsymbol{x}_0, \psi_0) = (\boldsymbol{w}_{W}, 1)$
\STATE Set desired goal $\boldsymbol{x}_{des} = \boldsymbol{w}_{W+1}$
\WHILE{$\psi_0 \neq 0$}
\STATE Solve \eqref{eq:mpc3} to obtain policy $\{\boldsymbol{u}_0^*, \boldsymbol{u}_1^*, \dotsc , \boldsymbol{u}_{K-1}^*\}$
\STATE Update $\boldsymbol{x}_0 = A\boldsymbol{x}_0 + B\boldsymbol{u}_0^*$
\STATE Update $\psi_0 = \psi_0 - \mu_0$
\IF{$\boldsymbol{x}_0 =\boldsymbol{x}_{des}$}
\STATE $W = W + 1$
\ENDIF
\ENDWHILE
\ENDWHILE
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\begin{proposition}
\textit{Assuming that the waypoint $\boldsymbol{w}_{j+1}$ is K-step reachable from $\boldsymbol{w}_j, \, \forall j \in \{1, \dotsc, N-1\}$, Algorithm \ref{waypoint_alg} gives a sequence of control inputs to move from $\boldsymbol{w}_0$ to $\boldsymbol{w}_N$ in finite time. }
\end{proposition}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\begin{proof}
Consider the simple case of starting from $\boldsymbol{w}_{0}$ and reaching $\boldsymbol{w}_{1}$, i.e., when we have exactly two waypoints. We implement Algorithm \ref{waypoint_alg} till $\psi_0 = 0$. Let $J_t^*$ be the cost of the MPC optimization \eqref{eq:mpc3} at time $t$. The feasible solution to \eqref{eq:mpc3} at $t$ is given by the input sequence $\{\boldsymbol{u}_{0}^*, \boldsymbol{u}_{1}^*, \dotsc , \boldsymbol{u}_{K-1}^*\}$ and the state sequence $\{(\boldsymbol{x}_{0}^*, \psi_{0}^*), (\boldsymbol{x}_{1}^*, \psi_{1}^*), \dotsc , (\boldsymbol{x}_{K}^*, \psi_{K}^*)\}$. At time $t+1$, the cost of the MPC optimization is $J_{t+1}^* \leq J_{t}^* - r(\boldsymbol{u}_{0}^*) - \psi_{0}^*$. This is true because we know from Proposition \ref{feasibility} that at time $t+ 1$, $\{\boldsymbol{u}_{1}^*, \dotsc , \boldsymbol{u}_{K-1}^*, 0\}$ is a feasible control input with $\psi(t+K|t+1) = 0$, i.e., $J_{t}^*$ will incur no additional cost from $u(t+K|t+1) = 0$ and $\psi(t+K+1|t+1) = 0$. Since $J_{t+1}^* - J_{t}^* \leq - r(\boldsymbol{u}_{0}^*) - \psi_{0}^*$, the cost decreases by at least $1$ at each time step till the task is completed. Considering that $J_t^*$ is always positive and finite, it will take a finite number of steps to reach $J_k^* = 0, \, k\geq t$. Hence, the policy to take the system from $\boldsymbol{w}_{0}$ to $\boldsymbol{w}_{1}$ will be implemented in finite time.
By induction, the system will reach $\boldsymbol{w}_N$ from $\boldsymbol{w}_0$ in finite time.
\end{proof}
\section{Numerical Results}
This section shows the efficacy of the proposed EVaR-based risk-sensitive planning method via two numerical examples.
\subsection{Monte-Carlo Simulations}
To illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed method, we compare it to another risk measure, CVaR for different confidence levels, $\alpha$.
We look at the two-dimensional discrete system $ x_{k+1} = Ax_k + Bu_k$, with
\begin{equation*}{\small
A = \begin{bmatrix} 1.0475 & -0.0463 \\ 0.0463 & 0.9690\end{bmatrix}, \, B = \begin{bmatrix} 0.028 \\ -0.0195\end{bmatrix}.}
\end{equation*}
The control constraints are $$-100 \leq u_k \leq 100.$$ One randomly moving obstacle interferes with the original MPC solution path that would be found in the absence of obstacles. As is commonly done in obstacle avoidance problems, we inflate the obstacles by the risk tolerance $\epsilon$. We ran $100$ Monte-Carlo simulations for the two risk measures for different values of the confidence level $\alpha$.
The initial system state, $\boldsymbol{x}_0$, lies somewhere between $(3.1, 0.5)^T$ and $(4.1, 1.5)^T$. For each Monte-Carlo simulation, we randomly chose an initial condition in this range. The paths resulting from this set of initial conditions are most affected by the randomly moving obstacle present at $(-1, 4.5)^T$ with probability $0.75$ and at $(2.5, 3.5)^T$ with probability $0.25$. The risk tolerance is set to $\epsilon = 0.04$. The results are summarized in Table \ref{table:1}. Note that the percentage of collisions is not exact as we run 100 random simulations. A few such trajectories are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:comp} when $\alpha = 0.5$. The two rectangles show both possible obstacle configurations. The darker rectangle has a higher probability of occurrence, $0.75$ and the lighter rectangle has a lower probability of occurrence, $0.25$. The $20$ trajectories seen in the plots are randomly initialized as discussed above. We can see that more CVaR trajectories intersect the obstacle.
\begin{table}[t!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{||c | c c c c c||}
\hline
$\alpha$ & $0.9$ & $0.7$ & $0.5$ & $0.3$ & $0.1$\\ [0.5ex]
\hline\hline
EVaR Collisions & $\%0$ & $\%0$ & $\%6$ & $\%3$& $\%66$ \\
\hline
CVaR Collisions & $\%7$ & $\%17$ & $\%17$ & $\%14$ & $\%74$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Summary of results from Monte-Carlo simulations}
\label{table:1}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\vskip -0.1 true in
\centering
\includegraphics[width=80mm,scale=0.4]{wpevar10}\\
\vskip -0.2 true in
\includegraphics[width=80mm,scale=0.4]{wpcvar10rez}
\vskip -0.15 true in
\caption{Comparison between EVaR (top) and CVaR (bottom) trajectories. The two uncertain obstacle locations are shown by gray rectangles. Note that a path may cut through an obstacle between discrete time-steps (which are denoted by a '*'). A collision is not
defined when the system trajectory lies outside the obstacle at the discrete time-steps.
}
\label{fig:comp}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Quadcopter}
We consider a quadcopter that must follow given waypoints while avoiding randomly moving obstacles and adhering to state and control constraints, Algorithm \ref{waypoint_alg}. The quadcopter is described by the states $(x, y, z, \phi, \theta, \varphi, \dot{x}, \dot{y}, \dot{z}, \dot{\phi}, \dot{\theta}, \dot{\varphi})^T$. The position of the quadcopter in 3D space is given by the coordinates $x, y, z$ and the roll, pitch, and yaw are given by $\phi, \theta, \varphi$ respectively. The model of the quadcopter is given by
\[ \ddot{x} = -g\theta, \,
\ddot{y} = g\theta,\, \ddot{z}=-\frac{u_1}{m} - g, \, \]
\[ \ddot{\phi} = \frac{u_2}{I_{xx}}, \,
\ddot{\theta} = \frac{u_3}{I_{yy}}, \,
\ddot{\varphi} = \frac{u_4}{I_{zz}},\]
where $m$ is the quadcopter's mass, $g$ is the acceleration due to gravity, and $I_{xx}, I_{yy}, I_{zz}$ are the quadcopter moments of inertia about the $x,y,z$-axes of the system. The control inputs are given by $u_1, u_2, u_3, u_4$. We used the following parameters: $m = 0.65$kg, $l = 0.23$m, $I_{xx} = 0.0075$kg.m$^2$, $I_{yy} = 0.0075$kg.m$^2$, $I_{zz} = 0.0013$kg.m$^2$, $g = 9.81$m.s$^{-2}$~\cite{hakobyan2019cvar}.
The risk constraint has two parameters: the confidence level, $\alpha$, and the risk-threshold, $\epsilon$. We chose $\alpha = 0.5,\, \epsilon = 0.04$. The waypoints are given by regions of size $[-0.5,0.5]^3$ around the waypoint center (denoted by o in Fig. \ref{fig:waypoints3D}). We chose a horizon length of $K = 15$ for the MPC optimization. We considered the case of having one randomly translating and rotating obstacle. The obstacle is a rectangular box of size $2$x$1$x$4$ m$^3$; it can rotate by $\frac{\pi}{2}$ and translate by $4$m along the y-axis and $1$m along the z-axis. Fig. \ref{fig:waypoints3D} shows all the different configurations of this obstacle at different times.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\vskip -0.1 true in
\centering
\includegraphics[width=45mm,scale=2]{fig4R}~
\includegraphics[width=45mm,scale=2]{Figures/fig6R}\\
\includegraphics[width=45mm,scale=2]{Figures/fig7R}~
\includegraphics[width=45mm,scale=2]{Figures/fig8R}
\caption{Snapshots of the quadcopter trajectory followed using Algorithm \ref{waypoint_alg} (x) given a sequence of waypoints (denoted by o). We can see the obstacle (gray boxes) changes position and orientation with time. The more likely obstacle configuration are shaded darker than the ones less likely to occur.}
\label{fig:waypoints3D}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
In this paper, we proposed a risk-constrained motion planning framework for obstacle avoidance. We presented an MPC reformulation in the form of a convex mixed integer program. We showed the recursive feasibility of this optimization and introduced an algorithm to follow waypoints. As shown in this paper, through a comparison with CVaR, the framework is amenable to other risk measures. All coherent risk measures have a convex, bounded, and closed risk envelope. This framework allows any coherent risk measure constrained motion planning problem to be expressed as a convex mixed integer relaxation.
There are many paths of future research for this problem. We could extend this framework to include robust (and by extension risk-sensitive) feasibility to disturbances via constraint tightening \cite{richards2003robustFeasibility}. It is also possible to extend this framework to continuous probability distributions using the relaxation technique that involves sample average approximation \cite{hakobyan2019cvar}. Future work also considers risk-sensitive robot planning under imperfect information~\cite{ahmadi2020pomdp}.
\newpage
\balance
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\section{Introduction}
Emerging applications in robot path planning in unknown and partially known unstructured environments, such as search and rescue missions caused by natural disasters~\cite{nagatani2013emergency,seraj2020coordinated}, inspection of planetary terrains~\cite{husain2013mapping}, and exploration of urban underground environments~\cite{kolvenbach2020towards}, motivate the need for risk-sensitive path planning. In particular, path planning in subterranean environments~\cite{rouvcek2019darpa} incurs higher risks due to lack of Global Positioning System (GPS) signals, the absence of illumination, decentralization, and unpredictable environment topologies~\cite{papachristos2019autonomous,mansouri2020unified} (see Fig. 1).
Motion planning risk can be quantified in multiple ways, such as chance constraints~\cite{ono2015chance,wang2020non}, exponential utility functions~\cite{koenig1994risk}, and distributional robustness~\cite{xu2010distributionally}. However, applications in autonomy and robotics require more ``nuanced assessments of risk''~\cite{majumdar2020should}. Artzner \textit{et. al.}~\cite{artzner1999coherent} characterized a set of natural properties that are desirable for a risk measure. These {\em coherent risk measures} are widely used and accepted in finance and operations research, among other fields.
CVaR is an important example of a coherent risk measure that has received significant attention in decision making problems, such as Markov decision processes (MDPs)~\cite{chow2015risk,chow2014algorithms,prashanth2014policy,bauerle2011markov}. For stochastic discrete-time dynamical systems, a MPC technique for a class of coherent risk objectives that admit polytopic representation was proposed in~\cite{singh2018framework}. These authors also proposed a Lyapunov condition for risk-sensitive exponential stability in the presence of discretely quantized process noise, but did not include constraints in their formulation. Measurement noise and moving obstacles were considered in~\cite{hakobyan2019risk}, wherein the authors devised an MPC-based scheme for path planning with CVaR safety constraints when a reference
trajectory is generated by RRT$^*$~\cite{karaman2011sampling}, and extended to a Wasserstein distributionally robust formulation in~\cite{hakobyan2020wasserstein}. Risk-sensitive obstacle avoidance has also been tackled through CVaR control barrier functions in \cite{ahmadi2020cvar} with application to bipedal robot locomotion. Moreover, a method based on stochastic reachability analysis was proposed in~\cite{chapman2019risk} to estimate a CVaR-safe set of initial conditions via the solution to an MDP.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=70mm,scale=0.5]{Figures/4096-2731-max.jpg}}
\caption{Spot and Husky robots
exploring a subterranean environment in Valentine Cave, Lava Beds National Monument, California. Avoidance of obstacles and other moving robots in unstructured environments incurs higher mission risk due to lack of global positioning~\cite{bouman2020autonomous}.} \label{fig:waypoints}
\end{figure}
Despite the popularity of CVaR in risk-sensitive path planning, CVaR is hard to compute efficiently, even for the sum of arbitrary independent random variables~\cite{ahmadi2012entropic,ahmadi2012addendum}. In most cases, one has to approximate CVaR through sampling methods. Furthermore, CVaR only considers the average worst case performance beyond a threshold, while ignoring the performance before reaching that threshold~\cite{ahmadi2017analytical}.
EVaR is the tightest upper bound on CVaR and Value-at-Risk (VaR) in the sense of the Chernoff inequality (and hence a more risk-sensitive measure)~\cite{ahmadi2012entropic,ahmadi2017analytical,ahmadi2019portfolio}. Nonetheless, it does not admit a polytopic representation and therefore methods such as the ones proposed in~\cite{singh2018framework} cannot be applied for risk-sensitive path planning. In \cite{Sopasakis2019}, risk-constrained and risk-averse optimal control, amenable to arbitrary coherent risk measures, is considered. The authors reformulate the optimal control optimization as a convex conic program. This formulation, however, does not consider the nonconvex, mixed-integer nature of the optimization problems that is often a result of obstacle avoidance constraints.
In this paper, we go beyond CVaR path planning and propose a framework for receding horizon path planning with risk-sensitive obstacle avoidance and guaranteed performance in terms of EVaR. We consider discrete-time systems and a class of randomly moving obstacles for which we reformulate the MPC optimization as a convex, mixed-integer program. This is done in three steps - first we write the EVaR constraint as a cone constraint, next we reformulate the obstacle avoidance constraints to obtain a mixed-integer relaxation, and lastly we add a discrete state that tracks whether the goal has been reached. This allows us to track waypoints in a way that guarantees feasibility and finite-time task completion. We elucidate the proposed method using two examples.
This paper is organized as follows. The next section briefly reviews some relevant facts on CVaR and EVaR. Section III presents the problem under study in this paper. In Section IV, we propose a reformulation based on convex mixed integer programming to solve the EVaR receding horizon path planning problem and discuss its feasibility properties. In Section V, we introduce an algorithm to follow waypoints using the aforementioned MPC optimization and prove its finite-time completion. Section VI illustrates the method via numerical experiments. Section VII concludes the paper.
\vspace{0.3cm}
\textbf{Notation: } We denote by $\mathbb{R}^n$ the $n$-dimensional Euclidean space, $\mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}$ the non-negative reals, and $\mathbb{N}_{\ge0}$ the set of non-negative integers. Throughout the paper, we use bold font to denote a vector and $(\cdot)^\top$ for its transpose, \textit{e.g.,} $\boldsymbol{a}=(a_1,\ldots,a_n)^\top$, with $n\in \{1,2,\ldots\}$. For vector $\boldsymbol{a}$, we use $\boldsymbol{a}\succeq (\preceq) \boldsymbol{0}$ to denote element-wise non-negativity (non-positivity) and $\boldsymbol{a}\equiv \boldsymbol{0}$ to show all elements of $\boldsymbol{a}$ are zero. For two vectors $a,b \in \mathbb{R}^n$, we denote their inner product by $\langle \boldsymbol{a}, \boldsymbol{b} \rangle$, \textit{i.e.,} $\langle \boldsymbol{a}, \boldsymbol{b} \rangle=\boldsymbol{a}^\top \boldsymbol{b}$. In the MPC problem, we refer to $\boldsymbol{x}(t+k|t)$ as $\boldsymbol{x}_k$. For a finite set $\mathcal{A}$, we denote its power set by $2^\mathcal{A}$.
For a probability space $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, \mathbb{P})$ and a constant $p \in [1,\infty)$, $\mathcal{L}_p(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, \mathbb{P})$ denotes the vector space of real valued random variables $X$ for which $\mathbb{E}|X|^p < \infty$. For two probability density functions $P(X)$ and $Q(X)$, $P \ll Q$ implies that $P$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $Q$, \textit{i.e.,} if $Q(X)=0$, then $P(X)=0$.
\section{Preliminaries}
This section reviews some results on CVaR and EVaR risk measures.
\begin{subsection}{Conditional Value-at-Risk}
For a given confidence level $\alpha \in (0,1)$, value-at-risk ($\mathrm{VaR}_{1-\alpha}$) denotes the $({1-\alpha})$-quantile value of the cost variable $X \in \mathcal{L}_p(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, \mathbb{P})$. $\mathrm{CVaR}_{1-\alpha}$ measures the expected loss in the $({1-\alpha})$-tail given that the particular threshold $\mathrm{VaR}_{1-\alpha}$ has been crossed. $\mathrm{CVaR}_{1-\alpha}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{CVaR}_{1-\alpha}(X):=&\inf_{z \in \mathbb{R}}\mathbb{E}\Bigg[z + \frac{(X-z)^{+}}{1-\alpha}\Bigg],
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $(\cdot)_{+}=\max\{\cdot, 0\}$. A value of $\alpha \simeq 0$ corresponds to a risk-neutral case; whereas, a value of $\alpha \to 1$ is rather a risk-averse case.
\end{subsection}
\begin{subsection}{Entropic Value-at-Risk}
EVaR, derived using the Chernoff inequality for VaR, is the tightest upper bound for VaR and CVaR. It was shown in~\cite{ahmadi2017analytical} that $\mathrm{EVaR}_{1-\alpha}$ and $\mathrm{CVaR}_{1-\alpha}$ are equal only if there are no losses ($X\to -\infty$) below the $\mathrm{VaR}_{1-\alpha}$ threshold. The $\mathrm{EVaR}_{1-\alpha}$ of random variable $X$ is given~by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:evar}
\mathrm{EVaR}_{1-\alpha}(X):= \inf_{z > 0 }\Bigg[z^{-1}\ln\frac{\mathbb{E}[e^{Xz}]}{1-\alpha}\Bigg]
= \sup_{Q\in\mathfrak{D}}\mathbb{E}_Q(X).
\end{equation}
Similar to $\mathrm{CVaR}_{1-\alpha}$, for $\mathrm{EVaR}_{1-\alpha}$, the limit $\alpha \to 0$ corresponds to a risk-neutral case; whereas, $\alpha \to 1$ corresponds to a risk-averse case. In fact, it was demonstrated in~\cite[Proposition 3.2]{ahmadi2012entropic} that $\lim_{{\alpha}\to 1} \mathrm{EVaR}_{{1-\alpha}}(X) = \esssup(X)$.
A property of coherent risk measures is that they can be written as the worst-case expectation over a convex, bounded, and closed set of probability mass (or density) functions (pdf/pmf). This is the dual representation of a risk measure and the set is referred to as the risk envelope. For EVaR, the risk envelope $\mathfrak{D}$ for a continuous random variable with the pdf $P$ is defined as the epigraph of the KL divergence, given by,
\begin{multline}
\mathfrak{D}:= \Big\{Q\ll P\, | \\ \, D_{KL}(Q||P):=\int\frac{dQ}{dP}\bigg(\ln\frac{dQ}{dP}\bigg)dP \leq -\ln(1-\alpha)\Big\}.
\end{multline}
\noindent $D_{KL}(Q||P)$ is the KL divergence between the two distributions, $Q$ and $P$. For some $x,y \in \mathbb{R}$, $D_{KL}(x||y)$ can be written in the form of the exponential cone, $K_{exp}$:
\begin{equation*}
t\geq x\ln(x/y) \iff (y, x, -t) \in K_{exp}.
\end{equation*}
Similarly, for a discrete random variable $X \in \{x_1, x_2,\dotsc, x_J\}$ with the pmf given by $p = [p(1), p(2), \dotsc, p(J)]^T$, where $p(j) = \mathbb{P}(X = x_j), j \in \{1,\dotsc, J\}$, the KL divergence is given as
\begin{equation*}
D_{KL}(q||p) := \sum_{j=1}^{J}q(j)\ln\bigg(\frac{q(j)}{p(j)}\bigg), \quad q, p \in \Delta_J.
\end{equation*}
$\Delta_J$ is the probability simplex, $ \Delta_J:= \{q \in \mathbb{R}^J\,|\, q \geq 0, \,\sum_{j=1}^{J}q(j) = 1\}$. Hence, the epigraph of the KL divergence, and equivalently the EVaR risk envelope for a discrete distribution, is exponential cone representable \cite{kocuk2020conic} as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:KLcone}
\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak{D}:= \Big\{& q \in \Delta_J \,|\,\exists \delta \in \mathbb{R}^J: \sum_{j=1}^{J}\delta(j) \leq -\ln\alpha, \\
& \big(p(j), q(j), -\delta(j)\big) \in K_{exp},~ \, \forall j\in \{1, \dotsc, J\}\Big\}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{subsection}
\section{Problem Statement}
We consider a class of discrete-time systems given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sys}
\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{x}(t+1) &= A\boldsymbol{x}(t) + B\boldsymbol{u}(t), \\
\boldsymbol{y}(t) &= C\boldsymbol{x}(t) + D\boldsymbol{u}(t),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\boldsymbol{x}(t) \in \mathbb{R}^{n_x}$, $\boldsymbol{y}(t) \in \mathbb{R}^{n_y}$, and $\boldsymbol{u}(t) \in \mathbb{R}^{n_u}$ are the system state, output, and controls at time $t$, respectively.
We consider obstacles with index $l \in\mathcal{L}$ that can be approximated by a convex polytope defined by $m_l$ half-spaces in $\mathbb{R}^{n_x}$
\begin{equation} \label{eq: obs_def}
\mathcal{O}_l = \{\boldsymbol{y} \in \mathbb{R}^{n_x} \,|\,\boldsymbol{c}_{i,l}^{T}\boldsymbol{y} \leq \boldsymbol{d}_{i,l}, \, i=1, \dots, m_l\}.
\end{equation}
We allow each polytopic obstacle $O_l$, $l \in \mathcal{L}$, centered at $\boldsymbol{a}_l$ at time $t$ to move randomly. That is, the point set defining obstacle $O_l$, $l \in \mathcal{L}$, at $t+k$ can be written as a random rotation $R_l(t+k)$ and random translation $w_l(t+k)$ of the $l$th obstacle $\mathcal{O}_l$ from time $t$ to $t+k$ as described below
\begin{equation}\label{eq:obs}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{O}_l(t+k) &= R_l(t+k)\mathcal{O}_l(t) + \boldsymbol{w}_l(t+k)\\
&= \bigg\{\boldsymbol{y}(t+k) = R_l(t+k)(\boldsymbol{y}(t) - \boldsymbol{a}_l) + \boldsymbol{a}_l + \\ &\qquad \boldsymbol{w}_l(t+k) \, | \, \boldsymbol{c}_{i,l}^{T}\boldsymbol{y}(t) \leq \boldsymbol{d}_{i,l}, \, i=1, \dots, m_l\bigg\} \\
&= \bigg\{\boldsymbol{y}(t+k) \, | \,\boldsymbol{c}_{i,l}^{T}\Big(R_l^{-1}(t+k)\big(\boldsymbol{y}(t+k) - \boldsymbol{a}_l \\ & \qquad -\boldsymbol{w}_l(t+k)\big) + \boldsymbol{a}_l\Big) \leq \boldsymbol{d}_{i,l}, \, i=1, \dots, m_l\bigg \}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{assumption}
\textit{The random rotations and translations are given by a joint probability distribution such that the sample space of this joint distribution has cardinality $J$, i.e., $\Omega_l = \{(R_l^1, \boldsymbol{w}_l^1), \dotsc, (R_l^J, \boldsymbol{w}_l^J)\}$. A random rotation and translation is picked from this set with pmf given by $p_l = [p(1), p(2), \dotsc, p(J)]^T$. For this distribution, we also define the index set $\mathcal{J} = \{1, \dotsc, J\}$.}
\end{assumption}
\vspace{0.3cm}
The safe set is defined as the region outside of the polytopic obstacles
\begin{equation}\label{eq:safeset_def}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{S}_l(t) &= \mathbb{R}^{n_y} \backslash \mathcal{O}_l(t) \\
&= \big\{\mathbf{y(t)}\,|\, \exists i \in \{1, \dots, m_l \}, c_{i,l}^T\mathbf{y(t)} \geq d_{i,l}\big\}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\noindent For obstacle avoidance, we aim to minimize the distance to the safe set, which is given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:zeta}
\zeta(\mathcal{S}_l(t)) = \text{dist}(\boldsymbol{y}(t), \mathcal{S}_l(t)):= \min_{\boldsymbol{z} \in \mathcal{S}_l(t)} ||\boldsymbol{y}(t) - \boldsymbol{z}||.
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}
\centering{
\resizebox{0.5\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzstyle{every node}=[font=\large]
\pgfmathdeclarefunction{gauss}{2}{%
\pgfmathparse{1000/(#2*sqrt(2*pi))*((x-.5-8)^2+.5)*exp(-((x-#1-6)^2)/(2*#2^2))}%
}
\pgfmathdeclarefunction{gauss2}{3}{%
\pgfmathparse{1000/(#2*sqrt(2*pi))*((#1-.5-8)^2+.5)*exp(-((#1-#1-6)^2)/(2*#2^2))}
}
\begin{axis}[
no markers, domain=0:16, range=-2:8, samples=200,
axis lines*=center, xlabel=$\zeta$, ylabel=$p(\zeta)$,
every axis y label/.style={at=(current axis.above origin),anchor=south},
every axis x label/.style={at=(current axis.right of origin),anchor=west},
height=5cm, width=17cm,
xtick={0}, ytick=\empty,
enlargelimits=true, clip=false, axis on top,
grid = major
]
\addplot [fill=cyan!20, draw=none, domain=7:15] {gauss(1.5,2)} \closedcycle;
\addplot [very thick,cyan!50!black] {gauss(1.5,2)};
\pgfmathsetmacro\valueA{gauss2(5,1.5,2)}
\draw [gray] (axis cs:5,0) -- (axis cs:5,\valueA);
\pgfmathsetmacro\valueB{gauss2(10,1.5,2)}
\draw [gray] (axis cs:4.5,0) -- (axis cs:4.5,\valueB);
\draw [gray] (axis cs:10,0) -- (axis cs:10,\valueB);
\draw [gray] (axis cs:1,0)--(axis cs:5,0);
\node[below] at (axis cs:7.0, -0.1) {$\mathrm{VaR}_{1-\alpha}(\zeta)$};
\node[below] at (axis cs:5, -0.1) {$\mathbb{E}(\zeta)$};
\node[below] at (axis cs:10, -0.1) {$\mathrm{CVaR}_{1-\alpha}(\zeta)$}; \node[below] at (axis cs:13, -0.1) {$\mathrm{EVaR}_{1-\alpha}(\zeta)$};
\draw [yshift=2cm, latex-latex](axis cs:7,0) -- node [fill=white] {Probability~$1-\alpha$} (axis cs:16,0);
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\caption{Comparison of the mean, VaR, and CVaR for a given confidence $\alpha \in (0,1)$. The axes denote the values of the stochastic variable $\zeta$, i.e., the minimum distance to the safe set as defined in~\eqref{eq:zeta}, and with pdf $p(\zeta)$. The shaded area denotes the $\%(1-\alpha)$ of the area under $p(\zeta)$. If the goal is to minimize $\zeta$, using $\mathbb{E}(\zeta)$ as a performance measure is misleading because tail events with low probability of occurrence are ignored. VaR gives the value of $\zeta$ at the $(1-\alpha)$-tail of the distribution. But, it ignores the values of $\zeta$ with probability below $1-\alpha$. CVaR is the average of the values of VaR with probability less than $1-\alpha$ (average of the worst-case values of $\zeta$ in the $1-\alpha$ tail of the distribution). Note that $\mathbb{E}(\zeta) \le \mathrm{VaR}_{1-\alpha}(\zeta) \le \mathrm{CVaR}_{1-\alpha}(\zeta) \le \mathrm{EVaR}_{1-\alpha}(\zeta)$. Hence, $\mathrm{EVaR}_{1-\alpha}(\zeta)$ is a more risk-sensitive measure.}
}
\label{fig:varvscvar}
\end{figure}
Our goal is to minimize the risk of collision with the randomly moving obstacles by evaluating the EVaR of the distance from the probabilistic safe set (which is just the complement of the obstacle set) and constraining it to be below a certain threshold, $\epsilon_l$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:risksafety}
\mathrm{EVaR}_{1-\alpha}\big[\zeta(\mathcal{S}_l(t))] \leq \epsilon_l, \quad \forall l \in \mathcal{L}.
\end{equation}
The obstacle avoidance constraint (\ref{eq:risksafety}) is an EVaR safety constraint with confidence level $\alpha$ (see Fig. 2 for an illustrative comparison with VaR, CVaR and statistical mean) and risk tolerance (also referred to as risk threshold in this paper) $\epsilon_l$ for each obstacle~$l \in \mathcal{L}$. {\color{black} Note that this implies that we allow the EVaR of the distance from the safe set to be at most $\epsilon_l$ with $1-\alpha$ worst realizations.}
We are now ready to present the problem we are interested in solving in this paper.
\vspace{0.3cm}
\begin{problem}
\textit{
Consider the discrete-time system given by (\ref{eq:sys}) and the randomly moving obstacles $O_l$, $l \in \mathcal{L}$, as defined in~\eqref{eq: obs_def} and~\eqref{eq:obs}. Given an initial condition $x_0 \in \mathbb{R}^{n_x}$, a goal set $\mathcal{X}_f \subset \mathbb{R}^{n_x}$, state constraints $\mathcal{X}\subset \mathbb{R}^{n_x}$, control constraints $\mathcal{U}\subset \mathbb{R}^{n_u}$, an immediate convex cost function $r:\mathbb{R}^{n_x} \times \mathbb{R}^{n_u}\to \mathbb{R}_{\ge0}$, a horizon $K \in \mathbb{N}_{\ge 0}$, and risk tolerances $\epsilon_l$, $l \in \mathcal{L}$, for each obstacle, compute the receding horizon controller $\{u_k \}_{k=0}^{K-1}$ such that $x(K) \in \mathcal{X}_f$ while satisfying the risk-sensitive safety constraints~\eqref{eq:risksafety}, i.e., the solution to the following optimization~\begin{subequations}\label{eq:mpc1}
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\min_{u} \quad &J(x(t), \boldsymbol{u}) := \sum_{k=0}^{K-1}r(\boldsymbol{x}_k, \boldsymbol{u}_k) \quad
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}\label{eq:dyn1}
\textrm{s.t.} \quad &\boldsymbol{x}_{k+1} = A\boldsymbol{x}_k + B\boldsymbol{u}_k
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}\label{eq:dyn2}
&\boldsymbol{y}_k = C\boldsymbol{x}_k + D\boldsymbol{u}_k
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}\label{eq:stcon}
&\boldsymbol{x}_k \in \mathcal{X}, \, \boldsymbol{u}_k \in \mathcal{U},
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}\label{eq:evarcon}
&\mathrm{EVaR}_{1-\alpha}\big[\zeta(\mathcal{S}_l(t+k))\big] \leq \epsilon_l, \forall l \in \mathcal{L},
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
x_K \in \mathcal{X}_F.
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}\label{eq:ic}
&\boldsymbol{x}_0 = \boldsymbol{x}(t),
\end{split}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
}
\end{problem}
\vspace{0.3cm}
Note that although the obstacles $\mathcal{O}_l$ are assumed to be represented by convex polytopes \eqref{eq: obs_def}, the safe set $\mathcal{S}_l(t+k)$ given in~\eqref{eq:safeset_def} is nonconvex. Hence, the minimum distance to $\mathcal{S}_l(t+k)$, $\zeta(\mathcal{S}_l(t+k))$, is also nonconvex. Therefore, the risk-sensitive safety constraint~\eqref{eq:evarcon} is a nonconvex constraint in the decision variable $u$, which renders optimization problem~\eqref{eq:mpc1} nonconvex as well.
The next section will reformulate \eqref{eq:evarcon} as a cone constraint in order to obtain a convex mixed-integer relaxation of \eqref{eq:mpc1}, which yields locally optimal solutions to \eqref{eq:mpc1}. Nonetheless, every such locally optimal solutions satisfies the constraints of optimization~\eqref{eq:mpc1} including the risk-sensitive safety constraint~\eqref{eq:evarcon}.
\section{EVaR Receding Horizon Planning}
This section breaks down the MPC optimization into three parts. First, we rewrite the EVaR constraint in the more tractable form of a cone constraint. Second, we reformulate the nonconvex safe set as a set of disjunctive inequalities that can be relaxed using binary variables. Lastly, we add a discrete state $\psi$ that signals task completion and allows us to prove feasibility of the MPC optimization. The resulting optimization is a convex mixed-integer program.
\subsection{EVaR Constraint Reformulation}
We reformulate the EVaR safety constraint to a cone constraint.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma}
\textit{Let Assumption 1 hold, then the L.H.S. of constraint \eqref{eq:evarcon} is equivalent to
\begin{equation} \label{eq:evar_reformulation}
\begin{aligned}
\min_{s_l, v_l, z_l, h_{l,k}} \, &\eta_l - \beta_l\ln\alpha + \sum_{j=1}^{J}p_l(j)s_l(j) \qquad \\
\textrm{s.t.} \quad & \eta_l \in \mathbb{R}, \, \beta_l \in \mathbb{R}_{\ge0}, \\
& \eta_l-v_l(j) \geq h_{l,k},& \, \forall j \in \mathcal{J},\\
& \beta_l + z_l(j) = 0, & \, \forall j \in \mathcal{J},\\
& \big(s_l(j), v_l(j), z_l(j)\big) \in (K_{exp})_*, & \forall j \in \mathcal{J},\\
& \boldsymbol{y}_k +\frac{\boldsymbol{c}_{i,l}}{||\boldsymbol{c}_{i,l}||}h_{l,k} \in \mathcal{S}_l^j(t+k), & \forall l \in \mathcal{L}, j \in \mathcal{J},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $(K_{exp})_*$ is the dual of the exponential cone.}
\end{lemma}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\begin{proof}
We begin by finding the distance of $\boldsymbol{y}_k$ from the safe set, given by $\zeta(\mathcal{S}_l(t+k))$. To this end, we define a set of variables $h_{l,k}\ge 0$, $l \in \mathcal{L}$ and $k=0,\ldots,K-1$ satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{eq:safeset1}
\boldsymbol{y}_k +\frac{\boldsymbol{c}_{i,l}}{||\boldsymbol{c}_{i,l}||}h_{l,k} = \boldsymbol{z}
\end{equation}
$\forall j \in \mathcal{J}, \forall k \in \{0, \dotsc, K-1\}$ with $i \in \{1, \dotsc, m_l\}$, which is the distance from every $\boldsymbol{y}_k$ to a point $\boldsymbol{z} \in \mathcal{X}$. If $\boldsymbol{z} \in \mathcal{S}_l^j(t+k)$, then minimizing $h_{l,k} $ gives us the line segment connecting $ \boldsymbol{y}_k$ and $\boldsymbol{z}$, which is the minimum distance to the set $ \mathcal{S}_l^j(t+k)$. Therefore, we obtain
\begin{multline}\label{eq:safeset1}
\zeta(\mathcal{S}_l(t+k)) = \min_{\boldsymbol{z} \in \mathcal{S}_l(t+k)} ||\boldsymbol{y}(t+k) - \boldsymbol{z}|| \\ = \left \lbrace\begin{matrix} \min_{h_{l,k}} & h_{l,k} \qquad \\
\textrm{s.t.}&\boldsymbol{y}_k +\frac{\boldsymbol{c}_{i,l}}{||\boldsymbol{c}_{i,l}||}h_{l,k} \in \mathcal{S}_l^j(t+k), \,~~ \forall j \in \mathcal{J}, \end{matrix} \right.
\end{multline}
and define $h_{l,k}^*$ as the solution to~\eqref{eq:safeset1}.
Next, substitute the dual form of EVaR from \eqref{eq:evar} into the L.H.S. of \eqref{eq:evarcon}. Then replace the risk envelope $\mathfrak{D}$ with the exponential cone representation to yield a discrete probability distribution given by \eqref{eq:KLcone}. That is, $\mathrm{EVaR}_{1-\alpha}(\zeta(\mathcal{S}_l(t+k))) = \max_{Q\in\mathfrak{D}}\mathbb{E}_Q\big[\zeta(\mathcal{S}_l(t+k))\big]=\max_{Q\in\mathfrak{D}}\mathbb{E}_Q\big[h_{l,k}^*\big]$, where in the last equality we used~\eqref{eq:safeset1}. Thus, we have the following exponential cone program for computing EVaR
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dual}
\begin{aligned}
\max\limits_{q, \delta} \quad &\sum\limits_{j=1}^{J} h_{l,k}^* q(j) \\
\textrm{s.t.} \quad & \sum_{j=1}^J q(j) = 1,\\
& \sum_{j=1}^{J} \delta(j) \leq -\ln\alpha,\\
& \big((p_l(j), q(j), -\delta(j)\big) \in K_{exp},~~ \forall j \in \mathcal{J}, \\
& q(j) \in \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}, \, \delta(j) \in \mathbb{R}, \phantom{--iiii}\forall j \in \mathcal{J}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The dual of the above maximization problem is given by~\cite{kocuk2020conic, Sopasakis2019}:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:dualofdual}
\begin{aligned}
\min_{s_l, v_l, z_l} \, &\eta_l - \beta_l\ln\alpha + \sum_{j=1}^{J}p_l(j)s_l(j) \qquad \\
\textrm{s.t.} \quad & \eta_l-v_l(j) \geq h_{l,k}^*,& \, \forall j \in \mathcal{J},\\
& \beta_l + z_l(j) = 0, & \, \forall j \in \mathcal{J},\\
& \eta_l \in \mathbb{R}, \, \beta_l \in \mathbb{R}_{\ge0}, \\
& \big(s_l(j), v_l(j), z_l(j)\big) \in (K_{exp})_*, & \forall j \in \mathcal{J},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\boldsymbol{s, v, z}$ are the dual variables.
We conclude that \eqref{eq:dualofdual} and \eqref{eq:dual} are equivalent because strong duality holds by Slater's condition \cite{2004boyd}. Slater's condition is satisfied by showing \textit{strict feasibility} for \eqref{eq:dual}, i.e., there exists a feasible solution to \eqref{eq:dual} such that the inequality constraints hold with strict inequalities. One such solution is when $q(j) = p(j), \,\delta(j) < 0, \, \forall j\in \mathcal{J}$.
Finally, substituting minimization problem~\eqref{eq:safeset1} for $h^*_{l,k}$ in optimization \eqref{eq:dualofdual} gives \eqref{eq:evar_reformulation}. \end{proof}
\vspace{0.3cm}
with additional variables in the optimization: $\boldsymbol{s_l, v_l, z_l},h_{l,k}$
Utilizing the fact that $\mathrm{EVaR}_{1-\alpha}(\mathcal{S}_l(t+k))$ can be written as a minimization over the variables $\boldsymbol{s_l, v_l, z_l}, h_{l,k}$, we can return to our original MPC problem~\eqref{eq:mpc1} and simplify it as a one-layer optimization.
\vspace{0.3cm}
\begin{theorem}
\textit{Consider the MPC optimization given by~(\ref{eq:mpc1}) with confidence level $\alpha$ and risk tolerances $\epsilon_l$, $l \in \mathcal{L}$. If Assumption 1 holds, then \eqref{eq:mpc1} is equivalent to a minimization over $\mathcal{V} = \{\boldsymbol{u,s_l,v_l,z_l},h_{l,k}\}$ given by}
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:mpc2}
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\min_{\mathcal{V}} \quad &J(\boldsymbol{x}(t), \boldsymbol{u}) := \sum_{k=0}^{K-1}r(\boldsymbol{x}_k, \boldsymbol{u}_k)
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
\textrm{s.t.} \quad & \eta_l - \beta_l\ln\alpha + \sum_{j=1}^{J}p(j)s(j) \leq \epsilon_l \, \forall l \in \mathcal{L},
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
& \eta_l-v_l(j) \geq h_{l, k} \, \phantom{-----ii}\forall j \in \mathcal{J},l \in \mathcal{L},
\end{split}\\
\begin{split} \label{eq:safeset}
& \boldsymbol{y}_k +\frac{\boldsymbol{c}_{i,l}}{||\boldsymbol{c}_{i,l}||}h_{l,k} \in \mathcal{S}_l^j(t+k) \phantom{-} \forall l \in \mathcal{L},
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
& \beta_l + z_l(j) = 0 \,\phantom{------ii} \forall j\in \mathcal{J},l \in \mathcal{L},
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
& \eta_l \in \mathbb{R}, \, \beta_l, h_{l,k} \in \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0} \,\phantom{---ii} \forall l \in \mathcal{L},
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
& \big(s_l(j), v_l(j), z_l(j)\big) \in (K_{exp})_* \,\,\forall j\in \mathcal{J},l \in \mathcal{L},
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
(\ref{eq:dyn1}),(\ref{eq:dyn2}),(\ref{eq:ic}), (\ref{eq:stcon}).
\end{split}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\end{theorem}
\vspace{0.3cm}
\begin{proof}
We can substitute the result from Lemma~\ref{lemma} in~\eqref{eq:mpc1} to get
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:mpc_minmin}
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\min_{\boldsymbol{u}} \quad &J(\boldsymbol{x}(t), \boldsymbol{u}) := \sum_{k=0}^{K-1}r(\boldsymbol{x}_k, \boldsymbol{u}_k) \quad \end{split}\\
\begin{split}
\textrm{s.t.} \quad & (\ref{eq:dyn1}),(\ref{eq:dyn2}),(\ref{eq:ic}), (\ref{eq:stcon}),
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
\eqref{eq:evar_reformulation} \leq \epsilon_l, \quad l \in \mathcal{L}.
\end{split}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Suppose we have an optimal solution to \eqref{eq:mpc_minmin} given by $\boldsymbol{u}^*$. As \eqref{eq:mpc_minmin} is feasible, its constraints must be satisfied; this implies the inner minimization \eqref{eq:evar_reformulation} must also be feasible (with solution $(\boldsymbol{s_l^*, v_l^*, z_l^*}, h_{l,k}^*)$). Hence, $(\boldsymbol{u^*,s_l^*, v_l^*, z_l^*}, h_{l,k}^*)$ must also be a feasible solution to \eqref{eq:mpc2} and give the same objective value. Conversely, consider the optimal solution to \eqref{eq:mpc2} to be given by $(\boldsymbol{u^*,s_l^*, v_l^*, z_l^*}, h_{l,k}^*)$. This $\boldsymbol{u}^*$ must be feasible for \eqref{eq:mpc_minmin} and gives the same objective value. Hence, the above optimization \eqref{eq:mpc_minmin} is equivalent to the one-layer optimization~\eqref{eq:mpc2}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Mixed-Integer Reformulation of the MPC optimization}
This subsection frames the nonconvex safe set as a set of disjunctive inequalities. These inequalities are incorporated in our optimization by introducing a set of binary variables and using the Big-M relaxation~\cite{vecchietti_modeling_2003}.
The safe set~\eqref{eq:safeset_def} is defined as the region outside the obstacle $l$. Given that an obstacle has rotated and translated by $R_l(t+k)$ and $\boldsymbol{w}_l(t+k)$ between times $t$ and $t+k$, we can write the safe set at $t+k$ as the region outside $\mathcal{O}_l(t+k)$ described in \eqref{eq:obs}. It can equivalently be expressed as a result of the rotation and translation of the safe set itself from $t$ to $t+k$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{S}_l^j(t+k) & = \mathbb{R}^{n_y} \backslash \mathcal{O}_l^j(t+k) \\
& = R_l^j(t+k)\mathcal{S}_l(t) + \boldsymbol{w}_l^j(t+k).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
In (\ref{eq:safeset}), $\mathcal{S}_l^j(t+k)$ is a nonconvex set. For some obstacle~$l \in \mathcal{L}$, we can be rewrite \eqref{eq:safeset} as
\begin{equation*}
R_l^j(t+k)^{-1}\bigg(\boldsymbol{y}_k +\frac{\boldsymbol{c}_{i,l}}{||\boldsymbol{c}_{i,l}||}h_{l,k} - \boldsymbol{w}_l^j(t+k)\bigg) \in \mathcal{S}_l^j(t).
\end{equation*}
Given that the obstacles are convex polygons of the form~\eqref{eq: obs_def}, we write the safe region as the union of regions outside of the halfspaces that define an obstacle as follows
{\small
\begin{multline}\label{eq:disjunction}
\bigvee_{i=1}^{m_l} \boldsymbol{c}_{i,l}^T \Bigg[ R_l^j(t+k)^{-1}\bigg(\boldsymbol{y}_k +\frac{\boldsymbol{c}_{i,l}}{||\boldsymbol{c}_{i,l}||}h_{l,k} \\- \boldsymbol{w}_l^j(t+k) - \boldsymbol{a}_l\bigg) + \boldsymbol{a}_l \Bigg] \geq d_{i,l}.
\end{multline}}
The above disjunctive inequalities, however, are hard to enforce. To overcome this difficulty, we relax the constraint using a Big-M reformulation. The reformulation converts the disjunctive inequalities into a set of constraints described using binary variables, $\gamma_i \in \{0,1\}$ and a large positive constant $M$. The value of $M$ depends on the bounds on $h_{l,k}$ (determined from the size of obstacle $l$) and $\boldsymbol{y}_k$ (dependent on the state and control inputs). It can be computed using linear programming. The Big-M relaxation of \eqref{eq:disjunction} is as follows
\begin{subequations} \label{eq:bigM}
\begin{align}
\begin{split}\label{eq:bigM1}
\boldsymbol{c}_{i,l}^T \Bigg[ R_l^j(t+k)^{-1}&\bigg(\boldsymbol{y}_k +\frac{\boldsymbol{c}_{i,l}}{||\boldsymbol{c}_{i,l}||}h_{l,k} - \boldsymbol{w}_l^j(t+k) - \boldsymbol{a}_l\bigg) + \boldsymbol{a}_l \Bigg] \\& \geq d_{i,l} - M\gamma_i, \qquad \, \forall i \in \{1, \dotsc m_l \},
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
\sum_{i = 1}^{m_l} \gamma_i \leq m_l - 1.
\end{split}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\subsection {Task Completion}
In order to steer the system to the target region in finite time, we follow the footsteps of \cite{richards2003robustFeasibility} and define a new discrete state $\psi \in \{ 0, 1\}$, such that $\psi = 0$ implies that the task has been completed at an earlier step or at the current step and $\psi = 1$ means that the task has not yet been completed. The update equation of $\psi$ is then given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:taskCompletion}
\psi_{k+1} = \psi_{k} - \mu_{k},
\end{equation}
\noindent where ${\mu}_{k} \in \{ 0, 1\}$ is a discrete input.
The goal to drive the system to $(\boldsymbol{x}_{des}, \boldsymbol{u}_{des})$ (this desired position can be replaced by a region as well), is incorporated in the following additional constraints
\begin{equation}\label{eq:terminalState}
\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{x}_{k+1} - \boldsymbol{x}_{des} &\leq \mathds{1}{M}(1 - \mu_{k}), \\
-(\boldsymbol{x}_{k+1} - \boldsymbol{x}_{des}) &\leq -\mathds{1}{M}(1 - \mu_{k}).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Here ${\mu}_{k} = 1$ if the task of reaching the goal is completed at time step $t+k+1$. Equation \eqref{eq:taskCompletion} implies that $\psi$ jumps from $1 \rightarrow 0$, signaling completion of the task. After the task completion, all other MPC problem constraints can be relaxed by adding the term $M(1 - \psi_{k})$ to them, i.e., any constraints of the form $C_1\boldsymbol{\nu}_k + C_2\gamma_i + C_3 \geq 0$ are modified to $C_1\boldsymbol{\nu}_k + C_2\gamma_i + C_3 + \mathds{1}M(1 - \psi_{k})\geq 0, \, \forall i, k$ where $\boldsymbol{\nu}_k = [\boldsymbol{u_k,x_k,y_k,s_k,v_k,z_k,h_k} ,\eta_k,\beta_k] $. We also add the following terminal constraint at time $t + K$ to ensure that the task is completed
\begin{equation} \label{eq:terminalConst}
\psi_{K} = 0.
\end{equation}
Note that the discrete state $\psi$ need not be a binary variable as long as we enforce the constraint,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:discreteStateConst}
0 \leq \psi_{k} \leq 1, \quad k=1,2,\ldots,K.
\end{equation}
The MPC objective function is then modified as
\begin{equation}
\min_{\mathcal{V}} \quad J(t) := \sum_{k=0}^{K-1}\big(r(\boldsymbol{u}_k) + \psi_k\big),
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{V} = \{\boldsymbol{u,v,h,s,z,\mu,\gamma}\}$ and $r(\boldsymbol{u}_k)$ is a convex function of the control input with $r(0) = 0$.
The MPC optimization \eqref{eq:mpc1} has the following convex mixed integer relaxation,
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:mpc3} {\small
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\min_{\mathcal{V}} \quad & J(t) := \sum_{k=0}^{K-1}\big(r(\boldsymbol{u}_k) + \psi_k\big)
\end{split}\\
\textrm{s.t.} \quad \begin{split}
& \eta_{l,k} - \beta_{l,k}\ln\alpha + \sum_{j=1}^{J}p_{l}(j)s_{l,k}(j) \leq \epsilon_l + M_k,
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
& \eta_{l,k}-v_{l,k}(j)+ M_k \geq h_{l, k},
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
& \text{L.H.S.}\eqref{eq:bigM1} + M_k\geq d_{i,l} - M\gamma_{i,l,k}(j),
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
\sum_{i = 1}^{m_l} \gamma_{i,l,k}(j) \leq m_l - 1 + M_k,
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
& -M_k \leq \beta_{l,k} + z_{l,k}(j) \leq M_k,
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
& \beta_{l,k} +M_k, \,h_{l,k}+ M_k \in \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0},
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
& \big(s_{l,k}(j) + M_k, v_{l,k}(j), z_{l,k}(j)\big) \in (K_{exp})_*,
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
(\boldsymbol{x}_k, \boldsymbol{u}_k, \psi_k) \in (\mathcal{X}, \mathcal{U}, 1) \cup (\mathbb{R}^n, \mathbb{R}^n, 0),
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
& (\ref{eq:taskCompletion}), (\ref{eq:terminalState}), (\ref{eq:terminalConst}), (\ref{eq:discreteStateConst}), (\ref{eq:dyn1}),(\ref{eq:dyn2}),(\ref{eq:ic}),
\end{split}
\end{align}}
\end{subequations}
where $M_k = M(1 - \psi_{k})$ and $\mathcal{X}, \mathcal{U}$ are assumed to be convex sets. The constraints must hold $\forall k\in \{1, \dotsc, K-1\},\, l\in \mathcal{L},\, j \in \mathcal{J},$ and $ i \in \{1, \dotsc, m_l\}$.
The above convex, mixed-integer relaxation of a nonconvex optimization problem will give us locally optimal solutions.
\vspace{0.2cm}
\begin{proposition} \label{feasibility}
\textit{ If the optimization \eqref{eq:mpc3} is feasible at time $t = 0$, it is feasible for future time steps.}
\end{proposition}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\begin{proof}
Assume that the feasible solution to \eqref{eq:mpc3} at time $t$ is given by the input sequence $\{\boldsymbol{u}_0^*, \boldsymbol{u}_1^*, \dotsc , \boldsymbol{u}_{K-1}^*\}$ and the state sequence $\{(\boldsymbol{x}_0^*, \psi_0^*), (\boldsymbol{x}_1^*, \psi_1^*), \dotsc , (\boldsymbol{x}_K^*, \psi_K^*)\}$. Recall from the notation section that $\boldsymbol{x}_k := \boldsymbol{x}(t+k|t)$. Applying the first control input leads the system to the next state in the sequence $(\boldsymbol{x}_1^*, \psi_1^*)$, provided that the model of the actual system matches the one in \eqref{eq:mpc3}. The optimization is feasible at time $t+1$ if there exists a feasible input at time $t+K$ that does not violate constraints. Since $\psi_K^* = 0$ by virtue of the terminal constraint, all the constraints in the optimization are relaxed thereafter. Note that the state $\psi_K = 0$ is invariant due to \eqref{eq:taskCompletion} and \eqref{eq:discreteStateConst} and that $\mu_k = 0$ at all time after the task has been completed. Therefore, once the optimization constraints are relaxed, they will remain this way.
A control input $u_K = 0$ ensures that the optimization is feasible. At time $t+1$, a feasible solution to \eqref{eq:mpc3} is given by the control sequence $\{\boldsymbol{u}_1^*, \boldsymbol{u}_2^*, \dotsc , \boldsymbol{u}_{K-1}^*, 0\}$ and the state sequence $\{(\boldsymbol{x}_1^*, \psi_1^*), \dotsc ,(\boldsymbol{x}_K^*, 0), (A\boldsymbol{x}_{K}^*, 0)\}$. Hence, if the optimization \eqref{eq:mpc3} is feasible at time $t$, then it is feasible at time $t+1$. By extension, if the optimization \eqref{eq:mpc3} is feasible at time $t = 0$, it is feasible for all future time steps.
\end{proof}
\section{Waypoint Following Algorithm}
MPC is often used as a tool to plan trajectories locally and it is given a reference trajectory or a set of waypoints from a higher-level global planner like A* or RRT ~\cite{Lopez2017, hakobyan2019cvar}. Let $\{\boldsymbol{w}_1, \boldsymbol{w}_2, \dotsc, \boldsymbol{w}_N\}$ be a given a sequence of waypoints.
We call a waypoint $\boldsymbol{w}_{j+1}$ \textit{K-step reachable} from $\boldsymbol{w}_j$, if there exists a feasible solution to \eqref{eq:mpc3} with $\boldsymbol{x}_0 = \boldsymbol{w}_j$ and $\boldsymbol{x}_{K} = \boldsymbol{w}_{j+1}$.
\begin{algorithm}[t!]
\caption{Follow waypoints}\label{waypoint_alg}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE Number of waypoints visited, $W = 0$
\WHILE{$W < N$}
\STATE Initialize $(\boldsymbol{x}_0, \psi_0) = (\boldsymbol{w}_{W}, 1)$
\STATE Set desired goal $\boldsymbol{x}_{des} = \boldsymbol{w}_{W+1}$
\WHILE{$\psi_0 \neq 0$}
\STATE Solve \eqref{eq:mpc3} to obtain policy $\{\boldsymbol{u}_0^*, \boldsymbol{u}_1^*, \dotsc , \boldsymbol{u}_{K-1}^*\}$
\STATE Update $\boldsymbol{x}_0 = A\boldsymbol{x}_0 + B\boldsymbol{u}_0^*$
\STATE Update $\psi_0 = \psi_0 - \mu_0$
\IF{$\boldsymbol{x}_0 =\boldsymbol{x}_{des}$}
\STATE $W = W + 1$
\ENDIF
\ENDWHILE
\ENDWHILE
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\begin{proposition}
\textit{Assuming that the waypoint $\boldsymbol{w}_{j+1}$ is K-step reachable from $\boldsymbol{w}_j, \, \forall j \in \{1, \dotsc, N-1\}$, Algorithm \ref{waypoint_alg} gives a sequence of control inputs to move from $\boldsymbol{w}_0$ to $\boldsymbol{w}_N$ in finite time. }
\end{proposition}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\begin{proof}
Consider the simple case of starting from $\boldsymbol{w}_{0}$ and reaching $\boldsymbol{w}_{1}$, i.e., when we have exactly two waypoints. We implement Algorithm \ref{waypoint_alg} till $\psi_0 = 0$. Let $J_t^*$ be the cost of the MPC optimization \eqref{eq:mpc3} at time $t$. The feasible solution to \eqref{eq:mpc3} at $t$ is given by the input sequence $\{\boldsymbol{u}_{0}^*, \boldsymbol{u}_{1}^*, \dotsc , \boldsymbol{u}_{K-1}^*\}$ and the state sequence $\{(\boldsymbol{x}_{0}^*, \psi_{0}^*), (\boldsymbol{x}_{1}^*, \psi_{1}^*), \dotsc , (\boldsymbol{x}_{K}^*, \psi_{K}^*)\}$. At time $t+1$, the cost of the MPC optimization is $J_{t+1}^* \leq J_{t}^* - r(\boldsymbol{u}_{0}^*) - \psi_{0}^*$. This is true because we know from Proposition \ref{feasibility} that at time $t+ 1$, $\{\boldsymbol{u}_{1}^*, \dotsc , \boldsymbol{u}_{K-1}^*, 0\}$ is a feasible control input with $\psi(t+K|t+1) = 0$, i.e., $J_{t}^*$ will incur no additional cost from $u(t+K|t+1) = 0$ and $\psi(t+K+1|t+1) = 0$. Since $J_{t+1}^* - J_{t}^* \leq - r(\boldsymbol{u}_{0}^*) - \psi_{0}^*$, the cost decreases by at least $1$ at each time step till the task is completed. Considering that $J_t^*$ is always positive and finite, it will take a finite number of steps to reach $J_k^* = 0, \, k\geq t$. Hence, the policy to take the system from $\boldsymbol{w}_{0}$ to $\boldsymbol{w}_{1}$ will be implemented in finite time.
By induction, the system will reach $\boldsymbol{w}_N$ from $\boldsymbol{w}_0$ in finite time.
\end{proof}
\section{Numerical Results}
This section shows the efficacy of the proposed EVaR-based risk-sensitive planning method via two numerical examples.
\subsection{Monte-Carlo Simulations}
To illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed method, we compare it to another risk measure, CVaR for different confidence levels, $\alpha$.
We look at the two-dimensional discrete system $ x_{k+1} = Ax_k + Bu_k$, with
\begin{equation*}{\small
A = \begin{bmatrix} 1.0475 & -0.0463 \\ 0.0463 & 0.9690\end{bmatrix}, \, B = \begin{bmatrix} 0.028 \\ -0.0195\end{bmatrix}.}
\end{equation*}
The control constraints are $$-100 \leq u_k \leq 100.$$ One randomly moving obstacle interferes with the original MPC solution path that would be found in the absence of obstacles. We ran $100$ Monte-Carlo simulations for the two risk measures for different values of the confidence level $\alpha$.
The initial system state, $\boldsymbol{x}_0$, lies somewhere between $(3.1, 0.5)^T$ and $(4.1, 1.5)^T$. For each Monte-Carlo simulation, we randomly chose an initial condition in this range. The paths resulting from this set of initial conditions are most affected by the randomly moving obstacle present at $(-1, 4.5)^T$ with probability $0.75$ and at $(2.5, 3.5)^T$ with probability $0.25$. The risk tolerance is set to $\epsilon = 0.04$. The results are summarized in Table \ref{table:1}. Note that the percentage of collisions is not exact as we run 100 random simulations. A few such trajectories are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:comp} when $\alpha = 0.5$. The two rectangles show both possible obstacle configurations. The darker rectangle has a higher probability of occurrence, $0.75$ and the lighter rectangle has a lower probability of occurrence, $0.25$. The $20$ trajectories seen in the plots are randomly initialized as discussed above. We can see that more CVaR trajectories intersect the obstacle.
\begin{table}[t!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{||c | c c c c c||}
\hline
$\alpha$ & $0.9$ & $0.7$ & $0.5$ & $0.3$ & $0.1$\\ [0.5ex]
\hline\hline
EVaR Collisions & $\%0$ & $\%0$ & $\%6$ & $\%3$& $\%66$ \\
\hline
CVaR Collisions & $\%7$ & $\%17$ & $\%17$ & $\%14$ & $\%74$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Summary of results from Monte-Carlo simulations}
\label{table:1}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\vskip -0.1 true in
\centering
\includegraphics[width=80mm,scale=0.4]{wpevar10.eps}\\
\vskip -0.2 true in
\includegraphics[width=80mm,scale=0.4]{wpcvar10rez.eps}
\vskip -0.15 true in
\caption{Comparison between EVaR (top) and CVaR (bottom) trajectories. The two uncertain obstacle locations are shown by gray rectangles. Note that a path may cut through an obstacle between discrete time-steps (which are denoted by a '*'). A collision is not
defined when the system trajectory lies outside the obstacle at the discrete time-steps.
}
\label{fig:comp}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Quadcopter}
In this subsection, we implement the waypoint following algorithm - Algorithm \ref{waypoint_alg}. To this end, we consider a quadcopter that must follow given waypoints while avoiding randomly moving obstacles and adhering to state and control constraints. The quadcopter is described by the states $(x, y, z, \phi, \theta, \varphi, \dot{x}, \dot{y}, \dot{z}, \dot{\phi}, \dot{\theta}, \dot{\varphi})^T$. The position of the quadcopter in 3D space is given by the coordinates $x, y, z$ and the roll, pitch, and yaw are given by $\phi, \theta, \varphi$ respectively. The model of the quadcopter is given by
\[ \ddot{x} = -g\theta, \,
\ddot{y} = g\theta,\, \ddot{z}=-\frac{u_1}{m} - g, \, \]
\[ \ddot{\phi} = \frac{u_2}{I_{xx}}, \,
\ddot{\theta} = \frac{u_3}{I_{yy}}, \,
\ddot{\varphi} = \frac{u_4}{I_{zz}},\]
where $m$ is the quadcopter's mass, $g$ is the acceleration due to gravity, and $I_{xx}, I_{yy}, I_{zz}$ are the quadcopter moments of inertia about the $x,y,z$-axes of the system. The control inputs are given by $u_1, u_2, u_3, u_4$. We used the following parameters: $m = 0.65$kg, $I_{xx} = 0.0075$kg.m$^2$, $I_{yy} = 0.0075$kg.m$^2$, $I_{zz} = 0.0013$kg.m$^2$, $g = 9.81$m.s$^{-2}$~\cite{hakobyan2019cvar}.
The risk constraint has two parameters: the confidence level, $\alpha$, and the risk-threshold, $\epsilon$. We chose $\alpha = 0.5,\, \epsilon = 0.04$. The waypoints are given by regions of size $[-0.5,0.5]^3$ around the waypoint center (denoted by o in Fig. \ref{fig:waypoints3D}). We chose a horizon length of $K = 15$ for the MPC optimization. We considered the case of having one randomly translating and rotating obstacle. The obstacle is a rectangular box of size $2$x$1$x$4$ m$^3$; it can rotate by $\frac{\pi}{2}$ and translate by $4$m along the y-axis and $1$m along the z-axis. Fig. \ref{fig:waypoints3D} shows all the different configurations of this obstacle at different times.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\vskip -0.1 true in
\centering
\includegraphics[width=45mm,scale=2]{fig4R.eps}~
\includegraphics[width=45mm,scale=2]{Figures/fig6R.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=45mm,scale=2]{Figures/fig7R.eps}~
\includegraphics[width=45mm,scale=2]{Figures/fig8R.eps}
\caption{Snapshots of the quadcopter trajectory followed using Algorithm \ref{waypoint_alg} (x) given a sequence of waypoints (denoted by o). We can see the obstacle (gray boxes) changes position and orientation with time. The more likely obstacle configuration are shaded darker than the ones less likely to occur. We assume $z = 0$ is the ground plane and gravity pulls the quadrotor in the $-z$ direction.}
\label{fig:waypoints3D}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
In this paper, we proposed a risk-constrained motion planning framework for obstacle avoidance. We presented an MPC reformulation in the form of a convex mixed integer program. We showed the recursive feasibility of this optimization and introduced an algorithm to follow waypoints. As shown in this paper, through a comparison with CVaR, the framework is amenable to other risk measures. All coherent risk measures have a convex, bounded, and closed risk envelope. This framework allows any coherent risk measure constrained motion planning problem to be expressed as a convex mixed integer relaxation.
There are many paths of future research for this problem. We could extend this framework to include robust (and by extension risk-sensitive) feasibility to disturbances via constraint tightening \cite{richards2003robustFeasibility}. It is also possible to extend this framework to continuous probability distributions using the relaxation technique that involves sample average approximation \cite{hakobyan2019cvar}. Future work also considers risk-sensitive robot planning under imperfect information~\cite{ahmadi2020pomdp}.
\balance
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
\glsreset{gan}
\glsreset{sar}
Remote sensing enables researchers and scientists to detect changes, monitor areas or measure physical properties.
By analyzing the acquired images they can deduce what happened and is happening on the ground.
In this manuscript we wish to reverse this process.
Given some abstract information or constraining physical parameters, can we synthesize a remote sensing image as it would be acquired by the sensor?
Our motivation is not purely philosophical.
Often these parameters can be more easily altered than directly modifying the actual remote sensing image.
For example, it is straightforward to change input constraints by raising the sea level or swapping the climate of Moscow and Cairo, giving us a glimpse of how things may look like in the future or at the very least serve as an interesting thought experiment.
Doing such editing in the image domain is much harder.
Synthesizing multiple images, each under different constraints, permits us to visualize changes, which in reverse can be used for analyzing and training change detection algorithms.
Recent advances in image synthesis were largely driven by \Acrfullpl{gan}~\cite{schmidhuber1992learning,NIPS2014_goodfellow_gan}, which exploit both the generative and discriminative power of neural networks.
\acrshortpl{gan} pit two neural networks against each other: the generator network tries to fool the discriminator network by creating fake data that is indistinguishable from real data.
Both generator and discriminator are trained concurrently, gradually improving each other.
This idea becomes even more intriguing if one exerts some form of control over the generator and discriminator by conditioning both on a common state or variable~\cite{mirza2014conditional}.
With the discriminator knowing what input the generator received and what the corresponding real data looks like, it can now guide the generator into transforming the input into something which resembles the real data distribution more closely and adheres to the common information.
\acrshortpl{gan} were notoriously difficult to train, often resulting in mode-collapse, where the discriminator starts to memorize all real images and no longer provides any useful guidance to the generator, in which case the training stops.
There have been recent advances to avoid this behavior, either by handicapping the discriminator's training~\cite{miyato_spectral_normalization_gan_2018,Liu_2019_ICCV} or augmenting the dataset~\cite{zhao2020differentiable,karras2020training} to prevent its memorization.
A common application of \acrshortpl{gan} is synthesizing new or altering existing images and has seen tremendous progress in various computer vision applications.
They can transfer the styles of paintings to photographs~\cite{gatys_image_style_transfer_2016}, colorize images~\cite{zhang2016colorful}, translate between domains~\cite{isola_pix2pix_2016}, such as creating images from sketches, or synthesize completely new images.
Examples of the last category are creating close-to photorealistic portraits~\cite{Karras_2019_CVPR,karras2020analyzing} or turning class labels into images that show the corresponding content~\cite{miyato_spectral_normalization_gan_2018,zhang_self_attention_gan_2019,brock_biggan_2019}.
Taking image synthesis from class labels one step further are methods that condition on segmentation maps~\cite{wang_pix2pix_hd_2018,park_spade_2019,liu_cond_conv_img_syn_2019_NEURIPS}, which additionally exert spatial control, that is where in the image to put what kind of content.
Together with image translation approaches these methods are the most relevant for our work.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{figures/gen_arch.pdf}
\caption{Generator architecture (right side) for synthesizing images from raster data and land cover maps.
Semantic information is fed into the generator through SPADE~\cite{park_spade_2019} normalization layers (left side).
In our experiments this architecture performed better than simply concatenating both inputs and using a conventional generator, or a more involved scheme that fuses two generators, each dedicated to one type of input.
By replacing all SPADE normalization layers with regular batch normalization, the generator turns into a conventional generator~\cite{isola_pix2pix_2016} that only uses raster data as input.
Conversely, removing the encoder simplifies the generator to the SPADE~\cite{park_spade_2019} generator for segmentation maps.}%
\label{fig_gen_arch}
\end{figure*}
A couple of works already concern themselves with image synthesis and translation within the scope of remote sensing imagery.
\Cite{abady2020ganmulti} covers two topics: synthesizing Sentinel-2 multispectral images, although not conditioned on a segmentation map; and style transfer between vegetation and bare lands, also for Sentinel-2 images.
\Cite{andrade2020gan_historical} essentially translates historical maps to overhead RGB images by merging the created images of multiple generators, each trained with a focus on different types of landscapes.
In the related field of domain adaption,\ \cite{tasar2020colormapgan} proposes a simple generator architecture to rid satellite images of color distortions, as a result of atmospheric and other environmental effects.
Colorizing \acrshort{sar} images or translating them into artificial optical images to make them more easy interpretable by laymen is proposed by~\cite{schmitt2018colorizing_sar} and~\cite{he2018multi,Fuentes_Reyes_2019}, respectively.
Although most of the research works employ \acrshortpl{gan} for image synthesis, \acrlong{vae}s~\cite{kingma2014autoencoding,Kingma_2019} are another approach, that reach state-of-the-art performance~\cite{razavi2019generating}.
With this paper, we want to bring image synthesis to the field of remote sensing.
Taking image synthesis methods in computer vision as a starting point, the most relevant use segmentation maps as input, which exert control on the output on a pixel-level.
Yet, in remote sensing there is often auxiliary data available that can make this task easier.
These can be a large variety of maps, images or physical properties, including \glspl{dem}, precipitation maps, local heat maps, and the concentration of gases.
Such quantities are often not reflected in land cover maps but still influence image content or structure.
We thus propose a generator architecture that merges the abstract information contained in land cover maps and additional data sources, which we assume can be encoded in a raster matching the land cover map.
In this paper we restrict ourselves to synthesizing RGB and \gls{sar} images from land cover maps and one more data source.
In one of our datasets this is a \acrshort{dem}, which helps with synthesizing vegetation and buildings.
For the other datasets, where we do not have a \acrshort{dem} of comparable resolution, we fuse \acrshort{sar} with the land cover map, to imprint the structure of the \acrshort{sar} image (e.g., buildings, roads) on the synthesized RGB outputs.
Our method should still be general enough to translate between other image domains as well.
Even such a limited scope enables some interesting applications.
The earlier mentioned look into the future is still possible by light editing of the input, e.g., the transformation of forest into farm land.
In case sensor artifacts, noise or other perturbations get synthesized, such images might help to design new restoration algorithms.
In a similar vein, image synthesis could also help with the actual training of new neural networks by generating training data.
As an example, numerical simulations of rain fall can produce flood and debris flow maps, which can then in turn be used to train machine learning models~\cite{yokoya2020breaking}.
Such a method can be extended with our work by synthesizing images from said maps.
These can then be used in reverse for end-to-end training of new models.
The paper's major contributions are as follows
\begin{enumerate}
\item a \acrshort{gan}-based image synthesis method that merges semantic information and raster data to generate RGB or \acrshort{sar} images,
\item the publication of a high-resolution dataset for image synthesis and segmentation~\cite{geonrw_dataset}, and
\item analyzing challenges and pitfalls when synthesizing remote sensing imagery.
\end{enumerate}
Our PyTorch implementation will be available at \mbox{\url{https://github.com/gbaier/rs_img_synth}} and the dataset is already published at \mbox{\url{https://ieee-dataport.org/open-access/geonrw}}.
\section{Method}
\subsection{Fusion of semantic and depth information}
In contrast to image translation~\cite{isola_pix2pix_2016} or semantic image synthesis~\cite{wang_pix2pix_hd_2018,park_spade_2019,liu_cond_conv_img_syn_2019_NEURIPS} algorithms, our objective requires a generator architecture that consumes two very different types of inputs
\begin{enumerate}
\item abstract, high-level information as land cover maps, and
\item unprocessed, auxiliary raster data.
\end{enumerate}
We tried concatenating both inputs and feeding them to a conventional generator~\cite{isola_pix2pix_2016}, but this process was prone to generate artifacts when synthesizing buildings.
Presumably, since the normalization of the semantic maps causes issues~\cite{park_spade_2019}.
Furthermore, the generator's capacity is partially wasted on encoding and passing along the already abstract, high-level semantic information.
We also experimented with fusing essentially two separate generators, one for the raster data and the other for semantic information, in a separate upsampling path at various layers.
Again this approach turned out to be less performant than expected.
Most likely due to the fact, that the two generators and upsampling path require additional \acrshort{gpu} memory, necessitating a reduction of their capacity, which in turn hampers performance~\cite{brock_biggan_2019}.
We arrived at the conclusion, that semantic information should only undergo little processing before being introduced to the generator, and that a simple, basic architecture but with high capacity is superior to more elaborate schemes with fewer filters per layer.
In lieu of these two options, we thus opted to extend \acrshort{spade}~\cite{park_spade_2019} to a complete full-blown generator.
\acrshort{spade} synthesizes images from semantic maps alone.
It infuses the information contained in semantic maps by special normalization layers, depicted on the left of \cref{fig_gen_arch}, which replace all normalization layers in the generator.
Since segmentation maps already encode distilled, high-level information, the encoder in typical image translation generators~\cite{wang_pix2pix_hd_2018} is superfluous and can be removed, leaving only the decoder paired with \acrshort{spade} normalization layers.
In our use-case, an encoder is still needed to process the information contained in the raster data.
We thus employ a conventional generator architecture, consisting both of an encoder and a decoder, where the encoder only receives the raster data as input, and just like in \acrshort{spade}, semantic maps pass trough a separate path directly into the normalization layers (\cref{fig_gen_arch}, right side).
The following section describes the generator architecture in detail.
\subsection{Generator architecture}
We base the generator on~\cite{johnson_style_transfer_2016}, which is also the underlying architecture of the generators in~\cite{isola_pix2pix_2016} and~\cite{wang_pix2pix_hd_2018}.
Yet, we use a slightly modified decoder, so that the upsampling path matches the recent \acrshort{spade} architecture.
That is, we interleave ResNet-Blocks~\cite{he_identity_mappings_2016,he_resnet_2016} with nearest-neighbor upsampling to avoid checker-board artifacts~\cite{odena2016deconvolution}.
As mentioned in the previous section, we introduce semantic information from land cover maps into the generator by replacing all its normalization layers with \acrshort{spade} layers~\cite{park_spade_2019}.
In total, there are four down- and upsampling stages, which proved to be sufficient in our experiments for synthesizing images of size $256 \times 256$ or $512 \times 512$.
\Cref{fig_gen_arch} shows a sketch of the proposed generator architecture.
It has the typical encoder-decoder structure known from~\cite{isola_pix2pix_2016}, which can be used to synthesize images from raster data, but infuses information from discrete land cover maps through its \acrshort{spade} normalization layers.
This generator architecture has convenient properties.
Replacing all \acrshort{spade} normalization layers with conventional batch normalization results in a generator that synthesizes images from raster data alone.
Conversely, removing the encoder simplifies the generator to the SPADE~\cite{park_spade_2019} generator with only segmentation maps as input.
These properties allow us to easily investigate the benefit of synthesizing images from different or multiple sources.
\Cref{tab_generator} lists all layers in detail.
In the encoder strided convolutions $C$ downsample the feature maps, followed by either batch~\cite{Szegedy_2016} or \acrshort{spade}~\cite{park_spade_2019} normalization layers and \acrfullpl{relu}.
Identical to~\cite{johnson_style_transfer_2016}, there is a body of cascaded ResNet blocks to further encode the image without any downsampling.
As mentioned above, nearest neighbor upsampling in the decoder return the feature maps to it's original dimension.
The final layer consists again of a three-by-three convolution and a hyperbolic tangent activation function.
The final number of output channels $\xi$ depends on the image type that is to be synthesized, i.e., three for RGB, one for single-pol \acrshort{sar} and two for dual-pol.
\begin{table}[thb]
\centering
\newcommand{\ra}[1]{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{#1}}
\newcommand{\rotentry}[2]{\parbox[t]{2mm}{\multirow{#1}{*}{\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{#2}}}}
\ra{1.2}
\caption{Generator architecture.
Strided convolutions $C^{\downarrow 2}$ downsample feature maps, which is reversed by nearest neighbor upsampling in the decoder.
The number of output channels in the final layer depends on the datatype that is synthesized.}
\begin{tabular*}{\columnwidth}{l @{\extracolsep{\fill}} l r}
\toprule
& Layers & \# out channels \\
\midrule
\rotentry{5}{Encoder} & $C_{7 \times 7}$, ReLU & 64 \\
& $C_{3 \times 3}^{\downarrow 2}$, batch or \acrshort{spade} normalization, ReLU & 128 \\
& $C_{3 \times 3}^{\downarrow 2}$, batch or \acrshort{spade} normalization, ReLU & 256 \\
& $C_{3 \times 3}^{\downarrow 2}$, batch or \acrshort{spade} normalization, ReLU & 512 \\
& $C_{3 \times 3}^{\downarrow 2}$, batch or \acrshort{spade} normalization, ReLU & 1024 \\
\midrule
& $9 \times$ ResNet block & 1024 \\
\midrule
\rotentry{5}{Decoder} & Nearest Neighbor $\uparrow 2$, ResNet block & 512 \\
& Nearest Neighbor $\uparrow 2$, ResNet block & 256 \\
& Nearest Neighbor $\uparrow 2$, ResNet block & 128 \\
& Nearest Neighbor $\uparrow 2$, ResNet block & 64 \\
& $C_{3 \times 3}$, Tanh & $\xi$ \\
\bottomrule%
\end{tabular*}%
\label{tab_generator}
\end{table}
\subsection{Discriminator architecture}
The discriminator is identical to the multiscale discriminator proposed in~\cite{wang_pix2pix_hd_2018}.
As in~\cite{park_spade_2019}, we found two scales for images with resolutions of $256 \times 256$ and three for $512 \times 512$ to be perfectly sufficient for obtaining satisfying results.
\Cref{tab:discriminator} lists all layers for a single scale, \gls{in} follows all but the first convolutional layers.
The final output is the average of the discriminators' outputs at multiple scales.
\begin{table}[tb]
\centering
\newcommand{\ra}[1]{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{#1}}
\ra{1.2}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{10pt}
\caption{Discriminator architecture (identical to SPADE~\cite{park_spade_2019}).
\acrlong{in} (\acrshort{in}) is used in all but the first layer.
}
\begin{tabular}{l r}
\toprule
Layer & \# out channels \\
\midrule
$C_{4 \times 4}^{\downarrow 2}$, Leaky ReLU & 64 \\
$C_{4 \times 4}^{\downarrow 2}$, \acrshort{in}, Leaky ReLU & 128 \\
$C_{4 \times 4}^{\downarrow 2}$, \acrshort{in}, Leaky ReLU & 256 \\
$C_{4 \times 4}$, \acrshort{in}, Leaky ReLU & 512 \\
$C_{4 \times 4}$ & 1 \\
\bottomrule%
\end{tabular}%
\label{tab:discriminator}
\end{table}
\subsection{Losses and training}
We directly adopt the loss terms from \acrshort{spade}~\cite{park_spade_2019}.
Let $x$ denote the generator input, i.e., the \acrshort{dem} and land cover map, and $y$ the desired real output, i.e., \acrshort{sar} or RGB images.
$G$ and $D$ represent the generator and discriminator, and $D_k$ the discriminator's $k$-th feature layer.
The generator loss consists of the regular \acrshort{gan} loss and a discriminator feature matching loss~\cite{improved_gan_training_salimans_nips_2016} between real and synthesized images
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{L}_G = \underset{x,y \sim q(x,y)}{-\mathrm{E}} \left\{ D(G(x), x) + \sum_k \lVert D_k(G(x), x) - D_k(y, x) \rVert_1 \right\},
\end{align*}
with $q$ denoting the data distribution.
For brevity we disregarded the multiple scales of the discriminator.
The discriminator itself is optimized with the Hinge loss
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{L}_D = \underset{x,y \sim q(x,y)}{\mathrm{E}} \{ &\min\left(0, -1 + D(y, x) \right) \\
+ & \min\left(0, -1 - D(G(x), x) \right)\}.
\end{align*}
\subsection{Peculiarities of remote sensing data}
Remote sensing data, be it multispectral or \acrshort{sar}, are actual measurements of physical properties from carefully calibrated instruments.
This sets them apart from cellphone or camera photographs often used in computer vision.
As a result the dynamic range of remote sensing data is much greater than regular photographs.
\acrshortpl{dem} range from a couple of meters below sea level, the Netherlands spring to mind, to the height of the Mount Everest with \SI{8848}{\meter}.
Regarding \acrshort{sar}, \gls{rcs} or the backscatter coefficient $\sigma_0$ can fluctuate between \SI{-30}{\decibel} to \SI{10}{\decibel} by just moving a couple of meters from buildings to roads.
In the case of Sentinel-2 multi-spectral imagery, L1C data measures top-of-atmosphere reflectances, which are represented by integer values ranging from 0 to 10,000 (for reflectances from 0\% to 100\%, respectively). For Sentinel-2 L2A data, the pixels refer to bottom-of-atmosphere reflectance.
Although in our experiments the dynamic range of the various data types did not cause any problems when using them as input, the story is different for the output.
Due to the architecture of the generator, with a final $\tanh$-layer (\cref{tab:discriminator}) the output is limited to the interval $(-1, 1)$ and we have to properly normalize all data types to fall in this range.
This include clipping them to a sensible range, and for \acrshort{sar} taking the logarithm to make the data more amenable for synthesis.
This is similar to the conversion from linear to decibel when plotting any \acrshort{sar} amplitude or intensity data.
The experimental section details the exact normalization for each dataset.
\section{Experiments}
With our experiments we set out to demonstrate
\begin{enumerate}
\item the synthesis of convincing RGB and \acrshort{sar} imagery,
\item the benefit of fusing land cover maps and auxiliary raster data,
\item and that editing the input results in sensible changes.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Datasets}
We employ two datasets of high and medium resolution.
Both contain optical and \gls{sar} imagery to highlight the proposed method's versatility.
\paragraph{GeoNRW} consists of orthorectified aerial photographs, \acrshort{lidar} derived \acrshortpl{dem}, land cover maps with 10 classes and TerraSAR-X spotlight acquisitions over the German state North Rhine-Westphalia~\cite{geonrw_dataset}.
Since urban areas are the most challenging to synthesize we focused on gathering data from urban centers such as the Rhein-Ruhr area, Düsseldorf or Cologne.
The TerraSAR-X images were acquired from German Aerospace Center (DLR) by means of a research proposal, and can thus unfortunately not be made publicly available.
All other data are freely available as part of the open data program of North Rhine-Westphalia~\cite{opengeodata_nrw}.
We however refine the coarse land cover maps of the open data program with building footprints and roads from OpenStreeMap~\cite{OpenStreetMap}.
Other preprocessing consisted of resampling the \SI{10}{\centi\meter} resolution aerial photographs to \SI{1}{\meter}, taking the first \acrshort{lidar} return while averaging within \SI{1}{\square\meter} to arrive at the same resolution as the photographs, and rasterizing the land cover maps.
We directly download geocoded and terrain corrected TerraSAR-X spotlight \gls{eec} acquisitions and resample them to the same grid.
We end up with 7782 tiles of aerial photographs, land cover maps and \acrshortpl{dem} of size 1000 $\times$ 1000, of which 485 make up the test set and the rest the training set.
\Cref{fig_nrw_stats} shows the composition of the training and testing datasets.
Classes are severely imbalanced with man-made structures being less common than natural surfaces.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figures/nrw_pieplot.pdf}
\caption{Class statistics of the GeoNRW dataset.
There is severe class-imbalance, with man-made structures being in the minority.
This can affect both, segmentation accuracy and synthesis quality.
}%
\label{fig_nrw_stats}
\end{figure}
Since the TerraSAR-X archive does not contain data for all these tiles the \acrshort{sar} dataset is smaller and only consists of 2980 tiles, 281 in the test set and the other 2699 in the training set.
This also slightly alters the class statistics.
Normalizing the TerraSAR acquisitions consisted of the conversion to decibel, subsequently dividing by a factor of $100.0$ resulted in a range of values that could be clipped to the interval $(0, 1)$ and serve as a target for the generator.
The other data types did not require normalization.
\acrshortpl{dem} are encoded as the height in meters above sea-level, with no extreme outliers and being used as input only, the networks learn a proper normalization themselves.
The aerial photographs are comparable to images in computer vision in terms of dynamic range and do not require any particular processing.
\paragraph{IEEE GRSS Data Fusion Contest 2020 (DFC2020)}
The DFC2020 aimed at the training of models for automated large-scale land cover mapping from coarse, noisy labels.
For this purpose, the simplified land cover scheme of the \acrfull{igbp}, consisting of generic 10 classes, was adopted.
We use the high-resolution validation/testing labels of the data fusion contest~\cite{yokoya2020dfc}, together with the corresponding Sentinel-1 dual-pol and Sentinel-2 acquisitions where only 8 of these 10 classes are present.
The dataset contains images with \SI{10}{\meter} ground sampling distance from a diverse set of locations and scene types around the world.
The official split of the data fusion contest assigns 5128 tiles to the testing set and 986 to the validation set.
We follow the same assignment for our training and testing sets, respectively.
Just like the GeoNRW dataset, the DFC2020 is imbalanced~\cite{schmitt_2020_dfc2020}.
Although the DFC2020 dataset does not include a \acrshort{dem} of comparable resolution, it can still provide some additional insights, when compared to the GeoNRW dataset.
It features a greater variety of locations and scene types and it is interesting to see whether these can be successfully captured by \acrshortpl{gan}.
Similar considerations are valid for its dual-pol Sentinel-1 data, in contrast to the single-pol TerraSAR-X data in the GeoNRW dataset.
In addition to synthesizing RGB and \acrshort{sar} from land cover maps alone, we also fuse \acrshort{sar} and the land cover maps to generate RGB images using our approach.
We clip the Sentinel-1 \acrshort{sar} data to the interval $(-20, 5)$, subsequently normalizing them so that all values fall into the range $(0, 1)$.
Similarly, when extracting the RGB bands from the Sentinel-2 bands, we limit them to the interval $(0, 3500)$, which results in sensible images when plotting them, and normalize them to the same interval as the Sentinel-1 data.
\subsection{Evaluation schemes and metrics}
Judging the quality of synthesized images is an intricate problem and still an active topic of research.
Besides visual inspection we perform a quantitative analysis using U-Net~\cite{ronneberger2015unet} segmentation networks, trained on the corresponding dataset.
We exclusively use real data for pre-training, which consequently biases the resulting networks in favor of this data distribution and makes them sensitive to shifts from it.
Thus, comparing the segmentation accuracy for real and synthesized images can serve as a metric for the domain gap between both image distributions.
The argument is that more realistic looking synthesized images perform better, since the pre-trained model only knows real data and is sensitive to changes.
We additionally use a slight modification of the \gls{fid}~\cite{Heusel_fid_NIPS2017} for both datasets to evaluate the quality of synthesized images.
\Gls{fid} is a refinement of the inception score~\cite{improved_gan_training_salimans_nips_2016} and compares mean and covariance of an Inception-v3~\cite{Szegedy_2016} network's (pre-trained on ImageNet~\cite{imagenet_cvpr09}) intermediate features for real and synthesized images.
The domain gap between ImageNet and remote sensing images prohibits to directly compute \acrshort{fid}.
Instead, analogously to~\cite{bau2019seeing}, we extract the intermediate features of the corresponding pre-trained U-Nets and compute the Fréchet distance~\cite{frechet1957distance} between real and synthesized images.
Classic figures of merit such as \acrfull{rmse} or \acrfull{ssim} are not applicable for image synthesis, since they focus on low-level local statistics and not on high-level semantic information.
As an example in computer vision, cars or clothes can have a variety of color, which invariably result in bad \acrshort{rmse} or \acrshort{ssim} scores if their color does not match the original, even though the generated image might look convincingly realistic.
\subsection{Implementation details and training regimen}
We apply spectral normalization~\cite{miyato_spectral_normalization_gan_2018} to all convolutional layers in the discriminator and generator.
Adam~\cite{adam_kingma_2015}, parameterized with $\beta_1 = 0$ and $\beta_2 = 0.9$ trains generator and discriminator with individual learning rates~\cite{Heusel_fid_NIPS2017} ($0.0001$ and $0.0004$) with the Hinge-loss~\cite{lim_2017_geometric_gan,miyato_spectral_normalization_gan_2018} for 200 epochs.
\acrshort{gan}-training is done on 8 NVIDIA V100 GPUs with \SI{16}{\giga\byte} VRAM each and a batch size of 32.
The GPUs share batch statistics using synchronized batch normalization.
We train the U-Net segmentation networks using Adam, with $\beta_1=0.9$ and $\beta_2=0.999$, a learning rate of $0.0002$, and a batch size of 32 for 100 epochs using cross entropy loss on a single NVIDIA V100 GPU with \SI{16}{\giga\byte} VRAM.
All networks are implemented in PyTorch~\cite{NEURIPS2019_9015}.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/nrw_sar_rgb_comp.pdf}
\caption{Synthesizing high-resolution optical and TerraSAR-X spotlight images from \acrshortpl{dem} and land cover maps.
The third and fourth row show synthesized examples with their corresponding real images in the fifth and sixth row.
The synthesized images look convincing.
In particular, the generator learns to add realistic shadows to both optical and \acrshort{sar} images, which are also consistent for the whole image.
However, man-made structures with their complex but regular shapes make it easier to distinguish between real and synthesized images upon close inspection.
The last column shows an example where our approach fails to synthesize a convincing image.
Bridges, like other man-made structures are difficult to synthesize, and there are not many examples in the dataset, leading to comparably poor results.
}%
\label{fig_nrw_comp}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Synthesizing remote sensing imagery}
\Cref{fig_nrw_comp} shows synthesized RGB and \acrshort{sar} images for the GeoNRW dataset, with \acrshort{dem}s and land cover maps as the input.
There is good correspondence between real and synthesized images.
Remarkably, the generator also synthesizes realistic shadows, both for optical and \acrshort{sar} images, that are consistent for the entire image and match building heights.
Also of note are seasonal changes.
As the aerial images were acquired between spring and autumn, trees change their leafs, the colors of which can range from green to brownish.
The same variety is captured by the synthesized images, which do not necessarily correspond to the season of their real counterpart, but still look realistic.
When closely zooming in, real and synthesized images can still be distinguished.
Artificial structures like buildings, bridges or roads are more easily identified as fake than natural land covers, such as forest, grassland or water.
We hypothesize that in addition to getting the texture right, artificial structures require a certain geometric regularity, which human observers can more easily identify if it is amiss.
Another problem facing these kind of objects is that they are not well represented in the dataset.
The last column serves as an example, where the generator fails to synthesize a realistic looking bridge.
The DFC2020 dataset exhibits more diversity in terms of classes and locations.
We employ our method to synthesize RGB, created from the corresponding Sentinel-2 bands, and dual-pol \acrshort{sar} images.
As inputs we use land cover maps alone, but also fuse them with \acrshort{sar} using the proposed architecture to give an impression on how auxiliary data can help when synthesizing images.
\Cref{fig_dfc_sen12} shows that there is good correspondence between real and synthesized images.
One caveat is the generation of urban areas from land cover maps alone.
In contrast to the GeoNRW dataset, the land cover maps of the DFC2020 dataset do not contain any structural information, which assigns the task of placing buildings or roads entirely to the generator.
Compounded by the fact that street layouts and building types and placement differ wildly between cities, as they depend on a city's history, land marks such as hills and rivers, but also building codes etc., it is especially hard to come up with a realistic layout at a large scale.
Using \acrshort{sar} as an auxiliary input imprints its structure on the synthesized images, resulting in street layouts that more closely match the original images.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/dfc_sen12_comp.pdf}
\caption{Synthesizing medium-resolution Sentinel-1 dual-pol and Sentinel-2 (only RGB) images from land cover maps alone and with \acrshort{sar} as an additional input.
We use the dataset from the 2020 IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Society data fusion contest~\cite{rha7-m332-19}.
The second, third and fourth row show synthesized examples with good agreement to their corresponding real images in the fifth and sixth row.
Urban areas and agricultural fields are an exception, where it is difficult for the network to infer their layout from land cover maps alone.
In this case, having \acrshort{sar} as an additional input helps to transfer the \acrshort{sar} image's structure and provides some guidance.
}%
\label{fig_dfc_sen12}
\end{figure*}
As a quantitative evaluation we compare the segmentation results obtained both from real and synthesized images in terms of \gls{iou}.
To better gauge the impact of label noise we also use the segmentation maps obtained from real data as a reference ground truth when analysing the generated images.
\Cref{fig_ious} shows the obtained \acrshortpl{iou} for the individual classes, when synthesizing RGB images from land cover maps alone (DFC2020) and in conjunction with \acrshortpl{dem} (GeoNRW).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figures/nrw_dfc_ious.pdf}
\caption{Intersection-over-Union for the segmentation maps produced by U-Net, pre-trained on real RGB images.
The segmentation network is either fed real or synthesized images.
We compare the resulting land-cover maps against the ground truth labels.
In addition, to account for label-noise, we directly compare the segmentation maps obtained from real and fake images.
Segmentation accuracy is strongly correlated with class-imbalance (see \cref{fig_nrw_stats} and~\cite{schmitt_2020_dfc2020}).
}%
\label{fig_ious}
\end{figure}
For both datasets the segmentation accuracy is severely affected by class imbalance in the training dataset.
More sophisticated training procedures, e.g., using weighted cross entropy or focal loss~\cite{lin_2017_focal_loss} could alleviate this problem, but are outside the scope of this paper.
With respect to the ground truth labels, classification is comparable for real and synthesized images, indicating that the quality of synthesized images is good enough not to confuse a network pre-trained on real data, which conversely should make it feasible to use synthesized images for training and real data during inference~\cite{yokoya2020breaking}.
One notable exception are buildings in the GeoNRW dataset.
This confirms our observation, that buildings are the most difficult class to synthesize for the generator.
Presumably, due to their large variance in texture and shape.
Using the segmentation results obtained from real data as a reference for the synthesized images leads to higher \gls{iou} for the GeoNRW dataset.
This suggests a certain degree of label noise, which fits the relatively coarse labeling for certain land covers.
\Cref{fig_nrw_label_noise} shows an example, where the ground truth labeling does not fit the corresponding RGB image.
Trees lining the road and greenhouses are not represented in the ground truth segmentation map.
\begin{figure}[tb!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figures/nrw_label_noise.pdf}
\caption{Example of label noise in the GeoNRW dataset.
The coarse ground truth does not include the greenhouses' building footprints and the trees lining the road, both are picked up by the segmentation network.
}%
\label{fig_nrw_label_noise}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Fusion of input sources}
This section shows the benefit of fusing input sources over just relying on one of them alone.
As mentioned in the method section, the proposed generator architecture can easily be simplified to rely on segmentation maps or unprocessed data arrays alone during synthesis.
In the former case the simplified generator is equivalent to \acrshort{spade}~\cite{park_spade_2019}, in the latter to Pix2Pix~\cite{isola_pix2pix_2016}.
We show that synthesizing images jointly from land cover maps and \acrshortpl{dem} from the GeoNRW dataset helps to avoid ambiguities in the generated image.
Three handpicked examples in \cref{fig_nrw_diff_sources} demonstrate how land cover maps and \acrshortpl{dem} complement each other.
From \acrshortpl{dem} alone, without additionally providing land cover maps, the generator can not distinguish flat regions, such as water, roads or agricultural fields.
This leads to results where these types of classes are swapped and mixed up.
Conversely, the land cover maps are not particularly detailed, i.e., they lack individual trees, or class boundaries are not well defined (for example between grassland and forest).
This results in the generator to learn to imagine small details or randomly choosing what to synthesize.
The last row in \cref{fig_nrw_diff_sources} serves as an interesting example, where the generator places trees next to roads, which certainly is an assumption based on reality, but does not reflect the actual ground truth image.
Moreover, the \acrshort{dem} occasionally delineates boundaries between objects, even if these are present in the land cover map.
Note that such boundaries, essentially edge maps, can help the generation quality by offering additional guidance was already observed in~\cite{tang2020edge}.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/nrw_diff_sources2rgb.pdf}
\caption{Using both land cover maps and \acrshortpl{dem} as input for the generator avoids ambiguities in the output, such as confusing flat regions like water, roads or agricultural fields.
Furthermore, since the land cover maps of the GeoNRW dataset are not very detailed, the generator learns to imagine and add small details when it only receives land cover maps as input, such as the trees in the last row.
This does not reflect the actual ground truth images, even though they show up at realistic locations, i.e., lining roads.
}%
\label{fig_nrw_diff_sources}
\end{figure*}
\Cref{tab_miou_pix_acc_fid} lists the \acrfull{miou}, pixel accuracies and \acrshortpl{fid} of our quantitive analysis, obtained using pre-trained U\=/Net models.
In addition to the GeoNRW dataset, where, as before, we synthesize RGB images from land cover maps and \acrshortpl{dem}, or one of them alone, we also use the DFC2020 dataset as a test case.
For lack of a \acrshort{dem} of comparable resolution, we resort to using \acrshort{sar} as an auxiliary input.
We also compare our method with two other generator architectures
\begin{enumerate}
\item simply concatenating both inputs and using the Pix2Pix generator, and
\item using the Pix2Pix generator for the \acrshort{dem}, the SPADE generator for the land cover map and fusing their decoders at all layers by concatenation in an essentially third generator. This architecture's larger memory footprint required a reduction by 25\% of the generator's capacity.
\end{enumerate}
Again, to account for label noise, the table includes results with respect to the ground truth labels and with respect to the segmentation maps obtained from real data.
For \acrshort{fid}, we of course compare the activations of the real and synthesized images.
Generally speaking, regarding \acrshort{miou} and pixel accuracies, fusion is advantageous when comparing to the segmentation obtained from real data, whereas synthesizing from labels alone performs better when comparing to the ground truth.
Again, this disparity can be explained by label-noise.
Although fusion of land cover maps with auxiliary information provides additional guidance, these two sources of information will actually contradict each other if mistakes were made during labeling.
However, when synthesizing from labels alone, and coming full circle when creating labels using a segmentation network, there is no distracting auxiliary input.
Regarding \acrshort{fid}, the output is less clear.
Contrary to \acrshort{fid} in computer vision, applying this metric in remote sensing faces two issues
\begin{enumerate}
\item There is no dataset that is even remotely comparable in size to ImageNet~\cite{imagenet_cvpr09}.
Learned representations will thus be less refined than in computer vision.
\item Inception-V3~\cite{Szegedy_2016} is a network architecture that has been widely used, studied and outperforms a large number of competing architectures.
A comparable baseline for segmenting remote sensing images does not exist.
\end{enumerate}
We consider \acrshort{fid} still as an experimental metric for evaluating performance and further research is needed.
\begin{table*}[htb]
\caption{\Acrlong{miou}, pixel accuracies, and \acrshort{fid} when synthesizing RGB images, either from a single input or by fusing inputs using concatenation at the input, the merging generator or the proposed method.
Fusing \acrshort{dem} (GeoNRW) or \acrshort{sar} (DFC2020) with land cover maps improves performance.
We also compare against the segmentation maps obtained from real data to account for label noise.
Label noise is also the reason why synthesizing from labels alone is advantageous when comparing to the ground truth.
}%
\label{tab_miou_pix_acc_fid}
\centering
\newcommand{\ra}[1]{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{#1}}
\newcommand{\rotentry}[2]{\parbox[t]{2mm}{\multirow{#1}{*}{\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{#2}}}}
\ra{1.2}
\begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}}llrrrrrrrrrrr}
\toprule
Dataset & & Real & \multicolumn{5}{c}{Fake with respect to Ground Truth} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{Fake with respect to Real} \\
\cmidrule{4-8} \cmidrule{9-13}
& & & DEM/SAR & Label & Concat & Merge & Ours & DEM/SAR & Label & Concat & Merge & Ours \\
\midrule
GeoNRW & mIoU & 0.1734 & 0.1845 & \textbf{0.1991} & 0.1706 & 0.1706 & 0.1836 & 0.2315 & 0.1999 & 0.2317 & 0.2201 & \textbf{0.2326} \\
& pixel acc. & 0.5434 & 0.5509 & 0.5367 & 0.5470 & 0.5470 & \textbf{0.5617} & 0.7528 & 0.6641 & 0.7638 & 0.7575 & \textbf{0.7692} \\
& FID & --- & --- & --- & --- & --- & --- & 0.0307 & 0.0233 & 0.0097 & 0.0223 & \textbf{0.0078} \\
\midrule
DFC2020 & mIoU & 0.3722 & 0.3385 & \textbf{0.3802} & 0.3786 & 0.3787 & 0.3758 & 0.3846 & 0.3946 & 0.4352 & \textbf{0.4431} & 0.4344 \\
& pixel acc. & 0.7514 & 0.7175 & \textbf{0.7661} & 0.7571 & 0.7602 & 0.7524 & 0.7778 & 0.7897 & 0.8209 & \textbf{0.8243} & 0.8095 \\
& FID & --- & --- & --- & --- & --- & --- & \textbf{0.0035} & 0.0916 & 0.0643 & 0.0150 & 0.0174 \\
\bottomrule%
\end{tabular*}%
\end{table*}
Looking at the numbers for the GeoNRW dataset in \Cref{tab_miou_pix_acc_fid}, simply concatenating inputs and using a traditional generator performs largely comparably to our method and both outperform the merging of essentially two generators by a third one.
\Cref{fig_nrw_concat_merge_ours} illustrates with an example some of the issues with the other approaches.
Concatenating and a traditional generator was prone to produce artifacts for large buildings.
Presumably the different magnitude of building heights and the one-hot encoded land-cover maps poses difficulties for their normalization.
Such distortions in only few samples of the dataset are not accurately reflected by global error metrics.
The merging approach with less network capacity produces outputs with fewer details and more washed-out textures, consistent with the findings in~\cite{brock_biggan_2019}.
The results for the DFC2020 dataset are more ambiguous, where the merging generator outperforms the other approaches.
One reason might be, that its lower capacity, which leads to outputs with fewer details, is not as relevant for medium-resolution as for high-resolution data.
We also conjecture that the pre-trained segmentation networks play a major role and might be more sensitive to missing details for the high-resolution GeoNRW dataset.
As mentioned before, subsequent research needs to find network architectures and training procedures so that these metrics are as reliable as in computer vision.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figures/nrw_concat_merge_ours}
\caption{Comparison of the three different generator architectures for fusing \acrshort{dem} and land-cover maps. Simple concatenation in conjunction with a traditional produces artifacts for large buildings. The merging approach produces images with fewer details and washed-out textures due to its lower capacity.
}%
\label{fig_nrw_concat_merge_ours}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Editing the input}
One of the motivations of this research is to provide a glimpse into the future.
For example, flooding or rising sea levels can be simulated, or the conversion of forests into farmland.
\Cref{fig_nrw_flooding} shows synthesized RGB and \acrshort{sar} images, for slightly altered inputs to the generator, trained on the GeoNRW dataset.
Thresholding the \acrshort{dem} with a minimum height $h_{min}$ creates a binary mask, which is subsequently cleaned up using a morphological erosion to get rid of small perturbations.
We assign the class water to all masked pixels and set the corresponding heights of the \acrshort{dem} to the thresholding value.
We feed the such created land cover maps and digital elevation models as inputs to the generator, simulating rising water levels.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/nrw_flooding.pdf}
\caption{We threshold the \gls{dem} and adjust the land cover map to simulate flooding or rising water levels.
The first column shows the original RGB, \acrshort{sar}, and \acrshort{dem} data.
The other columns show land cover maps and the corresponding synthesized images, where the first result corresponds to the original land cover map.
Light editing leads to realistically looking results.
For bigger changes the corresponding \gls{dem} and land cover map, computed by simple thresholding, probably do not adhere to the real data distribution anymore, resulting in slightly odd looking results.
}%
\label{fig_nrw_flooding}
\end{figure*}
For both RGB and \acrshort{sar} changing the segmentation map and \acrshort{dem} results in expanding water bodies.
The RGB image exhibits even realistic details like sand at the shoreline.
\section{Conclusion and Future Work}
With the proposed generator architecture and datasets, synthesizing convincing remote sensing imagery from abstract land cover maps and additional raster data, largely indistinguishable from real images, is possible.
What the work is currently lacking is more control on the results.
Generating the same scenery under different weather conditions, seasons or geographic locations, or additionally for \acrshort{sar} with different acquisition angles, are some of our future research directions.
These can be helpful for providing a variety of training data for other machine learning algorithms.
We are particularly interested in synthesizing images of disasters, where we need to take into account the domain gap between pre- and post-disaster images, as well as their imbalance.
For example, flooded areas look quite different from lakes and rivers, since the water is mixed with soil, or adding landslides and debris at certain locations.
Analysing the differences of \acrshort{sar} speckle statistics for real and synthesized data and see whether it matches theoretical considerations might also be a worthwhile topic.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{Acknowledgment}
This work was supported in part by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science through KAKENHI under Grants 18K18067 and 20K19834.
TerraSAR-X spotlight data were provided by DLR within in scope of the research proposal MTH3726: “SAR image synthesis from digital elevation models and land cover maps”.
Map data copyrighted OpenStreetMap contributors and available from \url{https://www.openstreetmap.org}.
\printbibliography%
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intr}
Active or self-propelled particles are a subject of active current research (see introductory
review~\cite{Bechinger_etal-16}). For microscopic particles, random interactions with an environment
are essential, and one speaks about active Brownian particles, subject to noisy forces.
For macroscopic particles, existence of random forces is not so obvious, but here one also
often introduces them to model observed fluctuations in the motions of animals and birds (cf. famous
Vicsek model~\cite{Vicsek_etal-95}). A large class of active particles constitute \textit{chiral}
active particles, natural trajectories of which are not straight lines, but circles. The
origin of chirality can be asymmetry in the particle shape
or in the propulsion mechanism; also external magnetic field may lead to circular
motion (see discussion and examples in~\cite{Bechinger_etal-16}).
There are different models for interaction of active particles.
In many cases, inspired by the Vicsek model~\cite{Vicsek_etal-95},
one assumes an aligning interaction: neighboring particles ``prefer''
to align their velocities. In the context of chiral Brownian (i.e. noise-driven)
particles, such an aligning interaction can lead to an appearance of synchronized
rotating clusters (see, e.g.,
Refs.~\cite{Liao-Klapp-18,Levis-Liebchen-18,Levis-Liebchen-19,Kruk_etal-20}).
In this paper, I consider \textit{deterministic} particles \textit{without alignment
forces}. The main finding is that this system demonstrates a transition
from supertransient chaos to synchronous clusters.
I introduce the basic model in Section~\ref{sec:mf}.
In Section~\ref{sec:ccs} I demonstrate that while for small times,
circling colliding active particles demonstrate chaos leading to their diffusion,
at large times a transition to a synchronous state without collisions occur.
The life time of chaos grows exponentially with the number
of particles, what allows to speak about supertransients, typical for spatio-temporal
chaos. In section~\ref{sec:dts} I demonstrate that external periodic or random forcing
induces a transition to a collisionless state already at small times. I conclude with
discussion in Section~\ref{sec:con}.
\section{Model formulation} \label{sec:mf}
I consider active particles in two dimensions, with
circular natural trajectories. The two components of velocity $(v=\dot x,u=\dot y)$ for one
particle obey following
equations:
\begin{equation}
\eqalign{
\dot v&=-\omega u+\mu(W^2-u^2-v^2)+m^{-1}F_x\;,\\
\dot u&=\omega v+\mu(W^2-u^2-v^2)+m^{-1}F_y\;.
}
\label{eq:bv}
\end{equation}
Here $W$ is a steady speed, which a particle attends if the other forces
$F_{x,y}$ vanish; parameter $\mu$ describes the rate of the relaxation to this steady
speed; $m$ is the particle's mass. The velocity field rotates with frequency $\omega$. In a steady state, an isolated
particle rotates on a circle of radius $W/\omega$ with frequency $\omega$.
It is worth noting that Eq.~\eqref{eq:bv} is widely used in synchronization and coupled
oscillators studies as the Stuart-Landau model (see, e.g., \cite{Pikovsky-Rosenblum-Kurths-01}).
In this interpretation two variables
$u,v$ describe a state of an autonomous oscillating system close to the Hopf bifurcation
point. It is also well-known
that under a periodic or random force this oscillator synchronizes~\cite{Pikovsky-Rosenblum-Kurths-01},
this effect will be explored in Section~\ref{sec:dts}.
Below I consider two types of forces acting on particles. The first
force is the interaction between the particles. I assume, following Ref.~\cite{Rex-Loewen-07},
a conservative repulsing
interaction governed by a truncated Lennard-Jones potential, which depends
on the distance $R$ between the particles:
\begin{equation}
V(R)=\left\{\eqalign{
\epsilon\left[\left(\frac{\sigma}{R}\right)^{12} - 2\left(\frac{\sigma}{R}\right)^6+1
\right]
&\;\;\rm{ for }\;\; R\leq \sigma\;,\\
0&\;\;\rm{ for }\;\; R> \sigma\;.}
\right.
\label{eq:bp}
\end{equation}
This potential takes from the full Lennard-Jones potential only its repulsing part,
and the attracting part is absent. Thus, this potential mimics not-so-hard discs
with radius $\sigma/2$, which repulse each other when collide, and do not interact
aside of collisions. I stress here that the interactions have no any alignment
action (the latter is often assumed in models of Vicseck type). If there where no
activity and chirality (i.e. $\omega=\mu=0$ in~\eqref{eq:bv}), then the model
reduces to a Hamiltonian one of elastically colliding disks. In the case of hard disks
it is believed that the dynamics is fully chaotic (the Boltzmann-Sinai hypothesis),
although the proof~\cite{Simanyi-03} has some restrictions. For smooth potentials,
stable periodic orbits in the Hamiltonian dynamics may appear~\cite{Turaev-Rom-Kedar-03}.
Much less is known for colliding active particles, but our simulations in
Section~\ref{sec:ccs} indicate for chaos.
In addition to interaction forces described by \eqref{eq:bp}, I will consider
external forces specified in Section~\ref{sec:dts}.
Below I study numerically an ensemble of active particles with circular
orbits \eqref{eq:bv},\eqref{eq:bp} in a periodic geometry,
i.e., on a torus $L\times L$. I fix $\mu=2$, $W=\omega=1$, $\sigma=0.2$, $m=1$, and $\epsilon=0.1$
throughout the paper. The main parameters to explore is the number of the particles $N$
and the density $\rho=N L^{-2}$.
\section{Chaotic state and spontaneous transition to synchrony}\label{sec:ccs}
\subsection{Quasistationary chaotic state}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig1.pdf}
\caption{Positions of particles vs time for $N=20$, $\rho=3$.
Synchronization transition occurs at $t\approx 27000$. }
\label{fig:ex}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig2.pdf}
\caption{Trajectories of particles for the same data as Fig.~\ref{fig:ex}. }
\label{fig:ex1}
\end{figure}
Because collisions of hard disk have a scattering property with
an essential degree of instability (like dispersive billiards), one can expect
chaos in
colliding active particle described by Eqs.~\eqref{eq:bv},\eqref{eq:bp}.
Due to multiple collisions, velocity of a particle
is random, so its motion is a diffusion in two dimensions. I illustrate this
with figures \ref{fig:ex},\ref{fig:ex1}. They show trajectories of $N=20$
particles in a particular run. Up to time $T_{st}\approx 27000$ (I measure
time in periods of rotations) motion of all particles is irregular.
Quantitatively, a good characteristics of irregularity is the mean diffusion constant
of the particles. It can be calculated from the mean squared displacement
after a large time interval
\[
D=\frac{\langle(x(T)-x(0))^2+(y(T)-y(0))^2 \rangle}{T}\;.
\]
Diffusion in the system is normal, as the graph of
$\langle(x(T)-x(0))^2+(y(T)-y(0))^2 \rangle$ versus time interval $T$
(Fig.~\ref{fig:dc1}(a)) shows. Because $D$ is an intensive quantity,
one can expect that it depends on the intensive parameter - density of particles $\rho$,
but not on the number of particles $N$. However, calculations of the diffusion constant
Fig.~\ref{fig:dc1}(b) show, that for a small number of particles
a significant depletion of the diffusion constant is observed. I attribute
this to correlations which appear in small communities where the same
particles collide many times. In large ensembles, a particle has again and again new neighbors,
so that correlations effectively disappear (see
nearly coinciding values for $N=30$ and $N=40$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:dc1}(b)).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{fig3a.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{fig3b.pdf}
\caption{Calculation of diffusion constant. Panel (a): mean squared displacements vs. time
for $N=20$ and different $\rho$ are nearly perfect straight lines confirming
normal diffusion of particles. Panel (b): diffusion constants for different $N$ and $\rho$.
}
\label{fig:dc1}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Spontaneous transition to synchrony}
The main observation of this work is that the chaos described above is in
fact a transient state, it evolves eventually into a configuration without collisions;
such a transition can be seen at $T_{st}\approx 27000$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:ex}.
Indeed, a set of particles \eqref{eq:bv} has an absorbing synchronous state
where all the velocities are equal: $v_1=v_2=\ldots=v_N$, $u_1=u_2=\ldots=u_N$.
In this state the particles rotate synchronously, the distances between them remain constant,
and they do not collide. Thus this state continues forever. Such a state can exist also
in a Hamiltonian setup, but there it can occur only for specially constructed
initial conditions. If collisions in a set of Hamiltonian discs occur, they cannot disappear,
because of the reversibility of the dynamics. For active particles with a non-Hamiltonian dynamics,
there is no such a restriction.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig4.pdf}
\caption{Synchronous state for the trajectory shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ex}. Black filled
circles: positions of the particles at a certain time; colored large circles: trajectories
of the particles.}
\label{fig:ss}
\end{figure}
I stress that the state in Fig.~\ref{fig:ex} at $T>T_{st}$ is not completely synchronous, as
the phases of rotation of different particles do not coincide. It is sufficient to achieve
a state where collisions disappear, such a regime, which I call absorbing collisionless state,
continues forever. I illustrate the collissionless synchronous state corresponding to
$T>T_{st}$ of Fig.~\ref{fig:ex} in Fig.~\ref{fig:ss}.
Fig.~\ref{fig:ex} shows that the transition to synchrony is quite abrupt, so
this is an example of type-II supertransients according to classification
of~\cite{Lai-Tel-11}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig5.pdf}
\caption{Mean time to synchronization in dependence on the number
of particles and on density. The dependencies in the range $20\leq N\leq 30 $
are well fitted with $T_{st}\approx A(\rho)\exp[B(\rho) N]$, where $B(1)=0.304$,
$B(2)=0.311$, $B(3)=0.309$, $B(4)=0.282$.}
\label{fig:mt}
\end{figure}
The time at which a synchronous absorbing state appears depends on the initial configuration
of particles, it fluctuates highly. In Fig.~\ref{fig:mt} I show dependence of the mean
time to achieve a collisionless state on the number of particles and on density $\rho$.
The main feature is that the dependence on the density is rather weak, but the life time
of a chaotic state grows exponentially with the number of particles $N$. Thus,
this system belongs to a class of extended systems with chaotic
supertransients~\cite{Crutchfield-Kaneko-88,Lilienkamp_etal-17}.
Figure \ref{fig:mt} also shows that the law of exponential growth
with the number of particles only weakly depends on the density parameter.
\section{Driven transition to synchrony}\label{sec:dts}
Noninteracting particles are described by a set of effective Stuart-Landau oscillators
\eqref{eq:bv}.
Thus, such an ensemble can be synchronized by an external periodic or random force,
as described in the theory of synchronization~\cite{Pikovsky-Rosenblum-Kurths-01}.
One can expect that the same happens also in the presence of the collisions, although the
synchronization onset can be retarded due to them. I Illustrate the effect of a periodic force
$F_x=\gamma \cos(\omega t)$ on the ensemble in Fig.~\ref{fig:pf}. A small force has almost
no effect, the mean life time of the chaotic state is almost the same as for autonomous
particles. At large values of $\gamma$, the transition occurs within a few periods,
the mean life time is almost the same for different $N$ and $\rho$.
Noteworthy, at intermediate force amplitudes $0.01<\gamma <0.03$,
the reduction of the mean life time of chaos is mostly pronounced
for systems with low density (see curves with $\rho=1$ for $N=20$ and $N=30$).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig6.pdf}
\caption{Mean time to synchrony under periodic force vs force amplitude $\gamma$
for different $\rho$ and $N$.}
\label{fig:pf}
\end{figure}
Common noise is another source of synchrony in ensembles of uncoupled
oscillators~\cite{Pikovsky-Rosenblum-Kurths-01}. Here I report on numerical
experiments where noise was in the form of a Poissonian sequence of delta-pulses:
\begin{equation}
F_x=\sum_n a_n\delta(t-t_n)\;,
\label{eq:rf}
\end{equation}
where $t_n$ are Poissonian time events appearing with rate $\tau^{-1}$, and $a_n$ are independent
amplitudes of the pulses taken from a Gaussian distribution with
standard deviation $\sigma$. Mean life times of chaos are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:rf1}.
Remarkably, under noisy force the mean life time of chaos is nearly a constant, it
does depend on the number of particles and on the density. Furthermore, for
small number of particles common noise retards transition to synchrony compared to the spontaneous one.
For large number of particles the effect is opposite, here for $N=30$
noise reduces the life time of chaos by a factor larger than $20$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig7.pdf}
\caption{Mean time to synchrony under random force~\eqref{eq:rf} with $\tau=0.2$
and $\sigma=0.2$ (filled markers). Also, for comparison, is shown
the unperturbed mean time (open markers).}
\label{fig:rf1}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:con}
In this paper I studied an ensemble of active particles with circular natural trajectories,
subject to elastic collisions. This setup differs from previous studies in two aspects: (i)
the basic dynamics is purely deterministic (except for the special considered case of a common random force),
and (ii) there are no aligning interactions. I show that the autonomous system demonstrates
supertransient chaos. Starting with random initial conditions, for a long interval of time, chaotic
dynamics is observed, leading to a normal diffusion of the particles. However, the final state
is a regime without collisions, where neighboring
particles effectively synchronize their circular rotations. I demonstrate that the life time of chaos
depends on the density of particles, and grows exponentially with the number of them. Furthermore,
I show that the transition to synchronous rotations can be induced by an
external periodic force, common for all particles (this
effect has been previously reported in other context
in Refs.~\cite{Chepelianskii2007,Shepelyansky2009}). Also I
demonstrate that a random common force also leads to a synchronous dynamics without collisions.
Forced transitions
have a certain transient time which for large forces does not depend on the number of particles.
\ack
Author thanks H. Chat\'e and F. Ginelli for fruitful discussions, and the
Russian Science Foundation (studies
of Section \ref{sec:dts}, Grant Number 19-12-00367) for support.
\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
\section*{Bibliography}
\def$'${$'$}
|
\section{Introduction}
During the last decade, machine learning has experienced a rapid development, both in everyday life with the incredible success of image recognition used in various applications, and in research\ucite{goodfellow2016deep,mehta2019high} where many different communities are now involved. This common effort involves fundamental aspects such as why it works or how to build new architectures and at the same time a search for new applications of machine learning to other fields, like for instance improving biomedical images segmentation\ucite{ronneberger2015u} or detecting automatically phase transitions in physical system\ucite{carrasquilla2017machine}. Machine learning classical tasks are divided into at least two big categories: supervised and unsupervised learning (putting aside reinforcement learning and the more recently introduced approach of self-supervised learning). Supervised learning consists in learning a specific task --- for instance recognizing an object on an image or a word in a speech--- by giving the machine a set of samples together with the correct answer and correcting the prediction of the machine by minimizing a well-design and easy computable loss function. Unsupervised learning consists in learning a representation of the data given an explicit or implicit probability distribution, hence adjusting a likelihood function on the data. In this latter case, no label is assigned to the data and the result depends thus solely on the structure of the considered model and of the dataset.
In this review, we are interested in a particular model: the Restricted Boltzmann Machine (RBM). Originally called Harmonium~\ucite{Smolensky} or product of experts~\ucite{hinton2002training}, RBMs were designed\ucite{ackley1985learning} to perform unsupervised tasks even though they can also be used to accomplish supervised learning in some sense. RBMs are part of what is called generative models which aim to learn a latent representation of the data in order to later be used to generate statistically similar new data ---but different from those of the training set. There are Markov Random Fields (or Ising model for physicists), that were designed as a way to automatically interpret an image using a parallel architecture including a direct encoding of the probability of each ``hypothesis'' (latent description of a small portion of an image). Later on, RBMs started to take an important role in the Machine Learning community, when a simple learning algorithm introduced by Hinton et al.\ucite{hinton2002training}, the contrastive divergence (CD), managed to learn a non trivial dataset such as MNIST\ucite{lecun1998gradient}. It was in the same period that RBMs became very popular in the ML community for its capability to pre-train deep neural networks (for instance deep auto-encoder), in a layer wise style. And, it was then showed that RBMs are universal approximator\ucite{le2008representational} of discrete distributions, that is, an arbitrary large RBM can approximate arbitrarily well any discrete distribution (which led to many rigorous results about the modelization mechanism of RBMs\ucite{montufar2016restricted}). In addition, RBMs offer the possibility to be stacked to form a multi-layer generative model known as a deep Boltzmann machine (DBM)\ucite{salakhutdinov2009deep}. In the more recent years, RBMs continued to attract scientific interest. Firstly because it can be used on continuous or discrete variable very easily\ucite{krizhevsky2009learning,MuTa,cho2011improved,yamashita2014bernoulli}. Secondly, because the possible interpretations of the hidden nodes can be very useful\ucite{hjelm2014restricted,hu2018latent}. Interestingly, in some cases, more elaborate methods such as GAN\ucite{goodfellow2014generative} are not working better\ucite{yelmen2019creating}. Finally it can be used for other tasks as well such as classification or representation learning\ucite{ZHANG20181186}. Besides all these positive aspects, the learning process itself of the RBM remains poorly understood. The reasons are twofold: firstly, the gradient can be computed only in an approximated way as we will see; secondly, simple changes may have terrible impact on the learning or, messed up completely with the other meta-parameters. For instance making a naive change of variable in the MNIST dataset\ucite{cho2011enhanced,tang2011data} can affect importantly the training performance\footnote{In MNIST, it is usual to consider binary variable $\{0,1\}$ to describe the dataset. Taking instead $\{\pm1\}$ naively will affect dramatically the learning of the RBM.}. Another example, when varying the number of hidden nodes, keeping the other mete-parameters fixed, will affect not only the representational power of the rbm but also the learning dynamics itself.
The statistical physics community, on its side, has a long tradition of studying inference and learning process with its own tools. Using idealized inference problems, it has managed in the past to shed light on the learning process of many ML models. For instance, in the Hopfield model\ucite{hopfield1982neural,AmGuSo1,AmGuSo2,AmGuSo3}, a retrieval phase was characterized where the maximum number of patterns that can be retrieved can be expressed as a function of the temperature. Another example is the computation of the storage capacity of the Perceptron\ucite{rosenblatt1958perceptron} on synthetic datasets\ucite{gardner1988space,Derrida-Gardner}. In these approaches, the formalism of statistical physics explains the macroscopic behavior of the model in term of its position on a phase diagram in the large size limit.
From a purely technical point of view, the RBM can be seen for a physicist as a disordered Ising model on a bipartite graph. Yet, the difference with respect to the usual models that are studied in statistical physics is that the phase diagram of a trained RBM involves a highly non-trivial coupling matrix where the components are correlated as a result of the learning process. These dependencies make it non-trivial to adapt classical tools from statistical mechanics, such as the replica theory\ucite{mezard1987spin}. We will illustrate in this article how methods from statistical physics still have helped to characterize both the equilibrium phase of an idealized RBM where the coupling matrix has a structured spectrum, and how the learning dynamics can be analyzed in some specific regimes, both results being obtained with traditional mean-field approaches.
The paper is organized as follows. We will first give the definition of the RBM and review the typical learning algorithm used to train the model in Section~(\ref{sec:def}). Then, in Section~(\ref{sec:link_rbm}), we will review different types of RBMs by changing the prior on its variables and show explicit links with other models. In Section~(\ref{sec:phase_diag}), we will review two approaches that characterize the phase diagram of the RBM and in particular its {\it compositional phase}, based on two different hypothesis over the structure of the parameters of the model. Finally, in Section~(\ref{sec:learning_rbm}) we will show some theoretical development helping to understand the formation of patterns inside the machine and how we can use the mean-field or TAP equations to learn the model.
\section{Definition of the model and learning equations}
\label{sec:def}
\subsection{Definition of the RBM}
The RBM is an Ising model (or equivalently, a Markov random field), defined on a bipartite graph structure over two layers of variables: the visible nodes $s_i$, for $i=1,\dots,N_v$ and the hidden nodes $\tau_a=1,\dots,N_h$, denoting $N_v$ and $N_h$ the number of visible and hidden nodes respectively. In the following, we will use $i,j,k,\dots$ to enumerate the visible variables and $a,b,c,\dots$ for the hidden ones. No connection between any pair of visible or hidden nodes occurs . Hence, we will call $\bm{w}$ the coupling or weight matrix and denote its elements as $w_{ia}$ since no other interactions are present (such as $w_{ij}$ or $w_{ab}$). In addition to the pairwise coupling matrix $\bm{w}$, each visible and hidden node can have a local magnetic field, or local bias (we will refer to it as bias in the rest of the article), respectively named $\theta_i$ and $\eta_a$. We can introduce the following Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}\label{eq:H}
\mathcal{H}[\bm{s},\bm{\tau}] = -\sum_{ia} s_i w_{ia} \tau_a - \sum_i \theta_i s_i - \sum_a \eta_a \tau_a,
\end{equation}
from which we define a Boltzmann distribution
\begin{equation*}
p(\bm{s},\bm{\tau}) = \frac{1}{Z}\exp(-\mathcal{H}[\bm{s},\bm{\tau}]).
\end{equation*}
where $Z$ is given by
\begin{equation*}
Z = \sum_{\{\bm{s}\},\{\bm{\tau}\}} \exp(-\mathcal{H}[\bm{s},\bm{\tau}]).
\end{equation*}
\noindent The structure of the RBM is represented on Figure~\ref{fig:rbm}
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centerline{\resizebox*{0.7\textwidth}{!}{\input{fig/rbm.pdf_t}}}
\caption{\label{fig:rbm} bipartite structure of the RBM.}
\end{figure}
\noindent where the visible nodes are represented by black dots, the hidden nodes by red dots and the weight matrix by blue dotted lines.
\noindent The benefit of having a bipartite structure is that, when keeping fixed an entire layer, in our case all the visible or all the hidden nodes, the variables of the other layer become statistically independent. In other words, the measure $p(\bm{s}|\bm{\tau})$ and $p(\bm{\tau}|\bm{s})$ factorizes over the visible/hidden nodes respectively. This is an important property to keep in mind since it will be used in the learning procedure of the model. We will see that this property is widely used during the learning in order to draw new samples using a Monte-Carlo Markov Chain (MCMC) by Gibbs sampling.
Historically, the RBM was first defined with binary $\{0,1\}$ variables for both the visible and the hidden nodes in line with the sigmoid activation function of the perceptron, hence being directly intepretable as spin-glass model of statistical mechanics. A more general definition is considered here by introducing a prior distribution function for both the visible and hidden variables, allowing us to consider discrete or continuous variables. This generalization will allow us to see the links between RBMs and other well-known models of machine learning. From now on we will write all the equations for the generic case using the notation $q_v(\sigma)$ and $q_h(\tau)$ to indicate an arbitrary choice of ``prior'' distribution. Averaging over the RBM measure corresponding to Hamiltonian~(\ref{eq:H}) will then be denoted by
\begin{equation}
\langle f(\bm{s},\bm{\tau}) \rangle_\mathcal{H} = \sum_{\{s,\tau\}} p(\bm{s},\bm{\tau}) f(\bm{s},\bm{\tau})
\end{equation}
where here $\Sigma$ can represent both discrete sums or integrals and with the RBM distribution defined from now on as
\begin{equation}
p(\bm{s},\bm{\tau}) = \frac{1}{Z} q_v(\bm{s}) q_h(\bm{\tau}) \exp(-\mathcal{H}[\bm{s},\bm{\tau}]).
\label{eq:bolt}
\end{equation}
\noindent It is worth mentioning that, the choice of the prior distribution can be rephrased in terms of an activation function on the conditioned distribution over the visible or hidden variables. Therefore, when specifying a prior distribution, we will systematically indicate the corresponding activation function for the hidden layer, that is $p(\bm{\tau}|\bm{s})$, which is obtained using the Bayes theorem
\begin{equation*}
p(\bm{\tau}|\bm{s}) = \frac{p(\bm{s},\bm{\tau})}{\sum_{\tau} p(\bm{s},\bm{\tau})} = \frac{q_h(\bm{\tau}) \exp(-\mathcal{H}[\bm{s},\bm{\tau}])}{\sum_{\{\bm{\tau}\}}q_h(\bm{\tau}) \exp(-\mathcal{H}[\bm{s},\bm{\tau}])}
\end{equation*}
Before entering more into the technical details about the RBM, it is important to recall that it has been designed as a ``learnable'' generative model in practice. In that sense, the usual procedure is to feed the RBM with a dataset, tune its parameter $w$, $\theta$ and $\eta$ such that the equilibrium properties of the learned RBM reproduce faithfully the correlations (or the patterns) present in the dataset. In other words, it is expected that the learned model is able to produce new data statistically similar but distinct from the training set. To do so, the classical procedure is to proceed with a stochastic gradient ascent (to be explained in Section~\ref{sec:stochgrad}) of the likelihood function that can be easily expressed. Usually the learning of ML models involves the minimization of a loss function which happens here to be minus the log likelihood, thus in the following we will refer to Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) instead. First, consider a set of datapoints $\{s_i^{(d)}\}$, where $d=1,\dots,M$ is the index of the data. The log-likelihood is given by
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L} & = \frac{1}{M} \sum_{d=1}^M \log\left( \sum_{\{\bm{\tau}\}} p(\bm{s}^{(d)},\bm{\tau})\right) = \frac{1}{M} \sum_{d=1}^M \log\left( p(\bm{s}^{(d)} )\right) \nonumber \\
& =\frac{1}{M} \sum_{d=1}^M\left[ \log\left(\sum_{\tau} q_v(\bm{s}^{(d)})q_h(\bm{\tau})\exp\bigl(-\mathcal{H}[\bm{s}^{(d)},\bm{\tau}]\bigr)\right)\right] - \log(Z) \nonumber \\
& =\frac{1}{M} \sum_{d=1}^M\left[ \sum_i \theta_i s_i^{(d)} + \log\left( q_v(\bm{s}^{(d)}) \right) + \sum_a \log\left(\sum_{\tau_a} q_h(\tau_a) \exp\bigl(\sum_{i} s_i^{(d)} w_{ia} \tau_a + \eta_a \tau_a\bigr)\right) \right] - \log(Z) \nonumber
\end{align}
\noindent The gradient w.r.t. the different parameters will then take a simple form. Let us detail the computation of the gradient w.r.t. the weight matrix. By deriving the log-likelihood w.r.t. the weight matrix we get
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial w_{ia}} &= \frac{1}{M} \sum_{d=1}^M \frac{\sum_{\tau_a} q_h(\tau_a) s_i^{(d)} \tau_a e^{\sum_{i} s_i^{(d)} w_{ia} \tau_a + \eta_a \tau_a}}{ \sum_{\tau_a} q_h(\tau_a) e^{\sum_{i} s_i^{(d)} w_{ia} \tau_a + \eta_a \tau_a}} - \langle s_i \tau_a \rangle_\mathcal{H} \nonumber \\
& = \frac{1}{M} \sum_{d=1}^M s_i^{(d)} \sum_{\tau_a} \tau_a p(\tau_a|\bm{s}^{(d)}) - \langle s_i \tau_a \rangle_\mathcal{H} \nonumber \\
& = \langle s_i \tau_a \rangle_{\rm data} - \langle s_i \tau_a \rangle_\mathcal{H} \label{eq:sgd:w}
\end{align}
\noindent where we used the following notation
\begin{equation}
\langle f(\bm{s},\bm{\tau}) \rangle_{\rm data} = \frac{1}{M} \sum_{d=1}^M \sum_{\{\bm{\tau}\}} f(\bm{s}^{(d)},\bm{\tau}) p(\bm{\tau}|\bm{s}^{(d)}).
\end{equation}
\noindent The gradients for the biases (or magnetic fields) are
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \theta_i} &= \langle s_i\rangle_{\rm data} - \langle s_i \rangle_\mathcal{H} \label{eq:sgd:theta} \\
\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \eta_a} &= \langle \tau_a\rangle_{\rm data} - \langle \eta_a \rangle_\mathcal{H} \label{eq:sgd:eta}
\end{align}
\noindent It is interesting to note that, in expression (\ref{eq:sgd:w}), the gradient is very similar to the one obtained in the traditional inverse Ising problem with the difference that in the inverse Ising problem the first term (sometimes coined ``positive term'') depends only on the data, while for the RBM, we have a dependence on the model (yet simple to compute). Once the gradient is computed, the parameters of the model are updated in the following way
\begin{align}
w_{ia}^{(t+1)} &= w_{ia}^{(t)} + \gamma \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial w_{ia}}\Bigr|_{w_{ia}^{(t)},\theta_{i}^{(t)},\eta_a^{(t)}} \\
\theta_i^{(t+1)} &= \theta_i^{(t)}+ \gamma \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \theta_{i}}\Bigr|_{w_{ia}^{(t)},\theta_{i}^{(t)},\eta_a^{(t)}} \\
\eta_a^{(t+1)} &= \eta_a^{(t)}+ \gamma \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \eta_{a}}\Bigr|_{w_{ia}^{(t)},\theta_{i}^{(t)},\eta_a^{(t)}}
\end{align}
\noindent where $\gamma$ called the learning rate tunes the speed at which the parameters are updated in a given direction, the superscript $t$ being the index of iteration. A continuous
limit of the learning process can be formally defined by considering $t$ real and replacing $t+1$ by $t+dt$, $\gamma$ by $\gamma dt$ and letting $dt\to 0$.
The difficulty to train an RBM resides in the difficulty to compute the second term of the gradient, the so-called ``negative term'', which represents, in the gradient over the weight matrix, the correlation between a visible node $i$ and a hidden node $a$ under the RBM distribution. Similarly, the gradient over the biases is difficult to compute, where here the negative term is given by the mean value over the visible/hidden nodes. Depending on the value of the parameters of the model (the couplings and the biases), we can either be in a phase where it is easy to sample configurations from $p(\bm{s},\bm{\tau})$, (usually called paramagnetic phase); either be (if unlucky) in a spin glass phase, where it is exponentially hard to escape from the spurious free energy minima; either be (if lucky) in a "recall" phase where the dominant states correspond to data-like configurations. But even in the latter case, it might be difficult to transit from one state to another one with random jumps if these states are separated by large energy or free energy barriers, as in the Hopfield model for instance.
\subsection{Stochastic Gradient Descent}\label{sec:stochgrad}
Considering the difficulty to use the eq. (\ref{eq:sgd:w}) to learn the model (the computation of the negative term scales exponentially with the system size, and Monte Caro Markov chains (MCMC) can be very slow to converge), an efficient approximative scheme name contrastive divergence\ucite{hinton2002training} (CD) has been developed in order to approximate this term. First of all, the dataset is partitioned into small subsets called minibatches, and the gradient ascent is performed sequentially over all these minibatches in a random order. As a result each gradient step is performed only over a small subset of the whole dataset at a time. In order to estimate the negative term, the principle of CD is to start many Monte-Carlo chains in parallel, as many as the number of samples in a minibatch, and to use each sample of the minibatch as an initial condition for the chain. The idea being that starting from desired equilibrium configurations and making $k$ steps --- the number of MC steps is coined in the method : CD-k---, we expect to explore nearby configurations representative of the dataset when the machine is learned; if otherwise the chains flow away they will ``teach'' the RBM how to adjust the parameters. The interpretation of CD is that it tends to create a basin of "attraction" centered on the datapoints where nearby configurations will be attractive to these datapoint under the Gibbs dynamics. In practice, starting from a datapoint $\bm{s}^d$ a random configuration of the hidden layer is sampled; in turn given this a configuration of the visible layer is sampled and so on for $k$ steps. For this we take advantage of the bipartite structure of the model to draw a whole visible or hidden layer at once thanks to the factorization of the conditional distribution $p(\bm{s}|\bm{\tau})$ and $ p(\bm{\tau}|\bm{s})$:
\begin{equation}
\bm{s}^d \rightarrow \bm{\tau}_0 \sim p(\bm{\tau}|\bm{s}^d) \rightarrow \bm{s}_1 \sim p(\bm{s}|\bm{\tau}_0) \rightarrow \dots \rightarrow \bm{s}_k \sim p(\bm{s}|\bm{\tau}_{k-1}) \rightarrow \bm{\tau}_k \sim p(\bm{\tau}|\bm{s}_k)
\end{equation}
\noindent finally $\bm{s}_k$ and $\bm{\tau}_{k}$ are used to estimate the negative term. It is clear that the CD-k is not directly minimizing the likelihood, or equivalently the Kullback Leibler (KL) divergence between the data distribution $p_0(\bm{s})$ and the Boltzmann one $p(\bm{s})$. In reality it minimizes the KL divergence $D_{KL}(p_0||p_k)$ between the data distribution $p_0$ and the distribution obtained after $k$ MC steps $p_k$ that is defined as
\begin{align*}
D_{KL}(p_0||p_k) &= \sum_{\{\bm{s}\}} p_0(\bm{s}) \log \frac{p_k(\bm{s})}{p_0(\bm{s})} \\
p_k(\bm{s}_k) &= \sum_{ \{s_0, \dots, s_{k-1}\}} \sum_{ \{\tau_0, \dots, \tau_{k-1}\}} \left[ \prod_{l=1}^{k} p(\bm{s}_{l}|\bm{\tau}_{l-1}) p(\bm{\tau}_{l-1}|\bm{s}_{l-1}) \right] p_0(\bm{s}_0)
\end{align*}
\noindent In\ucite{carreira2005contrastive} it is argued that this procedure is roughly equivalent to minimizing the following KL difference
\[
\mathcal{L}_{\rm CDk} = D_{KL}(p_0 || p) - D_{KL}(p_k || p),
\]
\noindent up to an extra term considered to be small without much theoretical guaranty. The major drawback of this method is that the phase space of the learned RBM is never explored since we limit ourselves to $k$ MC steps around the data configurations, therefore it can lead to estimate very poorly the probability distribution for configurations that lie ``far away'' from the dataset. A simple modification has been proposed to deal with this issue in~\ucite{tieleman2008training}. The new algorithm is called persistent-CD (pCD) and consists of having again a set of parallel MC chains, but instead of using the dataset as initial condition, they are first initialized from random initial conditions and then the state of the chains is saved from one update of the parameters to the next one. In other words, the chains are initialized one time at the beginning of the learning and are then constantly updated a few MC steps further at each update of the parameters. In that case, it is not longer needed to have as many chains as the number of samples in the mini-batch even though in order to keep the statistical error comparable between the positive and the negative term it should be of the same order.
More details can be found in\ucite{tieleman2008training} about PCD and in\ucite{fischer2014training} for a more general introduction to the learning behavior using MC. In Section~\ref{sec:learning_rbm} we will intend to understand some theoretical and numerical aspect of the RBMs learning process.
\section{Overview of various RBM settings}
\label{sec:link_rbm}
Before investigating the learning behavior of RBMs, let us have a glimpse at various RBM settings and their relation to other models, by looking at common possible priors used for the visible and hidden nodes.
\subsection{Gaussian-Gaussian RBM}
\label{sec:gaussrbm}
The most elementary setting is the linear RBM, where both visible and hidden nodes have Gaussian priors:
\begin{align*}
q_v(s_i) &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma_v^2}} \exp\left( -\frac{s_i^2}{2 \sigma_v^2}\right) \\
q_h(\tau_a) &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma_h^2}} \exp\left( -\frac{\tau_a^2}{2 \sigma_h^2}\right)
\end{align*}
\noindent with $\sigma_v$ and $\sigma_h$ the intrinsic variance of the visible and hidden variables respectively.
After summing over hidden variables we get a multi-variate Gaussian distribution over the visible ones. If not very sophisticated, the model is yet interesting because it presents a non-trivial learning dynamics that can be written exactly\ucite{karakida2014analyzing,karakida2016dynamical,decelle2018thermodynamics,decelle2017spectral}.
When using Gaussian prior, the corresponding activation function $p(\bm{\tau}|\bm{s})$ are Gaussian centered on $\sigma_h^2 \sum_i w_{ia} s_i$:
\[
p(\bm{\tau}|\bm{s}) \propto \prod_a \exp\left( -\frac{\tau_a^2}{2 \sigma_h^2} + \tau_a \sum_i w_{ia} s_i \right).
\]
Let us write the marginal distribution over the visible nodes $p(\bm{s})$ (we omit the hidden bias since it can be canceled by a redefinition of the visible one), starting from eq. (\ref{eq:bolt}) and integrating over the hidden variables we get
\begin{align}
p(\bm{s}) &= \frac{1}{Z} \prod_i \left( e^{-\frac{s_i^2}{2 \sigma_v^2} + s_i \theta_i} \right) \prod_a \left[ \int d\tau_a \exp\left( -\frac{\tau_a^2}{2 \sigma_h^2} + \sum_i s_i w_{ia} \tau_a \right) \right] \nonumber \\
&= \frac{1}{Z} \prod_i \left( e^{-\frac{s_i^2}{2 \sigma_v^2} + s_i \theta_i} \right) \prod_a \exp\left( \frac{\sigma_h^2}{2} \sum_{ij} s_i w_{ia} w_{ja} s_j \right) \nonumber \\
&= \frac{1}{Z} \exp\left( - \bm{s}^T \left[ \frac{\bm{1}}{2\sigma_v^2} - \frac{\sigma_h^2}{2} \bm{w} \bm{w}^T \right] \bm{s} + \bm{s}^T \bm{\theta} \right) = \frac{1}{Z} \exp\left( - \bm{s}^T \bm{A} \bm{s} + \bm{s}^T \bm{\theta} \right) \label{eq:gauss:p}
\end{align}
\noindent where we define the precision matrix $\bm{A} \equiv \frac{\bm{1}}{2\sigma_v^2} - \frac{\sigma_h^2}{2} \bm{w} \bm{w}^T$. Now we can also identify the conditions for the existence of the measure $p(\bm{s})$. We need the matrix $\bm{A}$ to be strictly positive definite, hence that the highest eigenvalue of $\bm{w} \bm{w}^T$ remains strictly below $1/(\sigma_v^2 \sigma_h^2)$. More interestingly, the Gaussian prior let us write in closed form the stochastic gradients (in fact we solve the deterministic equation, not the stochastic one), hence given us some hints on the nature of the learning dynamics of non-linear RBMs, since in any case we expect a linear regime to take place at the beginning of the learning process. In the present case, we can rewrite eq. (\ref{eq:sgd:w}) as
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial w_{ia}} &= \frac{1}{M} \sum_d s_i^{(d)} \sigma_h^2 \sum_j s_j^{(d)} w_{ja} - \sigma_h^2 \langle s_i \sum_j s_j \rangle w_{ja} \nonumber \\
&= \sigma_h^2 \left( \sum_j C_{ij}w_{ja} - \sum_j\langle s_i s_j\rangle w_{ja} \right) \nonumber \\
&= \sigma_h^2 \left( \sum_j C_{ij}w_{ja} - \sum_j A_{ij}^{-1} w_{ja} \right) \label{eq:sgd:gauss}
\end{align}
\noindent where $C_{ij} = \langle s_i s_j \rangle_{\rm data} = M^{-1} \sum_d s_i^{(d)} s_j^{(d)}$ is the correlation between the nodes $i$ and $j$ in the dataset, and $\bm{A}^{-1}$ the inverse of the precision matrix. At this point, following\ucite{decelle2018thermodynamics}, it is convenient to use the singular value decomposition (SVD) of $\bm{w}$. We note $w_{ia} = \sum_\alpha u_i^\alpha w_\alpha v_a^\alpha$ the eigen-decomposition of the rectangular weight matrix $\bm{w}$, where the matrix $\bm{u}$ and $\bm{v}$ correspond to the left (resp. right) eigenvectors of $\bm{w}$ associated to the visible (resp. hidden) variables and $w_\alpha$ the eigenvalue associated to the mode $\alpha$. As can be seen in eq. (\ref{eq:gauss:p}), this transformation will diagonalize the interaction term of the Hamiltonian of the system. We can now make the following change of variables
\begin{equation*}
\hat{s}_\alpha = \sum_i u_i^\alpha s_i \;\text{ and }\; \hat{\tau}_\alpha = \sum_a v_a^\alpha \tau_a
\end{equation*}
under this change of variable, the Gaussian measure factorizes where $\sum_{i,j,a} s_i w_{ia} w_{ja} s_j = \sum_\alpha \hat{s}_\alpha w_\alpha^2 \hat{s}_\alpha$ and therefore
\begin{equation*}
-\bm{s}^T \bm{A} \bm{s} = -\frac{1}{2} \sum_\alpha \hat{s}_\alpha \frac{1-\sigma_v^2 \sigma_h^2 w_\alpha^2}{\sigma_v^2} \hat{s}_\alpha
\end{equation*}
Writing the distribution in this new basis we obtain
\[
p(\hat{\bm{s}}) \propto \prod_\alpha \exp\left( -\frac{ \hat{s}_\alpha^2}{2 } \frac{1-\sigma_v^2 \sigma_h^2 w_\alpha^2}{\sigma_v^2} \right)
\]
\noindent Hence, we can obtain an exact equation for the gradient in the basis of the SVD of the weight matrix $\bm{w}$. First, we project the equation eq. (\ref{eq:sgd:gauss}) on the modes $\alpha-\beta$ of the SVD of $\bm{w}$
\begin{align*}
\left( \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \bm{w}} \right)_{\alpha \beta} &= \sum_{ia} u_i^\alpha \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial w_{ia}} v_a^\beta = \sum_{ia} u_i^\alpha \left[ \langle s_i \tau_a \rangle_{\rm data} - \langle s_i \tau_a \rangle_{\mathcal{H}} \right] v_a^\beta \\
&= \langle \hat{s}_\alpha \hat{\tau}_\beta \rangle_{\rm data} - \langle \hat{s}_\alpha \hat{\tau}_\beta \rangle_{\mathcal{H}}
\end{align*}
\noindent Now to simplify we discard the fluctuations associated to the stochastic gradient, by considering instead the full gradient and an infinitesimal learning rate such that we can consider the iteration time to be continuous and identify $\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial w_{ia}} \sim \frac{dw_{ia}}{dt}$. As a result we obtain the time derivative of the matrix $\bm{w}$ decomposed over its eigenmodes
\begin{align*}
\left( \frac{d \bm{w}}{dt} \right)_{\alpha \beta} &= \sum_{ia} u_i^\alpha\left( \frac{d}{dt} \sum_\gamma u_i^\gamma w_\gamma v_a^\gamma \right) v_a^\beta \\
&= \sum_{ia\gamma} u_i^\alpha u_i^{\gamma} \frac{dw_{\gamma}}{dt} v_a^\gamma v_a^\beta + u_i^\alpha \frac{du_i^\gamma}{dt} w_\gamma v_a^\gamma v_a^\beta + u_i^\alpha u_i^\gamma w_\gamma \frac{dv_a^\gamma}{dt} v_a^\beta \\
&= \delta_{\alpha \beta} \frac{dw_{\alpha}}{dt} + (1-\delta_{\alpha \beta})\left( \bm{u}^\alpha \frac{d\bm{u}^\beta}{dt} w_\alpha + w_\beta \frac{d\bm{v}^\alpha}{dt}\bm{v}^\beta \right)
\end{align*}
\noindent This equation shows that, the gradient update of $\bm{w}$ can be decomposed when projected on the SVD basis of $\bm{w}$ into a gradient over the mode $w_\alpha$ and a rotation of the matrices $\bm{u}^\alpha$ and $\bm{v}^\alpha$. Noticing first that $\langle \hat{s}_\alpha \hat{\tau}_\alpha \rangle = \sigma_h^2 w_\alpha \langle \hat{s}^2_\alpha \rangle$, we therefore end up with the following dynamics for the singular values $w_\alpha$:
\begin{align}
\frac{dw_\alpha}{dt} &= \left( \frac{d\bm{w}}{dt} \right)_{\alpha \alpha} = \langle \hat{s}_\alpha \hat{\tau}_\alpha \rangle_{\rm data} - \langle \hat{s}_\alpha \hat{\tau}_\alpha \rangle_{\mathcal{H}} \nonumber\\
&= \sigma_h^2 w_\alpha \left( \langle \hat{s}^2_\alpha \rangle_{\rm data} -\langle \hat{s}^2_\alpha \rangle_{\mathcal{H}} \right) \nonumber\\
&= \sigma_h^2 w_\alpha \left( \langle \hat{s}^2_\alpha \rangle_{\rm data} - \frac{\sigma_v^2}{1-\sigma_v^2 \sigma_h^2 w_\alpha^2} \right) \label{eq:sgd:walpha}
\end{align}
\noindent where in eq (\ref{eq:sgd:walpha}) $\langle \hat{s}^2_\alpha \rangle_{\rm data}$ denotes the variance of the components of the data on the mode $\alpha$:
\[
\langle \hat{s}^2_\alpha \rangle_{\rm data} = \sum_{ia} u_i^{\alpha} \left( \frac{1}{M} \sum_{ij} s_i^{(d)} s_j^{(d)} \right) u_j^{\alpha}
\]
\noindent This first result tells us that when keeping the matrices $\bm{u}$ and $\bm{v}$ fixed, the SGD on the mode $w_\alpha$ will adjust the value of $w_\alpha$ such that the r.h.s matches the variance in the direction given by $\bm{u}^\alpha$, giving the following limit values:
\begin{equation}
w_\alpha^2 = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{ \langle \hat{s}^2_\alpha \rangle_{\rm data} -\sigma_v^2}{\sigma_v^2 \sigma_h^2 \langle \hat{s}^2_\alpha \rangle_{\rm data} } & \text{ if } \langle \hat{s}^2_\alpha \rangle_{\rm data} > \sigma_v^2\\
0 & \text{ if } \langle \hat{s}^2_\alpha \rangle_{\rm data} < \sigma_v^2
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq:w_max}
\end{equation}
\noindent We remark that, if the empirical variance given by the data is smaller than the prior variance of the visible variables the corresponding mode is filtered out. The evolution of the matrices $\bm{u}^\alpha$ and $\bm{v}^\alpha$ can also be obtained~\ucite{decelle2017spectral} from the following expression in the present case\footnote{Actually these equations are given with a wrong sign in~\ucite{decelle2017spectral} which is corrected here.}
\begin{align}
\Omega_{\alpha \beta}^{u} &\equiv \left( \frac{d \bm{u}^\alpha}{dt}\right)^T \bm{u}^\beta =-(1-\delta_{\alpha \beta})\sigma_h^2\left(\frac{w_\beta - w_\alpha}{w_\alpha + w_\beta} - \frac{w_\beta + w_\alpha}{w_\alpha - w_\beta} \right) \langle s_\alpha s_\beta \rangle_{\rm data} \label{eq:sgd_u} \\
\Omega_{\alpha \beta}^{v} &\equiv \left( \frac{d \bm{v}^\alpha}{dt}\right)^T \bm{v}^\beta = -(1-\delta_{\alpha \beta})\sigma_h^2\left(\frac{w_\beta - w_\alpha}{w_\alpha + w_\beta} + \frac{w_\beta + w_\alpha}{w_\alpha - w_\beta} \right) \langle s_\alpha s_\beta \rangle_{\rm data} \label{eq:sgd_v}
\end{align}
\noindent of the infinitesimal rotations of the vectors $\bm{u}^\alpha$ and $\bm{v}^\alpha$. In the particular case of the Gaussian-Gaussian RBM, we can note the absence of term averaged over the model $\langle . \rangle_{\mathcal{H}}$. This is due to the fact that the SVD corresponds to the eigendecomposition of the RBM measure (that is, the Gaussian measure factorizes over the singular modes) and that the eqs (\ref{eq:sgd_u}-\ref{eq:sgd_v}) involve correlation between modes $\alpha \neq \beta$ which are zero here. From eq. (\ref{eq:sgd_u}-\ref{eq:sgd_v}), we see that a steady state is found when a direction $\bm{u}^\alpha$ is found that diagonalizes the empirical covariance matrix of the dataset.
In short, the Gaussian-Gaussian RBM learns the principal components of the dataset and for each principal axes the weight matrix is adjusted until the strength of the corresponding modes $w_\alpha$ reaches the value given by eq. (\ref{eq:w_max}). Of course, modes above threshold acquire a variance which matches the variance of the dataset in this direction $ \langle s_\alpha^2 \rangle_{\mathcal{H}} = \langle s_\alpha^2 \rangle_{\rm data}$. We can somehow say that the Gaussian-Gaussian RBM is performing a sort of SVD of the dataset, keeping only the modes above a given threshold. It is worth noting that an analysis has been done in\ucite{karakida2016dynamical} where it is shown that updating the parameters of the model using the $k$CD approximation converges toward the same solution as the one obtained by maximizing the likelihood of the model.
We can illustrate the learning mechanism in simple cases where it is possible to solve explicitly the dynamics. First assume that the RBM has found the principal axes, i.e. consider the matrices $\bm{u}$ and $\bm{v}$ to be fixed. In this case the quantity $\langle \hat s_\alpha^2 \rangle_{\rm data}$ remains constant. Letting
\[
x_\alpha = \sigma_v^2\sigma_h^2 w_\alpha^2\qquad\text{and}\qquad \delta_\alpha = \frac{\langle \hat s_\alpha^2\rangle_{\rm Data}-\sigma_v^2}{\sigma_v^2},
\]
and rescaling time as $t\sigma_v^2\sigma_h^2\to t$, equation~(\ref{eq:sgd:walpha}) then rewrites as
\[
\dot x_\alpha = 2x_\alpha\bigl(\delta_\alpha-\frac{x_\alpha}{1-x_\alpha}\bigr)
\]
and we obtain a solution of the form
\[
x_\alpha(t) = f_\alpha^{-1}(\delta_\alpha t),
\]
with
\[
f_\alpha(x) = \log\frac{x}{x_\alpha(0)}-\frac{1}{1+\delta_\alpha}\log\frac{\gamma_\alpha-x}{\gamma_\alpha-x_\alpha(0)},\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\gamma_\alpha = \frac{\delta_\alpha}{1+\delta_\alpha}.
\]
For $\delta_\alpha\ll 1$ we get a sigmoid type behaviour
\[
\frac{x_\alpha(t)}{x_\alpha(0)} = \frac{\delta_\alpha e^{\delta_\alpha t}}{\delta_\alpha+x_\alpha(0)\bigl(e^{\delta_\alpha t}-1)}.
\]
To illustrate the rotation of the modes, consider now the situation where there are $2$ modes $u_\alpha$, $\alpha=1,2$ which are a linear combination of
two dominant modes of the data $\{\hat u_1,\hat u_2\}$ with identical orientation taken in this order, all other modes considered to be already properly aligned with the data. Let then $\theta$ represent the angle between $u_1$ and $\hat u_1$ (and also between $u_2$ and $\hat u_2$ see Figure~(\ref{fig:pendulum}). Equation~(\ref{eq:sgd_u}) for this pair of modes rewrites then as
\[
\frac{d\theta}{dt} = -\sigma_h^2\Bigl(\frac{w_\alpha^2+w_\beta^2}{w_\alpha^2-w_\beta^2}\Bigr)\langle s_1 s_2\rangle_{\rm Data}(t),
\]
with
\begin{align*}
\langle s_1 s_2\rangle_{\rm Data}(t) &= \cos\theta\sin\theta\bigl(\langle s_2^2\rangle_{\rm Data}-\langle s_1^2\rangle_{\rm Data}\bigr),\\[0.2cm]
\langle s_1^2\rangle_{\rm Data}(t) &= \cos^2\theta\langle s_1^2\rangle_{\rm Data}+\sin^2\theta\langle s_2^2\rangle_{\rm Data}\\[0.2cm]
\langle s_2^2\rangle_{\rm Data}(t) &= \sin^2\theta\langle s_1^2\rangle_{\rm Data}+\cos^2\theta\langle s_2^2\rangle_{\rm Data}
\end{align*}
so that finally we get a dynamical system of the form
\begin{align}
\dot x_1 &= 2x_1\bigl(\delta_1\cos^2\theta+\delta_2\sin^2\theta-\frac{x_1}{1-x_1}\bigr) \label{eq:x1}\\[0.2cm]
\dot x_2 &= 2x_2\bigl(\delta_1\sin^2\theta+\delta_2\cos^2\theta-\frac{x_2}{1-x_2}\bigr) \label{eq:x2}\\[0.2cm]
\dot\theta &= -\frac{1}{2}(\delta_1-\delta_2)\frac{x_1+x_2}{x_1-x_2}\sin(2\theta) \label{eq:theta}
\end{align}
Note that at fixed $x_1$ and $x_2$ the dynamics of $\theta$ corresponds to the motion of a pendulum w.r.t the variable $\theta' = 4\theta$ shown on Figure~\ref{fig:pendulum}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering{
\resizebox*{0.3\textwidth}{!}{\input{fig/dynamical.pdf_t}}
\hspace{0.5cm}\includegraphics[width=0.62\textwidth]{fig/fig_dyntheta.pdf}}
\caption{Angle between the reference basis given by the data and the moving one given by the RBM shown on the up left panel. Equivalence with the motion of a pendulum is indicated on the left bottom panel.
Solution of (\ref{eq:x1},\ref{eq:x2},\ref{eq:theta}) of two coupled modes in the linear RBM (right panel)}\label{fig:pendulum}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Gaussian-Spherical}
\label{sec:sphrbm}
The Gaussian-Gaussian case is interesting as a solvable model of RBM but of limited scope, since $p(\bm{s})$ reduces in the end to a multivariate Gaussian. Next, a simple non-linear RBM which remains exactly solvable is based on the so-called spherical model\ucite{berlin1952spherical,stanley1968spherical}. For this model, it is possible to compute the phase diagram and the equilibrium states once the coupling matrix is given ---more precisely, when the spectral density of the coupling matrix is given. Here we chose the following priors to impose a spherical constraint on the hidden nodes:
\begin{align*}
q_v(s_i) &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma_v^2}} \exp\left( -\frac{s_i^2}{2 \sigma_v^2}\right) \\
q_h(\bm{\tau}) &= \delta\left(\sum_a \tau_a^2 - \bar{\sigma} \sqrt{N_h N_v}\right)
\end{align*}
\noindent where $\bar{\sigma}$ is a parameter of the model\ucite{decelle2020gaussian}. The interest of such an RBM is first that the spherical constraint can be dealt with analytically\ucite{decelle2020gaussian,genovese2020legendre}. Secondly the model can exhibit a phase transition unlike the Gaussian-Gaussian case. Absorbing the parameter $\sigma_v^2$ in the definition of the weight matrix, to follow the computation of\ucite{decelle2020gaussian}, a simple analysis in the thermodynamic limit tells us that the phase transition takes place when the parameter $\bar{\sigma}$ exceeds the value $\sigma_c$, where $\sigma_c$ depends on the value of the highest mode $w_{\rm max}$ and of the form of the spectrum of $\bm{w}$ (typically, $\sigma_c^2 \propto 1/w_{\rm max}^2$, where the pre-factor depends on the form of the spectrum). The condensation along this mode of the visible (resp. hidden) magnetization is then given by
\begin{align*}
m_\alpha &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{L}}\sum_i u_i^\alpha \langle s_i \rangle_{\mathcal{H}} = w_{\rm max}\bar{\sigma}\sqrt{\bar{\sigma}^2 - \bar{\sigma}_c^2 } \\
\bar{m}_\alpha^2 & =\frac{1}{\sqrt{L}}\sum_a v_a^\alpha \langle \tau_a \rangle_{\mathcal{H}} = \sqrt{\bar{\sigma}^2 - \bar{\sigma}_c^2 }
\end{align*}
\noindent \noindent where we defined $L=\sqrt{N_v N_h}$. This type of RBM is again of limited scope to represent data. In the thermodynamic limit a finite number $n={\cal O}(1)$ of modes can condense. They necessarily accumulate at the top of the spectrum of the weight matrix and represent a distribution concentrated on an $n$-dimensional sphere in absence of external fields while other non-condensed modes are responsible for transverse Gaussian fluctuations. The dynamical aspect of this model will be discussed in Section~(\ref{sec:learning_rbm}).
\noindent To end up this section let us also mention that the finite size regime is amenable to an exact analysis when restricting the weight matrix spectrum to have the property of being doubly degenerated (see\ucite{decelle2020gaussian} for details).
\subsection{Gaussian-Softmax}
The case of the Gaussian mixture if rarely viewed like that, fits actually perfectly the RBM architecture. Consider here the case of Gaussian visible nodes and a set of discrete $\{0,1\}$ hidden variables with a constraint corresponding to the softmax activation function~\ucite{nijman1997symmetry}:
\begin{align*}
q_v(s_i) &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma_v^2}} \exp\left( -\frac{s_i^2}{2 \sigma_v^2}\right), \\
q_h(\bm{\tau}) &= \prod_a \left(\delta_{\tau_a,0} + \delta_{\tau_a,1} \right)\delta_{\sum_{b} \tau_{b},1}.
\end{align*}
\noindent With this formulation, we indeed see that the conditional probability of activating a hidden node is a softmax function
\begin{equation*}
p(\tau_a=1|\bm{s}) = \frac{\exp\left( \sum_i w_{ia} s_i + \eta_a\right)}{\sum_b \exp\left( \sum_i w_{ib} s_i + \eta_b\right)}.
\end{equation*}
\noindent It is easy from this expression to recognize the equations of the Gaussian mixture model (GMM)\ucite{mackay2003information,bishop2006pattern}, where the latent variable $\tau_a$ indicates if a sample belong or not to the center $a$. The position of the associated center is given by the vector $\bm{w}_a$. It is even clearer when writing the marginal over the visible nodes after summing over the hidden nodes in eq. (\ref{eq:bolt})
\begin{align*}
p(\bm{s}) &= \frac{1}{Z} \sum_a \exp\left(\eta_a+\sum_i -\frac{s_i^2}{2\sigma_v^2} + \theta_i s_i + s_i w_{i a} \right) \\
&= \frac{1}{Z} \sum_a \exp\left(\eta_a+\sum_i -\frac{1}{2\sigma_v^2}\left(s_i - \sigma_v^2[w_{ia} + \theta_i]^2 \right)^2 +\frac{1}{2}\sigma_v^2 [w_{ia} + \theta_i]\right)\\
&= \frac{1}{Z'} \sum_a \rho_a \exp\left(\sum_i -\frac{1}{2\sigma_v^2}\left(s_i - \sigma_v^2[w_{ia} + \theta_i]^2 \right)^2 \right)
\end{align*}
\noindent by identifying
\begin{equation}
\rho_a \equiv \frac{\exp\left(\eta_a + \sum_i \left(\sigma_v^2 w_{ia} + \sigma_v^2 \theta_i \right)^2 \right)}{\sum_b \exp\left(\eta_b + \sum_i \left(\sigma_v^2 w_{ib} + \sigma_v^2 \theta_i \right)^2 \right)} \label{eq:def:rho}
\end{equation}
\noindent the weight of the mode $a$ in the Gaussian mixture centered in $\bm{w}_a$. Now we can see that the extra parameter $\theta_i$ can be absorbed in the definition of the weight matrix $w'_{ia} = w_{ia} + \theta_i$. It turns out that the positive term of the gradient in equation (\ref{eq:sgd:w}) (ignoring $\rho_a$) corresponds to the gradient that is obtained in the GMM. This can be reformulated into the Expectation Maximization (EM) update by considering that $p(\tau_a|\bm{s})$ do not depend on $w_{ia}$, hence doing the ``expectation'' step:
\begin{equation}
\langle s_i \tau_a \rangle_{\rm data} = \frac{1}{M} \sum_d \left(s_i^{(d)} - \sigma_v^2 w_{ia}\right) p(\tau_a | \bm{s}^{(d)}) \label{eq:gmm:em1}
\end{equation}
\noindent If we impose that the gradient is zero, doing now the ``maximization'' step, we obtain
\begin{equation}
w_{ia}^{(t+1)} = \frac{\sum_d s_i^{(d)} p(\tau_a|\bm{s}^{(d)})}{\sigma_v^2 \sum_d p(\tau_a|\bm{s}^{(d)})} \label{eq:gmm:em2}
\end{equation}
\noindent where the l.h.s. is to be understood as the new values for the parameters $w_{ia}$ while the conditional distribution on the r.h.s. depends on $w_{ia}^{(t)}$. For an RBM, one would also compute the negative term of the gradient, involving the derivative of $\rho_a$ w.r.t. $w_{ia}$. We obtain the negative term
\begin{equation}
\langle s_i \tau_a \rangle_{\mathcal{H}} = \frac{1}{M} \sum_d \sigma_v^2 w_{ia}\left[p(\tau_a | \bm{s}^{(d)}) - \rho_a \right] \label{eq:rho:gmm}
\end{equation}
\noindent Again, we can recover with equation (\ref{eq:rho:gmm}) the EM update for the density of the Gaussian mode $a$ in the GMM, by first considering that the conditioned distribution $p(\tau_a|\bm{s}^{(d)})$ does not depend on $w_{ia}$ (expectation step) and by putting the l.h.s. to zero (maximization step). The fact that when using the RBM formalism we do not obtain directly the same EM equations as in the GMM is due to the different parametrization of the parameters. In the GMM, the density of each Gaussian is defined right from the beginning as an independent parameter while when using the RBM, the density of the Gaussian depends on other parameters such as the weight matrix $\bm{w}$.
\paragraph{Phase transition in the learning process ---} an interesting phenomena occurs in this model when learning position of the centers of the Gaussian while submitting the variances $\sigma_v$ of the Gaussian to an annealing process\ucite{rose1990statistical}. First of all, starting from a very high variance (equivalently, very high temperature), we can convince ourselves that the learning will end up finding the center of mass of the dataset. Let us therefore consider that we centered the dataset beforehand: $\sum_d s_i^{(d)} = 0$, $\forall i$. Then, reducing slowly the variance of each component of the mixture, we can look for the moment at which point the degenerate solution corresponding to all the centers placed at the center of masses of the dataset becomes unstable. Linearizing the EM equations (\ref{eq:gmm:em2}) around this point with $\eta_a=0$ and $w_{ia} \approx 0 + \epsilon_{ia}$, where the $\bm{\epsilon}$ are small perturbations, we can derive the threshold where the linear perturbations get amplified. The linear stability analysis leads to the following equations for the perturbation $\epsilon$:
\begin{align*}
\epsilon_{ia}^{(t+1)} &\approx \frac{\sum_d s_i^{(d)} (1 + \sum_j s_j^{(d)} \epsilon_{ja}^{(t)} - \frac{1}{N_h}\sum_{jb} s_j^{(d)}\epsilon_{jb}^{(t)})}{\sigma_v^2 \sum_d (1 + \sum_j s_j^{(d)}\epsilon_{ja}^{(t)} - \frac{1}{N_h}\sum_{jb} s_j^{(d)} \epsilon_{jb}^{(t)})} \\
&= \frac{1}{\sigma_v^2}\sum_j c_{ij} \left( \epsilon_{ja}^{(t)} - \frac{1}{N_h} \sum_b \epsilon_{jb}^{(t)} \right)
\end{align*}
\noindent where $c_{ij}$ is the covariance matrix of the dataset. From this expression, one sees that when the variance is higher that the largest eigenvalue $\Lambda_C$ of $\bm{c}$, i.e. $\sigma_v^2> \Lambda_C$, the solution $w_{ia}=0$ is stable. Then, when $\sigma_v^2 < \Lambda_C$, the solution is unstable and the system starts to learn something more about the dataset besides its center of mass. It is interesting to note that this threshold is very similar to the one obtained in equation (\ref{eq:w_max}) for the Gaussian-Gaussian RBM. In this model, it is then possible to study the cascade of phase transition, occurring in a hierarchical way on structured datasets\ucite{Kloppenburg1997,Kappen2000}. We stress here that, even if it is possible to project the learning equations on the SVD of the weight matrix as in the two previous analysis, it does not provide much more insight since this case cannot be solved exactly by this transformation.
It is also interesting to investigate the behavior of the exact gradient (not using EM) in the presence of a learning rate $\gamma$. When using the gradient, the update equations are given by $w_{ia}^{(t+1)} = w_{ia}^{(t)} + \gamma \Delta w_{ia}$. In that case we obtain the following equation for the linear stability
\begin{equation*}
\epsilon_{ia}^{(t+1)} = (1-\gamma) \epsilon_{ia}^{(t)} + \frac{\gamma}{\sigma_v^2} \sum_j c_{ij} \left( \epsilon_{ja}^{(t)} - \frac{1}{N_h} \sum_b \epsilon_{jb}^{(t)} \right)
\end{equation*}
\noindent Interestingly, the threshold does not depend on the value of $\gamma$ in that case, meaning that the instability is a generic properties of the learning dynamics. The only change is the speed with which the instabilities will develop.
\subsection{Bernoulli-Gaussian RBM}
The next case is the Bernoulli-Gaussian RBM where we consider the following prior
\begin{align*}
q_v(s_i) &= \frac{1}{2}\left( \delta_{s_i,0} + \delta_{s_i,1}\right), \\
q_h(\tau_a) &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma_h^2}} \exp\left( -\frac{\tau_a^2}{2 \sigma_h^2}\right).
\end{align*}
\noindent Again, a Gaussian prior implies that the activation function is Gaussian. It is interesting to consider this version of the RBM through its relation with the Hopfield model\ucite{hopfield1982neural} realized in\ucite{BaBeSaCo}. Since the hidden variables are Gaussian they can be integrated out which leads to a simple analytical form for the marginals of the visible variables. In some recent works, the opposite approach has been done, starting with an Hopfield model and expressing it as a RBM using the Hubbard-Stratonovitch (HS) transformation (expressing the exponential of a square as Gaussian integral) to decouple the interactions between each spin\ucite{mezard2017mean,shimagaki2019selection}. After integrating over the hidden nodes in eq. (\ref{eq:bolt}), we end up with the following distribution
\begin{equation*}
p(\bm{s}) = \frac{1}{Z}\exp\left( \frac{\sigma_h^2}{2}\sum_{ij} s_i s_j \left[\sum_a w_{ia} w_{ja} \right] \right)
\end{equation*}
\noindent We recognize a Hopfield model where the patterns are given by the weights $w_{ia}$ of the RBM and the effective coupling between two variables $i$ and $j$ is $J_{ij} = \sum_a w_{ia} w_{ja}$. We can also consider that the variances of the hidden nodes is related to the temperature of the model.
Some experiments have been conducted in\ucite{decelle2019inverse} in order to compare the learning process of the Hopfield model versus the Bernoulli-Gaussian RBM on artificial data generated from an Hopfield model with dicrete patterns. It is interesting to note that, when assuming discrete patterns, the inverse procedure can be formulated in terms of an approximated Hopfield model. Thus, the inference of the pattern can be done directly using a set of TAP equations of the Hopfield model, and it has been shown that the artificial patterns were inferred exacltly. When using the RBM's formulation, in the absence of information over the patterns, only the subspace covered by the patterns were retrieved with a weak overlap with the true patterns. In fact, in that case the marginal over the visible nodes is a function of $\bm{w} \bm{w}^T$, which is invariant by rotation of the $\bm{v}$ matrix. It explains why the learned weight matrix in the RBM context does not overlap with the true patterns.
With this machine, it is also possible to impose a maximum rank in order to reduce the number of parameters needed to describe the dataset giving the possibility of a trade-off between a good description of the dataset and the number of parameters. This properties has been used in\ucite{shimagaki2019selection} to find global patterns in protein foldings, using the RBM version of the Hopfield model with $q$ discrete states.
\subsection{Gaussian-Bernoulli RBM}
At this point we now focus on models where the hidden layers will have a stronger impact. The integration of the hidden layer will not end up in a simple analytical form and therefore will make it difficult to understand the effect of the features and to characterize properly the learning dynamics. We first mention the Gaussian-Bernoulli case dealing with the following priors:
\begin{align}
q_v(s_i) &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma_v^2}} \exp\left( -\frac{s_i^2}{2 \sigma_v^2}\right), \label{eq:prior:GB1}\\
q_h(\tau_a) &= \frac{1}{2}\left( \delta_{\tau_a,0} + \delta_{\tau_a,1}\right). \label{eq:prior:GB2}
\end{align}
\noindent When using the discrete $\{0,1\}$ variables, we obtain the sigmoid activation function for the hidden nodes
\begin{equation*}
p(\tau_a = 1|\bm{s}) = \frac{1}{1+\exp(-\sum_i w_{ia} s_i + \eta_a)}.
\end{equation*}
\noindent With this parameterization, it is natural to interpret a hidden node $\tau$ as an active feature when $\tau=1$ and an inactive one if $\tau=0$. When responding to a given input through the conditional probability $p(\bm{\tau}|\bm{s})$, the machine is turning on the hidden nodes corresponding to overlapping features with the input. Therefore, the input undergoes a non-linear decomposition on the learned features. Saying it that way, it is somewhat reminiscent of the Independent Component Analysis\ucite{hyvarinen2000independent} where a matrix $X$ is factorized on a set of independent sources or components $\bm{y}$: $\bm{x} = \bm{A}\bm{y}$. The sources here are independent in the sense that they are independently distributed. In the context of ICA, the goal is to find the inverse of the mixing matrix in order to recover the sources from the received signal. Concerning this particular RBM, it is proven\ucite{karakida2016dynamical} that under some assumptions --- (i) having the same number of visible and hidden nodes, (ii) that the signal comes from a set of independent sources and (iii) that the variance of the visible variables is much smaller than the mean of the signal--- there exists a stable solution for the learning dynamics where the learned weight matrix corresponds to the un-mixing matrix of the signal. In this regime, the RBM acts as an ICA. In other words, if the signal $\bm{s}^d$ used as an input for the RBM can be written as a mixture of sources: $\bm{s} = \bm{A} \bm{y}$, a stable solution of the learning process consists in recovering the inverse mixing matrix in the weight matrix: $\bm{w} = \bm{A}^{-1}$.
To end up with this variant of the RBM, it is interesting to note that the prior variance of the visible variables here is in principle a fixed parameter. It has been noted that when using the prior (\ref{eq:prior:GB1}-\ref{eq:prior:GB2}) the mean of the conditional distribution over the visible $p(s_i|\bm{\tau})$ is stretched by the variance $\sigma_v$. It might be useful to remove this effect by renormalizing the weight matrix and the visible biases as in\ucite{cho2011improved} : $\bm{w} \rightarrow \bm{w}/\sigma_v^2$ and $\theta_i \rightarrow \theta_i/\sigma_v^2$. Using this parametrization, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
p(s_i|\bm{\tau}) \approx \mathcal{N}(\theta_i + \sum_a w_{ia} \tau_a,\sigma_v^2),
\end{equation*}
\noindent where $\mathcal{N}$ represents the normal distribution. Note that it is possible to include the learning of these parameters in the likelihood ascent as in\ucite{cho2011improved}. It is however important to stress here that even if appealing, the possibility to tune the variance of each visible node doesn't solve the problem of learning individual variances of separated clusters in a dataset. Indeed, consider the problem where the dataset is formed of many well-separated clusters with distinct variances. For a given visible node $i$, its variance computed over the whole dataset or instead over a given cluster have no reason to coincide. And the the prior variance if properly learned will only account for the global variance of this node. This should involve
a more complex setting of the RBM which we won't discuss here in order to account for individual variances of clusters in a complex dataset.
\subsection{Bernoulli-Bernoulli RBM}
The last model here is traditionally the one which is implied when speaking of RBM. In that case both the visible and hidden nodes are in $\{0,1\}$ with the following priors
\begin{align*}
q_v(s_i) &= \frac{1}{2}\left( \delta_{s_i,0} + \delta_{s_i,1}\right), \\
q_h(\tau_a) &= \frac{1}{2}\left( \delta_{\tau_a,0} + \delta_{\tau_a,1}\right).
\end{align*}
\noindent The activation functions are sigmoid functions, for both the hidden and visible nodes
\begin{align}
p(s_i = 1|\bm{\tau}) &= \frac{1}{1+\exp(-\sum_a w_{ia} \tau_a + \theta_i)}, \\
p(\tau_a=1|\bm{s}) &= \frac{1}{1+\exp(-\sum_i w_{ia} s_i + \eta_a)}.
\end{align}
In that case, the prior distribution has the advantage of not having any free parameter to be determined. In practice this model is used when dealing with a discrete dataset while the Gaussian-Benoulli is for continuous ones. This model can also be generalized to the case where the hidden nodes take more than two states, see\ucite{yokoyama2019restricted} for more details on this approach.
\paragraph{Rectified Linear Units (RELU) ---} Let us briefly mention how the Bernoulli prior on the hidden nodes can be linked to the RELU activation function\ucite{hahnloser2000digital} for the RBM. In a work by Teh et al\ucite{teh2001rate}, was highlighted one important shortcoming with Bernoulli prior. With the hidden variable in $\{0,1\}$, a given pattern can be expressed $\tau=1$, or not $\tau=0$. Therefore the influence of a feature is binary, either $0$, either a fixed amount given by the value of $\bm{w}$: it is not possible to tune this amount as a function of how strongly a hidden node responds to a visible configuration. Of course it is possible for the machine to learn many times the same pattern, but this doesn't seem very efficient. A simple idea to correct this problem is to duplicate many time a hidden node, keeping the same features and bias values. Then, if the probability of turning on this hidden node is $p$, the average number of activated hidden nodes for this feature will be $Np$ giving the possibility to tune the intensity of the feature.
Generalizing this idea, it is possible to construct an infinite number of replica\ucite{nair2010rectified}, adjusting the bias for each of them such that in order to activate more and more neurons it is necessary that the signal $\sum_i w_i s_i$ is stronger and stronger. Let us focus for a moment on a single hidden nodes with a feature $w_i$ and a bias $\eta$ along with its replicas $a'=1, \dots,N_r$. We denote $r=\sum_i w_i s_i + \eta$ the potential associated for this neuron given the signal $\bm{s}$. The number of activated replica will be given by
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{N_r}}\sum_{a'=0}^{N_r-1} {\rm sig}\left(r(1 - a'/\sqrt{N_r} \right)) \underset{N_r \to \infty}{\approx} \log(1+\exp(r)) \label{eq:relu1}
\end{equation}
\noindent where we defined the sigmoid function ${\rm sig}(x)=(1+\exp(-x))^{-1}$. The r.h.s. of eq. (\ref{eq:relu1}) is very close to the RELU activation function ${\rm RELU}(x) = {\rm max}(0,x)$, hence showing that having all these replicas gives a similar activation function as RELU. In practice, it is not very efficient to have a large number of sigmoids for the training algorithm. An approximation is found by using the truncated Gaussian distribution. The average number of activated replica is then given by
\begin{equation}
\tau_a = {\rm max}(0,r+ \mathcal{N}(0,\sigma_a)) \label{eq:relu_act}
\end{equation}
\noindent where now $\tau_a$ is a RELU hidden node and $\sigma_a$ is the variance associated with the number of activated replicas for the hidden node $a$. Eq. (\ref{eq:relu_act}) can now be seen as an approximation of the Truncated-Gaussian prior for the hidden nodes
\begin{equation}
q_h(\tau_a) \propto \delta_{\tau_a>0}\ \exp(-\frac{\tau_a^2}{2 \sigma_h})
\end{equation}
In the following section, we will focus mainly on the Bernoulli-Bernoulli setting, its equilibrium phase diagram and its learning dynamics in the mean-field regime.
\section{Phase diagram of the Bernoulli-Bernoulli RBM}
\label{sec:phase_diag}
In this section, we discuss various aspects of the phase diagram of the Bernoulli-Bernoulli RBM. In the rest of the section we will use $\{\pm1\}$ instead of the usual $\{0,1\}$ for commodity. There are (at least) two series of works dealing with the RBM in the thermodynamic limit, each of them making different hypothesis on the statistical ensemble from which the RBM is taken. In the first one\ucite{barra2018phase,tubiana2017emergence} the weight matrix is taken from a simple statistical ensemble with iid elements and possibly additional sparse constraints on the patterns as will be explained in Section~\ref{sec:rbm:rbm}. In the second one\ucite{decelle2017spectral,decelle2018thermodynamics} it is assumes that the weight matrix contains a structured part of rank $K={\cal O}(1)$ in addition to a random matrix corresponding to noise; the main results of this approach will be exposed in Section~\ref{sec:svd:rbm}. Both approaches are based on the replica computation\ucite{mezard1987spin} of the free energy. For systems with quenched disorder, this is a classical approach (the replicas or its equivalent formulation) to find the macroscopic behavior\ucite{barra2018phase,huang2017statistical,tubia2018,agliari2019free,hartnett2018replica}.
\subsection{Mean-field approach, the random-RBM}
\label{sec:rbm:rbm}
This MF approach to the macroscopic behavior of the RBM is based on statistical ensembles with iid elements of the weight matrix. Here, a random ensemble for the weight matrix is defined as follows. The weight matrix will be constructed using binary pattern: $w_{ia} = \frac{\xi_{ia}}{\sqrt{N_v}}$. Now, each pattern is selected to be
\begin{equation}
\xi_{ia} = \left\{\begin{array}{lll}
0 & p_r \sim 1-p_i \\
+1 & p_r \sim p_i/2 \\
-1 & p_r \sim p_i/2
\end{array} \label{eq:dilution}\right.
\end{equation}
\noindent Using this definition, the degree of sparsity of the system is $p = \sum_i p_i/N_v$. The term random-RBM was coined by Tubiana et al.\ucite{tubiana2017emergence} but Agliari et al.\ucite{agliari2012multitasking,agliari2014multitasking} worked on a similar model although with a different theoretical approach. In particular, they computed the phase diagram in\ucite{barra2018phase}. We start by reproducing here the argument of Agliari that was developed for the RBM with a finite number of patterns before switching to the replica computation done in Tubiana's thesis\ucite{tubia2018}.
\paragraph{Parallel retrieving ---} the usual definition of the Hopfield model (which we recall here is analogous to a Binary-Gauss RBM, see Section~\ref{sec:link_rbm}), consists in using extensive pattern $\xi_i^a = \pm 1/\sqrt{N_v}$ for all $i=1,\dots,N_v$, where $a=1,\dots,P$, $P$ being the number of patterns. The Hopfield model in the low storage regime, where the number of pattern is fixed, or scales logarithmically with the system size, is characterized by a low temperature regime made of configurations with an extensive overlap with \textit{one} of the patterns. This model can be recovered from a binary-binary RBM where the number of hidden nodes has the same scaling. Hence, having $N_h \sim \log(N_v)$, we can write exactly the partition function of the binary-binary RBM in the limit of large system size
\begin{align*}
Z &= \sum_{\{\bm{s}\},\{\bm{\tau}\}} \exp\left( \beta \sum_{i,a} s_i w_{ia} \tau_a \right) \\
&= \sum_{\{\bm{s}\}} \prod_a \cosh\left( \frac{\beta}{\sqrt{N_v}}\sum_i w_{ia} s_i \right) \approx \sum_{\{\bm{s}\}} \exp\left( \frac{\beta^2}{2 N_v} \sum_{i,j} \sum_a w_{ia} w_{ja} s_i s_j \right) \\
&= \sum_{\{\bm{s}\}} \exp\left( \frac{N_v \beta^2}{2} \sum_a m_a(\bm{s})^2 \right)
\end{align*}
recovering the Hopfield model with a square inverse temperature, and where we define the magnetization along the pattern $a$ as $m_a(\bm{s})$. In\ucite{agliari2012multitasking}, the authors considered a weight dilution as in eq. (\ref{eq:dilution}) applied to the above binary-binary RBM, or equivalently to a Hopfield model with a rescaled temperature. It is important to mention that it is a different procedure than diluting the network itself, see\ucite{wemmenhove2003finite} for more details on the other case. Having sparse patterns allows the network to retrieve more than one pattern at a time. In particular, global minima of the free energy can have an overlap with many patterns and locally stable states can be composed of a complex mixture of patterns. We reproduce below on Figure~\ref{fig:agliari} the plot from the article\ucite{agliari2012multitasking} showing the overlap over three and six patterns in the (almost) zero temperature limit. We observe on the left panel that one pattern is fully retrieved when the dilution is low. Then, when increasing $p_i$, more and more patterns are retrieved together until the system enters a paramagnetic phase at high dilution.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=1.1]{fig/fig_agliari.pdf}
\caption{From\ucite{agliari2012multitasking}. Overlap with different patterns when varying the dilution factor $p$ (named $d$ on the figure) at low temperature. \textbf{Left:} a case with $3$ patterns where we can observe how at small dilution, only one pattern is fully retrieved while the second and third one appear for larger dilution. \textbf{Right:} a case with $6$ patterns where the figure is zoomed in the high dilution region where the branching phenomena is occurring and all the overlaps converge toward the same value.}
\label{fig:agliari}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Replica approach of the random-RBM ---} We will now follow the approach of Tubiana et al.\ucite{tubia2018} and give more details on the derivation. This approach is based on a Bernoulli-RELU architecture giving the possibility to have continuous positive value for the hidden variables.
The characterization of the phase diagram is based on the determination of the free energy in thermodynamic limits. Given the weight ensemble (see eq. (\ref{eq:dilution})), the weight matrix is now made of independent and sparse elements. In this context, the replica analysis can be used to perform the quenched average. The replicated interaction term can be first easily computed and gives
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E}_{\bm{w}} \left[ \exp\left(\beta \sum_{p} s_i^p w_{ia} \tau^p_a \right)\right] \approx \exp\left( \frac{p_i \beta^2}{2N} \sum_{pq} s_i^p s_i^q \tau_a^p \tau_a^q \right)
\end{equation*}
\noindent for the interaction term $(ia)$. The interaction between the visible and hidden nodes can be decoupled using the HS transformation
\begin{equation*}
\exp\left( \frac{p_i^2 \beta^2}{2N} \sum_{pq} s_i^p s_i^q \tau_a^p \tau_a^q \right) \sim \int \prod_{pq} \frac{dq_{pq}d\bar{q}_{pq}}{2\pi} \exp\left( -N \beta ( q_{pq} \bar{q}_{pq} - q_{pq} \frac{p_i}{p} s_i^p s_i^q - \frac{1}{2}\beta p \tau_a^p \tau_a^q )\right)
\end{equation*}
introducing the spin-glass order parameter over the replicas (we denoted by $p,q,\dots$, the replica index):
\begin{align*}
\bar{q}_{pq} \sim& \mathbb{E}_{w}[\langle \tau_a^{q} \tau_a^{p} \rangle]\\
q_{pq} \sim& \mathbb{E}_{w}[\langle (p_i/p) s_i^{q} s_i^{p} \rangle]
\end{align*}
where we note that the parameters over the visible nodes are weighted by the sparsity of the network. Using the replica symmetric ansatz, the quenched free energy can be computed and from it a set of order parameters emerges. An new order parameter is introduced in their derivation: the number $\tilde{L}$ of hidden nodes that have a macroscopic activation $\sim \mathcal{O}(m\sqrt{N})$, while the other ones remain silents (of order $1$). This parameter is reminiscent from the replica approach of the Hopfield model\ucite{AmGuSo1,AmGuSo2,AmGuSo3}. In this approach, the number of pattern that can be expressed is fixed, in order to investigate the stability of retrieving one or more patterns. The important difference here is that the sparsity $p$ imposes that the diluted weights can let many patterns to be expressed at the same time. Hence, the phase diagram will be characterized by, the value of the weight sparsity $p$ and $\tilde{L}$ the number of activated hidden nodes. The phase diagram is computed numerically, by scanning the possible value for the order parameters (see\ucite{tubia2018} for more details). It is found that when
\begin{itemize}
\item $p=1$ and $\tilde{L}=1$: no sparsity and only one hidden node is activated. At low temperature, it gives back the behavior of the well-known Hopfield model having a recall phase of the patterns. An interesting additional result when using ReLu activations is that the capacity of the network can be increased by playing with the bias on the hidden nodes, at the cost of reducing the basin of attraction of the patterns.
\item $p<1$ a ferromagnetic transition is found when imposing $\tilde{L}=1$, where one pattern is recalled at a time.
\item $p<1$, when all the hidden nodes are all weakly activated, a SG phase is found.
\item $p<1$ and $\tilde{L}$ is such that $1 \ll \tilde{L} \ll N_h$; a {\it compositional phase} is numerically identified. It is characterized by an intermediate number of hidden nodes strongly activated.
\end{itemize}
\noindent In this analysis, it is demonstrated that in the possible \textit{equilibrium behaviors} of the random-RBM, an interesting phase mixing many patterns is present that characterizes in some way the efficient working regime of a learned RBM. It is of course a simplified case where the patterns are $\{\pm1\}$ with a certain dilution factor. Now, the fact that there exists a family of weights where this phase exists is quite different from showing that the learning dynamics converges toward such a phase and how. In Tubiana's thesis, a stability analysis of the different phases is done showing that for a range of parameters of the RBM, the compositional phase is indeed the dominant one. Then, a certain number of numerical results are provided on the MNIST dataset which tends to confirm that the behavior of the learned RBM looks similar to a "compositional phase". It would therefore be of great interest to characterize the learning curve theoretically in order to understand how this phase is reached. It is also interesting to mention a recent work investigating the role of the diluted weights\ucite{huang2018role} during the learning in a RBM with one hidden node. In this article, it is shown that the proportion of diluted weights tends to vanish during the learning procedure. This might be a signal that when the number of hidden features is very low, the RBM automatically adjusts itself in the ferromagnetic phase described above, learning a global pattern of the dataset.
\subsection{Mean-field approach using rank $K$ weight matrix}
\label{sec:svd:rbm}
The difficulty with the RBM is to be able to study the phase diagram of the model without discarding the fact that during the learning, the weights $w_{ia}$ become correlated between each others: starting from independently distributed $w_{ia}$, we can observe how the spectrum of the weight matrix is modified during the learning (see Figure \ref{fig:mnist_svd_modes} for instance). Classical approaches in statistical mechanics consider a set of independent weights, all identically distributed, before trying to compute the quenched free energy of the system by the replica trick\footnote{in few words, considering the quantity $Z^n$ for a given (integer) $n$, where $Z$ is the partition function, for small $n$, we can develop $Z^n \approx 1 + n\log(Z)$. The key point here is that it is generally possible to compute the quenched $Z^n$ and then making a small $n$ expansion.}. In the present case the hypothesis of independent weights cannot hold, as can be seen by looking at the spectrum of the weight matrix at the beginning of the learning and a few iterations later. The absorption of information by the machine prompts the development of strong correlations. This phenomena is illustrated in Section~\ref{sec:learning:svd_ica} on Figure~\ref{fig:mnist_svd_modes}. In order to understand how these eigenvalues affect the phase diagram of the system, it is reasonable to assume a particular statistical ensemble of the weight matrix of the form
\begin{equation}
w_{ia} = \sum_{\alpha=1}^K u_i^\alpha w_\alpha v_a^\alpha + r_{ia} \label{eq:form_w}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $K \ll N_v$, assuming a low-rank decomposition of the weight matrix plus some random noise $r_{ia}$, where $\bm{r}$ is a random matrix with iid centered Gaussian elements with variance $\sigma$. With this decomposition we assume that the eigenvalues $w_\alpha$ correspond to some intrinsic property of a learned dataset, while the matrix, $\bm{r}$, $\bm{u}$ and $\bm{v}$ can be treated as quenched disorder and averaged over. The set of vectors $\bm{u}^\alpha$ and $\bm{v}^\alpha$ correspond approximately to the left and right eigenvectors of the matrix $\bm{w}$. We can thus start to average $Z^n$ over all these variables. Starting with the average over the random matrix $\bm{r}$, it introduces the following interaction term $ \sum_{ia,p\neq q} s_i^{p} s_i^{q} \tau_a^{p} \tau_a^{q}$, where $p,q$ runs over the $n$ replicas. In this term, it is possible to decouple the interaction between the visible and the hidden nodes by introducing the overlap parameters
\begin{align}
Q_{pq} \sim& \mathbb{E}_{r,v,u}[\langle \tau_a^{q} \tau_a^{p} \rangle] \label{eq:def:ov1}\\
\bar{Q}_{pq} \sim& \mathbb{E}_{r,v,u}[\langle s_i^{q} s_i^{p} \rangle] \label{eq:def:ov2}
\end{align}
\noindent Then, the form of the weight matrix, eq. (\ref{eq:form_w}) leads to the following change of variabl
\begin{align*}
s_\alpha = \frac{1}{\sqrt{L}} \sum_i s_i u_i^\alpha \\
\tau_\alpha = \frac{1}{\sqrt{L}} \sum_a \tau_a v_a^\alpha
\end{align*}
\noindent where $L=\sqrt{N_v N_h}$. It corresponds to the projection of the visible and hidden variables over the matrix $\bm{u}$ and $\bm{v}$ coming from the SVD of $\bm{w}$. With this projection we will be able to define the order parameters of the system as the condensation of the visible and hidden nodes over the SVD modes of $\bm{w}$. Using again the Hubbard-Stratanovitch (HS) transformation in order to define the replicated magnetization
\begin{equation*}
\exp\left( \sum_{ia} s_i^p w_{ia} \tau_a^p \right) = \exp\left( \sum_{\alpha} w_{\alpha} s_\alpha^p \tau_\alpha^p \right) \propto \int \prod_\alpha \frac{dm_\alpha^p d\bar{m}_\alpha^p}{2\pi} \exp\left(-L\sum_\alpha w_\alpha (m_\alpha^p \bar{m}_\alpha^p - m_\alpha^p s_\alpha^p - \bar{m}_\alpha^p \tau_\alpha^p) \right) \nonumber
\end{equation*}
\noindent we obtain two additional order parameters
\begin{align*}
m_\alpha^p \sim& \mathbb{E}_{r,v,u}[\langle \tau_a^{p} \rangle] \\
\bar{m}_\alpha^p \sim& \mathbb{E}_{r,v,u}[\langle s_i^{p} \rangle]
\end{align*}
\noindent namely the condensation of the visible (resp. hidden) nodes along the SVD modes of $\bm{w}$. After some computation, the replicated free energy is obtained
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}_{u,v,r}[Z^n] &= \int \prod_{p,\alpha}\frac{dm_\alpha^p d\bar m_\alpha^p}{2\pi}\prod_{p\ne q}\frac{dQ_{pq}d\bar Q_{pq}}{2\pi} \nonumber\\[0.2cm]
&\times\exp\Bigl\{-L\Bigl(\sum_{p,\alpha}w_\alpha m_\alpha^p \bar{m}^p_\alpha+\frac{\sigma^2}{2}\sum_{p\ne q}Q_{pq}\bar Q_{pq}-\frac{1}{\sqrt{\kappa}}A[m,Q]
-\sqrt{\kappa}B[\bar m,\bar Q]\Bigr)\Bigr\} \label{eq:mf:FE}
\end{align}
\noindent where $\mathbb{E}$ indicates an average over the variables that are in subscripts and $\kappa=N_h/N_v$. The quantities $A$ and $B$ are given by
\begin{align}
A[m,Q] &\equiv \log\Bigl[\sum_{S^a\in\{-1,1\}}\mathbb{E}_u \Bigl(e^{\frac{\sqrt{\kappa}\sigma^2}{2}\sum_{p\ne q}Q_{pq}S^p S^q
+\kappa^{\frac{1}{4}}\sum_{p,\alpha}(w_\alpha m_\alpha^p -\eta_\alpha)u^\alpha S^p}\Bigr)\Bigr],\label{eq:Ap}\\[0.2cm]
B[\bar m,\bar Q] &\equiv \log\Bigl[\sum_{S^p\in\{-1,1\}}
\mathbb{E}_v \Bigl(e^{\frac{\sqrt{\kappa}\sigma^2}{2}\sum_{p\ne q}\bar Q_{pq}\tau^p \tau^q +\kappa^{-\frac{1}{4}}\sum_{p,\alpha}(w_\alpha \bar m_\alpha^p -\theta_\alpha)v^\alpha \tau^p}\Bigr)\Bigr].\label{eq:Bp}
\end{align}
\noindent In order to avoid more cumbersome computations we will skip the details, the interested reader being referred to\ucite{decelle2018thermodynamics}. The phase diagram of the model is based on the behaviour of the order parameters $Q$, $\bar{Q}$, $m$ and $\bar{m}$. After taking the saddle point of the free energy in the limit $L\to \infty$ keeping $\kappa$ fixed, using the replica symmetric ansatz and letting the number of replica go to zero, it is possible to distinguish different phases according to the values of the order parameters solutions to the saddle point equations. The order parameters of the systems in the replica symmetric phase are the condensation over the SVD modes (both for the visible and hidden nodes) $\hat{m}_\alpha$ and $m_\alpha$ and the overlaps $\hat{q}$ and $q$. The saddle point equations of the free energy leads to the following self-consistent equations for the order parameters:
\begin{align}
m_\alpha &= \kappa^{\frac{1}{4}}\mathbb{E}_{v,x}\Bigl[v^\alpha\tanh\bigl(\bar h(x,v)\bigr)\Bigr]\qquad\qquad
q = \mathbb{E}_{v,x}\Bigr[\tanh^2\bigl(\bar h(x,v)\bigr)\Bigr],\label{eq:mf1}\\[0.2cm]
\bar m_\alpha &= \kappa^{-\frac{1}{4}}\mathbb{E}_{u,x}\Bigl[u^\alpha\tanh\bigl(h(x,u)\bigr)\Bigr]
\qquad\qquad \bar q = \mathbb{E}_{u,x}\Bigl[\tanh^2\bigl(h(x,u)\bigr)\Bigr],\label{eq:mf2}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
h(x,u) &= \kappa^{\frac{1}{4}}\bigl(\sigma\sqrt{q}x+\sum_\gamma (w_\gamma m_\gamma-\eta_\gamma) u^\gamma\bigr),\\[0.2cm]
\bar h(x,v) &= \kappa^{-\frac{1}{4}}\bigl(\sigma\sqrt{\bar q}x+\sum_\gamma (w_\gamma\bar m_\gamma-\theta_\gamma) v^\gamma\bigr).
\end{align*}
\noindent A first look at the equations for the magnetization over the mode $\alpha$ tells us that they correspond to the usual mean-field equations of the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model\ucite{kirkpatrick1978infinite} projected on the SVD decomposition of the weight matrix. The same is true for the overlap, with the difference that we have an overlap parameter for each layer. Analyzing these equations, we can distinguish three phases.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{A Paramagnetic phase:} it correponds to the case where $q=0$, $\hat{q}=0$, $m_\alpha = 0$ and $\hat{m}_\alpha = 0$. In the high temperature phase there exists only one minimum to the free energy.
\item \textbf{A Ferromagnetic phase:} given by $q,\bar{q},m_\alpha,\bar{m}_\alpha \neq 0$. In this phase, the magnetization of the system is polarized toward one or many modes $\alpha$.
\item \textbf{A Spin Glass phase:} where $q,\bar{q} \neq 0$, but $m_\alpha=\hat{m}_\alpha = 0$. In that phase, the system is trapped into one of the many minima of the free energy that are completely uncorrelated with the SVD modes of the weight matrix.
\end{itemize}
\noindent On left panel of Figure~\ref{fig:phasediag_svd} is shown the phase diagram as a function of $1/\sigma$ and of $w_{\rm max}/\sigma$, the ratio of strongest mode of $\bm{w}$ to the
variance $\sigma$ of the noise.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{fig/plot_phasediag.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=1.3]{fig/PhaseDiagMNIST.png}
\caption{\textbf{Left:} the phase diagram of the model. The y-axis corresponds to the variance of the noise matrix, the x-axis to the value of the strongest mode of $\bm{w}$. We see that the ferromagnetic phase is characterized by having strong mode eigenvalues. In this phase, the system can behave either by recalling one eigenmode of $\bm{w}$ or by composing many modes together (compositional phase). For the sake of completeness, we indicate the AT region where the replica symmetric solution is unstable, but for practical purpose we are not interested in this phase. \textbf{Right:} An example of a learning trajectory on the MNIST dataset (in red) and on a synthetic dataset (in blue). It shows that starting from the paramagnetic phase, the learning dynamics brings the system toward the ferromagnetic phase by learning a few strong modes.}
\label{fig:phasediag_svd}
\end{figure}
From the learning perspective, the interesting phase is the ferromagnetic one. It seems also important that the learning avoid entering into the spin glass (SG) phase. The SG phase, apart from being uncorrelated with the SVD of $\bm{w}$, can affect very badly the MCMC that is used to compute the gradient. By inspecting the phase diagram on the left panel of Figure~\ref{fig:phasediag_svd}, we understand that at the beginning of the learning it is important to start with a weight matrix with a small variance $\sigma$ in order to avoid starting from the SG phase. Then, we expect during learning that one or many eigenvalues $w_\alpha$ will be expressed and that the trajectory will drift toward the ferromagnetic phase.
\paragraph{The nature of the ferromagnetic phase ---} it is instructive to look more in details at the ferromagnetic phase to understand the behavior of the RBM. We can distinguish two cases: in the first one only one eigenvalue $w_\alpha$ is learned ($w_\alpha > \sigma)$ and the other ones are close to zero; in the second scenario, many eigenvalues are expressed. In fact the first case is quite simple. Since only one mode has been learned the system will condense along this mode and it will be very similar to a ferromagnet. In the second scenario, we may have many $w_\alpha$ that have been learned, i.e. which are above noise threshold. The question then is whether the system will preferentially condense along one single mode taken out of the learned ones or whether it will be able to make compositions by condensing on several modes at the same time. In order to analyze this second scenario, it is important to recall that in order to derive the phase diagram one has to perform the quenched averaging over the matrices $\bm{u}$ and $\bm{v}$. The results will depend on the distribution that is used for the averaging. In\ucite{decelle2018thermodynamics}, it is shown that depending on the kurtosis of the distribution taken over $\bm{u}$ and $\bm{v}$, the system can behave in different ways. Denoting with $\gamma$ the relative kurtosis (w.r.t. the normal distribution) three different behaviors are identified:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\gamma=0$, e.g. the Gaussian distribution. In that case, only the strongest mode is stable, and the weaker ones are unstable w.r.t. to the strongest one. Here, the system will condense along the strongest mode only.
\item $\gamma<0$ e.g. the uniform or the Bernoulli distribution. Here the weaker modes can be metastable if they are not ``too far away'' from the strongest one. However the system will condense only toward one mode.
\item $\gamma>0$ e.g. a sparse Bernoulli, or the Laplace distribution. In that case, the strongest mode is unstable w.r.t. weaker ones, leaving the possibility to have condensation over many modes at the same time. This corresponds to a dual compositional phase, by reference to the terminology introduced in~\ucite{tubiana2017emergence} which corresponds to combination of features instead of modes.
\end{itemize}
Hence depending on the form that will take the matrices $\bm{u}$ and $\bm{v}$ during the learning, different types of condensation may appear. This give us some insight on the way the statistical properties of the SVD of the weight matrix are reflected on the recall phase. In some cases the system might recall one macroscopic state, in another one an equilibrium state can be made of a mixture of modes. We illustrate on the right panel of Figure~\ref{fig:phasediag_svd} the learning trajectory on the phase diagram obtained both on artificial and MNIST data.
\section{Learning RBM}
\label{sec:learning_rbm}
Let us now discuss possible mechanisms at work during the learning of a RBM, which as we expect should have something to do with pattern formation mechanisms~\ucite{Amari}. We start by summarizing what is understood in exactly solvable models such as the Gaussian-Gaussian and Gaussian-Spherical RBMs. Then we will review a recent work\ucite{harsh2020place} showing how the learning dynamics on a simple dataset for the Bernoulli-Bernoulli RBM with one hidden node can be cast into a spatial diffusion equation. Then we will investigate numerically the behavior of the RBM on the MNIST dataset. In particular, how the learned features at short time can be interpreted using the SVD of the weight matrix and how, at later time, they seem to change completely. Then leaving aside the classical approach based on the Monte-Carlo computation of the gradient --- contrastive divergence\ucite{hinton2002training}, persistent contrastive divergence, \ucite{tieleman2008training}, parallel tempering\ucite{hukushima1996exchange,desjardins2010parallel,tubia2018}--- we will show how to use the MF self-consistent equations in order to compute the negative term to perform the learning. Finally, we will focus on the ensemble average equations for the learning, where we show how the MF theory developed in section (\ref{sec:svd:rbm}) can be integrated numerically and lead to the learning curve of the weight matrix $\bm{w}$.
\subsection{Learning dynamics for exactly solvable RBMs}
\paragraph{Gaussian-Gaussian RBM ---}
We have already seen, in Section~\ref{sec:gaussrbm} that the gradient of the Gaussian-Gaussian RBM can be computed exactly and how to characterize the growth of the eigenmodes of the weight matrix when freezing the rotation of the matrices $\bm{u}^\alpha$ and $\bm{v}^\alpha$. We put additional results here, operated on an artificial dataset\ucite{decelle2017spectral} containing $4$ well-separated Gaussian clusters. Recall that the modes of the SVD of the dataset that are higher than the intrinsic variance of the visible modes $\sigma_v^2$ will be expressed, and the vectors of rotation $\bm{u}^\alpha$ will aligned themselves with the principal directions of the dataset owing to eqs. (\ref{eq:sgd:walpha},\ref{eq:sgd_u},\ref{eq:sgd_v}). We can observe on Figure~\ref{fig:dyn:gaussgauss} the learning curve obtained for the first eigenmodes of the system coming out of the bulk. We can also see that the first eigenvectors $\bm{u}^\alpha$, associated to the expressed eigenvalues of $\bm{w}$, are aligning with the first principal directions of the SVD of the dataset. In parallel, we see that the likelihood --- that can be computed exactly here--- of the system increases stepwise after each new mode is learned.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{fig/rbmlin_.pdf}
\caption{On this artificial dataset, we observe that eigenvalues that follows $\langle s_\alpha \rangle^2 > \sigma_v^2$ are learned and reach the threshold indicated by eq. (\ref{eq:w_max}). In the inset, the alignment of the first four principal directions of the matrix $\bm{u}^\alpha$ of the SVD of $\bm{w}$ and of the dataset. In red, we observe that the likelihood function is increasing each time that a new mode emerges.}
\label{fig:dyn:gaussgauss}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Gaussian-Spherical RBM ---}
In the case of the Gaussian-Spherical case, it is again possible to obtain an exact analytical expression for the response function of the RBM $\langle s_\alpha \tau_\beta \rangle$~\ucite{decelle2020gaussian} for both the positive and negative terms, where the average is performed respectively over the dataset and the model distribution. The qualitative pictures is very similar to the previous one. As for the linear model, linear correlations between different modes vanish and therefore the matrix $\bm{u}$ has to rotate until it is properly aligned with the principal directions of the dataset. At the same time singular values get either amplified or damped. In contrary to the linear case they do not evolve independently. Instead, as seen on the left panel of Figure~\ref{fig:dyn:gausssph} lower modes willing to condense exert some pressure on higher modes and accumulate at the top of the spectrum, hence pushing the whole spectrum upward. On the right panel of Figure~\ref{fig:dyn:gausssph}, to illustrate the result of mode condensation, we show a scatter plot containing data from the training dataset and data generated on the trained model when two modes condense.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=1.0]{fig/sph_w.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=1.0]{fig/scatter_sph.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Left:} the learning curves for the modes $w_\alpha$ using an RBM with $(N_v,N_h)=(100,100)$ learned on a synthetic dataset distributed in the neighborhood of a $20$d ellipsoid embedded into a $100$d space. Here the modes interact together: the weaker modes push the stronger ones higher, and they all accumulate at the top of the spectrum, as explained in Section~\ref{sec:sphrbm}. \textbf{Right:} a scatter plot projected on the first two SVD modes of the training (blue) and sampled data from the learned RBM (red) for a problem in dimension $N_v=50$ with two condensed modes. We can see that the learned matrix $\bm{u}$ captures relevant directions and that the RBM generates data perfectly similar to the one of the training set.}
\label{fig:dyn:gausssph}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Pattern formation in the 1D Ising chain}
In a recent work\ucite{harsh2020place}, the formation of features is studied analytically on a RBM with one hidden node. The training dataset is generated from a 1D Ising chain with a uniform coupling constant and periodic boundary conditions. The model used for generating the data has a translational symmetry which is exploited to solve the learning dynamics exactly. There is indeed available a closed form expression for the correlation function. Thanks to the translation invariance this depends only on the relative distance between the variables. Numerically, it is found that:
\begin{itemize}
\item the weights $\bm{w}$ function of the visible node index have a peak value for one of the visible node and decay with distance to this node. Since the position of the center breaks the translation symmetry it tends to diffuse over the system during the learning.
\item Using more hidden nodes (but still few), it is observed that each feature is peaked at different places an repel each other to encode the correlation patterns of the data. Again, the position of the peaks diffuse with time even though some repulsive interaction seems to forbid them to cross. See Figure~\ref{fig:1DIsing} taken from\ucite{harsh2020place} illustrating this phenomena.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=1.0]{fig/Peaks1DIsing3hiddens.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{fig/Diffusion1DIsing3hiddens.png}
\caption{\textbf{Left:} figure from\ucite{harsh2020place}, the value of $w_i$ for each visible site of a RBM with $3$ hidden nodes trained on the dataset of the 1D homogeneous Ising model with periodic boundary condition. We see three similarly peak shaped potentials with a decreasing magnitude of similar order for the three. Each peak intends to reproduce the correlation pattern around a central node, and therefore cannot reproduce the translational symmetry of the problem. \textbf{Right:} figure from\ucite{harsh2020place}, the position of the three peaks as a function of the number of training epochs. We observe that the peaks diffuse while repelling each others. The diffusion aims at reproducing the correlation patterns of the translational symmetry, while the repelling interaction ensure that two peaks will not overlap.}
\label{fig:1DIsing}
\end{figure}
\noindent Now in\ucite{harsh2020place}, the author compute the gradient of a system with one hidden node
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\partial\log \mathcal{L}}{\partial w_i} = \left\langle s_i \tanh\left(\beta \sum_j s_j w_j \right) \right\rangle_{\rm data} - \tanh(w_i)
\end{equation*}
\noindent This expression can be developed up to the fourth order in $w$ (and $\beta$), giving in the case of the 1D Ising chain
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\partial\log \mathcal{L}}{\partial w_i} \approx \beta ( w_{i+1} + w_{i-1}) - w_i \sum_k w_k^2 + w_i^3 + \mathcal{O}(w^4,\beta w^3)
\end{equation*}
\noindent \noindent It is easy to identify in the first two terms the 1D discrete spatial diffusion. This equation can be cast into a spatial diffusion equation with additional term in the continuous time limit (see\ucite{harsh2020place} for more details). From this small coupling expansion it is also possible to study the stationary solution in the one hidden node case and show that it is consistent with experimental results: it describes a peaked function decreasing rapidly as the distance from the center increases. An approximated weak coupling equations can also be derived in the case of two hidden units. In that case, an effective coupling between the two features vectors $w_1$ and $w_2$ is present and responsible for a repulsive interaction between the two peaks.
This illustrates nicely how the features learned by the RBM tend to describe local correlations between variables. In addition, these features diffuse over the whole system during the learning to restore the translational symmetry without crossing thanks to a repulsive interactions between them. In the next section, we will focus on the learning behavior on the MNIST dataset and see that in that case, the learned features similarly describe local correlations.
\subsection{Pattern formation in MNIST: from SVD to ICA?}
\label{sec:learning:svd_ica}
The pattern formation mechanism can be studied numerically on the MNIST dataset. MNIST\ucite{lecun1998gradient} is one of the most used real dataset in Machine Learning, it contains $60000$ images of black and white handwritten digits of $28 \times 28$ pixels, ranging from $0$ to $9$. The digits are about all the same size and are at the center of the image. They are illustrated on Figure (\ref{fig:mnist}).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=8]{fig/mnist-digits-small.png}
\caption{A subset of the MNIST dataset.}
\label{fig:mnist}
\end{figure}
To investigate how the patterns emerge from the learning process, we inspect the features during the learning on the Bernoulli-Bernoulli RBM. The first phase of the learning can be understood thanks to a standard linear stability analysis~\ucite{decelle2018thermodynamics,decelle2017spectral}. For this let us recall the learning behavior of the Gaussian-Gaussian RBM analyzed in Section~\ref{sec:gaussrbm}. In this simple case, the learning was triggered by the SVD of the dataset, and the growth of the modes $w_\alpha$ was controlled by how strong was the mode projected in the principal direction of the matrix $\bm{u}$.
Consider now the Bernoulli-Bernoulli RBM with $\{\pm1\}$ visible and hidden variables (to simplify),
and expand the log-likelihood gradient in the limit of small $\bm{w}$ (putting the local biases to zero):
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial w_{ia}} &= \frac{1}{M} \sum_d s_i^{(d)} \tanh\left(\sum_j s_j^{(d)} w_{ja}\right) - \langle s_i \tau_a \rangle_{\mathcal{H}} \\
&\approx \frac{1}{M} \sum_d s_i^{(d)} \sum_j s_j^{(d)} w_{ja} - w_{ia} \\
&= \sum_j C_{ij} w_{ja} - w_{ia}
\end{align*}
\noindent If we project these equations on the SVD modes of $\bm{w}$ as in Section~\ref{sec:gaussrbm}, we obtain the learning dynamics
\begin{equation*}
\frac{dw_\alpha}{dt} = w_\alpha \left[ \langle \hat{s}_\alpha^2 \rangle - 1 \right],
\end{equation*}
\noindent identical at first order in $w_\alpha$ to (\ref{eq:sgd:walpha}) in the Gaussian-Gaussian case, when $\sigma_v=\sigma_h=1$. Hence, at the beginning of the learning, this RBM follows the same trajectory as the Gaussian-Gaussian one, where the mode $w_\alpha$ are amplified by the principal modes of the dataset. Similarly, it can be shown that the matrix $\bm{u}$ will start to align with the principal direction of the dataset. To see how the features evolve in the non-linear regime, we train an RBM with a very low learning rate and $500$ hidden nodes on MNIST. On Figure~\ref{fig:modes_mnist_rbm} we observe as expected from the linear stability analysis, that at the beginning of the learning the first modes of the weight matrix are almost identical to the one of the SVD of the dataset. We see in particular that the features themselves correspond to modes of the dataset, meaning that the RBM starts by learning global features.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{0.45\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{fig/mode_mnist_2x5.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{fig/mode_rbm_2x5.png}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.45\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{fig/feat100_rbm.png}
\end{minipage}
\caption{\textbf{Left:} the first 10 modes of the MNIST dataset (top) and the RBM (bottom) at the beginning of the learning. The similarity between most of them is clearly visible. \textbf{Right:} $100$ random features of the RBM at the same moment of the learning. We can see that most features correspond to a mode of the dataset when comparing with the left-top panel.}
\label{fig:modes_mnist_rbm}
\end{figure}
\noindent Additionally, at this stage of the learning the MC samples obtained from the RBM are typically prototypes: each sample is almost identical (or have a large overlap) with a learned feature. In fact, during the training, if we monitor samples at each epoch (keeping a low learning rate), we can see that the samples have a high overlap with one mode at the beginning, then later on with combinations of modes. To be more precise, we can distinguish different stages of the learning by inspecting the features, the produced samples and the distance between the discretize features (taking the sign of each feature and computing the overlap).
\noindent We illustrate these different stages on Figure~\ref{fig:learning_mnist}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{fig/feat100_13.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{fig/histWW_13.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{fig/Sampling500MCMC_13.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{fig/feat100_32.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{fig/histWW_32.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{fig/Sampling500MCMC_32.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{fig/feat100_298.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{fig/histWW_298.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{fig/Sampling500MCMC_298.png}
\caption{The column represents respectively (i) the first hundred learned features, (ii) the histogram of distances between the binarized features: $W_{\pm 1} = \rm{sign}(W)$ and (iii) $100$ samples generated from the learned RBM. The first row corresponds to the beginning of the learning when only one feature is learned. Looking at the histogram, we see that most of the features have a high overlap. Also, the MC samples are all similar to the learned features. On the second row, the RBM has learned many features, and therefore the histogram is wider but still centered at zero. The MC sampling however is only capable of reproducing one of the learned features. On the last row the learning is much more advanced. The features tend to be very localized and the samples correspond now to digits.}
\label{fig:learning_mnist}
\end{figure}
\noindent Finally at the end of the learning we recover localized features as in the study-case of the previous section. It has been noticed many times that these localized features are very similar to the ones given by an ICA. To which extent this aspect of learning is affected by the dataset that is considered is an open and interesting question. If we push further the learning, we observe that the RBM keeps learning more and more modes. It is not clear if the system enters in another phase (spin-glass or something else) or if it just overfits the dataset. To end up with these numerical experiments, let us look at the spectrum of $\bm{w}$, at the beginning, at an intermediate stage and at the end of the learning. On Figure~\ref{fig:mnist_svd_modes}, we see that starting from a Marchenko-Pastur law, coming from the spectrum of a Gaussian random matrix, quite quickly, many eigenvalues get out of the bulk as they are learned by the machine.
To summarize we have identified the following stages:
\begin{itemize}
\item Stage 1: at initialization, the features are completely random and therefore the histogram of distances is Gaussian and centered at zero. The spectrum of $\bm{w}$ follows the Marchenko-Pastur distribution. The RBM starts from the paramagnetic phase.
\item Stage 2: the RBM enters the ferromagnetic phase, the first strongest mode of the SVD is learned by all features, giving a high positive or negative overlap in the inter-features distances while the generated samples have a high overlap with the learned features.
\item Stage 3: where many modes have emerged, but the learned features remain global and close to the modes of the dataset. The histogram of distances becomes much broader but the generated sample correspond basically to the learned features with few variety. The RBM is in a pure Mattis phase analogous to the recall phase of the Hopfield model.
\item Stage 4: finally, after a much longer period, we observed that the learned features are much alike an ICA decomposition while the distances between features is still centered in zero but with a much smaller variance. Finally the generated samples look very similar to the provided dataset. The RBM is in a compositional phase, both regarding the features and the modes (the dual one).
\item Stage 5: empirically, we observe that the learning of the modes of $\bm{w}$ never stops. Hence, a macroscopic number of modes is expressed and it is not clear anymore what would be the behavior of the machine in this regime, whether this corresponds to a standard spin-glass phase\ucite{hartnett2018replica} or another unknown disordered phase.
\end{itemize}
In future works, it could be interesting to understand the mechanism leading to the localization of the features, in particular whether this is related to some specific tail distribution of the weight matrix spectrum. An aspect of RBMs completely absent from the previous description of the learning process is the behaviour of the biases associated to hidden nodes. These are very important since they determine the threshold above which the features are activated and their learning dynamics is quite intertwined with the modes dynamics. This aspect of the learning could be worth studying especially to improve present learning algorithms.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{.32\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,trim=30 0 50 0,clip]{fig/ev_init.png}
\caption{}
\label{fig:mp_fit}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.32\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,trim=30 0 50 0,clip]{fig/ev_mb.png}
\caption{}
\label{fig:sv1}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.32\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,trim=30 0 50 0,clip]{fig/ev_end.png}
\caption{}
\label{fig:sv2}
\end{subfigure}\par\medskip
\caption{\textbf{(a)} Singular values distribution of the initial random matrix compared to the Marchenko-Pastur law. \textbf{(b)} As the training proceeds we observe singular values passing above the threshold set by the Marchenko-Pastur law. \textbf{(c)} Distribution of the singular values after a long training: the Marchenko-Pastur distribution has disappeared and been replaced by a fat tailed distribution of eigenvalues mainly spread above threshold and a peak of below-threshold singular values near zero. The distribution of eigenvalues do not get close to any standard random matrix ensemble spectrum.}
\label{fig:mnist_svd_modes}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Learning RBM using TAP equations}
\label{sec:tap_learning}
The difficulty of learning an RBM comes as already said from the negative term which requires to compute the thermal average of correlations between a visible and hidden nodes. In particular, when the machine starts to learn many modes, it becomes more and more difficult to estimate this term correctly using Monte-Carlo methods due to the eventually large relaxation time. In addition, to get a precise measurement, it is necessary to get many statistically independent samples in order to reduce the statistical error.
In this section we will derive the mean-field self-consistent equations that can be used to approximate the negative term by using a high-temperature expansion of the Boltzmann measure. We illustrate the method showing the result of Gabrié et. al\ucite{gabrie2015training} where a RBM has been trained by using the TAP equations. An interesting derivation using a variational approach in the case of the Gaussian-Bernoulli case has also been done in\ucite{takahashi2016mean}.
\paragraph{High-Temperature (Plefka) expansion ---}
We review here a famous approach using a high-temperature expansion of the system in order to compute the mean-field magnetization.
This method is both very simple to implement and also provides a way to approximate the free energy of the system in the weak couplings regime. Recent successful approaches\ucite{gabrie2015training,tramel2018deterministic} showed how it is possible to train a RBM using these mean-field equations. For this subsection, we will use $\{\pm1\}$ binary variables for simplicity.
For the Ising model, it is well-known that the (naïve) mean-field (nMF) approximation can be written as a set of self-consistent equations on the magnetizations, and the associated approximation of the free energy can be computed as a function of these magnetizations: \
\begin{align}
m_i &= \tanh\left( \sum_j J_{ij} m_j + h_i \right) \text{, } \forall i \nonumber\\
F[\bm{m}] &= \sum_i \left[ \left( \frac{1-m_i}{2} \right) \log \left( \frac{1-m_i}{2} \right) + \left( \frac{1+m_i}{2} \right) \log \left( \frac{1+m_i}{2} \right)\right] \nonumber\\
& - \sum_{i<j} J_{ij} m_i m_j - \sum_i m_i h_i \nonumber
\end{align}
\noindent These equation can be translated directly to the case of the RBM, with the only need to specify clearly which variables are the visible and hidden ones. One gets the following:
\begin{align}
m_i &= \tanh\left( \sum_a w_{ia} m_a + \theta_i \right) \nonumber\\
m_a &= \tanh\left( \sum_i w_{ia} m_i + \eta_a \right) \nonumber\\
F[\bm{m}] &= \sum_i \left[ \left( \frac{1-m_i}{2} \right) \log \left( \frac{1-m_i}{2} \right) + \left( \frac{1+m_i}{2} \right) \log \left( \frac{1+m_i}{2} \right)\right] \nonumber\\
&+ \sum_a \left[ \left( \frac{1-m_a}{2} \right) \log \left( \frac{1-m_a}{2} \right) + \left( \frac{1+m_a}{2} \right) \log \left( \frac{1+m_a}{2} \right)\right] \nonumber\\
& - \sum_{i,a} w_{ia} m_i m_a - \sum_i m_i \eta_i - \sum_a m_a \theta_a \nonumber
\end{align}
\noindent Here, we remind the reader that we use the indices $i,j,k$ for the visible nodes, and $a,b,c$ for the hidden ones. We recognize on the first two lines of the free energy the entropy terms $S(m_i)$ and $S(m_a)$ of the model for respectively the visible and the hidden nodes. Note first that the nMF approximation corresponds to a first order development in $\beta$ (or in small $\bm{w}$), but it can be generalized to higher orders, recovering the so-called TAP\ucite{thouless1977solution} equations at the second order. Second, we can generalize this scheme to any order using the Pfleka expansion\ucite{plefka1982convergence,georges1991expand}. Let us demonstrate first how to obtain the first and second order approximation in the case of $\pm1$ variables. To simplify the computation, we center all the terms around their mean value and make the computation for a case without local bias
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{H} &= -\sum_{i,a} s_i w_{ia} \tau_a \\
&= -\sum_{ia}(s_i - m_i) w_{ia} (\tau_a - m_a) - \sum_i (s_i-m_i) \sum_a w_{ia} m_a \\
& - \sum_a (\tau_a-m_a) \sum_i w_{ia} m_i - \sum_{ia} m_i w_{ia} m_a
\end{align*}
\noindent Using this expression, we can follow\ucite{georges1991expand} and compute the magnetization in the infinite temperature limit of the following free energy
\begin{equation*}
-\beta A = \log\left[ \sum_{\{s,\tau\}} \exp(-\beta \mathcal{H} + \sum_i \lambda_i(\beta)(s_i - m_i) + \sum_a \lambda_a(\beta)(\tau_a - m_a) \right]
\end{equation*}
\noindent The relation between the magnetization and the Lagrange multipliers $\lambda$ are obtained by imposing $m_i = \langle s_i \rangle_{\beta=0} = \lambda_i(0)$ and similar constraints for the hidden nodes. Then, we expand the free energy in a high temperature series
\begin{equation*}
-\beta A = -\beta A\bigg\rvert_{\beta=0} - \beta \frac{\partial\beta A}{\partial \beta}\bigg\rvert_{\beta=0} - \frac{\beta^2}{2}\frac{\partial^2\beta A}{\partial \beta^2}\bigg\rvert_{\beta=0} + \dots
\end{equation*}
\noindent With our Hamiltonian, we can compute the first and second order easily
\begin{align*}
-\frac{\partial \beta A}{\partial \beta}\bigg\rvert_{\beta=0} &= \langle \mathcal{H} \rangle = \sum_{ia} m_i w_{ia} m_a \\
-\frac{\partial^2 \beta A}{\partial \beta^2}\bigg\rvert_{\beta=0}&= \frac{1}{2} \sum_{ia} w_{ia}^2 (1 - m_i^2) (1-m_a^2)
\end{align*}
\noindent where we used the following identities for the second order computation
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial^2 \beta A}{\partial \beta \partial m_i}\bigg\rvert_{\beta=0} &= -\sum_a w_{ia} m_a \\
\frac{\partial^2 \beta A}{\partial \beta \partial m_a}\bigg\rvert_{\beta=0} &= -\sum_i w_{ia} m_i
\end{align*}
\noindent As show in\ucite{gabrie2015training}, the expansion can be easily extended to the third order without a big computational cost due to the particular topology of the RBM. Deriving the free energy obtained at this order w.r.t. the magnetization, we obtain the self-consistent set of equations defining the TAP equations for the RBM
\begin{align}
m_i = \tanh\left(\sum_a w_{ia} m_a - \sum_a w_{ia}^2 m_i (1- m_a^2) \right) \label{eq:tap_1}\\
m_a = \tanh\left(\sum_i w_{ia} m_a - \sum_i w_{ia}^2 m_a (1- m_i^2) \right) \label{eq:tap_2}
\end{align}
\noindent Hence, a solution of the TAP equations should satisfied eqs. (\ref{eq:tap_1}) and (\ref{eq:tap_2}) and give us at the same time the approximated free energy associated to this solution:
\begin{equation}
F[\bm{m}] = \sum_i S(m_i) + \sum_a S(m_a) - \sum_{ia} w_{ia} m_i m_a + \sum_{ia} \frac{w_{ia}^2}{2}\left(1 - m_i \right)^2\left(1 - m_a \right)^2
\label{eq:tap:FE}
\end{equation}
We can now use these mean-field equations to learn the RBM. First, we need to take into account the fact that many solutions to eqs. (\ref{eq:tap_1}) and (\ref{eq:tap_2}) exist, each one with a given value of the free energy. Hence, the partition function can be approximated by
\begin{equation*}
Z = \sum_{\gamma} e^{-F(m_i^{(\gamma)},m_a^{(\gamma)})}
\end{equation*}
\noindent where the sum runs over all the possible solution to the mean-field equations (\ref{eq:tap_1})-(\ref{eq:tap_2}), weighted by the free energy given in (\ref{eq:tap:FE}). Using this approximation in the computation of the likelihood we obtain the following gradient
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial w_{ia}} = \langle s_i \tau_a \rangle_{\rm data} - \langle m_i m_a + w_{ia}^2 (1-m_i^2)(1-m_a^2) \rangle_{\rm MF}
\end{equation*}
\noindent where
\begin{equation}
\langle O \rangle_{MF} = \frac{\sum_\gamma O_\gamma e^{-F_\gamma}}{\sum_{\gamma'} e^{-F_{\gamma'}}}
\end{equation}
\noindent correspond to the model average over all the solutions of the mean-field equations. We can see here a notable difference with the approach developed in\ucite{gabrie2015training}. In their work, Gabrié et al runs the sums over all obtained fixed point from the mean-field equations divided by the number of fixed points only. The risk is that if the mean-field equations converge toward a fixed point that is suboptimal (have a high free energy) or even spurious (being a a maximum of the free energy) the estimation of the negative term will be polluted by such fixed points. More details on the Plefka expansion on bipartite Ising model can be found here\ucite{maillard2019high}. As a final remark, let us insist on the fact that, even if the convergence of the TAP equations is not guaranteed, problems of convergence are practically not met in the ferromagnetic phase. On the contrary, such problems occur quite often in the spin glass phase which we wish to avoid in the context of learning the RBM.
\paragraph{Experiment with TAP learning}
We show here some results obtained on MNIST using the same parameters as above but with the mean-field approximation taken from\ucite{gabrie2015training}. Here, the comparison is done using the persistent chain algorithm, where a set of MC chains is maintained all along the learning whenever using CD, nMF or the TAP approximation (in the case of nMF or TAP, the chain is updated using the corresponding self-consistent equations), see Figure~\ref{fig:gabrie:TAP}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
$\vcenter{\hbox{\includegraphics[scale=0.85]{fig/rbm_tap_cmp.pdf}}}$
$\vcenter{\hbox{\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{fig/feat100_100.png}}}$
\caption{\textbf{Top:} ---figure taken from\ucite{gabrie2015training}--- Samples taken from the permanent chain at the end of the training of the RBM. The first two lines correspond to samples generated using PCD. The second two lines to samples obtained using the P-nMF approximation and the last two, using P-TAP. \textbf{Bottom:} A $100$ features obtained after the training, we can see that they are qualitatively very similar to the ones obtain when training the RBM with P-TAP.}
\label{fig:gabrie:TAP}
\end{figure}
First we see that the samples generated by all the three methods are qualitatively similar. Second, the features learned are also qualitatively similar to the PCD case. Therefore, on the MNIST dataset the two machines are hardly distinguished by just looking at the generated samples and learned features indicating that the MF/TAP approximation is working very well. It is also important to point out here that, the advantage of the mean-field approximation in that case does not rely on any speed up with regard to the learning procedure. But, more importantly, it provides complementary tools such as the fixed points as local maxima of the free energy and their associated free energy. For instance, in\ucite{TramelIEEE} a RBM is used as a prior distribution in the context of compressed sensing where the mean-field equations are used to infer equilibrium values of the variables. In\ucite{fissore2019robust}, the RBM is used to reconstruct images from partial observations, again using the mean-field formulation to infer the states of the missing information.
\subsection{Mean-Field learning: ensemble average}
The mean-field equations derived in section (\ref{sec:svd:rbm}) for the RBM, where the weight matrix is constructed as a low rank decomposition, can be integrated numerically in order to learn the parameters of the RBM. By contrast to the TAP equations described in section (\ref{sec:tap_learning}) which are solved on single instances, they correspond to the ensemble average (over the parameters $\bm{u}$, $\bm{v}$ and the noise), i.e. are meant to represent an average case of learning.
In the approach developed in\ucite{decelle2018thermodynamics}, using the statistical ensemble defined in Section~\ref{sec:svd:rbm} it is possible to have a mean-field estimate of the response functions involved in the gradient of the log-likelihood. For the response term on the data we get
\begin{equation*}
\langle s_\alpha \tau_\beta \rangle_{\rm data} = \langle s_\alpha (s_\beta w_\beta - \theta_\beta)(1-q_\beta[\bm{s}])\rangle_{\rm data}
\end{equation*}
\noindent where the parameter $q_\beta[\bm{s}]$ is a variant attached to mode $\beta$ of the spin-glass parameter taken as a function of $\bm{\bar m}$ in equation (\ref{eq:mf1}), when the visible nodes are pinned to the dataset (see~\ucite{decelle2018thermodynamics} for details). The negative term is more complicated to compute. It depends on the fixed points obtained through equations (\ref{eq:mf1}) and (\ref{eq:mf2}) for a given set of model parameters. Once the fixed point are obtained, the response terms of the RBM can be written
\begin{align*}
\langle s_\alpha \tau_\beta \rangle_{\rm {\mathcal H}}& = \frac{1}{Z_{\rm MF}} \sum_{\gamma} e^{-L f(m^\gamma,\bar{m}^\gamma,q^\gamma,\bar{q}^\gamma)} m_\alpha^\gamma \bar{m}_\beta^\gamma = \langle m_\alpha^\gamma \bar{m}_\beta^\gamma \rangle_{\rm MF} \\
Z_{\rm MF} &= \sum_{\gamma} e^{-L f(m^\gamma,\bar{m}^\gamma,q^\gamma,\bar{q}^\gamma)}
\end{align*}
\noindent where $\gamma$ runs over the set of fixed points; $f$ is the mean-field free energy that can be derived from eq. (\ref{eq:mf:FE}). These response terms allows one also to compute the skew-symmetric rotation generators of the visible and hidden singular vectors of $\bm{w}$ through
\begin{align*}
\Omega_{\alpha\beta}^u &= \frac{w_\beta}{w_\alpha^2-w_\beta^2}\bigl(\langle s_\alpha \tau_\beta \rangle_{\rm data}-\langle s_\alpha \tau_\beta \rangle_{\rm {\mathcal H}}\bigr)
+\frac{w_\alpha}{w_\alpha^2-w_\beta^2}\bigl(\langle s_\beta \tau_\alpha \rangle_{\rm data}-\langle s_\beta \tau_\alpha \rangle_{\rm {\mathcal H}}\bigr),\\[0.2cm]
\Omega_{\alpha\beta}^v &= \frac{w_\alpha}{w_\alpha^2-w_\beta^2}\bigl(\langle s_\alpha \tau_\beta \rangle_{\rm data}-\langle s_\alpha \tau_\beta \rangle_{\rm {\mathcal H}}\bigr)
+\frac{w_\beta}{w_\alpha^2-w_\beta^2}\bigl(\langle s_\beta \tau_\alpha \rangle_{\rm data}-\langle s_\beta \tau_\alpha \rangle_{\rm {\mathcal H}}\bigr).
\end{align*}
With this at hand it is therefore possible to integrate numerically the learning process of the RBM random ensemble defined by (\ref{eq:form_w}) hence given the typical learning trajectory.
If doable in principle with any arbitrary data, this was actually tested in\ucite{decelle2018thermodynamics} on a simple synthetic dataset made of separated clusters. The result is shown on Figure~\ref{fig:dynmf}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=1.1]{fig/rbm_mfdyn_W.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=1.1]{fig/rbm_mfdyn_LIKE.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=1.2]{fig/rbm_mfdyn_scat1.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=1.2]{fig/rbm_mfdyn_scat2.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Top panel:} Results for a RBM of size $(N_v,N_h)=(1000,500)$ learned on a synthetic dataset of $10^4$ samples having $20$ clusters randomly located on a sub-manifold of dimension $d=15$. The learning curve for the eigemodes $w_\alpha$ (left) and the associated likelihood function (right-red) together with the number of obtained fixed point at each epoch. We can see that, before the first eigenvalue is learned there is one single fixed point, then as modes are learned, the number of fixed points increases. \textbf{Bottom panel:} Results for a RBM of size $(N_v,N_h)=(100,50)$ learned on a synthetic dataset of $10^4$ samples having $11$ clusters randomly defined a sub-manifold of dimension $d=5$. On the left, the scatter plot of the training data together with the position of the fixed points projected on the first two directions of the SVD of $\bm{w}$. On the right, the projection along the third and fourth axis. The results are shown after learning $5$ modes and where $16$ fixed points are found (in fact more than the number of hidden clusters.}
\label{fig:dynmf}
\end{figure}
\noindent We see again the different eigenvalues emerging one by one, and that each newly learned eigenvalue is triggering a jump of the likelihood together with a jump in the number of fixed points. At the end of the learning, the obtained mean-field fixed points are located at the center of each cluster of the dataset, as can be seen on the scatter plots. In\ucite{decelle2018thermodynamics}, it is also shown that the behavior is qualitatively similar to what is routinely obtained when performing a standard learning based on PCD.
\subsection{Other mean-field approach}
Other approaches using for instance, message-passing technique such as BP have been developed in order to infer the magnetization of RBM instances. These approaches usually are correct in the limit of weak couplings, and can be used on single instance by iteratively updating a set of messages, here $\mathcal{O}(N_h N_v)$ until convergence (see for instance\ucite{mezard2017mean,huang2015advanced}). In these works, it is shown how BP can be used to infer the magnetization or the free energy in few well-chosen cases. However, as far as practical learning tasks are concerned, it is not clear that this can be used in general when dealing with the ferromagnetic phase, as can be expected when considering structured data. In fact, it has been showed in many works that BP can have very bad convergence properties in a ferromagnetic phase when the underlying factor-graph is not a tree\ucite{lage2013replica} (particularly if the couplings are strong). This would be most probably the case with RBMs. It is also worth mentioning that in the case of the inverse Ising model, BP approaches never manage to succeed because of the convergence problems\ucite{lage2013replica} and the TAP solution was preferred when inferring the couplings\ucite{ricci2012bethe,nguyen2012bethe}. However, some attempts\ucite{huang2016unsupervised,huang2017statistical} using BP and the replica theory on a RBM with one hidden unit were done. In that setting, it is possible to compute the marginal over the weight matrix using BP and therefore to compute its maximum likelihood given some observed datapoints. The results tend to show that, as the number of data increases, the learned features become more localized as is observed in many experiments. Managing to extend this result to the case of many hidden nodes would open the possibility to study the pattern formation using message-passing techniques. An even more recent study\ucite{huang2020variational}, using a variational approach to approximate the posterior distribution of the patterns given the RBM and a dataset shows on artificial data that the patterns are recovered during the learning. Once again, the missing convincing piece in that case is the applicability to real dataset and the ability to samples complex distribution.
\section{Conclusion}
With this review, we strive at showing that not only is RBM part of a hectic field of study, but it is also an intriguing puzzle with pieces which are missing in order to be able to understand the way these models can/could assimilate complex information/more complex information. While the black box nature of the learning process starts to fade away very slowly, there are still many key aspects that we do not understand or master for such simple models. We try to list interesting leads for the future.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Learning quality:} Despite the fact that we are maximizing a likelihood function (which can not be computed) it is very hard to obtain a good indicator for comparing two learned RBM. Even if many methods exist to compute the likelihood approximately\ucite{salakhutdinov2008quantitative,krause2020algorithms} the obtained scores are in general not commented in regard to robust statistical analysis. If for very hard cases of image generation, it is easy to compare the results by eye inspection, there are no general method that manage to assess the quality of the samples in terms of how well the learned distribution reproduces the dataset distribution. Some recent work\ucite{yale2020generation} introduced the notion of ``ressemblance'' and ``privacy'' that test the geometric repartition of the true data against the generated samples. This could be a first step defining scores according to different criteria (actually, this problem is not specific to the RBM but concerns actually most of the unsupervised learning models (GANs, VAEs, ...).
\item \textbf{The number of hidden nodes:} It is striking that we are still unable to have a principled manner of deciding how many hidden nodes are necessary to learn datasets which are not too complex. For instance, on MNIST, it is possible to learn a machine with only $50$ hidden nodes and it somehow manages to produce decent samples. The understanding on how much hidden nodes are necessary to reach a given sample quality is completely missing. In addition, the number of hidden nodes influences a lot the learning behavior of the machine, again in a way that is not fully understood.
\item \textbf{The landscape of free energy:} When using statistical mechanics to understand RBMs, the natural question that comes in mind is about the landscape of free energy of the learned machine. It is easy to observe the mean-field fixed point obtained in the ferromagnetic phase and that they do correspond to prototypes of the dataset. Still, we do not know how these many fixed points are organized: are there low free energy paths relating them one from each others? do these paths define a network structure or instead separated clusters of low free energy?
\item \textbf{The landscape of learned RBMs:} This is a generic question in Machine Learning : what is the landscape of ``good'' learned machines in parameter space (here the weight matrix). For supervised tasks, some consensus seems to describe a space which is globally flat where all the good model are next to one another. However this is true for deep models, in the case of RBM, apart from the permutation symmetry of the hidden nodes, we have no clue about what this landscape looks like.
\item \textbf{Link between the dataset and the learned features:} We have seen that in the Gaussian-Gaussian case there is a direct link between the eigen-decomposition of the dataset and the learned features. However, for the non-linear model, we do not understand how the modes of the weight matrix are linked to the dataset, nor to the associated rotation matrices.
\end{itemize}
\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
|
\section{Introduction\label{sec-intro}}
Relational data organizes factual knowledge that is valuable for a wide range of applications~\cite{Ji-2020}, such as question answering~\cite{Seyler-2015,He-2017} and information retrieval~\cite{Dalton-2014,Xiong-2015a}.
As most of the knowledge bases in the real world are incomplete, predicting missing information in knowledge bases, i.e., statistical relational learning (SRL) \cite{Getoor-2007} task, has attracted great attention from both academia and industry.
An effective way for solving SRL tasks is to utilize graph neural network (GNN)~\cite{Scarselli-2009}, such as relational graph convolutional network (RGCN)~\cite{Schlichtkrull-2017}.
However, data are usually scattered in different companies and institutions, especially for the financial domain where data are sensitive by nature. Collecting data from these institutions is difficult or even forbidden by regulation.
Privacy-preserving SRL methods that allow secure collaborative training among different participants are still less studied, thus, hinders the wider applications of graph modeling.
A promising direction for such collaborative training purpose is to explore Federated Learning (FL).
The first algorithm proposed by Google is the FedAVG. It jointly learns a global model with multiple data sources by only exchanging the gradients or model parameters while keeping the raw data stay locally, thus limits the possibility of information leakage~\cite{McMahan-2017}.
Although FL has achieved significant progress and has been widely applied, the study on combining FL and graph learning based methods remains less explored.
One of the possible reasons might be the inherent heterogeneity for different graph datasets.
Such graph heterogeneity exists either in the statistical sense that the number of nodes and edges could be extremely varied for graph datasets even with similar types of nodes and edges, or in a structural way where an entity in separate graph datasets might be identical but with different neighborhoods.
However, current FL algorithms typically assume IID training data to perform well, the fundamental heterogeneity problem in federated graphs might seriously degrade the performance of the jointly trained model.
The recently proposed FedProx \cite{Li-2020} tackles the systems and statistical heterogeneity in federated networks by adding a penalty factor on local loss function to encourage the local model closer to the global one. However, such a method can not be applied to graph related models directly,
as the local data in graph modeling tasks has a different property as in batched data, and hence models diverge more significantly. One of the most vital differences is that, the batched data can be separated into batches during the training process, while the graph data can not be split at all. Such difference leads to a high variance of local weight and difficulties in aligning the local and global models.
Hence, a more sophisticated alignment method needs to be designed.
In this paper, we first review the possible reasons why local models may differ significantly in the federated setting.
We find that the non-separability of graph data and the complex graph model design may aggravate local model divergence.
Based on these insights, we propose a simple yet effective solution, called FedAlign, by constraining the loss function to be $L$-Lipschitz smooth and measuring the optimal transportation (OT) distance of hidden layers.
Extensive experiments are conducted on several public datasets. Results show that the proposed FedAlign outperforms the state-of-art federated learning methods, such as FedAVG and FedProx on modeling relational data.
We summarize our main contributions as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item 1) We first propose how to build a naive federated RGCN model based on relational data, by directly using the existing FL technique.
\item 2) We then review the problems (objective divergence and unsmoothness) of the naive solution and propose an advanced method using basis alignment and weight constraint.
\item 3) We finally conduct experiments on three benchmark datasets and the results demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed method.
\end{itemize}
\section{Preliminaries}\label{sec-preliminaries}
In this section, we present the preliminaries on federated learning and graph neural network, so as to propose a modified version of graph neural network for modeling the relational data over the federated networks in the later section.
\subsection{Federated Learning}
Federated Learning (FL) is an emerging technique that aims to preserve privacy and boost model performance on edge devices. A typical use case of FL is to train a keyboard prediction model on the mobile phone, which predicts the next word according to the last input of a device user. The inputs on the mobile phone are highly private and the user will be reluctant to share the data to the server.
However, the limited data on a single phone can hardly be enough for model training.
FL was first proposed by~\citet{McMahan-2017} to solve such a problem by adopting a collaboratively training paradigm without sharing local data.
Federated Averaging (FedAVG) is the most commonly used algorithm in FL~\cite{McMahan-2017}.
In this algorithm, each client $k \in K$ (i.e., the local device such as a mobile phone of a user) updates its local model using data collected on itself. The sever chooses clients periodically, collects the parameters $w_{t}^{k}$ and aggregates them to compute the global parameters as follows:
\begin{equation}
w_{t+1} \leftarrow \sum_{k=1}^{K} \frac{n_{k}}{n} w_{t+1}^{k}, \label{eq-fedavg-agg}
\end{equation}
where $n_k$ is the data size in each client $k$, and $n$ is the size of all the data used in this update round. Finally, clients replace their local parameters with the global ones.
To prevent gradients from leaking sensitive information during the federated optimization, FedAVG can be easily adapted with privacy-preserving techniques, such as differential privacy and secure multiparty communication.
However, in the real-world federated applications,
the edge devices are not always online and the local data typically varies from device to device. The system and statistical heterogeneity naturally exist.
FedProx~\cite{Li-2020} was proposed recently to especially tackle the system (caused by unreliable communication or stragglers) and statistical heterogeneity (caused by the nature of data collectors).
It has achieved the state-of-art performances over many federated benchmarks.
The key idea is to introduce a proximal term that limits local updates from diverging:
\begin{equation}
\min _{w} F_{k}(w)+\frac{\mu}{2} \| w- w^{t} \|^{2}.
\label{eq-fedprox}
\end{equation}
$F_{k}(w):=\mathbb{E}_{x_{k} \sim \mathcal{D}_{k}}\left[f\left(w ; x_{k}\right)\right]$ in \eqref{eq-fedprox} is the local counterpart of objective $f$ in the (ideally existing) global task.
It measures the local empirical risk over possibly differing data distributions $D_k$.
$w^{t}$ denotes the global model and $w$ refers to the local one.
FedProx can be viewed as a generalization of FedAVG when $\mu=0$.
\subsection{Graph Neural Networks}
Graph neural network (GNN) has shown to be effective in modeling graph data and has achieved state-of-the-art performances on several tasks \cite{Wu-2020,Liu-2018a}. A typical GNN model consists of two parts, i.e., an embedding layer that encodes the graph into learnable vectors and hidden layers that transforms the embedding into task-specific outputs.
Specifically, GNN usually defines a differentiable message-passing function on local neighborhoods\cite{Gilmer-2017}, i.e., :
\begin{equation}
h_{i}^{(l+1)}=\sigma\left(\sum_{m \in \mathcal{M}_{i}} g_{m}\left(h_{i}^{(l)}, h_{j}^{(l)}\right)\right) \label{eq-gnn},
\end{equation}
where $h_{i}^{(l+1)} \in \mathcal{R}^{d^{(l)}}$ denotes the hidden state of node $v_i$ in the $l$-layer, with $d^{l}$ being the dimensionality of this layer.
A message-passing operator $g_m( \cdot , \cdot )$ chooses from the set of incoming message $\mathcal{M}_{i}$ and
is calculated using the neighborhoods of node $v_j \in \mathcal{N}_i$.
Results will then be accumulated and passed through a non-linear function $\sigma$ such as ReLU.
\subsubsection{Modeling with Relational Data.}
However, the GNN model presented above can only handle homogeneous graph, as it cannot distinguish one relation from others.
Relational Graph Convolutional Network (RGCN) extents the idea of GNN to relational data by aggregating the weights of different relations in a knowledge graph~\cite{Schlichtkrull-2017}.
The message-passing function of RGCN is defined as:
\begin{equation}
h_{i}^{(l+1)}=\sigma\left(\sum_{r \in \mathcal{R}} \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}_{i}^{r}} \frac{1}{c_{i, r}} W_{r}^{(l)} h_{j}^{(l)}+W_{0}^{(l)} h_{i}^{(l)}\right), \label{eq-rgcn}
\end{equation}
where $ \mathcal{N}_{i}^{r} $ is the set of neighbor indices of node $v_i$ under relation $r \in \mathcal{R} $. $c_{i, r} $ is a normalization constant that can be learned or predefined.
The rapid growth of relations number $\mathcal{R}$ might lead to overfitting on rare relations or to models with enormous amount of parameters.
To prevent that from happening, model weights $W_r^{(l)}$ regularization is enforced on top of RGCN.
Authors of RGCN proposed several methods based on the principle of parameters sharing.
Instead of learning separated parameters for each relations, RGCN learns a group of shared parameters which can then be composited as weights of relations.
Since the shared parameters is trained by all relations, it would less likely overfit to a specific relation.
For example, one of the methods used for such purpose is basis-decomposition that defines each weight as follows:
\begin{equation}
W_{r}^{(l)}=\sum_{b=1}^{B} a_{r b}^{(l)} V_{b}^{(l)}, \label{eq-basis_decomp}
\end{equation}
where each $W_{r}^{(l)}$ is a linear combination of basis transformation $V_{b}^{(l)} \in \mathcal{R} ^{d^{(l+1)} \times d^{(l)}}$ with coefficients $a_{rb}^{(l)}$. In such way, only the coefficients depend on the relation $r$ and therefore prevents model from overfitting and overgrowing.
This method has been prove to be effective in entity classification tasks~\cite{Schlichtkrull-2017}.
\section{Federated Relational Graph Modeling}\label{sec-fedrgcn}
As real-world graphs differ significantly, typical FL algorithms, such as FedAVG, cannot be directly used for GNN models without aligning models in each knowledge base.
Existing graph models that adapt to the federated setting is less explored, and most of the existing works can only handle homogeneous graphs \cite{Suzumura-2019,zheng2020asfgnn}.
To facilitate modeling heterogeneous graphs over the federated networks, in this paper, we are the first to propose a Federated version of RGCN, i.e., Fed-RGCN.
\subsection{Proposed Architecture}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{imgs/fed-rgcn}
\caption{Architecture of Federated RGCN. \label{fig-fedrgcn-arch}}
\end{figure}
As discussed in the last section, to regularize the weights of hidden layers from overfitting and exponentially increasing, RGCN utilizes weight sharing method to map increasing relational weights to the predefined basis.
Such a basis design naturally brings convenience for extending the RGCN to the federated setting.
As shown in Fig.\ref{fig-fedrgcn-arch}, all the participants build their RGCN models with the basis of the same shape, i.e., with the same dimensions $B$ and number of layers $L$. In each iteration, the global server chose $K$ devices, each updates the model using its own data. Then the server collects their gradients of the basis and aggregating them using a weighted average:
\begin{equation}
\centering
\nabla w \leftarrow \frac{1}{\|K\|} \sum_{k=1}^{K} \frac{\nabla w_k}{\|N\|},
\label{eq-grad-aggregate}
\end{equation}
where $\|N\|$ is the amount of data in each base, which can be calculated in multiple ways. In this paper, we define it as the number of nodes.
After gradients aggregation, each participant updates the local model with the global one and continues with the local training.
\subsection{Problems of Fed-RGCN}\label{sec-problems}
Although the proposed Fed-RGCN can help tackle the model heterogeneity issue in federated relational data modeling,
using the traditional FL optimization methods such as federated averaging on Fed-RGCN may lead to
slow convergence and degraded performances.
In this section, we analyze two important factors that may affect the federated model convergence.
We first introduce some definitions and assumption for analyzing the convergence of federated learning algorithms~\citet{Li-2020} . Note, $k$ in the following equations denotes the local device and $t$ the current state.
\begin{definition}{($\gamma^t_k$-inexact solution)}
Considering a function $h_{k}(w ; w_t)=F_{k}(w)+\frac{\mu}{2}\left\|w-w_{t}\right\|^2$ and $\gamma \in[0,1]$, if there exist a $w^{*}$ such that $\left\|\nabla h_{k}\left(w^{*} ; w_{t}\right)\right\| \leq \gamma_{k}^{t} \|\nabla h_{k}(w_{t} ; w_{t})\|$, we call $w^{*}$ is a $\gamma_{k}^{t}-$ inexact solution of $\min_{w} h_{k}\left(w ; w_{t}\right)$.
\label{def-gamma-inexact}
\end{definition}
Since $h_{k}(w_t ; w_t) = F_{k}(w_t)$, $\min_{w} h_{k}(w)$ is actually a subproblem of $\min_w F_k(w)$, whose inexactness of its solutions is bounded by $\gamma_{k}^{t} \in [0, 1]$ if and only if $h_k(w)$ is $1$-Lipschitz continuous.
\begin{definition}{($B$-local dissimilarity)}
Denote $f(w)$ as the global objective and $F_k(w)$ the local counterpart on $k$ device, the local functions $F_{k}$ are $B$-locally dissimilar at $w$ if $\mathbb{E}_{k}\left[\left\|\nabla F_{k}(w)\right\|^{2}\right] \leq$ $\|\nabla f(w)\|^{2} B^{2} .$ We further define $B(w)=\sqrt{\frac{\mathbb{E}_{k}\left[\left\|\nabla F_{k}(w)\right\|^{2}\right]}{\|\nabla f(w)\|^{2}}}$
for $^{2}\|\nabla f(w)\| \neq 0$.
\label{def-b-local}
\end{definition}
An optimal weight $w$ that minimizes local objective can also minimize the global one if and only if $f(w)$ and $F_k(w)$ is close enough. $B$-local dissimilarity measures such similarity.
Assume following assumption holds:
\begin{assumption}{(Bounded dissimilarity)}
For some $\epsilon>0$ and all the points $w \in \mathcal{S}_{\epsilon}:=\left\{w \mid\|\nabla f(w)\|^{2}>\epsilon\right\}$, there exists a $B_{\epsilon}$ such that $B(w) \leq B_{\epsilon}$.
\label{assumption-b-similarity}
\end{assumption}
With those definitions and assumption, a federated algorithm is guaranteed to converge in finite iterations. We direct the reader to \citet{Li-2020} for a detailed proof.
Given a local objective in the form of $h_k(w)$, since $w_t$ will be assign to $w$ in every epoch and $\nabla h_{k}\left(w ; w_{t}\right)=\nabla F_{k}(w)+\mu\left(w-w_{t}\right)$, if Assumption \ref{assumption-b-similarity} holds for $F_{k}(w)$, it holds for $h_k(w)$ as well.
Hence the dissimilarity between $h_k$ and $f_k$ is bounded, and the corresponding solutions is also bounded by $\gamma_k^t$, indicating there exists a solution $w^*$ of $h_k(w)$ which is close enough to the solution of $f(w)$.
The above-mentioned assumptions and analysis are most likely held for batched samples, e.g., texts or images,
however, it can hardly be satisfied in the context of graph data modeling, due to the potential divergence and non-smoothness of the objective functions.
\subsubsection{Objective Divergence}\label{sec-objective-div}
Intuitively, the fundamental difference between batched samples and the graph data is their separability.
While the samples can be easily divided into several mini-batches in any combination, graph can only be separated in strict conditions.
Considering an ideal graph $G^*$ contains all private graphs $G_k$ in each base.
By aggregating local trained weights $w_k$ trained on each $G_i$, the expectation $\mathbb{E}[w]$ equals the stationary solution $w^{*}$ trained on $G^*$ if and only if each base is separated from the ideal graph by a cut vertex, which means they can form a complete and exclusive set.
Since the federated network is formed in a stochastic manner, this condition will unlikely be met.
Therefore, in the same form as batched data modeling, the local objective is defined as $F_k(w) := \mathbb{E}_{G_k \sim \mathcal{M}_k}[f(w;G_k)]$, where $\mathcal{M}_k$ is the set of all possible sub-graphs with $n_k$ nodes or relations.
Different from the usual setting where $x_k \sim \mathcal{D}_k$, $G_k$ can be sampled only once in each device.
Such restriction makes the empirical measurement of objective used in practice as just a surrogate of the expectation $\mathbb{E}_{k}\left[\left\|\nabla F_{k}(w)\right\|^{2}\right]$ with significant variance, and thus the $B$-dissimilarity measurement.
Consequently, the bounded assumption $B(w) \neq B_{\epsilon}$ can hardly be guaranteed, neither can the convergence of federated learning algorithm.
\subsubsection{Objective Unsmoothness}
Another problem that affects the federated algorithm convergence is the smoothness of the objective for graph data modeling.
Consider the global loss function $f(w; G)$ and $G_x, G_y \in \mathcal{M}_k$, the $L$-Lipschitz smoothness requires $\|f(w;G_x) - f(w;G_y) \| \leq L \| G_x - G_y\|$.
However, known as the Lipschitz extension problem \cite{Aronsson-1967}, whether a $L$-Lipschitz continuous function $f(\cdot)$ applying on two graphs fulfills the Lipschitz condition depends. It has been proved that Lipschitz extension of higher-dimensional functions on graphs do not always exist \cite{Raskhodnikova-2016}. Therefore, the global objective for federated graph modeling might not $L$-Lipschitz continuous, neither its expectation on the local device $F_k(w)$. Reviewing the definition of $\gamma_k^t$-inexact solution, it is obvious that if $F_k$ and the corresponding $h_k$ are not $L$-Lipschitz continuous, then there
may not exist a solution $w^*$ that makes federated algorithm to converge.
\section{Proposed Solutions}\label{sec-solutions}
As analyzed in the last section, the challenges of applying federated algorithms on Fed-RGCN rising from the potential divergency and non-smoothness of the objective functions.
In this section, we propose a federated learning algorithm, called FedAlign, that utilizes optimal transport to regularize the model divergence and a weight penalty to enforce the objective to be quasi-Lipschitz continuous.
\subsection{Basis alignment\label{sec-penalties}}
As mentioned in section~\ref{sec-objective-div}, divergence between the empirical local objective $F_k(w)$ and the expectation violates the Bounded dissimilarity, which makes the convergence of federated learning algorithm unguaranteed. Using $h_k(w) := F_k(w) + \frac{\mu}{2}\|w - w_t\|^2$ to replace $F_k(w)$ as local objective can alleviated such problem, since the impact of biased $F_k(w)$ can be balanced by penalizing the difference between the local weights and the global ones~\cite{Li-2020}.
However, such a solution does not work for Fed-RGCN as expected. because we only extract parts of $w$, i.e., the basis for aggregation, which makes $\|w - w_t\|$ not guaranteed to converge towards zero, and thus $h_k$ a biased approximation of $F_k(w)$.
To alleviate this problem, we can view the weights of Fed-RGCN as a sample drawn by a distribution.
Assuming there is a stationary solution of weight $w^*$ who are drawn from certain distribution and the global weight $w$ is an unbiased estimation of $w^*$, we can expect the distance between the distribution of local and global weights converge to $0$.
\textbf{Optimal Transportation (OT) distance} \cite{Villani-2008} is a widely used measurement for such purpose. Intuitively, OT distance can be viewed as the minimum amount of mass needed to be transferred if we want to turning one pile, which is a distribution defined on a given metric space $M$ into other.
It is also known as earth mover's distance (EMD) \cite{Rubner-1997} in computer vision with the same analogy.
Comparing with other metrics, such as Euclidean distance or Kullback-Leibler divergence, OT distance has some nice properties that make it more suitable for comparing distribution related to graph data. For example, it does not assume compared distributions to be in the same probability space, and unlike KL-divergence, OT distance is symmetric for two distributions.
Different choices of cost function leads to different OT distances. In its simplest form, the cost of a move is the distance between the two points, thus, the OT distance is identical to the definition of the Wasserstein-1 distance or namely the EMD.
Formally, the EMD can be defined as follows.
Given two probability vectors $r$ and $c$, each has a dimension of $n$ and $m$, respectively. Let $U(r,c)$ be the set of positive $n \times m$ matrices, in which the rows sum to $r$ and the columns sum to $c$, we have:
\begin{equation}
U(r,c) = \{ P \in \mathbb{R}_{+}^{n \times m} | P \mathbf{1}_m=r, P^T \mathbf{1}_n=c \},
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{1}_m$ is the $m$ dimensional vector of ones.
For two multinomial random variables $X$ and $Y$ taking values in $\{1, \dots, n\}$ and $\{1, \dots, m\}$, each with distribution $r$ and $c$ respectively, any matrix $P \in U(r, c)$ can then be identified with a joint probability for $(X, Y)$ such that $p(X=i, Y=j)=p_{i j}$. Given a $n \times m$ cost matrix $M$, in which $M_{ij}$ is the cost to move $X=i$ to $Y=j$. The definition of EMD will be:
\begin{equation}
d_{M}(r, c):=\min _{P \in U(r, c)}\langle P, M\rangle,
\label{eq-ot-defination}
\end{equation}
where $d_{M}(r, c)$ can be solve via linear programing.
To lower the cost of calculating OT distance, we use Sinkhorn distance \cite{Cuturi-2013} to replace Wasserstein distance. Sinkhorn distance modifies the objective function $d_M(r, c)$ of Wasserstein distance by adding a entropy constraint:
\begin{equation}
d_M^{\lambda}(r, c) = \min _{P \in U(r, c)}\langle P, M\rangle
- \frac{1}{\lambda} h(P),
\label{eq-sinkhorn}
\end{equation}
where $h(P) = -\sum_{i, j=1}^{d} p_{i j} \log p_{i j}$ and $\lambda \in [0, +\infty)$. The Sinkhorn distance can be calculated via iteratively scaling the rows and columns of $P$. The cost of computing
Sinkhorn distance is $O(d^2)$, while the complexity for calculating Wasserstein distance is at least $O(d^3 \log(d))$.
We direct reader to \citet{Cuturi-2013} for further reading.
Although the graph models naturally differ due to the inherent heterogeneity of graph data, our proposed Fed-RGCN only needs to aggregate the basis of $V$.
Thus, we only need to calculate the OT distance of basis from different bases. The proximal term that measures the difference between local and global weights
is then formulated as the average OT distances between the basis in each layer:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mu}{\|N\|} \sum_{j \neq k}^{N} \sum_{l=1}^{L} OT(V^{(l)}_k, V^{(l)}_j),
\label{eq-basis-alignment}
\end{equation}
where $N$ is the number of selected devices and $\mu$ is a hyper-parameter.
\subsection{ Weight Penalty }
To improve the algorithm convergence, we further add a weight penalty to make the objective function quasi-Lipschitz continuous.
Following the previous work~\cite{Gulrajani-2017},
we add a weight penalty into loss function:
\begin{equation}
\lambda (\|\nabla_{G_k}F_k(w)\|_2 - 1)^2,
\label{eq-weight-penalty}
\end{equation}
where $\lambda$ is a hyper-parameter to be tuned.
Essentially, this term penalizes the $2$-norm of gradients larger than $1$.
Originated from Wasserstein generative adversarial network (WGAN)~\cite{Arjovsky-2017}, researchers find it is necessary to constrain critic function to $1$-Lipschitz.
Further work by \citet{Gulrajani-2017} shows that applying a soft constraint, i.e., the gradient penalty (GP), is more effective than using hard weight clipping.
Note, the original weight penalty is an expectation calculated using $\hat{x} \sim \mathbb{P}_{\hat{x}}$ for batched samples, the term in \eqref{eq-weight-penalty} can only perform in the whole graph since we can not split the graph in the current federated setting. This may cause the penalty biased to local data, a further improvement introducing $G_k \sim \mathcal{M}_k$ into it will be favored.
\subsection{Algorithm}
Combining the basis alignment and weight penalty, the local loss function of federated RGCN is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\hat{F}_k(w)&:=F_k(w) \\
& + \frac{\mu}{\|N\|} \sum_{j \neq k}^{N} \sum_{l=1}^{L} OT(V^{(l)}_k, V^{(l)}_j) \\
& + \lambda (\|\nabla_{G_k}F_k(w)\|_2 - 1)^2.
\end{aligned}
\label{eq-fedrgcn-loss}
\end{equation}
In Algorithm \ref{algo-fedalign}, we present the optimization process for the federated relational data modeling. The resulting algorithm is referred to as FedAlign.
Here, $\mu$ and $\lambda$ are the hyper-parameters that control the basis alignment and weight penalty.
$k=1, \dots, N$ denotes $N$ devices that participate in the federated training.
$E_{local}$ denotes the number of epochs trained for each local device before it sends its gradients to serve and $E_{global}$ denotes the number of epochs
for the whole training process.
Note, a stochastic gradient descent (SGD) optimizer with fixed learning rate $\alpha$ is used in our implementation, however, other optimizers such as Adam \cite{Kingma-2017} can also be used.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\let\@latex@error\@gobble
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\SetKwInOut{Input}{Input}
\SetKwInOut{Output}{Output}
\SetKwInOut{Server}{Server}
\SetKwInOut{Client}{Client}
\SetAlgoLined
\caption{FedAlign (Proposed Algorithm)}
\Input{$\mu, \lambda, \nabla w^{0}, N, E_{global}, E_{local}, k=1, \cdots, N, SGD(\alpha)$}
\Server{}
Set current global epoch $e=1$\;
Send initial gradient of basis weights $\nabla w^{0}$ to clients\;
\While{$e \leq E_{global} $}{
Collecting gradients $\nabla w_k$ sent by client $k$\;
\If{$\|\nabla w_k\| = N$}{
Aggregating $\nabla w \leftarrow \frac{1}{\|N\|}\sum_{k=1}^{N}{\nabla w_k}$ \;
Send $\nabla w_k$ to each clients\;
}
Set $e = e + 1$\;
}
\Client{Client $k \in N$ side with graph $G_k$}
Initialize basis weigh by $w$ received from Server\;
\For( \emph{local update}){$e := 1$ to $E_{local}$}
{
Calculating loss $\hat{F}_k(w)$ according to \eqref{eq-fedrgcn-loss} \;
Collected gradients $\frac{\nabla \hat{F}_k}{\nabla w_k}$ of SGD optimizer\;
Update local weight $w_k \leftarrow w_{k}^{t-1} + \alpha$ $\frac{\nabla \hat{F}_k}{\nabla w_k}$\;
}
Send gradients collected to Server\;
\KwResult{ $w \leftarrow \frac{1}{\|N\|}\sum_{k=1}^{N} w_k$ }
\label{algo-fedalign}
\end{algorithm}
\end{figure}
\section{Empirical evaluation}\label{sec-empirical-evaluation}
We evaluate the proposed algorithm with Fed-RGCN on entity classification task to verify its performance. Six settings are studied in the experiments with three federated algorithms, i.e., FedAVG, FedProx, FedAlign, and their variants with weight penalty (denoted by -L).
\subsection{Synthetic Datasets}
We use three commonly used public datasets in the Resource Description Framework (RDF) format: AIFB, MUTAG, and BGS \cite{Ristoski-2016} to test the performance of the proposed algorithm.
The dataset contains different types of entities and relations, as shown in Table \ref{tab-dataset}.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
{} & \textbf{Types} & \textbf{Entities} & \textbf{Relations} & \textbf{Edges} \\
\hline
\textbf{AIFB} & 7 & 8285 & 104 & 29043 \\
\textbf{MUTAG} & 5 & 23644 & 50 & 74227 \\
\textbf{BGS} & 27 & 333845 & 122 & 916199 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The details of each dataset.\label{tab-dataset}}
\end{table}
A specific type of entity has been labeled to be used as the classification target.
The dataset provider has split them into two sets for training and testing.
The number of classes and size of both sets can be seen in Table \ref{tab-datasetsplit}.
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\hline
{} & \textbf{Classes} & \textbf{Train Set} & \textbf{Test Set} \\
\hline
\textbf{AIFB} & 4 & 140 & 36 \\
\textbf{MUTAG} & 2 & 272 & 68 \\
\textbf{BGS} & 2 & 117 & 29 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The detail of labeled entities in each dataset.\label{tab-datasetsplit}}
\end{table}
To mimic the setting of federated knowledge bases,
we split each dataset into $N=10$ parts in the following way.
First, for nodes that are not labeled, we randomly select $6$ types (excepts MUTAG for $5$) and sample $\|N^{(i)}_{ntype}\| \sim U(0, \|N_{ntype}\|)$ nodes from the complete dataset for each base. We then shuffle the labeled nodes in the training set and split it into $N$ parts, each for a client. The labeled nodes in the test set will be duplicated and stored in each client, but keep unused during the training process.
Finally, we add an edge from the complete dataset into a base if it contains its source and destination nodes.
The number of nodes and edges in each base are listed in \ref{tab-fed-dataset}.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline
{} & \textbf{Entities(Each)} & \textbf{Edges (Each)}\\
\hline
\textbf{AIFB} & 2993.00 $\pm$ 1737.77 & 7923.60 $\pm$ 7092.13\\
\textbf{MUTAG} & 6537.10 $\pm$ 2634.75 & 4578.20 $\pm$ 1899.34\\
\textbf{BGS} & 6123.40 $\pm$ 5667.58 & 4671.00 $\pm$ 5930.07 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The mean number and variance of entities and edges in synthetic federated dataset.\label{tab-fed-dataset}}
\end{table}
As we can see from Table \ref{tab-fed-dataset}, although we choose the same numbers of types and relations for each base, the size of entities and edges can still differ tremendously. Such a phenomenon is caused by the unbalanced distribution of entities in different types, and also the vanish of edges if its source and destination are in different bases.
It indicates that, in the federated setting of relational data modeling, even with a balanced setup, the statistical heterogeneity of dataset can still be significant.
\subsection{Implementation}
We implemented the FedAlign, FedAVG and FedProx on RGCN models to compare the algorithm performances.
The RGCN model is constructed following the previous work \citet{Schlichtkrull-2017} with $2$ hidden layers and a constant number of basis $\|V\|$.
Both three federated algorithms are optimized via a SGD optimizer \cite{Bottou-1991} whose learning rate is $\alpha$. Note, the $\|V\|$ and $\alpha$ are the hyper-parameters needs to be tuned.
Algorithms are mostly implemented using Pytorch \cite{Paszke-2017} and DGL \cite{Wang-2019c} library.
Sinkhorn algorithm is implemented with Geomloss \cite{Feydy-2019}.
We also use Tune \cite{Liaw-2018} to grid search the hyper-parameters.
\subsection{Hyper-parameters}\label{sec-finetune}
Hyper-parameters settings have significant impacts on the performance of RGCN as well as the federated algorithm.
We focus on tuning four parameters: the number of basis $\|V\| \in [1, 50, 100]$, the learning rate $\alpha \in [0.01, 0.05, 0.1]$, the factor of basis alignment term $\mu \in [0.1, 1, 10]$, and the factor of weight penalty $\lambda \in [0.1, 1, 10]$.
RGCN and optimizer related parameters, i.e., $\|V\|$, $\alpha$ and $\lambda$, will affect all three algorithms, while $\mu$ only affects FedProx and FedAlign that constrains the divergence between global and local weights.
Surprisingly, the optimal hyper-parameters for all six settings is the same, in which $\|V\|=100$, $\alpha=0.1$, $\mu=10$ and $\lambda=10$. While the value of $\alpha$ and $\lambda$ is widely used in practice\citet{Gulrajani-2017}, the value of $\|V\|$ and $\mu$ is very different from existing literature
(in which is $30 \sim 50$ and $0.01$)\cite{Schlichtkrull-2017,Li-2020}. Such difference might be caused by the difference between batched samples and relational data.
In addition, two parameters control the amount of computation, i.e., $E_{local}$ is the number of training makes over the local dataset of each client on each round and $E_{global}$ denotes the global number of epochs that aggregating all devices. Due to the limited computation resources, we
set the $E_{local}=5$ and $E_{global}=20$ for all datasets.
\subsection{Results}
\begin{figure*}[tbp!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{.3\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{imgs/aifb}
\caption{AIFB\label{subfig-aifb}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.3\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{imgs/mutag}
\caption{MUTAG\label{subfig-mutag}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.3\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{imgs/bgs}
\caption{BGS\label{subfig-bgs}}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Accuracy on validation set of different models on each dataset.\label{fig-performance}}
\end{figure*}
For separated learning (SP, i.e., to train only on its own device for each participant), three FL algorithms (i.e., FedAVG, FedProx, FedAlign) and their $1$-Lipschitz regularized variants (i.e., FedAVG-L, FedProx-L and FedAlign-L), we run 10 federated training on the separated datasets, then aggregates weights of each base into a global basis, which will then be synchronized to the local model before evaluation.
Performance results are measured by the classification accuracy and shown in Table \ref{tab-performance}.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\hline
{} & \textbf{AIFB} & \textbf{MUTAG} & \textbf{BGS} \\
\hline
\textbf{SP} & 55.00\% & 55.44\% & 52.76\% \\
\hline
\textbf{FedAVG} & 56.94\% & 54.12\% & 54.86\% \\
\textbf{FedProx} & 57.50\% & 53.38\% & 55.24\% \\
\textbf{FedAlign} & \textbf{60.56\%} & 55.17\% & 57.24\% \\
\hline
\textbf{FedAVG-L} & 57.94\% & 54.71\% & 55.48\% \\
\textbf{FedProx-L} & 57.22\% & 57.06\% & 58.62\% \\
\textbf{FedAlign-L} & 59.17\% & \textbf{57.65\%} & \textbf{60.07\%} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance of different algorithms on four dataset.\label{tab-performance}}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Basis Alignment}
As we can see from Table~\ref{tab-performance}, FedAlign outperforms other federated algorithms on all three datasets. Comparing with FedAVG and FedProx, FedAlign improves the classification accuracy by $1.05\% \sim 3.62\%$ on average.
We notice that separated training outperforms most of the federated algorithms on MUTAG dataset.
Interestingly, the original RGCN performs worse than the traditional methods on MUTAG and BGS datasets as well.
\citet{Schlichtkrull-2017} attributing the problem to the nature of datasets. Since MUTAG is a dataset of molecular graphs and BGS of rock types with hierarchical feature, their relations can either indicate atomic bonds or merely the presence of a certain feature.
Therefore, the labeled entities in them can only be connected via high-degree hub nodes, such as the name of molecular or rock that encodes a certain feature. In other words, the graph structure will most likely be star-shape, and its information are stored in attributes instead of structures.
Modeling these kind of relations needs understanding of the contents in node attributes or the structure of complete graph. Comparing with methods such as RDF2Vec embeddings \cite{Ristoski-2016a} and Weisfeiler-Lehman kernels (WL) \cite{Shervashidze-2011, deVries-2015}, which captures such information, RGCN uses only randomized embedding and messages from neighborhoods, thus limits the performance of the model.
Such problem could be even worse for federated learning scheme. Comparing with graph connected via a more centralized way, the structure of star-shape network will more likely to be break by the distributed setting. Such situation will cause tremendous information loss. As shown in Table~\ref{tab-fed-dataset}, each base in federated MUTAG contains only $6.1\%$ edges of the complete dataset, and federated BGS only $0.5\%$.
Since the size of dataset could be too small, overfitting to local structure could possibly happened.
We randomly select one training log that shown in Fig.~\ref{fig-performance}. The performance is evaluate in each global epoch using aggregated global model on test set. It can be seen that, comparing with models trained on AIFB, models trained on MUTAG and BGS suffering overfitting more significantly. Since federated algorithms aggregating parameters collected from each participants, models that overfitting to local dataset will probably undermining the performance of global model.
\subsubsection{Weight Penalty}
$1$-Lipschitz weight penalty can be viewed as an regularization upon model that prevents it from overfitting to local data as analysis in WGAN-GP \cite{Gulrajani-2017}. We observed similar results in our experiments.
As shown in Fig.~\ref{subfig-mutag} and \ref{subfig-bgs}, comparing with original algorithms, those with $1$-Lipschitz penalty, i.e. FedAVG-L, FedProx-L and FedAlign-L have better performances in general. Moreover, for the MUTAG and BGS datasets, FedProx-L and FedAlign-L continuously improve after performance declines in the early stage, while FedProx and FedAlign stay stationary in most of the training stage. The performance of $L$-Lipschitz constrained algorithm
improved $1\%\sim 5\%$. Such phenomenon indicates that the models have been stuck in local optimal points.
\subsection{Discussion}
Though the proposed algorithm with basis alignment and weight penalty outperforms FedAVG and FedProx on relational data modeling, it should notice that, all the models trained on federated bases are still underperformed by the model training on complete graph
as reported by \citet{Schlichtkrull-2017}).
As we analyzed in Section \ref{sec-problems}, the problems underlying in federated data modeling is the non separability of graph data which leads to a divergence of local loss function and global counterpart, and the incomparability leads to the non-Lipschitz condition. The proposed workarounds can alleviate but hardly eliminate them.
Moreover, the information loss, such as edges connected entities in separated bases can not be restored in federated setting. Both problems implies the future work of federated relational data modeling might focus on changing the non-separability and incomparability of graph data.
\section{Conclusion \label{sec-conclusion}}
We analyzed the problems of existing federated modeling on relational data, and proposed FedAlign algorithm to handle them. By using OT distance to measure the divergences of basis in different models and adding $L$-Lipschitz weight penalty to training process, the accuracy of Fed-RGCN could improve with acceptable extra computational cost.
Our empirical evaluation has shown the proposed algorithm outperforms state of art methods, such as FedAVG and FedProx on SRL task.
As far as we are acknowledged, this is one of the earliest attempts to handle knowledge-graph related missions via federated learning. The study of applying privacy-preserving techniques on graph data remains largely untouched.
There is no widely applied methods for some important problems, such as entities alignments, link prediction, that can be performed without leaking the private information. Such situation limits the usage of relational data and requires a change.
We hope our work could provide useful insight for the community and push the research forward.
|
\section{Introduction} \label{Sec1}
Every sports tournament has to provide appropriate incentives for the contestants to exert effort \citep{Szymanski2003}. In particular, the ranking method should not reward teams for poor performance \citep{VaziriDabadghaoYihMorin2018}. However, there are a number of reasons why a team may consider \emph{tanking} (deliberately losing) in a competition: \citet{KendallLenten2017} identify several examples when the misaligned rules had such unforeseen consequences.
Unsurprisingly, academic scholars have studied various theoretical models of sports contests in view of \emph{incentive incompatibility}.
\citet{Pauly2014} derives an impossibility theorem for championships consisting of two qualifying tournaments with disjoint sets of participants. \citet{Vong2017} proves that, if more than one contestants advance to the next round, some players can benefit from shirking to qualify with a lower rank.
\citet{DagaevSonin2018} investigate tournament systems, composed of multiple round-robin and knockout tournaments with the same set of participants when the sets of winners of noncumulative prizes have a nonempty intersection. \citet{Csato2020f} considers group-based qualification systems where teams from different groups are compared, which can create incentives for both teams to play a draw instead of winning \citep{Csato2020d}. \citet{Csato2021a} presents how the ignorance of these theoretical findings has lead to problems in European football.
\citet{KrumerMegidishSela2020b} show that strategic considerations may motivate a contestant to lose in a round-robin tournament because this can result in a higher expected payoff.
Although the round-robin format in which each team meets all the others is one of the most common sports tournaments, it requires a lot of time. On the other hand, if the competitors can play only against a limited number of opponents, the set of matches should be chosen carefully. This can be achieved through \emph{seeding}, by ordering the entrants based on playing history and/or the judgement of experts to pair them according to their ranks.
The problem of seeding in knockout tournaments has been thoroughly explored, see e.g.\ \citet{Hwang1982, HorenRiezman1985, Schwenk2000, GrohMoldovanuSelaSunde2012, DagaevSuzdaltsev2018, ArlegiDimitrov2020, DellaCroceDragottoScatamacchia2020}. The seeding rules of the most prominent football competition, the FIFA World Cup have also got serious attention \citep{ScarfYusof2011, Guyon2015a, LalienaLopez2019, CeaDuranGuajardoSureSiebertZamorano2020}. Similarly, several statistical papers have analysed the effect of seeding on tournament outcome \citep{MonksHusch2009, CoronaForrestTenaWiper2019, DagaevRudyak2019, EngistMerkusSchafmeister2021}.
However, the previous literature has scarcely addressed the incentive compatibility of the seeding rules except for \citet{Csato2020c}, a paper revealing a unique shortcoming in the UEFA Champions League group stage draw that emerged only in the 2015/16 season due to a misaligned way of filling vacant slots.
Our main contribution resides in a more universal result: traditional seeding systems based on exogenous measures of teams' strengths are generically incentive incompatible, but they can easily be made strategyproof.
Our roadmap is as follows.
Section~\ref{Sec2} presents two real-world cases to highlight the issue. A mathematical model is given in Section~\ref{Sec3}. We provide a strategyproof seeding mechanism and summarise policy implications in Section~\ref{Sec4}. Finally, Section~\ref{Sec6} concludes.
\section{Case studies from the real world} \label{Sec2}
Let us see two motivating examples.
\begin{example} \label{Examp1}
Assume the following hypothetical modifications to real-world results in the \href{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification}{2018 FIFA World Cup qualification}:
\begin{itemize}
\item
Wales vs.\ Republic of Ireland was 1-1 (instead of 0-1) on 9 October 2017 in \href{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification_\%E2\%80\%93_UEFA_Group_D}{UEFA Group D}. Consequently, Wales would have been 18 and the Republic of Ireland would have been 17 points in that group, thus Wales would have advanced to the \href{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification_\%E2\%80\%93_UEFA_Second_Round}{UEFA Second Round}. There Wales would have been in Pot 1 rather than Denmark, therefore the tie Wales vs.\ Denmark would have been possible (in fact, Denmark played against the Republic of Ireland). Suppose that Wales qualified for the World Cup instead of Denmark.
\item
The first leg of Sweden vs.\ Italy was 1-1 (instead of 1-0) on 10 November 2017 in the UEFA Second Round, hence Italy qualified for the World Cup.
\end{itemize}
In the \href{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_FIFA_World_Cup_seeding}{draw for the 2018 FIFA World Cup}, the composition of the pots depended on the \href{https://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/ranking-table/men/rank/id11976/}{October 2017 FIFA World Ranking}. The only exception was the automatic assignment of the host---Russia---to Pot 1 besides the seven highest-ranked qualified teams.
Hence Uruguay ($17$th in the relevant FIFA ranking) would have been drawn from Pot 3 as among the best $16$ teams, only Chile would have not qualified in the above scenario (Wales was the $14$th and Italy was the $15$th in the FIFA World Ranking of October 2017).
\begin{table}[t!]
\centering
\caption{Pot composition in the hypothetical 2018 FIFA World Cup}
\label{Table1}
\rowcolors{3}{}{gray!20}
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{LLLL} \toprule
Pot 1 & Pot 2 & Pot 3 & Pot 4 \\ \bottomrule
Russia (65) & Spain (8) & \textbf{Uruguay (17)} & Serbia (38) \\
Germany (1) & \textbf{Peru (10)} & Iceland (21) & Nigeria (41) \\
Brazil (2) & Switzerland (11) & Costa Rica (22) & Australia (43) \\
Portugal (3) & England (12) & Sweden (25) & Japan (44) \\
Argentina (4) & Colombia (13) & Tunisia (28) & Morocco (48) \\
Belgium (5) & \emph{Wales (14)} & Egypt (30) & Panama (49) \\
Poland (6) & \emph{Italy (15)} & Senegal (32) & South Korea (62) \\
France (7) & Mexico (16) & Iran (34) & Saudi Arabia (63) \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabularx}
\begin{tablenotes} \footnotesize
\item The pots are determined by the FIFA World Ranking of October 2017, see the numbers in parenthesis.
\item Russia is the top seed as host.
\item Teams written in \emph{italics} qualified only in the hypothetical but feasible scenario of Example~\ref{Examp1}.
\item Uruguay (17)---the top team in Pot 3---would have been drawn from Pot 2 due to losing against Paraguay (34) in the South American qualifiers of the 2018 FIFA World Cup since then either Paraguay (34) or New Zealand (122) would have qualified for the World Cup instead of Peru (10). The national teams affected by this tanking are written in \textbf{bold}.
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table}
The allocation of the teams in the above scenario is given in Table~\ref{Table1}.
Consider what would have happened if the result of the match Paraguay ($34$) vs.\ Uruguay, played on 5 September 2017 in the \href{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification_(CONMEBOL)}{South American qualifiers}, would have been 2-1 instead of 1-2. Then Uruguay would have remained second and Paraguay would have been fifth in this qualifying competition. Paraguay would have played against New Zealand ($122$) in the \href{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification_(OFC\%E2\%80\%93CONMEBOL_play-off)}{OFC--CONMEBOL qualification play-off}, thus Peru ($10$) could not have qualified for the World Cup. Therefore, Uruguay would have been drawn from the stronger Pot 2 instead of Pot 3 merely due to its loss against Paraguay.
It probably means a substantial advantage: in the 2018 FIFA World Cup, seven and two teams advanced to the knockout stage from Pots 2 and 3, respectively.
\end{example}
Example~\ref{Examp1} contains a small sloppiness since we have not checked whether the October 2017 FIFA World Ranking would have been modified if the result of Paraguay vs.\ Uruguay would have changed. However, this minor issue does not affect the potential case of incentive incompatibility.
\begin{example} \label{Examp2}
In the \href{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020\%E2\%80\%9321_UEFA_Europa_League_group_stage#Draw}{draw for the 2020/21 UEFA Europa League group stage}, the composition of the pots was determined by the 2020 UEFA club coefficients, available at \url{https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method5/trank2020.html}.
Assume the following hypothetical modifications to real-world results in the \href{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020\%E2\%80\%9321_UEFA_Europa_League_qualifying_phase_and_play-off_round\#Play-off_round}{play-off round of the qualifying phase}, with the first favourite team advancing to the group stage in place of the second unseeded underdog (the UEFA club coefficients are given in parenthesis):
\begin{itemize}
\item
Viktoria Plze{\v n} ($34.0$) against Hapoel Be'er Sheva ($14.0$);
\item
Basel ($58.5$) against CSKA Sofia ($4.0$);
\item
Sporting CP ($50.0$) against LASK ($14.0$);
\item
Copenhagen ($42.0$) against Rijeka ($11.0$);
\item
VfL Wolfsburg ($36.0$) against AEK Athens ($16.5$).
\end{itemize}
There were $48$ teams in the group stage. Leicester City ($22.0$) was ranked $20$th because Rapid Wien ($22.0$) had the same 2020 UEFA club coefficient but the tie-breaking criterion---coefficient in the next most recent season in which they are not equal \citep[Annex~D.8]{UEFA2020b}---preferred the latter club. Due to the above changes, five teams with a higher coefficient than Leicester City would have qualified instead of five teams with a lower coefficient. Hence, Leicester City would have been only the $25$th highest-ranked, namely, the best club in Pot 3 as each of the four pot contain $12$ clubs.
In addition, suppose that Leicester defeated Norwich City at home by 2-1 (instead of 0-0) in the \href{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019\%E2\%80\%9320_Premier_League}{2019/20 English Premier League}. Then Leicester City would have remained fifth at the end of the season with $64$ points.
\begin{table}[t!]
\centering
\caption{Pot composition in the hypothetical 2020/21 UEFA Europa League}
\label{Table2}
\rowcolors{3}{}{gray!20}
\begin{tabularx}{1\textwidth}{LL} \toprule
Pot 1 & Pot 2 \\ \bottomrule
Arsenal (91.0) & Gent (39.5) \\
\textbf{Tottenham Hotspur (85.0)} & PSV Eindhoven (37.0) \\
Roma (80.0) & \emph{VfL Wolfsburg (36.0)} \\
Napoli (77.0) & Celtic (34.0) \\
Benfica (70.0) & \emph{Viktoria Plze{\v n} (34.0)} \\
Bayer Leverkusen (61.0) & Dinamo Zagreb (33.5) \\
\emph{Basel (58.5)} & Sparta Prague (30.5) \\
Villarreal (56.0) & Slavia Prague (27.5) \\
\emph{Sporting CP (50.0)} & Ludogorets Razgrad (26.0) \\
CSKA Moscow (44.0) & Young Boys (25.5) \\
\emph{Copenhagen (42.0)} & Crvena Zvezda (22.75) \\
Braga (41.0) & Rapid Wien (22.0) \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabularx}
\vspace{0.25cm}
\begin{threeparttable}
\rowcolors{3}{}{gray!20}
\begin{tabularx}{1\textwidth}{LL} \toprule
Pot 3 & Pot 4 \\ \bottomrule
\textbf{Leicester City (22.0)} & 1899 Hoffenheim (14.956) \\
PAOK (21.0) & CFR Cluj (12.5) \\
Qaraba{\u g} (21.0) & Zorya Luhansk (12.5) \\
Standard Li{\` e}ge (20.5) & Nice (11.849) \\
Real Sociedad (20.476) & Lille (11.849) \\
Granada (20.456) & Dundalk (8.5) \\
Milan (19.0) & Slovan Liberec (8.0) \\
AZ Alkmaar (18.5) & Antwerp (7.58) \\
Feyenoord (17.0) & Lech Poznan (7.0) \\
Maccabi Tel Aviv (16.5) & Sivasspor (6.72) \\
Rangers (16.25) & Wolfsberger AC (6.585) \\
Molde (15.0) & Omonia (5.35) \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabularx}
\begin{tablenotes} \footnotesize
\item The pots are determined by the 2020 UEFA club coefficients, shown in parenthesis.
\item Teams written in \emph{italics} qualified only in the hypothetical but feasible scenario of Example~\ref{Examp2}.
\item Leicester City (22.0)---the top team in Pot 3---could have been drawn from Pot 2 due to losing against Wolverhampton (18.092) in the 2019/20 English Premier League since then the latter team could have qualified for the UEFA Europa League group stage instead of Tottenham Hotspur (85.0). The clubs affected by this tanking are written in \textbf{bold}.
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table}
The allocation of the clubs in the above scenario is presented in Table~\ref{Table2}.
Consider what would have happened if the outcome of the match Wolverhampton Wanderers ($18.092$) vs.\ Leicester City, played on 14 February 2020 in the 2019/20 Premier League, would have been 1-0 instead of 0-0. Leicester would have remained fifth with $62$ points, while Wolverhampton would have been sixth with $61$ points rather than Tottenham Hotspur ($85.0$), which scored $59$ points. Consequently, Wolverhampton would have entered the Europa League qualification in the second qualifying round, and it could have qualified for the group stage in the place of Tottenham. Then Leicester would have been drawn from the stronger Pot 2 merely due to its loss against Wolverhampton.
This probably means an advantage, although in the 2020/21 Europa League, six teams advanced to the knockout stage from both Pots 2 and 3, respectively.
\end{example}
\section{Theoretical background} \label{Sec3}
Consider a round-robin qualifying tournament with a set of teams $T$, where each team $t \in T$ has a coefficient $\xi_t$. The teams ranked between the $p$th and $q$th ($p \leq q$) qualify for the second stage. A qualified team $t$ has a seeding value $\Psi_t$.
Any team prefers if more teams play in the second round with a lower seeding value.
In other words, it is a common belief that these measures positively correlate with true abilities. All coefficients used in practice are constructed along this line. For instance, the \href{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Rankings}{FIFA World Ranking} and the \href{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_coefficient}{UEFA coefficients} for national teams, countries, and clubs alike award more points for wins (draws) than for draws (losses), thus better achievements in the past translate into a higher value.
Therefore, the first goal for every team is to qualify and the second goal is to qualify together with teams having a lower coefficient.
Any team $t \in T$ may tank to improve the second objective without deteriorating the first. Denote the (strict) rankings of the qualifying tournament by $\succ$ and $\succ'$, as well as the sets of teams qualified by
\[
Q = \{ s \in T: p-1 \leq |r \in T: r \succ s| \leq q-1 \} \text{ and}
\]
\[
Q' = \{ s \in T: p-1 \leq |r \in T: r \succ' s| \leq q-1 \}
\]
before and after tanking, respectively.
\begin{definition} \label{Def1}
\emph{Incentive incompatibility with respect to seeding}:
A round-robin qualifying tournament is said to be \emph{incentive incompatible with respect to seeding} if there exists a team $t \in T$ with a tanking strategy such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item
team $t$ qualifies for the second stage both before and after tanking, that is, $t \in Q$ and $t \in Q'$;
\item
team $t$ has a better seeding position after tanking than before tanking, namely, $|s \in Q': \Psi_s > \Psi_t| < |s \in Q: \Psi_s > \Psi_t|$.
\end{itemize}
Otherwise, the qualifying tournament is called \emph{incentive compatible with respect to seeding}.
\end{definition}
As Section~\ref{Sec2} reveals, a qualifying tournament is incentive incompatible if $\Psi_t = \xi_t$ for all $t \in Q$ and $2 \leq |Q| < |T|$. In particular, a situation may exist where team $i$ has already secured qualification, while teams $j$ and $k$ compete for another slot such that $\xi_k > \xi_i > \xi_j$. Then team $i$ may consider losing against team $j$ in order to push it to the next stage at the expense of team $k$ as team $i$ can get a better seeding pot by taking team $j$ to the second round instead of team $k$.
The result below provides sufficient conditions to prevent a strategic manipulation of this type. For the sake of simplicity, we assume that ties in the seeding values of qualified teams are broken in favour of the team ranked higher in the qualifying tournament.
\begin{proposition} \label{Prop1}
A round-robin qualifying tournament is incentive incompatible with respect to seeding if at least one of the following conditions hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item
Only one team is allowed to qualify: $p = q$;
\item
All teams qualify: $p = 1$ and $q = |T|$;
\item
The seeding value of each qualified team $t \in Q$ in the second stage is equal to the maximal coefficient of the teams that are ranked lower than team $t$ in the qualifying round-robin tournament: $\Psi_t = \max \{ \xi_s: t \succ s \}$ for all $t \in Q$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
If $p = 1$, then $t \in Q$ leads to $|s \in Q: \Psi_s > \Psi_t| = 0$. Consequently, no tanking strategy can satisfy Definition~\ref{Def1}. \\
$p = 1$ and $q = |T|$ result in $Q = T$, thus $|s \in Q': \Psi_s > \Psi_t| = |s \in Q: \Psi_s > \Psi_t|$, which excludes the existence of a tanking strategy satisfying Definition~\ref{Def1}. \\
$\Psi_t = \max \{ \xi_s: t \succ s \}$ for all $t \in Q$ implies that
\[
s \in Q \text{ and } \Psi_s > \Psi_t \iff s \in Q \text{ and } s \succ t.
\]
Since team $t$ cannot be ranked higher in the round-robin qualifying tournament after tanking,
\[
|s \in Q': \Psi_s > \Psi_t| = |s \in Q': s \succ t| \geq |s \in Q: s \succ t| = |s \in Q: \Psi_s > \Psi_t|
\]
holds. Hence, the qualifying tournament is incentive compatible with respect to seeding.
\end{proof}
\section{Discussion} \label{Sec4}
Now we present a general procedure to guarantee our requirement, incentive compatibility with respect to seeding, on the basis of the theoretical model. Some alternative ideas are also outlined shortly.
According to Proposition~\ref{Prop1}, there are three ways to achieve strategyproofness in a round-robin qualifying tournament. However, the first two conditions---when exactly one team qualifies or all teams qualify for the next round---could not offer a universal rule. Nonetheless, they can be exploited in certain cases, for example, only one team advanced from the \href{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification_(OFC)}{Oceanian (OFC) section of the 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification}.
Fortunately, there is a third opportunity, that is, to calculate the seeding value of any qualified team $t \in Q$ as $\Psi_t = \max \{ \xi_s: t \succ s \}$. In other words, team $t$ is seeded in the second stage based on the maximum of coefficients $\xi_s$ of all teams $s$ ranked lower than team $t$ in its round-robin qualifying competition. This is a reasonable rule: if team $i$ finishes ahead of team $j$ in a league, why is it judged worse for the draw in the next round?
Our proposal is called \emph{strategyproof seeding}.
\begin{sidewaystable
\centering
\caption{Alternative rules for the draw of the UEFA Champions League group stage in the 2020/21 season}
\label{Table3}
\renewcommand\arraystretch{0.8}
\begin{threeparttable}
\rowcolors{1}{gray!20}{}
\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{lccCCcCCc} \toprule \hiderowcolors
Club & Country & Position & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Coefficient} & Inherited from & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Pot allocation} \\
& & & Official & Proposed & & Official & Proposed & Change \\ \bottomrule \showrowcolors
Bayern Munich & \multicolumn{2}{c}{CL TH (Germany 1st)} & 136 & 136 & --- & 1 (1) & 1 (1) & --- \\
Sevilla & \multicolumn{2}{c}{EL TH (Spain 4th)} & 102 & 102 & --- & 1 (1) & 1 (1) & --- \\
Real Madrid & Spain & 1st & 134 & 134 & --- & 1 (1) & 1 (1) & --- \\
Liverpool & England & 1st & 99 & 116 & Manchester City (2nd) & 1 (1) & 1 (1) & --- \\
Juventus & Italy & 1st & 117 & 117 & --- & 1 (1) & 1 (1) & --- \\
Paris Saint-Germain & France & 1st & 113 & 113 & --- & 1 (1) & 1 (1) & --- \\
Zenit Saint Petersburg & Russia & 1st & 64 & 64 & --- & 1 (1) & 1 (1) & --- \\
Porto & Portugal & 1st & 75 & 75 & --- & 1 (2) & 1 (3) & --- \\
Barcelona & Spain & 2nd & 128 & 128 & --- & 2 (2) & 2 (2) & --- \\
Atl\'etico Madrid & Spain & 3rd & 127 & 127 & --- & 2 (2) & 2 (2) & --- \\
Manchester City & England & 2nd & 116 & 116 & --- & 2 (2) & 2 (2) & --- \\
Manchester United & England & 3rd & 100 & 100 & --- & 2 (2) & 2 (2) & --- \\
Shakhtar Donetsk & Ukraine & 1st & 85 & 85 & --- & 2 (2) & 2 (2) & --- \\
Borussia Dortmund & Germany & 2nd & 85 & 85 & --- & 2 (1) & 2 (1) & --- \\
Chelsea & England & 4th & 83 & 91 & Arsenal (8th) & 2 (2) & 2 (2) & --- \\
Ajax & Netherlands & 1st & 69.5 & 69.5 & --- & 2 (2) & 3 (3) & \textcolor{BrickRed}{\rotatebox[origin=c]{270}{\ding{212}}} \\
Dynamo Kyiv & Ukraine & 2nd & 55 & 55 & --- & 3 (3) & 3 (3) & --- \\
Red Bull Salzburg & Austria & 1st & 53.5 & 53.5 & --- & 3 (3) & 4 (4) & \textcolor{BrickRed}{\rotatebox[origin=c]{270}{\ding{212}}} \\
RB Leipzig & Germany & 3rd & 49 & 61 & Bayer Leverkusen (5th) & 3 (3) & 3 (3) & --- \\
Inter Milan & Italy & 2nd & 44 & 80 & Roma (5th) & 3 (3) & 3 (3) & --- \\
Olympiacos & Greece & 1st & 43 & 43 & --- & 3 (3) & 4 (4) & \textcolor{BrickRed}{\rotatebox[origin=c]{270}{\ding{212}}} \\
Lazio & Italy & 4th & 41 & 80 & Roma (5th) & 3 (3) & 3 (3) & --- \\
Krasnodar & Russia & 3rd & 35.5 & 44 & CSKA Moscow (4th) & 3 (3) & 4 (4) & \textcolor{BrickRed}{\rotatebox[origin=c]{270}{\ding{212}}} \\
Atalanta & Italy & 3rd & 33.5 & 80 & Roma (5th) & 3 (3) & 3 (3) & --- \\
Lokomotiv Moscow & Russia & 2nd & 33 & 44 & CSKA Moscow (4th) & 4 (4) & 4 (4) & --- \\
Marseille & France & 2nd & 31 & 83 & Lyon (7th) & 4 (4) & 2 (2) & \textcolor{PineGreen}{\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{\ding{212}}} \textcolor{PineGreen}{\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{\ding{212}}} \\
Club Brugge & Belgium & 1st & 28.5 & 39.5 & Gent (2nd) & 4 (4) & 4 (4) & --- \\
Borussia M\"onchengladbach & Germany & 4th & 26 & 61 & Bayer Leverkusen (5th) & 4 (4) & 3 (3) & \textcolor{PineGreen}{\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{\ding{212}}} \\
Istanbul Ba{\c s}ak{\c s}ehir & Turkey & 1st & 21.5 & 54 & Be{\c s}ikta{\c s} (3rd) & 4 (4) & 4 (4) & --- \\
Midtjylland & Denmark & 1st & 14.5 & 42 & Copenhagen (2nd) & 4 (4) & 4 (4) & --- \\
Rennes & France & 3rd & 14 & 83 & Lyon (7th) & 4 (4) & 3 (2) & \textcolor{PineGreen}{\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{\ding{212}}} \\
Ferencv\'aros & Hungary & 1st & 9 & 10.5 & Feh\'erv\'ar (2nd) & 4 (4) & 4 (4) & --- \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabularx}
\begin{tablenotes} \footnotesize
\item CL (EL) TH stands for the UEFA Champions League (Europa League) titleholder.
\item The column ``Inherited from'' shows the club of the domestic league whose UEFA club coefficient is taken over.
\item Proposed pot is the pot that contains the club if the current seeding policy applies to Pot 1. Since this rule is incentive compatible \citep{Csato2020c}, the pot according to the amendment suggested by \citet[Section~5]{Csato2020c} is reported in parenthesis for both the official and the strategyproof seeding systems.
\item The column ``Change'' shows the movements of clubs between the pots due to the strategyproof seeding if the current seeding regime applies to Pot 1.
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{sidewaystable}
Table~\ref{Table3} applies strategyproof seeding for the 2020/21 Champions League group stage. Even though the club coefficients of $15$ teams, including the $11$ lowest-ranked, are increased, it has only a moderated effect on the composition of pots as one German and two French teams benefit at the expense of four teams from the Netherlands, Austria, Greece, and Russia. That amendment usually favours the highest-ranked associations, where some clubs emerging without a robust European record (recall the unlikely triumph of Leicester City in the 2015/16 English Premier League \citep{BBC2016}) can ``obtain'' the performances of clubs with considerable achievements at the international level. Thus strategyproof seeding contributes to the success of underdogs in the European cups, which may be advantageous for the long-run competitive balance in the top leagues. In addition, it probably better reflects the true abilities of the teams since playing more matches reduces the role of luck in sports tournaments \citep{McGarrySchutz1997, ScarfYusofBilbao2009, LasekGagolewski2018, Csato2021b, CsatoBiroSziklai2021}. Consequently, it is more difficult to perform better in a round-robin league than in the Champions League or Europa League.
From the 2018/19 season onwards, UEFA club coefficients are determined either as the sum of all points won in the previous five years or as the association coefficient over the same period, \emph{whichever is the higher} \citep{Kassies2021, UEFA2021}. While this rule was not effective in the 2020/21 Champions League, the lower bound applied in the case of some Spanish, German, and French teams in the 2020/21 Europa League.
A somewhat similar policy is used in the UEFA Champions League and Europa League qualification, too, if a later round is drawn before the identity of the teams is known: ``\emph{If, for any reason, any of the participants in such rounds are not known at the time of the draw, the coefficient of the club with the higher coefficient of the two clubs involved in an undecided tie is used for the purposes of the draw.}'' \citep[Article~13.03]{UEFA2020a}.
Therefore, the principle of strategyproof seeding is not unknown in UEFA club competitions, which can support its implementation.
Table~\ref{Table3} reinforces that the strategyproof seeding system may result in more ties than the current definition. If some teams inherit their seeding values from the same lower-ranked team, then these remain identical, and the tie should be broken by drawing of lots \citep[Annex~D.8]{UEFA2020b}. Although tie-breaking does not affect incentive compatibility, it is reasonable to prefer the teams ranked higher in the domestic league. If clubs from other associations also have the same coefficient (which has a much lower probability), they can be assigned arbitrarily in this equivalence class. Alternatively, the original club coefficients can be used for tie-breaking.
Our incentive compatible mechanism has further favourable implications. UEFA has modified the pot allocation policy in the Champions League from the 2015/16 season, probably inspired by the previous year when Manchester City, the English champion, was drawn from the second pot but Arsenal, the fourth-placed team in England, was drawn from the first pot. This decision---intended to strengthen the position of domestic titleholders \citep{UEFA2015e}---has considerable sporting effects \citep{CoronaForrestTenaWiper2019, DagaevRudyak2019}, especially since the poor way of filling vacancies leads to incentive incompatibility \citep{Csato2020c}. On the other hand, the proposed seeding rule guarantees that a national champion has at least the same seeding value as any team ranked lower in its domestic league.
Naturally, other strategyproof seeding policies can be devised. One example is the system of the 2020 UEFA European Championship: the ranking of all entrants on the basis of their results in the qualification. However, that principle is not appropriate if the achievements in the qualifying tournament(s) cannot be compared.
Another solution might be to associate seeding positions not with the coefficients but with the path of qualification. For instance, a club can be identified in the UEFA Champions League as the Spanish runner-up rather than by its name. The results of these ``labels'' can be measured by the achievements of the corresponding teams \citep{Guyon2015b}. Nonetheless, this principle seems to be difficult to apply for the UEFA European Championship.
To conclude, the recommended strategyproof seeding mechanism provides incentive compatibility in any setting. While other rules are also able to eliminate perverse incentives, they are unlikely to be independent of the particular characteristics of the tournament.
\section{Conclusions} \label{Sec6}
The present work has analysed a mathematical model of seeding for sports tournaments where the teams qualify from round-robin competitions. Several contests are designed this way, including the most prestigious football tournaments (FIFA World Cup, UEFA European Championship, UEFA Champions League). The sufficient conditions of incentive incompatibility have turned out to be quite restrictive: if each competitor is considered with its own coefficient (usually a measure of its past performance), only one or all of them should qualify from every round-robin contest.
Similarly to the main findings of \citet{Vong2017} and \citet{KrumerMegidishSela2020b}, our result has the flavour of an impossibility theorem at first glance. However, here we can achieve strategyproofness by giving to each qualified competitor the highest coefficient of all competitors that are ranked lower in its round-robin qualifying tournament for seeding purposes.
The central message of our paper for decision makers is consonant with the conclusion of \citet{HaugenKrumer2021}, that is, tournament design should be included into the family of traditional topics discussed by sports management. In particular, administrators are strongly encouraged to follow our recommendation in order to prevent the occurrence of costly scandals in the future.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{Acknowledgements}
\noindent
Three anonymous reviewers provided valuable comments on an earlier draft. \\
We are indebted to the \href{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_community}{Wikipedia community} for collecting and structuring valuable information on the sports tournaments discussed. \\
The research was supported by the MTA Premium Postdoctoral Research Program grant PPD2019-9/2019.
\bibliographystyle{apalike}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{SecIntro}
The low-temperature physics of quantum liquids, whose study ranges from the seminal experiments of Kapitza with liquid Helium \cite{kapitza} to the developments in the field of ultracold quantum gases \cite{pethick,pitaevskii}, is constructed on the paradigm of superfluidity.
This quantum mechanical phenomenon, usually defined as the capability of a quantum liquid to ``flow without friction'' through narrow capillaries, has important observable consequences on the dynamical properties of quantum liquids.
As a corollary, the study of dynamical phenomena, for instance the propagation of sound, provides nontrivial information on the superfluid character of the system, and on its thermodynamical and near-to-equilibrium properties.
Specifically, depending on the physical regime defined by the parameter $\omega \tau$, where $\omega$ is the sound-wave frequency, and $\tau$ is the mean time between each collision, sound propagation occurs in different qualitative ways.
When $\omega \tau \gg 1$ the collisions between the atoms are rare and the propagation of collisionless sound originates from the mean-field interaction of the fluid.
Historically, Andreev and Khalatnikov studied the propagation of sound in this regime \cite{andreev}, explaining previous experiments with liquid $^4$He \cite{whitney}, but more recently, collisionless sound has been the object of renewed experimental and theoretical interest in two-dimensional ultracold atomic gases \cite{ville,ota,cappellaro}.
In this work, however, we will focus on the propagation of sound in collisional superfluid Bose gases, and we will consider the collisional regime of $\omega \tau < 1$. In this case, the hydrodynamic properties of a $D$-dimensional Bose gas can be described with Landau and Tisza two-fluid model \cite{landau, landaufluid}, in which the quantum fluid is described as a mixture of a normal component and a superfluid component. While the normal part of the fluid is viscous, the superfluid one flows without friction and does not carry entropy. As a consequence in the near-to-equilibrium dynamics, due to the existence of these two macroscopic degrees of freedom, a second sound mode appears alongside the ``usual'' first one.
While the two-fluid model is a general framework, valid both in bosonic and fermionic systems, and in different spatial dimensions, the microscopic mechanisms underlying the qualitative and quantitative physical description of the first and second sound are system-dependent.
Due to the large isothermal compressibility of a 3D weakly-interacting Bose gas, and a similar behaviour is expected to occur in a 2D Bose gas \cite{singh}, the first and second sound modes hybridize \cite{lee, griffin, taylor, hu, verney}.
This phenomenon reveals the inversion of the role of density and entropy oscillations in the propagation of first and second sound: their contribution to the sound modes exchange when the finite hybridization temperature is crossed.
In 2D Bose gases, the Mermin-Wagner theorem \cite{merminwagner, hohenberg} rules out the occurrence of long-range order at finite temperature, nonetheless the superfluid density can be finite at temperatures below the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless (BKT) critical temperature, $T_{\mathrm{BKT}}$ \cite{bere, kosterlitz, nelson,desbusquois}. Therefore, the proliferation of free vortices at $T>T_{\mathrm{BKT}}$ which leads to a jump of the superfluid density \cite{nelson}, results also in the discontinuity of both first sound and second sound velocities. In the vicinity of the BKT transition temperature, an analysis based on universal relations (UR) in two-dimensional Bose gases \cite{prokofev01, prokofev02, yefsah, hung, rancon} is a valid description of this behavior. Indeed, it has succeeded in predicting the sound velocities quantitatively in the temperature regime near $T_{\mathrm{BKT}}$ \cite{ozawa, miki, hadz}.
Compared to the 3D and 2D cases, there is few investigation of the first and second sound velocities at finite temperature in 1D. To obtain meaningful results in this case, which deserves a detailed analysis, it is important to establish in which temperature regime a hydrodynamic description is reliable.
In this paper, we systematically investigate the low-temperature behaviour of sound velocities in a $D$-dimensional weakly-interacting Bose gas. Utilizing the two-fluid hydrodynamics and the Bogoliubov theory, we compute the sound velocities in a collisional Bose gas in $D=1,2,3$. We find that the hybridization, which has been predicted theoretically in a 3D Bose gas \cite{lee, griffin, verney}, can occur for $D\ge 2$. In particular, to obtain reliable results near $T_{\mathrm{BKT}}$ in 2D, we calculate the renormalized superfluid density by developing an improved approach based on Popov theory. Our theoretical results are, in this case, in reasonable agreement with the experimental measurements of Ref.~\cite{hadz}.
In the 1D case, the calculation of the sound velocities do not exhibit any hybridization and our quantitative predictions await experimental confirmations.
\section{Thermodynamic quantities of a $D$-dimensional Bose gas}\label{SecFormA}
We start from the Helmholtz free energy of a weakly-interacting $D$-dimensional Bose gas, which, including the quantum correction at zero temperature, reads (we set $\hbar=k_{\mathrm{B}}=1$ throughout this paper)
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}[b]
F&=F_{0}+F_{\mathrm{Q}}+F_{T} \\
&=\frac{g}{2}\frac{N^{2}}{L^{D}}+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\bm{p}}E_{p}+T\sum_{\bm p}\ln{\left[ 1 - e^{-E_{p}/T}\right]} ,
\end{aligned}
\label{freeenergy}
\end{equation}
where $F_{0}$ is the mean-field zero-temperature free energy with $g$ is the Bose-Bose interaction strength, $N$ is the total number of identical bosons confined in a hypercube of side $L$ and hypervolume $L^{D}$. $F_{T}$ is the low-temperature free energy with $T$ is the absolute temperature and
\begin{equation}
E_{p}=\sqrt{\frac{p^{2}}{2m}\left(\frac{p^{2}}{2m}+2gn\right)},
\end{equation}
is the Bogoliubov spectrum where $n=N/L^{D}$ is the $D$-dimensional number density and $m$ is the mass of the atoms. We define a gas parameter in $D$ dimension as
\begin{equation}
\eta\equiv \frac{mgn^{1-2/D}}{2\pi},
\end{equation}
which is indeed identical to $gn/[T_{\mathrm{c}}\, \zeta(D/2)^{2/D}]$ for $D=3$ where $T_{\mathrm{c}}$ is the critical temperature in the noninteracting case. The quantum correction $F_{\mathrm{Q}}$ in the free energy is obviously ultraviolet divergent and requires a regularization procedure. Dimensional regularization \cite{toigo} for each spatial dimension leads to
\begin{equation}
F_{\mathrm{Q}}=
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle L^3 \frac{8}{15\pi^2} m^{3/2}
\left( g n \right)^{5/2} & \text{($D=3$)}, \\ \\
\displaystyle-L^2 \frac{m}{8\pi} \left[
\ln{\left({\epsilon_{\Lambda}\over g n}
\right)} - \frac{2}{\eta} \right] \, \left(g n\right)^2
& \text{($D=2$)}, \\ \\
\displaystyle-L \frac{2}{3\pi} m^{1/2}
\left( g n \right)^{3/2} & \text{($D=1$)} ,
\end{cases}
\label{FQ}
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon_{\Lambda}=4e^{-2\gamma-1/2}/\left(ma_{\mathrm{2D}}^{2}\right) \gg gn$ \cite{mora} is a cutoff energy for $D=2$ and $\gamma=0.577\cdots$ is the Euler-Mascheroni's constant. The 2D $s$-wave scattering length $a_{\mathrm{2D}}$ is related to the 2D coupling constant as \cite{toigo, dalibard}
\begin{equation}
g=\frac{2\pi}{m}\frac{1}{\ln{\left(2/\left(e^{\gamma}ka_{\mathrm{2D}}\right)\right)}} ,
\label{ga2d}
\end{equation}
within the Born approximation, and, substituting $k=\pi/L$, one can obtain
\begin{equation}
\frac{\epsilon_{\Lambda}}{gn}=\frac{\pi }{2N}\frac{e^{2/\eta-1/2}}{\eta} .
\label{cutoff}
\end{equation}
The pressure $P$ is obtained as
\begin{equation}
P=-\left(\frac{\partial F}{\partial L^{D}}\right)_{N,T} .
\end{equation}
Other thermodynamic quantities can be obtained as well from the Helmholtz free energy in Eq.~(\ref{freeenergy}). The entropy per mass unit $s$ and the specific heat at constant volume $c_V$ are given by
\begin{equation}
s=\frac{1}{m}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial T}\frac{F}{N}\right)_{\rho} ,
\quad\quad
c_{V}=T\left(\frac{\partial s}{\partial T}\right)_{\rho} ,
\end{equation}
where $\rho=mn$ denotes the mass density.
\section{Landau's two-fluid model}\label{SecformB}
The calculation of the thermodynamic functions is usually based on microscopic derivations, as the one outlined in the previous section, that depend on the specific system and on its physical regimes.
Landau's two-fluid model, in which the system is described as a mixture of a viscous normal fluid and a non-viscous superfluid, is however a general theoretical framework to describe the hydrodynamic properties of quantum liquids.
Within this model, the first sound velocity $u_{1}$ and the second sound velocity $u_{2}$ ($\le u_{1}$) are the solutions of the following biquadratic equation \cite{landau}
\begin{equation}
u^{4}-\left(v_{\mathrm{A}}^{2}+v_{\mathrm{L}}^{2}\right)u^{2}+v_{\mathrm{T}}^{2}v_{\mathrm{L}}^{2}=0,
\label{Landaueq}
\end{equation}
where we define the isothermal, adiabatic, and Landau velocity, respectively, as \cite{landau, khala}
\begin{equation}
v_{\mathrm{T}} = \sqrt{\left(\frac{\partial P}{\partial \rho}\right)_{T}} ,
\quad
v_{\mathrm{A}} = \sqrt{\left(\frac{\partial P}{\partial \rho}\right)_{s}} ,
\quad
v_{\mathrm{L}}=\sqrt{\frac{\rho_{\mathrm{s}}Ts^{2}}{\rho_{\mathrm{n}}c_{V}}} ,
\label{vTAL}
\end{equation}
and the total mass density $\rho=mn=\rho_{\mathrm{n}}+\rho_{\mathrm{s}}$ is the sum of the normal mass density $\rho_{\mathrm{n}}$ and the superfluid mass density $\rho_{\mathrm{s}}$. Note that the Landau velocity $v_{\mathrm{L}}$ defined here corresponds to the velocity of a pure entropy wave.
The thermodynamic quantities in Eq. (\ref{vTAL}) depend on the system considered: here we implement their calculation following the Bogoliubov theory introduced in the last section, which describes a weakly-interacting Bose gas in $D$ dimensions. Moreover, we calculate the normal mass density as \cite{landau, landaufluid}
\begin{equation}
\rho_{\mathrm{n}}=-\frac{1}{D}\int\frac{d^{D}\bm{p}}{(2\pi)^{D}} \, p^{2}\frac{dn_{\mathrm{B}}(E_{p})}{dE_{p}} ,
\label{rhon}
\end{equation}
which, for a noninteracting gas with $g=0$, reduces to the total mass density $\rho_{\mathrm{n}}=\rho$ and the superfluid fraction vanishes. In Eq. (\ref{rhon}), $n_{\mathrm{B}}(E)=\left[e^{E/T}-1\right]^{-1}$ is the Bose distribution function.
Denoting $\bar{P}$ as the pressure contribution which includes the mean-field plus the thermal one, and $P_{\mathrm{Q}}$ as the quantum correction, one can obtain
\begin{equation}
v_{\mathrm{T}}=\sqrt{\left(\frac{\partial\left(\bar{P}+P_{\mathrm{Q}}\right)}{\partial\rho}\right)_{T}}
=\sqrt{\bar{v}_{\mathrm{T}}^{2}+ v_{\mathrm{Q}}^{2}} ,
\end{equation}
where $\bar{v}_{\mathrm{T}}$ is the isothermal velocity within the mean-field theory and
\begin{equation}
v_{\mathrm{Q}}^{2}\equiv \left(\frac{\partial P_{\mathrm{Q}}}{\partial\rho}\right)_{T} ,
\end{equation}
is the beyond-mean-field correction to the isothermal velocity. Since $F_{\mathrm{Q}}$ is the zero-temperature free energy, it does not affect the Landau velocity $v_{\mathrm{L}}$ and the quantum correction to the adiabatic velocity is identical to that to the isothermal one as
\begin{equation}
v_{\mathrm{A}}=\sqrt{\bar{v}_{\mathrm{A}}^{2}+v_{\mathrm{Q}}^{2}} ,
\end{equation}
where $\bar{v}_{\mathrm{A}}$ is the adiabatic velocity within the mean-field theory. The explicit expressions of the quantum correction $v_{\mathrm{Q}}^{2}$ are given by
\begin{equation}
v_{\mathrm{Q}}^{2}=
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle\frac{2\left(2\pi\eta\right)^{3/2}}{\pi^{2}}v_{\mathrm{B}}^{2} & \text{($D=3$)} , \\ \\
\displaystyle-\frac{\eta}{2}\left[\ln{\left(\frac{\epsilon_{\Lambda}}{gn}\right)}-\frac{2}{\eta}-\frac{1}{2}\right]v_{\mathrm{B}}^{2} & \text{($D=2$)} , \\ \\
\displaystyle-\sqrt{\frac{\eta}{2\pi}}v_{\mathrm{B}}^{2} & \text{($D=1$)} ,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where the Bogoliubov velocity reads $v_{\mathrm{B}}=\sqrt{gn/m}$. Fig. \ref{vQ_123D} represents the quantum correction $v_{\mathrm{Q}}^{2}$ to the gas parameter $\eta$ in each dimension. One can see that $v_{\mathrm{Q}}^{2}$ vanishes as $\eta\to 0$ in any dimension.
The quantum correction $v_{\mathrm{Q}}^{2}$ is positive in 3D while it is negative in 1D. In 2D, it is positive for $\eta>\pi/\left(2eN\right)$ and in the thermodynamic limit $N\to\infty$, one can assume $v_{\mathrm{Q}}^{2}>0$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{vQ_D123_N1d4_pi.eps}
\caption{The beyond-mean-field correction to the isothermal and adiabatic velocity $v_{\mathrm{Q}}^{2}$ for $D=1,2,3$. The horizontal axis is the gas parameter $\eta= mgn^{1-2/D}/\left(2\pi\right)$. For $D=2$, the number of particles is set to $N=10^{4}$.}
\label{vQ_123D}
\end{figure}
Our theoretical framework is reliable in physical regimes where the hydrodynamic description of the system is valid.
In particular, it is necessary that $\omega\tau \ll 1$ with $\tau$ is the collisional time and $\omega\simeq v_{\mathrm{B}}k$ is the frequency of the excited phononic mode. The collisional time is given by
\begin{equation}
\tau\sim\frac{l_{\mathrm{mfp}}}{v_{\mathrm{th}}}\sim\frac{1}{n\sigma v_{\mathrm{th}}} ,
\end{equation}
where $l_{\mathrm{mfp}}\sim1/(n\sigma)$ is the mean-free-path and $v_{\mathrm{th}}=\sqrt{2T/m}$ is the thermal velocity. For $D=3$, the cross-section is given by $\sigma=4\pi a^{2}=m^{2}g^{2}/(4\pi)$, which leads to
\begin{equation}
\omega\tau\sim N^{-\frac{1}{3}}\frac{\eta^{-2}}{\sqrt{2t}} .
\label{omegatau3D}
\end{equation}
Equation (\ref{omegatau3D}) indicates that our hydrodynamic description is valid at high temperature, for a large gas parameter, or for a large number of particles. Taking into account the Bogoliubov theory under the low-temperature approximation we employed, our theory would be valid under low temperature, small gas parameter, and a large number of particles.
The cross-section for $D=2$ is given by $\sigma\sim\left(2\pi\eta\right)^{2}/(mv_{\mathrm{th}})$ and the adimensional collisional time is independent of the temperature as
\begin{equation}
\omega\tau\sim\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2\pi N}}\eta^{-\frac{3}{2}} .
\label{omegatau2D}
\end{equation}
Equation (\ref{omegatau2D}) indicates that the hydrodynamic description for $D=2$ is valid for a large gas parameter or a large number of particles. As in 3D case, working with the Bogoliubov theory under the low-temperature approximation, our 2D theory is valid under the conditions of low temperature, small gas parameter, and a large number of particles. In the experimental observation reported in Ref. \cite{hadz}, the gas parameter and the number of particles are $\eta\simeq 0.10$ and $N\simeq2178$ respectively, and one obtains $\omega\tau\simeq0.13$, in which our hydrodynamic description is reliable.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\leavevmode
\begin{minipage}{.49\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[clip=true,height=0.7\columnwidth,width=1\columnwidth]{soundv3dQ_etat0e10e2_u1u2vTAL_ht0.01.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.49\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[clip=true,height=0.7\columnwidth,width=1\columnwidth]{u1u2_eta0e02_verney_b.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Results of sound velocities in a weakly-interacting Bose gas for $D=3$ and $\eta=0.1$ (panel (a)) and the comparison with the first and second sound velocity in Ref. \cite{verney} for $\eta=0.02$ (panel (b)). The horizontal axis is the reduced temperature $t=T/(gn)$. Inset of panel (a): The hybridization of the first sound and second sound modes. The dotted lines represent the results for $\eta=0.2$. The dotted lines in panel (b) represent the results of Ref. \cite{verney}.}
\label{u1u2_eta0.1_d=3}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Three-dimensional Bose gas}\label{Soundv_3D}
Let us discuss the propagation of the first sound and second sound in $D=3$. The velocities of these modes are shown in Fig.~\ref{u1u2_eta0.1_d=3}, where the temperature is rescaled as $t=T/(gn)$. Note that, in the left panel of Fig.~\ref{u1u2_eta0.1_d=3}, we set the gas parameter to $\eta\equiv mgn^{1/3}/(2\pi)=0.1$. At $T=0$, as discussed in \ref{Phononic}, we reproduce the well-known result:
\begin{equation}
u_{1}=\bar{v}_{\mathrm{T}}=\bar{v}_{\mathrm{A}}=v_{\mathrm{B}} ,
\quad\quad
u_{2}=v_{\mathrm{L}}=\frac{v_{\mathrm{B}}}{\sqrt{3}} ,
\end{equation}
which is given by the mean-field theory.
Around $t=0.6$, it exhibits a hybridization of the two sound modes with a small gap, which has been pointed out by Refs. \cite{lee, griffin, taylor, hu, verney} for a weakly-interacting 3D Bose gas.
This phenomenon can be interpreted by using the thermal expansion coefficient $\alpha\equiv -\rho^{-1}\left(\partial\rho/\partial T\right)_{P}=\left(v_{\mathrm{A}}^{2}/v_{\mathrm{T}}^{2}-1\right)/T$ in the following way. In the incompressible regime $\alpha T\ll 1$, the biquadratic Landau equation of Eq. (\ref{Landaueq}) gives $u_{1}=v_{\mathrm{A}}$ and $u_{2}=v_{\mathrm{L}}$, which indicates that the first sound and second sound mode correspond to the density mode and the entropy mode respectively. The hybridization temperature $t_{\mathrm{hyb}}$ characterizes this incompressible regime as $t \lesssim t_{\mathrm{hyb}}$. Experimentally, above the hybridization temperature, the second sound can be probed by a density perturbation while only the first sound can be probed below the hybridization temperature since the second sound corresponds to the entropy mode uncoupled from the density oscillation. At higher temperature than the critical temperature at which the the Landau velocity vanishes, one can check that the first sound velocity coincides with the adiabatic one $u_{1}=v_{\mathrm{A}}$. The inset of the left panel shows the first sound and second sound velocities for $\eta=0.1$ and $\eta=0.2$. It exhibits that a larger gas parameter opens the gap larger as $\eta^{3/4}$ \cite{verney}. In 3D, the hybridization occurs for any gas parameters.
The dotted, dashed, and dotted-dashed line in the left panel of Fig. \ref{u1u2_eta0.1_d=3} indicate the isothermal, adiabatic, and Landau velocity for $D=3$ respectively. The normal density fraction $\rho_{\mathrm{n}}$ within the Landau's prescription does not include effects of interactions among elementary excitations and is a low-temperature approximation. In addition, the Bogoliubov theory is not applicable at high temperature regime comparable with $T_{\mathrm{c}}$, so that the critical temperature at which $\rho_{\mathrm{s}}$ vanishes cannot exactly coincide with the superfluid phase transition temperature $T_{\mathrm{c}}$ \cite{verney}.
We can also qualitatively reproduce the results of Ref. \cite{verney} as shown in the right panel of Fig.~\ref{u1u2_eta0.1_d=3} while our framework ignored the Lee-Huang-Yang correction \cite{LHY}, which is included in Ref. \cite{verney}. Since Ref. \cite{verney} employed perturbation theory based on Beliaev diagrammatic technique at higher temperature region for better prediction, we find deviations in this region.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{soundv2dBKTQ_N1d4MC_u1u2vTAL_eta0e10e2_ht0e01_pi.eps}
\caption{Results of sound velocities for $D=2$ and $\eta=0.1$. The number of particle is set to be $N=10^{4}$. The horizontal axis is the reduced temperature scaled by the BKT transition temperature $t_{\mathrm{BKT}}=T_{\mathrm{BKT}}/(gn)$, which is determined by the KT-Nelson's formula in Eq.~\eqref{KTNelson} for the superfluid density in the two-fluid model while $\rho_{\mathrm{n}}$ is computed by Eq. (\ref{rhon}). Inset: The first sound and second sound velocity. The solid lines represent the results for $\eta=0.1$ and the dotted ones represent those for $\eta=0.2$}
\label{u1u2_etat0.1_d2}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Two-dimensional Bose gas}\label{Soundv_2D}
The superfluid properties of a 2D Bose gas are crucially different from those of the 3D case due to the phenomenology of the BKT transition \cite{bere, kosterlitz, nelson}. The theoretical framework developed in Sec.~\ref{SecFormA}, where the topological excitations of the bosonic fluid are not taken into account, cannot describe the BKT transition. These excitations are responsible for the universal jump of the superfluid density at BKT transition temperature, $T_{\mathrm{BKT}}$. To include it in our theory, we employ the KT-Nelson's formula \cite{nelson}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\pi}{2m^{2}}\rho_{\mathrm{s}}=T_{\mathrm{BKT}} ,
\label{KTNelson}
\end{equation}
which determines the BKT transition temperature $T_{\mathrm{BKT}}$. The superfluid density $\rho_{\mathrm{s}}$ in Eq. (\ref{KTNelson}) is calculated from the Landau formula given in Eq. (\ref{rhon}). A good approximation in an infinite-size weakly-interacting system is to set to zero the superfluid density fraction for $T\ge T_{\mathrm{BKT}}$.
We show the sound velocities in a 2D Bose gas in Fig. \ref{u1u2_etat0.1_d2}. Due to the jump of the superfluid density at $t=t_{\mathrm{BKT}}$, the first sound and second sound velocity exhibit discontinuities. One can see that the hybridization of $u_{1}$ and $u_{2}$ occurs around $t_{\mathrm{hyb}}\simeq 0.4$ for $\eta=0.1$.
Fig. \ref{thyb2D} displays the dependence on the gas parameter $\eta$ of the hybridization temperature $t_{\mathrm{hyb}}$, which is determined by the temperature at which the difference between the first and second sound velocity starts to increase.
Note that in 2D, for $\eta\gtrsim0.6$, $t_{\mathrm{hyb}}$ coincides with the BKT transition temperature. In the the region of $\eta\gtrsim 0.6$, at which $t_{\mathrm{hyb}}=t_{\mathrm{BKT}}$ in 2D, we infer from Fig. \ref{thyb2D} that the first and second sound modes are decoupled, respectively, to density and entropy modes, because the first sound corresponds to the density mode $u_{1}=v_{\mathrm{A}}$ and the second sound vanishes $u_{2}=0$ in the absence of the superfluid density above $t_{\mathrm{BKT}}$.
Our theoretical approach, based on the Bogoliubov theory, is reliable to describe the propagation of sound in low-temperature Bose gases, and its predictions are as better as the gas parameter $mg$ is smaller than 1.
The recent experiments of Ref.~\cite{hadz} with 2D weakly-interacting bosonic superfluids adopt the value of $mg=0.64$, and, therefore, can be described with our Bogoliubov theory.
However, since these experiments focus on the high-temperature regime near $T_{\text{BKT}}$, it is useful to extend our previous results to improve the agreement in this specific temperature regime.
In particular, the sound velocities are strongly dependent on the superfluid density and the one derived from the Landau formula of Eq.~\eqref{rhon} has, strictly speaking, a simplified behaviour near $T_{\text{BKT}}$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{hyb3d2dQ_N1d4_MC_pi.eps}
\caption{Hybridization temperature for $D=3$ and $D=2$ as a function of the gas parameter $\eta= mgn^{1-2/D}/\left(2\pi\right)$. In the latter case, the particle number is set to $N=10^{4}$. In 2D, moreover, the hybridization temperature coincides with the BKT transition temperature for $\eta\gtrsim 0.6$.}
\label{thyb2D}
\end{figure}
To improve our theory in the high-temperature regime of the experiments we evaluate the renormalized superfluid density, $\rho_{s}^{\mathrm{(R)}}$, by solving the Nelson-Kosterlitz renormalization group equations \cite{nelson}. These differential equations describe the renormalization of the superfluid density due to the presence of vortex-antivortex excitations, which are not taken into account by the Landau formula of Eq.~\eqref{rhon}. They read \cite{nelson}
\begin{equation}
\begin{gathered}
\begin{aligned}[b]
&\partial_l\, K^{-1}(l) = 4 \pi^3 y^2(l) ,\\
&\partial_l\, y(l) = [2-\pi K(l)]\, y(l) ,
\label{rg}
\end{aligned}
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
where $K(l)=\rho_{\mathrm{s}}(l)/(mT)$, with $\rho_{\mathrm{s}}(l)$ the superfluid density at the adimensional scale $l$, and $y(l)=\exp\left[-\mu_{\mathrm{c}}(l)/T\right]$ is the fugacity, where $\mu_{\mathrm{c}}(l)$ is the vortex chemical potential at scale $l$.
To describe consistently the finite-size experiments, we solve numerically these equations up to a finite scale, $l_{\mathrm{max}} = \ln(A^{1/2}/\xi)$, where $A$ is the area of the system and $\xi=(g \rho)^{-1/2}$ is the healing length, corresponding approximately to the vortex core size.
In the solution of Eqs.~\eqref{rg} the choice of the initial conditions is quite delicate: we choose the chemical potential of the bare vortices as $\mu_{\mathrm{c}}(0) = \pi^2 \rho_{\mathrm{s}}(0) /(2m^{2})$ \cite{bighin}, and for the initial value of $K(0)$ we use $K(0)=\rho_{\mathrm{s}}(0)/(mT)$, with $\rho_{\mathrm{s}}(0) = \rho- \rho_{\mathrm{n}}(0)$. It is important to point out that the bare Landau density which we introduce here, $\rho_{\mathrm{n}}(0)$, is formally the same as Eq.~\eqref{rhon}, but is calculated with the Popov spectrum:
\begin{equation}
E_{\mathrm{Pop},p}=\sqrt{\frac{p^{2}}{2m}\left(\frac{p^{2}}{2m}+2\mu\right)},
\end{equation}
where $\mu$ is the chemical potential of the system.
We derive this chemical potential as a function of $N$ and of $T$ by inverting numerically the grand canonical equation of state, which reads (see Ref.~\cite{mora})
\begin{equation}
N = \frac{m\mu L^D}{4\pi} \ln\bigg( \frac{4}{m\mu a_{\mathrm{2D}}^2e^{2\gamma+1}} \bigg) + \sum_{\bm{p}} \frac{p^2}{2m} \frac{n_{\mathrm{B}}(E_{\mathrm{Pop},p})}{E_{\mathrm{Pop},p}}.
\label{N}
\end{equation}
In particular, we evaluate $a_{\mathrm{2D}}$ as \cite{dalibard}
\begin{equation}
a_{\mathrm{2D}} = 2.092 \, a_{z} \ln \bigg(-\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}} \frac{a_{z}}{a_{\mathrm{3D}}} \bigg),
\end{equation}
where $a_{z}$ is the characteristic length of the transverse harmonic confinement and $a_{\mathrm{3D}}$ is the three-dimensional $s$-wave scattering length, which is directly controlled in the experiment \cite{hadz}.
The procedure described above allows us to have reliable results near $T_{\text{BKT}}$ for $\rho_{\mathrm{s}}^{\mathrm{(R)}}\equiv\rho_{\mathrm{s}}(l_{\mathrm{max}})$.
Given the renormalized density $\rho_{\mathrm{s}}^{\mathrm{(R)}}$ for every temperature $T$, we use it as an input to calculate the sound velocities.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\leavevmode
\begin{minipage}{.49\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[clip=true,height=0.7\columnwidth,width=1\columnwidth]{soundv2drenUR_g0e64N2178_0e5-1e6_0210.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.49\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[clip=true,height=0.7\columnwidth,width=1\columnwidth]{Ds_DDc_renUR_g0e64N2178_0210.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{First sound and second sound velocity (panel (a)) and rescaled superfluid density $\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{s}}=n_{\mathrm{s}}\lambda_{T}^{2}$ in 2D (panel (b)) for $mg=0.64$, plotted in comparison with the experimental data of Ref.~\cite{hadz} where $\mathcal{D}/\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{c}}=t_{\mathrm{BKT}}/t$. The particle number is set to be $N=2178$ \cite{hadz}. The blue and green solid lines represent our results using the renormalized superfluid density \cite{nelson} calculated with the chemical potential obtained from Eq.~\eqref{N}. The orange and violet dashed lines represent the results of UR analysis \cite{prokofev01, prokofev02, yefsah, hung, rancon,ozawa,miki,hadz}.}
\label{2dQ_u1u2}
\end{figure}
Our results are outlined in Fig.~\ref{2dQ_u1u2}, which shows, in comparison with the experimental data \cite{hadz}, $u_{1}$ and $u_{2}$ in the left panel and the superfluid density $\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{s}}=n_{\mathrm{s}}\lambda_{T}^{2}$, with $\lambda_{T}\equiv\sqrt{2\pi/\left(mT\right)}$ the thermal wavelength, in the right panel. As in the experiment, here we use $mg = 0.64$, the number density of $n = 3 \, \mu \text{m}^{-2}$ and the system area of $A = 33 \times 22 \, \mu\text{m}^2$ \cite{hadz}. We also emphasize that, within our finite-size renormalization group calculation, we find a critical BKT temperature of $37 \, \text{nK}$, which is practically coincident with the result $T_{\mathrm{BKT}}=2\pi n/\left[m\ln{\left[380/\left(mg\right)\right]}\right]$ of Ref.~\cite{prokofev01}, and compatible with the critical temperature of the experiments of $42 \, \text{nK}$ \cite{hadz}. Fig. \ref{2dQ_u1u2}(a) indicates that the results using the renormalized superfluid density fraction with the exact chemical potential, represented by the blue and green solid line, are in reasonable agreement with the experimental values. Note that our first sound velocity also describes the behaviour towards low temperature in a satisfactory way. The slight deviation of our second sound velocity from the experimental one at low temperature is ascribed to the inconsistency between the thermodynamic quantities that appear in Eq. (\ref{vTAL}), calculated under the low-temperature approximation $\mu=gn$, and the renormalized superfluid density $\rho_{\mathrm{s}}^{\mathrm{(R)}}$ calculated with the improved $\mu$. While this approximation is not particularly problematic near $T_{\mathrm{BKT}}$, it does not allow us to extend the present theory at low temperatures, where the sound velocities are more sensitive to the normal fraction. Fig.~\ref{2dQ_u1u2}(b) displays that the renormalized $\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{s}}$ obtained with the beyond-mean-field chemical potential agrees well with the experimental values. From this last figure, thus, we can expect that the corrections due to the interaction between Bogoliubov quasiparticles, which will be more relevant in the high temperature regime and outside the very weakly-interacting regime of $mg \ll 1$, are, at least for the superfluid density, not particularly relevant. This suggests that future works in 2D with the full evaluation of the improved thermodynamics could be a solid benchmark for the sound velocities both in the low and high temperature regimes.
\subsection{One-dimensional Bose gas}\label{Soundv_1D}
On the basis of the Mermin-Wagner theorem \cite{merminwagner}, the critical
temperature $T_{\mathrm{BEC}}$ below which there is Bose-Einstein condensation,
or equivalently below which there is off-diagonal long-range order (ODLRO),
is positive in 3D, it is zero in 2D, and it is absent in 1D. Instead, the
critical temperature $T_{\mathrm{c}}$ below which there is superfluidity, or
equivalently below which there is algebraic long-range order (ALRO),
is equal to $T_{\mathrm{BEC}}$ in 3D, it is equal to $T_{\mathrm{BKT}}$ in 2D, and it is zero
in 1D. Thus, in the thermodynamic limit and with $T>0$, for a 1D
weakly-interacting Bose gas there is neither ODLRO nor ALRO. However,
a finite 1D system of spatial size $L$ is effectively superfluid \cite{super-book}
if $T\ll E_{\phi}/ \ln{(L/\xi)}$, or equivalently $t \ll t_{\phi}\equiv1/\left[\sqrt{\pi\eta}\ln{\left(2N\sqrt{\pi\eta}\right)}\right]$, where $E_{\phi}\simeq n/(m\xi)$ is the energy to create a phase slip (black soliton) and $\xi$ is the corresponding healing length. Note that, for $\eta\ll 1$, the adimensional temperature $t_{\phi}$ can be quite large.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{soundv1dQ_etat0e1_u1u2vTAL_ht0.01.eps}
\caption{Results of sound velocities for $D=1$ and $\eta=0.1$.
The horizontal axis is the reduced temperature $t=T/(gn)$. }
\label{u1u2_eta0.1_d=1}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{u1u2_eta0.1_d=1}, we show
the results of $u_{1}$ and $u_{2}$ in an 1D Bose gas for $\eta=0.1$. Since the Bogoliubov theory in 1D well describes the thermodynamics in the weakly-interacting regime up to $\eta\sim 1$ at low temperature \cite{rosi,cappe}, our 1D results would be reliable in this regime. The figure exhibits
no hybridization of $u_{1}$ and $u_{2}$ because of $u_{1}=u_{2}=v_{\mathrm{B}}$ at zero-temperature
within the mean-field and the gap opening at zero-temperature between $u_{1}$ and $u_{2}$ by the quantum correction. In the incompressible regime within the mean-field theory, one can obtain $u_{1}=u_{2}=v_{\mathrm{B}}$ in 1D, which indicates that the decoupled density mode and entropy mode are degenerated. Hence, $t=0$ corresponds to the hybridization temperature at which the first and second sound mode are closest to each other in 1D. The beyond-mean-field correction decreases $v_{\mathrm{A}}$ and results in $u_{1}=v_{\mathrm{L}}$ and $u_{2}=v_{\mathrm{A}}$, namely the first and second sound correspond to entropy and density mode respectively due to the negative quantum correction $v_{\mathrm{Q}}^{2}<0$ unlike 3D or 2D case.
\section{Conclusion}
We discuss sound modes in a collisional Bose gas in $D$ dimensions by means of the Landau's two-fluid hydrodynamics and of the Bogoliubov theory. We observe the hybridization between the first and second sound for $D\ge 2$ and we find that, for a 3D Bose gas in particular, it occurs for any gas parameter.
For 2D collisional superfluids, comparing our theory with the experimental observations of Ref.~\cite{hadz}, we find that, after an improved calculation of the renormalized superfluid density based on the beyond-mean-field equation of state, our results are in fair qualitative agreement with the measured values.
Notably, our results for the superfluid density reproduce quite well the experimental data, suggesting that an improved theory, totally based on the equation of state of Eq.~\eqref{N}, is a promising approach to derive the whole finite-temperature thermodynamics.
This general calculation, which is expected to reproduce the first and second sound of 2D superfluids quantitatively better, is left for future works.
Finally, we computed the sound velocities also in 1D, finding no hybridization. Since there are no available experimental data yet in this configuration, our 1D analysis could provide a benchmark for future investigations.
\ack
We thank J. Schmitt, M. Ota, and V. Singh for providing the experimental and theoretical data. We also acknowledge valuable comments from M. Ota. KF acknowledges Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Padova e Rovigo for a PhD scholarship.
|
\section{Introduction}
Optical fiber is the medium of choice for high-speed data transmission. Although general expressions for the capacity of discrete-time point-to-point channels are derived in \cite{Shan49,VerduHan94}, evaluating these expressions for models of optical fiber remains difficult.
Optical fiber is modeled by the stochastic nonlinear Schr\"odinger (NLS) equation.
There are two effects in the channel that impact the capacity.
First, nonlinearity transforms additive noise to \emph{phase noise} during the propagation.
As the amplitude of the input signal tends to infinity,
the phase of the output signal tends to a uniform random variable in
the zero-dispersion channel \cite[Sec.~IV]{yousefi2011opc}.
Second, dispersion converts phase noise to amplitude noise introducing a \emph{multiplicative noise}.
The successive application of the phase and multiplicative noise makes signal noise interaction intractable.
The achievable information rates (AIRs) of the wavelength-division multiplexing (WDM) vanish at high powers due to treating interference (arising from the application of the linear multiplexing to the nonlinear channel) as noise
\cite{SplettKurzke93, mitra2000nli,essiambre2010clo, SecondinitFores13}. On the other hand, it is shown that the capacity $\mathcal C(\snr,K)$ of the discrete-time models of optical fiber
as a function of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and the number of segments in distance $K$ satisfies \cite{yousefi2015cwit,kramer2015upper}
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\mathcal C(\snr,K) \leq \log_2(1+\text{SNR}).
\label{eq:ub}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
The problem of finding the capacity has been investigated for the non-dispersive case in \cite{turitsyn2003ico,yousefi2011opc,ReznichenkoTerekhov20,Keykhosravi19}. It is shown that the asymptotic capacity of this channel is $\frac{1}{2}\log_2(\mathcal{P})+o(1)$ \cite{yousefi2011opc}, where $\mathcal P$ is the average input signal power.
The stochastic NLS equation can be discretized using the split-step Fourier method (SSFM).
The capacity of the discrete-time discrete-space SSFM model of the optical fiber with fixed step size in distance as a function of $\snr$ is studied in \cite{yousefi2016cap}.
It is shown that this model tends to a linear fading channel as $\snr \rightarrow \infty$, described by a random matrix $\mathsf{M}_K$. The asymptotic capacity of this model is \cite[Thm.~1]{yousefi2016cap}
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathcal{C}(\snr, K){=}
\begin{cases}
\IEEEstrut
\frac{1}{2n}\log_2\left(\snr \right) + O(1), & \textnormal{const. loss},\\[1pt] \frac{1}{n}\log_2\log_2\left(\snr\right) + O(1),& \textnormal{non-const. loss},
\IEEEstrut
\end{cases}
\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\label{eq:asym-cap}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $n$ is the dimension of the input vector, and the loss coefficient is considered as a function of frequency. As a result, there is only one signal degrees-of-freedom (DoF) at high powers (signal energy) due to signal-noise interaction. However, the model in \cite{yousefi2016cap} may not describe realistic fiber where
the distance is continuous.
The capacity of the discrete-time discrete-space SSFM model as a function of $\snr$ and the number of segments in distance $K$ is studied in \cite{kamran2015bound}. It seems that the analysis in \cite{kamran2015bound} suggests that if $K$ tends to infinity sufficiently fast as $K = \sqrt[4]{\snr}$ and $\snr \rightarrow\infty$,
the capacity is lower bounded by $\frac{1}{8}\log_2(1+\snr)+c$ where $c<\infty$.
In this paper, we consider the SSFM model of optical fiber as a function of $K$ and $\snr$. The contributions of the paper are as follows.
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*,wide]
\item[\textit{a})]
First, we show that when $K\geq \snr ^{2/3}$ and $\snr \rightarrow\infty$,
the off-diagonal terms in the random matrix $\mathsf{M}_K$ in \cite{yousefi2016cap}, representing the stochastic inter-symbol interference (ISI), tend to zero due to the law of large numbers, and $\mathsf{M}_K$ tends to a diagonal matrix with phase noise.
As a consequence, the capacity of the lossless continuous-space SSFM model is lower bounded as \begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\mathcal{C}(\snr)&\triangleq &\lim \limits_{K\rightarrow \infty} \mathcal{C}(\snr,K)
\nonumber\\
&\geq& \frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(1+ \snr\right)- \frac{1}{2}+o(1),
\label{eq:mainThSSFM}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where the term $o(1)$ tends to zero with $\snr\rightarrow\infty$. This suggests that, unlike the discrete-space SSFM model where asymptotically there is only one DoF and the capacity is essentially finite (for large $n$), in the continuous-space model the number of DoFs is at least half of the input dimension. In particular, the capacity grows with the input power with pre-log of at least $1/2$. The pre-log in the lower bound when $K=\sqrt[\delta]{\snr}$ is generally characterized in terms of $\delta$.
\item[\textit{b)}] Second, we consider the SSFM model when the nonlinearity parameter $\gamma \rightarrow \infty$.
It is shown that this channel is a fading channel for any $K$ and $\snr$. As a result, when $K\rightarrow\infty$, the channel simplifies to $n$ independent phase noise channels in the lossless case, with the capacity $\mathcal{C}(\snr)=\frac{1}{2}\log_2(1+\snr)-\frac{1}{2}+o(1)$.
\item[\textit{c)}] Third, we consider the lossless SSFM model in which the dispersion matrix does not depend on $K$. It is shown that when $K=\sqrt[\delta]{\snr}$, $\delta>3$, and $ \snr \rightarrow \infty$, the capacity is $\frac{1}{2n}\log_2(1+\snr)+O(1)$.
In this case, there is one DoF asymptotically as in \eqref{eq:asym-cap} \cite{yousefi2016cap}.
\item[\textit{d)}] Finally, we simulate the AIR of the SSFM model with back-propagation equalization. As previously observed, the AIR characteristically increases with $\snr$, reaching a peak at a certain optimal power, and then decreases as $\snr$ is further increased (typically to near zero in WDM). The peak is attributed to a balance between noise and ISI. However, if the power is increased further, the AIR will increase again, approaching the $\frac{1}{2}\log(1+\snr)- \frac{1}{2} + o(1)$ lower bound. The second ascent is because the ISI vanishes as
$K\rightarrow\infty$ sufficiently fast.
\end{itemize}
The paper is organized as follows.
The notation is introduced in Section~\ref{sec:Notations}. The
discrete- and continuous-space SSFM models are presented in Section~\ref{sec:model}.
The main capacity lower bound is presented in Section~\ref{sec:CapacityResults}, which is proved and extended in Sections~\ref{sec:CapacityResultsExt} and \ref{sec:proof}. The results are verified by numerical simulations in Section~\ref{sec:simulations}, and the paper is concluded in Section \ref{sec:conc}. Appendix~\ref{sec:math}. provides background on a few mathematical concepts.
\section{Notation} \label{sec:Notations}
Real and complex numbers are denoted by $\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{C}$, respectively, with the imaginary unit $j=\sqrt{-1}$. The real and imaginary parts of a complex number $x$ are denoted by $\mathfrak{R}(x)$ and $\mathfrak{I}(x)$, respectively. The magnitude and phase of $x\in\mathbb C$ are denoted by $\abs{x}$ and $\angle{x}$.
The complex conjugate of $x\in\mathbb C$ is $x^*$.
Important scalars are shown with the calligraphic font, \emph{e.g.,}\ $\mathcal{P}$ for power, $\mathcal{C}$ for the capacity, and $\mathcal{L}$ for the length of optical fiber.
Bold letters are used to denote vectors, \emph{e.g.,}\ $\vc{x}$. The $p$-norm of a vector $\vc{x} \in \mathbb{C}^n$ is
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\norm{\vc{x}}_p=\bigl( \abs{x_1}^p + \abs{x_2}^p + \cdots + \abs{x_n}^p \bigr)^{1/p}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
The Euclidean norm with $p=2$ is $\norm{\vc{x}} \stackrel{\Delta}{=}\norm{\vc{x}}_2$.
The entries of a sequence of vectors $\vc{x}_i\in\mathbb C^n$, $i=1,2,\ldots$, are indexed with convention
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{C}
\vc x_{i} = \begin{pmatrix}
x_{i,1}, x_{i,2}, \ldots, x_{i,n}
\end{pmatrix}.
\label{eq:indexing}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
The $n$-sphere is denoted by $\mathcal{S}^n$. A vector $\vc{x}$ in the spherical coordinate is represented by its norm $\norm{\vc{x}}$ and its direction $\hat{\vc{x}}=\vc{x}/\norm{\vc{x}}$. The spherical coordinate system is introduced in Appendix~\ref{sec:math}.
Random variables and their realizations are represented by the upper- and lower-case letters respectively. The probability density function (PDF) of a random variable $X$ is denoted by $P_X(x)$. The expected value of a random variable $X$ is denoted by $\mathbb{E}[X]$. The uniform distribution on the interval $[a,b)$ is denoted by $\mathcal{U}(a,b)$. The PDF of a zero-mean circularly-symmetric complex Gaussian random vector with covariance matrix $\mathrm{K}$ is denoted by $\mathcal{N}_{\mathbb{C}}(0,\mathrm{K})$. Equality of random variables $X$ and $Y$ in distribution is written as
$X\stackrel{d}{=}Y$.
A random variable in $\mathbb C^n$ is said to be absolutely continuous if its PDF is bounded and has at least one finite moment \cite[Def.~3]{GhourchianGohariAmini17}. Such random variable has an absolutely continuous density with respect to the Lebesgue measure, and its PDF does not include a Dirac delta function.
Let $\mathcal X\subseteq\mathbb R^n$ and $g:\mathcal X\mapsto \mathbb R$.
A sequence of probability distributions $(\mu_{\mathcal P})_{\mathcal P\in\mathbb{R}^+}$ on $\mathcal X$ with the average cost constraint $\mathbb E g(\vc X) \leq \mathcal P$ is said to escape to infinity
with $\mathcal P $ if \cite[Def.~2.4]{moser2004dbb}
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{c}
\lim \limits_{\mathcal{P} \rightarrow \infty} \mu_{\mathcal{P}} \left( \vc{x}\in\mathcal X\colon g(\vc{x}) \leq\mathcal P_0\right)=0,
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
for any $\mathcal P_0>0$.
We say a sequence of channels with conditional distributions $(P_a(\vc y|\vc x))_{a\in\mathbb R}$, $\vc x, \vc y\in \mathcal X$, tends to a channel $Q(\vc y|\vc x)$ as $a\rightarrow\infty$ if $\lim_{a\rightarrow\infty}P_a(\vc y| \vc x) = Q(\vc y| \vc x)$ point-wise for all $\vc x$ and $\vc y$. We say a channel $P(\vc y| \vc x)$ tends to a channel $Q(\vc y|\vc x)$ as the distribution of $\vc X$ escapes to infinity with an average cost $\mathcal P$, if the output of $P$ tends to the output of $Q$ in probability as $\mathcal P\rightarrow\infty$ for any sequence of input distributions that escapes to infinity. When the cost function is $g(\vc x)=\norm{\vc x}_2^2$, roughly speaking this implies that $P( \vc y| \vc x)\rightarrow Q(\vc y| \vc x)$ point-wise, for all $\vc y$ and all $\vc x$ with $\norm{\vc x}_2>c$ for all $c>0$ (except possibly on an input set with zero measure).
A sequence of $n$ numbers $x_1,\ldots, x_{n}$ is shown as $(x_{\ell})_{\ell=1}^n$ or $x^n$. The set of integers $\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$ is denoted by $[n]$. A sequence of independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables drawn from the PDF $P_X(x)$ is presented as $X_{\ell} \widesim{\text{i.i.d.}} P_X(x)$, $\ell=1,2,3,\ldots$.
Deterministic matrices are denoted by upper-case letters with mathrm font, \emph{e.g.,}\ $\mathrm{D}$, and random matrices are shown by upper-case letters with mathsf font, \emph{e.g.,}\ $\mathsf{M}$. The identity matrix of size $n$ is $\mathrm{I}_n$.
For a sequence of matrices $(A_i)_{i=1}^m$, the product is defined with convention $\prod \limits_{i=1}^m \mathrm{A}_i=\mathrm{A}_m \mathrm{A}_{m-1} \cdots \mathrm{A}_1$. A diagonal matrix $\mathsf{R}$ with
diagonal entries $R_i$ is denoted by $\mathsf R=\diag( R_1,\ldots, R_n)$. The following diagonal matrix is used throughout the paper
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta})\triangleq
\diag \Bigl( \bigl(\exp(j\theta_{\ell})\bigr)_{{\ell}=1}^n \Bigr), \label{def:diagMat}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\theta_{\ell}\widesim{\text{i.i.d.}} \mathcal{U}(0,2\pi)$.
The group of complex-valued $n\times n$ unitary matrices is denoted by $\mathbb{U}_n$. Some properties of $\mathbb{U}_n$ are reviewed in Appendix~\ref{sec:math}.
Suppose that $\nu$ is an equivalence relation on the set $\mathcal{I}_n=\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$, partitioning it into non-empty equivalence classes $\mathcal{I}_1,\mathcal{I}_2,\ldots,\mathcal{I}_{m(\nu)}$.
The notation $\mathbb{U}_n(\nu)$ is used to denote the group of block diagonal unitary matrices $\mathrm{A}$ in which if the integers $r$ and $s$ do not belong to one class, then $\mathrm{A}_{r,s}=0$.
Given two functions $f(x)\colon \mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ and $g(x)\colon\mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$, we say $f(x)=O\left(g(x)\right)$, if there exists a finite $c>0$ and $x_0>0$ such that $|f(x)|\leq c\,|g(x)|$, for all $x \geq x_0$. In addition, $f(x)=o\left(g(x)\right)$ if for any $c>0$ there exists a finite $x_0>0$ such that $|f(x)|\leq c \,|g(x)|$, for all $x \geq x_0$.
For a sequence of scalar random variables $\left(X_k\right)_{k=1}^{\infty}$ and constants $\left(a_k\right)_{k=1}^{\infty}$, where $X_k,a_k \in \mathbb{C}$, we say $X_k=O_p(a_k)$, if for any $\epsilon>0$, there exists a finite $c$ and finite $k_0$, such that for any $k \geq k_0$, $P\left(|X_k|/|a_k| > c \right) \leq \epsilon$. Index $p$ in $O_p(\cdot)$ indicates ``in probability''. Similarly, $X_k=o_p(a_k)$ is defined. We write $X_k=\Omega_p(a_k)$, if $X_k=O_p(a_k)$ but $X_k\neq o_p(a_k)$. For a sequence of random matrices $\left(\mathsf{X}_k\right)_{k=1}^{\infty}$ and constants $\left(a_k\right)_{k=1}^{\infty}$, where $\mathsf{X}_k \in \mathbb{C}^{n,m}$ and $a_k \in \mathbb{C}$, we say $\mathsf X_k=O_p(a_k)$, if $\norm{\mathsf X_k}_{\infty}=O_p(a_{k})$. Correspondingly, $\mathsf X_k=o_p(a_k)$ is defined.
Finally, for deterministic matrices, $O(\cdot)$ and $o(\cdot)$ are defined similarly.
For a sequence of random matrices $\left(\mathsf{A}_k\right)_{k=1}^{\infty}$, we say $\mathsf{A}_K\rightarrow\mathsf{B}$ in probability with convergence rate $\upsilon>0$, if
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\norm{\mathsf{A}_k - \mathsf B}_{\infty} = O_p\left(k^{-\upsilon}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
We say $f(x)\colon\mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is asymptotically lower bounded by
$g(x)\colon\mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, and write $f(x) \geq g(x)$, if
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\lim \limits_{x \rightarrow \infty} (f(x)-g(x)) \geq 0.
\label{eq:example}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Finally, for a discrete-time channel $\vc X\mapsto \vc Y$, where $\vc X, \vc Y\in \mathbb C^{m}$, with the average power constraint $\mathbb E ||\vc X||^2 \leq m\mathcal P$ and capacity $\mathcal{C}(\mathcal P)$, we say there are $r>0$ complex signal DoFs in the channel if the capacity pre-log is $r/m$, \emph{i.e.,}\ $\lim\limits_{\mathcal P\rightarrow\infty}\mathcal{C}(\mathcal P)/\log(\mathcal P)=r/m$.
\section{Split-step Fourier model} \label{sec:model}
In this section, we consider a modified version of SSFM introduced in \cite{yousefi2016cap}. Here, the nonlinearity and noise steps are combined into one step, so that the influence of the additive amplified spontaneous emission (ASE) noise can be seen as phase noise. In what follows, SSFM refers to the modified SSFM.
\subsection{Continuous-time model}
Denote the complex envelope of the optical signal at distance $z$ and time $t$ by $Q(t, z)$. The propagation of the signal in single-mode optical fiber with distributed amplification is governed by the stochastic nonlinear Schr\"odinger (NLS) equation \cite[Eq.~2]{yousefi2016cap}
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\frac{\partial{Q}}{\partial{z}}=L_L(Q)+L_N(Q)+N(t,z). \label{eq:schrodinger}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Here, $L_L$ is the linear operator
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
L_L(Q) = -j\frac{\beta_2}{2} \frac{\partial^2 Q}{\partial t^2}-\frac{1}{2}\alpha_r \convolution Q(t,z),
\label{eq:L-L}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\beta_2$ is the second-order chromatic dispersion coefficient, $\alpha_r(t)$ is the residual attenuation coefficient (remained after imperfect amplification), $\convolution$ is convolution resulting from the dependence of the attenuation coefficient with frequency, and $j=\sqrt{-1}$.
The operator
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
L_N(Q)=j\gamma \abs{Q}^2 Q
\label{eq:L-N}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
represents the Kerr nonlinearity, where $\gamma$ is the nonlinearity parameter.
Finally, $N(t,z)$ is zero-mean circularly-symmetric complex Gaussian noise process with covariance matrix %
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathbb{E}\left[ N(t,z)N^*(t',z')\right] =\tilde{\sigma}^2 \delta_{\mathcal{B}}(t-t')\delta(z-z'),
\label{eq:N-cor}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\delta_{\mathcal{B}}(x) =\mathcal{B}\sinc (\mathcal{B}x)$, $\sinc (x)= \sin(\pi x)/(\pi x)$, $\mathcal{B}$ is the noise bandwidth,
$\delta(\cdot)$ is the Dirac delta function, and $\tilde\sigma$ is the power spectral density of the ASE noise. Denote $\sigma\triangleq\tilde{\sigma}\sqrt{\mathcal{B}}$.
The capacity results obtained in this paper are expected to hold for more general linear and nonlinear operators $L_L$ and $L_N$ that take into account other forms of dispersion and nonlinearity. However, we restrict the analysis to \eqref{eq:L-L} and \eqref{eq:L-N}.
\subsection{Discrete-time SSFM model} \label{sec:ssfmDef}
Discretize a fiber of length $\mathcal{L}$ into $K$ segments of length $\varepsilon=\mathcal{L}/K$ in distance, and $Q(t,\cdot)$ to a vector of length $n$ with step size $\Delta_t$ in time.
Let $\vc{V}_i\in\mathbb{C}^n$ be the input of the spatial segment $i$, where $\vc{V}_1=\vc{X}$ is the channel input and $\vc{V}_{K+1}=\vc{Y}_K$ is the channel output.
In segment $i$ of the modified SSFM, the following steps are performed \cite{yousefi2016cap}.
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*,wide]
\item[\textit{a})] \emph{Modified nonlinear step}: In this step \eqref{eq:schrodinger} is solved analytically with $L_L=0$. Let $\vc{V}_i$ and $\vc{U}_i$ be the input and output in this step, and $M\rightarrow\infty$ a large integer.
The channel $\vc V_i\mapsto \vc U_i$ is memoryless with the input output relation
\cite[Eq. 5]{yousefi2016cap}
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
U_{i,\ell}= \left(V_{i,\ell}+W_{i,\ell}(M)\right) e^{j\Phi_{i,\ell}},
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where
$U_{i,\ell}$ and $V_{i,\ell}$ are entries of $\vc U_i$ and $\vc V_i$ defined based on \eqref{eq:indexing}, and $\bigl(W_{i,\ell}(m)\bigr)_{i,\ell}$ is a sequence of discrete-time Wiener processes in $m$ with auto-correlation function
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
{\sf E}\Bigl\{ W_{i,\ell}(m) W_{i',\ell'}(m') \Bigr\}=\sigma^2 \mu \: \delta_{ii'}\delta_{\ell\ell'}\min(m,m'),
\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
for all $i,i'\in [K]$, $\ell,\ell'\in [n] $ and $m, m'\in[M]$,
where $\mu=\varepsilon/M$ and $\delta_{ij}$ is the Kronecker delta function. The nonlinear phase is
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\Phi_{i,\ell} \triangleq \gamma \mu\sum \limits_{r=1}^{M} \Big|V_{i,\ell}+W_{i,\ell}(r) \Big|^2.
\label{eq:Phi-ij}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Denote $\vc{\bar{Z}}_i\triangleq \vc{W}_{i}(M)$.
\item[\textit{b})] \emph{Linear step}: In this step \eqref{eq:schrodinger} is solved analytically with $L_N=0$ and $N(t,z)=0$. If $\vc{U}_i$ is the input and $\vc{V}_{i+1}$ is the output of the linear step, the map $\vc{U}_i \mapsto \vc{V}_{i+1}$ is
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{c}
\vc{V}_{i+1}=\mathrm{D}_K \vc{U}_i,
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
where $\mathrm{D}_K$ is the (deterministic) dispersion matrix
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathrm{D}_K=\mathrm{F}^{-1} \diag\left (\left( e^{a_{\ell}+jb_{\ell}}\right)_{\ell=1}^{n}\right)\mathrm{F}, \label{def:DK}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\mathrm{F}$ is the discrete Fourier transform (DFT) matrix. Further, $a_{\ell}=-\mathcal{L}\alpha_{\ell}/(2K)$ where $(\alpha_{\ell})_{\ell}$ is a discretization of the loss coefficient $\alpha_r(f)$ in frequency $f$, and
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
b_{\ell}=
-\frac{\mathcal{L} \beta_2 (2\pi)^2 }{2K(n\Delta_t)^2} \times
\begin{cases}
\IEEEstrut
(\ell-1)^2, & 1 \leq \ell \leq \frac{n}{2},\\
(n-\ell+1)^2 , & \frac{n}{2}+1 \leq \ell \leq n.
\IEEEstrut
\end{cases} \label{def:dispersions}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}%
\end{itemize}
\begin{remark}
The input dimension $n$ is fixed, and should not be confused with the block or codeword length that tends to $\infty$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Transition from the continuous- to discrete-time model}
The NLS equation \eqref{eq:schrodinger} defines a continuous-time channel from $Q(t,0)$ at the input of the fiber to $Q(t, \mathcal L)$ at the output of the fiber. Let $\mathcal{B}(z)$ denote the signal bandwidth at distance $z$.
To discretize the channel, we need to sample the input signal at $\mathcal{B}(0)$ and the output signal at $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal L)$.
Due to Kerr nonlinearity, $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal L)$ is generally signal-dependent and may not equal to $\mathcal{B}(0)$. The relation between $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal L)$ and $\mathcal{B}(0)$ is an important open question.
As a consequence, the continuous-time model \eqref{eq:schrodinger} cannot be discretized in a one-to-one manner as in linear channels by sampling the input output signals at the input bandwidth. In this paper, we do not include channel filters or a bandwidth constraint in the model, and let $\mathcal{B} \stackrel{\Delta}{=} \mathcal{B}(0)\rightarrow\infty$.
The derivative operator in time can then be approximated using the discrete Fourier transform with an error that tends to zero as the step size in time $\Delta_t=1/\mathcal{B}\rightarrow 0$. If $\snr =K^{\delta}$ and $\delta<1$, as $K\rightarrow\infty$ operator splitting in distance yields a discretization of \eqref{eq:schrodinger} with a vanishing error as
$\mathcal{B}\rightarrow\infty$ and $K\rightarrow\infty$. Finally, we consider a potentially sub-optimal discretization where the output signal is sampled at $\mathcal{B}$. This corresponds to a receiver that ignores some of the samples that potentially carry information, and results in a discrete-time model in which the input output vectors have the same dimension.
Lower bounds obtained for this potentially sub-optimal receiver hold for better receivers as well.
\subsection{Limitations of the discrete-time model}
\label{sec:limitations}
The discrete-time model considered in this paper has a number of limitations.
First, it considers signals with infinite bandwidth and does not account for a bandwidth constraint introduced by inline filters or receiver. Second, a receiver that samples the output signal at the input bandwidth ignores potentially useful samples. Third, the spectral efficiency (in bits/s/Hz) of the continuous-time model may not equal to the capacity (in bits/s) of the discrete-time model. This is because the spectral broadening factor may
increase with launch power due to nonlinearity \cite[Sec. VIII]{yousefi2011opc}, \cite{kramer2018autocorrelation}.
In this paper, we do not derive a rigorous one-to-one discretization of the continuous-time model \eqref{eq:schrodinger}.
We consider the discrete-time SSFM model, whose capacity may be different from that of \eqref{eq:schrodinger}.
\section{A Capacity Lower Bound}
\label{sec:CapacityResults}
The capacity of the SSFM model as a function of the signal-to-noise ratio $\snr=\mathcal{P}/(\sigma^2 \mathcal{L})$, where $\mathcal{P}$ is the average signal power and $\sigma^2 \mathcal{L}$ is total noise power, and the
number of spatial segments $K$ is
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathcal{C}(\snr, K){=}\max\limits_{p_{\vc X}(\vc x)} \Bigl\{
\frac{1}{n}I(\vc{X};\vc{Y}_K): \:\frac{1}{n}\mathbb{E}\left[\norm{\vc{X}}^2 \right]\leq\mathcal{P} \Bigr\},
\:\label{def:SSFMCapacity}
\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\vc{X}\in\mathbb C^n$ and $\vc{Y}_K\in\mathbb C^n$ are the channel input and output, and
$I(\vc{X};\vc{Y}_K)$ is the mutual information measured in bits/2D.
The capacity of the SSFM model when $K\rightarrow\infty$ independently of \snr\ is
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathcal{C}(\snr) \stackrel{\Delta}{=} \lim\limits_{K\rightarrow\infty} \mathcal{C}(\snr, K).
\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
In this case, the asymptotic capacity corresponds to limits $\lim_{\snr\rightarrow\infty}\lim_{K\rightarrow\infty}$ with that order.
We also study the capacity when $K$ and \snr\ go to infinity as $K=\sqrt[\delta]{\snr}$, $\snr\rightarrow\infty$, in which case the capacity is $\mathcal{C}(\snr, \sqrt[\delta]{\snr})$.
\begin{remark}
Since noise power is fixed by the channel, we express the capacity as a function of \snr\ instead of launch
power. However, this should not imply that the capacity of the nonlinear channel, which is a two-dimensional function of signal and noise powers, is a one-dimensional function of \snr\ \cite[Sec. VII]{yousefi2011opc}.
\end{remark}
The main result of this paper is Theorem~\ref{th:mainThSSFM} stating that for sufficiently large number
of segments $K$, rate $\frac{1}{2}\log_2(\snr)-\frac{1}{2}$ is achievable at high SNRs in the continuous-space lossless model.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includestandalone[scale=0.45]{tikz/preLog}
\caption{Pre-log in the capacity lower bound as a function of the growth rate of the number of segments with power.}
\label{fig:preLog}
\end{figure}
\begin{theorem} \label{th:mainThSSFM}
The capacity of the SSFM channel when $K\rightarrow\infty$ independently of \snr\ is lower bounded as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathcal{C}(\snr)\geq \frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(1+ \snr\right) + \frac{1}{2}\log_2 a+o(1),
\label{eq:bound-a}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where the term $o(1)$ tends to zero with $\snr\rightarrow\infty$. For the lossless fiber, $a=1/2$.
The capacity of the SSFM channel when $K= \sqrt[\delta]{\snr}$, $\delta>0$, $\gamma\neq 0$, satisfies
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\mathcal{C}\left(\snr,\sqrt[\delta]{\snr}\right) \geq r(\delta)\log_2(1+a\,\snr)+O(1),
\quad\label{eq:capacity-a}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $O(1)$ is bounded as $\snr \rightarrow\infty$ and the pre-log $r(\delta)$ is
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
r(\delta) =
\begin{cases}
\IEEEstrut
\frac{1}{2},& 0 < \delta \leq \frac{3}{2}, \\
\frac{3-\delta}{2\delta}, & \frac{3}{2} \leq \delta \leq 2,\\
\frac{1}{2\delta}, & 2 \leq \delta<\infty.
\IEEEstrut
\end{cases}
\label{eq:r-theta}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Here, $a = \zeta e^{2\zeta } /(e^{2\zeta}-1)$, in which $\zeta=-\bar{\alpha}\mathcal{L}/2$, where $\bar{\alpha}$ is the average fiber loss in frequency. If $\delta\leq 3/2$, then $O(\cdot)$ can be replaced with $o(\cdot)$ in \eqref{eq:capacity-a}.
\end{theorem}
In practice the launch power is finite and $K$ can be chosen to be arbitrarily large.
Theorem \ref{th:mainThSSFM} indicates that rates given by \eqref{eq:bound-a} are achievable.
In fiber-optic simulations based on SSFM,
choosing sufficiently large number of segments, the
channel capacity (bits/s) is between the lower bound in \eqref{eq:bound-a} and upper bound \eqref{eq:ub}.
Theorem~\ref{th:mainThSSFM} indicates that the number of signal DoFs is at least half of the input dimension in the continuous-space model. In contrast,
there is only one signal DoF in the discrete-space SSFM model where $\mathrm D_K \stackrel{\Delta}{=} \mathrm D$ is independent of $K$.
The lower bound \eqref{eq:mainThSSFM} can be compared with the asymptotic capacity of the discrete-space SSFM model \eqref{eq:asym-cap}, where there is only one DoF, and the pre-log is $1/2n$ in the lossless model.
The pre-log $1/2\delta\leq 1/8$ for $\delta \geq 4$ (part of the third branch in \eqref{eq:r-theta}) can be obtained from
\cite{kamran2015bound} as well. The maximum pre-log is however $1/2$.
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{th:mainThSSFM} and Related Capacity Theorems}
\label{sec:CapacityResultsExt}
In this section, we outline the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:mainThSSFM}. In addition, we present a number of capacity theorems for models
related to the SSFM. Most of the proofs appear in Section~\ref{sec:proof}.
It is shown in \cite[Sec. V]{yousefi2016cap} that the SSFM channel when $K$ is fixed and the input distribution escapes to infinity with the average input power tends to a linear fading channel.
To study the capacity of the SSFM channel when $K\rightarrow\infty$, we first study this fading model in Section~\ref{sec:fading-K=infinity}, obtained by replacing nonlinearity with uniform \iid\ phase noise in segments of SSFM. We show that if $K\rightarrow\infty$, this fading channel tends to a diagonal phase noise channel in probability with capacity pre-log $1/2$.
Later in Section~\ref{sec:ssfm} we show that the limit of the SSFM channel when the input distribution escapes to infinity with $\snr$ and there are sufficiently large number of segments is a continuous-space fading channel.
Combining these two results, we obtain the pre-log $1/2$ in Theorem~\ref{th:mainThSSFM}. The cases where pre-log is less than $1/2$ are obtained similarly, with further analysis.
Note that, since we consider a continuous-space SSFM model, the proof in \cite{yousefi2016cap} showing that the SSFM channel tends to a fading channel with $\snr\rightarrow\infty$ cannot be used here, because $\mathrm{D}_k$ does not depend on $K$ in the discrete-space model in \cite{yousefi2016cap}.
\subsection{Capacity of the continuous-space fading model}
\label{sec:fading-K=infinity}
We begin by considering the following \emph{fading channel}, introduced in \cite{yousefi2016cap}:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathbf{Y}_K=\mathsf{M}_K \mathbf{X}+\mathbf{Z}_K, \label{def:fadingChannel}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where the random matrix $\mathsf{M}_K$ (independent of input), representing a multiplicative noise, is independent of $\vc X$ and given by \cite[Eq. 11]{yousefi2016cap}
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathsf{M}_K= \prod \limits_{i=1}^{K} \left( \mathrm{D}_K \mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_i)\right), \label{def:matrixMk}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\mathsf R(\cdot)$ is defined in \eqref{def:diagMat} and $\boldsymbol{\theta_i} \widesim{\text{i.i.d.}} \mathcal{U}^n(0,2\pi)$. The expression for the additive noise is
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\vc{Z}_K= \sum \limits_{i=1}^K \left(\prod \limits_{r=i}^{K} \left( \mathrm{D}_K \mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_r)\right)\right) \vc{\bar{Z}}_i,
\label{def:Noisek}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where
$ \bar{\vc{Z}}_i \sim \mathcal{N}_{\mathbb{C}}\left(0, \sigma^2 \varepsilon\mathrm{I}_n\right)$.
In the lossless case, \eqref{def:Noisek} is simplified and $ \vc{Z}_K \sim \mathcal{N}_{\mathbb{C}}\left(0, \sigma^2 \mathcal{L}\mathrm{I}_n\right)$. In this paper, a fading channel is any model of the form \eqref{def:fadingChannel}, with multiplicative and additive noise, where $(\mathsf{M}_K, \mathbf{Z}_K)$ has arbitrary distribution and is independent of $\vc X$.
A special case of the fading channel \eqref{def:fadingChannel} is the non-coherent memoryless phase noise channel \cite{Lapidoth02}
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\label{def:phaseNoiseChannel}
Y_{\ell}=e^{j\theta_{\ell}} X_{\ell}+Z_{\ell},\quad {\ell}=1,2,\ldots, n,
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\theta_{\ell} \sim \mathcal{U}(0,2\pi)$ and $Z_{\ell} \sim \mathcal{N}_{\mathbb{C}}\left(0,\sigma_0^2 \right)$. The capacity of this channel, denoted by $\mathcal C_{P}$, is \cite[Eq.~23]{Lapidoth02}:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathcal{C}_{P}(\snr)=\frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(1+\frac{1}{2}\snr\right) +o(1), \label{eq:capcityPhaseNoise}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\snr=\mathcal{P}/\sigma_0^2$ and the term $o(1)$ tends to zero with $\snr\rightarrow\infty$.
\begin{definition}
For a dispersion matrix of the form \eqref{def:DK}, we define the ``total dispersion values'' $d_{\ell}=Kb_{\ell} $, $\ell \in [n]$. We say dispersion is finite if $b_{\ell}$ is given by \eqref{def:dispersions}, for which $d_{\ell}<\infty$ independently of $K$, and infinite if $b_{\ell}$ does not depend on $K$, for which $d_{\ell} \rightarrow \infty$ as $K\rightarrow\infty$, $b_{\ell}\neq 0$. Similarly, we define the ``total loss values'' $\zeta_{\ell}=Ka_{\ell}$, $\ell \in [n]$.
\end{definition}
Denote the average values of the total loss and dispersion in frequency by
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\zeta \triangleq \frac{1}{n} \sum \limits_{\ell=1}^n \zeta_{\ell},\quad
d \triangleq \frac{1}{n} \sum \limits_{\ell=1}^n d_{\ell}.
\label{def:averageLoss}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Alternatively, $\zeta =-\bar{\alpha}\mathcal L/2$, where $\bar\alpha \triangleq (1/n) \sum_{\ell=1}^n \alpha_{\ell}$ is the average
fiber loss.
If $n\rightarrow\infty$, $\bar{\alpha} =\lim_{F\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{F}\int_{-F/2}^{F/2}\alpha_r(f) df$.
For realistic fiber, $b_{\ell}$ is given by \eqref{def:dispersions}, and dispersion is finite due to factor $1/K$
in \eqref{def:dispersions}. In this case, the effect of dispersion locally in a small segment is infinitesimal, and $\lim_{K\rightarrow\infty}\mathrm D_K= I_n$.
However, we also consider models where $b_{\ell}$ is independent of $K$; here the dispersion matrix in each small segment is fixed $\mathrm D_K \stackrel{\Delta}{=} \mathrm D$, and the total dispersion value is infinite for $K\rightarrow\infty$.
The models with infinite dispersion or nonlinearity are not realistic, but help to understand the capacity as $\beta_2$ or $\gamma$ tend to infinity. They distinguish models with fixed and variable $D_K$.
Below, we lower bound the capacity of the fading channel \eqref{def:fadingChannel} with finite and infinite dispersion.
\subsubsection{Finite Dispersion}
A key result of this paper is Lemma~\ref{lem:asymDistK} stating that as $K\rightarrow\infty$, the random matrix $\mathsf{M}_K$ in \eqref{def:fadingChannel} tends to a diagonal matrix with independent phase noise components.
For a random vector $\boldsymbol{\theta}$, define
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathsf{L}(\boldsymbol{\theta})\triangleq\mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta}) \mathrm{C}_1 \mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta})^{-1},
\label{eq:Ltheta}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where
$\mathrm{C}_1 \triangleq \mathrm{F}^{-1}
\diag\bigl( \left(\zeta_{\ell} + jd_{\ell}\right)_{\ell=1}^n\bigr)
\mathrm{F}$ and $\bar{\mathsf{L}}\triangleq \mathbb{E}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}} \left[\mathsf{L}(\boldsymbol{\theta}) \right]$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:asymDistK}
The random matrix $\mathsf{M}_K$ has the expansion
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
\mathsf{M}_K &\stackrel{d}{=}&\left(e^{\zeta+jd}\mathrm{I}_n+\frac{1}{K}\sum \limits_{i=1}^{K}\mathsf{L}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_i)-\bar{\mathsf{L}}\right)\mathsf{R}\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}\right)+O_p\left(\frac{1}{K}\right),\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{d}{=}&e^{\zeta}\mathsf{R}\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}\right)+O_p\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{K}}\right),\label{eq:Mk-Complete}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ and $\boldsymbol{\theta}_i$ are drawn i.i.d. from $\mathcal{U}^n(0,2\pi)$.
In particular,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\lim \limits_{K \rightarrow \infty} \mathsf{M}_{K}
\stackrel{d}{=}
e^{\zeta} \mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta}).
\label{eq:lim-Mk}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof is given in Section~\ref{pr:asymDistK}. The first equality is shown by algebra. The second equation is obtained by applying a concentration inequality for weak law of large numbers, or central limit theorem.
\end{proof}
Substituting the limit of $\mathsf M_K$ in \eqref{def:matrixMk} into \eqref{def:Noisek}, we also obtain
$\lim_{K\rightarrow\infty}\vc{Z}_K=\vc{Z}$, where $\vc{Z} \sim \mathcal{N}_{\mathbb{C}}(0,\sigma'\mathrm{I}_n)$, $\sigma'=
\sigma^2 \mathcal{L} (e^{2\zeta} - 1)/2\zeta$. The following lemma follows.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:asymFadingK}
As $K\rightarrow\infty$, the fading channel \eqref{def:fadingChannel} with finite dispersion tends to a sequence of independent phase noise channels
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\label{def:phaseNoiseChannels}
Y_{\ell}=e^{\zeta+j\theta_{\ell}} X_{\ell}+Z_{\ell},\quad \ell=1,\ldots, n,
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\theta_{\ell} \widesim{\text{i.i.d.}} \mathcal{U}(0,2\pi)$ and $Z_{\ell} \widesim{\text{i.i.d.}} \mathcal{N}_{\mathbb{C}}\left(0,\eta \sigma^2 \mathcal{L} \right)$, in which
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\eta = \begin{cases}
\IEEEstrut
1, &\textnormal{ \emph{for lossless channel},}\\
\frac{e^{2\zeta}-1}{2\zeta}, &\textnormal{\emph{otherwise}.}
\IEEEstrut
\end{cases} \label{def:eta}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
\end{lemma}
The first capacity result in this paper is the following theorem showing that the pre-log of the capacity of the continuous-space fading channel with finite dispersion when $K\rightarrow\infty$ independently of $\snr$ is $1/2$, \emph{i.e.,}\ there are $n$ real signal DoFs when the input dimension is $2n$. Let $\bar{\mathcal{C}}(\snr, K)$ be the capacity of \eqref{def:fadingChannel} and $ \bar{\mathcal{C}}(\snr)=\lim_{K \rightarrow \infty } \bar{\mathcal{C}}(\snr, K)$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:asymCapFadingFinDis}
Capacity of fading channel \eqref{def:fadingChannel} with finite dispersion and \snr\ satisfies
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\bar{\mathcal{C}}(\snr)= \frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(1+a \,\snr\right) +o(1),
\label{eq:capacityFadingFinite}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\snr=\mathcal{P}/(\sigma^2 \mathcal{L})$ and $a$ is given in Theorem~\ref{th:mainThSSFM}.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The result is obtained by combining Lemmas~\ref{lem:asymDistK} and \ref{lem:asymFadingK} and the capacity result \eqref{eq:capcityPhaseNoise}.
\end{proof}
Note that \eqref{eq:capacityFadingFinite} holds for any \snr, if $K\rightarrow\infty$ independently of \snr. Next, we consider the capacity of the finite dispersion fading channel when $ K = \sqrt[\delta]{\snr}$,
$\delta>0$, $\snr \rightarrow \infty$. We require this model in the Section~\ref{sec:infinite-dips} when we study the SSFM channel. Substituting \eqref{eq:Mk-Complete} into \eqref{def:fadingChannel}, \eqref{def:phaseNoiseChannel} is modified to
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\vc{Y}_K\stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} e^{\zeta}\mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta}) \vc{X}+\vc{Z} + \Delta \vc{X},\quad \textnormal{as~~~} K\rightarrow\infty,
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\Delta=O_p\left(K^{-1/2}\right)$ and hence, $\Delta\vc{X}=O_p\left(K^{(\delta-1)/2}\right)$. Here, $\Delta$ is a dense matrix, that is generally not diagonal, capturing ISI or intra-channel interactions.
If $\delta<1$, then $\Delta \vc{X} \stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} (0,\ldots,0)$ and $\vc{Y}_K \stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} e^{\zeta}\mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta}) \vc{X}+\vc{Z}$.
In this case, the capacity is provided by Theorem~\ref{th:asymCapFadingFinDis}.
If $\delta>1$, $\Delta \vc{X}$ grows with $K$ and constitutes the dominant stochastic impairment. The following theorem establishes a lower bound on the capacity in this case.
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:fadingHighPowerdG1}
The capacity of the fading channel \eqref{def:fadingChannel} when $K= \sqrt[\delta]{\snr}$, $\delta>1$, is lower bounded as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\bar{\mathcal{C}}\left(\snr, \sqrt[\delta]{\snr}\right) \geq\frac{1}{2 \delta} \log_2(1+\snr)+O(1),
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where the $O(1)$ term is bounded as $\snr \rightarrow \infty$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
See Section~\ref{pr:fadingHighPowerdG1}.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Infinite Dispersion}
\label{sec:infinite-dips}
We consider the SSFM model when $\mathrm{D}_K \stackrel{\Delta}{=} \mathrm{D}$ is independent of $K$.
Lemma~\ref{lem:haarMeasure} below shows that, in the lossless infinite dispersion case,
as $K\rightarrow \infty$ the random matrix $\mathsf{M}_K$ in \eqref{def:fadingChannel} tends to a random unitary matrix.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:haarMeasure}
Let $\nu$ be an equivalence relation on the set $\{1,2,\ldots, n\}$, and
$\mathbb{U}_n(\nu)$ the smallest subgroup of block diagonal matrices in $\mathbb{U}_n$ that contains $\mathrm{D}$. Then, the distribution of $\mathsf{M}_{K}$ tends to the Haar measure on $\mathbb{U}_n(\nu)$ as $K\rightarrow\infty$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
See Section~\ref{pr:haarMeasure}.
\end{proof}
In the following assume that $\mathrm{D}$ is not a block diagonal matrix (of more than one block), \textit{i.e.} $\mathbb{U}_n(\nu)=\mathbb{U}_n$.
Decompose the mutual information for the fading channel \eqref{def:fadingChannel} as:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
I\Big(\vc{X};\vc{Y}_K\Big) = I\Big(\vc{X};\norm{\vc{Y}_K}\Big)+I\left(\vc{X};\hat{\vc{Y}_K}\big|\norm{\vc{Y}_K}\right). \label{eq:mutualILossless1}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Lemma~\ref{lem:haarMeasure} and Theorem~\ref{th:independence} in Appendix~\ref{sec:math} imply that the second term approaches zero as $K \rightarrow \infty$. The conditional PDF of the signal norm is
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
P_{\norm{\vc{Y}_K}\big|\vc{X}}\left(\norm{\vc{y}}\big|\vc{x}\right)&=&P_{\norm{\vc{Y}_K}\big|\norm{\vc{X}}}\left(\norm{\vc{y}}\big|\norm{\vc{x}}\right) \nonumber \\
&=&\frac{2\norm{\vc{y}}^n}{\sigma^2 \mathcal{L} \norm{\vc{x}}^{n-1}} \exp\left(-\frac{\norm{\vc{y}}^2+\norm{\vc{x}}^2}{\sigma^2 \mathcal{L}} \right) \nonumber
\\
&&\times
\mathrm{I}_{n-1}\left(\frac{2\norm{\vc{x}}\norm{\vc{y}}}{\sigma^2 \mathcal{L}}\right),
\label{eq:conditionalFadingOutputNorm}\
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $I_m(\cdot)$ is the modified Bessel function of the first kind with order $m$.
Equations \eqref{eq:mutualILossless1} and \eqref{eq:conditionalFadingOutputNorm} yield the following theorem.
\begin{theorem} \label{th:infFadCap}
Suppose that $\mathrm D \stackrel{\Delta}{=} \mathrm{D}_K$ is independent of $K$ and is not a block diagonal matrix.
The continuous-space fading channel \eqref{def:fadingChannel} has one signal DoF with capacity
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\bar{\mathcal{C}}(\snr)\
&=& \max\limits_{P_{\norm{\vc{X}}}(\norm{\vc{x}})}
\Bigl\{ \frac{1}{n} I(\norm{\vc{X}};\norm{\vc{Y}}) :
\frac{1}{n}\mathbb{E}\left[\norm{\vc{X}}^2 \right]\leq\mathcal{P} \Bigr\}
\nonumber\\
&=&
\frac{1}{2n} \log_2\left(1+\snr \right)+O(1), \label{eq:capacityFiniteFading}
\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $P\left(\norm{\vc{y}}\big|\norm{\vc{x}}\right)$ is given by ~\eqref{eq:conditionalFadingOutputNorm}, $\snr=\mathcal{P}/\sigma^2 \mathcal{L}$ and the $O(1)$ term is bounded as $\snr \rightarrow\infty$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The first line follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:haarMeasure}, stating that if $K\rightarrow\infty$, then $I\left(\vc{X};\hat{\vc{Y}}\big|\norm{\vc{Y}}\right)\rightarrow 0$.
The second line follows from the lower bound on the capacity of the non-central chi-square channel derived in \cite[Theorem~1]{Shev2018} and an upper bound derived by noting that $h(\|\vc{Y}\|) {\leq} \frac{1}{2} \log_2\left(1+\snr \right)+O(1)$ due to principle of maximum entropy and $h(\|\vc{Y}\|\big| \|\vc{X}\|)=O(1)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
In general, if $\mathbb{U}_n(\nu)$ is the smallest subgroup of block diagonal matrices containing $\mathrm{D}$, then the capacity of the continuous-space fading channel with infinite dispersion has $m(\nu)$ real signal DoFs, where $m(\nu)$ is the number of blocks of $\mathrm{D}$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Capacity of the continuous-space SSFM model}
\label{sec:ssfm}
In this section, the capacity of the continuous-space SSFM model is investigated in the high power regime, as well as with infinite nonlinearity, and infinite dispersion.
\subsubsection{High power regime}
Let $K = \sqrt[\delta]{\snr}$, $\delta>0$, and assume that the input $\vc{X}$ escapes to infinity with \snr. We show that the limit of the discrete-space SSFM channel when $\snr\rightarrow\infty$ is a diagonal model with phase noise. The convergence rate to this diagonal model depends on $\delta$. We derive a lower bound on the convergence rate, from which a lower bound on the capacity is established.
Denote
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathsf{S}_K \triangleq \diag\left( \Bigl( \exp\Bigl(j \sum \limits_{i=1}^K \Phi_{i,\ell}\Bigr) \Bigr)_{\ell=1}^n \right),
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
and
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\upsilon(\delta)= \begin{cases}
\IEEEstrut
5\delta/6,& 0 < \delta \leq 1,\\
1-\delta/6,& 1 \leq \delta \leq 1.5 ,\\
1.5-\delta/2,& 1.5 \leq \delta \leq 2 \;\; \\
&\text{and i.i.d. $\vc X$}, \\
0.5,& 2 \leq \delta \leq 3 \;\; \\
& \text{and i.i.d. $\vc X$},\\
0.5,& 3 \leq \delta.
\IEEEstrut
\end{cases} \label{def:upsilonDelta}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:mainThSSFM-ex}
If the input distribution is absolutely continuous and escapes to infinity with $\snr$, the SSFM channel with $K=\sqrt[\delta]{\snr}$, $\delta>0$, $\gamma\neq 0$, tends to the following channel in distribution as $\snr\rightarrow\infty$
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\vc{Y}_K=\mathsf{M}_K \vc{X}+ \vc{Z},
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathsf{M}_K=e^{\zeta+jd} \mathsf{S}_K+O_p\left(K^{-\upsilon(\delta) + \epsilon'}\right),
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
and $\vc{Z}\sim \mathcal{N}_{\mathbb{C}}(0,\eta\sigma^2\mathcal{L}\mathrm{I}_n)$, where $\eta$ is defined in Lemma~\ref{lem:asymFadingK}. Further, $\epsilon'>0$ can be made arbitrarily small with \snr.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
See Section~\ref{pr:mainThSSFM-ex}.
\end{proof}
Theorem~\ref{th:mainThSSFM} will be proved using Lemma~\ref{lem:mainThSSFM-ex} in Section \ref{pr:mainThComp}. The term $O(1)$ in Theorem~\ref{th:mainThSSFM} for $\delta\geq 2$ is given in the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:fadingHighPowerdG1}.
\begin{remark} \label{rem:lowNoise}
For $0\leq\delta \leq 1.5$, the dominant term in $O_p\left(K^{-\upsilon(\delta)}\right)$ is the signal-noise mixing, and for $1.5 \leq \delta \leq 3$, is the intra-channel interactions (between different indices). For $3 < \delta$ both effects are significant.
\end{remark}
\subsubsection{Infinite nonlinearity} \label{sec:ssfmGamma}
It is commonly believed that nonlinearity is a distortion that reduces the capacity.
However, in this section we show that when $\gamma \rightarrow \infty$, the continuous-space channel has
at least $n$ real signal DoFs.
\begin{theorem} \label{th:infGamma}
Capacity of the continuous-space SSFM model satisfies
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\lim \limits_{K \rightarrow \infty} \lim \limits_{\gamma \rightarrow \infty} \mathcal{C}(\snr, K)= \frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(1+a\,\snr\right)+o(1),
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $a$ is given in Theorem~\ref{th:mainThSSFM} and $o(1)$ term tends to zero with $\snr\rightarrow \infty$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} It is easy to verify that as $\gamma/K\rightarrow \infty$, for any $i\in [K]$ and $\ell\in[n]$, $\Phi_{i,\ell} \rightarrow \infty$, and consequently, $\mod\left(\Phi_{i,\ell} ,2\pi \right)\rightarrow \mathcal{U}(0,2\pi)$, independent of $\Phi_{i',\ell'}$ in any other segment $l'$ or coordinate $i'$. Hence, the SSFM channel tends to a finite dispersion fading channel, and Theorem~\ref{th:asymCapFadingFinDis} yields the result.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Infinite dispersion} \label{sec:ssfmInfDisp}
The asymptotic capacity of the discrete-space SSFM channel where $\mathrm D_K \stackrel{\Delta}{=} \mathrm D$ is independent of $K<\infty$ is given in \eqref{eq:asym-cap}.
In this section, we show that this result holds under the same assumption $\mathrm D_K \stackrel{\Delta}{=} \mathrm D$ for the continuous-space lossless SSFM channel as well. Note that in this case, as $K\rightarrow\infty$ the dispersion is infinite.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:infDispSSFM}
Consider the SSFM model when $\mathrm D_K \stackrel{\Delta}{=} \mathrm D$ is independent of $K$ and is not a block diagonal matrix of more than one block. If $K = \sqrt[\delta]{\snr}$, $\delta>3$, $\gamma\neq 0$, then
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathcal{C}\left(\snr,\sqrt[\delta]{\snr}\right) = \frac{1}{2n} \log_2\left(1+\snr \right)+O(1),
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $O(1)$ term is bounded as $\snr \rightarrow \infty$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Similar to the analysis in \cite{yousefi2016cap}, it can be shown that for input distributions that escape to infinity with $\mathcal{P}=(\sigma^2 \mathcal{L})K^{\delta}$, $\delta>3$, $V_{i,\ell} =\Omega_p\left(K^{\delta}\right)$ for all $i \in [K]$ and $\ell \in [n]$. Furthermore, in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:mainThSSFM-ex} it is shown that in this case $\mod\left(\Phi_{i,\ell},2\pi\right) \rightarrow \mathcal{U}(0,2\pi)$. Hence, infinite dispersion SSFM channel tends to the infinite dispersion fading channel. These two steps can be proved alternatively using induction on the output of segment $i \in [K]$ and using Lemma~\ref{lem:haarMeasure} for sufficiently large $K$. The result then follows from Theorem~\ref{th:infFadCap}.
\end{proof}
\section{Proofs} \label{sec:proof}
\subsection{Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:asymDistK}}
\label{pr:asymDistK}
For matrices $A$ and $B$ define the commutator $[\mathrm{A},\mathrm{B}] = \mathrm{A} \mathrm{B} \mathrm{A}^{-1} \mathrm{B}^{-1}$. It can be verified with algebraic manipulations that $\mathsf{M}_K$ can be written as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
\mathsf{M}_K&=&\prod \limits_{i=1}^K \mathrm{D}_K \mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_i)\nonumber\\
&=&\left\{\prod \limits_{i=2}^{K} \mathrm{D}_K \left[\prod \limits_{\ell=i}^K \mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_{\ell}),\mathrm{D}_K\right]\right\} \mathrm{D}_K \prod \limits_{\ell=1}^K \mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_{\ell})\nonumber\\
&=&\left\{\prod \limits_{i=2}^{K} \mathrm{D}_K \left[ \mathsf{R}\left(\sum \limits_{\ell=i}^K \boldsymbol{\theta}_{\ell}\right),\mathrm{D}_K\right]\right\} \mathrm{D}_K \mathsf{R}\left(\sum \limits_{\ell=1}^K \boldsymbol{\theta}_{\ell}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Since the joint distribution of $\Bigl(\sum_{\ell=i}^K\boldsymbol{\theta}_{\ell}\Bigr)_{i=1}^K$ and $\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_i\right)_{i=1}^K$ are the same
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathsf{M}_K\stackrel{d}{=} \left\{\prod \limits_{i=2}^{K} \left( \mathrm{D}_K \left[ \mathsf{R}\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_{i} \right),\mathrm{D}_K\right]\right) \right\} \mathrm{D}_K \mathsf{R}\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right). \label{eq:MKreWritten}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Let
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathrm C_m\triangleq\frac{1}{m!}\mathrm{F}^{-1}
\diag\Bigl( \bigl( (\zeta_{\ell}+jd_{\ell})^m \bigr)_{\ell=1}^n\Bigr)\mathrm{F},
\label{eq:C-i}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
and $\bar{\mathrm{C}}_m \triangleq (-1)^m \mathrm{C}_m$.
Expand $\mathrm{D}_K$ and $\mathrm{D}_K^{-1}$ in $1/K$ using the Taylor's theorem
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
\mathrm{D}_K&=&\mathrm{I}_n+\frac{1}{K}\mathrm{C}_1+\frac{1}{K^2}\mathrm{C}_2+O\left(\frac{1}{K^3}\right), \label{eq:Dk}\\
\mathrm{D}_K^{-1}&=&\mathrm{I}_n+\frac{1}{K}\bar{\mathrm{C}}_1+\frac{1}{K^2}\bar{\mathrm{C}}_2+O\left(\frac{1}{K^3}\right). \nonumber
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
A simple calculation shows that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
[\mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_i),D_K]=\mathrm{I}_n+\frac{\mathsf{L}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_i)+ \bar{\mathrm{C}}_1}{K}+O_p\left(\frac{1}{K^2}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Using \eqref{eq:Dk} and $\mathrm{C}_1+\bar{\mathrm{C}}_1=0$,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathrm{D}_K [\mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_i),D_K]=\mathrm{I}_n+\frac{\mathsf{L}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_i)}{K}+O_p\left(\frac{1}{K^2}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Combining \eqref{eq:MKreWritten} and the above relation results in
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
\mathsf{M}_K &=& \left\{\prod \limits_{i=2}^{K} \left( \mathrm{I}_n+\frac{\mathsf{L}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_i)}{K}+O_p\left(\frac{1}{K^2}\right) \right) \right\} \mathrm{D}_K \mathsf{R}\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right)\nonumber \\
&=& \left\{\prod \limits_{i=2}^{K} \left( \mathrm{I}_n+\frac{\bar{\mathsf{L}}}{K}+\frac{\mathsf{L}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_i)-\bar{\mathsf{L}}}{K} \right) \right\} \mathsf{R}\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right)+O_p\left(\frac{1}{K}\right)\nonumber \\
&=& \left(\left\{\prod \limits_{i=2}^{K} \left( \mathrm{I}_n+\frac{\bar{\mathsf{L}}}{K} \right) \right\}+\frac{\sum \limits_{i=2}^K\left(\mathsf{L}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_i)-\bar{\mathsf{L}}\right)}{K}\right) \mathsf{R}\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right)\nonumber\\
&&+O_p\left(\frac{1}{K}\right)\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(a)}{=}& \left(e^{\bar{\mathsf{L}}}+\frac{1}{K}\sum \limits_{i=1}^{K}\mathsf{L}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_i)-\bar{\mathsf{L}}\right) \mathsf{R}\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right)+O_p\left(\frac{1}{K}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $(a)$ is obtained using
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\left(1+\frac{\bar{\mathsf{L}}}{K}\right)^K = e^{\bar{L}}+O\left(\frac{1}{K}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Finally, since $e^{\bar{\mathsf{L}}}=e^{(\zeta+jd)\mathrm{I}_n}=e^{\zeta+jd}\mathrm{I}_n$,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{c}
\mathsf{M}_K \stackrel{d}{=}\left(e^{\zeta+jd}\mathrm{I}_n+\frac{1}{K}\sum \limits_{i=1}^{K}\mathsf{L}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_i)-\bar{\mathsf{L}}\right)\mathsf{R}\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}\right)+O_p\left(\frac{1}{K}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{th:fadingHighPowerdG1}} \label{pr:fadingHighPowerdG1}
In the following, we restrict the input to the class of absolutely continuous random vectors, for which $h\left(\mathsf{M}_K \vc{X}\right)$
is a continuous function of $K$ with respect to the total variation distance \cite[Theorem~1]{GhourchianGohariAmini17}. First, we prove that:
\textit{i.} If $\vc X$ is i.i.d, then
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
\frac{1}{n} I(\vc{X};\vc{Y}_K)&\geq& \frac{1}{2\delta} \log_2(\mathcal{P})+ h\left(|X_1|\right)-\mathbb{E}\left[\log_2\left(\norm{\mathbf{X}}_4\right)\right]\nonumber \\
&& +\frac{1}{2} \log_2\left(\frac{ e^{2\zeta-1}}{2\rho\pi} \right)+o(1),
\end{IEEEeqnarray} where the $o(1)$ term vanishes with $\mathcal{P} \rightarrow\infty$ and
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\rho \triangleq
\sqrt{\sum \limits_{r=1}^n \Bigg| \sum \limits_{s=1}^n (\zeta_s+jd_s)e^{-\frac{j2\pi rs}{n}}\Bigg|^4}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Next, using this general lower bound we obtain the following.
\textit{ii.} By choosing $\vc{X}\sim \mathcal{N}_{\mathbb{C}}(0,\mathcal{P}\mathrm{I}_n)$, we have
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{cl}
\bar{\mathcal{C}}(\snr, \sqrt[\delta]{\snr}) \geq &\frac{1}{2 \delta} \log_2\left(1+\snr\right)+\frac{1}{2} \log_2\left(\frac{e^{2\zeta+1}}{\rho\pi\sqrt{8n} }\right)\nonumber \\
&+o(1). \IEEEeqnarraynumspace \label{eq:fadingLower}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
\textit{Part i:}
Define the matrix $\Delta \stackrel{\Delta}{=} \frac{1}{K}\sum \limits_{m=1}^{K}\mathsf{L}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_m)-\bar{\mathsf{L}}$.
Considering \eqref{eq:Ltheta}, $\Delta_{rr}$ is deterministic and thus zero. If $r\neq \ell$,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
\Delta_{\ell r}&=&
\frac{(C_1)_{\ell r}}{K}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{K}e^{j(\theta_{i,\ell}-\theta_{i,r})} \nonumber
\\
&\stackrel{d}{\rightarrow}& \frac{ (C_1)_{\ell r}}{\sqrt{K}}T_{\ell r}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $T_{\ell r}\sim\mathcal{N}_{\mathbb{C}}(0,1)$ and we used the central limit theorem.
This yields
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathsf{M}_K \stackrel{d}{=} e^{\zeta} \mathsf{R}\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}\right)+O_p\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{K}}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Hence,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
h(\mathbf{Y}_K)&=&h(\mathsf{M}_K \mathbf{X})+o(1)\nonumber\\
&=& n\log_2\left( e^{\zeta} \mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta})\mathbf{X}\right)+o(1) \nonumber\\
&=&n\log_2\left( 2\pi e^{2\zeta} \right)+ n h\left(|X_1|\right)+n\mathbb{E}\left[\log_2\left(|X_1|\right)\right]+o(1),\nonumber\\ \label{eq:outputEntropy}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $o(1)$ term vanishes with $K \rightarrow \infty$ and $\mathcal{P}/K\rightarrow \infty$.
Next, we bound the conditional entropy part as:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
h(\mathbf{Y}_K|\mathbf{X})\leq \sum \limits_{\ell=1}^n h(Y_{K,\ell}|\mathbf{X}). \label{eq:cEntropySum}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
The output $Y_{K,\ell}$ is equal in probability to
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
e^{\zeta+j(d+\theta_{\ell})}X_{\ell}+\frac{e^{j\theta_{\ell}}}{\sqrt{K}}\sum \limits_{r\neq \ell}(\mathrm{C}_{1})_{\ell r} T_{\ell r} X_r+\sqrt{\eta}~Z_{\ell}+o_p(1),\nonumber\\ \end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\theta_{\ell} \sim \mathcal{U}(0,2\pi)$, $\eta$ is given in \eqref{def:eta}, and $o_p(1)$ term vanishes as $K \rightarrow \infty$. Note that for a fixed $\ell$, $(T_{\ell,r})_r$ are independent. Hence, given $\mathbf{X}=\mathbf{x}$,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\sum \limits_{r\neq \ell}(\mathrm{C}_{1})_{\ell r} x_r T_{\ell r} \stackrel{d}{=} \norm{\mathbf{x}}_4 T_{\ell},\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $T_{\ell} \sim \mathcal{N}_{\mathbb{C}}(0,\sigma^2_{T_{\ell}})$, and
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
\sigma^2_{T_{\ell}}&=&\frac{1}{\norm{\mathbf{x}}_4^2} \sum \limits_{r\neq \ell}|(\mathrm{C}_{1})_{\ell r}|^2 |x_r|^2 \nonumber \\
&\stackrel{(a)}{\leq}& \sqrt{\sum \limits_{r\neq \ell} |(\mathrm{C}_{1})_{\ell r}|^4} \nonumber \\
&\stackrel{(b)}{\leq}& \rho.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Step $(a)$ is derived using the
Cauchy–Schwarz inequality. Step $(b)$ follows from the structure of $\mathrm{C}_1$. Thus, conditioned on $\vc{X}=\vc{x}$,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
Y_{K,\ell}\stackrel{d}{=} e^{\zeta+j\theta_{\ell}} x_{\ell}+\frac{e^{j\theta_{\ell}}\norm{\mathbf{x}}_4}{\sqrt{K}}T_{\ell}+\sqrt{\eta}~Z_{\ell}+o_p(1). \end{IEEEeqnarray}
Now, the conditional entropy can be bounded as following
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
h(Y_{K,\ell}|\mathbf{X}) &\leq & h\left(e^{\zeta+j\theta_{\ell}} X_{\ell}+\frac{e^{j\theta_{\ell}}\norm{\mathbf{X}}_4}{\sqrt{K}}T_{\ell}\Big|\mathbf{X}\right)+O\left(\sqrt{\frac{K}{\mathcal{P}}}\right)\nonumber \\
&= & \log_2(\pi)+O\left(\sqrt{\frac{K}{\mathcal{P}}}\right)\nonumber\\
&& +h\left(\Bigg| e^{\zeta} X_{\ell}+\frac{\norm{\mathbf{X}}_4}{\sqrt{K}}T_{\ell} \Bigg|^2\Big| \mathbf{X}\right) \nonumber\\
&=& \log_2(\pi)+O\left(\sqrt{\frac{K}{\mathcal{P}}}\right)\nonumber\\
&&+h\bigg(\frac{2e^{\zeta} |X_{\ell}|\norm{\mathbf{X}}_4}{\sqrt{K}}\mathfrak{R}\left(T_{\ell} e^{-j\angle X_{\ell}}\right)+\frac{\norm{\mathbf{X}}_4^2}{K}|T_{\ell}|^2\Big| \mathbf{X}\bigg)\nonumber\\
&=& \log_2(\pi)+O\left(\sqrt{\frac{K}{\mathcal{P}}}\right)+O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{K}}\right)\nonumber\\
&&+h\left(\frac{2e^{\zeta} |X_{\ell}|\norm{\mathbf{X}}_4}{\sqrt{K}}\mathfrak{R}\left(T_{\ell} e^{-j\angle X_{\ell}}\right)\Big| \mathbf{X}\right)\nonumber\\
&=& \log_2\left(\frac{2e^{\zeta}\pi}{\sqrt{K}}\right)+O\left(\sqrt{\frac{K}{\mathcal{P}}}\right)+O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{K}}\right)\nonumber\\
&&+\mathbb{E}\left[\log_2\left(|X_{\ell}|\norm{\mathbf{X}}_4\right)\right]+ h\left(\mathfrak{R}(T_{\ell})\big| \mathbf{X}\right)\nonumber\\
&\leq& \log_2\left(\frac{2e^{\zeta}\pi}{\sqrt{K}}\right)+O\left(\sqrt{\frac{K}{\mathcal{P}}}\right)+O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{K}}\right)\nonumber\\
&&+ \mathbb{E}\left[\log_2\left(|X_{\ell}|\norm{\mathbf{X}}_4\right)\right]+\frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(2\pi e \rho \right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
This relation together with \eqref{eq:outputEntropy} and \eqref{eq:cEntropySum} yields the first part of the theorem.
\paragraph*{Part ii}For $\vc{X}\sim \mathcal{N}_{\mathbb{C}}(0,\mathcal{P}\mathrm{I}_n)$,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
h\left(\mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta})\mathbf{X}\right)=h\left(\mathbf{X}\right)=n\log_2\left( 2\pi e \mathcal{P} \right). \label{eq:outputEntropyGaussian}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Moreover,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
&\mathbb{E}&\left[\log_2\left(|X_1|\right)+\log_2\left(\norm{\mathbf{X}}_4\right)\right]\nonumber\\
&=& \frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(\mathbb{E}\left[|X_1|^2\right]\right)+\frac{1}{4}\log_2\left(\mathbb{E}\left[\norm{\mathbf{X}}_4^4\right]\right)+O\left(\frac{1}{\mathcal{P}}\right)\nonumber \\
&=&\frac{1}{2} \log_2(\mathcal{P})+\frac{1}{4}\log_2\left(2n\mathcal{P}^2\right)+O\left(\frac{1}{\mathcal{P}}\right)\nonumber \\
&=&\log_2(\mathcal{P})+\frac{1}{4}\log_2\left(2n\right)+O\left(\frac{1}{\mathcal{P}}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
This, together with \eqref{eq:outputEntropyGaussian} and the first part of theorem implies that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{c}
\frac{1}{n} I(\vc{X};\vc{Y}_K) \geq\frac{1}{2} \log_2(K)+\frac{1}{2} \log_2\left(\frac{e^{2\zeta+1}}{ \rho \pi \sqrt{8n}}\right)+o(1),
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}where $o(1)$ term tends to zero with $K\rightarrow \infty $ and $\mathcal{P}/K \rightarrow \infty$. Setting $K = \sqrt[\delta]{\snr}\rightarrow\infty$,
we obtain
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{rcl}
\frac{1}{2 \delta} \log_2\left(1+\snr\right)+\frac{1}{2} \log_2\left(\frac{e^{2\zeta+1}}{\rho\pi\sqrt{8n} }\right)
&\leq& \frac{1}{n} \lim_{K\rightarrow\infty}I(\vc{X};\vc{Y}_K)
\\
&= & \frac{1}{n} I(\vc{X}; \lim_{K\rightarrow\infty}\vc{Y}_K)
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
Since the left hand side does not depend on $p_X(x)$, we obtain \eqref{eq:fadingLower}. The last equality above follows from the continuity of $I(\vc X, \vc Y_K) $ for the SSFM channel as a function of $K$ at $K\rightarrow\infty$, shown in Lemma~\ref{lemm:continuity}.
\subsection{Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:haarMeasure}} \label{pr:haarMeasure}
The proof is based on Theorem~\ref{th:kawadaItoStromberg} in Appendix~\ref{sec:math}. The reader is referred to Appendix~\ref{sec:math} for the notation used in this section.
Let $\mathsf{T}\triangleq\mathrm{D}\mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta})$. Clearly, $\mathsf{T}$ is a unitary matrix. Denote the probability measure of $ \mathsf{T}$ by $\mu$.
We show that the following two conditions of Theorem~\ref{th:kawadaItoStromberg} hold.
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*,wide]
\item[] \emph{Condition 1.} Denote the smallest closed subgroup of $\mathbb{U}_n$ that contains support of $\mu$, \textit{i.e.} $\mathcal{S}(\mu)$, as $\mathbb{H}$. Moreover, denote the smallest subgroup of block diagonal matrices that contains $\mathrm{D}$ as $\mathbb{U}_n(\nu)$.
The first condition to verify is $\mathbb{H}=\mathbb{U}_n(\nu)$.
This condition is needed, because if $\mathbb{H} \subset \mathbb{U}_n(\nu)$, then the product of instances of $\mathsf{T}$ will not be in $\mathbb{H}$. Hence, the probability measure of the product of $K$ i.i.d. instances of $\mathsf{T}$ would not be a Haar measure on $\mathbb{U}_n(\nu)$.
By letting $\boldsymbol{\theta}=(0,\ldots,0)$, we have $\mathrm{D} \in \mathbb{H}$, and thus $\mathrm{D}^{-1} \in \mathbb{H}$, and $\mathrm{D}^{-1} \mathrm{D} \mathsf{R}\boldsymbol(\theta)=\mathsf{R}\boldsymbol(\theta)\in \mathbb{H} $. Hence, $\mathbb{H}$ contains all diagonal unitary matrices including the matrix $\mathrm{D}$. Since the smallest block diagonal subgroup that contains $D$ is $\mathbb{U}_n(\nu)$, Theorem~\ref{th:Borevich} in Appendix~\ref{sec:math} implies $\mathbb{H}=\mathbb{U}_n(\nu)$.
\item[]\emph{Condition 2.} The next condition to verify is that $\mu$ is not normally aperiodic. This means that $\mathcal{S}(\mu)$ is not contained in a (left or right) coset of a proper closed normal subgroup of $\mathbb{U}_n(\nu)$. To see why this condition is needed, by contradiction suppose that there exists a proper closed normal subgroup $\mathbb{H}$ of $\mathbb{U}_n(\nu)$ and $\mathrm{V} \in \mathbb{U}_n(\nu)$, such that $\mathcal{S}(\mu) \subseteq \mathrm{V}\mathbb{H}$ or $\mathcal{S}(\mu) \subseteq \mathbb{H}\mathrm{V}$, or equivalently $\mathrm{V}^{-1}\mathcal{S}(\mu) \subseteq \mathbb{H}$ or $\mathcal{S}(\mu) \mathrm{V}^{-1} \subseteq \mathbb{H}$. Suppose that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
V^{-1}=
\mathrm{D} \mathrm{R}(\theta_r) \cdots \mathrm{D} \mathrm{R}(\theta_1). \label{eq:firstRsteps}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Consider all matrices
$\mathsf M=\prod\limits_{i=r+1}^{\infty}\mathsf{D} \mathrm{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_j) V^{-1}$.
The second condition states that the smallest closed normal subgroup that contains these matrices is $\mathbb{U}_n(\nu)$. In other words, starting from any $r$ initial steps, all possible unitary matrices in $\mathbb{U}_n(\nu)$ can be reached.
To verify the second condition, we consider the cases $\mathrm{V}^{-1}\mathcal{S}(\mu) \subseteq \mathbb{H}$ or $\mathcal{S}(\mu)\mathrm{V}^{-1} \subseteq \mathbb{H}$ separately.
Left Coset: In this case, $\mathrm{V}^{-1}\mathrm{D}$ and the subgroup of diagonal matrices belong to $\mathbb{H}$. Suppose that there exists a $\mathrm{W} \in \mathbb{U}_n(\nu)$ such that $\mathrm{W} \notin \mathbb{H}$ and $\mathrm{W}=\mathrm{Q}\Gamma \mathrm{Q}^{-1}$, where $\Gamma$ is a diagonal matrix. However, since $\mathbb{H}$ is a normal subgroup of $\mathbb{U}_n(\nu)$ and $\Gamma \in \mathbb H$, then $\mathrm{W}=\mathrm{Q}\Gamma \mathrm{Q}^{-1} \in \mathbb{H}$, which is a contradiction.
Right Coset: Since $\mathrm{D}\mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_1)\mathrm{V}^{-1} \in \mathbb{H}$ and $\mathrm{D}\mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_2)\mathrm{V}^{-1}\in \mathbb{H}$, we have $\mathrm{D}\mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_1-\boldsymbol{\theta}_2)\mathrm{D}^{-1} \in \mathbb{H}$. Hence, for any $\boldsymbol{\theta}$, $\mathrm{D}\mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta})\mathrm{D}^{-1} \in \mathbb{H}$. Similar to the previous case, by contradiction suppose that there exists $\mathrm{W} \in \mathbb{U}_n(\nu)$ such that $\mathrm{W} \notin \mathbb{H}$ and $\mathrm{W}=\mathrm{Q}\Gamma \mathrm{Q}^{-1}$, where $\Gamma$ is a diagonal matrix. However, since $\mathbb{H}$ is a normal subgroup of $\mathbb{U}_n(\nu)$, $\mathrm{Q}\mathrm{D}^{-1} \in \mathbb{U}_n(\nu)$, and $ \mathrm{D}\Gamma \mathrm{D}^{-1} \in \mathbb{H}$, thus $\mathrm{W}=(\mathrm{Q}\mathrm{D}^{-1}) \mathrm{D}\Gamma \mathrm{D}^{-1} (\mathrm{D}\mathrm{Q}^{-1}) \in \mathbb{H}$, which is a contradiction.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:mainThSSFM-ex}} \label{pr:mainThSSFM-ex}
The proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:mainThSSFM-ex} is similar to the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:asymFadingK}, where $M_K$ is expanded in $1/K$.
Note that, if $D_K$ does not depend on $K$, when $\mathcal P\rightarrow\infty$, phase tends to a uniform random variable in every segment for every input \cite{yousefi2016cap}. However, if dispersion values scale as $1/K$ and $\mathcal{P}=(\sigma^2 \mathcal{L})K^{\delta}$, phase tends to zero in one segment if $\delta<1$. But, if we add sufficiently large number $K^{1-\delta+0^+}$ of segments, so that the variance of phase tends to infinity, output phase tends to a uniform variable for every input. In what follows, we make these statements precise.
We prove the lemma formally by induction on the segment index $i$. The output $\vc{V}_{i+1}$ of the segment $i\in [K]$ as a function of the channel input $X$ is
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathbf{V}_{i+1}=\mathsf{M}_{i,K}\vc{X}+\vc{Z}_{i}, \label{eq:ViX}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\mathsf{M}_{i,K}
&\triangleq& \prod \limits_{t=1}^{i} \left( \mathrm{D}_K \mathsf{\Phi}(t) \right)
\nonumber\\
&=&\mathrm{D}_K \mathsf{\Phi}(i) \mathsf{M}_{i-1,K},
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
in which
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathsf{\Phi}(i)\triangleq \diag\Bigl( \bigl(\exp(j\Phi_{i,\ell}) \bigr)_{\ell=1}^n \Bigr), \end{IEEEeqnarray}
where the nonlinear phase $\Phi_{i,\ell}$ is given in \eqref{eq:Phi-ij}. Further,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{rCl}
\vc{Z}_{i} &\triangleq& \sum \limits_{t=1}^i \left( \left(\prod \limits_{s=t}^{i} \left( \mathrm{D}_K \mathsf{\Phi}(s)\right)\right) \vc{\bar{Z}}_t\right)
\\ &=& \mathrm{D}_K \mathsf{\Phi}(i)\left(\vc{\vc{Z}_{i-1}+\bar{Z}}_i\right),
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
where $ \mathsf{M}_{0,K} \triangleq \mathrm{I}_n$ and $\vc{Z}_0\triangleq 0$. Note that $\mathsf{M}_{K,K}=\mathsf{M}_K$.
First, we expand $\mathsf{M}_{i,K}$ similar to the analysis in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:asymDistK}. For $t \in [i]$, denote
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{c}
\mathsf{R}_i(t)\triangleq \diag\left( \Bigl( \exp\bigl( j \sum \limits_{s=t}^i \Phi_{s,\ell} \bigr)\Bigr)_{\ell=1}^n \right),
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathsf{L}_i(t)\triangleq \mathsf{R}_i(t) \mathrm{C}_1 \mathsf{R}_i(t)^{-1},\end{IEEEeqnarray}
and
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\Delta_i \triangleq \frac{1}{K}\sum \limits_{t=1}^{i}\mathsf{L}_i(t)-\frac{i}{K}(\zeta+jd)\mathrm{I}_n,
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\mathrm{C}_1$ is defined in \eqref{eq:C-i}. Expand $\mathsf{M}_{i,K}$ as:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
\mathsf{M}_{i,K}
&=&\left\{\prod \limits_{t=2}^{i} \left( \mathrm{D}_K \left[\mathsf{R}_i(t) ,\mathrm{D}_K\right]\right)\right\} \mathrm{D}_K \mathsf{R}_i(1)\nonumber\\
&=& \left\{\prod \limits_{t=2}^{i} \left( \mathrm{I}_n+\frac{1}{K}\mathsf{L}_i(t)\right)\right\} \mathsf{R}_i\left(1\right)+O_p\left(K^{-1}\right)\nonumber \\
&=& \left(e^{\frac{i}{K}(\zeta+jd)}\mathrm{I}_n+\frac{1}{K}\sum \limits_{t=1}^{i}\mathsf{L}_i(t)-\frac{i}{K}(\zeta+jd)\mathrm{I}_n\right) \mathsf{R}_i\left(1\right)\nonumber \\
&&+O_p\left(K^{-1}\right)\nonumber\\
&=& e^{\frac{i}{K}(\zeta+jd)}\mathsf{R}_i(1)+\Delta_i \mathsf{R}_i(1)+O_p\left(K^{-1}\right).
\label{eq:Mr-K}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Note that $\mathsf{R}_K(1)=\mathsf{S}_K$.
Fix $\epsilon'>0$ sufficiently small. We shall prove that for each $i$:
$\bullet$ \emph{Claim 1.} For $\ell,\ell' \in [n]$,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\left(\Delta_i\right)_{\ell,\ell'}=O_p\left(K^{-\underline{\upsilon}(\delta)}\right), \label{eq:inductionAssumption}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\underline{\upsilon}(\delta)\geq \upsilon(\delta)-\epsilon'$ and $\upsilon(\delta)$ is defined in \eqref{def:upsilonDelta}.
$\bullet$ \emph{Claim 2.}
For $\ell \in [n]$ and $t \in [i]$,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\sum \limits_{s=t}^i \Phi_{s,\ell}-(i-t+1)\gamma \varepsilon |X_{\ell}|^2 \stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} 0, \label{eq:arithSum}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
when
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
i \leq \begin{cases}
\IEEEstrut
K^{1-\frac{\delta}{3}-\epsilon'},& 0 \leq \delta \leq 1.5,\\
K^{2-\delta-\epsilon'},& 1.5 \leq \delta \leq 2.
\IEEEstrut
\end{cases}\label{eq:iDelta}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
$\bullet$ \emph{Claim 3.}
If $i$ satisfies \eqref{eq:iDelta}, then $\underline{\upsilon}(\delta)$ in \eqref{eq:inductionAssumption} is bounded by
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\underline{\upsilon}(\delta)\geq \begin{cases}
\IEEEstrut
\delta,& 0 \leq \delta \leq 1,\\
1-g,& 1 \leq \delta \leq 2,
\IEEEstrut
\end{cases}\label{eq:uDelta}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
g \triangleq \max \limits_{l,l' \in [n]} -\log_K\left(e^{j(|X_l|^2-|X_{l'}|^2)/K}-1\right). \label{def:g}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Note that $g=o_p(1)$, and thus vanishes for absolutely continuous inputs, when $\delta>1$.
Lemma~\ref{lem:mainThSSFM-ex} follows from \eqref{eq:Mr-K} at $i=k$ and Claim 1. Claim 2 and 3 are needed in the proof of Claim 1.
Note that above Claim 1--3 yield
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\lim \limits_{K \rightarrow \infty}\vc{Z}_K \stackrel{(d)}{=}
\vc{Z},
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\vc{Z}\in \mathbb{C}^n$ and $\vc{Z}\sim \mathcal{N}_{\mathbb{C}}\left(0,\eta \sigma^2\mathcal{L}\mathrm{I}_n\right)$.
For $i=1$, Claim 1-3 hold, since
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathsf{M}_{1,K}= \mathrm{D}_K \mathsf{\Phi}(1)=e^{\frac{1}{K}(\zeta+jd)}\mathsf{\Phi}(1)+O_p\left(K^{-1}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Assume that Claim 1-3 hold for $i\in [r-1]$. We need to show that they hold for $i=r$ as well.
Denote
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\vc{E}_t\triangleq e^{-(\zeta+jd)\frac{ t-1}{K}} \mathsf{R}_{t-1}^*(1) \vc{\bar{Z}}_t=O_p\left(K^{-1/2}\right). \label{def:Et}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Using the assumption of the induction \eqref{eq:inductionAssumption} together with \eqref{eq:Mr-K} and \eqref{eq:ViX}, the nonlinear phase $\Phi_{i+1,\ell}$, where $i\in [r-1]$, can be expanded as:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
\Phi_{i+1,\ell}
&=&\gamma \varepsilon |V_{i+1,\ell}|^2+2 \gamma \varepsilon \sqrt{\varepsilon} \mathfrak{R}(V_{i+1,\ell}^* Z_{i+1,\ell}^{'})+\gamma \varepsilon^2|Z^{''}_{i+1,\ell}|^2 \nonumber \\
&=&\gamma \varepsilon |V_{i+1,\ell}|^2+O_p\left(K^{\frac{\delta-3}{2}}\right) \nonumber \\
&\overset{(a)}{=}& \gamma \varepsilon e^{\frac{2i}{K}\zeta}|X_{\ell}|^2+O_p\left(K^{\frac{\delta-3}{2}}\right)\nonumber\\
&&+2\gamma \varepsilon {\sum \limits_{\ell'\neq \ell}} \mathfrak{R}\left[\left(e^{\frac{ i}{K}(\zeta+jd)}\mathsf{R}_{i}(1)\vc{X}\right)_{\ell}^* (\Delta_{i,K})_{\ell,\ell'}X_{\ell'} \right]\nonumber\\
&&+2\gamma \varepsilon \mathfrak{R}\left[\left(e^{\frac{ i}{K}(\zeta+jd)}\mathsf{R}_{i}(1)\vc{X}\right)_{\ell}^* Z_{i,\ell} \right] \nonumber \\
&=& \gamma \varepsilon e^{\frac{2i}{K}\zeta}|X_{\ell}|^2+O_p\left(K^{\frac{\delta-3}{2}}\right)\nonumber\\
&&{+}2\gamma \varepsilon {\sum \limits_{\ell'\neq \ell}} {\mathfrak{R}}\left[\left(e^{\frac{ i}{K}(\zeta+jd)}\mathsf{R}_{i}(1)\vc{X}\right)_{\ell}^* (\Delta_{i,K})_{\ell,\ell'}X_{\ell'} \right] \nonumber \\
&&+2\gamma \varepsilon e^{\frac{2i}{K}\zeta} \mathfrak{R}\left[X_{\ell}^* \sum \limits_{t=1}^i E_{t,\ell} \right]. \label{eq:phiExpansion}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Here step $(a)$ follows by substituting \eqref{eq:ViX} and \eqref{eq:Mr-K} into the previous line.
Variables $Z'_{i+1,\ell}$ and $Z^{''}_{i+1,\ell}$ denote Gaussian noises with variances that do not depend on $K$ and $E_{t,\ell}$ is defined in \eqref{def:Et}.
The term
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
2\gamma \varepsilon \sum \limits_{\ell'\neq \ell} \mathfrak{R}\left[\left(e^{\frac{ i}{K}(\zeta+jd)}\mathsf{R}_{i}(1)\vc{X}\right)_{\ell}^* (\Delta_{i,K})_{\ell,\ell'}X_{\ell'} \right],
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
captures intra-channel interactions, while the terms
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
2\gamma \varepsilon e^{\frac{2i}{K}\zeta} \mathfrak{R}\left[X_{\ell}^* \sum \limits_{t=1}^i E_{t,\ell} \right],
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
and
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
2 \gamma \varepsilon \sqrt{\varepsilon} \mathfrak{R}\left(\left(e^{\frac{ i}{K}(\zeta+jd)}\mathsf{R}_{i}(1)\vc{X}\right)_{\ell}^* Z_{i+1,\ell}^{'}\right),
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
represent the signal-noise interactions.
To show Claims~1 and 3, note that $\left(\Delta_r\right)_{\ell,\ell}$, $\ell \in [n]$, is equal to zero, with probability one. It remains to show that the off-diagonal elements are $O_p\left(K^{-\underline{\upsilon}(\delta)}\right)$. We show this for element $(1,2)$; the proof is similar for other elements. This element is equal to
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
(\Delta_r)_{1,2}=\frac{(\mathrm{C}_1)_{1,2}}{K}\sum \limits_{i=1}^{r}e^{j \sum \limits_{s=i}^r \left(\Phi_{s,1}-\Phi_{s,2}\right)}. \label{eq:phiGeneral}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
The rest of the proof is presented for different ranges of $\delta$, and for $\zeta=0$, separately. Since in general, for $i \in [K]$,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
e^{\frac{i}{K}\zeta} \vc{X}=K^{\xi} \vc{X}, \label{eq:lossEffect}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\xi=\frac{2i\zeta}{K\ln(K)} \rightarrow 0.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
It can be shown that asymptotically as $K\rightarrow\infty$ the effect of loss in the convergence rate of $\Delta_r$ vanishes.
$\bullet$ \emph{Case $0<\delta<1$:} In this case, first for $r \leq K^{1-\delta/3-\epsilon'}$, we prove Claims 2 and 3, and consequently Claim 1 follows. Then using this result, we prove Claim 1 for $r > K^{1-\delta/3-\epsilon'}$ as well.
Assume that $r \leq K^{1-\delta/3-\epsilon'}$.
We argue first for $t \in [r]$, Claim~2 holds, from which Claims~1 and 3 are then concluded. Let
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
Q_{\ell}\triangleq \gamma \mathcal{L} K^{-\delta}|X_{\ell}|^2,~\ell \in [n].
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Using the induction assumption \eqref{eq:inductionAssumption} and since $r-t+1 \leq K^{1-\delta/3-\epsilon'}$,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rl}
\sum \limits_{s=t}^r& \Phi_{s,\ell} \nonumber\\
=&(r-t+1)K^{\delta-1}Q_{\ell} \nonumber
\\
&+2\gamma \varepsilon \mathfrak{R}\left[X_{\ell}^* \left(\sum \limits_{s=1}^{t-1} (r-t+1) E_{s,\ell} +\sum \limits_{s=t}^{r-1} \left(r-s\right) E_{s,\ell} \right)\right] \nonumber\\
&+O_p\left((r-t+1)K^{\delta-1-\underline{\upsilon}(\delta)}\right)+O_p\left((r-t+1)K^{\frac{\delta-3}{2}}\right) \nonumber\\
\stackrel{(a)}{=}&(r-t+1)K^{\delta-1}Q_{\ell}+O_p\left(K^{-\delta/3-2\epsilon'}\right)+O_p\left(K^{\frac{\delta-3}{6}-\epsilon'}\right) \nonumber \\&+O_p\left(K^{\delta/2-1-1/2}A\right) \nonumber \\=&(r-t+1)K^{\delta-1}Q_{\ell} +O_p\left(K^{-\delta/3-2\epsilon'}\right)+O_p\left(K^{\frac{\delta-3}{6}-\epsilon'}\right)\nonumber\\
&+O_p\left(K^{-3\epsilon'/2}\right)\nonumber\\
\rightarrow& (r-t+1)K^{\delta-1}Q_{\ell}, \label{eq:secondOrderD1}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $(a)$ holds due to assumption of induction \eqref{eq:uDelta} and
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
A &\triangleq& \Bigl((t-1)(r-t+1)^2 + \sum_{\ell=1}^{r-t} \ell^2\Bigr)^{1/2}\nonumber \\
&=&O\left(r^{3/2}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
This proves Claim 2. Note that as can be seen in the above calculations, due to signal-noise interactions, at most $ K^{1-\delta/3-\epsilon'}$ consecutive terms $\sum \limits_{s=t}^r \Phi_{s,\ell}$ constitute arithmetic series. For small values of noise, it can be seen that the above argument almost holds for any $r \leq K^{1-\epsilon'}$, except for very large values of $K$, when $K \gg \left(\gamma \mathcal{L}^{3/2} \sigma\right)^{-2/\delta}$.
Now, to show Claim~3, by denoting $Q\triangleq Q_1-Q_2$ and due to \eqref{eq:secondOrderD1},
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
(\Delta_r)_{1,2}&=&\frac{(\mathrm{C}_1)_{1,2}}{K}\sum \limits_{i=1}^{r}e^{j \sum \limits_{s=i}^r \left(\Phi_{s,1}-\Phi_{s,2}\right)}\nonumber \\
&=& \frac{(\mathrm{C}_1)_{1,2}e^{jK^{\delta-1}Q}\left(e^{jK^{2\delta/3-\epsilon'}Q}-1\right)}{K\left(e^{jK^{\delta-1}Q}-1\right)}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Furthermore, since for $0 \leq \delta \leq 1$,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
e^{jK^{\delta-1}Q}-1=O_p\left(K^{\delta-1}\right),
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
then
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\big|(\Delta_r)_{1,2}\big| = \big|(\mathrm{C}_1)_{1,2}\big| ~O_p\left(K^{-\delta}\right),
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
which completes the proof of Claim 3 and consequently Claim 1.
For $r > K^{1-\delta/3-\epsilon'}$, similarly it can be verified that for each $K^{1-\delta/3-\epsilon'}$ consecutive terms,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\sum \limits_{i=t_1}^{t_2}e^{j \sum \limits_{s=i}^{r} \left(\Phi_{s,1}-\Phi_{s,2}\right)}=O_p\left(K^{1-\delta}\right),
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $t_2=t_1+K^{1-\delta/3-\epsilon'}$.
Hence
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
\big|(\Delta_r)_{1,2}\big|&=&\big|(\mathrm{C}_1)_{1,2}\big| ~O_p\left(K^{\delta/3+\epsilon'}K^{1-\delta}K^{-1}\right)\nonumber\\
&=&\big|(\mathrm{C}_1)_{1,2}\big| ~O_p\left(K^{-2\delta/3+\epsilon'}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
The above bound can be improved using the following approach. When $t$ consecutive terms form a geometric series, then
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rl}
\sum \limits_{i=m-t+1}^{m}&e^{j \sum \limits_{s=i}^{r} \left(\Phi_{s,1}-\Phi_{s,2}\right)}\nonumber \\
&= \frac{e^{j \sum \limits_{s=m-t }^{r} \left(\Phi_{s,1}-\Phi_{s,2}\right)}-e^{j \sum \limits_{s=m}^{r} \left(\Phi_{s,1}-\Phi_{s,2}\right)}}{e^{jK^{\delta-1}Q}-1}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
On the other hand, if $t_2-t_1 = K^{ 1-\delta/3+\epsilon'}$, then similar to the analysis in \eqref{eq:secondOrderD1},
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rl}
\sum \limits_{s=t_1}^{t_2-1}& \Phi_{s,\ell} \nonumber\\
=&(t_2-t_1)K^{\delta-1}Q_{\ell} \nonumber
\\
&+2\gamma \varepsilon \mathfrak{R}\left[X_{\ell}^* \left(\sum \limits_{s=1}^{t_1-1} (t_2-t_1) E_{s,\ell} +\sum \limits_{s=t_1}^{t_2-1} \left(t_2-s\right) E_{s,\ell} \right)\right] \nonumber\\
&+O_p\left((t_2-t_1)K^{\delta-1-\underline{\upsilon}(\delta)}\right)+O_p\left((t_2-t_1)K^{\frac{\delta-3}{2}}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
The second term on the RHS of the above relation is non-deterministic given the input and is of order
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\Omega_p \left((t_2-t_1)^{\frac{3}{2}} K^{\frac{\delta-3}{2}}\right) = \Omega_p\left( K^{\frac{3\epsilon'}{2}}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
This concludes that this term grows as $K \rightarrow \infty$. It can be verified that in general if $A=B\cdot Z$, where $B$ is a constant and $Z$ is a random variable with continuous PDF, then as $B \rightarrow \infty$, $\mod(A,2\pi) \rightarrow \mathcal{U}(0,2\pi)$. Consequently
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mod\left(\sum \limits_{s=t_1}^{t_2-1} \left(\Phi_{s,1}-\Phi_{s,2}\right),2\pi \right) \rightarrow \mathcal{U}(0,2\pi).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Hence, the summation of terms with a distance more than $K^{ 1-\delta/3+\epsilon'}$ can be considered as the summation of independent random variables. Using central limit theorem yields
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
\big|(\Delta_r)_{1,2}\big|&=& \big|(\mathrm{C}_1)_{1,2}\big| ~O_p\left(K^{2\epsilon'}K^{\delta/6}K^{1-\delta}K^{-1}\right)\nonumber \\
&=&O_p\left(K^{-5\delta/6+2\epsilon'}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
This completes the proof of Claim 1.
$\bullet$ \emph{Case $1\leq \delta<1.5$:}
Similar to the previous case, first assume that $r\leq K^{1-\delta/3-\epsilon'}$. For $i \in [r-1]$, due to the assumption of the induction \eqref{eq:uDelta}, $\underline{\upsilon}(\delta)\geq 1-g$. Since $1-\delta/3<2-\delta$, then it can be verified similar to the previous case that the restrictive term is the signal-noise interaction term and \eqref{eq:arithSum} (Claim 2) holds. Hence,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\sum \limits_{i=1}^{r}e^{j \sum \limits_{s=i}^r \left(\Phi_{s,1}-\Phi_{s,2}\right)}
= \frac{e^{j\left(\Phi_{1,1}-\Phi_{2,2}\right)}\left(e^{jr K^{\delta-1}Q}-1\right)}{K\left(e^{jK^{\delta-1}Q}-1\right)}.~\label{eq:oscillation}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
For $\delta>1$, the term $1/(e^{jK^{\delta-1}Q}-1)$ is an oscillating function which is of order $O_p(K^g)$, which concludes that $\underline{\upsilon}(\delta)=1-g$ for $r$ steps as well, $r\leq K^{1-\delta/3-\epsilon'}$. This proves Claim~3 and consequently Claim~1 for $r\leq K^{1-\delta/3-\epsilon'}$.
For $r> K^{1-\delta/3-\epsilon'}$, similar to the previous case it can be verified that sum of each $K^{1-\delta/3-\epsilon'}$ consecutive terms is $O_p(K^{g})$. Thus,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\big|(\Delta_r)_{1,2}\big|= \big|(\mathrm{C}_1)_{1,2}\big| ~O_p\left(K^{\delta/3-1+g+\epsilon'}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Furthermore, using the central limit theorem, this bound can be improved to
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\big|(\Delta_r)_{1,2}\big|= \big|(\mathrm{C}_1)_{1,2}\big| ~O_p\left(K^{\delta/6-1+g+2\epsilon'}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Finally, note that for absolutely continuous inputs, $g=o_p(1)$ and $O_p\left(K^{\delta/6-1+g+2\epsilon'}\right)=O_p\left(K^{\delta/6-1+2\epsilon'}\right)$. This completes the proof of Claim 1.
$\bullet$ \emph{Case $1.5\leq \delta<2$:}
Since $2-\delta<1-\delta/3$, in this regime, the intra-channel term is the restrictive term. In this case, it can be verified that $r\leq K^{2-\delta-\epsilon'}$ consecutive terms form geometric series and their sum is $O_p(K^g)$ (Claims 2 and 3).
Hence, to show Claim 1, $\big|(\Delta_r)_{1,2}\big|$ can be bounded as:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
\big|(\Delta_r)_{1,2}\big|&=& \big|(\mathrm{C}_1)_{1,2}\big| ~O_p\left(K^{2\epsilon'+g}K^{\frac{1-(2-\delta)}{2}}K^{-1}\right)\nonumber \\
&=&\big|(\mathrm{C}_1)_{1,2}\big| ~O_p\left(K^{\delta/2-1.5+g+2\epsilon'}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Note that similar to the previous case, $g=o_p(1)$ for absolutely continuous inputs and hence $O_p\left(K^{\delta/2-1.5+g+2\epsilon'}\right)=O_p\left(K^{\delta/2-1.5+2\epsilon'}\right)$.
$\bullet$ \emph{Cases $2\leq \delta< 3$ and $3\leq\delta$:} For these cases, first we argue that when \eqref{eq:inductionAssumption} holds, then as $K \rightarrow \infty$, $\mod\left(\Phi_{r,\ell},2\pi\right)\rightarrow \mathcal{U}(0,2\pi)$, independent of $\left(\Phi_{i,\ell}\right)_{i=1}^{r-1}$. In other words, in this regime as $K \rightarrow \infty$, SSFM channel tends to the finite dispersion fading channel, except for the first segment and when $2<\delta <3$, which is negligible. This, concludes that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\Delta_r=\frac{O_p\left(\sqrt{r}\right)}{K}=O_p\left(K^{-1/2}\right),
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
which completes the proof of Claim 1. Note that Claims 2 and 3 are valid only for $\delta<2$.
For $2\leq \delta<3$, the second phase operator is equal to
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
\Phi_{2,\ell} &=& \gamma \mu\sum \limits_{t=1}^{M} \Big|X_{\ell}+\frac{\left(\mathrm{C}_1\vc{X}\right)_{\ell}}{K}+\vc{Z}_1+O_p\left(\frac{1}{K^2}\right) +W_{2,\ell}(t)\Big|^2 \nonumber \\
&\approx& \gamma \varepsilon |X_{1,\ell}|^2+\frac{\gamma \mathcal{L}}{K^2}X_{1,\ell}\left(\mathrm{C}_1\vc{X}\right)_{\ell} .
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
For i.i.d. inputs, the second term induces a stochastic impairment that grows if $\delta > 2$ and when $K \rightarrow \infty$.
Hence, as $K \rightarrow \infty$, each step will be reduced to uniform phase noise. Similarly, after $r$ steps, there would be a stochastic impairment of order $\frac{\sqrt{i}}{K}\|X\|_4$. Thus, the channel (except for the first segment) is equivalent to the fading channel.
For $3\leq \delta$, SSFM channel tends to the fading channel for any input distribution that escapes to infinity, as $K \rightarrow \infty$. To show this, first using the assumption of the induction, for $1 \leq i \leq r$, we have
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
|V_{i,\ell}|=K^{\delta/2} |\vc{X}'_\ell|+O_p\left(K^{\delta/2-0.5}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Hence, the second term of $ \Phi_{i,1}$, \textit{i.e.} $2 \gamma \varepsilon \sqrt{\varepsilon} \mathfrak{R}(V_{i,\ell} Z_{i,\ell}^{'*})$, which conditioned on other segments and coordinates is not deterministic, grows unboundedly. Thus, $\mod\left(\Phi_{i,\ell},2\pi\right) \rightarrow \mathcal{U}(0,2\pi)$. This completes the proof.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{th:mainThSSFM}}\label{pr:mainThComp}
First we show \eqref{eq:capacity-a} holds. Let $\vc{Y}'_K\triangleq \mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta}')\vc{Y}_K$, where $\theta'_{\ell} \widesim{\text{i.i.d}}\mathcal{U}(0,2\pi)$. Due to data processing inequality
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
I(\vc{Y}_K;\vc{X}) \geq I(\vc{Y}'_K;\vc{X}).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
In the following, we establish a lower bound on the channel $\vc{X} \mapsto \vc{Y}'_K$.
The channel $\vc{X} \mapsto \vc{Y}'_K$ when $K \rightarrow \infty$, is
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\vc{Y}'_K=\mathsf{M}'_K \vc{X}+\vc{Z}, \label{eq:Mprime}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathsf{M}'_K\stackrel{p}{=}e^{\zeta}\mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta})+O_p\left(K^{-\upsilon(\delta)+\epsilon'}\right),
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\theta_l \sim \mathcal{U}(0,2\pi)$, independent of $\vc{X}$.
If $\upsilon(\delta)<\frac{1}{2}\delta$, then for sufficiently small value of $\epsilon'$, the term $O\left(K^{-\upsilon(\delta)+\epsilon'}\right)\vc{X}$ vanishes as $K \rightarrow \infty$ and the channel tends to $n$ independent phase noise channels. The lower bound \eqref{eq:capacity-a} on $\mathcal{C}(\snr,\sqrt[\delta]{\snr})$ for $0 \leq \delta \leq 3/2$ can be then established similar to Theorem~\ref{th:asymCapFadingFinDis}.
If $\upsilon(\delta)> \frac{1}{2}\delta$, an approach similar to that in the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:fadingHighPowerdG1} can be applied. The output entropy $h(\mathbf{Y}'_K)$ can be bounded as in \eqref{eq:outputEntropy}. Bounding the conditional part also follows similarly as in the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:fadingHighPowerdG1}, with the difference that the defined variable $T_{\ell}$ is not anymore Gaussian and is a random variable with bounded variance $\sigma^2_{T_{\ell}}$. Applying the maximum entropy theorem and letting $\epsilon' \rightarrow 0$, the conditional entropy can be similarly bounded as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
h(Y'_{K,\ell}|\mathbf{X}) &\leq &
\log_2\left(\frac{2e^{\zeta}\pi}{K^{\upsilon(\delta)}}\right)+O\left(\sqrt{\frac{K}{\mathcal{P}}}\right)+O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{K}}\right)\nonumber\\
&&+ \mathbb{E}\left[\log_2\left(|X_{\ell}|\norm{\mathbf{X}}_4\right)\right]+\frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(2\pi e \sigma^2_{T_{\ell}} \right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
This relation together with \eqref{eq:outputEntropy} and \eqref{eq:cEntropySum}, and letting $\vc{X}=\mathcal{N}_{\mathbb{C}}(0,\mathcal{P}\mathrm{I}_n)$, shows that \eqref{eq:capacity-a} holds also for $\upsilon(\delta) \geq \frac{1}{2}\delta$.
Now, to show \eqref{eq:bound-a}, first note that similar to the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:mainThSSFM-ex} for the case of $\delta < 1$, for any $\epsilon'$ when $\snr/K \rightarrow 0$ and $\snr \rightarrow \infty$, we have
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
\mathsf{M}_K&=&e^{\zeta+jd} \mathsf{S}_K+O_p\left(K^{-\frac{5}{6}\log_{K}(\snr) + \epsilon'\log_{K}(\snr)}\right) \nonumber \\
&=&e^{\zeta+jd} \mathsf{S}_K+O_p\left(\snr^{-5/6+ \epsilon'}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Next, by considering $\vc{X}\mapsto \vc{Y}'_K$, as in \eqref{eq:Mprime}, we have
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathsf{M}'_K\stackrel{p}{=}e^{\zeta}\mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta})+O_p\left(\snr^{-5/6+ \epsilon'}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Hence, by choosing input as $\mathcal{N}(0,\mathcal{P}\mathrm{I}_n)$, we have
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{cl}
\lim_{\snr \rightarrow \infty} \lim_{K \rightarrow \infty} \Big[\mathcal{C}(\snr,K)-\frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(1+ \snr\right)&+\frac{1}{2}\log_2(a)\Big] \nonumber \\
&\geq 0.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
This completes the proof.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{subfigure}{\columnwidth}
\centering
\includestandalone[scale=0.4]{tikz/CapacityQAM16B20}
\caption{$\mathcal{B}=20 \text{ GHz}$}
\label{fig:CapacityQAM16B20}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{\columnwidth}
\centering
\includestandalone[scale=0.4]{tikz/CapacityQAM16B5}
\caption{$\mathcal{B}=5 \text{ GHz}$}
\label{fig:CapacityQAM16B5}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{AIR of the SSFM channel with large $K$ and back-propagation.}
\label{fig:capacity}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includestandalone[scale=0.5]{tikz/scatterNoiseConstellation}
&
\includestandalone[scale=0.5]{tikz/scatterNoise30dB}
\\
(a) Symbols at TX. & (b) RX, $\snr=30$ dB.
\\[4mm]
\includestandalone[scale=0.5]{tikz/scatterNoise50dB}
&
\includestandalone[scale=0.5]{tikz/scatterNoise75dB}
\\
(c) RX, $\snr = 50$ dB. & (d) RX, $\snr=75$ dB.
\end{tabular}
\caption{Normalized constellation for the SSFM channel at $\mathcal{B}=20 \text{GHz}$.
(a) Transmitted symbols. (b--d) Received symbols at several SNRs.
}
\label{fig:scatterNoise}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{subfigure}{\columnwidth}
\centering
\includestandalone[scale=0.5]{tikz/divergenceFromoHaarOriginal}
\caption{Finite dispersion.}
\label{fig:divergenceFromoHaarOriginal}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{\columnwidth}
\centering
\includestandalone[scale=0.5]{tikz/convergenceToHaarInf}
\caption{Infinite dispersion.}
\label{fig:convergenceToHaarInf}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Empirical PDF of $|(\mathsf{M}_K)_{1,1}|$ for the finite- and infinite- dispersion fading channel. }
\end{figure*}
\section{Capacity Simulation}
\label{sec:simulations}
The capacity results in Section~\ref{sec:CapacityResultsExt} are supported by numerical simulation, presented in this section.
We compute the maximum AIR by simulation, and compare that with the
upper and lower bound \eqref{eq:ub} and \eqref{eq:mainThSSFM}. Furthermore, we investigate the properties of the random matrix $M_K$; in particular we demonstrate that $M_K$ tends to a diagonal
matrix if $K$ is sufficiently large.
\subsection{Achievable information rate}
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Fiber parameters}
\label{tab:params}
\centerline{\begin{tabular}{c|l|l}
$\alpha$ & $0.2$ dB/km & {\footnotesize fiber loss} \\
$D$ & 17 ps/(nm-km) & {\footnotesize chromatic dispersion} \\
$\gamma$ & $1.27~{\rm W}^{-1}{\rm km}^{-1}$ & {\footnotesize nonlinearity parameter} \\
NF & 3 dB & {\footnotesize noise figure}\\
$h$ & $6.626 \times 10^{-34} {\rm J} \cdot {\rm s}$ & {\footnotesize Planck's constant} \\
$\lambda_0$ & $1.55~\mu{\rm m}$ & {\footnotesize carrier wavelength}
\end{tabular}}
\end{table}
We consider an SSFM channel corresponding to a discretization of a fiber with parameters given in Tab.~\ref{tab:params}, $\mathcal{L}=2000 {\rm km}$, and $\mathcal{B}=20 \text{ GHz}$ and $\mathcal{B}=5 \text{ GHz}$, resulting in $\sigma^2=1.2\times 10^{-13} \text{ J/m}$ and $\sigma^2=3\times 10^{-14} \text{ J/m}$, respectively.
We assume that fiber loss is perfectly compensated with distributed amplification,
and choose time parameters $\Delta_t=1/\mathcal{B}$ and $n=4096$.
Each element of the input vector is chosen i.i.d. from a uniformly-spaced multi-ring constellation with $m_A$ rings and 8 points in phase.
The AIR is computed with equalization. Given output $\vc{Y}$, back-propagation is applied to obtain $\hat{\vc{Y}}$. The per-sample conditional PDF $p_{\hat{Y}_1|X_1}(\hat{y}_1|x_1)$ is numerically computed by averaging over all samples. The maximum of $I(X_1; \hat Y_1)$ over the input PDF provides a lower bound on the capacity
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\mathcal{C}(\text{SNR})&\geq& \frac{1}{n} I(\vc{X};\hat{\vc{Y}}) \nonumber
\\
&\geq& I(X_1; \hat Y_1),
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where the last inequality holds for i.i.d. input.
Fig. \ref{fig:capacity}(a) shows the maximum AIR as a function of the launch power and $\snr$ for $\mathcal{B}=20$ GHz.
It can be seen that the AIR is close to the upper bound \eqref{eq:ub} in the low \snr\ regime $0\leq \snr\leq 15$ dB, and then, following a drop, increases again, approaching the lower bound \eqref{eq:mainThSSFM} as the \snr\ is increased.
The AIR tends to infinity along the lower bound, which appears to be tight in our simulations.
Fig.~\ref{fig:capacity}(b) shows the convergence of the AIR to the lower bound at high powers for $\mathcal{B}=5$ GHz. Note that dispersion is stronger for larger bandwidth. As a consequence, the
stochastic ISI and the drop in the AIR are lower in Fig.~\ref{fig:capacity}(b) compared to those in Fig.~\ref{fig:capacity}(a).
Fig.~\ref{fig:scatterNoise} helps explain Fig. \ref{fig:capacity}(a), showing a number of symbols in the constellation at the transmitter (TX) and receiver (RX).
In the regime $\snr <38\textnormal{dB} $, the received symbols are localized around the transmitted symbols, and the AIR is between the upper and lower bounds \eqref{eq:ub} and \eqref{eq:mainThSSFM}.
In the medium \snr\ regime $45\textnormal{dB}<\snr <55 \textnormal{dB}$, the received symbols are almost independent of the transmitted symbol, resulting in almost zero AIR.
Finally, in the high \snr\ regime $\snr>75\textnormal{dB}$, the phase of the received symbols conditioned on the transmitted symbol is uniform; however the amplitude is now localized, limited by an additive ASE noise.
The AIR in this regime is $(1/2)\log_2(1+\snr)-1/2+o(1)$.
The analysis in Section~\ref{sec:CapacityResultsExt} shows that the SSFM model tends to a diagonal one for sufficiently large $K$ without equalization. Both deterministic and stochastic ISI tend to zero with $K$.
Simulation of the AIR without equalization shows a pattern similar to that in Fig. \ref{fig:capacity}, although
the value of the AIR is smaller due to deterministic ISI.
It follows that the AIR follows a double-ascent curve. As previously known, the AIR has an inverted bell curve shape, which corresponds to the range $\snr\leq 43$ dB in
Fig. \ref{fig:capacity} (a). The existence of an optimal power in this range is attributed to a balance between the ASE noise and stochastic ISI. However, if \snr\ is further increased, the ISI eventually averages out to zero as proved in Lemma~\ref{lem:mainThSSFM-ex}. This gives rise to the second ascent in the AIR, where the AIR approaches the rate of an interference-free phase noise channel.
Note that equalization using back-propagation improves the AIR at low-to-medium SNRs by canceling the deterministic component of the inter-symbol inference (ISI). At high SNRs there is no benefit in applying equalization as the model is already ISI-free. However, if equalization is applied, the model remains diagonal since the phase at the input of the equalizer is uniform conditioned on the channel input.
\subsection{Conditional PDF in the Fading Channel}
In this and the next section, we verify the properties of the
conditional PDF in the fading and SSFM channels. As the input is
multi-dimensional, we compute the distribution of specific entries of the channel matrix $\mathsf M$.
In the first experiment, we simulate the random matrix $\mathsf M_k$ \eqref{def:matrixMk} for finite dispersion case with zero loss, $n=32$,
and for values of $b_{\ell}$ in \eqref{def:dispersions} with $T =50$, $\beta_2=-2$, and $\mathcal{L}=1/4$. Fig~\ref{fig:divergenceFromoHaarOriginal} shows that the empirical PDF of $W \triangleq |(\mathsf{M}_K)_{1,1}|$ converges to the Dirac delta function $\delta(W-1)$, which is explained by Lemma~\ref{lem:asymDistK}. For these choices of parameters, $b_{\ell}$ are small and the PDF of $|(\mathsf{M}_K)_{1,1}|$ tends to $\delta(W-1)$ as $K$ increases.
In the second experiment, the random matrix $\mathsf M_k$ \eqref{def:matrixMk} is simulated for infinite dispersion case with zero loss and $n=32$. The values of $b_{\ell}$ are chosen to be numbers in the interval $(0,\pi/3]$ such that the matrix $\mathrm{D}$ becomes a non-block diagonal matrix. Fig~\ref{fig:convergenceToHaarInf} shows that the empirical PDF of $W \triangleq |(\mathsf{M}_K)_{1,1}|$ converges to the PDF of $\hat{W}=|\mathsf{M}_{1,1}|$, where $\mathsf{M}$ is distributed according to the Haar measure over the group of unitary matrices. This supports the result of Lemma~\ref{lem:haarMeasure}. Note that, by Theorem~\ref{th:pdfFirstColumn} in Appendix~\ref{sec:math}, $P_{\hat{W}}(\hat{w})=2(n-1)\hat{w}(1-\hat{w}^2)^{n-2}$.
In the third experiment, the first simulation is repeated with the same parameters except with $\mathcal{L}=25$, which results in larger absolute values for $b_{\ell}$. In this case, as $K$ is increased, the empirical PDF of $W$ first, very fast as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:firstConvegenceToHaar}, gets close to the PDF of $\hat{W}$, which by Lemma~\ref{lem:haarMeasure} corresponds to the PDF of $|(\mathsf{M}_K)_{1,1}|$ in infinite dispersion fading channel when $K \rightarrow \infty$. Hence, it seems that when $|b_{\ell}|$ are not small, the PDF of $|(\mathsf{M}_K)_{1,1}|$ in the fading channel with finite dispersion is similar to the infinite dispersion case.
As $K$ is further increased, the distribution of $\mathsf{M}_K$ gets far from PDF of $\hat{W}$; as a consequence,
as it can be observed in Fig.~\ref{fig:divergenceFromoHaar}, the PDF of $W$ tends to $\delta(W-1)$ rather than \eqref{eq:PW1}.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{subfigure}{\columnwidth}
\centering
\includestandalone[scale=0.5]{tikz/firstConvegenceToHaar}
\caption{First, PDF gets close to Haar distribution.}
\label{fig:firstConvegenceToHaar}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{\columnwidth}
\centering
\includestandalone[scale=0.5]{tikz/divergenceFromoHaar}
\caption{Then, PDF converges to $\delta(w-1)$.}
\label{fig:divergenceFromoHaar}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Empirical PDF of $|(\mathsf{M}_K)_{1,1}|$ for finite dispersion.}
\label{fig:exampleFadingHaarDirac}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includestandalone[scale=0.5]{tikz/SSFMN32}
\caption{Empirical PDF of $|Y_1| /|X_1|$ for SSFM channel with $n=32$.}
\label{fig:SSFMN32}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Conditional PDF in the SSFM Channel}
We verify that the SSFM channel is nearly diagonal when $K$ is sufficiently large.
In the first experiment, we simulate a lossless channel with 1000 realizations of the noise and large input $X_{\ell}\widesim{\text{i.i.d.}}10^8(\mathcal{U}(0,1)+0.7)$. We compute the empirical PDF of $|Y_1|/|X_1|$ to show it converges to the Dirac Delta function. Similarly this holds for any $i\in [n]$.
The number of spatial segments $K$ is chosen as follows.
%
Considering the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:asymDistK} in Section \ref{sec:proof}, the SSFM model is diagonal when $\mathrm{C}_1/\sqrt{K}$ is small, where the matrix $\mathrm{C}_1$ is defined in \eqref{eq:C-i}. Hence, $\frac{1}{\sqrt{K}}\max\limits_{\ell}|d_{\ell}|$ should be small, \emph{e.g.,}\ less than $0.1$. For the normalized NLS equation in \cite{yousefi2012nft1}, $\max \limits_{\ell}|d_{\ell}|=\left(n \pi/T\right)^2$. Letting $T=50$, we obtain $K \geq 16(n/10)^4$.
\paragraph*{Example n=32} In this case, $K > 1500$. Fig.~\ref{fig:SSFMN32}, shows that the empirical PDF of $|Y_1|/|X_1|$ is concentrated around 1, with $\sigma^2=5\times 10^{-5}$. This supports the relation $|Y_1|=|X_1|$ with probability one as $K\rightarrow\infty$.
\paragraph*{Example n=1024} In this case, $K > 1.7\times 10^9$ and simulation is infeasible. However, if we reduce $d_{\ell}$ by factor 100 (or 400), we obtain $K > 10^4$ (or $K > 1.7\times 10^5$). Fig.~\ref{fig:SSFMN1024D400} shows the empirical PDF of $|Y_1|/|X_1|$ for several values of $K$ and $\sigma^2=1.5\times 10^{-3}$, demonstrating $|Y_1| \approx |X_1|$.
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\begin{subfigure}{\columnwidth}
\centering
\includestandalone[scale=0.5]{tikz/SSFMN1024D100}
\caption{Dispersion values $b_{\ell}$ divided by 100, $\forall l$. }
\label{fig:SSFMN1024D100}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{\columnwidth}
\centering
\includestandalone[scale=0.5]{tikz/SSFMN1024D400}
\caption{Dispersion values $b_{\ell}$ divided by 400, $\forall l$.}
\label{fig:SSFMN1024D400}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Empirical PDF of $|Y_1|/|X_1|$ for SSFM channel with $n=1024$ and dispersion values divided by 100 and 400.}
\label{fig:fig:SSFMN1024D}
\end{figure*}
In the second experiment, we investigate the rate of convergence of the SSFM channel to the diagonal phase noise model. We consider the normalized SSFM with $n=32$, $K=10^4$, $\sigma^2=5\times 10^{-5}$, and 1000 realizations of the noise and input $X_{\ell}\widesim{\text{i.i.d.}}\sqrt{\frac{\mathcal P}{1.5}}(\mathcal{U}(0,1)+0.7)$, where $\mathcal{P}=K^{\delta}$, for $0 \leq \delta \leq 4$.
From Lemma~\ref{lem:mainThSSFM-ex} and \eqref{eq:phiGeneral}, the rate of convergence of $\mathsf{M}_K$ to $e^{\zeta+jd}\mathsf{S}_K$ is
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\underline{\upsilon}(\delta)\triangleq-\log_K\left(\frac{1}{K}\sum \limits_{i=1}^{r}e^{j \sum \limits_{\ell=i}^K \left(\Phi_{\ell,1}\right)}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:orderConvergence}, $\underline{\upsilon}(\delta)$ is simulated. The results are compatible with Lemma~\ref{lem:mainThSSFM-ex} stating $\underline{\upsilon}(\delta) > {\upsilon}(\delta)-\epsilon'$ for any $\epsilon'>0$, where $\upsilon(\delta)$ is defined in \eqref{def:upsilonDelta}. Moreover, it can be seen in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:mainThSSFM-ex} that for small values of $\sigma^2\mathcal{L}$, the signal-noise mixing may not be dominant except for very large $K \gg \left(\gamma \mathcal{L}^{3/2} \sigma\right)^{-2/\delta}$.
When $\gamma \mathcal{L}^{3/2} \sigma K^{\delta/2}$ is small, $\underline{\upsilon}(\delta)$ can be lower bounded as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\underline{\upsilon}(\delta)+\epsilon'\geq \begin{cases}
\IEEEstrut
\delta,& 0 \leq \delta \leq 1,\\
1.5-\delta/2-g,& 1 \leq \delta \leq 2 \;\; \\
&\text{and i.i.d. input}, \\
0.5,& 2 \leq \delta \leq 3 \;\; \\
& \text{and i.i.d. input},\\
0.5,& 3 \leq \delta,
\IEEEstrut
\end{cases} \label{def:upsilonDeltaLowrange}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
which is compatible with the simulation result in Fig.~\ref{fig:orderConvergence}. The oscillation for $1\leq \delta \leq 2$ is also explained by the vanishing oscillating term $1/(e^{jK^{\delta-1}Q}-1)$ in \eqref{eq:oscillation} in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:mainThSSFM-ex}.
In the last experiment, the effect of loss is examined. The previous experiment is repeated with fixed $\delta=0.6$ and $\zeta=-1.35$. For $K=100$, $K=1000$, and $K=1000$, the convergence rate $\underline{\upsilon}(\delta)$ are is $0.463$, $0.512$, and $0.534$, respectively. This is explained by \eqref{eq:lossEffect}, implying that for $0<\delta<1$ and small noise power, $\underline{\upsilon}(\delta)=\delta+2a\zeta/\ln{K}\rightarrow \delta$, where $a$ is a value less than 1. In our experiment, $a\approx 0.23$.
\section{Conclusion} \label{sec:conc}
The capacity of the discrete-time SSFM model of optical fiber is considered as a function of the average input signal power $\snr$, when the number of spatial segments in SSFM is sufficiently large as $K = \sqrt[\delta]{\snr}$, $\delta>0$.
First, we obtained the capacity lower bound \eqref{eq:capacity-a} and characterized the pre-log as a function of $\delta$.
In particular, we showed that $\mathcal{C}(\snr)\geq \frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(1+\snr\right)- \frac{1}{2}+o(1)$, where $o(1)$ vanishes as $\snr \rightarrow \infty $.
As a result, the number of signal DoFs is at least half of the input dimension.
Second, it is shown that the
capacity of the continuous-space SSFM channel when $\gamma \rightarrow \infty$ is $\frac{1}{2}\log_2(1+a\, \snr)+o(1)$. Hence, the number of signal DoFs is exactly half of the input dimension.
Third, we considered the SSFM model, named as infinite-dispersion, where the dispersion matrix in each segment does not depend on $K$.
It is shown that if $K= \sqrt[\delta]{\snr}$, $\delta>3$, then $\mathcal{C}(\snr,\sqrt[\delta]{\snr}) = \frac{1}{2n}\log_2(1+\snr)+O(1)$, where $O(1)$ term is bounded as $\snr \rightarrow \infty$. Here, there is exactly one signal DoF.
Finally, AIRs of the SSFM model with back-propagation equalization are obtained numerically. The results show that while the AIR drops significantly in the medium $\snr$ regime due to a considerable stochastic ISI, it asymptotically converges to $\frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(1+\snr\right)- \frac{1}{2}+o(1)$, explained by the fact that ISI vanishes at high \snr s.
\appendices
\section{Mathematical Preliminaries} \label{sec:math}
\subsection{Spherical Coordinate System}
The $n$-dimensional spherical coordinate system is described by a radius, $r$, and $n-1$ angles $\theta_{\ell}$, $\ell\in[n-1]$, where $\theta_{\ell}\in[0,\pi]$ for $\ell\in[n-2]$, and $\theta_{n-1}\in[0,2\pi)$. A vector $\vc{x}\in \mathbb{R}^n$ can be written in the spherical coordinate as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
x_1&=&r\cos(\theta_1), \nonumber\\
x_{\ell}&=&r\cos(\theta_{\ell})\prod \limits_{r=1}^{\ell-1} \sin(\theta_{r}) ,~\ell = 2,\ldots,n-2 \nonumber\\
x_{n-1}&=&r\prod \limits_{r=1}^{n-1} \sin(\theta_{r}).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Alternatively, we denote $\vc{x}$ by its norm $\norm{\vc{x}}$ and direction $\hat{\vc{x}}=\vc{x}/\norm{\vc{x}}$ on the surface of the $n-1$-sphere
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathcal{S}^{n-1}=\left\{\vc{x} \in \mathbb{R}^n: \norm{x}=1\right\}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Complex vectors in $\mathbb{C}^n$ can be similarly represented.
\subsection{Groups}
The reader is referred to \cite{Quint14,Breuillard04,Stromberg60} for background on group theory.
For a group $G$, notation $H \leq G$ is used to say that $H$ is a subgroup of $G$ and $gH$ and $Hg$ are respectively the left coset and right coset of $H$ w.r.t. $g\in G$.
A probability measure on $G$ is a non-negative, real-valued, countably additive, regular Borel measure $\mu$ on $G$, such that $\mu(G)=1$. The support of $\mu$, denoted by $\mathcal{S}({\mu})$ is the smallest closed subset of $G$ of $\mu$-measure.
A probability measure $\mu$ on $G$ is said to be (normally) aperiodic if its support is not contained in a (left or right) coset of a proper closed (normal) subgroup of $G$.
\paragraph{Group of Unitary Matrices} The group that we are interested in this paper is the group of unitary matrices. A matrix $\mathrm{U}\in\mathbb{C}^{n\times n}$ is unitary if
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathrm{U} \mathrm{U}^H= \mathrm{U}^H \mathrm{U}=\mathrm{I}_n,
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\mathrm{U}^H$ denotes the conjugate transpose of $\mathrm{U}$. The set of unitary matrices in $\mathbb{C}^{n\times n}$ with matrix multiplication forms a group $\mathbb{U}_n$, which is a compact Lie group.
The following theorem is a re-statement of \cite[Thm.~1]{Borevich81}, bringing parts of its proof to the theorem statement.
\begin{theorem} \label{th:Borevich}
Suppose that a subgroup $\mathbb{H} \leq \mathbb{U}_n$ contains the subgroup of diagonal matrices.
Let $\nu$ be a binary relation on $\mathcal{I}_n=\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$ defined as follows: $\forall r,s\in[n]$, $r \widesim{\nu} s$ if and only if there exists a matrix $\mathrm{A} \in \mathbb{H}$ and
$ t \in[n]$ such that $\mathrm{A}_{r,t} \neq 0$ and $\mathrm{A}_{s,t} \neq 0$.
Then, we have
\begin{itemize}
\item[i.] $\nu$ is an equivalence relation on $\mathcal{I}_n$,
\item[ii.]$\mathbb{U}_n(\nu) \leq \mathbb{H}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Haar Measure}
This subsection is borrowed mainly from \cite{Meckes04}. Haar measure can be seen as an extension of the notion of the uniform random variable over an interval.
The extension is based on the shift-invariant property of the uniform random variable. If $X\sim \mathcal{U}(0,a)$, then for any $b\in\mathbb R$, $\mod(X+b,a)\sim \mathcal U(0,a)$.
Consider defining uniform distribution on the circle $\mathcal{S}^1$ in $\mathbb R^2$. Considering a circle as a geometric object, a “uniform random point on the circle” should be a complex random variable whose distribution is rotation invariant; that is, if $A\subseteq \mathcal{S}^1$, then the probability of the random point lying on $A$ should be the same as the probability that it lies on $e^{j\theta}A=\{e^{j\theta} a:a\in A\}$.
The uniform distribution $\mu$ on a group $G$ is called Haar measure on $G$, defined based on the``translation-invariant'' property as follows.
For a group $(G,\cdot)$, an element $g \in G$, and a Borel subset $\mathcal{S} \subseteq G$, the left translation of $\mathcal{S}$ by g is defined as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
g\mathcal{S}=\{g \cdot s: s \in \mathcal{S}\}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
A measure $\mu$ on the Borel subsets of $G$ is called left translation-invariant if for all Borel subsets $\mathcal{S} \subseteq G$ and all $g \in G$,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mu(g\mathcal{S})= \mu (\mathcal{S}).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Right translation and right translation-invariant are defined similarly.
There exists a unique Haar measure on any group.
The following theorem is proved in \cite[Lemma~2.1.]{Meckes04} for $G=\mathbb U_n$.
\begin{theorem} \label{th:existenceHaar}
There exists a unique (left or right) translation-invariant probability measure on $\mathbb{U}_n$, called Haar measure.
\end{theorem}
Let $\mathsf{M}\in\mathbb C^{n\times n}$ be a random unitary matrix, $W_{\ell} \triangleq |\mathsf{M}_{\ell,1}|$, and $\vc W= (W_1, \ldots, W_n)$.
\begin{theorem} \label{th:pdfFirstColumn}
Suppose that $\mathsf{M}$ is distributed according to Haar measure on the group of random unitary matrices. Then,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
P_{\vc{W}}(\vc{w})=2^{n-1}(n-1)! \prod \limits_{\ell=1}^{n-1} w_{\ell}.
\label{eq:PW}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $W_{\ell}=R_{\ell}+jT_{\ell}$, $R_{\ell},T_{\ell} \in \mathbb{R}$, $\ell \in [n]$. The vector
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{c}
\begin{pmatrix}
R_1,& \ldots,&R_n, & T_1,& \ldots, &T_n
\end{pmatrix}
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
has the uniform distribution over $S_{2n-1}$. From \cite[Eq.1.26.]{FangWangng18}, the joint distribution of $(R_1,T_1)$ is
\begin{equation*}
P_{R_1,T_1}(r_1,t_1)=\frac{\Gamma(n)}{\Gamma(n-1) \pi}\left( 1- (r_1^2+t_1^2)\right)^{n-2}.
\end{equation*}
Since the phase is uniform, we get
\begin{equation*}
P_{W_1}(w_1)=2(n-1)w_1 \left( 1- w_1^2\right)^{n-2}.
\end{equation*}
Similarly, the joint distribution of $(R_1^2,T_1^2)$ is
\begin{equation*}
P_{R_1^2,T_1^2}(r_1^2,t_1^2)=
\frac{\Gamma(n)}{\Gamma(n-2)\pi^2}\left( 1- (r_1^2+t_1^2+r_2^2+t_2^2)\right)^{n-3}.
\end{equation*}
Again since phase is uniform, then
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{rcl}
P_{W_1^2}(w_1^2)&=&2^2(n-1)(n-2)w_1w_2 \left( 1- (w_1^2+w_2^2)\right)^{n-3}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
The result can be similarly established for $W_1^n$ by induction.
\end{proof}
The joint PDF \eqref{eq:PW} gives the marginal $P_{W_1}(w_1)=g(w_1,n)$, where
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
g(w,n)\triangleq 2(n-1)w(1-w^2)^{n-2}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
The conditional PDFs for $\ell=2,\ldots, n$ are
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
P_{W_{\ell}|W_1^{\ell-1}}(w_{\ell}|w_1^{\ell-1})&=&
\Bigl(1-\sum \limits_{i=1}^{\ell-1}w_{i}^2\Bigr)^{-\frac{1}{2}} \label{eq:PW1}\\
&&
\times g\Bigl(
\Bigl(1-\sum \limits_{i=1}^{\ell-1}w_{i}^2\Bigr)^{-\frac{1}{2}} w_{\ell}
,n-\ell+1\Bigr).
\nonumber
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includestandalone[scale=0.5]{tikz/orderConvergence}
\caption{Rate of Convergence of SSFM channel to the diagonal model for $n=32$, $K=10^4$, and $\mathcal{P}=K^{\delta}$.}
\label{fig:orderConvergence}
\end{figure}
\begin{theorem} \label{th:independence}
Suppose that $\mathsf{M}\in\mathbb C^{n\times n}$ is distributed according to the Haar measure on $\mathbb U_n$ and $\vc{x} \in \mathbb{C}^n$ with $\norm{\vc{x}}=1$. Then, $P_{\mathsf{M}\mathbf{X}|\mathbf{X}}\left(\mathsf{M}\mathbf{x}|\mathbf{x}\right)$ is independent of $\mathbf{x}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Fix an orthonormal basis $V_1,\ldots,V_n$ of $\mathbb C^n$ such that $V_1=\mathbf{x}$. Denote the matrix with columns $V_i$ by $\mathrm{\Lambda}$. Assume that $\mathsf{M}$ is a unitary matrix distributed according to Haar measure. Define the map
$\Phi: \mathbb{C}^{n\times n} \mapsto \mathbb{C}^{n\times n}$ as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathsf{M}'=\mathsf{M}\Lambda.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Thus,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
P(\mathsf{M}\mathbf{x}|\mathbf{x})=P(\mathsf{M}'\mathbf{x}'|\mathbf{x}'=\left(1,0,\ldots,0\right)^T),
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Since $\Phi$ is invertible, then $\mathsf{M}'$ is also distributed according to Haar measure and
the RHS of above is derived in Theorem~\ref{th:pdfFirstColumn}. This proves that $P(\mathsf{M}\mathbf{x}|\mathbf{x})$ does not depend on $\vc{x}$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Random Walk on Groups}
This section is mainly from \cite{Breuillard04}. A random walk on a group $(G,\cdot)$ is
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
S_K=X_K\cdot X_{k-1} \cdots X_1, \quad K = 1, 2, \ldots,
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $X_i\widesim{\text{i.i.d}}\mu(G)$.
If $X$ and $y$ are random variables on $G$ with PDF $\mu$ and $\nu$ respectively, then PDF of $X \cdot Y$ is $\mu \convolution \nu$, where $\convolution$ denotes the convolution. Hence, the PDF of $S_K$ is the $K$-th convolution power of $\mu$, denoted by $\mu^{*K}$.
The following theorem is proved by Kawada and It\^{o} for compact metric groups \cite{KawadaIto40}. A more general version is proved by Stromberg in \cite[Thm.~3.3.5]{Stromberg60} for Hausdorff groups, where the aperiodic condition is replaced with the normally aperiodic condition.
\begin{theorem}[Kawada-It\^{o} and Stromberg] \label{th:kawadaItoStromberg}
Let $G$ be a compact Hausdorff groups and $H$ the smallest closed subgroup of $G$ which contains $\mathcal{S}(\mu)$. Then, $\lim \limits_{K \rightarrow \infty} \mu^{\convolution K} $ exists if and only if $\mu$ is a normally aperiodic probability measure on subgroup $H$. Moreover, if this limit exists, then it is the Haar measure on $H$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
See \cite[Thm.~3.3.5]{Stromberg60}.
\end{proof}
\section{Continuity of Mutual Information}
\begin{lemma}
The mutual information of the fading channel \eqref{def:fadingChannel} and the SSFM channel defined in Section \ref{sec:ssfmDef} with $K$ segments is a continuous function of $K$ at $K\rightarrow\infty$.
\label{lemm:continuity}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $K$ is an integer, mutual information $I(\vc X, \vc Y_K) $ is not a continuous function of $K$ when $K$ is finite. A small change in $\snr$ can change $K = \lfloor \sqrt[\delta]{\snr} \rfloor$ by one, and the model by one segment.
However,
mutual information is a continuous function at $K\rightarrow\infty$.
The proof is similar to the proof of the continuity of the output and conditional entropy in the zero-dispersion channel \cite[App.~I]{fahs2017capacity}, using the fact that the noise PDF, thus the output PDF induced by noise, vanishes exponentially. We sketch the steps for the SSFM channel.
The conditional PDF of one segment of SSFM is upper bounded
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{rCl}
p(\vc v_{2} |\vc x)\leq c'_1\sqrt{K} e^{-Kc_1\norm{\vc v_2- \vc x}^2},
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
where $0<c_1,c'_1<\infty$ do not depend on $K$.
The conditional PDF of $2$ segments satisfies
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{rCl}
p(\vc v_{3} |\vc x) &=& \int p(\vc v_{3} |\vc v_2) p(\vc v_{2} |\vc x) d \vc v_2
\\
&\leq& c'_2\sqrt{\frac{K}{2}} e^{-c_2\frac{K}{2}\norm{\vc v_3- \vc x}^2}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
The conditional PDF of $K$ segments is upper bounded as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
p(\vc y_{K} |\vc x)&\stackrel{\Delta}{=}&p(\vc v_{K+1} |\vc x)
\nonumber\\&\leq& c'_k e^{-c_k\norm{\vc y_K - \vc x}^2}.
\label{eq:pdf-upper}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Alternatively, the exponential upper bound on the PDF \eqref{eq:pdf-upper} can be obtained from the PDF of the norm which is known at the output \eqref{eq:conditionalFadingOutputNorm}.
We have
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{rCl}
\lim_{K\rightarrow \infty} h\bigl(\vc Y_{K} | \vc X=\vc x \bigr) &=& -\lim_{K\rightarrow\infty} \int p(\vc y_K | \vc x)\log p(\vc y_K | \vc x)\der \vc y_K
\nonumber\\
&\overset{(a)}{=}& -\int \lim_{K\rightarrow\infty} p(\vc y_K|\vc x)\log p(\vc y_K|\vc x) \der \vc y_K
\\&=&h\bigl(\lim_{K\rightarrow \infty} \vc Y_{K} | \vc X=\vc x \bigr),
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
uniformly over input. Step $(a)$ is obtained from applying the dominated convergence theorem using \eqref{eq:pdf-upper}
The continuity of $h\bigl(\vc Y_{K} \bigr)$ is shown similarly.
\end{proof}
\section*{Acknowledgement}
This work has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's
Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, Grant Agreement No. 805195.
The authors are greatly thankful to Emmanuel Breuillard for sharing his helpful ideas.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
\section{Introduction}
Optical fiber is the medium of choice for high-speed data transmission. Although general expressions for the capacity of discrete-time point-to-point channels are derived in \cite{Shan49,VerduHan94}, evaluating these expressions for models of optical fiber remains difficult.
Optical fiber is modeled by the stochastic nonlinear Schr\"odinger (NLS) equation.
There are two effects in the channel that impact the capacity.
First, nonlinearity transforms additive noise to \emph{phase noise} during the propagation.
As the amplitude of the input signal tends to infinity,
the phase of the output signal tends to a uniform random variable in
the zero-dispersion channel \cite[Sec.~IV]{yousefi2011opc}.
Second, dispersion converts phase noise to amplitude noise introducing a \emph{multiplicative noise}.
The successive application of the phase and multiplicative noise makes signal noise interaction intractable.
The achievable information rates (AIRs) of the wavelength-division multiplexing (WDM) vanish at high powers due to treating interference (arising from the application of the linear multiplexing to the nonlinear channel) as noise
\cite{SplettKurzke93, mitra2000nli,essiambre2010clo, SecondinitFores13}. On the other hand, it is shown that the capacity $\mathcal C(\snr,K)$ of the discrete-time models of optical fiber
as a function of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and the number of segments in distance $K$ satisfies \cite{yousefi2015cwit,kramer2015upper}
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\mathcal C(\snr,K) \leq \log_2(1+\text{SNR}).
\label{eq:ub}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
The problem of finding the capacity has been investigated for the non-dispersive case in \cite{turitsyn2003ico,yousefi2011opc,ReznichenkoTerekhov20,Keykhosravi19}. It is shown that the asymptotic capacity of this channel is $\frac{1}{2}\log_2(\mathcal{P})+o(1)$ \cite{yousefi2011opc}, where $\mathcal P$ is the average input signal power.
The stochastic NLS equation can be discretized using the split-step Fourier method (SSFM).
The capacity of the discrete-time discrete-space SSFM model of the optical fiber with fixed step size in distance as a function of $\snr$ is studied in \cite{yousefi2016cap}.
It is shown that this model tends to a linear fading channel as $\snr \rightarrow \infty$, described by a random matrix $\mathsf{M}_K$. The asymptotic capacity of this model is \cite[Thm.~1]{yousefi2016cap}
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathcal{C}(\snr, K){=}
\begin{cases}
\IEEEstrut
\frac{1}{2n}\log_2\left(\snr \right) + O(1), & \textnormal{const. loss},\\[1pt] \frac{1}{n}\log_2\log_2\left(\snr\right) + O(1),& \textnormal{non-const. loss},
\IEEEstrut
\end{cases}
\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\label{eq:asym-cap}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $n$ is the dimension of the input vector, and the loss coefficient is considered as a function of frequency. As a result, there is only one signal degrees-of-freedom (DoF) at high powers (signal energy) due to signal-noise interaction. However, the model in \cite{yousefi2016cap} may not describe realistic fiber where
the distance is continuous.
The capacity of the discrete-time discrete-space SSFM model as a function of $\snr$ and the number of segments in distance $K$ is studied in \cite{kamran2015bound}. It seems that the analysis in \cite{kamran2015bound} suggests that if $K$ tends to infinity sufficiently fast as $K = \sqrt[4]{\snr}$ and $\snr \rightarrow\infty$,
the capacity is lower bounded by $\frac{1}{8}\log_2(1+\snr)+c$ where $c<\infty$.
In this paper, we consider the SSFM model of optical fiber as a function of $K$ and $\snr$. The contributions of the paper are as follows.
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*,wide]
\item[\textit{a})]
First, we show that when $K\geq \snr ^{2/3}$ and $\snr \rightarrow\infty$,
the off-diagonal terms in the random matrix $\mathsf{M}_K$ in \cite{yousefi2016cap}, representing the stochastic inter-symbol interference (ISI), tend to zero due to the law of large numbers, and $\mathsf{M}_K$ tends to a diagonal matrix with phase noise.
As a consequence, the capacity of the lossless continuous-space SSFM model is lower bounded as \begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\mathcal{C}(\snr)&\triangleq &\lim \limits_{K\rightarrow \infty} \mathcal{C}(\snr,K)
\nonumber\\
&\geq& \frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(1+ \snr\right)- \frac{1}{2}+o(1),
\label{eq:mainThSSFM}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where the term $o(1)$ tends to zero with $\snr\rightarrow\infty$. This suggests that, unlike the discrete-space SSFM model where asymptotically there is only one DoF and the capacity is essentially finite (for large $n$), in the continuous-space model the number of DoFs is at least half of the input dimension. In particular, the capacity grows with the input power with pre-log of at least $1/2$. The pre-log in the lower bound when $K=\sqrt[\delta]{\snr}$ is generally characterized in terms of $\delta$.
\item[\textit{b)}] Second, we consider the SSFM model when the nonlinearity parameter $\gamma \rightarrow \infty$.
It is shown that this channel is a fading channel for any $K$ and $\snr$. As a result, when $K\rightarrow\infty$, the channel simplifies to $n$ independent phase noise channels in the lossless case, with the capacity $\mathcal{C}(\snr)=\frac{1}{2}\log_2(1+\snr)-\frac{1}{2}+o(1)$.
\item[\textit{c)}] Third, we consider the lossless SSFM model in which the dispersion matrix does not depend on $K$. It is shown that when $K=\sqrt[\delta]{\snr}$, $\delta>3$, and $ \snr \rightarrow \infty$, the capacity is $\frac{1}{2n}\log_2(1+\snr)+O(1)$.
In this case, there is one DoF asymptotically as in \eqref{eq:asym-cap} \cite{yousefi2016cap}.
\item[\textit{d)}] Finally, we simulate the AIR of the SSFM model with back-propagation equalization. As previously observed, the AIR characteristically increases with $\snr$, reaching a peak at a certain optimal power, and then decreases as $\snr$ is further increased (typically to near zero in WDM). The peak is attributed to a balance between noise and ISI. However, if the power is increased further, the AIR will increase again, approaching the $\frac{1}{2}\log(1+\snr)- \frac{1}{2} + o(1)$ lower bound. The second ascent is because the ISI vanishes as
$K\rightarrow\infty$ sufficiently fast.
\end{itemize}
The paper is organized as follows.
The notation is introduced in Section~\ref{sec:Notations}. The
discrete- and continuous-space SSFM models are presented in Section~\ref{sec:model}.
The main capacity lower bound is presented in Section~\ref{sec:CapacityResults}, which is proved and extended in Sections~\ref{sec:CapacityResultsExt} and \ref{sec:proof}. The results are verified by numerical simulations in Section~\ref{sec:simulations}, and the paper is concluded in Section \ref{sec:conc}. Appendix~\ref{sec:math}. provides background on a few mathematical concepts.
\section{Notation} \label{sec:Notations}
Real and complex numbers are denoted by $\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{C}$, respectively, with the imaginary unit $j=\sqrt{-1}$. The real and imaginary parts of a complex number $x$ are denoted by $\mathfrak{R}(x)$ and $\mathfrak{I}(x)$, respectively. The magnitude and phase of $x\in\mathbb C$ are denoted by $\abs{x}$ and $\angle{x}$.
The complex conjugate of $x\in\mathbb C$ is $x^*$.
Important scalars are shown with the calligraphic font, \emph{e.g.,}\ $\mathcal{P}$ for power, $\mathcal{C}$ for the capacity, and $\mathcal{L}$ for the length of optical fiber.
Bold letters are used to denote vectors, \emph{e.g.,}\ $\vc{x}$. The $p$-norm of a vector $\vc{x} \in \mathbb{C}^n$ is
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\norm{\vc{x}}_p=\bigl( \abs{x_1}^p + \abs{x_2}^p + \cdots + \abs{x_n}^p \bigr)^{1/p}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
The Euclidean norm with $p=2$ is $\norm{\vc{x}} \stackrel{\Delta}{=}\norm{\vc{x}}_2$.
The entries of a sequence of vectors $\vc{x}_i\in\mathbb C^n$, $i=1,2,\ldots$, are indexed with convention
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{C}
\vc x_{i} = \begin{pmatrix}
x_{i,1}, x_{i,2}, \ldots, x_{i,n}
\end{pmatrix}.
\label{eq:indexing}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
The $n$-sphere is denoted by $\mathcal{S}^n$. A vector $\vc{x}$ in the spherical coordinate is represented by its norm $\norm{\vc{x}}$ and its direction $\hat{\vc{x}}=\vc{x}/\norm{\vc{x}}$. The spherical coordinate system is introduced in Appendix~\ref{sec:math}.
Random variables and their realizations are represented by the upper- and lower-case letters respectively. The probability density function (PDF) of a random variable $X$ is denoted by $P_X(x)$. The expected value of a random variable $X$ is denoted by $\mathbb{E}[X]$. The uniform distribution on the interval $[a,b)$ is denoted by $\mathcal{U}(a,b)$. The PDF of a zero-mean circularly-symmetric complex Gaussian random vector with covariance matrix $\mathrm{K}$ is denoted by $\mathcal{N}_{\mathbb{C}}(0,\mathrm{K})$. Equality of random variables $X$ and $Y$ in distribution is written as
$X\stackrel{d}{=}Y$.
A random variable in $\mathbb C^n$ is said to be absolutely continuous if its PDF is bounded and has at least one finite moment \cite[Def.~3]{GhourchianGohariAmini17}. Such random variable has an absolutely continuous density with respect to the Lebesgue measure, and its PDF does not include a Dirac delta function.
Let $\mathcal X\subseteq\mathbb R^n$ and $g:\mathcal X\mapsto \mathbb R$.
A sequence of probability distributions $(\mu_{\mathcal P})_{\mathcal P\in\mathbb{R}^+}$ on $\mathcal X$ with the average cost constraint $\mathbb E g(\vc X) \leq \mathcal P$ is said to escape to infinity
with $\mathcal P $ if \cite[Def.~2.4]{moser2004dbb}
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{c}
\lim \limits_{\mathcal{P} \rightarrow \infty} \mu_{\mathcal{P}} \left( \vc{x}\in\mathcal X\colon g(\vc{x}) \leq\mathcal P_0\right)=0,
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
for any $\mathcal P_0>0$.
We say a sequence of channels with conditional distributions $(P_a(\vc y|\vc x))_{a\in\mathbb R}$, $\vc x, \vc y\in \mathcal X$, tends to a channel $Q(\vc y|\vc x)$ as $a\rightarrow\infty$ if $\lim_{a\rightarrow\infty}P_a(\vc y| \vc x) = Q(\vc y| \vc x)$ point-wise for all $\vc x$ and $\vc y$. We say a channel $P(\vc y| \vc x)$ tends to a channel $Q(\vc y|\vc x)$ as the distribution of $\vc X$ escapes to infinity with an average cost $\mathcal P$, if the output of $P$ tends to the output of $Q$ in probability as $\mathcal P\rightarrow\infty$ for any sequence of input distributions that escapes to infinity. When the cost function is $g(\vc x)=\norm{\vc x}_2^2$, roughly speaking this implies that $P( \vc y| \vc x)\rightarrow Q(\vc y| \vc x)$ point-wise, for all $\vc y$ and all $\vc x$ with $\norm{\vc x}_2>c$ for all $c>0$ (except possibly on an input set with zero measure).
A sequence of $n$ numbers $x_1,\ldots, x_{n}$ is shown as $(x_{\ell})_{\ell=1}^n$ or $x^n$. The set of integers $\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$ is denoted by $[n]$. A sequence of independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables drawn from the PDF $P_X(x)$ is presented as $X_{\ell} \widesim{\text{i.i.d.}} P_X(x)$, $\ell=1,2,3,\ldots$.
Deterministic matrices are denoted by upper-case letters with mathrm font, \emph{e.g.,}\ $\mathrm{D}$, and random matrices are shown by upper-case letters with mathsf font, \emph{e.g.,}\ $\mathsf{M}$. The identity matrix of size $n$ is $\mathrm{I}_n$.
For a sequence of matrices $(A_i)_{i=1}^m$, the product is defined with convention $\prod \limits_{i=1}^m \mathrm{A}_i=\mathrm{A}_m \mathrm{A}_{m-1} \cdots \mathrm{A}_1$. A diagonal matrix $\mathsf{R}$ with
diagonal entries $R_i$ is denoted by $\mathsf R=\diag( R_1,\ldots, R_n)$. The following diagonal matrix is used throughout the paper
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta})\triangleq
\diag \Bigl( \bigl(\exp(j\theta_{\ell})\bigr)_{{\ell}=1}^n \Bigr), \label{def:diagMat}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\theta_{\ell}\widesim{\text{i.i.d.}} \mathcal{U}(0,2\pi)$.
The group of complex-valued $n\times n$ unitary matrices is denoted by $\mathbb{U}_n$. Some properties of $\mathbb{U}_n$ are reviewed in Appendix~\ref{sec:math}.
Suppose that $\nu$ is an equivalence relation on the set $\mathcal{I}_n=\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$, partitioning it into non-empty equivalence classes $\mathcal{I}_1,\mathcal{I}_2,\ldots,\mathcal{I}_{m(\nu)}$.
The notation $\mathbb{U}_n(\nu)$ is used to denote the group of block diagonal unitary matrices $\mathrm{A}$ in which if the integers $r$ and $s$ do not belong to one class, then $\mathrm{A}_{r,s}=0$.
Given two functions $f(x)\colon \mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ and $g(x)\colon\mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$, we say $f(x)=O\left(g(x)\right)$, if there exists a finite $c>0$ and $x_0>0$ such that $|f(x)|\leq c\,|g(x)|$, for all $x \geq x_0$. In addition, $f(x)=o\left(g(x)\right)$ if for any $c>0$ there exists a finite $x_0>0$ such that $|f(x)|\leq c \,|g(x)|$, for all $x \geq x_0$.
For a sequence of scalar random variables $\left(X_k\right)_{k=1}^{\infty}$ and constants $\left(a_k\right)_{k=1}^{\infty}$, where $X_k,a_k \in \mathbb{C}$, we say $X_k=O_p(a_k)$, if for any $\epsilon>0$, there exists a finite $c$ and finite $k_0$, such that for any $k \geq k_0$, $P\left(|X_k|/|a_k| > c \right) \leq \epsilon$. Index $p$ in $O_p(\cdot)$ indicates ``in probability''. Similarly, $X_k=o_p(a_k)$ is defined. We write $X_k=\Omega_p(a_k)$, if $X_k=O_p(a_k)$ but $X_k\neq o_p(a_k)$. For a sequence of random matrices $\left(\mathsf{X}_k\right)_{k=1}^{\infty}$ and constants $\left(a_k\right)_{k=1}^{\infty}$, where $\mathsf{X}_k \in \mathbb{C}^{n,m}$ and $a_k \in \mathbb{C}$, we say $\mathsf X_k=O_p(a_k)$, if $\norm{\mathsf X_k}_{\infty}=O_p(a_{k})$. Correspondingly, $\mathsf X_k=o_p(a_k)$ is defined.
Finally, for deterministic matrices, $O(\cdot)$ and $o(\cdot)$ are defined similarly.
For a sequence of random matrices $\left(\mathsf{A}_k\right)_{k=1}^{\infty}$, we say $\mathsf{A}_K\rightarrow\mathsf{B}$ in probability with convergence rate $\upsilon>0$, if
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\norm{\mathsf{A}_k - \mathsf B}_{\infty} = O_p\left(k^{-\upsilon}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
We say $f(x)\colon\mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is asymptotically lower bounded by
$g(x)\colon\mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, and write $f(x) \geq g(x)$, if
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\lim \limits_{x \rightarrow \infty} (f(x)-g(x)) \geq 0.
\label{eq:example}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Finally, for a discrete-time channel $\vc X\mapsto \vc Y$, where $\vc X, \vc Y\in \mathbb C^{m}$, with the average power constraint $\mathbb E ||\vc X||^2 \leq m\mathcal P$ and capacity $\mathcal{C}(\mathcal P)$, we say there are $r>0$ complex signal DoFs in the channel if the capacity pre-log is $r/m$, \emph{i.e.,}\ $\lim\limits_{\mathcal P\rightarrow\infty}\mathcal{C}(\mathcal P)/\log(\mathcal P)=r/m$.
\section{Split-step Fourier model} \label{sec:model}
In this section, we consider a modified version of SSFM introduced in \cite{yousefi2016cap}. Here, the nonlinearity and noise steps are combined into one step, so that the influence of the additive amplified spontaneous emission (ASE) noise can be seen as phase noise. In what follows, SSFM refers to the modified SSFM.
\subsection{Continuous-time model}
Denote the complex envelope of the optical signal at distance $z$ and time $t$ by $Q(t, z)$. The propagation of the signal in single-mode optical fiber with distributed amplification is governed by the stochastic nonlinear Schr\"odinger (NLS) equation \cite[Eq.~2]{yousefi2016cap}
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\frac{\partial{Q}}{\partial{z}}=L_L(Q)+L_N(Q)+N(t,z). \label{eq:schrodinger}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Here, $L_L$ is the linear operator
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
L_L(Q) = -j\frac{\beta_2}{2} \frac{\partial^2 Q}{\partial t^2}-\frac{1}{2}\alpha_r \convolution Q(t,z),
\label{eq:L-L}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\beta_2$ is the second-order chromatic dispersion coefficient, $\alpha_r(t)$ is the residual attenuation coefficient (remained after imperfect amplification), $\convolution$ is convolution resulting from the dependence of the attenuation coefficient with frequency, and $j=\sqrt{-1}$.
The operator
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
L_N(Q)=j\gamma \abs{Q}^2 Q
\label{eq:L-N}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
represents the Kerr nonlinearity, where $\gamma$ is the nonlinearity parameter.
Finally, $N(t,z)$ is zero-mean circularly-symmetric complex Gaussian noise process with covariance matrix %
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathbb{E}\left[ N(t,z)N^*(t',z')\right] =\tilde{\sigma}^2 \delta_{\mathcal{B}}(t-t')\delta(z-z'),
\label{eq:N-cor}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\delta_{\mathcal{B}}(x) =\mathcal{B}\sinc (\mathcal{B}x)$, $\sinc (x)= \sin(\pi x)/(\pi x)$, $\mathcal{B}$ is the noise bandwidth,
$\delta(\cdot)$ is the Dirac delta function, and $\tilde\sigma$ is the power spectral density of the ASE noise. Denote $\sigma\triangleq\tilde{\sigma}\sqrt{\mathcal{B}}$.
The capacity results obtained in this paper are expected to hold for more general linear and nonlinear operators $L_L$ and $L_N$ that take into account other forms of dispersion and nonlinearity. However, we restrict the analysis to \eqref{eq:L-L} and \eqref{eq:L-N}.
\subsection{Discrete-time SSFM model} \label{sec:ssfmDef}
Discretize a fiber of length $\mathcal{L}$ into $K$ segments of length $\varepsilon=\mathcal{L}/K$ in distance, and $Q(t,\cdot)$ to a vector of length $n$ with step size $\Delta_t$ in time.
Let $\vc{V}_i\in\mathbb{C}^n$ be the input of the spatial segment $i$, where $\vc{V}_1=\vc{X}$ is the channel input and $\vc{V}_{K+1}=\vc{Y}_K$ is the channel output.
In segment $i$ of the modified SSFM, the following steps are performed \cite{yousefi2016cap}.
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*,wide]
\item[\textit{a})] \emph{Modified nonlinear step}: In this step \eqref{eq:schrodinger} is solved analytically with $L_L=0$. Let $\vc{V}_i$ and $\vc{U}_i$ be the input and output in this step, and $M\rightarrow\infty$ a large integer.
The channel $\vc V_i\mapsto \vc U_i$ is memoryless with the input output relation
\cite[Eq. 5]{yousefi2016cap}
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
U_{i,\ell}= \left(V_{i,\ell}+W_{i,\ell}(M)\right) e^{j\Phi_{i,\ell}},
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where
$U_{i,\ell}$ and $V_{i,\ell}$ are entries of $\vc U_i$ and $\vc V_i$ defined based on \eqref{eq:indexing}, and $\bigl(W_{i,\ell}(m)\bigr)_{i,\ell}$ is a sequence of discrete-time Wiener processes in $m$ with auto-correlation function
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
{\sf E}\Bigl\{ W_{i,\ell}(m) W_{i',\ell'}(m') \Bigr\}=\sigma^2 \mu \: \delta_{ii'}\delta_{\ell\ell'}\min(m,m'),
\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
for all $i,i'\in [K]$, $\ell,\ell'\in [n] $ and $m, m'\in[M]$,
where $\mu=\varepsilon/M$ and $\delta_{ij}$ is the Kronecker delta function. The nonlinear phase is
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\Phi_{i,\ell} \triangleq \gamma \mu\sum \limits_{r=1}^{M} \Big|V_{i,\ell}+W_{i,\ell}(r) \Big|^2.
\label{eq:Phi-ij}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Denote $\vc{\bar{Z}}_i\triangleq \vc{W}_{i}(M)$.
\item[\textit{b})] \emph{Linear step}: In this step \eqref{eq:schrodinger} is solved analytically with $L_N=0$ and $N(t,z)=0$. If $\vc{U}_i$ is the input and $\vc{V}_{i+1}$ is the output of the linear step, the map $\vc{U}_i \mapsto \vc{V}_{i+1}$ is
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{c}
\vc{V}_{i+1}=\mathrm{D}_K \vc{U}_i,
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
where $\mathrm{D}_K$ is the (deterministic) dispersion matrix
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathrm{D}_K=\mathrm{F}^{-1} \diag\left (\left( e^{a_{\ell}+jb_{\ell}}\right)_{\ell=1}^{n}\right)\mathrm{F}, \label{def:DK}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\mathrm{F}$ is the discrete Fourier transform (DFT) matrix. Further, $a_{\ell}=-\mathcal{L}\alpha_{\ell}/(2K)$ where $(\alpha_{\ell})_{\ell}$ is a discretization of the loss coefficient $\alpha_r(f)$ in frequency $f$, and
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
b_{\ell}=
-\frac{\mathcal{L} \beta_2 (2\pi)^2 }{2K(n\Delta_t)^2} \times
\begin{cases}
\IEEEstrut
(\ell-1)^2, & 1 \leq \ell \leq \frac{n}{2},\\
(n-\ell+1)^2 , & \frac{n}{2}+1 \leq \ell \leq n.
\IEEEstrut
\end{cases} \label{def:dispersions}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}%
\end{itemize}
\begin{remark}
The input dimension $n$ is fixed, and should not be confused with the block or codeword length that tends to $\infty$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Transition from the continuous- to discrete-time model}
The NLS equation \eqref{eq:schrodinger} defines a continuous-time channel from $Q(t,0)$ at the input of the fiber to $Q(t, \mathcal L)$ at the output of the fiber. Let $\mathcal{B}(z)$ denote the signal bandwidth at distance $z$.
To discretize the channel, we need to sample the input signal at $\mathcal{B}(0)$ and the output signal at $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal L)$.
Due to Kerr nonlinearity, $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal L)$ is generally signal-dependent and may not equal to $\mathcal{B}(0)$. The relation between $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal L)$ and $\mathcal{B}(0)$ is an important open question.
As a consequence, the continuous-time model \eqref{eq:schrodinger} cannot be discretized in a one-to-one manner as in linear channels by sampling the input output signals at the input bandwidth. In this paper, we do not include channel filters or a bandwidth constraint in the model, and let $\mathcal{B} \stackrel{\Delta}{=} \mathcal{B}(0)\rightarrow\infty$.
The derivative operator in time can then be approximated using the discrete Fourier transform with an error that tends to zero as the step size in time $\Delta_t=1/\mathcal{B}\rightarrow 0$. If $\snr =K^{\delta}$ and $\delta<1$, as $K\rightarrow\infty$ operator splitting in distance yields a discretization of \eqref{eq:schrodinger} with a vanishing error as
$\mathcal{B}\rightarrow\infty$ and $K\rightarrow\infty$. Finally, we consider a potentially sub-optimal discretization where the output signal is sampled at $\mathcal{B}$. This corresponds to a receiver that ignores some of the samples that potentially carry information, and results in a discrete-time model in which the input output vectors have the same dimension.
Lower bounds obtained for this potentially sub-optimal receiver hold for better receivers as well.
\subsection{Limitations of the discrete-time model}
\label{sec:limitations}
The discrete-time model considered in this paper has a number of limitations.
First, it considers signals with infinite bandwidth and does not account for a bandwidth constraint introduced by inline filters or receiver. Second, a receiver that samples the output signal at the input bandwidth ignores potentially useful samples. Third, the spectral efficiency (in bits/s/Hz) of the continuous-time model may not equal to the capacity (in bits/s) of the discrete-time model. This is because the spectral broadening factor may
increase with launch power due to nonlinearity \cite[Sec. VIII]{yousefi2011opc}, \cite{kramer2018autocorrelation}.
In this paper, we do not derive a rigorous one-to-one discretization of the continuous-time model \eqref{eq:schrodinger}.
We consider the discrete-time SSFM model, whose capacity may be different from that of \eqref{eq:schrodinger}.
\section{A Capacity Lower Bound}
\label{sec:CapacityResults}
The capacity of the SSFM model as a function of the signal-to-noise ratio $\snr=\mathcal{P}/(\sigma^2 \mathcal{L})$, where $\mathcal{P}$ is the average signal power and $\sigma^2 \mathcal{L}$ is total noise power, and the
number of spatial segments $K$ is
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathcal{C}(\snr, K){=}\max\limits_{p_{\vc X}(\vc x)} \Bigl\{
\frac{1}{n}I(\vc{X};\vc{Y}_K): \:\frac{1}{n}\mathbb{E}\left[\norm{\vc{X}}^2 \right]\leq\mathcal{P} \Bigr\},
\:\label{def:SSFMCapacity}
\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\vc{X}\in\mathbb C^n$ and $\vc{Y}_K\in\mathbb C^n$ are the channel input and output, and
$I(\vc{X};\vc{Y}_K)$ is the mutual information measured in bits/2D.
The capacity of the SSFM model when $K\rightarrow\infty$ independently of \snr\ is
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathcal{C}(\snr) \stackrel{\Delta}{=} \lim\limits_{K\rightarrow\infty} \mathcal{C}(\snr, K).
\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
In this case, the asymptotic capacity corresponds to limits $\lim_{\snr\rightarrow\infty}\lim_{K\rightarrow\infty}$ with that order.
We also study the capacity when $K$ and \snr\ go to infinity as $K=\sqrt[\delta]{\snr}$, $\snr\rightarrow\infty$, in which case the capacity is $\mathcal{C}(\snr, \sqrt[\delta]{\snr})$.
\begin{remark}
Since noise power is fixed by the channel, we express the capacity as a function of \snr\ instead of launch
power. However, this should not imply that the capacity of the nonlinear channel, which is a two-dimensional function of signal and noise powers, is a one-dimensional function of \snr\ \cite[Sec. VII]{yousefi2011opc}.
\end{remark}
The main result of this paper is Theorem~\ref{th:mainThSSFM} stating that for sufficiently large number
of segments $K$, rate $\frac{1}{2}\log_2(\snr)-\frac{1}{2}$ is achievable at high SNRs in the continuous-space lossless model.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includestandalone[scale=0.45]{tikz/preLog}
\caption{Pre-log in the capacity lower bound as a function of the growth rate of the number of segments with power.}
\label{fig:preLog}
\end{figure}
\begin{theorem} \label{th:mainThSSFM}
The capacity of the SSFM channel when $K\rightarrow\infty$ independently of \snr\ is lower bounded as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathcal{C}(\snr)\geq \frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(1+ \snr\right) + \frac{1}{2}\log_2 a+o(1),
\label{eq:bound-a}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where the term $o(1)$ tends to zero with $\snr\rightarrow\infty$. For the lossless fiber, $a=1/2$.
The capacity of the SSFM channel when $K= \sqrt[\delta]{\snr}$, $\delta>0$, $\gamma\neq 0$, satisfies
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\mathcal{C}\left(\snr,\sqrt[\delta]{\snr}\right) \geq r(\delta)\log_2(1+a\,\snr)+O(1),
\quad\label{eq:capacity-a}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $O(1)$ is bounded as $\snr \rightarrow\infty$ and the pre-log $r(\delta)$ is
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
r(\delta) =
\begin{cases}
\IEEEstrut
\frac{1}{2},& 0 < \delta \leq \frac{3}{2}, \\
\frac{3-\delta}{2\delta}, & \frac{3}{2} \leq \delta \leq 2,\\
\frac{1}{2\delta}, & 2 \leq \delta<\infty.
\IEEEstrut
\end{cases}
\label{eq:r-theta}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Here, $a = \zeta e^{2\zeta } /(e^{2\zeta}-1)$, in which $\zeta=-\bar{\alpha}\mathcal{L}/2$, where $\bar{\alpha}$ is the average fiber loss in frequency. If $\delta\leq 3/2$, then $O(\cdot)$ can be replaced with $o(\cdot)$ in \eqref{eq:capacity-a}.
\end{theorem}
In practice the launch power is finite and $K$ can be chosen to be arbitrarily large.
Theorem \ref{th:mainThSSFM} indicates that rates given by \eqref{eq:bound-a} are achievable.
In fiber-optic simulations based on SSFM,
choosing sufficiently large number of segments, the
channel capacity (bits/s) is between the lower bound in \eqref{eq:bound-a} and upper bound \eqref{eq:ub}.
Theorem~\ref{th:mainThSSFM} indicates that the number of signal DoFs is at least half of the input dimension in the continuous-space model. In contrast,
there is only one signal DoF in the discrete-space SSFM model where $\mathrm D_K \stackrel{\Delta}{=} \mathrm D$ is independent of $K$.
The lower bound \eqref{eq:mainThSSFM} can be compared with the asymptotic capacity of the discrete-space SSFM model \eqref{eq:asym-cap}, where there is only one DoF, and the pre-log is $1/2n$ in the lossless model.
The pre-log $1/2\delta\leq 1/8$ for $\delta \geq 4$ (part of the third branch in \eqref{eq:r-theta}) can be obtained from
\cite{kamran2015bound} as well. The maximum pre-log is however $1/2$.
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{th:mainThSSFM} and Related Capacity Theorems}
\label{sec:CapacityResultsExt}
In this section, we outline the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:mainThSSFM}. In addition, we present a number of capacity theorems for models
related to the SSFM. Most of the proofs appear in Section~\ref{sec:proof}.
It is shown in \cite[Sec. V]{yousefi2016cap} that the SSFM channel when $K$ is fixed and the input distribution escapes to infinity with the average input power tends to a linear fading channel.
To study the capacity of the SSFM channel when $K\rightarrow\infty$, we first study this fading model in Section~\ref{sec:fading-K=infinity}, obtained by replacing nonlinearity with uniform \iid\ phase noise in segments of SSFM. We show that if $K\rightarrow\infty$, this fading channel tends to a diagonal phase noise channel in probability with capacity pre-log $1/2$.
Later in Section~\ref{sec:ssfm} we show that the limit of the SSFM channel when the input distribution escapes to infinity with $\snr$ and there are sufficiently large number of segments is a continuous-space fading channel.
Combining these two results, we obtain the pre-log $1/2$ in Theorem~\ref{th:mainThSSFM}. The cases where pre-log is less than $1/2$ are obtained similarly, with further analysis.
Note that, since we consider a continuous-space SSFM model, the proof in \cite{yousefi2016cap} showing that the SSFM channel tends to a fading channel with $\snr\rightarrow\infty$ cannot be used here, because $\mathrm{D}_k$ does not depend on $K$ in the discrete-space model in \cite{yousefi2016cap}.
\subsection{Capacity of the continuous-space fading model}
\label{sec:fading-K=infinity}
We begin by considering the following \emph{fading channel}, introduced in \cite{yousefi2016cap}:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathbf{Y}_K=\mathsf{M}_K \mathbf{X}+\mathbf{Z}_K, \label{def:fadingChannel}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where the random matrix $\mathsf{M}_K$ (independent of input), representing a multiplicative noise, is independent of $\vc X$ and given by \cite[Eq. 11]{yousefi2016cap}
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathsf{M}_K= \prod \limits_{i=1}^{K} \left( \mathrm{D}_K \mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_i)\right), \label{def:matrixMk}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\mathsf R(\cdot)$ is defined in \eqref{def:diagMat} and $\boldsymbol{\theta_i} \widesim{\text{i.i.d.}} \mathcal{U}^n(0,2\pi)$. The expression for the additive noise is
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\vc{Z}_K= \sum \limits_{i=1}^K \left(\prod \limits_{r=i}^{K} \left( \mathrm{D}_K \mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_r)\right)\right) \vc{\bar{Z}}_i,
\label{def:Noisek}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where
$ \bar{\vc{Z}}_i \sim \mathcal{N}_{\mathbb{C}}\left(0, \sigma^2 \varepsilon\mathrm{I}_n\right)$.
In the lossless case, \eqref{def:Noisek} is simplified and $ \vc{Z}_K \sim \mathcal{N}_{\mathbb{C}}\left(0, \sigma^2 \mathcal{L}\mathrm{I}_n\right)$. In this paper, a fading channel is any model of the form \eqref{def:fadingChannel}, with multiplicative and additive noise, where $(\mathsf{M}_K, \mathbf{Z}_K)$ has arbitrary distribution and is independent of $\vc X$.
A special case of the fading channel \eqref{def:fadingChannel} is the non-coherent memoryless phase noise channel \cite{Lapidoth02}
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\label{def:phaseNoiseChannel}
Y_{\ell}=e^{j\theta_{\ell}} X_{\ell}+Z_{\ell},\quad {\ell}=1,2,\ldots, n,
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\theta_{\ell} \sim \mathcal{U}(0,2\pi)$ and $Z_{\ell} \sim \mathcal{N}_{\mathbb{C}}\left(0,\sigma_0^2 \right)$. The capacity of this channel, denoted by $\mathcal C_{P}$, is \cite[Eq.~23]{Lapidoth02}:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathcal{C}_{P}(\snr)=\frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(1+\frac{1}{2}\snr\right) +o(1), \label{eq:capcityPhaseNoise}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\snr=\mathcal{P}/\sigma_0^2$ and the term $o(1)$ tends to zero with $\snr\rightarrow\infty$.
\begin{definition}
For a dispersion matrix of the form \eqref{def:DK}, we define the ``total dispersion values'' $d_{\ell}=Kb_{\ell} $, $\ell \in [n]$. We say dispersion is finite if $b_{\ell}$ is given by \eqref{def:dispersions}, for which $d_{\ell}<\infty$ independently of $K$, and infinite if $b_{\ell}$ does not depend on $K$, for which $d_{\ell} \rightarrow \infty$ as $K\rightarrow\infty$, $b_{\ell}\neq 0$. Similarly, we define the ``total loss values'' $\zeta_{\ell}=Ka_{\ell}$, $\ell \in [n]$.
\end{definition}
Denote the average values of the total loss and dispersion in frequency by
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\zeta \triangleq \frac{1}{n} \sum \limits_{\ell=1}^n \zeta_{\ell},\quad
d \triangleq \frac{1}{n} \sum \limits_{\ell=1}^n d_{\ell}.
\label{def:averageLoss}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Alternatively, $\zeta =-\bar{\alpha}\mathcal L/2$, where $\bar\alpha \triangleq (1/n) \sum_{\ell=1}^n \alpha_{\ell}$ is the average
fiber loss.
If $n\rightarrow\infty$, $\bar{\alpha} =\lim_{F\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{F}\int_{-F/2}^{F/2}\alpha_r(f) df$.
For realistic fiber, $b_{\ell}$ is given by \eqref{def:dispersions}, and dispersion is finite due to factor $1/K$
in \eqref{def:dispersions}. In this case, the effect of dispersion locally in a small segment is infinitesimal, and $\lim_{K\rightarrow\infty}\mathrm D_K= I_n$.
However, we also consider models where $b_{\ell}$ is independent of $K$; here the dispersion matrix in each small segment is fixed $\mathrm D_K \stackrel{\Delta}{=} \mathrm D$, and the total dispersion value is infinite for $K\rightarrow\infty$.
The models with infinite dispersion or nonlinearity are not realistic, but help to understand the capacity as $\beta_2$ or $\gamma$ tend to infinity. They distinguish models with fixed and variable $D_K$.
Below, we lower bound the capacity of the fading channel \eqref{def:fadingChannel} with finite and infinite dispersion.
\subsubsection{Finite Dispersion}
A key result of this paper is Lemma~\ref{lem:asymDistK} stating that as $K\rightarrow\infty$, the random matrix $\mathsf{M}_K$ in \eqref{def:fadingChannel} tends to a diagonal matrix with independent phase noise components.
For a random vector $\boldsymbol{\theta}$, define
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathsf{L}(\boldsymbol{\theta})\triangleq\mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta}) \mathrm{C}_1 \mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta})^{-1},
\label{eq:Ltheta}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where
$\mathrm{C}_1 \triangleq \mathrm{F}^{-1}
\diag\bigl( \left(\zeta_{\ell} + jd_{\ell}\right)_{\ell=1}^n\bigr)
\mathrm{F}$ and $\bar{\mathsf{L}}\triangleq \mathbb{E}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}} \left[\mathsf{L}(\boldsymbol{\theta}) \right]$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:asymDistK}
The random matrix $\mathsf{M}_K$ has the expansion
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
\mathsf{M}_K &\stackrel{d}{=}&\left(e^{\zeta+jd}\mathrm{I}_n+\frac{1}{K}\sum \limits_{i=1}^{K}\mathsf{L}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_i)-\bar{\mathsf{L}}\right)\mathsf{R}\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}\right)+O_p\left(\frac{1}{K}\right),\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{d}{=}&e^{\zeta}\mathsf{R}\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}\right)+O_p\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{K}}\right),\label{eq:Mk-Complete}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ and $\boldsymbol{\theta}_i$ are drawn i.i.d. from $\mathcal{U}^n(0,2\pi)$.
In particular,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\lim \limits_{K \rightarrow \infty} \mathsf{M}_{K}
\stackrel{d}{=}
e^{\zeta} \mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta}).
\label{eq:lim-Mk}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof is given in Section~\ref{pr:asymDistK}. The first equality is shown by algebra. The second equation is obtained by applying a concentration inequality for weak law of large numbers, or central limit theorem.
\end{proof}
Substituting the limit of $\mathsf M_K$ in \eqref{def:matrixMk} into \eqref{def:Noisek}, we also obtain
$\lim_{K\rightarrow\infty}\vc{Z}_K=\vc{Z}$, where $\vc{Z} \sim \mathcal{N}_{\mathbb{C}}(0,\sigma'\mathrm{I}_n)$, $\sigma'=
\sigma^2 \mathcal{L} (e^{2\zeta} - 1)/2\zeta$. The following lemma follows.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:asymFadingK}
As $K\rightarrow\infty$, the fading channel \eqref{def:fadingChannel} with finite dispersion tends to a sequence of independent phase noise channels
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\label{def:phaseNoiseChannels}
Y_{\ell}=e^{\zeta+j\theta_{\ell}} X_{\ell}+Z_{\ell},\quad \ell=1,\ldots, n,
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\theta_{\ell} \widesim{\text{i.i.d.}} \mathcal{U}(0,2\pi)$ and $Z_{\ell} \widesim{\text{i.i.d.}} \mathcal{N}_{\mathbb{C}}\left(0,\eta \sigma^2 \mathcal{L} \right)$, in which
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\eta = \begin{cases}
\IEEEstrut
1, &\textnormal{ \emph{for lossless channel},}\\
\frac{e^{2\zeta}-1}{2\zeta}, &\textnormal{\emph{otherwise}.}
\IEEEstrut
\end{cases} \label{def:eta}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
\end{lemma}
The first capacity result in this paper is the following theorem showing that the pre-log of the capacity of the continuous-space fading channel with finite dispersion when $K\rightarrow\infty$ independently of $\snr$ is $1/2$, \emph{i.e.,}\ there are $n$ real signal DoFs when the input dimension is $2n$. Let $\bar{\mathcal{C}}(\snr, K)$ be the capacity of \eqref{def:fadingChannel} and $ \bar{\mathcal{C}}(\snr)=\lim_{K \rightarrow \infty } \bar{\mathcal{C}}(\snr, K)$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:asymCapFadingFinDis}
Capacity of fading channel \eqref{def:fadingChannel} with finite dispersion and \snr\ satisfies
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\bar{\mathcal{C}}(\snr)= \frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(1+a \,\snr\right) +o(1),
\label{eq:capacityFadingFinite}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\snr=\mathcal{P}/(\sigma^2 \mathcal{L})$ and $a$ is given in Theorem~\ref{th:mainThSSFM}.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The result is obtained by combining Lemmas~\ref{lem:asymDistK} and \ref{lem:asymFadingK} and the capacity result \eqref{eq:capcityPhaseNoise}.
\end{proof}
Note that \eqref{eq:capacityFadingFinite} holds for any \snr, if $K\rightarrow\infty$ independently of \snr. Next, we consider the capacity of the finite dispersion fading channel when $ K = \sqrt[\delta]{\snr}$,
$\delta>0$, $\snr \rightarrow \infty$. We require this model in the Section~\ref{sec:infinite-dips} when we study the SSFM channel. Substituting \eqref{eq:Mk-Complete} into \eqref{def:fadingChannel}, \eqref{def:phaseNoiseChannel} is modified to
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\vc{Y}_K\stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} e^{\zeta}\mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta}) \vc{X}+\vc{Z} + \Delta \vc{X},\quad \textnormal{as~~~} K\rightarrow\infty,
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\Delta=O_p\left(K^{-1/2}\right)$ and hence, $\Delta\vc{X}=O_p\left(K^{(\delta-1)/2}\right)$. Here, $\Delta$ is a dense matrix, that is generally not diagonal, capturing ISI or intra-channel interactions.
If $\delta<1$, then $\Delta \vc{X} \stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} (0,\ldots,0)$ and $\vc{Y}_K \stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} e^{\zeta}\mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta}) \vc{X}+\vc{Z}$.
In this case, the capacity is provided by Theorem~\ref{th:asymCapFadingFinDis}.
If $\delta>1$, $\Delta \vc{X}$ grows with $K$ and constitutes the dominant stochastic impairment. The following theorem establishes a lower bound on the capacity in this case.
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:fadingHighPowerdG1}
The capacity of the fading channel \eqref{def:fadingChannel} when $K= \sqrt[\delta]{\snr}$, $\delta>1$, is lower bounded as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\bar{\mathcal{C}}\left(\snr, \sqrt[\delta]{\snr}\right) \geq\frac{1}{2 \delta} \log_2(1+\snr)+O(1),
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where the $O(1)$ term is bounded as $\snr \rightarrow \infty$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
See Section~\ref{pr:fadingHighPowerdG1}.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Infinite Dispersion}
\label{sec:infinite-dips}
We consider the SSFM model when $\mathrm{D}_K \stackrel{\Delta}{=} \mathrm{D}$ is independent of $K$.
Lemma~\ref{lem:haarMeasure} below shows that, in the lossless infinite dispersion case,
as $K\rightarrow \infty$ the random matrix $\mathsf{M}_K$ in \eqref{def:fadingChannel} tends to a random unitary matrix.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:haarMeasure}
Let $\nu$ be an equivalence relation on the set $\{1,2,\ldots, n\}$, and
$\mathbb{U}_n(\nu)$ the smallest subgroup of block diagonal matrices in $\mathbb{U}_n$ that contains $\mathrm{D}$. Then, the distribution of $\mathsf{M}_{K}$ tends to the Haar measure on $\mathbb{U}_n(\nu)$ as $K\rightarrow\infty$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
See Section~\ref{pr:haarMeasure}.
\end{proof}
In the following assume that $\mathrm{D}$ is not a block diagonal matrix (of more than one block), \textit{i.e.} $\mathbb{U}_n(\nu)=\mathbb{U}_n$.
Decompose the mutual information for the fading channel \eqref{def:fadingChannel} as:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
I\Big(\vc{X};\vc{Y}_K\Big) = I\Big(\vc{X};\norm{\vc{Y}_K}\Big)+I\left(\vc{X};\hat{\vc{Y}_K}\big|\norm{\vc{Y}_K}\right). \label{eq:mutualILossless1}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Lemma~\ref{lem:haarMeasure} and Theorem~\ref{th:independence} in Appendix~\ref{sec:math} imply that the second term approaches zero as $K \rightarrow \infty$. The conditional PDF of the signal norm is
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
P_{\norm{\vc{Y}_K}\big|\vc{X}}\left(\norm{\vc{y}}\big|\vc{x}\right)&=&P_{\norm{\vc{Y}_K}\big|\norm{\vc{X}}}\left(\norm{\vc{y}}\big|\norm{\vc{x}}\right) \nonumber \\
&=&\frac{2\norm{\vc{y}}^n}{\sigma^2 \mathcal{L} \norm{\vc{x}}^{n-1}} \exp\left(-\frac{\norm{\vc{y}}^2+\norm{\vc{x}}^2}{\sigma^2 \mathcal{L}} \right) \nonumber
\\
&&\times
\mathrm{I}_{n-1}\left(\frac{2\norm{\vc{x}}\norm{\vc{y}}}{\sigma^2 \mathcal{L}}\right),
\label{eq:conditionalFadingOutputNorm}\
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $I_m(\cdot)$ is the modified Bessel function of the first kind with order $m$.
Equations \eqref{eq:mutualILossless1} and \eqref{eq:conditionalFadingOutputNorm} yield the following theorem.
\begin{theorem} \label{th:infFadCap}
Suppose that $\mathrm D \stackrel{\Delta}{=} \mathrm{D}_K$ is independent of $K$ and is not a block diagonal matrix.
The continuous-space fading channel \eqref{def:fadingChannel} has one signal DoF with capacity
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\bar{\mathcal{C}}(\snr)\
&=& \max\limits_{P_{\norm{\vc{X}}}(\norm{\vc{x}})}
\Bigl\{ \frac{1}{n} I(\norm{\vc{X}};\norm{\vc{Y}}) :
\frac{1}{n}\mathbb{E}\left[\norm{\vc{X}}^2 \right]\leq\mathcal{P} \Bigr\}
\nonumber\\
&=&
\frac{1}{2n} \log_2\left(1+\snr \right)+O(1), \label{eq:capacityFiniteFading}
\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $P\left(\norm{\vc{y}}\big|\norm{\vc{x}}\right)$ is given by ~\eqref{eq:conditionalFadingOutputNorm}, $\snr=\mathcal{P}/\sigma^2 \mathcal{L}$ and the $O(1)$ term is bounded as $\snr \rightarrow\infty$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The first line follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:haarMeasure}, stating that if $K\rightarrow\infty$, then $I\left(\vc{X};\hat{\vc{Y}}\big|\norm{\vc{Y}}\right)\rightarrow 0$.
The second line follows from the lower bound on the capacity of the non-central chi-square channel derived in \cite[Theorem~1]{Shev2018} and an upper bound derived by noting that $h(\|\vc{Y}\|) {\leq} \frac{1}{2} \log_2\left(1+\snr \right)+O(1)$ due to principle of maximum entropy and $h(\|\vc{Y}\|\big| \|\vc{X}\|)=O(1)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
In general, if $\mathbb{U}_n(\nu)$ is the smallest subgroup of block diagonal matrices containing $\mathrm{D}$, then the capacity of the continuous-space fading channel with infinite dispersion has $m(\nu)$ real signal DoFs, where $m(\nu)$ is the number of blocks of $\mathrm{D}$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Capacity of the continuous-space SSFM model}
\label{sec:ssfm}
In this section, the capacity of the continuous-space SSFM model is investigated in the high power regime, as well as with infinite nonlinearity, and infinite dispersion.
\subsubsection{High power regime}
Let $K = \sqrt[\delta]{\snr}$, $\delta>0$, and assume that the input $\vc{X}$ escapes to infinity with \snr. We show that the limit of the discrete-space SSFM channel when $\snr\rightarrow\infty$ is a diagonal model with phase noise. The convergence rate to this diagonal model depends on $\delta$. We derive a lower bound on the convergence rate, from which a lower bound on the capacity is established.
Denote
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathsf{S}_K \triangleq \diag\left( \Bigl( \exp\Bigl(j \sum \limits_{i=1}^K \Phi_{i,\ell}\Bigr) \Bigr)_{\ell=1}^n \right),
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
and
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\upsilon(\delta)= \begin{cases}
\IEEEstrut
5\delta/6,& 0 < \delta \leq 1,\\
1-\delta/6,& 1 \leq \delta \leq 1.5 ,\\
1.5-\delta/2,& 1.5 \leq \delta \leq 2 \;\; \\
&\text{and i.i.d. $\vc X$}, \\
0.5,& 2 \leq \delta \leq 3 \;\; \\
& \text{and i.i.d. $\vc X$},\\
0.5,& 3 \leq \delta.
\IEEEstrut
\end{cases} \label{def:upsilonDelta}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:mainThSSFM-ex}
If the input distribution is absolutely continuous and escapes to infinity with $\snr$, the SSFM channel with $K=\sqrt[\delta]{\snr}$, $\delta>0$, $\gamma\neq 0$, tends to the following channel in distribution as $\snr\rightarrow\infty$
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\vc{Y}_K=\mathsf{M}_K \vc{X}+ \vc{Z},
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathsf{M}_K=e^{\zeta+jd} \mathsf{S}_K+O_p\left(K^{-\upsilon(\delta) + \epsilon'}\right),
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
and $\vc{Z}\sim \mathcal{N}_{\mathbb{C}}(0,\eta\sigma^2\mathcal{L}\mathrm{I}_n)$, where $\eta$ is defined in Lemma~\ref{lem:asymFadingK}. Further, $\epsilon'>0$ can be made arbitrarily small with \snr.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
See Section~\ref{pr:mainThSSFM-ex}.
\end{proof}
Theorem~\ref{th:mainThSSFM} will be proved using Lemma~\ref{lem:mainThSSFM-ex} in Section \ref{pr:mainThComp}. The term $O(1)$ in Theorem~\ref{th:mainThSSFM} for $\delta\geq 2$ is given in the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:fadingHighPowerdG1}.
\begin{remark} \label{rem:lowNoise}
For $0\leq\delta \leq 1.5$, the dominant term in $O_p\left(K^{-\upsilon(\delta)}\right)$ is the signal-noise mixing, and for $1.5 \leq \delta \leq 3$, is the intra-channel interactions (between different indices). For $3 < \delta$ both effects are significant.
\end{remark}
\subsubsection{Infinite nonlinearity} \label{sec:ssfmGamma}
It is commonly believed that nonlinearity is a distortion that reduces the capacity.
However, in this section we show that when $\gamma \rightarrow \infty$, the continuous-space channel has
at least $n$ real signal DoFs.
\begin{theorem} \label{th:infGamma}
Capacity of the continuous-space SSFM model satisfies
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\lim \limits_{K \rightarrow \infty} \lim \limits_{\gamma \rightarrow \infty} \mathcal{C}(\snr, K)= \frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(1+a\,\snr\right)+o(1),
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $a$ is given in Theorem~\ref{th:mainThSSFM} and $o(1)$ term tends to zero with $\snr\rightarrow \infty$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} It is easy to verify that as $\gamma/K\rightarrow \infty$, for any $i\in [K]$ and $\ell\in[n]$, $\Phi_{i,\ell} \rightarrow \infty$, and consequently, $\mod\left(\Phi_{i,\ell} ,2\pi \right)\rightarrow \mathcal{U}(0,2\pi)$, independent of $\Phi_{i',\ell'}$ in any other segment $l'$ or coordinate $i'$. Hence, the SSFM channel tends to a finite dispersion fading channel, and Theorem~\ref{th:asymCapFadingFinDis} yields the result.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Infinite dispersion} \label{sec:ssfmInfDisp}
The asymptotic capacity of the discrete-space SSFM channel where $\mathrm D_K \stackrel{\Delta}{=} \mathrm D$ is independent of $K<\infty$ is given in \eqref{eq:asym-cap}.
In this section, we show that this result holds under the same assumption $\mathrm D_K \stackrel{\Delta}{=} \mathrm D$ for the continuous-space lossless SSFM channel as well. Note that in this case, as $K\rightarrow\infty$ the dispersion is infinite.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:infDispSSFM}
Consider the SSFM model when $\mathrm D_K \stackrel{\Delta}{=} \mathrm D$ is independent of $K$ and is not a block diagonal matrix of more than one block. If $K = \sqrt[\delta]{\snr}$, $\delta>3$, $\gamma\neq 0$, then
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathcal{C}\left(\snr,\sqrt[\delta]{\snr}\right) = \frac{1}{2n} \log_2\left(1+\snr \right)+O(1),
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $O(1)$ term is bounded as $\snr \rightarrow \infty$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Similar to the analysis in \cite{yousefi2016cap}, it can be shown that for input distributions that escape to infinity with $\mathcal{P}=(\sigma^2 \mathcal{L})K^{\delta}$, $\delta>3$, $V_{i,\ell} =\Omega_p\left(K^{\delta}\right)$ for all $i \in [K]$ and $\ell \in [n]$. Furthermore, in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:mainThSSFM-ex} it is shown that in this case $\mod\left(\Phi_{i,\ell},2\pi\right) \rightarrow \mathcal{U}(0,2\pi)$. Hence, infinite dispersion SSFM channel tends to the infinite dispersion fading channel. These two steps can be proved alternatively using induction on the output of segment $i \in [K]$ and using Lemma~\ref{lem:haarMeasure} for sufficiently large $K$. The result then follows from Theorem~\ref{th:infFadCap}.
\end{proof}
\section{Proofs} \label{sec:proof}
\subsection{Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:asymDistK}}
\label{pr:asymDistK}
For matrices $A$ and $B$ define the commutator $[\mathrm{A},\mathrm{B}] = \mathrm{A} \mathrm{B} \mathrm{A}^{-1} \mathrm{B}^{-1}$. It can be verified with algebraic manipulations that $\mathsf{M}_K$ can be written as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
\mathsf{M}_K&=&\prod \limits_{i=1}^K \mathrm{D}_K \mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_i)\nonumber\\
&=&\left\{\prod \limits_{i=2}^{K} \mathrm{D}_K \left[\prod \limits_{\ell=i}^K \mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_{\ell}),\mathrm{D}_K\right]\right\} \mathrm{D}_K \prod \limits_{\ell=1}^K \mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_{\ell})\nonumber\\
&=&\left\{\prod \limits_{i=2}^{K} \mathrm{D}_K \left[ \mathsf{R}\left(\sum \limits_{\ell=i}^K \boldsymbol{\theta}_{\ell}\right),\mathrm{D}_K\right]\right\} \mathrm{D}_K \mathsf{R}\left(\sum \limits_{\ell=1}^K \boldsymbol{\theta}_{\ell}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Since the joint distribution of $\Bigl(\sum_{\ell=i}^K\boldsymbol{\theta}_{\ell}\Bigr)_{i=1}^K$ and $\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_i\right)_{i=1}^K$ are the same
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathsf{M}_K\stackrel{d}{=} \left\{\prod \limits_{i=2}^{K} \left( \mathrm{D}_K \left[ \mathsf{R}\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_{i} \right),\mathrm{D}_K\right]\right) \right\} \mathrm{D}_K \mathsf{R}\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right). \label{eq:MKreWritten}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Let
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathrm C_m\triangleq\frac{1}{m!}\mathrm{F}^{-1}
\diag\Bigl( \bigl( (\zeta_{\ell}+jd_{\ell})^m \bigr)_{\ell=1}^n\Bigr)\mathrm{F},
\label{eq:C-i}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
and $\bar{\mathrm{C}}_m \triangleq (-1)^m \mathrm{C}_m$.
Expand $\mathrm{D}_K$ and $\mathrm{D}_K^{-1}$ in $1/K$ using the Taylor's theorem
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
\mathrm{D}_K&=&\mathrm{I}_n+\frac{1}{K}\mathrm{C}_1+\frac{1}{K^2}\mathrm{C}_2+O\left(\frac{1}{K^3}\right), \label{eq:Dk}\\
\mathrm{D}_K^{-1}&=&\mathrm{I}_n+\frac{1}{K}\bar{\mathrm{C}}_1+\frac{1}{K^2}\bar{\mathrm{C}}_2+O\left(\frac{1}{K^3}\right). \nonumber
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
A simple calculation shows that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
[\mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_i),D_K]=\mathrm{I}_n+\frac{\mathsf{L}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_i)+ \bar{\mathrm{C}}_1}{K}+O_p\left(\frac{1}{K^2}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Using \eqref{eq:Dk} and $\mathrm{C}_1+\bar{\mathrm{C}}_1=0$,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathrm{D}_K [\mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_i),D_K]=\mathrm{I}_n+\frac{\mathsf{L}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_i)}{K}+O_p\left(\frac{1}{K^2}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Combining \eqref{eq:MKreWritten} and the above relation results in
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
\mathsf{M}_K &=& \left\{\prod \limits_{i=2}^{K} \left( \mathrm{I}_n+\frac{\mathsf{L}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_i)}{K}+O_p\left(\frac{1}{K^2}\right) \right) \right\} \mathrm{D}_K \mathsf{R}\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right)\nonumber \\
&=& \left\{\prod \limits_{i=2}^{K} \left( \mathrm{I}_n+\frac{\bar{\mathsf{L}}}{K}+\frac{\mathsf{L}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_i)-\bar{\mathsf{L}}}{K} \right) \right\} \mathsf{R}\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right)+O_p\left(\frac{1}{K}\right)\nonumber \\
&=& \left(\left\{\prod \limits_{i=2}^{K} \left( \mathrm{I}_n+\frac{\bar{\mathsf{L}}}{K} \right) \right\}+\frac{\sum \limits_{i=2}^K\left(\mathsf{L}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_i)-\bar{\mathsf{L}}\right)}{K}\right) \mathsf{R}\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right)\nonumber\\
&&+O_p\left(\frac{1}{K}\right)\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(a)}{=}& \left(e^{\bar{\mathsf{L}}}+\frac{1}{K}\sum \limits_{i=1}^{K}\mathsf{L}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_i)-\bar{\mathsf{L}}\right) \mathsf{R}\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_1\right)+O_p\left(\frac{1}{K}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $(a)$ is obtained using
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\left(1+\frac{\bar{\mathsf{L}}}{K}\right)^K = e^{\bar{L}}+O\left(\frac{1}{K}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Finally, since $e^{\bar{\mathsf{L}}}=e^{(\zeta+jd)\mathrm{I}_n}=e^{\zeta+jd}\mathrm{I}_n$,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{c}
\mathsf{M}_K \stackrel{d}{=}\left(e^{\zeta+jd}\mathrm{I}_n+\frac{1}{K}\sum \limits_{i=1}^{K}\mathsf{L}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_i)-\bar{\mathsf{L}}\right)\mathsf{R}\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}\right)+O_p\left(\frac{1}{K}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{th:fadingHighPowerdG1}} \label{pr:fadingHighPowerdG1}
In the following, we restrict the input to the class of absolutely continuous random vectors, for which $h\left(\mathsf{M}_K \vc{X}\right)$
is a continuous function of $K$ with respect to the total variation distance \cite[Theorem~1]{GhourchianGohariAmini17}. First, we prove that:
\textit{i.} If $\vc X$ is i.i.d, then
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
\frac{1}{n} I(\vc{X};\vc{Y}_K)&\geq& \frac{1}{2\delta} \log_2(\mathcal{P})+ h\left(|X_1|\right)-\mathbb{E}\left[\log_2\left(\norm{\mathbf{X}}_4\right)\right]\nonumber \\
&& +\frac{1}{2} \log_2\left(\frac{ e^{2\zeta-1}}{2\rho\pi} \right)+o(1),
\end{IEEEeqnarray} where the $o(1)$ term vanishes with $\mathcal{P} \rightarrow\infty$ and
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\rho \triangleq
\sqrt{\sum \limits_{r=1}^n \Bigg| \sum \limits_{s=1}^n (\zeta_s+jd_s)e^{-\frac{j2\pi rs}{n}}\Bigg|^4}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Next, using this general lower bound we obtain the following.
\textit{ii.} By choosing $\vc{X}\sim \mathcal{N}_{\mathbb{C}}(0,\mathcal{P}\mathrm{I}_n)$, we have
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{cl}
\bar{\mathcal{C}}(\snr, \sqrt[\delta]{\snr}) \geq &\frac{1}{2 \delta} \log_2\left(1+\snr\right)+\frac{1}{2} \log_2\left(\frac{e^{2\zeta+1}}{\rho\pi\sqrt{8n} }\right)\nonumber \\
&+o(1). \IEEEeqnarraynumspace \label{eq:fadingLower}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
\textit{Part i:}
Define the matrix $\Delta \stackrel{\Delta}{=} \frac{1}{K}\sum \limits_{m=1}^{K}\mathsf{L}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_m)-\bar{\mathsf{L}}$.
Considering \eqref{eq:Ltheta}, $\Delta_{rr}$ is deterministic and thus zero. If $r\neq \ell$,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
\Delta_{\ell r}&=&
\frac{(C_1)_{\ell r}}{K}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{K}e^{j(\theta_{i,\ell}-\theta_{i,r})} \nonumber
\\
&\stackrel{d}{\rightarrow}& \frac{ (C_1)_{\ell r}}{\sqrt{K}}T_{\ell r}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $T_{\ell r}\sim\mathcal{N}_{\mathbb{C}}(0,1)$ and we used the central limit theorem.
This yields
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathsf{M}_K \stackrel{d}{=} e^{\zeta} \mathsf{R}\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}\right)+O_p\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{K}}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Hence,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
h(\mathbf{Y}_K)&=&h(\mathsf{M}_K \mathbf{X})+o(1)\nonumber\\
&=& n\log_2\left( e^{\zeta} \mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta})\mathbf{X}\right)+o(1) \nonumber\\
&=&n\log_2\left( 2\pi e^{2\zeta} \right)+ n h\left(|X_1|\right)+n\mathbb{E}\left[\log_2\left(|X_1|\right)\right]+o(1),\nonumber\\ \label{eq:outputEntropy}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $o(1)$ term vanishes with $K \rightarrow \infty$ and $\mathcal{P}/K\rightarrow \infty$.
Next, we bound the conditional entropy part as:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
h(\mathbf{Y}_K|\mathbf{X})\leq \sum \limits_{\ell=1}^n h(Y_{K,\ell}|\mathbf{X}). \label{eq:cEntropySum}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
The output $Y_{K,\ell}$ is equal in probability to
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
e^{\zeta+j(d+\theta_{\ell})}X_{\ell}+\frac{e^{j\theta_{\ell}}}{\sqrt{K}}\sum \limits_{r\neq \ell}(\mathrm{C}_{1})_{\ell r} T_{\ell r} X_r+\sqrt{\eta}~Z_{\ell}+o_p(1),\nonumber\\ \end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\theta_{\ell} \sim \mathcal{U}(0,2\pi)$, $\eta$ is given in \eqref{def:eta}, and $o_p(1)$ term vanishes as $K \rightarrow \infty$. Note that for a fixed $\ell$, $(T_{\ell,r})_r$ are independent. Hence, given $\mathbf{X}=\mathbf{x}$,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\sum \limits_{r\neq \ell}(\mathrm{C}_{1})_{\ell r} x_r T_{\ell r} \stackrel{d}{=} \norm{\mathbf{x}}_4 T_{\ell},\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $T_{\ell} \sim \mathcal{N}_{\mathbb{C}}(0,\sigma^2_{T_{\ell}})$, and
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
\sigma^2_{T_{\ell}}&=&\frac{1}{\norm{\mathbf{x}}_4^2} \sum \limits_{r\neq \ell}|(\mathrm{C}_{1})_{\ell r}|^2 |x_r|^2 \nonumber \\
&\stackrel{(a)}{\leq}& \sqrt{\sum \limits_{r\neq \ell} |(\mathrm{C}_{1})_{\ell r}|^4} \nonumber \\
&\stackrel{(b)}{\leq}& \rho.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Step $(a)$ is derived using the
Cauchy–Schwarz inequality. Step $(b)$ follows from the structure of $\mathrm{C}_1$. Thus, conditioned on $\vc{X}=\vc{x}$,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
Y_{K,\ell}\stackrel{d}{=} e^{\zeta+j\theta_{\ell}} x_{\ell}+\frac{e^{j\theta_{\ell}}\norm{\mathbf{x}}_4}{\sqrt{K}}T_{\ell}+\sqrt{\eta}~Z_{\ell}+o_p(1). \end{IEEEeqnarray}
Now, the conditional entropy can be bounded as following
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
h(Y_{K,\ell}|\mathbf{X}) &\leq & h\left(e^{\zeta+j\theta_{\ell}} X_{\ell}+\frac{e^{j\theta_{\ell}}\norm{\mathbf{X}}_4}{\sqrt{K}}T_{\ell}\Big|\mathbf{X}\right)+O\left(\sqrt{\frac{K}{\mathcal{P}}}\right)\nonumber \\
&= & \log_2(\pi)+O\left(\sqrt{\frac{K}{\mathcal{P}}}\right)\nonumber\\
&& +h\left(\Bigg| e^{\zeta} X_{\ell}+\frac{\norm{\mathbf{X}}_4}{\sqrt{K}}T_{\ell} \Bigg|^2\Big| \mathbf{X}\right) \nonumber\\
&=& \log_2(\pi)+O\left(\sqrt{\frac{K}{\mathcal{P}}}\right)\nonumber\\
&&+h\bigg(\frac{2e^{\zeta} |X_{\ell}|\norm{\mathbf{X}}_4}{\sqrt{K}}\mathfrak{R}\left(T_{\ell} e^{-j\angle X_{\ell}}\right)+\frac{\norm{\mathbf{X}}_4^2}{K}|T_{\ell}|^2\Big| \mathbf{X}\bigg)\nonumber\\
&=& \log_2(\pi)+O\left(\sqrt{\frac{K}{\mathcal{P}}}\right)+O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{K}}\right)\nonumber\\
&&+h\left(\frac{2e^{\zeta} |X_{\ell}|\norm{\mathbf{X}}_4}{\sqrt{K}}\mathfrak{R}\left(T_{\ell} e^{-j\angle X_{\ell}}\right)\Big| \mathbf{X}\right)\nonumber\\
&=& \log_2\left(\frac{2e^{\zeta}\pi}{\sqrt{K}}\right)+O\left(\sqrt{\frac{K}{\mathcal{P}}}\right)+O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{K}}\right)\nonumber\\
&&+\mathbb{E}\left[\log_2\left(|X_{\ell}|\norm{\mathbf{X}}_4\right)\right]+ h\left(\mathfrak{R}(T_{\ell})\big| \mathbf{X}\right)\nonumber\\
&\leq& \log_2\left(\frac{2e^{\zeta}\pi}{\sqrt{K}}\right)+O\left(\sqrt{\frac{K}{\mathcal{P}}}\right)+O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{K}}\right)\nonumber\\
&&+ \mathbb{E}\left[\log_2\left(|X_{\ell}|\norm{\mathbf{X}}_4\right)\right]+\frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(2\pi e \rho \right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
This relation together with \eqref{eq:outputEntropy} and \eqref{eq:cEntropySum} yields the first part of the theorem.
\paragraph*{Part ii}For $\vc{X}\sim \mathcal{N}_{\mathbb{C}}(0,\mathcal{P}\mathrm{I}_n)$,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
h\left(\mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta})\mathbf{X}\right)=h\left(\mathbf{X}\right)=n\log_2\left( 2\pi e \mathcal{P} \right). \label{eq:outputEntropyGaussian}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Moreover,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
&\mathbb{E}&\left[\log_2\left(|X_1|\right)+\log_2\left(\norm{\mathbf{X}}_4\right)\right]\nonumber\\
&=& \frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(\mathbb{E}\left[|X_1|^2\right]\right)+\frac{1}{4}\log_2\left(\mathbb{E}\left[\norm{\mathbf{X}}_4^4\right]\right)+O\left(\frac{1}{\mathcal{P}}\right)\nonumber \\
&=&\frac{1}{2} \log_2(\mathcal{P})+\frac{1}{4}\log_2\left(2n\mathcal{P}^2\right)+O\left(\frac{1}{\mathcal{P}}\right)\nonumber \\
&=&\log_2(\mathcal{P})+\frac{1}{4}\log_2\left(2n\right)+O\left(\frac{1}{\mathcal{P}}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
This, together with \eqref{eq:outputEntropyGaussian} and the first part of theorem implies that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{c}
\frac{1}{n} I(\vc{X};\vc{Y}_K) \geq\frac{1}{2} \log_2(K)+\frac{1}{2} \log_2\left(\frac{e^{2\zeta+1}}{ \rho \pi \sqrt{8n}}\right)+o(1),
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}where $o(1)$ term tends to zero with $K\rightarrow \infty $ and $\mathcal{P}/K \rightarrow \infty$. Setting $K = \sqrt[\delta]{\snr}\rightarrow\infty$,
we obtain
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{rcl}
\frac{1}{2 \delta} \log_2\left(1+\snr\right)+\frac{1}{2} \log_2\left(\frac{e^{2\zeta+1}}{\rho\pi\sqrt{8n} }\right)
&\leq& \frac{1}{n} \lim_{K\rightarrow\infty}I(\vc{X};\vc{Y}_K)
\\
&= & \frac{1}{n} I(\vc{X}; \lim_{K\rightarrow\infty}\vc{Y}_K)
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
Since the left hand side does not depend on $p_X(x)$, we obtain \eqref{eq:fadingLower}. The last equality above follows from the continuity of $I(\vc X, \vc Y_K) $ for the SSFM channel as a function of $K$ at $K\rightarrow\infty$, shown in Lemma~\ref{lemm:continuity}.
\subsection{Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:haarMeasure}} \label{pr:haarMeasure}
The proof is based on Theorem~\ref{th:kawadaItoStromberg} in Appendix~\ref{sec:math}. The reader is referred to Appendix~\ref{sec:math} for the notation used in this section.
Let $\mathsf{T}\triangleq\mathrm{D}\mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta})$. Clearly, $\mathsf{T}$ is a unitary matrix. Denote the probability measure of $ \mathsf{T}$ by $\mu$.
We show that the following two conditions of Theorem~\ref{th:kawadaItoStromberg} hold.
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*,wide]
\item[] \emph{Condition 1.} Denote the smallest closed subgroup of $\mathbb{U}_n$ that contains support of $\mu$, \textit{i.e.} $\mathcal{S}(\mu)$, as $\mathbb{H}$. Moreover, denote the smallest subgroup of block diagonal matrices that contains $\mathrm{D}$ as $\mathbb{U}_n(\nu)$.
The first condition to verify is $\mathbb{H}=\mathbb{U}_n(\nu)$.
This condition is needed, because if $\mathbb{H} \subset \mathbb{U}_n(\nu)$, then the product of instances of $\mathsf{T}$ will not be in $\mathbb{H}$. Hence, the probability measure of the product of $K$ i.i.d. instances of $\mathsf{T}$ would not be a Haar measure on $\mathbb{U}_n(\nu)$.
By letting $\boldsymbol{\theta}=(0,\ldots,0)$, we have $\mathrm{D} \in \mathbb{H}$, and thus $\mathrm{D}^{-1} \in \mathbb{H}$, and $\mathrm{D}^{-1} \mathrm{D} \mathsf{R}\boldsymbol(\theta)=\mathsf{R}\boldsymbol(\theta)\in \mathbb{H} $. Hence, $\mathbb{H}$ contains all diagonal unitary matrices including the matrix $\mathrm{D}$. Since the smallest block diagonal subgroup that contains $D$ is $\mathbb{U}_n(\nu)$, Theorem~\ref{th:Borevich} in Appendix~\ref{sec:math} implies $\mathbb{H}=\mathbb{U}_n(\nu)$.
\item[]\emph{Condition 2.} The next condition to verify is that $\mu$ is not normally aperiodic. This means that $\mathcal{S}(\mu)$ is not contained in a (left or right) coset of a proper closed normal subgroup of $\mathbb{U}_n(\nu)$. To see why this condition is needed, by contradiction suppose that there exists a proper closed normal subgroup $\mathbb{H}$ of $\mathbb{U}_n(\nu)$ and $\mathrm{V} \in \mathbb{U}_n(\nu)$, such that $\mathcal{S}(\mu) \subseteq \mathrm{V}\mathbb{H}$ or $\mathcal{S}(\mu) \subseteq \mathbb{H}\mathrm{V}$, or equivalently $\mathrm{V}^{-1}\mathcal{S}(\mu) \subseteq \mathbb{H}$ or $\mathcal{S}(\mu) \mathrm{V}^{-1} \subseteq \mathbb{H}$. Suppose that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
V^{-1}=
\mathrm{D} \mathrm{R}(\theta_r) \cdots \mathrm{D} \mathrm{R}(\theta_1). \label{eq:firstRsteps}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Consider all matrices
$\mathsf M=\prod\limits_{i=r+1}^{\infty}\mathsf{D} \mathrm{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_j) V^{-1}$.
The second condition states that the smallest closed normal subgroup that contains these matrices is $\mathbb{U}_n(\nu)$. In other words, starting from any $r$ initial steps, all possible unitary matrices in $\mathbb{U}_n(\nu)$ can be reached.
To verify the second condition, we consider the cases $\mathrm{V}^{-1}\mathcal{S}(\mu) \subseteq \mathbb{H}$ or $\mathcal{S}(\mu)\mathrm{V}^{-1} \subseteq \mathbb{H}$ separately.
Left Coset: In this case, $\mathrm{V}^{-1}\mathrm{D}$ and the subgroup of diagonal matrices belong to $\mathbb{H}$. Suppose that there exists a $\mathrm{W} \in \mathbb{U}_n(\nu)$ such that $\mathrm{W} \notin \mathbb{H}$ and $\mathrm{W}=\mathrm{Q}\Gamma \mathrm{Q}^{-1}$, where $\Gamma$ is a diagonal matrix. However, since $\mathbb{H}$ is a normal subgroup of $\mathbb{U}_n(\nu)$ and $\Gamma \in \mathbb H$, then $\mathrm{W}=\mathrm{Q}\Gamma \mathrm{Q}^{-1} \in \mathbb{H}$, which is a contradiction.
Right Coset: Since $\mathrm{D}\mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_1)\mathrm{V}^{-1} \in \mathbb{H}$ and $\mathrm{D}\mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_2)\mathrm{V}^{-1}\in \mathbb{H}$, we have $\mathrm{D}\mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_1-\boldsymbol{\theta}_2)\mathrm{D}^{-1} \in \mathbb{H}$. Hence, for any $\boldsymbol{\theta}$, $\mathrm{D}\mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta})\mathrm{D}^{-1} \in \mathbb{H}$. Similar to the previous case, by contradiction suppose that there exists $\mathrm{W} \in \mathbb{U}_n(\nu)$ such that $\mathrm{W} \notin \mathbb{H}$ and $\mathrm{W}=\mathrm{Q}\Gamma \mathrm{Q}^{-1}$, where $\Gamma$ is a diagonal matrix. However, since $\mathbb{H}$ is a normal subgroup of $\mathbb{U}_n(\nu)$, $\mathrm{Q}\mathrm{D}^{-1} \in \mathbb{U}_n(\nu)$, and $ \mathrm{D}\Gamma \mathrm{D}^{-1} \in \mathbb{H}$, thus $\mathrm{W}=(\mathrm{Q}\mathrm{D}^{-1}) \mathrm{D}\Gamma \mathrm{D}^{-1} (\mathrm{D}\mathrm{Q}^{-1}) \in \mathbb{H}$, which is a contradiction.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:mainThSSFM-ex}} \label{pr:mainThSSFM-ex}
The proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:mainThSSFM-ex} is similar to the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:asymFadingK}, where $M_K$ is expanded in $1/K$.
Note that, if $D_K$ does not depend on $K$, when $\mathcal P\rightarrow\infty$, phase tends to a uniform random variable in every segment for every input \cite{yousefi2016cap}. However, if dispersion values scale as $1/K$ and $\mathcal{P}=(\sigma^2 \mathcal{L})K^{\delta}$, phase tends to zero in one segment if $\delta<1$. But, if we add sufficiently large number $K^{1-\delta+0^+}$ of segments, so that the variance of phase tends to infinity, output phase tends to a uniform variable for every input. In what follows, we make these statements precise.
We prove the lemma formally by induction on the segment index $i$. The output $\vc{V}_{i+1}$ of the segment $i\in [K]$ as a function of the channel input $X$ is
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathbf{V}_{i+1}=\mathsf{M}_{i,K}\vc{X}+\vc{Z}_{i}, \label{eq:ViX}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\mathsf{M}_{i,K}
&\triangleq& \prod \limits_{t=1}^{i} \left( \mathrm{D}_K \mathsf{\Phi}(t) \right)
\nonumber\\
&=&\mathrm{D}_K \mathsf{\Phi}(i) \mathsf{M}_{i-1,K},
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
in which
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathsf{\Phi}(i)\triangleq \diag\Bigl( \bigl(\exp(j\Phi_{i,\ell}) \bigr)_{\ell=1}^n \Bigr), \end{IEEEeqnarray}
where the nonlinear phase $\Phi_{i,\ell}$ is given in \eqref{eq:Phi-ij}. Further,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{rCl}
\vc{Z}_{i} &\triangleq& \sum \limits_{t=1}^i \left( \left(\prod \limits_{s=t}^{i} \left( \mathrm{D}_K \mathsf{\Phi}(s)\right)\right) \vc{\bar{Z}}_t\right)
\\ &=& \mathrm{D}_K \mathsf{\Phi}(i)\left(\vc{\vc{Z}_{i-1}+\bar{Z}}_i\right),
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
where $ \mathsf{M}_{0,K} \triangleq \mathrm{I}_n$ and $\vc{Z}_0\triangleq 0$. Note that $\mathsf{M}_{K,K}=\mathsf{M}_K$.
First, we expand $\mathsf{M}_{i,K}$ similar to the analysis in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:asymDistK}. For $t \in [i]$, denote
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{c}
\mathsf{R}_i(t)\triangleq \diag\left( \Bigl( \exp\bigl( j \sum \limits_{s=t}^i \Phi_{s,\ell} \bigr)\Bigr)_{\ell=1}^n \right),
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathsf{L}_i(t)\triangleq \mathsf{R}_i(t) \mathrm{C}_1 \mathsf{R}_i(t)^{-1},\end{IEEEeqnarray}
and
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\Delta_i \triangleq \frac{1}{K}\sum \limits_{t=1}^{i}\mathsf{L}_i(t)-\frac{i}{K}(\zeta+jd)\mathrm{I}_n,
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\mathrm{C}_1$ is defined in \eqref{eq:C-i}. Expand $\mathsf{M}_{i,K}$ as:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
\mathsf{M}_{i,K}
&=&\left\{\prod \limits_{t=2}^{i} \left( \mathrm{D}_K \left[\mathsf{R}_i(t) ,\mathrm{D}_K\right]\right)\right\} \mathrm{D}_K \mathsf{R}_i(1)\nonumber\\
&=& \left\{\prod \limits_{t=2}^{i} \left( \mathrm{I}_n+\frac{1}{K}\mathsf{L}_i(t)\right)\right\} \mathsf{R}_i\left(1\right)+O_p\left(K^{-1}\right)\nonumber \\
&=& \left(e^{\frac{i}{K}(\zeta+jd)}\mathrm{I}_n+\frac{1}{K}\sum \limits_{t=1}^{i}\mathsf{L}_i(t)-\frac{i}{K}(\zeta+jd)\mathrm{I}_n\right) \mathsf{R}_i\left(1\right)\nonumber \\
&&+O_p\left(K^{-1}\right)\nonumber\\
&=& e^{\frac{i}{K}(\zeta+jd)}\mathsf{R}_i(1)+\Delta_i \mathsf{R}_i(1)+O_p\left(K^{-1}\right).
\label{eq:Mr-K}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Note that $\mathsf{R}_K(1)=\mathsf{S}_K$.
Fix $\epsilon'>0$ sufficiently small. We shall prove that for each $i$:
$\bullet$ \emph{Claim 1.} For $\ell,\ell' \in [n]$,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\left(\Delta_i\right)_{\ell,\ell'}=O_p\left(K^{-\underline{\upsilon}(\delta)}\right), \label{eq:inductionAssumption}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\underline{\upsilon}(\delta)\geq \upsilon(\delta)-\epsilon'$ and $\upsilon(\delta)$ is defined in \eqref{def:upsilonDelta}.
$\bullet$ \emph{Claim 2.}
For $\ell \in [n]$ and $t \in [i]$,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\sum \limits_{s=t}^i \Phi_{s,\ell}-(i-t+1)\gamma \varepsilon |X_{\ell}|^2 \stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} 0, \label{eq:arithSum}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
when
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
i \leq \begin{cases}
\IEEEstrut
K^{1-\frac{\delta}{3}-\epsilon'},& 0 \leq \delta \leq 1.5,\\
K^{2-\delta-\epsilon'},& 1.5 \leq \delta \leq 2.
\IEEEstrut
\end{cases}\label{eq:iDelta}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
$\bullet$ \emph{Claim 3.}
If $i$ satisfies \eqref{eq:iDelta}, then $\underline{\upsilon}(\delta)$ in \eqref{eq:inductionAssumption} is bounded by
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\underline{\upsilon}(\delta)\geq \begin{cases}
\IEEEstrut
\delta,& 0 \leq \delta \leq 1,\\
1-g,& 1 \leq \delta \leq 2,
\IEEEstrut
\end{cases}\label{eq:uDelta}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
g \triangleq \max \limits_{l,l' \in [n]} -\log_K\left(e^{j(|X_l|^2-|X_{l'}|^2)/K}-1\right). \label{def:g}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Note that $g=o_p(1)$, and thus vanishes for absolutely continuous inputs, when $\delta>1$.
Lemma~\ref{lem:mainThSSFM-ex} follows from \eqref{eq:Mr-K} at $i=k$ and Claim 1. Claim 2 and 3 are needed in the proof of Claim 1.
Note that above Claim 1--3 yield
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\lim \limits_{K \rightarrow \infty}\vc{Z}_K \stackrel{(d)}{=}
\vc{Z},
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\vc{Z}\in \mathbb{C}^n$ and $\vc{Z}\sim \mathcal{N}_{\mathbb{C}}\left(0,\eta \sigma^2\mathcal{L}\mathrm{I}_n\right)$.
For $i=1$, Claim 1-3 hold, since
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathsf{M}_{1,K}= \mathrm{D}_K \mathsf{\Phi}(1)=e^{\frac{1}{K}(\zeta+jd)}\mathsf{\Phi}(1)+O_p\left(K^{-1}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Assume that Claim 1-3 hold for $i\in [r-1]$. We need to show that they hold for $i=r$ as well.
Denote
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\vc{E}_t\triangleq e^{-(\zeta+jd)\frac{ t-1}{K}} \mathsf{R}_{t-1}^*(1) \vc{\bar{Z}}_t=O_p\left(K^{-1/2}\right). \label{def:Et}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Using the assumption of the induction \eqref{eq:inductionAssumption} together with \eqref{eq:Mr-K} and \eqref{eq:ViX}, the nonlinear phase $\Phi_{i+1,\ell}$, where $i\in [r-1]$, can be expanded as:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
\Phi_{i+1,\ell}
&=&\gamma \varepsilon |V_{i+1,\ell}|^2+2 \gamma \varepsilon \sqrt{\varepsilon} \mathfrak{R}(V_{i+1,\ell}^* Z_{i+1,\ell}^{'})+\gamma \varepsilon^2|Z^{''}_{i+1,\ell}|^2 \nonumber \\
&=&\gamma \varepsilon |V_{i+1,\ell}|^2+O_p\left(K^{\frac{\delta-3}{2}}\right) \nonumber \\
&\overset{(a)}{=}& \gamma \varepsilon e^{\frac{2i}{K}\zeta}|X_{\ell}|^2+O_p\left(K^{\frac{\delta-3}{2}}\right)\nonumber\\
&&+2\gamma \varepsilon {\sum \limits_{\ell'\neq \ell}} \mathfrak{R}\left[\left(e^{\frac{ i}{K}(\zeta+jd)}\mathsf{R}_{i}(1)\vc{X}\right)_{\ell}^* (\Delta_{i,K})_{\ell,\ell'}X_{\ell'} \right]\nonumber\\
&&+2\gamma \varepsilon \mathfrak{R}\left[\left(e^{\frac{ i}{K}(\zeta+jd)}\mathsf{R}_{i}(1)\vc{X}\right)_{\ell}^* Z_{i,\ell} \right] \nonumber \\
&=& \gamma \varepsilon e^{\frac{2i}{K}\zeta}|X_{\ell}|^2+O_p\left(K^{\frac{\delta-3}{2}}\right)\nonumber\\
&&{+}2\gamma \varepsilon {\sum \limits_{\ell'\neq \ell}} {\mathfrak{R}}\left[\left(e^{\frac{ i}{K}(\zeta+jd)}\mathsf{R}_{i}(1)\vc{X}\right)_{\ell}^* (\Delta_{i,K})_{\ell,\ell'}X_{\ell'} \right] \nonumber \\
&&+2\gamma \varepsilon e^{\frac{2i}{K}\zeta} \mathfrak{R}\left[X_{\ell}^* \sum \limits_{t=1}^i E_{t,\ell} \right]. \label{eq:phiExpansion}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Here step $(a)$ follows by substituting \eqref{eq:ViX} and \eqref{eq:Mr-K} into the previous line.
Variables $Z'_{i+1,\ell}$ and $Z^{''}_{i+1,\ell}$ denote Gaussian noises with variances that do not depend on $K$ and $E_{t,\ell}$ is defined in \eqref{def:Et}.
The term
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
2\gamma \varepsilon \sum \limits_{\ell'\neq \ell} \mathfrak{R}\left[\left(e^{\frac{ i}{K}(\zeta+jd)}\mathsf{R}_{i}(1)\vc{X}\right)_{\ell}^* (\Delta_{i,K})_{\ell,\ell'}X_{\ell'} \right],
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
captures intra-channel interactions, while the terms
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
2\gamma \varepsilon e^{\frac{2i}{K}\zeta} \mathfrak{R}\left[X_{\ell}^* \sum \limits_{t=1}^i E_{t,\ell} \right],
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
and
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
2 \gamma \varepsilon \sqrt{\varepsilon} \mathfrak{R}\left(\left(e^{\frac{ i}{K}(\zeta+jd)}\mathsf{R}_{i}(1)\vc{X}\right)_{\ell}^* Z_{i+1,\ell}^{'}\right),
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
represent the signal-noise interactions.
To show Claims~1 and 3, note that $\left(\Delta_r\right)_{\ell,\ell}$, $\ell \in [n]$, is equal to zero, with probability one. It remains to show that the off-diagonal elements are $O_p\left(K^{-\underline{\upsilon}(\delta)}\right)$. We show this for element $(1,2)$; the proof is similar for other elements. This element is equal to
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
(\Delta_r)_{1,2}=\frac{(\mathrm{C}_1)_{1,2}}{K}\sum \limits_{i=1}^{r}e^{j \sum \limits_{s=i}^r \left(\Phi_{s,1}-\Phi_{s,2}\right)}. \label{eq:phiGeneral}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
The rest of the proof is presented for different ranges of $\delta$, and for $\zeta=0$, separately. Since in general, for $i \in [K]$,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
e^{\frac{i}{K}\zeta} \vc{X}=K^{\xi} \vc{X}, \label{eq:lossEffect}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\xi=\frac{2i\zeta}{K\ln(K)} \rightarrow 0.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
It can be shown that asymptotically as $K\rightarrow\infty$ the effect of loss in the convergence rate of $\Delta_r$ vanishes.
$\bullet$ \emph{Case $0<\delta<1$:} In this case, first for $r \leq K^{1-\delta/3-\epsilon'}$, we prove Claims 2 and 3, and consequently Claim 1 follows. Then using this result, we prove Claim 1 for $r > K^{1-\delta/3-\epsilon'}$ as well.
Assume that $r \leq K^{1-\delta/3-\epsilon'}$.
We argue first for $t \in [r]$, Claim~2 holds, from which Claims~1 and 3 are then concluded. Let
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
Q_{\ell}\triangleq \gamma \mathcal{L} K^{-\delta}|X_{\ell}|^2,~\ell \in [n].
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Using the induction assumption \eqref{eq:inductionAssumption} and since $r-t+1 \leq K^{1-\delta/3-\epsilon'}$,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rl}
\sum \limits_{s=t}^r& \Phi_{s,\ell} \nonumber\\
=&(r-t+1)K^{\delta-1}Q_{\ell} \nonumber
\\
&+2\gamma \varepsilon \mathfrak{R}\left[X_{\ell}^* \left(\sum \limits_{s=1}^{t-1} (r-t+1) E_{s,\ell} +\sum \limits_{s=t}^{r-1} \left(r-s\right) E_{s,\ell} \right)\right] \nonumber\\
&+O_p\left((r-t+1)K^{\delta-1-\underline{\upsilon}(\delta)}\right)+O_p\left((r-t+1)K^{\frac{\delta-3}{2}}\right) \nonumber\\
\stackrel{(a)}{=}&(r-t+1)K^{\delta-1}Q_{\ell}+O_p\left(K^{-\delta/3-2\epsilon'}\right)+O_p\left(K^{\frac{\delta-3}{6}-\epsilon'}\right) \nonumber \\&+O_p\left(K^{\delta/2-1-1/2}A\right) \nonumber \\=&(r-t+1)K^{\delta-1}Q_{\ell} +O_p\left(K^{-\delta/3-2\epsilon'}\right)+O_p\left(K^{\frac{\delta-3}{6}-\epsilon'}\right)\nonumber\\
&+O_p\left(K^{-3\epsilon'/2}\right)\nonumber\\
\rightarrow& (r-t+1)K^{\delta-1}Q_{\ell}, \label{eq:secondOrderD1}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $(a)$ holds due to assumption of induction \eqref{eq:uDelta} and
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
A &\triangleq& \Bigl((t-1)(r-t+1)^2 + \sum_{\ell=1}^{r-t} \ell^2\Bigr)^{1/2}\nonumber \\
&=&O\left(r^{3/2}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
This proves Claim 2. Note that as can be seen in the above calculations, due to signal-noise interactions, at most $ K^{1-\delta/3-\epsilon'}$ consecutive terms $\sum \limits_{s=t}^r \Phi_{s,\ell}$ constitute arithmetic series. For small values of noise, it can be seen that the above argument almost holds for any $r \leq K^{1-\epsilon'}$, except for very large values of $K$, when $K \gg \left(\gamma \mathcal{L}^{3/2} \sigma\right)^{-2/\delta}$.
Now, to show Claim~3, by denoting $Q\triangleq Q_1-Q_2$ and due to \eqref{eq:secondOrderD1},
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
(\Delta_r)_{1,2}&=&\frac{(\mathrm{C}_1)_{1,2}}{K}\sum \limits_{i=1}^{r}e^{j \sum \limits_{s=i}^r \left(\Phi_{s,1}-\Phi_{s,2}\right)}\nonumber \\
&=& \frac{(\mathrm{C}_1)_{1,2}e^{jK^{\delta-1}Q}\left(e^{jK^{2\delta/3-\epsilon'}Q}-1\right)}{K\left(e^{jK^{\delta-1}Q}-1\right)}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Furthermore, since for $0 \leq \delta \leq 1$,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
e^{jK^{\delta-1}Q}-1=O_p\left(K^{\delta-1}\right),
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
then
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\big|(\Delta_r)_{1,2}\big| = \big|(\mathrm{C}_1)_{1,2}\big| ~O_p\left(K^{-\delta}\right),
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
which completes the proof of Claim 3 and consequently Claim 1.
For $r > K^{1-\delta/3-\epsilon'}$, similarly it can be verified that for each $K^{1-\delta/3-\epsilon'}$ consecutive terms,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\sum \limits_{i=t_1}^{t_2}e^{j \sum \limits_{s=i}^{r} \left(\Phi_{s,1}-\Phi_{s,2}\right)}=O_p\left(K^{1-\delta}\right),
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $t_2=t_1+K^{1-\delta/3-\epsilon'}$.
Hence
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
\big|(\Delta_r)_{1,2}\big|&=&\big|(\mathrm{C}_1)_{1,2}\big| ~O_p\left(K^{\delta/3+\epsilon'}K^{1-\delta}K^{-1}\right)\nonumber\\
&=&\big|(\mathrm{C}_1)_{1,2}\big| ~O_p\left(K^{-2\delta/3+\epsilon'}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
The above bound can be improved using the following approach. When $t$ consecutive terms form a geometric series, then
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rl}
\sum \limits_{i=m-t+1}^{m}&e^{j \sum \limits_{s=i}^{r} \left(\Phi_{s,1}-\Phi_{s,2}\right)}\nonumber \\
&= \frac{e^{j \sum \limits_{s=m-t }^{r} \left(\Phi_{s,1}-\Phi_{s,2}\right)}-e^{j \sum \limits_{s=m}^{r} \left(\Phi_{s,1}-\Phi_{s,2}\right)}}{e^{jK^{\delta-1}Q}-1}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
On the other hand, if $t_2-t_1 = K^{ 1-\delta/3+\epsilon'}$, then similar to the analysis in \eqref{eq:secondOrderD1},
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rl}
\sum \limits_{s=t_1}^{t_2-1}& \Phi_{s,\ell} \nonumber\\
=&(t_2-t_1)K^{\delta-1}Q_{\ell} \nonumber
\\
&+2\gamma \varepsilon \mathfrak{R}\left[X_{\ell}^* \left(\sum \limits_{s=1}^{t_1-1} (t_2-t_1) E_{s,\ell} +\sum \limits_{s=t_1}^{t_2-1} \left(t_2-s\right) E_{s,\ell} \right)\right] \nonumber\\
&+O_p\left((t_2-t_1)K^{\delta-1-\underline{\upsilon}(\delta)}\right)+O_p\left((t_2-t_1)K^{\frac{\delta-3}{2}}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
The second term on the RHS of the above relation is non-deterministic given the input and is of order
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\Omega_p \left((t_2-t_1)^{\frac{3}{2}} K^{\frac{\delta-3}{2}}\right) = \Omega_p\left( K^{\frac{3\epsilon'}{2}}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
This concludes that this term grows as $K \rightarrow \infty$. It can be verified that in general if $A=B\cdot Z$, where $B$ is a constant and $Z$ is a random variable with continuous PDF, then as $B \rightarrow \infty$, $\mod(A,2\pi) \rightarrow \mathcal{U}(0,2\pi)$. Consequently
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mod\left(\sum \limits_{s=t_1}^{t_2-1} \left(\Phi_{s,1}-\Phi_{s,2}\right),2\pi \right) \rightarrow \mathcal{U}(0,2\pi).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Hence, the summation of terms with a distance more than $K^{ 1-\delta/3+\epsilon'}$ can be considered as the summation of independent random variables. Using central limit theorem yields
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
\big|(\Delta_r)_{1,2}\big|&=& \big|(\mathrm{C}_1)_{1,2}\big| ~O_p\left(K^{2\epsilon'}K^{\delta/6}K^{1-\delta}K^{-1}\right)\nonumber \\
&=&O_p\left(K^{-5\delta/6+2\epsilon'}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
This completes the proof of Claim 1.
$\bullet$ \emph{Case $1\leq \delta<1.5$:}
Similar to the previous case, first assume that $r\leq K^{1-\delta/3-\epsilon'}$. For $i \in [r-1]$, due to the assumption of the induction \eqref{eq:uDelta}, $\underline{\upsilon}(\delta)\geq 1-g$. Since $1-\delta/3<2-\delta$, then it can be verified similar to the previous case that the restrictive term is the signal-noise interaction term and \eqref{eq:arithSum} (Claim 2) holds. Hence,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\sum \limits_{i=1}^{r}e^{j \sum \limits_{s=i}^r \left(\Phi_{s,1}-\Phi_{s,2}\right)}
= \frac{e^{j\left(\Phi_{1,1}-\Phi_{2,2}\right)}\left(e^{jr K^{\delta-1}Q}-1\right)}{K\left(e^{jK^{\delta-1}Q}-1\right)}.~\label{eq:oscillation}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
For $\delta>1$, the term $1/(e^{jK^{\delta-1}Q}-1)$ is an oscillating function which is of order $O_p(K^g)$, which concludes that $\underline{\upsilon}(\delta)=1-g$ for $r$ steps as well, $r\leq K^{1-\delta/3-\epsilon'}$. This proves Claim~3 and consequently Claim~1 for $r\leq K^{1-\delta/3-\epsilon'}$.
For $r> K^{1-\delta/3-\epsilon'}$, similar to the previous case it can be verified that sum of each $K^{1-\delta/3-\epsilon'}$ consecutive terms is $O_p(K^{g})$. Thus,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\big|(\Delta_r)_{1,2}\big|= \big|(\mathrm{C}_1)_{1,2}\big| ~O_p\left(K^{\delta/3-1+g+\epsilon'}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Furthermore, using the central limit theorem, this bound can be improved to
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\big|(\Delta_r)_{1,2}\big|= \big|(\mathrm{C}_1)_{1,2}\big| ~O_p\left(K^{\delta/6-1+g+2\epsilon'}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Finally, note that for absolutely continuous inputs, $g=o_p(1)$ and $O_p\left(K^{\delta/6-1+g+2\epsilon'}\right)=O_p\left(K^{\delta/6-1+2\epsilon'}\right)$. This completes the proof of Claim 1.
$\bullet$ \emph{Case $1.5\leq \delta<2$:}
Since $2-\delta<1-\delta/3$, in this regime, the intra-channel term is the restrictive term. In this case, it can be verified that $r\leq K^{2-\delta-\epsilon'}$ consecutive terms form geometric series and their sum is $O_p(K^g)$ (Claims 2 and 3).
Hence, to show Claim 1, $\big|(\Delta_r)_{1,2}\big|$ can be bounded as:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
\big|(\Delta_r)_{1,2}\big|&=& \big|(\mathrm{C}_1)_{1,2}\big| ~O_p\left(K^{2\epsilon'+g}K^{\frac{1-(2-\delta)}{2}}K^{-1}\right)\nonumber \\
&=&\big|(\mathrm{C}_1)_{1,2}\big| ~O_p\left(K^{\delta/2-1.5+g+2\epsilon'}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Note that similar to the previous case, $g=o_p(1)$ for absolutely continuous inputs and hence $O_p\left(K^{\delta/2-1.5+g+2\epsilon'}\right)=O_p\left(K^{\delta/2-1.5+2\epsilon'}\right)$.
$\bullet$ \emph{Cases $2\leq \delta< 3$ and $3\leq\delta$:} For these cases, first we argue that when \eqref{eq:inductionAssumption} holds, then as $K \rightarrow \infty$, $\mod\left(\Phi_{r,\ell},2\pi\right)\rightarrow \mathcal{U}(0,2\pi)$, independent of $\left(\Phi_{i,\ell}\right)_{i=1}^{r-1}$. In other words, in this regime as $K \rightarrow \infty$, SSFM channel tends to the finite dispersion fading channel, except for the first segment and when $2<\delta <3$, which is negligible. This, concludes that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\Delta_r=\frac{O_p\left(\sqrt{r}\right)}{K}=O_p\left(K^{-1/2}\right),
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
which completes the proof of Claim 1. Note that Claims 2 and 3 are valid only for $\delta<2$.
For $2\leq \delta<3$, the second phase operator is equal to
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
\Phi_{2,\ell} &=& \gamma \mu\sum \limits_{t=1}^{M} \Big|X_{\ell}+\frac{\left(\mathrm{C}_1\vc{X}\right)_{\ell}}{K}+\vc{Z}_1+O_p\left(\frac{1}{K^2}\right) +W_{2,\ell}(t)\Big|^2 \nonumber \\
&\approx& \gamma \varepsilon |X_{1,\ell}|^2+\frac{\gamma \mathcal{L}}{K^2}X_{1,\ell}\left(\mathrm{C}_1\vc{X}\right)_{\ell} .
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
For i.i.d. inputs, the second term induces a stochastic impairment that grows if $\delta > 2$ and when $K \rightarrow \infty$.
Hence, as $K \rightarrow \infty$, each step will be reduced to uniform phase noise. Similarly, after $r$ steps, there would be a stochastic impairment of order $\frac{\sqrt{i}}{K}\|X\|_4$. Thus, the channel (except for the first segment) is equivalent to the fading channel.
For $3\leq \delta$, SSFM channel tends to the fading channel for any input distribution that escapes to infinity, as $K \rightarrow \infty$. To show this, first using the assumption of the induction, for $1 \leq i \leq r$, we have
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
|V_{i,\ell}|=K^{\delta/2} |\vc{X}'_\ell|+O_p\left(K^{\delta/2-0.5}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Hence, the second term of $ \Phi_{i,1}$, \textit{i.e.} $2 \gamma \varepsilon \sqrt{\varepsilon} \mathfrak{R}(V_{i,\ell} Z_{i,\ell}^{'*})$, which conditioned on other segments and coordinates is not deterministic, grows unboundedly. Thus, $\mod\left(\Phi_{i,\ell},2\pi\right) \rightarrow \mathcal{U}(0,2\pi)$. This completes the proof.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{th:mainThSSFM}}\label{pr:mainThComp}
First we show \eqref{eq:capacity-a} holds. Let $\vc{Y}'_K\triangleq \mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta}')\vc{Y}_K$, where $\theta'_{\ell} \widesim{\text{i.i.d}}\mathcal{U}(0,2\pi)$. Due to data processing inequality
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
I(\vc{Y}_K;\vc{X}) \geq I(\vc{Y}'_K;\vc{X}).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
In the following, we establish a lower bound on the channel $\vc{X} \mapsto \vc{Y}'_K$.
The channel $\vc{X} \mapsto \vc{Y}'_K$ when $K \rightarrow \infty$, is
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\vc{Y}'_K=\mathsf{M}'_K \vc{X}+\vc{Z}, \label{eq:Mprime}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathsf{M}'_K\stackrel{p}{=}e^{\zeta}\mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta})+O_p\left(K^{-\upsilon(\delta)+\epsilon'}\right),
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\theta_l \sim \mathcal{U}(0,2\pi)$, independent of $\vc{X}$.
If $\upsilon(\delta)<\frac{1}{2}\delta$, then for sufficiently small value of $\epsilon'$, the term $O\left(K^{-\upsilon(\delta)+\epsilon'}\right)\vc{X}$ vanishes as $K \rightarrow \infty$ and the channel tends to $n$ independent phase noise channels. The lower bound \eqref{eq:capacity-a} on $\mathcal{C}(\snr,\sqrt[\delta]{\snr})$ for $0 \leq \delta \leq 3/2$ can be then established similar to Theorem~\ref{th:asymCapFadingFinDis}.
If $\upsilon(\delta)> \frac{1}{2}\delta$, an approach similar to that in the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:fadingHighPowerdG1} can be applied. The output entropy $h(\mathbf{Y}'_K)$ can be bounded as in \eqref{eq:outputEntropy}. Bounding the conditional part also follows similarly as in the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:fadingHighPowerdG1}, with the difference that the defined variable $T_{\ell}$ is not anymore Gaussian and is a random variable with bounded variance $\sigma^2_{T_{\ell}}$. Applying the maximum entropy theorem and letting $\epsilon' \rightarrow 0$, the conditional entropy can be similarly bounded as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
h(Y'_{K,\ell}|\mathbf{X}) &\leq &
\log_2\left(\frac{2e^{\zeta}\pi}{K^{\upsilon(\delta)}}\right)+O\left(\sqrt{\frac{K}{\mathcal{P}}}\right)+O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{K}}\right)\nonumber\\
&&+ \mathbb{E}\left[\log_2\left(|X_{\ell}|\norm{\mathbf{X}}_4\right)\right]+\frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(2\pi e \sigma^2_{T_{\ell}} \right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
This relation together with \eqref{eq:outputEntropy} and \eqref{eq:cEntropySum}, and letting $\vc{X}=\mathcal{N}_{\mathbb{C}}(0,\mathcal{P}\mathrm{I}_n)$, shows that \eqref{eq:capacity-a} holds also for $\upsilon(\delta) \geq \frac{1}{2}\delta$.
Now, to show \eqref{eq:bound-a}, first note that similar to the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:mainThSSFM-ex} for the case of $\delta < 1$, for any $\epsilon'$ when $\snr/K \rightarrow 0$ and $\snr \rightarrow \infty$, we have
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
\mathsf{M}_K&=&e^{\zeta+jd} \mathsf{S}_K+O_p\left(K^{-\frac{5}{6}\log_{K}(\snr) + \epsilon'\log_{K}(\snr)}\right) \nonumber \\
&=&e^{\zeta+jd} \mathsf{S}_K+O_p\left(\snr^{-5/6+ \epsilon'}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Next, by considering $\vc{X}\mapsto \vc{Y}'_K$, as in \eqref{eq:Mprime}, we have
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathsf{M}'_K\stackrel{p}{=}e^{\zeta}\mathsf{R}(\boldsymbol{\theta})+O_p\left(\snr^{-5/6+ \epsilon'}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Hence, by choosing input as $\mathcal{N}(0,\mathcal{P}\mathrm{I}_n)$, we have
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{cl}
\lim_{\snr \rightarrow \infty} \lim_{K \rightarrow \infty} \Big[\mathcal{C}(\snr,K)-\frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(1+ \snr\right)&+\frac{1}{2}\log_2(a)\Big] \nonumber \\
&\geq 0.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
This completes the proof.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{subfigure}{\columnwidth}
\centering
\includestandalone[scale=0.4]{tikz/CapacityQAM16B20}
\caption{$\mathcal{B}=20 \text{ GHz}$}
\label{fig:CapacityQAM16B20}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{\columnwidth}
\centering
\includestandalone[scale=0.4]{tikz/CapacityQAM16B5}
\caption{$\mathcal{B}=5 \text{ GHz}$}
\label{fig:CapacityQAM16B5}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{AIR of the SSFM channel with large $K$ and back-propagation.}
\label{fig:capacity}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includestandalone[scale=0.5]{tikz/scatterNoiseConstellation}
&
\includestandalone[scale=0.5]{tikz/scatterNoise30dB}
\\
(a) Symbols at TX. & (b) RX, $\snr=30$ dB.
\\[4mm]
\includestandalone[scale=0.5]{tikz/scatterNoise50dB}
&
\includestandalone[scale=0.5]{tikz/scatterNoise75dB}
\\
(c) RX, $\snr = 50$ dB. & (d) RX, $\snr=75$ dB.
\end{tabular}
\caption{Normalized constellation for the SSFM channel at $\mathcal{B}=20 \text{GHz}$.
(a) Transmitted symbols. (b--d) Received symbols at several SNRs.
}
\label{fig:scatterNoise}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{subfigure}{\columnwidth}
\centering
\includestandalone[scale=0.5]{tikz/divergenceFromoHaarOriginal}
\caption{Finite dispersion.}
\label{fig:divergenceFromoHaarOriginal}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{\columnwidth}
\centering
\includestandalone[scale=0.5]{tikz/convergenceToHaarInf}
\caption{Infinite dispersion.}
\label{fig:convergenceToHaarInf}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Empirical PDF of $|(\mathsf{M}_K)_{1,1}|$ for the finite- and infinite- dispersion fading channel. }
\end{figure*}
\section{Capacity Simulation}
\label{sec:simulations}
The capacity results in Section~\ref{sec:CapacityResultsExt} are supported by numerical simulation, presented in this section.
We compute the maximum AIR by simulation, and compare that with the
upper and lower bound \eqref{eq:ub} and \eqref{eq:mainThSSFM}. Furthermore, we investigate the properties of the random matrix $M_K$; in particular we demonstrate that $M_K$ tends to a diagonal
matrix if $K$ is sufficiently large.
\subsection{Achievable information rate}
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Fiber parameters}
\label{tab:params}
\centerline{\begin{tabular}{c|l|l}
$\alpha$ & $0.2$ dB/km & {\footnotesize fiber loss} \\
$D$ & 17 ps/(nm-km) & {\footnotesize chromatic dispersion} \\
$\gamma$ & $1.27~{\rm W}^{-1}{\rm km}^{-1}$ & {\footnotesize nonlinearity parameter} \\
NF & 3 dB & {\footnotesize noise figure}\\
$h$ & $6.626 \times 10^{-34} {\rm J} \cdot {\rm s}$ & {\footnotesize Planck's constant} \\
$\lambda_0$ & $1.55~\mu{\rm m}$ & {\footnotesize carrier wavelength}
\end{tabular}}
\end{table}
We consider an SSFM channel corresponding to a discretization of a fiber with parameters given in Tab.~\ref{tab:params}, $\mathcal{L}=2000 {\rm km}$, and $\mathcal{B}=20 \text{ GHz}$ and $\mathcal{B}=5 \text{ GHz}$, resulting in $\sigma^2=1.2\times 10^{-13} \text{ J/m}$ and $\sigma^2=3\times 10^{-14} \text{ J/m}$, respectively.
We assume that fiber loss is perfectly compensated with distributed amplification,
and choose time parameters $\Delta_t=1/\mathcal{B}$ and $n=4096$.
Each element of the input vector is chosen i.i.d. from a uniformly-spaced multi-ring constellation with $m_A$ rings and 8 points in phase.
The AIR is computed with equalization. Given output $\vc{Y}$, back-propagation is applied to obtain $\hat{\vc{Y}}$. The per-sample conditional PDF $p_{\hat{Y}_1|X_1}(\hat{y}_1|x_1)$ is numerically computed by averaging over all samples. The maximum of $I(X_1; \hat Y_1)$ over the input PDF provides a lower bound on the capacity
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\mathcal{C}(\text{SNR})&\geq& \frac{1}{n} I(\vc{X};\hat{\vc{Y}}) \nonumber
\\
&\geq& I(X_1; \hat Y_1),
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where the last inequality holds for i.i.d. input.
Fig. \ref{fig:capacity}(a) shows the maximum AIR as a function of the launch power and $\snr$ for $\mathcal{B}=20$ GHz.
It can be seen that the AIR is close to the upper bound \eqref{eq:ub} in the low \snr\ regime $0\leq \snr\leq 15$ dB, and then, following a drop, increases again, approaching the lower bound \eqref{eq:mainThSSFM} as the \snr\ is increased.
The AIR tends to infinity along the lower bound, which appears to be tight in our simulations.
Fig.~\ref{fig:capacity}(b) shows the convergence of the AIR to the lower bound at high powers for $\mathcal{B}=5$ GHz. Note that dispersion is stronger for larger bandwidth. As a consequence, the
stochastic ISI and the drop in the AIR are lower in Fig.~\ref{fig:capacity}(b) compared to those in Fig.~\ref{fig:capacity}(a).
Fig.~\ref{fig:scatterNoise} helps explain Fig. \ref{fig:capacity}(a), showing a number of symbols in the constellation at the transmitter (TX) and receiver (RX).
In the regime $\snr <38\textnormal{dB} $, the received symbols are localized around the transmitted symbols, and the AIR is between the upper and lower bounds \eqref{eq:ub} and \eqref{eq:mainThSSFM}.
In the medium \snr\ regime $45\textnormal{dB}<\snr <55 \textnormal{dB}$, the received symbols are almost independent of the transmitted symbol, resulting in almost zero AIR.
Finally, in the high \snr\ regime $\snr>75\textnormal{dB}$, the phase of the received symbols conditioned on the transmitted symbol is uniform; however the amplitude is now localized, limited by an additive ASE noise.
The AIR in this regime is $(1/2)\log_2(1+\snr)-1/2+o(1)$.
The analysis in Section~\ref{sec:CapacityResultsExt} shows that the SSFM model tends to a diagonal one for sufficiently large $K$ without equalization. Both deterministic and stochastic ISI tend to zero with $K$.
Simulation of the AIR without equalization shows a pattern similar to that in Fig. \ref{fig:capacity}, although
the value of the AIR is smaller due to deterministic ISI.
It follows that the AIR follows a double-ascent curve. As previously known, the AIR has an inverted bell curve shape, which corresponds to the range $\snr\leq 43$ dB in
Fig. \ref{fig:capacity} (a). The existence of an optimal power in this range is attributed to a balance between the ASE noise and stochastic ISI. However, if \snr\ is further increased, the ISI eventually averages out to zero as proved in Lemma~\ref{lem:mainThSSFM-ex}. This gives rise to the second ascent in the AIR, where the AIR approaches the rate of an interference-free phase noise channel.
Note that equalization using back-propagation improves the AIR at low-to-medium SNRs by canceling the deterministic component of the inter-symbol inference (ISI). At high SNRs there is no benefit in applying equalization as the model is already ISI-free. However, if equalization is applied, the model remains diagonal since the phase at the input of the equalizer is uniform conditioned on the channel input.
\subsection{Conditional PDF in the Fading Channel}
In this and the next section, we verify the properties of the
conditional PDF in the fading and SSFM channels. As the input is
multi-dimensional, we compute the distribution of specific entries of the channel matrix $\mathsf M$.
In the first experiment, we simulate the random matrix $\mathsf M_k$ \eqref{def:matrixMk} for finite dispersion case with zero loss, $n=32$,
and for values of $b_{\ell}$ in \eqref{def:dispersions} with $T =50$, $\beta_2=-2$, and $\mathcal{L}=1/4$. Fig~\ref{fig:divergenceFromoHaarOriginal} shows that the empirical PDF of $W \triangleq |(\mathsf{M}_K)_{1,1}|$ converges to the Dirac delta function $\delta(W-1)$, which is explained by Lemma~\ref{lem:asymDistK}. For these choices of parameters, $b_{\ell}$ are small and the PDF of $|(\mathsf{M}_K)_{1,1}|$ tends to $\delta(W-1)$ as $K$ increases.
In the second experiment, the random matrix $\mathsf M_k$ \eqref{def:matrixMk} is simulated for infinite dispersion case with zero loss and $n=32$. The values of $b_{\ell}$ are chosen to be numbers in the interval $(0,\pi/3]$ such that the matrix $\mathrm{D}$ becomes a non-block diagonal matrix. Fig~\ref{fig:convergenceToHaarInf} shows that the empirical PDF of $W \triangleq |(\mathsf{M}_K)_{1,1}|$ converges to the PDF of $\hat{W}=|\mathsf{M}_{1,1}|$, where $\mathsf{M}$ is distributed according to the Haar measure over the group of unitary matrices. This supports the result of Lemma~\ref{lem:haarMeasure}. Note that, by Theorem~\ref{th:pdfFirstColumn} in Appendix~\ref{sec:math}, $P_{\hat{W}}(\hat{w})=2(n-1)\hat{w}(1-\hat{w}^2)^{n-2}$.
In the third experiment, the first simulation is repeated with the same parameters except with $\mathcal{L}=25$, which results in larger absolute values for $b_{\ell}$. In this case, as $K$ is increased, the empirical PDF of $W$ first, very fast as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:firstConvegenceToHaar}, gets close to the PDF of $\hat{W}$, which by Lemma~\ref{lem:haarMeasure} corresponds to the PDF of $|(\mathsf{M}_K)_{1,1}|$ in infinite dispersion fading channel when $K \rightarrow \infty$. Hence, it seems that when $|b_{\ell}|$ are not small, the PDF of $|(\mathsf{M}_K)_{1,1}|$ in the fading channel with finite dispersion is similar to the infinite dispersion case.
As $K$ is further increased, the distribution of $\mathsf{M}_K$ gets far from PDF of $\hat{W}$; as a consequence,
as it can be observed in Fig.~\ref{fig:divergenceFromoHaar}, the PDF of $W$ tends to $\delta(W-1)$ rather than \eqref{eq:PW1}.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{subfigure}{\columnwidth}
\centering
\includestandalone[scale=0.5]{tikz/firstConvegenceToHaar}
\caption{First, PDF gets close to Haar distribution.}
\label{fig:firstConvegenceToHaar}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{\columnwidth}
\centering
\includestandalone[scale=0.5]{tikz/divergenceFromoHaar}
\caption{Then, PDF converges to $\delta(w-1)$.}
\label{fig:divergenceFromoHaar}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Empirical PDF of $|(\mathsf{M}_K)_{1,1}|$ for finite dispersion.}
\label{fig:exampleFadingHaarDirac}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includestandalone[scale=0.5]{tikz/SSFMN32}
\caption{Empirical PDF of $|Y_1| /|X_1|$ for SSFM channel with $n=32$.}
\label{fig:SSFMN32}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Conditional PDF in the SSFM Channel}
We verify that the SSFM channel is nearly diagonal when $K$ is sufficiently large.
In the first experiment, we simulate a lossless channel with 1000 realizations of the noise and large input $X_{\ell}\widesim{\text{i.i.d.}}10^8(\mathcal{U}(0,1)+0.7)$. We compute the empirical PDF of $|Y_1|/|X_1|$ to show it converges to the Dirac Delta function. Similarly this holds for any $i\in [n]$.
The number of spatial segments $K$ is chosen as follows.
%
Considering the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:asymDistK} in Section \ref{sec:proof}, the SSFM model is diagonal when $\mathrm{C}_1/\sqrt{K}$ is small, where the matrix $\mathrm{C}_1$ is defined in \eqref{eq:C-i}. Hence, $\frac{1}{\sqrt{K}}\max\limits_{\ell}|d_{\ell}|$ should be small, \emph{e.g.,}\ less than $0.1$. For the normalized NLS equation in \cite{yousefi2012nft1}, $\max \limits_{\ell}|d_{\ell}|=\left(n \pi/T\right)^2$. Letting $T=50$, we obtain $K \geq 16(n/10)^4$.
\paragraph*{Example n=32} In this case, $K > 1500$. Fig.~\ref{fig:SSFMN32}, shows that the empirical PDF of $|Y_1|/|X_1|$ is concentrated around 1, with $\sigma^2=5\times 10^{-5}$. This supports the relation $|Y_1|=|X_1|$ with probability one as $K\rightarrow\infty$.
\paragraph*{Example n=1024} In this case, $K > 1.7\times 10^9$ and simulation is infeasible. However, if we reduce $d_{\ell}$ by factor 100 (or 400), we obtain $K > 10^4$ (or $K > 1.7\times 10^5$). Fig.~\ref{fig:SSFMN1024D400} shows the empirical PDF of $|Y_1|/|X_1|$ for several values of $K$ and $\sigma^2=1.5\times 10^{-3}$, demonstrating $|Y_1| \approx |X_1|$.
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\begin{subfigure}{\columnwidth}
\centering
\includestandalone[scale=0.5]{tikz/SSFMN1024D100}
\caption{Dispersion values $b_{\ell}$ divided by 100, $\forall l$. }
\label{fig:SSFMN1024D100}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{\columnwidth}
\centering
\includestandalone[scale=0.5]{tikz/SSFMN1024D400}
\caption{Dispersion values $b_{\ell}$ divided by 400, $\forall l$.}
\label{fig:SSFMN1024D400}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Empirical PDF of $|Y_1|/|X_1|$ for SSFM channel with $n=1024$ and dispersion values divided by 100 and 400.}
\label{fig:fig:SSFMN1024D}
\end{figure*}
In the second experiment, we investigate the rate of convergence of the SSFM channel to the diagonal phase noise model. We consider the normalized SSFM with $n=32$, $K=10^4$, $\sigma^2=5\times 10^{-5}$, and 1000 realizations of the noise and input $X_{\ell}\widesim{\text{i.i.d.}}\sqrt{\frac{\mathcal P}{1.5}}(\mathcal{U}(0,1)+0.7)$, where $\mathcal{P}=K^{\delta}$, for $0 \leq \delta \leq 4$.
From Lemma~\ref{lem:mainThSSFM-ex} and \eqref{eq:phiGeneral}, the rate of convergence of $\mathsf{M}_K$ to $e^{\zeta+jd}\mathsf{S}_K$ is
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\underline{\upsilon}(\delta)\triangleq-\log_K\left(\frac{1}{K}\sum \limits_{i=1}^{r}e^{j \sum \limits_{\ell=i}^K \left(\Phi_{\ell,1}\right)}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:orderConvergence}, $\underline{\upsilon}(\delta)$ is simulated. The results are compatible with Lemma~\ref{lem:mainThSSFM-ex} stating $\underline{\upsilon}(\delta) > {\upsilon}(\delta)-\epsilon'$ for any $\epsilon'>0$, where $\upsilon(\delta)$ is defined in \eqref{def:upsilonDelta}. Moreover, it can be seen in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:mainThSSFM-ex} that for small values of $\sigma^2\mathcal{L}$, the signal-noise mixing may not be dominant except for very large $K \gg \left(\gamma \mathcal{L}^{3/2} \sigma\right)^{-2/\delta}$.
When $\gamma \mathcal{L}^{3/2} \sigma K^{\delta/2}$ is small, $\underline{\upsilon}(\delta)$ can be lower bounded as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\underline{\upsilon}(\delta)+\epsilon'\geq \begin{cases}
\IEEEstrut
\delta,& 0 \leq \delta \leq 1,\\
1.5-\delta/2-g,& 1 \leq \delta \leq 2 \;\; \\
&\text{and i.i.d. input}, \\
0.5,& 2 \leq \delta \leq 3 \;\; \\
& \text{and i.i.d. input},\\
0.5,& 3 \leq \delta,
\IEEEstrut
\end{cases} \label{def:upsilonDeltaLowrange}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
which is compatible with the simulation result in Fig.~\ref{fig:orderConvergence}. The oscillation for $1\leq \delta \leq 2$ is also explained by the vanishing oscillating term $1/(e^{jK^{\delta-1}Q}-1)$ in \eqref{eq:oscillation} in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:mainThSSFM-ex}.
In the last experiment, the effect of loss is examined. The previous experiment is repeated with fixed $\delta=0.6$ and $\zeta=-1.35$. For $K=100$, $K=1000$, and $K=1000$, the convergence rate $\underline{\upsilon}(\delta)$ are is $0.463$, $0.512$, and $0.534$, respectively. This is explained by \eqref{eq:lossEffect}, implying that for $0<\delta<1$ and small noise power, $\underline{\upsilon}(\delta)=\delta+2a\zeta/\ln{K}\rightarrow \delta$, where $a$ is a value less than 1. In our experiment, $a\approx 0.23$.
\section{Conclusion} \label{sec:conc}
The capacity of the discrete-time SSFM model of optical fiber is considered as a function of the average input signal power $\snr$, when the number of spatial segments in SSFM is sufficiently large as $K = \sqrt[\delta]{\snr}$, $\delta>0$.
First, we obtained the capacity lower bound \eqref{eq:capacity-a} and characterized the pre-log as a function of $\delta$.
In particular, we showed that $\mathcal{C}(\snr)\geq \frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(1+\snr\right)- \frac{1}{2}+o(1)$, where $o(1)$ vanishes as $\snr \rightarrow \infty $.
As a result, the number of signal DoFs is at least half of the input dimension.
Second, it is shown that the
capacity of the continuous-space SSFM channel when $\gamma \rightarrow \infty$ is $\frac{1}{2}\log_2(1+a\, \snr)+o(1)$. Hence, the number of signal DoFs is exactly half of the input dimension.
Third, we considered the SSFM model, named as infinite-dispersion, where the dispersion matrix in each segment does not depend on $K$.
It is shown that if $K= \sqrt[\delta]{\snr}$, $\delta>3$, then $\mathcal{C}(\snr,\sqrt[\delta]{\snr}) = \frac{1}{2n}\log_2(1+\snr)+O(1)$, where $O(1)$ term is bounded as $\snr \rightarrow \infty$. Here, there is exactly one signal DoF.
Finally, AIRs of the SSFM model with back-propagation equalization are obtained numerically. The results show that while the AIR drops significantly in the medium $\snr$ regime due to a considerable stochastic ISI, it asymptotically converges to $\frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(1+\snr\right)- \frac{1}{2}+o(1)$, explained by the fact that ISI vanishes at high \snr s.
\appendices
\section{Mathematical Preliminaries} \label{sec:math}
\subsection{Spherical Coordinate System}
The $n$-dimensional spherical coordinate system is described by a radius, $r$, and $n-1$ angles $\theta_{\ell}$, $\ell\in[n-1]$, where $\theta_{\ell}\in[0,\pi]$ for $\ell\in[n-2]$, and $\theta_{n-1}\in[0,2\pi)$. A vector $\vc{x}\in \mathbb{R}^n$ can be written in the spherical coordinate as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rcl}
x_1&=&r\cos(\theta_1), \nonumber\\
x_{\ell}&=&r\cos(\theta_{\ell})\prod \limits_{r=1}^{\ell-1} \sin(\theta_{r}) ,~\ell = 2,\ldots,n-2 \nonumber\\
x_{n-1}&=&r\prod \limits_{r=1}^{n-1} \sin(\theta_{r}).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Alternatively, we denote $\vc{x}$ by its norm $\norm{\vc{x}}$ and direction $\hat{\vc{x}}=\vc{x}/\norm{\vc{x}}$ on the surface of the $n-1$-sphere
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathcal{S}^{n-1}=\left\{\vc{x} \in \mathbb{R}^n: \norm{x}=1\right\}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Complex vectors in $\mathbb{C}^n$ can be similarly represented.
\subsection{Groups}
The reader is referred to \cite{Quint14,Breuillard04,Stromberg60} for background on group theory.
For a group $G$, notation $H \leq G$ is used to say that $H$ is a subgroup of $G$ and $gH$ and $Hg$ are respectively the left coset and right coset of $H$ w.r.t. $g\in G$.
A probability measure on $G$ is a non-negative, real-valued, countably additive, regular Borel measure $\mu$ on $G$, such that $\mu(G)=1$. The support of $\mu$, denoted by $\mathcal{S}({\mu})$ is the smallest closed subset of $G$ of $\mu$-measure.
A probability measure $\mu$ on $G$ is said to be (normally) aperiodic if its support is not contained in a (left or right) coset of a proper closed (normal) subgroup of $G$.
\paragraph{Group of Unitary Matrices} The group that we are interested in this paper is the group of unitary matrices. A matrix $\mathrm{U}\in\mathbb{C}^{n\times n}$ is unitary if
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathrm{U} \mathrm{U}^H= \mathrm{U}^H \mathrm{U}=\mathrm{I}_n,
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\mathrm{U}^H$ denotes the conjugate transpose of $\mathrm{U}$. The set of unitary matrices in $\mathbb{C}^{n\times n}$ with matrix multiplication forms a group $\mathbb{U}_n$, which is a compact Lie group.
The following theorem is a re-statement of \cite[Thm.~1]{Borevich81}, bringing parts of its proof to the theorem statement.
\begin{theorem} \label{th:Borevich}
Suppose that a subgroup $\mathbb{H} \leq \mathbb{U}_n$ contains the subgroup of diagonal matrices.
Let $\nu$ be a binary relation on $\mathcal{I}_n=\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$ defined as follows: $\forall r,s\in[n]$, $r \widesim{\nu} s$ if and only if there exists a matrix $\mathrm{A} \in \mathbb{H}$ and
$ t \in[n]$ such that $\mathrm{A}_{r,t} \neq 0$ and $\mathrm{A}_{s,t} \neq 0$.
Then, we have
\begin{itemize}
\item[i.] $\nu$ is an equivalence relation on $\mathcal{I}_n$,
\item[ii.]$\mathbb{U}_n(\nu) \leq \mathbb{H}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Haar Measure}
This subsection is borrowed mainly from \cite{Meckes04}. Haar measure can be seen as an extension of the notion of the uniform random variable over an interval.
The extension is based on the shift-invariant property of the uniform random variable. If $X\sim \mathcal{U}(0,a)$, then for any $b\in\mathbb R$, $\mod(X+b,a)\sim \mathcal U(0,a)$.
Consider defining uniform distribution on the circle $\mathcal{S}^1$ in $\mathbb R^2$. Considering a circle as a geometric object, a “uniform random point on the circle” should be a complex random variable whose distribution is rotation invariant; that is, if $A\subseteq \mathcal{S}^1$, then the probability of the random point lying on $A$ should be the same as the probability that it lies on $e^{j\theta}A=\{e^{j\theta} a:a\in A\}$.
The uniform distribution $\mu$ on a group $G$ is called Haar measure on $G$, defined based on the``translation-invariant'' property as follows.
For a group $(G,\cdot)$, an element $g \in G$, and a Borel subset $\mathcal{S} \subseteq G$, the left translation of $\mathcal{S}$ by g is defined as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
g\mathcal{S}=\{g \cdot s: s \in \mathcal{S}\}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
A measure $\mu$ on the Borel subsets of $G$ is called left translation-invariant if for all Borel subsets $\mathcal{S} \subseteq G$ and all $g \in G$,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mu(g\mathcal{S})= \mu (\mathcal{S}).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Right translation and right translation-invariant are defined similarly.
There exists a unique Haar measure on any group.
The following theorem is proved in \cite[Lemma~2.1.]{Meckes04} for $G=\mathbb U_n$.
\begin{theorem} \label{th:existenceHaar}
There exists a unique (left or right) translation-invariant probability measure on $\mathbb{U}_n$, called Haar measure.
\end{theorem}
Let $\mathsf{M}\in\mathbb C^{n\times n}$ be a random unitary matrix, $W_{\ell} \triangleq |\mathsf{M}_{\ell,1}|$, and $\vc W= (W_1, \ldots, W_n)$.
\begin{theorem} \label{th:pdfFirstColumn}
Suppose that $\mathsf{M}$ is distributed according to Haar measure on the group of random unitary matrices. Then,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
P_{\vc{W}}(\vc{w})=2^{n-1}(n-1)! \prod \limits_{\ell=1}^{n-1} w_{\ell}.
\label{eq:PW}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $W_{\ell}=R_{\ell}+jT_{\ell}$, $R_{\ell},T_{\ell} \in \mathbb{R}$, $\ell \in [n]$. The vector
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{c}
\begin{pmatrix}
R_1,& \ldots,&R_n, & T_1,& \ldots, &T_n
\end{pmatrix}
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
has the uniform distribution over $S_{2n-1}$. From \cite[Eq.1.26.]{FangWangng18}, the joint distribution of $(R_1,T_1)$ is
\begin{equation*}
P_{R_1,T_1}(r_1,t_1)=\frac{\Gamma(n)}{\Gamma(n-1) \pi}\left( 1- (r_1^2+t_1^2)\right)^{n-2}.
\end{equation*}
Since the phase is uniform, we get
\begin{equation*}
P_{W_1}(w_1)=2(n-1)w_1 \left( 1- w_1^2\right)^{n-2}.
\end{equation*}
Similarly, the joint distribution of $(R_1^2,T_1^2)$ is
\begin{equation*}
P_{R_1^2,T_1^2}(r_1^2,t_1^2)=
\frac{\Gamma(n)}{\Gamma(n-2)\pi^2}\left( 1- (r_1^2+t_1^2+r_2^2+t_2^2)\right)^{n-3}.
\end{equation*}
Again since phase is uniform, then
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{rcl}
P_{W_1^2}(w_1^2)&=&2^2(n-1)(n-2)w_1w_2 \left( 1- (w_1^2+w_2^2)\right)^{n-3}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
The result can be similarly established for $W_1^n$ by induction.
\end{proof}
The joint PDF \eqref{eq:PW} gives the marginal $P_{W_1}(w_1)=g(w_1,n)$, where
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
g(w,n)\triangleq 2(n-1)w(1-w^2)^{n-2}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
The conditional PDFs for $\ell=2,\ldots, n$ are
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
P_{W_{\ell}|W_1^{\ell-1}}(w_{\ell}|w_1^{\ell-1})&=&
\Bigl(1-\sum \limits_{i=1}^{\ell-1}w_{i}^2\Bigr)^{-\frac{1}{2}} \label{eq:PW1}\\
&&
\times g\Bigl(
\Bigl(1-\sum \limits_{i=1}^{\ell-1}w_{i}^2\Bigr)^{-\frac{1}{2}} w_{\ell}
,n-\ell+1\Bigr).
\nonumber
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includestandalone[scale=0.5]{tikz/orderConvergence}
\caption{Rate of Convergence of SSFM channel to the diagonal model for $n=32$, $K=10^4$, and $\mathcal{P}=K^{\delta}$.}
\label{fig:orderConvergence}
\end{figure}
\begin{theorem} \label{th:independence}
Suppose that $\mathsf{M}\in\mathbb C^{n\times n}$ is distributed according to the Haar measure on $\mathbb U_n$ and $\vc{x} \in \mathbb{C}^n$ with $\norm{\vc{x}}=1$. Then, $P_{\mathsf{M}\mathbf{X}|\mathbf{X}}\left(\mathsf{M}\mathbf{x}|\mathbf{x}\right)$ is independent of $\mathbf{x}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Fix an orthonormal basis $V_1,\ldots,V_n$ of $\mathbb C^n$ such that $V_1=\mathbf{x}$. Denote the matrix with columns $V_i$ by $\mathrm{\Lambda}$. Assume that $\mathsf{M}$ is a unitary matrix distributed according to Haar measure. Define the map
$\Phi: \mathbb{C}^{n\times n} \mapsto \mathbb{C}^{n\times n}$ as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\mathsf{M}'=\mathsf{M}\Lambda.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Thus,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
P(\mathsf{M}\mathbf{x}|\mathbf{x})=P(\mathsf{M}'\mathbf{x}'|\mathbf{x}'=\left(1,0,\ldots,0\right)^T),
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Since $\Phi$ is invertible, then $\mathsf{M}'$ is also distributed according to Haar measure and
the RHS of above is derived in Theorem~\ref{th:pdfFirstColumn}. This proves that $P(\mathsf{M}\mathbf{x}|\mathbf{x})$ does not depend on $\vc{x}$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Random Walk on Groups}
This section is mainly from \cite{Breuillard04}. A random walk on a group $(G,\cdot)$ is
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
S_K=X_K\cdot X_{k-1} \cdots X_1, \quad K = 1, 2, \ldots,
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $X_i\widesim{\text{i.i.d}}\mu(G)$.
If $X$ and $y$ are random variables on $G$ with PDF $\mu$ and $\nu$ respectively, then PDF of $X \cdot Y$ is $\mu \convolution \nu$, where $\convolution$ denotes the convolution. Hence, the PDF of $S_K$ is the $K$-th convolution power of $\mu$, denoted by $\mu^{*K}$.
The following theorem is proved by Kawada and It\^{o} for compact metric groups \cite{KawadaIto40}. A more general version is proved by Stromberg in \cite[Thm.~3.3.5]{Stromberg60} for Hausdorff groups, where the aperiodic condition is replaced with the normally aperiodic condition.
\begin{theorem}[Kawada-It\^{o} and Stromberg] \label{th:kawadaItoStromberg}
Let $G$ be a compact Hausdorff groups and $H$ the smallest closed subgroup of $G$ which contains $\mathcal{S}(\mu)$. Then, $\lim \limits_{K \rightarrow \infty} \mu^{\convolution K} $ exists if and only if $\mu$ is a normally aperiodic probability measure on subgroup $H$. Moreover, if this limit exists, then it is the Haar measure on $H$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
See \cite[Thm.~3.3.5]{Stromberg60}.
\end{proof}
\section{Continuity of Mutual Information}
\begin{lemma}
The mutual information of the fading channel \eqref{def:fadingChannel} and the SSFM channel defined in Section \ref{sec:ssfmDef} with $K$ segments is a continuous function of $K$ at $K\rightarrow\infty$.
\label{lemm:continuity}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $K$ is an integer, mutual information $I(\vc X, \vc Y_K) $ is not a continuous function of $K$ when $K$ is finite. A small change in $\snr$ can change $K = \lfloor \sqrt[\delta]{\snr} \rfloor$ by one, and the model by one segment.
However,
mutual information is a continuous function at $K\rightarrow\infty$.
The proof is similar to the proof of the continuity of the output and conditional entropy in the zero-dispersion channel \cite[App.~I]{fahs2017capacity}, using the fact that the noise PDF, thus the output PDF induced by noise, vanishes exponentially. We sketch the steps for the SSFM channel.
The conditional PDF of one segment of SSFM is upper bounded
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{rCl}
p(\vc v_{2} |\vc x)\leq c'_1\sqrt{K} e^{-Kc_1\norm{\vc v_2- \vc x}^2},
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
where $0<c_1,c'_1<\infty$ do not depend on $K$.
The conditional PDF of $2$ segments satisfies
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{rCl}
p(\vc v_{3} |\vc x) &=& \int p(\vc v_{3} |\vc v_2) p(\vc v_{2} |\vc x) d \vc v_2
\\
&\leq& c'_2\sqrt{\frac{K}{2}} e^{-c_2\frac{K}{2}\norm{\vc v_3- \vc x}^2}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
The conditional PDF of $K$ segments is upper bounded as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
p(\vc y_{K} |\vc x)&\stackrel{\Delta}{=}&p(\vc v_{K+1} |\vc x)
\nonumber\\&\leq& c'_k e^{-c_k\norm{\vc y_K - \vc x}^2}.
\label{eq:pdf-upper}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Alternatively, the exponential upper bound on the PDF \eqref{eq:pdf-upper} can be obtained from the PDF of the norm which is known at the output \eqref{eq:conditionalFadingOutputNorm}.
We have
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{rCl}
\lim_{K\rightarrow \infty} h\bigl(\vc Y_{K} | \vc X=\vc x \bigr) &=& -\lim_{K\rightarrow\infty} \int p(\vc y_K | \vc x)\log p(\vc y_K | \vc x)\der \vc y_K
\nonumber\\
&\overset{(a)}{=}& -\int \lim_{K\rightarrow\infty} p(\vc y_K|\vc x)\log p(\vc y_K|\vc x) \der \vc y_K
\\&=&h\bigl(\lim_{K\rightarrow \infty} \vc Y_{K} | \vc X=\vc x \bigr),
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
uniformly over input. Step $(a)$ is obtained from applying the dominated convergence theorem using \eqref{eq:pdf-upper}
The continuity of $h\bigl(\vc Y_{K} \bigr)$ is shown similarly.
\end{proof}
\section*{Acknowledgement}
This work has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's
Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, Grant Agreement No. 805195.
The authors are greatly thankful to Emmanuel Breuillard for sharing his helpful ideas.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
\section{Holomorphic functions
and \L ojasiewicz exponents}
Consider a germ of an analytic function $f(\bfz)$ at the origin. There are two type of inequalities which are shown by S. \L ojasiewicz \cite{L1,L2}.
\begin{eqnarray}
\|\partial f(\mathbf z)\|&\ge& c |f(\mathbf z)|^\theta,\, c\ne 0, \,0 \le \exists\theta<1 \label{Loj-ineq},\,\forall\mathbf z\in U,\\
\|\partial f(\mathbf z)\|&\ge& c \|\mathbf z\|^\eta,\,c\ne 0,\, \exists\eta>0,\, \forall\mathbf z\in U
\end{eqnarray}
where $U$ is a sufficiently small neighborhood of the origin.
Here $\partial f(z)$ is the gradient vector
$(\frac{\partial f}{\partial z_1},\dots,\frac{\partial f}{\partial z_n})$.
These equalities hold in a sufficiently small neighborhood of the origin.
For the second inequality, $f(\mathbf z)$ must have an isolated singularity at the origin.
In our previous paper \cite{O-Lo}, we considered the exponent of the second \L ojasiewicz inequality
for a non-degenerate holomorphic function $f(\mathbf z)$
(or a mixed function $f(\mathbf z,\bar{\mathbf z})$) with an isolated singularity at the origin.
For further information about \L ojasiewicz inequality (2), we refer \cite{L1,L2,Ab1,Ab2, Br,B-K-O,Len,O-Lo,Oleksik,Oleksik2}.
In this paper, we are interested in the exponent of the type (1) for a certain type of holomorphic functions which may have non-isolated singularities at the origin.
This inequality has been originally studied by \L ojasiewicz \cite{L1,L2} and then
by many other authors. Most of the researches have been concentrated for the existence of the inequality in more general setting.
For example, in the papers \cite{Loi,Kurd, K-P}, the authors show the existence of \L ojasiewicz inequality for the o-minimal situation.
We study the exponent of the inequality (1) for a certain type of holomorphic functions which may have non-isolated singularities at the origin.
They are either non-degenerate functions or the product of convenient non-degenerate polynomials associated to a non-degenerate complete intersection variety.
The existence of \L ojasiewicz inequality is well-known for holomorphic functions (\cite{L1,L2}).
We are interested in the vanishing speed of the gradient vectors
$\partial f(\mathbf z)$ near the origin in comparison with that of the absolute
value of $f$ when $\mathbf z$ goes to the origin. Thus
we are mostly interested in the best possible $\theta$ which satisfies (1). This number is the infinimum of $\theta$'s which satisfy (1) and we denote it by $\theta_0(f)$
hereafter.
Let $\mathbf z(t)$ be an analytic curve with $\mathbf z(0)=\mathbf 0$ and $\mathbf z(t)\in \mathbb C^n\setminus f^{-1}(0)$ for $t\ne 0$.
Then we compare the order of the both side of
(1), after substituting $\mathbf z=\mathbf z(t)$ to get the inequality:
\begin{eqnarray*}
&{{{\ord}}}_t\|\partial f(\mathbf z(t))\|\le \theta\times {{{\ord}}}_t\,{f(\mathbf z(t))}\\
\end{eqnarray*}
or equivalently
\begin{eqnarray*}\label{racio}
\dfrac{{{{\ord}_t}}\,\|\partial f(\mathbf z(t))\|}{{{{\ord}_t}}f(\mathbf z(t))}\le \theta.\quad
\end{eqnarray*}
Using the Curve Selection Lemma (\cite{Milnor,Hamm}), $ \theta_0(f)$ can be understood as
the supremum of the left side ratios of the above inequality for all possible such curves $\mathbf z(t)$ and we call it {\em the \L ojasiewicz exponent} of the function $f$ for the \L ojasiewicz inequality
(1).
\section{Non-degenerate hypersurfaces}
\subsection{Dual Newton diagram} We consider an analytic function (or a polynomial)
\[
f(\mathbf z)=\sum_{\nu} c_\nu \mathbf z^\nu\]
defined in the neighborhood of the origin. Recall that the Newton polyhedron $\Ga_+(f)$ is the convex hull of
the union $\bigcup_{\nu,c_\nu\ne 0} \,(\nu+\mathbb R_+^n)$.
The Newton boundary $\Ga(f)$ is defined by the union of compact faces of $\Ga_+(f)$.
Let $N^+\subset \mathbb R^n$ be the space of non-negative weight vectors.
That is, a weight vector $P=(p_1,\dots,p_n)$ is in $ N^+$ if and only if $p_i\ge 0$. It defines linear function $\ell_P$ of the Newton polyhedron
$\Ga_+(f)$ by $\ell_P(\nu)=\sum_{i=1}^n p_i\nu_i$ for $\nu\in \Ga_+(f)$.
Its minimal value is denoted by $d(P,f)$
and the face of $\Ga_+(f)$, where this minimal value is taken, is denoted as $\De(P,f)$. If no ambiguity is likely, we simply denote it as $d(P)$ and $\De(P)$.
We recall an equivalence relation in $N^+$ which gives a polyhedral conical structure in $N^+$.
Two weight vectors $P,Q$ are {\em equivalent} if and only if $\De(P)=\De(Q)$ and this equivalence gives a conical
polyhedral subdivision of $N^+$ which we call {\em the dual Newton diagram} and denote it as $\Ga^*(f)$.
The equivalence class of $P$ is denoted as $[P]$.
\subsection{Vanishing and non-vanishing weight vectors}
For $I\subset\{1,\dots, n\}$, we put $\mathbb C^I=\{\mathbf z\,|\, z_j=0,\forall j\not\in I\}$. Thus $\mathbb C^I\subset \mathbb C^n$.
The subspace $\mathbf C^I$ is called {\em a vanishing coordinate subspace} if $f^I\equiv 0$.
Note that $f^I$ is the restriction of $f$ to $\mathbb C^I$.
Consider a weight vector $P=(p_1,\dots, p_n)$. Put $I(P):=\{i\,|\, p_i=0\}$. Assume that $I(P)\ne \emptyset$.
A weight vector $P$ is called {\em a vanishing weight vector} (respectively {\em non-vanishing weight vector}
if $d(P)>0$ (resp. if $d(P)=0$).
Thus $\mathbb C^{I(P)}$ is a vanishing coordinate subspace if $P$ is a vanishing weight vector.
We denote the sets of strictly positive weight vectors (i.e. $I(P)=\emptyset$), vanishing weight vectors and non-vanishing weight vectors by $\mathcal W_+(f),\,\mathcal W_v(f)$ and
$\mathcal W_{nv}(f)$ respectively. Hereafter we simply denote them as $\mathcal W_+,\,\mathcal W_v,\,\mathcal W_{nv}$, if no ambiguity is likely.
\subsection{Convexity of the equivalence class}
Let $P$ be a weight vector in $N^+$ and let $[P]$ the set of equivalent weight vectors. The equivalence class $[P]$ is the
interior of a polyhedral convex cone in $N^+$
and $\dim\,[P]=n-\dim\,\De(P)$. This follows from the obvious equality:
\[\begin{split}
\De(P)\cap\De(Q)&\ne \emptyset \implies\\
&\De((1-t)P+tQ)=\De(P)\cap\De(Q),\quad 0< t< 1.
\end{split}
\]
Put ${\LS}(P,Q):=\{(1-t)P+tQ\,|\, 0\le t\le 1\}$
and we call ${\LS}(P,Q)$ {\em the line segment with ends $P,Q$}.
Consider the closure $\overline{[P]} $ of $[P]$ in the Euclidean topology.
Then $Q\in \overline{[P]}$ if and only if $\De(Q)\supset \De(P)$ and $\overline{[P]}$ is also a closed polyhedral convex cone.
We say $Q$ is on the boundary of $[P]$ if $[Q]\subset \overline{[P]}\setminus [P]$
and denote as $Q\succ P$.
Note that $Q\succ P$ if and only if $\De(Q)\supsetneq \De(P)$.
We visualize $\Ga^*(f)$ by cutting $N^+$ by some transversal hyperplane $\Pi$ to the cone, say $\Pi:\,\nu_1+\dots+\nu_n=1$ and we see the silhouette. See Figure 2.
In the figure, the dimension of the equivalence class is one less.
Let $P$ a weight vector. We say that $P$ is {\em a vertex of the dual Newton diagram $\Ga^*(f)$}
if and only if $\dim\,\De(P)=n-1$ or equivalently $\dim\,[P]=1$.
\begin{Definition}{\rm
$f$ is called {\em $k$-convenient} if $f^I\not\equiv 0$ for any $I\subset \{1,\dots, n\}$ with $|I|\ge n-k$, We say for simplicity $f$ is {\em convenient} if $f$ is
$(n-1)$-convenient (\cite{Okabook}). }
\end{Definition}
\subsection{Face function, non-degeneracy and tameness} Let $\Xi$ be a face of $\Ga_+(f)$.
The face function of $\Xi$ is defined by
$f_\Xi(\mathbf z):=\sum_{\nu\in \Xi}c_\nu\mathbf z^\nu$. For a weight vector $P$, we define
$f_P(\mathbf z):=f_{\De(P)}(\mathbf z)$.
If $P\in \mathcal W_+\cup\mathcal W_{v} $, then $d(P)>0$ and $f_P$ is a weighted homogeneous polynomial of $\mathbf z_J$, $J=I(P)^c$, of degree $d(P)$ with respect to the weight $P$.
Here $I(P)^c=\{1,\dots,n\}\setminus I(P)$ and
$\mathbf z_I=(z_i\,|\, i\in I\}$.
We recall that $f$ is {\em non-degenerate} if
the mapping $f_P:\mathbb C^{*n}\to \mathbb C$ has no critical point for any $P\in \mathcal W_+$.
Recall that $\mathbb C^{*n}:=\{\mathbf z\in \mathbb C^n\,|\, z_i\ne 0,\,1\le i\le n\}$.
We say that $f$ is {\em locally tame} (or {\em strongly locally tame}) if for any weight vector $P\in \mathcal W_v $,
the face function $f_P: \mathbb C^{*I(P)^c}\to \mathbb C$
has no critical point as a function of variables $\mathbf z_{I(P)^c}$
for any sufficiently small (resp. for any)
$\mathbf z_I\in \mathbb C^{*I(P)}$ fixed (\cite{EO14}).
Here $\mathbb C^{*I}=\{\mathbf z\in \mathbb C^n\,|\, z_j=0, \,\text{iff}\, j\not\in I\}$. For $I=\{1,\dots, n\}$,
we write simply $\mathbb C^{*n}$ instead of $\mathbb C^{*I}$.
\begin{Definition}
{\rm
Let ${\Var}(P)=\{j\,|\, \frac{\partial f_P}{\partial z_j}\ne 0\}$. That is, $j\in \Var(P)$ if and only if $z_j$ appears in a monomial of $ f_P(\mathbf z)$. We call ${\Var}(P)$ {\em the variables} of $P$ or of $f_P$.
Let $\widetilde I(P):=\bigcup\{I(Q)\,|, Q\succ P, Q\in \mathcal W_{v}\}$ and we put $\widetilde {\Var}(P):={\Var}(P)\setminus \ \widetilde I(P)$. We call $ \{z_j\,|\, j\in\widetilde {\Var}(P)\}$ {\em invulnerable variables for $P$}.
Note that $\widetilde I(P)\supset \widetilde I(Q)$ if $Q\succ P$. We introduce a stronger tameness:
$f$ is {\em strongly inv-tame for $P$} if $\widetilde{\Var}(P)$ is not empty and $f_P:\mathbb C^{*n}\to \mathbb C$ has no critical point as a polynomial of the invulnerable variables $\{z_j,|\, j\in \widetilde{\Var}(P)\}$
for any $\mathbf z_{\widetilde I(P)}\in \mathbb C^{*\widetilde I(P)}$ fixed.
We say $f$ is {\em strongly inv-tame} if any weight vector $P\in \mathcal W_+\cup\mathcal W_v$ with $\dim\, \De(P)\ge 1$, $f$ is strongly inv-tame for $P$.
For example, consider a weight vector $D$ on the open interval $\Int({RE_3})$ in $f_1(\mathbf z)$ (Figure 2). Then $R,E_3\succ D$. But $E_3\in \mathcal W_{nv}$. Thus $\widetilde I(D)=\{1\}$ and $f_{1D}=z_1^5z_2^2$ and we see $f_1$ is strongly inv-tame
for $D$.}
\end{Definition}
\begin{Remark}{\rm
Assume that $f$ is $(n-2)$-convenient. Take $P\in \mathcal W_+\cup\mathcal W_v$ with $\dim\, \De(P)\ge 1$. Assume that $Q\in \overline{[P]}$ and $Q\in \mathcal W_v$. Then $\sharp I(Q)=1$. (If $\sharp(I(Q))=2$, $Q\in \mathcal W_{nv}$.)
If $P\in \mathcal W_v$, $I(Q)=I(P)$. Thus it is easy to check if $P$ is strongly inv-tame or not.}
\end{Remark}
\subsection{Dimension of $[P]$} We recall the following relation of the dimension of the equivalence class $[P]$ and the dimension of $\De(P)$:
\[
\dim\,[P]=n-\dim\,\De(P).
\]
Suppose that $I(P)\ne \emptyset$ and put $I:=I(P)$. Consider $f$ as a polynomial
$f(\mathbf z)\in K[\mathbf z_{I^c}]$ with the coefficient ring $K:=\mathbb C[\mathbf z_{I}]$. We use the notation
${}^Kf$ when we consider $f$ as a polynomial in $K[\mathbf z_{I^c}]$.
Note that $\dim\,\De_c(P)=\dim\,\De (P_{I^c},{}^Kf)$ and
\[
\dim\,\De(P)=\dim\, \De_c(P)+\sharp I.
\]
where $\sharp I$ is the cardinality of $I$. Here $\De_c(P)$ is defined by $\De(P)\cap \Ga(f)$.
\subsection{Normalized weight vector}
Take a weight vector $P=(p_1,\dots, p_n)\in \mathcal W_+\cup\mathcal W_v$. Then $d(P)>0$.
We consider the rational weight vector $\hat P=(\hat p_1,\dots, \hat p_n)$ which is defined by $\hat P= P/{d(P)} $. That is, $\hat p_i=p_i/d(P),\,i=1,\dots,n$. It is clear that $P$ and $\hat P$ are equivalent and $d(\hat P)=1$.
We use this notation throughout the paper and we call $\hat P$ {\em the normalized weight vector of $P$}.
If $d(P)=0$, $P$ does not have any normalized form.
Using the normalized weight vector, each monomial in $f_{\hat P}(\mathbf z)$ has weight $1$.
For given two weight vectors $P$ and $Q$ with $d(P),d(Q)>0$ and
$\De(P,Q):=\De(P)\cap\De(Q)\ne \emptyset$,
consider the line segment ${\LS}(P,Q)=\{\hat P_t\,|\, 0\le t\le 1\}$ where
$\hat P_t:=(1-t)\hat P+t \hat Q$.
The $i$-component $\hat p_{ti}$ of $\hat P_t$ is given as
$\hat p_{ti}=(1-t)\hat p_i+ t\hat q_i$ and it is monotone (either increasing or constant or decreasing) function in $t$ for any $1\le i\le n$. In particular,
\begin{Proposition} There is a canonical inequality:
$\hat p_{ti}\ge \min\{\hat p_i,\hat q_i\}$.
\end{Proposition}
\setcounter{figure}{0}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\setlength{\unitlength}{1bp}
\begin{picture}(600, 300)(-100,-20)
{\includegraphics[width=8cm, bb=0 0 595 842]{NB1.pdf}}
\put(-320,220){$f_1(\bfz)=z_1^5z_2^2+z_1^6z_3+z_2^6z_3^2+z_3^6z_1^3$}
\put(-300,200){$A=(5,2,0)\iff z_1^5z_2^2$}
\put(-300,185){$B=(6,0,1)\iff z_1^6z_3$}
\put(-300,170){$C=(0,6,2)\iff z_2^6z_3^2$}
\put(-300,155){$D=(3,0,6)\iff z_1^3z_3^6$}
\end{picture}
\vspace{-3cm}
\caption{Newton boundary of $f_1$}\label{NB1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\setlength{\unitlength}{1bp}
\begin{picture}(600, 300)(-100,-20)
{\includegraphics[width=8cm, bb=0 0 595 842]{DNB1.pdf}}
\put(-300,200){$E_1=(1,0,0)$}
\put(-300,185){$E_2=(0,1,0)$}
\put(-300,170){$E_3=(0,0,1)$}
\put(-106,238){$\bullet$}
\put(-115,160){$\bullet$}
\put(-108,143){$\bullet$}
\put(-73,133){$\bullet$}
\put(-165,137){$\bullet$}
\put(-227,238){$\bullet$}
\put(-0,238){$E_1$}
\put(-5,238){$\bullet$}
\put(-245,240){$E_2$}
\put(-133,60){$E_3$}
\put(-120,62){$\bullet$}
\put(-320,80){$f_1(\bfz)=z_1^5z_2^2+z_1^6z_3+z_2^6z_3^2+z_3^6z_1^3$}
\put(-300,155){$\hat P=(\frac 5{33},\frac 3{22},\frac 1{11})$}
\put(-300,140){$\hat Q=(\frac 4{27},\frac 7{54},\frac19)$}
\put(-300,125){$\hat R=(0,\frac12,1)$}
\put(-300,110){$\hat S=(\frac 15,0,\frac12)$}
\put(-300,95){$\hat T=(\frac 13,\frac16,0)$}
\end{picture}
\vspace{-3cm}
\caption{$\Ga^*(f_1)$}\label{DNB1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\setlength{\unitlength}{1bp}
\begin{picture}(600, 300)(-100,-20)
{\includegraphics[width=8cm, bb=0 0 595 842]{Example2.pdf}}
\put(0,230){$E_1$}
\put(-5,234){$\bullet$}
\put(-250,230){$E_2$}
\put(-230,235){$\bullet$}
\put(-100,80){$E_3$}
\put(-116,80){$\bullet$}
\put(-90,240){$T$}
\put(-88,235){$\bullet$}
\put(-104,178){$P$}
\put(-116,178){$\bullet$}
\put(-185,155){$R$}
\put(-175,163){$\bullet$}
\put(-67,141){$S$}
\put(-75,137){$\bullet$}
\put(-320,70){$\hat P=(\frac {4+bc-2c}{abc+8},\frac {4+ac-2a}{abc+8},\frac {4+ab-2b}{abc+8})$}
\put(-320,50){$\hat R=(0,\frac 1{2},\frac 1c),$}
\put(-250,50){$\hat S=(\frac1a,0,\frac 1{2}),$}
\put(-180,50){$\hat T=(\frac 1{2},\frac 1b,0)$}
\put(-320,30){$f_2=z_1^az_2^{2}+z_2^bz_3^{2}+z_3^cz_1^{2},\,a,b,c>2$}
\end{picture}
\vspace{-2.0cm}
\caption{ $\Ga^*(f_2)$}\label{DNB2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\setlength{\unitlength}{1bp}
\begin{picture}(600, 300)(-100,-20)
{\includegraphics[width=8cm, bb=0 0 595 842]{Example3.pdf}}
\put(0,240){$E_1$}
\put(-5,241){$\bullet$}
\put(-240,240){$E_2$}
\put(-226,241){$\bullet$}
\put(-100,80){$E_3$}
\put(-115,76){$\bullet$}
\put(-85,249){$R_2$}
\put(-81,242){$\bullet$}
\put(-115,249){$R_1$}
\put(-115,243){$\bullet$}
\put(-185,155){$S_1$}
\put(-170,157){$\bullet$}
\put(-200,185){$S_2$}
\put(-188,185){$\bullet$}
\put(-65,135){$T_2$}
\put(-77,132){$\bullet$}
\put(-55,150){$T_1$}
\put(-60,157){$\bullet$}
\put(-300,178){$\hat S_1=(0,\frac 12,\frac 12 )$}
\put(-300,163){$\hat S_2=(0,\frac 34,\frac 14)$}
\put(-300,148){$\hat T_1=(\frac 12,0,\frac 12)$}
\put(-300,133){$\hat T_2=(\frac 14,0,\frac 34)$}
\put(-300,118){$\hat R_1=(\frac12,\frac 12,0)$}
\put(-300,103){$\hat R_2=(\frac34,\frac 14,0)$}
\put(-300,88){$f_3=z_1^4z_2^2+z_2^4z_3^2+z_3^4z_1^2+z_1z_2z_3$}
\end{picture}
\vspace{-3.5cm}
\caption{ $\Ga^*(f_3)$}\label{DNB3}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Examples}
In the following, polynomials in Example 1, Example 2 and Example 3 are all non-degenerate and strongly inv-tame.
\begin{Example}\label{Example}
{\rm
Consider $f_1(\bfz)=z_1^4z_2^2+z_1^6z_3+z_2^6z_3^2+z_1^3z_3^6$.
Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the Newton boundary and the dual Newton diagram of $f_1$ respectively. In Figure 2,
we see 8 equivalence clasees which correspond to the vertices
$P,Q\in \mathcal W_+$, $R,S,T\in \mathcal W_v$ and $E_1,E_2,E_3\in \mathcal W_{nv}$, 11 equivalence classes corresponding to the edges and 4 equivalence classes which corresponds to the interiors of four polyhedra in Figure 2. Here $E_1,E_2,E_3$ are the standard basis of $\mathbb R^3$.
}
\end{Example}
\begin{Example}
{\rm (Weighted homogeneous case) Consider the weighted homogeneous polynomial
$f_2(\mathbf z)=z_1^az_2^{2}+z_2^bz_3^{2}+z_3^cz_1^{2}$ with $a,b,c>2$.
The dual Newton diagram is given in Figure 3.
}
\end{Example}
\begin{Example} {\rm Consider the polynomial
$f_3(\mathbf z)=z_1^4 z_2^2+z_2^4 z_3^2+z_3^4z_1^2+z_1z_2z_3$.
This polynomial is special in the sense that its
Newton boundary $\Ga(f)$ does not have any compact 2-dimensional face.
See Figure 4.
}
\end{Example}
\subsection{Ratio maps for curves in the coordinate subspaces}
Assume that $\mathbb C^I$ is a non-vanishing coordinate subspace.
Let $\mathcal P_I$ be the set of analytic curves $C:\mathbf z=\mathbf z(t),\, 0\le t\le 1$ such that its image is
in $\mathbb C^I\subset \mathbb C^n$, $\mathbf z(0)=\mathbf 0$ and
$\mathbf z(t)\in \mathbb C^{*I}\setminus V(f^I)$ for $t\ne 0$.
For a curve $\mathbf z(t)\in \mathcal P_I$, we consider the ratio map
\[
\theta : \mathcal P_I\to [0,1),\quad\theta(C)= \theta (\mathbf z(t))=\dfrac{{{{\ord}}}_t\|\partial f(\mathbf z(t))\|}{{{{\ord}}}_t f(\mathbf z(t))}.
\]
Note that $\|\partial f(\mathbf z(t))\|$ is measured in $\mathbb C^n$.
Consider a modified curve $\widetilde{\mathbf z}(t)$ defined as
$\widetilde z_i(t)=z_i(t)$ for $i\in I$ and $=t^N$ for $i\not\in I$. Note that $\widetilde{\mathbf z}(t)\in \mathbb C^{*n}$ for $t\ne 0$.
Let $\widetilde P=(\widetilde p_i,\dots,\widetilde p_n)$ be the weight vector of $\widetilde{\mathbf z}(t)$.
Thus $\widetilde p_i=p_i$ for $i\in I$ and $\widetilde p_i=N$ for $i\not\in I$.
\begin{Proposition} \label{Reduced}
Taking
$N$ sufficiently large we have that
\[\begin{split}
&{\ord}_t\,\partial f(\widetilde{\mathbf z}(t))=
{\ord}_t\,\partial f(\mathbf z(t))\le {\ord}_t\, \partial f^I(\mathbf z(t)),\\
&{\ord}_t\, f(\mathbf z(t))={\ord}_t\,f(\widetilde{\mathbf z}(t)).
\end{split}
\]
Thus we have the equality:
\[
\frac{{\ord}_t\,\partial f(\mathbf z(t))}{{\ord}_t\,f(\mathbf z(t))}=\frac{{\ord}_t\,\partial f(\widetilde{\mathbf z}(t))}{{\ord}_t\,f(\widetilde{\mathbf z}(t))}.\]
\end{Proposition}
\begin{proof}
First observe that the difference
\[\begin{split}
&f(\mathbf z)-f(\mathbf z_I),
\,\,\frac{\partial f}{\partial z_i}(\mathbf z)-\frac{\partial f}{\partial z_i}(\mathbf z_I)\equiv 0\,\,
\mod\,(z_j)_{j\not\in I}.
\end{split}
\]
Here $(z_j)_{j\not\in I}$ is the ideal generated by $z_j,\,j\not\in I$.
Therefore taking
$N$ sufficiently large we may assume that
(i)
$\De(\widetilde P,f)=\De(P,f^I)$
and
\[{\rm (ii)}\quad
{\ord}_t \left (
\frac{\partial f}{\partial z_j}(\mathbf z(t))-\frac{\partial f}{\partial z_j}(\widetilde{\mathbf z}(t))\right
)\ge N
\]
and (iii) ${\ord}_t\,f(\mathbf z(t))={\ord}_t\,f(\widetilde{\mathbf z}(t))$. Then the assertion follows immediately.
\end{proof}
Thus we have
\begin{Corollary}\label{Reduced2}
$\theta(\mathbf z(t))=\theta(\widetilde{\mathbf z}(t))$.
\end{Corollary}
Therefore for the estimation of $\theta_0(f)$, it is enough to consider the case $I=\{1,\dots, n\}$, i.e. $\mathbf z(t)\in \mathbb C^{*n}$ for $t\ne 0$.
\begin{Lemma} \label{compact-vertex}
Consider a weight vector $P\in \mathcal W_+ $ and assume that
$f_P(\mathbf z)=c\mathbf z^\nu,\,c\ne 0$. Consider a normalized weight $\hat P$.
Put $\hat p_{max}:=\max\{\hat p_i\,|\, i\in \Var(P)\}$ and $|\nu|:=\sum_{i\in \Var(P)} \nu_i$.
Then
$\hat p_{max}\ge \frac{1}{|\nu|}$.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof}
The assertion is immediate from the equality
\[1=\sum_{i\in \Var(P)} \hat p_i\nu_i\le \hat p_{max}|\nu|.
\]
\end{proof}
\begin{Corollary}Consider a curve $C$ parametrized as in Lemma 10.
Then
\[
\theta(C)=1-\hat p_{max}\le 1-\frac 1{|\nu|}.
\]
\end{Corollary}
The assertion follows from the observation: $\frac{\partial f_P}{\partial z_j}(\mathbf a)\ne 0$ for any $j\in \Var(P)$
and $\mathbf a\in \mathbb C^{*n}$.
\subsection{Ratio maps for weight vectors} We assume that $f$ is strongly inv-tame.
Let $\mathcal W_+$ be the set of strictly positive weight vectors and let $\mathcal W_v$ be the subset of positive weight vectors such that $I(P)\not=\emptyset$ and $d(P)>0$.
Let $C=\{z=\mathbf z(t)\}\in \mathcal P$ and consider the Taylor expansion
\[
z_i(t)=a_it^{p_i}+\text{(higher terms)},\,\,a_i\ne 0,\,\,1\le i\le n.
\]
We consider the weight map
$wt:\mathcal P\to \mathcal W$ by
${\wt}(\mathbf z(t))=P$ where $P=(p_1,\dots,p_n)$.
We want to estimate the ration
$\theta(\mathbf z(t))$ using the weight vector ${\wt}(\mathbf z(t))$.
\begin{Definition}\rm{
We define the ratio maps for weight vector $P\in \mathcal W_+\cup\mathcal W_v$ as follows.
First we put
\[\begin{split}
&\hat p_{min}:=\min\{\hat p_j\,|\, j\in \Var(P)\},\\
&\hat p_{min}':=\min\{\hat p_j\,|\, j\in \widetilde{\Var}(P)\}.
\end{split}
\]
We define
\[\begin{split}
& \theta_i(P)=1-\hat p_i,\quad i\in \widetilde{\Var}(P),\,\dim\,\De{(P)}\ge 1,\\
&\theta(P)=1-\hat p_{min},\\
&\theta(P)'=
\begin{cases}1-{\hat p_{min}'}, \quad &\dim\,\De{(P)}\ge 1,\\
1-\frac 1 {|\nu|},\,\quad &\dim\,\De(P)=0,\,f_P(\mathbf z)=c_\nu \mathbf z^\nu\end{cases}.
\end{split}
\]
Here $P=(p_1,\dots, p_n)$ and $\hat P=(\hat p_1,\dots, \hat p_n)$ is the normalized weight vector of $P$.
}
\end{Definition}
As a special case, we have
\begin{Proposition}
Assume that $\dim\, \De(P)=n-1$. Then
$I(P)=\widetilde {I}(P)$ and $\hat p_{min}'=\min\,\{\hat p_j\,|\, j\in \Var(P)\setminus I(P)\}$.
In particular, $\hat p_{min}'=\hat p_{min}$ if $P\in \mathcal W_+$.
\end{Proposition}
\subsection{Admissible line segments} We assume that $f$ is strongly inv-tame and non-degenerate.
Consider a weight vector $R\in \mathcal W_+\cup\mathcal W_v$ with $\dim\,\De (R) \ge 1$.
Consider a line segment ${\LS}(P,Q)$ passing through $R$ with two weight vectors
$P,Q$ on the boundary of $[R]$.
Recall that ${\LS}(P,Q)=\{P_s=(1-s) P+s Q\,|\,0\le s\le 1\}$. By the assumption, $ R=P_{s_0}, \,0<\exists s_0<1$.
We devide the situation into three cases depending the end points $P,Q$.
\subsubsection{Strictly positive line segment}
Let $R$ be as above.
We say that the boundary of $[R]$ is {\em strictly positive } if
the closure of the equivalence class $\overline{[R]}$ contains only strictly positive weight vectors.
Thus $P,Q\in \mathcal W_+$. We use the line segment expression using the normalized vectors
$\hat P_s=(1-s)\hat P+s \hat Q$. Then $R=P_{s_0'}$ for some $s_0'$. As the normalized weight vector $\hat P_s$ is given as $\hat p_{sj}=(1-s)\hat p_j+s\hat q_j$ is a monotone linear function in $s$,
it is easy to see that
\begin{eqnarray}
&\theta_j(\hat R)&\le \max\{\theta_j(\hat P),\theta_j(\hat Q)\},\quad j\in {\Var}(\hat R),\\
&\theta(\hat R)'&\le \max\{\theta(\hat P),\theta(\hat Q)\}.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that in this case, $\widetilde I(R)=\emptyset$ and $\theta(\hat R)'=\theta(\hat R)$, $\theta(\hat P)'=\theta(\hat P )$ and $\theta(\hat Q)'=\theta(\hat Q)$,
as $\widetilde I(R)=\emptyset$.
For example, take $R$ on the line segment ${\LS}(P,Q)$ in Example 1 ( Figure 2).
\begin{Remark}
Note that ${\Cone}({\LS}(P,Q))={\Cone}({\LS}(\hat P,\hat Q))$, though $(1-t)\hat P+t\hat Q$ is not necessarily the normalized vector of $(1-t)P+tQ$. Here for a subset $K\subset N^+$, we put ${\Cone}( K):=\{r\,P\,|\, P\in K,\,r>0\}$.
\end{Remark}
\subsubsection{Vanishing line segment}\label{vanishing line1}
We say that
${\LS}(P,Q)$ is {\em a vanishing line segment} if $P, Q$ are in $\mathcal W_+\cup\mathcal W_v$ and at least
one of $P$ or $Q$ is in $\mathcal W_v$.
\begin{Lemma} \label{VL1} Assume that ${\LS}(P,Q)$ is a vanishing line segment.
We assume that $P\in \mathcal W_v$, $Q\in \mathcal W_+\cup\mathcal W_v$.
Consider the family of the normalized weight vectors $\hat P_s$ for the line segment ${\LS}(P,Q)$ which is defined as
$\hat P_s=(1-s)\hat P+s\hat Q$ for
$0\le s\le1 $ and $\hat R=\hat P_{s_0'}$ ($0<\exists s_0'<1$). Then
\[\begin{split}
& \theta_j(\hat R)\le \max\{\theta_j(\hat P),\theta_j(\hat Q)\}, \quad j\in\widetilde{\Var}(R),\\
&\theta(\hat R)'\le \max\{\theta(\hat P)',\theta(\hat Q)'\}.
\end{split}
\]
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof}
By the strong inv-tameness,
$\widetilde{\Var}(R)\ne \emptyset$ and there exists a $j\in \widetilde{\Var}(R)$ so that
$\frac{\partial f_{\hat P_{s_0'}}}{\partial z_j}(\mathbf a)\ne 0$. This implies $\theta(\hat R)'\le 1-\hat p_{s_0', j}$.
The assertion follows from the monotonicity of $\hat p_{tj}$.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Non-vanishing line segment}\label{non-vanishing line} A line segment
${\LS}(P,Q)$ is called {\em non-vanishing line segment } if one of $P,Q$ is a non-vanishing weight vector.
Assume that $P\in \mathcal W_{nv}$ and $Q\in \mathcal W_+\cup \mathcal W_v$ so that $\De(Q)\cap\De(P)\supset \De(R)$.
Recall that
${\LS}(P,Q)$ is defined by $\{P_s\,|\, 0\le s\le 1\}$ where $P_s:=(1-s)P+sQ$ and $R=(1-s_0)P+s_0 Q$ as before.
The normalized weight vectors of this family is written as $ \hat P_\tau:=\tau P+\hat Q$ with $\tau=\frac{1-s}s$ for $s\ne 0$.
In this parameter $\tau$, $0\le \tau<\infty$ and $\hat R=\hat P_{\tau_0},\,\exists \tau_0>0$.
Note that $\hat p_{\tau,j}$ is monotone increasing (or constant) in $\tau$ for any $j$.
That is $\hat p_{\tau,j}\ge \hat p_{0,j}=\hat q_j$.
\begin{Lemma}\label{NVL}
We have the inequality:
\[\begin{split}
&\theta_{j}(\hat R)\le\theta_{j}(\hat Q),\, \quad j\in\widetilde {\Var}(R),\\
&\theta(\hat R)'\le \theta(\hat Q)' .\end{split}
\]
\end{Lemma}
\begin{Remark}\label{non-existence}{\rm
We do not need to consider the case where $P,Q$ are both non-vanishing, as $R$ is assumed to be
in $\mathcal W_+\cup\mathcal W_v$. In the inductive argument on $\dim\, [R]$, if the line segment is as in Lemma 16,
we continue to work only for $Q$.
}
\end{Remark}
\section{Main result on non-degenerate functions}
\subsection{Convenient case}\label{equality}\label{Convenient-hypersurface}
Assume that $f(\mathbf z)=\sum_{\nu} {c_\nu}\mathbf z^\nu$ is a convenient non-degenerate analytic function
in the sense of Kouchnirenko \cite{Ko}
and let $b_j$ be the point $\Ga(f)\cap\{$j$-\text{th coordinate axis}\}$. Then $V(f)$ has an isolated singularity at the origin (Theorem (3.4),\cite{Okabook}, Corollary 20, \cite{OkaMix}).
Consider an analytic curve $\mathbf z(t),\,0\le t\le 1$ as in the previous section. Namely $\mathbf z(0)=\mathbf 0$ and
$\mathbf z(t)\in \mathbb C^n\setminus f^{-1}(0)$ for $t\ne 0$.
We first assume that $\mathbf z(t)\in \mathbb C^{*n}$ for $t\ne 0$.
Assume that $\mathbf z(t)$ has the following Taylor expansion:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Taylor1}
&z_j(t)&=a_jt^{p_j}+\text{(higher terms)}, \quad a_j\ne 0,\, j=1,\dots,n,\\
&\frac{\partial f}{\partial z_j}(\mathbf z(t))&=\frac{\partial f_P}{\partial z_j}(\mathbf a) t^{d(P)-p_j}+\text{(higher terms)},\notag\\
&f(\mathbf z(t))&=b t^{d'}+\text{(higher terms)}, \, b\ne 0,\,d'\ge d(P).\notag
\end{eqnarray}
where
$P=(p_1,\dots, p_n)$, $\mathbf a=(a_1,\dots,a_n)$. We use the same notation as in \cite{Okabook}.
Put $p_{ min}=\min\{p_j\,|\, j\in \Var(P)\}$.
Choose index $ 1\le \al\le n$ so that $p_\al= p_{min}$. Note that $ \al$ may not unique but we fix it.
If $f(\mathbf z)$ is non-degenerate, then there exists $j_0$ so that $\frac{\partial f_P}{\partial z_{j_0}}(\mathbf a)\ne 0$. Thus
\begin{eqnarray}
& {{{{\ord}_t}}}\, \partial f(\mathbf z(t))\le d(P)-p_{j_0}\le d(P)-p_{min} ,\\
& \dfrac{{{{{\ord}_t}}}\,\partial f(\mathbf z(t))}{{{{\ord}_t}}\,f(\mathbf z(t))}\le \dfrac{d(P)-p_{min}}{d'}\le \dfrac{d(P)-p_{min}}{d(P)}.\label{eq7}
\end{eqnarray}
Use the normalized weight $\hat P=(\hat p_1,\dots, \hat p_n)$ where $\hat p_j:=p_j/d(P)$.
The right side of (7) is equal to $1- 1/{b_\al'}$ where $b_\al'$ is the $\al$-coordinate so that $\hat p_\al b_\al'=1$.
This may not be an integer but we know that
$b_\al'\le b_\al$.
Thus we obtain
\[ \frac{{{{{\ord}_t}}}\,\partial f(\mathbf z(t))}{{{{\ord}_t}}\,f(\mathbf z(t))}\le 1-\frac 1{b_\al},\quad\forall \al,\,p_\al=p_{min}.
\]
Put $B:=\max\{b_j\,|\, j=1,\dots, n\}$ and let $I_B=\{j\,|\, b_j=B\}$.
Thus the above estimation gives also
$\theta(\mathbf z(t))= \frac{{{{{\ord}_t}}}\,\partial f(\mathbf z(t))}{{{{\ord}_t}}\,f(\mathbf z(t))}\le 1- 1/{B}$.
\begin{Definition}{\rm
The monomial $z_j^{b_j}$ is called {\em \L ojasiewicz monomial} if $b_j=B$, i.e. $j\in I_B$. The monomial
$z_j^{b_j}$
is called
{\em \L ojasiewicz exceptional } if $j\in I_B$ and
there exists $k\ne j$ and a monomial $z_j^{B'}z_k$ in $f(\mathbf z)$ with $B'<B-1$. Otherwise $z_j^B$ is called {\em a
non-exceptional \L ojasiewicz monomial} (\cite{O-Lo}). }
\end{Definition}
\begin{Proposition}
If $f$ has a non-exceptional \L ojasiewicz monomial, there exists an analytic curve $\mathbf z(t)$ so that
the equality,
$\theta(\mathbf z(t))=1- 1/B$, holds and thus
\[
\theta_0(f)=1-\frac 1B.
\]
\end{Proposition}
\begin{proof}
To see this, assume that $z_{j_0}^{b_{j_0}}$ is a non-exceptional \L ojasiewicz monomial.
Consider the analytic curve $\mathbf z(t)$ which is defined by $z_{j_0}(t)=t$ and $z_j(t)=t^N$ for any $j\ne j_0$ where $N$ is a sufficiently large positive integer.
Then it is easy to see that $\frac{\partial f}{\partial z_{j_0} }(\mathbf z(t))=c t^{B-1}+\text{(higher terms)},\,c\ne 0$.
If the derivative $\frac{\partial f}{\partial z_{j} }(\mathbf z),\,j\ne j_0$ contains a monomial $z_{j_0}^a$, it comes from the monomial $z_jz_{j_0}^a$ in $f(\mathbf z)$. By the assumption, $a\ge B-1$. Thus
${\ord}_t\, \frac{\partial f}{\partial z_{j} }(\mathbf z(t))\ge B-1$ for $j\ne j_0$ and $f(\mathbf z(t))=c t^{B}, c\ne 0$. Therefore it is easy to see that
the equality is satisfied. \end{proof}
\begin{Theorem} Assume that $f(\mathbf z)$ is a convenient non-degenerate function.
Then $\theta_0(f)\le 1- 1/B$. Furthermore if there exists a non-exceptional \L ojasiewicz monomial, the equality holds.
\end{Theorem}
\begin{Example}{\rm
Consider $f(\mathbf z)=z_1^5+z_1^3z_2+z_2^4+z_3^4$. Then $B=5$ but $z_1^5$ is an exceptional \L ojasiewicz monomial. In fact, \L ojasiewicz exponent is given by
$\theta_0(f)=1-\frac 14=3/4$.
}
\end{Example}
\subsection{Non-convenient case}
We assume that $f(\mathbf z)$ is non-degenerate and strongly inv-tame but we do not assume the convenience of $f$.
The singularity is not necessarily isolated.
Let $\mathcal D$ be the set of equivalent classes $[P]$ with $\dim\,[P]=n$.
For a $[P]\in \mathcal D$, the face function is given as a monomial function $f_P(\mathbf z)=c\,\mathbf z^{\nu(P)}$ and we associate the total degree
$|\nu(P)|$ to $[P]$.
\begin{MainTheorem}\label{main-theorem1}
Assume that $f$ is non-degenerate and strongly inv-tame function.
Then the \L ojasiewicz exponent of type (1) has the estimation:
\[
\theta_0(f)\le \max\left\{L,\, \widetilde\theta\right\}
\]
where
\[\begin{split}
&\widetilde\theta:=\max\,\{1-\hat p_{min}'\,|\, \hat P\in \mathcal W_+\cup\mathcal W_v,\, \dim\,\De(P)=n-1\},\\
&L=\max\{1-{1}/{|\nu(P)|}\,|\, [P]\in \mathcal D\}.
\end{split}
\]
\end{MainTheorem}
\begin{proof}
Consider an analytic curve $C\in \mathcal P$ defined by $\mathbf z=\mathbf z(t),\,0\le t\le 1$ and $f(\mathbf z(t))\ne 0$ for $t\ne 0$. We may assume that $\mathbf z(t)\in \mathbb C^{*n}$ for $t\ne 0$ by Proposition 8.
Assume that $\mathbf z(t)$ has the following expansion:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Taylor2}
z_j(t)&=&a_jt^{r_j}+\text{(higher terms)}, \quad a_j\ne 0,\, j=1,\dots,n,\\
\frac{\partial f}{\partial z_j}(\mathbf z(t))&=&\frac{\partial f_R}{\partial z_j}(\mathbf a) t^{d(R)-p_j}+\text{(higher terms)},\\
f(\mathbf z(t))&=&b t^{d'}+\text{(higher terms)}, \, d'\ge d(R).
\end{eqnarray}
where
$R=(r_1,\dots, r_n)$, $\mathbf a=(a_1,\dots,a_n)\in \mathbb C^{*n}$. We use the same notation as in \cite{Okabook}.
If $\De(R)$ is a vertex, $[R]\in \mathcal D$ and it is clear that $\frac{\partial f_R}{\partial z_j}(\mathbf a)\ne 0$ for any $j\in {\Var}(R)$
and $\theta(\mathbf z(t))\le 1-\frac 1L$ by Lemma 10.
Now we assume that $\dim\,\De(R)\ge 1$.
Assume that $\frac{\partial f_P}{\partial z_j}(\mathbf a)\ne 0$ for some $j\in \widetilde {\Var}(P)$, it is clear
from the definition that $\theta(C(t))\le 1-\hat p_j$. Thus
$\theta(\mathbf z(t))\le \theta(R)'$ by the non-degeneracy and the strong inv-tameness. Thus the proof is reduced to the following assertion.
\begin{Assertion} Assume that $\dim\, \De(R)\ge 1$.
Then
\[
\theta(R)'\le \max\{\theta (P)'\,|\, P\succ R,\,\dim\,\De(P)=n-1, \, P\in \mathcal W_+\cup\mathcal W_{v}\}.
\]
\end{Assertion}
This is proved easily on the induction on $\dim\, [R]$, using Lemma 15 and Lemma 16.
If $\dim\,[R]=1$, $R$ is a vertex and there are nothing to be proved.
Take an admissible line segment ${\LS}(P,Q)$, $P_s=(1-s)P+s Q$ and $R=P_{s_0}$ for some $0<s_0<1$.
By Lemma 15 and Lemma 16,
we have
the estimation
\[\theta(R)'\le \max\{\theta(P)',\theta(Q)'\}
\]
for $P,Q\in \mathcal W_+\cup\mathcal W_v$ and
the assertion holds for $R$ by the strong local inv-tameness. The assertion holds by the induction's hypothesis
for $P$ and $Q$ if $P,Q\in \mathcal W_+\cup\mathcal W_{v}$.
If $P$ is non-vanishing, the estimation is simply replaced by $\theta(R)'\le \theta(Q)'$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Examples of the estimation of $\theta_0(f)$}
\begin{Example} {\rm Consider the polynomial $f_1(\bfz)=z_1^4z_2^2+z_1^6z_3+z_2^6z_3^2+z_1^3z_3^6$ considered in Example 5.
We have
\[
\theta (P)'=\frac{10}{11},\,\theta (Q)'=\frac 89,\,\theta(R)'=\frac 12,\,\theta(S)'=\frac 45, \, \theta(T)'=\frac 56
\]
The region $A,B,C,D$ corresponds to the monomials $z_1^5z_2^2,\, z_1^6z_3,\, z_2^6z_3^2,\,z_3^6 z_1^3$ respectively and these region give the bounds $6/7,\,6/7,\, 7/8,\,8/9$ respectively.
Thus $\theta_0(f_1)\le \dfrac{10}{11}$ by Theorem 22.
}
\end{Example}
\begin{Remark}
{\rm
The estimation by Main Theorem 22 is not always sharp. In fact, the equality in the above estimation can not be obtained.
For the weight vector $P$, $f_{1P}(\mathbf z)=z_1^6z_3+z_1^4 z_2^2+z_1^3z_3^6$ and we see that $\frac{\partial f_{1P}}{\partial z_2}\ne 0$ on $\mathbb C^{*3}$. As $\hat P=(\frac 5{33},\frac 3{22},\frac 1{11})$, the real contribution for $P$ is from
$\frac{\partial f_{P}}{\partial y}$.
Thus $\theta(\mathbf z(t))\le 1-3/22=19/22$ for any $\mathbf z(t)$ with ${\wt}(\mathbf z(t))=P$.
The contribution from $Q$ is in fact sharp. Note that $f_{1Q}$ is given by $z_1^5z_2^2+z_1^6z_3+z_2^6z_3^2$
and one can find $\mathbf z(t)$ with the coefficient vector $\mathbf a$ satisfies
$\frac{\partial f_{1Q}}{\partial z_1}(\mathbf a)=\frac{\partial f_{1Q}}{\partial z_2}(\mathbf a)=0$. Thus $\theta(\mathbf z(t))=\frac 89$.
As $\frac 89>\frac {19}{22}$, we conclude $\theta_0(f_1)=\frac 89$.
}
\end{Remark}
\subsection{ Is $\theta_0(f)$ a moduli invariant?}
For a given non-degenerate function $f(\mathbf z)$, we ask if the \L ojasiwwicz exponents are constant or not on the moduli space. For this purpose, we consider
the branched poly-cyclic covering $\vphi_2:\mathbb C^n\to \mathbb C^n$
and its lift of $f$, defined by $\vphi_2(\mathbf w)=\mathbf z,\, z_i=w_i ^2\,(1\le i\le n)$ and put $f^{(2)}(\mathbf w):=\vphi^* f(\mathbf w)=f(w_1^2,\dots, w_n^2)$. More precisely
we consider $f_1(\mathbf z)=z_1^5 z_2^2+z_1^6 z_3+z_2^6 z_3^2+z_3^6 z_1^3$ in Example 1.
Put $f_1^{(2)}(\mathbf w):=f_1(\vphi_2(\mathbf w))=w_1^{10}w_2^4+w_1^{12} w_3^2+w_2^{12} w_3^4+w_3^{12} z_1^6$.
The dual Newton diagram $\Ga^*(f^{(2)})$ is given by the same diagram of $\Ga^*(f_1)$. Only change is that $d(K, f_1^{(2)})=2d(K, f_1)$
for any weight vector $K$. Thus in the normalized vectors,
$\hat P, \hat Q, \hat R, \hat S, \hat T$ are to be divided by 2. By the same discussion as in the above Remark, we see that $\theta_0(f_1^{(2)})=\frac{17}{18}$.
Let $g(\mathbf w):=f_1^{(2)}(\mathbf w)+w_1^3 w_2^6 w_3^8$. Note that the new monomial $w_1^3 w_2^6 w_3^8$ corresponds to the midpoint of the edge ${C^{2)}D^{(2)}}$.
Here $C^{(2)}, D^{(2)}$ are the lift of $C,D$ in $\Ga(f^{(2)})$. Thus the dual Newton diagram of $g$ is the same with $\Ga^*(f^{(2)})$.
By the result of \cite{EO}, the family $g_t(\mathbf w):=f_1^{(2)}(\mathbf w)+tw_1^3 w_2^6 w_3^8$ is non-degenerate and strongly locally inv-tame except a finite exceptional $t$'s.
The exceptional set $S$ is the union of $\{\pm 2\}$ from the non-degeneracy of $g_{t,T}$ and possibly some more $t$'s from the non-degeneracy of $g_{t\hat P}$. Actually $f_{t\hat P}=0$ is non-singular in $\mathbb C^{*3}$ for $t\ne \pm 2$ as we can see by a direct calculation, $\frac{\partial g_{t\hat P}}{\partial z_1}=\frac{\partial g_{t\hat P}}{\partial z_2}=\frac{\partial g_{t\hat P}}{\partial z_3}=0$ has no solution in $\mathbb C^{*3}$. Thus $S=\{\pm 2\}$.
This family
has a canonical Whitney regular stratification and $V(f^{(2)})$ and $V(g)$ are topologically equivalent for any $t\in\mathbb C\setminus S$.
We assert $\theta_0(g)=\frac{ 21}{22}\, (=1-\frac 6{132})$
which comes from the vertex $P=(10,9,6)$ with $d(P, g)=132.$
Thus $\theta_0(g)>\theta_0(f_1^{(2)})$ and $\theta_0$ is not constant on the moduli space of $g$.
Here we mean by moduli the space of functions with fixed Newton boundary and local tameness.
For example, we can choose the following curve which satisfies
$\frac{\partial g_{P}}{\partial w_1}=\frac{\partial g_P}{\partial w_2}=0$:
\[
w_1(s)=\frac 12 \sqrt[6]{3}\sqrt 2\sqrt[6]{-1}\,s^{10},\, w_2(s)=\sqrt[6]{-\frac 18 i\sqrt{6}}\,s^9,\,w_3(s)=s^6.
\]
We can see that
\[\begin{split}
&{\ord}_s\partial g(\mathbf w(s))=126,\quad {\ord}_s g(\mathbf w(s))=132\\
&\theta(\mathbf w(s))=\frac{126}{132}=\frac{21}{22}.
\end{split}
\]
Unfortunately $g_t$ has $1$-dimensional singularity.
For isolated singularity case, this does not happen.
In fact, Brzostowski proved the \L ojasiewicz exponent $\eta_0(f)$ of the \L ojasiewicz inequality of type (2) is constant on the moduli space of functions
with fixed Newton boundary and an isolated singularity at the origin (Theorem 1, \cite{Br2}).
On the other hand, $\theta_0(f)$ and $\eta_0(f)$ are related by
$\theta_0(f)=\eta_0(f)/(1+\eta_0(f))$ by Teissier \cite{Te}.
I thank Professor Tadeusz Krasi\'nski for this information.
\begin{comment}
We do not know if there is such an example for the moduli of non-degenerate functions with a fixed Newton boundary and having an isolated singularity at the origin. We believe that there does not exist such an example for non-degenerate $f(\mathbf z)$ with an isolated singularity.
Note that we used the pull back by $\vphi_2$ to make the midpoint of the line segment ${\LS}(C^{(2)},D^{(2)})$ to be an integral point. Thus we propose:
\nl
\noindent
{\bf Conjecture or question}: Is $\theta_0(f)$ a moduli invariant for non-degenerate function with an isolated singularity at the origin?
\end{comment}
\begin{Example}{\rm Consider the simplicial weighted homogeneous polynomial
$f_2(\mathbf z)=z_1^a z_2^{2}+z_2^b z_3^{2} +z_3^c z_1^{2}$ in Example 2. Then normalized weight is given as
$\hat P=(\frac{4-2c+bc}{abc+8}, \frac{ac+4-2a}{abc+8},\frac{ab+4-2b}{abc+8})$. Suppose $c\ge a, b$. Then
the contribution from $\hat P$ is $1-\frac{ab-2b+4}{abc+8}$. The contribution from $\hat R,\hat S,\hat T$, which are $\theta(\hat R)',
\theta(\hat S)',\theta(\hat T)')$, are given
by $1-1/c,1-1/b, 1-1/a$ respectively by Theorem 22 but these estimation is not sharp.
For example, $f_{\hat R}=z_1^az_2^2+z_3^cz_1^2$ and $\frac{\partial f_{\hat R}}{\partial z_2}$ can not be zero on $\mathbb C^{*3}$.
Thus the real contribution is $1-1/2=1/2$. The same is true for $\hat S,\hat T$. Thus
$\theta_0(f)=1-\frac{ab-2b+4}{abc+8}$. }
\end{Example}
\begin{Example}
{\rm Consider $f_3(\mathbf z)=z_1^4z_2^{2}+z_2^4z_3^{2}+z_3^4z_1^{2}+z_1z_2z_3$ of Example 3 (See Figure 4).
This polynomial has no compact face of dimension 2 in $\Ga(f)$.
We observe that $\theta(S_1)',\theta(T_1)',\theta(R_1)'=\frac 12$ and
$\theta(S_2)',\theta(T_2)',\theta(R_2)'=\frac 34$. $\mathcal D$ contains 4 regions.
The pentagon with vertices $S_2, S_1, T_2, T_1, R_2, R_1$ contribute by $\frac 23$.
The other triangles contribute by $\frac 56$. Thus we have $\theta_0(f_3)\le \frac 56$.
In fact, $\theta_0(f_3)=\frac 56$. To see this, consider the triangle region $S_1T_2E_3$
in Figure 4 and take an analytic curve, for example,
$\mathbf z(t)=(t,t,t^N) $ for a sufficiently large. Then the weight vector is given by
$P=(1,1,N)$ or $\hat P=(\frac 16,\frac 16, \frac N6)$ and $f_{3P}=z_1^4z_2^2$ and
$\theta(\mathbf z(t))=\frac 56$.
}
\end{Example}
\subsection{$\theta_0(f)$ does not behave like Milnor numbers}
We give another example of a delicate behavior of $\theta_0(f)$.
Assume that $f(\mathbf z),g(\mathbf z)$ have isolated singularities at the origin and they are non-degenerate.
Let $\Ga_-(f),\,\Ga_-(g)$ be the cones of $\Ga(f),\Ga(g)$ with the origin. Assume that $\Ga_-(g)\supsetneq \Ga_-(f)$ and
$\Ga(f)\cap\mathbb R^I=\Ga(g)\cap \mathbb R^I$ for any $I\subsetneq \{1,\dots,n\}$.
Then by Kouchnirenko's theorem (\cite{Ko}), the Milnor numbers satisfies the inequality: $\mu(g)>\mu(f)$. This is not always true for $\theta_0(g)$ and $\theta_0(f)$.
As an example, consider $g_4(\mathbf z)=z_1^9z_2+z_2^{10}z_3+z_3^{11}z_1$ and $f_4(\mathbf z)=g_4(\mathbf z)+z_1^2z_2^2z_3^2$.
Note that $\Ga_-(g_4)\supset\neq \Ga_-(f_4)$.
First, their Milnor numbers are given as
$\mu(g_4)=990$ and $\mu(f_4)=543$. Their dual Newton boundaries are given as Figure 5 and Figure 6.
\L ojasiewicz exponent is given as
$\theta_0(g_4)=\frac{910}{991}=0.91\cdots$.
On the other hand, $\theta_0(f_4)\le \frac{95}{101}=0.94\cdots$ which comes from $T_3=(\frac{35}{101},\frac{19}{202},\frac{6}{101})$.
In fact, we can show that the equality $\theta_0(f)=\frac{95}{101}$ is taken by the following curve:
\[
z_1(t)=b_1t^{70}, \,z_2(t)=b_2t^{19},\, z_3(t)=b_3t^{12}
\]
where $\mathbf b\in \mathbb C^{3*}$ satisfies the equality
\[\begin{split}
&\frac{\partial f_{T_3}}{\partial z_1}(\mathbf b)=\frac{\partial f_{T_3}}{\partial z_2}(\mathbf b)=0\\
&f_{T_3}(\mathbf z)=z_2^{10}z_3+z_3^{11}z_1+z_1^2z_2^2z_3^2.
\end{split}
\]
Then we see that ${\ord}_t\partial f_4(\mathbf z(t))=190,\,{\ord}_t f_4(\mathbf z(t))=202$.
For example, we can take
\[
b_1=\root 6\of{\frac{5}{16}},\,b2:=\root {12}\of{\frac 1{20}},\, b_3=-1.
\]
Thus we have the inequality: $\theta_0(f_4)>\theta_0(g_4)$, while $\mu(f_4)<\mu(g_4)$.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\setlength{\unitlength}{1bp}
\begin{picture} (600,300) (-120,-80
{\includegraphics[width=6cm, bb=0 0 595 842]{DNg.pdf}}
\put(5,175){$E_1$}
\put(-5,180){$\bullet$}
\put(-180,175){$E_2$}
\put(-170,180){$\bullet$}
\put(-100,55){$E_3$}
\put(-88,55){$\bullet$}
\put(-77,186){$S_3$}
\put(-65,180){$\bullet$}
\put(-85,150){$P$}
\put(-85,139){$\bullet$}
\put(-155,140){$S_1$}
\put(-142,139){$\bullet$}
\put(-50,102){$S_2$}
\put(-58,98){$\bullet$}
\put(-280,100){$\hat P=(\frac {100}{991},\frac {91}{991},\frac {81}{991})$}
\put(-280,85){$\hat S_1=(0,1\frac 1{11}),$}
\put(-210,85){$\hat S_2=(\frac19,0,1)$}
\put(-280,70){$\hat S_3=(1,\frac 1{10},0)$}
\put(-280,50){$g_4=z_1^9z_2 +z_2^{10}z_3 +z_3^{11}z_1 $}
\end{picture}
\vspace{-4cm}
\caption{$\Ga^*(g_4)$}\label{DNg}
\label{Graphg}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\setlength{\unitlength}{1bp}
\begin{picture}(600, 300)(-100,-20)
{\includegraphics[width=8cm, bb=0 0 595 842]{DNf.pdf}}
\put(5,240){$E_1$}
\put(-5,240){$\bullet$}
\put(-250,240){$E_2$}
\put(-226,240){$\bullet$}
\put(-110,70){$E_3$}
\put(-118,76){$\bullet$}
\put(-114,254){$S_3$}
\put(-118,241){$\bullet$}
\put(-135,163){$T_1$}
\put(-137,173){$\bullet$}
\put(-95,163){$T_2$}
\put(-93,172){$\bullet$}
\put(-110,205){$T_3$}
\put(-118,205){$\bullet$}
\put(-190,145){$S_1$}
\put(-165,148){$\bullet$}
\put(-50,155){$S_2$}
\put(-59,160){$\bullet$}
\put(-320,100){$\hat P=(\frac {100}{991},\frac {91}{991},\frac {81}{991})$}
\put(-320,85){$\hat S_1=(0,1\frac 1{11}),$}
\put(-250,85){$\hat S_2=(\frac19,0,1)$}
\put(-320,70){$\hat S_3=(1,\frac 1{10},0)$}
\put(-320,50){$\hat T_1=(\frac{13}{178},\frac{61}{178},\frac{15}{178}),\hat T_2=(\frac{17}{164},\frac{11}{164},\frac{27}{82}), \hat T_3=(\frac{35}{101},\frac{19}{202},\frac 6{101})$}
\put(-320,30){$g_4=z_1^9z_2 +z_2^{10}z_3 +z_3^{11}z_1 +z_1^2z_2^2z_3^2$}
\end{picture}
\vspace{-2.0cm}
\caption{$f_4(\mathbf z)$}\label{DNf}
\label{Graphf}
\end{figure}
\newpage
\section{\L ojasiewicz exponents of non-irreducible functions}
In this section, we study \L ojasiewicz exponents of reducible functions which are associated with non-degenerate complete intersection varieties.
\subsection{A function associated with a convenient non-degenerate complete intersection variety}
We consider a family of functions $\mathcal F:=\{f_1,\dots, f_k\}$. We say $\mathcal F$ is
{\em a defining family of convenient non-degenerate complete intersection varieties}
if each $f_\al$ is a convenient non-degenerate function such that
for each $I\subset \{1,\dots, k\}$, $V(I):=\{\mathbf z\in \mathbb C^n\,|\, f_i(\mathbf z)=0,\,i\in I\}$ is a non-degenerate complete intersection variety
in the sense of Khovanskii (\cite {Kh2, Okabook}).
Namely for any strictly positive weight vector $P$,
the variety $V_I(P)^*:=\{\mathbf z\in \mathbb C^{*n}|f_{jP}(\mathbf z)=0\,|\, j\in I\}$ is a smooth complete intersection variety in $\mathbb C^{*n}$.
We consider the product function
$f=f_1\dots f_k$ and we call $f$ as {\em the function associated with the family $\mathcal F$}. Note that $f$ is also a convenient function.
In \cite{EO14}, we considered a similar family, which we called {\em a Newton-admissible family} $\mathcal F=\{f_{1s},\dots, f_{ks}\}$ with one parameter $s\in \mathbb C$ and
the associated product function $f_s=f_{1s}\dots f_{ks}$ in $s\in \mathbb C$ to study the topological stability of the one-parameter family of hypersurfaces $V_s=f_s^{-1}(0)$.
In this paper, we assume that each function $f_j$ is convenient and has no parameter $s$. However the argument below can be done in the exact same way for one parameter family if their Newton boundary $\Ga(f_{js})$ is independent of $s$.
As in \S 3.1, we put $b_{\al,j},\ 1\le \al\le k,\,1\le j\le n$ be the unique point of $\Ga(f_\al)$ on $z_j$-axis.
So $z_j^{b_\al,j}$ is a monomial of $f_\al(\mathbf z)$ with non-zero coefficient.
We will give an explicit estimation for $\theta_0(f)$.
The hypersurface $V(f)$ has $k$ irreducible components $V(f_\al),\,\al=1,\dots, k$ and $V(f)$ has non-isolated singularities if $k\ge 2$. The singular locus of $V(f)$ is the union $\cup_{i\ne j}V(f_i,f_j)$. Here $V(f_i,f_j):=\{f_i=f_j=0\}$.
We are interested in the estimation of the \L ojasiewicz component of $f$.
As in the previous section, we start to consider an analytic curve $\mathbf z(t),\,0\le t\le 1$ which starts from the origin and
$\mathbf z(t)\in \mathbb C^{*n}\setminus V(f)$ for $t\ne 0$ and we consider its Taylor expansion:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq11}
&z_j(t)&=a_jt^{p_j}+\text{(higher terms)}, \quad p_j>0, \, a_j\ne 0,\, j=1,\dots,n.
\end{eqnarray}
(Actually we also consider the case $\mathbf z(t)\in \mathbb C^{*J}\, (t\ne 0),\, J\subset \{1,\dots,k\}$ such that $f^J$ s not constantly zero. However the estimation is reduced to the case $\mathbb C^{*n}$ by Proposition 8.)
Put $P=(p_1,\dots,p_n)$ and $\mathbf a=(a_1,\dots, a_n)$ as before.
Let $z_j^{b_{\al j}}$ be the monomial of $\Ga(f_\al)$ on the $j$-th axis for $j=1,\dots, n$
and $1\le \al\le k$.
Let
\begin{eqnarray}
f_\al(\mathbf z(t))&=&c_\al t^{d_\al}+\text{(higher terms)},\,c_\al\ne 0,\,1\le\al\le k,\label{eq12}\\
f(\mathbf z(t))&=&c t^{ d }+\text{(higher terms)},\, c\ne 0,\label{eq13}\\
d_\al&\ge& d(P,f_\al),\quad d\ge d(P,f)=\sum_{\al}d(P,f_\al).\label{eq14}
\end{eqnarray}
We use this expansion assumption throughout this paper.
Note that $ d =\sum_{\al=1}^k d_\al$ and $c=c_1\cdots c_k$.
Put $e_\al:=d(P,f_\al)$ and
$e =\sum_{\al=1}^k e_\al$.
We observe that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq15}
\frac{\partial f_\al}{\partial z_j}(\mathbf z(t))&=&\frac{\partial f_{\al P}}{\partial z_j}(\mathbf a) t^{e_\al-p_j}+\text{(higher terms)}\notag\\
\partial f(\mathbf z(t))&=&\sum_{\al=1}^k\left( \prod_{\be\ne \al}f_\be(\mathbf z(t))\right)\, \partial f_\al(\mathbf z(t)),\notag
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore by (12) and (13),
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial f}{\partial z_j}(\mathbf z(t))&=&\sum_{\al=1}^k \left(\prod_{\be\ne \al}f_\be(\mathbf z(t))\right)\, \frac{\partial f_{\al}}{\partial z_j}(\mathbf z(t))\\
&=&\sum_{\al=1}^k\left\{
\frac{\partial f_{\al P}}{\partial z_j}(\mathbf a)\frac{c }{c_\al} t^{ d -d_\al+e_\al-p_j}+\text{(higher terms)}
\right\}\notag
\end{eqnarray}
Put $B_j:=\sum_{\al=1}^k b_{\al,j}$ and $B=\max\{B_j\,|\, j=1,\dots, n\}$. Note that
$z_j^{B_j}$ has a non-zero coefficient in the expansion of $f(\mathbf z)$ and it corresponds to the unique point of $\Ga(f)$ on the $z_j$-axis.
Let $p_{\min}:=\min\{p_j\,|\, j=1,\dots, n\}$, $I_{min}=\{j\,|\, p_j=p_{\min}\}$.
\subsubsection{Case 1. $\mathbf a$ is generic}\label{generic case}
We consider the case $\mathbf a$ is generic so that $f_P(\mathbf a)=\prod_{\al=1}^k f_{\al P}(\mathbf a)\ne 0$.
This implies that $d_\al=e_\al$ for any $\al=1,\dots, k$. As $f_P(\mathbf z)$ is a weighted homogeneous polynomial of degree $ e =\sum_{\al}e_\al$ with respect to the weight vector $P$, $0$ is the only possible critical value of $f_P$. Thus $ d =e=\sum_{\al=1}^k e_\al$ and
$\partial f_P(\mathbf a)\ne \mathbf 0$ and
\[
\frac{{{{\ord}_t}}\, \partial f(\mathbf z(t))}{{{{\ord}_t}}\,f(\mathbf z(t))}\le \frac{ e -p_{ min}}{ e }=1-\frac{p_{min}}{ e }.\]
We define a rational number $b_{\al,j}'$ by $b_{\al,j}'p_j=e_\al$ for $j\in I_{min}$.
Then $p_j B_j'=e $ where $B_j'=\sum_{\al=1}^k b_{\al,j}'$ and $j_0$ is fixed in $I_{\min}$. Thus $b_{\al,_{j_0}}'\le b_{\al,j_0}$.
Note the equality $p_{ j_0}\sum_{\al=1}^k b_{\al, j_0}'=p_{j_0} B_{j_0}'= e $.
Thus the above estimation implies
\begin{eqnarray}\label{hat-theta}
\frac{{{{\ord}_t}}\, \partial f(\mathbf z(t))}{{{{\ord}_t}}\,f(\mathbf z(t))}
\le 1-\frac 1{B_{j_0}'}\le 1-\frac 1{B_{j_0}}\le 1-\frac 1 B.
\end{eqnarray}
\subsubsection{Case 2. $\mathbf a$ is not generic}
This case is more complicated.
We consider non-generic coefficient vector $\mathbf a$. So we assume that there exists $\al,\,1\le\al\le k$ such that $f_{\al P}(\mathbf a)=0$.
Consider the defect numbers $d_j':=d_j-e_j,\, 1\le j\le k$ and changing the numbering of $f_j,\,1\le j\le k$ if necessary, we
assume for simplicity
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq17}
d_1'\le d_2'\le\dots \le d_{\ell-1}'< d_\ell'=\dots=d_k'\, \,
\end{eqnarray}
for some $\ell,\,1\le \ell\le k$. Therefore $\ell:=\min\,\{\al\,|\, d_\al=d_k'\}$.
Note that $f_{\al P}(\mathbf a)\ne 0$ if and only if $d_\al'=0$. In particular
$f_{\al P}(\mathbf a)=0$ as $d_\al'>0$ for $\ell\le \al\le k$. We have the estimation:
\begin{eqnarray*}
&{{{{\ord}_t}}}\,&\left\{\left( \prod_{\be\ne \al}{f_\be(\mathbf z(t))}\right)\frac{\partial f_\al}{\partial z_j}(\mathbf z(t))\right\}\\
&\quad \ge& d -d_\al +(e_\al-p_j)= d-d_\al'-p_j,\, 1\le j\le n.
\end{eqnarray*}
Note that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq18}
d-d_1'-p_j&\ge&\dots\ge d-d_{\ell-1}'-p_j\\
&>&d-d_\ell'-p_j=\cdots=d-d_k'-p_j.\notag
\end{eqnarray}
and finally we have the expression:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{non-zero}
\frac{\partial f}{\partial z_j}(\mathbf z(t))=\left(\sum_{\al=\ell}^k \frac c{c_\al}\frac{\partial f_{\al P}}{\partial z_j}(\mathbf a)\right)
t^{d-d_\ell'-p_j}+\text{(higher terms)}.
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{Assertion}\label{lin-ind}
There exists some $j_0$ such that
${\ord}_t\,\frac{\partial f}{\partial z_{j_0}}(\mathbf z(t))=d-d_\ell'-p_{j_0}$.
\end{Assertion}
\begin{proof}
By the assumption, we have $d_\ell'=\cdots=d_k'$. For the proof of the assertion,
we use the non-degeneracy assumption of the complete intersection variety
$V_I(P)^*:=\{\mathbf z\in \mathbb C^{*n}\,|\, f_{\al P}(\mathbf z)=0,\, \al\in I\}$ with $I=\{\ell,\dots,k\}$. By the assumption, $\mathbf a\in V_I(P)^*$.
Assume that $\sum_{\al=\ell}^k \frac c{c_\al}\frac{\partial f_{\al P}}{\partial z_j}(\mathbf a)=0$ for any $j$.
This implies
$\sum_{\al=\ell}^k \frac c{c_\al} \partial f_{\al P}(\mathbf a)=0$ and it gives a non-trivial linear relation among gradient vectors
$\partial f_{\ell P}(\mathbf a),\dots, \partial f_{k P}(\mathbf a)$ which is a contradiction to
the non-degeneracy of the complete intersection assumption $V_I(P)^*$.
\end{proof}
Thus
there exists $j_0,\,1\le j_0\le n$ so that
\[
\sum_{\al=\ell}^k \frac c{c_\al}\frac{\partial f_{\al P}}{\partial z_{j_0}}(\mathbf a)\ne 0,\, \text{that is},\,\,
{\ord}_t\frac{\partial f}{\partial z_{j_0}}(\mathbf z(t)) =d-d_\ell'-p_{j_0}.
\]
Consider the integers:
\[D_{\al-1}':=d_1'+\dots+d_{\al-1}',\,1\le \al\le k .
\]
We have
\[\begin{split}
{\ord}_t f(\mathbf z(t))&=d_1+\dots+d_k
=D_{\ell-1}'+(k-\ell)d_\ell'+ e,\\
{\ord}_t\,\partial f(\mathbf z(t))
&=\inf\{ {{\ord}_t}\, \frac{\partial f}{\partial z_j}(\mathbf z(t))\,|\, 1\le j\le n\}\\
&\le
\sup\{ d -d_\ell'-p_j\,|\, 1\le j\le n\}\\
&\le D_{\ell-1}'+(k-\ell-1){d_\ell}'+ e-\frac { e }{ B}
\end{split}
\]
Here we have used the equality $p_j\ge e/B_j\ge e/B$ and
$d_\al=d_\al'+e_\al$, in particular $d_\al=d_\ell'+e_\al$ for $\al\ge \ell$. Thus we have
\begin{eqnarray}
&\theta(\mathbf z(t))=\dfrac{{\ord}_t\,\partial f (z(t))}{{\ord}_t\,f(\mathbf z(t))}\le F_\ell
\end{eqnarray}
where $F_\ell$ is defined by the following:
\[\begin{split}
F_\ell:=&\frac{D_{\ell-1}'+(k-\ell-1)d_\ell'+e- e / B}{D_{\ell-1}'+(k-\ell )d_\ell'+ e}.
\end{split}
\]
Note that under the assumption that $\mathbf z(t)$ has the weight vector $P$ and (17), $d_1',\dots, d_\ell'$ are not constant but the other numbers are constant. Originally $d_\ell'$ is an integer but we extend to real numbers so that
$F_\ell$ is a function of $d_\ell'$ on the interval $[d_{\ell-1}',\infty)$, fixing $d_1',\dots, d_{\ell-1}'$.
Note that $F_0=1-1/B$.
\subsection{Comparison with $F_{\ell-1}$}
We want to show $F_\ell\le 1- 1/B$.
We assert that
$F_\ell$ is monotone decreasing function of $d_\ell'$, fixing $d_1',\dots, d_{\ell-1}'$ where $d_j':=d_j-e_j$.
Here $d_\ell'$ moves on the interval $[d_{\ell-1}',\infty)$.
In fact, the differential of the right hand side in $d_\ell'$ is given as
\[
\frac{\partial F_\ell}{\partial d_\ell'}=\frac{-D_{\ell-1}'- e+(k-\ell) e /B}{(D_{\ell-1}'+(k-\ell)d_\ell'+ e)^2}.
\]
We assert that
\begin{Lemma} $F_\ell$ is monotone decreasing function of $d_\ell'$ as
\[
\frac{\partial F_\ell}{\partial d_\ell'}\le 0.
\]
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof}
The numerator of the differential $ {\partial F_\ell}/{\partial d_\ell'} $ can be estimated as
\[\begin{split}
-D_{\ell-1}'- e+(k-\ell) e /B&=-D_{\ell-1}'- e (1-\frac{k-\ell}B)\\
&\le 0.
\end{split}
\]
Here we have used the obvious inequality $B\ge k$.
\end{proof}
Thus putting $d_\ell'=d_{\ell-1}'$, we get the estimation
$\theta_0(f)\le F_\ell\le F_{\ell-1}$
where $F_{\ell-1}$ is obtained by substituting $d_\ell'=d_{\ell-1}'$:
\[
F_{\ell-1}:=F_\ell|_{d_\ell'=d_{\ell-1}'}=\frac{D_{\ell-2}'+(k-\ell)d_{\ell-1}'+e- e / B}{D_{\ell-2}'+(k-\ell +1)d_{\ell-1}'+ e}
\]
where $D_{\ell-2}'=d_1'+\dots+d_{\ell-2}',\, e=e_{1}+\dots+e_k$.
\subsection{ \L ojasiewicz exponents for the product functions}
Now we are ready to state our main result for the product function.
\begin{MainTheorem}\label{Product-Lo}
Let $f=f_1\cdots f_k$ be the product function associated to a generating family of convenient non-degenerate
complete intersection varieties $\mathcal F=\{f_1,\dots, f_k\}$. Then the \L ojasiewicz exponent of type (1) satisfies the inequality:
$ \theta_0(f)\le 1-1/B$ and the equality holds if $f$ has a \L ojasiewicz non-exceptional monomial.
\end{MainTheorem}
\begin{proof}
Continuing the above argument repeatedly, $\theta_0(f)$ can be estimated by assuming
$d_\ell'=\dots=d_1'$ as follows:
\[
F_\ell\le F_{\ell-1}\le\cdots\le F_1=\frac{(k-1)d_1'+e - {e }/B }{(k-1)d_1'+e }.
\]
As $F_1$ is also a monotone increasing function of $d_1'$, putting $d_1'=0$,
we conclude $F_\ell\le F_0=1- 1/B$. This implies
\[
\theta_0(f)\le \frac{e - {e }/B}{e }=1-\frac 1B.
\]
For the existence of the curve attaining the equality under the assumption of the existence of \L ojasiewicz non-exceptional monomial, we do the same argument as in \S 3.1.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Generalization to non-reduced functions}
We will show that \L ojasiewicz exponent of a non-reduced expression is determined by the reduced one.
First suppose that $f$ is a reduced function and let $g(\mathbf z)=f^m(\mathbf z)$.
Let $\mathbf z(t),\,0\le t\le 1$ be an analytic curve starting from the origin and $\mathbf z(t)\in \mathbb C^n\setminus V(f)$ for $t\ne 0$ as before.
Then we observe that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{non-reduced}
{\ord}_t\frac{\partial g}{\partial z_j}(\mathbf z(t))=(m-1){\ord}_tf(\mathbf z(t))+
{\ord}_t\frac{\partial f}{\partial z_j}(\mathbf z(t)).
\end{eqnarray}
To distinguish two \L ojasiewicz exponents of $f$ and $g$, we put
\[\begin{split}
\theta_{f}(\mathbf z(t)):=\frac{{\ord}_t\partial f(\mathbf z(t))}{{\ord}_t f(\mathbf z(t))},\,\,
\theta_{g}(\mathbf z(t)):=\frac{{\ord}_t\partial g(\mathbf z(t))}{{\ord}_t g(\mathbf z(t))}.
\end{split}
\]
In particular, we have the equality
\[\begin{split}
\theta_g(\mathbf z(t))&=
\frac{{\ord}_t\frac{\partial g}{\partial z_j}(\mathbf z(t))}{{\ord}_t g(\mathbf z(t))}\\
&= \frac{{(m-1){\ord}_t f(\mathbf z(t))+\ord}_t\frac{\partial f}{\partial z_j}(\mathbf z(t))}{m\,{\ord}_t f(\mathbf z(t))}\\
&=\frac{m-1}m+\frac 1m \theta_f(\mathbf z(t)).
\end{split}
\]
Thus we have
\begin{Proposition} The \L ojasiewicz exponents of $f$ and $g=f^m$ are
related by the equality:
\[
\theta_0(g)=\frac {m-1}m+\frac 1m \theta_0(f).
\]
\end{Proposition}
This observation can be generalized to our product function $f$. discussed in \S 4.1.
We consider a defining family $ \mathcal F=\{f_1,\dots, f_k\}$
of convenient non-degenerate complete intersection varieties as \S 4.1.
Let $f(\mathbf z):=f_1(\mathbf z)\cdots f_k(\mathbf z)$.
We consider also non-reduced product function
\[
g(\mathbf z) = f_1^{m_1}(\mathbf z) \cdots f_k^{m_k}(\mathbf z)
\]
where $m_1,\dots, m_k$ are positive integers.
Let $\mathbf z(t)$ be an analytic curve expanded as (11), (12) and (13).
We use the same notations of numbers $e_j,d_j, d_j', e$.
We define new integers $\widetilde d_j,\,\widetilde e_j,\widetilde d,\widetilde e $ and complex numbers $\widetilde c_\al, \widetilde c, \widetilde d$
as
\[\begin{split}
\widetilde d_\al&=m_\al d_\al,\, \widetilde e_\al=m_\al e_\al, \,\widetilde d=\sum_{\al=1}^k m_\al d_\al,\, \widetilde e=\sum_{\al=1}^k m_\al e_\al\\
\widetilde c_\al&=c_\al^{m_\al},\, \widetilde c=\prod_{\al=1}^k c_\al^{m_\al}
\end{split}
\]
so that
\begin{eqnarray*}
g_\al(\mathbf z(t))&=&f_\al(\mathbf z(t))^{m_\al}=\widetilde c_\al t^{\widetilde d_\al}+\text{(higher terms)},\,1\le\al\le k\\
g(\mathbf z(t))&=&\widetilde c\, t^{ \widetilde d }+\text{(higher terms)}.
\end{eqnarray*}
We work under the same assumption (17):
\begin{eqnarray}
d_1'\le d_{2}' \dots\le d_{\ell-1}'< d_\ell'=\cdots= d_k'. \notag
\end{eqnarray}
We proceed by the exact same argument as the one in the reduced case.
The equality (19) is replaced as
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial g}{\partial z_j}(\mathbf z(t))&=& \sum_{\al=1}^k \left(\left(\frac{m_\al }{f_\al}g\right)(\mathbf z(t))\frac{\partial f_\al}{\partial z_j} (\mathbf z(t))\right)\\
&=&\left(\sum_{\al=\ell}^k \frac{m_\al \widetilde c}{\widetilde c_\al}
\frac{\partial f_{\al P}}{\partial z_j}(\mathbf a)
\right)
t^{\widetilde d- d_\ell'-p_j}+\text{(higher terms)}.\notag
\end{eqnarray}
Define $\widetilde D_\al$ in the same manner as in \S 4.1:
\
\widetilde D_\al=\widetilde d_1+\dots+\widetilde d_\al=\sum_{i=1}^\al m_id_i.
\]
$\widetilde B_j$ corresponds the point $\Ga(g)\cap\{z_j\text{-axis}\}$
which is equal to $\sum_{\al=1}^k m_\al b_{\al,j}$ and $\widetilde B$ is the maximum of $\{\widetilde B_1,\dots,\widetilde B_n\}$.
So $p_{min}\widetilde B\ge \widetilde e$.
As
the gradient vectors
\[
\left\{
\frac{\partial f_{\al P}}{\partial z_j}(\mathbf a)\,|\, \al=\ell,\dots, k\right\}
\]
are linearly independent by the non-degeneracy of the intersection variety $V_I^*(P)$ (see the proof of Assertion 28), we have
\[\begin{split}
\ord\,g(\mathbf z(t))&=\widetilde d_1+\dots+\widetilde d_k=\widetilde D_{\ell-1}'+(m_\ell+\dots+m_k)d_\ell'+\widetilde e,\\
\ord\,\partial g(\mathbf z(t))&\le\widetilde d-d_\ell'-p_{min}\le
\widetilde D_{\ell-1}'+(m_\ell+\dots+m_k-1)d_\ell'+\widetilde e-\frac{\widetilde e}{\widetilde B}.
\end{split}
\]
Thus
we can modify equality (20) as :
\begin{eqnarray}
\theta_g(\mathbf z(t))=\frac{{\ord}_t\partial g(\mathbf z(t))}{{\ord}_t g(\mathbf z(t))}\le \widetilde F_\ell
\end{eqnarray}
where
\[
\widetilde F_\ell=\frac{ \widetilde D_{\ell-1}'+( m_\ell+\dots+m_k-1) d_\ell'+{\widetilde e} -\widetilde e/\widetilde B }
{ \widetilde D_{\ell-1}'+(m_\ell+\dots+m_k) d_\ell'+{\widetilde e} }.
\]
and we have
\[
\frac{\partial \widetilde F_\ell}{\partial d_\ell'}=
\frac{-\widetilde D_\ell-\widetilde e+(m_\ell+\cdots+m_k)\widetilde e/\widetilde B }{ (\widetilde D_{\ell-1}'+(m_\ell+\dots+m_k) d_\ell'+{\widetilde e}) ^2}<0
\]
where the negativity is derived from the fact $\widetilde B\ge m_1+\dots+m_k$.
By the exact same argument, we get the generalization of Theorem 30:
\begin{Theorem} The \L ojasiewicz exponent of $g=f_1^{m_1}\cdots f_k^{m_k}$ can be estimated as
\[
\theta_0(g)\le
1-\frac 1{\widetilde B}.
\]
Furthermore, if $g$ has a non-exceptional \L ojasiewicz monomial, the equality holds.
\end{Theorem}
We comment that $\widetilde B=\max\,\{m_1b_{1j}+\dots+m_k b_{kj}\,|\, j=1,\dots, n\}$.
\def$'$} \def\cprime{$'$} \def\cprime{$'$} \def\cpri{$'${$'$} \def$'$} \def\cprime{$'$} \def\cprime{$'$} \def\cpri{$'${$'$} \def$'$} \def\cprime{$'$} \def\cprime{$'$} \def\cpri{$'${$'$} \def$'$} \def\cprime{$'$} \def\cprime{$'$} \def\cpri{$'${$'$}
\def$'$} \def\cprime{$'$} \def\cprime{$'$} \def\cpri{$'${$'$} \def$'$} \def\cprime{$'$} \def\cprime{$'$} \def\cpri{$'${$'$} \def$'$} \def\cprime{$'$} \def\cprime{$'$} \def\cpri{$'${$'$} \def\cpri{$'$}
|
\section{Introduction}
The strong couplings of heavy-light pseudoscalar and vector mesons with the pion
belong to the most important hadronic parameters of heavy flavour physics.
Our ability to calculate these couplings reflects the currently achieved progress
in QCD and related effective theories.
In the charm sector, the $D^*D\pi$ coupling has been measured,
combining the branching fractions of the $D^* \to D \pi$ decays
with the total width of $D^*$.
The latter is currently available from
the two experiments \cite{CLEODstDpi,BaBarDstDpi,PDG} and has a small error.
The $B^*B\pi$ coupling cannot be directly measured, due to the lack of
phase space for a $B^* \to B\pi$ decay. Still, this coupling is phenomenologically very important.
It enters the residue of the $B^*$-meson pole in the vector $B\to \pi$ form factor
used for the determination of the CKM parameter $V_{ub}$.
Located very close to the kinematical threshold of the
$B\to \pi\ell \bar{\nu}_\ell$ semileptonic transitions,
the $B^*$ pole significantly influences the form factor at small
hadronic recoil.
In the infinitely heavy-quark limit $m_b\to \infty$, the $B^*B\pi$ coupling
turns into the ``static'' strong coupling of heavy-light mesons with the pion,
a key parameter in the heavy-meson chiral perturbation theory (HM$\chi$ PT)
\cite{Burdman:1992gh,HMchPT,Yan:1992gz}.
There are several lattice QCD calculations of the heavy-meson strong couplings
and their static limit, the most advanced ones,
calculated with dynamical quarks, are in
\cite{Becirevic:2009yb,Becirevic:2012pf,Can:2012tx,Detmold:2012ge,Bernardoni:2014kla,Flynn:2015xna}.
In \cite{BBKR}, the $D^*D\pi$ and $B^*B\pi$ couplings have been calculated,
employing the method of light-cone sum rules (LCSRs) in QCD \cite{lcsr1,lcsr2,lcsr3}.
The extension of LCSRs to strong couplings goes back to \cite{Braun:1988qv}
where the pion-nucleon and $\rho \omega \pi$ couplings were calculated.
The underlying object in this method is the vacuum-to-pion correlation function calculated near the light cone
in terms of the operator product expansion (OPE) involving the universal pion light-cone distribution
amplitudes (DAs) of growing twist.
The same correlation function is used in the well established LCSRs for the $B\to \pi$ and $D\to\pi$ form factors,
see e.g., \cite{BBKR,KRWY1,Bagan:1997bp,BZ04,DKMMO,KKMO}.
Importantly, the calculation of the $D^*D\pi$ and $B^*B\pi$ couplings is performed
at a finite heavy-quark mass. Hence, not only
the infinitely heavy quark limit of these couplings can be taken, but also the inverse mass corrections are accessible.
The LCSR is obtained, employing analyticity in the two external
momenta squared and matching the resulting double
dispersion relation to the OPE result. The further steps follow the standard QCD sum rule technique and involve the
quark-hadron duality approximation and the double Borel transformation.
Due to the approximate degeneracy of vector and pseudoscalar heavy-light mesons
(becoming exact in the infinitely heavy quark limit),
equal Borel parameters are taken in both channels
of the double dispersion relation.
As a result, the LCSR predictions \cite{BBKR} for the $D^* D\pi$
and $B^*B\pi$ strong couplings at the leading order (LO) in $\alpha_s$
are sensitive to the values of the pion DAs at
$u=\bar{u} = 1/2$ where $u$ and $\bar{u}\equiv 1-u$ are
the fractions of the pion momentum carried by the collinear
quark and antiquark in the two-parton state of the pion.
The shape of the pion twist-2 DA is usually
described by an expansion in Gegenbauer polynomials based on the conformal
partial-wave expansion.
The value of this DA at the middle point provides a nontrivial
constraint on the polynomial coefficients (Gegenbauer moments).
Thus, LCSR for the strong coupling complements the information
on the first few Gegenbauer moments available from other sources
(e.g., lattice QCD calculation of the second moment and LCSRs for the pion form factors).
Assessing the accuracy of the LCSR for the heavy-light strong couplings,
one has to mention that the use of the double dispersion relation makes this sum rule
more sensitive to the quark-hadron duality approximation than the LCSR for
heavy-to-light form factors based on the single-variable dispersion relation.
On the other hand, the accuracy of OPE in both sum rules is the same.
The interval for $g_{D^*D\pi}$ obtained in \cite{BBKR}
appeared to be below the measured value by about 30\%.
The heavy-quark limit of this coupling obtained from LCSR was also
smaller than the results of lattice QCD calculations.
The gluon radiative correction to the twist-2 term of LCSR
calculated in \cite{KRWY_2} did not remove this discrepancy.
However, one should mention that theoretical uncertainties quoted
in the previous analyses \cite{BBKR,KRWY_2} are incomplete
and include only a part of parametrical uncertainties.
In particular, the perturbative correction to the twist-3 term
was not taken into account.
The dependence on the form of duality region was also not completely investigated,
moreover, the subleading twist-3, 4 contributions were included without
the duality subtraction at tree level.
Another critical point is the choice of decay constants of pseudoscalar
and vector heavy-light mesons which multiply the strong coupling in LCSR,
making the final result very sensitive to the values of these hadronic parameters.
A possibility to explain the deficit of the LCSR prediction
for the heavy-light strong coupling is to allow for
large contributions of excited heavy-light states to the double dispersion
relation, as pointed out in \cite{Khodjamirian:2001bj}
and discussed in more detail in \cite{Becirevic:2002vp}. Note however that this conjecture
introduces an almost uncontrollable model-dependence in the hadronic part
of the sum rule and leaves open the most important question: is there a duality
region which effectively corresponds only to the ground-state contribution to the LCSR?
Taking into account all above mentioned open aspects,
it is timely to revisit the LCSR calculation
of the strong couplings $B^*B \pi$ and $D^*D\pi$, upgrading and
updating the earlier analyses in \cite{BBKR,KRWY_2}.
In this paper we pursue three main goals.
The first one is to improve the accuracy of the OPE for the
underlying correlation function. To this end, we will include
the next-to-leading-order (NLO) twist-3 term,
calculating the corresponding gluon radiative corrections.
We remind that in the LCSRs for the strong couplings
the twist-3 part is comparable to the twist-2 part, their ratio being
of $O(\mu_\pi/m_Q)$, where the chirally enhanced parameter
$\mu_\pi=m_\pi^2/(m_u+m_d)$ is comparable with the heavy quark mass $m_Q=m_{c,b}$.
Hence, by adding the gluon radiative correction to the twist-3 term, we will achieve the
same NLO accuracy for both equally important parts of the OPE. Furthermore, we will,
for the first time, represent both NLO corrections in a form of double dispersion relation
with compact analytical expressions for the double spectral density.
Due to the importance of the twist-3 part, the LCSR
considered here involves a double hierarchy of even (2, 4, 6,..)
and odd (3, 5,..) twist terms. The twist-4 contributions
known from previous analyses will be added in LO, which is sufficiently
accurate since the twist-4 part is small with respect to the twist-2 LO part.
Moreover, the twist-5, 6 contributions to the
underlying correlation function calculated recently \cite{Rusov:2017chr}
in the factorizable approximation were found negligible. Also the next-to-next-to-leading-order (NNLO)
correction to the twist-2 part obtained in \cite{Bharucha:2012wy}
(in the large $\beta_0$ approximation) is very small.
All this ensures that the OPE adopted here, including
the twist-2, 3 terms at NLO, and the twist-4 term at LO, is sufficiently accurate.
Our second goal in this work is to update the input parameters in LCSR.
In particular, in this paper we employ the $\overline{\rm MS}$ mass scheme
for the highly off-shell heavy quarks in the correlation function, which
is a more appropriate choice than the pole-mass scheme
employed in the earlier calculation.
We also use the latest knowledge on the input parameters of pion DA's.
For the decay constants of the vector and
pseudoscalar heavy-light mesons we use the QCD two-point sum rules
with the same NLO accuracy as LCSRs, employing the results of the
updated analysis in \cite{GKPR} as well as the recent lattice QCD results.
A more complete analysis of parametrical uncertainties
of the sum rule results is done.
Finally, our third goal is to extend the quark-hadron duality
approximation for the continuum subtraction to all twist-3 and 4 terms,
in order to improve the procedure of subtraction of excited states in LCSR
which was incomplete in \cite{BBKR}.
The sensitivity of LCSRs to the form of the quark-hadron duality region
in the double dispersion relation will be investigated.
The plan of this paper is as follows. After outlining the LCSR method
in Sect.~2, we present in Sect.~3 the double spectral density of the correlation function
in updated form, including the new twist-3 radiative correction.
In Sect.~4 we discuss different forms of
the quark-hadron duality ansatz for the double dispersion relation.
Sect.~5 contains the numerical analysis and
Sect.~6 is devoted to the concluding discussion.
We present in Appendix~\ref{app:lcda} necessary details on the pion DAs,
in Appendix~\ref{app:nlo} the expressions for the double spectral densities at NLO
and in Appendix {\ref{app:2pt}} the sum rules for the heavy-light meson decay constants.
\section {The LCSR method}
Hereafter we use a generic notation $H^{(*)}$ for both pseudoscalar (vector) mesons
$D^{(*)}$ and $B^{(*)}$.
The strong $H^*H\pi$ coupling $g_{H^*\!H\pi}$ is defined as
the invariant constant parametrizing the hadronic matrix element
\begin{equation}
\langle H^*(q) \pi(p)|H(p+q)\rangle =-g_{H^*\!H\pi}\,p^\mu\epsilon_\mu^{(H^*)}\,,
\label{eq:strong}
\end{equation}
where the vector and pseudoscalar meson have four-momenta $q$ and $p+q$, respectively, and
$\epsilon_\mu^{(H^*)}$ is the polarization vector of $H^*$. The infinitely
heavy quark limit of the strong coupling:
\begin{equation}
\lim_{m_Q\to \infty} g_{H^*\!H\pi}/(2m_H)= \hat{g}/f_\pi\,,
\label{eq:heavy}
\end{equation}
where $f_\pi$ is the pion decay constant, determines the static coupling $\hat{g}$
that does not depend on the heavy mass scale
and enters the HM$\chi$PT Lagrangian.
In \cite{BBKR} it was suggested to calculate the strong couplings
($\ref{eq:strong}$) employing the LCSR based on the light-cone OPE
for the vacuum-to-pion correlation function:
\begin{equation}
F_\mu(q,p)=i\!\int \! d^4x e^{iqx}\langle \pi(p)|T\{j_\mu(x), j_5(0)\} |0\rangle
= F(q^2,(p+q)^2) \, p_\mu + \dots\,,
\label{eq:corr}
\end{equation}
where $j_\mu=\bar{q}_1\gamma_\mu Q $ and $j_5=(m_Q+m_{q_2})\bar{Q}\,i\gamma_5 q_2 $
are the interpolating currents for the $H^*$ and $H$ mesons, respectively.
In the above, $Q$ is a generic notation for the heavy quarks $c$ and $b$,
and $q_{1,2}$ stand for the light quarks $u$ or $d$.
The decay constants of heavy-light mesons needed here are defined as:
\begin{equation}
\langle 0|j_\mu|H^*(q) \rangle = m_{H^*}\epsilon^{(H^*)}_\mu f_{H^*} , ~~
\langle 0|j_5|H(p+q) \rangle = m_{H}^2 f_{H} \,.
\label{eq:fBst}
\end{equation}
In (\ref{eq:corr}) the relevant invariant amplitude $F$ multiplying $p_\mu$
is singled out, and the second Lorentz structure proportional
to $q_\mu$ is indicated by ellipses. The pion is on shell and in what
follows we adopt the chiral symmetry, putting $p^2=m_\pi^2=0$
and neglecting the $u,d$ quark masses in the correlation function,
adopting also the isospin symmetry.
Note that the enhanced parameter
\begin{equation}
\mu_\pi=\frac{m_\pi^2}{m_u+m_d}
\label{eq:mupi}
\end{equation}
is retained
in the chiral limit, since $m_\pi^2\sim O(m_u+m_d)$.
For the finite heavy quark mass in (\ref{eq:corr}) we employ the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme.
To derive LCSR for the strong coupling, following \cite{BBKR}
one inserts the complete set of intermediate states with $H$ and $H^*$ quantum
numbers in (\ref{eq:corr}) and employs the double dispersion
relation
\footnote{Double dispersion relations were used for
QCD sum rules based on the local OPE, starting from
\cite{AK80} where the sum rules for charmonium radiative transitions were obtained.
Another important application of double sum rules
is the pion form factor \cite{IoffeSmilga,Nesterenko:1982gc}; for the others
see, e.g., the review \cite{CK}. The first application of LCSRs
for hadronic couplings are presented in \cite{lcsr1,lcsr2,lcsr3,Braun:1988qv}.
}
for the amplitude $F(q^2,(p+q)^2)$ in the two independent
variables $q^2$ and $(p+q)^2$:
\begin{eqnarray}
F(q^2,(p+q)^2)&=& \frac{m_H^2 m_{H^*} f_H f_{H^*}g_{H^*H\pi}}
{(m_H^2-(p+q)^2)(m_{H^*}^2-q^2)}
\nonumber\\
&+&\iint\limits_{\!\Sigma} ds_2 ds_1 \frac{\rho^h(s_1,s_2)}{(s_2-(p+q)^2)(s_1-q^2)} + \dots \,,
\label{eq:double_disp}
\end{eqnarray}
where the possible subtraction terms are not shown.
The latter include, in general, single dispersion
integrals in the first variable $(p+q)^2$ combined with polynomials in the second variable $q^2$
and vice versa. All subtraction terms vanish after the double Borel transformation which will be applied to the relation (\ref{eq:double_disp}).
The ground-state double-pole term in the above relation
contains the product of $H^*H\pi$ strong coupling and decay constants.
We denote by $\Sigma$ the two-dimensional region with the lower boundary
$\{s_1\geq (m_H+m_\pi)^2; \, s_2\geq (m_{H^*}+m_\pi)^2 \}$, where the hadronic
spectral density of the continuum and excited states (with the $H^*$
and $H$ quantum numbers, respectively) denoted as $\rho^h(s_1,s_2)$ contributes.
At $q^2, (p+q)^2 \ll m_Q^2$, the dispersion relation (\ref{eq:double_disp})
is matched to the result of the QCD calculation of $F(q^2,(p+q)^2)$.
For the latter, we use the light-cone OPE in terms of pion DAs,
and employ the most complete and up-to-date calculation in \cite{DKMMO}
that was used to obtain the LCSR for the $B\to \pi$ form factor. (see also
\cite{BZ04}, where, however the complete analytical expressions are not presented).
Following the general outline of QCD sum rule derivation
\cite{Shifman:1978bx}, we employ the quark-hadron duality ansatz.
To this end, we will represent the OPE result for the correlation function
in a form of double dispersion integral:
\begin{align}
F^{\rm (OPE)}(q^2,(p+q)^2)=
\int\limits^\infty_{-\infty} \frac{ds_2}{s_2-(p+q)^2}
\int\limits^\infty_{-\infty}\frac{ds_1}{s_1-q^2}\,\,
\rho^{\rm (OPE)}(s_1, s_2)\,,
\label{eq:ddispOPE}
\end{align}
with the double spectral density
\begin{equation}
\rho^{\rm (OPE)} (s_1, s_2) \equiv \frac{1}{\pi^2}
\mbox{Im}_{s_1}\mbox{Im}_{s_2} F^{\rm (OPE)}(s_1,s_2)\,,
\label{eq:rhoope}
\end{equation}
to be derived in the next section.
Hereafter, we denote the variables $q^2$ and
$(p+q)^2$ continued to their timelike regions as $s_1$ and
$s_2$, respectively. For the sake of compactness, the lower limits of integration in (\ref{eq:ddispOPE}) corresponding to the thresholds $s_{1,2}=m_Q^2$ are formally included
in the spectral densities in a form of step functions and their derivatives. We also omit in
(\ref{eq:ddispOPE}) all subtraction terms that vanish after double Borel transformation.
Adopting the quark-hadron duality, we assume that
the integral of the hadronic spectral density $\rho^h(s_1,s_2) $
taken over the two-dimensional region $\Sigma$ in (\ref{eq:double_disp})
is equal to the
integral of the OPE spectral density (\ref{eq:rhoope})
taken over a certain region $\Sigma_0$ in the $(s_1,s_2)$ plane
\begin{align}
\iint\limits_{\!\Sigma}ds_2\,ds_1
\frac{\rho^{h}(s_1, s_2)}{(s_2-(p+q)^2)(s_1-q^2)}=
\iint\limits_{\!\Sigma_0}ds_2\,ds_1
\frac{\rho^{\rm (OPE)}(s_1, s_2)}{(s_2-(p+q)^2)(s_1-q^2)}
\,.
\label{eq:dualapp}
\end{align}
To proceed, we equate the double dispersion
representations (\ref{eq:double_disp}) and (\ref{eq:ddispOPE}),
substitute (\ref{eq:dualapp}) to (\ref{eq:double_disp})
and subtract the equal integrals over the region $\Sigma_0$ from both sides
of this equation. For the remaining region dual to the
ground-state contribution of the $H^*\to H \pi$ transition to (\ref{eq:double_disp})
we introduce a generic notation:
\begin{align}
\iint\limits^{\Sigma_0}ds_2\,ds_1...=
\int\limits^\infty_{-\infty} \! ds_2
\int\limits^\infty_{-\infty}\!ds_1... - \iint\limits_{\!\Sigma_0}ds_2\,ds_1... \,.
\label{eq:dualdef}
\end{align}
The actual choice of this duality region will be discussed below.
As a next step, we perform the double Borel transformation, defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
f(M_1^2,M_2^2) &=& \left [\lim_{\{-q^2,\,n\}\to \infty, \atop -q^2/n=M_1^2}
\frac{(-q^2)^{n+1}}{n!}\left(\frac{d}{dq^2}\right)^n \right ]
\nonumber\\
&& \left [ \lim_{\{-(p+q)^2,\,k\}\to \infty, \atop -(p+q)^2/k=M_2^2}
\frac{(-(p+q)^2)^{k+1}}{k!}\left(\frac{d}{d(p+q)^2}\right)^k \right ]
\, f(q^2,(p+q)^2)\,.
\label{eq:Borel}
\end{eqnarray}
This transformation removes the subtraction terms and suppresses the higher-state contributions.
The resulting LCSR for the product of the strong coupling
and decay constants then reads
\begin{eqnarray}
f_H f_{H^*}\,g_{H^*H\pi}
&=& \frac{1}{m_H^2 m_{H^*}}\exp
\left(\frac{m_{H}^2}{M_2^2}+\frac{m_{H^*}^2}{M_1^2}\right)
\nonumber\\
&\times&\iint \limits^{\,\,\,\,\Sigma_0} ds_2 \, ds_1
\, \exp\left(-\frac{s_2}{M_2^2}-\frac{s_1}{M_1^2}\right)
\rho^{\rm (OPE)} (s_1, s_2)\,.
\label{eq:SR2}
\end{eqnarray}
The above sum rule yields the desired $H^*H\pi$ strong coupling,
after dividing out the decay constants of $H^*$ and $H$. For the latter
we will use the two-point QCD sum rules with the same NLO accuracy
and the recent lattice QCD results.
\section{Double spectral density of the correlation function}
In this section, we derive the double spectral density
$\rho^{\rm (OPE)}(s_1,s_2) $ of the correlation function (\ref{eq:corr})
calculated from the light-cone OPE.
We will use the results presented in detail in \cite{DKMMO}.
The procedure to obtain the double spectral density was originally used in \cite{BBKR} at LO,
including the twist-2, 3, 4 contributions.
In \cite{KRWY_2}, the NLO, $O(\alpha_s)$ correction
to the twist-2 contribution was added to the double spectral density.
The result was deduced from the NLO
correction to the twist-2 term of the correlation function obtained
in \cite{KRWY1} (see also \cite{Bagan:1997bp}).
The new element to be included in our calculation is the NLO
correction to the twist-3 part of
$\rho^{\rm (OPE)}(s_1,s_2)$. Apart from that, here we derive the double spectral
density at LO in a more universal form, valid
for any polynomial structure of the pion DA. We also use the updated
nomenclature of the pion
twist-4 DAs which differs from the one in \cite{BBKR}.
\subsection{Double spectral density at LO}
The OPE near the light-cone $x^2\sim 0$
for the correlation function (\ref{eq:corr})
is valid if both external momenta squared $q^2$ and $(p+q)^2$ are far below
the heavy quark threshold $m_Q^2$.
More specifically, to warrant the power counting in the OPE, it is sufficient that
\begin{eqnarray}
m_Q^2-q^2 \sim m_Q^2-(p+q)^2\sim {\cal O}(m_Q\tau) \,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\tau\gg\Lambda_{QCD}$ does not scale with $m_Q$.
The heavy quark propagating in the correlation function is then highly virtual.
The initial expression (\ref{eq:corr}) is transformed into
\begin{equation}
F_\mu(q^2,(p+q)^2)=-im_Q\!\int \! d^4x e^{iqx}\langle \pi(p)| \bar{q}_{1}(x)\gamma_\mu
S_Q(x,0) \gamma_5 q_{2}(0) |0\rangle\,,
\label{eq:corr1}
\end{equation}
where the heavy quark propagator
$S_Q(x,0)=-i \, \langle 0| T\{Q(x), \, \bar{Q}(0) \} | 0 \rangle $
is expanded near the light-cone.
In the adopted approximation, $S_Q(x,0)$ consists of the
free-quark propagator and one-gluon emission term.
In the correlation function (\ref{eq:corr1}) with the free heavy-quark
propagator we encounter the vacuum-to-pion
matrix element of the bilocal quark-antiquark operator $\bar{q}_{1}(x)...q_{2}(0)$.
In its turn, the gluon component of the propagator $S_Q(x,0)$ generates the contributions
of the quark-antiquark-gluon operators $\bar{q}_{1}(x)...G_{\mu\nu}(vx)...q_{2}(0)$ with $0 \leq v \leq 1$.
The emerging vacuum-to-pion matrix elements
are expanded in terms of the pion quark-antiquark (quark-antiquark-gluon)
DAs of growing twist $t=2,3,4$ ($t=3,4$), respectively.
For the leading twist-2 DA we use the well-known standard definition:
\begin{equation}
\langle \pi^+(p)| \bar{u}(x)\gamma_\mu\gamma_5 d(0) |0\rangle=
-i f_{\pi} \, p_\mu\int\limits_0^1 \!du \,e^{iup\cdot x}\varphi_\pi(u)\,,
\label{eq:tw2}
\end{equation}
where the gauge link has been suppressed for brevity.
All other pion light-cone DAs involved in the
expressions presented below are defined e.g. in \cite{DKMMO}.
With the adopted twist-4 accuracy
the resulting LO expression \cite{DKMMO} for
the invariant amplitude in (\ref{eq:corr1})
represents a sum of the separate twist and multiplicity
contributions:
\begin{align}
F^{\rm (LO)}(q^2,(p+q)^2)=&~\big[F^{\rm (tw2,LO)}
+F^{{\rm (tw3}p,\rm LO)}+F^{\rm (tw3\sigma,LO)}
\nonumber
\\
+&~F^{({\rm tw3},\bar qGq) }+F^{\rm (tw4,\psi)}+F^{\rm (tw4,\phi)}+F^{({\rm tw4},\bar qGq)}\big]
(q^2,(p+q)^2)\,,
\label{eq:OPE}
\end{align}
where the twist-2 contribution is
\begin{align}
F^{\rm (tw2,LO)}(q^2,(p+q)^2)= f_\pi m_Q^2 \int\limits^1_0 \frac{du}{m_Q^2-(q+up)^2}\,\varphi_\pi(u) \,,
\label{eq:OPEtw2}
\end{align}
and the two contributions of the pion two-particle
twist-3 DAs are
\begin{align}
F^{({\rm tw3}p,\rm LO)}(q^2,(p+q)^2)= f_\pi\mu_\pi m_Q \int\limits^1_0 \frac{du}{m_Q^2-(q+up)^2} \,u\,\phi_{3\pi}^p(u)\,,
\label{eq:OPEtw3p}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
F^{\rm (tw3\sigma,LO)}(q^2,(p+q)^2)= \frac{f_\pi\mu_\pi}{6}m_Q\int\limits^1_0 \frac{du}{m_Q^2-(q+up)^2}\Bigg(2+\frac{m_Q^2+q^2}{m_Q^2-(q+up)^2}\Bigg) \phi_{3\pi}^\sigma(u)\,.
\label{eq:OPEtw3sig}
\end{align}
The second line in (\ref{eq:OPE}) contains subleading contribution of the twist-3 quark-antiquark-gluon DA:
\begin{align}
F^{({\rm tw3},\bar qGq)}(q^2,(p+q)^2)=-4 f_{3\pi} m_Q\int\limits_0^1
\frac{du}{m_Q^2-(q+up)^2}
\Bigg( 1-\frac{m_Q^2-q^2}{m_Q^2-(q+up)^2}\Bigg)\overline\Phi_{3\pi}(u)\,,
\label{eq:OPEtw33}
\end{align}
where we transformed the expression
presented in \cite{DKMMO} into a compact form,
denoting the integrated three-particle DA as $\overline \Phi_{3\pi}(u)$.
The remaining terms in (\ref{eq:OPE}) contain the twist-4 quark-antiquark DAs:
\begin{align}
F^{\rm (tw4,\psi)}(q^2,(p+q)^2)= - f_\pi m_Q^2\int\limits^1_0 \frac{du}{(m_Q^2-(q+up)^2)^2}
\,\,\bar{\psi}_{4\pi}(u)\,,
\label{eq:OPEtw4psi}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
F^{\rm (tw4,\phi)}(q^2,(p+q)^2)= - f_\pi m_Q^4\int\limits^1_0 \frac{du}{2(m_Q^2-(q+up)^2)^3}\,\phi_{4\pi}(u)\,,
\label{eq:OPEtw4phi}
\end{align}
and the integrated linear combinations of the twist-4 quark-antiquark-gluon DAs,
\begin{align}
F^{({\rm tw4},\bar qGq)}(q^2,(p+q)^2)&= f_\pi m_Q^2\int\limits^1_0
\frac{du}{(m_Q^2-(q+up)^2)^2} \,\overline\Phi_{4\pi}(u)\,.
\label{eq:OPEtw43}
\end{align}
The expressions for all pion DAs and their combinations entering (\ref{eq:OPEtw2})-(\ref{eq:OPEtw43})
are given in Appendix \ref{app:lcda}.
We use the same updated set of twist-3 and 4 DAs from \cite{BBL} as in \cite{DKMMO}.
Their definitions go back to the original work in \cite{Braun:1989iv}.
The form of each DA follows from the conformal partial-wave expansion and is given by
a combination of certain orthogonal polynomials in the momentum variables,
such as the variable $u$ in (\ref{eq:tw2}).
The input parameters in DAs include the overall normalization factors,
e.g., $f_\pi$ in (\ref{eq:tw2}), and the coefficients at the polynomials
normalized at a certain default normalization scale.
Our task is to derive a double dispersion relation in the form (\ref{eq:ddispOPE})
for each separate term in the OPE (\ref{eq:OPE}).
To this end, we notice that all contributions of the three-particle DAs
in (\ref{eq:OPE}) have the form of a convolution integral of a single variable $u$,
similar to the contributions of the two-particle DAs.
Moreover, all expressions in (\ref{eq:OPEtw2})-(\ref{eq:OPEtw43}) are
reduced to linear combinations of the two generic integrals
\begin{align}
F^{(\phi)}_{\ell}(q^2,(p+q)^2) \equiv & \int\limits^1_0\! du
\frac{\phi(u)}{\big[m^2_Q-\bar uq^2-u(p+q)^2\big]^\ell}\,,
\nonumber\\
\widetilde F^{(\phi)}_{\ell}(q^2,(p+q)^2) \equiv & \int\limits^1_0 \!du \,
\frac{ q^2\phi(u)\,}{\big[m^2_Q-\bar uq^2-u(p+q)^2\big]^\ell}\,,
\label{eq:genF}
\end{align}
where $\ell=1,2,3$ and $\phi(u)$ has to be replaced by a respective DA, entering (\ref{eq:OPEtw2})-(\ref{eq:OPEtw43}):
$$\phi= \{\varphi_\pi,u\phi^p_{3\pi}, \phi^\sigma_{3\pi},\overline{\Phi}_{3\pi},\bar \psi_{4\pi}, \phi_{4\pi},
\overline{\Phi}_{4\pi}\}.$$
Note that in (\ref{eq:genF}) we have transformed the denominator,
making use of
$$m_Q^2-(q+up)^2=m^2_Q-\bar uq^2-u(p+q)^2,$$
valid at $p^2=0$ i.e. in a massless pion approximation utilized throughout the paper.
Furthermore, since we aim at the most general
form of the double dispersion relation, it is convenient
to perform a Taylor expansion
of all pion DAs or their integrated combinations
entering (\ref{eq:OPEtw2})-(\ref{eq:OPEtw43})
\begin{align}
\phi(u) = \sum^{\infty}_{k=0} c^{(\phi)}_k \, u^k \,.
\label{eq:expphi}
\end{align}
The expansion (\ref{eq:expphi}) is convergent for all DAs
including the twist-4 two-particle DA
$\phi_{4\pi}(u)$ in (\ref{eq:OPEtw4phi}), which
contains logarithmic terms of the type $u^k\ln u $ and $\bar{u}^k\ln \bar{u}$ with $k \geq 3$.
Consequently, it is sufficient to find
the double spectral representation for the first integral in (\ref{eq:genF})
in which $\phi(u)$ is replaced by the power $u^k$:
\begin{align}
\int\limits^1_0\! du
\frac{u^k}{\big[m^2_Q-\bar uq^2-u(p+q)^2\big]^\ell}
=\int\frac{ds_2}{s_2-(p+q)^2}
\int \frac{ds_1}{s_1-q^2}\,\, \rho_{\ell k}(s_1, s_2)\,,
\label{eq:genFu}
\end{align}
at arbitrary $\ell\geq 1$ and $k>0$, so that the second integral in
(\ref{eq:genF}) is obtained by a simple replacement of
$\rho_{\ell k}(s_1, s_2)$ with $\tilde{\rho}_{\ell k}(s_1, s_2)$ where
\begin{equation}
\widetilde\rho_{\ell k}(s_1, s_2)=s_1\rho_{\ell k}(s_1, s_2)\,.
\label{eq:rhotild}
\end{equation}
As already said before, we hereafter neglect the typical subtraction terms
which vanish after the double Borel transformation.
The formula for the spectral density $\rho_{\ell k}$
can be directly taken from the recent work \cite{Li:2020rcg} where it was derived in a
different context
(see also \cite{Khodjamirian:2011jp} for an alternative technique suitable for
the analogous problems but with the nonvanishing light-hadron mass).
We have:
\begin{align}
\rho_{\ell k}(s_1,s_2) = &
\frac{(-1)^{\ell-1}(-1)^k}{(\ell-1)!\,k!}\,\frac{d^{\,\ell-1}}{d{m^2_Q}^{\ell-1}}\,
\Bigg[\big(s_1-m_Q^2 \big)^k\,
\, \theta\big(s_2-m_Q^2\big)\Bigg]\delta^{(k)}(s_1- s_2) \,,
\label{eq:rhoelk}
\end{align}
where $\delta^{(k)}(x)\equiv d^k/dx^k[\delta(x)]$.
Note that at $\ell=1$ the expression for $\rho_{1k}(s_1,s_2)$
coincides with the one used in \cite{BBKR}.
The integrals in (\ref{eq:genF}) containing a generic DA $\phi(u)$
can be written as
\begin{align}
F^{(\phi)}_{\ell}(q^2,(p+q)^2)=
\!\int\!\frac{ds_2}{s_2-(p+q)^2}
\int \frac{ds_1}{s_1-q^2}\,\rho^{(\phi)}_{\ell }(s_1, s_2)\,,
\label{eq:rhoell}
\end{align}
and the analogous representation for $\widetilde{F}^{(\phi)}_{\ell}$
with $\widetilde\rho^{(\phi)}_{\ell }(s_1,s_2)$,
where the cumulative spectral densities are obtained combining the
expansion (\ref{eq:expphi})
with the ``elementary'' spectral densities (\ref{eq:rhoelk}),
\begin{align}
\rho^{(\phi)}_{\ell }(s_1, s_2)=\sum^{\infty}_{k=0} c^{(\phi)}_k
\rho_{\ell k}(s_1,s_2),
\qquad
\widetilde\rho^{\,(\phi)}_{\ell }(s_1, s_2)=\sum^{\infty}_{k=0} c^{(\phi)}_k
\widetilde \rho_{\ell k}(s_1,s_2).
\label{eq:exprho}
\end{align}
Replacing one by one all twist
and multiplicity components in the sum (\ref{eq:OPE})
by their double dispersion forms,
we obtain the double spectral density for the LO part of the correlation function
\begin{align}
&&\rho^{\rm (LO)}(s_1,s_2)= f_\pi\,m^2_Q \Bigg[
\rho^{(\varphi_\pi)}_1
+ \frac{\mu_\pi}{m_Q} \, \left( \rho^{(u\phi^p_{3\pi})}_1
+\frac{1}{3}\,\rho^{(\phi^\sigma_{3\pi})}_1
+\frac{m^2_Q}{6}\, \rho^{(\phi^\sigma_{3\pi})}_2
+\frac{1}{6} \widetilde\rho^{(\phi^\sigma_{3\pi})}_2 \right)
\nonumber \\
&& + 4 \, \frac{f_{3\pi}}{f_\pi\,m_Q} \,
\left( -\rho^{(\overline{\Phi}_{3\pi})}_1
+m^2_Q\, \rho^{(\overline{\Phi}_{3\pi})}_2
- \widetilde\rho^{(\overline{\Phi}_{3\pi})}_2 \right)
- \rho^{(\bar \psi_{4\pi})}_2
-\frac{m^2_Q}{2} \, \rho^{(\phi_{4\pi})}_3
+\rho^{(\overline{\Phi}_{4\pi})}_2
\Bigg ](s_1,s_2)\,,
\label{eq:rhoLO}
\end{align}
where each term has a form of expansion (\ref{eq:exprho})
with the coefficients $c_k^{(\phi)}$ easily determined from the polynomial form of the DAs explicitly presented in Appendix \ref{app:lcda}. The expression (\ref{eq:rhoLO}) is new.
Note that it is valid in the chiral limit, i.e. at $p^2=m_\pi^2=0$.
To give useful examples, we present
the contribution to $\rho^{\rm (LO)}$ of the twist-2 and twist-3
DAs
taken in the asymptotic form:
\begin{align}
&\rho_1^{(\varphi_\pi)} (s_1,s_2)= - 6
\left [ (s_1- m_Q^2)\delta^{(1)}(s_1-s_2)+ \frac{1}{2}
(s_1 -m_Q^2)^2\delta^{(2)}(s_1-s_2) \right ] \, \theta(s_2-m_{Q}^2)
\,,
\nonumber\\
&\rho_1^{(u\phi^p_{3\pi})} (s_1,s_2)=-(s_1-m_Q^2)
\delta^{(1)}(s_1-s_2)\, \theta(s_2-m_{Q}^2) \,,
\nonumber \\
& \rho_1^{(\phi^{\sigma}_{3\pi})} (s_1,s_2) = \rho_1^{(\varphi_\pi)} (s_1,s_2) \,,
\nonumber\\
&
\rho_2^{(\phi^{\sigma}_{3\pi})} (s_1,s_2) =
-6 \left [ \delta^{(1)}(s_1-s_2) + (s_1 - m_Q^2)\delta^{(2)}(s_1-s_2) \right ] \theta(s_2 - m_Q^2)
\nonumber \\
& \hspace*{2.5cm} -6 \left [\delta^{(1)}(s_1-s_2) + \frac{1}{2}(s_1 - m_Q^2)\delta^{(2)}(s_1-s_2) \right ] (s_1 - m_Q^2)\delta(s_2-m_Q^2) \,,
\nonumber\\
&
\tilde{\rho}_2^{(\phi^{\sigma}_{3\pi})} (s_1,s_2) = s_1 \,\rho_2^{(\phi^{\sigma}_{3\pi})} (s_1,s_2)\,.
\label{eq:rhophipi}
\end{align}
The expression (\ref{eq:rhoLO}) enables
to write down the
double spectral representation of $F^{\rm (LO)}$ in a form (\ref{eq:ddispOPE})
and to perform a double Borel transformation
in a general case of the two unequal parameters $M_1^2,M_2^2$.
In what follows we put $M_1=M_2$ as motivated by the heavy quark symmetry.
After integrating (\ref{eq:rhoLO}) over
the duality region specified in the next subsection,
we will see that the resulting LO part of the sum rule is substantially
simplified and reduced to a linear combination of DAs or their derivatives at the middle point.
\subsection{Double spectral density at NLO}
To NLO accuracy, the invariant amplitude we are interested
in the correlation function (\ref{eq:corr}) becomes
\begin{equation}
F^{\rm (OPE)}(q^2,(p+q)^2)=F^{\rm (LO)}(q^2,(p+q)^2)+
\frac{\alpha_sC_F}{4\pi}F^{\rm (NLO)}(q^2,(p+q)^2)\,,
\end{equation}
where the gluon radiative corrections
at $O(\alpha_s)$ have been calculated in
\cite{KRWY1,Bagan:1997bp} for the twist-2 part and
in \cite{Ball:2001fp,DKMMO} for the twist-3 part.
The result of this calculation is cast
in a form of the convolution of the hard-scattering amplitudes and the
twist-2 and twist-3 DAs:
\begin{eqnarray}
F^{\rm (NLO)}(q^2,(p+q)^2) &=& f_\pi
\int\limits_0^1 du \Bigg \{ \varphi_\pi (u) \, T_{1}(q^2,(p+q)^2,u)
\nonumber\\
&& + \frac{\mu_\pi}{m_{Q}}\big[
\phi^p_{3\pi}(u) T_{1}^p(q^2,(p+q)^2, u) +
\phi^\sigma_{3\pi}(u) T_{1}^\sigma(q^2,(p+q)^2,u) \big]\Bigg \},
\hspace{1.2 cm}
\label{eq:convol}
\end{eqnarray}
where the expressions for the twist-2 amplitude
$ T_{1}$, and the twist-3 amplitudes $T_1^p$ and $T_1^{\sigma}$
can be found in \cite{DKMMO}. Here we do not show explicitly
the residual scale dependence of the hard-scattering amplitudes and
of the nonasymptotic parts of pion DAs.
Note that, as explained in \cite{DKMMO},
the twist-3 part of (\ref{eq:convol}) is only
applicable to the asymptotic DAs $\phi^p_{3\pi}(u)$ and $\phi^\sigma_{3\pi}(u)$,
(obtained by putting in (\ref{eq:DAtw3}) the parameter $f_{3\pi}\to 0$)
because the hard-scattering amplitudes $T_1^{p,\sigma}$
are determined perturbatively without taking into account the renormalization-mixing effects
between the two- and three-particle DAs.
Furthermore, in \cite{DKMMO} the NLO part of the correlation function
was represented in a form of
a single-variable dispersion relation, calculating
the imaginary part in $s_2$ which is
the timelike continuation of the variable $(p+q)^2$:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm Im}_{s_2}F^{\rm (NLO)}(q^2,s_2) &=&
\int\limits_0^1 du \Bigg \{ \varphi_\pi (u) \, {\rm Im}_{s_2} T_{1}(q^2,s_2,u,\mu)
\nonumber\\
&& + \frac{\mu_\pi}{m_{Q}}\bigg[ \phi^p_{3\pi}(u) \, {\rm Im}_{s_2} T_{1}^p(q^2,s_2,u,\mu)
+ \phi^\sigma_{3\pi}(u) \, {\rm Im}_{s_2} T_{1}^\sigma(q^2,s_2,u,\mu) \bigg] \Bigg \} \,,
\nonumber \\
\label{eq:Ims2}
\end{eqnarray}
at fixed $q^2<m_Q^2$.
The above expression was used to derive the NLO terms in LCSRs for the $H\to \pi$ form factors.
Here we need to make a step further and obtain the double spectral density
\begin{equation}
\rho^{\rm (NLO)} (s_1, s_2) \equiv \frac{1}{\pi^2}
\mbox{Im}_{s_1}\mbox{Im}_{s_2} F^{\rm (NLO)}(s_1,s_2)\,,
\label{eq:rhoopeNLO}
\end{equation}
analytically continuing (\ref{eq:Ims2}) in the variable $q^2\to s_1$.
This double density consists of the three contributions
stemming from the twist-2 and twist-3 quark-antiquark DAs:
\begin{align}
\rho^{\rm (NLO)}(s_1,s_2)= \rho^{\rm (tw2,NLO)}(s_1, s_2)+
\rho^{({\rm tw3}p,\rm NLO)}(s_1, s_2)+\rho^{\rm (tw3\sigma,NLO)}(s_1, s_2)\,.
\label{eq:rhoNLO}
\end{align}
We will use the asymptotic DAs for all three NLO terms.
To justify this approximation, we note that at LO the nonasymptotic
contributions due to the Gegenbauer moments in the twist-2 DA
(see (\ref{eq:phipi2})) contribute at the level of
a few percent to LCSR, if a typical magnitude of the moments
$a_2,a_4$ is taken (see the section on numerical results below).
An additional $O(\alpha_s)$ factor will suppress these contributions well
below the level of the parametric uncertainties of the sum rule.
For the twist-3 part the nonasymptotic effects at NLO are even
smaller, because already at LO these effects are
determined by a combination of parameters
$f_{3\pi}/(\mu_\pi f_\pi) \sim 0.01$.
For the asymptotic DAs, the calculation of $\rho^{\rm (NLO)}(s_1,s_2)$
simplifies since the integral over $u$ in (\ref{eq:Ims2}) is performed
before analytically continuing the variable $q^2$ to $q^2=s_1>m_b^2$.
The expressions for the imaginary parts in $(p+q)^2$ of the hard scattering amplitudes
in (\ref{eq:Ims2}) are taken from \cite{DKMMO}.
The twist-2 term in (\ref{eq:rhoNLO}) was already calculated in \cite{KRWY_2}.
We have recalculated it and confirm the expression presented there.
The resulting expression
for $\rho^{\rm (tw2,NLO)}(s_1, s_2)$ is presented in the Appendix~\ref{app:nlo}.
Note that, since we are now using the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme
for the heavy quark mass, an additional $O(\alpha_s)$ piece has to be added
to the expression in \cite{KRWY_2} obtained for the pole mass of the heavy quark.
The derivation of the NLO twist-3 terms in the double spectral density
(\ref{eq:rhoNLO}) is new.
In the course of calculation we found that the
resulting expressions for $\rho^{({\rm tw3}p,\rm NLO)}(s,s_2)$ and $\rho^{\rm (tw3 \sigma,NLO)}(s_1,s_2)$
contain terms which cancel each other.
Therefore the final expression of the sum of the two
denoted as $\rho^{\rm (tw3,NLO)}(s,s_2)$ is more compact.
It is presented in Appendix~\ref{app:nlo}.
\section{Quark-hadron duality and the sum rule }
\label{sec:QHD}
Having calculated the double spectral density (\ref{eq:rhoope}) as
\begin{equation}
\rho^{\rm (OPE)}(s_1,s_2)= \rho^{\rm (LO)}(s_1,s_2)+ \frac{\alpha_sC_F}{4\pi} \rho^{\rm (NLO)}(s_1,s_2)\,,
\label{eq:rhotot}
\end{equation}
where the LO part is given in (\ref{eq:rhoLO})
and the NLO part represents the sum of the twist-2 and twist-3 parts given,
respectively in (\ref{eq:tw2nlo}) and (\ref{eq:tw3nlo}),
we are in a position to
perform the integration over a duality region in the LCSR (\ref{eq:SR2}).
In the $\{s_1,s_2\}$ plane, the lower boundary of that region is determined by
the heavy quark threshold (in the chiral limit for light quarks)
and is given by the straight lines $s_1=m_Q^2$ and $s_2=m_Q^2$.
For the upper boundary symbolized by $\Sigma_0$ in (\ref{eq:SR2})
there is a multiple choice.
As argued in \cite{Neubert:1991sp}, the triangular-type duality region
is preferable in the HQET sum rule for the Isgur-Wise function,
based on the local OPE. This choice was also supported in \cite{Blok:1992fc}
by invoking the double sum rules in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics.
Here we follow the same guidelines in choosing the duality region,
notwithstanding that the LCSR for the $H^*H\pi$ coupling
is based on a different type of OPE, with an interplay of the collinear and soft QCD dynamics.
In \cite{Blok:1992fc} it was shown that duality ansatz works only if the spectral
densities are integrated first over the direction perpendicular
to the diagonal $s_1=s_2$ in the $s_{1, 2}$ plane.
Therefore, we only choose among the regions which process a smooth border crossing
of the diagonal and allow for evaluating the obtained dispersion integrals properly,
implying that the square duality region with a sharp corner on the diagonal
has to be discarded as discussed below.
The working duality region includes an interval of the diagonal $s_1=s_2$
with a length characterized by the effective threshold $s_0$,
as illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:alphas}.
The value of this parameter is expected in the ballpark
of the duality threshold in the LCSRs for the $H\to \pi$ form factors.
Our choice for the duality region is motivated by the fact
that the dominant LO part of the spectral density
(\ref{eq:rhotot}) is concentrated near diagonal,
since $\rho^{\rm (LO)}(s_1,s_2)$
represents a sum of terms proportional to $\delta(s_1-s_2)$
and its first few derivatives.
Due to this property of the LO spectral density, the shape of the
two-dimensional duality region becomes inessential.
However, since we also include
the $\rho^{\rm (NLO)}(s_1,s_2)$ part, which contains nonvanishing terms at $s_1\neq s_2$,
a certain dependence on the adopted shape of the duality region will occur.
In order to assess this effect in the NLO part, we will probe the duality regions
with different shapes but possessing the same diagonal interval along the line $s_1=s_2$.
To this end, it is convenient to use the parameterization
of the boundaries suggested in \cite{lcsr2}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\left ( {s_1 \over s_{\ast}} \right )^{\alpha} +
\left ( {s_2 \over s_{\ast}} \right )^{\alpha} \leq 1 \,,
\qquad s_1, \, s_2 \geq m_Q^2\,.
\label{eq:alpha}
\end{eqnarray}
We will probe the three regions, generated at
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:alph}
\alpha=1\,, & \qquad & s_\ast=2s_0\,, \hspace{0.8 cm} {\rm (triangle)};
\nonumber \\
\alpha=\frac{1}{2}\,, & \qquad & s_\ast=4s_0\,, \hspace{0.8 cm} {\rm (concave)};
\nonumber \\
\alpha=2\,, & \qquad & s_\ast=\sqrt{2}s_0\,, \hspace{0.5 cm} {\rm (convex)};
\end{eqnarray}
where $s_\ast$ is adjusted to provide equal diagonal intervals.
These regions are shown, respectively, in Figure~\ref{fig:alphas}.
Note that in the limit $\{\alpha\to \infty,\, s_\ast\to s_0\}$,
the parameterization (\ref{eq:alpha}) represents
a square with the side $s_0$. In this limiting case, the integration of both NLO twist-2 and twist-3 spectral densities (\ref{eq:tw2nlo}) and (\ref{eq:tw3nlo}) develops a spurious divergence at the vertex $s_1=s_2=s_0$ of the square.
This divergence can be traced back to the presence of the terms involving
\begin{eqnarray}
{d^3 \over d s_1^3} \,\Big ( \ln |s_1-s_2| \Big) \,.
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
To avoid such spurious divergences, it is sufficient to replace
the outmost vertex of the square duality region with a smooth, infinitesimally small curve.
It is clear that the terms in the NLO spectral density containing $\delta(s_1-s_2)$ and its
derivatives, after integration over any of the duality regions defined by (\ref{eq:alpha}) and (\ref{eq:alph}) and shown in Figure~\ref{fig:alphas} yield equal contributions.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6 \textwidth]{duality-shape.pdf}
\caption{The duality regions defined in Eq.(\ref{eq:alpha}).
}
\label{fig:alphas}
\end{figure}
Consequently, only those contributions at the NLO, Eqs. (\ref{eq:tw2nlo}) and (\ref{eq:tw3nlo}), which
do not contain the delta-function and its derivatives are
sensitive to the choice of the duality region.
Apart from this, presumably minor effect, which we will numerically study
in the next section, the whole LO and the main part of
NLO contributions originate from the integration over the
interval on the diagonal which is equal for all duality regions.
Hence, we hereafter adopt the most convenient choice:
the triangular region, satisfying the condition
\begin{align}
\label{eq:tridual}
s_1+s_2 \leq 2 \, s_0.
\end{align}
Returning to the LCSR (\ref{eq:SR2}), we subsequently assume equal Borel
parameters $$M_1^2=M_2^2=2M^2$$
and rewrite the sum rule as
\begin{align}
f_H f_{H^*}\,g_{H^*H\pi}
= \frac{1}{m_H^2 m_{H^*}}\exp
\left(\frac{m_{H}^2+m_{H^*}^2}{2M^2}\right)
\bigg[\mathcal F^{\rm (LO)}(M^2,s_0) + {\alpha_s \, C_F \over 4 \pi} \,
\mathcal F^{\rm (NLO)}(M^2,s_0)\bigg]\,,
\label{eq:SR3}
\end{align}
introducing the compact notation for the integrals over the triangular duality region,
\begin{align}
\mathcal F^{\rm (LO),(NLO)}(M^2,s_0)\equiv &
\int\limits^{\infty}_{-\infty} \!d s_1
\int\limits^{\infty}_{-\infty} \!d s_2\,
\theta(2s_0-s_1-s_2)\,
\exp\left(-\frac{s_1+s_2}{2\,M^2}\right)
\rho^{\rm (LO),(NLO)}(s_1,s_2) \,.
\label{eq:FLO}
\end{align}
where the lower limits determined by the heavy quark mass are
implicitly given by the theta functions in the expressions of the
spectral densities.
To calculate the LO part in (\ref{eq:SR3}),
we use (\ref{eq:rhoLO}) where the spectral density $\rho^{\rm (LO)}$
is expressed via contributions of the separate DAs.
We then reduce $\mathcal F^{\rm (LO)}(M^2,s_0)$ to a linear combination of the integrals:
\begin{align}
\mathcal F_{\ell}^{(\phi)}(M^2,s_0) \equiv &
\int\limits^{\infty}_{-\infty} d s_1
\int\limits^{\infty}_{-\infty} d s_2\,
\theta(2s_0-s_1-s_2)\,
\exp\left(-\frac{s_1+s_2}{2\,M^2}\right)
\rho^{(\phi)}_{\ell}(s_1,s_2) \,,
\label{eq:Fell}
\end{align}
where $\phi=\varphi_\pi,u\phi^p_{3\pi},\phi^\sigma_{3\pi}$, etc.
In addition, we define the similar integrals
$\widetilde{\mathcal F}_{\ell}^{(\phi)}(M^2,s_0)$ over $\widetilde \rho^{(\phi)}_{\ell}$.
It is now straightforward to replace each DA by its Taylor expansion
(\ref{eq:expphi}) and expand the density $\rho^{(\phi)}_{\ell}$ in the elementary components according to (\ref{eq:exprho}).
In fact, in the case of triangular duality region the resulting
formulas for the integrals $\mathcal F_{\ell}^{(\phi)}$ and
$\widetilde{\mathcal F}_{\ell}^{(\phi)}$
can be written in a universal form valid for a generic DA.
To this end, following \cite{BBKR}, we transform
the integration variables in (\ref{eq:Fell}):
\begin{align}
s_1=s(1-v)\,, ~~ s_2=s v
\label{eq:transf}
\end{align}
or, inversely
$$
s = s_1+s_2\,,
\qquad
v = \frac{s_2}{s_1+s_2}\,,
$$
so that $(s_1-s_2)\to s(1-2v)$, allowing us to integrate out
the $\delta(s_1-s_2)= \delta(1-2v) / s$ functions
and their derivatives over $v$. On the other hand, the exponential factor
in (\ref{eq:Fell}) becomes independent of $v$. As a result, the Taylor expansion
of an arbitrary DA $\phi(u)$ reduces to its value or its derivative at $u=1/2$
and we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:Fellphi}
&& \mathcal F_{\ell}^{(\phi)}(M^2,s_0)
\nonumber \\
&& = \frac{(-1)^\ell}{(\ell-1)!}
\bigg\{(-1)^\ell \big(M^2\big)^{2-\ell} \,
\exp \Big(-\frac{m^2_Q}{M^2}\Big)
+ \delta_{\ell 1} \, M^2 \, \exp \Big(-\frac{s_0}{M^2}\Big) \bigg\} \,
\phi(u) \,\bigg|_{u=\frac{1}{2}} \,,
\nonumber \\
&& \widetilde{\mathcal F}_{\ell}^{(\phi)}(M^2,s_0)
\nonumber \\
&& = -\frac{(-1)^\ell}{2(\ell-1)!}\,\frac{d^{\ell-1}}{d{m^2_Q}^{\ell-1}}
\int_{2\,m^2_Q}^{2\,s_0}ds \,\exp \left (-\frac{s}{2\,M^2} \right )\,
\left [ u\, \left (\frac{s}{2}-m^2_Q \right ) \, \phi^{\prime}(u)
+ \frac{s}{2} \, \phi(u) \right ]
\bigg|_{u=\frac{1}{2}} \,. \hspace{0.8 cm}
\end{eqnarray}
As we will see below, only $\widetilde{\mathcal F}_{2}$
contributes, hence for convenience we quote the second integral
in (\ref{eq:Fellphi}) at $\ell=2$
\begin{align}
\widetilde{\mathcal F}_{2}^{(\phi)}(M^2,s_0)=
m^2_Q \,
\exp \Big(-\frac{m^2_Q}{M^2}\Big) \, \phi(u)
+M^2\,\Big[\exp \Big(-\frac{m^2_Q}{M^2}\Big)
- \exp \Big(-\frac{s_0}{M^2}\Big)\Big] u\,\phi'(u)
\bigg|_{u=\frac{1}{2}}\,.
\end{align}
The above formulas are also valid for the twist-4 DA $\phi_{4\pi}$
which contains the specific
$u^k \ln u$ and $\bar u^k \ln \bar u$ terms with $k\geq 3$.
Finally, the LO part of the LCSR in (\ref{eq:SR3}) is obtained
in a form of a linear combination of the separate DA contributions:
\begin{align}
\mathcal F^{\rm (LO)}(M^2,s_0)=
f_\pi\,m^2_Q \,\Big[ {\mathcal F}_1^{(\varphi_\pi)}
+ \frac{\mu_\pi}{m_Q} \,{\mathcal F}_1^{(u\phi^p_{3\pi})}
+ \frac{1}{6} \, \frac{\mu_\pi}{m_Q}\,
\Big( 2\,{\mathcal F}_1^{(\phi^\sigma_{3\pi})}
+m^2_Q\, {\mathcal F}_2^{(\phi^\sigma_{3\pi})}
+ {\widetilde{\mathcal F}}_2^{(\phi^\sigma_{3\pi})} \Big)&
\nonumber \\
- 4 \, \frac{f_{3\pi}}{ f_\pi\,m_Q} \,
\Big( {\mathcal F}_1^{(\overline{\Phi}_{3\pi})}
-m^2_Q\, {\mathcal F}_2^{(\overline{\Phi}_{3\pi})}
+ {\widetilde{\mathcal F}}_2^{(\overline{\Phi}_{3\pi})} \Big)
- {\mathcal F}_2^{(\bar \psi_{4\pi})}
-\frac{m^2_Q}{2}\, {\mathcal F}_3^{(\phi_{4\pi})}
+ {\mathcal F}_2^{(\overline{\Phi}_{4\pi})}\Big](M^2,s_0) &\,.
\end{align}
Using (\ref{eq:Fellphi}), we obtain a compact
explicit expression which is straightforward
to use in the numerical analysis of
the LCSR (\ref{eq:SR3}):
\begin{align}
\label{eq:LOtot}
{\mathcal F}^{\rm (LO)}(M^2,s_0)
=& ~ f_\pi \, m^2_Q\,\bigg\{
M^2\,\Big[\exp\Big(-\frac{m^2_Q}{M^2}\Big) - \exp\Big(-\frac{s_0}{M^2}\Big) \Big] \Big[
\varphi_\pi(u)
\nonumber \\
+&~\frac{\mu_\pi}{m_Q} \,\Big(
u\,\phi^p_{3\pi} +\frac{1}{3}\,\phi^\sigma_{3\pi}
+ \frac{1}{6}\,u\,\frac{d\phi^{\sigma}_{3\pi}}{du}\Big)(u)
- \frac{4\,f_{3\pi}}{f_\pi\,m_Q} \,\Big(
\overline{\Phi}_{3\pi}
+ u\,\frac{d\overline{\Phi}_{3\pi}}{du}\Big)(u) \Big]
\nonumber \\
+&~ \exp\Big(-\frac{m^2_Q}{M^2}\Big)\,\Big[
\frac{\mu_\pi\,m_Q}{3} \, \phi^\sigma_{3\pi}
- \bar \psi_{4\pi}
-\frac{1}{4}\,\frac{m^2_Q}{M^2}\, \phi_{4\pi}
+\overline{\Phi}_{4\pi}
\Big](u)
\bigg\}\bigg|_{u=\frac{1}{2}}\,.
\end{align}
Comparing term by term this expression with the one obtained in \cite{BBKR}, we found that
they coincide, although
no explicit duality subtraction was applied to the twist-4 terms
in \cite{BBKR}.
In fact, the peculiar feature of the latter terms is that at equal Borel parameters
the $s_0$-dependent terms vanish, as one can realize using the expressions
for the double spectral density derived here and valid for a generic Taylor-expandable DA.
It remains to obtain the NLO part of (\ref{eq:SR3}).
We have to calculate ${\cal F}^{\rm (NLO)}(M^2, s_0)$ defined
in (\ref{eq:FLO}) by substituting the sum of the twist-2
and twist-3 NLO double spectral densities
$\rho^{\rm (tw2, NLO)}(s_1, s_2)$ and $\rho^{\rm (tw3, NLO)}(s_1, s_2)$
presented in (\ref{eq:tw2nlo}) and (\ref{eq:tw3nlo}) of Appendix~\ref{app:nlo}.
The resulting expressions of ${\cal F}^{\rm (NLO)}(M^2, s_0)$
for the triangular duality region reads:
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal F^{\rm (NLO)}(M^2,s_0) &=& f_{\pi} \, m_Q^2 \,
\int\limits _{2 m_Q^2}^{2 s_0} ds \exp\left(- \frac{s}{2 M^2}\right)
\nonumber \\
&& \times \left [ f^{\rm (tw2)} \left ( \frac{s}{m_Q^2} -2 \right )
+\left (\frac{\mu_\pi}{m_Q} \right ) f^{\rm (tw3)} \left ( \frac{s}{m_Q^2} -2 \right ) \right ] \,,
\label{eq:NLOBorel}
\end{eqnarray}
with the NLO contributions of twist-2 and twist-3:
\begin{align}
f^{\rm (tw2)}(\sigma) =&~
3\,\Big( 3\,\ln\frac{m^2_Q}{\mu^2} -4 \Big)\,
\Big[\delta(\sigma-0^+) - \frac{1}{2} \Big]
+\frac{\pi^2}{2}
\nonumber \\
&
+6 \,\text{Li}_2\left(-\frac{\sigma }{2}\right)
- 3\,\text{Li}_2\left(-\frac{\sigma }{\sigma +2}\right)
+3\, \text{Li}_2\left(\frac{\sigma }{\sigma +2}\right)
\nonumber \\
&
+\ln\frac{\sigma }{2}\, \Big[
\,3 \,\ln \frac{\sigma+2}{2}
-\frac{3}{2} \,
\frac{\sigma \,(\sigma +4)\,(3 \,\sigma +10)+24}
{(\sigma +2)^3}\Big]
\nonumber \\
&
+ 6\,\ln (\sigma +1)\frac{\sigma \,(\sigma +1)}{(\sigma +2)^3}\,
- \frac{3}{4}\, \frac{3\, \sigma ^2+20 \,\sigma +20}
{ (\sigma +2)^2}
\,,
\label{eq:ftw2}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
f^{\rm (tw3)}(\sigma) =&~
\Big( 3\,\ln\frac{m^2_Q}{\mu^2} -4 \Big)\,
\big[\delta(\sigma-0^+)+2\,\delta'(\sigma-0^+)\big]
+\Big(\frac{4}{3}\,\pi^2 +1\Big)\,\delta(\sigma-0^+)
+\frac{\pi^2}{3}
\nonumber\\
&
+4\, \text{Li}_2\left(-\frac{\sigma }{2}\right)
-2\,\text{Li}_2\left(-\frac{\sigma }{\sigma +2}\right)
+2\, \text{Li}_2\left(\frac{\sigma }{\sigma +2}\right)
\nonumber\\
&
+\ln\frac{\sigma }{2}\,
\Big[ \,2\,\ln\frac{\sigma +2}{2}
+\frac{\sigma ^2+4}{2 \, (\sigma +2)^2}
\Big]
+4 \ln (\sigma +1)
\frac{\sigma ^2+2 \,\sigma +2}{\sigma\,(\sigma +2)^2}
\nonumber\\
&
+\ln \frac{\sigma+2}{2}\left(\frac{\sigma }{8}-\frac{2}{\sigma}\right)
+\frac{3 \,\sigma ^3 +4\,\sigma ^2 -16 \,\sigma -16}
{16 \,(\sigma +2)^2}
\,,\label{eq:ftw3}
\end{align}
where ${\rm Li}_2(x)$ is the Spence function.
The expression for twist-2 part exactly matches the one given in \cite{KRWY_2}, whereas
the expression of the twist-3 NLO correction (\ref{eq:ftw3})
obtained in the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme is a new result.
To switch to the pole-mass scheme for the heavy quark,
it is sufficient to add to (\ref{eq:ftw2}) and (\ref{eq:ftw3})
the terms $\Delta f^{\rm (tw2)}(\sigma)$ and $\Delta f^{\rm (tw3)}(\sigma)$, respectively,
given in (\ref{eq:deltapole}).
As an additional check of our results, we have explicitly verified that
the factorization-scale independence of both the twist-2 and twist-3 terms in the LCSR
(\ref{eq:SR3}) at $O(\alpha_s^2)$ in the asymptotic limit.
The LCSR (\ref{eq:SR3}) for the strong $H^*H\pi$ coupling,
where $H=B$ or $D$ and, respectively, $m_Q=m_b$ or $m_c$
with the LO and NLO terms given in (\ref{eq:LOtot}) and (\ref{eq:NLOBorel})
is now complete for the triangular duality region and ready for the numerical analysis.
\section{Numerical results}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\renewcommand{1.4}{1.5}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
parameter & input value & [Ref.]& rescaled values
\\[1mm]\hline
\multicolumn{4}{|c|}{quark-gluon coupling and quark masses}
\\[1mm]\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{$\alpha_s(m_Z)$} &
\multirow{2}{*}{$0.1179 \pm 0.0010$} &
\multirow{6}{*}{\cite{PDG}} &
$\alpha_s(1.5\,\mbox{GeV})=0.3479^{+0.0100}_{-0.0096}$
\\
~& ~& ~&
$\alpha_s(3.0\,\mbox{GeV})=0.2531^{+0.0050}_{-0.0048}$
\\[1mm]
$\overline{m}_c(\overline{m}_c)$ & 1.280 $\pm$ 0.025 \mbox{GeV} &
~ &
$\overline{m}_c(1.5\,\mbox{GeV})=1.202 \pm 0.023$ \mbox{GeV}
\\[1mm]
$\overline{m}_b(\overline{m}_b)$ & 4.18 $\pm$ 0.03 \,\mbox{GeV} &
&$\overline{m}_b(3.0\,\mbox{GeV})=4.46 \pm 0.04$ \mbox{GeV}
\\[1mm]
\multirow{2}{*}{($\overline{m}_u+\overline{m}_d$)(2 \,\mbox{GeV}) }
&
\multirow{2}{*}{$6.78 \pm 0.08 $ \mbox{MeV}}& \multirow{2}{*}{\cite{Aoki:2019cca, PDG}} & ($\overline{m}_u+\overline{m}_d$)(1.5 \,\mbox{GeV}) =
7.40 $\pm$ 0.09 \mbox{MeV}\\
~ & ~& ~&
($\overline{m}_u+\overline{m}_d$)(3.0 \,\mbox{GeV}) =
6.14 $\pm$ 0.07 \mbox{MeV}\\[1mm] \hline
\multicolumn{4}{|c|}{condensates}
\\[1mm]\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{$\langle \bar q q \rangle(2\, \mbox{GeV})$}
&
\multirow{2}{*}{$-\left(286\pm 23 \; \mbox{MeV} \right)^3$}
&
\multirow{2}{*}{\cite{Aoki:2019cca}}
%
&$\langle \bar q q \rangle(1.5\, \mbox{GeV})=
-\left(279\pm 22 \; \mbox{MeV} \right)^3$
\\
~& ~& ~&
$\langle \bar q q \rangle(3.0\, \mbox{GeV})=
-\left(295\pm 24 \; \mbox{MeV} \right)^3$
\\[1mm]
$\langle GG \rangle$ & $0.012^{+0.006}_{-0.012}\; \mbox{GeV} ^4$ ~&\multirow{3}{*}{\cite{Ioffe:2002ee}}&-\\[1mm]
$m_0^2$ & 0.8 $\pm$ 0.2 GeV$^2$ & &-\\[1mm]
$r_{vac}$& $0.55\pm 0.45$& &-\\[1mm]
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\caption{QCD parameters used in the LCSRs and two-point sum rules.}
\label{tab:QCD}
\end{table}
To extract the strong couplings $g_{D^*D\pi}$ and $g_{B^*B\pi}$
from the LCSR (\ref{eq:SR3}),
we need to divide out the decay constants
of the pseudoscalar and vector heavy-light mesons.
Here we will use two different procedures.
The first one, applied in many LCSR applications, prescribes that,
instead of adopting the fixed numerical values,
one substitutes in (\ref{eq:SR3}) the two-point QCD sum rules
for decay constants $f_H$ and $f_{H^*}$ ($H=D,B$). These sum rules
presented in Appendix~\ref{app:2pt} are taken from \cite{GKPR}.
For consistency, following the arguments presented in \cite{BBKR,KRWY_2},
the two-point sum rules are taken \footnote{Note that in the previous analysis \cite{KRWY_2}
the perturbative correction to the quark condensate contribution
in the two-point sum rules was absent and is included now. }
at NLO, enabling a
partial cancellation of perturbative corrections on both sides of (\ref{eq:SR3}).
As a second, independent option,
we will use the lattice QCD values for the charmed and bottom meson decay constants.
Specifically, we will employ the latest $N_f=2+1+1$ results:
the averages for the heavy pseudoscalar mesons from
\cite{Aoki:2019cca}
and the ratios of the vector and pseudoscalar meson decay constants
obtained in \cite{Lubicz:2017asp},
\begin{eqnarray}
&f_D=212.0\pm 0.7 \,\mbox{MeV}, \qquad & f_B=190.0\pm 1.3 \,\mbox{MeV} ,
\nonumber\\
&f_{D^*}/f_{D}=1.078\pm 0.036, \qquad & f_{B^*}/f_{B}=0.958\pm 0.022.
\label{eq:lattVP}
\end{eqnarray}
Furthermore, we have to specify the parameters entering the
LCSR (\ref{eq:SR3}) and the auxiliary two-point sum rules
for decay constants.
The QCD input, including the quark-gluon coupling, the quark masses in $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme
and the vacuum condensate densities, is listed in Table~\ref{tab:QCD}.
We adopt a very precise value of the light-quark mass combination $(m_u+m_d)$ determined in lattice QCD
\cite{Aoki:2019cca} (see the average in the quark-mass review of \cite{PDG}).
We also adopt the current interval of the quark condensate \cite{Aoki:2019cca} which is consistent
with the Gell-Mann-Oakes-Renner relation.
The running of the QCD coupling and quark masses is performed with
the four-loop accuracy \cite{Chetyrkin:2000yt} and the matching scales between
$n_f=5 \,(n_f=4)$ and $n_f=4\,(n_f=3)$ are, respectively 4.2 GeV
and 1.3 GeV.
Let us discuss now our choice for the input parameters of pion DAs.
In the LO part (\ref{eq:LOtot}) of the LCSR, we encounter the values of the DAs or
their derivatives at the middle point $u=1/2$. Note that
the midpoint value of a given DA is determined
by a complete set of the coefficients in the conformal expansion, so that the LCSR
(\ref{eq:SR3}) provides an additional source
of information on the structure of DAs. In this respect it is different from the LCSRs
for the $B\to\pi$ and $D\to \pi$ form factors, where the pion DAs are weighted
by the Borel exponent and integrated over the duality interval.
On the other hand, since the NLO part of the LCSR is calculated for the asymptotic twist-2 and twist-3
two-particle DAs, the only inputs necessary
for a numerical evaluation of (\ref{eq:NLOBorel})
are the normalization factors of these DAs
given, respectively, by the pion decay constant $f_\pi$ and
by the parameter $\mu_\pi$ defined in (\ref{eq:mupi}).
The key parameter of the LO twist-2 part of
LCSR (\ref{eq:SR3}) is the value of $\varphi_\pi(1/2,\mu)$.
Expanding this DA in the Gegenbauer polynomials according to
(\ref{eq:phipi2}), we find
\begin{eqnarray}
\varphi_\pi(1/2,\, 1 \,\mbox{GeV})= 1.5
- 2.25\, a_2 + 2.8125 \,a_4 - 3.28125 \,a_6 + 3.69141\, a_8 + \dots\,.
\label{eq:phipi12}
\end{eqnarray}
Hereafter, unless the renormalization scale $\mu$ is explicitly shown, we denote by $a_n$
the Gegenbauer moments taken at the scale $\mu=1\,\mbox{GeV}$.
We see that the midpoint value of the twist-2 DA contains
a sign alternating series of all Gegenbauer moments
with slowly growing numerical coefficients.
At larger scales, the moments decrease, e.g.:
\begin{eqnarray}
\varphi_\pi(1/2,\, 3 \,\mbox{GeV})\simeq 1.5
- 1.471\,a_2 + 1.515\, a_4 - 1.553 \,a_6 + 1.585 \,a_8 + \dots\,,
\label{eq:phipi123}
\end{eqnarray}
where the scale dependence calculated using (\ref{eq:rescal})
is absorbed in the numerical coefficients. At $\mu\to \infty$, the value of
$\varphi_\pi(1/2)$ approaches its asymptotic limit equal to 3/2.
Still, at finite scales, $\varphi_\pi(1/2)$
is an important indicator of the nonasymptotic effects, complementing
the available knowledge of the lowest Gegenbauer moments.
Currently, only the second moment $a_2$ of the pion DA is accessible in QCD on the lattice.
We will use the latest quite accurate result:
\begin{equation}
a_{2}(2 \,\mbox{GeV})= 0.116^{+0.019}_{-0.020}
\label{eq:a2latt}
\end{equation}
obtained in \cite{Bali:2019dqc}. From the same analysis,
higher Gegenbauer moments cannot
be extracted reliably, e.g. for $a_4$ only a preliminary
value is quoted,
which will not be considered here.
To estimate and/or constrain the values of $a_{n\geq 4},$
one has to resort to the phenomenologically viable models of $\varphi_\pi(u)$
expanding them in Gegenbauer polynomials.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\renewcommand{1.4}{1.5}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Twist &Parameter & input value & Source [Ref.] & rescaled values
\\[1mm]\hline
\multirow{5}{*}{2} & $f_\pi$ & $130.4$ MeV & \cite{PDG} & --
\\[1mm]
~&\multirow{2}{*}{$\varphi_{\pi}(1/2, 2 \,\mbox{GeV})$} & \multirow{2}{*}{$1.31\pm 0.03$} &
\multirow{2}{*}{Model 1~\cite{Bali:2019dqc}}& $\varphi_{\pi}(1/2, 1.5 \,\mbox{GeV})= 1.31^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$ \\
~&~&~&~&$\varphi_{\pi}(1/2, 3.0 \,\mbox{GeV})= 1.34^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$\\[1mm]
~& \multirow{2}{*}{$\varphi_{\pi}(1/2, 1\,\mbox{GeV})$}&
\multirow{2}{*}{$0.99\pm 0.36$}&
\multirow{2}{*}{Model 2~\cite{Cheng:2020vwr}}&
$\varphi_{\pi}(1/2, 1.5\,\mbox{GeV})=1.09\pm 0.26$\\
~&~&~&~&$\varphi_{\pi}(1/2, 3.0\,\mbox{GeV})=1.18\pm 0.19$\\[1mm]
\hline
\multirow{6}{*}{3} & \multirow{2}{*}{$\mu_\pi(2\, \mbox{GeV})$}&
\multirow{2}{*}{2.87 $\pm$ 0.03 \mbox{GeV} }& \multirow{2}{*}{$\frac{m_\pi^2}{m_u+m_d}$
\cite{Aoki:2019cca, PDG}} &
$\mu_\pi(1.5\, \mbox{GeV})=2.63\,\pm 0.03 \, $ \mbox{GeV}\\
~&~&~&~&$\mu_\pi(3.0\, \mbox{GeV})= 3.17 \pm 0.04$ \mbox{GeV}
\\[1mm]
~& \multirow{2}{*}{ $f_{3\pi}(1\, \mbox{GeV})$} &
\multirow{2}{*}{$(4.5\pm 1.5)\cdot10^{-3}$ GeV$^2$} & \multirow{4}{*}{\cite{BBL} }&
$f_{3\pi}(1.5\, \mbox{GeV})=(3.6\pm 1.2)\cdot10^{-3}$ GeV$^2$
\\
~&~&~&~&$f_{3\pi}(3.0\, \mbox{GeV})=(2.8\pm 0.9)\cdot10^{-3}$ GeV$^2$
\\[1mm]
~& \multirow{2}{*}{ $\omega_{3\pi}(1\, \mbox{GeV})$} & \multirow{2}{*}{$-1.5 \pm 0.7$} & &
$\omega_{3\pi}(1.5\,\mbox{GeV})=-1.2 \pm 0.6$
\\
~&~&~ & ~&$\omega_{3\pi}(3.0\, \mbox{GeV})=-1.0 \pm 0.5$\\[1mm]
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{4} &\multirow{2}{*}{$\delta_\pi^2(1\, \mbox{GeV})$}&
\multirow{2}{*}{$0.18 \pm 0.06$ GeV$^2$ } &
\multirow{4}{*}{\cite{BBL}}&
$\delta_\pi^2(1.5\, \mbox{GeV}) =0.16 \pm 0.05$\\
~&~&~&~&$\delta_\pi^2(3.0\, \mbox{GeV}) =0.14 \pm 0.05$\\[1mm]
~& \multirow{2}{*}{$\epsilon_{\pi}(1\, \mbox{GeV})$ }&
\multirow{2}{*}{$0.5\pm 0.3$} & ~ &
$\epsilon_{\pi}(1.5\, \mbox{GeV})=0.4\pm 0.2$\\
~&~&~&~&$\epsilon_{\pi}(3.0\, \mbox{GeV})=0.3\pm 0.2$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{ Parameters of pion DAs.}
\label{tab:piDA}
\end{table}
To choose the input value of $\varphi_\pi(1/2)$, we adopt two such
models. The first one denoted here as Model 1 was suggested in \cite{Bali:2019dqc}:
\begin{equation}
{\rm Model\; 1:} \qquad \varphi_\pi(u)=\frac{\Gamma(2+2\alpha_\pi)}
{[\Gamma(1+\alpha_\pi)]^2}\,
u^{\alpha_\pi}\,(1-u)^{\alpha_\pi}\,.
\label{eq:model1}
\end{equation}
Its single free parameter is fixed
by equating the second Gegenbauer moment of this model
to the lattice QCD result (\ref{eq:a2latt}), yielding
$\alpha_\pi(2\,\mbox{GeV})=0.585^{+0.061}_{-0.055}$.
In addition, the first inverse moment of this DA is
\begin{equation}
\int\limits_0^1 \! du \,\frac{\varphi_\pi(u,2\,\mbox{GeV})}{1-u}=2+
\frac{1}{\alpha_\pi(2\,\mbox{GeV})}=
3.71^{+0.18}_{-0.16}\,.
\end{equation}
The corresponding
midpoint value of the DA (\ref{eq:model1}) is given in Table~\ref{tab:piDA}.
Note that the inverse moment serves as the main input in the QCD calculation of the
photon-pion transition form factor \cite{Khodjamirian:1997tk,Agaev:2012tm,Li:2013xna,Wang:2017ijn}.
As noted in \cite{Bali:2019dqc}, applying this method
with the above value, one achieves a good description of data on this form factor.
Our Model 2 is of a different origin and is based on the comparison
of the LCSR for the pion electromagnetic form factor
\cite{Braun:1999uj} with the experimental data. We use the results
of the recent analysis \cite{Cheng:2020vwr}, where a dispersion relation
and the data in the timelike region are used to reproduce the pion form factor in the spacelike region.
These results are then used to fit the LCSR form factor calculated to the twist-2 NLO accuracy including
the subleading twist-4,6 terms. Among various versions of the fitted twist-2 DAs we choose
the optimal one with the first three moments in the Gegenbauer expansion
(\ref{eq:phipi2}). The fit results obtained in \cite{Cheng:2020vwr} at the scale of 1 GeV are
\begin{equation}
{\rm Model\; 2:} \qquad a_2=0.270\pm 0.047, ~~a_4=0.179\pm 0.060,~~ a_6=0.123 \pm 0.086\,,
\label{eq:mod2}
\end{equation}
with the correlation matrix:
\begin{equation}
\Bigg(\begin{array}{ccc}
1.0 & -0.15 & -0.13\\
-0.15 &1.0 & -0.13\\
-0.13 & -0.13 & 1.0
\end{array}\Bigg)\,.
\label{eq:corrm}
\end{equation}
The corresponding input value of $\varphi_\pi(1/2, 1\,\rm{GeV})$
is given in Table~\ref{tab:piDA}.
In the same Table we specify the input parameters entering the
pion twist-3 and twist-4 DAs presented in Appendix~\ref{app:lcda}. These DAs were
worked out in \cite{BBL} to the next-to-leading order of conformal expansion.
Their normalization and nonasymptotic coefficients at $\mu=1$ GeV used as an input here were calculated from the two-point QCD sum rules (see \cite{BBL} and references therein).
We notice, in particular, the relative smallness of the twist-3 parameter $f_{3\pi}$,
which determines the nonasymptotic part of the two-particle
DAs and the normalization of the three-particle DA.
Hence, the large twist-3 contribution
to LCSR is, to a good precision, determined by
the asymptotic two-particle DAs $\phi^{p}_{3\pi}$ and $\phi^{\sigma}_{3\pi}$ at the midpoint.
Here we greatly benefit from the very accurate value of the twist-3 normalization parameter $\mu_\pi$
which is determined by the light-quark masses. Note at the same time that the $O((m_u+m_d)^2/m_\pi^2)$ correction
to the ratio of normalization factors for $\phi^{\sigma}_{3\pi}$ and $\phi^{p}_{3\pi}$
is still small enough to be neglected safely.
The contributions of the twist-4 two- and three-particle DAs, as we will see, are altogether strongly suppressed.
Therefore, there is no compelling reason to go beyond the current accuracy,
and e.g., calculate the NLO corrections to the twist-4 part, which is technically a challenging task.
To complete the choice of the input, we take the meson masses from \cite{PDG},
considering, for definiteness, the strong coupling
$\langle D^{*+}\pi^-|D^0\rangle$ and, correspondingly, $\langle \bar{B}^{*0}\pi^-|B^-\rangle$
in (\ref{eq:strong}). All other couplings with different combinations of charges are
related to the above ones via the isospin symmetry (see e.g. \cite{BBKR}). Finally, we
specify the variable parameters of the LCSR (\ref{eq:SR3}),
which include: the renormalization scale of the quark-gluon coupling and quark masses,
the factorization scale, the Borel parameters and the quark-hadron duality thresholds.
Since we perform the calculations at finite masses,
these scales and thresholds are evidently different in the sum rules involving
charmed and bottom mesons. On the other hand,
heavy-quark spin symmetry allows us to equate certain scales,
most importantly, the Borel parameters in the $H$ and $H^*$ channels.
The chosen default values and intervals of all relevant scales and thresholds
are presented in Table~\ref{tab:scales}.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
Parameter & default value (interval) & [Ref.] \\[1mm]
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{|c|}{ charmed meson sum rules}\\
\hline
$\mu$ (GeV) & 1.5~(1.0\,-\,3.0)&
\multirow{3}{*}{\cite{KKMO}}
\\[1mm]
$M^2$ (GeV$^2$) & 4.5~(3.5\,-\,5.5) &
\\[1mm]
$ s_0$ (GeV$^2$) & 7.0~(6.5\,-\,7.5) &
\\[1mm]\hline
$\bar{M}^2$(GeV$^2$) & 2.0~(1.5\,-\,2.5)&
\multirow{3}{*}{\cite{GKPR}}
\\[1mm]
$\bar{s}_{0}$ (GeV$^2$) & 5.6 &
\\
$\bar{s}_{0}^{\,*}$(GeV$^2$) & {6.2} & \\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{|c|}{bottom meson sum rules}\\
\hline
$\mu$ (GeV) & {3.0~(2.5\,-\,4.5)}&
\multirow{3}{*}{\cite{KMOW}} \\
$M^2$ (GeV$^2$) & {16.0~(12.0\,-\,20.0)} &\\
$ s_0$ (GeV$^2$) & {37.5\,(35.0\,-\,40.0)} & \\
\hline
$\bar{M}^2$ (GeV$^2$)& {5.5~(4.5\,-\,6.5)} &
\multirow{3}{*}{\cite{GKPR}} \\
$\bar{s}_{0}$(GeV$^2$) & 33.9 & \\
$\bar{s}_{0}^{\,*}(\mbox{GeV}^2$) & 34.1& \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The renormalization scale $\mu$, Borel parameters $M^2$ and $\bar{M}^2$
and duality thresholds $s_0$ and $\bar{s}_0$ ($\bar{s_0}^{*}$)
used, respectively in the LCSR and the two-point sum rules for the $H$ ($H^*$) decay constants
for both charmed and bottom mesons.}
\label{tab:scales}
\end{table}
Here we follow the numerical analysis of the related LCSRs
for the $D\to \pi$ and $B\to \pi$ form factors. More specifically,
we employ for the charm and bottom cases of (\ref{eq:SR3}) the same
variable scales and thresholds as, respectively, in \cite{KKMO} and \cite{KMOW}.
The compelling argument is that we deal here with the same underlying correlation
function and the same light-cone OPE as in the form factor sum rules.
Also, the renormalization scales of $\alpha_s$ and quark masses are taken equal to
the factorization scale $\mu$ appearing in the OPE of the correlation function
\footnote{Note that the currents $j_{\mu}$ and $j_5$ in (\ref{eq:corr}) are
renormalization invariant.} (\ref{eq:corr}).
In the adopted approximation the factorization scale
reveals itself in the nonasymptotic components of DAs in the LO part, while in the NLO part we use the asymptotic DAs.
For consistency, the same scale is used in the corresponding two-point sum rules for $f_H$ and $f_{H^*}$.
In Tables~\ref{tab:QCD}
and \ref{tab:piDA}, apart from the input values of the scale-dependent
parameters at a given reference scale
$\mu=2.0$ GeV or $\mu=1.0$ GeV,
we also present, for convenience, their rescaled values at $\mu=1.5$ GeV and
$\mu=3.0$ GeV, to be used in the sum rules
with charmed and bottom mesons, respectively.
Note that the midpoint value of the twist-2 DA can be rescaled only if it is
expressed as a linear combination of multiplicatively renormalizable Gegenbauer moments,
because the latter possess different anomalous dimensions.
Hence, for the Model 1 we first calculate the Gegenbauer moments of the DA in (\ref{eq:model1}),
and then, forming the expansion, rescale each moment according to
(\ref{eq:rescal}). For the Model 2 the rescaling is straightforward.
The resulting values of $\varphi_\pi(1/2)$ for both models
are presented in Table \ref{tab:piDA} at the two default scales,
together with the parameters used for the twist-3 and twist-4 DAs.
The formulas determining the scale dependence of the latter can be found e.g. in the Appendix A of \cite{DKMMO}.
As already mentioned above, the intervals of Borel parameter, as well as the values of threshold parameters in the LCSR (\ref{eq:SR3})
are the same as in the LCSR analyses for $D\to\pi$ \cite{KKMO} and $B\to \pi$ \cite{KMOW} form factors. In each of these analyses, the duality threshold was adjusted by
fitting the differentiated sum rule to the heavy meson mass.
The Borel parameters and duality thresholds
in the two-point sum rules for the $H^{(*)}$ decay constants are
taken from \cite{GKPR}.
With the input specified above, we calculate first the product
of the strong coupling and decay constants from the
sum rule (\ref{eq:SR3}). The results are presented
in Table \ref{tab:products}
at the central input and at default scales, including also the separate twist and NLO contributions. The twist-2 and twist-3 contributions are
at the same level, similar as in the LCSRs for heavy-to-light form factors. In the twist-2 LO part of LCSR (\ref{eq:SR3})
the contributions of nonasymptotic terms
are quite noticeable, as can be seen from
comparison of the results for the two different DA models.
At the same time,
the share of asymptotic DAs
constitutes 93\% (87\%) of the twist-3 LO contribution for the
bottom (charmed) meson case.
The convergence of the OPE is supported by the smallness of
the twist-4 contributions.
In addition, as already mentioned, the twist-5 and twist-6 terms in the
OPE of the correlation function (\ref{eq:corr})
obtained in the factorizable approximation in \cite{Rusov:2017chr}
have negligible impact, allowing us to neglect them here.
On the other hand, as seen from Table \ref{tab:products},
the NLO contributions are appreciable, reaching e.g. for the bottom meson case the level of 20\% (35\%) for twist 2 (twist 3).
The results presented in this Table correspond to our default choice of the triangle
duality region in the $(s_1,s_2)$ plane, described by the parameterization (\ref{eq:alpha}) at $\alpha=1/2$.
In addition, to investigate how the choice of the duality region influences the LCSR,
we calculated the NLO terms at the same default value of $s_0$ for two other choices
of the region corresponding to $\alpha=1$ and $\alpha=2$. The results are presented in Table~\ref{tab:region}. We see that deviations with respect to the choice of
triangle region are at the level of a few percent of the total values
of both $f_{D}f_{D^*}g_{D^*D\pi}$ and $f_{B}f_{B^*}g_{B^*B\pi}$.
We include this deviation into the total uncertainty for the
predicted strong couplings $g_{D^*D\pi}$ and $g_{B*B\pi}$.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{5pt}
\def1.4{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c||c|}
\hline
LCSR result & tw~2 LO & tw~2 NLO & tw~3 LO & tw~3 NLO
&tw~4 & total\\
\hline
$f_D\,f_{D^*}\,g_{D^*D\pi}$
& 0.188 (Model 1)& \multirow{2}{*}{0.049}
& \multirow{2}{*}{0.333} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.115}
& \multirow{2}{*}{-0.001} & 0.684
\\
$[{\rm GeV}^2]$ & 0.156 (Model 2) &~ &~ &~ &~ & 0.652
\\
\hline
$f_B\,f_{B^*}\,g_{B^*B\pi}$
& 0.416 (Model 1) & \multirow{2}{*}{0.081}
&\multirow{2}{*}{0.395} &\multirow{2}{*}{0.148}
&\multirow{2}{*}{-0.004} & 1.037
\\
$[{\rm GeV}^2]$ &0.367 (Model 2) &~ &~ &~ &~ & 0.988
\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Numerical results at the central input.}
\label{tab:products}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1. \textwidth]{mu_dep.pdf}
\caption{Scale dependence of the products
$f_D f_{D^*}g_{D^*D\pi}$ and $f_B f_{B^*} g_{B^*D\pi}$ calculated from LCSR.
Displayed are the total values and separate twist-2 and twist-3 contributions
for Model 1 of the twist-2 pion DA and at central values of all other
input parameters.}
\label{fig:mu}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{5pt}
\def1.4{1.1}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c||c|c|}
\hline
LCSR result & $\alpha$ & tw~2 NLO & tw~3 NLO
\\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{$f_D\,f_{D^*}\,g_{D^*D\pi}~[{\rm GeV}^2]$}
& 1/2 &
0.056& 0.128\\
~ & 1 & 0.049 & 0.115 \\
~ & 2 & 0.038 & 0.093\\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{$f_B\,f_{B^*}\,g_{B^*B\pi}~[{\rm GeV}^2]$}
& 1/2 & 0.090& 0.158\\
~ & 1 & 0.081 & 0.148 \\
~ & 2 & 0.066 & 0.131 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Numerical results for different duality regions at central values of parameters.}
\label{tab:region}
\end{table}
To finally obtain these couplings, we divide out
the heavy-meson decay constants applying the two different methods described above:
we either use the two-point sum rules or the lattice QCD results listed in (\ref{eq:lattVP}).
For comparison, we quote the values of decay constants calculated at NLO from the two-point sum rules at central input:
\begin{equation}
f_D=190.7~\mbox{MeV}, \qquad f_{D^*}= 247.3~\mbox{MeV}, \qquad
f_B=201.0~\mbox{MeV}, \qquad f_{B^*}=214.0~\mbox{MeV}\,.
\nonumber
\end{equation}
Our final results are shown in Table \ref{tab:res} for both Model 1 and 2 of the twist-2 DA and for both choices of the decay constants.
The interval attributed to each separate entry in Table~\ref{tab:res}
is evaluated, adding in quadrature the separate uncertainties
caused by individual variations of all input parameters and scales
within their adopted intervals in LCSR. When using the
two-point sum rules for the $D^{(*)}$ and $B^{(*)}$ decay constants, we vary
the scale $\mu$ and Borel parameters (condensate densities) concertedly
(independently). The lattice results for the decay constants
have very small errors which play almost no role in the uncertainty budget.
Finally, the total uncertainty quoted in Table~\ref{tab:res} also
includes the variation due to the change of the duality
region in the NLO part as described in Sec. \ref{sec:QHD}.
We assume that the
latter uncertainty at least partially assesses the ``systematic error"
of LCSR caused by the quark-hadron duality ansatz.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{5pt}
\def1.4{1.4}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c||c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$\varphi_\pi(1/2)$ & decay constants & $g_{D^*D\pi}$ & $g_{B^*B\pi}$ & $\hat{g}$ &$\delta$\,[GeV]\\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Model 1} & 2-point sum rule
& $14.5^{+3.5}_{-2.4}$ & $24.1^{+4.5}_{-3.8}$
& $0.18^{+0.02}_{-0.03}$
& $3.28^{+0.62}_{-0.17}$
\\
& Lattice QCD & $14.1^{+1.3}_{-1.2}$
& $30.0^{+2.6}_{-2.4}$
& $0.30^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$
& $1.17^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$\\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Model 2} & 2-point sum rule
& $13.8^{+3.1}_{-2.3}$ & $23.0^{+4.5}_{-3.8}$
& $0.17^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$
& $3.31^{+0.30}_{-0.01}$\\
& Lattice QCD & $13.5^{+1.4}_{-1.4}$
& $28.6^{+3.0}_{-2.8}$
& $0.29^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$
& $1.18^{+0.00}_{-0.02}$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{LCSR results for the strong couplings of the charmed and bottom mesons for the two
methods of dividing out the decay constants and the two models of the pion twist-2 DA,
at the central values of parameters.}
\label{tab:res}
\end{table}
The LCSR prediction for $D^*D\pi$ ($B^*B\pi$) strong coupling has altogether
an estimated uncertainty of 20-25\% (15-20\%),
if the heavy-meson decay constants are replaced by the two-point sum rules.
The uncertainties become smaller when we use more accurate lattice QCD values
for the heavy-meson decay constants.
For the two options for decay constants the
predicted intervals
of $g_{D^*D\pi}$ are close to each other,
whereas the intervals of $g_{B^*B\pi}$ only marginally agree.
The shift between the central values
of the $B^*B\pi$ coupling mainly originates due to the ${\cal O} \, (20 \%)$ difference
between the lattice-QCD value of $f_{B^{\ast}}$ and the central value of
the two-point sum rule prediction \footnote{As already mentioned, for consistency,
here we use the two-point sum rules at NLO.
More accurate sum rules at NNLO yield \cite{GKPR} the ratio
$f_{B^{\ast}}/f_B=1.02^{+0.02}_{-0.09}$, reflecting the heavy-spin symmetry breaking effect. Within uncertainties,
this result is in agreement with (\ref{eq:lattVP}) calculated in the lattice QCD \cite{Lubicz:2017asp}.}.
We also notice that the choice of the model for the pion twist-2
DA is less important for the charmed-meson strong coupling, the reason being
a dominance of the twist-3 contribution enhanced by the ratio $\mu_\pi/m_c$
with respect to $\mu_\pi/m_b$ for the bottom-meson coupling.
Comparing our numerical results with the original LCSR calculation in \cite{BBKR},
we notice a substantial increase of the products of the strong couplings
and decay constants displayed in Table~\ref{tab:products}
with respect to the results $f_Df_{D^*}g_{D^*D\pi}=0.51 \pm 0.05~\mbox{GeV}^2$
and $f_Bf_{B^*}g_{B^*B\pi}= 0.64\pm 0.06~\mbox{GeV}^2$ obtained in \cite{BBKR}.
This increase is mainly caused by the twist-2 and twist-3 NLO terms in the LCSR,
which were absent in \cite{BBKR}.
In addition, the updated input parameters in our numerical analysis differ
from the ones adopted in \cite{BBKR}.
Most importantly, we use the $\overline{\rm MS}$ heavy-quark masses
instead of the pole-mass scheme employed in \cite{BBKR}.
In particular, the updated value of the twist-3 normalization parameter $\mu_\pi$ has become substantially larger.
Moreover, the updated inputs affect the numerical LO result in different directions,
largely compensating each other in the case of charmed mesons
and generating an additional increase in the case of bottom mesons.
The determined strong couplings are numerically influenced by the magnitude
of the products of heavy-meson decay constants.
In \cite{BBKR} they were taken from the two-point sum rules at LO.
By contrast, the larger values of these products are employed here
such that the above-mentioned increase of the LCSR results
is either partially (for the charmed-meson case) or almost completely (for the bottom-meson case) compensated, as can be seen by comparing
our predictions presented in Table~\ref{tab:res} with
$g_{D^*D\pi}= 12.5\pm 1.0 $ and $g_{B^*B\pi}= 29\pm 3 $ from \cite{BBKR}.
It is also instructive to investigate the limit of infinitely heavy-quark mass
obtained from the LCSR (\ref{eq:SR3}) for the strong coupling.
This sum rule, where the
underlying correlation function is calculated at the finite mass $m_Q$,
not only reproduces the leading-power behaviour of the coupling at $m_Q\to \infty$
but also enables a quantitative assessment of the $1/m_Q$ corrections.
For the heavy-to-light form factors obtained from the LCSRs, the heavy-quark mass expansion has been
investigated in the early papers \cite{Ali:1993vd,Khodjamirian:1998vk}.
To proceed, we apply to the sum rule (\ref{eq:SR3}) the
usual scaling relations (valid up to the inverse heavy-quark mass corrections):
\begin{eqnarray}
f_H=f_{H*}=\frac{\hat{f}}{\sqrt{m_Q}},~~m_H=m_{H*}=m_Q+\overline{\Lambda},~~
M^2= 2m_Q\tau,~~ s_0=m_Q^2+2m_Q\omega_0 \,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\hat{f}$ and $\overline{\Lambda}$ are, respectively, the static decay constant
and the binding energy of heavy meson in HQET,
and the parameters $\tau$ and $\omega_0$
do not scale with $m_Q$. We obtain at LO
\begin{eqnarray}
g_{H^*H\pi} = \frac{2m_Q }{f_\pi} \Bigg[\frac{f_\pi^2}{\hat{f}^2}e^{\overline{\Lambda}/\tau}\bigg\{\tau\left(1-
e^{-\omega_0/\tau}\right)\varphi_\pi(1/2)+
\frac{\mu_\pi}{6}\phi_{3\pi}^{\sigma}(1/2)
-\frac{\phi_{4\pi}(1/2)}{16\tau}\bigg\}\Bigg] + \dots \,,
\hspace{0.8 cm}
\label{eq:HQET}
\end{eqnarray}
where ellipsis indicates the inverse heavy-mass corrections.
Comparing the above formula with the definition (\ref{eq:heavy}) and taking the
limit $m_Q\to \infty$, we notice that the expression in square brackets
is nothing but a sum rule for the static coupling $\hat{g}$ in HM$\chi$PT.
Note that the twist-3 and 4 terms also contribute to this sum rule.
Moreover, from the LCSR (\ref{eq:SR3}) we are in a position
to estimate both the static coupling and the inverse mass corrections
to it. Including the NLO terms in this limiting procedure is however nontrivial,
because one has to resum the logarithms of the heavy-quark mass.
A systematic way is to derive the LCSR for the strong coupling directly in HQET, a task which is beyond our scope here.
Expanding the rescaled sum rule (\ref{eq:SR3})
in the powers of $1/m_Q$, we follow \cite{BBKR},
and parameterize the LCSR result for the strong coupling a form (\ref{eq:heavy}) with an added inverse heavy-mass correction
\footnote{This parametrization is further supported by the heavy quark expansion
of the strong couplings $H^{\ast} H \pi$ in the framework of HM$\chi$PT \cite{Boyd:1994pa,Casalbuoni:1996pg}.}:
\begin{equation}
g_{H^*H\pi}=\frac{2m_H\hat{g}}{f_\pi}\left(1+\frac{\delta}{m_H}\right), ~~~(H=D,B) \,.
\label{eq:hqe}
\end{equation}
Equating the above formula to the obtained values of $g_{D^* D \pi}$ and $g_{B^* B \pi}$ presented in Table~\ref{tab:res}, we
encounter the two equations yielding the parameters $\hat{g}$ and $\delta$.
Their resulting values are presented in the last two columns
of the same table. We find that the inverse mass corrections are large,
especially in the case of the $D^*D\pi$ strong coupling as it was already noticed in \cite{BBKR}.
Hence, estimating the
static coupling $\hat{g}$ from the known
$D^*D\pi$ or $B^*B\pi$ couplings via the relation (\ref{eq:heavy}),
as it is frequently done in the literature, is actually not reliable in practice.
The obtained values for the $D^*D\pi$ coupling can be compared
to its experimentally measured value, extracted from
the width of the $D^{\ast+}\to D^0 \pi^+$ decay:
\begin{equation}
\Gamma(D^{*+}\to D^0\pi^+)=\frac{g_{D^*D\pi}^2}{24\pi m_{D^*}^2}|\vec{p}|^3\,,
\label{eq:width}
\end{equation}
where $|\vec{p}|=39 $ MeV is the decay momentum in the rest frame of $D^*$.
The above formula for the partial width is obtained from the
decay amplitude which is defined by crossing-transforming
the initial definition (\ref{eq:strong})
\begin{equation}
\langle D^0(q-p) \pi^+(p)|D^{*+}(q)\rangle =-g_{D^* D\pi}\,p^\mu\epsilon_\mu^{(D^*)}\,.
\label{eq:strongD}
\end{equation}
The PDG average \cite{PDG} of the two measurements \cite{CLEODstDpi,BaBarDstDpi}
of the $D^{*\pm}$-meson total width is
$\Gamma_{\rm tot}(D^{*\pm})= 83.4 \pm 1.8$ keV
\footnote{For the $D^{*0}$ total width only an upper limit is measured so far. To relate the total widths
of charged and neutral $D^*$ mesons, the isospin symmetry
is not sufficient, because one needs in addition the radiative decay widths $\Gamma(D^*\to D\gamma)$.
Currently, the latter are only available from the theory estimates. The LCSR prediction
can be found e.g. in \cite{Li:2020rcg,Rohrwild}.} and using the
precisely measured branching fraction ${\cal BR}(D^*\to D \pi)=0.677 \pm 0.005$ from \cite{PDG} yields
\begin{equation}
\Gamma(D^{*+}\to D^0\pi^+)=
(56.5 \pm 1.3)\, {\rm keV} \,,
\end{equation}
where we have added the two errors of independent measurements in quadrature.
Then, from (\ref{eq:strongD}) we finally obtain the strong coupling:
\begin{equation}
[g_{D^*D\pi}]_{\rm exp}=16.8 \pm 0.2 \,.
\label{eq:DstDpiexp}
\end{equation}
Our results on the $D^*D\pi$ coupling presented in Table~\ref{tab:res} are somewhat smaller than
the above value, but the difference is not significant.
Even if we take the smallest interval predicted from LCSR
(the combination of Model 2 with the lattice decay constants)
its upper limit is only 10\% smaller
than the measured strong coupling.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7 \textwidth]{phi.pdf}
\caption{The dependence of
$g_{D^*D\pi}$ and $g_{B^*B\pi}$ on the value of $\varphi_\pi(1/2)$.
The lattice QCD results for the decay constants of heavy mesons are employed.}
\label{fig:phi}
\end{figure}
Furthermore, it is instructive to investigate how sensitive
are the LCSRs for $D^*D\pi$ and $B^*B\pi$ couplings
to the midpoint value of the pion twist-2 DA.
In Figure \ref{fig:phi} we plot the dependence of both strong couplings
on $\varphi_\pi(1/2)$ considering the latter as a free parameter. We observe a very mild dependence of
$g_{D^*D\pi}$, so that
the overlap of the LCSR prediction within its uncertainty interval
with the experimental value (\ref{eq:DstDpiexp}) yields a broad interval with
$\varphi_\pi(1/2)>1.5$.
Having in mind that an unaccounted uncertainty of LCSR
at the level of $\sim 10\%$ is not excluded, we conclude that fixing the midpoint value of $\varphi_\pi$
only from the measured $D^*D\pi$ coupling is not realistic.
In this respect, the dependence of $g_{B^*B\pi}$ on $\varphi_\pi(1/2)$
plotted in Figure \ref{fig:phi} is steeper.
Hence, an accurate lattice QCD prediction for this coupling
obtained at finite $b$-quark mass, being equated to LCSR, can yield
a more tight constraint on the pion DA.
Returning to the comparison of $g_{D^*D\pi}$ with experiment, a comment
is in order. The interval $\varphi_\pi(1/2,\mu=1.5 \,\mbox{GeV})>1.5$ preferred from this
comparison may indicate that the pion twist-2 DA at low scales has a structure
different from both Models 1, 2 we have used. It is in fact possible to construct a pion DA which
has a midpoint value exceeding the asymptotic limit and,
simultaneously, the second Gegenbauer moment equal to the lattice QCD value
in (\ref{eq:a2latt}). The simplest option is to adopt a truncated Gegenbauer expansion
with a relatively large positive $a_4(1\, \mbox{GeV})$ and small $a_{n>4}$.
A pion DA with such a pattern of Gegenbauer moments at $\mu=1 \,\mbox{GeV}$:
$a_2=0.135\pm 0.032$ (the rescaled value (\ref{eq:a2latt})) and $a_4=0.218\pm 0.059$, $a_{n>4}=0$,
was used in \cite{Cheng:2020vwr} (see the second line in the Table IV there)
among other models fitting the LCSR for the pion electromagnetic form factor to the timelike form factor data.
According to (\ref{eq:phipi12}), the resulting midpoint value is
$\varphi_\pi(1/2,\, \mu=1 \,\mbox{GeV})= 1.81\pm 0.18$.
Note however that the Model 2 chosen above and adopted from the same analysis provides a better fit
to the pion form factor.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l||c|c|c|}
\hline
Method &$g_{D^*D\pi}$ & $g_{B^*B\pi}$ & $\hat{g}$ \\[1mm]
\hline
&&&\\[-3mm]
LQCD, $N_f=2$ \; \cite{Becirevic:2012pf}& $15.9\pm 0.7^{+0.2}_{-0.4}$& --& --\\[1mm]
\hline
&&&\\[-3mm]
LQCD, $N_f=2+1$ \; \cite{Can:2012tx}&
$16.23\pm 1.71$ & --& --\\[1mm]
\hline
&&&\\[-3mm]
\multirow{2}{*}{LQCD, $N_f=2+1$ \; \cite{Flynn:2015xna}}
&\multirow{2}{*}{--}
&$\frac{2m_B}{f_\pi}(0.56\pm0.03\pm 0.07)$
&\multirow{2}{*}{--} \\[1mm]
&&$=45.3 \pm 6.0$&\\[1mm]
\hline
&&&\\[-3mm]
LQCD, $N_f=2$ \; \cite{Becirevic:2009yb} &-- & --&$0.44\pm 0.03^{+0.07}_{-0.0}$ \\[1mm]
\hline
&&&\\[-3mm]
LQCD, $N_f=2+1$ \; \cite{Detmold:2012ge}&-- & --&$0.449\pm 0.051$ \\[1mm]
\hline
&&&\\[-3mm]
LQCD, $N_f=2$ \; \cite{Bernardoni:2014kla}&-- &-- &$0.492\pm 0.029$ \\[1mm]
\hline
&&&\\[-2mm]
LCSR (this work) & $14.1^{+1.3}_{-1.2}$
& $30.0^{+2.6}_{-2.4}$
& $0.30^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ \\[1mm]
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Strong couplings of the heavy mesons with pion obtained from lattice QCD (LQCD),
compared with our LCSR prediction (using Model 1 of the pion DA and the lattice-QCD decay constants).}
\label{tab:compar}
\end{table}
In Table~\ref{tab:compar} we compare our results with
the strong couplings calculated from the lattice QCD. We only select the results obtained with the number of flavours $N_f>1$.
The determinations of $g_{D^*D\pi}$ in \cite{Becirevic:2012pf,Can:2012tx} are consistent
with our results, whereas the only available result \cite{Flynn:2015xna} for $g_{B^*B\pi}$
is significantly larger than our prediction.
The same is valid for the static coupling $\hat{g}$ in the lattice QCD.
The latter comparison is, however, not completely consistent
because our results for $\hat{g}$ are based on the fit of Eq.~(\ref{eq:hqe})
which includes the higher-order correction in the heavy quark expansion.
Furthermore, let us mention an independent possibility to extract the $B^*B\pi$ coupling.
The procedure, explained in detail in \cite{Imsong:2014oqa}
(see also \cite{Li:2010rh}),
is based on the hadronic dispersion relation for
the $B\to \pi$ vector form factor:
\begin{equation}
f^+_{B\pi}(q^2)=\frac{g_{B^*B\pi} f_{B^*}}{2m_{B^*}(1-q^2/m^2_{B^*})}+
\frac{1}{\pi}\!\!\!\!\!\!\int\limits_{(m_B+m_\pi)^2}^\infty \!\!\!\!\!dt\,
\frac{\mbox{Im} f^+_{B\pi}(t)}{t-q^2}
\label{eq:Hpidisp}
\end{equation}
valid without subtractions. The above relation contains
the vector-meson $B^*$ pole, which lies
slightly below the threshold \footnote{The separation of the $D^*$ pole
located above the $D\pi$ threshold is
not a straightforward procedure, hence here we refrain from
considering the same method for the $D^*D\pi$ coupling.} $q^2=(m_B+ m_\pi)^2$.
A small width of this meson determined by the $B^*\to B\gamma$ decay
can safely be neglected in (\ref{eq:Hpidisp}).
The residue of the $B^*$ pole is a product of the $B^*B\pi$
coupling and the $B^*$ decay constant.
Multiplying both sides of (\ref{eq:Hpidisp})
by the denominator of the pole term, we take the limit
$q^2\to m_{B^*}^2$, removing the complicated
integral over hadronic spectral density, so that
\begin{equation}
g_{B^*B\pi}= \frac{2m_{B^*}}{f_{B^*}}\lim_{q^2\to m_{B^*}^2}
\Big[\left(1-q^2/m^2_{B^*}\right)f^+_{B\pi}(q^2)\Big] \,.
\label{eq:BstarBpilimit}
\end{equation}
Here we benefit from the fact that the pion mass is much smaller than $m_B$,
hence, any analytic representation of the expression
in the square bracket of the above equation,
valid in the low pion recoil region
$q^2\lesssim (m_B-m_\pi)^2$ of the $B\to\pi$ transition,
provides an accurate limit.
The most convenient representation for that purpose is the
BCL version \cite{Bourrely:2008za} of the $z$-expansion
based on the conformal mapping of the momentum transfer squared:
$$ q^2\to z(q^2)= \frac{\sqrt{(m_B+m_\pi)^2-q^2}-\sqrt{(m_B+m_\pi)^2-t_0}}{
\sqrt{(m_B+m_\pi)^2-q^2}+\sqrt{(m_B+m_\pi)^2-t_0}}\,,$$
where the optimal choice is
$t_0= (m_B+m_\pi)(\sqrt{m_B}-\sqrt{m_\pi})^2$.
In this case,
the expression under the square bracket in (\ref{eq:BstarBpilimit})
represents a polynomial in $z$ and can be easily continued
to $z(m_{B^*}^2)$.
As an example, we make use of the lattice QCD, $N_f=2+1$ calculation \cite{Lattice:2015tia}
of the $B\to \pi$ form factor, where the $z$-expansion
\begin{equation}
\left(1-q^2/m^2_{B^*}\right)f^+_{B\pi}(q^2)=\sum\limits_{n=0}^{N_z-1}b_n^+\Big( [z(q^2)]^n-
(-1)^{n-N_z}\frac{n}{N_z}[z(q^2)]^{N_z}\Big)\,,
\label{eq:Bpizexp}
\end{equation}
was implemented.
Choosing the preferred
$N_z=4$ version with the coefficients $b_n^+$ from Table XIV of \cite{Lattice:2015tia},
we substitute (\ref{eq:Bpizexp}) in (\ref{eq:BstarBpilimit}).
Adopting for $f_{B^*}$ the lattice QCD value in (\ref{eq:lattVP}), we obtain:
\begin{equation}
g_{B^*B\pi}=34.5\pm 3.0 \,,
\label{eq:gBstpole}
\end{equation}
where the uncertainty is obtained taking into account the errors and correlations
of the coefficients $b_n^+$ quoted in \cite{Lattice:2015tia} and the error
of the decay constant $f_{B^\ast}$.
Before commenting on this result, we note that
the truncated $z$-expansion in (\ref{eq:Bpizexp}) is employed
here merely as a smooth fit function. It is used to fit the l.h.s. of (\ref{eq:Bpizexp})
which consists of the form factor calculated \cite{Lattice:2015tia} at $17\,\mbox{GeV}^2 <q^2<26\,\mbox{GeV}^2$
and multiplied with $(1-q^2/m^2_{B^*})$ to remove the $B^*$ pole .
We then extrapolate this function to a slightly larger $q^2=m_{B^*}^2\simeq 28$ GeV$^2$
to reach the limit (\ref{eq:BstarBpilimit}).
Hence, the accuracy of the truncation in (\ref{eq:Bpizexp}) plays a minor role
in this procedure, being more important for an extrapolation to the small $q^2$ region.
The estimate (\ref{eq:gBstpole}) turns out to be significantly smaller than the
result of a ``direct" lattice QCD calculation of $g_{B^*B\pi}$,
involving the finite-mass $b$-quarks \cite{Flynn:2015xna}
and presented in Table~\ref{tab:compar}. On the other hand, the result in (\ref{eq:gBstpole})
is within uncertainty consistent with our LCSR result.
Finally, we also quote the earlier result
$g_{B^*B\pi}=30\pm 5$ obtained in \cite{Imsong:2014oqa}
using (\ref{eq:BstarBpilimit}) together with
the $z$-expansion of the $B\to\pi$ form factor
calculated from LCSR. Since this calculation was done at small and intermediate
momentum transfers, the extrapolation via $z$-expansion plays a more important role
and the estimated uncertainty is naturally larger than for the lattice QCD results.
\section {Conclusions and perspectives}
In this paper we revisited the calculation of the strong couplings $g_{D^\ast D\pi}$ and $g_{B^\ast B \pi}$
from the LCSR that was originally derived in \cite{BBKR}.
The method is based on the OPE of the
correlation function (\ref{eq:corr}) in terms of the pion DAs
with growing twist. The use of a finite-mass heavy quark
allows one to easily transform our sum-rule expressions to be applied for both charmed and bottom mesons.
Our main new result is the NLO twist-3 term in the LCSR,
calculated from the gluon radiative corrections to the underlying correlation function.
We also derived compact analytical expressions for
both twist-2 and twist-3 NLO terms in a form of double dispersion relation.
This derivation was done in the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme
for the heavy quark mass, and additional terms for a transition to the pole mass
scheme were also obtained for the sake of generality.
Among other new results, the continuum subtraction under the quark-hadron duality assumption is
extended to all twist-3 and twist-4 terms
at LO. We also carried out a detailed investigation of the sensitivity of LCSR to the form of two-dimensional duality region.
For the dominant part of the spectral density which is concentrated near the diagonal
on the plane of the two variables, the triangle region was found to be the most convenient
choice. In addition, all input parameters entering LCSR
were updated,
with an emphasis on the key parameter -- the midpoint value of the twist-2 pion DA.
As a result, the overall accuracy of the LCSRs for the strong couplings
is substantially improved with respect
to the earlier analyses in \cite{BBKR,KRWY_2}. Especially important, also numerically, is the inclusion of the new NLO twist-3 term in these sum rules.
Due to a more precise input, the parametrical
uncertainty for the default version of LCSRs
-- with the heavy-meson
decay constants taken from the lattice QCD -- is reduced to the level of 10\%.
Still, not completely included in this estimate
is a ``systematic uncertainty"
caused by the quark-hadron duality which is more pronounced
for the double dispersion relation, than for the sum rules
based on the single-variable dispersion relation.
One step in assessing this uncertainty was done here by
examining the variation due to the shape of the duality region which was found to be rather small.
We compared our result
for $g_{D^\ast D\pi}$ with the experimental measurement of this coupling inferred from
the $D^*\to D\pi$ decay branching fraction and the $D^*$ total width.
Identifying, somewhat qualitatively, as a $1 \, \sigma$ standard deviation,
the estimated uncertainty of $O(10\%)$ ($O(20\%)$) of the LCSR result for $g_{D^\ast D\pi}$
when the lattice-QCD values (two-point sum rules) are used for decay constants,
we find that our result is smaller by approximately $2 \, \sigma$ than
(agrees within $1 \, \sigma$ with) the measured value.
The agreement is much better than before, when only
the LO \cite{BBKR} or partial NLO \cite{KRWY_2} results were included in the numerical
analysis. We conclude that there is no need for a radical
modification of the quark-hadron duality ansatz, e.g. adding
explicitly the radially excited heavy-meson states to the
hadronic part of the sum rules, as suggested earlier \cite{Khodjamirian:2001bj,Becirevic:2002vp}.
On the other hand, we found that the observed insignificant
deviation of the LCSR prediction for $g_{D^\ast D\pi}$
from experiment can be removed by a moderate modification
of the twist-2 pion DA at low scales.
This modification, in its turn, yields quite a noticeable
growth of our prediction for $g_{B^\ast B\pi}$.
Hence, the sum rule for strong coupling considered here
reveals a sensitivity to the pion twist-2 DA, similar to the other well-known LCSRs
for the $\gamma^{\ast} \gamma \to \pi$ transition form factor, the pion e.m. form factor
and $ H\to \pi$ form factors ($H=D,B$).
Since there are no direct measurements of the $g_{B^\ast B\pi}$ coupling,
we can only compare our result with the lattice QCD calculations.
The most advanced calculation of \cite{Flynn:2015xna} performed at a finite $b$-quark mass,
however, neglecting the subleading power terms in the heavy quark expansion yields a $g_{B^\ast B\pi}$ coupling
which is about 30\% larger than the LCSR prediction (see Table~\ref{tab:compar}).
On the other hand, as we have demonstrated,
the latter is quite compatible with the value (\ref{eq:gBstpole})
extracted from the extrapolation to the $B^*$ pole of the lattice QCD
results for the $B\to \pi$ form factor \cite{Lattice:2015tia}.
Finally, one of the main conclusions following from our analysis
is that the inverse mass correction to the heavy-quark limit of the
strong couplings is quite large. Hence, it is probably premature to compare
our results for that limit with the effective coupling
$\hat{g}$ inferred from the lattice QCD calculations performed in HQET.
To clarify this issue, an alternative LCSR for the heavy-meson-pion strong coupling has to be derived in
HQET and compared with the heavy-mass expansion of the sum rule considered here.
The method of LCSR considered
in this paper is well suited to calculate a whole variety
of strong couplings involving the pion. This can easily be done
by varying the spin-parity or flavor quantum numbers
of both interpolating currents in the
correlation function. An early work in this direction
can be found e.g.
in \cite{Colangelo:1997rp} where the strong couplings of heavy mesons with
other combinations of spin-parities were calculated. Switching to the strange
quark in the interpolating currents allows one to access
the strange counterparts of the strong couplings
considered here, such as $g_{H_s^\ast H K}$ and $g_{H^* H_s K}$
for both $H=D,B$.
The limited scope of this paper prevents us from discussing
in detail alternative sum rules for the strong $H^*H\pi$ couplings, e.g.
the ones employing the external soft-pion field in which the correlation function of two heavy-light currents is expanded in terms of local operators
(see \cite{Eletsky:1984qs,Colangelo:1995ph,Grozin:1997qq}).
A detailed derivation of this method and comparison with LCSR can be found in \cite{BBKR}.
Due to the growing interest in the $B$-meson DAs, it will be
also interesting to ``invert" the correlation function considered in this paper
to the one with the $B$-meson DAs and the pion-interpolating current.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
First of all, we would like to thank Nils Offen and Patrick Gelhausen for participating at the early stages of this work. The work of A.K. is supported by the DFG (German Research
Foundation) under grant 396021762-TRR 257
``Particle Physics Phenomenology after the Higgs Discovery''.
B.M. has been supported by the European Union through the European Regional Development Fund the Competitiveness and Cohesion Operational Programme (KK.01.1.1.06) and by the Croatian Science Foundation (HRZZ) project IP-2019-04-7094. B.M. would also like to express her gratitude to Wolfram Research for providing a free licence to use {\fontfamily{cmtl}\selectfont Mathematica} at home during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown and to Goran Duplan\v ci\'c for discussions.
A.K. and B.M. are also partially supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation in the framework of the Research
Group Linkage Programme funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.
Y.M.W. acknowledges support from the National Youth Thousand Talents Program, the Youth Hundred Academic Leaders Program of Nankai University, the National Natural Science Foundation of China with Grant No. 11675082, 11735010 and 12075125,
and the Natural Science Foundation of Tianjin with Grant No. 19JCJQJC61100.
Y.B.W. is supported in part by the Alexander-von-Humboldt Stiftung.
We also would like to express a special thanks to the Mainz Institute for Theoretical Physics (MITP) of the Cluster of Excellence PRISMA+ (Project ID 39083149) for its hospitality and support during the
scientific program "Light-cone distribution amplitudes in QCD" where this work was re-intiated.
|
\section{\label{sec:Introduction}Introduction}
Violation of symmetry in a physical system under parity transformation is sensitive to new physics beyond the standard model (SM) of elementary particles and fields. So far, parity violation has been observed only in the weak interaction~\cite{Lee:1956qn,Wu:1957}.
In the SM of cosmology, called the $\Lambda$ cold dark matter ($\Lambda$CDM) model, the energy budget of the present-day Universe is dominated by unidentified dark matter and dark energy~\cite{Weinberg:2008zzc}.
If dark matter and energy originate from new physics beyond the SM, do either or both of them violate parity?
Polarization of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) is sensitive to parity-violating physics.
Combinations of the Stokes parameters of linear polarization measured in a direction of $\hat{n}$, $Q(\hat{n})\pm iU(\hat{n})$, transform as a spin $\pm 2$ quantity under rotation of $\hat{n}$.
We can use the spin-2 spherical harmonics to decompose these into the so-called $E$- and $B$-mode polarization as
$Q(\hat{n})\pm iU(\hat{n})=-\sum_{\ell m}(E_{\ell m}\pm iB_{\ell m}) {}_{\pm 2}Y_{\ell m}(\hat{n})$
\cite{Seljak:1996gy,Kamionkowski:1996zd}.
Under parity transformation $\hat{n}\to -\hat{n}$, the coefficients transform as $E_{\ell m}\to (-1)^\ell E_{\ell m}$ and $B_{\ell m}\to (-1)^{\ell+1} B_{\ell m}$. When defining angular power spectra as $C_\ell^{AA'}\equiv (2\ell+1)^{-1}\sum_m A_{\ell m}{A'}^*_{\ell m}$ with $A=\{E,B\}$, then $C_\ell^{EE}$ and $C_\ell^{BB}$ are invariant under parity transformation, whereas the cross-power spectrum, $C_\ell^{EB}$, changes the sign. Therefore, nonzero values of $C_\ell^{EB}$ indicate parity violation \cite{Lue:1998mq}.
Pseudoscalar, ``axionlike'' fields, $\phi$, can act as dark matter, energy, or both
(see \cite{Marsh:2015xka,Ferreira:2020fam} for reviews).
A Chern--Simons coupling of a time-dependent $\phi(t)$ to the electromagnetic tensor and its dual, $\frac14g_{\phi\gamma}\phi F_{\mu\nu}\tilde F^{\mu\nu}$, in the Lagrangian density rotates the plane of linear polarization of photons~\cite{Carroll:1989vb,Harari:1992ea,Carroll:1998zi}. This effect, called the ``cosmic birefringence,'' rotates the CMB linear polarization by an angle $\beta=\frac12 g_{\phi\gamma}\int^{t_0}_{t_{\rm LSS}} dt~\dot{\phi}$, and yields a nonzero observed $EB$ spectrum as $C_\ell^{EB, o}=\frac12\sin(4\beta)(C_\ell^{EE}-C_\ell^{BB})$~\cite{Lue:1998mq,Feng:2004mq,Feng:2006dp,Liu:2006uh}, where the subscript ``$o$'' denotes the observed value, the spectra on the right-hand side the intrinsic $EE$ and $BB$ spectra at the last scattering surface (LSS), and $t_0$ and $t_{\rm LSS}$ the times at present and LSS, respectively.
To determine $\beta$, we must know the polarization-sensitive directions of detectors at the focal plane with respect to the sky coordinates. This requires accurate calibration of the polarization angles. Any remaining miscalibration angle, $\alpha$, leads to the same effect as isotropic $\beta$, i.e., $\beta$ and $\alpha$ are degenerate in CMB~\cite{Wu:2008qb,Komatsu:2010fb,Keating:2012ge}.
Recent determinations include
$\alpha+\beta=-0.36\pm 1.24\,\deg$
from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)~\cite{Hinshaw:2012aka}, $0.31 \pm 0.05\,\deg$ from the Planck mission~\cite{Aghanim:2016fhp},
$-0.61 \pm 0.22\,\deg$ from POLARBEAR~\cite{Adachi:2019mjv},
$0.63 \pm 0.04\,\deg$ from the South Pole Telescope (SPTpol)~\cite{Bianchini:2020osu},
and $0.12 \pm 0.06\,\deg$~\cite{Namikawa:2020ffr} and $0.09 \pm 0.09\,\deg$~\cite{Choi:2020hoge} from
the Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT) (also see \cite{Kaufman:2014rpa} for a summary of other experiments).
Here the error bars show the 68\% confidence levels (C.L.) for the statistical uncertainty.
To isolate $\beta$, an independent estimation of $\alpha$ is required. For WMAP and Planck the ground calibration yields the systematic uncertainty of $\sigma_{\rm syst}(\alpha)=1.5^\circ$ and $0.28^\circ$, whereas the estimates of systematic uncertainty are not yet available for POLARBEAR, SPTpol, and ACT.
There is no evidence for nonzero $\beta$ so far.
For the Planck measurement $\sigma_{\rm syst}(\alpha)=0.28^\circ$ is the dominant source of uncertainty for $\beta$.
How do we make progress in distinguishing between $\beta$ and $\alpha$? In Refs.~\cite{Minami:2019ruj,Minami:2020xfg,MinamiKomatsu:2020}
we showed that we can simultaneously determine $\alpha$ and $\beta$ if we use the CMB and Galactic foreground emission, as both are rotated by $\alpha$, whereas only the CMB is rotated by $\beta$. Our method thus relies on the different frequency and multipole dependence of the CMB and foreground polarization power spectra. In this Letter, we use this new method to recalibrate the Planck high frequency instrument (HFI) detectors~\cite{PlanckHFI:2018} and measure the cosmic birefringence angle, $\beta$, with a smaller total uncertainty.
To this end, we assume that there was no intrinsic $EB$ correlation of CMB at the LSS. However, the intrinsic CMB $EB$ can be accounted for if necessary; as such, intrinsic $C_\ell^{EB}$ usually has very different $\ell$ dependence (e.g., \cite{Thorne:2017jft}). For the baseline result we also assume that there is no intrinsic $EB$ correlation of the foreground, but we relax this assumption towards the end of the Letter.
\section{\label{sec:Map}Maps to cross power spectra}
We use Planck maps from the third public release, referred to as ``PR3''.
We analyze the polarization maps in four polarized Planck HFI channels: $\nu\in \{100, 143, 217, 353\}\,\si{\GHz}$. We also use the temperature maps when we correct the temperature-to-polarization ($I \to P$) leakage effect due to beams.
We cross-correlate four frequency maps from different half-mission (HM) maps, HM1 and HM2,
to reduce the correlated systematics and bias from the auto correlation noise.
To reject spurious signals, we apply three types of masks.
(1) Bad pixels: we remove the pixels that were not observed by any detectors.
(2) Bright CO emission: the Planck team used the bandpass templates to correct for CO emission, which were generated at $N_\mathrm{side}=128$ in the HEALPix format \cite{Gorski:2004by}. The difference between this and the native resolution of the HM maps ($N_\mathrm{side}=2048$) causes a bias, which is significant in bright CO emission regions.
To reduce the bias, we follow Planck team's suggestion and mask the bright CO regions where the bias level is larger than $1\%$ of the noise level~\cite{PlanckHFI:2018}.
We have applied this mask to all channels except for $143\,$GHz channel, to which no CO bandpass template was applied.
(3) Bright point sources: we use the point-source mask provided by the Planck team, which removes sources with polarization detection significance levels of $\geq99.97\%$.
We apply the combined masks to the HM maps.
We then estimate observed power spectra, $C_\ell^{XY, \mathrm{o}}$,
with $XY \in \{TT, EE, BB, TE,ET, EB, BE\}$
from 16 combinations of the masked HM maps
using the \textsc{NaMaster} package~\cite{Alonso:2018jzx}.
When estimating $C_\ell^{XY, o}$ we apodize the combined masks with $0.5\deg$ using the ``Smooth'' method of \textsc{NaMaster}. The fractions of sky used for the analysis are calculated as $f_\mathrm{sky}=\sum_{i=1}^{N_{\rm pix}} w_i^2/N_{\rm pix}$, where $w_i$ is the value of (non-integer) smoothed mask and $N_{\rm pix}=12 N_\mathrm{side}^2$ is the number of pixels of the HM maps. We find $(f_\mathrm{sky}^{\nu,\mathrm{HM1}},~f_\mathrm{sky}^{\nu,\mathrm{HM2}})=\{(0.97, 0.95),(0.94, 0.90), (0.82, 0.77), (0.92, 0.89 )\}$ for $\nu \in \{100, 143, 217, 353\} \, \si{\GHz}$, respectively.
To remove the $I \to P$ leakage, we use the beam window matrix, $ W_\ell^{XY,X'Y'}$, produced by the ``QuickPol'' method~\cite{Hivon:2016qyw}.
The matrix describes how the observed $XY$ power spectra
are related to the input ones with $X' Y' \in \{TT,EE,BB,TE\}$.
Since our power spectra include both the CMB and foregrounds, we do not have a prior knowledge of the input power spectra.
Therefore, we approximately use the \textit{observed} power spectra divided by the diagonal elements of the beam window matrix as the input. In summary,
the observed power spectra after the leakage subtraction are given by
\begin{align}
&C_\ell^{XY,\mathrm{o}} =\\ \nonumber
\ &\hat{C}_\ell^{XY,\mathrm{o}}
- W_{\ell}^{\mathrm{pix},XY}\sum_{X'Y'\neq XY}
\frac{ W_\ell^{XY,X'Y'} \hat{C}_\ell^{X'Y',\mathrm{o}} }{W_\ell^{\mathrm{pix},X'Y'} W_\ell^{X'Y',X'Y'}}
,
\end{align}
where $\hat{C}_\ell^{XY}$ is a power spectrum before the leakage subtraction,
and $W_\ell^{\mathrm{pix},XY}$ is a pixel window function for the $XY$ power spectrum.
Because QuickPol assumes that the signal is statistically isotropic on the sky,
the leakage from $ET$ is equal to that from $TE$; thus,
we use the mean of $TE$ and $ET$ as an input for $X' Y' = TE$.
\section{\label{sec:Methodology}Estimation of \texorpdfstring{$\alpha$ and $\beta$}{alpha and beta}}
We estimate one global cosmic birefringence angle, $\beta$, and independent miscalibration angles, $\alpha_{\nu}$, at four frequencies.
When the intrinsic $EB$ power spectra of the CMB at LSS and the Galactic foregrounds vanish,
we can relate the observed power spectra and the best-fitting $\Lambda$CDM CMB power spectra \footnote{We use the CMB power spectra calculated by CAMB~\cite{Lewis:2000}
using the Planck 2018 cosmological parameters for ``TT,TE,EE$+$lowE$+$lensing''~\cite{Aghanim:2018eyx}:
$\Omega_bh^2=0.022\,37$, $\Omega_ch^2=0.1200$,
$h=0.6736$, $\tau=0.0544$, $A_s=2.100\times 10^{-9}$, and $n_s=0.9649$.} at each $\ell$ as~\cite{MinamiKomatsu:2020}
\begin{align}
\mathbf{A}\vec C_\ell^{\mathrm{o}} - \mathbf{B
}\vec C_\ell^\mathrm{CMB,th} = \mathbf{0},
\end{align}
where $\vec{C_\ell^{\mathrm{o}}}$ is an array of the observed power spectra,
$\begin{pmatrix}
C_\ell^{E_i E_j,\mathrm{o}}&
C_\ell^{B_i B_j,\mathrm{o}} &
C_\ell^{E_i B_j,\mathrm{o}}
\end{pmatrix}^T,$ with $i,j$ in $32$ combinations,
$\vec C_\ell^\mathrm{CMB,th}$ is an array of the best-fitting $\Lambda$CDM CMB power spectra,
$\left(
C_\ell^{E_i E_j,\mathrm{CMB,th}} W_\ell^{E_i E_j,E_i E_j}W_\ell^{\mathrm{pix},E_i E_j}\right.$
$\left.
C_\ell^{B_i B_j,\mathrm{CMB,th}} W_\ell^{B_i B_j, B_i B_j}W_\ell^{\mathrm{pix},B_i B_j}
\right)^T,$
with the corresponding beam window matrix,
$\mathbf{A}$ is a block diagonal matrix of $\begin{pmatrix}
- \vec{R}^T(\alpha_i,\alpha_j)\mathbf{R}^{-1} (\alpha_i,\alpha_j)& 1
\end{pmatrix}$,
and $ \mathbf{B}$ is a block diagonal matrix of $ \left( \vec{R}^T ( \alpha_i+\beta, \alpha_j+\beta)\right.$ $\left.- \vec{R}^T(\alpha_i,\alpha_j) \mathbf{R}^{-1}(\alpha_i,\alpha_j) \mathbf{R}(\alpha_i+\beta, \alpha_j+\beta) \right)$.
Here, $\mathbf{R}$ and $ \vec{R}$ are the rotation matrix and vector defined in Eq.~(8) and (9) of Ref.~\cite{MinamiKomatsu:2020}, respectively.
We have 32 independent equations from 16 combinations of maps,
as we have two different equations for $C_\ell^{E_iB_j,\mathrm{o}}$ and $C_\ell^{E_jB_i,\mathrm{o}}$.
In practice, we estimate $\alpha_\nu$ and $\beta$ by maximizing the log-likelihood function \cite{MinamiKomatsu:2020}:
\begin{align}\label{eq:LikelihoodCross}
&\ln\mathcal{L} =
-\frac{1}{2}
\sum_{\ell=\ell_\mathrm{min}}^{\ell_\mathrm{max}}
\vec{v}^T_\ell
\mathbf{C}^{-1}_\ell
\vec{v}_\ell,
\end{align}
where $\vec{v}_\ell\equiv \mathbf{A}\vec C_\ell^{\mathrm{o}} - \mathbf{B}\vec C_\ell^\mathrm{CMB,th}$ and $\mathbf{C}_\ell \equiv \mathbf{A}\mathrm{Cov}(\vec C_\ell^{\mathrm{o}},\vec C_\ell^{\mathrm{o}}{}^T)\mathbf{A}^T$.
We use a publicly available Markov chain Monte Carlo sampler \textsc{emcee}~\cite{ForemanMackey:2012ig} to obtain posterior distributions of $\alpha_\nu$ and $\beta$ with this likelihood and flat priors on $\alpha_\nu$ and $\beta$.
As we estimate the covariance matrix from the observed power spectra, we use binned power spectra with $\Delta\ell=20$ to reduce the statistical fluctuation in the covariance matrix.
We follow the definition of $\mathrm{Cov}(\vec C_\ell^{\mathrm{o}},\vec C_\ell^{\mathrm{o}}{}^T)$ given in Eqs.~(12)-(15) of Ref.~\cite{MinamiKomatsu:2020}, but with a slight modification to account for the effect of mask. Specifically, we divide the covariance matrix by $f_\mathrm{sky}^\mathrm{eff} = \sqrt[4]{f_\mathrm{sky}^{i}f_\mathrm{sky}^{j}f_\mathrm{sky}^{p}f_\mathrm{sky}^{q}}$ with $f_\mathrm{sky}^{i}$ being $f_\mathrm{sky}$ for the $i$th map.
Our covariance matrix formula is valid for approximately Gaussian random fields;
however, non-Gaussian effects from, e.g., the foreground, may become non-negligible at low multipoles.
To find a suitable minimum multipole, $\ell_\mathrm{min}$, we vary $\ell_\mathrm{min}$ from $2$ to $200$ and estimate $\alpha_\nu$ and $\beta$.
We obtain stable results for $\ell_\mathrm{min}\approx50$. Specifically, we find $\beta=0.71\pm 0.14$ and $ 0.48\pm 0.14$ deg for $\ell_\mathrm{min} = 25$ and $41$, respectively, but then find a stable value of $\beta=0.35\,\deg$ to within the uncertainty for $\ell_\mathrm{min}\gtrsim 50$;
thus, we use $\ell_\mathrm{min}=51$, which coincides with the value adopted by the Planck team~\cite{Aghanim:2016fhp}.
As for the maximum multipole, $\ell_\mathrm{max}$, we use the same $\ell_\mathrm{max}=1500$ as in the Planck analysis~\cite{Aghanim:2016fhp}.
\section{\label{sec:Validation}Validation with the full focal plane simulation}
To validate our pipeline,
we first use the maps from Planck's end-to-end full focal plane 10 (FFP10) simulation \cite{PlanckHFI:2018}.
Since the FFP10 simulation does not have foreground maps convolved with realistic beam effects such as the $I \to P$ leakage, we only consider CMB and noise realizations of the HM maps.
As the maps do not include the foreground, we can only estimate the combination $\alpha_\nu+\beta$.
Thus, we estimate (i) $\alpha_\nu$ by setting $\beta=0\,\deg$ and (ii) $\beta$ by setting $\alpha_\nu =0\,\deg$ for 10 realizations.
We expect to recover (i) $\alpha_\nu=0$ and (ii) $\beta=0$, as the FFP10 simulation does not include angle miscalibration or the cosmic birefringence.
The means and standard deviations of the recovered angles are (i) $\alpha_\nu = \{-0.008\pm0.047,0.013\pm0.033, 0.017\pm0.065, 0.14\pm0.41\}\,\deg$ for $\nu\in\{100,143, 217, 353\}\,\si{GHz}$
and (ii) $\beta = 0.010 \pm 0.030\,\deg$.
We thus find no evidence for a spurious $\alpha_\nu$ or $\beta$ from the instrumental effects, to the extent that is implemented in the FFP10 simulation.
\section{\label{sec:Results}Results}
First, we assume that the polarization directions of the Planck detectors are perfectly calibrated, i.e., $\alpha_\nu=0$, and estimate $\beta$. This case is similar to the Planck analysis \cite{Aghanim:2016fhp}, except that they measured $\beta$ from foreground-cleaned maps.
We find $\beta(\alpha_\nu=0)=0.289\pm0.048\,\deg$,
which is consistent with the Planck team's result,
$0.29 \pm 0.05\,\mathrm{(stat.)} \pm 0.28\,\mathrm{(syst.)}$ from $C_\ell^{EB}$, within the statistical uncertainty.
When $C_\ell^{TB}$ is added they find $0.31\,\deg$.
The second error bar of the Planck measurement is the systematic uncertainty in $\alpha$ from the ground calibration.
Our goal is to estimate $\alpha_\nu$ simultaneously to eliminate this uncertainty.
Nevertheless, it is reassuring that we obtain consistent results under a similar setup.
Next, we estimate $\beta$ and $\alpha_\nu$ simultaneously. We report our baseline results in Table~\ref{tab:result}, and the posterior distributions of the angles in Fig.~\ref{fig:PostDist}.
It shows that $\alpha_\nu$ and $\beta$ are anticorrelated, since the CMB determines $\alpha_\nu+\beta$ and the degeneracy is broken by the foregrounds \cite{Minami:2019ruj}.
We find that the miscalibration angles are consistent with zero to within 1$\sigma$ at 143, 217, and 353~GHz, and is a 2$\sigma$ level at 100~GHz. All the values are within the systematic uncertainty of the ground calibration, $\sigma_{\rm syst}(\alpha)=0.28$\,deg. Our baseline result is $\beta=0.35\pm 0.14$\,deg, which excludes the null hypothesis by $99.2$\%~C.L. The uncertainty no longer contains the ground calibration uncertainty, as we
simultaneously determine $\alpha_\nu$ and $\beta$.
Our measurement is consistent with the Planck team's result quoted above, with a factor-of-$2$ smaller total uncertainty.
\begin{table}[tp
\caption{\label{tab:result
Cosmic birefringence and miscalibration angles from the Planck 2018 polarization data with $1\sigma~(68\%)$ uncertainties
}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
Angles &\textrm{Results ($\deg$)}\\
\colrule
$\beta$ & $0.35\pm0.14$ \\
$\alpha_{100}$ & $-0.28 \pm 0.13$\\
$\alpha_{143}$ & $ 0.07 \pm 0.12$\\
$\alpha_{217}$ & $-0.07 \pm 0.11$ \\
$\alpha_{353}$ & $-0.09 \pm 0.11$\\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[tp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{./PosteriorDist.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:PostDist} Posterior distributions of
$\beta$ (the first column) against the miscalibration angles $\alpha_\nu$.
The solid contour lines in the 2D histograms show 1$\sigma$ ($39.3\%$) and 2$\sigma$ ($86.5\%$) of each area.
The dashed lines in the 1D histograms show $1\sigma$ (from $16\%$ to $84\%$) quantiles of each area.}
\end{figure}
We show the fitted $EB$ power spectra of $143$ and $217$\,\si{\GHz}, which
have the smallest error bars,
in Fig.~\ref{fig:EBplot}.
The measured data points with error bars should be compared with the sum of $C_\ell^{EE} - C_\ell^{BB}$ terms of
$-\mathbf{A}\vec C_\ell^{\mathrm{o}}$ (red) and $\mathbf{B
}\vec C_\ell^\mathrm{CMB,th}$ (blue).
\begin{comment}
$C_\ell^{EE,\mathrm{o}}-C_\ell^{BB,\mathrm{o}}$ rotated by the best-fitting $\alpha_\nu$ (red) and $C_\ell^{EE,\mathrm{CMB,th}}-C_\ell^{BB,\mathrm{CMB,th}}$ rotated by $\alpha_\nu+\beta$ (blue).
\end{comment}
To guide eyes, we note that the $217\,\si{\GHz}$-HM1$\times143\,\si{\GHz}$-HM2 panel shows the $EB$ power spectrum with a hint of the acoustic oscillation matched by the CMB $E$-mode power spectrum. Similar trends are seen in some of the other panels, explaining a 2.4$\sigma$ hint for a nonzero value of $\beta$.
\begin{figure*}[tp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./All_EB_EllCell_nolog_fitted02_143_217_ratio1p7.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:EBplot} Fitted $EB$ cross spectra from $143$ and $217$\,\si{\GHz} maps. We show the measured $EB$ data with error bars (black),
$C_\ell^{EE} - C_\ell^{BB}$ terms of observed $-\mathbf{A}\vec C_\ell^{\mathrm{o}}$ (red),
and the CMB $\mathbf{B}\vec C_\ell^\mathrm{CMB,th}$ (blue).
The data points should be compared with the sum of $C_\ell^{EE} - C_\ell^{BB}$ terms.
}
\end{figure*}
While it is perfectly consistent with the quoted systematic uncertainty of the ground calibration, one may wonder if $\alpha_{100}=-0.28\pm 0.13$\,deg is the cause for a nonzero value of $\beta$.
One potential source of worry is the $EB$ correlation of synchrotron radiation which may become important at lower $\nu$.
The intrinsic $EB$ correlation of synchrotron, if any, may create the bias.
To test this, we exclude the $100\,$GHz channel and repeat the analysis. We find $\beta= 0.40\pm 0.15\,\deg$ and
$\alpha_\nu = \{0.05 \pm 0.12, -0.13 \pm 0.12, -0.10\pm0.11\}\,\deg$ for $\nu\in\{143, 217, 353\}\,\si{GHz}$, which agree with the baseline.
We test the effect of the
$I\to P$ leakage by estimating $\alpha_\nu$ and $\beta$ without the leakage subtraction.
We find $\beta= 0.35\pm 0.14\,\deg$ and
$\alpha_\nu = \{-0.25 \pm 0.14, 0.07 \pm 0.12, -0.05 \pm 0.11, -0.07\pm0.11\}\,\deg$ for $\nu\in\{100,143, 217, 353\}\,\si{GHz}$, which agree with the baseline; thus, the results are robust against the leakage.
\section{\label{sec:FGEB}\texorpdfstring{$EB$}{EB} correlation from the Galactic foreground}
So far, we have assumed that the intrinsic $EB$ power spectrum of the foreground emission vanishes. In this section we relax this assumption. In the previous section we have shown that dropping the 100~GHz channel does not affect the result for $\beta$ \footnote{We further check the non-importance of the synchrotron foreground by computing $EB$ due to synchrotron for $\SI{143}{\GHz}$-HM1$\times\SI{217}{\GHz}$-HM2, where variance of the observed $EB$ is small. We estimate a Gaussian variance of synchrotron $EB$ using a synchrotron model implemented in the public code ``PySM''~\cite{Thorne:2016ifb}.
The ratio of the synchrotron variance to the observed variance is $O(10^{-9})$.
Thus, even if synchrotron has a significant $EB$ correlation at the level of $5\sigma$, the effect is negligible.}.
Therefore, we focus on the dust emission, which is the dominant foreground in the Planck HFI channels.
As discussed in Refs.~\cite{Minami:2019ruj,Minami:2020xfg},
we can parameterize the dust $EB$ power spectrum by a frequency-dependent rotation angle, $\gamma(\nu)$, as
$ C_\ell^{EB,\mathrm{dust}} = \frac{\sin\left[4\gamma(\nu) \right]}{2} \left( C_\ell^{EE,\mathrm{dust}} - C_\ell^{BB,\mathrm{dust}} \right)$.
The sign of the $EB$ correlation is the same as $\gamma$ because $C_\ell^{EE,\mathrm{dust}}>C_\ell^{BB,\mathrm{dust}}$~\cite{planckdust:2018}.
In the worst case scenario $\gamma$ is independent of frequency, which would make it indistinguishable from $\beta$. Then, our result can be reinterpreted as the combination of angles $\beta -\gamma= 0.35 \pm 0.14\,\deg$.
Because both the $TE$ and $TB$ cross power spectra of thermal dust emission are positive~\cite{planckdust:2018},
a positive $EB$, hence $\gamma>0$, is expected;
thus, our baseline result assuming $\gamma=0$ gives a lower bound for $\beta$.
What if $\gamma<0$? If all of the signal we see in $\beta$ is due to the dust emission, it implies $\gamma = -0.35 \pm 0.14\,\deg$.
In this case,
assuming $\xi = C_\ell^{BB,\mathrm{dust}}/C_\ell^{EE,\mathrm{dust}}\simeq0.5$~\cite{planckdust:2018,Abitbol:2015epq},
we find a correlation coefficient of $f_c = C_\ell^{EB,\mathrm{dust}}/\sqrt{ C_\ell^{EE,\mathrm{dust}} C_\ell^{BB,\mathrm{dust}}} \simeq (-8.6 \pm 3.5) \times 10^{-3}$, whose absolute value corresponds to the lowest value of $f_c$ discussed in Ref.~\cite{Abitbol:2015epq}.
\section{\label{sec:Conclusion}Summary and discussion}
In this Letter, we have applied the new method of simultaneously determining the cosmic birefringence angle $\beta$ and miscalibration angles of detectors $\alpha_\nu$ to the Planck 2018 data. The method was developed originally in Ref.~\cite{Minami:2019ruj} for autofrequency power spectra measured over the full sky, and has been extended to include a partial sky coverage \cite{Minami:2020xfg} and cross-frequency spectra \cite{MinamiKomatsu:2020}. The idea is simple: while $\alpha_\nu$ rotates linear polarization of both the CMB and Galactic foreground emission, $\beta$ rotates only the CMB. We find that all of $\alpha_\nu$ in the polarized Planck HFI channels are consistent with zero to within the quoted systematic uncertainty of the ground calibration of the Planck bolometers~\cite{Aghanim:2016fhp}.
We measure $\beta=0.35\pm0.14\,\deg$ (68\% C.L.), which excludes zero by 99.2\% C.L.
This corresponds to the statistical significance of $2.4\sigma$.
This value is consistent with the Planck team's result assuming $\alpha_\nu=0$, but with a factor-of-$2$ smaller total uncertainty because our result is no longer subject to the ground calibration uncertainty.
We can constrain various models of new physics which produce a spatially uniform $\beta$.
Let us consider a Lagrangian density including a Chern--Simons coupling between axionlike particles and photons (see, e.g., \cite{Turner:1987bw}):
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L} \supset
\frac{1}{4} g_{\phi\gamma}\phi F_{\mu\nu}\tilde F^{\mu\nu}\,,
\end{align}
where $g_{\phi\gamma}$ is a coupling constant, $\phi$ is an axionlike pseudoscalar field,
and $F_{\mu\nu}$ and $\tilde{F}_{\mu\nu}$ are the electromagnetic tensor and its dual.
The difference of the value of $\phi$ between the LSS and the location of the observer (``obs'') rotates the plane of linear polarization of CMB photons by
$\beta = \frac12g_{\phi\gamma}( \bar{\phi}_\mathrm{obs} - \bar{\phi}_\mathrm{LSS} + \delta\phi_\mathrm{obs})$
\cite{Carroll:1989vb,Harari:1992ea,Carroll:1998zi,Lue:1998mq,Feng:2004mq,Feng:2006dp,Liu:2006uh,FujitaMinami:2020},
where $\bar{\phi}$ and $\delta\phi$ denote the mean and fluctuation of the field value, respectively.
Then our measurement gives
\begin{equation}
g_{\phi\gamma}( \bar{\phi}_\mathrm{obs} - \bar{\phi}_\mathrm{LSS} + \delta\phi_\mathrm{obs}) = \SI[separate-uncertainty = true]{1.2(5)e-2}{\radian}\,.
\end{equation}
We can use this to constrain models (see, e.g., \cite{FujitaMinami:2020}).
If our measurement of $\beta$ is confirmed with higher statistical significance in future, it would have a profound implication for fundamental physics. To further test and improve our measurement, one can apply our method to both the ongoing \cite{Ade:2014afa,Ade:2014gua,Benson:2014qhw,Xu:2019rne,Choi:2020hoge}
and future \cite{Ben:2018,Hui:2018cvg,Ade:2018sbj,abazajian2019cmbs4,Hazumi2019}
CMB polarization experiments.
\begin{acknowledgments}
We acknowledge the use of the public Planck data released via the Planck Legacy Archive. We thank E. Hivon for his help with the QuickPol beam window matrices, and H.K. Eriksen, M. L{\`o}pez-Caniego, A. Banday, and A, Gruppuso for their help with the $EB$ spectra from the Planck data. We also thank Y. Chinone, K. Ichiki, N. Katayama, T. Matsumura, H. Ochi, and S. Takakura for useful discussions.
Y.~M. thanks T. Fujita, K. Murai, and H. Nakatsuka for discussion on the cosmic birefringence by axionlike particles.
This work was supported in part by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI, Grants No.~JP20K1449 and No.~JP15H05896, and the Excellence Cluster ORIGINS which is funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy: Grant No.~EXC-2094 - 390783311.
The Kavli IPMU is supported by World Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI), MEXT, Japan.
\end{acknowledgments}
\bibliographystyle{apsrev4-1}
|
\section{Kakeya Sets over ${\mathbb{Z}}/p^k{\mathbb{Z}}$}\label{sec:powConj}
In this section we prove Theorem~\ref{thm:reduceRankpk}. Recall that $W_{p^k,n}$ is the $p^{kn} \times p^{kn}$ point-hyperplane incidence matrix defined in the introduction. We want to show the size of any Kakeya set $ S \subset ({\mathbb{Z}}/p^k{\mathbb{Z}})^n$ is lower bounded by the ${\mathbb{F}}_p$ rank of $W_{p^k,n}$.
We start with a lemma that generalizes the following simple observation. Suppose we have a matrix $M$ with entries in the set $\{0,1,-1\}$ and let $\hat M$ be the same matrix with all $-1$ entries replaced with $1$s. It is easy to see that $$\textsf{rank}_{{\mathbb{C}}}(M) \geq \textsf{rank}_{{\mathbb{F}}_2}(\hat M)$$ since, if some sub-determinant in $\hat M$ is not zero over ${\mathbb{F}}_2$ then the corresponding determinant in $M$ cannot be zero over the complex numbers. This trivial claim has the following less trivial generalization involving roots of unity of any prime power order.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:rankCtoF}
Let $\gamma$ be a complex primitive $p^k$th root of unity for prime $p$ and natural number $k$. Let $M$ be a matrix whose entries belong to the set $\{0,1,\gamma,\hdots,\gamma^{p^k-1}\}$. Let $\hat M$ be a matrix of the same dimensions of $M$ and with entries
$$ \hat M_{ij} = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0 & \mbox{if } M_{i,j}=0 \\
1 & \mbox{otherwise}
\end{array}
\right. $$
Then we have,
\em{$$\text{rank}_{{\mathbb{C}}}(M)\ge \text{rank}_{{\mathbb{F}}_p}(\hat{M}).$$}.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $Q(x)$ be a matrix obtained from $M$ by replacing $\gamma$ with a formal variable $x$ so that $Q(\gamma)=M$ and $Q(1)=\hat{M}$. Let $f(x)$ be the determinant of some sub matrix of $Q(x)$. If the corresponding sub-determinant of $M$ is zero then we have $f(\gamma)=0$. As $f$ has integer coefficients it must be divisible by the minimal polynomial of $\gamma$ which is $$ m(x)= \frac{x^{p^k}-1}{x^{p^{k-1}}-1} = 1 +x^{p^{k-1}} + x^{2p^{k-1}} + \ldots + x^{(p-1)p^{k-1}}.$$ Hence $f(1)=0$ modulo $p$ and so the coresponding sub-determinant is zero also in $\hat M$ when computed over ${\mathbb{F}}_p$. This proves the lemma since a non-zero $r \times r$ determinant in $\hat M$ over ${\mathbb{F}}_p$ implies the same non-zero determinant in $M$ (over ${\mathbb{C}}$).
\end{proof}
We are now ready to prove Theroem~\ref{thm:reduceRankpk}, stated here again for convenience.
\begin{repthm}{thm:reduceRankpk}
Given a prime $p$ and numbers $k,n$, every Kakeya set $S$ in $({\mathbb{Z}}/p^k{\mathbb{Z}})^n$ satisfies,
\em{$$|S|\ge \text{rank}_{{\mathbb{F}}_p}(W_{p^k,n}).$$}
\end{repthm}
\begin{proof}
Let $R={\mathbb{Z}}/p^k{\mathbb{Z}}$. Given a Kakeya set $S$ in $R^n$ consider the line-matrix $M_S$ given by Definition~\ref{def:linematrix}. Let $\gamma$ be a primitive $p^k$th root of unity in ${\mathbb{C}}$ and let $F$ be the $p^{kn} \times p^{kn}$ matrix whose rows and columns are indexed by $R^n$ and whose entry in position $(i,j) \in R^n \times R^n$ is $$ F_{i,j} = \gamma^{\langle i, j \rangle}$$ ($F$ is the complex Discrete Fourier Transform matrix for the group $R^n$).
We consider the product $M_S\cdot F$ over ${\mathbb{C}}$. Given a direction $b\in {\mathbb{P}} R^{n-1}$ and a point $x(b)$ consider a line $$L(b)=\{x(b)+tb|t\in R\}$$ in that direction contained in $S$. When we multiply the row ${\mathbf{1}}_{L(b)}$ of $M_S$ with $F$, the $j$'th coordinate, for $j \in R^n$, is given by
$$({\mathbf{1}}_{L(b)}\cdot F)_j=\sum\limits_{t\in R}\gamma^{\langle x(b)+tb,j\rangle}=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0 & \mbox{if } \langle b,j\rangle\ne 0 \mod p^k \\
p^k\gamma^{\langle x(b),j\rangle} & \mbox{otherwise}
\end{array}
\right. .$$
A lower bound on the rank of $M_S\cdot F$ over ${\mathbb{C}}$ will give a lower bound on the rank of $M_S$ which, using Lemma \ref{lem:rankSizeLine}, will give us a lower bound on $|S|$.
Applying Lemma \ref{lem:rankCtoF} we have that the rank of $M=p^{-k}(M_S\cdot F)$ over ${\mathbb{C}}$ is lower bounded by the rank of $\hat{M}$ over ${\mathbb{F}}_p$ where the entry in position $(b,j)\in R^n\times R^n$ of $\hat{M}$ is
$$\hat{M}_{(b,j)} = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0 & \mbox{if } \langle b,j\rangle\ne 0 \mod p^k \\
1 & \mbox{otherwise}
\end{array}
\right. .$$
This completes the proof since the matrix $\hat{M}$ has the same rows as the matrix $W_{p^k,n}$ (recall that we defined $W_{p^k,n}$ to have repeated rows corresponding to different scaling of the same vector). This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
This reduces the question of lower bounding the size of Kakeya sets in $({\mathbb{Z}}/p^k{\mathbb{Z}})^n$ to the estimation of the rank of a concrete matrix, independent of the set $S$. In the next section we show that the matrix $W_{p^k,n}$ contains an identity matrix of size roughly $p^{kn/2}$.
\subsection{Rank of $W_{p^k,n}$ via Matching Vector families}
\begin{define}[Matching Vectors]
A {\em matching vector} (MV) family over $({\mathbb{Z}}/N{\mathbb{Z}})^n$ is a pair $(U,V)$ such that
$U=(u_1,\hdots,u_m)$ and $V=(v_1,\hdots,v_m)$ with each $u_i$ and each $v_j$ belonging to the set $({\mathbb{Z}}/N{\mathbb{Z}})^n$ and such that
$\langle u_i,v_j\rangle = 0 \mod N$ iff $i=j$.
\end{define}
The following simple observation relates the size of an MV family with the rank of the point-hyperplane incidence matrix.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:matchingReduction}
If there exists a matching vector family of size $m$ over $({\mathbb{Z}}/p^k{\mathbb{Z}})^n$ then, for any field ${\mathbb{F}}$, we have
\em{$$\text{rank}_{{\mathbb{F}}}(W_{p^k,n})\ge m.$$}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The sub-matrix corresponding to the rows labeled by $U$ and the columns labelled by $V$ in $W_{p^k,n}$ is the identity matrix (after reordering).
\end{proof}
Constructions of large MV families have found surprising application in combinatorics and theoretical computer science. In particular, constructions of MV families for small composite $N$ (even for $N=6$) and growing $n$ given by Grolmusz \cite{grolmusz2000superpolynomial} have found a surprisingly large number of applications. For our purposes, when $N$ is a large prime power, we will use a less known construction originally given in \cite{dvir2011matching} and improved by \cite{YUAN2012494}.
\begin{thm}[\cite{YUAN2012494}]
For every integer $n$ and any sufficiently large $N$, there exist MV families over $({\mathbb{Z}}/N{\mathbb{Z}})^n$ of size at least,
$$\left(\frac{N}{n-2}\right)^{(n-2)/2}.$$
\end{thm}
Combining this theorem (with $N = p^k$) with Lemma \ref{lem:matchingReduction} and Theorem \ref{thm:reduceRankpk} gives us the a lower bound for Kakeya sets in $({\mathbb{Z}}/p^k{\mathbb{Z}})^n$ of the order of $p^{kn/2}$ which is worse than the best known bounds. Using larger MV families to lower bound the rank of $W_{p^k,n}$ cannot lead to significantly stronger bounds as it is shown in \cite{dvir2013matching} that those cannot be larger than $N^{n/2 + O(1)}$ for any $N$.
\section{Previous Work}
The problem of lower bounding sizes of Kakeya sets for rings ${\mathbb{Z}}/N{\mathbb{Z}}$ for squarefree $N$ is discussed in \cite{dvir2010incidence}. The regular polynomial method argument involves lower bounding the size of Kakeya sets with the dimension of the space of polynomials of some fixed degree. This method fails in this setting because the Chinese Remainder Theorem leads to the decomposition of polynomials over ${\mathbb{Z}}/N{\mathbb{Z}}$. This leads to the space of polynomials being too small to give us good bounds. Our arguments here circumvent this problem.
The problem of lower bounding Kakeya sets sizes for rings ${\mathbb{Z}}/p^k{\mathbb{Z}}$ and ${\mathbb{F}}_q[x]/\langle x^k\rangle$ was first proposed in \cite{ellenberg2010kakeya}. They suggested these problems as the next model problem towards understanding the Euclidean case of the Kakeya conjecture. A lower bound of $p^{2k}k^{-1}$ for Kakeya sets in $({\mathbb{Z}}/p^k{\mathbb{Z}})^2$ was proven in \cite{dummit_hablicsek_2013}. In \cite{hickman2018fourier} they study the case of the $p$-adic integers ${\mathbb{Z}}_p$. Bounds over the $p$-adics imply bounds over ${\mathbb{Z}}/p^k{\mathbb{Z}}$ for all $k$ and vice-versa. They look at a stronger version of the Kakeya problem involving maximal operators and use tools applied in the Euclidean case to find bounds over the $p$-adics which in turn gives them bounds over ${\mathbb{Z}}/p^k{\mathbb{Z}}$. In particular, they can get a bound of the order of $p^{kn/2}$ for Kakeya sets in $({\mathbb{Z}}/p^k{\mathbb{Z}})^n$.
\Mnote{I think the arithmetic Kakeya stuff would be an alternate route to get bounds in this setting. Do you know what papers to cite for those?}
\section{Introduction}
Given a finite abelian ring $R$, we consider the space of $n$-tuples over $R$, denoted $R^n$. In this space we may define a line in direction $b \in R^n \setminus \{0\} $ to be a subset of the form $\{ a + tb | t\in R\}$ where $a\in R^n$. We denote the set of directions in $R^n$ (projective space) by ${\mathbb{P}} R^{n-1}$. For now we will postpone the precise definition of ${\mathbb{P}} R^{n-1}$ to a later stage. A Kakeya set in $R^n$ is a set containing a line in every direction:
\begin{define}[Kakeya set]
A set $S \subset R^n$ is said to be a Kakeya set if given any direction $b\in {\mathbb{P}} R^{n-1}$ there exists a point $a\in R^n$ such that the line $\{a+tb|t\in R\}$ is contained in $S$.
\end{define}
The question of lower-bounding the size of the smallest Kakeya set over finite fields was initially raised by Wolff \cite{wolf1999} as a possible approach for attacking the notorious Euclidean Kakeya conjecture in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, and later found other applications including in theoretical computer science (see \cite{dvir2010incidence} for a survey of those). Wolff's conjecture ,later known as the finite field Kakeya conjecture stated that, the size of the smallest Kakeya set in ${\mathbb{F}}_q^n$ should be at least $C_n q^n$ for some constant $C_n$ depending only on the dimension. Coming from the Euclidean problem, one typically thinks of $n$ as fixed and $q$ growing, however, later applications deal with other scenarios and require a more accurate control of the constant. Wolff's conjecture was proved using the polynomial method in \cite{dvir2009size} with subsequent improvements given in \cite{saraf2008,dvir2013extensions} culminating in the following bound.
\begin{thm}[\cite{dvir2013extensions}]\label{thm:TightFqbound}
Let ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ denote a finite field of order $q$ and let $S \subset{\mathbb{F}}_q^n$ be a Kakeya set. Then
$$|S| \geq \frac{q^n}{\left(2-1/q\right)^n} $$
\end{thm}
When $R$ is not a field much less is known. The problem of lower bounding the size of Kakeya sets for the rings ${\mathbb{Z}}/p^k{\mathbb{Z}}$ and ${\mathbb{F}}_q[x]/\langle x^k\rangle$ was first proposed in \cite{ellenberg2010kakeya} as a step in the direction of the Euclidean problem as these rings contain `scales' in a way that does not exist over a finite field and is reminiscent of the real numbers. While the additive combinatorics techniques that preceded the polynomial method \cite{Bou99,katz2002new} work over any abelian ring, they currently only lead to bounds of the form $|S| \geq |R|^{\alpha n}$ with the $\alpha<0.6$. Another, more recent, work to study Kakeya sets (and related operators) over finite rings is \cite{hickman2018fourier} in which a connection between bounds for Kakeya sets over the rings ${\mathbb{Z}}/p^k{\mathbb{Z}}$ and the Minkowski dimension of $p$-adic Kakeya sets is established. For the two dimensional case, when $R = {\mathbb{F}}_q[x]/\langle x^k \rangle$ or $ R = {\mathbb{Z}}/p^k{\mathbb{Z}}$, Dummit and Hablicsek showed a (tight) bound of $|S| \geq |R|^2/2k$ in \cite{dummithablicsek2013}.
Similar to the Euclidean setting, Kakeya sets with Haar measure $0$ can be constructed for the ring of $p$-adic integers and the power series ring ${\mathbb{F}}_q[[x]]$. The constructions can be found in \cite{dummithablicsek2013,Fraser_2016,CML_2018__10_1_3_0,hickman2018fourier}. As in the Euclidean setting, we want to bound the Minkowski dimension of Kakeya sets for these rings which is connected to the size of Kakeya sets in ${\mathbb{Z}}/p^k{\mathbb{Z}}$ and ${\mathbb{F}}_q[x]/\langle x^k \rangle$.
The Kakeya conjecture over the rings $R = {\mathbb{Z}}/N{\mathbb{Z}}$ was stated in \cite{hickman2018fourier} as follows. As seen above, for finite fields the loss of $\epsilon$ in the exponent is not necessary. However, as we shall see later, for composite $N$ we must allow it.
\begin{conjecture}[Kakeya set conjecture over ${\mathbb{Z}}/N{\mathbb{Z}}$]\label{conj:kakeyaR}
For all $\epsilon > 0$ and integers $n$ there exists a constant $C_{n,\epsilon}$ such that any Kakeya set $S \subset ({\mathbb{Z}}/N{\mathbb{Z}})^n$ satisfies
$$ |S| \geq C_{n,\epsilon} \cdot N^{n-\epsilon}.$$
\end{conjecture}
Already when $N=p_1\cdot p_2$ is a product of two primes of roughly the same magnitude, the polynomial method fails to work. One way to see this is to notice that any polynomial over $R = {\mathbb{Z}}/p_1 p_2 {\mathbb{Z}}$ has degree at most $\max\{ p_1 - 1, p_2 - 1\} \approx N^{1/2}$ in each variable. This limits the dimension of the space of polynomials to $\approx N^{n/2}$ and prevents us from interpolating a non-zero polynomial vanishing on $S$, when $S$ is larger than that dimension (which is the first step in the polynomial method).
Our main contribution is a proof of Conjecutre \ref{conj:kakeyaR} for square-free integers $N$. At this point we should say what is our definition of projective space for these rings as this will determine the definition of Kakeya sets. For $N = p_1\cdots p_r$ a product of $r$ distinct primes, the Chinese remainder theorem gives us $$({\mathbb{Z}}/N{\mathbb{Z}})^n \cong {\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}^n \times \cdots \times {\mathbb{F}}_{p_r}^n$$ under the natural isomorphism $x \mapsto (x \mod p_i)_{i=1}^r$. For each $i$ the projective space ${\mathbb{P}} {\mathbb{F}}_{p_i}^{n-1}$ is defined to be the set of all non-zero vectors in ${\mathbb{F}}_{p_i}^{n}$ up to scaling. Finally, we take the projective space to be
$$ {\mathbb{P}} ({\mathbb{Z}}/N{\mathbb{Z}})^{n-1} = {\mathbb{P}} {\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}^{n-1} \times \cdots \times {\mathbb{P}} {\mathbb{F}}_{p_r}^{n-1} .$$ In other words, a direction in $({\mathbb{Z}}/N {\mathbb{Z}})^n$ is represented by a vector $b \in ({\mathbb{Z}}/N {\mathbb{Z}})^n$ that is non-zero modulo $p_i$ for all $i$ and we identify two directions if they can be obtained from one another by scaling with an invertible ring element.\footnote{ In both \cite{ellenberg2010kakeya,hickman2018fourier}, where the emphasis was on rings such as ${\mathbb{Z}}/p^k {\mathbb{Z}}$ or ${\mathbb{F}}_q[x]/x^k$, the definition of projective space over a ring $R$ require the direction $b$ to have at least one invertible coordinate. This definition leads to the same notion of projective space as ours for the rings ${\mathbb{Z}}/p^k {\mathbb{Z}}$ or ${\mathbb{F}}_q[x]/x^k$. However, in the case of ${\mathbb{Z}}/N{\mathbb{Z}}$ where $N$ has more than one distinct prime factors their definition is different than ours. In our definition a direction might have all coordinates as zero-divisors. For example, in the case of composite square free $N$ if the reductions $b \mod p_i$ have disjoint supports we get lines with directions represented by non-zero divisors in each co-ordinate. Requiring at least one invertible coordinate leads, in the case of composite square free $N$, to a definition that is basis dependent and less natural. }
\begin{thm}[Kakeya bound for square-free $N$]\label{thm:SquarefreeNtheorem}
Let $N=p_1\hdots p_r$ be a product of $r$ distinct primes and set $R = {\mathbb{Z}}/N{\mathbb{Z}}$. Any Kakeya Set $S\subseteq R^n$ satisfies
$$|S| \geq \frac{N^n}{\prod\limits_{i=1}^r (2-1/p_i)^{n}} \geq \frac{N^n}{2^{rn}}.$$
\end{thm}
Since the number of factors of $N$ satisfies $r = O( \log N / \log \log N)$ (indeed the asymptotics of $r$ are known~\cite{zbMATH02610444}) we see that the expression in the theorem is lower bounded by $N^{n - O(n/\log \log N)}$ and so it indeed proves Conjecture \ref{conj:kakeyaR}.
The tightness of the bound in Theorem \ref{thm:SquarefreeNtheorem} can be demonstrated by taking the product (via the Chinese remainder theorem) of the best known constructions in ${\mathbb{F}}_{p_i}^n$ for each factor $p_i$. In \cite{saraf2008} it was shown that, for any prime $p$, there are Kakeya sets in ${\mathbb{F}}_p^n$ of size bounded above by $p^n/2^{n-1} + Cp^{n-1}$, where $C$ is an absolute constant. Taking the product one obtains the following.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:squarefreeUpper}
Let $N=p_1\hdots p_r$ be a product of distinct primes and $n$ an integer. There exist a Kakeya Set $S\subseteq ({\mathbb{Z}}/N{\mathbb{Z}})^n$ with
$$|S| \leq \prod\limits_{i=1}^r \left(\frac{p_i^n}{2^{n-1}}+Cp_i^{n-1}\right),$$
where $C>1$ is an absolute constant.
\end{thm}
Hence, when all the prime factors $p_i$ of $N$ are sufficiently large (also as a function of $r$), we see that the main term in the construction is off by at most a factor of $2^r = N^{o(1)}$ from the lower bound of Theorem \ref{thm:SquarefreeNtheorem}. Notice that, while the upper bound is obtained from a product of Kakeya sets modulo each prime factor, a general Kakeya set in $({\mathbb{Z}}/N{\mathbb{Z}})^n$ might not have this product structure (otherwise the proof of the lower bound would be trivial).
Our proof of Theorem \ref{thm:SquarefreeNtheorem} also outlines a specific problem whose solution could lead to a bound for general (non square-free) modulo $N$. Consider the $p^{kn} \times p^{kn}$ matrix $W_{p^k,n}$ whose rows/columns are indexed by elements of $R^n$ where $R = {\mathbb{Z}}/p^k{\mathbb{Z}}$ and whose $(x,y)$'th entry is $1$ if $\langle x,y\rangle=0 \mod p^k$ and $0$ otherwise. We call $W_{p^k,n}$ the {\em point-hyperplane incidence matrix} of $R^n$. Since $W_{p^k,n}$ has zero-one entries, we can view it as a matrix over any field and, in particular, compute its rank over ${\mathbb{F}}_p$. We show that this rank lower bounds the size of any Kakeya set.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:reduceRankpk}
Given a prime $p$ and integers $k,n$, every Kakeya set $S$ in $({\mathbb{Z}}/p^k{\mathbb{Z}})^n$ satisfies
\em{$$|S|\ge \text{rank}_{{\mathbb{F}}_p}(W_{p^k,n}).$$}
\end{thm}
Hence, proving a lower bound of, say, $p^{(1-\epsilon)kn}$ for small $\epsilon>0$ on the rank of the incidence matrix $W_{p^k,n}$ would lead to new bounds for Kakeya sets in $({\mathbb{Z}}/p^k{\mathbb{Z}})^n$. Furthermore, using our techniques, these bounds will then imply the appropriate bounds for $N$ which is a product of prime powers. The work of \cite{goethalsDel1968,macwilliams1968p,smith1969p} shows such rank bounds hold for $W_{p,n}$ when $k=1$ or when $R$ a finite field. We will use these bounds to prove a slightly weaker bound leading up to Theorem \ref{thm:SquarefreeNtheorem}. Currently we are able to show that the rank of $W_{p^k,n}$ is only larger than $\approx p^{kn/2}$ which does not lead to any non-trivial bounds on the size of Kakeya sets. The matrix $W_{p^k,n}$, which is referred to in the literature as the incidence matrix of {\em Hjelmslev spaces} was shown to have full rank over the rational numbers \cite{LandjevV14} but the rank over ${\mathbb{F}}_p$ seems to be open. We note that our reduction is only in one direction -- showing that $W_{p^k,n}$ has low rank would not imply the existence of small Kakeya sets using our theorem.
\subsection{Overview of the proof}
Our proof consists of two main parts. The first gives a new formulation of the polynomial proof for Kakeya sets over finite fields (in our case, prime $N$). Our proof relies on the same underlying principles of the polynomial method but uses them in a way that gives us more control. The second part uses this modified proof for general square-free $N$ by inducting on the number of prime factors. We now describe each part in more detail.
Consider a Kakeya set $S \subset {\mathbb{F}}_p^n$. The first new idea in the proof is to replace the size of the set $S$ with the rank of a $0-1$ matrix $M_S$ we call the {\em line-matrix} of $S$. This matrix has a row for each direction $b \in {\mathbb{P}}{\mathbb{F}}_p^{n-1}$ and that row is the indicator vector ${\mathbf{1}}_{L(b)}$ for a line $L(b) \subset S$ in direction $b$. That is, each column of $M_S$ is indexed by some $x\in {\mathbb{F}}_p^n$ and the $b$'th row has ones in positions indexed by the points in $L(b)$ and zeros everywhere else. It is not hard to show (and proven in Lemma \ref{lem:rankSizeLine}) that, over any field, $$\textsf{rank}(M_S) \leq |S| \leq p \cdot \textsf{rank}(M_S)$$ and so the rank is a good proxy for $|S|$ (for the upper bound we require that $S$ is, in some sense, a minimal Kakeya set). We will bound the rank of $M_S$ over ${\mathbb{F}}_p$ by constructing two fixed matrices (independent of $S$) which we denote for now by $A$ and $B$ such that $A$ has high rank and $A = M_S \cdot B$. Since the rank of $M_S \cdot B$ is at most the rank of $M_S$ we get that $|S| \geq \textsf{rank}(A)$. We leave the description of the matrices $A$ and $B$ (which involves polynomials) to the technical sections as these are not needed to explain the second part of the proof. One comment is that the above outline is only enough to prove a slightly weaker version of Theorem \ref{thm:SquarefreeNtheorem} (with the ``right'' exponent $n$ but worse dependence on $r$). To prove the tighter bound as in the theorem we need to work with a variant of $M_S$ in which each line $L(b)$ has many rows associated with it, each supported on $L(b)$ but with different non-zero values. The construction of the fixed matrices $A$ and $B$ is also different and uses the extended variant of the polynomial method using high order derivatives (as in \cite{dvir2013extensions}). We present both the simplified and full proof in the technical sections below.
With the first part in place, we can now describe the case of composite $N$. For simplicity, assume $N = p \cdot q$ is a product of two primes and let $R = {\mathbb{Z}}/N{\mathbb{Z}}$. Notice that, by the Chinese remainder theorem, $R^n \cong {\mathbb{F}}_{p}^n \times {\mathbb{F}}_{q}^n$ and any line $L(b)$ in direction $b \in {\mathbb{P}} R^{n-1}$ is a Cartesian product of a line $L_p(b) \subset {\mathbb{F}}_{p}^n$ and a line $L_q(b) \subset {\mathbb{F}}_q^n$. Notice that each of the lines $L_p(b), L_q(b)$ might depend on both the $b \text{ }(\text{mod } p)$ part and the $b \text{ }(\text{mod } q)$ part of the direction $b$ (otherwise our lives would be much easier as $S$ would be a product of a Kakeya set in ${\mathbb{F}}_{p}^n$ and a Kakeya set in ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}^n$). We construct the line matrix $M_S$ as before, working over the field ${\mathbb{F}}_{p}$ and treating the rows of $M_S$ as elements in the tensor product ${\mathbb{F}}_{p}^{p^n} \otimes {\mathbb{F}}_{p}^{q^n}$. That is, each row is a function from $R^n $ to ${\mathbb{F}}_{p}$. From the above discussion, each row ${\mathbf{1}}_{L(b)}$ is the tensor product of ${\mathbf{1}}_{L_p(b)}$ and ${\mathbf{1}}_{L_q(b)}$. We now recall the matrices $A$ and $B$ from the first part so that, $A = M_{T} \cdot B$ for any Kakeya set $T \subset {\mathbb{F}}_{p}^n$. The final step of the proof is multiplying $M_S$ by the Kronecker product $B \otimes I_{q^n}$, where $I_{q^n}$ is a $q^n \times q^n$ identity matrix and analysing the dimension of the space spanned by the rows. This requires both the rank bound on $A$ as well as the inductive bound on Kakeya sets over ${\mathbb{F}}_q^n$ (which imply rank bounds on the corresponding line-matrix over any field, including ${\mathbb{F}}_{p}$).
To prove Theorem~\ref{thm:reduceRankpk} we would ideally like to construct a matrix $B$ such that $W_{p^k,n} = M_S \cdot B$ (which would prove the theorem by the above discussion). While we are not able to directly do that, we are able to construct a {\em complex} matrix $B$ such that $ M_S \cdot B$ has the same support as $W_{p^k,n}$ and whose non-zero entries are all complex roots of unity of order $p^k$. We then show that the complex rank of such a matrix is lower bounded by the ${\mathbb{F}}_p$ rank of $W_{p^k,n}$.
\subsection{Organization}
In Section~\ref{sec:finitefield} we (re)prove the finite field Kakeya conjecture using the rank of the line matrix $M_S$. In Section \ref{sec:warmupSqfree} we show how to handle multiple prime factors by proving a weaker version of Theorem~\ref{thm:SquarefreeNtheorem} for the special case $N = pq$.
In Section~\ref{sec:sqfreegen} we prove Theorem \ref{thm:SquarefreeNtheorem} in full generality by adding the use of high order derivatives. In Section~\ref{sec:powConj} we discuss the case of prime powers $R = {\mathbb{Z}}/p^k{\mathbb{Z}}$ and prove Theorem \ref{thm:reduceRankpk}.
\subsection{Acknowledgements}
The authors would like to thank Peter Sin and Ivan Landjev for helpful comments. Research supported by NSF grant DMS-1953807.
\section{Warm-up 1: Reproving the finite field bound }\label{sec:finitefield}
We start be defining the line-matrix $M_S$ associated with a Kakeya set $S \subset R^n$.
\begin{define}[Line matrix of $S$]\label{def:linematrix}
The line matrix $M_S$ for a Kakeya set $S$ in $R^n$ is a matrix with $0,1$ entries where the columns are indexed by points in $R^n$ and the rows are indexed by directions $b\in {\mathbb{P}} R^{n-1}$ and the row corresponding to $b$ is the indicator vector ${\mathbf{1}}_{L(b)}\in \{0,1\}^{|R^n|}$ of a line $L(b)$ in direction $b$ contained in $S$ (if there is more than one such line, we pick the first one in some pre-determined order).
\end{define}
We note as $M_S$ is a matrix with $0,1$ entries we can treat it as a matrix over any field ${\mathbb{F}}$. Given any integer matrix $M$ we let $\textrm{rank}_{\mathbb{F}}(M)$ refer to the rank of the matrix $M$ over the field ${\mathbb{F}}$.
\begin{lem}[Rank-Size relation]\label{lem:rankSizeLine}
Let $S\subseteq R^n$ be a Kakeya set and ${\mathbb{F}}$ a field. Then
$$ |S| \ge \textsf{rank}_{{\mathbb{F}}}(M_S).$$
Furthermore, if $S'$ is the set of non-zero columns in $M_S$ (by identifying the columns by their indices in $R^n$ we see that $S'$ is itself also a Kakeya set in $R^n$) then
$$\textsf{rank}_{\mathbb{F}}(M_S)\ge \frac{|S'|}{|R|}.$$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The lower bound on $|S|$ is trivial since all rows are supported on elements of $S$. To prove the other direction we iteratively pick lines from $S'$ as follows. We first start with a line $L_1$. After picking lines $L_1,L_2,\hdots, L_t$ we pick a line $L_{t+1}$ which is not completely contained in the union $\bigcup_{i=1}^t L_i$. The size of the union $\bigcup_{i=1}^t L_i$ is at most $|R|t$ so, since $S'$ is defined to be the union of the lines forming the rows of $M_S$, we can continue this procedure as long as $t|R|<|S'|$. This will gives us a set of lines $L_1,\hdots, L_r$ where $r=\lceil |S'|/|R| \rceil$ with the property that the line $L_{t+1}$ is not completely contained in $\bigcup_{i=1}^t L_i$ for all $t<|S'|/|R|$. The vectors ${\mathbf{1}}_{L_i}$ are clearly linearly independent since they correspond to an upper triangular matrix after changing the basis using an appropriate permutation matrix.
\end{proof}
From now on we will focus on giving a lower bound on the rank of $M_S$ for a Kakeya set $S \subset {\mathbb{F}}_p^n$ with $p$ prime. As outlined in the proof overview, we are looking to construct two matrices $A$ and $B$ so that $A = M_S \cdot B$ for any Kakeya set $S$ and such that $A$ has high rank. Both $A$ and $B$ will be related to the point-hyperplane incidence matrix which we now define. By a hyperplane we mean a subset $H_b \subset {\mathbb{F}}_p^n$ of the form $H_b = \{ a \in {\mathbb{F}}_p^n, \,|\, \langle b,a\rangle = 0 \}$. We denote by $\overline{H}_b = \{ a \in {\mathbb{F}}_p^n, \,|\, \langle b,a\rangle \neq 0 \}$ the complement of the hyperplane.
\begin{define}[Point-hyperplane incidence matrix]\label{def:pointhyperplane}
Given a prime $p$ and a natural number $n$ we define the point-hyperplane incidence matrix $W_{p,n}$ to be the $p^n \times p^n$ matrix whose columns are the indicator vectors of the hyperplanes ${\mathbf{1}}_{H_b}$ over all $b \in {\mathbb{F}}_p^n$ and the rows are indexed by points in ${\mathbb{F}}_p^n$. Notice that each row/column of $W_{p,n}$ (except for the one indexed by zero) is repeated $p-1$ times as scaling by a non-zero field element does not affect whether or not the inner product is $0$.
\end{define}
Our proof will rely on the following simple but useful property of this matrix.
\begin{lem}[Action of $W_{p,n}$ on lines]\label{lem:centeredHypAct}
Let $L\subseteq {\mathbb{F}}_p^n$ be a line in direction $b\in {\mathbb{P}}{\mathbb{F}}_p^{n-1}$ and let ${\mathbf{1}}_L \in {\mathbb{F}}_p^{p^n}$ be its (row) indicator vector. Then, over the field ${\mathbb{F}}_p$, we have
$${\mathbf{1}}_L\cdot W_{p,n} = {\mathbf{1}}_{\overline{H}_b}.$$
Hence, the product only depends on the {\em direction} of the line $L$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The coordinate of ${\mathbf{1}}_L\cdot W_{p,n}$ indexed by $a\in {\mathbb{F}}_p^n$ is the inner product of ${\mathbf{1}}_L$ and ${\mathbf{1}}_{H_a}$ and so is equal to the size (mod $p$) of the intersection $L \cap H_a$. For $a=0$ the intersection size is $|L| = p$ which is zero mod $p$. This is also the $0$ entry in ${\mathbf{1}}_{\overline{H}_b}$ since $0 \not\in \overline{H}_b$. Now suppose $a \neq 0$. The size of the intersection of a line $L$ with a non-trivial hyperplane $H_a$ can have one of three values. If the direction $b$ of the line $L$ is not in $H_a$ then $|L \cap H_a|=1$. If $b \in H_a$ then $|L \cap H_a|$ can be either 0 or $|L|$ which are both equal to 0 modulo $p$. Hence, over ${\mathbb{F}}_p$ we have $({\mathbf{1}}_L \cdot W_{p,n})_a = ({\mathbf{1}}_{\overline{H}_b})_a$.
\end{proof}
We will also need a bound on the rank of the matrix $W_{p,n}$. These matrices have been studied in the coding community since the 1960's and their rank has been computed via several methods. In particular, the following is a special case of results appearing in ~\cite{goethalsDel1968,macwilliams1968p,smith1969p}. The proofs involve using studying the point-hyperplane incidence matrix for the projective space ${\mathbb{P}} {\mathbb{F}}_p^n$, identifying ${\mathbb{P}} {\mathbb{F}}_p^n$ with the cyclic group ${\mathbb{F}}_{p^{n+1}}^\times/{\mathbb{F}}_p^\times$, and using its representation theory over ${\mathbb{F}}_p$.
\begin{thm}[${\mathbb{F}}_p$-rank of $W_{p,n}$]\label{thm:pRankSubs}
Let $W_{p,n}$ be the point-hyperplane incidence matrix of ${\mathbb{F}}_p^n$. Then
$$ \textsf{rank}_{{\mathbb{F}}_p}(W_{p,n}) = \binom{p+n-2}{n-1}+1.$$
\end{thm}
We will conclude this section by demonstrating how the information obtained so far for $W_{p,n}$ can be used to give a bound on Kakeya sets over prime order finite fields.\footnote{One can generalize the proof using $W_{p,n}$ also to fields of size $p^t$ but the resulting bounds are not as good as the ones obtained directly from the polynomial methods.}
\begin{thm}\label{thm:oldnewproof}
Let $S \subset {\mathbb{F}}_p^n$ be a Kakeya set. Then
$$|S|\geq \binom{p+n-2}{n-1}.$$
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Working over the field ${\mathbb{F}}_p$, let $M_S$ be the line matrix of $S$ and let $$ A = M_S \cdot W_{p,n}.$$
By Lemma~\ref{lem:centeredHypAct} we have that the row of $A$ indexed by $b \in {\mathbb{P}} {\mathbb{F}}_p^{n-1}$ is the indicator vector ${\mathbf{1}}_{\overline{H}_b}$. Let $A' = J - A$ where $J$ is a matrix with all entries equal to one. Then, the matrix $A'$ has the same rows (without repetition) as those of $W_{p,n}$ and hence the same rank. Since $J$ is rank one, we get that $$ \textsf{rank}_{{\mathbb{F}}_p}(A) \geq \textsf{rank}_{{\mathbb{F}}_p}(W_{p,n}) - 1 = \binom{p+n-2}{n-1}. $$ Since $$|S| \geq \textsf{rank}_{{\mathbb{F}}_p}(M_S) \geq \textsf{rank}_{{\mathbb{F}}_p}(M_S \cdot W_{p,n})$$ we get the claimed bound.
\end{proof}
The relationship between the above proof and the polynomial method proof appearing in \cite{dvir2009size} is somewhat elusive at this point and will become clearer when we prove the stronger bound appearing in Theorem~\ref{thm:SquarefreeNtheorem}. However, the proof of this section could be taken on its own as a `new' proof of the finite field bound which does not use polynomials in any explicit way (but, in turn, relies on the rank bound of Theorem~\ref{thm:pRankSubs}). The bound obtained above only gives an exponent of $n-1$ instead of $n$. However, this can be amplified to $n-\epsilon$ for all $\epsilon$ using a standard tensoring trick (see Lemma~\ref{lem:productkakeya}).
\section{Preliminaries}
For a natural number $r$, let $[r]=\{1,\hdots, r\}$.
Let $q$ be a prime power and ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ represent the finite field of size $q$. We let ${\mathbb{F}}_q[x_1,\hdots,x_n]_{=d}$ represent the vector space of homogenous $n$-variate degree $d$ polynomials over ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ and ${\mathbb{F}}_q[x_1,\hdots,x_n]_{\le d}$ refer to the space of degree at most $d$ polynomials. We let $\delta_{n,d}=\binom{n+d-1}{n-1}$ which is the dimension of the space $ {\mathbb{F}}_q[x_1,\hdots,x_n]_{=d}$ and $\Delta_{n,d}=\binom{n+d}{n}$ which is the dimension of the space ${\mathbb{F}}_q[x_1,\hdots,x_n]_{\le d}$.
Given a finite ring $R$, a field ${\mathbb{F}}$, and a natural number $n$, we define ${\mathbb{F}}^{|R^n|}$ as a $|R|^n$ dimensional vector space over ${\mathbb{F}}$ whose elements are represented by column vectors of size $|R|^n$ indexed by points in $R^n$. We can similarly define ${\mathbb{Z}}^{|R^n|}$.
We also define $\left({\mathbb{F}}^{|R^n|}\right)^T$ (similarly $\left({\mathbb{Z}}^{|R^n|}\right)^{T}$) as the space of the transpose of all elements in ${\mathbb{F}}^{|R^n|}$. $\left({\mathbb{F}}^{|R^n|}\right)^T$ is then the space of all row vectors with size $|R^n|$ indexed by points in $R^n$.
Now given a subset $A\subseteq R^n$, we let ${\mathbf{1}}_A\in \left({\mathbb{F}}^{|R^n|}\right)^T$ refer to the indicator vector of $A$ over $R^n$ where the entry corresponding to the entry $x\in R^n$ is $1$ if $x\in A$ and $0$ otherwise. Multiplying ${\mathbf{1}}_A$ with column vectors in ${\mathbb{F}}^{|R^n|}$ gives us a linear map ${\mathbf{1}}_A\cdot:{\mathbb{F}}^{|R^n|}\rightarrow {\mathbb{F}}$ where ${\mathbb{F}}$ can be any field. As before ${\mathbb{F}}$ can be replaced by ${\mathbb{Z}}$ too. In general we use $A\cdot B$ to refer to the product of two matrices $A$ and $B$.
For an element $b\in R^n$ we define the sets $H_b=\{x|\langle x,b\rangle =0\}\subseteq R^n$ and $\overline{H}_b=\{x|\langle x,b\rangle \ne 0\}\subseteq R^n$. We note non-zero vectors $b$ which are unit multiples of each other will define the same sets $H_b,\overline{H}_b$.
We will use a simple corollary of the following result from~\cite{goethalsDel1968,macwilliams1968p,smith1969p}.
\begin{thm}[$p$-rank of the vector space generated by indicator functions of hyperplanes]\label{thm:pRankSubs}
Given a natural number $n$ and a prime power $q=p^t$ where $p$ is a prime and $t$ is a natural number, the ${\mathbb{F}}_p$-vector space generated by the indicator vectors ${\mathbf{1}}_{H_b}\in \left({\mathbb{F}}_p^{|{\mathbb{F}}_q^n|}\right)^T$ for all $b\in {\mathbb{P}} {\mathbb{F}}_q^n$ has dimension $$\Delta_{n,p-1}^t+1=\binom{p+n-1}{n}^t+1.$$
\end{thm}
\begin{cor}\label{cor:pRankSubs}
Given a natural number $n$ and a prime power $q=p^t$ where $p$ is a prime and $t$ is a natural number, the ${\mathbb{F}}_p$-vector space generated by the indicator vectors ${\mathbf{1}}_{\overline{H}_b}\in \left({\mathbb{F}}_p^{|{\mathbb{F}}_q^n|}\right)^T$ for all $b\in {\mathbb{P}}{\mathbb{F}}_q^n$ has dimension at least $$\Delta_{n,p-1}^t=\binom{p+n-1}{n}^t.$$
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Consider a matrix $M$ whose rows are indexed by elements in $b\in {\mathbb{F}}_{q}^n$ and the row indexed by $b$ is the indicator vector ${\mathbf{1}}_{\overline{H}_b}$. Let $A$ be the all ones matrix with the same size as $M$. $A-M$ is then a matrix whose rows are indexed by elements $b \in {\mathbb{F}}_p^n$ and the row corresponding to $b$ is the indicator function of the set $H_b$. Theorem \ref{thm:pRankSubs} and the fact that $A$ is rank one then gives the required dimension lower bound.
\end{proof}
We will also use the well known Chinese remainder theorem.
\begin{thm}[Chinese Remainder Theorem]\label{thm:Chinese}
For distinct primes $p_1,\hdots,p_r$ and $N=p_1\hdots p_r$, we have the isomorphism
$${\mathbb{Z}}/N{\mathbb{Z}}\cong \bigoplus\limits_{t=1}^r {\mathbb{F}}_{p_t},$$
where the isomorphism takes a number $x$ in ${\mathbb{Z}}/N{\mathbb{Z}}$ and maps it to the tuple $(x \text{ }(\text{mod }p_t))_{t=1}^r$.
\end{thm}
We will use this theorem for rings ${\mathbb{Z}}/N{\mathbb{Z}}$ where $N=p_1 p_2 \hdots p_r$ for distinct primes $p_1,p_2,\hdots,p_r$. We get a number of equivalences between geometric objects of $({\mathbb{Z}}/N{\mathbb{Z}})^n$ and \\ ${\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}^n\times \hdots \times {\mathbb{F}}_{p_r}^n$ directly from Theorem \ref{thm:Chinese}.
\begin{cor}[Geometric dictionary between $({\mathbb{Z}}/p_1\hdots p_r{\mathbb{Z}})^n$ and ${\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}^n\times \hdots \times {\mathbb{F}}_{p_r}^n$]\label{cor:geometricDictionary}
Given distinct primes $p_1,p_2,\hdots,p_r$, a natural number $n$, $N=p_1 \hdots p_r$ and the ring $R={\mathbb{Z}}/N{\mathbb{Z}}$, we have the following equivalences between the spaces $R^n$ and ${\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}^n\times \hdots\times {\mathbb{F}}_{p_r}^n$,
\begin{enumerate}
\item Every point $x \in R^n$ is represented by a tuple of points $(x_1,x_2,\hdots,x_r)\in {\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}^n\times {\mathbb{F}}_{p_2}^n \hdots \times {\mathbb{F}}_{p_r}^n$ via the map $x\rightarrow (x \text{ }(\text{mod }p_t))_{t=1}^r$.
\item The set ${\mathbb{P}} R^n$ is isomorphic to ${\mathbb{P}} {\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}^n\times\hdots\times {\mathbb{P}}{\mathbb{F}}_{p_r}^n$ via the map $b\rightarrow (b \text{ }(\text{mod }p_t))_{t=1}^r$.
\item Every line $L \subseteq R^n$ with direction $b\in {\mathbb{P}} R^n$ is represented by a product of lines $L_1\times L_2 \times \hdots\times L_r \subseteq {\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}^n\times {\mathbb{F}}_{p_2}^n\hdots \times {\mathbb{F}}_{p_r}^n$ where $L_i$ is a line in ${\mathbb{F}}_{p_i}^n$ with direction $b_i\in {\mathbb{P}} {\mathbb{F}}_{p_i}^n$ for $i\in [r]$. $L_i$ is obtained from $L$ via the map $x\rightarrow (x \text{ }(\text{mod }p_i))$.
\item The indicator vector of a line $L\subseteq R^n$, ${\mathbf{1}}_L\in \left({\mathbb{Z}}^{|R^n|}\right)^T$ equals the tensor product of the indicator vectors ${\mathbf{1}}_{L_1}\otimes \hdots \otimes {\mathbf{1}}_{L_r}\in \left({\mathbb{Z}}^{|{\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}^n|}\right)^T\otimes\hdots \otimes \left({\mathbb{Z}}^{|{\mathbb{F}}_{p_r}^n|}\right)^T=\left({\mathbb{Z}}^{|{\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}^n\times\hdots \times {\mathbb{F}}_{p_r}^n|}\right)^T$. This result holds even if we lift the vectors to some field ${\mathbb{F}}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{cor}
We list some facts about tensor products.
\begin{fact}[The tensor product of two basis]\label{fact:TensorBasis}
Given a basis $\{v_1,v_2,\hdots,v_n\}$ for a vector space $V$ and a basis $\{u_1,\hdots, u_m\}$ for a vector space $U$, we have that $\{v_i\otimes u_j\}_{i\in [n],j\in [m]}$ is a basis for $V\otimes U$.
\end{fact}
\begin{fact}[The tensor product of two maps]\label{fact:tensorMaps}
Given vector spaces $V_1,V_2,U_1,U_2$, linear maps $A: V_1\rightarrow U_1$ and $B:V_2\rightarrow U_2$, we have the map $A\otimes B: V_1\otimes V_2\rightarrow U_1\otimes U_2$ which acts on elements $x\otimes y \in V_1\otimes V_2$ to output $A(x)\otimes B(y)$. Also given matrix representations of $A$ and $B$ in some basis, $A\otimes B$ can be written as the tensor (Kronecker) product of the two matrices in the tensored basis. Finally, given maps $C:U_1\rightarrow W_1$ and $D:U_2\rightarrow W_2$ for vector spaces $W_1,W_2$, we have $(C\otimes D)\cdot (A\otimes B)=(C\cdot A)\otimes (D\cdot B)$.
\end{fact}
We will now prove a simple lemma we need.
\begin{lem}[Rank lower bounds for product like spaces]\label{lem:tensorProductSpaceBound}
Given finite dimensional vector spaces $V$ and $U$ over a field ${\mathbb{F}}$, let $A=\{v_1,v_2,\hdots,v_n\}\subseteq V$ be a set of linearly independent vectors and $B_1,B_2,\hdots,B_n \subseteq U$ each of which spans a subspace of dimension at least $k$, then the space spanned by the vectors $\bigcup_{i=1}^n\{v_i\otimes y| y\in B_i\}$ has dimension at least $nk$ in $V\otimes U$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $C=\{c_1,\hdots,c_m\}$ be some basis of $U$ where we let $m$ be the dimension of $U$. Fact \ref{fact:TensorBasis} shows that $v_i\otimes c_j$ where $i\in [n]$ and $j\in [m]$ form a linearly independent set of vectors in $V\otimes U$. For each set $B_i$ we can find a set of $k$ linearly independent vectors $B'_i=\{b^i_1,\hdots,b^i_k\}$ all of which can be written as a linear combination of elements in $C$.
We will show the set of vectors $\bigcup_{i=1}^n\{v_i\otimes y| y\in B'_i\}$ is linearly independent to prove the lemma. Let us consider a linear combination of these vectors which equals $0$,
$$\sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{j=1}^k \alpha_{i,j} v_i\otimes b^i_j=0,$$
where $\alpha_{i,j}$ are scalars. This means,
\begin{align}
\sum\limits_{i=1}^n v_i\otimes (\sum_{j=1}^k \alpha_{i,j} b^i_j)=0. \label{eq:tensorProductLemma}
\end{align}
Consider the linear projection operator $P_i$ defined as,
$$P_i(v_j\otimes c_k) =
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
c_k & \mbox{if } j = i \\
0 & \mbox{if } j \ne i
\end{array}
\right. $$
Applying $P_i$ on \eqref{eq:tensorProductLemma} gives us,
$$ \sum_{j=1}^k \alpha_{i,j} b^i_j=0.$$
As $b^i_1,\hdots,b^i_k$ are linearly independent we have $\alpha_{i,j}=0$ for all $i$ and $j$.
\end{proof}
\section{The general square-free \(N\) case}\label{sec:sqfreegen}
To get the bound stated in Theorem~\ref{thm:SquarefreeNtheorem} we will generalize the proof structure of Section~\ref{sec:finitefield} to use ideas from the extended polynomial method using high order multiplicities as in \cite{dvir2013extensions}.
We begin with some definitions and basic results concerning polynomials over finite fields. We let ${\mathbb{F}}_p[x_1,\hdots,x_n]_{=d}$ denote the vector space of homogeneous $n$-variate degree $d$ polynomials over ${\mathbb{F}}_p$ and ${\mathbb{F}}_p[x_1,\hdots,x_n]_{\le d}$ denote the space of polynomials of degree at most $d$. We let $$\delta_{n,d}=\binom{n+d-1}{n-1}$$ denote the dimension of the space $ {\mathbb{F}}_p[x_1,\hdots,x_n]_{=d}$ and $$\Delta_{n,d}=\binom{n+d}{n}$$ the dimension of ${\mathbb{F}}_p[x_1,\hdots,x_n]_{\le d}$. For a tuple $\mathbf{i}\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge 0}^n$ we define the weight of $\mathbf{i}$ as $$\text{wt}(\mathbf{i})=\sum_{j=1}^n i_j.$$
\begin{define}[Hasse Derivatives]
Given a polynomial $f\in {\mathbb{F}}[x_1,\hdots,x_n]$ for any field ${\mathbb{F}}$ and an $\mathbf{i}\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge 0}^n$ the $\mathbf{i}$th {\em Hasse derivative} of $f$ is the polynomial $f^{(\mathbf{i})}$ in the expansion $f(x+z)=\sum_{\mathbf{j}\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge 0}^n} f^{(\mathbf{j})}(x)z^{\mathbf{j}}$ where $x=(x_1,...,x_n)$, $z=(z_1,...,z_n)$ and $z^{\mathbf{j}}=\prod_{k=1}^n z_k^{j_k}$.
\end{define}
\begin{define}[Multiplicity]
For a polynomial $f\in {\mathbb{F}}[x_1,\hdots,x_n]$ and a point $a\in {\mathbb{F}}^n$ we say $f$ vanishes on $a$ with {\em multiplicity} $m\in {\mathbb{Z}}$, if $m$ is the largest integer such that all Hasse derivatives of $f$ of weight strictly less than $m$ vanish on $a$. We use $\text{mult}(f,a)$ to refer to the multiplicity of $f$ at $a$.
\end{define}
Notice, $\text{mult}(f,a)=1$ just means $f(a)=0$. Also the number of Hasse derivatives over ${\mathbb{F}}[x_1,\hdots,x_n]$ with weight strictly less than $m$ is $\Delta_{n,m-1}$. One can also check that for a univariate polynomial $f(x)$ to vanish at $a$ with multiplicity $m$, $f$ must be divisible by $(x-a)^m$.
We will need an extended Schwartz-Zippel bound~\cite{schwartz1979probabilistic,ZippelPaper} which leverages multiplicities. The proof can be found in \cite{dvir2013extensions}.
\begin{lem}[Schwartz-Zippel with multiplicities]\label{multSchwartz}
Let $f\in {\mathbb{F}}[x_1,..,x_n]_{\le d}$, with ${\mathbb{F}}$ an arbitrary field and $d\in {\mathbb{Z}}$. Then for any finite subset $U\subseteq {\mathbb{F}}$ ,
$$\sum\limits_{a\in U^n} \text{mult}(f,a) \le d|U|^{n-1}.$$
\end{lem}
We now define a family of linear maps sending a polynomial to a list of its evaluations (with derivatives) over some set. These maps (or more precisely, the matrices representing them) will replace the matrices $W_{p,n}$ used in Section~\ref{sec:finitefield}.
\begin{define}[Evaluation maps]
For a prime $p$, natural numbers $n$ and $m$, given a set $A$ in ${\mathbb{F}}_p^n$, we let $$\text{EVAL}_A^m:{\mathbb{F}}_p[x_1,\hdots,x_n]\rightarrow {\mathbb{F}}^{|A|\Delta_{n,m-1}}$$ refer to the linear map from ${\mathbb{F}}_p[x_1,\hdots,x_n]$ to the evaluation of all Hasse derivatives of weight strictly less than $m$ over the set $A$. We treat the points in the co-domain ${\mathbb{F}}_p^{|A|\Delta_{n,m-1}}$ as column vectors of length $|A|\Delta_{n,m-1}$ indexed by tuples $(x,\mathbf{j})\in A\times {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge 0}^n$ with $\text{wt}(\mathbf{j})<m$. The $(x,\mathbf{j})$th entry of $\text{EVAL}_A^m(f)$ for a polynomial $f\in {\mathbb{F}}_p[x_1,\hdots,x_n]$ is $f^{(\mathbf{j})}(x)$. For singleton sets $\{x\}$ we omit the curly braces and write $\text{EVAL}_x^m$.
\end{define}
We will now construct matrices $C^k_L$ which will replace the indicators ${\mathbf{1}}_{L(b)}$ used as the rows of $M_S$ in the proofs of the previous sections. Intuitively, the matrix $C^k_L$ for some line $L$ in direction $b$ corresponds to the linear map which takes as input the evaluations (up to some order $m$ depending on $k$) of a polynomial $f$ on the line $L$ and output the evaluation of $f$ (up to order $k$) at the point $b$. This is possible as long as the degree of $f$ is not too big as a consequence of Lemma~\ref{multSchwartz}.
\begin{lem}[The decoding matrix $C^k_L$]\label{lem:infitDerLine}
Given a prime $p$, numbers $k,n,m\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge 0}$ where $p|k$ and $m=2k-k/p$, and a line $L\subseteq {\mathbb{F}}_p^n$ in the direction $b\in {\mathbb{P}}{\mathbb{F}}_p^{n-1}$, we can construct a $\Delta_{n,k-1}\times p^n\Delta_{n,m-1}$ matrix $C_L^k$ such that,
\begin{enumerate}
\item The rows in the matrix $C_L^k$ are indexed by points $\mathbf{i}\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge 0}^n, \text{wt}(\mathbf{i})<k$ and the columns are indexed by tuples $(x,\mathbf{j})\in {\mathbb{F}}_p^n\times {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge 0}^n$ with $\text{wt}(\mathbf{j})<m$.
\item The only non-zero columns are the ones corresponding to tuples $(x,\mathbf{j})$ with $x\in L$.
\item For a polynomial $f\in {\mathbb{F}}_p[x_1,\hdots,x_n]_{=kp-1}$ we have,
$$C_L^k\cdot \text{EVAL}_{{\mathbb{F}}^n_p}^m(f)=\text{EVAL}_{b}^k(f).$$
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We will need the following two claims.
\begin{claim}
For homogenous polynomials $f$ of degree $kp-1$ we have
\begin{align}
\text{EVAL}^m_L(f)=0\implies \text{EVAL}^k_b(f)=0,\label{eq:LineToDirection}
\end{align}
where $m=2k-k/p$.
\end{claim}
The proof can be found in Theorem 11 (in the arxiv version) and Theorem 3.2 (in the SIAM version) of \cite{dvir2013extensions} and is a consequence of Lemma \ref{multSchwartz}.
\begin{claim}
Let $A$ be an $n_1 \times w$ matrix and $B$ be an $n_2 \times w$ matrix both over a field ${\mathbb{F}}$ and suppose that, for all $x\in {\mathbb{F}}^w$ we have,
$$Ax=0\implies Bx=0.$$
Then there exists a matrix $C$ of size $n_2\times n_1$ such that $C\cdot A=B$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
For all $x\in {\mathbb{F}}^w, Ax=0\implies Bx=0$ means the kernel of $A$ is a subset of the kernel of $B$. This means every row of $B$ is spanned by the row space of $A$. This immediately implies that we can construct $C$ such that $CA=B$.
\end{proof}
Combining the two claims lets us construct a matrix $C'$ such that
\begin{align}
C'\cdot \text{EVAL}_{L}^m(f)=\text{EVAL}_b^k(f).\label{eq:Cpartialprop}
\end{align}
The columns in $C'$ are indexed by tuples $(x,\mathbf{j})\in L\times {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge 0}$ such that $\text{wt}(\mathbf{j})<m$. We add zero columns to $C'$ corresponding to tuples $(x,\mathbf{j})\in ({\mathbb{F}}_p^n\setminus L)\times {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge 0}^n$ with $\text{wt}(\mathbf{j})<m$. This gives us $C^k_L$. By construction it satisfies the first two properties. The third property follows from \eqref{eq:Cpartialprop}.
\end{proof}
In our proof, it will be convenient to work with the following extension of rank for sets of matrices.
\begin{define}[crank of a set of matrices]
Given a finite set $T=\{A_1,\hdots,A_n\}$ of matrices over a field ${\mathbb{F}}$ having the same number of columns we let $\textsf{crank}(T)$ be the rank of the matrix obtained by concatenating all the elements $A_i$ in $T$ along their columns. In other words it is the dimension of the subspace spanned by the vectors in the set $\bigcup_{i=1}^n\{r|r\text{ is a row in }A_i\}$.
\end{define}
We will use a simple lemma which follows from the definition.
\begin{lem}[crank bound for multiplying matrices]\label{lem:crankMatMult}
Given matrices $A_1,\hdots,A_n$ of size $a\times b$ and a matrix $H$ of size $b\times c$ we have
\em{$$\textsf{crank}\{A_i\}_{i=1}^n\ge\textsf{crank}\{A_i\cdot H\}_{i=1}^n.$$}
\end{lem}
We now need an extension of Lemma \ref{lem:tensorProductSpaceBound} for this definition.
\begin{lem}[crank bound for tensor products]\label{lem:crankTensorProduct}
Given matrices $A_1,\hdots,A_n$ of size $a_1\times a_2$ over a field ${\mathbb{F}}$ such that $\textsf{crank}\{A_i\}_{i=1}^n\ge r_1$ and matrices $B_{i,j}$ over the field ${\mathbb{F}}$ for $i\in [n]$ and $j\in [m]$ of size $b_1\times b_2$ such that $\textsf{crank}\{B_{i,j}\}_{j=1}^m\ge r_2$ for all $i\in [n]$ we have,
\em{$$\textsf{crank}\{A_i\otimes B_{i,j}|i\in [n],j\in[m]\}\ge r_1r_2.$$}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $V=\bigcup_{i=1}^n\{w|w\text{ is a row in }A_i\}$ and $U_i=\bigcup_{j=1}^m\{w|w\text{ is a row in }B_{i,j}\}$ for $i\in [n]$. $V$ has rank at least $r_1$ and each of the $U_i$ will have rank at least $r_2$. Using Lemma \ref{lem:tensorProductSpaceBound} we see that the set of vectors $\bigcup_{i=1}^n\{w_1\otimes w_2|w_1\text{ is a row in }A_i,w_2\in U_i\}$ will have rank at least $r_1r_2$. This gives us the desired $\textsf{crank}$ bound too.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:SquarefreeNtheorem}}
We are now ready to prove our main result restated here for convenience.
\begin{repthm}{thm:SquarefreeNtheorem}
Let $N=p_1\hdots p_r$ for distinct primes $p_1,\hdots,p_r$. Any Kakeya Set $S\subseteq ({\mathbb{Z}}/N{\mathbb{Z}})^n$ satisfies
$$|S| \geq \frac{N^n}{\prod\limits_{i=1}^r (2-1/p_i)^{n}}.$$
\end{repthm}
\begin{proof}
We will prove this using induction over $r$. When $r=1$ the result is known via Theorem \ref{thm:TightFqbound}.
Let us assume the bound holds for a product of $r$ primes. Let $N=p_1\hdots p_{r+1}$ for $r+1$ distinct primes and $R={\mathbb{Z}}/N{\mathbb{Z}}$. To prove a lower bound let us take a Kakeya set $S$ in $R^n$. For convenience we let $N_0=p_2p_3\hdots p_{r+1}$ and $R_0={\mathbb{Z}}/N_0{\mathbb{Z}}$.
All our matrices and indicator vectors will be over ${\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}$.
By the Chinese remainder theorem $R^n$ is isomorphic to ${\mathbb{F}}^n_{p_1}\times R_0^n$. Every direction $b\in {\mathbb{P}} R^{n-1}$ is represented by a tuple $(b_1,b_0)\in {\mathbb{P}}{\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}^{n-1}\times {\mathbb{P}} R_0^{n-1}$. Any line $L\subseteq R^n$ in direction $b=(b_1,b_0)\in {\mathbb{P}}{\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}^{n-1}\times {\mathbb{P}} R_0^{n-1}$ is a product of lines $L_1\subseteq {\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}^n$ in direction $b_1$ and $L_0\subseteq R_0^n$ in direction $b_0$. The indicator vector ${\mathbf{1}}_{L}\in {\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}^{|R^n|}$ will equal ${\mathbf{1}}_{L_1}\otimes {\mathbf{1}}_{L_0}\in {\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}^{|{\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}^n\times R_0^n|}$.
For each direction $b\in {\mathbb{P}} R^{n-1}$ we must have a line $L(b)$ contained in $S$. If there are many such lines we pick one arbitrarily. The line $L(b)$ will be the product of lines $L_1(b)$ and $L_0(b)$ in ${\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}^n$ and $R_0^n$ respectively.
Let us fix a natural number $k$ divisible by $p_1$. For a direction $b$ consider the matrix $C^k_{L_1(b)}$ (given by Lemma \ref{lem:infitDerLine}) over the field ${\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}$ which will be of size $\Delta_{n,k-1}\times p_1^n\Delta_{n,m-1}$ with $$m=2k-k/p_1.$$ The following claim generalizes Lemma~\ref{lem:rankSizeLine} and allows us to lower bound $|S|$ using a rank bound (in this case the rank of the matrix containing all rows in all $C_{L(b)}^k$).
\begin{claim}[$\textsf{crank}$-Size relation]\label{lem:rankSizeProject}
\em{$$|S|\binom{m+n-1}{n}\ge \textsf{crank}\{C^k_{L_1(b)}\otimes {\mathbf{1}}_{L_0(b)}\}_{b\in {\mathbb{P}} R^{n-1}}.$$}
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
The columns in $C^k_{L_1(b)}\otimes {\mathbf{1}}_{L_0(b)}$ for all $b$, are indexed by tuples $(x,\mathbf{j})\in R^n\times {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge 0}^n$ with $\text{wt}(\mathbf{j})<m$. By Lemma \ref{lem:infitDerLine} we see the non-zero columns in $C^k_{L(b)}\otimes {\mathbf{1}}_{L_0(b)}$ will correspond to tuples with $x\in L_1(b)\subseteq S$. In general in all the matrices in the set $\{C^k_{L_1(b)}\otimes {\mathbf{1}}_{L_0(b)}\}_{b\in {\mathbb{P}} R^{n-1}}$ the non-zero columns all correspond to points $(x,\mathbf{j})\in S\times {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge 0}$ with $\text{wt}(\mathbf{j})<m$. This gives us the required bound.
\end{proof}
Let $E$ be a matrix of size $p_1^n\Delta_{n,m-1}\times \delta_{n,kp_1-1}$ representing the linear map $\text{EVAL}_{{\mathbb{F}}^n_{p_1}}^m$ restricted to the space ${\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}[x_1,\hdots,x_n]_{=kp_1-1}$ (with some arbitrary basis). Given a direction $b_1\in {\mathbb{P}}{\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}^{n-1}$, we let $D_{b_1}$ be the $\Delta_{n,k-1}\times \delta_{n,kp_1-1}$ matrix representing the linear map $\text{EVAL}_{b_1}^k$ restricted to the space ${\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}[x_1,\hdots,x_n]_{=kp_1-1}$. For $b=(b_1,b_0)\in {\mathbb{P}}{\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}^{n-1}\times {\mathbb{P}} R_0^{n-1}$, Lemma \ref{lem:infitDerLine} implies $$C^k_{L(b)}\cdot \text{EVAL}_{{\mathbb{F}}^n_{p_1}}^m(f)=\text{EVAL}_{b_1}^k(f)$$ for any $f\in {\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}[x_1,\hdots,x_n]_{=kp_1-1}$. This implies $$C^k_{L(b)}\cdot E=D_{b_1}.$$ Let $I_{N_0^n}$ be the identity matrix of size $N_0^n\times N_0^n$. Using Lemma \ref{lem:crankMatMult} we have,
\begin{align*}
\textsf{crank}\{C^k_{L_1(b)}\otimes {\mathbf{1}}_{L_0(b)}\}_{b\in {\mathbb{P}} R^{n-1}}&\ge \textsf{crank}\{(C^k_{L_1(b)}\otimes {\mathbf{1}}_{L_0(b)})\cdot (E\otimes I_{N_0^n})\}_{b\in {\mathbb{P}} R^{n-1}}\\
&=\textsf{crank}\{(C^k_{L_1(b)}\cdot E) \otimes {\mathbf{1}}_{L_0(b)}\}_{b\in {\mathbb{P}} R^{n-1}} && \text{(Using Fact }\ref{fact:multOfKronecker}\text{)}\\
&=\textsf{crank}\{D_{b_1}\otimes {\mathbf{1}}_{L_0(b_1,b_0)}\}_{b = (b_1,b_0)\in {\mathbb{P}} {\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}^{n-1}\times {\mathbb{P}} R_0^{n-1}}\numberthis \label{eq:Dbrankeq}.
\end{align*}
To lower bound $\textsf{crank}\{D_{b_1}\otimes {\mathbf{1}}_{L_0(b_1,b_0)}\}_{(b_1,b_0)\in {\mathbb{P}} {\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}^{n-1}\times {\mathbb{P}} R_0^{n-1}}$ we will use Lemma \ref{lem:crankTensorProduct}. To that end we want to lower bound $\textsf{crank}\{D_{b_1}\}_{b_1\in {\mathbb{P}}{\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}^{n-1}}$ and $\textsf{crank}\{{\mathbf{1}}_{L_0(c,b_0)}\}_{b_0\in {\mathbb{P}} R_0^{n-1}}$ for $c\in {\mathbb{P}} {\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}^{n-1}$.
\begin{claim}\label{claim:crankCparameterBound}
For all $c\in {\mathbb{P}} {\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}^{n-1}$ we have
\em{$$\textsf{crank}\{{\mathbf{1}}_{L_0(c,b_0)}\}_{b_0\in {\mathbb{P}} R_0^{n-1}}\ge \frac{N_0^{n-1}}{\prod\limits_{i=2}^{r+1} \left(2-p_i^{-1}\right)^{n}}, $$}
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
For a fixed $c\in {\mathbb{P}}{\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}^{n-1}$ we see that $$\bigcup_{b_0\in {\mathbb{P}} R_0^{n-1}} L_0(c,b_0)\subseteq R_0^n$$ is a Kakeya set in $R_0^n$ which is a union of lines in every direction. We note $\textsf{crank}(\{{\mathbf{1}}_{L_0(c,b_0)}\}_{b_0\in {\mathbb{P}} R_0^{n-1}})$ is just the dimension of the subspace spanned by $\{{\mathbf{1}}_{L_0(c,b_0)}\}_{b_0\in {\mathbb{P}} R_0^{n-1}}$. Using Lemma \ref{lem:rankSizeLine} and the induction hypothesis we have,
\begin{align}
\textsf{crank}(\{{\mathbf{1}}_{L_0(c,b_0)}\}_{b_0\in {\mathbb{P}} R_0^{n-1}})\ge \frac{\left|\bigcup_{b_0\in {\mathbb{P}} R_0^{n-1}} L_0(c,b_0) \right|}{|R_0|}\ge \frac{N_0^{n-1}}{\prod\limits_{i=2}^{r+1} \left(2-p_i^{-1}\right)^{n}}.\label{eq:crankL0}
\end{align}
\end{proof}
\begin{claim}[crank bound for $\{D_{b_1}\}_{b_1\in {\mathbb{P}}{\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}^{n-1}}$]\label{claim:crankBparameterBound}
\em{$$\textsf{crank}(\{D_{b_1}\}_{b_1\in {\mathbb{P}}{\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}^{n-1}})\ge \delta_{n,kp_1-1}.$$}
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
To lower bound $\textsf{crank}(\{D_{b_1}\}_{b_1\in {\mathbb{P}}{\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}^{n-1}})$ we will examine the matrix $D_{{\mathbb{P}}{\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}^{n-1}}$ obtained by concatenating all the matrices in $\textsf{crank}(\{D_{b_1}\}_{b_1\in {\mathbb{P}}{\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}^{n-1}})$ along their columns. We see that this is precisely the matrix for the map $\text{EVAL}_{{\mathbb{P}} {\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}^{n-1}}^k$ restricted on the input space ${\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}[x_1,\hdots,x_n]_{=kp_1-1}$.
We claim $D_{{\mathbb{P}}{\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}^{n-1}}$ is injective over ${\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}[x_1,\hdots,x_n]_{=kp_1-1}$. If a polynomial $f\in{\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}[x_1,\hdots,x_n]_{=kp_1-1}$ lies in the kernel of $D_{{\mathbb{P}}{\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}^{n-1}}$ then that means that $f$ and all its Hasse derivatives of weight at most $k$ vanish over ${\mathbb{P}}{\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}^{n-1}$. As $f$ is homogenous, all its Hasse derivatives will be too. This means that $f$ and all its Hasse derivatives of weight at most $k$ vanish over all of ${\mathbb{F}}^n_{p_1}$. This means $f$ vanishes with multiplicity at least $k$ over all of ${\mathbb{F}}^n_{p_1}$. By Lemma \ref{multSchwartz} we see that $f$ must be identically zero. Hence, we have the desired injectivity.
As ${\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}[x_1,\hdots,x_n]_{=kp_1-1}$ has dimension $\delta_{n,kp_1-1}$ we see that $D_{{\mathbb{P}}{\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}^{n-1}}$ must be of rank at least $\delta_{n,kp_1-1}$. This also gives us the desired crank bound.
\end{proof}
Using Lemma \ref{lem:crankTensorProduct} and equation \eqref{eq:Dbrankeq} with the bounds from Claim \ref{claim:crankCparameterBound} and Claim \ref{claim:crankBparameterBound} we have,
\begin{align*}
\textsf{crank}\{C^k_{L_1(b)}\otimes {\mathbf{1}}_{L_0(b)}\}_{b\in {\mathbb{P}} R^{n-1}}&\ge \textsf{crank}\{D_{b_1}\otimes {\mathbf{1}}_{L_0(b_1,b_0)}\}_{(b_1,b_0)\in {\mathbb{P}} {\mathbb{F}}_{p_1}^{n-1}\times {\mathbb{P}} R_0^{n-1}}\\
&\ge \frac{N_0^{n-1}}{\prod\limits_{i=2}^{r+1} \left(2-p_i^{-1}\right)^{n}}\cdot \delta_{n,kp_1-1}.
\end{align*}
Using Lemma \ref{lem:rankSizeProject} we have,
\begin{align}
|S|\binom{2k-k/p_1+n-1}{n}\ge \frac{N_0^{n-1}}{\prod\limits_{i=2}^{r+1} (2-1/p_i)^{n}}\binom{kp_1+n-2}{n-1}.\label{eq:finalSbound}
\end{align}
To get the right bound we assume $k$ is a perfect square and apply \eqref{eq:finalSbound} on the set $S^{\sqrt{k}}$ which is the product of $S$ with itself $\sqrt{k}$ times. It is going to be a Kakeya set in $R^{n\sqrt{k}}$ by Lemma~\ref{lem:productkakeya}. Applying the bound for $S^{\sqrt{k}}$ we have,
$$|S|^{\sqrt{k}}\binom{2k-k/p_1+\sqrt{k}n-1}{\sqrt{k}n}\ge \frac{N_0^{\sqrt{k}n-1}}{\prod\limits_{i=2}^{r+1} (2-1/p_i)^{\sqrt{k}n}}\binom{kp_1+\sqrt{k}n-2}{\sqrt{k}n-1}.$$
Rearranging the terms we have
$$|S|^{\sqrt{k}}\ge \frac{N'^{\sqrt{k}n-1}}{\prod\limits_{i=2}^{r+1} (2-1/p_i)^{\sqrt{k}n}}\frac{(kp_1+\sqrt{k}n-2)\hdots (kp_1)}{(2k-k/p_1+\sqrt{k}n-1)\hdots (2k-k/p_1+1)}\frac{\sqrt{k}n}{2k-k/p_1+\sqrt{k}n-1}.$$
Taking $\sqrt{k}$th root on both sides and letting $k$ grow to infinity in the set of numbers which are square multiples of $p_1$ gives the desired result.
\end{proof}
\section{Warm-up 2: Product of two primes}\label{sec:warmupSqfree}
In this section we show how the proof of the finite field case given in the previous section allows us to work with composite (square-free) modulus. For the sake of simplicity we deal with the case of two distinct primes as it already contains all the technical details of the general case.
First, we define the Kronecker Product of two matrices and its relation to the tensor product. We denote $[r] = \{1,2,\ldots,r\}$.
\begin{define}[Kronecker Product of two matrices]
Given a field ${\mathbb{F}}$ and two matrices $M_A$ and $M_B$ of sizes $n_1\times m_1$ and $n_2\times m_2$ corresponding to linear maps $A:{\mathbb{F}}^{n_1}\rightarrow {\mathbb{F}}^{m_1}$ and $B:{\mathbb{F}}^{n_2}\rightarrow {\mathbb{F}}^{m_2}$ respectively, we define the Kronecker product $M_A\otimes M_B$ as a matrix of size $n_1n_2\times m_1m_2$ with its rows indexed by elements in $[n_1]\times [n_2]$ and its columns indexed by elements in $[m_1]\times [m_2]$ such that
$$M_A\otimes M_B ((r_1,r_2),(c_1,c_2))=M_A(r_1,c_1)M_B(r_2,c_2),$$
where $r_1\in [n_1],r_2\in [n_1],c_1\in [m_1]$ and $c_2\in [m_2]$. $M_A\otimes M_B$ corresponds to the matrix of the linear map $A\otimes B: {\mathbb{F}}^{n_1}\otimes {\mathbb{F}}^{n_2}\cong {\mathbb{F}}^{n_1n_2}\rightarrow {\mathbb{F}}^{m_1}\otimes {\mathbb{F}}^{m_2}\cong {\mathbb{F}}^{m_1m_2}$.
\end{define}
We will need the following simple property of Kronecker products which follows from the corresponding property of the tensor product of linear maps.
\begin{fact}[Multiplication of Kronecker products]\label{fact:multOfKronecker}
Given matrices $A_1,A_2,B_1$ and $B_2$ of sizes $a_1\times n_1$, $a_2\times n_2$, $n_1\times b_1$ and $n_2\times b_2$ we have the following identity,
$$(A_1 \otimes A_2) \cdot (B_1\otimes B_2)=(A_1\cdot B_1)\otimes (A_2\cdot B_2).$$
\end{fact}
For the rest of this section, let $N = pq$ be a product of distinct primes and denote $R = {\mathbb{Z}}/N{\mathbb{Z}}$. Recall that, via the Chinese remainder theorem, we have a natural isomorphism between $R$ and ${\mathbb{F}}_p \times {\mathbb{F}}_q$ which extends to $R^n \cong {\mathbb{F}}_p^n \times {\mathbb{F}}_q^n$. We will work in the tensor product ${\mathbb{F}}_p^{p^n} \otimes {\mathbb{F}}_p^{q^n}$ which we will identify with the space ${\mathbb{F}}_p^{N^n}$. If we consider $v \in {\mathbb{F}}_p^{p^n}$ as a function $v : {\mathbb{F}}_p^n \mapsto {\mathbb{F}}_p$ and $u \in {\mathbb{F}}_p^{q^n}$ as a function $v : {\mathbb{F}}_q^n \mapsto {\mathbb{F}}_p$ then their tensor product $v \otimes u \in {\mathbb{F}}_p^{N^n}$ is the function $v \otimes u : R^n \mapsto {\mathbb{F}}_p$ defined by $(v \otimes u)(x_p,x_q) = v(x_p) \cdot u(x_q)$ where $(x_p,x_q) \in {\mathbb{F}}_p^n \times {\mathbb{F}}_q^n$ is a general element in $R^n$ via the Chinese remainder theorem.
We will need the following simple lemma on the rank of certain sets of vectors inside the tensored space.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:tensorProductSpaceBound}
Let $V$ and $U$ be finite dimensional vector spaces over an arbitrary field ${\mathbb{F}}$. Let $A=\{v_1,v_2,\hdots,v_n\} \subseteq V$ be a set of linearly independent vectors and $B_1,B_2,\hdots,B_n \subseteq U$ be subsets such that each $B_i$ spans a subspace of dimension at least $k$. Then the space spanned by the vectors $\bigcup_{i=1}^n\{v_i\otimes y| y\in B_i\}$ has dimension at least $nk$ in $V\otimes U$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $C=\{c_1,\hdots,c_m\}$ be some basis of $U$ where we let $m$ be the dimension of $U$. Then $v_i\otimes c_j$ where $i\in [n]$ and $j\in [m]$ form a linearly independent set of vectors in $V\otimes U$. For each set $B_i$ we can find a set of $k$ linearly independent vectors $B'_i=\{b^i_1,\hdots,b^i_k\}$ all of which can be written as a linear combination of elements in $C$.
We will show the set of vectors $\bigcup_{i=1}^n\{v_i\otimes y| y\in B'_i\}$ is linearly independent to prove the lemma. Let us consider a linear combination of these vectors which equals $0$,
$$\sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{j=1}^k \alpha_{i,j} v_i\otimes b^i_j=0,$$
where $\alpha_{i,j}$ are scalars. This means,
\begin{align}
\sum\limits_{i=1}^n v_i\otimes \left(\sum_{j=1}^k \alpha_{i,j} b^i_j\right)=0. \label{eq:tensorProductLemma}
\end{align}
Consider the linear projection operator $P_i$ defined on $\textrm{span}\{v_i, i \in [n]\} \otimes U$ as,
$$P_i(v_j\otimes c_k) =
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
c_k & \mbox{if } j = i \\
0 & \mbox{if } j \ne i
\end{array}
\right. .$$
Applying $P_i$ on \eqref{eq:tensorProductLemma} gives us,
$$ \sum_{j=1}^k \alpha_{i,j} b^i_j=0.$$
As $b^i_1,\hdots,b^i_k$ are linearly independent we have $\alpha_{i,j}=0$ for all $i$ and $j$.
\end{proof}
We will also need the following simple claim which allows one to amplify a bound of the form $N^{n - c}$ for some constant $c$ to a bound of the form $N^{n-\epsilon}$ for any $\epsilon > 0$.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:productkakeya}
If $S$ is a Kakeya set in $R^n$ where $R={\mathbb{Z}}/N{\mathbb{Z}}$ for square-free $N$, then $S^t\subseteq R^{tn}$ which is the product of $S$ with itself $t$ times is also a Kakeya set in $R^{tn}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
It is enough to consider the case $t=2$. Let $b \in {\mathbb{P}} R^{2n-1}$ be some direction and, by abuse of notation, let us think of $b \in R^{2n}$ as some representative of this direction. Write $b = (b',b'')$ where $b'$ is the first $n$ coordinates of $b$ and $b''$ are the last $n$ coordinates (each corresponding to a different copy of $S$). If $N = p_1 \cdots p_r$, for each $i$ we let $b'_i = b' \mod p_i$ and similarly for $b''$. If all $b'_i$ and $b''_i$ are non-zero then we are in a situation where $b'$ and $b''$ are `legal' directions in ${\mathbb{P}} R^{n-1}$ and so there will be lines $L',L''$ in $S$ in these directions. Therefore the product $L' \times L'' \subseteq S^2$ will contain a line in direction $b$.
A slightly more delicate case occurs when some of the $b'_i$ or $b''_i$ are zero. In this case, let $L' \subset S$ be a line in some direction $c'$ that agrees with $b'$ modulo all $p_i$ for which $b'_i$ is non zero and take $L'', c''$ in a similar manner. We now have to check that the product $L' \times L''$ contains a line in direction $b = (b',b'')$. Suppose $L' = \{a' + tc' \,|\, t \in R\}$ and similarly $L'' = \{a'' + tc'' \,|\, t \in R\}$. Consider the line in $R^{2n}$ in direction $b = (b',b'')$ through $a = (a',a'')$. A general point on this line looks like $x(t) = (a' + tb',a'' + tb'')$. Now, the set $L' \times L''$ contains all points of the form $y(t',t'') = (a' + t'c',a'' + t'' c'')$. We now have to check that the point $x(t)$ as above is in this product. Let $t' \in R$ be the same as $t$ but with $t' =0 \mod p_i$ for all $p_i$ such that $b'_i=0$ and similarly let $t''$ be the same as $t$ but with $t''=0 \mod p_i$ for all $p_i$ such that $b''_i=0$. We have $t'c' = tb'$ and similarly $t''c'' = tb''$. Therefore, $x(t) = y(t',t'')$ and we are done.
\end{proof}
We are now ready to prove the main result of this section.
\begin{thm}[Kakeya bound in $({\mathbb{Z}}/pq{\mathbb{Z}})^n$]
Let $p$ and $q$ be distinct primes and let $S \subset ({\mathbb{Z}}/pq{\mathbb{Z}})^n$ be a Kakeya set. Then, for any $\epsilon >0$ there exists a constant $C_{n,\epsilon}$ depending only on $n$ and $\epsilon$ so that
$$|S|\ge C_{n,\epsilon} \cdot (pq)^{n-\epsilon}.$$
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let $R={\mathbb{Z}}/pq{\mathbb{Z}}$. All our vectors and matrices will be over ${\mathbb{F}}_p$. Given a Kakeya set $S\subseteq R^n$ consider the line matrix $M_S$ associated with $S$ over the field ${\mathbb{F}}_p$. Our goal is to lower bound
$\textsf{rank}_{{\mathbb{F}}_p}(M_S)$. For a direction $$b=(b_p,b_q)\in {\mathbb{P}}{\mathbb{F}}_{p}^{n-1}\times {\mathbb{P}}{\mathbb{F}}_q^{n-1},$$ the row in $M_S$ corresponding to $b$ will be the indicator vector ${\mathbf{1}}_{L(b)}\in {\mathbb{F}}_p^{|R^n|}$ of a line in direction $b$ contained in $S$ denoted $$L(b)=L(b_p,b_q) = L_p(b_p,b_q) \times L_q(b_p,b_q)$$ which is itself Cartesian product of lines $L_p(b_p,b_q) \subseteq {\mathbb{F}}_{p}^n$ in the direction $b_p$ and $L_q(b_p,b_q)\subseteq {\mathbb{F}}_{q}^n$ in the direction $b_q$. Note, $L_p(b_p,b_q) $ includes $b_q$ because the lines $L_p(b_p,c_1)$ and $L_p(b_p,c_2)$ can be potentially different when $c_1\ne c_2$. Finally, notice that the indicator vector ${\mathbf{1}}_{L(b)}\in {\mathbb{F}}_p^{|R^n|}$ equals the tensor product $${\mathbf{1}}_{L(b)} = {\mathbf{1}}_{L_p(b_p,b_q)}\otimes {\mathbf{1}}_{L_q(b_p,b_q)}.$$
Let $W_{p,n}$ be the point-hyperplane incidence matrix defined in the previous section. Let $I_{q^n}$ be the identity matrix of size $q^n\times q^n$. The rows and columns in $I_{q^n}$ are thought to be indexed by points in ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}^n$. Consider the Kronecker product $W_{p,n}\otimes I_{q^n}$. We will examine the product $$M_S\cdot (W_{p,n}\otimes I_{q^n}).$$ If we look at the row in $M_S$ indexed by a direction $b=(b_p,b_q)\in {\mathbb{P}} {\mathbb{F}}_{p}^{n-1}\times {\mathbb{P}}{\mathbb{F}}_q^{n-1}$, the corresponding row in $M_S\cdot (W_{p,n}\otimes I_{q^n})$ is the product,
\begin{align*}
{\mathbf{1}}_{L(b)}\cdot (W_{p,n}\otimes I_{q^n})&=({\mathbf{1}}_{L_p(b_p,b_q)}\otimes {\mathbf{1}}_{L_q(b_p,b_q)})\cdot (W_{p,n}\otimes I_{q^n})\\
&=({\mathbf{1}}_{L_p(b_p,b_q)}\cdot W_{p,n})\otimes {\mathbf{1}}_{L_q(b_p,b_q)} && \text{(Using Fact } \ref{fact:multOfKronecker}\text{)} \\
&={\mathbf{1}}_{\overline{H}_{b_p}}\otimes {\mathbf{1}}_{L_q(b_p,b_q)}, \numberthis \label{eq:tensorSimpleInd}
\end{align*}
where we recall $\overline{H}_{c}$ is the set $\{x|\langle x,c\rangle \ne 0\}\subseteq {\mathbb{F}}_p^n$ where $c\in {\mathbb{P}} {\mathbb{F}}_p^{n-1}$ and the last step in \eqref{eq:tensorSimpleInd} uses Lemma \ref{lem:centeredHypAct}.
Denote the set of vectors $$V=\{{\mathbf{1}}_{\overline{H}_c}\,|\, c\in {\mathbb{P}}{\mathbb{F}}_p^{n-1}\} \subset {\mathbb{F}}_p^{p^n}$$ and, for each $c \in {\mathbb{P}} {\mathbb{F}}_p^{n-1}$, the set of vectors
$$B_c=\{{\mathbf{1}}_{L_q(c,b_q)}\,|\,b_q\in {\mathbb{P}}{\mathbb{F}}_q^{n-1}\} \subset {\mathbb{F}}_p^{q^n}.$$
From Theorem~\ref{thm:pRankSubs} (following the argument in Theorem~\ref{thm:oldnewproof}) we know that the dimension the space spanned by $V$ is at least $\binom{p+n-2}{n-1}$. Next, fix some $c \in {\mathbb{P}}{\mathbb{F}}_p^{n-1}$. The vectors forming $B_c$ are the indicators of a set of lines in every direction in ${\mathbb{F}}_q^n$. Lemma \ref{lem:rankSizeLine}, combined with the bound on Kakeya sets in ${\mathbb{F}}_q^n$ (Theorem~\ref{thm:TightFqbound}) imply that $B_c$ will have rank at least $q^{n-1}2^{-n}$ over any field and in particular over ${\mathbb{F}}_p$. Hence, by Lemma~\ref{lem:tensorProductSpaceBound} we have that the set of vectors $$\left\{ {\mathbf{1}}_{\overline{H}_c}\otimes u\,\,|\,\,c \in {\mathbb{P}}{\mathbb{F}}_p^{n-1}, u\in B_c\right\}$$ has rank at least $$\binom{p+n-2}{n-1} \cdot q^{n-1}2^{-n}.$$ Since these are the rows of $M_S$ after multiplying by a matrix $W_{p,n} \otimes I_{q^n}$ we get that this is also a lower bound on the rank of $M_S$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:rankSizeLine}, we have that $$ |S| \geq \binom{p+n-2}{n-1} \cdot q^{n-1}2^{-n} \geq C_n \cdot N^{n-1}$$ for some constant $C_n$ depending only on $n$. The bound in the theorem now follows from applying the weaker bound on the $t$-fold Cartesian product $S^t = S \times \ldots \times S \subset R^{nt}$ (which is also a Kakeya set by Lemma~\ref{lem:productkakeya}) and then use the fact that $|S^t| = |S|^t$.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
The thorough understanding of transport of energy, heat, particle, or mass in complex quantum systems is of utmost importance both from a fundamental and technological point of view . Such a relevance is witnessed by the enormous efforts invested by the scientific community over the last decades on the theoretical and experimental investigation of the unique features of transport at the quantum regime.
A variety of different topics can be put under the umbrella of quantum transport, such as efficient energy transfer and conversion in biological systems \cite{may04,plenio08,caruso09,chin13,tama19PRA}, transport in low dimensional quantum systems \cite{anderson58,topinka01,baer04, hartmann04,rossini09,osellame13}, quantum thermodynamics \cite{anufriev17,matti15}, and quantum information processing and transmission\cite{feyn82,childs03,tama13,benedetti19}.
Open quantum systems (OQS) formalism \cite{breuer02, weiss12} has been widely employed for the description of quantum transport in the, often unavoidable, presence of additional and uncontrollable degrees of freedom interacting with the system under study. The tools provided by open quantum system theory led to the derivation of fundamental results allowing to understand and control, or at least mitigate, environmental effects. Such control, for example, is of utmost importance to preserve the quantum resources, as entanglement and coherence, that could enable the development of quantum devices possibly outperforming their classical counterparts. On the other side, the analysis of certain open quantum systems has unveiled the delicate interplay between coherence and sources of decoherence, as in the paradigmatic case of energy transport in disordered lattices \cite{plenio08,caruso09,tama13,tama17}.
The simulation of open quantum systems, on the other hand, represents a formidable task. Even when a microscopic description of the environment surrounding a quantum system is available, the derivation of the open quantum system dynamics requires the solution of a number of differential equations that scales exponentially with the number of environmental
degrees of freedom. Analytic solutions are not available but for very few cases~\cite{luczka90,hu92,garraway97,fisher07,smirne10,diosi14,ferialdi16} and numerical
integration is not feasible, unless more or less severe approximations are used. Such
approximations, however, may fail to capture the effects of the interaction of open systems with environments that are either structured, or evolve on time-scales comparable to those characteristic of the open system. Electronic excitation or electron transport in a vibrational environment, ubiquitous in solid state environments and bio-molecular systems~\cite{huelga13,rivas14,breuer16,deVega17}, is just an example of this class of problems, which are of fundamental importance in a broad range of fields including the emergent quantum technology.
Over the last two decades, a variety of numerically exact approaches for the simulation of open quantum systems have been proposed \cite{deVega17}. These methods allow for the description of features that were not accurately described by approximate methods, such as the Markov, Bloch-Redfield or perturbative expansion techniques \cite{breuer02}. Among them we mention the hierarchical equations of motion (HEOM) \cite{kubo89,ishizaki09,tanimura06}, path integral methods \cite{feynman48,makri92,NalbachET2010}, Dissipation-Assisted Matrix Product Factorization \cite{somoza19}, and pseudo-modes related transformations \cite{garraway97,mascherpa20,lambert19}.
Time Evolving Density operator with Orthogonal Polynomials (TEDOPA) \cite{prior10,chin10} algorithm is a method for the non perturbative simulation of OQS. TEDOPA has been employed to study a variety of open quantum systems \cite{prior10,prior13,chin13}. TEDOPA belongs to the class of chain-mapping techniques \cite{hughes09,prior10,chin10, martinazzo11,woods14,ferialdi15}, based on a unitary mapping of the environmental modes onto a chain of harmonic oscillators with nearest-neighbor interactions. The main advantage of this mapping is the more local entanglement structure which allows for a straightforward application of density matrix renormalization group (DMRG) methods \cite{white92}. Moreover, the availability of bounds on the numerical errors introduced by the DMRG parametrization allows to certify the accuracy of the results generated by TEDOPA \cite{woods15}.
As we will show starting from the next section, after the transformation of the environmental degrees of freedom into a linear chain of bosonic modes, the open system interacts only with the first site of the chain, where it dynamically creates (and destroys) excitations that subsequently propagate along the linear chain. A deeper understanding of excitation transport on bosonic chains obtained via the unitary chain mapping transformation of a bosonic environment can shed light on the mechanism that allows a linear structure to induce on the system the same dynamics of the original environmental configuration, where each oscillator was directly interacting with the system. The same linear structure, moreover, offers a unique point of view on the perturbations induced on the environment by the interaction with the system, since it naturally introduces a hierarchy of modes over which such perturbation propagate, or light-cone.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{sec:TEDOPA} we briefly introduce the TEDOPA chain mapping and fix our notation. In Section \ref{sec:chaindyn} we discuss the dynamical features of transport on TEDOPA chain associated, respectively, to Lorentzian and Ohmic spectral densities in the single excitation subspace. In Section \ref{sec:fulldyn} we extend the analysis by including the interaction with the open system. Section \ref{sec:Conclusion} is devoted to conclusion and outlook.
\section{TEDOPA} \label{sec:TEDOPA}
Here and in what follows we consider a system interacting with a bosonic environment. The complete Hamiltonian reads ($\hbar = 1$):
\begin{align}
H & =\label{eq:totHam}
H_S + H_E+H_I \\
H_E &= \int \d \omega \omega a_\omega^\dagger a_\omega \nonumber \\
H_I &= A_S \int \d \omega h(\omega) O_\omega, \nonumber
\end{align}
where $H_S$ is the (arbitrary) free system Hamiltonian, $H_E$ describes the free evolution of the bosonic environmental degrees of freedom, and $H_I$ is the bilinear system -environment interaction Hamiltonian \cite{leggett87}, and $A_S$, $O_\omega$ are self-adjoint operators. This last assumption is necessary for the Thermalized-TEDOPA (T-TEDOPA) mapping~\cite{tama19}, that we will introduce later in this section. We assume that $h(\omega)$ has finite support $[\omega_\text{min},\omega_\text{max}]$, with $\omega_\text{min} <\omega_\text{max}$,
and define the spectral density (SD), namely the positive valued function $J:[\omega_\text{min},\omega_\text{max}] \to \mathbb{R}^+$, as
\begin{equation}
J(\omega) = h^2(\omega).
\label{eq:sd}
\end{equation}
As shown in
\cite{chin10,prior10,woods14} the Hamiltonian \eref{eq:totHam} can be unitarily mapped into an equivalent one through
by defining a countably infinite set of new operators
\begin{align}
b_n^\dagger & = \int_{\omega_\text{min}}^{\omega_\text{max}} \d\omega U_n(\omega) a_\omega^\dagger \\
b_n & = \int_{\omega_\text{min}}^{\omega_\text{max}} \d\omega U_n(\omega) a_\omega
\label{eq:modesTrans}
\end{align}
where
\begin{equation}
U_n(\omega) = h(\omega) p_n(\omega).
\label{eq:unit}
\end{equation}
The operators $b_n$ and $b_n^\dagger$ satisfy the bosonic commutation relations
$[b_n,b_m^\dagger]=\delta_{nm}$; moreover, the polynomials $p_n(\omega)$ are orthogonal with respect to the measure $d \mu = J(\omega)
\d\omega$ and satisfy three-term recursion relations \cite{chin10,woods14}. Thanks to these properties, the Hamiltonian \eref{eq:totHam} is mapped into the one dimensional Hamiltonian
\begin{align}
H^C &= H_S + \kappa_0 A_s (b_1+b_1^\dagger) + \\
& \sum_{n=1}^{+\infty} \omega_n b_n^\dagger b_n + \kappa_n(
b_{n+1}^\dagger b_n + b_n^\dagger b_{n+1}) \nonumber \\
& = H_S + H_I^C + H_E^C.
\label{eq:chainHam}
\end{align}
where, for the sake of definiteness, we have specialized the operator $O_\omega$ in \eref{eq:totHam} to $X_\omega = a_\omega + a_\omega^\dagger$.
After the mapping, the system interacts with the first site of a linear (infinite) chain of bosonic modes; the system-chain interaction strength is given by \cite{chin10,woods14}
\begin{equation}
\kappa_0^2 = \int_{\omega_\text{min}}^{\omega_\text{max}} \d \omega J(\omega), \label{eq:overall}
\end{equation}
whereas the frequency of the first TEDOPA chain oscillator is
\begin{equation}
\omega_1 = \int_{\omega_\text{min}}^{\omega_\text{max}} \d \omega \omega\frac{ J(\omega)}{\kappa_0^2},
\end{equation}
namely the first moment of the normalized measure $J(\omega)/\kappa_0^2 \d \omega$ on $[\omega_\text{min},\omega_\text{max}]$.
The remaining coefficients $\omega_n$ and $\kappa_n$ are defined by the above mentioned three-terms recursion relations; while in certain cases it is possible to analytically determine their value \cite{chin10}, a numerically stable procedure is in general used \cite{gautschi94,gautschi04}.
For the following analysis, it is important to stress that the chain Hamiltonian $H_E^C$ is made up of exchange terms $b_{n-1} b_n^\dagger + H.c.$ and therefore conserves the
``number'' operator, i.e. $[N,H_E^C]=0$ where
\begin{equation}
N = \bigotimes_{n=1}^\infty b_n^\dagger b_n.
\label{eq:numberOp}
\end{equation}
Excitations can therefore be added or subtracted from the chain because of the interaction with the system.
The initial joint system-environment state is assumed factorized $\rho_{SE}(0) = \rho_S(0) \otimes \rho_{E,\beta}(0)$, with $\rho_{E,\beta}(0)$ a thermal state at inverse temperature $\beta = 1/k_B T$, namely
\begin{align} \label{eq:thermalEnv}
\rho_{E,\beta}(0) = \bigotimes_\omega \exp(-\beta\omega a^\dagger_\omega a_\omega) /\mathcal{Z}_\omega,
\end{align}
with $\mathcal{Z}_\omega = \Tr[\exp(-\beta\omega a^\dagger_\omega a_\omega)]$ the partition function. The initial state after the chain mapping is a factorized state $\rho_{SE}^C(0) = \rho_S(0) \otimes \rho_{E,\beta}^C(0)$ as well with
\begin{align} \label{eq:thermalEnvChain}
\rho_{E,\beta}^C = \exp(-\beta H_E^C)/\mathcal{Z}_E^C.
\end{align}
If the environment is initially at zero temperature, its initial state is the vacuum state, and the initial state of the chain is also a factorized vacuum state $\ket{0}_E^C$ (i.e. $b_k \ket{0}_E^C = 0, k=1,2,\ldots$): the chain contains therefore no excitations. This case provides us with the simplest setting where to analyze the transport properties of the chain corresponding to some representative spectral densities.
As recently shown in \cite{tama19}, however, by the spectral density transformation
\begin{align}
J_\beta(\omega) = \frac{J'(\omega) }{2}\left [ 1+ \coth\left (\frac{\beta \omega}{2} \right )\right ] \label{eq:thermalizedSD}
\end{align}
with $J'(\omega) = \text{sign}(\omega) J(| \omega|)$, it is always possible to replace the thermal state of the original environment with the vacuum state of an extended environment, comprising negative frequencies. As the spectral density \eref{eq:thermalizedSD} is now temperature dependent, the TEDOPA chain coefficients $\omega_{n,\beta}, \ \kappa_{n,\beta}$ will be temperature dependent as well. In the following we will drop the $\beta$ dependence wherever clear from the context. From now on will therefore always consider the factorized vacuum state as the initial chain state without loss of generality.
In our analysis we will consider, in particular, the Lorentzian spectral density
\begin{align}
J_L(\omega) = \frac{\lambda^2}{\pi} \frac{4 \gamma \Omega
\omega}{\llrrq{\gamma^2 +(\omega + \Omega)^2}\llrrq{ \gamma^2
+(\omega -\Omega)^2}}, \label{eq:asymmLorentz}
\end{align}
and Ohmic spectral densities
\begin{align}
J_O^s(\omega) = \frac{\lambda^2}{\pi} \frac{\omega^s}{s! \omega_c^{s-1}} e^{-\frac{\omega}{\omega_c}}, \label{eq:ohmicSD}
\end{align}
defining a very important class of environments entering in the study of many systems, such as microscopic models leading to a Lindblad master equation for an harmonic oscillator in a weakly coupled high temperature environment, or a particle undergoing quantum Brownian motion \cite{breuer02,leggett83,ford88}. From now on frequencies will be in cm$^{-1}$ and temperatures in Kelvin. We remark that, because of the relation \eref{eq:overall}, if two spectral densities differ only for the overall coupling constant $\lambda$, their mappings (i.e. all of the chain coefficients $\omega_n, \kappa_n$) will be identical, with the exception of $\kappa_0$, namely the coupling strength between the system ant the first TEDOPA chain mode. We also observe that the chain coefficients $\omega_n, k_n, \ n \geq 1$ are independent of the specific system-environment interaction term, i.e. they are independent of the choice of $A_S, O_\omega$ of equation \eref{eq:totHam}. As customary for chain mappings, in what follows, we will moreover impose a hard cutoff $\omega_\text{hc}$ to the considered spectral densities, thus limiting their support to the interval $[0,\omega_\text{hc}]$ for $T=0$ and to the interval $[-\omega_\text{hc},\omega_\text{hc}]$ for $T>0$. The value of $\omega_\text{hc}$ is suitably chosen as to keep the neglected relative reorganization energy
\begin{equation}
\frac{\int_{\omega_\text{hc}}^\infty \d \omega J(\omega)/\omega}{\int_{0}^{\infty} \d \omega J(\omega)/\omega} \nonumber
\end{equation}
in the order of $10^{-4}$ for all the considered instances.
If the considered spectral density belongs to the Szeg\"o class, the asymptotic relations
\begin{align} \label{eq:asymcoeff}
\omega_\infty &= \lim_{n \to \infty} \omega_n = \frac{\omega_\text{max}+\omega_\text{min}}{2} \\
\kappa_\infty &= \lim_{n \to \infty} \kappa_n = \frac{\omega_\text{max}-\omega_\text{min}}{4} \nonumber
\end{align}
hold (see Theorem 47 of \citet{woods14}). Clearly enough, in our setting $\omega_\text{max}$ (and, at finite temperature, $\omega_\text{min}$) depends on the imposed hard-cutoff $\omega_\text{hc}$ so that both $\omega_\infty$ and $\kappa_\infty$ are functions of $\omega_\text{hc}$. For any suitably fixed $\omega_\text{hc}$, however, the relations \eref{eq:asymcoeff} allow for the simple heuristic estimation $L = 2 \kappa_\infty t_\text{max}$ of the maximal distance travelled within the time $t_\text{max}$ by an excitation initially located at the first TEDOPA chain site. For fixed time $t_\text{max}$, therefore, the effective environment is made up of $L$ oscillators within the ``light-cone''. Interestingly enough, the width of such light cone depends only on the ``artificially'' imposed hard cutoff and, as long as the choice $\omega_\text{hc}$ is sensibly chosen, different choices of the hard-cutoffs do not impact on the reduced dynamics of the system. On the other side, different spectral densities with the same support will have the same asymptotic coefficients, and the differences in the reduced dynamics of the system will be due to a (typically quite small) finite number of modes, as we will see in the following sections.
\section{Chain Dynamics} \label{sec:chaindyn}
We start by analyzing the dynamics of a single excitation moving along the chain-mapped environment produced by the (T-)TEDOPA mapping. To this end, we can disregard the system and the interaction term $H_I$, or equivalently set $\kappa_0=0$, and restrict our attention to the single excitation sector of the TEDOPA-chain Hilbert space. The set $\left \{\ket{k},\ k=1,2,...\right \}$, where $\ket{k}$ indicates the Fock state $\ket{n_1 = 0,\ldots,n_{k-1}=0,n_k=1,n_{k+1}=0,\ldots} $ with the single excitation located at the $k$-th chain site, is a basis for the considered single excitation subspace. In what follows we will assume that the excitation is initially located at site $1$, namely the initial state is $\ket{1}$.
\subsection{Lorentzian spectrum.} \label{sec:lorentzSD}
The Lorentzian spectral density \eref{eq:asymmLorentz} provides a paradigmatic example. For $\gamma/\Omega \ll 1$, such spectrum well approximates that of an environment made up of a single harmonic oscillator with frequency $\Omega$ and dissipating into the vacuum at rate $\gamma$ \cite{breuer02,lemmer17}. In all the following examples a hard cutoff frequency $\omega_\text{hc} = 10\Omega$ has been enforced.
\begin{figure}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figures/gCoeffLorentzT0.pdf}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3 \textwidth]{Figures/gLorentzT0first.pdf}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3 \textwidth]{Figures/gLorentzT0occup.pdf}}
\caption{\label{fig:LorentzT0} Lorentzian SD; in all frames $\Omega_S=10$, $T=0$; blue, green and red lines/marker refer respectively to $\gamma=0.001$, $\gamma=1$ and $\gamma=10$. (a) The chain parameters $\omega_n$ (empty markers) and $\kappa_n$ (filled markers) for $\gamma=0.001$ (blue circles), $\gamma = 1$ (green diamonds) and $\gamma = 10$ (red squares); the couplings are shifted by $0.5$ to the right to lie between $n$ and $n+1$. (b) The population $p_1(t)$ of the first site as a function of time; the decay rates $\exp(-2 \gamma)$ are shown as dashed lines as a guide to the eye. (c) The population of $p_x(\bar{t})$ at $\bar{t}=0.2$ for $x=1,2,\ldots,120$.}
\end{figure}
Frame (a) of \Fref{fig:LorentzT0} shows the frequencies $\omega_n$ and couplings coefficients $\kappa_n$ at $T=0$ for $\Omega=100$ and $\gamma =0.001,1,10$ (see \eref{eq:asymmLorentz}). We first observe that, for all values of $\gamma$, the first and the second TEDOPA chain modes are equally far detuned. The main difference between the three selected cases lies in the coupling strength $\kappa_1$ between the same two modes, which is directly proportional to $\gamma$. The effect on the system dynamics is remarkable. As shown in \Fref{fig:LorentzT0}(b) the population of the first TEDOPA chain is well approximated by $p_1(t) = \exp(-2 \gamma t)$, namely the decay rate of an harmonic oscillator damped into the vacuum at a rate $\gamma$. As frame (c) of the same figure shows, the portion of excitation that propagates beyond the first site propagates on the TEDOPA chain at a speed which is independent of $\gamma$: the chain coefficients are essentially equal to each other in the three cases for $n \geq 3$, and their value is determined by the hard cutoff frequency $\omega_\text{hc}$ through \eref{eq:asymcoeff}.
We turn now our attention to the finite temperature case.
As exemplified in \Fref{fig:LorentzFT}(a), after the thermalization procedure \cite{tama19} the thermalized spectral density \eref{eq:thermalizedSD} presents two peaks at $\pm \Omega$. The system will be thus effectively coupled to two damped modes, with temperature dependent coupling strength proportional to $1+n_\beta(\Omega)$ resp. $n_\beta(\Omega)$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfigure[]{ \includegraphics[width=0.3 \textwidth]{Figures/gLorentz.pdf}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3 \textwidth]{Figures/gLorentzT77two.pdf}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3 \textwidth]{Figures/gLorentzT300two.pdf}}\\
\subfigure[]{ \includegraphics[width=0.3 \textwidth]{Figures/gCoeffLorentzFT.pdf}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3 \textwidth]{Figures/gLorentzT300first.pdf}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3 \textwidth]{Figures/gLorentzT300occup.pdf}}
\caption{\label{fig:LorentzFT} (a) The thermalized Lorentzian SD $J_{L,\beta}(\omega)$ (see Eq. \ref{eq:thermalizedSD} and \ref{eq:asymmLorentz}) for $\Omega=100, \gamma = 10$ at $T=0$ (blue solid line), $T=77$ (green dashed line) and $T=300$ (red dotted line). In all the remaining frames $\Omega=10, \gamma = 0.001$. (b) $T=77$; the first (dashed blue line) and the second (magenta dashed line) TEDOPA chain site populations $p_{1,2}(t)$ as a function of time. (c) Same quantities and line styles as frame (b) at $T=300$ (d)-(f): same quantities and styles as frames (a)-(c) of \Fref{fig:LorentzT0} for $T=300$.}
\end{figure}
It is thus not surprising that the chain dynamics for the case $\gamma=0.001$ is essentially confined to the first two chain modes, as frames (b) and (c) of \Fref{fig:LorentzFT} show. Indeed, the same plots suggest a clear relation between the temperature and the relative occupation of the modes: as $T$ increase, the difference between the maxima of the populations of the first and the second TEDOPA chain sites decreases, and is expected to vanish as $T \to \infty$, i.e. when the thermalized spectral density becomes symmetric with respect to the origin.
It is interesting to see that a mechanism very similar to the one discussed for the zero temperature case is at play also at finite temperature. Frame (d) of \Fref{fig:LorentzFT} shows the chain coefficients for $\gamma=0.001,1$ and $10$ at $T=300$. This time the detuning between the first and the second TEDOPA chain sites is relatively small and the coupling between the two sites is independent of $\gamma$. This time it is the detuning between the second and the third chain site that is considerable, and the coupling $\kappa_2$ is monotone with $\gamma$. As shown in frame (e) of the same figure, the result is that the population of the first TEDOPA chain site presents damped beatings: the excitation moves forth and back between the first two chain sites, and percolates toward the right part of the chain at a rate $\exp(-2 \gamma t)$. In the zero temperature case, the ``escaped'' population travels toward the right part of the chain at a speed which is independent of $\gamma$, and keeps trace of such beatings, as shown in \Fref{fig:LorentzFT}(f), but this time the propagation speed is twice that of the zero temperature case because of the enlarged support $[-\omega_\text{hc},\omega_\text{hc}]$ (see \eref{eq:asymcoeff}).
In order to provide an insight on how the chain dynamics depends on the temperature, in \Fref{fig:LorentzTempDep} we show the population of the first TEDOPA chain site for different values of $T$. As already observed, the decay rate and the frequency of the population oscillations are independent of $T$, which determines instead the amplitude of such oscillations. This leads us to the conclusion that the oscillation frequency must be determined by the parameter $\Omega$, as expected.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfigure[]{ \includegraphics[width=0.3 \textwidth]{Figures/gLorentzFirstG10m3ForT.pdf}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3 \textwidth]{Figures/gLorentzFirstG1ForT.pdf}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3 \textwidth]{Figures/gLorentzFirstG10ForT.pdf}}
\caption{\label{fig:LorentzTempDep} Lorentzian SD. The population $p_1(t)$ of the first TEDOPA chain as a function of time for $T=0$ (blue solid line), $T=77$ (green dotted line) and $T=300$ (red dashed line) for (a) $\gamma=0.001$, (b) $\gamma=1$ and (c) $\gamma=10$. In all plots $\exp(-2 \gamma t)$ is show as a black dot-dashed line as a guide to the eye.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Ohmic spectrum} \label{sec:Ohmic}
We now consider spectral densities belonging to the Ohmic family, defined as in Eq.\ref{eq:ohmicSD}. More in particular, we will study the chain dynamics on TEDOPA chains corresponding to the choice $s=0.5, 1$ and $2$, representative, respectively, of sub-Ohmic, Ohmic, and super-Ohmic spectral densities. In all the following examples we will set $\omega_c = 100$, and enforce a hard cutoff $\omega_\text{hc} = 10 \omega_c$.
We start by the $T=0$ case. Frames (a) and (b) of \Fref{fig:ohmicSDcoeff} show Ohmic spectral densities for the selected values of $s$ and the corresponding chain coefficients. The chain dynamics shows that an excitation leaves its initial location faster in the super-Ohmic case than in the Ohmic and sub-Ohmic case (see \Fref{fig:ohmicSDcoeff}(c)). This can be justified by the higher coupling coefficient and smaller detuning between the first sites of the TEDOPA chain in the $s=2$ case with respect to the $s=0.5,1$ cases. Moreover, even if the front of the excitation wavepacket travels at the same speed in the three cases, the delocalization degree of the wavepacket is higher in the sub-Ohmic case, while it remains more ``compact'' in the super-Ohmic case, as examplified by the inset of \Fref{fig:ohmicSDcoeff}(c), showing the TEDOPA chain site populations $p_x(t)$ at $t=0.1$. Considered that the chain coefficients for $s=0.5,1,2$ are very close to each other for $n \geq 4$, this difference is explained by the first chain coefficients. Roughly speaking, the higher coupling and smaller detuning between the first chain sites in the $s=2$ case allows for more compact evolution of the wavepacket in the momentum space.
In the high-temperature regime $T=300$, the main features of the chain dynamics are preserved, though with some differences. The decrease of population the first TEDOPA chain oscillator is still slower in the sub-Ohmic case; for the Ohmic SD, the first site population decay is similar to the $T=0$ case, whereas for the super-Ohmic SD such decay is faster than in the zero temperature scenario (compare frames (c) and (f) of \Fref{fig:ohmicSDcoeff}). As already discussed before, this behaviour is mainly due to the detuning $|\omega_1 - \omega_2|$ and the coupling strength $\kappa_1$ between the first and second TEDOPA chain oscillators. Interestingly enough, for $s=0.5$ part of the wavepacket remains localized at the first chain site, as shown in the inset of \Fref{fig:ohmicSDcoeff}(f) and, as in the T=0 case discussed above, the wavepacket is more delocalized in the sub-Ohmic case than in the super-Ohmic case, with the Ohmic case lying in between. As a last remark, we observe that, similarly to the finite temperature Lorentzian case, the propagation speed of the wavepacket is about twice as large as in the zero temperature case; as already discussed, this is due to the asymptotic relations \eref{eq:asymcoeff}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfigure[]{ \includegraphics[width=0.3 \textwidth]{Figures/gOhmicSDT0.pdf}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3 \textwidth]{Figures/gCoeffOhmT0.pdf}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3 \textwidth]{Figures/gOhmT0Comb.pdf}}\\
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3 \textwidth]{Figures/gOhmicSDT300.pdf}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3 \textwidth]{Figures/gCoeffOhmT300.pdf}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3 \textwidth]{Figures/gOhmT300Comb.pdf}}
\caption{\label{fig:ohmicSDcoeff} Ohmic SD. In all frames $\omega_c=100$, and red markers/solid lines, blue markers/dashed lines, green markers/dotted lines correspond, respectively, to the Ohmic ($s=1$), sub-Ohmic ($s=0.5$) and super-Ohmic ($s=2$) cases. (a) $T=0$; the spectral density \eref{eq:ohmicSD} for $s=0.5,\ 1, \ 2$. (b) $T=0$; the chain coefficients $\omega_n$ (empty markers), $\kappa_n$ (filled markers). (c) The population of the first chain site as a function of time; in the inset, the populations $p_x(\bar{t})$ for $\bar{t}=0.1$ as a function of $x$. (d) The thermalized SD $J_{O,\beta}^s(\omega)$ for $s=0.5,1,2$ at $T=300$. (e)-(f) Same quantities as frames (b)-(c) for $T=300$.
}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:OhmTempDep} provides more details. As we did for the Lorentzian SD case, we now inspect the dynamics of the first TEDOPA chain population for the three considered spectral densities at different temperatures. It clearly shows that, while for the Ohmic spectral density such population is only slightly affected by the value of $T$, the temperature has opposite effects on super- and sub-Ohmic SDs. As a matter of fact, whereas for the sub-Ohmic case, an increasing temperature leads to a slower decrease of the first site population, in the for $s=2$ the first site empties at a rate which is directly proportional to the temperature. The snapshots on the populations $p_x(t)$ for $t=0.02$ in the insets of frames (a)-(c) of the same figure, allows us to better appreciate the partial trapping at finite temperature of the wavepacket at the first TEDOPA chain site and the more pronounced spreading of the wavepacket in the $s=0.5$ case.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfigure[]{ \includegraphics[width=0.3 \textwidth]{Figures/gOhmAlls05Comb.pdf}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3 \textwidth]{Figures/gOhmAlls1Comb.pdf}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3 \textwidth]{Figures/gOhmAlls2Comb.pdf}}
\caption{\label{fig:OhmTempDep} Ohmic SD. The population $p_1(t)$ of the first TEDOPA chain as a function of time for $T=0$ (blue solid line), $T=77$ (green dotted line) and $T=300$ (red dashed line) for (a) $s=0.5$, (b) $s=1$ and (c) $s=2$. In the inset of all frames, the population $p_x(\bar{t})$ at $\bar{t}=0.02$.}
\end{figure}
\section{Full dynamics} \label{sec:fulldyn}
So far we focused our analysis on the dynamics of a single excitation moving along TEDOPA chains. This allowed us to isolate the main features of such dynamics for representative spectral densities and to investigate the dependence of the kinematic properties of TEDOPA chains on the specific form of the SD and on the temperature. Clearly enough, the single excitation subspace we restricted ourselves to is not suited to describe the chain dynamics in the presence of a system interacting with the environment. As a matter of fact, the interaction with the system will dynamically inject in (and subtract from) the chain excitation, at a rate that depends, among other things, on the system-environment coupling strength.
In this section, therefore, we extend our analysis by considering a two-level system interacting with a bosonic environment described by either Lorentzian or Ohmic spectral densities. Given the spectral density, the spin-boson model is fully specified once the system and the system-environment interaction Hamiltonian are fixed. In what follows, we specialize the Hamiltonian \eref{eq:totHam} to
\begin{align}
H_S &= \Delta \sigma_x \\
A_S &= \frac{1+\sigma_z}{2} \\
O_\omega &= X_\omega = (a_\omega + a_\omega^\dagger),
\end{align}
with $\sigma_x,\sigma_z$ Pauli matrices, describing, for example, an homo-dimer interacting with a vibronic environment \cite{plenio13}. The resulting dynamics is therefore not a pure dephasing dynamics, and is representative of the class of physical systems for which numerically exact approaches are required. Considered that the interaction term does not change the system's populations but affects only its coherences, we will initialize the system to the state $\ket{+} = 1/\sqrt{2} (1,1)^T$, namely the eigenstate of $\sigma_x$ belonging to the eigenvalue $+1$, representative of the maximally coherent states in the $\sigma_z$ basis. The initial state of the environment will be instead a thermal state \eref{eq:thermalEnv} at temperature $T$. In the following examples we will set $\Delta=70 \text{cm}^{-1}$, and tune the parameter $\lambda$ of eqs. \eref{eq:asymmLorentz} and \eref{eq:ohmicSD} so that the system-TEDOPA chain coupling $\kappa_0$ (see \eref{eq:overall}) is the same at $T=0$ for all the considered spectral densities. More precisely, by definition, the $k_0$ coefficient of the Ohmic spectral density is independent of $s$ so that, in the Ohmic cases, we set $\lambda=1$; for Lorentzian spectral densities we set to $\lambda=60$.
Before presenting our results it is important to remark that we are not so much interested in the reduced dynamics of the system, but rather on the TEDOPA chain dynamics in the presence of an interaction with the open system. In particular, we will try to understand which of the features discussed in the preceding section persist in the presence of an interaction with the system. To this end we will use the average occupation number
\begin{equation}
n_k(t) = \Tr(b_k^\dagger b_k \rho_C(t))
\end{equation}
of the $k$-th chain oscillator where $\rho_C(t)$ is the system+chain state at time $t$ determined via TEDOPA simulation.
We first discuss the chain dynamics for Lorentzian spectral densities. The $\gamma=0.001$ case is still paradigmatic. At $T=0$ only the first TEDOPA chain oscillator is essentially involved in the dynamics. By comparing the purple lines in frames (a) and (b) of \Fref{fig:LorentzFullg001}, we can clearly see the beatings between the system and the first TEDOPA chain site. For $T>0$ a the second TEDOPA chain mode enters into play. The average occupation number $n_{1,2}(t)$ of the first two chain sites depend on the temperature. Interestingly enough, in the high ($T=300$) temperature regime the both $n_1(t)$ and $n_2(t)$ present small and fast out of phase oscillations, imprinting on the system dynamics a much more erratic dynamics than the $T=77$ environment, for which such oscillations are slower and almost in phase.
Figure \Fref{fig:LorentzFullg10} shows instead the system and chain dynamics for $\gamma=10$. Analogously to the $\gamma=0.001$ the average occupation of the first two TEDOPA chain sites is temperature dependent. The larger value of $\gamma$ implies that, loosely speaking, more environmental modes are interacting with the system. While the first two sites are still the highest occupied ones, some excitations can percolate to the right part of the chain, as we already observed in the chain dynamics analysis of the previous section (see \Fref{fig:LorentzFT}(f)). Since the system-TEDOPA chain coupling is about the same for the two considered values of $\gamma$, it is such percolation responsible for the faster relaxation of the system.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfigure[]{ \includegraphics[width=0.3 \textwidth]{Figures/gFullSigmaXLorentzg001.pdf}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3 \textwidth]{Figures/gFullLorentzChaing001.pdf}}
\subfigure[]{ \includegraphics[width=0.3 \textwidth]{Figures/gFullLorentzAllChaing001.pdf}}
\caption{\label{fig:LorentzFullg001} Lorentzian SD, full dynamics. $\gamma=0.001$ (a) The expectation of $\sigma_x$ as a function of time for $T=0$ (purple dotted line) $T=77$ (orange dashed line) and $T=300$ (solid red line). (b) The average occupation number $p_{1,2}(t)$ of the first (solid lines) and the second (dashed line) TEDOPA chain sites for $T=0$ (purple) $T=77$ (orange) and $T=300$ (red). (c) The average occupation number of the chain sites $k, k=1,2,\ldots,20$ as a function of time for $T=300$.}.
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering\subfigure[]{ \includegraphics[width=0.3 \textwidth]{Figures/gFullSigmaXLorentzg10.pdf}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3 \textwidth]{Figures/gFullLorentzChaing10.pdf}}
\subfigure[]{ \includegraphics[width=0.3 \textwidth]{Figures/gFullLorentzAllChaing10.pdf}}
\caption{\label{fig:LorentzFullg10} Lorentzian SD, full dynamics.$\gamma=10$. Same quantities and line styles as in \Fref{fig:LorentzFullg001}}.
\end{figure}
Now we turn our attention to Ohmic spectral densities. As it happens for the Lorentian case discussed above, the main features of the excitations dynamics presented in Section \ref{sec:chaindyn} provides a key to understanding the results. We observed (see \Fref{fig:ohmicSDcoeff}(c) and (f)) that an excitation located at the first chain site will leave its initial location more slowly in the sub-Ohmic case than in the Ohmic and super-Ohmic case. Moreover, the excitation wavepacket tends for $s=0.5$ to be more spread over the chain than for $s=2$, with the case $s=1$ showing an intermediate behaviour. This features translate to the chain dynamics in the presence of an interaction with the system, as comparison between \Fref{fig:OhmicFulls05}, \ref{fig:OhmicFulls1} and \ref{fig:OhmicFulls2} shows.
More in detail, we observe that at $T=0$ the excitations leave the first chain sites almost ballisticaly for $s=2$ (\Fref{fig:OhmicFulls2}(b)), whereas for $s=0.5$ there is an accumulation of excitations in the very first part of the chain (\Fref{fig:OhmicFulls05}(b)). The diagonal fringes appearing in the sub-Ohmic (and less pronounced in the Ohmic) case at zero temperature are easily explained in therms of the (moving in time) population profile shown in the inset of \Fref{fig:ohmicSDcoeff}(c). The inclination of the fringes, is instead related the the coupling coefficients beteween the TEDOPA chain oscillators that, as already pointed out, do not depend on $s$ but only on the spectral density support.
At finite $T$ the situation changes quite drastically. First of all we observe that for all the chosen values of $s$ vertical fringes appear in frames (c) of \Fref{fig:OhmicFulls05}, \ref{fig:OhmicFulls1} and \ref{fig:OhmicFulls2}. Such vertical fringes can be associated to a the alternation of higher and lower average occupation number in nearest-neighbor sites, and allow to appreciate the onset of a stationary current when the state of the system gets close to its stationary state. A comparison between frames (a) of the same figures shows that in the sub-Ohmic the average occupation of the first TEDOPA chain sites is much higher than in the Ohmic and super-Ohmic cases. It must be noticed that, while the system-TEDOPA chain coupling $\kappa_0$ is equal for $T=0$ for all values of $s$, at finite temperature such coupling is inversely proportional to $s$. The sub-Ohmic TEDOPA chain is therefore more strongly coupled to the system, and this justifies the faster system dynamics at short times.
\begin{figure}
\centering\subfigure[]{ \includegraphics[width=0.4 \textwidth]{Figures/gFullOhmicsCombined05.pdf}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.25 \textwidth]{Figures/gFullOhmicAllChains05T0.pdf}}
\subfigure[]{ \includegraphics[width=0.25 \textwidth]{Figures/gFullOhmicAllChains05T300.pdf}}
\caption{\label{fig:OhmicFulls05} Sub-Ohmic SD ($s=0.5$). (a) The expectation of $\sigma_x$ at different temperatures as a function of time (same line styles as in \Fref{fig:LorentzFullg001}(a)); in the inset, the average occupation number of the first and the second TEDOPA chain oscillators (same line styles as in \Fref{fig:LorentzFullg001}(b)). (b) The average occupation number of the chain sites $k$, for $k=1,2,\ldots,20$ as a function of time at $T=0$. (c) Same quantities as in frame (b) for $T=300$. }
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering\subfigure[]{ \includegraphics[width=0.4 \textwidth]{Figures/gFullOhmicsCombined1.pdf}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.25 \textwidth]{Figures/gFullOhmicAllChains1T0.pdf}}
\subfigure[]{ \includegraphics[width=0.25 \textwidth]{Figures/gFullOhmicAllChains1T300.pdf}}
\caption{\label{fig:OhmicFulls1} Ohmic SD ($s=1$). Same quantities and line styles as in \Fref{fig:OhmicFulls05}.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering\subfigure[]{ \includegraphics[width=0.4 \textwidth]{Figures/gFullOhmicsCombined2.pdf}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.25 \textwidth]{Figures/gFullOhmicAllChains2T0.pdf}}
\subfigure[]{ \includegraphics[width=0.25 \textwidth]{Figures/gFullOhmicAllChains2T300.pdf}}
\caption{\label{fig:OhmicFulls2} Super-Ohmic SD ($s=2$). Same quantities and line styles as in \Fref{fig:OhmicFulls05}.}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion and outlook} \label{sec:Conclusion}
While chain mapping has been recognized as a powerful tool for the efficient simulation of open quantum system dynamics, the subtle role of excitation dynamics on the determination of such reduced dynamics has never been investigated in detail. This work represents a first step in this direction. While the single excitation dynamics is unable to capture the full complexity of the evolution of TEDOPA chains put in interaction with the system, it provides a most useful key to understand such evolutions, as in the case of the Lorentzian spectral density we considered. It moreover provides a mean to sensibly set DMRG parameters, such as the chain truncation length and the local dimension of the chain oscillators: for super-Ohmic SDs, for example, the local dimension of the first TEDOPA chain oscillators must be set large enough as to host all the excitations that will accumulate in proximity of the system because of localization, while in the super-Ohmic case the local dimension of the first chain oscillators can be kept much smaller, since there is no signature of localization. While an analysis along the same lines for a specific spectral density was already presented \cite{tama19}, in this work we systematically compared and contrasted the features of the chain and full dynamics for a larger and very representative class of spectral densities. This allowed for example to shed light on the mechanisms allowing oscillators chain obtained by the T-TEDOPA procedure, and therefore starting from the vacuum state, to mimic an environment in the thermal state. For the Lorentzian case study such mechanism emerged quite clearly, and provided an key for the interpretation of the chain dynamics for SDs belonging to the Ohmic family.
We moreover observed that, while the asymptotic values of the TEDOPA coefficients determine the maximum distance reachable within a given time by an excitation initially located at the beginning of the TEDOPA chain, or light-cone, the features of a specific spectral density are typically determined by a very small number of coefficients. Indeed, as it happens in the $\gamma=0.001$ Lorentzian SD case, the propagation of excitations in the light-cone can be hindered by an ``effective'' decoupling of the first sites of the chain from the remaining one. The analysis of the Ohmic SD instances, on the other side, showed that different ($s$-dependent) chain coefficients in the very fist part of the chain lead to quite different occupation probability profiles of the sites within the light-cone.
One of the, so far unexploited, advantages of chain mapping is the possibility of acquiring information on the state of the environment, something not meaningful when effective dynamics of Lindblad or Bloch-Redfield type are employed. While the number of chain modes perturbed by the interaction with the system is, in general, increasing with time, at any finite time it is in line of principle possible to make measurements on the oscillators in the light-cone. This could allow to understand, for example, which environmental modes are more involved in the dynamics and properly select the environmental reaction coordinates \cite{nazir18}. Moreover, in the presence of a fast convergence of the chain coefficients toward the asymptotic values, one expects a very small number of such coordinates. This represents a possible line of future research.
There are features of the TEDOPA chain evolution that remained quite obscure. For example, the fringes that appear in the Ohmic scenario at finite temperature are not present in the Lorentzian case. Considered that, as already observed, for $\gamma/\Omega \ll 1$ a Lorentzian environment can be assimilated to a damped harmonic oscillator undergoing a Lindblad-type dynamics, an therefore incoherently dissipating into an memoryless environment, one could read the lack of fringes as a signature of incoherent dynamics. A further analysis is therefore needed to better qualify the coherence dynamics in structured environments, and will be the focus of future work.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The author acknowledges most useful discussions with Andrea Smirne during the development of this work and has been supported by UniMi through the "Sviluppo UniMi" project.
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) is of great significance because it has benefits of less trauma, less pain and faster recovery compared with open surgery. In conventional MIS, a surgical assistant is required to manipulate the laparoscope to provide the surgeon with a proper view for operation. Hence, designing robots, e.g., EndoAssist \cite{aiono2002controlled}, ViKY EP, AESOP, to manipulate the laparoscope is a popular trend. These on-the-shelf systems are manipulated via the direct hand operation, foot pedal, eye tracking \cite{fujii2018gaze}\cite{gras2017implicit}, etc. Nevertheless, these control signals sent by surgeons may distract their attentions and increase operational burdens. To further liberate surgeons from tedious tasks, automation of robot-assisted laparoscopic Filed of View (FOV) control is crucial.
During the past decade, lots of researchers have put their attention on this task. Osa \textit{et al.} \cite{osa2010framework} proposed a visual servoing method which moves the laparoscope automatically to keep the tool at the center of FOV. Yang \textit{et al.} \cite{yang2019adaptive} further introduced a method to realize a FOV control by placing the tool within an arbitrary yet well-defined closed region. However, their strategies are rigidly pre-programmed and lack the intelligence.
Facing this problem, Bihlmaier \textit{et al.} \cite{bihlmaier2014automated} proposed a cognitive endoscope robot by training a camera quality classifier with expert annotations and predefined guidance strategy to choose the next optimal viewpoint. Agrawal \cite{agrawal2018automating} presented an imitation learning-based method to generate the optimal endoscopic movement according to the current phase. However, these methods require expensive data collections and annotations, which are inconvenient to be generalized and transferred to new systems.
To resolve this problem, we propose to use large amounts of unlabeled legacy surgical videos and extract a domain knowledge for an intelligent FOV control. (Fig. \ref{System Setup})
\begin{figure}[tpb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 1.0\hsize]{./figs/Systemsetup4_meitu.jpg}
\caption{
Illustration of an automated FOV control of laparoscope. (a). Robotic and laparosocopic system; (b). Optimal FOV planning for surgeons.
}
\label{System Setup}
\vspace{-0.55cm}
\end{figure}
Apart from the domain knowledge, the real-time 3D position of the main surgical tool is highly demanded when automating the laparoscopic FOV control. Considering there are no stable features on the smooth and reflective surface of the metal tool, some researchers adopted colored \cite{osa2010framework}\cite{king2013towards} or artificial markers \cite{zhang2017real} to first locate its image position, and indirectly estimate the depth by calculating the marker's relative area in the image.
Doignon \textit{et al.} proposed a cylinder pose estimation method \cite{doignon2007degenerate} that can be further utilized for tool tip depth calculation, while its heavy computational cost cannot be deployed for real-time operations.
To overcome the shortcomings in traditional methods, learning-based approaches, especially the unsupervised learning ones \cite{zhou2017unsupervised}\cite{godard2019digging}\cite{gur2019single}\cite{lu2020multi} which are independent of expensive labeling data, are widely adopted recently. However, based on monocular laparoscopic feedback, such unsupervised methods can only recover a relative depth. To obtain the scale-aware depth, prior knowledge, such as the constant camera height assumption \cite{zhou2019ground}\cite{song2015high}\cite{wagstaff2020self} or the object size \cite{frost2018recovering}\cite{frost2016object}, is needed. To the best of our knowledge, the scale-aware depth estimation for surgical tool using a monocular unsupervised learning method has not been exploited.
In addition, another so-called surgical view misorientation problem \cite{holden1999perceptual} may frequently happen, in which the line-of-sight from the camera can be different from the surgeon's desired view when he/she looks directly into the abdomen.
Such problem can be even severer when the camera moves under Remote Center of Motion (RCM) constraint.
Conceptual solutions \cite{breedveld1999theoretical}\cite{wentink2000endoscopic} have been studied and depend on manually manipulation.
Kurt \textit{et al.} presented a digitally rotation correction method by using an extra Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) to detect the orientation \cite{holler2009endoscopic}. However, it relies on external sensors and does not study the control issues of endoscope.
Our previous work \cite{yang2019adaptive} also tackled the misorientation problem in a subjective manner. However, it lacks physical meaning and still encounters the misorientation problem when the camera tracks the surgical tool with large motions.
Regarding all these challenges, we propose a data-driven framework to automate the laparoscopic optimal FOV control. Our main contributions can be summarized as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item We propose a novel monocular unsupervised learning method named RoboDepth to achieve an accurate scale-aware depth estimation for surgical tools. This method can obtain real-time computing and allow simultaneous motions of the tool and laparoscope.
\item By analyzing from large unlabeled surgical videos, we empirically generate a domain knowledge, which can be adopted to formulate an optimal view generator to perform FOV control in an expert-like manner.
\item We introduce a novel affine mapping-based Minimize Rotation Constraint (MRC) method, which is enabled with distinct physical meaning to solve the visual misorientation problem.
\item Integrating the above enhancements, we design a novel null-space controller to automate the motion of the robot-held laparoscope. It maintains proper 2D and 3D positions of the main tool w.r.t. the laparoscope, while eliminating the misorientation error in a unified way.
\end{itemize}
\section{METHODOLOGY}
\begin{figure*}[thpb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 1.0\hsize]{./figs/overallFramework5}
\caption{(a). Workflow of the automated FOV control; (b). The training workflow of RoboDepth model for instrument depth estimation; (c). The frequency heatmap that obtained by statistics from surgical video data can be served as the domain knowledge for a laparoscope 2D control.}
\label{overall_Framework}
\vspace{-0.50cm}
\end{figure*}
The overview of our proposed framework is shown in Fig. \ref{overall_Framework}. By modifying a U-Net based segmentation model, a marker-free method is used to obtain the tool's pixel-wise position. Leveraging the scale-aware depth estimated by RobotDepth, its 3D coordinates w.r.t. the laparoscope can be achieved. Adopting the data-driven domain knowledge, we design an optimal view generator by balancing the weight between the moving cost and the view's optimality. Combining the online perception and offline domain knowledge together, we hence formulate a novel null-space controller to automate the laparoscopic motion, while eliminating the visual misorientation under RCM motion constraint. The details of each function block are presented in the following.
\subsection{Perception of 3D Position of Surgical Instrument}
\subsubsection{Instrument Tip Segmentation Model}
To initialize the task, a real-time 2D segmentation of the tool tip is essential.
Owing to its exquisite architecture, U-Net \cite{ronneberger2015u} that possesses a fast processing time can output accurate segmentation results with a small amount of training data. Hence, we adopt this architecture with VGG11 as the backbone to train our tip segmentation model.
To ensure its generality, training laparoscopic images are collected with multiple tip conditions, such as various jaw angles, tool poses, and etc.
To further enhance the segmentation performance, a multi-task loss function is designed:
\begin{equation}
Loss = w_{1} L_\text{Cross Entropy}+w_2 L_\text{Lovasz}+w_3 L_\text{Generalized Dice}
\end{equation}
where $w_1=0.1$, $w_2=0.1$, and $w_3=0.8$ are weighting parameters of three loss components that jointly highlight metal features of the tool tip.
Then we obtain the tool tip position $p_t$ by calculating the center of mass of the segmented binary mask.
\subsubsection{Scale-aware Depth Estimation Model}
To recover the scale-aware depth $d_{tool}$ from monocular images, extra physical constraints, e.g. the diameter of the instrument, are needed. To fully utilize the robotic information, we present a novel monocular depth estimation network named RobotDepth that can use a single image input $I_t$ to produce a dense scale-aware depth map $D_t$. Our core idea is to merge our robotic kinematics into the neural network as physical constraints to recover an accurate depth. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work integrating such robotic knowledge to the learning architecture to estimate a scale-aware depth.
\textbf{Data Collection:}
Attaching the laparoscope at the end-effector of UR5 robot, we can collect the monocular image and calculate its corresponding six-dimensional (6D) pose $^b{\textbf{T}}{_c}$ by utilizing the pre-calibrated transformation from end-effector to laparoscope $^e{\textbf{T}}{_c}$ and the end-effector pose $^b{\textbf{T}}{_e}$:
$^b{\textbf{T}}{_c} = {}^b{\textbf{T}}{_e}\cdot {}^e{\textbf{T}}{_c}$.
To diversify the collected samples, we collect 30 sequences of separate videos and their corresponding 6D pose by placing instruments and surgical phantoms at varying conditions. In each video, the surgical tool maintains stable while the laparoscope is moved with 1 $mm$ step discrepancy to record around 120 samples.
\textbf{Sampling Strategy:}
Since the difference between successive 6D pose in each sequence is very small, a hierarchical scheme is adopted to sample the training data.
The sequence size is $N$ and total number of $\log_2(N-1)$ levels will be sampled in each sequence. The level $l$ contains a continuous and sparse sampling of frames $I_{m(n)}$: $S_{l}=\left\{(m, n)| \mid m-n\mid=2^{l}, m \bmod 2^{l-1}=0\right\}$ and the final sampling frame set in all levels is $S=\bigcup_{0 \leq l \leq\left\lfloor\log _{2}(N-1)\right\rfloor} S_{l}$. During the training process, each sampled image pair $I_{m}$ and $I_n$ based on the above hierarchical scheme is served as the training data.
\textbf{Loss Formulation:}
Given a sequence of monocular images and corresponding 6D poses, we formulate an unsupervised learning framework as shown in Fig. \ref{overall_Framework}(b).
For Image $I_m$ and $I_n$, the depth CNNs, which utilizes the encoder and decoder structure \cite{godard2017unsupervised}, can estimate their corresponding dimensionless disparity map $Disp_{m(n)} \in [0, 1]$. Here we design a function $f$ to convert the disparity to the depth $D_{m(n)}$, which is expressed as:
\begin{equation}
\resizebox{0.90\hsize}{!}{$
D_{m(n)} = f\left(Disp_{m(n)}\right) = \frac{D_{min}D_{max}} {D_{min} + \left(D_{max}-D_{min}\right) \cdot Disp_{m(n)}}$}
\end{equation}
where $D_{min}$ and $D_{max}$ are chosen as 1 $mm$ and 100 $mm$ respectively to constrain the range of our estimated depth map $D_{m(n)}$. The median depth in the segmented tool area from $D$ is taken as the tool tip depth $d_{tool}$.
Let $p^{ij}_n\in \mathbb{R}^{3\times 1}$ denotes the homogeneous coordinates of a pixel in image $I_n$ and $K\in \mathbb{R}^{3\times 3}$ represents the camera intrinsic matrix, we can use the camera projection model to recover 3D coordinates of $p^{ij}_n$ and utilize the rigid transformation relationship ${}^b\textbf{T}_m^{-1}\cdot {}^b\textbf{T}_n$ recorded from robot to warp this 3D position to its corresponding point when the laparoscope captures image $I_m$. By projecting it to the image $I_m$, we can hence get the estimated corresponding 2D position of $p^{ij}_n$ in image $I_m$, which can be written as:
\begin{equation}
p_{m^{\prime}}^{i^{\prime} j^{\prime}} \sim K \cdot \underbrace{{}^b{\textbf{T}}^{-1}_{m}\cdot ^b{\textbf{T}}{_n}}_{pose \ n \ to \ m} \cdot \underbrace{D_{n}^{ij} \cdot K^{-1} p_{n}^{ij}}_{3D \ point}
\label{warping}
\end{equation}
Similarly, the estimated $p_{n^{\prime}}^{i^{\prime} j^{\prime}}$ can also be derived. By applying this calculation to all pixels in the image, the warped images $I_m^{\prime}$ and $I_n^{\prime}$ can be achieved. When the depth estimation is accurate, there should not exist different between $I_{m(n)}$ and $I_{m(n)}^{\prime}$. According to this principle, our training network is formulated which requires to minimize the reconstruction (Siamese) loss $\mathcal{L}_{re}$:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{re}=\sum_{m,n} \text{Loss}\left(I_{m}, I_{m}^{\prime}\right)+\text{Loss}\left(I_{n}, I_{n}^{\prime}\right)
\end{equation}
In the above equation, Loss$\left(\cdot\right)$ is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\resizebox{0.90\hsize}{!}{
$\text{Loss}\left(I_{k}, I_{k}^{\prime}\right)=\frac{\alpha}{2}\left(1-\text{SSIM}\left(I_{k}, I_{k}^{\prime}\right)\right)+(1-\alpha)\left\|I_{k}-I_{k}^{\prime}\right\|_{1}$}\end{equation}
where $I_{k}$ and $ I_{k}^{\prime}$ represents the original image and warped image respectively ($k=m \text{ or } n$), and SSIM$\left(\cdot\right)$ represents their similarity. It should be noticed we choose the average pool layer with size 3 instead of Gaussian operation to calculate SSIM$\left(\cdot\right)$ with the weight parameter $\alpha = 0.85$.
Based on the above work, we propose a novel RoboDepth model to perform depth estimation on both sampled $I_m$ and $I_n$ images using the same depth CNN model with shared weights during the training. This Siamese shape architecture enables us to fully utilize the training dataset and generalize the RoboDepth model to depth estimation at various conditions.
To guarantee the smoothness of the depth map, we integrate an edge-aware smoothness loss
$\mathcal{L}_{s,k}$ to discourage the shrinking, which is:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{final}=\sum_{l}\mu \mathcal{L}_{re}^{l}+\lambda \mathcal{L}_{s, k}^{l}
\end{equation}
where $\mu=0.8$ and $\lambda=0.2$ are weighs for each individual loss, $l$ denotes the loss calculation from different image scales \{$1$, $\frac{1}{2}$, $\frac{1}{4}$, $\frac{1}{8}$\}, $\mathcal{L}_{s,k}=\left|\partial_{x} D_{k}\right| e^{-\left|\partial_{x} I_{k}\right|}+\left|\partial_{y} D_{k}\right| e^{-\left|\partial_{y} I_{k}\right|}$, and $\partial_x$ and $\partial_y$ represent the partial derivatives along X and Y directions in the image level.
\subsection{Optimal View Generator}
\subsubsection{Domain knowledge}
To automate the laparoscope control, a proper moving policy is demanded. Traditional methods \cite{osa2010framework}\cite{yang2019adaptive} using hard-coding rules are straightforward yet lack surgical proficiency, which cannot be generalized in operating theaters. To overcome this problem, we turn to seek for domain knowledge that can guide the camera's motion and place the instrument tip in a surgeon-preferred area.
Based on our in-house surgical data of hysterectomy, we statistically learn a data-driven optimal 2D image region in which surgeons prefer to place the instruments in one particular surgical phase (i.e. ligament dissection). To ensure the generality of this domain knowledge, we adopt PAWSS \cite{du2019patch}, as shown in Fig. \ref{overall_Framework}(c), to track the dynamic motion of the surgical tool in 3506 image frames, and we use statistic fitting to output an empirically reliable frequency heat map, in which a higher value represents a better place to put the surgical instrument during manipulation.
It should be noticed the generation of such domain knowledge can be easily extended to other surgical phases, e.g. dividing peritoneum, dividing uterus vessels, etc.
\subsubsection{Position and Depth Control Strategy}
With the scale-aware depth of the instrument tip and its optimal 2D placing area in FOV, a control strategy for the laparoscopic motion is needed.
To mimic its manipulation in practice, the strategy should jointly considering two criteria:\\
\textbf{Criteria 1:} The laparoscopic FOV should track the dynamic tool and put its tip within the optimal area, while avoiding frequent motions to reduce visual fatigue.\\
\textbf{Criteria 2:} When adjusting the camera, the strategy should balance its moving distance and the optimality of the 2D position for placing the tip.
Towards these targets, we dynamically calculate the raw image distances between the current 2D position of the tip and all pixels within the domain knowledge-based region, and consequently form a reward function in real-time as:
\begin{equation}
r_{i,j}=w_{1} * \text{DM}_{i,j}+w_{2} * \left\|p^{ij}-p_t\right\|_2
\end{equation}
where $p^{ij} \in \mathbb{R}^{2\times 1}$ represents the pixel-wise position, $p_t=(t_x, t_y)$ is the target position of the tip calculated in Section II-A, $w_1$ and $w_2$ are weights for domain knowledge (\text{DM}) and moving cost. Finally, the target position is chosen from candidates whose r is larger than 95 percentile of overall $r$ value $Q_{0.95}\left(\boldsymbol{r}\right)$ with the minimum distance:
\begin{equation}
\text{P}^{x,y}_\text{target} = \text{argmin}_{i,j}\left\|p^{ij}-p_t\right\|_2\text{. }r.t\text{. }r_{i,j} > Q_{0.95}\left(\boldsymbol{r}\right)
\end{equation}
In our target depth generator, we keep the target depth $d_\text{target}$ of the instrument within a certain interval $[8, 12]mm$ that is commonly used in MIS.
Combining both 2D and 3D knowledge, the laparoscope can be well manipulated and place the main tool among a satisfactory region in the image.
\subsection{Laparoscopic Control}
\subsubsection{Misorientation Elimination}
To obtain an optimal FOV, our system should always provide visual feedback, which is consistent with the orientation of initial natural line-of-sight (NLS), for surgeons. Nevertheless, there always exits visual misorientation when the laparoscopic motion is constrained by RCM in MIS, which is shown in Fig. \ref{Misorientation explain and our solution}.
To further reduce visual fatigue for surgeons, the laparoscopic orientation should be additionally controlled to minimize the difference of visual orientation in dynamic operations.
For our previous Intuitive Virtual Plane (IVP)-based method, it resolves this problem only when the tool is around the initial location, while the misorientation also occurs when the camera has large deviations.
To eliminate this ubiquitous issue, we introduce an evolved approach namely Minimize Rotation Constraint (MRC), in which we exploit the physical root of visual misorientation and use the affine mapping \cite{hartley2003multiple} to address this problem. The mapping can be expressed as:
\begin{equation}\left(p_0^{ij}, 1\right)^{\mathrm{T}} =\left(\begin{array}{ll}\textbf{A}_{\theta} & \textbf{t}_{\theta} \\ \textbf{0}_{1\times2} & 1\end{array}\right) \cdot
\left(p_{\theta}^{ij}, 1\right)^{\mathrm{T}}\label{distortion}\end{equation}
where $p_{0}^{ij}$ denotes the reference orientation at the initial time, $p_{\theta}^{ij}$ is the pose direction with a $\theta$ axial rotation angle of the laparoscope, $\textbf{A}_{\theta} \in \mathbb{R}^{2\times 2}$ and $\textbf{t}_{\theta}\in \mathbb{R}^{2\times 1}$ accordingly represent the distortion matrix and the 2D image displacement under axial rotation $\theta$.
For displacement $\textbf{t}_{\theta}$, it can be resolved by moving the laparoscope to put the instrument at the desired 2D position, which is mentioned in Section II-A.
In order to find an optimal $\theta$ to minimize the misorientation, we apply the following SVD composition to $\textbf{A}_{\theta}$:
\begin{equation}
\small
\begin{split}
\textbf{A}_{\theta} = UDV^{\mathrm{T}} &= \left(UV^{\mathrm{T}}\right) \left(VDV^{\mathrm{T}}\right)=\textbf{R}\left(\phi\right)\cdot \left(VDV^{\mathrm{T}}\right)
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\textbf{R}(\phi)$ depicts one misorientation component induced by the laparoscopic rotation $\theta$. To minimize this camera rotation-related misorientation, our target is to find a $\theta^{*}$ to minimize $|\phi|$, which can be calculated as: $\theta^{*}=\operatorname{argmin}_{\theta}|\phi|$.
\begin{figure}[thpb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 0.95\hsize]{./figs/misorientation_revised.jpg}
\caption{Illustration of misorientation effects. The thick axes $x_0,y_0$ represent orientation of a well-set MIS system, and the thin axes $x_i,y_i$ represent the orientation after the FOV control without any constraint. The thin axes $x_i^{\prime},y_i^{\prime}$ with light color represent the orientation adjusted using MRC.}
\label{Misorientation explain and our solution}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Controller Design}
By enhancing the controller in our previous work \cite{yang2019adaptive}, we refine the image Jacobian matrix ${\mathbf{J}}_{img}(p_t(t)) =\mathbf{J}_{p,v}\left(p_t, d_\text{tool}\right)$ by integrating our estimated scale-aware depth, which hence can improve control effect, where $\mathbf{J}_{p,v}\in \mathbb{R}^{2 \times 3}$ mapping from 2D image velocities to laparoscope velocities, is the first three columns of the image Jacobian matrix $\mathbf{J}_{p} \in \mathbb{R}^{2 \times 6}$.
Here a null space controller is proposed which adjusts the depth error $e_d=d_\text{tool} - d_\text{target}$ and misorientation $\theta^*$ simultaneously.
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\resizebox{1\hsize}{!}{
$\left[\begin{array}{l}
{^r\mathbf{v}_{r}(t)} \\
{^r\mathbf{\omega}_{r}(t)}
\end{array}\right]=
\left[\begin{array}{c}
{-\mathbf{K}_{r} \mathbf{e}_{r}(t)} \\
{-\mathbf{K}_{s} \mathbf{J}_{fov}^{+}(t) \mathbf{e}_{p}(t)-\underbrace{\left(\mathbf{I}_{4}-\mathbf{J}_{fov}^{+}(t) \mathbf{J}_{fov}(t)\right)}_{null \ space} \mathbf{J}_{de}^{+} \cdot [0\;0\; { }^c\mathbf{v}_{c}(t) | \;0\;0 \;{}^c\mathbf{\omega}_{c}(t)]^T}
\end{array}\right]$}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{K}_{r}$ is the positive definite gain matrix to control RCM error $e_r(t)$, $\mathbf{J}_{*}^{+}$ represents the pseudo inverse form of matrix $\mathbf{J}_{*}$, $\mathbf{J}_{de} = [\mathbf{J}_{d}^T\; \mathbf{J}_{e}^T] ^T\in \mathbb{R}^{6 \times 4}$: $\mathbf{J}_{d}=\left[{e}_{3}| skew(^{r}\mathbf{t}_{c}(t))\right]$ with $z$ axis basis vector ${e}_{3}$ and translation vector $^{r}\mathbf{t}_{c}(t)$ from laparoscope to RCM frame, $\mathbf{J}_{e}=[0 | I_{3}]$ with the identity matrix $I_{3}$. $\mathbf{J}_{fov}=\mathbf{J}_{img}\cdot\mathbf{J}_{d}\in \mathbb{R}^{2 \times 4}$, ${{}^{c} \mathbf{v}_{c}(t) } = - k_d \cdot e_d$, and ${{}^{c} {\omega}_{c}(t)} = - k_{\theta} \theta^{*}$. You can refer to \cite{yang2019adaptive} for more detailed preliminary modeling process.
Then we convert the RCM velocity $\left[{^r\mathbf{v}_{r}(t)}, {^r\mathbf{\omega}_{r}(t)}\right]$ into the end-effector velocity $\left[{^b\mathbf{v}_{e}(t)}, {^b\mathbf{\omega}_{e}(t)}\right]$:
\begin{equation}
\resizebox{0.85\hsize}{!}{
$\left[\begin{array}{c}
^b\mathbf{v}_{e}(t) \\
^b\mathbf{\omega}_{e}(t)
\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
{ }^{b} \mathbf{R}_{r}(t) & \boldsymbol{0} \\
\boldsymbol{0} & { }^{b} \mathbf{R}_{r}(t)
\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}
\mathbf{I}_{3} & -skew\left(^r{\mathbf{t}}_{e}(t)\right) \\
\mathbf{0} & \mathbf{I}
\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}
{^r\mathbf{v}_{r}(t)} \\
{^r\mathbf{\omega}_{r}(t)}
\end{array}\right]$}
\end{equation}
where $^{b} \mathbf{R}_{r}(t)$ denotes the rotation matrix from RCM frame to the UR5 base frame and $^r{\mathbf{t}}_{e}(t)$ is the translation vector from UR5 end-effector to RCM frame.
The asymptotic convergence of RCM error ${\mathbf e}_r$, tip position error ${\mathbf e}_{p}$, and depth error ${e}_{d}$ can be guaranteed by considering the Lyapunov-like quadratic function $V=\frac{1}{2}{\mathbf e}_{r}^{T}{\mathbf e}_{r}+\frac{1}{2}{\mathbf e}_{p}^{T}{\mathbf e}_{p}+\frac{1}{2}e_{d}^{2}$ such that $\Dot{V}=-{\mathbf e}_{p}^T(t){\mathbf{J}}_{fov}(t){\mathbf K}_s{\mathbf{J}}_{fov}^+(t){\mathbf e}_{p}(t) -{\mathbf e}_{r}^T(t) {\mathbf K}_{r} {\mathbf e}_{r}(t) -{k}_{d} {e}_{d}(t)^2< 0$ which proves the stability.
\section{EXPERIMENT RESULT}
\subsection{Experiment Setup}
The experiment platform shown in Fig. \ref{System Setup} consists of a UR5 robot, a Karl Storz laparoscope system, and a uterus phantom.
The tool tip segmentation model is implemented in Pytorch, trained for 50 epochs using Adam solver with $\beta_1$=0.9 and $\beta_2$=0.999, the learning rate is set as $10^{-3}$, and the batch size is 2. The RoboDepth model is trained using Adam for 30 epochs with a batch size of 12.
The inference results consisting of tip position and corresponding depth were send to the controller which was running on Robot Operating System (ROS) through UDP communication.
In our controller, the parameters were selected as follows: $\mathbf{K}_{s}$=diag(3e-3, 1, 1, 1), the RCM feedback gain $\mathbf{K}_{r}$=diag(0.5, 0.5), $k_\theta$=1, $k_d$=0.1.
We also added motion limits for robotic joints to compensate for occasional yet unexpected factors, e.g. depth estimation deviations, external disturbances, and etc., to further guarantee operational safety in practice.
\subsection{Performance of Tool Tip Segmentation}
To assess the tip segmentation performance, we adopted Intersection over Union (IoU), Precision, Recall and F1 score to comprehensively evaluate our enhanced segmentation model.
In addition, we particularly proposed a metric named as Instrument Tip Position Accuracy (ITPA), in which it can be referred as a success only when the estimated tip position is located within the tool mask.
In our experiments, we used two sets of image data to quantitatively evaluate the performance of our tip segmentation model. Set 1 contains images collected based on the same phantom with that used in the training set, but with varying lighting conditions. As for Set 2, it was established by adopting a different surgical trainer as the background.
We totally leveraged 76 images in two sets, and the detailed results are accordingly listed in Table. \ref{table_segmentation}.
\begin{table}[ht]
\caption{Testing results for tool tip segmentation. Unit: Percentage}
\begin{tabular}{|c||ccccc|}
\hline
Metrics & IoU & Dice & Recall & Precision & ITPA\\
\hline\hline
Set 1 & 84.8$\pm$6.5 & 91.7$\pm$3.9 & 89.7$\pm$7.7 & 94.5$\pm$5.5 & 100.0\\
\hline
Set 2 & 73.7$\pm$15.4 & 83.8$\pm$11.4 & 86.0$\pm$8.5 & 83.3$\pm$16.2 & 87.9\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{table_segmentation}
\end{table}
It is worth noticing that our model achieved 100\% ITPA accuracy in Set 1, and obtained an average IoU of 84.8\%, as well as maintaining satisfactory performances regarding Dice, Recall, and Precision. In addition, it reveals our model can quickly learning the metal features of the tool tip, which shows average quantitative results of 87.9\% in ITPA accuracy and 73.7\% in IoU even when the background is variant from the training condition.
Regarding these outcomes, our model can provide a reliable tip segmentation and 2-D localization under different conditions, proving a solid foundation for the following tasks.
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 0.95\hsize]{./figs/depth_results_small_2.pdf}
\caption{Qualitative results of the tool tip segmentation and depth estimation. Five columns are: 1. The original image with ground truth for tip depth; 2. Tip segmentation; 3. Dense scale-aware depth estimation by RoboDepth model; 4. Tip depth estimation combined the tool segmentation with the dense depth estimation; 5.Traditional method \cite{doignon2007degenerate} for depth estimation of tool tip (the black line is the reprojection of estimated cylinder axis).}
\label{Depth_seg_results}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{Quantitative comparison of our method to the traditional tool pose estimation based method in each depth interval}
\label{Instrument tip depth estimation results}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|l||c c | c|}
\hline
Model & Depth($mm$) & Abs Rel(\%) & RMSE($mm$) & Time\\
\hline\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{\textbf{Trad}}
& Part 1: [4, 8] & 13.16$\pm$10.07 & 7.30$\pm$5.07 & \\
& Part 2: [8, 12] & 10.09$\pm$2.05 & 10.58$\pm$2.02 & \\
& Part 3: [12,16] & 18.33$\pm$6.16 & 28.3$\pm$12.58 & 0.70s\\
\cline{2-4}
& Overall: [4, 16] & 13.21$\pm$7.54 & 12.32$\pm$9.66 & \\
\hline\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{\textbf{\textcolor{red}{Ours}}}
& Part 1: [4, 8] & 5.77$\pm$5.21 & 2.95$\pm$2.34 & \\
& Part 2: [8, 12] & 10.29$\pm$4.32 & 11.17$\pm$6.78 & \\
& Part 3: [12,16] & 9.11$\pm$7.53 & 12.67$\pm$9.71 & 0.02s\\
\cline{2-4}
& Overall: [4, 16] & 9.62$\pm$7.54 & 7.34$\pm$7.20 &\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{table_depth_estimation}
\end{table}
\subsection{Performance Assessment of Tool Tip Depth Estimation}
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{./figs/experiment_snapshot_revise.jpg}
\caption{Typical results of automated FOV control based on a uterus trainer for hysterectomy.}
\label{fig:experimental_snapshots}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\end{figure*}
To evaluate this unsupervised depth estimation, metrics including the Absolute Relative (Abs Rel) and root-mean-square error (RMSE) were adopted.
We assessed the depth estimation performance by putting the tool tip within a [4, 16]$mm$ depth range, which is separated by every $4mm$.
Since all depths are scale-aware values, they can be directly compared with the measured ground truths.
Moreover, we also compared our results with those calculated based on the traditional cylinder instrument pose estimation \cite{doignon2007degenerate}, quantitative results are summarized in Table. \ref{table_depth_estimation} and qualitative results are shown in Fig. \ref{Depth_seg_results}. As can be seen that based on reliable tool tip segmentation, our RoboDepth model can hence recover its scale-aware depth in multiple conditions.
The results indicate that the inference time of our RoboDepth model is only 20 $ms$, which is nearly 35x faster than the traditional method.
Such superiority in computing speed gives a great advantage to our model in its practical implementation for online depth estimation.
Besides, the overall Abs Rel of our RoboDepth model in depth estimation was reduced to 9.62\% with a comparison of 13.21\% obtained by the traditional method.
It is also worth noticing that even the largest Abs Rel for RoboDepth was 10.29\% within in [8, 12]$mm$, which is still quite precise enough for the laparoscope to adjust its depth and enable faster convergence than the constant depth-based method.
\subsection{Elimination of Visual Misorientation}
To observe the improvement brought by our proposed MRC method clearly, the instrument was moved, w.r.t. the laparoscope, from an initial position to a farther location in a spiral fashion.
In Fig. \ref{Misorientation results}, we showed the NLS image and relevant experimental snapshots, including the laparoscopic images without any constraint, with IVP constraint \cite{yang2019adaptive}, and with our MRC constraint.
Several parallel-placed calibration boards were adopted as rotation references to reveal the orientation quality of visual feedback compared to the NLS.
We can notice that the orientation without any constraint has the largest visual misorientation, which is around $30.0^{\circ}$ as is depicted in Fig. \ref{Misorientation results}(b). Although using additional constraints in IVP method, it still suffers a $18.0^{\circ}$ misorientation when the FOV has relatively large changes.
In contrast, the typical snapshot in Fig. \ref{Misorientation results}(c) suggests satisfactory visual feedback obtained using our MRC constraint, and it outputs almost the same orientation when comparing with the initial direction of NLS, which indicates the effectiveness of our approach for the correction of visual orientation.
\begin{figure}[thpb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 1.0\hsize]{./figs/misori-revised.jpg}
\caption{(a) Image captured in the natural of light direction. Snapshots of the control process: (b). without any constraint; (c). with IVP constraint; (d). with our proposed MRC constraint.}
\label{Misorientation results}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Results of Automated Optimal FOV Control}
By integrating all function blocks together, the holistic framework was further validated on our platform (Fig. \ref{System Setup}(a)). Two typical experiments of automated FOV control denoted as $\texttt{C}_1$ and $\texttt{C}_2$ were shown in Fig. \ref{fig:experimental_snapshots}, and their corresponding control errors ($x$ and $y$ are in image level, $z$ is scale-aware depth) versus operating time were shown in Fig. \ref{experiment_table}.
\begin{figure}[thpb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 1.0\hsize]{./figs/experiment_tablev2}
\caption{Errors of automated FOV control in X-Y (image level) and Z (scale-aware depth) directions. Left: Experiment $\texttt{C}_1$; Right: Experiment $\texttt{C}_2$.}
\label{experiment_table}
\end{figure}
As a starting point of optimal view control, the process between $t_0$ to $t_2$ in $\texttt{C}_1$ and $\texttt{C}_2$ shows the period of controlling the laparoscope to provide an optimal view for a static tool, and its 2-D image position error together with the scale aware depth error converge to zero asymptotically.
Processes after $t_3$ demonstrate the optimal view control for a moving tool.
As noticed in Fig. \ref{fig:experimental_snapshots}, when the tool is manipulated within a certain area between $t_2$ and $t_4$ in Experiment $\texttt{C}_1$, our domain knowledge-based control scheme can avoid frequent view changes, which satisfies the criteria proposed in Section II-B.
Otherwise, when the tool moves to the new position which is away from the optimal view (e.g. from $t_5$ to $t_8$ in $\texttt{C}_1$, from $t_2$ to $t_8$ in $\texttt{C}_2$), our optimal view generator will output corresponding optimal viewpoints (red dot in the image) and calculate 3-D errors. By leveraging our null-space controller, the framework can autonomously move the laparoscope and reduce errors to zero.
It can be quantitatively seen from Fig. \ref{experiment_table} that, our controller can enable the scale-aware depth error within 20 $mm$ and the 2-D position error within 50 $pixels$.
All these results fully demonstrate the feasibility and reliability of our framework for automated FOV control.
\section{CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORKS}
In this paper, we propose a novel data-driven framework for an automated laparoscopic optimal view control. A modified U-Net model and a novel unsupervised RoboDepth model are proposed to acquire an accurate 3-D perception of surgical tool tip.
Besides, a new constraint with physical meaning named MRC is proposed to eliminate the visual misorientation problem. Compared with conventional control schemes, we also proposed an optimal view generator that can effectively extract control domain knowledge from large unlabeled surgical videos and perform FOV control in an expert-like manner.
In the future, we will achieve more domain knowledge for camera control in more surgical scenarios, as well as proposing a generic framework to reliably automate laparoscopic motion under multi-instruments operation environments.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
Hybrid quantum systems comprising gas-phase Rydberg atoms coupled to solid-state superconducting microwave circuits are of interest for a range of applications in quantum information processing~\cite{xiang13a,kurizki15a}. The development of these systems was inspired by proposals for hybrid quantum processors with cold polar ground-state molecules coupled to coplanar waveguide (CPW) resonators integrated into superconducting circuits~\cite{rabl06a}. The use of atoms in Rydberg states with high principal quantum number $n$, offers the opportunity to exploit the large electric dipole moments ($\gtrsim1000\,e\,a_0$ for values of $n\gtrsim50$) associated with microwave transitions between Rydberg states~\cite{raimond01a} to achieve higher single-particle coupling rates than expected for polar molecules. This has motivated theoretical work on the implementation of quantum gates~\cite{pritchard14a,sarkany15a,liao19a}, quantum-state transfer~\cite{patton13a,sarkany18a}, microwave-to-optical photon conversion~\cite{kiffner16a,gard17a,han18a,petrosyan19a}, and studies of new regimes of light-matter interactions~\cite{calajo17a} with Rydberg atoms coupled to superconducting circuits.
The challenges in realizing a hybrid Rydberg-atom--superconducting-circuit interface arise primarily from the susceptibility of Rydberg states to electric fields emanating from the cryogenically cooled superconducting chip surfaces. Studies have been reported in which transitions between Rydberg states were driven by microwave fields propagating in normal metal~\cite{hogan12a} and superconducting~\cite{hermann_avigliano14a,thiele15a} CPWs cooled to low temperatures. These permitted the characterization of stray electric fields and the microwave field distributions above the CPW structures. The results of this work motivated the use of (1) helium (He) atoms in these types of experiments to minimize detrimental effects~\cite{hattermann12a} associated with surface adsorption, (2) microwave transitions between Rydberg states for which the sensitivity to stray electric fields is minimal, or can be minimized through the application of electric, magnetic or microwave dressing fields~\cite{jones13a,booth18a,morgan18a,peper19a}, and (3) CPW resonators with geometries in which the centre conductor can be electrically contacted to the ground planes to minimize charge build up, e.g., $\lambda/4$ CPW resonators.
Following these guidelines, the first demonstration of an interface between Rydberg atoms and microwave fields in a superconducting CPW resonator was recently reported~\cite{morgan20a}. In this work Rydberg He atoms were coupled to the $\omega_{\mathrm{res}}=2\pi\times19.556$~GHz third-harmonic field in a $\lambda/4$ resonator. This field was resonant with the two-photon $1\mathrm{s}55\mathrm{s}\,^3\mathrm{S}_1\rightarrow 1\mathrm{s}56\mathrm{s}\,^3\mathrm{S}_1$ ($|55\mathrm{s}\rangle\rightarrow|56\mathrm{s}\rangle$) transition, which, because of the similarity in the static electric dipole polarizabilities of the $|55\mathrm{s}\rangle$ and $|56\mathrm{s}\rangle$ states, exhibited a low sensitivity to residual uncancelled stray electric fields of $\lesssim50$~mV/cm within $100~\mu$m of the surface of the superconducting chip. Here we build on this work, and report atom--resonator-field interactions with coherence times up to $0.84~\mu$s, and cavity-enhanced Ramsey spectroscopy of the Rydberg-atom--superconducting-circuit interface.
In the following an overview of the experimental apparatus is first provided. The results of time-domain measurements of Rabi oscillations in the Rydberg state population, arising from the coherent interaction with the resonator field, are then presented. This is followed by a discussion of the cavity-enhanced Ramsey spectroscopy performed in the frequency domain. The measured Ramsey spectra have been compared to the results of numerical calculations of the time-evolution of the Rydberg state population in the presence of the resonator field, to allow the spectral characteristics of the resonator mode to be determined from the experimental data.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.38\textwidth]{figure1.pdf}
\caption{(a) Schematic diagram of the cryogenically cooled interaction region in the apparatus. Note: electrodes E$_{3,4}$ are located above the NbN chip in the $y$ dimension and partially transparent in the figure. (b) Pulsed potential applied to E$_5$ for Rydberg-state-selective electric field ionization. (c) Electron signal recorded at the MCP detector for atoms excited to the $|55\mathrm{s}\rangle$ and $|56\mathrm{s}\rangle$ states, following ionization in the field generated by the potential in (b).\label{fig:setup}}
\end{figure}
The experiments were performed with pulsed supersonic beams of metastable He (mean longitudinal speed $\overline{v}_{\text{He}} = 2000$~m/s; 50~Hz repetition rate)~\cite{morgan20a}. After passing through a 2-mm-diameter skimmer and a charged particle filter, the atomic beam entered the cryogenically cooled central region of the apparatus depicted schematically in Fig.~\ref{fig:setup}(a). Between electrodes E$_1$ and E$_2$ the atoms were excited to the 1s55s\,$^3$S$_1$ level ($|55\mathrm{s}\rangle$) using a the resonance enhanced 1s2s\,$^3$S$_1\rightarrow$1s3p\,$^3$P$_2\rightarrow$1s55s\,$^3$S$_1$ two-photon laser excitation scheme~\cite{hogan18a}. The laser beams were focussed to $\sim50~\mu$m FWHM beam waists to limit the spatial spread of the excited atoms in the $y$ dimension. Rydberg-state photoexcitation occurred for 1.6~$\mu$s, resulting in the preparation of 3.2-mm-long ensembles of excited atoms.
The Rydberg atoms then traversed a 10~$\times$ 10~mm niobium nitride (NbN) superconducting chip (silicon substrate; 100-nm-thick NbN film; critical temperature $T_{\mathrm{c}}=12.1$~K), where they interacted with the third harmonic microwave field in a $\lambda/4$ superconducting CPW resonator (length 6.335~mm; center-conductor width 20~$\mu$m; insulating-gap width 10~$\mu$m). This resonator was capacitively coupled at the open end to a $\cup$-shaped CPW [see Fig.~\ref{fig:setup}(a)]. The resonator resonance frequency, $\omega_{\mathrm{res}}$, was selected to lie close to the field-free $|55\mathrm{s}\rangle\rightarrow|56\mathrm{s}\rangle$ two-photon transition at $\omega_{55\mathrm{s},56\mathrm{s}}/2=2\pi\times19.556\,499$~GHz (the quantum defects of the $|55\mathrm{s}\rangle$ and $|56\mathrm{s}\rangle$ states are $0.296\,669\,3$ and $0.296\,668\,8$, respectively~\cite{drake99a}). When the atoms passed above the straight section of the resonator aligned with the atomic beam axis, pulsed potentials were applied to E$_3$ and E$_4$ which were oriented parallel to, and located 10~mm above, the NbN chip surface in the $y$ dimension. This allowed the compensation of stray electric fields at the position of the atoms above the surface.
After passing the NbN chip, the atoms entered between E$_5$ and E$_6$ where Rydberg-state-selective detection was implemented by applying the pulsed potential in Fig.~\ref{fig:setup}(b) to E$_6$ while E$_5$ was maintained at 0~V. This resulted in a time-varying electric field that ionized the $|56\mathrm{s}\rangle$ state at an earlier time than the $|55\mathrm{s}\rangle$ state. The resulting electrons were accelerated out from the cryogenic part of the apparatus to a microchannel plate (MCP) detector operated at 295~K. The electron signal recorded at the MCP, for atoms prepared in the $|55\mathrm{s}\rangle$ and $|56\mathrm{s}\rangle$ states is displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:setup}(c). By choosing appropriate detection time windows, the signal from each state could be isolated and monitored.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.37\textwidth]{figure2.pdf}
\caption{Experimentally recorded (black points) and calculated (continuous red curve) Rabi oscillations in the population of the $|56\mathrm{s}\rangle$ state for $\omega_{\mu}=2\pi\times19.556\,49$~GHz.}
\label{fig:rabi}
\end{figure}
The coherent interaction of the Rydberg He atoms with the microwave field in the CPW resonator was studied by stabilizing the temperature of the NbN chip to $T_{\mathrm{chip}}=3.9$~K so that the frequency and quality factor of the third harmonic mode, as determined from microwave transmission through the $\cup$-shaped CPW using the circle fit method~\cite{probst15a}, were $\omega_{\mathrm{res}}=2\pi\times(19.556\,12\pm0.02)$~GHz and $Q=2390\pm20$, respectively. The coherence time, $T_2$, of the atom-circuit interface was then determined by injecting a $\omega_{\mu}=2\pi\times19.556\,49$~GHz pulse of microwave radiation into the resonator to drive the two-photon $|55\mathrm{s}\rangle\rightarrow|56\mathrm{s}\rangle$ transition. The duration of this pulse was adjusted while the population of the $|56\mathrm{s}\rangle$ state was monitored, with the results presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:rabi}. Data were recorded with $\sim1$ Rydberg atom prepared in each cycle of the experiment to minimize dephasing arising from fluctuations in collective contributions to the atom-resonator coupling. The value (uncertainty) associated with each data point represents the mean (standard deviation) of 3 repeated measurements each comprising 250 experimental cycles.
The contrast and coherence time of the Rabi oscillations in Fig.~\ref{fig:rabi} result from a detuning $\Delta$ of $\omega_{\mu}$ from $\omega_{55\mathrm{s},56\mathrm{s}}/2$. Estimates of $\Delta$, and the coherence time $T_2$ were obtained from an error-weighted least squares fit of a model function, representing the time-evolution of the population in a two-level atom driven by a microwave field of constant strength and frequency, to the experimental data (continuous red curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:rabi}). Under these conditions the population, $P_{56\mathrm{s}}$, of the $|56\mathrm{s}\rangle$ state is
\begin{eqnarray}
P_{56\mathrm{s}}(t) &=& \frac{\Omega_0^2}{2\Omega^2}\left[1-e^{-t/T_2}\cos\left(\Omega t\right) \right],
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Omega_0$ is the resonant Rabi frequency, and
$\Omega=\sqrt{\Omega_0^2 + (2\Delta)^2}$. The best-fit function, displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:rabi}, yielded values of $\Omega_0=2\pi\times(1.57\pm0.04)$~MHz, $\Delta=-2\pi\times(0.54\pm0.01)$~MHz, and $T_2=0.84\pm0.12~\mu$s. This coherence time was limited predominantly by residual shot-to-shot fluctuations in the number of atoms coupled to the resonator field, and their spatial distribution and motion.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.37\textwidth]{figure3.pdf}
\caption{Sequence of microwave pulses (red shaded bands) injected into the CPW resonator for cavity-enhanced Ramsey spectroscopy, and the corresponding calculated time-dependence of the microwave field within the resonator (continuous blue curves).}
\label{fig:pulses}
\end{figure}
To exploit the atoms in this coherent interface as microscopic quantum sensors to probe the spectral characteristics of the resonator mode, cavity-enhanced Ramsey spectroscopy was performed. In these experiments, a pair of 50-ns-long microwave pulses (Ramsey pulses), separated in time by 100~ns, were injected into the resonator. The FWHM spectral width of these pulses was $\sim2\pi\times17$~MHz, and therefore larger than the $\sim2\pi\times8$~MHz FWHM spectral width of the resonator mode. The time-dependence of the microwave field in the resonator upon injection of these pulses was dominated by the build-up and ring-down in the mode. This can be seen from the calculated response of the resonator field in Fig.~\ref{fig:pulses}, following the propagation of the Ramsey pulses through the CPW. In these calculations the microwave field strength in the resonator, $F_{\mu}(t)$, was evaluated by solving the second-order differential equation
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial^2 F_{\mu}(t)}{\partial t^2} + \frac{\omega_{\mathrm{res}}}{Q}\frac{\partial F_{\mu}(t)}{\partial t} + \omega_{\mathrm{res}}^2 F_{\mu}(t) = \Pi(t)e^{-i\omega_{\mu} t},\label{eq:resonator_response}
\end{equation}
where $\Pi(t)$ is the pulse-sequence envelope.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{figure4.pdf}
\caption{Cavity-enhanced Ramsey spectra of the Rydberg-atom--superconducting-circuit interface. The experimental data (black points) were recorded for (a) $T_{\mathrm{chip}}=3.8$~K, (b) $T_{\mathrm{chip}}=4.0$~K and (c) $T_{\mathrm{chip}}=4.5$~K. The spectral characteristics of the resonator determined from CPW transmission measurements are indicated by the dashed blue curves. The continuous red curves in (a) and (b) represent a spectrum calculated by fitting $\omega_{\mathrm{res}}$ and $Q$ (represented by the continuous blue curves) to the data.}
\label{fig:ramsey}
\end{figure}
Cavity-enhanced Ramsey spectroscopy was performed with a power of 12~dBm output from the microwave source, which was gated to generate the Ramsey pulses (the attenuation between the source and the NbN chip was -22.5~dB). The contribution from the resonator to the Ramsey spectra was studied with the NbN chip operated at three temperatures, and hence values of $\omega_{\mathrm{res}}$ and $Q$. A first measurement, black points in Fig.~\ref{fig:ramsey}(a), was made for $T_{\mathrm{chip}}=3.8$~K. At this temperature $\omega_{\mathrm{res}}$, as measured by CPW transmission, was detuned from $\omega_{55\mathrm{s},56\mathrm{s}}/2$ by $\sim -2\pi\times0.38$~MHz. The corresponding Lorentzian resonance profile of the resonator mode is indicated by the dashed blue curve. From these data it is seen that the spectral overlap of the resonator mode with the $|55\mathrm{s}\rangle\rightarrow|56\mathrm{s}\rangle$ transition yields a Ramsey spectrum that reflects the resonant enhancement of the microwave field at the interface. The Ramsey fringes in this spectrum have FWHM spectral widths of $2\pi\times(1.295\pm~0.014)$~MHz. However, the amplitude of the spectral profile is not symmetric about the central fringe because of the coupling to the resonator. The incomplete contrast of the fringes reflects the finite $T_2$ coherence time of the interface.
Additional spectra were recorded by adjusting the value of $T_{\mathrm{chip}}$ to detune the resonator further from $\omega_{55\mathrm{s},56\mathrm{s}}/2$. For $T_{\mathrm{chip}}=4.0$~K [Fig.~\ref{fig:ramsey}(b)], $\omega_{\mathrm{res}}$, measured by CPW transmission, lay $\sim-2\pi\times5.33$~MHz from $\omega_{55\mathrm{s},56\mathrm{s}}/2$. In the corresponding Ramsey spectrum the intensity is reduced compared to that in Fig.~\ref{fig:ramsey}(a) because of the reduced enhancement of the microwave field under these conditions. For $T_{\mathrm{chip}}=4.5$~K [Fig.~\ref{fig:ramsey}(c)] the resonator resonance frequency was detuned by $-2\pi\times30.02$~MHz from $\omega_{55\mathrm{s},56\mathrm{s}}/2$ and, as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:ramsey}(c), no population transfer to the $|56\mathrm{s}\rangle$ state was observed.
To infer the spectral characteristics of the resonator from the spectra in Fig.~\ref{fig:ramsey}, semiclassical calculations were performed to treat the time-evolution of the Rydberg-state population in the presence of the resonator field. These involved integrating the Bloch equations for a single two-level Rydberg atom coupled by a two-photon transition to the resonator. The differential equation solved had the form
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \vec{r}}{\partial t} = \vec{\mathcal{A}}(t) \times \vec{r}(t) - \vec{\Gamma} \cdot \vec{r}(t),
\end{equation}
with $\vec{\mathcal{A}}(t) = \left(g^*\,\mathbb{R}\text{e}[F_{\mu}(t)^2], g^*\,\mathbb{I}\text{m}[F_{\mu}(t)^2], \omega_{55\mathrm{s},56\mathrm{s}}\right)^{\mathrm{T}}$, where $g^*$ is the normalized atom--resonator-field coupling strength, and $\vec{\Gamma}$ represents the decay rates of the components of the Bloch vector, $\vec{r}$, in the $\sigma_x$, $\sigma_y$, and $\sigma_z$ dimensions.
In these calculations it was assumed that: (1) the $|55\mathrm{s}\rangle$ and $|56\mathrm{s}\rangle$ states represent a two-level system the time evolution of which can be described by a Bloch vector. (2) The evolution of this Bloch vector reflects that of a single ensemble-average two-level atom, and the measured populations correspond to the $\sigma_z$ component. (3) The dynamics of this ensemble-average Bloch vector are driven by the spatially-averaged microwave field experienced by the atoms. (4) The microwave field in the resonator is described by the equations of motion of a damped classical harmonic oscillator. (5) On the experimental timescale ($0-1$~$\mu$s) decoherence of the atom results only from ensemble dephasing and not because of relaxation. And (6) the dephasing of the atom--circuit interface accounts for contributions from the spatial distribution, and motion of the atoms.
The time evolution of the Rydberg state population was evaluated to calculate Ramsey spectra by specifying the timing of the microwave pulses injected into the resonator, and the values of $\omega_{\mathrm{res}}$, $Q$, $\omega_{55\mathrm{s},56\mathrm{s}}$, and $g^*$. For each set of these parameters, the population of the $|56\mathrm{s}\rangle$ state at the end of the Ramsey sequence was determined. Spectra were then obtained by repeating the calculations for the range of microwave frequencies of interest.
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\\\toprule
$T_{\mathrm{chip}}$ & $\omega_{\mathrm{res}}^{\mathrm{fit}}$ & $\omega_{\mathrm{res}}^{\mathrm{meas}}$ & $Q^{\mathrm{fit}}$ & $Q^{\mathrm{meas}}$\\
(K) & ($2\pi\times$MHz) & ($2\pi\times$MHz) & & \\
\hline
3.8 & 19\,558.8$\pm$0.5 & $19\,556.12\pm0.02$ & 3700$\pm$1800 & 2470$\pm$20\\
4.0 & 19\,549.7$\pm$3.6 & $19\,551.17\pm0.02$ & 2100$\pm$1700 & 2310$\pm$20\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Spectral characteristics of the $\lambda/4$ CWP resonator measured by CPW transmission (meas), and determined by cavity-enhanced Ramsey spectroscopy (fit) for $T_{\mathrm{chip}}=3.8$ and 4.0~K (see text for details).}\label{tab:res}
\end{table}
To determine $\omega_{\mathrm{res}}$ and $Q$ from the measured spectra, these were chosen, together with $g^*$, to be free parameters in an error-weighted least squares fit. The resulting best-fit spectra, corresponding to the measurements at $T_{\mathrm{chip}}=3.8$ and 4.0~K, are indicated by the red curves in Fig.~\ref{fig:ramsey}(a) and (b), respectively. The corresponding values of $g^*$ were $\sim2\pi\times0.3~$Hz/(V/cm)$^2$. These calculated spectra are in good quantitative agreement with the experimental data. The spectral profile of the resonator obtained by fitting the experimental data is indicated by the continuous blue curve in each panel. The values of $\omega_{\mathrm{res}}$ and $Q$ measured by CPW transmission, and those obtained by fitting the Ramsey spectra -- with uncertainties obtained from the diagonal elements of the covariance matrix -- are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:res}. From these data it is seen that the values of $\omega_{\mathrm{res}}^{\mathrm{fit}}$ obtained from the Ramsey spectra are similar to those measured by CPW transmission, $\omega_{\mathrm{res}}^{\mathrm{meas}}$. The sensitivity of the Ramsey spectra to the value of $Q$ is not so high for resonators of the kind used here with quality factors of $\sim2500$. The quality factors, $Q^{\mathrm{fit}}$, obtained from the Ramsey spectra are similar to those determined by CPW transmission, $Q^{\mathrm{meas}}$, but the uncertainties are larger.
The results presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:ramsey} demonstrate that cavity-enhanced Ramsey spectroscopy performed at a hybrid Rydberg-atom--superconducting-circuit interface allows the Rydberg atoms to be exploited as microscopic probes of the instantaneous spectral characteristics of the resonator. The characteristics of superconducting CPW resonators depend on the properties of the microwave field injected into them. Since the peak intensity and spectral distribution of the microwave field was different for the CPW transmission measurements performed in a continuous, i.e., cw, mode, and the cavity-enhanced Ramsey spectroscopy performed in a pulsed mode, the differences in the parameters in Table~\ref{tab:res} are not unexpected. In future experiments it will be of interest to employ higher-$Q$ resonators that will cause more pronounced distortions to the spectra. Higher $Q$ factors could be achieved by (1) working at lower microwave frequencies by identifying suitable alternative atomic transitions, (2) operating the resonator at temperatures further below $T_{\mathrm{c}}$, or (3) refining the NbN chip fabrication process. Together, these advances will pave the way for the use of coherent Rydberg-atom--superconducting-circuit interfaces for applications in optical-to-microwave photon conversion, and the implementation of long-coherence-time microwave quantum memories.
\begin{acknowledgments}
This work was supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council under Grant No. EP/L019620/1 and through the EPSRC Centre for Doctoral Training in Delivering Quantum Technologies, and the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (Grant No. 683341). The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
Planning---searching for action sequences that maximize expected reward---is a powerful approach to reinforcement learning problems which has recently lead to breakthroughs in hard domains such Go, Shogi, Chess, and Atari games \cite{silver2016mastering, silver2017mastering, schrittwieser2019mastering}. To plan, the agent needs access to a model of the world which it can use to simulate the outcome of actions, to determine which course of action is best. Planning using a model of the world also allows you to introspect what the agent is planning and why it thinks a certain action is good. It even allows you to add constraints or change the objective at runtime.
For some domains, these world models are readily available, for instance, games, where the world model is given by the rules of the game. However, for many real-world problems, e.g. driving a car, they are not available.
In problems where a model of the world is not available one can instead use model-free reinforcement learning, which learns a policy that directly maps from the environment state to the actions that maximize expected reward. However, these approaches require a large number of samples of the real environment---which is often expensive to obtain---to learn the statistical relationship between states, actions, and rewards. This is especially true if the environment requires complex sequences of actions before any reward is observed.
Alternatively, a model of the world can be \textit{learned}, which is the approach taken in this paper. This is known as model-based reinforcement learning. Learning a model of the world often requires much fewer samples of the environment than directly learning a policy since it can use supervised learning methods to predict the environment state transitions, whether or not the reward signal is sparse. Several models have been proposed for learning world models \cite{worldmodels, schrittwieser2019mastering, hafner2019learning}.
In this paper, we propose an extension to the Mixture Density Recurrent Neural Network (MDRNN) world model \cite{worldmodels}, which makes it suitable for planning, and demonstrate how we can do evolutionary planning entirely in the latent space of the learned world model. See figure \ref{fig:rmhc_s_turn_planning_trajectory} for examples of planned trajectories and figure \ref{fig:plan_loop} for an overview of the proposed method.
We further show how to iteratively improve the world model by using the existing world model to do the planning and using the planning policy to sample better rollouts of the environment, which in turn are used to train a better world model. This process is bootstrapped by using an initial random policy. We show that after only a few rounds of iterative refinement like this we achieve results that are better than standard model-free approaches, demonstrating the viability of the approach.
\section{Related work}
\subsection{Planning}
In planning an agent uses a model of the world to predict the consequences of its actions and select an optimal action sequence accordingly. Planning is a powerful technique that has recently lead to breakthroughs in hard domains such as Go, Chess, Shogu, and Atari \cite{silver2016mastering, silver2017mastering, schrittwieser2019mastering}.
Monte-Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) is a state-of-the-art planning algorithm for discrete action spaces, which iteratively builds a search tree that explores the most promising paths using a fast, often stochastic, rollout policy \cite{browne2012survey}.
Rolling Horizon Evolutionary Algorithms (RHEA) encode individuals as sequences of actions and uses evolutionary algorithms to search for optimal trajectories. \textit{Rolling Horizon} (RH) refers to how the first action of a plan is executed before the plan is reevaluated and adjusted, looking one step further into the future and slowly expanding the horizon \cite{perez2013rolling, gaina2017population}. RHEA naturally handles continuous action spaces. The authors in \cite{tong2019enhancing} show how to learn a prior for RHEA by training a value and policy network. The value network reduces the required planning horizon by estimating the rewards of future states. The policy network helps initialize the population of planning action trajectories to help narrow down the search scope to a near-optimal local action policy-subspace. In our approach, we use a randomly initialized set of planning trajectories that are improved iteratively with evolution.
Random Mutation Hill-Climb (RMHC) is a simple and effective type of evolutionary algorithm that repeats the process of randomly selecting a neighbour of a best-so-far solution and accepts the neighbour if it is better than or equal to the current best-so-far solution. This local search method starts with a solution and iteratively tries to improve it by taking random steps or restarting from another region in the policy space.
Planning approaches that rely on imperfect models may plan non-optimal trajectories. The authors of \cite{ovalle2020bootstrapped} suggest incorporating uncertainty estimation into the forward model, which enables the agent to perform better. In general planning under uncertainty has been extensively studied \cite{blythe1999overview, michie1966game, kahn2017uncertainty}.
\subsection{Learning world models}
If a world model is not available it can be learned from observations of the environment. This is generally known as model-based Reinforcement Learning (RL).
\textit{World Models} \cite{worldmodels} introduces a stochastic recurrent world model which is learned from observations of the environment under an initially random policy. The model uses a Variational Auto-Encoder (VAE) to encode pixel inputs into a low dimensional latent vector. A recurrent neural network (RNN) is then trained to predict sequences of these latent vectors using a Gaussian Mixture Model to capture the uncertain and multi-modal nature of the environment. Notably, the authors do not use this world model for planning, but rather for training a relatively simple policy network.
In \textit{MuZero} \cite{schrittwieser2019mastering}, the authors show how to do planning with a learned model in board and video games using tree-based search (MCTS) to enable imitation learning with a learned policy network.
In \textit{PlaNet} \cite{hafner2019learning}, the authors have shown it is possible to do online planning in latent space using an adaptive randomized algorithm on a recurrent state-space model (SSM) with a deterministic and stochastic component and a multi-step prediction objective. \textit{PlaNet} \cite{hafner2019learning} is the approach that is most similar to the work presented here (i.e., online planning on a learned model). However, it uses a rather complicated dynamics model and planning algorithm. In \textit{Dreamer} \cite{hafner2019dream}, the authors use the \textit{PlaNet} world model but no longer do online planning. Instead, their Dreamer agent uses an actor-critic approach to learn behaviors that consider rewards beyond a horizon. Namely, they learn an action model and value model in the latent space of the world model. Thus, their approach is similar to \textit{World Models} \cite{worldmodels} where they plan on a learned model by training a policy inside the simulated environment with backpropagation and gradient descent, instead of evolution. The novel part is using a value network to estimate rewards beyond a finite imagination horizon. Also, \textit{World Models} \cite{worldmodels} does not show how to do planning on a fully learned model, since the reward signal is not learned in their model. Finally, MuZero \cite{schrittwieser2019mastering} relies on extensive training data and access to unrealistic GPU resources, which may not be feasible in practice.
In another related approach, \textit{Neural Game Engine} \cite{neuralgameengine}, the authors show how to learn accurate forward models from pixels that can generalize to different size game levels. However, their methods currently only work on grid-based world games. The authors argue it does not work as a drop-in replacement for the kind of world models we need in real-life environments. For this purpose, the authors recommend looking into some of the previously presented methods that learn a latent dynamics model with a 2D state space model (SSM) like shown in PlaNet and Dreamer that both use a Recurrent State Space Model (RSSM).
\section{Approach} \label{approach_section}
We use a model-based RL approach to solve a continuous reinforcement learning control task. We achieve this through online evolutionary planning on a learned model of the environment. Our solution combines a world model \cite{worldmodels} with rolling horizon evolutionary planning \cite{perez2013rolling}. See figure \ref{fig:plan_loop} for an overview.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/simulated_loop.png}
\caption{\textbf{Evolutionary Planning in Latent Space (EPLS)}. The raw observation is compressed by V at each time step $t$ to produce a latent vector $z_t$. RMHC does planning by repeatedly generating, mutating, and evaluating action sequences $a_0,...,a_T$ in the learned world model, M. where $T$ is the horizon. The learned world model, M, receives an action $a_t$, latent vector $z_t$ and hidden state $h_t$ and predicts the simulated reward $r_t$, next latent vector $z_{t+1}$, and next hidden state $h_{t+1}$. The predicted states are used with the next action as inputs for M to let the agent simulate the trajectory in latent space. The first action of the plan with the highest expected total reward in the simulated environment is executed in the real environment.}
\label{fig:plan_loop}
\end{figure}
Similar to the model in the original world model \citep{worldmodels}, our model uses a visual sensory component (V) to compress the current state into a small latent representation. We extend the memory component (M) so that it predicts the next latent state, the expected reward, and whether the environment terminates. The decision-making component in the original world model \citep{worldmodels} uses a simple learned linear model that maps latent and hidden states directly to actions at each time step. In contrast, our work uses a random mutation hill-climbing (RMHC) planning algorithm as the decision-making component that exploits M to do online planning in latent space.
\subsection{Learning the World Model}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/vae_encoding_decoding.png}
\caption{Flow diagram of a Variational Autoencoder (VAE). The VAE learns to encode frames into latent vectors by minimizing the pixel-wise difference between input frames and reconstructed frames (i.e., L2 or MSE) generated by decoding the latent vectors.}
\label{fig:vae_encoding_decoding}
\end{figure}
The \textbf{visual component} (V) is implemented as a convolutional variational autoencoder (ConvVAE), which learns an abstract, compressed representation $z_t \in \mathbb{R}^{64}$ of states (i.e., frames) $s_t \in \mathbb{R}^{64 \times 64 \times 3}$ using an encoder and decoder as shown in figure~\ref{fig:vae_encoding_decoding}.
The VAE encoder is a neural network that outputs a compressed representation of a state $s$ (frame) using a deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) of four stacked convolutional layers and non-linear relu activations to compress the frame and two fully-connected (i.e., dense) layers that encode the convolutional output into low dimension vectors $\mu_z$ and $\sigma_z$:
\begin{equation}
encoder: s \in \mathbb{R}^{64 \times 64 \times 3} \rightarrow \mu_z \in \mathbb{R}^{64}, \sigma_z \in \mathbb{R}^{64} \,.
\end{equation}
The means $\mu_z$ and standard deviations $\sigma_z$ are used to sample a latent state $z$ from a multivariate Gaussian with diagonal covariance:
\begin{equation}
z \in \mathbb{R}^{64} \sim \mathcal{N}(z | \mu_z, \sigma_z) \,.
\end{equation}
The decoder is a neural network that learns to decode and reconstruct the state (i.e., frame) $s$ given the latent state $z$ using a deep CNN of four stacked deconvolution layers:
\begin{equation}
decoder: z \in \mathbb{R}^{64} \rightarrow s' \in \mathbb{R}^{64 \times 64 \times 3} \,.
\end{equation}
Each convolution and deconvolution layer uses a stride of two. Convolutional and deconvolutional layers use relu activations. The output layer maps directly to pixel values between 0 and 1. The VAE is trained with the standard VAE loss \cite{kingma2013auto}.
We extend the \textbf{memory component} (M) of \cite{worldmodels} to also output an expected reward $r$ and a binary terminal signal $\tau$ to obtain a fully learned world model that can be used for planning entirely in latent space. M is an LSTM with 512 hidden units, which jointly models the next latent state $z_{t}$, reward $r_{t}$ and whether or not the environment terminates, $\tau_{t}$,
\begin{equation}
p(z_{t}, r_{t}, \tau_{t} | h_{t-1}) = p(z_{t} | h_{t-1}) p(r_{t} | h_{t-1}) p(\tau_{t} | h_{t-1}) \,.
\end{equation}
The LSTM hidden state $h_t$ depends on the previous hidden state $h_{t-1}$, the current action $a_t$, and the current latent state $z_t$ such that $h_t = \text{LSTM}(z_t, a_t, h_{t-1})$.
Most complex environments are stochastic and multi-modal so $p(z_{t}|h_{t-1})$ is approximated as a mixture of Gaussian distribution (MD-RNN). The output of the MDRNN are the parameters $\pi, \mu, \sigma$ of a parametric Gaussian mixture model where $\pi$ represents mixture probabilities:
\begin{equation}
p(z_{t} | h_{t-1}) = \sum_{k=1}^5 \pi_k \mathcal{N}(z_{t} | \mu_k, \sigma_k) \,,
\end{equation}
where $\pi$, $\mu$ and $\Sigma$ are linear functions of $h_{t-1}$ and each mixture component is a multivariate Gaussian distribution with diagonal covariance.
We model the reward $r$ using a Gaussian with a fixed variance of 1 such that
\begin{equation}
p(r_{t}| h_{t-1}) = \mathcal{N}(r_{t} | \mu^\tau_{t}, 1) \,,
\end{equation}
where $\mu^\tau_{t}$ is a linear function of $h_{t-1}$. Finally we model the terminal state $\tau$ using a Bernoulli distribution,
\begin{equation}
p(\tau_{t} | h_{t-1}) = p^{\tau_{t}}(1-p)^{1-\tau_{t}} \,,
\end{equation}
where $p = \text{sigmoid}(f(h_{t-1}))$ is the sigmoid of a linear function of $h_{t-1}$.
We train M by minimizing the negative log-likelihood of $p(z_{t}, r_{t}, \tau_{t} | h_{t-1})$ for observed rollouts of the environment,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L} = -\log p(z_t, r_t, \tau_t | h_{t-1}) = \text{MSE}(r_t, \hat{r}_t) + \text{BCE}(\tau_t, \hat{\tau}_t) + \text{GMM-NLL}(z_t, \hat{z_t}) \,,
\end{equation}
where MSE is the mean squared error, BCE is the binary cross-entropy and GMM-NLL is the negative log likelihood of a gaussian mixture model and $\hat{z}, \hat{r}, \hat{\tau}$ are the observed latents, reward and termination state.
\subsection{Evolutionary planning in latent space}
Once the world model is trained it can be used for planning. We use Random Mutation Hill Climbing (RMHC) which is a simple evolutionary algorithm. RMHC works by iteratively mutating and evaluating individuals, and letting the elite be the basis for the next round of mutation. We use RMHC to find a sequence of actions that maximize the expected reward as predicted by the world model. The length of the action sequence determines how far into the future the agent plans and is known as the horizon. Finally, we use shift buffering to avoid repeating the entire search process from scratch at every time step \cite{gaina2020rolling}. In short, after each planning step we pop the first action of the action sequence and add a new random action to the end of the action sequence. This modified plan is then the starting point for the next planning step. See figure \ref{fig:eval_individual} for an overview.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/RMHC_full_planning.png}
\caption{\textbf{Planning details.} RMHC initializes a random sequence of actions sampled from the environment and mutates it repeatedly across generations. Each plan is evaluated in latent space using the simulated environment where the fitness metric is the total undiscounted expected reward associated with executing the planning trajectory in latent space.}
\label{fig:eval_individual}
\end{figure}
\section{Experiments}
We test our approach on the continuous control \texttt{CarRacing-v0} domain \cite{carracing}, built with the Box2D physics engine. At every trial, the agent is exposed to a randomly generated track. Reaching a high score requires the agent to plan how to make each turn with continuous actions, which makes it a suitable test domain for our evolutionary latent planning approach. The environment yields a reward of -0.1 each time step and a reward of +1000/$N$ for each visited track tile where $N$ is the total number of tiles in the track. While it is not necessarily difficult to drive slowly around a track, reaching a high reward is difficult for many current RL methods \cite{worldmodels}.
Since the environment gives observations as high dimensional pixel images, these are first resized to $64 \times 64$ pixels. The resized images are used as observations in our world model. Pixels are stored as three floating-point values between 0 and 1 that represent each of the RGB channels. The dimension of our latent space is $64$ since this yielded better reconstructions than using $32$ as in \citep{worldmodels}. Actions contain three numeric components that represent the degree of steering, acceleration, and braking.
\subsubsection*{Capturing rollouts}
The MDN-RNN and VAE models are trained in a supervised manner, which relies on access to a representative dataset of environment rollouts for training and testing. Each sample is a rollout of the environment and consists of a sequence of (state, action, reward, terminal) tuples. The state, reward, and terminal are produced by the environment given an action, which is produced by the policy. We initially use a random policy on the environment and record states, rewards, actions, and terminals for $T$ steps. We use $T=500$ for the non-iterative procedure and $T=250$ for the iterative procedure. We found that using $T=250$ was sufficient while speeding up the iterative training procedure.
\subsubsection*{Non-iterative training procedure}
The non-iterative training procedure follows the same approach as presented in the original world model work \citep{worldmodels}. To train the VAE and MDN-RNN, we first collect a dataset of 10,000 rollouts using a random policy to explore the environment where we record the random action $a_t$ executed and the generated observations. The dataset is used to train the VAE so it can learn an abstract and compressed representation of the environment. The VAE is trained for 50 epochs with a learning rate of $1e-4$ using the \textit{Adam} optimizer.
The MDN-RNN is trained on the 10,000 rollouts where each frame $s_t$ is pre-processed by the VAE into latent vector $z_t$ for each time step $t$. The latent vectors and actions $a_t$ are given to the MDN-RNN such that it can learn to model the next latent vector $p(z_{t+1} | a_t, z_t, h_t)$ as a mixture of Gaussians and the reward $r$ and the terminal $d$. The MDN-RNN consists of 512 hidden units and a mixture of 5 Gaussians. We train the MDN-RNN for 60 epochs with a learning rate of $1e-3$ using the \textit{Adam} optimizer. In summary, the full non-iterative training procedure is shown below:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Collect 10.000 rollouts with a random policy
\item Train world model using random rollouts.
\item Evaluate the agent on 100 random tracks using the RMHC planning policy.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection*{Iterative training procedure}
Once the world model is trained non-iteratively, we can use it in conjunction with our planning algorithm (RMHC) to do online planning. However, while the agent may be able to somewhat stay on the road and drive slowly at corners, its performance is limited by our world model that is trained with a random policy only. Consequently, the dynamics associated with well-behaved driving might be underexplored, and hence our world model may not be able to fully represent this in latent space.
To address this we used an iterative training procedure as suggested in \cite{worldmodels}, in which we iteratively collect rollouts using our agents planning policy and improve our world model (and thus our planning) using the new rollouts. Intuitively, we expect planning using the learned world model to yield a better policy than a random one. These new rollouts using planning are stored in a replay buffer that contains both old and new rollouts, which allows the MDN-RNN to learn from both past and new experiences. We collect 500 rollouts per iteration. The iterative training procedure is as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Train MDN-RNN and VAE non-iteratively to obtain baseline model
\item Collect rollouts using RMHC planning policy and add them to the replay buffer
\item Train the world model using rollouts in replay buffer.
\item Evaluate the agent on 100 random tracks using RMHC planning policy.
\item Go back to (2) and repeat for $I$ iterations or until the task is complete
\end{enumerate}
For both approaches, we found that training the VAE using 10k random rollouts was sufficient in representing different scenarios of the car racing environment across all our experiments. We used RMHC with a horizon of 20, and the action sequence was evolved for ten generations at every time step $t$ with shift buffering.
\section{Results} \label{results}
\subsection{Non-iterative training}
The MDN-RNN serves as a predictive model for future latent $z$ vectors that the VAE may produce and the expected reward $r$ that the environment may produce. Thus the rollouts used to train the MDN-RNN may affect its predictive ability and how well it represents the real environment during online planning. Thus, we trained two MDN-RNNs using the non-iterative training procedure to obtain a random model and an expert model. The random model is trained on 10,000 random rollouts and acts as our baseline model for all iteratively-trained models. The expert model trains on 5,000 random rollouts and 5,000 expert rollouts. The expert rollouts are collected with the pre-trained agent in \textit{World Models} \cite{worldmodels}. The random rollouts allow the MDN-RNN to learn the consequences of bad-driving behavior, and the expert rollouts allow it to learn the positive reward signal associated with expert-driving. The expert model is a reference model used for comparison with our agent that helps determine how well an agent may perform when the MDN-RNN is exposed to a well-representative dataset.
Using the random model, the agent did learn to drive unsteadily around the track and sometimes plan around sharp corners. However, the agent only managed to achieve a mean score of $356.20 \pm 176.69$ with the highest score of $804$. In contrast, using the expert model, the agent managed to obtain a mean score of $765.17 \pm 102.18$ with the highest score of $900$. The expert rollouts improve the MDN-RNN's ability to capture the dynamics of the environment, which significantly improved the agent's performance (Figure~\ref{fig:expert_vs_random}).
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{figures/random_vs_expert_trials.png}
\caption{Total rewards of 100 trials with MDN-RNN trained on 10000 rollouts using random policy vs. an MDN-RNN trained on 5000+5000 rollouts using random and expert policy respectively. The latter yields a much higher total reward due to the dataset containing a mixture of random and well-behaved rollouts.}
\label{fig:expert_vs_random}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Iterative training}
Since we cannot rely on access to pre-trained expert rollouts, we have implemented an iterative training procedure that allows the agent to improve its performance over time by learning from its own experiences. Namely, we generate rollouts by online planning with the RMHC evolutionary policy search method, which iteratively improve our world model.
We investigate if the random baseline model can improve by using a small number of only 500 rollouts and a sequence length of 250 experiences trained over ten epochs and five iterations. Figure~\ref{fig:experiment_iter} shows the mean total rewards after each of the five iterations.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{figures/iter_a_results_5.png}
\caption{Mean total rewards and standard deviations over 100 trials across five iterations. The 0th iteration represents the mean total reward before iterative training, but after training on 10000 rollouts obtained from a random policy. Notice, using 500 rollouts (Experiment A) yields a faster training time and a better result compared to experiment B that uses 10.000 rollouts per iteration}
\label{fig:experiment_iter}
\end{figure}
Already after a single training iteration, the agent managed to get a mean score of $557.87 \pm 244.97$ and peaked at iteration 5 with a mean score of $656.82 \pm 226.67$. Despite not beating the expert model, we saw improvements throughout the iterations, and the agent managed to occasionally complete the game by scoring a total reward of 900 during benchmarks. While the first iteration yielded the most significant improvement in total average reward, the following iterations still improved. The large improvement seen in the first iteration might be due to the MDN-RNN learning the dynamics of more well-behaved driving from the agent's planning policy, which ultimately mitigates the errors made by the initially random model.
\subsubsection*{Investigating different planning horizons and generations}
The benchmarks from iterative training show how refining the world model can affect the agent's planning capabilities. Given the best iterative model found after five training iterations, it is interesting to see how different horizon lengths and max generations affect the agent's ability to plan with the iterative model and the RMHC policy search method.
Both planning parameters are adjusted independently and individually to see how they affect planning. However, we must keep in mind that the horizon length and the maximum number of generations are very likely to be highly correlated. Thus, one should also conduct experiments where both parameters are adjusted together. Figure \ref{fig:horgendiff} shows how different parameter values affect the average total reward obtained by planning with RMHC on a model trained with five iterations across 100 trials.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figures/combo_hor_gen_diff.png}
\caption{Left: max planning generations vs. mean rewards. Right: Horizon planning length vs. mean reward. While a minimum number of generations and horizon length are necessary for the agent to plan well, increasing these values further does not increase the performance of the agent.}
\label{fig:horgendiff}
\end{figure}
The baseline number of generations is 10. Reducing this to 5 shows a decrease in mean total reward, achieving a score of $473.53 \pm 280.18$. This reduction is likely due to the agent having less planning time and therefore not being able to converge to a better trajectory in a local policy subspace. Increasing the number of generations to 15 increases the mean reward to $707.79 \pm 195.44$, which is not surprising since it gives the agent more planning time. However, increasing the number of generations further did not improve the results. Presumably, this may imply that the agent has converged to a locally optimal trajectory in the simulated environment after being evolved 15 generations.
The results when varying the horizon are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:horgendiff}, right. The baseline horizon length is 20. Reducing this value to 5 resulted in poor planning and yielded a mean score of $31.91\pm40.54$. Seemingly, a small horizon exploits a more certain near-future but does not bring much information for long-term planning of a trajectory associated with well-behaved driving. Consequently, this kind of short-sighted agent may not be able to act in time before driving into the grass or know in what direction it should move. As we increase the horizon from 5 to 20, the mean score increases. The agent receives more information about the car's trajectory, which allows it to plan accordingly. However, a horizon beyond 20 does not help the agent, which is likely due to the increased uncertainty caused by planning too far into the future. The further the agent plans ahead, the more uncertain the trajectory becomes, which makes it less relevant to the current situation that the agent must act upon.
According to figure \ref{fig:horgendiff} and table \ref{tabel:results}, the main results are as follows. Firstly, the iterative training procedure significantly improved our random baseline model and showed improvement after only one iteration. Secondly, increasing the maximum number of generations to 15 and a horizon of 20 used in our RMHC policy search approach improved the total average reward obtained across 100 random tracks. However, increasing the parameter values more than this yields diminishing returns, and a slight decrease in total reward. This may be due to the model's inability to predict far into the future when using a high horizon or the planning trajectory having converged when using a large number of generations. Notice, we do not dynamically adjust the horizon and number of generations during iterative training but keep them fixed during all five iterations. Instead, we compare different combinations of parameters across whole runs of five iterations. To sum up, our results show it is possible to beat traditional model-free RL methods with an evolutionary online planning approach, although we are not yet able to consistently beat or match the learned expert model presented in \textit{World Models} \cite{worldmodels}.
\begin{table}[!ht] \label{tabel:results}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|r}
Methods & Mean scores \\\hline
DQN \citep{dqnresults} & $343 \pm 18$ \\
\textbf{Non-Iterative Random Model} & $ \bm{356 \pm 177} $ \\
A3C (Continuous) \citep{jang2017reinforcement} & $591 \pm 45$ \\
\textbf{Iterative Model (5 iterations, 15 gen., 20 horizon) } & $ \textbf{708} \pm \textbf{195} $ \\
\textbf{Non-Iterative - Expert Model} & $ \textbf{765} \pm \textbf{102} $ \\
World Model \citep{worldmodels} & $906 \pm 21$ \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tab:final_compare} CarRacing-v0 approaches with mean scores over 100 trials. Our approaches are shown in bold. }
\end{table}
\section{Discussion and Future Work}
While the agent reaches a decent score, it does fail occasionally. It usually happens when the agent is unable to correct itself due to loss of friction during turns at sharp corners with high speed. Compared to the expert model that enacts conservative driving-behavior, the current iterative model prefers more risky driving at high speed. Possibly, the expert policy has learned to slow down at corners, which helps maximize the reward. On the other hand, our planning agent does not seem to have explored sufficient rollouts of this kind to make the MD-RNN learn to associate higher rewards with slower driving when approaching corners.
Another issue occurs when the agent approaches the right corners. In many cases, the agent can complete right corners though there are times where the agent does not know whether to turn or not. In these scenarios, the agent usually brakes or slows down while trying to navigate the race track in a sensible direction. This phenomenon is likely due to the right turns being underrepresented in the generated tracks that are biased towards containing mainly left turns. Consequently, the MDN-RNN is unable to represent right turns in the simulated environment compared to other frequently occurring segments of the track. Arguably, both issues resolve by running more iterative training iterations. However, it also depends on how often the issues arise in the generated rollouts. Noteworthy, the issues occurred more often in the random model compared to the iterative model, which indicates that the iterative training procedure can be an effective method of improving the world model.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank Mathias Kristian Kyndlo Löwe for helping us with computational infrastructure. A special thanks go to Corentin Tallec and his team for providing the PyTorch open-source implementation of \textit{World Models} \cite{worldmodels}. We also thank Simon Lucas, Chris Bamford, and Alexander Dockhorn for helpful suggestions. This project was supported by a DFF Sapere Aude Starting Grant and by the Danish Ministry of Education and Science, Digital Pilot Hub and Skylab Digital.
\section{Appendix}
\subsubsection{Experiment results}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|r}
Iteration & Mean reward \\\hline
0 & $383.75 \pm 183.68$ \\
1 & $557.87 \pm 244.97$ \\
2 & $623.05 \pm 242.27$ \\
3 & $618.05 \pm 231.37$ \\
4 & $655.07 \pm 228.27$ \\
5 & $656.83 \pm 226.67$
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tab:exp_a}CarRacing-v0 mean reward over 100 trials for iterative experiment}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|r}
Generations & Mean reward \\\hline
5&$473.53 \pm 280.18$\\
10&$656.83 \pm 226.67$\\
15&$707.79 \pm 195.44$\\
20&$690.51 \pm 230.34$\\
25&$669.24 \pm 208.48$\\
30&$676.07 \pm 215.89$
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tab:exp_gen}CarRacing-v0 mean iteration reward over 100 trials with different max generation values}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|r}
Horizon & Mean reward \\\hline
5 & $31.91\pm 40.54$ \\
10 & $431.06\pm 298.79$ \\
15 & $645.53\pm 223.84$ \\
20 & $656.83\pm226.67$ \\
25 & $660.48\pm 227.63 $ \\
30 & $625.33\pm177.79$
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tab:exp_hor}CarRacing-v0 mean iteration reward over 100 trials with different horizon lengths}
\end{table}
\section*{Some \LaTeX{} Examples}
\label{sec:examples}
Use section and subsection commands to organize your document. \LaTeX{} handles all the formatting and numbering automatically. Use ref and label commands for cross-references.
\subsection*{Figures and Tables}
Use the table and tabular commands for basic tables --- see Table~\ref{tab:widgets}, for example. You can upload a figure (JPEG, PNG or PDF) using the project menu. To include it in your document, use the includegraphics command as in the code for Figure~\ref{fig:view} below.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{frog}
\caption{An example image of a frog.}
\label{fig:view}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|r}
Item & Quantity \\\hline
Candles & 4 \\
Fork handles & ?
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tab:widgets}An example table.}
\end{table}
\subsection*{Citations}
LaTeX formats citations and references automatically using the bibliography records in your .bib file, which you can edit via the project menu. Use the cite command for an inline citation, like \cite{lees2010theoretical}, and the citep command for a citation in parentheses \citep{lees2010theoretical}.
\subsection*{Mathematics}
\LaTeX{} is great at typesetting mathematics. Let $X_1, X_2, \ldots, X_n$ be a sequence of independent and identically distributed random variables with $\text{E}[X_i] = \mu$ and $\text{Var}[X_i] = \sigma^2 < \infty$, and let
$$S_n = \frac{X_1 + X_2 + \cdots + X_n}{n}
= \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i}^{n} X_i$$
denote their mean. Then as $n$ approaches infinity, the random variables $\sqrt{n}(S_n - \mu)$ converge in distribution to a normal $\mathcal{N}(0, \sigma^2)$.
\subsection*{Lists}
You can make lists with automatic numbering \dots
\begin{enumerate}[noitemsep]
\item Like this,
\item and like this.
\end{enumerate}
\dots or bullet points \dots
\begin{itemize}[noitemsep]
\item Like this,
\item and like this.
\end{itemize}
\dots or with words and descriptions \dots
\begin{description}
\item[Word] Definition
\item[Concept] Explanation
\item[Idea] Text
\end{description} |
\subsection{HTLC with collateral}
\begin{figure}
$Q = 0.01$
\includegraphics[
height=0.135\textheight,
trim = {52, 40, 24, 0}, clip
]{figures/util2_B_plot_col-1.pdf}
~\includegraphics[
height=0.135\textheight,
trim = {120, 40, 24, 0}, clip
]{figures/util2_B_plot_col-2.pdf}
~\includegraphics[
height=0.135\textheight,
trim = {120, 40, 15, 0}, clip
]{figures/util2_B_plot_col-3.pdf}
$Q = 0.1$
\includegraphics[
height=0.135\textheight,
trim = {52, 40, 24, 0}, clip
]{figures/util2_B_plot_col-4.pdf}
~\includegraphics[
height=0.135\textheight,
trim = {120, 40, 24, 0}, clip
]{figures/util2_B_plot_col-5.pdf}
~\includegraphics[
height=0.135\textheight,
trim = {120, 40, 15, 0}, clip
]{figures/util2_B_plot_col-6.pdf}
\caption{Bob's utility at $t_2$, ($U_{t_2}^\mathcal{B}$). Indifference points between $\mathit{cont}$ and $\mathit{stop}$ are marked with {\tiny $\color{black} \blacksquare$}.}.
\label{fig:util2_B_col}
\end{figure}
In this section, we discuss an HTLC game where both agents place collateral into a smart contract before the actual swap.
All assumptions from Section \ref{sec:framework} with the exception of Assumption \ref{ass:utilityfunc} remain unchanged.
We assume additionally:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ move an allowance to a trusted smart contract on Chain$_a$ in order to charge each of them simultaneously the same amount of collateral, $Q$ Token$_a$, before the swap;
\item the smart contract is connected to an Oracle which observes the transaction outcomes on Chain$_a$ and Chain$_b$; \label{ass:oracle_obs}
\item if the swap succeeds, the Oracle transfers to each agent their original collateral; if an agent chooses $\mathit{stop}$ at any point during the swap, the other agent receives both agents' collateral from the Oracle; \label{ass:oracle_tra}
\item agent's utility function is as follows:
\begin{align}
U_{t,\text{c}}^i &= \mathbb{E}\left[
\tfrac{(1 + \alpha^i \, S) \,V_{t+T_t^i}}{
e^{r^i \, T_t^i}
} +
\tfrac{C_t^i}{
e^{r^i \, t_\text{c}}
}
\right]
\end{align}
where
$C$: value of collateral to be received back,
$t_\text{c}$: time until receiving the collateral.
\end{enumerate}
We use subscript ``$_\text{c}$'' only when an expression differs from the one in the basic setup (Section \ref{sec:backwardation}).
This setup is theoretical as there is presently no Oracle service that would be able to monitor the actions as described, to the best of our knowledge.
Yet, the Bisq framework is similar in spirit with the key difference that a human arbitrator replaces the Oracle.
The goal of this section is to study the impact of collateralization on the agents' behaviors and thus on the transaction outcome.
A new atomic swap protocol with collateral will be discussed in a follow-up work.
We again employ backward induction to derive agents' utility-maximizing strategy.
\subsubsection{$t_4$}
At this point, if $\mathcal{A}$ has released the secret, the Oracle will determine that $\mathcal{A}$ has fulfilled all her obligations and releases her collateral $Q$ Token$_a$ at $t_4$. Thus, $\mathcal{A}$ will receive $Q$ Token$_a$ at $t_4+\tau_a$. Same as in the basic scenario described in Section \ref{sec:t4}, $\mathcal{B}$ chooses to unlock Token$_a$ ($\mathit{cont}$) with certainty. If $\mathcal{A}$ has not released the secret, the Oracle will transfer $\mathcal{A}$'s collateral to $\mathcal{B}$.
\subsubsection{$t_3$}
\label{sec:t3_col}
At this point, $\mathcal{B}$ has written an HTLC on Chain$_b$ as agreed, and hence has no further chance for foul play. The Oracle thus return's $\mathcal{B}$'s collateral, and $\mathcal{B}$ receives $Q$ Token$_a$ at $\tau_3 + \tau_\alpha$.
If now $\mathcal{A}$ waives the contract, then her utility equals $U^\mathcal{A}_{t_3}(\mathit{stop})$ as described in \autoref{eq:At3stop} and her collateral will be transferred to be in the next step. If $\mathcal{A}$ chooses to unlocks the 1 Token$_b$, the swap succeeds and she receives Token$_b$ at $t_5$ plus her collateral $Q$ Token$_a$ at $\tau_4 + \tau_\alpha$.
Therefore, $\mathcal{A}$ chooses $\mathit{cont}$ over $\mathit{stop}$ if:
\begin{align}
U^\mathcal{A}_{t_3}(\mathit{stop}) & < U^\mathcal{A}_{t_3}(\mathit{cont}) + \tfrac{Q}{e^{r^\mathcal{A} (\varepsilon_b+\tau_a)}}
\nonumber \\
P_{t_3} & >
\left(
\tfrac{P_*}{
e^{r^\mathcal{A}(\tau_\epsilon + 2\tau_a)}
} -
\tfrac{Q}{e^{r^\mathcal{A} (\varepsilon_b+\tau_a)}}
\right)
\tfrac{e^{(r^\mathcal{A} - \mu) \tau_b}
}{1+\alpha^\mathcal{A}}
\label{eq:p3l_col}
\end{align}
Since $P_{t_3} \geq 0$, we express $P_{t_3}$'s lower bound as:
$$
\underline{P_{t_3, \text{c}}}=
\tfrac{e^{(r^\mathcal{A} - \mu) \tau_b}
}{1+\alpha^\mathcal{A}}
\cdot \max\left(
\tfrac{P_*}{
e^{r^\mathcal{A}(\tau_\epsilon + 2\tau_a})
} -
\tfrac{Q}{e^{r^\mathcal{A} (\varepsilon_b+\tau_a)}}, \, 0
\right)
$$
\begin{figure}
\centering
$Q = 0.01$
\hspace{45pt}
$Q = 0.1
\vspace{-9pt}$
\includegraphics[
height=0.135\textheight,
trim = {50, 45, 10, 5}, clip
]{figures/util1_plot_col-1}
~\includegraphics[
height=0.135\textheight,
trim = {110, 45, 10, 5}, clip
]{figures/util1_plot_col-2}
\caption{Alice's and Bob's utility at $t_1$ ($U_{t_1}^\mathcal{A}, U_{t_1}^\mathcal{B}$). Each agent's indifference points between $\mathit{cont}$ and $\mathit{stop}$ are marked with {\tiny $\color{black} \blacksquare$}.}
\label{fig:t1AB}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{$t_2$}
$\mathcal{B}$ decides whether to write an HTLC on Chain$_b$ ($\mathit{cont}$) or not ($\mathit{stop}$).
\paragraph*{$\mathit{cont}$}
As discussed in Section \ref{sec:t3_col}, if $\mathcal{B}$ chooses $\mathit{cont}$ at this point, the Oracle will determine at $t_3$ that $\mathcal{B}$ has fulfilled his obligations, and will return his collateral at that time.
In addition, $\mathcal{B}$ expects that at $t_4$, $\mathcal{A}$ will honour the deal when $P_{t_3} > \underline{P_{t_3,\text{c}}}$ in which case $\mathcal{B}$ gets $P_*$ Token$_a$ at $t_6$, and waive the deal otherwise in which case Bob gets 1 Token$_b$ at $t_7$ plus $\mathcal{A}$'s collateral $Q$ at $t_3+\tau_a$.
Therefore, the utility of $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ utility at $t_2$ is:
\begin{align}
U^\mathcal{A}_{t_2,\text{c}}(\mathit{cont})
&
=
\tfrac{{
\int_{\underline{P_{t_3,\text{c}}}}^\infty
\mathcal{P}\left(x, P_{t_2},\tau_b\right)
\left(U^\mathcal{A}_{t_3}(\mathit{cont}) + \frac{Q}{e^{r^\mathcal{A} (\varepsilon_b+\tau_a)}}\right)
dx
\atop
+
\mathcal{C}\left(\underline{P_{t_3,\text{c}}}, P_{t_2},\tau_b\right)
U^\mathcal{A}_{t_3}(\mathit{stop})
}}{
e^{r^{\mathcal{A}}\tau_b}
}
\\
U^\mathcal{B}_{t_2,\text{c}}(\mathit{cont})
& =
\tfrac{{
\frac{Q}{e^{r^\mathcal{B} \tau_a}} +
\left[
1-\mathcal{C}(\underline{P_{t_3,\text{c}}}, P_{t_2},\tau_b)
\right]
U^\mathcal{B}_{t_3}(\mathit{cont})
\atop +
\int_0^{\underline{P_{t_3}}}
\mathcal{P}(x ,P_{t_2},\tau_b)
\left(
U^\mathcal{B}_{t_3}(\mathit{stop})
+ \frac{Q}{e^{r^\mathcal{B} (\varepsilon_b + \tau_a)}} \right)
dx
}}{
e^{r^{\mathcal{B}}\tau_b}
}
\end{align}
\paragraph*{$\mathit{stop}$}
$\mathcal{B}$ withdraws from the deal and keep 1 Token$_b$.
$\mathcal{B}$'s utility is the same as \autoref{eq:Bt2stop}.
The swap stops due to $\mathcal{B}$'s foul play. The Oracle thus releases both agents collateral, $2Q$ in total, to $\mathcal{A}$ at $t_3$, who will receive the fund at $\tau_3+\tau_a$.
Intuitively,
if $P_{t_2}$ is too high, then $\mathcal{B}$ would like to keep the valuable Token$_b$ and wouldn't want to swap, and $\mathcal{B}$ would therefore choose $\mathit{stop}$;
if $P_{t_2}$ is too low (say, close to zero), forfeiting the valuable collateral to keep the worthless Token$_B$ would not be sensible---even if $\mathcal{A}$ chooses not to reveal secret in the next step, $\mathcal{B}$ would at least be able to receive the collateral; therefore, $\mathcal{B}$ would choose $\mathit{cont}$.
Thus, Equation $U^\mathcal{B}_{t_2,\text{c}}(\mathit{cont}) = U^\mathcal{B}_{t_2}(\mathit{stop})$ has an \emph{odd} number of roots. \autoref{fig:util2_B_col} shows that there can be 1 or 3 intercepts between curve $U^\mathcal{B}_{t_2,\text{c}}(\mathit{cont})$
and $U^\mathcal{B}_{t_2}(\mathit{stop})$, depending on the value of $Q$ and $P_*$.
Define set $\mathfrak{P}_{t_2}$ such that:
$$
P_{t_2} \in \mathfrak{P}_{t_2} \iff
U^\mathcal{B}_{t_2,\text{c}}(\mathit{cont})>
U^\mathcal{B}_{t_2}(\mathit{stop})
$$
Hence, $\mathcal{B}$ would choose $\mathit{cont}$ if and only if $P_{t_2}$ falls in $\mathfrak{P}_{t_2}$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[
height=0.135\textheight,
trim = {50, 45, 20, 5}, clip
]{figures/success_plot_col-1}
\caption{Swap success rate $\mathit{SR}$ as a function of exchange rate $P_*$ with different collateral values $Q$.}
\label{fig:sucrate_col}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{$t_1$}
$\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ simultaneously make the decision on whether to engage in the swap ($\mathit{cont}$) or not ($\mathit{stop}$).
\paragraph*{$\mathit{cont}$}
The utility of $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ at $t_2$ can be expressed with their time-discounted, expected utility at $t_2 = t_1 + \tau_a$:
\begin{align}
U^\mathcal{A}_{t_1,\text{c}}(\mathit{cont})
& =
\tfrac{{
\int_{
x \in \mathfrak{P}_{t_2}
}
\mathcal{P}(x ,P_{t_1},\tau_a)
U^\mathcal{A}_{t_2,\text{c}}(\mathit{cont})
dx +
\atop
\left(
\int_{
x \in \mathbb{R}^+ \setminus \mathfrak{P}_{t_2}
}
\mathcal{P}(x ,P_{t_1},\tau_a)
dx
\right)
\left(
U^\mathcal{A}_{t_2}(\mathit{stop}) + \frac{2Q}{e^{r^\mathcal{A} (\tau_b + \tau_a)}}
\right)
}}{
e^{r^{\mathcal{A}}\tau_a}
}
\\
U^\mathcal{B}_{t_1,\text{c}}(\mathit{cont})
& =
\tfrac{{
\int_{
x \in \mathfrak{P}_{t_2}
}
\mathcal{P}(x ,P_{t_1},\tau_a)
U^\mathcal{B}_{t_2,\text{c}}(\mathit{cont})
dx +
\atop
\int_{
x \in \mathbb{R}^+ \setminus \mathfrak{P}_{t_2}
}
\mathcal{P}(x ,P_{t_1},\tau_a)
U^\mathcal{B}_{t_2}(\mathit{stop}) dx
}}{
e^{r^{\mathcal{A}}\tau_a}
}
\end{align}
\paragraph*{$\mathit{stop}$}
$\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ decide not to engage in the swap so that they can keep their original token and the collateral. Thus:
\begin{align}
U^\mathcal{A}_{t_1, \text{c}}(\mathit{stop}) & =
U^\mathcal{A}_{t_1}(\mathit{stop}) + Q = P_* + Q
\\
U^\mathcal{B}_{t_1, \text{c}}(\mathit{stop}) & =
U^\mathcal{B}_{t_1}(\mathit{stop}) + Q =
P_{t_1} + Q
\end{align}
Define set $\mathfrak{P}^\mathcal{A}_{*}$ and $\mathfrak{P}^\mathcal{B}_{*}$ such that:
\begin{align*}
P_{t_2} \in \mathfrak{P}^\mathcal{A}_{t_2} \iff U^\mathcal{A}_{t_2,\text{c}}(\mathit{cont})>
U^\mathcal{A}_{t_2,\text{c}}(\mathit{stop}) \\
P_{t_2} \in \mathfrak{P}^\mathcal{B}_{t_2} \iff
U^\mathcal{B}_{t_2,\text{c}}(\mathit{cont})>
U^\mathcal{B}_{t_2,\text{c}}(\mathit{stop})
\end{align*}
Hence, the exchange rate $P_{*}$ must be in $\mathfrak{P}_{*} = \mathfrak{P}^\mathcal{A}_{t_2} \cup \mathfrak{P}^\mathcal{B}_{t_2}$, since otherwise agents' external utility ($\mathit{stop}$) exceeds the expected utility from the swap ($\mathit{cont}$) and the swap would not be initiated (see \autoref{fig:t1AB}).
The swap's success rate $SR$ can thus be expressed as:
\begin{flalign}
\mathit{SR}(P_*) =
&
\int_{
x \in \mathfrak{P}_{t_2}
} \mathcal{P}\left(
x, P_{t_1},\tau_a
\right) \,
\Big[
1-
\mathcal{C}(\underline{P_{t_3,\text{c}}}(P_*) ,x,\tau_b)
\Big]
dx,
\nonumber \\
&
P_* \in \mathfrak{P}_*
\end{flalign}
\autoref{fig:sucrate_col} shows $SR$ increases with collateral amount $Q$. This is because higher $Q$ allows for larger price movement, by expanding the feasible Token$_b$ price range at both $t_2$ (see \autoref{fig:util2_B_col}) and $t_1$ (see \autoref{eq:p3l_col}).
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
We introduce a game-theoretic approach to model agent behaviors in cross-ledger transactions.
This allows us to study the viability and sensitivity of different protocols with respect to environment variables: agents' knowledge and utility functions, and the price dynamics.
We study in-depth the atomic swap as implemented with hash time lock contracts, for which we derived the success rate of a transaction.
In particular, we showed that both transacting counterparties can rationally decide to walk away from the transaction, and at different times.
This is a more realistic setup that relaxes the assumptions from previous works \cite{Han2019,diyhpl-eizinger} that only the swap initiator can benefit from price variation and act upon it.
A sensitivity analysis reveals that price volatility significantly affects the success rate of the transaction.
We extend our basic setup along two directions.
First, we show that introducing collateral deposit, in a purely theoretical way, increases the success rate of the transaction.
Second, we sketch out the scenario where agents are uncertain about the amount of funds their counterparty intends to commit.
Two important conclusions are therefore that cross-ledger atomic swap trustless protocols could benefit from the use of disciplinary mechanisms, such as collateral deposit, and that allowing agents to dynamically adjust the swap amount can increase the success rate.
\section{Discussion}
\subsection{Interpretation of findings}
Multiple findings can be drawn from our analysis that are relevant for real-world applications.
It has previously been mentioned that the agent completing the transaction receives a free \emph{American option}, meaning that she has the choice to complete the transaction, or not, based on whether the asset price changes at her advantage.
However, in this work, we show that the other agent (not only the swap initiator) may also leave the game midway, incentivized by a potentially higher financial gain. This scenario has thus far been neglected in the literature.
Our analysis also suggests that the collateral deposits can be dynamically adjusted depending on the terms of the swap (e.g. exchange rate) and optimization goal (e.g. maximizing utility, or maximizing success rate).
In the last model extension we show that the likelihood of completing the transaction is higher when the agents dynamically adjust the exchange rate to account for token price fluctuations. This is because an arbitrarily fixed exchange rate takes away the flexibility for agents to adjust their commitment based on the latest market condition (price change in our case).
\subsection{Limitations and future work}
Our work motivates multiple future research directions.
Firstly, simulation studies can be performed based on our model framework and its derivation using real market data.
Secondly, trustless protocols supporting collateral deposit without a third party can be designed.
To date, collaterals are typically deposited at a trusted third party in practice which is then responsible for resolving payment disputes. For instance, Bisq \cite{bisq}, an information platform for quotes and P2P transactions with arbitrators, uses a postage of collateral with possible intervention of an arbitrator, thus providing only a limited level of ``distributiveness'' and still requiring some trust in the arbitration system.
Note that transactions executed via Bisq require a collateral deposit and an arbitrator fee.
Discussion with community members revealed that 3-5\% of transactions fail and go to arbitration, and that this percentage increases during periods of higher market volatility.
Thirdly, HTCL protocols can be further improved.
HTLCs have known limitations \cite{Zamyatin, interoperabilityReview}, including strong assumptions required to maintain security, interactiveness,
exclusiveness to public blockchains (for public mempools), and
the need for synchronizing clocks between blockchains and temporal locking of assets.
Lastly, a more realistic and sophisticated setup can be brought into our framework.
For example, future models may incorporate different risk-free rates for the two exchanged tokens, which resembles the settings of the Garman Kohlhagen model. In addition, blockchain transaction fees or coin stacking (similar to earning dividends or interest on a locked-in asset) may have an impact on agents' actions. Our model can also be extended to consider repeated games, stochastic individual utility, success premium as a random variable, etc.
\section{Model extension} \label{sec:extension}
In this section, we expand on our basic model described in Section \ref{sec:game} and discuss two derivations.
\section{Introduction}
\subsection{Background}
\label{sec:background}
An atomic swap is a coordination task where two parties are willing to exchange assets such that either both parties receive each other's original assets upon successful execution, or nothing in the event of failure~\cite{garcia1983using}.
Atomic swaps are easily achievable on a single ledger by implementing smart contracts such as automated market-making protocols~\cite{xu2021dexAmm}.
For cross-chain asset swaps, the conventional approach is to use a centralized exchange, characterized by high efficiency and transaction speed.
However, this requires intermediary fees and trust in the exchange (in terms of privacy and transparency of its matching mechanisms). In addition, centralized exchanges are vulnerable to different kinds of attacks \cite{moore2013beware}, from wallet hacking \cite{bitstampHack}, to DDoS attacks \cite{bitfinexDDoS}.
Over-the-counter (OTC) operations \cite{otcItBit,otcHiveEx} remain frequent for financial transactions.
In the financial industry, it is common to use trusted third parties for OTC settlements, such as central clearing counterparties or broker-dealers, that have similar disadvantages as centralized exchanges.
To address some of the issues with centralized exchanges, and transactions with an intermediary in general, distributed exchanges (DEXs) have recently become a popular tool for cross-chain asset exchange \cite{bisq, decreedGit, komodo, 0x}.
In such a peer-to-peer (P2P) environment, the transacting agents typically do not know each other and are thus exposed to malicious behaviors from their counterparty in DEXs that only provide match-making services.
Therefore, the major challenge in such settings is to achieve atomicity of the cross-ledger transaction; that is, either the entirety of the transaction is executed, or, in case of failure, nothing occurs \cite{garcia1983using}.
HTLCs,\footnote{The full name may be found with the suffix ``ed'' after hash or lock in research papers. There is no official convention as far as we know.} first proposed on a Bitcoin forum by TierNolan \cite{bitcoinWiki}, have been adopted by some DEXs\cite{decreedGit, komodo} to achieve atomicity of cross-chain transactions without direct communications between the ledgers. Studying and improving HTLCs has since been of high interest \cite{kirsten2018anonymous, zyskind2018enigma, liu2018atomic}.
A hash time lock contract (HTLC) requires the two agents separately locking their assets on the respective blockchains, using the hash of a secret, generated by one of the users.
The assets can then be unlocked upon revealing the preimage of a hash.
The users have accounts (wallets) on two disconnected ledgers (Chain$_a$ and Chain$_b$) executing smart contracts.
Consider that Alice wants to send assets on Chain$_a$ to Bob, in exchange for assets on Chain$_b$ from Bob.
At Step 1, Alice initiates the transaction by generating a secret (a key) that will be used to unlock the asset transfers later on.
She then deploys a smart contract on Chain$_a$, that will lock her assets until time $t_a$. This contract will transfer to Bob the assets only if the secret generated by Alice is revealed and entered into the smart contract.
To verify the secret, Alice reveals its hash as part of the smart contract (cf. \autoref{fig:htlc-f} Step 1).
One important feature of this contract is that after time $t_a$, should the secret have not been revealed, the smart contract expires and Alice's assets will be unlocked and returned to her wallet.
Next, Bob can verify the contract deployed by Alice on Chain$_a$ (assets, delivery address, etc.) and use the hash submitted by Alice in order to deploy a similar contract on Chain$_b$ (cf. Figure \ref{fig:htlc-f} Step 2), specifying the amount he is willing to transfer to Alice and expiry time $t_b$. Until then Bob's assets are locked on Chain$_b$.
At Step 3, Alice can verify the contract deployed on Chain$_b$, unlock the assets, and initiate their transfer to her wallet by revealing the secret on Chain$_b$.
As early as when the secret is revealed in the mempool of Chain$_b$ (even before Alice's transfer is confirmed), Bob can use the secret to unlock the assets on Chain$_a$ and complete the cross-ledger transaction.
In the best-case scenario, this mechanism enables atomic cross-ledger exchange of the assets without relying on a trusted party and without connection between ledgers.
If Alice does not unlock the assets on Chain$_b$ before $t_b$, then the assets are transferred back to Bob, thus, she has no incentive to reveal the secret as that would allow Bob to execute the smart contract on Chain$_a$ and transfer the assets to his wallet while keeping his assets on Chain$_b$.
In turn, once the secret is revealed, Bob's assets are transferred to Alice and he should execute the smart contract on Chain$_a$ immediately in order to complete the transaction, otherwise he transferred his assets without receiving Alice's assets.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.65\linewidth]{figures/htlc-f-upd.png}
\caption{Hash time lock contract (HTLC)\label{fig:htlc-f}.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Contributions}
In this paper, we focus on the standard implementation of a cross-ledger atomic swap with hash time lock contracts, HTLCs between two agents who wish to exchange tokens. In our framework, we assume a stochastic token price and that the counterparties can choose to either {\it continue} or {\it stop} at any stage of the transaction.
We define a game-theoretic framework to study the agents' behaviors and the transaction outcome in atomic swaps.
We focus on the standard protocol with HTLCs, yet the approach can be applied to different setups.
The agents' utility functions depend on
\begin{enumerate}[1.]
\item the transaction outcome (success or failure),
\item the asset price variation (trading profits),
\item the duration of the transaction (locked in the game).
\end{enumerate}
The agents' utility functions are symmetric, but the agents may have a different idiosyncratic willingness to complete the transaction, the so-called {\it success premium}.
By backward induction, we derive the agents' optimal decisions,
as well as the transaction success rate as a function of the agreed swap rate, actual token price and its volatility, among other variables.
The standard setup has complete information symmetry, and we study the game with uncertainty in counterparties' success premium.
In an extension, we show that if agents would be required to post collateral, everything else being equal, the transaction success rate would be higher.
In another extension, we show that if agents can adjust the amount of tokens that they lock in the HTLCs, everything else being equal, the transaction success rate would be higher.
To the best of our knowledge, our work is the first to perform a thorough step-by-step examination of HTLC agents' behavior through a game-theoretic model with numerical simulations.
\section{A game-theoretic analysis}\label{sec:game}
We seek to establish a model with a good balance of simplicity and fidelity. To this end, we apply reasonable and justifiable assumptions, and set realistic parameter values for numeric demonstration.
\subsection{Basic setup} \label{sec:framework}
Alice, denoted by $\mathcal{A}$, wishes to trade some amount of Token$_a$ for 1 unit of Token$_b$, while Bob, denoted by $\mathcal{B}$, is willing to do the opposite. Token$_a$ and Token$_b$ are assets from two different blockchains, namely Chain$_a$ and Chain$_b$. $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ intend to swap assets with each other and agree on the exchange rate:
$P_* \text{ Token}_a = 1 \text{ Token}_b$.
\autoref{tab:balancechange} summarizes the expected balance change of $\mathcal{A}$'s and $\mathcal{B}$'s assets on the two chains through the swap.
\begin{table}
\caption{Agents' expected balance change by swap.}
\label{tab:balancechange}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{rrr}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{\bf Expected balance change by swap} \\
Agent & on Chain$_a$ & on Chain$_b$ \\
\cmidrule(lr){1-1} \cmidrule(lr){2-3}
Alice ($\mathcal{A}$) & $-P_*$ Token$_a$ & $+1$ Token$_b$\\
Bob ($\mathcal{B}$) & $+P_*$ Token$_a$ & $-1$ Token$_b$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
For simplification, we make the following assumptions:
\begin{enumerate}[1.]
\item The time it takes for a transaction to be confirmed on Chain$_a$ or Chain$_b$ is constant, equal to $\tau_a$ and $\tau_b$ respectively.
\item Transaction fees are negligible relative to transaction volume.
\item Token$_a$ is the num\'{e}raire, in which Token$_b$ is priced and in which both transacting agents' utilities are measured.
\label{ass:numeraire}
\item Token$_b$'s price (denominated in Token$_a$), $P_t$, follows a geometric Brownian motion:
\label{asm:price}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:wiener}
\ln \tfrac{P_{t + \tau}}{P_{t}} = \left(\mu - \tfrac{\sigma^2}{2}\right) \tau + \sigma \left(W_{t+\tau} - W_t\right)
\end{align}
where $W$ follows a Wiener process with drift $\mu$ and infinitesimal variance $\sigma^2$.
\item $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ are fully rational, which means they always choose the option that maximizes their utility.
\item $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ have the same parametric utility function:
\label{ass:utilityfunc}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:utility}
U_t^i &= \mathbb{E}\left[
\tfrac{(1 + \alpha^i \, S) \,V_{t+T_t^i}}{
e^{r^i \, T_t^i}
}\right]
\end{align}
where
$i$: agent indicator, $i \in \{\mathcal{A}, \mathcal{B}\}$
$t$: time when the utility is assessed
$V$: asset value denominated in Token$_a$
$T$: time until end of game, when no further events directly connected to swap will occur
$r$: discount rate, $r>0$
$S$: success indicator, 1 if the swap succeeds (i.e. agents balance change follows \autoref{tab:balancechange}), 0 if fails
$\alpha$: success premium
\item $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ are aware of the value of each other's parameter set, i.e. $\mathcal{A}$ knows $(r^\mathcal{B}, \alpha^\mathcal{B})$, and $\mathcal{B}$ knows $(r^\mathcal{A}, \alpha^\mathcal{A})$.
\label{ass:agentpara}
\end{enumerate}
According to \autoref{eq:wiener}, given Token$_b$'s price at time~$t$, $P_t$, the expectation (denoted by $\mathcal{E}$), probability density function (PDF, denoted by $\mathcal{P}$), and cumulative density function (CDF, denoted by $\mathcal{C}$) of its price at $t+\tau$ can be expressed as:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{E}(P_{t},\tau) & \coloneqq
\mathbb{E}[P_{t+ \tau} \,|\, P_t]
=
P_{t} e^{\mu \tau}
\nonumber \\
\mathcal{P}(x,P_{t},\tau)
& \coloneqq
\mathbb{P}[P_{t+ \tau} = x \,|\, P_{t}]
=
\tfrac{e^{-\frac{\left(
\ln \frac{x}{P_t} -
\left(\mu - \frac{\sigma^2}{2} \right) \tau
\right)^2}{2\tau \sigma^2}}}{\sqrt{2\pi \tau} \sigma x}
\nonumber \\
\mathcal{C}(x,P_{t},\tau)
& \coloneqq
\mathbb{P}[P_{t+ \tau} \leq x \,|\, P_{t}]
=
\tfrac{\operatorname{erfc}\big(\frac{
\ln \frac{x}{P_t} -
\left(\mu - \frac{\sigma^2}{2} \right) \tau
}{\sqrt{2\tau} \sigma}
\big)}{2}
\nonumber
\end{align} where $\operatorname{erfc}$ is the complementary error function, and $x>0$.
All actors act rationally to maximize their utility as defined in \autoref{eq:utility}. Intuitively, actors with a higher success premium $\alpha$ will act more ``honestly'', i.e. ceteris paribus, they are more likely to continue the game; on the other hand, actors with a lower success premium $\alpha$ may appear ``malicious'', since ceteris paribus, they are more likely to withdraw from the game.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Notations summary. \label{tab:notation}}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{2pt}
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{@{}c|l@{}}
\toprule
Notation & Description \\
\midrule
$\mathcal{A}$, $\mathcal{B}$ & Alice, Bob\\
$\tau_a$, $\tau_b$ & Transaction confirmation time on Chain$_a$, Chain$_b$\\
$\varepsilon_b$ & Time for an initiated transaction to become discoverable \\ & in the mempool of Chain$_b$ \\
$t$ & Point in time \\
$t_a$, $t_b$ & Points in time when the HTLCs on Chain$_a$, Chain$_b$ expire \\
$P$ & Price of Token$_b$ denominated in Token$_a$\\
$P_*$ & Agreed price of Token$_b$ denominated in Token$_a$ \\
$U$ & Agent's utility denominated in Token$_a$ \\
$V$ & Asset value denominated in Token$_a$ \\
$r$ & Discount rate representing time preference \\
$S$ & Indicator of whether the swap succeeds ($=1$) or not ($=0$) \\
$\alpha$ & Success premium \\
$T$ & Time until end of game \\
$\mu$ & Wiener Process drift, see \autoref{eq:wiener} \\
$\sigma^2$ & Wiener Process variance, see \autoref{eq:wiener} \\
$\mathcal{E}(P_t,\tau)$ & Expectation of Token$_b$ price at $t+\tau$ given its time-$t$ price $P_t$\\
$\mathcal{P}(\cdot, P_t, \tau)$ & PDF of Token$_b$ price at $t+\tau$ given its time-$t$ price $P_t$\\
$\mathcal{C}(\cdot, P_t, \tau)$ & CDF of Token$_b$ price at $t+\tau$ given its time-$t$ price $P_t$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Decision timeline} \label{sec:timeline}
Let $\varepsilon_b$ denote the time needed to look up a transaction in the mempool of Chain$_b$ after it has been initiated. This time is smaller than the transaction confirmation time on Chain$_b$, i.e.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:epsilon}
\varepsilon_b < \tau_b
\end{equation}
Let $\{t_n\}_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ denote the points in time when agents have to make a decision, and $t_a$ ($t_b$) denote the point in time when the HTLC on Chain$_a$ (Chain$_b$) expires. See \autoref{tab:notation} for a comprehensive list of notations used in this paper.
According the HTLC protocol described in Section~\ref{sec:background}, an atomic swap should work as follows:
\subsubsection{Agreement and preparation}
\paragraph*{$t_0$}
$\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ agree on the swap conditions, including exchange rate $P_*$, contract lock expiration time $t_a$ and $t_b$ etc. $\mathcal{A}$ generates a secret and its hash.
\subsubsection{Action}
\label{sec:action}
\paragraph*{$t_1$}
$\mathcal{A}$ uses the hash generated at $t_0$ to lock $P_*$ Token$_a$ on Chain$_a$ through an HTLC that expires at $t_a$; thus,
\begin{equation}
t_1 \geq t_0
\label{eq:t1}
\end{equation}
\paragraph*{$t_2$}
$\mathcal{B}$ uses the same hash to lock 1 Token$_b$ on Chain$_b$ through another HTLC that expires at $t_b$.
$\mathcal{B}$ does so only after verifying that $\mathcal{A}$'s contract is in order and that its deployment has been confirmed on Chain$_a$; thus,
\begin{equation}
t_2 \geq t_1 + \tau_a
\label{eq:t2}
\end{equation}
\paragraph*{$t_3$}
$\mathcal{A}$ uses the secret to unlock the 1 Token$_b$ on Chain$_b$.
$\mathcal{A}$ does so only after verifying that $\mathcal{B}$'s contract is in order and that its deployment has been confirmed on Chain$_b$; thus,
\begin{equation}
t_3 \geq t_2 + \tau_b
\end{equation}
\paragraph*{At $t_4$}
$\mathcal{B}$ uses the same secret to unlock the $P_*$ Token$_a$ on Chain$_a$.
$\mathcal{B}$ does so only after seeing the secret been revealed by $\mathcal{A}$ in the mempool of Chain$_b$; thus
\begin{equation}
t_4 \geq t_3 + \tau_\varepsilon
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Receipt}~%
\noindent
Which token an agent receives, and when, depends on the outcome of the swap. If both $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ hold on to their agreement by following the steps during the action phase as described in Section~\ref{sec:action}, then the swap succeeds and $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ receive tokens at the following two points in time respectively:
\paragraph*{$t_5$}
$\mathcal{A}$ receives the 1 Token$_b$ after her transaction is confirmed on Chain$_b$, and this must take place before the lock contract expires at $t_b$; thus
\begin{equation}
t_5 = t_3 + \tau_b \leq t_b
\end{equation}
\paragraph*{$t_6$}
$\mathcal{B}$ receives the $P_*$ Token$_a$ after his transaction is confirmed on Chain$_a$, and this must take place before the lock contract expires at $t_a$; thus
\begin{equation}
t_6 = t_4 + \tau_a \leq t_a
\label{eq:t6}
\end{equation}
If, however, $\mathcal{A}$ or $\mathcal{B}$ withdraws at any point during the action phase as described in \ref{sec:action}, then the swap fails and $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ have their original tokens returned to them at the following two points in time respectively:
\paragraph*{$t_7$}
the HTLC on Chain$_b$ returns $\mathcal{B}$'s original 1 Token$_b$ to him when the time lock expires at $t_b$, and $\mathcal{B}$ receives the 1 Token$_b$ at $t_7$; thus
\begin{equation}
t_7 = t_b + \tau_b
\end{equation}
\paragraph*{$t_8$}
the HTLC on Chain$_a$ returns $\mathcal{A}$'s original 1 Token$_a$ to her when the time lock expires at $t_a$, and $\mathcal{A}$ receives the $P_*$ Token$_a$ at $t_8$; thus
\begin{equation}
t_8 = t_a + \tau_a
\label{eq:t8}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\begin{subfigure}{\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=0.8\linewidth,
trim = {0, 37, 0, 0}]
{figures/timeline1}
\caption{Timeline with arbitrary amount of waiting time\label{fig:tl1}}
\end{subfigure}
\par\bigskip
\begin{subfigure}{\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth,
trim = {0, 20, 0, 0}]{figures/timeline2}
\caption{Idealized timeline with zero waiting time\label{fig:tl2}}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Swap timeline as described in Section \ref{sec:timeline}.}
\end{figure}
Combining \ref{eq:epsilon}--\ref{eq:t8}, we get
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
t_0 \leq t_1 < t_1 + \tau_a \leq t_2 < t_2+\tau_b \leq t_3 < t_3 + \varepsilon_b
\\
t_3 + \varepsilon_b < t_3 + \tau_b = t_5 \leq t_b < t_b + \tau_b =t_7
\\
t_3 + \varepsilon_b \leq t_4 < t_4+\tau_a = t_6 \leq t_a < t_a + \tau_a = t_8
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
The relationship between different points in time can thus be illustrated as \autoref{fig:tl1}.
\subsection{Zero waiting time}
An idealized decision-making time of 0 allows the game to be characterized as a discrete one, where actions can only be taken at a specified, finite set of points in time. In this way, we can express the relationships between the critical points in time as (\autoref{fig:tl2}):
\begin{align}
\begin{cases}
t_5 = \underbrace{
\overbrace{t_1}^{t_0} + \tau_a
}_{t_2} + \tau_b + \tau_b = t_b & t_7 = t_b + \tau_b
\\
t_6 = \underbrace{
\overbrace{t_2 + \tau_b
}^{
t_3
}+ \varepsilon_b
}_{t_4} + \tau_a = t_a & t_8 = t_a + \tau_a
\end{cases}
\label{eq:ideatime}
\end{align}
This model simplification can be justified for multiple reasons.
Firstly, at the outset of the swap, it should be of both agents' interest to agree on the terms such that the swap can be carried out in a swift manner. From a game-theoretical perspective, lengthening the decision-making time increases optionality for $\mathcal{A}$ at $t_3$, thus reducing the expected utility for $\mathcal{B}$. $\mathcal{B}$ in turn would postpone his decision at $t_2$ until as late as possible, to maximize his own optionality and minimize $\mathcal{A}$'s future optionality. $\mathcal{A}$ in turn would wait as long as possible at $t_1$ to kick off the swap in order to minimize $\mathcal{B}$'s future optionality and maximize her own. In turn at $t_0$, $\mathcal{B}$ is incentivised to only agree to the shortest time possible to reduce $\mathcal{A}$'s optionality at $t_1$.
In addition, a long lock time can reduce liquidity for $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ collectively. Formally, the negative impact of lock time on agents' utility is captured by their positive discount rate $r$, as shown in \ref{eq:utility}. Therefore, the agents would set the contract expiration time as early as possible, to reduce the time of assets being locked, in two ways:
\begin{enumerate}[1.]
\item An agent can receive his/her counterparty's original asset earlier rather than later in case the swap eventually succeeds. This is because an agent is forced to choose whether to continue or to withdraw immediately each time it is his/her turn to take an action; no immediate action (i.e. waiting) is equivalent to withdrawal since it precludes timely completion of necessary transactions before the contract expiration time, and thus lead to failure of the swap.
\item An agent can get back his/her original asset as soon as the counterparty withdraws from the swap, i.e. when the swap eventually fails.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Default parameters} \label{sec:defaultvalue}
We use backward induction to derive the optimal strategy for each agent. We solve for agents' best strategy numerically and graphically, as we show later in \Cref{sec:backwardation} that it quickly becomes non-trivial to analytically derive a closed-form expression. To this end, we set the default value of certain parameters as in \autoref{tab:default}. We additionally specify the unit of parameters to put the model into perspective. In the following, we discuss the plausibility of selected values for blockchain-specific parameters.
\paragraph*{Transaction confirmation time $\tau$} We set the confirmation time on both chains to be in the order of hours. Confirmation time in this paper refers to the time needed to reach transaction finality with a high probability, which typically equals a multiple of the block time.
Given the wide adoption of the computationally heavy consensus mechanism---Proof of Work \cite{Ferdous2020}, it is to date still common for a blockchain to have an hour-long confirmation time.\footnote{See e.g. \url{https://support.kraken.com/hc/en-us/articles/203325283-Cryptocurrency-deposit-processing-times}}
\paragraph*{Price trend $\mu$} The default value of a positive price trend suggests the deflationary nature of Token$_b$, for example caused by higher levels of token buyback and burn compared to Token$_a$ \cite{Tang2018}. In \Cref{sec:sucrate}, we explore the possibility when Token$_b$ is inflationary, i.e. $\mu < 0$, and when $\mu = 0$.
\paragraph*{Volatility $\sigma$} The default hourly volatility value of 10\% aligns with empirical evidence \cite{Digiconomist2014}.
In \Cref{sec:sucrate}, we inspect modelling results with an array of different values for each parameter.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\tiny
\caption{Default value of parameters. \label{tab:default}}
\hrule
\begin{align*}
\alpha^\mathcal{A} & = 0.3 &
r^\mathcal{A} & = 0.01\ (/\text{hour}) &
\tau_a & = 3\ (\text{hour})&
\varepsilon_b & = 1\ (\text{hour}) &
\mu & = 0.002\ (/\text{hour}) \\
\alpha^\mathcal{B} & = 0.3 &
r^\mathcal{B} & = 0.01\ (/\text{hour}) &
\tau_b & = 4\ (\text{hour}) &
P_{t_0} & = 2\ (\text{Token}_a) &
\sigma & = 0.1\ (/\sqrt{\text{hour}})
\end{align*}
\hrule
\end{table}
As per assumption, the values of all the parameters displayed in \autoref{tab:default} are {\em common knowledge} (i.e. $\mathcal{A}$ knows, $\mathcal{B}$ knows, and $\mathcal{A}$ knows that $\mathcal{B}$ knows etc).
\subsection{Backward induction} \label{sec:backwardation}
With backward induction, we start from $t_4$, the last possible action point. We then move backward to an earlier action point each time, assuming the swap is still ongoing (i.e. nobody has withdrawn up until that point). Recall that we use the idealized framework where decision-making time is reduced to a point in time. That is, at each decision-making point in time, agents choose an action from the two-element action set $\{\mathit{cont}, \mathit{stop}\}$.
\subsubsection{$t_4$}\label{sec:t4}
$\mathcal{B}$ decides whether to unlock Token$_a$ ($\mathit{cont}$) or not ($\mathit{stop}$).
Once $\mathcal{A}$ has unlocked Token$_b$ with her pre-generated secret, it does not make sense for $\mathcal{B}$ to withdraw and forgo the locked Token$_a$ (which yields to zero utility). Therefore, as soon as $\mathcal{B}$ sees the secret revealed through $\mathcal{A}$'s transaction from Chain$_b$'s mempool, $\mathcal{B}$ uses the secret to unlock Token$_a$. Thus, $\mathcal{B}$ chooses to continue {\em with certainty}.
\subsubsection{$t_3$}\label{sec:t3}
$\mathcal{A}$ decides whether to unlock Token$_b$ ($\mathit{cont}$) or not ($\mathit{stop}$).
\paragraph*{$\mathit{cont}$}
$\mathcal{A}$ unlocks the 1 Token$_b$, and receives it at $t_5 = t_3+\tau_b$, in which case $\mathcal{B}$ gets $P_*$ Token$_a$ at $t_6=t_3+(\varepsilon_b+\tau_a)$.
\begin{align}
U^\mathcal{A}_{t_3}(\mathit{cont}) & =
\tfrac{(1+\alpha^{\mathcal{A}})\mathcal{E}(P_{t_3}, \tau_b)}{e^{r^\mathcal{A} \tau_b}}
\label{eq:At3cont}
\\
U^\mathcal{B}_{t_3}(\mathit{cont}) & =
\tfrac{(1+\alpha^{\mathcal{B}})P_*}{e^{r^\mathcal{B} (\varepsilon_b+\tau_a)}}
\label{eq:Bt3cont}
\end{align}
\paragraph*{$\mathit{stop}$}
$\mathcal{A}$ waives the contract and has the $P_*$ Token$_a$ returned to her at $t_8 = t_3 + (\varepsilon_b + 2 \tau_a)$, in which case $\mathcal{B}$ gets 1 Token$_b$ at $t_7 = t_3+2\tau_b$.
\begin{align}
U^\mathcal{A}_{t_3}(\mathit{stop}) & = \tfrac{P_*}{
e^{r^\mathcal{A}(\varepsilon_b + 2\tau_a})
}
\label{eq:At3stop}
\\
U^\mathcal{B}_{t_3}(\mathit{stop}) & =
\tfrac{
\mathcal{E}(P_{t_3},2\tau_b)
}{e^{r^\mathcal{B} \, 2\tau_b}}
\label{eq:Bt3stop}
\end{align}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[
height=0.135\textheight,
trim = {52, 40, 25, 0}, clip
]{figures/util3_A_plot-1.pdf}
~\includegraphics[
height=0.135\textheight,
trim = {120, 40, 25, 0}, clip
]{figures/util3_A_plot-2.pdf}
~\includegraphics[
height=0.135\textheight,
trim = {120, 40, 15, 0}, clip
]{figures/util3_A_plot-3.pdf}
\caption{Alice's utility at $t_3$, ($U_{t_3}^\mathcal{A}$) with different strategies ($\mathit{cont}, \mathit{stop}$), Token$_b$ price values ($P_{t_3}$), and exchange rate values ($P_*$).}
\label{fig:util3_A}
\end{figure}
By assumption, $\mathcal{A}$ chooses the option that maximizes her utility. Intuitively,
when current Token$_b$ price $P_{t_3}$ is sufficiently large, $\mathcal{A}$ chooses to stop so that she receives Token$_b$ in the end;
when $P_{t_3}$ is sufficiently small, $\mathcal{A}$ chooses to continue so that she receives Token$_a$ in the end.
Let $\underline{P_{t_3}}$ denote the cut-off price that equates $U^\mathcal{A}_{t_3}(\mathit{cont})$ and $U^\mathcal{A}_{t_3}(\mathit{stop})$, i.e.
\begin{align}
\tfrac{(1+\alpha^{\mathcal{A}})\mathcal{E}(\underline{P_{t_3}}, \tau_b)}{e^{r^\mathcal{A} \tau_b}}
& =
\tfrac{P_*}{
e^{r^\mathcal{A}(\varepsilon_b + 2\tau_a})
}
\nonumber \\
\underline{P_{t_3}} &=
\tfrac{e^{
(r^\mathcal{A} - \mu) \tau_b - r^\mathcal{A}(\varepsilon_b + 2\tau_a)
} P_*}{
1+\alpha^\mathcal{A}
}
\label{eq:p3lower}
\end{align}
Clearly,
$\underline{P_{t_3}}$ increases with $P_*$ (see also \autoref{fig:util3_A}). This is because higher $P_*$ makes the option stop more attractive for $\mathcal{A}$, driving the threshold price $\underline{P_{t_3}}$ higher.
$\mathcal{A}$'s strategy at $t_3$ can be summarized as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
\mathit{cont}, & P_{t_3} > \underline{P_{t_3}}\\
\mathit{stop}, & P_{t_3} \leq \underline{P_{t_3}}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{$t_2$}
$\mathcal{B}$ decides whether to write an HTLC on Chain$_b$ ($\mathit{cont}$) or not ($\mathit{stop}$).
\label{sec:t2}
\paragraph*{$\mathit{cont}$}
Even when $\mathcal{B}$ chooses to continue, whether the swap eventually succeeds depends on how Token$_b$ price evolves until $t_3$. Therefore, the utility of $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ at $t_2$ can be expressed with their time-discounted, expected utility at~$t_3$:
\begin{align}
U^\mathcal{A}_{t_2}(\mathit{cont})
& =
\tfrac{{
\int_{\underline{P_{t_3}}}^{\infty}
\mathcal{P}\left(x ,P_{t_2},\tau_b\right)
U^\mathcal{A}_{t_3}(\mathit{cont}) dx
\atop +
\mathcal{C}(\underline{P_{t_3}} ,P_{t_2},\tau_b)
U^\mathcal{A}_{t_3}(\mathit{stop})
}}{
e^{r^{\mathcal{A}}\tau_b}
}
\label{eq:At2cont}
\\
U^\mathcal{B}_{t_2}(\mathit{cont})
& =
\tfrac{{
\left[
1-\mathcal{C}(\underline{P_{t_3}} ,P_{t_2},\tau_b)
\right]
U^\mathcal{B}_{t_3}(\mathit{cont})
\atop +
\int_0^{\underline{P_{t_3}}}
\mathcal{P}\left(x ,P_{t_2},\tau_b\right)
U^\mathcal{B}_{t_3}(\mathit{stop})dx
}}{
e^{r^{\mathcal{B}}\tau_b}
}
\label{eq:Bt2cont}
\end{align}
\paragraph*{$\mathit{stop}$}
$\mathcal{B}$ withdraws from the deal and keeps 1 Token$_b$ at $t_2$. Since $\mathcal{A}$ already locked $P_*$ Token$_a$, she will receive her original Token$_a$ back at $t_8 = t_2 + (\tau_b + \varepsilon_b + 2\tau_a)$.
\begin{align}
U^\mathcal{A}_{t_2}(\mathit{stop}) & = \tfrac{P_*}{
e^{r^\mathcal{A}(\tau_b + \varepsilon_b + 2\tau_a)}
}
\label{eq:At2stop}
\\
U^\mathcal{B}_{t_2}(\mathit{stop}) & =
P_{t_2}
\label{eq:Bt2stop}
\end{align}
By assumption, $\mathcal{B}$ also chooses the option that maximizes his utility. In \autoref{fig:util3_A}, $U^\mathcal{B}_{t_3}(\mathit{cont})$ and $U^\mathcal{B}_{t_3}(\mathit{stop})$ are plotted as a function of $P_{t_3}$. Intuitively,
if current Token$_b$ price $P_{t_2}$ is very low, then although $\mathcal{B}$ would want to swap to receive Token$_a$, he can safely assume that Alice would not honor the agreement at $t_3$ anyway, so $\mathcal{B}$ will not bother to continue;
if $P_{t_2}$ is very high, then $\mathcal{B}$ would like to keep Token$_b$ and won't swap at all.
Therefore, Bob chooses $\mathit{cont}$ when $P_{t_2}$ falls in a feasible range, denoted by $(\underline{P_{t_2}}, \overline{P_{t_2}})$. \autoref{fig:util3_B} shows that this range expands and shifts to the higher end with larger $P_*$.
$\mathcal{B}$'s strategy at $t_2$ can be summarized as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
\mathit{cont}, & \underline{P_{t_2}} < P_{t_2} \leq \overline{P_{t_2}}\\
\mathit{stop}, & P_{t_2} \leq \underline{P_{t_2}} \text{ or } P_{t_2} > \overline{P_{t_2}}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Note that depending on the value of parameters, the two utility curves might not always have two intersections (disregarding the origin). For example, the lower $\alpha^\mathcal{B}$ is, the narrower the feasible range of $P_{t_2}$ is, because $\mathcal{B}$ is less desperate to swap. When $\alpha^\mathcal{B}$ is sufficiently small, $U^\mathcal{B}_{t_2}(\mathit{cont})<
U^\mathcal{B}_{t_2}(\mathit{stop}), \forall P_{t_2}>0$, and the swap always fails. This will be further discussed in Section \ref{sec:sucrate}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[
height=0.135\textheight,
trim = {52, 40, 25, 0}, clip
]{figures/util2_B_plot-1.pdf}
~\includegraphics[
height=0.135\textheight,
trim = {120, 40, 25, 0}, clip
]{figures/util2_B_plot-2.pdf}
~\includegraphics[
height=0.135\textheight,
trim = {120, 40, 15, 0}, clip
]{figures/util2_B_plot-3.pdf}
\caption{Bob's utility at $t_2$, ($U_{t_2}^\mathcal{B}$) with different strategies ($\mathit{cont}, \mathit{stop}$), Token$_b$ price values ($P_{t_2}$), and exchange rate values ($P_*$).}
\label{fig:util3_B}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{$t_1$}
\label{sec:t1}
$\mathcal{A}$ decides whether to initiate the swap by writing an HTLC on Chain$_a$ ($\mathit{cont}$) or not ($\mathit{stop}$).
\paragraph*{$\mathit{cont}$} The utility of $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ at $t_1$ can be expressed by time-discounting their expected utility at ${t_2 = t_1 + \tau_a}$:
\begin{align}
U^\mathcal{A}_{t_1}(\mathit{cont})
& =
\tfrac{{
\int_{\underline{P_{t_2}}}^{\overline{P_{t_2}}}
\mathcal{P}(P_{t_2} ,P_{t_1},\tau_a)
U^\mathcal{A}_{t_2}(\mathit{cont}) dP_{t_2} +
\atop
\Big[ 1-
\mathcal{C}(\overline{P_{t_2}} ,P_{t_1},\tau_a) +
\mathcal{C}(\underline{P_{t_2}} ,P_{t_1},\tau_a)
\Big]
U^\mathcal{A}_{t_2}(\mathit{stop})
}}{
e^{r^{\mathcal{A}}\tau_a}
}
\label{eq:At1cont} \\
U^\mathcal{B}_{t_1}(\mathit{cont})
& =
\tfrac{{
\int_{\underline{P_{t_2}}}^{\overline{P_{t_2}}}
\mathcal{P}(P_{t_2} ,P_{t_1},\tau_a)
U^\mathcal{B}_{t_2}(\mathit{cont}) dP_{t_2} +
\atop
\int_0^{\underline{P_{t_2}}}
\mathcal{P}(P_{t_2} ,P_{t_1},\tau_a)
U^\mathcal{B}_{t_2}(\mathit{stop})dP_{t_2}
}}{
e^{r^{\mathcal{B}}\tau_a}
}
\end{align}
\paragraph*{$\mathit{stop}$} $\mathcal{A}$ does not initiate the swap and keeps $P_*$ Token$_a$ at $t_1$. $\mathcal{B}$ also keeps his 1 Token$_b$.
\begin{align}
U^\mathcal{A}_{t_1}(\mathit{stop}) & = P_*
\label{eq:At1stop}\\
U^\mathcal{B}_{t_1}(\mathit{stop}) & =
P_{t_1}
\end{align}
Recall that in our idealized swap game, $\mathcal{A}$ must initiate the swap {\em immediately} after the terms of swap are agreed upon, as allowing for waiting time only reduces agents' utility. Therefore, $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ must agree on a rate $P_*$ that makes $\mathcal{A}$ willing to take the first step. Intuitively,
if $P_*$ is too high, then $\mathcal{A}$ would not want to swap;
if $P_*$ is too low, then $\mathcal{A}$ understands the high likelihood of fail because $\mathcal{B}$ would not want to continue at $t_2$, so $\mathcal{A}$ would not start the swap either.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[
height=0.135\textheight,
trim = {52, 40, 15, 0}, clip
]{figures/util1_A_plot-1.pdf}
\caption{Alice's utility at $t_1$, ($U_{t_1}^\mathcal{A}$) with different strategies ($\mathit{cont}, \mathit{stop}$), and exchange rate values ($P_*$).}
\label{fig:util1_A}
\end{figure}
Thus, the exchange rate $P_*$ must lie within a range $(\underline{P_*}, \overline{P_*})$ to ensure the start of the swap (see \autoref{fig:util1_A}). Using the values from \autoref{tab:default} we numerically solve the feasible range as:\footnote{Note that $P_{t_1} = P_{t_0}$ since $t_1=t_0$ is assumed in \ref{eq:ideatime}.}
\begin{equation}
(\underline{P_*}, \overline{P_*}) = (1.5, 2.5)
\end{equation}
$\mathcal{A}$'s strategy at $t_1$ can be summarized as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
\mathit{cont}, & \underline{P_*} < P_* \leq \overline{P_*}\\
\mathit{stop}, & P_* \leq \underline{P_*} \text{ or } P_* > \overline{P_*}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Success rate}
\label{sec:sucrate}
We define the success rate ($\mathit{SR}$) of a swap to be the likelihood of completion of the swap {\em after} it has been initiated, i.e. after $\mathcal{A}$ has made the first move at $t_1$. With the values of all other parameters being fixed (\autoref{tab:default}), $\mathit{SR}$ is a function of $P_*$, and can be expressed as:
\begin{align}
\mathit{SR}(P_*) = &
\int_{
\underline{P_{t_2}}(P_*)
}^{\overline{P_{t_2}}(P_*)
} \mathcal{P}\left(
x, P_{t_1},\tau_a
\right) \,
\Big[
1-
\mathcal{C}(\underline{P_{t_3}}(P_*) ,x,\tau_b)
\Big]
dx,
\nonumber \\
& \underline{P_*} < P_* \leq \overline{P_*}
\end{align}
In \autoref{fig:sucrate}, we show how success rate $\mathit{SR}$ changes with the exchange rate $P_*$. $\mathit{SR}$ curves with the default parameter setting (\autoref{tab:default}) are plotted in blue line (\textcolor{dodgerblue4}{\rule[\dimexpr0.5ex - 0.4pt]{1em}{1pt}}), which are compared with $\mathit{SR}$ curves with different parameter values.
Irrespective of the parameter values, the $\mathit{SR}(P_*)$ curve is always concave, with the $\mathit{SR}$-maximizing point residing between $\underline{P_*}$ and $\overline{P_*}$. As suggested in Section \ref{sec:backwardation}, this is because overly low $P_*$ reduces the likelihood of continuation at $t_3$ and $t_2$, while overly high $P_*$ reduces the likelihood of continuation at $t_2$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[
height=0.0925\textheight,
trim = {54, 105, 70, 5}, clip
]{figures/success_plot_alphaA-1}
~\includegraphics[
height=0.0925\textheight,
trim = {115, 105, 70, 5}, clip
]{figures/success_plot_rA-1}
~\includegraphics[
height=0.0925\textheight,
trim = {115, 105, 70, 5}, clip
]{figures/success_plot_taua-1}
~\includegraphics[
height=0.0925\textheight,
trim = {115, 105, 70, 5}, clip
]{figures/success_plot_mu-1}
\includegraphics[
height=0.11\textheight,
trim = {54, 47, 70, 5}, clip
]{figures/success_plot_alphaB-1}
~\includegraphics[
height=0.11\textheight,
trim = {115, 47, 70, 5}, clip
]{figures/success_plot_rB-1}
~\includegraphics[
height=0.11\textheight,
trim = {115, 47, 70, 5}, clip
]{figures/success_plot_taub-1}
~\includegraphics[
height=0.11\textheight,
trim = {115, 47, 70, 5}, clip
]{figures/success_plot_sigma-1}
\caption{Swap success rate $\mathit{SR}$ as a function of exchange rate $P_*$ with different parameter values. Default parameter values are set in \autoref{tab:default}.
Line plots illustrate $\mathit{SR}$ curves with viable parameter values; non-viable values are marked with
\textcolor{gray}{\tiny $\square$}.
}
\label{fig:sucrate}
\end{figure}
Next, we discuss how the value setting of other parameters affects the success rate.
\subsubsection{Success premium $\alpha$}
\label{sec:alpha}
The parameter success premium describes the excess utility that an agent receives when the swap succeeds.
The parameter captures not only the excess utility an agent gains from possessing the counterparty's token over his/her own token, but also the utility of guarding his/her reputation. That is to say, the more an agent cares about honoring an agreement, the higher $\alpha$ will be.
As shown in \autoref{fig:sucrate}, ceteris paribus, higher $\alpha$ leads to higher $\mathit{SR}$. This is true for both $\alpha^{\mathcal{A}}$ and $\alpha^{\mathcal{B}}$. In addition, higher $\alpha$ renders a bigger feasible range of $P_*$. Note that when $\alpha$ is too small (either with $\mathcal{A}$ or $\mathcal{B}$), the swap would never be initiated.
\subsubsection{Time preference $r$}
The parameter time preference describes an agent's {\em impatience} level. Larger $r$ suggests a higher degree of impatience, i.e. possessing an asset {\em right now} is more valuable for the agent than obtaining it {\em later}.
As an HTLC swap requires an asset-locking period, a certain degree of {\em patience} is needed for both $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ to enter the agreement. Thus, as shown in \autoref{fig:sucrate}, larger $r$ results in a narrower viable range of values for $P_*$; exceedingly high $r$ renders any $P_*$ value infeasible, i.e. the swap would never be initiated.
\subsubsection{Transaction confirmation time $\tau$}
With the presence of time preference ($r^\mathcal{A}, r^\mathcal{B} > 0$), longer transaction confirmation time, either on Chain$_a$ or Chain$_b$, reduces agents' utility in engaging in a swap. Therefore, higher $\tau_a$ or $\tau_b$ shrinks the viable range of $P_*$. When $P_*$ is always chosen optimally (as to maximize $\mathit{SR}$), lower $\tau_a$ or $\tau_b$ increases $\mathit{SR}$.
\subsubsection{Price trend $\mu$ and volatility $\sigma$}
\autoref{fig:sucrate} shows that, ceteris paribus, higher degree of upward price trend of Token$_b$ increases $\mathit{SR}$. In contrast, higher volatility reduces max $\mathit{SR}$.
\section{Related work}
\label{subsec:HTLCextensions}
Recent years have witnessed a plethora of cross-ledger transaction solutions besides HTLC.
Wanchain~\cite{wanchain} enables interfacing and asset conversion to the native Wanchain token (Wancoins) in order to perform a cross-ledger asset exchange subsequently.
Wanchain implements a privacy protection mechanism through a ring signature scheme~\cite{rivest2006leak} and a one-time account mechanism via one-time use wallets created for each transaction.
Interledger~\cite{thomas2015protocol} uses Byzantine notaries to construct a payment chain from sender to recipient over multiple ledgers, and the STREAM Interledger Transport protocol~\cite{Interledger2020STREAM:ILP} apply packetized payments \cite{Dubovitskaya2021APayments}.
Relays~\cite{btcRelay}, sidechains~\cite{back2014enabling, johnson2019sidechains}, off-chain payment channels~\cite{poon2016bitcoin, luu2016secure, miller2017sprites}, and solutions based on chain relays \cite{Zamyatin} require building interfaces to such systems, similar to the case of a blockchain-based medium like Wanchain.
Cross-ledger transaction protocols are actively studied by the distributed ledger community: Borkowski et al. \cite{borkowski2018towards} surveyed atomic swaps for distributed ledgers, Herlihy provided a first extensive analysis of the scheme and demonstrated that HTLCs are still vulnerable to attacks, such as DDoS or secret hack \cite{herlihy2018atomic}.
Moreover, asset price volatility and malicious behaviour from agents driven by an attempt to maximize financial profits could negatively affect the transaction counterpart.
For instance, if Alice becomes inactive before completion of the transaction, then the assets will be blocked on both ledgers \cite{Han2019, Zamyatin}.
While it can be tolerated by an agent, this can incur significant losses to a counterparty.
To reduce the risk of agents being exposed to adverse behaviour, collateral deposits or transaction fees can be used. In a recent work, Han et al.~\cite{Han2019} view atomic swaps as American options (without premium), and discuss ``optionality'' as a risk imposed by the swap initiator. The initiator can choose at any moment before revealing the secret whether to proceed with the swap or to abort it. To reduce the risk of malicious behaviour by the swap initiator, the authors propose to implement a premium mechanism. In our work, we do not define honest or malicious actors explicitly. Instead, we assume that both actors act rationally in their attempts to maximize their utility, and may appear as either ``honest'' or ``malicious'' depending on the movement of the token price.
One of the trading protocols that support atomic swaps between parties and exchanges is Arwen. Arwen leverages off-chain RFQ trades and uses an escrow-fee mechanism based on blockchain to incentivize a swap initiator to unlock the coins in a timely manner and address lockup griefing in HTLC \cite{heilmanarwen}.
Zamyatin et al. \cite{Zamyatin} suggested posting collateral at least equal to the assets locked on the blockchain for a trade.
The authors also proposed overcollateralization and a liquidation mechanism to mitigate extreme price fluctuations for both short and long term cross-ledger transactions.
While such approach reduces economically rational agents' incentive to misbehave, it is disadvantageous in that if an agent would like to transfer all his assets of one kind, he will be obliged to execute multiple transactions, each with an amount (approximately) equal to half the amount of the assets he currently possesses.
In the extension of our model (\Cref{sec:extension}), we also propose that both agents place collateral on one of the chains. We then study the impact of the collateralization on the transaction success rate. This analysis allows us to determine the optimal level of collateral for both agents.
Zakhary et al. \cite{zakhary2019atomic} highlight that even if both participants are honest, the atomicity of HTLC can be violated due to crash failures, preventing smart contract execution before the expiry time of the contract. To address this problem, the authors present all-or-nothing atomic cross-chain commitment protocols and discuss their implementations: the $AC^3TW$-atomic cross-chain commitment protocol with centralized trusted witness and the $AC^3WN$-atomic cross-chain commitment protocol that uses another blockchain as a witness network. This approach shares some similarities with the recently proposed notion of a so-called cross-chain deal \cite{herlihy2019cross}, which, as a generalization of the atomic swap, aims to enhance its expressive power to
support various types of commercial practices. Both cross-chain deals and the protocols proposed in \cite{zakhary2019atomic} are based on exchange of ``proofs'' or ``votes'' instead of relying on hashed time locks.
Belotti et al. \cite{belotti2019game} are among the first to conduct a game-theoretical analysis of cross-chain swaps (including HTLC as presented in \cite{bitcointalk,herlihy2018atomic} and commitment-based protocols $AC^3TW$ and $AC^3WN$ from \cite{zakhary2019atomic}) and characterise their equilibria. In our work, we focus on the intuition behind the strategic behavior of the participants of HTLC and show that it heavily depends on parameters such as the token price trend and volatility, as well as transaction confirmation time on the employed blockchains.
\subsection{Uncertain exchange rate}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
height=0.135\textheight,
trim = {50, 45, 10, 5}, clip
]{figures/unknx_X_opt_plot-1}
\caption{Optimal Token$_b$ amount $X_*$ for Bob to lock based on $P_{t_2}$ and Token$_a$ amount $P_*$ locked at $t_1$.\label{fig:B_unknx}}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
height=0.135\textheight,
trim = {50, 45, 10, 5}, clip
]{figures/util1_A_unknx_plot-1}
\caption{Alice's utility at $t_1$, $U_{t_1,\text{x}}^\mathcal{A}$ as a function of the amount of Token$_a$ to lock $P_*$.\label{fig:A_unknx}}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Agents' decision making with uncertain swap rate.}
\label{fig:AB_unknx}
\end{figure}
In this model variation, we discuss an HTLC game in which agents not only choose between $\mathit{cont}$ and $\mathit{stop}$, but also the exact amount of funds to lock in: $P_*$ Token$_a$ at $t_1$ and $X$ Token$_b$ $t_2$, respectively. This renders the actual exchange rate uncertain at the outset of the game.
We apply subscript ``$_\text{x}$'' for expressions different from their counterpart in the baseline model.
\subsubsection{$t_4$}
Same as Section \ref{sec:t4}
\subsubsection{$t_3$}
Similar to Section \ref{sec:t3}, there exists a minimum feasible Token$_b$ price, expressed as $\underline{P_{t_3, \text{x}}}(X)$ since it depends on $X$, the actual transferred amount at $t_2$. It can be easily derived that
\begin{align}
\underline{P_{t_3, \text{x}}}(X) = \underline{P_{t_3}}/X,
\text{ with } \underline{P_{t_3, \text{x}}}(0) = \infty
\end{align}
where $\underline{P_{t_3}}$ is expressed in Equation~\eqref{eq:p3lower}.
\subsubsection{$t_2$}
$\mathcal{B}$ determines the value of $X \geq 0$ that maximizes his excess utility, namely the utility he obtains by proceeding with locking $X$ less the utility he keeps by retaining $X$ Token$_b$.
\begin{align}
U^\mathcal{A}_{t_2, \text{x}}(X)
& =
\tfrac{{
X
\int_{\underline{P_{t_3, \text{x}}}(X)}^{\infty}
\mathcal{P}\left(x ,P_{t_2},\tau_b\right)
U^\mathcal{A}_{t_3}(\mathit{cont}) dx
\atop +
\mathcal{C}(\underline{P_{t_3, \text{x}}}(X) ,P_{t_2},\tau_b)
U^\mathcal{A}_{t_3}(\mathit{stop})
}}{
e^{r^{\mathcal{A}}\tau_b}
}
\\
U^\mathcal{B}_{t_2, \text{x}}(X)
& = \tfrac{{
\left[
1-\mathcal{C}(\underline{P_{t_3, \text{x}}}(X) ,P_{t_2},\tau_b)
\right]
U^\mathcal{B}_{t_3}(\mathit{cont})
\atop
+ X \int_0^{\underline{P_{t_3, \text{x}}}(X)}
\mathcal{P}\left(x ,P_{t_2},\tau_b\right)
U^\mathcal{B}_{t_3}(\mathit{stop})dx
}}{
e^{r^{\mathcal{B}}\tau_b}
} - X P_{t_2}
\end{align}
Denote the optimal $X$ as $X_*(P_{t_2})$, a function of $P_{t_2}$. Thus,
\begin{align}
X_*(P_{t_2}) = \argmax_{X\geq 0} U^\mathcal{B}_{t_2, \text{x}}(X)
\end{align}
\autoref{fig:B_unknx} shows at any given amount of Token$_a$ that $\mathcal{A}$ has locked at $t_1$, $P_*$, the optimal amount of Token$_b$ that $\mathcal{B}$ should lock first increases and then decreases with $P_{t_2}$.
This aligns with the intuition that when $P_{t_2}$ is too low, i.e. Token$_b$ is valueless, then the likelihood of $\mathcal{A}$'s withdrawal at $t_3$ is high, making $\mathcal{B}$ unwilling to lock in big funds at $t_2$; when $P_{t_2}$ is too high, i.e. Token$_b$ is very valuable, then the amount of Token$_b$ that $\mathcal{B}$ needs to commit also becomes low to make the deal worthwhile for himself. Generally at a given $P_{t_2}$, $X_*$ increases with $P_*$, reflecting a degree of fairness of the game.
\subsubsection{$t_1$}
$\mathcal{A}$ takes into account the fact that $\mathcal{B}$ will choose an amount of Token$_b$ to lock in at $t_2$ that maximizes his own utility, based on Token$_b$ price at $t_2$ and the amount of Token$_a$ that she commits, $P_*$.
$\mathcal{A}$ thus chooses the value of $P_*$ that maximizes her excess utility, namely the utility she obtains by entering the swap with $P_*$ Token$_a$ in excess of the utility she keeps by retaining $P_*$ Token$_a$. Therefore,
\begin{align}
U^\mathcal{A}_{t_1, \text{x}}(P_{*})
=
\tfrac{
\int_{0}^{\infty}
\mathcal{P}(P_{t_2} ,P_{t_1},\tau_a)
U^\mathcal{A}_{t_2, \text{x}}(X_*(P_{t_2})) dP_{t_2}
}{
e^{r^{\mathcal{A}}\tau_a}
} - P_*
\nonumber \\
\label{eq:At1cont_unknx}
\end{align}
Similar to \autoref{fig:util1_A}, \autoref{fig:A_unknx} shows that the excess utility first increases and then decreases with $P_*$. $\overline{P_*}$ represents the amount that maximizes $U_{t_1,\text{x}}^\mathcal{A}$. Nevertheless, $\mathcal{A}$ might only be able to afford a lesser amount due to a possible budget constraint on her side. $\underline{P_*}$ represents the lowest possible amount that $\mathcal{A}$ needs to enter for a non-negative excess utility.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[
height=0.135\textheight,
trim = {50, 45, 20, 5}, clip
]{figures/success_val_unknx-1}
\caption{Swap success rate $\mathit{SR}$ as a function of initial amount of Token$_a$ locked in by Alice $P_*$.}
\label{fig:sucrate_unknx}
\end{figure}
We can express the swap's success rate $SR$ under uncertain exchange rate as:
\begin{align}
\mathit{SR}(P_*) = &
\int_{
0
}^\infty \mathcal{P}\left(
x, P_{t_1},\tau_a
\right) \,
\Big[
1-
\mathcal{C}(\underline{P_{t_3,\text{x}}}(X(x)) ,x,\tau_b)
\Big]
dx,
\end{align}
\autoref{fig:sucrate_unknx} compares the success rate between the basic setup and the scenario with uncertain exchange rate. Interestingly, absence of pre-determined interest rate boosts the success rate.
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
Rapidly evolving technologies in autonomous unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV's) and associated developments in low-cost sensor have created a significant interest among researchers, in using them for various civil and military applications. Particularly, the autonomous aerial vehicles are often used for logistics \cite{kuru2019analysis}, medical \cite{rosser2018surgical}, agriculture \cite{mogili2018review}, security and surveillance \cite{harikumar2019mission}, \cite{harikumar2018multi}. The increase in the use of UAV in lower altitude introduces many challenges in privacy, safety and security \cite{solodov2018analyzing}. These UAV's may be flying over critical infrastructure such as nuclear facility, airport, chemical industries, ports and so on. Protecting restricted airspace from the UAV's physical attack is really a challenging problem. Detecting and responding to the UAV's invaders over a restricted airspace plays an important role.
First time in the literature, this paper address a cooperative multi-UAV system for restricted airspace protection from UAV invaders. In a typical Restricted Airspace Protection (RAP) problem as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:TP1}, the multiple evaders revolve around the airspace and cooperatively neutralize the multiple invaders moving towards the airspace. At any given time, evaders will be able to detect the invaders and estimate the time and location of arrival in the region of engagement (spatio-temporal tasks). Note that these task are available only at a specific time and if these task are not handled by the evaders than invader will be able to attack the airspace successfully. Under a full communication scenario, the problem of RAP is formulated as a multiple-UAV spatio-temporal multi-task allocation problem. It is referred as MUST-MTA. The dynamically varying number of tasks, spatial and temporal dimensions adds to the complexity in cooperative task allocation between multiple evaders which minimize the overall effort.
\begin{figure}[ t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.2]{Images/Territory_protection_image.eps}
\caption{Restricted airspace protection using Multi-UAV system}
\label{fig:TP1}
\end{figure}
A composite loss function which computes the effort made by individual evaders to move in a specific sequence to reach the location of the task at a specific time instant. Note that the tasks assigned to the evader are unique. The problem of MUST-MTA is formulated as a linear integer programming and solved using modified consensus-based bundled algorithm (CBBA) proposed in \cite{Choi2009}. The algorithm utilizes market-driven decision strategy for decentralized multi-task allocation with time constraints and consensus routine to resolve conflict between the evaders. The algorithm allocates the spatio-temporal task which forms the path for the evaders in the region of engagement. The performance of the proposed MUST-MTA for RAP problem has been evaluated in a simulated environment. Further, Monte-Carlo simulation studies are carried-out to understand the effect of time-separation between the intruders on the point-of-failure.
The main contribution of the paper is: Formalization of the RAP problem into a multi-UAV spatio-temporal multi-task allocation problem. The presence of spatial and temporal dimensions and dynamic environments makes the solution for MUST-MTA challenging. A composite loss function is defined to handle the spatio-temporal nature of the task. The linear integer programming problem is solved using modified consensus based bundle allocation.
This paper is organized as follows. The related work is discussed in \ref{sec:related_work}. Section \ref{sec:MUST MTA} defines the RAP problem, spatio-temporal tasks, formulate the MUST-MTA problem, and present the modified CBBA method. Section \ref{sec:Simulation_results} provides the simulation results of the restricted airspace protection problem. Finally, a conclusion is given in Section \ref{sec:Conclusion}
\section{Related Work} \label{sec:related_work}
One of the important challenges in the use of multi-UAV system for real-world applications is a complex task allocation problem between agents under unknown/uncertain environment. The objective in the complex task allocation is to find optimal strategy that will assign a set of tasks to the UAV such that multi-UAV system achieves its goal. More detailed review of task allocation and taxonomy of task allocation can be found in \cite{korsah2013comprehensive}, \cite{khamis2015multi}. Recent task allocation literature focus on dynamic allocation of spatially located tasks using market driven strategies \cite{jones2007learning}, game theoretic strategies \cite{Cui2013}, Hungarian method \cite{chopra2014heterogeneous,Chopra2017} and consensus based task allocation \cite{Choi2009,Brunet2008,zlot2006market,fanti2018decentralized}.
Recently, in \cite{amador2014dynamic,nelke2020market} fisher market clearing based task allocation approach is presented to handle dynamically allocated spatial task which requires certain time to complete the task as a time-window constraints. The spatial task with time window constraint is solved using heuristic methods, where a penalty is imposed on delayed execution of tasks. More detail on existing algorithms on multi-task allocation with time-window constraints can be found in \cite{nunes2017taxonomy}.
The above-mentioned works are not suitable for RAP because the tasks are dynamic and are available only at a specific time instant.
Issac et al \cite{wishart1966differential} introduced the concept of territory guarding differential game played by invaders and evaders. The goal of evader is to capture the invader as far as from the territory, and goal of invader is to avoid capturing and reach as close as possible towards the territory. Several research works are available in the literature to address territory guarding problem \cite{hsia1993first,lee2002strategy,analikwu2016reinforcement,raslan2016learning, analikwu2017multi}. These works either uses single invader and single evader or two evader to handle single invader. Recently, deep reinforcement learning based defensive escort team is proposed to avoid active collision \cite{garg2019defensive}. Here, escort team tries to safely navigate the payload by positioning escort around the payload. (Payload co-relates to the restricted airspace in RAP.) As obstacles are repelled by escorting agents, agents will need to position them in a way such that they repel the obstacles on route cooperatively. Although these approaches handle dynamic tasks, the intruders are not directed as in RAP problem. Further, in RAP, evaders have to reach the spatial location at specific instant to neutralize the invaders.
\section{ Restricted Airspace Protection Problem } \label{sec:MUST MTA}
\subsection{Problem Definition} \label{sec:problemTP}
The restricted airspace depends on the critical infrastructure; Any shaped infrastructure is approximated by circle. The scenario of RAP for a time instant t is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:TP2}. A cooperative multi-UAV team called as `evaders', will protect the airspace from intruders. The evaders will operate only inside the territory and neutralize the intruder in a ring around the restricted airspace referred to as `region of engagement'. One evader can neutralize an intruder when they come close within a neutralizing distance (r).
Evaders will detect the positions of intruders. Depending upon the position information. Each evader needs to cooperatively decide for a sequence of tasks, following which it can neutralize invaders.
\begin{figure}[ t!]
\centering \includegraphics[scale=0.45]{Images/Image_TP2.eps}
\caption{Restricted Airspace (Territory) protection problem }
\label{fig:TP2}
\end{figure}
The terms used in the RAP problem are as follows,
\begin{itemize}
\item $Territory$: It is restricted airspace to be protected.
\item $Evader$: A UAV which protects the restricted airspace.
\item $Invader$: A UAV which tries to enter the restricted airspace.
\item $Region \ of \ Engagement$: A region (ring) around the restricted airspace where invader can be neutralized.
\item $Task$: $\bf{\alpha} (\alpha^{s},\alpha^{t})$ : A task is defined by every intruder; intruder will penetrate from location $\alpha^{s}$ at time $\alpha^{t}$.
\item $Neutralizing \ point$ ($\alpha^{s}$): A location in RoE from where an intruder tries to enter.
\item $Time \ of \ intrusion$ ($\alpha^{t}$): A time at which intruder will enter restricted airspace if not neutralized.
\item $Path$ ${\bf p}_i$: It is a sequence in which evader $i$ will execute the tasks.
\end{itemize}
Evaders ($E_1 , E_2,..E_N $) are less in number than intruders ($I_1, I_2,..,I_K $). Evaders will fly with maximum speed $v_E^{max}$. Only one evader is sufficient to neutralise one intruder; more over once an intruder is neutralised, evader is free to do another task. The path ${\bf p}_i = \{ \alpha_x , \alpha_x, \alpha_z\}$ means the evader $i$ will execute task $\alpha_x$, $\alpha_y$, and $\alpha_z$ sequentially.
The following assumptions are made for RAP problem,
\begin{enumerate}[{A}1)]
\item \label{A_1} Each intruder $I_j$ is moving with a constant speed $v_j$, directed towards the centre of the restricted airspace.
\item \label{A_2} All evaders are homogeneous. Using same sensors they will identify the intruders position and velocity. All evaders can communicate with each other.
\item \label{A_3} The evader has higher velocity than that of intruder.
\item \label{A_4} Intruders are not attacking at the same time.
\item \label{A_5} All intruders and evaders are operating at the same height.
\end{enumerate}
The assumption \hyperref[A_4]{A4} is very critical because evader will be helpless when a large number of the intruders approach at different locations at the same time instant.
Intruder $I_j$ will try to enter the airspace with a velocity of $v_j$, directed towards the centre.
Evader has to neutralize the intruder $I_j$ at location $\alpha_j^{s}$ from where intruder tries to enter.
A task ${\bf{\alpha}}_j(\alpha_j^s , \alpha_j^t) $ is a
spatio-temporal task defined such that, evader should reach a location $\alpha_j^s$ at a specific time $\alpha_j^t$.
\subsection{Spatio-temporal task} \label{sec:STT}
A task ${\bf{\alpha}}_j$ is generated by each intruder $I_j$. The tasks ${\bf{\alpha}}_j$ consists of two dimensions namely, spatial and temporal. The spatial dimension is to reach a location $\alpha_j^s$ and temporal dimension is to complete the task at time $\alpha_j^t$.
Each task has to be executed at a specific location at a specific time. Hence task is at a distinct point on the graph with two dimensions: space and time.
For clarity, spatial location is converted to angular position on region of engagement.
Figure \ref{fig:Spatio-temp} shows a typical spatio-temporal tasks identified at a time t.
In general, spatio-temporal tasks have n-dimension of spatial location and one temporal dimension.
\begin{figure}[ hbt!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Images/Image_ST.eps}
\caption{Typical spatio-temporal tasks identified at a time instant }
\label{fig:Spatio-temp}
\end{figure}
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma_1}
If the number of the intruder tries to enter territory at the same time with no radial separation, is more than the number of the evaders then solution is infeasible.
\end{lemma}
Consider $N_i$ number of intruders are trying to intrude at time $t$. In spatio-temporal task, it is required to execute $N_i$ tasks at a time $t$. As the intruder are not radially separated, they will reach RoE at different location at same time instant. The number of locations to be reached at time $t$ are more than the number of evaders available; Hence, all intruders can not be neutralized. The solution for these cases is infeasible.
\subsection{Multi-UAV Spatio-Temporal Multi-Task Allocation } \label{sec:MUST}
Each intruder $j$ generates a spatio-temporal task $\alpha_j$ and evaders have to execute all tasks cooperatively. As intruders are more than evaders, evader has to do multiple tasks. The tasks are assigned to evaders by solving a MUST-MTA problem. Here, intruders are modelled as tasks and evaders are the agents who execute the task. In the rest of the paper, agents are denoted by $i,k$ and task is denoted by $j$.
Multi-task allocation is a decision making whether a task is assigned to an agent or not. Also, if tasks are sequential, then MTA solves for the sequence in which tasks to be done. The Loss function is used to quantify the task, depending upon that tasks are assigned to agents. The spatio-temporal task has both spatial and temporal loss function.
Composite loss function has been designed by uniting spatial and temporal loss functions.
\subsubsection{Spatial component \texorpdfstring{$L_{ij}^s({\bf p}_i)$ }{TEXT}}
It is the component defined for agent $i$, to execute spatial task $\alpha_j^s$ on path ${\bf p}_i$ .
\begin{equation} \label{eq:L_s}
L_{ij}^s ( {\bf p}_i ) = {\|( \alpha_j^s - E_i^p({\bf p}_i ) ) \|}_2 + \eta {\|( \alpha_j^s - I_j ) \|}_2
\end{equation}
where, $\alpha_j^s$ is spacial requirement of task $j$, $E_i^p({\bf p}_i)$ is the location of previous task on path ${\bf p}_i$. For first task on path $E_i^p = E_i $, the location of agent $i$, $\eta \in (0 ,1)$ is scaling factor.
The first term in Eq.\eqref{eq:L_s} is the effective distance travelled for reaching the spatial location along path $ {\bf p}_i $. The second term in Eq.\eqref{eq:L_s} is distance of intruder from neutralising point; this value is constant for each task independent of agent.
The effective distance travelled by an agent on path $\{A,B,C\}$ is computed sequentially. Effective distance for reaching $B$ is distance between $AB$. The effective distance to reach $C$ along path $\{A,B,C\}$ is the distance between $BC$ as the distance $AB$ is already considered for reaching $B$.
\subsubsection{ Temporal component \texorpdfstring{$L_{ij}^t$}{TEXT} } \hfill
Firstly we compute, time at which intruder $j$ enters RoE, reffered as time of intrusion ($alpha_j^t$),
\begin{align}
\alpha_j^t &= \frac{ {\|( I_j - \alpha_j^s ) \|}_2 }{v_j}
\end{align}
The temporal component $ L_{ij}^t({\bf p}_i)$ is defined for agent $i$, to execute task $j$ at time $\alpha_j^t$ along path ${\bf p}_i$, $I_j$ is locatopn of intruder $j$
\begin{equation} \label{eq:L_t}
L_{ij}^t ( {\bf p}_i) = \begin{cases} ( 1 + \alpha_j^t) \left(\alpha_j^t - \alpha_{j^p}^t({\bf p}_i )\right) &\text{if $j$ is feasible on ${\bf p}_i$ } \\
\infty & \text{if $j$ is infeasible }
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_{j^p}^t({\bf p}_i )$ is the time of arrival of previous task on path ${\bf p}_i$; $\alpha_{j^p}^t = 0$ for first task on path.
The task $j$ is feasible on path ${\bf p}_i$ if task is executed with positive time step, and spatially feasible.
The positive time step is mathematically represented as
$\left( \alpha_j^t - \alpha_{j^p}^t({\bf p}_i )\right) > 0 $.
The spacial feasibility means distance between evader and the spatial task, is reachable with in the temporal requirement of task; mathematically written as, $$\frac{ {\|( \alpha_j^s - E_i^p({\bf p}_i ) ) \|}_2 }{v_{max}^E} < \left( \alpha_j^t - \alpha_{j^p}^t({\bf p}_i )\right) $$.
\subsubsection{Composite loss function \texorpdfstring{$L_{ij} $ }{TEXT}}
The composite loss function is defined for a spatio-temporal task as,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:composite_f}
L_{ij}({\bf p}_i ) = f \left( L_{ij}^s({\bf p}_i ) ,L_{ij}^t({\bf p}_i ) \right)
\end{equation}
The function $f$ can be any nonlinear function; here $ f(x,y) = xy $ hence above Eq.\eqref{eq:composite_f} reduce to
\begin{equation} \label{eq:L}
L_{ij}({\bf p}_i ) = L_{ij}^s({\bf p}_i ) L_{ij}^t({\bf p}_i )
\end{equation}
Now, MTA is defined as an linear integer programming.
\subsubsection{Multi-task allocation problem}
The goal of the task allocation algorithm is to assign each of the $ N_t $ tasks to the available $N $ agents such that single task is assigned to only one agent. The cost associated with assigning a task $j$ to the agent $i$ is $c_{ij}$. $\delta_{ij}$ is decision variable for assigning agent $i$ to task $j$
The task assignment problem is defined as
\begin{subequations}
\addtocounter{equation}{-1}
\begin{align} \label{eq:Integer_prog}
\min_{\delta_{ij}} \quad & \sum_{i=1}^{N_a} \left(\sum_{j=1}^{N_t} c_{ij} \delta_{ij}\right) \\
{\rm such \ that} \qquad &\sum_{i=1}^{N_u} \delta_{ij} \le 1\qquad \forall j \in {\cal J} \label{eq:cost_cond_1} \\
& \delta_{ij} \in \{0,1\}\qquad \forall (i,j) \in {\cal I} \times {\cal J} \label{eq:cost_cond_2}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
the condition Eq.\eqref{eq:cost_cond_1} enforces that the task can be assigned to only one agent. Eq. \eqref{eq:cost_cond_2} is decision variable either agent $i$ is assigned to task $j$or not.
The objective is to find the sequence (path) assigned to individual evader such that overall goal is achieved, The is cost of over all goal given below:
\begin{align} \label{eq:cost}
c_{ij}[{\bf p}_i] &=
\begin{cases}
\min_ { n \le \vert {\bf p}_i\vert } L_i^{{\bf p}_i \oplus_n \{j\} } - L_i^{{\bf p}_i }& \text{if $ j \notin {\bf p}_i $ } \\
\infty & \text{if $ j \in {\bf p}_i $ }
\end{cases} \\[2pt]
{\rm where, } & \qquad
L_i^{{\bf p}_i } = \sum_j L_{ij}^{{\bf p}_i }
\end{align}
$ \vert . \vert$ is the cardinality of path, and $\oplus_n \{ j \} $ adds the $j$ after n$^{th}$ element. As the task $j$ is added at any location, the cost of the new task is the difference between new path cost and original path cost.
{\bf{Remark:}} The loss function computed in equations \eqref{eq:L_s}, \eqref{eq:L_t}, and \eqref{eq:L} considers the path, but their computation is based on only previous task listed in path, and not on the complete path ${\bf p}_i$. Hence, for the cost of the path is computed by summing loss function of all tasks in ${\bf p}_i$. The cost of the newly added task is the difference in path cost due to the new task.
\subsection{Modified Consensus-based bundled auction algorithm } \label{sec:CBBA}
\begin{algorithm} [t!]
\caption{modified CBBA for agent $i$ at iteration $q$ } \label{algo:auction}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State {\bf{procedure}} input $ {\bf b}_i(q-1) $, ${\bf p}_i(q-1) $, $ {\bf y}_i(q-1) $, $ {\bf z}_i(q-1)$
\State $ {\bf b}_i(q) = {\bf b}_i(q-1) $; \qquad $ {\bf p}_i(q) = {\bf p}_i(q-1) $
\State $ {\bf y}_i(q) = {\bf y}_i(q-1) $; \qquad $ {\bf z}_i(q) = {\bf z}_i(q-1) $
\State \text{conflict resolved} $= 0$ \;
\While {\text{conflict resolved} $= 0 $}
\% {\textit{Auction Algorithm} } \;
\State $c_{ij} = \min_ { n \le \vert {\bf p}_i\vert } L_i^{{\bf p}_i \oplus_n \{j\} } - L_i^{{\bf p}_i }, \ \ \forall j \in {\cal J } \backslash {\bf b}_i $ \;
\State $h_{ij} = {\mathbb I}(c_{ij} < y_{ij}), \qquad \forall j \in {\cal J } $ \;
\State $ J_i = argmin_j \ c_{ij} . h_{ij} $ \;
\State $ n_{i,J_i} = argmin_j \ L_i^{{\bf p}_i \oplus_n \{j\} } $ \;
\State ${\bf b}_i = {\bf b}_i \oplus_{end} {J_i} $ \;
\State ${\bf p}_i = {\bf p}_i \oplus_{n_{i,J_i}} {J_i} $ \;
\State ${ y}_{i,J_i}(q) = c_{i,J_i} $\;
\State ${ z}_{i,J_i} = i $ \;
\State \textbf{Call Consensus Algorithm }\;
\EndWhile \;
\end{algorithmic}
(Remark: minimization over all $\infty$ value is taken as $\infty$. All $\infty$ means that the task $j$ is infeasible along path ${\bf p}_i $)
\end{algorithm}
\begin{algorithm}[hbt!]
\caption{Consensus by agent $i$ at iteration $q$ } \label{algo:consensus}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State {\bf{procedure}} input $ {\bf b} ^k$, ${\bf p}^k$, $ {\bf y} ^k$, $ {\bf z} ^k$ (data received from agent $k$ via synchronized communication ) $i \ne k$ , $\ m \neq \{i,k \}$ \;
\If{ $z_{kj}^k = k \ \& \ z_{ij}^i = k $ }
\State Update
\EndIf
\If { $z_{kj}^k = k \ \& \ y_{kj} < y_{ij} $}
\State Update
\EndIf
\If{ $z_{kj}^k = i \ \& \ z_{ij}^i = k $ }
\State Reset
\EndIf
\If{ ${ z}_{kj}^k = m \ \& \ { z}_{ij}^i \neq m $ }
\If { ${ y}_{mj} ( = y_{kj}) < { y}_{ij} $}
\State Reset
\EndIf
\EndIf
\If { $ {\bf z}_i = {\bf z}_k \qquad \forall i,k \in {\cal I } $ }
\State \text{conflict resolved} $ = 1 $
\EndIf
\State Update : $ y_{ij} = y_{kj} , z_{ij} = z_{kj} $ \;
\State Reset : $ y_{ij} = \infty , z_{ij} = \emptyset $ \;
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
The CBBA \cite{Choi2009} is a distributed task allocation algorithm in which agents bids for a bundle of tasks which would be executed in a specific path. Path ${\bf p}_i$ is the sequence in which agent $i$ is assigned the task.
The composite for spatial temporal task $c_{ij}({\bf p}_i)$ is the cost associated with agent $i$ doing task $j$ in path ${\bf p}_i$. The formulated cost function is minimized in CBBA.
In CBBA, bids which win the task (smallest bidding value for task $j$) are denoted by ${{\bf y}_i }$, the wining agent's list is denoted by ${{\bf z}_i }$. $ {\bf p}_i $ is the path of performing tasks and $ {\bf b}_i $ bundle of tasks. The path $ {\bf p}_i $ gives the sequence in which tasks will be executed by agent $i$.
The Algorithm is initialized, as winning value of cost ${\bf y}_i = \infty $ and allocation $ {\bf z}_i = {\bf 0} $. The bundle and path are initialized as null, $ {\bf p}_i ={\bf b}_i = \emptyset $.
Agents bids independently in the auction irrespective of other agents, hence computation of bidding is distributed. The conflicts among the agents are resolved by consensus; which requires communication for exchanging information of bidding value, winning value, and path.
The algorithm \ref{algo:auction} presents the steps for auction. In which each agent bids for feasible targets independently. During this procedure, they also fix their path of execution of the task.
Each agent bids greedily for all feasible tasks; this bidding information is shared with all agents via synchronous communication. As bidding is performed independently, there may be conflicts between agents for the task. Consensus obtained for resolving these conflicts as given in algorithm \ref{algo:consensus}.
In consensus, a task is given to the lowest cost valued agent for that task, and this will be updated in the path, bundle, and winning agent vectors. If a new task is added to the path, the task is added at a location, where it minimizes the path cost. When a task is removed from the agent then the entire bundle needs to be removed. The removal of a task changes the path of that agent, as other tasks are selected based on the path which is no longer valid; the entire path needs to be cancelled.
\section{Simulation Results and Discussion} \label{sec:Simulation_results}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.25\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Images/result_T_1.eps}
\caption{} \ \
\label{fig:subfig1}
\end{subfigure
\begin{subfigure}{0.25\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Images/result_T_2.eps}
\caption{} \ \
\label{fig:subfig2}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{0.25\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Images/result_T_3.eps}
\caption{} \ \
\label{fig:subfig3}
\end{subfigure
\begin{subfigure}{0.25\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Images/result_T_4.eps}
\caption{} \ \
\label{fig:subfig4}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{2pt}
\begin{subfigure}{0.25\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Images/result_T_5.eps}
\caption{} \ \
\label{fig:subfig5}
\end{subfigure
\begin{subfigure}{0.25\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Images/result_T_6.eps}
\caption{} \ \
\label{fig:subfig6}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{0.25\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Images/result_T_7.eps}
\caption{} \ \
\label{fig:subfig7}
\end{subfigure
\begin{subfigure}{0.25\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Images/result_T_8.eps}
\caption{} \ \
\label{fig:subfig8}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{2pt}
\begin{subfigure}{0.25\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Images/result_T_9.eps}
\caption{} \ \
\label{fig:subfig9}
\end{subfigure
\begin{subfigure}{0.25\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Images/result_T_10.eps}
\caption{} \ \
\label{fig:subfig10}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{0.25\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Images/result_T_11.eps}
\caption{} \ \
\label{fig:subfig11}
\end{subfigure
\begin{subfigure}{0.25\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Images/result_T_12.eps}
\caption{} \ \
\label{fig:subfig12}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Snapshots of the intruder tasks allocated to the evaders, at different time instants
\textmd{The evaders $E_1,E_2,E_3$ are represented by colours blue, red, magenta respectively. }
\textmd{The intruders assigned to an evader are coloured with the colour of evader.}
\textmd{The path selected by evader is shown by symbols in sequence : *, $\diamond $, $ \square $, $\lhd$, $\rhd$, $\otimes$ }
}
\label{fig:result_1}
\end{figure*}
The simulations are performed for RAP problem. The restricted airspace is selected as a circle of radius of $ R = 100 $ m, The number of the evaders is $K = 3 $ and the number of the intruder is set $N_i = 6$. The evader will neutralise an intruder within neutralising distance $ (r)$ set to $20$ m. The velocity of all intruder is constant and selected as $v_I = 3$ m/s. The maximum velocity of all evaders is constrained by $ {v}_E^{max} = 4.5$ m/s. When intruder is neutralised, new intruder is added at random location, in the neighbouring region of territory. The motion of evader and invader are computed using kinematic equations. This simulation are conducted in MATLAB R2019b in windows 10 environment.
\subsection{Case study and discussion}
Fig. \ref{fig:Spatio-temp_result} shows the spatio-temporal tasks for test scenario discussed in Fig. \ref{fig:result_1}. Total 15 spatio-temporal are avilable during time interbval of $0-150$ sec The temporal tasks are well separated, and hence all tasks can be executed, and this has been shown in results. The temporal separation plays a critical role in the feasibility of the task. As tasks are temporally separated so all tasks are executed successfully and shown in \ref{fig:result_1}
\begin{figure}[ b!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{Images/Image_ST_result.eps}
\caption{Spatio-temporal tasks used for simulation case study}
\label{fig:Spatio-temp_result}
\end{figure}
Fig \ref{fig:result_1} shows the screenshots the task assignment computed for a test scenario of RAP problem. Total 15 intruders are neutralised in this case, in which intruders are added at random locations. The task allocation algorithm is solved at every sampling time instant. The path of agents are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:result_1}, at different time instants. Figure \ref{fig:subfig1} shows the initial position of intruder and the evaders. The intruders are allocated to all three agents, but one intruder is unassigned. One intruder is unassigned because that task is infeasible with the path chosen by agents. All agents move with the time that task may become feasible as observed in \ref{fig:subfig2}.
The agents $E_1$ and $E_3$ neutralise their respective first intruder; new intruders from the random location is approaching towards the terrain as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:subfig3}. Furthermore, agent $E_1$ and $E_3$ are assigned to one task each while, agent $E_2$ is assigned to four tasks. Since it is cooperative task different number of task by agents. In Fig. \ref{fig:subfig4}, it is observed that previous task allocation gets reallocated by the entry of a new intruder. The tasks of agent $E_2$ are allocated to agent $E_1$. Reallocation is because of two reasons; agent $E_2$ moves away from task due to newly added intruder; $E_2$ changes path, and the task becomes infeasible in a new path. Fig \ref{fig:subfig8} shows that task on the top right is unassigned, this is due to that fact that the task is feasible by agents $E_1$, but agent $E_1$ has another task which is less costly than that task. However, after a few time steps, task is taken by agent $E_3$ \ref{fig:subfig9}. This happens due to sub-optimality in CBBA \cite{Choi2009}.
Monte-Carlo simulation is performed by varying the radial distance between intruders. As velocity of the intruder is constant the radial distance provides a temporal separation between tasks. A randomized simulations with 200 epoch are carried for a different radial distance for a newly added intruder. For an epoch, maximum of 30 intruders are added. When an intruder penetrates the restricted airspace, RAP fails. Figure. \ref{fig:MC_result} shows the percentage of success rate with different minimum radial distances; as the intruders gets more radial separation the success percentage increases. For the low value of radial separation, the tasks become infeasible as explained in Lemma \ref{lemma_1}.
The number of the evaders are varied to study the minimum evaders required a given restricted airspace. It is expected that more number of the evaders can execute for less separation tasks The less number of evaders protecting restricted airspace requires more temporal separation between tasks.
\begin{figure}[ t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{Images/result_MC_02}
\caption{Monte-Carlo simulations by varying radial distance between intruders and varying number of evader}
\label{fig:MC_result}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion} \label{sec:Conclusion}
Restricted airspace protection (RAP) from UAV intruders using the cooperative multi-UAV system is addressed. The movement of intruder towards the restricted airspace leads to the spatio-temporal task (capturing the intruder) for the multi-UAV (evaders) system. RAP problem has been formulated as a multi-UAV spatio-temporal multi-task allocation (MUST-MTA) problem. This paper provides a multi-task allocation solution to a spatio-temporal task using modified consensus-based bundle algorithm. The cost function is modified via composite loss function, which unites spatial and temporal components. The simulation validates the efficacy of the proposed method. Simulated results show that the tasks can be executed if they have sufficient temporal separation. As the number of the evaders increases, the temporal separation requirement decreases gradually.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
With the rapid development of speech recognition and natural language processing, voice user interface (VUI) has become a fundamental use case for today's smart devices (e.g., smartphone, smartwatch, laptop, smart speaker, and smart appliance). However, voice interaction suffers from several limitations that severely hinder its usage in daily life. First, audible speech is not suitable in some scenarios, such as in a meeting or when someone is sleeping. Second, environmental noise, like traffic noise, industrial machinery noise, and speech from bystanders, can make speech recognition challenging or even impossible. Third, people are unlikely to use voice input in public areas due to its risk of privacy leakage.
Recent advances in silent speech recognition have opened up new possibilities to counterbalance the above limitations. Some methods are based on computer vision technology \cite{zhou2014review} to capture the visual features of lip movements. The adoption of deep learning substantially boosts the precision of vision-based speech recognition \cite{assael2016lipnet,chung2017lip}. However, these methods are highly sensitive to lighting conditions, which means they cannot work in dark environments. Some other works exploit a variety of face-worn sensors for speech sensing, such as EMG electrodes \cite{wand2016deep,wand2018domain,kapur2018alterego}, RFID tags \cite{wang2019rfid}, bone-conduction vibration sensors \cite{maruri2018v}. While a significant drawback of these works is that the skin-attached sensors are very invasive to users. Besides, the reattachment of the sensors may cause changes in the recorded signal, which will significantly degrade their performance \cite{wand2018domain}.
\begin{figure}{}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in]{lipreading2.pdf}
\caption{Sensing lip movements with acoustic signals generated by smart devices.}
\label{lipreading2}
\end{figure}
{}
Instead of the aforementioned approaches, another trend of works utilizes ultrasound. The use of high-frequency ultrasound (MHz level) has a long history in medical voice interface research \cite{Sonies1981}, aiming to provide an alternative to electrolarynx for some patients who have lost their voicebox. In recent research, most of the works use ultrasound to build real-time 2D tongue images \cite{denby2004,hueber2011,Hakoun2016}. However, the method using high-frequency ultrasound requires a special ultrasonic-imaging device that is not convenient for daily uses. Therefore, researchers also developed some applications based on low-frequency (LF) ultrasound. Inspired by gesture recognition \cite{gupta2012soundwave,ruan2016audiogest}, they employed LF ultrasound to detect lip movements \cite{zhang2017hearing,tan2017silenttalk,lu2019lip}, instead of creating tongue images. In these works, acoustic sensing systems for simple lip-reading mainly use the Doppler shift of the received signal. Nevertheless, due to limited frequency precision, the Doppler shift can only provide coarse-grained estimation\cite{wang2016device}, which is not suitable to capture subtle lip movements.
In this paper, we put forward a non-invasive silent speech interface, using LF ultrasound with some critical modifications. Our contributions focus on the followings:
(1). Propose an end-to-end silent speech interface for continuous recognition using acoustic signals, which is completely non-invasive and needs no extra hardware modification except existing smart devices.
(2). Leverage the phase information of the received signals, instead of Doppler shift, to obtain the fine-grained estimation of lip movements, and carefully design the signal preprocessing pipeline.
(3). Employ CNNs to extract representative features, and use the attention-based encoder-decoder network to enable end-to-end recognition as well as learn the underlying language model.
Our method can be deployed on existing smart devices, exploiting speaker and microphone for lip-reading. People don't need to wear any sensors, but only need to move the devices near their mouths. As Figure~\ref{lipreading2} depicts, when people speak to the devices, our system leverages the speaker to emit the inaudible signal and the microphone to listen to the signal reflected by moving lips. Then the system analyses the reflected signal to recognize speech.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\subfloat[The Doppler shift]{\includegraphics[width=2.3in]{doppler}}
\hspace{10pt}
\subfloat[Phase]{\includegraphics[width=2.1in]{pham}}
\hspace{10pt}
\subfloat[Phase delta]{\includegraphics[width=2.1in]{signal_diff}}
\caption{Different acoustic signals of a lip movement from 1.2s to 2.5s when speaking the word ``WiFi". (a) shows the STFT result of the Doppler shift, where we can hardly observe signals after 1.8s. (b) and (c) shows the phase and phase delta signals, respectively. We demonstrate two frequency channels with $k=0,6$. It is clear that the phase delta performs the best.}
\label{doppler_pham}
\end{figure*}
\section{Signal Measurement and Preprocessing}
\subsection{Limitations of Doppler Shift}
Most existing smart devices can emit and record sound waves with frequency up to 23 kHz, and researchers showed that sound waves higher than 17 kHz are usually inaudible to most people\cite{rodriguez2014extended}. Therefore, the speaker and microphone of the devices can act as an active sonar to sense surroundings. Many researchers used the Doppler shift calculated by STFT to estimate movements. However, the resolution of STFT is limited by the fundamental constraints of time-frequency analysis. Figure~\ref{doppler_pham}(a) shows the STFT results of a moving lip from 1.2s to 2.5s when speaking the word ``WiFi". The frequency of the emitted signal is 17.35 kHz. We remove the inference of the Line-of-Sight (LOS) signal by calculating the difference between two successive samples\cite{lu2019lip} in the frequency-domain. Since small frequency variations are buried in the wide frequency band around 17.35 kHz, we can hardly observe the Doppler shift signals after 1.8s.
\subsection{Phase Measurement}
To overcome the limitations of the Doppler shift, we leverage phase information of received signal to profile fine-grained lip movements. The wavelength of sound waves up to 17 kHz is less than 2 cm, meaning that a small movement of frequency will significantly change the phase of the received sound wave. Therefore, the signal phase is susceptible to subtle changes of propagation distance.
The phase signals can be calculated through the coherent detector, as Figure~\ref{lipreading2} depicts. Firstly, the inaudible signals reflected by moving lips are collected by the microphone of smartphone. Secondly, these signals are fed into low-pass filters (LPF) to get In-phase ($I$) component and Quadrature ($Q$) component respectively. Thirdly, these two components are combined together to get the phase features. Specificly, the speaker of smartphone emit the Continuous Wave (CW) signal of $Acos(2\pi ft)$, where $A$ is the amplitude, $t$ is the sampling index on time axis, and $f$ is the frequency of the sound, which is higher than 17 kHz. The sampling rate is 48 kHz. Without loss of generality, we assume there is only one propagation path $d_p(t)$, here $p$ denote propagation. And thus the received signal of reflection can be denoted as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
R_p &= A_p cos(2\pi f(t-d_p(t)/c) - \theta_p)
\\
&= A_p cos(2\pi ft-\phi_p),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $c$ is the speed of the sound, and $\theta_p$ is the phase shift brought by the hardware. $A_p$ and $\phi_p$ are amplitude and phase, respectively. The received signal will be multiplied by $cos(2\pi ft)$ :
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
R_p\times cos(2\pi ft) &= A_p cos(2\pi ft-\phi_p)\times cos(2\pi ft)
\\
&= \frac{A_p}{2} cos(4\pi ft-\phi_p) + \frac{A_p}{2} cos(\phi_p).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The first term in the equation has a high frequency of $2f$ and thus can be removed by a LPF. Then, we can get the $I$ component of the base-band signal as $I_p = \frac{A_p}{2} cos(\phi_p)$. To reduce computational complexity, the $I$ component will pass through a moving average filter with a window size of 200 and an overlap of 0.5. This makes the sampling rate decreased from 48 kHz to 480 Hz. Similarly, we can get the $Q$ component as $Q_p = \frac{A_p}{2} sin(\phi_p)$. Then, these two components are combined as the real and imaginary parts of a complex signal:
\begin{equation}
B_p=\frac{A_p}{2}e^{-j\phi_p}.
\label{base-band}
\end{equation}
We can easily get the phase signals $\phi_p(t)$ from Equation~\ref{base-band}. Figure~\ref{doppler_pham}(b) shows the phase profile obtained from the same sound record that produces the spectrogram in Figure~\ref{doppler_pham}(a). We can clearly observe patterns caused by lip movements. The profiles exhibit significant fluctuations from 1.2s to 2.5s.
\subsection{Signal Preprocessing}
\textbf{Multi-frequency acoustic signals.} Wireless signals with different frequencies will experience different multipath fading when propagating in the air \cite{tse2005fundamentals}. Therefore, we simultaneously transmit sound waves at multiple frequencies to mitigate frequency selective fading as well as enhance the capability to profile multipath environments. In particular, we generate signal $A\sum_k cos[2\pi (f+k\delta f)t]$, which is the superposition of multi-frequency sound waves. $k$ depicts the $k$th frequency channel, and $\delta f$ is the frequency interval between adjacent channels. In the receiver, we get the phase values for each frequency using the corresponding coherent detector. All the frequencies fall into the band of 17$\sim$23 kHz. Considering the signal energy for each frequency and limited bandwidth, we set the number of channels $k$ to 8 and $\delta f$ to 700 Hz.
\textbf{Multipath elimination.} The received signals are the mixtures of multipath signals. Besides dynamic signals caused by moving lips, there exist static signals including the LOS signal (i.e., the signal directly propagated from the speaker to microphone) and surrounding reflections (from face and body), which are usually much stronger than dynamic signals. Moreover, static signals may also change slowly with the movements of the face or body. Figure~\ref{doppler_pham}(b) shows that the phase still increases slowly after 2.5s (the end time of lip movements). Static signals are irrelevant or even harmful to lip-reading. To eliminate this extraneous information, we calculate the first order difference of phase between two consecutive samples at time $t-1$ and $t$, and denote it as \textit{phase delta}:
\begin{equation}
\Delta \phi_p(t) = \phi_p(t) - \phi_p(t-1).
\end{equation}
Figure~\ref{doppler_pham}(c) shows the phase delta signals of the same sound record. It can be observed that the phase delta signals are approximately zero in the absence of lip movements, which confirms that static signals are almost completely eliminated. In addition, signals with different frequencies fluctuate differently, which shows they experience multipath fading. We also follow the idea in \cite{Kumar2011} and calculate \textit{phase double-delta}, which stands for the second-order difference of phase signals:
\begin{equation}
\Delta \Delta \phi_p(t) = \Delta \phi_p(t) - \Delta \phi_p(t-1).
\end{equation}
All of these phase features can be candidates for our input, and we also try various combinations of these features in our experiments. The details are shown in Table~\ref{input}. Here, the operator $[\cdot,\cdot]$ in the last row represents concatenation operation.
\begin{table}[th]
\caption{different choices of phase features $x(t)$.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c}
\hline
feature name & phase features $x(t)$ \\
\hline
\hline
phase & $\phi_p(t)$ \\
\hline
phase delta & $\Delta \phi_p(t)$ \\
\hline
phase delta + double-delta & $[\Delta \phi_p(t), \Delta \Delta\phi_p(t))]$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{input}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\textbf{Data augmentation.} In addition, we try to implement data augmentation on the input features $x(t)$. Deep networks usually have a huge demand for the training data. However, it is hard for us to collect sufficient data for lip-reading in practice. In this paper, considering that people speak lip commands at different speeds, we borrow the time-warping technique used in speech recognition \cite{ko2015audio} to enrich training data. Specifically, given a phase signal $x(t)$, we expand or contract the raw signal in the time axis by a factor $\alpha$, thereby generating a new profile $x(\alpha t)$. The data augmentation mechanism can effectively avoid overfitting and improve the robustness against different speeds.
\section {End-to-end Lip-Reading}
Figure~\ref{overview} illustrates the overall architecture of our framework. The continuous signal stream is firstly segmented into a series of overlapping clips. We employ CNNs to extract features for each clip. As the phase features are temporal signals with different carrier frequencies, we apply convolutions over time and frequency to extract patterns. In particular, assuming there are $N$ clips in total, for the $n$th clip, the input data matrix is $x_{n}^{(T\times{D})}=[x(\tau),x(\tau+1),x(\tau+2),...,x(\tau+T-1)]$, where $D$ is the feature dimension, $\tau$ is the beginning time of this clip and $T$ is the time length in each clip. We input this data matrix into a 3-layer CNN. Pooling and batch normalization (BN) are applied to each layer. After the convolutional layers, fully-connected layers are employed to get the representation vector for this clip.
After feature extraction and processing, we exploit an attention-based encoder-decoder network to achieve end-to-end lip-reading. We break down the sequence learning task into two phases. In the encoding phase, the CNN outputs are projected into a latent space in the form of a fixed size vector, which is later used in the decoding phase to generate sentence labels.
\textbf{Encoder.} In the encoder phase, we implement a 3-layer CNN on $x_n$, and feed the results $f_n$ into a two-layer LSTM, noted as $LSTM_{enc}(\cdot)$, to model temporal changes and output the hidden state $o_n$:
\begin{equation}
f_n = CNN_{\times 3}(x_n),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
o_n = LSTM_{enc}(f_n,o_{n+1}).
\end{equation}
Note that the LSTM ingests the inputs in reverse time order, which can shorten long-term dependencies between the beginning of the signal stream and sentence labels, as shown in \cite{sutskever2014sequence}. We denote the final output matrix as $O=[o_N, o_{N-1}, ... ,o_1]$, in which the last column vector $o_1$ corresponds to the latent embedding of the input sequence, and pass it to the decoder.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in]{overview.pdf}
\caption{An overview of our end-to-end framework.}
\label{overview}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Decoder.} The decoder is also based on a two-layer LSTM, noted as $LSTM_{dec}(\cdot)$. Besides, we utilize the attention mechanism to force the model to learn to focus on specific parts of the input sequence when decoding \cite{bahdanau2014neural}. The key idea of the attention mechanism is to assign a weight $\alpha_u$ for each encoder output $o_n$ at step $u$ of the decoder and generate a context vector $c_u$:
\begin{equation}
\alpha_u = Attention(h_{u-1}, O),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
c_u = O \cdot \alpha_u.
\end{equation}
Then, the hidden state $h_u$ of the decoder at step $u$ can be updated as:
\begin{equation}
y_u, h_u = LSTM_{dec}(h_{u-1}, c_u, g_{u-1}),
\label{yu_cal}
\end{equation}
where $y_u$ is the predicted word label, and $g_{u-1}$ is the word embedding of $y_{u-1}$. The initial $h_0$ is the latent vector $o_1$, and $y_0$ is a special label $<BOS>$ indicating the start of a sentence. The decoder phase will end when predicting a label $<EOS>$, which indicates the end of the sequence.
In the training phase, the probability of label $y_u$ at step $u$ can be calculated based on Equation~\ref{yu_cal}. Thus given the signal stream X, the conditional probability of the target sentence $Y$ is:
\begin{equation}
p(Y|X) = \prod_{u} p(y_u).
\end{equation}
We minimize the corresponding cross-entropy loss to update all of the network parameters. In the decoder phase, given the posterior probability distributions of labels at each step, we employ the beam search algorithm to generate the final sequence.
\section{Implementation and Evaluation}
\label{sec:eval}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\subfloat[The WER across volunteers in domain-independent test]{\includegraphics[width=2.2in]{sentence_wer2}}
\hspace{5pt}
\subfloat[Top-10 WER in unseen sentence test]{\includegraphics[width=2.2in]{unseensentence}}
\hspace{5pt}
\subfloat[Comparison with CTC in different test settings]{\includegraphics[width=2.1in]{CTC2}}
\caption{Experimental results.}
\label{results}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Data Collection and Training}
We use one Samsung smartphone to collect lip sentence datasets. All the sentences are Standard Chinese. 10 volunteers are recruited in the data collection. Volunteers perform the experiments at 8 locations (i.e., a laboratory, a meeting room, and a bedroom). Each volunteer performs 5 sessions, and they repeat each sentence 5 times at each session. Different sessions are on different days to ensure data diversity. People can change the distance between the lip and the smartphone according to their habits. We carefully select 54 sentences which are frequently used in voice interfaces of smartphones, e.g., ``What's the weather like tomorrow'' and ``Take a picture on a wide angle'' . A total of 29 words are included in these sentences. In total, we collect 13500 samples. In the training phase, we perform data augmentation for each lip commands with 10 different scaling factor $\alpha$, meaning that the number of samples increases 10 times the original one. The range of $\alpha$ is 0.5$\sim$2.
\subsection{Impact of Signal Processing}
The signal processing pipeline plays a key role in the recognition task. In this paper, we leverage the phase information instead of the coarse-grained Doppler shift to capture lip movements. For all evaluations, we employ the word error rate (WER) as the criterion. Table~\ref{result of sp} lists the WER of different feature choices in the domain-independent test setting.
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{WER under different signal preprocessing mechanisms}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c}
\hline
Mechanisms & WER(\%) \\
\hline
\hline
Doppler shift & 29.4 \\
\hline
phase & 32.1 \\
\hline
phase delta & 15.6 \\
\hline
phase delta + double-delta & 11.2 \\
\hline
\textbf{phase delta + double-delta + augmentation} & \textbf{8.4} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{result of sp}
\end{center}
\end{table}
In particular, \textit{Doppler shift, phase, phase delta,} and \textit{phase delta + double-delta} are four types of input features calculated under multiple frequencies. In our experiments, \textit{phase delta + double-delta} gets the lowest WER, outperforming any other features. By the way, we also test \textit{phase delta + double-delta} with only one frequency, but the result (WER 38.2\%) is much worse than using 8 frequency channels. Therefore, the multi-frequency mechanism improves the accuracy by a large margin. Then, we implement data augmentation on \textit{phase delta + double-delta + augmentation} and get the best result in our experiments. We can clearly see that each component in our pipeline boosts the recognition performance to some extent.
\subsection{Evaluation and Performance}
\label{eval_perf}
We evaluate our method by three evaluation strategies:
\textbf{Domain-dependent test:} Domains in this paper refer to users and environments, both of which have an impact on the phase profiles. Domain-dependent means we ignore the impact of different domains, and randomly divide all the data into training, validation, and testing sets. In the domain-dependent test, we randomly select 70\% of the dataset as training data, 10\% as validation data and 20\% as testing data. The WER of testing data here is \textbf{2.6\%}.
\textbf{Domain-independent test:} We perform leave-one-domain-out cross-validation to validate the capacity of our method to deal with domain diversity. The model hyperparameters are fixed in each test, which are tuned on the validation data of domain-dependent test. We make sure that the training data and the testing data are collected from different users and positions. For the domain-independent test, we present the WERs across volunteers in Figure~\ref{results}(a). From the figure, we get the WERs ranging from 3.5\% to 12.2\%, and the average is \textbf{8.4\%}. The results show that the fine-grained phase profiles as well as the deep learning networks are capable of capturing the key characteristics of these lip sentences, thus generalizing very well across different domains.
\textbf{Unseen sentences test:} We also evaluate the performance in translating unseen sentences (sentences not in the training set). As there is no public and large-scale dataset for acoustic-based lip-reading, the recognition ability for unseen sentences can eliminate the burden to collect all possible sentences. For the unseen sentences test, we perform leave-one-sentence-out validation. We list Top-10 WER in Figure~\ref{results}(b) to show the worst cases. The highest WER is 18.2\%, and the average for all 54 sentences is \textbf{8.1\%}. This is a very impressive result considering that the testing sentences are not included in the training set.
\subsection{Comparison with CTC}
In this paper, we follow the WAS network \cite{chung2017lip} to use the attention-based encoder-decoder framework for sequence modeling. Another popular method used in speech recognition and lip-reading is Connectionist Temporal Classification (CTC) \cite{graves2006connectionist,graves2014towards,assael2016lipnet}. The advantage of the attention model is that it explicitly uses the history of the target label, while CTC assumes the output labels are not conditioned on each other. We make a comparison with CTC by replacing the decoder network with CTC. Figure~\ref{results}(c) presents the result under three evaluation mechanisms. From the figure, we can see that the attention model outperforms CTC notably, especially in the domain-independent conditions. This is mainly due to the ability of the attention to learn internal language models, which is very helpful in the decoding phase.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we propose a non-invasive silent speech recognition method, which uses the inaudible acoustic signals generated by smart devices for lip-reading. We leverage the phase information of the received signals to characterize fine-grained lip movements. And we propose an end-to-end recognition framework which combines the CNN and attention-based encoder-decoder network. We show that the combination of phase delta and double-delta features can get high accuracy on continuous silent speech recognition based on the dataset we collect. The WER under domain-dependent, domain-independent, and unseen sentence tests are 2.6\%, 8.4\%, and 8.1\%, respectively, demonstrating the feasibility and effectiveness of our method. As our method can be seamlessly applied to existing voice-controlled smart devices without any modifications, we believe it can significantly contribute to the advancement of silent voice recognition. Future works include exploring various sequence learning architectures like CTC-attention joint model. We are also interested to combine traditional acoustic signals and the silent signals in speech recognition and voice activity detection tasks.
\section{Acknowledgement}
This paper is supported by National Key Research and Development Program of China under Grant No.2017YFB1401202, No.2018YFB0204400 and No.2018YFB1003500.
\clearpage
\bibliographystyle{IEEEbib}
|
\section{Introduction} \label{Sec:1}
The study of equilibrium statistical mechanics of classical (i.e. nonquantum)
systems of particles interacting pairwisely by Coulomb potential is
of particular importance in condensed matter and soft matter physics.
In the real $3$-dimensional (3D) space of practical interest, the Coulomb
potential in vacuum of dielectric constant $\varepsilon=1$ has in Gauss
units the standard form $\phi({\bf r}) = 1/r$ with $r$ being
the modulus of ${\bf r}$.
The definition of the Coulomb potential can be extended to any dimension
$\nu=1,2,\ldots$ as the solution of the Poisson equation
\begin{equation} \label{PE}
\Delta \phi({\bf r}) = - s_{\nu} \delta({\bf r}) ,
\end{equation}
where $s_{\nu}=2\pi^{\nu/2}/\Gamma(\nu/2)$ ($\Gamma$ being the Gamma
function) is the surface area of the $\nu$-dimensional unit sphere.
In an infinite space, the solution of (\ref{PE}), subject to the boundary
condition $\nabla \phi({\bf r}) \to 0$ as $r\to\infty$, reads as
$r$ in 1D, $-\ln(r/L)$ ($L$ is a free length scale) in 2D and
$r^{2-\nu}/(\nu-2)$ in spatial dimensions $\nu\ge 3$.
The Fourier component of the Coulomb potential exhibits the singular $1/k^2$
behavior in any dimension; this maintains many generic properties of
3D Coulomb systems like screening \cite{Martin88}.
In one-component Coulomb models, the system of mobile (pointlike) particles of
the same (say elementary) charge $-e$ is neutralized by a fixed ``background''
charge density.
The most known system of this kind is the jellium model of real materials
in which the homogeneous background charge density of heavy nucleus ions
is spread over the whole space of the domain mobile electrons are confined
to \cite{Baus80}.
Since due to the electroneutrality requirement the particle number is
proportional to the domain's volume, the system is ``dense'' and therefore
exhibits good screening properties in thermal equilibrium, i.e., the particle
correlation functions exhibit a short-range, usually exponential, decay
at asymptotically large distances.
The 1D jellium model, treated by using a transfer matrix method
\cite{Lenard61} and a generating function method \cite{Edwards62},
is exactly solvable for any temperature and particle density.
The system exhibits the translational symmetry breaking of the particle
number density which oscillates periodically in the thermodynamic limit
\cite{Baxter63,Kunz74}.
Boundary effects are important in 1D \cite{Dean98}.
In 2D characterized by the logarithmic Coulomb potential, the relevant
coupling constant is $\Gamma\equiv\beta e^2/\varepsilon$ where $\beta$
is the inverse temperature and $\varepsilon$ is the dielectric constant of
the medium the particles are immersed in.
These systems are especially important because they are exactly solvable,
besides the mean-field $\Gamma\to 0$ limit, also at a special finite
temperature.
The exact solution of the 2D jellium model at the ``free-fermion'' coupling
$\Gamma=2$ involves the bulk case \cite{Alastuey81,Jancovici81} as well
as semi-infinite and fully finite geometries, see reviews
\cite{Forrester98,Jancovici92}.
A series of works was devoted to the study of thermal equilibrium
of 2D one-component Coulomb systems for a series of couplings
$\Gamma=2\gamma$ where $\gamma=1,2,3,\ldots$ is a (positive) integer.
There are two basic approaches how to express integer powers of
the Vandermonde determinants.
The method using a mapping of the 2D Coulomb system onto a 1D lattice
anticommuting-field theory was initiated in \cite{Samaj95} and subsequently
used in a series of works
\cite{Samaj00,Samaj04a,Samaj04b,Samaj15,Samaj16b,Samaj17}
dealing with sum rules, finite-size corrections, asymptotic decay of
two-body correlations along domain's boundaries, etc.
Another method using Jack polynomials was developed in \cite{Tellez99,Tellez12}.
The relation between the two methods was established in \cite{Grimaldo15}.
In this paper, another version of the one-component Coulomb systems is
studied, with the background charge density spread over the boundary
of the constraining domain.
Due to the electroneutrality, the number of mobile charges is proportional
to the domain's boundary and the screening properties of the ``sparse''
system are not good.
This kind of models describes biological experiments with macromolecules
(colloids, polyelectrolytes) which are performed in polar solvents
like water.
Through the dissociation of functional surface groups, the surface of
macromolecule releases micro-ions into the polar solvent, acquiring in
this way a fixed surface charge density \cite{Andelman06,Levin02}.
Since the charge of micro-ions is opposite to that of the surface charge
density, they are coined as ``counterions''.
In thermal equilibrium, the charged surface of the macromolecule and
the surrounding counterions form a neutral entity known as
the electric double layer \cite{Attard88,Attard96,Gulbrand84,Messina09}.
The effective interaction between two like-charged walls, mediated by
counterions, is of primary experimental and theoretical interest
\cite{Hansen00}.
At small enough temperatures, a counter-intuitive attraction of like-charged
macromolecules was observed experimentally
\cite{Bloomfield91,Dubois98,Kekicheff93,Khan85,Kjellander88,Rau92}
as well as by computer simulations
\cite{Bratko86,Gronbech97,Gulbrand84,Kjellander84};
for more recent numerical and analytical advances in this field, see
reviews \cite{Boroudjerdi05,Levin02,Naji13}.
For large macromolecules with the surface charge of order of thousands
elementary charges, the curved surface can be replaced by an infinite
rectilinear wall.
Thermal equilibrium of charged surfaces with counterions only is usually
considered in the canonical ensemble at the inverse temperature
$\beta=1/(k_{\rm B}T)$.
Two basic geometries are studied.
In the case of one wall with counterions constrained to the semi-infinite
(half) space, the particle density profile is of interest.
The particle density at the wall is related to the wall's surface
charge density via the contact-value theorem
\cite{Blum81,Carnie81,Choquard80,Henderson78,Henderson79}.
To obtain the effective interaction of two parallel walls at distance $d$,
one calculates the pressure, either from the derivative of the free energy
with respect to $d$ or from contact densities.
Since the background charge is confined to the surfaces of the walls,
it stays inside the system when changing infinitesimally $d$ and so,
in contrast to one-component jellium systems \cite{Choquard80}, there is
no ambiguity in the definition of the pressure.
From a theoretical point of view, models of charged wall surfaces with
counterions only are probably the simplest ones to study the equilibrium
properties of Coulomb fluids.
The weak-coupling (high-temperature, WC) limit is described by the mean-field
Poisson-Boltzmann (PB) approach \cite{Andelman06} and by its systematic
improvement within the field-theoretical formulation via the loop expansion
\cite{Attard88,Netz00,Podgornik90}.
In a single pure solvent, two symmetrically charged walls always repel one
another in the WC limit; this is no longer true for a mixture of polar
solvents when the medium becomes inhomogeneous due to solvation-related
forces \cite{Ben11,Samin11}.
The strong-coupling (low-temperature, SC) limit of the fluid regime
is more controversial.
Within the virial SC theory put forward by Moreira and Netz
\cite{Moreira00,Moreira01,Moreira02,Netz01},
the leading SC term of the counterion density corresponds to a single
(noninteracting) particle theory in the electric potential of charged wall(s)
which has been confirmed by Monte Carlo (MC) simulations
\cite{Dean09,Kanduc07,Kanduc08,Moreira00,Moreira01,Moreira02,Naji05}.
Next correction orders in inverse powers of the coupling constant, obtained
within a virial fugacity expansion, require a renormalization
of infrared divergencies via the electroneutrality condition.
Comparison with MC simulations shows that the first correction term
has the correct functional form in space, but the wrong prefactor.
A dressed-ion version of the virial SC theory was applied to realistic
Coulomb fluids in the presence of salt \cite{Kanduc10,Kanduc11,Kanduc12};
such an approach has been tested against simulations therein and against
experiments in \cite{Kanduc17}.
Another type of SC approaches is based on the formation of the classical
Wigner crystal of counterions on the wall surfaces at zero temperature
\cite{Grosberg02,Levin99,Shklovskii99}.
Based on a harmonic expansion of the interaction energy in particle deviations
from their ground-state Wigner positions \cite{Samaj11a,Samaj11b}, the
leading single-particle picture of the virial SC approach was reproduced.
The first correction term to the counterion density is in excellent agreement
with MC data for strong and intermediate Coulombic couplings.
Although the first correction term is small relative to the leading one
for small distances between the parallel walls, its precise form is important
when calculating the pressure between the charged walls via the contact-value
theorem at larger distances and specifying regions of the couplings
and of the walls distances where the pressure is attractive.
The crucial problem with the Wigner SC approach is that Wigner crystals become
unstable at extremely large values of the coupling constant; the melting of
the single-layer and double-layer Wigner structures to their
fluid phases is described in references \cite{Strandburg88} and
\cite{Goldoni96,Schweigert99}, respectively.
In spite of this taking the Wigner lattice as a reference provides an adequate
description of the fluid phase up to intermediate couplings.
The strong Coulomb repulsion of identical charges causes that their pair
correlation function almost vanishes at small distances.
The idea of a correlation hole was applied successfully in various ways
to go beyond the PB theory
\cite{Bakhshandeh11,Barbosa00,Forsman04,Nordholm84,Rouzina96}.
To adapt the quantitatively correct Wigner SC approach to the fluid phase,
the Wigner structure was substituted by a correlation hole in
\cite{Samaj16a}.
In the case of one wall with counterions only, another correlation-hole theory
of the self-consistent nature \cite{Palaia18} leads to a modified
PB integral equation which implies the exact density profiles in
both WC and SC limits.
In contrast to similar attempts to establish a universal theory
working well for any coupling \cite{Burak04,Santangelo06},
the density profile satisfies the contact-value theorem and provides
a crossover from a short-distance exponential to a large-distance
algebraic PB decay from the charged wall via a large density plateau.
The WC and SC analyses were done explicitly on the exactly solvable 1D gas
of counterions \cite{Dean09}.
As concerns the 2D problem of one line-charged wall with counterions only,
the density profile at $\Gamma=2$ was derived by Jancovici \cite{Jancovici84}.
The pressure for two parallel walls at distance $d$ was obtained
in the symmetric and nonsymmetric cases in references \cite{Samaj11c}
and \cite{Samaj14}, respectively.
In the case of like-charged walls, the pressure is always positive and
decays monotonously from infinity at $d\to 0$ to $0$ as $d\to\infty$.
Another type of exact results concerns the Manning condensation of counterions
at the charged surface of the 3D cylinder \cite{Burak06,Naji06}.
In equilibrium statistical mechanics of fluid systems it is generally
believed that, except for phase transitions, a few particles are able to
reproduce adequately statistical quantities of large systems \cite{Ma}.
The primary motivation for the present work is the absence of exact results
for 2D one-component models with the coupling constants $\Gamma>2$ where one
expects the counterintuitive phenomenon of the attraction between
like-charged walls.
We consider the cylinder of circumference $W$ and finite length $d$ with
the charged circle ends, the counterions are allowed to move freely on the
cylinder surface; such a model is well defined also for finite numbers of
particles $N$.
As is shown in this paper for the exactly solvable free-fermion coupling
$\Gamma=2$, the results for the pressure as the function of $d$ for $N=8$
particles turn out to be very close to those for $N\to\infty$ particles.
This fact justifies the exact treatment of the couplings $\Gamma=4$ and $6$
up to $N=8$ particles by using the anticommuting-field formalism
\cite{Samaj95} which can be done with modest computational efforts.
It turns out that the attraction phenomenon of like-charged walls
is observed for these relatively small couplings.
As a by-product of the anticommuting-field formalism, we derive within
the cylinder geometry the exact constraints (sum rules) for the particle
one-body and two-body densities which have direct impact on characteristics
of the long-range decay of two-body densities along the two walls in
the pure 2D limit $W\to\infty$.
The paper is organized as follows.
In Sect. \ref{Sec:2}, we review the general formalism for Coulomb systems
confined to the surface of a cylinder and their mapping onto the 1D lattice
model of interacting anticommuting fields for the coupling constant
$\Gamma=2\gamma$ with $\gamma$ a positive integer.
The exact cylinder sum rules for the particle one-body and two-body
densities are derived in Sect. \ref{Sec:3}.
The impact of these sum rules on the long-range decay of 2D two-body
densities along the two walls is explained in Sect. \ref{Sec:4}.
Sect. \ref{Sec:5} deals with the exactly solvable $\Gamma=2$ case.
The coupling constants $\Gamma=4$ and $6$ are treated for
a finite number of particles in Sect. \ref{Sec:6}.
The concluding Sect. \ref{Sec:7} is a short recapitulation.
\renewcommand{\theequation}{2.\arabic{equation}}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\section{General formalism for cylinder geometry} \label{Sec:2}
\subsection{Cylinder geometry} \label{Sec:21}
We consider the system of $N$ mobile pointlike particles with
the elementary charge $-e$, confined to the surface of a cylinder of
circumference $W$ and length $d$.
The surface of the cylinder can be represented equivalently as a 2D
semiperiodic rectangle domain $\Lambda$ of points ${\bf r}=(x,y)$ with
coordinates $x\in [0,d]$ (no restricting conditions at the end-points $x=0,d$)
and $y\in [0,W]$ (periodic boundary conditions at $y=0,W$),
see Fig. \ref{Fig:1}.
It is useful to introduce the complex coordinates $z=x+{\rm i}y$ and
$\bar{z}=x-{\rm i}y$.
There are the fixed uniform line charge densities $\sigma e$ and $\sigma' e$
($\sigma,\sigma'$ having dimension [length]$^{-1}$) along the $y$-axis at
the end-points $x=0$ and $x=d$, respectively.
We restrict ourselves to the like-charged line segments (circles),
i.e., without any loss of generality, $0\le\sigma'\le\sigma$.
Introducing the asymmetry parameter
\begin{equation}
\eta \equiv \frac{\sigma'}{\sigma} , \qquad \eta\in [0,1] ,
\end{equation}
the symmetric case $\sigma=\sigma'$ corresponds to $\eta=1$.
The overall electroneutrality condition is expressed as
\begin{equation}
N = (\sigma+\sigma') W .
\end{equation}
The thermodynamic limit corresponds to the limits $N,W\to\infty$,
keeping the ratio $N/W=\sigma+\sigma'$ fixed.
The system possesses the obvious exchange symmetry
$\sigma\leftrightarrow\sigma'$ under the coordinate transformation $x\to d-x$.
The dielectric constants of the walls $\varepsilon_W$ and of the medium
the particles are immersed in $\varepsilon$ are considered to be the same,
$\varepsilon_W=\varepsilon$, i.e., there are no image charges.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth,clip]{Fig1.eps}
\caption{The cylinder geometry with the periodic boundary conditions
(period $W$) along the $y$-axis.
Two parallel lines (circles) with the fixed charge densities $\sigma e$
and $\sigma' e$ are localized at the end points $x=0$ and $x=d$, respectively.
Pointlike counterions of charge $-e$ are allowed to move freely between
the two charged lines.}
\label{Fig:1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The Coulomb potential $\phi$ at a spatial position ${\bf r}\in\Lambda$, induced
by a unit charge at the origin ${\bf 0}$, is defined as the solution of
the 2D Poisson equation
$\Delta \phi({\bf r}) = -2\pi\delta({\bf r})/\varepsilon$, under
the periodicity requirement along the $y$-axis with period $W$.
Considering the potential as a Fourier series in $y$, it is obtained in
the form \cite{Choquard81}
\begin{equation} \label{periodicCoulomb}
\phi({\bf r}) = \frac{1}{\varepsilon W} \sum_{k_y} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
{\rm d}k_x \frac{1}{k_x^2+k_y^2} {\rm e}^{{\rm i}(k_x x + k_y y)} ,
\qquad k_y\in \frac{2\pi n}{W}
\end{equation}
with $n=0,\pm 1,\ldots$ being any integer.
It is seen that also in the mixed discrete-continuous Fourier representation
of the Coulomb potential has the characteristic $1/k^2$ form.
After integration over $k_x$ and summation over $k_y$, the periodic
Coulomb potential (\ref{periodicCoulomb}) takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi({\bf r}) & = & - \frac{1}{\varepsilon}
\ln \left\vert 2 \sinh\left( \frac{\pi z}{W} \right)
\right\vert \nonumber \\ & = & - \frac{1}{2\varepsilon}
\ln \left[ 2 \cosh\left( \frac{2\pi x}{W} \right) -
2 \cos\left( \frac{2\pi y}{W} \right) \right] .
\end{eqnarray}
For small distances $r\ll W$, this potential reduces to the 2D
Coulomb one $-(1/\varepsilon)\ln(2\pi r/W)$.
At large distances along the cylinder $x\gg W$, this potential behaves like
the 1D Coulomb one $-\pi \vert x\vert/(\varepsilon W)$.
For the calculation of the Coulomb interaction between charge line densities
and particles, the following formula is important:
\begin{equation} \label{formula1}
\int_0^W {\rm d} y\, \phi({\bf r}) = - \frac{\pi}{\varepsilon} x .
\end{equation}
According to the analysis made in \cite{Samaj14}, the Coulomb energy of
$N$ particles at spatial positions $\{ {\bf r}_1, \cdots, {\bf r}_N \}$ plus
the fixed line charge densities $\sigma e$ and $\sigma' e$ consists of
the self and mutual interactions of the line charge densities
$E_{ll}=-\pi\sigma\sigma' W d e^2/\varepsilon$, of the interaction of
particles with line charge densities
$E_{pl} = \sum_{j=1}^N \pi(\sigma-\sigma') x_j e^2/\varepsilon +
N\pi\sigma' d e^2/\varepsilon$ and the pair interactions of the particles
$E_{pp} = \sum_{(j<k)=1}^N e^2 \phi(\vert {\bf r}_j-{\bf r}_k\vert)$.
At inverse temperature $\beta=1/(k_{\rm B}T)$, the Boltzmann factor of
the total energy $E_N=E_{ll}+E_{pl}+E_{pp}$ reads as
\begin{equation}
{\rm e}^{-\beta E_N(\{{\bf r}\})} = {\rm e}^{-\pi\Gamma(\sigma')^2 W d}
\prod_{j=1}^N {\rm e}^{-\beta v(x_j)}
\prod_{(j<k)=1}^N \left\vert 2 \sinh\frac{\pi(z_j-z_k)}{W} \right\vert^{\Gamma} ,
\end{equation}
where $v(x)$ is the one-body potential energy given by
\begin{equation} \label{vx}
\beta v(x) = \pi\Gamma (\sigma-\sigma') x
\end{equation}
and $\Gamma=\beta e^2/\varepsilon$ is the coupling constant.
Within the canonical ensemble, the partition function is defined as
\begin{equation} \label{partition}
Z_N(\gamma) = \frac{1}{N!} \int_{\Lambda} \frac{{\rm d}{\bf r}_1}{\lambda^2}
\cdots \int_{\Lambda} \frac{{\rm d}{\bf r}_N}{\lambda^2}
{\rm e}^{-\beta E_N(\{{\bf r}\})} ,
\end{equation}
where $\lambda$ is the thermal de Broglie wavelength.
There exist two possible representations of the partition function.
Firstly, applying the formula
\begin{equation} \label{formula2}
\left\vert 2 \sinh \frac{\pi (z-z')}{W} \right\vert
= {\rm e}^{\frac{\pi}{W}(x+x')} \left\vert
{\rm e}^{-\frac{2\pi}{W}z} - {\rm e}^{-\frac{2\pi}{W}z'} \right\vert
\end{equation}
to each two-particle interaction Boltzmann factor the partition function
can be reexpressed as
\begin{equation} \label{partf}
Z_N(\gamma) = \left( \frac{W^2}{4\pi\lambda^2} \right)^N
\exp\left[ -\pi\Gamma(\sigma')^2 W d \right] Q_N(\gamma) ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation} \label{partgen}
Q_N(\gamma) = \frac{1}{N!} \int_{\Lambda} \prod_{j=1}^N \left[ {\rm d}^2 z_j\,
w_{\rm ren}({\bf r}_j) \right]
\prod_{j<k} \left\vert {\rm e}^{-\frac{2\pi}{W}z_j} - {\rm e}^{-\frac{2\pi}{W}z_k}
\right\vert^{\Gamma}
\end{equation}
with the renormalized one-body Boltzmann factor
$w_{\rm ren}({\bf r})\equiv w_{\rm ren}(x)$ given by
\begin{equation} \label{onebody}
w_{\rm ren}(x) = \frac{4\pi}{W^2} \exp\left[ -\beta v(x)
+ \frac{\pi\Gamma}{W} (N-1) x \right] .
\end{equation}
The second representation of the partition function follows from
another version of the formula (\ref{formula2}):
\begin{equation} \label{formula3}
\left\vert 2 \sinh \frac{\pi (z-z')}{W} \right\vert
= {\rm e}^{-\frac{\pi}{W}(x+x')} \left\vert
{\rm e}^{\frac{2\pi}{W}z} - {\rm e}^{\frac{2\pi}{W}z'} \right\vert
\end{equation}
Then the partition function is still given by (\ref{partf}) where
\begin{equation} \label{partgen2}
Q_N(\gamma) = \frac{1}{N!} \int_{\Lambda} \prod_{j=1}^N \left[ {\rm d}^2 z_j\,
w_{\rm ren}({\bf r}_j) \right]
\prod_{j<k} \left\vert {\rm e}^{\frac{2\pi}{W}z_j} - {\rm e}^{\frac{2\pi}{W}z_k}
\right\vert^{\Gamma}
\end{equation}
with the renormalized one-body Boltzmann factor
\begin{equation} \label{onebody2}
w_{\rm ren}(x) = \frac{4\pi}{W^2} \exp\left[ -\beta v(x)
- \frac{\pi\Gamma}{W} (N-1) x \right] .
\end{equation}
In what follows, we shall use mainly the first representation
(\ref{formula2})-(\ref{onebody}).
The free energy $F_N$, defined by $-\beta F_N = \ln Z_N$, is expressible
in both cases as
\begin{equation} \label{free}
-\beta F_N(\gamma) = N \ln \left( \frac{W^2}{4\pi\lambda^2} \right)
-\pi\Gamma(\sigma')^2 W d + \ln Q_N(\gamma) .
\end{equation}
The particle density at point ${\bf r}\in \Lambda$ is given by
\begin{equation}
n({\bf r}) = \left\langle \hat{n}({\bf r}) \right\rangle ,
\qquad \hat{n}({\bf r}) = \sum_{j=1}^N \delta({\bf r}-{\bf r}_j) ,
\end{equation}
where $\langle \cdots \rangle$ denotes the statistical average over
the canonical ensemble and $\hat{n}({\bf r})$ is the microscopic particle
number density.
The particle density can be obtained in the standard way as the functional
derivative
\begin{equation}
n({\bf r}) = w_{\rm ren}({\bf r}) \frac{1}{Q_N}
\frac{\delta Q_N}{\delta w_{\rm ren}({\bf r})} .
\end{equation}
Since the one-body potential (\ref{vx}) depends on the $x$-coordinate only
and due to the cylinder geometry, it holds that $n({\bf r})\equiv n(x)$.
The two-body density
\begin{equation}
n^{(2)}({\bf r},{\bf r'}) = \left\langle \sum_{(j\ne k)=1}^N
\delta({\bf r}-{\bf r}_j) \delta({\bf r}'-{\bf r}_k) \right\rangle
\end{equation}
can be calculated as
\begin{equation}
n^{(2)}({\bf r},{\bf r}') = w_{\rm ren}({\bf r}) w_{\rm ren}({\bf r}')
\frac{1}{Q_N} \frac{\delta^2 Q_N}{\delta w_{\rm ren}({\bf r})
\delta w_{\rm ren}({\bf r}')} .
\end{equation}
The corresponding (truncated) Ursell function $U$ and the density structure
function $S$ are defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
U({\bf r},{\bf r}') & = & n^{(2)}({\bf r},{\bf r'}) - n({\bf r}) n({\bf r}') ,
\label{Ursell} \\
S({\bf r},{\bf r}') & = & \left\langle \hat{n}({\bf r}) \hat{n}({\bf r}')
\right\rangle - n({\bf r}) n({\bf r}') = U({\bf r},{\bf r}')
+ n({\bf r}) \delta({\bf r}-{\bf r}') , \label{structure}
\end{eqnarray}
respectively.
Due to the cylinder geometry, the two-point functions $n^{(2)}$, $U$ and
$S$ depend on $x$, $x'$ and $\vert y-y'\vert$.
\subsection{Mapping onto the 1D lattice anticommuting-field theory}
\label{Sec:22}
For $\Gamma=2\gamma$ ($\gamma=1,2,3,\ldots$ a positive integer),
the technique of anticommuting variables \cite{Samaj95,Samaj04a} allows us to
express $Q_N$ (\ref{partgen}) as an integral over Grassman variables;
for the cylinder geometry the mapping is established in \cite{Samaj04b,Samaj14}.
Let us consider a discrete chain of $N$ sites $j=0,1,\ldots,N-1$.
At each site $j$, there is $\gamma$ variables of type $\{ \xi_j^{(\alpha)}\}$
and $\gamma$ variables of type $\{ \psi_j^{(\alpha)}\}$
$(\alpha=1,\ldots,\gamma)$, all variables anticommute with each other.
The multi-dimensional integral of the form (\ref{partgen}) can be expressed as
the integral over anticommuting variables:
\begin{equation} \label{antipart}
Q_N(\gamma) = \int {\cal D}\psi {\cal D}\xi\, {\rm e}^{S(\Xi,\Psi)} ,
\qquad S(\Xi,\Psi) = \sum_{j=0}^{\gamma(N-1)} \Xi_j w_j \Psi_j .
\end{equation}
Here, ${\cal D}\psi {\cal D}\xi \equiv \prod_{j=0}^{N-1} {\rm d}\psi_j^{(\gamma)}
\cdots {\rm d}\psi_j^{(1)} {\rm d}\xi_j^{(\gamma)} \cdots {\rm d}\xi_j^{(1)}$
and the action $S(\Xi,\Psi)$ involves pair interactions of composite
operators
\begin{equation} \label{composite}
\Xi_j = \sum_{j_1,\ldots,j_{\gamma}=0\atop (j_1+\cdots+j_{\gamma}=j)}^{N-1}
\xi_{j_1}^{(1)} \cdots \xi_{j_{\gamma}}^{(\gamma)} , \qquad
\Psi_j = \sum_{j_1,\ldots,j_{\gamma}=0\atop (j_1+\cdots+j_{\gamma}=j)}^{N-1}
\psi_{j_1}^{(1)} \cdots \psi_{j_{\gamma}}^{(\gamma)} ,
\end{equation}
i.e. the products of $\gamma$ anticommuting variables of one type with
the prescribed sum of site indices.
The interaction strengths $w_j$ $[j=0,1,\ldots,\gamma(N-1)]$ are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
w_j & = & W \int_0^d {\rm d} x\, w_{\rm ren}(x)
\exp\left( - \frac{4\pi}{W} j x \right) \nonumber \\
& = & \frac{1-\exp\left[ - \frac{4\pi d}{W}\left(j-\gamma W\sigma'
+\frac{\gamma}{2}\right)\right]}{j-\gamma W\sigma'+\frac{\gamma}{2}} .
\label{wj}
\end{eqnarray}
The main advantage of the present formalism is that
the one-body and two-body particle densities are expressible
explicitly in terms of averages over the anticommuting variables
\begin{equation}
\langle \cdots\rangle \equiv \frac{1}{Q_N(\gamma)}
\int {\cal D}\psi {\cal D}\xi\, {\rm e}^{S(\Xi,\Psi)} \cdots
\end{equation}
of certain products of composite operators.
Namely, the particle density at $x$ is given by
\begin{equation} \label{antione}
n(x) = w_{\rm ren}(x) \sum_{j=0}^{\gamma(N-1)} \langle \Xi_j \Psi_j \rangle
\exp\left( - \frac{4\pi}{W} j x \right) ,
\end{equation}
the two-body density between points ${\bf r}_1=(z_1,\bar{z}_1)$ and
${\bf r}_2=(z_2,\bar{z}_2)$ is expressible as
\begin{eqnarray}
n^{(2)}(z_1,\bar{z}_1;z_2,\bar{z}_2) & = & w_{\rm ren}(x_1) w_{\rm ren}(x_2)
\sum_{j_1,k_1,j_2,k_2=0\atop (j_1+j_2=k_1+k_2)}^{\gamma(N-1)}
\langle \Xi_{j_1} \Psi_{k_1} \Xi_{j_2} \Psi_{k_2} \rangle \nonumber \\
& & \times \exp\left[ - \frac{2\pi}{W}
\left( j_1 z_1 + k_1 \bar{z}_1 + j_2 z_2 + k_2 \bar{z}_2 \right) \right] .
\label{antitwo}
\end{eqnarray}
As a trivial application of the formalism, we derive the basic formula
of the contact-value theorem.
The pressure $P_N$ is the force between the charged circles, calculated
per unit length of one of the circles:
\begin{equation} \label{PNN}
\beta P_N = \frac{\partial}{\partial d} \left( \frac{-\beta F_N}{W} \right) .
\end{equation}
The two circles repel (attract) one another if the pressure is positive
(negative).
Using the formula (\ref{free}) for $F_N$, the anticommuting representation
(\ref{antipart}) of $Q_N$ and the relation
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial w_j}{\partial d} = W w_{\rm ren}(d)
\exp\left( - \frac{4\pi}{W} j d \right) ,
\end{equation}
we arrive at the relationships given by the contact-value theorem
\begin{equation} \label{PN}
\beta P_N = n(d) - 2\pi\gamma \left( \sigma'\right)^2 =
n(0) - 2\pi\gamma \sigma^2 ,
\end{equation}
where the second equality follows directly from the invariance of the pressure
with respect to the exchange symmetry $\sigma\leftrightarrow\sigma'$ under
the coordinate transformation $x\to d-x$.
Note that if $\sigma'=0$ it holds that $\beta P_N = n(d)$ and since the
particle density is a positive quantity the pressure cannot be negative.
We shall often use the notation
\begin{equation} \label{Ptilde}
\tilde{P} \equiv \frac{\beta P}{2\pi\gamma\sigma^2}
= \frac{n(0)}{2\pi\gamma\sigma^2} - 1
\end{equation}
for the dimensionless pressure.
Since the particle density $n(0)$ is positive, it holds that $\tilde{P}\ge -1$;
the value $\tilde{P}=-1$ corresponds to the strongest possible attraction
between the two charged walls.
\renewcommand{\theequation}{3.\arabic{equation}}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\section{Sum rules for the cylinder geometry} \label{Sec:3}
As was shown in \cite{Samaj00}, there exist specific linear
transformations of anticommuting variables which keep the composite form
of the composite operators (\ref{composite}).
Most of transformations consist in a simple rescaling of one or all
anticommuting components of a given $\xi$ or $\psi$ type, however,
there is one nontrivial transformation which mixes all anticommuting-field
components of a given type.
Each transformation leads to the exact constraints (sum rules) for the
correlation functions of the composite operators whose forms are universal in
the sense that they {\em do not depend} on the particular form of
the interaction strengths $\{ w_j \}_{j=0}^{\gamma(N-1)}$.
These sum rules can be used to derive integral/differential equations for
the one- and two-body densities whose forms {\em depend} on
the particular geometry of the Coulomb problem.
The one-body Boltzmann factor $w_{\rm ren}(x)$ will be considered in the
general form (\ref{onebody}) with $\beta v(x)$ given by (\ref{vx}) for
the present case of counterions in the potential of charged lines
with density $\sigma e$ at $x=0$ and $\sigma' e$ at $x=d$.
\subsection{Scaling transformations}
$\bullet$ Rescaling by a constant $\mu$ one of the anticommuting field
components, say
\begin{equation} \label{trans1}
\xi_j^{(1)} \to \mu \xi_j^{(1)} , \qquad j=0,1,\ldots,N-1 ,
\end{equation}
the composite operators $\Xi_j$ get the same factor $\mu$ and the action
in (\ref{antipart}) transforms itself as $S(\Xi,\Psi)\to \mu S(\Xi,\Psi)$.
The Jacobian of the transformation (\ref{trans1}) equals to $\mu^N$.
Under the transformation (\ref{trans1}), the quantity $Q_N$ (\ref{antipart})
takes the form
\begin{equation}
Q_N = \mu^{-N} \int {\cal D}\psi {\cal D}\xi
\exp\left( \mu \sum_{j=0}^{\gamma(N-1)} \Xi_j w_j \Psi_j \right) .
\end{equation}
Since $Q_N$ does not depend on $\mu$, it holds that
$\partial \ln Q_N/\partial\mu\vert_{\mu=1} = 0$ or, equivalently,
\begin{equation} \label{sr11}
\sum_{j=0}^{\gamma(N-1)} w_j \langle \Xi_j \Psi_j \rangle = N .
\end{equation}
Consequently,
\begin{equation} \label{ie11}
W \int_0^d {\rm d}x\, n(x) = N ,
\end{equation}
where we have substituted $n(x)$ from (\ref{antione}) and used the definition
of the interaction strength $w_j$ (\ref{wj}).
This equation provides the trivial information that there are $N$ particles
inside the cylinder domain $\Lambda$.
Applying the transformation (\ref{trans1}) to the quantity
$Q_N \langle\Xi_j\Psi_j\rangle$, one gets
\begin{equation}
Q_N \langle \Xi_j \Psi_j \rangle = \mu^{-N+1} \int {\cal D}\psi {\cal D}\xi
\Xi_j \Psi_j \exp\left( \mu \sum_{k=0}^{\gamma(N-1)} \Xi_k w_k \Psi_k \right) .
\end{equation}
The equality
$\partial (Q_N\langle\Xi_j\Psi_j\rangle)/\partial\mu\vert_{\mu=1} = 0$
implies that
\begin{equation} \label{sr12}
\sum_{k=0}^{\gamma(N-1)} w_k \langle \Xi_j \Psi_j \Xi_k \Psi_k \rangle
= (N-1) \langle \Xi_j \Psi_j \rangle .
\end{equation}
This sum rule can be transformed into an integral equation by considering
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_0^d {\rm d}x' \int_0^W {\rm d}y\, n^{(2)}(x,x';y) & = &
w_{\rm ren}(x) \sum_{j,k=0}^{\gamma(N-1)} w_k
\langle \Xi_j \Psi_j \Xi_k \Psi_k \rangle \nonumber \\ & & \times
\exp\left( -\frac{4\pi}{W} jx\right) \label{eq1} ,
\end{eqnarray}
where we have inserted the representation (\ref{antitwo}) of the two-body
density and applied the orthogonality relation
\begin{equation}
\int_0^W {\rm d}y\, \exp\left[ - \frac{2\pi}{W} {\rm i} (j-k) y \right]
= W \delta_{j,k} .
\end{equation}
Considering the sum rule (\ref{sr12}) for the sum over $k$ on the rhs of
(\ref{eq1}), the rhs becomes equal to $(N-1) n(x)$ and
\begin{equation} \label{Un}
\int_0^d {\rm d}x' \int_0^W {\rm d}y\, U(x,x';y) = (N-1) n(x) - N n(x)
= -n(x) .
\end{equation}
Consequently,
\begin{equation} \label{zerothmoment}
\int_0^d {\rm d}x' \int_0^W {\rm d}y\, S(x,x';y) = 0 .
\end{equation}
This relation represents a generalization of the zeroth-moment
Stillinger-Lovett condition \cite{Stillinger68a,Stillinger68b}
to the cylinder geometry.
$\bullet$ Let us rescale all anticommuting field $\xi$-components as follows
\begin{equation} \label{trans2}
\xi_j^{(\alpha)} \to \lambda^j \xi_j^{(\alpha)} , \qquad j=0,1,\ldots,N-1 ,
\qquad \alpha=1,\ldots,\gamma .
\end{equation}
The composite operators $\Xi_j$ acquire the factor $\lambda^j$
and the action in (\ref{antipart}) transforms itself as
$S(\Xi,\Psi)\to \sum_{j=0}^{\gamma(N-1)} \lambda^j \Xi_j w_j \Psi_j$.
The Jacobian of the transformation (\ref{trans2}) equals to
$\lambda^{\gamma N(N-1)/2}$.
Under the transformation (\ref{trans2}), the quantity $Q_N$ (\ref{antipart})
is rewritten as
\begin{equation}
Q_N = \lambda^{-\gamma N(N-1)/2} \int {\cal D}\psi {\cal D}\xi
\exp\left( \sum_{j=0}^{\gamma(N-1)} \lambda^j \Xi_j w_j \Psi_j \right) .
\end{equation}
The requirement $\partial \ln Q_N/\partial\lambda\vert_{\lambda=1} = 0$
is equivalent to the sum rule
\begin{equation} \label{sr21}
\sum_{j=0}^{\gamma(N-1)} j w_j \langle \Xi_j \Psi_j \rangle
= \frac{1}{2}\gamma N (N-1) .
\end{equation}
To make use of this relation, we consider the integral
\begin{eqnarray}
W \int_0^d {\rm d}x\, w_{\rm ren}(x) \frac{\partial}{\partial x}
\left[ \frac{n(x)}{w_{\rm ren}(x)} \right] & = & \sum_{j=0}^{\gamma(N-1)}
\langle \Xi_j\Psi_j \rangle W \int_0^d {\rm d}x\, w_{\rm ren}(x)
\nonumber \\ & & \times \left( - \frac{4\pi j}{W} \right)
\exp\left( -\frac{4\pi}{W} jx\right) . \label{ie21}
\end{eqnarray}
With regard to the definition of the interaction strengths
$\{ w_j \}$ (\ref{wj}), the rhs of this equation equals to $-4\pi/W$ times
the lhs of Eq. (\ref{sr21}), so that
\begin{equation}
\int_0^d {\rm d}x\, \frac{\partial}{\partial x} n(x)
- \int_0^d {\rm d}x\, n(x) \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \ln w_{\rm ren}(x)
= - \frac{2\pi}{W^2} \gamma N (N-1) .
\end{equation}
Since
\begin{equation} \label{partialw}
\frac{\partial}{\partial x} \ln w_{\rm ren}(x) = - \frac{\partial}{\partial x}
\left[ \beta v(x) \right] + \frac{2\pi\gamma}{W} (N-1) ,
\end{equation}
we finally end up with the relation
\begin{equation}
n(d) - n(0) = - \int_0^d {\rm d}x\, n(x) \frac{\partial}{\partial x}
\left[ \beta v(x) \right] .
\end{equation}
For our system of counterions with $\beta v(x)$ given by (\ref{vx}),
one obtains the equality
\begin{equation}
n(d) - 2\pi\gamma \left( \sigma'\right)^2 =
n(0) - 2\pi\gamma \sigma^2
\end{equation}
of two possible representations of the pressure (\ref{PN}).
The application of the transformation (\ref{trans2}) to
$Q_N \langle\Xi_j\Psi_j\rangle$ results in
\begin{equation}
Q_N \langle \Xi_j \Psi_j \rangle = \lambda^{-\gamma N(N-1)/2+j}
\int {\cal D}\psi {\cal D}\xi\, \Xi_j \Psi_j \exp\left(
\sum_{k=0}^{\gamma(N-1)} \lambda^k \Xi_k w_k \Psi_k \right) .
\end{equation}
The equality
$\partial (Q_N\langle\Xi_j\Psi_j\rangle)/\partial\lambda\vert_{\lambda=1} = 0$
leads to
\begin{equation} \label{sr22}
\sum_{k=0}^{\gamma(N-1)} k w_k \langle \Xi_j \Psi_j \Xi_k \Psi_k \rangle
= \left[ \frac{1}{2}\gamma N (N-1) - j \right] \langle \Xi_j \Psi_j \rangle .
\end{equation}
This equation can be rewritten with the aid of the sum rule (\ref{sr21})
as follows
\begin{equation} \label{sr22prime}
\sum_{k=0}^{\gamma(N-1)} k w_k \langle \Xi_j \Psi_j \Xi_k \Psi_k \rangle^{\rm T}
= - j \langle \Xi_j \Psi_j \rangle ,
\end{equation}
where the truncated correlators
$\langle \Xi_j \Psi_j \Xi_k \Psi_k \rangle^{\rm T} \equiv
\langle \Xi_j \Psi_j \Xi_k \Psi_k \rangle - \langle \Xi_j \Psi_j \rangle
\langle \Xi_k \Psi_k \rangle$.
Let us consider the integral
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_0^d {\rm d}x' \int_0^W {\rm d}y\, w_{\rm ren}(x')
\frac{\partial}{\partial x'} \left[ \frac{U(x,x';y)}{w_{\rm ren}(x')} \right]
& & \nonumber \\
= w_{\rm ren}(x) \sum_{j,k=0}^{\gamma(N-1)} w_k
\langle \Xi_j\Psi_j \Xi_k \Psi_k \rangle^{\rm T} \left( - \frac{4\pi k}{W} \right)
\exp\left( -\frac{4\pi}{W} jx\right) . & & \label{ie22}
\end{eqnarray}
With regard to the sum rule (\ref{sr22prime}), the rhs of this equation
is written as
\begin{equation}
- w_{\rm ren}(x) \frac{\partial}{\partial x}
\left[ \frac{n(x)}{w_{\rm ren}(x)} \right] = - \frac{\partial n(x)}{\partial x}
+ n(x) \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \left[ \ln w_{\rm ren}(x) \right] .
\end{equation}
The lhs of Eq. (\ref{ie22}) can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\int_0^d {\rm d}x' \int_0^W {\rm d}y\, \left\{ \frac{\partial}{\partial x'}
U(x,x';y) - U(x,x';y) \frac{\partial}{\partial x'}
\left[ \ln w_{\rm ren}(x') \right] \right\} .
\end{equation}
Using the relations (\ref{partialw}) and (\ref{Un}), we end up with
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_0^W {\rm d} y \left[ U(x,d;y) - U(x,0;y) \right] & & \nonumber \\
+ \int_0^d {\rm d}x' \int_0^W {\rm d}y\, S(x,x';y)
\frac{\partial}{\partial x'} \left[ \beta v(x') \right]
& = & - \frac{\partial n(x)}{\partial x} .
\end{eqnarray}
For $\beta v(x)$ given by (\ref{vx}), with regard to (\ref{zerothmoment})
this equation simplifies itself to the one
\begin{equation} \label{Wertheim}
\frac{\partial n(x)}{\partial x} =
\int_0^W {\rm d} y \left[ U(x,0;y) - U(x,d;y) \right]
\end{equation}
which is a generalization of the 2D Wertheim-Lovett-Mou-Buff
(WLMB) equation \cite{Lovett76,Wertheim76} to the surface of cylinder
constrained by two charged lines.
\subsection{Transformation mixing all anticommuting components}
It was shown in \cite{Samaj00} that there exists a nontrivial
transformation of anticommuting variables, say $\xi'$s,
\begin{equation} \label{trans3}
\xi_j^{(\alpha)}(t) = \sum_{k=j}^{N-1} {k\choose j} t^{k-j} \xi_k^{(\alpha)} ,
\quad j=0,1,\ldots,N-1 , \quad \alpha=1,\ldots,\gamma ,
\end{equation}
which keeps the composite form of the transformed composite operators:
\begin{equation}
\Xi_j(t) = \sum_{k=j}^{\gamma(N-1)} {k\choose j} t^{k-j}
\Xi_k , \qquad j=0,1,\ldots,\gamma(N-1) .
\end{equation}
Here, $t$ is a free parameter; the case $t=0$ corresponds to the
identity mapping.
The Jacobian of the transformation equals to 1.
Under the transformation (\ref{trans3}), $Q_N$ (\ref{antipart})
takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}
Q_N & = & \int {\cal D}\psi {\cal D}\xi
\exp\left[ \sum_{j=0}^{\gamma(N-1)} \Xi_j(t) w_j \Psi_j \right] \nonumber \\
& = & \int {\cal D}\psi {\cal D}\xi
\exp\left\{ \sum_{j=0}^{\gamma(N-1)} \left[ \Xi_j + t (j+1) \Xi_{j+1}
+ O(t^2) \right] w_j \Psi_j \right\} . \phantom{aa}
\end{eqnarray}
The condition $\partial \ln Q_N/\partial t\vert_{t=0} = 0$ implies the sum rule
\begin{equation} \label{sr31}
\sum_{j=0}^{\gamma(N-1)-1} (j+1) w_j \langle \Xi_{j+1} \Psi_j \rangle = 0 .
\end{equation}
This sum rule is trivial because the diagonalized action (\ref{antipart})
implies that every correlator $\langle \Xi_{j+1} \Psi_j \rangle = 0$.
Applying the transformation (\ref{trans3}) to
$Q_N \langle\Xi_{j-1}\Psi_j\rangle$ implies
\begin{eqnarray}
Q_N \langle \Xi_{j-1} \Psi_j \rangle & = & \int {\cal D}\psi {\cal D}\xi\,
\Xi_{j-1}(t) \Psi_j \exp\left[ \sum_{k=0}^{\gamma(N-1)} \Xi_k(t) w_k \Psi_k \right]
\nonumber \\ & = & \int {\cal D}\psi {\cal D}\xi
\left[ \Xi_{j-1} + t j \Xi_j + O(t^2) \right] \Psi_j \nonumber \\ & &
\times \exp\left\{ \sum_{k=0}^{\gamma(N-1)}
\left[ \Xi_k + t (k+1) \Xi_{k+1} + O(t^2) \right] w_k \Psi_k \right\} .
\phantom{aaaaa}
\end{eqnarray}
The requirement
$\partial (Q_N\langle\Xi_j\Psi_j\rangle)/\partial t\vert_{t=0} = 0$ leads to
\begin{equation} \label{sr32}
\sum_{k=0}^{\gamma(N-1)-1} (k+1) w_k \langle \Xi_{j-1} \Psi_j \Xi_{k+1} \Psi_k \rangle
= - j\langle \Xi_j \Psi_j \rangle .
\end{equation}
To make use of this sum rule, let us consider the integral
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_0^W {\rm d}y\, {\rm e}^{-{\rm i}\frac{2\pi}{W}y} n^{(2)}(x,x';y)
& = & w_{\rm ren}(x) w_{\rm ren}(x') W \sum_{j,k}
\langle \Xi_{j-1} \Psi_j \Xi_{k+1} \Psi_k \rangle \nonumber \\ & & \times
{\rm e}^{-\frac{2\pi}{W}(2j-1)x} {\rm e}^{-\frac{2\pi}{W}(2k+1)x'} .
\end{eqnarray}
Note that $n^{(2)}(x,x';y)$ can be substituted by $U(x,x';y)$ in this relation
and since $U(x,x';y)=U(x,x';-y)$ only the real part of
${\rm e}^{-{\rm i}\frac{2\pi}{W}y} = \cos\left(\frac{2\pi}{W}y\right)
- {\rm i}\sin\left(\frac{2\pi}{W}y\right)$ survives.
Consequently,
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_0^d {\rm d}x' \int_0^W {\rm d}y\, \cos\left(\frac{2\pi}{W}y\right)
w_{\rm ren}(x') {\rm e}^{\frac{4\pi}{W}x'} \frac{\partial}{\partial x'}
\left[ \frac{U(x,x';y) {\rm e}^{-\frac{2\pi}{W}x'}}{w_{\rm ren}(x')} \right]
& & \nonumber \\
= w_{\rm ren}(x) \left( - \frac{4\pi}{W} \right)
\sum_{j,k} (k+1) w_k \langle \Xi_{j-1} \Psi_j \Xi_{k+1} \Psi_k \rangle
{\rm e}^{-\frac{2\pi}{W}(2j-1)x} . \label{ie32}
\end{eqnarray}
Applying the sum rule (\ref{sr32}), the rhs of this equation can be
expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
- w_{\rm ren}(x) {\rm e}^{\frac{2\pi}{W}x} \frac{\partial}{\partial x}
\left[ \frac{n(x)}{w_{\rm ren}(x)} \right] & = & {\rm e}^{\frac{2\pi}{W}x}
\left\{ - \frac{\partial n(x)}{\partial x}
+ n(x) \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \left[ \ln w_{\rm ren}(x) \right] \right\} .
\nonumber \\ & &
\end{eqnarray}
After simple algebra we finally arrive at
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_0^W {\rm d}y\, \cos\left(\frac{2\pi}{W}y\right)
\left[ {\rm e}^{\frac{2\pi}{W}d} U(x,d;y) - U(x,0;y) \right]
+ \int_0^d {\rm d}x' \int_0^W {\rm d}y\, & & \nonumber \\
\times \cos\left(\frac{2\pi}{W}y\right)
{\rm e}^{\frac{2\pi}{W}x'} S(x,x';y) \left\{ \frac{\partial}{\partial x'}
\left[ \beta v(x') \right] - \frac{\pi}{W} \left[ \Gamma(N-1) + 4 \right]
\right\} & & \nonumber \\ = - {\rm e}^{\frac{2\pi}{W}x}
\left[ \frac{\partial n(x)}{\partial x} + \frac{4\pi}{W} n(x) \right] .
\label{result1}
\end{eqnarray}
For the one-body potential (\ref{vx}) it holds that
\begin{equation} \label{dodatok1}
\frac{\partial}{\partial x'} \left[ \beta v(x') \right]
- \frac{\pi}{W} \left[ \Gamma(N-1) + 4 \right]
= - \left[ 2\pi \Gamma \sigma' + \frac{\pi}{W} (4-\Gamma) \right] .
\end{equation}
Another version of the above sum rule can be derived by using the alternative
representation of the Coulomb system on the cylinder surface given by
Eqs. (\ref{formula3})-(\ref{onebody2}), with the renormalized
one-body Boltzmann factor $w_{\rm ren}(x)$ defined by (\ref{onebody2}).
Within this representation, the interaction strengths $w_j$
$[j=0,1,\ldots,\gamma(N-1)]$ are given by
\begin{equation}
w_j = W \int_0^d {\rm d} x\, w_{\rm ren}(x)
\exp\left( \frac{4\pi}{W} j x \right) ,
\end{equation}
the particle density by
\begin{equation} \label{antioneprime}
n(x) = w_{\rm ren}(x) \sum_{j=0}^{\gamma(N-1)} \langle \Xi_j \Psi_j \rangle
\exp\left( \frac{4\pi}{W} j x \right)
\end{equation}
and the two-body density by
\begin{eqnarray}
n^{(2)}(z_1,\bar{z}_1;z_2,\bar{z}_2) & = & w_{\rm ren}(x_1) w_{\rm ren}(x_2)
\sum_{j_1,k_1,j_2,k_2=0\atop (j_1+j_2=k_1+k_2)}^{\gamma(N-1)}
\langle \Xi_{j_1} \Psi_{k_1} \Xi_{j_2} \Psi_{k_2} \rangle \nonumber \\
& & \times \exp\left[ \frac{2\pi}{W}
\left( j_1 z_1 + k_1 \bar{z}_1 + j_2 z_2 + k_2 \bar{z}_2 \right) \right] .
\label{antitwoprime}
\end{eqnarray}
The counterpart of the relation (\ref{ie32}) reads as
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_0^d {\rm d}x' \int_0^W {\rm d}y\, \cos\left(\frac{2\pi}{W}y\right)
w_{\rm ren}(x') {\rm e}^{-\frac{4\pi}{W}x'} \frac{\partial}{\partial x'}
\left[ \frac{U(x,x';y) {\rm e}^{\frac{2\pi}{W}x'}}{w_{\rm ren}(x')} \right]
& & \nonumber \\
= w_{\rm ren}(x) \left( \frac{4\pi}{W} \right)
\sum_{j,k} (k+1) w_k \langle \Xi_{j-1} \Psi_j \Xi_{k+1} \Psi_k \rangle
{\rm e}^{\frac{2\pi}{W}(2j-1)x} . \label{ie33}
\end{eqnarray}
Considering the sum rule (\ref{sr32}) and following the preceding algebra
leads to
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_0^W {\rm d}y\, \cos\left(\frac{2\pi}{W}y\right)
\left[ {\rm e}^{-\frac{2\pi}{W}d} U(x,d;y) - U(x,0;y) \right]
+ \int_0^d {\rm d}x' \int_0^W {\rm d}y\, & & \nonumber \\
\times \cos\left(\frac{2\pi}{W}y\right)
{\rm e}^{-\frac{2\pi}{W}x'} S(x,x';y) \left\{ \frac{\partial}{\partial x'}
\left[ \beta v(x') \right] + \frac{\pi}{W} \left[ \Gamma(N-1) + 4 \right]
\right\} & & \nonumber \\ = - {\rm e}^{-\frac{2\pi}{W}x}
\left[ \frac{\partial n(x)}{\partial x} - \frac{4\pi}{W} n(x) \right] .
\phantom{aa} \label{result2}
\end{eqnarray}
For the one-body potential (\ref{vx}) it holds that
\begin{equation} \label{dodatok2}
\frac{\partial}{\partial x'} \left[ \beta v(x') \right]
+ \frac{\pi}{W} \left[ \Gamma(N-1) + 4 \right]
= 2\pi \Gamma \sigma + \frac{\pi}{W} (4-\Gamma) .
\end{equation}
The physical content of the exact sum rules (\ref{result1}), (\ref{dodatok1})
or (\ref{result2}), (\ref{dodatok2}) is not obvious for a finite value of $W$
due to the presence of the slowly changing factor $\cos(2\pi y/W)$ along
the integration path over $y\in [0,W]$.
On the other hand, these sum rules will be very useful in the limit
$W\to\infty$ to derive certain exact relations among relevant statistical
quantities, see the next section.
\renewcommand{\theequation}{4.\arabic{equation}}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\section{Asymptotic decay of pair correlations along the walls} \label{Sec:4}
\subsection{One-wall geometry}
Let us first consider the 2D geometry of one wall (infinite line)
localized at $x=0$ and charged by the fixed charge density $\sigma e$.
The mobile counterions of charge $-e$ are constrained to the half-space $x>0$.
Their number density $n(x)$ fulfills the electroneutrality condition
\begin{equation} \label{iee11}
\int_0^d {\rm d}x\, n(x) = \sigma .
\end{equation}
Near a hard wall, the screening cloud around a test charge is asymmetric and
therefore the Ursell function exhibits a long-range (inverse-power law) decay
at asymptotically large distances along the wall
\cite{Jancovici82a,Jancovici82b,Usenko79}.
In 2D, the Ursell function between the points $(x,y)$ and $(x',y')$ behaves as
\begin{equation} \label{asymptotic}
U(x,x';\vert y-y'\vert) \mathop{\sim}_{\vert y-y'\vert\to\infty}
\frac{f^{(1)}(x,x')}{(y-y')^2} ,
\end{equation}
where the superscript $1$ in $f^{(1)}$ means that there is just one charged wall
at $x=0$.
The function $f^{(1)}(x,x')=f^{(1)}(x',x)$ obeys the sum rule
\cite{Jancovici82b,Jancovici95,Jancovici01}
\begin{equation} \label{sumrule}
\int_0^{\infty} {\rm d}x \int_0^{\infty} {\rm d}x'\, f^{(1)}(x,x') =
- \frac{1}{2\pi^2\Gamma} .
\end{equation}
Note that this sum rule does not depend on $\sigma$.
Applying the M\"obius conformal transformation to particle coordinates in
a disc geometry and going from the disc to an infinite line
\cite{Samaj15,Samaj16b}, it was found for the present model with counterions
only that the function $f^{(1)}$ satisfies the following equations:
\begin{eqnarray}
f^{(1)}(x,0) & = & - \frac{1}{\pi} \left[ x \frac{\partial}{\partial x} n(x)
+ 2 n(x) \right] , \label{equation1} \\
f^{(1)}(x,0) & = & 2\pi\Gamma\sigma \int_0^{\infty} {\rm d}x'\, f^{(1)}(x,x') .
\label{equation2}
\end{eqnarray}
Applying $\int_0^{\infty}{\rm d}x$ to both sides of (\ref{equation2}) and
taking into account the sum rule (\ref{sumrule}), one finds that
\begin{equation} \label{equation3}
\int_0^{\infty} {\rm d}x'\, f^{(1)}(0,x') + \frac{\sigma}{\pi} = 0 .
\end{equation}
Finally, setting $x=0$ in (\ref{equation2}) the $f^{(1)}$-function with
both points at the boundary is given by
\begin{equation} \label{equation4}
f^{(1)}(0,0) = - 2\Gamma \sigma^2 .
\end{equation}
For the single line charge density $\sigma e$, with counterions only,
the particle density profile and the asymptotic function $f^{(1)}(x,x')$
were obtained in the PB limit $\Gamma\to 0$ \cite{Samaj13},
\begin{equation} \label{onewallgamma0}
n(x) = \frac{\sigma b}{(x+b)^2} , \qquad
f^{(1)}(x,x') = - \frac{2}{\pi^2\Gamma} \frac{b^4}{(x+b)^3 (x'+b)^3}
\end{equation}
with $b=1/(\Gamma\pi\sigma)$,
and at the free-fermion coupling $\Gamma=2$ \cite{Jancovici84,Samaj13},
\begin{equation} \label{onewallgamma2}
n(x) = \frac{1}{4\pi x^2} \left[ 1 - (1+4\pi\sigma x) {\rm e}^{-4\pi\sigma x}
\right] , \quad
f^{(1)}(x,x') = - 4 \sigma^2 {\rm e}^{-4\pi\sigma x} {\rm e}^{-4\pi\sigma x'} .
\end{equation}
Note that while in the PB limit both $n(x)$ and $f^{(1)}(x,x')$ are long-ranged,
$n(x)$ is long-ranged but $f^{(1)}(x,x')$ is short-ranged at $\Gamma=2$.
It is simple to check that the sum rules (\ref{equation1})-(\ref{equation4})
are fulfilled at both exactly solvable $\Gamma$'s.
\subsection{Two-walls geometry}
In the presence of two walls, the Ursell functions are supposed to
exhibit the same asymptotic behavior as in
the one-wall case (\ref{asymptotic}), i.e.,
\begin{equation} \label{asymptotic2}
U(x,x';\vert y-y'\vert) \mathop{\sim}_{\vert y-y'\vert\to\infty}
\frac{f^{(2)}(x,x')}{(y-y')^2} ,
\end{equation}
where the superscript $2$ in $f^{(2)}$ means that there are two parallel
charged walls, the one with the charge density $\sigma e$ at $x=0$ and
the other with the charge density $\sigma' e$ at $x=d$.
The aim of this part is to investigate the thermodynamic $W\to\infty$ limit
of the sum rules (\ref{result1}), (\ref{dodatok1}) and
(\ref{result2}), (\ref{dodatok2}).
Let us start with the analysis of the first sum rule (\ref{result1}),
(\ref{dodatok1}) in the limit $W\to\infty$.
Using the zeroth-moment condition (\ref{zerothmoment}) and the WLMB equation
(\ref{Wertheim}), the sum rule can be rewritten as
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_0^W {\rm d}y\, \cos\left(\frac{2\pi}{W}y\right)
\left( {\rm e}^{\frac{2\pi}{W}d} -1 \right) U(x,d;y) \nonumber \\
+ \int_0^W {\rm d}y\, \left[ \cos\left(\frac{2\pi}{W}y\right) - 1 \right]
\left[ U(x,d;y) - U(x,0;y) \right] \nonumber \\
- \left[ 2\pi \Gamma \sigma' + \frac{\pi}{W} (4-\Gamma) \right]
\int_0^d {\rm d}x' \int_0^W {\rm d}y\,
\left[ \cos\left(\frac{2\pi}{W}y\right) {\rm e}^{\frac{2\pi}{W}x'} -1 \right]
S(x,x';y) \nonumber \\
= - \left( {\rm e}^{\frac{2\pi}{W}x} -1 \right) \frac{\partial n(x)}{\partial x}
- \frac{4\pi}{W} n(x) {\rm e}^{\frac{2\pi}{W}x} . \nonumber \\ \label{result21}
\end{eqnarray}
In the limit $W\to\infty$, one expands
\begin{equation} \label{exp1}
{\rm e}^{\frac{2\pi}{W}x} \sim 1 + \frac{2\pi}{W} x
+ O\left( \frac{1}{W^2} \right) , \quad
\cos\left(\frac{2\pi}{W}y\right) \sim 1
- \frac{1}{2!} \left( \frac{2\pi}{W} \right)^2 y^2 +
O\left( \frac{1}{W^4} \right) .
\end{equation}
The integrals of the Ursell functions $U$ (or the structure function $S$)
over $y$ can be done in the following way
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_0^W {\rm d}y\, \left[ \cos\left(\frac{2\pi}{W}y\right) - 1 \right]
U(x,x';y) & \displaystyle{\mathop{\sim}_{W\to\infty}} & - \frac{1}{2!}
\left( \frac{2\pi}{W} \right)^2 \int_0^W {\rm d}y\, y^2
\frac{f^{(2)}(x,x')}{y^2} \nonumber \\
& = & - \frac{2\pi^2}{W} f^{(2)}(x,x') . \label{exp2}
\end{eqnarray}
Comparing in (\ref{result21}) the terms proportional to $1/W$
implies the equality among the 2D statistical quantities:
\begin{eqnarray}
d \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {\rm d}y\, U(x,d;y) - 2\pi\Gamma\sigma'
\int_0^d {\rm d}x'\, x' \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {\rm d}y\, S(x,x';y)
\nonumber \\ + \pi \left[ f^{(2)}(x,0) - f^{(2)}(x,d) \right]
+ 2\pi^2 \Gamma \sigma' \int_0^d {\rm d}x'\, f^{(2)}(x,x') \nonumber \\
= - \left[ x \frac{\partial n(x)}{\partial x} + 2 n(x) \right] .
\label{vys1}
\end{eqnarray}
We proceed analogously with the second sum rule (\ref{result2}),
(\ref{dodatok2}).
With the aid of the zeroth-moment condition (\ref{zerothmoment}) and
the WLMB equation (\ref{Wertheim}), one gets
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_0^W {\rm d}y\, \cos\left(\frac{2\pi}{W}y\right)
\left( {\rm e}^{-\frac{2\pi}{W}d} -1 \right) U(x,d;y) \nonumber \\
+ \int_0^W {\rm d}y\, \left[ \cos\left(\frac{2\pi}{W}y\right) - 1 \right]
\left[ U(x,d;y) - U(x,0;y) \right] \nonumber \\
+ \left[ 2\pi \Gamma \sigma + \frac{\pi}{W} (4-\Gamma) \right]
\int_0^d {\rm d}x' \int_0^W {\rm d}y\,
\left[ \cos\left(\frac{2\pi}{W}y\right) {\rm e}^{-\frac{2\pi}{W}x'} -1 \right]
S(x,x';y) \nonumber \\
= - \left( {\rm e}^{-\frac{2\pi}{W}x} -1 \right) \frac{\partial n(x)}{\partial x}
+ \frac{4\pi}{W} n(x) {\rm e}^{-\frac{2\pi}{W}x} . \nonumber \\ \label{result22}
\end{eqnarray}
Using (\ref{exp1}) and (\ref{exp2}) and comparing in (\ref{result22})
the terms proportional to $1/W$ leads to the equality
\begin{eqnarray}
- d \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {\rm d}y\, U(x,d;y) - 2\pi\Gamma\sigma
\int_0^d {\rm d}x'\, x' \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {\rm d}y\, S(x,x';y)
\nonumber \\ + \pi \left[ f^{(2)}(x,0) - f^{(2)}(x,d) \right]
- 2\pi^2 \Gamma \sigma \int_0^d {\rm d}x'\, f^{(2)}(x,x') \nonumber \\
= x \frac{\partial n(x)}{\partial x} + 2 n(x) . \label{vys2}
\end{eqnarray}
The crucial 2D Eqs. (\ref{vys1}) and (\ref{vys2}) are valid for any coupling
$\Gamma = 2\gamma$ with $\gamma$ a positive integer.
It is natural to extend their validity to all real $\Gamma$ in the fluid region.
We can obtain a couple of simpler relations by considering specific
combinations of the two equations.
The summation of Eqs. (\ref{vys1}) and (\ref{vys2}) results in
\begin{eqnarray}
- \Gamma(\sigma+\sigma') \int_0^d {\rm d}x'\, x'
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {\rm d}y\, S(x,x';y) + f^{(2)}(x,0) - f^{(2)}(x,d)
\nonumber \\
+ \pi \Gamma (\sigma'-\sigma) \int_0^d {\rm d}x'\, f^{(2)}(x,x')
= 0 . \label{rovnica1}
\end{eqnarray}
The subtraction of Eqs. (\ref{vys1}) and (\ref{vys2}) implies that
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d}{\pi} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {\rm d}y\, U(x,d;y)
+ \Gamma(\sigma-\sigma') \int_0^d {\rm d}x'\, x'
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {\rm d}y\, S(x,x';y) \nonumber \\
+ \pi \Gamma (\sigma+\sigma') \int_0^d {\rm d}x'\, f^{(2)}(x,x')
= -\frac{1}{\pi} \left[ x \frac{\partial n(x)}{\partial x}
+ 2 n(x) \right] . \label{rovnica2}
\end{eqnarray}
Integrating both sides of Eq. (\ref{rovnica2}) over $x\in [0,d]$,
the integration of $S(x,x';y)$ over $x'$ can be interchanged with the
integration over $x$ for a finite value of $d$ and the corresponding term
vanishes due to the counterpart of the zeroth-moment condition
(\ref{zerothmoment})
\begin{equation} \label{zerothmoment1}
\int_0^d {\rm d}x' \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {\rm d}y\, S(x,x';y) = 0 .
\end{equation}
We emphasize that the interchange of the integrations cannot be performed
in the one-wall limit $d\to\infty$ because, as is known, the integral over
$x'$ is not absolutely convergent.
The integral over $x$ of the rhs of Eq. (\ref{rovnica2}) can be simplified
by applying the integration by parts:
\begin{equation}
- \frac{1}{\pi} \int_0^d {\rm d}x\,
\left[ x \frac{\partial n(x)}{\partial x} + 2 n(x) \right]
= -\frac{d}{\pi} n(d) - \frac{1}{\pi} \int_0^d {\rm d}x\, n(x) .
\end{equation}
The term $(d/\pi) n(d)$ can be paired with the one
$(d/\pi) \int_0^d {\rm d}x \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {\rm d}y\, U(x,d;y)$
to get 0 due to (\ref{zerothmoment1}).
Expressing the integral $\int_0^d {\rm d}x\, n(x)$ by using (\ref{iee11}),
we end up with the sum rule
\begin{equation} \label{sumrule2}
\int_0^d {\rm d}x \int_0^d {\rm d}x'\, f^{(2)}(x,x') = - \frac{1}{\pi^2\Gamma} .
\end{equation}
Note that this sum rule does not depend neither on the surface charge
densities $\sigma e$ and $\sigma' e$, nor on the distance between the walls
$d$.
In comparison with the analogous formula for the one-wall geometry
(\ref{sumrule}), the factor $1/2$ is missing on the rhs of (\ref{sumrule2}).
To explain this fact, let us consider the special limit $d\to\infty$ of two
independent walls when, for finite values of $x$ and $x'$,
\begin{equation}
f^{(2)}(x,x') \mathop{\sim}_{d\to\infty}
f^{(1)}(x,x';\sigma) + f^{(1)}(d-x,d-x';\sigma') .
\end{equation}
Integrating over coordinates $x$ and $x'$ and changing the integration
variables to $d-x, d-x'$ when integrating the second term, one finds that
the double integral of $f^{(2)}$ must be twice the double integral
of $f^{(1)}$; note that the argument works because the sum rule (\ref{sumrule2})
does not depend on $d$.
Another sum rule can be obtained by integrating both sides of
Eq. (\ref{rovnica1}) over $x\in [0,d]$.
The integral of $S(x,x';y)$ vanishes once more and using (\ref{sumrule2})
one gets
\begin{equation} \label{sepa}
\int_0^d {\rm d}x'\, f^{(2)}(0,x') + \frac{\sigma}{\pi} =
\int_0^d {\rm d}x'\, f^{(2)}(d,x') + \frac{\sigma'}{\pi} .
\end{equation}
In other words, for each of the walls the combination (\ref{equation3}),
which is equal to zero for one-wall geometry, acquires the same value in
the two-walls geometry.
\subsection{Small-distance behavior}
In the limit $d\to 0$, the particle density, the pressure and the
asymptotic function $f^{(2)}(x,x')$ exhibit singularities.
As is evident from the electroneutrality condition (\ref{iee11}), the
particle density behaves as
\begin{equation}
n(x) \mathop{\sim}_{d\to 0} \frac{\sigma+\sigma'}{d} .
\end{equation}
Since the pressure is determined by the contact particle density, we have
likewisely
\begin{equation} \label{Pasymptotic}
\beta P \mathop{\sim}_{d\to 0} \frac{\sigma+\sigma'}{d} .
\end{equation}
The asymptotic function $f^{(2)}(x,x')$ is searched in the ansatz form
\begin{equation}
f^{(2)}(x,x') \mathop{\sim}_{d\to 0} \frac{1}{d^2} \left[ a + b(x+x')
+ \cdots \right] .
\end{equation}
Inserting this expansion into the sum rules (\ref{sumrule2}) and (\ref{sepa}),
the expansion coefficients are found to be
\begin{equation}
a = - \frac{1}{\pi^2 \Gamma} , \qquad b = \frac{1}{\pi} (\sigma-\sigma') .
\end{equation}
\renewcommand{\theequation}{5.\arabic{equation}}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\section{The free-fermion coupling} \label{Sec:5}
At the free-fermion coupling $\Gamma=2$ $(\gamma=1)$, the composite operators
$\Xi_j$ and $\Psi_j$ become the ordinary anticommuting variables
$\xi_j$ and $\psi_j$, respectively.
Having the diagonalized action $S=\sum_{j=0}^{N-1} \xi_j w_j \psi_j$,
the integral over anticommuting variables (\ref{antipart}) reads as
\begin{equation}
Q_N(1) = \prod_{j=0}^{N-1} w_j ,
\end{equation}
where the interaction strengths (\ref{wj}) take for $\gamma=1$ the form
\begin{equation} \label{wjprime}
w_j = \frac{1-\exp\left[ - \frac{4\pi d}{W}\left(j-\sigma' W
+\frac{1}{2}\right)\right]}{j-\sigma' W+\frac{1}{2}} .
\end{equation}
The simplest correlators of anticommuting variables are given by
\begin{equation} \label{onecorrelator}
\langle \xi_j\psi_j \rangle = \frac{1}{w_j} , \qquad j=0,1,\ldots,N-1.
\end{equation}
More complicated correlators can be obtained by using the Wick theorem.
Like for instance,
\begin{equation} \label{twocorrelator}
\langle \xi_j\psi_k \xi_{j'} \psi_{k'} \rangle
= \frac{1}{w_jw_{j'}} \left( \delta_{jk}\delta_{j'k'} -
\delta_{jk'}\delta_{j'k} \right) .
\end{equation}
\subsection{Particle density and pressure}
Inserting (\ref{onecorrelator}) into the formula (\ref{antione}) for the
particle density, one gets
\begin{eqnarray}
n(x) & = & \frac{4\pi}{W^2} \sum_{j=0}^{N-1}
\frac{j-\sigma' W+\frac{1}{2}}{1-\exp\left[ - \frac{4\pi d}{W}
\left(j-\sigma' W+\frac{1}{2}\right)\right]} \nonumber \\ & & \times
\exp\left[ - \frac{4\pi x}{W} \left( j -\sigma' W
+ \frac{1}{2} \right) \right] . \label{antioneone}
\end{eqnarray}
To obtain the explicit results for the 2D geometry of two parallel lines
charged by the line charge densities $\sigma e$ and $\sigma' e$,
at distance $d$ with counterions only in between,
we consider the thermodynamic limit $N,W\to\infty$, keeping the ratio
$N/W = \sigma+\sigma'$ fixed.
Choosing $t=\left( j-W\sigma'+\frac{1}{2}\right)/N$ as the continuous variable,
the particle density (\ref{antioneone}) can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
n(x) & = & 4\pi \left( \frac{N}{W} \right)^2
\int_{-\frac{\sigma'}{\sigma+\sigma'}}^{\frac{\sigma}{\sigma+\sigma'}} {\rm d}t\,
t \frac{{\rm e}^{-4\pi(\sigma+\sigma')t x}}{1-{\rm e}^{-4\pi(\sigma+\sigma')t d}}
\nonumber \\ & = & \frac{1}{4\pi} \int_{-4\pi\sigma'}^{4\pi\sigma} {\rm d}s\, s
\frac{{\rm e}^{-s x}}{1-{\rm e}^{-s d}} \nonumber \\ &
= & n_0(x;\sigma) + n_0(d-x;\sigma') , \label{separate}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation} \label{separate1}
n_0(x;\sigma) = \frac{1}{4\pi} \int_0^{4\pi\sigma} {\rm d}s\, s
\frac{{\rm e}^{-s x}}{1-{\rm e}^{-s d}}
\end{equation}
is the density of counterions between two parallel lines, the one at $x=0$
charged with the line charge density $\sigma e$ and the neutral one at $x=d$.
It is trivial to verify that $\int_0^d {\rm d}x\, n_0(x;\sigma) = \sigma$
as it should be.
The separation form of the density profile (\ref{separate}) as the sum of two
terms, the one depending only on $\sigma$ and the other depending only on
$\sigma'$, is the special feature of the free-fermion point.
The pressure is given by the contact relations (\ref{PN}).
Choosing the one $\beta P_N = n(0) - 2\pi \sigma^2$, from (\ref{antioneone})
one gets
\begin{equation}
\beta P_N(d) = \frac{4\pi}{W^2} \sum_{j=0}^{N-1}
\frac{j-\sigma' W+\frac{1}{2}}{1-\exp\left[ - \frac{4\pi d}{W}
\left(j-\sigma' W+\frac{1}{2}\right)\right]} - 2\pi \sigma^2 .
\end{equation}
The pressure is expected to vanish in the limit of an infinite distance
between the lines, but this is not the case for a finite odd value of $N$.
Let us document this fact on the pair of symmetrically charged lines
$\sigma'=\sigma$, i.e. $N=2\sigma W$.
In the limit $d\to\infty$, only terms with $j-\sigma W +\frac{1}{2}>0$
contribute to the pressure:
\begin{equation}
\lim_{d\to\infty} \beta P_N(d) = \frac{4\pi}{W^2}
\sum_{j=0\atop j>W\sigma-\frac{1}{2}}^{N-1}
\left( j - \sigma W +\frac{1}{2} \right) - 2\pi \sigma^2 .
\end{equation}
If $N$ is an even integer, $\sigma W$ is an integer and one has
\begin{equation}
\lim_{d\to\infty} \beta P_N(d) = \frac{4\pi}{W^2}
\sum_{j=\sigma W}^{2\sigma W-1}
\left( j - \sigma W +\frac{1}{2} \right) - 2\pi \sigma^2 = 0.
\end{equation}
If $N$ is an odd integer, $\sigma W$ is a half-integer and one has
\begin{equation}
\lim_{d\to\infty} \beta P_N(d) = \frac{4\pi}{W^2}
\sum_{j=\sigma W+\frac{1}{2}}^{2\sigma W-1}
\left( j - \sigma W +\frac{1}{2} \right) - 2\pi \sigma^2 =
- \frac{2\pi\sigma^2}{N^2} .
\end{equation}
A nonzero asymptotic force for an odd number of counterions between two
charges occurs also in 1D \cite{Tellez15,Varela17}.
Let us express the pressure by using a symmetric combination of
the contact relations (\ref{PN}),
\begin{equation}
\beta P(d) = \frac{1}{2} \left[ n(0) + n(d) \right]
- \pi \left( \sigma^2 + \sigma'^2 \right) .
\end{equation}
In the thermodynamic limit (pure 2D geometry), using the explicit results
(\ref{separate}) and (\ref{separate1}) one obtains the separable solution
\begin{equation} \label{pressure}
\beta P(d) = \beta P(d;\sigma) + \beta P(d;\sigma') ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation} \label{separatepressure}
\beta P(d;\sigma) = \frac{1}{2\pi d^2} \int_0^{2\pi\sigma d} {\rm d}t\,
\frac{t}{\sinh t} {\rm e}^{-t}
\end{equation}
is the pressure between two parallel lines, the one at $x=0$ charged with
the line charge density $\sigma e$ and another neutral one at $x=d$.
For the studied case of like-charged lines ($0<\sigma'<\sigma$),
$\beta P$ is always positive, i.e. the two lines repel each other
for an arbitrary distance $d$.
Using the substitution $t=d s$ in (\ref{separatepressure}) it can be shown
that
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial}{\partial d} \beta P = - \frac{1}{2\pi}
\left( \int_0^{2\pi\sigma} + \int_0^{2\pi\sigma'} \right) {\rm d}s
\left[ \frac{s}{\sinh(d s)} \right]^2 < 0 .
\end{equation}
The pressure (\ref{pressure}) diverges at small distances in agreement
with the general formula (\ref{Pasymptotic}) and decays monotonously to
0 at $d\to\infty$.
If $0<\sigma'\le \sigma$, the asymptotic decay
\begin{equation}
\beta P(d) \mathop{\sim}_{d\to\infty} \frac{1}{\pi d^2}
\int_0^{\infty} {\rm d}t\, \frac{t}{\sinh t} {\rm e}^{-t}
= \frac{\pi}{12} \frac{1}{d^2}
\end{equation}
is universal in the sense that the prefactor to $1/d^2$ is independent of
the (positive) line charge densities.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth,clip]{Fig2.eps}
\caption{The dimensionless pressure $\tilde{P}$ versus the dimensionless
distance $d$ (measured in units of $\sigma^{-1}$) between the symmetrically
charged walls with the asymmetry parameter $\eta=1$ for
the free-fermion coupling $\Gamma=2$ $(\gamma=1)$.
The dotted (blue) curve corresponds to $N=2$ particles, the dashed (orange)
curve to $N=8$ and the solid (black) curve to the thermodynamic limit
$N\to\infty$.}
\label{Fig:2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The data for the dimensionless pressure $\tilde{P}$ (\ref{Ptilde})
versus the dimensionless distance $d$ (measured in units of $\sigma^{-1}$)
between the symmetrically charged walls ($\eta=1$), calculated by using
Eqs. (\ref{pressure}) and (\ref{separatepressure}), are pictured
in Fig. \ref{Fig:2}.
The dotted curve corresponds to $N=2$ particles, the dashed curve to $N=8$
particles and the solid curve to $N\to\infty$ particles.
The $N=8$ and $N\to\infty$ curves are almost indistinguishable,
so that the equation of state for $N=8$ particles is practically identical
to the one in the thermodynamic limit.
The same behavior is observed for all values of the asymmetry parameter
$\eta\in [0,1]$.
We anticipate that the quick convergence of data with the particle number
$N$, observed for $\Gamma=2$, is maintained also for the higher couplings
$\Gamma$.
\subsection{Two-body density}
Inserting the correlators (\ref{twocorrelator}) into the formula
for the two-body density (\ref{antitwo}), the Ursell function (\ref{Ursell})
is expressible as
\begin{eqnarray}
U(z_1,\bar{z}_1;z_2,\bar{z}_2) & = & - w_{\rm ren}(x_1) w_{\rm ren}(x_2)
\sum_{j,j'=0}^{N-1} \frac{1}{w_j w_{j'}} \nonumber \\ & & \times
\exp\left[ -\frac{2\pi}{W} j\left(z_1+\bar{z}_2\right) \right]
\exp\left[ -\frac{2\pi}{W} j'\left(\bar{z}_1+z_2\right) \right] .
\phantom{aaa} \label{Ursell2}
\end{eqnarray}
Let us denote $y\equiv y_1-y_2$ and note that our $w_{\rm ren}(x)$
(\ref{onebody}) with $\beta v(x)$ given by (\ref{vx}) satisfies
the relation
\begin{equation}
w_{\rm ren}(x_1) w_{\rm ren}(x_2) =
w_{\rm ren}\left(\frac{x_1+x_2}{2}+{\rm i}\frac{y}{2} \right)
w_{\rm ren}\left(\frac{x_1+x_2}{2}-{\rm i}\frac{y}{2} \right) .
\end{equation}
The Ursell function (\ref{Ursell2}) is thus expressible in terms
of the particle density as
\begin{equation} \label{Ursell3}
U(x_1,x_2;y) = - n\left(\frac{x_1+x_2}{2}+{\rm i}\frac{y}{2} \right)
n\left(\frac{x_1+x_2}{2}-{\rm i}\frac{y}{2} \right) .
\end{equation}
The availability of the explicit formula for the Ursell function
(\ref{Ursell3}) enables us to investigate the effect of the two-wall
geometry on the prefactor function $f^{(2)}(x_1,x_2)$ defined by
Eq. (\ref{asymptotic2}).
The particle density (\ref{separate}) consists of two similar terms.
The first term (\ref{separate1}) can be expanded as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
n_0(x;\sigma) & = & -\frac{1}{4\pi} \frac{\partial}{\partial x}
\int_0^{4\pi\sigma} {\rm d}s\, {\rm e}^{-s x} \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} {\rm e}^{-j s d}
\nonumber \\ & = & -\frac{1}{4\pi} \frac{\partial}{\partial x}
\sum_{j=0}^{\infty} \frac{1-{\rm e}^{-4\pi\sigma(x+jd)}}{x+jd} \nonumber \\
& = & \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} \left[ \frac{1}{4\pi}
\frac{1-{\rm e}^{-4\pi\sigma(x+jd)}}{(x+jd)^2} - \sigma
\frac{{\rm e}^{-4\pi\sigma(x+jd)}}{x+jd} \right] . \label{separate2}
\end{eqnarray}
Substituting $x$ by $(x_1+x_2\pm{\rm i}y)/2$ in the last line of this
expression and considering the limit $y\to\infty$, one finds that
\begin{equation}
n_0\left(\frac{x_1+x_2}{2}\pm{\rm i}\frac{y}{2};\sigma\right)
\mathop{\sim}_{y\to\infty} \pm {\rm i} \frac{2\sigma}{y}
\frac{{\rm e}^{-2\pi\sigma[(x_1+x_2)\pm{\rm i}y]}}{1-{\rm e}^{-4\pi\sigma d}} .
\end{equation}
Analogously,
\begin{equation}
n_0\left(d-\frac{x_1+x_2}{2}\mp{\rm i}\frac{y}{2};\sigma'\right)
\mathop{\sim}_{y\to\infty} \mp {\rm i} \frac{2\sigma'}{y}
\frac{{\rm e}^{-2\pi\sigma'[2d-(x_1+x_2)\mp{\rm i}y]}}{1-{\rm e}^{-4\pi\sigma' d}} .
\end{equation}
We conclude that
\begin{eqnarray}
n\left(\frac{x_1+x_2}{2}\pm{\rm i}\frac{y}{2} \right)
& \displaystyle{\mathop{\sim}_{y\to\infty}} & \pm {\rm i} \frac{2}{y}
\left\{ \sigma
\frac{{\rm e}^{-2\pi\sigma[(x_1+x_2)\pm{\rm i}y]}}{1-{\rm e}^{-4\pi\sigma d}}
\right. \nonumber \\ & & \left. \qquad - \sigma'
\frac{{\rm e}^{-2\pi\sigma'[2d-(x_1+x_2)\mp{\rm i}y]}}{1-{\rm e}^{-4\pi\sigma' d}}
\right\} .
\end{eqnarray}
The Ursell function (\ref{Ursell3}) then exhibits the asymptotic behavior
\begin{eqnarray}
U(x_1,x_2) & \displaystyle{\mathop{\sim}_{y\to\infty}} &
- \frac{4}{y^2} \Bigg\{ \frac{\sigma^2 {\rm e}^{-4\pi\sigma(x_1+x_2)}}{
\left(1-{\rm e}^{-4\pi\sigma d}\right)^2} + \frac{\sigma'^2
{\rm e}^{-4\pi\sigma'[2d-(x_1+x_2)]}}{ \left(1-{\rm e}^{-4\pi\sigma' d}\right)^2}
\nonumber \\ & &
- \frac{2\sigma\sigma' {\rm e}^{-2\pi\sigma(x_1+x_2)-2\pi\sigma'[2d-(x_1+x_2)]}}{
\left(1-{\rm e}^{-4\pi\sigma d}\right)\left(1-{\rm e}^{-4\pi\sigma' d}\right)}
\cos\left[2\pi(\sigma+\sigma')y\right] \Bigg\} . \nonumber \\
& & \label{twowall}
\end{eqnarray}
This asymptotic result is of type (\ref{asymptotic2}) with
\begin{equation} \label{twowallf}
f^{(2)}(x_1,x_2) = - 4 \left\{ \frac{\sigma^2 {\rm e}^{-4\pi\sigma(x_1+x_2)}}{
\left(1-{\rm e}^{-4\pi\sigma d}\right)^2} + \frac{\sigma'^2
{\rm e}^{-4\pi\sigma'[2d-(x_1+x_2)]}}{ \left(1-{\rm e}^{-4\pi\sigma' d}\right)^2}
\right\} ;
\end{equation}
note that the oscillating term in (\ref{twowall}) does not contribute
to this function.
It is simple to check that $f^{(2)}(x,x')$ satisfies both sum rules
(\ref{sumrule2}) and (\ref{sepa}).
In the limit $d\to\infty$, keeping the coordinates $x$ and $x'$ finite,
the two-wall formula (\ref{twowallf}) reduces itself to the semi-infinite
one-wall result (\ref{onewallgamma2}) as it should be.
For a finite $d$, $f^{(2)}(x,x')$ cannot be written in the factorized form
$- g(x_1) g(x_2)$ as in the one-wall case.
Using the formulas
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {\rm d}y\, U(x,x';y) & = & - \frac{1}{4\pi}
\int_{-4\pi\sigma'}^{4\pi\sigma} {\rm d}s\, s^2
\frac{{\rm e}^{-s(x+x')}}{\left( 1-{\rm e}^{-s d}\right)^2} , \\
\int_0^d {\rm d}x'\, x' \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {\rm d}y\, S(x,x';y)
& = & - \frac{\sigma {\rm e}^{-4\pi\sigma x}}{1-{\rm e}^{-4\pi\sigma d}} +
\frac{\sigma' {\rm e}^{-4\pi\sigma'(d-x)}}{1-{\rm e}^{-4\pi\sigma' d}} ,
\end{eqnarray}
with the explicit forms of the particle density $n(x)$ (\ref{separate})
and the function $f^{(2)}(x,x')$ (\ref{twowallf}), it can be straightforwardly
shown that Eqs. (\ref{rovnica1}) and (\ref{rovnica2}) hold.
\renewcommand{\theequation}{6.\arabic{equation}}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\section{Couplings $\Gamma=2\gamma$ $(\gamma=2,3,\ldots)$} \label{Sec:6}
The two-wall problem can be solved also for higher couplings
$\Gamma=2\gamma$ $(\gamma=2,3,\ldots)$ by expressing $Q_N(\gamma)$,
the integral over anticommuting variables (\ref{antipart}), as a function of
the interaction strengths $w_j$ $[j=0,1,\ldots,\gamma(N-1)]$.
This can be done for lower values of $N$ \cite{Samaj04a}.
For $\gamma=2$, one has
\begin{eqnarray}
Q_2(2) & = & w_0 w_2 + 2 w_1^2 , \nonumber \\
Q_3(2) & = & w_0 w_2 w_4 + 2 w_0 w_3^2 + 2 w_1^2 w_4 + 4 w_1 w_2 w_3 + 6 w_2^3 ,
\nonumber \\
Q_4(2) & = & w_0 w_2 w_4 w_6 + 2 w_0 w_2 w_5^2 + 2 w_0 w_3^2 w_6
+ 2 w_1^2 w_4 w_6 \nonumber \\ & &
+ 4 w_0 w_3 w_4 w_5 + 4 w_1 w_2 w_3 w_6 + 4 w_1 w_2 w_4 w_5 + 4 w_1^2 w_5^2
\nonumber \\ & & + 4 w_2^2 w_4^2 + 6 w_0 w_4^3 + 6 w_2^3 w_6 + 8 w_1 w_3 w_4^2
\nonumber \\ & & + 8 w_1 w_3^2 w_5 + 8 w_2^2 w_3 w_5
+ 18w_2 w_3^2 w_4 + 24 w_3^4 , \label{gamma2}
\end{eqnarray}
etc.
For $\gamma=3$, one has
\begin{eqnarray}
Q_2(3) & = & w_0 w_3 + 3^2 w_1 w_2 , \nonumber \\
Q_3(3) & = & w_0 w_3 w_6 + 3^2 w_0 w_4 w_5 + 3^2 w_1 w_2 w_6 \nonumber \\ & &
+ 6^2 w_1 w_3 w_5 + 15^2 w_2 w_3 w_4 , \nonumber \\
Q_4(3) & = & w_0 w_3 w_6 w_9 + 3^2 w_0 w_3 w_7 w_8 + 3^2 w_0 w_4 w_5 w_9
+ 3^2 w_1 w_2 w_6 w_9 \nonumber \\ & &
+ 6^2 w_0 w_4 w_6 w_8 + 6^2 w_1 w_3 w_5 w_9 + 6^2 w_2 w_3 w_6 w_7
+ 9^2 w_1 w_2 w_7 w_8 \nonumber \\ & &
+ 9^2 w_1 w_4 w_5 w_8 + 12^2 w_1 w_3 w_6 w_8 + 15^2 w_0 w_5 w_6 w_7 +
15^2 w_2 w_3 w_4 w_9 \nonumber \\ & &
+ 27^2 w_1 w_4 w_6 w_7 + 27^2 w_2 w_3 w_5 w_8
+ 45^2 w_2 w_4 w_5 w_7 + 105^2 w_3 w_4 w_5 w_6 , \nonumber \\ & &
\label{gamma3}
\end{eqnarray}
etc.
\footnote{The explicit formulas for $Q_N(2)$ and $Q_N(3)$ up to $N=10$ will be
sent upon request by the author.}
For the specific case of the one-component system constrained
to a unit circle with all $w_j=1$ it was proved that \cite{Mehta}
\begin{equation}
Q_N(\gamma) = \frac{(\gamma N)!}{(\gamma!)^N N!} \qquad
\mbox{for all $w_j=1$.}
\end{equation}
The expressions (\ref{gamma2}) and (\ref{gamma3}) pass this test of
validity.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth,clip]{Fig3.eps}
\caption{The pressure $\tilde{P}$ versus the distance $d$
for the coupling $\Gamma=4$ $(\gamma=2)$.
The dotted (blue) curve corresponds to the asymmetry parameter $\eta=0$
and $N=8$ particles, the dashed (orange) curve to $\eta=1$ and $N=2$,
the solid (green) curve to $\eta=1$ and $N=8$.}
\label{Fig:3}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Another possibility is to express explicitly for $N=2$ particles
$Q_2(\gamma)$ with an arbitrary integer value of $\gamma$:
\begin{equation} \label{Q2}
Q_2(\gamma) = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{j=0}^{\gamma} {\gamma\choose j}^2
w_j w_{\gamma-j} .
\end{equation}
The free energy $F_N(\gamma)$ is expressed in terms of $Q_N(\gamma)$
in Eq. (\ref{free}), the pressure is calculated by using Eq. (\ref{PNN})
and the interaction strengths are given by (\ref{wj}).
Even for a relatively large number of particles $N=8$, the calculation of
the pressure from the exact formulas by using {\it Mathematica} takes
a few seconds of CPU time on the standard PC.
For the coupling $\Gamma=4$, the exact data for the (dimensionless)
pressure $\tilde{P}$ as the function of the (dimensionless) distance
between the walls $d$ are presented in Fig. \ref{Fig:3}.
If the wall at $x=d$ does not carry any charge, i.e. $\sigma'=0$ or $\eta=0$,
$\tilde{P}$ is always positive for finite $d$, in agreement with
the remark after Eq. (\ref{PN}), and its decay to zero
at asymptotically large $d$ is monotonous for any number of particles $N$;
this fact is documented for $N=8$ in Fig. \ref{Fig:3} by the dotted curve.
On the other hand, in the symmetric case $\eta=1$, for any $N$
there is a point at which $\tilde{P}$ intersects the $d$-axis
and the pressure becomes negative, reaches a global minimum and
stays to be negative up to $d\to\infty$.
For the particle numbers $N=2$ and $N=8$ this fact is documented in
Fig. \ref{Fig:3} by the dashed and solid curves, respectively;
note that the two curves are very close to one another which confirms
the expected quick convergence of data with increasing $N$.
We conclude that the attraction phenomenon arises in 2D starting from
a relatively small coupling constant $\Gamma$, somewhere between 2 and 4.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth,clip]{Fig4.eps}
\caption{The pressure $\tilde{P}$ versus the distance between the walls $d$
for the coupling $\Gamma=6$ $(\gamma=3)$.
The dotted (blue) curve corresponds to the asymmetry parameter $\eta=0$
and $N=8$ particles, the dashed (orange) curve to $\eta=1$ and $N=2$,
the solid (green) curve to $\eta=1$ and $N=8$.}
\label{Fig:4}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The exact data for the pressure $\tilde{P}$ versus the distance $d$
for the coupling $\Gamma=6$ are presented in Fig. \ref{Fig:4}.
As before, the dotted curve corresponds to $\eta=0$ and $N=8$,
the dashed curve to $\eta=1$ and $N=2$ and the solid curve to $\eta=1$
and $N=8$.
The results for $\Gamma=4$ and $\Gamma=6$ are similar qualitatively,
the global minima for $\eta=1$ are quantitatively more profound at $\Gamma=6$.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth,clip]{Fig5.eps}
\caption{The pressure $\tilde{P}$ versus the distance between the walls $d$
for the coupling $\Gamma=6$ and $N=6$ particles.
The asymmetry parameter $\eta$ takes successively the values
$0,0.1,0.2,0.4,0.6,0.8,1$, the corresponding curves go at $d=0.3$ from up
to down.}
\label{Fig:5}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
A natural question is at which value of the asymmetry parameter $\eta$
the monotonous decay of the positive $\tilde{P}$, observed at $\eta=0$,
changes to a nonmonotonous plot (with one negative global minimum),
observed at $\eta=1$.
The answer to this question is presented for the coupling $\Gamma=6$
and $N=6$ particles in Fig. \ref{Fig:5}.
It turns out that as soon as $\eta$ is nonzero $\tilde{P}$ exhibits
a nonmonotonous behavior with one negative (global) minimum.
Consequently, the necessary and sufficient condition for the attraction
phenomenon is the presence of a nonzero charge density on both walls.
We suggest that the same condition applies to the analogous 3D models
with counterions only.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth,clip]{Fig6.eps}
\caption{The pressure $\tilde{P}$ versus the distance between the walls $d$
for $N=2$ particles.
The dotted (blue) curves correspond to $\gamma=4$, the dashed (orange) curves
to $\gamma=8$ and the solid (black) curves to $\gamma=20$.
The curves located only above the $d$-axis are evaluated with the asymmetry
parameter $\eta=0$ and those going also below the $d$-axis with $\eta=1$.}
\label{Fig:6}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The formula for $N=2$ particle system (\ref{Q2}), valid for any integer
$\gamma$, is used in Fig. \ref{Fig:6} to visualize the effect of increasing
the coupling on the dependence of the pressure $\tilde{P}$ on the distance $d$.
The chosen values of $\gamma$ are $4$ (dotted curve), $8$ (dashed curve) and
$20$ (solid curve).
For the asymmetry parameter $\eta=0$, all plots decay monotonously to 0
at $d\to\infty$, as is expected from the previous analysis.
For $\eta=1$, all plots exhibit a global (negative) minimum and goes to
0 at $d\to\infty$ from below.
It is seen that by increasing $\gamma$ the global minimum of $\tilde{P}$
goes down; for $\gamma=20$ it approaches the lower bound $-1$.
\renewcommand{\theequation}{7.\arabic{equation}}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\section{Conclusion} \label{Sec:7}
The neutral system of identical pointlike charges moving on the surface of
a cylinder of circumference $W$ and length $d$, with the like-charged
(symmetrically or asymmetrically) end-circles, was of interest in
this paper.
Like any 2D one-component model, it admits a 1D anticommuting-field
representation which permits one to express the one-body, two-body, etc.
densities of particles in terms of the anticommuting-field correlators.
Specific transformations of the anticommuting variables, which preserve
the composite form of the operators (\ref{composite}), imply specific
sum rules for the statistical quantities which are basically of two types.
The sum rules (\ref{zerothmoment}) and (\ref{Wertheim}) are the obvious
finite-$W$ generalizations of the 2D zeroth-moment Stillinger-Lovett
and WLMB conditions, respectively.
Another sum rules, the one given by Eqs. (\ref{result1}), (\ref{dodatok1})
and the other given by Eqs. (\ref{result1}), (\ref{dodatok1}), provide
in the limit $W\to\infty$ the new exact constraints (\ref{sumrule2})
and (\ref{sepa}) for the prefactor function $f^{(2)}(x,x')$ of the
asymptotic behavior of the Ursell function along the two walls
(\ref{asymptotic2}).
The possibility of an effective attraction between like-charged walls
was another important subject investigated in this paper.
The exactly solvable case of the free-fermion coupling $\Gamma=2$ was
studied in Sect. \ref{Sec:5}.
For the symmetrically charged walls $(\eta=1)$, the monotonous dependence of
the (dimensionless) pressure $\tilde{P}$ on the (dimensionless) distance
between the walls $d$ in Fig. \ref{Fig:2} shows that the results for $N=8$ and
$N\to\infty$ particles are practically indistinguishable.
We expect that also for higher values of $\Gamma$ the results for $N=8$
particles describe adequately those in the thermodynamic limit.
For $\Gamma=4$ and $6$ we were able to derive the exact expressions for
the dependence $\tilde{P}(d)$ up to $N=8$ particles,
see Figs. \ref{Fig:3} and \ref{Fig:4}.
If there is no charge on one of the walls $(\eta=0)$, the pressure $\tilde{P}$
is always positive and decreases monotonously with the distance $d$.
In the case of the symmetrically charged walls $(\eta=1)$, the plot
of $\tilde{P}$ versus $d$ has one global minimum and goes to 0 at $d\to\infty$
from below.
In other words, the repulsion between the walls in the region of small $d$
changes at a specific distance to the attraction which lasts up to $d\to\infty$.
Note a small difference between data for $N=2$ and $N=8$.
As is shown in Fig. \ref{Fig:5} for $\Gamma=6$ and $N=6$, the change from
the monotonous to nonmonotonous behavior of $\tilde{P}$ occurs as soon as
$\eta>0$, i.e., when the two walls are like-charged by a nonzero line charge
density the attraction takes place at sufficiently large distances.
The fact that the attraction phenomena between like-charged lines
occurs starting from a relatively small coupling, somewhere between $\Gamma=2$
and $\Gamma=4$, is surprising.
As concerns our future plans, it might be interesting to extend the present
analysis to other one-component Coulomb systems like the jellium model.
\begin{acknowledgement}
The support received from the project EXSES APVV-16-0186 and VEGA Grant
No. 2/0003/18 is acknowledged.
\end{acknowledgement}
|
\section{Introduction}
Soon after its invention, the frequency comb (FC) revolutionized the field of optical frequency metrology \cite{Udem2002}. The sharp modes of a phase-coherent pulse train with stabilized offset frequency $f_{\mathrm{CEO}}$ and repetition frequency $f_{\mathrm{rep}}$ act as a ruler in frequency space and are given by
\begin{equation}
f_{\mathrm{n}}=f_{\mathrm{CEO}}+n f_{\mathrm{rep}},
\label{eq:FC_comb_intro}
\end{equation}
where the mode index $n$ is a large ($\sim 10^6$) integer. These modes form a comb structure that enables absolute frequency determinations with unprecedented precision throughout the infrared and optical regions. The FC has become an indispensable tool for optical clocks \cite{Ludlow2015}, and found novel applications, e.~g., in the fields of molecular spectroscopy \cite{Picque2019}, exoplanet discovery \cite{Wilken2012}, attosecond science \cite{Baltuska2003} and optical communications \cite{Torres-Company2013}. In 2005, the FC spectral range was extended to the extreme ultraviolet (XUV) region below 100\,nm using the process of high-harmonic generation (HHG) to produce odd harmonics of the central wavelength of the original comb \cite{Jones2005,Gohle2005} displaying the same mode spacing. This technique has rapidly evolved since its introduction; the generated powers have increased by roughly six orders of magnitude and are currently on the order of mW per harmonic \cite{Porat2018}; the highest photon energies have surpassed 100\,eV \cite{Carstens2016}; and it was shown that such combs can generate radiation with coherence times exceeding $1$\,s \cite{Benko2014}.
Exploiting well-developed optical and near infrared (NIR) laser-stabilization techniques, XUV combs can directly excite atomic transitions in the XUV \cite{Cingoz2012}. A very interesting proposal is using an XUV comb to investigate the 1S-2S transition in He$^+$ at 60\,nm, because it provides a benchmark for calculations of bound-state quantum electrodynamics, and fundamental quantities like the Rydberg constant can be extracted from its value \cite{Dreissen2019}. Another enormously interesting case for XUV combs is exciting the $8.2$\,eV isomeric state of the $^{229}$Th nucleus \cite{Wense2016,Seiferle2019a}, currently object of many investigations. With a wavelength of $149.7 \pm 3.1$\,nm, this unique nuclear transition is a promising candidate for a proposed clock of extraordinary stability \cite{Wense2018,Peik2003,Campbell2012,Wense2020} due to the long lifetime of the isomeric state \cite{Seiferle2017}, its extreme insensitivity to external perturbations and its sensitivity as a probe of new physics beyond the Standard Model \cite{Flambaum2006,Seiferle2019}.
Finally, many recent theoretical studies have confirmed that highly charged ions (HCI) are also very promising systems for a new generation of atomic clocks also due to their insensitivity to perturbations and extreme metastability \cite{Berengut2012a,Dzuba2012,Kozlov2018b}; experiments have made them available \cite{Schmoeger2015} and demonstrated their feasibility \cite{Micke2020}. In the XUV and x-ray regions, neutrals become photoionized, while HCI remain stable under irradiation with free-electron lasers \cite{Epp2007,Bernitt2012} and synchrotrons \cite{Rudolph2013}, enabling fluorescence spectroscopy on dipole-allowed transitions at those high photon energies. At the same time, many suitably narrow clock transitions can be found in HCI by selecting an appropriate charge state, atomic number and isotope, and certain isoelectronic sequences also serve as fine probes of new physics \cite{Berengut2010,Berengut2012}. The feasibility of our proposed XUV experiments \cite{Crespo2016,Nauta2017,Oelmann2019} with HCI has just been investigated theoretically \cite{Lyu2020}.
After the demonstration of coherent laser spectroscopy of HCI \cite{Micke2020} in the optical range, we have developed a new XUV frequency comb \cite{Nauta2017} for extending that technique into the XUV region. In order to perform high-accuracy frequency determinations in HCI, the comb-line spacing needs to be much larger than the linewidth of the targeted transition. A fiber-based, NIR comb laser operates with a repetition rate of 100\,MHz. At such values, it is far more difficult to reach the peak powers required for HHG $>10^{13}$\,W/cm$^2$ than with conventional kHz laser systems. Therefore, we additionally raise the power of the femtosecond NIR pulses in a passive femtosecond enhancement cavity (fsEC) installed in a large vacuum chamber to suppress XUV absorption. Within the cavity, which has an optical path length matching the NIR pulse separation, the incident NIR pulses are coherently overlapped and strongly focused on a gas target. The light-matter interaction in the cavity focus produces high harmonics that propagate co-linearly with the NIR pulse. In our intended use, they will be coupled out of the cavity and guided to a superconducting Paul trap storing cold HCI \cite{Stark2020}.
The fsEC is the crucial element of the XUV comb, and the size and shape of the NIR focus it produces defines the interaction volume where HHG takes place. To maximize the laser intensity and generate a symmetric XUV beam, a round focus with a similar waist size in the sagittal (vertical) and tangential (horizontal) plane is desirable. A standard bow-tie cavity geometry, however, inherently produces an asymmetrical focal volume, arising from non-normal incidence on the concave focusing mirrors. To reduce this astigmatism, a non-planar geometry can be used \cite{Winkler2016}. In such a configuration, the larger number of mirrors leads to additional NIR dispersion and scattering losses, although the sagittal and tangential foci still do not overlap. In a planar bow-tie configuration, astigmatism can be avoided by using parabolic focusing mirrors \cite{Dupraz2015} or two identical cylindrical cavity mirrors \cite{Carstens2013}. Although the former solution is elegant, parabolic mirrors are costly, and cavity alignment becomes more difficult as the rotation of each parabolic mirror is an additional degree of freedom. The latter method works well and does not have these disadvantages, but requires a symmetric position of the mirrors around the focus. A fully astigmatism-compensated fsEC with an ideal asymmetry for reflective output coupling of the XUV radiation has not yet been realized.
In this work, we present a novel fsEC design with a single cylindrical input coupler (IC) optic that entirely compensates astigmatism near the focal volume. It consists of just five optical elements, thus minimizing dispersion and scattering losses as well as risks of mirror degradation due to carbon cracking \cite{Hollenshead2006}. Between the focus and one of the focusing mirrors, a grating-mirror \cite{Yost2008} deflects the generated XUV radiation out of the fsEC while reflecting the NIR pulses in zeroth order. This arrangement leaves enough space around the interaction volume for the differential pumping system, which is in turn required to handle the dense gas jet \cite{Nauta2020a}.
\section{Cavity design considerations}
In principle, it is desirable for a large HHG yield to maximize the cavity focal volume \cite{Cingoz2012}, but increasing its size also reduces the NIR intensity and dramatically decreases the yield. A large focal volume thus requires a high cavity finesse, or a very intense laser. In order to reduce the sensitivity of the cavity mode to dispersive effects caused by the target gas plasma, it is preferable to keep the finesse low, $\ll1000$ \cite{Allison2011}. Incident laser powers above $\sim$100\,W require careful control of thermal effects in the amplifier fibers and are technically challenging. Shortening the injecting NIR pulses to increase their peak intensity is limited by the low-dispersion bandwidth of the high-reflectivity cavity mirrors. Finally, a small focus size is advantageous to reduce the amount of plasma persisting between pulses in the focal region, since ions leave it faster \cite{Saule2018}. Thus, for optimal HHG conditions using a low finesse cavity and a limited amount of incident laser power, strong focusing is preferred.
For direct frequency-comb spectroscopy, only a single mode needs to interact with the HCI. The grating-mirror (GM) separates the different harmonic orders and coarsely selects the wavelength to be send to the ion. Choosing the GM as XUV output coupler \cite{Yost2008} has the great advantage over other methods, such as using Brewster plates \cite{Jones2005,Gohle2005} or geometrical outcoupling \cite{Pupeza2013,Zhang2020a}, that it both separates the XUV light from the NIR light and spatially disperses the harmonic orders with a single reflection. The GM interacts with the NIR cavity beam only at the surface, such that losses and dispersion can be minimized by choosing a suitable coating. Furthermore, the GM can efficiently diffract a broad wavelength bandwidth, such that a large variety of transitions can be probed in many different HCI species. Finally, the GM has been demonstrated to function over an extended time period without severe degradation effects \cite{Mills2019a}.
Recent experiments have shown that feeding the target jet with high-pressure gas speeds up its expansion and reduces plasma effects in the focal region. This significantly improves the HHG yield \cite{Porat2018}, but requires stronger pumping, which we improve by means of a sophisticated multi-stage differential pump system around the nozzle. This structure excludes cavity beams and optical elements within 10\,mm of the focus region.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{cav_schem_ink_v3.pdf}
\caption{(a) Scheme of the in-vacuo elements of the enhancement cavity. After reflection by a single mirror, the input beam enters the cavity through the cylindrical input coupler (CYM). Its alignment is monitored using the weak transmitted beam, which is guided out of the chamber. The beam reflected from the input side of the CYM is used for locking the cavity length by correcting it with the piezo-driven flat cavity mirror (FPM) applying the Pound-Drever-Hall (PDH) method. The short cavity arm is formed by two curved mirrors (CM1, CM2) and the grating mirror. For monitoring the intra-cavity mode profile and circulating power we use the small leakage through CM1. An arrow indicates the propagation direction of the harmonics. (b) Principle of the grating mirror (GM). It consists of a quarter-wave dielectric stack with a thick top layer with an etched grating structure with a short period, reflecting NIR but diffracting XUV radiation. (c) Calculated diffraction efficiency of the GM for the wavelengths of interest. (d) Profile of the Gaussian cavity mode from the cavity-transmitted beam at a distance of 0.78\,m after the mirror as recorded with a CCD camera. (e) Close-up of the focus region. The free space with a radius of 10\,mm around the cavity focus is marked by a green sphere. }
\label{fig:cav_schem}
\end{figure}
We design the geometry of the cavity with the ABCD matrix formalism, where the propagation of a Gaussian beam is described by a complex $q$ parameter,
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{q(z)}=\frac{1}{R(z)}-i \frac{\lambda}{\pi w(z)^{2}}.
\label{eq:q_param}
\end{equation}
$R(z)$ is the wavefront radius of curvature and $w(z)$ and the beam waist size, which both depend on the longitudinal position $z$. The beam propagation through an optical system is described with a ray-transfer matrix defined as
\begin{equation}
M_{\mathrm{tot}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
A & B \\
C & D
\end{array}\right).
\end{equation}
Using matrices for common optical elements from the literature \cite{Siegman1986}, the total transfer matrix of the system results from their matrix product. The $q$ parameter at the exit evolves from the incident beam $q_1$ according to
\begin{equation}
q_{2}=\frac{A q_{1}+B}{C q_{1}+D}.
\label{eq:q_prop}
\end{equation}
To obtain a stable cavity mode, we require that $q_1=q_2$ after one full round-trip. In a ring cavity, the non-normal incidence angles at the curved optics requires different ABCD matrices to treat the tangential plane separately from the sagittal plane.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fw_cav_ink_v2.pdf}
\caption{(a) Focus waist size of the final cavity design. Due to the large incidence angles of 11\textdegree\ and 8\textdegree\ on the curved mirrors with ROC = 100\,mm and ROC = 175\,mm respectively, both stability regions are pulled apart, and only their small overlap remains for cavity operation. In its center, an astigmatism-free focus appears. Measurements confirmed stable cavity operation with a waist of 14.7\,$\mu$m in both planes. Inset (c) shows the overall geometry. (b) Calculated waist size of the cavity beam, with indicated mirror positions. A secondary tangential focus appears in the long cavity arm.}
\label{fig:fwrealcav}
\end{figure}
\section{Experimental setup}
Chirped pulses ($\sim$24\,ps) with 12\,W of average power and a 15\,nm FWHM bandwidth centered at 1039\,nm are produced by a 100\,MHz mode-locked laser (FC1000-250, Menlo Systems) referenced to the global positioning system signal. The pulses are amplified by a home-built amplifier consisting of an 80\,cm long Yb-doped photonic crystal-fiber rod (aeroGAIN-ROD-MODULE-2.0 PM85, NKT photonics) which is pumped backwards by a fiber-coupled 250\,W continuous wave laser diode (D4F2S22-976.3-250C-IS58.1, DILAS Diodenlaser GmbH) at 976\,nm. Using a 1000 lines/mm transmission grating (1158\_28x18\_6.35\_H, Gitterwerk GmbH) with a specified single-pass transmission $>98.5$\%, the pulse duration is compressed to 220\,fs at 88\,W of power. These pulses are then steered into an ultra-high vacuum chamber housing the fsEC. The optics for the 3-m long cavity are stably mounted on a rigid titanium rod structure that is directly seated on the optical table containing the FC. The surrounding vacuum chamber is mechanically decoupled from it by flexible bellows and resting on air pistons to avoid vibrations from the vacuum pumps reaching the mirrors. Details of the vacuum system as well as the multi-stage differential pump system surrounding the cavity focus will be described in a separate paper \cite{Nauta2020a}.
An overview of the in-vacuo optical elements is shown in Figure \ref{fig:cav_schem}(a). To monitor slow beam drifts, mirror leakage is directed to two CCD cameras outside the vacuum chamber. In this way, the alignment with the fsEC can recovered without opening the vacuum chamber when it is lost. Most of the light reflected from the IC is sent onto a beam dump, while a small part is spectrally dispersed and used for Pound-Drever-Hall-locking of the cavity length to the comb repetition rate. A 4\,MHz modulation signal is applied to an EOM inside the laser oscillator to produce an error signal, which is fed back onto a piezo-element behind the flat cavity mirror by a PID controller (STEMLAB 125-10 Redpitaya) \cite{Hannig2018}. For compensation of slow drifts of thermal origin, this mirror is mounted on a translation stage (Q-545.10U, Physik Instrumente) also controlled by the feedback loop, such that the fsEC can stay locked for many hours.
A weak beam leaking from the cavity through the first curved mirror (CM1) is collimated and sent to a CCD camera (DCC1240M, Thorlabs) and a photodiode (PDA 100A, Thorlabs). The former continuously monitors the transverse profile of the cavity mode (see Figure \ref{fig:cav_schem}(d)); while the latter measures the intra-cavity power. We calibrate it by removing the input coupler and recording the photodiode voltage as function of incident power. For adjusting the distance between the two curved mirrors, CM1 is placed on a closed-loop translation stage (Q-521.24U, Physik Instrumente). Directly after the focus, the beam impinges on the GM (35\,mm x 20\,mm x 2\,mm substrate, Ibsen Photonics) under a 75\textdegree grazing-incidence angle. Its XUV diffraction efficiency for wavelengths between 40 and 100\,nm was simulated and optimized using the software PCGrate. The resulting grating design (Figure \ref{fig:cav_schem}(b)) has a theoretical efficiency above 10\% in most of this range (Figure \ref{fig:cav_schem}(c)). The mounted GM has its backside glued to a 10\,mm$^2$ copper braid removing heat due to NIR absorption. To align the cavity in vacuum, the CYM and FPM are steered by piezoelectric picomotors (N-480 PiezoMike, Physik Instrumente).
The cavity mirrors are coated by quarter-wave dielectric stacks (Layertec) of alternating SiO$_2$ and Ta$_2$O$_5$ layers. They generally ensure low dispersion and high damage thresholds at a reflectivity of $R \approx0.99996$ and a group-delay dispersion (GDD) $<$ 0.5\,fs$^2$ between 1020 and 1060\,nm. To set a low finesse, an IC mirror with a reflectivity of $R_{\mathrm{IC}} = 0.993$ was chosen such that it dominates the cavity losses. The GM is designed to have a very high NIR reflectivity (R = 0.99999) with a GDD $<$ 2\,fs$^2$. However, the grating structure etched into its top layer causes some additional losses. The pulse-to-pulse phase accumulation inside the cavity is matched to the carrier-envelope offset (CEO) phase from the oscillator for maximum enhancement. Every few hours, we manually adjust the laser CEO frequency, which is measured by an f-2f interferometer.
Harmonics angularly dispersed by the GM impinge on a plate coated with sodium salicylate, which under XUV irradiation fluoresces around 420\,nm. The spots from the harmonics are imaged with an electron-multiplying CCD camera (Luca R EMCCD, Andor), and the power of each one is measured with a GaAsP photodiode (G1127-04, Hamamatsu Photonics). Its sensitivity steeply drops above 680\,nm, making it insensitive to residual NIR radiation from the fsEC. The photodiode current is measured with a picoamperemeter (Model 152, Keithly), and normalized using a responsitivity curve provided by the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt in Braunschweig which was cross-checked with a power measurement using a 235\,nm laser.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{focusposition.pdf}
\caption{Tangential and sagittal waist size as function of longitudinal position in the vicinity of the cavity focus. Without compensation, both foci are displaced by 2\,mm. By utilizing a cylindrical input coupler (IC), the foci can be made to overlap and produce a single, astigmatism-free focus. The effect of the cylindrical IC is confirmed by knife-edge measurements in both planes.}
\label{fig:focusposition}
\end{figure}
\section{Results \& discussion}
Providig sufficient space around the focus while keeping a small waist size results in large incidence angles on the curved cavity mirrors. This generates astigmatism and a separation of the vertical and horizontal foci, but at carefully chosen angles, tight foci can be produced in both the sagittal and tangential plane. Figure \ref{fig:fwrealcav}(a), shows the calculated focus waist sizes as a function of the curved mirror distance. The two stability regions only have a small overlap due to incidence angles of 11\textdegree\ and 8\textdegree\ on the curved mirrors with R = 175\,mm and R = 100\,mm, respectively. Yet, when the cavity is operated at the intersection of both regions, an astigmatism-free and tight focus is produced. In Figure \ref{fig:fwrealcav}(b), the resulting beam size throughout the cavity is shown. The secondary tangential focus in the long cavity arm is not problematic since its position is not close to a cavity mirror.
To verify that the focus waist size of the implemented cavity corresponds to the calculations, the beam size of the transmitted cavity light was recorded on the CCD camera at two different positions in the beam. By back-propagating the Gaussian beam parameters, the focus waist size can be uniquely determined in each plane, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:fwrealcav}(a). Waist-size uncertainties arise from shifts of the optical elements in the transmitted beam path, and those of the curved-mirror distance from measurement errors. Both uncertainties are larger for the tangential than for the saggital plane, since the cavity had to be re-aligned in that plane during the measurement series because of the finite incidence angle on the curved mirrors. A good overall agreement between the measured and calculated waist sizes is found, demonstrating a focus waist of 14.7\,$\mu$m in both planes and stable cavity operation within the small overlap of both stability regions.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{cav_meas_v2.pdf}
\caption{(a) Intra-cavity power as function of incident power. With a $R_i=0.9935$ input coupler, an average enhancement of $\beta=316\pm8$ is reached for an empty cavity. An apparent super-linear behaviour is likely due to an increased sensitivity to calibration errors at very high circulating powers. (b) Color-coded cavity transmitted spectrum as function of carrier envelope offset phase $\phi_{\mathrm{CEO}}=2\pi\cdot f_{\mathrm{CEO}}/f_{\mathrm{rep}}$. The cavity was locked at a wavelength of 1035.6 nm during the measurement making this spectral range resonant for any phase offset. (c) Measured cavity GDD and total cavity reflectivity $R_{\mathrm{IC}} R_{\mathrm{cav}}$ as function of wavelength. The discrepancy between measured and theoretical values is most probably due to a damaged coating on one of the mirrors.}
\label{fig:cav_meas}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:focusposition} shows the waist size in longitudinal ($z$) direction; dashed lines indicate that the tangential and sagittal foci are displaced. This effect can be compensated by inserting a cylindrical IC with a custom curvature of 2061\,mm, as indicated by the solid lines. To corroborate this, we carried out knife-edge measurements of the beam size in the focus region. A razor blade mounted on an XYZ-translation stage was moved into the cavity beam while recording the transmitted intensity through one of the cavity mirrors on a photodiode. By fitting error functions to the intensity decay curves, we determine the beam waist data points in Figure \ref{fig:focusposition}. Large uncertainties are due to the interplay of edge-diffraction with the cavity mode \cite{Lee2019}. Data points near the focus confirm that full astigmatism compensation is accomplished.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering\includegraphics[width=.8\textwidth]{harm_screen.pdf}
\caption{Images of a screen coated with sodium salicylate showing fluorescence from various harmonic orders for three different target gases. Faint dots located between the odd harmonic orders originate from second-order diffraction from the grating mirror. The intensity scales for each gas are different.}
\label{fig:harm_screen}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{harm_yield.pdf}
\caption{Integrated harmonic yield at 6.4\,kW intra-cavity power for (a) Kr at 8\,bar; (b) Ar at 12 bar backing pressure. The power of the harmonics is measured with a photodiode normalized at the 15th and 17th harmonic, respectively.}
\label{fig:harm_yield}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:cav_meas}(a) shows the circulating power as a function of the incident power while sweeping the cavity length over the resonances. The fit yields an average enhancement factor of $316\pm8$. Two sets of cylindrical lenses are used for matching the incident beam to the cavity mode. The spatial mode-matching factor $\epsilon=0.75$ was determined by measuring the cavity contrast, defined as the ratio between the decrease of the reflected intensity at resonance and the off-resonance intensity, for various IC mirrors with a known reflectivity. Using the relation $\beta=\epsilon(1-R_{\mathrm{IC}})\frac{\mathcal{F}^2}{\pi^2}$, we obtain a cavity finesse $\mathcal{F}$ of~805. At an input power of 75\,W we reach an average circulating power of more than 25\,kW. For the 220\,fs pulse duration and the 679\,$\mathrm{\mu}$m$^2$ focal area, this yields a peak intensity at the focus of $3.3\times 10^{14}$\,W/cm$^2$, sufficient to drive the HHG process.
By recording the cavity transmission spectrum while changing the comb offset frequency, the 2D color map shown in Figure \ref{fig:cav_meas}(b) was obtained. Its intensity depends on both the driving optical frequency $\omega$ and the comb CEO phase $\phi_{\mathrm{CEO}}$ and is proportional to the square of the intra-cavity electric-field amplitude
\begin{equation}
I_{\mathrm{trans}}\left(\omega,\phi_{\mathrm{CEO}}\right)\propto\left|E_{\mathrm{circ}}\left(\omega,\phi_{\mathrm{CEO}}\right)\right|^2=\left|\frac{\sqrt{1-R_{\mathrm{IC}}(\omega)}E_{inc}(\omega)}{1-\sqrt{R_{\mathrm{IC}}(\omega)R_{\mathrm{cav}}(\omega)}\exp\left[i\Delta \phi_{\mathrm{cav}}(\omega,\phi_{\mathrm{CEO}})\right]}\right|^2,
\label{eq:ceofit}
\end{equation}
where $R_{\mathrm{IC}}(\omega)$ is the IC reflectivity, $R_{\mathrm{cav}}(\omega)$ the product of all other cavity mirror reflectivities, and $\Delta \phi_{\mathrm{cav}}(\omega,\phi_{\mathrm{CEO}})$ the round-trip phase shift. For each vertical slice through the 2D intensity distribution, a value of $\Delta \phi_{\mathrm{cav}}$ can be determined for that specific wavelength, from which the cavity GDD can be extracted \cite{Schliesser2006}. The width of this peak provides a measure for the round-trip losses $\left(1-R_{\mathrm{cav}}\right)$. Fits were performed for many different wavelengths, yielding a mostly good agreement between the above model and the data. In Figure \ref{fig:cav_meas}(c), the resulting GDD values are shown (solid black line). Fast fluctuations in the calculated phase function are amplified when taking the numerical derivative in order to calculate the GDD, therefore a Gaussian convolution filter (7\,Thz standard deviation) was used to smooth the data before differentiating. The resulting GDD is still much larger than the calculated design values based on the technical specifications of the mirrors (dashed black line), especially at the wings of the spectrum. This could be due to the reduced signal-to-noise ratio there, or to the narrow bandwidth of our FC spectrum of 15\,nm making the measurement less accurate. Also, the large incidence angles of the curved mirrors could cause an increased dispersion in the wings of the spectrum, since the displayed design values are for normal incidence.
The measured total cavity reflectivity $R_{\mathrm{IC}}R_{\mathrm{cav}}$ is displayed in Figure \ref{fig:cav_meas}(c) (solid green line) together with the theoretical reflectivity of the input coupler (dashed green line). As expected from our mirror design, the reflectivity is rather flat over the range of the incident spectrum, apart for some deviations in the wings. The difference between the measured curve and the IC reflectivity comes from additional losses inside the cavity $R_{\mathrm{cav}}$, which can be attributed largely to damaged spots on one mirror found after the measurements were taken. The overall flat cavity-loss spectrum proves that the mirror bandwidth is suitable to enhance the whole comb spectrum.
Figure \ref{fig:harm_screen} displays images of the fluorescence screen irradiated by harmonics generated with Ar, Kr and Xe as target gas. Their orders were identified by their position. Small dots between the uneven orders are due to second-order diffraction of higher-order harmonics. In the case of Xe, they appear at positions predicted for the 15th, 17th and 19th harmonic orders. Since the 21st and higher orders are much weaker, no second-order dots appear for those. Small, bright spots originate from phase-coherent short trajectories in the HHG process. Some harmonic orders display a fainter, larger halo, as the 13th and 15th in Xe or the 17th and 19th harmonic in Ar, which are caused by the long trajectories of the HHG process \cite{Gaarde1999}. In Xe we observe up to the 23th harmonic, for Kr up to the 29th and for Ar up to the 35th, corresponding to an energy (wavelength) of 42\,eV (30\,nm). The grating efficiency and the fluorescence yield of sodium salicylate steeply drop at such small wavelengths, limiting the highest observable harmonic order. In Figure \ref{fig:harm_yield}, the vertically integrated intensity of the fluorescent screen is shown for (a) Kr and (b) Ar at backing pressures of 8\,bar and 12\,bar, respectively, and a nozzle diameter of 50\,$\mathrm{\mu}$m. Due to its higher ionization potential, the phase-matching pressure for Ar is higher than that of Kr. For measuring the output power, each harmonic is integrated over the gray area, and the resulting total intensity normalized using the calibrated photodiode with an estimated uncertainty of 20\%. Deviations could be due to errors in the integration limits of the individual harmonics and to inhomogeneities in the thickness of the layer of sodium salicylate on the glass plate.
\section{Conclusion}
We have presented a novel design for a fully astigmatism-compensated femtosecond cavity that enhances 100\,MHz, 80\,W, 220\,fs pulses from a phase-stabilized frequency comb. By introducing a cylindrical input coupler (IC) mirror, a round cavity focus with a waist size of 15\,$\mathrm{\mu}$m is produced with full symmetry in both the sagittal and tangential planes. The cavity enhances the complete incident spectrum by a factor of $316\pm8$, leading to focus intensities of $\sim 10^{14}$\,W/cm$^2$ sufficient for HHG. Produced XUV light is coupled out of the cavity using a grating mirror, angularly dispersing the harmonics for future frequency-resolved spectroscopy purposes. Space freed around the focus by our design accommodates a differential pump system needed for reaching high target gas densities in the focal volume while keeping ultra-high vacuum conditions in the chamber. Three different target gases, Xe, Kr and Ar were used, generating harmonics ranging from the 7th up to the 23th, 29th and 35th respectively, corresponding to a maximum observed photon energy (wavelength) of 42\,eV (30\,nm).
Realizing this XUV comb is an important step towards performing the first ultra-high precision spectroscopy on HCI in this spectral region. Furthermore, the novel cavity enables multi-photon ionization experiments at a much lower intensity and higher precision than hitherto possible \cite{Nauta2020}. Moreover, the XUV comb could be employed to search for the nuclear transition in the $^{229m}$Th isomer, since the 7th harmonic of our comb matches with its most accurately determined energy \cite{Seiferle2019a}. To further improve the phase matching conditions and raise the HHG output, the setup is ready to use higher pressures and gas mixtures boosting the speed of the target gas and reducing the amount of detrimental steady-state plasma in the focus region \cite{Porat2018, Nauta2020a}.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank the MPIK mechanical workshop for fabrication of numerous parts.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
The Epps effect \cite{EPPS1979} is key phenomenology relating to high-frequency correlation dynamics in financial markets. Central to the effect is the relationship between correlations and the time scale of the sampling scheme. The Epps effect is prevalent and has been observed in a range of financial markets ranging from stock markets to foreign exchange markets (see \citet{MMZ2011} and references therein).
The Epps effect is a long-studied phenomenon that still lacks a satisfactory and comprehensive explanation. The main sources that contribute towards this effect include: (i) asynchrony, (ii) lead-lag, and (iii) tick-size (discretisation of financial prices). We highlight a few studies by various scholars over the last few decades. \citet{RENO2001} explored the effect of asynchrony under the presence of lead-lag. \citet{PI2007} demonstrated that different levels of asynchrony resulted in different behaviours of the Epps effect. \citet{TK2007} derived an analytical expression that characterised the Epps effect as a function of the rate parameter from Poisson sampling. They extended this further by decomposing the correlation at a certain time scale $\Delta t$ as a function of the correlation at smaller time scales $\Delta t_0$ \cite{TK2009}. The analytic expression was then further extended by \citet{MMZ2011} who separated the effect of asynchrony and that of lead-lag. Finally, \citet{MSG2010} investigated the direct impact of tick-size on the Epps effect.
Another strand of literature around the Epps effect focuses on estimators correcting for this decay in correlation. The canonical estimator that addresses this is the Hayashi--Yoshida estimator \cite{HY2005} which corrected the effect of asynchrony by allowing for multiple contributions using a cumulative covariance estimator. \citet{BLPP2019} characterised the correction through the probability of flat trading whereas \citet{MSG2011} provided a correction that compensated for both the statistical cause of tick-size and asynchrony. Other notable estimators that address this include: the quasi-maximum likelihood estimator from \citet{AFX2010} and the multi-asset lagged adjustment estimator from \citet{BCP2020}.
Part of the reason why the phenomenon still lacks a satisfactory explanation is because these causes do not account for the entirety of the Epps effect \cite{MMZ2011,MSG2011,TK2009}. The Epps effect is commonly understood as a bias that requires a correction \cite{BLPP2019,ZHANG2010}. However, \citet{PCEPTG2020b} speculated whether the Epps effect is better understood as a fundamental property arising from the discrete nature of high-frequency financial markets, and questioned whether diffusion processes are an appropriate underlying model representation. Nonetheless, all the aforementioned studies investigated the Epps effect under calendar time sampling. \citet{PCRBTG2019} deviated from this by providing a preliminary investigation of the effect under volume time sampling.
Time and the choice of time scales is fundamental to how we choose to represent information and data. This implies both the units and the aggregation scales for the resulting statistical measurables used to describe financial systems \cite{CTPA2011a}. At low-frequency the measurement time scales conform well with those convenient to human operators and researchers intuition --- calendar time. However, as one moves into the world of heterogeneous inter-related individual events, before meaningful correlations have emerged, it becomes increasingly difficult to uniquely provide global measures of event synchronisation to the system.
The first real attempt at linking the dynamics under different definitions of time was by \citet{DERMAN2002}. Derman was able to derive the relationship between different definitions of time by assuming that each stock has its own {\it intrinsic time} that has a linear map to calendar time based on the stock's trading frequency. Under these assumptions, Derman was able to show that correlations are the same in calendar and intrinsic time. This linear assumption is problematic because the inter-arrivals of empirical events (market orders) are not homogeneous, but rather follows a Weibull distribution \cite{CTPA2011a}.
The goal of this paper is to explore the Epps effect under alternative sampling schemes. This is similar to what has been done for the Realised Volatility (RV) \cite{Fukasawa2010,GO2008,Oomen2006}. We explore this by using the Malliavin--Mancino (MM) Fourier estimator \cite{MM2002,MM2009} to directly probe the relationship between measured correlations and time scale represented as frequencies: (i) the number of Fourier coefficients $N$ will define the sampling frequency, and (ii) the reconstruction frequency $M$. Here we are using integrated estimates and thus do not need to concern ourselves with the choice of $M$ \cite{PC2020}. We will contrast this with the well understood Hayashi--Yoshida (HY) estimator. This comparison is informative because both are designed to compute estimates in calendar time. However, the HY is based on the {\it a priori} assumption that the process has some underlying Brownian motion contribution and is constructed to be unbiased in this sense. The MM estimator has no such reliance on the specification of bias with respect to the underlying process.
Many estimation methods do not allow the precise extraction of the correlations as a direct function of the sampling frequency independent of assumptions relating to the underlying stochastic processes. Fourier methods provide the technology to achieve this. In addition, the Fourier method allows direct extraction of correlations at a particular sampling time scale. This will enable us to efficiently probe correlations at different high-frequency time scales.
There are important caveats, one of which is captured by volume time. Volume time is an example of when we cannot explicitly use sampling to map a definition of time aggregated from local events into some global calendar time that preserves event synchronisation in both representations. This is because the rate of trading of each underlying stock is not well-defined in calendar time which can lead to cases where trading assets may be synchronised in volume time, but only intermittently in calendar time.
To simulate the order book events, in particular transactions, we need a time labelled 3-tuple with time, price, and volume: $(t,p,v)$. Using the event times defined by the Hawkes process we are free to choose the distributional properties of the prices and volumes associated with events. We know empirically that we can relate price changes $\Delta p_t$ of transactions at some time $t$ to the volumes at that time $v_t$ using a price impact function: $\Delta p_t \propto f(v_t)$. We could exploit the price impact function to simulate a realistic order-book of transaction events \cite{CTPA2011a}. Here we argue that one does not need to link the volumes to the price changes through price impact to recover realistic Epps curves under the various sampling schemes considered. Perhaps surprisingly, the fine-to-coarse model introduced by \citet{BDHM2013a} conforms well with reality when combined with a power-law distribution for the volumes \cite{CTPA2011a}.
The paper is structured as follows. \Cref{sec:time} introduces the different temporal metrics. \Cref{sec:est} presents the estimators and their relationship to each other. \Cref{sec:exp} uses a multivariate Hawkes process to simulate an event-based price process which is used to investigate and compare calendar time sampling, transaction time sampling and a proxy for volume time sampling. \Cref{sec:emp} investigates and compares the various sampling methods for banking securities on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange using trade-and-quote data. Finally, \Cref{sec:conc} we conclude with some closing remarks.
The key contribution made is to demonstrate that the Epps effect emerges with different dynamics depending on the choice of time. In particular, volume time rescales the exponential emergence of correlation into a linear scale.
\section{Temporal metrics}\label{sec:time}
In order to investigate the Epps effect under alternative sampling schemes, we need to evaluate the various definitions of time \cite{CTPA2011a,GO2008,Oomen2006,Toke2011}. First we have {\it calendar time} also known as {\it physical time}. This is the most natural way to perceive time as it is the way humans experience time at low-frequency and it is common to all investors and markets. It is also the most common approach used to compute statistical properties of financial time series because it can be defined without reference to the system generating the data. Even though the passage of time is most natural to human operators under this definition, it is not without challenges. These problems include: intraday seasonality, asynchrony across stocks, different and often overlapping market calendars and time zones. However, calendar time can allow coordinated sampling in a unique way independent of the data generation process.
There are other methods to measure the passage of time, approaches that arise from the mechanics of the data generating processes, and the technologies used to manage and make decisions in financial systems. We can count events and use the event arrivals to increment a time. The most general being {\it event time}. For example, if we consider the full order book then one may increment event time by one unit when an order book event occurs. This may be a trade, a cancellation, an order modification or any order book event that changes the order book in some way. This is related to the idea of decision time, but here we will use {\it event time} and {\it decision time} interchangeably because practically any event in the order book is the result of a decision. Some prudence should be exercised, more generally in an Economic system this need not be the case, as many events can be truly random and exogenous relative to the strategic agents making decisions and taking actions that generate events. An outcome of using event time can be the ``smoothing'' of the data which is caused by bursts of activity being stretched out in the time series --- as we have one event per time unit \cite{CTPA2011a}. This can lead to the effect that under calendar time there is significant clustering, while under different choices of event time the clustering effect can be smoothed away.
There can be different types of event times. For example, when considering transaction prices, one may use {\it trade time} or {\it transaction time}. Using this count, time is increased by one unit each time a unique transaction occurs. The advantage of this count is that limit orders do not affect the flow of time. Additionally, aggregational normality is more clear in trade time \cite{CTPA2011a}. However, this choice of time can exclude the many cascades and burst of order book changes that can in turn lead to the actual trading events.
One can also use {\it tick time}. Using this count, time is increased by one unit each time the price changes. \citet{GO2008} found that for the realised volatility, tick time sampling is superior to transaction time sampling, which are both an improvement on calendar time sampling \cite{Oomen2006}, at least with respect to using a performance measure such as the mean squared error. There are many such possible choices for performance measures.
Finally, one may use {\it volume time} \cite{ELO2012B} to incorporate the volume of transactions. Using this count, time is increased by one unit for each unit of volume transacted each time a single share or instrument is exchanged. The advantage of this count is that stocks can naturally be synchronised, irrespective of their liquidity, directly in terms of sequence of comparable volumes traded. This is a practical data-science construct which is useful for the aggregation of real-time relative risk measures such as VPIN \cite{ELO2012B}.
However, mapping event times to calendar times can be problematic. For example, mapping volume time to a calendar or external clock does not always make sense because the mapping is highly nonlinear, intermittent and system dependent. In finance, an example where this can make sense could be the aggregation of transactions from trade time to bar data, so called OHLCV bars. These are typically aggregated at 1 minute, 5 minutes, and so on; it should be expected to require increments that may be correlated.\footnote{It should be noted that mappings from trade events to bar data are still nonlinear mappings, but ones that may well be possible to faithfully represent using approximations that combine stochastic time and fractional process \cite{GJR2018}. However, these are still defined using continuous time limit representations without explicit coarse-grained sampling, and so may not be natural to a system that is fundamentally discrete at high-frequency \cite{PCEPTG2020b}.} Moreover, trade time can also be problematic when one mixes data generating processes. For example, the aggregation of intraday transactions in trade time to low-frequency transactions sampled below one day. Here the data generating processes can be vastly incommensurate; intraday transactions represent prices arising from continuous-time double auctions and traders operating on these time scales. Whereas, market close prices are from an entirely different market structure, specifically closing auctions. These can be populated by different trading agents with different decision horizons and liquidity expectations. Sampling daily closing auction prices to even lower frequencies, such as weekly, monthly or even yearly, can also be problematic if key properties of the power spectrum are not preserved.
Here we restrict ourselves to high-frequency and intraday day time scales, {\it i.e.,} to the high-frequency and mesoscale. Here the intermediate mesoscale is defined by time scales at which correlations are still emergent. For the purposes of our discussion, low-frequency finance has well-defined correlations that can be well represented by traditional latent models. Here we conceptually associate low-frequency with anything sampled from daily closing auction data where agent decisions are synchronised by the mechanism of the auction process.
Aside from what time scales can be appropriate for a given event process and the associated decisions being made from the resulting data, the question of whether these can be uniquely aggregated or mapped into various notions of global system time depends on how the correlations between these event processes emerge in the representations and the implicit filtering that takes place on the underlying data. Any choice of time scale implies bounds on what can be measured and represented by those measures being computed from the resulting filtered and sampled data. The choice of time carries implicit implications for the uncertainty relations that link various measurables, particularly under averaging and sampling --- the {\it cardinal theorems of interpolation}
\cite{Luke1999,Nyquist1928,Robertson1929,Shannon1949a,Shannon1998}. However, here it is the Whittaker-Shannon interpolation theorems and the link to the Gabor limit theorems that is probably of most interest. We may need to be particularly careful of the bandwidth versus time-limiting constraints \cite{Gabor1946} when making choices relating the sampling time scales near to the emergence of events themselves. The importance of this will not be discussed any further here, however, it is something that we would like to urge readers to remain cognisant of as it may provide constraints on the correlations and their dynamics as they emerge.
The fundamental question remains unanswered: What choice of time is appropriate when we have chosen a particular sampling time scale when computing cross-correlations between different assets with vastly different event generation processes? Correlations have yet to emerge at small time scales near individual events. Whereas, at larger time scales, the aggregation of events impacts the nature of cross-correlations and how one measures the cross-impacts and relationships between event generation processes.
\section{Estimators}\label{sec:est}
\subsection{Malliavin--Mancino}\label{subsec:MM}
\citet{MM2002,MM2009} introduced a Fourier estimator that expresses the Fourier coefficients of the volatility process using the Fourier coefficients of the price process $X^i_t = \ln(p^i_t)$, where $p^i_t$ is the generic asset price at time $t$ for asset $i$.
Following \citet{MM2009}, by rescaling the transactions times between $[0, T]$ to $[0, 2\pi]$ and using the \textit{Bohr} convolution product, we have that for all $k \in \mathbb{Z}$ and $N$ samples:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Der:1}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F}(\Sigma^{ij})(k) = \lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} \frac{2 \pi}{2N+1} \sum_{|s| \leq N} \mathcal{F}(dX^i)(s) \mathcal{F}(dX^j)(k-s),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{F}(\ast)(\star)$ is the $\star$th Fourier coefficient of the $\ast$ process.
Using previous tick interpolation and a simple function approximation for the Fourier coefficients (see \cite{MM2009}), we obtain the Dirichlet representation of the integrated volatility/co-volatility estimator:\footnote{Note that $\mathrm{i}\mkern1mu \in \mathbb{C}$ is such that $\operatorname{Re}(\mathrm{i}\mkern1mu)=0$ and $\operatorname{Im}(\mathrm{i}\mkern1mu)=1$. It should not be confused with integer indices $i$, for example on the times $t^i_h$.}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Der:2}
\hat{\Sigma}^{ij}_{n,N} = \frac{1}{2N+1} \sum_{\substack{|s|\leq N \\ h=0,\ell=0}}^{n_i-1,n_j-1} e^{\mathrm{i}\mkern1mu s(t^j_{\ell} - t^i_h)} \delta_{i}(I_h) \delta_{j}(I_{\ell}),
\end{equation}
where $U^i = \{ t_h^i \}_{h=0}^{n_i}$ and $U^j = \{ t_{\ell}^j \}_{\ell=0}^{n_j}$ are the asynchronous transactions times observed between $[0,T]$ for each asset, and the price fluctuations are:
$$
\delta_{i}(I_h) = X^i_{t_{h+1}^i} - X^i_{t_{h}^i}, \quad \delta_{j}(I_{\ell}) = X^j_{t_{\ell+1}^j} - X^j_{t_{\ell}^j}
$$
for asset $i$ and $j$ respectively, and $n_i$ is the sample dimension for price $p^i$ and $n_j$ that of the price $p^j$, which \textit{a priori} can be different.
The advantage behind the estimator is its ability to investigate different time scales through the choice of $N$ \cite{PCEPTG2020a}. The conversion is given as:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Der:3}
N = \left\lfloor \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{T}{\Delta t} - 1 \right) \right\rfloor.
\end{equation}
This means that there is no need to re-sample the raw observations onto a homogeneous grid using previous tick interpolation, such as in the case when using the RV estimator.
\subsection{Hayashi--Yoshida}\label{subsec:HY}
\citet{HY2005} introduced a cumulative covariance estimator defined as:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Der:4}
\begin{aligned}
\hat{\Sigma}^{ij}_{T}
&= \sum_{h=1}^{\# U^i} \sum_{\ell=1}^{\# U^j} \left( X_{t_{h}^i}^i - X_{t_{h-1}^i}^i \right) \left( X_{t_{\ell}^j}^j - X_{t_{\ell-1}^j}^j \right) w_{h \ell},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Der:5}
w_{h \ell}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
1 & \text { if }\left(t_{h-1}^{i}, t_{h}^{i}\right] \cap\left(t_{\ell-1}^{j}, t_{\ell}^{j}\right] \neq \emptyset, \\
0 & \text { otherwise. }
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
Here $U^i = \{ t_h^i \}_{h \in \mathbb{Z}}$ is the set of asynchronous transactions observed between $\left[0, T\right]$ for asset $i$ and $\# U^i = n_i$ denotes the cardinality of set $U^i$.
The advantage behind the estimator is its ability to ameliorate the statistical cause of the Epps effect arising from asynchrony. The weakness of this estimator is that it is unable to investigate different time scales, which is particularly problematic because asynchrony is only one of the various sources of the Epps effect \cite{PCEPTG2020b}.
\subsection{Realised Volatility}\label{subsec:relation}
Both the Malliavin--Mancino and Hayashi--Yoshida estimator were designed to compute estimates in calendar time, while dealing with the issue of asynchronous arrival of transactions. Both estimators overcome the need to re-sample the process onto a synchronous and homogeneous grid, for example, by using previous tick interpolation. However, given that we plan to re-sample the process under different definitions of time, it becomes useful to consider how the two estimators relate to the Realised Volatility (RV) estimator.
In the case of the Hayashi--Yoshida estimator, when $t_{h}^{i}$ and $t_{\ell}^{j}$ are synchronous and homogeneously spaced, we see that \cref{eq:Der:4} reduces to the RV estimator given as:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Der:6}
\begin{aligned}
\hat{\Sigma}^{ij}_{T}
&= \sum_{h=1}^{n} \left( X_{t_{h}^i}^i - X_{t_{h-1}^i}^i \right) \left( X_{t_{h}^j}^j - X_{t_{h-1}^j}^j \right).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
In the case of the Malliavin--Mancino estimator, when $t_{h}^{i}$ and $t_{\ell}^{j}$ are synchronous, homogeneously spaced and $N = n/2$ (the Nyquist frequency in the synchronous case, where $n=n_i=n_j$), then it was found in \cite{PCRBTG2019} that the estimate were numerically the same as the RV estimate. This will also be demonstrated and discussed in \Cref{subsec:exp:VT}.
\section{Experiments}\label{sec:exp}
Here we are only interested in transactions, for this reason the remainder of the paper we will be using event time and transaction time interchangeably.
We will be comparing two types of sampling for calendar and event time. First, when using the RV estimator, we will down sample a synchronous and homogeneous grid (obtained through previous tick interpolation) by skipping observations to investigate different time scales. For example, if we have 28,200 samples that correspond to one second intervals in calendar time. This means we would drop half the samples by sampling every second observation to achieve two second intervals in calendar time. Second, when using the Malliavin--Mancino estimator, we will be sampling different time scales through the Fourier domain by choice of $N$ for the particular time definition.
The Malliavin--Mancino estimator presents several advantages. First, it does not need to drop observations to investigate different time scales. For example, suppose we have a total of 100 events. To investigate two unit time scale in event time, we would need to drop half the events when re-sampling for the RV estimator; whereas with the Malliavin--Mancino estimator, we would use the full set of samples, but compute fewer Fourier coefficients to achieve the two unit time scale using the relation in \cref{eq:Der:3}.
Second, it has the ability to deal with asynchrony both in calendar and event time (see \Cref{subsec:exp:ET} demonstrating why event time can present asynchrony). Therefore, it does not require previous tick interpolation to synchronise the observations. One must however be mindful that as a consequence of the sampling theorem that the Malliavin--Mancino estimator can only investigate time scales larger than the smallest interval between two transactions (in both event and calendar time) to prevent aliasing.
Third, because it can deal with asynchrony, it uses the same fixed observations when investigating different time scales. This leads to more stable estimates at different time scales \cite{PC2020}. On the other hand, observations are dropped when sampling at different time scales for the RV estimator, therefore the time series changes slightly each time through the loss in resolution. These changes cause larger changes to the correlation estimate at each time scale, making the estimates less stable \cite{PC2020}.
With regards to the Hayashi--Yoshida estimator, we include it as a baseline for calendar and event time. This is because the estimator corrects for the statistical cause of the Epps effect arising from asynchrony. Therefore, it is of interest to see the baseline correlation level corrected for asynchrony under each definition of time.
In the case of volume time, sampling in the Fourier domain with the Malliavin--Mancino estimator is not possible. This is because the different time scales in volume time are determined by the number of samples obtained, which depends on the size of the volume bucket, which determines how many shares will be aggregated to obtain a sample. This aggregation changes the time series at different time scales --- {\it it is not just a loss in resolution from skipping observations}.
\subsection{Hawkes process}\label{subsec:exp:hawkes}
To generate a price process based on events, we will be using the class of multivariate point processes introduced by \citet{HAWKES1971} known as a {\it Hawkes process}. Concretely, we will use the fine-to-coarse model introduced by \citet{BDHM2013a}. Let the bivariate log-price be:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:7}
\begin{aligned}
&X_t^1 = X_0^1 + N_1(t) - N_2(t), \\
&X_t^2 = X_0^2 + N_3(t) - N_4(t),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\{N_m(t)\}_{m=1}^M$ is a 4-dimensional ($M=4$) mutually exciting Hawkes process with the associated intensity $\lambda(t) = \{\lambda^m(t)\}_{m=1}^M$ taking the form:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:8}
\lambda^m(t) = \mu + \sum_{n=1}^M \int_{-\infty}^t \phi^{mn}(t-s) dN_s^n.
\end{equation}
The counting processes are coupled through:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:9}
\boldsymbol{\Phi} =
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & \phi^{(r)} & \phi^{(c)} & 0 \\
\phi^{(r)} & 0 & 0 & \phi^{(c)} \\
\phi^{(c)} & 0 & 0 & \phi^{(r)} \\
0 & \phi^{(c)} & \phi^{(r)} & 0
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
where $\phi^{(r)} = \alpha^{(r)} e^{-\beta t}\mathbbm{1}_{t \in \mathbb{R}^+}$ and $\phi^{(c)} = \alpha^{(c)} e^{-\beta t}\mathbbm{1}_{t \in \mathbb{R}^+}$. The parameters are $(\mu, \alpha^{(r)}, \alpha^{(c)}, \beta) = (0.015, 0.023, 0.05, 0.11)$, borrowed from \citet{BDHM2013a}.
The interpretation of \cref{eq:9} is as follows: $\phi^{(r)}$ achieves mean reversion, because an uptick in $X^1$ by $N_1$ will lead to an increased intensity in the down tick $N_2$ --- allowing the price level to revert (similarly for $X^2$ through $N_3$ and $N_4$). While $\phi^{(c)}$ induces a correlation between the prices by connecting the two prices, since an uptick in $X^1$ by $N_1$ will lead to an increased intensity in the uptick of $X^2$ through $N_3$ (similarly for down ticks through $N_2$ and $N_4$).\footnote{The specification of \cref{eq:9} in the model is fully symmetric and thus there are no lead-lag effects (see \cite{BDHM2013a} and Remark 9 of \cite{BDHM2013b}).}
To ensure stability with stationary increments, the spectral radius of the branching matrix $\boldsymbol{\Gamma}$ must be strictly less than 1, {\it i.e.,} the magnitude of the largest eigenvalue must be less than 1. For our exponential kernel, we have $\boldsymbol{\Gamma} = \{ {\alpha^{mn}}/{\beta^{mn}} \}_{m,n=1}^M$.
A key insight from \citet{BDHM2013a} is their formulation of the covariance matrix for the model under calendar time sampling with increment size $\Delta t$:
$$
\begin{aligned}
\frac{C_{\Delta t}^{11}}{\Delta t}=& \Lambda+\frac{R C_{1}}{2 G_{1}}+\frac{R C_{2}}{2 G_{2}} \\
&+R \frac{C_{2} G_{1}^{2} \mathrm{e}^{-\Delta t G_{2}}-C_{1} G_{2}^{2}+Q_{1} G_{2}^{2} \mathrm{e}^{-\Delta t G_{1}}-C_{2} G_{1}^{2}}{2 G_{2}^{2} G_{1}^{2} \Delta t},
\end{aligned}
$$
and
$$
\begin{aligned}
\frac{C_{\Delta t}^{12}}{\Delta t}=& \frac{-R C_{1}}{2 G_{1}}+\frac{R C_{2}}{2 G_{2}} \\
&+\frac{R\left(C_{1} G_{2}^{2}-C_{2} G_{1}^{2}-C_{1} G_{2}^{2} \mathrm{e}^{-G_{1} \Delta t}+C_{2} G_{1}^{2} \mathrm{e}^{-G_{2} \Delta t}\right)}{2 G_{2}^{2} G_{1}^{2} \Delta t}.
\end{aligned}
$$
Here the parameters are:
$$
\begin{aligned}
\Lambda &= \frac{\mu}{1 - \Gamma_{12} - \Gamma_{13}}, \\
R &=\frac{\beta \mu}{\Gamma_{12}+\Gamma_{13}-1}, \\
C_{1} &=\frac{\left(2+\Gamma_{12}+\Gamma_{13}\right)\left(\Gamma_{12}+\Gamma_{13}\right)}{1+\Gamma_{12}+\Gamma_{13}}, \\
C_{2} &=\frac{\left(2+\Gamma_{12}-\Gamma_{13}\right)\left(\Gamma_{12}-\Gamma_{13}\right)}{1+\Gamma_{12}-\Gamma_{13}}, \\
Q_{1}=Q_{4}&=\frac{-\mu\left(\Gamma_{12}^{2}+\Gamma_{12}-\Gamma_{13}^{2}\right)}{\left(\left(\Gamma_{12}+1\right)^{2}-\Gamma_{13}^{2}\right)\left(1-\Gamma_{12}-\Gamma_{13}\right)}, \\
Q_{2}=Q_{3}&=\frac{-\mu \Gamma_{13}}{\left(\left(\Gamma_{12}+1\right)^{2}-\Gamma_{13}^{2}\right)\left(1-\Gamma_{12}-\Gamma_{13}\right)},
\end{aligned}
$$
and
$$
G_{1}=\beta\left(1+\Gamma_{12}+\Gamma_{13}\right), \quad G_{2}=\beta\left(1+\Gamma_{12}-\Gamma_{13}\right).
$$
The correlation is then given by:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:10}
\rho_{\Delta t}^{12} = \frac{C_{\Delta t}^{12}}{C_{\Delta t}^{11}},
\end{equation}
and the Epps effect is present.
Moreover, in the limit we have that \citep{BDHM2013a}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:11}
\lim_{\Delta t \to \infty} \rho_{\Delta t}^{12} = \frac{2 \Gamma_{13}\left(1+\Gamma_{12}\right)}{1+\Gamma_{13}^{2}+2 \Gamma_{12}+\Gamma_{12}^{2}}.
\end{equation}
The experiments that will follow in the next few subsections are conducted by simulating 100 pairs of \cref{eq:7} for $T = 72,000$ seconds. Each of the price pairs will be re-sampled into the appropriate format and correlations will be computed under each definition of time for sampling intervals between 1 to 100 units. The mean correlation estimate at each sampling interval will be plotted along with error ribbons that contain 95\% of the estimates at each sampling interval. These are computed from the 100 replications using the student $t$-distribution with 99 degrees of freedom and the standard deviation of the estimates between the replications at each sampling interval.
Moreover, to demonstrate how the sampling is achieved under each definition of time, we simulate a single pair of \cref{eq:7} for $T=300$ seconds.
\subsection{Calendar time}\label{subsec:exp:CT}
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\centering
\subfloat[Sampled for RV]{\label{fig:CalendarTimePrices:a}\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Figures/CalendarTimeRVPrices.pdf}}
\subfloat[Sampled for MM and HY]{\label{fig:CalendarTimePrices:b}\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Figures/CalendarTimeMMHYPrices.pdf}}
\caption{The Hawkes price model in calendar time. The figure demonstrates the two types of input samples (given as bubbles) for the different estimators. (a) has synchronous and homogeneous samples with 10 unit intervals between observations. The synchronisation is achieved using previous tick interpolation. (b) has asynchronous samples based on when the events occurred.}
\label{fig:CalendarTimePrices}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 0.5\textwidth]{Figures/SimCT.pdf}
\caption{The correlation estimate at different sampling intervals in calendar time for the MM (blue) and RV (red) estimates. The HY (brown) estimate is provided as a baseline. The theoretical Epps effect from \cref{eq:10} and the limiting correlation from \cref{eq:11} are also provided.}
\label{fig:SimCT}
\end{figure}
The calendar time sampling is relatively straightforward. When sampling for the RV estimator, we sample \cref{eq:7} at equidistant and synchronous points between $[0,T]$ using a particular sampling interval. As an example, \Cref{fig:CalendarTimePrices:a} demonstrates the samples (given as bubbles) where the sampling the done using 10 unit intervals (corresponding to 10 seconds). For the Malliavin--Mancino (MM) and Hayashi--Yoshida (HY) estimator, the samples are when the events (in this case jumps) occurred. This is demonstrated in \Cref{fig:CalendarTimePrices:b} where the bubbles are the samples. Notice that when the sampling interval increases for \Cref{fig:CalendarTimePrices:a} we lose more resolution into the price path which is present in \Cref{fig:CalendarTimePrices:b}.
\Cref{fig:SimCT} plots the correlation for the RV and MM estimates in calendar time measured at different sampling intervals with the HY estimates provided as a baseline estimate.
We see that the RV estimator recovers the theoretical Epps effect which is expected as this was the estimator used to derive the covariance matrix in \citet{BDHM2013a}. The MM estimator does not quite recover the same theoretical curve but it captures a more pronounced the Epps effect. This is because there is the effect of asynchrony contributing towards the Epps effect in this case. The HY estimates recover a rather strange estimate. This is because it was found that the correction achieved here depends on the inter-arrivals of the asynchronous events \cite{PCEPTG2020b}. This fact was used by \citet{PCEPTG2020b} to design experiments to detect if the system has emerging correlations as in the case of \cref{eq:7} or if the system has correlations that exist at all sampling intervals such as a geometric Brownian motion.
\subsection{Event time}\label{subsec:exp:ET}
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\centering
\subfloat[Sampled for RV]{\label{fig:EventTimePrices:a}\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Figures/EventTimeRVPrices.pdf}}
\subfloat[Sampled for MM and HY]{\label{fig:EventTimePrices:b}\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Figures/EventTimeMMHYPrices.pdf}}
\caption{The Hawkes price model in event time where the securities share the same event clock. The figure demonstrates the two types of input samples (given as bubbles) for the different estimators. (a) has synchronous and homogeneous samples with one unit intervals between observations. The synchronisation is achieved using previous tick interpolation. (b) has asynchronous samples on a homogeneous grid based on the ordering of when the events occurred.}
\label{fig:EventTimePrices}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 0.5\textwidth]{Figures/SimET.pdf}
\caption{The correlation estimate at different sampling intervals in event time for the MM (blue) and RV (red) estimates. The HY (brown) estimate is provided as a baseline.}
\label{fig:SimET}
\end{figure}
Event time is interesting because in theory, there is a one-to-one mapping between the event count $h$ to calendar time $t_h$ when considering one security.\footnote{This mapping can be difficult to find because there is often measurement error associated with when events occur on an exchange.} Event time however becomes slightly problematic when we want to compute the correlations between two securities. This is because each security will have a different number of events, therefore the event clock between securities are not comparable. Thus we need a method to unify the time between the securities. This can be achieved if the securities share the same event clock, where an event in either security will increase the time by one unit.
Under this construction, the time series will be asynchronous but homogeneous, therefore we need to use previous tick interpolation to create the time series in event time for the RV estimator. \Cref{fig:EventTimePrices:a} demonstrates the samples in event time for the RV estimator where the sampling is done using one unit intervals. \Cref{fig:EventTimePrices:b} demonstrates the samples in event time for the MM and HY estimator where the samples are asynchronous but live on a homogeneous grid. Comparing \Cref{fig:EventTimePrices} against \Cref{fig:CalendarTimePrices:b}, we see that event time indeed achieves a smoothing effect as the bursts of activity in calendar time is stretched out.
\Cref{fig:SimET} plots the correlation for the RV and MM estimates in event time measured at different sampling intervals with the HY estimates provided as a baseline estimate.
We see that both the MM and RV estimates present an Epps effect in event time. Moreover, we see that correlations seem to emerge faster with a more pronounced concavity in the curves. The HY estimates in this case is particularly interesting, it actually recovers the same estimates as in calendar time as a result of how the event time is constructed (see a clearer comparison in \Cref{fig:SimComp}). This is because even though the time series is stretched out, the observations used in \cref{eq:Der:4} remain the same and because the events are asynchronous, the intervals where $w_{h \ell}$ is activated remains the same.
The relationship between the MM and RV estimates under the two definitions of time remains unclear. Particularly for the MM estimator. This is because the shifting of events through stretching out the time series will alter the power spectrum. Thus the relationship is unclear. Related to this, the pronounced concavity in event time could potentially be related to the shifting and stretching of the time series which could induce potential lead-lag effects. However, currently it is unclear how this mechanism could potentially explain the observed dynamics. The difficulty lies in that lead-lag is usually induced from a calendar time perspective through the shifting of observations (see the model in \citet{MMZ2011}), whereas here the time series is also stretched. Moreover, the shifting and stretching here is contingent on the asynchronicity between the two time series. Nonetheless, the well understood concave Epps effect remains present under both definitions of time.
\subsection{Volume time}\label{subsec:exp:VT}
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\centering
\subfloat[10 unit sampling interval in volume time]{\label{fig:VolumeTimePrices:a}\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Figures/VolumeTime30Prices.pdf}}
\subfloat[5 unit sampling interval in volume time]{\label{fig:VolumeTimePrices:b}\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Figures/VolumeTime60Prices.pdf}}
\caption{The Hawkes price model with volumes samples from an IID power-law distribution given in \cref{eq:14}. The sampling interval was chosen to be the equivalent of (a) 10 unit and (b) 5 unit sampling interval in calendar time based on the number of samples obtained (relative to \Cref{fig:CalendarTimePrices}). The samples in volume time are synchronous, homogeneous and requires different sized volume buckets (for averaging) to achieve.}
\label{fig:VolumeTimePrices}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 0.5\textwidth]{Figures/SimVT.pdf}
\caption{The correlation estimate at different sampling intervals in volume time for the MM (blue), RV (red) and HY (brown) estimates.}
\label{fig:SimVT}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 0.5\textwidth]{Figures/MoreVT.pdf}
\caption{The Epps effect in volume time for different distributions generating the volume samples. The estimates are obtained using the RV estimator.}
\label{fig:MoreVT}
\end{figure}
The sampling of volume time is different to that of calendar and event time. Although time in this definition is increased by one unit for each share traded, sampling it requires the use of volume buckets which determine the number of samples we get for each security. This method of sampling follows \citet{ELO2012B} which they used to compute VPIN. The sampling overcomes the problem of different volumes traded between securities. The problem however with this sampling method and volume time in general is that there is no clear mapping back to calendar time. This is because prices between transactions will be aggregated and multiple volume times will map back to the same calendar time. For example, suppose a transaction occurred with five shares traded. These five volume time counts would map back to the same instant in calendar time.
To obtain a notion of sampling interval in volume time, we will use the number of samples obtained to get an idea of the equivalent sampling interval in calendar time. For example, if a sampling interval of 10 units translates to 30 samples in calendar time, in order to obtain a 10 unit sampling interval in volume time, we need to pick a volume bucket that allows us to obtain 30 samples.
The sampling in volume time follows partly from appendix A1 from \citet{ELO2012B}. The transaction time series for a security $i$ is defined by the tuple:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:12}
(t^i_h, p^i_{t^i_h}, v^i_{t^i_h}),
\end{equation}
where $t^i_h$ is the transaction time, $p^i_{t^i_h}$ is the transaction price and $v^i_{t^i_h}$ is the transaction volume. Let $n$ be the number of samples we want from the volume time sampling, then the volume bucket $V$ is given as:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:13}
V = \left\lfloor V_{\text{tot}} / n \right\rfloor,
\end{equation}
where $V_{\text{tot}} = \sum_h v^i_{t^i_h}$ is the total number of shares traded. Expand the number of observations by repeating each transaction $p^i_{t^i_h}$ as many times as $v^i_{t^i_h}$, generating $V_{\text{tot}}$ number of observations. Looping through the expanded prices, create a sample in volume time after $V$ shares by averaging the expanded prices, resulting in a total of $n$ samples. In other words, average $p^i_{t^i_h}$ by its volume contribution to each bucket $V$ for each volume time sample. Note that the last bucket is always incomplete or empty, thus these observations are discarded \cite{ELO2012B}. Under this sampling, we will have synchronous and homogeneous samples as each security will always have $n$ samples.
Crucially, Hawkes processes only model when the events occur; it does not provide us with information about the states of the features associated with these event times. Additional model assumptions are necessary to generate a realistic tuple.
A realistic model for the time series of transaction requires the model to account for the couplings between the tuples. First, the prices $p^i_{t^i_h}$ and volumes $v^i_{t^i_h}$ are coupled through market impact \cite{BGPW2004,LFM2003}.\footnote{Strictly speaking, market impact is the coupling between the mid-price $m_t$ and volume. However, the transaction price $p_t$ is related to the mid-price as: $p_t = m_t + s_t/2$ for buyer-initiated transactions where $s_t$ is the spread. Therefore, prices and volumes are coupled in how the transaction volume shifts the mid-prices through time.}
Second, the volumes $v^i_{t^i_h}$ depend on previous volumes as a large source of the order-flow auto-correlation is found to be from order splitting \cite{TPLF2015}. Additionally, the price observations are fundamentally discrete events. Whether a continuous time representation using stochastic differential equations is sufficient remains an important open question \cite{PCEPTG2020b}.
There appears to be paucity of realistic models that are able to provide a convincingly realistic 3-tuple $(t^i_h, p^i_{t^i_h}, v^i_{t^i_h})$. Point processes like Hawkes processes provide good models for the time of the events $t^i_h$. Stochastic differential equations may provide good models for the prices $p^i_{t^i_h}$ at low-frequency, and naturally provide long-memory \cite{GJR2018}. There seems to be no consensus for a model specification for the volume of market orders as the distributions varies widely with the product and market \cite{CTPA2011a}.
Solving these issues are beyond the scope of the paper. Our objective here is to highlight various concerns and what we do empirically know about the behaviour of collections of traded asset events at high-frequency under different choices of time. For the purposes of investigating the Epps effect, the Hawkes model in \cref{eq:7} provides a good basis for the simulation because it deals with $t^i_h$ and $p^i_{t^i_h}$ in the tuple. Even though it has unrealistic price changes, the model naturally recovers microscopic properties such as the signature plot, mean reversion and the Epps effect, and it can also naturally recover large scale diffusive properties \cite{BMM2015}.
To complete the tuple, we need a method of generating $v^i_{t^i_h}$. Empirically, it was found that the unconditional distribution of market orders follows a power-law behaviour \cite{CTPA2011a}. Therefore, combining \cref{eq:7} and a power-law for the volume samples, we have a toy model to investigate the Epps effect in volume time. Even though the model does not account for the empirical form of measured price impact, we still find that it recovers the empirical dynamics surprisingly well.
In order to perform the simulation work for volume time, we will assume that the volume associated with each transaction is from an independent and identically distributed (IID) power-law where the probability density function is given as:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:14}
f(x)=
\begin{cases}
\frac{\alpha x_{\mathrm{m}}^{\alpha}}{x^{\alpha+1}} & x \geq x_{\mathrm{m}} \\
0 & x<x_{\mathrm{m}}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
For the toy model, we set $x_{\mathrm{m}} = 20$ with exponent of $1 + \alpha = 2.7$ --- the value found in \citet{CTPA2011a} for market orders. Note that the volume samples are rounded to an integer.
\Cref{fig:VolumeTimePrices} demonstrates the volume time samples of the Hawkes price models with volume samples from an IID power-law distribution. \Cref{fig:VolumeTimePrices:a,fig:VolumeTimePrices:b} are 10 unit and 5 unit sampling intervals in volume time respectively. The sampling interval was chosen to be the equivalent interval in calendar time based on the number of samples. Each security has different sized volume buckets (for a given sampling interval) to achieve the synchronous and homogeneous samples. The samples here are no longer the same as those in calendar time since these samples have gone through an averaging process. This is fundamentally different to event time where the samples remain the same but smoothed.
\Cref{fig:SimVT} plots the correlation for the RV, MM and HY estimates in volume time measured at different sampling intervals. Here we see that all the estimators recover the same estimates (see \Cref{subsec:relation}).
We see that the Epps effect is present in volume time. However, something interesting happens here. The concavity of the Epps effect is lost, here the correlations emerge linearly for larger sampling intervals and there is a significant drop in the correlation achieved at larger intervals. This behaviour is not just an anomaly under simulation. We see that this is also the case with empirical data (see \Cref{fig:EmpVT}).
To try and further understand this effect, \Cref{fig:MoreVT} computes the same Epps curves in volume time as \Cref{fig:SimVT}, but for a range of distributions generating the volume samples.
We consider the additional uniform, normal and beta distributions. The uniform distribution samples transaction volumes between 1 to 100 with equal probability. The normal distribution samples transaction volumes with a mean of 50 and standard deviation of 5. We consider three beta distributions with $\alpha = \beta$ but taking on values of 0.1, 0.2 and 2.\footnote{The beta distribution samples values between 0 and 1. Therefore, the samples are multiplied by 100 before rounding to obtain a transaction volume.} The distributions all have a mean of roughly 50 shares for each transaction volume.
We see that regardless of the distribution, the Epps effect is linear in volume time. The exact cause leading to a linear Epps curve is not clear. However, from \Cref{fig:MoreVT} we see that the linear effect does not seem to depend on the particular distribution generating the volume samples as all the distributions present this linear effect.\footnote{Unravelling potential lead-lag effects is particularly difficult for volume time because lead-lag cannot be easily separated from shrinking and stretching as these are also mixed by the averaging required to construct volume bins.}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 0.5\textwidth]{Figures/SimComp.pdf}
\caption{Comparison of the Epps curves from \Cref{fig:SimCT,fig:SimET,fig:SimVT}. We investigate calendar time (CT), event time (ET) and volume time (VT) using the RV, MM and HY estimator. The theoretical Epps effect \cref{eq:10} and limiting correlation \cref{eq:11} from calendar time are also included.}
\label{fig:SimComp}
\end{figure}
Finally, to end this section, we compare all the Epps curves from \Cref{fig:SimCT,fig:SimET,fig:SimVT} together in \Cref{fig:SimComp}. We see that the Epps effect is present under all three definitions of time. For calendar and event time, sampling in the time domain or Fourier domain both result in an Epps effect. Interestingly, the Epps effect becomes linear under volume time.
\section{Empirical}\label{sec:emp}
We investigate the Epps effect under different definitions of time using transaction data from the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) for five trading days ranging from 24/06/2019 to 28/06/2019. We consider Standard Bank Group Ltd. (SBK), Nedbank Group Ltd. (NED), Absa Group Ltd. (ABG) and FirstRand Ltd. (FSR). The data was extracted from Bloomberg Pro and is only reported up to an accuracy of seconds (hence the data has been effectively re-sampled). Although the transactions were in the correct order, without an exact millisecond or nanosecond time stamp means that we cannot correctly order the events for event time sampling.\footnote{Consider two securities which have 3 and 5 transactions that all occurred in the same second. It is not possible to order these events on a joint event count.} Therefore, we process the data by aggregating transactions (for each security) with the same time stamp using a volume weighted average.
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\centering
\subfloat[MM]{\label{fig:EmpCT:a}\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{Figures/EmpCTMM.pdf}}
\subfloat[RV]{\label{fig:EmpCT:b}\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{Figures/EmpCTRV.pdf}}
\subfloat[HY]{\label{fig:EmpCT:c}\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{Figures/EmpCTHY.pdf}}
\caption{The Epps effect in calendar time for the six correlation pairs. The sampling interval ranges from 1 to 300 units. \Cref{fig:EmpCT:a,fig:EmpCT:b,fig:EmpCT:c} we have the MM, RV and HY estimates respectively.}
\label{fig:EmpCT}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\centering
\subfloat[MM]{\label{fig:EmpET:a}\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{Figures/EmpETMM.pdf}}
\subfloat[RV]{\label{fig:EmpET:b}\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{Figures/EmpETRV.pdf}}
\subfloat[HY]{\label{fig:EmpET:c}\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{Figures/EmpETHY.pdf}}
\caption{The Epps effect in event time for the six correlation pairs. The sampling interval ranges from 1 to 300 units. \Cref{fig:EmpET:a,fig:EmpET:b,fig:EmpET:c} we have the MM, RV and HY estimates respectively.}
\label{fig:EmpET}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 0.48\textwidth]{Figures/EmpVT.pdf}
\caption{The Epps effect in volume time for the six correlation pairs. The sampling interval ranges from 1 to 300 units. The figure only reports the RV estimates because the three estimators recover the same estimates under volume time (see \Cref{fig:SimVT}).}
\label{fig:EmpVT}
\end{figure}
Correlations are computed separately for the trading days so that we do not have to worry about overnight returns. Therefore the correlations reported in the following subsections are the average at each sampling interval aggregated across the five trading days.
\subsection{Calendar time}\label{subsec:emp:CT}
The continuous trading session on the JSE is between 09:00 and 16:50, this translates to a seven hour and 50 minute trading day or $T=28,200$ seconds. As before, we sample a synchronous and homogeneous grid at different time scales using previous tick interpolation for the RV estimator. The MM and HY estimator use the samples from when the transactions occurred. The MM investigates different time scales by sampling the Fourier domain through the relation in \cref{eq:Der:3} while the HY provides a baseline estimate after correcting for asynchrony.
\Cref{fig:EmpCT} plots the Epps effect in calendar time for the six correlation pairs for sampling intervals ranging from 1 to 300 units for the MM, RV and HY estimator in \Cref{fig:EmpCT:a,fig:EmpCT:b,fig:EmpCT:c} respectively.
First, we see that the MM and RV estimates have yet to reach the limiting (asymptotic) correlation after 300 seconds. Second, we see that the RV estimates are less stable moving from one sampling interval to the next. This is because sampling different time scales using previous tick interpolation changes the samples (through the loss in resolution) for the estimator. This was not seen in \Cref{fig:SimCT} because this instability was hidden away when averaging 100 correlation estimates; whereas here we are only averaging over five days of trading.
\subsection{Event time}\label{subsec:emp:ET}
Lining up the events in event time with empirical data is slightly problematic. The data set we have only reports time stamps up to the second, this means that we can have concurrent events at the same time between a pair of securities (even after aggregating events on the same second using a volume weighted average). In theory, these should be two separate event counts when sharing the same event clock, however since there is no way to determine the ordering of these events, we allow them to happen simultaneously, {\it i.e.,} they share the same event count. This was not a problem under simulation because we had a well-defined point process.
\Cref{fig:EmpET} plots the Epps effect in event time for the six correlation pairs for sampling intervals ranging from 1 to 300 units for the MM, RV and HY estimator in \Cref{fig:EmpET:a,fig:EmpET:b,fig:EmpET:c} respectively.
We see again that the Epps effect is present and correlations seem to emerge faster in event time. Both the MM and RV estimator reaches the limiting (asymptotic) correlation after around 100 units in event time. Again, we also see that the HY estimate is exactly the same as the estimate in calendar time. This is due to how the events are lined up. Even though the time series is smoothed out in event time, the observations in \cref{eq:Der:4} remain the same and the intervals where $w_{h \ell}$ is activated remains the same.
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\centering
\subfloat[SBK/FSR]{\label{fig:EmpComp:a}\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Figures/EmpCompSBKFSR.pdf}}
\subfloat[NED/ABG]{\label{fig:EmpComp:b}\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Figures/EmpCompNEDABG.pdf}}
\caption{The Epps curves compared under different definitions of time for (a) the SBK/FSR and (b) the NED/ABG pair. Included are the calendar time (CT), event time (ET) and volume time (VT) estimates for the range of 1 to 300 unit sampling intervals using the RV and MM estimator. The HY estimator is provided as a baseline.}
\label{fig:EmpComp}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Volume time}\label{subsec:emp:VT}
Sampling in volume time is done by aggregating transaction prices over a certain number of shares determined by the volume bucket. As before, the sampling interval here is defined by the number of samples obtained. The number of samples obtained is compared against the number of sampled obtained in calendar time to find an equivalent sampling interval in volume time.
\Cref{fig:EmpVT} plots the Epps effect in volume time for the six correlation pairs for sampling intervals ranging from 1 to 300 units. Here we only report the RV estimates because the three estimators recover the same estimates in volume time (see \Cref{fig:SimVT}).
We see that as in the case of our simulations, the Epps effect is present in volume time. Moreover, correlations emerge linearly rather than exponentially for larger sampling intervals as in the case of calendar and event time; and there is a significant drop in the correlations achieved for larger sampling intervals compared calendar and event time.
Looking at the NED/FSR pair (purple line) in \Cref{fig:EmpVT}, we see that the correlation becomes negative in volume time. This behaviour is possible under simulation with our toy model as the error bars in \Cref{fig:SimVT} do go into the negative region, meaning that this is possible. However, at this stage it remains unclear as to why this is occurs.
\subsection{Comparison}\label{subsec:emp:comp}
\Cref{fig:EmpComp} compares the various the Epps curves under different definitions of time. This is done for two of the six correlations pairs SBK/FSR and NED/ABG in \Cref{fig:EmpComp:a,fig:EmpComp:b} respectively.
Comparing \Cref{fig:EmpComp} against \Cref{fig:SimComp}, we see that the empirical behaviours of the various Epps curves line up with what we have seen using the toy model under simulation. The event time correlations emerge faster than those in calendar time, while the Epps effect is linear under volume time. Sampling in the time domain or Fourier domain both result in an Epps effect under calendar and event time. In \ref{app:A}, we provide the same comparison between uncorrelated asset pairs. The generalisation of these results is only confirmed to hold for correlated asset pairs where the Epps effect behaves as expected.
Given that this relatively simple toy model captures the various empirical dynamics, it is unlikely that a more realistic simulation of the 3-tuple $(t^i_h, p^i_{t^i_h}, v^i_{t^i_h})$ would affect the correlation estimates. In particular, intraday seasonality of the volatility, transactions, and volumes that are present with empirical data \cite{PCJ2015} does not alter the dynamics compared to the toy model which does not capture these seasonality effects. A possible reason why the intraday seasonality effects do not alter the dynamics is because the correlation estimates are integrated quantities.\footnote{We speculate that intraday seasonality may alter the dynamic of the correlations in volume time, particularly when two assets have significantly different intraday volume curves.} Perhaps these seasonality effects may influence the dynamics differently if instantaneous correlation quantities were computed instead.
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:conc}
In this paper, we compared the Epps effect under three definitions of time: calendar time, trade time and volume time. We use a Hawkes process, specifically, the fine-to-coarse model by \citet{BDHM2013a} as the basis for the simulation of price paths. Combining this with a power-law distribution for the volumes samples \cite{CTPA2011a}, we find that the Epps effect is present under all three definitions of time.
Moreover, the simulations reveal different rates of correlation emergence. First, we saw that the correlations emerge faster under trade time compared to calendar time. Second, correlations emerge linearly under volume time and do not seem to depend strongly on the distribution generating the volume samples. Under this setup, where the volumes and prices are independent, we find realistic results. These results are found despite using a model that does not directly encode price impact or intraday seasonality of the volatility, transactions, and volumes.
We then investigated the Epps effect under these three definitions of time using transaction data from the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. We found that the empirical Epps curves conform well with what we observed under simulation for the various definitions of time. However, the results hold for the case of sufficiently correlated asset pairs where the Epps effect behaves as expected.
This paper presents some anomalies that raise several unresolved concerns. First, the underlying mechanisms that link the different temporal definitions and sampling schemes that lead to the different correlation dynamics remains unclear. Second, an analysis of the instantaneous correlation estimates could be performed for the different definitions of time. This could potentially lead to a better understanding of how intraday seasonality could impact the correlation dynamics under different sampling schemes. Finally, to explore how market activity affects the Epps effect with different time choices. This particularly relates to the observation made by \citet{TK2007} where the Epps curves do not scale with market activity.
\section*{Reproducibility of the Research}
The dataset can be found at \cite{PCEPTG2020DATAc}. The Julia code and instructions for replication can be found in our GitHub site \cite{PCEPTG2020CODEc}.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We would like to thank the two anonymous referees for thoughtful comments which helped us improve this paper.
PC would like to thank Roger Bukuru for work done together and various discussions.
\section*{Funding}
PC was supported by the Manuel \& Luby Washkansky Scholarship and the South African Statistical Association [grant number 127931].
\balance
\bibliographystyle{elsarticle-harv}
|
\section{Introduction}
One of the most important tasks in statistical inference is to draw confidence intervals for the mean of a given estimator $\hat{\theta}_n:=g_n(X_1,\dots,X_n)$. When the limiting distribution of $\hat{\theta}_n$ is known, such knowledge can be leveraged to build confidence intervals that are asymptotically consistent. For example,
if $\hat\theta_n$ is asymptotically normal and if $\hat{s}_n$ is a consistent estimator of its standard deviation, then the following interval is an asymptotically consistent confidence interval at level $1-\alpha$: $$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}P\bp{\theta\in\Big[\hat{\theta}_n- \Phi^{-1}(1-\frac{\alpha}{2})\frac{\hat{s}_n}{\sqrt{n}},\hat{\theta}_n+ \Phi^{-1}(1-\frac{\alpha}{2})\frac{\hat{s}_n}{\sqrt{n}}\Big] }=1-\alpha.$$
However, in general the limiting distribution of the estimator $\hat{\theta}_n$ is unknown and an alternative approach must be taken. One such approach is the empirical bootstrap method, which consists of: sampling new observations $Z_1,\dots,Z_n$ independently and uniformly in $\{X_1,\dots,X_n\}$, and defining $\hat{\theta}_n^{{\rm boot}}$ as the value of the estimator taken at the bootstrap sample $\hat{\theta}_n^{{\rm boot}}:=g_n(Z_1,\dots,Z_n)$. This procedure can be repeated many times in order to estimate the conditional distribution of $\hat{\theta}_n^{{\rm boot}}-\mathbb{E}(\hat{\theta}_n^{{\rm boot}}\mid X_1,\dots,X_n)$. If this distribution is approximately the same as the distribution of $\hat{\theta}_n-\mathbb{E}(\hat\theta_n)$, as the sample size $n$ grows, we say that the bootstrap method is consistent. We note that when this holds the bootstrap method can be used to establish approximate confidence intervals for $\mathbb{E}(\hat\theta_n)$. Notably, when $\hat{\theta}_n$ is asymptotically normal those intervals are known to be consistent under general conditions; see e.g. \cite{hall2013bootstrap,bickel1981,chernozhukov2013gaussian}.
\noindent As the bootstrap method is often used for estimators whose limiting distribution is unknown or non-Gaussian, we are interested in studying the limiting distribution of $\hat{\theta}_n^{{\rm boot}}$ for a general class of estimators with arbitrary limiting distributions and that satisfy simple stability conditions. In particular, we assume that the functions $(g_n)$ are approximable by three-times differentiable functions whose first, second and third order partial derivatives, taken at $(X_1,\dots,X_n)$, are of respective order $o(n^{-1/3})$, $o(n^{-1/2})$ and $o(n^{-1})$. These conditions assure that the value of $g_n(X_1,\dots,X_n)$ is not oversensitive to the value of a single observation, and guarantee that the difference $g_n(X_1,\dots,X_n)-g_n(0,X_2,\dots,X_n)$ is approximable by $X_1 \times h_n(0,X_2,\dots,X_n)$ for a function $h_n$; this latter condition controls the degree of non-linearity of $g_n$ (see \Cref{sec:main} for a formal exposition). Exploiting these assumptions, we exactly characterize the limiting distribution of the bootstrap estimator $\hat \theta_n^{\rm boot}$, compare it to the distribution of the original statistic $\hat\theta_n$ and study how fast the distribution of $\hat{\theta}_n^{{\rm boot}}$ converges. This allows us to derive tight conditions on the functions $(g_n)$ and the process $(X_i)$ guaranteeing the consistency of the bootstrap method, and to study how the shape of the confidence intervals evolve when those conditions do not hold. Notably, we discover that when the mean of the observations $X_1$ is unknown the bootstrap method is in general not consistent.
Moreover, we propose three alternative ways of using the bootstrap method to draw conservative confidence intervals with guaranteed minimum coverage. We illustrate our results by providing a series of simple examples, as well as examples derived from machine learning and econometrics, including: the p-value of kernel two-sample tests, the empirical risk of smooth stacked estimators, the value of min-max objectives, and confidence bands.
\subsection{Related litterature}
\vspace{3mm}
The empirical bootstrap method was first introduced in a breakthrough paper by Efron \cite{efron1992bootstrap}. Other bootstraps methods have since been proposed including the multiplier bootstrap \cite{wu1986jackknife}, the residual bootstrap \cite{davison1997bootstrap} or the non-remplacement bootstrap method \cite{politis1994large}. A vast literature studies the theoretical properties of those techniques with some of the main results synthesized in the following books \cite{hall2013bootstrap,davison1997bootstrap,johnson2001introduction,beran1991asympotic}. Most relevant to us are studies of the asymptotics of the bootstrap method. The consistency of the bootstrap method for linear statistics, t-statistics, Von-Mises functionals and quantiles has been established in \cite{bickel1981,mamen,singh1981asymptotic} and for U-statistics in \cite{arcones1994u,zhang2001bayesian}.
Those results, among others, have been extended to high-dimensional regression and M-estimation \cite{bickel1983bootstrapping,mammen1989asymptotics,chatterjee2011bootstrapping,belloni2015uniform,dezeure2017high}, misspecified models \cite{spokoiny2015bootstrap}, solutions of estimating equations \cite{chatterjee2005generalized} and to robust estimators \cite{chen2020robust}.In contrast, other works established the poor performance of the bootstrap method for non smooth statistics \cite{eaton1991wielandt,beran1985bootstrap,bickel1981}, or for non-sparse high-dimensional regressions \cite{el2018can}.
\noindent Several recent breakthrough papers studied the consistency of the bootstrap method, both empirical and wild, for the maximum of high-dimensional averages with the dimension taken to be growing exponentially fast with the sample size. Notably \cite{chernozhukov2013gaussian,chernozhukov2017central} established the consistency of the bootstrap and gaussian approximation method when respectively $\log(p_nn)^{7/8}=o(n^{1/8})$ and $\log(p_nn)^{7/6}=o(n^{1/6}) $ hold. A series of work have strengthen those results: \cite{chernozhukov2019improved,deng2017beyond,koike2020notes} established the consistency of the multiplier and empirical bootstrap when $\log(pn)^{5/4}=o(n^{1/4})$, \cite{lopes2020central} established a quasi $\sqrt{n}^{-1}$ rate for the wild bootstrap, \cite{deng2020slightly} built slightly conservative confidence sets with guaranteed coverage under the conditions than $\log(p)=o({n})$ and \cite{chen2018gaussian} proved that similar results hold for high-dimension U-statistics.
Those works use a combination of the Stein method, Edgeworth expansions, Lindeberg's method \cite{chatterjee2006generalization} and the Slepian smart interpolation path. We note that the limiting distribution of those statistics are in general not Gaussian \cite{deng2017beyond}.
Other works have studied the accuracy of the bootstrap method for specific statistics whose distributions are known to be asymptotically not Gaussian such as: the operator norm in high dimensions \cite{lopes2019bootstrapping,han2018gaussian,johnstone2018pca}, sampled eigenvalues of random matrices in high and moderate dimensions \cite{el2019non} or M-estimators having cube root convergence \cite{cattaneo2020bootstrap}.
The main contrast between this series of work and ours is that, rather than studying the bootstrap method for one specific statistics or application, we seek to establish the asymptotics of the bootstrap method under universal conditions on the estimators $(g_n)$. Our proof builds on a breakthrough method proposed by Chatterjee \cite{chatterjee2006generalization} that generalized the Lindeberg method to a general technique to compare the expectations of $f(X_{1:n})$ and $f(Y_{1:n})$ of a large class of functions $f$.
\section{Preliminaries}
\label{sec:preliminaries}
Let $\bp{X^n_i}$ be a triangular array of independent and identically distributed (i.i.d) processes with observations $X_i^n$ taking value in $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{d_n}$. Moreover, let $X^n=(X_1^n, \ldots, X_n^n)$ denote its $n$-th row. Consider an estimator $\hat\theta_n:=g_n(X^n)$, where $g_n:\times_{l=1}^n \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{d_n}\rightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$ is a measurable function, that we will typically refer to as a \emph{statistic}, and let $(g_n)$ denote the sequence of measurable functions as $n$ grows. To evaluate the performance of this estimator and build confidence intervals, we need to approximate its distribution. In this work, we will analyze the empirical bootstrap method.
\paragraph{Empirical bootstrap} Bootstrap samples $Z^n=(Z_1^n, \ldots, Z_n^n)$ are sampled with replacement from the observations $\bc{ X_1^n, \dots, X_n^n }$. This implies that conditionally on $X^n$ the coordinates of $Z^n$ are distributed i.i.d, with $Z_i^n \mid X^n \sim {\rm unif}\bp{ \bc{ X_1^n, \dots, X^n_n } }$, for all $i\in [n]$.
\paragraph{Consistency metric and bootstrap consistency} Throughout the paper we denote with $Y^n=\bp{ Y_1^n, \ldots, Y_n^n }$ an independent copy of $X^n$. The bootstrap method is said to be consistent for $(g_n)$ if conditionally on $X^n$ the distribution of $g_n(Z^n)$ well-approximates the distribution of $g_n(Y^n)$, as $n\to \infty$. To make this statement rigorous we introduce a metric on the space of probability distributions. First, we define the class of three times continuously differentiable measurable functions with bounded third-order derivatives:
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{{\cal F}}:= \bc{ h\in C^3(\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}) \mid ~\sup_{x\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}} \ba{h^{(i)}(x)} \le 1,~~\forall~ 1\le i\le 3 };
\end{equation}
Given this, we define the distance on the space of probability measures, as the maximum mean discrepancy, where test functions range over the class $\ensuremath{{\cal F}}$:
\begin{equation}
d_{\ensuremath{{\cal F}}}(\mu,\nu):=\sup_{h\in \ensuremath{{\cal F}}} { \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{X\sim \mu, Y\sim \nu}\bb{h(X)-h(Y)} }.
\end{equation}
Moreover, we use the shorthand notation:
\begin{equation}
d_{\ensuremath{{\cal F}}}\bp{ \mu,\nu \mid \ensuremath{{\cal E}}} :=\sup_{h\in \ensuremath{{\cal F}}} { \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{X\sim \mu, Y\sim \nu}\bb{h(X)-h(Y) \mid \ensuremath{{\cal E}}} }.
\end{equation}
This metric is related to the classical Levy-Prokhorov distance on probability spaces \cite{billingsley2013convergence}. We say that \emph{the empirical bootstrap method is consistent for $(g_n)$} if:
\begin{equation}
d_{\ensuremath{{\cal F}}} \bp{ g_n(Z^n), g_n(Y^n) \mid X^n } \xrightarrow{p}{0}.
\end{equation}
\paragraph{Centering discrepancy and centered bootstrap consistency} Notably, an individual bootstrap sample $Z_1^n\mid X^n$, has a slightly different mean $\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{Z_1^n\mid X^n}=\bar{X}^n:=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i\le n}X_i^n$, than the one of $X_1^n$. As we will see this small difference plays a crucial role in determining the consistency of the bootstrap and for this reason it will be useful to define artificially centered versions of the random variables $(Z_i^n)$ and $(Y_i^n)$. A centered bootstrap sample
\begin{equation}
\tilde{Z}^n_i := Z^n_i- \bp{ \bar{X}^n-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{X_1^n} }
\end{equation}
is a bootstrap sample that has been re-centered to artificially have the same mean than $X_1^n$. Moreover, denote with $\tilde{Y}_i^n$ a corrected version of $Y_i^n$, artificially re-centered to have the same mean as $Z_1^n$, i.e.:
\begin{equation}
\tilde{Y}_i^n:=Y_i^n+\bar{X}^n-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{X_1^n}.
\end{equation}
Similarly we write $\tilde{Z}_i^n$ a corrected version of $Z_i^n$, artificially re-centered to have the same mean as $X_1^n$, i.e.:
\begin{equation}
\tilde{Z}_i^n:=Z_i^n-\bar{X}^n+\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{X_1^n}.
\end{equation}
We say that \emph{the centered bootstrap is consistent for $(g_n)$} if:
\begin{equation}
d_{\ensuremath{{\cal F}}}\bp{ g_n(\tilde{Z}^n), g_n(Y^n) \mid X^n } \xrightarrow{p}{0}.
\end{equation}
\paragraph{From metric consistency to confidence intervals with nominal coverage} We can compare the confidence intervals of two random variables $X$ and $Y$ in terms of their mutual distance $d_{\ensuremath{{\cal F}}}(X,Y)$ (proof in \Cref{app:prop1}).
\begin{prop}
\label{prop1}
Let $X$ and $Y$ be two real-valued random variables and $\ensuremath{{\cal E}}$ any random event. Let $\epsilon>0$ be a constant then for any Borel set $A\in \ensuremath{{\cal B}}(\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}})$ the following holds:
{\begin{equation}
P(X\in A_{6\epsilon} \mid \ensuremath{{\cal E}}) \geq P(Y\in A \mid \ensuremath{{\cal E}}) - \frac{d_{\ensuremath{{\cal F}}}(X,Y\mid \ensuremath{{\cal E}})}{\epsilon^3},
\end{equation}}
where we wrote $A_{\epsilon}:= \{x\in\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}} \mid \exists y\in A~{\rm s.t}~|x-y|\le \epsilon\}$. Moreover, if $[a,b]$ is a confidence interval at level $1-\alpha$ for $Y-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{Y\mid\ensuremath{{\cal E}}}$, conditional on $\ensuremath{{\cal E}}$, then we have:
{\begin{equation}
P\bp{ X-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{X\mid \ensuremath{{\cal E}}} \in [a - 6\epsilon, b + 6\epsilon] \mid \ensuremath{{\cal E}}}\ge 1-\alpha-\frac{2d_{\ensuremath{{\cal F}}}(X,Y\mid \ensuremath{{\cal E}})}{\epsilon^3}.
\end{equation}}
\end{prop}
\noindent For instance, suppose that we care about estimating $\theta_n:=\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{ g_n(Y^n)}$. Then the bootstrap method, if consistent, can be used to build consistent confidence intervals for $\theta_n$. Indeed since we can estimate the conditional distribution of $\theta_n^{{\rm bootstrap}}:=g_n(\tilde{Z}^n)$, by drawing sufficiently many bootstrap sub-samples, we can find $C^{\alpha,n}$ such that
\begin{equation}
P\bp{\hat\theta_n^{{\rm bootstrap}}-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{\hat\theta_n^{{\rm bootstrap}} \mid X^n}\in C^{\alpha,n} \mid X^n }=1-\alpha.
\end{equation}
Then, if we write $\hat{\theta}_n:=g_n(Y^n)$, using the consistency of the bootstrap method we obtain that:
\begin{equation}
{\liminf_{\epsilon\downarrow 0}}\liminf_{n\to \infty}P\bp{ \hat\theta_n-\theta_n\in {C^{\alpha,n}_{\epsilon}}}\ge 1-\alpha.
\end{equation}
Therefore, confidence intervals built using the bootstrap method achieve asymptotically nominal level of confidence. {We note that prior works (e.g. \cite{chernozhukov2013gaussian,chernozhukov2017central}), typically provide a slightly stronger statement that $\liminf_{n\to \infty} P(\hat{\theta}_n - \theta_n\in C^{\alpha,n})\geq 1-\alpha$, by proving anti-concentration results on the limit distribution of $\hat{\theta}_n - \theta_n$. Such anti-concentration, allows one to argue that the mass of the random variable $\hat{\theta}_n-\theta_n$ contained in $C_{\epsilon}^{\alpha,n}$ converges to the mass contained in $C^{\alpha,n}$ as $\epsilon \downarrow 0$ and thereby, $\liminf_{\epsilon\downarrow 0}\liminf_{n\to \infty} P(\hat{\theta}_n - \theta_n\in C_{\epsilon}^{\alpha,n}) = \liminf_{n\to \infty} P(\hat{\theta}_n - \theta_n\in C^{\alpha,n})$. Given that these results typically require stronger conditions on the statistic and many times Gaussian limits, we omit this step in this work and note that a slightly weaker, albeit still practically useful, statement on coverage is achievable in a more general setup.}
\subsection{Notations and definitions}
For a scalar random variable $X$ we denote with $\|X\|_{L_p}$, the $L_p$-norm: $\|X\|_{L_p}:=\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}[X^p]^{1/p}$. Moreover, for vector $x\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^d$, we denote with $\|x\|_p$, the $\ell_p$ vector norm: $\|x\|_p = \left(\sum_{i=1}^d x_i^p\right)^{1/p}$. For simplicity, given a sequence $(x_i)$, with $x_i \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{d}$ and a constant $c\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^d$, we shorthand
\begin{align}
x_{1:n}~:=~& (x_1,\dots,x_n), &
x_{1:n}+c ~:=~& (x_1+c,\dots,x_n+c), &
cx_{2:n} ~:=~& (c,x_2,\dots,x_n).
\end{align}
We denote the $k$-th coordinate of $x_i\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^d$ as $x_{i,k}$. For a function $f:\times_{l=1}^n\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{d_n}\rightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$ and a random variable $X$ taking values in $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{d_n}$, we designate $f(\cdot+X)$ the random function: $x_{1:n}\rightarrow f(x_{1:n}+X)$.
\paragraph{Lindenberg path interpolation} Let $Z^{n,i}$ and $Z^{n, i,x}$ be the following interpolating processes between $Z^n$ and $\tilde{Y}^n$:
\begin{align}
Z^{n, i} :=~& \bp{\tilde{Y}_1^n, \ldots, \tilde{Y}_{i}^n, Z_{i+1}^n, \ldots, Z_n^n }\\
Z^{n, i, x} :=~& \bp{\tilde{Y}_1^n, \ldots, \tilde{Y}_{i-1}^n, x, Z_{i+1}^n, \ldots, Z_n^n }
\end{align}
\paragraph{Higher-order derivatives and bounds} If a function $f$ is three-times differentiable then we let:
\begin{align}
\partial_{i,k} f(x_{1:n}) ~:=~& \partial_{x_{i,k}} f(x_{1:n})\\
\partial^2_{i,k_{1:2}} f(x_{1:n}) ~:=~& \partial_{x_{i,k_1}} \partial_{ x_{i,k_2}} f(x_{1:n})\\
\partial^3_{i,k_{1:3}}f(x_{1:n}) ~:=~& \partial_{x_{i,k_1}} \partial_{x_{i,k_2}} \partial_{x_{i,k_3}} f(x_{1:n})
\end{align}
Moreover, for a potentially random function $f$ we define the constants:
\begin{align}
M^n_{k}:=~& 2\, \|X_{1,k}^n\|_{L_{12}},\\
D_{k_{1}}^n(f) ~:=~& M_{k_1}^n\, \max_{i\le n} \bn{ \partial_{i,k_{1}} f(Z^{n, i,\bar{X}^n}) }_{L_{12}} \\
D_{k_{1:2}}^{n}(f) ~:=~& M_{k_1}^n\, M_{k_2}^n\, \max_{i\le n}\bn{ \partial^2_{i,k_{1:2}}f(Z^{n, i,\bar{X}^n}) }_{L_{12}}\\
D_{k_{1:3}}^{n}(f) ~:=~& M_{k_1}^n \, M_{k_2}^n \, M_{k_3}^n\, \max_{i\le n} \bn{\max_{x\in \bb{\bar{X}^n,\tilde{Y}^{n}_1} \cup \bb{\bar{X}^n, Z_1^n}} \partial^3_{i,k_{1:3}} f(Z^{n, i,x}) }_{L_{12}}
\end{align}
where for any two vectors $a, b\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{d}$, we denote with $[a,b]$ their convex closure, i.e.
\begin{equation}
[a,b] := \{t\, a + (1-t)\, b: t\in [0, 1]\}
\end{equation}
\section{Main Results}\label{sec:main}
If the statistics $(g_n)$ were linear, i.e. $g_n(x_{1:n})=\sum_{i\le n}x_i$, then the influence of a single observation $X_1^n$, on the estimate $\hat{\theta}_n$, would depend uniquely on the value of the random variable itself, i.e. $g_n(X^n)-g(0X_{2:n}^n)=X_1^n$. This is not the case for non-linear statistics. For instance, if $g_n(x_{1:n}) = \max\bp{\sum_{i\le n}x_{i,1}, \sum_{i\le n}x_{i,2}}$, then the influence of observation $x_1$ depends on the relative size of $\sum_{i>2 }x_{i,1}$ and $\sum_{i>2 }x_{i,2}$.
In this paper, we want to study the asymptotics of the bootstrap method for such non-linear statistics, with complex influence functions. To control the degree of non-linearity, we assume that the statistics $(g_n)$ can be approximated by three times differentiable functions.
\begin{assumption}[Approximability by $\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^3$]\label{ass:approx}There exists a sequence of functions $(f_n)$ with $f_n\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^3$ s.t.:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The functions $(f_n)$ approximate the estimators $(g_n)$:
\begin{align}\label{ass:1}
\bn{ f_{n}(Z^n)-g_n(Z^n) }_{L_1} + \bn{ f_{n}(\tilde{Y}^n)-g_n(\tilde{Y}^n) }_{L_1} \xrightarrow{n\to\, \infty} 0. \tag{$H_0$}
\end{align}
\item The first, second and third order derivatives are respectively of size $o(n^{-1/3})$, $o(n^{-1/2})$, $o(n^{-1})$:
\begin{align}\label{ass:2}
\begin{aligned}
R_{n,1} ~:=~& n^{1/3}\sum_{k_1\le d_n} D_{k_{1}}^{n}(f_{n})=o(1)
&
R_{n,2} ~:=~& \sqrt{n}\sum_{k_1,k_2\le d_n} D_{k_{1:2}}^{n}(f_{n})=o(1)\\
R_{n,3} ~:=~& n\sum_{k_1,k_2,k_3\le d_n} D_{k_{1:3}}^{n}(f_{n})=o(1).
\end{aligned}
\tag{$H_1$}
\end{align}
\end{enumerate}
\end{assumption}
To motivate \Cref{ass:approx}, we present two illustrating examples of simple estimators which fail to satisfy conditions \eqref{ass:1}, \eqref{ass:2} and for which the bootstrap method is not consistent. Firstly we note that if \eqref{ass:1} and \eqref{ass:2} hold we have $\bn{ g_n\bp{ X^n}-g_n\bp{0X_{2:n}^n}}_{L_3}=o(n^{-1/3}).$ This is a first-order stability property, i.e. that each sample $i$'s influence on the estimate has to decay at rate $n^{-1/3}$. Our first example is chosen to violate this.
\begin{example}
Let $(X_i^n)$ be a sequence of i.i.d observations distributed as $X_i\sim {\rm unif}(0,1)$. Let $(g_n)$ be the following sequence of functions: $g_n(x_{1:n}):=n\min_{i\le n}x_i$. Then neither the bootstrap method nor the centered bootstrap method are consistent.
Moreover, we note that: $\bn{g_n(X_{1:n})-g_n(0X_{2:n})}_{L_3}\propto n^{-1/3}$. In this example, the bootstrap estimator $g_n( Z^n)\ge g_n(X)$ is systematically larger than the original statistic, which leads to inconsistency of the bootstrap distribution.
\end{example}
Another consequence of having the second and third order derivative of respective order $o(n^{-1/2})$ and $o(n^{-1})$ is that the following two conditional expectations are very similar:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:second-order-implication}
\bn{ \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{g_n(Z^n) \mid X^n}-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{ g_n(\tilde{Y}^n) \mid X^n} }_{L_1}=o(1).
\end{equation}
Our second example is chosen to satisfy the main implication of the first order stability conditions: i.e. $\|g_n(X^n)-g_n(0X_{2:n}^n)\|_{L_3}=o(n^{1/3})$; but to fail to respect this new property.
\begin{example}\label{ss_nulle}
Let $(X_i^n)$ be a sequence of i.i.d observations distributed as $X_i^n\sim {\rm unif}(0,1)$. Let $(g_n)$ be the following sequence of functions: \begin{equation}
g_n(x_{1:n}) := \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{i\le n} 1\bc{\min_{i\ne j}|x_i-x_j|>1/n}- P\bp{\min_{i\ne 1} \ba{X_1-X_i}>1/n}.
\end{equation}
Then neither the bootstrap nor the centered bootstrap are consistent.
Moreover we note that the first order stability result holds, but $\bn{g_n(Y_{1:n})-g_n(0Y_{2:n})}_{L_3}\propto n^{-1/2}$ and Condition~\eqref{eqn:second-order-implication} is violated. The main driving force of inconsistency in this example is that contrary to the original sample, it is likely that the bootstrap sample will contain repeats. Hence we expect $P\bp{\min_{i\ne 1}|Z_i^n-Z_j^n|>1/n \mid X^n}$ to be smaller than $P\bp{\min_{i\ne 1}|X_1-X_i|>1/n}$. See \Cref{app:ss_nulle} for formal proof.
\end{example}
Under \Cref{ass:approx} we study the limiting distribution of the bootstrap statistic and establish that it is asymptotically the same as $g_n(\tilde{Y}^n)$ (proof in \Cref{app:thm1}).
\begin{theorem}\label{thm1}
Let $(g_n:\times_{l=1}^n\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{d_n}\to \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}})$ be a sequence of measurable functions. Let $(X^n_i)$ be a triangular array of i.i.d processes such that $X^n_1\in L_{12}$. Under \Cref{ass:approx}, there is a constant $K$ independent of $n$ such that:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\bn{d_{\ensuremath{{\cal F}}}\bp{ g_n(Z^n),\, g_n(\tilde{Y}^n) \mid X^n } }_{L_1}
\le~&
\bc{
\begin{split}
&\bn{ g_n(\tilde{Y}^n) -f_{n}(\tilde{Y}^n) }_{L_1}
+ \bn{ g_n(Z^n)-f_{n}(Z^n) }_{L_1} \\
&~ + K\, \bp{ R_{n,1}^2\max\bc{ \frac{1}{n^{1/6}}, R_{n,1}} + R_{n,3} + R_{n,2} }
\end{split}
}
\to 0.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
We remark that the theorem also holds under slightly modified stability conditions. See \Cref{jardin} in the appendix for more details.
Moreover, the hypothesis that $(X_i^n)$ is an i.i.d process can also be relaxed to assuming that the process $(X_i^n)$ is exchangeable. See \Cref{thm8} for more details in the appendix.
Finally, note that \Cref{thm1} can also be extended to random estimators $(g_n)$, such as ones obtained by stochastic optimization methods (e.g SGD). See \Cref{thm8} for more details in the appendix.
\end{remark}
\noindent \Cref{thm1} guarantees that we can use the bootstrap method to estimate the distribution of $g_n(\tilde{Y}^n)$, which implies that it can also be used to build confidence intervals for $\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{g_n(\tilde{Y}^n)\mid X^n}$.
\begin{cor}\label{cor1}
Let $(g_n:\times_{l=1}^n\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{d_n}\rightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}})$ be a sequence of measurable symmetric functions. Let $(X^n_i)$ be a triangular array of i.i.d processes such that $X^n_1\in L_{12}$. Assume that $(g_n)$ and $(X^n_i)$ satisfy all the conditions of \Cref{thm1}. Then there is a constant $K$ independent of $n$ such that:
\begin{equation}\begin{split}&
\bn{ d_{\ensuremath{{\cal F}}} \bp{ g_n(Z^n)-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{ g_n(Z^n) \mid X^n},\, g_n(\tilde{Y}^n)-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{ g_n(\tilde{Y}^n) \mid X^n} \mid X^n } }_{L_1}
\\&\le 2\bc{
\begin{split}
&\bn{ g_n(\tilde{Y}^n) -f_{n}(\tilde{Y}^n) }_{L_1}
+ \bn{ g_n(Z^n)-f_{n}(Z^n) }_{L_1} \\
&~ + K\, \bp{ R_{n,1}^2\max\bc{ \frac{1}{n^{1/6}}, R_{n,1}} + R_{n,3} + R_{n,2} }
\end{split}
}
\to 0.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{cor}
\noindent However the distribution we are interested in is that of $g_n(Y^n)$ rather than $g_n(\tilde{Y}^n)$. Moreover, the shape of the confidence intervals of $g_n(\tilde{Y}^n)$ can be arbitrary compared to the ones of $g_n(Y^n)$, i.e. they are not systematically larger or smaller. This is illustrated in \Cref{sec:illustrative} by a series of examples.
In \Cref{sec:uniform-perturb} we propose conditions that guarantee that the two distributions are asymptotically identical. In \Cref{sec:tightness} we prove that those conditions are tight and propose the use of the bootstrap method to build adjusted confidence intervals that are guaranteed to have at least (but not necessarily equal to) some minimum asymptotic coverage.
\subsection{Stable Estimators to Uniform Perturbations}
\label{sec:uniform-perturb}
In this subsection we explore conditions guaranteeing that the distribution of $g_n(Y^n)-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{g_n(Y^n)}$ is asymptotically the same as the distribution of $g_n(\tilde{Y}^n)-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{g_n(\tilde{Y}^n)\mid X^n}$, conditional on $X^n$, as this would imply that the bootstrap method provides consistent confidence intervals for $\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{g_n(Y^n)}$. We start by noting that if $(g_n)$ are linear then it automatically holds as we have
$$\sum_{i\le n} \tilde Y_{i}^n-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{\sum_{i\le n} \tilde Y_{i}^n \mid X^n } =\sum_{i\le n} Y_{i}^n-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{\sum_{i\le n} Y_{i}^n \mid X^n }.$$
Observe that the random variables $\tilde{Y}_i^n$ differ from $Y_i^n$ in a benign manner: a random offset $\bar{X}^n - \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{X_1^n}$, which is independent of $Y^n$, is added to all the random variables. Moreover, this offset is with high probability $O(n^{-1/2})$, since it is the difference of a sample and a population mean. We will refer to such perturbations of a sample $Y^n$ as a \emph{uniform perturbation}. To study general statistics, we introduce the following assumption which guarantees that small uniform perturbations do not drastically change the distribution of $g_n(Y^n)$:
\begin{assumption}[Stability to Uniform Perturbation]\label{ass:uniform} A statistic sequence $(g_n)$ is stable to small uniform perturbations if for all $B>0$:
\begin{align}
r^{n,B}:=~ \bn{\sup_{x\in B_{d_n}(0,B)}\ba{g_n(X^n + x/{\sqrt{n}}) - g_n(X^n)-\mathbb{E}\Big[ g_n(X^n + x/{\sqrt{n}}) - g_n(X^n)\Big]}}_{L_1} \overset{n\to\infty}{\to} 0 \tag{$H_2$}\label{eqn:uniform}
\end{align}
where we define $B_{d_n}(0,B):=\{x\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{d_n} \mid \|x\|_2\le B\}$.
\end{assumption}
Note that the perturbations considered in hypothesis \eqref{eqn:uniform} are uniform on all the coordinates $i\in [n]$. This notably implies that if $g_n$ depends only the relative distance between the observations then hypothesis \eqref{eqn:uniform} holds. We prove, under hypothesis \eqref{eqn:uniform}, that the bootstrap method is consistent and hence by \Cref{prop1} can be used to build asymptotically consistent confidence intervals for $\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{g_n(X^n)}$ (proof in \Cref{app:thm2}).
\begin{theorem}\label{thm2}Let $(g_n:\times_{l=1}^n\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{d_n}\rightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}})$ be a sequence of measurable functions. Let $(X^n_i)$ be a triangular array of i.i.d processes such that $X^n_1\in L_{12}$. Assume that $(g_n)$ satisfies \Cref{ass:approx} and \Cref{ass:uniform}.
Then there exists a universal constant $K$ such that:
\begin{multline}
\bn{ d_{\ensuremath{{\cal F}}}\bp{ g_n(Z^n)-\mathbb{E}\big[g_n(Z^n)|X^n],\, g_n(Y^n) -\mathbb{E}(g_n(Y^n))\mid X^n } }_{L_1}
\\
\le \inf_{B_n\in \mathbb{R}}\bc{
\begin{gathered}
\bn{g_n(\tilde Y^n) -f_n(\tilde Y^n)}_{L_1}
+\big\|g_n( Z^n)-f_n(Z^n)\big\|_{L_1}+K (R_{n,1})^2 \max\bc{ \frac{1}{n^{1/6}},R_{n,1} }\\+K\bp{ R_{n,3} + R_{n,2} }+ \frac{2\sqrt{\sum_{k\le k_n}\|X_{1,k}^n\|_{L_2}^2}}{B_n} \Big[\big\|g_n(Y^n)\big\|_{L_2}+\big\|g_n(\tilde Y^n)\big|_{L_2}\Big]+ r^{n,B_n}
\end{gathered}
}\to 0.
\end{multline}
\end{theorem}
Condition \eqref{eqn:uniform} holds beyond linear statistics. We present two simple illustrative examples of such non-linear estimators, for which \eqref{eqn:uniform} is satisfied.
\begin{example}\label{ex3}
Let $(X_{i})$ be an i.i.d sequence of random variables taking value in $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$. We suppose that they are bounded: $\|X_1\|_{L_{\infty}}<\infty$. We define the functions $(g_{n,1})$ and $(g_{n,2})$ as satisfying:
$$g_{n,1}:x_{1:n}\rightarrow \bp{\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{i\le \lfloor n/2\rfloor}x_{i}-x_{i+\lfloor n/2\rfloor}}^2,\qquad g_{n,2}:x_{1:n}\rightarrow \sqrt{n}\Big[\prod_{i=1}^n\bp{ 1+\frac{x_i-\bar{x}^n}{n}}-1\Big]. $$
Then the functions $(g_{n,1},g_{n,2})$ satisfy conditions \eqref{ass:1}, \eqref{ass:2} and \eqref{eqn:uniform}. Hence the bootstrap is consistent, i.e.:
$$d_{\ensuremath{{\cal F}}}\bp{g_{n,1}( Z^n)-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}(g_{n,1}(Z^n)|X),g_{n,1}( Y_{1:n})-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}(g_{n,1}(Y_{1:n}))\mid X}\rightarrow 0;$$
$$d_{\ensuremath{{\cal F}}}\bp{g_{n,2}( Z^n)-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}(g_{n,2}(Z^n)|X),g_{n,2}( Y_{1:n})-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}(g_{n,2}(Y_{1:n}))\mid X}\rightarrow 0.$$
\end{example}
However hypothesis \eqref{eqn:uniform} can be easily violated by simple examples. We prove in the next subsection, under mild conditions, that \emph{violation of \eqref{eqn:uniform} implies that no re-sampling method can provide asymptotically consistent confidence intervals}. We present here a simple example of this phenomenon.
\begin{example}
Let $(X_i)$ be an i.i.d sequence of scalar-valued, bounded observations with mean $0$. Write $(Y_i)$ an independent copy of $(X_i)$. Define the following functions $g_n:x_{1:n}\rightarrow \bp{ \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{i\le n}x_i }^2$. Then hypothesis \eqref{eqn:uniform} does not hold and the centered distributions of $(g_n(Y_{1:n}))$ and $(g_n(\tilde Y_{1:n}))$ are not asymptotically identical
\begin{equation}
d_{\ensuremath{{\cal F}}}\bp{ g_n(\tilde{Y}_{1:n})-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{ g_n(\tilde{Y}_{1:n})\mid X},\, g_n( Y_{1:n})-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{g_n(Y_{1:n})} \mid X}\not\rightarrow 0.
\end{equation}
\end{example}
\subsection{Impossibility for Unstable Estimators to Uniform Perturbations}
\label{sec:tightness}
In this section we prove that if the estimators are sensitive to small uniform perturbations then the bootstrap method is not consistent. Then we offer three solutions on how to use the bootstrap to build confidence intervals with a guaranteed minimum coverage.
\paragraph{Non-consistency of the bootstrap if the estimators are unstable.}
Let $\mathcal{P}'_n$ be a class of probability distributions on $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{d_n}$.
Write $\mathcal{P}_M(\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}})$ the set of probability measures on $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$. We say that the centered distribution of $g_n(\cdot)$ can be estimated over the class of distributions $\mathcal{P}'_n$ if there is a measurable function $\mathcal{Q}_n:x_1,\dots,x_n\rightarrow \mathcal{P}_M(\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}})$ such that for all sequences of distributions $(\nu_n)\in \prod_{i=1}^{\infty}\mathcal{P}'_n$ we have
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{X^n\sim \nu_n}\bb{ \ba{ d_{\ensuremath{{\cal F}}}\bp{ \mathcal{Q}_n(X^n),\, g_n(Y^n)-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{g_n(Y^n)} \mid X^n } } }\xrightarrow{n\rightarrow \infty }0;
\end{equation}
where $(Y_i^n)$ is taken to be to be an independent copy of $(X_i^n)$.
We prove that the centered distribution of $g_n(\cdot)$ cannot be estimated if a hypothesis similar to \eqref{eqn:uniform} is not respected (proof in \Cref{app:thm3}).
\begin{theorem}\label{thm3}
Let $(g_n:\times_{l=1}^n\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{d_n}\rightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}})$ be a sequence of measurable functions. Define $\Omega_n\subset \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{d_n}$ to be a non empty open subset of $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{d_n}$ and let $\mathcal{P}'_n:=\{p_{\theta}^n,\theta\in \Omega_n\}$ be a parametric subset of $\mathcal{P}_n$ such that $\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{X\sim p^n_{\theta}}(X)=\theta$. Denote $(\mathcal{I}_n(\theta))$ the Fisher information matrix of $(p^n_{\theta})$. Suppose that there is a sequence of measures $(p^n_{\theta_n})\in \prod_{n=1}^{\infty}\mathcal{P}'_n$, a sequence $(z_n)\in \prod_{n=1}^{\infty}\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{d_n}$ and a real $\epsilon>0$ such that \begin{enumerate}[(i).]
\item $\limsup \sup_{\tilde{\theta}_n\in \bb{ \theta_n,\, \theta_n+\frac{z_n}{\sqrt{n}} }} \bn{ \mathcal{I}_n(\tilde \theta_n)^{1/2}\frac{z_n}{\sqrt{n}} }_{2} < \infty$.
\item The following holds if $(X_i^n) \overset{i.i.d}{\sim} p^n_{\theta_n}$
\begin{equation}
\liminf_{n\rightarrow \infty} d_{\ensuremath{{\cal F}}}\bp{
g_n\bp{ X^n+\frac{z_n}{\sqrt{n}}} - \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{ g_n\bp{ X^n+\frac{z_n}{\sqrt{n} } }},\,
g_n(X^n) - \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{ g_n(X^n)} } >\epsilon.
\end{equation}
\item $\theta_n+\frac{z_n}{\sqrt{n}}\in \Omega_n$
\end{enumerate}
Then for all measurable functions $\mathcal{Q}_n:x_1,\dots,x_n\rightarrow \mathcal{P}_M(\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}})$ there is a sequence $(\nu_n)\in\prod_{n=1}^{\infty} \mathcal{P}'_n$ such that:
\begin{equation}
\bn{ d_{\ensuremath{{\cal F}}}\bp{ \mathcal{Q}_n(X^n), g_n(Y^n)-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{g_n(Y^n)} \mid X^n} }_{L_1}\not \rightarrow{ }0
\end{equation}
where $(X_i^n),(Y_i^n)\overset{i.i.d}{\sim}\nu_n.$
\end{theorem}
\noindent \Cref{thm3} implies that if the means of the observations are unknown then no re-sampling method will in general be consistent. We propose in \Cref{sec:centered}, \Cref{sec:corrected} and \Cref{sec:robust} three alternative ways to build confidence intervals, that bypass this impossibility result and have asymptotically a guaranteed coverage of at least $1-\alpha$. Albeit, some of these intervals will potentially have larger size than needed.
\subsubsection{Consistency of the Centered-Bootstrap}\label{sec:centered}
First we explore the case when we know the mean of the observations $\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{X_1^n}$. In this case, we can leverage this knowledge to build centered bootstrap samples $\tilde{Z}_i^n:=Z_i^n+\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{X_1^n}-\bar{X}^n$. Observe that these centered samples satisfy the crucial property that
$\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{\tilde{Z}_1^n\mid X^n}=\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}(X_1^n)$. We prove that, under mild conditions, the centered bootstrap estimator is asymptotically consistent. The conditions needed for the centered bootstrap to be consistent are hypothesis $(H_0)$ and $(H_1)$ formulated instead for $(Y^n_i)$ and $(\tilde Z_i^n)$ rather than for $(\tilde Y^n_i)$ and $(Z_i^n)$.
\begin{assumption}[Approximation by $\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^3$ of $g_n(\cdot +\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}(X_1^n)-\bar{X}^n)$.]\label{ass:approx-center}
There exists a sequence of functions $(f_n)$ with $f_n\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^3$ s.t.:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The functions $(f_n)$ approximate the estimators $(g_n)$: \begin{align}\sup_n\big\|f_n(\tilde Z^n)-g_n(\tilde Z^n)\big\|_{L_1}+\big\|f_n( Y^n)-g_n( Y^n)\Big\|_{L_1}\xrightarrow{\beta\rightarrow \infty} 0.\tag{$H^{{\rm c}}_0$}\end{align}
\item The first, second and third order derivatives are respectively of size $o(n^{-1/3})$, $o(n^{-1/2})$, $o(n^{-1})$:
\begin{align}&R_{n,1}^{{\rm c}}:= n^{1/3}\sum_{k_1\le d_n} D_{1,k_{1}}^{n}\bp{f_n(\cdot+\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}(X_1^n)-\bar{X}^n)}=o(1);\\& R_{n,2}^{{\rm c}}:=\sqrt{ n}\sum_{k_1,k_2\le d_n} D_{2,k_{1:2}}^{n}\bp{f_n(\cdot+\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}(X_1^n)-\bar{X}^n)}=o(1);\tag{$H^{{\rm c}}_1$}
\\&R_{n,3}^{{\rm c}}:= n\sum_{k_1,k_2,k_3\le d_n} D_{3,k_{1:3}}^{n}\bp{f_n(\cdot+\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}(X_1^n)-\bar{X}^n)})=o(1).\end{align}
\end{enumerate}
\end{assumption}
We show that under those conditions the centered bootstrap is asymptotically consistent and thereby can be used to build confidence intervals with asymptotically nominal coverage.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm_center}Let $(g_n:\times_{l=1}^n\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{d_n}\rightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}})$ be a sequence of measurable functions. Let $(X^n_i)$ be a triangular array of i.i.d processes such that $X^n_1\in L_{12}$. Assume that there is a sequence $(f_n:\times_{l=1}^n\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{d_n}\rightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}})$ of measurable functions satisfying conditions $(H^{{\rm c}}_0)$ and $(H^{{\rm c}}_1)$.
Then there is a universal constant $K$ such that:
\begin{equation}
\bn{ d_{\ensuremath{{\cal F}}}\bp{ g_n( \tilde Z^n),\, g_n( Y^n) \mid X^n } }_{L_1}
\le
\bc{\begin{gathered}
\bn{ g_n(Y^n) -f_n( Y^n) }_{L_1}
+ \bn{ g_n(\tilde Z^n)-f_n(\tilde Z^n) }_{L_1}
\\+K\bp{ (R_{n,1}^{c})^2 \max\bc{ \frac{1}{n^{1/6}},R_{n,1}^{c} } + R_{n,3}^{c}+ R_{n,2}^{c} }
\end{gathered}}
\to 0.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{example}[Application to hypothesis testing] An important application is hypothesis testing. Suppose we want to test $(H_0):~\mathbb{E}\bb{X_1^n}=\theta$ against an alternative $(H_1)$. In this goal, we build a test statistic $\hat{T}_n(X^n)$ for which we want to compute a p-value. Let $(Z_i^n)$ be a bootstrap sample of $\{X_1^n,\dots,X_n^n\}$; define $(Z^{\theta}_i)$ as the following process:
\begin{equation}
Z^{\theta}_i:=Z^n_i-\bar{X}^n+ \theta.
\end{equation}
{We remark that under the null, $(Z^{\theta}_i)$ is a centered bootstrap sample of $X^n$.} Using \Cref{thm_center} we know, under stability conditions on $(\hat{T}_n)$ (i.e. \Cref{ass:approx-center}), that we can use $\hat{T}^n(Z^{\theta}_{1:n})$ to estimate the p-value of $\hat{T}_n$.
\begin{prop}
Let $(X_i^n)$ be a triangular array of i.i.d processes taking value in $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{d_n}$ and $\hat{T}_n:\times_{i=1}^n \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{d_n}\rightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$ be a sequence of measurable functions that satisfies \Cref{ass:approx-center}. Then:
$$\bn{d_{\ensuremath{{\cal F}}}\bp{ \hat{T}_n(Z^{\theta}_{1:n}), \hat{T}_n(Y_{1:n}^{n,\theta}) \mid X^n }}_{L_1}\to 0.$$
\end{prop}
\end{example}
\subsubsection{Corrected Confidence Interval}\label{sec:corrected}
We now investigate two distinct methods to build conservative confidence intervals, when the mean $\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}[X_1^n]$ is not known.
\noindent According to \Cref{cor1} the bootstrap method can be used to build consistent confidence intervals for $\mathbb{E}(g_n(\tilde Y^n)\mid X^n)$. Therefore if we can bound the distance from $\mathbb{E}(g_n(\tilde Y^n)\mid X^n)$ to $\mathbb{E}(g_n( Y^n))$ we can use the bootstrap method to build confidence intervals on the latter. This is the first method that we propose. To do so we exploit the fact that under mild conditions $\sqrt{n}\big[\bar{X^n}-\mathbb{E}(X_1^n)\big]$ is approximately normal. We assume that the function $x\rightarrow\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{g_n(Y^n+x)}$ is $\alpha$-Holder and that the moments of $X_1^n$ are bounded. More formally, suppose that there is a sequence $(C_n)$ and a constant $b$ such that:
\begin{align}\label{ass:h3}&
\Big|\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{g_n(Y^n+\frac{x}{\sqrt{n}})-g_n(Y^n)}\Big|\le C_n\max_{k\le d_n}|x_k|^{\alpha}, \quad \forall x\in \mathbb{R}^{d_n}\tag{$H_3$}
\\&\min_{j\le d_n}\|X^n_{1,j}\|_{L_3}\ge b,\quad \frac{\log(d_n)^{7/6}\|\sup_{k\le d_n}|X^n_{1,k}|\|_{L_4}^4}{n^{1/6}}=o(1).
\end{align}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm_4}
Let $(g_n:\times_{l=1}^n \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{d_n}\rightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}})$ be a sequence of measurable functions satisfying Assumption 1 and \eqref{ass:h3}. Denote $\Sigma_n$ the variance-covariance matrix of $X_1^n$ and $(N^n)$ to be a sequence of Gaussian vectors distributed as $N^n\sim N(0,\Sigma_n)$.
Let $\beta>0$ be a real; write $t_{g,n}^{\beta/2}$ and $t_{{\rm b},n}^{\beta/2}(X^n)$ as quantities satisfying $$P\bp{\big|g_n(Z^n)-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}(g_n(Z^n)|X^n)\big|\ge t_{{\rm b},n}^{\beta/2}(X^n)\mid X^n}\le \beta/2 ;$$$$P\bp{\max_k\big|N^n_k|\ge(t_{g,n}^{\beta/2})^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}{C_n}^{-\frac{1}{\alpha}}}\le \beta/2 .$$
Then the following holds: $$\limsup_{\delta \downarrow 0}\limsup_n P\bp{\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}(g_n(Y^n))\le \big[g_n(Z^n)-t_{{\rm b},n}^{\beta/2}- t_{g,n}^{\beta/2}-\delta,~~g_n(Z^n)+t_{{\rm b},n}^{\beta/2}+ t_{g,n}^{\beta/2}+\delta\big]}\le \beta.$$\end{theorem}
\noindent See \Cref{app:thm_4} for proof of \Cref{thm_4}. We present here an illustrative example, and in \Cref{sec:minmax} present an application of \Cref{thm_4} to a classical problem.
\begin{example}\label{ex_3_6}
Let $(X_i)$ be an i.i.d sequence with mean $0$ and variance $1$. Suppose that $X_i\in L_{12} $ and let $c_{\alpha}(X^n)$ be such that: $$P\bp{\ba{\big[\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{i\le n}Z^n_i\big]^2-\mathbb{E}\big(\big[\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{i\le n}Z^n_i\mid X\big]^2\big)}\ge c_{\alpha}(X)\big|X}\le \alpha.$$Denote $z_{\alpha}$ the $1-\alpha$ quantile of a standard normal: $P\bp{Z\ge z_{\alpha}}\le \alpha$ where $Z\ge N(0,1)$. Then the following holds: $$\limsup_{n\rightarrow 0}P\bp{\ba{\big[\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{i\le n}Z^n_i\big]^2-\mathbb{E}\big(\big[\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{i\le n}X_i\big]^2\big)}\ge c_{\alpha/2}(X)+z_{\alpha/4}^2}\le \alpha$$
\end{example}
\vspace{4mm}
\noindent The second method exploits the bootstrap method for slightly shifted observations. The goal is to use the fact that under moderate conditions we know that $\bn{\bar{X^n}-\mathbb{E}(X_1^n)}$ is of size $O(1/\sqrt{n})$. In this goal, we denote $B_{d_n}(\gamma)$ the ball in $\mathbb{R}^{d_n}$ of radius $\gamma$ for the Euclidean-norm.
\begin{theorem}
\label{cafe_2}
Let $(g_n)$ be a sequence of measurable functions. Suppose that for all sequence $(\mu_n)\in B_{d_n}(\gamma_n)$ \Cref{ass:approx} is satisfied by $(X^n+\mu_n)$ and $(g_n)$. Define $(\gamma_n)$ to be a sequence such that $\frac{\sqrt{n}\gamma_n}{\log(d_n)}\rightarrow \infty.$
Set $t_{*}^{\alpha}(X^n)$ to be satisfying $$\sup_{\mu\in B_{d_n}(\gamma_n)}P\bp{\ba{g_n(Z^n+\mu)-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bp{g_n(Z^n+\mu)\mid X^n}}\ge t_{*}^{\alpha}(X^n) \mid X^n}\le \alpha.$$
Then the following holds:
$$\limsup_{\delta\downarrow 0}\limsup_{n\rightarrow 0}P\bp{\ba{g_n(Y^n)-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bp{g_n(Y^n)}}\ge t_{*}^{\alpha}(X^n)+\delta\mid X^n}\le\alpha.$$
\end{theorem}
See \Cref{app:cafe_2} for a proof. We apply this new result to the previous illustrative example.
\begin{example}\label{ex_3_7}
Let $(X_i)$ be an i.i.d sequence with mean $0$ and variance $1$. Suppose that $X_i\in L_{12} $ and let $c_{\alpha}(X^n)$ be such that: $$\sup_{x,|x|\le \log(n)/\sqrt{n}}P\bp{\ba{\big[\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{i\le n}Z_i+x\big]^2-\mathbb{E}\big(\big[\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{i\le n}Z_i+x\big]^2\big)}\ge c_{\alpha}(X^n)\big|X^n}\le \alpha.$$Then the following holds: $$\limsup_{n\rightarrow 0}P\bp{\ba{\big[\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{i\le n}Y_i\big]^2-\mathbb{E}\big(\big[\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{i\le n}Y_i\big]^2\big)}\ge c_{\alpha}(X^n)}\le \alpha$$
\end{example}
\subsubsection{Robust Confidence Interval}\label{sec:robust}
\noindent \Cref{thm_center} states that if the mean $\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{X_1^n}$ of the observations is known then we can instead study the centered bootstrap estimator, which under technical conditions, is asymptotically consistent. However assuming that the mean is known can be unrealistic. In this section, we instead assume that we know that it belongs to a certain subset $A_n$ and seek to find a confidence interval with a guaranteed coverage level for all potential values of the mean. {To make this more precise, we consider an adversary that can see the draw of the random samples and translate them by any offset in the translation set $B_n:=\{x-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{X_1^n}: x\in A_n\}$. Our goal is to guarantee that no-matter what perturbation the adversary chooses, we produce a confidence interval with guaranteed coverage.} Let $\mathcal{P}_n$ a set of probability distributions on $\mathbb{R}^{d_n}$ such that there exists a sequence of functions $(f_n)$ with $f_n\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^3$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The functions $(f_n)$ approximate the estimators $(g_n)$:
\begin{align}
\sup_{\nu\in \mathcal{P}_n}\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{X^n{\sim} \nu^{\otimes\infty}}\bp{\ba{ f_{n}(\tilde Z^n)-g_n(\tilde Z^n) }} + \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{X^n{\sim} \nu^{\otimes \infty}}\bp{ \ba{f_{n}({X}^n)-g_n({X}^n) }}\xrightarrow{n\to\, \infty} 0. \tag{$H^{rob}_0$}
\end{align}
\item The first, second and third order derivatives are such that:\begin{align}\sup_{\nu\in \mathcal{P}_n}\max\bp{R_{n,1}^{c,\nu}, R_{n,2}^{c,\nu}, R_{n,3}^{c,\nu}}\rightarrow 0. \tag{$H_1^{rob}$}\end{align} where for each distribution $\nu\in \mathcal{P}_n$ we denoted by $R_{n,1}^{c,\nu}$, $R_{n,2}^{c,\nu}$ and $R_{n,3}^{c,\nu}$ the coefficients $R_{n,1}^c$, $R_{n,2}^c$ and $R_{n,3}^c$ computed for $(X^n_i)\overset{i.i.d}{\sim} \nu$.
\end{enumerate}
\noindent Our goal we is to use the bootstrap method to find $(t_n^{\alpha}(X^n))$ such that the following holds:
\begin{equation}
\label{poirot}
\limsup_{n\rightarrow \infty}\sup_{\substack{\nu\in \mathcal{P}_n\\\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{X\sim\nu}(X)\in A_n}}{{P_{X^n,Y^n\overset{i.i.d}{\sim} \nu}\bp{ \ba{ g_n(Y^{n})-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{g_n(Y^n)} }\ge t_{n}^{\alpha} (X^n)}}} \le \alpha.
\end{equation}
\noindent If conditions $(H_0^{{\rm rob}})$ and $(H_1^{{\rm rob}})$ hold then the bootstrap method can be used to find a sequence $(t_n^{\alpha})$ such that \cref{poirot} holds (proof in \Cref{app:cafe}).
\begin{theorem}
\label{cafe}Let $(g_n)$ be a sequence of measurable functions, let $(\mathcal{P}_n)$ be sets of probability measures chosen such that $(H_0^{\rm{rob}})$ and $(H_1^{\rm{rob}})$ hold. For all $\nu \in \mathcal{P}_n$ and given a sample $X^n\sim \nu$ define $t_{n}^{\alpha}(X^n)$ to be such that:
\begin{equation}
\sup_{\mu\in A_n}{P\bp{ \ba{ g_n(Z^{n}+\mu-\bar{X^n} )-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{g_n(Z^{n}+\mu-\bar{X^n} )\mid X^n} }\ge t_{n}^{\alpha} (X^n)\mid X^n}} \le \alpha.
\end{equation}
Then if we write $\mathcal{Q}_n:= \{\nu\in \mathcal{P}_n\mid \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{X\sim \nu}(X)\in A_n \}$ then the following holds
\begin{equation}
\liminf_{\delta\downarrow 0}\limsup_{n\rightarrow \infty}\sup_{\nu\in \mathcal{Q}_n}{{P_{X^n,Y^n\overset{i.i.d}{\sim} \nu}\bp{ \ba{ g_n(Y^{n})-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{g_n(Y^n)} }\ge t_{n}^{\alpha} (X^n)+\delta}}} \le \alpha.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\section{Illustrative Examples and Counterexamples}
\label{sec:illustrative}
We present a sequence of simple examples illustrating that our theorems hold even if the estimator is not asymptotically normal. Moreover, we provide negative examples where the shape of the confidence intervals obtained by the bootstrap method can be arbitrary compared to the ones of the original statistics $g_n(Y_{1:n})$. The first example we consider are polynomials of the empirical average. Their limiting distribution is in not Gaussian for $p>1$.
\begin{example}\label{ex1} Let $p\in \mathbb{N}$ be an integer and let $X:=(X_{i})$ be an i.i.d sequence taking value in $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$ with mean $0$ and admitting a $12p$-th moment $\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{\big|X_{i}|^{12p}}<\infty$. We define the functions $(g_n)$ as $g_n:x_{1:n}\rightarrow \bp{\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{i\le n}x_{i}}^p.$ We write $( Z^n_{{i}})$ a bootstrap sample and $(Y^n_{i})$ an independent copy of $X$. Then the following holds:
$$\bn{ d_{\ensuremath{{\cal F}}}\bp{ g_n\bp{ Z^n}, \bp{\sqrt{n}~\bar{X}^n+\sqrt{n}~\bar{Y}^n}^p \mid X } }_{L_1}=O\bp{\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}}.$$
Moreover, let $A$ be an $1-\alpha$ confidence-interval for $g_n(\tilde Y_{1:n})$ meaning $P(g_n(\tilde Y_{1:n})\in A)\ge 1-\alpha$. Write: $A_{\bar{X}^n}:=\{x\in\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}\mid~\exists y\in A~{\rm s.t}~x={\rm sign}(x)]\bp{ |y|^{1/p}-\bar{X}^n}^p\}$ then $$P(g_n(Y_{1:n})\in A_{\bar{X}^n})\ge 1-\alpha.$$
\end{example}
See \Cref{pr:ex1} for the proof.
\begin{example}\label{stress} Let $X:=(X_i)$ be an i.i.d sequence of bounded real valued random variables satisfying $\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}(X_1)=0$. We define $g_n:\times_{l=1}^n \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}\rightarrow\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$ to be the following function: $g_n(x_1,\dots,x_n):= \sqrt{n}\Big[\prod_{i=1}^n\bp{1+\frac{x_i}{{n}}}-1\Big]$. Write $(\tilde Z_i^n) $ to be a centered bootstrap sample and let $Y:=(Y_i)$ be an independent copy of $X$. Then the following holds: $$\Big\|d_{\ensuremath{{\cal F}}}\bp{g_n( \tilde Z^n)-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}(g_n(\tilde Z^n)|X),g_n( Y_{1:n})-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}(g_n(Y^n))\Big|X}\Big\|_{L_1}\rightarrow 0.$$
See \Cref{app:stress} for a formal proof.
\end{example}
The next example demonstrates that the confidence intervals obtained by the bootstrap method are neither systematically bigger or smaller than the ones of original statistics.
\begin{example}\label{ex32}
Let $(X_{i})$ be a sequence of i.i.d standard normal observations $X_{i}\sim N(0,1)$. Define $(g_n)$ to be the following sequence of functions: $g_n(x_{1:n}):=\bb{\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{i\le n}x_i}^+$. Let $(Z^n)$ be a bootstrap sample. The following holds:
\begin{equation}
\bn{ d_{\ensuremath{{\cal F}}}\bp{ g_n(Z^n),\, \sqrt{n}\bb{\bar{Y}+\bar{X}}^+ \mid X} }_{L_1}\rightarrow 0.
\end{equation}
Moreover given $\alpha<0.5$ and a sequence $(t_n)$ such that: $P(g_n(Z^n)\le t_n\mid X^n)=1-\alpha$ then:
\begin{equation}
P(g_n(Y^n)\le t_n-\sqrt{n}\bar{X}^n)\sim 1-\alpha.
\end{equation}
We notice that the segment $[0,t]$ is smaller than $[0,t-\sqrt{n}\bar{X}^n]$ only if $\sqrt{n}\bar{X}^n>0 $ which asymptotically happens with a probability of $1/2$.
\end{example}
See \Cref{pr:ex32} for a formal proof.
\noindent In the next example we show that our results apply to classical quantities in mathematical physics. We consider the entropy of spin glasses configurations.
\begin{example}\label{roryl}
Let $X:=(X_{i,j})$ be an array of i.i.d observations satisfying $X_{i,j}\overset{i.i.d}{\sim} N(0,1)$. We denote $X^n:=\bp{X_{i,j}}_{i,j\le n}$ the induced matrix and define $g_n: M_n(\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}})\rightarrow\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$ to be the following function: $g_n(X):= \frac{1}{n}\log\bp{ \sum_{m\in \{-1,1\}^n}e^{\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}m^{\top}X^nm} }$. Write $( Z_{i,j}^n) $ and $(\tilde Z_{i,j}^n)$ respectively a bootstrap and centered bootstrap sample and $Y^n$ an independent copy of $X^n$. Then the following holds:
\begin{equation}
\bn{ d_{\ensuremath{{\cal F}}}\bp{ g_n( Z^n),\, \frac{1}{n}\log\bp{ \sum_{m\in \{-1,1\}^n}e^{\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}m^{\top} Y^n m}~e^{\bar{X}^n(\sum_i m_i)^2/\sqrt{n}} } \mid X^n } }_{L_1}\rightarrow 0;
\end{equation}and\begin{equation}
\bn{ d_{\ensuremath{{\cal F}}}\bp{ g_n(\tilde Z^n),\, \frac{1}{n}\log\bp{ \sum_{m\in \{-1,1\}^n}e^{\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}m^{\top} Y^n m} } \mid X^n } }_{L_1}\rightarrow 0;
\end{equation}
where we have denoted $\bar{X}^n:=\frac{1}{n^2}\sum_{i,j\le n}X_{i,j}^n$.
\end{example}
See \Cref{app:roryl} for a formal proof.
\section{Uniform Confidence Bands}
\label{sec:bands}
In this section, we study the maximum of centered empirical processes. This is motivated by its application to uniform confidence bounds (see e.g. \cite{chernozhukov2013gaussian,chernozhukov2017central}). Let $(X_{i}^n)$ be a triangular array of i.i.d process with $X_1^n$ taking value in $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{p_n}$ where $(p_n)$ is an increasing sequence. We want to estimate the distribution of
$$\max_{j\le p_n}\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{i\le n} X_{i,j}^n-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\big[ X_{1,j}^n\big].$$
For fast growing sequences of $(p_n)$ this statistics is not asymptotically Gaussian \cite{deng2017beyond}. Therefore to study its distribution one might want to use the bootstrap method. Using our results we recover the results of \cite{deng2017beyond} and establish conditions under which the bootstrap is asymptotically consistent (proof in \Cref{app:seule}).
\begin{prop}\label{seule} Let $(p_n)$ be a sequence of integers satisfying $\log(p_n)=o(n^{1/4})$. Define $(X^n_i)$ to be a triangular array of sequences of i.i.d random variables taking value in $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{p_n}$. We suppose that $\bn{\sup_{k\le p_n} \ba{ X_{1,k}^n }}_{L_{12}}<\infty$.
We denote $\mathcal{M}_n(x_{1:n})=\max_{j\le p_n} \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{i\le n}x_{i,j}$.
Then the following holds {\small $$\Big\|d_{\ensuremath{{\cal F}}}\bp{\mathcal{M}_n(Z^n-\bar{X}^n),~\mathcal{M}_n(Y^n-\mathbb{E}[Y^n_1])\mid X^n}\Big\|_{L_1}=o(1).$$}
\end{prop}
\section{Value of a Min-Max Objective}
\label{sec:minmax}
In this section, motivated by problems in sample average approximations of stochastic linear programs \cite{guigues2017non} and in structural econometric problems \cite{syrgkanis2017inference}, we want to estimate distribution of the value of a stochastic min-max objective. Given a set of potential actions $\{\theta_i\}$, a payoff function $f_n$ and random states of nature $(\xi^n_\ell)$ we wish to estimate the expected payoff of a stochastic min-max objective:{
\begin{equation}
\theta_0 :=\min_{i\le p_{n}}\max_{j\le p_{n}} \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{f_n(\xi^n_{\ell}, u_i, v_j)}.
\end{equation}}
We assume we have access to $n$ i.i.d. samples of $\xi^n:=(\xi_{1^n}, \ldots, \xi_{n}^n)$ and want to build confidence intervals for $\theta_0$. To achieve this, we will estimate the distribution of the root-$n$ normalized version of the empirical analogue of the stochastic program:
\begin{equation}
\min_{i\le p_n}\max_{j\le p_n} \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{\ell\le n}f_n(\xi^n_\ell, u_i, v_j).
\end{equation}
We will investigate the consistency of the bootstrap method for this problem. For ease of notations, we write $X_{\ell,i,j}^n:= f_n(\xi^n_\ell, i, j)$, and set $(p_n)$ to be an increasing sequence and write:
\begin{equation}
\hat{\theta}_n(x_{1:n}):=\min_{i\le p_{n}}\max_{j\le p_{n}} ~\frac{1}{n}\sum_{\ell\le n} x_{\ell,i,j}.
\end{equation}
We show that the centered bootstrap method is consistent as long as $\log(p_{n})=o(n^{1/4})$ (proof in \Cref{app:prop3}).
\begin{prop}\label{prop3}
Let $(p_n)$ be a sequence of integers satisfying $\log(p_n)=o(n^{1/4})$. Define $(X^n_i)$ to be a triangular array of sequences of i.i.d random variables taking value in $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{p_n\times p_n}$. Suppose that $\|\sup_{l_1,l_2\le p_n}|X_{1,l_1,l_2}^n|\|_{L_{12}}<\infty$.
~Then the following holds $$\bn{d_{\ensuremath{{\cal F}}}\bp{\sqrt{n}\Big[\hat \theta_n( Z^n)-\theta_{Z^n}\Big],~\sqrt{n}\Big[\hat \theta_n( \tilde Y^n)-\theta_{\tilde Y^n}\Big]\mid X^n}}_{L_1}=o(1);$$ $$\bn{d_{\ensuremath{{\cal F}}}\bp{\sqrt{n}\bp{\hat \theta_n( \tilde Z^n)-\theta_{\tilde Z^n}},~\sqrt{n}\bp{\hat \theta_n( Y^n)-\theta_{0}}\mid X^n}}_{L_1}=o(1);$$ where for a process $(Y'_{1:n})$ we have written, by abuse of notations,
$\theta_{Y'}:=\min_{i\le p_{n}}\max_{j\le p_{n}} ~\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\big[Y^{'}_{l,i,j}|X^n\big].$
Therefore if we let $t_{n,\alpha}$ to be a threshold such that:
\begin{equation}
\Pr\bp{ \sqrt{n} \left(\hat{\theta}_n(\tilde{Z}^n) - \theta_{\tilde{Z}^n}\right) \geq t_{n,\alpha} \mid X^n } = \alpha
\end{equation}
Then for every sequence $(\epsilon_n)$ satisfying $\epsilon_n\downarrow 0$ and $\bp{\frac{\log(p_n)^2}{\sqrt{n}}}^{1/9}=o(\epsilon_n)$ we have
\begin{equation}
\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty}\Pr\bp{\sqrt{n}\left(\hat{\theta}(X^n) - \theta_0\right) \geq t_{n,\alpha}+\epsilon_n} \le \alpha
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\vspace{2mm}
\noindent We note that if the means are sufficiently spaced:$$\frac{\log(p_n)}{\sqrt{n}}=o\Big[\inf_{(i,j)\ne (l,k)}\big|\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\big[X^{n}_{1,l,k}\big]-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\big[X^{n}_{1,i,j}\big]\big|\Big]$$ then the bootstrap method is consistent. See \Cref{seperate} for a precise statement and a proof.
\noindent We generalize those results to estimating the payoff of minmax strategies over a continuous space. Let $(d'_n)$ be a non-decreasing sequence and denote $B_{d'_n}^1\subset \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{d'_n}$ the ball of radius $1$ in $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{d'_n}$. Choose $(f_n:\prod_{i=1}^n \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{d_n}\times B_{d'_n}^1\times B_{d'_n}^1) $ to be a sequence of Lipschitz functions for which there are constants $(C_n)$ and $(c_n)$ satisfying:
\begin{align}
\ba{ f_n(x, u, v) - f_n(x, u', v') } < ~& C_n \bp{ \|u-u'\| + \|v-v'\| } \tag{$H^{{\rm minmax}}_0$} \label{minimax:lip:1}\\
\ba{ \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{ f_n(X_1^n, u, v)}-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{f_n(X_1^n, u', v'} } >~& c_n \bp{ \|u-u'\|+\|v-v'\| } \tag{$H^{{\rm minmax}}_1$} \label{minimax:lip:2}
\end{align}
\noindent Similarly as in the discrete case our goal is to estimate \begin{equation}
\theta_n:=\inf_{u \in B_{d'_n}^1}\sup_{v \in B_{d'_n}^1} \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bb{f_n(\xi_1^n, u, v)}
\end{equation}
and to do so we propose as an estimator
\begin{equation}
\hat{\theta}_n(X^n):=\inf_{u\in B_{d'_n}^1}\sup_{v\in B_{d'_n}^1} \frac{1}{{n}}\sum_{i\le n} f_n(\xi_i^n, u, v).
\end{equation}
To build confidence intervals around $\theta_n$, we want to use the bootstrap method. Using \Cref{thm1}, we prove that it is consistent under distinct set of assumptions: 1) If
the dimensions $(d'_n)$ grow as $o(n^{1/4})$ and if
the sequences $(C_n)$ and $(c_n)$ are bounded respectively from bellow and above or 2) If
the dimensions $(d'_n)$ grow as $o(n^{1/7})$ and if
the sequences $(C_n)$ is bounded from above (proof in \Cref{app:prop4}).
\begin{prop}\label{prop4}
Let $\bp{f_n:\prod_{i=1}^n \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{d_n}\times B_{d'_n}^1\times B_{d'_n}^1}$ be a sequence of Lipschitz functions
satisfying condition \eqref{minimax:lip:1}. Assume that $\sup_{u, v\in B_{d'_n}^1, n\le\infty}\|f_n(\xi_1^n, u, v)\|_{L_{\infty}}<\infty$.
\noindent If in addition we know that \eqref{minimax:lip:2} holds and that $d'_nC_n\log(nC_n)=o(c_nn^{1/4})$. Then the bootstrap method is consistent:
$$\Big\|d_{\ensuremath{{\cal F}}}\bp{\sqrt{n}\big[\hat{\theta}_n(Z^n)-\theta_{Z^n}\big], ~\sqrt{n}\big[\hat{\theta}_n(\xi^n_{1:n})-\theta_n\big]\Big|\xi^n}\Big\|_{L_1}\rightarrow 0,$$
where for a process $(Y'_{1:n})$ we have written
$\theta_{Y'}:=\inf_{u\in B_{d'_n}^1}\sup_{v\in B_{d'_n}^1} ~\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\big[f_n(Y^{'}_1,u,v)|X^n\big].$
\noindent Otherwise we suppose that $d'_n\log(nC_n)C_n=o(n^{1/7})$, and choose $t_{\beta/2}(X^n)$ such that the following holds:
$$P\bp{\sqrt{n}\ba{\hat \theta_n( Z^n)-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bp{\hat \theta_n( Z^n)\mid X^n}}\ge t_{\beta/4}(X^n)\mid X^n}\le \beta/4.$$
We have:
$$\lim_{\delta \downarrow 0}\limsup_{n\rightarrow \infty} P\bp{\sqrt{n}\ba{\hat \theta_n( \xi^n)-\theta_{X^n}}\ge t_{\beta/4}(X^n)+3t_{g,n}^{*,\beta/4}+\delta}\le \beta;$$ where $t_{g,n}^{*\beta/4}$ is chosen such that: $P\bp{\sup_{u,v\in B_{d'_n}^1}|N_{u,v}|\ge t_{g,n}^{*,\beta/4}}\le \beta/4 $ where $(N_{u,v})$ is a gaussian process with covariance function $\Sigma^2\bp{(u_1,v_1),(u_2,v_2)}:=\rm{Cov}\bp{f_n(\xi_1^n,u_1,v_1),f_n(\xi_1^n,u_2,v_2)}$.
\end{prop}
\section{P-value of a Two-Sample Kernel Test}\label{sec:p_value}
In this subsection, we show how the bootstrap method can be used to obtain consistent p-values for kernel two sample tests. Given two independent i.i.d processes $(X_{i,1}^n)$ and $(X_{i,2}^n)$ taking value in $\mathcal{X}_n\subset\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{d_n}$, the goal of two-sample tests is to determine if the observations $(X_{i,1}^n)$ and $(X_{i,2}^n)$ are sampled from the same distribution.
For ease of notations, we designate by $\mu_{n,1}$ and $\mu_{n,2}$ respectively the distribution of the first sample and second sample; and want test if the null hypothesis holds $$(H_0^{n}): \mu_{n,1}=\mu_{n,2}$$ against the alternative $$(H_1^n): \mu_{n,1}\ne \mu_{n,2}.$$ A popular method to do so are non-parametric kernel two samples tests \cite{liu2020learning,gretton2012kernel,wilson2016deep,wenliang2019learning}.
\noindent Let $\ensuremath{{\cal F}}_n$ be a class of functions from $\mathcal{X}_n$ into $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$. If the two distributions are the same $\mu_{n,1}=\mu_{n,2}$ then we have:$$\sup_{f\in \ensuremath{{\cal F}}_n}\big|\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}(f(X_{1,1}^n ))-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}(f(X_{1,2}^n))\big|=0.$$
Moreover if $\ensuremath{{\cal F}}_n$ is dense in the space of bounded continuous functions then the opposite also holds. The main difficulty therefore consists of choosing the set $\ensuremath{{\cal F}}_n$ to be big enough to differentiate between the distributions $\mu_{n,1}$ and $\mu_{n,2}$ but structured enough that we can estimate of $\sup_{f\in \ensuremath{{\cal F}}_n}\big|\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}(f(X_{1,1}^n))-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}(f(X_{1,2}^n))\big|$. To do so, we choose a reproducing kernel space $\mathcal{H}_n$ with kernel $K_n:\mathcal{X}_n\times \mathcal{X}_n\rightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$ and set the class of functions $\ensuremath{{\cal F}}_n$ to be the unit ball of $\mathcal{H}_n$. Different choices of kernels will lead to various level of power of our test especially for structured or high dimensional data. The goal is to choose the kernel that is the most likely to maximize the power of the test.
\noindent Let $\big(K_{\theta_k}(\cdot,\cdot)\big)_{k\le p_n}$ be a finite set of potential Kernel candidates.
We write for all $i,j\le n$ and for all $k\le p_n$
$$H_{i,j}^{\theta_k}:=K_{\theta_k}(X^{n}_{j,1},X^{n}_{i,1})+K_{\theta_k}(X^{n}_{j,2},X^{n}_{i,2})-K_{\theta_k}(X^{n}_{j,1},X^{n}_{i,2})-K_{\theta_k}(X^{n}_{j,2},X^{n}_{i,1});$$
and for all subsets $B\subset \dbracket{n}$ we denote $\hat{M}_{\theta_k}(X^n_{B}):=\frac{1}{|B|^2}\sum_{i,j\in B}H_{i,j}^{\theta_k}$.
~The idea proposed in \cite{liu2020learning} is to select the kernel that gives rise to a test with the highest (estimated) power. This is done by selecting a subset $B_n\subset\dbracket{n}$ and maximizing the following quantity $\hat{\theta}_n^{B_n}:={\rm argmax}_{\theta\in \{\theta_1,\dots,\theta_{p_n}\}}~ p_{\theta}(X^{n}_{B_n})$ where we have set
$$p_{\theta}(X^{n}_{B_n}):=\frac{\hat{M}_{\theta}(X^n_{B_n})}{\frac{4}{|B_n|^3}\sum_{i\in B_n}\big[\sum_{j\in B_n} H_{i,j}^{\theta}]^2-\frac{4}{|B_n|^4}\Big[\sum_{i,j\le B_n} H_{i,j}^{\theta}\Big]^2+\lambda_n}$$ where $(\lambda_n)$ are tuning parameters. Once the kernel is chosen the test statistics is computed on $\dbracket{n}
\setminus B_n$ the remaining data: $\frac{1}{n^2}\sum_{i,j\in \dbracket{n}\setminus B_n} H^{\hat{\theta}_n}_{i,j}$. The fact that the kernel is chosen on a different sample than the test statistics is computed on, means that the conditional limiting distribution of the test statistics, under $H_0$, is known to be a chi-square \cite{liu2020learning}. Hence one can compute a consistent estimate of the p-value. However under this approach only a portion of the data is used to select the kernel. This could be problematic when dealing with high-dimensional kernels.
\noindent We propose a different method that does not require data splitting and uses the bootstrap method to estimate the p-value. The test statistics that we propose is a softmax:
$$\hat{T}_n(X^n):= \sum_{k\le p_n} \frac{1}{n^2}\sum_{i,j\le n} H^{\theta_k}_{i,j}~ \omega_k(X_{1:n}),\qquad {\rm where}~\omega_k(X_{1:n}):=\frac{e^{\beta_np_{\theta_k}(X^n)}}{\sum_{k'\le p_n}e^{\beta_np_{\theta_k'}(X^n)}}~;$$ and where $(\beta_n)$ are hyper-parameters.
The bigger $\beta_n$ is the more weight we give to the kernel maximizing $p_{\theta}(X^n)$.
\noindent We note that the distribution of $\hat T_n$ is unknown and depends in an intricate fashion on the set of kernels $\{K_{\theta_k},~k\le p_n\}$ as well as on $p_n$. Therefore to be able to compute the p-value we want to estimate its distribution under $H_0$. In this goal, we remark that under the null hypothesis the distribution of $X_{i,1}^n$ and $X_{i,2}^n$ are the same which implies that the samples are interchangeable $\bp{X_{i,1}^n,X_{i,2}^n}\overset{d}{=}\bp{X_{i,2}^n,X_{i,1}^n}$. It is therefore natural to compare the distribution of $(X^n_i)$ to the corresponding randomly permuted process. This is the idea behind permutation tests \cite{liu2020learning}. In general, for an i.i.d random process $(\tilde X_i)$ taking value in $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2$ we define the process $(\tilde X^M_i)$ obtained by randomly permuting the observations $\tilde X_{i,1}$ and $\tilde X_{i,2}$: $$\tilde X^M_{i}:=\begin{cases}\tilde X_i~{\rm with~probability~}0.5\\(\tilde X_{i,2},\tilde X_{i,1})^T~{\rm with~probability~}0.5.\end{cases}$$ We note that this permuted process has coordinates with identically distributed coordinates $\tilde X^M_{1,1}\overset{(a)}{=}\tilde X^M_{1,2}$. Moreover, we have $d_{W}\bp{\tilde X_1,\tilde X_1^M}\le d_{W}\bp{\tilde X_{1,1},\tilde X_{1,2}}$ and if the distribution of $(\tilde X_i)$ are already in $H_0$ then its distribution is left invariant by those permutations. We show that the bootstrap method allows us to estimate the p-value consistently even when $p_n$ grows exponentially fast (proof in \Cref{app:nulle}).
\begin{prop}\label{nulle}
Let $(X_i^n):=\big((X^{n}_{i,1},X^{n}_{i,2})\big)$ be a triangular array of i.i.d processes. Let $\{K_{\theta_k},~k\le p_n\}$ be a sequence of positive definite continuous kernels. We suppose that $$\max_{k\le p_n}\rm{tr}(K_{\theta_k})<\infty;\quad \frac{\beta_n\log(p_n)D_n^4}{\lambda_n^2}=o({n}^{1/6});$$ where we shorthanded $D_n:=\max\bp{\big\|\sup_{k\le p_n}K_{\theta_k}(X_{1,1}^{M},X_{1,1}^{M})\big\|_{L_{120}},~1}$. Let $(Y_i^n)$ be an independent copy of $(X_i^n)$ and $(Z^n_{i})$ be bootstrap samples of $(X_i^n)$. We have:
$$\Big\|d_{\ensuremath{{\cal F}}}\Big(n\hat{T}_n( Z^M_{1:n}),n\hat{T}_n(Y^M_{1:n})\mid X^n\Big)\Big\|_{L_1}\rightarrow 0.$$
\end{prop}
\section{Empirical Risk of Smooth Stacked Ensemble Estimator}
\label{sec:stacking}
A ubiquitous and popular approach for model selection and ensembling in machine learning practice is known as stacking \cite{wolpert1992,breiman1996stacked,Laan2007}. Given a set of trained \emph{base estimators} $\{\hat{\theta}^1,\dots,\hat{\theta}^{p_n}\}$, for example representing a fitted neural network, a random forest and a nearest-neighbour estimator, we call the \emph{smooth-stacked estimator} the linear ensemble of those estimators $\{\hat{\theta}^k\}$ weighted by coefficients that are related to the out-of-sample risk of each estimator. An important question: if we use all the samples to estimate the weights of the ensemble, then can we construct confidence intervals on the risk of the ensemble estimator?
\noindent The most straightforward version of stacking is to put all the weight on the model with the smallest out-of-sample risk. Other approaches proposed in practice are to fit a linear regression model using the outputs of each model as an input co-variate to the linear model and using the learned coefficients as coefficients on the ensemble \cite{Laan2007}.
\noindent In this subsection, we propose a smooth version of stacking that adds stability to the chosen ensemble, while putting most weight on the best performing model. This ensemble can be viewed as a regularized instance of the linear regression stacking approach where an entropic regularizer is added to the square loss objective. This regularization adds smoothness and stability to the chosen ensemble and allows us to show that the distribution of the ensemble's risk can be estimated with the bootstrap, even if the all the data are used to estimate the weights or fit the base models.
\noindent Let $(X_i^n)$ be a triangular array of i.i.d observations taking value in $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{d_n}$; and let $(m_n)$ be an increasing sequence. {Define $\mathcal{F}_n$ as the space of measurable functions from $\times_{n=1}^{\infty} \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{d_n}$ to $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{d'_n}$.} We estimate $p_n$ different estimators $\Omega_n:=\big\{\hat\theta_n^k(X_{1:m_n}^n),~k\le p_n\big\}$ built on the first $m_n$ data-points. The loss is measured by a common loss function {$\mathcal{L}_n:\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{d_n}\times\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{d'_n}\rightarrow\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$} and the empirical risk of the $k$-th estimator is computed on all the remaining $n-m_n$ data points as:
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{{\cal R}}^k_n(x_{1:n}):= \frac{1}{n-m_n}\sum_{u= m_n+1}^{n} \mathcal{L}_n(x_u,\hat{\theta}^{k}_n(x_{1:m_n})(x_u)).
\end{equation}
The smooth-stacked estimator is defined as the following ensemble learner \begin{equation}
\hat\Theta_n(x_{1:n})=\sum_{k\le p_n}\hat\theta^k_n(x_{1:m_n})\frac{e^{-\beta_n\ensuremath{{\cal R}}^k_n(x_{1:n})}}{\sum_{k'\le p_n}e^{-\beta_n\ensuremath{{\cal R}}^{k'}_n(x_{1:n})}}.
\end{equation}
We denote the empirical risk of an estimator $\Theta$ as
{\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{{\cal R}}^{{\rm s}}_{\Theta}(x_{1:n}):=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n-m_n}}\sum_{i= m_n+1}^{n} \mathcal{L}_n\big(x_i,\Theta(x_i)\big).
\end{equation}}
Let $(Z^n)$ be a bootstrap sample of $(X^n_i)_{i\ge m_n}$. We show that the bootstrap method is systematically consistent if and only if $\beta_n=o(\sqrt{n-m_n})$.
For simplicity we suppose that the estimators $\hat\theta_n^k$ have bounded coordinates; and that the loss function $\mathcal{L}_n$ is smooth, and have bounded partial derivatives in its second argument.%
\noindent We write the set of all convex combinations of the estimators:
\begin{equation}
\Omega\bp{\bc{\theta_p,\, p\le p_n }}:=\bc{ \sum_{p\le p_n} \omega_p \theta_p
\mid \omega_p\ge 0 ~{\rm and}~ \sum_{p\le p_n}\omega_p=1 }
\end{equation}
and introduce the following notations:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
T_{n}:=~& \sup_{\ell\le d'_n}\bn{ \sup_{p\le p_n}\ba{\hat\theta^p_{n,\ell}(X_{1:m_n}^n)} }_{L_{\infty}}\lor 1,\\
L_{n}:=~& \bn{ \sup_{p\le p_n}\ba{\mathcal{L}_n\bp{ X_{n}^n,\hat\theta^p_{n}(X^n_{1:m_n})(X_n^n) } }}_{L_{\infty}}\lor~\sup_{\ell \le d'_n} \bn{ \sup_{\theta\in \Omega\bp{\bc{\hat{\theta}_p(X_{1:m_n})~p\le p_n }}} \partial_{2,\ell} \ba{\mathcal{L}_n(X_{n}^n,\theta(X_n^n))} }_{L_{\infty}}\lor 1,
\end{split}\end{equation} where by $\partial_{2,\ell}\mathcal{L}_n(x,y)$ we designate $\partial_{y_{l}}\mathcal{L}_n(x,y)$. We show that if the following hypothesis \eqref{ass:h1ss} holds then the bootstrap method is asymptotically consistent (proof in \Cref{app:common_stacking_msbien}).
\begin{align}
\frac{\beta_n}{\sqrt{n-m_n}d'_n} L_nT_{n}~e^{\frac{\beta_n}{n-m_n}L_n}\longrightarrow 0. \tag{$H_1^{\rm stacked}$} \label{ass:h1ss}
\end{align}
\begin{prop}\label{common_stacking_msbien}
Choose $(m_n)$, $(\beta_n)$ and $(p_n)$ be increasing sequences.
Let $(X_i^n)$ be a triangular array of i.i.d observations taking value in $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{d_n}$. Set $(\mathcal{L}_n:\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{d_n}\times \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{d_n'}\rightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}})$ to be a sequence of smooth loss functions. Let $(Z_i^n)$ and $(Y_i^n)$ be respectively a bootstrap sample and an independent copy of $(X_{m_n+1}^n,\dots,X_{n}^n)$.
Suppose that the hypothesis \eqref{ass:h1ss} holds then we have:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\Big\|d_{\ensuremath{{\cal F}}}\Big(&\ensuremath{{\cal R}}^{{\rm s}}_{\hat\Theta_n}(Z^n_{m_n+1:n})-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\big[\ensuremath{{\cal R}}^{{\rm s}}_{\hat\Theta_n}(Z^n_{m_n+1:n})\big|\hat\Theta_n\big],~ \ensuremath{{\cal R}}^{{\rm s}}_{\hat\Theta_n}(Y^n_{m_n+1:n})-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\big[\ensuremath{{\cal R}}^{{\rm s}}_{\hat\Theta_n}(Y^n_{m_n+1:n})\big|\hat\Theta_n\big]\mid X^n\Big)\Big\|_{L_1}\rightarrow 0;
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where we have shorthanded $\hat\Theta_n:=\hat\Theta_n(X^n)$.
Therefore if we choose $t_{n,\alpha}(X^n)$ to be such that:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
P\bp{\ba{\ensuremath{{\cal R}}^{{\rm s}}_{\hat\Theta_n}(Z^n_{m_n+1:n})-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\big[\ensuremath{{\cal R}}^{{\rm s}}_{\hat\Theta_n}(Z^n_{m_n+1:n})\big|\hat\Theta_n\big]}\ge t_{n,\alpha}(X^n)\mid X^n}\le \alpha
\end{split}
\end{equation}
then the following holds
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\limsup_{n\rightarrow \infty} P\bp{\ba{\ensuremath{{\cal R}}^{{\rm s}}_{\hat\Theta_n}(Y^n_{m_n+1:n})-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\big[\ensuremath{{\cal R}}^{{\rm s}}_{\hat\Theta_n}(Y^n_{m_n+1:n})\big|\hat\Theta_n\big]}\ge t_{n,\alpha}(X^n)\mid \hat\Theta_n}\le \alpha
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\noindent If $\beta_n$ grows proportionally to $\beta_n \propto \sqrt{n-m_n}$ then the bootstrap method is not a systematically consistent estimator of the risk of the smooth stacked estimator. We present a simple example illustrating this.
\begin{example}\label{nulle_mt}
Let $(X_i)$ be a process of i.i.d random variables taking value in $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$. Suppose that $X_{1}\sim N( 0,1)$. We choose $m_n=\lfloor n/2\rfloor$ and $\beta_n=\sqrt{n}$ and define the estimators $(\hat\theta_n^1,\hat\theta_n^2)$ as constantly equal to $$\hat\theta_n^1(X_{1:n}):=1~\quad {\rm and}~\quad \hat\theta_n^2(X_{1:n}):=-1.$${We shorthand by $\hat \Theta_n$ the corresponding stacked estimator.} We choose the loss function $\mathcal{L}$ to be the square loss $\mathcal{L}(x,\theta):=(x-\theta)^2$. Let $(Z_1,Z_2)\sim N(0,\begin{bmatrix}4 & 0\\ 0&1\end{bmatrix})$ be a Gaussian vector.
Then the asymptotic centered distribution of the empirical loss is $Z_1+Z_2 {\rm tanh}(4Z_2)$.
However the asymptotic distribution of the bootstrap empirical loss is $$\ensuremath{{\cal R}}^{{\rm s}}_{\hat\Theta_n}( Z^n_{m_n+1:n}) -\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}(\ensuremath{{\cal R}}^{{\rm s}}_{\hat\Theta_n}( Z^n_{m_n+1:n})\big|\hat{\Theta}_n)\xrightarrow{d}
Z_1+Z_2{\rm tanh}\Big(4Z_2+4\sqrt{n}\bar{X}_{m_n+1:n}\Big).$$
Therefore the bootstrap method is not asymptotically consistent.
\end{example}
\noindent{As \cref{nulle_mt} just demonstrated the bootstrap method is not in general consistent for the empirical risk of the stacked estimator. One of the reason for this is the dependence between the weights of the stacked model and the bootstrap samples $Z^n$. We therefore slightly adapt the bootstrap method by bootstrapping both the weights and the observations on which the loss is estimated. We establish the limiting distribution of this boostrap estimator as long as $\beta_n=O(\sqrt{n-m_n})$. }
\noindent For ease of notations, we denote \begin{equation}\begin{split}&
L_{n}^*:=\sup_{\substack{i\le 3\\l_{1:i}\le d'_n}}\bn{\max_{\substack{p\le p_n}}\ba{\partial^i_{2,l_{1:i}}\mathcal{L}_n\bp{X^n_n,\hat\theta^p_{n}(X^n_{1:m_n})(X^n_n)}}}^{1/i}_{L_{\infty}}\lor 1.\end{split}\end{equation}%
We establish the limiting distribution of our bootstrap estimate under the following hypothesis:
\begin{align}
\frac{\beta_nd'_n\log(p_n)^{2/3}}{{(n-m_n)}^{2/3}}L_nT_n\longrightarrow 0 \tag{$H_1^{\rm st~bis}$} \label{ass:h1bis}
\end{align}
\begin{prop}\label{nulle_mt2}
Choose $(m_n)$, $(\beta_n)$ and $(p_n)$ be increasing sequences.
Let $(X_i^n)$ be a triangular array of i.i.d observations taking value in $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{d_n}$. Set $(\mathcal{L}_n:\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{d_n}\times \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{d_n'}\rightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}})$ to be a sequence of smooth loss functions verifying condition $(H_1^{\rm st~bis})$.
Let $(Z_i^{n,1})$ and $(Z_i^{n,2})$ be independent bootstrap samples; and $(Y_i^{n,1})$ and $(Y_i^{n,2})$ be independent copies of $(X_{m_n+1:n}^n)$.
\noindent Then we have:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split} \Big\|d_{\ensuremath{{\cal F}}}\Big(&\ensuremath{{\cal R}}^{{\rm s}}_{\hat\Theta_n^{Z^{n,2}}}(Z_{1:n-m_n}^{n,1})-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bp{\ensuremath{{\cal R}}^{{\rm s}}_{\hat\Theta_n^{Z^{n,2}}}(Z_{1:n-m_n}^{n,1})\mid\hat\Theta_n^{Z^{n,2}},X^n},\\&\quad \ensuremath{{\cal R}}^{{\rm s}}_{\hat\Theta_n^{'}}(Y_{1:n-m_n}^{n,1})-\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\bp{\ensuremath{{\cal R}}^{{\rm s}}_{\hat\Theta_n^{'}}(Y_{1:n-m_n}^{n,1})\Big|\hat\Theta_n^{'}}\mid X^n\Big)\Big\|_{L_1}\rightarrow 0;
\end{split}
\end{equation} where we have set $\hat\Theta_n^{Z^{n,2}}:=\hat\Theta_n(X^n_{1:m_n}Z_{1:n-m_n}^{n,2})$ and defined $$\hat\Theta_n^{'}:=\sum_{p\le p_n}\hat\theta_n^p(X_{1:m_n}^n)\frac{e^{-\beta_n \big[\ensuremath{{\cal R}}_n^p(X_{1:m_n}^nY_{1:n-m_n}^{n,2})+\tilde \ensuremath{{\cal R}}_n^p(X^n)\big]}}{\sum_{p'\le p_n}e^{-\beta_n \big[\ensuremath{{\cal R}}_n^{p'}(X_{1:m_n}^nY_{1:n-m_n}^{n,2})+\tilde\ensuremath{{\cal R}}_n^{p'}(X^n)\big]}};$$ where we wrote $\tilde \ensuremath{{\cal R}}_n^p(X^n):=\ensuremath{{\cal R}}_n^p(X^n)-\sqrt{n-m_n}\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}\big[\mathcal{L}_n(X_n^n, \theta_p^n(X_{1:m_n}^n))\big| \theta_p^n(X_{1:m_n}^n)\big]$.
\end{prop}
\noindent We notice that this implies that the bootstrap method is in general not consistent if $\beta_n=o(\sqrt{n-m_n})$, as it is illustrated in \cref{nulle_mt}.
|
\section{Introduction}
\IEEEPARstart{T}{he} past decades have witnessed the great development of Multiple-Input Multiple-Output(MIMO) radar which improves the parameter estimation and target detection performance significantly by utilizing waveform diversity{\cite{LiMIMO,LiMIMO2008,LiOnparameter,bliss2003multiple}. Owing to the fact that targets usually exhibits range-spread characteristics for high resolution radar, waveform design for extended targets has drawn increasing attention from researchers during the past decades{\cite{karbasi2015robust,bell1993information,yang2007mimo,meng2012radar,tang2016robust,yao2020robust}}.
Given that the performance of target detection and parameter estimation depends on the output Signal-to-Interference-plus-Noise Ratio(SINR), a preferred waveform optimization criterion is maximizing output SINR at the receiver\cite{bell1993information,chen2009mimo,jiu2012minimax,tang2016robust,aubry2013knowledge,cheng2017mimo,stoica2011optimization,pillai1999optimum}. In \cite{bell1993information}, Bell studies the matched illumination waveform for the extended target. As stated in \cite{pillai1999optimum}, the authors investigate joint design of transmit waveform and receive filter via maximizing the output SINR. However, the aforementioned waveform design algorithms need the exact knowledge of Target Impulse Response(TIR) or Power Spectral Density(PSD), which is often used to characterize scattering behavior of extended target{\cite{kay2007optimal,li1996scattering}. Unfortunately, TIR is sensitive to a variety of factors, and it is impossible to get the exact knowledge of TIR when designing radar waveform. To this end, robust waveform design is taken into account leading to the minimax optimization problem\cite{razaviyayn2020nonconvex,chen2009mimo,jiu2012minimax,yao2020robust}. In most cases, the uncertainty of TIR is modeled as a scaled sphere centered around a known but imprecise TIR(i.e., see \cite{chen2009mimo,karbasi2015robust,tang2016robust,yao2020robust} and references therein). Aiming at maximizing the worst-case SINR under the spherical uncertainty of TIR, \cite{chen2009mimo} proposes an iterative algorithm to optimize transmit waveform and receive filter alternatively. And \cite{tang2016robust} addresses the problem based on the minimax theorems\cite{sion1958general}. Nevertheless, the algorithms proposed in \cite{chen2009mimo} and \cite{tang2016robust} can only deal with the energy constrained waveform, which might result in the undesired waveform for radar with a high Peak-to-Average power Ratio(PAR). In order to avoid this drawback, \cite{karbasi2015robust} imposes a PAR constraint on the waveform and proposes the alternative optimization algorithm with respect to the covariance of waveform and filter, where the spherical uncertainty of TIR is approximated by random samples from its surface. To our knowledge, there is few literature considering other constraints on transmit waveform, such as similarity or spectral compatibility constraint\cite{cui2017quadratic,cui2013mimo,aubry2016optimization}, for the worst-case situation.
Game theory, modeling the interaction of players, is applied in a broad variety of fields, such as economics, social science and machine learning\cite{morgenstern1953theory,myerson2013game,goodfellow2014generative}. Recently, game theory methods have been introduced to the context of signal processing for jamming suppression and waveform design\cite{han2016jointly,panoui2016game,zhang2019game,song2011mimo}. As to the extended target detection problem, it can be modeled as a Two-Person Zero-Sum game(TPZS) if the target is "smart" enough and always tries to prevent being detected by radar. Apart from this, the interaction between radar and target forms a Stackelberg game if one acts as the leader, for example, the robust waveform design problem mentioned in \cite{chen2009mimo,karbasi2015robust} can be regarded as the Stackelberg game where radar acts as the leader. And the robust waveform can be considered as the equilibrium strategy of radar in the Stackelberg game.
In this paper, we consider the MIMO radar waveform-filter design problem by constructing Stackelberg game between radar and the extended target with SINR being the payoff function. The goal is to obtain the Stackelberg equilibrium strategy of radar under several practical constraints on waveform, namely, Energy Constraint(EC), Constant Modulus and Similarity Constraint(CM-SC), Spectral Compatibility and Similarity Constraint(SC-SC). Furthermore, under some special conditions, we will prove that the Stackelberg equilibrium is also the Nash equilibrium for the game and the optimal waveform-filter pair is calculated by solving Nash equilibrium. Generally speaking, our work makes the following contributions:
1) \textit{The Nash equilibrium under EC on waveform}: For the case of EC on waveform, we theoretically prove that the Stackelberg equilibrium is also the Nash equilibrium, and propose \textbf{Algorithm 1} to solve it through convex optimization. Even though, the relevant researches are reported in \cite{tang2016robust}, the proof procedure is imperfect since the Stackelberg game in this case belongs to the non-convex concave minimax problem and can't be converted to the convex concave form by diagonal loading. Consequently, we prove it from a totally new view by utilizing the optimality condition, which has been seldom reported in open literature.
2) \textit{The Nash equilibrium for the (Semi-Definite Programming)SDP relaxation form under CM-SC on waveform}: In the case of CM-SC on waveform, the Nash equilibrium might not exist for the TPZS game between radar and target. But we prove that the Nash equilibrium always exists for its SDP relaxation based on Sion's minimax theorem\cite{sion1958general}. And we devise \textbf{Algorithm 2} to calculate the Nash equilibrium approximately. Finally, the optimal waveform-filter is synthesized from the strategy of Nash equilibrium with randomization.
3) \textit{The Stackelberg equilibrium under SC-SC on waveform}:
\textbf{Algorithm 3} is proposed to solve the Stackelberg equilibrium under SC-SC on waveform leveraging on (Majorization Minimization)MM algorithm. Based on the dual theorem\cite{BoydConvex}, we prove that the minimax problem at each iteration of MM algorithm can be solved through convex optimization, even though it is convex non-concave. Thus, the Stackelberg equilibrium can be calculated in polynomial time.
4) \textit{Analyses and experiments for proposed algorithms}: The convergences as well as computational complexities of the proposed 3 algorithms are analyzed, respectively. Numerical experiments are carried out to verify the effectiveness of the proposed algorithms. In addition, some comparisons with the current algorithms are given. The results highlight the superiority of our algorithms to some extend.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section II establishes the MIMO radar signal model and formulates the TPZS game between the radar and extended target. Section III is devoted to the algorithms and analyses for equilibrium strategies under different waveform constraints. Section IV provides several numerical experiments and analyses of the proposed algorithms, and exhibits the performance of the waveform-filter pair. Finally, Section V concludes the paper.
\textit{Notations:} Throughout this paper, scalars are denoted by italic letters(e.g., \textit{a}, \textit{A}); vectors are denoted by bold italic lowercase letters(e.g., $\bm{a}$) and $\bm{a}(i)$ denotes the $i$th element of $\bm{a}$; matrices are denoted by bold italic capital letters(e.g., $\bm{A}$) and $\bm{A}(i,j)$ denotes the element in the $i$th row and $j$th column of $\bm{A}$. Superscript ${\bar{\left( \cdot\right)}}$, ${\left( \cdot\right) ^{\rm{T}}}$ and ${\left( \cdot\right) ^{\rm{H}}}$ denote complex conjugate, transpose and conjugate transpose, respectively. tr($\cdot$) denotes the trace of a square matrix. vec($\cdot$) denotes the operator of column-wise stacking a matrix. $\otimes$ and $\odot$ represent Kronecker product and Hadamard product, respectively.
diag($\bm{a}$) denotes the diagonal matrix with the diagonal elements formed by $\bm{a}$, while diag($\bm{A}$) denotes the vector with elements formed by the diagonal elements of $\bm{A}$. $\left\langle \cdot, \cdot \right\rangle$, $\left\| \cdot \right\| _2$, $\left\| \cdot \right\| _\infty$ and $\left\| \cdot \right\| _F$ denote the inner product, $l_2$ norm, $l_\infty$ norm and Frobenius norm in Euclidean space, respectively. arg(${a}$) and $\left| {a}\right|$ denote the phase angle and the modulus of ${a}$, respectively. The representation $\bm{A} \succ 0(\bm{A}\succeq 0)$ means $\bm{A}$ is positive definite(semi-definite).
\section{Signal Model and Problem Formulation }
\subsection{Signal model}
As outlined in Fig.\ref{Scenario}, the mission of radar is to detect an extended target at direction ${\theta _{t}}$, and the extended target tries to prevent being detected by adjusting its attitude within a certain range, which affects its returns to radar. Then, the returns received by radar are given by
\begin{equation}
{\bm{y}} = {{\bm{y}}_t} + {\bm{n}},
\end{equation}
if the clutter is neglected, where ${{\bm{y}}_t}$ and ${\bm{n}}$ denote the extended target returns and noise, respectively.
Now, we are going to derive the signal model of ${{\bm{y}}_t}$. Let us consider a colocated MIMO radar with ${N_T}$ transmitters and ${N_R}$ receivers, assuming that the waveform transmitted by the \textit{n}th transmitter with \textit{L} samples is denoted by ${{\bm{s}}_n} = {[{{\bm{s}}_n}(1),{{\bm{s}}_n}(2),...,{\bm{s}}_n(L)]^{\rm{T}}}$, then the transmitting matrix for MIMO array can be represented as ${\bm{S}} = {[{{\bm{s}}_1},{{\bm{s}}_2},...,{{\bm{s}}_{{N_T}}}]^{\rm{T}}} \in {\mathbb{C}}^{{N_T} \times L}$. In the far field, the signal incident on the target can be written as ${{\bm{a}}^{\rm{T}}}({\theta _t}){\bm{S}}$, where ${{\bm{a}}({\theta _t})}$ is the transmit array steering vector at ${\theta _t}$.
Denote by $\bm{t} \in {\mathbb{C}}^{Q}$ the TIR of target, and the returns modulated by it can be represented as
\begin{equation}
{\bm{T}}{\left( {{{\bm{a}}^{\rm{T}}}({\theta _t}){\bm{S}}} \right)^{\rm{T}}} = {\bm{T}}{{\bm{S}}^{\rm{T}}}{\bm{a}}({\theta _t}),
\end{equation}
where ${\bm{T}} = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^Q {{\bm{t}}(i){{\bm{J}}_{i - 1}}}$ is the TIR matrix with ${{\bm{J}}_{i}}$ being the $(Q+L-1) \times L$ shift matrix given by\cite{karbasi2015robust}
\begin{equation}
{{\bm{J}}_i}(m,n) = \left\{ \begin{array}{l}
1\;,\quad m - n = i\\
0,\;\quad m - n \ne i
\end{array} \right..
\end{equation}
Consequently, one get the signal matrix $\bm{Y}_t$ at the MIMO receiver with
\begin{equation}
{{\bm{Y}}_t} = {\bm{b}}({\theta _t}){{\bm{a}}^{\rm{T}}}({\theta _t}){\bm{S}}{{\bm{T}}^{\rm{T}}},
\label{SingalModelMatrixForm}
\end{equation}
where ${\bm{b}}({\theta _t})$ denotes the receive steering vector at ${\theta _t}$. Let ${\bm{s}} = {\rm{vec}}({\bm{S}})$, the vectorization form of $\bm{Y}_t$ is given by
\begin{equation}
{{\bm{y}}_t} = \left( {{\bm{T}} \otimes \left( {{\bm{b}}({\theta _t}){{\bm{a}}^{\rm{T}}}({\theta _t})} \right)} \right){\bm{s}} = \bm{G}(\bm{t})\bm{s}.
\label{SingalModelVectorFormS}
\end{equation}
After a couple of matrix operations, it is easy to get another expression form of (\ref{SingalModelVectorFormS}) as follow,
\begin{equation}
{{\bm{y}}_t} = {\bm{H}}({\bm{s}}){\bm{t}},
\label{SingalModelVectorFormT}
\end{equation}
where ${\bm{H}}({\bm{s}}) = \left[ {{{\bm{h}}_1}({\bm{s}}),{{\bm{h}}_2}({\bm{s}}),...,{{\bm{h}}_Q}({\bm{s}})} \right]$ with \vspace{2pt} ${{\bm{h}}_i}({\bm{s}}) = \left( {{{\bm{J}}_{i-1}} \otimes \left( {{\bm{b}}({\theta _t}){{\bm{a}}^{\rm{T}}}({\theta _t})} \right)} \right){\bm{s}}={\bm{A}_i}\bm{s}$.
As to the noise, it is assumed to be complex Gaussian with ${\bm{n}}\sim\mathcal{CN}({\bf{0}},{{\bm{R}}_c})$.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.5in,height=2.6in]{Fig1_Scenario.pdf}
\caption{Extended target detection diagram}
\label{Scenario}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Games between radar and target}
The radar processor extract the desired information at the receiver with a linear filter $\bm{w}$ achieving the output SINR as
\begin{equation}
{\rm{SINR}} = \frac{{{{\left| {{{\bm{w}}^{\rm{H}}}{{\bm{y}}_t}} \right|}^2}}}{{{{\bm{w}}^{\rm{H}}}{{\bm{R}}_c}{\bm{w}}}}.
\end{equation}
For a given probability of false alarm $P_{fa}$, analytical form of the detection probability $P_{d}$ is given by \cite{richards2005fundamentals,de2011design,kay1993fundamentals}
\begin{equation}
{P_d}{\rm{ = }}Q\left( {\sqrt {2{\rm{SINR}}} {\rm{,}}\sqrt { - 2\log ({P_{fa}})} } \right),
\label{MarcumQFunction}
\end{equation}
where $Q\left( {\cdot {\rm{,}}\cdot} \right)$ denotes the Marcum-Q function.
Consider the TPZS game \cite{morgenstern1953theory,myerson2013game} between the radar and the target with a common payoff function $\rm{SINR}$ with respect to ($\bm{s}$,$\bm{w}$,$\bm{t}$). The radar player tries to maximize the SINR to capture the target with high probabilities by choosing the waveform-filter pair ($\bm{s}$,$\bm{w}$) from its strategy set $\Psi$. Alternatively, the target player tries to minimize the SINR to avoid being detected by choosing the TIR from its strategy set $\Omega$.
Assume that the radar player goes first and the target player is able to perceive the radar's strategy. Then, the interaction between radar and target results in the following Stackelberg game where the radar player acts as the leader,
\begin{equation}
{{\cal P}_r}\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\underline {{\rm{SINR}}} = \mathop {{\rm{max}}}\limits_{{\bm{s}},{\bm{w}}} \mathop {{\rm{ min}}}\limits_{\bm{t}} {\rm{ }}\frac{{{{\left| {{{\bm{w}}^{\rm{H}}}{{\bm{y}}_t}} \right|}^2}}}{{{{\bm{w}}^{\rm{H}}}{{\bm{R}}_c}{\bm{w}}}}\\
s.t.\quad \left( {{\bm{s}},{\bm{w}}} \right) \in \Psi ,{\bm{t}} \in \Omega
\end{array} \right..
\label{RadarOptimalStratagy}
\end{equation}
Conversely, assume that the target player goes first and the radar player is able to perceive the target's strategy. Then, the interaction between radar and target results in the following Stackelberg game where the target player acts as the leader,
\begin{equation}
{{\cal P}_t}\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\overline {{\rm{SINR}}} = \mathop {{\rm{min}}}\limits_{\bm{t}} \mathop {{\rm{max}}}\limits_{{\bm{s}},{\bm{w}}} {\rm{ }}\frac{{{{\left| {{{\bm{w}}^{\rm{H}}}{{\bm{y}}_t}} \right|}^2}}}{{{{\bm{w}}^{\rm{H}}}{{\bm{R}}_c}{\bm{w}}}}\\
s.t.\quad \left( {{\bm{s}},{\bm{w}}} \right) \in \Psi ,{\bm{t}} \in \Omega
\end{array} \right..
\label{TargetOptimalStratagy}
\end{equation}
The following weak minimax inequality
\begin{equation}
\underline {{\rm{SINR}}} \le \overline {{\rm{SINR}}}
\label{WeakMinimaxInequality}
\end{equation}
always holds, which can be regarded as the information gain for the player who plays second. However, in some certain conditions, the strong minimax inequality\cite{sion1958general}
\begin{equation}
\underline {{\rm{SINR}}} = \overline {{\rm{SINR}}}
\label{StrongMinimaxInequality}
\end{equation}
holds, which means that it makes no difference for the player who goes first or second. And the quantity ${{\rm{SINR}}}^* = \underline {{\rm{SINR}}}= \overline {{\rm{SINR}}}$ is called the value of the TPZS game.
It is worth pointing out that the problem ${{\cal P}_r}$ is also referred as robust or minimax waveform-filter design in some literatures\cite{chen2009mimo,jiu2012minimax,karbasi2015robust}.
Moreover, denote by $(\bm{s}^*,\bm{w}^*)$ the Stackelberg equilibrium strategy of radar for ${{\cal P}_r}$, and $\bm{t}^*$ the Stackelberg equilibrium strategy of target for ${{\cal P}_t}$, respectively. Then, the strategy pair $(\bm{s}^*,\bm{w}^*,\bm{t}^*)$ is also a Nash equilibrium \cite{myerson2013game} for the TPZS game, if the equality (\ref{StrongMinimaxInequality}) holds. To this end, in the following paper, we focus on solving the optimal solution $(\bm{s}^*,\bm{w}^*)$, namely Stackelberg or Nash equilibrium strategies of radar in the TPZS game in different cases.
\section{Equilibrium Strategies and Optimal Waveform-Filter Pair}
This section is devoted to the equilibrium strategies as well as the optimal waveform-filter pair of radar for the TPZS game under different constraints on waveform. In particular, we assume that the target strategies are bounded in a scaled sphere centered around a previous known $\bm{t}_0$, namely,
\begin{equation}
\Omega = \left\{ {{\bm{t}}|{{\left\| {{\bm{t}} - {{\bm{t}}_0}} \right\|}_2} \le r} \right\}.
\end{equation}
As to the radar player, we assume that the filter $\bm{w}$ is unconstrained and the waveform belongs to the following three sets:
\noindent $\bullet$ EC set
\begin{equation}
{\Psi _E} = \left\{ {{{\bm{s}}} |{{\left\| {\bm{s}} \right\|}_2^2} \le e_t,} \right\},
\end{equation}
where $e_t$ is the total available power;
\noindent $\bullet$ CM-SC set
\begin{equation}
{\Psi _C} = \left\{ {{\bm{s}}|\left| {{\bm{s}}(i)} \right| = \sqrt{\frac{{ {{e_t}} }}{{{{N_T}L} }}},{{\left\| {{\bm{s}} - {{\bm{s}}_0}} \right\|}_\infty } \le \frac{{\delta \sqrt {{e_t}} }}{{\sqrt {{N_T}L} }}} \right\},
\end{equation}
where $\bm{s}_0$ is a reference signal with good ambiguity properties, and $\delta \leq 2$ controls the similarly between $\bm{s}$ and $\bm{s}_0$;
\noindent $\bullet$ SC-SC set
\begin{equation}
{\Psi _S} = \left\{ { {{\bm{s}}} |{{\left\| {\bm{s}} \right\|}_2^2} \leq e_t,{{\left\| {{\bm{s}} - {{\bm{s}}_0}} \right\|}_\infty } \le \frac{{\delta \sqrt {{e_t}} }}{{\sqrt {{N_T}L} }},{{\bm{s}}^{\rm{H}}}{{\bm{R}}_I}{\bm{s}} \le {e_I}} \right\},
\end{equation}
where $e_I$ denotes the maximum allowed energy allocated on the specified frequency bands, and $\bm{R}_I$ is the corresponding spectrum compatibility matrix defined as ${{\bm{R}}_I} = \sum\limits_{k = 1}^K {{\alpha _k}{{\bf{I}}_{{N_T}}} \otimes {\bm{R}}_I^k}$ with
\begin{equation}
{\bm{R}}_I^k(m,n) = \left\{ \begin{array}{l}
f_2^k - f_1^k,\;\;m = n\\
\frac{{{e^{j2\pi f_2^k(m - n)}} - {e^{j2\pi f_1^k(m - n)}}}}{{j2\pi (m - n)}},m \ne n
\end{array} \right.,
\end{equation}
where $[f_1^k,f_2^k]$ denotes the $k$th normalized frequency interval of transmission and ${\alpha _k} \ge 0$ is the weight for the $k$th frequency band\cite{aubry2015new,tang2016joint}.
Under this assumption, the waveform-filter pair design problem belongs to a class of non-convex concave minimax problems. Nevertheless, as will be illustrated later, some of these problems can be solved or approximately solved by constructing the Nash equilibrium between the two players. To this end, let's provide the basic theorem in our paper.
\newtheorem{theorems}{Theorem}
\begin{theorems}
Let $\Omega$ be a convex set and $\bm{w}$ be unconstrained, then ${\cal{P}}_r$ is equivalent\footnote{By "equivalent", we mean that the optimal solutions can be constructed from each other} to
\begin{equation}
{\tilde {\cal P}_r}\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\mathop {{\rm{max}}}\limits_{\bm{s}} \mathop {{\rm{min}}}\limits_{\bm{t}} \mathop {{\rm{max}}}\limits_{\bm{w}} {\rm{ }}\frac{{{{\left| {{{\bm{w}}^{\rm{H}}}{{\bm{y}}_t}} \right|}^2}}}{{{{\bm{w}}^{\rm{H}}}{{\bm{R}}_c}{\bm{w}}}}\\
s.t.\quad {\bm{s}} \in \Psi ,{\bm{t}} \in \Omega
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
\end{theorems}
\begin{IEEEproof}
See Appendix A.
\end{IEEEproof}
As an immediate consequence of \textit{Theorem 1}, we can reformulate ${\cal{P}}_r$ and ${\cal{P}}_t$ by solving the inner maximization problem with $\bm{w}=\bm{R}_c^{-1}\bm{y}_t$ as
\begin{equation}
{{\cal P}_r}\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\underline {{\rm{SINR}}} = \mathop {{\rm{max}}}\limits_{\bm{s}} \mathop {{\rm{ min}}}\limits_{\bm{t}} {\rm{ }}{\bm{y}}_t^{\rm{H}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{{\bm{y}}_t}\\
s.t.\quad {\bm{s}} \in \Psi ,{\bm{t}} \in \Omega
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
{{\cal P}_t}\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\overline {{\rm{SINR}}} = \mathop {{\rm{min}}}\limits_{\bm{t}} \mathop {{\rm{max}}}\limits_{\bm{s}} {\rm{ }}{\bm{y}}_t^{\rm{H}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{{\bm{y}}_t}\\
s.t.\quad {\bm{s}} \in \Psi ,{\bm{t}} \in \Omega
\end{array} \right..
\end{equation}
\subsection{EC on waveform}
In this subsection, we discuss the optimal solutions of ${\cal{P}}_r$ and ${\cal{P}}_t$ with the case $\Psi = \Psi_E$. Substituting $\Psi_E$ into ${\cal{P}}_r$ and ${\cal{P}}_t$, we recast the game as
\begin{equation}
{{\cal P}_r^E}\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\underline {{\rm{SINR}}}_E = \mathop {{\rm{max}}}\limits_{\bm{s}} \mathop {{\rm{ min}}}\limits_{\bm{t}} {\rm{ }}{\bm{y}}_t^{\rm{H}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{{\bm{y}}_t}\\
s.t.\quad \left\| {\bm{s}} \right\|_2^2 \le {e_t},{\left\| {{\bm{t}} - {{\bm{t}}_0}} \right\|_2} \le r
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
{{\cal P}_t^E}\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\overline {{\rm{SINR}}}_E = \mathop {{\rm{min}}}\limits_{\bm{t}} \mathop {{\rm{max}}}\limits_{\bm{s}} {\rm{ }}{\bm{y}}_t^{\rm{H}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{{\bm{y}}_t}\\
s.t.\quad \left\| {\bm{s}} \right\|_2^2 \le {e_t},{\left\| {{\bm{t}} - {{\bm{t}}_0}} \right\|_2} \le r
\end{array} \right..
\end{equation}
And the following proposition demonstrates the existence of Nash equilibrium for the game.
\newtheorem{propositions}{Proposition}
\begin{propositions}
Let $\bm{s}_E^*$ and $\bm{t}_E^*$ are the optimal solutions of ${{\cal{P}}_r^E}$ and ${{\cal{P}}_t^E}$, respectively. Then, the strategy pair $(\bm{s}_E^*,\bm{t}_E^*)$ is Nash equilibrium for the TPZS game and $\underline {{\rm{SINR}}}_E = \overline {{\rm{SINR}}}_E$.
\end{propositions}
\begin{IEEEproof}
See Appendix B.
\end{IEEEproof}
According to \textit{Proposition 1}, one can get the idea that the optimal waveform can be obtained by solving either ${\cal{P}}_r^E$ or ${\cal{P}}_t^E$. Obviously, solving ${\cal{P}}_t^E$ is a much better choice since it can be converted to a convex optimization problem. Note that ${\cal{P}}_t^E$ is equivalent to the following problem by substituting (\ref{SingalModelVectorFormS}) into it
\begin{equation}
{\cal P}_t^E\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\mathop {{\rm{min}}}\limits_{\bm{t}} \mathop {{\rm{max}}}\limits_{\bm{s}} {\rm{ }}{{\bm{s}}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{G}}{({\bm{t}})^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{G}}({\bm{t}}){\bm{s}}\\
s.t.\quad \left\| {\bm{s}} \right\|_2^2 \le {e_t},{\left\| {{\bm{t}} - {{\bm{t}}_0}} \right\|_2} \le r
\end{array} \right.,
\end{equation}
and the analytical form of the optimal solution with respect to $\bm{s}$ is
\begin{equation}
{\bm{s}_E^*} = \sqrt{e_t}{\cal{M}}\left( {{\bm{G}}{{({\bm{t}})}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{G}}({\bm{t}})} \right),
\label{OptimalWaveformEigenVector}
\end{equation}
where ${\cal{M}}(\bm{A})$ denotes the normalized principle eigenvector of $\bm{A}$. Then, it reduces to
\begin{equation}
\tilde {\cal P}_t^E\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\mathop {{\rm{min}}}\limits_{\bm{t}} {\rm{ }}{\lambda _{\max }}\left( {{\bm{G}}{{({\bm{t}})}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{G}}({\bm{t}})} \right)e_t\\
s.t.\quad {\left\| {{\bm{t}} - {{\bm{t}}_0}} \right\|_2} \le r
\end{array} \right.,
\label{OptimizationLambda}
\end{equation}
where $\lambda_{\max }(\bm{A})$ denotes the maximum eigenvalue of $\bm{A}$.
Based on Schur complement theorem\cite{BoydConvex}, we recast $\tilde {\cal P}_t^E$ as follow
\begin{equation}
\hat {\cal P}_t^E\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\mathop {{\rm{min}}}\limits_{\bm{t},\mu} {\rm{ }}e_t\mu \\
s.t.\quad \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{\mu {\bf{I}}}&{{\bm{G}}{{({\bm{t}})}^{\rm{H}}}}\\
{{\bm{G}}({\bm{t}})}&{{{\bm{R}}_c}}
\end{array}} \right] \succeq 0,{\left\| {{\bm{t}} - {{\bm{t}}_0}} \right\|_2} \le r
\end{array} \right.,
\end{equation}
where $\mu$ is the auxiliary variable.
It is worth pointing out that $\bm{G}(\bm{t})$ is a affine function with respect to $\bm{t}$ and the SDP problem can be solved efficiently in polynomial time by CVX\cite{GrantCVX}. Once the optimal solution $\bm{t}_E^*$ is obtained, we can obtain the optimal waveform-filter pair $(\bm{s}_E^*,\bm{w}_E^*)$ with
\begin{equation}
{\bm{s}}_E^* = \sqrt{e_t}{\cal{M}}\left( {{\bm{G}}{{({\bm{t}}_E^*)}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{G}}({\bm{t}}_E^*)} \right),{\bm{w}}_E^* = {\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{H}}({\bm{s}}_E^*){\bm{t}}_E^*.
\label{OptimalWaveformFilterEC}
\end{equation}
The overall procedure for waveform-filter design under EC is summarized in Table \ref{Algorithm1EC} as \textbf{Algorithm 1}. The convergence of \textbf{Algorithm 1} is guaranteed by the convexity of ${\cal{\hat{P}}}_t^E$. As to the computational complexities,
it requires at most $O\left( {{Q{\left( {L{N_T} + L{N_R} + Q{N_R}} \right)}^{3.5}}} \right)$ to solve ${\cal{\hat{P}}}_t^E$\cite{NemirovskiLectures} and $O\left( {{{\left( {L{N_T}} \right)}^3}} \right) + O\left( {\left( {L{N_R} + Q{N_R}} \right)^2} \right)$ operations to calculate ($\bm{s}_E^*,\bm{w}_E^*$) with (\ref{OptimalWaveformFilterEC}). Therefore, the total \vspace{2pt}computational complexities will not exceed $O\left( {{Q{\left( {L{N_T} + L{N_R} + Q{N_R}} \right)}^{3.5}}} \right)$.
\begin{table}[!t]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\caption{Algorithm for waveform-filter optimization with EC}
\label{Algorithm1EC}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l}
\hline
\textbf{Input}:
$\bm{a}(\theta_{t})$, $\bm{b}(\theta_{t})$, $e_t$,
${{\bm{R}}_{c}}$, ${{\bm{t}}_{0}}$ and $r$.\\
\hline
\@ \@\@ \@ \textit{Step 1}: Solve ${\cal{\hat{P}}}_t^E$ and obtain $\bm{t}_E^*$.\\
\@ \@\@ \@ \textit{Step 2}: Synthesize ${\bm{s}_E^{*}}$ and ${\bm{w}_E^{*}}$ with (\ref{OptimalWaveformFilterEC}).\\
\hline
\textbf{Output}:
\@ \@ ${\bm{s}_E^{*}}$ and ${\bm{w}_E^{*}}$.\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{CM-SC on waveform}
In this subsection, we study ${\cal{P}}_r$ and ${\cal{P}}_t$ with the case that $\Psi = \Psi_C$. Now, we recast the game as
\begin{equation}
{\cal{P}}_r^C\left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{l}}
\underline {{\rm{SINR}}}_C = {\mathop {{\rm{max}}}\limits_{\bm{s}} \mathop {{\rm{min}}}\limits_{\bm{t}} {{\bm{s}}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{G}}{{({\bm{t}})}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{G}}({\bm{t}}){\bm{s}}}\\
{s.t.\;\;\;{\kern 1pt} \left| {\bm{s}}(i)\right| = \sqrt {\frac{{{e_t}}}{{{N_T}L}}} ,{{\left\| {{\bm{s}} - {{\bm{s}}_0}} \right\|}_\infty } \le \frac{{\delta \sqrt {{e_t}} }}{{\sqrt {{N_T}L} }}}\\
{\;\;\;{\kern 1pt} \;\;\;{\kern 1pt} {{\left\| {{\bm{t}} - {{\bm{t}}_0}} \right\|}_2} \le r}
\end{array}} \right.
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
{\cal{P}}_t^C\left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{l}}
\overline {{\rm{SINR}}}_C={\mathop {{\rm{min}}}\limits_{\bm{t}} \mathop {{\rm{max}}}\limits_{\bm{s}} {{\bm{s}}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{G}}{{({\bm{t}})}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{G}}({\bm{t}}){\bm{s}}}\\
{s.t.\;\;\;{\kern 1pt} \left| {\bm{s}}(i) \right| = \sqrt {\frac{{{e_t}}}{{{N_T}L}}} ,{{\left\| {{\bm{s}} - {{\bm{s}}_0}} \right\|}_\infty } \le \frac{{\delta \sqrt {{e_t}} }}{{\sqrt {{N_T}L} }}}\\
{\;\;\;{\kern 1pt} \;\;\;{\kern 1pt} {{\left\| {{\bm{t}} - {{\bm{t}}_0}} \right\|}_2} \le r}
\end{array}} \right..
\end{equation}
Note that the objective function in ${\cal{P}}_r^C$ and ${\cal{P}}_r^C$ is convex with respectively to $\bm{t}$, but non-concave with respect to $\bm{s}$, thus, it is always impossible to find a satisfactory solution in
polynomial time. To this end, we study its relaxation form by letting $\bm{R}_s = \bm{s}\bm{s}^{\rm{H}}$ and dropping the rank as well as the similarity constraint, which leads to the following SDP problems
\begin{equation}
\tilde{{\cal{P}}}_r^C\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\mathop {{\rm{max}}}\limits_{{{\bm{R}}_s}} \mathop {{\rm{min}}}\limits_{\bm{t}} {\rm{trace}}\left( {{\bm{G}}{{({\bm{t}})}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{G}}({\bm{t}}){{\bm{R}}_s}} \right)\\
s.t.\;\;\;{\kern 1pt} {{\bm{R}}_s}(i,i) = \frac{{{e_t}}}{{{N_T}L}},\bm{R}_s \succeq 0,\\
\;\quad \quad {\left\| {{\bm{t}} - {{\bm{t}}_0}} \right\|_2} \le r
\end{array} \right.
\label{RadarPlayerSDP}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\tilde{{\cal{P}}}_t^C\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\mathop {{\rm{min}}}\limits_{{{\bm{t}}}} \mathop {{\rm{max}}}\limits_{\bm{R}_s} {\rm{trace}}\left( {{\bm{G}}{{({\bm{t}})}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{G}}({\bm{t}}){{\bm{R}}_s}} \right)\\
s.t.\;\;\;{\kern 1pt} {{\bm{R}}_s}(i,i) = \frac{{{e_t}}}{{{N_T}L}},\bm{R}_s \succeq 0,\\
\;\quad \quad {\left\| {{\bm{t}} - {{\bm{t}}_0}} \right\|_2} \le r
\end{array} \right..
\label{TargetPlayerSDP}
\end{equation}
Now, we turn to the properties of $\tilde{{\cal{P}}}_r^C$ and $\tilde{{\cal{P}}}_t^C$. For a fixed $\bm{t}$, it is easy to verify that ${z^C}\left( {{{\bm{R}}_s},{\bm{t}}} \right) = {\rm{trace}}\left( {{\bm{G}}{{({\bm{t}})}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{G}}({\bm{t}}){{\bm{R}}_s}} \right)$ is linear with respect to $\bm{R}_s$. On the other hand, based on (\ref{SingalModelVectorFormT}) we can derive another expression of ${z^C}\left( {{{\bm{R}}_s},{\bm{t}}} \right)$, given by
\begin{equation}
{z^C}\left( {{{\bm{R}}_s},{\bm{t}}} \right) = {{\bm{t}}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{H}}{({\bm{s}})^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{H}}({\bm{s}}){\bm{t}} = {{\bm{t}}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{U}}({{\bm{R}}_s}){\bm{t}}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
{\bm{U}}({{\bm{R}}_s})(i,j) = {{\bm{s}}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{A}}_i^{\rm{H}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{A}}_i^{}{\bm{s}} = {\rm{trace}}\left( {{\bm{A}}_i^{\rm{H}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{A}}_i^{}{{\bm{R}}_s}} \right).
\end{equation}
As a result, for a fixed $\bm{R}_s$, ${z^C}\left( {{{\bm{R}}_s},{\bm{t}}} \right)$ is a convex quadratic form with respect to $\bm{t}$. According to Sion's theorem in \cite{sion1958general}, we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
\mathop {{\rm{min}}}\limits_{\bm{t}} \mathop {{\rm{max}}}\limits_{{{\bm{R}}_s}} {\rm{ trace}}\left( {{\bm{G}}{{({\bm{t}})}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{G}}({\bm{t}}){{\bm{R}}_s}} \right)\\
= \mathop {\max }\limits_{{{\bm{R}}_s}} \mathop {{\rm{min}}}\limits_{\bm{t}} {\rm{ trace}}\left( {{\bm{G}}{{({\bm{t}})}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{G}}({\bm{t}}){{\bm{R}}_s}} \right)
\end{array},
\label{MinimaxEqualitySDP}
\end{equation}
where $\bm{R}_s$ and $\bm{t}$ belong to the feasible set of $\tilde {\cal P}_r^P$.
Combining (\ref{RadarPlayerSDP}), (\ref{TargetPlayerSDP})
and (\ref{MinimaxEqualitySDP}), we know that the Nash equilibrium exists for the game modeled by $\tilde {\cal P}_r^C$ and $\tilde {\cal P}_t^C$. Further, both $\tilde {\cal P}_r^C$ and $\tilde {\cal P}_t^C$ belong to the convex-concave minimax problems, and the Nash equilibrium can be approximately solved by the following iterative first order method\cite{nouiehed2019solving}. In particular, \vspace{2pt} we start the algorithm with an initial point ($\bm{R}_s^{(0)}$,$\bm{t}^{(0)}$) and let
\begin{equation}
{\tilde z^C}\left( {{{\bm{R}}_s},{\bm{t}}} \right) = {z^C}\left( {{{\bm{R}}_s},{\bm{t}}} \right) - \beta \left\| {{{\bm{R}}_s} - {\bm{R}}_s^{(0)}} \right\|_F^2,
\end{equation}
where $\beta \ge 0$ is a proximal parameter to make sure ${\tilde z^C}\left( {{{\bm{R}}_s},{\bm{t}}} \right)$ is strongly concave with respect to ${\bm{R}}_s$. Then, we carry out the following iteration\cite{wang2020improved,lin2020near,nouiehed2019solving,razaviyayn2020nonconvex}
\begin{equation}
\left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{l}}
{{\bm{R}}_s^{(t + 1)} = \arg \mathop {\max }\limits_{\left\{ {{{\bm{R}}_s}|{{\bm{R}}_s}(i,i) = \frac{{{e_t}}}{{{N_T}L}},{{\bm{R}}_s} \succeq 0} \right\}} {\tilde{z}^C}\left( {{{\bm{R}}_s},{{\bm{t}}^{(t)}}} \right)}\\
{{\bm{t}}^{(t + 1)} = {{\rm{Proj}_\Omega}\left( {{\bm{t}}^{(t)} - \eta {\nabla _{\bm{t}}}{{\tilde z}^C}\left( {{\bm{R}}_s^{(t + 1)},{{\bm{t}}^{(t)}}} \right)} \right)}}
\end{array}} \right.,
\label{ABRCMSC}
\end{equation}
until the gap
\begin{equation}
{g^C}(t,t + 1) = \left| {{{\tilde z}^C}\left( {{\bm{R}}_s^{\left( t \right)},{{\bm{t}}^{(t)}}} \right) - {{\tilde z}^C}\left( {{\bm{R}}_s^{(t + 1)},{{\bm{t}}^{(t + 1)}}} \right)} \right|
\label{ABRGap}
\end{equation}
is small enough, where $\rm{Proj}_\Omega(\cdot)$ denotes the projection on $\Omega$ and $\eta$ is the iteration step size.
Note that ${\tilde z^C}\left( {{{\bm{R}}_s},{\bm{t}}} \right)$ is strongly concave, thus $\bm{R}_s^{(t+1)}$ can be solved by CVX in polynomial time. In addition, since $\Omega$ is a scaled sphere centered by $\bm{t}_0$, $\rm{Proj}_\Omega(\bm{t})$ is given by
\begin{equation}
{\rm{Pro}}{{\rm{j}}_\Omega }\left( {\bm{t}} \right) = \left\{ \begin{array}{l}
{\bm{t}},\;{\bm{t}} \in \Omega \\
{{\bm{t}}_0} + \frac{{r\left( {{\bm{t}} - {{\bm{t}}_0}} \right)}}{{{{\left\| {{\bm{t}} - {{\bm{t}}_0}} \right\|}_2}}},\;{\bm{t}} \notin \Omega
\end{array} \right. .
\end{equation}
Once the equilibrium strategy $\left( {{\bm{R}}_{s,C}^*,{\bm{t}}_C^*} \right)$ is obtained, the following task is to synthesize practical waveform-filter pair $\left( {{\bm{s}}_C^*,{\bm{w}}_C^*} \right)$ complying with CM-SC from $\left( {{\bm{R}}_{s,C}^*,{\bm{t}}_C^*} \right)$.
An inspection of the similarity constraint reveals that the phase of constant modulus signal needs to meet the following condition
\begin{equation}
\arg {\bm{s}}(i) \in \left[ {\arg {{\bm{s}}_0}(i) - \varphi ,\arg {{\bm{s}}_0}(i) + \varphi } \right]
\end{equation}
with $\varphi = \rm{accos}\left( {1 - \frac{{{\delta ^2}}}{2}} \right)$.
In order to get the feasible $\bm{s}$ of ${\cal P}_r^C$, the randomization schemes\cite{cui2013mimo} are used. More precisely, we generate $M$ random vectors $\bm{\xi}_m$ from ${\cal{CN}}\left( {{\bf{0}},{\bm{R}}_{s,C}^* \odot \left( {{{{\bm{\bar s}}}_0}{\bm{s}}_0^{\rm{T}}} \right)} \right)$, and adjust its phase with
\begin{equation}
{{\bm{s}}^{(m)}}(i) = {{\bm{s}}_0}(i){e^{\frac{{j\left( {\arg ({{\bm{\xi }}_m}(i)) - \pi } \right)\varphi }}{{2\pi }}}}.
\label{SCWaveform}
\end{equation}
Thus, $\bm{s}^{(m)}$ meets CM-SC due to $\frac{{\left( {\arg ({{\bm{\xi }}_m}(i)) - \pi } \right)\varphi }}{{2\pi }} \in \left[ { - \varphi ,\varphi } \right)$. Finally, the optimal waveform is selected from $\left\{ {{{\bf{s}}^{(m)}}} \right\}_{m = 1}^M$ as the one who performs best. In more detail, denote by $\bm{t}_C^{(m)}$ and ${ {{\rm{SINR}}}^{(m)}}$ the optimal sultion and optimal value for the following problem
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
\mathop {{\rm{min}}}\limits_{\bm{t}} {{\bm{t}}^{\rm{H}}}{\left( {{\bm{H}}({{\bm{s}}^{(m)}})} \right)^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{H}}({{\bm{s}}^{(m)}}){\bm{t}}\\
s.t.\;\;\;{\left\| {{\bm{t}} - {{\bm{t}}_0}} \right\|_2} \le r
\end{array}
\label{WorstcaseTIR}
\end{equation}
respectively, and we pick the optimal signal ${{\bm{s}}^{(k)}}$ achieving the maximum value ${{{\rm{SINR}}}^{(k)}}$. To this end, we get the optimal waveform-filter pair with
\begin{equation}
{\bm{s}}_C^* = {{\bm{s}}^{(k)}},{\bm{w}}_C^* = {\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{H}}({\bm{s}}_C^*){\bm{t}}_C^{(k)}.
\label{OptimalWaveformFilterCMSC}
\end{equation}
The overall procedure for waveform-filter design under CM-SC is summarized in Table \ref{Algorithm2CMSC} as \textbf{Algorithm 2}. The convergence of \textbf{Algorithm 2} is determined by the iteration steps described by (\ref{ABRCMSC}). In fact, it converges if the step size $\eta$ is properly chosen and the choice of $\eta$ can be found in \cite{nouiehed2019solving}. However, it goes beyond the scope of our paper. The computational complexities consist of two parts, namely, iteration algorithm and waveform-filter pair synthesis. One can see that the computational complexities of the iteration algorithm is proportion to the number of iterations. At each iteration, it requires at most $O\left( {{{\left( {L{N_T}} \right)}^{9}}} \right)$\cite{NemirovskiLectures}
to optimize $\bm{R}_s^{(t+1)}$ and $O\left( {{{{Q}}^{2}}} \right)$ to compute $\bm{t}^{(t+1)}$. As to the synthesis stage, it requires $O\left( {{M\left( {\left( {L{N_T}} \right)}^{2}+Q^3\right)}}\right)$\cite{li2003robust,aubry2012cognitive} to generate $\left\{ {{{\rm{SINR}}^{(m)}}} \right\}_{m = 1}^M$ and $O\left( {\left( {L{N_R} + Q{N_R}} \right)^2}\right) $ to calculate $\bm{w}_C^{*}$. Therefore, the total \vspace{2pt}computational complexities are dominated by its highest order $O\left( {{{\left( {L{N_T}} \right)}^{9}}} \right)$.
\begin{table}[!t]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\caption{Algorithm for waveform-filter optimization with CM-SC}
\label{Algorithm2CMSC}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l}
\hline
\textbf{Input}:
$\bm{a}(\theta_{t})$, $\bm{b}(\theta_{t})$, $\bm{s}_0$, $e_t$, $\delta$,
${{\bm{R}}_{c}}$, ${{\bm{t}}_{0}}$, $r$, $\beta$, $\eta$, $\epsilon^C$ and $M$.\\
\hline
\@ \@\@ \@ \textit{Step 1}: Initialize $t=0$, $\bm{t}^{(0)} = \bm{t}_0$ and $\bm{R}_s^{(0)} = \bm{s}_0\bm{s}_0^{\rm{H}}$. \\
\@ \@\@ \@ \textit{Step 2}: Solve optimization problems described in (\ref{ABRCMSC}) alternatively. \\
\@ \@\@ \@ \textit{Step 3}: Verify inequality $g^C(t,t+1) \le \epsilon^C$. If true, ${\bm{R}}_{s,C}^* = {\bm{R}}_{s}^{(t+1)}$, \\
\@ \@\@ \@ \@ \@\@ \@ \@ \@\@ \@ \@ \@\@ \@ \@ ${\bm{t}}_C^*={\bm{t}}^{(t+1)}$ and go to \textit{Step 4}, otherwise, $t=t+1$ and go\\
\@ \@\@ \@ \@ \@\@ \@ \@ \@\@ \@ \@ \@\@ \@ \@ to \textit{Step 2}.\\
\@ \@\@ \@ \textit{Step 4}: Generate $\left\{ {{{\bm{\xi }}_{m}}} \right\}_{m = 1}^M$ from ${\cal{CN}}\left( {0,{\bm{R}}_{s,C}^* \odot \left( {{{{\bm{\bar s}}}_0}{\bm{s}}_0^{\rm{T}}} \right)} \right)$ and \\
\@ \@\@ \@ \@ \@\@ \@ \@ \@\@ \@ \@ \@\@ \@ \@ calculate $\left\{ {{{\bm{s}}^{(m)}}} \right\}_{m = 1}^M$ with (\ref{SCWaveform}). \vspace{2pt}\\
\@ \@\@ \@ \textit{Step 5}: For each ${{\bm{s}}^{(m)}}$, optimize (\ref{WorstcaseTIR}) and record the corresponding\\
\@ \@\@ \@ \@ \@\@ \@ \@ \@\@ \@ \@ \@\@ \@ \@ optimal value ${\rm{SINR}}^{(m)}$ and solution $\bm{t}_C^{(m)}$.\vspace{2pt}\\
\@ \@\@ \@ \textit{Step 6}: Pick the maximal value in $\left\{ {{{\rm{SINR}}^{(m)}}} \right\}_{m = 1}^M$, for example,\\
\@ \@\@ \@ \@ \@\@ \@ \@ \@\@ \@ \@ \@\@ \@ \@ ${\rm{SINR}}^{(k)}$. Finally, synthesize $\bm{s}_C^{*}$ and $\bm{w}_C^{*}$ with (\ref{OptimalWaveformFilterCMSC}).\\
\hline
\textbf{Output}:
\@ \@ ${\bm{s}_C^{*}}$ and ${\bm{w}_C^{*}}$.\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{SC-SC on waveform}
This subsection is devoted to the Stackelberg equilibrium of ${\cal{P}}_r$ with $\Psi = \Psi_S$. Leveraging on the MM tools\cite{wu2017transmit}, we construct a sequence of Stackelberg games\cite{song2011mimo}, which belongs to the convex non-concave minimax problems. Further, we prove that the Stackelberg games can be equivalently solved by optimizing a convex problem. Thus, the optimal waveform can be obtained without solving the target strategies in ${\cal{P}}_t$.
Similarly to the former cases, we recast ${\cal{P}}_r$ as follows
\begin{equation}
{\cal{P}}_r^S\left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{l}}
{\mathop {{\rm{max}}}\limits_{\bm{s}} \mathop {{\rm{min}}}\limits_{\bm{t}} {{\bm{s}}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{G}}{{({\bm{t}})}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{G}}({\bm{t}}){\bm{s}}}\\
{s.t.\;\;\;{\kern 1pt} \left\| {\bm{s}} \right\|_2^2 \le {e_t},{{\left\| {{\bm{s}} - {{\bm{s}}_0}} \right\|}_\infty } \le \frac{{\delta \sqrt {{e_t}} }}{{\sqrt {{N_T}L} }}}\\
{\;\;\;{\kern 1pt} \;\;\;{\kern 1pt} {{\bm{s}}^{\rm{H}}}{{\bm{R}}_I}{\bm{s}} \le {e_I},{{\left\| {{\bm{t}} - {{\bm{t}}_0}} \right\|}_2} \le r}
\end{array}} \right..
\end{equation}
Note that the feasibility of ${\cal{P}}_r^S$ is well discussed in \cite{aubry2015new,aubry2016optimization}, and it is beyond the scope of our paper, where $e_I$ is carefully set to make sure that ${\cal{P}}_r^S$ is always feasible.
The key point of MM algorithm for solving the maximization problem is to find a proper minorizer of objective. And the following proposition provides a minorizer for solving ${\cal{P}}_r^S$.
\begin{propositions}
Let
\begin{equation*}
{z^S}({\bm{s}}) = \mathop {{\rm{min}}}\limits_{{{\left\| {{\bm{t}} - {{\bm{t}}_0}} \right\|}_2} \le r} {{\bm{s}}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{G}}{({\bm{t}})^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{G}}({\bm{t}}){\bm{s}},
\end{equation*}
then
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{l}
{{\tilde z}^S}({\bm{s}},{{\bm{s}}^{(l)}}) = \mathop {{\rm{min}}}\limits_{{{\left\| {{\bm{t}} - {{\bm{t}}_0}} \right\|}_2} \le r} 2{\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits} \left\{ {{{\left( {{{\bm{s}}^{(l)}}} \right)}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{G}}{{({\bm{t}})}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{G}}({\bm{t}}){\bm{s}}} \right\} - \\
\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad {\left( {{{\bm{s}}^{(l)}}} \right)^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{G}}{({\bm{t}})^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{G}}({\bm{t}}){{\bm{s}}^{(l)}}
\end{array}
\end{equation*}
is a minorizer of ${z^S}({\bm{s}})$ at $\bm{s}^{(l)}$.
\end{propositions}
\begin{IEEEproof}
See Appendix C.
\end{IEEEproof}
Leveraging on the MM algorithm, the Stackelberg equilibrium described by ${\cal{P}}_r^S$ can be solved by sequentially optimizing $\left\{ {{\cal{P}}_r^{S,(l)}} \right\}_{l = 1}^\infty$ with
\begin{equation}
{\cal{P}}_r^{S,(l)}\left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{l}}
{{{\bm{s}}^{(l + 1)}} = \arg \mathop {{\rm{max}}}\limits_{\bm{s}} {{\tilde z}^S}({\bm{s}},{{\bm{s}}^{(l)}})}\\
{s.t.\;\;\;{\kern 1pt} \left\| {\bm{s}} \right\|_2^2 \le {e_t},{{\left\| {{\bm{s}} - {{\bm{s}}_0}} \right\|}_\infty } \le \frac{{\delta \sqrt {{e_t}} }}{{\sqrt {{N_T}L} }}}\\
{\;\;\;{\kern 1pt} \;\;\;{\kern 1pt} {{\bm{s}}^{\rm{H}}}{{\bm{R}}_I}{\bm{s}} \le {e_I}}
\end{array}} \right.,
\end{equation}
which is also a Stackelberg game but easier to solve.
Now, we turn to solving ${\cal{P}}_r^{S,(l)}$. It is worth pointing out that the objective ${{\tilde z}^S}({\bm{s}},{{\bm{s}}^{(l)}})$ is a linear function with respect to $\bm{s}$. Substituting (\ref{SingalModelVectorFormT}) into ${{\tilde z}^S}({\bm{s}},{{\bm{s}}^{(l)}})$, and after some algebraic manipulations, we obtain another form of it, given by
\begin{equation}
{\tilde z^S}({\bm{s}},{{\bm{s}}^{(l)}}) = \mathop {{\rm{min}}}\limits_{\left\{ {{\bm{t}}|{{\left\| {{\bm{t}} - {{\bm{t}}_0}} \right\|}_2} \le r} \right\}} {{\bm{t}}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{U}}({\bm{s}},{{\bm{s}}^{(l)}}){\bm{t}}
\label{ZSt}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
{\bm{U}}({\bm{s}},{{\bm{s}}^{(l)}}) = {\bm{H}}{({{\bm{s}}^{(l)}})^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{H}}{({\bm{s}})} + {\bm{H}}{({\bm{s}})^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{H}}{({{\bm{s}}^{(l)}})} \\
\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad\;-{\bm{H}}{({{\bm{s}}^{(l)}})^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{H}}{({{\bm{s}}^{(l)}})}.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Unfortunately, ${{\bm{t}}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{U}}({\bm{s}},{{\bm{s}}^{(l)}}){\bm{t}}$ is not convex with respect to $\bm{t}$ due to ${\bm{U}}({\bm{s}},{{\bm{s}}^{(l)}}) \nsucceq 0$, even though it is a quadratic form. Thus, the iteration algorithm mentioned in (\ref{ABRCMSC}) is invalid when solving ${\cal{P}}_r^{S,(l)}$. To this end, we have to devise another algorithm to address ${\cal{P}}_r^{S,(l)}$, which is based on the following proposition.
\begin{propositions}
${\cal{P}}_r^{S,(l)}$ is equivalent to the following problem
\begin{equation*}
\hat {\cal{P}}_r^{S,(l)}\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\mathop {\max }\limits_{{\bm{s}},\lambda ,\gamma } \;\gamma \\
s.t.\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{{\bm{U}}({\bm{s}},{{\bm{s}}^{(l)}}) + \lambda {\bf{I}}}&{\lambda {{\bm{t}}_0}}\\
{\lambda {\bm{t}}_0^{\rm{H}}}&{\lambda {\bm{t}}_0^{\rm{H}}{{\bm{t}}_0} - \lambda {r^2} - \gamma }
\end{array}} \right] \succeq 0 \vspace{2pt} \\
\quad\quad {\left\| {{\bm{s}} - {{\bm{s}}_0}} \right\|_\infty } \le \frac{{\delta \sqrt {{e_t}} }}{{\sqrt {{N_T}L} }},{\kern 1pt} \left\| {\bm{s}} \right\|_2^2 \le {e_t}\vspace{2pt}\\
\quad\quad {{\bm{s}}^{\rm{H}}}{{\bm{R}}_I}{\bm{s}} \le {e_I},\lambda \ge 0
\end{array} \right.,
\end{equation*}
where $\lambda$ and $\gamma$ are auxiliary variables.
\end{propositions}
\begin{IEEEproof}
See Appendix D.\vspace{2pt}
\end{IEEEproof}
Obviously, $\hat {\cal{P}}_r^{S,(l)}$ is a SDP problem since ${\bm{U}}({\bm{s}},{{\bm{s}}^{(l)}})$ is linear with respect to $\bm{s}$. Based on \textit{Proposition 3}, we sequentially solve ${\cal{P}}_r^{S,(l)}$ until converges, and get the optimal waveform $\bm{s}_S^*$.
Once the optimal waveform $\bm{s}_S^*$ is obtained, we need to calculate the optimal filter $\bm{w}_S^*$ to construct the Stackelberg equilibrium strategy of radar. In oder to achieve this goal, we first get the target player's strategy in the Stackelberg game by solving
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
{\bm{t}}_{{S}}^{\bm{*}} = \arg \min {{\bm{t}}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{H}}{({\bm{s}}_S^*)^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{H}}({\bm{s}}_S^*){\bm{t}}\\
s.t.\quad \left\| {{\bm{t}} - {{\bm{t}}_0}} \right\|_2^{} \le r
\end{array},
\label{OptimalTIRSpectral}
\end{equation}
then we calculate $\bm{w}_S^*$ with
\begin{equation}
{\bm{w}}_S^* = {\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{H}}({\bm{s}}_S^*){\bm{t}}_S^{*}.
\label{OptimalFilterSCSC}
\end{equation}
The overall procedure for waveform-filter design under SC-SC is summarized in Table \ref{Algorithm3SCSC} as \textbf{Algorithm 3}.
The convergence of \textbf{Algorithm 3} is ensured by the MM algorithm\cite{hunter2004tutorial} owing to the fact that ${z^S}({\bm{s}})$ is upper bounded by $e_t{\lambda _{\max }}\left( {{\bm{G}}{{({{\bm{t}}_0})}^H}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{G}}({{\bm{t}}_0})} \right)$. As to the computational complexities, it is proportional to the number of iterations of MM algorithm when optimizing $\bm{s}_S^{*}$. At each iteration, it requires at most $O\left( {{{\left( {Q + L{N_T}} \right)}^{0.5}}\left( {{{\left( {L{N_T}} \right)}^4} + {{\left( {QL{N_T}} \right)}^2} + {Q^3}L{N_T}} \right)} \right)$. Additionally, it requires at most $O\left( {{Q^3} + {{\left( {L{N_R} + Q{N_R}} \right)}^2}} \right)$ to calculate $\bm{w}_S^{*}$. Therefore, the total computational complexities are dominated by the highest order $O\left( {{{\left( {Q + L{N_T}} \right)}^{0.5}}\left( {{{\left( {L{N_T}} \right)}^4} + {{\left( {QL{N_T}} \right)}^2} + {Q^3}L{N_T}} \right)} \right)$.
\begin{table}[!t]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\caption{Algorithm for waveform-filter optimization with CM-SC}
\label{Algorithm3SCSC}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l}
\hline
\textbf{Input}:
$\bm{a}(\theta_{t})$, $\bm{b}(\theta_{t})$, $\bm{s}_0$, $e_t$, $\delta$,
${{\bm{R}}_{c}}$, ${{\bm{t}}_{0}}$, $r$, $[f_1^k,f_2^k]$, $\alpha_k$, $e_I$ and $\epsilon^S$.\\
\hline
\@ \@\@ \@ \textit{Step 1}: Initialize $l=0$ and $\bm{s}^{(0)}$ with any feasible waveform;\\
\@ \@\@ \@ \@ \@\@ \@ \@ \@\@ \@ \@ \@\@ \@ \@ let $\tilde{z}^S(\bm{s}^{(0)},\bm{s}^{(-1)}) = {z}^S(\bm{s}^{(0)})$. \\
\@ \@\@ \@ \textit{Step 2}: Solve optimization problem ${\cal{P}}_r^{S,(l)}$.\\
\@ \@\@ \@ \textit{Step 3}: Verify $\tilde{z}^S(\bm{s}^{(l+1)},\bm{s}^{(l)})-\tilde{z}^S(\bm{s}^{(l)},\bm{s}^{(l-1)}) \le \epsilon^S$.\\
\@ \@\@ \@ \@ \@\@ \@ \@ \@\@ \@ \@ \@\@ \@ \@ If true,
go to \textit{Step 4}, otherwise, $l=l+1$ and go to \textit{Step 2}.\\
\@ \@\@ \@ \textit{Step 4}: Let $\bm{s}_S^{*} = \bm{s}^{(l+1)}$; solve (\ref{OptimalTIRSpectral}) and obtain $\bm{w}_S^{*}$ with (\ref{OptimalFilterSCSC}).\\
\hline
\textbf{Output}:
\@ \@ ${\bm{s}_S^{*}}$ and ${\bm{w}_S^{*}}$.\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{Numerical experiments}
In this section, several numerical experiments are conducted
to assess the performance of the proposed algorithms. Unless otherwise specified, in the following experiments, we assume a
colocated MIMO radar system with $N_T= 2$ transmitters
and $N_R = 4$ receivers, where the inter-element space is wave-length for transmitters and half wave-length for receivers.
The carrier frequency is 3GHz, and the code length is $L = 16$.
Meanwhile, the target T is assumed at $\theta_{t} = $30$^\circ$ azimuth with a prescribed
\begin{equation*}
{{\bm{t}}_{\rm{0}}}{\rm{ = }}{\left[ {{\rm{0}}{\rm{.2}}{e^{\frac{{j\pi }}{4}}}{\rm{,0}}{\rm{.3}}{e^{\frac{{j\pi }}{3}}}{\rm{,0}}{\rm{.8,0}}{\rm{.3}}{e^{ - \frac{{j\pi }}{6}}}{\rm{,0}}{\rm{.2}}{e^{ - \frac{{j\pi }}{3}}},0.1{e^{ - \frac{{j\pi }}{3}}}} \right]^{\rm{T}}}\in \mathbb{Q}^{6}.
\end{equation*}
As to the noise, we also assume that it is complex Gaussian distribution with ${\bm{n}}\sim{\cal{CN}}\left( {{\bf{0}},{{\bm{R}}_n}} \right)$, where ${{\bm{R}}_n}\left( {m,n} \right) = {0.8^{ \left| {m - n} \right|}}$.
All numerical experiments are analyzed using Matlab
2014a version and performed in a standard PC (with CPU Core
i5 3.0 GHz and 16 GB RAM).
\subsection{Experiments for EC on waveform}
Now, we consider the algorithm for EC on waveform, namely, \textbf{Algorithm 1}. Given that the algorithm in \cite{chen2009mimo} are proposed to address the EC on waveform, we also give comparisons with it in terms of detection probability and running time.
Fig.\ref{DetectionProbabilityCurve} depicts the detection probability versus the transmit energy $e_t$ for different $r$ by substituting $\underline {{\rm{SINR}}}_E$ or $\overline {{\rm{SINR}}}_E$ into (\ref{MarcumQFunction}) with $P_{fa} = 10^{-6}$. As expected, the detection probability monotonically increases with respect to $e_t$ for a fixed $r$. Meanwhile, it monotonically decreases with respect to $r$ for a fixed $e_t$, since a larger $r$ means a "smarter" target, which is unfavorable from the view of radar player. Moreover, one can observe from the figure that \textbf{Algorithm 1} achieves almost the same results as the algorithm in \cite{chen2009mimo} does, which demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed \textbf{Algorithm 1}. Next we compare the running time of the two algorithms, and illustrate the results in Table \ref{RunningTime}. According to the data in Table \ref{RunningTime}, we find that less running time is needed for \textbf{Algorithm 1} compared with its counterpart in \cite{chen2009mimo}. The reason can be explained that \textbf{Algorithm 1} solves the optimal waveform-filter directly based on \textit{Theorem 1} without outer iteration, thus only the inner iteration is needed for optimizing $\hat{{\cal{P}}}_t^E$. By contrast, the running time of algorithm in \cite{chen2009mimo} depends on not only inner iteration of optimization $\bm{t}$, but also the number of outer iterations.
Fig.\ref{ModulusWaveform} illustrates modulus of the optimal waveform with $r=0.8$ and $e_t =1$ for two algorithms. One can see serious fluctuation of transmit waveform, which will not meet the demands of radar transmitter given that the transmitter always operates at saturation situation. These results inspire us to find more suitable waveform to fulfill the detection task.
\begin{table}[!t]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\caption{Running time for Algorithm 1 and the algorithm in \cite{chen2009mimo} with $e_t =1$}
\label{RunningTime}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline
& \textbf{Algorithm 1} & Algorithm in \cite{chen2009mimo} \\
\hline
$r=0.1$ & {2.03s} & 5.37s\\
$r=0.3$ & {1.83s} & 4.44s\\
$r=0.5$ & {1.83s} & 4.35s\\
$r=0.8$ & {1.84s} & 4.39s\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.2in]{Fig2.pdf}
\caption{Detection probability versus $e_t$ for different $r$}
\label{DetectionProbabilityCurve}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.2in]{Fig3.pdf}
\caption{Modulus of waveform}
\label{ModulusWaveform}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Experiments for CM-SC on waveform}
In this subsection, we consider the algorithm for CM-SC on waveform, namely, \textbf{Algorithm 2}. In the following experiments, the parameters $\beta$, $\eta$ and $\epsilon^C$ are set to be 0.05, 0.002 and 0.001, respectively. Moreover, we conduct $M=100$ trails when synthesizing waveform with randomization. As to the reference waveform, the orthogonal LFM is chosen with $\bm{s}_0 = {\rm{vec}}(\bm{S}_0)$, where ${{\bm{S}}_{\rm{0}}}$ is defined by\cite{cui2013mimo,cheng2017mimo,aldayel2016successive}
\begin{equation}
{{\bm{S}}_{\rm{0}}}{\rm{(}}n{\rm{,}}l{\rm{) = }}\sqrt {\frac{{{e_t}}}{{{N_T}L}}} {e^{\frac{{j\pi (2n(l - 1) + {{(l - 1)}^2})}}{L}}}.
\end{equation}
Fig.\ref{ConvergenceCurve} depicts the value of $\tilde{z}^C(\bm{R}_s,\bm{t})$ versus the number of iterations for different $r$. An inspection of Fig.\ref{ConvergenceCurve} reveals that \textbf{Algorithm 2} converges after several iterations and number of iterations increases with respect to $r$ due to the expansive of $\Omega$. More precisely, the algorithm converges after 3 iterations for $r=0.1$, but 52 iterations for $r=0.8$.
Next, we investigate the detection performance of the optimal waveform-filter pair for different $\delta$ by substituting $\underline {{\rm{SINR}}}_C$ into (\ref{MarcumQFunction}) with $P_{fa}=10^{-6}$, where $r$ is set to be 0.8. We also give comparisons with the algorithm in \cite{karbasi2015robust} realizing that the algorithm in \cite{karbasi2015robust} can be applied to the similarity constraint by modifying its randomization schemes. The corresponding results are shown in Fig.\ref{DetecionProbabilityCMSC}. As expected, the detection probability increases with respect to $e_t$ as well as $\delta$, which is consistent with our intuition, since a higher transmit energy means a higher SINR and a larger $\delta$ means more freedom of waveform. It is observed from the figure that our algorithm shows its superiority over the algorithm in \cite{karbasi2015robust} in terms of detection probability with the same $\delta$.
To be honest, compared with the algorithm in \cite{karbasi2015robust}, our algorithm suffer heavier computational burden, even though it achieves a higher SINR. The relevant results are illustrated in Table \ref{RunningTimeAlgorithm2}. It can be seen that the running time of our algorithm increases with respect to $r$. We explain the reason that solving (\ref{ABRCMSC}) is time consuming at each iteration and the number of iterations is also large for $r=0.8$(see Fig.\ref{ConvergenceCurve}). While the running time of algorithm in \cite{karbasi2015robust} is relatively stable with respect to $r$, since $\Omega$ is approximated by randomly sampling. Nevertheless, it is worth pointing out that the number of iterations can be reduced if the parameters $\beta$ and $\eta$ are carefully chosen, and interested readers may refer to \cite{nouiehed2019solving,wang2020improved,lin2020near}.
In addition, Fig.\ref{PulseCompressionCMSC} depicts the properties of pulse compression for different $\delta$. These results display that larger $\delta$ suffers from higher sidelobe levels, even though a higher detection probability is achieved. In particular, the highest sidelobe level for $\delta = 1$ is about -6dB, while it is about -13dB for $\delta = 0.1$. Moreover, the sidelobe level achieved by {\bf{Algorithm 2}} is slightly higher than its counterpart, which also demonstrates the trade-off
between better SINR and low side lobes.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.2in]{Fig4.pdf}
\caption{$\tilde{z}^C(\bm{R}_s,\bm{t})$ versus number of iterations for different $r$}
\label{ConvergenceCurve}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[!t]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\caption{Running time for Algorithm 2 and the algorithm in \cite{karbasi2015robust} with $e_t =1$ and $\delta = 1$}
\label{RunningTimeAlgorithm2}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline
& \textbf{Algorithm 2} & Algorithm in \cite{karbasi2015robust} \\
\hline
$r=0.1$ & {19.81s} & 15.80s\\
$r=0.3$ & {28.74s} & 15.83s\\
$r=0.5$ & {41.42s} & 15.98s\\
$r=0.8$ & {110.63s} & 16.11s\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.2in]{Fig5.pdf}
\caption{Detection probability versus $e_t$ for different $\delta$}
\label{DetecionProbabilityCMSC}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=3.2in,height=2.4in]{Fig6_a.pdf}&
\includegraphics[width=3.2in,height=2.4in]{Fig6_b.pdf}\\
(a) & (b)\\
\includegraphics[width=3.2in,height=2.4in]{Fig6_c.pdf}&
\includegraphics[width=3.2in,height=2.4in]{Fig6_d.pdf}\\
(c) & (d)\\
\end{tabular}
\centering
\caption{Pulse compression for different $\delta$: (a) $\delta =2 $, (b) $\delta =1 $, (c) $\delta =0.5 $, (d) $\delta =0.2 $}
\label{PulseCompressionCMSC}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Experiments for SC-SC on waveform}
At last, we consider the algorithm for SC-SC on waveform, namely, \textbf{Algorithm 3}. In the following experiments, the parameters $r$ and $\epsilon^S$ are set to be 0.8 and 0.001, respectively. Moreover, the orthogonal LFM waveform is also used as the reference waveform $\bm{s}_0$. As to the spectral compatibility parameters, transmission power is limited in two frequency intervals. The first one is $[f_1^1,f_2^2] =[0.30,0.40]$ with $\alpha_1 = 0.6$, and the second one is $[f_1^2,f_2^2] =[0.60,0.80]$ with $\alpha_2 = 0.4$.
In order to find a feasible waveform and make sure ${\cal{P}}_r^S$ is always feasible, we first solve the following optimization problem
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
{{\bm{s}}^{(0)}} = {\kern 1pt} \arg \mathop {\min }\limits_{\bm{s}} {{\bm{s}}^{\rm{H}}}{{\bm{R}}_I}{\bm{s}}\\
s.t.\;\;\;{\kern 1pt} \left\| {\bm{s}} \right\|_2^2 \le {e_t},{\left\| {{\bm{s}} - {{\bm{s}}_0}} \right\|_\infty } \le \frac{{\delta \sqrt {{e_t}} }}{{\sqrt {{N_T}L} }}
\end{array},
\end{equation}
then set ${e_I} \ge {\kern 1pt} {\left( {{{\bm{s}}^{(0)}}} \right)^{\rm{H}}}{{\bm{R}}_I}{{\bm{s}}^{(0)}}$. Given the fact that there is no available algorithm solving the minimax waveform-filter design problem for extended target under SC-SC, we only carried out some experiments to test \textbf{Algorithm 3} in this subsection.
Now, we turn to the convergence of \textbf{Algorithm 3}. Fig.{\ref{IterationCurveCMSC}} depicts the iteration curve of ${{\tilde z}^S}({\bm{s}^{(l)}},{{\bm{s}}^{(l-1)}})$ with fixed $e_t = 20$dB and $\delta = 1$. Obviously, \textbf{Algorithm 3} converges in several iterations, and SINR monotonically increases with respect to $e_I$. Furthermore, Fig.\ref{WaveformPropertiesSCSC} shows some properties of the transmit waveform. In particular, Fig.\ref{WaveformPropertiesSCSC}(a) depicts the PSD of transmit waveform. One can see from Fig.\ref{WaveformPropertiesSCSC}(a) that the transmit waveform forms deep notches in the limited frequency bands, and the smaller $\delta$ results in deeper notches. While, the corresponding pulse compression results are given in Fig.\ref{WaveformPropertiesSCSC}(b). It is interesting that the parameter $e_I$ also affects the sidelobe level under the same $\delta$. These phenomena are consistent with the results in \cite{aldayel2016successive,aubry2014radar}.
Finally, we randomly pick up some samples from $\Omega$ and calculate the actually output SINR to verify that the designed waveform-filter pair is the Stackelberg equilibrium strategy for radar. The corresponding results are shown in Fig.\ref{VerifyRobust}, and we are glad to see that the actually achieved SINR is significantly higher than the SINR(worst-case) optimized by \textbf{Algorithm 3}, which demonstrates the effectiveness of our algorithm.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.2in]{Fig7.pdf}
\caption{${{\tilde z}^S}({\bm{s}^{(l)}},{{\bm{s}}^{(l-1)}})$ versus the number of iterations for different $e_I$}
\label{IterationCurveCMSC}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{Fig8.pdf}\\
(a)\\
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{Fig9.pdf}\\
(b)
\end{tabular}
\centering
\caption{Waveform properties for different $e_I$: (a) Power Spectral Density, (b) Pulse Compression}
\label{WaveformPropertiesSCSC}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.2in]{Fig10.pdf}
\caption{Actually achieved SINR with random samples}
\label{VerifyRobust}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we study the joint design problem of transmit waveform and receive filter for extended target detection from the view of TPZS games, where the SINR is used as the payoff function. We assume that the radar player aims at maximizing SINR by choosing its waveform and filter from the strategy set, while the target player is smart enough to minimize SINR by changing its TIR from the strategy set to prevent being detected. The interaction between the radar and target is modeled as a Stackelberg game where radar acts as the leader, and the goal is to find the optimal strategy of radar from Stackelberg equilibrium. The strategy set of target is constrained in a scaled sphere centered by a prescribed TIR. As to the strategy set of radar, the following three cases are studied: 1) EC on Waveform; 2) CM-SC on waveform; 3) SC-SC on waveform. We resort to \textbf{Algorithm 1}, \textbf{Algorithm 2} and \textbf{Algorithm 3} to address the three cases mentioned above, respectively. The conclusions are drawn as follows:
1) Under the EC on waveform, the Stackelberg equilibrium is also the Nash equilibrium, which means that the play who acts as the leader in the game makes no difference on the equilibrium strategies. Thus, in \textbf{Algorithm 1}, the equilibrium strategy is be solved from the game where target acts as the leader, which can be convert to a convex optimization problem and solved in polynomial time. \textbf{Algorithm 1} achieves the same performance as the algorithm in \cite{chen2009mimo} in terms of detection probability, but shows superiority on running time.
2) When considering CM-SC on waveform, the Stackelberg equilibrium may not be the Nash equilibrium, but the Nash equilibrium can be approximately constructed from its relaxation form by optimizing the covariance of transmit waveform. \textbf{Algorithm 2} focuses on solving the Nash equilibrium of the relaxation form, and synthesize the Stackelberg equilibrium strategy of the original game with randomization process. Even though it is time consuming compared with the algorithm in \cite{karbasi2015robust}, it achieves higher detection probability. Moreover, the tighter similarity constraint on waveform results in better pulse compression properties but lower detection probability.
3) As to SC-SC on waveform, the Stackelberg equilibrium are solved leveraging on the MM algorithm, which is the core idea of \textbf{Algorithm 3}. Accordingly, the optimal waveform forms deep notches in the limited frequency bands and show relatively satisfactory pulse compression properties. Interestingly, the spectral compatibility parameter not only affects the its PSD, but also its pulse compression properties. Thus, a suitable trade-off among the output SINR, the similarity level and the spectral compatibility property should be made in practice. Moreover, the Stackelberg equilibrium strategy for radar is essentially the robust waveform-filter.
Our future researches may include the equilibrium strategies in the presence of signal dependent clutter. Besides, researches on more practical strategy set of radar and target will be also interesting.
\appendices
\section{Proof of Theorem 1}
For a fixed $\bm{s}^0$, the optimization problem in ${\tilde{\cal P}_r}$ can be recast as
\begin{equation}
F(\bm{s}^0)= \mathop {{\rm{min}}}\limits_{{\bm{t}} \in \Omega } \mathop {{\rm{max}}}\limits_{\bm{w}} {\rm{ }}\frac{{{{\bm{w}}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{y}}_t^0{{\left( {{\bm{y}}_t^0} \right)}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{w}}}}{{{{\bm{w}}^{\rm{H}}}{{\bm{R}}_c}{\bf{w}}}}
\end{equation}
where ${{\bm{y}}_t^0} = {\bm{H}}({\bm{s}^0}){\bm{t}}$. On the other hand, the optimization problem in ${{\cal P}_r}$ can be recast as
\begin{equation}
G(\bm{s}^0) = \mathop {{\rm{max}}}\limits_{\bm{w}} \mathop {{\rm{min}}}\limits_{{\bm{t}} \in \Omega } {\rm{ }}\frac{{{{\bm{w}}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{y}}_t^0{{\left( {{\bm{y}}_t^0} \right)}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{w}}}}{{{{\bm{w}}^{\rm{H}}}{{\bm{R}}_c}{\bf{w}}}}.
\end{equation}
Further, by solving the inner maximization problem of $F(\bm{s}^0)$, we have
\begin{equation}
F({{\bm{s}}^0}) = \mathop {{\rm{min}}}\limits_{{\bm{t}} \in \Omega } {\rm{ }}{\left( {{\bm{y}}_t^0} \right)^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{y}}_t^0 = \mathop {{\rm{min}}}\limits_{{\bm{t}} \in \Omega } {\rm{ }}{{\bm{t}}^{\rm{H}}}{\left( {{\bm{H}}({{\bm{s}}^0})} \right)^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{H}}({{\bm{s}}^0}){\bm{t}}
\label{MinTFixedS0}
\end{equation}
Note that $F(\bm{s}^0) \geq G(\bm{s}^0)$ always holds due to the weak minimax inequality, which means
\begin{equation}
G(\bm{s}^0) \le \mathop {{\rm{min}}}\limits_{{\bm{t}} \in \Omega } {\rm{ }}{{\bm{t}}^{\rm{H}}}{\left( {{\bm{H}}({{\bm{s}}^0})} \right)^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{H}}({{\bm{s}}^0}){\bm{t}}..
\label{WeakMinimaxW}
\end{equation}
Denote by $\bm{t}_{s_0}^*$ the optimal solution of (\ref{MinTFixedS0}), and let $\bm{w}_{s_0}^*={\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{H}}({{\bm{s}}^0}){\bm{t}_{s_0}^*}$, then we have
\begin{equation}
G({{\bm{s}}^0}) \ge \mathop {{\rm{max}}}\limits_{{\bm{w}}=\bm{w}_{s_0}^*} \mathop {{\rm{min}}}\limits_{{\bm{t}} \in \Omega } {\rm{ }}\frac{{{{\bm{w}}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{y}}_t^0{{\left( {{\bm{y}}_t^0} \right)}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{w}}}}{{{{\bm{w}}^{\rm{H}}}{{\bm{R}}_c}{\bm{w}}}}.
\label{StrongMinimaxW}
\end{equation}
The inequality holds due to the shrinkage of feasible set on $\bm{w}$.
The right hand in (\ref{StrongMinimaxW}) is equal to $F({{\bm{s}}^0})$ according to Theorem 1 in \cite{kim2006robust} given that $\Omega$ is convex.
Combining (\ref{WeakMinimaxW}) and (\ref{StrongMinimaxW}), one can obtain the following strong minimax inequality
\begin{equation}
\mathop {{\rm{max}}}\limits_{\bm{w}} \mathop {{\rm{min}}}\limits_{{\bm{t}} \in \Omega } {\rm{ }}\frac{{{{\bm{w}}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{y}}_t^0{{\left( {{\bm{y}}_t^0} \right)}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{w}}}}{{{{\bm{w}}^{\rm{H}}}{{\bm{R}}_c}{\bm{w}}}} = \mathop {{\rm{min}}}\limits_{{\bm{t}} \in \Omega } \mathop {{\rm{max}}}\limits_{\bm{w}} {\rm{ }}\frac{{{{\bm{w}}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{y}}_t^0{{\left( {{\bm{y}}_t^0} \right)}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{w}}}}{{{{\bm{w}}^{\rm{H}}}{{\bm{R}}_c}{\bm{w}}}}.
\label{StrongMinimaxWEquality}
\end{equation}
Recall that (\ref{StrongMinimaxWEquality}) holds for any $\bm{s}^0$, then we have
\begin{equation}
\mathop {{\rm{max}}}\limits_{{\bm{s}} \in \Psi ,{\bm{w}}} \mathop {{\rm{min}}}\limits_{{\bm{t}} \in \Omega } {\rm{ }}\frac{{{{\bm{w}}^{\rm{H}}}{{\bm{y}}_t}{\bm{y}}_t^{\rm{H}}{\bm{w}}}}{{{{\bm{w}}^{\rm{H}}}{{\bm{R}}_c}{\bm{w}}}} =\mathop {{\rm{max}}}\limits_{{\bm{s}} \in \Psi } \mathop {{\rm{min}}}\limits_{{\bm{t}} \in \Omega } \mathop {{\rm{max}}}\limits_{{\bm{w}}} {\rm{ }}\frac{{{{\bm{w}}^{\rm{H}}}{{\bm{y}}_t}{\bm{y}}_t^{\rm{H}}{\bm{w}}}}{{{{\bm{w}}^{\rm{H}}}{{\bm{R}}_c}{\bm{w}}}},
\end{equation}
and the optimal solutions for ${\cal{P}}_r$ and $\tilde {\cal{P}}_r$ are the same.
Thus, we complete the proof of Theorem 1.
\section{Proof of Proposition 1}
The proof starts with $\tilde {\cal P}_t^E$ described in (\ref{OptimizationLambda}), which is equivalent to the following problem
\begin{equation}
\left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{l}}
{{{\overline {{\rm{SINR}}} }_E} = \mathop {{\rm{min}}}\limits_{\bm{G(t)}} {\lambda _{\max }}\left( {{\bm{G}}{{({\bm{t}})}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{G}}({\bm{t}})} \right){e_t}}\\
{s.t.\;\;\;{\kern 1pt} {\bm{G}}({\bm{t}}) \in \tilde \Omega }
\end{array}} \right.,
\label{OptimizationGt}
\end{equation}
where $\tilde \Omega = \left\{ {{\bm{G}}({\bm{t}})|\bm{t} \in \Omega} \right\}$ is also convex since $\bm{G(t)}$ is an affine function with respect to $\bm{t}$.
Denote by $\bm{t}_E^*$ the optimal solution of $\tilde {\cal P}_t^E$, then $\bm{G}\left( \bm{t}_E^*\right) $ is an optimal solution of (\ref{OptimizationGt}), which meets the following optimality condition
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
\left\langle {{{\left. {{\nabla _{{\bm{G}}({\bm{t}})}}{\lambda _{\max }}\left( {{\bm{G}}{{({\bm{t}})}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{G}}({\bm{t}})} \right)} \right|}_{{\bm{G}}({\bm{t}}_E^*)}},{\bm{G}}({\bm{t}}) - {\bm{G}}({\bm{t}}_E^*)} \right\rangle \\
\ge 0,{\rm{ }}\forall {\bm{G}}({\bm{t}}) \in \tilde \Omega
\end{array}.
\label{OptimalityCondition}
\end{equation}
After some algebraic manipulations \cite{hjorungnes2011complex}, (\ref{OptimalityCondition}) reduces to
\begin{equation}
{\left( {{\bm{s}}_E^*} \right)^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{G}}{({\bm{t}}_E^*)^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}\left( {{\bm{G}}({\bm{t}}) - {\bm{G}}({\bm{t}}_E^*)} \right){\bm{s}}_E^* \ge 0,\forall {\bm{G}}({\bm{t}}) \in \tilde \Omega
\end{equation}
with ${{\bm{s}}_E^*}$ defined in (\ref{OptimalWaveformEigenVector}).
On the other hand,
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
{\underline {{\rm{SINR}}} _E} = \mathop {{\rm{max}}}\limits_{{\bm{s}} \in {\Psi _E}} \mathop {{\rm{min}}}\limits_{{\bm{t}} \in \Omega } {{\bm{t}}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{H}}{({\bm{s}})^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{H}}({\bm{s}}){\bm{t}}\\
\quad \quad \quad \; \; \ge \mathop {{\rm{min}}}\limits_{{\bm{t}} \in \Omega } {{\bm{t}}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{H}}{({\bm{s}}_E^*)^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{H}}({\bm{s}}_E^*){\bm{t}}
\end{array}.
\label{StrongMinimax1}
\end{equation}
Next, we are going to prove that the value of right hand in inequality (\ref{StrongMinimax1}) is \vspace{2pt}equal to ${\overline {{\rm{SINR}}} _E}$, i.e., $\bm{t}_E^*$ meets the optimality condition of \vspace{2pt} $\mathop {{\rm{min}}}\limits_{{\bm{t}} \in \Omega } {{\bm{t}}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{H}}{({\bm{s}}_E^*)^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{H}}({\bm{s}}_E^*){\bm{t}}$.
Denote by $\tilde{\bm{t}}_E^*$ the optimal solution of $\mathop {{\rm{min}}}\limits_{{\bm{t}} \in \Omega } {{\bm{t}}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{H}}{({\bm{s}}_E^*)^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{H}}({\bm{s}}_E^*){\bm{t}}$, then we get the following optimality condition
\begin{equation}
{\left( {{\bm{t}} - {\bm{\tilde t}}_E^*} \right)^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{H}}{({\bm{s}}_E^*)^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{H}}({\bm{s}}_E^*){\bm{\tilde t}}_E^* \ge 0,\forall {\bm{t}} \in \Omega.
\label{StrongMinimax2}
\end{equation}
Note that $\bm{G(t)}$ is the one-to-one mapping with respect to $\bm{t}$. Therefore, combining (\ref{StrongMinimax1}) and $\bm{G}{(\bm{t})\bm{s}} = \bm{H}{(\bm{s})\bm{t}}$, we get that $\bm{t}_E^*$ also meets the optimality condition (\ref{StrongMinimax2}), namely,
\begin{equation}
\underline {\rm{SINR}}_E \ge \overline {\rm{SINR}}_E.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, the weak minimax inequality \vspace{2pt} $\underline {\rm{SINR}}_E \le \overline {\rm{SINR}}_E$ always holds. To this end, we have
\begin{equation}
\underline {\rm{SINR}}_E = \overline {\rm{SINR}}_E,
\end{equation}
and the strategy pair $(\bm{s}_E^*,{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{G}}({\bm{t}}_E^*){\bm{s}}_E^*,\bm{t}_E^*)$ is Nash equilibrium.
Thus we complete the proof of Proposition 1.
\section{Proof of Proposition 2}
For any $\bm{t}$, we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
{{\bm{s}}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{G}}{({\bm{t}})^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{G}}({\bm{t}}){\bm{s}} = 2{\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits} \left\{ {{{\left( {{{\bm{s}}^{(l)}}} \right)}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{G}}{{({\bm{t}})}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{G}}({\bm{t}}){\bm{s}}} \right\} - \\
\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad {\left( {{{\bm{s}}^{(l)}}} \right)^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{G}}{({\bm{t}})^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{G}}({\bm{t}}){{\bm{s}}^{(l)}} + \\
\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad {\left( {{\bm{s}} - {{\bm{s}}^{(l)}}} \right)^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{G}}{({\bm{t}})^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{G}}({\bm{t}})\left( {{\bm{s}} - {{\bm{s}}^{(l)}}} \right)\\
\end{array}.
\end{equation}
Given the fact that ${\bm{G}}{({\bm{t}})^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{G}}({\bm{t}}) \succeq 0$, we get the following inequality
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
{{\bm{s}}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{G}}{({\bm{t}})^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{G}}({\bm{t}}){\bm{s}} \ge 2{\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits} \left\{ {{{\left( {{{\bm{s}}^{(l)}}} \right)}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{G}}{{({\bm{t}})}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{G}}({\bm{t}}){\bm{s}}} \right\} - \\
\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad {\left( {{{\bm{s}}^{(l)}}} \right)^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{G}}{({\bm{t}})^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{R}}_c^{ - 1}{\bm{G}}({\bm{t}}){{\bm{s}}^{(l)}}
\end{array},
\end{equation}
with equality if and only if $\bm{s}=\bm{s}^{(l)}$.
Consequently, ${{\tilde z}^S}({\bm{s}},{{\bm{s}}^{(l)}})$
is a minorizer of ${z^S}({\bm{s}})$ at $\bm{s}^{(l)}$.
Thus we complete the proof of Proposition 2.
\section{Proof of Proposition 3}
Let us start with
\begin{equation*}
{\tilde z^S}({\bm{s}},{{\bm{s}}^{(l)}}) = \mathop {{\rm{min}}}\limits_{\left\{ {{\bm{t}}|{{\left\| {{\bm{t}} - {{\bm{t}}_0}} \right\|}_2} \le r} \right\}} {{\bm{t}}^{\rm{H}}}{\bm{U}}({\bm{s}},{{\bm{s}}^{(l)}}){\bm{t}}
\end{equation*}
described in ({\ref{ZSt}}). And the dual problem is given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
\mathop {\max }\limits_{\lambda ,\gamma } \;\gamma \\
s.t.\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{{\bm{U}}({\bm{s}},{{\bm{s}}^{(l)}}) + \lambda {\bf{I}}}&{\lambda {{\bm{t}}_0}}\\
{\lambda {\bm{t}}_0^{\rm{H}}}&{\lambda {\bm{t}}_0^{\rm{H}}{{\bm{t}}_0} - \lambda {r^2} - \gamma }
\end{array}} \right] \succeq 0\quad \\
\quad \lambda \ge 0
\end{array}.
\end{equation}
Note that it is a single constraint quadratic problem and strong duality holds, even though it is non-convex{\cite{BoydConvex}}. Therefore, we reformulate it as the dual form and get $\hat{{\cal{P}}}_r^{S,(l)}$ by substituting the dual form into ${\cal{P}}_r^{S,(l)}$.
Thus we complete the proof of Proposition 3.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
A computer system with a soft processor like MicroBlaze\cite{MicroBlaze} and Nios II\cite{Nios} is implemented on an FPGA, which is used in various fields. RISC-V is receiving attention as an ISA (Instruction Set Architecture) adopted by soft processors.
RISC-V is a RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) based ISA designed to be universal and extensible based on lessons learned from past instruction sets. A processor designer can select the required instruction sets according to the application requirements. As an extended instruction set that can be added to RV32I, that is the basic integer instruction set, "M" for multiplication and division instructions, "F" for single-precision floating-point instructions, "A" for atomic instructions needed to support the modern OS instructions are defined.
The "C" extension is a compressed instructions extension and replaces some frequently occurring 32-bit instructions with 16-bit instructions. So it is possible to prevent the code size from growing, which is a weak point of a RISC-based ISA. The other RISC-based ISAs that supports two types of instruction length have existed. The feature of the compressed instructions compared with these is no mode switching to support the compressed instructions, and all instructions are aligned on 16-bit boundaries instead of 32-bit boundaries. When adopting an existing processor to the compressed instructions, the performance will drop significantly if the instruction fetch unit is not changed appropriately.
We propose an efficient instruction fetch unit that supports the compressed instructions and a soft processor called RVCoreP-32IC or RVP-c, in short, using that unit. We implement this proposed processor in Verilog HDL and compare the results of some benchmarks and the amount of hardware with related works.
\section{Related works}
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[clip,width=\linewidth]{fig/arch-baseline-proc.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The block diagram of the baseline processor RVCoreP-32I}
\label{fig:arch-baseline-proc}
\end{figure*}
RVCoreP\cite{miyazaki2020rvcorep} is a RISC-V soft processor with a 5-stage pipeline targeting FPGA created by Miyazaki et al. It supports RV32I and is written by Verilog HDL.
We define RVCoreP as a baseline and modify it for supporting the compressed instructions. The version that does not support compressed instructions is named RVCoreP-32I(RVP).
Figure \ref{fig:arch-baseline-proc} shows the block diagram of RVCoreP-32I. The green squares are the register updated in synchronization with the rising edge of the clock signal, the yellow squares are the module consisted of Block RAM, the gray square is a module composed of LUT RAM that performs reading asynchronously and writing synchronously with the rising edge of the clock, the red modules are adders and ALUs, and other blue modules are combinational circuits.
RVP uses gshare\cite{gshare} for branch prediction. Pattern History Table (PHT) and Branch Target Buffer (BTB) are implemented using Block RAM. The branch prediction mechanism is pipelined to improve the operating frequency. \cite{matsuibpred}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[clip,width=\columnwidth]{fig/design-imem32-disc.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The figure of 32-bit wide instruction memory with mixed 32-bit and 16-bit instructions}
\label{fig:design-imem32}
\end{figure}
The most important point to consider when supporting the compressed instructions is that 32-bit instructions and 16-bit instructions coexist in the instruction memory and are arranged without gaps. Figure \ref{fig:design-imem32} shows the situation where 32-bit instructions and 16-bit instructions are placed in the 32-bit wide instruction memory. Hereafter, the width of memory that can be accessed using one I/O port is defined as an entry. In this figure, one entry consists of 32-bit. For explanation, addresses are assigned every 16-bit in the memory.
For example, the 32-bit \textit{Inst C} located at addresses 0x06 and 0x08 shown in orange is divided into two entries and placed both Entry 1 and Entry 2. Therefore, in order to fetch \textit{Inst C}, it is necessary to access both Entry 1 and Entry 2. The IPC (Instruction Per Cycle) of the processor is significantly decreased if the instruction memory is accessed in two steps in order to fetch a 32-bit instruction crossing a boundary of entries like a \textit{Inst C}.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[clip,width=\columnwidth]{fig/design-imem32-buf.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The figure of the buffering instruction fetch architecture}
\label{fig:design-imem32-buf}
\end{figure}
The method of buffering the data fetched from the instruction memory is often used to avoid this problem in the instruction fetch unit supporting the compressed instructions. Figure \ref{fig:design-imem32-buf} shows the situation where \textit{Inst C} is fetched in the buffering instruction fetch unit. Each processor in PULP Platform\cite{pulp} and Syntacore's SCR1\cite{scr1} use FIFO buffers, and VexRiscv\cite{vexriscv} uses a minimum 16-bit buffer.
However, it is necessary to delete the value of the buffer when the branch instruction is taken. Therefore, when branching to a 32-bit instruction that is not aligned on a 32-bit boundary, the lower 16-bit of the instruction can be fetched, but the upper 16-bit of the instruction cannot be fetched with the same access. Hereafter referred to as \textit{fetch miss}. This results in a lower IPC.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[clip,width=\columnwidth]{fig/related-Gray.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The figure of Gray's instruction cache structure minimized and optimized for RISC-V}
\label{fig:related-I-cache}
\end{figure}
Gray's instruction cache structure \cite{vondran2002efficient} can efficiently fetch variable-length instructions of CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computer) and VLIW (Very Long Instruction Word) based ISA. Figure \ref{fig:related-I-cache} shows the situation where \textit{Inst C} is fetched in Gray's instruction cache structure minimized and optimized for RISC-V. The entries in this figure consist of 16-bit.
In this instruction cache structure, each instruction is placed into Odd Instruction Bank and Even Instruction Bank according to the address. Since each bank is accessed in parallel, any instruction can be efficiently fetched without accessing in two steps.
After the address of one bank is calculated, the address of the other bank is calculated by adding to the address. So the red path in the figure is the critical path of the instruction fetch structure. In this structure, a circuit that adds only one is used to alleviate the critical path. However, the circuit is targeted for implementation as an ASIC and is not expected to be implemented on FPGA.
\section{Proposed method}
\subsection{The instruction fetch unit}
The proposed instruction fetch unit has two program counters, and it accesses two entries simultaneously, similar to Gray's instruction cache structure. But unlike Gray's instruction cache structure, it does not divide the instruction memory into two. Since the Block RAM for most FPGAs has two I/O ports, the proposed unit accesses two entries of one instruction memory composed of block RAM at the same time.
The width of the instruction memory of the baseline processor is 32 bits. If the two entries in this memory are always accessed, at least 32-bit of data will be wasted. So we change the width of the instruction memory to 16-bit. After that, one entry in the memory is 16-bit.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[clip,width=\columnwidth]{fig/design-imem16-disc.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The figure of instruction fetch with two program counters into 16-bit wide instruction memory}
\label{fig:design-imem16}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:design-imem16} shows the situation that \textit{Inst C} located in the 16-bit width instruction memory is fetched using two program counters. \textit{Program Counter} (PC) in the figure is the original program counter, \textit{Program Counter + 2} (PC\_2) in the figure is the program counter that points to the next entry pointed to by the original program counter. The proposed unit consists of these two program counters to access two consecutive entries always. Therefore, even if a branch destination is a 32-bit instruction that is not aligned on a 32-bit boundary, the proposed unit can fetch the instruction in one cycle.
\begin{figure}[bt]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[clip,width=\columnwidth]{fig/arch-slow-fetch.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The block diagram of a simple implementation of instruction fetch with access to two entries}
\label{fig:arch-slow-fetch}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:arch-slow-fetch} shows a block diagram of the simple instruction fetch unit using the instruction memory shown in Figure \ref{fig:design-imem16}. It is simply implemented to access two entries in the instruction fetch unit of the baseline processor. After calculating the value of PC like Gray's instruction cache, this simple implementation adds 2 to that value to calculate the value of PC\_2.
However, when this unit is applied to the baseline processor, the red path in the figure becomes a critical path. So the operating frequency is significantly decreased. Since the critical path of the baseline processor is the path that calculates the value of PC, the addition of circuits to this path should be minimized.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[clip,width=\columnwidth]{fig/arch-fetch.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The block diagram of the proposed instruction fetch unit}
\label{fig:arch-fetch}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:arch-fetch} shows the block diagram of the proposed instruction fetch unit. The value of the next cycle PC is selected from 5 candidates in the IF stage. The proposed unit pre-calculates the values obtained by adding 2 to all these five candidates and selects the value of PC\_2 at the same timing as the selection of the value of PC.
The value of next cycle PC is any of these five candidates in the RVCoreP-32IC, a value obtained by adding 2 or 4 to the value of the current PC (PC+2,PC+4), the value of the current PC for to stall, the address of the branch prediction destination read from BTB (PredPC) or the address of the branch target to correct the branch misprediction sent from the MA stage (TruePC).
The value obtained by adding 2 to the value of PC, PC+2 and PC+4 can be calculated by replicating the selection logic for PC and adders, adding register saving the value of PC\_2.
The value obtained by adding 2 to the value of PredPC (PredPC\_2) is calculated by placing an adder immediately after BTB. In the baseline processor, the value of PredPC is written to the register immediately after being read from BTB, so adding an adder to this path does not become a critical path.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[clip,width=\columnwidth]{fig/arch-TruePC.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The block diagram of the circuit calculating TruePC\_2 in the pipeline}
\label{fig:arch-TruePC}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:arch-TruePC} shows a pipelined circuit that calculates the value that is obtained by adding 2 to the value of TruePC (TruePC\_2). There are two candidates for TruePC. When a branch instruction is predicted as taken and the branch prediction is missed, it is the address of the next instruction on the instruction memory(BelowPC). On the other hand, when a branch instruction is predicted as not taken and the branch prediction is missed, it is the address of the correct branch destination(TakenPC). We define the values obtained by adding 2 to these two kinds of values as BelowPC\_2 and TakenPC\_2. These values are calculated in the processor pipeline.
When the branch instruction is a 16-bit instruction, BelowPC is obtained by adding 2 to the address and BelowPC\_2 is obtained by addign 4 to the address. Samely, when the branch instruction is a 32-bit, BelowPC is obtained by adding 4 to the address and BelowPC\_2 is obtained by adding 6 to the address. In the EX stage, either 4 or 6 is selected by using the \textit{Comp} of the ID/EX pipeline register that indicates whether the branch instruction is a compressed instruction. And this value added to the address of the branch instruction.
TakenPC is the branch destination address. RISC-V branch instructions are divided into two types of Unconditional Jumps and Conditional Branches. The branch destination address of Unconditional Jumps is the value obtained by adding the decoded immediate value (IMM) to either the address of the branch instruction or the value of the operand register. In Conditional Branches, it is the value obtained by adding IMM to the address value of the branch instruction.
Therefore, the branch destination of the RISC-V branch instruction is either the value obtained by adding a branch instruction address to IMM or adding an operand register value to IMM. In order to calculate the values obtained by adding 2 to both candidates, the value obtained by adding 2 to IMM (IMM\_2) is calculated in advance. Since there is relatively a room in the path of generation IMM in the ID stage of the baseline processor, we place an adder after DecoderID to calculate IMM\_2. TakenPC\_2 is calculated parallelly with the normal branch destination in the EX stage. In the MA stage, BelowPC\_2 or TakenPC\_2 is selected and sent to the IF stage as TruePC\_2 by using the \textit{BranchTaken} of the EX/MA pipeline register that indicates whether branch is taken or not.
\subsection{The proposed RISC-V soft processor RVCoreP-32IC}
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[clip,width=\linewidth]{fig/arch-proposal-proc.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The block diagram of the proposed processor RVCoreP-32IC supporting the compressed instructions}
\label{fig:arch-proposal-proc}
\end{figure*}
Figure \ref{fig:arch-proposal-proc} shows the block diagram of the proposed processor RVCoreP-32IC. The parts surrounded by the red frame are the changes from the baseline processor RVCoreP-32I. In addition to the proposed instruction fetch unit, changes are made to the decoders and the control of the branch prediction mechanism.
To detect the dependency with the instruction at the IF stage and the load instruction at the ID stage, the decoders of RVP is divided into DecoderIF in the IF stage and DecoderID in the ID stage. If a circuit that decompresses the 16-bit instruction to the 32-bit instruction (\textit{Decompressor}) is placed before DecoderIF to support the compressed instructions in RVP, this path becomes the critical path. Therefore we implement ParallelDecoderIF of RVP-c in the IF stage, which decodes 16-bit instructions in parallel to 32-bit instructions without decompressing 16-bit instructions to avoid this problem.
In the ID stage, IMM\_2 is calculated after generating IMM with DecoderID. If a \textit{Decompressor} is added before the Decoder, this path becomes a critical path too. Therefore, we implement ParallelDecoderID similar to ParallelDecoderIF.
In the no cycle penalty pipelined branch prediction mechanism implemented in RVP, in order to generate the index used for writing to PHT and BTB, the address of the previous instruction on the instruction memory is used.
When it supports the compressed instructions, the address of the previous instruction is either the address obtained by minus 2 or 4 to the address of the branch instruction. RVP-c uses the information of the previous instruction in the pipeline register to determine the address.
However, if the previous instruction of the branch instruction in the pipeline is also a branch instruction and the previous branch instruction is predicted as taken, the previous instruction does not match the previous instruction in the instruction memory. In this case, writing to PHT and BTB should be prohibited.
\section{Verification and Evaluation}
\subsection{Verification}
We verified the implemented RTL code by Verilog simulation. A RISC-V processor simulator modeling a conservative multi-cycle processor named SimRV that we implemented in C++ is used as the reference model.
SimRV outputs the PC value, the executed instruction, and the 32 values stored in the register file when a RISC-V program binary is given. By executing the same binary using SimRV and Verilog simulation for our designed processors, log files of the same format can be output. We executed all benchmark binaries used in the evaluation described later and compared each log file. We have confirmed that their values in two log files match, and the programs are executing correctly.
In addition to the verification through simulations, we verified the behavior of the designed processor using an FPGA board. The same RISC-V program binary used for Verilog simulation is executed on the actual Xilinx Atrix-7 FPGA board, and we have confirmed that the ASCII character output of the execution results via a serial communication had matched to the correct result, and confirmed that the numbers of execution cycles and executed instructions are also matched.
\subsection{Evaluation environment}
We compare RVCoreP and VexRiscv that won the 2018 RISC-V SoftCPU Contest sponsored by the RISC-V Foundation \cite{cpucontest}. The source code of VexRiscv used for evaluation is published on GitHub, and the used version is \textit{Spinal-HDL/VexRiscv@ca228a3} committed on September 26, 2019. In the preliminary evaluation, the versions of VexRiscv with and without the branch prediction mechanism had the equivalent performance values obtained by multiplying the operating frequency and IPC, so we prepared each version.
The version supporting RV32IC of VexRiscv with the branch prediction mechanism is VR-bp-c, and the version without the branch prediction mechanism is VR-nobp-c. We set the \textit{compressedGen} parameter as \textit{true} to support the compressed instructions and the other parameters of VexRiscv to be as close as possible to RVCoreP.
VR-bp-c implements a bimodal branch predictor and a BTB. The prediction scheme of the proposal is a gshare branch predictor, which achieves higher prediction accuracy than the bimodal predictor of VR-bp-c.
In order to compare fairly between VR-bp-c and RVP-c, We set the size of the block RAM used in the branch prediction mechanism the same. In RVP-c, the number of BTB entries is 512, and the number of PHT entries for gshare is 8,192. They are implemented as 4KB block RAM in total. In VR-bp-c, we set the branch mechanism option \textit{DYNAMIC\_TARGET} in BranchPlugin and \textit{historyRamSizeLog2} parameter as 512 to implement as 4KB block RAM in total.
We ran multiple benchmarks on each processor to evaluate performance. The benchmark programs was compiled by RISC-V cross-compiler for RV32IC published in riscv-gnu-toolchain\cite{riscv-gnu-toolchain}. The version of the used compiler is 8.1.0, and the optimization used option is -O2.
We evaluate the operating frequency and the hardware resources utilization targeting Digilent Nexys 4 DDR\cite{nexys4ddr} equipped with xc7a100tcsg324-1 of Xilinx Artix-7 FPGA family. We used Xilinx Vivado 2017.2 as the design tool.
We used the \textit{Flow\_PerfOptimaized\_high} strategy for logic synthesis and \textit{Performance\_ExplorePostRoutePhysOpt} for placement and routing. We performed the logic synthesis and placement and routing by incrementally changing the clock cycle constraint in 5MHz. The highest frequency that satisfies the constraints is used as the operating frequency of the processor. For hardware resource evaluation, we used the result of placement and routing at the maximum operating frequency.
In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed fetch unit, we implemented RVP-c-buf adopted the buffering mechanism in fetch architecture. It is different from RVP-c in only fetch unit, and all of the other is the same.
\subsection{Evaluation Results}
\subsubsection{Operating frequency and hardware utilization in minimum configuration}
\begin{table}[htb]
\begin{center}
\caption{The evaluation results of operating frequency and hardware utilization where 4KB memories are used.}
\begin{tabular}[t]{|l|r||r|r|r|r|} \hline
& RVP & RVP-c & RVP-c-buf & VR-nobp-c & VR-bp-c \\ \hline
Freq [MHz]& 185 & \bf165 & 135 & 165 & 130 \\ \hline
LUTs & 1,086 & 1,402 & 1,389 & 1,001 & 1,064 \\ \hline
Registers & 777 & 931 & 844 & 563 & 673 \\ \hline
Slices & 411 & 524 & 456 & 310 & 363 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:eval4kb}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Table \ref{tab:eval4kb} shows the maximum operating frequency and hardware resource utilization of each processor where 4KB instruction memory and data memory are used. The placement and routing were performed using only one clock region of the FPGA to stabilize the operating frequency of the evaluated system.
RVP-c consumes 29.0\%, 19.8\%, and 27.5\% more LUTs, registers, and slices than RVP, respectively. The operating frequency of RVP-c has dropped from 185MHz to 165MHz because the number of candidates for selecting the PC value has increased, which is the critical path of RVP. RVP-c consumes 31.8\%, 38.3\%, and 44.6\% more LUTs, registers, and slices than VR-bp-c, respectively. However, it achieves the same operating frequency as VR-nobp-c, which has no branch prediction mechanism.
VexRiscv implements \textit{Decompressor} at the IF stage because it has only decoding logic that supports 32-bit instructions. We analyzed the critical path of VexRiscv. As a result, in VR-nobp-c, we confirmed the path that includes \textit{Decompressor} became a critical path and caused a significant decrease in operating frequency. In VR-bp-c, the path for calculating the PC value, including the branch prediction mechanism, became a critical path. On the other hand, RVP-c performs the decoding of 16-bit instructions in parallel to the 32-bit instructions, thus minimizing the effect of decoding 16-bit instructions on the operating frequency. As RVP, the critical path is the path in the branch prediction mechanism.
By comparing RVP-c and RVP-c-buf, it can be seen that the proposed fetch unit consumes more resources and achieves a higher operating frequency than the buffering mechanism. Since the critical path of RVP-c-buf contains the control logic for the buffering mechanism, it is necessary to add one pipeline stage to improve the operating frequency.
\subsubsection{The results of Dhrystone and CoreMark}
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[clip,width=\linewidth]{fig/graph-embenchc.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The graphs of the IPC of each processor executing Embench where 64KB memories are used.}
\label{fig:graph-embenchc}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table}[hbt]
\begin{center}
\caption{The evaluation results of operating frequency, Dhrystone MIPS and CoreMark value where 32KB memories are used.}
\begin{tabular}[t]{|l|r|r|r|r|} \hline
& RVP-c & RVP-c-buf & VR-nobp-c & VR-bp-c \\ \hline
Freq[MHz] & 150 & 125 & 145 & 120 \\ \hline
DMIPS & \bf172.4 & 139.1 & 116.4 & 121.0 \\ \hline
DMIPS/MHz & 1.149 & 1.113 & 0.803 & 1.009 \\ \hline
DMIPS ratio & 1.425 & 1.150 & 0.962 & 1.000 \\ \hline
CoreMark & \bf168.3 & 138.2 & 114.5 & 119.2 \\ \hline
CoreMark/MHz & 1.122 & 1.105 & 0.789 & 0.994 \\ \hline
CoreMark ratio & 1.412 & 1.159 & 0.961 & 1.000 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:eval32kb}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Table \ref{tab:eval32kb} shows the operating frequency and the result of executing Dhrystone\cite{Dhrystone} and CoreMark\cite{coremark} of each processor where 32KB instruction memory and data memory are used. It is the minimum size that can store the benchmark programs, so we set the memory size 32KB. Note that each processor does not have a timer function, so the values in the table are calculated from the number of all calculation cycles and the number of executed instructions. The original value in the console output is higher than these values.
The source code of Dhrystone is published as riscv-tests\cite{riscvtests}. The option \textit{NUMBER\_OF\_RUNS} for the number of loops was set to 10000. In this case, the number of executed instructions is 4,526,099. The source code of CoreMark is released for RISC-V\cite{riscvcoremark}. The option \textit{ITERATIONS} for the number of loops was set to 10. In this case, the number of executed instructions is 7,346,906.
The row of DMIPS ratio and CoreMark ratio is the value where VR-bp-c is normalized as 1. From this result, it can be seen that RVP-c achieves 42.5\% and 41.2\% higher performance than VR-bp-c when executing Dhrystone and CoreMark, respectively. The values of DMIPS/MHz and CoreMark/MHz of RVP-c are higher than that of RVP-c-buf, which shows that the proposed fetch unit is more efficient than the buffering method. The difference in DMIPS/MHz and CoreMark/MHz values of RVP-c-buf and VR-bp-c is caused by the difference in branch prediction accuracy between gshare and bimodal.
\subsubsection{The results of Embench}
\begin{table}[hbt]
\begin{center}
\caption{The evaluation results of operating frequency, Embench average IPC where 64KB memories are used.}
\begin{tabular}[t]{|l|r|r|r|r|} \hline
& RVP-c & RVP-c-buf & VR-nobp-c & VR-bp-c \\ \hline
Freq[MHz] & 135 & 125 & 145 & 120 \\ \hline
Average IPC & \bf0.857 & 0.846 & 0.649 & 0.795 \\ \hline
Average hit rate & 0.788 & 0.798 & N/A & 0.779 \\ \hline
Performance & 115.7 & 105.7 & 94.1 & 95.4 \\ \hline
Performance ratio & \bf1.213 & 1.108 & 0.987 & 1.000 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:eval64kb}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Figure \ref{fig:graph-embenchc} shows the IPC of each processor executing each Embench program.\cite{embench} The dark-gray bars, the light-gray bars, the dark-orange bars and the light-orange bars are the IPC of VR-nobp-c ,VR-bp-c, RVP-c and RVP-c-buf, respectively. RVP-c achieves the highest IPC in most benchmark programs, but VR-bp-c in \textit{statemete} and RVP-c-buf in \textit{minver} achieve the highest IPC.
Table \ref{tab:eval64kb} shows the operating frequency where 64KB instruction memory and data memory are used, the evaluation results of average IPC and average branch accuracy obtained by Verilog simulation. It is the minimum size that can store the benchmark programs, so we set the memory size 64KB. The row of Performance in this table is the value obtained by multiplying the operating frequency by IPC, and the bottom row is the Performance value where VR-bp-c is normalized as 1. From this result, it can be seen that RVP-c achieves 21.3\% higher performance than VR-bp-c when executing Embench.
The branch prediction mechanism of RVP-c and RVP-c-buf has the same structure, but the branch prediction accuracy is different because the update timing of BTB and PHT may differ due to \textit{fetch miss}. Although RVP-buf-c achieves higher branch prediction accuracy, RVP-c achieves higher IPC because of \textit{fetch miss} in the buffering mechanism. This result shows that the fetch unit of RVP-c is efficient.
\section{Discussion}
The proposed instruction fetch unit relies on the branch prediction mechanism being pipelined. If you want to achieve a high operating frequency when the branch prediction mechanism is not pipelined, you need to double the BTB entry width or prepare two BTBs. If it is not necessary to achieve a high operating frequency, it is possible to place an adder immediately after the BTB and use that value as a candidate for PC\_2. However, this path is likely to become a critical path.
If the RAM installed in the target FPGA has only one I/O port, it is necessary to divide the instruction memory into two banks like the gray instruction cache. {\bf The key idea of the proposed instruction fetch unit is that the value of the program counter and the value obtained by adding a constant to the value of the program counter can always be calculated in parallel as long as the RISC-V instruction set is used.} Therefore, the proposed instruction fetch unit can also be applied to the instruction cache architecture.
The performance improvement of RVP-c compared to VR-bp-c is reasonable, referring to Pollack’s law, which describes the relationship between hardware resources and processor performance. The empirical improvement, according to the law, is 20.2\%, which is proportional to the square root of the 44.6\% increase in slice usage compared to VR-bp-c. The obtained each performance improvement is bigger than this empirical improvement.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we proposed the efficient instruction fetch unit supporting RISC-V compressed instructions and RVCoreP-32IC using this unit.
The most important point to consider when supporting the compressed instructions is that 32-bit instructions and 16-bit instructions coexist in the instruction memory and are arranged without gaps. By this point, an instruction fetch unit that supports the compressed instructions should be efficient to avoid a significant decrease in processor performance.
The proposed instruction fetch unit always fetches the entry of the instruction memory indicated by the program counter and the next entry in parallel. The proposed processor RVCoreP-32IC uses this unit to support RISC-V compressed instructions.
We compared the proposed processor RVCoreP-32IC with related research VexRiscv in Verilog HDL simulation and implementation on FPGA. Using the proposed instruction fetch unit, DMIPS, CoreMark value, and Embench value of RVCoreP-32IC achieved 42.5\%, 41.1\%, and 21.3\% higher performance than VexRiscv, respectively.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran
|
\section{Preliminaries}\label{sec:prelim}
A projection-valued measure (PVM) $\mathcal{P}$ (von Neumann measurement, also called a `sharp measurement') with $n$ outcomes on a $d$-dimensional Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{S}$ is characterised by a set of $n$ projection operators $\{P (i), \; i=1,\ldots,n\}$, such that $\sum_{i=1}^{n}P(i) = I_{\mathcal{H}_{S}}$. The probability of obtaining outcome $i$, when measuring state $\rho \in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_{S})$ is given by $p(i) = \text{Tr}[\rho P (i)]$. Here and in what follows, $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_{S})$ denotes the set of bounded linear operators acting on the Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{S}$.
A positive-operator-valued measure (POVM) $\mathcal{M}$ with $n$ outcomes on a $d$-dimensional Hilbert space space $\mathcal{H}_{S}$ is described by a set of $n$ positive semi definite operators, called \emph{effects}, $\{E (j), j = 1,2,\ldots, n\}$, satisfying ,
\[I_{\mathcal{H}_{S}} \geq E(j) \geq 0, \forall j; \; \sum_{j=1}^{n}E (j) = I_{\mathcal{H}_{S}}. \]
For any state $\rho \in \mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H}_S)$, the probability of obtaining outcome $j$ is given by $p(j) = tr[\rho E(j)]$, where $\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H}_S)$ denotes the state space of the system. For projective measurements, there is a canonical description of the post-measurement state corresponding to a given outcome ($i$) in terms of the corresponding projection operator, via the map $\rho \rightarrow \frac{P(i)\rho P(i)}{\text{Tr}(\rho P(i))}$. There is no such canonical association for POVMs. For example, one set of measurement operators that maybe associated with the POVM $\mathcal{M}=\{E(j)\}$ is the set $\{A (j)\}$ satisfying $E (j) = A (j)^{\dagger}A(j)$, so that the post-measurement state is obtained as $\rho \rightarrow \frac{A(j)\rho A^{\dagger} (j)}{\text{Tr}[A(j)\rho A^{\dagger} (j)]}$. This implementation of the POVM $\mathcal{M}$ is often referred to as the \emph{L\"uders instrument}~\cite{Heinosaari_Ziman}.
Two POVMs $\mathcal{M}_{1}=\{E_{1}(j_{1})\vert j_{1} = 1,\ldots,n_{1}\}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{2}=\{E_{2}(j_{2})\vert j = 1,\ldots,n_{2}\}$ are said to be jointly measurable if there exists a \emph{joint} measurement $\mathcal{M}=\{ E(i,j)\}$, such that the POVMs $\mathcal{M}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{2}$ can be realised as the marginals of the POVM $\mathcal{M}$. In other words, the elements $\{E_{i}(j_{1})\}$ and $\{E_{2}(j_{2})\}$ can be realised as,
\[ E_{1}(j_{1}) = \sum_{j_{2}=1}^{n_{2}} E(j_{1},j_{2}); \; E_{2}(j_{2})= \sum_{j_{1}=1}^{n_{1}} E(j_{1},j_{2}), \forall j_{1},j_{2}.\]
Naimark's theorem~\cite{Peres, paris_Naimark} states that every POVM on a $d$ dimensional Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{S}$ can be realised as a projection-valued measure (PVM) on an extended Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}'$ of dimension $d'> d$. Such an extension may be obtained using a direct sum or a direct product construction. Specifically, let $\mathcal{P} = \{P(i)\}$ denote the PVM acting on the space $\mathcal{H}'$, obtained via a Naimark extension of the POVM $\mathcal{M} = \{M (i)\}$. One approach to construct the elements of the PVM $\mathcal{P}$ is by using a direct sum extension of the space $\mathcal{H}_{S}$ to the space $\mathcal{H}' \equiv \mathcal{H}_{S} \oplus \mathcal{H}_{A}$, such that,
\[ \text{Tr}[ E (i) \rho] = \text{Tr} \left[ P(i)(\rho \oplus \mathbf{0} )\right], \forall i, \; \forall \rho \in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_S), \]
where $\mathbf{0}$ is the null matrix of dimension $(d_{A}-d)$.
Alternately, we could use the so-called \emph{canonical} Naimark extension, where the POVM is realised via a projective measurement on an ancilla system, after the system and the ancilla interact via a suitable unitary. Let $\mathcal{H}_{A}$ denote the Hilbert space of the ancilla system and suppose the ancilla starts out in the state $\sigma_{A} \in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_{A})$, where $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_{A})$ denotes the set of bounded linear operators on the Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{A}$. Then, by Naimark dilation theorem, there exists a PVM $\mathcal{P}=\{P(i)\}$ acting on $\mathcal{H}\otimes \mathcal{H}_{A}$, such that,
\begin{equation}
\text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}} [\rho M (i)] = \text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}\otimes \mathcal{H}_{A}}\left[P(i) (\rho \otimes \sigma_{A}) \right],
\end{equation}
for all states $\rho \in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_{S})$.
As evident in the case of direct sum based Nairmark extenstion the smallest dimension of the ancilla systems needed for such a tensor product Naimark extension is known to be $d_{A} = \sum_{i=1}^{n} r_{i} - d$, where $r_{i}$ is the rank of the $i^{\rm th}$ POVM effect~\cite{ancilla_dim}.
The Naimark extension is not unique and the PVM associated with a specific POVM depends on the dimensions of the ancilla system $\mathcal{H}_{A}$ as well as the fiducial state that the ancilla systems starts out in. In this note, we use the canonical, tensor-product form of the Naimark extension in our proofs. However, our results can equivalently be proved using the direct sum form as well.
\subsection{Compatibility of quantum measurements} \label{sec:2povms}
We next review some of the known results on the compatibility of a set of quantum measurements. First, we note the well known result on the joint measurability of a set of PVMs, originally proved in~\cite{heinosaari08, rkunj_2014}.
\begin{lemma}[Compatibility of PVMs]
A set of PVMs $\Pi = \{\mathcal{P}_1,\mathcal{P}_2, \ldots, \mathcal{P}_{N}\}$ is compatible, iff the PVMs $\{\mathcal{P}_{j}\}$ in that set are pairwise commuting. Furthermore, there exists a unique joint measurement which is a projective measurment. \label{lem:pvm}
\end{lemma}
Such a necessary and sufficient condition for a pair of PVMs ($N=2$)~\cite{beneduci, lahiti} in turn implies the following necessary and sufficient condition for a pair of POVMs to be compatible, originally proved in~\cite{beneduci, kiukas,Haapasalo} using the Naimark dilation theorem. We rewrite the proof here, in terms of the tensor product Naimark extension, in preparation for our main result on the compatibility of a set of $N$ POVMs.
\begin{theorem}
Two POVMs $\mathcal{M}_{1}, \mathcal{M}_{2}$ are compatible if and only if there exists at least one Naimark extension of both POVMs to a pair of commuting PVMs. \label{thm:2povms}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Consider a pair of POVMs $\mathcal{M}_1=\{E_{1}(j_{1})\, \vert \, j_{1} \in [1, n_{1}] \}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{2}=\{E_{2}(j_{2}) \, \vert \, j_{2} \in [1,n_{2}]\}$ that are compatible, where we use the notation $[1,n_{i}]$ to denote the set $\{1,2,\ldots,n_{i}\}$. By definition, there exists a joint POVM $\mathcal{M}=\{E (j_{1},j_{2})\}$ such that $\sum_{j_{2}}E(j_{1},j_{2})=E_{1}(j_{2})$ and $\sum_{j_{1}}E(j_{1},j_{2}) = E_{2}(j_{1})$, for all $j_{1}, j_{2}$. Let $\mathcal{P}=\{P (j_{1},j_{2})\}$ be the projection-valued operation obtained via a Naimark extension of $\mathcal{M}$ using the fiducial ancilla state $\sigma_{A} \in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_{A})$, so that, for all $j_{1} \in [1,n_{1}]$, $j_{2} \in [1,n_{2}]$,
\begin{equation}
\text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}\otimes \mathcal{H}_{A}}\left[ P(j_{1},j_{2}) (\rho\otimes \sigma_{A}) \right] =\text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}} [ \rho E(j_{1},j_{2}) ].
\end{equation}
Now we note that,
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}\otimes \mathcal{H}_{A}} \left[ \sum_{j_{2}=1}^{n_{2}} P(j_{1},j_{2}) (\rho\otimes \sigma_{A}) \right] \nonumber \\
&=& \text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}} \left[ \rho \sum_{j_{2}=1}^{n_{2}} E( j_{1},j_{2} ) \right] = \text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}} [\rho E_{1}(j_{1}) ]. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, $\mathcal{P}_{1} = \{ P_{1}(j_{1}) = \sum_{j_{2}=1}^{n_{2}} P (j_{1},j_{2}) \}$ is the PVM obtained using a Naimark extension of $\mathcal{M}_{1}$, with the same fiducial ancilla state $\sigma_{A} \in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_{A})$. Similarly, $\mathcal{P}_2 = \{P_{2}(j_{2}) = \sum_{j_{1}=1}^{n_{1}} P(j_{1},j_{2})\}$ is PVM obtained via a Naimark extension of $\mathcal{M}_{2}$, using the same ancilla state $\sigma_{A} \in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_{A})$, as shown below.
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}\otimes \mathcal{H}_{A}}\left[ \sum_{j_{1}=1}^{n_{1}} P ( j_{1}, j_{2} ) (\rho\otimes\sigma_{A}) \right] \nonumber \\
&=& \text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}} [ \rho\sum_{j_{1}=1}^{n_{1}} E (j_{1},j_{2}) ] =\text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}}[ \rho E_{2}(j_{2}) ]. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Since $\mathcal{P}_2 = \{ P_{2}(j_{2}) = \sum_{j_{1}}P_(j_{2},j_{2}) \}$ and $\mathcal{P}_{1} =\{ P_{1}(j_{1}) = \sum_{j_{2}} P (j_{1}, j_{2})\}$, the two PVMs $\mathcal{P}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{P}_{2}$ are compatible, via the joint observable $\mathcal{P}=\{P (j_{1},j_{2})\}$. Hence, by Lemma~\ref{lem:pvm} they commute.
We now prove the converse. Suppose two POVMs $\mathcal{M}_1= \{E_{1} (j_{1}) \}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{2} = \{E_{2}(j_{2})\}$ can be extended to a pair of commuting PVMs $\mathcal{P}_{1} = \{P_{1}(j_{1})\}$ and $\mathcal{P}_{2} = \{P_{2}(j_{2})\}$ respectively, via Naimark extensions using the same ancilla state $ \sigma_{A} \in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_{A})$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:pvm}, there exists a PVM $\mathcal{P}=\{P (j_{1},j_{2})\}$ such that $\mathcal{P}_{2} \sim \{P_{2}(j_{2})=\sum_{j_{1}} P(j_{1},j_{2})\}$ and $\mathcal{P}_{1} \sim \{P_{1}(j_{1})=\sum_{j_{2}}P (j_{1},j_{2}) \}$. Now, we construct the POVM $\mathcal{M}$ whose effects are obtained as
\begin{equation}
\text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{A}}\left[ (\rho\otimes\sigma_{A}) P(j_{1},j_{2}) \right]=\text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}}[ \rho M (j_{1},j_{2}) ].
\end{equation}
It is easy to check that $\mathcal{M}$ is indeed the joint measurement for the POVMs $\mathcal{M}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{2}$. Specifically,
\begin{eqnarray}
\text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}}[ \rho E_{1}(j_{1})] &=& \text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}\otimes \mathcal{H}_{A}} [ (\rho\otimes \sigma_{A}) P_{1}(j_{1}) ]\nonumber\\
&=& \text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}\otimes \mathcal{H}_{A}}[ (\rho\otimes\sigma_{A}) \sum_{j_{2}}P(j_{1},j_{2}) ] \nonumber \\
&=& \sum_{j_{2}}\text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}\otimes \mathcal{H}_{A}} \left[ (\rho\otimes\sigma_{A}) P(j_{1},j_{2}) \right] \nonumber \\
&=& \sum_{j_{2}} \text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}}[ \rho E(j_{1},j_{2}) ], \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
and,
\begin{eqnarray}
\text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}}[ \rho E_{2}(j_{2}) ] &=& \text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}\otimes \mathcal{H}_{A}}[ (\rho\otimes\sigma_{A}) P_{2}(j_{2})]\nonumber\\
&=& \text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}\otimes \mathcal{H}_{A}}[ (\rho\otimes\sigma_{A}) \sum_{j_{1}} P(j_{1},j_{2}) ] \nonumber \\
&=& \sum_{j_{1}}\text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}\otimes \mathcal{H}_{A}}[ (\rho\otimes\sigma_{A}) P(j_{1},j_{2}) ] \nonumber \\
&=& \sum_{j_{1}} \text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}}[ \rho E(j_{1},j_{2}) ] . \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Hence, $\mathcal{M}_{1} =\{E_{1}(j_{1})\}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{2}=\{E_{2}(j_{2})\}$ are compatible, with the joint POVM given by $\mathcal{M}=\{E(j_{1},j_{2}) \}$.
\end{proof}
We note here that one crucial step in the necessary and
sufficient condition for the compatibility of a pair of
POVMs is the existence of a single Naimark extension -- characterised by a specific ancilla space $\mathcal{H}_{A}$ and a fixed
ancilla state $\sigma_{A}$ -- that extends both the POVMs $\mathcal{M}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{2}$ to a pair of commuting PVMs.
\section{Incompatibility of a set of $N \geq 2$ quantum measurements}\label{sec:Npovms}
We are now ready to state and prove our first result on the incompatibility of a set of POVMs. Specifically, we consider a set of $N$ POVMs, denoted as $\chi = \{\mathcal{M}_{i} \, \vert\, i=1, 2, \ldots, N\}$, acting on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{S}$. Let
\[ \{E_i(j_i) \, \vert \, I_{\mathcal{H}_{S}} \geq E_i(j_i)\geq 0 \} ,\]
denote the effects corresponding to the POVM $\mathcal{M}_{i}$, $\forall i \in \{1,\ldots,N\}$, such that,
\[ \sum_{j_i =1}^{n_{1}} E_i (j_i) = I_{\mathcal{H}_{S}}, E_i(j_i)\in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_{S})~\forall j_i \in [1,n_{i}]. \]
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:N_povm}
The set $\chi = \{\mathcal{M}_{i} \, \vert \, i \in [1,N]\}$ is compatible iff there exists a single Naimark extension -- characterised by a specific ancilla Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{A}$ and a fixed ancilla state $\sigma_{A}$ -- by means of which the POVMs $\{\mathcal{M}_{i}\}$ in the set $\chi$ can be realised as a set of pairwise commuting PVMs on the extended Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{S} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{A}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We first show the sufficient condition that if the set $\chi$ of $N$ POVMs $\{\mathcal{M}_{i} \vert \, i=1,2,\ldots, N\}$ is compatible, it can be realised as a set of pairwise commuting PVMs on an extended Hilbert space.
By definition, there exists a joint POVM $\mathcal{M}$ with effects
\[ \{ E(j_{1}, j_{2}, \ldots, j_{N}) \, \vert \, I_{\mathcal{H}_{S}} \geq E(j_{1}, j_{2}, \ldots, j_{N}) \geq 0 \}, \]
satisfying $\sum_{j_{1}, j_{2}, \ldots j_{N}} E(j_{1}, j_{2}, \ldots, j_{N}) = I_{\mathcal{H}_{S}}$. The effects of the individual POVMs $\mathcal{M}_{i}$ are indeed obtained as the marginals of the effects of the joint measurement as follows.
\begin{eqnarray}
E_{i}(j_{i}) &=& \sum_{j_{1}=1}^{n_{1}}\ldots\sum_{j_{i-1}=1}^{n_{i-1}}\sum_{j_{i+1}=1}^{n_{i+1}}\ldots\sum_{j_{N}=1}^{n_{N}} E(j_{1}, \ldots, j_{N}) , \nonumber \\
&& \; \; \forall \; j_{i} \in \{1,2,\ldots,n_{i}\}, \; i \in \{1,2,\ldots,N\}. \label{eq:povm_marginal}
\end{eqnarray}
By Naimark dilation theorem, we can find a projective measurement $\mathcal{P} $ acting on the extended space $ \mathcal{H}_{S}\otimes \mathcal{H}_{A} $, characterized by the set of projectors $\{ P(j_{1}, j_{2}, \ldots, j_{N})\}$. For all $j_{i} \in [1, n_{i}]$, the elements of the PVM $\mathcal{P}$ are related to the effects of the POVM $\mathcal{M}$ via a fixed ancilla state $\sigma_{A} \in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_{A})$, as,
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}\otimes \mathcal{H}_{A}} [ P (j_{1}, j_{2}, \ldots, j_{N}) (\rho\otimes\sigma_{A})] \nonumber \\
&=& \text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}} [ E(j_{1}, j_{2}, \ldots, j_{N}) \rho ], \; \; \forall \, \rho \in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_{S}). \label{eq:naimark}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the projective elements of the measurement $\mathcal{P}$ satisfy $\sum_{j_{1}, j_{2}, \ldots, j_{N}} P(j_{1}, j_{2}, \ldots, j_{N}) = I_{\mathcal{H}_{S}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{A}}$ and $P(j_{1}, j_{2}, \ldots, j_{N})P(k_{1}, k_{2}, \ldots, k_{N}) = \delta_{j_{1}k_{1}}\delta_{j_{2}k_{2}}\ldots\delta_{j_{N}k_{N}}P(j_{1}, j_{2}, \ldots, j_{N})$
Now we define operators $\{P_{i}(j_{i)}\}$ to be the marginals of the projectors $P (j_{1}, j_{2}, \ldots, j_{N})$, obtained as,
\begin{eqnarray}
&& P_{i}(j_{i}) \nonumber \\
&=& \sum_{j_{1}=1}^{n_{1}}\ldots\sum_{j_{i-1}=1}^{n_{i-1}}\sum_{j_{i+1}=1}^{n_{i+1}}\ldots\sum_{j_{N}=1}^{n_{N}} P (j_{1}, j_{2}, \ldots, j_{N}), \nonumber \\
&& \quad \quad \forall j_{i} \; \in \{1,2,\ldots,n_{i}\}, \; i \in \{1,2,\ldots,N\}. \label{eq:pvm1}
\end{eqnarray}
We first note that,
\begin{equation}
\sum_{j_{i}=1}^{n_{i}} P_{i}(j_{i}) = \sum_{j_{1}, j_{2}, \ldots , j_{N}} P (j_{1}, j_{2}, \ldots, j_{N}) = I_{\mathcal{H}_{S}\otimes \mathcal{H}_{A}}, \label{eq:proj}
\end{equation}
for every $i=1,2,\ldots, N$. Furthermore, it is easy to see that the operators $\{P_{i}(j_{i})\}$ constitute a set of pairwise orthogonal projectors.
\begin{eqnarray}
&& P_{i}(j_{i})P_{l}(k_{l}) \nonumber \\
&=& \sum_{ \{j_{m}\}\setminus j_{i}} P (j_{1}, \ldots, j_{N}) \sum_{\{k_{r}\} \setminus k_{l}} P (k_{1}, \ldots, k_{N}) \nonumber \\
&=& \sum_{ \{j_{m}\}\setminus j_{i},\{k_{r}\} \setminus k_{l} } \delta_{j_{1}k_{1}}\ldots \delta_{j_{N}k_{N}} \, P (j_{1}, \ldots, j_{N}) \nonumber \\
&=& \delta_{ij}\delta_{j_{i}k_{l}}P_{i}(j_{i}),
\end{eqnarray}
where we have used $\sum_{ \{j_{m}\}\setminus j_{i}}$ to denote the sum over all the elements of the set $\{ j_{1}, j_{2}, \ldots, j_{N}\}$, excluding $j_{i}$.
In other words, for each $i \in [1,N]$, the set of projectors $\mathcal{P}_{i} = \{P_{i}(j_{i}) \vert j_{i} = 1,2,\ldots, n_{i}\}$, constitutes a projective measurement on the extended space $\mathcal{H}_{S}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{A}$. The fact that the operators $\{P_{i}(j_{i})\}$ are pairwise orthogonal implies that the corresponding PVMs $\{\mathcal{P}_{i} \, \vert \, i=1,2,\ldots, N\}$ are indeed compatible, as noted in Lemma~\ref{lem:pvm}. Finally, we observe that the compatible PVMs $\{\mathcal{P}_{i}\}$ constructed as marginals of the PVM $\mathcal{P}$ are indeed obtained as Naimark dilations of the POVMs $\{\mathcal{M}_{i}\}$, as desired.
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}\otimes \mathcal{H}_{A}}[ P_{i}(j_{i}) (\rho\otimes \sigma_{A})] \nonumber \\
&=& \sum_{ \{j_{m}\}\setminus j_{i}} \text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}\otimes \mathcal{H}_{A}} [ P (j_{1}, j_{2}, \ldots, j_{N}) (\rho\otimes \sigma_{A}) ] \nonumber \\
&=& \sum_{ \{j_{m}\}\setminus j_{i}} \text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}} [ E(j_{1}, j_{2}, \ldots, j_{N}) \rho ] \nonumber \\
&=& \text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}} [ E_{i} (j_{i}) \rho ] .
\end{eqnarray}
We now prove the converse. Suppose the set $\chi = \{\mathcal{M}_{i}\}$ of POVMs is such that there exists a set $\Pi = \{\mathcal{P}_{i}\}$ of compatible Naimark extensions acting on the extended space $\mathcal{H}_{S}\otimes \mathcal{H}_{A}$. Compatibility of the PVMs $\{\mathcal{P}_{i}\}$ implies that they all pairwise commute. In other words, if $\{P_{i}(j_{i})\}$ denotes the set of projectors associated with the Naimark extension $\mathcal{P}_{i}$, these projectors satisfy, $\forall j_{i} \in \{1,2,\ldots,n_{i}\}$ and $ k_{l} \in \{1,2,\ldots,n_{l}\}$,
\[ [P_{i}(j_{i}), P_{l}(k_{l}) ] = 0, \, \forall i, l \in [1,N] . \]
We now need to check that the set $\chi$ is a set of compatible POVMs.
We first note that compatibility of the PVMs $\Pi$ demands that all the projective measurements $\mathcal{P}_{1}, \mathcal{P}_{2}, \ldots, \mathcal{P}_{N}$ act on the states of one and the same extended Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{S}\otimes \mathcal{H}_{A}$. Further, for each $i \in [1,N]$, there exists a fixed state $\sigma_{A}^{i} \in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_{A})$ such that, for all $j_{i} \in [1, n_{i}]$,
\[\text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}} [E_{i}(j_{i}) \rho] = \text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}\otimes \mathcal{H}_{A}}[P_{i}(j_{i}) \left( \rho \otimes\sigma_{A}^{i}\right)], \, \forall \, \rho \in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_{S}). \]
It is important to note here the states $\{\sigma_{A}^{i}\}$ are, in general, distinct density operators on the ancilla system.
The fact that the projective measurements $\{\mathcal{P}_{i}\}$ are compatible, implies that there exists a joint projective measurement $\mathcal{P} \equiv \{P(j_{1}, \ldots,j_{N})\}$, with projective elements satisfying,
\[\sum_{\{j_{m}\}\setminus j_{i}} P(j_{1}, j_{2}, \ldots, j_{N}) = P_{i}(j_{i}) , \]
for $j_{i}\in [1, n_{i}]$, for all $i \in [1,N]$. We then use the elements of this joint PVM on $\mathcal{H}_{S}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{A}$ to define a set of operators acting on the space $\mathcal{H}_{S}$, as,
\begin{equation}
E^{(i)}(j_{1}, j_{2},\ldots, j_{N}) = \text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{A}} [P(j_{1}, \ldots, j_{N}) \sigma_{A}^{i}], \label{eq:joint}
\end{equation}
for $j_{l}\in [1, n_{l}]$ and for all $i \in [1,N]$. Clearly the operators $\{E^{(i)}(j_{1}, j_{2},\ldots, j_{N})\}$ are positive, since,
\begin{eqnarray}
&& E^{(i)}(j_{1}, j_{2},\ldots, j_{N}) = \text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{A}} [P(j_{1}, \ldots, j_{N}) \sigma_{A}^{i}] \nonumber \\
&=& \text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{A}} [P(j_{1}, \ldots, j_{N}) (I_{\mathcal{H}_{S}}\otimes\sigma_{A}^{i}) P(j_{1}, \ldots, j_{N})] \nonumber \\
&\geq & 0. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Furthermore, the operators defined in Eq.~\ref{eq:joint} satisfy,
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \sum_{j_{1}, j_{2}, \ldots, j_N} E^{(i)} (j_{1},j_{2}, \dots, j_{N} ) \nonumber \\
&=& \sum_{j_{1}, j_{2}, \ldots, j_{N}}\text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{A}}\left[ (I_{\mathcal{H}_{S}}\otimes\sigma_{A}^{i}) P ( j_{1}, j_{2}, \ldots, j_{N}) \right] = I_{\mathcal{H}_{S}}, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where the last equality follows from Eq.~\eqref{eq:proj}. Therefore, for each $i \in [1,N]$, $\mathcal{E}^{(i)} = \{E^{(i)}( j_{1},j_{2}, \dots, j_{N})\}$ constitutes a valid POVM on the space $\mathcal{H}_{S}$.
For any state $\rho \in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_{S})$, the POVM elements $E^{(i)}( j_{1},j_{2}, \dots, j_{N})$ satisfy,
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}}[\rho E^{(i)}(j_{1},\ldots, j_{N} )] \nonumber \\
&=& \text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}}[\rho \, (\text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{A}} [\sigma_{A}^{i} P(j_{1}, \ldots, j_{N})]) \, ]\nonumber \\
&=& \text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}\otimes \mathcal{H}_{A}} [ (\rho\otimes\sigma^{i}_{A}) P (j_{1}, \ldots, j_{N})] .\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
This implies that the marginals of the POVM elements defined in Eq.~\ref{eq:joint} satisfy,
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}} \left[ \sum_{ \{j_{m}\}\setminus j_{l}} E^{(i)}(j_{1},\ldots, j_{N}) \rho \right] \nonumber \\
&=& \text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}\otimes \mathcal{H}_{A}} \left[ (\rho\otimes\sigma^{i}_{A}) \sum_{ \{j_{m}\}\setminus j_{l}} P(j_{1}, \ldots, j_{N}) \right] \nonumber \\
&=& \text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}\otimes \mathcal{H}_{A}} [ (\rho\otimes\sigma^{i}_{A}) P_{l}(j_{l}) ] \nonumber\\
&=& \text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}} [ E^{(i)}_{l}(j_{l}) \rho] , \forall \rho \in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_{S}) . \label{eq:marginal1}
\end{eqnarray}
Here we have defined the operators,
\begin{eqnarray}
E^{(i)}_{l}(j_{l}) &=& \text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{A}} [ P_{l}(j_{l}) (I_{\mathcal{H}_{S}}\otimes \sigma^{i}_{A})], \nonumber \\
&& \; \forall \, i,l \in [1,N], \, j_{l} \in [1, n_{l}]. \label{eq:marginal2}
\end{eqnarray}
It is easy to check that the operators $E^{(i)}_{l}(j_{l}) \geq 0$, for all $i,l \in [1,N], j_{l} \in [1, n_{l}]$. Furthermore,
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \sum_{j_{l}=1}^{n_{l}} E^{(i)}_{l}(j_{l}) \nonumber \\
&=& \text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{A}} [ \sum_{j_{l}=1}^{n_{l}} P_{l}(j_{l}) (I_{\mathcal{H}_{S}}\otimes \sigma^{i}_{A})] \nonumber \\
&=& \text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{A}} [I_{\mathcal{H}_{S}}\otimes \sigma^{i}_{A}] = I_{\mathcal{H}_{S}} , \, \forall \, i,l\in [1,N].
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, the set of positive operators $\{E^{(i)}_{l}(j_{l}) \vert j_{l} \in [1,n_{l}] \}$, constitutes a POVM $\mathcal{E}^{(i)}_{j}$ on $\mathcal{H}_{S}$, for each $i,l \in [1,N]$. Note that when $i=l$,
\[ E^{(i)}_{i}(j_{i}) = \text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{A}} [\sigma_{A}^{i} P_{i}(j_{i})] = E_{i}(j_{i}),\]
and we recover the elements of the POVMs in the set $\chi \equiv \{\mathcal{M}_{i} \}$.
However, when $i \neq l$, the operators $E^{(i)}_{l}(j_{l})$ are not the same as the POVM elements $\{E_{i}(j_{i})\}$.
We now consider two cases.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] Suppose the ancilla states $\sigma_{A}^{i}$ are all the same, that is, $\sigma_{A}^{1}=\sigma_{A}^{2} = \ldots = \sigma_{A}^{N} = \sigma_{A}$(say). Then, it follows from the definition in Eq.~\ref{eq:marginal2} that,
\[ E_{l}^{(1)}(j_{l}) = E_{l}^{(2)}(j_{l}) = \ldots = E_{l}^{(N)}(j_{l}). \] Therefore, $E_{l}^{(i)}(j_{l}) = E_{l}^{(l)}(j_{l})$, independent of $i$. As already noted above, $E_{l}^{(l)}(j_{l}) = E_{l}(j_{l})$ are indeed the POVM elements corresponding to the measurements in the set $\chi = \{\mathcal{M}_{l} \}$. In other words, the POVM $\mathcal{E}$ comprising the elements defined in Eq.~\ref{eq:joint} is indeed the joint measurement corresponding to the POVMs in the set $\chi = \{\mathcal{M}_{i}\}$, thus showing that the set $\chi$ is indeed jointly measurable.
\item [(ii)] Suppose the ancilla states $\sigma_{A}^{i}$ are not the same, but distinct for each $i \in [1,N]$. In this case, it is not necessarily true that the POVMs $\{\mathcal{E}_{i}\}$ are jointly measurable, although they have compatible Naimark extensions.
\end{itemize}
Thus we have shown that even when there exist of compatible Naimark extensions corresponding to a set of POVMs, the POVMs are compatible \emph{only if} these compatible Naimark extensions are obtained using a single ancilla system and identical density operators on this ancilla system.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
It is worth noting here that related notion of \emph{joint dilatability} of a set of POVMs was introduced in \cite{jointmeas_graph}. A set of POVMs $\{\mathcal{M}_{i}, \, i=1,\ldots, N\}$ on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{S}$ is said to be jointly dilatable, if there exists an ancillary space $\mathcal{H}_{A}$ and a \emph{single} isometry $V : \mathcal{H}_{S} \rightarrow \mathcal{H}_{S} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{A}$ and a \emph{single} PVM $\mathcal{P}$ such that, the POVM effects satisfy $E_{i}(j_{i}) = \sum_{\{j_{k}\}\setminus j_{i}}V^{\dagger}P(j_{1}, j_{2}, \ldots, j_{N}) V $. From the definition, it follows that a set of POVMs is jointly measurable if and only if it is jointly dilatable.
We now show that our result in Theorem~\ref{thm:N_povm} provides a stronger, and arguably more useful, characterization of joint measurability than the observation in~\cite{jointmeas_graph}. To this end, we first recast the notion of joint dilatability in our formalism. Suppose $V$ be an isometry which extends a given POVM effect $E \in {\cal B}({\cal H}_S)$ to a projector $P \in {\cal B}({\cal H}_S \otimes {\cal H}_A)$ in such a way that, $V^{\dagger}PV=E$. Then,
\begin{align}
\text{Tr}(\rho E)&=\text{Tr}(V^{\dagger}PV\rho)\nonumber\\
&=\text{Tr}(P(U\rho\otimes\sigma U^{\dagger}))\label{uni_delati}
\end{align}
for some unitary $U\in\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_S\otimes\mathcal{H}_A)$ and ancilla state $\sigma\in\mathcal{H}_A$. It is easy to see that
\begin{equation}
\text{Tr}(V^{\dagger}PV\rho)=\text{Tr}(P(\rho\otimes\sigma)),
\end{equation}
if and only if $[P,U]=0$. From the proof of Theorem~\eqref{thm:N_povm}, it is clear that in our case, we restrict ourselves to those isometries for which the corresponding unitary commutes with the projectors on extended Hilbert space and obtain the if and only if result on joint measurability. The fact that we use this restricted set makes the result in Theorem~\eqref{thm:N_povm} a stronger statement. Experimentally, this means that to implement the joint POVM of set of compatible observable, we just have to add an ancilla and implement a suitable PVM on it; we do not need to implement any joint unitary before the implementation of that PVM.
\end{remark}
While we have used the tensor product form for the Naimark extensions in proving our result, a similar argument works for Naimark extensions which are constructed by using the direct sum. From the proof of the necessary part of Theorem~\eqref{thm:N_povm}, we know that commutativity of any kind of Naimark extension implies compatibility, and, from the proof of sufficiency we get that for all compatible set of observables we always get a commuting \emph{canonical} (tensor product) Naimark extension. So, we conclude that for any set of observables, if a commuting common direct sum Naimark extension exists, then a commuting common canonical Naimark extension also exists. Therefore in some cases we can restrict our attention to the canonical Naimark extensions. For example, only the canonical form of the Naimark extension has been considered in \eqref{uni_delati} above.
In what follows, we will discuss a few examples to highlight the central aspect of our result, namely, the connection between compatibility and the existence of a single common Naimark extension.
\subsection{Examples}\label{sec:example}
The existence of a \emph{single common} Naimark extension -- characterised by a specific ancilla Hilbert space and a fixed ancilla state -- that extends all the POVMs in the set $\mathcal{X}$ to a set of commuting PVMs plays a crucial role in the proof of our necessary and sufficient condition for the compatibility of a set of POVMs. Here, we discuss three concrete examples of quantum measurements in $d=2$ to elucidate this aspect further, each individual example having its own significance.
\begin{example}[Commuting Naimark extensions for incompatible observables]
Consider the spin measurement along the $x$-direction of the Bloch sphere, characterized by the projectors $A_x=\{\ket{0}\bra{0},\ket{1}\bra{1}\}$ on a single-qubit space $\mathcal{H}_{S}$. One choice of Naimark extension of this observable is $\mathcal{P}_x = \{P_x, I-P_x \}$, where $P_x$ is a projector on a $4$-dimensional space $\mathcal{H}_{S}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{A}$, given by $P_{x} =\ket{00}\bra{00}+\ket{+1}\bra{+1}$. This Naimark dilation can be obtained by setting the ancilla system to the fiducial state $|0\rangle\langle 0|$, as seen below.
\[ \text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{A}} [ (\rho\otimes\ket{0}\bra{0} ) P_x ] =\text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}} [ \rho \ket{0}\bra{0}].\]
However, if we set the ancilla state to $\ket{1}\bra{1}$, we see that,
\[ \text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{A}} [ (\rho\otimes\ket{1}\bra{1}) P_x ] = \text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}} [\rho \ket{+}\bra{+}].\]
Thus, $\mathcal{P}_x$ is also a Naimark extension of the spin measurement along the $y$-direction, characterized by the projectors $A_y= \{\ket{+}\bra{+},\ket{-}\bra{-}\}$ if we assume the ancilla state to be $\ket{1}\bra{1}$. Since $A_{x}$ and $A_{y}$ have a common Naimark extension, clearly they admit commuting Naimark extensions, although $A_x$ and $A_y$ are not compatible. Therefore it is clear that Naimark extensions using different ancillas cannot be used to characterize compatibility or incompatibility.
\end{example}
Our next example shows that if we use same ancilla states for all observables one can indeed guarantee commutativity from compatibility and vice-versa. Here the principal system is a two-dimensional Hilbert space, whereas the ancilla is eight dimensional.
\begin{example}[Unsharp spin observables]
Consider the unsharp versions of the three observables $\sigma_x$, $\sigma_y$, $\sigma_z$ and with $\lambda$ denoting the unsharpness parameter. The POVM effects of these unsharp observables are,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi_{s}(1) &=& \lambda \ket{+}\bra{+} +(1-\lambda)\frac{I}{2}=\frac{\mathbb{I}+\lambda \sigma_{s}}{2} \nonumber \\
\Pi_{s}(2) &=& \lambda \ket{-}\bra{-} +(1-\lambda)\frac{I}{2}=\frac{\mathbb{I}-\lambda \sigma_{s}}{2},
\end{eqnarray}
where $s\in\{x,y,z\}$.
\end{example}
We know that the POVMs $\mathcal{M}_{s} = \{\Pi_{s}(1), \Pi_{s}(2)\}$ are compatible for $0\leq \lambda \leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}$ \cite{Busch}. Furthermore, the joint POVM $\Pi=\{\Pi (i,j,k)\}$, $i,j,k \in \{1,2\}$ of these unsharp observables can be written down as,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi (i,j,k) &=& \frac{\mathbb{I}+(-1)^{i+1}\lambda\sigma_x+(-1)^{j+1}\lambda\sigma_y+(-1)^{k+1}\lambda\sigma_z}{8}\nonumber\\
&=& \frac{\mathbb{I}+\sqrt{3}\lambda (\vec{m}_{ijk}.\vec{\sigma})}{8},
\end{eqnarray}
where,
\begin{eqnarray}
\vec{m}_{111} &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(1,1,1) = -\vec{m}_{222} , \nonumber \\
\vec{m}_{112} &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(1,1,-1) = -\vec{m}_{221}, \nonumber \\
\vec{m}_{121} &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(1,-1,1) = -\vec{m}_{212}, \nonumber \\
\vec{m}_{211} &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(-1,1,1) = - \vec{m}_{122} . \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
It is easy to check that $\sum_{ijk}\Pi (i, j, k)= I_{\mathcal{H}_{S}} $. For all $i,j,k=\{1,2\}$, the operators $\{\Pi (i,j,k)\}$ are simultaneously positive for $0 \leq \lambda \leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} $ and we recover the unsharp spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ observables as the marginals $\Pi_{x}(i)=\sum_{jk}\Pi (i,j,k)$, $\Pi_{y}(j)=\sum_{ik}\Pi_(i,j,k)$, and $\Pi_{z}(k)=\sum_{ij}\Pi (i,j,k)$.
We now construct the Neimark extensions corresponding to these unsharp spin observables following the approach in~\cite{coherence_povm}. We start by observing that the square-root operators corresponding to the POVM elements $\Pi(i,j,k)$, can be written as,
\begin{eqnarray}
\sqrt{\Pi (i, j, k)} &=& \sqrt{\frac{1+\sqrt{3}\lambda}{8}}\ket{\vec{m}_{ijk},+}\bra{\vec{m}_{ijk},+} \nonumber\\
&+& \sqrt{\frac{1-\sqrt{3}\lambda}{8}}\ket{\vec{m}_{ijk},-}\bra{\vec{m}_{ijk},-}.
\end{eqnarray}
Next we define $A_0=U\sqrt{\Pi (1,1,1)}$, $A_1=U\sqrt{\Pi (1,1,2)}$, $A_2=U\sqrt{\Pi (1,2,1)}$, $A_3=U\sqrt{\Pi (2,1,1)}$, $A_4=U\sqrt{\Pi(1,2,2)}$, $A_5=U\sqrt{\Pi(2,1,2)}$, $A_6=U\sqrt{\Pi(2,2,1)}$, $A_7=U\sqrt{\Pi(2,2,2)}$, where $U$ can be an arbitrary unitary matrix on the system Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{S}$. Without loss of generality, we may take $U=I_{\mathcal{H}_{S}}$. Now we construct an isometry acting on the extended space $\mathcal{H}_{S}\otimes \mathcal{H}_{A}$, as described in~\cite{coherence_povm},
\begin{equation}
\tilde{V}=\sum_{m=0}^{7} (A_{m})_{\mathcal{H}_{S}} \otimes (\ket{m}\bra{0}) _{\mathcal{H}_{A}}.
\end{equation}
Note that $\mathcal{H}_A$ is $8$-dimensional and $\{\ket{i}_{\mathcal{H}_A}\}$ forms a basis for $\mathcal{H}_A$. This isometry can be extended to a unitary $V$ on the Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_S \otimes \mathcal{H}_A$ with the following form.
\begin{equation}
V=\sum_{m,a} (A_{m,a}) _{\mathcal{H}_{S}}\otimes (\ket{m}\bra{a})_{\mathcal{H}_{A}} .
\end{equation}
with $A_{m,0}=A_m$. Unitarity implies that the operators $A_{m,a}$ have to satisfy,
\begin{equation}
\sum_{m=0}^{7} A^{\dagger}_{m,a}A_{m,b}=\delta_{ab} I_{\mathcal{H}_{S}}, \; \sum_{a} A_{i,a}A^{\dagger}_{j,a}=\delta_{ij} I_{\mathcal{H}_{S}}.
\end{equation}
The Naimark extension of the POVM $\Pi$ is characterized by the projectors,
\begin{equation}
P(i) = V^\dagger ( I\otimes\ket{i}\bra{i}) V, \, \forall \, i\in [0,7].
\end{equation}
Relabelling the projectors $P(0) = P(1,1,1)$, $P(1)=P(1,1,2)$, $P(2)=P(1,2,1)$, $P(3)=P(2,1,1)$, $P(4)=P(1,2,2)$, $P(5)=P(2,1,2)$, $P(6)=P(2,2,1)$, $P(7)=Pi(2,2,2)$, we have,
\begin{equation}
\pi P(i,j,k) \pi=\Pi (i,j,k) \ket{0}\bra{0}
\end{equation}
where $\pi = I_{\mathcal{H}_{S}}\otimes(\ket{0}\bra{0})_{\mathcal{H}_{A}}$. This in turn confirms that the projective measurement characterized by the set $\{P(i,j,k)\}$ does indeed correspond to a valid Naimark extension of the POVM with elements $\{\Pi(i,j,k)\}$.
\begin{equation}
\text{Tr} [ (\rho\otimes\ket{0}\bra{0}) P(i,j,k) ] = \text{Tr} [\rho\Pi (i,j,k)]
\end{equation}
If we now consider the marginals of the projectors, we get,
\begin{eqnarray}
\text{Tr} [ (\rho\otimes\ket{0}\bra{0})\sum_{jk}P(i,j,k)] = \text{Tr} [\rho\Pi_{x}(i)], \nonumber \\
\text{Tr}[ (\rho\otimes\ket{0}\bra{0})\sum_{ik}P (i,j,k) ] = \text{Tr} [\rho\Pi_{y}(j) ], \nonumber \\
\text{Tr} [ (\rho\otimes\ket{0}\bra{0}) \sum_{ij}P(i,j,k)]= \text{Tr} [\rho\Pi_{z}(k)].
\end{eqnarray}
In other words, the set of projectors $\{P_{x}(i)=\sum_{jk}P(i,j,k) \, | \, i\in\{1,2\}\}$ correspond to the Naimark extension of $\{\Pi_{x}(i)\}$, $\{P_{y}(j)=\sum_{ik}P(i,j,k)\}$ is the Naimark extension of $\{\Pi_{y}(j)\}$ and $\{P_{z}(k)=\sum_{ij}P(i,j,k)\}$ is the Naimark extension of $\{\Pi_{z}(k)\}$. As $\{P_{x}(i)\}$, $\{P_{y}(j)\}$ and $\{P_{z}(k)\}$ have a joint PVM $P(i,j,k)$, they are compatible and therefore pairwise commuting.
\begin{example}[Non-commuting Naimark extensions for compatible observables]\label{ex:non_com}
Let us consider the following two unsharp spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ observables $A=\{A(1)=\sigma_x(+,\lambda)=\frac{I+\lambda \sigma_x}{2},A(2)=\sigma_x(-,\lambda)=\frac{I-\lambda \sigma_x}{2}\}$ and $B=\{B(1)=\sigma_y(+,\lambda)=\frac{I +\lambda \sigma_y}{2}, B(2)=\sigma_y(-,\lambda)=\frac{I -\lambda \sigma_y}{2}\}$. We know that for $\lambda\leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$, those two pairs are compatible. So, theorem\eqref{thm:N_povm} states that there exists a commuting common Naimark extension. But do there exist common Naimark extensions of the observables $A$ and $B$ (for $\lambda \le 1/{\sqrt{2}}$) which do not commute? We show below that indeed there exist such Naimark extensions.
\end{example}
Consider the following Naimark extension of the effect $A(1)$ with respect to a two-dimensional ancilla Hilbert space, with the ancilla state set to $\ket{0}\bra{0}$.
\begin{align}
P(1) &=\sigma_x(+,\lambda)\otimes \ket{0}\bra{0}+\frac{\sqrt{1-\lambda^2}}{2} I \otimes \ket{0}\bra{1}\nonumber\\
&\frac{\sqrt{1-\lambda^2}}{2} I \otimes \ket{1}\bra{0}+\sigma_x(-,\lambda)\otimes \ket{1}\bra{1}.
\end{align}
Note that we have used the Naimark construction described in Appendix~\ref{sec:naimark} with the unitary $U$ in Eq.~\eqref{Naimark} set to the identity operator on the system space. This guarantees that the operator $P(1)$ is indeed a projector on the system Hilbert space. The projector corresponding to the second effect $A(2)$ is obtained as $P(2) = I_{4\otimes 4} - P(1)$.
Similarly, the Naimark extension of the effect $B(1)$ with respect to the same two dimensional ancilla state $\ket{0}\bra{0}$ can be obtained as,
\begin{align}
Q(1) &=\sigma_y(+,\lambda)\otimes \ket{0}\bra{0}+\frac{\sqrt{1-\lambda^2}}{2} I \otimes \ket{0}\bra{1}\nonumber\\
&+\frac{\sqrt{1-\lambda^2}}{2} I \otimes \ket{1}\bra{0}+\sigma_y(-,\lambda)\otimes \ket{1}\bra{1}.
\end{align}
The corresponding Naimark extension of $B(2)$ is given by, $Q(2) = I_{4 \times 4} - Q(1)$.
Now, one can easily check that,
\begin{eqnarray}
&& [P(1),Q(1)] \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{\lambda^2}{2}i\sigma_z\otimes\ket{0}\bra{0}+\frac{\lambda\sqrt{1-\lambda^2}}{2}(\sigma_x-\sigma_y)\otimes\ket{0}\bra{1}\nonumber\\
&+& \frac{\lambda\sqrt{1-\lambda^2}}{2}(\sigma_y-\sigma_x)\otimes\ket{1}\bra{0}+\frac{\lambda^2}{2}i\sigma_z\otimes\ket{1}\bra{1}\nonumber\\
&\Rightarrow & [P(1),Q(1)] \neq 0 ,
\end{eqnarray}
for all $\lambda$ satisfying $0 < \lambda \le 1$.
It can be easily verified here that $Tr[{\rho}_SA(i)] = Tr[({\rho}_S \otimes |0{\rangle}_A{\langle}0|)P(i)]$ and $Tr[{\rho}_S B(i)] = Tr[({\rho}_S \otimes |0{\rangle}_A{\langle}0|)Q(i)]$ for $i = 1, 2$. Here the subscript $S$ refers to the system and $A$ refers to the ancilla.
Thus we see that, although the set $\chi = \{A, B\}$ of two dichotomic POVMs $A$ and $B$ for a spin-1/2 particle is compatible for $0 \leq \lambda \leq 1/{\sqrt{2}}$, one can still find out a set $\{{\cal P} = \{P(1), P(2)\}, {\cal Q} = \{Q(1), Q(2)\}\}$ of common but non-commuting Naimark extensions of the POVMs $A$ and $B$ in this range of $\lambda$. On the other hand, by Theorem~\ref{thm:N_povm}, there will always exist a set of commuting but common Naimark extensions of these two compatible POVMs.
The aforesaid example signifies that for any given set of compatible POVMs for a system, apart from finding out common but commuting sets of Naimark extensions of these POVMs, one may also find out a common but non-commuting set of Naimark extensions -- although such a feature does not hold good in the case of any set of incompatible POVMs -- as, for any given set of incompatible POVMs, each set of its common Naimark extensions must be non-commuting, according to Theorem~\ref{thm:N_povm}.
Therefore, a pertinent question that may be raised at this point, is the following. Given a set of POVMs for one and the same system, can there exist at least one set (call it as a `characteristic set') of Naimark extensions of these POVMs so that the incompatibility of such a set of Naimark extensions will guarantee the incompatibility of the original set of POVMs? A related issue, in case such set(s) of incompatibility-assuring Naimark extension(s) exists (exist), would be to figure out the minimal dimension of the associated ancilla Hilbert space.
\section{Applications}\label{sec:applications}
We now discuss two important applications of our result characterizing the incompatibility of a set of POVMs via their Naimark extensions. We first briefly discuss how this characterization can be used to quantify the incompatibility of a general set of quantum measurements, based on existing incompatibility measures for set of projection-valued measurements. Secondly, we obtain a simple sufficiency condition for the incompatibility of a pair of dichotomic observables, which can then be used to obtain the incompatibility region for a pair of unsharp spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ observables.
\subsection{Quantifying incompatibility via the Naimark extension}\label{sec:measure}
While a plethora of measures exist that quantify the incompatibility of set of projection-valued measures, there remain several unresolved questions when it comes to quantifying the incompatibility of set of POVMs. Much of the literature on the subject has focussed on a robustness-based appraoch to quantifying incompatibility of POVMs, which essentially involves quantifying the amount of noise that must be added to a pair of measurements to make them compatible~\cite{heinosaari15}.
Recent studies show that the universal quantification of incompatibility of a set of quantum measurements through a scalar function is not very easy task. For example, unlike in the case of projective measurements, where mutually unbiased bases (MUBs) are known to correspond to the most incompatible measurements no matter what the metric of incompatibility is, in the case of POVMs different measures of incompatibility indicate different types of measurements to be most incompatible and therefore those measures can not be equivalent measures~\cite{Designolle}. In what follows, we outline an alternate approach to quantifying the incompatibility of a set of POVMs, based on the Naimark extension theorem.
In this context, it is worth mentioning that a resource theory of incompatibility has been demonstrated in \cite{ Buscemi}.
Let $\chi = \{\mathcal{M}_{i}\}$ be a set of POVMs and the set $\Pi ^{\Lambda}$ denote the set of projections obtained via a specific Naimark extension $\Lambda$ of each of the POVMs in the set $\chi$. Note that $\Lambda$ is characterized by the ancilla Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_A$ of dimension $d_{A}$ and a single fiducial ancilla state $\sigma$. Let $f(\Pi^{\Lambda})$ be a function which measures the incompatibility of the set $\Pi^{\Lambda}$ such that $f(\Pi^{\Lambda})\geq 0$ for any such $\Pi^A$ and $f(\Pi^{\Lambda})=0$ iff $\Pi^{\Lambda}$ is compatible. Now, we can define an incompatibility measure $g(\chi)$ for the set of POVMs $\chi$ in terms of $f ( . )$ as,
\begin{equation}
g(\chi) = \min_{\Lambda: \Lambda \in \mathcal{N}} f(\Pi^{\Lambda})
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{N}$ denotes the set of all possible Naimark extensions characterized by the ancilla system $\mathcal{H}_{A}$ and the same ancilla state $\sigma_{A} \in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_{A})$. Theorem~\ref{thm:N_povm} clearly implies that $g(\chi)=0$ if and only if there exists an ancilla Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_A$ and a state $\sigma_{A}\in\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_{A})$ such that the set $\Pi^{\Lambda}$ realised by the corresponding Naimark extension $\Lambda$ is compatible. $g(\chi) > 0$, whenever such a joint Naimark extension does not exist, hence showing that $g (.)$ is indeed a faithful measure of incompatibility.
The minimization over all Naimark extensions is indeed a difficult task, and we address possible ways by which this can be made easier in our concluding section.
\begin{example}
The measure of incompatibility for set of PVMs $\Pi$ defined in \cite{cloning-incompatibility}
\[
\mathcal{Q}(\Pi)=
\begin{cases}
0 & \text{if $\Pi$ is compatible}\\
$a positive quantity$ & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\]
So, this measure can be extended for the set of POVM $\chi$ as follows.
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{Q}(\chi)=\sup_{\mu}\mathcal{Q}(\mu(\chi))
\end{equation}
where $\mu(\chi)$ is a Naimark extension of set $\chi$ using one and the same ancilla state and the same ancilla system.
Clearly
\[
\mathcal{Q}(\chi)=
\begin{cases}
0 & \text{if $\chi$ is compatible}\\
$a positive quantity$ & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\]
\end{example}
\subsection{Compatibility of dichotomic measurements}\label{sec:dichotomic}
Recall that a \emph{dichotomic} measurement is a two-outcome POVM comprising of exactly two effects. An easily checkable sufficient condition for the compatibility of two dichotomic observables has been derived in~\cite{beneduci}, but the question of whether a similar sufficient condition can be obtained for different classes of observables is still an open problem. Indeed it turns out that this sufficiency condition is too restrictive and cannot for example identify the compatibility condition for a pair of unsharp spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ observables.
Here we use Theorem~\ref{thm:N_povm} to obtain a more general sufficiency condition for the compatibilty of a pair of dichotomic observables, compared to the condition derived in~\cite{beneduci} and show that our condition can capture the full compatibility region even for MUBs. For certain special cases, our condition reduces to the condition obtained in~\cite{beneduci}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:dichotomic}
Two dichotomic observables $\mathcal{A}=\{A(1),A(2)\}$ and $\mathcal{B}=\{B(1),B(2)\}$ acting on Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{S}$ are compatible if there exists a unitary operator $W$ on $\mathcal{H}_{S}$ satisfying the following conditions.
\begin{eqnarray}
&& [ A(1),B(1)] = Y(W X)- (WX)^{\dagger}Y, \nonumber \\
&& \{A(1),Y W\} - \{ X W^{\dagger},B(1) \}W = YW - X , \nonumber \\
&& \left[ WA(1)W^{\dagger},B(1) \right] + (W X)Y-Y(W X)^{\dagger} = 0 , \label{eq:W_condition}
\end{eqnarray}
where $X=\sqrt{A(1)A(2)}$ and $Y=\sqrt{B(1)B(2)}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\mathcal{P}=\{P(1), P(2)\}$ be a Naimark extension of the dichotomic observable $\mathcal{A}=\{A(1), A(2)\}$, constructed via the prescription given in Appendix~\ref{sec:naimark}. The projectors $P(1)$ and $P(2)$ are given in terms of the POVM effects $A(1)$ and $A(2) = I_{\mathcal{H}_{S}} - A(1)$ as,
\begin{eqnarray}
P(1) &=&\begin{bmatrix}
A(1) & -\sqrt{A(1)(I-A(1))}U^{\dagger}\\
-U\sqrt{A(1)(I-A(1))} & U(I-A(1))U^{\dagger}\\
\end{bmatrix} , \nonumber \\
P(2) &=& \begin{bmatrix}
A(2) &\sqrt{A(2)(I -A(2))}U^{\dagger}\\
U\sqrt{A(2)(I - A(2))} & U(I-A(2))U^{\dagger}\\
\end{bmatrix} , \label{eq:A_proj}
\end{eqnarray}
where, $U$ is an arbitrary unitary matrix on the system space $\mathcal{H}_{S}$. Clearly for $U=I_{\mathcal{H}_{S}}$ or $U=-I_{\mathcal{H}_{S}}$ these projectors result in the same Neimark extension used in~\cite{beneduci}.
It can be checked easily the set $\mathcal{P}=\{P(1),P(2)\}$ does indeed constitute a PVM. Furthermore, for $i=\{1,2\}$, and for all $\rho \in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_{S})$,
\begin{equation}
\text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}} [ \rho A(i) ] =\text{Tr}_{\mathcal{H}_{S}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{A}} [ (\rho\otimes\ket{0}\bra{0}) P(i) ],
\end{equation}
where $|0\rangle\langle 0| \in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_{A})$ is a fiducial state of the ancilla system $\mathcal{H}_{A}$.
The Naimark extension corresponding to the second observable $\mathcal{B}=\{B(1), B(2)\}$ is characterized by the projectors $\{Q(1), Q(2)\}$, given by,
\begin{eqnarray}
Q(1) &=& \begin{bmatrix}
B(1) & -\sqrt{B(1)(I-B(1))}V^{\dagger}\\
-V\sqrt{B(1)(I-B(1))}& V(I -B(1))V^{\dagger}\\
\end{bmatrix}, \nonumber \\
Q(2) &=& \begin{bmatrix}
B(2) & \sqrt{B(2)(I-B(2))}V^{\dagger}\\
V\sqrt{B(2)(I-B(2))} & V(I-B(2))V^{\dagger}\\
\end{bmatrix} , \label{eq:B_proj}
\end{eqnarray}
where $V$ is an arbitrary unitary matrix on $\mathcal{H}_{S}$.
To check if the PVMs $\mathcal{P}$ and $\mathcal{Q}$ are compatible, we only need to check whether $[P(1),Q(1)]=0$, for this implies that all the other commutators also vanish, as shown below.
\begin{eqnarray}
[P(1),Q(2)] &=& \left[ P(1),(I-Q(1)) \right] = 0, \nonumber \\
\left[ P(2),Q(1) \right] &=& \left[ (I-P(1)),Q(1) \right] = 0, \nonumber \\
\left[ P(2),Q(2) \right] &=& \left[ (I-P(1)),(I - Q(1)) \right] = 0.
\end{eqnarray}
Let, $X=\sqrt{A(1)A(2)}$ and $Y=\sqrt{B(1)B(2)}$. Then, the projectors $P(1)$ and $Q(1)$ are given by,
\begin{eqnarray}
P(1) &=& \begin{bmatrix}
A(1) & -XU^{\dagger}\\
-UX & U(I-A(1))U^{\dagger}\\
\end{bmatrix}, \nonumber \\
Q(1) &=& \begin{bmatrix}
B(1) &-YV^{\dagger}\\
-VY & V(I-B(1))V^{\dagger}\\
\end{bmatrix}. \label{eq:naimark_form}
\end{eqnarray}
Since $[A(1) , I_{\mathcal{H}_{S}} -A(1)]=0$ and $A(1)+A(2)=I_{\mathcal{H}_{S}}$, the effects $A(1)$ and $A(2)$ share a common set of eigenstates. Therefore, $\sqrt{A(1)A(2)}=\sqrt{A(2)A(1)}=\sqrt{A(1)}\sqrt{A(2)}=\sqrt{A(1)(I-A(1))}=\sqrt{A(2)(I-A(2))}$. These relations are very crucial in the following calculations. In particular, the condition $[P(1),Q(1)]=0$ now reduces to,
\begin{eqnarray}
A(1)B(1) &+& XU^{\dagger}VY = B(1)A(1) + YV^{\dagger}UX \nonumber \\
A(1)YV^{\dagger} &+& XU^{\dagger}VB(2)V^{\dagger} \nonumber \\
&=& B(1) XU^{\dagger}+YV^{\dagger}UA(2)U^{\dagger}, \nonumber \\
UXYV^{\dagger} &+& UA(2)U^{\dagger}VB(2)V^{\dagger} \nonumber \\
&=& VYXU^{\dagger} + VB(2)V^{\dagger}UA(2)U^{\dagger}. \label{eq:cond1}
\end{eqnarray}
When both unitaries $U$ and $V$ are trivial, that is, when $U=V$, the set of equations in Eq.~\eqref{eq:cond1} are not independent and instead reduce to a set of two equations, namely,
\begin{eqnarray}
A(1)B(1)+XY &=& B(1)A(1) + YX, \nonumber \\
A(1)Y+XB(2) &=& B(1)X + YA(2), \label{eq:beneduci}
\end{eqnarray}
which are infact the conditions obtained in~\cite{beneduci}.
Now defining the unitary matrix $W$ as $V^{\dagger}U=W$, the conditions in Eq.~\eqref{eq:cond1} can be rewritten as,
\begin{eqnarray}
[A(1),B(1)] &=& Y(W X)-(WX)^{\dagger}Y, \nonumber \\
\{A(1),YW\} &-& \{X W^{\dagger},B(1)\} W =Y W-X, \nonumber \\
\left[ WA(1) W^{\dagger}, B(1) \right] &+& ( WX)Y-Y(WX)^{\dagger} = 0,
\end{eqnarray}
thus leading to the desired conditions for compatibility.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Unsharp spin-$1/2$ observables}\label{sec:unsharp}
In this section we will show how the conditions proved in Theorem~\ref{thm:dichotomic} are helpful to calculate the compatibility region for a pair of unsharp spin-half observables.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:spin}
Two spin unsharp spin half observables along the directions $\hat{n_1}$ and $\hat{n_2}$ with unsharpness parameter $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ respectively, are compatible if there exists a unitary matrix $W$ satisfying,
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \lambda_1\lambda_2[\hat{n}_1.\vec{\sigma},\hat{n}_2.\vec{\sigma}] \, = \, \sqrt{1-\lambda_1^2}\sqrt{1-\lambda_2^2}[W -W^{\dagger}], \nonumber \\
&& \lambda_1\sqrt{1-\lambda_2^2} \left\{\frac{\hat{n}_1.\vec{\sigma}}{2}, W\right\} \nonumber \\
&& \; \quad - \; \lambda_2\sqrt{1-\lambda_1^2} W^{\dagger}\left\{\frac{\hat{n}_2.\vec{\sigma}}{2}, W \right\}=0, \nonumber \\
&& \lambda_1\lambda_2[W\hat{n}_1.\vec{\sigma}W^{\dagger},\hat{n}_2.\vec{\sigma}] \nonumber \\
&& \; \quad + \; \sqrt{(1-\lambda_1^2)(1-\lambda_2^2)}[ W- W^{\dagger}] = 0.\label{eq:spin-compatibility condition}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Consider two unsharp spin half observables $\mathcal{A}=\{A(1), I_{\mathcal{H}_{S}} - A(1)\}$, $\mathcal{B} = \{ B(1), I_{\mathcal{H}_{S}} -B(1) \}$ with $A(1) = \frac{ I_{\mathcal{H}_{S}} +\lambda_1\hat{n}_1.\vec{\sigma}}{2}$
and $B(1) = \frac{ I_{\mathcal{H}_{S}} + \lambda_2\hat{n}_2.\vec{\sigma}}{2}$. Therefore, the operators $X$ and $Y$ defined in Theorem~\ref{thm:dichotomic} are in this case given by,
$X=\sqrt{A(1)(I-A(1)}=\frac{\sqrt{1-\lambda_1^2}}{2} I$ and
$Y=\sqrt{B(1)(I-B(1))}=\frac{\sqrt{1-\lambda_2^2}}{2} I$.
So, the set of equations in Eq.~\eqref{eq:W_condition} reduces to,
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \lambda_1\lambda_2[\hat{n}_1.\vec{\sigma},\hat{n}_2.\vec{\sigma}] \, = \, \sqrt{1-\lambda_1^2}\sqrt{1-\lambda_2}[W-W^{\dagger}], \nonumber \\
&& \lambda_1\sqrt{1-\lambda_2^2}\left\{\frac{\hat{n}_1.\vec{\sigma}}{2}, W \right\} \nonumber \\
&& \; \quad - \; \lambda_2\sqrt{1-\lambda_1^2}W^{\dagger}\left\{ \frac{\hat{n}_2.\vec{\sigma}}{2}, W\right\} =0, \nonumber \\
&& \lambda_1\lambda_2[ W\hat{n}_1.\vec{\sigma}W^{\dagger},\hat{n}_2.\vec{\sigma}] \nonumber \\
&& \; \quad + \; \sqrt{(1-\lambda_1^2)(1-\lambda_2^2)}[W-W^{\dagger}] = 0, \label{eq:spin_compat}
\end{eqnarray}
as desired.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Compatibility region for $\sigma_x$ and $\sigma_y$}
Here we show that incompatibility region of the unsharp observables corresponding to $\sigma_x$ and $\sigma_y$ can be obtained using above condition. Interestingly, for $\hat{n_1}=\{1,0,0\}$ and $\hat{n_2}=\{0,1,0\}$ and for $W=e^{i\theta}\sigma_z$ all the above conditions is satisfied for,
\begin{align}
\lambda_1^2+\lambda_2^2&=1-\lambda_1^2\lambda_2^2\cot^2\theta.\label{eq:lambda}
\end{align}
Now, the LHS of Eq.~\eqref{eq:lambda} is positive. Hence the restriction on $\cot\theta$ for the existence of a valid solution for the above equation is,
\begin{equation}
\cot^2\theta\leq \frac{1}{\lambda_1^2\lambda_2^2}.
\end{equation}
Therefore by changing $\theta$ we can make the RHS of the above equation vary from $0$ to $1$. Hence the unsharp version of $\sigma_x$ and unsharp version of $\sigma_y$ are compatible for the parameter region given by,
\begin{equation}
\lambda_1^2+\lambda_2^2\leq 1.
\end{equation}
This is indeed the well known compatibility region for the unsharp versions of $\sigma_x$ and $\sigma_y$~\cite{Heinosaari_incompatibility_region,
Busch_incompatibility_region}. We expect that our condition would similarly enable us to characterize the compatibility region for sets of unsharp or noisy MUBs~\cite{designolle_mub}. It is possible that the construction used in Theorem~\ref{thm:spin} can capture the full compatibility region for any pair of spin $\frac{1}{2}$ observables.
Also, using $W=V^{\dagger}U = e^{i\theta}\sigma_z$ in the Naimark extensions of unsharp versions of $\sigma_x$ and $\sigma_y$ of the form given in \eqref{eq:naimark_form}, and thereafter taking the Jordon product and reducing to the system Hilbert space, one easily gets the joint observable of these two unsharp observables. Therefore, the condition in Eq.~\eqref{eq:spin-compatibility condition}is also very useful to get the joint observable easily. Moreover it is clear that, if for some cases more than one unitary exists then there exist many joint observables, one corresponding to each unitary.
Finally, we discuss the well known case of an incompatible set of three observables in a two-dimensional Hilbert space, such that every pair of observables in the set is compatible~\cite{heinosaari08, jointmeas_graph,Liang,Kunjwal_Sibasish}.
\begin{example}[Pairwise compatible, but triple-wise incompatible]
Consider a set of three dichotomic qubit observables $\mathcal{A}_1=\{A_1(1),A_1(2)\}$,$\mathcal{A}_2=\{A_2(1),A_2(2)\}$, and $\mathcal{A}_3=\{A_3(1),A_3(2)\}$ such that $A_1(1)=\frac{\mathbb{I}+\lambda\sigma_x}{2}$, $A_2(1)=\frac{\mathbb{I}+\lambda\sigma_y}{2}$, and $A_3(1)=\frac{\mathbb{I}+\lambda\sigma_z}{2}$ where $\lambda=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$. This set is not compatible, since $\lambda>\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}$. Therefore, theorem \eqref{thm:N_povm} says that compatible common Naimark extensions do not exist. Now consider the Naimark extensions $\mathcal{Q}_1$, $\mathcal{Q}_2$, and $\mathcal{Q}_3$ of the observables $\mathcal{A}_1$, $\mathcal{A}_2$, and $\mathcal{A}_3$ respectively, with respect to the two-dimensional ancilla state $\ket{0}\bra{0}$, such that,
\begin{align}
& Q_1(1)=\begin{bmatrix}
A_1(1)&-\sqrt{A_1(1)A_1(2)} \\
-\sqrt{A_1(1)A_1(2)}&A_1(2) \\
\end{bmatrix}\\
&Q_2(1)=\begin{bmatrix}
A_2(1)&-i\sqrt{A_2(1)A_2(2)}\sigma_z \\
i\sigma_z\sqrt{A_2(1)A_2(2)}&A_2(2) \\
\end{bmatrix}\\
&Q_3(1)=\begin{bmatrix}
A_3(1)&i\sqrt{A_3(1)A_3(2)}\sigma_y \\
-i\sigma_y\sqrt{A_3(1)A_3(2)}&A_3(2) \\
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{align}
Now, from theorem \eqref{thm:spin} one can easily check that $[Q_1(1),Q_2(1)]=0$, $[Q_1(1),Q_3(1)]=0$, but, $[Q_2(1),Q_3(1)]\neq 0$. Thus $\mathcal{Q}_{1}, \mathcal{Q}_{2}, \mathcal{Q}_{3}$ constitute a set of common commuting Naimark extensions for the pairs $\{\mathcal{A}_{1}, \mathcal{A}_{2}\}$ and $\{\mathcal{A}_{1}, \mathcal{A}_{3}\}$, but not for the pair $\{\mathcal{A}_{2}, \mathcal{A}_{3}\}$.
Now, consider another set of common Naimark extensions $\mathcal{Q}_2^{\prime}$, and $\mathcal{Q}_3^{\prime}$ with respect to the two-dimensional ancilla state $\ket{0}\bra{0}$ for the observables $\mathcal{A}_2$, and $\mathcal{A}_3$ respectively, such that,
\begin{align}
&Q_2^{\prime}(1)=\begin{bmatrix}
A_2(1)&-\sqrt{A_2(1)A_2(2)} \\
-\sqrt{A_2(1)A_2(2)}&A_2(2) \\
\end{bmatrix}\\
&Q_3^{\prime}(1)=\begin{bmatrix}
A_3(1)&-i\sqrt{A_3(1)A_3(2)}\sigma_x \\
i\sigma_x\sqrt{A_3(1)A_3(2)}&A_3(2) \\
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{align}
Again, from theorem \eqref{thm:spin} one can easily check that $[Q_2^{\prime}(1),Q_3^{\prime}(1)]=0$. Thus we see that it is indeed possible to obtain (distinct) common Naimark extensions for each pair of observables in the set $\{\mathcal{A}_{1}, \mathcal{A}_{2}, \mathcal{A}_{3}\}$, showing that the set is indeed pairwise compatible.
\end{example}
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec:concl}
We have shown how the compatibility of a set of quantum measurements can be characterized via their Naimark extensions. Specifically, we prove that a set of POVMs is compatible if and only if they can be extended to a set of commuting projective measurements, via Naimark extensions constructed using the same ancilla Hilbert space and identical ancilla states.
Our result opens up new avenues of research into the incompatibility of POVMs, a question of fundamental importance in the context of both quantum foundations as well as quantum information processing. Firstly, it provides a more physical and constructive approach to quantifying incompatibility of POVMs, in terms of unitaries and projective measurements on an extended space. Secondly, our work provides an alternate route to quantifying the incompatibility of a set of quantum measurements, based on existing measures of incompatibility that hold for projective measurements. Finally, in the case of dichotomic observables, our results enable us to obtain a simple and checkable sufficiency condition for the incompatibility of a pair of dichotomic observables in any dimension. This condition can then be used to characterize the compatibility regions for certain important classes of measurements, including unsharp qubit measurements.
Given that the conditions obtained in Eq.~\eqref{eq:spin-compatibility condition} can capture full compatibility of any two unsharp spin half observables, we are tempted to conjecture that any two unsharp spin observables are compatible if and only if they satisfy Eq.~\eqref{eq:spin-compatibility condition}. Furthermore, using the form of the unitary $W$ that satisfies the compatibility conditions, one has an concrete prescription to construct the joint observable. We know that traditional calculation of the compatibility region and joint observable is difficult even for unsharp MUBs in higher dimensions~\cite{Designolle}. In our approach, once the suitable Naimark extension is constructed, further calculations are straightforward. So, in effect, we have a simpler procedure to obtain both of these.
An important avenue for future research is the question raised at the end of Example~\ref{ex:non_com}, namely, whether it is possible to identify a \emph{characteristic set} of common Naimark extensions of a given set of POVMs such that the commutativity (non-commutativity) of the Naimark extensions in the set will guarantee the compatibility (incompatibility) of the POVMs in the set. From the perspective of quantifying incompatibility of any given set $\chi$ of POVMs -- expressed in terms of the quantity ${\cal Q}(\chi)$ -- identifying such a characteristic set of Naimark extensions is of fundamental importance, at least to get an estimate of the incompatibility of the set $\chi$.
\section{Acknowledgement}
We would like to thank Dr. Ravi Kunjwal and Dr. M. D. Srinivas for their valuable comments and suggestions.
|
\section{Introduction}
In recent years, there has been increasing interest in the role of emotion and affect in the design of visitor experiences for museums \cite{Boehner_sengers_2005,Gregory2007-vi,Smith2018-ge}. However, along with the increasing use of digital technology to facilitate engaging visitor experiences in museums, many have voiced concern that such use of technology may be a detriment and distraction as much as a benefit \cite{vom_lehn,Rudloff2013-oi,wessel_potentials_2007,woodruffelectronic2001}. Such concerns from museum professionals often focus on the risk that visitors' attention may be drawn away from the museum artifacts \cite{Back2018-oo}. Concepts such as hybrid design and tangible interactions are offered in response \cite{Bannon2005-mj,Ciolfi2011-cw,Claisse2016-jb,Hornecker2006-zn,lovlie_gift_2019,lovlie_designing,marshall_tangible_mesch2016,pedersendesigning2019,risseeuw_authoring_2016,zancanarorecipes2015}. A recent user study indicates that museum visitors prefer tangible interaction formats over smartphone apps \cite{Petrelli2018-bd}.
This paper presents a research through design exploration of affective design with tangible interactions in a historical house museum: Greve Museum in Denmark. Historical museums face a difficult balancing act as they need to facilitate engaging visitor experiences, while also respecting their commitment to historical accuracy and authentic preservation and presentation of artifacts \cite{Gregory2007-vi}. Furthermore, house museums have a particular set of challenges, such as the fact that not just the objects on display but also the house itself is considered an historic artifact, meaning that "content and container are one" \cite{Claisse2018-vc}. Since the historical authenticity of the house is at the heart of the museum's identity, when introducing technology it is considered important to "maintain the spirit of the house" and to design for seamless experiences \cite{Claisse2018-vc}.
We explore the following research question: \textit{How can we design for affective engagement through tangible interactions with museum artifacts, while accommodating the museum's need to communicate historical and cultural knowledge?} The study contributes with a case that is comparable to the one discussed in \cite{Claisse2018-vc}, but with some key differences in addition to country and local context. In particular, the museum's requirements regarding historic accuracy demanded a design in which the technology was integrated seamlessly into the house, centering the interaction entirely on original historic artifacts, in a narrative presenting a historic, rather than fictional character.
\section{Background}
Affect has been discussed in fields such as art history \cite{Prown1980-pk} and literature \cite{Meskin2003-rq} as well as design \cite{Boehner_depaula_2005}. In recent years, there has also been increasing interest in the role of affect in the design of museum experiences \cite{Smith2018-ge,Ryding_Fritsch}. This development is sometimes seen as part of a broader "affective turn" \cite{Blackman2012-hc} in social sciences and HCI. For Gregory and Witcomb affect is "an important means to achieve audience participation in the process of making meaning" \cite[p.~263]{Gregory2007-vi}. Witcomb sees affect as an element in developing a critical pedagogy for history museums, and has suggested that the traditional museum concept of a "pedagogy of walking" be replaced with a "pedagogy of feeling" \cite{witcomb2013,Witcomb2014-wq}.
History museums pose challenges for experience design, as the need to facilitate audience engagement must be balanced against the museum's mission to exhibit authentic historical artifacts and knowledge. In museum studies, there is a long-standing concern that using mobile devices for interpretive artwork information will lead users to focus only on their mobile screens rather than the exhibited artifacts in front of them (cf. \cite{vom_lehn,wessel_potentials_2007}). In the words of Woodruff et al. \cite{woodruffelectronic2001}, interactive museum experiences require visitors to engage in a "sophisticated balancing act", dividing their attention between different information sources. Recent work suggests that the tension inherent in these concerns continue to be a challenge for hybrid design in museums \cite{Back2018-oo}.
Particular challenges apply to house museums: museums that were once houses or homes but which have been transformed into museums displaying and communicating the original interior and functions of the house. Because the house itself is considered a historic artifact, it is challenging to introduce technological installations in such houses because they might conflict with the presentation of an authentic historic interior. Claisse et al. \cite{Claisse2018-vc} formulate four central considerations for the design of experiences for house museums, based on interviews with museum experts:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Maintaining the spirit of the house.
\item Building on the domestic nature of historic houses.
\item Telling stories about, for and by people.
\item Designing for a seamless experience of technology.
\end{enumerate}
Claisse suggests the demands of house museums make them "an interesting and relatively underexplored context for the integration of 'tangible interaction'" \cite{Claisse2016-jb}. Furthermore, Ciolfi and McLoughlin \cite{Ciolfi2011-cw} have formulated some lessons for design of tangible interactions in a museum setting:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Both digital and physical components must fit well within an overall storyline.
\item Tangible artifacts need to be place-sensitive, in order to avoid distracting from the museum setting.
\item The tangible artifacts should be limited to a simple and straightforward functionality, in order to work as "bridging" components between the digital and physical, rather than "high-tech gimmicks".
\end{enumerate}
\section{Approach}
The study at hand was conducted as a Research through Design project \cite{Zimmerman2007jo} from February till December 2018. The process included observations and interviews with visitors at the museum and a co-creation workshop with employees and volunteers at the museum, followed by an iterative design process in which several prototypes were built and tested. Initial prototypes were tested in lab facilities of the university, while the last prototype was integrated and tested in the museum from 27 October to 1 December. The lab tests were done with invited test users as "think aloud" tests with observations and interviews. Data from the observations and interviews were summed up, themed and analyzed in order to form the base of further iterations towards the next prototype. Evaluation of the final prototype was done through observations of the museum's visitors using the prototype in situ.
\section{Context: Greve Museum}
Greve Museum is a small local museum exhibiting the historic evolution of Greve village on the outskirts of Copenhagen, Denmark. The museum is located in an old farmhouse furnished and arranged as a farm in this area would be in the 1800s. Our study focuses on a redesign of one of the rooms in the museum, the old storage hall \O verstuen (Fig. \ref{overstuen}). In the 1800s this room had an interesting combination of functions: It was originally used for storage, but was also the room for celebrations as well as for mourning. Being the coldest room on the farm, it was used to lay dead family members on display for mourning, before carrying them out of the "Death Door" - a door specifically used for the dead, as superstition prevented dead bodies from being carried through the door used by the living. However, as museum representatives explained to us at the start of the project, the existing exhibition of the room had failed to engage audiences to any large degree. Guests did not seem to understand this room, or find it interesting enough to spend much time exploring. The museum had decided to redesign the room, removing display cases with old documents and refocusing attention on the room and the artifacts belonging to it, in an attempt to better convey the original functions of the room. As part of this endeavour they asked us to design an interactive experience that could help to better engage the visitors while at the same time providing knowledge about life on the farm in the 1800s. In particular, the museum was hoping to engage interest among younger audiences.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{images/image5.jpg}
\caption{\O verstuen before the redesign.}
\label{overstuen}
\end{figure}
\section{Design}
Our design process started with observations and interviews with visitors in \O everstuen, which confirmed the assessment of the curators: Most visitors barely stepped into the room before turning around and leaving, and few if any engaged with the educational material on display. Subsequently we arranged a co-creation workshop with a group of museum employees and volunteers. Through a structured ideation process we developed a narrative about a ghost haunting the room. Exploring different technologies which could be used to bring this ghost to life, we decided against solutions that would involve smartphones or tablets, as the museum already had a tablet-based experience which was rarely if ever used by visitors. Based on the ideal of seamless integration of technology into the authentic interior we also discarded ideas involving sophisticated display techniques such as augmented reality or Pepper's Ghost.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{images/image1.jpg}
\caption[]{\textit{The Diary of Niels.}}
\label{diary}
\end{figure}
Instead we took inspiration from a scene in a Harry Potter movie \cite{harry_potter}, in which a ghost communicates with Harry by writing on the blank pages of a diary. Through an iterative process we developed a concept consisting of a diary - a physical book with blank pages - lying on a table, with a projector in the ceiling above it (Fig. \ref{diary}). This is the diary of Niels, a historic person who lived at Greve Farm from 1797 to 1870. Writing in the pages of his old diary, the ghost of Niels asks visitors to show him three specific everyday objects from the farm. For each object, Niels responds by sharing a memory from his diary in which this object played a role. This meant combining the physical context of the objects and the room with the digital installation of the diary, thus exploring the opportunities of tangible technology in combination with the potential affective response to the fiction of a ghost in an old farmhouse. Though the diary entries were fictions they were based on the museum's documentation of life on the farm, describing scenarios tied to the everyday objects and how they were used by the farm people. These objects consisted of the following (Fig. \ref{artifacts}):
\begin{enumerate}
\item A hymnbook which was an important decorational part of the lit de parades in \O everstuen.
\item An ike beater, a wooden tool used by the locals to process fibers when making cloths.
\item A rummelpot (or friction drum), which was a traditional homemade musical instrument used by farm children on festive occasions.
\end{enumerate}
While the rummelpot used in the installation was a copy, the hymnbook and ike beater were authentic historical objects, that we were allowed to use due to the fact that they were not registered as archival material in the museum collection.
\subsection{Prototyping}
To create the sensation of a ghost writing in the diary, the text of the diary was animated and projected down upon the blank pages of a physical book from a projector in the ceiling (Fig. \ref{sketch}). Using a font that looked like handwriting, the letters would appear one at a time, giving the impression that Niels was writing on the pages in real time. The work on our first prototype revolved around building and testing this "magic" diary and projecting it on blank pages. Testing this in a lab setting on two young users (10 and 15 years old), the users found the overall concept entertaining but wanted more variety in interaction forms and questioned the historical authenticity.
In our second prototype we focused on varying the forms of interaction as well as elaborating the historical memories for the diary. Next to the book was now placed a push button which guests were asked to press when they wanted to move forward with the reading. Hidden under a tablecloth, a radio frequency identification (RFID) reader was placed. Three artifacts were each equipped with a set of RFID tags that, when held close to the RFID reader, would trigger a corresponding memory to appear on the pages of the diary. The RFID reader was hidden in order to support the fiction of a supernatural presence in the room. When we tested the second prototype in our lab on three new test users aged 10-11, the test users found the experience engaging and mostly easy to use, in spite of some technical and usability problems. When we asked the users about the contents of the diary, 2 of the 3 were able to recall parts of the content, whereas the third had struggled too much with the readability of the "handwritten" font to remember any of the content. Given that we were aiming to engage children at an age where reading skills are variable, we decided to change the font in order to improve the readability, as well as adjusting the language used in the diary.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{images/image4.jpg}
\caption{The Diary of Niels and the three artifacts used with the diary: A hymn book, an ike beater and a rummelpot.}
\label{artifacts}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{images/Sketch.JPG}
\caption{Overview of the physical and technical setup of the final prototype.}
\label{sketch}
\end{figure}
\section{Evaluation}
\textit{The Diary of Niels} was implemented in \O everstuen at Greve Museum as a fully functional prototype in November 2018. This "in the wild" deployment gave us the chance to observe how the prototype was used by visitors who had not received any prior instructions or explanations about the prototype. We spent one day in \O everstuen observing how visitors engaged with the installation, interviewing some of them after the experience.
\subsection{Overall reception}
There was a marked difference from our initial observations at \O everstuen before the implementation of the diary. Visitors quickly discovered the diary and started interacting with it, and spent more time exploring the room compared to earlier observations. It should be noted that the entire room had been redesigned in the meantime, so it is impossible to say how much of this improvement was due to \textit{The Diary of Niels}. However, in interviews with the guests they were all able to recall and explain the function of at least one of the three historical objects, indicating that they had engaged sufficiently with the prototype to learn a little about the exhibition.
\subsection{Group experience}
While the installation had been designed with a single user in mind, visitors actually came to the exhibition and approached the installation in groups (typically families). Thus an adult would do the reading, while the children engaged with the physical objects. This may have helped the educational function of the installation, as the children remembered more about each object than users in the earlier lab test scenarios which had to read themselves. Approaching the diary as families also enabled collective reflection on the exhibition. Visitors discussed the age of the objects, and one visitor approached the adjoining rooms of the farm house, wondering aloud which of the furniture and pictures were Niels' old belongings. This indicates that the diary installation could be used to spark conversations between parents and children, helping them reflect and learn about the exhibition.
\subsection{Place-sensitivity}
Interviews with the visitors revealed a surprising failure of the installation. While the visitors had understood and engaged with much of the content of the diary, recalling events taking place in \O everstuen, they were not aware that they were standing in that very same room in which the events had taken place. This oddity can be explained by the fact that the museum curators had wanted to avoid explanatory texts and signposts on the walls when redesigning the room, so the only text stating the name of the room and explaining its function was an easily overlooked sign posted by the entrance. Meanwhile, while the diary speaks about \O everstuen it does not actually point out that this is the very room the diary is placed in. This illustrates that the design strategy of this installation, aiming to blend in as seamlessly as possible with the historic interior, puts increased demands on the overall exhibition design of the whole room: Curators must consider how much extradiegetic information is needed, and how and where this should be presented to visitors, in order to avoid confusion.
\section{Conclusions}
The setting at Greve museum offered a fertile opportunity for experimenting with tangible interaction, as the museum allowed us to use authentic historic objects in our prototype. This allowed us to use the objects not only as a bridge between the physical and the digital, but also as a material connection between the past and the present. This will not always be possible in other contexts - similar projects have used replicas \cite{marshall_tangible_mesch2016}. However, as many house museums do allow visitors to touch and pick up many of their artifacts, there may be possibilities to explore tangible interactions with authentic artifacts by using non-invasive techniques, e.g. visual object recognition.
The problem we encountered with the place-sensitivity of our prototype points to a need for designers to look holistically at the information provided to visitors, not just through the interactive system but also the rest of the room and the museum as a whole. In our design process we had explored the possibility of integrating the installation more extensively with the rest of the room by turning it into a scavenger hunt, in which the objects belonging to the diary installation would be hidden around the room. This would have required users to search and explore the room in order to unlock the diary entries, thus extending the interaction into the entire room rather than just the tabletop. However, this idea had to be discarded due to limitations set by the museum. Further effort could be made to connect the diary with the room, for instance by installing other personal traces of Niels in the room so that the narrative of the diary would be conveyed through several different means in different parts of the room. These traces could e.g. be "micro-augmentations" \cite{Antoniou2015} such as sound installations of Niels whispering when a visitor approached certain objects. Future research should explore opportunities for further integrating artifact interactions with the experience of the rest of the museum space.
\section{Acknowledgments}
The project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 727040 (the GIFT project: gifting.digital).
\bibliographystyle{splncs04}
|
\section{Introduction}
\subsection{Zastava and euclidean monopoles}
\label{euclid}
Let $G$ be an almost simple simply connected algebraic group over $\BC$. We denote by $\CB$ the
flag variety of $G$. Let us also fix a pair of opposite Borel subgroups $B$, $B_-$ whose intersection
is a maximal torus $T$. Let $\Lambda$ denote the cocharacter lattice of $T$; since $G$ is assumed
to be simply connected, this is also the coroot lattice of $G$.
We denote by $\Lambda_{\on{pos}}\subset \Lambda$ the sub-semigroup spanned by positive coroots.
It is well-known that $H_2(\CB,\BZ)=\Lambda$ and that an element $\alpha\in H_2(\CB,\BZ)$ is
representable by an effective algebraic curve if and only if $\alpha\in \Lambda_{\on{pos}}$.
The (open) {\em zastava} $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^{\alpha}$ is the moduli space of maps $C=\BP^1\to \CB$ of degree $\alpha$
sending $\infty\in \BP^1$ to $B_-\in \CB$. It is known~\cite{fkmm} that this is a smooth symplectic
affine algebraic variety, which can be identified with the hyperk\"ahler moduli space of
framed $G$-monopoles on $\BR^3$ with maximal symmetry breaking at infinity of charge
$\alpha$~\cite{j,j'}. Let us mention one more equivalent definition of $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^{\alpha}$:
it is the moduli space of $G$-bundles on $\BP^1$ equipped with a $B$-structure of degree $\alpha$
and a $U_-$-structure transversal to the $B$-structure at $\infty\in\BP^1$ (here $U_-$ stands
for the unipotent radical of $B_-$).
\begin{comment}
The monopole space $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^{\alpha}$ has a natural partial compactification
$Z^{\alpha}$ ({\em zastava} scheme). It can be realized as the moduli
space of based {\em quasi-maps} of degree $\alpha$; set-theoretically it can be described in the
following way:
$$
Z^{\alpha}=\bigsqcup\limits_{0\leq\beta\leq \alpha} \vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^{\beta}\x
\BA^{\alpha-\beta},
$$
where for $\gamma\in \Lambda_{\on{pos}}$ we denote by $\BA^{\gamma}$ the space of all colored divisors $\sum\gamma_i x_i$ with
$x_i\in \BA^1$, $\gamma_i\in \Lambda_{\on{pos}}$ such that $\sum \gamma_i=\gamma$.
\end{comment}
The zastava space is equipped with a {\em factorization} morphism
$\pi^\alpha\colon \vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha\to\BA^\alpha$ with
a simple geometric meaning: for a based map
$\varphi\in\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha$ the colored divisor $\pi^\alpha(\varphi)$ is just the
pullback of the colored Schubert divisor $D\subset\CB$ equal to the complement
of the open $B$-orbit in $\CB$. The morphism
$\pi^\alpha\colon \vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha\to\BA^\alpha$ is the {\em Atiyah-Hitchin} integrable
system (with respect to the above symplectic structure): all the fibers of
$\pi^\alpha$ are Lagrangian.
\medskip
A system of \'etale birational coordinates on $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha$ was introduced
in~\cite{fkmm}. Let us recall the definition
for $G=SL(2)$. In this case $\alpha$ is $a$ times the simple coroot, and $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^a:=\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha$
consists of all maps $\BP^1\to \BP^1$ of degree $a$
which send $\infty$ to $0$. We can represent such a map by a rational function $\frac{R}{Q}$ where
$Q$ is a monic polynomial of degree $a$ and $R$ is a polynomial of degree $<a$. Let
$w_1,\ldots,w_a$ be the zeros of $Q$. Set $y_r=R(w_r)$.
Then the functions $(y_1,\ldots,y_a,w_1,\ldots, w_a)$ form a system of \'etale birational
coordinates on $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^a$, and the above mentioned
symplectic form in these coordinates reads
$\Omega_\rat=\sum_{r=1}^a\frac{dy_r\wedge dw_r}{y_r}$.
For general $G$ the definition of the above coordinates is quite similar. In this case given a
point in $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha$ we can define polynomials $R_i,Q_i$ where $i$
runs through the set $I$ of vertices of the Dynkin diagram of $G,\ \alpha=\sum a_i\alpha_i$, and
(1) $Q_i$ is a monic polynomial of degree $a_i$,
(2) $R_i$ is a polynomial of degree $<a_i$.
Hence, we can define (\'etale, birational) coordinates
$(y_{i,r},w_{i,r})$ where $i\in I$ and
$r=1,\ldots,a_i$. Namely, $w_{i,r}$ are the roots of $Q_i$, and
$y_{i,r}=R_i(w_{i,r})$. The Poisson brackets of these coordinates
with respect to the above symplectic form are as follows:
$\{w_{i,r},w_{j,s}\}_\rat=0,\
\{w_{i,r},y_{j,s}\}_\rat=d\,^\svee\!\!\!_i\delta_{ij}\delta_{rs}y_{j,s},\
\{y_{i,r},y_{j,s}\}_\rat=
(\alpha^\svee_i,\alpha^\svee_j)\frac{y_{i,r}y_{j,s}}{w_{i,r}-w_{j,s}}$ for
$i\ne j$, and finally $\{y_{i,r},y_{i,s}\}_\rat=0$. Here $\alpha^\svee_i$ is a
simple root, $(,)$ is the invariant scalar product on $(\on{Lie}T)^*$ such
that the square length of a short root is 2, and
$d\,^\svee\!\!\!_i=(\alpha^\svee_i,\alpha^\svee_i)/2$.
\medskip
Finally, let us mention that the zastava space $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha$ is isomorphic to the Coulomb branch
of a $3d\ \CN=4$ supersymmetric quiver gauge theory (for a Dynkin quiver of $G$, with no
framing; with symmetrizers for a non simply laced $G$), see~\cite{bfn2,nw}.
\subsection{Trigonometric zastava and periodic monopoles}
We have an open subset $\BG_m^\alpha\subset\BA^\alpha$ (colored divisors not
meeting $0\in\BA^1$), and the {\em trigonometric zastava} is defined as the
open subvariety $^\dagger\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha:=(\pi^\alpha)^{-1}(\BG_m^\alpha)\subset\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha$.
It can be identified with a solution of a certain moduli problem on the
irreducible nodal curve of arithmetic genus~1 obtained by gluing the points $0,\infty\in\BP^1$,
see~\cite{fkr}. From this point of view it acquires a natural symplectic structure with the
corresponding bracket $\{,\}_{\on{trig}}$. Note that $\{,\}_{\on{trig}}$ is {\em not} the
restriction of $\{,\}_\rat$ from $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha$, but rather its trigonometric version.
For example, when $G=\SL(2)$ and $\alpha$ is $a$ times the simple coroot, the Atiyah-Hitchin
integrable system $\pi^a\colon\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^a\to\BA^{(a)}$ is nothing but the classical Toda lattice
for $\GL(a)$,
while its trigonometric version $\pi^a\colon{}^\dagger\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^a\to\BG_m^{(a)}$ can be identified
with the {\em relativistic} Toda lattice for $\GL(a)$, see~\cite[\S2]{ft}.
An explicit formula for $\{,\}_{\on{trig}}$ in $w,y$-coordinates is obtained in~\cite{fkr}.
\medskip
The composed morphism
\[^\dagger\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha\xrightarrow{\pi^\alpha}\BG_m^\alpha\xrightarrow{\prod}\BG_m^I\cong T\]
(recall that $I$ is the set of simple coroots of $G$) is the moment map of the Hamiltonian action
of $T$ on $^\dagger\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha$. The quotient of a level of this moment map by the action of $T$
is the {\em reduced trigonometric zastava} $^\dagger\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}{}^\alpha$: the (quasi-)Hamiltonian
reduction of $^\dagger\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha$.
It is likely that the reduced trigonometric zastava is isomorphic to the moduli space of
{\em periodic} monopoles (see e.g.~\cite{ck}) in one of its complex structures (it has a natural
hyperk\"ahler structure, and among the $S^2$-worth of the underlying complex structures we need
the one in which this moduli space is an affine variety). The corresponding holomorphic
symplectic structure on the moduli space of periodic monopoles matches the reduction of
$\{,\}_{\on{trig}}$. Note an important difference with the rational case: the usual zastava was
isomorphic to the euclidean monopoles' moduli space, and its Hamiltonian reduction with respect
to the $T$-action was isomorphic to the {\em centered} monopole moduli space. In the periodic
case the monopoles come centered by definition.
Finally, the trigonometric zastava $^\dagger\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha$ is isomorphic to the $K$-theoretic
Coulomb branch of a $3d\ \CN=4$ supersymmetric quiver gauge theory (for a Dynkin quiver of $G$,
with no framing; with symmetrizers for a non simply laced $G$), see~\cite{ft} for the simply
laced case. The reduced trigonometric zastava $^\dagger\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}{}^\alpha$ is isomorphic to the
$K$-theoretic Coulomb branch were the gauge group must be taken as the product of $\SL(V_i)$
(as opposed to the product of $\GL(V_i)$ for the trigonometric zastava).
\subsection{Elliptic zastava}
The explicit formulas for $\{,\}_\rat$ and $\{,\}_{\on{trig}}$ look like rational and trigonometric
degenerations of the Feigin-Odesskii bracket~\cite{fo} on the moduli space of $G$-bundles with
a parabolic structure on an elliptic curve. The goal of the present paper is to give a precise
meaning to this observation.
For a $T$-bundle $\CK$ on an elliptic curve $E$ we consider the moduli space
$\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha_\CK$ of the following data:
(a) a $G$-bundle $\CF_G$ on $E$,
(b) a $B$-structure $\varphi_+$ on $\CF_G$ such that the induced $T$-bundle $\CL_T=\Ind_B^T\varphi_+$
has degree $-\alpha$,
(c) a $\CU_-^\CK$-structure $\varphi_-$ on $\CF_G$ generically transversal to $\varphi_+$.
Here $\CU_-^\CK$ is a sheaf of unipotent groups locally isomorphic to $U_-$, obtained from the
trivial sheaf by twisting with $T$-bundle $\CK$ (we view $T$ as a subgroup of $\on{Aut}U_-$ via
the adjoint action).
The open elliptic zastava $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha_\CK$ is a smooth connected variety of dimension $2|\alpha|$
equipped with an affine factorization morphism $\pi^\alpha\colon \vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha_\CK\to E^\alpha$
to a configuration space of $E$. It has a relative compactification (compactified elliptic zastava)
\[\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha_\CK\subset\ol{Z}{}_\CK^\alpha\xrightarrow{\pi^\alpha}E^\alpha\]
where we allow both a $B$-structure and a $\CU_-^\CK$-structure to be generalized in the sense
of Drinfeld. There is also an intermediate version
$\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha_\CK\subset Z_\CK^\alpha\subset\ol{Z}{}_\CK^\alpha$ (elliptic zastava) where only a
$B$-structure is allowed to be generalized.
For example, when $G=\SL(2),\ \CK$ is trivial, and $\alpha$ is $a$ times the simple coroot, there is
an isomorphism $Z_{\CK_{\on{triv}}}^a\simeq TE^{(a)}$ with the total space of the tangent bundle of the
$a$-th symmetric power of $E$. Unfortunately, neither $TE^{(a)}$ nor its open subvariety
$\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}_{\CK_{\on{triv}}}^a$ carry any natural Poisson structure.
\subsection{Coulomb elliptic zastava}
Similarly to the rational and trigonometric cases, one can consider the elliptic Coulomb branch
of a $3d\ \CN=4$ supersymmetric quiver gauge theory for a Dynkin quiver of $G$
with no framing. We restrict ourselves to the case of simply laced $G$. The elliptic Coulomb
branch is the (relative) spectrum of the equivariant Borel-Moore elliptic homology of a certain
variety of triples. The theory of equivariant Borel-Moore elliptic homology is not developed yet;
it is to appear in a forthcoming work of I.~Perunov and A.~Prikhodko. We sketch some results
in~\S\ref{piat}. The resulting elliptic Coulomb branch is denoted $^C\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}_{\CK_{\on{triv}}}^\alpha$.
It is equipped with a natural Poisson (in fact, symplectic) structure due to the existence of
quantized elliptic Coulomb branch.
For example, when $G=\SL(2)$, there is an isomorphism
$^C\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}_{\CK_{\on{triv}}}^a\simeq\Hilb^a_{\on{tr}}(E\times\BG_m)$ with the {\em transversal Hilbert
scheme} of the surface $E\times\BG_m$ (an open subvariety of the Hilbert scheme of points on
$E\times\BG_m$ classifying those subschemes whose projection to $E$ is a closed embedding).
Note that we have an open embedding $\Hilb^a_{\on{tr}}(E\times\BG_m)\subset T^*E^{(a)}$ into the
total space of the cotangent bundle of the $a$-th symmetric power of $E$.
Contrary to the rational and trigonometric cases, there is {\em no} isomorphism
$^C\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}_{\CK_{\on{triv}}}^a\not\simeq\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}_{\CK_{\on{triv}}}^a$ of the open elliptic zastava with the
elliptic Coulomb branch.
Still, the elliptic Coulomb branch is not so much different from the elliptic zastava.
Namely, they can be both obtained by the Mirkovi\'c construction of {\em local spaces} over
(the configuration spaces of) $E$, see e.g.~\cite[\S2]{myz}. This construction depends on a choice
of a {\em local line bundle}; one choice gives rise to the elliptic zastava; another gives rise
to the elliptic Coulomb branch, see~\S\ref{tri}. Moreover, this way we can define the Coulomb
elliptic zastava $^C\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}_\CK^\alpha$ depending on an arbitrary $T$-bundle $\CK$, not necessarily
trivial.
\subsection{Feigin-Odesskii moduli space}
Another closely related moduli space $M(\CF_G,\CL_T)$ depending on a choice of a $G$-bundle
$\CF_G$ and a $T$-bundle $\CL_T$ on $E$ classifies the $B$-structures $\varphi$ on $\CF_G$
equipped with an isomorphism $\Ind_B^T\varphi\iso\CL_T$. It can be equipped with a natural
structure of a derived stack with a (0-shifted) symplectic form, see~\S\ref{shest}.
B.~Feigin and A.~Odesskii construct in~\cite{fo} a Poisson structure on the moduli space
$\on{Bun}_P$ of $P$-bundles on $E$ (where $P$ is a parabolic subgroup of $G$). The above moduli
spaces $M(\CF_G,\CL_T)$ coincide with certain symplectic leaves of $\on{Bun}_B$. For instance,
if $G=\on{SL}(2)$, then $M(\CF_G,\CL_T)$ is the moduli space of extensions of a line bundle
$\CL^{-1}$ by $\CL$ with a fixed isomorphism class of the resulting rank~2 bundle $\CV_\CF$. If
$\CV_\CF$ is assumed to be stable, then $M(\CF_G,\CL_T)$ is a symplectic leaf of the
Feigin-Odesskii bracket on $\on{Bun}_B$.
If we fix a {\em regular} $T$-bundle $\CK$ (this means that all the line bundles associated to
the roots of $G$ are {\em nontrivial}), take $\CF_G=\Ind_T^G\CK$ and $\deg\CL_T=-\alpha$, then
$M(\CF_G,\CL_T)$ can be identified with a certain ``quasi-Hamiltonian'' reduction
$^{\vphantom{\alpha}}_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^\alpha_\CK$ of $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha_\CK$. Namely, the reduction is defined as
the quotient with respect to the natural $T$-action of a fiber over $\CalD\in E^I$
of the composed morphism
\[\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha_\CK\xrightarrow{\pi^\alpha}E^\alpha\xrightarrow{\sum}E^I\]
(recall that $I$ is the set of simple coroots of $G$).
By the very construction, the Coulomb elliptic zastava $^C\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}_\CK^\alpha$ is also equipped
with the factorization morphism $\pi^\alpha\colon ^C\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}_\CK^\alpha\to E^\alpha$, and so we can
define the reduced Coulomb elliptic zastava $^C_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^\alpha_\CK$ in a similar way.
The important difference with the usual elliptic zastava is that the Coulomb elliptic zastava
$^C\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}_\CK^\alpha$ carries a symplectic form, and the above reduction is really a
(quasi-)Hamiltonian reduction. In particular, the reduced Coulomb elliptic zastava
$^C_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^\alpha_\CK$ inherits a symplectic form.
The two main results of the present paper are as follows:
A. The reduced elliptic zastava and reduced Coulomb elliptic zastava are isomorphic:
$^{\vphantom{\alpha}}_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^\alpha_\CK\simeq{}^C_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^\alpha_{\CK'}$ for an appropriate choice
of a $T$-bundle $\CK'$ depending on $\CK$ and on the level $\CalD$ of the ``moment map''
(Theorem~\ref{reductio}).
B. If $\CK$ is regular, the composed isomorphism
$M(\Ind_T^G\CK,\CL_T)\simeq{}^{\vphantom{\alpha}}_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^\alpha_\CK\simeq{}^C_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^\alpha_{\CK'}$
is a symplectomorphism (Theorem~\ref{myksas}).
\medskip
It is also likely that the reduced elliptic zastava $^{\vphantom{\alpha}}_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^\alpha_\CK$ is isomorphic
to the moduli space of {\em monowalls} (doubly periodic monopoles)~\cite{cw}.
The situation is similar to the case of periodic monopoles: the monowalls come centered
by definition. In the corresponding elliptic Coulomb branch of a quiver
gauge theory the gauge group must be taken as the product of $\SL(V_i)$ (as opposed to the
product of $\GL(V_i)$ for the nonreduced Coulomb elliptic zastava).
\subsection{An explicit formula for the Feigin-Odesskii Poisson bracket}
We are finally in a position to address the problem of explicit computation of the
Feigin-Odesskii Poisson bracket. The Coulomb elliptic zastava $^C\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}_\CK^\alpha$ comes equipped
with \'etale rational coordinates that are ``trigonometric Darboux'' for its symplectic form by
the very construction. The usual elliptic zastava also carry \'etale rational coordinates
$(y_{i,r},w_{i,r})_{i\in I}^{1\leq r\leq a_i}$ similar to the ones in~\S\ref{euclid} (but now
$w_{i,r}$ is a point of $E$). The reduced elliptic zastava (alias the Feigin-Odesskii moduli
space in the regular case) inherits these coordinates with the following caveats:
(a) The $w$-coordinates are constrained: for each $i\in I$ the sum $\sum_{r=1}^{a_i}w_{i,r}\in E$
is fixed;
(b) The $y$-coordinates are homogeneous: only the ratios $\frac{y_{i,r}}{y_{i,r'}}$ are well
defined for $i\in I,\ 1\leq r,r'\leq a_i$.
Then the only nontrivial Poisson brackets arising from the Feigin-Odesskii symplectic form are
as follows:
\begin{multline*}
\Big\{\frac{y_{i,r}}{y_{i,r'}},w_{i,r}\Big\}_{FO}=\frac{y_{i,r}}{y_{i,r'}},\ \hfil
\Big\{\frac{y_{i,r}}{y_{i,r'}},w_{i,r'}\Big\}_{FO}=-\frac{y_{i,r}}{y_{i,r'}},\ \hfil
\Big\{\frac{y_{i,r'}}{y_{i,p'}},\frac{y_{j,r}}{y_{j,p}}\Big\}_{FO}=\\
\frac{y_{i,r'}}{y_{i,p'}}\cdot\frac{y_{j,r}}{y_{j,p}}
\big(\zeta(w_{i,r'}-w_{j,r})-\zeta(w_{i,r'}-w_{j,p})-\zeta(w_{i,p'}-w_{j,r})+\zeta(w_{i,p'}-w_{j,p})\big).
\end{multline*}
in case $i\ne j$ are joined by an edge in the Dynkin diagram of $G$, and zero otherwise
(recall that we assume $G$ simply laced). Here $\zeta(w)$ is the Weierstra\ss\ zeta function.
\subsection{Acknowledgments}
This project was initiated together with A.~Kuznetsov in~2000 right after~\cite{fo,fkmm}
appeared. It is clear from the above discussion that too many important concepts were
missing at the time, so the project had to wait for~20 years till its completion.
We are also grateful to A.~Braverman, S.~Cherkis, P.~Etingof, B.~Feigin,
I.~Mirkovi\'c, H.~Nakajima, I.~Perunov, A.~Prikhodko, E.~Rains, L.~Rybnikov, A.~Tsymbaliuk and
V.~Vologodsky for very helpful discussions. The work of M.F.\ and A.P.\ has been funded within the
framework of the HSE University Basic Research Program and the Russian Academic Excellence
Project `5-100'. A.P.\ is also partially supported by the NSF grant DMS-2001224.
\section{Elliptic zastava}
\label{dva}
\subsection{A group $G$}
\label{group}
Let $G$ be an almost simple simply connected algebraic group over $\BC$. We fix a pair of opposite
Borel subgroups $B$, $B_-$ whose intersection is a maximal torus $T$. The unipotent radical
of $B$ (resp.\ $B_-$) is denoted $U$ (resp.\ $U_-$).
Let $\Lambda$ (resp.\ $\Lambda^\vee$) denote the cocharacter (resp.\ character)
lattice of $T$; since $G$ is assumed to be simply connected, this is also the coroot lattice of $G$.
We denote by $\Lambda_{\on{pos}}\subset \Lambda$ the sub-semigroup spanned by positive coroots. We say that
$\alpha\geq \beta$ (for $\alpha,\beta\in \Lambda$)
if $\alpha-\beta\in\Lambda_{\on{pos}}$. The simple coroots are $\{\alpha_i\}_{i\in I}$;
the simple roots are $\{\alpha^\svee_i\}_{i\in I}$;
the fundamental weights are $\{\omega^\svee_i\}_{i\in I}$.
An irreducible $G$-module with a dominant highest weight $\lambda^\svee\in\Lambda^{\vee+}$
is denoted $V_{\lambda^\svee}$; we fix its highest vector $v_{\lambda^\svee}$.
For a weight $\mu^\svee\in\Lambda^\vee$ the
$\mu^\svee$-weight subspace of a $G$-module $V$ is denoted $V(\mu^\svee)$.
\subsection{Elliptic zastava}
We recall some results of~\cite{g} about various versions of zastava on a curve.
Our curve will be an elliptic curve $E$.
We fix a degree zero $T$-torsor $\CK_T$ on $E$.
It gives rise to a collection of line bundles $\CK^{\mu^\svee}$ on $E$ associated to
characters $\mu^\svee\colon T\to\BC^\times$.
\begin{defn}
\label{ell zas}
\textup{(1)} Given $\alpha\in\Lambda_{\on{pos}}$, we define the {\em compactified elliptic zastava}
$\ol{Z}{}_\CK^\alpha$ as the moduli space of the following data:
\textup{(a)} a $G$-bundle $\CF_G$ on $E$;
\textup{(b)} a $T$-bundle $\CL_T$ of degree $-\alpha$ on $E$;
\textup{(c)} for any dominant weight $\lambda^\svee\in\Lambda^{\vee+}$, a nonzero morphism from
the associated vector bundle
$\xi^{\lambda^\svee}\colon\CV_\CF^{\lambda^\svee}\to\CK^{\lambda^\svee}$;
\textup{(d)} for any $\lambda^\svee\in\Lambda^{\vee+}$, a sheaf embedding
$\eta^{\lambda^\svee}\colon \CL^{\lambda^\svee}\hookrightarrow\CV_\CF^{\lambda^\svee}$,
\medskip
\noindent subject to the following conditions:
\medskip
\textup{(i)} the collection of sheaf embeddings
$\CL^{\lambda^\svee}\hookrightarrow\CV_\CF^{\lambda^\svee}$ satisfy the Pl\"ucker relations,
i.e.\ define a degree $\alpha$ generalized $B$-structure in $\CF_G$;
\textup{(ii)} the collection of morphisms
$\CV_\CF^{\lambda^\svee}\to\CK^{\lambda^\svee}$ satisfy the Pl\"ucker relations,
i.e.\ define a generalized $\CK$-twisted $U_-$-structure in $\CF_G$;
\textup{(iii)} the composition
$\CL^{\lambda^\svee}\hookrightarrow\CV_\CF^{\lambda^\svee}\twoheadrightarrow\CK^{\lambda^\svee}$
is not zero for any $\lambda^\svee$, i.e.\ the above generalized $B$- and $U_-$-structures are
generically transversal.
\medskip
\textup{(2)} The {\em elliptic zastava} $Z^\alpha_\CK\subset\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK$ is an open
subspace given by the extra condition that the morphisms
$\xi^{\lambda^\svee}\colon\CV_\CF^{\lambda^\svee}\to\CK^{\lambda^\svee}$ are surjective,
i.e.\ the corresponding twisted $U_-$-structure is genuine, not generalized.
\medskip
\textup{(3)} The {\em open elliptic zastava} $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha_\CK\subset Z^\alpha_\CK$ is given by the
extra condition that the embeddings
$\eta^{\lambda^\svee}\colon\CL^{\lambda^\svee}\hookrightarrow\CV_\CF^{\lambda^\svee}$
are embeddings of vector bundles, i.e.\ $\CL^{\lambda^\svee}$ is a line subbundle in
$\CV_\CF^{\lambda^\svee}$ for any $\lambda^\svee\in\Lambda^{\vee+}$. In other words, the
corresponding $B$-structure is genuine, not generalized.
\medskip
\textup{(4)} The {\em factorization} morphism $\pi^\alpha\colon \ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK\to E^\alpha$
associates to the data of zastava the (colored) zero divisor of the composition
$\CL\to\CV_\CF\to\CK$.
\medskip
\textup{(5)} The Cartan torus $T$ acts on $\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK$ by rescaling the morphisms in
(c) above: for $t\in T$ we set $t(\xi^{\lambda^\svee}):=\lambda^\svee(t)\cdot\xi^{\lambda^\svee}$.
This action factors through the adjoint quotient $T^{\on{ad}}$.
\end{defn}
\begin{rem}
\label{reduced zastava}
The moduli stack $\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK$ is actually a finite type scheme, irreducible of dimension
$2|\alpha|$, see e.g.~\cite[\S4, \S7.2]{g}. The open subscheme
$\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha_\CK\subset\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK$ is smooth. The scheme $\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK$
can be nonreduced in general,
cf.~\cite[Example~2.13]{fm} for $G=\SL(5)$. This example features a formal arc scheme, but
according to the Grinberg-Kazhdan theorem and~\cite[\S4.4]{d} it implies that an appropriate
(rational) zastava space $Z^\alpha$ for $G=\SL(5)$ is nonreduced as well. Finally, the rational
zastava $Z^\alpha$ and the elliptic zastava $Z^\alpha_\CK$ are isomorphic locally in the \'etale
topology.
In~\S\ref{tri} we will consider the variety $(\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK)_{\on{red}}$ equipped with the
reduced scheme structure.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
\label{reductive}
In~\S\ref{shest} we will need elliptic zastava for a {\em reductive} group $\sG$. It is defined
similarly to~Definition~\ref{ell zas} making use of the trick~\cite[\S7]{sch} with the help
of a central extension $1\to{\mathcal Z}\to\widehat{\sG}\to\sG\to1$ such that $\mathcal Z$ is
a (connected) central torus in $\widehat{\sG}$, and the derived subgroup
$[\widehat{\sG},\widehat{\sG}]\subset\widehat{\sG}$ is simply connected.
\end{rem}
\begin{defn}
\label{red zas}
We have the Abel-Jacobi morphisms $E^{(a_i)}\to\on{Pic}^{a_i}E$ and their product
$\on{AJ}\colon E^\alpha\to\prod_{i\in I}\on{Pic}^{a_i}E$. We denote the composed morphism by
\[\on{AJ}_Z\colon\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha_\CK\stackrel{\pi^\alpha}{\longrightarrow}
E^\alpha\stackrel{\on{AJ}}{\longrightarrow}\prod_{i\in I}\on{Pic}^{a_i}E.\]
Given a collection $\CalD=(\CalD_i)_{i\in I}\in\on{Pic}^{a_i}E$, we define the
{\em reduced open elliptic zastava}
$^{\vphantom{\alpha}}_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^\alpha_\CK$ as $\on{AJ}_Z^{-1}(\CalD)/T$ (stack quotient).
\end{defn}
The reduced open elliptic zastava $^{\vphantom{\alpha}}_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^\alpha_\CK$ is an irreducible variety.
Let $\alpha=\sum_{i\in I}a_i\alpha_i$. If $a_i=0$ for some $i\in I$, then all the zastava
spaces $\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK,\ Z^\alpha_\CK,\ \vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha_\CK,\ ^{\vphantom{\alpha}}_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^\alpha_\CK$ coincide
with the corresponding zastava spaces for the derived group of the corresponding Levi factor
of $G$. If $a_i>0$ for all $i\in I$, then the action of $T^{\on{ad}}$ on the open elliptic zastava
$\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha_\CK$ is effective, and the dimension of $^{\vphantom{\alpha}}_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^\alpha_\CK$ is
$2|\alpha|-2\on{rk}G$.
\begin{rem}
\label{triv can}
Throughout the paper we will use a trivialization of the canonical line bundle
$\bomega_E$. We fix this trivialization once and for all.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Example of $G=\SL(2)$ and Hilbert schemes}
\label{sl2 vs hilb}
We denote by $\omega^\svee$ the fundamental weight of $G=\SL(2)$, and we denote by
$\alpha^\svee=2\omega^\svee$ the simple root of $G$. We denote by $\alpha$ the simple coroot
of $G$. We denote the total space of the line bundle $\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}$ over $E$ by
$S_{\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}}$, and we denote the complement to the zero section by $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{S}}}_{\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}}$.
These are algebraic surfaces equipped with a projection to $E$.
For $a\in\BN$, we denote $\ol{Z}{}^{a\alpha}_\CK$ simply by $\ol{Z}{}^a_\CK$.
We denote by $\Hilb^a(S_{\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}})\supset\Hilb^a(\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{S}}}_{\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}})$
the degree $a$ Hilbert schemes of points on the surfaces
$S_{\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}}\supset \vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{S}}}_{\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}}$. We denote by
$\Hilb^a_\tr(S_{\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}})\subset\Hilb^a(S_{\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}})$
(resp.\ $\Hilb^a_\tr(\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{S}}}_{\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}})\subset\Hilb^a(\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{S}}}_{\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}})$)
the open {\em transversal Hilbert subscheme}
classifying all quotients of $\CO_{S_{\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}}}$ (resp.\ of $\CO_{\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{S}}}_{\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}}}$) whose
direct images to $E$ are also cyclic, i.e.\ are quotients of $\CO_E$.
Thus we have projections
$\Hilb^a_\tr(\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{S}}}_{\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}})\to\Hilb^a(E)=E^{(a)}\leftarrow\Hilb^a_\tr(S_{\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}})$.
The transversal Hilbert scheme $\Hilb^a_\tr(S_{\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}})$ is canonically isomorphic to the total
space of the following vector bundle $\CU_\CK$ on $E^{(a)}$. Let
$\bq\colon E\times E^{(a-1)}\to E^{(a)}$ be the addition morphism (aka the universal
family over $\Hilb^a(E)=E^{(a)}$). Then $\CU_\CK:=\bq_*\pr_E^*\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}$.
We will also need another closely related vector bundle on $E^{(a)}$. Namely, let
$\Delta^{1,a-1}\subset E\times E^{(a-1)}$ be the incidence divisor (note that the line bundle
$\CO(\Delta^{1,a-1})$ on $E\times E^{(a-1)}$ is isomorphic to the normal bundle
to the closed embedding $E\times E^{(a-1)}\hookrightarrow E\times E^{(a)},\ (x,D')\mapsto(x,x+D')$,
see e.g.~\cite[Proposition 19.1]{p}).
We set $\CT_\CK:=\bq_*(\pr_E^*\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}\otimes\CO(\Delta^{1,a-1}))$.
Note that in case $\CK$ is trivial,
the corresponding vector bundle $\CT$ is nothing but the tangent bundle of $E^{(a)}$, and
the corresponding vector bundle $\CU$ is dual to $\CT$, i.e.\ $\CU\simeq\CT^*$ is the
cotangent bundle of $E^{(a)}$.
Furthermore, we have the Abel-Jacobi morphism $E^{(a)}\to\on{Pic}^a(E)$. For an arbitrary
line bundle $\CK'$ on $E$, we denote the composed
morphism by $\on{AJ}\colon\Hilb^a_\tr(\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{S}}}_{\CK'})\to E^{(a)}\to\on{Pic}^a(E)$.
For a line bundle $\CalD$ of degree $a$ on $E$,
the fiberwise dilation action of $\BC^\times$ on $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{S}}}_{\CK'}$ induces an
action of $\BC^\times$ on $\on{AJ}^{-1}(\CalD)\subset
\Hilb^a_\tr(\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{S}}}_{\CK'})$,
and we define the {\em reduced transversal Hilbert scheme}
$^{\vphantom{\alpha}}_\CalD\ul\Hilb{}_\tr^a(\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{S}}}_{\CK'})$ as
$\on{AJ}^{-1}(\CalD)/\BC^\times$ (stack quotient).
\begin{prop}
\label{hilb vs zas}
\textup{(a)} There are natural isomorphisms \[\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^1_\CK\cong \vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{S}}}_{\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}},\
Z^1_\CK\cong S_{\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}},\ \ol{Z}{}^1_\CK\cong\BP(\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}\oplus\CO_E).\]
\textup{(b)} For $a\in\BN$, the zastava space $Z^{a}_\CK$ is naturally isomorphic to the
total space of the vector bundle $\CT_\CK$ on $E^{(a)}$.
\textup{(c)} For $a\in\BN,\ \CalD\in\on{Pic}^a(E)$, the reduced open zastava
$^{\vphantom{\alpha}}_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^{a}_\CK$ is naturally isomorphic to the reduced transversal
Hilbert scheme $^{\vphantom{\alpha}}_\CalD\ul\Hilb{}_\tr^a(\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{S}}}_{\CK'})$ for
$\CK'=\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}\otimes\CalD$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By definition, $\ol{Z}{}^{a}_\CK$ is the moduli space of the data
$\CL^{\omega^\svee}\to\CV_\CF^{\omega^\svee}\to\CK^{\omega^\svee}$ such that the composition
$\CL^{\omega^\svee}\to\CK^{\omega^\svee}$ is not zero. Here $\CV_\CF^{\omega^\svee}$ is a vector bundle
on $E$ of rank 2 with trivialized determinant, and $\CL^{\omega^\svee}$ is a line bundle of
degree $-a$. Hence the composition $\CL^{\omega^\svee}\hookrightarrow\CK^{\omega^\svee}$ identifies
$\CL^{\omega^\svee}$ with $\CK^{\omega^\svee}(-D)$ for an effective divisor $D$ on $E$ of
degree $a$. The trivialization of $\det\CV_\CF^{\omega^\svee}$ makes $\CV_\CF^{\omega^\svee}$ canonically
selfdual, so the dual of our data is $\CK^{-\omega^\svee}\to\CV_\CF^{\omega^\svee}\to\CL^{-\omega^\svee}$.
In particular, we obtain the sheaf embeddings \[\CK^{-\omega^\svee}\oplus\CK^{\omega^\svee}(-D)=
\CK^{-\omega^\svee}\oplus\CL^{\omega^\svee}\hookrightarrow\CV_\CF^{\omega^\svee}\hookrightarrow
\CL^{-\omega^\svee}\oplus\CK^{\omega^\svee}=\CK^{-\omega^\svee}(D)\oplus\CK^{\omega^\svee}.\]
In other words, $\CV_\CF^{\omega^\svee}$ is a degree $a$ upper modification of
$\CK^{-\omega^\svee}\oplus\CK^{\omega^\svee}(-D)$ at $D$. The open subvariety
$Z^{a}_\CK\subset\ol{Z}{}^{a}_\CK$ is given by the open condition that the projection
of $\CV_\CF^{\omega^\svee}$ to $\CK^{\omega^\svee}$ is surjective, and the open subvariety
$\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^{a}_\CK\subset Z^{a}$ is given by the extra open condition that the projection of
$\CV_\CF^{\omega^\svee}$ to $\CK^{-\omega^\svee}(D)$ is surjective. Yet in other words,
$\ol{Z}{}^{a}_\CK$ is the moduli space of $a$-dimensional $\CO_E$-submodules
$V\subset(\CK^{-\omega^\svee}(D)/\CK^{-\omega^\svee})\oplus(\CK^{\omega^\svee}/\CK^{\omega^\svee}(-D))$,
the open subvariety $Z^{a}_\CK\subset\ol{Z}{}^{a}_\CK$ is given by the open condition that
$V$ is transversal to $\CK^{-\omega^\svee}(D)/\CK^{-\omega^\svee}$, and the open subvariety
$\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^{a}_\CK\subset Z^{a}_\CK$ is given by the extra open condition that $V$ is transversal
to $\CK^{\omega^\svee}/\CK^{\omega^\svee}(-D)$.
If $a=1$, then $D$ is a single point $x\in E$, and the fiber of $\ol{Z}{}^1_\CK$ over
$x\in E$ is a projective line
$\BP\big((\CK^{-\omega^\svee}(x)/\CK^{-\omega^\svee})\oplus(\CK^{\omega^\svee}/\CK^{\omega^\svee}(-x))\big)$.
Hence $\ol{Z}{}^1_\CK$ is the projectivization of the rank 2 vector bundle
$\CK^{-\omega^\svee}\otimes\CT_E\oplus\CK^{\omega^\svee}$ over $E$. The trivialization of
the canonical line bundle $\bomega_E$ in~Remark~\ref{triv can} gives rise to a trivialization
of the tangent line bundle $\CT_E$, and we obtain an isomorphism
$\ol{Z}{}^1_\CK\cong\BP(\CK^{-\omega^\svee}\oplus\CK^{\omega^\svee})=
\BP(\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}\oplus\CO_E)$. Furthermore, a point of $Z^1_\CK$ over $x\in E$ can
be viewed as the graph of a homomorphism from $\CK^{\omega^\svee}_x$ to $\CK^{-\omega^\svee}_x$, so
$Z^1_\CK$ gets identified with the total space of the line bundle
$\CH om(\CK^{\omega^\svee},\CK^{-\omega^\svee})=\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}$. Finally, a point of $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^1_\CK$
over $x\in E$ can be viewed as the graph of an isomorphism from $\CK^{\omega^\svee}_x$ to
$\CK^{-\omega^\svee}_x$. This completes our proof of (a).
\medskip
Recall that the fiber of $\Hilb^a_\tr(S_{\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}})$ (respectively, of $\Hilb^a_\tr(\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{S}}}_{\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}})$)
over $D\in E^{(a)}$ is canonically isomorphic to
$\Hom_{\CO_E}(\CO_D,\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}/\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}(-D))$ (respectively, to
$\Isom_{\CO_E}(\CO_D,\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}/\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}(-D))$), where $\CO_D=\CO_E/\CO_E(-D)$.
On the other hand, an $a$-dimensional $\CO_E$-submodule
$V\subset(\CK^{-\omega^\svee}(D)/\CK^{-\omega^\svee})\oplus(\CK^{\omega^\svee}/\CK^{\omega^\svee}(-D))$
transversal to $\CK^{-\omega^\svee}(D)/\CK^{-\omega^\svee}$ is the graph of a homomorphism
$h_V\in\Hom_{\CO_E}(\CK^{\omega^\svee}/\CK^{\omega^\svee}(-D),\CK^{-\omega^\svee}(D)/\CK^{-\omega^\svee})=
\Hom_{\CO_E}(\CO_D,\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}(D)/\CK^{-\alpha^\svee})$.
Furthermore, $V$ is
also transversal to $\CK^{\omega^\svee}/\CK^{\omega^\svee}(-D)$ iff $h_V$ is invertible.
Since $\CO_D$ is a cyclic $\CO_E$-module with generator 1, a homomorphism
$h_V\in\Hom_{\CO_E}(\CO_D,\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}(D)/\CK^{-\alpha^\svee})$ is uniquely determined
by $h_V(1)$, so that $\Hom_{\CO_E}(\CO_D,\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}(D)/\CK^{-\alpha^\svee})=
\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}(D)/\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}$, and the latter space is nothing but the fiber of
the vector bundle $\CT_\CK$ at $D\in E^{(a)}$. This completes the proof of~(b).
\medskip
We have just seen that the fiber of $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^{a}_\CK$ over $D\in E^{(a)}$ is canonically
isomorphic to $\Isom_{\CO_E}(\CO_D,\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}(D)/\CK^{-\alpha^\svee})$. If $D$ runs over
the fiber of the Abel-Jacobi map over $\CalD=\CK^{\omega^\svee}\otimes\CL^{-\omega^\svee}$, then
$\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}(D)/\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}\simeq(\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}\otimes\CalD)|_D$,
and the isomorphism is well defined up to a multiplicative constant.
Hence $\Isom_{\CO_E}(\CO_D,\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}(D)/\CK^{-\alpha^\svee})\simeq
\Isom_{\CO_E}(\CO_D,(\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}\otimes\CalD)|_D)$,
and the isomorphism is well defined up to a multiplicative constant.
The latter space is the fiber of $\Hilb{}_\tr^a(\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{S}}}_{\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}\otimes\CalD})$ over $D$.
Finally, taking quotient by the action of $\BC^\times$ removes the ambiguity in the choice
of the above isomorphism, and produces the desired canonical isomorphism.
The above argument generalizes straightforwardly to the case of families over a base $B$.
For example, the isomorphism
$\Isom_{\CO_{E\times B}}(\CO_{D\times B},\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}(D\times B)/\CK^{-\alpha^\svee})\simeq
\Isom_{\CO_{E\times B}}(\CO_{D\times B},(\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}\otimes\CalD)|_{D\times B})$ is well defined
up to $\CO^\times_B$.
This completes the proof of~(c).
\end{proof}
\section{Mirkovi\'c construction}
\label{tri}
From now on we assume that $G$ is simply laced. We choose an orientation of the Dynkin diagram of
$G$. We obtain a quiver $Q$ with the set of vertices $Q_0=I$, and the set of arrows $Q_1$. For an
arrow $h=(i\to j)$ we use the standard notation $j=\on{i}(h),\ i=\on{o}(h)$.
\subsection{Compactified zastava}
\label{mir com}
Given a collection of line bundles $\CK_i,\ i\in I$, and $\beta=\sum b_i\alpha_i\in\Lambda_{\on{pos}}$, we
define a line bundle $\CK^\beta:=\boxtimes_{i\in I}\CK_i^{(b_i)}$ on $E^\beta=\prod_{i\in I}E^{(b_i)}$.
Here $\CK_i^{(b_i)}$ is the descent of $\CK_i^{\boxtimes b_i}$ from $E^{b_i}$ to $E^{(b_i)}$ obtained
by passing to $S_{b_i}$-invariant sections on $U^{(b_i)}$, where $U\subset E$ is an affine open
subset.
Given $\beta,\gamma\in\Lambda_{\on{pos}}$ with $\beta+\gamma=\alpha$, we consider the diagram
\[E^\beta\xleftarrow{\bp}E^\beta\times E^\gamma\xrightarrow{\bq}E^\alpha,\]
where $\bp$ is the projection, and $\bq$ is the addition of colored effective divisors.
For $i,j\in I$ we define $\Delta_{ij}^{\beta,\gamma}\subset E^\beta\times E^\gamma$ as the incidence divisor
where a point of color $i$ in $E^\beta$ equals a point of color $j$ in $E^\gamma$.
We also define $\Delta_{ij}^\beta\subset E^\beta$ as the divisor formed by configurations where a point
of color $i$ equals a point of color $j$.
We define the factorizable vector bundle $\BV_\CK^\alpha$ on $E^\alpha$ as
\begin{equation}
\label{mir bun}
\BV_\CK^\alpha:=
\bigoplus_{\beta+\gamma=\alpha}\bq_*\left(\bp^*\Big(\CK^\beta\big(\sum_{i\in I}\Delta_{ii}^\beta
-\sum_{h\in Q_1}\Delta_{\on{o}(h)\on{i}(h)}^\beta\big)\Big)\big(\sum_{i\in I}\Delta^{\beta,\gamma}_{ii}\big)\right).
\end{equation}
It contains two codimension 1 subbundles:
\[\BV_{\CK,\on{low}}^\alpha:=
\bigoplus_{\substack{\beta+\gamma=\alpha\\ \beta\ne0}}
\bq_*\left(\bp^*\Big(\CK^\beta\big(\sum_{i\in I}\Delta_{ii}^\beta
-\sum_{h\in Q_1}\Delta_{\on{o}(h)\on{i}(h)}^\beta\big)\Big)\big(\sum_{i\in I}\Delta^{\beta,\gamma}_{ii}\big)\right),\
\on{and}\]
\[\BV_\CK^{\alpha,\on{up}}:=
\bigoplus_{\substack{\beta+\gamma=\alpha\\ \gamma\ne0}}
\bq_*\left(\bp^*\Big(\CK^\beta\big(\sum_{i\in I}\Delta_{ii}^\beta
-\sum_{h\in Q_1}\Delta_{\on{o}(h)\on{i}(h)}^\beta\big)\Big)\big(\sum_{i\in I}\Delta^{\beta,\gamma}_{ii}\big)\right).\]
The factorization property is a canonical isomorphism for any decomposition
$\alpha=\alpha'+\alpha''$, between the pullbacks of $\BV_\CK^\alpha$ and
$\BV_\CK^{\alpha'}\boxtimes\BV_\CK^{\alpha''}$ to $(E^{\alpha'}\times E^{\alpha''})_{\on{disj}}$.
In particular, the rank of $\BV_\CK^\alpha$ equals $2^{|\alpha|}$, and the pullback of
$\BV_\CK^\alpha$ to $(\prod_{i\in I}E^{a_i})_{\on{disj}}$ is canonically isomorphic to
$\boxtimes_{i\in I}((\CK_i\oplus\CO_E)^{\boxtimes a_i})|_{(\prod_{i\in I}E^{a_i})_{\on{disj}}}$
(here $\alpha=\sum_{i\in I}a_i\alpha_i$). Let
$p^\alpha\colon (\prod_{i\in I}E^{a_i})_{\on{disj}}\to E^\alpha_{\on{disj}}$ stand for the unramified
Galois cover with Galois group $S_\alpha=\prod_{i\in I}S_{a_i}$ (the product of symmetric groups).
Then the vector bundle
$\boxtimes_{i\in I}((\CK_i\oplus\CO_E)^{\boxtimes a_i})|_{(\prod_{i\in I}E^{a_i})_{\on{disj}}}$ carries a
natural $S_\alpha$-equivariant structure, and $\BV_\CK^\alpha|_{E^\alpha_{\on{disj}}}
=\big(p^\alpha_*\boxtimes_{i\in I}((\CK_i\oplus\CO_E)^{\boxtimes a_i})|_{(\prod_{i\in I}E^{a_i})_{\on{disj}}}\big)^{S_\alpha}$.
Thus the projectivization
$\BP\big(\boxtimes_{i\in I}((\CK_i\oplus\CO_E)^{\boxtimes a_i})\big)|_{(\prod_{i\in I}E^{a_i})_{\on{disj}}}$ contains
the product of the ruled surfaces ($\BP^1$-bundles over $E$)
$\prod_{i\in I}\BP(\CK_i\oplus\CO_E)^{a_i}|_{(\prod_{i\in I}E^{a_i})_{\on{disj}}}$ (Segre embedding). Hence
$\BP\BV_\CK^\alpha|_{E^\alpha_{\on{disj}}}$ contains
$\big(\prod_{i\in I}\BP(\CK_i\oplus\CO_E)^{a_i}|_{(\prod_{i\in I}E^{a_i})_{\on{disj}}}\big)/S_\alpha$.
\begin{defn} [I.~Mirkovi\'c]
\label{mir def}
\textup{(a)} {\em Mirkovi\'c compactified zastava} $^{\on{Mir}}\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK$ is defined as the
closure of
$\big(\prod_{i\in I}\BP(\CK_i\oplus\CO_E)^{a_i}|_{(\prod_{i\in I}E^{a_i})_{\on{disj}}}\big)/S_\alpha$ in
$\BP\BV_\CK^\alpha$ (with the reduced closed subscheme structure).
\textup{(b)} The {\em upper} (resp.\ {\em lower}) {\em boundary}
$\partial_{\on{up}}{}^{\on{Mir}}\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK$ (resp.\
$\partial_{\on{low}}{}^{\on{Mir}}\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK$) is defined as the intersection
$^{\on{Mir}}\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK\cap\BP\BV_\CK^{\alpha,\on{up}}$ (resp.\
$^{\on{Mir}}\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK\cap\BP\BV_{\CK,\on{low}}^\alpha$).
\textup{(c)} {\em Mirkovi\'c zastava} $^{\on{Mir}}\!Z^\alpha_\CK$ is defined as the open
subscheme in $^{\on{Mir}}\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK$ obtained by removing the upper boundary
$\partial_{\on{up}}{}^{\on{Mir}}\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK$.
\textup{(d)} {\em Mirkovi\'c open zastava} $^{\on{Mir}}\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha_\CK$ is defined as the open
subscheme in $^{\on{Mir}}\!Z^\alpha_\CK$ obtained by further removing the lower boundary
$\partial_{\on{low}}{}^{\on{Mir}}\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK$.
\end{defn}
Returning to the usual compactified zastava (Definition~\ref{ell zas}), we set
\begin{equation}
\label{393}
\CK_i:=\CK^{-\alpha^\svee_i}.
\end{equation}
Then the factorization property of zastava along
with~Proposition~\ref{hilb vs zas}(a) gives rise to a canonical isomorphism
$\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK|_{E^\alpha_{\on{disj}}}
\cong\big(\prod_{i\in I}\BP(\CK_i\oplus\CO_E)^{a_i}|_{(\prod_{i\in I}E^{a_i})_{\on{disj}}}\big)/S_\alpha$.
Thus we obtain a birational isomorphism
$\Theta^\circ\colon ^{\on{Mir}}\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK\stackrel{\sim}\dasharrow\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK.$
\begin{thm} [I.~Mirkovi\'c]\cite[2.4.6]{myz}
\label{mir thm}
The birational isomorphism $\Theta^\circ$ extends to a regular isomorphism
$\Theta\colon ^{\on{Mir}}\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK\iso(\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK)_{\on{red}}$ with the
compactified zastava equipped with the reduced scheme structure.
Moreover, $\Theta$ restricts to the same named isomorphisms
$^{\on{Mir}}\!Z^\alpha_\CK\iso(Z^\alpha_\CK)_{\on{red}}$ and also
$^{\on{Mir}}\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha_\CK\iso\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha_\CK$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
For the readers' convenience we sketch a proof. We consider a twisted version $\Gr_{BD,\CK}$ of
the Beilinson-Drinfeld Grassmannian: the moduli space of $|\alpha|$-tuples of points in $E$,
and $G$-bundles $\CF_G$ on $E$ equipped with a rational isomorphism
$\sigma\colon\CF_G\stackrel{\sim}{\dasharrow}\Ind_T^G\CK_T$ regular away from the above
$|\alpha|$-tuple. The product of symmetric groups $S_\alpha\subset S_{|\alpha|}$ acts on
$\Gr_{BD,\CK}$, and we denote by $\Gr^\alpha_{BD,\CK}$ the categorical quotient (partially
symmetrized twisted Beilinson-Drinfeld Grassmannian). The generically transversal generalized
$B$- and twisted $U_-$-structures in the data of zastava define a generic isomorphism
$\CF_G\stackrel{\sim}{\dasharrow}\Ind_T^G\CK_T$; this way we obtain a closed embedding
$\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK\hookrightarrow\Gr^\alpha_{BD,\CK}$.
We consider the corresponding closed embedding of the $T$-fixed point subschemes
$(\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK)^T\hookrightarrow(\Gr^\alpha_{BD,\CK})^T$. One can construct an isomorphism
$(\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK)^T\simeq\bigsqcup_{\beta+\gamma=\alpha}E^\beta\times E^\gamma$. Furthermore,
one can identify the restriction of the ample determinant line bundle $\fL$ on
$\Gr^\alpha_{BD,\CK}$ to the connected component $E^\beta\times E^\gamma\subset(\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK)^T$
with the line bundle $\bp^*\Big(\CK^{-\beta}\big(-\sum_{i\in I}\Delta_{ii}^\beta
+\sum_{h\in Q_1}\Delta_{\on{o}(h)\on{i}(h)}^\beta\big)\Big)$,
cf.~\cite[Proposition~2.4.1]{myz}.
Now consider the restrictions
$\bq_*\fL\to\bq_*\left(\fL|_{\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK}\right)\to\bq_*\left(\fL|_{(\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK)^T}\right)$,
where $\bq\colon\Gr^\alpha_{BD,\CK}\to E^\alpha$ is the natural projection. The composition
$\bq_*\fL\to\bq_*\left(\fL|_{(\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK)^T}\right)$ is surjective since it equals another
composition of
$\bq_*\fL\to\bq_*\left(\fL|_{(\Gr^\alpha_{BD,\CK})^T}\right)\to\bq_*\left(\fL|_{(\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK)^T}\right)$
that is surjective e.g.\ by~\cite{z}. Hence the restriction
$r_0\colon \bq_*\left(\fL|_{\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK}\right)\to\bq_*\left(\fL|_{(\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK)^T}\right)$
is surjective as well.
The restriction of $\bq$ to $\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK$ is the factorization morphism $\pi^\alpha$.
By factorization, a general fiber of $\pi^\alpha$ is isomorphic to a product of projective
lines, and the restriction of $\fL$ to a general fiber is isomorphic to the exterior product
of line bundles $\CO_{\BP^1}(1)$. Hence the restriction $r_0$ to the $T$-fixed points is an
isomorphism over the generic point of $E^\alpha$. If the coherent sheaf
$\bq_*\left(\fL|_{\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK}\right)$ were torsion free, $r_0$ would be injective, and hence
an isomorphism. However, the direct image $\bq_*\left(\fL|_{\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK}\right)$ does have
torsion (essentially due to the nonreducedness of the compactified zastava,
cf.~Remark~\ref{reduced zastava}).
We denote by $\CT_0\subset\bq_*\left(\fL|_{\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK}\right)$ the torsion subsheaf.
We impose the relations $\CT_0$ on the image of the projective embedding of
$\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK$ into $\BP(\bq_*\fL)$. The resulting closed subscheme of $\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK$
is denoted $^{(1)}\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK$. The fixed point subschemes $({}^{(1)}\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK)^T$
and $(\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK)^T$ coincide since the latter one is reduced. Hence the restriction
$r_1\colon \bq_*\left(\fL|_{^{(1)}\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK}\right)\to\bq_*\left(\fL|_{(\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK)^T}\right)$
is surjective. We denote by $\CT_1\subset\bq_*\left(\fL|_{^{(1)}\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK}\right)$ the torsion
subsheaf. We impose the relations $\CT_1$ on the image of the projective embedding of
$^{(1)}\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK$ into $\BP(\bq_*\fL)$. The resulting closed subscheme of
$^{(1)}\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK$ is denoted $^{(2)}\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK$.
Continuing like this we obtain a chain of closed subschemes
\[\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK\supset{}^{(1)}\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK\supset{}^{(2)}\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK\supset\ldots\]
By the noetherian property of $\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK$ this chain stabilizes with certain closed
subscheme to be denoted
$^{(\infty)}\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK\subset\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK$. If this subscheme is not reduced, we apply
the above procedure to $_{(1)}\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK:=\big({}^{(\infty)}\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK\big)_{\on{red}}$
to obtain its closed subscheme $^{(\infty)}_{(1)}\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK$. Continuing like this we
obtain a chain of closed subschemes \[^{(\infty)}\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK\supset
{}^{(\infty)}_{(1)}\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK\supset{}^{(\infty)}_{(2)}\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK\supset\ldots\]
By the noetherian property of $^{(\infty)}\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK$ this chain stabilizes with
certain reduced closed subscheme
to be denoted $^{(\infty)}_{(\infty)}\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK\subset\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK$. Since
$^{(\infty)}_{(\infty)}\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK$ and $\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK$ coincide over the generic
point of $E^\alpha$, the subscheme $^{(\infty)}_{(\infty)}\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK$ must coincide with
$(\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK)_{\on{red}}$.
The restriction morphism $r_\infty\colon
\bq_*\left(\fL|_{^{(\infty)}_{(\infty)}\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK}\right)\to\bq_*\left(\fL|_{(\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK)^T}\right)$
is surjective. By construction, $\bq_*\left(\fL|_{^{(\infty)}_{(\infty)}\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK}\right)$ is torsion
free, so $r_\infty$ is an isomorphism.
Thus $^{(\infty)}_{(\infty)}\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK$ is embedded into $\BP\BV^\alpha_\CK$, and must coincide
there with the closure of its generic fiber, i.e.\ with $^{\on{Mir}}\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Example of type $A_1$ \`a la Mirkovi\'c}
\label{A1 mir}
Recall the setup and notation of~\S\ref{sl2 vs hilb}. We assume $\CK$ is trivial and denote
$\ol{Z}{}^a_\CK$ by $\ol{Z}{}^a$ for short. The argument in the proof
of~Proposition~\ref{hilb vs zas}(a) defines an embedding of $\ol{Z}{}^a$ into the symmetrized
version $\Gr_{\SL(2),E^{(a)}}$ of Beilinson-Drinfeld Grassmannian of $G=\SL(2)$ of degree $a$,
cf.~\cite[\S4, \S7.2]{g}. We consider the determinant (relatively very ample) line bundle $\fL$ on
$\Gr_{\SL(2),E^{(a)}}$ and its restriction to $\ol{Z}{}^a$. The projection $\ol{Z}{}^a\to E^{(a)}$ is
denoted by $\pi^a$. We claim that there is a natural isomorphism
\[(\pi^a_*\fL)^\vee\simeq
\bigoplus_{b+c=a}\bq_*\Big(\bp^*\big(\CO_{E^{(b)}}(\Delta^b)\big)(\Delta^{b,c})\Big)\]
(notation of~\S\ref{mir com}). Indeed, let $(\ol{Z}{}^a)^T$ be the fixed point subscheme of
$\ol{Z}{}^a$. Then $(\ol{Z}{}^a)^T=\bigsqcup_{b+c=a}E^{(b)}\times E^{(c)}$:
to $D_b\in E^{(b)},\ D_c\in E^{(c)}$ we associate the $a$-dimensional vector subspace
\[V_{D_b,D_c}:=\CO_E(D_b)/\CO_E\oplus\CO_E(-D_b)/\CO_E(-D_b-D_c)\subset
(\CO_E(D)/\CO_E)\oplus(\CO_E/\CO_E(-D))\]
(notation of the proof of~Proposition~\ref{hilb vs zas}(a))
and denote the corresponding rank~2 vector bundle on $E$ by $\CV_\CF^{\omega^\svee}$.
The restriction to fixed points induces an isomorphism $\pi^a_*\fL\iso\pi^a_*(\fL|_{(\ol{Z}{}^a)^T})$,
see e.g.~\cite[\S2.4]{myz}. The fiber $\fL_{\CV_\CF^{\omega^\svee}}$ is
$\det^{-1}\!R\Gamma(E,\CV_\CF^{\omega^\svee})$ by definition, so that the fiber
$\fL_{V_{D_b,D_c}}$ equals
\begin{multline*}
\det{}\!^{-1}H^0\big(E,\CO_E(D_b)/\CO_E\big)
\otimes\det{}\!^{-1}H^0\big(E,\CO_E(-D_b)/\CO_E(-D_b-D_c)\big)\\
\otimes\det H^0\big(E,\CO_E/\CO_E(-D_b-D_c)\big)
=\det{}\!^2H^0\big(E,\CO_E/\CO_E(-D_b)\big)
\end{multline*}
(we are making use of the trivialization of $\bomega_E$ in~Remark~\ref{triv can} and of the
Serre duality to identify $\det^{-1}H^0(D,\CO_D(D))$ with $\det H^0(D,\CO_D)$). The latter line
is canonically isomorphic to the fiber of $\bfomega_{E^{(b)}}^2$ at $D_b\in E^{(b)}$. We conclude
that $\pi^a_*\fL=\bigoplus_{b+c=a}\bq_*(\bp^*\bfomega^2_{E^{(b)}})$. Furthermore, the dual vector
bundle of $\bq_*(\bp^*\bfomega^2_{E^{(b)}})$ is
$\bq_*\big(\bp^*\bfomega^{-2}_{E^{(b)}}(\Delta^{b,c})\big)$ by the relative
Grothendieck-Serre duality for $\bq$ since $\Delta^{b,c}$ is the ramification divisor of $\bq$.
Finally, $\bfomega^{-2}_{E^{(b)}}=\CO_{E^{(b)}}(\Delta^b)$.
\subsection{Example of type $A_2$ \`a la Mirkovi\'c}
\label{A2 mir}
In this section $I$ consists of two vertices $i,j$ connected by a single arrow $i\to j$, and
$\alpha=\alpha_i+\alpha_j$. We assume $\CK$ is trivial and denote $\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK$ by
$\ol{Z}{}^\alpha$ for short. We consider the embedding of $\ol{Z}{}^\alpha$ into the
Beilinson-Drinfeld Grassmannian $\Gr_{\SL(3),E^2}$ of degree 2, cf.~\cite[\S4, \S7.2]{g}.
We consider the determinant (relatively very ample) line bundle $\fL$ on $\Gr_{\SL(3),E^2}$
and its restriction to $\ol{Z}{}^\alpha$. The projection $\ol{Z}{}^\alpha\to E\times E$ is
denoted by $\pi^\alpha$. We have
\[(\pi^\alpha_*\fL)^\vee=\CO_{E\times E}^{\oplus3}\oplus\CO_{E\times E}(-\Delta_{ij}).\]
Indeed, let $(\ol{Z}{}^\alpha)^T$ be the fixed point subscheme of $\ol{Z}{}^\alpha$.
Then $(\ol{Z}{}^\alpha)^T$ is isomorphic to the disjoint union of 4 copies of $E\times E$.
Namely, let $v_1,v_2,v_3$ denote the standard basis in the tautological representation of
$\SL(3)$ (so that $T$ acts diagonally). Let us think of points of
$\ol{Z}{}^\alpha\subset\Gr_{\SL(3),E^2}$ as of vector bundles $\CV$ on $E$ identified with
$\CO_Ev_1\oplus\CO_Ev_2\oplus\CO_Ev_3$ away from points $x_i,x_j\in E$. Then:\\
the first copy of $E\times E$ consists of $\CV=\CO_Ev_1\oplus\CO_Ev_2\oplus\CO_Ev_3$;\\
the second copy of $E\times E$ consists of $\CV=\CO_E(x_i)v_1\oplus\CO_E(-x_i)v_2\oplus\CO_Ev_3$;\\
the third copy of $E\times E$ consists of $\CV=\CO_Ev_1\oplus\CO_E(x_j)v_2\oplus\CO_E(-x_j)v_3$;\\
the fourth copy of $E\times E$ consists of
$\CV=\CO_E(x_i)v_1\oplus\CO_E(x_j-x_i)v_2\oplus\CO_E(-x_j)v_3$.
The restriction to fixed points induces an isomorphism
$\pi^\alpha_*\fL\iso\pi^\alpha_*(\fL|_{(\ol{Z}{}^\alpha)^T})$, see e.g.~\cite[\S2.4]{myz}.
The fiber $\fL_\CV$ is $\det\!^{-1}R\Gamma(E,\CV)$ by definition. The restriction
of $\fL$ to the first three copies of $E\times E$ is trivial, while the restriction of
$\fL$ to the fourth copy of $E\times E$ is $\CO_{E\times E}(\Delta_{ij})$.
\begin{comment}
\subsection{Non simply laced case}
Recall the notation of~\S\ref{group}.
We describe a conjectural analogue of Mirkovi\'c construction. Note that the restriction of the
ample determinant line bundle on $\Gr_{G,E}$ to any fiber of $\ol{Z}{}^{\alpha_i}$ over $E$
(isomorphic to the projective line) is $\CO(d_i)$, see~\cite[Lemma~4.2]{bf}.
We define $\on{Part}(\alpha)$ as the set of ordered partitions
$\alpha=\alpha_0+\alpha_1+\ldots+\alpha_d$ such that $\alpha_\ell=\sum_{i\in I}a_i^\ell\alpha_i$
for $a_i^\ell\in\BN$, and $a_i^\ell=0$ for $\ell>d_i$.
For $\ul\alpha=(\alpha_0,\ldots,\alpha_d)\in\on{Part}(\alpha)$ we set
$E^{\ul\alpha}=E^{\alpha_0}\times\cdots\times E^{\alpha_d}$. We have the evident projections
$\bp_\ell\colon E^{\ul\alpha}\to E^{\alpha_\ell}$, and also the addition morphism
$\bq\colon E^{\ul\alpha}\to E^\alpha$. We set
\[\BV_\CK^\alpha:=\bigoplus_{\ul\alpha\in\on{Part}(\alpha)}\bq_*\left(\bigotimes_{\ell=0}^d\bp_\ell^*
\CK^{\ell\alpha_\ell}\big(\sum_{i\in I}\Delta_{ii}^{\alpha_\ell}-\sum_{i\to j}\Delta_{ij}^{\alpha_\ell}\big)\otimes
\bigotimes_{i\in I}^{\ell_1<\ell_2}\CO_{E^{\ul\alpha}}\big(\Delta_{ii}^{\alpha_{\ell_1},\alpha_{\ell_2}}\big)\right).\]
Maybe the orientation should go from short coroots to long coroots.
\end{comment}
\subsection{Another example of type $A_1$: regular case}
\label{A1 reg}
We consider the situation complementary to the one of~\S\ref{A1 mir}: we assume that
$\CK^2$ is {\em nontrivial}. The open elliptic zastava of degree $a$ is the moduli space
$\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}_\CK^a$ of line subbundles $\CL\subset\CK\oplus\CK^{-1}$ of degree
$-a$. In other words, $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}_\CK^a$ is the moduli space of triples
$(\CL,\ s\in H^0(E,\CL^{-1}\CK),\ t\in H^0(E,\CL^{-1}\CK^{-1}))$ such that $s$ and $t$ have no
common zeros, viewed up to common rescaling. The factorization morphism
$\pi^a\colon\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}_\CK^a\to E^{(a)}$ associates to $(\CL,s,t)$ the zero divisor $D$ of $s$.
We set $t':=t/s\in H^0(E,\CK^{-2}(D))$, a regular section that does not vanish on $D$.
We can also view $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}_\CK^a$ as the moduli space of triples $(\CL,D,t')$.
We have an embedding
\[\Upsilon_{t'}=\begin{pmatrix}1&t'\\ 0&1\end{pmatrix}\colon\CK^{-1}\oplus\CK(-D)\to\CK^{-1}\oplus\CK.\]
We consider the determinant line bundle $\fL$ on $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}_\CK^a$ whose fiber at
$(\CL,D,t')$ is $\det^{-1}H^0(E,\on{Coker}(\Upsilon_{t'}))$. Consider the dual map
$\Upsilon_{t'}^\vee\colon\CK^{-1}\oplus\CK\hookrightarrow\CK^{-1}(D)\oplus\CK$.
Then $H^0(E,\on{Coker}(\Upsilon_{t'}))$ gets identified with an $a$-dimensional subspace in
$H_D:=H^0\big(E,(\CK^{-1}(D)/\CK^{-1})\oplus(\CK/\CK(-D))\big)$.
This defines an embedding of $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}_\CK^a$ into a relative Grassmannian over $E^{(a)}$.
The closure of $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}_\CK^a$ in this relative Grassmannian is nothing but the
compactified zastava $\ol{Z}{}_\CK^a$. The determinant line bundle $\fL$ extends to the same
named line bundle on $\ol{Z}{}_\CK^a$. The fixed point subscheme $\left(\ol{Z}{}_\CK^a\right)^T$
(with respect to the Cartan torus $T\subset\SL(2)$) is finite over $E^{(a)}$, and the
restriction morphism
\begin{equation}
\label{uno}
\pi^a_*\fL\to\pi^a_*(\fL|_{\left(\ol{Z}{}_\CK^a\right)^T})
\end{equation}
is an isomorphism.
We set $\BV_{\CK^{-2}}^a=\bigoplus_{b+c=a}
\bq_*\left(\bp^*\Big((\CK^{-2})^{(b)}\big(\Delta^b\big)\Big)\big(\Delta^{b,c}\big)\right)$
(notation of~\S\ref{A1 mir}). We also consider a line bundle $\CM$ on $E^{(a)}$ with the
fiber $\det^{-1}H^0(D,\CK|_D)$ over $D\in E^{(a)}$. We will need the following well known result.
\begin{lem}
\label{well known}
For any $b>0$, there is an isomorphism $\bomega_{E^{(b)}}^{-2}\simeq\CO_{E^{(b)}}(\Delta^b)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We were unable to locate a reference, so we give a proof. Let $p\colon E^b\to E^{(b)}$ be
the natural symmetrization morphism. We have a natural map
$\bomega^{-1}_{E^b}\to p^*\bomega^{-1}_{E^{(b)}}$ vanishing on the union of diagonals in $E^b$.
Thus, if $v$ is a global nonvanishing differential on $E$, then
$s=p_1^*\wedge\ldots\wedge p_b^*v$ can be viewed as a global section of
$p^*\bomega^{-1}_{E^{(b)}}$ (here $p_r\colon E^b\to E$ is the projection to the $r$-th factor).
A local computation shows that $s^2$ comes from a global section of $\bomega^{-2}_{E^{(b)}}$
vanishing on $\Delta^b$. This gives the required isomorphism.
\end{proof}
Now we are in a position to identify the direct image of the determinant line bundle.
\begin{lem}
\label{duo}
We have an isomorphism $\pi^a_*(\fL|_{\left(\ol{Z}{}_\CK^a\right)^T})\simeq
\CM\otimes\left(\BV_{\CK^{-2}}^a\right)^\vee$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
For every splitting $D=D_b+D_c$ into the sum of effective divisors of degrees $b,c$, we have
a $T$-fixed point in $\ol{Z}{}_\CK^a$ corresponding to the subspace
\begin{multline*}
H^0\big(E,(\CK^{-1}(D_b)/\CK^{-1})\oplus(\CK(-D_b)/\CK(-D))\big)\\
\subset H^0\big(E,(\CK^{-1}(D)/\CK^{-1})\oplus(\CK/\CK(-D))\big)=H_D.
\end{multline*}
This gives rise to an isomorphism
$\tilde\bq\colon\bigsqcup_{b+c=a}E^{(b)}\times E^{(c)}\iso\left(\ol{Z}{}_\CK^a\right)^T$,
where $\pi^a\tilde\bq=\bq$.
In order to calculate $\tilde\bq_*\fL$, note that by the Serre duality on $D_b$ we have
\[H^0(E,\CK^{-1}(D_b)/\CK^{-1})=H^0(D_b,\CK^{-1}(D_b)|_{D_b})\simeq
H^0(D_b,\bomega_{D_b}\otimes\CK(-D_b)|_{D_b})^\vee.\]
Furthermore, by adjunction we have $\bomega_{D_b}\simeq\bomega_E(D_b)|_{D_b}\simeq\CO_E(D_b)|_{D_b}$.
Thus we get a natural isomorphism
$\det^{-1}H^0(E,\CK^{-1}(D_b)/\CK^{-1})\simeq\det H^0(D_b,\CK|_{D_b})$. The exact sequence
\[0\to\CK(-D_b)/\CK(-D)\to\CK/\CK(-D)\to\CK/\CK(-D_b)\to0\]
gives rise to an isomorphism
\[\det{}\!^{-1}H^0(E,\CK(-D_b)/\CK(-D))\simeq
\det{}\!^{-1}H^0(D,\CK|_D)\otimes\det H^0(D_b,\CK|_{D_b}).\]
Hence we deduce an isomorphism
\[\tilde\bq^*\fL|_{(D_b,D_c)}\simeq\det{}\!^{-1}H^0(D,\CK|_D)\otimes\det{}\!^2H^0(D_b,\CK|_{D_b}).\]
In other words, \[\tilde\bq^*\fL\simeq\bp^*\det{}\!^2\varpi_{E^{(b)}*}\varpi_E^*\CK\otimes\bq^*\CM,\]
where $\varpi_{E^{(b)}}\colon\fD_b\to E^{(b)}$ is the universal divisor, and
$\varpi_E\colon\fD_b\to E$ is the natural projection, while
$\CM=\det^{-1}\varpi_{E^{(a)}*}\varpi_E^*\CK$.
From the natural isomorphisms
\[\det\varpi_{E^{(b)}*}\varpi_E^*\CK\simeq
\on{Nm}_{\fD_b/E^{(b)}}(\varpi_E^*\CK)\otimes\det\varpi_{E^{(b)}*}\CO_{\fD_b}\simeq
\CK^{(b)}\otimes\bomega_{E^{(b)}}\]
we deduce an isomorphism
$\tilde\bq^*\fL\simeq\bq^*\CM\otimes\bp^*\big((\CK^2)^{(b)}\otimes\bomega_{E^{(b)}}^2\big)$.
Summing up over all decompositions $b+c=a$ we get an isomorphism
\[\pi^a_*(\fL|_{\left(\ol{Z}{}_\CK^a\right)^T})\simeq\CM\otimes
\bigoplus_{b+c=a}\bq_*\bp^*\big((\CK^2)^{(b)}\otimes\bomega_{E^{(b)}}^2\big).\]
Using relative Serre duality for $\bq$ and an isomorphism of the relative dualizing sheaf for
$\bq$ with $\CO_{E^{(b)}\times E^{(c)}}(\Delta^{b,c})$ we get an isomorphism
\[\Big(\bq_*\bp^*\big((\CK^2)^{(b)}\otimes\bomega_{E^{(b)}}^2\big)\Big)^\vee\simeq
\bq_*\bp^*\big((\CK^{-2})^{(b)}\otimes\bomega_{E^{(b)}}^{-2}\big)\big(\Delta^{b,c}\big).\]
Finally, using the isomorphism $\bomega_{E^{(b)}}^{-2}\simeq\CO_{E^{(b)}}(\Delta^b)$
of~Lemma~\ref{well known}, we identify the RHS with the corresponding summand in $\BV_{\CK^{-2}}^a$.
The lemma is proved.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Identification with Mirkovi\'c zastava}
From Lemma~\ref{duo} we obtain an embedding of $\ol{Z}{}_\CK^a$ into
$\BP\left(\CM^\vee\otimes\BV_{\CK^{-2}}^a\right)\simeq\BP\left(\BV_{\CK^{-2}}^a\right)$. We want to
calculate this morphism explicitly away from the diagonals.
First, we find an explicit inverse of the isomorphism~(\ref{uno}) over an \'etale open in
$E^{(a)}$. In particular, we will work away from the diagonals. Also, we consider the pullback
of the corresponding schemes and vector bundles to $E^a$ (but we will keep the same notations
for the base change from $E^{(a)}$ to $E^a$). Let $D=w_1+\ldots+w_a$ with all the points distinct.
For every subset $\aleph\subset\{1,\ldots,a\}$ we set
\[D_\aleph:=\sum_{r\in\aleph}w_r,\ H_\aleph:=H^0\big(E,(\CK^{-1}(D_\aleph)/\CK^{-1})\oplus
(\CK(-D_\aleph)/\CK(-D))\big)\subset H_D.\]
To $H_\aleph$ we associate a section $\theta_\aleph$ of the determinant line bundle on the
Grassmannian $\Gr(a,H_D)$ vanishing precisely over the set of subspaces that are not transversal
to $H_\aleph$. Namely, for a subspace $S\subset H_D$, the value of $\theta_\aleph$ at $S$ is
the determinant of the composition of natural maps $S\to H_D\to H_D/H_\aleph$.
Thus $\theta_\aleph$ is a section of the line bundle with fibers $\det(H_D/H_\aleph)\otimes\det^{-1}(S)$.
Note that $\det(H_D)$ is canonically trivialized due to Serre duality between $H^0(D,\CK^{-1}(D)|_D)$
and $H^0(D,\CK|_D)$, so we can view $\theta_\aleph$ as a global section of
$\fL\otimes\varpi_{E^{(a)}}^*\det^{-1}(H_\aleph)$ on $\ol{Z}{}_\CK^a$.
Note that $H_\aleph$ and $H_\gimel$ are transversal iff $\gimel=\{1,\ldots,a\}\setminus\aleph$.
Thus $\theta_\aleph(H_\gimel)=0$ for $\gimel\ne\{1,\ldots,a\}\setminus\aleph$. On the other hand,
$\theta_\aleph(H_{\{1,\ldots,a\}\setminus\aleph})\in\fL|_{H_{\{1,\ldots,a\}\setminus\aleph}}\otimes\det^{-1}(H_\aleph)$
is the determinant of the isomorphism $H_{\{1,\ldots,a\}\setminus\aleph}\iso H_D/H_\aleph$.
Hence the composition
\[\bigoplus_{\aleph\subset\{1,\ldots,a\}}\det(H_\aleph)\xrightarrow{(\theta_\aleph)}
\varpi_{E^{(a)}*}\left(\fL|_{\ol{Z}{}_\CK^a}\right)\to
\bigoplus_{\aleph\subset\{1,\ldots,a\}}\det{}\!^{-1}(H_\aleph)\]
is an isomorphism that is a direct sum of the isomorphisms
\[\theta_\aleph(H_{\{1,\ldots,a\}\setminus\aleph})\colon\det(H_\aleph)\to\det{}\!^{-1}(H_\aleph).\]
It follows that the canonical embedding of $\ol{Z}{}_\CK^a$ into the projectivization of
$\left(\varpi_{E^{(a)}*}\big(\fL|_{\ol{Z}{}_\CK^a}\big)\right)^\vee\simeq
\bigoplus_{\aleph\subset\{1,\ldots,a\}}\det(H_\aleph)$ is the morphism
\[\ol{Z}{}_\CK^a\xrightarrow{(\theta_\aleph)}
\BP\left(\bigoplus_{\aleph\subset\{1,\ldots,a\}}\det{}\!^{-1}(H_\aleph)\right)
\xrightarrow{\big(\theta_{\{1,\ldots,a\}\setminus\aleph}^{-1}(H_\aleph)\big)}
\BP\left(\bigoplus_{\aleph\subset\{1,\ldots,a\}}\det(H_\aleph)\right)\]
(where we use the duality
$\theta_\aleph^*(H_{\{1,\ldots,a\}\setminus\aleph})=\theta_{\{1,\ldots,a\}\setminus\aleph}(H_\aleph)$).
\subsubsection{Explicit form of the identification}
\label{Res}
Now we are in a position to calculate the isomorphism of~Lemma~\ref{duo} over a point
$(w_1,\ldots,w_a)\in E^a$. This isomorphism takes form
\begin{equation}
\label{chetyre}
\bigoplus_{\aleph\subset\{1,\ldots,a\}}\det{}\!^{-1}(H_\aleph)\simeq
\left(\bigotimes_{r=1}^a\CK^{-1}|_{w_r}\right)\otimes\bigoplus_{\aleph\subset\{1,\ldots,a\}}
\left(\bigotimes_{r\in\aleph}\CK^2|_{w_r}\right).
\end{equation}
Note that $H_\aleph=\bigoplus_{r\in\aleph}\CK^{-1}(w_r)|_{w_r}\oplus\bigoplus_{r'\not\in\aleph}\CK|_{w_{r'}}$, so
\begin{multline}
\label{this}
\det{}\!^{-1}(H_\aleph)\simeq\left(\bigotimes_{r\in\aleph}\CK(-w_r)|_{w_r}\right)\otimes
\left(\bigotimes_{r'\not\in\aleph}\CK^{-1}|_{w_{r'}}\right)\\
\simeq\left(\bigotimes_{r=1}^a\CK^{-1}|_{w_r}\right)\otimes
\left(\bigotimes_{r\in\aleph}\CK^2(-w_r)|_{w_r}\right).
\end{multline}
One can check that the isomorphism~(\ref{chetyre}) is obtained from~(\ref{this}) by taking the
direct sum over $\aleph\subset\{1,\ldots,a\}$ and making use of the trivializations of
$\bomega_{w_r}\simeq\bomega_E(w_r)|_{w_r}\simeq\CO_E(w_r)|_{w_r}$.
Hence the dual isomorphism to~(\ref{chetyre}) is induced by the natural isomorphisms
\[\det(H_\aleph)\simeq\left(\bigotimes_{r\in\aleph}\CK^{-1}|_{w_r}\right)\otimes
\left(\bigotimes_{r'\not\in\aleph}\CK|_{w_{r'}}\right)\\
\simeq\left(\bigotimes_{r=1}^a\CK|_{w_r}\right)\otimes
\left(\bigotimes_{r\in\aleph}\CK^{-2}|_{w_r}\right).\]
Thus the image of a point $\varphi=(\CL,s,t)\in\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^a_\CK$ in
$\BP\left(\bigoplus_{\aleph\subset\{1,\ldots,a\}}\bigotimes_{r\in\aleph}\CK^{-2}|_{w_r}\right)$ is
obtained by first taking the point $\big(\theta_{\{1,\ldots,a\}\setminus\aleph}(\varphi)\big)\in
\BP\left(\bigoplus_{\aleph\subset\{1,\ldots,a\}}\det^{-1}(H_{\{1,\ldots,a\}\setminus\aleph})\right)$
and then applying the natural isomorphisms $\det^{-1}(H_{\{1,\ldots,a\}\setminus\aleph})\iso\det(H_\aleph)$
to each component.
Finally, let us calculate the values of $\theta_{\{1,\ldots,a\}\setminus\aleph}$ at a point
$\varphi=(\CL,s,t)\in\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^a_\CK$. By definition, the corresponding point of the Grassmannian
$\Gr(a,H_D)$ is the image of the map
\[H^0(D,\CK|_D)\xrightarrow{(t',1)}H^0(D,\CK^{-1}(D)|_D\oplus\CK|_D)=H_D.\]
Thus the value of $\theta_{\{1,\ldots,a\}\setminus\aleph}$ is given by the determinant of the composition
\[H^0(D,\CK|_D)\xrightarrow{(t',1)}H_D\to H_D/H_{\{1,\ldots,a\}\setminus\aleph}\simeq
\bigoplus_{r\in\aleph}\CK^{-1}|_{w_r}\oplus\bigoplus_{r'\not\in\aleph}\CK|_{w_{r'}},\]
that is equal to
\[\theta_{\{1,\ldots,a\}\setminus\aleph}(t')=\prod_{r\in\aleph}\Res_{w_r}(t')\in\bigotimes_{r\in\aleph}
\CK^{-2}|_{w_r}\simeq\det{}\!^{-1}H^0(D,\CK|_D)\otimes\det{}\!^{-1}(H_{\{1,\ldots,a\}\setminus\aleph}).\]
Therefore, the corresponding point in the projectivization of
$\bigoplus_{\aleph\subset\{1,\ldots,a\}}\bigotimes_{r\in\aleph}\CK^{-2}|_{w_r}$
(i.e.\ in $^{\on{Mir}}\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^a_\CK|_{E^{(a)}\setminus\Delta}$) is the point with the homogeneous coordinates
$\left(\prod_{r\in\aleph}\Res_{w_r}(t')\right)_{\aleph\subset\{1,\ldots,a\}}$. It is easy to see that this is
nothing but the image under Segre embedding of the point
\begin{equation}
\label{1:Res}
\big(1:\Res_{w_1}(t')\big),\ldots,\big(1:\Res_{w_a}(t')\big).
\end{equation}
\subsection{Coulomb zastava}
\label{coul zas}
Recall the setup and notation of~\S\ref{mir com}. We define the factorizable vector bundle
$\BU^\alpha_\CK$ on $E^\alpha$ as
\begin{equation}
\label{coul bun}
\BU_\CK^\alpha:=
\bigoplus_{\beta+\gamma=\alpha}\bq_*\left(\bp^*\CK^\beta
\otimes\CO_{E^\beta\times E^\gamma}\big(\sum_{h\in Q_1}\Delta_{\on{o}(h)\on{i}(h)}^{\beta,\gamma}\big)\right).
\end{equation}
It contains two codimension 1 subbundles:
\[\BU_{\CK,\on{low}}^\alpha:=\bigoplus_{\substack{\beta+\gamma=\alpha\\ \beta\ne0}}
\bq_*\left(\bp^*\CK^\beta
\otimes\CO_{E^\beta\times E^\gamma}\big(\sum_{h\in Q_1}\Delta_{\on{o}(h)\on{i}(h)}^{\beta,\gamma}\big)\right),\ \on{and}\]
\[\BU_\CK^{\alpha,\on{up}}:=\bigoplus_{\substack{\beta+\gamma=\alpha\\ \gamma\ne0}}
\bq_*\left(\bp^*\CK^\beta
\otimes\CO_{E^\beta\times E^\gamma}\big(\sum_{h\in Q_1}\Delta_{\on{o}(h)\on{i}(h)}^{\beta,\gamma}\big)\right).\]
As in~\S\ref{mir com}, $\BP\BU_\CK^\alpha|_{E^\alpha_{\on{disj}}}$ contains
$\big(\prod_{i\in I}\BP(\CK_i\oplus\CO_E)^{a_i}|_{(\prod_{i\in I}E^{a_i})_{\on{disj}}}\big)/S_\alpha$.
\begin{defn}
\label{coul def}
\textup{(a)} {\em Coulomb compactified zastava} $^C\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK$ is defined as the
closure of
$\big(\prod_{i\in I}\BP(\CK_i\oplus\CO_E)^{a_i}|_{(\prod_{i\in I}E^{a_i})_{\on{disj}}}\big)/S_\alpha$ in
$\BP\BU_\CK^\alpha$ (with the reduced closed subscheme structure).
\textup{(b)} The {\em upper} (resp.\ {\em lower}) {\em boundary}
$\partial_{\on{up}}{}^C\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK$ (resp.\
$\partial_{\on{low}}{}^C\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK$) is defined as the intersection
$^C\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK\cap\BP\BU_\CK^{\alpha,\on{up}}$ (resp.\
$^C\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK\cap\BP\BU_{\CK,\on{low}}^\alpha$).
\textup{(c)} {\em Coulomb zastava} $^C\!Z^\alpha_\CK$ is defined as the open
subscheme in $^C\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK$ obtained by removing the upper boundary
$\partial_{\on{up}}{}^C\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK$.
\textup{(d)} {\em Coulomb open zastava} $^C\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha_\CK$ is defined as the open
subscheme in $^C\!Z^\alpha_\CK$ obtained by further removing the lower boundary
$\partial_{\on{low}}{}^C\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK$.
\end{defn}
\subsection{Example of type $A_1$ \`a la Coulomb}
\label{A1 cou}
Inside the
symmetrized version $\Gr_{\GL(2),E^{(a)}}$ of Beilinson-Drinfeld Grassmannian of $G=\GL(2)$ of degree
$a$, we consider the moduli space $M^a$ of locally free rank 2 subsheaves
$\CW\subset\CO_Ev_1\oplus\CO_Ev_2$ such that $\on{length}\!\big((\CO_Ev_1\oplus\CO_Ev_2)/\CW\big)=a$.
We consider the determinant (relatively very ample) line bundle
$\fL$ on $\Gr_{\GL(2),E^{(a)}}$ and its restriction to $M^a$. The projection $M^a\to E^{(a)}$ is
denoted by $\pi^a$. We have
\[(\pi^a_*\fL)^\vee=\bfomega^{-1}_{E^{(a)}}\otimes\bigoplus_{b+c=a}\bq_*\CO_{E^{(b)}\times E^{(c)}}\]
(notation of~\S\ref{mir com}). Indeed, let $T\subset\GL(2)$ be the diagonal Cartan torus in
the basis $v_1,v_2$ of $\BC^2$, and let
$(M^a)^T$ be the fixed point subscheme of $M^a$. Then $(M^a)^T=\bigsqcup_{b+c=a}E^{(b)}\times E^{(c)}$:
to $D_b\in E^{(b)},\ D_c\in E^{(c)}$ we associate
\[\CW_{D_b,D_c}:=\CO_E(-D_b)v_1\oplus\CO_E(-D_c)v_2\subset\CO_Ev_1\oplus\CO_Ev_2.\]
The restriction to fixed points induces an isomorphism $\pi^a_*\fL\iso\pi^a_*(\fL|_{(M^a)^T})$.
The fiber $\fL_\CW$ is $\det^{-1}\!R\Gamma(E,\CW)$ by definition, so that
the fiber $\fL_{\CW_{D_b,D_c}}=\det(\CO_E/\CO_E(-D_b))\otimes\det(\CO_E/\CO_E(-D_c))$. The latter line is
canonically isomorphic to the fiber of $\bfomega_{E^{(b)}}\boxtimes\bfomega_{E^{(c)}}$ at
$(D_b,D_c)\in E^{(b)}\times E^{(c)}$. We conclude that
$\pi^a_*\fL=\bigoplus_{b+c=a}\bq_*(\bfomega_{E^{(b)}\times E^{(c)}})$. Furthermore, the dual vector
bundle of $\bq_*(\bfomega_{E^{(b)}\times E^{(c)}})$ is
$\bq_*\big(\bfomega^{-1}_{E^{(b)}\times E^{(c)}}(\Delta^{b,c})\big)$ by the relative Grothendieck-Serre
duality for $\bq$ since $\Delta^{b,c}$ is the ramification divisor of $\bq$. Finally,
$\bfomega^{-1}_{E^{(b)}\times E^{(c)}}(\Delta^{b,c})=\bq^*\bfomega^{-1}_{E^{(a)}}$, and we are done by the
projection formula.
\medskip
Generalizing the above example, for a line bundle $\CK$ on $E$ of degree 0, we consider
the moduli space $M^a_\CK$
of locally free rank 2 subsheaves $\CW\subset\CK\oplus\CK^{-1}$ such that
$\on{length}\!\big((\CK\oplus\CK^{-1})/\CW\big)=a$. The same argument as above provides an
isomorphism $^C\ol{Z}{}^a_\CK\simeq M^a_\CK$. Here the Dynkin graph consists of the unique
vertex $i$, and in the definition of $^C\ol{Z}{}^a_\CK$ we set $\CK_i=\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}=\CK^{-2}$.
Furthermore, let $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}^a_\CK\subset M^a_\CK$
be the open subspace formed by all $\CW\subset\CK\oplus\CK^{-1}$ transversal to both $\CK$ and
$\CK^{-1}$. Then the isomorphism $^C\ol{Z}{}^a_\CK\simeq M^a_\CK$ restricts to an isomorphism
$^C\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^a_\CK\simeq\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}^a_\CK$. Finally, the argument in the proof of~Proposition~\ref{hilb vs zas}(b)
establishes an isomorphism
\begin{equation}
\label{hilb vs coul}
^C\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^a_\CK\simeq\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}^a_\CK\simeq\Hilb^a_\tr(\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{S}}}_{\CK^{-2}}).
\end{equation}
\subsection{Example of type $A_2$ \`a la Coulomb}
\label{A2 cou}
In this section $I$ consists of two vertices $i,j$ connected by a single arrow $i\to j$, and
$\alpha=\alpha_i+\alpha_j$. Then\[\BU^\alpha_\CK=\CO_E\boxtimes\CO_E\oplus
(\CK_i\boxtimes\CO_E)(\Delta_{ij})\oplus\CO_E\boxtimes\CK_j\oplus\CK_i\boxtimes\CK_j,\]
a 4-dimensional vector bundle on $E\times E$. The Coulomb compactified zastava
$^C\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK\subset\BP\BU^\alpha_\CK$ is the zero locus of the
section $s$ of \[\Sym{}\!^2(\BU^\alpha_\CK)^\vee\otimes\big((\CK_i\boxtimes\CK_j)(\Delta_{ij})\big)\]
defined as follows. First, we set \['\BU^\alpha_\CK:=\CO_E\boxtimes\CO_E\oplus
\CK_i\boxtimes\CO_E\oplus\CO_E\boxtimes\CK_j\oplus\CK_i\boxtimes\CK_j=
(\CO_E\oplus\CK_i)\boxtimes(\CO_E\oplus\CK_j).\]
Then $\Sym{}\!^2({}'\BU^\alpha_\CK)^\vee\otimes(\CK_i\boxtimes\CK_j)$ has a canonical section
$\sigma$ defined as follows. Let $w_i,w_j$ be local nonvanishing sections of $\CO_E$, and let
$u_i,u_j$ be local nonvanishing sections of $\CK_i^{-1},\CK_j^{-1}$. Then
\[\sigma=\big((w_i\boxtimes w_j)\cdot(u_i\boxtimes u_j)
-(w_i\boxtimes u_j)\cdot(u_i\boxtimes w_j)\big)\otimes(w_i^{-1}u_i^{-1}\boxtimes w_j^{-1}u_j^{-1}).\]
We have a tautological embedding \[\Sym{}\!^2({}'\BU^\alpha_\CK)^\vee\otimes(\CK_i\boxtimes\CK_j)
\hookrightarrow\Sym{}\!^2(\BU^\alpha_\CK)^\vee\otimes\big((\CK_i\boxtimes\CK_j)(\Delta_{ij})\big)\]
(arising from $\CO_{E\times E}\hookrightarrow\CO_{E\times E}(\Delta_{ij})$), and
$s$ is defined as the image of $\sigma$ under this embedding.
Thus the family $^C\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK\subset\BP\BU^\alpha_\CK\to E\times E$ has fibers
$\BP^1\times\BP^1\subset\BP^3$ (smooth quadrics) away from the diagonal
$\Delta_{ij}\subset E\times E$ that degenerate to $\BP^2\cup_{\BP^1}\BP^2\subset\BP^3$
(singular reducible quadrics) over the diagonal $\Delta_{ij}$.
We choose an analytic neighbourhood $W$ of a point $e\in E$ with coordinate $w$,
and trivialize the line bundles \[\big((\CK_i^{-1}\boxtimes\CO_W)(-\Delta_{ij})\big)|_{W\times W},\
\big(\CO_W\boxtimes\CK_j^{-1}\big)|_{W\times W},\ \big(\CK_i^{-1}\otimes\CK_j^{-1}\big)|_{W\times W}\]
compatibly. We denote the coordinates along fibers of these trivialized line bundles by
$y_i,y_j,y_{ij}$ respectively.
Then $^C\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha_\CK|_{W\times W}\subset W\times W\times\BA^3$ is cut
out by a single equation $y_iy_j-y_{ij}(w_1-w_2)=0$ and an open condition $y_{ij}\ne0$.
\section{Elliptic Coulomb branch of a quiver gauge theory}
\label{piat}
The results of this section are not used in the rest of the paper, and serve as a motivation only.
We consider a quiver $Q=(Q_0,Q_1)$ with the set of vertices $Q_0$ and the set of arrows $Q_1$.
We use the following notation for the Laurent series field and the Taylor series ring:
$\bF=\BC\dprts{t}\supset\BC\dbkts{t}=\bO$.
\subsection{Basics}
Let $V=\oplus_{i\in Q_0}V_i,\ W=\oplus_{i\in Q_0}W_i$ be finite dimensional $Q_0$-graded complex
vector spaces. The group $\sG=\GL(V)=\prod_{i\in Q_0}\GL(V_i)$ acts naturally on
$\bN=\bigoplus_{i\in Q_0}\Hom(W_i,V_i)\oplus\bigoplus_{(i\to j)\in Q_1}\Hom(V_i,V_j)$.
The construction of~\cite[\S2(i)]{bfn1} associates to this representation of $\sG$ the {\em variety
of triples} $\CR$ contained in an infinite rank vector bundle $\CT$ over $\Gr_\sG$.
We consider the equivariant elliptic Borel-Moore homology ring $H^{\sG_\bO}_\elli(\CR)$.
A few words about the latter notion are in order. A theory of $\sG$-equivariant elliptic
{\em cohomology} with values in quasicoherent sheaves of algebras over the moduli space of
semistable
$\sG$-bundles over $E$ was proposed in~\cite{gro,gkv}. After the proposal of~\cite{gro,gkv},
quite a few foundational papers appeared establishing the basic properties of equivariant
elliptic cohomology. We will use~\cite{gan} as a reference. For one thing, we restrict ourselves
to a product of general linear groups $\sG$ since the centralizers of commuting pairs in
$\sG$ are connected, and the base change in equivariant elliptic cohomology holds
true~\cite[Theorem 4.6, Corollary 4.10]{gan}.
Now the equivariant elliptic {\em Borel-Moore homology} $H^{\sG_\bO}_\elli(X)$ is defined
as $W$-invariants in the Cartan torus equivariant elliptic Borel-Moore homology, and these
in turn are defined by descent from the usual equivariant Borel-Moore homology or the equivariant
homological $K$-theory as in~\cite[\S3.3]{gan}. The details of the construction are to appear
in a forthcoming work of I.~Perunov and A.~Prikhodko.
\begin{comment}
is defined in~\cite[(2.2)]{gkv}, but
contrary to the case of usual equivariant Borel-Moore homology, the elliptic homology
depends on the choice of an ambient smooth complex variety $Y\supset X$. In our situation,
for the definition of $H^{\sG_\bO}_\elli(\CR)$ we choose an embedding
$\CR\hookrightarrow\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}$ as in~\cite[\S2.3]{vv}.
For the definition of $\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}$, recall that
$\Gr_\sG$ is the moduli ind-scheme classifying $\sG$-bundles on $\BP^1$ equipped with
a trivialization on $\BP^1\setminus\{0\}$. It is embedded into the Kashiwara moduli scheme
$\bGr_\sG$ (of
infinite type) classifying $\sG$-bundles on $\BP^1$ equipped with a trivialization in the
formal neighbourhood of $\infty\in\BP^1$. The infinite rank vector bundle $\CT$ over $\sG$
is defined as follows: its fiber over a $\sG$-bundle $\CF_\sG$ with a trivialization
$\sigma\colon\CF_\triv|_{\BP^1\setminus\{0\}}\iso\CF_\sG|_{\BP^1\setminus\{0\}}$
is the space of sections of the associated vector bundle $\CF_\sG\stackrel{\sG}{\times}\bN$ over
the formal neighbourhood of $0\in\BP^1$. It is tautologically embedded into the infinite
rank vector bundle $\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}$ over $\bGr_\sG$ defined in the same way
(i.e.\ its fiber over a $\sG$-bundle $\CF_\sG$ with a trivialization
$\tau\colon\CF_\triv|_{(\BP^1)_\infty^\wedge}\iso\CF_\sG|_{(\BP^1)_\infty^\wedge}$
is the space of sections of the associated vector bundle $\CF_\sG\stackrel{\sG}{\times}\bN$ over
the formal neighbourhood of $0\in\BP^1$). Finally, we use the composed embedding
$\CR\hookrightarrow\CT\hookrightarrow\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}$.
\end{comment}
We set $a_i=\dim V_i$, so that
$\alpha=\sum_{i\in Q_0}a_i\alpha_i\in\Lambda_{\on{pos}}$ is a positive coroot combination of the Kac-Moody
Lie algebra $\fg$ with Dynkin diagram $Q$.
Then the equivariant elliptic cohomology $H^\elli_{\sG_\bO}(\pt)=\CO_{E^\alpha}$,
where $E^\alpha=\prod_{i\in I}E^{(a_i)}$. The equivariant
elliptic Borel-Moore homology $H_\elli^{\sG_\bO}(\CR)$ is a quasicoherent sheaf of commutative
$\CO_{E^\alpha}$-algebras by construction of~\cite[\S3]{bfn1}.
Its relative spectrum is denoted $\CM_C^\elli=\CM_C^\elli(\sG,\bN)$:
the elliptic Coulomb branch. By construction, $\CM_C^\elli$ is equipped with an affine morphism
$\varPi\colon\CM_C^\elli\to E^\alpha$.
\subsection{Compactified elliptic Coulomb branch}
From now on we assume that $Q$ is an oriented Dynkin diagram of an almost simple simply connected
simply laced complex algebraic group $G$. We also assume that $W=0$. We will denote $Q_0$ by $I$
to match the notation of Sections~\ref{dva},\ref{tri}.
As in~\cite[\S3(ii)]{bfn2}, we consider the subalgebra
$H_\elli^{\sG_\bO}(\CR^+)\subset H_\elli^{\sG_\bO}(\CR)$ (homology supported over the positive part
of the affine Grassmannian $\Gr^+_\sG\subset\Gr_\sG$), and its relative spectrum
$\CM_C^{\elli,+}\stackrel{\varPi}{\longrightarrow}E^\alpha$.
By construction, we have an open embedding $\CM_C\subset\CM_C^{\elli,+}$ of varieties over $E^\alpha$.
As in~\cite[Remark 3.7]{bfn2}, we define a certain {\em support multifiltration}
$F_\bullet H_\elli^{\sG_\bO}(\CR^+)$ numbered by the monoid $\Lambda^\vee_{\on{pos}}$ of nonnegative
integral combinations of positive roots of $G$.
The (multi)projective spectrum of its Rees algebra is
denoted $\ol\CM{}_C^\elli$: the {\em compactified elliptic Coulomb branch}. By construction,
it is equipped with a projective morphism $\varPi\colon\ol\CM{}_C^\elli\to E^\alpha$.
Also we have an open embedding $\CM_C^{\elli,+}\subset\ol\CM{}_C^\elli$ of varieties over $E^\alpha$.
By definition, \[F_{\sum_{i\in I}\alpha^\svee_i}H_\elli^{\sG_\bO}(\CR^+)=
\bigoplus_{\Lambda_{\on{pos}}\ni\beta=\sum b_i\alpha_i\leq\alpha}
H_\elli^{\sG_\bO}\big(\CR^+_{\sum_{i\in I}\varpi_{i,b_i}}\big)\]
(elliptic homology of the preimage in $\CR^+$ of all the fundamental $\sG_\bO$-orbits in $\Gr^+_\sG$;
here $\varpi_{i,n}$ stands for the $n$-th fundamental coweight of $\GL(V_i)$; in particular,
$\varpi_{i,0}=0$ and $\varpi_{i,a_i}=(1,\ldots,1)$). All the fundamental $\sG_\bO$-orbits in
$\Gr^+_\sG$ are closed; more precisely, $\Gr_{\GL(V_i)}^{\varpi_{i,n}}\cong\Gr(n,a_i)$ (the Grassmannian
of $n$-dimensional subspaces in $V_i$). We have
\[H^\elli_{\GL(V_i,\bO)}\big(\Gr(b_i,a_i)\big)=\bq_*(\CO_{E^{(b_i)}\times E^{(a_i-b_i)}})\] (the sheaf of elliptic
{\em cohomology} on $E^{(a_i)}$, notation of~\S\ref{mir com}), and dually,
\[H_\elli^{\GL(V_i,\bO)}\big(\Gr(b_i,a_i)\big)=\big(\bq_*(\CO_{E^{(b_i)}\times E^{(a_i-b_i)}})\big)^\vee\]
(elliptic {\em homology}). It follows that for $\beta\leq\alpha$ and
$\gamma:=\alpha-\beta$ we have \[H_\elli^{\sG_\bO}(\CR^+_{\sum_{i\in I}\varpi_{i,b_i}})=
\left(\bq_*\Big(\CO_{E^\beta\times E^\gamma}\big(\sum_{h\in Q_1}\Delta_{\on{o}(h)\on{i}(h)}^{\beta,\gamma}\big)\Big)\right)^\vee\]
(notation of~\S\ref{mir com}; note that the divisor $\Delta_{ij}^{\beta,\gamma}$ in
$E^\beta\times E^\gamma$ is the pullback of the corresponding divisor in $E^\alpha$, so that the
twisting and pushforward commute by the projection formula). The twisting arises from the
elliptic analogue of~\cite[Theorem 4.1]{bfn1} and localization in elliptic homology, reducing
the calculation to the toric case.
All in all, we obtain a canonical isomorphism
$F_{\sum_{i\in I}\alpha^\svee_i}H_\elli^{\sG_\bO}(\CR^+)=(\BU^\alpha)^\vee$ (notation of~\S\ref{coul zas}, where
we set $\BU^\alpha:=\BU_\CK^\alpha$ for trivial line bundles $\CK_i=\CO_E$).
It induces a morphism $\varTheta\colon\ol\CM{}^\elli_C\to\BP\BU^\alpha$.
\begin{thm}
\label{zas vs branch}
\textup{(a)} $\varTheta$ is a closed embedding, and its image is $^C\ol{Z}{}^\alpha$
(where we set $^C\ol{Z}{}^\alpha:={}^C\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK$ for trivial line bundles $\CK_i=\CO_E$).
\textup{(b)} The isomorphism $\varTheta\colon\ol\CM{}^\elli_C\iso{}^C\ol{Z}{}^\alpha$
restricts to the same named isomorphism of the open subvarieties
$\CM^{\elli,+}_C\iso{}^C\!Z^\alpha$.
\textup{(c)} The isomorphism $\varTheta\colon\ol\CM{}^\elli_C\iso{}^C\ol{Z}{}^\alpha$
restricts to the same named isomorphism of the open subvarieties
$\CM^\elli_C\iso{}^C\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We consider the usual equivariant Borel-Moore homology ring $H^{\sG_\bO}_*(\CR^+)$. The argument in the
proof of~\cite[Proposition 6.8]{bfn1} demonstrates that this ring is generated by
$\bigoplus_{\Lambda_{\on{pos}}\ni\beta=\sum b_i\alpha_i\leq\alpha}
H^{\sG_\bO}_*\big(\CR^+_{\sum_{i\in I}\varpi_{i,b_i}}\big)$.
It follows that the corresponding Rees algebra is generated by
$F_{\sum_{i\in I}\alpha^\svee_i}H^{\sG_\bO}_*(\CR^+)$. Since the elliptic cohomology coincides with the usual
cohomology locally in the analytic topology of $E^\alpha$, it follows that the Rees algebra of
$H^{\sG_\bO}_\elli(\CR^+)$ is generated by $F_{\sum_{i\in I}\alpha^\svee_i}H^{\sG_\bO}_\elli(\CR^+)$.
Hence $\varTheta$ is a closed embedding. The image of $\varTheta$ over the complement to diagonals
in $E^\alpha$ is readily identified with
$\big(\prod_{i\in I}(E\times\BP^1)^{a_i}|_{(\prod_{i\in I}E^{a_i})_{\on{disj}}}\big)/S_\alpha$. We conclude that
the image of the closed embedding $\varTheta$ coincides with $^C\ol{Z}{}^\alpha$.
This completes the proof of (a), and (b,c) follow immediately.
\end{proof}
\section{Reduction}
\label{chetyr}
\subsection{Poisson structure}
\label{poisson}
According to~\S\ref{coul zas}, $^C\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK$ contains an open smooth subvariety
$U_\alpha:=\big(\prod_{i\in I}\BP(\CK_i\oplus\CO_E)^{a_i}|_{(\prod_{i\in I}E^{a_i})_{\on{disj}}}\big)/S_\alpha$.
It has a covering
$\widetilde{U}_\alpha:=\prod_{i\in I}\BP(\CK_i\oplus\CO_E)^{a_i}|_{(\prod_{i\in I}E^{a_i})_{\on{disj}}}$,
an open subvariety of the product of the ruled surfaces
$\ol{U}\!_\alpha:=\prod_{i\in I}\BP(\CK_i\oplus\CO_E)^{a_i}$. Each ruled surface
$\BP(\CK_i\oplus\CO_E)$ contains an open subvariety $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{S}}}_{\CK_i}$ (notation of~\S\ref{sl2 vs hilb}).
The canonical class of $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{S}}}_{\CK_i}$ is trivial, and the trivialization is defined uniquely
by our choice of trivialization of the canonical bundle $\bomega_E$, see~Remark~\ref{triv can}.
In other words, $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{S}}}_{\CK_i}$ carries a canonical symplectic form $\omega_{\CK_i}$.
More explicitly, we can trivialize $\CK_i$ \'etale locally and choose a function $w$ on $E$
such that $dw$ is the trivialization of $\bomega_E$ (Remark~\ref{triv can}).
Let $(w,y)$ be the corresponding
\'etale local coordinates on $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{S}}}_{\CK_i}$ such that $y$ is invertible. We define the Poisson
bracket setting $\{y,x\}_{\CK_i}=y$. For this bracket we have $\{f(w)y,w\}_{\CK_i}=f(w)y$.
It follows that the brackets on the intersections of coordinate patches are all compatible,
so they give rise to a global bracket arising from a symplectic form $\Omega_{\CK_i}$.
Note that $\Omega_{\CK_i}$ is invariant with respect to the action of $\BC^\times$ by
fiberwise dilations. Note also that the symplectic structure on $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{S}}}_{\CK_i}$ extends as a
Poisson structure to $\BP(\CK_i\oplus\CO_E)$ (vanishing along the zero and infinite sections).
Finally, the product Poisson structure on $\ol{U}\!_\alpha$ is clearly $S_\alpha$-invariant,
so by descent we obtain a Poisson structure on $U_\alpha$, to be denoted $\{,\}^\alpha_\CK$.
It is likely that the Poisson structure $\{,\}^\alpha_\CK$ on $U_\alpha$ extends as a Poisson
structure to Coulomb compactified zastava $^C\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK$. However, the proof would
require the normality property of $^C\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK$ that we do not know at the moment.
Instead we restrict to an open subset $U^\circ_\alpha\subset U_\alpha$ removing the~0 and $\infty$
sections of the surface $\BP(\CK_i\oplus\CO_E)$.
\begin{prop}
\label{pois}
The Poisson structure $\{,\}^\alpha_\CK$ on $U^\circ_\alpha$ extends to a Poisson
structure $\{,\}_\CK$ on Coulomb open zastava $^C\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha_\CK\subset{}^C\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK$.
Moreover the latter Poisson structure is symplectic.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The construction of Coulomb zastava being local, we can restrict our consideration to
$^C\ol{Z}{}^\alpha_\CK|_{W^\alpha}$ where $W$ is an analytic open subset of $E$ with a global
coordinate $w$ whose differential $dw$ coincides with the trivialization of $\bomega_E$
(Remark~\ref{triv can});
thus we fix an open analytic embedding $W\hookrightarrow\BA^1$.
We can also trivialize all the line bundles $\CK_i|_W$.
Combining~Theorem~\ref{zas vs branch} with~\cite[Theorem 3.1]{bfn2} we obtain
an isomorphism between $^C\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha_\CK|_{W^\alpha}$ and $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha|_{W^\alpha}$. Here
$\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha\to\BA^\alpha$ is the usual open zastava studied in~\cite{bfn2}.
In particular, the smoothness of $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha$ implies the smoothness of $^C\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha_\CK$.
In order to check that the rational Poisson structure $\{,\}^\alpha_\CK$ is symplectic on the
Coulomb open zastava, it suffices to do this over the generic points of diagonals in $E^\alpha$
(equivalently, over the generic points of diagonals in $W^\alpha$). The factorization isomorphism
\[^C\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha_\CK|_{(E^\beta\times E^\gamma)_{\on{disj}}}
\simeq({}^C\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\beta_\CK\times{}^C\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\gamma_\CK)|_{(E^\beta\times E^\gamma)_{\on{disj}}}\]
is Poisson by construction. Hence it suffices to check the symplectic property of the
Poisson structure over the generic points of diagonals in $E^\beta$ (equivalently,
over the generic points of diagonals in $W^\beta$) for $|\beta|=2$.
There are 3 cases to consider.
If $\beta=\alpha_i+\alpha_j$, and $i,j$ are not connected by an arrow, there is nothing to
check. If $\beta=\alpha_i+\alpha_j$, and $i,j$ are connected by an arrow $i\to j$, then
the Coulomb open zastava over $W^\beta$ with its Poisson structure is nothing but the
restriction of the rational open zastava $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\beta$ (for the group $\SL(3)$) with its
Poisson structure to $W^\beta$. The latter one is symplectic e.g.\ by~\cite{fkmm}.
More precisely, comparing (the last line of)~\S\ref{A2 cou} with e.g.~\cite[Remark 2.2]{bfn2} we
get an explicit identification between the Coulomb open zastava $^C\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\beta_\CK|_{W^\alpha}$ and
the rational open zastava $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\beta|_{W^\alpha}$ sending
$\{,\}^\beta_\CK$ to the standard Poisson structure on $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\beta|_{W^\alpha}$.
If $\beta=2\alpha_i$, the identification of~\S\ref{A1 cou} and~\S\ref{sl2 vs hilb}
between $^C\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\beta_\CK$ and the corresponding Hilbert scheme sends $\{,\}^\beta_\CK$
to the standard Poisson (symplectic) structure on the Hilbert scheme.
This completes the proof of the proposition.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Hamiltonian reduction}
\label{ham red}
We assume that $a_i>0$ for any $i\in I$. Let $T^{\on{ad}}$ act on $\CK_i$ via the homomorphism
$\alpha^\svee_i\colon T^{\on{ad}}\to\BC^\times$ and the fiberwise dilation action of $\BC^\times$
on $\CK_i$. Clearly, this action extends to a fiberwise action on $\BP(\CK_i\oplus\CO_E)$.
Furthermore, for any decomposition $\alpha=\beta+\gamma$ (where $\beta=\sum_{i\in I}b_i\alpha_i$),
the fiberwise action of $T^{\on{ad}}$ on $\CK_i$ induces its action on $\CK^\beta$ and hence on
the vector bundle $\bq_*\left(\bp^*\CK^\beta
\otimes\CO_{E^\beta\times E^\gamma}\big(\sum_{h\in Q_1}\Delta_{\on{o}(h)\on{i}(h)}^{\beta,\gamma}\big)\right)$.
Clearly, the resulting actions of $T^{\on{ad}}$ on
$U^\alpha$ (see~\S\ref{poisson}) and on $\BP\BU^\alpha_\CK|_{E^\alpha_{\on{disj}}}$ are compatible.
This way $^C\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha_\CK$ acquires an effective hamiltonian action of $T^{\on{ad}}$.
We have the Abel-Jacobi morphisms $E^{(a_i)}\to\on{Pic}^{a_i}E$ and their product
$\on{AJ}\colon E^\alpha\to\prod_{i\in I}\on{Pic}^{a_i}E$. We denote the composed morphism by
\[\on{AJ}_Z\colon{}^C\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha_\CK\to E^\alpha\to\prod_{i\in I}\on{Pic}^{a_i}E.\]
Given a collection $\CalD=(\CalD_i)_{i\in I}\in\on{Pic}^{a_i}E$, we define the
{\em reduced Coulomb open zastava}
$^C_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^\alpha_\CK$ as $\on{AJ}_Z^{-1}(\CalD)/T$ (stack quotient,
cf.~Definition~\ref{red zas}). It inherits a Poisson structure from $^C\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha_\CK$,
symplectic on the smooth locus of $^C_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^\alpha_\CK$.
\begin{thm}
\label{reductio}
For $\CalD=(\CalD_i)_{i\in I}\in\on{Pic}^{a_i}E$, the reduced open zastava
$^{\vphantom{C}}_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^\alpha_\CK$ is naturally isomorphic to the reduced Coulomb open zastava
$^C_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^\alpha_{\CK'}$, where
$\CK'_i:=\CK^{-\alpha^\svee_i}\otimes\CalD_i\otimes\bigotimes_{h\in Q_1: i=\on{o}(h)}\CalD^{-1}_{\on{i}(h)}$.
\end{thm}
The proof will be given in~\S\ref{the proof} after some preparation.
Throughout the proof we will make use of the identification
$^{\on{Mir}}\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha_\CK\cong\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha_\CK$ of~Theorem~\ref{mir thm}. Thus we will compare two types
of reduced zastava constructed from the Dynkin quiver $Q$ (as opposed to the group $G$).
Note that $\on{AJ}^{-1}(\CalD)$ is isomorphic to the product of projective spaces
$\prod_{i\in I}\BP^{a_i-1}$. Hence for a sequence of integers $\nu=(n_i)_{i\in I}$ we have a
line bundle $\CO(\nu)=\boxtimes_{i\in I}\CO_{\BP^{a_i-1}}(n_i)$ on $\on{AJ}^{-1}(\CalD)$.
\begin{prop}
\label{bundles}
For any $\beta=\sum_{i\in I}b_i\alpha_i\leq\alpha$ we set $b'_i:=b_i-\sum_{j\to i}b_j$, and
$\beta':=\sum_{i\in I}b'_i\alpha_i$.
Then we have an isomorphism
\begin{multline*}\bq_*\left(\bp^*\Big(\CK^\beta\big(\sum_{i\in I}\Delta_{ii}^\beta
-\sum_{h\in Q_1}\Delta_{\on{o}(h)\on{i}(h)}^\beta\big)\Big)
\big(\sum_{i\in I}\Delta^{\beta,\gamma}_{ii}\big)\right)\Big|_{\on{AJ}^{-1}(\CalD)}\\
\simeq \bq_*\left(\bp^*\CK^{\prime\beta}\otimes\CO_{E^\beta\times E^\gamma}
\big(\sum_{h\in Q_1}\Delta_{\on{o}(h)\on{i}(h)}^{\beta,\gamma}\big)\right)\Big|_{\on{AJ}^{-1}(\CalD)}\otimes\CO(\beta').
\end{multline*}
\end{prop}
The proposition follows from the projection formula and Lemmas~\ref{(4)} and~\ref{(5)} below.
We denote by $X^{\beta,\gamma}$ the preimage
$\bq^{-1}(\on{AJ}^{-1}(\CalD))$. Its projection to $E^\beta$ (resp.\ to $\on{AJ}^{-1}(\CalD)$)
will be denoted by $\bp$ (resp.\ by $\bq$). We will also need some partial desymmetrizations
of $X^{\beta,\gamma}$. Namely, we have $E^\beta=E^{|\beta|}/S_\beta$, and we will identify
$E^{|\beta|}$ with $\prod_{i\in I}\prod_{r=1}^{b_i}E_{i,r}$, where $E_{i,r}$ is a copy of $E$.
We denote by $X^{|\beta|,\gamma}\stackrel{\rho}{\longrightarrow}X^{\beta,\gamma}$ the cartesian product
$X^{\beta,\gamma}\times_{E^\beta\times E^\gamma}(E^{|\beta|}\times E^\gamma)$. For any $i\in I,\ r\leq b_i$,
the composite morphism $X^{|\beta|,\gamma}\to E^{|\beta|}\times E^\gamma\to E_{i,r}\times E^{\alpha-\alpha_i}$
factors through
$\rho_{i,r}\colon X^{|\beta|,\gamma}\to X^{\alpha_i,\alpha-\alpha_i}\subset E_{i,r}\times E^{\alpha-\alpha_i}$.
Finally, recall the line bundle $\CalD^\beta:=\boxtimes_{i\in I}\CalD_i^{(b_i)}$ on
$E^\beta=\prod_{i\in I}E^{(b_i)}$. Here $\CalD_i^{(b_i)}$ is the descent of $\CalD_i^{\boxtimes b_i}$
from $E^{b_i}$ to $E^{(b_i)}$.
\begin{lem}
\label{(4)}
\textup{(a)} We have an isomorphism of line bundles on $X^{\beta,\gamma}$:
\[\phi_{\beta,\gamma}\colon\bp^*(\CalD^\beta)\otimes\bq^*\CO(\beta)\iso
\bp^*\left(\CO_{E^\beta}\big(\sum_{i\in I}\Delta_{ii}^\beta\big)\right)\otimes
\CO_{X^{\beta,\gamma}}\big(\sum_{i\in I}\Delta_{ii}^{\beta,\gamma}\big).\]
\textup{(b)} We can choose a collection of isomorphisms $\phi_{\beta,\gamma}$ in \textup{(a)}
satisfying the following factorization property:
\[\rho^*\phi_{\beta,\gamma}=
\bigotimes_{i\in I}^{1\leq r\leq b_i}\rho_{i,r}^*\phi_{\alpha_i,\alpha-\alpha_i}\]
away from the preimage of all the diagonals in $E^\alpha$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
(a) It suffices to construct the desired isomorphism when $I$ consists of a single element.
So we will write $E^{(b)},E^{(c)},E^{(a)}$ in place of $E^\beta,E^\gamma,E^\alpha$.
We denote by $E\stackrel{p_E}{\longleftarrow} E\times X\stackrel{p_X}{\longrightarrow}X:=X^{(b),(c)}$
the projections. We consider the projections of the universal divisors
$E\stackrel{\varpi_E}{\longleftarrow} \fD_b\stackrel{\varpi_{E^{(b)}}}{\longrightarrow}E^{(b)}$ and
$E\stackrel{\varpi_E}{\longleftarrow} \fD_c\stackrel{\varpi_{E^{(c)}}}{\longrightarrow}E^{(c)}$.
We keep the notations $\fD_b\subset E\times X\supset \fD_c$ for the pullbacks to $X$ of
the universal divisors over $E^{(b)}$ and $E^{(c)}$. We fix a point $e\in E$.
It defines divisors $Y_b\subset E^{(b)},\ Y_c\subset E^{(c)},\ Y_a\subset E^{(a)}$ formed by
all the configurations of points on $E$ meeting $e$.
We have an isomorphism of line bundles on $E\times X$:
\begin{equation}
\label{(1)}
\CO_{E\times X}(\fD_b+\fD_c)\simeq p_E^*\CalD\otimes p_X^*\bq^*\CO(1).
\end{equation}
More precisely, we have a canonical isomorphism
\begin{equation}
\label{new 2}
\tau_b\colon \CO_{E\times X}(\fD_b+\fD_c)\iso p_E^*\CalD\otimes p_X^*\bq^*\CO_{E^{(a)}}(Y_a).
\end{equation}
Indeed, for any $x\in X$ the restrictions of both sides to $E\times\{x\}$ are isomorphic.
Thus, there exists a line bundle $\CL_X$ on $X$ such that
$\CO_{E\times X}(\fD_b+\fD_c)=p_E^*\CalD\otimes p_X^*\CL_X$. To determine $\CL_X$ we consider
the restrictions to $e\times X$ and use the canonical isomorphisms
\begin{multline*}\CO_{E\times X}(\fD_b)|_{e\times X}\cong\varpi^*_{E^{(b)}}\CO_{E^{(b)}}(Y_b),\
\CO_{E\times X}(\fD_c)|_{e\times X}\cong\varpi^*_{E^{(c)}}\CO_{E^{(c)}}(Y_c),\\
\bq^*\CO_{E^{(a)}}(Y_a)\cong\CO_{E^{(b)}}(Y_b)\boxtimes\CO_{E^{(c)}}(Y_c).\end{multline*}
Since $\varpi_{E^{(b)}}\colon \fD_b\to E^{(b)}$ is finite flat, we have the norm morphism
\[\on{Nm}_{\fD_b/E^{(b)}}\colon \on{Pic}(\fD_b)\to \on{Pic}(E^{(b)}).\]
For any line bundle $\CK$ on $E$ we have an isomorphism
\begin{equation}
\label{3.2}
\CK^{(b)}\simeq\on{Nm}_{\fD_b/E^{(b)}}(\varpi_E^*\CK).
\end{equation}
Indeed, we can cover $E$ with open affine charts $U_i$ such that $U_i^{(b)}$ cover $E^{(b)}$,
and $\CK|_{U_i}$ is trivial. Then we claim that both sides are given by the same transition
functions. In effect, this follows from the fact that for a regular function $u$ on a smooth
affine curve $C=\on{Spec}(A)$, one has
\[\on{Nm}_{\fD_C/C^{(b)}}(\varpi_C^*u)=u^{\otimes n}\in\Sym{}\!^n(A),\]
where $C\stackrel{\varpi_C}{\longleftarrow}\fD_C\to C^{(b)}$ is the universal divisor. The latter
claim easily reduces to the case when $u$ is the coordinate on the affine line.
We denote by $\varpi\colon \fD_b\to X$ the natural projection. We have an isomorphism
\begin{equation}
\label{(2)}
\CO_X(\Delta^{(b),(c)})\simeq
\det\!\varpi_*\CO_{\fD_b}\otimes\det{}\!^{-1}\varpi_*\big(\CO_{E\times X}(-\fD_c)|_{\fD_b}\big).
\end{equation}
Indeed, one can identify $\Delta^{(b),(c)}$ with the locus where the morphism of vector bundles
on $X$, $\varpi_*\big(\CO_{E\times X}(-\fD_c)|_{\fD_b}\big)\to\varpi_*\CO_{\fD_b}$ fails to be an
isomorphism. Passing to determinants we get~(\ref{(2)}).
Recall that for any finite flat morphism $f\colon Y\to Z$ and a line bundle $\CL$ on $Y$
we have an isomorphism
\begin{equation}
\label{(3)}
\det\!f_*\CL\simeq\on{Nm}_{Y/Z}(\CL)\otimes\det\!f_*\CO_Y.
\end{equation}
We have to construct an isomorphism
\begin{equation}
\label{3.4}
\phi_{b,c}\colon\bp^*(\CalD^{(b)})\otimes\bq^*\CO(b)\iso\bp^*\bfomega_{E^{(b)}}^{-2}(\Delta^{(b),(c)}).
\end{equation}
Recall that $\bp^*\Omega^1_{E^{(b)}}\simeq\varpi_*\CO_{\fD_b}$, and hence
$\bp^*\bfomega_{D^{(b)}}\simeq\det\varpi_*\CO_{\fD_b}$. The trivialization of $\bomega_E$
(see~Remark~\ref{triv can}) induces an isomorphism of $\CO_{E\times X}(\fD_b)|_{\fD_b}$
and the relative canonical line bundle for
$\varpi\colon \fD_b\to X$. Hence, using~(\ref{(1)}) along with the relative Grothendieck-Serre
duality for $\varpi$, we get an isomorphism on $E\times X$:
\[\varpi_*\big(\CO(-\fD_c)|_{\fD_b}\big)\simeq
\varpi_*\big((\CO_{E\times X}(\fD_b)\otimes p_E^*\CalD^{-1}\otimes\CM^{-1})|_{\fD_b}\big)
\simeq\varpi_*\big((p_E^*\CalD\otimes\CM)|_{\fD_b}\big)^\vee,\]
where $\CM=p_X^*\bq^*\CO(1)$. Since $\CM|_{\fD_b}\simeq\varpi^*\bq^*\CO(1)$, we get an isomorphism
\[\det{}\!^{-1}\varpi_*\big(\CO_{E\times X}(-\fD_c)|_{\fD_b}\big)\simeq
\det\!\big(\varpi_*(p_E^*\CalD|_{\fD_b})\otimes\bq^*\CO(1)\big)\simeq
\det\!\varpi_*(p_E^*\CalD|_{\fD_b})\otimes\bq^*\CO(b).\]
Using~(\ref{(3)}), we can rewrite this as
\[\det{}\!^{-1}\varpi_*\big(\CO(-\fD_c)|_{\fD_b}\big)\simeq
\on{Nm}_{\fD_b/X}(p_E^*\CalD)\otimes\det\!\varpi_*\CO_{\fD_b}\otimes\bq^*\CO(b).\]
Plugging this into~(\ref{(2)}) we get
\[\CO(\Delta^{(b),(c)})\simeq\on{Nm}_{\fD_b/X}(p_E^*\CalD)\otimes\det\!^2\varpi_*\CO_{\fD_b}\otimes\bq^*\CO(b)
\simeq\on{Nm}_{\fD_b/X}(p_E^*\CalD)\otimes\bp^*\bfomega_{E^{(b)}}^2\otimes\bq^*\CO(b),\]
which gives rise to the desired isomorphism~(\ref{3.4}) by the virtue of~(\ref{3.2}).
This completes the proof of (a).
\medskip
(b) The isomorphism~(\ref{new 2}) can be viewed as a way to choose a section $s_{D,D'}$ of
$\CalD$ vanishing on $D+D'$ for $(D,D')\in X$. Away from the diagonals, writing
$D=w_1+\ldots+w_b$, we have a collection of restrictions $(s_{D,D'}|_{w_r})_{1\leq r\leq b}$ defining
an isomorphism $H^0(D,\CO_E(D)|_D)\cong\bigoplus_{r=1}^b\CalD|_{w_r}$. Hence, the tensor product
of these restrictions defines an isomorphism
$\det H^0(D,\CO_E(D)|_D)\cong\bigotimes_{r=1}^b\CalD|_{w_r}$.
More precisely, away from all the diagonals, the isomorphism $\tau_b$ of~(\ref{new 2}) gives
rise to an isomorphism
\[\sigma_b\colon \det\!\varpi_*\CO_{E\times X}(\fD_b)|_{\fD_b}\iso
\det\!\varpi_*(p_E^*\CalD|_{\fD_b})\otimes\bq^*\CO_{E^{(a)}}(bY_a).\]
Then over $X^{b,(c)}$ (notation introduced right before~Lemma~\ref{(4)}) we have an equality
\begin{equation}
\label{3.5}
\rho^*\sigma_b=\bigotimes_{r=1}^b\rho_r^*\sigma_1.
\end{equation}
Indeed, let us consider the pullback of $\tau_b$ under
$\on{Id}_E\times\rho\colon E\times X^{b,(c)}\to E\times X$. Away from the diagonals
we have $\widetilde\fD_b:=(\on{Id}_E\times\rho)^{-1}(\fD_b)=\bigsqcup_{r=1}^b\widetilde\fD_b(r)$,
where $\widetilde\fD_b(r):=(\on{Id}_E\times\rho_r)^{-1}(\fD_1)$. Note that the projection
$\widetilde\fD_b(r)\to X^{b,(c)}$ is an isomorphism. Hence,
\[(\on{Id}_E\times\rho)^*\CO_{E\times X}(\fD_b)|_{\widetilde\fD_b(r)}\cong
(\on{Id}_E\times\rho_r)^*\CO_{E\times X}(\fD_1)|_{\widetilde\fD_b(r)}.\]
But for any $r=1,\ldots,b$ we have
\[(\on{Id}_E\times\rho)^*\tau_b|_{\widetilde\fD_b(r)}=(\on{Id}_E\times\rho_r)^*\tau_1\]
(note that we can ignore $\fD_c$ since we are working away from diagonals). In effect, both
sides have the same restrictions to $e\in E$.
Now $\rho^*\varpi_*\CO_{E\times X}(\fD_b)|_{\fD_b}$ decomposes into a direct sum of the line bundles
$(\on{Id}_E\times\rho)^*\CO_{E\times X}(\fD_b)|_{\widetilde\fD_b(r)}$ on
$\widetilde\fD_b(r)\simeq X^{b,(c)}$, so taking the determinant of $\rho^*\varpi_*\tau_b|_{\fD_b}$
corresponds to taking the product of restrictions to $\widetilde\fD_b(r)$ over $r=1,\ldots,b$.
It follows that the isomorphisms~(\ref{3.4}) can be chosen in a factorizable fashion away from
all the diagonals, that is satisfying
\[\rho^*\phi_{b,c}=\bigotimes_{r=1}^b\rho_r^*\phi_{1,a-1}.\]
Indeed, we replace $\CO(1)$ on $\on{AJ}^{-1}(\CalD)\cong\BP^{a-1}\subset E^{(a)}$
by the isomorphic line bundle $\CO_{E^{(a)}}(Y_a)|_{\on{AJ}^{-1}(\CalD)}$ and use the canonical
isomorphism~(\ref{new 2}). Going through the construction of isomorphisms~(\ref{3.4})
restricted to the complement of all the diagonals, we see that each step is factorizable,
the first step being dealt with in~(\ref{3.5}). The key point in the other steps is that
the base change of the relative divisor $\fD_b$ over $X$ with respect to $X^{b,(c)}\to X$
becomes a disjoint union of $b$ points. So the determinant of the push-forward decomposes as
tensor product, as well as the norm of a line bundle, etc. Note finally that the
isomorphism~(\ref{(2)}) reduces to the identity away from the diagonals.
This completes the proof of (b).
\end{proof}
In the next lemma it will be convenient to use the notation
$\bp_i\colon E^\beta\times E^\gamma\to E^{(b_i)}$ and
$\bq_i\colon E^\beta\times E^\gamma\to E^{(a_i)}$ for the compositions of $\bp,\bq$ with the
projections to the respective $i$-th factors.
\begin{lem}
\label{(5)}
\textup{(a)} We have an isomorphism of line bundles on $X^{\beta,\gamma}$:
\begin{multline*}
\psi_{\beta,\gamma}\colon\bigotimes_{i\in I}\bp_i^*\Big(\bigotimes_{h\in Q_1 : \on{o}(h)=i}
\big(\CalD_{\on{i}(h)}^{-1}\big)^{(b_i)}\Big)
\otimes\bigotimes_{h\in Q_1}\bq_{\on{i}(h)}^*\Big(\CO_{\BP^{a_{\on{i}(h)}-1}}(-b_{\on{o}(h)})\Big)\\
\iso\CO_{X^{\beta,\gamma}}\Big(-\sum_{h\in Q_1}\Delta_{\on{o}(h)\on{i}(h)}^\beta
-\sum_{h\in Q_1}\Delta_{\on{o}(h)\on{i}(h)}^{\beta,\gamma}\Big).
\end{multline*}
\textup{(b)} We can choose a collection of isomorphisms $\psi_{\beta,\gamma}$ in \textup{(a)}
satisfying the following factorization property:
\[\rho^*\psi_{\beta,\gamma}=
\bigotimes_{h\in Q_1}^{1\leq r\leq b_{\on{o}(h)}}\rho_{\on{o}(h),r}^*\psi_{\alpha_{\on{o}(h)},\alpha-\alpha_{\on{o}(h)}}\]
away from the preimage of all the diagonals in $E^\alpha$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
(a) It suffices to construct the desired isomorhism when $I$ consists of two vertices connected
by an arrow as follows: $i\to j$. We denote by $\fD_{b_i},\fD_{b_j},\fD_{c_i},\fD_{c_j}\subset E\times X$
the relative divisors pulled back from the universal divisors over the corresponding
symmetric powers of $E$ (here $X=X^{\beta,\gamma}$). We denote by $\varpi\colon \fD_{b_i}\to X$
the natural projection: a finite flat morphism of degree $b_i$. Similarly to~(\ref{(2)}), we
have isomorphisms
\[\CO_X(-\Delta^\beta_{ij})\simeq
\det\!^{-1}\varpi_*\CO_{\fD_{b_i}}\otimes\det\!\varpi_*\big(\CO_{E\times X}(-\fD_{b_j})|_{\fD_{b_i}}\big)\simeq
\on{Nm}_{\fD_{b_i}/X}\big(\CO_{E\times X}(-\fD_{b_j})|_{\fD_{b_i}}\big),\]
\[\CO_X(-\Delta^{\beta,\gamma}_{ij})\simeq
\det\!^{-1}\varpi_*\CO_{\fD_{b_i}}\otimes\det\!\varpi_*\big(\CO_{E\times X}(-\fD_{c_j})|_{\fD_{b_i}}\big)\simeq
\on{Nm}_{\fD_{b_i}/X}\big(\CO_{E\times X}(-\fD_{c_j})|_{\fD_{b_i}}\big).\]
Thus, we have an isomorphism
\[\CO_X(-\Delta^\beta_{ij}-\Delta^{\beta,\gamma}_{ij})\simeq
\on{Nm}_{\fD_{b_i}/X}\big(\CO_{E\times X}(-\fD_{b_j}-\fD_{c_j})|_{\fD_{b_i}}\big).\]
Using the isomorphism (recall the projections
$E\stackrel{p_E}{\longleftarrow} E\times X\stackrel{p_X}{\longrightarrow}X$)
\[\CO_{E\times X}(\fD_{b_j}+\fD_{c_j})\simeq p_E^*\CalD_j\otimes p_X^*\bq^*\CO(0,1)\]
together with~(\ref{3.2}), we get an isomorphism
\begin{multline*}
\on{Nm}_{\fD_{b_i}/X}\big(\CO_{E\times X}(-\fD_{b_j}-\fD_{c_j})|_{\fD_{b_i}}\big)\simeq
\on{Nm}_{\fD_{b_i}/X}(p_E^*\CalD_j^{-1})\otimes\bq^*\CO(0,-b_i)\\
\simeq\bp^*\big((\CalD_j^{-1})^{(b_i)}\boxtimes\CO_{E^{(c_i)}}\big)\otimes\bq^*\CO(0,-b_i),
\end{multline*}
and (a) follows.
\medskip
The proof of (b) is similar to the one of~Lemma~\ref{(4)}(b). It is still enough to consider
the case when $I$ consists of two vertices connected by an arrow $i\to j$.
We construct a factorizable collection of $\psi_{\beta,\gamma}$ in stages. At the first step we
note that there is an evident morphism
$\varrho\colon X^{\beta,\gamma}\to X^{b_i\alpha_i,c_i\alpha_i+(b_j+c_j)\alpha_j}$ (addition of $j$-colored
divisors), and we choose
$\psi_{\beta,\gamma}$ as $\varrho^*\psi_{b_i\alpha_i,c_i\alpha_i+(b_j+c_j)\alpha_j}$.
So it suffices to construct a factorizable collection of $\psi_{\beta,\gamma}$ for the particular
case when $\beta$ is a multiple of $\alpha_i$.
Next, we have a cartesian diagram
\[\begin{CD}
X^{\alpha_i,\gamma'} @<{\rho_{i,r}}<< X^{|b_i\alpha_i|,\gamma} @>>> E^{b_i}\times E^\gamma\\
@. @V{\rho}VV @VVV\\
@. X^{b_i\alpha_i,\gamma} @>>> E^{(b_i)}\times E^\gamma,
\end{CD}\]
where $\gamma'=\gamma+(b_i-1)\alpha_i$. We have to choose our isomorphisms $\psi$ so that
$\rho^*\psi_{b_i\alpha_i,\gamma}=\bigotimes_{r=1}^{b_i}\rho_{i,r}^*\psi_{\alpha_i,\gamma'}$.
To this end note that $X^{\alpha_i,\gamma'}\simeq E^{(c'_i)}\times\BP\Gamma(E,\CalD_j)$,
and we can take $\psi_{\alpha_i,\gamma'}$ to be the pullback of the universal section in the space
$\Gamma\big(E\times\BP\Gamma(E,\CalD_j),\CalD_j\boxtimes\CO(1)\big)$ under the projection
$E^{(c'_i)}\to E$ sending $D\in E^{(c'_i)}$ to the unique $x\in E$ such that $D+x\sim\CalD_i$.
The lemma is proved.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Segre embeddings}
\label{segre}
In this subsection we redenote
\[E^\beta\xleftarrow{\bp}E^\beta\times E^\gamma\xrightarrow{\bq}E^\alpha\] by
\[E^\beta\xleftarrow{\bp_\beta}E^\beta\times E^\gamma\xrightarrow{\bq^\beta}E^\alpha\]
since $\beta$ will vary. The ruled surface $\BP(\CK_i\oplus\CO_E)\to E$ will be denoted $P_i\to E$.
We have the Segre embedding
\begin{equation}
\label{Segre}\big(\prod_{i\in I}P_i^{a_i}\big)/S_\alpha\hookrightarrow
\BP\big(\boxtimes_{i\in I}((\CK_i\oplus\CO_E)^{\boxtimes a_i})\big)/S_\alpha.
\end{equation}
For any vector bundle
$\CW$ over $E$ we have an isomorphism $\BP(\CW^{\boxtimes a})/S_a\simeq\BP(\CW^{(a)})$, where
$\CW^{(a)}$ is the subsheaf of $S_a$-invariants in the pushforward of $\CW^{\boxtimes a}$ from
$E^a$ to $E^{(a)}$. Thus, the RHS of~(\ref{Segre}) is equal to
$\BP\big(\boxtimes_{i\in I}(\CK_i\oplus\CO_E)^{(a_i)}\big)$. Furthermore, we have a decomposition
\[\boxtimes_{i\in I}(\CK_i\oplus\CO_E)^{(a_i)}=\bigoplus_{\beta+\gamma=\alpha}\bq^\beta_*\bp_\beta^*\CK^\beta\]
(recall that $\CK^\beta:=\boxtimes_{i\in I}\CK_i^{(b_i)}$). Thus we can rewrite the Segre map as
\begin{equation}
\label{void}
\big(\prod_{i\in I}P_i^{a_i}\big)/S_\alpha\hookrightarrow
\BP\big(\bigoplus_{\beta+\gamma=\alpha}\bq^\beta_*\bp_\beta^*\CK^\beta\big).
\end{equation}
Let $(w_{i,r})_{i\in I}^{1\leq r\leq a_i}$ be a collection of distinct points of $E$. Then the fiber
of the RHS of~(\ref{void}) at the corresponding point of $E^\alpha$ is the projectivization of
\[\bigotimes_{i\in I}^{1\leq r\leq a_i}(\CK_i\oplus\CO_E)|_{w_{i,r}}=
\bigoplus_\aleph\bigotimes_{(i,r)\in\aleph}\CK_i|_{w_{i,r}},\]
where the summation runs over all the subsets $\aleph$ of the set of pairs
$(i,r)_{i\in I}^{1\leq r\leq a_i}$. For $s_{i,r}\in\CK_i|_{w_{i,r}}$ the Segre embedding is given by
\[\big((s_{i,r},1)_{i\in I}^{1\leq r\leq a_i}\big)\mapsto\bigotimes_{i\in I}^{1\leq r\leq a_i}(s_{i,r},1)=
\big(\bigotimes_{(i,r)\in\aleph}s_{i,r}\big)_\aleph.\]
The equations cutting out the image of Segre embedding can be formulated as a certain factorization
property of the sections' collection $(s_\aleph)$. More precisely, let us consider a morphism
\[\bq^\aleph\colon E^\aleph\times E^\gamma\to E^\alpha,\ \big((w_{i,r})_{(i,r)\in\aleph},D\big)\mapsto
\sum_{(i,r)\in\aleph}w_{i,r}+D,\]
where $\beta:=\sum_{(i,r)\in\aleph}\alpha_i$, and $\gamma:=\alpha-\beta$. Let also
$\bp_\aleph\colon E^\aleph\times E^\gamma\to E^\aleph$ denote the projection. Also, for any
$(i,r)\in\aleph$ we consider a morphism
\[\rho_{i,r}\colon E^\aleph\times E^\gamma\to E^{\alpha_i}\times E^{\alpha-\alpha_i},\
\big((w_{i,r})_{(i,r)\in\aleph},D\big)\mapsto(w_{i,r},\sum_{(j,s)\in\aleph\setminus\{(i,r)\}}w_{j,s}+D).\]
Note that $\bq^{\alpha_i}\circ\rho_{i,r}=\bq^\aleph$. Then we have natural morphisms of vector bundles
\[\kappa_\aleph\colon \bq^\beta_*\bp_\beta^*\CK^\beta\hookrightarrow
\bq^\aleph_*\bp_\aleph^*\boxtimes_{(i,r)\in\aleph}\CK_i=
\bq^\aleph_*\big(\bigotimes_{(i,r)\in\aleph}\rho_{i,r}^*\bp_{\alpha_i}^*\CK_i\big),\]
\begin{multline*}
\varkappa_\aleph\colon \bigotimes_{(i,r)\in\aleph}(\bq^{\alpha_i}_*\bp_{\alpha_i}^*\CK_i)\hookrightarrow
\bigotimes_{(i,r)\in\aleph}(\bq^{\alpha_i}_*\rho_{i,r*}\rho_{i,r}^*\bp_{\alpha_i}^*\CK_i)\\
=\bigotimes_{(i,r)\in\aleph}(\bq^\aleph_*\rho_{i,r}^*\bp_{\alpha_i}^*\CK_i)\to
\bq^\aleph_*\big(\bigotimes_{(i,r)\in\aleph}\rho_{i,r}^*\bp_{\alpha_i}^*\CK_i\big).
\end{multline*}
We are finally able to state the Segre equations on the sections' collection $(s_\aleph)$.
We assume that the section $s_\emptyset$ corresponding to the empty subset $\aleph=\emptyset$
is identically equal to 1 (this assumption is harmless since we are working in the
projectivization.) Then the equations read
\begin{equation}
\label{Segre eq}
\kappa_\aleph(s_\aleph)=\varkappa_\aleph(\bigotimes_{(i,r)\in\aleph}s_{i,r}).
\end{equation}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{reductio}}
\label{the proof}
According to Proposition~\ref{bundles}, the summands in $\BV_\CK^\alpha|_{\on{AJ}^{-1}(\CalD)}$
are isomorphic to the corresponding summands in $\BU_{\CK'}^\alpha|_{\on{AJ}^{-1}(\CalD)}$ twisted by
$\CO(\beta')$ where $\beta'$ depends linearly on $\beta$ numbering the summand.
The isomorphism is given by the tensor product of isomorphisms
$\phi_{\beta,\gamma}$~(Lemma~\ref{(4)}(a)) and $\psi_{\beta,\gamma}$~(Lemma~\ref{(5)}(a)). Comparing with
the definition of $T^{\on{ad}}$-action in the first paragraph of~\S\ref{ham red}, we see that
the quotients $\big(\BP\BV_\CK^\alpha|_{\on{AJ}^{-1}(\CalD)}\big)/T^{\on{ad}}$ and
$\big(\BP\BU_{\CK'}^\alpha|_{\on{AJ}^{-1}(\CalD)}\big)/T^{\on{ad}}$ coincide.
It remains to check that the closures of the images of Segre embeddings correspond to each other
under the
above identification. Let $X^\circ$ stand for the open subset of $\on{AJ}^{-1}(\CalD)$ defined
as the complement to all the diagonals in $E^\alpha$. The factorization properties
of~Lemma~\ref{(4)}(b) and~Lemma~\ref{(5)}(b) compared with the Segre equations~(\ref{Segre eq})
show that the isomorphism of the previous paragraph restricted to $X^\circ$ respects the
Segre embeddings.
The theorem is proved.
\section{Feigin-Odesskii moduli space}
\label{shest}
\subsection{A symplectic moduli stack}
\label{fo}
We fix a $G$-bundle $\CF_G$ on $E$ and a $T$-bundle $\CL_T$ of degree $-\alpha$ on $E$.
We denote by $M(\CF_G,\CL_T)$ the moduli stack of $B$-structures $\varphi$ on $\CF_G$ equipped
with an isomorphism $\Ind_B^T\varphi\iso\CL_T$. It can be upgraded to a derived stack equipped with a
(0-shifted) symplectic structure. Indeed, recall~\cite{ptvv} that both $\Bun_G$ and $\Bun_T$
(moduli stacks of $G$- and $T$-bundles on $E$) carry the canonical 1-shifted symplectic structures.
Furthermore,~\cite[Example~4.11]{saf} equips the correspondence $\Bun_B\to\Bun_G\times\Bun_T$
with a canonical Lagrangian structure. Finally, the embeddings of stacky points
$[\CF_G]=\pt/\!\on{Aut}(\CF_G)\to\Bun_G$ and $[\CL_T]=\pt/\!\on{Aut}(\CL_T)\to\Bun_T$ are equipped
with the natural Lagrangian structures similarly to~\cite[Theorem~3.18]{hp}.
We consider the homotopy fibre product
\begin{equation}
\label{homotopy}
\begin{CD}
M^\der(\CF_G,\CL_T) @>>> \Bun_B\\
@VVV @VVV\\
[\CF_G]\times[\CL_T] @>>> \Bun_G\times\Bun_T.
\end{CD}
\end{equation}
The truncation of $M^{\on{der}}(\CF_G,\CL_T)$ coincides with $M(\CF_G,\CL_T)$.
Now $M^\der(\CF_G,\CL_T)$ is a derived Lagrangian intersection and hence acquires a 0-shifted
symplectic structure by~\cite{ptvv}, cf.\ a similar construction~\cite{spa} for the base curve of
genus~0.
\subsection{Tangent spaces}
\label{tangent}
For a point $\varphi$ in $M^\der(\CF_G,\CL_T)$,
we denote by $\ft_\varphi\twoheadleftarrow\nobreak\fb_\varphi\hookrightarrow\nobreak\fg_\varphi$
the vector bundles
on $E$ associated with the adjoint representations of $B$ (clearly, $\ft_\varphi$ is trivial).
The tangent complex at the corresponding point $\CF_G$ of $\Bun_G$ is $R\Gamma(E,\fg_\varphi[1])$,
and the tangent complex at the corresponding point $\CL_T$ of $\Bun_T$ is
$R\Gamma(E,\ft_\varphi[1])$,
while the tangent complexes at the corresponding stacky points $[\CF_G]$ and $[\CL_T]$ are
the truncations $\tau_{<0}R\Gamma(E,\fg_\varphi[1])$ and $\tau_{<0}R\Gamma(E,\ft_\varphi[1])$
respectively. From~(\ref{homotopy}) we deduce the homotopy fibre square
\begin{equation}
\label{fibre}
\begin{CD}
T_\varphi M^\der(\CF_G,\CL_T) @>>> R\Gamma(E,\fb_\varphi[1])\\
@VVV @VVV\\
\tau_{<0}R\Gamma(E,\fg_\varphi[1]\oplus\ft_\varphi[1]) @>>>
R\Gamma(E,\fg_\varphi[1]\oplus\ft_\varphi[1]).
\end{CD}
\end{equation}
Hence the tangent space $T_\varphi M^\der(\CF_G,\CL_T)$ is canonically isomorphic to
the total complex
\begin{equation}
\label{total}
T_\varphi M^\der(\CF_G,\CL_T)\cong
\big[R\Gamma(E,\fb_\varphi[1])\to\tau_{\geq0}R\Gamma(E,\fg_\varphi[1]\oplus\ft_\varphi[1])\big].
\end{equation}
Furthermore, we have an exact sequence of $B$-modules
$0\to\fb\to\fg\oplus\ft\to\fb^\svee\to0$
and the corresponding exact sequence of associated vector bundles
\begin{equation}
\label{bgtb}
0\to\fb_\varphi\to\fg_\varphi\oplus\ft_\varphi\to\fb_\varphi^\svee\to0.
\end{equation}
Replacing the right column of~(\ref{fibre}) by its cone $R\Gamma(E,\fb_\varphi^\svee[1])$,
we can rewrite
\begin{equation}
\label{total'}
T_\varphi M^\der(\CF_G,\CL_T)\cong\big[\tau_{\leq0}R\Gamma(E,\fg_\varphi\oplus\ft_\varphi)\to
R\Gamma(E,\fb_\varphi^\svee)\big].
\end{equation}
On the other hand, the exact sequence~(\ref{bgtb}) is clearly selfdual, and the Serre duality
on $E$ gives rise to a perfect pairing between the RHS of~(\ref{total}) and~(\ref{total'}).
This perfect pairing on $T_\varphi M^\der(\CF_G,\CL_T)$ is nothing but the symplectic structure
of~\S\ref{fo}.
Equivalently, at a smooth point $\varphi$ in $M^\der(\CF_G,\CL_T)$, the Poisson bivector is defined
using the differential $d_2$ of the second page of the hypercohomology spectral sequence for
the complex $\fn_\varphi\to\fg_\varphi\to\fg_\varphi/\fb_\varphi$ of vector bundles on $E$.
\subsection{Regular case}
We consider a special case when a $G$-bundle $\CF_G$ is induced from a degree zero $T$-bundle
$\CK_T\colon \CF_G=\Ind_T^G\CK_T$. Moreover, we assume that $\CK_T$ is {\em regular}, that is,
for any root $\alpha^\svee\in R^\vee$, the associated line bundle $\CK^{\alpha^\svee}$ is nontrivial.
Then for any dominant weight $\lambda^\svee\in\Lambda^{\vee+}$ the corresponding associated vector
bundle $\CV_\CF^{\lambda^\svee}$ canonically splits into direct sum of its weight components.
In particular, we have a projection
$\xi^{\lambda^\svee}\colon\CV_\CF^{\lambda^\svee}\twoheadrightarrow\CK^{\lambda^\svee}$ onto the lowest weight
component line bundle. The collection of
$\xi^{\lambda^\svee},\ \lambda^\svee\in\Lambda^{\vee+}$, is subject to Pl\"ucker conditions.
If we act on our data by an automorphism of $\CK_T$ given by an element $t\in T$,
the projection $\xi^{\lambda^\svee}$ will change to
$\lambda^\svee(t)\cdot\xi^{\lambda^\svee}$, cf.~Definition~\ref{ell zas}(5).
Since $\on{Aut}(\Ind_T^G\CK_T)=T$ by regularity of $\CK_T$, the collection of projections
$\xi^{\lambda^\svee}\colon\CV_\CF^{\lambda^\svee}\twoheadrightarrow\CK^{\lambda^\svee}$ subject to
Pl\"ucker relations is well defined up to the action of $T$.
Another piece of data in the definition of the Feigin-Odesskii moduli space $M(\CF_G,\CL_T)$
is the $T$-bundle $\CL_T$. For a fundamental weight $\omega^\svee_i$ we consider the associated
line bundle $\CL^{\omega^\svee_i}$, and we set $\CalD_i:=\CL^{-\omega^\svee_i}\otimes\CK^{\omega^\svee_i}$.
We have $\CalD_i\in\on{Pic}^{a_i}E$, where $\alpha=\sum a_i\alpha_i$ (recall that $-\alpha$ is the
degree of $\CL_T$). We set $\CalD=(\CalD_i)_{i\in I}$.
We consider an open substack $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}^\der(\Ind_T^G\CK_T,\CL_T)\subset M^\der(\Ind_T^G\CK_T,\CL_T)$
given by the condition that the compositions
$\CL^{\lambda^\svee}\hookrightarrow\CV_\CF^{\lambda^\svee}\stackrel{\xi^{\lambda^\svee}}\twoheadrightarrow
\CK^{\lambda^\svee}$ never vanish identically. Ignoring the derived structure we obtain an
open substack $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}(\Ind_T^G\CK_T,\CL_T)\subset M(\Ind_T^G\CK_T,\CL_T)$.
\begin{prop}
\label{feod}
For a regular $T$-bundle $\CK_T$, we have a natural isomorphism
\[^{\vphantom{\alpha}}_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^\alpha_\CK\cong\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}(\Ind_T^G\CK_T,\CL_T).\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Comparing with~Definitions~\ref{ell zas},\ref{red zas}, we see that the collection of projections
$\xi^{\lambda^\svee}\colon\CV_\CF^{\lambda^\svee}\twoheadrightarrow\CK^{\lambda^\svee}$ along with
the collection of embeddings $\CL^{\lambda^\svee}\hookrightarrow\CV_\CF^{\lambda^\svee}$ defines a
point of reduced zastava $^{\vphantom{\alpha}}_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^\alpha_\CK$. Thus we obtain a morphism
$\Upsilon\colon\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}(\Ind_T^G\CK_T,\CL_T)\to{}^{\vphantom{\alpha}}_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^\alpha_\CK$.
We have to check that $\Upsilon$ is an isomorphism. To this end note that a twisted
$U_-$-structure on a $G$-bundle $\CF$ defines a filtration on the associated vector bundle
$\CV^{\lambda^\svee}_\CF$ for any dominant weight $\lambda^\svee$. The successive quotients
of this filtration are of the form
$\CK^{\mu^\svee}\otimes V^{\lambda^\svee}(w_0\mu^\svee)$ for the weights $\mu^\svee$ of the irreducible
$G$-module $V^{\lambda^\svee}$. The regularity condition on $\CK_T$ ensures that this filtration
splits canonically, i.e.\
$\CV^{\lambda^\svee}_\CF\cong\bigoplus_{\mu^\svee}\CK^{\mu^\svee}\otimes V^{\lambda^\svee}(w_0\mu^\svee)$.
This collection of splittings defines a reduction of $\CF$ to $T\subset G$, that is a
canonical isomorphism $\CF\cong\Ind_T^G\CK_T$. This construction provides a morphism
$^{\vphantom{\alpha}}_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^\alpha_\CK\to\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}(\Ind_T^G\CK_T,\CL_T)$ inverse to $\Upsilon$.
\end{proof}
The reduced zastava space $^{\vphantom{\alpha}}_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^\alpha_\CK$
carries a Poisson structure by~Theorem~\ref{reductio}
and~Proposition~\ref{pois}, while the Feigin-Odesskii moduli space
$\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}(\Ind_T^G\CK_T,\CL_T)$ carries a Poisson structure
by~\S\ref{fo}. The rest of this Section is devoted to an identification of these two
Poisson structures. Namely, let $\{,\}_{\CK'}$ denote the Poisson bracket on
$^{\vphantom{\alpha}}_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^\alpha_\CK\simeq{}^C_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^\alpha_{\CK'}$ defined as the Hamiltonian
reduction of the bracket of~Proposition~\ref{pois}. Let $\{,\}_{FO}$ denote the Poisson
bracket on $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}^\der(\Ind_T^G\CK_T,\CL_T)$ defined in~\S\ref{fo}. It restricts to the same named
Poisson bracket on the smooth open locus of $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}^\der(\Ind_T^G\CK_T,\CL_T)$ where
the derived structure is trivial.
\begin{thm}
\label{myksas}
The isomorphism of Proposition~\ref{feod} restricted to the smooth open loci of
$^{\vphantom{\alpha}}_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^\alpha_\CK$ and $ \vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}(\Ind_T^G\CK_T,\CL_T)$
takes the Poisson structure $\{,\}_{\CK'}$ to $\{,\}_{FO}$.
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
The stack $^{\vphantom{\alpha}}_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^\alpha_\CK$ can be upgraded to a derived stack
$({}^{\vphantom{\alpha}}_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^\alpha_\CK)^\der$ by its very definition (since the Abel-Jacobi
morphism $\on{AJ}_Z\colon\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha_\CK\to\prod_{i\in I}\on{Pic}^{a_i}E$ is not smooth in general
for $\on{rk}G>1$, its level set acquires a natural derived structure).
Similarly, the stack of reduced Coulomb zastava $^C_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^\alpha_\CK$ can be upgraded
to a derived stack $({}^C_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^\alpha_\CK)^\der$. The isomorphism of~Proposition~\ref{feod}
can be upgraded to an isomorphism of derived stacks
$({}^{\vphantom{\alpha}}_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^\alpha_\CK)^\der\cong\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}^\der(\Ind_T^G\CK_T,\CL_T)$.
We also expect but cannot prove that the isomorphism of~Theorem~\ref{reductio} can be
upgraded to an isomorphism of derived stacks
$({}^{\vphantom{\alpha}}_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^\alpha_\CK)^\der\cong({}^C_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^\alpha_\CK)^\der$.
Thus we expect a symplectomorphism of derived symplectic stacks
$({}^C_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^\alpha_\CK)^\der\cong\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}^\der(\Ind_T^G\CK_T,\CL_T)$.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Compatibility of reduced zastava with Levi factors}
Given a subset $J\subset I$, we denote by $G\supset L_J\supset T$ the corresponding Levi factor.
For $\alpha=\sum_{i\in I}a_i\alpha_i$, we define
$\alpha_J:=\sum_{i\in J}a_i\alpha_i$. The factorization of zastava for a decomposition
$\alpha=\alpha_J+\alpha_{I\setminus J}$ is a birational isomorphism
\[\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha_\CK\stackrel{\sim}{\dasharrow}\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^{\alpha_J}_\CK\times\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^{\alpha_{I\setminus J}}_\CK.\]
Composing with the projection onto $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^{\alpha_J}_\CK$ we get a rational dominant morphism
$\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha_\CK\dasharrow\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^{\alpha_J}_\CK$.
Note that the derived subgroup $L'_J=[L_J,L_J]$ is also simply connected, and we
can consider its zastava space $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^{\alpha_J}_{\CK_J}(L'_J)$, cf.~Remark~\ref{reductive}.
Here $\CK_J:=(\CK_i)_{i\in J}$ (recall
that $\CK_i=\CK^{-\alpha_i^\svee}$). The natural morphism $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^{\alpha_J}_{\CK_J}(L'_J)\to\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^{\alpha_J}_\CK$
is an isomorphism, and we will use it to identify these moduli spaces.
The rational dominant morphism $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha_\CK\dasharrow\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^{\alpha_J}_{\CK_J}(L'_J)$ induces
a rational dominant morphism of reduced zastava
\[\varPi^Z_J\colon{}^{\vphantom{\alpha}}_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^\alpha_\CK\dasharrow
{}^{\vphantom{\alpha}}_{\CalD_J}\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^{\alpha_J}_{\CK_J}(L'_J).\]
Here $\CalD_J$ stands for $(\CalD_i)_{i\in J}$.
Furthermore, the factorization property of Coulomb zastava similarly gives rise to a rational
dominant morphism $^C\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha_\CK\dasharrow{}^C\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^{\alpha_J}_{\CK_J}(L'_J)$ that in turn gives rise
to a rational dominant morphism of reduced Coulomb zastava
\[\varPi^C_J\colon{}^C_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^\alpha_\CK\dasharrow{}^{\hphantom{D}C}_{\CalD_J}\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^{\alpha_J}_{\CK_J}(L'_J).\]
Both morphisms $\varPi^Z_J,\varPi^C_J$ are Poisson by construction.
\subsection{Compatibility of Feigin-Odesskii moduli spaces with Levi factors}
\label{compa}
For a degree zero regular $T$-bundle $\CK_T$ and $J\subset I$ we consider
the Feigin-Odesskii moduli stack
$\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}_J^\der(\Ind_T^{L_J}\CK_T,\CL_T)$ for the Levi factor $L_J$. We have a rational dominant morphism
\[\varPi^M_J\colon \vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}^\der(\Ind_T^G\CK_T,\CL_T)\dasharrow\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}_J^\der(\Ind_T^{L_J}\CK_T,\CL_T)\] constructed
as follows.
Let $P_J\supset B$ denote the corresponding parabolic subgroup, and let $U_J$ denote
the unipotent radical of $P_J$. Then the coinvariants $V^{\lambda^\svee}_{U_J}$ carry a natural
action of $L_J$ and form an irreducible $L_J$-module with lowest weight $w_0\lambda^\svee$
(and with highest weight $w_Jw_0\lambda^\svee$). The natural projection
$V^{\lambda^\svee}\to V^{\lambda^\svee}_{U_J}$ gives rise to the projection
$\xi^{\lambda^\svee}_J\colon\CV^{\lambda^\svee}_\CF\to\CV^{\lambda^\svee}_{\CF,U_J}$. Composing with the
embedding $\CL^{\lambda^\svee}\hookrightarrow\CV^{\lambda^\svee}_\CF$ we obtain a morphism
$\CL^{\lambda^\svee}\to\CV^{\lambda^\svee}_{\CF,U_J}$. However, this morphism is not necessarily an
embedding of a line subbundle; in general it is only an embedding of an invertible subsheaf.
Hence in general it gives rise to a {\em generalized} $B$-structure in the $L_J$-bundle
$\Ind_T^{L_J}\CK_T$. Thus we obtain a morphism
\[\varPi^M_J\colon \vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}^\der(\Ind_T^G\CK_T,\CL_T)\to\ol{M}{}_J^\der(\Ind_T^{L_J}\CK_T,\CL_T)\]
to the Drinfeld closure of $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}_J^\der(\Ind_T^{L_J}\CK_T,\CL_T)$. The latter closure
is defined as the open substack in the homotopy fibre product
of $[\Ind_T^{L_J}\CK_T]\times[\CL_T]$ and $\ol\Bun_{B_J}$ over
$\Bun_{L_J}\times\Bun_T$ (cf.~(\ref{homotopy})) given by the condition that the generalized
$B_J$-structure is generically transversal to the tautological $U_{J-}$-structure in
$\Ind_T^{L_J}\CK_T$.
It remains to check that $\varPi^M_J$ is dominant, i.e.\ gives rise to the desired rational
morphism from $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}^\der(\Ind_T^G\CK_T,\CL_T)$ to $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}_J^\der(\Ind_T^{L_J}\CK_T,\CL_T)$.
This follows from~Lemma~\ref{two diagrams}(b) below, i.e.\ compatibility of $\varPi^M_J$ with
$\varPi^Z_J$, along with the dominance property of $\varPi^Z_J$.
Comparing with construction of Poisson structure $\{,\}_{FO}$ in~\S\ref{fo},\ref{tangent} we
see that $\varPi^M_J$ is a Poisson morphism. Indeed, we have to check that for a smooth point
$\varphi\in\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}(\Ind_T^G\CK_T,\CL_T)$ such that $\varPi^M_J$ is regular at $\varphi$,
the Poisson bivector $P_J\colon T^*_{\varPi^M_J\varphi}\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}_J(\Ind_T^{L_J}\CK_T,\CL_T)\to
T_{\varPi^M_J\varphi}\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}_J(\Ind_T^{L_J}\CK_T,\CL_T)$ equals the composition
$d\varPi^M_J\circ P_I\circ(d\varPi^M_J)^*$. To this end note that we have a natural projection
of vector bundles on $E$:
\[\Xi\colon\fg_\varphi\twoheadrightarrow(\fl_J)_\varphi,\]
and the condition that $\varPi^M_J$ is regular at $\varphi$ guarantees that
$\Xi(\fb_\varphi)=(\fb_{L_J})_{\varPi^M_J\varphi}$ and $\Xi(\fn_\varphi)=(\fn_{L_J})_{\varPi^M_J\varphi}$.
Moreover, under the identification~(\ref{total}), the differential
\[d\varPi^M_J\colon T_\varphi\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}(\Ind_T^G\CK_T,\CL_T)\to
T_{\varPi^M_J\varphi}\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}_J(\Ind_T^{L_J}\CK_T,\CL_T)\]
is induced by $\Xi$. Furthermore, under the identification~(\ref{total'}), $d\varPi^M_J$ is
also induced by $\Xi$, provided we identify $\fb_\varphi^\svee$ with $\fg_\varphi/\fn_\varphi$.
The Poisson property of $\varPi^M_J$ follows.
\begin{lem}
\label{two diagrams}
The following diagrams commute:
\textup{(a)}
$\begin{CD}
^{\vphantom{\alpha}}_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^\alpha_\CK @>>{\varPi^Z_J}> ^{\vphantom{\alpha}}_{\CalD_J}\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^{\alpha_J}_{\CK_J}(L'_J)\\
@VV{\wr}V @V{\wr}VV \\
^C_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^\alpha_{\CK'} @>{\varPi^C_J}>> ^{\hphantom{D}C}_{\CalD_J}\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^{\alpha_J}_{\CK'_J}(L'_J),
\end{CD}$
\textup{(b)}
$\begin{CD}
^{\vphantom{\alpha}}_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^\alpha_\CK @>>{\varPi^Z_J}> ^{\vphantom{\alpha}}_{\CalD_J}\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^{\alpha_J}_{\CK_J}(L'_J)\\
@VV{\wr}V @V{\wr}VV \\
\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}(\Ind_T^G\CK_T,\CL_T) @>{\varPi^M_J}>> \vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}_J(\Ind_T^{L_J}\CK_T,\CL_T).
\end{CD}$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
(a) the isomorphism of Theorem~\ref{reductio} is compatible with factorization.
(b) follows from the definition of factorization isomorphism, cf.\ the proof
of~\cite[Proposition~3.2]{bdf}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{myksas} for $G=\SL(2)$}
\label{prf sl2}
The only vertex of the Dynkin diagram is denoted by $i$. The corresponding simple root and
fundamental weight are denoted simply by $\alpha^\svee$ and $\omega^\svee$.
A regular $T$-bundle is a line bundle $\CK=\CK^{\omega^\svee}$ such that $\CK_i=\CK^{-2}=\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}$
is nontrivial. We fix a line bundle $\CL$ of degree $-a$, and we set $\CalD=\CL^{-1}\CK$.
A point $\varphi$ of $^{\vphantom{\alpha}}_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^{a}_\CK\cong\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}(\CK\oplus\CK^{-1},\CL)$ is
represented by a short exact sequence
\[0\to\CL\xrightarrow{(s,t)}\CK\oplus\CK^{-1}\xrightarrow{(-t,s)}\CL^{-1}\to0.\]
The associated adjoint vector bundle has a 2-step filtration
$0\subset\fn_\varphi\subset\fb_\varphi\subset\fg_\varphi$ with associated graded quotients
$\fn_\varphi\simeq\CL^2,\ \fb_\varphi/\fn_\varphi\simeq\CE nd(\CL)\simeq\CO_E,\
\fg_\varphi/\fb_\varphi\simeq\CL^{-2}$. It gives rise to the connecting homomorphisms
\[\delta\colon H^0(E,\CL^{-2})\to H^1(E,\CE nd(\CL)),\ H^0(E,\CE nd(\CL))\to H^1(E,\CL^2).\]
If $\varphi$ is a smooth point of $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}(\CK\oplus\CK^{-1},\CL)$, then the tangent space is
\[T_\varphi\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}(\CK\oplus\CK^{-1},\CL)=
\on{Ker}\big(H^0(E,\CL^{-2})\to H^1(E,\CE nd(\CL))\big)/\BC s\circ t,\]
and dually the cotangent space is \[T_\varphi^*\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}(\CK\oplus\CK^{-1},\CL)=
\big((\BC s\circ t)^\perp\subset H^1(E,\CL^2)\big)/H^0(E,\CE nd(\CL)).\]
Also, we have a splitting
\begin{multline}
\label{quatro}
H^0(E,\CL^{-1}\CK)/\BC s\oplus H^0(E,\CL^{-1}\CK^{-1})/\BC t\iso
T_\varphi\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}(\CK\oplus\CK^{-1},\CL),\\
(\varpi,\varrho)\mapsto s\circ\varrho-t\circ\varpi.
\end{multline}
Explicitly, given $\varpi\in
\Hom(\CL,\CK)$ and $\varrho\in
\Hom(\CL,\CK^{-1})$, we construct an infinitesimal deformation
$(s_\varepsilon,t_\varepsilon)$ of $(s,t)\colon\CL\to\CK\oplus\CK^{-1}$ over
$\BC[\varepsilon]/(\varepsilon^2)$ as
\[s_\varepsilon=s+\varpi\varepsilon\colon\CL\to\CK,\
t_\varepsilon=t+\varrho\varepsilon\colon\CL\to\CK^{-1}.\]
\subsubsection{Coordinates}
\label{coor}
Let $D$ be the zero divisor of $s\in\Hom_E(\CL,\CK)$; we assume that $D$ is multiplicity free and we
choose a numbering $w_1,\ldots,w_a$ of its points.
The functions $w_1,\ldots,w_{a-1}\colon\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}(\CK\oplus\CK^{-1},\CL)\to E$ are defined \'etale locally
(and $w_a$ is determined by $w_1,\ldots,w_{a-1}$ since the sum
$\sum_{r=1}^aw_r\in E$ is fixed).
We also fix a section $u$ of $\CL^{-1}\CK^{-1}$ with zeros disjoint from $D$ and define the
homogeneous functions $y_r:=\frac{t}{u}|_{w_r}\colon\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}(\CK\oplus\CK^{-1},\CL)\to\BC^\times$.
Since the reduced zastava is a quotient by the
$\BG_m$-action, only the ratios of $y$-coordinates are well defined (\'etale locally).
Alternatively, we can normalize $t$ in such a way that $\sum_{r=1}^a\frac{t}{u}|_{w_r}=1$, and
consider the resulting functions $y_1,\ldots,y_{a-1}$ together with $w_1,\ldots,w_{a-1}$ as \'etale
local coordinates on $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}(\CK\oplus\CK^{-1},\CL)$.
The above normalization of $t$ is possible (the sum does not vanish identically) since
$\CL^{-1}\CK^{-1}$ is not isomorphic to $\CL^{-1}\CK$, hence the restriction map
$H^0(E,\CL^{-1}\CK^{-1})\to\BC^a,\ t\mapsto t|_D$, is an isomorphism.
The tangent space to $E^{(a)}$ at $D$ can be identified with
$H^0(D,\CO_E(D)|_D)=H^1(E,\CO_E\to\CO_E(D))$ (the complex $\CO_E\to\CO_E(D)$ lives in degrees
$0,1$). The tangent vector corresponding to the infinitesimal deformation $D_\varepsilon$ equal
to the zero divisor of the section $s_\varepsilon$ (considered right after~(\ref{quatro}))
is given by the 1-cocycle $(0,\frac{\varpi}{s})$. In other words, the corresponding element
of $H^0(D,\CO_E(D)|_D)$ is the polar part of $-\frac{\varpi}{s}$. Note that this is the same
as the polar part of $\frac{(s\circ\varrho-t\circ\varpi)}{st}$.
Thus the tangent map to the factorization morphism $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}(\CK\oplus\CK^{-1},\CL)\to E^{(a)},\
(s,t)\mapsto D$, sends $s\circ\varrho-t\circ\varpi$ to
$\frac{(s\circ\varrho-t\circ\varpi)|_D}{s't|_D}$, where $s'$ is the nowhere vanishing section
of $\CL^{-1}\CK(-D)$ corresponding to $s$. It means that the image of the tangent vector
$\partial/\partial w_r$ under the composition
\[T_\varphi\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}(\CK\oplus\CK^{-1},\CL)\to H^0(E,\CL^{-1}\CK)/\BC s\to
H^0(D,\CL^{-1}\CK|_D)\xrightarrow{1/s'|_D}H^0(D,\CO_E(D)|_D)\]
is the principal part of the unique (up to an additive constant) rational function on $E$ that
has a simple pole with residue 1 at $w_r$ and a simple pole with residue $-1$ at $w_a$ and no
other poles (we use the trivialization of $\bomega_E$, see~Remark~\ref{triv can}).
Dually, $dw_r$ is the image of $(1|_{w_r}-1|_{w_a})$ under the composition
\begin{multline*}H^0(D,\CO_E|D)\xrightarrow{1/s'|_D}H^0(D,\CL\CK^{-1}(D)|_D)\xrightarrow{1/t|_D}
H^0(D,\CL^2(D)|_D)/H^0(E,\CO_E)\\
\to H^1(E,\CL^2)/H^0(E,\CO_E),
\end{multline*}
where the last arrow is the connecting homomorphism for the short exact sequence
\[0\to\CL^2\to\CL^2(D)\to\CL^2(D)|_D\to0.\]
The image of the tangent vector $\partial/\partial y_r$ under the composition
\begin{multline}
\label{cinquo}
T_\varphi\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}(\CK\oplus\CK^{-1},\CL)\to H^0(E,\CL^{-1}\CK^{-1})/\BC t\to
H^0(D,\CL^{-1}\CK^{-1}|_D)/\BC t|_D\\
\xrightarrow{1/u|_D}H^0(D,\CO_E|_D)/\BC\frac{t}{u}\Big|_D
\end{multline}
is $1|_{w_r}-1|_{w_a}\pmod{\frac{t}{u}|_D}$. Indeed, at a point of $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}(\CK\oplus\CK^{-1},\CL)$
given by a pair of maps $(s,t):\CL\to \CK \oplus \CK^{-1}$, the tangent vector
$\partial/\partial y_r$ is represented by the linear term of the infinitesimal
deformation $(s_\varepsilon,t_\varepsilon)\colon\CL\to \CK \oplus \CK^{-1}$, where $s_\varepsilon=s,\
t_\varepsilon(w_i)=t(w_i)$ for $i\not=r,a$, while $t_\varepsilon(w_r)=t(w_r)+\varepsilon u(w_r)$, and
$t_\varepsilon(w_a)=t(w_a)-\varepsilon u(w_a)$. Restricting this linear term to $D$
and dividing by $u|_D$, we obtain $1|_{w_r}-1|_{w_a}$.
\subsubsection{Computation of the Feigin-Odesskii bracket}
According to the last paragraph of~\S\ref{tangent}, the Feigin-Odesskii Poisson bracket is defined
using the differential $d_2$ of the second page of the hypercohomology spectral sequence for
the complex
\[\CL^2\xrightarrow{(-t^2,st,s^2)}\CK^{-2}\oplus\CO_E\oplus\CK^2\xrightarrow{(s^2,2st,-t^2)}\CL^{-2}.\]
Consider the commutative diagram
\begin{equation}
\label{septo}
\begin{CD}
\CL^2 @>(-t^2,st,s^2)>> \CK^{-2}\oplus\CO_E\oplus\CK^2 @>(s^2,2st,-t^2)>> \CL^{-2}\\
@VVV @VVV @| \\
\CL^2(D) @>(-t^2,s't,s's)>> \CK^{-2}(D)\oplus\CO_E\oplus\CK^2 @>(s's,2st,-t^2)>> \CL^{-2}\\
@VVV @VV(-(t|_D)^{-2},0,0)V @.\\
\CL^2(D)|_D @= \CL^2(D)|_D. @.
\end{CD}
\end{equation}
We set $\CH:=\fg_\varphi=\CK^{-2}\oplus\CO_E\oplus\CK^2,\ \CH':=\CK^{-2}(D)\oplus\CO_E\oplus\CK^2$.
One can show by the diagram chase that the following diagram commutes:
\begin{equation}
\label{octo}
\begin{CD}
\on{Ker}\big(H^1(E,\CL^2)\to H^1(E,\CH)\big) @>{d_2}>> H^0(E,\CL^{-2})/H^0(E,\CH)\\
@AAA @A{s's}AA \\
\on{Ker}\big(H^0(D,\CL^2(D)|_D)\to H^1(E,\CH)\big) @>>> H^0(E,\CH')/H^0(E,\CH).
\end{CD}
\end{equation}
Recall that the Hamiltonian vector field $h_r$ of $dw_r$ is the image of $1|_{w_r}-1|_{w_a}$
under the composition
\[\begin{CD}
@. \on{Ker}\big(H^1(E,\CL^2)\to H^1(E,\CH)\big) @>{d_2}>> H^0(E,\CL^{-2})/H^0(E,\CH)\\
@. @AAA @. \\
H^0(D,\CO_E|_D) @>{1/s't|_D}>> \on{Ker}\big(H^0(D,\CL^2(D)|_D)\to H^1(E,\CH)\big). @.
\end{CD}\]
Due to commutativity of~(\ref{octo}), we can replace this composition with
\[\begin{CD}
@. @. H^0(E,\CL^{-2})/H^0(E,\CH)\\
@. @. @A{s's}AA \\
H^0(D,\CO_E|_D) @>{1/s't|_D}>> \on{Ker}\big(H^0(D,\CL^2(D)|_D)\to H^1(E,\CH)\big) @>>>
H^0(E,\CH')/H^0(E,\CH).
\end{CD}\]
It follows that $h_r$ gives a section of $\CL^{-2}$ divisible by $s$, say $h_r=s\circ\varrho$.
This means that in the splitting~(\ref{quatro}), $h_r$ lies in the second summand. In particular,
\[\{w_r,w_{r'}\}_{FO}=0\ \on{for}\ \on{any}\ r,r'.\] Furthermore, one can see from~(\ref{septo}) that
$\varrho$ is the section of $\CL^{-1}\CK^{-1}$ taking value $t|_{w_r}$ at $w_r$ and
$-t|_{w_a}$ at $w_a$. Composing this claim with~(\ref{cinquo}) we get
\[\{y_r,x_{r'}\}_{FO}=0\ \on{for}\ r\ne r',\ \on{and}\ \{y_r,w_r\}_{FO}=y_r.\]
The remaining brackets
\[\{y_r,y_{r'}\}_{FO}=0.\]
Indeed, we have proved that $d_2$ sends the first
summand of the splitting~(\ref{quatro}) to the second one in the dual splitting. But the splitting
is symmetric with respect to swapping the roles of $s$ and $t$ (and replacing the divisor $D$
with the zero divisor of $t$). This shows that $d_2$ sends the second summand to the first one,
so the brackets of $y$-coordinates vanish.
\subsubsection{Comparison with the reduced transversal Hilbert scheme}
According to~Proposition~\ref{hilb vs zas}(c), the reduced zastava is isomorphic to the
reduced transversal Hilbert scheme $^{\vphantom{\alpha}}_\CalD\ul\Hilb{}_\tr^a(\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{S}}}_{\CK'})$, where
$\CK':=\CK'_i=\CK^{-\alpha^\svee}\otimes\CalD$. The symplectic structure $\omega_{\CK'}$ on the surface
$\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{S}}}_{\CK'}$ defined in~\S\ref{poisson} gives rise to a symplectic structure on the
transversal Hilbert scheme and on its reduction. The corresponding bracket is denoted
$\{,\}_{\CK'}$. On the other hand, according to~(\ref{hilb vs coul}), the (reduced) transversal
Hilbert scheme is nothing but the (reduced) Coulomb open zastava, and this identification respects
the Poisson brackets.
To compare $\{,\}_{\CK'}$ with $\{,\}_{FO}$ we match the local coordinates. We choose a local
trivialization
$\eta$ of $\CK'=\CK'_i=\CL^{-1}\CK^{-1}$. We denote by $p\colon\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{S}}}_{\CK'}\to E$ the projection.
The corresponding local coordinate $z$ on $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{S}}}_{\CK'}$ is $z=\eta_{\on{can}}/p^*\eta$, where
$\eta_{\on{can}}$ is the tautological section of $p^*\CK'$. On the \'etale open
$(\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{S}}}_{\CK'})^a\setminus\Delta\to\Hilb^a(\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{S}}}_{\CK'})$ we have the induced local coordinates
$w_1,\ldots,w_a,z_1,\ldots,z_a$. We have $\{z_r,w_r\}_{\CK'}=z_r$, and all the other brackets vanish.
On the reduced transversal Hilbert scheme $^{\vphantom{\alpha}}_\CalD\ul\Hilb{}_\tr^a(\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{S}}}_{\CK'})$
we have the constraint that $w_1+\ldots+w_a$ is a fixed point of $E$. These coordinates clearly
match the same named coordinates on the reduced zastava of the previous subsections.
Now recall that the identification of reduced zastava with the reduced Hilbert scheme
in~Proposition~\ref{hilb vs zas}(c) is obtained in the following way. Given a point of reduced
zastava represented by $\varphi=(s,t)$ we fix an isomorphism $\varsigma\colon\CO_E(D)\iso\CalD$
and consider the image of $D\times\{1\}\subset D\times\BG_m$ under the isomorphism
\[(\varsigma\cdot t/s)|_D\colon D\times\BG_m\iso\CK'|_D\]
considered up to $\BG_m$-action ($\CK'|_D$ stands for the total space of the line bundle).
Here we view $t/s$ as a section of $\CK^{-2}(D)$. In fact, we can take $\varsigma=s$, so that
our point corresponds to the trivialization of $\CK'|_D$ given by
$t\in H^0(E,\CL^{-1}\CK^{-1})=H^0(E,\CK')$.
But if we use a local section $u\in H^0(E,\CL^{-1}\CK^{-1})$ as in~\S\ref{coor} to define
the local trivialization $\eta$ above, the value of the above coordinate $z_r$ at $\varphi=(s,t)$
equals $t/u(w_r)$. This coincides with the value of the coordinate $y_r$ of~\S\ref{coor} at $\varphi$.
In other words, the identification of reduced zastava with reduced transversal Hilbert scheme
takes the $(w,y)$-coordinates to $(w,z)$-coordinates, and the bracket $\{,\}_{FO}$ to $\{,\}_{\CK'}$.
This completes the proof of Theorem~\ref{myksas} for $G=\SL(2)$.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{myksas} for $G=\SL(3)$}
\label{prf sl3}
The vertices of the Dynkin diagram are denoted by $i,j$. A regular $T$-bundle $\CK_T$ is specified by
the line bundles $\CK^{\omega_i^\svee}$ and $\CK^{\omega_j^\svee}$ such that
$\CK^{\alpha_i^\svee}=\CK^{2\omega_i^\svee}\CK^{-\omega_j^\svee},\
\CK^{\alpha_j^\svee}=\CK^{2\omega_j^\svee}\CK^{-\omega_i^\svee},\
\CK^{\alpha_i^\svee+\alpha_j^\svee}=\CK^{\omega_i^\svee}\CK^{\omega_j^\svee}$ are all nontrivial.
We fix line bundles $\CL_i=\CL^{\omega_i^\svee}$ and $\CL_j=\CL^{\omega_j^\svee}$ of degrees $-a_i,-a_j$,
we set $\alpha=a_i\alpha_i+a_j\alpha_j$ and $\CalD_i=\CL_i^{-1}\CK^{\omega_i^\svee},\
\CalD_j=\CL_j^{-1}\CK^{\omega_j^\svee}$.
We set $\CV=\CV^{\omega_i^\svee}=\CK^{\omega_i^\svee}\oplus\CK^{\omega_j^\svee-\omega_i^\svee}\oplus\CK^{-\omega_j^\svee}
=:\CK_1\oplus\CK_2\oplus\CK_3$. A point $\varphi$ of
$^{\vphantom{\alpha}}_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^{\alpha}_\CK\cong\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}(\Ind_T^G\CK_T,\CL_T)$ is represented by a complex
\begin{equation}
\label{LVL}
\CL_i\xrightarrow{(s_1,s_2,s_3)}\CV\xrightarrow{(t_1,t_2,t_3)}\CL_j^{-1}.
\end{equation}
Here $s_c\in H^0(E,\CL_i^{-1}\CK_c)$ and $t_d\in H^0(E,\CK_d^{-1}\CL_j^{-1})$ have no common zeros
and satisfy the equation $s_1t_1+s_2t_2+s_3t_3=0\in H^0(E,\CL_i^{-1}\CL_j^{-1})$.
The associated adjoint vector bundle
\begin{equation}
\label{ad decomp}
\fg_\varphi=\CO_E^{\oplus2}\oplus\bigoplus_{1\leq c\ne d\leq 3}\CK_c\CK_d^{-1}
\end{equation}
(traceless endomorphisms
of $\CV$) has a 2-step filtration $0\subset\fn_\varphi\subset\fb_\varphi\subset\fg_\varphi$,
and the Poisson bivector $\{,\}_{FO}$ comes from the differential $d_2$ of the second page of the
hypercohomology spectral sequence for the complex
\begin{equation}
\label{9}
\fn_\varphi\to\fg_\varphi\to\fg_\varphi/\fb_\varphi.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Coordinates}
\label{coordi}
We use the morphisms $\varPi^M_{\{i\}}$ and $\varPi^M_{\{j\}}$ of~\S\ref{compa}. The targets are
the Feigin-Odesskii moduli spaces of type $A_1$ studied in~\S\ref{prf sl2}. In particular,
the coordinates on them are defined in~\S\ref{coor}, and we define the coordinates on
$^{\vphantom{\alpha}}_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^{\alpha}_\CK\cong\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}(\Ind_T^G\CK_T,\CL_T)$ as the pullbacks of the
coordinates of~\S\ref{coor}. Thus we get the \'etale local coordinates
$w_{i,1},\ldots,w_{i,a_i}$ (subject to the condition that their sum in $E$ is fixed),
$w_{j,1},\ldots,w_{j,a_j}$ (also subject to the condition that their sum in $E$ is fixed),
$y_{i,1},\ldots,y_{i,a_i}$ (homogeneous, i.e.\ only the ratios are well defined),
$y_{j,1},\ldots,y_{j,a_j}$ (also homogeneous).
More explicitly, $w_{i,1},\ldots,w_{i,a_i}$ are the zeros of $s_1$, while
$w_{j,1},\ldots,w_{j,a_j}$ are the zeros of $t_3$. We impose the genericity assumption that all
the points $w_{i,1},\ldots,w_{i,a_i},w_{j,1},\ldots,w_{j,a_j}$ are distinct.
Furthermore, we choose sections
$u_i\in H^0(E,\CL_i^{-1}\CK_2)$ and $u_j\in H^0(E,\CK_2^{-1}\CL_j^{-1})$. We consider the open
substack of $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}(\Ind_T^G\CK_T,\CL_T)$ specified by the condition that all the $w$'s are
distinct and also distinct from the zeros of $u_i$ and $u_j$.
Finally, $y_{i,r}=\frac{s_2}{u_i}|_{w_{i,r}},\ y_{j,r}=\frac{t_2}{u_j}|_{w_{j,r}}$.
The only nonvanishing Feigin-Odesskii brackets of $i$-coordinates (resp.\ $j$-coordinates) are
$\{y_{i,r},x_{i,r}\}_{FO}=y_{i,r}$ (resp.\ $\{y_{j,r},x_{j,r}\}_{FO}=y_{j,r}$) since
$\varPi^M_{\{i\}}$ (resp.\ $\varPi^M_{\{j\}}$) is Poisson. It remains to compute the brackets of
$i$-coordinates with $j$-coordinates. This computation will occupy the rest of this Section.
\subsubsection{Brackets with $w$-coordinates}
We extend the complex~(\ref{9}) to a diagram
\begin{multline*}
\CH om((\CK_2^{-1}\oplus\CK_3^{-1})/\CL_j,\CL_j)\to\CH om(\CV^\vee/\CL_j,\CL_j)\to\fn_\varphi\to\fg_\varphi\\
\to\fg_\varphi/\fb_\varphi\to\CH om(\CL_i,\CV/\CL_i)\to\CH om(\CL_i,(\CK_1\oplus\CK_2)/\CL_i).
\end{multline*}
Note that we have isomorphisms of line bundles
$(\CK_2^{-1}\oplus\CK_3^{-1})/\CL_j\simeq\CL_j^{-1}\CK_2^{-1}\CK_3^{-1}$ and
$(\CK_1\oplus\CK_2)/\CL_i\simeq\CL_i^{-1}\CK_1\CK_2$. Hence composing the first three and the
last three arrows in the above diagram we obtain a complex
\[\CL_j^2\CK_2\CK_3\xrightarrow{A}\fg_\varphi\xrightarrow{B}\CL_i^{-2}\CK_1\CK_2.\]
With respect to the decomposition~(\ref{ad decomp})
\[\fg_\varphi\subset\begin{matrix}
&\CK_1^{-1}\CK_1&\oplus&\CK_2^{-1}\CK_1&\oplus&\CK_3^{-1}\CK_1 \\
\oplus&\CK_1^{-1}\CK_2&\oplus&\CK_2^{-1}\CK_2&\oplus&\CK_3^{-1}\CK_2 \\
\oplus&\CK_1^{-1}\CK_3&\oplus&\CK_2^{-1}\CK_3&\oplus&\CK_3^{-1}\CK_3,
\end{matrix}\]
the matrix elements of $A$ (resp.\ $B$) are
\[\begin{matrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
0&0&0 \\
-t_1t_3 & -t_2t_3 &-t_3t_3 \\
t_1t_2 & t_2t_2 & t_3t_2
\end{pmatrix}
&{\rm resp.}&
\begin{pmatrix}
-s_1s_2&-s_2s_2&-s_3s_2 \\
s_1s_1&s_1s_2& s_1s_3 \\
0&0&0
\end{pmatrix}
\end{matrix}\]
(notation of~(\ref{LVL})).
Hence the first and the third rows do not contribute to the differential $d_2$ of the second
page of the hypercohomology spectral sequence, and this differential equals the one for a
simpler complex
\begin{equation}
\label{twelve}
\CL_j^2\CK_2\CK_3\xrightarrow{(-t_1t_3,-t_2t_3,-t_3t_3)}\CK_1^{-1}\CK_2\oplus\CO_E\oplus\CK_3^{-1}\CK_2
\xrightarrow{(s_1s_1,s_1s_2,s_1s_3)}\CL_i^{-2}\CK_1\CK_2.
\end{equation}
In particular, the image of $d_2$ is always divisible by $s_1$.
This implies $\{w_{i,r},w_{j,r'}\}_{FO}=\{w_{i,r},y_{j,r'}\}_{FO}=\{y_{i,r},w_{j,r'}\}_{FO}=0$ for any $r,r'$.
\subsubsection{Type $A_1$ revisited}
In order to compute $\{y_{i,r},y_{j,r'}\}_{FO}$, we need some preparation on the tangent bundle
of the Levi Feigin-Odesskii moduli space $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}_{\{j\}}(\Ind_T^{L_{\{j\}}}\CK_T,\CL_T)$.
Recall from~\S\ref{prf sl2} that
\[T_{\varPi^M_{\{j\}}\varphi}\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}_{\{j\}}(\Ind_T^{L_{\{j\}}}\CK_T,\CL_T)=
\on{Ker}\big(H^0(E,\CL_j^{-2}\CK_2^{-1}\CK_3^{-1})\to H^1(E,\CE nd(\CL_j^{-1}))\big)/\BC t_2t_3,\]
\[T^*_{\varPi^M_{\{j\}}\varphi}\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}_{\{j\}}(\Ind_T^{L_{\{j\}}}\CK_T,\CL_T)=
\big( (\BC t_2t_3)^\perp \subset H^1(E,\CL_j^{2}\CK_2\CK_3)\big)/ H^0(E,\CE nd(\CL_j^{-1})).\]
Splitting \eqref{quatro} can be rewritten as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:tangent_splitting}
\begin{array}{ccc}
H^0(E,\CL_j^{-1}\CK_2^{-1})/\BC t_2\oplus H^0(E,\CL_j^{-1}\CK_3^{-1})/\BC t_3&\iso&
T_{\varPi^M_{\{j\}}\varphi}\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}_{\{j\}}(\Ind_T^{L_{\{j\}}}\CK_T,\CL_T), \\
(\varpi,\varrho)&\longmapsto& t_3\varrho-t_2\varpi.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Applying Serre duality to the splitting~\eqref{eq:tangent_splitting} of
$T_{\varPi^M_{\{j\}}\varphi}\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}_{\{j\}}(\Ind_T^{L_{\{j\}}}\CK_T,\CL_T)$, we obtain the following splitting of
$T^*_{\varPi^M_{\{j\}}\varphi}\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}_{\{j\}}(\Ind_T^{L_{\{j\}}}\CK_T,\CL_T)$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cotangent_splitting_1}
\hspace{-1cm}
\begin{array}{ccc}
T^*_{\varPi^M_{\{j\}}\varphi}\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{M}}}_{\{j\}}(\Ind_T^{L_{\{j\}}}\CK_T,\CL_T) & \iso & \Big( (\BC t_2)^\perp \subset H^1(E,\CL_j \CK_2)) \Big) \oplus \Big( (\BC t_3)^\perp \subset H^1(E,\CL_j \CK_3)) \Big), \\
\upsilon &\longmapsto & (\upsilon t_3, -\upsilon t_2).
\end{array}
\end{equation}
It will be useful to rewrite the first summand of the splitting~\eqref{eq:cotangent_splitting_1} as
\[\on{Ker}\Big(H^0\left(D_{t_3},\CL_j\CK_2(D_{t_3})|_{D_{t_3}}\right)
\xrightarrow{\on{Res}(t_2|_{D_{t_3}}\cdot?)}H^1(E,\CO_E)\Big).\]
This is done by dualizing the first summand of \eqref{eq:tangent_splitting}, using the pairing
between $H^0(E,\CL_j^{-1} \CK_2^{-1})$ and $H^0(D_{t_3},\CL_j \CK_2(D_{t_3})|_{D_{t_3}})$ given by the
sum of residues of the product
(as always, we use the trivialization of $\bomega_E$ in~Remark~\ref{triv can}).
The identification
\begin{multline*}
\hspace{-0.5cm}
\on{Ker}\Big(H^0\left(D_{t_3},\CL_j\CK_2(D_{t_3})|_{D_{t_3}}\right)
\xrightarrow{\on{Res}(t_2|_{D_{t_3}}\cdot?)}H^1(E,\CO_E)\Big)\iso
\Big( (\BC t_2)^\perp \subset H^1(E,\CL_j\CK_2)\Big)
\end{multline*}
is induced by the connecting homomorphism for the short exact sequence
\begin{equation}
\label{thirteen}
0\to\CL_j\CK_2\xrightarrow{t_3}\CL_j\CK_2(D_{t_3})\to\CL_j\CK_2(D_{t_3})|_{D_{t_3}}\to0.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Brackets of $y$-coordinates: \v{C}ech cocycles}
In order to compute $\{y_{i,r},y_{j,r'}\}_{FO}$, we need to compute the composition
\begin{multline*}
\on{Ker}\Big(H^0\left(D_{t_3},\CO_E(D_{t_3})|_{D_{t_3}}\right)
\xrightarrow{\on{Res}(\frac{t_2}{u_j}|_{D_{t_3}}\cdot?)}H^1(E,\CO_E)\Big)\\
\xrightarrow{\frac{1}{u_j}|_{D_{t_3}}}
\on{Ker}\Big(H^0\left(D_{t_3},\CL_j\CK_2(D_{t_3})|_{D_{t_3}}\right)
\xrightarrow{\on{Res}(t_2|_{D_{t_3}}\cdot?)}H^1(E,\CO_E)\Big)\\
\to\on{Ker}\big(H^1(E,\CL_j^2\CK_2\CK_3)\to H^1(E,\CO_E)\big)\xrightarrow{d_2}
H^0(E,\CL_i^{-2}\CK_1\CK_2)/\BC s_1s_2\\
\to H^0(E,\CL_i^{-1}\CK_2)/\BC s_2\xrightarrow{\frac{1}{u_i}|_{D_{s_1}}}
H^0(D_{s_1},\CO_{D_{s_1}})\big/\BC\frac{s_2}{u_j}\Big|_{D_{s_1}},
\end{multline*}
where $u_i,u_j$ were defined in~\S\ref{coordi}, and $d_2$ comes from~(\ref{twelve}).
We rewrite the above composition as follows:
\begin{multline}
\label{fourteen}
\on{Ker}\Big(H^0\left(D_{t_3},\CO_E(D_{t_3})|_{D_{t_3}}\right)
\xrightarrow{\on{Res}(\frac{t_2}{u_j}|_{D_{t_3}}\cdot?)}H^1(E,\CO_E)\Big)\\
\xrightarrow{\frac{1}{u_j}|_{D_{t_3}}}
\on{Ker}\Big(H^0\left(D_{t_3},\CL_j\CK_2(D_{t_3})|_{D_{t_3}}\right)
\xrightarrow{\on{Res}(t_2|_{D_{t_3}}\cdot?)}H^1(E,\CO_E)\Big)\\
\to\on{Ker}\big(H^1(E,\CL_j\CK_2)\to H^1(E,\CO_E)\big)\xrightarrow{d_2}
H^0(E,\CL_i^{-2}\CK_1\CK_2)/\BC s_1s_2\\
\to H^0(E,\CL_i^{-1}\CK_2)/\BC s_2\xrightarrow{\frac{1}{u_i}|_{D_{s_1}}}
H^0(D_{s_1},\CO_{D_{s_1}})\big/\BC\frac{s_2}{u_j}\Big|_{D_{s_1}},
\end{multline}
where the second arrow is the connecting homomorphism coming from~(\ref{thirteen}),
and $d_2$ is the differential in the hypercohomology spectral sequence of the complex
\begin{equation}
\label{fifteen}
\CL_j\CK_2\xrightarrow{(-t_1,-t_2,-t_3)}\CK_1^{-1}\CK_2\oplus\CO_E\oplus\CK_3^{-1}\CK_2
\xrightarrow{(s_1s_1,s_1s_2,s_1s_3)}\CL_i^{-2}\CK_1\CK_2.
\end{equation}
To perform computations with the first cohomology we introduce a \v{C}ech cover of $E$ by
two opens $U_{t_2}:=E\setminus D_{t_2}$ and $U_{t_3}:=E\setminus D_{t_3}$. We represent
$dy_{j,r},\ 1\leq r<a_j$, as
the element of $H^0(D_{t_3},\CO_E(D_{t_3})|_{D_{t_3}})$ given by the principal part of
\[\frac{1}{x-w_{j,r}}\Big|_{w_{j,r}}-\left(\frac{t_2}{u_j}\Big|_{w_{j,r}}\right)
\left(\frac{t_2}{u_j}\Big|_{w_{j,a_j}}\right)^{-1}\frac{1}{x-w_{j,a_j}}\Big|_{w_{j,a_j}}.\]
Then the corresponding 1-cocycle in $H^1(E,\CL_j\CK_2)$ is given by a section
$f\in H^0(U_{t_2}\cap U_{t_3},\CL_j\CK_2)$ having simple poles at points of $D_{t_3}$ (and perhaps
some other poles at $D_{t_2}$ that we do not care about) such that the principal part of $f$
at $w_{j,r}$ is $\frac{1}{u_j}|_{w_{j,r}}\frac{1}{x-w_{j,r}}$ and the principal part of $f$
at $w_{j,a_j}$ is $-\left(\frac{t_2}{u_j}\Big|_{w_{j,r}}\right)
\left(t_2\Big|_{w_{j,a_j}}\right)^{-1}\frac{1}{x-w_{j,a_j}}$, while the principal parts
of $f$ at $w_{j,r'}$ for $r\ne r'\ne a_j$ vanish. Furthermore, we apply the left morphism
in~(\ref{fifteen}) to the above 1-cocycle to obtain a 1-cocycle
$(g_1,g_2,g_3)\in H^1(E,\CK_1^{-1}\CK_2\oplus\CO_E\oplus\CK_3^{-1}\CK_2)$, where
$g_1=-t_1f,\ g_2=-t_2f,\ g_3=-t_3f$. Then $g_3$ has no poles at $D_{t_3}$, and
$g_2$ has the principal part $\frac{-t_2}{u_j}|_{w_{j,r}}\frac{1}{x-w_{j,r}}$ at $w_{j,r}$,
and the principal part $\left(\frac{t_2}{u_j}\Big|_{w_{j,r}}\right)\frac{1}{x-w_{j,a_j}}$
at $w_{j,a_j}$,
while the principal parts of $g_2$ at $w_{j,r'}$ for $r\ne r'\ne a_j$ vanish.
\subsubsection{Brackets of $y$-coordinates: Weierstra\ss\ $\zeta$-function}
Below we write formulas in terms of the Weierstra\ss\ zeta function $\zeta(x)$
(see e.g.~\cite[Appendix A]{p}) which is defined on the uniformization of $E$. However, the linear
combinations we consider descend to rational functions on $E$.
In particular, the function
\[\Theta_{w_{j,r},w_{j,a_j}}(x):=\zeta(x-w_{j,r})-\zeta(x-w_{j,a_j})\]
on $E$ is a rational function with a simple pole at $w_{j,r}$ with residue 1 and a simple pole at
$w_{j,a_j}$ with residue $-1$, regular away from $w_{j,r},w_{j,a_j}$.
Using this function we can express the 1-cocycle $(g_1,g_2,g_3)$ as a coboundary
$(g'_1,g'_2,g'_3)-(g''_1,g''_2,g''_3)$ where
$(g'_1,g'_2,g'_3)\in H^0(U_{t_3},\CK_1^{-1}\CK_2\oplus\CO_E\oplus\CK_3^{-1}\CK_2)$ and
$(g''_1,g''_2,g''_3)\in H^0(U_{t_2},\CK_1^{-1}\CK_2\oplus\CO_E\oplus\CK_3^{-1}\CK_2)$.
In particular, we have
\[g'_3=0,\ g'_2=\left(\frac{t_2}{u_j}\Big|_{w_{j,r}}\right)\Theta_{w_{j,r},w_{j,a_j}}.\]
Furthermore, by definition of $d_2$ in~(\ref{fourteen}), we have
\[d_2(f)=s_1^2g'_1+s_1s_2g'_2+0\pmod{s_1s_2}\]
(note that $d_2(f)$ is actually a regular section of $\CL_i^{-2}\CK_1\CK_2$ since
$s_1t_1+s_2t_2=-s_3t_3$). Hence we have
\[d_2(f)=s_1^2g'_1-s_1s_2\left(\frac{t_2}{u_j}\Big|_{w_{j,r}}\right)\Theta_{w_{j,r},w_{j,a_j}}\pmod{s_1s_2}.\]
The composition with the last two arrows in~(\ref{fourteen}) annihilates the summand $s_1^2g'_1$,
and we are left with
\[-\left(\frac{t_2}{u_j}\Big|_{w_{j,r}}\right)\sum_{r'=1}^{a_i}\left(\frac{s_2}{u_i}\Big|_{w_{i,r'}}\right)
\Theta_{w_{j,r},w_{j,a_j}}(w_{i,r'}).\]
Pairing this expression with $dy_{i,r'}$ we finally arrive at
\begin{equation}
\label{yy}
\{y_{j,r},y_{i,r'}\}_{FO}=
-y_{j,r}y_{i,r'}\big(\Theta_{w_{j,r},w_{j,a_j}}(w_{i,r'})-\Theta_{w_{j,r},w_{j,a_j}}(w_{i,a_i})\big).
\end{equation}
To be more precise, recall that our coordinates include $w_{i,1},\ldots,w_{i,a_i-1}$, but not
$w_{i,a_i}$. However, $w_{i,a_i}$ can be determined from $w_{i,1},\ldots,w_{i,a_i-1}$ and the
constraint that $\sum_{r'=1}^{a_i}w_{i,r'}$ is fixed in $E$. The same applies to $w_{j,a_j}$.
Now, instead of normalizing the $y$-coordinates by fixing their sum, let us view them as
homogeneous coordinates, so that only their ratios matter.
From~(\ref{yy}) one can deduce
\begin{equation}
\label{yyyy}
\Big\{\frac{y_{i,r'}}{y_{i,p'}},\frac{y_{j,r}}{y_{j,p}}\Big\}_{FO}=
\frac{y_{i,r'}}{y_{i,p'}}\cdot\frac{y_{j,r}}{y_{j,p}}
\big(\zeta(w_{i,r'}-w_{j,r})-\zeta(w_{i,r'}-w_{j,p})-\zeta(w_{i,p'}-w_{j,r})+\zeta(w_{i,p'}-w_{j,p})\big).
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Comparison with the reduced Coulomb zastava}
To compare the bracket $\{,\}_{\CK'}$ on the reduced Coulomb zastava $^C_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^\alpha_{\CK'}$
with the Feigin-Odesskii bracket we write down the isomorphism of~Theorem~\ref{reductio}
explicitly in coordinates. To this end we envoke the uniformization
$\fP\colon\BC\to E=\BC/(\BZ\oplus\BZ\tau)$. We denote by $w$ the coordinate on $\BC$ such that
the trivialization of $\bomega_E$ given by $dw$ coincides with the one
of~Remark~\ref{triv can}. We denote by $\theta(w)$ the theta-function
of degree~1 for the lattice $\BZ\oplus\BZ\tau$ such that $\theta(0)=0$. We use the standard
trivialization of the pullback $\fP^*\CalD_j$ such that $\prod_{r=1}^{a_j}\theta(w-w_r)$ descends
to a section of $\CalD_j$ whenever $\CO_E\big(\sum_{r=1}^{a_j}\fP(w_i)\big)\simeq\CalD_j$.
The common part of the \'etale coordinate systems on $^C\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha_{\CK'}$ and $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha_\CK$
is formed by $(w_{i,r'},w_{j,r})_{r'=1,\ldots,a_i}^{r=1,\ldots,a_j}$ (we now think of them as of points
in $\BC$ rather than their images in $E$). The additional coordinates on $\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha_\CK$
are $(\sy_{i,r'},\sy_{j,r})_{r'=1,\ldots,a_i}^{r=1,\ldots,a_j}$, where
$\sy_{i,r'}\in\CK_i|_{w_{i,r'}},\ \sy_{j,r}\in\CK_j|_{w_{j,r}}$, and
$\CK_i=\CK^{-\alpha_i^\svee},\ \CK_j=\CK^{-\alpha_j^\svee}$.
The additional coordinates on $^C\!\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{Z}}}^\alpha_\CK$ are $(z_{i,r'},z_{j,r})_{r'=1,\ldots,a_i}^{r=1,\ldots,a_j}$,
where $z_{i,r'}\in\CK'_i|_{w_{i,r'}},\ z_{j,r}\in\CK'_j|_{w_{j,r}}$, and
$\CK'_i=\CK^{-\alpha_i^\svee}\CalD_i\CalD_j^{-1},\ \CK_j=\CK^{-\alpha_j^\svee}\CalD_j$.
On the reduced zastava the $w$-variables are constrained to have a fixed sum, while the
$\sy$-variables (resp.\ $z$-variables) are homogeneous, i.e.\ only their ratios are well defined.
The isomorphism of~Theorem~\ref{reductio} has form
\begin{equation}
\label{dozen}
\sy_{i,r'}=z_{i,r'}\phi_{i,r'}(w_{i,1},\ldots,w_{i,a_i})\psi(w_{i,r'};w_{j,1},\ldots,w_{j,a_j}),\
\sy_{j,r}=z_{j,r}\phi_{j,r}(w_{j,1},\ldots,w_{j,a_j}),
\end{equation}
where $\psi(w_{i,r'};w_{j,1},\ldots,w_{j,a_j})$ descends to a section of $\CalD_j$ (unique up to
rescaling) that vanishes at all the points $w_{j,1},\ldots,w_{j,a_j}$. Note that rescaling
$\psi(w_{i,r'};w_{j,1},\ldots,w_{j,a_j})$ does not change the ratios $\sy_{i,q}/\sy_{i,p}$, so
the above transformation is well defined. The exact definition of $\phi_{i,r'},\phi_{j,r}$ is not
important for our purposes (we observe only that $\phi_{i,r'}$ is a nonzero element of
$\CalD_i^{-1}|_{w_{i,r'}}$). Thus we can take
\[\psi(w_{i,r'};w_{j,1},\ldots,w_{j,a_j})=\prod_{r=1}^{a_j}\theta(w_{i,r'}-w_{j,r}).\]
Now recall the coordinates $y_{i,r'}$ of~\S\ref{coor}. They depend on a choice of a trivialization
$u$ of $\CK_i\CalD_i$ and are defined as $y_{i,r'}=\frac{t}{u}|_{w_{i,r'}}$ (recall that $t$ is also
a section of $\CK_i\CalD_i$). On the other hand, $\sy_{i,r'}=\Res_{w_{i,r'}}\frac{t}{s}$, where
$s$ is a section of $\CalD_i$ with zeros $w_{i,1},\ldots,w_{i,a_i}$, see~(\ref{1:Res}). Hence
\begin{equation}
\label{17}
\sy_{i,r'}=y_{i,r'}\cdot\Res_{w_{i,r'}}\frac{u}{s}
\end{equation}
(where we use the trivialization of $\bomega_E$, see~Remark~\ref{triv can}).
Using the uniformization $\fP\colon\BC\to E$ and trivializing $\fP^*\CalD_i$
we can view $u$ as a trivialization of $\CK_i$. Then we can write
$s(w)=\prod_{r'=1}^{a_i}\theta(w-w_{i,r'})$, so that~(\ref{17}) becomes
\[\sy_{i,r'}=y_{i,r'}\cdot\frac{u(w_{i,r'})}{\theta'(0)\prod_{p\ne r'}\theta(w_{i,r'}-w_{i,p})}.\]
Thus viewing $u$ as a trivialization of $\CK_i$ and combining this with our trivialization of
$\fP^*\CalD_i$ we can view $z_{i,r'}$ as actual coordinates taking values in $\BC$,
and from~(\ref{dozen}) we get
\[y_{i,r'}=z_{i,r'}\phi'_{i,r'}(w_{i,1},\ldots,w_{i,a_i})\prod_{r=1}^{a_j}\theta(w_{i,r'}-w_{j,r}),\
y_{j,r}=z_{j,r}\phi'_{j,r}(w_{j,1},\ldots,w_{j,a_j}),\]
where once again, the exact form of $\phi'_{i,r'},\phi'_{j,r}$ is not important for our purposes.
We get \[\{y_{i,r'},y_{j,r}\}_{\CK'}=
y_{i,r'}y_{j,r}\cdot\frac{\partial_{w_{j,r}}\psi(w_{i,r'};w_{j,1},\ldots,w_{j,a_j})}
{\psi(w_{i,r'};w_{j,1},\ldots,w_{j,a_j})}=y_{i,r'}y_{j,r}\cdot\zeta(w_{i,r'}-w_{j,r}).\]
This in turn implies
\[\Big\{\frac{y_{i,r'}}{y_{i,p'}},\frac{y_{j,r}}{y_{j,p}}\Big\}_{\CK'}=
\frac{y_{i,r'}}{y_{i,p'}}\cdot\frac{y_{j,r}}{y_{j,p}}
\big(\zeta(w_{i,r'}-w_{j,r})-\zeta(w_{i,r'}-w_{j,p})-\zeta(w_{i,p'}-w_{j,r})+\zeta(w_{i,p'}-w_{j,p})\big).\]
Comparing with~(\ref{yyyy}) we see that the brackets $\{,\}_{\CK'}$ and $\{,\}_{FO}$ match
on $y$-coordinates. It is easy to check that they also match on the brackets involving
$w$-coordinates.
This completes the proof of Theorem~\ref{myksas} for $G=\SL(3)$.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{myksas} for arbitrary simply laced $G$}
The \'etale local coordinates on $^{\vphantom{\alpha}}_\CalD\vphantom{j^{X^2}}\smash{\overset{\circ}{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{0.55em}}\smash{\underline{Z}}}}^\alpha_\CK$ are
$(w_{i,r},y_{i,r})_{i\in I}^{1\leq r\leq a_i}$ (as always, $w$-coordinates are constrained, and
$y$-coordinates are homogeneous). We have to compare $\{f,g\}_{FO}$ and $\{f,g\}_{\CK'}$,
where $f$ is a coordinate function from the $i$-th group, and $g$ is a coordinate function
from the $j$-th group (it may happen that $i=j$). We consider the Levi subgroup of rank 1 or 2
corresponding to the Dynkin subdiagram on vertices $i,j$. The rational projection $\varPi$ to
the corresponding Levi zastava spaces being Poisson, it suffices to compare the brackets in
question for the Levi zastava spaces. This comparison was already made in~\S\ref{prf sl2}
for rank 1 and in~\S\ref{prf sl3} for rank 2.
This completes the proof of Theorem~\ref{myksas} for arbitrary simply laced $G$. \hfill $\Box$
|
\section{\bf Introduction}\label{}
In particle physics, the scalar potential is written as a polynomial in scalar fields. The polynomial degree of the potential is $4$ when one keeps the scalar interactions renormalizable \cite{IKM2018}. Then the condition for the potential of $n$ real scalar fields $\phi_i$ ($i=1,2,\cdots,n$) to be bounded from below in the strong sense is equivalent to the requirement that for all vectors $\phi=(\phi_1,\cdots,\phi_n)\in \mathbb{R}^n\setminus\{0\}$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:11} V(\phi) =\sum_{i,j,k,l=1}^n v_{ijkl}\phi_i\phi_j\phi_k\phi_l>0. \end{equation}
Let $\mathcal{V}=(v_{ijkl})$. Then $\mathcal{V}$ is a 4th order symmetrical tensor, and hence, the above requirement \eqref{eq:11} is the positive definiteness of the tensor $\mathcal{V}$. Qi \cite{LQ1,LQ5} first introduced positive definiteness and copositivity of tensors. An $m$th order $n$ dimensional real tensor $\mathcal{V}=(v_{i_1i_2\cdots i_m})$ is said to be \begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] {\em positive semi-definite} if $\mathcal{V}x^m=\sum\limits_{i_1,i_2,\cdots,i_m=1}^nv_{i_1i_2\cdots
i_m}x_{i_1}x_{i_2}\cdots
x_{i_m}\geq0$ for all $x\in \mathbb{R}^n$ and even number $m$;
\item[(ii)] {\em positive definite} if $\mathcal{V}x^m>0$ for all $x\in \mathbb{R}^n\setminus\{0\}$ and even number $m$;
\item[(iii)] {\em copositive} if $\mathcal{V}x^m\geq0$ for all $x\geq 0$;
\item[(iv)] {\em strictly copositive} if $\mathcal{V}x^m>0$ for all $x\geq 0$ and $x\ne 0$.
\end{itemize}
Kannike \cite{K2016,K2018,K2012} presented the vacuum stability conditions of general scalar potentials
of two real scalar fields $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ and the Higgs doublet $\mathbf{H}$, and studied the sufficient condition of boundedness from below for scalar potential of the {\bf SM} Higgs $\mathbf{H}_1$, an inert doublet $\mathbf{H}_2$ and a complex singlet $\mathbf{S}$. In fact, such two problems solved by Kannike \cite{K2016} are to respectively require positive definiteness and copositivity for the corresponding 4th order 3-dimensional symmetric tensors. Also see Faro-Ivanov \cite{FI2019}, Belanger-Kannike-Pukhov-Raidal \cite{BKPR,BKPR2014}, Ivanov- K\"{o}pke-M\"{u}hlleitner \cite{IKM2018} for more details. In Refs. \cite{IF2020,MR2001,IV2012,IV2013,IKO2010}, one can construct only one quadratic term and five quartic terms for the Higgs potential with the help of three Higgs doublets with equal electroweak quantum numbers, which is a quartic polynomial with real coefficients defined on complex field. Toorop-Bazzocchi-Merlo-Paris \cite{ABMP2011,ABMP2013}and Degee-Ivanov-Keus \cite{DIK2013} turned such a polynomial from complex field to real field. In fact, they are trying to look for the analytical condition of such a polynomial to be positive.
Recently, Song-Qi \cite{SQ2019} and Liu-Song \cite{LS2019} have respectively gave the differently sufficient condition of copositivity for 4th order 3-dimensional symmetric tensors to find the vacuum stability conditions of scalar potential of the {\bf SM} Higgs $\mathbf{H}_1$, an inert doublet $\mathbf{H}_2$ and a complex singlet $\mathbf{S}$. Very recently, Qi-Song-Zhang \cite{QSZ2020} showed a necessary and sufficient condition of copositivity for such a tensor given by the above particle physical model.
In the past decades, many numerical algorithms were established to find some H-(Z-)eigenvalues of a tensor \cite{LQ1,NQW2008,NQZ2009,NZ2015,HLQS2013,ZQLX2013,HCD2015,HCD-2015,H2013,CDN2014,CHZ2016,CW2018,QCC2018,QL2017}, and then, they may be applied to test the positive definiteness of such an even order tensor by means of the sign of the smallest H-(Z-)eigenvalue. On the other hand, some classes of even order tensors with special structures may determine directly their positive definiteness. For example, Hilbert tensors \cite{SQ2014}, diagonal dominant tensors \cite{LQ1}, B-tensors \cite{S-Q2015,QS2014,DLQ2018,LQL2015,YY2014}, M-tensors \cite{ZQZ2014,DQW2013}, strong Hankel tensors \cite{Q2015,CQW2016}, generalized anti-circular tensor \cite{LQW2016}, symmetric Cauchy tensor \cite{CQ2015}, are in this category. For more structured properties of tensors, see \cite{QCC2018,QL2017,S-Q2015,SQ2016,S-Q2016,SY2016,S-Q2017}.
However, the practical matters such as the vacuum stability of general scalar potentials of a few fields require analytical expressions. The most general scalar potential of two real scalar fields $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ and the Higgs doublet $\mathbf{H}$ (Kannike \cite{K2016,K2018,K2012}) is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:12}
\begin{aligned}
V(\phi_1,\phi_2,|H|)=& \lambda_{H}|H|^4+\lambda_{H20}|H|^2\phi_1^2+\lambda_{H11}|H|^2\phi_1\phi_2+\lambda_{H02}|H|^2\phi_2^2\\
&\ +\lambda_{40}\phi_1^4+\lambda_{31}\phi_1^3\phi_2+\lambda_{22}\phi_1^2\phi_2^2+\lambda_{13}\phi_1\phi_2^3+\lambda_{04}\phi_2^4.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Clearly, such a polynomial of the degree $4$ can define a 4th order 3-dimensional symmetric tensor, and hence, the vacuum stability of such a scalar potential is equivalent to the positive definiteness of such a tensor. So this requires an analytically necessary and sufficient condition of positive definiteness. For a 4th order 2 dimensional symmetric tensor, the analytical condition of its positive definiteness traced back to ones of the Refs. Gadem-Li \cite{GL1964}, Ku \cite{K1965} and Jury-Mansour \cite{JM1981}. Wang-Qi \cite{WQ2005} improved their proof and conclusions. However, the above result depend on the discriminant of such a polynomial. Recently, Guo \cite{G2020} showed a new necessary and sufficient condition without the discriminant. Very recently, Qi-Song-Zhang \cite{QSZ20202} gave a new necessary and sufficient condition other than the above results. Hasan-Hasan \cite{HH1996} claimed that a necessary and sufficient condition of positive definiteness of 4th order 3-dimensional symmetric tensor was proved without the discriminant. However, there is a problem in their process of argumentation. In 1998, Fu \cite{F1998} pointed out that Hasan-Hasan's results are all sufficient only. Until now, we don't know the analytically necessary and sufficient condition of positive definiteness for a 4th order 3-dimensional symmetric tensor.
In this paper, we mainly concentration on the analytical expressions of positive definiteness for a special 4th order tensor given by \eqref{eq:12}. More precisely, by means of Qi-Song-Zhang's result, we first show an analytically necessary and sufficient condition of positive definiteness of 4th order 2 dimensional symmetric tensors. Secondly, with the help of this conclusion, we discuss positive definiteness of a 4th order 3-dimension symmetric tensor defined by \eqref{eq:12}. Then these analytical conditions are the vacuum stability conditions for the potential \eqref{eq:12} of two real scalar fields $\phi_1$ and $\phi_1$ and the Higgs doublet $\mathbf{H}$.
\section{\bf Preliminaries and Basic facts}
A 4th order 3-dimensional real tensor $\mathbf{V}$ consists of $81$ entries in the real field $\mathbb{R}$, i.e.,
$$\mathbf{V} = (v_{ijkl}),\ \ \ \ \ v_{ijkl} \in \mathbb{R},\ \ i,j,k,l=1,2,3.$$
A tensor $\mathbf{V}$ is said to be {\em symmetric} if its entries $v_{ijkl}$ are invariant for any permutation of its indices. It is known that a 4th order 3-dimensional symmetric tensor $\mathbf{V}$ is composed of $15$ independent entries only,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:21}\begin{aligned}
&v_{1111}, v_{2222},\ v_{3333},\ v_{1222},\ v_{1333},\ v_{1112},\ v_{1113},\ v_{2333},\\
&v_{2223},\ v_{1122},\ v_{1133},\ v_{2233},\ v_{1223},\ v_{1123},\ v_{1233}.
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
It is obvious that there is a consistent one-to-one match between a 4th order 3-dimensional symmetric tensor and a homogeneous polynomial of degree 4 with 3 variables.
Such a homogeneous polynomial, denoted as $\mathbf{V}x^4$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:22}\mathbf{V}x^4=\sum_{i,j,k,l=1}^3v_{ijkl}x_ix_jx_k
x_l.\end{equation}
Let $\|\cdot\|$ denote any norm on $\mathbb{R}^n$. Then the following conclusions on unit sphere are known \cite{SQ2015,LQ1,QL2017,QCC2018}.
\begin{lemma}(\cite{LQ1}) \label{le:21} Let $\mathbf{V}$ be a 4th order symmetric tensor and let $S$ be the unit sphere on $\mathbb{R}^n$, $S=\{x\in \mathbb{R}^n: \ \|x\|=1 \}$. Then
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\mathbf{V}$ is positive semi-definite if and only if $\mathbf{V}x^4\geq0$ for all $x\in S$;
\item[(ii)] $\mathbf{V}$ is positive definite if and only if $\mathbf{V}x^4>0$ for all $x\in S$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
The following results should be well-known, which is showed hundreds of years ago. Also see Qi-Song-Zhang \cite{QSZ20202}.
\begin{lemma} \label{le:22} Let $P(t)$ be a quadratic polynomial,
$$P(t) = at^2 + bt + c,$$
with $a>0$. Then $P(t) > 0$ $( \ge 0)$ for all $t \ge 0$ if and only if
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] $b \ge 0$ and $c > 0$ $( \ge 0)$;
\item[(2)] $b < 0$ and $4ac - b^2>0$ $( \ge 0)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
In the proof of main results, we will use the following lemma, which were proved by Qi-Song-Zhang \cite{QSZ20202}, recently.
\begin{lemma} \label{le:23} Let $P(t)$ be a quartic polynomial,
$$P(t) = at^4 + bt^3 + ct^2 + dt + e,$$ where $a > 0$ and $e > 0$.
Then $P(t) \ge 0$ for all $t$ if and only if $ \Delta\geq0, \ |b\sqrt{e} - d\sqrt{a} | \le 4\sqrt{ace+2ae\sqrt{ae}} $ and either (i)
$-2\sqrt{ae} \le c \le 6\sqrt{ae}$; or (ii)
$c > 6\sqrt{ae}$ and $|b\sqrt{e} + d\sqrt{a}| \le 4\sqrt{ace-2ae\sqrt{ae}}$,
where $$ \Delta=4(12ae-3bd+c^2)^3-(72ace+9bcd-2c^3-27ad^2-27b^2e)^2.$$
Furthermore, $P(t) > 0$ for all $t$ if and only if \begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] $\Delta = 0$, $b\sqrt{e} = d\sqrt{a}$, $b^2 +8a\sqrt{ae} = 4ac < 24a\sqrt{ae}$;
\item[(2)] $\Delta > 0$, $|b\sqrt{e} - d\sqrt{a} | \le 4\sqrt{ace+2ae\sqrt{ae}}$ and either (i) $-2\sqrt{ae} \le c \le 6\sqrt{ae}$, or (ii) $c > 6\sqrt{ae}$ and $|b\sqrt{e} + d\sqrt{a}| \le 4\sqrt{ace-2ae\sqrt{ae}}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\section{\bf Positive definiteness of 4th order symmetric tensors}
In this section, we mainly discuss analytical expressions of positive definiteness of 4th order tensors. Furthermore, we present a necessary and sufficient condition of positive definiteness for a special 4th order 3-dimension symmetric tensor defined by mathematical models in particle physics.
\subsection{4th order $2$ dimensional symmetric tensors}
\begin{theorem} \label{th:31} Let $\mathcal{V}=(v_{ijkl})$ be a 4th order $2$ dimensional symmetric tensor and let $$\begin{aligned}I=&v_{1111}v_{2222}-4v_{1112}v_{1222}+3v_{1221}^2,\\
J=&v_{1111}v_{1122}v_{2222}+2v_{1112}v_{1122}v_{1222}-v_{1122}^3-v_{1111}v_{1222}^2-v_{1112}^2v_{2222}.
\end{aligned}$$ Then $\mathcal{V}$ is positive definite if and only if $v_{1111}>0$, $v_{2222}>0$ and
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] $I^3-27J^2=0,$\ \ $v_{1112}\sqrt{v_{2222}}=v_{1222}\sqrt{v_{1111}}$,\\
$v_{1112}^2+2v_{1111}\sqrt{v_{1111}v_{2222}}=6v_{1111}v_{1122}<6v_{1111}\sqrt{v_{1111}v_{2222}};$
\item[(2)] $I^3-27J^2>0,$\\
$|v_{1112}\sqrt{v_{2222}}-v_{1222}\sqrt{v_{1111}}|\leq \sqrt{6v_{1111}v_{1221}v_{2222}+2\sqrt{(v_{1111}v_{2222})^3}}$,\\
(i) $-\sqrt{v_{1111}v_{2222}}\leq 3v_{1221}\leq 3\sqrt{v_{1111}v_{2222}};$\\
(ii) $v_{1221} >\sqrt{v_{1111}v_{2222}}$ and \\$|v_{1112}\sqrt{v_{2222}}+v_{1222}\sqrt{v_{1111}}|\leq \sqrt{6v_{1111}v_{1221}v_{2222}-2\sqrt{(v_{1111}v_{2222})^3}}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}Let a vector $x=(x_1,x_2)^\top$ be on the unit sphere,
$$\|x\|=\sqrt{x_1^2+x_2^2}=1\mbox{ and }x_i\in\mathbb{R}\mbox{ for }i=1,2.$$ Without loss of generality, we may assume $x_2\not=0$. For a vector $x=(x_1,x_2)^\top$,
we have
\begin{align}\mathcal{V}x^4=&\sum_{i,j,k,l=1}^2v_{ijkl}x_ix_jx_kx_l\nonumber\\
=&v_{1111}x_1^4+4v_{1112}x_1^3x_2+6v_{1122}x_1^2x_2^2+4v_{1222}x_1x_2^3+v_{2222}x_2^4\nonumber,
\end{align}
and hence, $$\frac{\mathcal{V}x^4}{x_2^4}
=v_{1111}\left(\frac{x_1}{x_2}\right)^4+4v_{1112}\left(\frac{x_1}{x_2}\right)^3+6v_{1122}\left(\frac{x_1}{x_2}\right)^2+4v_{1222}\left(\frac{x_1}{x_2}\right)+v_{2222}.$$
Clearly, $\mathbf{V}x^4>0$ if and only if $$P(t)=at^4+bt^3+ct^2+dt+e>0$$ with
$$a=v_{1111},\ b=4v_{1112},\ c=6v_{1122},\ d=4v_{1222},\ e=v_{2222}.$$
Then $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta=&4(12ae-3bd+c^2)^3-(72ace+9bcd-2c^3-27ad^2-27b^2e)^2\\
=&4(12v_{1111}v_{2222}-48v_{1112}v_{1222}+36v_{1122}^2)^3-(72\times 6v_{1111}v_{1122}v_{2222}\\
&+72\times 12v_{1112}v_{1122}v_{1222}-72\times 6v_{1122}^3-72\times 6v_{1111}v_{1222}^2\\
&-72\times 6v_{1112}^2v_{2222})^2\\
=& 4\times 12^3(I^3-27J^2),
\end{aligned}$$
and hence, the sign of $\Delta$ is the same as one of $(I^3-27J^2)$.
So, it follows from Lemma \ref{le:23} that the expected conclusions are obtained by simply calculating.
\end{proof}
Using similar proof technique, the following result is easy to be showed by Lemma \ref{le:23}. This is a repetitive work, we omit its proof.
\begin{theorem} \label{th:32} A 4th order $2$ dimensional symmetric tensor $\mathcal{V}=(v_{ijkl})$ with $v_{1111}>0$ and $v_{2222}>0$ is positive semi-definite if and only if
$I^3-27J^2\ge0,$\\
$|v_{1112}\sqrt{v_{2222}}-v_{1222}\sqrt{v_{1111}}|\leq \sqrt{6v_{1111}v_{1221}v_{2222}+2\sqrt{(v_{1111}v_{2222})^3}}$,\\
(i) $-\sqrt{v_{1111}v_{2222}}\leq 3v_{1221}\leq 3\sqrt{v_{1111}v_{2222}};$\\
(ii) $v_{1221} >\sqrt{v_{1111}v_{2222}}$ and \\$|v_{1112}\sqrt{v_{2222}}+v_{1222}\sqrt{v_{1111}}|\leq \sqrt{6v_{1111}v_{1221}v_{2222}-2\sqrt{(v_{1111}v_{2222})^3}}$.
\end{theorem}
Next we give an analytically necessary and sufficient condition of the vacuum stability of two real scalar fields $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ in particle physics.
The most general scalar potential of two real scalar fields $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:31} \bar{V}(\phi_1,\phi_2)=\lambda_{40}\phi_1^4+\lambda_{31}\phi_1^3\phi_1+\lambda_{22}\phi_1^2\phi_2^2+\lambda_{13}\phi_1\phi_2^3+\lambda_{04}\phi_2^4
=\mathcal{V} \phi^4,
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{V}=(v_{ijkl})$ is the coupling tensor and $\phi=(\phi_1,\phi_2)^\top$ is the vector of fields (Kannike \cite{K2016,K2018,K2012}). In fact, the vacuum stability of two real scalar fields $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ is equivalent to the positive definitnness of the coupling tensor $\mathcal{V}=(v_{ijkl})$ with its entries $$v_{1111}=\lambda_{40},\ v_{2222}=\lambda_{04},\ v_{1112}=\frac14\lambda_{31},\ v_{1122}=\frac16\lambda_{22},\
v_{1222}=\frac14\lambda_{13}.$$
Then we have \begin{equation}\label{eq:32}
\begin{aligned}
\Delta=&4(12\lambda_{40}\lambda_{04}-3\lambda_{31}\lambda_{13}+\lambda_{22}^2)^3\\&-(72\lambda_{40}\lambda_{22}\lambda_{04}+9\lambda_{31}\lambda_{22}\lambda_{31} -2\lambda_{22}^3-27\lambda_{40}\lambda_{13}^2-27\lambda_{31}^2\lambda_{04})^2.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Then from Theorem \ref{th:31} (or Lemma \ref{le:23}), the following result is easy to obtain.
\begin{theorem} \label{th:33} $\bar{V}(\phi_1,\phi_2)=\mathcal{V}\phi^4>0$ for all $\phi=(\phi_1,\phi_2)^\top\in\mathbb{R}^2/\{0\}$ if and only if
$\lambda_{40}>0,\ \lambda_{04}>0 $ and
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] $\Delta=0,$\ \
$\lambda_{31}\sqrt{\lambda_{04}}=\lambda_{13}\sqrt{\lambda_{40}}$,\\ $\lambda_{31}^2+8\lambda_{40}\sqrt{\lambda_{40}\lambda_{04}}=4\lambda_{40}\lambda_{22}<24\lambda_{40}\sqrt{\lambda_{40}\lambda_{04}};$
\item[(2)] $\Delta>0,$\ \
$|\lambda_{31}\sqrt{\lambda_{04}}-\lambda_{13}\sqrt{\lambda_{40}}|\leq 4\sqrt{\lambda_{40}\lambda_{22}\lambda_{04}+2\lambda_{40}\lambda_{04}\sqrt{\lambda_{40}\lambda_{04}}}$,\\
(i) $-2\sqrt{\lambda_{40}\lambda_{04}}\leq \lambda_{22}\leq 6\sqrt{\lambda_{40}\lambda_{04}};$\\
(ii) $\lambda_{22}> 6\sqrt{\lambda_{40}\lambda_{04}}$ and\\ $|\lambda_{31}\sqrt{\lambda_{04}}+\lambda_{13}\sqrt{\lambda_{40}}|\leq 4\sqrt{\lambda_{40}\lambda_{22}\lambda_{04}-2\lambda_{40}\lambda_{04}\sqrt{\lambda_{40}\lambda_{04}}}$.
\end{itemize}
In fact, these analytical conditions are the vacuum stability conditions for the potential \eqref{eq:31} of two real scalar fields $\phi_1$ and $\phi_1$.
\end{theorem}
\subsection{4th order $3$ dimensional symmetric tensors}
The most general scalar potential of two real scalar fields $\phi_1$
and $\phi_2$ and the Higgs doublet $\mathbf{H}$ (Kannike \cite{K2016,K2018,K2012}) is
\begin{align}
V(\phi_1,\phi_2,|H|)=& \lambda_{H}|H|^4+\lambda_{H20}|H|^2\phi_1^2+\lambda_{H11}|H|^2\phi_1\phi_2+\lambda_{H02}|H|^2\phi_2^2\nonumber\\
&\ +\lambda_{40}\phi_1^4+\lambda_{31}\phi_1^3\phi_2+\lambda_{22}\phi_1^2\phi_2^2+\lambda_{13}\phi_1\phi_2^3+\lambda_{04}\phi_2^4,\label{eq:33}\\
=& \lambda_{H}|H|^4+M(\phi_1,\phi_2)|H|^2+\bar{V}(\phi_1,\phi_2),\nonumber
\end{align}
where \begin{equation}\label{eq:34}M(\phi_1,\phi_2)=\lambda_{H20}\phi_1^2+\lambda_{H11}\phi_1\phi_2+\lambda_{H02}\phi_2^2\end{equation} and \begin{equation}\label{eq:35}\bar{V}(\phi_1,\phi_2)=V(\phi_1,\phi_2,0)=\lambda_{40}\phi_1^4+\lambda_{31}\phi_1^3\phi_2+\lambda_{22}\phi_1^2\phi_2^2+\lambda_{13}\phi_1\phi_2^3
+\lambda_{04}\phi_2^4.\end{equation}
Recently, Kannike \cite{K2016,K2018} studied the positive definiteness of $V(\phi_1,\phi_2,|H|)$, and gave a sufficient condition of $V(\phi_1,\phi_2,|H|)>0$.
In this subsection, we will present a necessary and sufficient condition of positive definiteness for the particle physical models \eqref{eq:33}.
Let $x=(\phi_1,\phi_2,|H|)^\top$. Then $V(\phi_1,\phi_2,|H|)=\mathcal{V}x^4$, where $\mathcal{V}=(v_{ijkl})$ is a 4th order 3 dimensional symmetric tensor with its entries
\begin{equation}\label{eq:36}
\begin{aligned}v_{1111}=&\lambda_{40},\ v_{2222}=\lambda_{04},\ v_{3333}=\lambda_{H},\ v_{1112}=\frac14\lambda_{31},\ v_{1222}=\frac14\lambda_{13},\\
v_{1133}=&\frac16\lambda_{H20},\ v_{1122}= \frac16\lambda_{22},\ v_{2233}=\frac16\lambda_{H02},\\
v_{1233}=&\frac1{12}\lambda_{H11},\ \ v_{ijkl}=0\mbox{ for the others}.
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
Clearly, the tensor given by $\bar{V}(\phi_1,\phi_2)$ is a 4th order 2 dimensional principal sub-tensor of $\mathcal{V}$.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:34} Let $\mathcal{V}=(v_{ijkl})$ be a 4th order 3 dimensional symmetric tensor given by \eqref{eq:36} with $\lambda_{H}>0$. Then $\mathcal{V}$ is positive (semi-)definite if and only if for all $\phi=(\phi_1,\phi_2)^\top\in\mathbb{R}^2/\{0\},$
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] $M(\phi_1,\phi_2)\geq0$ and $\bar{V}(\phi_1,\phi_2)>0 $ $(\ge0)$;
\item[(2)] $M(\phi_1,\phi_2)<0$ and $4\lambda_{H}\bar{V}(\phi_1,\phi_2)-(M(\phi_1,\phi_2))^2>0$ $(\ge0)$,
\end{itemize}
where $M(\phi_1,\phi_2)$ and $\bar{V}(\phi_1,\phi_2)$ are respectively defined dy \eqref{eq:34} and \eqref{eq:35}.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Let $x=(x_1,x_2,x_3)^\top=(\phi_1,\phi_2,|H|)^\top$.
It follows from the equations \eqref{eq:33} and \eqref{eq:36} that
$$\mathcal{V}x^4=\lambda_{H}|H|^4+M(\phi_1,\phi_2)|H|^2+\bar{V}(\phi_1,\phi_2).$$
Which may be regarded as a quadratic polynomial with respect to $|H|^2$ with $$a=\lambda_{H},\ b= M(\phi_1,\phi_2),\ c=\bar{V}(\phi_1,\phi_2),\ t=|H|^2.$$ So the expected conclusions are yielded by Lemma \ref{le:22}.
\end{proof}
It is obvious that $M(\phi_1,\phi_2)$ is a quadric form with respect to two variables $\phi_1,\phi_2$, and hence, the inequality $M(\phi_1,\phi_2)\geq 0$ is equivalent to positive semi-definiteness of its coefficient matrix. That is,
$$\lambda_{H20}\geq0,\ \lambda_{H02}\geq0,\ \lambda_{H20}\lambda_{H02}-\frac14\lambda_{H11}^2\geq 0.$$
Similarly, the inequality $M(\phi_1,\phi_2)< 0$ is equivalent to negative definiteness of its coefficient matrix, i.e.,
$$\lambda_{H20}<0,\ \lambda_{H02}<0,\ \lambda_{H20}\lambda_{H02}-\frac14\lambda_{H11}^2< 0.$$
At the same time, the inequality $\bar{V}(\phi_1,\phi_2)>0$ can be obtained by Theorem \ref{th:33}. Let
\begin{equation}\label{eq:37}
\begin{aligned}\lambda_{40}'=&4\lambda_{40}\lambda_H-\lambda_{H20}^2,\ \lambda_{04}'=4\lambda_{04}\lambda_H-\lambda_{H02}^2,\\
\lambda_{31}'=&4\lambda_H\lambda_{31}-2\lambda_{H20}\lambda_{H11},\ \lambda_{13}'=4\lambda_H\lambda_{13}
-2\lambda_{H02}\lambda_{H11},\\
\lambda_{22}'=&4\lambda_H\lambda_{22}-2\lambda_{H20}\lambda_{H02}-\lambda_{H11}^2,\\
\Delta'=&4(12\lambda_{40}'\lambda_{04}'-3\lambda_{31}'\lambda_{13}'+\lambda_{22}'^2)^3\\&-(72\lambda_{40}'\lambda_{22}'\lambda_{04}'+9\lambda_{31}'\lambda_{22}'\lambda_{31}' -2\lambda_{22}'^3-27\lambda_{40}'\lambda_{13}'^2-27\lambda_{31}'^2\lambda_{04}')^2.
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
Now we present a necessary and sufficient condition of the inquality $$4\lambda_{H}\bar{V}(\phi_1,\phi_2)-(M(\phi_1,\phi_2))^2>0.$$
\begin{proposition}\label{pr:35}
$ \bar{V}'(\phi_1,\phi_2)=4\lambda_{H}\bar{V}(\phi_1,\phi_2)-(M(\phi_1,\phi_2))^2>0$ for all $\phi=(\phi_1,\phi_2)^\top\in\mathbb{R}^2/\{0\}$ if and only if
$\lambda_{40}'>0,\ \lambda_{04}'>0 $ and
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] $\Delta'=0,$\ \
$\lambda_{31}'\sqrt{\lambda_{04}'}=\lambda_{13}'\sqrt{\lambda_{40}'}$,\\ $\lambda_{31}'^2+8\lambda_{40}'\sqrt{\lambda_{40}'\lambda_{04}'}=4\lambda_{40}'\lambda_{22}'<24\lambda_{40}'\sqrt{\lambda_{40}'\lambda_{04}'};$
\item[(2)] $\Delta'>0,$\ \
$|\lambda_{31}'\sqrt{\lambda_{04}'}-\lambda_{13}'\sqrt{\lambda_{40}'}|\leq 4\sqrt{\lambda_{40}'\lambda_{22}'\lambda_{04}'+2\lambda_{40}'\lambda_{04}'\sqrt{\lambda_{40}'\lambda_{04}'}}$,\\
(i) $-2\sqrt{\lambda_{40}'\lambda_{04}'}\leq \lambda_{22}'\leq 6\sqrt{\lambda_{40}'\lambda_{04}'};$\\
(ii) $\lambda_{22}'> 6\sqrt{\lambda_{40}'\lambda_{04}'}$ and\\
$|\lambda_{31}'\sqrt{\lambda_{04}'}+\lambda_{13}'\sqrt{\lambda_{40}'}|\leq 4\sqrt{\lambda_{40}'\lambda_{22}'\lambda_{04}'-2\lambda_{40}'\lambda_{04}'\sqrt{\lambda_{40}'\lambda_{04}'}}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} We may expand the polynomial $\bar{V}'(\phi_1,\phi_2)$ as follow,
$$\begin{aligned}
\bar{V}'(\phi_1,\phi_2)=&4\lambda_{H}\bar{V}(\phi_1,\phi_2)-(M(\phi_1,\phi_2))^2\\
=&(4\lambda_{40}\lambda_H-\lambda_{H20}^2)\phi_1^4+(4\lambda_H\lambda_{31}-2\lambda_{H20}\lambda_{H11})\phi_1^3\phi_2\\
&+(4\lambda_H\lambda_{22}-2\lambda_{H20}\lambda_{H02}-\lambda_{H11}^2)\phi_1^2\phi_2^2\\
&+(4\lambda_H\lambda_{13}-2\lambda_{H02}\lambda_{H11})\phi_1\phi_2^3+(4\lambda_{04}\lambda_H-\lambda_{H02}^2) \phi_2^4\\
=&\lambda_{40}'\phi_1^4+\lambda_{31}'\phi_1^3\phi_2+\lambda_{22}'\phi_1^2\phi_2^2+\lambda_{13}'\phi_1\phi_2^3
+\lambda_{04}'\phi_2^4.
\end{aligned}$$
So this definite a 4th order 2 dimensional symmetric tensor $\mathcal{V}=(v_{ijkl})$ with its entries $$v_{1111}=\lambda_{40}',\ v_{2222}=\lambda_{04}',\ v_{1112}=\frac14\lambda_{31}',\ v_{1122}=\frac16\lambda_{22}',\
v_{1222}=\frac14\lambda_{13}'.$$
From Theorem \ref{th:31} or \ref{th:33}, the expected conclusions follow.
\end{proof}
Altogether, we obtain a necessary and sufficient condition of positive definiteness for a special 4th order 3-dimension symmetric tensor defined by mathematical models in particle physics.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:36} A tensor $\mathcal{V}=(v_{ijkl})$ given by \eqref{eq:36} is positive definite if and only if $\lambda_{H}>0$ and
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] $\lambda_{H20}\geq0,\ \lambda_{H02}\geq0,\ 4\lambda_{H20}\lambda_{H02}-\lambda_{H11}^2\geq 0$, $\lambda_{40}>0,\ \lambda_{04}>0$ and
\begin{itemize}
\item[\textcircled{1}] $\Delta=0,$\ \
$\lambda_{31}\sqrt{\lambda_{04}}=\lambda_{13}\sqrt{\lambda_{40}}$,\\ $\lambda_{31}^2+8\lambda_{40}\sqrt{\lambda_{40}\lambda_{04}}=4\lambda_{40}\lambda_{22}<24\lambda_{40}\sqrt{\lambda_{40}\lambda_{04}};$
\item[\textcircled{2}] $\Delta>0,$\ \
$|\lambda_{31}\sqrt{\lambda_{04}}-\lambda_{13}\sqrt{\lambda_{40}}|\leq 4\sqrt{\lambda_{40}\lambda_{22}\lambda_{04}+2\lambda_{40}\lambda_{04}\sqrt{\lambda_{40}\lambda_{04}}}$,\\
(i) $-2\sqrt{\lambda_{40}\lambda_{04}}\leq \lambda_{22}\leq 6\sqrt{\lambda_{40}\lambda_{04}};$\\
(ii) $\lambda_{22}> 6\sqrt{\lambda_{40}\lambda_{04}}$ and\\ $|\lambda_{31}\sqrt{\lambda_{04}}+\lambda_{13}\sqrt{\lambda_{40}}|\leq 4\sqrt{\lambda_{40}\lambda_{22}\lambda_{04}-2\lambda_{40}\lambda_{04}\sqrt{\lambda_{40}\lambda_{04}}}$.
\end{itemize}
\item[(2)] $\lambda_{H20}<0,\ \lambda_{H02}<0,\ 4\lambda_{H20}\lambda_{H02}-\lambda_{H11}^2< 0$,\\ $\lambda_{40}'=4\lambda_{40}\lambda_H-\lambda_{H20}^2>0,\ \lambda_{04}'=4\lambda_{04}\lambda_H-\lambda_{H02}^2>0$ and
\begin{itemize}
\item[\textcircled{3}] $\Delta'=0,$\ \
$\lambda_{31}'\sqrt{\lambda_{04}'}=\lambda_{13}'\sqrt{\lambda_{40}'}$,\\ $\lambda_{31}'^2+8\lambda_{40}'\sqrt{\lambda_{40}'\lambda_{04}'}=4\lambda_{40}'\lambda_{22}'<24\lambda_{40}'\sqrt{\lambda_{40}'\lambda_{04}'};$
\item[\textcircled{4}] $\Delta'>0,$\ \
$|\lambda_{31}'\sqrt{\lambda_{04}'}-\lambda_{13}'\sqrt{\lambda_{40}'}|\leq 4\sqrt{\lambda_{40}'\lambda_{22}'\lambda_{04}'+2\lambda_{40}'\lambda_{04}'\sqrt{\lambda_{40}'\lambda_{04}'}}$,\\
(i) $-2\sqrt{\lambda_{40}'\lambda_{04}'}\leq \lambda_{22}'\leq 6\sqrt{\lambda_{40}'\lambda_{04}'};$\\
(ii) $\lambda_{22}'> 6\sqrt{\lambda_{40}'\lambda_{04}'}$ and\\
$|\lambda_{31}'\sqrt{\lambda_{04}'}+\lambda_{13}'\sqrt{\lambda_{40}'}|\leq 4\sqrt{\lambda_{40}'\lambda_{22}'\lambda_{04}'-2\lambda_{40}'\lambda_{04}'\sqrt{\lambda_{40}'\lambda_{04}'}}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
Moreover, these analytical conditions are the vacuum stability conditions for the potential \eqref{eq:33} of two real scalar fields $\phi_1$ and $\phi_1$ and the Higgs doublet $\mathbf{H}$ also.
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}\label{th:37} A tensor $\mathcal{V}=(v_{ijkl})$ given by \eqref{eq:36} with $\lambda_{H}>0$, $\lambda_{40}>0$ and $\lambda_{04}>0$ is positive semi-definite if and only if
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] $\lambda_{H20}\geq0,\ \lambda_{H02}\geq0,\ 4\lambda_{H20}\lambda_{H02}-\lambda_{H11}^2\geq 0$ and\\
$\Delta\ge0,$\ \
$|\lambda_{31}\sqrt{\lambda_{04}}-\lambda_{13}\sqrt{\lambda_{40}}|\leq 4\sqrt{\lambda_{40}\lambda_{22}\lambda_{04}+2\lambda_{40}\lambda_{04}\sqrt{\lambda_{40}\lambda_{04}}}$,\\
(i) $-2\sqrt{\lambda_{40}\lambda_{04}}\leq \lambda_{22}\leq 6\sqrt{\lambda_{40}\lambda_{04}};$\\
(ii) $\lambda_{22}> 6\sqrt{\lambda_{40}\lambda_{04}}$ and\\ $|\lambda_{31}\sqrt{\lambda_{04}}+\lambda_{13}\sqrt{\lambda_{40}}|\leq 4\sqrt{\lambda_{40}\lambda_{22}\lambda_{04}-2\lambda_{40}\lambda_{04}\sqrt{\lambda_{40}\lambda_{04}}}$.
\item[(2)] $\lambda_{H20}<0,\ \lambda_{H02}<0,\ 4\lambda_{H20}\lambda_{H02}-\lambda_{H11}^2< 0$, $\lambda_{40}'>0,\ \lambda_{04}'>0$ and
$\Delta'\ge0,$\ \
$|\lambda_{31}'\sqrt{\lambda_{04}'}-\lambda_{13}'\sqrt{\lambda_{40}'}|\leq 4\sqrt{\lambda_{40}'\lambda_{22}'\lambda_{04}'+2\lambda_{40}'\lambda_{04}'\sqrt{\lambda_{40}'\lambda_{04}'}}$,\\
(i) $-2\sqrt{\lambda_{40}'\lambda_{04}'}\leq \lambda_{22}'\leq 6\sqrt{\lambda_{40}'\lambda_{04}'};$\\
(ii) $\lambda_{22}'> 6\sqrt{\lambda_{40}'\lambda_{04}'}$ and\\
$|\lambda_{31}'\sqrt{\lambda_{04}'}+\lambda_{13}'\sqrt{\lambda_{40}'}|\leq 4\sqrt{\lambda_{40}'\lambda_{22}'\lambda_{04}'-2\lambda_{40}'\lambda_{04}'\sqrt{\lambda_{40}'\lambda_{04}'}}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
In this paper, we showed an analytically necessary and sufficient condition of positive definiteness for a special 4th order 3-dimension symmetric tensor defined by mathematical models in particle physics with the help of the analytical expressions of positive definiteness for 4th order 2-dimension symmetric tensors. However, we do not still know how to solve an analytical expressions of positive definiteness for a general 4th order 3-dimension symmetric real tensor or higher dimensional tensor.
\end{remark}
\bibliographystyle{amsplain}
|
\section{}
\label{}
\section{Introduction}
Deep neural networks (DNNs) have been the main driving force for the recent wave in artificial intelligence (AI). They have achieved remarkable success in a number of domains including computer vision \cite{imagnet_12,faster_rcnn}, reinforcement learning \cite{mnih2015human,silver2016mastering} and natural language processing \cite{collobert2008unified}, to name a few. However, due to the huge number of model parameters, the deployment of DNNs can be computationally and memory intensive. As such, it remains a great challenge to deploy DNNs on mobile electronics with low computational budget and limited memory storage.
Recent efforts have been made to the quantization of weights and activations of DNNs while in the hope of maintaining the accuracy. More specifically, quantization techniques constrain the weights or/and activation values to low-precision arithmetic (e.g. 4-bit) instead of using the conventional floating-point (32-bit) representation \cite{Hubara2017QuantizedNN,dorefa_16,halfwave_17,inq_17,louizos2018relaxed,ttq_16}. In this way, the inference of quantized DNNs translates to hardware-friendly low-bit computations rather than floating-point operations. That being said, quantization brings three critical benefits for AI systems: energy efficiency, memory savings, and inference acceleration.
The approximation power of weight quantized DNNs was investigated in \cite{he2018relu,ding2018universal}, while the recent paper \cite{shen2020deep} studies the approximation power of DNNs with discretized activations.
On the computational side, training quantized DNNs typically calls for solving a large-scale optimization problem, yet with extra computational and mathematical challenges.
Although people often quantize both the weights and activations of DNNs, they can be viewed as two relatively independent subproblems. Weight quantization basically introduces an additional set-constraint that characterizes the quantized model parameters, which can be efficiently carried out by projected gradient type methods \cite{courbariaux2015binaryconnect,twn_16,li2017training,yin2016quantization,hou2018loss,yin2018binaryrelax}. Activation quantization (i.e., quantizing ReLU), on the other hand, involves a stair-case activation function with zero derivative almost everywhere (a.e.) in place of the sub-differentiable ReLU. Therefore, the resulting composite loss function is piece-wise constant and cannot be minimized via the (stochastic) gradient method due to the vanished gradient.
To overcome this issue, a simple and hardware friendly approach is to use a straight-through estimator (STE) \cite{hinton2012neural,bengio2013estimating,yin2018understanding}. More precisely, one can replace the a.e. zero derivative of quantized ReLU with an ad-hoc surrogate in the backward pass, while keeping the original quantized function during the forward pass.
Mathematically, STE gives rise to a \emph{biased} first-order oracle computed by an unusual chain rule. This first-order oracle is not the gradient of the original loss function because there exists a mismatch between the forward and backward passes. Throughout this paper, this STE-induced type of ``gradient" is called coarse gradient.
While coarse gradient is not the true gradient, in practice it works as it miraculously points towards a descent
direction (see \cite{yin2018understanding} for a thorough study in the regression setting). Moreover, coarse gradient has the same computational complexity as standard gradient. Just like the standard gradient descent, the minimization procedure of training activation quantized networks simply proceeds by repeatedly moving one step at current point in the opposite of coarse gradient with some step size. The performance of the resulting coarse gradient method, e.g. convergence property, naturally relies on the choice of STE. How to choose a proper STE so that the resulting training algorithm is provably convergent is still poorly understood, especially in the nonlinear classification setting.
\subsection{Related Works}
The idea of STE dated back to the classical perceptron algorithm \cite{rosenblatt1957perceptron,rosenblatt1962principles} for binary classification. Specifically, the perceptron algorithm attempts to solve the empirical risk minimization problem:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:model}
\min_{{\bm w}} \; \sum_{i=1}^N (\mbox{sign}({\bm x}_i^{\top}{\bm w}) - y_i)^2,
\end{equation}
where $({\bm x}_i, y_i)$ is the $i^{\mathrm{th}}$ training sample with $y_i\in\{\pm 1\}$ being a binary label; for a given input ${\bm x}_i$, the single-layer perceptron model with weights ${\bm w}$ outputs the class prediction $\mbox{sign}({\bm x}_i^{\top}{\bm w})$. To train perceptrons, Rosenblatt \cite{rosenblatt1957perceptron} proposed the following iteration for solving (\ref{eq:model}) with the step size $\eta>0$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:perceptron}
{\bm w}^{t+1} = {\bm w}^{t} - \eta \sum_{i=1}^N (\mbox{sign}({\bm x}_i^{\top}{\bm w}^t) - y_i)\cdot{\bm x}_i,
\end{equation}
We note that the above perceptron algorithm is not the same as gradient descent algorithm. Assuming the differentiability, the standard chain rule computes the gradient of the $i^{\mathrm{th}}$ sample loss function by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gradient}
(\mbox{sign}({\bm x}_i^{\top}{\bm w}^t) - y_i)\cdot (\mbox{sign})^\prime({\bm x}_i^{\top}{\bm w}^t)\cdot{\bm x}_i.
\end{equation}
Comparing (\ref{eq:gradient}) with (\ref{eq:perceptron}), we observe that the perceptron algorithm essentially uses a coarse (and fake) gradient as if $(\mbox{sign})^\prime$ composited in the chain rule was the derivative of identity function being the constant 1.
The idea of STE was extended to train deep networks with binary activations \cite{hinton2012neural}. Successful experimental results have demonstrated the effectiveness of
the empirical STE approach. For example, \cite{bengio2013estimating} proposed a STE variant which uses the derivative of sigmoid function instead of identity function.
\cite{bnn_16} used the derivative of hard tanh function, i.e., $1_{\{|x|\leq1\}}$, as an STE in training binarized neural networks.
To achieve less accuracy degradation,
STE was later employed to train DNNs with quantized activations at higher bit-widths \cite{Hubara2017QuantizedNN,dorefa_16,halfwave_17,pact,yin2018blended}, where some other STEs were proposed including the derivatives of standard ReLU ($\max\{x, 0\}$) and clipped ReLU ($\min\{\max\{x, 0\}, 1\}$).
Regarding the theoretical justification, it has been established that the perceptron algorithm in (\ref{eq:perceptron}) with identity STE converges and perfectly classifies linearly separable data; see for examples \cite{widrow199030,freund1999large} and references therein.
Apart from that, to our knowledge, there had been almost no theoretical justification of STE until recently: \cite{yin2018understanding} considered a two-linear-layer network with binary activation for regression problems. The training data is assumed to be instead linearly non-separable, being generated by some underlying model with true parameters. In this setting, \cite{yin2018understanding} proved that the working STE is actually non-unique and that the coarse gradient algorithm is descent and converges to a valid critical point if choosing the STE to be the proxy derivative of either ReLU (i.e., $\max\{x, 0\}$) or clipped ReLU function (i.e., $\min\{\max\{x, 0\}, 1\}$). Moreover, they proved that the identity STE fails to give a convergent algorithm for learning two-layer networks, although it works for single-layer perception.
\subsection{Main Contributions}
\pgfplotsset{every axis/.append style={
axis x line=middle,
axis y line=middle,
axis line style={->},
xlabel={$x$},
ylabel={$\sigma(x)$},
y label style={at={(0.1,1)}},
line width=1pt,},
cmhplot/.style={color=blue,mark=none},
soldot/.style={color=blue,only marks,mark=*},
holdot/.style={color=blue,fill=white,only marks,mark=*},
}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\scalebox{.8}{
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[
xmin=-0.45,xmax=1.2,
ymin=-0.35,ymax=1.4,
xtick={0,1},
xticklabels={0,$\tau$},
ytick={0,1},
yticklabels={0,$\tau$},
]
\addplot[cmhplot,domain=-1.5:0]{0};
\addplot[cmhplot,domain=0:1]{1};
\addplot[soldot]coordinates{(0,0)};
\addplot[holdot]coordinates{(0,1)};
\legend{1-bit Quantized ReLU}
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}&
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[
xmin=-1.5,xmax=4,
ymin=-1,ymax=4,
xtick={0,...,3},
xticklabels={0,$\tau$,$2\tau$,$3\tau$},
ytick={0,...,3},
yticklabels={0,$\tau$,$2\tau$,$3\tau$},,
]
\addplot[cmhplot,domain=-1.5:0]{0};
\addplot[cmhplot,domain=0:1]{1};
\addplot[cmhplot,domain=1:2]{2};
\addplot[cmhplot,domain=2:3.5]{3};
\addplot[soldot]coordinates{(0,0)(1,1)(2,2)};
\addplot[holdot]coordinates{(0,1)(1,2)(2,3)};
\addlegendentry{2-bit Quantized ReLU}
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Quantized activation functions. $\tau$ is a value determined in the network training; see section 8.2.}
\label{qrelu}
\end{figure}
Fig. \ref{qrelu} shows examples of 1-bit (binary) and 2-bit (ternary) activations. We see that a quantized activation function zeros out any negative input, while being increasing on the positive half. Intuitively, a working surrogate of the quantized function used in backward pass should also enjoy this monotonicity, as conjectured by \cite{yin2018understanding} which proved the effectiveness of coarse gradient for two specific STEs: derivatives of ReLU and clipped ReLU, and for binarized activation. In this work, we take a further step towards understanding the convergence of coarse gradient methods for training networks with {\it general quantized activations} and for {\it classification of linearly non-separable data}. {\it A major analytical challenge we face here is that the network loss function is not in closed analytical form, in sharp contrast to \cite{yin2018understanding}.} We present more general results to provide meaningful guidance on how to choose STE in activation quantization. Specifically, we study multi-category classification of linearly non-separable data by a two-linear-layer network with multi-bit activations and hinge loss function.
We establish the convergence of coarse gradient methods for a broad class of surrogate functions. More precisely, if a function $g:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ satisfies the following properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item $g(x) = 0$ for all $x\leq0$,
\item $g'(x) \geq\delta>0$ for all $x>0$ with some constant $\delta$,
\end{itemize}
then with proper learning rate, the corresponding coarse gradient method converges and perfectly classifies the non-linear data when $g^\prime$ serves as the STE during the backward pass. This gives the affirmation of a conjecture in \cite{yin2018understanding} regarding good choices of STE
for a {\it classification} (rather than regression) task under {\it weaker data assumptions, e.g. allowing non-Gaussian distributions}.
\subsection{Notations}
We have Table \ref{notations} for notations used in this paper.
\begin{table}[ht]
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\caption{Frequently Used Notations}\label{notations}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ l|l }
\hline
{\bf Symbols} & {\bf Definitions} \\ \hline
$[n]$ & $\{1,2,\cdots,n\}$ \\ \hline
$\mathds{1}_\mathcal{S}(x)$
& indicator function which take value $1$ for $x\in\mathcal{S}$\\
& and $0$ for $x\not\in\mathcal{S}$\\ \hline
$|{\bm x}|$ & $\ell_2$-norm of vector ${\bm x}$\\ \hline
$|{\bm W}|$ & the collumn-wise $\ell_2$-norm sum for a matrix ${\bm W}$. \\
& For ${\bm W}:=[{\bm w}_1,\cdots,{\bm w}_k]$, $|{\bm W}|=\sum_{j=1}^k|{\bm w}_j|$\\\hline
$\mathcal{H}^d$
& $d$-dimensional Hausdorff measure\\ \hline
$\tilde{{\bm x}}$
& the unit vector in the direction of ${\bm x}$, i.e., $\tilde{{\bm x}}:=\frac{{\bm x}}{|{\bm x}|}$.\\
& Additionally, $\tilde{\bm0}:=\bm0$.\\ \hline
$\sigma$ & quantized ReLU function \\ \hline
$\Omega_{{\bm W}}$
& $\{{\bm x}\in\mathcal{X}: l({\bm W};\{{\bm x},y\})>0\}$ \\ \hline
$\Omega_{\bm v}^a$
& $\{{\bm x}\in\mathcal{X}: \langle\bm v,{\bm x}\rangle>a\}$ \\ \hline
$\Omega_{\bm W}^j$
& $\Omega_{\bm W}\cap\Omega_{\bm w_j}^0$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\end{table}
\section{Problem Setup}
\subsection{Data Assumptions}
In this section, we consider the $n$-ary classification problem in the $d$-dimensional space $\mathcal{X}=\mathbb{R}^{d}$.
Let $\mathcal{Y}=[n]$ be the set of labels, and for $i\in[n]$ let $\mathcal{D}_i$ be probabilistic distributions over $\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}$. Throughout this paper, we make the following assumptions on the data:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{(Separability)} There are $n$ orthogonal sub-spaces $V_i \subseteq\mathcal{X}$, $i\in[n]$ where $\dim V_i=d_i$, such that $$\mathop{\mathbb{P}}_{\{\bm x,y\}\sim\mathcal{D}_i}\left[\bm x\in \mathcal{V}_i\text{ and }y=i\right]=1, \; \mbox{for all } i \in [n].$$
\item \textbf{(Boundedness of data)} There exist positive constants $m$ and $M$, such that $$\mathop{\mathbb{P}}_{\{\bm x,y\}\sim\mathcal{D}_i}\left[m<\left|\bm x\right|<M\right]=1, \; \mbox{for all } i \in [n].$$
\item \textbf{(Boundedness of p.d.f.)} For $i\in[n]$, let $p_i$ be the marginal probability distribution function of $\mathcal{D}_i$ on $\mathcal{V}_i$. For any ${\bm x} \in \mathcal{V}_i$ with $m<\left|\bm x\right|<M$, it holds that
$$0< p_i( {\bm x})<p_{\text{max}}<\infty.$$
\end{enumerate}
Later on, we denote $\mathcal{D}$ to be the evenly mixed distribution of $\mathcal{D}_i$ for $i\in[n]$.
\begin{rmk}
The orthogonality of subspaces $\mathcal{V}_i$'s in the data assumption (1) above is technically needed for our proof here. However, the convergence in Theorem \ref{main1} to a perfect classification with random initialization is observed in more general settings when $\mathcal{V}_i$'s form acute angles and contain a certain level of noise. We refer to section \ref{experiments} for supporting experimental results.
\end{rmk}
\begin{rmk}
Assumption (3) can be relaxed to the following, while the proof remains basically the same.
$\mathcal{D}_i$ is a mixture of $n_i$ distributions namely $\mathcal{D}_{i,j}$ for $j\in[n_i]$.
There exists a linear decomposition of $\mathcal{V}_i=\bigoplus_{j=1}^{n_i}\mathcal{V}_{i,j}$ and $\mathcal{D}_{i,j}$ each has a marginal probability distribution function $p_{i,j}$ on $\mathcal{V}_{i,j}$. For any ${\bm x}\in \mathcal{V}_{i,j}$ and $<m<|{\bm x}|<M$, it holds that
$$0<p_{i,j}({\bm x})\leq p_{\text{max}}<\infty.$$
\end{rmk}
\subsection{Network Architecture}
We consider a two-layer neural architecture with $k$ hidden neurons. Denote
by ${\bm W}=\left[\bm w_1,\cdots,\bm w_{k}\right]\in \mathbb{R}^{d\times k}$ the weight matrix in the hidden layer. Let
$$h_j=\left\langle\bm w_j,\bm x\right\rangle$$
the input to the activation function, or the so-called pre-activation.
\textbf{Throughout this paper, we make the following assumptions:}
\begin{assumption}\label{v}
The weight matrix in the second layer $\bm V=[\bm v_1,\cdots,\bm v_n]$ is fixed and known in the training process and satisfies:
\begin{enumerate}
\item For any $i\in[n]$, there exists some $j\in[k]$ such that $v_{i,j}>0$.
\item If $v_{i,j}>0$, then for any $r\in[n]$ and $r\not=i$, we have $v_{r,j}=0$.
\item For any $i\in[n]$ and $j\in[k]$ we have $v_{i,j}<1$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{assumption}
One can easily show that as long as $k\geq n$, such a matrix $\bm V=(v_{i,j})$ is ubiquitous.
\medskip
For any input data $\bm x\in\mathcal{X}=\mathbb{R}^{d}$, the neural net output is
\begin{equation}\label{net1}
f({\bm W};{\bm x})=[o_1,\cdots,o_n],
\end{equation}
where
$$o_i = \left\langle\bm v_i,\sigma\left(\bm h\right)\right\rangle=\sum_{j=1}^kv_{i,j}\sigma(h_j).
$$
The $\sigma(\cdot)$ is the quantized ReLU function acting element-wise;
see Fig. \ref{qrelu} for examples of binary and ternary activation functions. More general quantized ReLU function of the bit-width $b$ can be defined as follows:
$$
\sigma(x)=\begin{cases}
0 & \text{if} \quad x\leq0, \\
\text{ceil}(x) & \text{if} \quad 0<x<2^b-1, \\
2^b -1 & \text{if} \quad x\geq 2^b-1. \\
\end{cases}
$$
The prediction is given by the network output label
$$\hat{y}({\bm W},{\bm x})=\mathop{\text{argmax}}_{r\in[n]}o_r,$$
ideally $\hat{y}({\bm x})=i$ for all ${\bm x}\in \mathcal{V}_i$. The classification accuracy in percentage is the frequency that this event occurs (when network output label $\hat{y}$ matches the true label) on a validation data set.
Given the data sample $\{{\bm x}, y\}$, the associated hinge loss function reads
\begin{equation}\label{sample_loss}
l({\bm W}; \{ {\bm x}, y \}) := \max\left\{0, 1 - f_y\right\}:=\max\left\{0, 1 - \left(o_y-\max_{i\not=y}o_i\right)\right\}.
\end{equation}
To train the network with quantized activation $\sigma$, we consider the following population loss minimization problem
\begin{equation}\label{loss}
\min_{{\bm W}\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times k}}\; l\left({\bm W}\right) := \mathop{\mathbb{E}}_{\{ {\bm x}, y \}\sim\mathcal{D}}\left[ l\left({\bm W}; \{{\bm x}, y\}\right)\right],
\end{equation}
where the sample loss $l\left({\bm W}; \{{\bm x}, y\}\right)$ is defined in (\ref{sample_loss}).
Let $l_i$ be the population loss function of class $i$ with the label $y=i$, $i \in [n]$. More precisely,
$$\begin{aligned}
l_i({\bm W})=&\mathop{\mathbb{E}}_{\{\bm x,y\}\sim\mathcal{D}_i}\left[\max\left\{0, 1 - f_i\right\}\right]\\
=&\mathop{\mathbb{E}}_{\{\bm x,y\}\sim\mathcal{D}_i}\left[\max\left\{0, 1 - \left(o_i - \max_{r\not=i}o_r\right)\right\}\right].
\end{aligned}$$
Thus, we can rewrite the loss function as
$$l({\bm W})=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^nl_i({\bm W}).$$
Note that the population loss
$$l_i({\bm W})=\mathop{\mathbb{E}}_{\{{\bm x},y\}\sim\mathcal{D}_i}\left[l({\bm W};\{{\bm x},y\})\right]$$
fails to have simple closed-form solution even if $p_i$ are constant functions on their supports. We do not have closed-form formula at hand to analyze the learning process, which makes our analysis challenging.
For notational convenience, we define:
$$\Omega_{{\bm W}}=\left\{{\bm x}\in\mathcal{X}: l({\bm W};\{{\bm x},y\})>0\right\},$$
$$\Omega_{\bm v}^a=\left\{{\bm x}\in\mathcal{X}:\left\langle\bm v,\bm x\right\rangle>a\right\},$$
and
$$\Omega_{{\bm W}}^j=\Omega_{{\bm W}}\cap\Omega_{\bm w_j}^0.$$
\subsection{Coarse Gradient Methods}
We see that derivative of quantized ReLU function $\sigma$ is a.e. zero, which gives a trivial gradient of sample loss function with respect to (w.r.t.) $\bm w_j$. Indeed, differentiating the sample loss function with respect to $\bm w_j$, we have
$$\nabla_{\bm w_j} l({\bm W};\{{\bm x},y\})=-\left(v_{y,j}-v_{\xi,j}\right)\,\mathds{1}_{\Omega_{{\bm W}}}({\bm x})\,\sigma'\left(h_j\right){\bm x} = \mathbf{0}, \mbox{ a.e.}, \quad 1\leq j\leq k$$
where $\xi=\mathop{\text{argmax}}_{i\not=y}o_i$.
The partial coarse gradient w.r.t. ${\bm w}_j$ associated with the sample $\{{\bm x}, y\}$ is given by replacing $\sigma'$ with a straight through estimator (STE) which is the derivative of function $g$, namely,
\begin{equation}\label{cgrad}
\tilde{\nabla}_{\bm w_j}l({\bm W};\{{\bm x},y\}) := -\left(v_{y,j}-v_{\xi,j}\right)\,\mathds{1}_{\Omega_{{\bm W}}}({\bm x})\,g'(h_j){\bm x}.
\end{equation}
The sample coarse gradient $\tilde{\nabla}l({\bm W};\{{\bm x},y\})$ is just the concatenation of $\tilde{\nabla}_{\bm w_j}l({\bm W};\{{\bm x},y\})$'s.
It is worth noting that coarse gradient is not an actual gradient, but some biased first-order oracle which depends on the choice of $g$.
\textbf{Throughout this paper, we consider a class of surrogate functions during the backward pass with the following properties:}
\begin{assumption}\label{g}
$g:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ satisfies
\begin{enumerate}
\item $g(x) = 0$ for all $x\leq0$.
\item $g'(x)\in[\delta,\tilde\delta]$ for all $x>0$ with some constants $0<\delta<\tilde\delta<\infty$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{assumption}
Such a $g$ is ubiquitous in quantized deep networks training; see Fig.\ref{ste} for examples of $g(x)$ satisfying Assumption \ref{g}. Typical examples include the classical ReLU $g(x) = \max(x, 0)$ and log-tailed ReLU \cite{halfwave_17}:
$$g(x)=\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}
0& \text{if} &x\leq0\\
x& \text{if} &0<x\leq q_b\\
q_b+\log (x-q_b+1)& \text{if} & x>q_b\\
\end{array}\right.$$
where $q_b := 2^b-1$ is the maximum quantization level.
In addition, if the input of the activation function is bounded by a constant, one also can use $g(x)=\max\{0,q_b (1- e^{-x/q_b})\}$, which we call \emph{reverse exponential STE}.
\pgfplotsset{every axis/.append style={
axis x line=middle,
axis y line=middle,
axis line style={->},
xlabel={$x$},
ylabel={$g(x)$},
y label style={at={(0.1,1)}},
line width=1pt,},
cmhplot/.style={color=blue,mark=none},
soldot/.style={color=blue,only marks,mark=*},
holdot/.style={color=blue,fill=white,only marks,mark=*},
}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\scalebox{.7}{
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.8]
\begin{axis}[
xmin=-1.5,xmax=4.5,
ymin=-0.9,ymax=4.5,
xtick={-1,...,3},
ytick={0,...,3},
]
\addplot[cmhplot,domain=-0.5:0]{0};
\addplot[cmhplot,domain=0:3]{x};
\addlegendentry{$g(x)= \mbox{ReLU}$}
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}&
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.8]
\begin{axis}[
xmin=-1.5,xmax=4.5,
ymin=-0.3,ymax=1.5,
xtick={0},
ytick={0,...,1},
yticklabels={0,$q_b$}
]
\addplot[cmhplot,domain=-1.5:0]{0};
\addplot[cmhplot,domain=0:4]{1-exp(-x)};
\addlegendentry{$g(x)=$ \mbox{reverse exp.}}
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}&
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.8]
\begin{axis}[
xmin=-1.5,xmax=4.5,
ymin=-0.7,ymax=3.5,
xtick={0,1},
xticklabels={0,$q_b$},
ytick={0,1},
yticklabels={0,$q_b$}
]
\addplot[cmhplot,domain=-1.5:0]{0};
\addplot[cmhplot,domain=0:1]{x};
\addplot[cmhplot,domain=1:4]{ln(x)+1};
\legend{$g(x) = \mbox{log-tailed ReLU}$}
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Different choices of $g(x)$ for the straight-through estimator.}
\label{ste}
\end{figure}
To train the network with quantized activation $\sigma$, we use the expectation of coarse gradient over training samples:
$$
\tilde{\nabla} l({\bm W}): = \mathop{\mathbb{E}}_{\{ {\bm x}, y \}\sim\mathcal{D}} \tilde{\nabla}l({\bm W};\{{\bm x},y\})
$$
where $\tilde{\nabla}l({\bm W};\{{\bm x},y\})$ is given by (\ref{cgrad}). In this paper, we study the convergence of coarse gradient algorithm for solving the minimization problem (\ref{loss}), which takes the following iteration with some learning rate $\eta>0$:
\begin{equation}\label{cgd}
{\bm W}^{t+1}= {\bm W}^{t}-\eta\,\tilde{\nabla} l({\bm W}^{t})
\end{equation}
\section{Main Result and Outline of Proof}
We show that if the iterates $\{{\bm W}^t\}$ are uniformly bounded in $t$, coarse gradient decent with the proxy function $g$ under Assumption \ref{g} converges to a global minimizer of the population loss, resulting in a perfect classification.
\begin{theorem}\label{main1}
Suppose data assumptions (1)-(3)
and STE assumptions \ref{v}-\ref{g} hold. If the network initialization satisfies ${\bm w}_{j,i}^0\not=0$ for all $j\in[k]$ and $i\in[n]$ and ${\bm W}^t$ is uniformly bounded by $R$ in $t$, then for all $v_{i,j}>0$ we have
$$\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\left|\tilde{\nabla}_{\bm w_j}l_i({\bm W}^t)\right|=0.$$
Furthermore, if ${\bm W}^\infty$ is an accumulation point of $\{{\bm W}^t\}$ and all non-zero unit vectors $\tilde{\bm w}_{j,i}^\infty$'s are distinct for all $j\in[k]$ and $i\in[n]$, then
$$\mathop{\mathbb{P}}_{\{{\bm x},y\}\sim\mathcal D}\left(\hat{y}\left({\bm W}^{\infty},{\bm x}\right)\neq y\right)=0.$$
\end{theorem}
We outline the major steps in the proof below. \medskip
\textbf{Step 1: Decompose the population loss into $n$ components.} Recall the definition of $l_i$ which is population loss functions for $\{{\bm x},y\}\sim\mathcal{D}_i$. In Section 4, we show under certain decomposition of ${\bm W}$, the coarse gradient decent of each one of them only affects a corresponding component of ${\bm W}$.
\textbf{Step 2: Bound the total increment of weight norm from above.}
Show that for all $v_{i,j}>0$ we have $|\bm w_{j,i}|$'s
are monotonically increasing under coarse gradient descent.
Based on boundedness on ${\bm W}$, we further give an upper bound on the total increment of all $|\bm w_j|$'s, from which the convergence of coarse gradient descent
follows.
\textbf{Step 3: Show that when the coarse gradient vanishes, so does the population loss.}
In section 6, we show that when the coarse gradient vanishes towards the end of training, the population loss is zero which implies a perfect classification.
\section{Space Decomposition}
With $\mathcal{V}=\bigoplus_{i=1}^n \mathcal{V}_i$, we have the orthogonal complement of $\mathcal{V}$ in $\mathcal{X}=\mathbb{R}^d$, namely $\mathcal{V}_{n+1}$. Now, we can decompose $\mathcal{X}=\mathbb{R}^d$ into $n+1$ linearly independent parts:
$$\mathbb{R}^d=\mathcal{V}\bigoplus \mathcal{V}_{n+1}=\bigoplus_{i=1}^{n+1}\mathcal{V}_i$$
and for any vector $\bm w_j\in\mathbb{R}^d$, we have a unique decomposition of $\bm w_j$:
$${\bm w}_j=\sum_{i=1}^{n+1}{\bm w}_{j,i},$$
where ${\bm w}_{j,i}\in \mathcal{V}_i$ for $i\in[n+1]$.
To simply notation, we let
$${\bm W}_i=\left[{\bm w}_{1,i},\cdots,{\bm w}_{k,i}\right].$$
\begin{lemma}\label{remainder}
For any ${\bm W}\in\mathbb{R}^{k\times d}$ and $i\in[n]$, we have
$$l_i\left({\bm W}\right)=l_i\left(\sum_{r=1}^n{\bm W}_r\right)=l_i(\bm W_i).$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that for any ${\bm x}\in \mathcal{V}_i$ and $j\in[k]$, we have ${\bm x}\in \mathcal{V}$, so
$$\left\langle{\bm w}_{j,n+1},{\bm x}\right\rangle=0$$
and
$$h_j=\left\langle{\bm w}_{j},{\bm x}\right\rangle=\left\langle\sum_{j=1}^k{\bm w}_{j,i},{\bm x}\right\rangle=\left\langle\bm w_{j,i},{\bm x}\right\rangle.$$
Hence
$$f\left({\bm W};{\bm x}\right)=f\left(\sum_{j=1}^k{\bm W}_i;{\bm x}\right)=f\left(\bm W_i\right)$$
for all ${\bm W}\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times k}$, ${\bm x}\in \mathcal{V}_i$. The desired result follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{decouple}
Running the algorithm (\ref{cgd}) on $l_i$ only does not change the value of ${\bm W}_r$ for all $r\not=i$. More precisely, for any ${\bm W}\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times k}$, let $${\bm W}'={\bm W}-\eta\tilde{\nabla}l_i({\bm W}),$$ then for any $r\in[n]$ and $r\not=i$ $${\bm W}_r'={\bm W}_r.$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{decouple}]
Assume $i,r\in[n]$ and $i\not=r$. Note that
$${\bm w}_j'={\bm w}_j-\eta\tilde{\nabla}_{\bm w_j}l_i({\bm W})$$
and
$$\tilde{\nabla}_{\bm w_j}l_i({\bm W})=-\mathop{\mathbb{E}}_{\{{\bm x},y\}\sim\mathcal{D}_i}\left[\left(v_{y,j}-v_{\xi,j}\right)\,\mathds{1}_{\Omega_{{\bm W}}}({\bm x})\,g'(h_j){\bm x}\right]\in V_i.$$
Since $\mathcal{V}_i$'s are linearly independent, we have
$${\bm w}_{j,i}'={\bm w}_{j,i}-\eta\tilde{\nabla}_{\bm w_j}l_i({\bm W})$$
and
$$\bm w_{j,r}'=\bm w_{j,r}.$$
\end{proof}
By the above result, we know (\ref{cgd}) is equivalent to
\begin{equation}\label{dcgd
{\bm W}_i^{t+1} = {\bm W}_i^t - \frac{\eta}{n} \tilde{\nabla} l_i\left({\bm W}^t\right).
\end{equation}
\section{Learning Dynamics}
In this section, we show that some components of the weight iterates have strictly increasing magnitude whenever coarse gradient does not vanish, and it quantifies the increment during each iteration.
\begin{lemma}\label{helper1}
Assume $$\hat{v}_j=\max_{i_1,i_2\in[n]}v_{i_1,j}-v_{i_2,j}\,,$$ we have the following estimate:
$$\mathop{\mathbb{P}}_{\{{\bm x},y\}\sim\mathcal{D}_i}\left(\Omega_W^j\right)\geq\frac{1}{\hat{v}_j\tilde{\delta}M}\left|\tilde{\nabla}_{\bm w_j}l_i\left({\bm W}\right)\right|.$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{helper1}]
\begin{align*}
\left|\tilde{\nabla}_{\bm w_j}l_i({\bm W})\right|
=&\left|\mathop{\mathbb{E}}_{\{{\bm x},y\}\sim\mathcal{D}_i}\left[\left(v_{y,j}-v_{\xi,j}\right)\,\mathds{1}_{\Omega_{{\bm W}}}({\bm x})\,g'(h_j){\bm x}\right]\right|\\
\leq& \hat{v}_j\tilde{\delta}M\mathop{\mathbb{E}}_{\{{\bm x},y\}\sim\mathcal{D}_i}\left[\mathds{1}_{\Omega^j_{{\bm W}}}({\bm x})\right]\\
= &\hat{v}_j\tilde{\delta}M\mathop{\mathbb{P}}_{\{{\bm x},y\}\sim\mathcal{D}_i}\left(\Omega_{{\bm W}}^j\right)
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{helper2}
For any $j\in[k]$ if
$$\tilde{v}_{i,j}:=v_{i,j}-\max_{r\not=i}v_{r,j}>0$$
we have
$$\left\langle\tilde{{\bm w}}_{j,i},-\tilde{\nabla}_{{\bm w}_j}l_i({\bm W})\right\rangle\geq\frac{\tilde{v}_{i,j}\delta}{2C_p}\mathop{\mathbb{P}}_{\{{\bm x},y\}\sim\mathcal{D}_i}\left(\Omega_W^j\right)^2,$$
where
$$C_p=\max_{\bm v\in V_i,a\in\mathbb{R}}\int_{\langle\bm v,
\bm x\rangle=a}p_i({\bm x})\;d\,\mathcal{H}^{d_i-1}({\bm x}).$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{helper2}]
First, we prove an inequality which will be used later. Recall that $|{\bm x}|\leq M$, and that $\tilde{\nabla}_{\bm w_j}l({\bm W},\{{\bm x},y\})\not=0$ only when $\bm x\in\Omega_{{\bm W}}^j$. Hence, we have $\left\langle\tilde{\bm w}_{j,i},{\bm x}\right\rangle>0$.
We have
\begin{align*}
\mathop{\mathbb{P}}_{\{{\bm x},y\}\sim\mathcal{D}_i}\left(\Omega_{{\bm W}}^j\cap\left\{{\bm x}:\left\langle\tilde{{\bm w}}_{j,i},{\bm x}\right\rangle<t\right\}\right)
=&\int_{\Omega_{\bm W}^j}\mathds{1}_{\left\{\left\langle\tilde{{\bm w}}_{j,i},{\bm x}\right\rangle<t\right\}}({\bm x})p_i({\bm x})\;d\,{\bm x}\\
=&\int_0^t\int_{\left\langle\tilde{{\bm w}}_{j,i},{\bm x}\right\rangle=s}p_i({\bm x})\;d\,\mathcal{H}^{d_i-1}({\bm x})\;d\,s \\
\leq & t\ C_p.
\end{align*}
Now, we use Fubini's Theorem to simplify the inner product:
\begin{align*}
\left\langle\tilde{\bm w}_{j,i},-\tilde{\nabla}_{\bm w_j}l_i({\bm W})\right\rangle
=&\mathop{\mathbb{E}}_{\{{\bm x},y\}\sim\mathcal{D}_i}\left[\left(v_{y,j}-v_{\xi,j}\right)\mathds{1}_{\Omega_{{\bm W}}^j}({\bm x})\,g'(h_j)\,\langle\tilde{\bm w}_{j,i},{\bm x}\rangle\right]\\
\geq&\tilde{v}_{i,j}\,\delta\int_{\Omega_{{\bm W}}^j\cap V_i}\langle\tilde{\bm w}_{j,i},{\bm x}\rangle p_i({\bm x})\;d\,{\bm x}\\
=&\tilde{v}_{i,j}\,\delta\int_{\Omega_{{\bm W}}^j\cap V_i}\int_0^\infty\mathds{1}_{\left\{\langle\tilde{{\bm w}}_{j,i},{\bm x}\rangle>t\right\}}\;d\,t\;p_i({\bm x})\;d\,{\bm x}\\
=&\tilde{v}_{i,j}\,\delta\int_0^\infty\int_{\Omega_{{\bm W}}^j\cap V_i}\mathds{1}_{\left\{\langle\tilde{{\bm w}}_{j,i},{\bm x}\rangle>t\right\}}\;p_i({\bm x})\;d\,{\bm x}\;d\,t\\
=&\tilde{v}_{i,j}\,\delta\int_0^\infty\mathop{\mathbb{P}}_{\{{\bm x},y\}\sim\mathcal{D}_i}\left(\Omega_{{\bm W}}^j\cap\left\{{\bm x}:\langle\tilde{\bm w}_{j,i},{\bm x}\rangle>t\right\}\right)d\,t.
\end{align*}
Now using the inequality just proved above, we have
\begin{align*}
&\mathop{\mathbb{P}}_{\{{\bm x},y\}\sim\mathcal{D}_i}\left(\Omega_{{\bm W}}^j\cap\left\{{\bm x}:\langle\tilde{\bm w}_{j,i},{\bm x}\rangle>t\right\}\right)\\
=&\mathop{\mathbb{P}}_{\{{\bm x},y\}\sim\mathcal{D}_i}\left(\Omega_{\bm W}^j\right)-\mathop{\mathbb{P}}_{\{{\bm x},y\}\sim\mathcal{D}_i}\left(\Omega_{{\bm W}}^j\cap\left\{{\bm x}:\langle\tilde{\bm w}_{j,i},{\bm x}\rangle<t\right\}\right)\\
\geq&\max\left\{\mathop{\mathbb{P}}_{\{{\bm x},y\}\sim\mathcal{D}_i}\left(\Omega_{\bm W}^j\right)-t\;C_p,0\right\}.
\end{align*}
Combining the above two inequalities, we have
\begin{align*}
\left\langle\tilde{\bm w}_{j,i},-\tilde{\nabla}_{\bm w_{j}}l_i({\bm W})\right\rangle
\geq&\tilde{v}_{i,j}\,\delta\int_0^\infty\max\left\{\mathop{\mathbb{P}}_{\{{\bm x},y\}\sim\mathcal{D}_i}\left(\Omega_{\bm W}^j\right)-t\;C_p,0\right\}\;d\,t\\
\geq&\frac{\tilde{v}_{i,j}\,\delta}{2C_p}\mathop{\mathbb{P}}_{\{{\bm x},y\}\sim\mathcal{D}_i}\left(\Omega_{{\bm W}}^j\right)^2.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{descent}
If $\tilde{v}_{i,j}>0$ in Lemma \ref{helper2}, then $\{|\bm w_{j,i}^{t}|\}$ in Equation (\ref{net1}) is non-decreasing with coarse gradient decent (\ref{cgd}).
Moreover, under the same assumption, we have
$$\left|\bm w_{j,i}^{t+1}\right|-\left|\bm w_{j,i}^t\right|\geq\frac{
\eta\tilde{v}_{i,j}\delta}{2nC_p \hat{v}_j^2\tilde{\delta}^2M^2}\left|\tilde{\nabla}_{\bm w_j}l_i({\bm W}^t)\right|^2,$$
where $C_p$ is defined as in Lemma \ref{helper2} and $\hat{v}_j$ as in Lemma \ref{helper1}.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{descent}]
Since
$\bm w_{j,i}^{t+1}=\bm w_{j,i}^{t}-\frac{\eta}{n}\tilde{\nabla}_{\bm w_j}l_i({\bm W}^t)$,
we have
$$\left|\bm w_{j,i}^{t+1}\right|-\left|\bm w_{j,i}^t\right|\geq\left\langle\bm w_{j,i}^{t+1}-\bm w_{j,i}^t,\tilde{\bm w}_{j,i}^{t}\right\rangle=\left\langle-\frac{\eta}{n}\tilde{\nabla}_{\bm w_j}l_i({\bm W}^t),\tilde{\bm w}_{j,i}^t\right\rangle.$$
Hence, it follows from Lemma \ref{helper1} and Lemma \ref{helper2} that
\begin{equation}\label{delta2}
\left|\bm w_{j,i}^{t+1}\right|-\left|\bm w_{j,i}^t\right|\geq\frac{
\eta\tilde{v}_{i,j}\delta}{2nC_p \hat{v}_j^2\tilde{\delta}^2M^2}\left|\tilde{\nabla}_{\bm w_j}l_i({\bm W}^t)\right|^2,
\end{equation}
which is the desired result.
\end{proof}
Note that one component of $\bm w_j$ is increasing but the weights are bounded by assumption, hence, summation of the increments over all steps should also be bounded. This gives the following proposition:
\begin{prop}\label{conv1}
Assume $\{|\bm w_j^t|\}$ is bounded by $R$, then if $\tilde{v}_{i,j}>0$ in Lemma \ref{helper2}, then
$$\sum_{t=1}^\infty\left|\tilde{\nabla}_{\bm w_j}l_i({\bm W}^t)\right|^2\leq\frac{2nC_p \hat{v}_j^2\tilde{\delta}^2M^2R}{
\eta\tilde{v}_{i,j}\delta}<\infty,$$
where $C_p$ is as defined in Lemma \ref{helper2} and $\hat{v}_j$ defined in Lemma \ref{helper1}. This implies that $$\lim_{t\to\infty} \left|\tilde{\nabla}_{{\bm w}_j}l_i({\bm W}^t)\right| = 0$$
as long as $\tilde{v}_{i,j}>0$.
\end{prop}
\begin{rmk}
Lemmas \ref{helper1}, \ref{helper2}, \ref{descent} and Proposition \ref{conv1} were proved without Assumption \ref{v}. Under Assumption \ref{v}, we have $\hat{v}_j=\max_{i\in[n]}v_{i,j}$ in Lemma \ref{helper1} and
$\tilde{v}_{i,j}=\hat{v}_j$ if $v_{i,j}>0$ and $\tilde{v}_{i,j}=-\hat{v}_j$ if $v_{i,j}=0$ in Lemma \ref{helper2}.
\end{rmk}
\section{Landscape Properties}
We have shown that under boundedness assumptions, the algorithm will converge to some point where the coarse gradient vanishes. However, this does not immediately indicate the convergence to a valid point because coarse gradient is a fake gradient. We will need the following lemma to prove Proposition \ref{globalmin}, which confirms that the points with zero coarse gradient are indeed global minima.
\begin{lemma}\label{top}
Let $\Omega=\left\{{\bm x}\in \mathbb{R}^l:m<|{\bm x}|<M\right\}$, where $0<m<M<\infty$. For $j\in[k]$, let $\Omega_j=\left\{{\bm x}:\langle{\bm w}_j,{\bm x}\rangle>a\right\}$, where $a\geq0$ and $\Omega_i\not=\Omega_j$ for all $i\not=j$. If for $i\in[k]$ and ${\bm x}\in\Omega_i\cap\Omega$, there exists some $j\not=i$ such that ${\bm x}\in\Omega_j$, then
$$\left(\mathop{\cup}_{j=1}^k\Omega_{j}\right)\cap\Omega=\emptyset\ \text{ or }\ \Omega.$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{top}]
Define $\tilde{\Omega}=\bigcup_{j=1}^k\Omega_j$, by De Morgan's law, we have
$$\tilde{\Omega}^c=\left(\mathop{\cup}_{j=1}^k\Omega_j\right)^c=\mathop{\cap}_{j=1}^k\Omega_j^c.$$
Note that $k$ is finite and $\bm0\in\Omega_j^c$ for all $j\in[k]$, we know $\tilde{\Omega}^c$ is a generalized polyherdon and hence either
$$\left(\partial\tilde{\Omega}\right)\cap\Omega=\emptyset$$
or
$$\mathcal{H}^{l-1}\left(\left(\partial\tilde{\Omega}\right)\cap\Omega\right)>0.$$
The first case is trivial. We show that the second case contradicts our assumption. Note that
$$\partial\tilde{\Omega}=\partial\left(\mathop{\cup}_{j=1}^k\Omega_j\right)\subseteq\mathop{\cup}_{j=1}^k\partial\Omega_j,$$
we know there exists some $j^\star\in[k]$ such that
$\mathcal{H}^{l-1}\left(\partial\Omega_{j^\star}\cap\Omega\right)>0.$
It follows from our assumption that
$\tilde{\Omega}=\mathop{\cup}_{j=1}^k\Omega_j=\mathop{\cup}_{j\not=j^\star}\Omega_j$,
and hence
$$\mathcal{H}^{l-1}\left(\partial\Omega_{j^\star}\cap\partial\Omega_j\right)>0.$$
Note that $\partial\Omega_j$'s are hyperplanes. Therefore,
$\Omega_j=\Omega_{j^\star}$, contradicting with our assumption that all $\Omega_j$'s are distinct.
\end{proof}
The following result shows that the coarse gradient vanishes only at a global minimizer with zero loss, except for some degenerate cases.
\begin{prop}\label{globalmin}
Under Assumption \ref{v}, if $\tilde{\nabla}_{\bm w_j} l_i({\bm W})=\bm 0$ for all $\tilde{v}_{i,j}>0$ and $\tilde{\bm w}_{j,i}$'s are distinct, then $l_i({\bm W})=0$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{globalmin}]
For quantized ReLU function, let $q_b :=\max\limits_{x\in\mathbb{R}}\sigma(x)$ be the maximum quantization level, so that $$\sigma(x)=\sum_{a=0}^{q_b-1}\mathds{1}_{\{x>a\}}(x).$$
Note that
\begin{align*}
f_i\left({\bm W};{\bm x}\right)=o_i-o_\xi=\sum_{j=1}^k\left(v_{i,j}-v_{\xi,j}\right)\sigma(h_j)
=\sum_{j=1}^k\left(v_{i,j}- v_{\xi,j}\right)\sum_{a=0}^{q_b}\mathds{1}_{\Omega_{\bm w_j}^a}({\bm x}).
\end{align*}
By assumption, $\tilde{\nabla}_{\bm w_j} l_i({\bm W})=\bm 0$ for all $\tilde{v}_{i,j}>0$ which implies $\mathds{1}_{\Omega_{{\bm W}}}({\bm x})\mathds{1}_{\Omega_{\bm w_j}^a}({\bm x})=0$ for all $\tilde{v}_{i,j}>0$ and $a\in[n]$ almost surely. Now, for any ${\bm x}\in\Omega_{\bm w_j}^a$ we have ${\bm x}\not\in\Omega_{{\bm W}}$. Note that ${\bm x}\in\Omega_{{\bm W}}$ if and only if $o_i-o_\xi\geq1$, then for any $\bm x\in\Omega_{\bm w_j}^a$, since $v_{i,j}-v_{\xi,j}<1$, there exist $j'\not=j$ and $a'\in[n]$ such that $v_{i,j'}>0$ and ${\bm x}\in\Omega_{\bm w_{j'}}^{a'}$. By Lemma \ref{top}, $\mathop{\mathbb{P}}_{\{{\bm x},y\}\sim\mathcal{D}_i}\left[\Omega_{{\bm W}}\right]=0$ is empty, and thus $l_i({\bm W})=0$.
\end{proof}
The following lemma shows that the expected coarse gradient is continuous except at $\bm w_{j,i}=\bm0$ for some $j\in[k]$.
\begin{lemma}\label{contgrad}
Consider the network in (\ref{net1}). $\tilde{\nabla}_{\bm w_j}l_i({\bm W})$ is continuous on $$\left\{{\bm W}\in \mathbb{R}^{k\times d}:|\bm w_{j,i}|>0\text{ for all }j\in[k],i\in[n]\right\}.$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{contgrad}]
It suffices to prove the result for $j\in[k]$. Note that
$$
\tilde{\nabla}_{\bm w_j}l_i({\bm W})
=\mathop{\mathbb{E}}_{\{\bm x,y\}\sim\mathcal{D}_i}\left[-\left(v_{y,j}-v_{\xi,j}\right)\,\mathds{1}_{\Omega_{{\bm W}}}({\bm x})\,g'(h_j){\bm x}\right]
$$
For any ${\bm W}^0$ satisfying our assumption, we know
$$\lim_{{\bm W}\rightarrow{\bm W}^0}\mathds{1}_{\Omega_{\bm W}}({\bm x})g'(h_j)=\mathds{1}_{\Omega_{{\bm W}^0}}({\bm x})g'(h_j^0), \mbox{ a.e.}$$ The desired result follows from the Dominant Convergence Theorem.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Main Results}
Equipped with the technical lemmas, we present:
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{main1}]
It is easily noticed from Assumption \ref{v} that $v_{i,j}>0$ if and only if $\tilde{v}_{i,j}>0$.
By Lemma \ref{descent}, if $v_{i,j}>0$ and $|\bm w_{j,i}^0|>0$, then $|\bm w_{j,i}^t|>0$ for all $t$. Since ${\bm W}$ is randomly initialized, we can ignore the possibility that $\bm w_{j,i}^0=\bm0$ for some $j\in[k]$ and $i\in[n]$.
Moreover,
Proposition \ref{conv1} and Equation (\ref{cgd}) imply for all $v_{i,j}>0$ $$\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\left|\tilde{\nabla}_{\bm w_j}l_i({\bm W}^t)\right|=0.$$
Suppose ${\bm W}^\infty$ is an accumulation point and $\bm w_{j,r}^{\infty}\not=\bm0$ for all $j\in[k]$ and $r\in[n]$, we know for all $v_{i,j}>0$
$$\tilde{\nabla}_{\bm w_j}l_i\left({\bm W}^\infty\right)=\bm0.$$
Next, we consider the case when $\bm w_{j,r}=\bm0$ for some $j\in[k]$ and $r\in[n]$.
Lemma \ref{helper2} implies $v_{r,j}=0$.
We construct a new sequence $$\hat{\bm w}_{j,r}^t=\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\bm w_{j,r}^t& \;\; \text{ if }\bm w_{j,r}^\infty\not=0\\
\bm0&\;\; \text{ if }\bm w_{j,r}^\infty=0\\
\end{aligned}
\right.$$
and $$\hat{\bm W}_r^t=\left[\hat{\bm w}_{1,r}^t,\cdots,\hat{\bm w}_{k,r}^t\right].$$
With
$$\hat{o}_r=\sum_{j=1}^kv_{r,j}\sigma(\hat{h}_j)=\sum_{j=1}^kv_{r,j}\sigma\left(\left\langle\hat{\bm w}_{j,r},{\bm x}\right\rangle\right),$$
we know
$\hat{o}_r=o_r$ for all $r\in[n]$.
Hence, we have
$$l\left(\hat{\bm W}^t,\{{\bm x},i\}\right)=\text{ReLU}\left(1-\hat{o}_i+\hat{o}_\xi\right)= l\left(\bm W^t,\{{\bm x},i\}\right).$$
This implies that $\Omega_{\hat{{\bm W}}^t}=\Omega_{{\bm W}^t}$,
so we have for all $j\in[k]$,
$$
\left|\left\langle\tilde{\nabla}_{\bm w_j}l_i(\hat{\bm W}_1^t),\tilde{{\bm w}}_{j,i}^t\right\rangle\right|\leq\left|\left\langle\tilde{\nabla}_{\bm w_j}l_i(\bm W_i^t),\tilde{{\bm w}}_{j,i}^t\right\rangle\right|\leq\left|\tilde{\nabla}_{\bm w_j}l_i(\bm W_i^t)\right|.$$
Letting $t$ go to infinity on both side, we get
$$\left|\left\langle\tilde{\nabla}_{\bm w_j}l_i(\hat{\bm W}^\infty),\tilde{{\bm w}}_{j,i}^\infty\right\rangle\right|=0.$$
By Lemma \ref{helper1} and Lemma \ref{helper2}, we know
$$\tilde{\nabla}_{\bm w_j}l_i({\bm W}^\infty)=\tilde{\nabla}_{\bm w_j}l_i(\bm W_i^\infty)=0,$$
so $\tilde{\nabla}_{{\bm W}}l_i({\bm W}^\infty)=0.$ By Proposition \ref{globalmin}, $l_i({\bm W}^t)=0$, which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Experiments}
In this section, we conduct experiments on both synthetic and MNIST data to verify and complement our theoretical findings. Experiments on larger networks and data sets will left for a future work.
\subsection{Synthetic Data}\label{experiments}
Let $\left\{\bm e_1,\bm e_2,\bm e_3,\bm e_4\right\}$ be orthonormal basis of $\mathbb{R}^4$, $\theta$ be an acute angle and $\bm v_1=\bm e_1$, $\bm v_2=\sin\theta\,\bm e_2+\cos\theta\,\bm e_3$, $\bm v_3=\bm e_3$, $\bm v_4=\bm e_4$. Now, we have two linearly independent subspaces of $\mathbb{R}^4$ namely $\mathcal{V}_1=\text{Span}\left(\left\{\bm v_1,\bm v_2\right\}\right)$ and $\mathcal{V}_2=\text{Span}\left(\left\{\bm v_3,\bm v_4\right\}\right)$. We can easily calculate that the angle between $\mathcal{V}_1$ and $\mathcal{V}_2$ is $\theta$.
Next, with
$$S_r=\left\{\frac{j}{10}:j\in[20]-[9]\right\}, \;
S_\varphi=\left\{\frac{j\pi}{40}:j\in[80]\right\},$$
we define
$$\hat{\mathcal{X}}_1=\left\{r\left(\cos\varphi\,\bm v_1+\sin\varphi\,\bm v_2\right):r\in S_r,\varphi\in S_\varphi\right\}$$
and
$$\hat{\mathcal{X}}_2=\left\{r\left(\cos\varphi\,\bm v_3+\sin\varphi\,\bm v_4\right):r\in S_r,\varphi\in S_\varphi\right\}.$$
Let $\hat{\mathcal{D}}_i$ be uniform distributed on $\hat{\mathcal{X}}_i\times\{i\}$ and $\hat{\mathcal{D}}$ be a mixture of $\hat{\mathcal{D}}_1$ and $\hat{\mathcal{D}}_2$. Let $\hat{\mathcal{X}}=\hat{\mathcal{X}}_1\cup\hat{\mathcal{X}}_2$.
The activation function $\sigma$ is 4-bit quantized ReLU:
$$\sigma(x)=\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}
0& \text{if} &x<0,\\
\text{ceil}(x)& \text{if} &0\leq x<15,\\
15& \text{if} &x\geq15.\\
\end{array}\right.$$
For simplicity, we take $k=24$ and $v_{i,j}=\frac{1}{2}$ if $j-12(i-1)\in[12]$ for $i\in[2]$ and $j\in[24]$ and $0$ otherwise. Now, our neural network becomes
$$
f_i=\frac{(-1)^{i-1}}{2}\left[\sum_{j=1}^{12}\sigma(h_j)-\sum_{j=1}^{12}\sigma(h_{j+12})\right]
$$
where $h_j=\langle\bm w_j,{\bm x}\rangle$ and ${\bm x}\in\mathbb{R}^4$.
The population loss is given by
$$
l({\bm W})=\mathop{\mathbb{E}}_{\{{\bm x},y\}\sim\hat{\mathcal{D}}}\left[l({\bm W};\{{\bm x},y\})\right]
=\mathop{\mathbb{E}}_{\{{\bm x},y\}\sim\hat{\mathcal{D}}}\left[\max\left\{1-f_i\right\}\right].
$$
We choose the ReLU STE (i.e., $g(x) = \max\{0,x\}$) and use the coarse gradient
$$
\begin{aligned}
&\tilde{\nabla}_{{\bm W}}l({\bm W})=\mathop{\mathbb{E}}_{\{{\bm x},y\}\sim\hat{\mathcal{D}}}\left[\tilde{\nabla}_{{\bm W}}l\left({\bm W},\{{\bm x},y\}\right)\right]\\
=&\frac{1}{|\hat{\mathcal{X}}|}\left[\sum_{{\bm x}\in\hat{\mathcal{X}}_1}\tilde{\nabla}_{{\bm W}}l\left({\bm W};\{{\bm x},1\}\right)+\sum_{{\bm x}\in\hat{\mathcal{X}}_2}\tilde{\nabla}_{{\bm W}}l\left({\bm W};\{{\bm x},2\}\right)\right].
\end{aligned}
$$
Taking learning rate $\eta=1$, we have equation \ref{cgd} becomes
$${\bm W}^{t+1}={\bm W}^t-\tilde{\nabla}_{{\bm W}}l\left({\bm W}^t\right).$$
We find that the coarse gradient method converges to a global minimum with zero loss.
As shown in box plots of Fig. \ref{angle_iters__angle_norms}, the {\it convergence still holds when the sub-spaces $\mathcal{V}_1$ and $\mathcal{V}_2$ form an acute angle}, and even when the data come from two levels of Gaussian noise perturbations of $\mathcal{V}_1$ and $\mathcal{V}_2$. The {\it convergence is faster} and with a smaller weight norm {\it when $\theta$ increases towards $\frac{\pi}{2}$ or $\mathcal{V}_2$ are orthogonal to each other}. This observation clearly
supports the robustness of Theorem 1
beyond the regime of orthogonal classes.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{angle_iters_box.png}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{angle_norms_box.png}
\end{tabular}
\caption{\textbf{Left}: Iterations to convergence v.s. $\theta$, \textbf{Right}: Norm of weights v.s. $\theta$.}
\label{angle_iters__angle_norms}
\end{figure}
\subsection{MNIST Experiments}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{testacc2.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{testacc4.png}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Validation accuracies in training LeNet-5 with quantized (2-bit and 4-bit) ReLU activation.}
\label{mnist_acc}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{subspace/1b5l.png}
\caption{2D projections of MNIST features from a trained convolutional neural network \cite{cosface} with quantized activation function. The 10 classes are color coded, the feature points cluster near linearly independent subspaces.}
\label{subspace}
\end{figure}
Our theory works for a board range of STEs, while their empirical performances on deeper networks may differ. In this subsection, we compare the performances of the three type of STEs in Fig. 2.
As in \cite{halfwave_17}, we resort to a modified batch normalization layer \cite{bnorm_15} and add it before each activation layer. As such, the inputs to quantized activation layers always follow unit Gaussian distribution. Then
the scaling factor $\tau$ applied to the output of quantized activation layers can be pre-computed via $k$-means approach
and get fixed during the whole training process. The optimizer we use to train quantized LeNet-5 is the (stochastic) coarse gradient method with momentum = 0.9. The batch size is $64$, and learning rate is initialized to be $0.1$ and then decays by a factor of 10 after every $20$ epochs. The three backward pass substitutions $g$ for the straight through estimator are (1) ReLU $g(x) = \max\{x,0\}$, (2) reverse exponential $g(x)=\max\{0,q_b(1- e^{-x/q_b})\}$ (3) log-tailed ReLU. The validation accuracy for each epoch is shown in Fig. \ref{mnist_acc}. The validation accuracies at bit-widths 2 and 4 are listed in Table. \ref{mnist}. Our results show that these STEs all perform very well and give satisfactory accuracy. Specifically, reverse exponental and log-tailed STEs are comparable, both of which are slightly better than ReLU STE.
In Fig. \ref{subspace}, we show 2D projections of MNIST features at the end of 100 epoch training of a 7 layer convolutional neural network \cite{cosface} with quantized activation. The features are extracted from input to the last fully connected layer. The data points cluster
near linearly independent subspaces. Together with subsection 8.1, we have numerical evidence that the linearly independent subspace data structure (working as an extension of subspace orthogonality) occurs for high level features in a deep network for a nearly perfect classification, rendering support to the realism of our theoretical study. Enlarging angles between linear subspaces can improve classification accuracy, see \cite{LFT_2018} for such an effort on MNIST and CIFAR-10 data sets via linear feature transform.
\begin{table}[ht]
\caption{Validation Accuracy (\%) on MNIST with LeNet5.}
\label{mnist}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\toprule
$g(x)$ & bit-width ($b$) & valid. accuracy\\
\midrule
&32& 99.45\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{ReLU} & 2& 99.10\\
& 4& 99.38\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{reverse exp.} & 2 & 99.17\\
& 4 & 99.46\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{log-tailed ReLU} & 2 &99.24\\
& 4 &99.36\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{CIFAR-10 Experiments}
In this experiment, we train VGG-11/ResNet-20 with 4-bit activation function on CIFAR-10 data set to numerically validate the boundedness assumption upon the $\ell_2$-norm of weight. The optimizer is momentum SGD with no weight decay. We used initial learning rate $=0.1$, with a decay factor of $0.1$ at the $80$-th and $140$-th epoch.
we see from Fig. \ref{fig:cifar-norm} that the $\ell_2$ norm of weights is bounded during the training process. This figure also shows that the norm of weights is generally increasing in epochs which coincides with our theoretical finding shown in Lemma \ref{descent}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{cifar.jpg}
\caption{CIFAR-10 experiments for VGG-11 and ResNet-20: weight $\ell_2$-norm vs epoch.}
\label{fig:cifar-norm}
\end{figure}
\section{Summary}
We studied a novel and important biased first-order oracle, called coarse gradient,
in training quantized neural networks. The effectiveness of coarse gradient relies on the choice of STE used in backward pass only. We proved the convergence of coarse gradient methods for a class of STEs bearing certain monotonicity in non-linear classification using one-hidden-layer networks. In experiments on LeNet and MNIST data set, we considered three different proxy functions satisfying the monotonicity condition for backward pass: ReLU, reverse exponential function and log-tailed ReLU for training LeNet-5 with quantized activations. All of them exhibited good performance which verified our theoretical findings.
In future work, we plan to expand theoretical understanding of coarse gradient descent for deep activation quantized networks.
\section{Acknowledgement}
This work was partially supported by NSF grants IIS-1632935, DMS-1854434, DMS-1924548, and DMS-1924935.
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
\bibliographystyle{siamplain}
|
\section{Introduction}
In dynamical systems, the term \emph{parabolic} is often used to refer to (for us, continuous-time) systems for which nearby orbits diverge \lq\lq slowly\rq\rq.
Smooth parabolic flows have an intermediate chaotic behaviour: on one hand, they tend to exhibit properties typical of strongly chaotic systems, such as mixing and absolutely continuous spectrum, on the other, they have zero topological and metric entropy.
Classical examples of parabolic systems in homogeneous dynamics are unipotent flows on semisimple Lie groups and nilflows on nilmanifolds. Smooth area-preserving flows on higher genus surfaces can also be classified as (non-uniformly) parabolic.
We refer the reader to \cite[Chapter 8]{HasKat} for an extensive discussion on parabolic phenomena.
In part due to the lack of a unified theory of parabolic dynamics, and towards a better understanding of its common features, there has been an increasing interest in studying new non-homogeneous parabolic systems.
Important sources of examples are smooth perturbations of homogeneous flows.
Perhaps the simplest type of perturbation is given by performing a \emph{time-change}, or a \emph{time-reparametrization}: leaving the orbits unchanged, one varies smoothly the speed of the points.
Despite their apparent simplicity, time-changes can alter significantly the ergodic properties of the original flow.
For example, although nilflows are never weak-mixing, generic non-trivial time-changes of ergodic nilflows are mixing \cite{afu:heisenberg, fornikan, ravotti:nilflow, afru}. Different types of perturbations, including skew-product constructions \cite{simonelli:spectrum} and others \cite{ravotti:sl3}, have been investigated as well.
In this paper, we focus on smooth time-changes of unipotent flows.
The case of horocycle flows is better understood than the general case.
A classical result due to Marcus \cite{marcus:horocycle}, generalizing a previous work by Kushnirenko \cite{Kus}, shows that smooth time-changes on compact surfaces are mixing. More recently, Tiedra de Aldecoa \cite{tiedra:spectrum} showed that they have absolutely continuous spectrum, and, independently and at the same time, Forni and Ulcigrai \cite{forniulcigrai:timechanges} proved that the spectrum is Lebesgue. This result on the spectral type has been generalized by Simonelli to smooth time-changes of ergodic unipotent flows \cite{simonelli:spectrum}.
Finer properties, including the countable multiplicity of the spectrum and other remarkable rigidity results, have been investigated by several authors \cite{ratner2, ratner3, ffk, KLU, ffmob}.
Much less is known about their quantitative properties.
In the case of nilflows, Forni and Kanigowski proved polynomial mixing for generic time-changes of a full-dimensional set of Heisenberg nilflows \cite{fornikan}. This is the only quantitative mixing result for time-changes of nilflows.
Going back to the horocycle flow, Forni and Ulcigrai showed that the mixing rate of smooth time-changes on compact surfaces is polynomial \cite{forniulcigrai:timechanges}. More precisely, they proved that the correlations of smooth observables can be bounded by the rate of equidistribution of sheared geodesic segments. Building on their result, Kanigowski and the author showed that the rate of 3-mixing is also polynomial \cite{ravottikanig}.
It is currently not known whether the estimates in \cite{forniulcigrai:timechanges} are optimal.
In this paper, we generalize the result by Forni and Ulcigrai to time-changes of general unipotent flows on finite volume manifold, which are not necessarily compact.
We summarize our result as follows, for a precise statement see Theorem~\ref{thm:main}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:main_0}
Let $G$ be a connected semisimple Lie group with finite centre and no compact factor, and let $\Gamma < G$ be an irreducible lattice. Let $\{ h_t\}_{t \in \R}$ be a unipotent flow on $M = \Gamma \backslash G$, equipped with the normalized Haar measure $\mu$. Let $\tau \colon M \to \R_{>0}$ be a positive smooth function, and let $\{h^\tau_t\}_{t \in \R}$ be the time-change induced by $\tau$. If the time-change is admissible (see Definition \ref{def:admiss}), then there exists $0<\alpha<1$ and, for all $f, g \in \mathscr{C}^{\infty}_c(M)$, there exists a constant $C_{f,g} \geq 0$ such that for all $t \geq 1$ we have
$$
\left\lvert \int_M f \circ h^{\tau} \cdot g \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} \mu^{\tau} - \mu^{\tau}(f) \mu^{\tau}(g) \right\rvert \leq C_{f,g} t^{-\alpha}.
$$
\end{theorem}
The admissibility condition in the statement of Theorem \ref{thm:main_0} is introduced in Definition \ref{def:admiss}. We point out that, in the case of a compact space $M$, any positive smooth function induces an admissible time-change.
When the space is non-compact, however, we need to impose some non-degeneracy condition on the behaviour of the generator $\tau$ in the cusps. A similar assumption appears in the works of Kushnirenko \cite{Kus} and of Simonelli \cite{simonelli:spectrum}.
Not surprisingly, the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main_0} follows a \lq\lq mixing via shearing\rq\rq\ approach, analogous to the strategy employed by Forni and Ulcigrai in \cite{forniulcigrai:timechanges}, which dates back to Marcus \cite{marcus:horocycle}. The idea of studying mixing and other strong chaotic properties of smooth parabolic flows by analyzing the action on transverse arcs has been used successfully in several different settings.
In order to make it effective and prove quantitative results, one needs good control on the growth of ergodic integrals. The main difficulty in the setting of this paper is that no good renormalization is known for non-horospherical unipotent flows, so that no general pointwise estimate on the deviations of their ergodic averages is available. The idea is then to replace pointwise estimates with $L^2$-estimates, which are sufficient for mixing. More precisely, we exploit pointwise polynomial bounds on set of polynomially small measure, see Proposition \ref{thm:bound_erg_int}. In turn, the $L^2$-bounds on ergodic integrals are deduced easily from quantitative mixing estimates for the unipotent flow, which, under a spectral gap assumption, are well-known.
\section{Preliminaries and statement of the main result}
In this section, we recall some basic notions on unipotent flows and the Jacobson-Morozov Theorem. We state an important result on their quantitative mixing properties, which follows from the work several authors on effective decay of matrix coefficients for unitary representations of semisimple groups. We then introduce the notion of admissibility for smooth time-changes and in \S\ref{sec:main_result} we state our main result.
\subsection{Unipotent flows and the Jacobson-Morozov Theorem}Let $G$ be a semisimple Lie group with finite centre, and let $\Gamma < G$ be a lattice subgroup. Denote by $M $ the homogeneous space $ \Gamma \backslash G$. We remark again that we do not assume $M$ to be compact.
The Haar measure on $G$ descends to a finite measure $\mu$ on $M$, which we will assume to be normalized to a probability measure. It is invariant by the right-action of $G$ on $M$.
Elements of the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ of $G$ are in one-to-one correspondence with 1-parameter subgroups of $G$, namely any 1-parameter subgroup of $G$ is of the form $\{ \exp(tV) : t \in \R\}$ for some $V \in \mathfrak{g}$.
The homogeneous flow $\{\phi^V_t\}_{t \in \R}$ generated by $V \in \mathfrak{g} \setminus \{0\}$ is the smooth flow on $M$ defined by the restriction of the right-action of $G$ to the corresponding 1-parameter subgroup. Explicitly, it is given by
$$
\phi^V_t(\Gamma g) = \Gamma g \exp(tV).
$$
An element $U \in \mathfrak{g}\setminus \{0\}$ is \emph{unipotent}, and the corresponding $\{\phi^U_t\}_{t \in \R}$ is a \emph{unipotent flow}, if $\mathfrak{ad}_U = [U, \cdot]$ is a (non-zero) nilpotent linear operator on $\mathfrak{g}$.
Let us fix a unipotent flow $h_t = \phi_t^U$ induced by $U\in \mathfrak{g} \setminus \{0\}$.
The Jacobson-Morozov Theorem ensures the existence of a subalgebra of $\mathfrak{g}$ containing $U$ which is isomorphic to $\mathfrak{sl}_2(\R)$. In particular, there exists an element $X \in \mathfrak{g} \setminus \{0\}$ such that $[X,U] = -U$.
By taking the exponential, we have the commutation relation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:commutation}
h_t \circ \phi^X_r (x) = \phi^X_r \circ h_{e^r t} (x)
\end{equation}
which holds for all $x \in M$ and $t,r \in \R$.
By analogy to $\SL(2,\R)$, we will sometimes call the homogeneous flow $\{\phi^X_t\}_{t \in \R}$ the \emph{geodesic flow}.
\subsection{Effective decay of matrix coefficients}
Denote by $H$ the Hilbert space $L^2(M)$ and let $H_0$ be the subspace of $H$ consisting of functions with zero average.
We say that $M$ satisfies the \emph{strong spectral gap assumption} if the regular representation $\rho_0$ of $G$ on $H_0$ has a strong spectral gap; that is, the restriction of $\rho_0$ to any compact factor of $G$ is isolated from the trivial representation.
The strong spectral gap assumption is known to hold if, for example, $G$ is a semisimple group with finite centre and without compact factors and $\Gamma$ is an irreducible lattice \cite{KleMar, KelSar}, or when $G$ admits a simple factor of rank at least two which acts ergodically on $M$.
It is known from the work of Harish-Chandra \cite{HarCha}, Borel and Wallach \cite{BW}, Cowling \cite{Cow}, Howe \cite{How}, Moore \cite{Moo}, Katok and Spatzier \cite{KS}, and others, that the spectral gap condition provides explicit estimates on the decay of matrix coefficients for $\rho_0$.
In the case of $\SL(2,\R)$, Ratner \cite{ratner2} established sharp bounds for general H{\" o}lder observables.
Theorem \ref{thm:exp_mix} below contains the bounds we need for our purposes, we refer the reader to the references mentioned above, as well as the work of Bj{\" o}rklund, Einsiedler, and Gorodnik \cite{BEG}, for precise effective statements on mixing and multiple mixing.
In the following, we will write $f \circ h_t$ for $\rho_0(\exp(tU))f$, and we will denote by $H^{\infty}$ (and by $H^{\infty}_0$) the subspace of $H$ (of $H_0$, respectively) of smooth vectors for the action of $G$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:exp_mix}
Assume that $M$ satisfies the strong spectral gap assumption. There exist $B, \beta >0$ and, for all $f,g \in H^{\infty}$ there exist $S(f), S(g) \geq 0$ (which depend on the $L^2$-norms of finitely many derivatives of $f$ and $g$ respectively) such that for all $t\geq 1$ we have
$$
\left\lvert \langle f \circ h_t, g \rangle - \mu(f) \mu(g)\right\rvert \leq B S(f)S(g) t^{-\beta}.
$$
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Time-changes}
Let $\tau \colon M \to \R_{>0}$ be a strictly positive smooth function.
The time-change of $\{h_t\}_{t \in \R}$ generated by $\tau$ is the smooth flow $\{h^{\tau}_t\}_{t \in \R}$ induced by the (non-homogeneous) vector field $\tau^{-1}U$. The orbits of $\{h^{\tau}_t\}_{t \in \R}$ are the same as the ones of $\{h_t\}_{t \in \R}$, but they are traveled at different speed.
Explicitly, for any $x \in M$ and $t \in \R$, let $u(x,t)$ be defined by the equality
\begin{equation}\label{eq:defin_u}
t= \int_0^{u(x,t)} \tau \circ h_s(x) \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} s.
\end{equation}
Then, $u(x,t)$ is an additive cocycle over the flow $\{h_t\}_{t \in \R}$; in other words, for all $t,r \in \R$,
$$
u(x,t+r) = u(x,t) + u(h_t(x),r),
$$
and we have
$$
h^\tau_t(x) = h_{u(x,t)}(x).
$$
If $\mathscr{L}$ denotes the Lie derivative, it is easy to check that
$$
\mathscr{L}_{\tau^{-1}U} ( \tau \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} \mu) = \mathscr{L}_{U} (\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} \mu) = 0,
$$
which implies that $\{h^{\tau}_t\}_{t \in \R}$ preserves the smooth measure $\mu^\tau$ equivalent to $\mu$ with density $\tau$. Without loss of generality, we will assume that $\mu(\tau)=1$, so that $\mu^\tau$ is a probability measure.
We now formulate the definition of admissibility, which constitutes our assumption on the generator $\tau$ of the time-change.
\begin{definition}\label{def:admiss}
We will say that the time-change $\{h^\tau_t\}_{t \in \R}$ is \emph{admissible} if the generator $\tau \in H^{\infty}$ is a smooth vector and $\tau, \tau^{-1}, X\tau,$ and $X^2\tau$ are uniformly bounded. We define
$$
m_\tau := \max \{ \|\tau\|_\infty, \|\tau^{-1}\|_\infty, \|X\tau\|_\infty, \|X^2\tau\|_\infty \} \geq 1.
$$
\end{definition}
If $M$ is a compact space, then $\tau$ is admissible if and only if it is a smooth function. In the non-compact case, the admissibility condition provides some control on the behaviour of the generator in the cusps. As we already mentioned, a condition of similar nature was introduced by Kushnirenko in his work on mixing for time-changes of horocycle flows \cite{Kus} and appears also in the result by Simonelli \cite{simonelli:spectrum}.
We conclude this section with the following observation, which is an immediate consequence of \eqref{eq:defin_u} and Definition \ref{def:admiss}.
\begin{lemma}\label{thm:ulessm}
If $\tau$ is admissible, for all $x \in M$ and $t \geq 0$, we have $m_\tau^{-1}t \leq u(x,t) \leq m_\tau t$
\end{lemma}
\subsection{The main result}\label{sec:main_result}
We are now ready to state our main result. Roughly speaking, Theorem \ref{thm:main} says that whenever a unipotent flows has polynomial decay of correlations, then the same happens for any admissible time-change.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:main}
Assume that $M$ satisfies the strong spectral gap assumption. Let $\{h^\tau_t\}_{t \in \R}$ be an admissible time-change of a unipotent flow $\{h_t\}_{t \in \R}$ on $M$. There exists $0 <\alpha < 1$ and a constant $C_\tau \geq 0$ such that for all $f,g \in \mathscr{C}^{\infty}_c(M)$, there exist ${\widetilde S}(f), {\widetilde S}(g) \geq 0$ (which depend on the uniform and $L^2$-norms of $f$ and $g$ and of finitely many of their derivatives) so that for all $t \geq 1$ we have
$$
\left\lvert \int_M f \circ h^{\tau} \cdot g \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} \mu^{\tau} - \mu^{\tau}(f) \mu^{\tau}(g) \right\rvert \leq B_\tau {\widetilde S}(f) {\widetilde S}(g) t^{-\alpha}.
$$
\end{theorem}
The proof actually provides an explicit bound for the exponent $\alpha$ above in terms of $\beta$ in Theorem \ref{thm:exp_mix}.
In particular, $\alpha$ can be taken independent of $\tau$, and is at least $\beta/8$. However, we do not claim that it is optimal, and we do not know whether the optimal exponent is actually independent of $\tau$.
Indeed, what are the optimal mixing rates is a question that is still open also in the case of time-changes of horocycle flows on compact surfaces.
The best known bounds in that case, see \cite{forniulcigrai:timechanges}, coincide with the rate of equidistribution of sheared geodesic arcs. For the standard horocycle flow, it is known that the equidistribution of translates of geodesic segments is slower than the equidistribution of unstable horocycle arcs \cite{ravotti:horo}, and the latter matches the optimal mixing rates established by Ratner \cite{ratner2}. It is therefore possible that, in the case of smooth time-changes, a different approach based on shearing of curves transverse to the weak-stable leaves of the geodesic flows would provide sharper mixing estimates.
\section{Estimates on ergodic integrals}
Let $f \in H=L^2(M)$ and, for every $t \in \R$, define $I_tf$ to be the ergodic integral
$$
I_tf(x) = \int_0^t f \circ h_r(x) \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} r.
$$
We are interested in the behaviour of $I_tf$ for large $t\geq 1$. When $M$ is a compact quotient of $\SL(2,\R)$ and $f$ is sufficiently smooth, the works of Burger \cite{bur}, Flaminio and Forni \cite{ffhoro}, and Bufetov and Forni \cite{bufo} provide sharp uniform bounds for $I_tf$. Already in the case where $M$ is non-compact, no uniform bound is possible: since the horocycle flow is not uniquely ergodic, the bounds on $I_tf(x)$ heavily depend on the starting point $x$, as it could lie on (or very close to) a periodic orbit, see \cite{ffhoro, Stro}. For unipotent flows which are not horospherical, no general pointwise estimate for ergodic integrals is known.
Estimates on deviations of ergodic averages are needed to carry out a \lq\lq mixing via shearing\rq\rq\ argument; however, it is not necessary to have control over the whole space. In this section, from the effective mixing result in Theorem \ref{thm:exp_mix}, we obtain $L^2$-bounds on $I_tf$, from which we deduce pointwise bounds on a set of large measure. The main estimate is the following.
\begin{proposition}\label{thm:bound_erg_int}
There exist $0<\gamma <1$ and ${\widetilde B} >0$ such that, for all $f \in H_0^\infty \cap L^\infty(M)$, the following holds.
For every $T_0 \geq 1$, there exists a measurable set $E(f,T_0) \subset M$ with $\mu(E(f,T_0)) \leq T_0^{-\gamma}$ such that for all $t \geq T_0$, we have
$$
|I_tf(x)| \leq {\widetilde B} (S(f) + \|f\|_\infty) t^{1-\gamma} \text{\ \ \ for all\ } x \in M \setminus E(f,T_0).
$$
\end{proposition}
In order to obtain Proposition \ref{thm:bound_erg_int}, we first establish $L^2$-estimates, see, e.g., \cite[\S3]{ratneracta}.
\begin{lemma}\label{thm:L2estim}
There exist $0<\beta_0<1$ and $B'>0$ such that, for all $f \in H_0^\infty$ and all $t \geq 1$ we have
$$
\| I_tf\|_2^2 \leq B' S(f)^2 t^{2 - \beta_0}.
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $t\geq 1$ be fixed. Applying the Fubini-Tonelli Theorem several times, we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\| I_tf\|_2^2 &= \int_M \int_0^t \int_0^t (f \circ h_r)(x) \cdot (f \circ h_s) (x)\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} r \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} s \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} \mu \\
&= \int_{[0,t]^2} \int_M (f\circ h_{r-s})(x) \cdot f(x) \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} \mu \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} s \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} r,
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where the last equality follows from measure-invariance. Let $\beta$ be as in Theorem \ref{thm:exp_mix}, and define $\Delta = \{(t_1,t_2) \in [0,t]^2 : |t_1-t_2|\leq t^{\frac{1}{1+\beta}} \}$. From the equation above, we get
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\| I_tf\|_2^2 &\leq \|f\|_2^2 \Leb(\Delta) + \int_{[0,t]^2 \setminus \Delta} \int_M (f\circ h_{r-s})(x) \cdot f(x) \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} \mu \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} s \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} r\\
&\leq 4\|f\|_2^2 t^{1+\frac{1}{1+\beta}} + t^2 \sup \left\{ \left\lvert \langle f \circ h_{r-s}, f \rangle \right\rvert : t^{\frac{1}{1+\beta}} < |r-s| \leq t\right\}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
By Theorem \ref{thm:exp_mix}, the claim follows by choosing $B' = 4 +B$ and $\beta_0=\beta/(1+\beta)$.
\end{proof}
We now prove Proposition \ref{thm:bound_erg_int}. Using the $L^2$-bounds in Lemma \ref{thm:L2estim} and Chebyshev's Inequality, for any given time $t$, it is easy to deduce a pointwise bound for $I_tf(x)$ for all $x$ in a set of large measure (which depends on $t$). In order to obtain pointwise estimates that apply to all times greater than a given $t_0$, we use a simple approximation argument.
\begin{proof}[{Proof of Proposition \ref{thm:bound_erg_int}}]
Let $\gamma = \frac{\beta_0}{4}$. Fix $T_0\geq 1$ and define $N_0= \lfloor T_0^{\gamma } \rfloor + 2$.
Consider the sequence $k_n = n^{\gamma^{-1}}$ and define
$$
E_n = \left\{ x \in M: \left\lvert I_{k_n}(x) \right\rvert \geq \sqrt{ B' }S(f) k_n^{1-\gamma }\right\}, \text{\ \ \ and\ \ \ } E(f, T_0) = \bigcup_{n \geq N_0} E_n.
$$
By Chebyshev's Inequality and Lemma \ref{thm:L2estim},
$$
\mu ( E(f, T_0)) \leq \sum_{n = N_0}^{\infty} \mu(E_n) \leq \sum_{n = N_0}^{\infty} (B' S(f)^2)^{-1} k_n^{2\gamma -2} \|I_{k_n}f\|_2^2 \leq \sum_{n = N_0}^{\infty} n^{-2} \leq (N_0-1)^{-1} \leq T_0^{-\gamma }.
$$
Let now $t \geq T_0$, and consider $n=\lfloor t^{\gamma } \rfloor + 2 \geq N_0$; in particular $k_n = n^{\gamma^{-1}} > t$. Note moreover that there exists a constant $B_0$ such that
$$
|k_n - t| \leq (t^{\gamma } + 2)^{\gamma^{-1}} - t \leq B_0 t^{1-\gamma}.
$$
Thus, for all $x \in M$, we have
$$
\left\lvert I_{k_n}f(x) - I_tf(x)\right\rvert \leq \left\lvert \int_t^{k_n} f \circ h_s(x) \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} s\right\rvert \leq B_0 \|f\|_\infty t^{1-\gamma}.
$$
If $x \in M \setminus E(f, T_0)$, in particular $x \notin E_n$, then $|I_{k_n}f(x)|<\sqrt{ B'} S(f) k_n^{1-\gamma}$. It follows that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
|I_tf(x)| &\leq |I_{k_n}f(x)| + B_0 \|f\|_\infty t^{1-\gamma} \leq \sqrt{ B'} S(f) (t+B_0 t^{1-\gamma})^{1-\gamma}+ B_0 \|f\|_\infty t^{1-\gamma} \\
&\leq {\widetilde B} (S(f) + \|f\|_\infty)t^{1-\gamma},
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where ${\widetilde B} = \sqrt{ B'} (B_0+1)^{1-\gamma} + B_0$.
\end{proof}
\section{Shear and distortion of pushed geodesic segments}
For the sake of notation, for every point $x \in M$, we will denote $x_r = \phi^X_r(x)$, where $\{\phi^X_t\}_{t \in \R}$ is the \lq\lq geodesic flow\rq\rq\ given by the Jacobson-Morozov Theorem.
We are interested in the push-forward of short geodesic segments under the action of the time-change.
We notice that, by the commutation relation \eqref{eq:commutation}, we have
$$
h^\tau_t (x_r) = h_{u(x_r,t)} \circ \phi^X_r(x) = \phi^X_r \circ h_{e^ru(x_r,t)} (x).
$$
In this section, we provide some estimates on the first and second derivative of $e^ru(x_r,t)$, which control the shear and the distortion of the geodesic arc under the action of $h^\tau_t$, and are analogous to the results in \cite[\S3]{forniulcigrai:timechanges}. We will use this estimates in the next section.
\begin{lemma}\label{thm:change_variab}
Define
$$
v(r,x,t) = t- \int_0^{u(x_r,t)} X\tau \circ h_{s} (x_r) \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} s.
$$
We have
$$
\frac{\partial}{\partial r} \left(e^r u(x_r,t) \right) = \frac{e^r v(r,x,t)}{\tau \circ h^{\tau}_t (x_r)}.
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since
\begin{equation}\label{eq:1st_line}
\frac{\partial}{\partial r} \left(e^r u(x_r,t) \right) = e^r \left( u(x_r,t)+ \frac{\partial}{\partial r} u(x_r,t)\right),
\end{equation}
we focus on the derivative of $u(x_r,t)$ with respect to $r$. Differentiating the equality
$$
t= \int_0^{u(x_r,t)} \tau \circ h_{s} (x_r) \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} s,
$$
we get
$$
0 = \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial r} u(x_r,t)\right) \tau \circ h_{u(x_r,t)} (x_r) + \int_0^{u(x_r,t)} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} \left( \tau \circ h_{s} (x_r) \right) \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} s,
$$
and therefore
\begin{equation}\label{eq:2nd_line}
\frac{\partial}{\partial r} u(x_r,t) = -(\tau \circ h^{\tau}_t (x_r))^{-1} \left( \int_0^{u(x_r,t)} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} \left( \tau \circ h_{s} \circ \phi^X_r(x) \right) \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} s \right).
\end{equation}
It is easy to check that $Dh_s(X) = X+sU$. This gives us
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\frac{\partial}{\partial r} \left( \tau \circ h_{s} \circ \phi^X_r(x) \right) &= (X + sU)\tau \circ h_{s} \circ \phi^X_r(x) \\
&= X\tau \circ h_{s} \circ \phi^X_r(x)- \tau \circ h_{s} \circ \phi^X_r(x) + \frac{\partial}{\partial s}\left( s \tau \circ h_{s} \circ \phi^X_r(x) \right).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
We substitute the expression above into \eqref{eq:2nd_line} and we conclude
\begin{equation}\label{eq:du}
\frac{\partial}{\partial r} u(x_r,t) = -(\tau \circ h^{\tau}_t (x_r))^{-1} \left( \int_0^{u(x_r,t)} X\tau \circ h_{s} (x_r) \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} s - t\right) - u(x_r,t).
\end{equation}
Combining \eqref{eq:du} and \eqref{eq:1st_line} completes the proof.
\end{proof}
We now show that the function $v(x,r,t)$ is of order $t$ on a set of large measure, and its derivative is no larger than $t$, which will imply that the distortion is of order $1/t$ on a set of large measure.
\begin{lemma}[Control on the shear]\label{thm:shear}
There exist $0<\gamma <1$ and a constant $C_v\geq 1$ such that for every $t_0 \geq 1$ there exists a measurable set $E_v(t_0) \subset M$ with $\mu(E_v(t_0) ) \leq C_v t_0^{-\gamma}$ such that for all $t\geq t_0$ we have
$$
|v(x,r,t)-t| \leq C_v (rt+t^{1-\gamma}) \text{\ \ \ for all\ } x \in M \setminus E_v(t_0) \text{\ and all\ } r \in [0,1].
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Using the commutation relations between $h_s$ and $\phi^X_r$ in \eqref{eq:commutation}, we have
$$
\left\lvert v(x,r,t)-t \right\rvert = \left\lvert \int_0^{u(x_r,t)} X\tau \circ \phi^X_r \circ h_{e^rs}(x) \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} s \right\rvert \leq \left\lvert \int_0^{u(x_r,t)} X\tau \circ h_{e^rs}(x) \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} s \right\rvert + m_\tau^2 r t,
$$
where we used the fact that $\|X\tau \circ \phi^X_r - X\tau \|_\infty \leq \|X^2\tau\|_\infty r \leq m_\tau r$, together with Lemma \ref{thm:ulessm}. Hence it remains to bound the first summand:
$$
\left\lvert \int_0^{u(x_r,t)} X\tau \circ h_{e^rs}(x) \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} s \right\rvert = \left\lvert \frac{1}{e^r} \int_0^{e^r u(x_r,t)} X\tau \circ h_{s}(x) \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} s \right\rvert
$$
Let $\gamma$ and ${\widetilde B}$ be given by Proposition \ref{thm:bound_erg_int}.
Fix $t_0 \geq 1$, and let $E_v(t_0):= E(X\tau, m_\tau^{-1}t_0)$ be the set given by Proposition \ref{thm:bound_erg_int} with $T_0 =m_\tau^{-1} t_0$; in particular $\mu(E_v(t_0)) \leq m_\tau^\gamma t_0^{-\gamma}$. Since
$$
|e^r u(x_r,t)| \geq m_\tau^{-1}t \geq m_\tau^{-1}t_0 = T_0,
$$
for all $x \notin E_v(t_0)$, we have
$$
\left\lvert \frac{1}{e^r}\int_0^{e^r u(x_r,t)} X\tau \circ h_{s}(x) \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} s \right\rvert \leq {\widetilde B}(S(X\tau) + m_\tau)(e^r u(x_r,t))^{1-\gamma} \leq {\widetilde B}(em_\tau)^{1-\gamma}(S(X\tau) + m_\tau) t^{1-\gamma}.
$$
The proof is therefore complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}[Control on the distortion]\label{thm:distortion}
There exists a constant $C_\tau \geq 1$ such that
$$
\left\lvert \frac{\partial}{\partial r}v(x,t,r)\right\rvert \leq C_\tau t,
$$
for all $t,r \in \R$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
From the definition ov $v$ in Lemma \ref{thm:change_variab}, we directly compute
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lemma_dist}
\frac{\partial}{\partial r}v(x,t,r) = \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial r} u(x_r,t) \right) X\tau \circ h^{\tau}_t(x_r) + \int_0^{u(x_r,t)} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} X\tau \circ h_{s} \circ \phi^X_r(x) \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} s,
\end{equation}
and we estimate the two summands separately.
As in the proof of Lemma \ref{thm:shear}, we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
& \int_0^{u(x_r,t)} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} \left( X\tau \circ h_{s} \circ \phi^X_r(x) \right) \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} s= \int_0^{u(x_r,t)} (X + sU)X\tau \circ h_{s} \circ \phi^X_r(x) \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} s \\
&\quad = \int_0^{u(x_r,t)}X^2\tau \circ h_{s} \circ \phi^X_r(x) \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} s - \int_0^{u(x_r,t)}X\tau \circ h_{s} \circ \phi^X_r(x)\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} s + \int_0^{u(x_r,t)} \frac{\partial}{\partial s}\left( s X\tau \circ h_{s} \circ \phi^X_r(x) \right) \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} s\\
&\quad = \int_0^{u(x_r,t)}X^2\tau \circ h_{s} \circ \phi^X_r(x)\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} s - \int_0^{u(x_r,t)}X\tau \circ h_{s} \circ \phi^X_r(x) \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} s + u(x_r,t) \left( X\tau \circ h^{\tau}_{t} (x_r) \right).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Therefore, by Lemma \ref{thm:ulessm}, we can bound the second summand in \eqref{eq:lemma_dist} by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:summ2}
\left\lvert \int_0^{u(x_r,t)} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} \left( X\tau \circ h_{s} \circ \phi^X_r(x) \right) \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} s\right\rvert \leq (\|X^2\tau\|_\infty + 2\|X\tau\|_\infty) | u(x_r,t) | \leq 3m_\tau^2 t.
\end{equation}
By \eqref{eq:du}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:summ1}
\left\lvert \frac{\partial}{\partial r} u(x_r,t)\right\rvert \leq m_\tau( \|X\tau\|_\infty m_\tau t + t) + m_\tau t \leq 3m_\tau^3 t.
\end{equation}
From \eqref{eq:summ2}, \eqref{eq:summ1}, and the fact that $\|X\tau\|_\infty \leq m_\tau$ by assumption, the claim follows.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of the main result}
\subsection{Mixing via shearing}
For any $f \in L_0^2(M, \mu^{\tau})$, $t \in \R$ and $s >0$, define
$$
A_{t,s}f(x) = \int_0^s f \circ h^\tau_t \circ \phi^X_r(x) \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} r.
$$
\begin{lemma}\label{thm:mix_via_s}
Let $f \in L_0^2(M, \mu^{\tau})$ be bounded, and let $g \in L^2(M, \mu^{\tau})$ be such that $Xg \in L^2(M, \mu^{\tau})$. For every $t \in \R$ and for all $\sigma >0$, we have
$$
\left\lvert \int_M f \circ h^{\tau} \cdot g \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} \mu^{\tau} \right\rvert \leq \left( \|\tau g \|_2 +\sigma \|X(\tau g) \|_2 \right)\frac{ 1 }{\sigma} \sup_{s \in [0,\sigma]} \|A_{t,s} f\|_2.
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By definition of $\mu^\tau$ and the invariance properties of $\mu$, we rewrite
$$
\int_M f \circ h^{\tau} \cdot g \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} \mu^{\tau} = \int_M f \circ h^{\tau} \cdot (\tau g) \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} \mu = \langle f \circ h^{\tau} , (\tau g)\rangle = \langle f \circ h^{\tau} \circ \phi^X_s, (\tau g) \circ \phi^X_s\rangle,
$$
for all $s \in \R$. Therefore, given $\sigma >0$,
$$
\int_M f \circ h^{\tau} \cdot g \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} \mu^{\tau} = \frac{1}{\sigma} \int_0^\sigma \langle f \circ h^{\tau} \circ \phi^X_s, (\tau g) \circ \phi^X_s\rangle \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} s.
$$
After integrating by parts, we obtain
$$
\int_M f \circ h^{\tau} \cdot g \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} \mu^{\tau} = \frac{1}{\sigma} \langle \int_0^\sigma f \circ h^{\tau} \circ \phi^X_s \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} s, (\tau g) \circ \phi^X_\sigma \rangle - \frac{1}{\sigma}\int_0^\sigma \langle \int_0^s f \circ h^{\tau} \circ \phi^X_r \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} r, X(\tau g) \circ \phi^X_s \rangle \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} s,
$$
and, by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality,
$$
\left\lvert \int_M f \circ h^{\tau} \cdot g \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} \mu^{\tau} \right\rvert \leq \frac{ \|\tau g\|_2 }{\sigma} \|A_{t,\sigma}f \|_2+ \|X(\tau g)\|_2 \sup_{s \in [0,\sigma]} \|A_{t,s}f\|_2.
$$
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main}}
We now prove Theorem \ref{thm:main}. First of all, notice that $f \in L^2(M, \mu^{\tau})$ if and only if $f \in H=L^2(M, \mu)$, and $f \in L_0^2(M, \mu^{\tau})$ implies that $\tau f \in L_0^2(M, \mu)$.
Let $f,g \in \mathscr{C}^{\infty}_c(M)$; in particular $f, g \in H^\infty $ and $f, Xf \in L^\infty(M)$. Let $t \geq 1$ be fixed, and define
$$
t_0 = \sqrt{t}, \text{\ \ \ } \sigma = t^{-\gamma/2}, \text{\ \ \ and\ \ \ } E(t) = E_v(t_0) \cup h^{\tau}_{-t}(E(\tau f,t_0)),
$$
where $E_v(t_0)$, and $E(\tau f,t_0)$ are the sets given by Lemma \ref{thm:shear} and Proposition \ref{thm:bound_erg_int} respectively.
By definition of $\mu^\tau$, we have
$$
\mu(h^{\tau}_{-t}(E(\tau f,t_0))) \leq m_\tau \mu^{\tau}(h^{\tau}_{-t}(E(\tau f,t_0))) = m_\tau \mu^{\tau}(E(\tau f,t_0)) \leq m_\tau^2\mu (E(\tau f,t_0)) \leq m_\tau^2 t^{-\gamma/2},
$$
in particular, we can bound
\begin{equation}\label{eq:L2norm_A}
\begin{split}
\|A_{t,s}f\|_2 &\leq \sup_{x \in M\setminus E(t)} |A_{t,s}f(x)| + \|f\|_{\infty} \sigma \mu(E(t)) \\
& \leq \sup_{x \in M\setminus E(t)} |A_{t,s}f(x)| + (C_v+m_\tau^2)\|f\|_{\infty} \sigma t^{-\gamma/2}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We now estimate $|A_{t,s}f(x)|$ for $x \in M\setminus E(t)$.
Notice that for all such points, by Lemma \ref{thm:shear}, we have
$$
\left\lvert v(x,r, t) - t \right\rvert \leq C_v t^{1-\gamma/2}, \text{\ \ \ for all\ }r \in [0,\sigma].
$$
Up to increasing the constant at the end of the proof, we will assume that $t \geq (2C_v)^{2/\gamma}$, so that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:v_geq_t}
\left\lvert v(x,r, t) \right\rvert \geq \frac{t}{2}, \text{\ \ \ for all\ }r \in [0,\sigma].
\end{equation}
\begin{lemma}\label{thm:d_1_on_v}
There exists a constant $C_\tau' \geq 1$ such that for all $x \in M \setminus E(t)$ and all $s \in [0, \sigma]$, we have
$$
\left\lvert \frac{\partial}{\partial r} \frac{1}{e^r v(x,r,t)}\right\rvert \leq \frac{C_\tau'}{t}.
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The claim follows immediately from Lemma \ref{thm:distortion} and \eqref{eq:v_geq_t}, since
$$
\left\lvert \frac{\partial}{\partial r} \frac{1}{e^r v(x,r,t)}\right\rvert \leq \left\lvert \frac{1}{e^r v(x,r,t)}\right\rvert + \left\lvert \frac{\frac{\partial}{\partial r}v(x,r,t)}{e^{2r} v^2(x,r,t)}\right\rvert \leq \frac{4(1+C_\tau)}{t}.
$$
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{thm:bound_on_A}
There exists a constant $B_\tau' \geq 1$ depending on $\tau$ only such that for all $x \in M \setminus E(t)$ and all $s \in [0, \sigma]$, we have
$$
|A_{t,s}f(x)| \leq B_\tau' ({\widehat S}(f) + \|f\|_\infty+ \|Xf\|_\infty) t^{-\gamma},
$$
where ${\widehat S}(f)$ is a Sobolev norm of $f$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By the commutation relations between $h_t$ and $\phi^X_r$, it follows that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
A_{t,s}f(x) &= \int_0^s \frac{\tau f}{\tau} \circ h^{\tau}_t \circ \phi^X_r(x) \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} r = \int_0^s \frac{(\tau f)\circ \phi^X_r \circ h_{e^ru(x_r,t)}(x) }{\tau \circ h^{\tau}_t (x_r)}\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} r \\
&= \int_0^s \frac{(\tau f) \circ h_{e^ru(x_r,t)}(x) }{\tau \circ h^{\tau}_t (x_r)}\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} r + \int_0^s \frac{[(\tau f)\circ \phi^X_r - (\tau f)] \circ h_{e^ru(x_r,t)}(x) }{\tau \circ h^{\tau}_t (x_r)}\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} r.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Since $\|(\tau f) \circ \phi^X_r - (\tau f)\|_\infty \leq \sigma \|X(\tau f)\|_\infty$, it follows that
$$
|A_{t,s}f(x)| \leq \left\lvert \int_0^s \frac{(\tau f) \circ h_{e^ru(x_r,t)}(x) }{\tau \circ h^{\tau}_t \circ \phi^X_r(x)}\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} r \right\rvert + m_\tau \sigma^2 \|X(\tau f)\|_{\infty}.
$$
By the choice of $\sigma = t^{-\gamma/2}$, the second summand satisfies the desired bound. It remains to estimate the first term in the right hand-side above.
We multiply and divide by $e^r v(x,r,t)$ so that, using Lemma \ref{thm:change_variab}, by an integration by parts and a change of variable, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\int_0^s \frac{(\tau f) \circ h_{e^ru(x_r,t)}(x) }{\tau \circ h^{\tau}_t \circ \phi^X_r(x)}\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} r =& \int_0^s (\tau f) \circ h_{e^ru(x_r,t)}(x) \frac{\partial}{\partial r} \left(e^r u(x_r,t) \right) \frac{1}{e^rv(x,r,t)} \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} r \\
=& \frac{1}{e^sv(x,s,t)} \left(\int_{u(x,t)}^{e^su(x_s,t)} (\tau f) \circ h_r(x) \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} r\right) \\
& - \int_0^s \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial r} \frac{1}{e^rv(x,r,t)} \right) \left( \int_{u(x,t)}^{e^ru(x_r,t)} (\tau f) \circ h_{\ell}(x) \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} \ell \right) \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} r.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Therefore, by Lemma \ref{thm:d_1_on_v} and \eqref{eq:v_geq_t},
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\left\lvert \int_0^s \frac{(\tau f) \circ h_{e^ru(x_r,t)}(x) }{\tau \circ h^{\tau}_t \circ \phi^X_r(x)}\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} r \right\rvert \leq & \frac{2}{t} \left\lvert \int_{0}^{e^su(x_s,t) - u(x,t)} (\tau f) \circ h_r(h^{\tau}_t(x)) \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} r\right\rvert \\
&+ \sigma \frac{C_\tau'}{t} \sup_{r\in [0,\sigma]} \left\lvert \int_{0}^{e^ru(x_r,t) - u(x,t)} (\tau f) \circ h_\ell (h^{\tau}_t(x)) \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} \ell \right\rvert.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
We consider two possible cases: if $r \in [0,\sigma]$ is such that $|e^ru(x_r,t) - u(x,t)|\leq t_0 =\sqrt{t}$, then, clearly,
$$
\left\lvert \int_{0}^{e^ru(x_r,t) - u(x,t)} (\tau f) \circ h_\ell (h^{\tau}_t(x)) \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} \ell \right\rvert \leq \|\tau f\|_\infty \sqrt{t}.
$$
Otherwise, if $|e^ru(x_r,t) - u(x,t)| > t_0$, then, since by assumption $h^{\tau}_t(x) \notin E(\tau f, t_0)$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\left\lvert \int_{0}^{e^ru(x_r,t) - u(x,t)} (\tau f) \circ h_\ell (h^{\tau}_t(x)) \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} \ell \right\rvert &\leq {\widetilde B} (S(\tau f) + \|\tau f\|_\infty) |e^ru(x_r,t) - u(x,t)|^{1-\gamma} \\
&\leq {\widetilde B}m_\tau (e+1) (S(\tau f) + \|\tau f\|_\infty) t^{1-\gamma}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
It is possible to find a Sobolev norm ${\widehat S}$ such that $S(\tau f) \leq {\widehat S}(f){\widehat S}(\tau)$ (see, e.g., \cite[\S2.2]{BEG}). Therefore, in either of the previous cases, we conclude
$$
|A_{t,s}f(x)| \leq B_\tau' ({\widehat S}(f) + \|f\|_\infty + \|Xf\|_\infty)t^{-\gamma},
$$
for a constant $B_\tau'$ which depends on $\tau$ only.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[{End of the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main}}]
Since $f,g \in \mathscr{C}^{\infty}_c(M)$, then $f,g \in L^2(M, \mu^\tau)$.
Without loss of generality, we can assume that $f$ has zero average with respect to $\mu^\tau$, namely $\mu^\tau(f) = \mu(\tau f) =0$.
By Lemma \ref{thm:mix_via_s} and \eqref{eq:L2norm_A}, we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\left\lvert \int_M f \circ h^{\tau} \cdot g \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} \mu^{\tau} \right\rvert &\leq \left( \|\tau g \|_2 + \|X(\tau g) \|_2 \right) \frac{ 1 }{\sigma} \sup_{s \in [0,\sigma]} \|A_{t,s} f\|_2 \\
&\leq \left( \|\tau g \|_2 + \|X(\tau g) \|_2 \right) \left( (C_v+m_\tau^2)\|f\|_{\infty} t^{-\gamma/2} + t^{\gamma/2} \sup_{x \in M\setminus E(t)} |A_{t,s}f(x)| \right).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
By Proposition \ref{thm:bound_on_A}, we conclude
$$
\left\lvert \int_M f \circ h^{\tau} \cdot g \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} \mu^{\tau} \right\rvert \leq B_\tau \widetilde{S}(f) \widetilde{S}(g) t^{-\gamma/2},
$$
where $\widetilde{S}(\cdot ) = \widehat{S}(\cdot ) + \|\cdot\|_\infty + \|X( \cdot)\|_\infty$ and $B_\tau$ is a constant depending on $\tau$ only.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
I would like to thank Mauro Artigiani, Giovanni Forni, and Corinna Ulcigrai for several useful discussions and for their comments on a previous version of the paper. This research was partially funded by the Australian Research Council.
|
\section{Conclusion}
We present NeuralAnnot, a neural annotator that learns to construct expressive 3D human pose and mesh training sets.
Our NeuralAnnot is trained on entire datasets by considering multiple samples together, thus highly robust to the local minima and takes much shorter annotation time.
Moreover, 3D supervisions from the auxiliary datasets decrease the depth ambiguity.
The pseudo-GTs from NeuralAnnot are demonstrated to be highly beneficial as the training sets for expressive 3D human pose and mesh estimation.
We will release the newly obtained pseudo-GTs of not only datasets we used but also other various existing 2D/3D human pose and mesh datasets, not included in the paper.
\section{Experiment}
\subsection{Datasets}\noindent
\noindent\textbf{Datasets.}
For the body part, we use Human3.6M~\cite{ionescu2014human3}, MPI-INF-3DHP~\cite{mehta2017monocular}, and 3DPW~\cite{von2018recovering} as the auxiliary datasets.
For the hand part, FreiHAND~\cite{Freihand2019} and InterHand2.6M~\cite{moon2020interhand2} are used as the auxiliary dataset.
For all parts, we use the whole-body version of MSCOCO~\cite{lin2014microsoft,jin2020whole} as the target in-the-wild dataset.
The expressive 3D pseudo-GTs are obtained by integrating part-specific ones of MSCOCO~\cite{lin2014microsoft,jin2020whole}.
\subsection{Evaluation metrics}~\label{sec:metric}
\noindent\textbf{Annotation time.}
The annotation time represents how much time is required for the whole annotation procedure.
For a fair comparison, the annotation time of the optimization-based annotators~\cite{bogo2016keep,pavlakos2019expressive} is measured from a quarter of all data samples as NeuralAnnot uses four GPUs for the training.
The annotation time of NeuralAnnot is a summation of training and testing time, and we set the mini-batch size to 1 during the testing stage to simulate the per-sample optimization of the optimization-based annotators~\cite{bogo2016keep,pavlakos2019expressive}.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{fig/neuralannot_input.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-7mm}
\caption{Qualitative comparison of 3D hand/body pseudo-GTs between models with and without an image input.}
\vspace*{-5mm}
\label{fig:neuralannot_input}
\end{figure*}
\noindent\textbf{Direct 3D annotation error.}
The direct 3D annotation error is defined as the average 3D joint distance ($mm$) between GT 3D poses and the pseudo-GTs.
This metric is only applicable to datasets that provide GT 3D pose.
\noindent\textbf{Indirect 3D annotation error.}
The indirect 3D annotation error represents how much the pseudo-GTs are beneficial for the training.
The absence of the GT 3D pose of the in-the-wild datasets makes calculating the direct 3D annotation error impossible.
Alternatively, we train a state-of-the-art 3D human pose and mesh estimator, I2L-MeshMet~\cite{moon2020i2l}, on the obtained pseudo-GTs of the target in-the-wild dataset and use 3D testing errors on existing outdoor benchmarks as the indirect 3D annotation error.
3DPW~\cite{von2018recovering} and FreiHAND~\cite{Freihand2019} are used for the testing benchmarks for the body and hand parts, respectively.
We split the FreiHAND training set into training and validation sets and report the results on the validation set.
The error of the estimator is measured using the most widely used metrics, (PA) MPJPE ($mm$) and (PA) MPVPE ($mm$), and area under the curve (AUC).
We provide more analysis using different estimators in the supplementary material.
\begin{table}
\footnotesize
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.0pt}
\def1.1{1.1}
\begin{tabular}{C{3.2cm}|C{4.7cm}}
\specialrule{.1em}{.05em}{.05em}
Auxiliary datasets & Indirect 3D err. \\ \hline
\textbf{\textit{Human body part}} & \textbf{PA MPJPE}$\downarrow$ \\
None & 69.6 (Unpaired setting of SPIN~\cite{kolotouros2019learning}) \\
Human3.6M~\cite{ionescu2014human3} & 66.1 \\
3DPW~\cite{von2018recovering} & 68.0 \\
MPI-INF-3DHP~\cite{mehta2017monocular} & 65.9 \\
\textbf{All (Ours)} & \textbf{64.9} \\ \hline
\textbf{\textit{Human hand part}} & \textbf{AUC}$\uparrow$ \\
None & 0.758 (Unpaired setting of SPIN~\cite{kolotouros2019learning}) \\
FreiHAND~\cite{Freihand2019} & 0.779 \\
InterHand2.6M~\cite{moon2020interhand2} & 0.772 \\
\textbf{All (Ours)} & \textbf{0.780} \\ \specialrule{.1em}{.05em}{.05em}
\end{tabular}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\caption{
Indirect 3D annotation errors comparison between various MSCOCO pseudo-GTs of body and hand parts.
}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\label{table:ablation_3d_supervision}
\end{table}
\subsection{Ablation study}~\label{sec:ablation}
\noindent\textbf{Benefit of 3D supervisions from the auxiliary datasets.}
Table~\ref{table:ablation_3d_supervision} shows the 3D supervisions from the auxiliary datasets improve the indirect 3D annotation error.
The settings without auxiliary datasets are similar to the unpaired setting of SPIN~\cite{kolotouros2019learning}, which does not require paired images and 3D pseudo-GT fits.
The large number of unpaired 3D pseudo-GT fits are used for the low-dimensional embedded pose (\textit{i.e.}, VPoser~\cite{pavlakos2019expressive} for the body and PCA coefficients for the hand).
For each row of the table, NeuralAnnot uses the auxiliary datasets of the row and outputs pseudo-GTs of the target dataset following Algorithm~\ref{alg:neural_annot}.
By using all auxiliary datasets, NeuralAnnot achieves the best indirect 3D annotation error.
In particular, NeuralAnnot achieves much better indirect 3D annotation errors than the unpaired setting of SPIN~\cite{kolotouros2019learning}, which shows the necessity of the 3D supervisions from the auxiliary datasets.
Note that their paired setting requires initial 3D pseudo-GT fits of many datasets, which can be obtained by NeuralAnnot.
Figure~\ref{fig:aux_compare} shows the 3D supervisions are useful to alleviate the depth ambiguity.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{fig/aux_compare.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-7mm}
\caption{Qualitative comparison of 3D body pseudo-GTs between models with and without the auxiliary datasets.}
\vspace*{-5mm}
\label{fig:aux_compare}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\footnotesize
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.0pt}
\def1.1{1.1}
\begin{tabular}{C{2.7cm}|C{1.5cm}C{2.1cm}}
\specialrule{.1em}{.05em}{.05em}
Inputs & 2D err. & Indirect 3D err. \\ \hline
GT 2D pose~\cite{song2020human,choi2020p2m} & \textbf{7.2} & 69.4 \\
\textbf{Image (Ours)} & 8.1 & \textbf{65.9} \\
\specialrule{.1em}{.05em}{.05em}
\end{tabular}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\caption{
2D annotation error (pixel) and indirect 3D annotation error (PA MPJPE) comparison between MSCOCO pseudo-GTs from NeuralAnnots that take different inputs.
}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\label{table:neuralannot_input}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{fig/qualitative_comparison.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-7mm}
\caption{Qualitative comparison of expressive 3D pseudo-GT on challenging or truncated poses between NeuralAnnot and SMPLify-X.}
\vspace*{-6mm}
\label{fig:qualitative_comparison}
\end{figure*}
\noindent\textbf{Inputs of NeuralAnnot.}
Figure~\ref{fig:neuralannot_input} shows that the image input plays a significant role for the high-quality pseudo-GTs.
The top row shows the comparison between models that 1) take an image and GT 3D pose as input (ours) and 2) take only GT 3D pose on InterHand2.6M.
The comparison shows that taking an image as input is greatly helpful to recover partially missing GT 3D pose, which arises from the failure of the marker-less data capture.
The bottom row shows the comparison between models that 1) take an image as input (ours) and 2) take only GT 2D pose like Song~\etal~\cite{song2020human} on MSCOCO.
The comparison shows that a model that takes only GT 2D pose suffers from more depth ambiguity, missing annotations, and truncation.
On the other hand, the image input can provide depth order information by a body part occlusion, shadow, and perspective distortion (\textit{e.g.}, in the first column, the shadow and small size of the left knee tell us that the leg is behind the right leg).
In addition, the image input can provide contextual information, helpful when annotations are missing or truncated.
Table~\ref{table:neuralannot_input} further shows that pseudo-GTs from the image input achieves the lowest indirect 3D annotation error.
We observed that using both an image and GT 2D pose as inputs marginally affects the indirect 3D error of a model that takes an image as an input.
We think this is because the GT 2D pose does not carry depth information.
The 2D annotation error is a pixel distance between GT 2D pose and the projected 2D pose from the pseudo-GTs.
\begin{table}
\footnotesize
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.0pt}
\def1.1{1.1}
\begin{tabular}{C{2.5cm}|C{1.6cm}C{1.0cm}|C{1.6cm}C{1.0cm}}
\specialrule{.1em}{.05em}{.05em}
\multirow{2}{*}{Datasets} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{SMPLify-X~\cite{pavlakos2019expressive}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{NeuralAnnot (Ours)}} \\
& Direct 3D err. & Time & Direct 3D err. & Time \\ \hline
\textbf{\textit{Human body part}} & & & & \\
Human3.6M~\cite{ionescu2014human3} & 13.1 & 12 days & \textbf{8.5} & \textbf{7 hours} \\
MPI-INF-3DHP~\cite{mehta2017monocular} & 17.9 & 5 days & \textbf{12.2} & \textbf{3 hours} \\ \hline
\textbf{\textit{Human hand part}} & & & & \\
InterHand2.6M~\cite{moon2020interhand2} & 10.0 & 3 days & \textbf{5.8} & \textbf{2 hours} \\
\specialrule{.1em}{.05em}{.05em}
\end{tabular}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\caption{The direct 3D annotation error and annotation time comparison between SMPLify-X and our NeuralAnnot on various datasets.}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\label{table:compare_3ddb_3dpose}
\end{table}
\subsection{Comparison with previous annotators}\noindent~\label{sec:comparison_annotator}
\textbf{3D pseudo-GT fits of datasets with GT 3D pose.}
Table~\ref{table:compare_3ddb_3dpose} and Figure~\ref{fig:annot_time_comparison} show that NeuralAnnot requires much less annotation time, while achieving lower direct 3D annotation error than SMPLify-X~\cite{pavlakos2019expressive} on various datasets that provide GT 3D pose.
The better performance is from the training on entire datasets by considering multiple samples together, while SMPLify-X optimizes their framework on each sample independently.
Moreover, NeuralAnnot can recover pseudo-GTs from partially missing and noisy GT 3D pose by utilizing image features, as shown in the first row of Figure~\ref{fig:neuralannot_input}, while SMPLify-X cannot as it only utilizes GT 3D pose without the image input.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{fig/annot_time_comparison.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-8mm}
\caption{The annotation time comparison between SMPLify-X and NeuralAnnot on Human3.6M.}
\vspace*{-5mm}
\label{fig:annot_time_comparison}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{fig/smplifyx_prior.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-7mm}
\caption{Qualitative comparison of expressive 3D pseudo-GTs between NeuralAnnot and SMPLify-X with various prior weights.}
\vspace*{-5mm}
\label{fig:smplifyx_prior}
\end{figure*}
Both SMPLify-X and NeuralAnnot annotate 3D pseudo-GT fits using the GT 3D pose of the dataset.
We ran both on only one view and uniformly sampled Human3.6M and MPI-INF-3DHP by 5 and 3 frames, respectively, following previous training set protocol~\cite{kanazawa2018end,kolotouros2019convolutional,kolotouros2019learning,moon2020i2l}.
Therefore, the total numbers of samples of Human3.6M, MPI-INF-3DHP, and InterHand2.6M are 106K, 44K, and 37K, respectively.
As described in Section~\ref{sec:metric}, the annotation times of SMPLify-X are measured from a quarter of the above number of samples.
The 2D/3D coordinates of other views can be obtained by applying the camera parameters provided in the dataset.
We modified SMPLify-X to optimize it to GT 3D poses as the original one does not consider the 3D pose during the optimization, where its modifications are described in the supplementary material.
\begin{table}
\footnotesize
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.0pt}
\def1.1{1.1}
\begin{tabular}{C{2.6cm}|C{0.8cm}C{0.9cm}C{1.8cm}C{1.8cm}}
\specialrule{.1em}{.05em}{.05em}
Annotators & 2D err. & Time & Indirect 3D err. & Use in-the-wild 3D pseudo-GTs \\ \hline
\textbf{\textit{Human body part}} & & & \textbf{PA MPJPE}$\downarrow$ & \\
SMPLify~\cite{bogo2016keep} & 6.9 & - & 81.7 & \xmark \\
SMPLify-X~\cite{pavlakos2019expressive} & \textbf{4.0} & 6 days & 78.7 & \xmark \\
SPIN~\cite{kolotouros2019learning} & 4.8 & 30 days & 75.4 & \cmark \\
EFT~\cite{joo2020exemplar} & 5.7 & 30 days & 69.0 & \cmark \\
\textbf{NeuralAnnot} \textbf{(Ours)} & 6.5 & \textbf{2 days} & \textbf{64.9} & \xmark \\ \hline
\textbf{\textit{Human hand part}} & & & \textbf{AUC}$\uparrow$ & \\
SMPLify-X~\cite{pavlakos2019expressive} & \textbf{6.3} & 4 days & 0.731 & \xmark \\
\textbf{NeuralAnnot (Ours)} & 12.5 & \textbf{9 hours} & \textbf{0.780} & \xmark \\
\specialrule{.1em}{.05em}{.05em}
\end{tabular}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\caption{The 2D annotation error (pixel), annotation time, and indirect 3D annotation errors comparison between MSCOCO pseudo-GTs from various annotators.}
\vspace*{-5mm}
\label{table:compare_2ddb}
\end{table}
\noindent\textbf{3D pseudo-GT fits of in-the-wild datasets.}
Table~\ref{table:compare_2ddb} shows that pseudo-GTs from our NeuralAnnot achieve the lowest indirect 3D annotation error and the shortest annotation time.
SMPLify-X achieves the smallest 2D annotation errors, while its indirect 3D annotation errors are high.
This shows pseudo-GTs of SMPLify-X suffer from depth ambiguity as it relies on only 2D supervisions for the annotation.
Figure~\ref{fig:qualitative_comparison} shows that SMPLify-X fails when the target image's pose is far from the initial T-pose, or there is truncation.
We resolve this issue by training NeuralAnnot on entire datasets with 3D supervisions from the auxiliary datasets.
Figure~\ref{fig:smplifyx_prior} shows that simply changing hyper-parameters of SMPLify-X cannot improve its results on challenging poses.
SPIN~\cite{kolotouros2019learning} and EFT~\cite{joo2020exemplar} require initial 3D pseudo-GTs of in-the-wild datasets~\cite{lin2014microsoft,johnson2010clustered,johnson2011learning,andriluka14cvpr} for the training, while ours do not require.
They obtained the initial 3D pseudo-GTs using SMPLify-X~\cite{pavlakos2019expressive}; however, our NeuralAnnot can be used to provide better ones much faster.
We think the reason for our better indirect 3D errors than SPIN and EFT is that their per-sample optimizations (\textit{i.e.}, fitting-in-the-loop of SPIN and exemplar fine-tuning of EFT) rely only on 2D supervisions and priors without 3D supervisions.
We could not compare ours with Song~\etal~\cite{song2020human} directly as their fits are not available; however, Table~\ref{table:neuralannot_input} and Figure~\ref{fig:neuralannot_input} show the validity of taking an image as input compared with taking only pose as an input like them.
Figure~\ref{fig:failure_cases} shows failure cases of NeuralAnnot on in-the-wild images, which mostly arise from the depth ambiguity.
The close body parts (first row) and challenging viewpoints (second row) are remaining hurdles to overcome, and we think capturing auxiliary datasets that contain those situations can be one of the solutions.
We used SMPLify~\cite{bogo2016keep} fits, released by Kolotouros~\etal~\cite{kolotouros2019learning}.
The SMPLify-X fits are obtained from officially released codes, which optimizes the latent code of VPoser and PCA coefficients for the body and hand part, respectively, like ours.
We used officially released SPIN~\cite{kolotouros2019learning} and EFT~\cite{joo2020exemplar} fits.
The EFT fine-tunes pre-trained SPIN~\cite{kolotouros2019learning} on each training sample.
As SPIN uses initial 3D pseudo-GTs, obtained by SMPLify-X, of Human3.6M, MPI-INF-3DHP, MSCOCO, MPII~\cite{andriluka20142d}, and LSP~\cite{johnson2010clustered,johnson2011learning} for the training, we calculated the annotation time of the SPIN and EFT by a summation of 1) SMPLify-X optimization time on the datasets for the initial 3D pseudo-GTs, 2) training time of SPIN, and 3) sample-specific fine-tuning, where the last step is included only for EFT.
Each step takes 12+5+6+4+1 days, 2 days, and several hours, respectively.
The annotation time of NeuralAnnot is a total time of Algorithm~\ref{alg:neural_annot}, which includes the annotation time of the auxiliary datasets and the target dataset.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{fig/failure_cases.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-7mm}
\caption{Failure cases of NeuralAnnot.}
\vspace*{-5mm}
\label{fig:failure_cases}
\end{figure}
\section{Expressive 3D pseudo-GT fits}~\label{sec:expressive}
For the expressive 3D pseudo-GTs, we design separated networks for the body and hand parts, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:expressive_pipeline}, where the networks are trained independently.
This separation enables us to obtain part-specific pseudo-GTs as well as expressive ones.
\noindent\textbf{Body part.}
The body part predicts SMPL/SMPL-X parameters, including 3D body global rotation $\theta^g_b \in \mathbb{R}^3$, 3D body rotations $\theta_b \in \mathbb{R}^{21 \times 3}$, shape parameter $\beta_b \in \mathbb{R}^{10}$, and camera parameter $k_b \in \mathbb{R}^3$.
It predicts SMPL parameters when we want only body part pseudo-GTs.
We set $\Theta$ to $\{\theta_b, \beta_b\}$ and $\{z_b, \beta_b\}$ when training NeuralAnnot to minimize $L_\text{ax}$ and $L_\text{tg}$, respectively.
$z_b$ denotes the latent code of the VPoser~\cite{pavlakos2019expressive}.
\noindent\textbf{Hand part.}
The hand part outputs MANO parameters, including 3D hand global rotation $\theta^g_h \in \mathbb{R}^3$, 3D hand rotations $\theta_h \in \mathbb{R}^{15 \times 3}$, shape parameter $\beta_h \in \mathbb{R}^{10}$, and camera parameter $k_h \in \mathbb{R}^3$.
All hand images are flipped to the right hands, and we flip back the estimated pseudo-GTs of the left hands.
We set $\Theta$ to $\{\theta_h, \beta_h\}$ and $\{z_h, \beta_h\}$ when training NeuralAnnot to minimize $L_\text{ax}$ and $L_\text{tg}$, respectively.
$z_h$ denotes the 3D hand pose PCA coefficients, defined in MANO.
\noindent\textbf{Face part.}
For the face, we use SMPLify-X~\cite{pavlakos2019expressive} to obtain pseudo-GT 3D face model parameter instead of using NeuralAnnot because not complicated articulations of the face make SMPLify-X work well.
We modified SMPLify-X to fit FLAME on GT 2D face keypoints.
The original loss functions, including keypoint loss and a set of priors, are used for the fitting.
It optimizes 3D face global rotation $\theta^g_f \in \mathbb{R}^3$, 3D jaw rotation $\theta_f \in \mathbb{R}^3$, shape parameter $\beta_f \in \mathbb{R}^{10}$, and expression code $\psi \in \mathbb{R}^{10}$.
\noindent\textbf{Integration to expressive 3D pseudo-GTs.}
After obtaining the part-specific pseudo-GTs, the final expressive 3D pseudo-GTs are obtained by forwarding $\{\theta^g_b, \theta_b, \beta_b, \theta^g_{rh}, \theta_{rh}, \theta^g_{lh}, \theta_{lh}, \theta_f, \psi\}$ to SMPL-X, where $*_{rh}$ and $*_{lh}$ denote $*$ is from right and left hand, respectively.
The 3D hand pose parameter $\theta_h$ of MANO and 3D jaw rotation $\theta_f$ and face expression code $\psi$ of FLAME are compatible with those of SMPL-X; thus, we use them for the final expressive 3D pseudo-GTs.
As the body part often predicts wrong rotations of elbows and wrists in the roll axis, we selectively use the 3D hand global rotation $\theta^g_h$ to replace rotations of the elbows and wrists based on a simple heuristic described in the supplementary material.
\section{Implementation details}
PyTorch~\cite{paszke2017automatic} is used for implementation.
The backbone part is initialized with the publicly released ResNet50~\cite{he2016deep}, pre-trained on ImageNet~\cite{russakovsky2015imagenet}.
The weights are updated by the Adam optimizer~\cite{kingma2014adam} with a mini-batch size of 192.
Each mini-batch consists of half samples from the auxiliary datasets and half samples from the target in-the-wild dataset.
All input images are cropped using groundtruth box and resized to 256$\times$256.
No data augmentation is performed.
The initial learning rate is set to $10^{-4}$ and reduced by a factor of 10 when it converges.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{fig/expressive_pipeline.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-7mm}
\caption{The pipeline for the expressive 3D pseudo-GTs.}
\vspace*{-5mm}
\label{fig:expressive_pipeline}
\end{figure}
\section{Introduction}
Expressive 3D human pose and mesh estimation aims to localize joints and mesh vertices of all human parts, including body, hands, and face, simultaneously in the 3D space.
By combining 3D pose and mesh of all human parts, we can understand not only human articulation and shape but also human intention and feeling, which can be useful in motion capture, virtual/augmented reality, and human action recognition.
However, this is a very challenging task because of the complicated human body and hand articulations and the absence of an in-the-wild training set.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig/intro_compare.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-7mm}
\caption{3D human body pseudo-GT fit obtaining methods comparison.
(a) and (b): NeuralAnnot and SMPLify-X can obtain 3D pseudo-GT fits from GT 2D pose without 3D pseudo-GT fits of in-the-wild datasets.
(c): SPIN and EFT require initial 3D pseudo-GT fits of many datasets~\cite{ionescu2014human3,mehta2017monocular,lin2014microsoft,andriluka14cvpr,johnson2010clustered,johnson2011learning}, including in-the-wild datasets, for the training.
It used the outputs of SMPLify-X as the initial 3D pseudo-GT fits; however, our NeuralAnnot can provide better ones.
\textbf{Therefore, our direct comparison target is SMPLify-X.}
(d): The obtained 3D pseudo-GT fits are used to train 3D estimators~\cite{kanazawa2018end,kolotouros2019convolutional,moon2020i2l}.
}
\vspace*{-5mm}
\label{fig:intro_compare}
\end{figure}
The 3D human pose and mesh data are usually obtained by fitting a 3D human model (\textit{e.g.}, SMPL~\cite{loper2015smpl} for body, MANO~\cite{romero2017embodied} for hands, FLAME~\cite{li2017learning} for face, or SMPL-X~\cite{pavlakos2019expressive} for all parts) to target data, such as 2D/3D pose or 3D point cloud.
The 3D fits additionally contain 3D rotations of human joints and 3D human model parameters (\textit{e.g.}, latent codes of body shape and facial expression) compared with the above target data.
Well-calibrated cameras or markers can provide 3D target data; however, setting those equipment takes high costs and efforts, which makes capturing the 3D target data from daily life at any time and any place very hard.
Thus, most of the datasets that provide the 3D target data~\cite{ionescu2014human3,mehta2017monocular,joo2015panoptic,yu2020humbi,moon2020interhand2} are captured in special environments, such as multi-view studio, which have limited image appearance.
Recent 3DPW dataset~\cite{von2018recovering} obtained 3D human model fits from outdoor using 2D pose detections and IMU sensors; however, the appearance and pose diversity and the data scale are limited due to the difficulty of the capture.
Alternatively, optimization-based methods~\cite{bogo2016keep,pavlakos2019expressive} have been widely used to obtain 3D fits from in-the-wild images, which serve as pseudo-GT 3D poses and meshes.
They perform a per-sample optimization, which fits a 3D human model to the GT 2D pose of each sample independently, only using 2D supervisions.
Although they work well when the target pose is similar to the initial one and has a small depth ambiguity, such as 3D face fitting, they often produce inaccurate and implausible 3D body/hand fits.
Also, they suffer from a long running time.
The first reason for the limitations is that their per-sample optimization considers each sample independently; therefore, it takes a large amount of time when there are many samples and can be easily stuck in local minima.
Second, their frameworks are optimized using only 2D supervisions and heavily rely on prior terms to prevent implausible poses.
Complicated articulations of the human body and hand make the optimization hard without using 3D supervisions.
To overcome the limitations of the optimization-based methods, we present \emph{NeuralAnnot}, a neural annotator that learns to construct in-the-wild expressive 3D human pose and mesh training sets.
Our NeuralAnnot takes a single RGB image and outputs 3D human model parameters~\cite{loper2015smpl,romero2017embodied,pavlakos2019expressive}, which becomes a 3D pseudo-GT fit of the input image.
It is trained on entire datasets, not on each sample independently, by updating its learnable weights from multiple samples.
Therefore, NeuralAnnot takes a much shorter running time while it is much more robust to the local minima.
In addition, our NeuralAnnot is jointly trained using 2D supervisions from a target in-the-wild dataset and 3D supervisions from auxiliary datasets.
We use datasets that provide GT 3D pose but captured from restricted lab environments as the auxiliary datasets.
Under the joint training, 2D supervisions from the in-the-wild dataset make NeuralAnnot generalize well to diverse image appearance, and 3D supervisions from the auxiliary dataset make NeuralAnnot learn how to recover depth information from the 2D input.
Figure~\ref{fig:intro_compare} shows 3D human body pseudo-GT fit obtaining methods comparison.
As NeuralAnnot and SMPLify-X~\cite{pavlakos2019expressive} produce 3D pseudo-GT fits without 3D fits of in-the-wild datasets, our direct comparison target is SMPLify-X.
We will release the newly obtained pseudo-GTs of in-the-wild dataset~\cite{lin2014microsoft,jin2020whole} and codes for the continual study of expressive 3D human pose and mesh estimation in the wild.
In addition, we will apply NeuralAnnot to most of the existing human body/hand/face datasets~\cite{lin2014microsoft,andriluka20142d,andriluka2018posetrack,zhang2013actemes,johnson2010clustered,ionescu2014human3,mehta2017monocular,moon2020interhand2,mehta2018single,von2018recovering,karras2019style} and release all 3D pseudo-GT fits.
Our contributions can be summarized as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item We present NeuralAnnot, a neural annotator that learns to construct in-the-wild expressive 3D human pose and mesh training sets.
Our NeuralAnnot is trained on entire datasets by considering multiple samples together with additional 3D supervisions from the auxiliary datasets.
\item Our NeuralAnnot produces far better 3D pseudo-GT fits with a much shorter running time than previous optimization-based methods, and the newly obtained training set brings great performance gain.
\item The newly obtained pseudo-GT expressive and part-specific 3D human poses and meshes will be publicly released.
We believe the new pseudo-GTs will be highly beneficial to the community.
\end{itemize}
\section{NeuralAnnot}
NeuralAnnot predicts 3D human model parameters $\Theta$ from a single image $\mathbf{I}$.
We design NeuralAnnot as a simple combination of ResNet~\cite{he2016deep} and a regressor, which extracts image feature vector $\mathbf{F}$ and regresses a set of 3D human model parameters $\Theta$, respectively.
$\mathbf{F}$ is obtained by performing global average pooling on the ResNet output feature.
The regressor consists of several fully connected layers, and the 3D human model parameter set is different for each human model, which will be described in Section~\ref{sec:expressive}.
The 3D human pose and mesh can be obtained from $\Theta$ using 3D human models~\cite{loper2015smpl,pavlakos2019expressive,romero2017embodied,li2017learning}.
The procedure of the neural annotation is described in Algorithm~\ref{alg:neural_annot}.
NeuralAnnot is jointly trained on a target in-the-wild dataset with GT 2D pose $\mathcal{D}_\text{tg}=\{(\mathbf{I}_s,\mathbf{P}_s^\text{2D})\}_{s=1}^{S_\text{tg}}$ and auxiliary datasets with GT 3D pose
$\mathcal{D}_\text{ax}=\{\mathcal{D}_{\text{ax},n}\}_{n=1}^{N_\text{ax}}$.
$S_\text{tg}$ and $N_\text{ax}$ denote the number of data samples in $\mathcal{D}_\text{tg}$ and the number of auxiliary datasets, respectively, and $\mathcal{D}_{\text{ax},n}=\{(\mathbf{I}_s,\mathbf{P}_s^\text{2D},\mathbf{P}_s^\text{3D})\}_{s=1}^{S_{\text{ax},n}}$.
$\mathbf{I}$, $\mathbf{P}^\text{2D}$, $\mathbf{P}^\text{3D}$, and $S_{\text{ax},n}$ denote image, GT 2D pose, GT 3D pose, and the number of data samples in $\mathcal{D}_{\text{ax},n}$, respectively.
To this end, we first obtain pseudo-GT 3D human model parameters of the auxiliary datasets, thus $\mathcal{D}_\text{ax}$ becomes $\mathcal{D}_\text{ax}^*=\{\mathcal{D}_{\text{ax},n}^*\}_{n=1}^{N_\text{ax}}$, where $\mathcal{D}_{\text{ax},n}^*=\{\mathcal{S}^\frown \Theta^* | \mathcal{S} \in \mathcal{D}_{\text{ax},n} \}$.
Then, the auxiliary datasets with the obtained pseudo-GTs $\mathcal{D}_\text{ax}^*$ are used to obtain pseudo-GT 3D human model parameters of the target in-the-wild dataset, thus $\mathcal{D}_\text{tg}$ becomes $\mathcal{D}_\text{tg}^*=\{\mathcal{S}^\frown \Theta^* | \mathcal{S} \in \mathcal{D}_\text{tg}\}$, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:overall_pipeline}.
$^\frown$ and $\Theta^*$ denote tuple extension\footnote{$(a,b)^\frown c = (a,b,c)$} and predicted 3D human model parameters from $\mathbf{I}$ in $\mathcal{S}$ after the training, which is a 3D pseudo-GT fit, respectively.
We provide detailed descriptions of how to obtain pseudo-GT 3D human pose and mesh from the auxiliary and target datasets below.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{Neural annotation}
\label{alg:neural_annot}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Input $\mathcal{D}_\text{ax}$: Auxiliary datasets with GT 3D pose
\Input $\mathcal{D}_\text{tg}$: Target in-the-wild dataset with GT 2D pose
\Output $\mathcal{D}_\text{ax}^*$: $\mathcal{D}_\text{ax}$ and predicted pseudo-GTs
\Output $\mathcal{D}_\text{tg}^*$: $\mathcal{D}_\text{tg}$ and predicted pseudo-GTs
\For{$n \gets 1$ to $N_\text{ax}$}
\State Randomly initialize NeuralAnnot
\State Train NeuralAnnot on $\mathcal{D}_{\text{ax},n}$ by minimizing $L_\text{ax}$
\State Test NeuralAnnot on all images of $\mathcal{D}_{\text{ax},n}$
\State $\mathcal{D}_{\text{ax},n}^*=\{\mathcal{S}^\frown \Theta^* | \mathcal{S} \in \mathcal{D}_{\text{ax},n} \}$
\EndFor
\State Randomly initialize NeuralAnnot
\State Train NeuralAnnot on $\mathcal{D}_\text{tg}$ and $\mathcal{D}_\text{ax}^*$ by minimizing $L_\text{tg}$
\State Test NeuralAnnot on all images of $\mathcal{D}_\text{tg}$
\State $\mathcal{D}_\text{tg}^*=\{\mathcal{S}^\frown \Theta^* | \mathcal{S} \in \mathcal{D}_\text{tg}\}$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{3D pseudo-GT fits of datasets with GT 3D pose}
The regressor takes a pair of image feature $\mathbf{F}$ and GT 3D pose $\mathbf{P}^\text{3D}$ when NeuralAnnot is trained to predict pseudo-GTs of the auxiliary datasets that provide GT 3D pose $\mathcal{D}_\text{ax}$~\cite{ionescu2014human3,mehta2017monocular,moon2020interhand2}.
The image feature provides human articulation and shape information, while GT 3D pose additionally provides depth and real scale information, which lacks in the 2D image feature.
To this end, the GT 3D pose $\mathbf{P}^\text{3D}$ is converted to a 512-dimensional feature by two fully connected layers and concatenated with global average pooled ResNet output feature $\mathbf{F}$.
The concatenated feature is fed to a fully connected layer for the 3D human model parameter regression.
The 3D rotations of joints in the predicted 3D human model parameters are initially predicted in a 6D rotational representation of Zhou~\etal~\cite{zhou2019continuity} and converted to a 3D axis-angle rotation.
The loss function is defined as follows:
\begin{equation*}
L_\text{ax} = \| \hat{\mathbf{P}}^\text{3D} - \mathbf{P}^\text{3D} \|_1 + \sum_{\theta \in \Theta}{\lambda_{\text{ax},\theta}\hat{\theta}^2},
\vspace*{-2mm}
\end{equation*}
where the hat mark indicates a predicted output.
$\hat{\mathbf{P}}^\text{3D}$ is obtained from 3D human model layer.
$\lambda_{\text{ax},\theta}$ denotes $L2$ norm regularizer weight of each 3D human parameter $\theta$.
The $L2$ norm regularizer prevents implausible 3D human pose and mesh.
After the training, the testing results on all images of the dataset become new pseudo-GTs of the dataset, which form $\mathcal{D}_{\text{ax},\bullet}^*$.
\subsection{3D pseudo-GT fits of in-the-wild datasets}
The regressor outputs 3D human model parameters from the image feature $\mathbf{F}$ when NeuralAnnot is trained to predict pseudo-GTs of in-the-wild datasets that do not provide GT 3D pose $\mathcal{D}_\text{tg}$~\cite{lin2014microsoft}.
The most important contribution of our NeuralAnnot is that we use the auxiliary datasets with the obtained pseudo-GTs $\mathcal{D}_\text{ax}^*$ for the pseudo-GTs of a target in-the-wild dataset $\mathcal{D}_\text{tg}$.
To this end, we make a mini-batch of each iteration from multiple datasets, including the auxiliary datasets $\mathcal{D}_\text{ax}^*$ and the target in-the-wild dataset $\mathcal{D}_\text{tg}$.
Thus, our NeuralAnnot is jointly trained on the auxiliary datasets and target in-the-wild dataset and can benefit from the 3D supervisions from the auxiliary datasets.
Although samples from the auxiliary datasets can benefit NeuralAnnot by the 3D supervisions, samples from the target in-the-wild datasets are supervised only using GT 2D pose.
To prevent implausible 3D human pose and mesh induced by the 2D supervisions, NeuralAnnot predicts a low-dimensional embedding of the 3D rotations (\textit{i.e.}, a latent code of VPoser~\cite{pavlakos2019expressive} for the body part and PCA coefficients for the hand part~\cite{romero2017embodied}), following SMPLify-X~\cite{pavlakos2019expressive}, unlike directly predicting 3D rotations when trained to output pseudo-GTs of the auxiliary datasets $\mathcal{D}_\text{ax}$.
The low-dimensional embedding can effectively limit the 3D human pose and mesh to plausible articulation space, thus can prevent implausible 3D human pose and mesh.
Note that the low-dimensional embeddings can be learned from $\mathcal{D}_{\text{ax}}^*$, if not available.
The loss function is defined as follows:
\begin{align*}
L_\text{tg} = \| \hat{\mathbf{P}}^\text{2D} - \mathbf{P}^\text{2D} \|_1 + \numberbb{1}_\text{tg}\sum_{\theta \in \Theta}{\lambda_{\text{tg},\theta}\hat{\theta}^2} + \\ (1 - \numberbb{1}_\text{tg})(\| \hat{\mathbf{P}}^\text{3D} - \mathbf{P}^\text{3D} \|_1 + \sum_{\theta \in \Theta}{\|\hat{\theta} - \theta^*\|_1}),
\vspace*{-2mm}
\end{align*}
where the hat mark indicates a predicted output.
$\theta^*$ is from $\Theta^*$.
$\lambda_{\text{tg},\theta}$ denotes $L2$ norm regularizer weight of each 3D human model parameter $\theta$ for samples from the target in-the-wild dataset.
The $L2$ norm regularizer prevents implausible 3D human pose and mesh.
$\numberbb{1}_\text{tg}$ is 1 when a sample is from target in-the-wild dataset $\mathcal{D}_\text{tg}$ and zero otherwise.
After the training, the testing results on all images of the target in-the-wild dataset become new pseudo-GTs of the dataset, which form $\mathcal{D}_\text{tg}^*$.
\section{Related works}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{fig/overall_pipeline.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-7mm}
\caption{Overall pipeline of NeuralAnnot.
(a) We first train NeuralAnnot on the auxiliary datasets that provide GT 3D pose.
(b) After the training, testing results on the auxiliary datasets become 3D pseudo-GT fits of the datasets.
(c) Another NeuralAnnot is jointly trained on the auxiliary datasets with the 3D pseudo-GT fits and the target in-the-wild dataset.
(d) After the training, testing results on the target in-the-wild dataset become 3D pseudo-GT fits of the dataset.
}
\vspace*{-5mm}
\label{fig:overall_pipeline}
\end{figure*}
\noindent\textbf{Training sets for 3D human pose and mesh estimation.}
There are two types of training sets for 3D human pose and mesh estimation.
Datasets of the first type~\cite{lin2014microsoft,andriluka14cvpr,johnson2010clustered,johnson2011learning} are captured in the wild without special devices, such as calibrated cameras and markers.
As no special devices are required, those datasets contain images with diverse appearance with GT 2D pose, usually obtained by manual human annotations.
However, due to the depth and scale ambiguity, a single view image in those datasets cannot provide GT 3D pose.
Datasets of the second type~\cite{ionescu2014human3,mehta2017monocular,Freihand2019,moon2020interhand2,joo2015panoptic} are captured from restricted lab environments with well-calibrated cameras or markers.
The restricted environment makes the datasets contain images with monotonous appearance; however, multi-view images or marker data provide GT 3D pose.
From the GT 2D/3D poses, optimization-based annotators have been widely used to obtain 3D pseudo-GT human model fits.
Our NeuralAnnot is proposed to obtain 3D pseudo-GT fits more effectively and efficiently than previous annotators.
\noindent\textbf{Optimization-based 3D pseudo-GT annotators.}
The optimization-based methods have been widely used to obtain 3D pseudo-GT fits.
SMPLify~\cite{bogo2016keep} fits a 3D human body model (\textit{i.e.}, SMPL~\cite{loper2015smpl}) to a given 2D pose by minimizing 2D pose loss and several prior terms.
SMPLify-X~\cite{pavlakos2019expressive} is in a similar spirit to SMPLify, and they extended SMPLify for the expressive 3D human model fitting by proposing a new expressive 3D human model, SMPL-X.
Kulon~\etal~\cite{kulon2020weakly} collected pseudo-GT 3D hands from in-the-wild videos by fitting the MANO to 2D hand joint detections.
Compared with the above optimization-based methods~\cite{bogo2016keep,pavlakos2019expressive}, our NeuralAnnot has clear novel and strong points.
First, ours is much more robust to the local minima and much faster than the above methods because ours is trained on entire datasets by considering multiple samples together while they perform the per-sample optimization.
In particular, the above methods are prone to noisy target 2D/3D pose, truncation, and poses that are far from the initial zero poses of 3D human models.
Second, ours gets benefits from 3D supervisions using auxiliary datasets that provide GT 3D pose, while they only rely on 2D supervisions and priors when obtaining 3D pseudo-GT fits.
\noindent\textbf{Neural network-based 3D pseudo-GT annotators.}
Recently, EFT~\cite{joo2020exemplar} has been introduced to obtain 3D pseudo-GT fits.
EFT~\cite{joo2020exemplar} fine-tunes a pre-trained 3D human pose and mesh estimation network, SPIN~\cite{kolotouros2019learning}, to the GT 2D pose of each training image.
There are two critical differences between the NeuralAnnot and EFT~\cite{joo2020exemplar}.
First, NeuralAnnot does not require prepared 3D pseudo-GT fits of in-the-wild datasets.
On the other hand, EFT~\cite{joo2020exemplar} requires initial 3D pseudo-GT fits of many datasets~\cite{ionescu2014human3,mehta2017monocular,lin2014microsoft,andriluka14cvpr,johnson2010clustered,johnson2011learning}, including in-the-wild datasets, to train their base network~\cite{kolotouros2019learning}.
EFT~\cite{joo2020exemplar} obtained the initial 3D pseudo-GT fits using optimization-based methods~\cite{bogo2016keep,pavlakos2019expressive}, which takes a large amount of time.
Here, our NeuralAnnot can be used to obtain the initial 3D pseudo-GT fits more effectively and efficiently than the widely used optimization-based annotators.
Second, EFT assumes a well-performing pre-trained network is available, which is not applicable to expressive 3D human pose and mesh estimation as only several recent methods~\cite{choutas2020monocular,moon2020pose2pose} have been proposed to address this problem.
In contrast, ours do not require any well-performing pre-trained networks.
Several 3D human pose and mesh estimation methods can be used to obtain 3D pseudo-GT fit as they do not require 3D pseudo-GT fits of in-the-wild datasets for the training.
SPIN~\cite{kolotouros2019learning} reported their networks can be trained in an unpaired setting, which does not require pairs of images and 3D pseudo-GT fits, by utilizing a large pool of 3D fits without images.
Although the unpaired training is possible, we show that paired 3D pseudo-GT fits are necessary for them to achieve the best annotation performance in the experimental section, where the paired 3D pseudo-GT fits can be obtained by our NeuralAnnot.
Song~\etal~\cite{song2020human} presented a network that learns to fit the output 3D pose and mesh to the target 2D pose.
As their network takes a 2D pose as an input, they used motion capture datasets for the training, which contains a number of 3D fits without images.
However, their 2D pose input makes their network suffer from depth ambiguity and output wrong 3D pseudo-GT fits from a truncated input, which will be shown in the experiment section.
On the other hand, our image input makes NeuralAnnot relatively more robust to the depth ambiguity and truncation.
\section{Improving bad 3D pseudo-GTs of NeuralAnnot}~\label{sec:improved_neuralannot}
Although NeuralAnnot provides beneficial 3D pseudo-GTs effectively and efficiently, some of 3D pseudo-GTs are bad due to the depth ambiguity.
This is because samples of in-the-wild datasets are supervised only by 2D loss functions without 3D supervisions.
To resolve this issue, we supervise samples of the in-the-wild dataset using 3D pseudo-GTs, following SPIN~\cite{kolotouros2019learning} and EFT~\cite{joo2020exemplar}.
Unlike SPIN~\cite{kolotouros2019learning} and EFT~\cite{joo2020exemplar} used outputs of SMPLify-X~\cite{pavlakos2019expressive} as the 3D pseudo-GTs of in-the-wild datasets, we use outputs of our NeuralAnnot as the 3D pseudo-GTs.
To this end, we first train and test NeuralAnnot to obtain 3D pseudo-GTs of all auxiliary and in-the-wild datasets.
Then, we randomly initialize NeuralAnnot and re-train it by supervising it using the obtained 3D pseudo-GTs of the auxiliary and in-the-wild datasets.
The first and second rounds used the same datasets; however, the first round of NeuralAnnot training does not use 3D pseudo-GTs of the in-the-wild dataset, while the second round of the training uses it.
Table~\ref{table:improved_neuralannot} and Figure~\ref{fig:improved_neuralannot} shows that using 3D pseudo-GTs of in-the-wild dataset greatly improves the quality of 3D pseudo-GTs.
As most of the 3D pseudo-GTs from the first round of NeuralAnnot training provide accurate 3D pose and mesh, supervising samples of the in-the-wild dataset by the 3D pseudo-GTs of the first round can teach NeuralAnnot to reason 3D information from the in-the-wild images.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig/improved_neuralannot.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\caption{
Qualitative comparison between NeuralAnnot trained without and with 3D pseudo-GTs of the in-the-wild dataset on MSCOCO. The 3D pseudo-GTs of the in-the-wild dataset are obtained by our NeuralAnnot.
}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\label{fig:improved_neuralannot}
\end{figure*}
\section{In-depth comparison with SMPLify-X}
\subsection{Data-driven learning vs. per-sample optimization}
We think NeuralAnnot has a higher potential to provide better pseudo-GTs than SMPLify-X when 1) the target task is highly ill-posed and 2) there are many prepared data.
Recovering 3D human \emph{body and hand} model fits from 1) GT 2D poses, 2) GT 3D poses, 3) pairs of images and GT 2D poses, or 4) pairs of images and GT 3D poses satisfy the above conditions.
The human body and hand have highly complicated articulations; therefore, recovering their fits from the above data involves ill-posedness, and the ill-posedness becomes severe when the 3D data are not available.
As the inputs of ill-posed problems do not contain perfect information to recover outputs, the system should be robust to diverse input patterns.
NeuralAnnot alleviates the above issue by updating its learnable weights from diverse patterns of many data, which makes NeuralAnnot produces robust outputs from diverse input patterns.
On the other hand, SMPLify-X does not learn diverse patterns of many data; instead, it optimizes a 3D human model to each data independently, which makes it fail to produce robust outputs from diverse inputs.
We utilize large-scale 2D/3D pose datasets~\cite{ionescu2014human3,mehta2017monocular,moon2020interhand2,lin2014microsoft,andriluka14cvpr,johnson2010clustered,johnson2011learning} to train NeuralAnnot, which make NeuralAnnot produce robust 3D pseudo-GTs from diverse inputs.
\begin{table}[t]
\small
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.0pt}
\def1.1{1.1}
\begin{tabular}{C{5.0cm}|C{2.0cm}}
\specialrule{.1em}{.05em}{.05em}
3D pseudo-GTs of in-the-wild datasets & Indirect 3D err. \\ \hline
No & 64.9 \\
From NeuralAnnot & \textbf{62.4} \\
\specialrule{.1em}{.05em}{.05em}
\end{tabular}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\caption{
Indirect 3D annotation error comparison between models without and with 3D pseudo-GTs of in-the-wild datasets on 3DPW.
}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\label{table:improved_neuralannot}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[t]
\small
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.0pt}
\def1.1{1.1}
\begin{tabular}{C{3.0cm}|C{0.9cm}C{0.9cm}C{1.0cm}C{0.9cm}|C{0.9cm}}
\specialrule{.1em}{.05em}{.05em}
Annotators & Knees & Ankles & Elbows & Wrists & All \\ \hline
SMPLify-X~\cite{pavlakos2019expressive} & 16.6 & 9.6 & 10.0 & 8.9 & 13.1 \\
\textbf{NeuralAnnot (Ours)} & \textbf{15.0} & \textbf{9.5} & \textbf{5.8} & \textbf{7.2} & \textbf{9.8} \\
\specialrule{.1em}{.05em}{.05em}
\end{tabular}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\caption{The direct 3D annotation error of major joints comparison between SMPLify-X and NeuralAnnot on Human3.6M.
The errors of left and right joints are averaged.}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\label{table:h36m_all_joints_compare}
\end{table}
\subsection{3D pseudo-GTs from datasets with GT 3D pose.}
Table~\ref{table:h36m_all_joints_compare} shows NeuralAnnot achieves lower direct 3D annotation error for all major joints.
\subsection{3D pseudo-GTs from in-the-wild dataset.}
Figure~\ref{fig:qualitative_comparison_body_hand} shows NeuralAnnot produces far better 3D body and hand pseudo-GTs than SMPLify-X.
\subsection{Qualitative comparison of 3D face pseudo-GTs}
Table~\ref{table:smplifyx_compare_stirling} shows SMPLify-X achieves slightly better indirect 3D annotation error for the face part.
Figure~\ref{fig:qualitative_comparison_face} shows NeuralAnnot and SMPLify-X produce similar 3D face pseudo-GTs.
The bottom row of the figure shows failure cases of both approaches.
The first column is a failure from challenging face direction, and the second column is a failure of the delicate facial expression capture.
Unlike the body and hand parts, the face part does not involve complicated articulation, which makes SMPLify-X work well and produce similar or slightly better results to those of NeuralAnnot.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig/smplifyx_compare_body_hand.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\caption{
Qualitative comparison between 3D body and hand pseudo-GTs of NeuralAnnot and SMPLify-X on MSCOCO.
}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\label{fig:qualitative_comparison_body_hand}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table}[t]
\small
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.0pt}
\def1.1{1.1}
\begin{tabular}{C{3.0cm}C{2.9cm}C{1.5cm}}
\specialrule{.1em}{.05em}{.05em}
Annotators & Indirect 3D err. ($mm$) & Time \\ \hline
SMPLify-X~\cite{pavlakos2019expressive} & \textbf{2.06} & 16 hours \\
\textbf{NeuralAnnot (Ours)} & 2.09 & \textbf{6 hours} \\
\specialrule{.1em}{.05em}{.05em}
\end{tabular}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\caption{
Indirect 3D annotation error ($mm$) of the face part comparison between SMPLify-X~\cite{pavlakos2019expressive} and NeuralAnnot on Stirling.
}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\label{table:smplifyx_compare_stirling}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig/smplifyx_compare_face.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\caption{
Qualitative comparison between 3D face pseudo-GTs of NeuralAnnot and SMPLify-X on MSCOCO.
}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\label{fig:qualitative_comparison_face}
\end{figure}
\section{Qualitative comparison with EFT}
Figure~\ref{fig:qualitative_comparison_eft} shows NeuralAnnot is more robust to truncation and invisible joints than than EFT~\cite{joo2020exemplar}.
EFT fine-tunes a pre-trained network~\cite{kolotouros2019learning} on the GT 2D pose of each image, and missing annotations in GT 2D due to the truncation and occlusions make their result unstable.
In addition, as they use outputs of SMPLify-X~\cite{pavlakos2019expressive} as 3D pseudo-GTs to train their network, wrong fits of SMPLify-X, shown in Figure~\ref{fig:qualitative_comparison_body_hand}, can affect their performance.
\section{More qualitative results}
Figure~\ref{fig:crowdpose_render} shows our NeuralAnnot is highly robust to occlusions and truncation in crowd scenes of CrowdPose~\cite{li2019crowdpose}.
Figure~\ref{fig:qualitative_expressive} shows expressive 3D pseudo-GTs on MSCOCO~\cite{jin2020whole} and Figure~\ref{fig:qualitative_interhand} shows 3D hand pseudo-GTs on InterHand2.6M~\cite{moon2020interhand2}.
\begin{table}
\footnotesize
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.0pt}
\def1.1{1.1}
\begin{tabular}{C{2.6cm}|C{0.8cm}C{0.9cm}C{1.8cm}C{1.8cm}}
\specialrule{.1em}{.05em}{.05em}
Annotators & 2D err. & Time & Indirect 3D err. & Use in-the-wild 3D pseudo-GTs \\ \hline
\textbf{\textit{Human body part}} & & & \textbf{PA MPJPE}$\downarrow$ & \\
SMPLify~\cite{bogo2016keep} & 6.9 & - & 85.1 & \xmark \\
SMPLify-X~\cite{pavlakos2019expressive} & \textbf{4.0} & 6 days & 79.4 & \xmark \\
SPIN~\cite{kolotouros2019learning} & 4.8 & 30 days & 77.1 & \cmark \\
EFT~\cite{joo2020exemplar} & 5.7 & 30 days & 71.6 & \cmark \\
\textbf{NeuralAnnot} \textbf{(Ours)} & 6.5 & \textbf{2 days} & \textbf{68.3} & \xmark \\ \hline
\textbf{\textit{Human hand part}} & & & \textbf{AUC}$\uparrow$ & \\
SMPLify-X~\cite{pavlakos2019expressive} & \textbf{6.3} & 4 days & 0.755 & \xmark \\
\textbf{NeuralAnnot (Ours)} & 12.5 & \textbf{9 hours} & \textbf{0.786} & \xmark \\
\specialrule{.1em}{.05em}{.05em}
\end{tabular}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\caption{The 2D annotation error (pixel), annotation time, and indirect 3D annotation errors comparison between MSCOCO pseudo-GTs from various annotators.}
\vspace*{-5mm}
\label{table:compare_2ddb_regressor}
\end{table}
\section{Comparison with previous annotators using a different estimator}
Table~\ref{table:compare_2ddb_regressor} shows 3D pseudo-GTs from NeuralAnnot still achieves the best indirect 3D errors, where the indirect 3D errors are calculated from a different estimator compared with I2L-MeshNet~\cite{moon2020i2l} of the main manuscript.
For the new estimator, we used a network similar to HMR~\cite{kanazawa2018end} and SPIN~\cite{kolotouros2019learning}, which regresses SMPL parameters from the global average pooled ResNet output feature vector.
The new estimator is a model-based approach, which regresses 3D human model parameters, while I2L-MeshNet~\cite{moon2020i2l} is a model-free approach, which regresses 3D mesh vertex coordinates.
As the two estimators are based on a very different approach, we can conclude that 3D pseudo-GTs of our NeuralAnnot are highly beneficial than those of previous annotators regardless of the estimator type.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig/comparision_eft.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\caption{
Qualitative comparison between NeuralAnnot and EFT~\cite{joo2020exemplar} on MSCOCO.
}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\label{fig:qualitative_comparison_eft}
\end{figure*}
\iffalse
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig/comparision_eft_improved.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\caption{
Qualitative comparison between NeuralAnnot, SPIN~\cite{kolotouros2019learning}, and EFT~\cite{joo2020exemplar} on MSCOCO.
}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\label{fig:qualitative_comparison_eft_improved}
\end{figure*}
\fi
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig/crowdpose_render.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\caption{
Visualized 3D body pseudo-GTs of NeuralAnnot on CrowdPose.
NeuralAnnot is robust to truncation and occlusions.
}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\label{fig:crowdpose_render}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig/qualitative_expressive.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\caption{
Visualized expressive 3D pseudo-GTs of NeuralAnnot on MSCOCO.
}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\label{fig:qualitative_expressive}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig/qualitative_interhand.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\caption{
Visualized 3D hand pseudo-GTs of NeuralAnnot on InterHand2.6M.
}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\label{fig:qualitative_interhand}
\end{figure*}
\section{Optimizing SMPLify-X on 3D pose}
As original SMPLify-X does not consider 3D pose during the optimization, we modified it to consider 3D pose for 3D pseudo-GTs of Human3.6M~\cite{ionescu2014human3}, MPI-INF-3DHP~\cite{mehta2017monocular}, and InterHand2.6M~\cite{moon2020interhand2}, which provide GT 3D poses.
The modified SMPLify-X optimizes 3D human model (\textit{i.e.}, one of SMPL~\cite{loper2015smpl}, MANO~\cite{romero2017embodied}, FLAME~\cite{li2017learning}, and SMPL-X~\cite{pavlakos2019expressive}) to 3D camera-centered coordinates of human joints.
To this end, we made two modifications.
\noindent\textbf{Camera initialization.}
The original SMPLify-X uses fixed intrinsic camera parameters (\textit{i.e.}, focal lengths and principal points) and initializes a 3D translation vector based on 2D target joint positions.
The obtained 3D translation vector is used to project 3D joint coordinates from a fit to the 2D space using a perspective projection.
On the other hand, the target is 3D in this case, not 2D; therefore, we discard the intrinsics and the 3D translation vector.
Instead, we initialize extrinsic camera parameters $R$ and $t$ using hip and shoulder 3D joint coordinates by performing SVD.
$R$ and $t$ represent a 3D rotation matrix and 3D translation vector, respectively, from a human model coordinate system to a dataset coordinate system.
We chose the hip and shoulder joints as they can roughly decide the 3D global rotations of human body, while end-point joints (\textit{e.g.}, wrists and ankles) cannot.
\noindent\textbf{3D data term.}
We changed the 2D pose-based data term of SMPLify-X to the 3D pose-based term, which calculates a distance between the GT 3D pose of Human3.6M and 3D joint coordinates from a fit.
We use a Geman-McClure error function~\cite{geman1987statistical} for the distance used in the 2D pose-based data term of the original SMPLify-X.
We tried several other distances, such as $L1$ and $L2$, and found that Geman-McClure error function~\cite{geman1987statistical} and $L1$ work the best.
The distance is calculated in a meter scale, and we set the weight of the data term to $10^6$, which works the best.
The 3D joint coordinates from a fit are obtained by multiplying a joint regression matrix of Human3.6M to a mesh.
The matrix defines a linear relationship between a SMPL mesh and Human3.6M 17 joints, and we used a released matrix of Bogo~\etal~\cite{bogo2016keep}.
\section{Comparison with state-of-the-art estimators}~\label{sec:comparison_estimator}
Table~\ref{table:sota_3dpw} shows that I2L-MeshNet trained on pseudo-GTs obtained by our NeuralAnnot significantly outperforms all previous methods, including original I2L-MeshNet trained on pseudo-GTs obtained by SMPLify-X.
Table~\ref{table:sota_ehf} shows that a regressor trained on pseudo-GTs obtained by our NeuralAnnot outperforms all previous methods on all human parts.
The regressor has a simple network architecture, similar to that of ExPose~\cite{choutas2020monocular}, and its detailed descriptions are provided below.
Without bells and whistles, we achieved state-of-the-art performance on body-only and expressive datasets using pseudo-GTs obtained by our NeuralAnnot.
This clearly shows that pseudo-GTs from our NeuralAnnot are highly beneficial for the training.
The regressor has exactly the same network architecture as NeuralAnnot.
There are three sub-networks for the body, hand, and face parts in the regressor.
Each subnetwork consists of ResNet~\cite{he2016deep} and several fully connected layers for the human model parameter prediction.
We train each subnetwork separately, and the loss function is a $L1$ distance between predicted and GT human model parameters and 2D/3D coordinates, similar to Kolotouros~\etal~\cite{kolotouros2019learning}.
For the final expressive 3D human pose and mesh, we integrate outputs of each sub-network using the integration module of Section~\ref{sec:integration_detail}.
\begin{table}
\small
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.0pt}
\def1.1{1.1}
\begin{tabular}{C{2.4cm}C{3.1cm}|C{1.0cm}C{1.5cm}}
\specialrule{.1em}{.05em}{.05em}
Methods & Pseudo-GTs from & MPJPE & PA MPJPE \\ \hline
HMR~\cite{kanazawa2018end} & Mosh~\cite{loper2014mosh} & 130.0 & 81.3 \\
GraphCMR~\cite{kolotouros2019convolutional} & Mosh~\cite{loper2014mosh} & - & 70.2 \\
SPIN~\cite{kolotouros2019learning} & Mosh~\cite{loper2014mosh}+SMPLify~\cite{bogo2016keep} & 96.9 & 59.2 \\
ExPose~\cite{choutas2020monocular} & SMPLify-X~\cite{pavlakos2019expressive} & 93.4 & 60.7 \\
Pose2Mesh~\cite{choi2020p2m} & SMPLify-X~\cite{pavlakos2019expressive} & 88.9 & 58.3 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{I2L-MeshNet~\cite{moon2020i2l}} & SMPLify-X~\cite{pavlakos2019expressive} & 93.2 & 57.7 \\
& \textbf{NeuralAnnot (Ours)} & \textbf{86.6} & \textbf{54.3} \\
\specialrule{.1em}{.05em}{.05em}
\end{tabular}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\caption{MPJPE and PA MPJPE comparison on 3DPW.}
\vspace*{-4mm}
\label{table:sota_3dpw}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\small
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.0pt}
\def1.1{1.1}
\begin{tabular}{C{2.5cm}|C{1.0cm}C{1.0cm}C{1.0cm}|C{1.0cm}C{1.0cm}}
\specialrule{.1em}{.05em}{.05em}
\multirow{ 2}{*}{Methods} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{PA MPVPE} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{PA MPJPE} \\
& All & Hands & Face & Body & Hands \\ \hline
SMPLify-X~\cite{pavlakos2019expressive} & 65.3 & 12.3 & 6.3
& 87.6 & 12.9 \\
MTC~\cite{xiang2019monocular} & 67.2 & - & - & 107.8 & 16.7 \\
ExPose~\cite{choutas2020monocular} & 54.5 & 12.8 & 5.8 & 62.8 & 13.1 \\
\textbf{Regressor (Ours)} & \textbf{53.5} & \textbf{12.0} & \textbf{5.7} & \textbf{61.4} & \textbf{11.7} \\
\specialrule{.1em}{.05em}{.05em}
\end{tabular}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\caption{
PA MPVPE and PA MPJPE comparison on EHF.
The numbers in hands are averaged values of left and right hands.
}
\vspace*{-5mm}
\label{table:sota_ehf}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\small
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.0pt}
\def1.1{1.1}
\begin{tabular}{C{3.2cm}|C{1.5cm}C{2.1cm}}
\specialrule{.1em}{.05em}{.05em}
Settings & 2D err. & Indirect 3D err. \\ \hline
Without VPoser & \textbf{5.0} & 113.5 \\
\textbf{With VPoser (Ours)} & 8.1 & \textbf{65.9} \\
\specialrule{.1em}{.05em}{.05em}
\end{tabular}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\caption{The 2D annotation error (pixel) and indirect 3D annotation error (PA MPJPE) comparison between MSCOCO pseudo-GTs from various settings of NeuralAnnot.}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\label{table:ablation_vposer}
\end{table}
\section{Benefit of the low-dimensional embedded pose prediction.}
Table~\ref{table:ablation_vposer} shows predicting the low-dimensional embedded pose (\textit{i.e.}, the latent code of VPoser for the body part) when minimizing $L_\text{tg}$ largely decreases the indirect 3D annotation error.
Interestingly, the 2D annotation error becomes smaller when the low-dimensional embedded pose is not used, while its indirect 3D annotation error increases.
This indicates that the low-dimensional pose makes the system suffer less from depth ambiguity by effectively preventing implausible poses with very simple regularizers (\textit{i.e.}, $L2$ regularizer for ours).
For all settings, MPI-INF-3DHP is used as the auxiliary dataset.
When VPoser is not used, the pose is initially predicted in a 6D rotational representation~\cite{zhou2019continuity} and converted to the 3D axis-angle following~\cite{kolotouros2019learning}.
The same tendency was observed for the hand part by predicting the PCA coefficients of the hand pose space.
\section{All parts integration module}~\label{sec:integration_detail}
As described in Section 4 of the main manuscript, we selectively use global rotations of right and left hands, $\theta^g_{rh}$ and $\theta^g_{lh}$, respectively, when integrating outputs of networks of each part.
Algorithm~\ref{alg:integration} and Figure~\ref{fig:elbow_wrist_rotation} show the integration procedure and how rotations of elbow and wrist change the body, respectively.
First, we perform forward kinematics to compute global rotations of all body joints, including wrists and elbows (line 1).
Then, we replace the global rotations of wrists and elbows using the global rotation of hands (lines 4 and 5).
The replacement assumes $x$-axis rotations (roll of Euler angle) of the wrist and elbow are almost the same, which follows the anatomical structure of the human body, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:elbow_wrist_rotation}.
To avoid a sudden change of the elbow rotation, which can cause artifacts, we use an average rotation of the elbow and wrist (line 5).
From the replaced global rotations of wrists and elbows, we compute new local rotations of wrists and elbows (line 6).
Finally, we check the new local rotation follows the anatomical structure of the human body (line 7), where $y$- and $z$-axis rotations are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:elbow_wrist_rotation}.
If true, we update the local rotations of body joints, which become the final output of the integration (lines 8 and 9).
We convert the 3D rotation of joints to Euler angles in line 3 - line 11.
Figure~\ref{fig:integration_ablation} shows that our integration algorithm changes 3D elbow rotation (lines 4 and 5), and our anatomical prior (line 7) prevents implausible 3D wrist rotation.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{Integration of body and hands}
\label{alg:integration}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Input $\theta^g_b$: Global rotation of body
\Input $\theta_b=\{\theta^l_j\}_{j=1}^{21}$: Local rotations of body joints
\Input $\theta^g_{rh}, \theta^g_{lh}$: Global rotations of right and left hands
\Output $\theta_b$: Updated local rotations of body joints
\State Compute global rotations of body joints $\{\theta^g_j\}_{j=1}^{21}$ from $\theta^g_b$ and $\theta_b$ by forward kinematics
\State Let $re$, $le$, $rw$, $lw$ denote joint index of right elbow, left elbow, right wrist, and left wrist, respectively.
\For{$(e,w,h) \gets ((re,rw,rh), (le,lw,lh))$}
\State $\theta^g_w \gets \theta^g_h$
\State $x$-axis of $\theta^g_e \gets x$-axis of $(\theta^g_e+\theta^g_h)/2$
\State Compute new local rotations of elbow and wrist, $\hat{\theta}^l_e$ and $\hat{\theta}^l_w$, respectively, from $\{\theta^g_j\}_{j=1}^{21}$ by reversing forward kinematics
\If{$|y$-axis of $\hat{\theta}^l_w| < \pi/4$ \text{and} $|z$-axis of $\hat{\theta}^l_w| < \pi/2$}
\State Update $\theta^l_w \gets \hat{\theta}^l_w$
\State Update $\theta^l_e \gets \hat{\theta}^l_e$
\EndIf
\EndFor
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig/elbow_wrist_rotation.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\caption{
Visualized rotations of the elbow and wrist in each axis.
}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\label{fig:elbow_wrist_rotation}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig/integration_ablation.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\caption{
(a) Our part integration algorithm changes 3D elbow rotation using 3D hand global rotation.
(b) Our anatomical prior during the integration prevents implausible 3D wrist rotations.
}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\label{fig:integration_ablation}
\end{figure}
|
\section{Introduction}
During these unprecedented times when the world is plagued by COVID19, a large number of people have been showing symptoms of clinical anxiety or depression\footnote{https://afsp.org}. This can be attributed to a myriad of reasons including, but not limited to, lock down, mandatory social distancing, higher unemployment, economic depression and work-related stress.
In a report published earlier this year, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention found that people experience anxiety (53\%) and sadness (51\%) more often now than before the coronavirus pandemic. Additionally, as per the report, despite physical distancing guidelines, Americans socialize with friends and families at a similar frequency as they used to before the lockdown orders confirming that physical distancing and isolation can contribute to increase in anxiety, stress or depression.
In the past decade, social media has transformed how people interact with each other. Apart from sharing factual information and news, people actively partake in sharing their day to day activities, experiences, feelings, opinions, hopes, desires, and emotions online. These texts provide information which can be used to identify the mental health individuals. Furthermore, the current state of enforced social distancing and isolation has propelled more people to express their emotions on social media as it provides them with an accessible platform to share their thoughts with others, many a times, in search for help.
Our research work utilizes user data, especially the kind pertaining to emotions as this class of data can give us valuable insights about the mental state of a person; and, in turn, our work has the potential to assist in the diagnosis and analysis of various mental disorders. This study aims to bridge the gap between people in search of help and experts who can provide the needed help.
Due to the paucity of adequate annotated and structured user data in this domain, we decided to generate our own dataset by crawling subreddits on reddit.com\footnote{https://www.reddit.com} pertaining to our use case as a lot of users were found to have shared their feelings there. Although Reddit was the sole source of our dataset, we believe that this study can be seamlessly extended to other social media platforms as well because of the presence of similar unstructured user data online.
The advent of transformers and BERT \citet{bert:2018} has caused quite a stir in the NLP community because of the state-of-the-art results it was able to produce in various NLP tasks. In this work, we use a RoBERTa \citet{roberta} based classifier, which has a similar architecture to BERT with an improved pre-training procedure. RoBERTa's effective and efficient performance on unstructured data and its ability to learn contextual information compelled us to explore and capitalize its power to categorize online user generated texts into various classes of Mental Illness.
We identify five broad classes of mental illnesses - depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder), PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) and an additional 'None' class (which does not pertain to any mental illness). We train a multi-class classifier on the data crawled from online user data. Based on our experiments, we present encouraging results that demonstrate that social media data has the potential to complement standard clinical procedures in the prognosis of mental health amongst two broad categories of users - ones who are seeking help online and ones who are unbeknownst of their condition.
\section{Related Work}
In the recent past, people have increasingly turned to social media to share and seek counsel on the topic of mental health. This has prompted researchers to utilize the information and apply a plethora of techniques in NLP and Machine Learning in order to assist people who might require help. Most of the recent research has revolved around Reddit data as in the case of \citet{kim2020deep}, \citet{Gkotsis2017mentalhealth}, \citet{sekulic-strube-2019-adapting}, \citet{zirikly:2019}. Prior to this recent shift to Reddit data, a lot of the earlier research was focused on utilizing Twitter data as in the case of \citet{Orabi:2018}, \citet{benton2017multitask}, \citet{Coppersmith2015Shared}.
There have been a wide variety of approaches ranging from classical NLP techniques to neural network based deep learning methods. \citet{Coppersmith2015Shared} used character level language models to examine how likely a sequence of characters is to be generated by a user with mental health issues. \citet{benton2017multitask} evaluated a standard regression model, a multilayer perceptron single-task learning (STL) model, and a neural MTL model on detecting multiple types of mental health issues. \citet{Orabi:2018} utilized word embeddings in tandem with a variety of neural network models like CNNs and RNNs to detect depression. \citet{Gkotsis2017mentalhealth} experimented with Feed Forward Neural Networks, CNNs, SVMs and Linear classifiers to perform binary classification on mental health posts. \citet{sekulic-strube-2019-adapting} came up with the approach of using Hierarchical Attention Networks(HANs) to detect a wide range of mental health issues like Depression, ADHD, Anxiety etc. and trained a binary classifier for each of the disorders. The most recent work on this was by \citet{kim2020deep} who proposed a CNN-based classification model. Once again though, each disorder had its own separate binary classifier to perform the detection.
To our knowledge, this is the first attempt at treating this problem as a multi-class classification problem, where a single classifier can not only detect the disorder, but, also accurately classify the type of disorder that the person is referring to in their post. In addition, this is also the first work that harnesses the incredible capabilities of an advanced Transformer based algorithm like RoBERTa to solve this difficult problem.
\section{Dataset}
The Reddit API was used to crawl 13 subreddits and 17159 posts text and title text to obtain data for this research work. The text from comment threads was not collected as it tended to diverge from the main topic of the subreddit. Out of the 13 subreddits, 5 can be directly associated with a mental illness. They are: {\small\verb|bipolar|}, {\small\verb|adhd|}, {\small\verb|anxiety|}, {\small\verb|depression|} and {\small\verb|ptsd|}. The posts in these subreddits were assigned a class label corresponding to the name of the subreddits. The remaining 8 subreddits were chosen from a wide range of topics. They are {\small\verb|music|}, {\small\verb|travel|}, {\small\verb|india|}, {\small\verb|politics|}, {\small\verb|english|}, {\small\verb|datasets|}, {\small\verb|mathematics|} and {\small\verb|science|}. These general topic subreddits were combined together and assigned the class label {\small\verb|none|}.
While collecting data, we ensured that the number of upvotes for each post in all subreddits is more than 10. We also set a minimum post token length of 30 tokens. This is so that we retain quality in the dataset. We approximately crawled about 3000 posts under the subreddits dealing with mental illness and about 300 posts for each of the general topic subreddits. This also ensured a good balance of class labels. While selecting the eight general topic subreddits, we not only selected subreddits that have sufficiently high number of posts, but also ensured that we cover a broad range of topics. Table \ref{data-stats} shows the statistics collected for each subreddit. The dataset was preprocessed to remove any URLs or usernames that could potentially contain sensitive information. This was done keeping in mind that the dataset will be released publicly for the purpose of extending this research work.
To gauge the data quality we ran some analysis. We manually went over the lowest voted posts for each mental illness subreddit. We wanted to establish that texts from these posts expressed emotions from people discussing corresponding mental illness it is labelled as. Table \ref{posts-excerpts} presents excerpts of lowest voted post from each mental illness subreddit.
We also certified that the general topic subreddits did not have a high similarity with the posts corresponding to other the other 5 subreddits. This was done to ensure that we do not have any false negatives while assigning truth labels. We counted the number of posts the mental illness terms appeared in, for each subreddit. The subreddits corresponding to mental illnesses had a much higher count of these words. In addition to this, we compared the cosine similarity between some of the highest/lowest posts of mental illness subreddits and the general topic subreddits and manually compared the results to find that this distance was higher than the distance between two posts of the mental illness subreddits.
We also attempted to augment the data using Easy Data Augmentation \citet{eda:2019} to boost the performance of our model. However, we did not observe an apparent shift in our evaluation metrics- explained by the fact the EDA is meant to perform best for smaller datasets ($\leq$ 5000 sample sizes). So, we decided to not advance in that route.
\begin{table*}[!t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|p{1.5cm}|p{2cm}|p{2cm}|p{1.5cm}|p{1.5cm}|p{1.5cm}|}
\hline
\bf Subreddit & \bf Number of posts & \bf Average no. of words (posts) & \bf Average no. of words (titles) & \bf Average Upvotes & \bf Highest Upvotes & \bf Lowest Upvotes\\
\hline
r/depression & 3062 & 152.74 & 12.20 & 517.19 & 4802 & 11\\
r/anxiety & 3027 & 170.38 & 11.75 & 246.07 & 3349 & 11\\
r/ptsd & 2501 & 233.55 & 10.14 & 38.4 & 443 & 11\\
r/adhd & 3082 & 198.55 & 13.71 & 377.13 & 4484 & 11\\
r/bipolar & 3009 & 203.28 & 9.26 & 32.37 & 363 & 11\\
none & 2478 & 238.52 & 15.76 & 6715.33 & 199295 & 11\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{data-stats} Dataset: Statistics }
\end{table*}
\begin{table}[!t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|p{7cm}|}
\hline Lowest rated post \\ \hline
\textbf{r/depression}- The older I am getting the less hope I have to secure a life worth living. I feel finished because I always had that state of mind \\
\textbf{r/adhd}- Does anyone else feel like u do have a personality and ability to make friends but ure kind of stuck in ur own body \\
\textbf{r/bipolar}- I just made a really impulsive choice with my breed of dog because I had to have one NOW. I was thinking about it constantly day and night and I couldn't sleep. \\
\textbf{r/anxiety}- I find myself constantly remembering embarrassing or cringey moments from my past (ranging anywhere from present day to back about 10 years) and cringing hard at them \\
\textbf{r/ptsd}- I feel like I am just constantly angry. Angry about my trauma and how it has affected me, and angry about where I am in my life because of it. I don't want to be angry anymore \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{posts-excerpts} Dataset: Posts excerpts }
\end{table}
\section{Model}
In this section, we describe our model architecture for the multi-class mental illness classification task. We propose a RoBERTa based classifier in order to accomplish this. In addition, we also compare the proposed model against an LSTM \citet{lstm} based classifier and a BERT \citet{bert:2018} based classifier to demonstrate the superiority of our approach. Since this is an entirely new dataset, there is no established baseline, so the LSTM model will serve as the baseline for our experiments. We also showcase our gains over BERT, the most widely used transformer model today for text classification.
All our models were implented in Pytorch \citet{NEURIPS2019_9015}. The Transformer models were implemented with the help of the HuggingFace Transformers \citet{Wolf2019HuggingFacesTS} library.
\subsection{LSTM based classifier}
LSTMs(Long Short-Term Memory) were the state of the art models when it came to text classification before the advent of Transformers. They will serve as our baseline. First we tokenized the sentences using NLTK\footnote{https://www.nltk.org/} and converted them to lower case to create our vocabulary. In order to get rid of words that might not exist, we removed all words from our vocabulary that appear only once. We also added {\small\verb|padding|} and {\small\verb|unknown|} to our vocabulary in order to account for padding and unknown tokens respectively. Each sentence was represented using a sequence of length 512 and this forms our input to the LSTM model. We used a 2 layer LSTM for all our experiments with an embedding layer of size 100 and a hidden layer size of 256. Dropout \citet{10.5555/2627435.2670313} with a probability of 0.5 was used in order to achieve regularization. We used standard cross-entropy loss as the loss function. During training, Adam \citet{kingma2014adam} was the optimizer of choice, with a learning rate of 0.005. The model was trained for a total of 25 epochs with a batch size of 32. Gradient clipping was used to prevent exploding gradients.
\subsection{BERT based classifier}
BERT(Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers) has been the biggest breakthrough in the NLP domain in the recent past with state of the art results in a myriad of NLP tasks. Since its inception, better models with gains have been trickling along, but BERT continues to be the most popular model for text classification even today. The BERT classifier comprises a fine-tuned BERT model followed by a dropout layer and a fully connected layer. We fine-tuned a pre-trained BERT-base model on our dataset for this task. A pre-trained tokenizer on BERT is used to tokenize our input sentences. After carefully examining the sentence length distribution, we chose a sequence length of 35 for titles, and 512 for posts and posts+titles. Either padding or truncation was used to ensure that all sentences were represented using the same sequence length. All the BERT based models were fine-tuned on our data for 10 epochs with a learning rate of 1e-5. Adam served as the optimizer and cross-entropy loss was the loss function of choice. A dropout layer with probability of 0.3 was used for the sake of regularization.
\subsection{RoBERTa based classifier}
RoBERTa(Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach) is another state of the art language model that builds on BERT by modifying key hyperparameters and training on more data. It outperforms BERT on several benchmark tasks and forms the core of our proposed solution. In order to make it a fair comparison with BERT, we retain the architecture and all design choices made with the BERT based classifier barring the pretrained model and the tokenizer which are now all based on RoBERTa. The input sentences were tokenized using a pre-trained tokenizer on RoBERTa-base. Just as in the case of BERT, we chose a sequence length of 35 for titles, and 512 for posts and posts+titles. Similar to BERT, the RoBERTa based models were also fine-tuned for 10 epochs with a learning rate of 1e-5 and Adam. A batch size of 32 was used while fine-tuning on the titles whereas a batch size of 16 was the only viable option to fine-tune on posts and posts+titles. Cross-entropy remained the preferred loss function. Once again, a dropout layer with probability of 0.3 was used for regularization.
\section{Result Analysis}
\begin{table*}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l|llll|llll|llll|}
\hline
\bf Models &
\multicolumn{4}{c|}{\bf posts} &
\multicolumn{4}{c|}{\bf titles} &
\multicolumn{4}{c|}{\bf posts+titles} \\ \hline
& P & R & F1 & Acc & P & R & F1 & Acc & P & R & F1 & Acc \\
LSTM & 0.74 & 0.72 & 0.72 & 0.72 & 0.65 & 0.64 & 0.64 & 0.64 & 0.77 & 0.76 & 0.76 & 0.76 \\
BERT & 0.83 & 0.82 & 0.82 & 0.82 & 0.72 & 0.71 & 0.71 & 0.71 & 0.87 & 0.87 & 0.87 & 0.87 \\
RoBERTa & 0.86 & 0.86 & \bf 0.86 & 0.86 & 0.73 & 0.72 & \bf 0.72 & 0.72 & 0.89 & 0.89 & \bf 0.89 & 0.89 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{res-class} Results: Classification Report }
\end{table*}
\begin{figure*}
\subfigure[Input: posts]{\includegraphics[scale=0.18]{img/cm_roberta_posts.png}}
\subfigure[Input: titles]{\includegraphics[scale=0.18]{img/cm_roberta_titles.png}}
\subfigure[Input: posts+titles]{\includegraphics[scale=0.18]{img/cm_roberta_both.png}}
\caption{\label{rob-cm}RoBERTa: Confusion Matrices}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table*}[!t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l|lll|lll|lll|}
\hline
\bf Class & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\bf posts} &\multicolumn{3}{c|}{\bf titles} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\bf posts+titles}\\ \hline
& P & R & F1 & P & R & F1 & P & R & F1 \\
adhd & 0.87 & 0.88 & 0.87 & 0.77 & 0.79 & 0.78 & 0.91 & 0.92 & 0.91\\
anxiety & 0.78 & 0.83 & 0.81 & 0.69 & 0.64 & 0.67 & 0.87 & 0.85 & 0.86\\
bipolar & 0.88 & 0.79 & 0.83 & 0.58 & 0.63 & 0.60 & 0.88 & 0.83 & 0.86\\
depression & 0.77 & 0.83 & 0.80 & 0.65 & 0.78 & 0.71 & 0.81 & 0.88 & 0.84 \\
ptsd & 0.88 & 0.85 & 0.86 & 0.75 & 0.62 & 0.68 & 0.88 & 0.89 & 0.88\\
none & 0.99 & 0.95 & 0.97 & 0.94 & 0.88 & 0.91 & 1.00 & 0.98 & 0.99 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{rob-class} Results: RoBERTa Class-wise results }
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|p{11.5cm}|l|l|l|}
\hline \bf Input & \bf Actual & \bf Predicted \\ \hline
often times i'll get distracted from my thoughts either by external influences or just another idea coming in, and then i have to spend a good 5 minutes trying to work out what i was thinking about again. & adhd & adhd \\
once i come down from flashbacks or panic attacks, i get really bad disassociation. sometimes lasting for days. does anyone else go through this. any tips on how to stop it. i tried grounding but im so far gone it doesn't help. & ptsd & ptsd\\
i can't sit still when i get my eyebrows done, and when i'm in class i usually doodle to focus. i pay attention very well in school regardless of that, and drawing helps me focus. & anxiety & adhd\\
i'm flying from dallas to hong kong in january and it's 17 hours. i've flown 12-13 hour flights before and they really mess with me. so i'm wondering - what are your tips for not going crazy on such a long flight? ps: i'm terrible at sleeping on planes. thinking about taking some sleepy meds to see if it'll help & none & anxiety\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{test-exa} Results: Interesting Examples }
\end{table*}
As described earlier, in addition to our primary RoBERTa classifier, we also run experiments on an LSTM classifier and a BERT classifier for the sake of comparison. We fine-tune each of the aforementioned models on just the titles, just the posts and a combination of both in order to perform comprehensive tests and comparisons. When combining the titles and posts for our Transformer models, we convert the problem into a sequence-pair classification task. This allows the model to give more importance to the title which would otherwise be lost when combining the title and the post into one single input given the relative difference in their lengths (the average number of tokens in titles is roughly 6\% that of posts).
The results from our experiments are documented in Tables \ref{res-class} through \ref{test-exa}.
As can be observed from Table \ref{res-class}, our proposed RoBERTa based classifier far outperforms the baseline LSTM in all categories. The BERT classifier has results which are quite close to that of RoBERTa's and both beat LSTM by a significant margin, showcasing the incredible capabilities of pre-trained Transformer based architectures. In fact, our RoBERTa model fine-tuned on just the titles was able match the performance of the LSTM model trained on posts. The RoBERTa model was able to achieve an F1 score of 0.86 on the posts and 0.89 on posts+titles which are extremely promising given the complex nature of the multi-class mental illness classification task. The jump in accuracy between posts and posts+titles is not as drastic as the jump between titles and posts. This indicates that the posts offer far more valuable information when compared to the titles and also the fact that most of the useful and relevant information can be extracted from the posts alone. This strong performance on just the posts bodes well for the extensibility of our approach as this can be applied on almost any given social media post without the need for structure in the data like titles, user names, user history, etc.
The rest of this section will focus solely on the results of our best performing RoBERTa model. Table \ref{rob-class} showcases the granular class-wise results of the RoBERTa model. This table in conjunction with the confusion matrices from Figure \ref{rob-cm} offers us a wealth of useful and interpretable information.
The first strikingly obvious result is the high accuracy with which the model is able to detect non-illness related posts. Even with just the titles, the model is able to classify the {\small\verb|none|} class with an f1 score of more than 0.9. This gives us hope that this model will suffer from very few false positives when it comes to mental illness detection on social media.
An even more crucial property of our model can be noticed in the confusion matrices for posts and posts+titles in Figure \ref{rob-cm}. When using posts, just 3 illness related posts across the entire test dataset were misclassified as non-illness posts. This number further reduces to 0 when using titles+posts. This shows that the model will detect mental illness posts correctly nearly every single time, thus ensuring that posts from people who are seeking help never go unnoticed when this solution is deployed in the real world.
When it comes to the class wise performance amongst the mental illnesses, the two best performing classes are {\small\verb|adhd|} and {\small\verb|ptsd|} whereas the two worst performing classes are {\small\verb|depression|} and {\small\verb|anxiety|}.
The performance of {\small\verb|depression|} and {\small\verb|anxiety|} classes can be attributed to a few factors. The average number of words per post for {\small\verb|depression|} and {\small\verb|anxiety|} are the least for any given class. For instance, {\small\verb|depression|} posts have roughly 53\% lesser textual data when compared to {\small\verb|ptsd|} posts. In addition, studies show that depression might often occur in tandem with another mental illness and our data and results back this up as well. The {\small\verb|depression|} word occurs in 12\% of {\small\verb|anxiety|} posts, 12\% of {\small\verb|ptsd|} posts and 31\% of {\small\verb|bipolar|} posts. Similarly, {\small\verb|anxiety|} occurs in 20\% of {\small\verb|ptsd|} posts, 12\% of {\small\verb|adhd|} posts and 14\% of {\small\verb|bipolar|} posts. This implies that the model cannot give high importance to the mention of these class names like it can with rest of the illnesses, thus making the classification of these 2 classes that much harder.
This can also explain the relatively lower precision scores(higher number of False Positives) for {\small\verb|depression|} and {\small\verb|anxiety|}. When the other illnesses(excluding {\small\verb|depression|} and {\small\verb|anxiety|}) are misclassified, they are almost always misclassified as either {\small\verb|depression|} or {\small\verb|anxiety|}, as can be viewed in Figure \ref{rob-cm}. In the same figure, we can see that {\small\verb|depression|} and {\small\verb|anxiety|} are often misclassified as each other due to the reason that they commonly occur together.
There are more posts in the {\small\verb|adhd|} and {\small\verb|ptsd|} classes that mention the words {\small\verb|depression|} and {\small\verb|anxiety|} than their respective class names itself. One would assume that this would result in subpar results, but, these classes actually perform the best. This really showcases the true potential of our model, where it doesn't just rely on mention of class names, but has a strong understanding of the context of the post itself. Additionally, the symptoms or descriptions provided for these classes could be strong, unique and discriminative enough for the model to be able to classify them correctly even with all the mentions of other class names.
In Table \ref{test-exa} we have documented a few interesting results we observed in the test set. In the first two examples on the table, the RoBERTa model was able to classify the posts correctly without the presence of class names in the input. The prediction is based purely on contextual information learnt about the class labels during the training process. The next two results are interesting because the truth label assigned to the input text may or may not correspond to actual mental illness described in the text. Since, we are not domain experts ourselves, we would need expert intervention to substantiate this theory. As a part of future work, getting professionals to annotate our dataset might help strengthen the model for such examples.
\section{Behavioral Testing}
\begin{table*}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|p{3cm}|llll|p{3cm}|llll|}
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{|c|}{\bf Synonym Replacement} & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{\bf Label Removal}\\
\hline
\bf Test Set Modified & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{\bf posts} & \bf Test Set Modified & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{\bf posts}\\
\hline
& P & R & F1 & Acc & & P & R & F1 & Acc \\
10\% & 0.86 & 0.85 & 0.85 & 0.85 & 10\% & 0.85 & 0.84 & 0.84 & 0.84\\
50\% & 0.85 & 0.84 & 0.84 & 0.84 & 50\% & 0.81 & 0.80 & 0.80 & 0.80\\
100\% & 0.83 & 0.83 & 0.83 & 0.83 & 100\% & 0.75 & 0.74 & 0.75 & 0.74\\
\hline
\bf Test Set Modified & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{\bf titles} & \bf Test Set Modified & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{\bf titles}\\
\hline
& P & R & F1 & Acc & & P & R & F1 & Acc \\
10\% & 0.73 & 0.72 & 0.72 & 0.72 & 10\% & 0.72 & 0.71 & 0.71 & 0.71\\
50\% & 0.71 & 0.71 & 0.71 & 0.71 & 50\% & 0.67 & 0.67 & 0.67 & 0.67\\
100\% & 0.68 & 0.67 & 0.67 & 0.67 & 100\% & 0.61 & 0.61 & 0.60 & 0.61\\
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{|c|}{\bf Label Replace: 'illness'} & \multicolumn{5}{|c|}{\bf Label Replace: random}\\
\hline
\bf Test Set Modified & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{\bf posts} & \bf Test Set Modified & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{\bf posts}\\
\hline
& P & R & F1 & Acc & & P & R & F1 & Acc\\
10\% & 0.84 & 0.83 & 0.84 & 0.83 & 10\% & 0.83 & 0.82 & 0.83 & 0.8\\
50\% & 0.78 & 0.77 & 0.77 & 0.77 & 50\% & 0.71 & 0.71 & 0.71 & 0.71\\
100\% & 0.70 & 0.67 & 0.68 & 0.67 & 100\% & 0.58 & 0.57 & 0.57 & 0.57\\
\hline
\bf Test Set Modified & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{\bf titles} & \bf Test Set Modified & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{\bf titles}\\
\hline
& P & R & F1 & Acc & & P & R & F1 & Acc \\
10\% & 0.72 & 0.71 & 0.71 & 0.71 & 10\% & 0.71 & 0.71 & 0.71 & 0.71\\
50\% & 0.67 & 0.65 & 0.65 & 0.65 & 50\% & 0.64 & 0.64 & 0.64 & 0.64\\
100\% & 0.62 & 0.57 & 0.58 & 0.57 & 100\% & 0.54 & 0.54 & 0.54 & 0.54\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{beha} Behavioral Tests}
\end{table*}
Although the classification metrics analyzed in the previous section are generally regarded sufficient in estimating the performance of Bert-based models, a recent inclination of NLP researchers to behavioral testing inspired us to stress test our models as well.
For all our tests, we used our proposed RoBERTa model and applied these tests to inputs that were either titles or posts. Since we hope to extend our model to other social media platforms, we do not always expect input texts to have a title as well as a descriptive text/post. We adopted the Checklist approach \citet{beha:2020} which involve tests conducted to comprehensively analyze the model's performance.
\subsection{Synonym Replacement}
Synonym replacement is a kind of Invariance Test where label-preserving perturbations are made to the test set. As labels, the root form of the mental illnesses was chosen- {\small\verb|depress|}, {\small\verb|ptsd|}, {\small\verb|anxiou/anxiet|}, {\small\verb|bipolar|} and {\small\verb|adhd|}. Python's NLTK package and WordNet were used for these tests.
This test is conducted such that the root words are not perturbed when modifying the test set. For each post, 10\% of the tokens were randomly selected (not including the stop words or the root words). Each token was then replaced with one of its synonyms. We used the same logic for titles. We set a max and min on the number of tokens to be selected for replacement - this was (4, 30) for posts and (1, 5) for titles. Since each token was replaced with a synonym, the class label for the samples was not changed. We did this for 10, 50 and 100 percent of the test set and observed results.
In all three cases, we expect the classification metrics to drop. For the case when 10\% of the test case was modified the drop was much lower as compared to when 100\% of the test case was modified. The results are documented in Table \ref{beha}. When comparing these results to those in Table \ref{rob-class} we find that the drop in each category is about 2-4\% for posts and 5-7\% for titles. The lower drop can be attributed to the fact that synonym replacement does not alter the semantics of the input text. Therefore the model was able to draw sufficient information from the input.
\subsection{Masking}
We also performed a Directional Expectation test on the model. This is similar to the previous test but is instead performed only on labels. The labels, as defined in the previous subsection, are a list of the root form of mental illness class labels. We noticed that the root words appear often in our input texts. This behavioral test was performed to observe our model's dependency on these words. For all the tests below, we modified only those tokens that contained a root word.
In the first case, for every post from a subreddit related to a mental illness, the root form of its class label was removed from the input. For example, the input text: \emph{I feel happy for some time and then depressed again. I'm definitely bipolar} from the {\small\verb|r/bipolar|} subreddit, was modified to \emph{I feel happy for some time and then depressed again. I'm definitely}. Note that changes were not made to the word \emph{depressed} in the input. The class label for each modified sample was not changed after the perturbations. Like the previous subsection, these tests were performed on 10, 50 and 100\% of the test set.
In the second case, instead of entirely removing the tokens, we replaced it with a generic token {\small\verb|illness|}. We expected this modification to retain some semantic information that was lost in the previous test. However, we found that adding a generic token introduced some noise which reduced the overall performance of the model.
Lastly, the tokens were replaced by a randomly chosen root form of a mental illness other than its class label. With this test, we expect to force the model to pick between the label and non label tokens during classification. We believe that this is an interesting scenario to observe.
In all three cases (Table \ref{beha}), the model performance drops by some degree when compared to Table \ref{rob-class}. The first two cases showed a somewhat similar performance drop. However, the model performance was worse than that of the Synonym Replacement test. This means that the model depends on the existence of the root words in the input text to some degree.
In the third scenario, we note that the performance drop is higher. Although the test is meant to confuse the model, we observed that in some cases (especially for input: posts), we got an F1 of 0.82 with 10\% of the modified test and 0.71 with 50\% of the modified test. This is only possible if the model gathered sufficient information from the non label text in the input.
\section{Conclusion and Future Work}
Our chief motivation behind this work is the current worldwide pandemic and the mandatory confinement in many countries. We believe that social media has become the prime mode of communication for many people and has paved way for a lot of users to vent freely without judgement.
In the future we hope to be able to involve domain experts in our research and have them annotate some of our data to validate our model's performance. In addition to this, we would like to build a multi-label classifier because users may suffer from multiple mental illnesses at the same time. We would also like to work on bettering our model on the behavioral tests. Our work involves two kinds of texts- long and short - both of which are common to the internet community. Hence, our work can easily be extended to many websites. It would be interesting to collect user data from other forums and observe our model's predictions.
In conclusion, we believe that our work explores an interesting line of research where NLP is used to bridge the gap between virtual and real life of users and help those in need of medical attention.
|
\section*{Methods}
\footnotesize
\subsection*{Experimental set-up}
A plexiglass tank ($50 \times 50 \times 70$ cm) is filled with salt water linearly stratified in density using the double bucket method (see the resulting profile in Fig.\ref{fig:vtx-setup}\textit{c}). The tank is mounted on a table that rotates around a vertical axis at a rate $\Omega$. The buoyancy frequency is $N = 1 \pm 0.1 ~{\rm rad~s^{-1}}$ and the rotation rate is $\Omega = 0.5 \pm 0.05~{\rm rad~s^{-1}}$ such that $N/f = 1 \pm 0.2$. We impose a linear shear using a PVC belt encircling two co-rotating cylinders (Fig.\ref{fig:vtx-setup}). To create anticyclones in this gap, we inject through a capillary a volume of fluid having a constant density equal to the density at the injection height. Indeed, the geostrophic balance
\begin{linenomath*}
\begin{equation}
f \boldsymbol{e}_z \times \boldsymbol{u} = -\frac{1}{\rho} \nabla_h p,
\label{eq:vtx-geostrophicbal}
\end{equation}
\end{linenomath*}
where $\nabla_h p$ is the horizontal pressure gradient, implies that an over-pressure generates azimuthal velocities going in an opposite direction compared to the background rotation, i.e. an anticyclone ($Ro<0$). Additionally, relation (\ref{eq:vtx-vertaspect}) shows that $Ro \in [-1,0[$ (equilibrium anticyclonic motions) constrains $N_c < N$, where $N_c$ is the buoyancy frequency of the stratification at the core of the vortex. In other words, an anticyclone is under-stratified compared to the background density profile, that is why injecting a well mixed fluid is relevant. Note that the topographic $\beta$-effect resulting from the free-surface deformation due to rotation is negligible in our case. Velocity field measurements are performed in the equatorial plane of the vortex using particle image velocimetry (PIV). The computed velocity fields are used to measure the Rossby number and the equatorial ellipticity $\beta$ at each time during the slow vortex decay. To do so, we plot several streamlines near the vortex center and fit an ellipse to each of them. For some experiments we add a fluorescent dye in the injected fluid (Rhodamine B) to follow its evolution in a vertical plane. A detailed description of the experimental methods, parameters and uncertainties is available in the Supplementary Information (sections 2 and 4 and Table S1).
\subsection*{Direct numerical simulations (DNS)}
\label{sec:nummethod}
We performed direct numerical simulations (DNS) to compare with our experimental results and to extend them to a wider range of parameters. To this aim, we solve the full system of equations (i.e. the continuity equation, Navier-Stokes equations in the Boussinesq approximation, and advection-diffusion equation of the stratifying agent) using the open-source spectral element solver Nek5000 \citep{fischer_nek5000_2008}. These equations are solved in a rectangular box to mimic the experimental setup. The boundary conditions are periodic in both the stream-wise ($x$) and vertical ($z$) directions. Rigid no-slip insulating boundaries are imposed in the cross-stream ($y$) direction to mimic the shear, i.e. velocity $\boldsymbol{u} = \mp \sigma y ~\boldsymbol{e_x}$ and no density anomaly gradient at $y = \pm 1$. Details about the numerical methods, the flow initialization and the complete list of the numerical parameters are available in the Supplementary Information (sections 3 and 4). Here, we focus on numerical simulations for which only the shear rate was changed and all the other parameters are fixed.
\subsection*{Parameters for Jovian vortices}
To apply our model to Jovian vortices, four parameters are required: the longitudinal Rossby number of the vortex $Ro_x$, the shear rate $\sigma$, the Coriolis frequency $f$ and the stratification difference between the vortex and the surrounding atmosphere $N_c^2-N^2$. The methods employed to estimate each parameter are provided in the next two subsections. The deduced parameters are reported in the Supplementary Information Tables S2 and S3.
\subsubsection*{Velocities and length scales}
Horizontal length scales of Jovian vortices are measured based on wind velocities criteria for the GRS\cite{simon_historical_2018} and the Ovals BA and DE\citep{choi_evolving_2010}. For the Oval BC, we use a measurement based on cloud features\citep{mitchell_flow_1981}. From these data, we deduce for each vortex a measured horizontal aspect ratio and ellipticity to compare our predictions with (see Figs.4 and 5 and Supplementary Information Table S2).
To apply our model, the first quantity required is the longitudinal Rossby number $Ro_x$ of these vortices, that is the slope of the meridional velocity along an East-West profile, divided by the Coriolis frequency $f$. For the Oval BA and DE, we compute it by a linear fit on their meridional velocity profile at the core of each vortex, with and uncertainty of $\pm$ 5 m/s on the velocities\cite{choi_evolving_2010}. For the Oval BC for which we could not find velocity profiles, we use estimates of the North-South peak velocities\cite{mitchell_flow_1981} and divide them by the vortex semi-major axis length $a$. The resulting longitudinal Rossby numbers are given in the Supplementary Information Table S2.
For the GRS, we need to take into account the fact that it is a hollow vortex with a quiescent core. The detail of the velocity profile does not invalidate our approach since in the dynamical collar, we assume the same cyclo-geostrophic balance to hold, i.e. the pressure gradient compensates for the Coriolis and centrifugal forces arising from the non-zero azimuthal velocities. However, a correction needs to be added in the case of a hollow vortex to account for the fact that the distance from the core at which the velocity is maximal (the width of the vortex, $a$) is different from the characteristic distance of the pressure anomaly gradient (the width of the collar $a_c$)\cite{hassanzadeh_universal_2012}. The longitudinal Rossby number measured in the collar is $Ro_x= \frac{V_{max}}{a_cf} (1-\beta)$, where $V_{max}$ is the mean peak meridional velocity along an East-West profile. In that case, a prefactor $a_c/a$ should be added due to the centrifugal term for which it is the radius of curvature of the trajectory, i.e. the distance to the center that matters, not the size of the collar. Laws \eqref{eq:vtx-horizaspect} and \eqref{eq:vtx-vertaspect} are then modified as follow:
\begin{equation}
\beta^2 \left( 2 \frac{a_c}{a} \frac{Ro_x^2}{\sigma} +1 \right) + 2\beta \left( \frac{a_c}{a} \frac{Ro_x^2}{\sigma} -1 \right) + 1 = 0,
\label{eq:vtx-horizaspect_hollow}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\left(\frac{c}{a}\right)^2 = \frac{Ro_x \left[ 1 + Ro_x~\frac{a_c}{a}~\frac{1+\beta}{1-\beta} \right] f^2 }{N_c^2 - N_f^2}
\label{eq:vtx-vertaspect_hollow}
\end{equation}
where $Ro_x=\frac{V_{max}}{a_cf} (1-\beta)$ is the stream-wise Rossby number measured inside the collar. For the GRS in 1996, 2000 and 2006, we measure the longitudinal Rossby number by fitting meridional velocity profiles in the East-West direction inside its anticyclonic collar. The data are taken from Figure 5 in Choi et al. (2007) \cite{choi_velocity_2007} for 1996 and 2000, and Asay-Davis et al. (2009)\cite{asay-davis_jupiters_2009} for 2006, with an uncertainty of 10 m/s on the velocities \citep{simon_historical_2018} and 400 km of uncertainty for the measured distances $a$ and $a_c$. For the other dates, we use peak velocities and collar width measurements\cite{mitchell_flow_1981,simon_historical_2018}. The corresponding measured values for $a$, $a_c$ and $Ro_x$ are reported in the Supplementary Information Table S3. Regarding equation \eqref{eq:vtx-vertaspect_hollow}, rigorously speaking, the vertical aspect ratio is the aspect ratio between the pressure anomaly's vertical and horizontal characteristic length scales. Since to the best of our knowledge nothing is known about the influence of the GRS quiescent core on the density anomaly, we use the same assumption as for the other Jovian vortices, that is a pressure characteristic vertical scale equal to $c$. A complete and self-consistent model of the three-dimensional structure of a hollow vortex would be required, especially in terms of density anomaly, to conclude on the relevant scales. This lack of data and modeling leads us to use the simplest assumption, which is also the most consistent with our model, i.e. we assume that $a$ and $c$ are the semi-axes of the entire vortex. To conclude on this point, note that although the quiet center of the GRS still remains today, it is significantly smaller than during the Voyager era (Supplementary Information Table S3). Additionally, no other vortices on Jupiter are known to have this hollow structure. They are rather very close to solid body rotation with a linear increase of the velocity in their core\citep{choi_evolving_2010} as assumed in our theoretical model, which hence seeks to be generic and applicable to the vast majority of Jovian anticyclones.
Additionally, our model requires estimates of the shear rate imposed by jets at the latitude of the vortices. Using linear fits on zonal winds profiles, we report those estimates and their errors for the GRS\citep{shetty_interaction_2007}, the Ovals DE and BC \cite{limaye_jupiter_1986} and the Oval BA \cite{tollefson_changes_2017} in the Supplementary Information Table S2.
\subsubsection*{Buoyancy and Coriolis frequencies}
The Coriolis parameter $f$, that is the amplitude of the vertical component of the rotation rate at the latitude of the vortices is taken from Table 3 of Mitchell et al. (1981) \cite{mitchell_flow_1981}.
The last but crucial parameter that we need to estimate is the difference of stratification between the vortex and the surrounding atmosphere $N^2-N_c^2$. To do so, we recall and discuss the method used in Aubert et al. (2012) \cite{aubert_universal_2012} supplementary material. The idea is to use temperature measurements that were performed in Jupiter's upper troposphere across the vortices and around them. Using the ideal gas equation and the fact that the pressure anomaly is zero at the top of the vortex ($z=h$), the density anomaly with respect to the ambient fluid at the top of the vortex can be expressed as $\Delta \rho /\rho = - \Delta T/T$, hence
\begin{equation}
\frac{T_a(z=h)-T_v(z=h)}{T_a(z=h)} = - \frac{\rho_a(z=h)-\rho_v(z=h)}{\rho_a(z=h)},
\end{equation}
where $T_a$ and $\rho_a$ are the temperature and density in the surrounding atmosphere, and $T_v,\rho_v$ within the vortex. At the core of the vortex ($z=0$), the density anomaly is zero, and a Taylor expansion leads to
\begin{equation}
\frac{T_a(z=h)-T_v(z=h)}{T_a(z=h)} \approx -h \frac{\left( \frac{\partial \rho_a}{\partial z} \right)_{z=0} - \left( \frac{\partial \rho_v}{\partial z} \right)_{z=0}}{\rho_a(z=h)} \approx \frac{h}{g} (N^2 - N_c^2).
\end{equation}
A crude estimation of the stratification difference between the vortex and the ambient can thus be obtained using temperature differences measurements:
\begin{equation}
N^2-N_c^2 \approx \frac{g}{h} \left(\frac{T_a-T_v}{T_a}\right)_{z=h}.
\end{equation}
The temperature anomalies associated with the vortices have been measured quite accurately \citep{conrath_thermal_1981,flasar_thermal_1981,fletcher_thermal_2010}. Additionally, we adopt the pressure-temperature profile derived from the Galileo probe data \citep{seiff_thermal_1998} to obtain the mean atmosphere temperature at the measurement level. For the GRS, Figure 2 in Flasar et al. (1981) \citep{flasar_thermal_1981} shows a temperature anomaly of $8\pm1$ K at 50 mbars. With an atmospheric temperature at that level of $T_{a,50}=121\pm4$ K, we obtain a relative temperature anomaly of $(T_a-T_v)_{50}/T_{a,50} = 0.0661 \pm 0.0104$. For the Ovals DE and BC, Figure 1 in Conrath et al. (1981) \citep{conrath_thermal_1981} shows a temperature anomaly of $4\pm1$ K at $120\pm20$ mbars. With $T_{a,120}=115\pm2$ K, we obtain a relative temperature anomaly of $(T_a-T_v)_{120}/T_{a,120} = 0.0348 \pm 0.0093$. Since no thermal measurements were performed across the Oval BA, we make the assumption that its stratification is the same as the vortices from which it formed, hence we use the same value as for the Ovals DE and BC.
Finally, the distance $h$ between the measurement level and the vortex midplane where the temperature anomaly vanishes is also a poorly constrained parameter and should be considered with its uncertainties. The aforementioned anomalies are measured at 50 mbars ($z^*\sim+58$ km, $z^*=0$ being the 1 bar pressure level) for the GRS and 120 mbars ($z^*\sim+43$ km) for the Ovals. For the vortex midplane, the cold anomaly of the GRS was observed up to 500 mbar\citep{flasar_thermal_1981,fletcher_thermal_2010} ($z^*\sim+16$ km) meaning that the midplane (zero-anomaly) is located at higher pressures. According to observers, it could extend up to 2 bar \citep{de_pater_persistent_2010}, that is $z^*\sim-20$ km. Consistently, in numerical modeling, the midplane of Jovian vortices is located between 400 to 1500 mbar\cite{morales-juberias_epic_2003,legarreta_vertical_2008}. If we take into account this large uncertainty, we obtain $h=60\pm18$ km for the GRS and $h=45\pm18$ km for the Ovals. With a gravitational acceleration of $g=23$ m s$^{-2}$ based on the Galileo probe measurements \citep{seiff_thermal_1998}, we finally obtain $N^2-N_c^2 = (2.53 \pm 1.16)\cdot 10^{-5}$ rad$^2$ s$^{-2}$ for the GRS and $N^2-N_c^2 = (1.78 \pm 1.19)\cdot 10^{-5}$ rad$^2$ s$^{-2}$ for the Ovals. The values are reported in the Supplementary Information Table S2 with all the parameters required to apply our model. \\
Note that this method does not require an independent knowledge of the stratification in the atmosphere $N$ and within the vortex $N_c$, which is crucial since the stratification inside any of the Jovian vortices has never been measured. The drawback is that we use superficial measurements, and extrapolate them to deduce a density slope with the important assumption that this slope is constant. But contrary to $N_c$, the stratification of Jupiter's atmosphere has been measured and estimated (e.g. Galileo measurements\cite{seiff_thermal_1998} and modelling estimates extrapolating Voyager data\cite{legarreta_vertical_2008}). The result is that $N$ is not constant in the range of pressure considered here for the vortex midplane. In the upper troposphere, both Voyager data \cite[][Figure 2]{legarreta_vertical_2008} and estimates from inverse problems \cite{shetty_changes_2010} agree on $N \sim 0.02$ rad s$^{-1}$. At deeper levels in the atmosphere, this stratification is supposed to decrease and reach $N\sim0.005$ rad s$^{-1}$ for pressures between 1 to 7 bars \citep{legarreta_vertical_2008}. Unfortunately, we cannot rigorously take this decrease into account without knowing how the vortex stratification varies along with it since the essential parameter in our model is the difference between the stratification within the vortex and the ambient one, not the stratification itself. As such, one could ultimately reach the limit $N_c^2 \rightarrow N^2$ for which the vortex vertical extent would become infinite. Our results thus depend on a proper estimate of the stratification difference with depth, and provide lower bounds for the vortex depths rather than absolute values.
With these parameters estimates, we can apply our model (laws \eqref{eq:vtx-horizaspect} and \eqref{eq:vtx-vertaspect}) to predict the ellipticity and the thickness of those Jovian anticyclones. The results are given in the main text and the Supplementary Information Table S2.
\paragraph{Data availability} The data represented in Figs. \ref{fig:expnum-shape-evol}, \ref{fig:grs}b and \ref{fig:grs}c are available as Source Data 3 and 5. All other data that support the plots within this paper and other findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
|
\section{Introduction}
The structure of dark matter haloes on kiloparsec-scales provides a
sensitive astrophysical test of the standard cold dark matter
(CDM) paradigm, and more generally the nature of dark matter
\citep[e.g.,][]{Bullock17}. Through the use of dissipationless
simulations, the structure of CDM haloes in the absence of baryons is
well determined \citep[e.g.,][]{Stadel09,Dutton14}. The dissipation of gas to
the center of haloes is thought to only make the dark matter halo contract
\citep{Blumenthal86,Gnedin04}. However, other baryonic processes can
cause the dark matter halo to expand: dynamical friction from
infalling baryonic clumps \citep{El-Zant01}, resonances with galactic
bars \citep{Weinberg02}, and multiple episodes of gas outflows
\citep{Read05,Pontzen12,Dutton16b}.
Using 10 cosmological galaxy formation simulations from the MAGICC
project \citep{Stinson13}, \citet{DiCintio14} found that the structure
of CDM haloes, and hence the trade off between gas inflows and
outflows, depends on the ratio between the galaxy stellar mass and the
halo mass ${\ifmmode{M_{\rm star}}\else{$M_{\rm star}$}\fi}/{\ifmmode{M_{\rm halo}}\else{$M_{\rm halo}$}\fi}$ (which is proportional to the integrated
star formation efficiency). At low ${\ifmmode{M_{\rm star}}\else{$M_{\rm star}$}\fi}/{\ifmmode{M_{\rm halo}}\else{$M_{\rm halo}$}\fi} \lta 0.0003$ the
dark matter profile remains unchanged, due to minimal gas dissipation,
and minimal gas outflows. As the efficiency increases the halo
expansion gets stronger, while the contractive effect of inflows still
remains small. The maximum expansion is reached at ${\ifmmode{M_{\rm star}}\else{$M_{\rm star}$}\fi}/{\ifmmode{M_{\rm halo}}\else{$M_{\rm halo}$}\fi}\sim
0.003$. At higher ${\ifmmode{M_{\rm star}}\else{$M_{\rm star}$}\fi}/{\ifmmode{M_{\rm halo}}\else{$M_{\rm halo}$}\fi}$ the expansion is reduced due to the
increasing importance of gas inflows until above ${\ifmmode{M_{\rm star}}\else{$M_{\rm star}$}\fi}/{\ifmmode{M_{\rm halo}}\else{$M_{\rm halo}$}\fi}\sim
0.03$ the halo contracts.
This result was confirmed by \citet{Tollet16} using 60 simulations
from the NIHAO project \citep{Wang15}, and \citet{Chan15,Bullock17,Lazar20}
using simulated galaxies from the FIRE \citep{Hopkins14}
and FIRE-2 projects \citep{Hopkins18}. See also \citet{Maccio20} for
an extension to massive galaxies with AGN feedback. However,
\citet{Bose19} finds essentially no change in the dark matter halo for
a wide range of ${\ifmmode{M_{\rm star}}\else{$M_{\rm star}$}\fi}/{\ifmmode{M_{\rm halo}}\else{$M_{\rm halo}$}\fi}$ using the simulations from the AURIGA
\citep{Grand17} and APOSTLE \citep{Sawala16} projects. The solution
to this apparent contradiction is that the halo response is strongly
dependent on the star formation density threshold adopted in the
simulation \citep{Governato10,Dutton19c, Benitez19}. High thresholds $n\gta 10$
can result in halo expansion (for suitable ${\ifmmode{M_{\rm star}}\else{$M_{\rm star}$}\fi}/{\ifmmode{M_{\rm halo}}\else{$M_{\rm halo}$}\fi}$), while
low thresholds $n\sim 0.1$ (e.g., APOSTLE, AURIGA) never result in
significant halo expansion. While different simulation codes agree on
the halo response at low $n\sim 0.1$, there is not yet consensus for
high $n\gta 100$ with \citet{Benitez19} finding dark halo contraction
in dwarf galaxies, while FIRE, FIRE-2, \citet{Governato10, Governato12} and
\citet{Read16} finding halo expansion.
In order for hydrodynamical simulations of galaxy formation to make a
robust prediction for the structure of CDM haloes we thus need to find
ways to distinguish between simulations with different star formation
thresholds. \citet{Dutton19c} showed that simulations with different
star formation thresholds resulted in differences in the variability
in the star formation rates, with a factor $\sim 2$ more variability
for $n=10$ than $n=0.1$. \citet{Buck19b} showed that simulations with
different star formation thresholds resulted in differences in the
spatial distribution of young stars, specifically the two-point
correlation. Comparing to observations of the two-point correlation of
young star clusters from LEGUS \citep{Grasha17}, \citet{Buck19b} finds
$n=10$ consistent with observations, and $n=1$ and $n=0.1$
inconsistent, with clustering that is too weak.
In this paper we extend the studies of \citet{Dutton19c} and
\citet{Buck19b} to an order of magnitude higher star formation
thresholds with the goal of resolving the conflicting results at
$n\gta 100$. We also include a new set of simulations for $n=0.1$ that
we have recalibrated using the star formation efficiency, instead of
the feedback efficiency.
This paper is organized as follows: The simulation suite is outlined
in Section 2. Results on the convergence of the inner structure of CDM
haloes are given in Section 3. In Section 4 we constrain the star
formation threshold using the clustering of young stars. In Section 5
we test the CDM predictions with galaxy kinematics, finally a summary
is given in Section 6.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{fig1.eps}
\caption{Relation between galaxy stellar mass, ${\ifmmode{M_{\rm star}}\else{$M_{\rm star}$}\fi}$, and total
virial mass, $M_{200}$, at redshift $z=0$. The solid and dashed
lines show results (mean and 1$\sigma$ scatter) from halo
abundance matching \citep{Moster18}, while the dotted line
corresponds to the cosmic baryon fraction. Simulations with
different star formation thresholds, $n$, are given in different
colors: $n=10$ (red, NIHAO default), $n=0.1$ (green), $n=1$
(blue), $n=5$ (cyan), $n=20$ (yellow), $n=100$ (magenta), and
$n=500$ (grey). Some simulations have been recalibrated by varying
the star formation efficiency, $c_{\ast}$, or the early stellar
feedback efficiency, $\epsilon_{\rm ESF}$, with new parameters as
indicated. At the highest $n$ we include simulations with smaller
force softenings: $\epsilon/2$, and $\epsilon/4$.}
\label{fig:msmv}
\end{figure*}
\section{Simulations}
\label{sec:sims}
As in \citet{Dutton19c}, we use a set of 20 haloes of virial masses
between $M_{200} \sim 10^{10}$ and $\sim 10^{12}~{\ifmmode{ {\rm M}_{\odot}}\else{M_{\odot}}\fi}$ taken from the
NIHAO project \citep{Wang15}. NIHAO is a sample of $\simeq 100$
hydrodynamical cosmological simulations run using the SPH code {\sc
gasoline2} \citep{Wadsley17}. The uniqueness of NIHAO is in the
combination of high spatial resolution over a wide range of halo
masses ($10^{10}$ to $10^{12}~{\ifmmode{ {\rm M}_{\odot}}\else{M_{\odot}}\fi}$) for a statistical sample of
haloes.
The masses and force softenings of the dark matter particles are
chosen to resolve the mass profile at $\lta 1$ per cent of the virial
radius, which results in $\sim 10^6$ dark matter particles inside the
virial radius of all main haloes at $z=0$. The corresponding masses
and force softenings for the gas particles are a factor of
$\Omegab/\Omegadm=0.182$ and $\sqrt{\Omegab/\Omegadm}=0.427$ lower.
Each hydro simulation has a corresponding simulation of the same
resolution, but with just dark matter particles (dark matter only,
DMO) of the same resolution. These DMO simulations have been started using
the identical initial conditions, replacing baryonic particles with
dark matter particles.
As discussed in detail in previous papers, and as outlined below,
NIHAO galaxies are consistent with a wide range of galaxy properties.
They form the right amount of stars (as compared to halo abundance
matching) both today and at earlier times \citep{Wang15}. The masses
and half-light sizes of the cold gas are consistent with observations
\citep{Stinson15, Maccio16}. They follow several fundamental kinematic
scaling relations: the gas, stellar, and baryonic Tully-Fisher
relations \citep{Dutton17}, and the radial acceleration relation
\citep{Dutton19b}. They match the clumpy morphology seen in observed
galaxies at high redshifts \citep{Buck17}. They reconcile the
conflict between the steep halo velocity function of LCDM and the
shallow H{\sc i} linewidth velocity function observed in the nearby
Universe \citep{Maccio16, Dutton19a}. They result in satellite mass
functions resembling the one of the Milky Way \citep{Buck19a}, and
emulate the Milky Ways central stellar bar \citep{Buck18, Buck19c}.
Given all of this success, they provide a good template with which to
predict the structure of cold dark matter haloes.
We refer the reader to \citet{Wang15} for a description of the NIHAO
simulations and \citet{Dutton19c} for more properties of the 20
resimulated galaxies. Here we briefly describe the parameters that we
vary in this paper: the star formation threshold $n$, the efficiency
of early stellar feedback, $e_{\rm ESF}$, and the star formation
efficiency, $c_{\ast}$.
In our simulations star formation is implemented as described in
\citet{Stinson06, Stinson13}. Stars form from gas that is both cool
($T < 15 000$K) and dense ($\rho > n$[cm$^{-3}$]). Gas that passes
both thresholds is converted into stars according to
\begin{equation}
\frac{\Delta{\ifmmode{M_{\rm star}}\else{$M_{\rm star}$}\fi}}{\Delta t} = c_{\ast} \frac{M_{\rm gas}}{t_{\rm dyn}}.
\end{equation}
Here $\Delta{\ifmmode{M_{\rm star}}\else{$M_{\rm star}$}\fi}$ is the mass of stars formed, $\Delta t=0.84\,$Myr
is the time-step between star formation events (Age of Universe$/2^{14}$), and $t_{\rm dyn}$ is
the gas particle's dynamical time. The fiducial efficiency of star
formation is set to $c_{\ast}=0.1$.
In our fiducial NIHAO simulations we adopt a star formation threshold
of $n=10\, [{\rm cm}^{-3}]$. This is chosen as it is roughly the
maximum density that we can resolve:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:nmax}
n_{\rm max} \approx 50 \,m_{\rm gas}/\epsilon_{\rm gas}^3,
\end{equation}
where $m_{\rm gas}$ is the gas particle mass and $\epsilon_{\rm gas}$ is the gas
gravitational force softening. Here 50 is the number of SPH particles
in the smoothing kernel. For all our simulations (with different
resolution levels) this formula results in the same $n_{\rm max}\approx 10$.
In this paper we present new results for simulations with $n=5$ and
$n=20$, as well as much higher values $n=100$ and $n=500$. As we will
show below, in order to form galaxies with realistic baryonic mass
distributions with $n\gg 10$ we need smaller force softenings. Smaller
softening allows the gas to clump on smaller scales and thus reach
higher densities (Eq.~\ref{eq:nmax}).
The other parameter of relevance to this study is the feedback
efficiency. The NIHAO simulations employ thermal feedback in two
epochs as described in \citet{Stinson13}. The first epoch models the
energy input from stellar winds and photoionization from bright young
stars before supernovae explode. We thus term this early stellar
feedback (ESF). The ESF consists of a fraction $\epsilon_{\rm ESF}$
of the total stellar flux being ejected from stars into surrounding
gas ($2 \times 10^{50}$ erg of thermal energy per ${\ifmmode{ {\rm M}_{\odot}}\else{M_{\odot}}\fi}$ of the
entire stellar population). Radiative cooling is left on for the ESF.
The second epoch models the energy input from supernovae and starts 4
Myr after the star forms. Stars with mass $8 ~{\ifmmode{ {\rm M}_{\odot}}\else{M_{\odot}}\fi} < M_{\ast} < 40
~{\ifmmode{ {\rm M}_{\odot}}\else{M_{\odot}}\fi}$ eject both energy ($\epsilon_{\rm SN}\times 10^{51}$ erg/SN)
and metals into the interstellar medium gas surrounding the region
where they formed. Supernova feedback is implemented using the
blastwave formalism described in \citet{Stinson06}. To correct for
numerical radiative losses, this model applies a delayed cooling
formalism for particles inside the blast region for $\sim 30$ Myr.
The default parameters of the feedback model are
$\epsilon_{\rm ESF}=0.13$ and $\epsilon_{\rm SN}=1.0$. They were calibrated
against the evolution of the stellar mass versus halo mass relation
from halo abundance matching \citep{Behroozi13,Moster13} for a $z=0$
Milky Way mass halo $\sim 10^{12}~{\ifmmode{ {\rm M}_{\odot}}\else{M_{\odot}}\fi}$. In this paper we leave
$\epsilon_{\rm SN}=1.0$ and vary $\epsilon_{\rm ESF}$.
\subsection{Haloes and galaxies}
Haloes are identified using the MPI+OpenMP hybrid halo finder
\texttt{AHF}\footnote{http://popia.ft.uam.es/AMIGA} \citep{Gill04,
Knollmann09}. The virial mass of each halo is defined as the mass of
all particles within a sphere whose average density is 200 times the
cosmic critical matter density, $\rhocrit=3H_0^2/8\pi G$. For the
hydro simulations the virial mass, size and circular velocity of the
haloes are denoted: $M_{200}$, $R_{200}$, $V_{200}$. For the DMO
simulations the corresponding properties are denoted with a
superscript, ${\rm DMO}$. We define the stellar mass, $M_{\rm star}$,
of a galaxy to be the mass of stars enclosed within spheres of
radius $r_{\rm gal}=0.2R_{200}$, corresponding to $\sim 10$ to $\sim
50$ kpc. consider the main halo per zoom-in simulation.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{fig2.eps}
\caption{Change in enclosed mass ($\Delta\log M_{\rm dark} \equiv
\log M_{\rm dark}^{\rm hydro} -\log M_{\rm dark}^{\rm DMO}$) at 1
per cent of the virial radius (upper panels) and slope of the
enclosed dark matter density profile between 1 and 2 per cent of
the virial radius (lower panels) versus stellar to halo mass
ratio. The dotted vertical line corresponds to the cosmic baryon
fraction. The grey lines in the lower panel show the result from
the full NIHAO sample from \citet{Tollet16}. The star formation
threshold varies from $n=0.1$ to $n=500$ with colors and symbols as
indicated. The default parameters are: efficiency of early stellar
feedback $\epsilon_{\rm ESF}=0.13$, star formation efficiency
$c_{\ast}=0.1$. The halo response converges for $n\gta 5$ provided
the force softening is small enough.}
\label{fig:alpha}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Feedback recalibration}
Fig.~\ref{fig:msmv} shows the ratio between stellar and virial mass at
redshift $z=0$ for the 20 main haloes. The solid (and dashed) lines
are the mean (and scatter) from halo abundance matching from
\citet{Moster18}, which we have corrected to our halo mass definition.
Each panel shows results for $n=10$ (fiducial NIHAO, red open circles)
together with one or two other values of $n$. For $n=1, 5$ and $10$
the relation is very similar (top right panel). However, for both
higher and lower $n$ the fiducial simulation parameters under produce
stars, especially so for the higher mass galaxies ($M_{200} >
10^{11}~{\ifmmode{ {\rm M}_{\odot}}\else{M_{\odot}}\fi}$).
For $n=0.1$ the fiducial parameters ($\epsilon_{\rm ESF}=0.13,
c_{\ast}=0.1$) result in stellar masses being under produced by an
order of magnitude in the $M_{200}\sim 10^{12}~{\ifmmode{ {\rm M}_{\odot}}\else{M_{\odot}}\fi}$ haloes. We
re-calibrate the $n=0.1$ simulations in two ways: by reducing the
efficiency of early-stellar feedback to $\epsilon_{\rm ESF}=0.04$
(filled triangles), or by reducing the star formation efficiency from
$c_{\ast}=0.1$ to $c_{\ast}=0.015$ (open inverted triangles). The
latter effect may seem counter-intuitive, since without feedback a
lower $c_{\ast}$ is expected to result in a lower stellar
mass. However when feedback is included the opposite trend occurs.
Feedback has the effect of heating gas and removing it from star
forming regions, and thus naturally delays and reduces the amount of
stars formed. Since denser gas radiates energy away faster, feedback
is less efficient when the surrounding gas is denser. A lower
$c_{\ast}$ initially results in less star formation but also less
feedback energy injected into the ISM, which results in denser gas.
The denser gas reduces the efficiency of subsequent feedback events,
and thus results in more gas available to form stars, and ultimately
higher stellar masses.
For $n=20$ the reduction in stellar mass is relatively small. We
recalibrate by reducing the efficiency of early stellar feedback from
$\epsilon_{\rm ESF}=0.13$ (open yellow pentagons) to $\epsilon_{\rm
ESF}=0.10$ (filled yellow pentagons). The $n=100$ simulations have
a similar under production of stars as the $n=0.1$ simulations. We
have experimented with varying the feedback efficiency with limited
success. The problem for these simulations is more fundamental than
the choice of model parameters: they simply lack the spatial
resolution to enable sufficient amounts of gas to locally reach the
star formation threshold. For $n=100$ we run simulations where all
particles have half the force softening $\epsilon/2$ (filled magenta
hexagons). For $n=500$ we use one quarter of the standard softening
$\epsilon/4$ (grey stars). The main effect of reducing the force
softening is that it allows the smoothed gas densities to be higher
(since we set the SPH smoothing length to be proportional to the
gravitational force softening). A factor of 2 lower force softening
thus allows a factor of 8 denser gas, and a factor of 4 lower force
softening allows a factor of 64 denser gas. These haloes form
significantly more stars than the standard softening simulations, yet
they still under produce stars (in haloes with $M_{200}>
10^{11}~{\ifmmode{ {\rm M}_{\odot}}\else{M_{\odot}}\fi}$) relative to the $n=10$ simulations and halo abundance
matching. So these simulations would benefit with further
re-calibration of the feedback efficiency and/or star formation
efficiency. We do note though that for dwarf galaxy haloes
$10^{10}\lta M_{200} \lta 10^{11}~{\ifmmode{ {\rm M}_{\odot}}\else{M_{\odot}}\fi}$ the stellar masses are
remarkably insensitive to the star formation threshold and choice of
force softening.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig3a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig3b.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig3c.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig3d.eps}
\caption{Ratio between dark matter mass in hydro and DMO simulations
measured at 1 per cent of the virial radius versus the star
formation threshold of the simulation. Point types and colors are
as in Fig.~\ref{fig:alpha}. For thresholds with more than one set
of simulations ($n=0.1, n=20, n=100$) we have introduced small
horizontal offsets for clarity. For each simulation we show 7
outputs equally spaced in time between redshifts $z=0.5$ and
$z=0.0$. The lines connect simulations at a given redshift, where
solid is $z=0$. The average halo response converges for $n\gta
10$.}
\label{fig:deltam}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig4a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig4b.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig4c.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig4d.eps}
\caption{Effect of force softening on galaxy circular velocity
profiles for g1.59e11. We show 7 outputs equally spaced in time
between redshifts $z=0.5$ and $z=0.0$. In each panel the black
lines show the DMO simulation: total (dotted) and scaled by
$(\Omegam-\Omegab)/\Omegam$ (solid). The colored lines show the
hydro simulation. The DMO simulation has a very stable velocity
profile. The $n=10$ (lower right), $n=100$ quarter softening
(lower left), and $n=100$ half-softening (upper right) simulations
have similar stellar (blue lines), gas (green lines), dark matter
(red lines) and total (yellow lines) profiles. In particular, the
dark matter profiles show only small variation and noticeable
expansion with respect to the DMO. By contrast the $n=100$ (upper
left) simulation has a high variability in the dark matter
profiles at small radii, which can be traced to the high
variability in the gas profile at small radii.}
\label{fig:vr}
\end{figure*}
\section{Convergence in halo response at high star formation threshold}
The main result of this paper is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:alpha}. This
shows the change in the dark matter mass profile at 1 per cent of the
virial radius (identical to the change in enclosed dark matter
density), while the lower panel shows the slope of the enclosed dark
matter density profile between 1 and 2 per cent of the virial
radius. Note that here we use the enclosed dark matter density rather
than the local dark matter density as used in our previous works
\citep[e.g.,][]{Tollet16}, but the results are qualitatively the same
(compare the grey lines with the red circles).
In the upper panels, the dashed line corresponds to the DMO simulation
(by definition), while in the lower panels the open circles show the
DMO simulations (which cluster close to the NFW slope of $-1$).
Results are shown versus stellar-to-halo mass ratio as this parameter
has been shown to be better correlated with the halo response
\citep{DiCintio14, Dutton16b, Bullock17} than either the stellar mass
or halo mass alone.
For the lowest star formation threshold simulations $n=0.1$ (green
triangles) the haloes are essentially unchanged for
${\ifmmode{M_{\rm star}}\else{$M_{\rm star}$}\fi}/M_{200}\lta 10^{-2}$, while they contract for higher
${\ifmmode{M_{\rm star}}\else{$M_{\rm star}$}\fi}/M_{200}$ due to the increased dissipation of gas. We show
three sets of simulations for $n=0.1$: the fiducial early stellar
feedback efficiency $\epsilon_{\rm ESF}=0.13$ (pronged green
triangles), $\epsilon_{\rm ESF}=0.04$ (solid green triangles), and
$c_{\ast}=0.015$ (open green triangles). All three sets of simulations
show the same trend of halo response with ${\ifmmode{M_{\rm star}}\else{$M_{\rm star}$}\fi}/M_{200}$.
These results for $n=0.1$ are very similar to those for the APOSTLE and
AURIGA simulations presented by \citet{Bose19}.
This agreement is encouraging given the numerous differences between
the codes. It suggests that how supernova feedback
is modeled as well as the hydrodynamical scheme are of secondary
importance compared to the star formation threshold.
Furthermore, we know of no cosmological galaxy formation
simulation that contradicts this result. We thus conclude the lack of
halo expansion for simulations run with low star formation thresholds
$n\sim 0.1$ is a robust theoretical result. As discussed previously,
and also below, if low-mass CDM haloes do not expand then the
so-called too-big-to-fail problem for field galaxies represents a
serious challenge for the CDM model \citep{Garrison-Kimmel14,
Dutton16a, Dutton19c}.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig5a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig5b.eps}
\caption{Effect of force softening on galaxy and halo mass profiles
for halo g1.59e11 at $z=1.47$. Both simulations have
a star formation threshold of $n=500$. With the fiducial force
softening (left panel) the gas profile (green long-dashed) is very
concentrated, and dominates the total mass within 4 kpc. This
results in the dark matter profile (red solid) contracting with
respect to the DMO simulation (black solid). With a force
softening reduced by a factor of 4 (right panel), the gas profile
is normal and the dark matter halo has started to expand within 3
kpc.}
\label{fig:vr2}
\end{figure*}
As we increase the star formation threshold to $n=1$ (blue squares)
the trends are similar to that from $n=0.1$, but with slightly
shallower DM slopes and slight halo expansion. By $n=5$ (cyan
diamonds) strong halo expansion occurs when $10^{-3} \lta
{\ifmmode{M_{\rm star}}\else{$M_{\rm star}$}\fi}/M_{200} \lta 10^{-2}$, while haloes still contract for
${\ifmmode{M_{\rm star}}\else{$M_{\rm star}$}\fi}/M_{200}\sim 10^{-1.5}$.
For high thresholds $n=10$ (red filled circles), $n=20$ (yellow
pentagons), $n=100$ (magenta hexagons), and $n=500$ (grey stars) the
halo response appears to have converged with strong expansion to dark
matter cores for $10^{-3} \lta {\ifmmode{M_{\rm star}}\else{$M_{\rm star}$}\fi}/M_{200} \lta 10^{-2}$.
The concept of convergence in halo response is complicated because in
our simulations halo expansion is primarily caused by feedback driven
gas outflows. These occur during bursts of star formation. The timing
of these bursts is not identical in different simulations run with
identical initial conditions due to the stochastic nature of star
formation in our simulations. Thus when we talk about convergence we
focus on quantities averaged over several time steps and/or
simulations with a given halo mass today.
The convergence in halo response at high star formation thresholds is
shown for four individual haloes in Fig.~\ref{fig:deltam}. The
vertical axis shows the ratio between enclosed dark matter masses in
the hydro and DMO simulations at 1 per cent of the virial radius
(i.e., the same parameter as in the upper panel of
Fig.~\ref{fig:alpha}). For each simulation we show the results of
seven snapshots equally spaced in time between redshifts $z=0.5$ and
$z=0$. This shows that for a given halo there is significant
variability in the halo structure as a function of time. This
variability is due to a combination of stochastic processes and
systematic evolution. Nevertheless, if we look at the trends we see a
strong difference in the average halo response between $n=1$ (blue
squares) and $n=5$ (cyan diamonds). For $n\ge 10$ the halo response
shows good convergence for a given halo. By convergence we mean the
average dark matter mass is independent of $n$. The exception is
that for $n=100$ we see a larger variation in the halo response for
the fiducial softening simulations (open hexagons) versus the
half-softening simulations (filled hexagons). For g1.59e11 we even see
a few snapshots with mass ratios close to unity. We trace the origin
of this feature in the $n=100$ simulations to insufficient spatial
resolution. When the star formation threshold is less than $n_{\rm
max} \simeq 10 [{\rm cm}^{-3}]$ (for our fiducial resolution
simulations) gas can locally fragment and thus turn into stars, the
resulting feedback pushes gas out preventing a build up of gas in the
galaxy center. When the threshold is higher than $n_{\rm max}$,
instead of forming stars, the gas loses angular momentum and collapses
to the center of the galaxy until it is globally above the star
formation threshold. A large starburst and gas outflow event follows,
and then the process repeats.
An illustration of this is shown for halo g1.59e11 in
Fig.~\ref{fig:vr}. Each panel shows the circular velocity profiles
for seven snapshots equally spaced in time between redshift $z=0.5$
and $z=0$. For our standard simulations $n_{\rm max}=10$ (lower right)
the stellar (blue), gas (green), and dark matter (red) profiles are
fairly stable, and the dark matter has expanded relative to the DMO
(black lines) show the total (dotted) and ``dark'' (solid) components.
For $n=100$ (upper left) there is a wide variation in the gas
profile. In some snapshots the gas is very concentrated, while in
others the gas has been blown out of the galaxy center. As would be
expected the dark matter variation follows the variation in the gas
(i.e., when the gas is more concentrated the dark matter is more
concentrated). In some snapshots the dark matter profile even follows
the DMO at small radii ($<$ kpc). Since $n_{\rm max}\ll 100$ for our
fiducial choice of $m_{\rm gas}$ and $\epsilon_{\rm gas}$ we do not
expect this simulation to be physically realistic.
This problem with $n=100$ simulations can be simply fixed by reducing
the force softening of the particles. When we reduce the force
softenings of the particles by a factor of 2 ($n_{\rm max}\simeq 80$,
upper right) and a factor of 4 ($n_{\rm max}\simeq 640$, lower left)
the resulting profiles (of the stars, gas, and dark matter) are very
similar to that of the $n=10$ simulations. We note that these smaller
force softenings are within the bounds set by \citet{Ludlow19}, see
their fig.~1. Note also that there has been no recalibration of these
simulations.
Fig.~\ref{fig:vr2} shows the same halo but at an earlier time
($z=1.47$) and now with $n=500$. The standard softening run (upper
left) now has an extremely overcooled gas bulge, which dominates the
central potential and has resulted in dark halo contraction (the solid
red line is above the solid black line below 5 kpc). The dense gas
bulge also makes the simulation much slower to run, which is why we
stopped it at high-redshift. The $n=500$ quarter softening run
(right) has similar star, gas, and dark matter profiles to the $n=100$
quarter softening and $n=10$ simulations. These simulations are all
still dark matter dominated at small radii, and the inner dark matter halo
has expanded compared to the DMO case.
\citet{Benitez19} showed that the inner dark matter content of
low-mass haloes (and the size of their cores) is very sensitive to the
assumed star formation threshold in the EAGLE model, hindering robust
model predictions and the interpretation of observational data.
The dwarf galaxy simulations of \citet{Benitez19} have $m_{\rm
gas}=6.6\times10^4~{\ifmmode{ {\rm M}_{\odot}}\else{M_{\odot}}\fi}$ and $\epsilon_{\rm gas}=234$ pc, which
results in $n_{\rm max}=10.5$ (i.e., almost identical to our fiducial
simulations). Their halo response is stable for $n=10$ to $n=80$. For
$n=160$ they start to see the effects of overcooling. By $n=320$ and
$n=640$ the gas dominates the central potential and the dark matter
halo contracts. Their results are thus completely consistent with what
we present here for our fiducial force softening runs.
\citet{Benitez19} suggest that it is the inefficiency of supernova
feedback at higher gas densities in the EAGLE code \citep{Crain15}
that is responsible for the increased central gas densities when
adopting a higher star formation threshold. They suggest that the
numerical implementation of feedback will be important at high gas
densities since this (over-cooling) effect does not occur in the
FIRE-2 \citep{Hopkins18} galaxies which adopt a very high threshold of $n\sim 1000$.
Our results suggest a much simpler explanation, namely that the force
softening used by \citet{Benitez19} is not appropriate for star
formation thresholds significantly greater than $n\sim10$. Indeed,
the FIRE-2 \citep{Fitts17} simulations are able to form galaxies with
normal looking gas profiles with $n\sim 1000$ simply because they
adopt very small force softenings ($\sim 20$ times smaller than
fiducial NIHAO for a given particle mass)\footnote{\citet{Fitts17} use
$\epsilon_{\rm gas}=2$ pc for $m_{\rm gas}=500~{\ifmmode{ {\rm M}_{\odot}}\else{M_{\odot}}\fi}$. Compare this to
$\epsilon_{\rm gas}=89.4$ pc for $m_{\rm gas}=3474~{\ifmmode{ {\rm M}_{\odot}}\else{M_{\odot}}\fi}$ for NIHAO,
which scales to $\epsilon_{\rm gas}=46.9$ pc for $m_{\rm gas}=500~
{\ifmmode{ {\rm M}_{\odot}}\else{M_{\odot}}\fi}$.}.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig6a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig6b.eps}
\caption{Clustering of young stars vs star formation threshold for
galaxies with stellar masses $2\times 10^{8} \lta {\ifmmode{M_{\rm star}}\else{$M_{\rm star}$}\fi} \lta
3\times 10^{10}~{\ifmmode{ {\rm M}_{\odot}}\else{M_{\odot}}\fi}$. The left panel shows the clustering
strength at 100 pc, $[ 1+\xi(r=100 {\rm pc})]$, while the right
panel shows the correlation length, $r(\xi=0)$. The shaded
region shows observational results from LEGUS
\citep{Grasha17}. Colored points show the simulation median with
error bars indicating the uncertainty on the median. Low star
formation thresholds ($n\le 1$) are disfavored by more than
2$\sigma$.}
\label{fig:tpcf}
\end{figure*}
To summarize, the response of dark matter haloes to galaxy formation
is sensitive to the star formation threshold. However, the dependence
on star formation threshold is quite simple, and is converged: at low
thresholds $n\lta 1$ dwarf galaxy haloes essentially follow the
DMO predictions, while for $n\gta 10$ haloes expand for $0.001 \lta
{\ifmmode{M_{\rm star}}\else{$M_{\rm star}$}\fi}/M_{200}\lta 0.01$.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{fig7.eps}
\caption{Circular velocity at the 3D half stellar mass radius vs the
stellar velocity dispersion for simulations with $n=10$ and
$n=0.1$. Small dots show single results from the 100 random
projections. Large symbols show the median value for each
galaxy. Filled symbols use the velocity dispersion of all the
stars (within $0.2 R_{200}$), open symbols use the velocity
dispersion of the stars within the projected circular half stellar
mass radius, $R_{50}$. The dotted line shows the 1:1 relation. The
solid line shows the prediction from the virial theorem of $V_{\rm
circ}(r_{1/2})=\sqrt{3}\sigma_{\rm star}$, which is a good
approximation in our simulations. The inset panel shows
histograms of the ratio $V(r1/2)/\sigma$ which is approximately
log-normally distributed with a standard deviation of about 0.04
(for $n=0.1$) to 0.06 ($n=10$) dex.}
\label{fig:vsigma}
\end{figure*}
\section{Constraining the star formation threshold with observations}
Having established how the structure of dark matter haloes depends
strongly on the star formation threshold we now turn to observations
to calibrate this free parameter. Since our ultimate goal is to use
these calibrated simulations to test the CDM model, we want to use
observations that are not directly related to the structure of dark
matter haloes.
\citet{Buck19b} showed that the clustering of young stars in the NIHAO
simulations depends strongly on the adopted star formation
threshold. The clustering can be quantified using the
two-point-correlation statistic of young star particles. Here we
repeat the analysis of \citet{Buck19b} using more values of the star
formation threshold ($n=5$, $n=100$). To match the stellar mass range
of the observed galaxies in \citet{Grasha17} we take the 8 simulations
with redshift $z=0$ stellar masses $2\times 10^8 \lta {\ifmmode{M_{\rm star}}\else{$M_{\rm star}$}\fi} \lta
3\times 10^{10}~{\ifmmode{ {\rm M}_{\odot}}\else{M_{\odot}}\fi}$. We use 24 snapshots evenly spaced in time from
$z=0.5$ to $z=0.0$. For each snapshot we calculate the
two-point-correlation statistic vs separation and fit the data with a
function \citep[see][for details]{Buck19b}.
From the fit we calculate the clustering amplitude at a
separation of 100 pc, and the radius where the clustering amplitude is
equal to unity (i.e., that of a random distribution). For each set of
simulations with a given $n$ we find the median and scatter of the
$\sim 200$ outputs.
Fig.~\ref{fig:tpcf} shows the clustering amplitude at 100 pc (left)
and the correlation length (right) versus the star formation threshold
of the simulation. The grey bands show the 1$\sigma$ region of the
observations using data from the LEGUS survey presented in
\citet{Grasha17}. Note that in making this comparison we are assuming
a correspondence between the clustering of observed young star
clusters and the clustering of young simulated star particles. For the
observations we use results for ages less than 40 Myr and all classes
1,2,3. In the simulations we only apply an age cut. The star
particles in our simulations have similar masses as the observed star
clusters ($\sim 10^3$ to $\sim10^4 {\ifmmode{ {\rm M}_{\odot}}\else{M_{\odot}}\fi}$). Thus to a first order
approximation our assumption that young star particles trace young
stellar clusters seems reasonable. However, an in depth investigation
into the correspondence between the clustering of simulated star
particles and observed star clusters, and ways to reduce any biases is
certainly warranted.
For each simulation the symbol shows the median value, while the
error-bar shows the error on the median ($1/\sqrt{N}$ times the
standard deviation). As expected there is a clear trend for stronger
clustering (higher clustering amplitude and smaller correlation
length) with higher star formation thresholds. The simulations with
$n=5,10,20,100$ overlap with the observed clustering, while the
simulations with $n=0.1$ and $n=1$ are more than $2\sigma$ away from
the observations, with clustering that is too weak. The multiple
points for $n=0.1$ and $n=20$ show that the clustering strength is not
sensitive to the feedback or star formation efficiency.
In summary, the clustering of young stars provides strong constraints
to the sub-grid model for star formation in our simulations. Star
formation thresholds of $n\le 1$ are strongly disfavored, while $10
\lta n \lta 100$ provides a good match to the observed clustering.
Even though the clustering does not single out a specific value for
the star formation threshold, it still provides a very useful
constraint because a majority of the galaxy formation simulations in
the literature adopt a low star formation threshold ($n\sim
0.1$). Furthermore, as shown in \citet{Dutton19c} and below, the inner
structure of the dark matter halo also depends on the star formation
threshold.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{fig8.eps}
\caption{Circular velocity versus radius for dwarf galaxies with
stellar masses $10^6 \lta {\ifmmode{M_{\rm star}}\else{$M_{\rm star}$}\fi} \lta 10^8~{\ifmmode{ {\rm M}_{\odot}}\else{M_{\odot}}\fi}$. Filled circles
with error bars show observed field galaxies more than 500 kpc
from the Milky Way \citep{Kirby14}. Lines show our simulations,
where the transition to dotted lines marks the scale that is
accurately resolved (twice the dark matter softening). The
parameter $\Delta$ is the mean offset (in dex) between the
observations and the simulations. The DMO simulations (upper left)
are offset from the observations by an average of 0.18 dex (i.e.,
a factor of 1.5). As the star formation threshold increases the
offset decreases, such that with $n=10$ (middle right) the offset
is just 0.02 dex.}
\label{fig:tbtf}
\end{figure*}
\section{Testing CDM with galaxy kinematics}
Having established how the structure of CDM haloes depends on the star
formation threshold, and calibrated this free parameter using the
clustering of young stars, we now turn to observations of galaxy
circular velocities to test the resulting predictions for CDM.
Following the analysis in \citet{Dutton19c} we split the tests into
two mass ranges corresponding to dwarf galaxies ($10^6 \lta
{\ifmmode{M_{\rm star}}\else{$M_{\rm star}$}\fi}/~{\ifmmode{ {\rm M}_{\odot}}\else{M_{\odot}}\fi} \lta 10^8$) and intermediate-mass galaxies ($10^9 \lta
{\ifmmode{M_{\rm star}}\else{$M_{\rm star}$}\fi}/~{\ifmmode{ {\rm M}_{\odot}}\else{M_{\odot}}\fi} \lta 10^{10}$). This split is based on the availability
of dynamical tracers. For the low-mass galaxies we use the integrated
stellar velocity dispersions to trace the circular velocity within the
half-light radius, while for the intermediate-mass galaxies we use
resolved rotation curves.
First, we show that the projected stellar velocity dispersion,
$\sigma_{\rm star}$, is a good tracer of the circular velocity at the
3D stellar half-mass radius, $r_{1/2}$. Fig.~\ref{fig:vsigma} shows
the relation between circular velocity and velocity dispersion for all
20 simulated galaxies at $z=0$ using 100 random projections per
galaxy. Red circles and magenta pentagons show results for $n=10$,
while green triangles and cyan squares show results for $n=0.1$ (and
re-calibrated with $\epsilon_{\rm ESF}=0.04$). Red and green points
show the stellar velocity dispersion measured within the whole galaxy
(defined to be 0.2 virial radii, $R_{200}$) while the magenta and cyan
points show the stellar velocity dispersion within the projected
stellar half-mass radius. Fig.~\ref{fig:vsigma} shows that the ratio
between circular velocity and stellar velocity dispersion is, on
average, insensitive to the star formation threshold of the
simulation, and the aperture within which the velocity dispersion is
measured.
On average we find $V_{\rm circ}(r_{1/2})=\sqrt{3}\sigma$, as predicted by the
spherical Jeans equations \citep{Wolf10}. There is a
non-negligible scatter of $\simeq 0.06$ dex in this relation. The
galaxy to galaxy variation is relatively small. Most of the scatter
comes from variations resulting from different viewing angles. Thus
samples of galaxies are needed to bring down the sampling errors.
\subsection{Dwarf galaxies}
For the 8 lowest mass haloes in our sample in Fig.~\ref{fig:tbtf} we
compare the simulated circular velocity profiles (lines) to the
circular velocity at the 3D half-light radius of observed field dwarf
galaxies in the Local Group (points with error bars) from
\citet{Kirby14}. The simulated galaxies have stellar masses in the
range $10^6 \lta {\ifmmode{M_{\rm star}}\else{$M_{\rm star}$}\fi} \lta 10^8 ~{\ifmmode{ {\rm M}_{\odot}}\else{M_{\odot}}\fi}$, while the observed dwarfs
have with V-band luminosities from $10^6$ to $2\times 10^8 {\ifmmode{ {\rm L}_{\odot}}\else{L_{\odot}}\fi}$. In
addition, for the observations we have excluded galaxies with
distances less than 500 kpc ($\sim 2$ virial radii) from the Milky Way
to minimize contamination of back-splash galaxies \citep{Buck19a}.
Note that four panels in Fig.~\ref{fig:tbtf} have previously been
published in fig.~4 of \citep{Dutton19c}. The reproduced panels are:
DMO (top left), $n=0.1$ $\epsilon_{\rm ESF}=0.04$ (top center), $n=1$
(middle left), and $n=10$ (middle right). Here we reproduce these
results and include five additional sets of simulations: $n=0.1$
$c_{\ast}=0.015$ (top right), $n=5$ (middle center), $n=20$ (lower
left), $n=100$ (lower center), and $n=100$ with half force-softening
(lower right).
As in \citet{Dutton19c}, we calculate the average offset between the
observations ($V_{\rm obs}$) and simulations ($V_{\rm sim}$). For
each observed data point, $V_{{\rm obs},i}(r_{{\rm obs},i})$, the mean
offset at radius $r_{{\rm obs},i}$ with respect to the $N_{\rm sim}=8$
simulations is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:delta}
\Delta_i=\sum_{j=1}^{N_{\rm sim}}(\log_{10} V_{{\rm obs},i}(r_{{\rm obs},i}) -\log_{10} V_{{\rm sim},j}({r_{\rm obs},i})/N_{\rm sim}.
\end{equation}
We then take the mean of $\Delta_i$ over the 7 observed data points,
which we denote $\Delta$.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{fig9.eps}
\caption{Dark matter circular velocity versus radius for galaxies
with $10^{8.8} \lta {\ifmmode{M_{\rm star}}\else{$M_{\rm star}$}\fi} \lta 10^{10.2}~{\ifmmode{ {\rm M}_{\odot}}\else{M_{\odot}}\fi}$. The same observations
are shown in all panels. Grey circles with error-bars show the
dark matter circular velocity at the half-light radius for
observed galaxies from SPARC. The solid black line shows the
mean dark matter circular velocity curve of the observations,
while the dotted lines show the 1 $\sigma$ scatter.
Each panel shows a different set of
simulations with star formation threshold $n$ as indicated.
The points are located at the projected stellar half-mass radii . The
value $\Delta$ is the mean offset [dex] between the simulations
and the observed average velocity at 2 kpc.}
\label{fig:vr_sparc}
\end{figure*}
As previously shown in fig.~4 from \citet{Dutton19c} we see that the
DMO simulations (upper left panel) are systematically too high. The
mean offset $\Delta=0.18$, i.e. the average offset between simulation
and observation is a factor of 1.5 in velocity, and a factor of 2.3 in
enclosed mass. This recovers the well known too-big-to-fail problem
of Local Group field galaxies \citep{Garrison-Kimmel14}.
The lower threshold
hydro simulations $n=0.1$ ($\Delta=0.14$) and $n=1$ ($\Delta=0.10$)
can reproduce some, but not all of the observed data points, and
predict circular velocities that are systematically too high. In
particular for $n=0.1$ the two sets of simulations show that the dark
matter profiles are insensitive to the efficiencies of early stellar
feedback and star formation.
We showed previously in \citet{Dutton16a,Dutton19c} that the NIHAO
simulations resolve the too-big-to-fail problem. The fiducial NIHAO $n=10$
simulations match the observations well with $\Delta=0.02$ (middle
right panel). The new simulations ($n=5$, recalibrated $n=20$, and
half-softening $n=100$) also provide a good match to the observations
which is interesting as these are the star formation thresholds that
are consistent with the observed clustering of young stars shown above
in Fig.~\ref{fig:tpcf}.
Notice that the $n=100$ standard softening simulations result in a
high $\Delta=0.19$. This is due to the build up of gas in the galaxy
centers (because the gas cannot easily reach the star formation
threshold), rather than a strong contraction of the dark matter halo,
or a significant stellar component. See the upper left panel in
Fig.~\ref{fig:vr} for an example.
\subsection{Intermediate-mass galaxies}
We now consider the simulated galaxies with stellar masses in the
range $10^9 \lta {\ifmmode{M_{\rm star}}\else{$M_{\rm star}$}\fi} \lta 10^{10} ~{\ifmmode{ {\rm M}_{\odot}}\else{M_{\odot}}\fi}$. As with the dwarf
galaxies there are 8 haloes in this mass range. In
Fig.~\ref{fig:vr_sparc} we compare the simulated circular velocity
profiles (lines) to the dark matter circular velocity at the
half-light radius (grey circles with error bars) from the SPARC survey
of nearby star forming galaxies \citep{Lelli16}. This figure extends
the results previously shown in fig.~5 from
\citet{Dutton19c}. Specifically the following panels are reproduced
from \citet{Dutton19c}: DMO (top left), $n=0.1$ $\epsilon_{\rm
ESF}=0.04$ (top center), $n=1$ (middle left), and $n=10$ (middle
right).
For observations the dark matter circular velocity is obtained by
subtracting the stellar and gas circular velocity profile from the
total rotation velocity, assuming a stellar mass-to-light ratio at
$3.6\,\mu$m of 0.5. The solid black line shows the average velocity
profile of the observations plotted between the average smallest and
largest point on the rotation curve. Because these galaxies tend to
be dark matter dominated, there is only a small uncertainty in the
dark matter profile caused by the $\sim 0.1$ dex uncertainty in
stellar mass-to-light ratio (dotted lines). Larger uncertainties are
how accurately the rotation curve corrected for inclination traces the
circular velocity, and sampling effects since SPARC is not a volume
limited survey.
The colored lines show the simulated dark matter circular velocity
profiles computed in spheres: $V_{\rm circ}=\sqrt{(G M(<r)/r)}$. For
the DMO simulations the total profile has been rescaled by the cosmic
baryon fraction ($\sqrt{1-\ifmmode{f_{\rm bar}}\else{$f_{\rm bar}$}\fi}\simeq 0.92$). For the hydro
simulations symbols are located at the projected half-mass radius of
the stars. This shows that the galaxy sizes for these simulations are
in reasonable agreement with the observations and that there is only a
small dependence of the sizes on the star formation threshold.
The parameter $\Delta$ (see Eq.~\ref{eq:delta}) is computed at a
radius of 2 kpc. This is chosen as it is the smallest spatial scale
that is reliably resolved in both the simulations and observations for
all galaxies. As with the dwarf galaxies in Fig.~\ref{fig:tbtf} we
see that the DMO, $n=0.1$ and $n=1$ simulations are systematically too
high, and as $n$ increases the dark matter velocities are
systematically reduced. The simulations that best match the observed
clustering of young stars ($n\sim 10$), also provide the best match to
the observations of dark matter circular velocities. Note that for
$n=100$ the under predicting of the observations is at least partly
due to these simulations under producing stars (see
Fig.~\ref{fig:msmv}). The $n=100$ $\epsilon/2$ simulations do match
the stellar masses for the dwarf galaxies, and also the velocities. So
the apparent failure of the $n=100$ $\epsilon/2$ simulations to match
the velocities in Fig.~\ref{fig:vr_sparc} should not be considered a
fatal failure of $n=100$ simulations. A recalibration would thus be
desirable before stronger conclusions for $n=100$ are drawn.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig10.eps}
\caption{Summary of our results on the clustering of young stars
(upper panel) and the circular velocities of nearby galaxies
(lower panel) as a function of the star formation threshold of the
simulations. The vertical error-bars show the range for two different
measurements. In the lower panel the horizontal lines show the results for DMO simulations.}
\label{fig:sum}
\end{figure}
A summary of the clustering and kinematic results is shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:sum}. All the simulations shown here (except the $n=100$
at intermediate masses) match the stellar mass vs halo mass relation
(Fig.~\ref{fig:msmv}). The clustering measurements are used to provide
further calibration. The upper panel shows the mean offset between
the simulated and observed clustering (from Fig.~\ref{fig:tpcf}) in
units of the observed uncertainty. The error-bar connects the two
measurements of clustering: amplitude at 100pc and correlation
length. Except for $n=5$ the two measurements give very similar
results. The $n=0.1$ and $n=1$ simulations do not reproduce the
observed clustering of young stars, and thus should not be used to
test CDM. Simulations with $n=10$ to $n=100$ reproduce the clustering
equally well. The $n=5$ is consistent with only one measurement of
clustering, making this threshold borderline successful.
The lower panel shows the mean offset in $\log V$ between simulations
and observations ($\Delta$ parameter from Figs~\ref{fig:tbtf} \&
\ref{fig:vr_sparc}). This is used to test the CDM model. Again the
vertical error-bars connect the two measurements for dwarf and
intermediate-mass galaxies. The horizontal lines show the velocity
offsets for the DMO simulations, which are quite close to the values
for hydro simulations with $n=1$ and $n=0.1$. Thus DMO and hydro
simulations with $n=0.1$ and $n=1$ fail to match observations. This is
not a problem for CDM because these simulations have already been
disfavored by the clustering measurements.
The red circle shows the fiducial NIHAO $n=10$ which provides the best
match to the clustering of young stars and circular velocities of
nearby galaxies. We thus have shown that simulations that are
calibrated to reproduce both the stellar mass vs halo mass relation,
and clustering of young stars, have dark matter on small scales
consistent with CDM.
\section{Summary}
In this paper we investigated the impact of the star formation
threshold, $n$, on the response of the dark matter halo to galaxy
formation. Extending the study of \citet{Dutton19c} that looked at
$n=0.1,1,10$ here we consider thresholds as high as $n=500$. As with
\citet{Dutton19c} we use 20 sets of cosmological hydrodynamical
simulations from the NIHAO project \citep{Wang15} that simulate dark
matter haloes in the range $10^{10} \lta M_{200} \lta 10^{12} ~{\ifmmode{ {\rm M}_{\odot}}\else{M_{\odot}}\fi}$
at redshift $z=0$. We summarize our results as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item We confirm the results of previous studies that the response of the
dark matter halo to galaxy formation is primarily a function of two
parameters: 1) the ratio between stellar mass and halo mass
\citep{DiCintio14, Chan15, Tollet16}, and 2) the adopted star formation
threshold, $n$, of the simulation \citep{Dutton19c, Benitez19}.
\item For high star formation thresholds ($n=5$ to $n=500$) the halo
response has converged (Fig.~\ref{fig:alpha}), provided the
simulation has sufficient spatial resolution to resolve the
fragmentation of gas to densities above the gas density threshold in
question.
\item We trace previous claims by \citet{Benitez19} for halo
contraction at $n\gta 200$ to insufficient spatial resolution. With
our default force softening the maximum gas density we can resolve
is $n_{\rm max}\sim 10$. Applying our formula to the
\citet{Benitez19} simulations also yields $n_{\rm max}=10.5$. For
our $n=100$ and $n=500$ simulations the gas is unable to locally
fragment, instead it loses angular momentum and collapses to the
center of the galaxy. The gas dominates the central potential
causing the dark matter halo to contract (Fig.\ref{fig:vr2}).
However, if we reduce the force softening of the gas by a factor of
2 to 4, we recover the halo expansion achieved from our fiducial
$n=10$ simulations using $n=100$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:vr}).
\item Following \citet{Buck19b} we use the spatial clustering of young
stars to calibrate the star formation threshold parameter. The
clustering strength increases roughly monotonically with star
formation threshold (Fig.~\ref{fig:tpcf}). Low threshold
simulations ($n=0.1$ to $n=1$) are inconsistent with observations at
more than $2\sigma$, while simulations with $n=10$ to $n=100$ are
consistent with observations (Fig.~\ref{fig:sum}).
\item Finally, to test the CDM model we use the circular velocity vs
radius plot for galaxies with stellar masses $10^6 \lta {\ifmmode{M_{\rm star}}\else{$M_{\rm star}$}\fi} \lta
10^{10}$ (Figs.~\ref{fig:tbtf} \& \ref{fig:vr_sparc}). DMO
simulations and low star formation threshold simulations ($n=0.1, n=1$) fail by
predicting a factor of $\simeq 2$ more mass than is
observed. Simulations with $n\sim 10$ provide a good match to the
observations.
\item Investigating systematic effects in this test (for low-mass
galaxies) we show that stellar velocity dispersions are an unbiased
tracer of the circular velocity at the 3D stellar half-mass radius
(Fig.\ref{fig:vsigma}).
\end{itemize}
We thus conclude that the CDM model provides a good description of the
structure of galaxies on kpc scales (once the effects of baryons are
properly taken into account).
With our choice of sub-grid models, only simulations with a high star
formation threshold can make accurate predictions for the structure of
CDM haloes. As well as the fiducial NIHAO \citet{Wang15} simulations
several other groups also adopt a high star formation threshold: e.g.,
\citet{Governato10,Governato12}, FIRE \citet{Hopkins14, Hopkins18},
and \citet{Read16}. If this result extends to other choices of
sub-grid models, it means that a large fraction of the zoom-in
simulations in the literature: e.g., APOSTLE \citep{Sawala16}, AURIGA
\citep{Grand17}; and all of the large volume simulations: e.g., EAGLE
\citep{Schaye15}, ILLUSTRIS \citep{Vogelsberger14, Pillepich19},
ROMULUS \citep{Tremmel17} need to revise and re-calibrate their models
for star formation and feedback if they are to make accurate
predictions for the structure of cold dark matter haloes on kpc
scales. An additional consideration is that simulations with higher
star formation thresholds take significantly longer to run (due to the
higher gas densities, and subsequent smaller required time steps). Many
of the large volume simulations would not be computationally feasible
at present if run with a high star formation threshold model. Thus
there is a trade-off between the accuracy of the simulation and the
number of haloes that can be simulated.
Looking to the future, both the calibration of the star formation
threshold and the testing of CDM that we present are based on small
samples of simulated and observed galaxies. Thus significant
improvements in the accuracy are possible with larger samples.
Improved accuracy will enable the framework we have presented to be
applied to other models for dark matter, such as warm dark matter and
self-interacting dark matter.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank the anonymous referee for providing a constructive report
that improved the clarity of the paper. This research was carried out
on the High Performance Computing resources at New York University Abu
Dhabi; on the {\sc theo} cluster of the Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur
Astronomie and on the {\sc hydra} clusters at the Rechenzentrum in
Garching.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Gauss Centre for Supercomputing
e.V. (www.gauss-centre.eu) for funding this project by providing
computing time on the GCS Supercomputer SuperMUC at Leibniz
Supercomputing Centre (www.lrz.de).
TB acknowledges support from the European Research Council under
ERC-CoG grant CRAGSMAN-646955. AO is funded by the Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) -- MO
2979/1-1.
\section*{Data Availability Statement}
The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request
to the corresponding author.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{Sec:1}
Over the past years, the optical nanomaterials research has uncovered intriguing capabilities of carbon nanotubes (CNs).~These hollow graphene cylinders of one to a few nanometers in diameter and up to one centimeter in length~\cite{DressAvour01,Liu03,Doorn04} have landed themselves to attractive device applications~\cite{Baughman13,Ago99,AvourisNP08,Hertel10,Bond10,Bond14,Zettl06,Wim15,Htoon15,Krupke16,Mike17}. CNs have been successfully integrated into miniaturized electronic, electromechanical and chemical devices~\cite{Han10,Robel05,Vietmeyer07,Stranks11,Strano11}. A strong potential of CNs has been demonstrated in the fields of optical absorption and scattering spectroscopy~\cite{BoVi2006,BeEtAl2007,BlEtAl2013,RoEtAl2014,Bo15}, electron energy loss spectroscopy~\cite{MaEtal2003,Hage17}, quantum electron transport~\cite{Ago99,Mike17,GeBo2016}, and general collective electromagnetic (EM) response phenomena~\cite{An2005,DrSaJo2007,BoWoTa2009,Ando2010,Bo2011,BoAnt2012,Bo2012,Kono13,BoMe2014,Bo2014,Morimoto14,GAbacho15,Zaum16,MRSA2017,Kadochkin17,Kono18}. Carbon nanotube based reduced dimensionality materials such as periodic and quasiperiodic plane-parallel CN arrays and films, offer extraordinary stability, flexibility, and precise tunability of their physical properties by varying the density, diameter and chirality of constituent CNs. Thin and ultrathin periodically aligned arrays of single-wall CNs (SWCNs) and related systems are currently in the process of rapid experimental development~\cite{HerBond13,Kono16,FaEtAl2017,ChEtAl2017,HoEtAl2018,RoEtal2019,SC2020,JFan2020}.
In this paper, we develop a theory for collective near-field interactions and associated EM response of ultrathin, closely packed, periodically aligned SWCN arrays (schematic shown in Fig.~\ref{fig1}). The key features that make this system interesting for theoretical study are the periodic CN alignment and the spatially periodic anisotropy associated with it. Additionally, the vertical confinement in dense ultrathin planar systems of finite thickness leads to the effective dimensionality reduction from 3D to 2D while still retaining the thickness as a parameter to represent the vertical size~\cite{BoMoSh2020,Bo2019,BoMoSh2018,BoSh2017}. This is the transdimensional (TD) regime~\cite{BolSh2019} --- neither 3D nor 2D but something in-between --- turning into 2D as thickness tends to zero, challenging to study what the 3D-to-2D continuous transition has to offer for new material functionalities.
\begin{figure}[b]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig1.eps}
\caption{Schematic of a plane-parallel, closely packed, periodically aligned array of SWCNs of radius $R$ and length $L$ embedded in a dielectric of thickness $d$. See text for details.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
The spatial anisotropy, periodic in-plane transverse inhomogeneity and vertical quantum confinement make the ultrathin array near fields strong and anisotropically nonlocal, adding both extra challenges in developing the problem theoretically and extra flexibility in designing CN films with desired EM properties experimentally. The properties of the CN array can be controlled if one knows how to control its collective excitations such as excitons, plasmons, and their mutual interactions. For example, plasmon generated near fields are known to affect spontaneous emission~\cite{BoLa2004,GAbacho15}, low-energy absorption~\cite{BoVi2006} and scattering~\cite{Bo15} by atomic type species near the CN surface. CN periodicity allows for plasmonic bands formation~\cite{GarsiaVidal97,Pitarkel98,GarsiaVidal98}, whereby periodic CN arrays and films should behave as epsilon-near-zero plasmonic metamaterials (MMs) in the near field, while still remaining strong light absorbers and polarizers in the far field~\cite{PolarCNSpectra,RoEtal2019}. Indeed, recent ellipsometry measurements on finite-thickness films of horizontally aligned self-assembled SWCNs have exhibited their tunable negative dielectric response for a sufficiently wide range of the photon excitation energies~\cite{RoEtal2019,SC2020}, thus paving the way for the highly anisotropic hyperbolic MM film (metasurface) development. Hyperbolic metamaterials (hMMs) and metasurfaces (MSs) can be used in a variety of applications~\cite{SmSc2003,CaiShalaev10,ZhelKiv12,KilBolShal13} such as optical sensing~\cite{SrEtal2016}, absorption~\cite{LaEtal2008}, cloaking~\cite{PeEtal2006}, and super-resolution imaging~\cite{LiEtal2007}. Being very stable and highly sensitive to the thickness, CN density, diameter and chirality variation, the finite-thickness parallel aligned SWCN arrays and films can additionally serve as a flexible multifunctional nanomaterial platform for single-molecule detection and manipulation~\cite{BoGu15,BoGeMe14,BoGeMe13}, including the near-field control of photoluminescence rate and directionality~\cite{BoLa2004,GAbacho15}, chemical reactivity~\cite{GaVidal15,GaVidal16}, and Casimir-Polder interactions~\cite{BoLa2005,BoLa2006}.
In this paper, we formulate the general Hamiltonian for the collective quasiparticle excitations in the ultrathin plane-parallel periodic SWCN array in the TD regime. This Hamiltonian is used to derive the in-plane dynamical dielectric response tensor of the system in the broad-band low-energy spectral range of microwave to visible ($\lesssim\!1\!-\!2$~eV). This is the domain where the intrinsic excitations, excitons and plasmons, are present in individual constituent (metallic and semiconducting) CNs ~\cite{Bo15,DrSaJo2007}. As opposed to the earlier 3D effective-medium response theories (known to be of limited validity at short CN separations) with only one single-tube excitation taken into account (the $6$~eV bulk graphite plasmon)~\cite{GarsiaVidal97,Pitarkel98,GarsiaVidal98}, our approach starts with the single-tube dynamical surface conductivity calculation as prescribed by the $\textbf{k}\!\cdot\!\textbf{p}$ band-structure simulation method for SWCNs within the Kubo linear-response theory~\cite{An2005}. To obtain the dielectric tensor of the TD array of SWCNs we use the low-energy plasmon response calculation technique proposed by one of us for finite-thickness metallic films with periodic cylindrical anisotropy~\cite{Bo2019}, combined with the many-particle Green's function formalism in the Matsubara formulation~\cite{Mahan2000}. With the single-tube conductivity in hand, we evaluate the collective polarization and obtain the EM response tensor for the periodic TD array of SWCNs. We also study the inhomogeneity effects for TD films composed of SWCN arrays with varied structural parameters, using the Maxwell-Garnett (MG) method~\cite{Mar2016} to obtain the EM response for weakly inhomogeneous quasiperiodic SWCN films reported experimentally~\cite{RoEtal2019,SC2020}.
The paper is organized as follows. Section~\ref{Sec:2} presents the model and formulates the Hamiltonian for the collective quasiparticle excitations in the TD plane-parallel periodic SWCN array. Section~\ref{Sec:3} uses this Hamiltonian to obtain the array collective polarization in terms of the surface conductivity of the individual constituent SWCN, followed by the in-plane EM response tensor derivation for the TD array, including the case of weakly inhomogeneous quasiperiodic SWCN films. Section~\ref{Sec:4} discusses our findings and numerical results. Conclusions are drawn in Sec.~\ref{Sec:5}. Mathematical details are collected in the two Appendices. We use the Gaussian units throughout unless otherwise stated.
\section{The Model of Collective Excitations}\label{Sec:2}
The model system we consider is presented in Fig.~\ref{fig1}. A~horizontal array of parallel aligned ($y$-direction) identical SWCNs of radius $R$ and length $L$ has the translational unit $\Delta$ and width $L_\perp$ ($x$-direction). The array is embedded in a dielectric of thickness $d$ to form a composite layer with the effective permittivity $\epsilon$, which is sandwiched between the substrate and superstrate with the dielectric permittivities $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_2$, respectively. The structural parameters of the array obey the set of constraints as follows $2R\!\le\!\Delta\!\le\!d\!\ll\!L\!\sim\!L_\perp$ with $R$ and $\Delta$ being much less than the wavelength of the light radiation. The SWCN of the $(m,n)$ type ($n\!\le\!m$) has the radius $R\!=(\!\sqrt{3}\,b/2\pi)\sqrt{m^2+mn+n^2}$, where $b\!=\!1.42$~\AA\space is the C$\,$-C interatomic distance, with the electron charge density constrained by cylindrical symmetry to be uniformly distributed over its surface. The positive background of nuclei keeps the entire system electrically neutral.
We consider the most interesting case of $\epsilon\!\gg\epsilon_1+\epsilon_2$. In this case, with $d$ decreasing and getting less than the in-plane distance between a pair of electrons in the composite layer, due to the strong vertical confinement their Coulomb interaction is mostly contributed by the region outside of the layer, whereby the Coulomb interaction potential loses its $z$-coordinate dependence and turns into the Keldysh-Rytova (KR) potential~\cite{Ke1979}. This brings our system, the array, in the TD regime where the dimensionality of the system is reduced from 3D to 2D and the only remnant of the $z$-direction is the layer thickness $d$ to represent the size of the vertical confinement. In our case here, it is natural to take advantage of the homogeneous electron charge distribution over the SWCN cylindrical surfaces, whereby the pair electrostatic potential can be expressed in terms of that of two uniformly charged rings of radius $R$ each~\cite{Louie09}. For two such rings of the unit cells at points $\bm{\rho}_n$ and $\bm{\rho}_l^{\prime}$ of tubules $n$ and $l$ as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig1}, the electrostatic interaction potential can be written in terms of the symmetry adapted KR potential as follows~\cite{Bo2019}
\begin{equation}
V(\bm{\rho}_{n}\!-\!\bm{\rho}_l^\prime)=\frac{m^{\ast}}{N_{\rm 2D}LL_{\perp}}{\sum_\textbf{k}}^\prime\Big[\frac{\omega_p(k)}{k}\Big]^2
e^{i\textbf{k}\cdot(\bm{\rho}_{n}\!-\bm{\rho}_l^{\prime})}.
\label{V:eq1:IVB2019}
\end{equation}
Here, $\mathbf{k}\!=\!\mathbf{q}+\mathbf{k}_\perp$ is the in-plane electron quasimomentum with $\mathbf{q}$ and $\mathbf{k}_\perp$ representing its components in the $y$- and $x$-direction --- parallel and perpendicular to the CN alignment direction, respectively; $k\!=|\mathbf{k}|\!=\!\sqrt{q^2+k_\perp^2}$ where $q\!=\!2\pi n_{y}/L$, $n_{y}\!\!=0,\pm1,\pm2,...,\pm N/2$, $N\!\!=\!L/a$, $a$~is the CN lattice translation period, and $k_\perp\!\!=\!2\pi n_{x}/L_\perp$ where $n_{x}\!\!=\!0,\pm1,\pm2,...,\pm N_\perp/2$, $N_\perp$ is the total number of tubules in the parallel array. The summation is primed to eliminate the $\mathbf{k}\!=0$ term associated with the all-together electron displacement, $\bm{\rho}_n\!\ne\!\bm{\rho}_l^{\,\prime}$ for the $n\!=\!l$ case to exclude the self-interaction, and the orthogonality condition
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta_{\bm{\rho}_n\bm{\rho}_l^\prime}=\delta_{x_nx_l^\prime}\delta_{y_ny_l^\prime}=\frac{1}{N_\perp N}\sum_{\textbf{k}}e^{i\textbf{k}\cdot(\bm{\rho}_{n}-\bm{\rho}_l^\prime)}\label{normaliz1}\\
=\frac{1}{N_\perp}\hskip-0.6cm\sum_{~~~~~~k_{_{\!\perp}}=-\pi/\Delta}^{\pi/\Delta}\hskip-0.7cm e^{ik_{_{\!\perp}}\!(x_n-x_l^\prime)}\;
\frac{1}{N}\hskip-0.5cm\sum_{~~~~~q=-\pi/a}^{\pi/a}\hskip-0.5cm e^{iq(y_n-y_l^\prime)}\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
is used for the Fourier expansion basis function set in the first Brillouin zone of the array, with its reciprocal given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta_{\textbf{k}\textbf{k}^\prime}=\delta_{k_{_{\!\!\perp}}{k_{_{\!\!\perp}}}^{\!\!\!\prime}}\,\delta_{qq^\prime}
=\frac{1}{N_\perp N}\sum_{\bm{\rho}_{n}}e^{i(\textbf{k}-\textbf{k}^\prime)\cdot\bm{\rho}_{n}}\hskip0.1cm\label{normaliz2}\\
=\frac{1}{N_\perp}\hskip-0.6cm\sum_{~~~~~x_n=-L_{_{\!\!\perp}}/2}^{L_{_{\!\!\perp}}/2}\hskip-0.7cm e^{i(k_{_{\!\perp}}\!-\,{k_{_{\!\!\perp}}}^{\!\!\!\prime}\,)x_n}\;
\frac{1}{N}\hskip-0.6cm\sum_{~~~~~y_n=-L\!/2}^{L\!/2}\hskip-0.6cm e^{i(q-q^\prime)y_n}.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The quantity
\begin{equation}
\omega_p(k)=\sqrt{\frac{4\pi e^2N_{\rm 2D}}{m^{\ast}\epsilon\,d}\frac{2qRI_0(qR)K_0(qR)}{1+(\epsilon_1+\epsilon_2)/(k\epsilon\,d)}\,}
\label{plasmaFy}
\end{equation}
stands for the intraband plasma oscillation frequency for a general finite-thickness, cylindrically anisotropic, periodically aligned (metallic or semiconducting) array~\cite{Bo2019}. Here, $m^\ast$ is the electron effective mass, $N_{\rm 2D}$~$(=\!N_{\rm 3D}d)$ is the surface electron density, $I_0$ and $K_0$ are the zeroth-order modified cylindrical Bessel functions responsible for the correct normalization of the electron density distribution over cylindrical surfaces, to give for $R\!\rightarrow\!\infty$ (whereby $qRI_0(qR)K_0(qR)\!\rightarrow\!1/2$) the isotropic TD film plasma frequency studied previously~\cite{BoMoSh2020}.
\subsection{The Hamiltonian}
For an individual SWCN, absorption of a photon by a valence-band electron excites it to the conduction band to create an exciton. This makes a longitudinal polarization effect with an induced dipole moment directed predominantly along the nanotube axis due to a strongly suppressed SWCN polarizability in the perpendicular direction~\cite{Kozinsky,Louie95}, also known as the transverse depolarization~\cite{An2005,Tasaki98}. For a densely packed periodically aligned array of SWCNs, the induced inter-tubule dipole-dipole coupling should then result in the anisotropic collective polarization of the array (predominantly along the CN alignment direction), leading to the anisotropic dielectric response --- the focus of our study here.
The second quantized Hamiltonian of the free exciton (see, e.g., Refs.~\cite{Mahan2000,Haken}) on the SWCN surface can be written in the form
\begin{equation}
\hat{H}_{ex}\!=\!\sum_{s,q}E_s(q)B^\dag_{s,q}B_{s,q},
\label{Hex}
\end{equation}
where the operators $B^\dag_{s,q}$ and $B_{s,q}$ create and annihilate, respectively, the exciton with the longitudinal quasimomentum $q$ ($y$-direction in Fig.~\ref{fig1}) in the $s$-subband, which for the $(m,n)$-type SWCN is associated with the quantized circumferential momentum component $\hbar s/R$, $s\!=\!1,2,...,m\,(\ge\!n)$~\cite{Bo2012,Bo2014}. These operators satisfy the standard bosonic commutation relations
\[
\big[B_{s,q},B^\dag_{s^\prime\!\!,q^\prime}\big]=\delta_{ss^\prime}\delta_{qq^\prime},~~\big[B_{s,q},B_{s^\prime\!\!,q^\prime}\big]=0
\]
and can be converted into their coordinate counterparts using Eq.~(\ref{normaliz1}), to obtain
\begin{equation}
B^\dag_{s,y_n}\!\!=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{q}B^\dag_{s,q}e^{iqy_n},~~B_{s,y_n}\!\!=\big(B^\dag_{s,y_n}\big)^\dag
\label{Bkf}
\end{equation}
for the $n$-th SWCN of the array. The exciton energy is
\begin{equation}
E_s(q)=E_{exc}^{(f)}(s)+\frac{\hbar^2q^2}{2M_{ex}(s)}\,,
\label{Ef}
\end{equation}
where the first term is the excitation energy of the $f$-internal-state exciton, given by $E_{exc}^{(f)}(s)\!=\!E_g(s)+E_b^{(f)}(s)$ with $E_b^{(f)}(s)$ being its (negative) binding energy and $E_g$ representing the band gap, and the second term is the translational kinetic energy of the exciton with the total effective mass $M_{ex}$ (the sum of the subband-dependent electron and hole effective masses). The exciton on the $n$-th SWCN of the array is produced by the absorption of a photon of the external EM radiation. This initiates the interband dipole electronic transitions $\langle s,f|\hat{\textbf{d}}(\bm{\rho}_n)|0\rangle$ to create the dipole polarization, an observable quantity proportional to $|\!\sum_{f,\bm{\rho}_n}\!\langle s,f|\hat{\textbf{d}}(\bm{\rho}_n)|0\rangle|^2$, mainly along the CN axis. Only the ground-internal-state (longest-lived) excitons are considered in what follows and so the $f$-index will be omitted for brevity.
The total Hamiltonian of our model system in Fig.~\ref{fig1} can now be written as
\begin{equation}
\hat{H}=\hat{H}_{ex}\!+\hat{H}_{int}\,,
\label{Eq:H}
\end{equation}
where the second term is responsible for the collective excitations of the SWCN array originally created by the external EM radiation on an individual constituent SWCN. To obtain this part, we perform the series expansion of the electron interaction potential~(\ref{V:eq1:IVB2019}) about the equilibrium positions of the electron density distribution. Intro\-ducing $\bm{\rho}_n\!+\bm{\beta}_n$ for the electron ring position displaced by a vector $\bm{\beta}_n\!=\!\bm{\beta}(\bm{\rho}_n)$ from the point $\bm{\rho}_n$ of the $n$-th SWCN electron density distribution (and same for ${\bm{\rho}}_l^\prime$; see Fig.~\ref{fig1}), the exponential factor in Eq.~(\ref{V:eq1:IVB2019}) is expanded to the third nonvanishing term assuming that $|{\bm{\rho}}_n\!-{\bm{\rho}}_l^\prime|\!>\!|\bm{\beta}_n\!-\bm{\beta}_l^\prime|$, to give
\[
e^{i\textbf{k}\cdot\bm{\rho}_{nl}}\big[1 + i\textbf{k}\cdot\bm{\beta}_{nl}-\frac{1}{2}\big(\textbf{k}\cdot\bm{\beta}_{nl}\big)^2\big].
\]
Here, $\bm{\rho}_{nl}\!=\!\bm{\rho}_n-\bm{\rho}^\prime_l$ and $\bm{\beta}_{nl}\!=\bm{\beta}_n-\bm{\beta}^\prime_l$ with the primes still to indicate that the self-interaction in the $n\!=l$ case is to be excluded. For achiral $(m,0)$ and $(m,m)$ type SWCNs (zigzag and armchair type, respectively) we choose to focus on here, the second term in square brackets vanishes due to the presence of the inversion symmetry. This is generally not true for chiral SWCNs, where it is nonzero and turns out to be the most important one. This case will be addressed elsewhere separately.
The extra electron potential energy that comes out of Eq.~\eqref{V:eq1:IVB2019} due to the relative electron ring displacement~$\bm{\beta}_{nl}$, is given by $\sum_{\bm{\rho}_{n\!},\bm{\rho}_{l}^\prime}\!\!\big[V(\bm{\rho}_{nl}+\bm{\beta}_{nl})-V(\bm{\rho}_{nl})\big]$ where the summation runs over all tubules of the array and over their individual unit cells with the self-interaction excluded. With the series expansion above and the self-interaction terms dropped, this becomes
\[
\frac{m^{\ast}}{N_{\rm 2D}LL_{\perp}}\!\!\!\!\!{\sum_{~~~\textbf{k},\bm{\rho}_{n\!},\bm{\rho}_{l}^\prime}}\!\!\!\!\!e^{i\textbf{k}\cdot\bm{\rho}_{nl}}
\Big[\frac{\omega_p(k)}{k}\Big]^2\big(\textbf{k}\cdot\bm{\beta}_{n}\big)\big(\textbf{k}\cdot\bm{\beta}_{l}^\prime\big),
\]
and can further be rewritten as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{v_0}\hskip-0.6cm\sum_{~~~~~\textbf{k},\bm{\rho}_{n\!},\bm{\rho}_{l}^\prime,\mu,\nu}
\hskip-0.7cm e^{i\textbf{k}\cdot\bm{\rho}_{n}}\sqrt{\frac{m^{\ast\,}d}{N_{\rm 2D}N_{\perp}N}}\;\omega_p(k)
\Big[\beta_{n\mu}T_{\mu\nu}(\textbf{k})\beta_{l\nu}^\prime\hskip0.5cm\label{extraPotEn}\\
+\,\frac{1}{2}\,\beta_{n\mu}\beta_{l\nu}^\prime\delta_{\mu\nu}\Big]\sqrt{\frac{m^{\ast\,}d}{N_{\rm 2D}N_{\perp}N}}\;
\omega_p(k)\,e^{-i\textbf{k}\cdot\bm{\rho}_{l}^\prime}.\hskip0.9cm\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $v_0\!=a\Delta d$ is the elementary cell volume of the array and the second-rank tensor
\begin{equation}
T_{\mu\nu}(\textbf{k})=\frac{k_\mu k_\nu}{k^2}-\frac{\delta_{\mu\nu}}{2}\,,~~~\mu,\nu=x,y
\label{Tmunu}
\end{equation}
represents the Fourier transform of the pair dipole-dipole interaction between the SWCNs in the array~\cite{Mahan2000}. The second term in the square brackets equals zero. This can be proven by first summing it up over $\bm{\rho}_l^\prime$ using Eq.~(\ref{normaliz2}), followed by summation over $\textbf{k}$, which leads to $\omega_p^2(0)\!=\!0$.
The dipole-dipole interaction energy in Eq.~(\ref{extraPotEn}) can be used to obtain the $\hat{H}_{int}$ part of the total Hamiltonian~(\ref{Eq:H}). Consider the real vector quantity
\begin{equation}
\textbf{d}(\bm{\rho}_{n})\!=\!\sqrt{\!\frac{m^{\ast\,}d}{4\pi N_{\rm 2D}}}\,\omega_p(k)\bm{\beta}(\bm{\rho}_{n})\!
=\!\sqrt{\!\frac{m^{\ast\,}d}{4\pi N_{\rm 2D}N}}\,\omega_p(k)\beta\textbf{e}(\bm{\rho}_{n})
\label{drhonEigen}
\end{equation}
with the unit vector $\textbf{e}(\bm{\rho}_{n})\!=\!\bm{\beta}(\bm{\rho}_n)/\beta(\bm{\rho}_{n})$ to define the direction of the electron ring displacement $\bm{\beta}(\bm{\rho}_{n})$ and
\[
\beta=\sqrt{|\!\sum_{\bm{\rho}_{n}}\bm{\beta}(\bm{\rho}_{n})|^2}\approx\sqrt{\sum_{\bm{\rho}_{n}}|\bm{\beta}(\bm{\rho}_{n})|^2}=\sqrt{N}\beta(\bm{\rho}_{n})
\]
to represent the net electron density displacement (consistent with the random phase approximation and equivalency of rings) for the entire $n$-th SWCN. Let Eq.~(\ref{drhonEigen}) be a matrix element $\langle s,\bm{\rho}_{n}|\hat{\textbf{d}}(\bm{\rho}_{n})|0\rangle$ of the (Hermitian) induced dipole moment operator defined in the second quantization form as
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{\textbf{d}}(\bm{\rho}_{n})\!=\!\sqrt{\!\frac{m^{\ast\,}d}{4\pi N_{\rm 2D}N}}\,\omega_p(k)\!
\sum_s\langle s|\hat{\bm{\beta}}|0\rangle\big(B_{s,\bm{\rho}_{n}}\!\!+\!B^\dag_{s,\bm{\rho}_{n}}\big),\hskip0.5cm\label{drhonOper}\\
\langle s|\hat{\bm{\beta}}|0\rangle^\dag\!=\langle0|\hat{\bm{\beta}}|s\rangle^\ast\!=\langle0|\hat{\bm{\beta}}|s\rangle\!=\langle s|\hat{\bm{\beta}}|0\rangle,\hskip1.4cm\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\hat{\bm{\beta}}$ is the quantum displacement operator to represent the classical displacement $\beta\textbf{e}(\bm{\rho}_{n})$. Then the Fourier transform
\[
\hat{\textbf{d}}(\textbf{k})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N_\perp N}}\sum_{\bm{\rho}_{n}}\hat{\textbf{d}}(\bm{\rho}_{n})e^{-i\textbf{k}\cdot\bm{\rho}_{n}},~~
\hat{\textbf{d}}^\dag(\textbf{k})\!=\hat{\textbf{d}}(-\textbf{k}),
\]
obtained using Eqs.~(\ref{normaliz1}) and (\ref{normaliz2}), takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{\textbf{d}}(\textbf{k})\!=\sqrt{\!\frac{m^{\ast\,}d}{4\pi N_{\rm 2D}N}}\,\omega_p(k)\!\sum_s\langle s|\hat{\bm{\beta}}|0\rangle
\big(B_{s,\textbf{k}}\!+B^\dag_{s,-\textbf{k}}\big),\hskip0.5cm\label{dkOper}\\
B_{s,\textbf{k}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N_\perp N}}\sum_{\bm{\rho}_{n}}B_{s,\bm{\rho}_{n}}e^{-i\textbf{k}\cdot\bm{\rho}_{n}}\hskip1.5cm\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
with the creation and annihilation operators of the same meaning as those in Eq.~(\ref{Hex}), and Eq.~(\ref{extraPotEn}) suggests that
\begin{equation}
\hat{H}_{int}=\frac{4\pi}{v_0}{\sum_{\textbf{k},\mu,\nu}}\hat{d}_\mu(\textbf{k})T_{\mu\nu}(\textbf{k})\hat{d}_\nu(-\textbf{k}).
\label{Eq:HintGen1}
\end{equation}
More explicitly
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{H}_{int}=\frac{1}{2}\!\sum_{\textbf{k},s,s^\prime}\!\!V_{ss^\prime}(\textbf{k})\big(B_{s,\textbf{k}}\!+\!B^\dag_{s,-\textbf{k}}\big)
\big(B_{s^\prime\!,-\textbf{k}}\!+\!B^\dag_{s^\prime\!,\textbf{k}}\big),\hskip0.5cm\label{Eq:HintGen2}\\
V_{ss^\prime}(\textbf{k})=\frac{2m^{\ast}\omega_p^2(k)d}{N_{\rm 2D}Nv_0}\sum_{\mu,\nu}\langle 0|\hat{\beta}_\mu|s\rangle T_{\mu\nu}(\textbf{k})\langle s^\prime|\hat{\beta}_\nu|0\rangle.\hskip0.75cm\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Here, different spatial component matrix elements of the displacement operator $\hat{\bm{\beta}}$ in $V_{ss^\prime}$ are different, in general.
In the case where the (dominant) longitudinal induced SWCN polarization is only taken into consideration and the transverse one is neglected, one has $\beta_{n\mu}\!=\beta_{ny}\delta_{y\mu}$ and $\beta_{l\nu}^\prime\!=\beta_{ly}^\prime\delta_{y\nu}$ in Eq.~(\ref{extraPotEn}). This, after summing up over $x_n$ and $x_l^\prime$ with Eq.~(\ref{normaliz2}), projects it on the $y$-direction to give
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{v_0}\!\sum_{q,y_{n\!},y_{l}^\prime}\!e^{iq\cdot y_{n}}\sqrt{\frac{m^{\ast\,}d}{N_{\rm 2D}N}}\,\omega_p(q)\,\beta_{ny}\hskip2.5cm\nonumber\\[-0.25cm]
\hskip2.5cm\times\,T_{yy}(q)\,\beta_{ly}^\prime\sqrt{\frac{m^{\ast\,}d}{N_{\rm 2D}N}}\,\omega_p(q)\,e^{-iq\cdot y_{l}^\prime},\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $T_{yy}(q)\!=T_{yy}(q,k_\perp\!\!=\!0)=1/2$ according to Eq.~(\ref{Tmunu}) and $\omega_p(q)\!=\omega_p(q,k_\perp\!\!=\!0)$, thus yielding
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{H}_{int}=\frac{2\pi}{v_0}{\sum_{q}}\,\hat{d}_y(q)\hat{d}_y(-q)=\frac{2\pi}{v_0}{\sum_{q}}\,\hat{d}_y(q)\hat{d}_y^{\,\dag}(q),\hskip0.9cm\label{Eq:Hint1q}\\
\hat{d}_y(q)\!=\sqrt{\!\frac{m^{\ast}d}{4\pi N_{\rm 2D}N}}\,\omega_p(q)\!\sum_s\,\langle s|\hat{\beta}_y|0\rangle\big(B_{s,q}\!+B^\dag_{s,-q}\big)\hskip0.5cm\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
for Eq.~(\ref{Eq:HintGen1}) and
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{H}_{int}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{s,q}V_{ss}(q)\big(B_{s,q}\!+B^\dag_{s,-q}\big)\big(B_{s,-q}\!+B^\dag_{s,q}\big),\hskip0.5cm\label{Eq:Hint2q}\\
V_{ss}(q)=\frac{m^{\ast}\omega_p^2(q)d}{N_{\rm 2D}Nv_0}\,|\langle s|\hat{\beta}_y|0\rangle|^2.\hskip1.75cm\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
for Eq.~(\ref{Eq:HintGen2}), respectively. In this latter case, $V_{ss^\prime}$ takes the diagonal form $V_{ss}\delta_{ss^\prime}$ to only include the collinear-anticollinear dipole moment coupling between the nano\-tubes of the array. This is the case of practical importance we focus on in what follows.
\subsection{The Dispersion of Collective Excitations}
With the interaction term of Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Hint2q}), the total Hamiltonian (\ref{Eq:H}) of the SWCN array is of the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{H}=\!\sum_{s,q}\Big[E_s(q)B^\dag_{s,q}B_{s,q}\hskip1.2cm\label{Eq:Htotfin}\\
+\,\frac{1}{2}\,V_{ss}(q)\big(B_{s,q}\!+B^\dag_{s,-q}\big)\big(B_{s,-q}\!+B^\dag_{s,q}\big)\Big],\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
which can be diagonalized exactly by means of the canonical transformation technique~\cite{Bogoliub}. More specifically, the Hamiltonian such as this can be brought to the form
\begin{equation}
\hat{H}=\!\sum_{s,q}\hbar\omega_s(q)\xi_s^\dag(q)\xi_s(q)+E_0
\label{Eq:Htotdiag}
\end{equation}
by redefining the original exciton operators as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
B_{s,q}\!=u_s(q)\,\xi_s(q)+v_s(q)\,\xi^\dag_s(-q),\label{transform1}\\
|u_s(q)|^2-|v_s(q)|^2=1,\hskip1.0cm\label{ftransf}
\end{eqnarray}
in terms of the linear superposition of the collective boson excitation operators $\xi_s(q)$ representing the \emph{eigen} states of the entire system, the array. The reciprocal of this is
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi_s(q)=u^\ast_s(q)B_{s,q}-v_s(q)B^\dag_{s,-q}\label{xi}\\
\big[\xi_s(q),\xi^\dag_{s^\prime}(q^\prime)\big]=\delta_{ss^\prime}\delta_{qq^\prime}.\hskip0.5cm
\label{xicommute}
\end{eqnarray}
The unknown transformation coefficients $u_s(q)$ and $v_s(q)$, and the eigen state energies $\hbar\omega_s(q)$ can be found from the operator identity
\begin{equation}
\hbar\omega_s(q)\xi_s(q)=\big[\xi_s(q),\,\hat{H}\big],
\label{identity}
\end{equation}
followed by finding the vacuum (no excitations present) energy $E_0$ from the comparison of Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:Htotfin}) and (\ref{Eq:Htotdiag}) after the eigen state energies and the transformation coefficients have been obtained.
Putting Eqs.~(\ref{xi}) and (\ref{Eq:Htotfin}) into Eq.~(\ref{identity}) and equating the coefficients in front of the exciton creation and annihilation operators on the left and right side, one obtains the set of two simultaneous algebraic equations as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
\big[\hbar\omega_s(q)-E_s(q)-V_{ss}(q)\big]u_s(q)-V_{ss}(q)v_s(q)=0,\hskip0.5cm\nonumber\\[-0.15cm]
\label{equations}\\[-0.15cm]
V_{ss}(q)u_s(q)+\big[\hbar\omega_s(q)+E_s(q)+V_{ss}(q)\big]v_s(q)=0.\hskip0.55cm\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Being supplemented by the extra constraint (\ref{ftransf}), these simultaneous equations define the transformation coefficients $u_s(q)$ and $v_s(q)$ uniquely. The condition of the nontrivial solution existence requires that the determinant of Eq.~(\ref{equations}) be equal to zero. This gives the collective excitation eigen energies in the form
\begin{equation}
\hbar\omega_s(q)=\sqrt{E_s^2(q)+2E_s(q)V_{ss}(q)}
\label{eigenen}
\end{equation}
with $E_s(q)$ given by Eq.~(\ref{Ef}), $V_{ss}(q)$ defined in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Hint2q}), and $s\!=\!1,2,...,m\,(\ge\!n)$ representing the excitation subbands for the periodic array composed of the $(m,n)$ type SWCNs. Using Eq.~(\ref{eigenen}), the transformation coefficients come out of Eq.~(\ref{equations}) in the compact form as follows
\begin{equation}
u_s(q)\!=\!\frac{E_s(q)\!+\!\hbar\omega_s(q)}{2\sqrt{E_s(q)\hbar\omega_s(q)}},~v_s(q)\!=\!\frac{E_s(q)\!-\!\hbar\omega_s(q)}{2\sqrt{E_s(q)\hbar\omega_s(q)}}\,.
\label{coefficients}
\end{equation}
Finally, substituting Eq.~(\ref{xi}) in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Htotdiag}), using Eqs.~(\ref{eigenen}) and (\ref{coefficients}) for simplifications, and comparing the end result with Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Htotfin}), one obtains the vacuum state energy of the array in the form
\begin{equation}
E_0=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{s,q}\big[\hbar\omega_s(q)-E_s(q)\big].
\label{E0}
\end{equation}
Equations~(\ref{Eq:Htotdiag}), (\ref{xi}), (\ref{xicommute}), and (\ref{eigenen})-(\ref{E0}) solve the dispersion relation problem for the intrinsic collective excitations in the ultrathin periodic SWCN array. One can now see that the excited \emph{eigen} states of the SWCN array involve not only the single-tube excitons of energy $E_s(q)$ as one might expect naturally, but also the array collective plasma oscillations of energy $\hbar\omega_p(q)$ given by Eq.~(\ref{plasmaFy}) are involved, which in the TD regime can be effectively controlled by varying the array thickness~\cite{Bo2019}.
\section{The Array Dielectric Response}\label{Sec:3}
Knowing the dispersion of the excited collective quasiparticle \emph{eigen} states of the planar SWCN array, allows one to calculate its in-plane dielectric response tensor. A relatively easy way to do this is to use the complex-frequency finite-temperature Matsubara Green's function formalism (see, e.g., Refs.~\cite{Mahan2000,Abr1975}). All measurable collective quantities, such as conductivities and susceptibilities, are represented by correlation functions expressed for causality in terms of the retarded Green's functions, which can be obtained from their equivalent complex-frequency Matsubara counterparts with $i\omega\!=\!2n\pi/\hbar\beta$ for bosons and $i\omega\!=\!(2n+1)\pi/\hbar\beta$ for fermions ($n$ is an integer and $\beta=1/k_BT$) by simply changing $i\omega$ to $\omega+i\delta$ with $\delta$ representing an infinitesimal energy relaxation rate~\cite{Mahan2000}.
\subsection{The Collective Polarization}
We proceed with the polarizability tensor calculation for the SWCN array within the Matsubara formalism. This is given by the correlator of the SWCN induced dipole moment operator in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Hint1q}) with itself, and this only includes one CN related component, $P_{yy}(q,i\omega)$, since the minor polarization perpendicular to the CN axis is agreed to be neglected. Specifically,
\begin{equation}
P_{yy}(q,i\omega)=-\frac{1}{\hbar}\int_{0}^{\hbar\beta}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!d\tau\,e^{i\omega\tau}\langle T_\tau\hat{d}_y(q,\tau)\hat{d}_y(-q,0)\rangle,
\label{Eq:Fij0}
\end{equation}
where the bracket $\langle\,\cdots\rangle$ notates the thermodynamical averaging, $\tau\,(=\!it)$ is the complex time, and $T_\tau$ is the order\-ing operator to place the (Heisenberg picture) dipole moment operators with the earliest $\tau$ to the right.
A straightforward way to calculate Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Fij0}) is by using Eq.~(\ref{transform1}) to write the single-tube induced dipole operators in terms of their collective excitation counterparts, followed by the thermodynamical averaging with the total Hamiltonian (\ref{Eq:Htotdiag}) in the collective excitation Hilbert space. However, for practical use purposes it is instructive to find the connection between the single-tube excitations and the collective excitations of the entire SWCN array. To this end, we first do the averaging in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Fij0}) with the unperturbed Hamiltonian~(\ref{Hex}) to obtain the \emph{noninteracting} SWCN array polarizability (see Appendix~\ref{Appx1})
\begin{equation}
P_{yy}^{(0)}(q,i\omega)=\frac{m^\ast\omega^2_p(q)d}{4\pi N_{\rm 2D}N}\sum_s\frac{2E_s|\langle s|\hat{\beta}_y|0\rangle|^2}{(i\hbar\omega)^2-E_s^2}\,.
\label{Eq:Fyy0:Simp}
\end{equation}
Introducing the CN dynamical polarizability function
\begin{equation}
\alpha_{yy}(q,i\omega)=-\frac{e^2}{L}\sum_s\frac{2E_s|\langle s|\hat{\beta}_y|0\rangle|^2}{(i\hbar\omega)^2-E_s^2}
\label{alfayy}
\end{equation}
links Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Fyy0:Simp}) to the optical response of an isolated CN (longitudinal polarizability per unit length) to give
\begin{equation}
P_{yy}^{(0)}(q,i\omega)=-\frac{m^\ast\omega^2_p(q)v_0}{4\pi e^2N_{\rm 2D}\Delta}\,\alpha_{yy}(q,i\omega).
\label{P0yyalfa}
\end{equation}
Alternatively, this can be expressed in an equivalent form in terms of the isolated CN longitudinal conductivity~\cite{An2005}
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{yy}(q,i\omega)=\frac{\hbar e^2}{2\pi RL}\sum_s\frac{-2\hbar\omega|\langle s|\hat{v}_y|0\rangle|^2}{E_s\big[(i\hbar\omega)^2-E_s^2\big]}\,.
\label{Eq:sigma:Ando}
\end{equation}
Using the relations between the velocity and coordinate displacement matrix elements
\begin{equation}
\langle s|\hat{v}_y|0\rangle\!=\!\langle s|\frac{d\hat{\beta}_y}{d\tau}|0\rangle\!=
\!-\frac{1}{\hbar}\langle s|[\hat{\beta}_y,\hat{H}_{ex}]|0\rangle\!=\!\frac{E_s}{\hbar}\,\langle s|\hat{\beta}_y|0\rangle
\label{veldisp}
\end{equation}
and the fact that~\cite{BoLa2005,BoLa2006}
\begin{equation}
\alpha_{yy}(q,i\omega)=\frac{2\pi R}{\omega}\,\sigma_{yy}(q,i\omega),
\label{alfasigma}
\end{equation}
one then obtains
\begin{equation}
P_{yy}^{(0)}(q,i\omega)=-\frac{m^\ast\omega^2_p(q)v_0}{4\pi e^2N_{\rm 2D}\Delta}\frac{2\pi R}{\omega}\,\sigma_{yy}(q,i\omega).
\label{Eq:Pyy0v}
\end{equation}
Next, being performed with the total Hamiltonian (\ref{Eq:H}), the thermodynamical averaging in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Fij0}) gives the collective polarizability of the dipole-dipole \emph{coupled} SWCN array. This can be evaluated by a diagrammatic expansion in which the first term, given by Eq.~(\ref{Hex}), is treated as unperturbed and the second, given by Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:HintGen1})-(\ref{Eq:Hint2q}), is the perturbation. For the former, the noninteracting SWCN array polarizability is already known and given by Eqs.~(\ref{P0yyalfa}) and (\ref{Eq:Pyy0v}). An important feature of the latter is its separability, as can be seen from Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:HintGen1}) and (\ref{Eq:Hint1q}), so that the perturbation factors into components summed up individually. The self-energy term for the perturbation occurs in the first order with the self-energy merely equal to $2\pi/v_0$, as per Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Hint1q}). The higher-order terms of the diagrammatic expansion just produce multiples of this term. The overall result takes the form of the Dyson equation as follows (see Appendix~\ref{Appx2})
\[
P_{yy}(q,i\omega)=P_{yy}^{(0)}(q,i\omega)+\frac{2\pi}{v_0}P_{yy}^{(0)}(q,i\omega)P_{yy}(q,i\omega),
\]
which can be easily solved to give
\begin{equation}
P_{yy}(q,i\omega)=\frac{P_{yy}^{(0)}(q,i\omega)}{1-2\pi P_{yy}^{(0)}(q,i\omega)/v_0}\,.
\label{Pyy}
\end{equation}
This is the collective array polarization associated with the \emph{interband} electronic transitions to create excitons on individual SWCNs embedded in a finite-thickness dielectric layer. There is also the low-energy polarization part contributed by the \emph{intraband} transitions of harmonically bound charges on the CN surface~\cite{GAbacho15,Bo2019}. The total collective polarization of the CN array is to include both intra- and interband term on equal footing since both of them are associated with an induced oscillating dipole moment --- in the lower- and higher-frequency spectral range, respectively, --- initially created by external EM radiation on an individual CN and spread out over the array thereafter. This can be formally done by redefining
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_{yy}(q,i\omega)\longrightarrow\sigma_{yy}^{intra}(q,i\omega)+\sigma_{yy}^{inter}(q,i\omega)
\label{redef}
\end{eqnarray}
in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Pyy0v}), where
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{yy}^{intra}(q,i\omega)=\frac{e^2N_{\rm 2D}}{m^\ast}\frac{\omega}{\omega^2+(v_Fq)^2}
\label{sigmaintra}
\end{equation}
generally represents the single-tube intraband conductivity term with $v_F$ being the Fermi velocity~\cite{Ando2009}, and $\sigma_{yy}^{inter}$ is the interband term still given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:sigma:Ando}). The SWCN polarizability in Eq.~(\ref{P0yyalfa}) has to be redefined per Eqs.~(\ref{alfasigma}) and (\ref{redef}) as well.
\subsection{The Dielectric Response}
Using Eq.~(\ref{Pyy}) with $P_{yy}^{(0)}$ of Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Pyy0v}) in the general EM response expression (Gaussian units)
\begin{equation}
\frac{\varepsilon_{yy}(q,i\omega)}{\epsilon}=1+\frac{4\pi}{v_0}\,P_{yy}(q,i\omega),
\label{epsgeneral}
\end{equation}
after simplifications one obtains the SWCN array dynamical dielectric response in the form
\[
\frac{\varepsilon_{yy}(q,i\omega)}{\epsilon}=1-\!\frac{2f_{\rm CN\,}\sigma_{yy}(q,i\omega)}{f_{\rm CN\,}\sigma_{yy}(q,i\omega)+\omega e^2N_{\rm 2D}R/m^\ast\omega^2_p(q)d}\,,
\]
where $f_{\rm CN}\!=\!N_\perp V_{\rm CN}/V\!=\!\pi R^2/\Delta d\,$ is the CN volumetric fraction in the planar dielectric film as sketched in Fig.~\ref{fig1}. The analytic continuation into the real frequency domain of our interest here can now be obtained by changing $i\omega$ to $\omega+i\delta$ in the above, to finally result in
\begin{equation}
\frac{\varepsilon_{yy}(q,\omega)}{\epsilon}\!=\!1\!-\!\frac{2f_{\rm CN\,}\sigma_{yy}(q,\omega)}{f_{\rm CN\,}\sigma_{yy}(q,\omega)+i\omega e^2N_{\rm 2D}R/m^\ast\omega^2_p(q)d}
\label{epsilonyy}
\end{equation}
with the longitudinal conductivity of an isolated SWCN to include both intra- and interband contributions, taking per Eqs.~(\ref{redef}), (\ref{sigmaintra}) and (\ref{Eq:sigma:Ando}) the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_{yy}(q,\omega)\!=\!\sigma_{yy}^{intra}\!+\sigma_{yy}^{inter}\!=i\frac{e^2N_{\rm 2D}}{m^\ast}\frac{\omega+i\delta}{(\omega+i\delta)^2-(v_Fq)^2}\nonumber\\
+\frac{\hbar e^2}{2\pi RL}\sum_s\frac{-2i\hbar\omega|\langle s|\hat{v}_y|0\rangle|^2}{E_s\big[E_s^2-(\hbar\omega)^2-2i\hbar^2\omega\delta\big]}\,.\hskip1.5cm
\label{sigmayy}
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $\delta$ takes the meaning of a (phenomenological) inverse energy relaxation time, $\delta\!=\!1/\tau_r$, associated with the inelastic (phonon, defect) scattering~\cite{BoWoTa2009,Perebeinos07} and can generally be different for intra- and interband processes.
Under continuous low-intensity light illumination, the dielectric film with the SWCN array embedded in it can still be treated as being at the thermal equilibrium. At not too low temperatures the distribution of the $s$-subband quasiparticle excitations over the $q$-momentum space is then given by the normalized Boltzmann distribution function
\begin{equation}
f_s(q,T)=\frac{1}{Q_s}\,e^{-\beta\hbar\omega_s(q)}
\label{Bfunc}
\end{equation}
with $\hbar\omega_s(q)$ representing the energy of the excited quasiparticle \emph{eigen} states of the SWCN array given by Eq.~(\ref{eigenen}) and the normalization factor is
\[
Q_s=\sum_{q}e^{-\beta\hbar\omega_s(q)}=\frac{L}{\pi\hbar}\sqrt{\!\frac{M_s}{2}}\!\int_{\!E_{exc}}^\infty\!\!\frac{dE\,e^{-\beta\hbar\omega_s(q)}}{\sqrt{E-E_{exc}(s)}}
\]
with $q=\!\sqrt{2M_s\,[E-\!E_{exc}(s)]}/\hbar$ to be used in the integral. The thermal averaging of Eq.~(\ref{epsilonyy}) with this distribution function gives the temperature dependence of the EM response of the SWCN array in the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\varepsilon_{yy}(T,\omega)=\sum_{q}f_s(q,T)\,\varepsilon_{yy}(q,\omega)\hskip0.3cm\label{epsilonyyT}\\
=\frac{L}{\pi\hbar}\sqrt{\!\frac{M_s}{2}}\!\int_{\!E_{exc}}^\infty\!\!\!\frac{dE\,f_s(q,T)\,\varepsilon_{yy}(q,\omega)}{\sqrt{E-E_{exc}(s)}}\,.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Equations~(\ref{epsilonyy})-(\ref{epsilonyyT}) and (\ref{eigenen}) provide the complete description of the spatially anisotropic linear EM response of the periodically aligned SWCN array in the TD regime. This is generally a two-component spatially dispersive (nonlocal) tensor of the form
\begin{equation}
\hat{\varepsilon}(q,\omega)=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\varepsilon_{xx}&0\\0&\varepsilon_{yy}\end{array}\right]
=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\epsilon&0\\0&\varepsilon_{yy}(q,\omega)\end{array}\right],
\label{dieltensor}
\end{equation}
which should be averaged per Eq.~(\ref{epsilonyyT}) to represent the thickness-dependent anisotropic dynamical response to continuous low-intensity light illumination. In practice, the CN-array-embedding dielectric layer may still have inclusions of non-identical parallel aligned CNs. Assuming their (quasi-)periodic in-plane distribution, these inhomogeneities in an otherwise homogeneous SWCN array can be accounted for by means of the Maxwell-Garnett (MG) mixing method~\cite{Mar2016}, whereby under continuous illumination the $yy$-component of Eq.~(\ref{dieltensor}) takes the form
\begin{equation}
\left<\varepsilon_{yy}(T,\omega)\right>=\sum_{\alpha=1}^{n}w_\alpha\varepsilon_{yy}^{(\alpha)}(T,\omega)\,.
\label{MG:Mixing}
\end{equation}
Here, $\varepsilon_{yy}^{(\alpha)}(T,\omega)$ refers to a thermally averaged homogeneous component of weight
\begin{equation}
w_\alpha=\frac{f^{(\alpha)}_{\rm CN}}{\sum_{i=1}^nf^{(i)}_{\rm CN}}=\left[\sum_{i=1}^n\!\left(\frac{R_i}{R_\alpha}\right)^{\!\!2}\!\frac{\Delta_\alpha}{\Delta_i}\right]^{-1}
\label{MGweight}
\end{equation}
in the generally $n$-component inhomogeneous mixture of periodic (or quasiperiodic) SWCN arrays with radii $R_\alpha$ and intertube separation distances $\Delta_\alpha$, which is embedded in the finite-thickness dielectric layer. The weights are defined to give $\sum_{\alpha=1}^{n}w_\alpha\!=\!1$, accordingly.
\section{Discussion}\label{Sec:4}
One can see from Eq.~(\ref{eigenen}) that the intertube dipole-dipole interaction (\ref{Eq:Hint2q}) makes the CN array collective spatial dispersion $\hbar\omega_s(q)$ greatly different from the isolated-CN spatial dispersion $E_s(q)$ in Eq.~(\ref{Ef}) due to the nonzero ratio $V_{ss}(q)/E_s(q)$. This is a $q$-dependent function inversely proportional to $\Delta\!\in\!(2R,+\infty)$, which only tends to zero to give $\hbar\omega_s(q)\!=\!E_s(q)$ in the limit of $\Delta\!\rightarrow\!+\infty$. For small momenta $q$ controlling the most of the $q$-space quasiparticle state population, the major $q$-dependence comes from the linear dependence of $\omega_p^2(q)\!\sim\!q$ in $V_{ss}(q)$ [see Eq.~(\ref{plasmaFy})] rather than from the quadratic dependence of $E_s(q)\!\sim\!q^2$, which is why [as well as in view of the fact that $\hbar^2q^2/2M_{ex}\!\ll\!E_{exc}$ in Eq.~(\ref{Ef})] the second-order $q^2$-dispersion can be ignored for the qualitative analysis. With this in mind, comparing Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:Hint2q}) and (\ref{sigmayy}) with Eq.~(\ref{veldisp}) taken into account, one obtains an estimate
\begin{equation}
V_{ss}(q)\approx\frac{m^{\ast}\hbar^2\omega_p^2(q)}{e^2N_{\rm 2D}\tau_rE_s}\frac{2\pi R}{\Delta}\,\sigma_{yy}^{inter}(E_s),
\label{Vssapprox}
\end{equation}
where $E_s\!=\!E_{exc}$ and $\sigma_{yy}^{inter}(E_s)$ is the $\sigma_{yy}^{inter}(0,\omega\!=\!E_s/\hbar)$ single-subband approximation given by the greatest resonance term of the sum in Eq.~(\ref{sigmayy}). Substituting $\omega_p(q)$ of Eq.~(\ref{plasmaFy}) in Eq.~(\ref{Vssapprox}), one gets the ratio
\begin{equation}
\frac{V_{ss}(q)}{E_s}\approx g(E_s,\tau_r)\frac{2(qR)^2I_0(qR)K_0(qR)}{\epsilon qd+\epsilon_1+\epsilon_2}\frac{2\pi R}{\Delta}
\label{VsEsratio}
\end{equation}
with $g(E_s,\tau_r)\!=\!4\pi\hbar^2\sigma_{yy}^{inter}(E_s)/\tau_rE_s^2R$ being a constant.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig2.eps}
\caption{Dispersion of collective excitations in the ultrathin SWCN arrays with $R/d\!=\!0.5$ (green) and $0.25$ (gray) relative to the isolated SWCN exciton dispersion as a function of array parameters $qd$ and $\Delta/2R$.}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
Plugging Eq.~(\ref{VsEsratio}) in Eq.~(\ref{eigenen}) gives the graph in Fig.~\ref{fig2} to show the general behavior of $\hbar\omega_s(q)/E_s$ as a function of $qd$ and $\Delta/2R$ for $R/d=0.5$ and $0.25$, the two cases where the array is enclosed in and buried inside of the dielectric layer, respectively. We used $E_s\!=\!E_{exc}\!\approx\!1$~eV and $\sigma_{yy}^{inter}(E_s)\!\approx\!100\,(e^2\!/2\pi\hbar)$ typical of the first-subband exciton in semiconducting SWCNs of $R\!\approx\!1$~nm~\cite{An2005,BoMe2014}, with $\tau_r\!=\!100$~fs typical of exciton-phonon scattering~\cite{Perebeinos07}, to obtain $g(E_s,\tau_r)\approx2$. The dielectric constants were set to $\epsilon\!=\!10$ and $\epsilon_{1,2}\!=\!1$. One can see a rapidly increasing spatial dispersion as the intertube distance shrinks. As expected, the thinner the dielectric layer ($d\!=\!2R$ compared to $d\!=\!4R$), the stronger the dispersion due to the dielectric screening effect reduction.
To better understand the dielectric response behavior as a function of the intrinsic parameters of the SWCN array, we rewrite Eq.~(\ref{epsilonyy}) as follows
\begin{equation}
\frac{\varepsilon_{yy}(q,\omega)}{\epsilon}=1-\frac{2[1+\lambda(\omega)]}{1+\lambda(\omega)+\omega(\omega+i\delta)\Delta/\omega^2_p(q)\pi R}\,.
\label{epslambda}
\end{equation}
Here, the array parameters are grouped in the denominator second term, the ratio
\begin{equation}
\lambda(\omega)\!=\!\frac{\sigma_{yy}^{inter}(\omega)}{\sigma_{yy}^{intra}(\omega)}\approx\!\sum_s\frac{\sigma_{yy}^{inter}(E_s)}{\sigma_{yy}^{intra}(0)}
\frac{2\hbar\omega(\hbar\omega+i\hbar\delta)}{(\hbar\omega)^2\!-E_s^2\!+2i\hbar^2\omega\delta}
\label{lambda}
\end{equation}
where in view of Eq.~(\ref{Vssapprox}) one has
\begin{equation}
\frac{\sigma_{yy}^{inter}(E_s)}{\sigma_{yy}^{intra}(0)}\approx\frac{E_sV_{ss}(q)}{\hbar^2\omega_p^2(q)}\frac{\Delta}{2\pi R}\,,
\label{sigEsig0}
\end{equation}
represents the SWCN alone, and the $q^2$-dispersion terms are dropped. The function $\lambda(\omega)$ can be seen to rapidly diminish for $\omega\!\ll\!E_s/\hbar$, whereby in the low-frequency range $\omega_p\sqrt{\pi R/\Delta}\!<\!\omega\!<\!E_s/\hbar$ far from resonances Eq.~(\ref{epslambda}) takes a spatially dispersive (non\-local) Drude-like response form
\begin{equation}
\frac{\varepsilon_{yy}(q,\omega)}{\epsilon}\approx1-\frac{2\pi R}{\Delta}\frac{\omega^2_p(q)}{\omega(\omega+i\delta)}\,,
\label{DrudeLimit}
\end{equation}
thickness/substrate/superstrate-dependent per Eq.~(\ref{plasmaFy}), which (except for a geometry-specific constant prefactor) was previously reported to consistently describe the optical properties of both in-plane isotropic and cylindrically anisotropic TD plasmonic films~\cite{BoMoSh2020,Bo2019,BoMoSh2018,BoSh2017,VeEtal2019}.
For $\hbar\omega\!\sim\!E_s$, the function $\lambda(\omega)$ can be seen to increase dramatically, whereby Eq.~(\ref{epslambda}) after straightforward simplifications using Eq.~(\ref{sigEsig0}) takes the form
\[
\frac{\varepsilon_{yy}(q,\omega)}{\epsilon}\approx1\!-\!\frac{2E_sV_{ss}(q)}{(\hbar\omega)^2\!-\!\big[1\!-\!V_{ss}(q)/E_s\big]E_s^2\!+\!2i\hbar^2\omega\delta}\,,
\]
which can further be compacted to give
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\varepsilon_{yy}(q,\omega)}{\epsilon}\approx\frac{\big[(\hbar\omega)^2\!-\!E_{s+}^2\big]\big[(\hbar\omega)^2\!-\!E_{s-}^2\big]}{\big[(\hbar\omega)^2\!-\!E_{s-}^2\big]^2\!+\big(2\hbar^2\omega\delta\big)^2}
\label{epsResEs}\\
+\,i\frac{4E_sV_{ss}(q)\hbar^2\omega\delta}{\big[(\hbar\omega)^2\!-\!E_{s-}^2\big]^2\!\!+\big(2\hbar^2\omega\delta\big)^2}\,,\hskip0.75cm\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $E_{s\pm}\!=\!E_s\sqrt{1\pm V_{ss}(q)/E_s}\,$. Here, both absorption resonance position and intensity of the EM response can be seen being adjustable by varying the array thickness, density and dielectric parameters according to Eq.~(\ref{VsEsratio}), whereby the ratio $V_{ss}(q)/E_{s\!}=\!\{[\hbar\omega_s(q)/E_s]^2-1\}/2$ can be adjusted that controls the difference between the collective eigen-state and single-tube exciton-state energies. The real part $\mbox{Re}\,\varepsilon_{yy}/\epsilon$ of Eq.~(\ref{epsResEs}) reveals the \emph{negative refraction} (NR) band centered around $E_s$ in the domain
\begin{equation}
\sqrt{E_s^2\!-\!E_sV_{ss}(q)}\!=\!E_{s-\!}\!<\!\hbar\omega\!<\!E_{s+\!}\!=\!\sqrt{E_s^2\!+\!E_sV_{ss}(q)}
\label{negativeband}
\end{equation}
of width $E_{s+\!}-E_{s-}\!\approx\!V_{ss}(q)$. The imaginary part $\mbox{Im}\,\varepsilon_{yy}/\epsilon$ of Eq.~(\ref{epsResEs}) and the imaginary part of its negative inverse
\begin{eqnarray}
-\mbox{Im}\frac{\epsilon}{\varepsilon_{yy}(q,\omega)}\approx\hskip2.75cm
\label{Im1overeps}\\
\frac{4E_sV_{ss}(q)\hbar^2\omega\delta\,\Big\{\!\big[(\hbar\omega)^2\!-\!E_{s-}^2\big]^2\!+\big(2\hbar^2\omega\delta\big)^2\!\Big\}}
{\Big\{\!\big[(\hbar\omega)^2\!-\!E_{s+}^2\big]\big[(\hbar\omega)^2\!-\!E_{s-}^2\big]\!\Big\}^2\!\!+\big[4E_sV_{ss}(q)\hbar^2\omega\delta\big]^2}\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
are representative of the transversely polarized EM wave absorption by excitons and of the Coulomb-energy losses for longitudinally polarized plasmon excitations, respectively~\cite{Cardona}. From Eqs.~(\ref{epsResEs}) and (\ref{Im1overeps}) $E_{s-}$ and $E_{s+}$ can be seen being their respective resonance peak energies. The latter is an analogue of the \emph{interband} plasmon resonance, the one situated in-between the two neighboring exciton subbands~\cite{BoWoTa2009,Bo2012}).
The range of the NR band can be found straightforwardly from the analysis of extrema for the real-valued function $\mbox{Re}\,\varepsilon_{yy}/\epsilon$ of Eq.~(\ref{epsResEs}). This gives
\begin{equation}
\big(\hbar\omega_{min}\big)^2\!\approx E_{s-}^2\!+2E_{s}\hbar\delta\sqrt{1\!+\!\Big[\frac{\hbar\delta}{V_{ss}(q)}\Big]^{2}}
\label{omegamin}
\end{equation}
to the first infinitesimal order in the smallness parameter $\hbar\delta/E_s\!\ll1$ and
\begin{equation}
\mbox{Re}\,\frac{\varepsilon_{yy}(q,\omega_{min})}{\epsilon}\approx\frac{1}{2}\Big\{1-\sqrt{1\!+\!\Big[\frac{V_{ss}(q)}{\hbar\delta}\Big]^{2}}\Big\}
\label{reepsmin}
\end{equation}
to the first \emph{nonvanishing} (zeroth) order in the same parameter. In these equations the ratio under the square root is independent of $\delta$ since $V_{ss}(q)\!\sim\!\hbar/\tau_r\!=\hbar\delta$ as can be seen from Eq.~(\ref{VsEsratio}). This ratio can be controlled by means of $\Delta/2R$ to rarefy (or densify) the CN array as well as through $d$ and $\epsilon/(\epsilon_1+\epsilon_2)$ to adjust the array thickness and material composition, respectively. From Eqs.~(\ref{negativeband}), (\ref{omegamin}) and (\ref{reepsmin}) it can be seen that $\hbar\omega_{min}$ shifts to the blue and the NR bandwidth shrinks down to zero along with its range as $V_{ss}(q)$ decreases. Clearly, originating from the intertube dipole-dipole interaction, the NR band of the homo\-geneous TD arrays of identical SWCNs can be controlled on demand, both to expand and to shrink, by means of adjusting these interactions per Eq.~(\ref{VsEsratio}).
\begin{figure}[t]
\hskip0.5cm\includegraphics[width=.82\linewidth]{fig3.eps}
\caption{$\mbox{Re}\,\varepsilon_{yy}/\epsilon$ (gray), $\mbox{Im}\,\varepsilon_{yy}/\epsilon$ (orange) and $-\mbox{Im}(\epsilon/\varepsilon_{yy})$ (green) plotted per Eq.~(\ref{epsResEs}) in the exciton resonance range $\hbar\omega/E_s\!\sim\!1$ as functions of $\hbar\omega/E_s$ and $qd$ for dense ($\Delta/2R\!=\!1$) ultra\-thin SWCN arrays with $R/d\!=\!0.5$ (a) and $0.25$ (b), and as functions of $\hbar\omega/E_s$ and $\Delta/2R$ with $R/d\!=\!0.5$, $qd\!=\!0.1$~(c).}\vspace{-0.57cm}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig3} shows $\mbox{Re}\,\varepsilon_{yy}/\epsilon$, $\mbox{Im}\,\varepsilon_{yy}/\epsilon$ and $-\mbox{Im}(\epsilon/\varepsilon_{yy})$ in dimensionless variables as given by Eqs.~(\ref{epsResEs}), (\ref{Im1overeps}) and (\ref{VsEsratio}), to demonstrate the NR band behavior, the exciton absorption and interband plasmon response in the neighborhood of a single-tube exciton resonance as functions of the intrinsic parameters of the SWCN array. The graphs are obtained for the same material parameters as in Fig.~\ref{fig2}.~In~(a) and (b), the decrease of the thickness can be seen to push the exciton and plasmon resonances closer together, quenching their intensities to reduce the NR bandwidth and range. Comparing (a) and (b), both exciton and plasmon resonance intensities can be seen being lower for the thicker dielectric layer in (b), apparently due to the greater dielectric screening effect. In (c), the overlap of the exciton and plasmon resonances can be seen to increase with the intertube distance, whereby a controllable exciton-plasmon \emph{hybridization} is possible by varying the intrinsic parameters of the array. All these are the \emph{universal} features of the EM response that originate from the eigenstate dispersion relations of the TD arrays of SWCNs in the domain of their interband transitions as described by Eqs.~(\ref{epsResEs})-(\ref{reepsmin}). Far from this domain their low-energy EM response features a thickness/substrate/superstrate-dependent Drude-like metallic behavior given by Eq.~(\ref{DrudeLimit}).
\begin{figure}[t]
\hskip-0.3cm\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig4.eps}
\caption{(a)~The individual dielectric responses along the CN axis (longitudinal) for the zigzag (16,0), (17,0), (18,0), (19,0), and (20,0) SWCNs \emph{in vacuum}, obtained using the $\textbf{k}\cdot\textbf{p}$ method of the SWCN band structure calculations~\cite{An2005}. All graphs are scaled down vertically by a factor of $10$ for better visibility. (b)~The respective room-temperature dielectric response functions along the CN alignment direction, calculated as given by Eqs.~(\ref{epsilonyy})-(\ref{epsilonyyT}) for the ultrathin periodic arrays of the (16,0), (17,0), (18,0), (19,0) and (20,0) SWCNs. See text for details.}
\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
Figures~\ref{fig4} and~\ref{fig5} present our numerical simulations to show how the thermal broadening and a slight diameter dispersion affect the EM response of a finite-thickness SWCN film in the TD regime. We start with the longitudinal (along the CN symmetry axis) dielectric functions $\varepsilon_\parallel(\omega)$ for the five individual zigzag SWCNs in vacuum, shown in Fig.~\ref{fig4}~(a). The SWCNs chosen are the semiconducting (16,0), (17,0), (19,0) and (20,0) CNs and the metallic (18,0) CN --- all of about the same diameter centered at $2R_{(18,0)}\!=\!1.41$~nm. Focusing on the domain around the first exciton resonance, we obtain their dielectric functions $\varepsilon_\parallel$ from $\sigma^{inter}_{yy}$ of Eq.~(\ref{sigmayy}), calculated using the $\textbf{k}\!\cdot\!\textbf{p}$ method of the SWCN band structure calculations~\cite{An2005} with $\tau_r\!=\!100$~fs, followed by the Drude relation
$\varepsilon_{\parallel}(\omega)\!=1\!+8\pi i\sigma_{\parallel}(\omega)/R\omega$~\cite{BoWoTa2009} with $\sigma_{\parallel}\!=\sigma_{yy}$ of Eq.~(\ref{sigmayy}).
Marked in Fig.~\ref{fig4}~(a) are peaks of $\mbox{Im}\varepsilon_{\parallel}$ and $-\mbox{Im}(1/\varepsilon_{\parallel})$ to indicate the dipole \emph{interband} electronic transitions $E_{11}$ ($E_{22}$) and $P_{11}$ from the CN first (second) valence band to the CN first (second) conduction band~\cite{An2005}, to produce the first (second) exciton and the first interband plasmon, respectively. The latter one, though not that intensive, shows up in the domains where $\mbox{Re}\varepsilon_{\parallel\!}\!=\!0$ and $\mbox{Im}\varepsilon_{\parallel\!}\!\rightarrow\!0$ (or $\mbox{Im}\sigma_{\parallel\!}\!=\!0$ and $\mbox{Re}\sigma_{\parallel\!}\!\rightarrow\!0$, accordingly~\cite{BoWoTa2009,Bo2012}) due to the Kramers-Kronig relation that links $\mbox{Re}\varepsilon_{\parallel}$ and $\mbox{Im}\varepsilon_{\parallel}$. The plasmon peak $P^{(18,0)}$ of the metallic (18,0) SWCN is due to the \emph{intraband} transition that comes from $\sigma^{intra}_{yy}$ of Eq.~(\ref{sigmayy}). As a classical plasmon resonance it is highly pronounced, while the interband (quantum) transitions occur for the (18,0) SWCN at much higher energies outside of the domain presented. For each of the nanotubes in Fig.~\ref{fig4}~(a), their respective dielectric response functions exhibit sharp resonance structures typical of vacuum and known to get quenched by a dielectric background~\cite{Ando2010}. To obtain the dielectric responses for the respective homogeneous SWCN arrays, presented in Fig~\ref{fig4}~(b) in the same energy domain for comparison, we use our derived Eqs.~(\ref{epsilonyy})-(\ref{epsilonyyT}) with $d\!=\!\Delta\!=\!2R$ yielding $f_{\rm CN}\!=\!\pi/4$ for their respective $R$, and $T\!=\!300$~K for each of the arrays. Other array parameters are taken to be the same for all five of them: $\epsilon\!=\!10$, $\epsilon_{1}\!=\!\epsilon_{2}\!=\!1$, the first exciton translational effective mass $M_{1\!}\!=\!0.4\,m_0$ ($m_0$ is the free electron rest mass) and the relaxation time $\tau_r\!=\!100$~fs~\cite{BoWoTa2009,Perebeinos07}. The intensity decrease and large broadening can be seen along with the red shifts of the exciton and plasmon resonances, overall just in the way prescribed universally by the single-resonance approximation as per Eqs.~(\ref{epsResEs})-(\ref{reepsmin}), including the presence of the NR band.
\begin{figure}[t]
\hskip-0.3cm\includegraphics[width=1.03\linewidth]{fig5.eps}
\caption{The room-temperature ($300$~K) in-plane dielectric response functions along the CN alignment direction calculated for an ultrathin ($\sim\!10$~nm) weakly inhomogeneous TD film of the MG-mixed (16,0), (17,0), (18,0), (19,0) and (20,0) SWCN arrays whose individual responses are presented in Fig.~\ref{fig4}~(b). See text for details.}
\label{fig5}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig5} presents an example of the in-plane dielectric responses along the CN alignment direction for a weakly inhomogeneous TD film made out of a quasi\-periodic mixture of the (16,0), (17,0), (18,0), (19,0) and (20,0) homo\-geneous SWCN arrays.~To obtain these graphs, we use the MG method as prescribed in Eqs.~(\ref{MG:Mixing}) and (\ref{MGweight}). For each array component in the mixture the thickness is taken to be $d\!=\!3R$ and the intertube distances $\Delta_{\alpha}\,(\alpha\!=\!1,...,5)$ are set to $\Delta_{(16,0)\!}\!=\!6R$, $\Delta_{(17,0)\!}\!=\!2R$, $\Delta_{(18,0)\!}\!=\!2R$, $\Delta_{(19,0)\!}\!=\!5R$ and $\Delta_{(20,0)\!}\!=\!6R$ with $R$ being the radius of the constituent SWCN of the respective homo\-geneous array. The resulting weakly inhomogeneous TD film comes out to consist of the (16,0), (17,0), (18,0), (19,0) and (20,0) homogeneous SWCN arrays with the relative weights of 0.1, 0.31, 0.33, 0.14 and 0.12, respectively, to give the sum of weights equal to unity as required and to make the film be composed of about $1/3$ metallic and $2/3$ semiconducting SWCNs which is normally the case experimentally~\cite{RoEtal2019,SC2020,JFan2020}. The dielectric responses of the individual array components are calculated beforehand as described for Fig.~\ref{fig4}~(b) above. The overall thickness of this film is estimated to be $\sim\!10$~nm. We also take into that in a real sample there may be other CNs of different chiralities but of about the same diameter, some of them may be bent, tilted and so may not be equally spaced or precisely periodic. Therefore, the curves in Fig.~\ref{fig5} are smoothed out to a regular shape.
Comparing Fig.~\ref{fig5} and Fig~\ref{fig4}~(b), one can see a much stronger broadening for both exciton and interband plasmon resonances of the (just weakly) inhomogeneous film. In contrast to its homogeneous SWCN array constituents, the broaden interband plasmon resonance of the MG-mixed film is almost as intensive as the exciton resonance. Both resonances can now be seen to overlap a great deal, thus making possible the exciton-plasmon coupling and the respective exciton-plasmon hybridization. We believe this sheds more light on the nature of the ultrastrong exciton-plasmon coupling effect recently reported for self-assembled crystallized CN films experimentally~\cite{HoEtAl2018}. The NR band of the weakly inhomogeneous TD film in Fig.~\ref{fig5} can be seen to expand and its range to shrink accordingly, breaking the limits set up for homogeneous periodic SWCN arrays by Eqs.~(\ref{negativeband}) and (\ref{reepsmin}). The classical intraband plasmon resonance, a low-energy feature of the metallic (18,0) array component described by Eq.~(\ref{DrudeLimit}) and not shown in Fig.~\ref{fig4}~(b), is presented in Fig.~\ref{fig5} as well. Since we only have a single metallic CN component in our model MG-mixture here, this resonance comes out very narrow in the graphs presented. However, for instance, having the metallic (16,1) and (19,1) SWCNs included, with diameters of just $8\,\%$ less and greater than that of the (18,0) SWCN, respectively, would broaden this resonance inhomogeneously as well. Furthermore, in addition to the phonon scattering, intraband plasma oscillations can be strongly quenched by the Coulomb electron scattering, a scattering process that is suppressed for interband transitions forming neutral excitons, thus to result in a much stronger homogeneous broadening of the intraband plasmon resonance. In real self-assembled CN films one therefore should expect this resonance to be largely broaden, both homogeneously and inhomogeneously.
\section{Conclusions}\label{Sec:5}
In this paper, we study the intrinsic collective quasiparticle excitations responsible for the in-plane EM response of the ultrathin plane-parallel homogeneous periodic SWCN arrays and weakly inhomogeneous SWCN films in the TD regime.~We use the low-energy plasmon response calculation technique~\cite{Bo2019} combined with the many-particle Green's function formalism in the Matsubara formulation~\cite{Mahan2000} to derive the dynamical dielectric tensor of the system in the broad spectral domain of microwave to visible ($\lesssim\!1\!-\!2$~eV). This is where intrinsic excitations, excitons and plasmons, are present in individual constituent SWCNs~\cite{Bo15,DrSaJo2007}. We use an approach that works well as applied to molecular solids where individual molecules, represented by individual nano\-tubes in our case, are weakly bound together by the van der Waals interaction, and the EM response of the solid (a dense periodic array or film of aligned nanotubes in our case) comes about due to a locally induced single-molecule dipole polarization propagating through the periodic lattice of molecules to create the collective polarization of the entire molecular solid. Our theory links the dynamical dielectric response tensor of the SWCN periodic array to the complex longitudinal conductivity of the constituent SWCN, a building block the array is composed of. The SWCN conductivity can be calculated by a number of numerical and analytical methods~\cite{An2005,DrSaJo2007,Ando2009}, of which to demonstrate the way our theory works we use the $\textbf{k}\!\cdot\!\textbf{p}$ method of the SWCN band structure calculations based on the Kubo linear-response theory~\cite{An2005}. Our model and the results we present encompass the periodic arrays and films formed by achiral SWCNs. Arrays of chiral SWCNs require an extra analysis for collective gyrotropic effects, which we will present separately elsewhere.
We show that the collective dielectric response can be controlled by the volume fraction of constituent SWCNs, the active component of the ultrathin TD film, and that this can be done not only by varying the parameters of the SWCN content, such as the CN diameter and intertube distance, but also by merely varying the thickness of the CN embedding dielectric layer. For homogeneous single-type SWCN periodic arrays, the real part of the dielectric response function is negative for a sufficiently wide domain in the neighborhood of a quantum interband transition of the constituent SWCN, to form a relatively broad NR band that makes the system behave as a hyper\-bolic metamaterial at much higher frequencies than those typically in the IR domain that the classical intraband plasma oscillations have to offer~\cite{Chen2020}. By decreasing the CN diameter it is quite possible to push this NR band in the visible region, while using weakly inhomogeneous multi-type SWCN films can make it even broader than that of the single-type SWCN array.
The overall behavior we obtain theoretically for the real and imaginary part of the in-plane dielectric response of the weakly inhomogeneous SWCN film is very similar to that reported experimentally for self-assembled SWCN metamaterial films in Ref.~\cite{RoEtal2019}, which is why we believe that the NR band observed there for undoped samples is most likely due to the inhomogeneous broadening as presented in Fig.~\ref{fig5}. Electron doping would primarily affect the intraband plasmon of a metallic CN component to largely broaden and shift it to the blue, as evidenced by our Eq.~(\ref{DrudeLimit}), due to the Coulomb scattering and electron density increase, respectively, which is precisely what was observed in Ref.~\cite{RoEtal2019} as well.~Our theory thereby indicates that the periodically aligned, homogeneous and weakly inhomogeneous ultrathin TD films of SWCNs are excellent candidates for the development of a new generation of advanced multifunctional optical hyperbolic metasurfaces, to push the NR band and the respective hyperbolic response (typically pertinent to the IR~\cite{Chen2020}) into the optical spectral region, with characteristics adjustable on demand by means of the SWCN diameter, chirality and periodicity variation.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This research is supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation under Condensed Matter Theory Program Award No. DMR-1830874 (I.V.B.)
|
\section{Introduction} \label{introduction}
Type II supernovae (SNe) are luminous events that originate from the explosion of a massive ($>8 M_{\odot}$) star.
Historically, Type II SNe were subdivided in two main subclasses \citep{barbon} based on their photometric behaviour, namely Type IIL (with a linearly declining light curve after maximum) and Type IIP SNe. The latter represent events whose luminosity stays at a nearly constant luminosity for a long period, hence called `plateau' phase.
The long plateau of SNe IIP \citep[90-100 days,][]{hamuy} is due to the energy released by the hydrogen envelope as it cools and recombines, after being fully ionized by the explosion.
Much work has been done to characterize the properties of SNe IIP through the analysis of large samples of objects \citep{li2,arcavi,anderson,faran,gutierrez1,sanders,valenti,gutierrez2,gutierrez3}.
In particular, a small group of SNe IIP are remarkably less luminous than average. The first sub-luminous SN IIP discovered was SN 1997D \citep{turatto,benetti}, that had a peak luminosity of only $M_B=-14.65$ mag. During the nebular phase, the light curve of SN 1997D shows a tail with a declining slope compatible with the radioactive decay of $^{56}$Co, indicating that at this late time the luminosity of the object is solely powered by a small amount of radioactive material (2$\times 10^{-3}$ $M_{\odot}$).
SN 1999br \citep{zampieri2,pasto1} was very similar in luminosity and spectral appearance to SN 1997D, with narrow metal lines indicating low expansion velocities and unusually strong Ba II lines. In addition, SN 1999br showed a long plateau, lasting at least 110 days. A long plateau is indicative of a large recombination time, and may constitute evidence for the presence of a massive H envelope, that is consistent with the deduced massive ejecta \citep[14 $M_{\odot}$,][]{zampieri2}.
SN 2003Z \citep{knop,utrobin1,spiro2} was spectroscopically well followed among low-luminosity (LL) SNe IIP, with spectra that cover all evolutionary phases, from the early plateau, showing broad P-Cygni features, to the nebular phase.
The LL SN IIP SN 2005cs \citep{pasto2,pasto3} exploded in the nearby (8.4 Mpc) galaxy M 51. Because of the small distance, it was possible to directly observe the progenitor star in archive Hubble Space Telescope ($HST$) images, that appeared to be a Red Supergiant (RSG) with an initial mass in the 7–13 $M_{\odot}$ range \citep{maund1,li1,takats1}. The proximity of SN 2005cs also allowed observations of its faint radioactive tail, and it was obtained an ejected $^{56}$Ni mass of only 3$\times10^{-3}$ $M_{\odot}$ \citep{pasto3}.
\cite{galyam} conducted a multi-wavelength follow-up of the LL SN 2010id, from $\gamma$-rays to the radio. It was observed extremely early, with a spectrum taken only 1.5 days after explosion. The rise to the plateau phase lasted less than 2 days.
Another remarkable object was SN 2016bkv \citep{nakaoka}, which showed a very long plateau of 140 days, and an early bump in the light curve. A similar bump was likely observed also in SN 2003Z \citep{spiro2}. During the bump, the spectrum showed a blue continuum and a narrow H$\alpha$ emission, resembling those observed in Type IIn SNe, that indicate interaction between the SN ejecta and pre-existing circumstellar material (CSM). The presence of CSM suggests that the progenitor experienced mass loss just before the explosion.
The family of LL SNe IIP has been extended by the samples of \cite{pasto1} and \cite{spiro2}, and all objects share similar properties: low-luminosity, with absolute magnitudes $M_V$ during the plateau between $\sim-14$ and $\sim-15.5$ mag, compared to the average absolute magnitude of normal IIP SNe of $-16.7$ mag \citep{anderson}, narrow spectral lines indicating low expansion velocities of about 1000 km s$^{-1}$, and small ejected $^{56}$Ni masses ($<10^{-2}M_{\odot}$), one order of magnitude smaller than normal SNe \citep{benetti,spiro1}. Another remarkable property of LL SNe IIP is the presence of narrow-lined spectra during the plateau, although narrow spectral lines were seen also in transitional IIP objects.
The luminosity gap between normal and faint SNe IIP has been filled in fact by a few `transitional' objects including: SNe 2008in \citep{roy}, 2009N \citep{takats2}, 2009js \citep{gandhi}, 2013am \citep{zhang,tomasella2}, 2013K \citep{tomasella2} and 2018aoq \citep{oneill}. These objects create a continuous distribution of luminosity among Type IIP SNe. Whilst transitional SNe IIP are brighter than faint ones, the low expansion velocities inferred from the spectral lines resemble those observed in LL SNe IIP.
An extended survey conducted on pre-explosion images of normal Type IIP SNe have confirmed that Red Super-Giant (RSG) stars, with masses in the range 8-16 $M_{\odot}$, are the most plausible progenitors of those objects (\citealt{smartt1} and references therein, \citealt{vandyk3}, \citealt{maund2}, \citealt{smartt3}).
A low mass, RSG star of 8-8.5 $M_{\odot}$, with a radius of 500 $R_{\odot}$, was identified as the progenitor of SN 2008bk (\citealt{mattila1}, \citealt{vandyk2}, \citealt{maund3}, Pignata et al., in preparation), and of SN 2003gd (8-9 $M_{\odot}$, \citealt{vandyk1}, \citealt{smartt0}). Evolutionary numerical simulations of a Main Sequence (MS) 12 $M_{\odot}$ star reproduce the observed features of SN 2008bk, confirming a low-mass supergiant as the progenitor \citep{lisakov1}.
\cite{fraser} calculate the most probable progenitor mass range for the subluminous Type IIP SNe to be between 7.5 and 9.5 $M_{\odot}$, hence LL SNe IIP could arise from the lower-mass-end of RSG or Super-Asymptotic Giant Branch (SAGB) stars.
The properties of the progenitors of SNe, such as mass and radius, can be derived also by modelling light curves and spectra, and through hydrodynamical simulations \citep{chugai,utrobin1,utrobin2,bersten,morozova}.
The simulations indicate that some LL SNe IIP come from low-to-moderate mass and large radii progenitors (250-500 $R_{\odot}$, 10-11 $M_{\odot}$ ejecta, 13-15 $M_{\odot}$ on MS), with low explosion energies \citep[$\sim$10$^{50}$ erg,][]{pumo4}.
More recently, another promising way to derive physical characteristics of the progenitor has been proposed by modeling nebular spectra (e.g. \citealt{jerkstrand1,jerkstrand2,jerkstrand3}). The presence/absence and the strength of some specific lines, such as the [O I] and [Ca II] doublets, give important clues on the initial mass and progenitor's type.
In this context, in this paper we present a study of SN 2018hwm, a new LL SN IIP exploded in the relatively nearby galaxy IC 2327, and with a very long plateau.
The paper is structured as follows: In Sect. \ref{discovery} the discovery of SN 2018hwm and the properties of its host galaxy are reported. In Sect. \ref{photometry} we present and analyse the photometric data. The spectra are presented in Sect. \ref{spectroscopy}. In Sect. \ref{discussion} we discuss the nature of the progenitor and the explosion scenario of SN2018hwm on the basis of the SN's observables.
\section{Discovery and host galaxy} \label{discovery}
SN 2018hwm (a.k.a. ZTF18acurqaw, ATLAS18zrw, PS18byn) was discovered by the Puckett Observatory Supernova Search \citep[POSS\footnote{The POSS survey utilizes a 24-inches telescope, with an Apogee U47 CCD, located at Mayhill, NM, USA.};][]{gagliano}, on 2018 November 4.51 (UT) in the galaxy IC 2327 (or UGC 4356), at celestial coordinates $\alpha$ = 08:21:28.192, $\delta$ = +03:09:52.35 (J2000). At discovery, the unfiltered magnitude of the transient was 19.2.
A colour image of the host galaxy with the SN taken 4 months after the discovery, and obtained combining the frames in the $g$, $r$ and $i$ filters, is shown in Figure \ref{fig1}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{2018hwm.png}
\caption{Colour image of the host galaxy IC 2327 and of SN 2018hwm taken on 2019 February 26, 4 months after explosion, with the Liverpool Telescope \citep{steele}. The image is a combination of the frames obtained with the $g$, $r$ and $i$ filters. The location of the SN is marked.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
The spectroscopic classification of SN 2018hwm was performed 4 days after discovery by the extended Public ESO Spectroscopic Survey for Transient Objects \citep[ePESSTO;][]{smartt2} collaboration with the ESO 3.58-m New Technology Telescope (NTT). The transient was classified as a young type II SN, showing a blue continuum and P-Cygni Balmer lines \citep{congiu}.
The tools used for the classification were \texttt{GELATO} \citep{harutunyan} and \texttt{SNID} \citep{blondin}. The classification spectrum is presented in Sect. \ref{spectroscopy}. Later, the transient developed the typical features of SNe IIP (see Sect. \ref{spectroscopy}).
IC 2327 is an Sa spiral galaxy according to \cite{devaucouleurs}.
The NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED\footnote{https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu}) reports different measurements of distance of IC 2327, all obtained through the Tully-Fisher relation method \citep[e.g.][]{tully}. We adopt the weighted mean value of $52\pm5$ Mpc, assuming a standard cosmology ($H_0=73$ km s$^{-1}$Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_m=0.27$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.73$). This translates in a distance modulus (DM) of 33.58$\pm$0.19 mag.
The redshift of the host galaxy $z=0.00895\pm0.00002$ is from \cite{falco}.
The Milky Way reddening in the direction of IC 2327 is $A_{V,MW}=0.071$ mag \citep{schlafly}.
The extinction contribution of the host galaxy is negligible, as in the spectra (Sect. \ref{spectrallines}) we do not see absorption lines from the Na I D doublet at the host galaxy redshift, that would suggest the presence of additional dust.
In order to understand the nature of the progenitor of SN 2018hwm, we evaluated some properties of the host galaxy, including the metallicity and the star formation rate. We estimated the metallicity of the host galaxy through the correlation between the mean [O/H] metallicity indicator and the $B$-band absolute magnitude of the galaxy \citep{pilugin}. From the HyperLeda\footnote{http://leda.univ-lyon1.fr/} database, IC 2327 has $M_B=-19.93\pm0.42$ mag. Using equation 12 from Pilyugin et al. 2004 for spiral galaxies, we obtain 12+log[O/H]$_{host}$=8.50$\pm0.77$. Assuming a solar value of 12+log[O/H]$_{\odot}$=8.69 \citep{asplund}, this corresponds to $Z=0.013$ (adopting $Z_{\odot}=0.02$), thus we may conclude that the oxygen abundance of the host is nearly solar.
To estimate the star formation rate (SFR) in IC 2327, we use the \cite{kennicutt} relation between the SFR and the luminosity in the far ultraviolet (FUV) region: $SFR(FUV,M_{\odot}yr^{-1})=1.4\times10^{-28}L(FUV,erg\cdot s^{-1} Hz^{-1})$. The NED database reports two integrated flux densities in the FUV (at 1530 \AA) from \textit{GALEX}, of 1.11 and 1.15 mJy. Taking the average flux density of 1.13 mJy and the assumed distance of 52 Mpc, we obtain a SFR of 0.51 $M_{\odot}yr^{-1}$ for IC 2327.
\section{Photometry} \label{photometry}
The photometric follow-up of SN 2018hwm was performed with a plethora of instruments and telescopes, available to our collaborations, whose characteristics are reported in Table \ref{tab1}. Optical observations were done with Johnson-Cousins $BVRI$ and Sloan $griz$ filters, and in the near infrared (NIR) with $JHKs$ filters, albeit only for a few epochs.
\begin{table}
\caption{Observational facilities and instrumentation used in the photometric follow-up of SN 2018hwm.}
\label{tab1}
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\hline
Telescope & Location & Instrument & Filters \\
\hline
NOT (2.56m) & La Palma & ALFOSC & $BVgriz$ \\
NOT (2.56m) & La Palma & NOTCAM & $JHKs$ \\
LT (2.0m) & La Palma & IO:O & $BVgriz$ \\
NTT (3.58m) & La Silla & EFOSC & $V$ \\
TRAPPIST (0.6m) & La Silla & Fairchild & $BVRI$ \\
Oschin (1.22m) & Mt. Palomar & ZTF & $gr$ \\
SMARTS (1.3m) & CTIO & ANDICAM & $BVRI$ \\
PROMPT3 (0.6m) & CTIO & Apogee & $iz$ \\
PROMPT5 (0.4m) & CTIO & Apogee & $griz$ \\
Blanco (4.0m) & CTIO & DECAM & $gr$ \\
GTC (10.4m) & La Palma & OSIRIS & $r$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
For the photometric data reduction we used a dedicated pipeline called \texttt{SNOoPy}\footnote{SNOoPy is a package for SN photometry using PSF fitting and/or template subtraction developed by E. Cappellaro at the Padova Astronomical Observatory. A package description can be found at http://sngroup.oapd.inaf.it/snoopy.html.} \citep{cappellaro}. An exhaustive description of the reduction procedures can be found in \cite{reguitti}. The instrumental magnitudes are determined through the PSF-fit method. For Sloan filter images, the photometric zero points and colour terms were computed through a sequence of reference stars from the \textit{SDSS} survey in the SN field. For Johnson $BV$ filter frames, magnitudes for those reference stars were taken from the APASS DR10 catalogue\footnote{https://www.aavso.org/apass}.
Finally, for NIR images, the magnitudes were calibrated with the 2MASS catalogue \citep{skrutskie}.
Photometric errors were estimated through artificial star experiments, also accounting for uncertainties in the PSF-fitting procedure and the colour terms.
The observed optical Sloan, Johnson and NIR magnitudes are listed in Table \ref{tab4}, \ref{tab5} and \ref{tab6}, respectively.
\subsection{Light curve evolution} \label{lightcurves}
The light curves of SN 2018hwm are plotted in Figure \ref{fig2}.
The $r$-band light curve is the best sampled, and it is used as a reference for studying the photometric evolution of SN 2018hwm. The Zwicky Transient Facility \citep[ZTF; \citealt{bellm},][]{graham} survey reports the last non-detection (at 20.9 mag) on 2018 November 1 (MJD 58423.5), while the first detection of the transient is reported 3 days later, on MJD 58426.5, nearly contemporary to the POSS discovery \citep{gagliano}. Because of this, we adopt MJD 58425.0$\pm$1.5 as the most likely explosion epoch.
The maximum light is reached about 5.5 days after explosion. The maximum is followed by the plateau phase, which ends at +130 d from explosion, comparable to that of SN 2009ib \citep{takats3}, which is longer than for normal SNe IIP, whose plateau generally lasts 90-100 days \citep{hamuy}. During the plateau, the magnitude of the object remains nearly constant at $r=18.5\pm0.1$ mag. The post-plateau decline lasts around 1 month, and finally the SN sets into the radioactive slope at $r=21.2\pm0.2$ mag, resulting in a drop of $\sim$2.7 mag, which is quite common in SNe IIP, see \cite{olivares}. A similar drop of about 2.5 mag is observed also in the $V$ light curve. Then, the SN went into solar conjunction, and when visible again, was recovered at 22.2$\pm$0.1 mag (phase +335 d).
In the $g$-band, after the maximum, the light curve declines with a rate of $2.6\pm0.2$ mag (100 d)$^{-1}$ for about 40 days before reaching the plateau, that lasts until +120 d.
In the other bands, the plateau and the following drop are only partially covered.
The $B$-band follow-up started only 2 months after maximum; between +60 and +115 d the light curve in the $B$ filter does not show a plateau, but a linear decline with a slope of $0.96\pm0.02$ mag (100 d)$^{-1}$.
Two additional photometric data points were collected in the $r$-band, about one year after explosion. Between +170 d and +390 d the observed decline slope is $0.74\pm0.06$ mag (100 d)$^{-1}$, slower than the rate expected from the $^{56}$Co radioactive decay (0.98 mag (100 d)$^{-1}$). Such a flattening during the early nebular phase has been previously observed by \cite{pasto1} in SN 1999eu.
However, we note that between the 2 final detections, the decline rate is $1.1\pm0.3$ mag (100 d)$^{-1}$, consistent with the value of the $^{56}$Co decay.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1.1\columnwidth]{lightcurve}
\caption{Multiband ($BVRIgrizJHK$) light curves of SN 2018hwm, covering 400 days of evolution. The phases are relative to the assumed explosion epoch (MJD 58425.0$\pm$1.5). For clarity the curves of different filters are shifted by a constant.}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
The duration of the plateau of SN 2018hwn ($\sim$130 d) is unusually long with respect that that observed in normal Type IIP SNe. \cite{anderson} conducted a study of 116 SNe IIP, and found that the distribution of the optically thick phase duration (OPTd), i.e. the time between the explosion and the end of the plateau, has a mean value of 84 days, with a dispersion of 17 days. The largest OPTd in their sample is observed for SN 2004er, with a duration of 120 d. Larger OPTds are also derived for the sub-luminous events (see also \citealt{valenti}). \cite{arcavi} and \cite{faran} found that the peak of the plateau duration distribution is around 90-100 days. If one considers the time between the explosion and the mid point of the transition from the ‘plateau’ to the radioactive tail ($t_{PT}$ in \citealt{anderson}), for SN 2018hwm this is 150 days, while \cite{sanders} for normal SNe IIP found values in the range 60-140 days, with a median at around 110 days. Again, the longest $t_{PT}$ is observed for SN 2004er, and is similar to that of SN 2018hwm.
\subsection{Absolute light curve}
We constructed the absolute $r$-band light curve of SN 2018hwm, adopting the Galactic reddening and DM from Sect. \ref{discovery}.
With these assumptions, the average absolute magnitude of SN 2018hwm during the plateau is $M_r=-15.0\pm0.2$ mag.
During the plateau the object was fainter in $g$-band, with the absolute magnitude staying constant at -14 mag between +40 and +120 days.
After the end of the plateau, the $r$ absolute magnitude of SN 2018hwm dropped to -12.5 mag. A similar value is reached also in the other bands (-12.2 in $g$, -12.3 in $V$), whereas in redder filters it remains a bit more luminous (-13.0 in $i$, -13.2 in $z$).
During the radioactive tail the object further weakened, with last detection (+389 d) being at an absolute magnitude $M_r=-10.8\pm0.2$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1.1\columnwidth]{absolute}
\caption{$r$-band absolute light curve of SN 2018hwm compared to absolute light curves of LL IIP objects: SNe 1999br (Pastorello et al. 2004), 2005cs (Pastorello et al. 2009), 2008bk (Van Dyk et al. 2012), 2003Z (Spiro et al. 2014) and 2010id (Gal-Yam et al. 2011). Distance moduli and reddenings of the comparison objects are taken from their respective papers. The expected decay slope of $^{56}$Co (0.98 mag (100 d)$^{-1}$) is plotted for comparison.}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
We compared the absolute $r$-band light curve of SN 2018hwm with those of other known faint Type IIP SNe, i.e. SNe 1999br \citep{pasto1}, 2005cs \citep{pasto3}, 2008bk \citep{vandyk2}, 2003Z \citep{spiro2} and the particularly faint 2010id \citep{galyam}.
The distance modulus and reddening of each object are taken from the respective papers, and are rescaled to $H_0=73$ km s$^{-1}$Mpc$^{-1}$.
As can be seen in Figure \ref{fig3}, the light curve of SN 2018hwm is similar in luminosity to those of SNe 2005cs, 2003Z and 2008bk, both at peak and during the plateau. However, the plateau phase in SN 2018hwm lasts nearly one month more than in other faint Type IIP SNe. The drop from the plateau begins around +130 days after explosion. In addition, the drop from the plateau in SN 2018hwm is smaller: SN 2018hwm is $\sim 1$ mag brighter than SNe 2005cs and 2008bk during the nebular phase (between 6 and 12 months after explosion).
In the context of large samples of SNe IIP, LL IIP are placed on the faint tail of a continuous distribution in luminosity. The sample of \cite{anderson} is characterized by a mean absolute magnitude at peak of $M_{V,max}=-16.7$ mag, with a scatter of 1 mag. Differently, \cite{li2} obtained an even fainter average absolute magnitude of $-16.1$ mag for a sample of Type II SNe, because of a different selection criteria of the sample.
While SN 2018hwm, with a maximum $M_r$ of -15.2 mag (see Figure \ref{fig3}), can be considered a faint object with respect to the global population of SNe IIP, it is a relatively luminous event in the context of the faint SNe IIP subgroup \citep{pasto1,spiro2}.
\section{Spectroscopy} \label{spectroscopy}
The spectroscopic monitoring of SN 2018hwm lasted about 1 year, during which we collected 6 optical spectra (see Table \ref{tab2}). All the spectra will be publicly released on the \textsc{WISeREP} repository \citep{yaron}.
\begin{table*}
\caption{Log of the spectroscopic observations of SN 2018hwm. For each spectrum, the date, the observed spectral range, the resolution, the exposure time and the telescope+instrument used are listed. The reported phases are relative to the assumed explosion time (MJD 58425.0, see Sect. \ref{lightcurves}).}
\label{tab2}
\begin{tabular}{lllllll}
\hline
Date & MJD & Phase & Coverage & Resolut. & Exposure & Telescope + \\
& & (d) & (\AA) & (\AA) & (s) & Instrument \\
\hline
2018/11/08 & 58430.33 & +5.3 & 3640-9230 & 18 & 600 & NTT+EFOSC2 \\
2018/12/17 & 58468.44 & +43.4 & 3950-9220 & 25 & 2250 & P200+SEDM \\
2019/01/08 & 58491.04 & +66.0 & 3620-9640 & 19 & 2400 & NOT+ALFOSC \\
2019/01/15 & 58498.02 & +73.0 & 3740-9640 & 18 & 2500 & NOT+ALFOSC \\
2019/02/21 & 58535.97 & +111.0 & 3850-9640 & 18 & 2700 & NOT+ALFOSC \\
2019/10/27 & 58814.20 & +389.2 & 5100-10400 & 6 & 1380 & GTC+OSIRIS \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
The NTT classification spectrum, taken through the ePESSTO program, was reduced with a \texttt{pyraf}-based pipeline \citep[\texttt{PESSTO},][]{smartt2}, optimised for the \textsc{EFOSC2} instrument.
The reduction operations performed by the pipeline include standard procedures: correction for bias and flat-field, extraction of the 1-D spectrum, removal of sky lines and cosmic rays, wavelength and flux calibrations, using arc lamps and spectrophotometric standard stars.
The ZTF survey collected one low-resolution spectrum with the 200-inch Mount Palomar telescope and the SED Machine spectrograph \citep[SEDM;][]{blagonova}, that was reduced using the \texttt{pysedm} \citep{rigault} automatic pipeline.
The spectra from the NOT telescope were reduced using the \texttt{ALFOSCGUI}\footnote{https://sngroup.oapd.inaf.it/foscgui.html} pipeline \citep{cappellaro}, designed specifically for quickly reducing photometric and spectroscopic images taken with the \textsc{ALFOSC} instrument, as part of the NOT Unbiased Transients Survey (NUTS) collaboration \citep{mattila2}.
The nebular spectrum from GTC was reduced with routine IRAF procedures.
The final spectra are corrected for the strongest telluric absorption bands, for redshift and for Galactic reddening using the \cite{cardelli} extinction law, and calibrated to match the closest broad-band photometry.
The six spectra and the identified lines are shown in Figure \ref{fig4}.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=2\columnwidth]{spectra}
\caption{The six spectra of SN 2018hwm, redshift- and reddening-corrected. The spectra are shifted in flux by a constant for clarity. The principal identified lines are marked. Heavy elements transitions are marked by short vertical lines, grouped by element. The strong telluric absorption band, not fully corrected in the ePESSTO spectrum, is also marked. The [S II] lines are marked differently, as they are interpreted as host galaxy contamination.}
\label{fig4}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Spectral evolution and line identification} \label{spectrallines}
The first spectrum, taken at around the maximum light, shows a blue continuum (with a black body temperature of 12000 K), and Balmer lines that have a relatively broad P-Cygni component, with a minimum blue-shifted by 4500 km/s, and a more prominent emission component, with $v_{FWHM}\sim$4000 km/s. Prominent, unresolved narrow emission lines from [O III] and [S II], superimposed to the broad components, are due to host galaxy contaminating sources \citep{congiu}.
We used the tools \texttt{SNID} \citep{blondin} and \texttt{GELATO} \citep{harutunyan} to spectroscopically establish the explosion epoch, based on a comparison between the first spectrum of SN 2018hwm and early spectra of other Type IIP SNe, with well-determined explosion time estimation, and searching for the most similar spectra.
The software found a good match with the spectra of SN 2005cs taken between 4 and 8 days after the explosion, consistent with our assumption about the explosion epoch of SN 2018hwm.
Although the second spectrum is of a lower quality than the first, absorption features from once ionized metal elements \citep[including Fe II, Ba II and Sc II, see the identification of][]{pasto1} start to emerge from a colder continuum ($T_{bb}\sim $ 6900 K).
We collected three spectra during the plateau phase, that show the typical features of Type IIP SNe. The three spectra, taken between 2 and 4 months after explosion, do not show a significant evolution, apart from a slow and modest decrease of the continuum temperature, with $T_{bb}$ decreasing from 4800 to 4500 K.
Together with H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$, we identify numerous lines coming from transitions of metals.
All the lines present an evident and narrow P-Cygni absorption. We measure the expansion velocity of the ejecta from the position of the minimum of the P-Cygni component in the three NOT spectra, and the values are reported in Table \ref{tab3}.
In the first photospheric spectrum the average veocity is 1400 km s$^{-1}$, while it decreases to 1300 km s$^{-1}$ in the second, and to 1000 km s$^{-1}$ in the third spectrum. The low velocities are an indication of a low explosion energy.
The metal absorption lines in the spectra of SN 2018hwm are very narrow, resembling those observed in transitional objects between normal and faint Type IIP SNe, like SNe 2013K and 2013am \citep{tomasella1}.
In the NIR part of the late spectra, two strong lines from the Ca II NIR triplet are detected.
The expansion velocity of the ejecta are relatively low in SN 2018hwm at all phases in comparison with the typical values observed in SNe IIP. \cite{gutierrez2} studied a sample of 122 SNe IIP, to infer the observed parameters of this class of objects. The ejecta expansion velocities at phase +50 d, measured from the FWHM of the H$\alpha$ line, are distributed between 9600 and 1500 km s$^{-1}$, with a median value of 7300 km s$^{-1}$. Around +100 d the velocities have decreased, but are still found within the 3000 to 7000 km s$^{-1}$ range. There are some noticeable outliers in the general distribution: SNe 2009aj and 2009au show low velocities, but are brighter than faint SNe IIP, and are known as luminous low expansion velocities SNe (LLEV; \citealt{rodriguez}). For SN 2018hwm we obtained a mean ejecta velocity of 1400 km s$^{-1}$ in the +66 d spectrum, and about 1000 km s$^{-1}$ at +111 d.
\begin{table}
\caption{Expansion velocities of the ejecta, measured from the position of the minimum of the P-Cygni profile of hydrogen and heavy metal lines, as observed in the three NOT spectra during the plateau phase. All velocities are in km s$^{-1}$. The typical error is of the order of $\pm50$ km s$^{-1}$.}
\label{tab3}
\begin{tabular}{lllll}
\hline
line & wavelength & spectrum 1 & spectrum 2 & spectrum 3 \\
& (\AA) & +66 d & +73 d & +111 d \\
\hline
Sr II & 4078 & - & 1620 & - \\
Fe II & 4233 & - & 1630 & 1270 \\
Sc II & 4273 & - & 1050 & - \\
Ba II & 4554 & - & 1120 & 990 \\
Fe II & 4629 & 1420 & 1170 & - \\
Sc II & 4670 & 1540 & 1350 & 900 \\
H$\beta$ & 4861 & 1480 & 1170 & 1110 \\
Fe II & 4924 & 1280 & 1280 & 730 \\
Ba II & 4934 & - & - & 790 \\
Fe II & 5018 & 1610 & 1610 & 900 \\
Fe II & 5169 & 1450 & 1570 & - \\
Fe II & 5267 & 1020 & 970 & 970 \\
Fe II & 5363 & - & - & 890 \\
Sc II & 5527 & 1360 & 1520 & 1030 \\
Fe II & 5535 & 1490 & 1460 & 970 \\
Sc II & 5663 & 1380 & 1270 & - \\
Ba II & 5854 & 1330 & 1380 & 970 \\
Ba II & 6142 & 1320 & 1370 & 1180 \\
Sc II & 6246 & 1340 & 1100 & 910 \\
Ba II & 6497 & 1250 & - & 1200 \\
H$\alpha$ & 6563 & 1550 & 1370 & 1050 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Finally, we secured a nebular spectrum of SN 2018hwm about 1 year after the explosion. At that time, the transient had an apparent magnitude $r\approx$22.8 mag, but thanks to the high sensitivity of the GTC+OSIRIS combination, the spectrum has good signal-to-noise ratio, and shows some interesting features.
The spectrum is contaminated by the host galaxy contribution in the form of narrow (FWHM$\sim$7 \AA) emission lines, that are narrower than the SN features (with a mean FWHM of 13 \AA).
Over a flat pseudo-continuum we identify SN emission lines of [O I] $\lambda\lambda$6300,6364, H$\alpha$, [Fe II] $\lambda$7155, [Ca II] $\lambda\lambda$7291,7323 and the 3 lines of the NIR Ca II triplet $\lambda\lambda\lambda$ 8498,8542,8662. A faint blend of He I $\lambda$5876 and Na I D $\lambda\lambda$5890,5896 are also present. We also identify contaminant emission lines from the host, like [N II] $\lambda$6584, H$\alpha$ and [S II] $\lambda\lambda$6716,6731.
In particular, the H$\alpha$ line is made of 2 components: one from the SN, with a $v_{FWHM}$ of 600 km s$^{-1}$, and one stronger and narrower ($v_{FWHM}$=400 km s$^{-1}$, comparable to the spectral resolution of 300 km s$^{-1}$), from the host galaxy. The H$\alpha$ component from the SN is blue-shifted by 550 km s$^{-1}$, but a contribution from the host [N II] $\lambda$6548 line cannot be ruled out.
The O I $\lambda$7774 line is not detected, whereas the O I $\lambda$8446 line is visible.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=2\columnwidth]{photospheric}
\includegraphics[width=2\columnwidth]{nebulars}
\caption{Top: The last photospheric spectrum of SN 2018hwm compared with the faint IIP SNe 1997D, 1999br, 2005cs, 2003Z and the transitionals SNe 2009N and 2013am at similar phases.
Bottom: The nebular spectrum of SN 2018hwm is compared to those, taken at similar phases, of other faint IIP, SNe 1997D, 2008bk, 2009N and 2013am. Contaminant lines from the host are marked differently.}
\label{fig5}
\end{figure*}
In Figure \ref{fig5} (top) we compare the spectrum of SN 2018hwm taken at phase +113d, near to the end of the plateau, with those of both faint SNe IIP and transitional objects. The spectra of the comparison objects are taken close to the end of their plateaus. All these spectra are similar.
In Figure \ref{fig5} (bottom), we compare the nebular spectrum of SN 2018hwm with those of two under-luminous objects, SNe 1997D and 2008bk \citep[from][]{maguire}, and two transitional objects, SNe 2009N and 2013am. The H$\alpha$ profile in SN 2018hwm is remarkable, showing a blue-shifted, broader component from the SN beside the narrower, host contribution. The higher spectral resolution of GTC+OSIRIS allows to better resolve the [Ca II] doublet. Indeed, the emission lines of SN 2018hwm are among the narrowest observed in the spectra of faint Type IIP SNe. Some differences in the spectrum of SN 2018hwm are noticeable: the Na I D, [O I] doublet, [Fe II] and also [Ca II] lines are fainter and narrower. Transitional objects show a weak He I 7065 emission, which is not detected in the spectra of fainter SNe.
\section{Discussion} \label{discussion}
\subsection{Bolometric light curve} \label{bolometric}
We constructed the spectral energy distribution (SED) of SN 2018hwm from the available reddening-corrected photometry, spanning from $B$ to $K$ bands, and using the Sloan-$r$ as reference. When the photometric observation is missing in a given filter, its value is inferred from adjacent epoch photometry assuming a constant colour evolution. Then, we fitted the SED with a single black body curve, using the \texttt{curve\_fit}\footnote{https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/generated/ scipy.optimize.curve\_fit.html} tool of \textit{Python}. The free parameters of the fit are the radius, the temperature and the bolometric luminosity of the black body, that is derived by integrating the black body curve over all wavelenghts, and assuming the distance modulus value reported in Section 2.1. The errors of the free parameters are estimated from the covariance matrix provided by \texttt{curve\_fit}.
The bolometric light curve and the evolution of the radius and temperature of the black body are plotted in Figure \ref{fig6}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1.1\columnwidth]{bolometric}
\caption{Top: evolution of the radius of the photosphere, obtained by fitting the SED with a single black body. Center: evolution of the temperature of the photosphere. The radius and temperature evolutions are plotted only until +130 d, then the black body fit becomes unreliable. Bottom: bolometric light curve, calculated from the Stefan-Boltzmann law $L=4\pi r^2 \sigma T^4$. The phases are relative to the explosion epoch.}
\label{fig6}
\end{figure}
The fit of the SED with a black body after the plateau end is not reliable, as the spectrum becomes dominated by emission lines rather than the continuum. Thus, we considered the evolution of the radius and temperature only until +130 d.
The black body radius starts to increase just after the explosion, levelling out to around 6$\times$10$^{14}$ cm (8600 AU) during the plateau. At the end of the plateau, the radius sharply increases, reaching nearly 9$\times$10$^{14}$ cm.
The temperature of the black body drops rapidly after the explosion, from 11000 to 8000 K in a few days. Later on, the temperature slowly decrease from 7500 to 5000 K.
The bolometric luminosity of SN 2018hwm shows an evolution similar to the one of the black body temperature, while also mirroring the $r$-band light curve. The mean bolometric luminosity during the plateau is 3$\times10^{41}$ erg s$^{-1}$, and drops by a factor of 10 when the object enters in the nebular phase.
\subsection{Hydrodynamical modelling} \label{hydro}
The physical properties of the progenitor of SN 2018hwm at the time of the explosion (the ejected mass $M_{ej}$, the progenitor radius at the explosion $R$ and the total explosion energy $E$) are derived using the same well-tested radiation-hydrodynamical modelling procedure that has been applied to other observed underluminous Type IIP SNe (e.g. \citealt{tomasella1}, \citealt{spiro2}, \citealt{takats2}, \citealt{takats3}, \citealt{pumo4}, \citealt{tomasella2}).
A complete description of this procedure is found in \cite{pumo4}. Here we recall its main features that can be summarized as follows.\par
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] The SN progenitor's physical properties at the time of the explosion are constrained through the hydrodynamical modelling of all the main SN observables (i.e.~bolometric light curve, evolution of metal line velocities and the temperature at the photosphere), using a simultaneous $\chi^2$ fit of the observables against model calculations.
\item[(ii)] The models are computed making use of the general-relativistic, radiation-hydrodynamics Lagrangian code presented in \cite{pumo2}. This code was specifically designed to simulate the evolution of the physical properties of SN ejecta and the behavior of the main SN observables during the entire post-explosive evolution (i.e.~from the breakout of the shock wave at the stellar surface up to the radioactive-decay phase), taking into account both the gravitational effects of the compact remnant and the heating effects due to the decays of the radioactive isotopes synthesized during the explosion. The four basic parameters guiding the post-explosion evolution of these models are $M_{ej}$, $R$, $E$ and the $^{56}$Ni mass, $M_{Ni}$, initially present in the ejecta of the models \citep[see also][]{pumo3}.
\item[(iii)] The free model parameters of the $\chi^{2}$ fit are $M_{ej}$, $R$ and $E$. $M_{Ni}$ is instead held fixed and its value is set so as to reproduce the observed bolometric luminosity during the radioactive decay phase.
\item[(iv)] The observational data taken at the earliest phases (i.e.~within the first $\sim$ 5 days after explosion for SN 2018hwm) are not included in the $\chi^{2}$ fit because the models could not accurately reproduce the early evolution of the main observables.
\item[(v)] A preparatory analysis, aimed at determining the parameter space describing the SN progenitor at explosion, is performed with the semi-analytic code described in \cite{zampieri2}. This analysis guides the general-relativistic, radiation-hydrodynamics simulations that are more realistic but time consuming. Moreover the semi-analytic code is used to estimate the uncertainties on the free model parameters due to the $\chi^{2}$ fitting procedure. Possible systematic errors linked to the input physics (e.g.~the opacity treatment) and to the assumptions made in evaluating the observational quantities (e.g.~the adopted reddening or the adopted distance modulus) are not included.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=1.3\columnwidth, angle=270]{bestfitmodelSN18hwm.pdf}
\caption{Comparison of the evolution of the main observables of SN 2018hwm with the best-fit model computed with the general-relativistic, radiation-hydrodynamics code. The best-fit model parameters are: total energy $0.075$ foe, radius at explosion $5.9\times10^{13}$ cm, and ejected mass 8.0~$M_{\odot}$. Top, middle, and bottom panels show the bolometric light curve, the photospheric velocity, and the black-body photospheric temperature as a function of time, respectively. To better estimate the photosphere velocity from observations, we use the minimum of the profile of the Sc lines, as the Sc lines are generated just above the photosphere.}
\label{fig:bestfitmodel}
\end{figure*}
Based on the adopted explosion epoch (cfr. Sect. \ref{lightcurves}) and bolometric luminosity (cfr. Sect. \ref{bolometric}), we find the best-fitting model shown in Figure \ref{fig:bestfitmodel}. In particular, the inferred best-fit model has a kinetic plu thermal energy of 0.075 foe, radius at explosion of $5.9\times10^{13}$ cm ($\sim$845~$R_{\odot}$), $M_{Ni}\simeq0.0085$ and ejected mass of 8.0~$M_{\odot}$. Adding the mass of the compact remnant ($\sim$1.3-2~$M_{\odot}$) to that of the ejected material, we obtain a total stellar mass at explosion of $\sim$9.3-10.0~$M_{\odot}$. To estimate the initial mass of the progenitor on the MS, we assume a typical (i.e. not enhanced by rotation) mass loss during the pre-SN evolution $\lesssim$ 0.1-0.9 $M_{\odot}$ (see \citealt{pumo4} and references therein for details). Hence, the initial progenitor mass is in the range 9.4-10.9~$M_{\odot}$. The estimated errors on the free model parameters due to the $\chi^{2}$ fitting procedure are about 15\% for $M_{ej}$ and $R$, and 30\% for $E$.
\cite{popov} and \cite{kasen} derived scaling relations for the properties of SNe IIP, and concluded that the plateau duration is correlated to the envelope mass. While in SN 2018hwm the plateau is very long (nearly 140 days), the ejecta mass is not higher than the expectation from the analytical modelling of the explosion. The discrepancy is explained by the extremely low explosion energy (more than one order of magnitude smaller than the typical value derived by \cite{kasen} ($\sim0.9\times10^{51}$ ergs). The low kinetic energy of the ejecta, and the consequent low expansion velocities, generate a slow-moning recombination. As a consequence, the plateau has a longer duration than that usually observed in SNe IIP. \cite{pumo4} noted that the main regulator of the distribution of IIP SNe properties (such as luminosity and $^{56}$Ni mass) is in fact the ratio between the explosion energy and ejecta mass ($E/M_{ej}$).
For SN 2018hwm, we evaluate the value of this ratio to $E/M_{ej}$=0.0094 foe/$M_{\odot}$, which is among the lowest calculated for a Type IIP SN (\citealt{pumo4}, \citealt{lisakov2} and references therein), and is nearly half of what is derived for other low luminosity SNe IIP with known RSG progenitors.
\subsection{Explosion and progenitor scenario}
The derived explosion energy of SN 2018hwm (0.075 foe), when compared to the theoretical models \citep{sukhbold,burrows,limongi}, is extremely low, even accounting for the error bar. Standard SN explosion simulations predict explosion energies above 0.2$\times10^{51}$ erg, and up to 2$\times10^{51}$ erg. Although it is difficult to explain such a low energy with a standard core-collapse SN, it is still possible. For example, SN 1054 (a.k.a. `the Crab event') is believed to be the outcome of a ECSN \citep{kitaura} with an explosion energy of 0.1 foe \citep{sukhbold}. In addition, using the scaling relations from \cite{popov}, \cite{muller} are able to obtain $E$ below 0.1 foe for a few normal Type II SNe.
The $^{56}$Ni synthesized in SNe, which is the only source powering the late-time luminosity after the plateau stage, is largely formed by the explosive burning of oxygen and silicon.
To explain the ejection of a small amount of $^{56}$Ni in LL IIP, three main explosion scenarios have been formulated:
(i) The fall-back of most of the material from the outer, Ni-rich region of a high mass (25-40 $M_{\odot}$) progenitor star onto its newly formed degenerate core (\citealt{woosley2}, \citealt{zampieri1}; \citealt{moriya}). This phenomenon would naturally produce a low luminosity explosion event, and the apparent formation of small quantities of $^{56}$Ni, as it falls back on to the newly born black hole.
(ii) The detonation of a low mass (8–10 $M_{\odot}$) progenitor as a Fe core-collapse SN, in which very little $^{56}$Ni is synthesized (\citealt{nomoto1}, \citealt{woosley1}, \citealt{chugai}).
(iii) A third explosion scenario, that can explain the observed properties of faint IIP SNe (i.e. massive ejecta, low $^{56}$Ni mass produced and low energetic events) is the explosion of a moderate-mass star, with O-Ne-Mg core, via Electron-Capture SN (ECSN; \citealt{nomoto2}, \citealt{ritossa}, \citealt{heger}, \citealt{kitaura}; \citealt{takahashi}).
The theory of stellar evolution predicts stars with a MS mass of 8 to 11 $M_{\odot}$ to become SAGB stars which may lead to ECSNe \citep[e.g.][]{tominaga}.
\cite{kitaura} and \cite{eldridge} noted that a SAGB progenitor will have little oxygen and silicon surrounding the core, and hence we may expect a SAGB star to produce a low mass of ejected $^{56}$Ni.
\cite{franson} suggested that the ratio $\Re$ between the luminosities of the [Ca II] $\lambda\lambda$7291,7324 and [O I] $\lambda\lambda$6300,6364 can be a good diagnostic for the main-sequence mass of the precursor star. We calculated this ratio for SN 2018hwm in the nebular spectrum (phase +389 d), and obtained $\Re\sim$2.7. A value of $\Re$ close to 3 is consistent with a low main-sequence progenitor mass, as estimated for SN 2005cs \citep[7–13 $M_{\odot}$; \citealt{maund1}, \citealt{li1}, \citealt{takats1} and][]{eldridge}.
The inferred values of the best-fit model parameters are consistent with an ECSN involving a SAGB star with initial mass close to the upper limit of the mass range typical of this class of stars \citep[for further details see e.g.][]{pumo1}.
The best-fit model parameters may be also consistent with an iron core-collapse SN with a very low-energy explosion involving a low-mass red/yellow supergiant star. However, the inferred value of $E$ seems to be too low to consider this scenario as the most reliable, although it cannot be ruled out.
Lacking information on the temperature and colour of the progenitor from pre-explosion images (as was obtained for SNe 2005cs and 2008bk), we cannot distinguish an SAGB from an RSG progenitor.
The absence of signs of interaction with a pre-existing CSM, particularly in the spectra, has two possible explanations: (i) the progenitor experienced only very minor mass loss before the core-collapse, which is not expected from a star in the SAGB phase, or (ii) the progenitor was a SAGB that had recently ($\sim 10^4$ years, see Table 1 from \citealt{pumo1}) entered the Thermal Pulses phase. In the latter case, the star would have retained most of the envelope. This is ejected only in the final explosive event, such that a dense CSM is not present.
The progenitor mass of SN 2018hwm obtained from hydrodynamical simulations is in agreement with the value found for many subluminous SNe. For example, \cite{spiro2} propose a progenitor masses range of 10–15 $M_{\odot}$ for their sample of LL SNe IIP.
\cite{utrobin1} modelled the light curves and spectra of SN 2003Z, obtaining a high ejecta mass of 14 $M_{\odot}$, that leads to an estimated initial mass of 16 $M_{\odot}$ but a small progenitor radius of 230 $R_{\odot}$. \cite{pumo4} found a similar value of 260 $R_{\odot}$. The small radius may favour a yellow supergiant as progenitor, instead of a red one, and it has been hypothesized for the transitional event SN 2009N \citep{takats2}.
As mentioned before, we cannot provide conclusive arguments supporting one of the two explosion scenarios. As some observational properties seem to favour the ECSN and others the Fe-CC SN, we can here summarise their strong and weak arguments. The arguments in favour of an ECSN scenario for SN 2018hwm are:
\begin{itemize}
\item the low explosion energy ($7.5\times10^{49}$ erg),
\item the low synthesized $^{56}$Ni mass (0.0085 $M_{\odot}$),
\item the low initial progenitor mass (between 9 and 11 $M_{\odot}$),
\item the absence of the He I $\lambda$7065 line \citep{jerkstrand3}.
\end{itemize}
On the other hand, the more canonical Fe-CCSN scenario can also explain some of the observed properties, such as:
\begin{itemize}
\item a star with a radius of 845 $R_{\odot}$ is also compatible with a RSG,
\item the large amount of $^{40}$Ca synthesised (see below),
\item other LL IIP with similar parameters, like SN 2005cs \citep{eldridge} and SN 2008bk (\citealt{mattila1}, \citealt{vandyk2}), were confirmed to have RSG progenitors.
\end{itemize}
Two possible arguments against the Fe-CCSN scenario are:
\begin{itemize}
\item SN 2018hwm should be an extremely faint Fe-CCSN in order to be able to explain the energy and M($^{56}$Ni) values,
\item the relatively low progenitor mass at ZAMS.
\end{itemize}
\cite{lisakov2} investigated whether a low-energy explosion of high-mass (12 to 27 $M_{\odot}$) RSGs could reproduce the observed properties of LL SNe. Their results were in contrast with the observations, as they predict bluer colours and faster declining light curves, rather than those observed during the plateau. Also, the complete fall-back of the CO core prevents the ejection of any $^{56}$Ni, whereas LL SNe IIP produce a small amount of it. The results support a scenario involving low- to intermediate-mass progenitors, pointing to low-energy explosions of RSG or SAGB stars.
\subsection{Nucleosynthesis modeling}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=.7\columnwidth]{sn2018hwn_nebd386_FeOCa_ff0,02_OI.pdf}\includegraphics[width=.7\columnwidth]{sn2018hwn_nebd386_FeOCa_ff0,02_CaII.pdf}\includegraphics[width=.7\columnwidth]{sn2018hwn_nebd386_FeOCa_ff0,02_CaIINIR.pdf}
\caption{Three snapshots of the modeling (in blue) of the nebular spectrum of SN 2018hwm (in black), fitting the three most important features of the spectrum. From left to right: [O I] doublet, [Ca II] doublet and NIR Ca II triplet. From the model we confirmed the ejected M($^{56}$Ni) of 0.002 $M_{\odot}$ derived from the hydrodynamical simulation, and estimated the ejected masses of $^{16}$O, $^{12}$C and $^{40}$Ca.}
\label{fig8}
\end{figure*}
In order to establish the properties of the core of the exploding star, we modelled the nebular spectrum with a non-local thermodynamic equilibrium (NLTE) code. The code is based on the assumptions set forth by \cite{axelrod}, and it has been described and used in several papers (e.g. \citealt{mazzali1,mazzali2}). The ejecta are heated and ionised by impact with the products of the radioactive decay chain $^{56}$Ni-$^{56}$Co-$^{56}$Fe. Cooling occurs mostly via forbidden line emission. If we exclude the H and He envelopes, the heavier elements that are found in the CO core can be modelled independently. Although Fe lines are not visible in the noisy spectrum, we can set the $^{56}$Ni mass to the value obtained from the light curve, adapt the M($^{56}$Ni) by verifying that the resulting Fe emission in the region of 4000-5500 \AA~does not exceed the observed flux, and test the masses of some of the emitting elements. It is immediately clear that all emission lines from heavy elements are very narrow. A typical nebular velocity of 500 kms$^{-1}$ appropriately describes their width, so we assume that is the size of the emitting core. The strongest lines we address are [O I] 6300, 6363, [Ca II] 7321, Ca II IR, Mg I] 4571, [C II] 8600.
Three snapshots of the comparison between the model spectrum with the observed one, around the [O I], [Ca II] doublets and NIR Ca II triplet, are shown in Figure \ref{fig8}.
By approximating to the blue emission we obtained a M($^{56}$Ni) of 0.002 $M_{\odot}$. The inferred oxygen and carbon masses are low, M($^{16}$O)$\approx 0.02$ $M_{\odot}$ and M($^{12}$C)$\approx 0.005 M_{\odot}$, respectively.
The newly synthesized M($^{16}$O) found for SN 2018hwm is very close to that obtained for SN 2005cs (0.016 $M_{\odot}$, \citealt{jerkstrand3}).
This agrees with the findings that MS stars in the 8-12 $M_{\odot}$ range synthesize low amount of oxygen (a few $10^{-2}$ $M_{\odot}$, \citealt{nomoto2}; \citealt{woosley1}; \citealt{woosley3}; \citealt{chugai}).
We require a high ejected calcium mass, $\sim$0.3 $M_{\odot}$, to match the strong observed emission. The Ca lines are not broader than the O line, so it is unlikely that any other region contributes significantly to the emission. In order to achieve the correct ratio of the Ca II lines we need to use a rather strong degree of clumping (filling factor 0.02-0.05), which likely reflects the actual conditions in the young SN remnant.
A high M($^{40}$Ca) is problematic within the ECSN scenario, as theoretical nucleosynthesis calculations predict much lower values ($<$0.01 $M_{\odot}$, \citealt{nomoto3}).
As a reference, the 12 $M_{\odot}$ model of \cite{maguire} for SN 2008bk synthesised 2.4E-03 $M_{\odot}$ of calcium. However, a high Ca abundance has been observed in a number of so-called `Ca-rich' transients \citep[e.g.][with M(Ca)=0.135 $M_{\odot}$]{perets1}. Those are more likely to be He-shell detonations on white dwarfs, although \cite{kawabata} suggest two scenarios to explain the Ca-rich Type Ib SN 2005cz: the core-collapse of a low-mass 8-12 $M_{\odot}$ star in a binary system, or an ECSN explosion induced by the merging of a ONeMg and a He white dwarf.
We can conclude that the ejected mass is quite small, and the explosion energy is very low, but it is difficult to distinguish between ECSN and a low-mass Fe-CCSN scenario based solely on the nucleosynthesis. For example, \cite{wanajo} proved that the collapse of a ONeMg core and the least massive Fe-core lead to similar nucleosynthesis.
Hence, with the available data, we cannot securely discriminate between EC and Fe-CC scenarios.
The number of LL SNe IIP with extensive coverage both in photometry and spectroscopy allowing detailed modelling is still limited. The number of LL SNe IIP with progenitor information inferred from the direct analysis of pre-explosion \textit{HST} images is even lower. However, with the available sample, there is a growing evidence that the masses of the progenitors of LL SNe IIP are too low to comfortably match the expectations for a fall-back SN scenario, whereas relatively low-mass RSG leading to an Fe core-collapse or SAGBs producing EC SN explosions are viable alternatives.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
\begin{small}
MLP acknowledges support from the plan "programma ricerca di ateneo UNICT 2020-22 linea 2" of the Catania University. HK was funded by the Academy of Finland projects 324504 and 328898. GP acknowledge support by the Ministry of Economy, Development, and Tourism’s Millennium Science Initiative through grant IC120009, awarded to The Millennium Institute of Astrophysics, MAS. OR acknowledges support from CONICYT PAI/INDUSTRIA 79090016.
IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which are operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.
Based on observations obtained with the Samuel Oschin 48-inch Telescope at the Palomar Observatory as part of the Zwicky Transient Facility project. ZTF is supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. AST-1440341 and a collaboration including Caltech, IPAC, the Weizmann Institute for Science, the Oskar Klein Center at Stockholm University, the University of Maryland, the University of Washington, Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron and Humboldt University, Los Alamos National Laboratories, the TANGO Consortium of Taiwan, the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories. Operations are conducted by COO, IPAC, and UW.\\
Based on observations made with the Nordic Optical Telescope, operated by the Nordic Optical Telescope Scientific Association, and with the Liverpool Telescope, operated on the island of La Palma by Liverpool John Moores University, with financial support from the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council. Both telescopes are located at the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos, La Palma, Spain, of the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias.
The ALFOSC instrument is provided by the Instituto de Astrofisica de Andalucia (IAA) under a joint agreement with the University of Copenhagen and NOTSA.
The NUTS program is funded in part by the IDA (Instrument Centre for Danish Astronomy).
Based on observations made with the Gran Telescopio Canarias (GTC), installed at the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, in the island of La Palma.
Based on observations collected at the European Organisation for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere, Chile, as part of ePESSTO (the extended Public ESO Spectroscopic Survey for Transient Objects Survey) ESO program ID 199.D-0143(M).
Based on observations at Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory, which is managed by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA) under a cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.
The Dark Energy Camera (DECam) was constructed by the Dark Energy Survey (DES) collaboration.
We acknowledge the usage of the HyperLeda database (http://leda.univ-lyon1.fr).
\section*{Data availability}
The data underlying this article are available in the article and in its online supplementary material.
|
\section{Introduction}
\IEEEPARstart{I}{mage} registration between sensed and reference images is of vital importance for visual homing systems in remote sensing image applications. The task of image registration is to align the sensed image - which are captured with different modalities, from different viewpoints, or at different times - with the reference image.
Classical image registration algorithms can be generally divided into two categories \cite{Majiayi:A survey}: intensity-based algorithms and feature based algorithms. Intensity-based algorithms directly calculate the similarity metric in intensity, such as mutual information or cross correlation. However, they fail in multi-model images registration because of their non-linear intensity relationships. Instead of utilizing intensity directly, feature-based algorithms attempt to estimate the similarity metric between features such as point, contour, line, section, etc. The commonly used similarity metrics for feature-based algorithms include Minkowski distance, Euclidean distance, Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence, Hausdorff distance, and others. Both intensity- and feature-based algorithms align the image pair by optimizing transformation parameters. Therefore, optimal transformation parameters indicate the completeness of the registration. Once the image feature and similarity metric are formulated, the rest of image registration can be treated as an optimization problem.
The focus of this paper is to find the optimal parameters. Traditional optimization algorithms are from a basic perspective divided into three categories: 1) first-order derivative methods with the representative of gradient descent \cite{Bottou:SGD} and its variants; 2) high-order derivative methods, such as Newton’s method \cite{Kelley:NEWTON} as well as its variants ; 3) heuristic derivative-free methods, among which genetic algorithm \cite{Whitley:GA} and simulated annealing algorithm \cite{Van:simulatedAnnealing} are typical. First order derivative methods iteratively update variables in the opposite direction of the gradients of the objective function. Coherent point drift (CPD) \cite{Myronenko:CPD} is one of the most representative methods. CPD method treats registration as maximizing the posterior probability of the point set, and it updates the transformation parameters by solving a first-order differential equation. Unfortunately, the first order derivative method converges slowly and is easily trapped in a local minimum, especially in the case of badly scaled or severely degraded data. The high-order derivative methods converge faster because a quadric surface would fit the search space better than a linear plane. Chen et al. \cite{Chen:two-GaussNewton} proposed a two-step Gauss-Newton method; the second step is to minimize a quadratic approximation of the objective function. Experimental results showed that it outperformed the standard Gauss-Newton method. However, the calculation of the inverse Hessian matrix is expensive; the quasi-Newton algorithm address this shortcoming by using an approximation. Min et al. \cite{Min:quasi-newton} adopted a coarse-to-fine strategy based on a quasi-Newton algorithm to determine the optimal transformation parameters. It achieved more accurate registration in a shorter runtime. When the derivative of the objective function does not exist, the heuristic derivative-free method was proposed. Inspired by ant colonies’ foraging behavior, Wu et al. \cite{Wu:ant colony} combined a continuous ant colony optimization algorithm with an efficient local search operation. It improves efficiency and accuracy in multi-sensor remote sensing image registration. Zhao et al. \cite{Zhao:annealing} utilized a dynamic threshold strategy to compute the prior probability between features and adopted the deterministic annealing method to optimize the optimal correspondence. This achieved an optimal mapping from a local to a global scale. Wu et al. \cite{Wu:particle swarm} directly sampled the image registration transformation parameters rather than using the RANSAC method and utilized the particle swarm optimization algorithm to optimize parameters and achieve a better performance than with traditional RANSAC. However, heuristic derivative-free methods cannot guarantee the optimum theoretically and suffer from contradictory rapid convergence and a global optimum.
Deep learning technology has been proven successful in computer vision tasks, and the step of image registration optimization can be treated as typical regression processing. Deep neural network encapsulates image processing steps into a black box, which makes it easy and convenient to design an image registration optimization algorithm. Recently, Rocco et al. \cite{Rocco:geometric matching} fed two images into a “Siamese” architecture to obtain descriptors, and then matched the descriptors by a tentative correspondence map. The regression network outputs geometric transformation parameters through fully connected layers directly. Instead of directly computing the parameters from fully connected layers, Poursaeed et al. \cite{Poursaeed:fundamental} introduced a reconstruction as well as normalization layers after the fully connected layers and achieved better performance. However, the above methods were trained by images - which is image dependent and restricts its application scope. In this paper, an image-independent registration optimization network is proposed. It is an optimizer that can be applied to any image registration optimization step.
All optimization algorithms need to reconcile the “global optimum” and “rapid convergence” simultaneously. Unfortunately, most traditional optimization approaches cannot reconcile these effectively. To alleviate the problem, a learning-based optimization method named the image registration optimization network (IRON) is proposed here. It differs from traditional DNN architecture, its training data is a tensor rather than an image, and the tensor’s label is a vector in the search space. The tensor consists of similarity metric values, and the vector points to the global optimal parameters from the initialized parameters. Therefore, it is expected that, by feeding the special training dataset into the network, the trained IRON will predict the global optimal parameters in a straightforward manner. It implies that the IRON has learned the whole structure information of the search space.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section II describes the proposed approach in detail; Section III presents experiments and analysis; and conclusions are presented in Section IV.
\section{Proposed Approach}
\subsection{Motivation}
We hope to reconcile the common contradiction of global optimization and rapid convergence in optimization methods by deep learning-based technology. First, let us depict the contradiction of the optimization algorithm and visually indicate our purpose. Assuming randomly initialized parameters in the search space, a better optimization algorithm is expected to search the optimal parameters as depicted by the arrow in Fig.\ref{fig:diff_searching_path}(a). However, most search spaces are usually non-convex and oscillating. Consequently, most optimization algorithms cannot reach a global optimal solution in several searching steps. Thus, we have two results. Fig.\ref{fig:diff_searching_path}(b) shows that the optimization algorithm has climbed up to a local maximum after a few steps, and Fig.\ref{fig:diff_searching_path}(c) depicts that the optimum has been found by searching almost every corner of the search space. Obviously, neither of two above situations meet our expectations. Our goal is to overcome these two shortcomings in an optimization algorithm.
\begin{figure}[htpb]
\centering
\subfloat[a better searching result]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{p1.jpg}}
\label{subfig:p1}
\hspace{1em}
\subfloat[full searching result]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{p2.jpg}}
\label{subfig:p3}
\subfloat[local maximum result]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{p3.jpg}}
\label{subfig:p2}
\hspace{1em}
\subfloat[purposed searching result]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{p4.jpg}}
\label{subfig:p4}
\caption{Optimization steps.}
\label{fig:diff_searching_path}
\end{figure}
Deep learning has reached excellent performance in most computer vision tasks by training with labeled images. Inspired by this, we deliberated whether a labeled similarity metric tensor could be used to train a deep neural network. If the network learned the structure of the search space, for a random initialization, it could predict the optimum directly rather than seeking iteratively or densely. Our purposing is depicted in Fig.\ref{fig:diff_searching_path}(d). Next, we introduce how to generate a similarity metric tensor and its label, then describe the details of the image registration optimization network which can be applied as an optimizer in any registration algorithm.
\subsection{Image registration optimization network}
Throughout this paper, we use the following notations:
$I_s ,I_t :R^2 \to R$, - the sensed image and reference image,
$M,N\in R$, - the number of feature points from a sensed and reference image,
${\bf{U}} = ({\bf{u}}_1 ,...,{\bf{u}}_M )^T \in R^{M \times 2} $, - the sensed image point set,
$\mathbf{V}=\left( \mathbf{v}_1,...,\mathbf{v}_N \right) ^T\in R^{N\times 2}$, - the reference image point set,
${\bf{{\rm T}}}{\rm{(}}{\bf{U}},{\bf{\theta }})$, - transformation ${\bf{{\rm T}}}$ applied to ${\bf{U}}$, where ${\bf{\theta }}$ is a set of transformation parameters to be optimized,
in this paper $\theta \in R^3$,
${\bf{\tau }} = [\tau _{ijk} ] \in R^{S \times S \times S}$, - the whole search space similarity metric tensor which is shown in Fig.\ref{fig:similarity_metric_tensor}(a), $\tau _{ijk} = O\left( {{\bf{{\rm \bf{T}}}}{\rm{(}}{\bf{U}},\theta _{x_i } ,\theta _{y_j } ,\theta _{z_k }, \alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ),{\bf{V}}} \right)$
and $i,j,k=1,...,S$, here $S=31$, the tensor was shown in Fig.\ref{fig:similarity_metric_tensor}(b) and the black-dot is global optimum parameters,
${\bf{\tau '}} = [\tau _{lmn} ] \in R^{(b + 1) \times (b + 1) \times (b + 1)}$, - the training data tensor which is the green sub-tensor shown in Fig.\ref{fig:similarity_metric_tensor}(b), and
$l = i - {b \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {b 2}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} 2},...,i + {b \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {b 2}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} 2}$,
$m = j - {b \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {b 2}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} 2},...,j + {b \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {b 2}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} 2}$,
$n = k - {b \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {b 2}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} 2},...,k + {b \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {b 2}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} 2}$,
here $b=8$,
$\iota' \in R^{3} $, - the label of $\tau'$ depicted by the red arrow shown in Fig.\ref{fig:similarity_metric_tensor}(b); it starts from the center of the sub-tensor to the global optimum.
\begin{figure}[htpb]
\centering
\subfloat[$\tau$]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{tensor-whole.png}}
\label{subfig:whole}
\hspace{1em}
\subfloat[$\tau'$ in $\tau$]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{tensor.png}}
\label{subfig:whole-sub-tensor}
\caption{Similarity metric tensor.}
\label{fig:similarity_metric_tensor}
\end{figure}
The task of the image registration optimization algorithm is to find the optimal parameters. It is described mathematically by the following formula:
$${\bf{\theta }}^ * = \mathop {\arg }\limits_{\bf{\theta }} \min \left\{ {O\left( {{\bf{{\rm T}}}{\rm{(}}{\bf{U}},{\bf{\theta }}),{\bf{V}}} \right) + \lambda \left\| {\bf{T}} \right\|} \right\}$$
Where $O$ is the similarity function, and $\bf{\lambda }$ a weight that controls the tradeoff between the two terms. For any initialization parameters $\left( {\theta _{x_i } ,\theta _{y_j } ,\theta _{z_k } } \right)$,
the IRON’s output
$\left( {\hat \theta _x^ * {\rm{ - }}\theta _{x_i } ,\hat \theta _y^ * {\rm{ - }}\theta _{y_j } ,\hat \theta _z^ * {\rm{ - }}\theta _{z_k } } \right)$
plus $\left( {\theta _{x_i } ,\theta _{y_j } ,\theta _{z_k } } \right)$,
then the result will be the estimation of optimal parameters. The architecture of our proposed IRON is demonstrated in Fig.\ref{networkArchitecture}. In this architecture, the first key step is generating the labeled training datasets.
\begin{figure}[htpb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{networkArchitect.jpg}
\caption{Architecture of IRON. Layer types: Conv: convolution, BN: batch-normalization, FC: fully-connected. We don’t pad the convolution, because the similarity metric is of different from the image density, and pooling layers are not adopted due to the input tensor’s width and height is small. The shape of input tensor is 9×9×9. For CNN-module layers, each layers input channel and output channel is: 1,64; 64,128; 128,256; 256,512; All CNN-module layers use 3×3×3 kernels. For FC layers, each layers I/O channel are: 512,256; 256,64; 64,16; 16,6. All Conv and FC layers use ReLU activation except for the last FC.}
\label{networkArchitecture}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Similarity metric tensor generation}
Assuming that there exists a perspective distortion between the sensed image $I_s$ and the reference image $I_t$, the perspective transformation contains three translation parameters (north: $\theta_x$, altitude: $\theta_y$, east: $\theta_z$) and three rotation angle parameters (yaw: $\theta_\alpha$, pitch: $\theta_\beta$, roll: $\theta_\gamma$). Since the three rotation angle parameters
$\left( {\theta _\alpha ,\theta _\beta ,\theta _\gamma } \right)$ are usually accurate, here we use $\left({\alpha,\beta,\gamma}\right)$ to represent them, and there remain three translation parameters $\left( {\theta _x ,\theta _y ,\theta _z } \right)$ to be optimized.
The search space of image registration in perspective distortion case is not infinite, and the range of each translation parameter could be represented as $\theta _{x_1 } \le \theta _x \le \theta _{x_S }$, $\theta _{y_1 } \le \theta _y \le \theta _{y_S }$, $\theta _{z_1 } \le \theta _z \le \theta _{z_S }$.
We can calculate the whole search space similarity metric tensor using the following steps:
Step 1: we extract point sets from both images with the SIFT descriptor (for a uni-modal image) or the Sobel detector (for a multi-modal image);
Step 2: we execute a perspective transformation on the sensed image point set with parameter $\left( {\theta _{x_i } ,\theta _{y_j } ,\theta _{z_k } ,\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma } \right)$;
Step 3: we calculate the similarity metric between the point sets: $\tau _{ijk} = O\left( {{\bf{{\rm \bf{T}}}}{\rm{(}}{\bf{U}},\theta _{x_i } ,\theta _{y_j } ,\theta _{z_k }, \alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ),{\bf{V}}} \right)$. Here we have adopted the correlation of the Gaussian Mixture Model as a similarity metric.
We repeat Step 2 and Step 3 for all possible transformation parameters. Then we will obtain a 3D tensor ${\bf{\tau }} = \left[ {\tau _{ijk} } \right] \in R^{S \times S \times S} $, which is the so-called whole search space similarity metric 3D tensor. It is noteworthy that when some angle parameters are inaccurate, we can solve the registration in a similar way by generating a 4D, 5D, or 6D tensor.
Repeat step 2 and 3 for all possible transformation parameters, then we will get a 3D tensor ${\bf{\tau }} = \left[ {\tau _{ijk} } \right] \in R^{S \times S \times S} $, which is the so-called whole search space similarity metric 3D tensor. It is noteworthy that when some angle parameters are inaccurate, we can solve the registration in a similar way by generating a 4D, 5D or 6D tensor.
\subsubsection{Training data generation}
The training data is a sub-tensor ${\bf{\tau '}}$, which is cut from ${\bf{\tau}}$. Supposing that the optimal parameters are $\left( {\theta _x^ * ,\theta _y^ * ,\theta _z^ * } \right)$, for any initial parameters $\left( {\theta _{x_i } ,\theta _{y_j } ,\theta _{z_k } } \right)$,
we cut off a tensor ${\bf{\tau '}} = \left[ {\tau _{lmn} } \right]$ from ${\bf{\tau}}$, where
$l = i - {b \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {b 2}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} 2},...,i + {b \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {b 2}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} 2}$,
$m = j - {b \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {b 2}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} 2},...,j + {b \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {b 2}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} 2}$,
$n = k - {b \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {b 2}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} 2},...,k + {b \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {b 2}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} 2}$.
Thus, the label of ${\bf{\tau '}}$ is defined as: ${\bf{\iota '}} = \left( {\theta _x^ * {\rm{ - }}\theta _{x_i } ,\theta _y^ * {\rm{ - }}\theta _{y_j } ,\theta _z^ * {\rm{ - }}\theta _{z_k } } \right)$, which is a vector that points to global optimal parameters from initial parameters.
\subsubsection{Network details}
In Fig.\ref{networkArchitecture} we see that the proposed image registration optimization network consists of convolution layers (Conv), batch normalization layers (BN), rectified linear units (ReLU), and full connection layers (FC). One could treat it as an optimizer, a predictor, or a regressor. It is worth noting that our IRON is different from other optimization methods such as: SGD, Adam, or RMSProp. These are adopted to train a neural network. Here we adopted Adam to train our IRON. The learning rate was 0.001, and the loss function we employed was mean-square-error. Our implementation is based on pytorch and fastai . The training of each epoch takes about 5 minutes on one Quadro P5000 GPU, Intel Xeon 2.5GHz, 16G RAM. The network is trained with 40 epochs, and it converges before the end of the epochs.
\section{Experiments and Discussion}
\subsection{Data Description}
For the sake of practicability, at the training phase, the sensed images were extracted from satellite images (the spatial resolution is 1.0 m/pixel from Google Maps) through a series of navigation orbit parameters. At the testing phase, the sensed images were real ground images which were acquired by unmanned aerial vehicle (optical images) or airplane (infrared images) at the same scene. In order to get enough training data, we extended one navigation orbit to a cluster of orbits by rotating the orbit’s orientation by 30 degree. This ensured that all possible orbits and the corresponding sensed images were included in the training dataset and avoided under-fitting of the network. All test images were acquired from Guangxi Province, China.
\subsection{Experimental Settings and Evaluation Criteria}
In order to quantitatively validate the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm, our approach was compared with four classical heuristic derivative-free optimization algorithms: pattern search (PS), simulated annealing (Anneal), the genetic algorithm (GA), and particle swam optimization (PSO). All the algorithms were applied as off-the-shelf functions in MATLAB. In order to demonstrate the general applicability of our approach, we tested uni-modal and multi-modal image registration respectively. The performance index we used was: 1) parameters accuracy (ParamAcc), 2) parameters RMSE (ParamRMSE), 3) point set registration accuracy (PointAcc), 4) point set registration RMSE (PointRMSE), 5) Runtime (Runtime), and 6) optimization steps (OptiStep).
The parameters accuracy can be calculated as follows:
The parameters accuracy can be calculated as follows:
\[
Acc_{pm} = {{{\rm{num}}({\rm{|}}{\bf{\hat \theta }} - {\bf{\theta }}^ * {\rm{|}} < t_{pm} )} \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{{\rm{num}}({\rm{|}}{\bf{\hat \theta }} - {\bf{\theta }}^ * {\rm{|}} < t_{pm} )} {{\rm{num}}({\bf{\theta }}^ * )}}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {{\rm{num}}({\bf{\theta }}^ * )}}
\]
Here, ${\rm{num}}( * )$ means the numbers when expression $*$ is true. $t_{pm}$ is the threshold of parameter estimation. Here we set it at 1/22, because the potential initialized parameter scale is 22 ($S - (b + 1) = 22$ ), and IRON’s output is normalized to 1.
The parameters RMSE can be calculated as follows:
\[
RMSE_{pm} = ({{\sum\nolimits_{l = 1}^L {\left\| {\theta _l^ * - \hat \theta _l } \right\|} _2^2 } \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{\sum\nolimits_{l = 1}^L {\left\| {\theta _l^ * - \hat \theta _l } \right\|} _2^2 } L}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} L})^{{1 \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {1 2}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} 2}}
\]
Here, $L$ is the number of parameters to be optimized.
Point set registration accuracy can be calculated as follows:
\[
Acc_{pt} = {{{\rm{num(|}}T({\bf{u}},{\bf{\theta }}^ * ) - {\bf{v}}{\rm{|}} < t_{pt} {\rm{)}}} \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{{\rm{num(|}}T({\bf{u}},{\bf{\theta }}^ * ) - {\bf{v}}{\rm{|}} < t_{pt} {\rm{)}}} {{\rm{num}}({\bf{v}})}}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {{\rm{num}}({\bf{v}})}}
\]
Here, we set $t_{pt} = 2$ pixels.
Point set registration RMSE can be calculated as follows:
\[
RMSE_{pt} = ({{\sum\nolimits_{n = 1}^{N_c } {\left\| {T({\bf{u}}_n ,{\bf{\hat \theta }}) - {\bf{v}}_n } \right\|_2^2 } } \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{\sum\nolimits_{n = 1}^{N_c } {\left\| {T({\bf{u}}_n ,{\bf{\hat \theta }}) - {\bf{v}}_n } \right\|_2^2 } } {N_c }}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {N_c }})^{{1 \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {1 2}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} 2}}
\]
Here $N_c$ is the number of correlation point pairs.
\subsection{Experimental Results and Analysis}
For the uni-modal image registration experiment, we employed a SIFT descriptor. The experimental results are shown in Fig.\ref{fig:Unimodel-result} and Table.\ref{tab:Uni_table}. For the multi-modal, we employed the Sobel operator to obtain identifying features. The results are shown in Fig.\ref{fig:Multimodel-result} and Table.\ref{tab:Multi_table}. Fig.\ref{fig:Unimodel-result} and Fig.\ref{fig:Multimodel-result} show the comparison by errorbars with notBoxPlot tools\footnote{https://uk.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/26508-notboxplot}. Table.\ref{tab:Uni_table} and Table.\ref{tab:Multi_table} list the statistical index of each algorithm’s performance, and the best performances are highlighted in bold. Both Fig.\ref{fig:Unimodel-result}(a)-\ref{fig:Unimodel-result}(f) and Fig.\ref{fig:Multimodel-result}(a)-\ref{fig:Multimodel-result}(f) show the errorbars of: 1) parameter accuracy, 2) parameter RMSE, 3) point registration accuracy, 4) point registration RMSE, 5) Runtime, and 6) optimization steps, respectively. Each errorbar demonstrates the experimental results from different optimization algorithms. They are: 1) simulated annealing, 2) genetic algorithm, 3) pattern search, 4) particle swarm optimization, and 5) IRON.
\begin{figure}[htpb]
\centering
\subfloat[parameters accuracy]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{Uni_33.jpg}}
\label{subfig:Uni_33}
\hspace{1em}
\subfloat[parameters RMSE]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{Uni_44.jpg}}
\label{subfig:Uni_44}
\subfloat[point registration accuracy]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{Uni_55.jpg}}
\label{subfig:Uni_55}
\hspace{1em}
\subfloat[point registration RMSE]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{Uni_66.jpg}}
\label{subfig:Uni_66}
\subfloat[time]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{Uni_77.jpg}}
\label{subfig:Uni_77}
\hspace{1em}
\subfloat[optimization steps]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{Uni_88.jpg}}
\label{subfig:Uni_88}
\caption{Uni-modal image registration results errorbars.}
\label{fig:Unimodel-result}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[]
\caption{PERFORMANCES OF OPTIMIZATION BY DIFFERENT APPROACHES IN UNI-MODAL IMAGE REGISTRATION}
\label{tab:Uni_table}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\multirow{2}{*}{Criterion}} & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{Methods} \\ \cline{3-7}
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{} & Anneal & GA & PS & PSO & ours \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}ParamAcc\end{tabular}} & mean & 0.984 & 0.667 & 0.903 & \textbf{1.000} & 0.977 \\ \cline{2-7}
& std & 0.079 & 0.000 & 0.265 & \textbf{0.000} & 0.088 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}ParamRMSE\end{tabular}} & mean & 5.576 & 19.900 & 16.792 & 4.720 & \textbf{0.024} \\ \cline{2-7}
& std & 5.286 & 7.130 & 39.321 & 2.087 & \textbf{0.015} \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}PointAcc\end{tabular}} & mean & 0.931 & 0.488 & 0.831 & 0.951 & \textbf{0.990} \\ \cline{2-7}
& std & 0.094 & 0.210 & 0.260 & 0.030 & \textbf{0.003} \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}PointRMSE\end{tabular}} & mean & 5.728 & 15.790 & 87.809 & \textbf{4.541} & 10.114 \\ \cline{2-7}
& std & 24.626 & 7.029 & 314.049 & 0.378 & \textbf{0.102} \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Runtime\end{tabular}} & mean & 1.356 & 0.866 & 0.060 & 0.454 & \textbf{0.002} \\ \cline{2-7}
& std & 0.458 & 0.265 & 0.047 & 0.059 & \textbf{0.000} \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}OptiStep\end{tabular}} & mean & 3784.7 & 8064.0 & 324.0 & 5469.6 & \textbf{1.0} \\ \cline{2-7}
& std & 1245.2 & 2499.2 & 90.6 & 649.8 & \textbf{0.0} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[htpb]
\centering
\subfloat[parameters accuracy]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{Multi_33.jpg}}
\label{subfig:Multi_33}
\hspace{1em}
\subfloat[parameters RMSE]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{Multi_44.jpg}}
\label{subfig:Multi_44}
\subfloat[point registration accuracy]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{Multi_55.jpg}}
\label{subfig:Multi_55}
\hspace{1em}
\subfloat[point registration RMSE]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{Multi_66.jpg}}
\label{subfig:Multi_66}
\subfloat[time]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{Multi_77.jpg}}
\label{subfig:Multi_77}
\hspace{1em}
\subfloat[optimization steps]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{Multi_88.jpg}}
\label{subfig:Multi_88}
\caption{Multi-model image registration results errorbars.}
\label{fig:Multimodel-result}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[]
\caption{PERFORMANCES OF OPTIMIZATION BY DIFFERENT APPROACHES IN MULTI-MODAL IMAGE REGISTRATION}
\label{tab:Multi_table}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\multirow{2}{*}{Criterion}} & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{Methods} \\ \cline{3-7}
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{} & Anneal & GA & PS & PSO & ours \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}ParamAcc\end{tabular}} & mean & 0.981 & 0.667 & 0.902 & \textbf{1.000} & 0.972 \\ \cline{2-7}
& std & 0.086 & 0.000 & 0.272 & \textbf{0.000} & 0.100 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}ParamRMSE\end{tabular}} & mean & 5.634 & 19.878 & 17.466 & 4.726 & \textbf{0.028} \\ \cline{2-7}
& std & 6.213 & 7.131 & 40.285 & 2.087 & \textbf{0.029} \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}PointAcc\end{tabular}} & mean & 0.929 & 0.489 & 0.83 & 0.951 & \textbf{0.990} \\ \cline{2-7}
& std & 0.097 & 0.21 & 0.266 & 0.030 & \textbf{0.003} \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}PointRMSE\end{tabular}} & mean & 5.944 & 15.769 & 97.477 & \textbf{4.542} & 10.114 \\ \cline{2-7}
& std & 28.926 & 7.03 & 337.255 & 0.378 & \textbf{0.102} \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Runtime\end{tabular}} & mean & 1.299 & 0.879 & 0.067 & 0.441 & \textbf{0.001} \\ \cline{2-7}
& std & 0.461 & 0.275 & 0.022 & 0.067 & \textbf{0.000} \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}OptiStep\end{tabular}} & mean & 3778.3 & 8056.5 & 323.3 & 5467.6 & \textbf{1.0} \\ \cline{2-7}
& std & 1272.0 & 2499.4 & 90.4 & 649.8 & \textbf{0.0} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
From the experimental results, we find that our proposed approach executed the least optimization steps (only 1 step) and shortest runtime (0.001s) but achieved better performance. The PSO algorithm has a better parameter accuracy performance (1.000), but its parameter RMSE is worse, so that its point registration accuracy and point registration RMSE performance are worse. The experimental optical and infrared sensed image are shown in Fig.\ref{fig:registration}(a), \ref{fig:registration}(d), \ref{fig:registration}(b), and \ref{fig:registration}(e), and use an identical optical reference image. The uni-modal and multi-modal image registration checkboards are shown in Fig.\ref{fig:registration}(c), and Fig.\ref{fig:registration}(f) respectively.
\begin{figure}[htpb]
\centering
\subfloat[optical image]{\includegraphics[width=0.27\linewidth,height=0.27\linewidth]{re_optical.jpg}}
\label{subfig:optical}
\hspace{1em}
\subfloat[reference image]{\includegraphics[width=0.27\linewidth,height=0.27\linewidth]{re_goglmap-base.png}}
\label{subfig:temp1}
\hspace{1em}
\subfloat[unimodel result]{\includegraphics[width=0.27\linewidth,height=0.27\linewidth]{re_opti_mosic.png}}
\label{subfig:re_opt_mosiac}
\subfloat[infrared image]{\includegraphics[width=0.27\linewidth,height=0.27\linewidth]{re_infrared.png}}
\label{subfig:infrared}
\hspace{1em}
\subfloat[reference image]{\includegraphics[width=0.27\linewidth,height=0.27\linewidth]{re_goglmap-base.png}}
\label{subfig:temp2}
\hspace{1em}
\subfloat[multimodel result]{\includegraphics[width=0.27\linewidth,height=0.27\linewidth]{re_infrared-mosic.jpg}}
\label{subfig:re_infra_mosiac}
\captionsetup{justification=centering}
\caption{Image registration mosaic results.}
\label{fig:registration}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, for the purpose of alleviating the contradiction of the optimization algorithm in an image registration task, a learning-based image registration optimization network (IRON) was proposed. By trained with the similarity metric tensor whose label is a vector, the IRON acquired the structure of the search space, so that it could predict global optimal parameters immediately instead of iteratively searching. The experimental results demonstrate the superiority of our proposed approach, which performed better and with higher accuracy, lower RMSE, less runtime, and fewer optimization steps. Further work is needed to optimize more parameters by feeding higher order similarity metric tensors into an optimization network, which needs to implement an arbitrary dimension convolution function $convnd$.
\ifCLASSOPTIONcaptionsoff
\newpage
\fi
|
\section{Introduction}\label{introduction}
\input{introduction.tex}
\section{Related Work}\label{related_works}
\input{related.tex}
\section{Multimodal Semantic Forensics}\label{method}
\input{method.tex}
\section{Evaluation}\label{evaluation}
\input{eval.tex}
\section{Conclusion and Future Work}\label{conclusion}
Image repurposing detection is an important but emerging research area for multimodal semantic forensics and fake news detection. We presented a multi-evidence GNN model (MEG) for multimodal semantic forensics that improves upon previous state-of-the-art across three benchmark datasets. Our scaling modifications over a standard GNN make the proposed model scalable to multiple retrieved packages. Our model is order invariant compared to standard recurrent architectures.
Besides the improvements to image repurposing detection in this paper, there are still unexplored problems remaining. MEG does not localize the exact manipulation. While successful manipulation detection can alert users to semantic manipulations, successful localization can help users reason about manipulations. Another possible area to explore is real-time multimodal semantics i.e. using the web instead of a reference dataset. These directions are left for future work.
\balance
{
\small
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
\subsection{Benchmark Datasets}\label{datasets}
We perform experimental evaluation on MEIR \cite{sabir_deep_2018-1}, which is the most challenging dataset for image repurposing detection. We also evaluate on \textit{Google Landmarks} \cite{noh_large-scale_2017} and \textit{Painter by Numbers} \cite{noauthor_painter_nodate} datasets which were originally released for different tasks, but can be adapted for semantic forensics. The adapted splits for Google Landmarks and Painter by Numbers used in \cite{jaiswal2019aird} have repeated locations and painters in training and testing. Keeping in line with the idea in \cite{sabir_deep_2018-1} that manipulations are unseen in training and test, we adapt a new split with mutually exclusive manipulations in training and test set.
\paragraph{MEIR:} It is a multimodal dataset comprising images, text and location modalities. Manipulations are present in text and location modalities and comprise three types of entity manipulations --- person, location and organization. Manipulations are also coherent within a package i.e. a location manipulation within text will result in corroborating manipulations in GPS coordinates. The dataset comprises 82,156 packages in reference dataset and 57,940 packages split between training, test and validation sets. It should be noted that all packages in training, test and validation conform to different events. This helps in evaluating the generalizability of models to unseen semantic manipulations.
\paragraph{Google Landmarks:} We use Google Landmarks for further evaluating location manipulation, since locations can easily confuse people, especially if the landmark in the photo is not well recognized by the person. This is one of the manipulations present in MEIR, but is mixed with all other manipulations. This dataset is available as a part of a Kaggle competition\footnote{https://www.kaggle.com/google/google-landmarks-dataset/home}. The modified task for semantic forensics on this dataset is to identify if the landmark associated with a query package is correct. The complete dataset is extremely large with over 1.2 million images and 14,951 different landmarks. We prune the dataset, keeping landmarks with at least 3 images and at most 50 images. This leaves us with 152,074 images split into 78,573 images for reference and 73,501 images for train, test and validation which is further split in a 70-10-20 ratio. We create believable semantic manipulations by swapping similar images. Images are determined to be similar using a kd-tree search. During test, we ensure that landmarks in training, test and validation form a disjoint set. This ensures that the model is robust in identifying unseen landmarks. Image features are generated using NetVLAD \cite{arandjelovic_netvlad:_2016}, followed by principal component analysis (PCA) and $l_2$ normalization as used in \cite{jaiswal2019aird}. Landmark IDs are encoded using 50 dimensional random embeddings. We also measure our retrieval accuracy using mean average precision (MAP). With this scheme of manipulation and feature embedding, a cosine similarity based retriever as described in \cite{sabir_deep_2018-1}, but generalized to 5 package retrieval achieves 0.81 mean average precision.
\paragraph{Painter by Numbers:} We evaluate the proposed system on painting forgeries, which is an old problem with counterfeits being created for paintings by famous artists. This is a high stakes problem with art experts being called in to validate paintings. We create a painting repurposing dataset from the \textit{Painters by Numbers} dataset. This dataset was also released as a part of a Kaggle challenge\footnote{https://www.kaggle.com/c/painter-by-numbers}. We restructure the dataset for semantic forensics, where the identity of the artist for a given painting is potentitally manipulated. After ensuring that each artist has at least three images, the dataset is split into 36,669 reference images, and 36,164 images for train, test and validation. There are 1000 different artists in the dataset. To create manipulations, we use a kd-tree for finding similar paintings and swap the artists. There is no overlap between artists in training, test and validation, to ensure generalization. Image features are extracted using the winner's model from the competition\footnote{https://github.com/inejc/painters}, similar to \cite{jaiswal2019aird}. For painter IDs, we generate 50 dimensional random embeddings. Again, using the retrieval scheme in \cite{sabir_deep_2018-1}, for top-5 packages, we achieve 0.72 mean average precision.
\subsection{Evaluation Results}\label{results}
We use accuracy, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and F\textsubscript{1}-clean and F\textsubscript{1}-tampered (F\textsubscript{1} scores for unmanipulated and manipulated class respectively) scores as evaluation metrics. Previous works have used these metrics \cite{sabir_deep_2018-1}\cite{jaiswal_multimedia_2017}. We perform ablation experiments to test the scalability and order invariance of our model. A summary of the results is discussed. We also evaluate our model on benchmark datasets and discuss the quantitative and qualitative results.
\begin{table}[t!]
\begin{center}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.2em}
\caption{Ablation experiments for verifying scalability. We replace the modality summary (GNN) component of MEG with other models. All variants are trained on two and tested on five packages. AUC scores are reported.}
\label{table_robust}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c}
\hline
\textbf{Ablation} & \textbf{Train on} & \textbf{Test on} & \textbf{Relative} \\
\textbf{Model} & \textbf{2 Packages} & \textbf{5 Packages} & \textbf{Drop}\\
\hline
MEG (Ours) & \textbf{0.91} & \textbf{0.91} & \textbf{0\%} \\
\hline
MEG - GNN + GRU & 0.90 & 0.88 & 20\% \\
MEG - GNN + LSTM & 0.90 & 0.85 & 50\% \\
MEG - GNN + RPW & 0.89 & 0.89 & 0\% \\
MEG - scaling & 0.90 & 0.85 & 50\% \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Scalability:} A contribution of our model is the ability to handle variable number of related packages. The modality summary module of our model is responsible for providing scalability. Keeping this in mind, we perform two categories of ablation experiments as shown in Table \ref{table_robust}: (1) replacing the modality summary network with standard recurrent networks (GRU and LSTM) and the read-process-write (RPW) network from \cite{vinyals_order_2015} (2) removing scaling modifications we made to the graph network in Section \ref{modality_summary}. For this set of experiments we train our model for up to two packages and test on 5 packages. A drop in performance at 5 packages indicates that the model does not scale. We train all models with a minimum of two packages to avoid an empty adjacency matrix for GNN. The results clearly support the scalability of the proposed model.
\begin{table}[t!]
\begin{center}
\caption{Ablation experiments for verifying order invariance. We replace the modality summary (GNN) in MEG with other models. Before and After columns show performance before and after reversing retrieval order. AUC scores reported.}
\label{table_order}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c}
\hline
\textbf{Ablation} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Before}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{After}} & \textbf{Relative} \\
\textbf{Model} & & & \textbf{Drop} \\
\hline
MEG (Ours) & \textbf{0.92} & \textbf{0.92} & \textbf{0.0\%} \\
\hline
MEG - GNN + GRU & 0.91 & 0.83 & 88.8\% \\
MEG - GNN + LSTM & 0.91 & 0.87 & 44.4\% \\
MEG - GNN + RPW & 0.89 & 0.89 & 0.0\% \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Order Invariance:} A result of the GNN based modality summary module in our model is invariance to input ordering. We perform ablation experiment by replacing the modality summary module with standard recurrent networks (GRU and LSTM) and an existing order agnostic model - read-process-write (RPW) network from \cite{vinyals_order_2015}. It has been reported that recurrent networks suffer from order dependence issues, resulting in performance drop for input order changes between training and test \cite{vinyals_order_2015}. We train our model for 5 packages and test by reversing the training order. A drop in performance indicates that the model variation is not model invariant. Results are presented in Table \ref{table_order}. It is evident that LSTM or GRU based variations of our model are not order invariant. As expected, replacing GNN with RPW \cite{vinyals_order_2015} in the modality summary layer maintains order invariance, but leads to a performance drop.
\begin{table}[t!]
\begin{center}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.4em}
\caption{Summary of our ablation experiments. MEG outperforms across all three factors. AUC scores are reported.}
\label{tab_summary}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c}
\hline
\textbf{Ablation} & \textbf{Order} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scalability}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Score}} \\
\textbf{Model} & \textbf{Invariance} & & \\
\hline
MEG (Ours) & \checkmark & \checkmark & \textbf{0.92}\\
\hline
MEG - GNN + GRU & & & 0.91 \\
MEG - GNN + LSTM & & & 0.91 \\
MEG - GNN + RPW & \checkmark & \checkmark & 0.89 \\
MEG - scaling & \checkmark & & 0.90 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Ablation Summary:} We summarize the ablation results in Table \ref{tab_summary}. Three properties are considered: scalability, order invariance and detection performance. Our method satisfies all properties while maintaining best performance for all comparisons.
\begin{table*}[t]
\begin{center}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1.2em}
\caption{Performance of our proposed model (MEG) against existing methods from \cite{sabir_deep_2018-1} across all three benchmark datasets.
\label{table_performance}
\begin{tabular}{c|ccc|ccc|ccc}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Metric}} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{MEIR}} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{Painter by Numbers}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{Google Landmarks}} \\
\cline{2-10}
& \textbf{SRS} & \textbf{DMM} & \textbf{MEG} & \textbf{SRS} & \textbf{DMM} & \textbf{MEG} & \textbf{SRS} & \textbf{DMM} & \textbf{MEG}\\
\hline
F\textsubscript{1}-clean & 0.51 & 0.80 & \textbf{0.84} & 0.70 & 0.59 & \textbf{0.83} & 0.82 & \textbf{0.87} & \textbf{0.87} \\
F\textsubscript{1}-tampered & 0.66 & 0.80 & \textbf{0.84} & 0.80 & 0.67 & \textbf{0.79} & 0.86 & \textbf{0.87} & \textbf{0.87} \\
Accuracy & 0.60 & 0.80 & \textbf{0.84} & 0.76 & 0.63 & \textbf{0.82} & 0.84 & \textbf{0.88} & 0.87 \\
AUC & 0.67 & 0.88 & \textbf{0.92} & 0.77 & 0.74 & \textbf{0.86} & 0.93 & 0.93 & \textbf{0.94} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\begin{table}[t!]
\centering
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1.45em}
\caption{We measure the average number of correctly retrieved packages out of top-5 retrievals for correctly classified (True Positive and True Negative) and misclassified (False Positive and False Negative) query packages. Package retrieval accuracy positively affects final model performance.}
\label{table_retrieval}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Dataset}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Classification Category}} \\
\cline{2-3}
& TP+TN & FP+FN \\
\hline
MEIR & \textbf{3.05} & 2.60 \\
Painter by Numbers & \textbf{3.25} & 1.00 \\
Google Landmarks & \textbf{3.05} & 2.15 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Performance:} We compare performance against previous methods from \cite{sabir_deep_2018-1} - namely the deep multimodal model (DMM) and the semantic retrieval system (SRS). DMM is a deep learning based model which verifies a query package using top-1 retrieved package. SRS is a non-learning method which computes the Jacardian index on packages retrieved by individual modalities. It's performance is known to scale with the correctness of retrievals. Our model improves upon state-of-the-art performance across all three datasets as shown in Table \ref{table_performance}.
\paragraph{Analysis:} Examples from Painters by Numbers and Google Landmarks datasets are shown in Figure \ref{fig:painters} and \ref{fig:landmarks} respectively. True positive and false negative examples from MEIR are shown in Figure \ref{fig:meir_tp} and \ref{fig:meir_fn} respectively. It is visible from the results that image repurposing performance is dependent on package retrieval performance. To further test this hypothesis, we compare the average number of correct packages retrieved between successful (true positive and true negative) and unsuccessful (false positive and false negative) classifications. The results in Table \ref{table_retrieval} show a consistently better retrieval for all correctly classified packages.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{pictures/Painters_v1.PNG}
\caption{The top two rows contain true positive examples and the bottom two rows contain false positive samples. Across both cases it is noticeable that the repurposing/manipulation is believable. In the bottom row, the correct retrievals are visually different from the query, leading to false alarms. Green and red borders indicate correct and incorrect retrievals respectively.}
\label{fig:painters}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{pictures/Landmarks_v1.png}
\caption{The top two and bottom two rows contain true positive and false positive samples respectively. In the bottom row, the correct retrievals look significantly different, leading to a false alarm. Green and red borders indicate correct and incorrect retrievals respectively.}
\label{fig:landmarks}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth,keepaspectratio]{pictures/MEIR-TP_v3.png}
\caption{The two rows show true positive samples of our model. The first and second package have location and organization manipulation respectively. Green and red borders indicate correct and incorrect retrievals respectively. Metadata highlighted in red in query package is manipulation.}
\label{fig:meir_tp}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth,keepaspectratio]{pictures/MEIR-FN_v3.png}
\caption{The two rows show false negative samples of our model. The first and second package have location and organization manipulation respectively. Green and red borders indicate correct and incorrect retrievals respectively. Metadata highlighted in red in query package is manipulation.}
\label{fig:meir_fn}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Package Retrieval}\label{package_retrieval}
Verification of a query package requires additional information from a reliable reference dataset. Since packages retrieved from the reference dataset form the basis for authentication, the package retrieval system is an important component of the overall method. We use a package retrieval system similar to \cite{sabir_deep_2018-1}. In \cite{sabir_deep_2018-1}, the authors score each modality of the query package against the corresponding modality of all packages in the reference dataset. A reference package with the top-1 combined score across all modalities is retrieved. We extend this method to retrieve $k$ packages with the highest scores.
\subsection{Feature Extraction}\label{feature_extraction}
Learned feature extraction is an important component of deep learning models. Previous literature in image repurposing detection has used pretrained models to extract features from all modalities of a package. We follow a similar approach using convolutional neural network (CNN) based models, word2vec and global positioning system (GPS) coordinates for image, text and location feature extraction respectively. Specific details on models used for feature extraction are discussed in Section \ref{datasets}.
\subsection{Attention-based Evidence Matching}\label{evidence_matching}
Semantic forensics can involve a subtle but specific change of detail which can be hard to detect at a glance. Additionally, the information (entity, location, etc.) involving both the manipulation and evidence in query and retrieved packages is unlikely to be previously seen. It is therefore prudent to develop a method that can compare a previously unseen instance of manipulation and evidence without memorizing it. This requirement is in contrast to classical computer vision models that reward memorization of training examples such as associating the word \textit{dog} with a corresponding image in a standard classification task. We address the problem of dealing with previously unseen manipulations and evidences with an attention-based evidence matching module, shown in Figure \ref{fig:model_diagram}. Evidence matching compares concatenated query and retrieved features with a soft attention mechanism for selecting important matches. For query and retrieved features $q$ and $r$ respectively, a concatenated feature vector $[q,r]$ is processed with 1D convolution network (CNN) for matching. A soft attention model on top of the concatenated representation, followed by a dense layer to compute a matched feature $feat$. This layer can be represented by Equation \ref{eq:attention-feat}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:attention-feat}
feat = FC\bigg(\sigma\big(Conv([q,r])\big)\odot([q,r])\bigg)
\end{equation}
where $Conv$ is a 1D CNN, $\sigma$ is soft attention and $FC$ is a dense layer for dimensionality matching across modalities.
\subsection{Modality Summary}\label{modality_summary}
The retrieved packages represent a \emph{bag-of-packages} without specific order. We use a graph neural network (GNN) for each modality that considers all possible comparisons between the query and retrieved packages. The graph network makes the overall system (1) flexible enough to scale to an arbitrary number of retrievals and (2) invariant to the order of retrieved packages. Each node in the graph network is updated with respect to its adjacent nodes allowing simultaneous updates. The graph is then summarized into one modality-level representation. Each node contributes directly to the final graph summary. This is different from recurrent networks where the latent embedding is updated in sequence, making them order-dependent. A node $v$ in a GNN is represented by the hidden state $h_v$. A forward pass through a GNN is divided into propagation and output steps. The propagation step updates nodes along edges in the graph for $T$ timesteps. It can be thought of as a gated recurrence along paths in the graph, similar to long short-term memory network (LSTM) recurrence. The output step produces a graph level vector representation by combining hidden states of nodes with an attention mechanism. The model is summarized by Equations \ref{eq:graph1}-\ref{eq:graph6}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:graph1}
h_v^1 = [x_v, 0]^T
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:graph2}
a_v^{(t)} = A_v^T[h_1^{(t-1)} ...h_N^{(t-1)}]^T + b
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:graph3}
z_v^t = \sigma(W^za_v^{(t)} + U^zh_{v}^{(t-1)})
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:graph4}
r_v^t = \sigma(W^ra_v^{(t)} + U^rh_v^{(t-1)})
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:graph5}
\widetilde{h_v^{(t)}} = tanh(Wa_v^{(t)} + U(r_{v}^{t} \odot h_v^{(t-1)}))
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:graph6}
h_v^{(t)} = (1-z_v^t) \odot h_v^{(t-1)} + z_v^t \odot \widetilde{h_v^{(t)}}
\end{equation}
The hidden state is initialized with an initial representation $x_v$ according to the application and padded with 0 to match dimensions if needed. $A$ is the adjacency matrix and $a_v$ is the summation of adjacent node embeddings based on edge type. Equations \ref{eq:graph3}-\ref{eq:graph6} represent updates using a GRU. The graph neural network effectively summarizes the potential for manipulation in a learned representation for each modality. We use a complete graph (adjacency matrix of ones except along the diagonal) with one timestep of propagation. This allows simultaneous update of all nodes throughout the graph in an order agnostic manner. The final graph output $G_m$ for modality $m$ of our model is a weighted average of activation all $N$ nodes as shown in Equation \ref{eq:graph_output}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:graph_output}
G_{m} = \sum_{v=1}^{N}\big(h_v^1 \odot Att(h_v^1)\big)
\end{equation}
The weights are estimated using a neural network $Att$. Since the model is set up for variable number of inputs, the scale of adjacent node embeddings $a_v$ may fluctuate by an order of magnitude. To control for the variation, we modify Equation \ref{eq:graph2} by scaling it down by the number of adjacent nodes. For our fully connected graph setup, modality $m$ with $N$ nodes has $N-1$ adjacent nodes, as shown in \ref{eq:graph2}.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:graph7}
a_v^{(t)} = \frac{A_v^T[h_1^{(t-1)} ...h_N^{(t-1)}]^T + b}{N-1+\epsilon}
\end{equation}
This summarizes each modality into a single graph output, with nodes of the same modality. However, it has been shown that cross-modal learning helps with multimodal tasks \cite{ngiam_multimodal_2011}. To incorporate cross-modal learning into our model we add cross-modal graph connections. The adjacency matrix is expanded to include nodes from adjacent modalities. We validate the performance of cross-modal connections later in Section \ref{results}. For $m$ modalities, each with $N_{m}$ nodes, a general update to Equation \ref{eq:graph7} for arbitray nodes in adjacent modalities is shown in Equation \ref{eq:graph8}.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:graph8}
a_v^{(t)} = \frac{A_v^T[h_1^{(t-1)} ...h_N^{(t-1)}]^T + b}{N_i-1+\sum\limits_{j=1,j\neq i}^{m} N_{j}+\epsilon}
\end{equation}
However, considering that each modality generates an equal number of nodes and fully-connected cross-modal edges are used, Equation \ref{eq:graph8} is simplified to Equation \ref {eq:graph9}.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:graph9}
a_v^{(t)} = \frac{A_v^T[h_1^{(t-1)} ...h_N^{(t-1)}]^T + b}{m*N-1+\epsilon}
\end{equation}
The $\epsilon$ term takes care of zero adjacency for each node in a graph. Finally, the output representation for each modality is combined as described next.
\subsection{Manipulation Detection}\label{manipulation_detection}
A feed-forward network on top of concatenated modality summary outputs is used for the final manipulation detection. This layer combines all branches of modalities into a single binary prediction.
\subsection{Implementation Details}\label{implementation_details}
Our model was implemented in Keras and trained with ADAM optimizer with an initial learning rate of $0.001$. All parameters had default values, unless otherwise mentioned. All edge layers and feedforward layers have ReLU activation function. We trained all our models with a batch size of $32$ and subsampled models within each epoch for selecting the best model.
|
\section*{Introduction}
Big-Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) has long been considered as one of the three historical pillars of the cosmological ``Big-Bang'' model, together with the expansion of the universe revealed by the Hubble diagram and the existence of a cosmic microwave background (CMB) of radiation. In the past decades, the accuracy of the measurements and analysis of these three cosmological probes have drastically improved and were complemented by many other observables, mostly based on the large scale structure of the Universe. As a consequence, the error bars on the cosmological parameters have significantly been improved and, as could have been anticipated, one starts to witness tensions between different probes.
This is in particular the case for the Hubble parameter $H_0$ that is measured to be $69.36\pm0.54$~km/s/Mpc~\footnote{All error bars are stated with $1\sigma$ confidence intervals.} from the global fit of the CMB data~\citep{Planck2018}. This ``low'' value is to be contrasted with the higher value obtained from standard distance ladder, $73.4\pm1.4$~km/s/Mpc~\citep{Reid:2019tiq}, or $73.3\pm1.7$~km/s/Mpc~\citep{Wong:2019kwg} from strong gravitational lensing effects on quasar systems. In such a situation, one first needs (1) to look for so-far negligible bias in the understanding of each data set, (2) reconsider some hypothesis of the cosmological model, such as the Copernican principle that assumes a spatially homogeneous and isotropic universe, or in this particular case the fluid limit since thin beams~\citep{Clarkson:2011br} do not propagate in the mean Friedmann-Lema\^{\i}tre (FL) spacetime, which can be at the origin of the misinterpretation of the cosmological parameters~\citep{Fleury:2013uqa}. The interpretation of any observation requires to model the propagation of light and is thus tied with the whole cosmological model itself. To finish (3) one can consider new physics, since here the two discrepant values for $H_0$ correspond to data in the early and late universe; see e.g. \citet{DiValentino:2020zio} for a list of attempts.
As far as BBN is concerned, the theoretical computation rests on the hypothesis of a strictly spatially homogeneous and isotropic FL spacetime, which is thought to be a good approximation in the early radiation dominated universe in which density perturbations are still very small. The microphysics at play is particle and nuclear physics below 100~MeV that can be tested in accelerator. Today, several public (or not) numerical codes are able to predict the abundances of the light elements~\citep{Wagoner1967,Kawano:1992ua,CV17,Parthenope,Parthenope2,AlterBBN,AlterBBN2,Pitrou2018PhysRept,Fie20}. Prior to WMAP, these predictions depended on two cosmological parameters, the total number of relativistic degrees of freedom (or equivalently the effective number $N_{\rm eff}$ of neutrino families) and the number of baryons per photon $\eta$. This latter quantity is equivalent to specifying the baryon density $\Omega_{\baryon}h^2$, a parameter measured by other cosmological probes such as the CMB, with the relation~\citep{Pitrou2018PhysRept}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{obhToeta}
\frac{\Omega_{\baryon} h^2}{0.0224} &\simeq& \left(\frac{\eta}{6.13197 \times 10^{-10}} \right)\left(\frac{T_{\rm CMB}}{2.7255~{\rm K}}\right)^3\nonumber\\
&&\times \left(\frac{1-1.759\times 10^{-3} \frac{Y_{\rm p}}{0.2471}}{1-1.759\times10^{-3} }\right)\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Prior to WMAP, these parameters were adjustable but they are now determined with high accuracy from the CMB analysis. A first method consists in fixing $\Omega_{\baryon}h^2$\, from CMB and $N_{\rm eff}$ from particle physics (thus making BBN a parameter-free model) and assess the agreement between the predicted abundances and the measured ones. Alternatively, we can constrain $\Omega_{\baryon}h^2$\ and $N_{\rm eff}$ from BBN (by confronting the predicted abundances which depend on these physical parameters, and the measured ones) and assess the agreement with the values determined by other probes.
Spectroscopic measurements of the abundances of helium-4, deuterium, helium-3 and lithium-7 allow for a comparison with the BBN theoretical predictions. While lithium-7 still exhibits a so-far unexplained discrepancy, see e.g. \citet{Molaro:2009rfa,molaro_vangioni_2009,Fields:2011zzb} for an extended debate, deuterium has been considered as a success of the model due to the agreement of BBN predictions, CMB constraints on $\Omega_{\baryon}h^2$\, and observed primitive abundances. Recent measurements~\citep{NatureDPG,Mossa:2020qgj} of one of the key nuclear cross-section drives us to reconsider the robustness of this primordial deuterium success, and more largely of the status of BBN in the standard cosmological model.
\section{BBN overview}
BBN predictions consist in abundances of light nuclei (deuterium, helium-3 and -4, lithium-7) that can be compared to spectroscopic measurements and to the trace abundances of heavier nuclei~\citep{Ioc07,Coc:2014oia}, that cannot be measured but may influence the evolution of the first generation of stars. These nuclei are synthetized through nuclear reactions in an expanding universe and can take place only in a narrow window of time during which (1) the thermal bath of the universe has cooled enough for the light atomic nuclei, and foremost deuterium, not to be photo-dissociated, and (2) the density of baryonic matter is high enough for the number of collisions to be large enough. As such it rests on nuclear physics in an expanding homogeneous universe and has two free cosmological parameters, $N_{\rm eff}$ and ${\eta}$.
The predictions reach the percent-level accuracy on helium-4, in complete agreement with its observed value~\citep{Ave20} $Y_{\rm p}=0.2453\pm 0.0034$. Note however that its order of magnitude was initially obtained~\citep{Alpher:1948ve,Alpher:1948gsu} from back-of-the-envelope considerations, because it depends very mildly on $\eta$, and mostly on $\tau_{\rm n}$, $N_{\rm eff}$ (along with the Fermi and Newton constants, $G_{\rm F}$ and $G_{\rm N}$). It was an early and robust prediction of the standard cosmological model~\citep{Peebles:1966rol,Peebles:1966zz} that allowed to claim that only 3 neutrino families existed~\citep{Yang:1978ge}, as was later confirmed by the LEP in 1990. But today, due to its mild dependence on $\eta$ and the accuracy of its measurement, helium-4 is not competitive anymore in our era of precision cosmology to constrain the baryon density. The lithium-7 abundance still exhibits a factor $\sim3$ discrepancy, that is usually discarded with modesty in cosmological studies that never take it into account. The consensus is that it cannot arise from the nuclear sector~\citep{Coc:2014gia,Dav20,IC20}. Helium-3 is less constraining because, (1) since it is both produced and destroyed in stars, the evolution of its abundance in time is not very precise and (2) because there are only few observations in the Galactic disk~\citep{Ban02}. \citet{VangioniFlam:2002sa} have shown that these observations do not allow to set a strong constraint on the primordial baryon density due to the limited understanding of the chemical evolution of this isotope. To finish, deuterium is a very fragile isotope that can only be destroyed after BBN throughout stellar evolution. The most recent recommended observed value provided by \citet{Coo18} is
\begin{equation}\label{MeasuredDH}
{\rm D}/{\rm H} = (2.527 \pm 0.030) \times 10^{-5}
\end{equation}
at a redshift $z\sim 2.5-3.1$.
It follows that among all light elements, deuterium is the most constraining since both its observational measurement and its theoretical prediction reach 1\% accuracy. As can been seen from our previous analysis~\citep{Pitrou2018PhysRept}, it requires theoretical predictions and nuclear data to reach the 1\% level so that great care should be paid to nuclear cross-sections affecting deuterium nucleosynthesis.
{\tt PRIMAT}~\citep{Pitrou2018PhysRept} computes directly the weak interaction rates, which interconvert neutrons and protons, including radiative corrections, finite nucleon mass effects, and neutrino spectral distortions, whereas {\tt PArthENoPE}~\citep{Parthenope2} and {\tt AlterBBN} \citep{AlterBBN2} rely on a the fit given in Appendix C of \citet{Serpico:2004gx}. The differential equations governing the evolution of nuclear abundances are integrated in time (as also does {\tt AlterBBN}), which differs from {\tt PArthENoPE} which integrates equations in terms of the plasma temperature. Since $\text{d} T/\text{d} t$ can be obtained from the plasma continuity equation, both methods are of course equivalent. Since its release in 2018, a series of improvements have been included in {\tt PRIMAT} :
\begin{itemize}
\item A refined treatment of neutrino decoupling, including neutrino oscillations and neutrino spectral distortions, has been included by using results from an external neutrino decoupling computation~\citep{Froustey2019,Froustey2020};
\item Pair production corrections to nuclear rates that otherwise produce a photon in the final state have been included for the most important reactions~\citep{PitrouPospelov};
\item QED corrections at order $e^3$ have been taken into account in the plasma thermodynamics \citep{Bennett:2019ewm}, whereas previously it was restricted to order $e^2$ corrections.
\end{itemize}
These three modifications have a very minor impact on $10^5 \times {\rm D}/{\rm H}$ as they shift it by $0.0015$, $-0.0021$ and $-0.0003$ respectively. Only the first modification has a small impact on $Y_{\rm P}$ as it shifts it by $0.00005$, the other two being completely subdominant.
\begin{table*}
\caption{References of the reaction rates in {\tt PRIMAT} 2018~\citep{Pitrou2018PhysRept} and their updated values in {\tt PRIMAT} 2021.}
\begin{tabular}{lll}
\hline
\hline
Reaction & {\tt PRIMAT} 2018 & {\tt PRIMAT} 2021 \\
\hline
{D(p,$\gamma)^3$He}\ & \citet{Bayes16} & {\bf LUNA} \citet{NatureDPG} \\
$^3$H(d,n)$^4$He & \citet{Des04} & \citet{Bayes19b}\\
$^3$He(d,p)$^4$He & \citet{Des04} & \citet{Bayes19a}\\
$^7$Be(n,p)$^7$Li & \citet{Des04} & \citet{Bayes20}\\
$^7$Be(d,p)2$\alpha$ & \citet{CF88} & \citet{Rij19}\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{t:netw}
\end{table*}
Also, since the publication of \citet{Pitrou2018PhysRept} there have been a series of updates on the values of the physical parameters. First concerning the cosmology, the value of $\Omega_{\baryon}h^2$\, has been revised by the Planck 2018 release~\citep{Planck2018} to
\begin{equation}\label{baryonsCMB}
\Omega_{\baryon} h^2 =0.02237 \pm 0.00015 \hskip1.5cm \hbox{(CMB)}
\end{equation}
for the CMB alone (instead of the previous $0.02225\pm 0.00016$ from~\citet{Planck2016}), and
\begin{equation}\label{baryonsCMBBAO}
\Omega_{\baryon} h^2 = 0.02242 \pm 0.00014\hskip1cm \hbox{(CMB+BAO)}
\end{equation}
when combined with baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO) data~\citep{Alam:2016hwk}. The value of the number of effective relativistic degrees of freedom is \citep{Mangano:2005cc,deSalas:2016ztq,Grohs:2017iit,Escudero:2020dfa,Akita:2020szl,Froustey2020,Bennett:2020zkv}
\begin{equation}
N_{\rm eff}=3.044
\end{equation}
for 3 neutrino families\footnote{This recent reference value~\citep{Froustey2020} is lower than the previously admitted $3.046$ of e.g. \citet{Mangano:2005cc} or the improved value $3.045$ of \citet{deSalas:2016ztq}, essentially due to the inclusion of ${\cal O}(e^3)$ QED corrections in the plasma equation of state, following~\citet{Bennett:2019ewm}.}, taking into account the neutrino decoupling physics. This value is very robust and can be understood fully from the adiabatic transfer of averaged oscillations (ATAO) approximation \citep{Froustey2020}. This allows one to show that this prediction is insensitive to the type of neutrino mass hierarchy (normal or inverted) as it depends nearly exclusively on mixing angles. Also, since mixing angles are currently known with rather good precision, the propagation of uncertainty affects $N_{\rm eff}$ with $\pm2\times 10^{-5}$ only.
Then, concerning the microphysics the new neutron decay constant reported by \citet{PDG2020} is
\begin{equation}\label{taun}
\tau_{\rm n} = 879.4 \pm 0.6\,{\rm s}
\end{equation}
which is very close to $\tau_{\rm n} = 879.5 \pm 0.8\,{\rm s}$ used in \citet{Pitrou2018PhysRept}, but with an even smaller error bar. It was historically used to bypass the uncertainty about the quark mixing angle $V_{\rm ud}$ and the nucleon axial coupling constant $g_A$ in the prefactor $V^2_{\rm ud} (1+3 g_A^2)$ which enters the weak interaction rates expressions, thanks to the relation
\begin{equation}\label{Directtaun}
\tau_{\rm n} = \frac{2 \pi^3 \hbar}{\lambda_0 G_{\rm F}^2 V_{\rm ud}^2 (1+3 g_{\rm A}^2) (m_{\rm e} c^2)^5}\,,
\end{equation}
with $\lambda_0 \simeq 1.75434$~\citep{2010PhRvC..81c5503C,Pitrou2018PhysRept}. Note that from the recent values\footnote{We use the PDG2020~\citep{PDG2020} value for $g_{\rm A}$, but the PDG2018~\citep{PDG2018} value for $V_{\rm ud}$ since the PDG2020 value for $V_{\rm ud}$ is lower and slightly incompatible with the unitarity of the CKM matrix.} $V_{\rm ud}=0.97420\pm 0.00028$ and $g_{\rm A}=1.2756\pm 0.0013$, we would infer from~\eqref{Directtaun} that $\tau_{\rm n} = 879.4\pm0.5\,{\rm s}$, hence increasing the confidence in the determination~\eqref{taun}.
BBN also notably depends on the value of the Newton constant $G_{\rm N}$ and Fermi constant $G_{\rm F}$ and we rely on their latest CODATA values~\citep{CODATA2018} as well as for all fundamental constants (the sensitivity to these constants has been estimated in works related to the constraints on their possible variations, see e.g. \citet{Coc:2006sx,Uzan:2002vq,Uzan:2010pm}).
Finally, the nuclear network has been updated to take into account the results of new experiments or analyses as summarized in Table~\ref{t:netw}. None of these changes brings any relief to the cosmological lithium problem \citep{IC20}. The reference for the other, unchanged reaction rates, can be found in \citet{Coc12a,Pitrou2018PhysRept}.
The change in the $^7$Be(n,p)$^7$Li rate is mainly responsible for the small decrease of Li/H. The \citet{Rij19} experiment put the $^7$Be(d,p)2$\alpha$ rate on firmer ground but brings no change in our Li/H predictions \citep{CD19}. The rates from the re--analyses of the $^3$H(d,n)$^4$He and $^3$He(d,p)$^4$He reactions lead to a small change in the $^3{\rm He}$/H prediction. To finish, and that will be the focus of our present analysis, a new reaction rate for the {D(p,$\gamma)^3$He}\ reaction~\citep{NatureDPG} has recently been published. This is a long awaited and major progress for BBN.
\section{Deuterium nucleosynthesis}
Except for $^4{\rm He}$, differences in modern BBN codes are explained by differences in adopted reaction rates. Hence, to compare our results with others, one first needs to compare reaction rates. The production of deuterium mostly depends on 4 nuclear reactions. Deuterium is produced through {$^1$H(n,$\gamma)^2$H}, the cross-section of which is obtained from an effective field theory computation~\citep{AndoEtAl2006}, reliable at the 1\%-level and in perfect agreement with the existing few experimental data (see e.g. Fig.~1 in \citet{Zakopane}). It is then involved in 3 nuclear reactions {D(p,$\gamma)^3$He}, {D(d,n)$^3$He}\ and {D(d,p)$^3$H}. These reactions are the main sources of nuclear uncertainty for the prediction of the primordial deuterium abundance. The sensitivity~\citep{CV10} to these reaction rates are
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\Delta{\rm (D/H)}}{\rm D/H}&=&-0.32\frac{\Delta\langle\sigma{v}\rangle_{\mathrm{D(p,}\gamma)^3\mathrm{He}}}
{\langle\sigma{v}\rangle_{\mathrm{D(p,}\gamma)^3\mathrm{He}}}\label{eq.above}\\
\frac{\Delta{\rm (D/H)}}{\rm D/H}&=&-0.54\frac{\Delta\langle\sigma{v}\rangle_{\mathrm{D(d,n)}^3\mathrm{He}}}{\langle\sigma{v}\rangle_{\mathrm{D(d,n)}^3\mathrm{He}}}
-0.46\frac{\Delta\langle\sigma{v}\rangle_{\mathrm{D(d,p)}^3\mathrm{H}}}{\langle\sigma{v}\rangle_{\mathrm{D(d,p)}^3\mathrm{H}}}.\nonumber
\label{q:sens}
\end{eqnarray}
It is clear that a percent accuracy on the predictions, as required by the data, implies to reach a percent level accuracy on the cross-sections. Since none of them have resonances, their determination boils down to the accurate modeling of the slowly varying energy dependent $S$-factor and to a precise determination of their absolute scale.
\subsection{Reaction rate evaluations}
To derive reaction rates and uncertainties, there are two main approaches in the literature. Either one empirically fits both the energy dependence and scale so as to follow closely the data, or one uses theoretical energy dependences from nuclear physics models and only determine the absolute normalisation. Different approaches have also been considered in the treatment of uncertainties, frequentist versus bayesian with different treatments of systematic uncertainties. However, it has been shown that given the same datasets and fitting functions, those different methods lead to the same
results for the three reactions. For instance the frequentist \citep{Coc15} and bayesian \citet{Bayes16} {D(p,$\gamma)^3$He}\ rates are
almost identical (see next section). Similarly, Eqs. (3.49)--(3.51) from \citet{Ser04} were tested in \citet{Coc15}
leading to very similar rates and uncertainties. Hence, the differences in reaction rates obtained from different
groups come from the selection of datasets and the choice of fitting function.
A major difficulty, for those three reactions is that only a few
experimental datasets were obtained by precision experiments dedicated to BBN (e.g. \citep{NatureDPG} for {D(p,$\gamma)^3$He}\
or \citet{Leo06} for {D(d,n)$^3$He}\ and {D(d,p)$^3$H}). Many datasets lack sufficient documentation concerning the scale (systematic)
error. This is the main criteria used by \citet{Coc15,Bayes16,Bayes17} to exclude datasets.
In several cases, the scale error is not evaluated or only the combined, statistical and systematic
uncertainties are given so that the corresponding datasets are also put aside. Details on this selection
are given in \citet{Coc15,Bayes16,Bayes17}.
The other issue concerns the $S$--factor\ fitting function. One option is to use polynomial (e.g. \citet{Ser04,Cyb04}) or
splines (e.g. \citet{Nol00}), but choosing the correct polynomial degree is difficult. A higher degree provides
a better fit, but can introduce artificial structures. This is why many evaluations introduce some phenomenological
(e.g. R--matrix in \citet{Des04} or Potential Model from \citet{NACRE2}) or even theoretical prejudices (e.g. {\it ab initio}
model of \citet{Nef11}).
In previous works, (e.g. \citet{Pitrou2018PhysRept}), we had chosen this latter option, since {\it ab initio} $S$--factor{s}
were available for the three reactions \citep{Mar05,Ara11}.
Finally, the {D(p,$\gamma)^3$He}, {D(d,n)$^3$He}\ and {D(d,p)$^3$H}\ adopted rates in \cite{Pitrou2018PhysRept} result from bayesian analyses
\citep{Bayes16,Bayes17}. They have
the advantage of not being limited to gaussian distributions and to be able to take into account systematic
uncertainties in a simple way \citep{Bayes16} (see also \citet{Bayes19b,Bayes19a,Bayes20} concerning other
reactions). However, note that for the {D(p,$\gamma)^3$He}\ rate we use the latest LUNA rate by \citet{NatureDPG} (see below).
\subsection{The {D(p,$\gamma)^3$He}\ rate}
This reaction rate has long been a subject of controversy. As displayed in Fig. 23 of \citet{Pitrou2018PhysRept} (updated in Fig.~\ref{f:sfac} below), there was a scarcity of experimental data in the region of interest for BBN.
In their evaluations, \citet{Coc15} and \citet{Bayes16} used the theoretical $S$--factor\ from \citet{Mar05} re-normalized (e.g. a factor of 0.9900$\pm$0.0368 in \citet{Coc15}) to a selection of experimental data. Other authors~\citep{Cyb04,Des04} have preferred the alternative option that follows closely the experimental data points, resulting in a lower $S$--factor\ at BBN energies, mainly driven by the \citet{Ma97} data (see Fig.~\ref{f:sfac}).
The widely used NACRE--II \citep{NACRE2} compilation relies for this reaction on a potential model, adjusted to experimental data, but gives little details.
The NACRE--II \citep{NACRE2} compilation was designed to be conservative i.e. their $S$--factor\ limits were supposed to encompass almost all existing data, in order to be sure that the real $S$--factor\ is within the limits. The problem became more acute with the publication of an improved theoretical $S$--factor\ by \citet{Mar16}, lying above the previous one of \citet{Mar05}; see Fig.~\ref{f:sfac}. Very recently, this cross--section, of the most important reaction for deuterium destruction, has been measured, first at the Joi{\v{z}}ef Stefan Institute of Ljubljana by \citet{Tis19}, then at the LUNA, Gran Sasso underground laboratory \citep{NatureDPG} (see Fig.~\ref{f:sfac}). Those experiments explored the energy range relevant to BBN. In particular, the LUNA data points span the range $E_\mathrm{cm}$ = 32--263~keV, and have very small error bars.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{dpg_seval20.pdf}
\caption{Theoretical and experimental $S$--factor, normalized to the \citet{Mar05} theoretical one.
Data in grey point "Bys08" \citep{Bys08}, "Ca02" \citep{Cas02}, "Sch97" \citep{Sch97} and "Ma97" \citep{Ma97}, are those used in our previous calculations~\citep{Coc15,Bayes16,Pitrou2018PhysRept}.
Blue points \citep{Tis19} and red points (LUNA \citet{NatureDPG}) are new. Compared to Fig. 23 of \citet{Pitrou2018PhysRept}, only datasets that were used in \citet{Coc15,Bayes16} are displayed. Curves are the $S$--factor\ used in previous BBN calculations (see text).}
\label{f:sfac}
\end{figure*}
\vspace{0.2cm}
From these experiments, one can deduce that
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\begin{itemize}
\item the LUNA data \citep{NatureDPG} confirm, in the BBN range, the energy dependence and magnitude of the $S$--factor\ calculated by \citet{Mar05} (Fig.~\ref{f:sfac}),
\item the new data \citep{Tis19,NatureDPG} do not confirm the low $S$--factor\ from \citet{Ma97} that, previously drove down the fitted $S$--factor{s} \citep{Des04,Cyb04},
\item does not confirm the higher theoretical $S$--factor\ from \citet{Mar16}, and
\item the LUNA data lies in between the $S$--factor\ limits derived by \citet{Coc15} and, not shown on the Figure, those subsequently obtained by a more sophisticated (Bayesian) analysis by \citet{Bayes16}.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{dpg_sv20.pdf}
\caption{LUNA reaction rates \citep{NatureDPG} and uncertainties compared to the ones previously used \citep{Coc15,Bayes16}.
Rates labelled Coc+ 2015 are deduced from corresponding $S$--factor{s} in Fig.~\ref{f:sfac}, those
labelled Iliadis+ 2016 are those used by \citet{Pitrou2018PhysRept}.}
\label{DPGfig}
\end{figure}
Consequently, the rate \citep{Bayes16} used by \citet{Pitrou2018PhysRept} will need only minor revision (Moscoso {\em et al.}, in preparation), and confirm the deuterium tension, first observed by \citet{Coc15,Pitrou2018PhysRept}.
Indeed, Fig.~\ref{DPGfig} compares the rate \citet{Bayes16} previously used by \citet{Pitrou2018PhysRept} with the new rates recently derived from Eq.~(2) and (3) in \citet{NatureDPG}, in agreement with their Table~1.
In the BBN temperature range, the new rate is mostly within the limits of the previously adopted ones.
\citet{Fie20} use the {D(p,$\gamma)^3$He}\ rate from NACRE--II \citep{NACRE2} as a baseline, but also consider those from \citet{Coc15} (very close to the one \citet{Bayes16} used in {\tt PRIMAT}; see Fig.~\ref{DPGfig}) and the high theoretical rate of \citet{Mar16}. Few details are given in NACRE--II on the evaluation of the {D(p,$\gamma)^3$He}\ rate, but it is found to be significantly lower than the one used in {\tt PRIMAT} and has wider limits. Hence, its use by \citet{Fie20} is expected to lead to a higher D/H prediction.
To take into account the new experimental data we use the \citet{NatureDPG} rate, derived from their
Eq.~(2) and (3), making comparison with other works easier.
\subsection{The {D(d,n)$^3$He}\ and {D(d,p)$^3$H}\ rates}
As reminded in Eq.~(\ref{eq.above}), two other reactions are important for deuterium destruction: {D(d,n)$^3$He}\ and {D(d,p)$^3$H}. For these reactions, {\tt PRIMAT} relies on the rates evaluated by \citet{Bayes17}, based on the theoretical, {\it ab initio} energy dependences from \citet{Ara11} re-normalized to a selection of experimental data, using bayesian techniques. \citet{Fie20} use instead the NACRE--II rates based on a DWBA model adjusted to experimental data. However, as for {D(p,$\gamma)^3$He}, few details are available in NACRE--II on the evaluation of experimental data, and rate uncertainties.
Contrary to the {D(p,$\gamma)^3$He}\ reaction, several recent experimental studies have investigated both {D(d,n)$^3$He}\ and {D(d,p)$^3$H}\
cross sections at BBN energies \citep{Kra87,Bro90, Gre95,Leo06}. These are all direct measurements that
are in good agreement with the theoretical cross section obtained by \citet{Ara11} as can be seen in Fig.~\ref{f:ddnp}.
It displays the ratio of {D(d,n)$^3$He}\ over {D(d,p)$^3$H}\ $S$--factor{s}, allowing to evaluate the coherence of the data because this ratio
is essentially governed by the Coulomb interaction, and as such is weakly dependent of the nuclear model.
The theoretical curve \citep{Ara11}
(not a fit) reproduces the directly measured data, including the \citet{Sch72} at high energy, above the BBN range.
Reaction rates based on a re--normalization of the \citet{Ara11} $S$--factor\ to the experimental data of \citet{Kra87,Bro90, Gre95,Leo06}
were obtained by \citet{Coc15} and \citet{Bayes17} analyses.
These four experimental studies were selected because they all provide both statistical
and systematic uncertainties.
In particular the most recent direct experiment \citep{Leo06} provides an error matrix and quote
a scale error as low as 2\%$\pm$1\%.
Both uncertainties were considered separately by \citet{Coc15}, using a classical
analysis, and by \citet{Bayes17} with a Bayesian analysis that, in particular treats systematic uncertainties
as priors. Resulting reaction rates were found to differ by less than 0.2\% and we adopt the \citet{Bayes17}
rate.
The {D(d,n)$^3$He}\ and {D(d,p)$^3$H}\ rates used in the LUNA BBN calculations \citep{NatureDPG} are
updated from the \citet{Parthenope2,Ser04} evaluation including a minor contribution from
the new data \citep{Tum14} obtained by the (indirect) Trojan Horse Method.
The main differences with the \citet{Bayes17} analysis is that the latter applies stricter selection criteria on
experimental data (e.g. only direct measurements with
evaluation of systematic uncertainties) and uses theoretical guidance instead of polynomials.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{ratio_eval.pdf}
\caption{Ratio of the {D(d,n)$^3$He}\ over {D(d,p)$^3$H}\ cross sections. BBN, recent experimental data from direct measurements
(``Kra87" \citep{Kra87}, ``Bro90" \citep{Bro90}, ``Gre95" \citep{Gre95}, ``Leo06" \citep{Leo06} and ``Sch72" \citep{Sch72})
follows the theoretical predictions of \citet{Ara11}). The indirect data from \citet{Tum14} follows a different trend. }
\label{f:ddnp}
\end{figure}
In conclusion, our BBN results \citep{Coc15,Pitrou2018PhysRept,IC20} for D/H are in general lower than others, because we use different reaction rates for {D(p,$\gamma)^3$He}\ (previously \citet{Bayes16}, but here, replaced by LUNA \citep{NatureDPG}),
{D(d,n)$^3$He}, and {D(d,p)$^3$H}\ (\citet{Bayes17}). In these evaluationsd \citep{Bayes16,Bayes17}, first, only experimental datasets whose error budget (statistical {\em and} systematics) is available, are adopted. Next, whenever possible, theoretical guidance is considered.
Other works may use smooth polynomial fits to the data, which is, in principle, another reasonable option. Finally, our
adopted rates are obtained using Bayesian techniques because they allow for a rigorous inclusion of statistical {\em and systematic} sources of uncertainties. These choices have the advantage of being fully documented and simply stated.
However, for this work, we use provisionally the \citet{NatureDPG} rate.
\begin{table*
\caption{\label{t:hlix} Predicted abundances compared to observations.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabularx}{0.88\textwidth}{lccc}
\toprule
& Observations & \citet{Pitrou2018PhysRept} $\tau_{\rm n} = 879.5(8)\, {\rm s}$, & {\bf This work} $\tau_{\rm n} = 879.4(6)\, {\rm s}$, \\
&&$100h^2 \Omega_b = 2.2250\,(\pm 0.016)\, ({\rm e})$&$100 h^2 \Omega_b = 2.242\,(\pm 0.014)\,({\rm f})$\\
\midrule
$Y_{\rm P}$ & 0.2453$\pm$0.0034(a) & {0.24709}$\pm${0.00018} & {\bf 0.24721}$\pm${\bf 0.00014}\\
${\rm D}$/H ($ \times10^{-5})$ & 2.527$\pm$0.030 (b)& {2.460}$\pm${0.046} & {\bf 2.439}$\pm${\bf 0.037} \\
${}^3{\rm He}/{\rm H}$ ($ \times10^{-5}$) & $<$1.1$\pm$0.2 (c)& {1.074}$\pm${0.026} & {\bf 1.039}$\pm${\bf 0.014}\\
$^{7}{\rm Li}$/H ($\times10^{-10}$) & 1.58$^{+0.35}_{-0.28}$ (d) & {5.627}$\pm${0.259} & {\bf 5.464}$\pm${\bf 0.220}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabularx}\\%}
(a) \citet{Ave20}, (b) \citet{Coo18}, (c)\citet{Ban02}, (d) \citet{Sbo10}, (e) \citet{Planck2016}, (f) {\rm CMB+BAO}, \citet{Planck2018}
\end{center}
\label{TableAbundances}
\end{table*}
\section{Constraints on cosmological parameters from BBN}
As mentioned above, there are two equivalent ways to look at the data. Either, we use BBN to constrain the only free cosmological parameter that affects the abundances, i.e. the baryonic density, and we then compare this measurement to the one by Planck~\citep{Planck2018} (CMB or CMB+BAO), or we fix the baryonic density to its value determined by CMB analysis and compare the predictions of BBN under that hypothesis to spectroscopic data.
Figure~\ref{DHzoom} summarizes the predictions for BBN deuterium from the present analysis
[using \citep{NatureDPG} for the {D(p,$\gamma)^3$He}\ rate, and \citet{Bayes17} for the {D(d,n)$^3$He}\ and {D(d,p)$^3$H}\ rates]
and the previous one by \citet{Pitrou2018PhysRept}, as well as the CMB constraint on $\eta$ and the data by \citet{Coo18}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\columnwidth]{PlotInsetDH2018.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.99\columnwidth]{PlotInsetDH.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.97\columnwidth]{Posteriors.pdf}
\caption{{\it Top:} D/H theoretical prediction (in blue), observation (in green) from \citet{Coo18}, and baryon abundance constraints from CMB (in gray), as reported in \citet{Pitrou2018PhysRept}. All ranges displayed are within $1\sigma$ standard deviation. {\it Middle:} Same quantities but the baryon density is updated from the CMB+BAO constraint by \citet{Planck2018}, and with the D/H theoretical predictions of this work. The dashed blue lines correspond to the theoretical range determined when using the {D(p,$\gamma)^3$He}\, rate of \citet{Bayes16} instead of the recent LUNA rate~\citep{NatureDPG}. {\it Bottom:} Posterior distribution of baryon density from BBN (this work) in solid line, from CMB only in dashed line, and from CMB+BAO in dot-dashed line (both from \citet{Planck2018}). The correspondence between $\eta$ and $\Omega_{\baryon}h^2$\ is given by Eq.~\eqref{obhToeta}.}
\label{DHzoom}
\end{figure}
In the first approach, we use BBN theory and spectroscopic observations to determine $\eta$, assuming that $N_{\rm eff}$ is fixed from particle physics, and compare to its CMB value by Planck~\citep{Planck2018}. Using the method described in section 6.2 of \citet{Pitrou2018PhysRept}, we estimate the posterior distribution of $\Omega_{\baryon}h^2$, given the observational constraints on $^4{\rm He}$\
and on ${\rm D}$. The posteriors for CMB or BBN determinations of $\Omega_{\baryon}h^2$\ are depicted on Fig.~\ref{DHzoom}, and we obtain for BBN only
\begin{equation}
\Omega_{\baryon} h^2 = 0.02195 \pm 0.00022\,.
\end{equation}
This is a $1.6\sigma$ tension with CMB~\eqref{baryonsCMB} and $1.84\sigma$ tension with CMB+BAO~\eqref{baryonsCMBBAO}. The tension is higher when BAO are included, which is in general the case when more data are considered. Note also that BAO favour baryons compared to dark matter in the analysis.
Equivalently, the same analysis can be performed by assuming that the baryon density is determined from CMB+BAO~\citep{Planck2018}, and predict the theoretical expectation for the deuterium abundance. When estimating the theoretical uncertainty with a Monte-Carlo method, we vary on the uncertainty of nuclear rates, on the neutron lifetime, but also on the baryon abundance according to the CMB+BAO posterior. We then find the theoretical expectation
\begin{equation}
\rm (D/H) = (2.439 \pm 0.037)\times 10^{-5}\,.
\end{equation}
Again, this has a $1.84\sigma$ tension with the measured value~(\ref{MeasuredDH}). This is expected since these two methods are different ways of doing the same thing.
\section*{Discussion and perspectives}
BBN theory has long been considered as a standard pillar of the big-bang model, despite the long-standing lithium-7 problem. In the current era of precision cosmology, its constraining power mostly rests on the prediction of the deuterium abundance since the accuracy of helium-4 data, and its mild dependence on the baryon density, do not make it a competitive probe anymore. As we argued, the agreement between data, theoretical BBN predictions and CMB constraints on the baryonic density requires to control the accuracy of the BBN computation at the percent level.
First, it follows that nuclear data are the crux in this debate.
All existing codes differ from the difference of choices on the modelisation of the nuclear cross-sections, and not on weak rates since they differ by less than 0.2\% between e.g. {\tt PRIMAT} and {\tt PArthENoPE}~\citep{Parthenope}. It is important to control their accuracy at least at the percent level and to take into account the latest data. The recent release of the LUNA data confirms the $S$--factor\ and rate previously used in {\tt PRIMAT} 2018~\citep{Pitrou2018PhysRept}. We updated it to fully take into account these data and the code now also includes a series of refinements described in this article. Finally, because of the importance of the d+d reaction rates, in particular, the {D(d,n)$^3$He}\ one, further investigations are needed to reconcile Trojan Horse results \citep{Tum14} with direct measurements.
Then, the second key issue concerns D/H measurements. Today it rests on the measurements of \citet{Coo18}. The primitive abundance of deuterium can be determined from the observation of DI and HI lines from neutral clouds (Damped Lyman-$\alpha$ systems, DLAs) at high redshift, located on the line of sight to background quasars. While progress has been done to obtain precise measurements, these remain very scarce. Because of this, each measurement has therefore an important impact on the determination of the primitive D/H abundance (i.e. the mean value) and its accuracy must be tested intensively. Indeed, both values and associated uncertainties remain debated (e.g. the remeasurement of the deuterium abundance at $z=3.256$ by \citet{Riemer-Sorensen:2014aoa}). More observations are crucially needed not only to decrease statistical errors but also have the potential to reveal subtle systematics. While several thousands DLAs have been detected thanks to large spectroscopic surveys (e.g. \citet{Noterdaeme:2012gi}), most of the background quasars are too faint for efficient selection of follow-up targets and precision measurements with current telescopes. Notwithstanding, there is still some room to detect new bright quasars and hence potentially useful DLAs. For example, the QUBRICS bright Quasar survey has recently identified 55 new high redshift quasars ($z > 2.5$) \citep{Cal19,Bou20}. Alternatively, high-resolution optical spectrographs on the next generation of 30-m class telescopes will increase the number of accessible quasars and automatically the number of targets suitable for measuring D/H. For example, HIRES on the Extremely Large Telescope could increase the precision to 0.3\% with a five-fold increase in sample size, provided its wavelength coverage extends enough to the blue (\citet{Mai13} and Pasquier Noterdaeme, private communication).
With the existing D/H data~\citep{Coo18}, the updated nuclear network and the slight shift of the baryonic density determined by Planck-2018, we witness a $\simeq 1.8\sigma$-tension on the baryonic density between BBN and CMB+BAO or equivalently between the D/H abundance prediction assuming (CMB+BAO)-baryonic density and its spectroscopic measurement. This is indeed a mild warning but it sheds some light on the sector of the big-bang theory, indicating that it should be watched carefully, both on the nuclear and astrophysical data sides.
It is worth mentioning that the Hubble constant tension has been interpreted as an early/late universe tension, while it shall maybe be seen as a thin/large beam tension~\citep{Fleury:2013uqa,Fleury:2018cro,Fleury:2018odh}. This new emerging tension, to be confirmed by more BBN and large scale estimations of the baryonic density, is a primordial/late time tension, so that the CMB would be tied between two lever arms at redshifts of order $z\sim1$ and $z\sim10^8$. If confirmed, the status of BBN, with the lithium-problem and a mildly-constraining helium-4, would have to be reconsidered. Note also that unlike the cosmological lithium problem, this deuterium tension can be mitigated easily by invoking a small contribution from most models developed to solve the lithium problem as they overproduce deuterium~\citep{AV12,Oli12,Coc:2014gia,Kus14,Coc15}. To finish, note
also that since BBN theory assumes a perfect FL geometry and since the spectroscopic data are located on our past light-cone at low redshift -- and thus well inside the CMB sky -- the Copernican principle could be at stake~\citep{Regis:2012iq,Dunsby:2010ts}.
With this new data, cosmology shows once more that precision cosmology should come with a cosmology of correctness~\citep{Uzan:2016wji} and that the new tensions we witness are some precursory signs of a more realistic model or just a transient that would disappear with future data with better accuracy and better controlled systematics.
\section*{Note added} After this paper was submitted, two papers
addressing the same topic as our current work were posted \citep{Pis20,Yeh20}, confirming that differing conclusions can be traced to the data selection and analysis of {D(d,n)$^3$He}\ and {D(d,p)$^3$H}\ rates.
\section*{Data availability}
There are no new data associated with this article. The BBN code {\tt PRIMAT} is freely available at~\url{http://www2.iap.fr/users/pitrou/primat.htm}.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank warmly Pasquier Noterdaeme for discussions on the detection of deuterium, Silvia Galli for her help with the baryon abundance posteriors from the Planck-2018 results, Ofelia Pisanti for discussions concerning the LUNA rates, Julien Froustey for careful reading of the draft, and Christian Iliadis for a long time collaboration on reaction rates evaluations.
\section*{Erratum}
We take the opportunity of the new release of the BBN code {\tt PRIMAT} to correct a few minor typos in \citet{Pitrou2018PhysRept}.
\begin{itemize}
\item In Eq.~(53), there is an additional minus sign in front of $0.01452$.
\item In Eq.~(61), the function ${\cal S}$ must be multiplied by the constant factor $\bar s_\gamma$, both in the numerator and the denominator.
\item In Eq.~(105), the numerical value for $\lambda^{{\rm RC} 0}_0$ should be $1.75838$.
\item In Table 5, the first value in the RC+FM+WM+ID line (and which corresponds to $Y_{\rm P}$) should be 0.24710 instead of 0.24720.
\item In Table 7, 10$^{10}$ should be read instead of 10$^{5}$ for $^{7}{\rm Li}$\ multiplicative prefactor.
\item In Table 8, theoretical abundance values and errors should be as reported in Table \ref{TableAbundances}.
\item In Eq.~(B23), one must first read $g_\nu^{(2,0)}$ instead of $g_\nu$ in the first term, and in the fifth line $m_{\rm n}/m_{\rm p}$ must be replaced by $(m_{\rm n}/m_{\rm p})^{\pm 1}$.
\end{itemize}
These typos are corrected in the arXiv version of \citet{Pitrou2018PhysRept}.
\bibliographystyle{mn2e}
|
\section{Application: Reusable Malicious Designated Verifier NIZK for QMA}
\label{sec:mdv-nizk}
In this section, we show how a small tweak to the protocol from last section gives a reusable MDV-NIZK for QMA. Features of our construction differ from those of \cite{shmueli2020multitheorem} in the following ways.
\begin{itemize}
\item It assumes post-quantum OT and reusable MDV-NIZK for NP, whereas \cite{shmueli2020multitheorem} assumed (levelled) fully-homomorphic encryption (note that both assumptions are known from QLWE).
\item The prover only requires a single copy of the witness state, whereas \cite{shmueli2020multitheorem} required the prover to have access to polynomially-many identical copies of the witness.
\end{itemize}
\begin{definition}[MDV-NIZK Argument for QMA]\label{def:mdv-nizk}
A non-interactive computational zero-knowlege argument for a language ${\cal L} = ({\cal L}_\mathsf{yes},{\cal L}_\mathsf{no}) \in \mathsf{QMA}$ in the malicious designated-verifier model consists of $4$ algorithms $(\mathsf{Setup},\mathsf{VSetup},\mathsf{Prove},\mathsf{Verify})$ with the following syntax.
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathsf{crs} \gets \mathsf{Setup}(1^\lambda)$: A classical PPT algorithm that on input the security parameter samples a common uniformly random string $\mathsf{crs}$.
\item $(\mathsf{pvk},\mathsf{svk}) \gets \mathsf{VSetup}(\mathsf{crs})$: A classical PPT algorithm that on input $\mathsf{crs}$ samples a pair of public and secret verification keys.
\item $\boldsymbol{\pi} \gets \mathsf{Prove}(\mathsf{crs},\mathsf{pvk},x,\mathbf{w})$: A QPT algorithm that on input $\mathsf{crs}$, the public verification key, an instance $x \in {\cal L}_\mathsf{yes}$, and a quantum witness $\mathbf{w}$, outputs a quantum state $\boldsymbol{\pi}$.
\item $\mathsf{Verify}(\mathsf{crs},\mathsf{svk},x,\boldsymbol{\pi})$: A QPT algorithm that on input $\mathsf{crs}$, secret verification key $\mathsf{svk}$, and instance $x \in {\cal L}$, and a quantum proof $\boldsymbol{\pi}$, outputs a bit indicating acceptance or rejection.
\end{itemize}
The protocol satisfies the following properties.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Statistical Completeness:} There exists a negligible function $\mu(\cdot)$ such that for any $\lambda \in {\mathbb N}$, $x \in {\cal L}_\mathsf{yes} \cap \{0,1\}^\lambda$, $\mathbf{w} \in {\cal R}_{\cal L}(x)$, $\mathsf{crs} \in \mathsf{Setup}(1^\lambda)$, $(\mathsf{pvk},\mathsf{svk}) \in \mathsf{VSetup}(\mathsf{crs}),$ $$\Pr_{\boldsymbol{\pi} \gets \mathsf{Prove}(\mathsf{crs},\mathsf{pvk},x,\mathbf{w})}\left[\mathsf{Verify}(\mathsf{crs},\mathsf{svk},x,\boldsymbol{\pi})\right] \geq 1 -\mu(\lambda).$$
\item \textbf{Reusable (Non-Adaptive) Soundness:\footnote{A previous version of this paper defined and claimed to achieve adaptive soundness from polynomially-hard assumptions. However, we actually only achieve \emph{non-adaptive} soundness from polynomially-hard QLWE. Similar to \cite{shmueli2020multitheorem}, we could upgrade security to adaptive soundness if we use complexity leveraging and assume sub-exponentially secure QLWE.}} For every quantum polynomial-size adversarial prover ${\cal P}^* = \{{\cal P}^*_\lambda,\mathbf{p}_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$ and $\{x_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$ where for each $\lambda \in {\mathbb N}, x_\lambda \in {\cal L}_\mathsf{no}$, there exists a negligible function $\mu(\cdot)$ such that for every $\lambda \in {\mathbb N}$, $$\Pr_{\substack{\mathsf{crs} \gets \mathsf{Setup}(1^\lambda) \\ (\mathsf{pvk},\mathsf{svk}) \gets \mathsf{VSetup}(\mathsf{crs}) \\ \boldsymbol{\pi} \gets {\cal P}^*_\lambda(\mathbf{p}_\lambda,\mathsf{crs},\mathsf{pvk})^{\mathsf{Verify}(\mathsf{crs},\mathsf{svk},\cdot,\cdot)}}}\left[1 = \mathsf{Verify}(\mathsf{crs},\mathsf{svk},x,\boldsymbol{\pi})\right] \leq \mu(\lambda).$$
\item \textbf{Malicious Zero-Knowledge:} There exists a QPT simulator $\mathsf{Sim}$ such that for every QPT distinguisher ${\cal D} = \{{\cal D}_\lambda,\mathbf{d}_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$, there exists a negligible function $\mu(\cdot)$ such that for every $\lambda \in {\mathbb N}$, $$\left|\Pr_{\mathsf{crs} \gets \mathsf{Setup}(1^\lambda)}\left[{\cal D}_\lambda(\mathbf{d}_\lambda,\mathsf{crs})^{\mathsf{Prove}(\mathsf{crs},\cdot,\cdot,\cdot)}\right] - \Pr_{(\mathsf{crs},\tau) \gets \mathsf{Sim}(1^\lambda)}\left[{\cal D}_\lambda(\mathbf{d}_\lambda,\mathsf{crs})^{\mathsf{Sim}(\tau,\cdot,\cdot)}\right]\right| \leq \mu(\lambda),$$ where,
\begin{itemize}
\item Every query ${\cal D}_\lambda$ makes to the oracle is of the form $(\mathsf{pvk}^*,x,\mathbf{w})$, where $\mathsf{pvk}^*$ is arbitrary, $x \in {\cal L}_\mathsf{yes} \cup \{0,1\}^\lambda$, and $\mathbf{w} \in {\cal R}_{\cal L}(s)$.
\item $\mathsf{Prove}(\mathsf{crs},\cdot,\cdot,\cdot)$ is the honest prover algorithm and $\mathsf{Sim}(\tau,\cdot,\cdot)$ acts only on $\tau,\mathsf{pvk}^*$, and $x$.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}
Assuming post-quantum maliciously-secure two-message oblivious transfer and post-quantum reusable MDV-NIZK for NP (see the discussion following \cref{def:2pc}), there exists a reusable MDV-NIZK satisfying \cref{def:mdv-nizk}.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
For $x \in {\cal L}$, let ${\cal V}_{\cal L}[x](\cdot)$ be the QMA verification circuit that takes as input a potential witness $\mathbf{w}$ and outputs a bit indicating acceptance or rejection. For any $x$, we will use \proref{fig:three-message} to compute the functionality ${\cal V}_{\cal L}[x](\cdot)$ (where Alice has input $\mathbf{w}$ and only Bob obtains output) in two messages. Note that Bob has no input, and thus his first message is entirely classical, only consisting of the first message of the classical $\mathsf{2PC}$. This already gives a one-time MDV-NIZK.
Now, we argue how to achieve reusability, while maintaining soundness and zero-knowledge. First, we will instantiate the classical $\mathsf{2PC}$ with one that is reusable and post-quantum secure~\cite{C:LQRWW19}. Given such a $\mathsf{2PC}$ protocol, Bob can compute his first message independently of the statement to be proven by Alice, and Alice can subsequently re-use this first message to prove any number of statements. This already satisfies zero-knowledge, as the MDV-NIZK simulator can always just query the 2PQC simulator with output 1.
To achieve reusable soundness, we alter the classical functionality ${\cal F}[{\cal V}_{\cal L}[x]]$ computed by the $\mathsf{2PC}$. It now takes as input a PRF key $k$ from Bob and generates all of Bob's randomness via $\mathsf{PRF}(k,x)$, i.e., the PRF applied to the (classical) instance $x$. This includes the auxiliary state checking randomness (permutation $\pi$ and linear map $M$) along with Bob's contribution to the classical randomness used to generate the quantum garbled circuit. To prove reusable soundness, let ${\cal P}^*$ be a cheating prover, $x^* \in {\cal L}_\mathsf{no}$ be a no instance, and consider the following hybrids.
\begin{itemize}
\item ${\cal H}_1$: The $\mathsf{crs}$ and the verifier's classical $\mathsf{2PC}$ message are generated by the $\mathsf{2PC}$ simulator, and the prover's oracle $\mathsf{Verify}(\mathsf{crs},\mathsf{svk},\cdot,\cdot)$ is now answered with help from the $\mathsf{2PC}$ simulator. That is, the $\mathsf{2PC}$ simulator extracts from the classical part of the prover's proof and computes the functionality specified by the instance $x$, which outputs the classical part of the quantum garbled circuit. This classical part is then used to compute the verifier's output on the quantum part of the prover's proof. Indistinguishability from the real game follows by security of the reusable classical $\mathsf{2PC}$.
\item ${\cal H}_2$: The PRF calls made during computation of the classical functionality are replaced with calls to a uniformly random function. Indistinguishability from the real game follows by security of the PRF.
\end{itemize}
In ${\cal H}_2$, whenever the prover submits a proof for $x^*$, the randomness used to generate the $\mathbf{0}$ and $\mathbf{T}$ state checks and the quantum garbled circuit will be a string that is uniform and independent of the prover's view. Thus, by soundness of these checks, along with statistical correctness of the quantum garbled circuit, the verification oracle will output 0 with overwhelming probability. Thus, $P^*$ could not be making the verifier output 1 on any proof for $x^*$, except with negligible probability.
\end{proof}
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank anonymous reviewers for pointing out an issue with~\cref{thm:lower-bound} in an earlier draft of this work.
This material is based on work supported in part by DARPA under Contract No. HR001120C0024 (for DK). Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Government or DARPA. A.C. is supported by DoE under grant DOD ONR Federal. Part of this work was done while the authors were visiting the Simons Institute for the Theory of Computing in Spring 2020.
\ifsubmission
\bibliographystyle{splncs04}
\else
\bibliographystyle{alpha}
\fi
\section{Multi-Party Quantum Computation in Five Rounds}\label{sec:five-round}
In this section, we show the existence of a five-round protocol for multi-party quantum computation, assuming quantum-secure two-message oblivious transfer in the CRS model with a straight-line black-box simulator. The protocol we present satisfies security with abort, and only requires three rounds of online communication (that is, three rounds of communication once the parties receive their inputs). Thus, this implies the existence of a three-round protocol for multi-party quantum computation given some input-independent quantum pre-processing.
We also note that the protocol can be adjusted to give security with \emph{unanimous} abort with four rounds of online communication (while keeping the total number of rounds at five), though we do not provide a formal description of this protocol. Roughly, this follows because if parties receive their inputs one round earlier, they will be able to receive and check the authenticity of their (encrypted) outputs at the end of round four, rather than checking the authenticity of their (unencrypted) outputs at the end of round five.
\subsection{The Protocol}\label{subsec:5-round-protocol}
\paragraph{Ingredients.}
\begin{itemize}
\item Round-optimal quantum-secure multi-party computation for classical reactive functionalities in the CRS model, to be treated as an oracle called $\mathsf{MPC}$ ~(see \cref{subsec:reactivempc}).
\item A garbling scheme for $\mathsf{C+M}$ circuits $(\mathsf{QGarble}, \mathsf{QGEval}, \mathsf{QGSim})$\ifsubmission~(see section 4 of the full version)\else\fi.
\end{itemize}
\paragraph{Notation.} We use the following parameters and notation throughout:
\begin{itemize}
\item Let $n$ be the number of parties.
\item Let $Q$ be a $\mathsf{C+M}$ circuit with $m = m_1 + \dots + m_n$ input qubits and $\ell = \ell_1 + \dots + \ell_n$ output qubits. Let $Q_\mathsf{dist}\left[\left\{C_i^{\mathsf{inp}},C_i^{\mathsf{out}}\right\}_{i \in [n]}\right]$ be the $\mathsf{C+M}$ circuit that
\begin{itemize}
\item first applies $T$-state distillation (taking as input $\lambda$ times as many $T$ states as $Q$),
\item then Clifford decodes each input using the $C_i^{\mathsf{inp}}$, outputting $\bot$ if any of the decodings fail,
\item then applies $Q$,
\item then Clifford encodes each part of the output using $C_i^{\mathsf{out}}$.
\end{itemize}
Let $k_0$ be the total number of 0 states necessary to garble $Q_\mathsf{dist}\left[\left\{C_i^{\mathsf{inp}},C_i^{\mathsf{out}}\right\}_{i \in [n]}\right]$ (which includes auxiliary 0 states for the computation itself, as well as extra 0states used for the garbling operation). Let $k_T$ be the total number of $T$ states that $Q_\mathsf{dist}[\{C_i^{\mathsf{inp}},C_i^{\mathsf{out}}\}_{i \in [n]}]$ takes as input.
\item Let $v = (m + \lambda n) + 2(k_0 + \lambda n) + (k_T + \lambda n)$ be the number of registers teleported around the circle of parties, which includes all Clifford-encoded inputs, 0 states, and T states. We will refer to the first $m + \lambda n$ registers as $\gray{N}$, the next $2(k_0 + \lambda n)$ registers as $\gray{Z}$, and the final $k_T + \lambda n$ registers as $\gray{T}$.
\item During the protocol, these $v$ registers will be manipulated. At one point (before the application of the quantum garbled circuit), we will rename the registers to $\gray{N},\gray{Z_\mathsf{inp}},\gray{T_\mathsf{inp}},\gray{Z_\mathsf{test}},\gray{T_{\mathsf{test},1}},\dots,\gray{T_{\mathsf{test},n}}$, where
\begin{itemize}
\item $\gray{N}$ has size $m + \lambda n$ and holds each party's Clifford-encoded input.
\item $\gray{Z_\mathsf{inp}}$ has size $k_0$ and holds the auxiliary 0 states that will be used in the computation of the quantum garbled circuit.
\item $\gray{T_\mathsf{inp}}$ has size $k_T$ and holds the auxiliary T states that will be used in the computation of the quantum garbled circuit.
\item $\gray{Z_\mathsf{test}}$ has size $k_0 + \lambda n$ and holds the result of the 0-state check (will be $\mathbf{0}^{k_0 + \lambda}$ if all parties are honest).
\item Each $\gray{T_{\mathsf{test},1}},\dots,\gray{T_{\mathsf{test},n}}$ has size $2\lambda$ and holds the result of the T-state check (each will be a Clifford-encoding of $\mathbf{T}^{\otimes \lambda}$ if all parties are honest).
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\protocol
{\proref{fig:classical}: Classical Functionality for Five-Round Quantum MPC}
{Classical Functionality for Five-Round Quantum MPC.}
{fig:classical}
{
\textbf{Public Parameters:} Security parameter $\lambda$, number of parties $n$, $\mathsf{C+M}$ circuit $Q$, and parameters $(m,\ell,k_0,k_T,v)$ defined above.\\
\textbf{Shared Randomness:} Random strings for $0$ state check $r,s \gets \{0,1\}^{k_0 + \lambda n}$, re-randomization matrix $U_{\mathsf{enc}} \gets \mathscr{C}_{m + \lambda n + k_0 + k_T}$, Cliffords for $T$-state checks $\{C_i^{T} \gets \mathscr{C}_{2\lambda}\}_{i \in [n]}$, Cliffords for outputs $\{C_i^{\mathsf{out}} \gets \mathscr{C}_{\ell_i + \lambda}\}_{i \in [n]}$.\\
\textbf{Offline Round 1:}
Obtain input $C_i^\mathsf{circle}$ from each party $i$.
\textbf{Offline Round 2:}
Obtain input $(x_i^{\mathsf{circle}},z_i^{\mathsf{circle}})$ from each party $i$.
\textbf{Online Round 1:} Obtain input $(x_i^{\mathsf{inp}},z_i^{\mathsf{inp}},C_i^{\mathsf{inp}})$ from each party $i$.
\begin{itemize}
\item Compute the unitary $U_{\mathsf{dec}} \coloneqq {C_1^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger X^{x_1^{\mathsf{circle}}}Z^{z_1^{\mathsf{circle}}} \dots {C_n^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger X^{x_n^{\mathsf{circle}}}Z^{z_n^{\mathsf{circle}}}$, which will operate on registers $\gray{N},\gray{Z},\gray{T}$, where $\gray{N}$ has size $m+\lambda n$, $\gray{Z}$ has size $2(k_0 + \lambda n)$, and $\gray{T}$ has size $(k_T + \lambda n)$.
\item Compute the unitary $U_{\mathsf{check}}$ that operates on registers $\gray{Z},\gray{T}$ as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item Sample a random linear map $M \gets \mathsf{GL}(2(k_0 + \lambda n),{\mathbb F}_2)$, and apply it to the registers $\gray{Z}$. Now refer to the first $k_0$ qubits of $\gray{Z}$ as register $\gray{Z_{\mathsf{inp}}}$, the following $n$ groups of $\lambda$ qubits as $\gray{T_{\mathsf{test},Z,1}},\dots,\gray{T_{\mathsf{test},Z,n}}$, and the final group of $k_0 + \lambda n$ qubits as $\gray{Z_{\mathsf{test}}}$.
\item Sample a random permutation $\pi$ on $k_T + \lambda n$ elements and rearrange the registers of $\gray{T}$ according to the permutation $\pi$. Now refer to the first $k_T$ qubits of $\gray{T}$ as register $\gray{T_{\mathsf{inp}}}$ and the following $n$ groups of $\lambda$ qubits as $\gray{T_{\mathsf{test},T,1}},\dots,\gray{T_{\mathsf{test},T,n}}$.
\item Rearrange the registers in the order $\gray{N},\gray{Z_\mathsf{inp}}, \gray{T_\mathsf{inp}}, \gray{Z_{\mathsf{test}}}, \gray{T_{\mathsf{test},T,1}}, \gray{T_{\mathsf{test},Z,1}},\dots, \gray{T_{\mathsf{test},T,n}},\gray{T_{\mathsf{test},Z,n}}.$
\item Apply $X^rZ^s$ to $\gray{Z_{\mathsf{test}}}$.
\item For each $i \in [n]$, apply $C_i^T$ to $(\gray{T_{\mathsf{test},T,i}},\gray{T_{\mathsf{test},Z,i}})$ and re-name the combined registers $\gray{T_{\mathsf{test},i}}$.
\end{itemize}
\item Output to party 1 the unitary $U_{\mathsf{test}} \coloneqq \left(U_{\mathsf{enc}}^{\gray{N},\gray{Z_\mathsf{inp}},\gray{T_\mathsf{inp}}} \otimes {\mathbb I}^{\gray{Z_\mathsf{test}},\gray{T_{\mathsf{test},1},\dots,\gray{T_{\mathsf{test},n}}}}\right)\left({\mathbb I} \otimes U_{\mathsf{check}}^{\gray{Z},\gray{T}}\right)U_{\mathsf{dec}}^{\gray{N},\gray{Z},\gray{T}}.$
\end{itemize}
\textbf{Online Round 2:} Obtain input $r'$ from party 1.
\begin{itemize}
\item Compute $(E_0,D_0,\widetilde{g}_1,\dots,\widetilde{g}_d) \gets \mathsf{QGarble}(1^\lambda,Q_\mathsf{dist}[\{C_i^\mathsf{inp},C_i^\mathsf{out}\}_{i \in [n]}])$.
\item Compute $U_{\mathsf{garble}} \coloneqq E_0\left(X^{x_1^\mathsf{inp}}Z^{z_1^\mathsf{inp}} \otimes \dots \otimes X^{x_n^\mathsf{inp}}Z^{z_n^\mathsf{inp}} \otimes {\mathbb I}^{\gray{Z_\mathsf{inp}},\gray{T_\mathsf{inp}}}\right)U_{\mathsf{enc}}^\dagger$.
\item Output $U_{\mathsf{garble}}, D_0,\widetilde{g}_1,\dots,\widetilde{g}_d$ to party 1 and for each $i \in [n]$ output $C_i^T$ to party $i$.
\end{itemize}
\textbf{Online Round 3:}
\begin{itemize}
\item If $r' = r$ then output $C_i^{\mathsf{out}}$ to party $i$ for each $i \in [n]$ and otherwise output $\bot$ to each party.
\end{itemize}
}
\paragraph{Offline Round 1.}
In the first offline round of communication, the parties send EPR pair halves to each other as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item \underline{Party $P_1$.} For each $i \in [n]$, party $P_1$ generates $m_i+ \lambda$ EPR pairs
\[\left(\mathbf{e}^{(1\leftrightarrow i)}_R,\mathbf{e}^{(1\leftrightarrow i)}_S\right)^{\otimes m_i + \lambda},\]
where the $(1\leftrightarrow i)$ superscript indicates that these EPR pairs will be shared between party $1$ and party $i$, and the $R$ and $S$ subscripts designate which halves of the EPR pairs will be for receiving teleported qubits and which halves will be for sending teleported qubits. It also generates $v$ EPR pairs
\[\left(\mathbf{e}^{(n\leftrightarrow 1)}_R,\mathbf{e}^{(n\leftrightarrow 1)}_S\right)^{\otimes v}.\]
For each $i \in [n] \setminus \{1\}$, party $P_1$ sends $\left(\mathbf{e}_S^{(1\leftrightarrow i)}\right)^{\otimes m_i + \lambda}$ to party $P_i$. $P_1$ also sends $\left(\mathbf{e}^{(n\leftrightarrow 1)}_S\right)^{\otimes v}$ to party $P_n$. Finally, $P_1$ samples $C_1^\mathsf{circle} \gets \mathscr{C}_v$ and sends input $C_1^\mathsf{circle}$ to $\mathsf{MPC}$.
\item \underline{Party $P_i$ for $i \in \{2,3,\dots,n\}$.} Every other party $P_i$ will generate $v$ EPR pairs
\[\left(\mathbf{e}^{((i-1)\leftrightarrow i)}_R,\mathbf{e}^{((i-1)\leftrightarrow i)}_S\right)^{\otimes v}\]
and send
\[\left(\mathbf{e}^{((i-1)\leftrightarrow i)}_S\right)^{\otimes v}\]
to party $P_{i-1}$. In addition, $P_i$ will sample $C_i^\mathsf{circle} \gets \mathscr{C}_v$ and send input $C_i^\mathsf{circle}$ to $\mathsf{MPC}$.
\end{itemize}
\paragraph{Offline Round 2.} In the second offline round, the parties perform local operations and then query the classical $\mathsf{MPC}$.
\begin{itemize}
\item \underline{Party $P_1$.} Party $P_1$ prepares the states $\mathbf{0}^{2(k_0 + \lambda n)}$ and $\mathbf{T}^{k_T + \lambda n}$. It generates the $v$ qubit quantum state
\[ C_1^{\mathsf{circle}}
\left(
\left( \mathbf{e}_R^{(1\leftrightarrow 1)} \right)^{\otimes m_1 + \lambda},
\left(\mathbf{e}_R^{(1\leftrightarrow 2)} \right)^{\otimes m_2 + \lambda},\ldots,\left(\mathbf{e}_R^{(1 \leftrightarrow n)} \right)^{\otimes m_n + \lambda},\mathbf{0}^{2(k_0 + \lambda n)},\mathbf{T}^{k_T + \lambda n}\right),\]
and begins the process of teleporting this state to party $P_2$. That is, for each $j \in [v]$, it measures positions $(j,v+j)$ of
\[ \left(C_1^{\mathsf{circle}}\left(\left( \mathbf{e}_R^{(1\leftrightarrow 1)} \right)^{\otimes m_1 + \lambda},
\left(\mathbf{e}_R^{(1\leftrightarrow 2)} \right)^{\otimes m_2 + \lambda},\ldots,\left(\mathbf{e}_R^{(1 \leftrightarrow n)} \right)^{\otimes m_n + \lambda},\mathbf{0}^{2(k_0 + \lambda n)},\mathbf{T}^{k_T + \lambda n}\right),\left(\mathbf{e}^{(1\leftrightarrow 2)}_S\right)^{\otimes v}\right)\]
in the Bell basis. The result of these measurements is two classical $v$-length bitstrings $x_1^{\mathsf{circle}},z_1^{\mathsf{circle}}$.
Finally, it sends input $(x_1^{\mathsf{circle}},z_1^{\mathsf{circle}})$ to $\mathsf{MPC}$.
\item \underline{Party $P_i$ for $i \in \{2,3,\dots,n\}$.} During this round, party $P_i$ will apply its own masking Clifford $C_i^{\mathsf{circle}}$ to a state that has already been masked by parties $P_1,P_2,\dots,P_{i-1}$, and then teleport the resulting state along to $P_{i+1}$. Note that this is all happening \emph{simultaneously}, and party $P_i$ does not ``wait'' until it has received the state from party $P_{i-1}$. Precisely, party $P_i$ applies $C_i^{\mathsf{circle}}$ to the state $\left(\mathbf{e}^{(i-1) \leftrightarrow i}_R\right)^{\otimes v}$, and then for each $j \in [v]$, it measures positions $(j,j+v)$ of
\[ \left(C_i^{\mathsf{circle}}\left(\left(\mathbf{e}^{(i-1) \leftrightarrow i}_R\right)^{\otimes v}\right),\left(\mathbf{e}^{(i\leftrightarrow (i+1))}_S\right)^{\otimes v}\right)\]
in the Bell basis. The result of these measurements is two classical $v$-length bitstrings $x_i^{\mathsf{circle}},z_i^{\mathsf{circle}}$.
Finally, it sends input $(x_i^{\mathsf{circle}},z_i^{\mathsf{circle}})$ to $\mathsf{MPC}$.
\end{itemize}
\paragraph{Parties Receive Inputs.} After the offline rounds, each party $P_i$ receives a $m_i$-qubit input $\mathbf{x}_i$.
\paragraph{Online Round 1.}
\begin{itemize}
\item \underline{Party $P_i$ for $i \in [n]$.} Each party $P_i$ samples a random Clifford $C_i^{\mathsf{inp}} \leftarrow \mathscr{C}_{m_i+\lambda}$ and applies it to their input $\mathbf{x}_i$ along with $\lambda$-many $\mathbf{0}$ qubits. They then teleport this state into registers held by party $P_1$. That is, for each $j \in [m_i + \lambda]$, it measures positions $(j,j+ m_i + \lambda)$ of
\[ \left( C_i^{\mathsf{inp}}\left(\mathbf{x}_i, \mathbf{0}^{\lambda}\right),\left(\mathbf{e}_S^{(1 \leftrightarrow i)}\right)\right)\]
in the Bell basis. The result is two classical $(m_i+\lambda)$-length bitstrings $x_i^{\mathsf{inp}},z_i^{\mathsf{inp}}$.
Each party $P_i$ inputs $(x_i^{\mathsf{inp}},z_i^{\mathsf{inp}},C_i^{\mathsf{inp}})$ to $\mathsf{MPC}$. $P_1$ receives an output $U_\mathsf{test}$ from $\mathsf{MPC}$.
\end{itemize}
\paragraph{Online Round 2.}
\begin{itemize}
\item \underline{Party $P_1$.} Party $P_1$ first computes \[\left(\mathbf{y}^{\gray{N},\gray{Z_\mathsf{inp}},\gray{T_\mathsf{inp}}},\mathbf{y}_Z^{\gray{Z_\mathsf{test}}},\mathbf{y}_{T,1}^{\gray{T_{\mathsf{test},1}}},\dots,\mathbf{y}_{T,n}^{\gray{T_{\mathsf{test},n}}}\right) \coloneqq U_{\mathsf{test}}\left(\left(\mathbf{e}^{(n\leftrightarrow 1)}_R\right)^{\otimes v}\right).\]
For each $i \in \{2,\dots,n\}$, it sends $\mathbf{y}_{T,i}$ to party $P_i$. Then, measure $\mathbf{y}_Z$ in the computational basis to obtain a classical string $r'$ of length $k_0 + \lambda n$, and input $r'$ to $\mathsf{MPC}$.
$P_1$ receives output $(U_{\mathsf{garble}},D_0,\tilde{g}_1,\dots,\tilde{g}_d)$ from $\mathsf{MPC}$.
\item \underline{Party $P_i$ for $i \in [n]$.} Every party receives output $C_i^T$ from $\mathsf{MPC}$.
\end{itemize}
\paragraph{Online Round 3.}
\begin{itemize}
\item \underline{Party $P_1$.} Compute garbled input $\mathbf{y}_\mathsf{inp} = U_{\mathsf{garble}}(\mathbf{y})$ and run the quantum garbled circuit $(D_0,\tilde{g}_1,\dots,\tilde{g}_d)$ on the resulting $(m+n\lambda+k_0+k_T)$-qubit state $\mathbf{y}_\mathsf{inp}$. The result of running the quantum garbled circuit is an $\ell + n\lambda$-state. Party $P_1$ partitions this state into $n$ different encrypted output states $\mathbf{y}_{\mathsf{out},1},\dots,\mathbf{y}_{\mathsf{out},n}$ where each $\mathbf{y}_{\mathsf{out},i}$ is an $(\ell_i + \lambda)$-qubit state. For each $i \in \{2,\dots,n\}$, party $P_1$ sends $\mathbf{y}_{\mathsf{out},i}$ to party $P_i$.
\item \underline{Party $P_i$ for $i \in [n]$.} After the conclusion of Online Round $2$, every party $P_i$ for $i \in \{1,2,\dots,n\}$ has a ``$T$-check Clifford'' $C_i^{T}$ from $\mathsf{MPC}$, as well as a $2\lambda$-qubit state $\mathbf{y}_{T,i}$ from party $P_1$. It computes ${C_i^{T}}^\dagger\left(\mathbf{y}_{T,i}\right)$, and then performs the binary projection that projects the first $\lambda$ qubits onto $\mathbf{T}^{\lambda}$ and the last $\lambda$ qubits onto $\mathbf{0}^{\lambda}$. If this projection fails, party $P_i$ asks the MPC to abort. Otherwise, receive output $C_i^\mathsf{out}$ from $\mathsf{MPC}$.
\end{itemize}
\paragraph{Output Reconstruction.}
\begin{itemize}
\item \underline{Party $P_i$ for $i \in [n]$.} After the conclusion of Online Round 3, each party $P_i$ has obtained an output decryption Clifford $C_i^{\mathsf{out}}$ from the classical $\mathsf{MPC}$, along with an $(\ell_i + \lambda)$-qubit state $\mathbf{y}_{\mathsf{out},i}$. It computes ${C_i^{\mathsf{out}}}^\dagger(\mathbf{y}_{\mathsf{out},i})$ and measures whether the last $\lambda$ trap qubits are all $0$. If not, it outputs $\bot$. Otherwise, its output is the remaining $\ell_i$ qubits.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Security}
\begin{theorem}
Assuming post-quantum maliciously-secure two-message oblivious transfer, there exists five-round maliciously-secure multi-party quantum computation.
\end{theorem}
We split the security proof into two cases based on the set of honest parties ${\cal H} \subset [n]$. In the first case, $P_1$ is corrupted and in the second case, the only honest party is $P_1$.
\subsubsection{Case 1: $P_1$ is corrupted}
\paragraph{Simulator.}
Let ${\cal H} \subset [n]$ be the set of honest parties and $k \neq 1$ be arbitrary such that $k \in {\cal H}$. Let ${\cal M} = [n] \setminus {\cal H}$ be the set of corrupted parties. The simulator will act as party $k$, altering its actions as described below. All actions of parties $i \in {\cal H} \setminus \{k\}$ will be honest except for those explicitly mentioned in the simulation (essentially just switching out their inputs for 0). Also note that the simulator will be implementing the ideal functionality for the classical MPC, so we allow the simulator to intercept the adversary's inputs to $\mathsf{MPC}$ and compute the outputs.
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf Offline Round 1.}
\begin{itemize}
\item Following honest party $k$'s behavior, prepare $v$ EPR pairs \[\left(\mathbf{e}^{((k-1)\leftrightarrow k)}_R,\mathbf{e}^{((k-1)\leftrightarrow k)}_S\right)^{\otimes v}\] and send
\[\mathbf{e}_k \coloneqq \left(\mathbf{e}^{((k-1)\leftrightarrow k)}_S\right)^{\otimes v}\]
to party $P_{k-1}$.
\item Receive state $\mathbf{e}_{k+1}$ of $v$ qubits from $P_{k+1}$.
\item For each $i \in {\cal H}$, receive a state $\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{inp},i}$ of $m_i + \lambda$ qubits from $P_1$.
\item Obtain $\{C_i^\mathsf{circle}\}_{i \in {\cal M}}$ from the adversary's query to $\mathsf{MPC}$, and let $\{C_i^\mathsf{circle}\}_{i \in {\cal H}}$ be the values sampled by honest parties.
\end{itemize}
\item {\bf Offline Round 2.}
\begin{itemize}
\item
Sample $r,s \gets \{0,1\}^{k_0+\lambda n}$, $\{C_i^T \gets \mathscr{C}_{2\lambda}\}_{i \in [n]}$, $M \gets \mathsf{GL}(2(k_0 + \lambda n),{\mathbb F}_2)$, and a permutation $\pi$ on $k_T + \lambda n$ elements. Use these values to compute $U_\mathsf{check}$ as in the computation in Online Round 1 of \proref{fig:classical}.
\item Compute $\left(\mathbf{n}^{\gray{N}},\mathbf{z}^{\gray{Z_\mathsf{inp}}},\mathbf{t}^{\gray{T_\mathsf{inp}}},\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{test}^{\gray{Z_\mathsf{test}}},\mathbf{t}_{\mathsf{test},1}^{\gray{T_{\mathsf{test},1}}},\dots,\mathbf{t}_{\mathsf{test},n}^{\gray{T_{\mathsf{test},n}}}\right) \coloneqq ({\mathbb I} \ \otimes \ U_\mathsf{check}){C_1^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger \cdots {C_{k-1}^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger(\mathbf{e}_k)$, and discard $\mathbf{z}^{\gray{Z_\mathsf{inp}}},\mathbf{t}^{\gray{T_\mathsf{inp}}}$.
\item Sample $U_\mathsf{test} \gets \mathscr{C}_v$ and $U_{\mathsf{garble}} \gets \mathscr{C}_{m + n \lambda + k_0 + k_T}$.
\item Prepare $m + \lambda n + k_0 + k_T$ EPR pairs $\left\{\left(\mathbf{e}^{(i)}_{\mathsf{Sim},1},\mathbf{e}^{(i)}_{\mathsf{Sim},2}\right)\right\}_{i \in [m + \lambda n + k_0 + k_T]}$, and let $$\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},1} \coloneqq \left(\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},1}^{(1)},\dots,\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},1}^{(m + \lambda n + k_0 + k_T)}\right), \mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},2} \coloneqq \left(\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},2}^{(1)},\dots,\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},2}^{(m + \lambda n + k_0 + k_T)}\right).$$
\item Compute $$\mathbf{w} \coloneqq {C_{k+1}^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger(\cdots {C_{n}^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger(U_\mathsf{test}^\dagger(U_{\mathsf{garble}}^\dagger(\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},2}),\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{test},\mathbf{t}_{\mathsf{test},1},\dots,\mathbf{t}_{\mathsf{test},n}))\cdots).$$
\item Teleport $\mathbf{w}$ into $\mathbf{e}_{k+1}$, and let $x_k^\mathsf{circle},z_k^\mathsf{circle}$ be the teleportation errors. Let $\{x_i^\mathsf{circle},z_i^\mathsf{circle}\}_{i \in {\cal H} \setminus \{k\}}$ be the teleportation errors obtained by the other honest parties.
\item Send $\{x_i^\mathsf{circle},z_i^\mathsf{circle}\}_{i \in {\cal H}}$ to the adversary.
\item Receive $\{x_i^\mathsf{circle},z_i^\mathsf{circle}\}_{i \in {\cal M}}$ from the adversary.
\end{itemize}
\item {\bf Online Round 1.}
\begin{itemize}
\item Let $\widehat{x}_1, \widehat{z}_1$ be such that $$({\mathbb I} \ \otimes \ U_\mathsf{check}){C_1^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger X^{x_1^\mathsf{circle}}Z^{z_1^\mathsf{circle}} \cdots {C_{k-1}^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger X^{x_{k-1}^\mathsf{circle}}Z^{z_{k-1}^\mathsf{circle}} = X^{\widehat{x}_1}Z^{\widehat{z}_1}({\mathbb I} \ \otimes \ U_\mathsf{check}){C_1^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger \cdots {C_{k-1}^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger.$$ Write $\widehat{x}_1$ as $\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{inp},1},\dots,\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{inp},n},\widehat{x}_Z,\widehat{x}_T,\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{test},Z},\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{test},T,1},\dots,\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{test},T,n}$, and same for $\widehat{z}_1$. Here, each $\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{inp},i} \in \{0,1\}^{m_i + \lambda}$, $\widehat{x}_Z \in \{0,1\}^{k_0}$, $\widehat{x}_T \in \{0,1\}^{k_T}$, $\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{test},Z} \in \{0,1\}^{k_0 + \lambda n}$, and each $\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{test},T,i} \in \{0,1\}^{2\lambda}$.
\item Let $\widehat{x}_2, \widehat{z}_2$ be such that
$$X^{x_{k}^\mathsf{circle}}Z^{z_{k}^\mathsf{circle}}{C_{k+1}^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger X^{x_{k+1}^\mathsf{circle}}Z^{z_{k+1}^\mathsf{circle}}\dots {C_{n}^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger X^{x_{n}^\mathsf{circle}}Z^{z_{n}^\mathsf{circle}} = X^{\widehat{x}_2}Z^{\widehat{z}_2}{C_{k+1}^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger\dots {C_{n}^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger.$$
\item Let $\widehat{U}_\mathsf{test} \coloneqq U_\mathsf{test} X^{\widehat{x}_2}Z^{\widehat{z}_2}$ and use $\widehat{U}_\mathsf{test}$ in place of $U_\mathsf{test}$.
\item For each $i \in [n]$, let $\widehat{C}_i^T \coloneqq C_i^T X^{\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{test},T,i}}Z^{\widehat{z}_{\mathsf{test},T,i}}$, and use $\widehat{C}_i^T$ in place of $C_i^T$ (in Online Round 2).
\item Let $\widehat{r}:= r \oplus \widehat{x}_{\mathsf{test},z}$ and use $\widehat{r}$ in place of $r$ (in Online Round 3).
\item Sample $C_i^\mathsf{inp} \leftarrow \mathscr{C}_{m_i+\lambda}$.
For $i \in {\cal H}$, teleport $C_i^\mathsf{inp}(\mathbf{0}^{m_i + \lambda})$ into $\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{inp},i}$. Let $x_i^\mathsf{inp},z_i^\mathsf{inp}$ be the teleportation errors.
\item Send $\{C_i^\mathsf{inp},x_i^\mathsf{inp},z_i^\mathsf{inp}\}_{i \in {\cal H}}$ and $\widehat{U}_\mathsf{test}$ to the adversary.
\item Receive $\{C_i^\mathsf{inp},x_i^\mathsf{inp},z_i^\mathsf{inp}\}_{i \in {\cal M}}$ from the adversary.
\end{itemize}
\item {\bf Online Round 2.}
\begin{itemize}
\item Parse $\mathbf{n} \coloneqq (\mathbf{n}_1,\dots,\mathbf{n}_n)$.
For each $i \in [n]$, compute $(\mathbf{x}_i,\mathbf{z}_i) \coloneqq {C_i^\mathsf{inp}}^\dagger X^{x_i^\mathsf{inp}} Z^{z_i^\mathsf{inp}} X^{\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{inp},i}}Z^{\widehat{z}_{\mathsf{inp},i}}(\mathbf{n}_i)$ and measure $\mathbf{z}_i$. If any measurements are not all 0, then set $(\mathbf{y}_1,\dots,\mathbf{y}_n) \coloneqq (\bot,\cdots,\bot)$. Otherwise, query the ideal functionality with $\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i \in {\cal M}}$ and let $\{\mathbf{y}_i\}_{i \in {\cal M}}$ be the output. Set $\mathbf{y}_i \coloneqq \mathbf{0}^{\ell_i}$ for each $i \in {\cal H}$.
\item Sample $\{C_i^\mathsf{out} \gets \mathscr{C}_{\ell_i + \lambda}\}_{i \in [n]}$ and set $$\mathbf{y} \coloneqq (C_1^\mathsf{out}(\mathbf{y}_1,\mathbf{0}^\lambda),\cdots,C_n^\mathsf{out}(\mathbf{y}_n,\mathbf{0}^\lambda)).$$
\item Compute $$(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}^{\gray{N},\gray{Z_\mathsf{inp}},\gray{T_\mathsf{inp}}},D_0,\widetilde{g}_1,\dots,\widetilde{g}_d) \gets \mathsf{QGSim}\left(1^{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}},Q_\mathsf{dist},\mathbf{y}\right).$$
\item Perform Bell measurements between $\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}$ and $\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},1}$ and let $x_\mathsf{Sim},z_\mathsf{Sim}$ be the teleportation errors.
\item Send $\{\widehat{C}_i^T\}_{i \in {\cal M}},X^{x_{\mathsf{Sim}}}Z^{z_{\mathsf{Sim}}}U_{\mathsf{garble}},D_0,\widetilde{g}_1,\dots,\widetilde{g}_d$ to the adversary.
\item Receive $\{\mathbf{y}_{T,i}\}_{i \in {\cal H}}$ from the adversary.
\end{itemize}
\item {\bf Online Round 3.}
\begin{itemize}
\item For each $i \in {\cal H}$, compute $\widehat{C}_i^{T}(\mathbf{y}_{T,i})$, and then perform the binary projection that projects the first $\lambda$ qubits onto $\mathbf{T}^{\lambda}$ and the last $\lambda$ qubits onto $\mathbf{0}^{\lambda}$. If this projection fails, then send abort to the ideal functionality (i.e. send $\{\mathsf{abort}_i\}_{i \in {\cal H}}$ to the ideal functionality, and don't send a final round message to the adversary).
\item Send $\{C_i^\mathsf{out}\}_{i \in {\cal M}}$ to the adversary.
\item Receive $\{\mathbf{y}_{\mathsf{out},i}\}_{i \in {\cal H}}$ from the adversary.
\end{itemize}
\item {\bf Output Reconstruction.}
On behalf of each $i \in {\cal H}$, compute $C_i^\mathsf{out}(\mathbf{y}_{\mathsf{out},i})$ and measure whether the last $\lambda$ trap qubits are all 0. If not, then send $\mathsf{abort}_i$ to the ideal functionality and otherwise send $\mathsf{ok}_i$.
\iffalse{
\begin{itemize}
\item Obtain $(x_j^{\mathsf{circle}},z_j^{\mathsf{circle}})$ for all $j \in [n] \setminus i$ from $\mathsf{cMPC}.\mathsf{Sim}$.
\item Compute the unitary $U_{\mathsf{Dec}}:= C_1^{{\mathsf{circle}}^{\dagger}}X^{x_1^\mathsf{circle}}Z^{z_1^\mathsf{circle}} \ldots C_n^{{\mathsf{circle}}^{\dagger}} X^{x_n^\mathsf{circle}} Z^{z_n^\mathsf{circle}}$.
\item Use $x_i^{\mathsf{circle}}, z_i^{\mathsf{circle}}, C_i^{\mathsf{circle}}$ to recover states $(\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{check},\mathsf{trap}_B,\mathbf{t}_{\mathsf{check}})$ on registers $(\gray{Z_\mathsf{check}},\gray{\mathsf{Trap}_B},\gray{T_\mathsf{check}})$.
\dakshita{Describe how}
Measure each qubit of $\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{check}$ in the standard basis and each qubit of $\mathbf{t}_\mathsf{check}$ in the $T$-basis. If any measurement is non-zero, then abort.
\item Execute the MPC simulator $\mathsf{cMPC}.\mathsf{Sim}$ on behalf of honest parties.
Obtain $(x_i^{\mathsf{inp}},z_i^{\mathsf{inp}})$ for all $i \in M$ from $\mathsf{cMPC}.\mathsf{Sim}$.
\item Use $(x_i^{\mathsf{inp}},z_i^{\mathsf{inp}})$ to decode the state received from teleportation around the circle, as $X^{x_1^{\mathsf{inp}}} Z^{z_1^{\mathsf{inp}}}$.
\item Split T states into subsets and Clifford encode them, throw the rest away.
\item Apply permutation to 0 states, throw first half away.
\item Decode input states, saving the input part for later.
\item Apply QGC simulator to one half of EPR pairs.
\item Re-randomize and teleport the QGC simulated state, the Clifford encoded T states, the second half of the 0 states, and the check qubits of the input states along to the next party.
\end{itemize}
\item Round 4: Output classical part of QGC to ${\mathsf{Adv}}$, receive $r,s_1',\dots,s_n'$ and Clifford-encoded T states from ${\mathsf{Adv}}$, output T state encodings to each party.
\item Round 5: Check honest party T states and $r,s_1',\dots,s_n'$ and if everything passes, output decryption keys.
}\fi
\end{itemize}
\begin{lemma}
Let $\Pi$ be the protocol described in \cref{subsec:5-round-protocol} computing some quantum circuit $Q$. Then $\Pi$ satisfies \cref{def:mpqc} for any ${\mathsf{Adv}}$ corrupting parties $M \subset [n]$ where $1 \in M$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Fix any collection ${\cal D},{\mathsf{Adv}},\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i \in [n]},\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}},\mathbf{aux}_{\cal D}$.
We show the indistinguishability via a sequence of hybrids, where ${\cal H}_0$ is the distribution $\mathsf{REAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{Q}}({\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda,\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i \in [n]},\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$. In each hybrid, we describe the differences from the previous hybrid, and why each is indistinguishable.
\begin{itemize}
\item ${\cal H}_1$: \underline{Re-define $C^{\mathsf{circle}}_k$}. \\ \\
During Offline Round 2,
\begin{itemize}
\item Sample $U_\mathsf{enc},U_\mathsf{check}$ honestly and sample $U_\mathsf{test} \gets \mathscr{C}_v$. Define
$$C_k^\mathsf{circle} \coloneqq {C_{k+1}^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger\dots {C_{n}^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger U_\mathsf{test}^\dagger (U_\mathsf{enc} \otimes {\mathbb I})({\mathbb I} \otimes U_\mathsf{check}){C_{1}^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger\dots {C_{k-1}^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger,$$ and apply $C_k^\mathsf{circle}$ to $\mathbf{e}_k \coloneqq \left(\mathbf{e}^{((k-1)\leftrightarrow k)}_S\right)^{\otimes v}$.
\end{itemize}
During Online Round 1,
\begin{itemize}
\item Let $\widehat{x}_1, \widehat{z}_1$ be such that $$({\mathbb I} \ \otimes \ U_\mathsf{check}){C_1^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger X^{x_1^\mathsf{circle}}Z^{z_1^\mathsf{circle}} \cdots {C_{k-1}^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger X^{x_{k-1}^\mathsf{circle}}Z^{z_{k-1}^\mathsf{circle}} = X^{\widehat{x}_1}Z^{\widehat{z}_1}({\mathbb I} \ \otimes \ U_\mathsf{check}){C_1^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger \cdots {C_{k-1}^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger.$$ Write $\widehat{x}_1$ as $\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{enc}},\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{test},Z},\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{test},T,1},\dots,\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{test},T,n}$, and same for $\widehat{z}_1$. Here, $\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{enc}} \in \{0,1\}^{m + \lambda n + k_0 + k_T}$, $\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{test},Z} \in \{0,1\}^{k_0 + \lambda n}$, and each $\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{test},T,i} \in \{0,1\}^{2\lambda}$.
\item Let $\widehat{x}_2, \widehat{z}_2$ be such that
$$X^{x_{k}^\mathsf{circle}}Z^{z_{k}^\mathsf{circle}}{C_{k+1}^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger X^{x_{k+1}^\mathsf{circle}}Z^{z_{k+1}^\mathsf{circle}}\dots {C_{n}^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger X^{x_{n}^\mathsf{circle}}Z^{z_{n}^\mathsf{circle}} = X^{\widehat{x}_2}Z^{\widehat{z}_2}{C_{k+1}^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger\dots {C_{n}^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger.$$
\item Let $\widehat{U}_\mathsf{test} \coloneqq U_\mathsf{test} X^{\widehat{x}_2}Z^{\widehat{z}_2}$ and use $\widehat{U}_\mathsf{test}$ in place of $U_\mathsf{test}$ (in Online Round 1).
\item Let $\widehat{U}_\mathsf{enc}:= U_\mathsf{enc} X^{\widehat{x}_\mathsf{enc}} Z^{\widehat{z}_\mathsf{enc}}$ and use $\widehat{U}_\mathsf{enc}$ in place of $U_\mathsf{enc}$ (in Online Round 2).
\item For each $i \in [n]$, let $\widehat{C}_i^T \coloneqq C_i^T X^{\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{test},T,i}}Z^{\widehat{z}_{\mathsf{test},T,i}}$, and use $\widehat{C}_i^T$ in place of $C_i^T$ (in Online Round 2).
\item Let $\widehat{r}:= r \oplus \widehat{x}_{\mathsf{test},z}$ and use $\widehat{r}$ in place of $r$ (in Online Round 3).
\end{itemize}
This switch is perfectly indistinguishable from ${\cal H}_0$ due to the fact that in ${\cal H}_0$, $C_k^\mathsf{circle}$ is a uniformly random Clifford, and in ${\cal H}_1$, $U_\mathsf{test}$ is a uniformly random Clifford, and that $U_\mathsf{enc},\{C_i^T\}_{i \in [n]}$ and $r$ are uniformly random.
\item ${\cal H}_2$: \underline{Re-define $U_\mathsf{enc}$}. \\
During Offline Round 2,
\begin{itemize}
\item Sample $U_{\mathsf{garble}} \gets \mathscr{C}_{m+\lambda n + k_0 + k_T}$, compute $(E_0,D_0,\widetilde{g}_1,\dots,\widetilde{g}_d) \gets \mathsf{QGarble}(1^\lambda,Q_\mathsf{dist}[\{C_i^\mathsf{inp},C_i^\mathsf{out}\}_{i \in [n]}])$, and use $U_{\mathsf{garble}}^\dagger E_0$ in place of $U_\mathsf{enc}$. Thus, we now have
$$C_k \coloneqq {C_{k+1}^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger\dots {C_{n}^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger U_\mathsf{test}^\dagger (U_{\mathsf{garble}}^\dagger \otimes {\mathbb I})(E_0 \otimes {\mathbb I})({\mathbb I} \otimes U_\mathsf{check}){C_{1}^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger\dots {C_{k-1}^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger.$$
\end{itemize}
During Online Round 2,
\begin{itemize}
\item Let $\widehat{x}_\mathsf{inp},\widehat{z}_\mathsf{inp}$ be such that $$E_0 X^{\widehat{x}_\mathsf{enc}}Z^{\widehat{z}_\mathsf{enc}}\left(X^{x_1^\mathsf{inp}}Z^{z_1^\mathsf{inp}} \otimes \dots \otimes X^{x_n^\mathsf{inp}}Z^{z_n^\mathsf{inp}} \otimes {\mathbb I}^{\gray{Z_\mathsf{inp}},\gray{T_\mathsf{inp}}}\right) \coloneqq X^{\widehat{x}_\mathsf{inp}}Z^{\widehat{z}_\mathsf{inp}}E_0.$$
\item Let $\widehat{U}_{\mathsf{garble}} \coloneqq X^{\widehat{x}_\mathsf{inp}}Z^{\widehat{z}_\mathsf{inp}}U_{\mathsf{garble}}$, and use $\widehat{U}_{\mathsf{garble}}$ in place of $U_{\mathsf{garble}}$.
\end{itemize}
This switch is perfectly indistinguishable from ${\cal H}_2$ due to the fact that in ${\cal H}_1$, $U_\mathsf{enc}$ is a uniformly random Clifford, and in ${\cal H}_2$, $U_{\mathsf{garble}}$ is a uniformly random Clifford.
\item ${\cal H}_3$: \underline{Introduce new Pauli errors.} \\
During Offline Round 2,
\begin{itemize}
\item Sample $x_{\mathsf{Sim}},z_{\mathsf{Sim}} \gets \{0,1\}^{m + \lambda n + k_0 + k_T}$, and define $$C_k \coloneqq {C_{k+1}^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger\dots {C_{n}^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger U_\mathsf{test}^\dagger (U_{\mathsf{garble}}^\dagger \otimes {\mathbb I})(X^{x_{\mathsf{Sim}}}Z^{z_{\mathsf{Sim}}} \otimes {\mathbb I})(E_0 \otimes {\mathbb I})({\mathbb I} \otimes U_\mathsf{check}){C_{1}^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger\dots {C_{k-1}^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger.$$
\end{itemize}
During Online Round 2,
\begin{itemize}
\item Let $\widehat{U}_{\mathsf{garble}} \coloneqq X^{x_{\mathsf{Sim},}}Z^{z_{\mathsf{Sim}}}X^{\widehat{x}_\mathsf{inp}}Z^{\widehat{z}_\mathsf{inp}}U_{\mathsf{garble}}$.
\end{itemize}
This switch is perfectly indistinguishable since $U_{\mathsf{garble}}$ is a uniformly random Clifford.
\item ${\cal H}_4$: \underline{Introduce new EPR pairs.}
During Offline Round 2, prepare $m + \lambda n + k_0 + k_T$ EPR pairs $\left\{\left(\mathbf{e}^{(i)}_{\mathsf{Sim},1},\mathbf{e}^{(i)}_{\mathsf{Sim},2}\right)\right\}_{i \in [m + \lambda n + k_0 + k_T]}$, and let $$\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},1} \coloneqq \left(\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},1}^{(1)},\dots,\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},1}^{(m + \lambda n + k_0 + k_T)}\right), \mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},2} \coloneqq \left(\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},2}^{(1)},\dots,\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},2}^{(m + \lambda n + k_0 + k_T)}\right).$$
This hybrid will now compute $C_k^\mathsf{circle}$ in three parts, as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item First, compute
$$\left(\mathbf{n}^{\gray{N}},\mathbf{z}^{\gray{Z_\mathsf{inp}}},\mathbf{t}^{\gray{T_\mathsf{inp}}},\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{test}^{\gray{Z_\mathsf{test}}},\mathbf{t}_{\mathsf{test},1}^{\gray{T_{\mathsf{test},1}}},\dots,\mathbf{t}_{\mathsf{test},n}^{\gray{T_{\mathsf{test},n}}}\right) \coloneqq ({\mathbb I} \otimes U_\mathsf{check}){C_{1}^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger\dots {C_{k-1}^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger(\mathbf{e}_{k}).$$
\item Second, compute
$$\left(\mathbf{x}^{\gray{N},\gray{Z_\mathsf{inp}},\gray{T_\mathsf{inp}}}\right) \coloneqq E_0 \left(\mathbf{n},\mathbf{z},\mathbf{t}\right).$$
\item Third, compute
$${C_{k+1}^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger\dots {C_{n}^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger U_\mathsf{test}^\dagger (U_{\mathsf{garble}}^\dagger \otimes {\mathbb I})(\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},2},\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{test},\mathbf{t}_{\mathsf{test},1},\dots,\mathbf{t}_{\mathsf{test},n}).$$ In addition, perform Bell measurements between $\mathbf{x}$ and $\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},1}$ to obtain teleportation errors, which will be defined to be $x_{\mathsf{Sim}},z_{\mathsf{Sim}}$.
\end{itemize}
The second part of the computation (on registers $\gray{N},\gray{Z_\mathsf{inp}},\gray{T_\mathsf{inp}}$) will now be delayed until Online Round 2, since the teleportation errors are not used until the definition of $\widehat{U}_{\mathsf{garble}}$, which is given to the adversary in Online Round 2. Thus, this is identically distributed to ${\cal H}_3$.
\item ${\cal H}_5$: \underline{Move around Pauli errors.} During Online Round 2,
\begin{itemize}
\item Change the computation to
$$\mathbf{x} \coloneqq E_0\left(X^{x_1^\mathsf{inp}}Z^{z_1^\mathsf{inp}} \otimes \dots \otimes X^{x_n^\mathsf{inp}}Z^{z_n^\mathsf{inp}} \otimes {\mathbb I}^{\gray{Z_\mathsf{inp}},\gray{T_\mathsf{inp}}}\right)\left(X^{\widehat{x}_\mathsf{enc}}Z^{\widehat{z}_\mathsf{enc}}\right)(\mathbf{n},\mathbf{z},\mathbf{t}).$$
\item Let $\widehat{U}_{\mathsf{garble}} \coloneqq X^{x_{\mathsf{Sim}}}Z^{z_{\mathsf{Sim}}}U_{\mathsf{garble}}$.
\end{itemize}
This is again identically distributed to ${\cal H}_4$ since $U_{\mathsf{garble}}$ is a uniformly random Clifford.
\item ${\cal H}_6$: \underline{Simulate the quantum garbled circuit}. During Online Round 2, rather than applying $E_0$, do the following.
\begin{itemize}
\item Compute $$(\mathbf{n}_\mathsf{inp},\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{inp},\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{inp}) \coloneqq \left(X^{x_1^\mathsf{inp}}Z^{z_1^\mathsf{inp}} \otimes \dots \otimes X^{x_n^\mathsf{inp}}Z^{z_n^\mathsf{inp}} \otimes {\mathbb I}^{\gray{Z_\mathsf{inp}},\gray{T_\mathsf{inp}}}\right)\left(X^{\widehat{x}_\mathsf{enc}}Z^{\widehat{z}_\mathsf{enc}}\right)(\mathbf{n},\mathbf{z},\mathbf{t}).$$
\item Compute $$\mathbf{y} \coloneqq Q_\mathsf{dist}[\{C_i^\mathsf{inp},C_i^\mathsf{out}\}_{i \in [n]}](\mathbf{n}_\mathsf{inp},\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{inp},\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{inp}).$$
\item Compute $$(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}^{\gray{N},\gray{Z_\mathsf{inp}},\gray{T_\mathsf{inp}}},D_0,\widetilde{g}_1,\dots,\widetilde{g}_d) \gets \mathsf{QGSim}\left(1^{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}},Q_\mathsf{dist},\mathbf{y}\right).$$
\item Perform Bell measurements between $\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}$ and $\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},1}$ as before.
\end{itemize}
This is indistinguishable from ${\cal H}_5$ due to security of the quantum garbled circuit.
\item ${\cal H}_{7}$: \underline{Switch honest party inputs to $\mathbf{0}$}.
\begin{itemize}
\item During Online Round 1, for each $i \in {\cal H}$, teleport $C_i^\mathsf{inp}(\mathbf{0}^{m_i + \lambda})$ to Party 1 rather than $C_i^\mathsf{inp}(\mathbf{x}_i,\mathbf{0}^{\lambda})$.
\item During Online Round 2, instead of directly applying $Q_\mathsf{dist}[\{C_i^\mathsf{inp},C_i^\mathsf{out}\}_{i \in [n]}]$ to $(\mathbf{n}_\mathsf{inp},\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{inp},\mathbf{t}_\mathsf{inp})$, do the following. First apply ${C_1^\mathsf{inp}}^\dagger \otimes \dots \otimes {C_n^\mathsf{inp}}^\dagger$ to $\mathbf{n}$. Then, swap out the honest party input registers for $\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i \in {\cal H}}$, and continue with the computation of $Q_\mathsf{dist}[\{C_i^\mathsf{inp},C_i^\mathsf{out}\}_{i \in [n]}]$.
\end{itemize}
${\cal H}_7$ is statistically indistinguishable from ${\cal H}_6$ due to properties of the Clifford authentication code. In particular, since the code is perfectly hiding, the adversary cannot tell that the inputs where switched to $\mathbf{0}$. Thus the adversary can only distinguish if the output of $Q_\mathsf{dist}[\{C_i^\mathsf{inp},C_i^\mathsf{out}\}_{i \in [n]}]$ differs between ${\cal H}_7$ and ${\cal H}_6$. However, if any Clifford authentication test that happens within $Q_\mathsf{dist}[\{C_i^\mathsf{inp},C_i^\mathsf{out}\}_{i \in [n]}]$ fails, then the output is $(\bot \dots \bot)$. In both ${\cal H}_7$ and ${\cal H}_6$, conditioned on these tests passing, the honest party inputs to $Q_\mathsf{dist}$ are statistically close to $\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i \in {\cal H}}$, due to the authentication property of the Clifford code.
\item ${\cal H}_8$: \underline{Query ideal functionality}. In Online Round 2, rather than computing $Q_\mathsf{dist}[\{C_i^\mathsf{inp},C_i^\mathsf{out}\}_{i \in [n]}]$ on $(\mathbf{n}_\mathsf{inp},\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{inp},\mathbf{t}_\mathsf{inp})$, do the following.
\begin{itemize}
\item Parse $\mathbf{n}_\mathsf{inp} \coloneqq (\mathbf{n}_1,\dots,\mathbf{n}_n)$. For each $i \in [n]$, compute $(\mathbf{x}_i,\mathbf{z}_i) \coloneqq C_i^\mathsf{inp}
(\mathbf{n}_i)$ and measure $\mathbf{z}_i$. If any measurements are not all 0, then set $(\mathbf{y}_1,\dots,\mathbf{y}_n) \coloneqq (\bot,\cdots,\bot)$.
\item Otherwise, query the ideal functionality with $\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i \in {\cal M}}$ and let $\{\mathbf{y}_i\}_{i \in {\cal M}}$ be the output. Set $\mathbf{y}_i \coloneqq \mathbf{0}^{\ell_i}$ for each $i \in {\cal H}$.
\item Sample $\{C_i^\mathsf{out} \gets \mathscr{C}_{\ell_i + \lambda}\}_{i \in [n]}$ and set $$\mathbf{y} \coloneqq (C_1^\mathsf{out}(\mathbf{y}_1,\mathbf{0}^\lambda),\cdots,C_n^\mathsf{out}(\mathbf{y}_n,\mathbf{0}^\lambda)).$$
\item Apply $\mathsf{QGSim}$ to $\mathbf{y}$ as before.
\end{itemize}
In the Output Reconstruction step, do the following.
\begin{itemize}
\item For each $i \in {\cal H}$,
compute $C_i^\mathsf{out}(\mathbf{y}_i^\mathsf{out})$ and measure whether the last $\lambda$ trap qubits are all 0. If not, then send $\mathsf{abort}_i$ to the ideal functionality and otherwise send $\mathsf{ok}_i$.
\end{itemize}
Observe that one difference between ${\cal H}_7$ and ${\cal H}_8$ is that $\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{inp}$ and $\mathbf{t}_\mathsf{inp}$ are not used in the computation of $\mathsf{C+M}$ circuit $Q_\mathsf{dist}$. Instead, the ideal functionality directly computes $Q$ on the inputs. This will result in statistically close outputs if i) the QGC satisfies statistical correctness, ii) $\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{inp}$ is statistically close to $\mathbf{0}^{\otimes k_0}$, and iii) the result of applying the distillation circuit to $\mathbf{t}_\mathsf{inp}$ is statistically close to $\mathbf{T}^{\otimes k_T / \lambda}$. \cref{lemma:Ztest} implies that the second requirement holds conditioned on the adversary submitting the correct $r$ to the classical $\mathsf{MPC}$ in Online Round 1 (and otherwise, all honest parties abort). \cref{lemma:distillation} plus Clifford authentication implies that the third requirement holds conditioned on the honest party $T$-state checks in Online Round 3 all passing (and if any one of them fails, the honest parties abort).
The other difference is that honest party outputs are determined by the ideal functionality's computation. First, the adversary cannot tell that $\{\mathbf{y}_i\}_{i \in {\cal H}}$ are switched to $\mathbf{0}$ within the quantum garbled circuit, by perfect hiding of the Clifford authentication code (using Cliffords $\{C_i^\mathsf{out}\}_{i \in {\cal H}}$). Next, in ${\cal H}_7$, the adversary cannot make an honest party accept a state noticeably far from their real output $\mathbf{y}_i$, by authentication of the Clifford code. Thus, ${\cal H}_7$ is statistically close to ${\cal H}_8$. This completes the proof, as ${\cal H}_8$ is the simulator described above.
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Case 2: $P_1$ is the only honest party}
\paragraph{Simulator.} The simulator will act as party 1 and maintain the classical $\mathsf{MPC}$ oracle. It will compute $\mathsf{MPC}$ honestly throughout, and will compute honest party 1 actions throughout except for what is described below.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Online Round 1.} Rather than Clifford-encoding and teleporting in $P_1$'s input $\mathbf{x}_1$, the simulator will teleport $C_1^\mathsf{inp}(\mathbf{0}^{\ell_1 + \lambda})$.
\item \textbf{Online Round 3.} Rather than evaluating the quantum garbled circuit $(U_{\mathsf{garble}},D_0,\widetilde{g}_1,\dots,\widetilde{g}_d)$ on $\mathbf{y}$, the simulator will run the following computation on $\mathbf{y}$.
\begin{itemize}
\item Compute $(\mathbf{n}_1,\dots,\mathbf{n}_n,\mathbf{z},\mathbf{t}) \coloneqq E_0^\dagger U_{\mathsf{garble}}(\mathbf{y})$, where $(\mathbf{n}_1,\dots,\mathbf{n}_n)$ are the parties' Clifford-encoded inputs.
\item For each $i \in [n]$, compute $(\mathbf{x}_i,\mathbf{z}_i) \coloneqq {C_i^\mathsf{inp}}^\dagger (\mathbf{n}_i)$ and measure $\mathbf{z}_i$. If any measurements are not all 0, then set $(\mathbf{y}_1,\dots,\mathbf{y}_n) \coloneqq (\bot,\cdots,\bot)$. Otherwise, query the ideal functionality with $\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i \in [2,\dots,n]}$ and let $\{\mathbf{y}_i\}_{i \in [2,\dots,n]}$ be the output.
\item For each $i \in [2,\dots,n]$ set $\mathbf{y}_i^\mathsf{out} \coloneqq C_i^\mathsf{out}(\mathbf{y}_i,\mathbf{0}^\lambda)$, set $\mathbf{y}_1^\mathsf{out} \coloneqq C_1^\mathsf{out}(\mathbf{0}^{\ell_1+\lambda})$, and continue as the honest party 1.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\begin{lemma}
Let $\Pi$ be the protocol described in \cref{subsec:5-round-protocol} computing some quantum circuit $Q$. Then $\Pi$ satisfies \cref{def:mpqc} for any ${\mathsf{Adv}}$ corrupting parties $[2,\dots,n]$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We consider a sequence of hybrid distributions, where ${\cal H}_0$ is $\mathsf{REAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{Q}}({\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda,\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i \in [n]},\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$, i.e. the real interaction between ${\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda(\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i \in [2,\dots,n]},\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$ and an honest party $P_1(1^\lambda,\mathbf{x}_1)$. In each hybrid, we describe the differences from the previous hybrids.
\begin{itemize}
\item ${\cal H}_1:$ \underline{Directly compute $Q_\mathsf{dist}[\{C_i^\mathsf{inp},C_i^\mathsf{out}\}]$ in place of garbled circuit evaluation} During Online Round 3, this hybrid computes $(\mathbf{n}_1,\dots,\mathbf{n}_n,\mathbf{z},\mathbf{t}) \coloneqq E_0^\dagger U_{\mathsf{garble}}(\mathbf{y})$ and then applies $Q_\mathsf{dist}[\{C_i^\mathsf{inp},C_i^\mathsf{out}\}]$ to produce outputs $(\mathbf{y}_1^\mathsf{out},\dots,\mathbf{y}_n^\mathsf{out})$. Statistical indistinguishability follows from the statistical correctness of the QGC.
\item ${\cal H}_2:$ \underline{Replace $P_1$'s input with $\mathbf{0}$} During Online Round 1, this hybrid teleports in $C_1^\mathsf{inp}(\mathbf{0}^{m_i + \lambda})$. Then, during Online Round 2, this hybrid inserts $P_1$'s input $\mathbf{x}_1$ before the computation of $Q$. This switch is perfectly indistinguishable due to the perfect hiding of the Clifford code.
\item ${\cal H}_3:$ \underline{Query ideal functionality} During Online Round 3, this hybrid computes $Q_\mathsf{dist}[\{C_i^\mathsf{inp},C_i^\mathsf{out}\}]$ as described in the simulator, by using the ideal functionality to compute $Q$. This switch is statistically indistinguishable as long as i) $\mathbf{z}$ is statistically close to $\mathbf{0}^{\otimes k_0}$ (which follows from \cref{lemma:Ztest}), and ii) the result of applying the distillation circuit to $\mathbf{t}$ to statistically close to $\mathbf{T}^{\otimes k_T / \lambda}$ (which follows from \cref{lemma:distillation}, as $P_1$ checks its own subset of T states). This hybrid is the simulator, completing the proof.
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\section{Multiparty Quantum Computation in Four Rounds}
We can potentially have a result that any post-quantum $k$-round MPC in the CRS/plain model implies a $k+2$-round MPQC protocol in the CRS/plain model.
\dakshita{Can we say something similar about the plain model?}
Since we have post-quantum constant-round coin tossing, this also implies a constant round MPQC protocol with four rounds of online communication.
Basically, the first round is for exchanging quantum inputs, the second and third round are for computing a particular classical functionality, and the fourth round is for distributing the quantum outputs.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Setting.} We have $k$ parties where party 1 is chosen to be the designated party. Each party $i \in [k]$ has an input of $m_i$ qubits, written as $\ket{\psi_{i,1}},\dots,\ket{\psi_{i,m_i}}$. Party 1 will also have some number of ancillary $\ket{0}$ qubits (which function as ``work registers'') as well as ``magic state'' qubits $\ket{T} = T \ket{+}$ qubits to facilitate the computation; for the description of the protocol, these extra qubits will be treated as part of Party 1's input.
The parties wish to jointly compute a quantum circuit $C$, which is assumed to be a ``Clifford + measurement'' circuit which takes standard inputs, ancillary registers, and $\ket{T}$ states.
\item \textbf{Round 1.} Each party $i \in [k]$:
\begin{itemize}
\item Samples $m_i$ uniformly random $n+1$-qubit Cliffords $E_{i,1},\dots,E_{i,m_i} \leftarrow \mathscr{C}_{\lambda+1}$.
\item For each $j \in [m_i]$, computes $E_{i,j}(\ket{\psi_{i,j}} \otimes \ket{0^\lambda})$, and sends this to party 1; party 1 keeps these qubits to themselves.
\item Generates many EPR pairs, and sends half of each pair to party $i-1$ (where party 0 is taken to be party $k$); this step initializes the $\Pi^{\text{Tel-Enc}}$ input encoding protocol.
\end{itemize}
\item Before the second round, each party $i \in [k]$ draws a random ``big'' Clifford $F_i \leftarrow \mathscr{C}$. Party 1 concatenates all of its received states $\bigotimes_{i \in [k],j \in [m_i]} E_{i,j}(\ket{\psi_{i,1}} \otimes \ket{0^\lambda})$ along with $\lambda$ additional trap qubits $\ket{0^\lambda}$ \fermi{do we really need $\lambda$ trap qubits for each qubit that we're encrypting?} and applies $V_1$. Each party $i \in [k] \setminus \{1\}$ performs Bell measurements as in the $\Pi^{\text{Tel-Enc}}$ protocol, and the result is that party 1 holds a Quantum One-Time Pad encoding of
\[F_k \cdots F_1 \left(\left(\bigotimes_{i \in [k],j \in [m_i]} E_{i,j}(\ket{\psi_{i,1}} \otimes \ket{0^\lambda}) \right) \otimes \ket{0^\lambda}\right).\]
\item \textbf{Round 2.} (Round 1 of Classical MPC) The parties send their first round messages for the classical MPC protocol $\mathsf{MPC}(C^{\text{comp}})$, where $C^{\text{comp}}$ is a classical functionality described below.
\item \textbf{Round 3.} (Round 2 of Classical MPC) The parties send their second round messages for $\mathsf{MPC}(C^{\text{comp}})$.
\item \textbf{Round 4.} Party 1 sends the Clifford encoded outputs and magic states to the corresponding parties. Each party $i \in [k] \setminus \{1\}$ will decrypt using their private Clifford keys, and checks that the trap qubits are $0^\lambda$; if not, they abort.
\end{itemize}
The $C^{\text{comp}}$ functionality works as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Input.} For each $i \in [k]$: party $i$'s Bell measurement results $\vec{a}_i,\vec{b}_i \in \{0,1\}^\ell$, and (classical descriptions of) party $i$'s ``big'' Clifford $F_i$ and its ``small'' Clifford $\{E_{i,j}\}_{j \in [m_i]}$ used to encode individual qubits.
\item \textbf{Designated Party Output.} Output the appropriate input encoding matrix to the designated party. This will be stripping off the $F_i$, stripping off the Clifford encodings for each input, applying a random linear transformation to the final $2n$ qubits of each $2n+1$ block (in the case of an ancillary 0 input, the linear transformation will be applied to all $2n+1$ qubits, as done in~\cite{EC:DGJMS20}), applying an $X^{r_i}$ to each of the last $n$ qubits of each block, and re-encoding the concatenation of all remaining $n+1$ qubit blocks. Note that this is a Clifford unitary with a classical description, as it is composed entirely of Clifford operations.
Also output an encryption under $\bigoplus_i r_i$ of the Clifford+measurement circuit gadget described in section 4 (including the garbled circuits). This will be slightly modified so that a random subset of the purported magic states prepared and encoded by the designated party are set aside for each party to check later.
\item \textbf{Non-Designated Party Output.} Output the final Cliffords corresponding to the output qubits and magic states to check to each non-designated party.
\end{itemize}
In the final round, the designated party will send the Clifford encoded outputs and magic states to the corresponding parties, and each will decrypt and check that the trap qubits are 0. Note this strategy does not satisfy unanimous abort, only selective abort, where the adversary can choose a subset of the honest parties to abort while the others may receive the correct output. However, it is guaranteed that if an honest party does not abort, then it recovers the correct output.
Hopefully the view of the designated party after receiving the classical MPC output can be simulated given just the Clifford encoded output qubits. In section 4 there is an outline for simulating the Clifford+measurement circuit gadgets, but we'll also have to handle the input encoding step. Note that instead of responding to the MPC with the correct $r_i$ strings as done in Dulek et al, we are encrypting the MPC's response under the keys $\{r_i\}$, making this non-interactive.
\section{Multi-Party Quantum Computation in Four Rounds}
In this section, we show the existence of a four-round protocol for multi-party quantum computation, assuming the sub-exponential hardness of LWE. The protocol we present satisfies security with abort, and only requires two rounds of online communication (that is, two rounds of communication once the parties receive their inputs). Thus, this implies the existence of a two-round protocol for multi-party quantum computation given some input-independent quantum pre-processing.
We also note that the protocol can be adjusted to give security with \emph{unanimous} abort with three rounds of online communication (while keeping the total number of rounds at four), though we do not provide a formal description of this protocol. Roughly, this follows because if parties receive their inputs one round earlier, they will be able to receive and check the authenticity of their (encrypted) outputs at the end of round three, rather than checking the authenticity of their (unencrypted) outputs at the end of round four.
\subsection{The Protocol}\label{subsec:4-round-protocol}
\paragraph{Ingredients.} Our protocol will make use of the following cryptographic primitives, which are all assumed to be sub-exponentially secure (i.e. there exists $\epsilon$ such that the primitive is $(2^{-\lambda^{\epsilon}})$-secure).
\begin{itemize}
\item Round-optimal quantum-secure multi-party computation for classical reactive functionalities in the CRS model, to be treated as an oracle called $\mathsf{MPC}$ ~(see \cref{subsec:reactivempc}).
\item A garbling scheme for $\mathsf{C+M}$ circuits $(\mathsf{QGarble}, \mathsf{QGEval}, \mathsf{QGSim})$\ifsubmission~(see section 4 of the full version)\else\fi.
\item A quantum multi-key FHE scheme $\mathsf{QMFHE}=(\mathsf{KeyGen},\mathsf{CEnc},\mathsf{Enc},\mathsf{Eval},\mathsf{Rerand},\mathsf{Dec})$ with ciphertext rerandomization and classical encryption of classical messages\ifsubmission~(see section 3.6 of the full version)\else\fi.
\item A quantum-secure classical garbled circuit $(\mathsf{Garble},\mathsf{GEval},\mathsf{GSim})$\ifsubmission~(see section 3.8 of the full version)\else\fi.
\end{itemize}
\paragraph{Notation.} We use the same notation as described in \cref{subsec:5-round-protocol}.
\protocol
{\proref{fig:classical-4}: Classical Functionality for Four-Round Quantum MPC}
{Classical Functionality for Four-Round Quantum MPC.}
{fig:classical-4}
{
\textbf{Public Parameters:} Security parameter $\lambda$, number of parties $n$, $\mathsf{C+M}$ circuit $Q$, and parameters $(m,\ell,k_0,k_T,v,\epsilon)$ defined above. Let ${\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}} = (2nv + 2m)^{c}$ for some $c > 1/\epsilon$.\\
\textbf{Shared Randomness:} Random strings for $0$ state check $r,s \gets \{0,1\}^{k_0 + \lambda n}$, re-randomization matrix $U_{\mathsf{enc}} \gets \mathscr{C}_{m+\lambda n + k_0 + k_T}$, Cliffords for $T$-state checks $\{C_i^{T} \gets \mathscr{C}_{2\lambda}\}_{i \in [n]}$, Cliffords for outputs $\{C_i^{\mathsf{out}} \gets \mathscr{C}_{\ell_i + \lambda}\}_{i \in [n]}$.\\
\textbf{Offline Round 1:} Obtain input $\left(C_i^{\mathsf{circle}},C_i^{\mathsf{inp}}\right)$ from each party $i$.
\textbf{Offline Round 2:} Obtain input $\left(x_i^\mathsf{circle},z_i^\mathsf{circle}\right)$ from each party $i$.
\begin{itemize}
\item Sample a random linear map $M \gets \mathsf{GL}(2(k_0 + \lambda n),{\mathbb F}_2)$, and a random permutation $\pi$ on $k_T + \lambda n$ elements. Let $f_\mathsf{test}[\{C_i^\mathsf{circle}\}_{i \in [n]},r,s,U_\mathsf{enc},\{C_i^T\}_{i \in [n]},M,\pi]$ be the classical circuit that takes as input $\{x_i^\mathsf{circle},z_i^\mathsf{circle}\}_{i \in [n]}$ and outputs $U_\mathsf{test}$, following the computation in Online Round 1 of \proref{fig:classical}.
\item Compute $(\{\mathsf{lab}^\mathsf{test}_{i,b}\}_{i \in [2nv],b \in \{0,1\}},\widetilde{f}_\mathsf{test}) \gets \mathsf{Garble}(1^{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}},f_{\mathsf{test}}[\{C_i^\mathsf{circle}\}_{i \in [n]},r,s,U_\mathsf{enc},\{C_i^T\}_{i \in [n]},M,\pi])$.
\item For each $i \in [2nv], b \in \{0,1\}$, compute $(\mathsf{pk}^\mathsf{test}_{i,b},\mathsf{sk}^\mathsf{test}_{i,b}) \gets \mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Gen}(1^{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}})$ and $\mathsf{ct}^\mathsf{test}_{i,b} \gets \mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{CEnc}(\mathsf{pk}^\mathsf{test}_{i,b},\mathsf{lab}^\mathsf{test}_{i,b})$.
\item Output $\left(\{\mathsf{pk}^\mathsf{test}_{i,b},\mathsf{ct}^\mathsf{test}_{i,b}\}_{i \in [2nv], b \in \{0,1\}}, \widetilde{f}_\mathsf{test}\right)$ to party 1.
\end{itemize}
\textbf{Online Round 1:} Obtain input $\left(x_i^\mathsf{inp},z_i^\mathsf{inp}\right)$ from each party $i$ and additional input $\mathsf{ct}_r$ from party 1.
\begin{itemize}
\item Let $f_\mathsf{QGC}[U_\mathsf{enc},\{C_i^\mathsf{inp},C_i^\mathsf{out}\}_{i \in [n]}]$ be the circuit that takes as input $\{x_i^\mathsf{inp},z_i^\mathsf{inp}\}_{i \in [n]}$ and outputs $(U_\mathsf{garble},D_0,\widetilde{g}_1,\dots,\widetilde{g}_d)$, following the computation in Online Round 2 of \proref{fig:classical}.
\item Compute $(\{\mathsf{lab}^\mathsf{QGC}_{i,b}\}_{i \in [2m],b \in \{0,1\}},\widetilde{f}_\mathsf{QGC}]) \gets \mathsf{Garble}(1^{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}},f_{\mathsf{QGC}}[U_\mathsf{enc},\{C_i^\mathsf{inp},C_i^\mathsf{out}\}_{i \in [n]}])$.
\item For each $i \in [2m], b \in \{0,1\}$, compute $(\mathsf{pk}^\mathsf{QGC}_{i,b},\mathsf{sk}^\mathsf{QGC}_{i,b}) \gets \mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Gen}(1^{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}})$ and $\mathsf{ct}^\mathsf{QGC}_{i,b} \gets \mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{CEnc}(\mathsf{pk}^\mathsf{QGC}_{i,b},\mathsf{lab}^\mathsf{QGC}_{i,b})$.
\item Let $t^\mathsf{circle} \coloneqq (x_1^\mathsf{circle},z_1^\mathsf{circle},\dots,x_n^\mathsf{circle},z_n^\mathsf{circle})$, and let $\mathsf{sk}_\mathsf{test} = \{\mathsf{sk}^\mathsf{test}_{i,t^\mathsf{circle}_i}\}_{i \in [2nv]}$.
\item Output $\left(\{\mathsf{pk}^\mathsf{QGC}_{i,b},\mathsf{ct}^\mathsf{QGC}_{i,b}\}_{i \in [2m], b \in \{0,1\}}, \widetilde{f}_\mathsf{QGC}\right)$ to party 1 and $(C_i^T,\mathsf{sk}_\mathsf{test})$ to party $i$ for each $i \in [n]$.
\end{itemize}
\textbf{Online Round 2:}
\begin{itemize}
\item Let $t^\mathsf{inp} \coloneqq (x_1^\mathsf{inp},z_i^\mathsf{inp},\dots,x_n^\mathsf{inp},z_n^\mathsf{inp})$, and let $\mathsf{sk}_\mathsf{QGC} = \{\mathsf{sk}^\mathsf{QGC}_{i,t^\mathsf{inp}_i}\}_{i \in 2m}$.
\item Decrypt $\mathsf{ct}_r$ with $\mathsf{sk}_\mathsf{test}$ to obtain a value $r'$. If $r' = r$ then output $(C_i^\mathsf{out},\mathsf{sk}_\mathsf{QGC})$ to party $i$ for each $i \in [n]$, and otherwise output $\bot$ to each party.
\end{itemize}
}
\paragraph{Offline Round 1.} The parties send EPR halves to each other exactly as described in Offline Round 1 of the five-round protocol from \cref{sec:five-round}. In addition, each party $i$ samples $C_i^\mathsf{circle} \gets \mathscr{C}_v$ and $C_i^\mathsf{inp} \gets \mathscr{C}_{m_i + \lambda}$ and inputs $(C_i^\mathsf{circle},C_i^\mathsf{inp})$ to the classical $\mathsf{MPC}$.
\paragraph{Offline Round 2.}
\begin{itemize}
\item \underline{Party $P_i$ for $i \in [n]$.} The parties apply $C_i^\mathsf{circle}$ to their registers and teleport the results around the circle, exactly as described in Offline Round 2 of the five-round protocol from \cref{sec:five-round}. This results in teleportation errors $x_i^\mathsf{circle},z_i^\mathsf{circle}$, which party $i$ broadcasts to all parties.
\item \underline{Party $P_1$.} $P_1$ receives output $\left(\left\{\mathsf{pk}^\mathsf{test}_{i,b},\mathsf{ct}^\mathsf{test}_{i,b}\right\}_{i \in [2nv], b \in \{0,1\}}, \widetilde{f}_\mathsf{test}\right)$ from $\mathsf{MPC}$.
\end{itemize}
\paragraph{Parties Receive Inputs.} After the offline rounds, each party $P_i$ receives an $m_i$-qubit input $\mathbf{x}_i$.
\paragraph{Online Round 1.}
\begin{itemize}
\item \underline{Party $P_i$ for $i \in [n]$.} The parties Clifford encode their inputs and teleport the encodings exactly as described in Online Round 1 of the five-round protocol from
\cref{sec:five-round}. This results in teleportation errors $x_i^\mathsf{inp},z_i^\mathsf{inp}$, which party $i$ broadcasts to all parties. Each party $i$ receives output $\left(C_i^T,\mathsf{sk}_\mathsf{test}\right)$ from $\mathsf{MPC}$.
\item \underline{Party $P_1$.} $P_1$ first homomorphically evaluates $\widetilde{f}_\mathsf{test}$ using encryptions of the labels corresponding to the $\left\{x_i^\mathsf{circle},z_i^\mathsf{circle}\right\}_{i \in [n]}$ that were broadcast last round. This results in $\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Enc}(\mathsf{sk}_\mathsf{test},U_\mathsf{test})$, where recall from \proref{fig:classical-4} that $\mathsf{sk}_\mathsf{test}$ is a set of $2nv$ secret keys. Now, $P_1$ homomorphically evaluates $U_\mathsf{test}$ on its registers, exactly as in Online Round 2 of the five-round protocol from \cref{sec:five-round} (except here the computation is performed homormophically under $\mathsf{sk}_\mathsf{test}$). This results in the following encryptions: $$\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Enc}(\mathsf{sk}_\mathsf{test}, \mathbf{y}), \mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Enc}(\mathsf{sk}_\mathsf{test}, r'), \mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Enc}\left(\mathsf{sk}_\mathsf{test}, \mathbf{y}_{T,1}\right),\dots,\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Enc}\left(\mathsf{sk}_\mathsf{test},\mathbf{y}_{T,n}\right).$$
$P_1$ sends $\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Enc}\left(\mathsf{sk}_\mathsf{test}, \mathbf{y}_{T,i}\right)$ to party $P_i$ and inputs $\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Enc}(\mathsf{sk}_\mathsf{test}, r')$ to $\mathsf{MPC}$. Finally, it receives $\left(\left\{\mathsf{pk}^\mathsf{QGC}_{i,b},\mathsf{ct}^\mathsf{QGC}_{i,b}\right\}_{i \in [2m], b \in \{0,1\}}, \widetilde{f}_\mathsf{QGC}\right)$ from $\mathsf{MPC}$.
\end{itemize}
\paragraph{Online Round 2.}
\begin{itemize}
\item \underline{Party $P_i$ for $i \in [n]$.} Each party $P_i$ decrypts the state $\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Enc}\left(\mathsf{sk}_\mathsf{test},\mathbf{y}_{T,i}\right)$ received from $P_1$ using $\mathsf{sk}_\mathsf{test}$ received from $\mathsf{MPC}$. It computes $C_i^{T}\left(\mathbf{y}_{T,i}\right)$, and then performs the binary projective measurement that projects the first $\lambda$ qubits onto $\mathbf{T}^{\lambda}$ and the last $\lambda$ qubits onto $\mathbf{0}^{\lambda}$. If this measurement returns $0$, party $P_i$ sends $\mathsf{abort}$ to $\mathsf{MPC}$. If no parties send $\mathsf{abort}$, then they each receive $\left(C_i^\mathsf{out},\mathsf{sk}_\mathsf{QGC}\right)$ from $\mathsf{MPC}$.
\item \underline{Party $P_1$.} $P_1$ first decrypts $\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Enc}(\mathsf{sk}_\mathsf{test}, \mathbf{y})$ using $\mathsf{sk}_\mathsf{test}$. Then, it homomorphically evaluates $\widetilde{f}_\mathsf{QGC}$ using encryption of the labels corresponding to the $\left\{x_i^\mathsf{inp},z_i^\mathsf{inp}\right\}_{i \in [n]}$ that were broadcast last round. This results in $\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Enc}(\mathsf{sk}_\mathsf{QGC},(U_\mathsf{garble},D_0,\widetilde{g}_1,\dots,\widetilde{g}_d))$, where recall from \proref{fig:classical-4} that $\mathsf{sk}_\mathsf{QGC}$ is a set of $2m$ secret keys. Now, $P_1$ homomorphically evaluates the quantum garbled circuit on $\mathbf{y}$ to obtain encryptions $\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Enc}(\mathsf{sk}_\mathsf{QGC},\mathbf{y}_{\mathsf{out},1}),\dots,\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Enc}(\mathsf{sk}_\mathsf{QGC},\mathbf{y}_{\mathsf{out},n})$. For each $i \in [2,\dots,n]$, apply $\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Rerand}$ to $\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Enc}(\mathsf{sk}_\mathsf{QGC},\mathbf{y}_{\mathsf{out},i})$ and send the resulting ciphertext to $P_i$.
\end{itemize}
\paragraph{Output Reconstruction}
\begin{itemize}
\item \underline{Party $P_i$ for $i \in [n]$.} Each party $P_i$ decrypts their state $\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Enc}(\mathsf{sk}_\mathsf{QGC},\mathbf{y}_{\mathsf{out},i})$ using $\mathsf{sk}_\mathsf{QGC}$. Then, it computes $C_i^{\mathsf{out}}(\mathbf{y}_{\mathsf{out},i})$ and measures whether the last $\lambda$ trap qubits are all $0$. If not, it outputs $\bot$. Otherwise, its output is the remaining $\ell_i$ qubits.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Security}
\begin{theorem}
Assuming post-quantum maliciously-secure two-message oblivious transfer and (levelled) multi-key quantum fully-homomorphic encryption with sub-exponential security, there exists four-round multi-party quantum computation. Both of the above assumptions are known from the sub-exponential hardness of QLWE.
\end{theorem}
We split the security proof into two cases based on the set of honest parties ${\cal H} \subset [n]$. In the first case, $P_1$ is corrupted and in the second case, the only honest party is $P_1$.
\subsubsection{Case 1: $P_1$ is corrupted}
\paragraph{Simulator.}
Let ${\cal H} \subset [n]$ be the set of honest parties and $k \neq 1$ be arbitrary such that $k \in {\cal H}$. The simulator will act as party $k$, altering its actions as described below. All actions of parties $i \in {\cal H} \setminus \{k\}$ will be honest except for those explicitly mentioned in the simulation (essentially just switching out their inputs for 0).
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Offline Round 1.}
\begin{itemize}
\item Following honest party $k$'s behavior, prepare $v$ EPR pairs $\left\{\left(\mathbf{e}^{(i)}_{R},\mathbf{e}^{(i)}_{S}\right)\right\}_{i \in [v]}$, let $$\mathbf{e}_{R} \coloneqq \left(\mathbf{e}_{R}^{(1)},\dots,\mathbf{e}_{R}^{(v)}\right), \mathbf{e}_{S} \coloneqq \left(\mathbf{e}_{S}^{(1)},\dots,\mathbf{e}_{S}^{(v)}\right),$$ and send $\mathbf{e}_S$ to party $k-1$. Receive a state $\mathbf{e}_{k+1}$ of $v$ qubits from $P_{k+1}$
\item For each $i \in {\cal H}$, receive a state $\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{inp},i}$ of $m_i + \lambda$ qubits from $P_1$.
\item Obtain $\{C_i^\mathsf{circle},C_i^\mathsf{inp}\}_{i \in [n] \setminus {\cal H}}$ from the adversary's query to $\mathsf{MPC}$, and let $\{C_i^\mathsf{circle},C_i^\mathsf{inp}\}_{i \in {\cal H}}$ be the values sampled by honest parties.
\end{itemize}
\item \textbf{Offline Round 2.}
\begin{itemize}
\item Sample $r,s \gets \{0,1\}^{k_0+\lambda n}$, $\{C_i^T \gets \mathscr{C}_{2\lambda}\}_{i \in [n]}$, $M \gets \mathsf{GL}(2(k_0 + \lambda n),{\mathbb F}_2)$, and a permutation $\pi$ on $k_T + \lambda n$ elements. Use these values to compute $U_\mathsf{check}$ as in the computation in Online Round 1 of \proref{fig:classical}.
\item Compute $\left(\mathbf{n}^{\gray{N}},\mathbf{z}^{\gray{Z_\mathsf{inp}}},\mathbf{t}^{\gray{T_\mathsf{inp}}},\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{test}^{\gray{Z_\mathsf{test}}},\mathbf{t}_{\mathsf{test},1}^{\gray{T_{\mathsf{test},1}}},\dots,\mathbf{t}_{\mathsf{test},n}^{\gray{T_{\mathsf{test},n}}}\right) \coloneqq ({\mathbb I} \ \otimes \ U_\mathsf{check}){C_1^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger \cdots {C_{k-1}^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger(\mathbf{e}_S)$, and discard $\mathbf{z}^{\gray{Z_\mathsf{inp}}},\mathbf{t}^{\gray{T_\mathsf{inp}}}$.
\item Prepare $\ell + \lambda n$ EPR pairs $\left\{\left(\mathbf{e}^{(i)}_{\mathsf{Sim},1},\mathbf{e}^{(i)}_{\mathsf{Sim},2}\right)\right\}_{i \in [\ell + \lambda n]}$, and let $$\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},1} \coloneqq \left(\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},1}^{(1)},\dots,\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},1}^{(\ell + \lambda n)}\right), \mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},2} \coloneqq \left(\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},2}^{(1)},\dots,\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},2}^{(\ell + \lambda n)}\right).$$
\item Sample $U_\mathsf{test} \gets \mathscr{C}_v$ and $U_{\mathsf{garble}} \gets \mathscr{C}_{m + n \lambda + k_0 + k_T}$.
\item Compute $(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_\mathsf{inp},D_0,\widetilde{g}_1,\dots,\widetilde{g}_d) \gets \mathsf{QGSim}\left(1^{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}},Q_\mathsf{dist},\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},2}\right)$, and let $$\mathbf{w} \coloneqq {C_{k+1}^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger(\cdots {C_{n}^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger(U_\mathsf{test}^\dagger(U_{\mathsf{garble}}^\dagger(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_\mathsf{inp}),\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{test},\mathbf{t}_{\mathsf{test},1},\dots,\mathbf{t}_{\mathsf{test},n}))\cdots).$$
\item Compute $\left(\{\widetilde{\mathsf{lab}^\mathsf{test}_i}\}_{i \in [2nv]},\widetilde{f}_{\mathsf{test}}\right) \gets \mathsf{GSim}\left(1^{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}},1^{2nv},1^{|f_{\mathsf{test}}|},U_{\mathsf{test}}\right)$.
\item For $i \in [2nv], b \in \{0,1\}$, sample $$(\mathsf{pk}_{i,b}^\mathsf{test},\mathsf{sk}_{i,b}^\mathsf{test}) \gets \mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Gen}(1^{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}}), \mathsf{ct}_{i,b}^\mathsf{test} \gets \mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{CEnc}(\mathsf{pk}_{i,b}^\mathsf{test},\widetilde{\mathsf{lab}^\mathsf{test}_i}).$$
\item Teleport $\mathbf{w}$ into $\mathbf{e}_{k+1}$, and let $x_k^\mathsf{circle},z_k^\mathsf{circle}$ be the teleportation errors. Let $\{x_i^\mathsf{circle},z_i^\mathsf{circle}\}_{i \in {\cal H} \setminus \{k\}}$ be the teleportation errors obtained by the other honest parties.
\item Send $\{x_i^\mathsf{circle},z_i^\mathsf{circle}\}_{i \in {\cal H}},\{\mathsf{pk}_{i,b}^\mathsf{test},\mathsf{ct}_{i,b}^\mathsf{test}\}_{i \in [2nv], b \in \{0,1\}},\widetilde{f}_{\mathsf{test}}$ to the adversary.
\item Receive $\{x_i^\mathsf{circle},z_i^\mathsf{circle}\}_{i \in [n] \setminus {\cal H}}$ from the adversary.
\end{itemize}
\item \textbf{Online Round 1.}
\begin{itemize}
\item Let $\widehat{x}_1, \widehat{z}_1$ be such that $$({\mathbb I} \ \otimes \ U_\mathsf{check}){C_1^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger X^{x_1^\mathsf{circle}}Z^{z_1^\mathsf{circle}} \cdots {C_{k-1}^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger X^{x_{k-1}^\mathsf{circle}}Z^{z_{k-1}^\mathsf{circle}} = X^{\widehat{x}_1}Z^{\widehat{z}_1}({\mathbb I} \ \otimes \ U_\mathsf{check}){C_1^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger \cdots {C_{k-1}^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger.$$ Write $\widehat{x}_1$ as $\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{inp},1},\dots,\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{inp},n},\widehat{x}_z,\widehat{x}_t,\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{test}}$, and same for $\widehat{z}_1$. Here, each $\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{inp},i} \in \{0,1\}^{m_i + \lambda}$, $\widehat{x}_z \in \{0,1\}^{k_0}$, $\widehat{x}_t \in \{0,1\}^{k_T}$, and $\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{test}} \in \{0,1\}^{k_0 + 3 \lambda n}$.
\item Let $\widehat{x}_2, \widehat{z}_2$ be such that $$\left({\mathbb I} \otimes X^{\widehat{x}_\mathsf{test}} Z^{\widehat{z}_\mathsf{test}}\right)U_\mathsf{test} X^{x_{n}^\mathsf{circle}}Z^{z_{n}^\mathsf{circle}}C^{\mathsf{circle}}_{n}\cdots X^{x_{k+1}^\mathsf{circle}}Z^{z_{k+1}^\mathsf{circle}}C^{\mathsf{circle}}_{k+1}X^{x_k^\mathsf{circle}}Z^{z_k^\mathsf{circle}} = X^{\widehat{x}_2}Z^{\widehat{z}_2} U_\mathsf{test} C^{\mathsf{circle}}_n\cdots C^{\mathsf{circle}}_{k+1}.$$ Write $\widehat{x}_2$ as $\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{garble}},\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{test},z},\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{test},T,1},\dots,\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{test},T,n}$, and same for $\widehat{z}_2$. Here, $\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{garble}} \in \{0,1\}^{m + \lambda n + k_0 + k_T}$, $\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{test},Z} \in \{0,1\}^{k_0 + \lambda n}$, and each $\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{test},T,i} \in \{0,1\}^{2\lambda}$.
\item Let $\widehat{r} \coloneqq r \oplus \widehat{x}_{\mathsf{test},Z}$.
\item For each $i \in [n]$, let $\widehat{C}_i^T \coloneqq C_i^T X^{\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{test},T,i}}Z^{\widehat{z}_{\mathsf{test},T,i}}$.
\item Compute $(\{\widetilde{\mathsf{lab}^\mathsf{QGC}_i}\}_{i \in [2nv]},\widetilde{f}_{\mathsf{QGC}}) \gets \mathsf{GSim}(1^{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}},1^{2m},1^{|f_{\mathsf{QGC}}|},(U_{\mathsf{garble}}X^{\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{garble}}}Z^{\widehat{z}_{\mathsf{garble}}},D_0,\widetilde{g}_1,\dots,\widetilde{g}_d))$.
\item For $i \in [2m],b \in \{0,1\}$, sample $$(\mathsf{pk}_{i,b}^\mathsf{QGC},\mathsf{sk}_{i,b}^\mathsf{QGC}) \gets \mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Gen}(1^{{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}}}), \mathsf{ct}_{i,b}^\mathsf{QGC} \gets \mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{CEnc}(\mathsf{pk}_{i,b}^\mathsf{QGC},\widetilde{\mathsf{lab}^\mathsf{QGC}_i}).$$
\item For $i \in {\cal H}$, teleport $C_i^\mathsf{inp}(\mathbf{0}^{m_i + \lambda})$ into $\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{inp},i}$. Let $x_i^\mathsf{inp},z_i^\mathsf{inp}$ be the teleportation errors.
\item Send $\{x_i^\mathsf{inp},z_i^\mathsf{inp}\}_{i \in {\cal H}},\{\widehat{C}_i^T\}_{i \in [n] \setminus {\cal H}},\mathsf{sk}_\mathsf{test},\{\mathsf{pk}_{i,b}^\mathsf{QGC},\mathsf{ct}_{i,b}^\mathsf{QGC}\}_{i \in [2m], b \in \{0,1\}},\widetilde{f}_\mathsf{QGC}$ to the adversary (where $\mathsf{sk}_\mathsf{test}$, defined in \proref{fig:classical-4}, is the set of secret keys corresponding to $\{x_i^\mathsf{circle},z_i^\mathsf{circle}\}_{i \in [n]}$).
\item Receive $\mathsf{ct}_Z,\{\mathsf{ct}_{T,i}\}_{i \in {\cal H}}, \{x_i^\mathsf{inp},z_i^\mathsf{inp}\}_{i \in [n] \setminus {\cal H}}$ from the adversary (where $\mathsf{sk}_\mathsf{QGC}$, defined in \proref{fig:classical-4}, is the set of secret keys corresponding to $\{x_i^\mathsf{inp},z_i^\mathsf{inp}\}_{i \in [n]}$).
\end{itemize}
\item \textbf{Online Round 2.}
\begin{itemize}
\item For each $i \in {\cal H}$, decrypt $\mathsf{ct}_{T,i}$ with $\mathsf{sk}_\mathsf{test}$ to obtain $\mathbf{y}_{T,i}$. Compute $\widehat{C}_i^{T}(\mathbf{y}_{T,i})$, and then perform the binary projection that projects the first $\lambda$ qubits onto $\mathbf{T}^{\lambda}$ and the last $\lambda$ qubits onto $\mathbf{0}^{\lambda}$. If this projection fails, then abort (i.e. send $\{\mathsf{abort}_i\}_{i \in {\cal H}}$ to the ideal functionality, and don't send a final round message to the adversary).
\item Decrypt $\mathsf{ct}_Z$ with $\mathsf{sk}_\mathsf{test}$ to obtain $r'$. Check if $r' = \widehat{r}$. If not, then send $\bot$ to the adversary, send $\{\mathsf{abort}_i\}_{i \in {\cal H}}$ to the ideal functionality, and exit. Otherwise, continue.
\item Parse $\mathbf{n} \coloneqq (\mathbf{n}_1,\dots,\mathbf{n}_n)$. For each $i \in [n]$, compute $(\mathbf{x}_i,\mathbf{z}_i) \coloneqq C_i^\mathsf{inp} X^{x_i^\mathsf{inp}} Z^{z_i^\mathsf{inp}} X^{\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{inp},i}} Z^{\widehat{z}_{\mathsf{inp},i}} (\mathbf{n}_i)$ and measure $\mathbf{z}_i$. If any measurements are not all 0, then set $(\mathbf{y}_1,\dots,\mathbf{y}_n) \coloneqq (\bot,\cdots,\bot)$. Otherwise, query the ideal functionality with $\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i \in [n] \setminus \{{\cal H}\}}$ and let $\{\mathbf{y}_i\}_{i \in [n] \setminus \{{\cal H}\}}$ be the output. Set $\mathbf{y}_i \coloneqq \mathbf{0}^{\ell_i}$ for each $i \in {\cal H}$.
\item Sample $\{C_i^\mathsf{out} \gets \mathscr{C}_{\ell_i + \lambda}\}_{i \in [n]}$.
\item Teleport $(C_1^\mathsf{out}(\mathbf{y}_1,\mathbf{0}^\lambda),\cdots,C_n^\mathsf{out}(\mathbf{y}_n,\mathbf{0}^\lambda))$ into $\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},1}$, and let $(x_1^\mathsf{out},z_1^\mathsf{out},\cdots,x_n^\mathsf{out},z_n^\mathsf{out})$ be the teleportation errors. For each $i \in [n]$, let $\widehat{C}_i^\mathsf{out} \coloneqq C_i^\mathsf{out} X^{x_i^\mathsf{out}}Z^{z_i^\mathsf{out}}$.
\item Send $\mathsf{sk}_\mathsf{QGC},\{\widehat{C}_i^\mathsf{out}\}_{i \in [n] \setminus {\cal H}}$ to the adversary.
\end{itemize}
\item \textbf{Output Reconstruction}
\begin{itemize}
\item Receive $\{\mathsf{ct}_{y,i}\}_{i \in {\cal H}}$ from the adversary.
\item For each $i \in {\cal H}$, decrypt $\mathsf{ct}_{y,i}$ using $\mathsf{sk}_\mathsf{QGC}$ to obtain $\mathbf{y}_{\mathsf{out},i}$. Then, compute $\widehat{C}_i^\mathsf{out}(\mathbf{y}_{\mathsf{out},i})$ and measure whether the last $\lambda$ trap qubits are all 0. If not, then send $\mathsf{abort}_i$ to the ideal functionality and otherwise send $\mathsf{ok}_i$.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\paragraph{Notation.} For any adversary $\{{\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$ and inputs $(\mathbf{x}_1,\dots,\mathbf{x}_n,\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}},\mathbf{aux}_{\cal D})$, we partition the distributions $\mathsf{REAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{Q}}({\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda,\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i \in [n]},\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$ and $\mathsf{IDEAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{Q}}(\mathsf{Sim},\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i \in [n]},\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$ by the set of teleportation errors $\{x_i^\mathsf{circle},z_i^\mathsf{circle},x_i^\mathsf{inp},z_i^\mathsf{inp}\}_{i \in [n]}$ broadcast by all parties throughout the protocol. That is, we define the distribution $\mathsf{REAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{Q}}^{\{x_i^\mathsf{circle},z_i^\mathsf{circle},x_i^\mathsf{inp},z_i^\mathsf{inp}\}_{i \in [n]}}({\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda,\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i \in [n]},\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$ to be $\mathsf{REAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{Q}}({\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda,\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i \in [n]},\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$ except that the output of the distribution (which is a state $\mathbf{z}$) is replaced with $\bot$ if the set of teleportation errors broadcast during execution of the protocol were not exactly $\{x_i^\mathsf{circle},z_i^\mathsf{circle},x_i^\mathsf{inp},z_i^\mathsf{inp}\}_{i \in [n]}$. We define the distribution $\mathsf{IDEAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{Q}}^{\{x_i^\mathsf{circle},z_i^\mathsf{circle},x_i^\mathsf{inp},z_i^\mathsf{inp}\}_{i \in [n]}}(\mathsf{Sim},\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i \in [n]},\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$ analogously.
We now prove the following lemma, which is the main part of the proof of security for this case. For notational convenience, we drop the indexing of inputs and teleportation errors by $\lambda$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:distribution-bot-mpc}
For any QPT ${\mathsf{Adv}} = \{{\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$, QPT distinguisher ${\cal D} = \{{\cal D}_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$, inputs $(\mathbf{x}_1,\dots,\mathbf{x}_n,\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}},\mathbf{aux}_{\cal D})$, and teleportation errors $\{x_i^\mathsf{circle},z_i^\mathsf{circle},x_i^\mathsf{inp},z_i^\mathsf{inp}\}_{i \in [n]}$, there exists a negligible function $\mu$ such that
\begin{align*}
&\bigg|\Pr\left[{\cal D}_\lambda\left(\mathbf{aux}_{\cal D},\mathsf{REAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{Q}}^{\{x_i^\mathsf{circle},z_i^\mathsf{circle},x_i^\mathsf{inp},z_i^\mathsf{inp}\}_{i \in [n]}}\left({\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda,\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i \in [n]},\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}}\right)\right) = 1\right]\\ &- \Pr\left[{\cal D}_\lambda\left(\mathbf{aux}_{\cal D},\mathsf{IDEAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{Q}}^{\{x_i^\mathsf{circle},z_i^\mathsf{circle},x_i^\mathsf{inp},z_i^\mathsf{inp}\}_{i \in [n]}}\left(\mathsf{Sim}_\lambda,\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i \in [n]},\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}}\right) \right) = 1 \right] \bigg| \leq \frac{\mu(\lambda)}{2^{2nv+2m}}.
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First note that by the definition of ${\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}}$, a ${\cal D}$ violating the lemma distinguishes with probability at least $\left(\frac{1}{{\rm poly}(\lambda)}\right)2^{-{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}}^{(1/c)})} \geq \frac{1}{2^{{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}}^{\epsilon}}}.$
Now fix any collection ${\cal D},{\mathsf{Adv}},\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i \in [n]},\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}},\mathbf{aux}_{\cal D},\{x_i^\mathsf{circle},z_i^\mathsf{circle},x_i^\mathsf{inp},z_i^\mathsf{inp}\}_{i \in [n]}$. We show the indistinguishability via a sequence of hybrids, where ${\cal H}_0$ is the distribution $\mathsf{REAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{Q}}^{\{x_i^\mathsf{circle},z_i^\mathsf{circle},x_i^\mathsf{inp},z_i^\mathsf{inp}\}_{i \in [n]}}({\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda,\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i \in [n]},\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$. In each hybrid, we describe the differences from the previous hybrid, and why each is indistinguishable.
\begin{itemize}
\item ${\cal H}_1$: \underline{Switch half of QMFHE ciphertexts to encryptions of 0}. Let $t^\mathsf{circle} \coloneqq (x_1^\mathsf{circle},z_1^\mathsf{circle},\dots,x_n^\mathsf{circle},z_n^\mathsf{circle})$ and let $t^\mathsf{inp} \coloneqq (x_1^\mathsf{inp},z_i^\mathsf{inp},\dots,x_n^\mathsf{inp},z_n^\mathsf{inp})$. For each $i \in [2nv]$, compute $$\mathsf{ct}^\mathsf{circle}_{i,1-t^\mathsf{circle}_i} \gets \mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{CEnc}(\mathsf{pk}^\mathsf{circle}_{i,1-t^\mathsf{circle}_i},0),$$ and for each $i \in [2m]$, compute $$\mathsf{ct}^\mathsf{inp}_{i,1-t^\mathsf{inp}_i} \gets \mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{CEnc}(\mathsf{pk}^\mathsf{inp}_{i,1-t^\mathsf{inp}_i}, 0).$$ Note that the corresponding secret keys are not needed to produce the distribution conditioned on the set of teleportation errors being $\{x_i^\mathsf{circle},z_i^\mathsf{circle},x_i^\mathsf{inp},z_i^\mathsf{inp}\}_{i \in [n]}$, so indistinguishability of ${\cal H}_0$ and ${\cal H}_1$ reduces to semantic security of $\mathsf{QMFHE}$.
\item ${\cal H}_2$: \underline{Simulate the two classical garbled circuits}.
\begin{itemize}
\item During Offline Round 2, the classical functionality computes $$U_\mathsf{test} \coloneqq f_{\mathsf{test}}[\{C_i^\mathsf{circle}\}_{i \in [n]},r,U_\mathsf{enc},\{C_i^T\}_{i \in [n]},M,\pi](\{x_i^\mathsf{circle},z_i^\mathsf{circle}\}_{i \in [n]})$$ and then $$\left(\{\widetilde{\mathsf{lab}^\mathsf{test}_i}\}_{i \in [2nv]},\widetilde{f}_{\mathsf{test}}\right) \gets \mathsf{GSim}\left(1^{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}},1^{2nv},1^{|f_{\mathsf{test}}|},U_{\mathsf{test}}\right).$$
\item During Online Round 1, the classical functionality computes $$(U_{\mathsf{garble}},D_0,\widetilde{g}_1,\dots,\widetilde{g}_d) \coloneqq f_\mathsf{QGC}[U_\mathsf{enc},\{C_i^\mathsf{inp},C_i^\mathsf{out}\}_{i \in [n]}](\{x_i^\mathsf{inp},z_i^\mathsf{inp}\}_{i \in [n]})$$ and then $$(\{\widetilde{\mathsf{lab}^\mathsf{QGC}_i}\}_{i \in [2nv]},\widetilde{f}_{\mathsf{QGC}}) \gets \mathsf{GSim}(1^{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}},1^{2m},1^{|f_{\mathsf{QGC}}|},(U_{\mathsf{garble}},D_0,\widetilde{g}_1,\dots,\widetilde{g}_d)).$$
\end{itemize}
Indistinguishability of ${\cal H}_1$ and ${\cal H}_2$ reduces to the security of the garbling scheme.
\item ${\cal H}_3$: \underline{Switch half of QMFHE ciphertexts to encryptions of simulated labels}. For each $i \in [2nv]$, compute $$\mathsf{ct}^\mathsf{circle}_{i,1-t^\mathsf{circle}_i} \gets \mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{CEnc}(\mathsf{pk}^\mathsf{circle}_{i,1-t^\mathsf{circle}_i},\widetilde{\mathsf{lab}^\mathsf{test}_i}),$$ and for each $i \in [2m]$, compute $$\mathsf{ct}^\mathsf{inp}_{i,1-t^\mathsf{inp}_i} \gets \mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{CEnc}(\mathsf{pk}^\mathsf{inp}_{i,1-t^\mathsf{inp}_i}, \widetilde{\mathsf{lab}^\mathsf{QGC}_i}).$$ Indistinguishability of ${\cal H}_2$ and ${\cal H}_3$ reduces to semantic security of $\mathsf{QMFHE}$.
\item ${\cal H}_4$: \underline{Re-define $C^{\mathsf{circle}}_k$}. First, sample $U_\mathsf{test} \gets \mathscr{C}_v$ and then define \begin{align*}C^{\mathsf{circle}}_k \coloneqq &\left(X^{x_n^\mathsf{circle}} Z^{z_n^\mathsf{circle}}C^{\mathsf{circle}}_n\dots X^{x_{k+1}^\mathsf{circle}} Z^{z_{k+1}^\mathsf{circle}} C^{\mathsf{circle}}_{k+1}X^{x^\mathsf{circle}_k}Z^{z^\mathsf{circle}_k}\right)^\dagger U_\mathsf{test}^\dagger (U_\mathsf{enc} \ \otimes \ {\mathbb I})({\mathbb I} \ \otimes \ U_\mathsf{check})\\&\left(X^{x_{k-1}^\mathsf{circle}}Z^{z_{k-1}^\mathsf{circle}}C^{\mathsf{circle}}_{k-1}\dots X^{x_{1}^\mathsf{circle}}Z^{z_{1}^\mathsf{circle}}C^{\mathsf{circle}}_1\right)^\dagger.\end{align*}
Note that when $C^{\mathsf{circle}}_k$ is plugged into $U_\mathsf{dec}$ (see Online Round 1 of \proref{fig:classical}), we have that $$\left(U_{\mathsf{enc}} \otimes {\mathbb I}\right)\left({\mathbb I} \otimes U_{\mathsf{check}}\right)U_{\mathsf{dec}} \coloneqq U_\mathsf{test}.$$ This switch is perfectly indistinguishable given the fact that in ${\cal H}_3$, $C_k^\mathsf{circle}$ is a uniformly random Clifford, and in ${\cal H}_4$, $U_\mathsf{test}$ is a uniformly random Clifford.
\item ${\cal H}_5$: \underline{Re-define $U_\mathsf{enc}$}. First, sample $U_{\mathsf{garble}} \gets \mathscr{C}_{m+\lambda n + k_0 + k_T}$, then compute $(E_0,D_0,\widetilde{g}_1,\dots,\widetilde{g}_d) \gets \mathsf{QGarble}(1^\lambda,Q[\mathsf{dist},\{C_i^\mathsf{inp},C_i^\mathsf{out}\}_{i \in [n]}])$, and set $U_\mathsf{enc} \coloneqq U_{\mathsf{garble}}^\dagger E_0\left(X^{x_1^\mathsf{inp}}Z^{z_1^\mathsf{inp}} \otimes \dots \otimes X^{x_n^\mathsf{inp}}Z^{z_n^\mathsf{inp}} \otimes {\mathbb I}\right)$. Note that (see Online Round 2 of \proref{fig:classical}) $E_0\left(X^{x_1^\mathsf{inp}}Z^{z_1^\mathsf{inp}} \otimes \dots \otimes X^{x_n^\mathsf{inp}}Z^{z_n^\mathsf{inp}} \otimes {\mathbb I}\right)U_\mathsf{enc}^\dagger \coloneqq U_{\mathsf{garble}}$. Moreover, we can now write $C^{\mathsf{circle}}_k$ as \begin{align*}C^{\mathsf{circle}}_k \coloneqq &\left(X^{x^\mathsf{circle}_k}Z^{z^\mathsf{circle}_k}{C^{\mathsf{circle}}_{k+1}}^\dagger X^{x_{k+1}^\mathsf{circle}} Z^{z_{k+1}^\mathsf{circle}} \dots {C^{\mathsf{circle}}_n}^\dagger X^{x_n^\mathsf{circle}} Z^{z_n^\mathsf{circle}} \right) U_\mathsf{test}^\dagger \left(U_{\mathsf{garble}}^\dagger \otimes {\mathbb I} \right)\left(E_0 \otimes {\mathbb I} \right)\\&\left(X^{x_1^\mathsf{inp}}Z^{z_1^\mathsf{inp}} \otimes \dots \otimes X^{x_n^\mathsf{inp}}Z^{z_n^\mathsf{inp}} \otimes {\mathbb I}\right)({\mathbb I} \ \otimes \ U_\mathsf{check})\left({C_1^{\mathsf{circle}}}^\dagger X^{x_{1}^\mathsf{circle}}Z^{z_{1}^\mathsf{circle}} \dots {C_{k-1}^{\mathsf{circle}}}^\dagger X^{x_{k-1}^\mathsf{circle}}Z^{z_{k-1}^\mathsf{circle}} \right).\end{align*} This switch is perfectly indistinguishable given the fact that in ${\cal H}_4$, $U_\mathsf{enc}$ is a uniformly random Clifford and in ${\cal H}_5$, $U_{\mathsf{garble}}$ is a uniformly random Clifford.
\item ${\cal H}_6$: \underline{Simulate the quantum garbled circuit}. Rather than directly apply $C^{\mathsf{circle}}_k$ as described above during Offline Round 2, the simulator will do the following.
\begin{itemize}
\item Apply the first part $$\left(X^{x_1^\mathsf{inp}}Z^{z_1^\mathsf{inp}} \otimes \dots \otimes X^{x_n^\mathsf{inp}}Z^{z_n^\mathsf{inp}} \otimes {\mathbb I}\right)({\mathbb I} \ \otimes \ U_\mathsf{check})\left({C_1^{\mathsf{circle}}}^\dagger X^{x_{1}^\mathsf{circle}}Z^{z_{1}^\mathsf{circle}} \dots {C_{k-1}^{\mathsf{circle}}}^\dagger X^{x_{k-1}^\mathsf{circle}}Z^{z_{k-1}^\mathsf{circle}} \right)$$ to obtain state $\left(\mathbf{x}^{\gray{N},\gray{Z_\mathsf{inp}},\gray{T_\mathsf{inp}}},\mathbf{z}^{\gray{Z_\mathsf{test}},\gray{T_{\mathsf{test},1}},\dots,\gray{T_{\mathsf{test},n}}}\right)$.
\item Compute the circuit $Q_\mathsf{dist}[\{C_i^\mathsf{inp},C_i^\mathsf{out}\}_{i \in [n]}]$ on $\mathbf{x}$ to obtain output $\mathbf{y}$.
\item Compute $(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}^{\gray{N},\gray{Z_\mathsf{inp}},\gray{T_\mathsf{inp}}},D_0,\widetilde{g}_1,\dots,\widetilde{g}_d) \gets \mathsf{QGSim}\left(1^{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}},Q_\mathsf{dist},\mathbf{y}\right)$.
\item Apply the final part $$\left(X^{x^\mathsf{circle}_k}Z^{z^\mathsf{circle}_k}{C_{k+1}^{\mathsf{circle}}}^\dagger X^{x_{k+1}^\mathsf{circle}} Z^{z_{k+1}^\mathsf{circle}} \dots {C_n^{\mathsf{circle}}}^\dagger X^{x_n^\mathsf{circle}} Z^{z_n^\mathsf{circle}} \right) U_\mathsf{test}^\dagger \left(U_{\mathsf{garble}}^\dagger \otimes {\mathbb I} \right)$$ to state $\left(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}},\mathbf{z}\right)$.
\end{itemize}
Note that $(D_0,\widetilde{g}_1,\dots,\widetilde{g}_d)$ are later used to simulate $\widetilde{f}_\mathsf{QGC}$. Indistinguishability of ${\cal H}_5$ and ${\cal H}_6$ follows from the security of the quantum garbled circuit.
\item ${\cal H}_7$: \underline{Move the teleportation errors $\{x_i^\mathsf{circle},z_i^\mathsf{circle}\}_{i \in [n]}$}.
Let $\widehat{x}_1, \widehat{z}_1$ be such that $$({\mathbb I} \ \otimes \ U_\mathsf{check}){C_1^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger X^{x_1^\mathsf{circle}}Z^{z_1^\mathsf{circle}} \cdots {C_{k-1}^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger X^{x_{k-1}^\mathsf{circle}}Z^{z_{k-1}^\mathsf{circle}} = X^{\widehat{x}_1}Z^{\widehat{z}_1}({\mathbb I} \ \otimes \ U_\mathsf{check}){C_1^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger \cdots {C_{k-1}^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger.$$ Write $\widehat{x}_1$ as $\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{inp},1},\dots,\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{inp},n},\widehat{x}_z,\widehat{x}_t,\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{test}}$, and same for $\widehat{z}_1$. Here, each $\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{inp},i} \in \{0,1\}^{m_i + \lambda}$, $\widehat{x}_z \in \{0,1\}^{k_0}$, $\widehat{x}_t \in \{0,1\}^{k_T}$, and $\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{test}} \in \{0,1\}^{k_0 + 3 \lambda n}$.
Let $\widehat{x}_2, \widehat{z}_2$ be such that $$\left({\mathbb I} \otimes X^{\widehat{x}_\mathsf{test}} Z^{\widehat{z}_\mathsf{test}}\right)U_\mathsf{test} X^{x_{n}^\mathsf{circle}}Z^{z_{n}^\mathsf{circle}}C^{\mathsf{circle}}_{n}\cdots X^{x_{k+1}^\mathsf{circle}}Z^{z_{k+1}^\mathsf{circle}}C^{\mathsf{circle}}_{k+1}X^{x_k^\mathsf{circle}}Z^{z_k^\mathsf{circle}} = X^{\widehat{x}_2}Z^{\widehat{z}_2} U_\mathsf{test} C^{\mathsf{circle}}_n\cdots C^{\mathsf{circle}}_{k+1}.$$ Write $\widehat{x}_2$ as $\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{garble}},\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{test},z},\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{test},T,1},\dots,\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{test},T,n}$, and same for $\widehat{z}_2$. Here, $\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{garble}} \in \{0,1\}^{m + \lambda n + k_0 + k_T}$, $\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{test},Z} \in \{0,1\}^{k_0 + \lambda n}$, and each $\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{test},T,i} \in \{0,1\}^{2\lambda}$.
Now, the first part of $C^{\mathsf{circle}}_k$ will be computed as $$\left(X^{x_1^\mathsf{inp}}Z^{z_1^\mathsf{inp}}X^{\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{inp},1}} Z^{\widehat{z}_{\mathsf{inp},1}} \otimes \dots \otimes X^{x_n^\mathsf{inp}}Z^{z_n^\mathsf{inp}}X^{\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{inp},n}} Z^{\widehat{z}_{\mathsf{inp},n}} \otimes X^{\widehat{x}_t}Z^{\widehat{z}_t}\otimes X^{\widehat{x}_z}Z^{\widehat{z}_z} \otimes {\mathbb I}\right)({\mathbb I} \ \otimes \ U_\mathsf{check}){C_1^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger \cdots {C_{k-1}^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger,$$
and the final part of $C_k$ will be computed as $${C_{k+1}^{\mathsf{circle}}}^\dagger \dots {C_n^{\mathsf{circle}}}^\dagger U_\mathsf{test}^\dagger \left(U_{\mathsf{garble}}^\dagger \otimes {\mathbb I} \right).$$
Moreover, define
\begin{itemize}
\item $\widehat{U}_{\mathsf{garble}} \coloneqq U_{\mathsf{garble}}X^{\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{garble}}}Z^{\widehat{z}_{\mathsf{garble}}}$, and use $\widehat{U}_{\mathsf{garble}}$ in place of $U_{\mathsf{garble}}$ when simulating $\widetilde{f}_\mathsf{QGC}$,
\item $\widehat{r} \coloneqq r \oplus \widehat{x}_{\mathsf{test},z}$, and use $\widehat{r}$ in place of $r$ in Online Round 2,
\item for each $i \in [n]$, $\widehat{C}_i^T \coloneqq C_i^T X^{\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{test},T,i}}Z^{\widehat{z}_{\mathsf{test},T,i}}$ and use $\widehat{C}_i^T$ in place of $C_i^T$ in Online Round 1.
\end{itemize}
This switch is perfectly indistinguishable. In particular, $U_{\mathsf{garble}}$ and the $C_i^T$ are uniformly random Cliffords, so adversary will not notice the switch to $\widehat{U}_{\mathsf{garble}}$ and $\widehat{C}_i^T$. Also the $Z$-test positions are randomized with $X^r Z^s$ during computation of $U_{\mathsf{check}}$, where $r$ and $s$ are uniformly random, so adversary will not notice the switch to $\widehat{r}$.
\item ${\cal H}_8$: \underline{Introduce new Pauli errors.} For each $i \in [n]$, sample $x_i^\mathsf{out},z_i^\mathsf{out} \gets \{0,1\}^{\ell_i + \lambda}$. Now, rather than running $\mathsf{QGSim}$ directly on $\mathbf{y}$, run it on $X^{x_1^\mathsf{out}}Z^{z_1^\mathsf{out}}\dots X^{x_n^\mathsf{out}}Z^{z_n^\mathsf{out}}(\mathbf{y})$. Then, for each $i \in [n]$, define $\widehat{C}_i^\mathsf{out} \coloneqq C_i^\mathsf{out} X^{x_i^\mathsf{out}}Z^{z_i^\mathsf{out}}$, and use $\widehat{C}_i^\mathsf{out}$ in place of $C_i^\mathsf{out}$ in Online Round 2.
This switch is perfectly indistinguishable given that $\{C_i^\mathsf{out}\}_{i \in [n]}$ are uniformly random.
\item ${\cal H}_9$: \underline{Introduce new EPR pairs.} Prepare $\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},1},\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},2}$ as described in the simulator. Let $\{x_i^\mathsf{out},z_i^\mathsf{out}\}_{i \in [n]}$ now be the result of teleportation errors obtained across these EPR pairs, as described in the simulator. Now, we can delay the computation of $$\left(X^{x_1^\mathsf{inp}}Z^{z_1^\mathsf{inp}}X^{\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{inp},1}} Z^{\widehat{z}_{\mathsf{inp},1}} \otimes \dots \otimes X^{x_n^\mathsf{inp}}Z^{z_n^\mathsf{inp}}X^{\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{inp},n}} Z^{\widehat{z}_{\mathsf{inp},n}} \otimes X^{\widehat{x}_t}Z^{\widehat{z}_t}\otimes X^{\widehat{x}_z}Z^{\widehat{z}_z} \otimes {\mathbb I}\right)$$ and $Q_\mathsf{dist}[\{C_i^\mathsf{inp},C_i^\mathsf{out}\}_{i \in [n]}]$ on state $(\mathbf{n}^{\gray{N}},\mathbf{z}^{\gray{Z_\mathsf{inp}}},\mathbf{t}^{\gray{T_\mathsf{inp}}})$ to Online Round 2. This distribution is identical to the previous one.
\item ${\cal H}_{10}$: \underline{Switch honest party inputs to $\mathbf{0}$}. For each $i \in {\cal H}$, in Online Round 1, teleport $C_i^\mathsf{inp}(\mathbf{0}^{m_i + \lambda})$ to Party 1, rather than $C_i^\mathsf{inp}(\mathbf{x}_i,\mathbf{0}^{\lambda})$. Now, during Online Round 2, instead of directly applying $Q_\mathsf{dist}[\{C_i^\mathsf{inp},C_i^\mathsf{out}\}_{i \in [n]}]$ to $(\mathbf{n},\mathbf{z},\mathbf{t})$, this hybrid will do the following. First apply ${C_1^\mathsf{inp}}^\dagger \otimes \dots \otimes {C_n^\mathsf{inp}}^\dagger$ to $\mathbf{n}$. Then, swap out the honest party input registers for $\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i \in {\cal H}}$, and continue with the computation of $Q_\mathsf{dist}[\{C_i^\mathsf{inp},C_i^\mathsf{out}\}_{i \in [n]}]$ on $(\mathbf{n},\mathbf{z},\mathbf{t})$. ${\cal H}_9$ is statistically indistinguishable from ${\cal H}_{10}$ due to properties of the Clifford authentication code. In particular, since the code is perfectly hiding, the adversary cannot tell that the inputs where switched to $\mathbf{0}$. Thus the adversary can only distinguish if the output of $Q_\mathsf{dist}[\{C_i^\mathsf{inp},C_i^\mathsf{out}\}_{i \in [n]}]$ differs between ${\cal H}_9$ and ${\cal H}_{10}$. However, if any Clifford authentication test that happens within $Q_\mathsf{dist}[\{C_i^\mathsf{inp},C_i^\mathsf{out}\}_{i \in [n]}]$ fails, then the output is $(\bot \dots \bot)$. In both ${\cal H}_9$ and ${\cal H}_{10}$, conditioned on these tests passing, the honest party inputs to $Q_\mathsf{dist}$ are statistically close to $\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i \in {\cal H}}$, due to the authentication property of the Clifford code.
\item ${\cal H}_{11}$: \underline{Query ideal functionality}. Consider the EPR pairs halves $\mathbf{e}_S$ sent from party $k$ to party $k-1$ in Offline Round 1. In this hybrid, we alter the computation that is performed on $\mathbf{e}_S$ in Offline Round 2 and Online Round 2. First, in Offline Round 2, this hybrid computes $$(\mathbf{n},\mathbf{z},\mathbf{t},\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{test},\mathbf{t}_{\mathsf{test},2},\dots,\mathbf{t}_{\mathsf{test},n}) \coloneqq ({\mathbb I} \ \otimes \ U_\mathsf{check}){C_1^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger \cdots {C_{k-1}^\mathsf{circle}}^\dagger (\mathbf{e}_S).$$ Then, $\mathbf{z}, \mathbf{t}$ are discarded, and $\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{test},\mathbf{t}_{\mathsf{test},2},\dots,\mathbf{t}_{\mathsf{test},n}$ are operated on as in ${\cal H}_{10}$. Then, in Online Round 2, this hybrid does the following.
\begin{itemize}
\item Parse $\mathbf{n} \coloneqq (\mathbf{n}_1,\dots,\mathbf{n}_n)$. For each $i \in [n]$, compute $(\mathbf{x}_i,\mathbf{z}_i) \coloneqq C_i^\mathsf{inp} X_i^\mathsf{inp} Z_i^\mathsf{inp} X^{\widehat{x}_{\mathsf{inp},i}} Z^{\widehat{z}_{\mathsf{inp},i}}(\mathbf{n}_i)$ and measure $\mathbf{z}_i$. If any measurements are not all 0, then set $(\mathbf{y}_1,\dots,\mathbf{y}_n) \coloneqq (\bot,\cdots,\bot)$. Otherwise, query the ideal functionality with $\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i \in [n] \setminus \{{\cal H}\}}$ and let $\{\mathbf{y}_i\}_{i \in [n] \setminus \{{\cal H}\}}$ be the output. Set $\mathbf{y}_i \coloneqq \mathbf{0}^{\ell_i}$ for each $i \in {\cal H}$.
\item Sample $\{C_i^\mathsf{out} \gets \mathscr{C}_{\ell_i + \lambda}\}_{i \in [n]}$.
\item Teleport $(C_1^\mathsf{out}(\mathbf{y}_1,\mathbf{0}^\lambda),\cdots,C_n^\mathsf{out}(\mathbf{y}_n,\mathbf{0}^\lambda))$ into $\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},1}$.
\end{itemize}
We also add the following behavior to Output Reconstruction.
\begin{itemize}
\item For each $i \in {\cal H}$, decrypt $\mathsf{ct}_{y,i}$ using $\mathsf{sk}_\mathsf{QGC}$ to obtain $\mathbf{y}_i^\mathsf{out}$. Then, compute $\widehat{C}_i^\mathsf{out}(\mathbf{y}_i^\mathsf{out})$ and measure whether the last $\lambda$ trap qubits are all 0. If not, then send $\mathsf{abort}_i$ to the ideal functionality and otherwise send $\mathsf{ok}_i$.
\end{itemize}
Observe that one difference between ${\cal H}_{10}$ and ${\cal H}_{11}$ is that $\mathbf{z}$ and $\mathbf{t}$ are not used in the computation of $\mathsf{C+M}$ circuit $Q_\mathsf{dist}$. Instead, the ideal functionality directly computes $Q$ on the inputs. This will result in statistically close outputs if i) the QGC satisfies statistical correctness, ii) $\mathbf{z}$ is statistically close to $\mathbf{0}^{\otimes k_0}$, and iii) the result of applying the distillation circuit to $\mathbf{t}$ is statistically close to $\mathbf{T}^{\otimes k_T / \lambda}$. \cref{lemma:Ztest} implies that the second requirement holds conditioned on the adversary submitting the correct $r$ to the classical $\mathsf{MPC}$ in Online Round 1 (and otherwise, all honest parties abort). \cref{lemma:distillation} plus Clifford authentication implies that the third requirement holds conditioned on the honest party $T$-state checks in Online Round 2 all passing (and if any one of them fails, all honest parties abort).
The other difference is that honest party outputs are determined by the ideal functionality's computation. First, the adversary cannot tell that the honest party outputs are switched to $\mathbf{0}$ within the quantum garbled circuit, by perfect hiding of the Clifford authentication code (using Cliffords $\{C_i^\mathsf{out}\}_{i \in {\cal H}}$). Next, in ${\cal H}_{10}$, the adversary cannot make an honest party accept a state noticeably far from their real output $\mathbf{y}_i$, by authentication of the Clifford code. Thus, ${\cal H}_{11}$ is statistically close to ${\cal H}_{10}$. This completes the proof, as ${\cal H}_{11}$ is the simulator described above.
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
Let $\Pi$ be the protocol described in \cref{subsec:4-round-protocol} computing some quantum circuit $Q$. Then $\Pi$ satisfies \cref{def:mpqc} for any ${\mathsf{Adv}}$ corrupting parties $M \subset [n]$ where $1 \in M$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assume towards contradiction the existence of a QPT ${\cal D} = \{{\cal D}_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$, a QPT ${\mathsf{Adv}} = \{{\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$, and $(\mathbf{x}_1,\dots,\mathbf{x}_n,\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}},\mathbf{aux}_{\cal D})$ such that
\begin{align*}
&\bigg|\Pr\left[{\cal D}_\lambda\left(\mathbf{aux}_{\cal D},\mathsf{REAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{Q}}\left({\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda,\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i \in [n]},\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}}\right)\right) = 1\right]\\ &- \Pr\left[{\cal D}_\lambda\left(\mathbf{aux}_{\cal D},\mathsf{IDEAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{Q}}\left(\mathsf{Sim}_\lambda,\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i \in [n]},\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}}\right)\right) = 1 \right] \bigg| \geq 1/{\rm poly}(\lambda).
\end{align*}
Define \ifsubmission the distribution \else\fi $\mathsf{REAL} \coloneqq \mathsf{REAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{Q}}({\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda,\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i \in [n]},\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$ and \ifsubmission the distribution \else\fi $\mathsf{IDEAL} \coloneqq \mathsf{IDEAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{Q}}(\mathsf{Sim}_\lambda,\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i \in [n]},\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$. Furthermore, let $\mathbf{E}^{\{x_i^\mathsf{circle},z_i^\mathsf{circle},x_i^\mathsf{inp},z_i^\mathsf{inp}\}_{i \in [n]}}_\mathsf{REAL}$ be the event that the parties report teleportation errors $\{x_i^\mathsf{circle},z_i^\mathsf{circle},x_i^\mathsf{inp},z_i^\mathsf{inp}\}_{i \in [n]}$ in $\mathsf{REAL}$ and define $\mathbf{E}^{\{x_i^\mathsf{circle},z_i^\mathsf{circle},x_i^\mathsf{inp},z_i^\mathsf{inp}\}_{i \in [n]}}_\mathsf{IDEAL}$ analogously. Let $\mathbf{E}^{(\mathsf{abort})}_\mathsf{REAL}$ and $\mathbf{E}^{(\mathsf{abort})}_\mathsf{IDEAL}$ be the event that the adversary fails to report some of its teleporation errors, causing the honest parties to abort. The above implies that either there exists some $\{x_i^\mathsf{circle},z_i^\mathsf{circle},x_i^\mathsf{inp},z_i^\mathsf{inp}\}_{i \in [n]}$ such that
\begin{align*}
&\bigg|\Pr\left[{\cal D}_\lambda(\mathbf{aux}_{\cal D},\mathsf{REAL}) = 1 \big| \mathsf{E}_\mathsf{REAL}^{\{x_i^\mathsf{circle},z_i^\mathsf{circle},x_i^\mathsf{inp},z_i^\mathsf{inp}\}_{i \in [n]}}\right]\Pr\left[\mathsf{E}_\mathsf{REAL}^{(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})}\right] \\&- \Pr\left[{\cal D}_\lambda(\mathbf{aux}_{\cal D},\mathsf{IDEAL}) = 1 \big| \mathsf{E}_\mathsf{IDEAL}^{\{x_i^\mathsf{circle},z_i^\mathsf{circle},x_i^\mathsf{inp},z_i^\mathsf{inp}\}_{i \in [n]}} \right]\Pr\left[\mathsf{E}_\mathsf{IDEAL}^{(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})}\right] \bigg| \geq \frac{1}{{\rm poly}(\lambda)(2^{2nv + 2m}+1)}
\end{align*}
or that
\begin{align*}
&\bigg|\Pr\left[{\cal D}_\lambda(\mathbf{aux}_{\cal D},\mathsf{REAL}) = 1 \big| \mathsf{E}_\mathsf{REAL}^{(\mathsf{abort})}\right]\Pr\left[\mathsf{E}_\mathsf{REAL}^{(\mathsf{abort})}\right] \\&- \Pr\left[{\cal D}_\lambda(\mathbf{aux}_{\cal D},\mathsf{IDEAL}) = 1 \big| \mathsf{E}_\mathsf{IDEAL}^{(\mathsf{abort})} \right]\Pr\left[\mathsf{E}_\mathsf{IDEAL}^{(\mathsf{abort})}\right] \bigg| \geq \frac{1}{{\rm poly}(\lambda)(2^{2nv + 2m}+1)}.
\end{align*}
Simulating the distribution conditioned on an abort is trivial, so the second case cannot occur, and the first case immediately contradicts~\cref{lemma:distribution-bot-mpc}, completing the proof.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Case 2: $P_1$ is the only honest party}
\paragraph{Simulator.} The simulator will act as party 1 and maintain the classical $\mathsf{MPC}$ oracle. It will compute $\mathsf{MPC}$ honestly throughout, and will compute honest party 1 actions throughout except for what is described below.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Online Round 1.} Rather than Clifford-encoding and teleporting in $P_1$'s input $\mathbf{x}_1$, the simulator will teleport $C_1^\mathsf{inp}(\mathbf{0}^{\ell_1 + \lambda})$.
\item \textbf{Online Round 2.} Rather than homomorphically evaluating the quantum garbled circuit $(U_{\mathsf{garble}},D_0,\widetilde{g}_1,\dots,\widetilde{g}_d)$ on its encrypted state $\mathbf{y}$, the simulator will run the following computation (homomorphically) on $\mathbf{y}$.
\begin{itemize}
\item Compute $(\mathbf{n}_1,\dots,\mathbf{n}_n,\mathbf{z},\mathbf{t}) \coloneqq E_0^\dagger U_{\mathsf{garble}}(\mathbf{y})$, where $(\mathbf{n}_1,\dots,\mathbf{n}_n)$ are the parties' Clifford-encoded inputs.
\item For each $i \in [n]$, compute $(\mathbf{x}_i,\mathbf{z}_i) \coloneqq {C_i^\mathsf{inp}}^\dagger (\mathbf{n}_i)$ and measure $\mathbf{z}_i$. If any measurements are not all 0, then set $(\mathbf{y}_1,\dots,\mathbf{y}_n) \coloneqq (\bot,\cdots,\bot)$. Otherwise, query the ideal functionality with $\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i \in [2,\dots,n]}$ and let $\{\mathbf{y}_i\}_{i \in [2,\dots,n]}$ be the output.
\item For each $i \in [2,\dots,n]$ set $\mathbf{y}_i^\mathsf{out} \coloneqq C_i^\mathsf{out}(\mathbf{y}_i,\mathbf{0}^\lambda)$, set $\mathbf{y}_1^\mathsf{out} \coloneqq C_1^\mathsf{out}(\mathbf{0}^{\ell_1+\lambda})$, and continue as the honest party 1.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\begin{lemma}
Let $\Pi$ be the protocol described in \cref{subsec:4-round-protocol} computing some quantum circuit $Q$. Then $\Pi$ satisfies \cref{def:mpqc} for any ${\mathsf{Adv}}$ corrupting parties $[2,\dots,n]$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We consider a sequence of hybrid distributions, where ${\cal H}_0$ is $\mathsf{REAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{Q}}({\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda,\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i \in [n]},\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$, i.e. the real interaction between ${\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda(\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i \in [2,\dots,n]},\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$ and an honest party $P_1(1^\lambda,\mathbf{x}_1)$. In each hybrid, we describe the differences from the previous hybrids.
\begin{itemize}
\item ${\cal H}_1:$ \underline{Directly compute $Q_\mathsf{dist}[\{C_i^\mathsf{inp},C_i^\mathsf{out}\}]$ in place of garbled circuit evaluation} During Online Round 2, this hybrid computes $(\mathbf{n}_1,\dots,\mathbf{n}_n,\mathbf{z},\mathbf{t}) \coloneqq E_0^\dagger U_{\mathsf{garble}}(\mathbf{y})$ and then applies $Q_\mathsf{dist}[\{C_i^\mathsf{inp},C_i^\mathsf{out}\}]$ to produce outputs $(\mathbf{y}_1^\mathsf{out},\dots,\mathbf{y}_n^\mathsf{out})$. Statistical indistinguishability follows from the statistical correctness of the QGC, and statistical ciphertext re-randomization of $\mathsf{QMFHE}$.
\item ${\cal H}_2:$ \underline{Replace $P_1$'s input with $\mathbf{0}$} During Online Round 1, this hybrid teleports in $C_1^\mathsf{inp}(\mathbf{0}^{m_i + \lambda})$. Then, during Online Round 2, this hybrid inserts $P_1$'s input $\mathbf{x}_1$ before the computation of $Q$. This switch is perfectly indistinguishable due to the perfect hiding of the Clifford code.
\item ${\cal H}_3:$ \underline{Query ideal functionality} During Online Round 2, this hybrid computes $Q_\mathsf{dist}[\{C_i^\mathsf{inp},C_i^\mathsf{out}\}]$ as described in the simulator, by using the ideal functionality to compute $Q$. This switch is statistically indistinguishable as long as i) $\mathbf{z}$ is statistically close to $\mathbf{0}^{\otimes k_0}$ (which follows from \cref{lemma:Ztest}), and ii) the result of applying the distillation circuit to $\mathbf{t}$ to statistically close to $\mathbf{T}^{\otimes k_T / \lambda}$ (which follows from \cref{lemma:distillation}, as $P_1$ checks its own subset of T state). This hybrid is the simulator, completing the proof.
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\section{A Garbling Scheme for Clifford + Measurement Circuits}
In this section, we formalize and prove the security of a method sketched in \cite[\S2.5]{ARXIV:BrakerskiYuen20} for garbling Clifford plus measurement circuits. Note that this is not the main garbling scheme analyzed in \cite{ARXIV:BrakerskiYuen20}, but it is a scheme that is sketched there informally. We begin by giving the formal definition of a Clifford + measurement circuit, as well as our definition of a garbling scheme for such circuits.
\begin{definition}[Clifford + Measurement ($\mathsf{C+M}$) Circuit]
\label{def: Cliff plus Meas circ}A Clifford + Measurement ($\mathsf{C+M}$) circuit with parameters $\{n_i,k_i\}_{i \in [d]}$ operates on $n_0 \coloneqq n_1 + k_1$ input qubits and applies $d$ alternating layers of Clifford unitary and computational basis measurements, during which a total of $k \coloneqq k_1 + \dots + k_d$ of the input qubits are measured. It is specified by $(F_0,f_1,\dots,f_d)$, where $F_0$ is a Clifford unitary, and each $f_i$ is a classical circuit which takes as input the result of computational basis measurements on the $i$th layer, and outputs a Clifford unitary $F_i$. In layer $i \in [d]$, $k_i$ qubits are measured and $n_i$ qubits are left over. The circuit is evaluated by first applying $F_0$ to the $n_0$ input qubits. Then the following steps are performed for $i = 1,\dots,d$:
\begin{itemize}
\item Measure the remaining $k_i$ qubits in the computational basis, resulting in outcomes $m_i \in \{0,1\}^{k_i}$.
\item Evaluate $f_i(m_i)$ to obtain a classical description of a Clifford $F_i \in \mathscr{C}_{n_i}$.
\item Apply $F_i$ to the first $n_i$ registers.
\end{itemize}
The output of the circuit is the result of applying $F_d$ to the final $n_d$ registers.
\end{definition}
It is well-known (\cite{BravyiKitaev05}) that any polynomial-size quantum circuit can be written as a $\mathsf{C+M}$ circuit with polynomial-size parameters $\{n_i,k_i\}_{i \in [d]}$. The transformation maintains correctness as along as sufficient $\mathbf{T}$ states are appended to the input during evaluation.
\begin{definition}[Garbling Scheme for $\mathsf{C+M}$ Circuits]\label{defn:QGC}
A Garbling Scheme for $\mathsf{C+M}$ Circuits consists of three procedures $(\mathsf{QGarble},\mathsf{QGEval},\mathsf{QGSim})$ with the following syntax.
\begin{itemize}
\item $(E_0,\widetilde{Q}) \gets \mathsf{QGarble}(1^\lambda,Q)$: A \emph{classical} PPT procedure that takes as input the security parameter and a $\mathsf{C+M}$ circuit and outputs a Clifford ``input garbling'' matrix $E_0$ and a quantum garbled circuit $\widetilde{Q}$.
\item $\mathbf{x}_\mathsf{out} \gets \mathsf{QGEval}(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_\mathsf{inp},\widetilde{Q})$: A QPT procedure that takes as input a garbled input $\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_\mathsf{inp}$ and a garbled $\mathsf{C+M}$ circuit $\widetilde{Q}$, and outputs a quantum state $\mathbf{x}_\mathsf{out}$.\
\item $(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_\mathsf{inp},\widetilde{Q}) \gets \mathsf{QGSim}(1^\lambda,\{n_i,k_i\}_{i \in [d]},\mathbf{x}_\mathsf{out})$: A QPT procedure that takes as input the security parameter, parameters for a $\mathsf{C+M}$ circuit, and an output state, and outputs a simulated garbled input and garbled circuit.
\end{itemize}
\paragraph{Correctness.} For any $\mathsf{C+M}$ circuit $Q$ with parameters $\{n_i,k_i\}_{i \in [d]}$, and $n_0$-qubit input state $\mathbf{x}_\mathsf{inp}$ along with (potentially entangled) auxiliary information $\mathbf{z}$,
\begin{align*}
\left\{\left(\mathsf{QGEval}\left(E_0\left(\mathbf{x}_\mathsf{inp},\mathbf{0}^{k\lambda}\right), \widetilde{Q}\right),\mathbf{z}\right) : \left(E_0,\widetilde{Q}\right) \gets \mathsf{QGarble}\left(1^\lambda,Q\right)\right\} \approx_s \left(Q\left(\mathbf{x}_\mathsf{inp}\right),\mathbf{z}\right).
\end{align*}
\paragraph{Security.} For any $\mathsf{C+M}$ circuit $Q$ with parameters $\{n_i,k_i\}_{i \in [d]}$, and $n_0$-qubit input state $\mathbf{x}_\mathsf{inp}$ along with (potentially entangled) auxiliary information $\mathbf{z}$,
\begin{align*}
\left\{\left(E_0\left(\mathbf{x}_\mathsf{inp},\mathbf{0}^{k\lambda}\right), \widetilde{Q},\mathbf{z}\right) : \left(E_0,\widetilde{Q}\right) \gets \mathsf{QGarble}\left(1^\lambda,Q\right)\right\} \approx_c \left(\mathsf{QGSim}\left(1^\lambda,\{n_i,k_i\}_{i \in [d]},Q(\mathbf{x}_\mathsf{inp})\right),\mathbf{z}\right).
\end{align*}
\end{definition}
Before formally describing the concrete garbling scheme for $\mathsf{C} + \mathsf{M}$ circuits, we give a formal definition of a process $\mathsf{LabEnc}$ for sampling a ``label encoding'' unitary given a set of classical garbled circuit labels. For $\lambda$-bit strings $s_0$, $s_1$ and a bit $b$, let $C_b^{s_0,s_1}$ be the Clifford acting on $\lambda+1$ qubits, operating as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item Apply $Z_b$ to the first qubit. Looking ahead, $b$ will be chosen at random so that $Z_b$ will have the effect of a $Z$-twirl, which is equivalent to a measurement in the computational basis.
\item Map $\ket{0, 0^{\lambda}}$ to $\ket{0, s_0}$, and $\ket{1,0^{\lambda}}$ to $\ket{1, s_1}$.
\end{itemize}
\paragraph{$\mathsf{LabEnc}(\overline{\mathsf{lab}})$:} Takes as input $\overline{\mathsf{lab}} = \{\mathsf{lab}_{i,0},\mathsf{lab}_{i,1}\}_{i \in [n]}$, where the $\mathsf{lab}_{i,b}$ are $\lambda$-bit strings. Draws $n$ random bits $b_1,\dots,b_n \gets \{0,1\}$, and outputs $\bigotimes_{i \in [n]}C^{\mathsf{lab}_{0,i}, \mathsf{lab}_{1,i}}_{b_i}$,
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem: labels}
Let $m>n$. For any $m$-qubit state $\ket{\phi}$ and set of labels $\overline{\mathsf{lab}} = \{\mathsf{lab}_{i,0}, \mathsf{lab}_{i,1}\}_{i \in [n]}$, where the $\mathsf{lab}_{i,b}$ are $\lambda$-bit strings, $$L\ket{\phi'}\bra{\phi'}L^{\dagger} = \mathbb{E}_{\mathsf{inp}} \ket{\phi'_{\mathsf{inp}}} \bra{\phi'_{\mathsf{inp}}} \otimes \ket{\mathsf{lab}_{1,\mathsf{inp}_1}, \dots, \mathsf{lab}_{n,\mathsf{inp}_n}}\bra{\mathsf{lab}_{1,\mathsf{inp}_1}, \dots, \mathsf{lab}_{n,\mathsf{inp}_n}} \,,$$
where $L \gets \mathsf{LabEnc}(\overline{\mathsf{lab}})$, $\ket{\phi'}$ is the $(m+n\lambda)$-qubit state consisting of $\ket{\phi}$ and $n\lambda$ ancillary 0 states, $\ket{\phi'_{\mathsf{inp}}}$ is the post-measurement state on the first $m-n$ qubits, conditioned on measuring the last $n$ qubits and obtaining outcome $\mathsf{inp}$, and the expectation is taken over $\mathsf{inp} \in \{0,1\}^n$ distributed according to the result of measuring the last $n$ qubits of $\ket{\phi}$ in the computational basis.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We can write $\ket{\phi'}$ as follows:
$$\ket{\phi'} = \sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n} \alpha_x \ket{\phi_x} \ket{x} \,.$$
for some $\alpha_x \in \mathbb{C}$. Then,
$$ \mathbb{E}_{L \gets \mathsf{LabEnc}(\overline{\mathsf{lab}})} L \ket{\phi'} \bra{\phi'} L^{\dagger} = \mathbb{E}_{z \gets \{0,1\}^n} {\mathbb I} \otimes Z^z\otimes {\mathbb I} \left( \sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n} \alpha_x \ket{\phi_x} \ket{x} \ket{\mathsf{lab}_{x}}\right) \left(\sum_{x' \in \{0,1\}^n} \alpha_{x'} \bra{\phi_{x'}} \bra{x} \bra{\mathsf{lab}_{x'}}\right) {\mathbb I} \otimes Z^z \otimes {\mathbb I} \,,$$
where $\ket{\mathsf{lab}_x} = \ket{\mathsf{lab}_{1,x_1}, \ldots, \mathsf{lab}_{1,x_n}}$.
By a well-known property of the Pauli-Z twirl, the above is equal to:
$$ \sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n} |\alpha_x|^2 \ket{\phi_x}\bra{\phi_x} \otimes \ket{x}\bra{x} \otimes \ket{\mathsf{lab}_{x}}\bra{\mathsf{lab}_{x}} \,,$$
which implies the desired statement.
\end{proof}
Now, we are ready to describe formally the garbling scheme $(\mathsf{QGarble},\mathsf{QGEval},\mathsf{QGSim})$ for $\mathsf{C}+\mathsf{M}$ circuits sketched by \cite{ARXIV:BrakerskiYuen20}. Let $(\mathsf{Garble},\mathsf{GEval},\mathsf{GSim})$ be a classical garbling scheme.
\paragraph{$\mathsf{QGarble}(1^\lambda,Q)$:}
Takes as input a $\mathsf{C+M}$ circuit $Q$ with parameters $\{n_i,k_i\}_{i \in [d]}$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For $i \in [0,\dots,d]$, define $h_i \coloneqq k - \sum_{j=1}^i k_j$, so that $h_0 = k, h_1 = k-k_1, h_2 = k-k_1-k_2$, and so on.
\item For each $i \in [0,\dots,d]$, sample $E_i \gets \mathscr{C}_{n_i + h_i\lambda}$.
\item For each $i \in [d]$, let $f_i$ be the classical circuit (derived from the description of $Q$) that takes as input $k_i$ bits interpreted as the outcomes of computational basis measurements in layer $i$ and outputs a Clifford circuit $F_i \in \mathscr{C}_{n_{i}}$ to be applied on the remaining $n_{i}$ qubits.
\item Let $g_d$ be a classical circuit outputting descriptions of Clifford circuits, defined so that $g_d(x) = f_d(x)E_d^\dagger$. Compute $(\overline{\mathsf{lab}}_d, \widetilde{g}_d) \gets \mathsf{Garble}(1^\lambda,g_d)$.
\item For each $i$ from $d-1$ to 1, sample $L_{i+1} \gets \mathsf{LabEnc}(\overline{\mathsf{lab}}_{i+1})$ and compute $(\overline{\mathsf{lab}}_i,\widetilde{g}_i) \gets \mathsf{Garble}(1^\lambda,g_i)$, where $g_i$ is a classical circuit that outputs descriptions of Clifford circuits, $$g_i(x) = (E_{i+1} \otimes L_{i+1}) (f_i(x) \otimes {\mathbb I}^{h_i\lambda}) E_i^\dagger\,.$$
\item Let $F_0$ be the initial Clifford to be applied to the input qubits, sample $L_1 \gets \mathsf{LabEnc}(\overline{\mathsf{lab}}_1)$ and output $$E_0, \widetilde{Q} = \left((E_1 \otimes L_1)(F_0\otimes{\mathbb I}^{h_0\lambda})E_0^\dagger, \widetilde{g}_1,\dots,\widetilde{g}_d\right).$$
\end{enumerate}
\paragraph{$\mathsf{QGEval}(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_\mathsf{inp},\widetilde{Q})$} Takes as input a garbled input $\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_\mathsf{inp}$ and a garbled $\mathsf{C+M}$ circuit $\widetilde{Q}$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Write $\widetilde{Q} = (D_0,\widetilde{g}_1,\dots,\widetilde{g}_d)$ and set $\mathbf{x}_0 \coloneqq \widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_\mathsf{inp}$. For $i$ from 1 to $d$, compute $D_{i-1}(\mathbf{x}_{i-1})$, measure the last $k_i\lambda$ qubits to obtain a set of labels $\widetilde{\mathsf{lab}}_i$, compute $D_i \gets \mathsf{GEval}(\tilde{g}_i,\widetilde{\mathsf{lab}}_i)$, and set $\mathbf{x}_i$ to be the remaining $n_{i} + h_i \lambda$ qubits of the state.
\item Output $D_d(\mathbf{x}_d)$.
\end{enumerate}
\paragraph{$\mathsf{QGSim}(1^\lambda,\{n_i,k_i\}_{i \in [d]},\mathbf{x}_\mathsf{out})$:} Takes as input parameters for a $\mathsf{C+M}$ circuit and a state $\mathbf{x}_\mathsf{out}$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For each $i \in [0,\dots,d]$, sample $D_i \gets \mathscr{C}_{n_i + h_i\lambda}$, where recall that $h_i \coloneqq k - \sum_{j=1}^i k_j$.
\item Let $\mathbf{x}_d = D_d^\dagger(\mathbf{x}_\mathsf{out})$. For $i$ from $d$ to $1$, compute $\widetilde{\mathsf{lab}}_i,\tilde{g}_i \gets \mathsf{GSim}(1^\lambda,1^{k_i},1^{|g_i|},D_i^\dagger)$ and set $\mathbf{x}_{i-1} \coloneqq D_{i-1}^\dagger(\mathbf{x}_i,\ket{\widetilde{\mathsf{lab}}_i}\bra{\widetilde{\mathsf{lab}}_i})$.
\item Output $\mathbf{x}_0,D_0,\tilde{g}_1,\dots,\tilde{g}_d$.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm: garbling}
The triple $(\mathsf{QGarble}, \mathsf{QGEval}, \mathsf{QGSim})$ defined above satisfies \cref{defn:QGC}.
\end{theorem}
To prove Theorem \ref{thm: garbling}, we need the following additional lemma.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem: clifford}
For any state $\mathbf{x}$ on $n$ qubits and any Clifford $R$ on $n$ qubits. The following two states are identical:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathbb{E}_{C \leftarrow \mathscr{C}_{n}} \left( C (\mathbf{x}), RC^{\dagger} \right)$
\item $\mathbb{E}_{D \leftarrow \mathscr{C}_{n}} \left( D^{\dagger} R (\mathbf{x}), D \right)$
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof is straightforward. Notice first that, because $\mathscr{C}_n$ is a group, we have that
$$ \mathbb{E}_{C \leftarrow \mathscr{C}_{n}} \left( C (\mathbf{x}), RC^{\dagger} \right) = \mathbb{E}_{C \leftarrow \mathscr{C}_{n} \cdot R} \left( C (\mathbf{x}), RC^{\dagger} \right) \,,$$
where we denote by $\mathscr{C}_n \cdot R$ the group $\{C R : C \in \mathscr{C}_n\}$.
We can equivalently rewrite the RHS as
$$\mathbb{E}_{D \leftarrow \mathscr{C}_{n}} \left( DR (\mathbf{x}), R(DR)^{\dagger} \right) \,,$$
which, upon simplification, is equal to
$$\mathbb{E}_{D \leftarrow \mathscr{C}_{n}} \left( DR (\mathbf{x}), D^{\dagger} \right) \,.$$
Finally, using again that $\mathscr{C}_n$ is a group, the latter equals
$$\mathbb{E}_{D \leftarrow \mathscr{C}_{n}} \left( D^{\dagger}R (\mathbf{x}), D \right) \,,$$
as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm: garbling}]
We will show this by induction on the number of measurement layers $d$ in the circuit $Q$ (we use the same notation as above for the components of $Q$).
\paragraph{Base step ($d = 0$):} When $d=0$, the LHS of the equation defining security in \cref{defn:QGC} is:
\begin{equation}
\left\{E_0\left(\mathbf{x}_\mathsf{inp}\right), \widetilde{Q} : \,\left(E_0, \widetilde{Q} = F_0 E_0^{\dagger} \right) \gets \mathsf{QGarble}(Q)\right\}
\end{equation}
By definition of $\mathsf{QGarble}$, the latter is equivalent to:
\begin{equation}
\bigg\{E_0\left(\mathbf{x}_\mathsf{inp} \right), \widetilde{Q}:
\,\,\,\,\,\,\widetilde{Q} = F_0 E_0^{\dagger}, \,\, E_0 \gets \mathscr{C}_{n_0} \bigg\}
\end{equation}
By Lemma \ref{lem: clifford}, the latter is identical to:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: 5}
\bigg\{D_0^{\dagger}F_0 \left(\mathbf{x}_\mathsf{inp} \right), D_0:
\,\,D_0 \gets \mathscr{C}_{n_0} \bigg\} \,.
\end{equation}
\begin{comment}\paragraph{Base step ($d = 1$):} When $d=1$, the LHS of \eqref{eq: qgc 1} is:
\begin{equation}
\left\{E_0\left(\mathbf{x}_\mathsf{inp},\mathbf{0}^{k\lambda}\right), \widetilde{Q} : \,\left(E_0, \widetilde{Q} = \left((E_1 \otimes L_1) F_0 E_0^{\dagger}, \widetilde{g}_1\right)\right) \gets \mathsf{QGarble}(Q)\right\}
\end{equation}
By definition of $\mathsf{QGarble}$, the latter is equivalent to:
\begin{align}
\bigg\{E_0\left(\ket{\psi_{\mathsf{in}}}\ket{0^{k(\lambda-1)}}\right), \widetilde{Q}:
\,\,\,\,\,\,&\widetilde{Q} = \left((E_1 \otimes L_1)F_0 E_0^{\dagger}, \widetilde{g}_1 \right), E_0, E_1 \gets \mathscr{C}_{*}, \nonumber\\
&(\mathsf{lab}_1 = \{\mathsf{lab}_{1,x}\}_{x \in \{0,1\}^{\lambda}}, \widetilde{g}_1) \gets \mathsf{Garble}(g_1), \nonumber\\
&L_1 \gets \mathsf{LabEnc}(\mathsf{lab}_1) \bigg\}
\end{align}
where $\mathscr{C}_*$ is a shorthand for Clifford group on an appropriate number of qubits. For ease of notation, we simply write $\mathsf{lab}_{i,x}$ to denote the encoding label for measurement outcome $x$ at the $i$-th layer. We still assume that the labels $\mathsf{lab}_{i,x}$ have a product structure (like Yao labels) \andrea{Let me know if you think this is unclear.}
By Lemma \ref{lem: clifford}, since $\widetilde{g}_1$ is independent of $E_0$, the latter is identical to:
\begin{align}
\label{eq: 5}
\bigg\{D_0^{\dagger}(E_1 \otimes L_1) F_0 \left(\ket{\psi_{\mathsf{in}}}\ket{0^{k(\lambda-1)}}\right), \widetilde{Q}:
\,\,\,\,\,\,&\widetilde{Q} = \left(D_0, \widetilde{g}_1 \right), D_0, E_1 \gets \mathscr{C}_{*}, \nonumber\\
&(\mathsf{lab}_1 = \{\mathsf{lab}_{1,x}\}_{x \in \{0,1\}^{\lambda}}, \widetilde{g}_1) \gets \mathsf{Garble}(g_1: g_1(x) = f_1(x)E_1^{\dagger}), \nonumber\\
&L_1 \gets \mathsf{LabEnc}(\mathsf{lab}_1) \bigg\}
\end{align}
Next, denote by $\mathsf{Meas}(Q_i\left(\ket{\psi_{\mathsf{in}}}\right))$ the distribution of measurement outcomes obtained by running the circuit $Q$ up until the $i$-th measurement. Let $Q_1^{x}\left(\ket{\psi_{\mathsf{in}}}\right)$ be the post-measurement state upon executing circuit $Q$ up to the $i$-th measurement, conditioned on measurement outcomes $x_1$.
By Lemma \ref{lem: labels}, the distribution \eqref{eq: 5} is identical to:
\begin{align}
\bigg\{D_0^{\dagger}(E_1 \otimes {\mathbb I}) \mathbb{E}_{x_1 \gets \mathsf{Meas}(Q_1\left(\ket{\psi_{\mathsf{in}}}\right))} \left[Q^{x_1}_1 \left(\ket{\psi_{\mathsf{in}}}\right) \otimes \mathsf{lab}_{1,x}\right], \widetilde{Q}:
\,\,\,\,\,\,&\widetilde{Q} = \left(D_0, \widetilde{g}_1 \right), D_0, E_1 \gets \mathscr{C}_{*}, \nonumber\\
&(\mathsf{lab}_1 = \{\mathsf{lab}_{1,x}\}_{x \in \{0,1\}^{\lambda}}, \widetilde{g}_1) \gets \mathsf{Garble}(g_1: g_1(x) = f_1(x)E_1^{\dagger}), \bigg\}
\end{align}
Applying the simulation property of the classical garbling scheme (for each $x$), we deduce that the latter is computationally indistinguishable from:
\begin{align}
\bigg\{D_0^{\dagger} \mathbb{E}_{x_1 \gets \mathsf{Meas}(Q_1\left(\ket{\psi_{\mathsf{in}}}\right))} \left[(E_1 \otimes {\mathbb I})Q^{x_1}_1 \left(\ket{\psi_{\mathsf{in}}}\right) \otimes \mathsf{lab}_{1,x} , D_0, \widetilde{g}^x_1 \right] :
\,\,\,\,\,\,& D_0, E_1 \gets \mathscr{C}_{*}, \nonumber\\
&(\mathsf{lab}_{1,x}, \widetilde{g}^x_1) \gets \mathsf{GSim}( f_1(x)E_1^{\dagger}), \text{ for $x \in \{0,1\}^{\lambda}$,} \bigg\}
\end{align}
We apply Lemma \ref{lem: clifford} (for each $x$) to deduce that the latter is identical to:
\begin{align}
\bigg\{D_0^{\dagger} \mathbb{E}_{x_1 \gets \mathsf{Meas}(Q_1\left(\ket{\psi_{\mathsf{in}}}\right))} \left[(D_{1,x}^{\dagger} \otimes {\mathbb I})f_1(x)Q^{x_1}_1 \left(\ket{\psi_{\mathsf{in}}}\right) \otimes \mathsf{lab}_{1,x} , D_0, \widetilde{g}^x_1 \right] :
\,\,\,\,\,\,& D_0, D^x_1 \gets \mathscr{C}_{*}, \text{ for $x \in \{0,1\}^{\lambda}$,} \nonumber\\
&(\mathsf{lab}_{1,x}, \widetilde{g}^x_1) \gets \mathsf{GSim}( D_{1,x}), \text{ for $x \in \{0,1\}^{\lambda}$,} \bigg\} \\
\end{align}
Notice that the latter is identical to:
\begin{align}
\bigg\{D_0^{\dagger} (D_1^{\dagger}\otimes {\mathbb I}) \mathbb{E}_{x_1 \gets \mathsf{Meas}(Q_1\left(\ket{\psi_{\mathsf{in}}}\right))} \left[f_1(x)Q^{x_1}_1 \left(\ket{\psi_{\mathsf{in}}}\right) \otimes \mathsf{lab}_{1} , D_0, \widetilde{g}_1 \right] :
\,\,\,\,\,\,& D_0, D_1 \gets \mathscr{C}_{*}, \nonumber\\
&(\mathsf{lab}_{1}, \widetilde{g}_1) \gets \mathsf{GSim}( D_1), \bigg\}
\end{align}
i.e. sampling the same $D_1$ and simulated garbling output for all $x$ results in the same distribution.
We can rewrite the latter as follows:
\begin{align}
\bigg\{D_0^{\dagger} (D_1^{\dagger}\otimes {\mathbb I}) \left(Q_1\left(\ket{\psi_{\mathsf{in}}}\right) \otimes \mathsf{lab}_{1} \right) , D_0, \widetilde{g}_1 :
\,\,\,\,\,\,& D_0, D_1 \gets \mathscr{C}_{*}, \nonumber\\
&(\mathsf{lab}_{1}, \widetilde{g}_1) \gets \mathsf{GSim}( D_1), \bigg\}
\end{align}
\end{comment}
\paragraph{Inductive step ($d \Rightarrow d+1$):} Suppose that for some $d$ the following two distributions are identical for any $\mathsf{C} + \mathsf{M}$ circuit $Q$ with $d$ measurements (where we use the same notation as in definition \ref{def: Cliff plus Meas circ} for the components of $Q$), and any input state $\mathbf{x}_\mathsf{inp}$.
\begin{itemize}
\item $$
\left\{E_0\left(\mathbf{x}_\mathsf{inp},\mathbf{0}^{k\lambda}\right), \widetilde{Q} : \,\left(E_0, \widetilde{Q} = \left((E_1 \otimes L_1) (F_0 \otimes {\mathbb I}^{h_0\lambda}) E_0^{\dagger}, \widetilde{g}_1, \ldots, \widetilde{g}_d\right)\right) \gets \mathsf{QGarble}(Q)\right\}
$$
\item \begin{align*}
\bigg\{D_0^{\dagger} \bigg(D_1^{\dagger}\otimes {\mathbb I}\bigg) \bigg(\cdots \Big(D_{d-1}^{\dagger}\otimes {\mathbb I}\Big) \Big((D_d^{\dagger}\otimes {\mathbb I}) \left(Q\left(\mathbf{x}_\mathsf{inp} \right) \otimes \mathsf{lab}_{d} \right) &\otimes \mathsf{lab}_{d-1} \Big) \otimes \cdots \otimes \mathsf{lab}_1 \bigg), D_0, \widetilde{g}_1, \ldots, \widetilde{g}_d: \\
\,\,\,\,\,\,& D_i \gets \mathscr{C}_{n_i + h_i \lambda}, \,i \in \{0,\ldots,d\},\\
&(\mathsf{lab}_{i}, \widetilde{g}_i) \gets \mathsf{GSim}( D_i), \text{ for $i \in [d]$} \bigg\}
\end{align*}
\end{itemize}
Let $Q$ be a $\mathsf{C} + \mathsf{M}$ circuit with $d+1$ measurements, and let $\mathbf{x}_\mathsf{inp}$ be an input to the circuit. Consider the distribution of input encoding + garbled circuit:
$$
\left\{E_0\left(\mathbf{x}_\mathsf{inp},\mathbf{0}^{k\lambda}\right), \widetilde{Q} : \,\left(E_0, \widetilde{Q} = \left((E_1 \otimes L_1) (F_0 \otimes {\mathbb I}^{h_0\lambda}) E_0^{\dagger}, \widetilde{g}_1, \ldots, \widetilde{g}_{d+1}\right)\right) \gets \mathsf{QGarble}(Q)\right\}
$$
Let $Q_d$ be the circuit that runs $Q$ up to (and including) the adaptive Clifford controlled on the $d$-th measurement outcome. For ease of notation, we simply write $\mathsf{lab}_{i,x}$ to denote the encoding label for measurement outcome $x$ at the $i$-th layer. More precisely, $\mathsf{lab}_{i,x} = (\mathsf{lab}_{i,x_1},\ldots,\mathsf{lab}_{i,x_n})$ for an appropriate $n$. Since $\widetilde{g}_{d+1}$ is independent of the random Clifford $E_d$, we can apply the inductive hypothesis to the $d$-measurement circuit $\left(E_{d+1} \otimes L_{d+1} \right) Q_d$ on input $\mathbf{x}_\mathsf{inp}$). We deduce that the above distribution is computationally indistinguishable from:
\begin{align*}
\bigg\{D_0^{\dagger} \bigg(D_1^{\dagger}\otimes {\mathbb I}\bigg) \bigg(\cdots \Big(D_{d}^{\dagger}\otimes {\mathbb I}\Big) \Big( &\left(E_{d+1} \otimes L_{d+1} \right) \left(Q_d\left(\mathbf{x}_\mathsf{inp}\right)\right) \otimes \mathsf{lab}_{d} \Big) \otimes \cdots \otimes \mathsf{lab}_1 \bigg), D_0, \widetilde{g}_1, \ldots, \widetilde{g}_d, \widetilde{g}_{d+1}: \\
\,\,\,\,\,\,& D_i \gets \mathscr{C}_{n_i + h_i \lambda}, \,i\in\{0,\ldots,d\},\, E_{d+1} \gets \mathscr{C}_{n_{d+1}} \\
&(\mathsf{lab}_{i}, \widetilde{g}_i) \gets \mathsf{GSim}( D_i), \text{ for $i \in [d]$}, \\
&\left(\mathsf{lab}_{d+1} = \{\mathsf{lab}_{d+1,x}\}_{x \in \{0,1\}^{\lambda}}, \widetilde{g}_{d+1}\right) \gets \mathsf{Garble}\left(g_{d+1}: g_{d+1}(x) = f_{d+1}(x) E_{d+1}^{\dagger}\right), \\
& L_{d+1} \gets \mathsf{LabEnc}(\mathsf{lab}_{d+1}) \bigg\}
\end{align*}
Let $Q_d^{x}\left(\mathbf{x}_\mathsf{inp} \right)$ be the post-measurement state upon executing circuit $Q$ up to the $d$-th measurement, conditioned on the $d$-th measurement outcome being $x$. By Lemma \ref{lem: labels}, the above distribution is identical to:
\begin{align*}
\bigg\{D_0^{\dagger} \bigg(D_1^{\dagger}\otimes {\mathbb I}\bigg) \bigg(\cdots \Big(D_{d}^{\dagger}\otimes {\mathbb I}\Big) \Big( &\mathbb{E}_{x \gets \mathsf{Meas}(Q_d\left(\mathbf{x}_\mathsf{inp}\right))} \left[(E_{d+1} \otimes {\mathbb I}) \left(Q_d^{x} \left(\mathbf{x}_\mathsf{inp} \right) \otimes \mathsf{lab}_{d+1,x}\right)\right] \otimes \mathsf{lab}_{d} \Big) \otimes \cdots \otimes \mathsf{lab}_1 \bigg), \\
&D_0, \widetilde{g}_1, .., \widetilde{g}_{d+1}: \\
\,\,\,\,\,\,& D_i \gets \mathscr{C}_{n_i + h_i \lambda}, \,i\in\{0,\ldots,d\},\, E_{d+1} \gets \mathscr{C}_{n_{d+1}}, \\
&(\mathsf{lab}_{i}, \widetilde{g}_i) \gets \mathsf{GSim}( D_i), \text{ for $i \in [d]$}, \\
&\left(\mathsf{lab}_{d+1} = \{\mathsf{lab}_{d+1,x}\}_{x \in \{0,1\}^{\lambda}}, \widetilde{g}_{d+1}\right) \gets \mathsf{Garble}\left(g_{d+1}: g_{d+1}(x) = f_{d+1}(x) E_{d+1}^{\dagger}\right) \bigg\}
\end{align*}
We apply the simulation property of the classical garbling scheme (for each $x$), and deduce that the latter is computationally indistinguishable from:
\begin{align*}
\bigg\{\mathbb{E}_{x \gets \mathsf{Meas}(Q_d\left(\mathbf{x}_\mathsf{inp}\right))} \bigg[\bigg\{D_0^{\dagger} \bigg(D_1^{\dagger}\otimes {\mathbb I}\bigg) \bigg(\cdot \cdot\Big(D_{d}^{\dagger}\otimes {\mathbb I}\Big) \Big( &(E_{d+1} \otimes {\mathbb I}) \left(Q_d^{x} \left(\mathbf{x}_\mathsf{inp}\right) \otimes \mathsf{lab}_{d+1,x}\right) \otimes \mathsf{lab}_{d} \Big) \otimes \cdot \cdot \otimes \mathsf{lab}_1 \bigg), \\
&D_0, \widetilde{g}_1,\ldots, \widetilde{g}_{d},\widetilde{g}_{d+1,x} \bigg]: \\
\,\,\,\,\,\,& D_i \gets \mathscr{C}_{n_i + h_i \lambda}, \,i\in\{0,\ldots,d\},\, E_{d+1} \gets \mathscr{C}_{n_{d+1}}, \\
&(\mathsf{lab}_{i}, \widetilde{g}_i) \gets \mathsf{GSim}( D_i), \text{ for $i \in [d]$}, \\
&\left(\mathsf{lab}_{d+1,x}, \widetilde{g}_{d+1,x}\right) \gets \mathsf{GSim}\left(f_{d+1}(x) E_{d+1}^{\dagger}\right), \text{ for $x \in \{0,1\}^{\lambda}$} \bigg\}
\end{align*}
We apply Lemma \ref{lem: clifford} (for each $x$) to deduce that the latter is identical to:
\begin{align*}
\bigg\{\mathbb{E}_{x \gets \mathsf{Meas}(Q_d\left(\mathbf{x}_\mathsf{inp}\right))} \bigg[D_0^{\dagger} \bigg(D_1^{\dagger}\otimes {\mathbb I}\bigg) \bigg(\cdot \cdot\Big(D_{d}^{\dagger}\otimes {\mathbb I}\Big) \Big( &(D_{d+1,x}^{\dagger} \otimes {\mathbb I}) \left(f_{d+1}(x)Q_d^{x} \left(\mathbf{x}_\mathsf{inp}\right) \otimes \mathsf{lab}_{d+1,x}\right) \otimes \mathsf{lab}_{d} \Big) \otimes \cdot \cdot \otimes \mathsf{lab}_1 \bigg), \\
&D_0, \widetilde{g}_1,\ldots, \widetilde{g}_{d},\widetilde{g}_{d+1,x} \bigg]: \\
\,\,\,\,\,\,& D_i \gets \mathscr{C}_{n_i + h_i \lambda}, \,i\in\{0,\ldots,d\}, \\
& D_{d+1,x} \gets \mathscr{C}_{n_{d+1}}, \,x \in \{0,1\}^{\lambda}, \\
&(\mathsf{lab}_{i}, \widetilde{g}_i) \gets \mathsf{GSim}( D_i), \text{ for $i \in [d]$}, \\
&\left(\mathsf{lab}_{d+1,x}, \widetilde{g}_{d+1,x}\right) \gets \mathsf{GSim}\left(D_{d+1,x}\right), \text{ for $x \in \{0,1\}^{\lambda}$} \bigg\}
\end{align*}
It is straightforward to see that latter is the same distribution as:
\begin{align*}
\bigg\{D_0^{\dagger} \bigg(D_1^{\dagger}\otimes {\mathbb I}\bigg) \bigg(\cdot \cdot\Big(D_{d}^{\dagger}\otimes {\mathbb I}\Big) \Big( (D_{d+1}^{\dagger} \otimes {\mathbb I}) &\left( \mathbb{E}_{x \gets \mathsf{Meas}(Q_d\left(\mathbf{x}_\mathsf{inp}\right))} \left[f_{d+1}(x)Q_d^{x} \left(\mathbf{x}_\mathsf{inp}\right)\right] \otimes \mathsf{lab}_{d+1}\right) \otimes \mathsf{lab}_{d} \Big) \otimes \cdot \cdot \otimes \mathsf{lab}_1 \bigg), \\
&D_0, \widetilde{g}_1,\ldots, \widetilde{g}_{d},\widetilde{g}_{d+1} \bigg]: \\
\,\,\,\,\,\,& D_i \gets \mathscr{C}_{n_i + h_i \lambda}, \,i\in\{0,\ldots,d+1\}, \\
&(\mathsf{lab}_{i}, \widetilde{g}_i) \gets \mathsf{GSim}( D_i), \text{ for $i \in [d+1]$} \bigg\}
\end{align*}
i.e. sampling the same $D_{d+1}$ and simulated garbling output for all $x$ results in the same distribution. Finally, we can rewrite the latter as:
\begin{align*}
\bigg\{D_0^{\dagger} \bigg(D_1^{\dagger}\otimes {\mathbb I}\bigg) \bigg(\cdot \cdot\Big(D_{d}^{\dagger}\otimes {\mathbb I}\Big) \Big( (D_{d+1}^{\dagger} \otimes {\mathbb I}) &\left( Q\left(\mathbf{x}_\mathsf{inp}\right) \otimes \mathsf{lab}_{d+1}\right) \otimes \mathsf{lab}_{d} \Big) \otimes \cdot \cdot \otimes \mathsf{lab}_1 \bigg), \\
&D_0, \widetilde{g}_1,\ldots, \widetilde{g}_{d},\widetilde{g}_{d+1} \bigg]: \\
\,\,\,\,\,\,& D_i \gets \mathscr{C}_{n_i + h_i \lambda}, \,i\in\{0,\ldots,d+1\}, \\
&(\mathsf{lab}_{i}, \widetilde{g}_i) \gets \mathsf{GSim}( D_i), \text{ for $i \in [d+1]$} \bigg\} \,,
\end{align*}
as desired.
\pagebreak
\end{proof}
\section{Introduction}
Secure computation allows mutually distrusting parties to compute arbitrary functions on their private inputs, revealing only the outputs of the computation while hiding all other private information~\cite{FOCS:Yao86,STOC:GolMicWig87,STOC:BenGolWig88,C:ChaCreDam87}.
With the emergence of quantum computers, it becomes important to understand the landscape of secure \emph{quantum} computation over distributed, private quantum (or classical) states. In the most general setting, $n$ parties hold (possibly entangled) quantum inputs $\mathbf{x}_1,\dots,\mathbf{x}_n$, and would like to evaluate a quantum circuit $Q(\mathbf{x}_1,\dots,\mathbf{x}_n)$. The output is of the form $(\mathbf{y}_1,\dots,\mathbf{y}_n)$, so at the end of the protocol party $i$ holds state $\mathbf{y}_i$.
Secure computation with classical inputs and circuits forms a centerpiece of classical cryptography. Solutions to this problem in the classical setting were first obtained nearly 35 years ago, when~\cite{FOCS:Yao86} built garbled circuits to enable secure two-party computation, and~\cite{STOC:GolMicWig87,STOC:BenGolWig88,C:ChaCreDam87} obtained the first secure multi-party computation protocols. Since then, there has been an extensive body of work in this area, of which a large chunk focuses on understanding the amount of back-and-forth interaction required to implement these protocols. Notably, the work of Beaver, Micali and Rogaway~\cite{STOC:BeaMicRog90} obtained the first constant-round classical multi-party computation protocols in the dishonest majority setting. There have been several subsequent works including but not limited to~\cite{C:KatOst04,EC:GMPP16,C:AnaChoJai17,TCC:BraHalPol17,C:BGJKKS18,TCC:CCG0O20} that have nearly completely characterized the {\em exact} round complexity of classical secure computation.
The problem of secure {\em quantum} computation on distributed quantum states is not nearly as well-understood as its classical counterpart. The quantum setting was first studied by~\cite{STOC:CreGotSmi02,FOCS:BCGHS06}, who obtained unconditional maliciously-secure multi-party quantum computation with honest majority.
Just like the classical setting, when half (or more) of the players are malicious, secure quantum computation also requires computational assumptions due to the impossibility of unconditionally secure quantum bit commitment~\cite{mayers1997unconditionally,lo1998quantum,d2006quantum}.
In the dishonest majority setting,~\cite{C:DupNieSal10} gave a two-party quantum computation (2PQC) protocol secure against the quantum analogue of semi-honest adversaries (specious adversaries); this was later extended to the malicious setting by~\cite{DNS12}. A work of~\cite{EC:DGJMS20} constructed maliciously-secure \emph{multi-party} quantum computation (MPQC) with dishonest majority from any maliciously-secure post-quantum classical MPC, where the round complexity grows with the size of the circuit {\em and} the number of participants. Very recently,~\cite{cryptoeprint:2020:1464} constructed MPQC with identifiable abort, and with round complexity that does not grow with the circuit size but grows with the number of participants.
However, the feasibility of maliciously-secure MPQC with \emph{constant} rounds has remained open until this work. In addition to settling this question, we also make several headways in understanding the {\em exact} round complexity of secure quantum computation with up to all-but-one malicious corruptions.
\iffalse{
We ask the following natural question:
\begin{center}
{\em How many rounds of interaction are necessary for general-purpose quantum computation?}
\end{center}
Our work studies this question in the setting of \emph{malicious} parties, who may arbitrarily deviate from the protocol specifications. We would like to ensure that such parties (1) can only hold information that is efficiently computable from either their own input or output at any point during the protocol execution, and (2) cannot cause other parties to obtain an invalid output without being detected.
These guarantees are formalized via a simulation-based security notion, which requires that no adversary can recover any information in the real world that it cannot recover in an ideal world where it simply hands its input to a trusted party who then returns the output.
The problem of secure quantum computation on distributed quantum states has a strong tradition in the quantum cryptography literature. It was first studied by~\cite{STOC:CreGotSmi02,FOCS:BCGHS06}, who obtained unconditional maliciously-secure multi-party quantum computation with honest majority.
The setting where half (or more) of the players are malicious requires computational assumptions due to the impossibility of unconditionally secure quantum bit commitment~\cite{mayers1997unconditionally,lo1998quantum,d2006quantum}. In the computational setting,~\cite{C:DupNieSal10} gave a two-party quantum computation (2PQC) protocol secure against the quantum analogue of semi-honest adversaries (specious adversaries); this was later extended to the malicious setting by~\cite{DNS12}. A work of~\cite{EC:DGJMS20} constructed maliciously-secure \emph{multi-party} quantum computation (MPQC) with \emph{dishonest} majority from any maliciously-secure post-quantum classical MPC. Very recently,~\cite{cryptoeprint:2020:1464} constructed MPQC with identifiable abort, and with round complexity that does not grow with the circuit size but grows with the number of participants. However, maliciously-secure MPQC with \emph{constant} rounds has remained open until this work.
}\fi
\subsection{Our Results}
We assume that parties have access to a common random string (CRS), and obtain answers to a range of fundamental questions, as we discuss next\footnote{We point out that the post-quantum MPC protocol of~\cite{Agarwal2020PostQuantumMC} can be used to generate a CRS in constant rounds. This, combined with our results, yields the first constant round multi-party quantum computation protocols without trusted setup in the standard model.}.
\iffalse{
\paragraph{Quantum Non-Interactive Secure Computation.} Our first result concerns {\em non-interactive} 2PQC. In a setting where only one party (the receiver) obtains output, and where both players have access to a common random string (CRS). In this setting, we give a construction achieving \emph{minimal interaction}, i.e., the receiver can publish an encryption of its message $\mathbf{x}$ and a sender can reply with an encryption of $\mathbf{y}$ that allows the receiver to learn $Q(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y})$. Protocols with this interaction pattern are referred to as \emph{non-interactive secure computation} (NISC)~\cite{EC:IKOPS11}, and thus our result constitutes the first maliciously-secure NISC for quantum computation (Q-NISC). Our construction relies on the minimal assumption that two-round maliciously secure post-quantum OT (in the CRS model) exists. Our results can also directly be extended to achieve security in a {\em reusable} setting where the receiver's encryption of $\mathbf{x}$ is reused across multiple executions.
\paragraph{Constant-Round 2PQC and MPQC.} Building on our Q-NISC construction, we construct constant-round protocols for the general setting where all parties receive output. We focus on minimizing total round complexity as well as \emph{online} round complexity, where the latter refers to the number of \emph{input-dependent} rounds; if a protocol has round complexity $d$ and online round complexity $k$, then the parties can perform the first $d-k$ rounds \emph{before} they receive their inputs.
Assuming two-message oblivious transfer (OT) in the CRS model, we construct
\begin{itemize}
\item A five-round MPQC protocol with three online rounds.
\end{itemize}
We remark that two-message oblivious transfer (OT) in the CRS model exists assuming standard post-quantum hardness of Learning with Errors (QLWE). Under the stronger assumption that QLWE is sub-exponentially hard for polynomial-time quantum adversaries, we construct a three-round 2PQC with two online rounds as well as a four-round MPQC with two online rounds.
\paragraph{Exact Round Complexity: The Two-Round Barrier.} In the setting where every party receives output, it is unclear whether our 2PQC and MPQC protocols achieve \emph{optimal} round complexity. While the round complexity of secure computation with trusted setup in the classical setting has been completely resolved in both the two-party and multi-party setting~\cite{EC:GarSri18a,EC:BenLin18}, we do not completely resolve the question of round complexity even in the simpler two-party setting.
In the final part of this paper, we perform a preliminary investigation into whether two-round 2PQC where both parties receive output is achievable. Our starting point is the observation that all known two-round maliciously secure \emph{classical} 2PC protocols can be formulated to admit a simulator that is (1) straight-line, (2) black-box and (3) samples the CRS independently of \emph{which} of the two parties is corrupted.\fermi{also check this sentence about classical 2PC; if true, should we add citations?} In the quantum setting, we show that any two-round 2PQC proved secure with this type of simulation strategy would imply significantly improved parameters for a well-studied quantum-information theoretic problem known as \emph{instantaneous non-local quantum computation}. \fermi{cite?}
We therefore believe that positive results for maliciously secure two-round 2PQC will likely require qualitatively different simulation strategies. As a proof-of-concept for what simulation strategies might suffice, we construct a maliciously secure two-round 2PQC assuming \emph{virtual-black-box} (VBB) obfuscation of quantum circuits. While VBB obfuscation is \emph{impossible} even for classical circuits~\cite{C:BGIRSVY01}, heuristic obfuscation-based constructions are often a useful starting point for more concrete instantiations.
}\fi
\subsubsection{Quantum Non-Interactive Secure Computation}
Our first result pertains to the most basic setting for secure (quantum) computation: a sender holds input $\mathbf{y}$, a receiver holds input $\mathbf{x}$, and the goal is for the receiver to obtain $Q(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y})$ for some quantum circuit $Q$. We construct a protocol achieving \emph{minimal interaction} --- commonly known as non-interactive secure computation (NISC)~\cite{EC:IKOPS11} --- where the receiver publishes an encryption of $\mathbf{x}$, the sender replies with an encryption of $\mathbf{y}$, and the receiver subsequently obtains $Q(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y})$. Our result constitutes the first maliciously-secure NISC for quantum computation (Q-NISC).
\begin{theorem}(Informal)\label{thm:informal-3-message}
Maliciously-secure NISC for quantum computation exists assuming post-quantum maliciously-secure two-message oblivious transfer (OT) with straight-line simulation.
\end{theorem}
Such OT protocols are known from the post-quantum hardness of Learning with Errors (LWE)~\cite{C:PeiVaiWat08}. We remark that our Q-NISC result also extends to the {\em reusable} setting where the receiver has a classical input that they would like to reuse across multiple quantum computations on different sender inputs.
\iffalse{
Brakerski and Yuen~\cite{ARXIV:BrakerskiYuen20} recently introduced and constructed quantum garbled circuits.
As an application, they described a general-purpose two-message 2PQC and conjectured its security against \emph{specious} (a quantum analogue of semi-honest) adversaries.
A formal proof of security was outside the scope of their work.
Our proof of Theorem \ref{thm:informal-3-message} relies on the garbling technique sketched in~\cite[\S2.5]{ARXIV:BrakerskiYuen20}, which the authors present as a simpler alternative to their main quantum garbled circuit construction. While this alternative construction sacrifices some of the efficiency guarantees of the main construction in~\cite{ARXIV:BrakerskiYuen20}, it enables \emph{classical} garbling of quantum circuits. }\fi
\paragraph{Application: Malicious Designated-Verifier NIZK Arguments for $\mathsf{QMA}$.} As an application of our maliciously-secure Q-NISC, we construct (reusable) \emph{malicious designated-verifier non-interactive zero-knowledge arguments} (MDV-NIZKs) for $\mathsf{QMA}$ in the common random string model. Specifically, our MDV-NIZK enables the following interaction for any $\mathsf{QMA}$ language: a verifier can publish a classical public key $\mathsf{\mathsf{pk}}$ that enables a prover to send an instance $x$ and quantum message $\mathbf{m}$, such that the verifier holding the corresponding secret key $\mathsf{sk}$ can determine if $x$ is a valid instance.
\begin{theorem}(Informal)
\label{thm:inf-dv}
There exists a reusable MDV-NIZK for $\mathsf{QMA}$ with a classical CRS and classical proving key assuming the existence of post-quantum maliciously-secure two-message oblivious transfer with straight-line simulation in the CRS model, and post-quantum (adaptively sound) reusable MDV-NIZK for NP. All of the underlying primitives exist assuming the quantum hardness of learning with errors.
\end{theorem}
We briefly elaborate on the security guarantees of our reusable MDV-NIZK. Reusability means that soundness holds for multiple proofs (of potentially different statements) computed with respect to the same setup (i.e., the common random string and the public key), even if the prover learns whether or not the verifier accepted each proof; we remark that reusable security is sometimes referred to as multi-theorem security. Malicious security means that the zero-knowledge property holds even against verifiers that generate the public key maliciously. Previously, such a reusable MDV-NIZK for QMA required the prover to have access to multiple copies of the quantum witness~\cite{shmueli2020multitheorem}, while our MDV-NIZK only requires the prover to have a single copy.
\subsubsection{Constant-round 2PQC and MPQC}
Our next set of results concerns the general setting for 2PQC and MPQC \emph{where all parties obtain output}. We focus on minimizing total round complexity as well as \emph{online} round complexity, where the latter refers to the number of \emph{input-dependent} rounds; if a protocol has round complexity $d$ and online round complexity $k$, then the parties can perform the first $d-k$ rounds \emph{before} they receive their inputs.\footnote{We remark that a $k$-online round protocol can also be viewed as a $k$-round protocol in a quantum pre-processing model, i.e. a model where parties receive some quantum correlations as setup.}
We obtain various results, some from the generic assumption of quantum polynomially-secure two-message oblivious transfer, and others from the specific assumption of sub-exponential QLWE. Our results in this section are summarized in~\cref{table: results}.\footnote{The results below are in the setting of security with abort, as opposed to security with \emph{unanimous} abort (which is only a distinction in the multi-party setting). If one wants security with unanimous abort, the overall round complexity will not change, but one more round of online communication will be required.}
\begin{table}[ht!]
\caption{Maliciously-Secure Quantum Computation in the CRS Model}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c}
& From OT & From sub-exp QLWE\\
\hline
Two-party & 3 rounds (3 online) & 3 rounds (2 online) \\
\hline
Multi-party & 5 rounds (3 online) & 4 rounds (2 online)
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\label{table: results}
\end{table}
In order to prove the security of these protocols, we develop a delayed simulation technique, which we call ``simulation via teleportation'', which may be of independent interest.
\subsubsection{Is Two-Round Secure Quantum Computation Possible?}
A natural next question is whether it is possible to construct two-round secure quantum computation \emph{without} pre-processing. This appears to be a challenging question to resolve, either positively or negatively. We provide some preliminary results on both fronts: we give a negative result indicating that common simulation strategies from the classical setting will not suffice in the quantum setting, but we also provide a proof-of-concept positive result, with a new simulation strategy, assuming virtual-black-box obfuscation of quantum circuits. We stress that the latter result is primarily to give intuition, as virtual-black-box obfuscation is known to be impossible even for classical circuits~\cite{C:BGIRSVY01}. We limit the scope of this preliminary investigation to the \emph{two-party} setting.
First, we give some intuition for why it seems hard to design a two-round two-party protocol by showing that, under a plausible quantum information-theoretic conjecture, a large class of common simulation techniques would \emph{not} suffice. We consider any simulator that learns which player (between Alice and Bob) is corrupted only {\em after} it has generated the simulated CRS. We call such a simulator an \emph{oblivious simulator}. To the best of our knowledge, all existing classical and quantum two-party computation protocols in the CRS model either (1) already admit oblivious simulation, or (2) can generically be transformed to admit oblivious simulation via post-quantum NIZK proofs of knowledge for $\mathsf{NP}$.
In the quantum setting, we show, roughly, that any two-round 2PQC protocol for general quantum functionalities \emph{with an oblivious simulator} would yield an \textit{instantaneous nonlocal quantum computation} protocol \cite{PhysRevLett.90.010402,Beigi_2011,DBLP:conf/tqc/Speelman16,DBLP:journals/tit/GonzalesC20} for general quantum functionalities, with polynomial-size pre-processing.
Instantaneous nonlocal quantum computation is well-studied in the quantum information literature \cite{PhysRevLett.90.010402,Beigi_2011,DBLP:conf/tqc/Speelman16,DBLP:journals/tit/GonzalesC20}, and the best known protocols for general functionalities require exponential-size pre-processing \cite{Beigi_2011}. Thus, a two-round 2PQC for general functionalities with oblivious simulation would immediately yield an exponential improvement in the size of the pre-processing for this task.
\begin{theorem} (Informal)
Under the conjecture that there exists a quantum functionality that does not admit an instantaneous nonlocal quantum computation protocol with polynomial-size pre-processing, there exists a quantum functionality that cannot be securely computed in two rounds in the classical CRS model with an oblivious simulator.
\end{theorem}
\ifsubmission
Towards getting around this potential barrier, we give a proof-of-concept construction of a protocol with non-oblivious simulation. Specifically, we assume a (strong) form of VBB obfuscation for quantum circuits that contain unitary and measurement gates, where the former may be classically controlled on the outcome of measurement gates. We point out, however, that VBB-obfuscation of circuits with measurement gates is potentially even more powerful than the VBB obfuscation for unitaries that was formalized in~\cite{Alagic2016OnQO} (further discussion on this is available in the full version). Under this assumption, we obtain a two-round two-party secure quantum computation protocol in the CRS model.
\else
Towards getting around this potential barrier, we give a proof-of-concept construction of a protocol with non-oblivious simulation. Specifically, we assume a (strong) form of VBB obfuscation for quantum circuits that contain unitary and measurement gates, where the former may be classically controlled on the outcome of measurement gates. We point out, however, that VBB-obfuscation of circuits with measurement gates is potentially even more powerful than the VBB obfuscation for unitaries that was formalized in~\cite{Alagic2016OnQO} (see discussion in \cref{subsec:vbb-protocol}). Under this assumption, we obtain a two-round two-party secure quantum computation protocol in the CRS model (that is straightforward to extend to the multi-party setting).
\fi
\begin{theorem}(Informal)
Two-round two-party secure quantum computation in the common reference string model exists assuming a strong form of VBB or ideal obfuscation for quantum circuits as discussed above.
\end{theorem}
We remark that while there exist (contrived) examples of functionalities that cannot be VBB obfuscated~\cite{Alagic2016OnQO,alagic2020impossibility,ananth2020secure}, it is still plausible that many quantum functionalities can be obfuscated. However, without any candidate constructions of obfuscation for quantum circuits, we stress that our result should only be taken as a proof-of-concept.
\ifsubmission
\subsection{Paper Organization}
In~\cref{sec:techoverview}, we provide technical intuition for all of our results. In~\cref{sec:three-message}, we give a full technical specification of our three-message 2PQC protocol. We prove that security holds against a malicious Alice, and we defer a security proof for malicious Bob to the full version (as will become clear in~\cref{sec:techoverview}, handling malicious Alice is the more challenging case). We defer the remainder of our results to the full version, which includes the two-round 2PQC with preprocessing, the MPQC results, the technical formalization of~\cite{ARXIV:BrakerskiYuen20} C+M garbling, MDV-NIZKs for $\mathsf{QMA}$, our oblivious simulation barrier, and our VBB-based proof-of-concept construction.
\else
\fi
\iffalse{
\begin{theorem}
There exists a three-message protocol for two-party quantum computation with security against malicious adversaries in the CRS model under the minimal assumption that classical two-round oblivious transfer with post-quantum security against malicious adversaries exists.
\end{theorem}
}\fi
\section{Two Rounds Without Pre-Processing: Challenges and Possibilities}
\subsection{An Oblivious Simulation Barrier for Two Round Protocols}\label{subsec:two-round-impossibility}
We begin with our negative result showing that any two-round 2PQC protocol with an \emph{oblivious simulator} supporting general quantum functionalities would imply new protocols for the setting of \emph{instantaneous non-local quantum computation}~\cite{PhysRevLett.90.010402,Beigi_2011,DBLP:conf/tqc/Speelman16,DBLP:journals/tit/GonzalesC20}.
\paragraph{Instantaneous Non-local Quantum Computation.} Instantaneous non-local quantum computation of a unitary $U$ on $n_A + n_B$ qubits is an information-theoretic task where parties $A$ and $B$, who may share some initial entangled quantum state, receive as input quantum states $\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B$ and wish to compute the functionality $U(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B) = (\mathbf{y}_A,\mathbf{y}_B)$ with only one round of simultaneous communication. For a family of unitaries $\{U_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$ on $\{n_{A,\lambda} + n_{B,\lambda}\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$ qubits, we say that an instantaneous non-local quantum computation protocol must satisfy the following properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Correctness.} For all input states $(\mathbf{x}_{A,\lambda},\mathbf{x}_{B,\lambda})$, the joint outputs $(\mathbf{y}_{A,\lambda}',\mathbf{y}_{B,\lambda}')$ obtained by $A$ and $B$ after engaging in the protocol are such that $(\mathbf{y}_{A,\lambda}',\mathbf{y}_{B,\lambda}') \approx_s (\mathbf{y}_{A,\lambda},\mathbf{y}_{B,\lambda})$, where $(\mathbf{y}_{A,\lambda},\mathbf{y}_{B,\lambda}) \coloneqq U_\lambda(\mathbf{x}_{A,\lambda},\mathbf{x}_{B,\lambda})$.
\item \textbf{Efficiency.} The size of the entangled quantum state initially shared by $A$ and $B$ in the protocol for computing $U_\lambda$ is bounded by some polynomial in $\lambda$ (note that the running time of $A$ or $B$ in the protocol does not need to be polynomial).
\end{itemize}
\begin{conjecture}
\label{conjecture: instantaneous}
There exists a family of efficiently-computable unitaries $\{U_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$ for which no \emph{correct} and \emph{efficient} instantaneous non-local quantum computation protocol exists.
\end{conjecture}
As noted in the introduction, the best known instantaneous non-local quantum computation protocols for general functionalities on $n$-qubit inputs for $n>2$ require exponentially many EPR pairs in both $n$ and in $\log(1/\epsilon)$, where $\epsilon$ is the desired correctness error \cite{Beigi_2011}. Moreover, there has been recent progress on proving lower bounds for particular classes of unitaries~\cite{DBLP:journals/tit/GonzalesC20}. While current lower bounds on the size of input-independent pre-processing are linear in the number of input qubits, the current state of the art leaves open the possibility that exponentially-many EPR pairs are necessary for general functionalities. To the best of the authors' knowledge, known results give no indication as to whether \cref{conjecture: instantaneous} is more likely to be true or false. Nevertheless, the fact that it remains unresolved provides some indication that positive progress on two-round 2PQC with oblivious simulation will require new ideas.
\paragraph{Two-Round 2PQC in the CRS Model.} Consider a generic two-round two-party protocol for computing an arbitrary functionality $U$ in the (classical) CRS model assuming simultaneous messages. Such a protocol is described by the algorithms $(A_1,A_2,A_3,B_1,B_2,B_3)$ where $A_1,A_2,A_3$ are (respectively) Alice's first message algorithm, second message algorithm, and output reconstruction algorithm (and likewise for Bob with $B_1,B_2,B_3$). As usual, Alice's input is $\mathbf{x}_A$ and Bob's input is $\mathbf{x}_B$. They compute a unitary $U$ and obtain $U(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B) = (\mathbf{y}_A,\mathbf{y}_B)$ where $\mathbf{y}_A$ and $\mathbf{y}_B$ are their respective outputs. We stress that since this model does not allow pre-processing, Alice and Bob \emph{may not share entanglement} before receiving their inputs.
An execution of such a two-round protocol proceeds as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Setup.} Run $\mathsf{crs} \gets \mathsf{Gen}$.
\item \textbf{Round 1.} Alice and Bob generate their first round messages and leftover states as $(\mathbf{m}_1^{(A)},\mathbf{st}_1^{(A)}) \gets A_1(\mathsf{crs},\mathbf{x}_A)$ and $(\mathbf{m}_1^{(B)},\mathbf{st}_1^{(B)}) \gets B_1(\mathsf{crs},\mathbf{x}_B)$. They send their messages to each other, which has the effect of interchanging/swapping $\mathbf{m}_1^{(A)}$ and $\mathbf{m}_1^{(B)}$.
\item \textbf{Round 2.} Alice and Bob generate their second round message and leftover states as $(\mathbf{m}_2^{(A)},\mathbf{st}_2^{(A)}) \gets A_2(\mathbf{st}_1^{(A)},\mathbf{m}_1^{(B)})$ and $(\mathbf{m}_2^{(B)},\mathbf{st}_2^{(B)}) \gets B_2(\mathbf{st}_1^{(B)},\mathbf{m}_1^{(A)})$.
They send their messages to each other, which swaps $\mathbf{m}_2^{(A)}$ and $\mathbf{m}_2^{(B)}$.
\item \textbf{Output.} $\mathbf{y}_A \gets A_3(\mathbf{st}_2^{(A)},\mathbf{m}_2^{(B)})$
and $\mathbf{y}_B \gets B_3(\mathbf{st}_2^{(B)},\mathbf{m}_2^{(A)})$.
\end{enumerate}
\paragraph{Oblivious Simulation.} We now define a natural class of black-box, straight-line simulators that we call \emph{oblivious} simulators. Recall that a simulator is \emph{black-box} if it only makes query access to the attacker (and does not need the code/state of the attacker), and is \emph{straight-line} if it only runs a single time in the forward direction. The defining property of an oblivious simulator is that it learns which player (out of $A$ or $B$) is corrupted only {\em after} it has generated (and committed to) a simulated CRS. No matter which party is corrupted, such a simulator must use its committed CRS to generate a view for the corrupt party that is computationally indistinguishable from the party's view in the real world.
As discussed in~\cref{subsec:tech-overview-two-round}, a negative result for oblivious simulation demonstrates that a natural strategy for constructing two-round two-party computation in the \emph{classical} setting does not extend to the quantum setting.
The following definition specifies the \emph{additional requirements} for a simulator to be ``oblivious''; an oblivious simulator must still satisfy the standard real/ideal indistinguishability notion in~\cref{def:mpqc}, which we will not repeat here.
\begin{definition}[Syntactic Requirements for Oblivious Simulation]
A simulator for a two-round two-party quantum computation protocol in the classical CRS model is \emph{oblivious} if it can be described by a tuple of algorithms $(\mathsf{Sim}_0,\mathsf{Sim}^{(A)},\mathsf{Sim}^{(B)})$ where $\mathsf{Sim}^{(A)} = (\mathsf{Sim}_1^{(A)},\mathsf{Sim}_2^{(A)},\mathsf{Sim}_3^{(A)})$ and $\mathsf{Sim}^{(B)} = (\mathsf{Sim}_1^{(B)},\mathsf{Sim}_2^{(B)},\mathsf{Sim}_3^{(B)})$, simulation proceeds as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The simulator runs $(\mathsf{crs},\mathbf{st}_0^{(\mathsf{Sim})}) \gets \mathsf{Sim}_0$ to generate the CRS and leftover simulator state $\mathbf{st}_0^{(\mathsf{Sim})}$.
\end{enumerate}
Next, the simulator ``learns'' whether it should simulate the view of party $A$ or party $B$. If the simulator is simulating the view of party $A$, it proceeds using $\mathsf{Sim}^{(A)} = (\mathsf{Sim}_1^{(A)},\mathsf{Sim}_2^{(A)},\mathsf{Sim}_3^{(A)})$, and if it is simulating the view of party $B$, it proceeds with $\mathsf{Sim}^{(B)} = (\mathsf{Sim}_1^{(B)},\mathsf{Sim}_2^{(B)},\mathsf{Sim}_3^{(B)})$. We write out the case for simulating the view of party $A$ below (the case for party $B$ is identical).
\begin{enumerate}
\setcounter{enumi}{1}
\item $(\mathbf{m}_1^{(B)},\mathbf{st}_1^{(\mathsf{Sim})}) \gets \mathsf{Sim}_1^{(A)}(\mathbf{st}_0^{(\mathsf{Sim})})$\\ Then query $A_1$ on $(\mathsf{crs},\mathbf{m}_1^{(B)})$ and receive $\mathbf{m}_1^{(A)}$.
\item $(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{st}_2^{(\mathsf{Sim})}) \gets \mathsf{Sim}_2^{(A)}(\mathbf{st}_1^{(\mathsf{Sim})},\mathbf{m}_1^{(A)})$
\\ Then query the ideal functionality on $\mathbf{x}_A$ and receive $\mathbf{y}_A$
\item $\mathbf{m}_2^{(B)} \gets \mathsf{Sim}_3^{(A)}(\mathbf{st}_2^{(\mathsf{Sim})},\mathbf{y}_A)$
\\ Then query $A_2$ on $\mathbf{m}_2^{(B)}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
In short, for an oblivious simulator, the distribution of the simulated CRS is completely independent of whether $A$ is corrupt or $B$ is corrupt. Moreover, because the simulator is straight-line, it is possible to define a (possibly inefficient) algorithm $\mathsf{Sim}_{\mathsf{comb}}$ that computes $\left(\mathsf{crs},\mathsf{st}_1^{(\mathsf{Sim},A)},\mathsf{st}_1^{(\mathsf{Sim},B)}\right),$ where each of the two simulator states computed is with respect to the {\em same} classical $\mathsf{crs}$. This can be done for example by running many iterations of $\mathsf{Sim}_0$ until two of them output the same classical $\mathsf{crs}$. Thus, one would obtain a ``first-round-only'' simulator with the following syntax for the first round:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\left(\mathsf{crs},\mathsf{st}_1^{(\mathsf{Sim},A)},\mathsf{st}_1^{(\mathsf{Sim},B)}\right) \gets \mathsf{Sim}_{\mathsf{comb}}$.
\\ {\em (send $\mathsf{crs}$ to $A_1$ and receive $\mathbf{m}_1^{(A)}$ and send $\mathsf{crs}$ to $B_1$ and receive $\mathbf{m}_1^{(B)}$)}
\item $(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathsf{st}_2^{(\mathsf{Sim},A)}) \gets \mathsf{Sim}_2^{(A)}(\mathsf{st}_1^{(\mathsf{Sim},A)},\mathbf{m}_1^{(A)})$.
\\ Then send $\mathbf{x}_A$ to the ideal functionality and receive $\mathbf{y}_A$
\item $(\mathbf{x}_B,\mathsf{st}_2^{(\mathsf{Sim},B)}) \gets \mathsf{Sim}_2^{(B)}(\mathsf{st}_1^{(\mathsf{Sim},B)},\mathbf{m}_1^{(B)})$.
\\ Then send $\mathbf{x}_B$ to the ideal functionality and receive $\mathbf{y}_B$
\end{enumerate}
\paragraph{Non-Local Computation from Two-Round 2PQC with Oblivious Simulation.} We now describe how to turn two-round 2PQC for general functionalities with oblivious simulation (in the CRS model) into an instantaneous non-local quantum communication protocol. In the following theorem, we will only make use of the ``first-round-only'' simulator discussed above.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:lower-bound}
Assuming \cref{conjecture: instantaneous}, there does not exist a two-round two-party quantum computation protocol for general functionalities in the classical CRS model, with an oblivious simulator.\footnote{A previous version of this work incorrectly claimed an unconditional version of this theorem. We thank Mi-Ying Huang as well as anonymous reviewers for pointing this issue out to us.}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Given any family of unitaries $U = \{U_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$ on $\{n_{A,\lambda} + n_{B,\lambda}\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$ qubits promised by \cref{conjecture: instantaneous}, we define the functionality $\text{C-SWAP-U} = \{\text{C-Swap-U}_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$ as follows. $\text{C-SWAP-U}_\lambda$ takes a $(n_{A,\lambda} + n_{B,\lambda})$-qubit state $(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B)$ as input along with an additional two classical bits of input $z_A,z_B$. If $z_A \oplus z_B = 0$, it applies $U_\lambda$ to $(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B)$ to produce $(\mathbf{y}_A,\mathbf{y}_B)$, and then swaps the output states, outputting $(\mathbf{y}_B,\mathbf{y}_A)$. If $z_A \oplus z_B = 1$, it simply swaps the input states, outputting $(\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{x}_A)$. In what follows, we will show that any two-round two-party quantum computation protocol for $\text{C-SWAP-U}$ implies a correct and efficient instantaneous non-local quantum computation protocol for $U$, violating \cref{conjecture: instantaneous}.
Consider the oblivious simulator for the protocol computing $\text{C-SWAP-U}$. We will only be interested in the simulated first round and subsequent input extraction. We will not be concerned with simulating the second round at all. Furthermore, we will only care about simulating the view of a specific type of adversary: one that simply runs the honest $A$ (resp. $B$) algorithm. Such an ``adversary'' does not rush, i.e. the first message algorithm of the (honestly behaving) adversary is independent of $B$'s first round message $\mathbf{m}_1^{(B)}$. Therefore for simplicity we will suppress mention of this message being generated by the simulator (since we are also not concerned with simulation of the second round).
Now, we will combine the ``first-round-only'' simulator discussed above with the first-message algorithms of parties $A$ and $B$ to produce the following algorithm $U_{\mathsf{extract}}$ (which can be written as a unitary), which will be applied to $(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B)$ (tensored with sufficiently many $\mathbf{0}$ states, which we write as $\mathbf{0}^*$). Technically, $U_{\mathsf{extract}}$ is a family of unitaries parameterized by the security parameter $\lambda$, and the inputs $(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B)$ are families of input states, though for simplicity we will drop the explicit indexing by $\lambda$.
$U_{\mathsf{extract}}$, on input $(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{0}^*)$ works as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Compute $\left(\mathsf{crs},\mathsf{st}_1^{(\mathsf{Sim},A)},\mathsf{st}_1^{(\mathsf{Sim},B)}\right) \gets \mathsf{Sim}_\mathsf{comb}$.
\item Compute $(\mathbf{m}_1^{(A)},\mathbf{st}_1^{(A)}) \gets A_1(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathsf{crs})$.
\item Compute $(\mathbf{m}_1^{(B)},\mathbf{st}_1^{(B)}) \gets B_1(\mathbf{x}_B,\mathsf{crs})$.
\item Compute $(\mathbf{x}_A',\mathbf{st}_2^{(\mathsf{Sim},A)}) \gets \mathsf{Sim}_2^{(A)}(\mathsf{st}_1^{(\mathsf{Sim},A)},\mathbf{m}_1^{(A)})$.
\item Compute $(\mathbf{x}_B',\mathbf{st}_2^{(\mathsf{Sim},B)}) \gets \mathsf{Sim}_2^{(B)}(\mathsf{st}_1^{(\mathsf{Sim},B)},\mathbf{m}_1^{(B)})$.
\item Output $(\mathbf{x}_A',\mathbf{x}_B',\mathbf{st}_1^{(A)},\mathbf{st}_1^{(B)},\mathbf{st}_2^{(\mathsf{Sim},A)},\mathbf{st}_2^{(\mathsf{Sim},B)})$.
\end{enumerate}
Now, we show that for any pair of pure states $(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B)$ that can be deterministically efficiently generated (i.e. can be generated by applying an efficient unitary to $\mathbf{0}$ states), the (traced out) portion of $U_\mathsf{extract}(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{0}^*)$ consisting of $(\mathbf{x}_A',\mathbf{x}_B')$ is statistically close to $(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B)$. First, we argue that $\mathbf{x}_A' \approx_s \mathbf{x}_A$. Recall that regardless of $A$'s classical input bit $z_A$, there is always a possibility that, depending on $B$'s classical input bit $z_B$, the functionality computed will simply be swapping $\mathbf{x}_A$ and $\mathbf{x}_B$ (from the definition of our C-SWAP-U unitary). In this case, the value $\mathbf{x}_A'$ queried by $\mathsf{Sim}$ to the ideal functionality will be forwarded to $B$ as its output in the simulated world. $B$'s output in the real world is $\mathbf{x}_A$, and thus $\mathbf{x}_A' \approx_s \mathbf{x}_A$, since otherwise the real and ideal worlds would be distinguishable by the measurement $\{\mathbf{x}_A, {\mathbb I} - \mathbf{x}_A\}$; note that projecting onto $\mathbf{x}_A$ can be performed efficiently since $\mathbf{x}_A$ is a (deterministically) efficiently generated pure state. An identical argument shows that $\mathbf{x}_B' \approx_s \mathbf{x}_B$.
Now, we can apply \cref{lemma:no-cloning} below to $U_{\mathsf{extract}}$; since the above argument applies to the case where $\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B$ are deterministically efficiently generated pure states, it in particular applies to the states required by \cref{lemma:no-cloning} (i.e. all computational basis states and all uniform superpositions of two computational basis states). \cref{lemma:no-cloning} applied to $U_{\mathsf{extract}}$ allows us to conclude that for \emph{any} input state $(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B)$, the states $(\mathbf{st}_1^{(A)},\mathbf{st}_1^{(B)},\mathbf{st}_2^{(\mathsf{Sim},A)},\mathbf{st}_2^{(\mathsf{Sim},B)})$ are (statistically) independent of $(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B)$. This fact can be used to design a correct and efficient instantaneous non-local quantum computation protocol for $U$, as described below.
\begin{itemize}
\item Setup: Execute $U_{\mathsf{extract}}$ on all $\mathbf{0}$ states to produce $(\mathbf{0}',\mathbf{0}',\mathbf{st}_1^{(A)},\mathbf{st}_1^{(B)},\mathbf{st}_2^{(\mathsf{Sim},A)},\mathbf{st}_2^{(\mathsf{Sim},B)})$, where $\mathbf{0}'$ denotes a state that is statistically indistinguishable from $\mathbf{0}$. Discard $(\mathbf{0}',\mathbf{0}')$, send $(\mathbf{st}_1^{(B)},\mathbf{st}_2^{(\mathsf{Sim},A)})$ to party $A$, and send $(\mathbf{st}_1^{(A)},\mathbf{st}_2^{(\mathsf{Sim},B)})$ to party $B$.
\item Party $A$, on input $\mathbf{x}_A$, does the following.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Compute $(\mathsf{st}_1^{(\mathsf{Sim},A)},\mathbf{m}_1^{(A)}) \coloneqq {\mathsf{Sim}_2^{(A)}}^\dagger(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{st}_2^{(\mathsf{Sim},A)})$.
\item Compute $(\mathbf{m}_2^{(B)},\mathbf{st}_2^{(B)}) \gets B_2(\mathbf{st}_1^{(B)},\mathbf{m}_1^{(A)})$.
\item Send $\mathbf{m}_2^{(B)}$.
\end{enumerate}
\item Party $B$, on input $\mathbf{x}_B$, does the following.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Compute $(\mathsf{st}_1^{(\mathsf{Sim},B)},\mathbf{m}_1^{(B)}) \coloneqq {\mathsf{Sim}_2^{(B)}}^\dagger(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{st}_2^{(\mathsf{Sim},B)})$.
\item Compute $(\mathbf{m}_2^{(A)},\mathbf{st}_2^{(A)}) \gets A_2(\mathbf{st}_1^{(A)},\mathbf{m}_1^{(B)})$.
\item Send $\mathbf{m}_2^{(A)}$.
\end{enumerate}
\item Party $A$ computes and outputs $\mathbf{y}_B \gets B_3(\mathbf{st}_2^{(B)},\mathbf{m}_2^{(A)})$.
\item Party $B$ computes and outputs $\mathbf{y}_A \gets A_3(\mathbf{st}_2^{(A)},\mathbf{m}_2^{(B)})$.
\end{itemize}
Observe that the above protocol produces a transcript that is statistically close to the transcript between an honest $A$ and $B$. Fix $A$ and $B$'s classical inputs $z_A,z_B$ to be such that $z_A \oplus z_B = 0$. Since $A$ is receiving $B$'s output and $B$ is receiving $A$'s output, the parties are then computing a statistically close approximation to $U(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B)$ in one round of online communication. The size of the initial entangled state held by $A$ and $B$ is bounded by the size of the honest $A$ and $B$ algorithms and the size of the simulator algorithms, which are all polynomial-size. Thus, the above is a correct and efficient instantaneous non-local quantum computation protocol for computing $U$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:no-cloning}
Let $U^{\gray{AB}}$ be a unitary over registers $\mathsf{A},\mathsf{B}$, and suppose that there exists $\epsilon$ between $0$ and $1$ such that for any $\ket{x}^{\gray{A}}$ that is (the density matrix of) either a computational basis state $\ket{i}$, or a uniform superposition of two computational basis states $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{0} + \ket{i})$,
\[ \left|\mathrm{Tr}_{\gray{B}}(U^{\gray{AB}} (\ket{x}^{\gray{A}} \otimes \ket{0}^{\gray{B}})) - \ket{x}^{\gray{A}}\right|_1 \leq \epsilon.\]
Then there exists a constant $\delta > 0$ and a pure state $\ket{y}^{\gray{B}}$ such that for \emph{every} state $\ket{x}^{\gray{A}}$,
\[ \left|U^{\gray{AB}}(\ket{x}^{\gray{A}} \otimes \ket{0}^{\gray{B}}) - (\ket{x}^{\gray{A}} \otimes \ket{y}^{\gray{B}})\right|_1 \leq \epsilon^\delta. \]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If $U^{\gray{AB}}$ satisfies the conditions of the lemma statement, then for any computational basis state $\ket{i}^{\gray{A}}$ on the $\gray{A}$ registers, there exists a pure state $\ket{y_i}^{\gray{B}}$ and a polynomial ${\rm poly}(\cdot)$ such that
\[\left|U^{\gray{AB}}(\ket{i}^{\gray{A}} \otimes \ket{0}^{\gray{B}}) - (\ket{i}^{\gray{A}} \otimes \ket{y_i}^{\gray{B}})\right|_1 \leq {\rm poly}(\epsilon). \]
Moreover, for each $i$ there must exist a state $\ket{y_{0,i}}^{\gray{B}}$ such that
$$\left|U^{\gray{AB}}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{0}^{\gray{A}} + \ket{i}^{\gray{A}}) \otimes \ket{0}^{\gray{B}}\right) - \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{0}^{\gray{A}} + \ket{i}^{\gray{A}}) \otimes \ket{y_{0,i}}^{\gray{B}}\right)\right|_1 \leq {\rm poly}(\epsilon).$$
By linearity, we also have that $$\left|U^{\gray{AB}}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{0}^{\gray{A}} + \ket{i}^{\gray{A}}) \otimes \ket{0}^{\gray{B}}\right) - \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{0}^{\gray{A}} \otimes \ket{y_0}^{\gray{B}}) +\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{i}^{\gray{A}} \otimes \ket{y_i}^{\gray{B}}) \right)\right|_1 \leq {\rm poly}(\epsilon).$$
This implies that for each $i$, $\ket{y_{0,i}}^{\gray{B}}$ is within ${\rm poly}(\epsilon)$ trace distance of both $\ket{y_0}^{\gray{B}}$ and $\ket{y_i}^{\gray{B}}$, which means that $\ket{y_0}^{\gray{B}}$ is within ${\rm poly}(\epsilon)$ trace distance of $\ket{y_i}^{\gray{B}}$. Thus, $\ket{y_0}^{\gray{B}}$ satisfies the condition in the lemma statement, since for an arbitrary state $\ket{x}^{\gray{A}} = \sum_i \alpha_i\ket{i}^{\gray{A}}$, we have that $$\left|U^{\gray{AB}}\left(\sum_i \alpha_i\ket{i}^{\gray{A}} \otimes \ket{0}^{\gray{B}}\right) - \sum_i \alpha_i(\ket{i}^{\gray{A}} \otimes \ket{y_i}^{\gray{B}})\right|_1 \leq {\rm poly}(\epsilon),$$ which implies that
$$\left|U^{\gray{AB}}\left(\sum_i \alpha_i\ket{i}^{\gray{A}} \otimes \ket{0}^{\gray{B}}\right) - (\ket{x}^{\gray{A}} \otimes \ket{y_0}^{\gray{B}})\right|_1 \leq {\rm poly}(\epsilon).$$
\end{proof}
\subsection{A Two-Round Protocol from Quantum VBB Obfuscation}\label{subsec:vbb-protocol}
In what follows, we describe a two-round two-party protocol in the common reference string model, assuming the existence of a (strong form of) VBB obfuscation of quantum circuits. We note that it is straightforward to adapt this protocol to the multi-party setting. However, the main idea is already present in the two-party case, so for simplicity we describe only this case.
\subsubsection{VBB Obfuscation of Quantum Circuits}
We consider virtual black-box obfuscation of quantum circuits, which was defined (and shown to be impossible in general) by~\cite{Alagic2016OnQO}. In fact, we consider a potentially stronger version than that given by~\cite{Alagic2016OnQO}, who only consider VBB obfuscation of unitaries. We consider quantum functionalities $Q$ from $n$ qubits to $n$ qubits that include not just unitary gates, but also \emph{measurement} gates, and unitary gates that may be \emph{classically controlled} on the outcome of the measurement gates. While one can always push any measurement to the end of the computation so that the circuit becomes unitary, doing so would not necessarily preserve the security of obfuscation, as it would introduce new auxiliary input registers that a malicious evaluator may initialize in a non-zero state. Thus, obfuscation for unitary + measurement circuits is potentially stronger than obfuscation for unitaries.
We model black-box access to a unitary+measurement circuit as an oracle that accepts a quantum state on $n$ registers, manipulates it according to $Q$, and returns those same $n$ registers. We allow the obfuscation itself to be either a quantum circuit with a purely classical description, or a quantum circuit along with some quantum state. We refer to this obfuscation as ${\cal O}(Q)$, and write ${\cal O}(Q)(\mathbf{x})$ to indicate evaluation of the obfuscation on an $n$-qubit input $\mathbf{x}$, with the understanding that this operation may either be directly applying a quantum circuit to $\mathbf{x}$, or first augmenting $\mathbf{x}$ with additional registers, applying a circuit to the expanded system, and then discarding the extra registers.
\begin{definition}[Quantum VBB Obfuscation]\label{defn:vbb}
Let $\{{\cal Q}_n\}_{n \in {\mathbb N}}$ be a family of polynomial-size quantum circuits, where each $Q \in {\cal Q}_n$ maps $n$ qubits to $n$ qubits.
A quantum black-box obfuscator ${\cal O}$ is a quantum algorithm that takes as input an input length $n \in {\mathbb N}$, a security parameter $\lambda \in {\mathbb N}$, and a quantum circuit $Q$, and outputs an obfuscated quantum circuit. ${\cal O}$ should satisfy the following properties.
\begin{itemize}
\item Polynomial expansion: for every $n,\lambda \in {\mathbb N}$ and $Q \in {\cal Q}_n$, the size of ${\cal O}(1^n,1^\lambda,Q)$ is at most ${\rm poly}(n,\lambda)$.
\item Functional equivalence: for every $n,\lambda \in {\mathbb N}$, $Q \in {\cal Q}_n$, and $\mathbf{x}$ on $n$ qubits, ${\cal O}(1^n,1^\lambda,Q)(\mathbf{x}) \approx_s Q(\mathbf{x})$.
\item Virtual black-box: for every (non-uniform) QPT ${\mathsf{Adv}}$, there exists a (non-uniform) QPT ${\cal S}$ such that for each $n \in {\mathbb N}$ and $Q \in {\cal Q}_n$, $$\left|\Pr[{\mathsf{Adv}}({\cal O}(1^n,1^\lambda,Q)) = 1] - \Pr[{\cal S}^Q(1^n,1^\lambda) = 1]\right| = {\rm negl}(\lambda).$$
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
We now make a few remarks on the definition that will allow us to simplify the constructions given in the next section.
\begin{itemize}
\item We will consider functionalities that discard, or trace out, some subset of registers. In order to implement this with a circuit from $n$ qubits to $n$ qubits, we can have the functionality measure the subset of qubits to be traced out and then ``randomize'' the outcomes (since we don't want the evaluator to know these measurement results) by applying Hadamard to each register and measuring again. Thus, we will consider obfuscation of functionalities from $n$ qubits to $m \leq n$ qubits.
\item We will consider functionalities represented by quantum circuits that require the use of auxiliary $\mathbf{0}$ states. We do not want the evaluator to be able to run such a functionality using non-zero auxiliary states, so we'll have the functionality first measure any auxiliary states input by the evaluator. If all measurements are 0, then the circuit will be run on the all registers, otherwise the functionality can ``abort'' by discarding all registers as explained above. Thus, we will suppress mention of auxiliary input registers, and assume the functionality has access to any auxiliary $\mathbf{0}$ states that it needs.
\item We will consider functionalities that can sample classical bits uniformly at random. This can be accomplished by applying Hadamard to a $\mathbf{0}$ state and measuring. Note that this is a uniquely quantum phenomenon - one cannot obfuscate classical circuits that produce their own randomness.
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection{The Protocol}
We present a two-round protocol for two-party quantum computation in the common reference string model. Let $Q$ be the two-party quantum functionality to be computed, and assume for simplicity that it takes $n$ qubits from each party and outputs $n$ qubits to each party. The common reference string will consist of obfuscations of six quantum functionalities $${\cal F}_{A,\mathsf{inp}}^{(b)},{\cal F}_{B,\mathsf{inp}}^{(b)},{\cal F}_{A,\mathsf{cmp}},{\cal F}_{B,\mathsf{cmp}},{\cal F}_{A,\mathsf{out}}^{(b)},{\cal F}_{B,\mathsf{out}}^{(b)},$$ three to be used by each party. Each functionality has hard-coded some subset of 8 PRF keys $$k_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(A,A)},k_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(A,B)},k_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(B,A)},k_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(B,B)},k_{\mathsf{out}}^{(A,A)},k_{\mathsf{out}}^{(A,B)},k_{\mathsf{out}}^{(B,A)},k_{\mathsf{out}}^{(B,B)}.$$ We take each $\mathsf{PRF}(k_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(\cdot,\cdot)},\cdot)$ to be a mapping from a $\lambda$-bit string to a classical description of a Clifford $C \in \mathscr{C}_{n+\lambda}$. Each PRF key is used in two of the six obfuscated circuits, and the pair of letters in the superscript refers to the identity of the party associated with the first obfuscation it is used in, followed by the identify of the party associated with the second obfuscation it is used in.
Below we describe only ${\cal F}_{A,\mathsf{inp}}^{(b)},{\cal F}_{A,\mathsf{cmp}}$, and ${\cal F}_{A,\mathsf{out}}^{(b)}$ since ${\cal F}_{B,\mathsf{inp}}^{(b)},{\cal F}_{B,\mathsf{cmp}}$, and ${\cal F}_{B,\mathsf{out}}^{(b)}$ are defined exactly the same with $A$ and $B$ switched.
\begin{itemize}
\item ${\cal F}_{A,\mathsf{inp}}^{(b)}\left[k_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(A,A)},k_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(A,B)}\right]$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Take as input $(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{d}_A)$ which consists of $A$'s input $\mathbf{x}_A$ on $n$ qubits and a ``dummy'' input $\mathbf{d}_A$ on $n$ qubits.
\item Sample classical strings $r_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(A,A)},r_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(A,B)} \gets \{0,1\}^\lambda$.
\item Compute $C_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(A,A)} \coloneqq \mathsf{PRF}(k_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(A,A)},r_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(A,A)}),C_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(A,B)} \coloneqq \mathsf{PRF}(k_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(A,B)},r_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(A,B)})$.
\item Output $$\begin{cases}\left(r_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(A,A)},C_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(A,A)}(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{0}^\lambda),r_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(A,B)},C_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(A,B)}(\mathbf{d}_A,\mathbf{0}^\lambda)\right) \text{ if } b=0 \\ \left(r_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(A,A)},C_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(A,A)}(\mathbf{d}_A,\mathbf{0}^\lambda),r_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(A,B)},C_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(A,B)}(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{0}^\lambda)\right) \text{ if } b=1 \end{cases}.$$
\end{enumerate}
\item ${\cal F}_{A,\mathsf{cmp}}\left[Q,k_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(A,A)},k_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(B,A)},k_{\mathsf{out}}^{(A,A)},k_{\mathsf{out}}^{(A,B)}\right]$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Take as input $\left(r_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(A,A)},\widehat{\mathbf{x}}_A,r_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(B,A)},\widehat{\mathbf{x}}_B\right)$, where $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}_A$ and $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}_B$ are $(n+\lambda)$-qubit states.
\item Compute $C_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(A,A)} \coloneqq \mathsf{PRF}(k_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(A,A)},r_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(A,A)}),C_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(B,A)} \coloneqq \mathsf{PRF}(k_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(B,A)},r_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(B,A)})$.
\item Compute $C_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(A,A)}(\widehat{\mathbf{x}}_A)$ and measure the final $\lambda$ qubits. If each is zero, let $\mathbf{x}_A$ be the remaining $n$-qubit state. Otherwise, abort.
\item Compute $C_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(B,A)}(\widehat{\mathbf{x}}_B)$ and measure the final $\lambda$ qubits. If each is zero, let $\mathbf{x}_B$ be the remaining $n$-qubit state. Otherwise, abort.
\item Compute $(\mathbf{y}_A,\mathbf{y}_B) \coloneqq Q(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B)$.
\item Sample classical strings $r_{\mathsf{out}}^{(A,A)},r_{\mathsf{out}}^{(A,B)} \gets \{0,1\}^\lambda$.
\item Compute $C_{\mathsf{out}}^{(A,A)} \coloneqq \mathsf{PRF}(k_{\mathsf{out}}^{(A,A)},r_{\mathsf{out}}^{(A,A)}),C_{\mathsf{out}}^{(A,B)} \coloneqq \mathsf{PRF}(k_{\mathsf{out}}^{(A,B)},r_{\mathsf{out}}^{(A,B)})$.
\item Output $$\left(r_{\mathsf{out}}^{(A,A)},C_{\mathsf{out}}^{(A,A)}(\mathbf{y}_A,\mathbf{0}^\lambda),r_{\mathsf{out}}^{(A,B)},C_{\mathsf{out}}^{(A,B)}(\mathbf{y}_B,\mathbf{0}^\lambda)\right).$$
\end{enumerate}
\item ${\cal F}^{(b)}_{A,\mathsf{out}}\left[k_{\mathsf{out}}^{(A,A)},k_{\mathsf{out}}^{(B,A)}\right]:$
\begin{enumerate}
\item Take as input $\left(r_{\mathsf{out}}^{(A,A)},\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A^{(0)},r_{\mathsf{out}}^{(B,A)},\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A^{(1)}\right)$, where $\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A^{(0)}$ and $\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A^{(1)}$ are $(n+\lambda)$-qubit states.
\item Compute $C_{\mathsf{out}}^{(A,A)} \coloneqq \mathsf{PRF}(k_{\mathsf{out}}^{(A,A)},r_{\mathsf{out}}^{(A,A)}),C_{\mathsf{out}}^{(B,A)} \coloneqq \mathsf{PRF}(k_{\mathsf{out}}^{(B,A)},r_{\mathsf{out}}^{(B,A)})$.
\item Compute $C_{\mathsf{out}}^{(A,A)}(\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A^{(0)})$ and measure the final $\lambda$ qubits. If each is zero, let $\mathbf{y}_A^{(0)}$ be the remaining $n$-qubit state. Otherwise, abort.
\item Compute $C_{\mathsf{out}}^{(B,A)}(\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A^{(1)})$ and measure the final $\lambda$ qubits. If each is zero, let $\mathbf{y}_A^{(1)}$ be the remaining $n$-qubit state. Otherwise, abort.
\item Output $\mathbf{y}_A^{(b)}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{itemize}
Now we are ready to describe the protocol.
\protocol
{\proref{fig:vbb-protocol}}
{Two-round two-party quantum computation.}
{fig:vbb-protocol}
{
\textbf{Common Information:} Quantum circuit $Q$ to be computed with $2n$ input qubits and $2n$ output qubits.\\
\textbf{Party A Input:} $\mathbf{x}_A$\\
\textbf{Party B Input:} $\mathbf{x}_B$\\
\underline{\textbf{The Protocol:}}
\textbf{Setup.}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Sample 8 PRF keys $k_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(A,A)},k_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(A,B)},k_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(B,A)},k_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(B,B)},k_{\mathsf{out}}^{(A,A)},k_{\mathsf{out}}^{(A,B)},k_{\mathsf{out}}^{(B,A)},k_{\mathsf{out}}^{(B,B)}.$
\item Publish the following obfuscations:
\begin{gather*}
{\cal O}_{A,\mathsf{inp}} \coloneqq {\cal O}\left({\cal F}^{(1)}_{A,\mathsf{inp}}\left[k_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(A,A)},k_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(A,B)}\right]\right), {\cal O}_{B,\mathsf{inp}} \coloneqq {\cal O}\left({\cal F}^{(0)}_{B,\mathsf{inp}}\left[k_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(B,B)},k_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(B,A)}\right]\right) \\
{\cal O}_{A,\mathsf{cmp}} \coloneqq {\cal O}\left({\cal F}_{A,\mathsf{cmp}}\left[Q,k_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(A,A)},k_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(B,A)},k_{\mathsf{out}}^{(A,A)},k_{\mathsf{out}}^{(A,B)}\right]\right), \\ {\cal O}_{B,\mathsf{cmp}} \coloneqq {\cal O}\left({\cal F}_{B,\mathsf{cmp}}\left[Q,k_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(B,B)},k_{\mathsf{inp}}^{(A,B)},k_{\mathsf{out}}^{(B,B)},k_{\mathsf{out}}^{(B,A)}\right]\right), \\
{\cal O}_{A,\mathsf{out}} \coloneqq {\cal O}\left({\cal F}^{(1)}_{A,\mathsf{out}}\left[k_{\mathsf{out}}^{(A,A)},k_{\mathsf{out}}^{(B,A)}\right]\right), {\cal O}_{B,\mathsf{out}} \coloneqq {\cal O}\left({\cal F}^{(0)}_{B,\mathsf{out}}\left[k_{\mathsf{out}}^{(B,B)},k_{\mathsf{out}}^{(A,B)}\right]\right).
\end{gather*}
\end{enumerate}
\textbf{Round 1.}
\emph{Party $A$:}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Compute $(st_{A,1},\mathbf{st}_{A,1},m_{A,1},\mathbf{m}_{A,1}) \gets {\cal O}_{A,\mathsf{inp}}(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{0}^n)$, where $\mathbf{0}^n$ is the ``dummy input''.
\item Send to Party $B$: $(m_{A,1},\mathbf{m}_{A,1})$.
\end{enumerate}
\emph{Party $B$:}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Compute $(st_{B,1},\mathbf{st}_{B,1},m_{B,1},\mathbf{m}_{B,1}) \gets {\cal O}_{B,\mathsf{inp}}(\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{0}^n)$, where $\mathbf{0}^n$ is the ``dummy input''.
\item Send to Party $A$: $(m_{B,1},\mathbf{m}_{B,1})$.
\end{enumerate}
\textbf{Round 2.}
\emph{Party $A$:}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Compute $(st_{A,2},\mathbf{st}_{A,2},m_{A,2},\mathbf{m}_{A,2}) \gets {\cal O}_{A,\mathsf{cmp}}(st_{A,1},\mathbf{st}_{A,1},m_{B,1},\mathbf{m}_{B,1})$.
\item Send to Party $B$: $(m_{A,2},\mathbf{m}_{A,2})$.
\end{enumerate}
\emph{Party $B$:}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Compute $(st_{B,2},\mathbf{st}_{B,2},m_{B,2},\mathbf{m}_{B,2}) \gets {\cal O}_{B,\mathsf{cmp}}(st_{B,1},\mathbf{st}_{B,1},m_{A,1},\mathbf{m}_{A,1})$.
\item Send to Party $A$: $(m_{B,2},\mathbf{m}_{B,2})$.
\end{enumerate}
\textbf{Output Reconstruction.}
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Party $A$:} Compute $\mathbf{y}_A \gets {\cal O}_{A,\mathsf{out}}(st_{A,2},\mathbf{st}_{A,2},m_{B,2},\mathbf{m}_{B,2})$.
\item \emph{Party $B$:} Compute $\mathbf{y}_B \gets {\cal O}_{B,\mathsf{out}}(st_{B,2},\mathbf{st}_{B,2},m_{A,2},\mathbf{m}_{A,2})$.
\end{itemize}
}
\clearpage
\begin{theorem}
Assuming quantum VBB obfuscation (\cref{defn:vbb}), the protocol described in \proref{fig:vbb-protocol} satisfies security against a malicious $A$ and malicious $B$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
(Sketch) First observe where the computation is taking place in an honest execution of the protocol. In the first round, $A$ executes ${\cal O}_{A,\mathsf{inp}}$ and sends a Clifford encoding of its input $\mathbf{x}_A$ to $B$, while $B$ executes ${\cal O}_{B,\mathsf{inp}}$ and sends a Clifford encoding of its dummy input $\mathbf{0}^n$ to $A$ while keeping a Clifford encoding of its input $\mathbf{x}_B$ in its state. In the second round, $B$ executes ${\cal O}_{B,\mathsf{cmp}}$ to produce a Clifford encoding of the output $(\mathbf{y}_A,\mathbf{y}_B)$, while $A$ executes ${\cal O}_{A,\mathsf{cmp}}$ to produce a Clifford encoding of a dummy output. $B$ sends the encoding of $\mathbf{y}_A$, which is decrypted by $A$ using ${\cal O}_{A,\mathsf{out}}$ and $B$ decrypts its output $\mathbf{y}_B$ using ${\cal O}_{B,\mathsf{out}}$.
Now note that it is straightforward to perfectly simulate a malicious $A$. The simulator can sample the CRS (so in particular it knows all the PRF keys) and then emulate an honest $B$, receiving $A$'s encoded input, decrypting it, evaluating the circuit, and finally encoding $A$'s output and sending it back.
Now consider sampling the CRS to be obfuscations of the functionalities $${\cal F}_{A,\mathsf{inp}}^{(0)},{\cal F}_{B,\mathsf{inp}}^{(1)},{\cal F}_{A,\mathsf{cmp}},{\cal F}_{B,\mathsf{cmp}},{\cal F}_{A,\mathsf{out}}^{(0)},{\cal F}_{B,\mathsf{out}}^{(1)}.$$ This only differs from the real protocol in the superscript $b$ values of the $\mathsf{inp}$ and $\mathsf{out}$ functionality. However, this completely reverses the flow of computation in an honest execution of the protocol. Now, $A$ is computing the functionality on the actual inputs, while $B$ is computing on the dummy inputs. Thus with this sampling of the CRS, it is straightforward to perfectly simulate a malicious $B$. It remains to show that these two methods of sampling the CRS are computationally indistinguishable.
Consider an adversary that can distinguish obfuscations of
$${\cal F}_{A,\mathsf{inp}}^{(1)},{\cal F}_{B,\mathsf{inp}}^{(0)},{\cal F}_{A,\mathsf{cmp}},{\cal F}_{B,\mathsf{cmp}},{\cal F}_{A,\mathsf{out}}^{(1)},{\cal F}_{B,\mathsf{out}}^{(0)}$$ from obfuscations of $${\cal F}_{A,\mathsf{inp}}^{(0)},{\cal F}_{B,\mathsf{inp}}^{(1)},{\cal F}_{A,\mathsf{cmp}},{\cal F}_{B,\mathsf{cmp}},{\cal F}_{A,\mathsf{out}}^{(0)},{\cal F}_{B,\mathsf{out}}^{(1)}.$$ By the security of (our strong form of) VBB obfuscation, such an adversary implies a distinguisher that is only given oracle access to these functionalities. Now, since this distinguisher only has oracle access to the PRFs, one can replace them with truly random functions. At this point, due to the perfect hiding of the Clifford code, an adversary cannot obtain any information from the outputs of $({\cal F}_{A,\mathsf{inp}}^{(0)},{\cal F}_{B,\mathsf{inp}}^{(1)},{\cal F}_{A,\mathsf{cmp}},{\cal F}_{B,\mathsf{cmp}})$, except with negligible probability (this non-zero probability is due to the possibility of collision in sampling the $r$ values used as inputs to the PRFs / random functions). Furthermore, due to the statistical authentication of the Clifford code, an adversary can only obtain an output from $({\cal F}_{A,\mathsf{out}}^{(b)},{\cal F}_{B,\mathsf{out}}^{(1-b)})$ with non-negligible probability if it emulates an honest execution of the protocol, starting with arbitrary inputs $(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{d}_A)$ to ${\cal F}_{A,\mathsf{inp}}^{(b)}$ and $(\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{d}_B)$ to ${\cal F}_{B,\mathsf{inp}}^{(1-b)}$. But regardless of the value of $b$, the outputs of $({\cal F}_{A,\mathsf{out}}^{(b)},{\cal F}_{B,\mathsf{out}}^{(1-b)})$ will be $(\mathbf{y}_A,\mathbf{y}_B) \coloneqq Q(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B)$. Thus switching the value of $b$ at this point will be statistically indistinguishable, completing the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Post-quantum Yao garbled circuit}
\begin{definition}[Post-quantum adaptive security]
\label{def: post-quantum garbling}
A garbling scheme $\textsf{Gb} = (\textsf{GCircuit}, \textsf{GInput})$ for a family of circuits $\mathcal{C}$ is post-quantum adaptively secure if there exist a pair of QPT algorithms $\textsf{Sim} = (\textsf{SimCircuit},\textsf{SimInput})$, such that for any QPT adversary $\mathcal{A}$ the following holds:
$$ \left| \Pr[\textsf{Exp}(1^{\lambda}, \mathcal A, \textsf{Sim}, 0) = 1] - \Pr[\textsf{Exp}(1^{\lambda}, \mathcal A, \textsf{Sim}, 1) = 1] \right| = negl(\lambda) \,,$$
where the experiment $\textsf{Exp}(1^{\lambda}, A, \textsf{Sim}, b)$ is defined as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\mathcal A$ specifies a circuit $C$ and gets in return $\tilde{C}$ created as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item if $b=0$: $(\tilde{C}, k) \leftarrow \textsf{GCircuit}(1^{\lambda}, C)$
\item if $b = 1$: $(\tilde{C}, \textsf{state}) \leftarrow \textsf{SimCircuit}(1^{\lambda}, \Phi_{\textsf{topo}}(C))$, where $\Phi_{\textsf{topo}}(C)$ reveals the topology of $C$.
\end{itemize}
\item[(ii)] $\mathcal A$ produces a state $\sum_x \alpha_x \ket{x}$, and receives in return:
\begin{itemize}
\item if $b=0$: $\sum_x \alpha_x \ket{x} \ket{\textsf{GInput}(k,x)}$
\item if $b=1$: $\sum_x |\alpha_x|^2 \ket{\textsf{SimInput}(C(x), \textsf{state})}\bra{\textsf{SimInput}(C(x), \textsf{state})}$
\end{itemize}
\item[(iii)] $\mathcal A$ outputs a bit $b'$, which is the output of the experiment.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}
If Yao is a \emph{classically} adaptively secure garbling scheme for a family of circuits $\mathcal{C}$, then it is also a \emph{post-quantum} adaptively secure garbling scheme for $\mathcal C$. [currently only holds if PRFs are replaced with random oracles in Yao]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
This is a sketch proof.
Let $\textsf{Gb} = (\textsf{GCircuit}, \textsf{GInput})$ be the Yao garbling scheme.
To clarify some notation, the garbling key $k$ takes the form $(s^i_{b}: i \in [n], b \in \{0,1\})$. The initial labels $s_b^i$ are the secret keys for PRF based secret key encryptions of the labels in the next layer, and so on.
Let $\mathcal A$ be a quantum adversary as in the security game of Definition \ref{def: post-quantum garbling}.
\vspace{2mm}
The state held by $\mathcal{A}$ just before step (iii) of the security game is the following (I'm omitting auxiliary registers for simplicity; the state in the third register should be a mixed state in general):\fermi{Why does the attacker's state have registers for $C$ and $x$? This doesn't seem right to me since these registers can't be simulated; I would have guessed that the attacker's state is what is written below, but without the $C$ and $x$ registers}
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}_{\tilde{C},k \leftarrow \textsf{GCircuit}(1^{\lambda}, C)} \ket{C}\bra{C} \otimes \ket{\tilde{C}}\bra{\tilde{C}} \otimes \left((\sum_x \alpha_x \ket{x} \ket{\textsf{GInput}(k,x)})(\sum_x \alpha_x \bra{x} \bra{\textsf{GInput}(k,x)})\right) \,. \label{eq: state 1}
\end{equation}
We will argue that this state is computationally indistinguishable from
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}_{\tilde{C},k \leftarrow \textsf{GCircuit}(1^{\lambda}, C)} \ket{C}\bra{C} \otimes \ket{\tilde{C}}\bra{\tilde{C}} \otimes \sum_x |\alpha_x|^2 \ket{x} \ket{\textsf{Ginput}(k,x)}\bra{x}\bra{\textsf{Ginput}(k,x)} \,.
\label{eq: state 2}
\end{equation}
Upon substituting Yao's garbling scheme, we have
\begin{equation}
\eqref{eq: state 1} = \mathbb{E}_{\tilde{C}, s_b^i} \ket{C}\bra{C} \otimes \ket{\tilde{C}}\bra{\tilde{C}} \otimes \left( (\sum_x \alpha_x \ket{x} \ket{s_{x_1}^1, \ldots, s_{x_n}^n}(\sum_x \alpha_x \bra{x} \bra{s_{x_1}^1,\ldots, s_{x_n}^n})\right) \label{eq: state 4}\,,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\eqref{eq: state 2} = \mathbb{E}_{\tilde{C},s_b^i} \ket{C}\bra{C} \otimes \ket{\tilde{C}}\bra{\tilde{C}} \otimes \sum_x |\alpha_x|^2 \ket{x} \ket{s_{x_1}^1, \ldots, s_{x_n}^n}\bra{x} \bra{s_{x_1}^1,\ldots, s_{x_n}^n} \label{eq: state 5}\,.
\end{equation}
\begin{itemize}
\item We show that an adversary that distinguishes the states \eqref{eq: state 4} and \eqref{eq: state 5} can be used to construct an adversary that succeeds at the following generic distinguishing task, parametrized by values $\alpha$,$\beta$:
\begin{itemize}
\item If $b=0$, the adversary receives \begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}_{s_0, s_1 \leftarrow \{0,1\}^n}\,\,\, \left(\alpha\ket{0} \ket{s_0} + \beta\ket{1}\ket{s_1}\right)\left(\alpha\bra{0} \bra{s_0} + \beta\bra{1}\bra{s_1}\right)\,. \label{eq: state 12}
\end{equation}
together with classical values $H(s_0)$ and $H(s_1)$, for a uniformly random function $H$ with appropriate range, and (superposition) oracle access to $H$.
\item If $b=1$, the adversary receives \begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}_{s_0, s_1 \leftarrow \{0,1\}^n}\,\,\,|\alpha|^2\ket{0}\bra{0} \ket{s_0}\bra{s_0} + |\beta|^2\ket{1}\bra{1}\ket{s_1}\bra{s_1}\,. \label{eq: state 13}
\end{equation}
together with classical values $H(s_0)$ and $H(s_1)$, for a uniformly random function $H$ with appropriate range, and (superposition) oracle access to $H$.
\end{itemize}
To see why this reduction should hold, consider first the case where $x$ is a single bit. The case of arbitrarily long $x$ is obtained by applying the single-bit case result to for each bit of $x$.
The state that the adversary creates in \eqref{eq: state 4} is
$$\mathbb{E}_{\tilde{C}, s_0, s_1 \leftarrow \{0,1\}^n}\,\,\, \ket{C}\bra{C} \otimes \ket{\tilde{C}(s_0, s_1)}\bra{\tilde{C}(s_0,s_1)} \otimes \left(\alpha\ket{0} \ket{s_0} + \beta\ket{1}\ket{s_1}\right)\left(\alpha\bra{0} \bra{s_0} + \beta\bra{1}\bra{s_1}\right)\,. $$
The only information in $C$ and $\tilde{C}$ that is correlated to the third register are pairs of the form $(r_0, PRF_{s_0}(r_0))$ and $(r_1, PRF_{s_1}(r_1))$ for uniformly random $r$'s (in fact these are not even in the clear in $\tilde{C}$, because they are xored with labels for the successive layer) for random $r_0$ and $r_1$. All the remaining information can be simulated in a reduction. Here, I would have liked to replace the PRFs with random oracles, but I don't quite see that it is possible. I would have liked to reduce to a game in which the adversary sees pairs $(r_0, H(s_0, r_0))$ and $(r_1, H(s_1, r_1))$.
\item We show that no bounded adversary can succeed at the above distinguishing task (distinguishing \eqref{eq: state 12} and \eqref{eq: state 13}) with non-negligible advantage.
\begin{itemize}
\item First replace the random oracle $H$ with a small range distribution i.e. and oracle whose range is a uniformly random exponentially small fraction of the full range, yet still exponentially large. By \cite{zhandry2012construct}, the two oracles are indistinguishable to a bounded-query adversary.
\item Let $S_0 = H^{-1}(H(s_0))$ and $S_1 = H^{-1}(H(s_1))$. These are exponentially large sets. From the point of view of an unbounded query adversary the challenge is now to distinguish the states:
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}_{s_0 \leftarrow S_0, s_1 \leftarrow S_1} \left(\alpha\ket{0} \ket{s_0} + \beta\ket{1}\ket{s_1}\right)\left(\alpha\bra{0} \bra{s_0} + \beta\bra{1}\bra{s_1}\right) \label{eq: state 9}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}_{s_0 \leftarrow S_0, s_1 \leftarrow S_1} |\alpha|^2 \ket{0}\bra{0} \ket{s_0}\bra{s_0} + |\beta|^2 \ket{1}\bra{1} \ket{s_1}\bra{s_1} \label{eq: state 10}
\end{equation}
\item One can calculate that states \eqref{eq: state 9} and \eqref{eq: state 10} are negligibly close in trace distance by Lemma \ref{lem: negl trace distance} below. Hence, they are information-theoretically indistinguishable.
\end{itemize}
\item Finally, using the classical adaptive security of the garbling scheme, we can replace
$$ \mathbb{E}_{\tilde{C},k \leftarrow \textsf{GCircuit}(1^{\lambda}, C)} \ket{C}\bra{C} \otimes \ket{\tilde{C}}\bra{\tilde{C}} \otimes \sum_x |\alpha_x|^2 \ket{x} \ket{\textsf{Ginput}(k,x)}\bra{x}\bra{\textsf{Ginput}(k,x)}
$$
with $\sum_x |\alpha_x|^2 \ket{\textsf{SimInput}(C(x), \textsf{state})}\bra{\textsf{SimInput}(C(x), \textsf{state})}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem: negl trace distance}
Let $\ket{\psi_0}$ and $\ket{\psi_1}$ be two orthogonal states, and let $\ket{aux_0}$, $\ket{aux_1}$ be two (not necessarily orthogonal) states. Let $S_0, S_1 \subseteq \{0,1\}^n$. Let $\mathcal{S}_0$ and $\mathcal{S}_1$ be distributions over $S_0$ and $S_1$ respectively from now on. Let \fermi{In the following equation, should the $\alpha$ and $\beta$ be $\overline{\alpha}$ and $\overline{\beta}$ in the second parenthesis?}
\begin{equation}
\rho_0 = \mathbb{E}_{s_0 \leftarrow \mathcal{S}_0, s_1 \leftarrow \mathcal{S}_1} \,\,\, \left(\alpha\ket{\psi_0} \ket{s_0} \ket{aux_0} + \beta\ket{\psi_1}\ket{s_1}\ket{aux_1}\right)\left(\alpha\bra{\psi_0} \bra{s_0}\bra{aux_0} + \beta\bra{\psi_1}\bra{s_1}\bra{aux_1}\right)\,, \label{eq: state 9}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\rho_1 = \mathbb{E}_{s_0 \leftarrow \mathcal{S}_0, s_1 \leftarrow \mathcal{S}_1} \,\,\,\,|\alpha|^2 \ket{\psi_0}\bra{\psi_0} \otimes \ket{s_0}\bra{s_0} \otimes \ket{aux_0}\bra{aux_0} + |\beta|^2 \ket{\psi_1}\bra{\psi_1} \otimes \ket{s_1}\bra{s_1} \otimes \ket{aux_1}\bra{aux_1} \label{eq: state 10}
\end{equation}
Then
\begin{equation}
\|\rho_0-\rho_1\|_1 \leq 2 \cdot 2^{-\frac{\textbf{H}_{min}(\mathcal{S}_0)}{2}} \cdot 2^{-\frac{\textbf{H}_{min}(\mathcal{S}_1)}{2}}\,.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
In particular, it is sufficient that one of the two distributions has polynomial min-entropy \fermi{super-logarithmic?} for the trace distance to be negligible.
\begin{proof}
We have
\begin{align}
\| \rho_0 - \rho_1 \| &= \left\| \mathbb{E}_{s_0 \leftarrow \mathcal{S}_0, s_1 \leftarrow \mathcal{S}_1} \left( \alpha \bar{\beta}\ket{\psi_0} \ket{s_0} \ket{aux_0}\bra{\psi_1}\bra{s_1}\bra{aux_1} +\bar{\alpha}\beta \ket{\psi_1} \ket{s_1} \ket{aux_1}\bra{\psi_0}\bra{s_0}\bra{aux_0} \right) \right\|_1 \\
&\leq |\alpha| |\beta| \left\|\mathbb{E}_{s_0 \leftarrow \mathcal{S}_0, s_1 \leftarrow \mathcal{S}_1} \ket{\psi_0} \ket{s_0} \ket{aux_0}\bra{\psi_1}\bra{s_1}\bra{aux_1} \right\|_1 \\
&\,\,\,\,+ |\alpha||\beta| \left\|\mathbb{E}_{s_0 \leftarrow \mathcal{S}_0, s_1 \leftarrow \mathcal{S}_1}\ket{\psi_1} \ket{s_1} \ket{aux_1}\bra{\psi_0}\bra{s_0}\bra{aux_0} \right\|_1
\\
&\leq \left\|\mathbb{E}_{s_0 \leftarrow \mathcal{S}_0, s_1 \leftarrow \mathcal{S}_1} \ket{\psi_0} \ket{s_0} \ket{aux_0}\bra{\psi_1}\bra{s_1}\bra{aux_1} \right\|_1 \\
&\,\,\,\,+ \left\|\mathbb{E}_{s_0 \leftarrow \mathcal{S}_0, s_1 \leftarrow \mathcal{S}_1}\ket{\psi_1} \ket{s_1} \ket{aux_1}\bra{\psi_0}\bra{s_0}\bra{aux_0} \right\|_1 \,. \label{eq: 17}
\end{align}
We upper bound the first summand (the second is a relabelling).
Since the trace norm is invariant under isometries, we replace $\ket{\psi_0}$ and $\ket{\psi_1}$ with $\ket{0}$ and $\ket{1}$ respectively from now on.
We compute the singular values of $\mathbb{E}_{s_0 \leftarrow \mathcal{S}_0, s_1 \leftarrow \mathcal{S}_1}\ket{0}\ket{s_0} \ket{aux_0}\bra{1}\bra{s_1}\bra{aux_1}$ as the square roots of the eigenvalues of \begin{align}
&\left(\mathbb{E}_{s_0 \leftarrow \mathcal{S}_0, s_1 \leftarrow \mathcal{S}_1} \ket{0}\ket{s_0} \ket{aux_0}\bra{1}\bra{s_1}\bra{aux_1} \right) \left(\mathbb{E}_{s_0' \leftarrow \mathcal{S}_0, s_1' \leftarrow \mathcal{S}_1} \ket{0}\ket{s_0'} \ket{aux_0}\bra{1}\bra{s_1'}\bra{aux_1} \right)^{\dagger} \label{eq: aa}\\
&= \left(\mathbb{E}_{s_0 \leftarrow \mathcal{S}_0, s_1 \leftarrow \mathcal{S}_1} \ket{0}\ket{s_0} \ket{aux_0}\bra{1}\bra{s_1}\bra{aux_1} \right) \left(\mathbb{E}_{s_0' \leftarrow \mathcal{S}_0, s_1' \leftarrow \mathcal{S}_1}\ket{1}\ket{s_1'} \ket{aux_1}\bra{0}\bra{s_0'}\bra{aux_0} \right) \\
&= \sum_{s_0, s_0',s_1,s_1'} p_0(s_0)p_0(s_0')p_1(s_1)p_1(s_1') \ket{0}\ket{s_0} \ket{aux_0}\bra{1}\bra{s_1}\bra{aux_1} \,\,\,\ket{1}\ket{s_1'}\ket{aux_1}\bra{0}\bra{s_0'}\bra{aux_0} \label{eq: 18}
\end{align}
where $p_i$ is the probability mass function of $\mathcal{S}_i$. We have
\begin{align}
\eqref{eq: 18} &= \sum_{s_1} p_1(s_1)^2 \,\,\sum_{s_0, s_0'} p_0(s_0)p_0(s_0') \ket{0}\bra{0} \otimes \ket{s_0}\bra{s_0'} \otimes \ket{aux_0}\bra{aux_0} \\
&= \sum_{s_1} p_1(s_1)^2 \,\, \ket{0}\bra{0} \otimes \left(\sum_{s_0, s_0'} p_0(s_0)p_0(s_0') \ket{s_0}\bra{s_0'} \right) \otimes \ket{aux_0}\bra{aux_0}
\end{align}
Now, notice that \begin{equation}\left(\sum_{s_0, s_0'} p_0(s_0)p_0(s_0') \ket{s_0}\bra{s_0'} \right) = v v^{\dagger} \,, \label{eq: 23}
\end{equation}
where $v = \sum_{s_0} p_0(s_0) \ket{s_0}$.
In particular, \eqref{eq: 23} has eigenvector $\sum_{s_0} p_0(s_0) \ket{s_0}$ with eigenvalue $\sum_{s_0} p_0(s_0)^2$. We deduce that \eqref{eq: aa} has only one non-zero eigenvalue, namely
$$ \sum_{s_1} p_1(s_1)^2 \sum_{s_0} p_1(s_0)^2\,.$$
Taking the square root, gives the unique non-zero singular value of $\mathbb{E}_{s_0 \leftarrow \mathcal{S}_0, s_1 \leftarrow \mathcal{S}_1}\ket{0}\ket{s_0} \ket{aux_0}\bra{1}\bra{s_1}\bra{aux_1}$. Finally, notice that
$$ \sum_{s_0} p(s_0)^2 = \mathbb{E}_{s_0 \leftarrow \mathcal{S}_0} \,\,p(s_0) \leq 2^{-\textbf{H}_{min}(\mathcal{S}_0)}\,.$$
Thus, we can upper bound \eqref{eq: 17} by $2 \cdot 2^{-\frac{\textbf{H}_{min}(\mathcal{S}_0)}{2}} \cdot 2^{-\frac{\textbf{H}_{min}(\mathcal{S}_0)}{2}}$, which gives the desired result.
\end{proof}
\section{Preliminaries}
\subsection{Notation}
Following \cite{ARXIV:BrakerskiYuen20}, we define a Quantum Random Variable, or QRV, to be a density matrix $\mathbf{x}$ on register $\gray{X}$. We will generally refer to QRVs with lowercase bold font and to registers with uppercase gray font. A collection of QRVs $(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y},\mathbf{z})$ on registers $\gray{X},\gray{Y},\gray{Z}$ is also a QRV, and $\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y},\mathbf{z}$ may or may not be entangled with each other.
Let $\lambda$ denote the security parameter. We will consider non-uniform quantum polynomial-time adversaries, denoted by ${\mathsf{Adv}} = \{{\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda,\boldsymbol{\rho}_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$, where each ${\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda$ is the classical description of a ${\rm poly}(\lambda)$-size quantum circuit, and each $\boldsymbol{\rho}_\lambda$ is some (not necesarily efficiently computable) non-uniform ${\rm poly}(\lambda)$-qubit quantum advice.
We will denote the trace distance between two QRVs $\mathbf{x}$ and $\mathbf{y}$ with $\|\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}\|_1$ and for infinite sequences of QRVs $\{\mathbf{x}_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$ and $\{\mathbf{y}_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$ we write $$\{\mathbf{x}_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}} \approx_s \{\mathbf{y}_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$$ to indicate that there exists a negligible function $\mu(\cdot)$ such that $||\mathbf{x}_\lambda - \mathbf{y}_\lambda||_1 \leq \mu(\lambda)$. Here, the $s$ refers to ``statistical'' indistinguishability.
In addition, we write $$\{\mathbf{x}_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}} \approx_c \{\mathbf{y}_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$$ to indicate that there exists a negligible function $\mu(\cdot)$ such that for all QPT distinguishers ${\cal D} = \{{\cal D}_\lambda,\mathbf{d}_\lambda\}_{\lambda}$, $$\left|\Pr[{\cal D}_\lambda(\mathbf{d}_\lambda,\mathbf{x}_\lambda) = 1] - \Pr[{\cal D}_\lambda(\mathbf{d}_\lambda,\mathbf{y}_\lambda) = 1] \right| \leq \mu(\lambda).$$ Here, the $c$ refers to ``computational'' indistinguishability.
Let $\mathscr{C}_n$ and $\mathscr{P}_n$ denote the $n$-qubit Clifford and Pauli groups, respectively. Let $\mathbf{0}$ refer to a 0 state and $\mathbf{T}$ refer to a $T$ state. $\mathbf{0}^n$ denotes $n$ copies of a single qubit 0 state and likewise for $\mathbf{T}^n$. Let $X$ and $Z$ be the Pauli matrices, i.e.
\[ X = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{bmatrix}, Z = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \end{bmatrix}. \]
\subsection{Clifford Authentication Code}
\begin{definition}[Clifford Authentication Code]
The $n$-qubit $\lambda$-trap Clifford authentication code consists of the following algorithms, which encode an $n$-qubit state $\mathbf{x}$ with key $C \in \mathscr{C}_{n+\lambda}$.
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathsf{Enc}(C,\mathbf{x})$: Compute $C(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{0}^\lambda) \coloneqq \widehat{\mathbf{x}}$.
\item $\mathsf{Dec}(C,\widehat{\mathbf{x}})$: Compute $(\mathbf{x}',\mathbf{y}) \coloneqq C^\dagger(\widehat{\mathbf{x}})$ (where $\mathbf{x}'$ is the first $n$ registers of the result and $\mathbf{y}$ is the final $\lambda$) and measure $\mathbf{y}$ in the standard basis. If the outcome is $0^\lambda$, return $\mathbf{x}'$, and otherwise return $\ket{\bot}\bra{\bot}$.
\end{itemize}
This authentication code satisfies the following property. For any QRV $(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{z})$ and any CPTP map ${\mathsf{Adv}}$ acting on the encoding and side-information $\mathbf{z}$, there exist maps ${\cal B}_0$, ${\cal B}_1$ acting on $\mathbf{z}$ such that ${\cal B}_0+{\cal B}_1$ is CPTP (completely positive trace preserving), and
$$\left\|\expectation_{C \gets \mathscr{C}_{n+\lambda}}\left[\mathsf{Dec}(C,{\mathsf{Adv}}(\mathsf{Enc}(C,\mathbf{x}),\mathbf{z}))\right] - \left((\mathbf{x},{\cal B}_0(\mathbf{z})) + \left(\ket{\bot}\bra{\bot}, {\cal B}_1(\mathbf{z})\right)\right)\right\|_1 = {\rm negl}(\lambda).$$
\end{definition}
\subsection{Multi-Party Quantum Computation}
Below we give a definition of maliciously-secure multi-party quantum computation with abort, following the standard real/ideal world paradigm for defining secure computation~\cite{Goldbook}. It can be strengthened to security with \emph{unanimous} abort by changing the interface of the ideal functionality ${\cal I}$ so that its final input is $\mathsf{abort}$ or $\mathsf{ok}$, and it either outputs all honest party outputs (if $\mathsf{ok}$) or none (if $\mathsf{abort}$).
Consider an $n$-party quantum functionality specified by a family of quantum circuits ${\cal Q} = \{Q_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$ where $Q_\lambda$ has $m_1(\lambda) + \dots + m_n(\lambda)$ input qubits and $\ell_1(\lambda) + \dots + \ell_n(\lambda)$ output qubits. We will consider a QPT adversary ${\mathsf{Adv}} = \{{\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$ that corrupts any subset $M \subset [n]$ of parties.
Let $\Pi$ be an $n$-party protocol for computing $Q$. For security parameter $\lambda$ and any collection of (potentially entangled) quantum states $(\mathbf{x}_1,\dots,\mathbf{x}_n,\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}},\mathbf{aux}_{\cal D})$, where $\mathbf{x}_i$ is $P_i$'s input to $Q_\lambda$ (on $m_i(\lambda)$ registers), $\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}}$ is some side information (on an arbitrary number of registers) given to the adversary, and $\mathbf{aux}_{\cal D}$ is some information (on an arbitrary number of registers) given to the distinguisher, we define the quantum random variable $\mathsf{REAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{Q}}({\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda,\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i \in [n]},\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$ as follows. ${\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda(\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i \in M},\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$ interacts with honest party algorithms on inputs $\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i \in [n] \setminus M}$ participating in protocol $\Pi$, after which the honest parties output $\{\mathbf{y}_i\}_{i \in [n] \setminus M}$ and ${\mathsf{Adv}}$ outputs a final state $\mathbf{z}$ (an arbitrary function computed on an arbitrary subset of the registers that comprise its view). The random variable $\mathsf{REAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{Q}}({\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda,\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i \in [n]},\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$ then consists of $\{\mathbf{y}_i\}_{i \in [n] \setminus M}$ along with $\mathbf{z}$.
For any ${\mathsf{Adv}}$, we require the existence of a simulator $\mathsf{Sim}= \{\mathsf{Sim}_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$ that takes as input $(\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i \in M},\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$, has access to an ideal functionality ${\cal I}[\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i \in [n] \setminus M}](\cdot)$, and outputs a state $\mathbf{z}$. The ideal functionality accepts an input $\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i \in M}$, applies $Q_\lambda$ to $(\mathbf{x}_1,\dots,\mathbf{x}_n)$ to recover $(\mathbf{y}_1,\dots,\mathbf{y}_n)$, and returns $\{\mathbf{y}_i\}_{i \in M}$ to $\mathsf{Sim}_\lambda$. Then, for each $i \in [n] \setminus M$, it waits for either an $\mathsf{abort}_i$ or $\mathsf{ok}_i$ message from $\mathsf{Sim}_\lambda$. In the case of $\mathsf{ok}_i$ it includes $\mathbf{y}_i$ in its output and in the case of $\mathsf{abort}_i$ it includes $\bot$ (note that these outputs are not given to $\mathsf{Sim}_\lambda$). Now, we define the quantum random variable $\mathsf{IDEAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{Q}}(\mathsf{Sim}_\lambda,\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i \in [n]},\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$ to consist of the output of ${\cal I}[\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i \in [n] \setminus M}](\cdot)$ and the final state $\mathbf{z}$ of $\mathsf{Sim}_\lambda^{{\cal I}[\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i \in [n] \setminus M}](\cdot)}(\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i \in M},\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$.
\begin{definition}[Secure Multi-Party Quantum Computation]
\label{def:mpqc} A protocol $\Pi$ securely computes $Q$ if for all QPT ${\mathsf{Adv}} = \{{\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$ corrupting subset of parties $M \subset [n]$, there exists a QPT $\mathsf{Sim} = \{\mathsf{Sim}_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$ such that for all $\{\mathbf{x}_{1,\lambda},\dots,\mathbf{x}_{n,\lambda},\mathbf{aux}_{{\mathsf{Adv}},\lambda},\mathbf{aux}_{{\cal D},\lambda}\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$ and all QPT ${\cal D} = \{{\cal D}_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$, there exists a negligible function $\nu(\cdot)$ such that
\begin{align*}
&\bigg| \Pr\left[{\cal D}_\lambda\left(\mathbf{aux}_{{\cal D},\lambda},\mathsf{REAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{Q}}({\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda,\{\mathbf{x}_{i,\lambda}\}_{i \in [n]},\mathbf{aux}_{{\mathsf{Adv}},\lambda})\right) = 1\right]\\ &- \Pr\left[{\cal D}_\lambda\left(\mathbf{aux}_{{\cal D},\lambda},\mathsf{IDEAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{Q}}(\mathsf{Sim}_\lambda,\{\mathbf{x}_{i,\lambda}\}_{i \in [n]},\mathbf{aux}_{{\mathsf{Adv}},\lambda})\right) = 1\right] \bigg| \leq \nu(\lambda).
\end{align*}
\end{definition}
\subsection{Useful Lemmas}
\begin{lemma}[Magic State Distillation~\cite{BravyiKitaev05,EC:DGJMS20}]\label{lemma:distillation} Let $p(\cdot)$ be a polynomial. Then there exists a ${\rm poly}(\lambda)$ size $\mathsf{C+M}$ circuit $Q$ from $\lambda p(\lambda)$ input qubits to $p(\lambda)$ output qubits such that the following holds. Take any state $\mathbf{x}$ on $\lambda p(\lambda) +\lambda$ qubits. Apply a uniformly random permutation to the registers of $\mathbf{x}$ and then measure the final $\lambda$ qubits in the $T$-basis to obtain a bitstring $s$. Let $\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}$ be the remaining $\lambda p(\lambda)$ registers. Then there exist negligible functions $\mu,\nu$ such that $$\Pr\left[(s = 0) \wedge \left(\left\|Q(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}})- \mathbf{T}^{p(\lambda)}\right\|_1 > \mu(\lambda)\right)\right] \leq \nu(\lambda).$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This follows from applying~\cite[Lemma I.1]{EC:DGJMS20} with parameters $n = \lambda p(\lambda)$, $k = \lambda$, $\delta = 1/2$ followed by~\cite[Lemma 2.7]{EC:DGJMS20} with parameters $m = \lambda p(\lambda)$, $\ell = m/2, t=p(\lambda)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}[\cite{EC:DGJMS20}]\label{lemma:linear-map}
For any $n \in {\mathbb N}$ and projector $\Pi$ on $2n$ qubits, define the quantum channel ${\cal L}^\Pi$ by $${\cal L}^\Pi(\mathbf{x}) \coloneqq \Pi\mathbf{x}\Pi + \ket{\bot}\bra{\bot}\mathrm{Tr}[({\mathbb I}^{2n}-\Pi)\mathbf{x}],$$ where $\ket{\bot}$ is a distinguished state on $2n$ qubits with $\Pi\ket{\bot} = 0$. For any $t \in \{0,1\}^n$, let $\Pi_{t,\mathsf{Full}} \coloneqq \ket{0^{2n}}\bra{0^{2n}}$ if $t = 0^n$ and $\Pi_{t,\mathsf{Full}} \coloneqq 0$ otherwise. Let $\Pi_{t,\mathsf{Half}} \coloneqq {\mathbb I}^n \otimes \ket{t}\bra{t}$. Then for any QRV $\mathbf{x}$ on $2n$ registers and $t \in \{0,1\}^n$, $$\left\|{\cal L}^{\Pi_{t,\mathsf{Full}}}(\mathbf{x}) - \expectation_{U \gets \mathsf{GL}(2n,{\mathbb F}_2)}\left[{\cal L}^{\Pi_{t,\mathsf{Half}}}(U(\mathbf{x}))\right]\right\|_1 = {\rm negl}(n).$$
\end{lemma}
This implies the following lemma, which is stated in terms of an interactive game between adversary and challenger.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:Ztest}
Consider the following experiment. An adversary ${\mathsf{Adv}}$ outputs a state $\mathbf{x}^{\gray{M_1},\gray{M_2}}$ on $2n$ qubits. Then, the challenger samples $U \gets \mathsf{GL}(2n,{\mathbb F}_2), r,s \gets \{0,1\}^n$, computes $\left(\mathbf{y}_1^{\gray{M_1}},\mathbf{y}_2^{\gray{M_2}}\right) \coloneqq ({\mathbb I} \otimes X^rZ^s)U(\mathbf{x})$, and returns $\mathbf{y}_2$. Finally, the adversary outputs a string $r'$. The experiment accepts if $r' = r$ and otherwise rejects. Then there exist negligible functions $\mu,\nu$ such $$\Pr\left[(r' = r) \wedge \left(\left\|\mathbf{y}_1 - \mathbf{0}^n \right\|_1 > \mu(n)\right)\right] \leq \nu(n).$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We can specify any adversary by a starting state $\left(\mathbf{x}^{\gray{M_1},\gray{M_2}},\mathbf{z}^{\gray{Z}}\right)$ and an attack unitary $A$, where $A$ is applied to $(\mathbf{y}_2,\mathbf{z})$ and then followed by a computational basis measurement to produce $r'$. Then we can write the experiment in the lemma as sampling $U,r,s$, computing $$\left({\mathbb I}^{\gray{M_1}} \otimes X^rZ^s \otimes {\mathbb I}^{\gray{Z}}\right)\left({\mathbb I}^{\gray{M_1}} \otimes A^{\gray{M_2},\gray{Z}}\right)\left({\mathbb I}^{\gray{M_1}} \otimes X^rZ^s \otimes {\mathbb I}^{\gray{Z}}\right)\left(U \otimes {\mathbb I}^{\gray{Z}}\right)(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{z}),$$ measuring the $\gray{M_2}$ register and rejecting if the result is not $0^n$. Now, one can apply the Pauli twirl (see for example \cite[Lemma A.2]{EC:DGJMS20}) to argue that $$\left({\mathbb I}^{\gray{M_1}} \otimes X^rZ^s \otimes {\mathbb I}^{\gray{Z}}\right)\left({\mathbb I}^{\gray{M_1}} \otimes A^{\gray{M_2},\gray{Z}}\right)\left({\mathbb I}^{\gray{M_1}} \otimes X^rZ^s \otimes {\mathbb I}^{\gray{Z}}\right)$$ can be written as a classical mixture of Pauli attacks on register $\gray{M_2}$. Thus, we can write the state on registers $\gray{M_1},\gray{M_2}$ that results from this experiment as $$\sum_{t \in \{0,1\}^n} p_t {\cal L}^{\Pi_{t,\mathsf{Half}}}(U(\mathbf{x})),$$ where $p_t$ is the probability the the $x$-value in the adversary's mixture of Pauli attacks is equal to $t$. Now, by \cref{lemma:linear-map}, this state is negligibly close to $$\sum_{t \in \{0,1\}^n} p_t {\cal L}^{\Pi_{t,\mathsf{Full}}}(\mathbf{x}).$$ Finally, observe that this state is either $\ket{\bot}\bra{\bot}$ (a reject), or $\ket{0^{2n}}\bra{0^{2n}}$ (an accept), so the event stated in the lemma will occur with probability 0.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Two-Message Two-Party Classical Computation}
\label{subsec:2pc}
As a building block, we will use post-quantum maliciously-secure two-message two-party classical computation in the CRS model where one party receives output. We will require that the simulator is straight-line and black-box. We will refer to such a protocol simply as $\mathsf{2PC}$.
$\mathsf{2PC}$ is defined by four algorithms $(\mathsf{2PC}.\mathsf{Gen},\mathsf{2PC}_1,\mathsf{2PC}_2,\mathsf{2PC}_\mathsf{out})$. We will keep the convention that party $B$, with input $x_B$, first computes $\mathsf{2PC}_1$, then party $A$, with input $x_A$, computes $\mathsf{2PC}_2$, and finally party $B$ recovers its output $y$ with $\mathsf{2PC}_\mathsf{out}$. The syntax of these algorithms is as follows, where $C$ is the description of the circuit to be computed.
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathsf{crs} \gets \mathsf{2PC}.\mathsf{Gen}(1^\lambda)$.
\item $(m_1,\mathsf{st}) \gets \mathsf{2PC}_1(1^\lambda,C,\mathsf{crs},x_B)$.
\item $m_2 \gets \mathsf{2PC}_2(1^\lambda,C,\mathsf{crs},m_1,x_A)$.
\item $y \gets \mathsf{2PC}_\mathsf{out}(1^\lambda,\mathsf{st},m_2)$.
\end{itemize}
Let $C = \{C_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$ be a (potentially randomized) family of classical circuits where $C_\lambda$ takes as input $(x_A,x_B) \in \{0,1\}^{n_A(\lambda) + n_B(\lambda)}$ and outputs $y$. Consider the case of an adversary ${\mathsf{Adv}} = \{{\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$ corrupting party $A$. For every $\lambda \in {\mathbb N}$, the the view of the environment in the real execution is denoted by a random variable $\mathsf{REAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{C},A}({\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda,x_A,x_B,\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$, where $x_A$ is party $A$'s input, $x_B$ is party $B$'s input, and $\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}}$ is some potentially quantum side information that may be entangled with the distinguisher's side information $\mathbf{aux}_{\cal D}$. The random variable consists of $(\mathbf{z},y_B)$, where $\mathbf{z}$ is ${\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda$'s final output after interacting with an honest $B$ algorithm $B(1^\lambda,x_B)$, and $y_B$ is $B$'s output.
We require the existence of a QPT simulator $\mathsf{Sim}_A = \left(\mathsf{Sim}_A^{(1)},\mathsf{Sim}_A^{(2)}\right)$ that interacts with any QPT adversary ${\mathsf{Adv}} = \{{\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$ corrupting party $A$. $\mathsf{Sim}_A$ has the following syntax.
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathsf{Sim}_A^{(1)}(1^\lambda)$ generates $(\mathsf{crs},\tau,m_1)$, sends $(\mathsf{crs},m_1)$ to ${\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda(x_A,\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$, and receives back $m_2$.
\item $\mathsf{Sim}_A^{(2)}(1^\lambda,x_A,\tau,m_2)$ computes either $x_A'$ or $\bot$, which it forwards to an ideal functionality ${\cal I}_A[x_B](\cdot)$.
\end{itemize}
${\cal I}[x_B](\cdot)$ operates as follows. It takes an input $x_A'$ or $\bot$, and in the non-$\bot$ case it computes and outputs $y \gets C_\lambda(x_A',x_B)$ (note this is not returned to the simulator), and in the $\bot$ case it outputs $\bot$. The random variable $\mathsf{IDEAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{C},A}(\mathsf{Sim}_A,x_A,x_B,\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$ consists of the output of ${\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda(x_A,\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$ after interacting with the simulator, along with the output of ${\cal I}[x_B](\cdot)$.
We require an analogous security property in the case that ${\mathsf{Adv}}$ corrupts party $B$. Here, the syntax of $\mathsf{Sim}_B = \left(\mathsf{Sim}_B^{(1)},\mathsf{Sim}_B^{(2)}\right)$ is as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathsf{Sim}_B^{(1)}(1^\lambda)$ generates $(\mathsf{crs},\tau)$, sends $\mathsf{crs}$ to ${\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda(x_B,\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$, and receives back $m_1$.
\item $\mathsf{Sim}_B^{(2)}(1^\lambda,\tau,m_1)$ takes the adversary's message $m_1$ and either extracts an input $x_B'$ or $\bot$, which it forwards to an ideal functionality ${\cal I}[x_A](\cdot)$. In the non-$\bot$ case, ${\cal I}[x_A]$ computes and returns $y \gets C(x_A,x_B')$ to the simulator and outputs $\mathsf{ok}$. In the $\bot$ case it outputs $\mathsf{abort}$, and the simulator send $\bot$ to ${\mathsf{Adv}}$ and simulation ends.
\item $\mathsf{Sim}_B^{(3)}(1^\lambda,\tau,y)$ receives an output $y$ from the ideal functionality and uses it to form a second round message $m_2$, which it sends to ${\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda$.
\end{itemize}
\begin{definition}[Post-Quantum Two-Message Two-Party Computation]
\label{def:2pc}
A protocol $\Pi$ securely computes $C$ against malicious party $P \in \{A,B\}$ if for all QPT ${\mathsf{Adv}} = \{{\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$ corrupting party $P$, there exists a QPT $\mathsf{Sim}_P = \{\mathsf{Sim}_{P,\lambda}\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$ such that for all $\{x_{A,\lambda},x_{B,\lambda},\mathbf{aux}_{{\mathsf{Adv}},\lambda},\mathbf{aux}_{{\cal D},\lambda}\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$ and all QPT ${\cal D} = \{{\cal D}_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$, there exists a negligible function $\nu(\cdot)$ such that
\begin{align*}
&\bigg| \Pr\left[{\cal D}_\lambda\left(\mathbf{aux}_{{\cal D},\lambda},\mathsf{REAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{C},P}({\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda,x_{A,\lambda},x_{B,\lambda},\mathbf{aux}_{{\mathsf{Adv}},\lambda})\right) = 1\right]\\ &- \Pr\left[{\cal D}_\lambda\left(\mathbf{aux}_{{\cal D},\lambda},\mathsf{IDEAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{C},P}(\mathsf{Sim}_{P,\lambda},x_{A,\lambda},x_{B,\lambda},\mathbf{aux}_{{\mathsf{Adv}},\lambda})\right) = 1\right] \bigg| \leq \nu(\lambda).
\end{align*}
\end{definition}
A secure two-party computation protocol satisfying Definition~\ref{def:2pc} can be obtained based on any post-quantum maliciously-secure two-message OT with straight-line simulation, via~\cite{C:IshPraSah08,EC:IKOPS11}.
The non-interactive secure two-party protocol from~\cite[Appendix B]{C:IshPraSah08} is based on Yao's garbled circuit technique~\cite{FOCS:Yao86} along with a cut-and-choose mechanism for proving that a garbled circuit is computed correctly. The cut-and-choose is non-interactive in the OT-hybrid model. This can be cast in the simpler setting of two-party computation with a CRS, where we replace the ideal calls to the OT with a post-quantum secure two-message OT with straight-line simulation (that is auxiliary-input secure). The latter can be based on the quantum hardness of the learning with errors (QLWE) problem~\cite{C:PeiVaiWat08}.
In Section \ref{sec:mdv-nizk}, we will rely on reusable post-quantum two-party computation with straight-line simulation, in order to obtain reusable malicious designated-verifier NIZKs for QMA. We point out that~\cite{C:LQRWW19} build reusable (post-quantum) two-party computation (with straight-line simulation) assuming (post-quantum) malicious MDV-NIZKs for NP, and (post-quantum) oblivious transfer. Both can be obtained from QLWE~\cite{C:LQRWW19,C:PeiVaiWat08}.
\subsection{Round-Optimal MPC for Classical Reactive Functionalities}\label{subsec:reactivempc}
We, define a $d$-level $n$-party randomized functionality ${\cal F} = ({\cal F}_1,\dots,{\cal F}_d)$ as follows. Let $r$ be random coins. Then each ${\cal F}_j$ can be defined as $$\left(y_1^{(j)},\dots,y_n^{(j)}\right) \coloneqq {\cal F}_j\left(\left(x_1^{(1)},\dots,x_1^{(j)}\right),\dots,\left(x_n^{(1)},\dots,x_n^{(j)}\right),w^{(j)},r\right),$$ where $\left(x_i^{(1)},\dots,x_i^{(d)}\right)$ are the set of party $i$'s private inputs, $(w^{(1)},\dots,w^{(d)})$ are some public inputs, and $\left(y_i^{(1)},\dots,y_i^{(d)}\right)$ are the set of party $i$'s outputs. We allow $x_i^{(j)}$ to be an arbitrary function of $y_i^{(1)},\dots,y_i^{(j-2)}$.
Now, we define an ideal functionality ${\cal I}_{\cal F}$ for computing ${\cal F}$ in $d+1$ rounds. Let ${\cal H} \subset [n]$ be a subset of honest parties and ${\cal M} \coloneqq [n] \setminus {\cal H}$ be the corresponding subset of malicious parties. ${\cal I}_{\cal F}$ is initialized with honest party inputs $\left\{x_i^{(1)}\right\}_{i \in {\cal H}}$.
\begin{itemize}
\item In round 1, accept and store private inputs $\left\{x_i^{(1)}\right\}_{i \in {\cal M}}$.
\item In round $j$, for $j \in \{2,\dots,d\}$, do the following. Accept public input $w^{(j-1)}$ and compute
$$\left(y_1^{(j-1)},\dots,y_n^{(j-1)}\right) \coloneqq {\cal F}_j\left(\left(x_1^{(1)},\dots,x_1^{(j-1)}\right),\dots,\left(x_n^{(1)},\dots,x_n^{(j-1)}\right),w^{(j-1)},r\right).$$ Output $\left\{y_i^{(j-1)}\right\}_{i \in {\cal M}}$. Accept either $\left(\mathsf{ok},\left\{x_i^{(j)}\right\}_{i \in {\cal M}}\right)$ or $\mathsf{abort}$ as input. If $\mathsf{ok}$, set level $j-1$ honest party outputs to $\left\{y_i^{(j-1)}\right\}_{i \in {\cal H}}$ and compute the next set of honest party inputs $\left\{x_i^{(j)}\right\}_{i \in {\cal H}}$. If $\mathsf{abort}$, set honest party outputs to $\bot$ for each level $k \geq j-1$.
\item In round $d+1$, accept public input $w^{(d)}$ and compute
$$\left(y_1^{(d)},\dots,y_n^{(d)}\right) \coloneqq {\cal F}_j\left(\left(x_1^{(1)},\dots,x_1^{(d)}\right),\dots,\left(x_n^{(1)},\dots,x_n^{(d)}\right),w^{(d)},r\right).$$ Output $\left\{y_i^{(d)}\right\}_{i \in {\cal M}}$. Accept either $\mathsf{ok}$ or $\mathsf{abort}$ as input. If $\mathsf{ok}$, set level $d$ honest party outputs to $\left\{y_i^{(d)}\right\}_{i \in {\cal H}}$. If $\mathsf{abort}$, set level $d$ honest party outputs to $\bot$.
\end{itemize}
We observe that the protocol of \cite{EC:GarSri18a} can be used to implement this ideal functionality for any $d$-level $n$-party functionality. If \cite{EC:GarSri18a} is instantiated with post-quantum maliciously-secure two-message oblivious transfer in the CRS model with straight-line black-box simulation, the resulting $d+1$ round MPC protocol will be quantum-secure and admit a straight-line black-box simulator.
To see this, recall that \cite{EC:GarSri18a} is a compiler that operates on any underlying MPC protocol. One can fix the underlying MPC protocol to support reactive functionalities. Such an MPC can be obtained from any non-reactive MPC by having the non-reactive MPC output a fresh set of secret shares of each party's input between each execution.
We will rely on a maliciously-secure reactive MPC from OT~\cite{C:CreVanTap95,C:IshPraSah08}. Then, the first round of the \cite{EC:GarSri18a}-compiled protocol will consist of first round OT messages committing each party to the randomness they will use throughout the execution of the underlying reactive MPC protocol, as in the original \cite{EC:GarSri18a} protocol. Each subsequent round will consist of the \cite{EC:GarSri18a} second-round messages for computing the appropriate portion of the reactive functionality, along with encryptions of each party's input for the next round. During the security proof, in each round the simulator can simply invoke the simulator for the appropriate portion of the underlying reactive MPC.
Thus, we will construct each of our multi-party quantum computation protocols with respect to a $d$-level $n$-party classical ideal functionality, that can be implemented by \cite{EC:GarSri18a}.
\subsection{Quantum Multi-Key Fully-Homomorphic Encryption}
\label{sec: qmfhe}
We use a quantum multi-key fully-homomorphic encryption scheme that supports classical encryption of classical ciphertexts. We do not require compactness or the classicality-preserving property as required by~\cite{Agarwal2020PostQuantumMC}, but we do require a form a circuit-privacy, presented below as ciphertext re-randomization.
\begin{definition}[Quantum Multi-Key Fully-Homomorphic Encryption~\cite{FOCS:Mahadev18b,Agarwal2020PostQuantumMC}]
\label{def:qmfhe}
A quantum multi-key fully-homomorphic encryption scheme is given by seven algorithms ($\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Gen},\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{KeyGen}$, $\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{CEnc}$, $\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Enc}$, $\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Eval}$, $\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Rerand}$, $\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Dec}$) with the following syntax.
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathsf{crs} \gets \mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Gen}(1^\lambda)$: A PPT algorithm that outputs a classical common reference string.
\item $(\mathsf{pk},\mathsf{sk}) \leftarrow \mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{KeyGen}(1^\lambda,\mathsf{crs})$ : A PPT algorithm that given a security parameter, samples a classical public key and a classical secret key.
\item $\mathsf{ct} \leftarrow \mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{CEnc}(\mathsf{pk},x)$ : A PPT algorithm that takes as input a bit $x$ and outputs a classical ciphertext.
\item $\mathbf{ct} \leftarrow \mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Enc}(\mathsf{pk},\mathbf{x})$ : A QPT algorithm that takes as input a qubit $\mathbf{x}$ and outputs a quantum ciphertext.
\item $\widehat{\mathbf{ct}} \gets \mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Eval}((\mathsf{pk}_1,\dots,\mathsf{pk}_n),Q,(\mathbf{ct}_1,\dots,\mathbf{ct}_n))$: A QPT algorithm that takes as input a set of $n$ public keys, a quantum circuit $Q$, and a set of $n$ (classical or quantum) ciphertexts, and outputs an evaluated ciphertext $\widehat{\mathbf{ct}}$.
\item $\widetilde{\mathbf{ct}} \gets \mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Rerand}((\mathsf{pk}_1,\dots,\mathsf{pk}_n),\mathbf{ct})$: A QPT algorithm that re-randomizes a ciphertext $\mathbf{ct}$ encrypted under a set of $n$ public keys
\item $\mathbf{x} \gets \mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Dec}((\mathsf{sk}_1,\dots,\mathsf{sk}_n),\mathbf{ct})$: A QPT algorithm that takes as input a set of $n$ secret keys and a quantum ciphertext $\mathbf{ct}$ and outputs a qubit.
\end{itemize}
The scheme satisfies the following.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
{\bf Quantum Semantic Security:} The encryption algorithm maintains quantum semantic security.
\item {\bf Quantum Homomorphism: } For any polynomial-size quantum circuit $Q$, input state $\mathbf{x}_1,\dots,\mathbf{x}_n$, crs $\mathsf{crs} \in \mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Gen}(1^\lambda)$, and key pairs $(\mathsf{pk}_1,\mathsf{sk}_1),\dots,(\mathsf{pk}_n,\mathsf{sk}_n) \in \mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{KeyGen}(1^\lambda,\mathsf{crs})$, it holds that $\mathbf{y}_0 \approx_s \mathbf{y}_1,$ where $\mathbf{y}_{0},\mathbf{y}_{1}$ are QRVs defined as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathbf{y}_{0}$: For each $i \in [n]$, encrypt each classical bit of $\mathbf{x}_i$ with $\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{CEnc}(\mathsf{pk}_i,\cdot)$ and the rest with $\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Enc}(\mathsf{pk}_i,\cdot)$. Execute $\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Eval}((\mathsf{pk}_1,\dots,\mathsf{pk}_n),Q,\cdot)$ on the $n$ encryptions to obtain $\widehat{\mathbf{ct}}$. Then output $\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Dec}((\mathsf{sk}_1,\dots,\mathsf{sk}_n),\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Rerand}(\widehat{\mathbf{ct}}))$.
\item $\mathbf{y}_{1}$: Output $Q(\mathbf{x}_1,\dots,\mathbf{x}_n)$.
\end{itemize}
\item {\bf Ciphertext Re-randomization:} For any $\mathsf{crs} \in \mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Gen}(1^\lambda)$, key pairs $(\mathsf{pk}_1,\mathsf{sk}_1),\dots,(\mathsf{pk}_n,\mathsf{sk}_n) \in \mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{KeyGen}(1^\lambda,\mathsf{crs})$, and ciphertexts $\mathbf{ct}_1,\mathbf{ct}_2$ such that $$\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Dec}((\mathsf{sk}_1,\dots,\mathsf{sk}_n),\mathbf{ct}_1) = \mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Dec}((\mathsf{sk}_1,\dots,\mathsf{sk}_n),\mathbf{ct}_2),$$ it holds that $$\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Rerand}((\mathsf{pk}_1,\dots,\mathsf{pk}_n),\mathbf{ct}_1) \approx_s \mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Rerand}((\mathsf{pk}_1,\dots,\mathsf{pk}_n),\mathbf{ct}_2).$$
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
We now sketch how to add the ciphertext re-randomization property to the QMFHE scheme constructed in~\cite{Agarwal2020PostQuantumMC} via ``noise-flooding''. An evaluated ciphertext encrypting the quantum state $\boldsymbol{\rho}$ will have the form $$\mathsf{MFHE}.\mathsf{Enc}((\mathsf{pk}_1,\dots,\mathsf{pk}_n),(x,z)),X^xZ^z\boldsymbol{\rho},$$where $\mathsf{MFHE}$ is a \emph{classical} multi-key fully-homomorphic encryption scheme. Thus, it suffices to show how to add ciphertext re-randomization to the classical multi-key FHE scheme of~\cite{EC:MukWic16}.
It is well-known that standard single-key FHE schemes from the literature (\cite{C:GenSahWat13}) are statistically re-randomizable. Now to construct MFHE with ciphertext re-randomization, we can append to each $\mathsf{MFHE}$ public key a freshly sampled GSW encryption of its corresponding secret key. To re-randomize a $\mathsf{MFHE}$ ciphertext encrypted under public keys $\mathsf{pk}_1,\dots,\mathsf{pk}_n$, one can compute the partial decryption under each corresponding GSW ciphertext, resulting in $n$ ciphertexts whose plaintexts sum to $\mu (q/2) + e$, where $\mu$ was the bit encrypted under $\mathsf{MFHE}$. Then, add a random additive secret sharing of $e'$ for a large enough $e'$ under the encryptions and re-randomize each. The result is an random additive sharing of $\mu (q/2) + e + e'$ under re-randomized GSW ciphertexts, where $e + e' \approx_s e''$ for some distribution $e''$ independent of the computation.
\subsection{Non-Interactive Equivocal Commitment}
\label{sec: equivocal commitments}
\begin{definition}[Equivocal Commitment]
A quantum-secure statistically-binding non-interactive equivocal commitment is given by three algorithms $(\mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{Gen},\mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{Enc},\mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{Ver})$ with the following syntax.
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathsf{crs} \gets \mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{Gen}(1^\lambda)$.
\item $\mathsf{cmt} \coloneqq \mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{Enc}(1^\lambda,\mathsf{crs},m;r)$.
\item $b \gets \mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{Ver}(1^\lambda,\mathsf{crs},\mathsf{cmt},m,r)$.
\end{itemize}
It satisfies the following notion of correctness. For any $m \in \{0,1\}^*$, $$\Pr\left[b = 1 : \begin{array}{r}\mathsf{crs} \gets \mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{Gen}(1^\lambda), r \gets \{0,1\}^\lambda \\ \mathsf{cmt} \coloneqq \mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{Enc}(1^\lambda,\mathsf{crs},m;r),b \gets \mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{Ver}(1^\lambda,\mathsf{crs},\mathsf{cmt},m,r)\end{array}\right] = 1-{\rm negl}(\lambda).$$
It satisfies the statistical binding property.
$$\Pr_{\mathsf{crs} \gets \mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{Gen}(1^\lambda)}\left[\begin{array}{l} \exists (\mathsf{cmt},m_0,m_1,r_0,r_1), m_0 \neq m_1 \text{ s.t. } \\ \mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{Ver}(1^\lambda,\mathsf{crs},\mathsf{cmt},m_0,r_0) = 1 = \mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{Ver}(1^\lambda,\mathsf{crs},\mathsf{cmt},m_1,r_1) \end{array}\right] = {\rm negl}(\lambda).$$
Finally, it satisfies the following notion of security (hiding). There exists algorithms $\mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{Sim}.\mathsf{Gen},\mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{Sim}.\mathsf{Open}$ such that for any $m \in \{0,1\}^*,$
$$\Pr\left[b = 1 : \begin{array}{r}(\mathsf{crs},\mathsf{cmt},\tau) \gets \mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{Sim}.\mathsf{Gen}(1^\lambda) \\ r_m \gets \mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{Sim}.\mathsf{Open}(1^\lambda,\tau,m),b \gets \mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{Ver}(1^\lambda,\mathsf{crs},\mathsf{cmt},m,r_m)\end{array}\right] = 1-{\rm negl}(\lambda),$$ and
$$\left\{(\mathsf{crs},\mathsf{cmt}) : \begin{array}{r}\mathsf{crs} \gets \mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{Gen}(1^\lambda)\\ \mathsf{cmt} \gets \mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{Enc}(1^\lambda,\mathsf{crs},m)\end{array}\right\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}} \approx_c \left\{(\mathsf{crs},\mathsf{cmt}) : (\mathsf{crs},\mathsf{cmt},\tau) \gets \mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{Sim}.\mathsf{Gen}(1^\lambda)\right\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}.$$
\end{definition}
A commitment scheme satisfying the above definition can be based on any quantum-secure one-way function~\cite{JC:Naor91}.
\subsection{Garbled Circuits}
\begin{definition}[Garbled Circuit]\label{def:GC}
A garbling scheme for circuits is a tuple of PPT algorithms $(\mathsf{Garble}, \mathsf{GEval})$. $\mathsf{Garble}$ is the circuit garbling procedure and $\mathsf{GEval}$ is the corresponding evaluation procedure. More formally:
\begin{itemize}
\item $(\widetilde{C},\{\mathsf{lab}_{i,b}\}_{i \in [n], b\in \{0,1\}}) \gets \mathsf{Garble}\left(1^\lambda, C\right)$: $\mathsf{Garble}$ takes as input a security parameter $1^\lambda$, a classical circuit $C$, and outputs a \emph{garbled circuit} $\widetilde{C}$ along with labels $\{\mathsf{lab}_{i,b}\}_{i \in [n], b \in \{0,1\}}$, where $n$ is the length of the input to $C$.
\item $y \gets \mathsf{GEval}\left(\widetilde{C}, \{\mathsf{lab}_{i,x_i}\}_{i \in [n]}\right)$: Given a garbled circuit $\widetilde{C}$ and a sequence of input labels $\{ \mathsf{lab}_{i,x_i}\}_{i \in [n]}$, $\mathsf{GEval}$ outputs a string $y$.
\end{itemize}
\paragraph{Correctness.} For correctness, we require that for any classical circuit $C$ and input $x \in \{0,1\}^n$ we have that:
\[\Pr\left[C(x) = \mathsf{GEval}\left(\widetilde{C}, \{\mathsf{lab}_{i,x_i}\}_{i \in [n]}\right)\right] = 1, \]
where $(\widetilde{C}, \{\mathsf{lab}_{i,b}\}_{i \in [n], b \in \{0,1\}}) \gets \mathsf{Garble}\left(1^\lambda, C\right)$.
\paragraph{Security.} For security, we require that there exists a PPT simulator $\mathsf{GSim}$ such that for any classical circuit $C$ and input $x \in \{0,1\}^n$, we have that
\[\left(\widetilde{C}, \{\mathsf{lab}_{i,x_i}\}_{i \in [n]}\right) \approx_c \mathsf{GSim}\left(1^\lambda,1^{n},1^{|C|},C(x)\right),\]
where $(\widetilde{C}, \{\mathsf{lab}_{i,b}\}_{i\in [n], b\in \{0,1\}}) \gets \mathsf{Garble}\left(1^{\lambda},C\right)$.
\end{definition}
\section{Technical Overview}
\label{sec:techoverview}
\subsection{Quantum Background}
We briefly recap some relevant concepts from quantum computation.
\paragraph{Notation.} We use bold letters to write the density matrix of a quantum state $\mathbf{x}$. We use the shorthand $U(\mathbf{x})$ to mean $U \mathbf{x} U^\dagger$, the result of applying unitary $U$ to $\mathbf{x}$. The notation $(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y})$ denotes a state on two registers, where $\mathbf{x}$ and $\mathbf{y}$ are potentially entangled. The $k$-fold tensor product of a state $\mathbf{x} \otimes \mathbf{x} \otimes \cdots \otimes \mathbf{x}$ will be written as $\mathbf{x}^k$.
\paragraph{The Pauli Group.} The Pauli group on a single qubit, denoted by $\mathscr{P}_1$, is generated by the unitary operations $X$ (bit flip) and $Z$ (phase flip), defined as $X = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{bmatrix}, Z = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \end{bmatrix}.$ The Pauli group on $n$ qubits, denoted by $\mathscr{P}_n$, is the $n$-fold tensor product of the single qubit Pauli group. Any unitary in the Pauli group $\mathscr{P}_n$ can be written (up to global phase) as $\bigotimes_{i \in [n]} X^{r_i}Z^{s_i}$ for $r, s \in \{0,1\}^n$.
\paragraph{The Clifford Group.} The Clifford group on $n$ qubits, denoted by $\mathscr{C}_n$, is the group of unitaries that normalize $\mathscr{P}_n$, i.e. $C \in \mathscr{C}_n$ if and only if for all $U \in \mathscr{P}_n$, we have $CUC^\dagger \in \mathscr{P}_n$. Alternatively, we can think of a Clifford unitary $C$ as an operation where for any choice of $r,s \in \{0,1\}^n$, there exists a choice of $r',s' \in \{0,1\}^n$ such that
\[ C \left(\bigotimes_{i \in [n]} X^{r_i}Z^{s_i}\right) = \left(\bigotimes_{i \in [n]} X^{r'_i}Z^{s'_i}\right) C.\]
Intuitively, this means that with a suitable update of the Pauli operation, one can swap the order in which a Clifford and a Pauli are applied.
\paragraph{Clifford Authentication Codes.} We will make extensive use of Clifford authentication codes. Clifford authentication codes are an information-theoretic encoding scheme for quantum states that provides both secrecy and authentication. An $n$-qubit quantum state $\mathbf{x}$ can be encoded in a Clifford authentication code as follows: prepare a $\lambda$-qubit all $0$'s state which we denote as $\mathbf{0}^\lambda$ (where $\lambda$ is a security parameter), sample a random Clifford unitary $C \leftarrow \mathscr{C}_{n+\lambda}$, and output $C (\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{0}^\lambda)$. The Clifford $C$ serves as a secret key, while the $\mathbf{0}^\lambda$ qubits enable authentication, and are called ``trap'' qubits. A party without knowledge of $C$ cannot modify the encoding without modifying the trap qubits (except with negligible probability). Therefore, decoding works by applying $C^\dagger$ and then measuring the $\lambda$ trap qubits in the computational basis. If these measurements are all $0$, this ensures that with all but negligible probability, the $n$ remaining registers hold the originally encoded state $\mathbf{x}$.
\paragraph{Clifford + Measurement Circuits.} We will rely heavily on the ``Clifford + Measurement'' representation of quantum circuits (henceforth ``C+M circuits'') due to \cite{BravyiKitaev05}. In this representation, a quantum circuit can be decomposed into layers. Each layer consists of a Clifford unitary whose output wires are partitioned into wires that will be fed as inputs into the next layer, and wires that will be measured. The latter group of wires are measured in the computational basis, resulting in a classical bitstring that is used to select the Clifford unitary to be applied in the subsequent layer. The first layer takes in all of the inputs to the quantum circuit, ancilla $\mathbf{0}$ states, and ``magic'' $\mathbf{T}$ states defined as $\mathbf{T} \coloneqq (\ket{0} + e^{i \pi/4}\ket{1})/\sqrt{2}$. The final layer only produces output wires (i.e. its output registers have no wires to be measured), which are interpreted as the output of the circuit. \cite{BravyiKitaev05} demonstrate that, with constant multiplicative factor overhead in size, any quantum circuit can be written as a ``C + M circuit'' or equivalently, in a magic state representation.
Therefore, for the purposes of this technical overview, we will assume that any quantum circuit $F$ is written as a C+M circuit $F_{\mathrm{CM}}$, and its evaluation on an input $\mathbf{x}$ is computed as $F(\mathbf{x}) = F_{\mathrm{CM}}(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{T}^k, \mathbf{0}^k).$ For simplicity, we use the same $k$ to denote the number of $\mathbf{T}$ states and the number of ancilla $\mathbf{0}$ states.
\paragraph{Magic State Distillation.} In settings where malicious parties are tasked with providing the $\mathbf{T}$ states, we will use cryptographic techniques such as ``cut-and-choose'' to ensure that $F_{\mathrm{CM}}$ is evaluated on an input of the form $(\mathbf{x},\widehat{\mathbf{T}^k},\mathbf{0}^k)$ where $\widehat{\mathbf{T}^k}$ is a state guaranteed to be ``somewhat'' close to $\mathbf{T}^k$. However, correctness of $F_{\mathrm{CM}}$ will require states that are negligibly close to real magic states. To that end, we will make use of a magic state distillation C+M circuit $D$ due to~\cite{EC:DGJMS20} which takes in somewhat-close magic states $\widehat{\mathbf{T}^k}$ and outputs states negligibly close to $\mathbf{T}^{k'}$, for $k' < k$. Therefore, the representation of any functionality $F$ will in fact be a C+M circuit $F_{\mathrm{CM},D}$ that first applies $D$ to $\widehat{\mathbf{T}^k}$, and then runs $F_{\mathrm{CM}}$.
\subsection{Why is Malicious Security Hard to Achieve?}
We begin this technical overview by describing our results in the two-party setting. Before this, we briefly explain why malicious security does not follow readily from existing techniques. Indeed, a candidate two-message 2PQC (where one party receives output) with \emph{specious} security (the quantum analogue of classical semi-honest security~\cite{C:DupNieSal10}) was recently proposed in~\cite{ARXIV:BrakerskiYuen20}. Alternatively, any construction of quantum fully-homomorphic encryption (QFHE) naturally yields a two-message 2PQC protocol: (1) Alice QFHE-encodes her input and sends it to Bob, (2) Bob evaluates the functionality on his input and Alice's encoded input, and (3) Bob sends Alice the encryption of her output.
One might hope to compile this QFHE-based protocol or the \cite{ARXIV:BrakerskiYuen20} protocol into a maliciously secure protocol by having the parties include proofs that their messages are well-formed. Unfortunately, it is unclear how to implement this in the quantum setting. In both of these approaches, the parties would have to prove (in zero-knowledge) statements of the form ``$\mathbf{y}$ is the result of evaluating quantum circuit $C$ on $\mathbf{x}$.'' Crucially, the \emph{statement} the parties need to prove explicitly makes reference to a quantum state. This is beyond the reach of what one can prove with, say, NIZKs for $\mathsf{QMA}$, in which witnesses are quantum but the statements are entirely classical.
Therefore, we design our malicious 2PQC so that parties do not have to prove general statements about quantum states. A core ingredient in our protocol is a quantum garbled circuit construction sketched in~\cite[\S2.5]{ARXIV:BrakerskiYuen20}, where the circuit garbling procedure is entirely classical.\footnote{We remark that the 2PQC proposed in \cite{ARXIV:BrakerskiYuen20} is based on their ``main'' quantum garbled circuit construction, which crucially does \emph{not} have a classical circuit garbling procedure. The advantage of their main construction is that garbling can be done in low depth, whereas the alternative construction requires an expensive but classical garbling procedure.} Combining this with a post-quantum maliciously-secure \emph{classical} 2PC, we will ensure valid circuit garbling against malicious quantum adversaries.
\subsection{A Garbling Scheme for $\mathsf{C+M}$ Circuits} Our first step is to formalize the proposal sketched in \cite[\S2.5]{ARXIV:BrakerskiYuen20} for garbling $\mathsf{C+M}$ circuits. The starting point for the \cite[\S2.5]{ARXIV:BrakerskiYuen20} construction is a simple technique for garbling any quantum circuit that consists of a single Clifford unitary $F$.\footnote{ \cite{ARXIV:BrakerskiYuen20} call this \emph{group-randomizing quantum randomized encoding}.} The idea is to sample a random Clifford $E$ and give out $FE^{\dagger}$ as the garbled circuit; note that the description of $FE^{\dagger}$ will be entirely classical. Since the Clifford unitaries form a group, $FE^{\dagger}$ is a uniformly random Clifford unitary independent of $F$. To garble the input quantum state $\mathbf{x}$, simply compute $E(\mathbf{x})$. The construction in \cite[\S2.5]{ARXIV:BrakerskiYuen20} extends this simple construction to any circuit.
To build intuition, we will consider a two-layer $\mathsf{C+M}$ circuit $Q = (F_1,f)$, where $F_1$ is the first layer Clifford unitary, and $f$ is a classical circuit that takes as input a single bit measurement result $m$, and outputs a classical description of $F_2$, the second layer Clifford unitary. On input $\mathbf{x}$, the circuit operates as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Apply $F_1$ to $\mathbf{x}$.
\item Measure the last output wire in the computational basis to obtain $m \in \{0,1\}$, and feed the remaining wires to the next layer. Compute the second layer Clifford unitary $F_2 = f(m)$.
\item Apply $F_2$ to the non-measured output wires from the first layer. Return the result.
\end{enumerate}
One could try to extend the simple idea for one-layer garbling to this circuit. We still sample a random input-garbling Clifford $E_0$ and compute $F_1E_0^{\dagger}$. To hide the second layer Clifford, a natural idea is to sample yet another random Clifford $E_1$ to be applied to the non-measured output wires of $F_1$. That is, we replace $F_1E_0^{\dagger}$ with $(E_1 \otimes {\mathbb I})F_1 E_0^{\dagger}$, and release the description of a function $g$ such that $g(m) = f(m) E_1^{\dagger}$.
However, this may in general be insecure. Let $F_2^{(0)}$ be the Clifford output by function $f$ when $m = 0$, and $F_2^{(1)}$ the Clifford output by function $f$ when $m = 1$. Suppose $ F_2^{(0)} - F_2^{(1)} = A$ for some invertible matrix $A$.
Then, an attacker with access to $g$ could obtain $F_2^{(0)}E_1^{\dagger} - F_2^{(1)}E_1^{\dagger}$, and multiplying the result by $A^{-1}$ yields $ A^{-1}(F_2^{(0)}E_1^{\dagger} - F_2^{(1)}E_1^{\dagger}) = A^{-1}AE_1^{\dagger} = E_1^{\dagger}$.
Therefore, instead of giving out $g$, the construction of \cite[\S2.5]{ARXIV:BrakerskiYuen20} gives out a classical garbling of $g$. To accommodate this, the output wire from the first layer that is measured to produce $m \in \{0,1\}$ must be replaced by a collection of wires that produces the corresponding label $\mathsf{lab}_{m}$ for the garbled circuit. This can be easily achieved by applying a suitable ``label unitary'' to the $m$ wire (and ancilla wires) within the garbled gate for the first layer.
There is one last issue with this approach: an attacker that chooses not to measure the wires containing $\mathsf{lab}_{m}$ can obtain a superposition over two valid labels. Recall that the standard definition of security for classical garbled circuits only guarantees simulation of one label, not a quantum superposition of both labels. To ensure the attacker cannot get away with skipping the computational basis measurement, the \cite[\S2.5]{ARXIV:BrakerskiYuen20} construction applies a $Z$-twirl to $m$ before the ``label unitary'' is applied. Recall that a $Z$-twirl is simply a random application of a Pauli $Z$ gate, i.e. $Z^b$ for a uniformly random bit $b$; applying $Z^b$ to a wire is equivalent to performing a computational basis measurement (without recording the result).
To recap, a garbled $2$-layer $\mathsf{C+M}$ circuit $Q$ consists of three components: an ``input garbling'' Clifford $E_0$, an initial Clifford unitary to be applied to the garbled input $D_0 \coloneqq (E_1 \otimes {\mathbb I})F_1 E_0^{\dagger}$, and a classical garbled circuit $\widetilde{g}$. Extrapolating, we see that in general a garbled $\mathsf{C+M}$ circuit takes the form $$(E_0,D_0,\widetilde{g}_1,\dots,\widetilde{g}_d) \coloneqq (E_0,\widetilde{Q}),$$
where the $\widetilde{g}_i$'s are garblings of classical circuits.
Crucially, all of these components can be generated by an entirely classical circuit. The only quantum operation involved in the garbling process is the application of $E_0$ to the input $\mathbf{x}$ to garble the input. Next, we show how we can take advantage of this mostly classical garbling procedure to obtain maliciously-secure 2PQC.
\subsection{A Three-Message Protocol with Malicious Security}
\label{subsec:3-round-malicious}
In this section, we describe a three-message 2PQC protocol where both parties obtain output. This implies the two-message 2PQC result with one-sided output described in the first part of our results section, and fills in the upper left corner of \cref{table: results}.
We begin with a plausible but \emph{insecure} construction of a three-message 2PQC based on the above quantum garbled circuit construction. We will then highlight the ways a malicious attacker might break this construction, and arrive at our final construction by implementing suitable modifications.
Our protocol relies only on a \emph{classical} two-message 2PC with one-sided output that is (post-quantum) secure against malicious adversaries; this can be realized by combining (post-quantum) classical garbled circuits~\cite{FOCS:Yao86} with (post-quantum) two-message oblivious transfer~\cite{C:PeiVaiWat08} following eg.~\cite{EC:IKOPS11}.
We will consider two parties: Alice with input $\mathbf{x}_A$ and Bob with input $\mathbf{x}_B$.
They wish to jointly compute a quantum circuit $Q$ on their inputs whose output is delivered to both players.
$Q$ is represented as a Clifford+Measurement circuit that takes input $(\mathbf{x}_A, \mathbf{x}_B, \mathbf{T}^k, \mathbf{0}^k)$. We denote by $(\mathbf{y}_A, \mathbf{y}_B)$ the joint outputs of Alice and Bob. At a high level, the parties will use the first two messages (Bob $\to$ Alice, Alice $\to$ Bob) to jointly encode their quantum inputs, while in parallel computing a two-message classical 2PC that outputs the classical description of a quantum garbled circuit to Bob. By evaluating the garbled circuit, Bob can learn his own output, as well as Alice's encoded output, which he sends to Alice in the 3rd message.
In more detail, the classical functionality ${\cal F}[Q]$ to be computed by the classical 2PC is defined as follows. It takes as input (the classical description of) a Clifford unitary $C_{B,\mathrm{in}}$ from Bob and Clifford unitaries $(C_{A,\mathrm{in}},C_{A,\mathrm{out}})$ from Alice. Let $Q_B$ be a modification of $Q$ that outputs $(C_{A,\mathrm{out}}(\mathbf{y}_A,\mathbf{0}^\lambda),\mathbf{y}_B)$ in place of $(\mathbf{y}_A, \mathbf{y}_B)$; looking ahead, this will enable Bob to evaluate (a garbling of) $Q_B$ on (a garbling of) their joint inputs without learning Alice's output. The functionality computes a garbling $(E_0,\widetilde{Q_B})$ of $Q_B$. Finally, it computes $W \coloneqq E_0 \cdot ({\mathbb I} \otimes C_{B,\mathrm{in}}^{-1} \otimes {\mathbb I}) \cdot C_{A,\mathrm{in}}^{-1}$ (where the registers implied by the tensor product will become clear below),
and outputs $(W,\widetilde{Q_B})$ to Bob.
The (insecure) protocol template is as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{First Message (Bob $\rightarrow$ Alice).} Bob picks a random Clifford $C_{B,\mathrm{in}}$ and uses it to encrypt and authenticate his input $\mathbf{x}_B$ as $\mathbf{m}_1 \coloneqq C_{B,\mathrm{in}} (\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{0}^\lambda)$. He also computes the first round message $m_1$ of the classical 2PC, using $C_{B,\mathrm{in}}$ as his input. He sends $(\mathbf{m}_1,m_1)$ to Alice.
\item \textbf{Second Message (Alice $\rightarrow$ Bob).} After receiving $(\mathbf{m}_1,m_1)$, Alice picks a random Clifford $C_{A,\mathrm{in}}$ and uses it to encrypt her input $\mathbf{x}_A$ along with Bob's encoding $\mathbf{m}_1$, $k$ copies of a $\mathbf{T}$ state, and $k+\lambda$ copies of a $\mathbf{0}$ state. The result of this is $\mathbf{m}_2 \coloneqq C_{A,\mathrm{in}}(\mathbf{x}_A, \mathbf{m}_1, \mathbf{T}^k, \mathbf{0}^{k+\lambda})$. Alice also samples another random Clifford $C_{A,\mathrm{out}}$ that will serve to encrypt and authenticate her output, and computes the second round message $m_2$ of the classical 2PC using input $(C_{A,\mathrm{in}},C_{A,\mathrm{out}})$. She sends $(\mathbf{m}_2,m_2)$ to Bob.
\item \textbf{Third Message (Bob $\rightarrow$ Alice).} After receiving $(\mathbf{m}_2,m_2)$, Bob can compute his output of the classical 2PC, which is $(W,\widetilde{Q_B})$. He computes $$W(\mathbf{m}_2) =
E_0 \cdot ({\mathbb I} \otimes C_{B,\mathrm{in}}^{-1} \otimes {\mathbb I}) \cdot C_{A,\mathrm{in}}^{-1} \left( C_{A,\mathrm{in}}(\mathbf{x}_A, \mathbf{m}_1, \mathbf{T}^k, \mathbf{0}^{k+\lambda}) \right)
= E_0 (\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{T}^k, \mathbf{0}^{k+\lambda}).$$ Recall that $E_0(\mathbf{x}_A, \mathbf{x}_B, \mathbf{T}^k, \mathbf{0}^{k+\lambda})$ corresponds to a garbled input for $\widetilde{Q_B}$.
He evaluates $\widetilde{Q_B}$ on this garbled input and obtains $(C_{A,\mathrm{out}}(\mathbf{y}_A,\mathbf{0}^\lambda), \mathbf{y}_B)$.
At this point, Bob has his output $\mathbf{y}_B$ in the clear. Next he sets $\mathbf{m}_3 = C_{A,\mathrm{out}}(\mathbf{y}_A,\mathbf{0}^\lambda)$, and sends $\mathbf{m}_3$ to Alice.
Upon receiving $\mathbf{m}_3$, Alice can recover her output by computing $C_{A,\mathrm{out}}^{-1}(\mathbf{m}_3)$.
\end{itemize}
The above protocol can already be shown to be secure against malicious Bob by relying on security of the classical two-party computation protocol against malicious adversaries. But malicious Alice can break security by generating ill-formed auxiliary states. We now describe this issue in some more detail and then present modifications to address the problem.
\paragraph{Malicious Generation of Auxiliary States.} In the second message of the protocol, Alice is instructed to send a quantum state $C_{A,\mathrm{in}}(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{m}_1,\mathbf{T}^k,\mathbf{0}^{k+\lambda})$. A malicious Alice can deviate from honest behavior by submitting arbitrary states in place of the magic $\mathbf{T}$ states and the auxiliary $\mathbf{0}$ states, either of which may compromise security.
We therefore modify the classical 2PC to include randomized checks that will enable Bob to detect if Alice has deviated from honest behavior.
We check validity of $\mathbf{0}$ states using the ``random linear map'' technique of~\cite{EC:DGJMS20}. The classical 2PC will sample a uniformly random matrix $M \in \mathbb{F}_2^{k \times k}$, and apply a unitary $U_{M}$ that maps the quantum state $\mathbf{v} = \ket{v}\bra{v}$ for any $v \in \mathbb{F}_2^k$ to the state $\mathbf{Mv} = \ket{Mv}\bra{Mv}$. For any $M \in \mathbb{F}_2^{k \times k}$, there exists an efficient Clifford unitary $U_M$ implementing this map. This check takes advantage of the fact that $U_M(\mathbf{0}^k) = \mathbf{0}^k$ for any $M$, but on any other pure state $\mathbf{v} = \ket{v}\bra{v}$ for non-zero $v \in \mathbb{F}_2^k$, we have $U_M(\mathbf{v}) \neq \mathbf{0}^k$ with overwhelming probability in $k$.
More precisely, our protocol will now ask Alice to prepare twice $(2k)$ the required number of $\mathbf{0}$ states. The classical 2PC will generate a Clifford unitary $U_{M}$ implementing a random linear map $M \in \mathbb{F}_2^{2k \times 2k}$, and incorporate $U_{M}$ into its output Clifford $W$, which is now $W = (E_0 \otimes {\mathbb I}) \cdot ({\mathbb I} \otimes C_{B,\mathrm{in}}^{-1} \otimes {\mathbb I}) \cdot ({\mathbb I} \otimes U_M) \cdot C_{A,\mathrm{in}}^{-1}$. Now when Bob applies $W$ to Alice's message $C_{A,\mathrm{in}}(\mathbf{x}_A,C_{B,\mathrm{in}}(\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{0}^\lambda),\mathbf{T}^k,\mathbf{0}^{2k})$, it has the effect of stripping off $C_{A,\mathrm{in}}$ by applying $C_{A,\mathrm{in}}^{-1}$, and then applying $U_{M}$ to the last $2k$ registers. The rest of the application of $W$ has the same effect as before the modification, so it undoes the application of $C_{B,\mathrm{in}}$, and then re-encodes \emph{all but the last $k$ registers} under the input garbling Clifford $E_0$ to produce a garbled input. Crucially, the last $k$ registers are designated ``$\mathbf{0}$-state check registers'', which Bob can simply measure in the computational basis to detect if Alice prepared the $\mathbf{0}$ states properly.
Unfortunately, this technique does not extend to checking validity of $\mathbf{T}$ states. To do so, we would have to map $\mathbf{T}$ states to $\mathbf{0}$ states, but there is no Clifford unitary that realizes this transformation.\footnote{The existence of such a Clifford would imply that Clifford + Measurement circuits \emph{without} magic states are universal for quantum computing, contradicting the Gottesman–Knill theorem (assuming $\mathsf{BPP} \neq \mathsf{BQP}$).} The problem with using a non-Clifford unitary is that security of $W$ relies on the fact that it is the product of a random Clifford $C_{A,\mathrm{in}}$ and some other Clifford $W'$. Since the Clifford unitaries form a group, multiplication by a random $C_{A,\mathrm{in}}$ perfectly masks the details of $W'$, but only when $W'$ is Clifford.
We will therefore employ the ``cut-and-choose'' technique from~\cite{EC:DGJMS20}. The protocol will now have Alice prepare $\lambda(k+1)$-many $\mathbf{T}$ states instead of just $k$. The classical 2PC will generate a random permutation $\pi$ on $[\lambda(k+1)]$, which will move a random selection of $\lambda$ of the $\mathbf{T}$ states into ``$\mathbf{T}$-state check registers.'' The application of $\pi$ will be implemented by a unitary $U_\pi$ incorporated into $W$. After applying $W$, Bob will apply a projective measurement onto $\mathbf{T}$ to each of the $\mathbf{T}$-state check registers, and will abort if any of the $\lambda$ measurements fails.
If all of the $\lambda$ measurements pass, this means the remaining $\lambda k$ un-tested $\mathbf{T}$ states are ``somewhat close'' to being real $\mathbf{T}$ states. However, being ``somewhat close'' will not be sufficient; for instance, an attacker who prepares exactly one completely invalid $\mathbf{T}$ state will only be caught with $1/(k+1)$ probability.
We will therefore need to apply magic-state distillation to transform these into states which are negligibly close to real $\mathbf{T}$ states. For this, we use a magic-state distillation circuit of~\cite[\S2.5]{EC:DGJMS20} (which builds on \cite{BravyiKitaev05}). This circuit consists solely of Clifford gates and computational basis measurements. To apply this circuit we modify our underlying functionality, so that we now give out a garbling of a circuit that first implements magic-state distillation and only then applies $Q_B$.
This completes an overview of our protocol, and a formal construction and analysis can be found in Section \ref{sec:three-message}.
\subsection{Application: Reusable MDV-NIZK for QMA}
Now we briefly describe how the above techniques readily give a reusable malicious designated-verifier NIZK for QMA in the CRS model. Note that NIZK for QMA is a special case of two-party quantum computation, where the functionality being computed is the verification circuit ${\cal V}$ for some QMA language, the prover (previously Alice) has the quantum witness $\mathbf{w}$ as input, and the verifier (previously Bob) has no input and receives a binary output indicating whether ${\cal V}(x,\mathbf{w})$ accepts or rejects, where $x$ is the (classical) description of the instance they are considering.
Since the prover does not receive output, there is no need for the third message in the protocol of Section \ref{subsec:3-round-malicious}. Furthermore, since the verifier has no input, there is no need for any quantum message from him in the first message. The verifier only needs to send a first-round classical 2PC message which then functions as a proving key. The (classical) left-over state is the verifier's secret verification key. After this, the prover just sends one quantum message (the Second Message in the above protocol), proving that ${\cal V}(x,\mathbf{w}) = 1$.
In order to make the above template reusable, we can first instantiate the underlying classical 2PC with a reusable 2PC. Once this is in place, the verifier's first-round message is necessarily instance-indepedent. Then, to ensure that a cheating prover cannot break soundness by observing whether the verifier accepts its proofs or not, we modify the classical functionality to take as input a PRF key from the verifier, and generate all required randomness (used for the $\mathbf{0}$ and $\mathbf{T}$ checks, and the quantum garbling procedure) by applying this PRF to the (classical) description of the instance $x$. By security of the reusable 2PC and the PRF, a verifier will never accept a maliciously sampled proof for any instance $x$ not in the language.
\subsection{Challenges in Achieving a Two-Round Protocol in the Quantum Setting}\label{subsec:two-round-challenges}
The previous sections show that we can achieve 2PQC in two messages if only one party receives output, which is optimal in terms of round complexity. Now we ask whether both parties can obtain output with just two rounds of simultaneous exchange. Indeed, in the classical setting, there is a natural approach to obtaining a two-round protocol, given a two-message protocol where one party receives output. The parties simply run two parallel executions of the two-message protocol on the same inputs - one in which Alice speaks first and the functionality only computes her part of the output, and another in which Bob speaks first and the functionality only computes his part of the output. Unfortunately, this natural approach completely fails in the quantum setting, for at least two reasons.
\begin{itemize}
\item Running two parallel executions of the same protocol on the same set of inputs seems to require \emph{cloning} those inputs, which is in general impossible if the inputs may be arbitrary quantum states.
\item Running two parallel executions of a randomized functionality requires the parties to fix the same random coins to be used in each execution, as otherwise their outputs may not be properly jointly distributed. This is not possible in the quantum setting, since randomness can come from measurement, and measurement results cannot be fixed and agreed upon beforehand.
\end{itemize}
These issues motivate the rest of our work. Since running two protocols in parallel on the same inputs is problematic, we take as our guiding principle that one party must be performing the actual computation at some point in the protocol, and then distributing the outputs.
Interestingly, while the first issue mentioned above is unique to the setting of quantum inputs, the second issue applies even if the parties wish to compute a quantum circuit over just \emph{classical} inputs, which we regard as a very natural setting. Thus, while this paper focuses on the most general case of secure quantum computation over potentially quantum inputs, we stress that all the results we achieve are the best known even for the classical input setting. Furthermore, note that both issues also exist in the specious setting, so it doesn't appear to be straightforward to achieve two-round 2PQC even in this setting. While the focus of this paper is on the setting of malicious security, exploring these questions in the specious setting is also an interesting direction.
\subsection{A Two-Round Protocol with Pre-Processing}
\label{sec: two-round protocol tech ovw}
Our next result is a three-round protocol for 2PQC which requires only two \emph{online} rounds of communication, filling in the upper right corner of \cref{table: results}.
In fact, we construct a protocol in which the pre-input phase only consists of a \emph{single} message from Bob to Alice (computed with respect to a CRS). We take our three sequential message protocol as a starting point, and introduce several modifications. The first modification will immediately achieve the goal of removing input-dependence from Bob's first message, and all the subsequent modifications will be necessary to restore correctness and security.
\paragraph{Modification 1: Removing Input-Dependence via Teleportation.} Before sending his first message, Bob samples $n$ EPR pairs, where $n$ is the number of qubits of the input $\mathbf{x}_B$. We denote these EPR pairs by $(\mathbf{epr}_1,\mathbf{epr}_2)$, where $\mathbf{epr}_1$ denotes the left $n$ qubits, and $\mathbf{epr}_2$ denotes the right $n$ qubits. In place of sending $C_{B,\mathrm{in}}(\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{0}^\lambda)$, Bob sends $\mathbf{m}_{B,1} \coloneqq C_{B,\mathrm{in}}(\mathbf{epr}_1,\mathbf{0}^\lambda)$. Note that the classical 2PC only requires input $C_{B,\mathrm{in}}$, which is a random Clifford that Bob samples for himself, so Bob's entire first round message $(\mathbf{m}_{B,1},m_{B,1})$ can now be sent \emph{before} Bob receives his input. The idea is that later on, when Bob learns his input $\mathbf{x}_B$, he will perform Bell measurements on $(\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{epr}_2)$ to teleport $\mathbf{x}_B$ into $\mathbf{epr}_1$.
\paragraph{Issue: Incorporating Bob's Teleportation Errors.} Teleporting $\mathbf{x}_B$ into $\mathbf{epr}_1$ will require Bob to somehow correct $\mathbf{epr}_1$ later in the protocol using the results of his Bell measurements on $(\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{epr}_2)$. But enabling Bob to do this in a way that does not compromise security will be tricky, as we now explain.
After receiving the second round message from Alice in our original malicious 2PQC protocol, Bob learns the output of the classical 2PC, which includes (1) a (classical description of a) quantum garbled circuit $\widetilde{Q}$, and (2) a Clifford unitary $W$. Bob applies $W$ to Alice's quantum message $\mathbf{m}_{A,2}$, performs the appropriate $\mathbf{0}$ and $\mathbf{T}$ state checks, and conditioned on the checks passing, is left with a state of the form $E_0(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B,\widehat{\mathbf{T}},\mathbf{0})$, where $\widehat{\mathbf{T}}$ is a state ``somewhat close'' to $\mathbf{T}^k$. But at this point in our newly modified protocol, Bob is holding the state $E_0(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{epr}_1,\widehat{\mathbf{T}},\mathbf{0})$. To restore correctness, we somehow need to modify the protocol so that Bob can apply $X^{x_{\mathrm{inp}}}Z^{z_{\mathrm{inp}}}$ to $\mathbf{epr}_1$ ``inside'' the $E_0$ mask, where $x_{\mathrm{inp}},z_{\mathrm{inp}}$ are the result of Bell basis measurements on $(\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{epr}_2)$.
Recall that the structure of $W$ is $W = E_0 \cdot U_{\mathrm{dec-check}}^\dagger$, where $E_0$ is the input garbling Clifford for the quantum garbled circuit, and $U_{\mathrm{dec-check}}$ is the matrix that undoes $C_{A,\mathrm{in}}$, undoes $C_{B,\mathrm{in}}$, and then applies a permutation $\pi$ and a random linear map $M$, and rearranges all the to-be-checked registers to the last few (rightmost) register slots. The multiplication by $E_0$ is applied only to the non-checked registers.
Thus, it seems like correctness would have to be restored by inserting the unitary $({\mathbb I} \otimes X^{x_{\mathrm{inp}}}Z^{z_{\mathrm{inp}}} \otimes {\mathbb I})$ in between $E_0$ and $U_{\mathrm{dec-check}}^\dagger$. But if Bob can learn $E_0({\mathbb I} \otimes X^{x_{\mathrm{inp}}}Z^{z_{\mathrm{inp}}} \otimes {\mathbb I})U_{\mathrm{dec-check}}^\dagger$ for even two different values of $x_{\mathrm{inp}}$ and $z_{\mathrm{inp}}$, security of the input garbling Clifford $E_0$ may be lost entirely.
\paragraph{Modification 2: Classical Garbling + Quantum Multi-Key Fully Homomorphic Encryption} In order to resolve this issue, we will split up the matrix $E_0({\mathbb I} \otimes X^{x_{\mathrm{inp}}}Z^{z_{\mathrm{inp}}} \otimes {\mathbb I})U_{\mathrm{dec-check}}^\dagger$ into two matrices
\begin{align*}
U_{x_{\mathrm{inp}},z_{\mathrm{inp}}} &\coloneqq E_0({\mathbb I} \otimes X^{x_{\mathrm{inp}}}Z^{z_{\mathrm{inp}}}\otimes {\mathbb I})U_{\mathrm{rand}}^\dagger\\ U_{\mathrm{check}} &\coloneqq U_{\mathrm{rand}}U_{\mathrm{dec-check}}^\dagger
\end{align*}
where $U_{\mathrm{rand}}$ is a ``re-randomizing'' Clifford.
The matrix $U_{\mathrm{check}}$ is independent of Bob's teleportation errors, and will now be output to Bob by the classical 2PC. But to preserve security, we will have Bob obtain $U_{x_{\mathrm{inp}},z_{\mathrm{inp}}}$ by evaluating a \emph{classical} garbled circuit $\widetilde{f}_{\mathrm{inp}}$ where $f_{\mathrm{inp}}(x_{\mathrm{inp}},z_{\mathrm{inp}}) \coloneqq U_{x_{\mathrm{inp}},z_{\mathrm{inp}}}$; the garbled circuit $\widetilde{f}_{\mathrm{inp}}$ is included in the output of the classical 2PC.
But now we are faced with a new problem: how does Bob obtain the (classical) labels for $\widetilde{f}_{\mathrm{inp}}$? Since we only have one round of interaction remaining, Bob won't be able to run an OT to learn the correct labels (Bob could learn the labels by the end of the two online rounds, but then we would still need another round for Bob to send Alice her encrypted output).
We resolve this problem with \emph{quantum multi-key fully-homomorphic encryption} ($\mathsf{QMFHE}$), which we will use in tandem with our classical garbled circuit $\widetilde{f}_{\mathrm{inp}}$ to enable Bob to compute (a homomorphic encryption of) $U_{x_\mathrm{inp},z_\mathrm{inp}}$ without leaking anything else. Before we continue, we give a brief, intuition-level recap of $\mathsf{QMFHE}$ (we refer the reader to \ifsubmission the full version \else~\cref{sec: qmfhe}\fi for a formal description). Recall that a standard fully-homomorphic encryption ($\mathsf{FHE}$) allows one to apply arbitrary efficient computation to encrypted data (without needing to first decrypt). \emph{Multi-key} $\mathsf{FHE}$ ($\mathsf{MFHE}$) extends $\mathsf{FHE}$ to enable computation over multiple ciphertexts encrypted under different keys; the output of such a homomorphic computation is a ``multi-key'' ciphertext which can only be decrypted given all the secret keys for all of the ciphertexts involved in the computation~\cite{STOC:LopTroVai12}. Finally, $\mathsf{QMFHE}$ extends $\mathsf{MFHE}$ a step further to allow arbitrary efficient \emph{quantum} computation over encrypted (classical or quantum) data~\cite{EPRINT:Goyal18,C:Brakerski18,FOCS:Mahadev18b,Agarwal2020PostQuantumMC}.
We will encrypt each of the garbled circuit labels for $\widetilde{f}_{\mathrm{inp}}$ under an independent $\mathsf{QMFHE}$ key. All of these encrypted labels along with the corresponding $\mathsf{QMFHE}$ public keys (to enable quantum computations over these ciphertexts) will also be output to Bob as part of the classical 2PC. We remark that this requires a $\mathsf{QMFHE}$ scheme where encryptions of classical plaintexts are themselves classical; such schemes are known assuming the quantum hardness of the learning with errors (QLWE) assumption~\cite{Agarwal2020PostQuantumMC}.\footnote{We only require \emph{leveled} $\mathsf{QMFHE}$, which can be based solely on the QLWE assumption. Unleveled $\mathsf{QMFHE}$ requires an additional circularity security assumption.}
To recap, Bob obtains from the classical 2PC a collection of $\mathsf{QMFHE}$ ciphertexts, one for each of the garbled circuit labels for $\widetilde{f}_{\mathrm{inp}}$. Bob picks out the ciphertexts corresponding to $x_{\mathrm{inp}},z_{\mathrm{inp}}$ and performs quantum multi-key evaluation of $\widetilde{f}_{\mathrm{inp}}$ over these ciphertexts, obtaining a $\mathsf{QMFHE}$ encryption of the output of $\widetilde{f}_{\mathrm{inp}}$, i.e. $\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Enc}(\mathsf{pk}_{x_{\mathrm{inp}},z_{\mathrm{inp}}},U_{x_{\mathrm{inp}},z_{\mathrm{inp}}})$ where $\mathsf{pk}_{x_{\mathrm{inp}},z_{\mathrm{inp}}}$ denotes the collection of $\mathsf{QMFHE}$ public keys corresponding to $x_{\mathrm{inp}},z_{\mathrm{inp}}$. The classical 2PC output also includes $U_{\mathrm{check}}$ in the clear, which Bob can apply to $\mathbf{m}_{A,2}$ to obtain $U_{\mathrm{rand}}(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{epr}_1,\widehat{\mathbf{T}},\mathbf{0})$ (after performing appropriate measurement checks). Then Bob can homomorphically compute the ciphertext $\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Enc}(\mathsf{pk}_{x_{\mathrm{inp}},z_{\mathrm{inp}}},E_0(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B,\widehat{\mathbf{T}},\mathbf{0}))$, and proceed to homomorphically evaluate his quantum garbled circuit to obtain $\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Enc}(\mathsf{pk}_{x_{\mathrm{inp}},z_{\mathrm{inp}}},(C_{A,\mathrm{out}}(\mathbf{y}_A,\mathbf{0}^\lambda),\mathbf{y}_B))$.
In order for Bob to obtain his final output in the clear, we will have Bob send Alice $x_{\mathrm{inp}},z_{\mathrm{inp}}$ in the first online round. In response, in the second online round Alice will reply with $\mathsf{sk}_{x_{\mathrm{inp}},z_{\mathrm{inp}}}$; security of the $\mathsf{QMFHE}$ will guarantee that Bob cannot decrypt ciphertexts corresponding to any other choice of the teleportation errors. In the second online round, Bob will send Alice $\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Enc}(\mathsf{pk}_{x_{\mathrm{inp}},z_{\mathrm{inp}}},(C_{A,\mathrm{out}}(\mathbf{y}_A,\mathbf{0}^\lambda))$, which she can decrypt to obtain $\mathbf{y}_A$. Finally, Bob produces his output by performing $\mathsf{QMFHE}$ decryption with $\mathsf{sk}_{x_{\mathrm{inp}},z_{\mathrm{inp}}}$.
\paragraph{Issue: Simulating a Quantum Garbled Circuit with Unknown Output.} At this point, we have a correct protocol whose first round is completely input-independent. However, we will run into issues when attempting to prove malicious security.
The problem arises in the security proof for a malicious Bob. In the original three-round maliciously secure protocol, the simulator is able to extract $\mathbf{x}_B$ from Bob’s first round message to Alice; this is done by first extracting $C_{B,\mathrm{in}}$ from Bob’s first round classical message for the classical 2PC, and then applying $C_{B,\mathrm{in}}^{-1}$ to Bob’s first round quantum message. Extracting $\mathbf{x}_B$ from Bob’s first round message to Alice is crucial for proving security, since it enables the simulator to query the ideal functionality on $\mathbf{x}_B$, learn the output $\mathbf{y}_B$, and finally simulate the quantum garbled circuit using Bob's output $\mathbf{y}_B$ before computing Alice's simulated second round message to be sent to Bob. This second round message reveals to Bob the quantum garbled circuit, so it is crucial that the quantum garbled circuit simulator has been executed at this point.
Not surprisingly, this simulation strategy runs into a major problem in our newly modified protocol. Bob’s first message is independent of $\mathbf{x}_B$, so the simulator cannot query the ideal functionality, and therefore seemingly cannot simulate the quantum garbled circuit before computing Alice's message, which in particular reveals the quantum garbled circuit to Bob. In summary, the simulator must provide Bob with the quantum garbled circuit (part of Alice's first online round message), \emph{before} it has enough information to extract Bob's input. This appears quite problematic since simulating a garbled circuit certainly requires knowing the output. However, since Bob can only obtain an \emph{encryption} of the output of the garbled circuit after receiving Alice's first message, it is still reasonable to expect that the protocol is secure.
\paragraph{Modification 3: Simulation via Teleportation.} We fix this problem through a new technique we call \emph{simulation via teleportation}. The idea is as follows. Instead of running the quantum garbled circuit simulator on the output of the circuit (which the simulator does not yet know), the simulator will first prepare fresh EPR pairs $\mathbf{epr}_1’,\mathbf{epr}_2’$ and then run the quantum garbled circuit simulator on $(C_{A,\mathrm{out}}(\mathbf{0},\mathbf{0}^\lambda),\mathbf{epr}_1’)$ (where $\mathbf{0}$ takes the place of Alice's input $\mathbf{x}_A$ and $\mathbf{epr}_1’$ takes the place of Bob's output $\mathbf{y}_B$). In the following round, after Bob has teleported over his input state $\mathbf{x}_B$, the simulator will query the ideal functionality, learn $\mathbf{y}_B$, and then \emph{teleport $\mathbf{y}_B$ into $\mathbf{epr}_1’$}.
Implementing the final teleportation step requires some care. When the simulator learns $\mathbf{y}_B$, it performs Bell measurements on $(\mathbf{y}_B,\mathbf{epr}_2’)$, obtaining measurement outcomes $x_{\mathrm{out}},z_{\mathrm{out}}$. It must then find some way to apply $x_{\mathrm{out}},z_{\mathrm{out}}$ to the state $\mathbf{epr}_1’$ so that Bob can obtain his correct output.
So we further modify the protocol so that the garbled circuit Bob receives from the classical 2PC is modified to output $(C_{A,\mathrm{out}}(\mathbf{y}_A,\mathbf{0}^\lambda),X^{x_{\mathrm{out}}}Z^{z_{\mathrm{out}}}\mathbf{y}_B)$ instead of $(C_{A,\mathrm{out}}(\mathbf{y}_A,\mathbf{0}^\lambda),\mathbf{y}_B)$, as before. That is, in the real protocol, an honest Alice will sample random $x_{\mathrm{out}},z_{\mathrm{out}}$, and then the 2PC will output the circuit implementing this functionality. Alice will send $x_{\mathrm{out}},z_{\mathrm{out}}$ to Bob in the second online round, and Bob will first apply Pauli corrections $X^{x_{\mathrm{out}}}Z^{z_{\mathrm{out}}}$ to his output to obtain $\mathbf{y}_B$. In the simulated protocol, however, $x_{\mathrm{out}},z_{\mathrm{out}}$ are not sampled by the simulator. Instead, they are the result of the simulator's Bell measurements on $(\mathbf{y}_B,\mathbf{epr}_2’)$. The simulator thus simulates a garbled circuit that outputs $(C_{A,\mathrm{out}}(\mathbf{0},\mathbf{0}^\lambda),\mathbf{epr}_1’)$, and then sends $x_{\mathrm{out}},z_{\mathrm{out}}$ in the second online round. Note that this teleportation step occurs \emph{exclusively within the simulation}.
\paragraph{Modification 4: Alice (Equivocally) Commits to Pauli Corrections.} To arrive at a fully secure protocol, we need to address one last issue. As currently described, there is nothing that prevents a malicious Alice from misreporting her choice of $x_{\mathrm{out}}, z_{\mathrm{out}}$. This can introduce arbitrary Pauli errors into Bob’s output that he has no way of detecting. However, this can easily be fixed using equivocal commitments. That is, Alice inputs $x_{\mathrm{out}},z_{\mathrm{out}}$ to the classical 2PC, along with commitment randomness $s$. Bob obtains the commitment as part of the output of the classical 2PC, and later when Alice sends $x_{\mathrm{out}},z_{\mathrm{out}}$ in the second online round, she must also send along $s$. The equivocality property enables the simulation strategy to work as before, as the simulator will have the power to send Bob a commitment to an arbitrary value, and after learning $x_{\mathrm{out}},z_{\mathrm{out}}$ from its Bell measurements, use equivocation to produce a valid opening.
\subsection{The Multi-Party Setting}
In this section, we describe our results in the multi-party setting, filling in the bottom row of \cref{table: results}.
We begin by describing our approach to obtaining a five-round protocol from quantum-secure OT. Our approach follows the same high-level idea as the three-message 2PQC protocol described in Section \ref{subsec:3-round-malicious}, where one party (the ``designated party'', or $P_1$) will evaluate a quantum garbled circuit on encodings of each party's input, and then distribute the encoded outputs to each party. However, implementing this template in the multi-party setting requires resolving a host of new challenges.
\paragraph{Input Encoding.} Recall that in our two-party protocol, Alice received an encoding of Bob's input, concatenated their own input, re-randomized the entire set of registers with a random Clifford $C$, and then sent the re-randomized state to Bob. This re-randomization ensures that the only meaningful computation Bob can perform is to apply the quantum garbled circuit, whose classical description is re-randomized with $C^\dagger$. A natural extension of this idea to the multi-party setting goes as follows. First, each party sends their encoded input to $P_1$. Then $P_1$ concatenates all inputs together and re-randomizes the resulting set of registers with their own random Clifford $C_1$. Then, these registers are passed around in a circle, each party $P_i$ applying their own re-randomizing Clifford $C_i$. Finally, $P_1$ receives the fully re-randomized state, along with some classical description of a quantum garbled circuit obtained via classical MPC, and re-randomized with $C_1^\dagger \dots C_n^\dagger$. The fact that each party applies their own re-randomizing Clifford is necessary, since we are in the dishonest majority setting. Indeed, if only one party $P_i$ is honest, their security will crucially rely on the fact that the adversary does not know their re-randomizing Clifford $C_i$. This approach of encrypting and sending a state around the circle of parties for re-randomization is similar to \cite{EC:DGJMS20}'s ``input encoding'' protocol, in which each individual party's input is sent around the circle of parties for re-randomization.
Unfortunately, the round complexity of this encoding step will grow linearly with the number of parties. To obtain a constant-round protocol, our idea is to round-collapse this input-encoding via the use of quantum teleportation. In the first round, parties will send EPR pairs to each other following the topology of the computation described above. That is, each party sets up EPR pairs with $P_1$ that will be used to teleport their encoded inputs to $P_1$, and each consecutive pair of parties will set up EPR pairs that will be used to teleport the encoded state around the circle. After this setup, the parties can \emph{simultaneously} apply re-randomization Cliffords and teleport the encoded state around the circle. This will introduce teleportation errors, but since the re-randomization operations are Clifford, these can be later corrected. Indeed, this correction will be facilitated by a classical MPC protocol that takes as input each party's Clifford and set of teleportation errors.
\paragraph{0 and T State Checks.} The next challenge is how to enforce 0 and $T$ state checks in the multi-party setting. Recall that in the two-party setting, we had the non-evaluator party (Alice) prepare the 0 and $T$ states, which were then checked by the garbled circuit evaluator (Bob). This approach works because we know that if Alice is malicious and tried to cheat during preparation of these states, then Bob must be honest and will then refuse to evaluate the garbled circuit. However, this does not carry over to the multi-party setting. If we try to fix some party $P_i$ to prepare the $0$ and $T$ states and then have the evaluator $P_1$ check them, it may be the case that \emph{both} $P_i$ and $P_1$ are malicious, which would be problematic.
Thus, we take a different approach, instructing $P_1$ to prepare the 0 and $T$ states, and designing a \emph{distributed} checking protocol, similar to that of \cite{EC:DGJMS20}. We now briefly describe the $T$ state check, leaving a description of the 0 state check to the body. $P_1$ will be instructed to concatenate all parties' inputs with their own $T$ states, and then send the resulting state around the circle for re-randomization. Later, they receive the re-randomized state, along with a unitary from the classical MPC that i) undoes the re-randomization, ii) samples a different subset of $T$ states for each party, iii) Clifford-encodes each subset, and iv) garbles the inputs together with the remaining $T$ states. Thus, $P_1$ obtains $n$ encoded subsets of $T$ states, and is supposed to send one to each party. Each party will then receive their encoded subset, decode (using information obtained from the classical MPC), and measure in the $T$-basis. Each party will then abort the protocol if their check failed. Only if \emph{no} parties abort will the classical MPC send information to each party allowing them to decrypt their output from the quantum garbled circuit. It is crucial that \emph{no} party receives output until all honest parties indicate that their $T$ state check passed, because using malformed $T$ states in the quantum garbled circuit could result in outputs that leak information about honest party inputs.
\paragraph{The Five-Round Protocol.} We give a high-level overview of the five rounds of the protocol.
\begin{itemize}
\item Round 1: Each party $P_i$ generates EPR pairs and sends half of each pair to its neighbor $P_{i+1}$. Additionally, party $P_1$ generates enough EPR pairs so that it can send EPR pair halves to every other party $P_i$ for $i \neq 1$.
\item Round 2: Teleport inputs to $P_1$ and teleport the resulting state around the circle (with re-randomization Cliffords $C_i$ applied along the way). Input teleportation errors and $\{C_i\}_{i \in [n]}$ to the classical MPC.
\item Round 3: Classical MPC delivers unitary to $P_1$ that samples subsets of $T$ states and garbles inputs, along with classical description of the quantum garbled circuit.
\item Round 4: $P_1$ evaluates the unitary and garbled circuit, then delivers encoded subsets of $T$ states and encrypted outputs to each party.
\item Round 5: If no parties abort after their $T$ state check, the classical MPC delivers key to each party allowing them to decrypt their output.
\end{itemize}
Note that the distributed $T$ state check is the reason that the protocol requires five rounds. The first round is used for setting up EPR pairs. At this point the parties can perform quantum teleportation and obtain their Pauli errors. Now, these must be corrected by the classical MPC, which takes a minimum of two rounds. Thus, $P_1$ can only obtain output from the MPC, and thus from the quantum garbled circuit, after Round 3. Then, Round 4 must be used to distribute subsets of $T$ states, and Round 5 must be used to deliver decryption keys conditioned on all parties being happy with their $T$ states. As we describe in the body, the actual computation of the garbled circuit can be delayed one round (at the cost of settling for security with abort rather than unanimous abort), giving a five-round protocol with three online rounds.
Now we discuss how to instantiate the classical MPC. We are going to need an MPC that supports \emph{reactive} functionalities, where inputs may depend on previous outputs obtained from the MPC. Moreover, we need the MPC to be \emph{round-optimal}, in the sense that outputs delivered in round $i$ may depend on inputs from round $i-1$. We observe that the round-collapsing compiler of \cite{EC:GarSri18a} gives exactly this --- an $\ell+1$ round MPC for a reactive functionality with $\ell$ rounds of output. Thus, we can rely solely on quantum-secure two-message OT to construct the above five-round quantum MPC. \ifsubmission\else See~\cref{subsec:reactivempc} for more discussion about the classical reactive MPC.\fi
\paragraph{The Four-Round Protocol.} Finally, we observe that there is some slack in the aforementioned protocol. Indeed, $P_1$ does not obtain any output from the classical MPC until after round 3, when in principle the classical MPC can be used to compute some output in only two rounds. The reason we waited three rounds is that we wanted to include the parties' teleportation errors in the computation performed by the MPC, and these are not known until the beginning of the second round.
However, we can use ideas similar to those in \cref{sec: two-round protocol tech ovw} in order to allow the MPC to compute something meaningful during the first two rounds without yet knowing the teleportation errors. In particular, we make use of classical garbled circuits and quantum multi-key FHE to provide a mechanism by which the classical MPC can output information allowing $P_1$ to (homomorphically) compute a function of the teleportation errors after Round 2. This allows us to collapse the total number of required rounds to 4. Moreover, a similar idea allows the parties to delay teleportation of their inputs another round, giving a four-round protocol with (optimal) \emph{two} rounds of online interaction. Equivalently, our protocol can be seen as two-round MPQC in a quantum pre-processing model.
\subsection{Two Round 2PQC Without Pre-Processing: Challenges and Possibilities}
\label{subsec:tech-overview-two-round}
In this section, we explore the possibility of achieving a two-round 2PQC protocol in the CRS model \emph{without pre-processing}. We stress that this model \emph{does not permit pre-shared entanglement} between the two parties, as we consider sharing of entanglement to be a pre-processing step.
\paragraph{The Challenge of Oblivious Simulation.} In the classical setting, all known two-round two-party computation protocols (in the CRS model) can be modified so that security is proven via (what we call) an \emph{oblivious simulator}.\footnote{Each party will use a NIZK proof of knowledge to prove that their first message is well-formed, using their input and randomness as witness. Then, a simulator programming the CRS may extract either party's input.} That is, the simulator (1) only makes black-box queries to the adversary, (2) is straight-line (meaning it only runs the adversary a single time without rewinding), and (3) it generates the simulated CRS \emph{independently of the choice of corrupted party} (between Alice and Bob).
By focusing on protocols with oblivious simulation, we can highlight an apparent difficulty of building secure two-round protocols for quantum functionalities in the CRS model. Assume without loss of generality that Alice is adversarial (the identical argument applies to Bob). Observe that if the first message that Alice sends is not computationally binding to her input $\mathbf{x}_A$, she can potentially cheat by \emph{equivocating}, i.e. acting as if she had received a different input, and subsequently learn multiple outputs of the functionality. If the simulation is oblivious, then this reasoning applies simultaneously to Alice and Bob --- that is, both parties must, in the first round, send computationally-binding commitments to their respective inputs. This is immediately problematic for quantum inputs, since no-cloning implies that their leftover states will have no (computationally) useful information about their original inputs. Thus, it is unclear how a general computation can be performed on their \emph{joint} inputs before the start of the second round, as the parties have effectively swapped their initial states. And somehow, after just one more round of messaging, they must hold their correctly computed output states.
Our negative result formalizes this intuitive difficulty. If the simulator is oblivious, then by roughly following the above reasoning, at the end of the first round:
\begin{itemize}
\item Alice holds a computationally binding commitment to Bob's input $\mathbf{x}_B$,
\item Bob holds a computationally binding commitment to Alice's input $\mathbf{x}_A$, and
\item Neither party has information about their original inputs.
\end{itemize}
Moreover, the correctness of oblivious simulation implies that for a computationally indistinguishable CRS, there exists a ``trapdoor'' that would enable Alice to extract $\mathbf{x}_B$ and would enable Bob to extract $\mathbf{x}_A$. But now their states can be viewed as the states of two parties at the \emph{beginning of a one-round protocol with polynomial-size pre-processing} in which the parties' inputs are \emph{swapped}; the pre-processing step is necessary to give both parties the trapdoor information of the simulator. The resulting one-round protocol no longer satisfies any meaningful security guarantees, but crucially, it still satisfies correctness. Moreover, the one-round protocol falls into a model of ``instantaneous non-local computation'' that has been previously studied in the quantum information literature~\cite{Beigi_2011}. It is currently open whether this model enables general quantum computation with only polynomial-size preprocessing, and a positive result for two-round 2PQC with oblivious simulation would affirmatively answer this question.
\paragraph{A Proof-of-Concept Construction from Quantum VBB Obfuscation.}
\ifsubmission
Given the above barrier, one could attempt to construct a two-round protocol whose security relies crucially on a \emph{non-oblivious} simulation strategy. In this work, we take an initial step in this direction by providing a proof-of-concept construction from a strong form of quantum VBB obfuscation that handles obfuscation of quantum circuits that include both unitary gates and measurement gates (further discussion is available in the full version).
\else
Given the above barrier, one could attempt to construct a two-round protocol whose security relies crucially on a \emph{non-oblivious} simulation strategy. In this work, we take an initial step in this direction by providing a proof-of-concept construction from a strong form of quantum VBB obfuscation that handles obfuscation of quantum circuits that include both unitary gates and measurement gates (see \cref{defn:vbb} and the discussion preceding it).
\fi
In our construction, Alice will send an encryption of her input to Bob in round 1, who will then homomorphically compute the functionality over their joint inputs and respond with Alice's encrypted output in round 2. Alice will also send a message in round 2 that allows Bob to decrypt his output. However, the key is that this interaction will actually be indistinguishable from an interaction in which the \emph{opposite} flow of computation is occuring. In particular, if the CRS if sampled differently (but in an indistinguishable way), it will be the case that Bob is actually sending his encrypted input to Alice in the first round, and then Alice homomorphically computes the functionality and sends Bob's encrypted output back in the second round.
To instantiate this template, we provide a number of quantum obfuscations in the CRS, three per party. First, there are the ``input'' obfuscations ${\cal O}_{A,\mathsf{inp}}$ and ${\cal O}_{B,\mathsf{inp}}$. ${\cal O}_{A,\mathsf{inp}}$ will take as input Alice's input $\mathbf{x}_A$ along with a ``dummy'' input $\mathbf{d}_A$, and output Clifford encodings of each. Alice is instructed to send the first output of this obfuscation as her first message, and keep the second output as her state. In the real protocol, the obfuscated functionality will be such that the first output will be the Clifford encoding of the first input (Alice's real input $\mathbf{x}_A$), and the second output will be the Clifford encoding of the second input (Alice's dummy input $\mathbf{d}_A$). On the other hand, ${\cal O}_{B,\mathsf{inp}}$ will obfuscate the functionality that does the exact opposite, setting its first output to be a Clifford encoding of its second input, and its second output to be a Clifford encodings of its first input. Thus, in round 1, Alice sends a Clifford encoding of her real input and keeps a Clifford encoding of her dummy input in her state, while Bob sends a Clifford encoding of his dummy input and keeps a Clifford encoding of his real input in his state.
The next obfuscations ${\cal O}_{A,\mathsf{cmp}}$ and ${\cal O}_{B,\mathsf{cmp}}$ share secret randomness with the input obfuscations (in the form of PRF keys) and can thus decrypt Clifford encodings output by the input obfuscations. They each are defined to decrypt and check the authenticity of their inputs, apply the functionality $Q$ that the parties wish to compute, and then encode the outputs with freshly sampled Cliffords. Each party will run their respective obfuscation on their state and the other party's first round message. Note that then Alice is just using ${\cal O}_{A,\mathsf{cmp}}$ to compute $Q$ over dummy inputs, while Bob is using ${\cal O}_{B,\mathsf{cmp}}$ to compute $Q$ over their real inputs. Alice will send an encrypted dummy output to Bob in round 2, while Bob will send an encrypted real output to Alice.
Finally, each party applies their respective output obfuscation ${\cal O}_{A,\mathsf{out}}$ and ${\cal O}_{B,\mathsf{out}}$ to their final state and other party's second round message. ${\cal O}_{A,\mathsf{out}}$ will ignore Alice's state (which contains Alice's dummy output) and decrypt and output Bob's second round message (which contains Alice's real output). On the other hand, ${\cal O}_{B,\mathsf{out}}$ will ignore Alice's second round message and decrypt and output Bob's state.
Now, it is possible to argue (under the assumption that the obfuscations in the CRS are in fact VBB obfuscations\ifsubmission\else\footnote{Attempting to prove this based on just indistinguishability obfuscation runs into issues that arise due to the inherently probabilistic nature of the functionalities obfuscated. In particular, they generate randomness via measurement and then use this randomness to generate Clifford matrices. In the classical setting, one could usually generate the required randomness with a PRF applied to the input, but it is unclear how to do this when the input is a quantum state.}\fi) that, because all intermediate states and messages are Clifford-encoded, ``switching the direction'' of the input and output obfuscations cannot be noticed by the parties. Note that if each of ${\cal O}_{A,\mathsf{inp}}$ and ${\cal O}_{B,\mathsf{inp}}$ are re-defined to permute the order of their outputs, then the flow of computation will be completely reversed. In particular, Alice will be computing the functionality over real inputs with ${\cal O}_{A,\mathsf{cmp}}$, and Bob will be computing the functionality over dummy inputs with ${\cal O}_{B,\mathsf{cmp}}$. Thus, depending on how the simulator programs the CRS, it can either extract directly from Alice's first round message OR it can extract directly from Bob's first round message, but it could never extract from both simultaneously.
Thus, this template represents a potential method for securely computing a quantum functionality in two rounds, where one of the two parties actually performs the computation between rounds 1 and 2 and then distributes the output in round 2. In other words, it is an instantiation of our guiding principle mentioned in \cref{subsec:two-round-challenges} in a model without pre-processing.
\ifsubmission\else Of course, since VBB obfuscation of quantum circuits is in general impossible \cite{Alagic2016OnQO}, one may wonder how to interpret this result. One may view this construction, in conjunction with our impossibility result for oblivious simulators, as suggesting a particular template for designing two-round 2PQC that with new ideas may eventually be instantiated to give a construction from plausible assumptions. On the other hand, one may view the construction as a potential barrier to obtaining a more general impossibility result. Indeed, showing that it is impossible to securely compute a particular quantum functionality $Q$ in two rounds now requires showing that (strong) VBB obfuscation of certain functionalities is impossible. Currently, we only know that some very specific functionalities are un-obfuscatable~\cite{Alagic2016OnQO,alagic2020impossibility,ananth2020secure}. \fi
\section{Input encoding using teleportation}
We describe an input encoding protocol, which we call $\Pi^{\text{Tel-Enc}}$ that uses teleportation to remove the dependency of the round complexity on the number of players. We will show that $\Pi^{\text{Tel-Enc}}$ securely realizes $\Pi^{\text{Enc}}$, where the latter is the original input encoding protocol from \cite{dulek2020secure}.
\paragraph{Protocol $\Pi^{\text{Tel-Enc}}$.} We describe the protocol for a single input qubit held by party 1. Of course, this can be parallelized for multiple input qubits, as well as for inputs from all parties. We use the same notation as in \cite{dulek2020secure}. In particular we denote by $MT_1T_2$ the input qubit register and trap qubits registers. The protocol is the same as $\Pi^{\text{Enc}}$ except for the following modifications:
\begin{itemize}
\item Party $i+1$ prepares $2n+1$ EPR pairs. Sends half of each to party $i$.
\item After applying the Clifford $F_i$, party $i$ teleports the $2n+1$ qubits of the encoded state to party $i+1$. Let $z_i \in \{0,1\}^{4n+2}$ denote the teleportation measurement outcomes. Party $i$ sends $z_i$ to the MPC.
\item Let $\text{Correct}(z_1,\ldots,z_k, F_1,..,F_k)$ be the Pauli correction corresponding to measurement outcomes $z_1\ldots,z_k$ and Cliffords $F_1,\ldots,F_k$. The MPC gives to party 1 a description (as a group element) of the Clifford $V' := V \cdot \text{Correct}(z_1,\ldots,z_k, F_1,\ldots,F_k)$, where $V$ is sampled as in $\Pi^{\text{Enc}}$.
\item Party 1 swaps the content of the register in which the teleported state was ``received'' into registers $M T_1 T_2$. Then applies $V'$ to $MT_1T_2$. The rest of the protocol is the same as in $\Pi^{\text{Enc}}$.
\end{itemize}
We remark that correctness of $\Pi^{\text{Tel-Enc}}$ follows from the definition of $\text{Correct}(z_1,\dots,z_k,F_1,\dots,F_k)$. In particular, the receiving register of party 1 can be written as
\begin{align*}
(X^{r_k}Z^{s_k})^\dagger F_k \cdots (X^{r_1}Z^{s_1})^\dagger F_1 (\rho \otimes 0^{2k}) &= (X^{r'}Z^{s'})F_k \cdots F_1 (\rho \otimes 0^{2k})
\end{align*}
where for each $i$ we write $z_i = (r_i,s_i)$ for $r_i,s_i \in \{0,1\}^{2n+1}$, and
where $r',s' \in \{0,1\}^{2n+1}$ are determined by $z_1,\dots,z_k,F_1,\dots,F_k$. Since $\text{Correct}(z_1,\dots,z_k,F_1,\dots,F_k) \coloneqq (X^{r'}Z^{s'})^\dagger$, party 1's registers after applying $V'$ are in the form
\[V \cdot F_k \cdots F_1(\rho \otimes 0^{2k}) \]
as in the~\cite{dulek2020secure} input encoding protocol.
\begin{lemma}
$\Pi^{\text{Tel-Enc}}$ securely realizes $\Pi^{\text{Enc}}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We consider two cases.
\paragraph{Case 1: Player 1 is honest (and everyone else is dishonest).} Let $A$ be an adversary for $\Pi^{\text{Tel-Enc}}$. We construct an adversary $A'$ for $\Pi^{\text{Enc}}$ such that the two processes are indistinguishable to any environment. We use the same notation as in \cite{dulek2020secure}: party 1's encoded state is on registers $M$, $T_1$, $T_2$. $R$ is the side-information register of $A$. Additionally, in protocol $\Pi^{\text{Tel-Enc}}$, parties are required to send their teleportation measurement outcomes to the MPC. We denote the registers containing this information by $Z_1,\ldots, Z_k$. We let $W_{1, out}$ and $W_{A, in}$ denote the registers (created by $A$) through which party 1 teleports her encoded state to party 2, and hence to $A$ (when $A$ is honest these registers are initialized with $2n+1$ EPR pairs). In particular, $W_{1, out}$ is a $2n+1$-qubit register. Finally, we let $W_{1, in}$ and $W_{A, out}$ denote the registers through which $A$, acting as party $k$, teleports the state back to party 1 (these registers are initialized honestly by party 1 with $2n+1$ EPR pairs).
We split $A$ into two parts: $A^{(1)}$ which creates a state on registers $W_{1,out}$ and $W_{A, in}$, and, acting as party 2, sends $W_{1, out}$ to party 1; $A^{(2)}$ which performs the rest of the adversary's actions.
$A'$ acts as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item $A'$ creates registers $W_{1, out} W_{A, in}$, initialized in the zero state, and runs $A^{(1)}$ on these registers.
\item $A'$ receives registers $M T_1 T_2$ from party 1. Makes $2n+1$ Bell basis measurements, each involving one of the $2n+1$ qubits in $M T_1 T_2$ and the corresponding qubit in the $2n+1$ qubits of $W_{1, out}$. Stores the outcomes of these measurements as $z_1 \in \{0,1\}^{4n+2}$ in a new register $Z_1$.
\item $A'$ initializes registers $W_{1, in} W_{A, out}$ with $2n+1$ EPR pairs (across the two registers).
\item $A'$ initializes registers $Z_2, \ldots Z_k$ (in the zero state). Runs $A^{(2)}$, which acts on registers $W_{A, in}W_{A, out} RZ_2 \ldots Z_k$. Let $\text{Correct}^{W_{1, in} Z_1,\ldots,Z_k}(F_2, \ldots, F_k)$ be the Pauli correction applied on register $W_{1, in}$, based on the values in $Z_1,\ldots,Z_k$ and the sampled Cliffords $F_2,\ldots,F_k$ (notice that the first Clifford $F_1$ is applied before any teleportation errors are incurred, so it doesn't affect the final correction). $A'$ applies $\text{Correct}^{W_{1, in} Z_1,\ldots,Z_k}(F_2, \ldots, F_k)$.
\item $A'$ swaps the content of register $W_{1,in}$ into register $M T_1 T_2$. Sends the latter registers to party 1.
\end{itemize}
We compute the state of all registers $M T_1 T_2 R$ just before the final measurement of party 1 in protocols $\Pi^{\text{Tel-Enc}}$ and $\Pi^{\text{Enc}}$. In what follows, let $B^{MT_1T_2 W_{1, out} Z_1}$ be a unitary that ``coherently'' performs $2n+1$ Bell basis measurements between registers $M T_1 T_2$ and $W_{1,out}$, ``storing'' outcomes in $Z_1$. Let $\rho^{MR}$ be the state chosen by the environment.
One can check that in both protocols the overall state just before the final measurement of party 1 is:
\begin{align}
&\mathbb{E}_{E,r,s,F_i} \,\,\textsf{SWAP}^{MT_1T_2,W_{1,in}} V\, \text{Correct}^{W_{1,in}Z_1,\ldots,Z_k}(A^{(2)})^{W_{A, in}W_{A, out} RZ_2 \ldots Z_k} B^{MT_1T_2 W_{1,out} Z_1}(A^{(1)})^{W_{1,out}W_{A, in} R Z_2\ldots Z_k}F_1^{MT_1T_2} \nonumber\\
&\left(\rho \otimes \ket{0^{2n}}\bra{0^{2n}}^{T_1T_2} \otimes \left(\ket{EPR}\bra{EPR}^{2n+1} \right)^{W_{1,in}W_{A,out}}\otimes \ket{0}\bra{0}^{W_{1,out}W_{A,in}}\right)
F_1^{\dagger} (A^{(1)})^{\dagger}B^{\dagger} (A^{(2)})^{\dagger} \,\text{Correct}^{\dagger} V^{\dagger} \textsf{SWAP}^{\dagger} \,.
\end{align}
As a consequence, the state after party 1's final measurement, including the state of the MPC's memory, is also the same in both protocols.
\paragraph{Case 2: Player 1 is dishonest.} Consider the case with two parties, where party 1 is dishonest and party 2 is honest. Let $A$ be an adversary for $\Pi^{\text{Tel-Enc}}$. We can split $A$ into two parts, $A_1$ and $A_2$. $A_1$ receives the classical string $F_1$ from MPC and acts on registers $MR$ that it receives from the environment, registers $T_1T_2W_{1,in}W_{2,out}$ that are initialized to 0, and register $W_{1,out}$ that is initialized to be one half of a set of EPR pairs, where the other half is in register $W_{2,in}$. After applying its attack unitary, $A_1$ saves registers $RW_{1,in}$ for the next round, measures $MT_1T_2$ in the computational basis to get outcome $z_1$ which it inputs to MPC, and sends register $W_{2,out}$ to party 2. $A_2$ receives $V'$ from MPC, acts on registers $RW_{1,in}$, and swaps $W_{1,in}$ with $MT_1T_2$, to obtain the state of the system $MT_1T_2R$ before the final measurement of party 1.
Now we describe an adversary $A'$ for $\Pi^{\text{Enc}}$, also in two parts. $A'_1$ receives $F_1$ from MPC and registers $MR$ from the environment. It initializes $T_1T_2W_{1,in}W_{2,out}$ to 0 and $W_{1,out}W_{2,in}$ to EPR pairs. Then it runs $A_1$, measures $MT_1T_2$ to obtain the string $z_1$, and applies the Pauli correction defined by $z_1$ to the register $W_{2,in}$. It sends the register $W_{2,in}$ to party 2. $A'_2$ receives a state in registers $MT_1T_2$ from party 2 and $V$ from MPC, where $V = EF_1^\dagger F_2^\dagger$ for some $E$ that includes the new Clifford encoding as well as the random linear transformation. Let $\rho'$ be the state in register $W_{2,in}$ after $A_1$ was applied, and define $\rho \coloneqq F_1^\dagger P_1^\dagger \rho'$, where $P_1$ is the Pauli correction defined by string $z_1$. In $\Pi^{\text{Tel-Enc}}$, the state $F_2P_1F_1\rho$ will be entangled with $W_{2,in}$, and the registers measured to obtain a string $z_2$, which defines a Pauli correction $P_2$. Then $A_2$ will receive $V' = EF_1^\dagger P_1^\dagger F_2^\dagger P_2^\dagger$. However, in $\Pi^{\text{Enc}}$, $A'_2$ will receive the state $F_2F_1\rho$, entangle it with $W_{2,in}$, measure to obtain $z_2$, defining a Pauli $P_2$, and give $V' = VP_2^\dagger = EF_1^\dagger F_2^\dagger P_2^\dagger$ to $A_2$. Then it will run $A_2$ on registers $RW_{1,in}$. This results in the same distribution as in $\Pi^{\text{Tel-Enc}}$ since for any fixed Pauli $P_1$, the distributions $F_2$ and $F_2P_1$ are identical for a uniformly random Clifford $F_2$.
\end{proof}
\section{Quantum Non-Interactive Secure Computation}
\label{sec:three-message}
\ifsubmission
\subsection{Useful Lemmas}
\begin{lemma}[Magic State Distillation~\cite{BravyiKitaev05,EC:DGJMS20}]\label{lemma:distillation} Let $p(\cdot)$ be a polynomial. Then there exists a ${\rm poly}(\lambda)$ size $\mathsf{C+M}$ circuit $Q$ from $\lambda p(\lambda)$ input qubits to $p(\lambda)$ output qubits such that the following holds. Take any state $\mathbf{x}$ on $\lambda p(\lambda) +\lambda$ qubits. Apply a uniformly random permutation to the registers of $\mathbf{x}$ and then measure the final $\lambda$ qubits in the $T$-basis to obtain a bitstring $s$. Let $\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}$ be the remaining $\lambda p(\lambda)$ registers. Then there exist negligible functions $\mu,\nu$ such that $$\Pr\left[(s = 0) \wedge \left(\left\|Q(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}})- \mathbf{T}^{p(\lambda)}\right\|_1 > \mu(\lambda)\right)\right] \leq \nu(\lambda).$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This follows from applying~\cite[Lemma I.1]{EC:DGJMS20} with parameters $n = \lambda p(\lambda)$, $k = \lambda$, $\delta = 1/2$ followed by~\cite[Lemma 2.7]{EC:DGJMS20} with parameters $m = \lambda p(\lambda)$, $\ell = m/2, t=p(\lambda)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}[\cite{EC:DGJMS20}]\label{lemma:linear-map}
For any $n \in {\mathbb N}$ and projector $\Pi$ on $2n$ qubits, define the quantum channel ${\cal L}^\Pi$ by $${\cal L}^\Pi(\mathbf{x}) \coloneqq \Pi\mathbf{x}\Pi + \ket{\bot}\bra{\bot}\mathrm{Tr}[({\mathbb I}^{2n}-\Pi)\mathbf{x}],$$ where $\ket{\bot}$ is a distinguished state on $2n$ qubits with $\Pi\ket{\bot} = 0$. For any $t \in \{0,1\}^n$, let $\Pi_{t,\mathsf{Full}} \coloneqq \ket{0^{2n}}\bra{0^{2n}}$ if $t = 0^n$ and $\Pi_{t,\mathsf{Full}} \coloneqq 0$ otherwise. Let $\Pi_{t,\mathsf{Half}} \coloneqq {\mathbb I}^n \otimes \ket{t}\bra{t}$. Then for any QRV $\mathbf{x}$ on $2n$ registers and $t \in \{0,1\}^n$, $$\left\|{\cal L}^{\Pi_{t,\mathsf{Full}}}(\mathbf{x}) - \expectation_{U \gets \mathsf{GL}(2n,{\mathbb F}_2)}\left[{\cal L}^{\Pi_{t,\mathsf{Half}}}(U(\mathbf{x}))\right]\right\|_1 = {\rm negl}(n).$$
\end{lemma}
\else
\fi
\subsection{The Protocol}\label{subsec:3-msg-protocol}
In what follows, we describe our protocol for two-party quantum computation in the setting of sequential messages. This protocol requires three messages of interaction when both players desire output, and two messages in a setting where only one party obtains an output, which can be seen as a Q-NISC (Quantum Non-interactive Secure Computation) protocol.
\paragraph{Ingredients.} Our protocol will make use of the following cryptographic primitives: (1) Quantum-secure two-message two-party classical computation in the CRS model $(\mathsf{2PC}.\mathsf{Gen},\mathsf{2PC}_1,\mathsf{2PC}_2,\mathsf{2PC}_\mathsf{out})$ with a straight-line black-box simulator (\ifsubmission see Section 3.4 of the full version\else\cref{subsec:2pc}\fi), and (2) a garbling scheme for $\mathsf{C+M}$ circuits $(\mathsf{QGarble}, \mathsf{QGEval}, \mathsf{QGSim})$. \ifsubmission (see Section 4 of the full version)\else\fi
\paragraph{Notation.}
The protocol below computes a two-party quantum functionality represented by a $\mathsf{C+M}$ circuit $Q$ that takes $n_A + n_B$ input qubits, produces $m_A + m_B$ output qubits, and requires $n_Z$ auxiliary $\mathbf{0}$ states and $n_T$ auxiliary $\mathbf{T}$ states. Let $\lambda$ be the security parameter. The total number of quantum registers used will be $s = n_A + (n_B + \lambda) + (2n_Z + \lambda) + (n_T + 1)\lambda$, and we'll give a name to different groups of these registers.
\ifsubmission
\else
In round 1, $B$ operates on $n_B + \lambda$ registers, partitioned as $(\gray{B},\gray{\mathsf{Trap}_B})$, and sends these registers to $A$. In round 2, $A$ operates on these registers, along with $\gray{A}$ of size $n_A$, $\gray{Z_A}$ of size $2n_Z$, $\gray{\mathsf{Trap}_A}$ of size $\lambda$, and $\gray{T_A}$ of size $(n_T+1)\lambda$. An honest party $A$ will return all registers to $B$ in the order $(\gray{A},\gray{B},\gray{\mathsf{Trap}_B},\gray{Z_A},\gray{\mathsf{Trap}_A},\gray{T_A})$. During party $B$'s subsequent computation, the register $\gray{Z_A}$ will be partitioned into two registers $(\gray{Z_\mathsf{inp}},\gray{Z_\mathsf{check}})$, where each has size $n_Z$, and register $\gray{T_A}$ will be partitioned into two registers $(\gray{T_\mathsf{inp}},\gray{T_\mathsf{check}})$, where $\gray{T_\mathsf{inp}}$ has size $n_T\lambda$ and $\gray{T_\mathsf{check}}$ has size $\lambda$.
\fi
Given a $\mathsf{C+M}$ circuit $Q$ and a Clifford $C_\mathsf{out} \in \mathscr{C}_{m_A + \lambda}$, we define another $\mathsf{C+M}$ circuit $Q_\mathsf{dist}[C_\mathsf{out}]$. This circuit takes as input $n_A + n_B + n_Z + \lambda + n_T\lambda$ qubits $(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{inp},\mathsf{trap}_A,\mathbf{t}_\mathsf{inp})$ on registers $(\gray{A},\gray{B},\gray{Z_\mathsf{inp}},\gray{\mathsf{Trap}_A},\gray{T_\mathsf{inp}})$. It will first apply the magic state distillation circuit from~\cref{lemma:distillation} with parameters $(n_T\lambda,\lambda)$ to $\mathbf{t}_\mathsf{inp}$ to produce QRV $\mathbf{t}$ of size $n_T$. It will then run $Q$ on $(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{inp},\mathbf{t})$ to produce $(\mathbf{y}_A,\mathbf{y}_B)$. Finally, it will output $(C_\mathsf{out}(\mathbf{y}_A,\mathsf{trap}_A),\mathbf{y}_B)$.
\protocol
{\proref{fig:classical-f}: Classical Functionality $\mathcal{F}[Q]$}
{Classical functionality to be used in \proref{fig:three-message}.}
{fig:classical-f}
{
\ifsubmission\small\else\fi
\textbf{Common Information:} Security parameter $\lambda$, and $\mathsf{C+M}$ circuit $Q$ to be computed with $n_A + n_B$ input qubits, $m_A + m_B$ output qubits, $n_Z$ auxiliary $\mathbf{0}$ states, and $n_T$ auxiliary $\mathbf{T}$ states. Let $s = n_A + (n_B + \lambda) + (2n_Z + \lambda) + (n_T + 1)\lambda$.\\
\textbf{Party A Input:} Classical descriptions of $C_A \in \mathscr{C}_s$ and $C_\mathsf{out} \in \mathscr{C}_{m_A + \lambda}$.\\
\textbf{Party B Input:} Classical description of $C_B \in \mathscr{C}_{n_B + \lambda}$.\\
\textbf{The Functionality:}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Sample the unitary $U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}}$ as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item Sample a random permutation $\pi$ on $(n_T+1)\lambda$ elements.
\item Sample a random element $M \gets \mathsf{GL}(2n_T,{\mathbb F}_2)$.
\item Compute a description of the Clifford $U_\mathsf{check}$ that operates as follows on registers $(\gray{A},\gray{B},\gray{\mathsf{Trap}_B},\gray{Z_A},\gray{\mathsf{Trap}_A},\gray{T_A})$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Rearrange the registers of $\gray{T_A}$ according to the permutation $\pi$ and then partition the registers into $(\gray{T_\mathsf{inp}},\gray{T_\mathsf{check}})$.
\item Apply the linear map $M$ to the registers $\gray{Z_A}$ and then partition the registers into $(\gray{Z_\mathsf{inp}},\gray{Z_\mathsf{check}})$.
\item Re-arrange the registers to $(\gray{A},\gray{B},\gray{Z_\mathsf{inp}},\gray{\mathsf{Trap}_A},\gray{T_\mathsf{inp}},\gray{Z_\mathsf{check}},\gray{\mathsf{Trap}_B},\gray{T_\mathsf{check}})$.
\end{enumerate}
\item Define $U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}}$ as: $$U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}} \coloneqq U_\mathsf{check}\left({\mathbb I}^{n_A} \otimes C_B^\dagger \otimes {\mathbb I}^{(2n_Z + \lambda) + (n_T+1)\lambda}\right)C_A^\dagger.$$
\end{itemize}
\item Sample $(E_0,D_0,\widetilde{g}_1,\dots,\widetilde{g}_d) \gets \mathsf{QGarble}(1^\lambda,Q_\mathsf{dist}[C_\mathsf{out}])$.
\item Compute a description of $U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}-\mathsf{enc}} \coloneqq \left(E_0 \otimes {\mathbb I}^{(n_Z+\lambda)+\lambda}\right)U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}}^\dagger.$
\end{enumerate}
\textbf{Party B Output:} (1) A unitary $U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}-\mathsf{enc}}$ on $s$ qubits (to be applied on registers $(\gray{A},\gray{B},\gray{\mathsf{Trap}_B},\gray{Z_A},\gray{\mathsf{Trap}_A},\gray{T_A})$), and (2) A QGC $(D_0,\widetilde{g}_1,\dots,\widetilde{g}_d)$ (to be applied to registers $(\gray{A},\gray{B},\gray{Z_\mathsf{inp}},\gray{\mathsf{Trap}_A},\gray{T_\mathsf{inp}})$).\\
}
\clearpage
\protocol
{\proref{fig:three-message}: Three-message two-party quantum computation}
{Three-message two-party quantum computation.}
{fig:three-message}
{
\textbf{Common Information:} (1) Security parameter $\lambda$, and (2) a $\mathsf{C+M}$ circuit $Q$ over $n_A + n_B$ input qubits, $m_A + m_B$ output qubits, $n_Z$ auxiliary $\mathbf{0}$ states, and $n_T$ auxiliary $\mathbf{T}$ states. Let $s = n_A + (n_B + \lambda) + (2n_Z + \lambda) + (n_T + 1)\lambda$.\\
\textbf{Party A Input:} $\mathbf{x}_A$\\
\textbf{Party B Input:} $\mathbf{x}_B$\\
\underline{\textbf{The Protocol:}}\\
\textbf{Setup.} Run classical 2PC setup: $\mathsf{crs} \gets \mathsf{2PC}.\mathsf{Gen}(1^\lambda)$.\\
\textbf{Round 1.} \emph{Party $B$:}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Sample $C_B \gets \mathscr{C}_{n_B + \lambda}$ and compute $\mathbf{m}_{B,1} \coloneqq C_B(\mathbf{x}_B, \mathbf{0}^{\lambda})$.
\item Compute $(m_{B,1},\mathsf{st}) \gets \mathsf{2PC}_1(1^\lambda,{\cal F}[Q],\mathsf{crs},C_B)$.
\item Send to Party $A$: $(m_{B,1},\mathbf{m}_{B,1})$.
\end{enumerate}
\textbf{Round 2.} \emph{Party $A$:}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Sample $C_A \gets \mathscr{C}_s$ and $C_\mathsf{out} \gets \mathscr{C}_{m_A + \lambda}$.
\item Compute $\mathbf{m}_{A,2} \coloneqq C_A(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{m}_{B,1},\mathbf{0}^{2n_Z},\mathbf{0}^\lambda,\mathbf{T}^{(n_T+1)\lambda})$.
\item Compute
$m_{A,2} \gets \mathsf{2PC}_2(1^\lambda,{\cal F}[Q],\mathsf{crs},m_{B,1},(C_A,C_\mathsf{out}))$.
\item Send to Party $B$: $(m_{A,2},\mathbf{m}_{A,2})$.
\end{enumerate}
\textbf{Round 3.} \emph{Party $B$:}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Compute $(U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}-\mathsf{enc}},D_0,\tilde{g}_1,\dots,\tilde{g}_d) \gets \mathsf{2PC}_\mathsf{out}(1^\lambda,\mathsf{st},m_{A,2})$.
\item Compute $(\mathbf{m}_\mathsf{inp},\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{check},\mathsf{trap}_B,\mathbf{t}_\mathsf{check}) \coloneqq U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}-\mathsf{enc}}(\mathbf{m}_2)$, where
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathbf{m}_\mathsf{inp}$ is on registers $(\gray{A},\gray{B},\gray{Z_\mathsf{inp}},\gray{\mathsf{Trap}_A},\gray{T_\mathsf{inp}})$,
\item $(\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{check},\mathsf{trap}_B,\mathbf{t}_\mathsf{check})$ is on registers $(\gray{Z_\mathsf{check}},\gray{\mathsf{Trap}_B},\gray{T_\mathsf{check}})$.
\end{itemize}
\item Measure each qubit of $(\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{check},\mathsf{trap}_B)$ in the standard basis and abort if any measurement is not zero.
\item Measure each qubit of $\mathbf{t}_\mathsf{check}$ in the $T$-basis and abort if any measurement is not zero.
\item Compute $(\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A,\mathbf{y}_B) \gets \mathsf{QGEval}((D_0,\tilde{g}_1,\dots,\tilde{g}_d),\mathbf{m}_\mathsf{inp})$, where $\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A$ consists of $m_A + \lambda$ qubits and $\mathbf{y}_B$ consists of $m_B$ qubits.
\item Send to Party $A$: $\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A$.
\end{enumerate}
\textbf{Output Reconstruction.}
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Party $A$:} Compute $(\mathbf{y}_A,\mathsf{trap}_A) \coloneqq C_\mathsf{out}^\dagger(\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A)$, where $\mathbf{y}_A$ consists of $m_A$ qubits and $\mathsf{trap}_A$ consists of $\lambda$ qubits. Measure each qubit of $\mathsf{trap}_A$ in the standard basis and abort if any measurement is not zero. Otherwise, output $\mathbf{y}_A$.
\item \emph{Party $B$:} Output $\mathbf{y}_B$.
\end{itemize}
}
\clearpage
\subsection{Security}
\begin{theorem}
Assuming post-quantum maliciously-secure two-message oblivious transfer, there exists maliciously-secure NISC for quantum computation and maliciously-secure three-message two-party quantum computation.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\Pi$ be the protocol described in~\proref{fig:three-message} computing some quantum circuit $Q$. \ifsubmission Here, we only show security against a malicious party $A$ and defer the remainder of the proof to the full version.\else We first show that $\Pi$ satisfies \cref{def:mpqc} for any ${\mathsf{Adv}}$ corrupting party $A$.\fi
\paragraph{The simulator.} Consider any QPT adversary ${\mathsf{Adv}} = \{{\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$ corrupting party A. The simulator $\mathsf{Sim}$ is defined as follows. Whenever we say that the simulator aborts, we mean that it sends $\bot$ to the ideal functionality and to the adversary.
\paragraph{$\mathsf{Sim}^{{\cal I}[\mathbf{x}_B](\cdot)}(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$:}
\begin{itemize}
\item Compute $(\mathsf{crs},\tau,m_{B,1}) \gets \mathsf{2PC}.\mathsf{Sim}_A^{(1)}(1^\lambda)$, sample $C_B \gets \mathscr{C}_{n_B + \lambda}$, compute $\mathbf{m}_{B,1} \coloneqq C_B(\mathbf{0}^{n_B},\mathbf{0}^{\lambda})$, and send $(\mathsf{crs},m_{B,1},\mathbf{m}_{B,1})$ to ${\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$.
\item Receive $(m_{A,2},\mathbf{m}_{A,2})$ from ${\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda$ and compute $\mathsf{out} \gets \mathsf{2PC}.\mathsf{Sim}_A^{(1)}(1^\lambda,\tau,m_{A,2})$. If $\mathsf{out} = \bot$ then abort. Otherwise, parse $\mathsf{out}$ as $(C_A,C_\mathsf{out})$.
\item Using $(C_A,C_B)$, sample $U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}}$ as in the description of ${\cal F}[Q]$. Compute $$(\mathbf{x}_A',\mathbf{x}_B',\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{inp},\mathsf{trap}_A,\mathbf{t}_\mathsf{inp},\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{check},\mathsf{trap}_B,\mathbf{t}_\mathsf{check}) \coloneqq U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}}(\mathbf{m}_{A,2}).$$ Measure each qubit of $\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{check}$ and $\mathsf{trap}_B$ in the standard basis and each qubit of $\mathbf{t}_\mathsf{check}$ in the $T$-basis. If any measurement is non-zero, then abort.
\item Forward $\mathbf{x}_A'$ to ${\cal I}[\mathbf{x}_B](\cdot)$ and receive back $\mathbf{y}_A$. Compute $\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A \coloneqq C_\mathsf{out}(\mathbf{y}_A,\mathsf{trap}_A)$, send $\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A$ to ${\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda$, send $\mathsf{ok}$ to ${\cal I}[\mathbf{x}_B]$, and output the output of ${\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda$.
\end{itemize}
We consider a sequence of hybrid distributions, where the first hybrid ${\cal H}_0$ is $\mathsf{REAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{Q}}({\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda,\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$, i.e. the real interaction between the adversary ${\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$ and an honest party $B(1^\lambda,\mathbf{x}_B)$. In each hybrid, we describe the differences from the previous hybrid.
\begin{itemize}
\item ${\cal H}_1$: Simulate $\mathsf{2PC}$ as described in $\mathsf{Sim}$, using $\mathsf{2PC}.\mathsf{Sim}_A^{(1)}$ to compute $m_{B,1}$ and $\mathsf{2PC}.\mathsf{Sim}_A^{(2)}$ to extract an input $(C_A,C_\mathsf{out})$ (or abort). Use $(C_A,C_\mathsf{out})$ to sample an output $(U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}-\mathsf{enc}},D_0,\widetilde{g}_1,\dots,\widetilde{g}_d)$ of the classical functionality. Use this output to run party $B$'s honest Message 3 algorithm.
\item ${\cal H}_2$: In this hybrid, we change how $B$'s third round message $\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A$ is sampled. In particular, rather than evaluating the quantum garbled circuit on $\mathbf{m}_\mathsf{inp}$, we will directly evaluate $Q_\mathsf{dist}[C_\mathsf{out}]$ on the input. In more detail, given $\mathbf{m}_{A,2}$ returned by ${\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda$, $(C_A,C_\mathsf{out})$ extracted from ${\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda$, and $C_B$ sampled in Message 1, $\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A$ is sampled as follows. Sample $U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}}$ as in Step 1 of ${\cal F}[Q]$. Compute $$(\mathbf{x}_A',\mathbf{x}_B',\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{inp},\mathsf{trap}_A,\mathbf{t}_\mathsf{inp},\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{check},\mathsf{trap}_B,\mathbf{t}_\mathsf{check}) \coloneqq U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}}(\mathbf{m}_{A,2})$$ and carry out the checks on $\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{check},\mathsf{trap}_B,\mathbf{t}_\mathsf{check}$ as described in Steps 3.(c) and 3.(d) of~\proref{fig:three-message}, aborting if needed. Then, compute $$(\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A,\mathbf{y}_B) \gets Q_\mathsf{dist}[C_\mathsf{out}](\mathbf{x}_A',\mathbf{x}_B',\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{inp},\mathsf{trap}_A,\mathbf{t}_\mathsf{inp})$$ and return $\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A$ to ${\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda$.
\item ${\cal H}_3$: Compute $\mathbf{m}_{B,1}$ as $C_B(\mathbf{0}^{n_B},\mathbf{0}^{\lambda})$, and substitute $\mathbf{x}_B$ for $\mathbf{x}_B'$ before applying $Q_\mathsf{dist}[C_\mathsf{out}]$ to the registers described above in ${\cal H}_2$.
\item ${\cal H}_4$: Rather than directly computing $Q_\mathsf{dist}[C_\mathsf{out}]$, query the ideal functionality with $\mathbf{x}_A'$, receive $\mathbf{y}_A$, and send $\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A \coloneqq C_\mathsf{out}(\mathbf{y}_A,\mathsf{trap}_A)$ to ${\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda$. This hybrid is $\mathsf{IDEAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{Q},A}(\mathsf{Sim},\boldsymbol{\rho}_\lambda,\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{aux})$.
\end{itemize}
\noindent We show indistinguishability between each pair of hybrids.
\begin{itemize}
\item ${\cal H}_0 \approx_c {\cal H}_1$: This follows from the security against corrupted $A$ of $\mathsf{2PC}$.
\item ${\cal H}_1 \approx_s {\cal H}_2$: This follows from the statistical correctness of QGC.
\item ${\cal H}_2 \approx_s {\cal H}_3$: First, by the security of the Clifford authentication code, conditioned on all measurements of qubits in $\mathsf{trap}_B$ returning 0, we have that $\mathbf{x}_B' \approx_s \mathbf{x}_B$. Next, switching $\mathbf{x}_B$ to $\mathbf{0}^{n_B}$ in $B$'s first message is perfectly indistinguishable due to the perfect hiding of the Clifford authentication code.
\item ${\cal H}_3 \approx_s {\cal H}_4$: First, by~\cref{lemma:linear-map}, conditioned on all measurements of qubits in $\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{check}$ returning 0, we have that $\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{inp} \approx_s \mathbf{0}^{n_Z}$.
Next, the above observation, along with~\cref{lemma:distillation}, implies that, conditioned on all $T$-basis measurements of qubits in $\mathbf{t}_\mathsf{check}$ returning 0, it holds that the output of $Q_\mathsf{dist}[C_\mathsf{out}](\mathbf{x}_A',\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{inp},\mathsf{trap}_A,\mathbf{t}_\mathsf{inp})$ is statistically close to the result of computing $(\mathbf{y}_A,\mathbf{y}_B) \gets Q(\mathbf{x}_A',\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{0}^{n_Z},\mathbf{T}^{n_T})$ and returning $(C_\mathsf{out}(\mathbf{y}_A,\mathsf{trap}_A),\mathbf{y}_B)$. This is precisely what is being computed in ${\cal H}_4$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\paragraph{On Reusable Security against Malicious A.}
We remark that the two-message special case of the above protocol, that is, our Quantum NISC protocol, can be lightly modified to also achieve {\em reusable} security. A reusable classical NISC protocol (see, eg.~\cite{C:CDIKLOV19}) retains security against malicious A in a setting where A and B execute many instances of secure computation that {\em reuse} the first message of B.
A natural quantum analogue of this protocol enables computation of quantum circuits while guaranteeing security against malicious A, in a setting where A and B execute many instances of secure computation that {\em reuse} the first message of B. Here we assume that B's input is classical, and so functionality will hold over repeated executions.
We note that our protocol can be lightly modified to achieve reusable security against malicious A, by replacing the underlying classical 2PC with a reusable classical 2PC.
The proof of security remains identical, except that the indistinguishability between hybrids 0 and 1 relies on the reusable security of the underlying classical two-party computation protocol.
In \ifsubmission the full version\else\cref{sec:mdv-nizk}\fi, we discuss how to achieve reusable MDV-NIZKs for NP, which can be viewed as a special case of reusable Q-NISC.
\ifsubmission
\else
Next, we show that $\Pi$ satisfies \cref{def:mpqc} for any ${\mathsf{Adv}}$ corrupting party $B$.
\paragraph{The simulator.} Consider any QPT adversary ${\mathsf{Adv}} = \{{\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$ corrupting party $B$. The simulator $\mathsf{Sim}$ is defined as follows.
\paragraph{$\mathsf{Sim}^{{\cal I}[\mathbf{x}_A](\cdot)}(\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}}):$}
\begin{itemize}
\item Simulate CRS and extract from adversary's round 1 message:
\begin{itemize}
\item Compute $(\mathsf{crs},\tau) \gets \mathsf{2PC}.\mathsf{Sim}_B^{(1)}(1^\lambda)$ and send $\mathsf{crs}$ to the adversary ${\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda(\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$.
\item Receive $(m_{B,1},\mathbf{m}_{B,1})$ from ${\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda$ and compute $\mathsf{inp} \gets \mathsf{2PC}.\mathsf{Sim}_B^{(2)}(1^\lambda,\tau,m_{B,1})$. If $\mathsf{inp} = \bot$ then abort. Otherwise, parse $\mathsf{inp}$ as $C_B$ and compute $(\mathbf{x}'_B,\mathsf{trap}_B) \coloneqq C_B^\dagger(\mathbf{m}_{B,1})$.
\end{itemize}
\item Query ideal functionality and compute simulated round 2 message:
\begin{itemize}
\item Forward $\mathbf{x}_B'$ to ${\cal I}[\mathbf{x}_A](\cdot)$ and receive back $\mathbf{y}_B$.
\item Sample $C_\mathsf{out} \gets \mathscr{C}_{m_A + \lambda}$ and compute $\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A' \coloneqq C_\mathsf{out}(\mathbf{0}^{m_A + \lambda})$.
\item Compute $(\widetilde{\mathbf{m}}_\mathsf{inp},D_0,\widetilde{g}_1,\dots,\widetilde{g}_d) \gets \mathsf{QGSim}\left(1^\lambda,\{n_i,k_i\}_{i \in [d]}, \left(\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A',\mathbf{y}_B\right)\right)$, where $\widetilde{\mathbf{m}}_\mathsf{inp}$ is the simulated quantum garbled input on registers $(\gray{A},\gray{B},\gray{Z_\mathsf{inp}},\gray{\mathsf{Trap}_A},\gray{T_\mathsf{inp}})$, and $\{n_i,k_i\}_{i \in [d]}$ are the parameters of $\mathsf{C+M}$ circuit $Q_\mathsf{dist}[C_\mathsf{out}]$.
\item Sample $U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}-\mathsf{enc}} \gets \mathscr{C}_s$ and compute $\mathbf{m}_{A,2} \coloneqq U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}-\mathsf{enc}}^\dagger(\widetilde{\mathbf{m}}_\mathsf{inp},\mathbf{0}^{n_Z},\mathsf{trap}_B,\mathbf{T}^{\lambda})$.
\item Compute $m_{A,2} \gets \mathsf{2PC}.\mathsf{Sim}_B^{(3)}(1^\lambda,\tau,(U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}-\mathsf{enc}},D_0,\widetilde{g}_1,\dots,\widetilde{g}_d))$.
\item Send $(m_{A,2},\mathbf{m}_{A,2})$ to ${\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda$.
\end{itemize}
\item Check for abort:
\begin{itemize}
\item Receive $\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A$ from ${\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda$ and measure the last $\lambda$ qubits of $C_\mathsf{out}^\dagger(\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A)$. If any measurement is not zero, send $\mathsf{abort}$ to the ideal functionality and otherwise send $\mathsf{ok}$.
\item Output the output of ${\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda$.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\begin{theorem}
Let $\Pi$ be the protocol described in~\proref{fig:three-message} computing some quantum circuit $Q$. Then $\Pi$ satisfies \cref{def:mpqc} for any ${\mathsf{Adv}}$ corrupting party $B$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We consider a sequence of hybrid distributions, where ${\cal H}_0$ is $\mathsf{REAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{Q}}({\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda,\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$, i.e. the real interaction between ${\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda(\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$ and an honest party $A(1^\lambda,\mathbf{x}_A)$. In each hybrid, we describe the differences from the previous hybrids.
\begin{itemize}
\item ${\cal H}_1$: Simulate $\mathsf{2PC}$, using $\mathsf{2PC}.\mathsf{Sim}_B^{(1)}$ to sample $\mathsf{2PC}.\mathsf{crs}$, $\mathsf{2PC}.\mathsf{Sim}_B^{(2)}$ to extract the adversary's input $C_B$, and $\mathsf{2PC}.\mathsf{Sim}_B^{(3)}$ to sample party $A$'s message $m_{A,2}$. Use $C_B$ and freshly sampled $(C_A,C_\mathsf{out})$ to sample the output of the classical functionality that is given to $\mathsf{2PC}.\mathsf{Sim}_B^{(3)}$.
\item ${\cal H}_2$: In this hybrid, we make a (perfectly indistinguishable) switch in how $\mathbf{m}_{A,2}$ is computed and how $U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}-\mathsf{enc}}$ (part of the classical $\mathsf{2PC}$ output) is sampled. Define $(\mathbf{x}'_B,\mathsf{trap}_B) \coloneqq C_B^\dagger(\mathbf{m}_{B,1})$, where $C_B$ was extracted from $m_{B,1}$. Note that in ${\cal H}_1$, by the definition of ${\cal F}[Q]$, $$U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}-\mathsf{enc}}(\mathbf{m}_{A,2}) \coloneqq (E_0(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B',\mathbf{0}^{n_Z+\lambda},\mathbf{T}^{n_T\lambda}),\mathbf{0}^{n_Z},\mathsf{trap}_B,\mathbf{T}^\lambda).$$
Moreover, there exists a Clifford unitary $U$ such that $U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}-\mathsf{enc}} = UC_A^\dagger$, where $C_A$ was sampled uniformly at random from $\mathscr{C}_s$. Thus, since the Clifford matrices form a group, an equivalent sampling procedure would be to sample $U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}-\mathsf{enc}} \gets \mathscr{C}_s$ and define $$\mathbf{m}_{A,2} \coloneqq U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}-\mathsf{enc}}^\dagger(E_0(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B',\mathbf{0}^{n_Z+\lambda},\mathbf{T}^{n_T\lambda}),\mathbf{0}^{n_Z},\mathsf{trap}_B,\mathbf{T}^\lambda).$$ This is how ${\cal H}_2$ is defined.
\item ${\cal H}_3$: In this hybrid, we simulate the quantum garbled circuit. In particular, compute $$(\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A,\mathbf{y}_B) \gets Q_\mathsf{dist}[C_\mathsf{out}](\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B',\mathbf{0}^{n_Z+\lambda},\mathbf{T}^{n_T\lambda}),$$ followed by $$(\widetilde{\mathbf{m}}_\mathsf{inp},D_0,\widetilde{g}_1,\dots,\widetilde{g}_d) \gets \mathsf{QGSim}(1^{\lambda},\{n_i,k_i\}_{i \in [d]},(\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A,\mathbf{y}_B)).$$ Finally, substitute $\widetilde{\mathbf{m}}_\mathsf{inp}$ for $E_0(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B',\mathbf{0}^{n_Z+\lambda},\mathbf{T}^{n_T\lambda})$ in the computation of $\mathbf{m}_{A,2}$ so that $$\mathbf{m}_{A,2} \coloneqq U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}-\mathsf{enc}}^\dagger(\widetilde{\mathbf{m}}_\mathsf{inp},\mathbf{0}^{n_Z},\mathsf{trap}_B,\mathbf{T}^\lambda).$$
\item ${\cal H}_4$: Note that $Q_\mathsf{dist}[C_\mathsf{out}](\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B',\mathbf{0}^{n_Z+\lambda},\mathbf{T}^{n_T\lambda})$ may be computed in two stages, where the first outputs $(\mathbf{y}_A,\mathbf{y}_B,\mathbf{0}^\lambda,C_\mathsf{out})$ and the second outputs $(C_\mathsf{out}(\mathbf{y}_A,\mathbf{0}^\lambda),\mathbf{y}_B)$. In this hybrid, compute only the first stage, set $\mathbf{y}_A$ aside and re-define the final output to be $(\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A',\mathbf{y}_B) \coloneqq (C_\mathsf{out}(\mathbf{0}^{m_A+\lambda}),\mathbf{y}_B)$.
Now, during $A$'s output reconstruction step, if the check (step 4.(b) of~\proref{fig:three-message}) passes, output $\mathbf{y}_A$, and otherwise abort.
\item ${\cal H}_5$: Instead of directly computing $\mathbf{y}_B$ from the first stage of $Q_\mathsf{dist}[C_\mathsf{out}](\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B',\mathbf{0}^{n_Z+\lambda},\mathbf{T}^{n_T\lambda})$, forward $\mathbf{x}_B'$ to ${\cal I}[\mathbf{x}_A](\cdot)$ and receive back $\mathbf{y}_B$. Now, during party $A$'s output reconstruction step, if the check passes, send $\mathsf{ok}$ to the ideal functionality, and otherwise send $\mathsf{abort}$ to the ideal functionality. This is $\mathsf{IDEAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{Q},B}(\mathsf{Sim},\boldsymbol{\rho}_\lambda,\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{aux})$.
\end{itemize}
\noindent We show indistinguishability between each pair of hybrids.
\begin{itemize}
\item ${\cal H}_0 \approx_c {\cal H}_1$: This follows directly from the security against corrupted $B$ of $\mathsf{2PC}$.
\item ${\cal H}_1 \equiv {\cal H}_2$: This is argued above.
\item ${\cal H}_2 \approx_c {\cal H}_3$: This follows directly from the security of the QGC.
\item ${\cal H}_3 \approx_s {\cal H}_4$: This follows directly from the (perfect) hiding and (statistical) authentication of the Clifford code.
\item ${\cal H}_4 \equiv {\cal H}_5$: This follows from the definition of ${\cal I}[\mathbf{x}_A](\cdot)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\fi
\section{Two-Round Two-Party Quantum Computation with Preprocessing}
\label{sec:two-round-preprocess}
\ifsubmission\else This section presents a three-round protocol that only requires two rounds of online communication. This protocol can be equivalently interpreted as a two-round protocol with (quantum) pre-processing. \fi
\subsection{The Protocol}
\paragraph{Ingredients.} Our protocol will make use of the following cryptographic primitives, which are all assumed to be sub-exponentially secure (i.e. there exists $\epsilon$ such that the primitive is $(2^{-\lambda^{\epsilon}})$-secure).
\begin{itemize}
\item Quantum-secure two-message two-party classical computation in the CRS model where one party receives output $(\mathsf{2PC}.\mathsf{Gen},\mathsf{2PC}_1,\mathsf{2PC}_2,\mathsf{2PC}_\mathsf{out})$ and with a straight-line black-box simulator\ifsubmission~(see Section 3.4 of the full version)\else~(\cref{subsec:2pc})\fi.
\item A garbling scheme for $\mathsf{C+M}$ circuits $(\mathsf{QGarble}, \mathsf{QGEval}, \mathsf{QGSim})$\ifsubmission~(see section 4 of the full version)\else\fi.
\item A quantum multi-key FHE scheme $\mathsf{QMFHE}=(\mathsf{KeyGen},\mathsf{CEnc},\mathsf{Enc},\mathsf{Eval},\mathsf{Rerand},\mathsf{Dec})$ with ciphertext re-randomization and classical encryption of classical messages\ifsubmission~(see section 3.6 of the full version)\else\fi.
\item A quantum-secure equivocal commitment $\mathsf{Com} = (\mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{Gen},\mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{Enc},\mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{Ver})$\ifsubmission~(see section 3.7 of the full version)\else\fi.
\item A quantum-secure classical garbled circuit $(\mathsf{Garble},\mathsf{GEval},\mathsf{GSim})$\ifsubmission~(see section 3.8 of the full version)\else\fi.
\end{itemize}
\paragraph{Notation.}
The circuit $Q_\mathsf{dist}[C_\mathsf{out},x_\mathsf{out},z_\mathsf{out}]$ is defined like $Q_\mathsf{dist}[C_\mathsf{out}]$ from~\cref{subsec:3-msg-protocol} except that $X^{x_\mathsf{out}}Z^{z_\mathsf{out}}$ is applied to $B$'s output $\mathbf{y}_B$. $f_{\mathsf{inp}-\mathsf{cor}}[E_0,U_{\mathsf{rerand}}]$ is a classical ``input correction'' circuit that takes as input $x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp} \in \{0,1\}^{n_B}$ and outputs $U_{\mathsf{rerand}-\mathsf{enc}} \coloneqq E_0\left({\mathbb I}^{n_A} \otimes X^{x_\mathsf{inp}}Z^{z_\mathsf{inp}} \otimes {\mathbb I}^{n_Z + \lambda + n_T\lambda}\right)U_\mathsf{rerand}^\dagger.$
For a $2 \times n$ set of elements $\{a_{i,b}\}_{i \in [n], b \in \{0,1\}}$, and a string $x \in \{0,1\}^n$, we let $a^{(x)} \coloneqq \{a_{i,x_i}\}_{i \in [n]}$. We will use this notation below to refer to sets of public keys $\mathsf{pk}^{(x_\mathsf{out},z_\mathsf{out})}$, secret keys $\mathsf{sk}^{(x_\mathsf{out},z_\mathsf{out})}$, labels $\mathsf{lab}^{(x_\mathsf{out},z_\mathsf{out})}$, and random strings $r^{(x_\mathsf{out},z_\mathsf{out})}$. Let $c_\mathsf{lev}$ be a constant satisfying $c_\mathsf{lev} > 1/\epsilon$.
\protocol
{\proref{fig:classical-g}: Classical Functionality ${\cal G}[Q,\mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{crs}]$}
{Classical functionality to be used in \proref{fig:two-online}.}
{fig:classical-g}
{
\ifsubmission\small\else\fi
\textbf{Common Information:} (1) Security parameter $\lambda$, (2) a $\mathsf{C+M}$ circuit $Q$ on $n_A + n_B$ input qubits, $m_A + m_B$ output qubits, $n_Z$ auxiliary $\mathbf{0}$ states, and $n_T$ auxiliary $\mathbf{T}$ states, and (3) a crs $\mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{crs}$ for an equivocal commitment. Let $s = n_A + (n_B + \lambda) + (2n_Z + \lambda) + (n_T + 1)\lambda$. Let ${\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}} = \max\{\lambda,(2n_B)^{c_\mathsf{lev}}\}$.\\
\textbf{Party A Input:} Classical descriptions of $C_A \in \mathscr{C}_s$, $C_\mathsf{out} \in \mathscr{C}_{m_A + \lambda}$, $\{r_{i,b}\}_{i \in [2n_B], b \in \{0,1\}} \in (\{0,1\}^{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}})^{4n_B}$, $x_\mathsf{out},z_\mathsf{out} \in \{0,1\}^{m_B},s \in \{0,1\}^{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}}$.\\
\textbf{Party B Input:} Classical description of $C_B \in \mathscr{C}_{n_B + \lambda}$.\\
\textbf{The Functionality:}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Sample $U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}}$ as in ${\cal F}[Q]$, using $C_A$ and $C_B$.
\item Sample $(E_0,D_0,\widetilde{g}_1,\dots,\widetilde{g}_d) \gets \mathsf{QGarble}(1^{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}},Q_\mathsf{dist}[C_\mathsf{out},x_\mathsf{out},z_\mathsf{out}])$.
\item Sample $U_\mathsf{rerand} \gets \mathscr{C}_{n_A + n_B + n_Z + \lambda + n_T}$.
\item Compute a description of $U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}-\mathsf{rerand}} \coloneqq \left(U_\mathsf{rerand} \otimes {\mathbb I}^{(n_Z+\lambda)+\lambda}\right)U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}}.$
\item Compute $(\{\mathsf{lab}_{i,b}\}_{i \in [2n_B],b \in \{0,1\}},\widetilde{f}_{\mathsf{inp}-\mathsf{cor}}) \gets \mathsf{Garble}(1^{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}},f_{\mathsf{inp}-\mathsf{cor}}[E_0,U_\mathsf{rerand}])$.
\item For each $i \in [2n_B], b \in \{0,1\}$, compute $(\mathsf{pk}_{i,b},\mathsf{sk}_{i,b}) \coloneqq \mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Gen}(1^{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}};r_{i,b})$ and $\mathsf{ct}_{i,b} \gets \mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{CEnc}(\mathsf{pk}_{i,b},\mathsf{lab}_{i,b})$.
\item Compute $\mathsf{cmt} \coloneqq \mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{Enc}(\mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{crs},(x_\mathsf{out},z_\mathsf{out});s)$.
\end{enumerate}
\textbf{Party B Output:} (1) A unitary $U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}-\mathsf{rerand}}$ to be applied to $s$ qubits, partitioned as registers $(\gray{A},\gray{B},\gray{\mathsf{Trap}_B},\gray{Z_A},\gray{\mathsf{Trap}_A},\gray{T_A})$, (2) a classical garbled circuit along with encryptions of its labels $\{\mathsf{pk}_{i,b},\mathsf{ct}_{i,b}\}_{i \in [2n_B],b \in \{0,1\}},\widetilde{f}_{\mathsf{inp}-\mathsf{cor}}$, (3) a QGC $(D_0,\widetilde{g}_1,\dots,\widetilde{g}_d)$ to be applied to registers $(\gray{A},\gray{B},\gray{Z_\mathsf{inp}},\gray{\mathsf{Trap}_A},\gray{T_\mathsf{inp}})$, and (4) a commitment $\mathsf{cmt}$.
}
\clearpage
\protocol
{\proref{fig:two-online}: Two-party quantum computation with two online rounds}
{Two-party quantum computation with two online rounds.}
{fig:two-online}
{
\textbf{Common Information:} Security parameter $\lambda$, and $\mathsf{C+M}$ circuit $Q$ to be computed with $n_A + n_B$ input qubits, $m_A + m_B$ output qubits, $n_Z$ auxiliary $\mathbf{0}$ states, and $n_T$ auxiliary $\mathbf{T}$ states. Let $s = n_A + (n_B + \lambda) + (2n_Z + \lambda) + (n_T + 1)\lambda$. Let ${\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}} = \max\{\lambda,(2n_B)^{c_\mathsf{lev}}\}$.\\
\textbf{Party $A$ input:} $\mathbf{x}_A$\\
\textbf{Party $B$ input:} $\mathbf{x}_B$\\
\underline{\textbf{The Protocol:}}
\textbf{Setup.} Run classsical 2PC setup: $\mathsf{2PC}.\mathsf{crs} \gets \mathsf{2PC}.\mathsf{Gen}(1^{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}}),\mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{crs} \gets \mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{Gen}(1^{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}})$.\\
\textbf{Round 0 (pre-processing).}
\emph{Party $B$:}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Prepare $n_B$ EPR pairs $\left\{\left(\mathbf{e}_1^{(i)},\mathbf{e}_2^{(i)}\right)\right\}_{i \in [n_B]}$. Let $\mathbf{e}_1$ denote $(\mathbf{e}_1^{(i)})_{i \in [n_B]}$ and $\mathbf{e}_2$ denote $(\mathbf{e}_2^{(i)})_{i \in [n_B]}$.
\item Sample $C_B \gets \mathscr{C}_{n_B + \lambda}$ and compute $\mathbf{m}_{B,1} \coloneqq C_B(\mathbf{e}_1, \mathbf{0}^{\lambda})$.
\item Compute $(m_{B,1},\mathsf{st}) \gets \mathsf{2PC}_1(1^{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}},{\cal G}[Q,\mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{crs}],\mathsf{2PC}.\mathsf{crs},C_B)$.
\item Send to Party $A$: $(m_{B,1},\mathbf{m}_{B,1})$.
\end{enumerate}
\textbf{Round 1.}
\emph{Party $A$:}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Sample the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item a random Clifford $C_A \gets \mathscr{C}_s$,
\item a random Clifford $C_\mathsf{out} \gets \mathscr{C}_{m_A + \lambda}$,
\item $4n_B$ random length-${\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}}$ bitstrings $\{r_{i,b}\}_{i \in [2n_B], b \in \{0,1\}}$,
\item one random length-${\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}}$ bitstring $s$,
\item two random length-$m_B$ bitstrings $x_\mathsf{out},z_\mathsf{out}$.
\end{itemize}
\item Compute $\mathbf{m}_{A,2} \coloneqq C_A(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{m}_{B,1},\mathbf{0}^{2n_Z},\mathbf{0}^\lambda,\mathbf{T}^{(n_T+1)\lambda})$.
\item Compute
\[m_{A,2} \gets \mathsf{2PC}_2(1^{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}},{\cal G}[Q,\mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{crs}],\mathsf{2PC}.\mathsf{crs},m_{B,1},(C_A,C_\mathsf{out},\{r_{i,b}\}_{i,b},x_\mathsf{out},z_\mathsf{out},s)).\]
\item Send to Party $B$: $(m_{A,2},\mathbf{m}_{A,2})$.
\end{enumerate}
\emph{Party $B$:}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Perform Bell measurements on each pair of corresponding qubits in $(\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{e}_2)$, obtaining measurement outcomes $(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})$.
\item Send to Party $A$: $(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})$.
\end{enumerate}
}
\clearpage
\protocol
{\proref{fig:two-online}: Two-party quantum computation with two online rounds}
{Two-party quantum computation with two online rounds (continued).}
{fig:two-online}
{
\textbf{Round 2.}
\emph{Party $A$:}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Send to Party $B$: $\left(r^{(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})},x_\mathsf{out},z_\mathsf{out},s\right)$.
\end{enumerate}
\emph{Party $B$:}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Compute
\[\left(\begin{array}{c}U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}-\mathsf{rerand}},\{\mathsf{pk}_{i,b},\mathsf{ct}_{i,b}\}_{i,b},\\\widetilde{f}_{\mathsf{inp}-\mathsf{cor}},D_0,\tilde{g}_1,\dots,\tilde{g}_d,\mathsf{cmt}\end{array}\right) \gets \mathsf{2PC}_\mathsf{out}(1^{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}},\mathsf{st},m_{A,2}).\]
\item Compute
\[(\mathbf{m}_\mathsf{inp},\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{check},\mathsf{trap}_B,\mathbf{t}_\mathsf{check}) \coloneqq U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}-\mathsf{rerand}}(\mathbf{m}_{A,2}),\]
where
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathbf{m}_\mathsf{inp}$ is on registers $(\gray{A},\gray{B},\gray{Z_\mathsf{inp}},\gray{\mathsf{Trap}_A},\gray{T_\mathsf{inp}})$,
\item $(\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{check},\mathsf{trap}_B,\mathbf{t}_\mathsf{check})$ is on registers $(\gray{Z_\mathsf{check}},\gray{\mathsf{Trap}_B},\gray{T_\mathsf{check}})$.
\end{itemize}
\item Measure $(\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{check},\mathsf{trap}_B)$ in the standard basis and abort if any measurement is not zero.
\item Measure each qubit of $\mathbf{t}_\mathsf{check}$ in the $T$-basis and abort if any measurement is not zero.
\item Compute a ciphertext $\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Enc}(\mathsf{pk}^{(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})},U_{\mathsf{rerand}-\mathsf{enc}})$ via homomorphic evaluation, where $U_{\mathsf{rerand}-\mathsf{enc}} \gets \mathsf{GEval}(\widetilde{f}_{\mathsf{inp}-\mathsf{cor}},\mathsf{lab}^{(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})})$.
\item Compute a ciphertext $\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Enc}(\mathsf{pk}^{(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})},(\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A,\overline{\mathbf{y}}_B))$ via homomorphic evaluation, where $(\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A,\overline{\mathbf{y}}_B) \gets \mathsf{QGEval}((D_0,\tilde{g}_1,\dots,\tilde{g}_d),U_{\mathsf{rerand}-\mathsf{enc}}(\mathbf{m}_\mathsf{inp}))$.
\item Apply $\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Rerand}$ to the encryption of $\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A$ and send the result $\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Enc}(\mathsf{pk}^{(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})},\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A)$.
\end{enumerate}
\textbf{Output Reconstruction.}
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Party $A$}: Use $\mathsf{sk}^{(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})}$ to decrypt $\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Enc}(\mathsf{pk}^{(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})},\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A)$. If decryption fails, then abort. Compute $(\mathbf{y}_A,\mathsf{trap}_A) \coloneqq C_\mathsf{out}^\dagger(\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A)$, where $\mathbf{y}_A$ consists of $m_A$ qubits and $\mathsf{trap}_A$ consists of $\lambda$ qubits. Measure each qubit of $\mathsf{trap}_A$ in the standard basis and abort if any measurement is not zero. Otherwise, output $\mathbf{y}_A$.
\item \emph{Party $B$}: Use $r^{(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})}$ to generate $\mathsf{pk}^{(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})}, \mathsf{sk}^{(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})}$ and check that these public keys match the public keys obtained from the output of $\mathsf{2PC}$ in Round 2. If not, then abort. Use $\mathsf{sk}^{(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})}$ to decrypt $\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Enc}(\mathsf{pk}^{(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})},\overline{\mathbf{y}}_B)$. If $\mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{Ver}(1^{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}},\mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{crs},\mathsf{cmt},(x_\mathsf{out},z_\mathsf{out}),s) = 1$, then compute and output $\mathbf{y}_B \coloneqq X^{x_\mathsf{out}}Z^{z_\mathsf{out}}\overline{\mathbf{y}}_B$, and otherwise abort.
\end{itemize}
}
\clearpage
\ifsubmission
\else
\subsection{Security}
\begin{theorem}
Assuming post-quantum maliciously-secure two-message oblivious transfer and (levelled) multi-key quantum fully homomorphic encryption with sub-exponential security, there exists maliciously-secure three-round two-party quantum computation. Both of the above assumptions are known from the sub-exponential hardness of QLWE.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\Pi$ be the protocol described in~\proref{fig:two-online} computing some quantum circuit $Q$. First, we show that $\Pi$ satisfies \cref{def:mpqc} for any ${\mathsf{Adv}}$ corrupting party $A$.
\paragraph{The simulator.} Consider any QPT adversary $\{{\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$ corrupting party $A$. The simulator $\mathsf{Sim}$ is defined as follows.
\paragraph{$\mathsf{Sim}^{{\cal I}[\mathbf{x}_B](\cdot)}(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$:}
\begin{itemize}
\item Compute $(\mathsf{crs},\tau,m_{B,1}) \gets \mathsf{2PC}.\mathsf{Sim}_A^{(1)}(1^{{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}}})$, sample $C_B \gets \mathscr{C}_{n_B + \lambda}$, compute $\mathbf{m}_{B,1} \coloneqq C_B(\mathbf{0}^{n_B},\mathbf{0}^{\lambda})$, sample $x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp} \gets \{0,1\}^{n_B}$, and send $(m_{B,1},\mathbf{m}_{B,1}), (x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})$ to the adversary ${\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$.
\item Receive $(m_{A,2},\mathbf{m}_{A,2})$ from ${\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda$ and compute $\mathsf{out} \gets \mathsf{2PC}.\mathsf{Sim}_A^{(1)}(1^\lambda,\tau,m_{A,2})$. If $\mathsf{out} = \bot$ then abort. Otherwise, parse $\mathsf{out}$ as $(C_A,C_\mathsf{out},\{r_{i,b}\}_{i,b},x_\mathsf{out},z_\mathsf{out},s)$.
\item Using $(C_A,C_B)$, sample $U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}}$ as in the description of ${\cal F}[Q]$. Compute $$(\mathbf{x}_A',\mathbf{x}_B',\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{inp},\mathsf{trap}_A,\mathbf{t}_\mathsf{inp},\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{check},\mathsf{trap}_B,\mathbf{t}_\mathsf{check}) \coloneqq U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}}(\mathbf{m}_{A,2}).$$ Measure each qubit of $\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{check}$ and $\mathsf{trap}_B$ in the standard basis and each qubit of $\mathbf{t}_\mathsf{check}$ in the $T$-basis. If any measurement is non-zero, then abort.
\item Forward $\mathbf{x}_A'$ to ${\cal I}[\mathbf{x}_B](\cdot)$ and receive back $\mathbf{y}_A$. Compute $\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A \coloneqq C_\mathsf{out}(\mathbf{y}_A,\mathsf{trap}_A)$, and send a re-randomized $\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Enc}(\mathsf{pk}^{(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})},\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A)$ to ${\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda$, where $\mathsf{pk}^{(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})}$ are generated from $r^{(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})}$.
\item Receive $\left(\{r'_i\}_{i \in [2n_B]},x'_\mathsf{out},z'_\mathsf{out},s'\right)$ from ${\mathsf{Adv}}$ and check that:
\begin{itemize}
\item For all $i \in [2n_B], \mathsf{pk}_i'$ is equal to $\mathsf{pk}_i$, where $(\mathsf{pk}_i',\mathsf{sk}_i') \coloneqq \mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Gen}(1^{{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}}};r_i')$ and $(\mathsf{pk}_i,\mathsf{sk}_i) \coloneqq \mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Gen}(1^{{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}}};r_{i,(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})_i})$.
\item $\mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{Ver}(1^{{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}}},\mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{crs},\mathsf{cmt},(x'_\mathsf{out},z'_\mathsf{out}),s') = 1$, where $\mathsf{cmt} \coloneqq \mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{Enc}(1^{{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}}},\mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{crs},(x_\mathsf{out},z_\mathsf{out});s)$.
\end{itemize}
If the checks pass send $\mathsf{ok}$ to ${\cal I}[\mathbf{x}_B]$ and otherwise send $\mathsf{abort}$.
\end{itemize}
We consider a sequence of hybrid distributions, where ${\cal H}_0$ is $\mathsf{REAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{Q}}({\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda,\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$, i.e. the real interaction between ${\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$ and an honest party $B(1^\lambda,\mathbf{x}_B)$. In each hybrid, we describe the differences from the previous hybrid.
\begin{itemize}
\item ${\cal H}_1$: Simulate $\mathsf{2PC}$ as described in $\mathsf{Sim}$, using $\mathsf{2PC}.\mathsf{Sim}_A^{(1)}$ to compute $m_{B,1}$ and $\mathsf{2PC}.\mathsf{Sim}_A^{(2)}$ to extract an input $(C_A,C_\mathsf{out},\{r_{i,b}\}_{i,b},x_\mathsf{out},z_\mathsf{out},s)$ (or abort). Use $(C_A,C_\mathsf{out},\{r_{i,b}\}_{i,b},x_\mathsf{out},z_\mathsf{out},s)$ to sample an output $(U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}-\mathsf{rerand}},D_0,\widetilde{g}_1,\dots,\widetilde{g}_d)$ of the classical functionality. Use this output to run party $B$'s honest Round 2 algorithm.
\item ${\cal H}_2$: In this hybrid, we change how $B$'s second round message $\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Enc}(\mathsf{pk}^{(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})},\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A)$ is sampled. In particular, rather than evaluating the classical garbled circuit and quantum garbled circuit under $\mathsf{QMFHE}$, we will directly evaluate $Q_\mathsf{dist}[C_\mathsf{out},x_\mathsf{out},z_\mathsf{out}]$ on the input. In more detail, given $\mathbf{m}_{A,2}$ returned by ${\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda$, $(C_A,C_\mathsf{out},\{r_{i,b}\}_{i,b},x_\mathsf{out},z_\mathsf{out},s)$ extracted from ${\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda$, and $C_B$ sampled in Message 0, $\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A$ is sampled as follows. Sample $U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}}$ as in Step 1 of ${\cal F}[Q]$. Compute $$(\mathbf{x}_A',\overline{\mathbf{x}}_B',\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{inp},\mathsf{trap}_A,\mathbf{t}_\mathsf{inp},\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{check},\mathsf{trap}_B,\mathbf{t}_\mathsf{check}) \coloneqq U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}}(\mathbf{m}_{A,2})$$ and carry out the checks on $\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{check},\mathsf{trap}_B,\mathbf{t}_\mathsf{check}$ as described in Steps 3 and 4 of~\proref{fig:two-online}, aborting if needed. Then, set $\mathbf{x}_B' \coloneqq X^{x_\mathsf{inp}}Z^{z_\mathsf{inp}}\overline{\mathbf{x}}_B'$ and compute $$(\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A,\overline{\mathbf{y}}_B) \gets Q_\mathsf{dist}[C_\mathsf{out},x_\mathsf{out},z_\mathsf{out}](\mathbf{x}_A',\mathbf{x}_B',\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{inp},\mathsf{trap}_A,\mathbf{t}_\mathsf{inp})$$ and return a re-randomized $\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Enc}(\mathsf{pk}^{(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})},\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A)$ to ${\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda$.
\item ${\cal H}_3$: Compute $\mathbf{m}_{B,1}$ as $C_B(\mathbf{0}^{n_B},\mathbf{0}^{\lambda})$, and sample $x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp} \gets \{0,1\}^{n_B}$ rather than computing them based on Bell measurement outcomes. Furthermore, substitute $\mathbf{x}_B$ for $\mathbf{x}_B'$ before applying $Q_\mathsf{dist}[C_\mathsf{out},x_\mathsf{out},z_\mathsf{out}]$ to the registers described above in ${\cal H}_2$.
\item ${\cal H}_4$: Do not compute $\overline{\mathbf{y}}_B$ followed by $\mathbf{y}_B \coloneqq X^{x_\mathsf{inp}}Z^{z_\mathsf{inp}}\overline{\mathbf{y}}_B$ (in party $B$'s reconstruction). Rather, compute $$(\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A,\mathbf{y}_B) \gets Q_\mathsf{dist}[C_\mathsf{out},0^{m_B},0^{m_B}](\mathbf{x}_A',\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{inp},\mathsf{trap}_A,\mathbf{t}_\mathsf{inp}).$$
\item ${\cal H}_5$: Instead of directly computing $Q_\mathsf{dist}[C_\mathsf{out},0^{m_B},0^{m_B}]$, query the ideal functionality with $\mathbf{x}_A'$, receive $\mathbf{y}_A$, and send $\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Enc}(\mathsf{pk}^{(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})},C_\mathsf{out}(\mathbf{y}_A,\mathsf{trap}_A))$ to ${\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda$. After receiving $\left(\{r'_i\}_{i \in [2n_B]},x'_\mathsf{out},z'_\mathsf{out},s'\right)$ from ${\mathsf{Adv}}$, carry out the checks described in $\mathsf{Sim}$ and send $\mathsf{ok}$ or $\mathsf{abort}$ to ${\cal I}[\mathbf{x}_B]$. This hybrid is $\mathsf{IDEAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{Q},A}(\mathsf{Sim},\boldsymbol{\rho}_\lambda,\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{aux})$.
\end{itemize}
\noindent We show indistinguishability between each pair of hybrids.
\begin{itemize}
\item ${\cal H}_0 \approx_c {\cal H}_1$: This follows directly from the security against corrupted $A$ of $\mathsf{2PC}$.
\item ${\cal H}_1 \approx_s {\cal H}_2$: This follows directly from the statistical correctness of the classical garbled circuit, the statistical correctness of the quantum garbled circuit, and the statistical ciphrerext re-randomization of $\mathsf{QMFHE}$.
\item ${\cal H}_2 \approx_s {\cal H}_3$: First, by the correctness of teleportation, and by the security of the Clifford authentication code, conditioned on all measurements of qubits in $\mathsf{trap}_B$ returning 0, we have that $\mathbf{x}_B' \approx_s \mathbf{x}_B$. Next, switching $\mathbf{e}_{1}$ to $\mathbf{0}^{n_B}$ in $B$'s first message is perfectly indistinguishable due to the perfect hiding of the Clifford authentication code.
\item ${\cal H}_3 \approx_s {\cal H}_4$: This follows from the statistical binding of $\mathsf{Com}$.
\item ${\cal H}_4 \approx_s {\cal H}_5$: First, by~\cref{lemma:linear-map}, conditioned on all measurements of qubits in $\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{check}$ returning 0, we have that $\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{inp} \approx_s \mathbf{0}^{n_Z}$.
Next, the above observation, along with~\cref{lemma:distillation}, implies that, conditioned on all $T$-basis measurements of qubits in $\mathbf{t}_\mathsf{check}$ returning 0, it holds that the output of $Q_\mathsf{dist}[C_\mathsf{out}](\mathbf{x}_A',\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{z}_\mathsf{inp},\mathsf{trap}_A,\mathbf{t}_\mathsf{inp})$ is statistically close to the result of computing $(\mathbf{y}_A,\mathbf{y}_B) \gets Q(\mathbf{x}_A',\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{0}^{n_Z},\mathbf{T}^{n_T})$ and returning $(C_\mathsf{out}(\mathbf{y}_A,\mathsf{trap}_A),\mathbf{y}_B)$. This is precisely what is being computed in ${\cal H}_4$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\fi
Next, we show that $\Pi$ satisfies \cref{def:mpqc} for any ${\mathsf{Adv}}$ corrupting party $B$.
\paragraph{The simulator.} Consider any QPT adversary $\{{\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$ corrupting party $B$. The simulator $\mathsf{Sim}$ is defined as follows.
\paragraph{$\mathsf{Sim}^{{\cal I}[\mathbf{x}_A](\cdot)}(\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$:}
\begin{itemize}
\item Simulate CRS and extract from adversary's round 0 message:
\begin{itemize}
\item Compute $(\mathsf{2PC}.\mathsf{crs},\mathsf{2PC}.\tau) \gets \mathsf{2PC}.\mathsf{Sim}_B^{(1)}(1^{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}})$, $(\mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{crs},\mathsf{Sim}.\mathsf{cmt},\mathsf{Com}.\tau) \gets \mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{Sim}.\mathsf{Gen}(1^{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}})$, and send $(\mathsf{2PC}.\mathsf{crs},\mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{crs})$ to ${\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda(\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$.
\item Receive $(m_{B,1},\mathbf{m}_{B,1})$ and then compute $\mathsf{inp} \gets \mathsf{2PC}.\mathsf{Sim}_B^{(2)}(1^{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}},\mathsf{2PC}.\tau,m_1).$ If $\mathsf{inp} = \bot$, then abort, if not parse $\mathsf{inp}$ as $C_B$ and compute $(\overline{\mathbf{x}}_B,\mathsf{trap}_B) \coloneqq C_B^\dagger(\mathbf{m}_{B,1})$.
\end{itemize}
\item Compute quantum part of simulated round 1 message:
\begin{itemize}
\item Sample $C_\mathsf{out} \gets \mathscr{C}_{m_A + \lambda}$ and compute $\widehat{\mathbf{y}}'_A \coloneqq C_\mathsf{out}(\mathbf{0}^{m_A + \lambda})$.
\item Prepare $m_B$ EPR pairs $\left\{\left(\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},1}^{(i)},\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},1}^{(i)}\right)\right\}_{i \in [m_B]}$, and let $$\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},1} \coloneqq \left(\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},1}^{(1)},\dots,\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},1}^{(m_B)}\right), \mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},2} \coloneqq \left(\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},2}^{(1)},\dots,\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},1}^{(m_B)}\right).$$
\item Compute $(\widetilde{\mathbf{m}}_\mathsf{inp},D_0,\widetilde{g}_1,\dots,\widetilde{g}_d) \gets \mathsf{QGSim}\left(1^{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}},\{n_i,k_i\}_{i \in [d]}, \left(\widehat{\mathbf{y}}'_A,\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},1}\right)\right)$, where $\widetilde{\mathbf{m}}_\mathsf{inp}$ is the simulated quantum garbled input \ifsubmission\else on registers $(\gray{A},\gray{B},\gray{Z_\mathsf{inp}},\gray{\mathsf{Trap}_A},\gray{T_\mathsf{inp}})$\fi, and $\{n_i,k_i\}_{i \in [d]}$ are the parameters of $\mathsf{C+M}$ circuit $Q_\mathsf{dist}[\cdot,\cdot,\cdot]$.
\item Sample $U_{\mathsf{rerand}-\mathsf{enc}} \gets \mathscr{C}_{n_A+n_B+n_Z+\lambda+n_T\lambda}$.
\item Sample $U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}-\mathsf{rerand}} \gets \mathscr{C}_S$ and compute $$\mathbf{m}_{A,2} \coloneqq U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}-\mathsf{rerand}}^\dagger(U_{\mathsf{rerand}-\mathsf{enc}}^\dagger(\widetilde{\mathbf{m}}_\mathsf{inp}),\mathbf{0}^{n_Z},\mathsf{trap}_B,\mathbf{T}^{\lambda}).$$
\end{itemize}
\item Compute classical part of simulated round 1 message:
\begin{itemize}
\item Compute $(\{\widetilde{\mathsf{lab}}_i\}_{i \in [2n_B]},\widetilde{f}_{\mathsf{inp}-\mathsf{cor}}) \gets \mathsf{GSim}(1^{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}},1^{2n_B},1^{|f_{\mathsf{inp}-\mathsf{cor}}|},U_{\mathsf{rerand}-\mathsf{enc}})$.
\item Sample $\{r_{i,b}\}_{i \in [2n_B], b \in \{0,1\}} \gets (\{0,1\}^{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}})^{4n_B}$.
\item For $i \in [2n_B], b \in \{0,1\}$, compute $(\mathsf{pk}_{i,b},\mathsf{sk}_{i,b}) \coloneqq \mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Gen}(1^{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}};r_{i,b})$ and $\mathsf{ct}_{i,b} \gets \mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{CEnc}(\mathsf{pk}_{i,b},\widetilde{\mathsf{lab}}_i)$.
\item Compute
\[m_{A,2} \gets \mathsf{2PC}.\mathsf{Sim}_B^{(3)}\left(1^{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}},\mathsf{2PC}.\tau,\left(\begin{array}{c}U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}-\mathsf{rerand}},\{\mathsf{pk}_{i,b},\mathsf{ct}_{i,b}\}_{i,b},\\\widetilde{f}_{\mathsf{inp}-\mathsf{cor}},D_0,\widetilde{g}_1,\dots,\widetilde{g}_d,\mathsf{Sim}.\mathsf{cmt}\end{array}\right)\right).\]
\end{itemize}
\item Send round 1 message and extract adversary's input:
\begin{itemize}
\item Send $(m_{A,2},\mathbf{m}_{A,2})$ to ${\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda$.
\item Receive $(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})$ from ${\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda$ and compute $\mathbf{x}_B' \coloneqq X^{x_\mathsf{inp}}Z^{z_\mathsf{inp}}\overline{\mathbf{x}}_B$.
\end{itemize}
\item Query ideal functionality and send simulated round 2 message:
\begin{itemize}
\item Forward $\mathbf{x}_B'$ to ${\cal I}[\mathbf{x}_A](\cdot)$ and receive back $\mathbf{y}_B$.
\item Perform Bell measurements on each pair of corresponding qubits in $(\mathbf{y}_B,\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},2})$ and let $x_\mathsf{out},z_\mathsf{out} \in \{0,1\}^{m_B}$ be the measurement outcomes.
\item Compute $s \gets \mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{Sim}.\mathsf{Open}(1^{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}},\mathsf{Com}.\tau,(x_\mathsf{out},z_\mathsf{out}))$.
\item Send $\left(r^{(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})},x_\mathsf{out},z_\mathsf{out},s
\right)$ to ${\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda$.
\end{itemize}
\item Check for abort:
\begin{itemize}
\item Receive $\mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{Dec}(\mathsf{sk}^{(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})},\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A)$ from ${\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda$ and use $\mathsf{sk}^{(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})}$ to decrypt the ciphertext. If decryption fails, then abort.
\item Measure the last $\lambda$ qubits of $C_\mathsf{out}^\dagger(\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A)$ in the standard basis. If any measurement is not zero, send $\mathsf{abort}$ to the ideal functionality and otherwise send $\mathsf{continue}$.
\item Output the output of ${\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda$.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\paragraph{Notation.} For any adversary $\{{\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$ and set of inputs $(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$, we partition the distributions $\mathsf{REAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{Q}}({\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda,\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$ and $\mathsf{IDEAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{Q}}(\mathsf{Sim},\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$ by the first round message $(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})$ sent by the adversary. That is, we define the distribution $\mathsf{REAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{Q}}^{(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})}({\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda,\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$ to be the distribution $\mathsf{REAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{Q}}({\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda,\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$ except that the output of the distribution is replaced with $\bot$ if the adversary did \emph{not} send $(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})$ in round 1. We define $\mathsf{IDEAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{Q}}^{(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})}(\mathsf{Sim},\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$ analogously.
We now prove the following lemma, which is the main part of the proof of security against malicious $B$. For notational convenience, we drop the indexing of inputs and teleportation errors by $\lambda$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:distribution-bot}
There exists a negligible function $\mu$ such that for any QPT ${\mathsf{Adv}} = \{{\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$, QPT distinguisher ${\cal D} = \{{\cal D}_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$, inputs $(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}},\mathbf{aux}_{\cal D})$, and teleportation errors $x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp}$,
\begin{align*}
&\bigg|\Pr\left[{\cal D}_\lambda\left(\mathbf{aux}_{\cal D},\mathsf{REAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{Q}}^{(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})}\left({\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda,\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}}\right)\right) = 1\right]\\ &- \Pr\left[{\cal D}_\lambda\left(\mathbf{aux}_{\cal D},\mathsf{IDEAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{Q}}^{(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})}\left(\mathsf{Sim}_\lambda,\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}}\right) \right) = 1 \right] \bigg| \leq \frac{\mu(\lambda)}{2^{2n_B}}.
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First note that by the definition of ${\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}}$, a ${\cal D}$ violating the lemma distinguishes with probability at least $\left(\frac{1}{{\rm poly}(\lambda)}\right)2^{-{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}}^{(1/c_\mathsf{lev})}} \geq \frac{1}{2^{{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}}^{\epsilon}}}.$
Now fix any collection ${\cal D},{\mathsf{Adv}},\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}},\mathbf{aux}_{\cal D},x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp}$. We show the indistinguishability via a sequence of hybrids, where ${\cal H}_0$ is the distribution $\mathsf{REAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{Q}}^{(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})}({\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda,\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$. In each hybrid, we describe the differences from the previous hybrid.
\begin{itemize}
\item ${\cal H}_1$: Simulate $\mathsf{2PC}$, using $\mathsf{2PC}.\mathsf{Sim}_B^{(1)}$ to sample $\mathsf{2PC}.\mathsf{crs}$, $\mathsf{2PC}.\mathsf{Sim}_B^{(2)}$ to extract the adversary's input $C_B$, and $\mathsf{2PC}.\mathsf{Sim}_B^{(3)}$ to sample party $A$'s message $m_{A,2}$. Use $C_B$ and freshly sampled $C_A,C_\mathsf{out},\{r_{i,b}\}_{i,b},x_\mathsf{out},z_\mathsf{out},s$ to sample the output of the classical functionality that is given to $\mathsf{2PC}.\mathsf{Sim}_B^{(3)}$.
\item ${\cal H}_2$: Simulate $\mathsf{Com}$, using $\mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{Sim}.\mathsf{Gen}$ to sample $\mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{crs}$ and the commitment $\mathsf{Sim}.\mathsf{cmt}$. Note that $\mathsf{Sim}.\mathsf{cmt}$ is now used directly in computing the output of $\mathsf{2PC}$, and $s$ is no longer sampled by party $A$. Open the commitment in the second round to $(x_\mathsf{out},z_\mathsf{out})$ using $\mathsf{Com}.\mathsf{Sim}.\mathsf{Open}$.
\item ${\cal H}_3$: In this hybrid, we make a (perfectly indistinguishable) switch in how $\mathbf{m}_{A,2}$ is computed and how $U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}-\mathsf{rerand}}$ (part of the $\mathsf{2PC}$ output) is sampled. Define $(\overline{\mathbf{x}}'_B,\mathsf{trap}_B) \coloneqq C_B^\dagger(\mathbf{m}_{B,1})$, where $C_B$ was extracted from $m_{B,1}$. Note that in ${\cal H}_2$, by the definitions of ${\cal F}[Q]$ and ${\cal G}[Q]$,
$$U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}-\mathsf{rerand}}(\mathbf{m}_{A,2}) \coloneqq (U_{\mathsf{rerand}}(\mathbf{x}_A,\overline{\mathbf{x}}'_B,\mathbf{0}^{n_Z},\mathbf{T}^{n_T\lambda}),\mathbf{0}^{n_Z},\mathsf{trap}_B,\mathbf{T}^{\lambda}).$$
Moreover, there exists a Clifford unitary $U$ such that $U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}-\mathsf{rerand}} = UC_A^\dagger$, where $C_A$ was sampled uniformly at random from $\mathscr{C}_s$. Thus, since the Clifford matrices form a group, an equivalent sampling procedure would be to sample $U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}-\mathsf{rerand}} \gets \mathscr{C}_s$ and define $$\mathbf{m}_{A,2} \coloneqq U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}-\mathsf{rerand}}^\dagger(U_{\mathsf{rerand}}(\mathbf{x}_A,\overline{\mathbf{x}}_B',\mathbf{0}^{n_Z+\lambda},\mathbf{T}^{n_T\lambda}),\mathbf{0}^{n_Z},\mathsf{trap}_B,\mathbf{T}^\lambda).$$ This is how ${\cal H}_3$ is defined.
\item ${\cal H}_4^{(1)},\dots,{\cal H}_4^{(2n_B)}$: In ${\cal H}_4^{(i)}$, let $\mathsf{ct}_{i,1-(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})_i} \gets \mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{CEnc}(\mathsf{pk}_{i,1-(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})_i},0)$.
\item ${\cal H}_5$: Simulate the classical garbled circuit. In particular, let $$U_{\mathsf{rerand}-\mathsf{enc}} \coloneqq E_0\left({\mathbb I}^{n_A} \otimes X^{x_\mathsf{inp}}Z^{z_\mathsf{inp}} \otimes {\mathbb I}^{n_Z + \lambda + n_T\lambda}\right)U_\mathsf{rerand}^\dagger,$$ and compute $(\{\widetilde{\mathsf{lab}}_i\}_{i \in [2n_B]},\widetilde{f}_{\mathsf{inp}-\mathsf{cor}}) \gets \mathsf{GSim}(1^{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}},1^{2n_B},1^{|f_{\mathsf{inp}-\mathsf{cor}}|},U_{\mathsf{rerand}-\mathsf{enc}})$. Now, each $\mathsf{ct}_{i,(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})_i}$ be will an encryption of $\widetilde{\mathsf{lab}}_i$.
\item ${\cal H}_6^{(1)},\dots,{\cal H}_6^{(2n_B)}$: In ${\cal H}_6^{(i)}$, let $\mathsf{ct}_{i,1-(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})_i} \gets \mathsf{QMFHE}.\mathsf{CEnc}(\mathsf{pk}_{i,1-(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})_i},\widetilde{\mathsf{lab}}_i)$.
\item ${\cal H}_7$: In this hybrid, we make another perfectly indistinguishable switch in how $\mathbf{m}_{A,2}$ is computed. Let $\mathbf{x}_B' \coloneqq X^{x_\mathsf{inp}}Z^{z_\mathsf{inp}}\overline{\mathbf{x}}'_B$, and compute $U_{\mathsf{rerand}-\mathsf{enc}} \coloneqq E_0U_{\mathsf{rerand}}^\dagger$ and $$\mathbf{m}_{A,2} \coloneqq U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}-\mathsf{rerand}}^\dagger(U_{\mathsf{rerand}}(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B',\mathbf{0}^{n_Z+\lambda},\mathbf{T}^{n_T\lambda}),\mathbf{0}^{n_Z},\mathsf{trap}_B,\mathbf{T}^{\lambda}).$$
\item ${\cal H}_8$: Simulate the quantum garbled circuit. In particular, compute $$(\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A,\overline{\mathbf{y}}_B) \gets Q_\mathsf{dist}[C_\mathsf{out},x_\mathsf{out},z_\mathsf{out}](\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B',\mathbf{0}^{n_Z},\mathbf{T}^{n_T\lambda}),$$ followed by $$(\widetilde{\mathbf{m}}_\mathsf{inp},D_0,\widetilde{g}_1,\dots,\widetilde{g}_d) \gets \mathsf{QGSim}(1^{{\lambda_{\mathsf{lev}}}},\{n_i,k_i\}_{i \in [d]},(\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A,\overline{\mathbf{y}}_B)),$$ where $\{n_i,k_i\}_{i \in [d]}$ are the parameters of the $\mathsf{C+M}$ circuit $Q_\mathsf{dist}[C_\mathsf{out},x_\mathsf{out},z_\mathsf{out}]$.
Sample $U_{\mathsf{rerand}-\mathsf{enc}} \gets \mathscr{C}_{n_A+n_B+n_Z+\lambda+n_T\lambda}$ and compute $$\mathbf{m}_{A,2} \coloneqq U_{\mathsf{dec}-\mathsf{check}-\mathsf{rerand}}^\dagger(U_{\mathsf{rerand}-\mathsf{enc}}^\dagger(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}'_B,\mathbf{0}^{n_Z+\lambda},\mathbf{T}^{n_T\lambda}),\mathbf{0}^{n_Z},\mathsf{trap}_B,\mathbf{T}^{\lambda}).$$
\item ${\cal H}_{10}$: Note that $Q_\mathsf{dist}[C_\mathsf{out},x_\mathsf{out},z_\mathsf{out}](\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B',\mathbf{0}^{n_Z+\lambda},\mathbf{T}^{n_T\lambda})$ may be computed in two stages, where the first outputs $(\mathbf{y}_A,\mathbf{y}_B,\mathbf{0}^\lambda,C_\mathsf{out},x_\mathsf{out},z_\mathsf{out})$ and the second outputs $(\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A,\overline{\mathbf{y}}_B) \coloneqq (C_\mathsf{out}(\mathbf{y}_A,\mathbf{0}^\lambda),X^{x_\mathsf{out}}Z^{z_\mathsf{out}}\mathbf{y}_B)$. In this hybrid, we make the following perfectly indistinguishable switch to the second part of this computation. Prepare $m_B$ EPR pairs $\left\{\left(\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},1}^{(i)},\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},1}^{(i)}\right)\right\}_{i \in [m_B]}$, and let $\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},1} \coloneqq \left(\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},1}^{(1)},\dots,\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},1}^{(m_B)}\right)$ and $\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},2} \coloneqq \left(\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},2}^{(1)},\dots,\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},1}^{(m_B)}\right)$. Then set $(\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_A,\overline{\mathbf{y}}_B) = (C_\mathsf{out}(\mathbf{y}_A,\mathbf{0}^\lambda),\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},1})$ and let $x_\mathsf{out},z_\mathsf{out}$ be the result of Bell measurements applied to corresponding pairs of qubits of $(\mathbf{y}_B,\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},2})$. Note that these Bell measurements do not have to be performed until the simulator sends its simulated round 2 message.
\item ${\cal H}_{11}$: After computing the first stage of $Q_\mathsf{dist}[C_\mathsf{out},x_\mathsf{out},z_\mathsf{out}](\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B',\mathbf{0}^{n_Z+\lambda},\mathbf{T}^{n_T\lambda})$, set $\mathbf{y}_A$ aside and re-define the final output to be $(\widehat{\mathbf{y}}'_A,\overline{\mathbf{y}}_B) = (C_\mathsf{out}(\mathbf{0}^{m_A+\lambda}),\mathbf{e}_{\mathsf{Sim},1})$. Now, during $A$'s output reconstruction step, if the check (step 3) passes, output $\mathbf{y}_A$, and otherwise abort.
\item ${\cal H}_{12}$: Rather than directly computing $\mathbf{y}_A$ from the first stage of \ifsubmission the circuit \else\fi $Q_\mathsf{dist}[C_\mathsf{out},x_\mathsf{out},z_\mathsf{out}](\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B',\mathbf{0}^{n_Z+\lambda},\mathbf{T}^{n_T\lambda})$, forward $\mathbf{x}_B'$ to ${\cal I}[\mathbf{x}_A](\cdot)$ and receive back $\mathbf{y}_B$, which gives the same distribution as ${\cal H}_{11}$. Now, during $A$'s reconstruction step, if the check passes, send $\mathsf{ok}$ to the ideal functionality, and otherwise send $\mathsf{abort}$. This is $\mathsf{IDEAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{Q}}^{(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})}(\mathsf{Sim},\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
Let $\Pi$ be the protocol described in~\proref{fig:two-online} computing some quantum circuit $Q$. Then $\Pi$ satisfies \cref{def:mpqc} for any ${\mathsf{Adv}}$ corrupting party $B$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Assume towards contradiction the existence of a QPT ${\cal D} = \{{\cal D}_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$, a QPT ${\mathsf{Adv}} = \{{\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in {\mathbb N}}$, and $(\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}},\mathbf{aux}_{\cal D})$ such that
\begin{align*}
&\bigg|\Pr\left[{\cal D}_\lambda\left(\mathbf{aux}_{\cal D},\mathsf{REAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{Q}}\left({\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda,\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}}\right)\right) = 1\right]\\ &- \Pr\left[{\cal D}_\lambda\left(\mathbf{aux}_{\cal D},\mathsf{IDEAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{Q}}\left(\mathsf{Sim}_\lambda,\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}}\right)\right) = 1 \right] \bigg| \geq 1/{\rm poly}(\lambda).
\end{align*}
Define \ifsubmission the distribution \else\fi $\mathsf{REAL} \coloneqq \mathsf{REAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{Q}}({\mathsf{Adv}}_\lambda,\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$ and \ifsubmission the distribution \else\fi $\mathsf{IDEAL} \coloneqq \mathsf{IDEAL}_{\Pi,\mathsf{Q}}(\mathsf{Sim},\mathbf{x}_A,\mathbf{x}_B,\mathbf{aux}_{\mathsf{Adv}})$. Furthermore, let $\mathbf{E}^{(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})}_\mathsf{REAL}$ be the event that ${\mathsf{Adv}}$ sends $(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})$ as its first round message in $\mathsf{REAL}$ and define $\mathbf{E}^{(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})}_\mathsf{IDEAL}$, $\mathbf{E}^{(\mathsf{abort})}_\mathsf{REAL}$. Let $\mathbf{E}^{(\mathsf{abort})}_\mathsf{REAL}$ and $\mathbf{E}^{(\mathsf{abort})}_\mathsf{IDEAL}$ be the event that the adversary fails to report some of its teleporation errors, causing the honest party to abort. The above implies that either there exists some $(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp}) \in (\{0,1\}^{n_B})^2$ such that
\begin{align*}
&\bigg|\Pr\left[{\cal D}_\lambda(\mathbf{aux}_{\cal D},\mathsf{REAL}) = 1 \big| \mathsf{E}_\mathsf{REAL}^{(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})}\right]\Pr\left[\mathsf{E}_\mathsf{REAL}^{(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})}\right] \\&- \Pr\left[{\cal D}_\lambda(\mathbf{aux}_{\cal D},\mathsf{IDEAL}) = 1 \big| \mathsf{E}_\mathsf{IDEAL}^{(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})} \right]\Pr\left[\mathsf{E}_\mathsf{IDEAL}^{(x_\mathsf{inp},z_\mathsf{inp})}\right] \bigg| \geq \frac{1}{{\rm poly}(\lambda)(2^{2n_B}+1)}
\end{align*}
or that
\begin{align*}
&\bigg|\Pr\left[{\cal D}_\lambda(\mathbf{aux}_{\cal D},\mathsf{REAL}) = 1 \big| \mathsf{E}_\mathsf{REAL}^{(\mathsf{abort})}\right]\Pr\left[\mathsf{E}_\mathsf{REAL}^{(\mathsf{abort})}\right] \\&- \Pr\left[{\cal D}_\lambda(\mathbf{aux}_{\cal D},\mathsf{IDEAL}) = 1 \big| \mathsf{E}_\mathsf{IDEAL}^{(\mathsf{abort})} \right]\Pr\left[\mathsf{E}_\mathsf{IDEAL}^{(\mathsf{abort})}\right] \bigg| \geq \frac{1}{{\rm poly}(\lambda)(2^{2n_B}+1)}.
\end{align*}
Simulating the distribution conditioned on an abort is trivial, so the second case cannot occur, and the first case immediately contradicts~\cref{lemma:distribution-bot}, completing the proof.
\end{proof}
|
\section*{Introduction}
Recent experimental~\cite{Kree2017,Heyman2020,Souzy:2020aa}, numerical~\cite{Turuban2018} and theoretical~\cite{Lester2013} results have shown that the topological complexity inherent to three-dimensional (3D) porous media generates chaotic advection at the pore scale. This means that, in steady laminar flows, fluid elements are elongated at an exponential rate, qualitatively impacting~\cite{aref2017frontiers} the transport, mixing and reactivity of solutes, colloids and particles. Although well documented in dynamical systems~\cite{TelPhysRep2005}, the consequences of chaotic mixing are yet to be uncovered in porous substrates. In particular, chaotic advection enhances chemical gradients at microscale over a large range of P\'eclet numbers~\cite{Heyman2020}, a phenomenon that may explain the limitations of conventional macrodispersion models to predict reactive transport~\cite{deAnnaEST2014}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{leakage_4.pdf}
\caption{Heterogeneous and anisotropic scalar signature of the push-pull echo during a push-pull experiment through random bead packings. The initially spheroidal dye blob at $\tilde{t}=t^\prime\bar{u}/d=0$ diffuses preferentially along directions of high fluid deformation (indicated by arrows), leading to a highly striated dye distributions at later times. See video in \cite{supp-mat}.}\label{fig:leakage}
\end{figure}
Dispersion models are based on the description of the spatio-temporal spread of transported solutes~\cite{bijeljic2011signature}, but do not capture the scalar heterogeneity inside the plume. These mixing processes evolve with distinct dynamics which remain poorly understood in porous media~\cite{dentz2011mixing,LeBorgneJFM2015}. Experimental characterisation of mixing dynamics in porous media was achieved in two-dimensional (2D) micromodels that facilitated the imaging of scalar gradients below pore-scale~\cite{deAnnaEST2014}. However, 2D pore topologies prohibit the development of chaotic trajectories in steady flows~\cite{Lester2013}. In turn, 3D imaging of solute transport was achieved with X-ray and magnetic resonance techniques~\cite{hunter2007nmr,boon2016}, although the resolution is generally unable to resolve the whole spectrum of microscale scalar gradients~\cite{aref2017frontiers,Heyman2020}. While offering better resolution, refractive index matching techniques~\cite{Kree2017,Souzy:2020aa,Heyman2020} are limited to optically transparent materials. Thus, quantification of chaotic mixing dynamics across the diversity of natural and industrial porous matter remains an outstanding challenge.
Here we develop a novel methodology based on \textit{push-pull} experiments to provide quantitative measurements of chaotic mixing in opaque porous media. Also termed \textit{echo} experiments~\cite{hulin1989echo}, conventional push-pull experiments consist of two phases. First, a pulse of solute dye is injected into a porous sample via a steady Stokes flow (push phase). Then, the flow is reversed (pull phase) and the withdrawn solute mass is monitored at the injection point. This scalar echo provides an indirect quantification of solute longitudinal dispersion~\cite{hulin1989echo}, but does not capture mixing processes~\cite{dentz2011mixing}. To characterize the entire mixing history, we use high-resolution imaging of the withdrawn solute spatial signature in the plane transverse to the mean flow direction (Fig.~\ref{fig:leakage} and \cite{supp-mat}).
Despite the reversibility of Stokes flows, chaotic advection coupled to molecular diffusion induces fast decorrelation of solute paths, a general property of chaotic flows~\cite{Slipantschuk:2013aa}. This decorrelation renders the asymptotic scalar echo statistically equivalent to that of two consecutive push-only flows and enables the indirect quantification of \textit{in-situ} mixing dynamics in porous media. In the limit of low dye molecular diffusivity $D_\text{m}$, we show that the average fluid stretching rate can be obtained from the temporal decay of the spatial variance $\sigma^2_c(t)$ of the scalar echo. These results are supported by numerical simulations~\cite{supp-mat} of scalar mixing in the Sine Flow, a prototype of chaotic advection in fluids~\cite{Meunier2010,haynes2005controls}, and confirms the universality of our findings.
Push-pull experiments are carried out in granular columns containing random and ordered (body-centered cubic) packings of monodispersed beads of diameter $d=5$~mm or gravels of mean grain diameter $d=5.4$~mm. A steady Stokes flow with mean longitudinal velocity $\bar{u}$ of a viscous glycerol-water mixture is created via a constant pressure gradient between the column extremities (Fig. \ref{fig:variance}b). The experiment starts by continuously injecting a fluorescent solute dye (molecular diffusivity $D_\text{m}\approx 10^{-11}$m$^2$s$^{-1}$ in the glycerol-water mixture) through a small needle ($r=0.5$~mm) at the top of the packing (push phase), until a steady solute plume has formed inside the porous media. We then stop the injection and smoothly reverse the flow by inverting the pressure gradient (pull phase), while a camera records the spatial distribution of dye concentration at the injection plane, via a thin laser sheet sectioning the flow transversally (see \cite{supp-mat} for details on the setup). The continuous injection of the dye (versus pulsed in classical push-pull experiments) strongly reduces longitudinal scalar gradients driving longitudinal dispersion and allows focusing on transverse chaotic mixing dynamics.
As Stokes flows are linear and time-reversible, fluid elements experience zero net deformation over the complete push-pull cycle. Thus, the distribution of dye molecules shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:leakage} at time $t^\prime$ after flow reversal have travelled an average distance $\ell \sim \bar{u}t^\prime$ from the injection point into the porous sample before being withdrawn to the injection plane. In a simple translational flow, these molecules would return to the injection within a small diffusive radius $r_D\sim\sqrt{4D_\text{m}t^\prime}$ of their initial position. The circular scalar footprint of the plume formed at the injection point (Fig.~\ref{fig:leakage}, $\tilde{t}=0$) would thus be globally maintained upon flow reversal. Conversely, in chaotic flows, fluid deformation over the push-pull cycle significantly amplifies the effective mixing of the withdrawn solute, as was observed~\cite{oxaal1994irreversible} for the push-pull flow over a stagnation point. Sustained exponential stretching of fluid material elements caused by chaotic advection renders dispersion strongly heterogeneous and anisotropic, as evidenced by the highly striated scalar distribution imaged experimentally in the pull phase (Fig.~\ref{fig:leakage}), which are generated by directions of exponential amplification (retardation) of diffusion along the unstable (stable) manifolds of the chaotic flow. Owing to flow stationarity, these manifolds are time-invariant and so the scalar echo converges towards a steady spatial structure (see Video in \cite{supp-mat}).
After a short transient phase, the spatial variance $\sigma^2_c$ of this structure exhibits an exponential decay $\sigma^2_c \sim e^{-\gamma_2 \tilde{t}}$ (Fig~\ref{fig:variance}a), where $\tilde{t}= t^\prime \bar{u}/d$ is the dimensionless pull time and $d$ the mean grain diameter. At late times, the scalar variance tends to a constant $\sigma^2_c \approx 10^{-3}$ corresponding to the background noise level of the camera. This exponential decay is also consistently observed in numerical simulations~\cite{supp-mat}, where the noise level is much lower. The decay exponent $\gamma_2$ is independent of the Péclet number ($\text{Pe}=\bar{u}d/D_\text{m}$) over the range $10^3$ to $10^4$, but strongly varies with the porous medium properties, with significantly higher values for gravels ($\gamma_2=0.30$) than for random bead packings ($\gamma_2=0.17$) and ordered packings ($\gamma_2=0.05$).
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{variance_drawing2.pdf}
\caption{a. Spatial variance of scalar echo $\sigma_c^2$ as a function of time since reversal (expressed as pore advection time $t^\prime \bar{u} / d$) for various P\'{e}clet numbers and the three class of porous media considered. The noise level of the camera produces a saturation of scalar variance at a level $\langle c^2 \rangle \approx 10^{-3}$. b. Snapshots of scalar concentration in the pull phase (in logarithmic scale) at $25 \, \tilde{t} \bar{u}/d$ for (b.1) ordered bead pack, (b.2) random bead pack, (b.3) gravel pack and (b.4) Sine Flow (at $t^\prime=10$). Videos are available in \cite{supp-mat}.}\label{fig:variance}
\end{figure}
To relate the exponent $\gamma_2$ to the characteristics of chaotic mixing, we adopt the Lagrangian Stretching (LS) framework~\cite{balkovsky1999universal,Villermaux2019}. This theory considers the balance of flow stretching and molecular diffusion transverse to the elongated lamellar scalar structures formed during fluid deformation in push-only flows (see Fig. 2 in \cite{supp-mat}). For a constant stretching rate $\lambda$, an isolated lamella of length $\l$ elongates as $\rho(t)=\l(t)/l(0)=e^{\lambda t}$ while its width decay as $\rho^{-1}$ due to fluid incompressibility. Once the width reaches the Batchelor scale $s_B=\sqrt{D_\text{m}/\lambda}$~\cite{supp-mat}, stretching and diffusion balance each other out and the lammela peak concentration $c_\text{max}$ asymptotically decays as $\rho^{-1}$~\cite{supp-mat}. The average squared concentration over an area $\mathcal{A}$ then follows~\cite{Meunier2010,supp-mat}
\begin{equation}
\overline{c^2} \propto \mathcal{A}^{-1} \l s_B c_\text{max}^2 \sim \rho^{-1},
\label{eq:isolated}
\end{equation}
where the overbar denotes two-dimensional spatial average. Owing to solute mass conservation, $\overline{c}$ is constant and the evolution of $\sigma^2_c$ is driven by $\overline{c^2}$. As shown in~\cite{supp-mat}, this scaling accurately captures the scalar echo produced by a single stagnation point~\cite{oxaal1994irreversible}. This is because enhancement of diffusion by fluid stretching only occurs during the push phase. In the pull phase, scalar gradients are unaltered as they remain perpendicular to the main compression direction.
In contrast, folding of material lines in chaotic flows induces ergodicity and a systematic decorrelation~\cite{supp-mat} of solute particle trajectories and stretching directions between the push and pull phases over a timescale of order of $\lambda^{-1}$~\cite{Slipantschuk:2013aa}.
Thus, for $t\gg \lambda^{-1}$, the stretching histories of fluid elements during the push and pull phases are independent and the scalar echo observed at time $t^\prime$ is equivalent to the mixing produced by a push-only flow of duration $t = 2 t^\prime$, as verified from numerical simulations of push-pull flows in the Sine Flow~\cite{supp-mat}.
The evolution of the scalar variance of an isolated lamella stretched at a constant rate (Eq.~\ref{eq:isolated}) is generalizable to randomly varying stretching rates, as typically experienced by fluid elements at pore-scale~\cite{Lester2013}. Because of the multiplicative nature of stretching, the log-elongation of material elements $\log \rho$ is well approximated in ergodic chaotic flows by a sum of iid random variables, that converges towards the normal distribution with mean $\bar{\lambda} t$ and variance $\sigma^2_{\lambda} t$~\cite{Meunier2010}. Ensemble averaging (denoted by angled brackets) of $\eqref{eq:isolated}$ over this distribution reads
\begin{equation}
\sigma^2_c \sim \left \langle \overline{c^2} \right \rangle \sim \int_{0}^{\infty} \text{d}\Lambda \, \exp\left(- t \frac{(\Lambda-\bar{\lambda})^2}{2\sigma^2_{\lambda} } - \Lambda t\right),
\label{eq:int1}
\end{equation}
with $\Lambda=\log\rho/t$.
At large times, this integral can be approximated with the Laplace method. The term dominating the integral is $\exp\left(-t(\Lambda^*-\bar{\lambda})^2/(2\sigma^2_{\lambda} ) - \Lambda^*t\right)$, where the saddle point is $\Lambda^* \equiv \text{max}\left(\bar{\lambda}-\sigma^2_{\lambda} , 0 \right)$ \cite{balkovsky1999universal,haynes2005controls}. We verified this approximation numerically.
For smooth and space-filling flows, $\bar{\lambda}\approx \sigma_\lambda^2$~\cite{Meunier2010}, hence $\Lambda^*=0$ and $\sigma^2_c \sim e^{-\bar{\lambda}^2/(2\sigma^2_{\lambda} ) t} \approx e^{-(\bar{\lambda}/2) t}$, e.g. the decay exponent is determined by the fraction of lamellae that have experienced no stretching and is independent of the P\'eclet number.
The validity of the LS theory for isolated lamellae extends well beyond coalescence time, for flows in the Batchelor regime~\cite{haynes2005controls}, e.g. when the scalar fluctuations lengthscales $l_c$ are smaller than the velocity lengthscales $l_v$.
Such regime naturally develops in porous media at high P\'eclet number, for which $s_B \ll l_v$~\cite{Heyman2020}. This unexpected persistence was mathematically associated~\cite{haynes2005controls} to the existence of a continuous limit in the spectrum of the scalar covariance equation, when Pe$\to\infty$. We found that it can also be explained by the dominance of \textit{correlated} aggregation of lamellae in the Batchelor regime. In this regime, coalescing lamellae form bundles that remain smaller than the velocity fluctuation lengthscale ($l_c \leq l_v$). Thus, fluid stretching is approximately uniform within a bundle. In turn, the number $N$ of lamellae in the bundle is dictated by local fluid compression and therefore proportional to the local fluid elongation $\rho$ in incompressible flows.
Thus, weakly stretched and compressed fluid elements are also weakly aggregated ($N \sim \rho$~\cite{supp-mat}), a correlated aggregation scenario verified numerically in the Sine Flow~\cite{supp-mat}. As the fraction of weakly stretched lamellae ($\rho \approx 1$) asymptotically dominates the integral $\eqref{eq:int1}$, and since this fraction is also weakly aggregated ($N \approx 1$), the domain of validity of Eqs.~\eqref{eq:c2decay}--\eqref{eq:int1} extends beyond coalescence time.
Recalling that the stretching histories between the push and the pull flows are independent at late time ($t\approx 2t^\prime$), the asymptotic scalar echo variance then follows
\begin{equation}
\sigma_c^2 \sim e^{- \gamma_2 t^\prime}, \text{ with } \gamma_2 \approx \tilde{\lambda} = \bar{\lambda}d/\bar{u}.
\label{eq:c2decay}
\end{equation}
$\tilde{\lambda}$ is the infinite-time Lyapunov exponent of the porous flow made dimensionless by the pore advection time $t_a=d/\bar{u}$. Eq.~\ref{eq:c2decay} exhibits excellent agreement (Fig. \ref{fig:variance}a) with the Sine Flow simulations for $\text{Pe}=10^3$ and $10^4$, where the Lyapunov exponent $\bar{\lambda} \approx 0.55$ was computed independently~\cite{supp-mat}. The measure of scalar dissipation in push-only flows~\cite{Heyman2020} through index-matched random bead packs at $\text{Pe}\approx 10^4$ yields $\tilde{\lambda}=0.18$~\cite{supp-mat}, in excellent agreement with the push-pull estimate $\tilde{\lambda} \approx 0.17$ from this study. This value is also close to the stretching and folding model proposed~\cite{Heyman2020} for granular porous media, that predicts $\tilde{\lambda}\approx 0.21$ in random bead packs. Note that \cite{Souzy:2020aa} found larger Lyapunov exponents based on experimental velocity fields ($\tilde{\lambda}\approx 0.5$), but this estimate integrates both longitudinal and transverse stretching.
The weak dependence of $\gamma_2$ on Péclet number, observed both experimentally and numerically (Fig. \ref{fig:variance}a), confirms that mixing occurs in the Batchelor regime where aggregation is solely determined by the local stretching of fluid elements. Indeed, the initial tracer injection radius $r$ was chosen such that $ l_c \sim r \ll l_v\sim d$ and the P\'eclet was chosen to be large enough for $s_B$ to be much smaller than $l_v$. In turn, the periodic boundary conditions of the Sine Flow ensures $l_ c \leq l_v \sim1$. In contrast, once the mixed scalar forms patches of uniform concentration over larger scales $l_c \gg l_v$, the aggregation of these patches becomes independent of the local stretching statistics and occurs at random~\cite{DuplatVillermauxPRL2003} at a rate given by large scale dispersive motions. In such limit, the decay of $\sigma^2_c$ has been found~\cite{haynes2005controls} to be strongly dependent on Péclet number.
Differences in the Lyapunov exponent between gravel and bead packings may be explained by the role of granular contacts in controlling the stretching and folding of material lines~\cite{Heyman2020}. Given their irregular shapes, gravel packs likely possess a larger number density of contacts than random bead packs, favoring chaotic mixing. Conversely, the small Lyapunov exponent associated with flow through ordered packings may be attributed to the existence of flow barriers imposed by the packing symmetries, which may retard chaotic advection~\cite{Turuban2018}.
\begin{figure}
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{pdfmoments.pdf}
\caption{Probability density function $p(\tilde{c})$ of scalar concentration rescaled by standard deviation $\tilde{c}\equiv c/ \sigma_c$, for increasing pull time $\tilde{t} = t^\prime \bar{u} /d$ (colors). Points are ensemble averages over several experiments. Straight line indicates the exponential distribution $e^{-\tilde{c}}$. Inset : Exponent $\gamma_n$ for $\left\langle c^n \right\rangle \sim e^{-\gamma_n t} $. Black line stands for the pure self-similar case with $\gamma_n=n\gamma_2/2$.}\label{fig:moments}
\end{figure}
In gravel and random bead packs, the asymptotic exponential decay of the scalar variance is associated with a transition to a statistically stationary scalar probability density function (pdf) with a corresponding exponential distribution $p(\tilde{c})=e^{-\tilde{c}}$, with the rescaled scalar concentration $\tilde{c}\equiv c/\sigma_c$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:moments}). This asymptotic stationary scalar pdf is a common feature of many chaotic flows, such as turbulent flows and random velocity fields~\cite{aref2017frontiers}, and is associated with the emergence of a dominant non-trivial strange eigenmode~\cite{Liu:2004aa} of the advection-diffusion operator.
Self-similarity is also suggested by linearity of the scalar moments $\langle c^n\rangle$ decay exponents, i.e. $\gamma_n\propto n$, as shown in the inset of Fig.~\ref{fig:moments}. Conversely, the experiments with ordered packings do not exhibit such behavior, probably because the slower mixing rate $\gamma_2$ delays emergence of the dominant eigenmode.
In conclusion, the spatio-temporal imaging of push-pull flows allows the quantification of solute mixing in opaque porous matter, which is currently inaccessible by other techniques. This opens new opportunities to uncover these dynamics in the variety of porous materials that span geologic, biological and engineering applications, where Stokes flows are expected to be chaotic~\cite{Heyman2020}. We established general properties of these flows, including the decorrelation of solute trajectories, the control of scalar dissipation by the correlated aggregation in the Batchelor regime, and the self-similarity of the scalar pdf associated to the dominance of a strange eigenmode. When performed at high P\'eclet numbers, the method allows estimating the Lyapunov exponent, which is the key paramater for chaotic mixing models~\cite{Villermaux2019}. These findings are generic to chaotic flows and are thus relevant to a broad range of fluid applications.
\begin{acknowledgments}
JH acknowledges financial support by project SUCHY grant ANR-19-CE01-0013, TLB acknowledges financial support by project ReactiveFronts ERC grant 648377.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
Since its launch in 1999, {\it Chandra} has revealed a large number of fine X-ray morphological substructures in the intracluster medium (ICM), the most dominant baryonic component in clusters of galaxies. ICM substructure is a consequence of various cluster activities such as interactions with the central active galactic nucleus (AGN), mergers with other clusters or groups, and motions of its member galaxies. In the formation of these substructures, the ICM follows the physical laws, and thus, ICM substructures reflect the underlying physical properties of the ICM such as magnetic field strengths, viscosity and heat conductivity, little of which is well understood so far.
Among the substructures discovered by {\it Chandra} are cold fronts, the interface between two gas phases in pressure equilibrium: cooler and denser gas, and the hot and thin ambient medium \citep[see][for a review]{markevitch07}. The first cold fronts were found in Abell~2142 \citep{markevitch00} and in Abell~3667 \citep{vikhlinin01a,vikhlinin01b}. Since then, cold fronts have been observed in a variety of locations and environmental setups \citep[e.g.,][]{fabian06,machacek06,owers09b,ghizzardi10} and it has been revealed that they are actually more common than shock fronts.
One of the important properties of cold fronts is their remarkable sharpness. The thickness of the interface is not resolved even by {\it Chandra}'s angular resolution \citep{vikhlinin01a,vikhlinin01b}. This indicates that diffusive processes are suppressed at the interface because of, e.g., the small gyroradii of the electrons resulting from the draping magnetic fields.
Initially, cold fronts were regarded as single distinct substructures. However, recently, substructures of such substructures, i.e., substructures associated with cold fronts have been attracting attention as the tool to infer the underlying ICM microphysics. For example, \citet{werner16a} reported the presence of quasi-linear features underneath the cold front in the Virgo cluster. By comparison with a tailored numerical simulation, they suggested that these features are due to the amplification of magnetic fields by gas sloshing. Similar narrow structures of surface brightness were also found in several other systems; possible plasma depletion layers seen in projection ({\it X-ray channels}) were found in Abell~520 and Abell~2142 \citep[][]{wang16,wang18}; \citet{ichinohe19a} found alternating bright and faint regions ({\it feathers}) in the Perseus cluster and estimated the amplified magnetic field strength at $\sim$30\,$\mu$G. Several simulation studies have also been performed for magnetized gas sloshing \citep{zuhone11,zuhone15}.
Besides the features {\it inside} cold fronts, features {\it on} the cold front have also been extensively studied. As gas shear is inevitable at the cold front interface, fluid instabilities can develop under certain conditions. \citet{su17a} found a multiple-edge profile of the merger cold front in the NGC~1404 galaxy, which is likely attributed to Kelvin-Helmholtz instabilities (KHI) seen in projection \citep{roediger13a}. Similar multiple-edge surface brightness profiles were also found in Abell~3667 \citep{ichinohe17} and in the Perseus cluster \citep{ichinohe19a}. At small scales, the existence of KHI whose size of less than kpc is indicated in the core of the Ophiuchus cluster \citep{werner16b}, while at large scales, \citet{walker17} suggested that a KHI roll with a size of $\sim$50\,kpc exists east of the core of the Perseus cluster.
Abell~2319 ($z\sim0.056$; 1\,arcsec $\sim$1.08\,kpc) is the fifth brightest cluster in the X-ray sky \citep{edge90}. The early {\it Chandra} observations made by \citet{ohara04} and \citet{govoni04} revealed its high temperature and the existence of the sharp cold front extending for $\sim$300\,kpc to the southeast of the brightness peak of the system. Both of these features as well as its giant radio halo \citep{harris78,feretti97,govoni01,farnsworth13} indicate a major merger activity ongoing in this system, and there has been a wide range of studies in this context \citep{markevitch96,million09,sugawara09,yan14,storm15}. Abell~2319 is the most significant Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect \citep[SZ;][]{sunyaev72} detection in the {\it Planck} 2nd Sunyaev-Zeldovich Source Catalog \citep{planck16xxvii} and detailed studies using {\it XMM-Newton} aiming at probing the outskirts of the cluster have been performed \citep{eckert14,ghirardini18,hurier19}.
There have been several studies in terms of the cold front itself; \citet{ghizzardi10} reconfirmed the existence of the front using {\it XMM-Newton} data; \citet{zuhone13a} used the {\it Chandra} image for visual comparison with numerical simulation images; \citet{walker16} used the {\it Chandra} image to demonstrate the Gaussian gradient magnitude filtering method. However, despite its prominence, there seem to have been no observational quantitative estimations of ICM microphysics performed using this cold front so far.
In this paper, we investigate in detail the currently available $\sim$90\,ks archival {\it Chandra} data of Abell~2319 to explore the phenomena associated with this remarkable cold front and the physical implications derived from it. The high temperature and moderate density environment around the cold front in Abell~2319 is advantageous compared to other brightest clusters in that the Coulomb mean free paths of the electrons are much longer in this system.
We adopted the abundance table of proto-solar metal from \citet{lodders09} for this paper. Unless otherwise noted, the error bars correspond to 68\% confidence level for one parameter. Throughout this paper, we assume the standard $\Lambda$CDM cosmological model with the parameters of $(\Omega_m,\Omega_\Lambda,H_0)=(0.3,0.7,70~\mr{km/s/Mpc})$.
\section{Observations, data reduction, and data analysis}\label{sec:data}
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Summary of the observations used in this paper. The net exposure time is after the data screening.}
\label{tbl:data}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline
Obs ID & Date & Net exposure time (ks)\\
\hline
3231 & 2002-03-15 & 14.4 \\
15187 & 2014-02-11 & 75.0 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Abell~2319 was observed twice using the {\it Chandra} ACIS-I detectors (ObsIDs 3231 and 15187). We reprocessed the archival level 1 event lists produced by the {\it Chandra} pipeline in the standard manner\footnote{CIAO 4.12 Homepage, Data Preparation; http://cxc.harvard.edu/ciao/threads/data.html} using the {\small CIAO} software package (version 4.12) and the {\small CALDB} (version 4.9.2.1) to apply the appropriate gain maps and the latest calibration products. We removed flares from light curves using the \verb+deflare+ tool with the standard time binning method recommended in the {\small CIAO} official analysis guides. Blank-sky background files provided by the {\it Chandra} team were extracted using the \verb+blanksky+ tool and were processed in a similar manner. The net exposure times of each observation after screening are summarized in Table~\ref{tbl:data}. The resulting total net exposure time is $\sim$90\,ks.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.2in]{figures/a2319_flat_v4-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption[]{Exposure and vignetting corrected, background subtracted {\it Chandra} image (0.5--7.0\,keV) of Abell~2319, Gaussian smoothed with $\sigma=2$\,pixel. The main cold front is indicated by the white dashed partial annulus to southeast. The overlaid partial annuli shown with a solid line cover the azimuthal range from which the 15$^\circ$ surface brightness profiles are extracted (see also Section~\ref{sec:sbprof}). The radius of the cold front abruptly decreases/increases around the directions indicated by the left/middle white arrows. The right white arrow points the surface brightness `finger'. The numbered dashed partial annuli correspond to other interesting features. The white dashed circle denotes the surface-brightness depression. See Section~\ref{sec:morph} for details.}
\label{img:flatimage}
\end{figure}
We created the count image and the exposure map, and the background image using the \verb+fluximage+ and \verb+blanksky_image+ tool, respectively. We combined all the images of both ObsIDs appropriately to create the exposure and vignetting corrected, background subtracted image (flat-fielded image). The resulting image is shown in Fig.~\ref{img:flatimage}. We identified point sources using the \verb+wavdetect+ tool with the scales of 1, 2, 4, 8, 16\,pixels and removed them in the subsequent analysis.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{minipage}{0.33\hsize}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.2in]{figures/ktmap_20210201-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.33\hsize}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.2in]{figures/ppmap_20210201-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.33\hsize}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.2in]{figures/psmap_20210201-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\cprotect\caption[]{Projected thermodynamic maps. {\it Left:} projected temperature map in units of keV. {\it Middle:} pseudo-pressure map. {\it Right:} pseudo-entropy map. The position of the cold front is marked by the thin solid white partial annuli. The positions of other features are indicated by the dotted partial annuli (see also Fig.~\ref{img:flatimage}). The white circles/ellipses are the positions of point sources which are identified using the \verb+wavdetect+ tool.}
\label{img:thermomaps}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{figures/qwang_thesis_a2319_tmap.pdf}
\caption[]{{\it Chandra} projected gas temperature map derived using a different method (reproduced from Wang 2019). Black contours show X-ray surface brightness (the outer contour is at the cold front). Arrow on left points to a hot spot inside the front (a circle in Fig.~\ref{img:flatimage}; discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:pocket}). Arrow on right points to the region of apparent KH instabilities including the `finger', discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:khi}.}
\label{fig:qian_tmap}
\end{figure}
All the spectral fits are performed using {\small XSPEC} \citep[version 12.10.0c;][]{arnaud96}. We modelled the spectra using the \verb+TBabs*apec+ model with the redshift and Fe abundance fixed to 0.0557 and 0.3\,solar, respectively. The hydrogen column density was set to 11.2$\times$10$^{20}$\,cm$^{-2}$ determined by \citet{willingale13}; this is because Abell~2319 is located in a region of relatively high absorption and \citet{ghirardini18} pointed out that the $Chandra$ spectra are better modelled using the column density value corrected for molecular hydrogen than using that determined by the LAB (Leiden/Argentine/Bonn) radio HI survey \citep{kalberla05}.
We also created the thermodynamic maps. We used the contour binning algorithm \citep{sanders06} to divide the field of view into subregions used for spectral fitting. The signal-to-noise ratio of each bin is set to 100, corresponding to $\sim$10000 counts/bin. Using the best-fit temperature kT and normalization $\epsilon$, we calculated the pseudo-pressure $\tilde{p}=kT\sqrt{\epsilon/A}$ and pseudo-entropy $\tilde{s}=kT(\epsilon/A)^{-1/3}$ where $A$ is the area of the corresponding region measured in the unit of pixels. The resulting thermodynamic maps are shown in Fig.~\ref{img:thermomaps}.
\subsection{Surface brightness profiles of the main cold front}\label{sec:sbprof}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.4in]{figures/prof_main.pdf}
\caption[]{Surface brightness profile of the main front. The profile is extracted from the azimuthal range where the front is most prominent (see the dashed partial annulus to southeast in Fig.~\ref{img:flatimage}).}
\label{img:prof_main}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{img:prof_main} shows the surface brightness profile of the main cold front, extracted in the entire azimuthal range where the front is most prominent ($150^\circ-270^\circ$, see Fig.~\ref{img:flatimage}). In order to investigate the detailed azimuthal variation of the front properties, we extracted surface brightness profiles across the cold front with opening angles of 15$^\circ$ and 5$^\circ$. The directions from which the 15$^\circ$ surface brightness profiles are extracted are indicated by the white solid partial annuli shown in Fig.~\ref{img:flatimage}. The center is determined at (RA, Dec)$=$(19:21:10.2,+43:55:46.1) so that the radial directions are perpendicular to the interface.
We modelled the observed profiles by assuming that the surface brightness is proportional to the square of a spherically symmetric density profile integrated along the line-of-sight (LOS). We used the underlying radial density profile of a broken power law with a normalization jump of $j_{12}$ at the cold front radius $r_{12}$;
\begin{equation}
n(r) = \left\{
\begin{array}{l}
j_{12}n_0\left(\dfrac{r}{r_{12}}\right)^{-\alpha_1}\ \ (r \leq r_{12})\\
n_0\left(\dfrac{r}{r_{12}}\right)^{-\alpha_2}\ \ (r_{12} < r)
\end{array}
\right.,\label{eq:bknpow}
\end{equation}
where $n_0$ is the overall normalization, and $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ are the power-law slopes of the density profile inside and outside the interface.
In the fitting, we defined the likelihood function to be half of the chi-square function, corresponding to the `exponential-term' of log-Gaussian, and performed maximum-likelihood fitting of the model to the observed data using the {\small emcee} Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) package \citep{emcee}. The error bars are quoted based on the 16th and 84th percentiles of the samples in the marginalized distributions. Fig.~\ref{img:azimuthal_variation} shows the azimuthal variations of the best-fit parameters. The black/grey and the red/magenta points represent the best-fit parameters for the 15$^\circ$ and 5$^\circ$ profiles, respectively.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.2in]{figures/azimuthal_variation_all_20210413.pdf}
\caption[]{The azimuthal variations of the parameters of the main cold front within the sector shown in Fig.~\ref{img:flatimage}. The parametes of the density model, given by Eq.~\ref{eq:bknpow}, are shown in panels from top to bottom: the normalization $n_0$, the density jump radius $r_{12}$, the jump amplitude $j_{12}$, the power-law slope inside (inner)/outside (outer) the break ($\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$). The black/grey and the red/magenta points represent the best-fit parameters for the 15$^\circ$ (sectors in Fig.~\ref{img:flatimage}) and 5$^\circ$ profiles, respectively, counterclockwise starting from Northeast. The azimuthal range where the front is most prominent (indicated by the partial dashed annulus to southeast in Fig.~\ref{img:flatimage}) corresponds to $150^\circ-270^\circ$.}
\label{img:azimuthal_variation}
\end{figure}
\section{Results}
\subsection{Morphological features}\label{sec:morph}
As we can see both in Fig.~\ref{img:flatimage} and Fig.~\ref{img:prof_main}, there is a clear brightness edge in the southeastern direction. The thermodynamic maps shown in Fig.~\ref{img:thermomaps} indicate that the temperature and entropy increase abruptly across the interface from the brighter to the fainter sides, while the pressure shows a continuous change. These behaviours are typical of cold fronts and consistent with the cold front observations in the literature \citep[e.g.][]{markevitch07}.
The interface is relatively smooth but shows non-monotonicity in radius. For example, the radius is locally smaller compared to neighboring azimuths around the direction indicated by the left white arrow in Fig.~\ref{img:flatimage}, and increases locally around the middle white arrow. We also see a bright `finger' of cool bright gas extending towards the west from the southernmost edge of the interface denoted by the right white arrow. It is located right at the azimuth where the cold front outline bends (the intersection of the main cold front and the edge {\it 4}). Inside the interface, we see a local depression in surface brightness as denoted by the white dashed circle. Some of these features have been pointed out also by \citet{wangphd}.
In addition to the main cold front, we found several other brightness features that have not been explicitly discussed in the literature; (i) we found that the main cold front diverges at its northern end. One of the branches extends further in the northern direction (marked as {\it 1} in Fig.~\ref{img:flatimage}), while the other bends towards the core direction (marked as {\it 3} in Fig.~\ref{img:flatimage}). (ii) we found another brightness edge to northwest from the brightness peak (marked as {\it 2} in Fig.~\ref{img:flatimage}). The main coldfront, the edge {\it 3} and the edge {\it 2} seem to be aligned on the same spiral in this order. The edge {\it 3} seems to be rather concave than convex. (iii) we found another concave brightness edge to southwest from the core (marked as {\it 4} in Fig.~\ref{img:flatimage}). As shown in Fig.~\ref{img:thermomaps}, either the temperature ({\it 2}, {\it 3} and {\it 4}) or the entropy ({\it 1}, {\it 2} and {\it 4}) seem to exhibit abrupt changes at the interface, suggesting that all of the brightness features are cold fronts.
\subsection{Azimuthal variation of the cold front}\label{sec:cf}
As shown in Fig.~\ref{img:azimuthal_variation}, all the density profile parameters of the main cold front show significant azimuthal variations. The azimuthal profile of the break radii is not a monotonic function, and we can see several local maxima both in the 15$^\circ$ and 5$^\circ$ profiles around $160^\circ-170^\circ$, $200^\circ$ and $240^\circ-260^\circ$. In particular, the the break radius abruptly decreases at $\sim205^\circ$ and increases at $\sim245^\circ$, which are consistent with the morphological observation in the previous section.
The azimuthal profile of the density jump is mostly flat between $140^\circ$ and $280^\circ$, but shows a weakening of the jump around $200^\circ$. The overall trend is consistent with what is shown in \citet{walker16}, where the jump profile was computed using the Gaussian gradient magnitude filtering method. The azimuthal profiles of the density slope outside and inside the edge both show apparent fluctuations. The inner slope takes a local maximum around $200^\circ$, where the jump weakens. Towards the position angle of $285^\circ-300^\circ$, both the density jump and the difference in power-law slopes inside versus outside the break decrease.
\subsection{Modelling of the brightness `finger'}\label{sec:khifit}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.4in]{figures/prof_270-280.pdf}
\caption[]{Surface brightness profile extracted in the direction across the `finger' feature. The magenta curve is the best-fitting model using the baseline model described in Section~\ref{sec:sbprof}. The red curve is the best-fitting model in which the `finger' feature is accounted for as a Gaussian component.}
\label{img:prof_270-280}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{img:prof_270-280} shows the surface brightness profile extracted in the direction across the `finger' feature. There is a coherent surface brightness excess with respect to the baseline model (magenta curve) around $r=140$\,arcsec, corresponding to the location of the `finger' in the image (Fig.~\ref{img:flatimage}).
In order to check if this is real, we added a Gaussian component that phenomenologically represents the `finger' to our baseline model described in Section~\ref{sec:sbprof}, and fit the surface brightness profile using this model. The red curve in Fig.~\ref{img:prof_270-280} shows the best-fitting surface brightness model with the `finger' feature. The fit around the feature is apparently improved, with the improvement of the fit at the significance level of 4.1$\sigma$ according to the likelihood-ratio test ($-2\Delta\ln L = 23.3$ for 3 degrees of freedom (dof))\footnote{Assuming that the number of azimuths of 12 corresponds to the number of independent random trial, the statistical significance decreases to $\sim$3.3$\sigma$ by the look-elsewhere effect.}. The reduced chi-square values with respect to the best-fit models are $\chi^2/$dof=122.1/101 and 98.8/98 without and with the Gaussian component, respectively.
\subsection{Modelling of other features}\label{sec:sbothers}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{figures/prof_others_20210224.pdf}
\caption[]{Surface brightness profiles extracted in the direction marked as {\it 1}, {\it 2}, {\it 3}, and {\it 4} in Fig.~\ref{img:flatimage} (panels from top to bottom). Note features {\it 3} and {\it 4} are concave, so the radial axis direction is reversed. The red curves are the best-fit models described in Section~\ref{sec:sbprof}. }
\label{img:prof_others}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{img:prof_others} shows the profiles extracted in the directions marked as {\it 1}, {\it 2}, {\it 3}, and {\it 4} in Fig.~\ref{img:flatimage}, on which the respective best-fit baseline models are plotted. The centers are chosen to be at (RA, Dec)$=$(19:21:05.8,+43:57:06.7), (19:21:18.4,+43:55:34.3), (19:21:25.6,+43:59:06.8) and (19:20:53.2,+43:53:31.6), for the directions {\it 1}, {\it 2}, {\it 3}, and {\it 4}, respectively. We also modelled the profile using a model without break (simple power-law), and found that all the profiles prefer the model including the break with high significance ($-2\Delta\ln L$=81.1, 61.4, 146.0, and 264.0 for 3 degrees of freedom, for the directions {\it 1}, {\it 2}, {\it 3}, and {\it 4}, respectively). The broken power-law density model describes all the profiles well ($\chi^2/$dof=108.9/96, 43.9/36, 32.0/31, and 75.4/71 for the directions {\it 1}, {\it 2}, {\it 3}, and {\it 4}, respectively).
\section{Discussion}
\subsection{Origin of the cold fronts and the lack of the cool core}\label{sec:origin}
Cold fronts are contact discontinuities in the cluster gas that arise when bulk gas motions bring parcels of gas with different specific entropy in direct contact. The gas pressure is approximately continuous across such a front (with possible differences caused by gas velocities), while both the density and temperature experience sharp jumps. These features and their origin are discussed in \cite{markevitch07}. Cold fronts can roughly be classified into two categories\footnote{We do not consider here a separate phenomenon in which a cold front can arise from interaction of shocks \citep{birnboim10}.}. In the first one, the contact discontinuity separates the gases from different subclusters, when they collide and a dense core of one or both is stripped by ram pressure of the other cluster's gas (`stripping' cold fronts). The clearest examples of such fronts are seen in the Bullet cluster \citep{markevitch02} and the galaxy NGC~1404 falling into the Fornax cluster \citep{su17a}. The other type of cold fronts separates the lower-entropy gas from the same cluster that has been displaced from its equilibrium location at the bottom of the gravitational well, from the higher-entropy gas it encounters at the larger cluster radii. Such displacement can be caused by a merger (\cite{ascasibar06,roediger13a}; a push from a passing shock front can be sufficient, \cite{churazov03}) and sets off long-lasting back-and-forth `sloshing' of the dense core gas, producing the characteristic series of concentric cold fronts. If the disturbance imparted a nonzero angular momentum on the gas core, multiple concentric fronts could arrange into an apparent spiral, such as those seen in many clusters with cool cores \citep[e.g.,][]{churazov03,clarke04a,blanton11,osullivan12,rossetti13,ghizzardi14,ichinohe15,sanders16,ueda19,ueda20}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{figures/a2319_erodedkhi.pdf}
\caption[]{The fronts labeled {\it 2}, {\it 3} and `main' in Fig.~\ref{img:flatimage} form an approximate spiral pattern (schematically shown here by red solid line; the line is offset inward from the fronts for clarity), which is characteristic of core gas sloshing. The possible origin of the southwest concave feature is KHI developing at this position of the cold front and destroying the sharp contact discontinuity, which otherwise would continue as schematically shown by dashed line.}
\label{fig:eroded}
\end{figure}
Note that sloshing fronts do not need a cool core --- it is the gradient of the specific entropy, rather than low temperature, that is needed to produce a contact discontinuity when the central gas is lifted up (see, e.g., Fig.~12 in \cite{ascasibar06}, which shows the core of an isothermal cluster forming a front). Indeed, Abell~2142, a `warm core' cluster based on its central entropy (\cite{cavagnolo09}), exhibits a spiral of at least four sloshing fronts (\cite{markevitch00,rossetti13,wang18}). With a central specific entropy of 270\,keV\,cm$^{2}$, Abell~2319 does not have a cool core at present, but its entropy increases with radius as in most other clusters \citep{cavagnolo09}. The fronts shown in Fig.~\ref{img:flatimage} (labeled {\it 2}, {\it 3}, `main') form a spiral pattern as schematically shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:eroded}, which indicates sloshing of the core gas. On the larger scale, the cluster has a cool X-ray extension to the northwest (discussed in \cite{markevitch96,ohara04,govoni04,ghirardini18}), which indicates a merger with at least some velocity component in the plane of the sky. This merger can be the cause of the core disturbance that set off the observed sloshing.
If the plane of sloshing motions is oriented along the line of sight, we should see disconnected, staggered surface brightness edges on the opposite sides of the cluster, while if the motions occur close to the plane of the sky, the edges should form a spiral (\cite{roediger11,zuhone18}; Fig.~19 in \cite{ascasibar06}). As shown in Figs.~\ref{img:flatimage} and \ref{fig:eroded}, the cluster is surrounded on nearly all sides by surface brightness edges, leading us to believe the latter orientation is more likely for the case of Abell~2319. This interpretation is also supported by radio observations \citep{storm15}; as we will discuss in detail in Section~\ref{sec:agn}, the radio emission consists of two components, and one of them could be interpreted as a rather bright minihalo. Although the exact origin of minihalos is still debated, they have a clear association with cool core clusters and seem to often be generated or at least reaccelerated by sloshing \citep{zuhone13b,gitti15,giacintucci17,richard-laferriere20}.
On the other hand, optical spectroscopy \citep{oegerle95} reveals a subcluster with a high LOS velocity ($>$1000\,km\,s$^{-1}$), located $\sim$10\,arcmin ($\sim$650\,kpc) in projection northwest of the core, at the end of the X-ray extension. Whether or not the gas moves with that velocity is unclear, but the 3D merger geometry probably includes an out of the sky plane velocity component, or perhaps more than one infalling subcluster. The spiral front morphology and its sharpness\footnote{For a stripping cold front seen from a small inclination angle, we would not expect the existence of such a sharp edge. This is because the edges of a stripping cold front are more likely to be smeared with the ambient medium due to hydrodynamic instabilities than the tip of the cold front \citep[see Fig.~7 of][]{roediger15b}.} argues against a stripping cold front. The spiral also strongly suggests sloshing in the sky plane, though we cannot rule out sloshing perpendicular to the sky plane (and some additional disturbance) without measuring the LOS velocities of the gas inside the fronts, which will become possible with the launch of {\it XRISM} \citep{tashiro20}. Although dedicated numerical simulations are required to prove the origin of the cold front and of the detected features, in the following sections, we will assume that the core gas is sloshing near the sky plane, while we note, in any case, that most of the discussion presented below remains valid both for a stripping as well as for a sloshing origin of the front.
The absence of a cool core in Abell~2319 is interesting. \citet{rossetti10} found that the brightest cluster galaxy (BCG) is located in a region of relatively low entropy compared to the surrounding ICM and proposed that Abell~2319 could in the past have contained a cool core. It could have been disrupted by the very sloshing that we see --- indeed, simulations by \citep{zuhone10} show that sloshing can facilitate the heat inflow into the core via mixing with the hot outer gas. A possibly more extreme example of this phenomenon is Abell~1763, where \citet{douglass18} found a large sloshing spiral (along with a merging subcluster that caused it) and a high central entropy (215\,keV\,cm$^{2}$, \citealt[][]{cavagnolo09}) characteristic of non-cool-core clusters.
\subsection{Kelvin-Helmholtz instability}
\label{sec:khi}
As we discussed in Section~\ref{sec:khifit}, the radii of the interface fluctuate with position angle. As the azimuthal profile of the break radius has multiple minima/maxima, we can deduce that the fluctuation scale is smaller than the opening angle of the entire cold front. The emergence of sub-opening-angle scale variation of the break radii is routinely seen in numerical simulations of sloshing cold fronts where KHIs develop because of gas shear \citep[e.g.,][]{roediger13a}. Observationally, the existence of the sub-opening-angle scale variation due to developing KHIs has also been indicated in the cold front in Abell~3667 by \citet{ichinohe17}.
In addition to the cold front fluctuations, we also found a `finger' feature at the position angle of $270^\circ-280^\circ$ with moderate significance. The location of the `finger' is right at the intersection of the edge {\it 4} and the main cold front, where the cold front outline bends. This feature is morphologically similar to well-developed Kelvin-Helmholtz instabilities seen in numerical simulations \citep{zuhone11,roediger13a}. It has been shown by numerical simulations and observations that a multiple-edge structure of the surface brightness profile appears when developing KHIs exist \citep{roediger13a,su17a,ichinohe17,ichinohe19a} because of the KHI eddies seen in projection. As shown in Fig.~\ref{img:prof_270-280}, we see the coherent increase in surface brightness instead of multiple edges. We suggest that this is also a projected KHI eddy, detached from the main cold front due to the bend of the cold front outline. Therefore, we think that this `finger' feature is naturally explainable with the interpretation that it is a developed KHI eddy. Note that the stripped tail of a member galaxy might be another interpretation of the `finger', but no galaxies are found in the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED)\footnote{The NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) is funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and operated by the California Institute of Technology.} at the corresponding location.
\subsubsection{Upper limit of the ICM effective viscosity}\label{sec:viscosity}
Based on the existence (or absence) of KHI, we can derive implications on ICM microphysics. When there is a shear flow between two fluid components, KHIs start to develop. If the gas is inviscid and incompressible, all the scales show exponential development. However, finite viscosity suppresses the development of instabilities whose length scale $\lambda$ is below a certain critical value. This condition can be expressed using the critical Reynolds number $\mr{Re}_\mr{crit}$;
\begin{equation}
\mr{Re} = \dfrac{\rho\lambda V}{\mu} < \mr{Re}_\mr{crit} \sim a \sqrt{\Delta},\label{eq:visc}
\end{equation}
where $V$ is the shear strength, and $\rho$ and $\mu$ are the density and viscosity on the high-viscosity side, respectively. $\Delta$ is calculated using the densities of gas on the two sides of the interface $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$; $\Delta = (\rho_1+\rho_2)^2/\rho_1\rho_2$, and $a$ is a numerical coefficient around dozens \citep{roediger13b,chandrasekhar61}.
Conversely, if the KHI of the length scale of $\lambda$ exists, it indicates that the ICM viscosity should satisfy the condition
\begin{equation}
\mu<\dfrac{\rho\lambda V}{\mr{Re}_\mr{crit}}\sim\dfrac{\rho\lambda V}{a\sqrt{\Delta}},\label{eq:viscul}.
\end{equation}
Therefore, when one observes instabilities of scale $\lambda$, one can obtain the upper limit on the ICM viscosity using the gas densities and the shear strength.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1.6in]{figures/a2319_khi_thermo_v2-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=1.6in]{figures/a2319_pocket_thermo_v2-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption[]{{\it Left:} Same as Fig.~\ref{img:flatimage}, close-up on the KHI candidate. The color bar is changed to visually emphasize the `finger' feature. The overlaid regions are used for spectral analysis in Section~\ref{sec:khi}. {\it Right:} Same as Fig.~\ref{img:flatimage}. The overlaid regions are used for spectral analysis in Section~\ref{sec:pocket}.}
\label{img:flatimage_khi} \label{img:flatimage_pocket}
\end{figure}
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{Best-fitting thermodynamic parameters for the region shown in Fig.~\ref{img:flatimage_khi}.}
\label{tbl:specfit_khi}
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\hline
Region & Temperature (keV) & Fe abundance (solar) & Electron density ($10^{-3}\mr{cm}^{-3}$)\\
\hline
Inner & 9.1$\pm$0.5 & 0.59$\pm$0.12 & $8.8\pm 0.1\times (L_\mr{in}/100\,\mr{kpc})^{-1/2}$ \\
Outer & 12.7$\pm$1.0 & 0.53$^{+0.19}_{-0.18}$ & $4.9\pm0.1\times (L_\mr{out}/100\,\mr{kpc})^{-1/2}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
In order to estimate the gas properties, we extracted spectra from the regions shown in Fig.~\ref{img:flatimage_khi} left, where the upper left and lower right partial annuli correspond to the gas inside (Inner) and outside (Outer) the interface, respectively. Note that we deliberately avoid the KHI region because the KHI would mix the gas from both sides making the interpretation difficult. The best-fit parameters are shown in Table~\ref{tbl:specfit_khi}, where $L_\mr{in}$ and $L_\mr{out}$ are the LOS depth of the gas contributing to the spectra extracted from the Inner and Outer regions, respectively.
These gas properties are combined with Eq.~\ref{eq:viscul} to obtain the upper limit on the viscosity;
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\mu&\lesssim\dfrac{\rho\lambda V}{a\sqrt{\Delta}}\\&\sim5900\,\mr{g}\,\mr{cm}^{-1}\,\mr{s}^{-1}\left(\dfrac{n_\mr{out}}{3\times10^{-3}\,\mr{cm^{-3}}}\right)\left(\dfrac{\lambda}{100\,\mr{kpc}}\right)\left(\dfrac{V}{1600\,\mr{km}\,\mr{s}^{-1}}\right)\\
&\times\left(\dfrac{a}{10}\right)^{-1}\left(\dfrac{1/\sqrt{\Delta}}{0.4}\right)
\label{eq:viscul_num},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $n_\mr{out}$ is the electron density outside the interface derived in \citet{ghirardini18}. The choices of the rather conservative fiducial values in deriving Eq.~\ref{eq:viscul_num} are explained below.
(i) $\lambda$ is the scale of the KHI. Based on the `eroded front' scenario discussed in detail in Section~\ref{sec:eroded}, assuming that the pitch of the {\it feathery} structures represents the wavelength of the scale that can grow, $\lambda\sim$100\,kpc can be inferred. The temperature map in Fig.~\ref{fig:qian_tmap} exhibits multiple eddy-like structures of cool gas at the `eroded' region and the pitch of the cool gas components is similarly about 100\,kpc. The current data quality precludes the structures of smaller scales from being detected and it is possible that the existing scales may even be smaller, but in any case, $\sim$100\,kpc seems to be a reasonable choice for the conservative estimation of $\lambda$. (ii) $V$ is the relative shear velocity of the gases on two sides of the front. Since gas sloshing is subsonic, the Mach number of the shear is expected to be well below the sound speed \citep{markevitch01,wang18}. As we do not observe shock features in the image, we simply adopted the current fiducial value of $V\sim1600\,\mr{km}\,\mr{s}^{-1}$, the sound speed for the cooler side temperature (9.1\,keV, see Table~\ref{tbl:specfit_khi}). (iii) $a$ is the numerical coefficient and several estimations ($a\sim10$, 16 and 64) are presented by \citet{roediger13b}. The most conservative choice is $a=10$ and we took this value. Note that it is pointed out in \citet{ichinohe17} that the values 10 and 16 may be too conservative because some simulations with the Reynolds number above these values show the suppression of instabilities \citep[e.g., Fig.~8 in][]{roediger15b}. (iv) The $1/\sqrt{\Delta}$ factor in Eq.~\ref{eq:viscul} depends weakly on the actual geometry and takes a value around $\sim$0.4 for $L_\mr{out}/L_\mr{in}=1-10$.
The isotropic, temperature-dependent Spitzer viscosity is
\begin{equation}
\mu_\mr{Sp} = 15000\,\mr{g}\,\mr{cm}^{-1}\,\mr{s}^{-1}\left(\dfrac{kT}{12.7~\mr{keV}}\right)^{5/2},\label{eq:spitzer}
\end{equation}
where the Coulomb logarithm $\ln\Lambda=40$ is assumed \citep{spitzer,sarazin86,roediger13a}. We can safely reach the conclusion that the ICM viscosity is suppressed by at least factor 2.5 below the full Spitzer value.
Recently, several attempts have been made to infer the ICM viscosity by this methodology. Using the merger cold front in Abell~3667, \citet{ichinohe17} estimated the upper limit of the ICM effective viscosity to be $\mu\lesssim 200\,\mr{g}\,\mr{cm}^{-1}\,\mr{s}^{-1}$. Similarly, using the merger cold front in NGC~1404 in the Fornax cluster, \citep{su17a} put an upper limit at 5\% of the Spitzer value.
The estimation of the upper limit of the ICM viscosity using sloshing cold fronts (especially sloshing in the plane of the sky) has been difficult due to the difficulty of estimating the shear velocity perpendicular to the LOS direction. Estimates based on the comparison of the observation to the tailored simulation have been made \citep{roediger13a,werner16a}. Using the sloshing cold front in Abell~2142, which exhibits multiple KH eddies, and the gas velocity estimate based on centripetal acceleration, \citet{wang18} derived the first quantitative upper limit, $\mu<1/5\,\mu_{\rm Sp}$.
Our result is consistent with the picure presented in the literature that the ICM viscosity is suppressed from the full Spitzer viscosity. The reason that we were able to derive a meaningful upper limit using very conservative parameters, is the high temperature ($\gtrsim$10\,keV) of the system. We used the sound speed, which depends on the square-root of the temperature, for the shear velocity $V$ (Eq.~\ref{eq:viscul}), while the full Spitzer viscosity is proportional to $kT^{5/2}$ (Eq.~\ref{eq:spitzer}). The viscosity suppression fraction is proportional to the inverse of the temperature squared; $\mu/\mu_\mr{sp}\propto kT^{-2}$, and therefore higher temperature systems are more advantageous.
\subsection{Split of the main cold front}
As shown in Fig.~\ref{img:flatimage}, the northern end of the main cold front appears to split in two -- one extends rather along the way of the main cold front (marked as {\it 1}), and the other bends sharply to inside the interface (marked as {\it 3}). A similar split of the cold front is found at $\sim$730\,kpc from the Perseus cluster core \citep{walker18}. Several observational/simulation studies have suggested the existence of such a double-layered structure of cold fronts due to KHIs. These instabilities can develop regardless of the cold front origins: see e.g. \citet{roediger13a,ichinohe19a} for sloshing cold fronts, and e.g. \citet{su17a,ichinohe17} for stripping cold fronts. If one thinks of the cold front as a 3D surface, this double edge may be a projection of an inward depression in the front surface created by KHI. We will also discuss a more exotic possibility below.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{figures/a2319_pspc_cav_radiocont.pdf}
\caption[]{A wider-field archival {\it ROSAT} PSPC image of Abell~2319 (0.5--2\,keV), with two concave segments of the cold front seen by {\it Chandra} (the edges {\it 3} and {\it 4} in Fig.~\ref{img:flatimage}) marked by blue arcs near the center. Contours overlay diffuse radio emission at 1.4\,GHz from {\it VLA} (green) and {\it GBT} (red), reproduced from \citet{storm15}.}
\label{fig:radio}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Southwest concave discontinuity}
Southwest of the center, the main cold front continues as an interesting, much less sharp, concave surface brightness discontinuity (the edge {\it 4} in Fig.~\ref{img:flatimage}). Below we discuss two possible scenarios for it.
\subsubsection{Erosion of the front by KHI}\label{sec:eroded}
One possible cause of this feature is the gas dynamics related to core sloshing, similar to the interpretation suggested by \citet{werner16b} for a concave discontinuity in the Ophiuchus cluster. Hydrodynamic simulations suggest that such deformations of the cold front shape can arise during core sloshing \citep[see e.g., Fig.~22 in][]{ascasibar06}. The gas flow tangential to the front surface should result in KHIs, which at some locations should grow fast enough to disrupt the discontinuity entirely\footnote{Note that the erosion of cold fronts may occur also in stripping, and thus the exact origin of the cold front does not affect for this discussion.}. The southwest concave structure may be such a region of the front eroded by KHI, as schematically depicted with the dashed line in Fig.~\ref{fig:eroded}.
Although the surface brightness profile (Fig.~\ref{img:prof_others} bottom) and the thermodynamic maps (Fig.~\ref{img:thermomaps}) both indicate that the gas properties are different inside and outside this edge, neither the profile nor the image (Fig.~\ref{img:flatimage}) show sharp features. A close inspection of the X-ray image shows wavy {\it feathery} structure of the discontinuity, similar to the Perseus cluster cold front \citep{ichinohe19a}. The `finger' discussed in Section~\ref{sec:khi} is the most prominent of those {\it feathers}. This region may have large KH rolls mixing the gases on two sides of the former discontinuity. In projection, they may not appear as the typical simulated KHI rolls \citep[e.g.,][]{roediger13a} because of their more complex 3D structure.
\subsubsection{A giant AGN outburst?}\label{sec:agn}
We also consider an interesting, but at this point rather speculative alternative possibility. A similar concave X-ray feature near the core of the Ophiuchus cluster, upon comparison with the radio data, turned out to be the result of the most powerful known AGN explosion \citep{giacintucci20}. AGN outbursts generate powerful jets that transport large amounts of energy from the nucleus and deposit it at a distance, typically within the cluster cool core. This process creates a pair of bubbles in the ICM, filled with relativistic particles mixed with hot ICM. In the X-ray images, these bubbles are seen as symmetric pairs of round cavities or depressions; typical examples are the Perseus cluster \citep{fabian06}, Hydra A \citep{nulsen05} and MS0735+74 \citep{mcnamara05}. Apparently, the outburst can be powerful enough for these bubbles to form outside the cool core, as in the Ophiuchus cluster \citep{giacintucci20}. In such a case, the X-ray cavity can be difficult to see in its entirety --- only its innermost segment, closest to the core, may be seen as a concave feature. However, the pair of diffuse radio lobes filling the cavity should always be present --- though, as in Ophiuchus, they may emit at very low radio frequencies.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:radio}, we show a wider-field archival X-ray image of Abell~2319 from {\it ROSAT} PSPC, with overlays of 1.4\,GHz radio maps from {\it VLA} and {\it GBT}, reproduced from \citet{storm15}. For {\it VLA}, compact sources have been removed to the degree possible. For {\it GBT}, only the lowest contour is shown. The {\it GBT} angular resolution is low, comparable to the size of the cluster cool core, but it does not miss the faint extended emission on large angular scales, because it is a full-aperture instrument. The radio emission consists of a relatively bright minihalo candidate that fills the bright core of the cluster and follows the distribution of the lowest temperature ICM, and a more extended emission, which \citet{storm15} interpret as a giant radio halo enveloping the minihalo (for review of the types of diffuse radio sources in clusters see \citealt{vanweeren19}). A similar observation was made by \citet{govoni04} using less sensitive {\it WSRT} radio data and earlier {\it Chandra} data.
Interestingly, the {\it GBT} image reveals a faint radio extension to the NE, opposite to the SW extension seen by the {\it VLA} (it may have been missed by the {\it VLA} because of the limitations of an interferometer). Fig.~\ref{fig:radio} also marks the two concave X-ray features that we find on the opposite sides of the cluster core. It is conceivable that those features are the inner boundaries of two giant X-ray cavities, and the radio emission that extends beyond the minihalo is in fact a pair of giant radio lobes that fill those cavities, similar to the Ophiuchus lobe.
Abell~2319 is of course not completely analogous to Ophiuchus --- Ophiuchus has a dense cool core and its central galaxy has a weak radio source (AGN) that could have powered the outburst, while Abell~2319 has no cool core and its BCG does not show any radio source in the current data (there is a faint source but it is offset from the galaxy center). However, despite the powerful past outburst, the AGN in Ophiuchus is currently very weak, because core sloshing has displaced the gas density peak from it and apparently starved it of accretion material \citep{werner16b}. It is quite possible that the disturbance that caused sloshing in Abell~2319 has disrupted its cool core (Section~\ref{sec:origin}) and starved its AGN even more thoroughly. It is also possible that the past AGN outburst itself has disrupted its fuel supply.
The energy of an AGN outburst that would be required to create these putative bubbles can be estimated using the radius of curvature of the edge {\it 4} of $\sim$130\,kpc. Combining it with the density and temperature profiles shown in \citet{ghirardini18}, the total cavity enthalpy \citep{churazov02,birzan04} is estimated at $\sim$5$\times10^{61}$\,erg. This is comparable with the most powerful cluster AGN outbursts reported in the literature \citep{mcnamara05,vantyghem14,werner16b,giacintucci20}. Such energy would be more than sufficient to completely disrupt a cool core if deposited inside the core. Note that the existence of the candidate minihalo (REF) is also in favor of the scenario that Abell~2319 used to be a cool-core cluster.
A higher-resolution radio map, sensitive to the large-scale emission and preferably obtained at low radio frequencies (where the aged AGN radio lobes should be relatively brighter), is required to determine whether this is a pair of radio lobes and not a giant halo. {\it LOFAR} may be able to derive such a map. Recently, {\it LOFAR} has resolved a presumed `giant halo' in another cluster, Abell~2390, into a pair of giant radio lobes \citep{savini19} coincident with X-ray cavities \citep{vikhlinin05}. If this scenario is supported by future radio data, it may indicate that such powerful outbursts are more common than we thought.
\subsection{A hole in the front}\label{sec:pocket}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{figures/thermo_pocket_20210201.pdf}
\caption[]{The azimuthal variations of the thermodynamic properties inside the cold front.}
\label{img:azimuthal_variation_thermo}
\end{figure}
As we noted in Section.~\ref{sec:cf}, the amplitude of the gas density jump at the front shows a local drop around the position angle of 200$^\circ$, where the azimuthal profile of the inner power-law slope takes a local maximum (Fig.~\ref{img:azimuthal_variation}). A close examination of the X-ray image shows a curious depression in the X-ray brightness inside the cold front (dashed circle in Fig.~\ref{img:flatimage}). The gas temperature at this position is higher than elsewhere inside the cold front, see Fig.~\ref{fig:qian_tmap}, where this spot is marked by an arrow. We fit spectra in several regions inside the front shown in Fig.~\ref{img:flatimage_pocket} right (the outer radii of the sectors are determined by averaging the best-fit break radii shown in Fig.~\ref{img:azimuthal_variation}). The fit results are given in Fig.~\ref{img:azimuthal_variation_thermo}. To obtain the electron number density, we assumed the LOS depth of the X-ray emitting gas is $L=$100\,kpc. The fits confirm the higher ICM temperature at the position of the brightness depression. We offer two explanations for this feature.
\subsubsection{Non-uniform gas mixing}
In one, the higher-entropy gas in this spot (Fig.~\ref{img:thermomaps} right) originates outside the front. It could be transported under the front, for example, as a result of the KH instability \citep[e.g.,][]{roediger13b}. It is conceivable that this may happen in 3D without disrupting the sharp front boundary that we see in projection. It is expected that both the density contrast and the difference of the density slopes are smeared due to the gas mixing. The KHI-induced gas mixing is more efficient around the position angle of 200$^\circ$ than the surrounding angles, i.e. a KHI eddy may `funnel' hotter gas from the outside of the front that penetrates below the cold front interface at this location.
\subsubsection{A breach in magnetic insulation layer?}
Another interesting possibility is heat conduction from the outer side of the front. In general, the gas inside a cold front should be thermally insulated from the outer gas by a magnetic field layer parallel to the front surface, which should form as a result of magnetic draping \citep{markevitch07}. In the ICM, the heat is not transmitted across the magnetic field lines. However, MHD simulations by \citet{zuhone13a} showed that such insulation is not perfect --- some field lines can cross from the inner to the outer region. Because sloshing cold fronts have a finite `height' in the direction perpendicular to the plane of the sloshing spiral, some field lines may climb over the front `fence.' Other lines can pass through the front because of imperfect field draping. Thermal conduction along such stray magnetic field lines may heat the gas locally inside the front and produce high-entropy regions such as the one we observe.
\section{Conclusions}
In this paper, we studied the cold front in Abell~2319 in detail using $\sim$90~ks archival {\it Chandra} data. The main results of our work are summarized below.
\begin{enumerate}
\item We find several substructures associated with the cold front, including the sub-opening-angle scale variation of the interface radii of the cold front and the `finger' of cool bright gas extending outwards from the front. These features are naturally explainable by Kelvin-Helmholtz instabilities developing on the interface generated by gas sloshing mostly in the plane of the sky. Dedicated numerical simulations are required to prove the origin of the cold front and of the detected features.
\item Thanks to the high temperature of the system, based on this interpretation, we can place an upper limit on the ICM viscosity at several times below the full isotropic Spitzer viscosity, with rather conservative assumptions about the geometry and shear velocity.
\item We found that the northern edge of the main cold front diverges into two different directions.
\item We found a concave surface brightness discontinuity southwest of the cluster core. This can result either from merger induced gas dynamics or from one of the most powerful $\sim5\times10^{61}$\,erg, AGN outbursts.
\item We found a hotter region inside the cold front. The density jump and the difference of density slopes between the gas inside and outside the interface are weaker at the corresponding azimuths. We suggest that this may be due either to non-uniform gas mixing or a hole in the magnetic layer that thermally insulates the front.
\end{enumerate}
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank the referee for constructive suggestions and comments, and Dr. Shutaro Ueda for useful discussions. YI is supported by the Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science with KAKENHI grant Nos. JP18H05458, JP20K14524 and JP20K20527. A. Simionescu is supported by the Women In Science Excel (WISE) programme of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), and acknowledges the World Premier Research Center Initiative (WPI) and the Kavli IPMU for the continued hospitality. SRON Netherlands Institute for Space Research is supported financially by NWO.
\section*{Data Availability}
The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author.
\bibliographystyle{mnras}
|
\section*{Abstract}
{\bf
Strongly interacting quantum systems described by non-stoquastic Hamiltonians exhibit rich low-temperature physics. Yet, their study poses a formidable challenge, even for state-of-the-art numerical techniques. Here, we investigate systematically the performance of a class of universal variational wave-functions based on artificial neural networks, by considering the frustrated spin-$1/2$ $J_1-J_2$ Heisenberg model on the square lattice. Focusing on neural network architectures without physics-informed input, we argue in favor of using an ansatz consisting of two decoupled real-valued networks, one for the amplitude and the other for the phase of the variational wavefunction. By introducing concrete mitigation strategies against inherent numerical instabilities in the stochastic reconfiguration algorithm we obtain a variational energy comparable to that reported recently with neural networks that incorporate knowledge about the physical system. Through a detailed analysis of the individual components of the algorithm, we conclude that the rugged nature of the energy landscape constitutes the major obstacle in finding a satisfactory approximation to the ground state wavefunction, and prevents learning the correct sign structure. In particular, we show that in the present setup the neural network expressivity and Monte Carlo sampling are not primary limiting factors.
}
\vspace{10pt}
\noindent\rule{\textwidth}{1pt}
\tableofcontents\thispagestyle{fancy}
\noindent\rule{\textwidth}{1pt}
\vspace{10pt}
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Understanding the effect of many-body interactions in quantum systems is a long-standing challenge of modern physics: the exponential growth of the Hilbert space with the number of particles makes solving the Schr\"odinger equation impossible beyond a few dozen degrees of freedom. Over the last decades, the advent of sophisticated computational methods has led to breakthroughs in addressing the quantum many-body problem: quantum Monte Carlo techniques~\cite{sandvik2010}, tensor network approaches~\cite{schollwock2011,orus2014} and the dynamical mean-field theory framework~\cite{georges1996} are now standard tools when it comes to studying strongly correlated systems. However, each of these methods can only address specific classes of problems efficiently, and many remain yet to be solved.
Prominent among the challenging problems is that of frustrated models~\cite{diep2005,pavarini2015}. In antiferromagnetic (AF) systems, for instance, frustration may prevent conventional N\'eel order at low temperatures and lead instead to exotic magnetic states such as spin liquids~\cite{balents2010,savary2016,vojta2018}. A paradigmatic example of such a system is the AF spin-$1/2$ $J_1-J_2$ model on the square lattice. Its Hamiltonian reads as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{H} = J_1\sum\nolimits_{\langle i,j\rangle} \boldsymbol{S}_i\cdot\boldsymbol{S}_j + J_2\sum\nolimits_{\langle\kern-4.5pt~\langle\xspace i,j\rangle\kern-4.5pt~\rangle\xspace} \boldsymbol{S}_i\cdot\boldsymbol{S}_j,
\label{eq:H_J1_J2}
\end{equation}
where $\boldsymbol{S}_i=(S^x_i, S^y_i, S^z_i)$ is the spin-$1/2$ operator acting on lattice site $i$, with a total of $N=L\times L$ lattice sites; we adopt periodic boundary conditions and we assume $J_1,\,J_2\geq 0$. The notation $\langle i,j\rangle$ and $\langle\kern-4.5pt~\langle\xspace i,j\rangle\kern-4.5pt~\rangle\xspace$ restricts the sum to nearest and next-nearest neighbor spins, respectively. Working in the $S^z$ basis, denoted by $|\boldsymbol{s}\rangle\equiv|\boldsymbol{s}_1,\boldsymbol{s}_2,\ldots,\boldsymbol{s}_N\rangle$ with $\boldsymbol{s}_i=\uparrow,\downarrow$, the normalized ground state of Eq.~\eqref{eq:H_J1_J2} can be written without loss of generality as,
\begin{equation}
|\Psi_\mathrm{gs}\rangle = \sum\nolimits_{\{\boldsymbol{s}\}}c_{\boldsymbol{s}}|\boldsymbol{s}\rangle,~\mathrm{with}~c_{\boldsymbol{s}}\in\mathbb{R}.
\label{eq:psi_gs}
\end{equation}
For $J_1=0$ or $J_2=0$, the system is frustration-free, and AF interactions display a bipartite pattern with sublattices $\mathsf{A}$ and $\mathsf{B}$. Therefore, the Marshall-Peierls sign rule applies~\cite{marshall1955,lieb1961,lieb1962}: the sign of the ground state coefficients $c_{\boldsymbol{s}}$ is fully determined by the parity of the total number of spins pointing up or down on one of the sublattices, i.e., $\mathrm{sign}\left(c_{\boldsymbol{s}}\right)=(-1)^{N_\mathrm{\uparrow\in\mathsf{A}}(\boldsymbol{s})}$. This prior knowledge allows one to perform a sublattice spin rotation to make the ground state wavefunction positive, eliminating the infamous sign-problem in quantum Monte Carlo simulations~\cite{loh1990,troyer2005}. At $J_2=0$, the system displays N\'eel order with wavevector $\boldsymbol{q}=(\pi,\pi)$~\cite{sandvik1997,buonaura1998}, and collinear stripe order with wavevector $\boldsymbol{q}=(0,\pi)$ or $(\pi,0)$ for $J_1=0$.
Away from the two values $J_1=0$ and $J_2=0$, frustration sets in, and the Marshall-Peierls sign rule does not hold anymore. The lack of efficient numerical methods makes the phase diagram elusive, with discordant scenarios tracing back to the early days of research on high-temperature cuprate superconductors~\cite{chandra1988,dagotto1989,gelfand1989,figeirido1990,singh1990,read1991,schulz1992,ivanov1992,richter1994violation,einarsson1995,schulz1996,singh1999,capriotti2000,capriotti2001,mambrini2006,sirker2006,darradi2008,arlego2008,murg2009,beach2009,richter2010,mezzacapo2012groundstate,yu2012,jiang2012,zhang2013resonating,zhang2013frustrating,wang2013,hu2013,gong2014,morita2015,wang2016,poilblanc2017,hagshenas2018,sandvik2018,liu2018,ferrari2018,roscher2019,poilblanc2019}. Although most studies point toward the existence of an intermediate phase (or two) in a small parameter window around $J_2/J_1\approx 0.5$, sandwiched between the N\'eel and stripe phases, its existence remains controversial. Proposed ground state candidates go from columnar~\cite{singh1990,read1991,singh1999} or plaquette~\cite{capriotti2000,mambrini2006,gong2014,yu2012} valence-bond states to gapped~\cite{jiang2012} or gapless~\cite{hu2013,liu2018} spin liquids.
The advent of machine learning (ML) techniques~\cite{mehta2019high,carleo2019machine,carrasquilla2020machine} has brought new hope in addressing challenging many-body problems, with neural networks being used as a generic variational ansatz~\cite{carleo2017}. In particular, much like the~\texttt{MNIST} data set of handwritten digits in the ML community~\cite{MNIST}, the ground state search of the frustrated $J_1-J_2$ model has recently turned into a test bed for ideas attempting to push the boundaries of neural-network-based variational approaches~\cite{Nomura2017,choo2019,ferrari2019,westerhout2020,szabo2020,Nomura2020}. Such studies currently receive considerable attention for both equilibrium~\cite{choo2018symmetries,kaubrueger2018chiral,saito2018machine,park2020,hibatallah2020,borin2020approximating,pilati2020simulating} and non-equilibrium~\cite{Schmitt2018,czischek2018quenches,fabiani2019investigating,fabiani2019ultrafast,wu2020artificial,Schmitt2019,Burau2020} problems.
A noteworthy difference between typical ML problems and neural quantum states is the high precision that variational quantum many-body simulations aim to achieve to resolve the exact ground state. In that respect, neural quantum states pose their own interesting technical challenges.
\subsection{State of the art}
Contrary to classifying handwritten digits, finding the ground state of the $J_1-J_2$ model at $J_2/J_1\approx 0.5$ still appears to pose a significant challenge, even for state-of-the-art approaches. Recent efforts to employ neural networks for this problem can be summarized in two categories: (i) expanding some otherwise physically motivated variational ansatz, and (ii) pure (i.e., end-to-end) neural network wave functions. Whereas (i) enabled the detailed study of ground state properties even in the most challenging regime around $J_2/J_1\approx 0.5$~\cite{Nomura2017,ferrari2019,Nomura2020, nomura2021helping}, achieving sufficient accuracy with neural network wave functions without physics-informed input remains a formidable challenge despite continuing efforts~\cite{choo2019,westerhout2020,szabo2020,hibatallah2020,nomura2021helping}.
Away from the highly frustrated point $J_2/J_1\approx 0.5$, a deep convolutional neural network (CNN) was shown in Ref.~\cite{choo2019} to perform on par with, and even improve upon, existing density matrix renormalization group~\cite{white1992,white1993,jiang2012,gong2014,sandvik2018} and standard variational quantum Monte Carlo (VQMC)~\cite{hu2013,morita2015} simulations, while involving fewer variational parameters. It was also demonstrated that one can employ neural networks to enhance the performance of variational Gutzwiller states~\cite{ferrari2019}. Similarly, endowing pair-product states with a neural network, enabled the authors of Ref.~\cite{Nomura2020} to identify two different phases in the vicinity of $J_2/J_1\approx 0.5$, one of which a spin liquid with fractionalized spinons.
Moreover, in Ref.~\cite{nomura2021helping}, which appeared during the preparation of this manuscript, substantial advancements in accuracy are reported. In that case, the non-stoquasticity of the Hamiltonian is alleviated by incorporating the Marshall-Peierls rule and the gain in accuracy is attributed to the symmetrization of very large Restricted Boltzmann Machines with quantum number projections.
While these studies show that neural networks are sufficiently versatile to find a pretty good approximation to the ground state --- and excited states~\cite{hendry2019,duric2020,nomura2021helping} --- in a large part of parameter space, the region $J_2/J_1\approx 0.5$ appears to be an intriguing exception, in particular for pure neural network states without extra physics input. Although learning the Marshall-Peierls rule, which governs the signs in the antiferromagnetic ($J_2=0$) and striped ($J_1=0$) phases is feasible~\cite{szabo2020,hibatallah2020}, this has remained elusive on the square lattice for $J_2/J_1\approx 0.5$. It was recently shown that a generic problem arises using deep-learning-based variational Monte Carlo in frustrated systems: learning the signs of the expansion coefficients in the $S^z$-basis, has increased complexity~\cite{westerhout2020}.
At first sight, these difficulties seem to be at odds with the fact that neural networks are universal function approximators in the limit of sufficiently large network size~\cite{HORNIK1991251,Kim2003,LeRoux2008}, and should therefore constitute a suited variational ansatz class that does not require further physical insight.
\subsection{Overview of the main results}
Our goal in this work is to provide a detailed account of the performance of pure neural network wave functions (i.e., without using extra physics-informed input) optimized by VQMC to encode the ground state at the maximally frustrated point $J_2/J_1=0.5$. We emphasize that our focus is on understanding the methodological challenges. Therefore, we restrict our discussion to system sizes up to $N=6\times6$ spins, which already exhibit the typical difficulties, and for which we can still obtain reference data using exact diagonalization for comparison.
As a result of a variety of numerical experiments, the main findings presented in the following are:
\begin{itemize}
\item Holomorphic networks generalize poorly due to unbounded output and because of the Cauchy-Riemann constraint on gradients. The latter induces potentially restrictive correlations between the phase and amplitude output of the network which limits the learning capabilities of the ansatz. We show that these issues can be mitigated using a non-holomorphic (but still complex-valued) bounded ansatz, which contains two decoupled real-valued networks for the phase and logarithm of the absolute value, of the variational probability amplitude.
\item The Marshall-Peierls sign rule appears to be a universal attractor (in the optimization dynamics) even for unbiased networks. The variational parameters which give rise to this behavior define a saddle in the variational energy manifold that is difficult to escape due to the existence of only a few yet high-curvature directions to decrease energy.
\item The expressivity of the quantum neural state ansatz is presently not the limiting factor to find the ground state. Monte-Carlo sampling noise does not provide the bottleneck either.
\item The rugged bottom of the energy landscape generically renders the optimization difficult, and the obtained results -- hard to reproduce. This behavior is caused by an energy landscape topography which features deep valleys, each of which can host many Marshall-Peierls-like saddles. Different optimization runs eventually get trapped into one of these saddles. As a result, increasing the number of parameters in the ansatz is not guaranteed to lead to an improved variational energy at $J_2/J_1=0.5$.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Outline}
This paper is organized as follows. In Sec.~\ref{sec:method}, we introduce variational quantum Monte Carlo for the ground state search problem and define the main quantities of interest, such as energy density and energy variance. We also present the optimization algorithm. Then, we introduce deep neural networks as a variational ansatz for quantum many-body spin systems. In Sec.~\ref{sec:instabilities}, we first introduce two alternative neural network architectures: (i) a single holomorphic network which approximates simultaneously the phase and the amplitude of the wavefunction, and (ii) two decoupled real-valued networks, to approximate the phase and amplitude separately. We provide arguments in favor of using real-valued networks, and exhibit the nature of two subtle numerical instabilities that occur in the ground state search for non-stoquastic Hamiltonians. We also compare the performance of the two architectures. Section~\ref{sec:phases} is devoted to the problem of learning the correct sign structure of the ground state. We introduce the concept of phase distribution and use it to interpret and analyze training bottlenecks. In pursuit of understanding which part of the algorithm prevents learning the correct phase structure, we perform a number of numerical experiments in Sec.~\ref{sec:numerical_exp}, and argue that the expressivity of the ansatz and the Monte Carlo sampling noise do not constitute primary limiting factors. Last, in Sec.~\ref{sec:glassy}, we investigate the problem from the perspective of landscape optimization. We draw practical conclusions, which suggest the glassiness of the underlying rugged landscape for the $J_1-J_2$ model. Finally, we summarize our work, discuss some open problems, and establish connections to other research directions in Sec.~\ref{sec:discusson}. A number of details are presented in the appendices for the interested reader, among which a comparison of various optimization algorithms (App.~\ref{app:opt}), a discussion on building physical symmetries into the ansatz (App.~\ref{app:symmetries}), a stable procedure to initialize the training parameters of deep neural states (App.~\ref{app:net_init}), and local versus global Monte-Carlo sampling updates (App.~\ref{app:MC}).
\section{Variational quantum Monte Carlo with neural network states}
\label{sec:method}
\subsection{Variational quantum Monte Carlo}
\label{subsec:method_var_mc}
The variational principle allows one to search for an approximate ground state of a given Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}$. It is achieved by parametrizing a trial wavefunction with a set of variational parameters $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ in a fixed computational basis $\{\boldsymbol{s}\}$, i.e, $|\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}\rangle=\sum\nolimits_{\{\boldsymbol{s}\}}\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})|\boldsymbol{s}\rangle$. Instead of being parametrized by an exponential number of coefficients as in Eq.~\eqref{eq:psi_gs}, the quantum state is parametrized by a chosen function $\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})$ with a controllable number of variational parameters.
To find an approximation to the ground state, one minimizes the energy,
\begin{equation}
E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}= \frac{\langle\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}|\mathcal{H}|\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}\rangle}{\langle\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}|\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}\rangle} = \sum\nolimits_{\{\boldsymbol{s}\}} p_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^\mathrm{loc}(\boldsymbol{s})\geq E_\mathrm{gs},
\label{eq:energy}
\end{equation}
by finding the optimal values for the parameters $\boldsymbol{\theta}$. Here, the exact ground state energy of $\mathcal{H}$ is noted $E_\mathrm{gs}$, and
\begin{equation}
E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^\mathrm{loc}(\boldsymbol{s}) = \frac{1}{\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})} \sum\nolimits_{\{\boldsymbol{s'}\}}\mathcal{H}_{\boldsymbol{s}\boldsymbol{s'}}\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s'}),
\label{eq:energy_loc}
\end{equation}
is the so-called local energy; it involves the Hamiltonian matrix elements $\mathcal{H}_{\boldsymbol{s}\boldsymbol{s'}}=\langle \boldsymbol{s}|\mathcal{H}|\boldsymbol{s'}\rangle$. For a generic complex-valued variational wavefunction, $E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^\mathrm{loc}(\boldsymbol{s})$ is also complex-valued. The sum over $\boldsymbol{s'}$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:energy_loc} is easily performed for local Hamiltonians for which $|\{\boldsymbol{s'}\}|\sim\mathcal{O}(N)$.
Note that
\begin{equation}
p_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s}) = |\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s}) |^2\Bigl/\langle\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}|\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}\rangle
\label{eq:probability}
\end{equation}
defines a proper probability distribution. It enables the use of Monte Carlo (MC) sampling in order to evaluate the energy of Eq.~\eqref{eq:energy} without having to perform the sum ``$\sum\nolimits_{\{\boldsymbol{s}\}}$'' over the full Hilbert space $\mathsf{H}$: this procedure becomes infeasible if $\mathsf{H}$ is too large, e.g., $\mathrm{dim}(\mathsf{H})=2^N$ for the spin-half system considered. Using $N_\mathrm{MC}$ Monte Carlo samples, we can approximate the total energy of Eq.~\eqref{eq:energy} by its sample estimate
\begin{equation}
E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}} = \bigl\langle\kern-5.5pt~\bigl\langle\xspace E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^\mathrm{loc}\bigr\rangle\kern-5.5pt~\bigr\rangle\xspace \approx \frac{1}{N_\mathrm{MC}} \sum_{n=1}^{N_\mathrm{MC}} E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^\mathrm{loc}(\boldsymbol{s}_n),
\label{eq:energy_mc}
\end{equation}
with $\langle\kern-4.5pt~\langle\xspace\cdot\rangle\kern-4.5pt~\rangle\xspace = \sum\nolimits_{\{\boldsymbol{s}\}} p_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})(\cdot)$ denoting the expectation value with respect to the variational probability $p_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}$. The deviation of the MC estimate from the exact quantum expectation value vanishes as $1/\sqrt{N_\mathrm{MC}}$ in the limit of $N_\mathrm{MC}\to\infty$.
Similarly, the energy variance takes the form,
\begin{equation}
\sigma^2_{E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}} = \frac{\langle\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}|\mathcal{H}^2|\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}\rangle}{\langle\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}|\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}\rangle} - \frac{\langle\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}|\mathcal{H}|\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}\rangle^2}{\langle\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}|\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}\rangle} = \Bigl\langle\kern-6.5pt~\Bigl\langle\xspace\bigl|E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^\mathrm{loc}\bigr|^2 \Bigr\rangle\kern-6.5pt~\Bigr\rangle\xspace_\mathrm{c},
\label{eq:energy_var_mc}
\end{equation}
with $|E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^\mathrm{loc}|^2 \equiv E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^\mathrm{loc}(E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^\mathrm{loc})^\ast$, where $\ast$ stands for complex conjugation. To simplify the notation, we use $\langle\kern-4.5pt~\langle\xspace AB \rangle\kern-4.5pt~\rangle\xspace_\mathrm{c}=\langle\kern-4.5pt~\langle\xspace AB \rangle\kern-4.5pt~\rangle\xspace-\langle\kern-4.5pt~\langle\xspace A \rangle\kern-4.5pt~\rangle\xspace\langle\kern-4.5pt~\langle\xspace B \rangle\kern-4.5pt~\rangle\xspace$ throughout the paper. Note that for exact eigenstates, the energy-variance vanishes. In particular, for the ground state one obtains $E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^\mathrm{loc}(\boldsymbol{s})\equiv E_\mathrm{gs}$ for all spin configurations $\boldsymbol{s}$ independently.
Now that we have introduced the Monte-Carlo procedure which allows us to estimate the energy for large systems, the next step aims at optimizing the variational parameters. The most straightforward strategy is to directly minimize the energy of the system by seeking an expression for the energy gradient with respect to $\boldsymbol{\theta}$, which can be estimated using Monte Carlo. Labeling each parameter with an index $k$, one arrives at
\begin{equation}
\partial_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_k}E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}= 2\mathrm{Re}\bigl(\boldsymbol{F}_k\bigr),
\label{eq:energy_grad}
\end{equation}
with $\boldsymbol{F}$ the so-called force vector,
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{F}_k=\sum\nolimits_{\{\boldsymbol{s}\}}p_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})\Biggl( \partial_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_k}\ln\psi^\ast_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})\Bigl[E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^\mathrm{loc}(\boldsymbol{s}) - E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}\Bigr]\Biggr)=\Bigl\langle\kern-6.5pt~\Bigl\langle\xspace \boldsymbol{O}^\ast_k E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^\mathrm{loc}\Bigr\rangle\kern-6.5pt~\Bigr\rangle\xspace_\mathrm{c},
\label{eq:F_k}
\end{equation}
where $\boldsymbol{O}_k(\boldsymbol{s})=\partial_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_k}\ln\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})$.
Using gradient descent, see App.~\ref{app:opt}, the parameters can be optimized iteratively until convergence of the energy is achieved,
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\theta}_k\longleftarrow \boldsymbol{\theta}_k - 2\gamma \mathrm{Re}\bigl(\boldsymbol{F}_k\bigr),
\label{eq:eucl_grad_desc}
\end{equation}
with $\gamma\in\mathbb{R}^+$ the step size, a small hyperparameter that one controls the optimization speed in the simulation.
Because the variational manifold may have varying curvature in different directions of parameter space, the Euclidean gradient descent of Eq.~\eqref{eq:eucl_grad_desc} can be improved by introducing an appropriate metric~\cite{park2020}. This approach is known as Stochastic Reconfiguration (SR)~\cite{sorella1998,sorella2001,sorella2007,becca2017}, and the optimizations of the parameters take the form,
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\theta}_k\longleftarrow \boldsymbol{\theta}_k - \gamma\sum\nolimits_{k'}\boldsymbol{S}^{-1}_{kk'}\boldsymbol{F}_{k'},
\label{eq:fubini_grad_desc}
\end{equation}
where the hermitian curvature matrix $\boldsymbol{S}$ is given by,
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{S}_{kk'}=\Biggl(\sum_{\{\boldsymbol{s}\}} p_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})\boldsymbol{O}^*_k(\boldsymbol{s})\boldsymbol{O}_{k'}(\boldsymbol{s})\Biggr)- \Biggl(\sum_{\{\boldsymbol{s}\}} p_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})\boldsymbol{O}^*_k(\boldsymbol{s})\Biggr)\Biggl(\sum_{\{\boldsymbol{s}\}} p_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})\boldsymbol{O}_{k'}(\boldsymbol{s})\Biggr) =\Bigl\langle\kern-6.5pt~\Bigl\langle\xspace\boldsymbol{O}_k^\ast \boldsymbol{O}_{k'}\Bigr\rangle\kern-6.5pt~\Bigr\rangle\xspace_\mathrm{c}.
\label{eq:Skkp}
\end{equation}
We evaluate the performance of variational quantum Monte Carlo (VQMC) by monitoring the energy per site and the density of energy variance of $|\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}\rangle$.
Since our goal is to exhibit the reasons for the highly frustrated $J_2/J_1=0.5$ point to defy the VQMC approach, we focus exclusively on small lattices of size $N=4\times 4$ and $N=6\times 6$, which can be directly compared to exact diagonalization simulations. Moreover, we perform a number of experiments where we evaluate the sums ``$\sum\nolimits_{\{\boldsymbol{s}\}}$'' over the entire basis exactly and not stochastically. We refer to these simulations as \emph{full basis} simulations.
\subsection{Neural network architectures}
\label{subsec:method_nn_arch}
We now now turn our attention to the variational ansatz itself for the quantum state $\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})$. Recently, neural networks emerged as a promising class of variational wave functions~\cite{carleo2017}. They are universal function approximators in the limit of infinite depth or width (controlling the number of variational parameters): the neural network expressivity theorem asserts that the accuracy of approximating arbitrary functions can be systematically enhanced by increasing the number of network parameters~\cite{HORNIK1991251,Kim2003,LeRoux2008}. In quantum many-body physics, neural networks have been shown to be capable of encoding volume-law entanglement~\cite{Deng2017,Levine2019}, and thus they are believed to represent an alternative to established numerical techniques based on matrix product states. In principle, neural networks are also insensitive to the spatial dimensionality of the physical system of interest. Finally, with the advent of modern automatic differentiation techniques~\cite{grund1982rall}, such as the backpropagation algorithm~\cite{DREYFUS196230,Rumelhart1985,mehta2019high}, neural networks are amenable to efficient larger-scale gradient-based optimizations.
In this paper, we focus on deep neural network (DNN) architectures, built from layers representing affine-linear transformations parametrized by the parameters $\boldsymbol{\theta}$. Throughout this work, we restrict the discussion to fully-connected layers, and convolutional layers. Different layers $l$ are interlaced with nonlinear activation functions $f_l(\cdot)$ for enhanced expressivity. The output of the first layer $z$ involves no bias ($\boldsymbol{b}^{(1)}_i\equiv0$, see below) and is always fed into an even activation function $f_1(z)=\ln\cosh(z)$ to incorporate spin inversion symmetry (see App.~\ref{app:symmetries}). The subsequent layers utilize the odd activation $f_{l>1}(z)=z-\tanh(z)/2$, which is linear around $z=0$. This was empirically found to be advantageous for learning, because it allows to alleviate the vanishing gradient problem for deep networks~\cite{Glorot2010,Schmitt2019}.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./figs/networks_fig.pdf}
\caption{Schematic depiction of the network layers and visualization of the corresponding mathematical meaning. a) Dense layer, cf.~Eq.~\eqref{eq:dense_layer}. Each neuron in layer $l$ is connected to all neurons in layer $l-1$ without further structure. b) Convolutional layer, cf.~Eq.~\eqref{eq:conv_layer}. The connectivity is typically sparse and within a channel the coupling of each neuron to the previous layer is obtained by translation as indicated by the arrow and evident from the structure of the coupling matrix. In both cases we omitted possible additional biases that can be added to each layer.}
\label{fig:nets}
\end{figure*}
A single fully-connected layer $l$ is defined as,
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{z}^{(l)}_i = \sum\nolimits_j\boldsymbol{W}^{(l)}_{ij}\boldsymbol{a}^{(l-1)}_j + \boldsymbol{b}^{(l)}_i, \qquad
\boldsymbol{a}^{(l)}_i = f_l(\boldsymbol{z}^{(l)}_i),
\label{eq:dense_layer}
\end{equation}
with variational parameters $\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(l)}\equiv\{\boldsymbol{W}^{(l)},\boldsymbol{b}^{(l)}\}$, where $\boldsymbol{W}^{(l)}_{ij}$ is known as the weight matrix and $\boldsymbol{b}^{(l)}_i$ is the bias vector. This layer is pictured in Fig.~\ref{fig:nets}\;(a). General fully connected layers such as Eq.~\eqref{eq:dense_layer} can be supplemented with additional structure to render the ansatz better-suited for the problem of interest. For instance, often times in physical systems the final result is expected to have spatially local and translationally invariant structures, which can be more easily captured by a convolutional layer instead, see Fig.~\ref{fig:nets} and App.~\ref{app:conv_layer}.
In the exponentially large Hilbert spaces of many-body systems, the ratio of (squared) amplitudes required for Monte Carlo sampling, see Eq.~\eqref{eq:probability}, can differ by several orders of magnitude. Therefore, it is more convenient to work directly with $\ln\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})$ instead of $\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})$. We identify the network input with the spin configuration $\boldsymbol{s}$, i.e, $\boldsymbol{a}^{(0)}_j\equiv\boldsymbol{s}_j$, and choose the output layer $N_L$ to contain a single neuron representing the log-amplitude of the variational wavefunction, $\boldsymbol{a}^{(N_L)}\equiv\ln\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})$. The network architectures we use in subsequent simulations are described in App.~\ref{app:NN_architectures}.
Before we start each simulation, we choose uniformly distributed initial parameters $\boldsymbol{\theta}_k$, see App.~\ref{app:net_init}. This results in a uniform log-amplitude distribution and an approximately delta-peaked phase distribution for all spin configurations. Hence, one can convince oneself that the corresponding physical initial state is the (non-normalized) $S^x$-polarized state\linebreak $|\phi\rangle\propto\bigotimes_{j=1}^N\left(|\hskip-0.1cm\uparrow\rangle_j+|\hskip-0.1cm\downarrow\rangle_j\right)$, up to an overall phase factor. Because the $J_1-J_2$ model is $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ symmetric (see~App.~\ref{app:symmetries}), this state is equivalent to the ferromagnetic $S^z$-polarized state, corresponding to the most excited eigenstate in the spectrum of the Hamiltonian~\eqref{eq:H_J1_J2}. Thus, the energy density of the physical initial state amounts to $\langle\phi|\mathcal{H}|\phi\rangle/N = (J_1+J_2)/2$, and the energy variance vanishes.
\section{Numerical instabilities}
\label{sec:instabilities}
In the following, we elaborate on several practical problems that arise in the implementation of variational neural network wave functions. In particular, the approach suffers from numerical instabilities that require special attention. We further contrast the choice of a single holomorphic network to encode the wave function, with representing the amplitude and phase separately using two independent real-valued networks. We argue that the holomorphic network comes with two major drawbacks: (i) restrictions in learning the non-trivial sign structure of the wave function due to the holomorphic constraint on gradients, and (ii) inherent instabilities caused by the unbounded character of holomorphic activation functions. Whereas (i) can be taken care of by working with two independent real-valued networks, we exhibit the necessity to introduce a regularization layer for the log-amplitude network to eliminate otherwise fatal generalization errors that occur during training, even with bounded activation functions.
Although a real-valued Hamiltonian has real-valued eigenstates, in the computational basis $\{\boldsymbol{s}\}$, the wavefunction coefficients $c_{\boldsymbol{s}}$ can have both positive and negative signs, see Eq.~\eqref{eq:psi_gs}. In this work, we focus on the following two possibilities to encode the logarithmic wave function coefficients, see Sec.~\ref{subsec:method_nn_arch}: we either use a holomorphic network with complex parameters (Sec.~\ref{subsec:NN_cpx}), or two independent real networks for phase and amplitude (Sec.~\ref{subsec:NN_real}).
\begin{figure}[t!]
\center
\includegraphics[width=.7\columnwidth]{./figs/cpxnet_Fnorms.pdf}
\caption{Top row: the norm of the force vector $||\boldsymbol{F}_k||$ separated into a log-amplitude and phase contributions shows the large difference between the two in the initial stages of optimization. Bottom row: the corresponding energy optimization curves. Left column: full-basis simulation for $N=4\times 4$. Right column: C simulation at $N=6\times 6$ with $N_\mathrm{MC}=2^{15}$ samples. The log-amplitude contribution to the gradients dominates over the phase contribution at the early optimization stages: since the two contributions enter additively in the network update vector, this might lead to an optimization bias, and prevent learning the correct sign structure at $J_2/J_1=0.5$ (until very deep in the optimization landscape). The AF Marshall-Peierls rule is incorporated into the ansatz through a gauge choice. The network architecture used is listed in App.~\ref{app:NN_architectures}. Optimization was done using RK in combination with SR, see App.~\ref{app:opt}.}
\label{fig:cpx_F_vector}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\center
\includegraphics[width=.7\columnwidth]{./figs/cpxnet_energies.pdf}
\caption{A holomorphic single-layer DNN shows a drastically different performance, depending on whether the AF Marshall-Peierls sign rule is used (blue) or not (red).
The spikes in the blue curve after iteration $400$ occur due to a run-away instability related to poor generalization, see Sec.~\ref{subsec:cpx_inst}. The system size is $N=6\times6$. Optimization was done using SR with the SGD optimizer, see App.~\ref{app:opt}, with fixed learning rate $\gamma=10^{-2}$ and $N_\mathrm{MC}=2^{15}$ MC samples. The network architecture is listed in App.~\ref{app:NN_architectures}, and $J_2/J_1=0.5$.}
\label{fig:cpx_energies}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Holomorphic neural quantum states}
\label{subsec:NN_cpx}
A distinguished class of complex-valued functions are the holomorphic functions. Holomorphic neural states are defined by complex-valued parameters ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}\in\mathbb{C}$, coupled by holomorphic activation functions $f_l(\cdot)$, e.g., $f_l(\cdot)=\ln\cosh(\cdot)$. By definition, such an ansatz can only encode holomorphic approximations to the wavefunction amplitudes. Viewed over the field of real numbers, a key feature of holomorphic functions is that they obey the Cauchy-Riemann equations~\cite{krantz1999}. This constraint reduces by a factor of two the number of independent derivatives computed in backpropagation, as compared to non-holomorphic functions, which results in a ``holomorphic correlation'' between the real and imaginary parts of the variational parameters.
\subsubsection{Holomorphicity-induced correlations between amplitude and phase gradients}
In Sec.~\ref{subsec:method_nn_arch}, we argued that it is advantageous to approximate directly the logarithm of the variational many-body wavefunction. The polar decomposition, $\ln\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})=\ln|\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})|+ i\varphi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})$, induces a corresponding decomposition in the force vector $\boldsymbol{F}_k=\boldsymbol{F}_k^{\ln} + \boldsymbol{F}_k^\varphi$ of Eq.~\eqref{eq:F_k} as follows,
\begin{align}
\boldsymbol{F}_k^{\ln} &= \sum\nolimits_{\{\boldsymbol{s}\}} p_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})\Biggl( \partial_{\boldsymbol{\theta}_k}\ln\bigl|\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})\bigr|\Bigl[E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^\mathrm{loc}(\boldsymbol{s}) - E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}\Bigr]\Biggr),\nonumber\\
\boldsymbol{F}_k^{\varphi} &= -i \sum\nolimits_{\{\boldsymbol{s}\}} p_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})\Biggl(\partial_{\boldsymbol{\theta}_k}\varphi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})\Bigl[E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^\mathrm{loc}(\boldsymbol{s}) - E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}\Bigr]\Biggr).
\label{eq:F_log_phi}
\end{align}
This allows us to separately trace back the energy gradient contributions from the amplitude and the phase of the trial wavefunction. In Fig.~\ref{fig:cpx_F_vector}, we display the norm of the force vectors of Eq.~\eqref{eq:F_log_phi} as a function of the optimization step for a two-layer holomorphic neural network. The significant difference of two orders of magnitude observed between the two contributions suggests that the variational optimization is initially dominated by changes in the amplitudes.
For $N=4\times 4$, we perform a full-basis simulation which converges easily to the ground state. The magnitude of the log-amplitude contribution eventually becomes of the same order as the magnitude of the phase contribution only deep in the optimization landscape. It is at this later stage that the network starts learning the correct phase distribution $\varphi_{\boldsymbol{s}}$, which we can verify by comparing to the sign structure of the ground state wave function obtained from exact diagonalization.
For $N=6\times 6$, using Monte Carlo sampling, we observe that the phase contribution remains small in the first stages of the optimization. It is an open question whether this behavior persists to the later stages of training, or for holomorphic networks with more parameters. We were not able to perform longer simulations due to the instabilities discussed in the following Sec.~\ref{subsec:cpx_inst}. While our data does not predict whether this effect is a generic, Hamiltonian-independent feature, this observation raises a flag to keep in mind when using holomorphic neural states to approximate non-stoquastic quantum states.
It is interesting to note that, when it does not have the antiferromagnetic Marshall-Peierls sign rule built-in, the holomorphic ansatz fails to find a good approximation to the ground state even for deeper networks, see Fig.~\ref{fig:cpx_energies}. We believe that this behavior arises due to the holomorphicity-induced constraint on the network parameters. That said, note that \textit{partially holomorphic}, symmetry-restoring RBM's with the antiferromagnetic Marshall-Peierls sign rule built-in, have recently been reported to outperform convolutional neural networks~\cite{nomura2021helping}.
\subsubsection{Numerical instabilities in holomorphic neural networks}
\label{subsec:cpx_inst}
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\begin{minipage}{1.0\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{./figs/cpx_inst_2020_07_03-22_17_10--DNNcpx-RK_RK-SR_SR-L_6-MC--iter_00001.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{./figs/cpx_inst_2020_07_03-22_17_10--DNNcpx-RK_RK-SR_SR-L_6-MC--iter_00200.png}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Snapshots of the 2D histogram formed by the complex-valued output $\boldsymbol{z}^{(1)}_i$ of the first layer just before applying the nonlinearity in a holomorphic DNN for two fixed training iterations (iteration $1$: left, and iteration $200$: right) show the spread of the gradual output across the complex plane. Eventually, a singularity (marked by a cyan cross for the case of $f=\ln\cosh$) is inevitably hit which produces divergent gradients leading to a training instability. To generate the data, we used the holomorphic DNN from Fig.~\ref{fig:cpx_F_vector} at $N=6\times 6$, and sampled $1000$ spin configurations at the given training iteration which are then symmetrized and fed back into the same network.
}
\label{fig:cpx_plane}
\end{figure*}
The domain of the holomorphic activation functions (or non-linearities) is the entire complex plane, as there are no other constraints on the variational parameters $\boldsymbol{\theta}$. In complex analysis, Liouville's boundedness theorem states that all non-constant entire functions are necessarily unbounded~\cite{krantz1999}. We find that this can potentially lead to two kinds of numerical instabilities.
First, holomorphic activation functions, such as $f(z)\equiv\ln\cosh(z)$ which was originally introduced in the context of restricted Boltzmann machines~\cite{carleo2017,saito2017,cai2018,glasser2018,hendry2019}, have poles in the complex plane. We have observed that the optimization dynamics can tune the variational parameters in such a way as to hit exactly the singularity, causing the algorithm to ``blow up''. To demonstrate the mechanism behind this instability, consider the holomorphic DNN trained in Fig~\ref{fig:cpx_F_vector} [right panel] for $N=6\times 6$. At a fixed training iteration, we can sample a batch of spin configurations from the DNN; we then symmetrize them [cf.~Sec.~\ref{app:symmetries}], and feed them back into the same network, only this time we cut the network open and consider the output $\boldsymbol{z}^{(1)}_i$ after the first dense layer, before applying the nonlinearity $f_1$.
In order to monitor the spread of the pre-activations $\boldsymbol{z}^{(1)}_i$ across the complex plane, we construct a two-dimensional histogram over the pairs of real and imaginary parts of $\boldsymbol{z}^{(1)}_i$, evaluated at the symmetrized sample. Figure~\ref{fig:cpx_plane} shows snapshots of such histograms at training iterations $1$ [left] and $200$ [right], which exhibit the behavior that we typically found: The pre-activations $\boldsymbol{z}^{(1)}_i$, which take small absolute values at early iterations, increase in magnitude during training. Nonetheless the distribution remains dense, meaning that poles -- if present -- are eventually inevitably encountered. In Fig.~\ref{fig:cpx_plane} we marked exemplarily two poles of the holomorphic nonlinearity $f_1(\cdot)=\ln\cosh(\cdot)$ at $z^*=\pm i\pi/2$ [cyan crosses]. A single pre-activation $\boldsymbol{z}^{(l)}_i$ lying sufficiently close to a pole for just a single input sample is sufficient to cause a divergent gradient contribution and thereby a training instability.
For this reason, the complex networks used in this paper [including the ones in Fig~\ref{fig:cpx_F_vector}], are trained using fourth-order polynomial nonlinearities.
Although entering poles in the complex plane can be partially alleviated by using analytic functions instead (e.g., a polynomial approximation to $f(z)$ for small $|z|$ as proposed in Ref.~\cite{Schmitt2019}), the unbounded character remains. This naturally leads to a second kind of instability, triggered by a runaway effect: since the neural quantum states we consider are not normalized (and cannot be, for practical reasons in large many-body systems), the magnitude of the log-amplitude $\ln|\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})|$ can increase indefinitely. As a consequence, one often encounters spin configurations during the optimization procedure with an incorrect estimate of the ratio $|\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s'})|/|\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})|$ by a few orders of magnitude. This leads to a high variance in the Monte Carlo estimate of the local energy [Eq.~\eqref{eq:energy_loc}] or, alternatively, to artificial spikes in the probability distribution $p_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})$. The resulting incorrect estimates of the force vector $\boldsymbol{F}_k$ of Eq.~\eqref{eq:F_k} first cause the algorithm to update the parameters using incorrect gradients, and then eventually to blow up. We find that this issue can often be remedied by using an adaptive learning rate solver, such as Runge-Kutta (RK), which controls the learning rate schedule, see App.~\ref{app:opt}.
Finally, let us emphasize that the representativity theorems for neural networks to be universal approximators in the limit of infinitely many neurons explicitly rely on the boundedness of the activation functions~\cite{HORNIK1991251,Kim2003}. This provides yet another motivation for us to explore alternatives, like those introduced in the following section.
\subsection{Complex-valued neural quantum states with decoupled real-valued networks}
\label{subsec:NN_real}
\begin{figure}[t]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.6\columnwidth]{./figs/regularizer_cartoon.pdf}
\caption{Schematic depiction of the role of the regularizing layer at later stages of optimization. Typical configurations are mapped to the upper end of the linear regime, which allows for maximal contrast to unlikely configurations. As a result outliers with otherwise strongly overestimated amplitudes due to faulty generalization are regularized, because they end up in the flat tail of the activation function.}
\label{fig:reg_cartoon}
\end{figure}
Our previous considerations motivate us to consider two independent real-valued networks to model the complex-valued wave function, $\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})=|\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(1)}}(\boldsymbol{s})|\mathrm{e}^{i\varphi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(2)}}(\boldsymbol{s})}$ with $\boldsymbol\theta\equiv(\boldsymbol\theta^{(1)},\boldsymbol\theta^{(2)})$: one network approximates the log-amplitudes, $\ln|\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(1)}}(\boldsymbol{s})|$, and the other encodes the phases, $\varphi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(2)}}(\boldsymbol{s})$.
A similar ansatz was recently constructed using long-range entangled plaquette states~\cite{thibaut2019longrange}.
Importantly, this ansatz allows for the gradients of the network parameters to be evaluated separately: the parameter optimization following Eqs.~\eqref{eq:eucl_grad_desc} and~\eqref{eq:fubini_grad_desc} can be computed independently for the amplitudes and the phases. Although the log-amplitude and phase networks are independent, the local energy of Eq.~\eqref{eq:energy_loc}, and therefore also the values of the network gradients, depend on the output of~\emph{both} the log-amplitude and the phase networks.
The optimization of networks with real-valued parameters proceeds similar to Eqs.~\eqref{eq:eucl_grad_desc} and~\eqref{eq:fubini_grad_desc}. The equation for gradient descent remains the same. However, in the Stochastic Reconfiguration update we use directly the real parts of the $\boldsymbol{F}_{k}$ and $\boldsymbol{S}_{kk'}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\boldsymbol{\theta}_k &\longleftarrow& \boldsymbol{\theta}_k - 2\gamma \mathrm{Re}\bigl(\boldsymbol{F}_k\bigr), \nonumber\\
\boldsymbol{\theta}_k &\longleftarrow& \boldsymbol{\theta}_k - \gamma\sum\nolimits_{k'} \mathrm{Re}\Bigl(\boldsymbol{S}^{-1}_{kk'}\Bigr)\mathrm{Re}\bigl(\boldsymbol{F}_{k'}\bigr).
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\center
\includegraphics[width=.7\columnwidth]{./figs/NN_size_energies.pdf}
\caption{Variational energy density against the iteration number for a fixed neural network layer structure with increasing number of parameters (neurons). The system size is $N=6\times6$. The network architectures used are listed in App.~\ref{app:NN_architectures}, and $J_2/J_1=0.5$. Optimization was done using RK in combination with SR, see App.~\ref{app:opt}. A total of $N_\mathrm{MC}=2^{15}$ MC samples were used.}
\label{fig:NN_size}
\end{figure}
Real-valued networks can be constructed using bounded non-linearities. This automatically resolves the instability caused by the poles of the activation function discussed in Sec.~\ref{subsec:cpx_inst}. Besides, the runaway instability can be mitigated by introducing a single bounded layer at the top of the amplitude network. Denoting the symmetrized network output in the last layer as $z$ [cf.~App.~\ref{app:symmetries}], we apply to it the activation function,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:bounded_activation}
f_{N_L}(z)=a\tanh\Bigl[\bigl(z-\vartheta\bigr)\bigl/a\Bigr]+\vartheta,
\end{equation}
for a fixed parameter $a$. Only $\vartheta$ is an additional variational parameter here. Setting $a=8$ results in a total log-amplitude network output range of $16$, and is chosen empirically to allow for the log-amplitude network to encode a maximum relative magnitude difference of $|\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s'})|/|\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})|\approx10^7$. The activation function $f(z)$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:bounded_activation} was chosen to have a linear slope for small values of $z$. Because the input for this layer is $|z|\ll 1$ in the first few optimization iterations, $f(z)$ has no effect in this early stage of the optimization dynamics. Later on, the parameter $\vartheta$ will automatically adjust the position of the linear regime in $f(z)$ relative to typical values of $z$, which allows to cut off the large values $\ln|\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})|$ for those configurations $\boldsymbol{s}$ causing the instability.
During the optimization we observed that the parameter $\vartheta$ is adjusted such that the pre-activation of typical configurations lies close to the upper end of the linear regime, allowing to represent accurately their relation to configurations less likely to occur in the MC sample, as depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:reg_cartoon}. Thereby, outliers with a too large pre-activation are automatically regularized as they end up in the flat tail of the $\tanh(\cdot)$ function. We checked that promoting $a$ to be a variational parameter itself produces worse results since this allows for a variable output range of the log-amplitude network and the runaway instability eventually kicks in.
We emphasize that using a bounded activation function alone is not sufficient: if inaccurate updates to the network parameters are generated, e.g., due to a large learning rate, this instability may occur in milder forms, as visible in Fig.~\ref{fig:NN_size} (blue line) and also in Fig.~\ref{fig:optimizers} in App.~\ref{app:opt} for the SGD/SR optimizer. Nonetheless, such a scenario can further be prevented by using an adaptive learning rate algorithm, see App.~\ref{app:opt}, and a sufficiently large MC sample size required for accurate gradient estimates.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\begin{minipage}{.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./figs/phase_distr--iter_00200.png}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./figs/phase_distr--iter_01995.png}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./figs/phase_distr--iter_00500.png}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./figs/spin_configs_exact-eps_05-6x6-2020_06_13-09_51_06--CNNreal-RK_RK-SR_SR-L_6-ED_iter=1995.png}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Snapshots of the distribution of phases and magnitudes at increasing optimization iterations during training (top left: $200$, top right: $500$, bottom left: $1995$) shows the emergent of two phase peaks, a distance $\pi$-apart, signaling the approach to the real-valued ground state wave function (see text). Left panels (blue): a $\boldsymbol{s}$-sample of $10^3$ configurations drawn from the log-amplitude network. Right panels (red): spin configurations that contribute to the local energy and have a nonzero Hamiltonian matrix element ($\boldsymbol{s'}$-sample).
Bottom right: at iteration 1995 subtracting the peaks from the $\boldsymbol{s'}$-sample (middle) in an $\varepsilon=0.5$ vicinity of $\varphi_s=0,\pm\pi$ leaves only the mismatch configurations (red, middle), whose amplitudes and signs are compared against the exact ground state values (right, magenta). The position of the largest-amplitude $\boldsymbol{s'}$-configuration is held fixed and is denoted by a red cross.
The system size is $N=6\times6$. The network architecture is listed in App.~\ref{app:NN_architectures}, and $J_2/J_1=0.5$. Optimization was done using RK in combination with SR, see App.~\ref{app:opt}. The MC sample size is $N_\mathrm{MC}=2^{15}$. Note that the values on the $y$-axes are not absolute, since neural quantum states are not normalized.
}
\label{fig:phases}
\end{figure*}
The runaway instability only affects the log-amplitude network since the values of the phase network end up winding in the argument of the exponential $\mathrm{e}^{i\varphi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(2)}}(\boldsymbol{s})}$: this reflects the known fact that only phase differences in the interval $[0,2\pi)$ are physical. In fact, we observed that the optimization procedure makes use of this gauge freedom towards the later stages of optimization, to position the values $\varphi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(2)}}(\boldsymbol{s})$, corresponding to certain configurations $\boldsymbol{s}$, in different Riemann sheets at a distance $2\pi\ell$ apart, with $\ell\in\mathbb{Z}$. Hence, we find no merit in using a discontinuous $\arg(z)$ activation function~\cite{szabo2020} in the output layer of the phase network, which may cause further problems when computing gradients using backpropagation. Since physical observables are only sensitive to phase differences, this phase network ansatz can result in constant relative phase shifts from one iteration to the next, observed at the later stages of the optimization.
For a fixed system size $N=6\times 6$, we display in Fig.~\ref{fig:NN_size} the variational energy density as a function of the optimization iteration step for different numbers of variational parameters and a fixed architecture consisting of three convolutional layers followed by two fully-connected layers. We find that the optimization algorithm does not consistently yield a better variational approximation when increasing the network size\footnote{For the selected hyperparameters, the blue curve failed the samples post-selection checks, see App.~\ref{app:post_selection}, after ten consecutive attempts of drawing a new MC sample, but the other simulations were well-behaved.}. Hence, our data indicates that the current approach does not produce a well-controlled variational approximation to the ground state wave-function at $J_2/J_1=0.5$. However, as we argue in Secs.~\ref{sec:numerical_exp} and~\ref{sec:glassy}, this observation is not related to the ability of neural quantum states to approximate the ground state (the so-called ansatz expressivity), but is rather an intrinsic property of the rugged variational landscape at $J_2/J_1\approx 0.5$.
\section{Learning the phase structure}
\label{sec:phases}
For real-valued ground state wavefunctions, the correct sign distribution, i.e., $\mathrm{sign}[\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})]$, is difficult to find for frustrated systems in the $S^z$ basis. In Sec.~\ref{subsec:NN_cpx}, we introduced complex-valued variational wavefunctions for which learning the correct signs correspond to learning the correct phase distribution $\varphi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(2)}}({\boldsymbol{s}})$.
In this section, we reveal some of the difficulties associated with learning the sign structure of the ground state wavefunction in the $J_1-J_2$ model. First, we analyze data obtained from the neural network states, and show that it does not encode the exact ground state sign distribution; we then briefly quantify how much the exact ground state sign distribution differs from the Marshall-Peierls distribution.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:phases}, we show snapshots of the phase distribution during the training process as a scatter plot in the $\ln|\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(1)}}|^2$ versus $ \varphi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(2)}}$ plane. The left panels (blue data points) show a sample of $10^3$ spin configurations $\boldsymbol{s}$ drawn according to the probabilities encoded in the log-amplitude network at a fixed training iteration [see caption]. The right panels (red data points) show all configurations $\boldsymbol{s'}$ which contribute a nonzero matrix element $\mathcal{H}_{\boldsymbol{ss'}}$ to the local energy, see Eq.~\eqref{eq:energy_loc} (these are about $8\times10^4$ configurations for $N=6\times 6$ at the largest training iteration shown). Since phases are defined modulo $2\pi$, we wrap the output of the phase net in the interval $[-\pi,\pi)$. To fix the global phase, we find the configuration $\boldsymbol{s}_0$ in the $\boldsymbol{s}$-sample of $10^3$ states with the largest value of $\ln|\psi_{\boldsymbol\theta^{(1)}}(\boldsymbol{s})|$, and use it to set $\ln|\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(1)}}(\boldsymbol{s}_0)|=0$ and $\varphi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(2)}}({\boldsymbol{s}_0})=0$.\footnote{Fixing the value of $\ln|\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s}_0)|$ is allowed because neural quantum states are non-normalized wavefunctions.}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:phases}, we observe two emerging peaks along the $\varphi$-axis at a distance $\pi$ apart. Hence, we see that the algorithm correctly identifies that the ground state is real-valued (up to a global phase). While the phases of all states of the $\boldsymbol{s}$-sample are learned to be separated by $\pi$ at the later training iterations, there exist small-amplitude $\boldsymbol{s'}$-states which are misaligned with the main phase peaks. This can be explained by noting that these states have tiny amplitudes and do not contribute significantly to the local energy, and hence also to the gradients used to update the variational parameters\footnote{A clearly visible feature displayed in the lower row of Fig.~\ref{fig:phases} is the asymmetry/skewedness of the phase distribution for the samples $\boldsymbol{s'}$. We checked that it represents the manifestation of a dynamical drag effect. It occurs because phases are defined modulo $2\pi$ and the global phase rotates quickly as a result of updates during the training process (one can think of the two phase peaks moving together). Since the large-amplitude states give rise to the major contribution to the updates of the neural network parameters, the low-amplitude states start lagging behind. This drag effect is particularly prominent for those training iterations when the energy changes quickly, or when we do not use an adaptive learning rate solver (e.g., SGD). We checked that the drag can be reduced or completely eliminated by breaking the U(1) gauge invariance associated with the phase network output, e.g., by adding a bounded non-linearity as a final output layer in the phase network. However, this did not improve the variational energies.}.
To investigate whether our network learned the correct sign distribution, we do a comparison against the exact ground state, obtained using exact diagonalization on a $6\times 6$ lattice~\cite{sandvik2010,weinberg2017,weinberg2019}. At a fixed iteration, for each set of configurations (the blue and red data points in Fig.~\ref{fig:phases}), we evaluate the signs according to (i) the antiferromagnetic Marshall-Peierls sign rule, (ii) the exact ground state at $J_2/J_1=0.5$, and (iii) the optimized neural network at the latest available iteration (Fig.~\ref{fig:phases}, lower right panel):
\begin{itemize}
\item Out of the $10^3$ samples $\boldsymbol{s}$, $99.8\%$ have identical signs in the AF Marshall-Peierls rule and the exact ground state. This means that the large majority of states which can be drawn from the network cannot help distinguish the true ground state phase structure from the AF Marshall-Peierls signs. For the remaining $0.2\%$ mismatch configurations, we computed the neural network predictions and compared it against AF Marshall-Peierls and the exact ground state distribution. We find a clear agreement with the AF Marshall-Peierls rule, implying that the neural network did not learn the correct sign distribution, even though it was completely unbiased by any pre-training~\cite{szabo2020} or extra unitary rotations~\cite{choo2019}.
\item In the samples $\boldsymbol{s'}$, the percentage of configurations whose signs do not agree between the AF Marshall-Peierls rule and the exact ground state sign distribution is $14.2\%$. However, evaluating the neural network on these states showed that the majority of them ($82\%$ out of the $14.2\%$) appeared consistent with the AF Marshall-Peierls rule. Clearly, the accuracy of this assignment decreases for the states with low amplitudes, since they do not belong to a well-defined phase peak.
\end{itemize}
From these data, we conclude, that our network identifies very accurately the AF Marshall-Peierls rule on high amplitude configurations, whereas at very low amplitudes the coefficients can still have arbitrary phases.
The observations above provide a manifestation of the difficulty of encoding the correct phases in the neural network. It is thus natural to investigate the sign structure of the probability amplitudes in the exact ground state: in the entire computational basis at $N=6\times6$, about $50.22\%$ of all configurations have different signs with respect to the AF Marshall-Peierls rule and the exact ground state. However, all the $50.22\%$ taken together constitute a total of only $1.95\%$ of the norm of the exact ground state. This means that most of these configurations have insignificantly small amplitudes, which makes encountering such states in MC sampling unlikely.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:phases} [bottom right panel], we compare the variational amplitudes of the neural network configurations which do not align well with the main phase peaks, to their exact ground state values. To do this, we consider again the $\boldsymbol{s}'$-sample (red data) at training iteration $1995$, and define an $\varepsilon$-vicinity around the peaks at $\varphi_{\boldsymbol{s}}=-\pi,0,\pi$. We now manually remove all $\boldsymbol{s}'$ that fall within the peaks' vicinity. The remaining $\boldsymbol{s}'$-sample clearly shows large deviation from the ground state phase distribution which is known to be real-valued. Evaluating the relative amplitudes of the remaining $\boldsymbol{s}'$-sample in the exact ground state is shown by the magenta data. Note that we cannot compare absolute amplitude values here, since the neural network state is not normalized. However, we can fix the amplitude value of the largest $\boldsymbol{s}'$-configuration as a reference point, see the red cross. The comparison clearly shows that the majority of the misaligned $\boldsymbol{s}'$-configurations have their amplitudes suppressed in the neural network state by a few orders of magnitude, as compared to the exact ground state. Thus, the VQMC optimization procedure conveniently suppresses the weights of those configurations whose phases cannot be learned well and, thus, their contribution to the gradient update will also be suppressed. As a result, such configurations become difficult to encounter in the MC sample. Since the neural network state in VQMC improves from data generated by the network itself, this slows down the energy minimization procedure.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{./figs/semi-exact_energy.pdf}
\caption{Energy minimization in the partial learning problem for $N=4\times4$ (left panel) and $N=6\times6$ (right panel): $\ln|\psi|$-optimization (blue) shows the amplitude learning curves for the log-amplitude network, using the sign structure of the exact ground-state at every iteration step (i.e., we do not use a phase network). $\varphi$-optimization (red) shows the phase learning curves for the phase network, using the amplitudes of the exact ground state at every iterations step (i.e., we do not use a log-amplitude network). The network architecture is listed in App.~\ref{app:NN_architectures}, and $J_2/J_1=0.5$. Optimization was done using RK in combination with SR, see App.~\ref{app:opt}. The MC sample sizes are $N_\mathrm{MC}=2^{10}$ for $N=4\times4$, and $N_\mathrm{MC}=2^{15}$ for $N=6\times6$.}
\label{fig:semi-exact_energy}
\end{figure}
To sum up, we showed that, instead of learning the exact ground state sign distribution, starting with no bias our neural network approximates closely (though not exactly) the Marshall-Peierls sign rule. We traced the reason for this back to the vanishingly small weights that non-Marshall-Peierls configurations have in the exact ground state, which suppresses their occurrence in the MC samples used for training.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{./figs/N_MC_samples.pdf}
\caption{Lowest variational energy density reached, and its MC error bar versus the inverse size of the MC sample $1/N_\mathrm{MC}$: increasing the sample size does not necessarily lead to a lower energy. Inset: variational energy density against the iteration number for different sample sizes; see inset legend for the values of $N_\mathrm{MC}$. The system size is $N=6\times6$. The network architecture is listed in App.~\ref{app:NN_architectures}, and $J_2/J_1=0.5$. Optimization was done using RK in combination with SR, see App.~\ref{app:opt}.}
\label{fig:MC_samples}
\end{figure}
\section{Identifying bottlenecks which prevent learning the ground state}
\label{sec:numerical_exp}
The results we report raise the obvious question as to \emph{what} prevents learning the correct ground state. Pinpointing the major issue(s) is important from the perspective of improving the neural quantum state VMC technique. For $N=6\times6$, we can compute the exact ground state wavefunction using exact diagonalization, and use it to design a few numerical experiments. Our goal is to check if the training bottleneck arises due to
\begin{itemize}
\item Problems with the optimization of either the log-amplitude or the phase network alone,
\item A MC sampling issue related to the probability of encountering states that can produce the correct gradients to minimize the energy,
\item The expressivity of the log-amplitude or phase network,
\item An issue with the optimization procedure/algorithm.
\end{itemize}
To this end, we perform two sets of experiments, namely studying partial learning problems, where only either phase or amplitude has to be learned (Sec.~\ref{subsec:partial_learning}), and eliminating Monte Carlo noise by performing full basis simulations (Sec.~\ref{subsec:full-basis}). For a fair comparison, we use the same neural network architecture employed in the majority of the figures throughout the paper.
\subsection{The partial learning problems}
\label{subsec:partial_learning}
Consider first the two partial learning problems: (i) sampling from the exact ground state distribution $|\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})|^2$, we optimize only the phase network, and (ii) given the correct values for the phase distribution in the exact ground state, we optimize only the log-amplitude network to see if we can learn the magnitudes of the ground-state probability amplitudes.
Figure~\ref{fig:semi-exact_energy} shows the energy optimization curves for $N=4\times4$ (left panel) and $N=6\times6$ (right panel). Scenario (i) is shown in red and scenario (ii) in blue. As anticipated, we see that the optimization procedure results in energy difference with the exact ground state below $10^{-3}$ for $N=4\times 4$ (left panel). However, for $N=6\times 6$ we find similar behavior as in the full learning problem: (i) optimizing the phase network by sampling from the exact ground state probability distribution, the system ends up trapped in a plateau, corresponding (largely) to the AF Marshall-Peierls rule, which survives at least up to $4000$ optimization cycles (not shown). Importantly, the value of the plateau appears higher than that obtained in the full-learning problem for the two independent simulations we ran. (ii) Interestingly, although optimizing the log-amplitude network given the correct phases, leads to a slightly lower energy, as compared to (i), it does not perform much better than the joint learning problem.
This numerical experiment implies that the log-amplitude/phase-network has trouble learning the correct ground state on its own, even if the second network is taken to produce the exact ground state data. Hence, it remains unclear if it is the phases alone that prevent the algorithm from reaching the ground state (for otherwise, scenario (ii) would reach the ground state).
\begin{figure}[t!]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{./figs/exact_energy.pdf}
\caption{Energy minimization in the full-basis simulation learning problem for $N=4\times4$ (blue) and $N=6\times6$ (red). Albeit faster, for $N=6\times6$, we obtain similar energies as with MC sampling which implies that the problem with reaching the correct ground state is not (directly) related to MC sampling. The network architecture is listed in App.~\ref{app:NN_architectures}, and $J_2/J_1=0.5$. Optimization was done using RK in combination with SR, see App.~\ref{app:opt}.}
\label{fig:exact_energy}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Full-basis simulation}
\label{subsec:full-basis}
To test whether the failure to learn the correct phases is caused by the MC sampling, we can turn it off, and work with the full basis of $15\;804\;956$ states\footnote{For comparison, at $N=4\times4$, the Hilbert space dimension of the ground state sector is $107$.} in the ground state symmetry sector at $N=6\times 6$ (excluding SU(2) symmetry, see App.~\ref{app:symmetries}). We use the same neural network architecture as before, but now all states in the Hilbert space contribute to the evaluation of the gradients $\boldsymbol{F}$ and the curvature matrix $\boldsymbol{S}$, i.e., we perform an exact simulation, free of MC sampling noise, which we refer to as a \emph{full-basis simulation}\footnote{Performing a full-basis simulation is feasible using massive parallelization, and automated differentiation software~\cite{jax2018github}, and to the best of our knowledge, it has not been performed so far on this problem for large Hilbert spaces.}.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:MC_samples}, we fix the seed of the pseudo-random number generator, and compare the energy curves as we vary the size $N_\mathrm{MC}$ of the MC sample over two orders of magnitude (including a point free of MC noise, which corresponds to the full-basis simulation). This indicates that MC noise is not the limiting factor in our variational ground state search. Therefore, throughout the rest of this section, we focus on the full-basis simulation.
The full-basis training curves displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:exact_energy} show that there is a significant difference in the accuracy achieved, for the two system sizes. While the difference to the ground state energy rapidly drops for the small system\footnote{Minimal energy differences achieved with $N=4\times4$ are of the order of $10^{-7}$, see Fig.~\ref{fig:cpx_energies}.}, the minimal energy obtained for $N=6\times6$ is the same as the one achieved in the previously discussed simulations with Monte Carlo sampling. Therefore, our simulations indicate that the Monte Carlo sampling noise is not the limiting factor that inhibits the optimization procedure to go further down the energy landscape.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{./figs/exact_hessian_spectrum.pdf}
\caption{Hessian matrix eigenvalues of the energy cost function, see App.~\ref{app:hessian}: full-basis simulation for $N=4\times4$ at iteration $499$ where $E_\mathrm{gs}=-8.457917$ (blue), and $N=6\times6$ at iteration $675$ where $E_\mathrm{gs}=-18.073818$ (red). Inset: zoom over the first $100$ eigenvalues. The few negative large eigenvalues at $N=6\times6$ indicates the presence of highly curved narrow directions in the energy landscape, which appear hard for VQMC to find. They are responsible for the slowing down of the rate at which energy improves. The network architecture is listed in App.~\ref{app:NN_architectures}, and $J_2/J_1=0.5$. Optimization was done using RK in combination with SR, see App.~\ref{app:opt}.}
\label{fig:hessian_evals}
\end{figure}
Thus, we turn our attention to check the expressivity of the neural network ansatz. This is a particularly challenging task, even if the exact ground state is known, because it requires a definition of expressivity which does not depend on the cost function or the optimization algorithm, for different cost functions or optimizers may yield different results depending on the topography of the optimization landscape. Therefore, we ask the slightly different, yet practically more relevant, question as to whether our best-performing network has reached a local minimum of the energy landscape or not. Ending up in a minimum would be consistent with insufficient expressivity of the ansatz.
To investigate this, we compute the Hessian matrix associated with the energy landscape
\begin{align}
H_{mn}=\partial_{\boldsymbol\theta_{m}}\partial_{\boldsymbol\theta_{n}}E_{\boldsymbol\theta} .
\end{align}
Negative and positive eigenvalues of the Hessian correspond to directions of negative and positive curvature, respectively. A local minimum has the property that the Hessian is positive definite, i.e., all its eigenvalues are positive. Albeit a very time-consuming computation, it is feasible to obtain these eigenvalues due to the relatively small sizes of our networks. The details for the derivation of the explicit form of the Hessian matrix for the neural quantum state ansatz is shown in App.~\ref{app:hessian}.
Figure~\ref{fig:hessian_evals} shows the Hessian eigenvalues for the $N=4\times4$ and $N=6\times6$ systems at later stages of training. Whereas the $N=4\times4$ Hessian has some negative eigenvalues, note that their magnitude is on the order of $10^{-2}$ (see inset). Therefore, these correspond to flat directions on the variational manifold, that the optimization dynamics easily follows as it continues to improve the energy of the variational state. In stark contrast, the $N=6\times6$ Hessian has a few large negative eigenvalues on the order of $10^2$: these are highly curved sparse directions on the manifold, which are hard to find by the optimizer. This might be causing the apparent slow improvement of the energy curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:exact_energy}. We find that all large negative-curvature directions originate from the log-amplitude network, by computing the contribution of the corresponding eigenvectors to the log-amplitude network parameter subspace (the log-amplitude and phase-network parameters are coupled in the Hessian, see App.~\ref{app:hessian}).
More interestingly, the existence of these negative eigenvalues in the $N=6\times6$ system proves that the network parameters have not yet reached a local minimum in the optimization landscape. Hence, expressivity is not a problem causing the observed learning bottleneck. Note that, while this does not imply that our ansatz is expressive enough to encode the exact ground state distribution, it already points at a severe problem with the variational manifold and the optimization dynamics used to explore it.
\section{Rugged variational manifold landscape}
\label{sec:glassy}
The ground state search can also be viewed and analyzed as an optimization problem. In this section, we investigate a connection between the properties of the neural network parameter manifold, and the difficulty of learning the correct ground state. We first discuss signatures in the numerical data of the existence of a highly rugged optimization landscape, and then draw several conclusions of both practical and conceptual importance. We restrict the discussion to the $J_1-J_2$ model, although much of the analysis can be repeated for similar problems.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{./figs/seeds_energy.pdf}
\caption{Variational energy density against the iteration number for different seeds of the pseudo-random number generator. Inset: energy variance per spin. The system size is $N=6\times6$. The network architecture is listed in App.~\ref{app:NN_architectures}, and $J_2/J_1=0.5$. Optimization was done using RK in combination with SR, see App.~\ref{app:opt}. The MC sample size is $N_\mathrm{MC}=10^{5}$.}
\label{fig:seeds}
\end{figure}
The difficulties we encountered using variational quantum Monte Carlo to find the true ground state at $J_2/J_1=0.5$ already at $N=6\times 6$ motivate us to perform another sequence of numerical experiments to unveil some characteristic features of this problem, which imply that we are dealing with a very rugged energy landscape. In particular, we will address the role of pseudo-random numbers, Monte Carlo noise, and finite machine precision.
\subsection{Different pseudo-random number sequences}
\label{subsec:rng}
Notice first that ``randomness'' is an important ingredient of VQMC as it occurs in the selection of the MC proposal updates, but also in the choice of the initial values for the neural network parameters $\boldsymbol{\theta}$. In Fig.~\ref{fig:seeds}, we fix all hyperparameters of the algorithm, and study its behavior for four different initial seeds of the pseudo random number generator (the inset shows the energy variance, which is zero in the beginning of optimization, since the $S^x$-polarized state is an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}$). Note that the energy optimization curves start deviating already in the first few iteration steps: therefore, we see that different runs of the algorithm follow different trajectories on the parameter manifold, despite the fact that they all start from (almost) the same initial quantum state. Upon closer examination, we notice that some of these trajectories appear to be stable, while others are prone to (runaway) instabilities (Sec.~\ref{subsec:cpx_inst}), caused by the optimization steering the variational parameters in a region of parameter space where the neural network generalizes poorly. Following different trajectories on the parameter manifold is physically irrelevant, provided that the final network parameters represent the same~\emph{physical} state. However, we see that, although all simulations gradually minimize the energy, they eventually get stuck in landscape saddles corresponding to~\emph{different} physical states, as becomes evident from the different values of the energy reached.
\footnote{Notice that deep neural networks are nonlinear function approximators, and thus Eqs.~\eqref{eq:eucl_grad_desc} and~\eqref{eq:fubini_grad_desc} define nonlinear differential equations. Hence, one may be tempted to relate the observed behavior to classical chaos (trajectories, starting close in phase space eventually end up exponentially far apart). However, this is not the case for imaginary-time evolution, because classical chaos requires that the underlying equations of motion carry a symplectic (i.e., a phase-space) structure. Chaotic manifold dynamics remain an interesting possibility to consider in real-time evolution though.}
One should keep in mind that the energy landscape in VQMC is not perfectly sharp, i.e., it is only known within the margin of uncertainty produced by the Monte Carlo estimates. MC-induced uncertainty can also cause the optimization to change the trajectory on the parameter manifold. For the $J_1-J_2$ model, we find that an increasingly better resolution is needed in order to reach lower energies. Moreover, the larger the value of $N_\mathrm{MC}$, the faster the energy decreases in the initial stages of optimization, see Fig.~\ref{fig:MC_samples}. Once more we observe that different simulations end up in different saddles even when all hyperparameters are held fixed.
Recall that adding small noise (e.g., due to estimating a quantity from sample averages) is a common practice when training machine learning models: for instance, noise helps overcome shallow barriers in the loss function and (in part) motivated the development of~\emph{stochastic} gradient descent (SGD). Therefore, it is likely that the different saddles VQMC gets stuck in, are located in deep valleys, separated by high and difficult to overcome energy barriers. This topography is reminiscent of spin glasses, and will be the subject of future studies.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{./figs/precision_L_4.pdf}
\caption{Energy minimization curves in a full-basis simulation. The two simulations (cyan, magenta) use two implementations of the VQMC algorithm with the exact same neural network initial conditions and hyperparameters. Inset (black curve): the difference between the two energy curves grows with increasing the iteration number. We observe a deviation between the two curves deep down the landscape due to an error multiplication seeded by machine precision and caused by the rugged landscape. We used a shallow holomorphic DNN with six hidden neurons (App.~\ref{app:NN_architectures}), and $J_2/J_1=0.5$. The system size is $N=4\times4$. Optimization was done using SGD in combination with SR, see App.~\ref{app:opt}, with a learning rate of $\gamma=10^{-2}$.}
\label{fig:precision}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Consequences of finite machine precision}
\label{subsec:machine_precision}
The rugged character of the optimization landscape is best demonstrated in a simple numerical experiment on a $N=4\times 4$ lattice where Monte Carlo fluctuations can be eliminated because of the small size of the Hilbert space, by using a full-basis simulation. We consider a shallow holomorphic DNN, and deliberately restrict the number of neurons to four, so finding the exact ground state becomes infeasible (we believe that this regime contains some of the difficulties encountered for larger systems). We then consider two equivalent but different implementations of the same algorithm, both using SGD with SR [cf.~App.~\ref{app:opt}]. To remove the remaining uncertainty related to the initial network parameters, we also load the exact same initial parameters for both implementations.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:precision}, we show the result of this toy-simulation: stunningly, we find that the errors accumulated due to finite precision of the machine arithmetic are enough to conceivably alter the trajectory of the optimization dynamics. Initially, the difference between two curves shown in the inset of Fig.~\ref{fig:precision} remains close to machine precision up to the plateau at $100$ iterations, reaching as small as $10^{-15}$, which certifies the correct implementation of the two independent codes. Nonetheless, the difference quickly grows again once the two simulations escape the plateau. Such a plateau is reminiscent of the landscape saddle point featuring a few highly curved directions we discussed in Sec.~\ref{subsec:full-basis}. This behavior occurs as the two simulations go down the energy landscape in different directions. These results are disturbing, because they reveal an issue with reproducibility of the simulation. Apparently, it is not enough to keep the same algorithm hyperparameters and the seed of the random number generator fixed: the compute architecture and the low-level software which contains the arithmetic instructions need to also be identical in order to reproduce the data.
The rugged structure of the cost function manifold also explains why different optimizers perform drastically differently, see App.~\ref{app:opt}\footnote{In Fig.~\ref{fig:optimizers}, it is clear that the optimization dynamics gets stuck in distinct saddles, whose energy values differ by orders of magnitude.}. This adds to the evidence that the optimization landscape for the ground state search at $J_2/J_1=0.5$ features a highly complex topography, consisting of many highly-curved saddles located in deep valleys. It is plausible that the energy landscape is glassy because the problem appears difficult irrespective of the optimization method used (VQMC, tensor networks, etc.). The physical intuition for having a glassy landscape here comes from the frustrated character of the physical Hamiltonian which imposes a number of constraints for the ground state to satisfy in order to minimize energy, akin to $k$-SAT problems in statistical mechanics~\cite{nishimori2001statistical}. Similar results have recently been reported in the context of quantum control~\cite{day2019glassy}.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:discusson}
In this last section, we summarize and discuss our results. In doing so, we pay specific attention to separate conclusions backed-up by numerical evidence from plausible explanations and interpretations of the data. We also discuss some open problems we were not able to resolve. Finally, we give an outlook to relate our study to expected near-term progress in the field.
\subsection{Main results}
While they have been demonstrated to work well in a number of problems so far~\cite{carleo2017,saito2017,pilati2020simulating,kaubrueger2018chiral}, when it comes to learning the ground state of frustrated spin systems, such as the $J_1-J_2$ model, holomorphic architectures for neural network quantum states exhibit certain deficiencies: first, the holomorphic constraint correlates the phase and amplitude gradients of the variational wavefunction parameters, which means that an update to the network parameters will cause a change in both the amplitude and the phase of the output. Therefore, fine-tuning of, e.g., only the phases is not possible using a holomorphic ansatz. Second, non-constant holomorphic non-linearities are necessarily unbounded. This compromises the conditions for the expressivity theorem for neural networks, and raises the question whether holomorphic neural networks can be universal approximators. As a way out, we introduced a natural generalization, which eliminates the above drawbacks, where a complex-valued variational wavefunction is defined by two independent real-valued neural networks: one for the log-amplitudes, and the other for the phases.
Using stochastic reconfiguration to optimize the parameters of neural quantum states can be a challenging problem, due to the occurrence of instabilities, which cause the algorithm to blow up. We identified a runaway instability triggered by unbounded approximations to the probability amplitude: this leads to order-of-magnitude wrong network predictions for the local energies, and, consequently, to wrong values for the gradient updates. The runway instability is related to a poor generalization ability of the network. To remedy it, we proposed to apply a bounded output layer of fixed range, capable of capturing amplitudes which otherwise differ by up to several orders of magnitude. A further instability we discuss in App.~\ref{app:net_init} is related to the proper initialization of the neural network parameters, and is particularly relevant for designing deep architectures which do not suffer from the vanishing/exploding gradient problem. Finally, we mention that we found stochastic reconfiguration to produce a much more stable behavior, when combined with an adaptive step-size scheduler, for instance, based on Runge-Kutta methods, see App.~\ref{app:opt}.
Having decoupled amplitude and phase network allowed us to investigate the process of learning the correct ground state phases in an unbiased end-to-end approach, i.e., without any extra physics input. We demonstrated that this removes the necessity to explicitly implement the Marshall-Peierls sign rule in holomorphic networks. Moreover, our phase networks are capable of encoding the Marshall-Peierls sign rule without any pre-training~\cite{szabo2020}, and without the use of a physics-inspired architecture \cite{Nomura2017,ferrari2019,Nomura2020}. All simulations (that do not ``blow up'') end with roughly the same energy density of $E/N\approx -0.5019$. Since the same number occurs in previous studies that differ in the network architecture used and further details of the optimization scheme~\cite{choo2019,ferrari2019,szabo2020}, we believe this behavior to be universal. None of our simulations, including partial-learning and full-basis ones, was able to find the correct phase distribution, or reach a lower energy on the $N=6\times 6$ lattice.
On the variational manifold, the Marshall-Peierls sign rule corresponds to a saddle point, where the energy Hessian contains predominantly positive and a few negative eigenvalues. The existence of the negative eigenvalues indicates that the network parameters have not yet reached a local minimum; this shows that the expressivity of the neural network is not the limiting factor to find a better approximation to the ground state. By performing full-basis simulations, we also eliminated the Monte Carlo sampling noise as another possible suspect, and verified that it does not provide the training bottleneck either.
While incorrect signs constitute an obvious deviation from the exact ground state, by performing separate optimization of the phase and amplitude network, respectively, we found that learning the correct signs is not the sole issue. Also given the sign structure of the exact ground state, our optimization did not result in a more accurate approximation of the wave function amplitudes.
This led us to investigate the properties of the optimization landscape. The numerical experiments we performed suggest that the $J_1-J_2$ model has a rugged landscape, consisting of deep valleys abundant in saddles containing just a few highly curved directions. We showed that this topography leads to issues with reproducibility of the simulations. Moreover, scaling up the number of network parameters does not systematically improve the accuracy of the variational energy at $J_2/J_1=0.5$, since it is easy for independently initialized simulations to get trapped in one of the many different saddles. Many of these landscape features are shared by spin glasses and, therefore, it is conceivable that the landscape might have a glassy complexity.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{./figs/cartoon_figure.pdf}
\caption{Cartoon of the evolution of a variational wave function coefficient in the complex plane during the optimization. The rapid initial optimization renders the wave function real. Subsequently, reaching the correct sign takes very long, because a narrow saddle has to be passed.}
\label{fig:cartoon}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Discussion}
In combination, the observations from various numerical experiments reported in this work indicate that, when addressing the system size $N=6\times 6$, we reach a saddle point in the energy landscape that appears to be very hard to escape. A cartoon of the evolution of individual wave function coefficients is sketched in Fig.~\ref{fig:cartoon}. During the early stages of optimization, the neural network learns to approximate the Marshall-Peierls sign rule with high accuracy, which renders the wave function real and --- together with suited wave function amplitudes --- yields already very low energies. To further reduce the energy, the neural network would have to pick up the correct signs also for a small fraction of configurations in the exact ground state that deviate from the Marshall-Peierls sign rule.
Our observation indicates that the route for the neural network to further reduce the energy is to reduce the wave function amplitude of configurations with incorrect sign. Looking at the energy expectation value expressed in terms of the local energy, Eq.~\eqref{eq:energy}, it is plausible that this is an efficient way to reduce the energy when the majority of the signs is already produced correctly: for instance, if in $E^\mathrm{loc}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})$ only the sign of the coefficient $\psi_{\boldsymbol\theta}(\boldsymbol{s})$ is incorrect, $E^\mathrm{loc}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})$ will have the wrong sign. Then, the energy obtained by Eq.~\eqref{eq:energy} can be lowered by reducing $p_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})$. Figure~\ref{fig:phases} indicates that this is the main mechanism to reduce the energy at later stages of the optimization, because we only find wave function coefficients away from the main phase peaks at very low amplitudes. We furthermore checked on a number of exemplary configurations that the amplitudes learned by the network are systematically smaller than the exact ground-state result for configurations that deviate from the Marshall-Peierls sign rule.
We conjecture that this required fine tuning of few wave function coefficients constitutes the main obstacle preventing us from reaching a better approximation of the ground state. The spectrum of the Hessian evaluated in the final plateau (Fig.~\ref{fig:hessian_evals}) shows that the corresponding saddle reached by the optimization dynamics is largely flat, except for a few eigendirections, which exhibit a strong negative curvature. However, it seems to be very hard for the optimizer to identify these directions --- potentially, because the wave function amplitudes of configurations with sign mismatch are strongly suppressed. It is at this point an open question how this issue can be overcome.
In this context, it is worth emphasizing that stochastic reconfiguration is already a second order optimization algorithm that includes awareness of the curvature of the variational manifold. However, it is based on the metric tensor of the neural network manifold and not directly related to the curvature of the energy landscape (the matrix $\boldsymbol{S}$ constitutes only a part of the energy Hessian, see App.~\ref{app:hessian}). The sparsity of negative curvature that we revealed through the Hessian spectrum might require a different second order approach. Directly utilizing the Hessian matrix in the optimization algorithm appears straightforward, and, although currently expensive, it is within the scope of present-day computational techniques.
\subsection{Outlook}
It is curious enough to note that for $J_2/J_1=0.5$ on the $N=6\times6$ lattice, all works~\cite{choo2019,ferrari2019,szabo2020}, including ours, find comparable variational energies (the energy density difference with the exact one is approximately $2\cdot 10^{-3}$) while the variational ansatz and optimization procedures are different. This suggests a ``universal bottleneck'' in the current use of neural networks as variational quantum states for frustrated quantum systems. It remains an open question whether this bottleneck can be overcome or circumvented by other optimization algorithms or enhanced network architectures.
Our results raise the natural question as to why neural quantum states approximate much better the ground states of other models, e.g., Ising, Heisenberg, Bose-Hubbard, etc.~\cite{carleo2017,saito2017,pilati2020simulating,kaubrueger2018chiral}. We currently believe that, for these models, even when the variational ansatz is expressive enough to capture the true ground state, independently initialized simulations still end up in distinct landscape minima characterized by different values of the network parameters. However, since these minima all describe the same physical state, they are indistinguishable from the perspective of physics. In more complex setups, such as the $J_2/J_1=0.5$ point of the $J_1-J_2$ model we studied, the degeneracy between the landscape minima is lifted, and a rugged landscape emerges. This makes it particularly hard for optimization algorithms to locate the global minimum (i.e., the lowest-energy configuration).
Unlike tensor network approaches where the quality of the variational approximation is controlled by the amount of entanglement entropy across a cut in the lattice, it is currently unknown what sets the limitations for neural quantum states. While there is no apparent sign problem, ``learning'' the correct sign structure in the quantum many-body ground state for non-stoquastic Hamiltonians appears in some cases as a nontrivial and challenging computational problem. Figuring out a way to determine the signs would allow one to safely access larger system sizes, and more generally, to deal with generic non-stoquastic Hamiltonians describing frustrated magnets and interacting fermions.\\
\textit{\textbf{Note added:}} an alternative study of the complexity of finding the ground state of the $J_1-J_2$ model using restricted Boltzmann machines can be found in Ref.~\cite{park2020neural}.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We wish to thank E. Altman, Y. Bahri, C. Fisher, and P. Weinberg for valuable discussions, and G.~Carleo for helpful comments during peer review. We used JAX~\cite{jax2018github} for the deep learning implementation and QuSpin~\cite{weinberg2017,weinberg2019} for exact diagonalization and model symmetries.
\paragraph{Funding information}
M.B. was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research, under the Accelerated Research in Quantum Computing (ARQC) program, the U.S. Department of Energy under cooperative research agreement DE-SC0009919, the Emergent Phenomena in Quantum Systems initiative of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and the Bulgarian National Science Fund within National Science Program VIHREN, contract number KP-06-DV-5. M.D. was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Materials Sciences and Engineering Division under Contract No. DE-AC02-05-CH11231 through the Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing (SciDAC) program (KC23DAC Topological and Correlated Matter via Tensor Networks and Quantum Monte Carlo). M.S. was supported through the Leopoldina Fellowship Programme of the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina (LPDS 2018-07) with additional support from the Simons Foundation. This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No 890711. This research also used resources of the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC), a U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science User Facility operated under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.
\begin{appendix}
\vspace{-15pt}
\section{Variational parameters optimization}
\label{app:opt}
\vspace{-5pt}
\subsection{Brief overview of the optimization algorithms}
Equations~\eqref{eq:eucl_grad_desc} and~\eqref{eq:Skkp} use gradients $\boldsymbol{D}_{k}$ to iteratively compute the updates of the neural network parameters $\boldsymbol{\theta}$. Depending on whether we endow the variational manifold with the Euclidean or its intrinsic Riemannian metric, we obtain the expressions,
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{D}_{k}^\mathrm{E} = 2\mathrm{Re}\bigl(\boldsymbol{F}_k\bigr),\quad
\boldsymbol{D}_{k}^\mathrm{SR} = \sum\nolimits_{k'}\left(\boldsymbol{S}+\delta\boldsymbol 1\right)^{-1}_{kk'}\boldsymbol{F}_{k'},
\label{eq:grads}
\end{equation}
with $\delta$ an exponentially decaying regularizer needed to prevent instabilities at the early stages of optimization.
Formally, $\boldsymbol{D}_{k}^\mathrm{E/SR}$ correspond to the gradients of the energy and the wavefunction overlap cost functions, respectively~\cite{park2020}. Once the gradients are computed, using different optimizers to perform the update will result in various degrees of accuracy. Here, we briefly introduce three common optimizers and compare their performance.
More details on gradient descent methods used in machine learning can be found in Ref.~\cite{mehta2019high}.
\subsubsection{Stochastic gradient descent}
Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) is the simplest and most common optimizer, and corresponds to the update rule:
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\theta}_{t}\longleftarrow \boldsymbol{\theta}_{t-1} - \gamma \boldsymbol{D}_{t},
\label{eq:sgd}
\end{equation}
with $\gamma$ denoting the learning rate and $t$ the iteration step. This first-order method is computationally efficient and inexpensive, and can be parallelized easily for speed. The stochastic character of the method in the context of variational quantum Monte Carlo refers to the estimate of the gradients $\boldsymbol{D}$ over the MC sample. The main disadvantages of SGD are that (i) the gradients $\boldsymbol{D}$ of all parameters are weighted by the same learning rate $\gamma$, and (ii) the learning rate schedule over the iterative optimization procedure is constant in $t$, which can both cause instabilities in the optimization dynamics.
\subsubsection{ADAM}
ADAM is another first-order optimizer which estimates a parameter-dependent learning rate from the first and second order moments of the gradients according to~\cite{kingma2014adam},
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\mathbf{m}_t &\longleftarrow \beta_1 \mathbf{m}_{t-1} + (1-\beta_1) \boldsymbol{D}_t\\
\mathbf{n}_t &\longleftarrow \beta_2 \mathbf{n}_{t-1} +(1-\beta_2)\boldsymbol{D}_t^2\\
\tilde{\mathbf{m}}_t&\longleftarrow\frac{\mathbf{m}_t}{1-(\beta_1)^t}\\
\tilde{\mathbf{n}}_t &\longleftarrow\frac{\mathbf{n}_t}{1-(\beta_2)^t}\\
\boldsymbol{\theta}_{t+1}&\longleftarrow\boldsymbol{\theta}_t - \gamma \frac{\tilde{\mathbf{m}}_t}{\sqrt{\tilde{\mathbf{n}}_t} +\epsilon}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Besides the learning rate $\gamma$, here $\beta_1=0.9$ and $\beta_2=0.999$ are the decay rates of the first and second moment estimates, $\epsilon=10^{-8}$ is a small regularizer, and $(\beta_j)^t$ denotes $\beta_j$ to the power $t$. The main advantage of ADAM is that it can escape narrow and wide valleys of the optimization landscape while retaining computational efficiency which makes it applicable to large neural networks with many independent parameters. Note that a parameter-dependent learning rate can also be achieved by using the SR gradient: although the SR gradients provide a more accurate estimate for the curvature of the parameter manifold, computing the inverse matrix of the curvature matrix $\boldsymbol{S}^{-1}_{kk'}$ of Eq.~\eqref{eq:Skkp} is expensive for a large number of parameters, and also requires $\boldsymbol{S}_{kk'}$ to be well-conditioned.
\subsubsection{Heun's method}
This is a two-stage Runge-Kutta (RK) scheme which allows to adapt the learning rate schedule $\gamma\equiv\gamma_t$ during the optimization process. Depending on the local curvature of the trajectory followed in the parameter manifold, this optimizer can make large steps in flat regions while slowing down in highly-curved regions to efficiently improve the accuracy of the update. In practice, it offers the advantage of not overshooting minima at the later stages of optimization. Additionally, it can stabilize optimization in our setup since large steps correspond to large updates which can implicitly deteriorate the quality of the Monte Carlo sample in subsequent iterations. The major disadvantage of RK methods is their computational cost, since they require multiple evaluations of the gradients per iteration step. We use the implementation described in the supplemental material to Ref.~\cite{Schmitt2019} and, in the rest of this paper, we refer to it simply as RK.
Consider the ordinary differential equation $\dot y=f(y)$. Setting $y_n=y(t)$, we compute $y_{n+1}=y(t+\tau)$ using
\begin{align}
k_1&=f(y_n)\ ,\nonumber\\
k_2&=f(y_n+\tau k_1)\ ,\nonumber\\
y_{n+1}&=y_n+\frac \tau2(k_1+k_2)\ .
\end{align}
Based on this we can estimate the integration error using varying step sizes $\tau$. If we denote the exact solution by $y(t)$, an integration step with step size $\tau$ yields
\begin{align}
y_{n+1}=y(t+\tau)+c\tau^3,
\end{align}
with an unknown constant $c$, because our integration scheme has an error of $\mathcal{O}(\tau^3)$.
Alternatively, we can take two steps of size $\tau/2$, resulting in
\begin{align}
y_{n+1}'=y(t+\tau)+\underbrace{2c\Big(\frac \tau2\Big)^3}_{\delta},
\end{align}
with the integration error $\delta$. The difference of both solutions is
\begin{align}
\Delta y_{n+1}=||y_{n+1}-y_{n+1}'||=\Big|\Big|\frac{3}{4}c\tau^3\Big|\Big|=6||\delta||.
\end{align}
Given a desired tolerance $\epsilon$ we can adjust the step size based on this to be
\begin{align}
\tau'=\tau\Bigg(\frac{\epsilon}{||\delta||}\Bigg)^{1/3}\ .
\end{align}
The choice of a specific norm $||\cdot||$ is in principle arbitrary. Following Ref.~\cite{Schmitt2019}, we employ the norm induced by the $S$-matrix, $||x||_S=\frac{1}{P}\sqrt{\sum_{k,k'} S_{k,k'} x_k^*x_{k'}}$, for that purpose, meaning that we weigh integration errors by their significance for the physical state. Here, $P$ is the number of variational parameters.
We checked that using a four-stage RK (e.g., Dormand Prince) did not provide any advantage over the cheaper two-stage procedure.
\subsection{Comparison of the optimization algorithms}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{./figs/opt_energies.pdf}
\caption{Variational energy density against the iteration number for different optimizers and cost functions. The system size is $N=6\times6$. The network architecture is listed in App.~\ref{app:NN_architectures}, and $J_2/J_1=0.5$. The MC sample size is $N_\mathrm{MC}=10^{5}$. The data were produced from simulations using $1024$ Haswell cores running for $48$ hours.}
\label{fig:optimizers}
\end{figure}
We now test the behavior of the three optimization algorithms introduced in the previous section on the $J_1-J_2$ model. We consider both the Euclidean $\boldsymbol{D}_{k}^\mathrm{E}$ and the Riemannian $\boldsymbol{D}_{k}^\mathrm{SR}$ metric gradients (see Sec.~\ref{subsec:method_var_mc}) to perform the updates and display our results in Fig.~\ref{fig:optimizers}.
We find that SGD (blue curve) is particularly sensitive to the initial condition: the closer the physical state is to an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian, the longer it takes to find the way down the energy landscape. This is somewhat expected, since it can be shown that all eigenstates are extrema of the energy cost function, where $\boldsymbol{D}^\mathrm{E}=\boldsymbol{0}$. SGD produces a piece-wise constant energy curve which requires a large number of iterations for the variational neural state to get close to the ground state.
In contrast, adaptive learning-rate optimizers, such as ADAM (green curve) and RK (red curve), tend to produce updates that rapidly decrease the energy. For the $J_1-J_2$ model, we find that ADAM shows a tendency to enter a wide valley of the energy landscape. Escaping this valley appears to be an extremely slow process already for $N=6\times 6$ sites due to the rugged character of the landscape, as discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:glassy}. RK, on the other hand, also encounters these wide valleys but succeeds in adapting the learning rate schedule within about $2000$ iterations. This allows it to eventually switch to a better valley in the landscape. We emphasize that these results hold in the regime of about $10^3$ neural network parameters, where the optimization problem appears to be constrained.
Unlike the plain energy gradients $\boldsymbol{D}_{k}^\mathrm{E}$, SR takes into account the curvature of the variational manifold by estimating the $\boldsymbol{S}$ matrix from the MC sample to compute the gradients $\boldsymbol{D}_{k}^\mathrm{E}$. Notice that, although SR is designed to find the ground state and thus it effectively performs energy minimization, SR does not formally minimize energy but rather the overlap cost function. Therefore, the SR optimization landscape may in general differ from the energy landscape. This becomes evident for holomorphic neural networks, see Sec.~\ref{subsec:NN_cpx}, where the real part in Eq.~\eqref{eq:grads} induces a difference between the Euclidian and SR gradients even in the flat-metric limit $\boldsymbol{S}\equiv\boldsymbol{1}$. Bearing a formal similarity to what is commonly known as ``Natural Gradient''~\cite{park2020}, SR allows to quickly find good directions down the landscape. Intuitively, if we associate gradients with respect to the neural network parameters with directions on the variational manifold, SR weighs them according to their curvature, facilitating the minimization of the overlap cost function.
While it is formally possible to apply all three optimizers in combination with the $\boldsymbol{D}_{k}^\mathrm{SR}$ gradient, we find empirically that ADAM does not converge and we focus on SGD (cyan curve) and RK (yellow curve); this is because ADAM needs a modification to approximate the diagonal elements of the $\boldsymbol{S}$-matrix~\cite{park2020}. For the selected hyperparameters, we find that SGD fails to converge. We believe this is related to an instability associated with the optimal choice of learning rate (we discuss various types of instabilities in Sec.~\ref{sec:instabilities}). While it is possible to find a network initialization for which the behavior of SGD can be stabilized, we observed that SGD performs worse than RK on average, see Sec.~\ref{sec:glassy} for a discussion of the optimization landscape. In all SR/SGD simulations, we start with $\delta_0=100$ and use an exponential decay schedule $\delta_t=\delta_0e^{-0.075t}$, see Eq.~\eqref{eq:grads}. Second-order adaptive RK, on the other hand, combines successfully the benefits of an adaptive learning rate schedule, and the information about the curvature of the variational manifold. Therefore, we select this combination throughout our study. In all SR/RK simulations, we set $\delta=0$.
Finally, let us make a few comments on the CPU time required by the different combinations of optimizers and cost functions. The energy cost function is much ``lighter'' than the overlap required for SR because it does not require the computation of the curvature matrix $\boldsymbol{S}$, cf.~Eq.~\eqref{eq:Skkp}. Moreover, the absence of $\boldsymbol{S}$ allows one to use much larger neural networks efficiently, since it does not require computing the inverse $\boldsymbol{S}^{-1}$. It is a nontrivial open question whether increasing the number of network parameters can offer any benefits with respect to reaching better energies with first-order energy minimization in the present rugged landscape. Clearly, one downside of using the energy cost function is the number of iterations required to reach a state with a competitive energy, which can well be a few orders of magnitude more, compared to SR.
\section{The convolutional layer}
\label{app:conv_layer}
In Sec.~\ref{subsec:method_nn_arch} we introduced the fully-connected (dense) neural network. However, in our simulations, we use the more sophisticated convolutional neural network ansatz. The convolutional layer can be viewed as a specialization of the dense layer, where each output neuron is promoted to a channel,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:conv_layer}
\boldsymbol{a}^{(l)}_{c,m} = f_l\left(\sum_{c'=1}^{C^{(l)}_\mathrm{in}} \sum_{k=1}^{N_F^{(l)}}\boldsymbol{\tilde{W}}^{(c,l)}_{m,c',k}\boldsymbol{a}^{(l-1)}_{c',\tau_m(k)} + \boldsymbol{b}^{(l)}_m\right),
\end{equation}
where the index $c=1,\dots,C^{(l)}_\mathrm{out}$ introduced in the expression above runs over the number of output channels. The maps $\tau_m(k)$ are chosen to be permutations of the index set corresponding to translations by some fixed stride. Hence, the name convolutional layer. Within each channel, the individual neurons $\boldsymbol{a}^{(l)}_{c,m}$ are coupled with identical weights to the neurons of the previous layer, which were first transformed by the translation $\tau_m(\cdot)$. Therefore, the same kind of information is extracted from all translations.
Moreover, the coupling $\boldsymbol{\tilde{W}}^{(c,l)}_{m,c',k}$ is typically chosen to be sparse, with only $N_F^{(l)}$ non-vanishing elements per input channel, defining a locally constrained receptive field: this means that the convolutional layer can only be sensitive to local features in the input data, see Fig.~\ref{fig:nets}\;(b). Nonetheless, global correlations can be captured within this architecture despite the sparsity, by stacking multiple convolutional layers on top of each other. To address all distances, the diameter of the receptive field multiplied by the network depth has to exceed the linear dimension of the input data. Last, note that for stacked convolutional layers, we have by construction $C^{(l)}_\mathrm{in}\equiv C^{(l-1)}_\mathrm{out}$.
\section{Model symmetries and neural network states}
\label{app:symmetries}
The $J_1-J_2$ model of Eq.~\eqref{eq:H_J1_J2} has a number of symmetries that one can take into account to obtain a variational quantum state respecting these important features and to reduce the variational space:
\begin{enumerate}[itemsep=0.01em,label=(\roman*)]
\item Translation invariance along the two spatial directions $x$ and $y$ (denoted $t_x$ and $t_y$), as we assume periodic boundary conditions,
\item The point-group symmetries, which include the reflection (parity) about the $x$-axis, $y$-axis, and the diagonal of the square lattice (denoted $p_x$, $p_y$ and $p_d$),
\item Total magnetization conservation,
\begin{equation}
\left[\mathcal{H},S^z_\mathrm{tot}=\sum\nolimits_{j=1}^N S^z_j\right]=0,\nonumber
\end{equation}
\item The spin inversion symmetry when $S^z_\mathrm{tot}=0$, generated by flipping all spins,
\item A continuous $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ spin-rotational symmetry,
\begin{equation}
\left[\mathcal{H},\boldsymbol{S}^2_\mathrm{tot}=\left(\sum\nolimits_{j=1}^N\boldsymbol{S}_j\right)^2\right]=0\nonumber.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
We work with neural networks and optimization procedures which obey symmetries (i--iv), and leave out the continuous $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ symmetry. Implementing the $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ symmetry in neural quantum states was recently proposed in Ref.~\cite{vieijra2020}.
On a finite-size system, the ground state of the $J_1-J_2$ model is a singlet with zero magnetization which falls in the zero-momentum sector with positive parities and positive spin-inversion quantum numbers. The variational search for the ground state is therefore restricted to these symmetry sectors. First, the zero magnetization sector can be easily enforced via pre-selection by only working with spin configurations $\boldsymbol{s}$ with as many spins pointing up as spins pointing down. Then, the spin inversion symmetry $\boldsymbol{s}_j\mapsto-\boldsymbol{s}_j$ is enacted by considering an even non-linearity activation function $f_{l=1}(\cdot)$ and no biases in the first layer of the neural network.
We considered different approaches to encode the remaining symmetries~\cite{choo2018symmetries} into the neural quantum state, as discussed in the following.
\subsection{Learning from representatives}
In this first approach, one works with representative basis states to incorporate the lattice symmetries (i-ii). The idea is to associate a unique equivalence class under these symmetries to every basis state $\boldsymbol{s'}$, and pick an arbitrary member of the equivalence class $\boldsymbol{s}$ as its representative~\cite{sandvik2010}. This amounts to fixing the symmetry gauge by mapping each spin configuration in the Monte Carlo sample to its representative spin configuration. This way, the network never sees spin configurations other than the representatives.
\subsection{Data symmetrization}
Alternatively, one can take a spin configuration $\boldsymbol{s}$, and generate all symmetric spin configurations by applying all possible combinations of symmetries. This augments the original data set by the symmetric configurations.
The order in which this is done is irrelevant because all symmetries commute in the ground state sector. This amounts to a total of\linebreak $L_{t_x}\times L_{t_y}\times 2_{p_x}\times 2_{p_y}\times 2_{p_d}=8N$ configurations for deep neural networks, or $2_{p_x}\times 2_{p_y}\times 2_{p_d}=8$ configurations for convolutional neural networks. In convolutional layers, translation symmetries are built into the neural network architecture using translational invariant filters and periodic padding. Note that this procedure results in ``double'' counting for highly symmetric spin configurations, which map back to themselves before the cyclicity of the symmetry is exhausted. We checked that this double counting does not affect the optimization of neural quantum states. Plus, these highly symmetric spin configurations are exponentially hard to encounter with increasing system size. We then apply the neural network to each one of those symmetry-expanded states separately, and uniformly sum up the final network outputs in the end. The same procedure is carried out for every initial state $\boldsymbol{s}$ which we want to find the amplitude $\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})$ of. Thus, the neural network becomes invariant under all symmetries used to extend the data set.
\subsection{Relation to symmetrization by quantum number projections}
During the preparation of this manuscript another work appeared, that employs quantum number projections in order to symmetrize the variational wave function \cite{nomura2021helping}. In that case, the basis is a variational ansatz $\psi_\theta$ without any symmetrization. For an irreducible representation of the of point group $I$ with character $\mathbb\chi^{I}$, momentum quantum numbers $\boldsymbol K$ corresponding to the set of translations $T_{\boldsymbol R}$, and spin parity $S_{\pm}$ the symmetrized wave function is then constructed as
\begin{align}
\psi_{\boldsymbol K}^{I,S_{\pm}}(\theta,\boldsymbol s)=
\sum_{P\in I, \boldsymbol R}e^{-i\boldsymbol K\cdot\boldsymbol R}\chi_{P}^I\big(\psi_\theta(T_{\boldsymbol R} P~\boldsymbol s)\pm\psi_\theta(T_{\boldsymbol R} P~\boldsymbol s)\big)\ .
\end{align}
This symmetrization by quantum number projection differs from our approach in that it symmetrizes at the level of the wave function coefficients, whereas in our approach we symmetrize the \textit{logarithmic} wave function amplitudes. Thereby, quantum number projections can straightforwardly address different quantum number sectors, whereas our approach is restricted to momentum $\boldsymbol K=0$ and positive spin parity.
\subsection{Numerical observations}
In practice, we observed that data symmetrization is superior to learning from representatives since it allows to systematically reach lower variational energies. While we do not have a formal proof for this, we offer two plausible explanations. Intuitively, this arises due to the loss of locality in the set of representatives: two configurations which differ by an exchange of spins on neighboring sites may have radically different representative spin configurations, and thus it is hard for the neural network to learn the relation between the two. For the same reason, using representatives also defeats the purpose of using convolutional layers. Related to this, representatives are not gauge invariant, and it is currently unclear what the effect of the representative choice (the gauge) on training is. Therefore, all data presented in this paper was generated using the data symmetrization procedure.
We mention in passing yet another empirical observation about the training data: neural networks achieve smaller training errors using the spin configuration convention $\boldsymbol{s}_j\in\{-1,+1\}$, as compared to $\boldsymbol{s}_j\in\{0,1\}$. This is likely the case since in the $\{0,1\}$ convention all weights that couple to $0$ in the first layer of the network are effectively turned off.
\section{Network initialization}
\label{app:net_init}
Constructing a deep neural network and optimizing it with Stochastic Reconfiguration may be challenging due to a further kind of instability, caused by inappropriate network initialization. This results in an (almost instantaneous) "blow-up" of the algorithm after a few optimization cycles. This is a manifestation of the so-called vanishing/exploding gradients problem, well-known in the context of machine learning. While the issue is easy to avoid for single-layer networks (via a manual fine-tuning of the distribution which generates the initial weights and biases), it quickly becomes a major problem when experimenting with architectures consisting of several layers.
To overcome this and to enable a seamless initialization of arbitrarily deep networks, we draw the weights and biases $\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(l)}_k$ of each layer $l$ from a uniform distribution on $[-D,+D]$, with a properly adjusted interval size $D$~\cite{Glorot2010,Schmitt2019}
\begin{equation}
D = c\Bigl/\sqrt{H^{(l)}W^{(l)}\left(C_\mathrm{in}^{(l)}+C_\mathrm{out}^{(l)} \right)}
\label{eq:NN_init}
\end{equation}
for a CNN layer with of dimension $H^{(l)}\times W^{(l)}$ with $C_\mathrm{in}^{(l)}$ input channels and $C_\mathrm{out}^{(l)} $ output channels. For a DNN where dense layer $l$ has dimensions $n_\mathrm{in}^{(l)}\times n_\mathrm{out}^{(l)}$, the corresponding expression is obtained as $H^{(1)}W^{(1)}\equiv n_\mathrm{in}^{(1)}, C_\mathrm{in}^{(1)}=1, C_\mathrm{in}^{(1)}\equiv n_\mathrm{out}^{(1)}$ for $l=1$, and $H^{(l)}W^{(l)}=1, C_\mathrm{in}^{(l)}\equiv n_\mathrm{in}^{(l)}, C_\mathrm{out}^{(1)}\equiv n_\mathrm{out}^{(l)}$ for $l>1$. This weight normalization ensures that all sums in the forward and backward pass of a neural network with uniformly drawn parameters have unit variance. The constant $c\in[0.1,10]$ is arbitrary and controls how close the initial state is to the $S^x$-polarized state. In practice we use $c^{\ln}=0.8$ and $c^{\varphi}=1$ for the log-amplitude and phase networks, respectively.
\section{Details of the Monte Carlo simulations}
\label{app:MC}
Here, we lay out some details about the Monte Carlo sampling procedure. The goal behind using MC is to find an efficient way to compute expectation values of observables in large Hilbert spaces where using the full basis is infeasible with the present computational power. In this work, we use the Metropolis-Hastings Markov Chain Mote Carlo algorithm to generate a sample of spin configurations from the probability associated with the output of the neural network.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{./figs/acc_ratio.pdf}
\caption{MC acceptance ratio $a_r$ during optimization for global MC proposals and mixed local-global MC proposals for $\delta=0.1$ (see text). Inset: the corresponding energy training curves. The parameters are the same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:phases}. The system size is $N=6\times6$. The network architecture is listed in App.~\ref{app:NN_architectures}, and $J_2/J_1=0.5$. Optimization was done using RK in combination with SR, see App.~\ref{app:opt}. The MC sample size is $N_\mathrm{MC}=2^{15}$.}
\label{fig:MC_acc_ratio}
\end{figure}
In our MC simulations we consider spin configurations in the zero magnetization sector, which contains the ground state, see Sec.~\ref{app:symmetries}. To propose the MC updates, we select two lattice sites with opposite spins, and flip them. To select the lattice sites, we used (i) a global scheme where two lattice sites are selected uniformly at random, and (ii) a local scheme where we select a site at random, and exchange its spin with any of its four nearest- and next-nearest neighbors; in both cases we repeat the procedure until the resulting pair of sites has opposite spins. (iii) We can also consider a probabilistic mixture where we apply (i) with probability $\delta$ and (ii) with probability $1-\delta$.
Each newly proposed configuration $\boldsymbol{r}$ is accepted with probability\linebreak $p=\min \left(1, |\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}} (\boldsymbol{r}) |^2/|\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}} (\boldsymbol{s}) |^2 \right)$ against the current state of the Markov chain $\boldsymbol{s}$. Here, the squared amplitudes are evaluated using the current state of the neural network. To avoid instabilities caused by poor network generalization on the proposed configuration $\boldsymbol{r}$, we additionally require that $|\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}} (\boldsymbol{r}) |^2 \leq \xi |\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}} (\boldsymbol{s}) |^2$ for some number $\xi$ (in practice, we set $\xi=500$). The acceptance ratio for a given sample is defined as
\begin{equation}
a_r=\#(\mathrm{accepted\ configurations})\Bigl/N_\mathrm{MC}.
\end{equation}
We set the thermalization (or mixing) time for the MC sampler to $10N$ with $N$ the total number of lattice sites. The number of proposed updates per sweep, which sets the frequency of storing the state of the Markov chain in the MC sample, is defined in terms of the acceptance ratio of the sample obtained at the previous iteration as $N/2\times\max(0.05, a_r)$.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:phases} of the main text, we discussed the phase distribution peaks. A visible difference in the behavior of the $\boldsymbol{s}$-sample and the $\boldsymbol{s}'$-sample at low amplitudes there is the existence of states which do not align with the major phase peaks. Because the $\boldsymbol{s}'$-sample is obtained from the $\boldsymbol{s}$-sample by flipping nearest and next-nearest neighboring spins (see main text), one may wonder if this behavior changes with the use of a local MC update scheme. We checked that a mixed local-global MC proposal scheme with $\delta=0.1$ does not yield better energies. However it does result in a higher acceptance ratio which speeds up the simulations, see Fig.~\ref{fig:MC_acc_ratio}.
Finally, let us mention a potential deadlock for the ground state search using VQMC which we observed a handful of times while experimenting with neural network architectures during the study: if the acceptance ratio falls as low as $a_r=0.01$, the simulation effectively gets stuck because the time to build the sample becomes too large. In this case, even adaptive learning rate optimizers, such as RK, proved insufficient to escape the deadlock. Hence, it is advisable to restart the simulation with different initial conditions in case such a situation is encountered.
\section{Post-selection of samples}
\label{app:post_selection}
In order for the variational optimization algorithm to work properly, it is crucial to obtain Monte Carlo samples producing reliable estimates of the energy, which can be tricky as one goes down the energy landscape, especially for for $J_2/J_1=0.5$. This is because the quality of a batch of $N_\mathrm{MC}$ samples $\{\boldsymbol{s}_1, \boldsymbol{s}_2,\cdots\boldsymbol{s}_{N_\mathrm{MC}}\}$ depends on the probability distribution $p_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})$ itself, which is, at the same time, in the process of being optimized.
Since one cannot guarantee that the ground state search dynamics drives the network parameters in regions of parameters space corresponding to easy-to-sample distributions, we adopt a post-selection procedure as follows. Once we have obtained a set of samples at a given iteration step $t$, we evaluate the energy expectation $E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(t)\approx\langle\kern-4.5pt~\langle\xspace E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^\mathrm{loc}\rangle\kern-4.5pt~\rangle\xspace$ and its standard deviation $\sigma_{E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}}(t)\approx\sqrt{\langle\kern-4.5pt~\langle\xspace |E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^\mathrm{loc}|^2\rangle\kern-4.5pt~\rangle\xspace_\mathrm{c}}$, according to Eqs.~\eqref{eq:energy_mc} and~\eqref{eq:energy_var_mc}, respectively. The idea is to use these quantities to determine whether to keep the batch of Monte Carlo samples or throw it away and re-sample. We introduce three criteria for re-sampling:
\begin{enumerate}[label=\alph*)]
\item $\left|\mathrm{Re}\left[E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(t)-E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(t-1)\right]\right|<\alpha_1$ ensures that the energy of the variational quantum state is not misestimated. This is particularly useful in cases when the sample at iteration step $t$ estimates a significantly larger value for the energy than at step $t-1$, because the ground state search algorithm is set to minimize, not maximize, the energy.
\item $|\mathrm{Im}E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(t)|< \alpha_2 \sigma_ {E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}}(t)$ requires that the imaginary part of the sample estimate for the energy is within a given fraction of the energy standard deviation. This reflects an observation that bad samples typically give rise to anomalously large imaginary parts of $E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}$ which has to become real-valued in the limit of $N_\mathrm{MC}\to+\infty$. Hence, this defines a second natural criterion for re-sampling.
\item $\sigma_{E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}}(t)<\alpha_3 \sigma_{E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}}(t-1)$ guarantees that the energy standard deviation over the MC sample in two consecutive iteration steps does not increase too rapidly, as expected for a small enough learning rate. A bad MC sample features a large deviation from its mean which can lead to wrong gradient updates. The instabilities we discussed in Sec.~\ref{subsec:NN_cpx} typically produce large-variance samples, and it is important to be able to detect this behavior. This gives an additional knob to prevent the simulation from blowing up.
\end{enumerate}
In practice, we used $\alpha_1=2$, $\alpha_2=5$, and $\alpha_3=6$. If at iteration $t$ one of the criteria is violated, we go back to iteration $t-1$, load the $(t-1)$-network parameters, and repeat the sampling from there. This eliminates any potentially wrong gradient updates that could have triggered one of the the criteria to fail. We apply sample post-selection only below a certain energy, in our case $E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}=0$, which is roughly in the middle of the spectrum, to allow for larger steps in the first iterations.
Last, let us mention that we considered alternative strategies to remedy bad samples, such as discarding outliers falling outside a given quartile as measured by the mean energy. However, this appears to harm the optimization in the early iterations where outliers contain signal about which directions to follow in order to go down the energy landscape.
\section{Energy Hessian matrix}
\label{app:hessian}
In Sec.~\ref{subsec:full-basis} of the main text, we show data which contains the eigenvalues of the Hessian matrix of the energy cost function. Here, we provide the expression we used to calculate it. For brevity, we only show isolated steps of the derivation.
The starting point is the definition for the energy of the variational state:
\begin{equation}
E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}} = \frac{\langle\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}|\mathcal{H}|\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}\rangle}{\langle\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}|\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}\rangle} = \sum\nolimits_{\{\boldsymbol{s}\}} p_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s}) E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^\mathrm{loc}(\boldsymbol{s})=
\bigl\langle\kern-5.5pt~\bigl\langle\xspace E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^\mathrm{loc}\bigr\rangle\kern-5.5pt~\bigr\rangle\xspace,
\end{equation}
where we used $\langle\kern-4.5pt~\langle\xspace\cdot\rangle\kern-4.5pt~\rangle\xspace = \sum\nolimits_{\{\boldsymbol{s}\}} p_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s}) ( \cdot )$.
Taking the derivative with respect to the variational parameters $\boldsymbol{\theta}$, the energy gradient $\nabla_{\boldsymbol{\theta}_n} \equiv \partial_n$ amounts to
\begin{equation}
\partial_n E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}} = 2\mathrm{Re}\;\bigl\langle\kern-5.5pt~\bigl\langle\xspace O^\ast_n \Delta E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^\mathrm{loc}\bigr\rangle\kern-5.5pt~\bigr\rangle\xspace,
\end{equation}
with the short-hand definitions $O_n(\boldsymbol{s}) = \partial_n\ln\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})$, and $\Delta E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^\mathrm{loc}(\boldsymbol{s}) = E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^\mathrm{loc}(\boldsymbol{s}) - \langle\kern-4.5pt~\langle\xspace E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^\mathrm{loc} \rangle\kern-4.5pt~\rangle\xspace$. Taking into account the $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ dependence in $p_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})$, $O^\ast_n(\boldsymbol{s})$, $\Delta E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^\mathrm{loc}(\boldsymbol{s})$, the entries of the Hessian matrix can be computed as
\begin{eqnarray}
H_{mn} = \partial_m\partial_n E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}} =&~& 4 \bigl\langle\kern-5.5pt~\bigl\langle\xspace \mathrm{Re}\left(O_m\right) \mathrm{Re}\left( O_n^\ast\Delta E^\mathrm{loc}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}} \right) \bigr\rangle\kern-5.5pt~\bigr\rangle\xspace \nonumber\\
&-& 4\Bigl[ \bigl\langle\kern-5.5pt~\bigl\langle\xspace \mathrm{Re}\left(O_m\right) \bigr\rangle\kern-5.5pt~\bigr\rangle\xspace\bigl\langle\kern-5.5pt~\bigl\langle\xspace \mathrm{Re}\left( O_n^\ast\Delta E^\mathrm{loc}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}} \right) \bigr\rangle\kern-5.5pt~\bigr\rangle\xspace + (m\leftrightarrow n)\Bigr] \nonumber\\
&+& 2\bigl\langle\kern-5.5pt~\bigl\langle\xspace \mathrm{Re}\left( \partial_m \left[O_n^\ast\right] \Delta E^\mathrm{loc}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}} \right) \bigr\rangle\kern-5.5pt~\bigr\rangle\xspace \nonumber\\
&+& 2\mathrm{Re}\Bigg( \sum\nolimits_{\{\boldsymbol{s}\}} p_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})
O^\ast_n(\boldsymbol{s}) \times
\frac{1}{\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s}) }
\sum\nolimits_{\{\boldsymbol{s'}\}}\mathcal{H}_{\boldsymbol{s}\boldsymbol{s'}}\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s'}) O_m(\boldsymbol{s}')
\Bigg) \nonumber\\
&-& 2\bigl\langle\kern-5.5pt~\bigl\langle\xspace \mathrm{Re} \left(O_n^\ast O_m E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^\mathrm{loc} \right) \bigr\rangle\kern-5.5pt~\bigr\rangle\xspace.
\end{eqnarray}
For a variational ansatz with two real-valued neural networks (one for the phase, and the other for the log-probability amplitude of the wavefunction), see~Sec.~\ref{sec:instabilities}, the expression for the Hessian takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:Hessian_real}
H_{mn} = \partial_m\partial_n E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}
=&~& 2\bigl\langle\kern-5.5pt~\bigl\langle\xspace \partial_m O^{\ln}_n \mathrm{Re}(\Delta E^\mathrm{loc}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}} )
+ \partial_m O^\varphi_n \mathrm{Im}(\Delta E^\mathrm{loc}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}) \bigr\rangle\kern-5.5pt~\bigr\rangle\xspace \nonumber\\
&+&2 \sum\nolimits_{\{\boldsymbol{s}\}} p_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})
\left[
O^{\ln}_n (\boldsymbol{s})\mathrm{Re}\bigg( \frac{1}{\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s}) }
\sum\nolimits_{\{\boldsymbol{s'}\}}\mathcal{H}_{\boldsymbol{s}\boldsymbol{s'}}\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s'}) O_m(\boldsymbol{s}')
\bigg) \right] \nonumber\\
&+&2\sum\nolimits_{\{\boldsymbol{s}\}} p_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})
\left[
O^{\varphi}_n (\boldsymbol{s})\mathrm{Im}\bigg( \frac{1}{\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s}) }
\sum\nolimits_{\{\boldsymbol{s'}\}}\mathcal{H}_{\boldsymbol{s}\boldsymbol{s'}}\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s'}) O_m(\boldsymbol{s}')
\bigg)
\right] \nonumber\\
&-& 4\left[ \bigl\langle\kern-5.5pt~\bigl\langle\xspace O_m^{\ln} \bigr\rangle\kern-5.5pt~\bigr\rangle\xspace
\bigl\langle\kern-5.5pt~\bigl\langle\xspace O_n^{\ln}\mathrm{Re}(\Delta E^\mathrm{loc}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}})
+O_n^{\varphi}\mathrm{Im}(\Delta E^\mathrm{loc}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}) \bigr\rangle\kern-5.5pt~\bigr\rangle\xspace
+ (m\leftrightarrow n)\right] \nonumber\\
&+&
2 \bigl\langle\kern-5.5pt~\bigl\langle\xspace \left( O_m^{\ln}O_n^{\ln}-O_m^{\varphi}O_n^{\varphi} \right) \mathrm{Re}(\Delta E^\mathrm{loc}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}) \bigr\rangle\kern-5.5pt~\bigr\rangle\xspace \nonumber\\
&+&
2 \bigl\langle\kern-5.5pt~\bigl\langle\xspace \left( O_m^{\ln}O_n^{\phi}+ (m \leftrightarrow n) \right) \mathrm{Im}(\Delta E^\mathrm{loc}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}) \bigr\rangle\kern-5.5pt~\bigr\rangle\xspace \nonumber\\
&-&
2 \bigl\langle\kern-5.5pt~\bigl\langle\xspace O_m^{\ln}O_n^{\ln} + O_m^{\varphi}O_n^{\varphi} \bigr\rangle\kern-5.5pt~\bigr\rangle\xspace \bigl\langle\kern-5.5pt~\bigl\langle\xspace \mathrm{Re}(E^\mathrm{loc}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}) \bigr\rangle\kern-5.5pt~\bigr\rangle\xspace .
\end{eqnarray}
Here, we used $O_n = O_n^{\ln} + i O_n^{\varphi}$, where $O_n^{\ln}(\boldsymbol{s}) = \partial_n\ln|\psi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})|$, and $O_n^{\varphi}(\boldsymbol{s}) = \partial_n\varphi_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\boldsymbol{s})$\footnote{Note that in the second and third lines of Eq.~\eqref{eq:Hessian_real}, it is the full $O_m(\boldsymbol{s}')$ that enters the sum over $\{\boldsymbol{s}'\}$, not its phase or log component.}. Notice that the Hessian matrix is \textit{not} block-diagonal in the log-amplitude and phase networks parameter spaces, i.e., it couples the parameters of the log-amplitude and phase networks. We also see that the $\boldsymbol{S}$-matrices for the log-amplitude and phase networks enter in the last line of the Hessian. Finally, one can readily convince oneself that the above expression defines a symmetric matrix, as is expected for the Hessian due to the commutativity of the two partial derivatives.
\newpage
\section{Neural network architectures}
\label{app:NN_architectures}
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{minipage}{0.98\textwidth}
\center\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
\thead{\textbf{Figure}} & \thead{\textbf{Layer 1}} & \thead{\textbf{Layer 2}} & \thead{\textbf{Layer 3}} & \thead{\textbf{Layer 4}} & \thead{\textbf{Layer 5}} & \thead{\textbf{Layer 6}}\\
\specialrule{.2em}{.1em}{.1em}
\makecell{Fig.~\ref{fig:cpx_F_vector} ($4\times 4$)\\holomorphic \\$296$ cpx.~parameters \\ ($592$ real parameters)} & \makecell{Dense\\$12$ neurons} & \makecell{Dense\\$8$ neurons} & \makecell{---} & \makecell{---} & \makecell{---} & \makecell{---}\\
\hline
\makecell{Fig.~\ref{fig:cpx_F_vector} ($6\times 6$) \\holomorphic\\$536$ cpx.~parameters \\ ($1072$ real parameters)} & \makecell{Dense\\$12$ neurons} & \makecell{Dense\\$8$ neurons} & \makecell{---} & \makecell{---} & \makecell{---} & \makecell{---}\\
\specialrule{.2em}{.1em}{.1em}
\makecell{Fig.~\ref{fig:cpx_energies}\\holomorphic\\$432$ cpx.~parameters \\ ($864$ real parameters)} & \makecell{Dense\\$12$ neurons} & \makecell{---} & \makecell{---} & \makecell{---} & \makecell{---} & \makecell{---}\\
\specialrule{.2em}{.1em}{.1em}
\makecell{Fig.~\ref{fig:NN_size}\\log-amp. net\\$521$ real parameters} & \makecell{Convolutional\\$6$ $6\times 6$ filters} & \makecell{Convolutional\\$4$ $3\times 3$ filters} & \makecell{Convolutional\\$4$ $2\times 2$ filters} & \makecell{Dense\\$2$ neurons} & \makecell{Dense\\$2$ neurons} & \makecell{Regularizer}\\
\hline
\makecell{Fig.~\ref{fig:NN_size}\\phase-net\\$572$ real parameters} & \makecell{Dense\\$12$ neurons} & \makecell{Dense\\$8$ neurons} & \makecell{Dense\\$4$ neurons} & \makecell{---} & \makecell{---} & \makecell{---}\\
\specialrule{.2em}{.1em}{.1em}
\makecell{Fig.~\ref{fig:NN_size}\\log-amp. net\\$521$ real parameters} & \makecell{Convolutional\\$7$ $6\times 6$ filters} & \makecell{Convolutional\\$5$ $3\times 3$ filters} & \makecell{Convolutional\\$3$ $2\times 2$ filters} & \makecell{Dense\\$2$ neurons} & \makecell{Dense\\$2$ neurons} & \makecell{Regularizer}\\
\hline
\makecell{Fig.~\ref{fig:NN_size}\\phase-net\\$720$ real parameters} & \makecell{Dense\\$14$ neurons} & \makecell{Dense\\$10$ neurons} & \makecell{Dense\\$6$ neurons} & \makecell{---} & \makecell{---} & \makecell{---}\\
\specialrule{.2em}{.1em}{.1em}
\makecell{Fig.~\ref{fig:NN_size}\\log-amp. net\\$857$ real parameters} & \makecell{Convolutional\\$8$ $6\times 6$ filters} & \makecell{Convolutional\\$6$ $3\times 3$ filters} & \makecell{Convolutional\\$4$ $2\times 2$ filters} & \makecell{Dense\\$4$ neurons} & \makecell{Dense\\$2$ neurons} & \makecell{Regularizer}\\
\hline
\makecell{Fig.~\ref{fig:NN_size}\\phase-net\\$884$ real parameters} & \makecell{Dense\\$16$ neurons} & \makecell{Dense\\$12$ neurons} & \makecell{Dense\\$8$ neurons} & \makecell{---} & \makecell{---} & \makecell{---}\\
\specialrule{.2em}{.1em}{.1em}
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\center\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
\thead{\textbf{Figure}} & \thead{\textbf{Layer 1}} & \thead{\textbf{Layer 2}} & \thead{\textbf{Layer 3}} & \thead{\textbf{Layer 4}} & \thead{\textbf{Layer 5}} & \thead{\textbf{Layer 6}}\\
\specialrule{.2em}{.1em}{.1em}
\makecell{Fig.~\ref{fig:NN_size}\\log-amp. net\\$1325$ real parameters} & \makecell{Convolutional\\$10$ $6\times 6$ filters} & \makecell{Convolutional\\$8$ $3\times 3$ filters} & \makecell{Convolutional\\$6$ $2\times 2$ filters} & \makecell{Dense\\$4$ neurons} & \makecell{Dense\\$2$ neurons} & \makecell{Regularizer}\\
\hline
\makecell{Fig.~\ref{fig:NN_size}\\phase-net\\$1260$ real parameters} & \makecell{Dense\\$20$ neurons} & \makecell{Dense\\$16$ neurons} & \makecell{Dense\\$12$ neurons} & \makecell{---} & \makecell{---} & \makecell{---}\\
\specialrule{.2em}{.1em}{.1em}
\makecell{Fig.~\ref{fig:phases}\\log-amp. net\\$857$ real parameters} & \makecell{Convolutional\\$8$ $6\times 6$ filters} & \makecell{Convolutional\\$6$ $3\times 3$ filters} & \makecell{Convolutional\\$4$ $2\times 2$ filters} & \makecell{Dense\\$4$ neurons} & \makecell{Dense\\$2$ neurons} & \makecell{Regularizer}\\
\hline
\makecell{Fig.~\ref{fig:phases}\\phase-net\\$884$ real parameters} & \makecell{Dense\\$16$ neurons} & \makecell{Dense\\$12$ neurons} & \makecell{Dense\\$8$ neurons} & \makecell{---} & \makecell{---} & \makecell{---}\\
\specialrule{.2em}{.1em}{.1em}
\makecell{Fig.~\ref{fig:semi-exact_energy} ($4\times4$)\\log-amp. net\\$697$ real parameters} & \makecell{Convolutional\\$8$ $6\times 6$ filters} & \makecell{Convolutional\\$6$ $3\times 3$ filters} & \makecell{Convolutional\\$4$ $2\times 2$ filters} & \makecell{Dense\\$4$ neurons} & \makecell{Dense\\$2$ neurons} & \makecell{Regularizer}\\
\hline
\makecell{Fig.~\ref{fig:semi-exact_energy} ($4\times4$)\\phase-net\\$884$ real parameters} & \makecell{Dense\\$16$ neurons} & \makecell{Dense\\$12$ neurons} & \makecell{Dense\\$8$ neurons} & \makecell{---} & \makecell{---} & \makecell{---}\\
\specialrule{.2em}{.1em}{.1em}
\makecell{Fig.~\ref{fig:semi-exact_energy} ($6\times6$)\\log-amp. net\\$857$ real parameters} & \makecell{Convolutional\\$8$ $6\times 6$ filters} & \makecell{Convolutional\\$6$ $3\times 3$ filters} & \makecell{Convolutional\\$4$ $2\times 2$ filters} & \makecell{Dense\\$4$ neurons} & \makecell{Dense\\$2$ neurons} & \makecell{Regularizer}\\
\hline
\makecell{Fig.~\ref{fig:semi-exact_energy} ($6\times6$) \\phase-net\\$884$ real parameters} & \makecell{Dense\\$16$ neurons} & \makecell{Dense\\$12$ neurons} & \makecell{Dense\\$8$ neurons} & \makecell{---} & \makecell{---} & \makecell{---}\\
\specialrule{.2em}{.1em}{.1em}
\makecell{Fig.~\ref{fig:exact_energy} \\log-amp. net\\$857$ real parameters} & \makecell{Convolutional\\$8$ $6\times 6$ filters} & \makecell{Convolutional\\$6$ $3\times 3$ filters} & \makecell{Convolutional\\$4$ $2\times 2$ filters} & \makecell{Dense\\$4$ neurons} & \makecell{Dense\\$2$ neurons} & \makecell{Regularizer}\\
\hline
\makecell{Fig.~\ref{fig:exact_energy} \\phase-net\\$884$ real parameters} & \makecell{Dense\\$16$ neurons} & \makecell{Dense\\$12$ neurons} & \makecell{Dense\\$8$ neurons} & \makecell{---} & \makecell{---} & \makecell{---}\\
\specialrule{.2em}{.1em}{.1em}
\makecell{Fig.~\ref{fig:seeds}\\log-amp. net\\$857$ real parameters} & \makecell{Convolutional\\$8$ $6\times 6$ filters} & \makecell{Convolutional\\$6$ $3\times 3$ filters} & \makecell{Convolutional\\$4$ $2\times 2$ filters} & \makecell{Dense\\$4$ neurons} & \makecell{Dense\\$2$ neurons} & \makecell{Regularizer}\\
\hline
\makecell{Fig.~\ref{fig:seeds}\\phase-net\\$884$ real parameters} & \makecell{Dense\\$16$ neurons} & \makecell{Dense\\$12$ neurons} & \makecell{Dense\\$8$ neurons} & \makecell{---} & \makecell{---} & \makecell{---}\\
\specialrule{.2em}{.1em}{.1em}
\makecell{Fig.~\ref{fig:MC_samples}\\log-amp. net\\$857$ real parameters} & \makecell{Convolutional\\$8$ $6\times 6$ filters} & \makecell{Convolutional\\$6$ $3\times 3$ filters} & \makecell{Convolutional\\$4$ $2\times 2$ filters} & \makecell{Dense\\$4$ neurons} & \makecell{Dense\\$2$ neurons} & \makecell{Regularizer}\\
\hline
\makecell{Fig.~\ref{fig:MC_samples}\\phase-net\\$884$ real parameters} & \makecell{Dense\\$16$ neurons} & \makecell{Dense\\$12$ neurons} & \makecell{Dense\\$8$ neurons} & \makecell{---} & \makecell{---} & \makecell{---}\\
\specialrule{.2em}{.1em}{.1em}
\makecell{Fig.~\ref{fig:precision} ($4\times4$)\\holomorphic\\$64$ cpx.~parameters \\ ($128$ real parameters)} & \makecell{Dense\\$4$ neurons} & \makecell{---} & \makecell{---} & \makecell{---} & \makecell{---} & \makecell{---}\\
\specialrule{.2em}{.1em}{.1em}
\makecell{Fig.~\ref{fig:optimizers}\\log-amp. net\\$857$ real parameters} & \makecell{Convolutional\\$8$ $6\times 6$ filters} & \makecell{Convolutional\\$6$ $3\times 3$ filters} & \makecell{Convolutional\\$4$ $2\times 2$ filters} & \makecell{Dense\\$4$ neurons} & \makecell{Dense\\$2$ neurons} & \makecell{Regularizer}\\
\hline
\makecell{Fig.~\ref{fig:optimizers}\\phase-net\\$884$ real parameters} & \makecell{Dense\\$16$ neurons} & \makecell{Dense\\$12$ neurons} & \makecell{Dense\\$8$ neurons} & \makecell{---} & \makecell{---} & \makecell{---}\\
\specialrule{.2em}{.1em}{.1em}
\makecell{Fig.~\ref{fig:MC_acc_ratio}\\log-amp. net\\$857$ real parameters} & \makecell{Convolutional\\$8$ $6\times 6$ filters} & \makecell{Convolutional\\$6$ $3\times 3$ filters} & \makecell{Convolutional\\$4$ $2\times 2$ filters} & \makecell{Dense\\$4$ neurons} & \makecell{Dense\\$2$ neurons} & \makecell{Regularizer}\\
\hline
\makecell{Fig.~\ref{fig:MC_acc_ratio}\\phase-net\\$884$ real parameters} & \makecell{Dense\\$16$ neurons} & \makecell{Dense\\$12$ neurons} & \makecell{Dense\\$8$ neurons} & \makecell{---} & \makecell{---} & \makecell{---}\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Neural network architectures used for the numerical simulations shown throughout the paper.}
\label{tab:nn_architectures}
\end{table}
\end{appendix}
\clearpage
\bibliographystyle{SciPost_bibstyle}
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
\label{sec:intro}
The Milky Way, as a massive pure disk galaxy, is not in dynamical equilibrium. The current status of the Galactic disk is mainly shaped via both the internal and external mechanisms together. Resonances from the bar and spiral arms have been shown to induce observed fine structures in the velocity phase space \citep{dehnen_00, fux_01, antoja_etal_09, antoja_etal_11, quille_etal_11, hun_bov_18} and the large scale bulk motions in the Galactic disk \citep{sieber_etal_11, sieber_etal_12, carlin_etal_13, debatt_14, faure_etal_14, sun_etal_15, monari_etal_15, monari_etal_16, tian_etal_17, wang_etal_18a, wang_etal_18b}. The external perturbations from satellite galaxies or sub-halos can generate warps, flares, vertical density asymmetries or high order velocity modes in the Galactic disk, such as the bending and breathing vertical motions \citep{hun_too_69, quinn_etal_93, kazant_etal_08, purcel_etal_11, gomez_etal_13, willia_etal_13, donghi_etal_16, laport_etal_18a, laport_etal_18b}.
External perturbations also excite vertical oscillation and phase mixing of stars in the Galactic disk. According to \citet{widrow_etal_12}, the vertical density profile of the Galactic disk shows clear asymmetry with wave-like patterns (also see \citealt{ben_bov_19} for more recent update, and \citealt{an_19} from the chemical perspective). As first shown in \citet{antoja_etal_18} with {\it Gaia} DR2, stars near the solar radius exhibit a snail shell feature in the $Z-V_{Z}$ phase space, representing the ongoing vertical phase mixing that probably happened $300 - 900$ Myr ago. This is a 2D representation of the signal discovered in \citet{widrow_etal_12}. The snail shell forms as a result of anharmonic oscillation of stars in the vertical direction; the vertical oscillation frequency ($\Omega_{Z}$) is anti-correlated with the vertical action ($J_{Z}$) and the angular momentum ($L_{Z}$), i.e., $V_{\phi}$ for stars in the solar neighborhood \citep{bin_sch_18}. The phase space snail shell can be recognized for stars in a wide range of ages \citep{tian_etal_18, laport_etal_19}, and different chemical properties \citep{blandh_etal_19}. By dissecting stars in the $V_{R}-V_{\phi}$ phase space into distinct arches, \citet{li_she_20} found clear snail shells only in the stars on dynamically colder orbits, i.e., stars with $|V_{\phi} - V_{\rm LSR}| \leq 30$ km/s (or $J_{R} < 0.04$ kpc$^2$/Myr). The hotter orbits, on the other hand, may have phase wrapped away already due to the much larger radial excursions to facilitate faster phase mixing. The absence of the clear snail shells on hotter orbits suggests that the vertical perturbation occurred at least 500 Myr ago. However, different opinions also exist for the origin of the vertical phase mixing process \citep[see][]{khoper_etal_19a, ben_bov_20}.
The phase space snail shell has also been found beyond the solar neighborhood in the Milky Way disk. Based on the {\it Gaia} DR2 data around the solar neighborhood (within 1 kpc), slightly different phase space snail shells are found at different radius, suggesting the snail shell as a signature of corrugated waves propagating through the disk \citep{blandh_etal_19}. \citet{laport_etal_19} later explored larger radial ranges from 6.6 to 10 kpc, and confirmed the existence of the snail shell at these locations. Similar results can also be seen in \citet{wang_etal_19} based on the {\it LAMOST} and {\it Gaia} DR2 data from 6.34 to 12.34 kpc. These studies arrive at similar results; the snail shell at larger radius is more elongated (squashed) along the $Z$ ($V_{Z}$) direction and less wound, due to the weaker vertical restoring force and longer orbital time period at larger radius. Recently, \citet{xu_etal_20} further link the $Z-V_{Z}$ phase space distributions at different radius with the azimuthal bulk motions across the Galactic disk out to 15 kpc, indicating tight connection between the external perturbation and the disk kinematics.
For a volume limited sample, the angular momentum ($L_{Z}$), i.e., the guiding radius ($R_{g}$), may help to better reveal the global kinematic patterns. For example, based on a local sample near the solar neighborhood, the Galactic warp was identified with the positive correlation with the wave-like pattern between the mean vertical velocity and the guiding radius \citep{sch_deh_18, huang_etal_18}. Recently, \citet{fri_sch_19} found that the dependence of the mean radial motion on the angular momentum (guiding radius) also shows wave-like behavior. The shape of the $V_{R} - R_{g}$ profile is similar to, but much stronger than the $V_{R}-R$ profile; patterns in $V_{R}-R$ profile have probably been washed out by excursions of stars around their guiding centers \citep{fri_sch_19}. \citet{khanna_etal_19} found that the snail shell shape remains the same at different radius (within 1 kpc from the Sun) for stars with the same $L_{Z}$, but varies at different $L_{Z}$. They suggested that the angular momentum could be a more robust quantity in characterizing the snail shell.
Instead of mapping the stellar kinematics and tracing the phase space maps in the traditional spatial volume, grouping stars according to the guiding radius may be another promising way to visualize the morphological or kinematic structures in the disk \citep[e.g.,][]{khoper_etal_20} (but see \citealt{hunt_etal_20} for a different point of view). Aiming to probe the phase space snail shell in a large radial range in the Galactic disk with good number statistics, we combine the {\it Gaia} radial velocity sample (RVS) and the {\it LAMOST} DR6 sample together with all the stars in both samples included, i.e., {\it LAMOST} DR6 $\cup$ {\it Gaia} RVS. Although the {\it LAMOST} survey does not sample the sky as uniformly as the {\it Gaia} survey, it has good spatial coverage in the Galactic Anti-Center direction with radial velocity information for fainter stars at larger distances, compensating the relatively brighter {\it Gaia} RVS sample. With the combined large sample, we can investigate the spatial variation of the snail shell with angular momentum in detail.\footnote{\citet{wang_etal_19} has shown that the $Z-V_{Z}$ phase space distributions are consistent between the {\it Gaia} RVS and {\it LAMOST}-{\it Gaia} cross-matched samples from 6 to 12 kpc, which is also verified by our tests. The combination of the two samples should help to enhance the phase space signal.}
\section{SAMPLE}
\label{sec:samp}
{\it LAMOST} DR6 provides reliable radial velocity values for 5,843,107 stars, focusing on the Galactic Anti-Center direction \citep{zhao_etal_12, deng_etal_12, liu_etal_14}. The {\it Gaia} RVS sample contains 7,225,631 stars with accurate position and velocity information \citep{gaia_etal_18a}. To achieve good statistics, we utilize all the stars to form a main sample of 12,256,045 stars ({\it LAMOST} DR6 $\cup$ {\it Gaia} RVS). Fig.~\ref{fig:sample} summarizes the number of stars in the two samples.
\begin{figure}
\epsscale{1.15}
\plotone{sample.eps}
\caption{Number of stars in the {\it LAMOST} DR6 and {\it Gaia} RVS samples used in this work. The combined main sample ({\it LAMOST} DR6 $\cup$ {\it Gaia} RVS) contains 12,256,045 stars in total. The cross-matched sample ({\it LAMOST} DR6 $\cap$ {\it Gaia} RVS) contains 750,134 stars (used in Fig.~\ref{fig:rv_cmp}). For the main sample ({\it LAMOST} DR6 $\cup$ {\it Gaia} RVS), after crossing-match with the Bayesian distance catalog from \citet{bailer_etal_18} and removing stars with large velocity uncertainties, the final sample contains 11,350,423 stars.}
\epsscale{1.0}
\label{fig:sample}
\end{figure}
There are 750,134 stars in common between {\it LAMOST} DR6 and {\it Gaia} RVS samples ({\it LAMOST} DR6 $\cap$ {\it Gaia} RVS). Fig.~\ref{fig:rv_cmp} compares the line-of-sight velocities observed in {\it Gaia} ($V_{\rm LOS}^{Gaia}$) and {\it LAMOST} ($V_{\rm LOS}^{LAMOST}$) for these common stars. As shown in the left panel, the agreement between the velocities are quite good. However, there exists a small systematic offset, with the $V_{\rm LOS}^{LAMOST}$ slightly smaller than $V_{\rm LOS}^{Gaia}$. The distribution of the velocity difference ($\Delta V_{\rm LOS} = V_{\rm LOS}^{Gaia} - V_{\rm LOS}^{LAMOST}$) is shown in the right panel. The peak position of the distribution is marked with the vertical dashed line. The line-of-sight velocity observed in {\it LAMOST} is systematically lower than the {\it Gaia} radial velocity by 4.75 km/s.\footnote{This systematic velocity offset in {\it LAMOST} data has been noticed in previous works \citep{tian_etal_15, sch_aum_17}.} In the following analysis, for these common stars, only the {\it Gaia} measured velocities are adopted. For the rest of the stars in the {\it LAMOST} DR6 sample, we have added 4.75 km/s to the line-of-sight velocity to compensate this effect.
\begin{figure}
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{joint_lagaia_gaiarvs.eps}
\caption{Comparison between the observed line-of-sight velocities for the {\it LAMOST} DR6 and {\it Gaia} RVS common stars, with the correlation between $V_{\rm LOS}^{\rm LAMOST}$ and $V_{\rm LOC}^{\rm Gaia}$ in the left panel, and the distribution of their velocity difference ($\Delta V_{\rm LOS} = V_{\rm LOS}^{\rm Gaia} - V_{\rm LOS}^{\rm LAMOST}$) in the right panel. The cyan dashed line in the left panel represents the one-to-one relationship. The {\it LAMOST} radial velocity is systematically lower than the {\it Gaia} radial velocity by 4.75 km/s (vertical dashed line in the right panel).}
\epsscale{1.0}
\label{fig:rv_cmp}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{sample_spatial.eps}
\caption{Spatial distributions of the {\it LAMOST} DR6 (top) and {\it Gaia} RVS samples (bottom) in the $X-Y$ plane (left column), the $R-Z$ plane (middle column), and the $\theta-Z$ plane (right column). Compared to the relatively brighter {\it Gaia} RVS sample, {\it LAMOST} sample has its advantage of more faint stars at relatively larger distances.}
\epsscale{1.0}
\label{fig:sample_space}
\end{figure}
We adopt the Bayesian distance from \citet{bailer_etal_18} for the whole sample. There are 12,094,719 stars in the main sample with the Bayesian distance determined. Similar to previous works, we choose $(X_{\odot},\ Y_{\odot},\ Z_{\odot})$ = ($-$8.34, 0, 0.027) kpc as the Sun position \citep{reid_etal_14}. The local standard of rest (LSR) circular velocity $V_{\rm LSR}$ is set to 240 km/s \citep{reid_etal_14}. Here the peculiar velocities of the Sun with respect to LSR are set to $(U_{\odot}, V_{\odot}, W_{\odot})$ = (11.1, 12.24, 7.25) km/s \citep{schonr_12}.\footnote{The main results are not affected if we choose other values of the solar peculiar motion, e.g., \citet{tian_etal_15} or \citet{huang_etal_15}.}
The spatial distributions of the {\it LAMOST} and {\it Gaia} RVS samples are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:sample_space}. The {\it Gaia} RVS sample distributions are quite symmetric in the $Y$, $Z$ and $\theta$ directions.\footnote{$\theta$ is the angle in the Galactocentric polar coordinate which increases clockwise ($\theta=0^{\circ}$ for the Sun$-$Galactic center line).} On the other hand, the {\it LAMOST} survey mainly covers the Galactic Anti-Center direction and $\theta > 0$ in the positive $Y$ axis. Since the limiting magnitude is deeper in the {\it LAMOST} spectroscopic survey, it also extends further in the vertical direction than the {\it Gaia} survey.
\begin{figure}
\epsscale{1.3}
\plotone{rVp_gaia.eps}
\caption{Number density distributions of our main sample in $R-V_{\phi}$ (top) and $R-R_{g}(L_{Z})$ phase spaces (bottom). The top panel shows several prominent diagonal ridges consistent with previous works. The dashed curve represents the constant angular momentum at $L_{Z} = 2000 $ kpc km/s. In the bottom panel, there are several nearly horizontal stripes, suggesting roughly constant angular momentum of stars at different radial ranges.}
\epsscale{1.0}
\label{fig:rvp}
\end{figure}
We further remove stars with relative distance uncertainties larger than 25\%, velocity uncertainties larger than 50 km/s, and absolute velocities ($|V_{R}|, |V_{\phi} - V_{\rm LSR}|$, and $|V_{Z}|$) larger than 400 km/s. The final sample contains 11,350,423 stars in total. In the following analysis, we will focus on the radial range from 6 to 12 kpc for both the Galactocentric radius ($R$) and the guiding radius ($R_{g}$). In order to enhance the visualization of the phase space structures, at 6 and 7 kpc, the radial annulus width is set to 0.6 kpc (i.e., $\pm 0.3$ kpc), while the annulus width is 0.4 kpc (i.e., $\pm 0.2$ kpc) at the other radii. The typical velocity uncertainty is about 1 km/s for the radial, azimuthal, and vertical velocities \citep{gaia_etal_18a, antoja_etal_18}.
The guiding radius ($R_{g}$) of each star is calculated according to the rotation curve in \citet{huang_etal_16}. As shown in Fig.~12 in \citet{huang_etal_16}, the rotation curve is roughly flat at $\sim$ 240 km/s (within $\sim$ 25 kpc) with prominent wiggles at 11 and 20 kpc. Adopting the values of the rotation curve in Table~3 of \citet{huang_etal_16}, the angular momentum corresponding to the circular motion at each radius (i.e., the guiding radius) can be derived to get the $L_{Z}-R_{g}$ profile. Then the guiding radius of each star in our sample is found by mapping the observed angular momentum to the derived $L_{Z}-R_{g}$ profile.
To highlight the snail shell feature, we adopt the number density contrast map used in \citet{laport_etal_19} and \citet{li_she_20}. To evaluate the influence of the parallax bias in the {\it Gaia} catalog, we also test the same analysis with the parallax corrected {\it Gaia} sample \citep{schonr_etal_19}, which contains 6,565,715 stars with relatively smaller spatial coverage. The main results in this work are robust and not affected.
\section{Phase Spaces across the Galactic Disk}
In this section, we explore several different phase spaces of the sample, namely, the $R-V_{\phi}$, $R-R_{g}$, $V_{R} - V_{\phi}$, and the $Z-V_{Z}$ phase spaces. As we will show later, major structures in these phase spaces are consistent with previous studies, confirming the robustness of the sample to trace the kinematic status of the Milky Way disk.
\subsection{$R-V_{\phi}$ and $R-R_{g}$ Phase Spaces}
Fig.~\ref{fig:rvp} shows the number density maps of the main sample in the $R-V_{\phi}$ (top) and $R-R_{g} (L_{Z})$ phase spaces (bottom). The top panel reveals several diagonal ridge lines, consistent with the previous observations \citep{antoja_etal_18, laport_etal_19, fragko_etal_19}. In the bottom panel, several nearly horizontal stripes can be seen across the phase space, suggesting a possible connection between the ridges in the $R-V_{\phi}$ phase space and the constant angular momentum curves. However, as shown in \citet{khanna_etal_19} and \citet{fragko_etal_19}, at higher $V_{\phi}$ the stripes may be more consistent with the constant energy lines. The observed diagonal ridges could have quite complicated origins, considering the presence of the ridge line structure in the $V_{R}$ or metallicity color-coded $R-V_{\phi}$ phase space \citep{fragko_etal_19, laport_etal_19, liang_etal_19, wang_etal_20}.
From the bottom panel, stars at certain guiding radius are actually located within a large radial range. At the radius far from the solar neighborhood, the number of stars can be improved by selecting stars according to their guiding radii with the inclusion of stars close to the Sun. This could help to enhance the phase space snail shell feature at a larger radial range.
\subsection{$V_{R} - V_{\phi}$ Phase Space}
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{UV_diff_R_6_12_N_Jr.eps}
\caption{$V_{R} - V_{\phi}$ phase space distributions of stars in different Galactocentric radial annulus from $R = 6$ to $12$ kpc. The top and bottom rows show the number density and the $J_{R}$ color-coded maps, respectively. In the top row, arches can be seen in different radius, especially at $R = 8, 9$, and 10 kpc. The number of stars in each radial range is also shown in the panel. In the bottom row, the white curves represent the constant $J_{R}$ contours, while the black ellipses are the analytical estimation of the constant $J_{R}$ contours based on the epicycle theory.}
\epsscale{1.0}
\label{fig:uv_r}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{UV_diff_Rg_6_12_N_Jr.eps}
\caption{$V_{R} - V_{\phi}$ phase space distributions of stars in different guiding radius $R_{g}$ annulus from $6$ to $12$ kpc. The layout of this figure is the same with Fig.~\ref{fig:uv_r}. The distributions are relatively smooth without clear arches. The white contour curves and black ellipses have slightly larger ellipticity than those in Fig.~\ref{fig:uv_r}.}
\epsscale{1.0}
\label{fig:uv_rg}
\end{figure*}
Fig.~\ref{fig:uv_r} shows the $V_{R}-V_{\phi}$ phase space of stars at different radius, with the number density and the $J_{R}$ color-coded maps in the top and bottom rows, respectively. From the main sample, we study the velocity phase space distributions at the 7 radial annuli centered at $R = 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,$ and 12 kpc with the same width as mentioned before. {\it Gaia} DR2 has revealed the new arch-like structures in the $V_{R}-V_{\phi}$ phase space for stars in the solar neighborhood, enclosing the classical moving groups \citep{gaia_etal_18b, antoja_etal_18, li_she_20}. In fact, similar arch-like features can be seen at $R = 8, 9,$ and 10 kpc. As the radius increases, the arches seem to systematically shift towards lower $V_{\phi}$, consistent with previous observational studies \citep{antoja_etal_14, ramos_etal_18}.
According to the epicycle theory, at a given radius, the azimuthal velocity difference between a star and the local circular velocity can be estimated as $V_{\phi}(R_0) - V_{\rm circ}(R_0) = \kappa x / \gamma$, where $\kappa$ is the epicycle (radial oscillation) frequency, $x$ is the radial displacement from the guiding radius, and $\gamma = 2\Omega_{g} / \kappa$. Under the flat rotation curve assumption, $\gamma$ equals to $\sqrt{2}$. The ratio between the maximum radial velocity and the maximum azimuthal velocity difference can be estimated, which is simply $1/\gamma$. Adopting the best-fit potential of Model I from \citet{irrgan_etal_13}, we use AGAMA package \citep{vasili_19} to derive the epicycle frequencies and the action values. In Fig.~\ref{fig:uv_r}, from left to right panels (6 to 12 kpc), the $\gamma$ values are 1.32, 1.35, 1.39, 1.40, 1.41, 1.43, and 1.44, respectively. In the bottom panels for the $V_{R} - V_{\phi}$ phase spaces color-coded with $J_{R}$, the black ellipses with this axis ratio are overplotted compared to the white curves of the constant $J_{R}$ contours. The white contours and the black ellipses agree well with each other.
Similarly, we choose 7 different guiding radial annuli from 6 to 12 kpc. The $V_{R}-V_{\phi}$ phase space in different $R_{g}$ ranges are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:uv_rg} with the same layout as Fig.~\ref{fig:uv_r}. Compared to Fig.~\ref{fig:uv_r}, the distribution is relatively smooth without clear arches\footnote{An elongated overdensity can be recognized at $R_{g} = 6$ kpc with $V_{\phi} \approx 170$ km/s, and at $R_{g} = 7$ kpc with $V_{\phi} \approx 200$ km/s. These stars mainly come from the solar radius.}. Similar to Fig.~\ref{fig:uv_r}, the azimuthal velocity difference between a star and the circular velocity at its guiding radius can be estimated as $V_{\phi}(R_0) - V_{\rm circ}(R_{g}) = \gamma \kappa x/2$.\footnote{$V_{\phi}(R_0) - V_{\rm circ}(R_{g})=\Omega_{0}R_{0}-\Omega_{g}R_{g}\simeq\Omega_{g}(R_{0}-R_{g})=\Omega_{g}x=\gamma\kappa x/2.$} Therefore, the ratio between the maximum radial and azimuthal velocity difference is simply $\gamma/2$. The $\gamma$ values from $R_{g} = 6$ to 12 kpc are 1.35, 1.37, 1.39, 1.41, 1.43, 1.45, and 1.46, respectively. The axis ratio is slightly smaller than that in Fig.~\ref{fig:uv_r}. The black ellipses with this axis ratio are shown in the bottom panels, with good agreement with the white contours.
\subsection{$Z-V_{Z}$ Phase Space}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:snail}, the $Z-V_{Z}$ phase spaces of stars at different Galactocentric radii ($R$) are shown in the left figure, with the first, second and third columns representing the number density contrast ($\Delta N$), $V_{R}$ and $V_{\phi}$ color-coded maps, respectively. The number density contrast is derived as $\Delta N = N/\widetilde{N} - 1$, where $\widetilde{N}$ is the Gaussian kernel convolved number density distribution\footnote{Before the convolution, we have taken the logarithm of the original number density map to enhance the fine structures in the phase space.} \citep{laport_etal_19, li_she_20}. The snail shell can be recognized in all the panels, confirming the snail shell feature as a global phenomenon across the Galactic disk. The shapes of the snail shells as revealed by the $\Delta N$ map vary at different radius. As the radius increases, the snail shell becomes more elongated along the $Z$ axis, more squashed along the $V_{Z}$ axis, and less wound, due to the decreasing vertical restoring force and oscillation frequency at larger radius. These results are consistent with \citet{laport_etal_19} and \citet{wang_etal_19}.
The snail shells at 6, 7, and 12 kpc are relatively weak and hard to discern in $\Delta N$ maps, although at $R = 7$ kpc, the $V_{\phi}$ color-coded phase space still reveals a snail shell pattern. At $R = 8$ kpc, the snail shell in $\Delta N$ map looks roughly similar to those in the $V_{\phi}$ color-coded map, which is not true for $R = 9$ and 10 kpc. As already demonstrated by \citet{li_she_20}, the snail shell appeared in the $V_{\phi}$ color-coded phase space may not truly reflect the real phase mixing signal due to the variation of the snail shell shape at different $V_{\phi}$ \citep[also see][]{laport_etal_19}.
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{1.}
\plottwo{zVz_diff_R_6_12.eps}{zVz_diff_Rg_6_12.eps}
\caption{The $Z-V_{Z}$ phase space distributions of the main sample from 6 kpc (top) to 12 kpc (bottom) in different Galactocentric radial annulus (left figure) and guiding radial annulus (right figure). In the left (right) figure, the first, second, and third columns show the number density contrast $\Delta N$ map, $V_{R}$, and $V_{\phi}$ color-coded phase spaces, respectively. Each pixel corresponds to $0.03\ {\rm kpc} \times 1.4\ {\rm km/s}$. At each radius, the snail shells are more clearly visualized in the $\Delta N$ map in the guiding radial annulus in the right figure. Vertical stripes due to the observational bias become much less noticeable in the $R_{g}$-based snail shell.}
\epsscale{1.0}
\label{fig:snail}
\end{figure*}
The $R_{g}$-based $Z-V_{Z}$ phase space maps are shown in the right figure of Fig.~\ref{fig:snail}. Clear snail shells can be seen in the $\Delta N$ maps, which look similar to the snail shells in the corresponding $R$-based phase spaces with improved clarity. On the other hand, there is no clear snail shell-like pattern in the $V_{R}$ or $V_{\phi}$ color-coded phase space shown in the second and third columns. Patterns in the $V_{\phi}$ color-coded phase spaces are discussed more in Appendix A. In Appendix B, we show $R_{g}$-based phase spaces for 30 sequential annuli, which are evenly sampled between 6 and 12 kpc with 0.2 kpc width. A gradual variation of the snail shell shape towards larger radius is quite clear. In addition, in the $R_{g}$-based phase space, the gap in the $R$-based phase space around $Z=0$ (lack of stars due to dust extinction) is also mitigated. In fact, the angular momentum space is not complete in terms of star counts. It is biased towards stars in the solar neighborhood where the stellar number density is the highest; at lower (higher) $R_{g}$, more stars in the lower (higher) $V_{\phi}$ tail in the velocity distributions are captured in the $R_{g}$ selected subsamples. Nonetheless, they still show coherent phase mixing signals to enhance the snail shell feature at each $R_{g}$. More details are shown in Appendix C.
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{1.}
\plotone{snail_cmp_R_Rg.eps}
\caption{Phase space snail shells shapes measured at different $R$ (top row) and $R_{g}$ (middle row) from 8 to 11 kpc. The overlaid green curves with error bars represent the extracted profiles of the snail shells. Apparently, compared to the top row, more wraps of the shell can be identified in the middle row at each $R_{g}$. The bottom row compares the phase space snail shell shapes between $R$ (blue) and $R_{g}$ (red) from 8 to 11 kpc. $\phi$ and $R_{\rm norm}$ are the angle (increasing counterclockwise in the phase space) and normalized dimensionless radius of the measured snail shell profiles in the polar coordinates. The snail shell shapes at the same $R$ and $R_{g}$ are consistent, except that the profiles in $R_{g}$ extend further with larger $\phi$ which indicates more wraps of the snail shell in the phase space.}
\epsscale{1.0}
\label{fig:snail_rrg}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\epsscale{1.1}
\plotone{pitch_ang_prof.eps}
\caption{The pitch angle $\alpha$ at different guiding radii $R_{g}$. The snail shells at the outer disk show larger pitch angle (i.e., loosely wound) compared to the snail shell in the inner disk. This is consistent with the theoretical expectation. The red point with a square denotes the value of the solar neighborhood.}
\epsscale{1.}
\label{fig:pitch_ang_prof}
\end{figure}
\section{Angular Momentum: A Fundamental Parameter to Trace the Snail Shell}
In the epicycle approximation, a star revolves around the guiding center which is on a circular orbit around the Galactic center. Grouping stars according to the guiding radius instead of the present Galactocentric radius can avoid the mixture of stars with different angular momentum. In this section, we perform quantitative comparisons of the phase space snail shells between different $R$ and $R_{g}$ ranges, and compare to other previous works to emphasize the importance of guiding radius to trace the vertical phase mixing signal.
\subsection{Snail Shell Shape Measurement}
As shown in the $\Delta N$ maps of the $R$- and $R_{g}$-based phase spaces in Fig.~\ref{fig:snail}, the snail shell is reflected with dark-brown color (local maximum) separated by light-brown color (local minimum). Ideally, if we work in the polar coordinate of the phase space, and to choose a wedge centered at (0, 0), then averaging the signal at each phase space radius\footnote{In the phase space, $Z$ and $V_{Z}$ values at each point are divided by 1.5 kpc and 70 km/s, respectively, to get a normalized dimensionless radius $R_{\rm norm} = \sqrt{(Z/1.5 {\rm kpc})^2 + (V_{Z}/70 {\rm km/s})^2}$.} in the wedge will result in a $\Delta N$ profile, with the peaks and troughs corresponding to the snail shell and inter shell regions, respectively. After identifying the shell positions in each wedge, the identified peak positions in all the wedges can be simply connected to recover the whole snail shell structure. The phase space is equally divided into 12 wedges with $30^{\circ}$ azimuthal angle. The phase space angle $\phi = 0^{\circ}$ is defined in the direction of $Z = 0$ and $V_{Z} < 0$ that increases counterclockwise following the snail shell outwards from the central region of the phase space.
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{1.}
\plotone{zVz_SN_R_Rg_cmp.eps}
\caption{The $R$- and $R_{g}$-based phase space maps at the solar radius ($R, R_{g} = 8.34$ kpc) using the {\it Gaia} RVS and the main sample (similar to Fig.~\ref{fig:snail}). The $R$- and $R_{g}$-based phase space snail shells look similar with improved clarity and one more wrap seen in the middle and bottom rows in $R_{g}$-based phase space.}
\epsscale{1.0}
\label{fig:snail_rrg_SN}
\end{figure*}
We have identified the snail shell structure in the $\Delta N$ maps at $R, R_{g} = 8, 9, 10$, and 11 kpc, which are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:snail_rrg} with the measured snail shell shape overlaid on the $\Delta N$ map.\footnote{The snail shells at 6, 7, and 12 kpc are relatively weak and hard to measure quantitatively.} The outermost wrap of the snail shell is truncated depending on its relative amplitude. At 8 and 9 kpc, the snail shell is measured up to $\phi = 720^{\circ}$, then the measurement is terminated when the snail shell relative amplitude\footnote{The relative amplitude of the snail shell is estimated by averaging the $\Delta N$ differences between the local peak position (the snail shell) and the adjacent local troughs (the inter shell regions on the two sides of each snail shell).} is below 0.025. For 10 and 11 kpc, the snail shell is traced to $\phi = 540^{\circ}$. Then the profile is truncated when the snail shell relative amplitude is lower than 0.1. The error bar of the snail shell shape is determined by 1/4 separation between the two troughs on each side of the local peak (except for the outer most shell, which is determined by 1/2 separation between the peak and the inner trough since no outer trough can be determined). As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:snail_rrg}, the green curves with error bars generally follow the visually identified snail shell. Due to the large fluctuations in the signal, the outer shell is relatively difficult to map compared to the inner shell. Clearly, the green curve marking the $R_{g}$-based snail shell shows more wraps and well defined shape than the $R$-based snail shell.
The bottom row of Fig.~\ref{fig:snail_rrg} shows the shape of the $R$- and $R_{g}$-based snail shell in the $R_{\rm norm} - \phi$ plane. At each radius, the two types of points follow the same track, suggesting that the snail shell shapes are similar. The red dot ($R_{g}$) extends to larger $\phi$ and $R_{\rm norm}$ values to show more wraps in the phase space. In addition, the slope in $R_{\rm norm} - \phi$ plane is steeper at larger radius compared to smaller ones. This is consistent with the theoretical expectation that snail shell at larger radius is more loosely wound than the snail shell at the smaller radius.
To quantify the degree of woundedness of the phase space snail shell, the concept of pitch angle $\alpha$ is adopted\footnote{The pitch angle $\alpha$ can be calculated via $\displaystyle \cot{(\alpha)} = \left| R \frac{d \phi}{d R} \right|$.}, which is often used in spiral arm measurement. By fitting a linear function between $R_{\rm norm}$ and $\phi$ in the bottom row of Fig.~\ref{fig:snail_rrg}, the pitch angle at each guiding radius can be estimated. The result is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:pitch_ang_prof}. As expected, the pitch angle increases from $\sim 2.5^{\circ}$ to $4^{\circ}$ with $R_{g}$ increasing from 8 to 11 kpc.
\subsection{Comparison with Previous Works}
We first compare our results with \citet{antoja_etal_18}, the discovery paper of the phase space snail shell. As shown in the top row of Fig.~\ref{fig:snail_rrg_SN}, we reproduce the phase space snail shell with stars near the solar radius in the {\it Gaia} RVS sample ($R = 8.34 \pm 0.1$ kpc), similar to Fig.~1 in \citet{antoja_etal_18}. For comparison, in the middle row, we also generate the $R_{g}$-based snail shell using {\it Gaia} RVS data. The bottom row shows the $R_{g}$-based snail shell using the {\it LAMOST + Gaia} sample. As shown in the $\Delta N$ maps (second column), it seems that the snail shell features are similar except that $R_{g}$-based snail shells are clear with one more wrap.
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{1.}
\plotone{zVz_SN_snail_shape_R_Rg_cmp.eps}
\caption{Measured $R$- and $R_{g}$-based phase space snail shells in the solar neighborhood ($R, R_{g} = 8.34$ kpc) similar to Fig.~\ref{fig:snail_rrg}. The right panel compares the snail shapes shown in the left three panels, which follow the similar trend, with the $R_{g}$-based snail shell extending further with one more wrap.}
\epsscale{1.0}
\label{fig:sn_r_rg_shape}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{0.9}
\plotone{snail_amp_diff_R_Rg_SN.eps}
\caption{Comparison of the $R$- and $R_{g}$-based phase space snail shell amplitudes in the solar neighborhood. The vertical yellow solid and dashed lines correspond to the turning-around ($V_{Z} = 0$) and mid-plane points ($Z = 0$) of the snail shell, respectively. The yellow lines are all located in the local maximum positions of the red and green lines in $R_{g}$-based profiles, with larger differences between the peak and the adjacent local minimum than the $R$-based profile (blue lines), indicating larger contrast/amplitude of the $R_{g}$-based snail shell (red and green lines).}
\epsscale{1.0}
\label{fig:sn_r_rg_amp}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{zVz_khanna_lz_org.eps}
\caption{The $Z-V_{Z}$ phase space distributions of stars in different angular momentum ranges. The median $L_{Z}$ increases from 1500 to 2400 kpc km/s from left to right columns, with the number density, density contrast, and $L_{Z}$ color-coded phase spaces from top to bottom rows. In each panel, the bin width $\Delta L_{Z}$ is 200 kpc km/s ($\pm 0.4$ kpc in $R_{g}$) to be consistent with \citet{khanna_etal_19}. Panels in the bottom row well reproduce Fig.~16 in \citet{khanna_etal_19}. The difference between the $L_{Z}$ color-coded phase space and the $\Delta N$ map is quite clear.}
\epsscale{1.0}
\label{fig:snail_lz_200}
\end{figure*}
The snail shell shapes of the two phase spaces are measured with the method mentioned in the previous section. The $\Delta N$ maps with the snail shell curves overlaid are shown in the left three panels in Fig.~\ref{fig:sn_r_rg_shape}. The comparison between the three curves are shown in the right panel. Clearly, the snail shell shapes are consistent within $\phi < 700^{\circ}$ (in the inner region of the phase space). The red and green dots ($R_{g}$) extend to larger $R_{\rm norm}$ and $\phi$ values.
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{1.0}
\plottwo{zVz_diff_R_6_12_cold.eps}{zVz_diff_R_6_12_hot.eps}
\caption{The $Z-V_{Z}$ phase space distributions for the colder orbits (left figure) and hotter orbits (right figure) at different radial ranges. The layout of the figure is the same as Fig.~\ref{fig:snail}.}
\epsscale{1.0}
\label{fig:snail_cold_hot_r}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{1.}
\plottwo{zVz_diff_Rg_6_12_cold.eps}{zVz_diff_Rg_6_12_hot.eps}
\caption{The $Z-V_{Z}$ phase space distributions for the colder orbits (left figure) and hotter orbits (right figure) at different guiding radial ranges. The layout is the same with Fig.~\ref{fig:snail}. Note here we have raised the criteria of hotter orbits to $J_{R} > 0.06$.}
\epsscale{1.0}
\label{fig:snail_cold_hot_rg}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{1.}
\plotone{cold_hot_Rg_9.eps}
\caption{Normalized distributions of $J_{Z}$, $Z$ and $V_{Z}$ for stars at $R_{g} = 9$ kpc. The black and red lines represent the stars with $J_{R} < 0.02$ and $J_{R} > 0.07$, respectively. The hotter stars with larger $J_{R}$ show larger dispersion in the vertical direction compared to the colder ones with smaller $J_{R}$.}
\label{fig:cold_hot_9}
\end{figure*}
The snail shell clarity is also estimated with the $\Delta N$ profiles extracted along $Z$ and $V_{Z}$ stripes; in the $\Delta N$ map, we choose the stripe with $|V_{Z}| < 15$ km/s to get the $\Delta N - Z$ profile, and the stripe with $|Z| < 0.15$ kpc to get the $\Delta N - V_{Z}$ profile. The results are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:sn_r_rg_amp} with the left and right panels corresponding to the $\Delta N$ profiles along $Z$ and $V_{Z}$, respectively\footnote{The profiles are truncated with $\Delta N$ uncertainty larger than 0.14.}. The yellow vertical solid and dashed lines mark the snail shell turning-around points ($V_{Z} = 0$) and mid-plane points ($Z = 0$), respectively. The local peak position in the red and green curves ($R_{g}$) agree quite well with the yellow lines, with relatively larger differences between the peak and trough positions ($\sim$ 0.08). The blue curve ($R$) also seems to agree with the position of the snail shells, but with relatively smaller difference between the peaks and troughs ($\sim$ 0.05). The comparison confirms that in the solar neighborhood, the snail shell in the $R_{g}$-based phase space is better revealed than the traditional $R$-based phase space.
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{1.}
\plotone{OmegaZ-Jz_cmp.eps}
\caption{$\Omega_{Z} - \sqrt{J_{Z}}$ distributions of stars at $R = 8$ kpc (top row) and $R_{g } = 8$ kpc (middle row). The top left and right panels show the number density and $V_{\phi}$ color-coded $\Omega_{Z} - \sqrt{J_{Z}}$ distributions at $R = 8$ kpc, respectively. The middle left and right panels show the number density and $\Delta R_{g} = R_{g} - 8$ kpc color-coded $\Omega_{Z} - \sqrt{J_{Z}}$ distributions, respectively. The distribution is much narrower for stars in different guiding radius bin (middle row), resulting in the clear phase space snail shell. At certain radius $R$, $\Omega_{Z}$ generally decreases with increasing $V_{\phi}$, producing the snail shell in the $V_{\phi}$ color-coded phase space. At $R_{g} = 8$ kpc, $\Omega_{Z}$ decreases slightly with increasing $\Delta R_{g}$. The bottom left panel shows the $\Omega_{Z} - \sqrt{J_{Z}}$ distribution of stars at $R_{g} = 8 \pm 0.01$ kpc with $J_{R} < 0.01$ (blue) and $J_{R} > 0.06$ (red). The bottom right panel compares the $\Omega_{Z} - \sqrt{J_{Z}}$ distributions of stars at different $R_{g}$ (from 6 to 11 kpc with $0.02$ kpc width annulus) with $J_{R} < 0.01$. Stars that closely follow circular motions at each guiding radius (with small $J_{R}$) show very tight correlations between $\Omega_{Z}$ and $\sqrt{J_{Z}}$.}
\epsscale{1.0}
\label{fig:omg_jz_n}
\end{figure*}
Based on a small sample covering $\sim$ 1 kpc distance from the Sun, \citet{khanna_etal_19} found that the phase spiral pattern for a given $L_{Z}$ is almost invariant with radius, suggesting the angular momentum as a more robust quantity to characterize the snail shell compared to $V_{\phi}$. As shown in Fig.~16 of \citet{khanna_etal_19}, the snail shell pattern revealed in the $L_{Z}$ color-coded phase space ($\Delta L_{Z} = 200$ kpc km/s) with the orientation of the snail shell changing with $L_{Z}$. Our result improves upon \citet{khanna_etal_19} in the aspect that we have explored a large radial range and performed comparisons of the $\Delta N$ phase spaces (representing the intrinsic shape of the snail shell rather than $V_{\phi}$ or $L_{Z}$ color-coded phase space) of different $R$ and $R_{g}$ ranges. According to our results, $R_{g}$ (or $L_{Z}$) is not only robust, but also fundamental to trace the phase space snail shell across the Galactic disk.
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{1}
\plottwo{zVz_diff_R_6_12_simu1.eps}{zVz_diff_Rg_6_12_simu1.eps}
\caption{The $Z-V_{Z}$ phase space distributions of stars in different radial ranges (left figure) and guiding radius ranges (right figure) of the test particle simulation in the first approach. In the left (right) figure, the first, second, and third columns show the $\Delta N$, $V_{R}$, and $V_{\phi}$ color-coded phase spaces, respectively.}
\epsscale{1.0}
\label{fig:simu}
\end{figure*}
To compare our results with \citet{khanna_etal_19}, we explore the phase space distributions at each $L_{Z}$. We first derive the 6D information for stars in the {\it Gaia} RVS sample using the same solar position and kinematic configuration as \citet{khanna_etal_19}. Then we are able to reproduce Fig.~16 in \citet{khanna_etal_19} by selecting stars in different angular momentum bin with $\Delta L_{Z} = 200$ kpc km/s ($\sim \pm 0.4$ kpc in $R_{g}$).
Fig.~\ref{fig:snail_lz_200} shows the number density, $\Delta N$, and $L_{Z}$ color-coded phase spaces from top to bottom rows, respectively. Apparently, the snail shell shapes revealed in the top and middle rows ($N$ and $\Delta N$ maps) are quite different from the corresponding $L_{Z}$ color-coded maps in the bottom row. This confirms our previous conclusion that it is the number density map representing the intrinsic phase space structures. The $L_{Z}$ color-coded phase space may not accurately reflect the phase space snail shell structure because it is the number weighted average of the angular momentum of stars. In an imaginary extreme case, where all the stars in each panel of the top row in Fig.~\ref{fig:snail_lz_200} have the same angular momentum, the $L_{Z}$ color-coded $Z-V_{Z}$ phase space will not reveal any feature at all (see Appendix B for more discussion). We can conclude that $R_{g}$-based snail shells can reveal more clear, and intrinsic information on the phase mixing process than the $L_{Z}$ color-coded ones.
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{xy_xz_simu.eps}
\caption{The evolution of the test particle simulation with the impulse approximation implemented. The intruder is assumed to hit the disk at 18 kpc along the $X-$axis from the center, with a vertical downward velocity of 300 km/s. From left to right, the four columns show the evolution of the model at $T = 50$, 250, 500, and 800 Myr after the impact. We adopt the snapshot at $T = 500$ Myr in the phase space analysis.}
\epsscale{1.0}
\label{fig:xy_imp}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Colder and Hotter Orbits Dichotomy}
\citet{li_she_20} found that, for stars near the solar neighborhood, clear phase space snail shell can only be seen in the dynamically colder orbits ($|V_{\phi} - V_{\rm LSR}| < 30$ km/s or $J_{R} < 0.04$), while the hotter orbits have probably phase-wrapped away already. The perturbation should happen at least $\sim$ 500 Myr ago to facilitate the phase mixing of the hotter orbits. Here with a larger sample we also investigate the cold/hot dichotomy across the Galactic disk. Similar to \citet{li_she_20}, at different radius, we use the same criteria to separate the colder and hotter orbits. The phase space distributions for the colder and hotter orbits at different radius are shown in the left and right figures of Fig.~\ref{fig:snail_cold_hot_r}, respectively. Consistent with \citet{li_she_20}, prominent snail shell can only be seen on the colder orbits at different radius.
We also test to divide stars at each guiding radius into colder and hotter orbits. The $Z-V_{Z}$ phase space distributions are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:snail_cold_hot_rg} with the colder and hotter orbits shown in the left and right figures, respectively. In fact, we have raised the orbital hotness criteria to $J_{R} > 0.06$, since snail shell features are still visible in the warmer orbit at intermediate $J_{R}$ values ($0.04 < J_{R} < 0.06$). This test again confirms the importance of the guiding radius in revealing the phase space snail shell features, with the radial orbit hotness (ellipticity) playing a less important role.
As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:snail_cold_hot_rg}, the phase space number density maps of the hotter orbits (right figure) seems to show less vertical excursion than the colder orbits (left figure), inconsistent with the expectation that hotter orbits are more likely to drift away from the disk and reach higher vertical distance. Using $R_{g} = 9$ kpc as an example, we compare the distribution of parameters representing the vertical excursion (i.e., $J_{Z}$, $Z$, and $V_{Z}$) between the colder orbits and hotter orbits\footnote{The colder and hotter orbits in Fig.~\ref{fig:cold_hot_9} are selected with $J_{R} < 0.02$ and $J_{R} > 0.07$, respectively, to enhance the difference in the parameter distributions.}. As shown in the normalized histograms in Fig.~\ref{fig:cold_hot_9}, both the hotter and colder orbits peak at 0, except that the hotter orbits show larger dispersions in $J_{Z}$, $Z$, and $V_{Z}$ than the colder ones, consistent with the expectation. The reason that we found smaller phase space coverage in Fig.~\ref{fig:snail_cold_hot_rg} for the hotter orbits is mainly due to the much lower numbers of stars; at $R_{g} = 9$ kpc, there are 944,231 stars in the colder orbits ($J_{R} < 0.06$), and only 108,095 stars in the hotter ones ($J_{R} > 0.06$). Another possibility of this inconsistency originates from our method to calculate $R_{g}$, where we have ignored the fact that the circular velocity decreases as a function of $Z$ at a given radius. However, this effect should be minor. According to \citet{bov_tre_12}, at the solar radius with $|Z| < 1.5$ kpc, the vertical gradient of the circular velocity can be estimated as $\displaystyle \frac{\partial V_{c}}{\partial Z} \simeq -2.8\ {\rm km\ s^{-1}\ kpc^{-1}} \left(\frac{Z}{100\ \rm pc}\right)$. At $Z = 1$ kpc, the circular velocity is expected to be 14 km/s lower than the circular velocity in the mid-plane. The angular momentum difference is $\sim 110$ kpc km/s, 5\% of the angular momentum at $R_{\odot}$, which should play a minor role in the guiding radius estimation.
\subsection{Vertical Action and Oscillation Frequency Analysis}
Aiming to better understand the vertical phase mixing process, we explore the action space of the sample. Fig.~\ref{fig:omg_jz_n} shows the $\Omega_{Z}-\sqrt{J_{Z}}$ correlations for stars at $R, R_{g} = 8$ kpc. At each radius, the anti-correlation between $\Omega_{Z}$ and $\sqrt{J_{Z}}$ is the main reason behind the phase space snail shell, representing the anharmonic vertical oscillation. Comparing the top and middle panels, the $\Omega_{Z} - \sqrt{J_{Z}}$ distribution at each $R_{g}$ is much tighter than that at different $R$, resulting in a clear snail shell in the number density map of $R_{g}$ selected sample. This also implies that regardless of the current position in the disk, stars with the same angular momentum tend to follow similar $\Omega_{Z}-\sqrt{J_{Z}}$ correlation (and similar snail shell shape in the $Z-V_{Z}$ phase space).
The top right panel in Fig.~\ref{fig:omg_jz_n} shows the same $\Omega_{Z}-\sqrt{J_{Z}}$ correlation at $R = 8$ kpc but color-coded with $V_{\phi}$. A clear trend can be seen, that $\Omega_{Z}$ decreases for larger $V_{\phi}$ at a given $J_{Z}$, consistent with \citet{bin_sch_18}. On the other hand, the middle right panel shows the $\Omega_{Z}-\sqrt{J_{Z}}$ correlation of stars at $R_{g} = 8$ kpc color-coded with the guiding radius deviation ($\Delta R_{g} = R_{g} - 8$ kpc). The relatively smaller guiding radius corresponds to higher vertical oscillation frequency $\Omega_{Z}$.
To better understand the tight correlation between $\Omega_{Z}$ and $\sqrt{J_{Z}}$ in the $R_{g}$-based sample, we first choose stars in a very narrow guiding radius range, i.e., $R_{g} = 8 \pm 0.01$ kpc, which are further separated into a dynamically colder subsample with $J_{R} < 0.01$ and a dynamically hotter subsample with $J_{R} > 0.06$. The $\Omega_{Z}$ and $\sqrt{J_{Z}}$ distributions of the two subsamples are shown in the bottom left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:omg_jz_n}. The correlation is very tight for the dynamically colder orbits at very small $J_{R}$, with the dispersion increasing considerably at larger $J_{R}$ for the dynamically hotter orbits. This is expected since the dynamically colder stars are close to circular orbits; these stars with different vertical action move in the vertical gravitational potential well at the same radius, thus resulting in tight correlation between $\Omega_{Z}$ and $J_{Z}$. On the other hand, the dynamically hotter stars have large radial excursion, with the corresponding vertical profile of the gravitational potential varying to result in the large dispersion. Notice that the dispersion is mainly towards lower vertical frequency. This is probably due to the fact that the dynamically hotter stars spend more time around apocenter in the outer disk, with the vertical oscillation frequency reduced in the shallower potential well.
The bottom right panel in Fig.~\ref{fig:omg_jz_n} shows the tight $\Omega_{Z}-\sqrt{J_{Z}}$ correlation for dynamically colder stars at different guiding radius from 6 to 11 kpc, each with 0.02 kpc width annulus and $J_{R} < 0.01$. At a given vertical action value, the vertical oscillation frequency decreases progressively at larger guiding radius. The slope at larger $R_{g}$ is also shallower, consistent with the loosely wound snail shell shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:snail}.
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{1.}
\plotone{zVz_diff_R_6_12_simu2.eps}
\caption{The $Z-V_{Z}$ phase space distributions of stars in different radial ranges (from $R = 6$ to 12 kpc) of the test particle simulation in the second approach. The left three columns show the number density maps in the $Z-V_{Z}$ phase space at each radius (different rows) and each azimuthal wedge (different columns). The middle three columns show the $V_{R}$ color-coded the $Z-V_{Z}$ phase spaces, and the right three columns show the $V_{\phi}$ color-coded phase spaces corresponding to these number density maps.}
\epsscale{1.0}
\label{fig:diff_r_imp}
\end{figure*}
\section{Test Particle Simulations}
To better understand the spatial variation and the importance of the angular momentum of the phase space snail shell across the Galactic disk, we perform test particle simulations in a realistic Milky Way potential, i.e., Model I in \citet{irrgan_etal_13}. We use AGAMA to construct the stellar distribution function (DF) for the initial condition and to perform the orbit integration of the test particle simulation \citep{vasili_19}. We adopt the {\it QuasiIsothermal} DF for the thin disk \citep{binney_10, bin_mcm_11}, with the radial scale length as 3.7 kpc, and vertical scale height as 0.3 kpc \citep{bin_pif_15, bla_ger_16}.
The vertical perturbation is imposed on the test particles in two different approaches. The first approach is similar to \citet{li_she_20}, where the particles receive vertical downward velocities with the vertical positions barely changed; each particle receives a random vertical velocity perturbation with the median value of $-30$ km/s and dispersion of 5 km/s. For the second approach, we consider a more realistic impulse approximation on the test particle velocities following \citet{bin_sch_18}, to mimic the effect of a fly-by external perturber. Although the test particle simulation is relatively simple, it has the advantage of numerical efficiency and could also reflect the important physical processes of vertical oscillation and phase mixing (see \citealt{bla_tep_20} for a more recent comprehensive numerical modeling with $N$-body simulation).
In the first approach, one million test particles have been sampled from the DF. Regardless of the different azimuthal angles, the test particles at the same radius receive the same vertical perturbation, and thus the same vertical velocity distributions. In the following analysis, all the particles in each radial (or guiding radial) annulus are used. After 500 Myr evolution, the $Z-V_{Z}$ phase space distributions are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:simu} for different radial annuli\footnote{To enhance the prominence of the snail shell, we only keep the colder orbits at each radius ($V_{\phi} - V_{\rm circ} < 20$ km/s).} (left figure) and different guiding radial annuli (right figure) similar to Fig.~\ref{fig:snail}. The $R$-based snail shell shapes are similar to $R_{g}$-based snail shell, with the $R_{g}$-based snail shells narrower and well-defined than the $R$-based ones. These results agree with the observational results in Fig.~\ref{fig:snail}. Stars with the same angular momentum tend to follow the same vertical oscillation pattern (although they were located at different radius). On the other hand, in a given radial annulus, stars usually have a wide distribution of the angular momentum. The mixture of stars with different angular momentum (and the related phase space pattern) results in the blurring of the snail shell.
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{1.}
\plotone{zVz_diff_Rg_6_12_simu2.eps}
\caption{The $Z-V_{Z}$ phase space distributions of stars in different guiding radial ranges (from $R_{g} = 6$ to 12 kpc) of the test particle simulation in the second approach. The left three columns show the number density maps in the $Z-V_{Z}$ phase space at each guiding radius (different rows) and each azimuthal wedge (different columns). The middle three columns show the $V_{R}$ color-coded the $Z-V_{Z}$ phase spaces, and the right three columns show the $V_{\phi}$ color-coded phase spaces corresponding to these number density maps.}
\epsscale{1.0}
\label{fig:diff_rg_imp}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{pitch_ang_comp.eps}
\caption{Radial profiles of the phase spiral pitch angle of the first test particle simulation with different perturbation times (from 300 Myr to 800 Myr ago). The red points are the observation measurement in Fig.~\ref{fig:pitch_ang_prof}. The pitch angle profiles with the perturbations from 500 to 700 Myr ago agree well with the observation.}
\label{fig:pitch_comp}
\epsscale{1.}
\end{figure}
In the left figure of Fig.~\ref{fig:simu}, the third column shows the $V_{\phi}$ color-coded phase space. Different color shows different snail shell patterns. For particles at a given radius, the azimuthal velocity is proportional to the angular momentum. Since stars with different angular momentum have different snail shell pattern, when color-coded with $V_{\phi}$, different snail shells naturally emerge in the phase space. Comparing the results with different $R_{g}$ ranges in the right figure, there is no systematic variation of the snail shell shape with azimuthal velocity, since the median $V_{\phi}$ at different part of the phase space along the snail shell is close to 0. In Fig.~\ref{fig:simu} for both the $R$- and $R_{g}$-based phase spaces, no variation of the snail shell pattern with $V_{R}$ can be seen. The median radial velocity in the phase space is close to 0. This is mainly due to the initially imposed symmetric distribution of $V_{R}$ in our test particle simulation.
For the second approach, we have sampled three million test particles based on the DF to account for the azimuthal variation of the phase space snail shell. The perturbation to the vertical velocities of the particles are estimated following the impulse approximation in \citet{bin_sch_18}. The impact parameter of the external perturber is 18 kpc along the $X-$axis from the Galactic center at a speed of $\sim$ 300 km/s. The mass of the perturber is $2\times10^{10} M_{\odot}$ and $T = 66$ Myr as the passage timescale. To work in the non-inertial frame with the Galactic center stationary, the gravitational pull from the intruder to a point mass at the Galactic center is subtracted from the acceleration of the intruder on the other test particles. The in-plane velocity change $\delta v_{\parallel}$ is computed by multiplying the characteristic timescale of the passage with the acceleration. A downward component $\delta v_{\perp}$ is added as $\delta v_{\perp} = \alpha \delta v_{\parallel} [1 - \beta \sin{(\psi - \psi_{\rm intruder})}]$ with $\alpha = 1.5$ and $\beta = 0.5$ \citep[see Eqt. 3 in][]{bin_sch_18}\footnote{We have increased $\alpha$ from 0.4 to 1.5 to enhance the vertical perturbation effect.}. The vertical perturbation is composed of two components: a constant term associated with the standard dynamical friction and a term proportional to $\sin{(\psi - \psi_{\rm intruder})}$. The second term arises from the consideration that stars initially moving towards the intruder ($\psi - \psi_{\rm intruder} < 0$) receive a net downward kick, while those stars initially moving away from the intruder ($\psi - \psi_{\rm intruder} > 0$) receive a net upward kick. We define $\psi_{\rm intruder} = 0^{\circ}$ along the $X-$ axis, and the azimuthal angle increases counterclockwise.
After the impact, the time evolution of the test particles is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:xy_imp}. As shown in the first column, 50 Myr after the perturbation, the disk becomes lopsided that is stretched towards the intruder with a prominent single arm. The amplitude of the vertical perturbation of each particle depends on the azimuthal angle, with larger amplitude for particles closer to the intruder. This is the main difference compared to the previous test particle simulation where the imposed vertical perturbation is azimuthally symmetric. In the second column, 250 Myr after the impact, the initial perturbation gradually evolves to form the $m = 2$ mode due to the differential rotation, with the vertical oscillation in different parts of the disk. After 500 Myr evolution (third column), the $m = 2$ mode is still present, with continuous phase mixing in the vertical direction of the disk. In fact, this is the snapshot we adopt in the following analysis, since the phase space snail shell is most prominent and roughly similar to the observations. At later times, as shown in the fourth column (800 Myr), the face-on image still exhibit prominent $m = 2$ mode feature, with the roughly symmetric distribution of the particles with respect to the disk mid-plane in the edge-on view of the model.
Recently, \citet{bla_tep_20} used a high resolution N-body model to simulate the impact of an external intruder on the main disk. They found good agreement with the model in \citet{bin_sch_18} indicating that the impulse approximation is valid to describe such process. After the impact, \citet{bla_tep_20} noticed a strong, $m = 1$ bending mode across the disk is set up, which gradually wraps up due to the differential rotation of the disk to result in a superposition of two distinct bisymmetric ($m = 2$) modes, namely a spiral pattern and a bending wave. Their self-consistent N-body simulation results are quite similar to our simple test particle simulation under the impulse approximation.
Since the vertical perturbation is not azimuthally symmetric, different phase space snail shells are expected to emerge at different azimuthal angles. The disk is separated into three azimuthal wedges with $120^{\circ}$ each, in order to trace the azimuthal variation of the phase space snail shell with sufficient number of particles. The $Z-V_{Z}$ phase space distributions at different radius and azimuthal wedges are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:diff_r_imp}. At each radius, as expected, the shape of the phase space snail shell is different in different azimuthal wedge. For example, at $R = 8$ and 9 kpc, the snail shell is barely seen in the azimuthal wedge with $\phi = (4\pi/3, 2\pi)$ (first column), while in the other azimuthal wedges at $(2\pi/3, 4\pi/3)$ (second column) and $(0, 2\pi/3)$ (third column), the snail shells are clear. In the $V_{R}$ (middle three columns) and $V_{\phi}$ (right three columns) color-coded phase spaces, evidence of snail shell shape changing at different velocities can be seen, roughly consistent with observations.
The phase space distributions at different guiding radius are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:diff_rg_imp}. With azimuthal variations still present, the $R_{g}$-based number density phase space (left three columns) show prominent snail shells compared to the $R$-based phase spaces in Fig.~\ref{fig:diff_r_imp}. In the $V_{R}$ and $V_{\phi}$ color-coded phase spaces, there is no systematic variation of the snail shell shape with the velocities. \citet{bla_tep_20} commented that they could not find the phase space snail shell feature as a function of the angular momentum. Still, their model is one of the best available in the literature that fits the global Milky Way properties well.
Based on the first test particle simulation, the pitch angles of the phase space snail shells in different guiding radii ($8 \sim 11$ kpc) at different times ($300 \sim 800$ Myr) are measured following the method in Section 4.1. By comparing to observational pitch angles, this could help to date the perturbation event; the pitch angle decreases monotonically as the phase space snail shell winds up with time. The radial profiles of the measured pitch angle at different times are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:pitch_comp}. The pitch angle decreases from $\sim 6^{\circ}$ at 300 Myr to $\sim 2.2^{\circ}$ at 800 Myr, consistent with our expectation for tighter snail shells at earlier perturbation events. The observational result seems to agree well with the pitch angle profiles from 500 to 700 Myr, with the best agreement at T = 600 Myr. This constrain of the perturbation event is also consistent with previous results using other different methods, such as the consecutive turns of the snail shell \citep{antoja_etal_18}, the cold/hot orbit dichotomy of the snail shell \citep{li_she_20}, and vertical potential reconstruction with oscillation frequency estimation \citep{li_wid_21}.
\section{summary}
We utilize $\sim$ 11 million stars from both the {\it Gaia} RVS sample and the {\it LAMOST} DR6 sample to study the vertical phase mixing across the Galactic disk. We confirm the existence of the snail shells in the $Z-V_{Z}$ phase space in the Galactic disk from 6 to 12 kpc, and quantitatively measure the shape of the snail shells, with the corresponding pitch angles also derived. We find that the guiding radius (angular momentum) is fundamental to reveal the vertical phase mixing signals. Compared to the $R$-based phase spaces, the clarity of the snail shell in the $R_{g}$-based phase space is increased; more wraps of the snail shell can be seen; phase space is less affected by the lack of stars close to the disk mid-plane due to extinction; snail shell signal is also amplified in a greater radial range.
In the epicycle theory, a star revolves around the guiding radius that is on circular orbits in the disk plane. When perturbed in the vertical direction, the amplitudes and the frequency of the stellar vertical oscillation depend on the shape of the vertical potential at different radius. Along its orbit, as the star moves inside $R_{g}$, the vertical oscillation frequency generally increases with lower $Z_{\rm max}$ and higher $V_{Z\rm max}$, vice versa for the star moving outside $R_{g}$. Averaging along the orbits, the $Z-V_{Z}$ phase space trajectories of the stars with the same angular momentum would generally show a coherent pattern with small deviations. Therefore, grouping stars into different $R_{g}$ helps to enhance such phase space signal with more prominent snail shell.
Additional evidence comes from the cold/hot dichotomy discovered in \citet{li_she_20} in the solar neighborhood. For the $R$-based phase space, the cold/hot dichotomy still holds, with prominent snail shell only in the colder orbits. However, in each $R_{g}$ range, snail shell can still be seen in warmer orbits. The snail shell eventually disappears for very hot orbits with $J_{R} > 0.06$ (compared to the original criteria $J_{R} > 0.04$ for the hotter orbits in \citealt{li_she_20}). Compared to the colder orbits, the warmer orbits ($0.04 < J_{R} < 0.06$) show larger radial excursion. Within each $R_{g}$ range, they still show similar snail shell feature as the colder orbits, indicating that the vertical perturbation is probably global and external origin. If the perturbation happens in the inner disk, the orbits with the same $L_{Z}$ but different radial excursion will likely encounter the outward propagating wave at different times, to show differences in the initial phase angle of the snail shell, which is likely to blur the phase space signals. Therefore, to study the vertical phase mixing process, it is recommended to use $R_{g}$ (with additional constraints on $J_{R}$) to better reveal the intrinsic shape of the snail shell in the Galactic disk. In another ongoing work, we are trying to model the snail shell shapes at different radius to constrain the shape of the Galactic potential.
The difference between the phase space distributions in the Galactocentric radial range and the guiding radius range can also be understood in the $\Omega_{Z}-\sqrt{J_{Z}}$ plane. At each radius, the distribution of stars in the $\Omega_{Z}-\sqrt{J_{Z}}$ plane shows anti-correlation with a broad distribution, while stars in the corresponding $R_{g}$ range show a much tighter correlation, corresponding to more prominent snail shells in the phase space.
Test particle simulations are also performed in two approaches to understand this phenomenon. In the first approach, a simple azimuthally symmetric vertical perturbation is imposed on all the test particles. Snail shell features can be seen across the disk, which are more prominent when the particles are grouped into different guiding radial ranges. In the second approach, the perturbation with the impulse approximation is applied on all the test particles. Again, the phase space snail shell is more prominent in different guiding radial ranges, consistent with the observations. By comparing the pitch angle profiles between the observation and the simulation, the perturbation event is constrained to happen at $\sim$ 500 to 700 Myr ago, consistent with other studies using different methods.
I thank the referee for helpful comments and suggestions that improved the quality of the paper. I also thank Juntai Shen for insightful suggestions that help improve the clarity of the paper, and Chao Liu for helpful discussions. The research presented here is supported by the ``111'' Project of the Ministry of Education under grant No. B20019, by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant No. 11621303, and by the MOE Key Lab for Particle Physics, Astrophysics and Cosmology. This work made use of the Gravity Supercomputer at the Department of Astronomy, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, and the facilities of the Center for High Performance Computing at Shanghai Astronomical Observatory.
Guoshoujing Telescope (the Large Sky Area Multi-Object Fiber Spectroscopic Telescope {\it LAMOST}) is a National Major Scientific Project built by the Chinese Academy of Sciences. This work has made use of data from the European Space Agency (ESA) mission {\it Gaia} (http://www.cosmos.esa.int/gaia), processed by the {\it Gaia} Data Processing and Analysis Consortium (DPAC, http://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/gaia/dpac/consortium). Funding for the DPAC has been provided by national institutions, in particular the institutions participating in the {\it Gaia} Multilateral Agreement.
|
\section{The Hamiltonian in the integrals-of-motion representation}
It is an obvious fact that a simple, local, short-range, few-body Hamiltonian will typically acquire a very complicated, nonlocal, long-range, $k$-body form when rewritten in the representation of the integrals of motion. For example, assume the lattice system is described by the following Hamiltonian,
\begin{equation}
H=\sum_{\{j,N\}} h_{\{j,N\}},
\end{equation}
where $h_{\{j,N\}}$ is a locally interacting term centred on site $j$ and contains operators up to the $N$th nearest neighbours of $j$. Now introducing the unitary \emph{matrix} $U$ that diagonalizes the matrix of the operator $H$ in a chosen basis, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
[UHU^\dagger]_{n',n}=\langle n'|H|n\rangle=E_n \langle n' | n \rangle=E_n\delta_{n',n}.
\end{equation}
Then, in terms of the eigenenergies and the eigenstates, this relation simply means that
\begin{equation}
H=\sum_{\{j,N\}} \sum_n \langle n|h_{\{j,N\}}|n\rangle |n\rangle\langle n|=\sum_n E_n|n\rangle\langle n|,
\end{equation}
where $\left\{\sum_n \langle n|h_{\{j,N\}}|n\rangle |n\rangle\langle n|\right\}$ comprises the set of integrals of motion of the system, as they are not only mutually commuting but also commute with $H$. Normally, $\sum_n \langle n|h_{\{j,N\}}|n\rangle |n\rangle\langle n|$ is a highly nonlocal and $k$-body interacting term in the typical circumstances.
Specialize to the case of the unconstrained many-body-localized (uMBL) models, a widely-adopted theoretical framework to explain the breakdown of ergodicity there is based on the notion of the so-called (quasi)local integrals of motion. Take, for instance, a general locally interacting spin-$1/2$ chain with randomness along $z$-direction, then according to this formalism, it is phenomenologically deduced that when the system is deeply inside the fully uMBL phase, the effective Hamiltonian matrix assumes
\begin{equation}
H_{\textrm{uMBL}}=\sum_i \widetilde{h}_i\tau^z_i+\sum_{i>j}J_{ij}\tau^z_i\tau^z_j+\sum_{i>j>k}J_{ijk}\tau^z_i\tau^z_j\tau^z_k+\ldots,
\end{equation}
where $\{[\tau^z_i]_{n',n}\coloneqq [U\sigma^z_iU^\dagger]_{n',n}\}$ comprises another set of quasilocal integrals of motion built from the physical spins $\{\sigma^z_i\}$ by the quasilocal unitary matrix $U$, which further implies that the various $k$-body interaction strengths $\{\widetilde{h}_i,J_{ij},J_{ijk},\ldots\}$ should decay rapidly in space.
\section{Dividing the Hamiltonian into short-range and long-range parts}
After writing the local and finite-range Hamiltonian into a nonlocal and infinite-range form,
\begin{equation}
H=\sum_{\{j,N\}} h_{\{j,N\}}=\sum_{\{j,N\}} \widetilde{h}_{\{j,N\}},
\end{equation}
where the integrals of motion are defined by
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{h}_{\{j,N\}}\coloneqq \sum_n \langle n|h_{\{j,N\}}|n\rangle |n\rangle\langle n|,
\end{equation}
one can proceed to separate $H$ into the short-range and the long-range pieces via imposing a dynamical length scale $\chi$. Namely,
\begin{equation}
H=\sum_{Z}\widetilde{h}_Z=\sum_{Z^{sr}}\widetilde{h}_{Z^{sr}}+\sum_{Z^{lr}}\widetilde{h}_{Z^{lr}}.
\label{Hsrlr}
\end{equation}
Here, any individual terms of $\{\widetilde{h}_Z\}$ that are supported exclusively on a lattice subset fulfilling $\textrm{diam}(Z^{sr})\leqslant\chi$ are grouped into the short-range part $\sum_{Z^{sr}}\widetilde{h}_{Z^{sr}}$. All the remaining terms are then classified as the long-range part $\sum_{Z^{lr}}\widetilde{h}_{Z^{lr}}$. Note that each $\widetilde{h}_Z$ might resemble $H$ in expression but they cannot be reduced to $h_Z$ because besides commuting with $H$, $\{\widetilde{h}_Z\}$ themselves also mutually commute.
\section{The interaction picture}
The main purpose of invoking Eq.~(\ref{Hsrlr}) is to transform the formulation of the Lieb-Robinson (LR) bound from the original Heisenberg picture to the interaction picture such that one is not only endowed with a variable length scale $\chi$ to tune but is also able to derive its meaningful form through the manipulation of the standard Hastings-Koma (HK) series. So, let's first introduce the apparatus of the interaction picture.
In order to be compatible with the OTOC results, we assume that the $k$-body Hamiltonian for the constrained MBL (cMBL) phase,
\begin{equation}
H_{\Lambda}=\sum_{Z\subset\Lambda_s}\widetilde{h}_Z,
\label{Ham}
\end{equation}
satisfies three conditions.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] The power-law decaying interactions, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\sum_{Z\ni x,y}\|\widetilde{h}_Z\|\leqslant\frac{\lambda_0}{\left[1+\textrm{dist}\left(x,y\right)\right]^\eta},
\label{cond1}
\end{equation}
for any fixed site indices $x$ and $y$.
\item[(ii)] The reproducing condition,
\begin{equation}
\sum_{z\in\Lambda_s}\frac{1}{[1+\textrm{dist}(x,z)]^\eta}\frac{1}{[1+\textrm{dist}(z,y)]^\eta}\leqslant\frac{p_0}{[1+\textrm{dist}(x,y)]^\eta}.
\label{cond2}
\end{equation}
\item[(iii)] Related to the reproducing condition, it is assumed that
\begin{equation}
\sup_{\Lambda_s}\sup_x\sum_{y\in\Lambda_s}\frac{1}{\left[1+\textrm{dist}(x,y)\right]^\eta}=s'<\infty.
\label{cond3}
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
Here, positive constants $\lambda_0,\eta,p_0,s'$ are independent of the volume of $\Lambda_s$, the underlying lattice system of sites and bonds.
In accord with Eq.~(\ref{Hsrlr}), the $k$-body interacting Hamiltonian (\ref{Ham}) is rewritten as follows,
\begin{equation}
H_{\Lambda}=H^{sr}_\Lambda+H^{lr}_\Lambda,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
H^{sr}_\Lambda=\sum_{\substack{Z^{sr}:Z^{sr}\subset\Lambda_s \\ \textrm{diam}(Z^{sr})\leqslant\chi}}\widetilde{h}_{Z^{sr}}\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \textrm{and}\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ H^{lr}_\Lambda=\sum_{\substack{Z^{lr}:Z^{lr}\subset\Lambda_s \\ \textrm{diam}(Z^{lr})>\chi}}\widetilde{h}_{Z^{lr}}.
\end{equation}
Next, we recap the major formulas in different pictures. Throughout the derivation we always set $\hbar=1$. First, take $A$ as a generic time-independent Schr\"{o}dinger operator, then in the Heisenberg representation governed by $H_{\Lambda}$, it becomes
\begin{equation}
A_H(t)=e^{iH_{\Lambda}t}Ae^{-iH_{\Lambda}t}.
\end{equation}
Instead, if choosing to evolve with just $H^{sr}_\Lambda$, one leads to the interaction-picture operator,
\begin{equation}
A_I(t)=e^{iH^{sr}_{\Lambda}t}Ae^{-iH^{sr}_{\Lambda}t}.
\label{interactionops}
\end{equation}
It is easy to recognize the unitary scattering-matrix operator that connects the interaction picture to the Heisenberg picture,
\begin{equation}
A_H(t)=\mathcal{S}^\dagger(t)A_I(t)\mathcal{S}(t),\ \ \ \ \ \mathcal{S}(t)=e^{iH^{sr}_\Lambda t} e^{-iH_\Lambda t},
\end{equation}
whose form can be derived from its equation of motion,
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\mathcal{S}(t)}{dt}=H^{lr}_{\Lambda,I}(t)\mathcal{S}(t),\ \ \ \ \ H^{lr}_{\Lambda,I}(t)=e^{iH^{sr}_{\Lambda}t}H^{lr}_{\Lambda}e^{-iH^{sr}_{\Lambda}t},
\label{S_eom}
\end{equation}
as the following,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{S}(t)=\sum^\infty_{n=0}\left(-\frac{i}{\hbar}\right)^n\frac{1}{n!}\int\limits^t_0dt_1\cdots\int\limits^t_0dt_n\ T\!\left[H^{lr}_{\Lambda,I}(t_1)H^{lr}_{\Lambda,I}(t_2)\cdots H^{lr}_{\Lambda,I}(t_n)\right].
\end{equation}
We start to analyze the short-range contribution to the LR bound from $H^{sr}_{\Lambda}$. Let $A,B$ be two observables supported on the compact sets, $X,Y\subset\Lambda_s$. The standard HK series gives
\begin{align}
\frac{\|[A_I(t),B]\|}{\|A\|}&\leqslant2\|B\|(2|t|)\sum_{\substack{Z^{sr}_1:Z^{sr}_1\cap X\neq\emptyset \\ Z^{sr}_1\cap Y\neq\emptyset}}\|\widetilde{h}_{Z^{sr}_1}\| \nonumber \\
&+2\|B\|\frac{(2|t|)^2}{2!}\sum_{\substack{Z^{sr}_1:Z^{sr}_1\cap X\neq\emptyset}}\|\widetilde{h}_{Z^{sr}_1}\| \sum_{\substack{Z^{sr}_2:Z^{sr}_2\cap Z^{sr}_1\neq\emptyset \\ Z^{sr}_2\cap Y\neq\emptyset}}\|\widetilde{h}_{Z^{sr}_2}\| \nonumber \\
&+2\|B\|\frac{(2|t|)^3}{3!}\sum_{\substack{Z^{sr}_1:Z^{sr}_1\cap X\neq\emptyset}}\|\widetilde{h}_{Z^{sr}_1}\| \sum_{\substack{Z^{sr}_2:Z^{sr}_2\cap Z^{sr}_1\neq\emptyset}}\|\widetilde{h}_{Z^{sr}_2}\| \sum_{\substack{Z^{sr}_3:Z^{sr}_3\cap Z^{sr}_2\neq\emptyset \\ Z^{sr}_3\cap Y\neq\emptyset}}\|\widetilde{h}_{Z^{sr}_3}\| \nonumber \\
&+\cdots.
\label{HKs}
\end{align}
By exploiting Eqs.~(\ref{cond1}), (\ref{cond2}), and (\ref{cond3}), one can simplify the terms of (\ref{HKs}) as follows,
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\substack{Z^{sr}_1:Z^{sr}_1\cap X\neq\emptyset \\ Z^{sr}_1\cap Y\neq\emptyset}}\|\widetilde{h}_{Z^{sr}_1}\|\leqslant\sum_{x\in X}\sum_{y\in Y}\sum_{Z^{sr}_1\ni x,y}\|\widetilde{h}_{Z^{sr}_1}\|\leqslant\sum_{x\in X}\sum_{y\in Y}\frac{\lambda_0}{\left[1+\textrm{dist}(x,y)\right]^\eta}\leqslant \sum_{x\in X}\lambda_0s'=|X|\lambda_0s'.
\end{equation}
For the second term,
\begin{align}
\sum_{\substack{Z^{sr}_1:Z^{sr}_1\cap X\neq\emptyset}}\|\widetilde{h}_{Z^{sr}_1}\| \sum_{\substack{Z^{sr}_2:Z^{sr}_2\cap Z^{sr}_1\neq\emptyset \\ Z^{sr}_2\cap Y\neq\emptyset}}\|\widetilde{h}_{Z^{sr}_2}\|&\leqslant\sum_{x\in X}\sum_{y\in Y}\sum_{z_{12}\in\Lambda_s}\sum_{Z^{sr}_1\ni x,z_{12}}\|\widetilde{h}_{Z^{sr}_1}\|\sum_{Z^{sr}_2\ni z_{12},y}\|\widetilde{h}_{Z^{sr}_2}\| \nonumber \\
&\leqslant\sum_{x\in X}\sum_{y\in Y}\sum_{z_{12}\in\Lambda_s}\frac{\lambda_0}{[1+\textrm{dist}(x,z_{12})]^\eta}\frac{\lambda_0}{[1+\textrm{dist}(z_{12},y)]^\eta} \nonumber \\
&\leqslant\sum_{x\in X}\sum_{y\in Y}\frac{\lambda^2_0p_0}{[1+\textrm{dist}(x,y)]^\eta} \nonumber \\
&=|X|\lambda^2_0p_0s'.
\end{align}
Proceed analogously for the higher-order terms, one arrives at
\begin{align}
\frac{\|[A_I(t),B]\|}{\|A\|}&\leqslant2\|B\||X|p^{-1}_0s'\left(2|t|\lambda_0p_0+\frac{(2|t|\lambda_0p_0)^2}{2!}+\frac{(2|t|\lambda_0p_0)^3}{3!}+\cdots\right) \nonumber \\
&\leqslant2\|B\||X|p^{-1}_0s'\sum^\infty_{{\sf a}=\lceil r/\chi \rceil} \frac{(2|t|\lambda_0p_0)^{\sf a}}{{\sf a}!};\ \ \ \ \ \ r=\textrm{dist}(X,Y) \nonumber \\
&\leqslant2\|B\||X|p^{-1}_0s'\sum^\infty_{{\sf a}=\lceil r/\chi \rceil} \frac{(2|t|\lambda_0p_0)^{\sf a}}{{\sf a}!}e^{{\sf a}-\lceil r/\chi \rceil} \nonumber \\
&\leqslant2\|B\||X|p^{-1}_0s'\sum^\infty_{{\sf a}=0} \frac{(2|t|e\lambda_0p_0)^{\sf a}}{{\sf a}!}e^{-\lceil r/\chi \rceil} \nonumber \\
&\leqslant2\|B\||X|p^{-1}_0s'\exp\!\left(2|t|e\lambda_0p_0-r/\chi\right),
\label{HKinteraction}
\end{align}
where in the second line, we use the observation that the range of $H^{sr}_\Lambda$ is within $\chi$ so that the HK sequence in Eq.~(\ref{HKs}) needs at least $\lceil r/\chi\rceil$ iterations to bridge regions $X$ and $Y$, but in the final steps of (\ref{HKinteraction}) we still add back these contributions to get a closed expression.
Define the LR velocity for the short-range interactions,
\begin{equation}
v=2e\lambda_0p_0,
\end{equation}
Eq.~(\ref{HKinteraction}) is repeated by
\begin{equation}
\frac{\|[A_I(t),B]\|}{\|A\|}\leqslant2\|B\||X|p^{-1}_0s'\exp\!\left(v|t|-r/\chi\right),
\label{LRsr}
\end{equation}
where picking up a threshold $\varepsilon_0$ gives rise to the definition of the radius $R(t)$ of the short-range linear lightcone,
\begin{equation}
r=\chi v|t|-\chi\varepsilon_0\ \ \ \ \ \Longrightarrow\ \ \ \ \ R(t)=\chi v|t|.
\end{equation}
A common practice of using the result (\ref{LRsr}) is to approximate the long-range operator $A_I(t)$ by a sequence of intermediate operators whose supports, although expanding, are strictly finite-ranged. Following Refs.~\cite{Bravyi,FFG}, $\mathbb{B}[X,R_\ell(t)]$ denotes a ball of radius $R_\ell(t)=R(t)+\ell\chi,\ \ell=0,1,2,\ldots,$ centred on set $X$,
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{B}[X,R_\ell(t)]\coloneqq\left\{i\in\Lambda_s|\textrm{dist}(i,X)\leqslant R_\ell(t)\right\}.
\end{equation}
By an integration over the unitary group equipped with the Haar measure, the content of $A_I(t)$ confined within $\mathbb{B}[X,R_\ell(t)]$ can be formally isolated,
\begin{equation}
A_I(\ell,t)\coloneqq e^{iH^{sr}_\Lambda t}\left\{\ \int\limits_{\overline{\mathbb{B}}[X,R_\ell(0)]}d\mu(U) UAU^\dagger\right\}e^{-iH^{sr}_\Lambda t},
\label{op_truncated}
\end{equation}
where $\overline{\mathbb{B}}[X,R_\ell(t)]$ is the complement of $\mathbb{B}[X,R_\ell(t)]$ with respect to $\Lambda_s$, i.e., operator $A_I(\ell,t)$ has no support outside the ball $\mathbb{B}[X,R(t)+\ell\chi(0)]$.
The usefulness of $\{A_I(\ell,t)\}$ resides in their resemblance to $A_I(t)$ in the sense that
\begin{align}
\left\|A_I(\ell,t)-A_I(t)\right\|&=\left\|\ e^{iH^{sr}_\Lambda t} \left\{\ \int\limits_{\overline{\mathbb{B}}[X,R_\ell(0)]}d\mu(U) \left[UAU^\dagger-AUU^\dagger\right]\ \right\}e^{-iH^{sr}_\Lambda t}\right\| \nonumber \\
&\leqslant\ \int\limits_{\overline{\mathbb{B}}[X,R_\ell(0)]}d\mu(U)\left\|\left[UA-AU\right]U^\dagger\right\| \nonumber \\
&=\ \int\limits_{\overline{\mathbb{B}}[X,R_\ell(0)]}d\mu(U)\left\|\left[A,U\right]\right\| \nonumber \\
&\leqslant 2\|A\|\|U\||X|p^{-1}_0s'\exp\!\left[-R_\ell(0)/\chi(0)\right] \nonumber \\
&=2\|A\||X|p^{-1}_0s'\exp(-\ell),
\label{LRsr2}
\end{align}
where inequality (\ref{LRsr}) has been inserted and $\chi(0)$ should be understood as $\chi(t\rightarrow0^+)$. Due to the exponential reduction of the deviation as a function of $\ell$, when $\ell\rightarrow\infty$, $A_I(\infty,t)$ approaches $A_I(t)$ to a good approximation. Define next
\begin{align}
A^0_I(t)=A_I(0,t),\ \ \ \ \ A^{\ell>0}_I(t)=A_I(\ell,t)-A_I(\ell-1,t),
\end{align}
then clearly
\begin{equation}
A_I(t)=A_I(0,t)+\sum^\infty_{\ell=1}\left[A_I(\ell,t)-A_I(\ell-1,t)\right]=\sum^\infty_{\ell=0}A^\ell_I(t).
\label{decomp}
\end{equation}
Accordingly, relation (\ref{LRsr2}) implies that for $\ell>0$,
\begin{align}
\|A^\ell_I(t)\|&=\|A_I(\ell,t)-A_I(t)-[A_I(\ell-1,t)-A_I(t)]\| \nonumber \\
&\leqslant\|A_I(\ell,t)-A_I(t)\|+\|A_I(\ell-1,t)-A_I(t)\| \nonumber \\
&\leqslant2\|A\||X|p^{-1}_0s'(1+e)\exp(-\ell).
\label{bound1}
\end{align}
Instead, for $\ell=0$,
\begin{align}
\|A^0_I(t)\|&\leqslant\|A_I(0,t)-A_I(t)\|+\|A_I(t)\| \nonumber \\
&\leqslant2\|A\||X|p^{-1}_0s'+\|A\|.
\label{bound2}
\end{align}
Note that if $2|X|p^{-1}_0s'e\geqslant1$, then $\|A^0_I(t)\|\leqslant2\|A\||X|p^{-1}_0s'(1+e)$. In comparison, if $\|A\|\geqslant2|X|p^{-1}_0s'e\|A\|$, then the decay of the norm is even faster than the exponential for the first term.
Thus, as emphasized in Ref.~\cite{FFG}, one shall in principle find a way to write $A_I(t)$ as a sum of a sequence of operator $A^\ell_I(t)$ with increasing (and finite) support but exponentially decreasing bounds of the norm. This examination of the short-range interactions exemplifies the core content and the meaning of the employment of the interaction-picture formulation for deriving the LR bound.
\section{Incorporate long-range interactions in the interaction picture}
Our main target is the LR bound for the Heisenberg operators, therefore in terms of the scattering-matrix operator, it is easy to see that
\begin{align}
\left\|\left[A_H(t),B\right]\right\|&=\left\|\left[A_I(t),\mathcal{S}(t)B\mathcal{S}^\dagger(t)\right]\right\|\leqslant\sum^\infty_{\ell=0}\left\|\left[A^\ell_I(t),\mathcal{S}(t)B\mathcal{S}^\dagger(t)\right]\right\|.
\label{HeiCom}
\end{align}
Following \cite{FFG}, the overall strategy of tackling (\ref{HeiCom}) is to employ the interaction-picture equation of motion for $\mathcal{S}(t)$ to write a first-order differential equation for the relevant commutator defined below, and then the obtained result is converted into a HK-like integral equation that can be iterated to include the contributions from the long-range interactions in a progressive manner and thus produce the desired sequence of the full LR bound. Recall that $H^{lr}_\Lambda$ has been exclusively encapsulated in $\mathcal{S}(t)$.
Now, let's introduce the generalized two-time commutator,
\begin{equation}
G^\ell_r(t,\tau)\coloneqq\left[A^\ell_I(t),\mathcal{S}(\tau)B\mathcal{S}^\dagger(\tau)\right],\ \ \ \ \ r\coloneqq\textrm{dist}(X,Y).
\label{Gdef}
\end{equation}
Then, applying Eq.~(\ref{S_eom}) yields,
\begin{equation}
\frac{dG^\ell_r(t,\tau)}{d\tau}=-i\left[A^\ell_I(t),\left[H^{lr}_{\Lambda,I}(\tau),\mathcal{S}(\tau)B\mathcal{S}^\dagger(\tau)\right]\right].
\label{G_eom}
\end{equation}
Implementing the same decomposition like that of Eq.~(\ref{decomp}) for the long-range Hamiltonian,
\begin{equation}
H^{lr}_{\Lambda,I}(\tau)=\sum_{\substack{Z^{lr}}}\sum^\infty_{m=0}\widetilde{h}^m_{{Z^{lr}\!\!,I}}(\tau),
\label{decomp_Hlr}
\end{equation}
where for each $Z^{lr}$, there arises a corresponding summation index $m_{Z^{lr}}$ whose subscript has been omitted in (\ref{decomp_Hlr}) for brevity. Then, it is easy to notice that the nested commutator is nonzero only if there exist some $m$'s such that
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{B}[A^\ell_I(t)]\cap\mathbb{B}[\widetilde{h}^{m}_{{Z^{lr}\!\!,I}}(\tau)]\neq\emptyset.
\label{condBall}
\end{equation}
Nonetheless, the mismatch between the arguments $t$ and $\tau$ renders the execution of this crucial condition very complicated in the ensuing HK iterations. More importantly, Eq.~(\ref{condBall}) is the key resource where the explicit $t$-dependence can be extracted for modifying the LR bound. To this end, one would like to inquire whether there exists the kind of relations like the following,
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{B}[A^\ell_I(t)]\cap\mathbb{B}[\widetilde{h}^{m}_{Z^{lr}\!\!,I}(\tau)]\neq\emptyset\ \ \ \Longrightarrow\ \ \ \mathbb{B}[A^\ell_I(t)]\cap\mathbb{B}[\widetilde{h}^{m}_{Z^{lr}\!\!,I}(t)]\neq\emptyset\ ?
\end{equation}
As we now show, the answer is affirmative for the primary cases that interest us. The trick here is to utilize the familiar identity that for arbitrary operator $A$ and any unitary operator $U$,
\begin{equation}
\|A\|=\|UAU^\dagger\|,
\end{equation}
to shift the $t$-argument in the definition (\ref{interactionops}) of the interaction-picture operators. Concretely, for two arbitrary interaction-picture operators, one can prove that
\begin{equation}
\|[A_I(t),B_I(\tau)]\|=\|[A_I(t+\Delta t),B_I(\tau+\Delta t)]\|,
\label{t_shift}
\end{equation}
where the essential requirements are (1) $A_I(t)$ and $B_I(\tau)$ have to be defined by the same short-range Hamiltonian $H^{sr}_\Lambda$ and (2) Schr\"{o}dinger operators $A,B$ themselves are independent of time. Apparently, truncated operators generated by (\ref{op_truncated}) fulfill these two conditions.
The proof is divided into two parts: (I) the growing balls and (II) the shrinking balls.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[I.] In the case of expanding balls, it is relatively easy to appreciate that based on
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{B}[A_I(\tau)]\cap\mathbb{B}[B_I(\tau')]\neq\emptyset,
\end{equation}
where $0\leqslant\tau',\tau\leqslant t$, one can safely pretend that this condition implies
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{B}[A_I(t)]\cap\mathbb{B}[B_I(t)]\neq\emptyset,
\label{set1}
\end{equation}
because the added contributions from extending the time domains are precisely compensated by the associated commutators (see below) which vanish identically in these enlarged regions of the balls. In other words, nothing extra has been included in essence. It is worth mentioning that this seemingly elementary extension from $\tau,\tau'$ to $t$ actually underpins the whole constructions of Ref.~\cite{FFG}.
\item[II.] Because we concern the unconventional MBL, it is natural to anticipate that the balls or more precisely the dynamical length scale $\chi$ might be shrinking. For this circumstance, we proceed as follows: First,
\begin{equation}
[A_I(\tau),B_I(\tau')]\neq\emptyset\ \ \ \ \ \Longrightarrow\ \ \ \ \ \|[A_I(\tau),B_I(\tau')]\|\neq0.
\end{equation}
Then, shifting the arguments $\tau,\tau'$ by $t-\tau'$ as per (\ref{t_shift}),
\begin{equation}
\|[A_I(\tau),B_I(\tau')]\|=\|[A_I(\tau+t-\tau'),B_I(t)]\|\neq0,
\end{equation}
yields
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{B}[A_I(\tau)]\cap\mathbb{B}[B_I(\tau')]\neq\emptyset\ \ \ \Longrightarrow\ \ \ \mathbb{B}[A_I(\tau+t-\tau')]\cap\mathbb{B}[B_I(t)]\neq\emptyset.
\end{equation}
In the HK series (see below), typically
\begin{equation}
0\leqslant\tau'\leqslant\tau\leqslant t\ \ \ \ \ \Longrightarrow\ \ \ \ \ t\leqslant \tau+t-\tau'\leqslant \tau+t,
\end{equation}
therefore, for the case of shrinking balls,
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{B}[A_I(\tau)]\cap\mathbb{B}[B_I(\tau')]\neq\emptyset\ \ \ \Longrightarrow\ \ \ \mathbb{B}[A_I(t)]\cap\mathbb{B}[B_I(t)]\neq\emptyset
\label{set2}
\end{equation}
as desired. Apparently, Eq.~(\ref{set2}) cannot be true for arbitrary $\tau$ and $\tau'$ with respect to $t$.
\end{enumerate}
Now let's turn to Eq.~(\ref{G_eom}), whose expression can be transformed by the Jacobi identity, $[A,[B,C]]+[B,[C,A]]+[C,[A,B]]=0$, as
\begin{align}
\frac{dG^\ell_r(t,\tau)}{d\tau}=&-i\sum_{\substack{Z^{lr}}}\sum^\infty_{m=0}[\widetilde{h}^{m}_{Z^{lr}\!\!,I}(\tau),[A^\ell_I(t),\mathcal{S}(\tau)B\mathcal{S}^\dagger(\tau)]] \nonumber \\
&+i\sum_{\substack{Z^{lr}}}\sum^\infty_{m=0}[\mathcal{S}(\tau)B\mathcal{S}^\dagger(\tau),[A^\ell_I(t),\widetilde{h}^{m}_{Z^{lr}\!\!,I}(\tau)]] \nonumber \\
=&-i\sum_{\substack{Z^{lr}}}\sum^\infty_{m=0}[\widetilde{h}^{m}_{Z^{lr}\!\!,I}(\tau),[A^\ell_I(t),\mathcal{S}(\tau)B\mathcal{S}^\dagger(\tau)]] \nonumber \\
&+i\sum_{\substack{Z^{lr}}}\sum^\infty_{m=0}\mathcal{D}_i(t;Z^{lr},m)[\mathcal{S}(\tau)B\mathcal{S}^\dagger(\tau),[A^\ell_I(t),\widetilde{h}^{m}_{Z^{lr}\!\!,I}(\tau)]],
\label{Geom2}
\end{align}
where we introduce a step-like function \cite{FFG} as the knob to access the condition (\ref{condBall}),
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{D}_i(t;Z^{lr},m)=\left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
1 & \ \ \mbox{if}\ \ \ \mathbb{B}[A^\ell_I(t)]\cap\mathbb{B}[\widetilde{h}^{m}_{Z^{lr}\!\!,I}(t)]\neq\emptyset, \\[.5em]
0 & \ \ \mbox{otherwise}.
\end{array}\right.
\label{dfactori}
\end{equation}
Implement again the Jacobi identity for the last term in Eq.~(\ref{Geom2}) gives
\begin{align}
\frac{dG^\ell_r(t,\tau)}{d\tau}=&-i[H^{lr}_{\Lambda,I}(\tau)-\widetilde{H}^{lr}_{\Lambda,I}(t,\tau),G^{lr}_r(t,\tau)] \nonumber \\
&-i[A^{lr}_I(t),[\widetilde{H}^{lr}_{\Lambda,I}(t,\tau),\mathcal{S}(\tau)B\mathcal{S}^\dagger(\tau)]],
\label{Geom3}
\end{align}
where we define
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{H}^{lr}_{\Lambda,I}(t,\tau)\coloneqq\sum_{\substack{Z^{lr}}}\sum^\infty_{m=0}\mathcal{D}_i(t;Z^{lr},m)\widetilde{h}^{m}_{Z^{lr}\!\!,I}(\tau).
\end{equation}
Then, a standard inequality in the theory of first-order differential equation \cite{Nachtergaele} applies to Eq.~(\ref{Geom3}) and leads to the HK series in the interaction picture for iteration,
\begin{align}
\|[A^\ell_I(t),\mathcal{S}(t)B&\mathcal{S}^\dagger(t)]\|\leqslant\|[A^\ell_I(t),B]\|+\int\limits^t_0d\tau\|[A^\ell_I(t),[\widetilde{H}^{lr}_{\Lambda,I}(t,\tau),\mathcal{S}(\tau)B\mathcal{S}^\dagger(\tau)]]\| \nonumber \\
&\leqslant\|[A^\ell_I(t),B]\|+\sum_{Z^{lr},m}\mathcal{D}_i(t;Z^{lr},m)\int\limits^t_0d\tau\|[A^\ell_I(t),[\widetilde{h}^{m}_{{Z^{lr}\!\!,I}}(\tau),\mathcal{S}(\tau)B\mathcal{S}^\dagger(\tau)]]\| \nonumber \\
&\leqslant\|[A^\ell_I(t),B]\|+2\|A^\ell_I(t)\|\sum_{Z^{lr},m}\mathcal{D}_i(t;Z^{lr},m)\int\limits^t_0d\tau\|[\widetilde{h}^{m}_{{Z^{lr}\!\!,I}}(\tau),\mathcal{S}(\tau)B\mathcal{S}^\dagger(\tau)]\|,
\label{iter0}
\end{align}
where Eq.~(\ref{Gdef}) has been recalled and $\sum_{Z^{lr},m}(\ldots)$ stands for $\sum_{\substack{Z^{lr}}}\sum^{\infty}_{m=0}(\ldots)$. Next, after recognizing the resemblance between $\|[\widetilde{h}^{m}_{{Z^{lr}\!\!,I}}(\tau),\mathcal{S}(\tau)B\mathcal{S}^\dagger(\tau)]\|$ and $\|[A^\ell_I(t),\mathcal{S}(t)B\mathcal{S}^\dagger(t)]\|$, one might tend to start the iteration. A direct injection of the result (\ref{iter0}) leads to
\begin{align}
\|[\widetilde{h}^{m}_{{Z^{lr}\!\!,I}}(\tau),\mathcal{S}(\tau)&B\mathcal{S}^\dagger(\tau)]\|\leqslant\|[\widetilde{h}^{m}_{{Z^{lr}\!\!,I}}(\tau),B]\| \nonumber \\
&+2\|\widetilde{h}^{m}_{{Z^{lr}\!\!,I}}(\tau)\|\sum_{Z^{lr}_1,m_1}\mathcal{D}(\tau;Z^{lr},m;Z^{lr}_1,m_1)\int\limits^\tau_0d\tau_1\|[\widetilde{h}^{m_1}_{{Z^{lr}_{1}\!\!,I}}(\tau_1),\mathcal{S}(\tau_1)B\mathcal{S}^\dagger(\tau_1)]\|,
\label{iter1}
\end{align}
where the $\tau$-dependence of $\mathcal{D}(\tau;Z^{lr},m;Z^{lr}_1,m_1)$ is inconvenient and insufficient for simplifying the expression of the iteration as more and more different $\tau_i$-dependence will be engendered. However, by going through the same derivations above, it is not hard to realize that $\mathcal{D}(\tau;Z^{lr},m;Z^{lr}_1,m_1)$ can be simply replaced by $\mathcal{D}(t;Z^{lr},m;Z^{lr}_1,m_1)$ in (\ref{iter1}).
For instance, within $0\leqslant\tau'\leqslant\tau\leqslant t$, define
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{G}^m_{\widetilde{r}}(\tau,\tau')\coloneqq[\widetilde{h}^m_{{Z^{lr}\!\!,I}}(\tau),\mathcal{S}(\tau')B\mathcal{S}^\dagger(\tau')],\ \ \ \ \ \widetilde{r}\coloneqq\textrm{dist}(Z^{lr},Y).
\end{equation}
Parallel calculation using Eqs.~(\ref{set1}) and (\ref{set2}) yields
\begin{equation}
[\widetilde{h}^m_{{Z^{lr}\!\!,I}}(\tau),H^{lr}_{\Lambda,I}(\tau')]=\sum_{Z^{lr}_1,m_1}\mathcal{D}(t;Z^{lr},m;Z^{lr}_1,m_1)[\widetilde{h}^m_{{Z^{lr}\!\!,I}}(\tau),\widetilde{h}^{m_1}_{{Z^{lr}_{1}\!\!,I}}(\tau')],
\end{equation}
where a general step function is given by
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{D}(t;Z^{lr},m;Z^{lr}_1,m_1)=\left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
1 & \ \ \mbox{if}\ \ \ \mathbb{B}[\widetilde{h}^{m}_{Z^{lr}\!\!,I}(t)]\cap\mathbb{B}[\widetilde{h}^{m_1}_{Z^{lr}_{1}\!\!,I}(t)]\neq\emptyset, \\[.5em]
0 & \ \ \mbox{otherwise}.
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
The resulting first-order differential equation of motion of $\widetilde{G}$ is thus
\begin{align}
\frac{d\widetilde{G}^m_{\widetilde{r}}(\tau,\tau')}{d\tau'}=&-i[H^{lr}_{\Lambda,I}(\tau')-\widetilde{H}^{Z^{lr}\!\!,m}_{\Lambda,I}(t,\tau'),\widetilde{G}^{m}_{\widetilde{r}}(\tau,\tau')] \nonumber \\
&-i\sum_{Z^{lr}_1,m_1}\mathcal{D}(t;Z^{lr},m;Z^{lr}_1,m_1)[\widetilde{h}^{m}_{Z^{lr}\!\!,I}(\tau),[\widetilde{h}^{m_1}_{{Z^{lr}_{1}\!\!,I}}(\tau'),\mathcal{S}(\tau')B\mathcal{S}^\dagger(\tau')]],
\end{align}
where we define
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{H}^{Z^{lr}\!\!,m}_{\Lambda,I}(t,\tau')\coloneqq\sum_{\substack{Z^{lr}_1}}\sum^\infty_{m_1=0}\mathcal{D}(t;Z^{lr},m;Z^{lr}_1,m_1)\widetilde{h}^{m_1}_{Z^{lr}_{1}\!\!,I}(\tau').
\end{equation}
Applying again the theorem in \cite{Nachtergaele} yields
\begin{align}
\|\widetilde{G}^m_{\widetilde{r}}(\tau,\tau)\|&\leqslant\|\widetilde{G}^m_{\widetilde{r}}(\tau,0)\| \nonumber \\
&+\int\limits^\tau_0d\tau'\sum_{Z^{lr}_1,m_1}\mathcal{D}(t;Z^{lr},m;Z^{lr}_1,m_1)\|[\widetilde{h}^{m}_{Z^{lr}\!\!,I}(\tau),[\widetilde{h}^{m_1}_{{Z^{lr}_{1}\!\!,I}}(\tau'),\mathcal{S}(\tau')B\mathcal{S}^\dagger(\tau')]]\| \nonumber \\
&\leqslant\|\widetilde{G}^m_{\widetilde{r}}(\tau,0)\| \nonumber \\
&+\sum_{Z^{lr}_1,m_1}\mathcal{D}(t;Z^{lr},m;Z^{lr}_1,m_1)2\|\widetilde{h}^{m}_{Z^{lr}\!\!,I}\|\int\limits^\tau_0d\tau'\|[\widetilde{h}^{m_1}_{{Z^{lr}_{1}\!\!,I}}(\tau'),\mathcal{S}(\tau')B\mathcal{S}^\dagger(\tau')]\|,
\label{iter2}
\end{align}
where $\|\widetilde{h}^{m}_{Z^{lr}\!\!,I}(\tau)\|=\|\widetilde{h}^{m}_{Z^{lr}\!\!,I}\|$ is time independent as per (\ref{op_truncated}), or otherwise it can be replaced by the corresponding time-independent bound as per (\ref{bound1}) and (\ref{bound2}). Clearly, Eq.~(\ref{iter2}) comprises the desired relation for initiating all the remaining iterations.
Aimed with these preparations, one can now derive the generalized HK series in the interaction picture by repeatedly inserting Eq.~(\ref{iter2}) into Eq.~(\ref{iter0}). This iterative procedure yields the following,
\begin{align}
\|[A^\ell_I&(t),\mathcal{S}(t)B\mathcal{S}^\dagger(t)]\| \nonumber \\
&\leqslant\|[A^\ell_I(t),B]\|+2\|A^\ell_I(t)\|\sum_{Z^{lr}_0,m_0}\mathcal{D}_i(t;Z^{lr}_0,m_0)2\|\widetilde{h}^{m_0}_{{Z^{lr}_{0}\!\!,I}}\|\mathcal{D}_f(t;Z^{lr}_0,m_0)\|B\|\int\limits^t_0d\tau_0 \nonumber \\
&+2\|A^\ell_I(t)\|\sum_{Z^{lr}_0,m_0}\mathcal{D}_i(t;Z^{lr}_0,m_0)2\|\widetilde{h}^{m_0}_{{Z^{lr}_{0}\!\!,I}}\|\sum_{Z^{lr}_1,m_1}\mathcal{D}(t;Z^{lr}_0,m_0;Z^{lr}_1,m_1)2\|\widetilde{h}^{m_1}_{{Z^{lr}_{1}\!\!,I}}\| \nonumber \\
&\times\mathcal{D}_f(t;Z^{lr}_1,m_1)\|B\|\int\limits^t_0d\tau_0\int\limits^{\tau_0}_0 d\tau_1 \nonumber \\
&+2\|A^\ell_I(t)\|\sum_{Z^{lr}_0,m_0}\mathcal{D}_i(t;Z^{lr}_0,m_0)2\|\widetilde{h}^{m_0}_{{Z^{lr}_{0}\!\!,I}}\|\sum_{Z^{lr}_1,m_1}\mathcal{D}(t;Z^{lr}_0,m_0;Z^{lr}_1,m_1)2\|\widetilde{h}^{m_1}_{{Z^{lr}_{1}\!\!,I}}\| \nonumber \\
&\times\sum_{Z^{lr}_2,m_2}\mathcal{D}(t;Z^{lr}_1,m_1;Z^{lr}_2,m_2)2\|\widetilde{h}^{m_2}_{{Z^{lr}_{2}\!\!,I}}\|\mathcal{D}_f(t;Z^{lr}_2,m_2)\|B\|\int\limits^t_0d\tau_0\int\limits^{\tau_0}_0 d\tau_1\int\limits^{\tau_1}_0 d\tau_2 \nonumber \\
&+\cdots,
\label{iter3}
\end{align}
where similar to Eq.~(\ref{dfactori}), symbolically
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{D}_f(t;Z^{lr},m)=\left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
1 & \ \ \mbox{if}\ \ \ \mathbb{B}[\widetilde{h}^{m}_{Z^{lr}\!\!,I}(t)]\cap\mathbb{B}[B_I(t)]\neq\emptyset, \\[.5em]
0 & \ \ \mbox{otherwise}.
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
\section{Lieb-Robinson bound from the discrete convolution}
The nested structure of Eq.~(\ref{iter3}) might be exploited to invoke the discrete convolution in reducing the infinite HK series to a closed form of the LR bound \cite{FFG}. The basic strategy is to conceive a device in the discrete convolution to take advantage of the compromise between the exponential and the power-law decays as reflected by
\begin{equation}
\|\widetilde{h}^m_{{Z^{lr}\!\!,I}}\|\leqslant\frac{{\sf c}\cdot e^{-m}}{[1+\textrm{diam}(Z^{lr})]^\eta},
\label{exp_pow}
\end{equation}
where Eqs.~(\ref{bound1}), (\ref{bound2}), and (\ref{cond1}) have been used and the constant ${\sf c}$ properly encapsulates all the relevant parameters to ensure the validity of (\ref{exp_pow}) for any $Z^{lr},m$.
Next, take a fixed $Z^{lr}_0$ for example, one shall always be able to find a way to divide and assign a realization of $L_0$ and $R_0$ that satisfies $L_0\cup R_0=Z^{lr}_0$ and simultaneously fulfills the definitions of the nearby two $D$-functions that involve $Z^{lr}_0$. Since eventually $L_0$ and $R_0$ will be treated as two independent $Z^{lr}_0$, this step might lead to looser bound but should not cause any violation of the inequality. $L_0$ and $R_0$ can have overlaps. Now assume the existence of such a division, Eq.~(\ref{iter3}) can then be rewritten as follows,
\begin{align}
&\|[A^\ell_I(t),\mathcal{S}(t)B\mathcal{S}^\dagger(t)]\| \nonumber \\
&\leqslant\|[A^\ell_I(t),B]\|+2\|A^\ell_I(t)\|\sum_{Z^{lr}_0:L_0\cup R_0}\sum^\infty_{m_0=0}\mathcal{D}_i(t;L_0,m_0)2\|\widetilde{h}^{m_0}_{{Z^{lr}_{0}\!\!,I}}\|\mathcal{D}_f(t;R_0,m_0)\|B\|\int\limits^t_0d\tau_0 \nonumber \\
&+2\|A^\ell_I(t)\|\sum_{Z^{lr}_0:L_0\cup R_0}\sum^\infty_{m_0=0}\mathcal{D}_i(t;L_0,m_0)2\|\widetilde{h}^{m_0}_{{Z^{lr}_{0}\!\!,I}}\|\sum_{Z^{lr}_1:L_1\cup R_1}\sum^\infty_{m_1=0}\mathcal{D}(t;R_0,m_0;L_1,m_1)2\|\widetilde{h}^{m_1}_{{Z^{lr}_{1}\!\!,I}}\| \nonumber \\
&\times\mathcal{D}_f(t;R_1,m_1)\|B\|\int\limits^t_0d\tau_0\int\limits^{\tau_0}_0 d\tau_1 \nonumber \\
&+2\|A^\ell_I(t)\|\sum_{Z^{lr}_0:L_0\cup R_0}\sum^\infty_{m_0=0}\mathcal{D}_i(t;L_0,m_0)2\|\widetilde{h}^{m_0}_{{Z^{lr}_{0}\!\!,I}}\|\sum_{Z^{lr}_1:L_1\cup R_1}\sum^\infty_{m_1=0}\mathcal{D}(t;R_0,m_0;L_1,m_1)2\|\widetilde{h}^{m_1}_{{Z^{lr}_{1}\!\!,I}}\| \nonumber \\
&\times\sum_{Z^{lr}_2:L_2\cup R_2}\sum^\infty_{m_2=0}\mathcal{D}(t;R_1,m_1;L_2,m_2)2\|\widetilde{h}^{m_2}_{{Z^{lr}_{2}\!\!,I}}\|\mathcal{D}_f(t;R_2,m_2)\|B\|\int\limits^t_0d\tau_0\int\limits^{\tau_0}_0 d\tau_1\int\limits^{\tau_1}_0 d\tau_2+\cdots \nonumber \\
&\leqslant\|[A^\ell_I(t),B]\|+2\|A^\ell_I(t)\|\sum_{L_0,R_0}\sum_{m_{0L},m_{0R}}\mathcal{D}_i(t;L_0,m_{0L}) \nonumber \\
&\times\frac{2{\sf c}\cdot e^{-\frac{m_{0L}+m_{0R}}{2}}}{[1+\textrm{dmax}(L_0,R_0)]^\eta}\mathcal{D}_f(t;R_0,m_{0R})\|B\|\int\limits^t_0d\tau_0 \nonumber \\
&+2\|A^\ell_I(t)\|\sum_{L_0,R_0}\sum_{m_{0L},m_{0R}}\mathcal{D}_i(t;L_0,m_{0L})\frac{2{\sf c}\cdot e^{-\frac{m_{0L}+m_{0R}}{2}}}{[1+\textrm{dmax}(L_0,R_0)]^\eta} \nonumber \\
&\times\sum_{L_1,R_1}\sum_{m_{1L},m_{1R}}\mathcal{D}(t;R_0,m_{0R};L_1,m_{1L}) \nonumber \\
&\times\frac{2{\sf c}\cdot e^{-\frac{m_{1L}+m_{1R}}{2}}}{[1+\textrm{dmax}(L_1,R_1)]^\eta}\mathcal{D}_f(t;R_1,m_{1R})\|B\|\int\limits^t_0d\tau_0\int\limits^{\tau_0}_0 d\tau_1 \nonumber \\
&+2\|A^\ell_I(t)\|\sum_{L_0,R_0}\sum_{m_{0L},m_{0R}}\mathcal{D}_i(t;L_0,m_{0L})\frac{2{\sf c}\cdot e^{-\frac{m_{0L}+m_{0R}}{2}}}{[1+\textrm{dmax}(L_0,R_0)]^\eta} \nonumber \\
&\times\sum_{L_1,R_1}\sum_{m_{1L},m_{1R}}\mathcal{D}(t;R_0,m_{0R};L_1,m_{1L}) \nonumber \\
&\times\frac{2{\sf c}\cdot e^{-\frac{m_{1L}+m_{1R}}{2}}}{[1+\textrm{dmax}(L_1,R_1)]^\eta}\sum_{L_2,R_2}\sum_{m_{2L},m_{2R}}\mathcal{D}(t;R_1,m_{1R};L_2,m_{2L}) \nonumber \\
&\times\frac{2{\sf c}\cdot e^{-\frac{m_{2L}+m_{2R}}{2}}}{[1+\textrm{dmax}(L_2,R_2)]^\eta}\mathcal{D}_f(t;R_2,m_{2R})\|B\|\int\limits^t_0d\tau_0\int\limits^{\tau_0}_0 d\tau_1\int\limits^{\tau_1}_0 d\tau_2+\cdots,
\label{iter4}
\end{align}
where in the final step, the summations have been relaxed to the independent subsets of $L_i$ and $R_i$, whose maximal distance is denoted by $\textrm{dmax}(L_i,R_i)$. Analogous extensions also apply to the summations of the integer exponents.
Following Ref.~\cite{FFG}, we perform the summation over the integer exponents first. Take the first term for example. If $\textrm{dmin}(R_0,L_1)\leqslant 2R(t)$, then
\begin{align}
\sum^\infty_{m_{0R}=0}&\sum^\infty_{m_{1L}=0}e^{-\frac{m_{0R}}{2}}\cdot\mathcal{D}(t;R_0,m_{0R};L_1,m_{1L})\cdot e^{-\frac{m_{1L}}{2}} \nonumber \\
&=\sum^\infty_{m_{0R}=0}\sum^\infty_{m_{1L}=0}e^{-\frac{m_{0R}}{2}}\cdot e^{-\frac{m_{1L}}{2}}=\left(\frac{\sqrt{e}}{\sqrt{e}-1}\right)^2=\delta^2.
\end{align}
If instead $\textrm{dmin}(R_0,L_1)>2R(t)$, then
\begin{align}
\sum^\infty_{m_{0R}=0}&\sum^\infty_{m_{1L}=0}e^{-\frac{m_{0R}}{2}}\cdot\mathcal{D}(t;R_0,m_{0R};L_1,m_{1L})\cdot e^{-\frac{m_{1L}}{2}} \nonumber \\
&=\sum^\infty_{m_{0R}=\left\lceil\frac{\textrm{dmin}(R_0,L_1)-2R(t)}{2\chi}\right\rceil}e^{-\frac{m_{0R}}{2}}\cdot\sum^\infty_{m_{1L}=0}e^{-\frac{m_{1L}}{2}}\leqslant\delta^2e^{-[\textrm{dmin}(R_0,L_1)-2R(t)]/4\chi}.
\end{align}
In general,
\begin{align}
\sum^\infty_{m_{iR}=0}&\sum^\infty_{m_{i+1,L}=0}e^{-\frac{m_{iR}}{2}}\cdot\mathcal{D}(t;R_i,m_{iR};L_{i+1},m_{i+1,L})\cdot e^{-\frac{m_{i+1,L}}{2}} \nonumber \\
&=\mathcal{K}(t;R_i;L_{i+1})=\left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
\delta^2 & \ \ \mbox{if}\ \ \ \textrm{dmin}(R_i,L_{i+1})\leqslant2R(t), \\[.5em]
\delta^2e^{-[\textrm{dmin}(R_i,L_{i+1})-2R(t)]/4\chi} & \ \ \mbox{if}\ \ \ \textrm{dmin}(R_i,L_{i+1})>2R(t).
\end{array}\right.
\label{Kdef}
\end{align}
According to this result, Eq.~(\ref{iter4}) simplifies to
\begin{align}
&\sum^\infty_{\ell=0}\|[A^\ell_I(t),\mathcal{S}(t)B\mathcal{S}^\dagger(t)]\| \nonumber \\
&\leqslant\sum^\infty_{\ell=0}\|[A^\ell_I(t),B]\|+2c_A\sum_{L_0,R_0}\mathcal{K}_i(t;L_0)\frac{2{\sf c}}{[1+\textrm{dmax}(L_0,R_0)]^\eta}\mathcal{K}_f(t;R_0)\|B\|\int\limits^t_0d\tau_0 \nonumber \\
&+2c_A\sum_{L_0,R_0}\mathcal{K}_i(t;L_0)\frac{2{\sf c}}{[1+\textrm{dmax}(L_0,R_0)]^\eta}\sum_{L_1,R_1}\mathcal{K}(t;R_0;L_1) \nonumber \\
&\times\frac{2{\sf c}}{[1+\textrm{dmax}(L_1,R_1)]^\eta}\mathcal{K}_f(t;R_1)\|B\|\int\limits^t_0d\tau_0\int\limits^{\tau_0}_0 d\tau_1 \nonumber \\
&+2c_A\sum_{L_0,R_0}\mathcal{K}_i(t;L_0)\frac{2{\sf c}}{[1+\textrm{dmax}(L_0,R_0)]^\eta}\sum_{L_1,R_1}\mathcal{K}(t;R_0;L_1)\frac{2{\sf c}}{[1+\textrm{dmax}(L_1,R_1)]^\eta} \nonumber \\
&\times\sum_{L_2,R_2}\mathcal{K}(t;R_1;L_2)\frac{2{\sf c}}{[1+\textrm{dmax}(L_2,R_2)]^\eta}\mathcal{K}_f(t;R_2)\|B\|\int\limits^t_0d\tau_0\int\limits^{\tau_0}_0 d\tau_1\int\limits^{\tau_1}_0 d\tau_2+\cdots,
\label{iter5}
\end{align}
where the summation of the index $\ell$ has been first extended and then performed over the initial and final configurations and the constant $c_A$ is defined by
\begin{equation}
c_A=\|A\||X|p^{-1}_0s'(1+e).
\end{equation}
To make further progress, three key features of the constituent functions in (\ref{iter5}) need to be explored. First, it can be noticed from (\ref{Kdef}) that in the region of short distance, function $\mathcal{K}$ exhibits a flat plateau. Second, once beyond the dynamical length scale, $\mathcal{K}$ decays exponentially. Third, the connecting function between the neighbouring $\mathcal{K}$ functions decays in contrast as a power law of the separation as is inherited from Eq.~(\ref{exp_pow}). Therefore, the observations that (1) function $\mathcal{K}$ possesses a two-stage structure and (2) the hybridization of the exponential versus the power-law decaying functions play a vital role in the discrete convolution of the HK series.
We now proceed in three successive steps to obtain or better estimate the LR bound.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(1)] Qualitatively, it is not hard to estimate the convolution of an exponentially decaying function with a power law, therefore
\begin{align}
\sum_{L_i}&\mathcal{K}(t;R_{i-1};L_i)\frac{1}{[1+\textrm{dmax}(L_i,R_i)]^\eta} \nonumber \\
&\leqslant\mathcal{F}(t;R_{i-1};R_i)\approx\left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
\lambda_\chi & \ \ \mbox{if}\ \ \ \textrm{dmin}(R_{i-1},R_{i})<wR(t), \\[.5em]
\lambda_\chi\frac{[wR(t)]^\eta}{[1+\textrm{dmin}(R_{i-1},R_i)]^\eta} & \ \ \mbox{if}\ \ \ \textrm{dmin}(R_{i-1},R_{i})\geqslant wR(t).
\end{array}\right.
\end{align}
This result is based on several observations \cite{FFG}. First, for those $\textrm{dmin}(R_{i-1},R_{i})<wR(t)$ where $w$ is an adjust coefficient of order $1$, function $\mathcal{K}$ can be simply replaced by its maximum value $\delta^2$, then a dimensional analysis leads to the rough estimate that,
\begin{equation}
\sum_L\frac{1}{[1+\textrm{dmax}(L,R)]^\eta}\lessapprox\lambda\chi^{D-\eta},
\end{equation}
where $\lambda$ is of order $1$ and $D$ is the spatial dimension. Thus,
\begin{equation}
\lambda_\chi\coloneqq\lambda\delta^2\chi^{D-\eta}.
\end{equation}
Second, when $\textrm{dmin}(R_{i-1},R_{i})\geqslant wR(t)$, it is easy to understand that the major contributions of the summation shall come from those $L_i$'s that are closer to $R_{i-1}$ so that the exponential suppression in $\mathcal{K}$ can be compensated to some degree and the resulting convolution should then be approximated by an overall power law at long distance between $R_{i-1}$ and $R_{i}$. Third, the continuity condition of $\mathcal{F}$ at $\textrm{dmin}(R_{i-1},R_{i})\approx wR(t)$ finally sets the various forms of the coefficients. Be aware that the two-stage structure of function $\mathcal{F}$ is a direct reflection of the two-stage structure of function $\mathcal{K}$. Accordingly, Eq.~(\ref{iter5}) reduces to
\begin{align}
&\sum^\infty_{\ell=0}\|[A^\ell_I(t),\mathcal{S}(t)B\mathcal{S}^\dagger(t)]\| \nonumber \\
&\leqslant\sum^\infty_{\ell=0}\|[A^\ell_I(t),B]\|+2c_A\sum_{R_0}2{\sf c}\mathcal{F}_i(t;R_0)\mathcal{K}_f(t;R_0)\|B\|\int\limits^t_0d\tau_0 \nonumber \\
&+2c_A\sum_{R_0}2{\sf c}\mathcal{F}_i(t;R_0)\sum_{R_1}2{\sf c}\mathcal{F}(t;R_0;R_1)\mathcal{K}_f(t;R_1)\|B\|\int\limits^t_0d\tau_0\int\limits^{\tau_0}_0 d\tau_1 \nonumber \\
&+2c_A\sum_{R_0}2{\sf c}\mathcal{F}_i(t;R_0)\sum_{R_1}2{\sf c}\mathcal{F}(t;R_0;R_1) & \nonumber \\
&\times\sum_{R_2}2{\sf c}\mathcal{F}(t;R_1;R_2)\mathcal{K}_f(t;R_2)\|B\|\int\limits^t_0d\tau_0\int\limits^{\tau_0}_0 d\tau_1\int\limits^{\tau_1}_0 d\tau_2+\cdots.
\label{iter6}
\end{align}
\item[(2)] The treatment of the discrete convolution of the $\mathcal{F}$ functions relies on the cousin of the reproducing condition (\ref{cond2}), which basically states that
\begin{equation}
\sum_{R_{i}}\widetilde{\mathcal{F}}(t;R_{i-1};R_i)\widetilde{\mathcal{F}}(t;R_i;R_{i+1})\leqslant g[R(t)]^D\widetilde{\mathcal{F}}(t;R_{i-1};R_{i+1}),
\end{equation}
where to keep the dimension correct, we redefine
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{\mathcal{F}}(t;R_i;R_{j})\coloneqq\frac{1}{\lambda_\chi}\mathcal{F}(t;R_i;R_{j}).
\end{equation}
\item[(3)] Finally, by noticing that generically power-law functions $\widetilde{\mathcal{F}}$ decay more slowly than the exponential functions $\mathcal{K}$, one might be able to perform the following replacement,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{K}_f(t;R)\ \ \ \Longrightarrow\ \ \ \widetilde{\mathcal{F}}_f(t;R).
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
Combine all these simplifications and do the integrals of times, one can readily obtain from Eq.~(\ref{iter6}) the following,
\begin{align}
\sum^\infty_{\ell=0}\|[A^\ell_I(t),\mathcal{S}(t)B\mathcal{S}^\dagger(t)]\|&\leqslant\sum^\infty_{\ell=0}\|[A^\ell_I(t),B]\| \nonumber \\
&+2c_A\|B\|\cdot\frac{2{\sf c}\lambda_\chi g[R(t)]^D}{\left\{\textrm{dist}(X,Y)/[wR(t)]\right\}^\eta}\cdot t \nonumber \\
&+2c_A\|B\|\cdot\frac{\left\{2{\sf c}\lambda_\chi g[R(t)]^D\right\}^2}{\left\{\textrm{dist}(X,Y)/[wR(t)]\right\}^\eta}\cdot \left(\frac{1}{2}t^2\right) \nonumber \\
&+2c_A\|B\|\cdot\frac{\left\{2{\sf c}\lambda_\chi g[R(t)]^D\right\}^3}{\left\{\textrm{dist}(X,Y)/[wR(t)]\right\}^\eta}\cdot \left(\frac{1}{3!}t^3\right)+\cdots \nonumber \\
&\leqslant\sum^\infty_{\ell=0}\|[A^\ell_I(t),B]\| \nonumber \\
&+2c_A\|B\|w^{-\eta}\cdot\frac{\exp\!\left\{2{\sf c}\lambda_\chi g[R(t)]^D\cdot t\right\}}{\left[\textrm{dist}(X,Y)/R(t)\right]^\eta}.
\label{iter7}
\end{align}
Next, the overall short-range contribution can be derived as follows.
\begin{align}
\sum^\infty_{\ell=0}\|[A^\ell_I(t),B]\|&\approx\sum^\infty_{\ell=\left\lceil\frac{r}{\chi}-vt\right\rceil}\|[A^\ell_I(t),B]\| \nonumber \\
&\leqslant\sum^\infty_{\ell=\left\lceil\frac{r}{\chi}-vt\right\rceil}2\|A^\ell_I(t)\|\|B\|\leqslant\sum^\infty_{\ell=\left\lceil\frac{r}{\chi}-vt\right\rceil}4c_A\|B\|e^{-\ell}=4c_A\|B\|\frac{e}{e-1}e^{vt-r/\chi},
\end{align}
where we have assumed that the sizes of the supports of operators $A,B$ are negligibly small as compared to their separation $r\coloneqq\textrm{dist}(X,Y)$ so that the involved commutators are nonzero only if
\begin{equation}
\ell\geqslant \frac{r}{\chi(0)}-\frac{\chi(t)vt}{\chi(0)}\gtrapprox\frac{r}{\chi(t)}-vt.
\end{equation}
Here, we have also exclusively focused on the spacetime regimes that are close to the lightcone front. Hence, we finally obtain the LR bound through the interaction-picture formulation of a generic $k$-body nonlocal interacting Hamiltonian with power-law decaying strengths,
\begin{align}
\|[A_H&(t),B]\|\leqslant\sum^\infty_{\ell=0}\|[A^\ell_I(t),\mathcal{S}(t)B\mathcal{S}^\dagger(t)]\| \nonumber \\
&\leqslant4c_A\|B\|\frac{e}{e-1}e^{vt-\textrm{dist}(X,Y)/\chi(t)}+2c_A\|B\|w^{-\eta}\cdot\frac{\exp\!\left\{2{\sf c}\lambda_\chi g[R(t)]^D\cdot t\right\}}{\left[\textrm{dist}(X,Y)/R(t)\right]^\eta} \nonumber \\
&=2\|A\||X|\|B\|p^{-1}_0s'(1+e)\left\{\frac{2e}{e-1}e^{vt-\textrm{dist}(X,Y)/\chi(t)}+w^{-\eta}\cdot\frac{\exp\!\left\{2{\sf c}\lambda_\chi g[R(t)]^D\cdot t\right\}}{\left[\textrm{dist}(X,Y)/R(t)\right]^\eta}\right\}.
\label{iter8}
\end{align}
Up to some prefactors, the refined LR bound (\ref{iter8}) resembles that obtained by Ref.~\cite{FFG} and thus shares the same form of the standard LR bound in long-range power-law systems first derived by Hastings and Koma \cite{HastingsKoma}. The essential improvement resides in the renormalization of the various contents dressed by the introduced dynamical length scale, which somehow can be anticipated from scratch. Be cautious, rather than directly working with the bare lattice Hamiltonian as was done in Refs.~\cite{FFG,HastingsKoma}, we have reformulated a modified Hastings-Koma series using the integral-of-motion representation, which is suitable in the context of MBL.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{intro}
\noindent Finite element methods and among them, error estimates play a significant role in the development of numerical methods. Very often, the success of a numerical method depends on its performance in terms of efficiency and accuracy. For this reason, it is still an active subject of research, as observed, for instance, with the considerable interest received by the discontinuous Galerkin methods in the past decades; see e.g. an introduction for elliptic problems in \cite{ABCM02}, the book \cite{HeWa08} or the pioneering work \cite{LeRa74}.\\ [0.2cm]
\noindent Since the seminal papers of Strang and Fix \cite{StFi73}, Ciarlet and Raviart \cite{Ciarlet_Raviart}, Babuska \cite{Babu71} and Bramble and Hilbert \cite{BrHi70}, along with co-workers, a large amount of work has been published, the purpose of which was to derive and expand error estimates in different configurations. Here, we are concerned with {\em a priori} error estimates, that aim to find upper bounds for the error between the exact solution $u$ and its finite element approximation $u_h$. More precisely, these estimates describe how the finite element error $\|u-u_h\|$, for a given norm, goes to 0 with mesh size $h$ (i.e. the largest diameter of the elements in a given mesh). In addition, these estimates involve a constant, generally unknown, which leads to only get an upper bound for the approximation error.\\ [0.2cm]
\noindent In addition, quantitative uncertainties do exist in finite element methods; these are based on the way the mesh grid generator creates the mesh which is used to compute the finite element approximation $u_h$, or since the equations are not exactly solved due to round-off errors. In previous papers \cite{CMAM_2019}, \cite{CMAM_2020}, we investigated the error resulting from a partial non-control of the mesh size. For this purpose, we have considered the approximation error as a random variable, and we have evaluated the relative accuracy between two Lagrange finite elements with the help of a probabilistic approach. In the same way, one can find in \cite{Nova1}, \cite{Nova2} a probabilistic approach to evaluate error bounds in numerical analysis.\\ [0.2cm]
\noindent In this work, we {\em numerically} study the {\em a priori error} estimate due to the discretization of a linear variational problem by a finite element method, using standard polynomials. Our aim is to compare the probabilistic laws we derived with statistical results, when two different degrees of the polynomials are used, for a fixed value of the mesh size. Since the effective dependence of the accuracy on the mesh size is a central question, it could help one to understand the saturation assumption that is often used in {\it a posteriori} error analysis \cite{OdAi00}. Indeed, we use here a probabilistic approach which differs from the methods involved in {\it a posteriori} error analysis. Nonetheless, we will show examples where $P_k$ finite element is more likely accurate than $P_m$, $k<m$, which can be related to the invalidity of the saturation assumption \cite{DoNo}.\\ [0.2cm]
\noindent The paper is structured as follows: Section \ref{models} summarizes the results of \cite{CMAM_2019}, \cite{CMAM_2020}, which are necessary for one to understand the numerical experiments and their analysis. The main results are the geometrical interpretation of error estimates and the two probabilistic laws we deduced for finite element accuracy. Section \ref{NumericalResults} is devoted to the numerical results, which illustrate the new probabilistic way we propose to evaluate the accuracy between two finite elements. We basically consider two numerical problems, a stiff one and a smooth one, and we compare, for each of them, the behavior of the theoretical probabilistic models with the statistical results. Concluding remarks follow.
\section{Probabilistic models and finite elements accuracy}\label{models}
\subsection{Error estimates revisited}\label{sub1models}
\noindent Consider $\Omega$ an open bounded and non-empty subset of $\mathbb{R}^{n}$, and let $\Gamma$ denote its boundary, assumed to be $C^1- $piecewise. We also introduce an Hilbert space $V$ endowed with a norm, $ \left\|.\right\|_{V}$, and a bilinear, continuous and $V-$elliptic form $a(\cdot,\cdot)$ defined on $V \times V$. Finally, $l(\cdot)$ denotes a linear continuous form defined on~$V$.\\ [0.2cm]
Let $u \in V$ be the unique solution to the second order elliptic variational formulation
\begin{equation}\label{VP}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\mbox{Find } u \in V \mbox{ solution to:} \\[0.1cm]
a(u,v) = l(v), \quad\forall v \in V\,.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
In this paper, we will focus on the simple case where $V$ is the usual Sobolev space of distributions $H^1(\Omega)$. More general cases can be found in \cite{ChAs20}.\\ [0.2cm]
Let us now introduce the finite-dimensional subspace $V_h$ of $V$, and consider $u_{h}\in V_{h}$ an approximation of $u$, solution to the approximate variational formulation
$$
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\mbox{Find } u_{h} \in V_h \mbox{ solution to:} \\[0.1cm]
a(u_{h},v_{h}) = l(v_{h}),\quad \forall v_{h} \in V_h.
\end{array}
\right.
$$
In what follows, we are interested in evaluating error bounds for finite element methods. Hence, we first assume that domain $\Omega$ is exactly covered by a mesh ${\mathcal T}_h$ composed by $N_{s}$ n-simplexes $K_{j}, (1 \leq j \leq N_{s}),$ which respects classical rules of regular discretization, (see for example \cite{ChaskaPDE} for the bidimensional case, or \cite{RaTho82} in $\mathbb{R}^n$). We also denote by $P_k(K_{j})$ the space of polynomial functions defined on a given n-simplex $K_{j}$ of degree less than or equal to $k$, ($k \geq$ 1). \\ [0.2cm]
Our study relies on the results of \cite{RaTho82}. Let $\|.\|_{1}$ be the classical norm in $H^1(\Omega)$ and $|.|_{k+1}$ the semi-norm in $H^{k+1}(\Omega)$, and let $h$ be the mesh size, namely the largest diameter of the elements of the mesh ${\mathcal T}_h$. We thus have:
\begin{lemma}\label{Thm_error_estimate}
Suppose that there exists an integer $k \geq 1$ such that the approximation $u_h$ of $V_h$ is a continuous piecewise function composed by polynomials which belong to $P_k(K_{j}), (1\leq j\leq N_{s})$. \\ [0.2cm]
Then, if the exact solution $u$ belongs to $H^{k+1}(\Omega)$, we have the following error estimate:
\begin{equation}\label{estimation_error}
\|u_h-u\|_{1} \hspace{0.1cm} \leq \hspace{0.1cm} \mathscr{C}_k\,h^k \, |u|_{k+1}\,,
\end{equation}
where $\mathscr{C}_k$ is a positive constant independent of $h$.
\end{lemma}
\noindent Now, let us consider two families of Lagrange finite elements $P_k$ and $P_m$ for two values $(k,m)\in \mathbb{N}^{*2}$, $(k < m)$. Assuming that the solution $u$ to (\ref{VP}) belongs to $H^{m+1}(\Omega)$, inequality (\ref{estimation_error}) can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\|u^{(k)}_h-u\|_{1} \hspace{0.1cm} & \leq & \hspace{0.1cm} \mathscr{C}_k h^{k}\, |u|_{k+1}, \label{Constante_01} \\
\|u^{(m)}_h\hspace{-0.09cm}-u\|_{1} \hspace{0.1cm} & \leq & \hspace{0.1cm} \mathscr{C}_m h^{m}\, |u|_{m+1}\,, \label{Constante_02}
\end{eqnarray}
where $u^{(k)}_h$ and $u^{(m)}_h$ respectively denote the $P_k$ and $P_m$ Lagrange finite element approximations of $u$.\\ [0.2cm]
In this article, following a series of previous papers \cite{CMAM_2019}-\cite{ChAs20} where a theoretical analysis was performed, we are interested in numerical applications. To this end, for a given mesh size $h$, two independent meshes for $P_k$ and $P_m$ are built by a mesh generator. Usually, one considers inequalities (\ref{Constante_01}) and (\ref{Constante_02}) so as to conclude that, when $h$ goes to zero, $P_m$ is more accurate that $P_k$, since $h^m$ goes faster to zero than $h^k$. \\ [0.2cm]
However, in practical numerical applications, the size of the mesh is chosen according to the desired accuracy, so that $h$ has a fixed value. Consequently, this way of comparison is no more relevant. For this reason, we mean to identify the relative accuracy between $P_k$ and $P_m, (k<m)$, for a given value of $h$.
\subsection{Two probabilistic laws}\label{sub2models}
\noindent In \cite{CMAM_2019}-\cite{CMAM_2020}, we introduced a probabilistic approach that provides a coherent framework for modeling uncertainties in finite element approximations: such uncertainties may come from the way the meshes are created by computer algorithms, leading to a partial non-control of the mesh, even for a given maximum mesh size.\\ [0.2cm]
In this framework, values $\|u^{(k)}_h-u\|_{1}$ and $\|u^{(m)}_h-u\|_{1}$ are viewed as two random variables, respectively denoted as $X^{(k)}(h)$ and $X^{(m)}(h)$, whose support is $\big[0, \mathscr{C}_i |u|_{i+1} h^i\big], (i=k \mbox{ or } i=m),$ according to inequalities (\ref{Constante_01}) and (\ref{Constante_02}). Our goal is thus to derive a probabilistic law for the event
$$
\displaystyle\left\{X^{(m)}(h) \leq X^{(k)}(h)\right\} \equiv \left\{\|u^{(m)}_h-u\|_{1} \leq \|u^{(k)}_h-u\|_{1}\right\},
$$
which corresponds to the relative accuracy between finite elements $P_k$ and $P_m$. For this purpose, we first introduce the random events $A$ and $B$ defined by:
\begin{eqnarray*}
A \equiv \left\{X^{(m)}(h) \leq X^{(k)}(h)\right\}, \, &&
B \equiv \left\{ X^{(k)}(h) \in \big[\mathscr{C}_m |u|_{m+1} h^m,\mathscr{C}_k |u|_{k+1} h^k\big]\right\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Moreover, we proved in \cite{CMAM_2019} the following result:
\begin{lemma}\label{Two_Steps}
Let us assume that $A$ and $B$ are two independent events. Then, the probability law $P(A)$ of event $A$ is given by:
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\begin{equation}\label{Heaviside_Prob}
\displaystyle P(A)= \left |
\begin{array}{ll}
\hspace{0.1cm} 1 & \mbox{ if } \hspace{0.1cm} 0 < h < h^{*}_{k,m}, \medskip \\
\hspace{0.1cm} 0 & \mbox{ if } \hspace{0.1cm} h> h^{*}_{k,m},
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $h^{*}_{k,m}$ is defined by:
\begin{equation}\label{h*}
\displaystyle h^{*}_{k,m} \equiv\left( \frac{\mathscr{C}_k |u|_{k+1}}{\mathscr{C}_m |u|_{m+1}}\right)^{\frac{1}{m-k}}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
The shape of the probabilistic distribution, called the two-steps model, is depicted in Fig.\ref{Sigmoid}. Basically, it expresses the fact that, for $h < h^{*}_{k,m}$, finite element $P_m$ is \emph{almost surely} more accurate than $P_k$, whereas for $h > h^{*}_{k,m}$, $P_k$ becomes \emph{almost surely} more accurate than $P_m$.\\ [0.2cm]
To relax the independence assumption of events $A$ and $B$, we also derived a second probabilistic law based on the uniform distribution of the random variable $X^{(k)}(h)$ over $\big[0,\mathscr{C}_k |u|_{k+1} \,h^{k}\big]$. In this context, we proved in \cite{CMAM_2019} the following theorem:
\begin{theorem}\label{The_nonlinear_law}
Let us assume that $X^{(i)}(h), (i=k,m),$ are independent and uniformly distributed on $[0, \mathscr{C}_i |u|_{i+1} h^i]$. Then, the probability $P(A)$ of event $A$ is given by:
\begin{equation}\label{Nonlinear_Prob}
\displaystyle P(A)= \left |
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle \hspace{0.1cm} 1 - \frac{1}{2}\!\left(\!\frac{\!\!h}{h^{*}_{k,m}}\!\right)^{\!\!m-k} & \mbox{ if } \hspace{0.1cm} 0 < h \leq h^{*}_{k,m}, \\[0.5cm]
\displaystyle \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{1}{2}\!\left(\!\frac{h^{*}_{k,m}}{\!\!h}\!\right)^{\!\!m-k} & \mbox{ if } \hspace{0.1cm} h \geq h^{*}_{k,m}.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=10.cm]{Sigmoid_2_V2.pdf}
\caption{Case $m-k\neq 1$: shape of the sigmoid distribution (\ref{Nonlinear_Prob}) (full line) and the two steps corresponding one (\ref{Heaviside_Prob}) (dashed line), $(P_{k,m}(h)\equiv Prob\{X^{(m)}(h) \leq X^{(k)}(h)\})$.} \label{Sigmoid}
\end{figure}
The shape of this law, called the sigmoid model, is also plotted in Fig.\ref{Sigmoid}. As one can see, for $h>h^{*}_{k,m}$, $P(A) \leq 0.5$: in that case, finite element $P_{m}$ is \emph{probably} overqualified.\\ [0.2cm]
The purpose of the next section is to propose numerical examples that illustrate and validate this probabilistic approach by comparing statistical frequencies and the corresponding probabilities determined by (\ref{Heaviside_Prob}) or (\ref{Nonlinear_Prob}).
\section{Numerical results}
\label{NumericalResults}
\noindent In this section, we will illustrate our probabilistic approach on numerical examples, by evaluating the relative accuracy of two Lagrange finite elements. We have intentionally chosen a simple, standard example, in order to help us numerically check the relevance of the proposed probabilistic distributions.\\ [0.2cm]
\noindent Hence, we consider the following classical elliptic problem, with obvious notations\\ [0.2cm]
{\em Find $u \in H^1(\Omega)$ solution to}
\begin{equation}\label{edpnum}
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
-\Delta u = q \mbox{ in } \Omega\,, \\
u =h \mbox{ on } \partial \Omega\,,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where, for simplicity, domain $\Omega$ is the open unit square in $\mathbb{R}^2$: $\Omega=]0,1[\times]0,1[$. The associated variational formulation, which is analogous to (\ref{VP}), can be readily derived. According to the choice of $q$ and $h$, we will consider as examples a {\em stiff} problem, where the solution exhibits rapid variations or, alternatively, a {\em very smooth} problem.\\ [0.2cm]
One of the main ingredients of the method is the computation of $h^{*}_{k,m}$, as defined by (\ref{h*}). As one will see, it will be evaluated using a {\em maximum likelihood estimator}; see for instance \cite{Rossi}.\\ [0.2cm]
In our case, this principle is applied as follows: for a given finite element $P_{k}$, we consider a number $N$ of different meshes with the same (maximum) mesh size $h$. Then, we compute:
\begin{equation}
\label{estimator-Ck}
\max_{{N,h}}\displaystyle\frac{\|u^{(k)}_h-u\|_{1}}{h^{k}}\,
\end{equation}
which constitutes, using estimate (\ref{Constante_01}), the maximum likelihood estimator for $\mathscr{C}_{k}|u|_{k+1}$. Indeed, due to inequality (\ref{Constante_01}), quantity $\frac{X^{k}(h)}{h^k}$ is also a uniform random variable whose support is $[0, \mathscr{C}_{k}|u|_{k+1}]$. \\ [0.2cm]
Then, one can show \cite{LeJeune} that for a given uniform random variable $Y$ whose support is $[0, \theta]$, $\theta$ being an unknown real parameter, the maximum likelihood estimator $\hat{\theta}$ is given by:
$$
\hat{\theta} = \max(Y_1,\dots,Y_N),
$$
where $(Y_1,\dots,Y_N)$ is a sample built with independent and identically distributed random variables $(Y_i)_{i=1,N}$, with the same distribution as $Y$.\\ [0.2cm]
In our case, this implies that (\ref{estimator-Ck}) is the maximum likelihood estimator for $\mathscr{C}{k}|u|_{k+1}$, since $N$ and $h$ each take a finite number of values.\\ [0.2cm]
Doing the same for another finite element $P_{m}$, we obtain that the estimator for $h^{*}_{k,m}$, denoted $\widehat{\,h^{*}_{k,m}}$, is defined by:
\begin{equation}\label{hstar_estime}
\widehat{\,h^{*}_{k,m}}=\left(\displaystyle\frac{\displaystyle\max_{{N,h}}\displaystyle\frac{\|u^{(k)}_h-u\|_{1}}{h^{k}}}{\displaystyle\max_{{N,h}}\displaystyle\frac{\|u^{(m)}_h-u\|_{1}}{h^{m}}}\right)^{1/m-k}
\end{equation}
Then, one can easily compute the two probability laws introduced in subsection \ref{sub2models}. Indeed, as soon as $\widehat{\,h^{*}_{k,m}}$ is computed, functions (\ref{Heaviside_Prob}) and (\ref{Nonlinear_Prob}) are operational by replacing $h^{*}_{k,m}$ by $\widehat{\,h^{*}_{k,m}}$. All the numerical results below are computed in this way.\\ [0.2cm]
In order to numerically check the validity of each model, we now compare the two probabilistic laws defined by (\ref{Heaviside_Prob}) and (\ref{Nonlinear_Prob}) with the corresponding statistical frequencies computed on the $N$ meshes, for each fixed value $h$ of the mesh size.\\ [0.2cm]
To that end, we consider for two finite elements $P_{k}$ and $P_{m}$ ($k<m$), the same number $N$ of different meshes with the same (maximum) mesh size $h$. From there, we compute the approximate solution $u^{(m)}_h$ and $u^{(k)}_h$, and we test if $\|u^{(m)}_h-u\|_{1} \leq \|u^{(k)}_h-u\|_{1}$. Then, we repeat the same process for different values of $h$, either lower or greater than $\widehat{\,h^{*}_{k,m}}$. This gives, as a function of $h$, the percentage of cases where the approximation error of $P_m$ is lower than the approximation error of $P_k$. In all cases, we use package FreeFem++~\cite{Hech12} to compute the $P_k$ and $P_m$ finite element approximations.\\ [0.2cm]
In the next subsection, we consider a stiff case, whereas in the following one, we deal with a very smooth example.
\subsection{A first stiff case}
To introduce such a stiff case, we consider the well-known Runge function $\varphi(t)=\displaystyle\frac{1}{1+\alpha t^2}$ which takes $\alpha$ as a parameter, the classical Runge function corresponding to $\alpha=25$ (see \cite{Rung01}, \cite{Eppe87}). \\ [0.2cm]
Since we first aim at building an exact solution $u(x,y)$ for (\ref{edpnum}), we consider solutions of the form $u(x,y)=f(x) g(y)$, where both $f(x)$ and $g(y)$ are Runge functions of parameter $\alpha$.\\ [0.2cm]
To compute the derivatives of $u(x,y)$, we basically need the derivatives of the Runge function $f$. After some elementary algebra, we obtain the derivatives of $f(t)$ (namely $f'(t)=\displaystyle\frac{-2 \alpha t}{(1+\alpha t^2)^2}, f''(t)=\displaystyle\frac{2 \alpha (3 \alpha t^2 -1)}{(1+\alpha t^2)^3}$), from which the Laplacian of $u(x,y)$ can easily be derived. Indeed, by computing the second order partial derivatives $u_{xx}, u_{yy}$, we find that
\begin{equation}
\label{Rhs}
-\Delta u = -(f''(x) g(y) +f(x) g''(y)) =
-\frac{2 \alpha (3 \alpha x^2 -1)}{(1+\alpha x^2)^3} \displaystyle\frac{1}{1+\alpha y^2}-\displaystyle\frac{1}{1+\alpha x^2}\frac{2 \alpha (3 \alpha y^2 -1)}{(1+\alpha y^2)^3}\,.
\end{equation}
We now set the right-hand side $q(x,y)$ of (\ref{edpnum}) equal to expression (\ref{Rhs}) above, so that
\begin{equation}
\label{uexact}
u(x,y)=\displaystyle\left(\frac{1}{1+\alpha x^2}\right)\displaystyle\left(\frac{1}{1+\alpha y^2}\right)
\end{equation}
is the exact solution of (\ref{edpnum}), provided that the Dirichlet boundary condition $h(x,y)$ is taken as the trace of $u(x,y)$ on the boundary $\partial \Omega$, that is
$$
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
h(x,0) =\displaystyle\frac{1}{1+\alpha x^2}\,, & h(0,y) = \displaystyle\frac{1}{1+\alpha y^2}, \\
h(x,1) = \displaystyle\frac{1}{1+\alpha x^2}\displaystyle\frac{1}{1+\alpha} \,, & h(1,y) = \displaystyle\frac{1}{1+\alpha}\displaystyle\frac{1}{1+\alpha y^2}.
\end{array}
\right.
$$
In what follows, we analyze the relative accuracy between two Lagrange finite elements, $u(x,y)$, as defined in (\ref{uexact}), being the reference solution for comparison.
\subsubsection{$P_2$-$P_3$ comparison and $\alpha$-independence}
\noindent The first numerical test we present is devoted to a comparison between finite elements $P_2$ and $P_3$. We first choose $\alpha=500$. In that case, as explained above, we computed value $\widehat{\,h^{*}_{2,3}}$ as defined in (\ref{hstar_estime}) and obtained $\widehat{\,h^{*}_{2,3}} \simeq 0.12$.\\ [0.2cm]
For this example, we have used values of $h$ varying from $0.05$ to $0.18$, and for each $h$ we have constructed $N=500$ different meshes with the same value of $h$. In Fig. \ref{P2P2alpha-500} we plot, on the same picture, the results obtained for the statistical frequencies (full line) and for the two-steps probability law (\ref{Heaviside_Prob}) (dotted line), as a function of $h$.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{P2P3-Runge-500.pdf}
\caption{$P_2$ versus $P_3$ for the Runge function with $\alpha=500$. Comparison between the statistical frequencies (full line) and the probabilistic law (\ref{Heaviside_Prob}) (dotted line). 500 meshes are used for each value of $h$.} \label{P2P2alpha-500}
\end{figure}
\noindent We then checked that the results do not depend on the value of $\alpha$. For this purpose, we repeated the same numerical experiments for $\alpha=25$ and $\alpha=2000$. The results, depicted in Fig. \ref{P2P2alpha-25-2000}, show the same behavior as previously. Of course, the value of $\widehat{\,h^{*}_{k,m}}$ does depend on $\alpha$ and we have $\widehat{\,h^{*}_{2,3}}\simeq 0,13$ for $\alpha=25$ and $\widehat{\,h^{*}_{2,3}}\simeq 0.07$ for $\alpha=2000$.\\ [0.2cm]
\begin{figure}[htbp!]
\begin{tabular}{lr}
{
\hspace*{-0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{P2P3-Runge-25.pdf}
}
&
\hspace*{-0.5cm}
{
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{P2P3-Runge-2000.pdf}
}
\end{tabular}
\caption{$P_2$ versus $P_3$ for the Runge function with $\alpha=25$ (left) and $\alpha=2000$ (right). Statistical frequencies (full) and probabilistic law (\ref{Heaviside_Prob}) (dotted). 500 meshes are used for each value of $h$.} \label{P2P2alpha-25-2000}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Comparison with $P_4$ finite element}
\noindent Next, we numerically assessed the validity of the present approach when finite element $P_4$ is involved. We first compared $P_{3}$ with $P_{4}$, then $P_{2}$ with $P_{4}$. To this end, we used the Runge function with $\alpha=2000$, and we also considered $N=500$ different meshes. The computed value of $\widehat{\,h^{*}_{k,m}}$ we obtained are $\widehat{\,h^{*}_{3,4}}\simeq 0.24$ for $P_3$-$P_4$ and $\widehat{\,h^{*}_{2,4}}\simeq 0.094$ for $P_2$-$P_4$. The results are depicted in Fig. \ref{P3P4-P2P4-alpha-2000} and show, like previously, that the statistical frequencies behave very similarly to the two-steps probabilistic law (\ref{Heaviside_Prob}).\\ [0.2cm]
\begin{figure}[htbp!]
\begin{tabular}{lr}
{
\hspace*{-0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=8.cm]{P3P4-Runge-2000.pdf}
}
&
\hspace*{-0.5cm}
{
\includegraphics[width=8.cm]{P2P4-Runge-2000.pdf}
}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparisons $P_3$-$P_4$ (left) and $P_2$-$P_4$ (right) for the Runge function with $\alpha=2000$. Statistical frequencies (full) and probabilistic law (\ref{Heaviside_Prob}) (dotted). 500 meshes are used for each value of $h$.} \label{P3P4-P2P4-alpha-2000}
\end{figure}
\noindent The last illustration of this subsection is devoted to the comparison between the statistical frequencies and the sigmoid probabilistic law defined in (\ref{Nonlinear_Prob}). We considered comparisons between finite elements $P_2$ and $P_4$, then between $P_1$ and $P_4$. \\ [0.2cm]
We followed the same procedure as above, again with the same parameters ($N=500$ and $\alpha=2000$). The results are depicted in Fig. \ref{P1-P2-P4-sigmoid}. As one can see, there is a weaker fitting between the two curves than with the two-steps law (\ref{Heaviside_Prob}), even if the trend is still correct. Remark also that the fit is better in the $P_1$-$P_4$ case than in the $P_2$-$P_4$ case. More generally, the greater the $m-k$ difference, the better the match. Hence, the sigmoid model also gave a correct trend, but was less precise and satisfying than the two-steps law, in particular when $m-k=1$, for instance when one compares $P_{2}$ with $P_{3}$, see Fig. \ref{P2-P3-Runge-sigmoid}. Indeed, in that case, the first part of (\ref{Nonlinear_Prob}) is a linear decreasing function of $h$ (for any given fixed $h^{*}_{k,m}$), and the second one decreases like $1/h$. However, if difference $m-k=2$, for instance when comparing $P_{2}$ to $P_{4}$, the fit is better. Indeed, the first part of (\ref{Nonlinear_Prob}) is a decreasing function $\simeq -h^{2}$ (for any given fixed $h^{*}_{k,m}$), and the second one decreases like $1/h^{2}$. So, depending on the difference $m-k$, the sigmoid law remains to some extent relevant, where high order finite element (with $m$ around $20$-$25$) are sometimes used \cite{Mitc15}.\\ [0.2cm]
This shows that the two-steps model works well, but is a bit ``rough'' (essentially binary), whereas the sigmoid law is probably too ``rigid'' and has to be make more ``flexible'' to obtain a better fit with the statistical results. For this reason, we are currently working on a more general approach which corresponds to a new generation of probabilistic laws that better fit the statistical frequencies. \\ [0.2cm]
\begin{figure}[htbp!]
\begin{tabular}{lr}
{
\hspace*{-0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=9.cm]{P2P4-Runge-2000_sigmoid.pdf}
}
&
\hspace*{-0.5cm}
{
\includegraphics[width=9.cm]{P1P4-Runge-2000_sigmoid.pdf}
}
\end{tabular}
\caption{$P_2$ versus $P_4$ (left) and $P_1$ versus $P_4$ (right) for the Runge function with $\alpha=2000$. Comparison between the statistical frequencies (full) and the probabilistic law (\ref{Nonlinear_Prob}) (dotted). 500 meshes are used for each value of $h$.} \label{P1-P2-P4-sigmoid}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9.cm]{P2P3-Runge-2000_sigmoid.pdf}
\caption{$P_2$ versus $P_3$ for the Runge function with $\alpha=2000$. Comparison between the statistical frequencies (full) and the probabilistic law (\ref{Nonlinear_Prob}) (dotted). 500 meshes are used for each value of $h$.}
\label{P2-P3-Runge-sigmoid}
\end{figure}
\subsection{A smooth example}
\noindent In this subsection, we illustrate the probabilistic laws for a very smooth solution to the variational problem (\ref{VP}). To build such a case, we chose $q=2\pi^2 \sin(\pi x) \cos(\pi y)$ in (\ref{edpnum}), so that $u(x,y)=\sin(\pi x) \cos(\pi y)$ is the exact solution of the problem, provided that the Dirichlet boundary condition $h$ is taken as the trace of $u(x,y)$ on the boundary $\partial \Omega$. This can be written as:
$$
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
h(x,0) = \sin(\pi x) & h(0,y) = 0, \\
h(x,1) = -\sin(\pi x), & h(1,y) = 0.
\end{array}
\right.
$$
As previously, we first compute $\widehat{\,h^{*}_{k,m}}$ defined by (\ref{hstar_estime}), then we compute the probabilistic models introduced above. After that, we compare these results to the statistical frequencies.\\ [0.2cm]
For example, we consider the finite elements $P_2$ and $P_3$: we depicted in Fig. \ref{P2-P3-regular} (left) the statistical frequencies and the probabilistic law (\ref{Heaviside_Prob}). As in all the other numerical experiments, 500 meshes have been used for each value of $h$, where we found a value of $\widehat{\,h^{*}_{2,3}}$ approximately equal to $0.18$. As one can see, even in this case, there is a good agreement between the statistical frequencies and the probabilistic law (\ref{Heaviside_Prob}). However, the comparison with the sigmoid law (\ref{Nonlinear_Prob}) (right part of Fig. \ref{P2-P3-regular}) gave only a global trend and was not really accurate. Here again, as for the Runge example, it will be improved by the above-mentioned new generation of probabilistic laws.\\ [0.2cm]
\begin{figure}[htbp!]
\begin{tabular}{lr}
{
\hspace*{-0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=8.cm]{regular-proba-stat-P2P3.pdf}
}
&
\hspace*{-0.5cm}
{
\includegraphics[width=8.cm]{regular-proba-stat-P2P3_sigmoid.pdf}
}
\end{tabular}
\caption{$P_2$ versus $P_3$ for the smooth case. Comparison between the statistical frequencies (full) and the two probabilistic laws (dotted). 500 meshes are used for each value of $h$. Left: comparison with the two-steps probabilistic law (\ref{Heaviside_Prob}) - Right: comparison with the sigmoid probabilistic law (\ref{Nonlinear_Prob}).} \label{P2-P3-regular}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
\noindent In this paper, we proposed to apply the probabilistic approach we developed in \cite{CMAM_2019} to numerical examples. It enabled us to evaluate the relative accuracy between two Lagrange finite elements $P_k$ and $P_m, (k<m)$, for a fixed value of the mesh size $h$. Our approach, which is based on a geometrical interpretation of the error estimate, considers the approximation errors as random variables. Two probabilistic laws were derived, a so-called "two steps" law and a "sigmoid" one, depending on the probabilistic assumptions which were made on the corresponding random variables.\\ [0.2cm]
For the finite elements we considered, we illustrated, using several examples, the property that, depending on the position of $h$ with respect to the critical value $h^{*}_{k,m}$, we can actually estimate which of finite elements $P_k$ and $P_m$ is more likely accurate. This overturns the common misconception that finite elements $P_m$ are always more precise than $P_k$ if $m > k$, regardless of the mesh size $h$. In particular, this shows cases where a $P_m$ finite element \emph{surely} is overqualified. As a consequence, a significant reduction of implementation time and execution cost can be obtained without loss of accuracy. Such a phenomenon was already observed by using data-mining techniques (see \cite{AsCh11}, \cite{AsCh13}, \cite{AsCh16} and \cite{AsCh17}).\\ [0.2cm]
However if, in the proposed examples, the first investigated law (the two-steps law) fit the numerical results satisfactorily, the second proposed law (the sigmoid one) produces only a trend and is not accurate enough. Indeed, the results show that the statistical frequencies behave similarly to the two-steps probabilistic law, in both the smooth and stiff examples. However, there is a weaker fitting between the statistical error and the sigmoid law, particularly when difference $m-k$ is small. To address this issue, we are currently working on a new probabilistic framework which corrects the gap between the statistics and a ``generalized'' probability law.\\ [0.2cm]
Finally, note that this approach is not limited to finite element methods, and can be generalized to other approximation methods: given several different numerical methods and their error estimates, it would be possible to order them by evaluating which is the most probably accurate.\\ [0.2cm]
\textbf{\underline{Homages}:} The author wants to warmly dedicate this research to pay homage to the memory of Professors Andr\'e Avez and G\'erard Tronel, who broadly promoted the passion of research and teaching in Mathematics.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
With the growing amount of applications,
end devices, e.g., smart phones, tablets, or vehicles, generate massive private data in daily life \cite{MChiang2016}.
The valuable personal data can be harnessed to train the machine learning model and significantly improve the quality of end-users' experience.
However, due to privacy concerns, transmitting private data from local client devices to the cloud server is not feasible and appropriate.
To efficiently utilize the end-users' data, federated learning (FL) has emerged as a new paradigm of distributed machine learning that executes model training with the private data in local devices \cite{konevcny2016federated}.
Engaging FL, locally training model can be transmitted to global server for model aggregation without any data information.
Unlike the server-based applications, FL on end devices poses several fundamental challenges, such as the limited connectivity of wireless networks, unstable availability of end devices, and the non identically and independently distributed (non-IID) distributions of client dataset.
The concerns mentioned above prohibits the model training on all participating devices from beginning to end.
To avoid such a dilemma, only a subset of devices is selected to participate in each round of model training which is a common practice in FL\cite{lin2017deep}.
In recent years, a variety of client selection schemes in FL have been advocated.
In \cite{shi2020device}, the authors proposed a client scheduling approach to achieve a proper trade-off between the learning efficiency and latency per round.
The staleness of the received models and instantaneous channel qualities were jointly considered in \cite{yang2020age}.
Besides, the work in \cite{zeng2020energy} investigated the problem of minimizing energy consumption of edge devices in FL without compromising learning performance.
The client data's distribution of the above FL methods is IID , which may not be applicable in practice.
The device usage pattern of different users varies, so the data samples and labels on any individual device may follow a different distribution.
A individual data distribution cannot represent the global data distribution.
Recently, it has been pointed out that the performance of FL,
especially federated averaging (FedAvg) algorithm \cite{mcmahan2017communication}, may significantly degrade in the presence of non-IID data, in terms of the model accuracy and the communication rounds required for convergence \cite{zhao2018federated,sattler2019robust,li2019convergence}.
Recognizing such criticality, the authors in \cite{wang2020towards} designed a scheme to mitigate the impact of the class imbalance and introduce a loss function to evaluate the class imbalance.
Moreover, the work in \cite{wang2020optimizing} exploited learning algorithm for client selection to decrease the communication rounds with target accuracy.
However, the algorithm in \cite{wang2020optimizing} needs lots of offline training and the data on each device must remain unchanged during the training procedure.
In this paper, the client selection problem concentrated on class imbalance in FL is investigated.
With the concern of the users' privacy, we propose a scheme that can reveal the severity of class imbalance without any raw data of client devices.
Besides, utilizing reinforcement learning, we propose a client selection scheme to minimize the effect of class imbalance.
The proposed algorithm endeavors to learn the class distribution and selects the most balanced clients combination.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows.
The system model is presented in section \ref{sec:system model}.
In section \ref{sec:algorithm}, we introduce a scheme to evaluate the class imbalance of clients and propose a learning algorithm to find the best client set.
The performance of the proposed algorithm is numerically evaluated in section \ref{sec:numerical results}.
In section \ref{sec:conclusions}, we conclude this paper.
\section{System Model}
\label{sec:system model}
Consider training a deep neural network (DNN) under FL settings with a set of clients $\mathcal{K}=\{1,2,...,K\}$, each with its own local dataset and a global server for model aggregation, as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:system_model}.
We model the channel from the device to global server as multiple access channel.
With the communication limitation, only a fixed amount of spectrum is available \cite{xia2020multi}.
Due to the scarce of the spectrum resource, the number of available channels is much smaller than that of the client devices.
We then formally introduce the DNN training for multiclass classification problem in FL.
Consider a class classification problem defined over a compact feature space $\mathcal{X}$ and a label space $\mathcal{Y}=\mathcal{C}$ with $C$ classes, where $\mathcal{C}=\{1,\cdots,C\}$.
Let $(\bm{x},y)$ denote a particular labeled sample.
A function $f:\mathcal{X}\rightarrow\mathcal{D}$ maps $\bm{x}$ to the probability for the $i$th class, where $\mathcal{D}=\{\bm{z}|\sum_{i=1}^{C}z_i=1,z_i\geq 0,\forall i\in\mathcal{C}\}$.
Let $\bm{W}$ denote the weight of DNN.
The cross entropy loss can be harnessed to evaluate the training performance in classification, which is defined as
\begin{align}
L(\bm{w}) &=E_{\bm{x},y\sim p}\Big[\sum_{i=1}^{C}\mathbb{1}_{y=i}\log f_i(\bm{x},\bm{W})\Big]\nonumber\\ &=\sum_{i=1}^{C}p(y=i)E_{\bm{x}|y=i}[\log f_i(\bm{x},\bm{W})].
\end{align}
where $E(\cdot)$ denotes the expectation operation and $\mathbb{1}$ denotes the indicator matrix.
In FL, the training procedure is an iterative process consisting of a number of communication rounds.
Let $\bm{W}^k_t$ and $\bm{W}^g_t$ denote the weights of $k$th device's DNN model and global DNN model in round $t$, respectively.
In round $t$, the server chooses a subset $\mathcal{S}_t\subseteq \mathcal{K}$ of the clients and then distributes the weights $\bm{W}_{t-1}^g$ of the global model to the selected clients.
Then the selected clients synchronize their local models such that $\bm{W}_{t-1}^{k}=\bm{W}_{t-1}^g$, and perform the following stochastic gradient descent (SGD) training as
\begin{align}
\bm{W}_t^{k}=\bm{W}_{t-1}^{k}-\eta_{t}^{k}\nabla_{\bm{W}}L(\bm{W}_{t-1}^{k}; \xi^{k}),
\end{align}
where $\eta_t^{k}$ is the learning rate setting for device $k$ in round $t$, $\xi^{k}$ is an example sampled from local dataset in device $k$.
Once $\bm{W}_t^{k}$ is obtained, each participating device $k$ updates its own model weight difference $\Delta_t^k$ to the global server, which is defined as
\begin{align}
\Delta_t^{k}=\bm{W}_t^{k}-\bm{W}_{t-1}^{k}.
\end{align}
When the global server collects all the updates from client devices, it performs the FedAvg algorithm to update the global model as follows \cite{mcmahan2017communication}
\begin{align}
\Delta_t^g&=\sum_{k \in \mathcal{S}_t}\frac{n_k}{\sum_{k'=1}^Kn_{k'}}\Delta_t^{k},\\
\bm{W}_t^g&\leftarrow\bm{W}_{t-1}^g+\Delta_t^g.
\end{align}
When the data and label distribution on different devices are IID, FedAvg has been shown to perform well approximating the model trained on centrally data \cite{mcmahan2017communication}.
However, in practice, data owned by each device are typically non-IID, i.e., the data distributions of clients vary from different devices due to different user preferences and usage patterns.
When data distributions are non-IID, FedAvg algorithm is unstable and may even diverge \cite{zhao2018federated}.
The problem arises by the inconsistency between the locally performed SGD algorithm, which aims to minimize the loss value on local samples on each device and the global objective of minimizing the overall loss on server data samples.
Since the training model is fitted on different devices to heterogeneous local data, the divergence among the weights $\bm{W}^{k}$ of these local models will be accumulated and eventually degrades the performance of the learning process \cite{mohri2019agnostic}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.58]{sm.eps}
\centering
\caption{An illustration of FL procedure.}
\label{fig:system_model}
\end{figure}
\section{Online Learning Algorithm for Client selection}
\label{sec:algorithm}
In this section, we first discuss the approach to estimate the class imbalance of each training client.
Then we propose an online learning algorithm to find the most balanced clients set.
\subsection{Class Estimation Scheme}
\label{sec:banalce_detect}
In FL settings, the raw data of clients could not be obtained due to privacy concerns.
However, with the help of the following scheme, we can reveal the class distribution of client services according to their updated gradients.
Consider a DNN contains an input layer, a hidden layer and an output layer.
Note that in DNN for the classification problem, the scale of the output layer is equal to the size of class label.
That is, each neuron of the output layer corresponding to a class label.
Let $\bm{\mathcal{W}}=[\bm{w}_1,\bm{w}_2,...,\bm{w}_C]$ denotes the weights between hidden layer and output layer. Every element of $\bm{\mathcal{W}}$ denote the weights connect hidden layer to the specific neuron of output layer.
Without loss of generality, we assume there exists a balanced auxiliary dataset with $C$ classes in global server.
Such auxiliary dataset only consists of a few data samples and can be extracted from the test dataset.
When the auxiliary data examples are fed to the updated model, we can obtain the gradients vector brought by auxiliary data with respect to the corresponding classes. The gradients vector brought by auxiliary data can be expressed as
\begin{align}
\Big\{\nabla L^{\textit{aux}}(\bm{w}_1), \nabla L^{\textit{aux}}(\bm{w}_2), ... , \nabla L^{\textit{aux}}(\bm{w}_C)\Big\}\nonumber,
\end{align}
where each $\nabla L^{\textit{aux}}(\bm{w}_i)$ is related to the $i$th neuron and class $\mathcal{C}_i$.
The following theorem can help to obtain the class distribution from the above gradients vector.
\begin{theorem}
\label{theorem2}
When training DNN in classification problem, the expectations of gradient square for different classes have the following approximate relation \cite{anand1993improved}:
\begin{align}
\frac{E||\nabla L(\bm{w}_i)||^2}{E||\nabla L(\bm{w_}j)||^2}\approx \frac{n_i^2}{n_j^2},
\end{align}
where $L$ denotes the cost function of the neural network, $n_i$ and $n_j$ are the number of samples for class $i$ and class $j$ , respectively, where $i \neq j$ and $i, j \in \mathcal{C}$.
\end{theorem}
\textbf{Theorem 1} reveals the correlation between the gradients and class distribution.
Then for class $\mathcal{C}_i$, the estimation of class ratio $\frac{n_i^2}{\sum_j n_j^2}$ can be defined
\begin{align}
R_{i} = \frac{e^{\frac{\beta}{||\nabla L^{\textit{aux}}(\bm{w}_i)||^2}}}{\sum_{j}e^{\frac{\beta}{||\nabla L^{\textit{aux}}(\bm{w}_j)||^2}}},
\label{equ:ratio}
\end{align}
where $\beta$ is a hyperparameter that can be tuned to control the normalization between classes.
Then we can obtain the composition vector $\bm{R}=[R_1,...,R_C]$ that indicates the distribution of raw data.
Moreover, the Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence can be harnessed to evaluate the class imbalance of each client, which is defined as
\begin{align}
D_{KL}(\bm{R}||\bm{U}) = \sum_{i\in\mathcal{C}}R_i\log\frac{R_i}{U_i},
\end{align}
where $\bm{U}$ is a vector of ones with magnitude $C$.
\subsection{Online Learning Framework for Client Selection}
Multi-arm bandit problems are motivated by a variety of real-world problems, such as online advertising, dynamic pricing and stock investment.
To find the optimal balance client subset, the difficulty lies in how to learn the statistics of class distribution via iterative updated gradient.
Combinatorial multi-Armed bandit (CMAB) can be harnessed to solve this problem \cite{chen2013combinatorial}.
In CMAB model, an agent gambles on a bandit machine with a finite set of arms, where each arm has unknown distribution.
At round $t$, several arms defined as a super arm $\mathcal{S}_t$ ($\mathcal{S}_t\subseteq \mathcal{K}$) can be pulled.
The reward of the super arm depends on the outcomes of all pulled arms.
In this work, we consider the client selection as a CMAB problem, where each client represents the arm and the client set represents the super arm.
In FL training, once the model is updated, the server could obtain the local model of each client device.
Utilizing the class estimation scheme, we can reveal the composition vector $\bm{R}^k$ of selected client $k$.
Define the reward of client $k$ as
\begin{align}
r^k = \frac{1}{D_{KL}(\bm{R}^k||\bm{U})}\label{equ:reward}.
\end{align}
Then the global server executes FedAvg algorithm for model aggregation and the reward $r$ of the whole client set can be obtained the same as (\ref{equ:reward}).
Note that the super arm's reward is a nonlinear combination of the selected single arms' reward.
An algorithm that has good theoretical results with nonlinear reward is the combinatorial upper confidence bounds (CUCB) algorithm \cite{chen2013combinatorial}.
Let $T^k$ denote the number of times that the client $k$ has been selected.
Once client $k$ has been selected in a time slot, $T^k\rightarrow T^k+1$, otherwise, $T^k\rightarrow T^k$.
The proposed client selection algorithm based CUCB is shown in \textbf{Algorithm 1}.
\begin{algorithm}[h]
\caption{CUCB for Client Selection}
\label{alg:CUCB}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State For each client $k$, choose an arbitrary set $\mathcal{S}\in\mathcal{K}$ such that $k\in\mathcal{S}$ and update variables $T^k$ and $\hat{r}^k$.
\State $t\leftarrow N$.
\While{\textbf{true}}
\State $t\leftarrow t+1$.
\State For each client $i$, set $\hat{r}^k=\bar{r}^k+\alpha\sqrt{\frac{3\ln t}{2T^k}}$.
\State Obtain $\mathcal{S}_t$ using \textbf{Algorithm 2} with $\hat{r}$.
\State Play $\mathcal{S}_t$ and update $T^k$ and $\hat{r}^k$.
\EndWhile
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
Here $\alpha$ is the exploration factor to balance the trade-off between exploitation and exploration.
Step $1$ of \textbf{Algorithm 1} guarantees that each client has been selected once at least in the first $N$ round.
Notation $\bar{r}^k$ denotes the individual reward sample mean of client $k$, and $\hat{r}^k$ denotes the perturbed version of $\bar{r}^k$.
In step $6$, the proposed algorithm utilizes the perturbed $\hat{r}^k$ to solve the client selection problem.
The perturbation in step $5$ promotes the selection of clients that are not selected frequently, by artificially increasing their expected reward estimates.
In our client selection problem, the class distribution of each client is uncertain.
Fortunately, we can reveal the class distribution according to the composition vector.
Let $\bm{R}^k(t)$ represent the composition vector of client $k$ at time slot $t$.
Thus, the class ratio can be estimated by the sample mean of composition vector, which can be expressed as
\begin{align}
\bar{\bm{R}^k} = \frac{\sum_{t=1}^{T^k}\rho^{T^k-t}\bm{R}^k(t)}{\sum_{t=1}^{T^k}\rho^{T^k-t}},
\end{align}
where $\rho$ is the forgetting factor since the characteristic of client class distribution may vary at each time slot.
With the estimated composition vector $\bar{\bm{R}}$ and reward $r$ of each client, we can design the client selection scheme with minimal class imbalance according to \textbf{Algorithm 2}.
\begin{algorithm}[]
\caption{Class Balancing Algorithm}
\label{alg:CS}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Initialize{Set $\mathcal{S}_t=\emptyset$ and $\bm{R}_{total}=\emptyset$.
}
\State $k_0=\arg\max_k \hat{r}^k$.
\State $\mathcal{S}_t\leftarrow \mathcal{S}_t\cup\{k_0\}$.
\While{$|\mathcal{S}_t|<K$}
\State Select $k_{min}=\arg\min_{k}D_{KL}\Big((\bm{R}_{total}+\bar{\bm{R}}^k)||\bm{U}\Big)$ for $k\in\mathcal{K}\setminus \mathcal{S}_t$.
\State Set $\mathcal{S}_t\leftarrow \mathcal{S}_t\cup\{k_{min}\}$, $\bm{R}_{total}\leftarrow \bm{R}_{total}+\bar{\bm{R}}^k_{min}$.
\EndWhile
\State \textbf{Outputs: }$\mathcal{S}_t$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\textbf{Algorithm 2} determines the participants of FL updating.
Combine \textbf{Algorithm 1} and \textbf{Algorithm 2}, we can find the most suitable client set with class balance.
\section{Numerical Results}
\label{sec:numerical results}
In this section, we present numerical results to validate the effectiveness of the proposed algorithms \footnote{The source code of our work can be found in https://github.com/ym1231/fl-cir.}.
We test our scheme on one of the main benchmarks: CIFAR10 \cite{C19}.
CIFAR10 dataset consists of $50000$ training examples and $10000$ testing examples of $32 \times 32$ RGB images, categorized by total $10$ classes.
The number of clients in FL training is set as $100$.
To model the imbalanced class distribution, we split the whole CIFAR10 dataset to each client with random amount of classes and random amount of data samples.
The architecture of our deep model is a standard convolutional neural network (CNN), which comprises $3$ convolutional layers followed by rectified linear units (ReLU) nonlinear activations and max-pooling layer and $2$ fully connected layers, with totally $122570$ parameters.
Such standard model can meet our needs to validate the effectiveness of our scheme.
The training data is preprocessed by standard techniques for data augmentation, such as cropping, flipping, changing the color, etc.
We use standard SGD as our optimizer.
The learning rate and the learning rate decay of SGD are set as $0.1$ and $0.996$, respectively.
In each training round, the selected clients train their local models for $5$ epochs.
The client selects $10$ batches with batch size $10$ at each training epoch.
In our simulation, we set exploration factor $\alpha$ as $0.2$ and forgetting factor $\rho$ as $0.99$.
We fix the normalization hyperparameter $\beta$ as $1$.
To evaluate the performance of the proposed algorithm, we compare the performance of the proposed algorithm to the following schemes.
(i) Greedy scheme: global server selects the client set with the sample mean information according to the class estimation method;
(ii) Random scheme: global server randomly selects the client set.
In addition, we compare the proposed algorithm in IID setting to show the performance gap.
Note that in IID setting, the class distribution and the number of data samples in each client are set as the same.
Thus the above selection schemes are the same in practice.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=72mm]{diff_algo.eps}
\centering
\caption{The global test accuracy with different selection schemes.}
\label{fig:diff_algo}
\end{figure}
In the first experiment, we examine the convergence performance of global model with the proposed algorithm.
At each round, the global server selects $20$ clients for model aggregation.
Fig.~\ref{fig:diff_algo} depicts the test accuracy of global model with different schemes.
The test accuracy performance represents the learning process of global model.
From Fig.~\ref{fig:diff_algo}, we observe that the proposed algorithm achieves faster convergence speed and higher test accuracy compared with the greedy and uniform schemes.
The discrepancy of performance between the proposed and random scheme comes from the effect of class imbalance.
The proposed algorithm can reduce the class imbalance by carefully selecting the proper client set.
Compared with the greedy scheme, the proposed algorithm can balance the trade-off between exploration and exploitation, thus resulting in the exploration of more suitable clients set with balanced class combination.
In the second experiment, we would like to verify the performance of the proposed algorithm with different amounts of selected clients.
Fig.~\ref{fig:diff selection} plot the FL training performance with respect to the amounts of clients.
With the increasing amounts of selected clients, the FL training process can achieve better performance.
However, the performance improvement is slighter when the amount of clients become larger.
This result indicates that too large amount of clients is not essential to find the best client set when suffering the burden of communication consumption.
\begin{figure}[]
\includegraphics[width=72mm]{diff_selection.eps}
\centering
\caption{The global test accuracy of the proposed algorithm with different amounts of clients selection.}
\label{fig:diff selection}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=72mm]{diff_alpha.eps}
\centering
\caption{The global test accuracy with different exploration factors.}
\label{fig:diff_alpha}
\end{figure}
We investigate the accuracy performance of the proposed algorithm with different parameters $\alpha$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:diff_alpha}.
The parameters $\alpha$ can decide the trade-off between exploitation and exploration.
When the exploration parameter $\alpha$ is small, the global server would like to exploit the history sampling information and thus could not explore sufficiently to find the best client set.
As the exploration parameter $\alpha$ increases, the global server prefers to explore the clients with fewer selections.
Spending many rounds for exploration could result in the performance deterioration since the clients selected for exploration may be not always proper.
A suitable $\alpha$ is essential to improve the convergence performance.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
In this paper, we studied the client selection problem with class imbalance in FL.
Without the requirement of clients' data information, we designed a scheme to explicitly reveal the class distribution according to the updated gradients.
Besides, a client selection algorithm based on the CMAB framework was proposed to reduce the class imbalance effect.
Numerical results confirmed that the proposed algorithm could pick the properly balanced client set and improve the convergence performance of the global model.
\balance
\bibliographystyle{IEEEbib}
|
\section{Introduction}
Advection-diffusion-reaction problems arise in a wide range of phenomena relevant to many areas of applied physics and engineering, such as flow in porous media (e.g., reservoir engineering~\cite{ ewing2001, Calo2014} and groundwater flow~\cite{ Calo2014, ern2009}) and drug delivery~\cite{ Hossain2012, Calo2008, Bazilevs2007}. These processes generally involve heterogeneous and highly anisotropic diffusion tensors, representing varying material properties (e.g., permeability, porosity) in the domain~\cite{ Calo2016, galvis2018, Calo2011}. Thus, the accuracy and stability of the numerical approximation have been the focus of intense research for several decades. Moreover, in advection-dominated regimes, this problem behaves as a hyperbolic partial differential equation (PDE), implying that an inaccurate numerical approximation could produce non-physical oscillatory discrete solutions on coarse meshes.
Traditionally, stabilization terms modify standard finite elements to improve the properties of the discrete solution. A plethora of conforming numerical schemes exist which add extra scaled residual terms~\cite{ brooks1982, hughes1989new, hughes2007}, and the residual-free bubble approximation (RFB)~\cite{ brezzi1998}. Despite these efforts, the stabilization process still represents a significant challenge for the scientific community due to its relevance in the outcome of numerical simulations. For instance, the discrete solution quality and solver performance strongly depend on the appropriate selection of the penalization (scaling) parameters. Alternatively, non-conforming schemes build stability differently; for example, the discontinuous Galerkin (dG) class of methods, achieve stability by enforcing an element-by-element discretization and introducing a suitable choice of numerical traces~\cite{ reed1973, lesaint1974, johnson1986, cockburn2012, brezzi2004, ern2006}. Other conforming stabilized formulations are the minimal residual methods, such as the Least Squares Finite Element Method (LS-FEM)~\cite{ bochev2009} or the Discontinuous Petrov-Galerkin (DPG) method~\cite{ demkowicz2010, demkowicz2011, DemGopBOOK-CH2014, Calo2014dPG, Demkowicz2012, Niemi2011a, Niemi2013, Niemi2011}, which minimize the discrete residual with respect to an artificial energy norm and, thus, achieve the sought stability.
Recently,~\cite{calo2019} introduced, analyzed, and numerically tested a stabilized finite element formulation in abstract form for any linear partial differential equation system. The procedure minimizes the discrete residual of a conforming trial space in the dual norm of a suitable dG test space in which the trial space is a proper subspace. Hence, this formulation endows the discrete, continuous solution with the stability properties of the dG formulation that defines the dual norm. The method expresses the constrained residual minimization as a saddle-point problem that delivers a conforming approximation and an on-the-fly error estimate that drives automatic mesh refinement. Besides, since the formulation builds on the non-conformity of the underlying dG method, this attribute, in turn, allows us to consider strong norms for the test space when the trial space has high regularity. Measuring the error in stronger norms is an outstanding feature of this technology when compared against alternative ones such as the LS-FEM and DPG methods. This non-conforming residual minimization successfully tackled the analysis of compaction banding in geomaterials~\cite{ cier2020}, the constraint enforcement in advection-dominated problems~\cite{ cier2020_2}, and incompressible flows~\cite{ los2020, kyburg2020}, as well as goal-oriented adaptive mesh refinements~\cite{ rojas2020}.
In this paper, we apply this stabilized finite element method to advection-diffusion-reaction problems and show the impact of the norm selection on the quality of the resulting solutions. We consider different possible scenarios for this class of elliptic problems, such as advection-dominated diffusion, and heterogeneous, with locally vanishing or highly-anisotropic diffusivities. Section~\ref{sec:problem} describes the advection-diffusion-reaction problem and a discontinuous Galerkin formulation that allows us to solve the problem via residual minimization. Section~\ref{sec:method} presents the method and the key ingredients for its formulation, and applies it to the model problem. Finally, Section~\ref{sec:examples} discusses several numerical examples that show the efficiency and robustness of this formulation.
\section{The advection-diffusion-reaction problem}\label{sec:problem}
\sloppypar
Let ${\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^d}$, with dimension ${d = 2,3}$, be an open and bounded Lipschitz domain with boundary ${\Gamma :=\partial \Omega}$, and outward unit normal vector $\mathbf{n}$. Using the standard notation of Hilbert and Banach spaces, let ${K \in \left[L^\infty(\Omega)\right]^{d,d}}$ be a diffusion tensor, to be symmetric and positive definite in $\Omega$. Let ${\mathbf{b} \in \left[L^\infty(\Omega)\right]^d}$ denote a divergence-free (almost everywhere) advection coefficient, and ${\sigma \in L^\infty(\Omega)}$ be a reactive coefficient. We write the advection-diffusion-reaction problem as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:scalar}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\text{Find } u \text{ such that:} \smallskip \\
\begin{aligned}
-\div \left( K \nabla u \right) - \mathbf{b} \cdot \nabla u + \sigma \, u &= f,&& \text{ in } \Omega, \smallskip\\
u &= 0, && \text{ on } \Gamma,
\end{aligned}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where ${f \in L^2(\Omega)}$ denotes an spatial source.
In the present work, we focus on two different types of advection-diffusion-reaction problems:
\begin{itemize}
\item Advection-dominated problems, that is, problems where ${{0<\|K\|_{\infty}, {\|\sigma\|_{\infty}}<<\|\mathbf{b}\|_{\infty}}}$. This kind of problems lead unstable solutions when using the standard FEM on coarse meshes.
\item Highly heterogeneous and anisotropic diffusion problems, that is, problems where the diffusion takes locally small values, leading to advection-dominated regimes.
\end{itemize}
These two scenarios lead to sharp inner and boundary layers, which are difficult to capture with standard FEM formulation as they induce spurious oscillations (see~\cite{ codina1998, hughes2018}).
\subsection{Continuous weak variational formulation}
The weak formulation of~\eqref{eq:scalar} reads:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:vf_cont}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\text{Find } u \in H^1_0(\Omega), \text{ such that:} \smallskip \\
b(u,v)=\ell(v), \quad \forall v \in H^1_0(\Omega),
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
with bilinear form $b(u,v)=(K\nabla u, \nabla v)_{0, \Omega} + (\mathbf{b} \cdot \nabla u, v)_{0, \Omega}+ (\sigma u, v)_{0, \Omega}$, and linear form $\ell(v)=(f, v)_{0, \Omega}$, where ${(\cdot, \cdot)_{0, \Omega}}$ denotes the $L^2$-scalar product in $\Omega$. In what follows, we assume that there is a real number ${\sigma_0 > 0}$ such that
\begin{align}
\sigma - \frac{1}{2}\nabla \cdot \mathbf{b} \geq \sigma_0 \quad \textrm{a.e. in } \Omega.
\end{align}
Furthermore, we assume that the smallest eigenvalue of $K$ is bounded from below by a positive constant $K_0$. Then, owing to the Lax-Milgram Lemma, problem~\eqref{eq:vf_cont} is well-posed (see e.g.,~\cite{ ern2009}).
\subsection{Discrete setting}\label{ss:setting}
Let $\{\mathscr{P}_h\}$ be a family of simplicial meshes of $\Omega$ and, for simplicity, we assume that any mesh exactly represents $ \Omega$ in $\mathscr{P}_h$, that is, $\Omega$ is a polygon or a polyhedron. Let $T$ be a generic element in $\mathscr{P}_h$, and denote by $\partial T$ its boundary, by $h_T$ its diameter, and by $\mathbf{n}_T$ its outward unit normal. We set ${h = \max_{T \in \mathscr{P}_h} h_T}$. We define the classical dG approximation space as
\begin{align}
V_h :=\{v_h \in L^2(\Omega) \ | \ \forall T \in \mathscr{P}_h, v_h|_T \in \mathds{P}^p(T) \},
\end{align}
where $\mathds{P}^p(T)$ denotes the space of polynomial functions with degree smaller or equal than $p$. We set the extended space ${V_{h,\#} =H^2(\mathscr{P}_h)+V_h}$ for convenience. We say that $F$ is an ``interior face'' if there exist two elements $\{T^-(F),\,{T^+(F)\} \in \mathscr{P}_h}$, such that ${T^-(F) \cap T^+(F) = F}$ and $F$ has nonzero measure. We collect all faces $F$ of $\mathscr{P}_h$ into the set ${\mathscr{S}_h= \bigcup_{T\in\mathscr{P}_h} F}$. We denote by $\mathscr{S}^\partial_h$ the boundary skeleton ${\mathscr{S}^\partial_h = \mathscr{S}_h \cap \Gamma}$, and by $\mathscr{S}^0_h$ the internal skeleton ${\mathscr{S}^0_h=\mathscr{S}_h \backslash \Gamma}$. Over each $F\in \mathscr{S}_h$, we set $\mathbf{n}_F$ as a predefined unit normal, oriented from $T^-(F)$ to $T^+(F)$, being coincident with $\mathbf{n}$ when ${F \in \mathscr{S}_h^\partial}$, and $h_F$ as the diameter of the face $F$. On interior faces, any function ${v_h \in V_h}$ is two-valued, with values $v_h^+$ and $v_h^-$, defined with respect to the predefined normal $\mathbf{n}_F$. Thus, the jump $[\![ v_h ]\!]_F$ and the weighted average $\lbrace\hspace{-.12cm}\lbrace v_h \rbrace \hspace{-.12cm}\rbrace _\omega$ functions are defined as:
\begin{align*}
[\![ v_h ]\!]_F := v_h^+ - v_h^-, && \lbrace\hspace{-.12cm}\lbrace v_h \rbrace \hspace{-.12cm}\rbrace _\omega:= \omega^- v_h^- + \omega^+v_h^+,
\end{align*}
where the weights satisfy ${\omega^- + \omega^+ =1}$, with ${\omega^-,\omega^+\geq 0}$. In particular, when considering heterogeneous tensorial diffusivities, we choose the weights accounting the diffusivity structure:
\begin{align}\label{eq:omega}
\omega^- = \frac{\delta_{Kn}^+}{\delta_{Kn}^+ + \delta_{Kn}^-}, \quad \quad \omega^+ = \frac{\delta_{Kn}^-}{\delta_{Kn}^+ + \delta_{Kn}^-},
\end{align}
with $\delta^\mp_{Kn}=\mathbf{n}_F\cdot K^\mp \mathbf{n}_F$ if $F \in \mathscr{S}_h^0$, and $\delta_{Kn}=\mathbf{n}_F\cdot K \mathbf{n}_F$ if $F \in \mathscr{S}_h^\partial$. When $K$ is a continuous tensor (homogeneous diffusion), the weights reduce to ${\omega^-=\omega^+=1/2}$. Finally, on a boundary face ${F \in \mathscr{S}^\partial_h}$, we set ${[\![ v_h ]\!]_F=\lbrace\hspace{-.12cm}\lbrace v_h \rbrace \hspace{-.12cm}\rbrace _F=v_h|_F}$. We omit the subscript $F$ in the jump and weighted average functions when there is no ambiguity.
\subsection{Discontinuous Galerkin variational formulation}\label{section:dg_form}
In this section, we briefly discuss a stable discontinuous Galerkin (dG) formulation for problem~\eqref{eq:scalar}. It combines the Symmetry Weighted Interior Penalty (SWIP) scheme~\cite{ di2008, ern2009} that handles general diffusivities, combined with the Upwinding (UPW) method~\cite{ brezzi2004, di2011mathematical} that handles the advection-reaction contribution.
Considering the discrete setting described in Section~\ref{ss:setting}, the dG formulation of problem~\eqref{eq:vf_cont} reads:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gen_vf}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\text{Find } u_h \in V_h, \text{ such that:} \smallskip \\
\begin{aligned}
b_h(u^{\text{dG}}_h,v_h)&:=b_h^\textrm{diff}(u^{\text{dG}}_h,v_h) + b_h^\textrm{adv}(u^{\text{dG}}_h,v_h)= \ell_h(v_h), && \forall v_h \in V_h,
\end{aligned}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where the bilinear and linear forms are
\begin{align*}
b_h^\textrm{diff}(u_h,v_h)&:= \displaystyle \sum_{T \in \mathscr{P}_h} (K \nabla u_h \, , \, \nabla v_h)_{0,T} \\
& + \displaystyle \sum_{F \in \mathscr{S}_h} \left[ \displaystyle \, - \left( [\![ u_h ]\!] \, , \, \mathbf{n}_F\cdot \lbrace\hspace{-.12cm}\lbrace K \nabla v_h \rbrace \hspace{-.12cm}\rbrace _{\omega} \right)_{0,F} - \displaystyle \left( \mathbf{n}_F\cdot \lbrace\hspace{-.12cm}\lbrace K \nabla u_h \rbrace \hspace{-.12cm}\rbrace _{\omega} \, , \, [\![ v_h ]\!] \right)_{0,F} + \gamma_F \left( [\![ u_h ]\!] \, , \, [\![ v_h ]\!] \right)_{0,F} \right] , \smallskip\\
b_h^\textrm{adv}(w,v) & := \displaystyle \sum_{T\in\mathscr{P}_h}(\, \mathbf{b} \cdot \nabla u_h + \sigma \, u_h\, , \, v_h)_{0,T} + \displaystyle \sum_{F\in\mathscr{S}^\partial_h} \left( (\, \mathbf{b} \cdot \mathbf{n}_F)^\ominus u_h, v_h\right)_{0,F} \\
&+ \sum_{F \in \mathscr{S}^0_h} \left[ \dfrac{1}{2} \left(\, \left| \, \mathbf{b} \cdot \mathbf{n}_F\right| \, [\![ u_h ]\!] \, , \, [\![ v_h ]\!] \right)_{0,F} - \left( \, \mathbf{b} \cdot \mathbf{n}_F \, [\![ u_h ]\!] \, , \, \lbrace\hspace{-.12cm}\lbrace v_h \rbrace \hspace{-.12cm}\rbrace \right)_{0,F} \right], \smallskip
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\ell_h(v_h) &:= \sum_{T\in\mathscr{P}_h}(f, v_h)_{0,T}
\end{align*}
In the above, $(\cdot)^{\ominus}$ denotes the negative part of $x$ (i.e., ${x^\ominus := \frac{1}{2}\left(|x|-x\right)}$ for any real number $x$). For problems with diffusion, there exist many suitable choices for the penalty parameter $\gamma_F$ (e.g.,~\cite{ shahbazi2005, epshteyn2007} analyzed the penalty parameters and their dependence on the polynomial order of approximation;~\cite{ ern2009} defined and analyzed the impact of $\gamma_K$ as the harmonic average of the ``normal" permeabilities; ~\cite{ hartmann2008}, introduced a mesh-dependent penalty parameter). In this work, following~\cite{ern2009, shahbazi2005, bastian2012}, we set the penalty parameter $\gamma_F$ as ${\gamma_F = \displaystyle \eta \,{\gamma_K}}$. Here, $\eta>0$ represents an element-wise parameter defined as:
%
\begin{align}
\forall F \in \mathscr{S}^0_h, && \eta &= \frac{1}{2}\frac{(p+1)(p+d)}{d}\left(\frac{\mathscr{A}(\partial T^+)}{\mathscr{V}(T^+)}+\frac{\mathscr{A}(\partial T^-)}{\mathscr{V}(T^-)}\right), \\
\forall F \in \mathscr{S}^\partial_h, && \eta &= \frac{(p+1)(p+d)}{d}\frac{\mathscr{A}(\partial T)}{\mathscr{V}(T)},
\end{align}
%
where $p$ is the polynomial order of the test space $V_h$, $d$ is the dimension, and $\mathscr{A}$ and $\mathscr{V}$ denote area and volume, respectively, for $d=3$, and length and area, respectively, for $d=2$. We define ${\gamma_K}$ as follows:
\begin{align}
\forall F \in \mathscr{S}^0_h, && \gamma_K &= (\omega^-)^2\delta^-_{Kn} + (\omega^+)^2\delta^+_{Kn}, \\
\forall F \in \mathscr{S}^\partial_h, && \gamma_K &= \delta_{Kn},
\end{align}
thus, recalling weights definition~\eqref{eq:omega}, we derive that
\begin{align}
\forall F \in \mathscr{S}_h^0, &&\gamma_K &= \frac{\delta_{Kn}^+ \delta_{Kn}^-}{\delta_{Kn}^+ + \delta_{Kn}^-}.
\end{align}
When we consider scalar diffusivities, that is, $K = \varkappa I$ for some scalar function ${\varkappa:\Omega \rightarrow \mathbb{R}}$, we recover the symmetric interior penalty (IP or SIP) method~\cite{ wheeler1978, arnold1982, arnold2002unified} given that the penalty parameters reduces to $\gamma_F = \eta \varkappa$.
\begin{rmrk}
The dG formulation allows us to weakly impose non-homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions through modifying the right-hand side of~\eqref{eq:gen_vf} as follows: if we look for a solution of problem~\eqref{eq:scalar} satisfying $u=g_D$ on $\Gamma$, being ${g_D \in H^{1/2}(\Gamma)}$ a boundary source, then we rewrite the linear form $\ell_h(v_h)$ as:
%
\begin{align*}
\displaystyle \ell_h(v_h) &:= \displaystyle \sum_{T\in\mathscr{P}_h}(f, v_h)_{0,T} + \sum_{F \in \mathscr{S}_h^\partial} \left[ \, - \left( g_D, \mathbf{n}_F\cdot K \nabla v_h \right)_{0,F} + \gamma_F \left( g_D, v_h \right)_{0,F} + \left( ( \, \mathbf{b} \cdot \mathbf{n}_F)^\ominus g_D, v_h\right)_{0,F} \right]. \smallskip
\end{align*}
\end{rmrk}
\subsection{Discrete norms, well-posedness and a priori error estimate}\label{ss:discrete_norms}
We provide the discrete space $V_h$ with the following norm:
\begin{align}\label{eq:norm}
\|w\|^2_{V_h} := \|w\|^2_{\text{adv}} + \|w\|^2_{\text{diff}}
\end{align}
with
\begin{align*}
\|w\|^2_{\text{adv}} &:= \displaystyle \|w\|^2_{0, \Omega} + \frac{1}{2}\| \, | \, \mathbf{b}\cdot \mathbf{n} \, |^{\frac{1}{2}}w\|^2_{0, \Gamma} + \displaystyle \frac{1}{2}\sum_{ F \in \mathscr{S}^0_h}\left(| \, \mathbf{b}\cdot \mathbf{n}_F | \, [\![ w ]\!], [\![ w ]\!] \right) _{0,F} + \displaystyle \sum_{T \in \mathscr{P}_h} h_T \| \, \mathbf{b}\cdot\nabla{w} \, \|^2_{0, T}, \\
\|w\|^2_{\text{diff}} &:= \displaystyle \| \, \kappa \nabla w \, \|^2_{0, \Omega} + \sum_{F \in \mathscr{S}_h} \left( \gamma_{F}[\![ w ]\!], [\![ w ]\!] \right) _{0,F},
\end{align*}
where $\kappa$ denotes the (unique) symmetric positive definite tensor-valued field such that $\kappa^2 = K$ a.e. in $\Omega$. Following~\cite{ ern2009}, we define:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Vh_beta}
|w|^2_{V_{h,\beta}} := \displaystyle \sum_{T \in \mathscr{P}_h} h_T \| \, \mathbf{b}\cdot\nabla{w} \, \|^2_{0, T},
\end{equation}
which represents the last component of the norm $\|w\|^2_{\text{adv}}$ that controls the advective derivative error for small diffusivities. Finally, we define the following extended norm $\|w\|_{V_h, \#}$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Vh_ext}
\|w\|_{V_h, \#} := \displaystyle \|w\|_{V_h} + \left( \sum_{T \in \mathscr{P}_h} \| w \|^2_{0,\partial T} \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} + \displaystyle \left( \sum_{T \in \mathscr{P}_h} h_T \|\kappa \nabla w \|^2_{0,\partial T} \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.
\end{equation}
In the remainder, the symbol $\lesssim$ indicates an inequality involving a positive constant $C$ independent of the mesh and diffusivity. Considering the norms above defined, the following theorem holds true (see~\cite[\S3 \& \S4]{ ern2009}):
\begin{thrm}[Well-posedness and a priori error estimate of the dG formulation]\label{lmm:well-posedness}
The following propositions hold true:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\alph*)]
\item Inf-sup stability: There exists a constant ${C_{\emph{sta}}= C\Delta_K^{-1}}$, with ${C>0}$, uniform with respect to the mesh size, such that:
\begin{align*}
\sup_{v_h \in V_h \backslash \{0\}}\frac{b_h(w_h, v_h)}{\|v_h\|_{V_h}} \geq C_{\emph{sta}}\|w_h\|_{V_h}, \quad \forall w_h \in V_h,
\end{align*}
%
where $\forall \, T \in \mathscr{P}_h$, ${\Delta_K =\max_{T\in\mathscr{P}_h}\Delta_{K, T}}$, and
%
\begin{align*}
\quad \Delta_{K, T} = \left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
\smallskip 1 & \text{if} \ \ \|\mathbf{b}\|_{[L^\infty(T)]^d} \gtrsim \dfrac{\lambda_{M,T}}{h_T},\\
\dfrac{\lambda_{M,T}}{\lambda_{m,T}} & \text{otherwise},
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align*}
with ${\lambda_{M,T}}$ and ${\lambda_{m,T}}$ as the maximum and minimum eigenvalues of $K|_T$, respectively.
\item Boundedness: There exists a mesh-independent constant $C_{\emph{bnd}} < \infty$, such that:
\begin{align*}
b_h(z, v_h) \leq C_{\emph{bnd}} \|z\|_{V_h,\#}\|v_h\|_{V_h}, \quad \forall (z,v_h) \in V_{h,\#} \times V_h.
\end{align*}
\item Consistency: Let $u$ be the solution of~\eqref{eq:vf_cont}. If ${u \in H^1_0(\Omega) \cap H^2(\mathscr{P}_h)}$, then
\begin{align*}
b_h(u, v_h)=\ell_h(v_h), \quad \forall v_h \in V_h.
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
%
Henceforth, $u^{\emph{dG}}$, solution of problem~\eqref{eq:gen_vf}, is unique (cf.~\cite{ern2009,di2011mathematical}). Moreover, the following a priori error estimate is satisfied
%
\begin{align}\label{eq:apriori}
\inf_{y_h \in V_h} \|u - y_h\|_{V_h} \leq \|u-u^{\emph{dG}}_h\|_{V_h} \leq \left(1 + \frac{C_\emph{bnd}}{C_\emph{sta}}\right) \inf_{v_h \in V_h} \|u - v_h \|_{V_h, \#}.
\end{align}
\end{thrm}
We relate the convergence rates of both left and right-hand sides of the error estimate~\eqref{eq:apriori} through the following definition (cf.~\cite{ di2011mathematical}, \S1.4.4):
\begin{dfntn}[Optimality, quasi-optimality and suboptimality of the error estimate]\label{def:opt}
The error estimate~\eqref{eq:apriori} is
%
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{optimal} if $\| \cdot \|_{V_h} \simeq \| \cdot \|_{V_h, \#}$,
\item \emph{quasi-optimal} if the two norms are different, but the lower and upper bounds in~\eqref{eq:apriori} converge, for smooth $u$, at the same convergence rate as $h \rightarrow 0$,
\item \emph{suboptimal} if the upper bound converges at a slower rate than the other bound.
\end{enumerate}
\end{dfntn}
\section{Residual minimization based on discontinuous Galerkin formulations}\label{sec:method}
\subsection{Method description}
We now describe the stabilized finite element formulation via residual minimization on dual discontinuous Galerkin (dG) norms devised in~\cite{ calo2019} for the advection-diffusion-reaction problem context. In~\eqref{eq:gen_vf}, $u^{\text{dG}}_h$ discretely approximates the solution of~\eqref{eq:vf_cont} belonging to a \textit{discontinuous} discrete space. In~\cite{ calo2019}, the formulation seeks for an approximation of $u$ in a discrete space that may possess additional properties, for instance, continuity and, possibly, higher smoothness. Rather than solving problem~\eqref{eq:gen_vf}, the dG-based residual minimization method implies:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\alph*)]
\item Consider the subspace $U_h = V_h \cap U \subset V_h$ (i.e., standard finite element functions).
\item Obtain ${u_h \in U_h}$ by minimizing the residual:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:min_prob}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\text{Find } u_h \in U_h \subset V_h, \text{ such that:} \smallskip \\
u_h = \displaystyle \argmin_{z_h \in U_h} \dfrac{1}{2}\|\ell_h- B_h \, z_h\|^2_{V_h^\ast} = \displaystyle \argmin_{z_h \in U_h} \dfrac{1}{2}\|R^{-1}_{V_h}(\ell_h- B_h z_h)\|^2_{V_h},
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $B_h : V_h, \# \rightarrow V_h^{\ast}$ is:
\begin{align}
\langle B_h w_h, v_h \rangle_{V_h^{\ast} \times V_h} := b_h(w_h,v_h),
\end{align}
and $R^{-1}_{V_h}$ denotes the inverse of the Riesz map:
\begin{align}\label{eq:riesz}
R_{V_h} :\ & V_h \rightarrow V_h^\ast \smallskip\\
& v_h \rightarrow \langle R_{V_h} y_h, v_h\rangle_{V_h^\ast \times V_h} := (y_h,v_h)_{V_h},
\end{align}
%
with $(\cdot, \cdot)_{V_h}$ denoting the inner product that induces the discrete norm ${\|\cdot\|_{V_h}}$ (i.e., ${\|\cdot\|_{V_h}=(\cdot, \cdot)^{1/2}_{V_h}}$).
\end{enumerate}
The second equality in~\eqref{eq:min_prob} follows as the Riesz map~\eqref{eq:riesz} is an isometric isomorphism, therefore $\| \cdot \|_{V_h^\ast}$ is equivalent to $\| R^{-1}_{V_h} (\cdot) \|_{V_h}$. Thus, problem~\eqref{eq:min_prob} is equivalent to the following saddle-point problem (see~\cite{ cohen2012}):
\begin{equation}\label{eq:saddle-point}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\text{Find } (\varepsilon_h, u_h) \in V_h \times U_h, \text{ such that:} \smallskip \\
\begin{array}{rcll}
(\varepsilon_h,v_h)_{V_h} + b_h(u_h,v_h) &=& \ell_h(v_h),& \quad \forall v_h \in V_h, \smallskip\\
b_h(z_h, \varepsilon_h)& =&0,&\quad \forall z_h \in U_h,
\end{array}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $\varepsilon_h$ is a residual representative in $V_h$. Indeed, the first identity in~\eqref{eq:saddle-point} implies that:
\begin{align}\label{eq:epsilon_h}
\varepsilon_h = R^{-1}_{V_h} (\ell_h-B_h u_h)=R^{-1}_{V_h} B_h(u_h^{\textrm{dG}} - u_h),
\end{align}
where the second identity in~\eqref{eq:epsilon_h} comes from~\eqref{eq:gen_vf}.
The saddle-point formulation has several desirable properties for numerical approximations. Firstly, the matrix associated with the inner product $(\varepsilon_h,v_h)_{V_h}$ in~\eqref{eq:saddle-point} is always symmetric and positive-definite, independently of the nature of the chosen dG formulation; thus, several well-known iterative solvers are effective on the resulting saddle-point problem. Moreover, the discrete approximation $u_h \in U_h$ inherits the discrete stability of the dG formulation. Finally, $\varepsilon_h \in V_h$ is a robust error representation, which under an adequate saturation assumption becomes a reliable representative. Below, we summarize the last properties (see~\cite{ calo2019} for details):
\begin{thrm}[Well posedness and a priori error bound estimates for the saddle-point problem]\label{thrm:mixed_wp}
The solution $(\varepsilon_h, u_h) \in V_h \times U_h$ of the saddle-point problem~\eqref{eq:saddle-point} is unique and the following a priori bound applies:
\begin{align}
\|\varepsilon_h\| \leq \|\ell_h\|_{V_h^*} \quad \text{and} \quad \|u_h\|_{V_h} \leq \frac{1}{C_{\emph{sta}}}\|\ell_h\|_{V_h^*},
\end{align}
and the following error estimate holds true:
%
\begin{equation}\label{eq:error-est}
\|u-u_h\|_{V_h} \leq \left(1 + \dfrac{C_\emph{bnd}}{C_\emph{sta}} \right) \Delta_K \inf_{v_h \in U_h}\|u-v_h\|_{V_h,\#},
\end{equation}
%
where ${u \in V_\#}$ represents the exact solution to the continuous problem~\eqref{eq:scalar}.
\end{thrm}
\begin{prpstn}[Efficiency of the residual representative]
Under the same hypotheses of Theorem~\ref{thrm:mixed_wp}, the following holds:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:efficient}
\|\varepsilon_h\|_{V_h}\leq C_{\emph{bnd}} \, \|u - u_h \|_{V_h, \#}.
\end{equation}
\end{prpstn}
\begin{ssmptn}[Saturation]\label{as:saturation}
Let ${u_h\in U_h}$ be the second component of the pair ${(\varepsilon_h,u_h)\in V_h\times U_h}$ solving the saddle-point problem~\eqref{eq:saddle-point}. Let ${u^{\emph{dG}}_h\in V_h}$ be the unique solution to~\eqref{eq:gen_vf}. There exists a real number $\delta\in [0,1)$, uniform with respect to the mesh size, such that ${\|u-u^{\emph{dG}}_h\|_{V_h} \le \delta \|u-u_h\|_{V_h}}$.
\end{ssmptn}
\sloppy \begin{prpstn}[Reliability of the residual representative] \label{th:err_rep}
Let ${u_h\in U_h}$ be the second component of ${(\varepsilon_h,u_h)\in V_h\times U_h}$ solving the saddle-point problem~\eqref{eq:saddle-point}. Let ${u^{\text{dG}}_h \in V_h}$ be the unique solution to~\eqref{eq:gen_vf}. Then the following holds true:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:bnd_uh-thetah}
\|u_h-u^{\emph{dG}}_h\|_{V_h} \le \dfrac{1}{C_{\emph{sta}}} \|\varepsilon_h\|_{V_h}.
\end{equation}
Moreover, if the saturation Assumption~\ref{as:saturation} is satisfied, then the following a posteriori error estimate holds:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:a_posteriori}
\|u-u_h\|_{V_h} \le \dfrac{1}{(1-\delta)C_{\emph{sta}}} \|\varepsilon_h\|_{V_h}.
\end{equation}
\end{prpstn}
We can now state the requirements for having an efficient and reliable residual representative. From~\eqref{eq:efficient} and~\eqref{eq:a_posteriori}, we have:
%
\begin{equation}\label{eq:rates}
\|u-u_h\|_{V_h} \lesssim \|\varepsilon_h\|_{V_h} \lesssim \|u - u_h \|_{V_h, \#}.
\end{equation}
Thus, to ensure the usefulness of the residual representative, we need at least quasi-optimality, which means that the left-hand side should decay at the same rate as the right-hand side of~\eqref{eq:rates} (see Definition~\ref{def:opt}).
\subsection{Convergence rates}
In the context of the above framework, we can recover some insightful results related to the convergence rates. Similarly as done in~\cite[Appendix B]{calo2019} (see also~\cite{ karakashian2003, burman2007, ern2017}), we can prove:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:beta-1}
\inf_{v_h \in U_h}\|u-v_h\|_{V_h,\#} \, \lesssim \, \inf_{v_h \in V_h} \|u-v_h\|_{V_h,\#}.
\end{equation}
This proves, in particular, that the residual minimization method delivers a discrete solution with the same quality as the one delivered by the dG formulation, as consequence of~\eqref{eq:apriori}~and~\eqref{eq:error-est}. Thus, if the solution is regular enough, it follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:beta-3}
\inf_{v_h \in V_h} \|u-v_h\|_{V_h,\#} \lesssim h^{p}.
\end{equation}
Additionally, from~\eqref{eq:beta-3} we can deduce a bound for the advective component ${|\cdot|_{V_h,\beta}}$, defined in~\eqref{eq:Vh_beta}. Indeed, we can easily infer that:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:beta-2}
\| \, \mathbf{b}\cdot\nabla(u-u_h) \, \|^2_{0, T} \, \lesssim \, \| \, \kappa \nabla (u-u_h) \, \|^2_{0, \Omega} \, \lesssim \, \|u-u_h\|^2_{V_h,\#},
\end{equation}
where $u$ and $u_h$ are defined as in Theorem~\ref{thrm:mixed_wp}.
Combining~\eqref{eq:beta-1},~\eqref{eq:beta-2} and~\eqref{eq:beta-3}, multiplying both sides by the mesh size, and taking the square root, we can recover the optimal convergence rate for ${|u-u_h|_{V_{h,\beta}}}$, which reads:
\begin{equation*}
|u-u_h|_{V_{h,\beta}}\, = \left(\displaystyle \sum_{T \in \mathscr{P}_h} h_T \| \, \mathbf{b}\cdot\nabla(u-u_h) \, \|_{0, T}\right)^{1/2} \, \lesssim \, h^{1/2} \|u-u_h\|_{V_h,\#} \, \lesssim \, h^{p+1/2}.
\end{equation*}
Similarly, we can deduce a bound for the $L^2$-norm error in the following way:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:l2}
\| u-u_h \|_{0, \Omega} \, \lesssim \, \|u-u_h\|_{V_h,\#} \, \lesssim \, \inf_{v_h \in V_h} \|u-v_h\|_{V_h,\#} \lesssim h^p,
\end{equation}
which is suboptimal. Indeed, we show through numerical examples that the method could deliver solutions with suboptimal $L^2$ convergence rates. Nevertheless, we show that the optimal convergence can be recovered by performing the energy-norm based adaptive mesh refinement strategy.
\section{Numerical examples}\label{sec:examples}
In this section, we discuss some implementation aspects and describe the test cases that demonstrate the performance of the method under a wide range of challenging scenarios.
\subsection{Implementation aspects}
We use FEniCS~\cite{ alnaes2015fenics} to perform all the numerical simulations. We show convergence plots of the error measured in the $L^2$ and $V_h$ norms versus the number of degrees of freedom (DOFs) (i.e., $\dim(U_h) + \dim(V_h)$ for~\eqref{eq:saddle-point}). As Section~\ref{section:dg_form} describes, we use the Symmetric Weighted Interior Penalty (SWIP) method for the diffusive part of the bilinear form, which extends the classical Symmetric Interior Penalty (SIP) formulation. In our experience, extensive numerical testing shows that other dG formulations have similar computational cost and convergence rates; thus, for the sake of brevity, we detail the performance of the method uniquely using the SWIP formulation.
\subsubsection{Adaptive mesh refinement}
We use $\varepsilon_h\in V_h$ to estimate the error and to drive the adaptive mesh refinement process~\cite{ calo2019}. We follow a standard adaptive procedure, which considers an iterative loop where each level of refinement we perform the following four analysis modules:
$$
\text{ SOLVE } \rightarrow \text{ ESTIMATE } \rightarrow \text{ MARK } \rightarrow \text{ REFINE. }
$$
That is, given a mesh partition, we first solve the saddle-point problem~\eqref{eq:saddle-point}. Later, we use a localized version of the inner product~\eqref{eq:norm} (evaluated in each mesh cell $T$) as error indicator $E_T$
\begin{equation}
E_T ^2 := \| \varepsilon_h \|^2_{loc, T} + \frac12 |\varepsilon_h|^2_{loc,S} \, ,
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\| \varepsilon_h \|^2_{loc, T} &:=& \, \displaystyle \|\varepsilon_h\|_{0,T}^2 + \displaystyle \|\kappa \nabla \varepsilon_h \|_T^2 + \displaystyle h_{0,T} \|\ \mathbf{b} \cdot \nabla \varepsilon_h\|^2_{0,T} \displaystyle + \sum_{F \in \mathscr{S}^\partial_h} \left( {\frac12} \, | \mathbf{b} \cdot \mathbf{n} | + \gamma_F \right) \left( \varepsilon_h , \varepsilon_h \right) _{0,F}, \\
|\varepsilon_h|^2_{loc,S} &:=& \displaystyle \sum_{F \in \mathscr{S}^0_h} \left( {\frac12} \, | \mathbf{b} \cdot \mathbf{n} | + \gamma_F \right) \left( [\![ \varepsilon_h ]\!], [\![ \varepsilon_h ]\!] \right) _{0,F}.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
We then mark elements for refinement using the D{\"o}rfler bulk-chasing criterion~\cite{ dorfler1996convergent} (i.e., select all elements for which the cumulative sum of the local values $E_T$ in a decreasing order remains below a user-defined fraction of the total estimated error $\|\varepsilon_h\|_{V_h}$). Herein, we set this fraction to be 0.5 for $d=2$ and 0.25 for $d=3$. Finally, we bisect each marked element~\cite{ bank1983some} to obtain the refined mesh to use in the next step.
\subsubsection{Iterative solver}
The matrix system that problem~\eqref{eq:saddle-point} induces has the following form
\begin{equation}
\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
G & B \\
B^T & 0
\end{array}
\right]
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
{\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}\\
{\bf u}
\end{array}
\right] =
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\bf{L} \\
{\bf 0}
\end{array}
\right].
\end{equation}
where the superindex $T$ denotes transpose. Following~\cite[\S5]{ calo2019}, we apply the iterative algorithm proposed in~\cite{ bank1989class}. Denoting by $\widehat{G}$ a preconditioner for the Gram matrix $G$, and by $\widehat{S}$ a preconditioner for the reduced Schur complement $B^T \widehat{G}^{-1} B$, the iterative scheme becomes
\begin{equation}\label{eq:iter_solver}
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
{\boldsymbol \varepsilon}_{i+1}\\
{\bf u}_{i+1}
\end{array}
\right]
=
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
{\boldsymbol \varepsilon}_i\\
{\bf u}_i
\end{array}
\right]
+
\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
\widehat{G} & B \\
B^T & \widehat{C}
\end{array}
\right]^{-1}
\left\{
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\bf{L} \\
{\bf 0}
\end{array}
\right]
-
\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
G & B\\
B^T & 0
\end{array}
\right]
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
{\boldsymbol \varepsilon}_i\\
{\bf u}_i
\end{array}
\right]
\right\},
\end{equation}
with $\widehat{C} = B^T \widehat{G}^{-1} B - \widehat{S}$. Let ${{\bf r}_i= {\bf L} - G \, {\boldsymbol \varepsilon}_i - B\, {\bf u}_i}$ and ${{\bf s}_i = - B^T {\boldsymbol \varepsilon}_i}$. Also, let ${\boldsymbol \varepsilon}$ and ${\bf u }$ be the residuals at the outer iteration $i$. Then, the scheme requires the resolution of two interior problems for these increments:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:iter_solver_1}
\boldsymbol \eta_{i+1}:={\bf u}_{i+1}-{\bf u}_i = \widehat{S}^{-1}\left(B^T\left(\widehat{G}^{-1} {\bf r}_i\right) - {\bf s}_i \right),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:iter_solver_2}
\boldsymbol\delta_{i+1}:={\boldsymbol\varepsilon}_{i+1}-{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}_{i} = \widehat{G}^{-1}\left({\bf r}_i - B \, {\boldsymbol \eta}_{i+1} \right).
\end{equation}
We construct an accurate approximation of $G^{-1}$, as in practice, this delivers the best good computational performance; that is, low-quality approximations lead poor conditioning of the reduced Schur complement in~\eqref{eq:iter_solver_1}. \citet{ bank1989class} proposed a relaxed approximation for the matrix $G$; nevertheless, for this stiffer problem, we use a scheme with one outer iteration. That is, we approximate $G^{-1}$ with a sparse Cholesky factorization (e.g., using the module ``sksparse.cholmod'', see~\cite{ chen2008algorithm}). Moreover, we choose precondition~\eqref{eq:iter_solver_1} with an approximate Schur complement built as ${\widehat{S}=B^T(\text{diag}(G))^{-1}B}$, where ${\text{diag}(G)}$ is the main diagonal of $G$, and the inverse is approximated through the same procedure used for $G$. We use the LGMRES algorithm (e.g., from Scipy sparse linear algebra package) to solve. On the coarsest mesh, our initial guess is zero, whereas, on the next refinements, our guess is the solution of the previous level of refinement.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\begin{subfigure}{0.325\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{laplace_sketch.pdf}
\label{L-shape-23:skecth}
\caption{Problem sketch}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{0.15\textwidth}
\begin{subfigure}{0.425\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{laplace_3D.pdf}
\label{L-shape-23:3D}
\vspace{-0.05\textwidth}
\caption{3D view of the adaptive solution for $p=1$}
\vspace{0.05\textwidth}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{0.05\textwidth}
\begin{subfigure}{0.6\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.8\textwidth]{laplace_L2.pdf}
\label{L-shape-23:L2}
\caption{Convergence plot in $L^2$ error norm. $\alpha=2/3$}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{0.05\textwidth}
\begin{subfigure}{0.6\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.8\textwidth]{laplace_Vh.pdf}
\label{L-shape-23:Vh}
\caption{Convergence plot in $V_h$ error norm. $\alpha=2/3$}
\end{subfigure}
\end{center}
\caption{Convergence rates, Poisson problem in L-shape domain. $\alpha=2/3$}
\label{fig:L-shape-43}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Pure diffusion on L-shape domain}
As a first example, we consider the L-shape domain ${\Omega := (-1,1)^2 \setminus (-1,0] ^2}$, and the following Poisson problem:
\begin{align}\label{eq:poisson}
-\Delta u &= 0,\quad \textrm{in } \Omega, \\
u &= g_D, \quad \textrm{on } \partial\Omega,
\end{align}
where $g_D$ corresponds to the Dirichlet trace of the analytical function in polar coordinates ${u(r,\theta)=r^\alpha \sin(\alpha \, \theta)}$, with ${\theta=3\pi/2}$ for our case. This particular problem is known as reentrant corner problem~\cite{ mitchell2013collection}, where the solution has a singularity at the corner, and its solution belongs to ${H^{1+\alpha-\epsilon}}$, ${\forall \epsilon>0}$~\cite{ oden1995parallel}. The dG variational formulation we use in problem~\eqref{eq:poisson} is the formulation~\eqref{eq:gen_vf} with $K = 1$, ${\mathbf{b} = (0, 0)^T}$, ${\sigma=0}$ and ${f=0}$. Figure~\ref{fig:L-shape-43} shows the convergence plots for ${\alpha=2/3}$. A uniform refinement strategy cannot deal with the corner singularity achieving similar convergence rates for increasing polynomial orders. However, the adaptive stabilized methodology overcomes this limitation, recovering optimal convergence rates on both $L^2$ and $V_h$ error norms.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\hspace{0.08\textwidth}
\begin{subfigure}{0.325\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{hetero_sketch.pdf}
\label{figure5:sketch}
\caption{Problem sketch}
\vspace{0.05\textwidth}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{0.085\textwidth}
\begin{subfigure}{0.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{hetero_L2.pdf}
\label{figure5:L2}
\vspace{-0.05\textwidth}
\caption{Convergence plot in $L^2$ error norm}
\vspace{0.05\textwidth}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{hetero_Vh.pdf}
\label{figure5:Vh}
\vspace{-0.05\textwidth}
\caption{Convergence plot in $V_h$ error norm}
\vspace{0.05\textwidth}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{0.02\textwidth}
\begin{subfigure}{0.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{hetero_Vhbeta.pdf}
\label{figure5:Vh_beta}
\vspace{-0.05\textwidth}
\caption{Convergence plot in $V_{h,\beta}$ error norm}
\vspace{0.05\textwidth}
\end{subfigure}
\end{center}
\caption{Heterogeneous diffusion problem.}
\label{fig:hetero}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Heterogeneous diffusion}
We solve an advection-diffusion problem with discontinuous diffusion coefficients, based on a test from~\cite{ burman2006domain}; this problem shows the method performance with heterogeneous diffusion. We split the domain in two subdomains, $\Omega_1 = [0, \frac{1}{2}] \times [0,1]$ and $\Omega_2 = [\frac{1}{2}, 1] \times [0, 1]$ and use a constant diffusivity tensor in each subdomain
\begin{align*}
K_i(x,y)=\begin{pmatrix}
\epsilon_i(x) & 0 \\
0 & 1.0
\end{pmatrix}
\end{align*}
where $\epsilon_i(x)$ represent discontinuous values across the interface $x=\frac{1}{2}$. We set $\epsilon_1(x)=1\times 10^{-2}$ and $\epsilon_2(x)=1.0$ with $\mathbf{b} = (1,0)^T$, ${\sigma=0}$ and ${f=0}$. For this parameter choice, the exact solution is an exponential with respect to the $x$-coordinate (i.e., independent of the $y$-coordinate). At the interface, the solution satisfies the following conditions:
\begin{align*}
\displaystyle \lim_{x\rightarrow\frac{1}{2}^-}u(x,y)&=\displaystyle \lim_{x\rightarrow\frac{1}{2}^+}u(x,y), \\
\displaystyle \lim_{x\rightarrow\frac{1}{2}^-}-\epsilon(x) \partial_x u(x,y)&=\displaystyle \lim_{x\rightarrow\frac{1}{2}^+}-\epsilon(x) \partial_x u(x,y).
\end{align*}
We set $u(0,y)=0$, $u(1,y)=1$, and by consequence of the matching conditions, we obtain
\begin{align*}
u\left(\frac{1}{2},y\right)=\left[ \frac{u(0,y)\exp\left(\frac{1}{2\epsilon_1}\right)}{1-\exp\left(\frac{1}{2\epsilon_1}\right)} +\frac{u(1,y)}{1-\exp\left(\frac{1}{2\epsilon_2}\right)} \right]\left[ \frac{\exp\left(\frac{1}{2\epsilon_1}\right)}{1-\exp\left(\frac{1}{2\epsilon_1}\right)} +\frac{1}{1-\exp\left(\frac{1}{2\epsilon_2}\right)} \right]^{-1}.
\end{align*}
Thus, the exact solution in each subdomain becomes:
\begin{align*}
u_1(x,y)=&\frac{u\left(\frac{1}{2},y\right)-\exp\left(\frac{1}{2\epsilon_1}\right)u(0,y) + \left[u(0,y) - u\left(\frac{1}{2},y\right)\right]\exp\left(\frac{x}{\epsilon_1}\right)}{1-\exp\left(\frac{1}{2\epsilon_1}\right)}\\
u_1(x,y)=&\frac{u\left(1,y\right)-\exp\left(\frac{1}{2\epsilon_2}\right)u(\frac{1}{2},y) + \left[u(\frac{1}{2},y) - u\left(1,y\right)\right]\exp\left(\frac{x-\frac{1}{2}}{\epsilon_2}\right)}{1-\exp\left(\frac{1}{2\epsilon_2}\right)}
\end{align*}
Figure~\ref{fig:hetero} shows the convergence rates that using both trial and test space functions of the same polynomial degree deliver, for $p=1,2,3$. As expected, we recover the same convergence rates as the original dG scheme: $h^p$ in the $V_h$ error norm and $h^{p+1/2}$ in the $V_{h, \beta}$ error norm.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.35\textwidth]{anisotropic_sketch.pdf}
\caption{Anisotropic diffusion problem sketch. Counterclockwise advection field.}
\label{fig:sketch}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Anisotropic with high-contrast diffusion}
In this example, we consider an anisotropic problem, following~\cite{ ern2009}. We consider the unit square $\Omega = [0,1]\times[0,1]$ split into four subdomains: $\Omega_1 = \left[0,\frac{2}{3}\right]\times\left[0,\frac{2}{3}\right]$, $\Omega_2 = \left[\frac{2}{3},1\right]\times\left[0,\frac{2}{3}\right]$, $\Omega_3 = \left[\frac{2}{3},1\right]\times\left[\frac{2}{3},1\right]$ and $\Omega_4 = \left[0,\frac{2}{3}\right]\times\left[\frac{2}{3},1\right]$. The diffusivity tensor takes different values in each subdomain , see Figure~\ref{fig:sketch}:
\begin{align*}
K_i(x,y)&=\begin{pmatrix}
10^{-6} & 0 \\
0 & 1.0
\end{pmatrix} &&\text{for } i=1,3\ \ \forall (x,y) \in \Omega_1, \Omega_3, \\
K_i(x,y)&=\begin{pmatrix}
1.0 & 0 \\
0 & 10^{-6}
\end{pmatrix} &&\text{for } i=2,4\ \ \forall (x,y) \in \Omega_2, \Omega_4.
\end{align*}
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\begin{subfigure}{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{stephansen_counter.pdf}
\label{anisotropic-stephansen:counter}
\caption{Counterclockwise advection field}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{0.05\textwidth}
\begin{subfigure}{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{stephansen_clock.pdf}
\label{anisotropic-stephansen:clock}
\caption{Clockwise advection field}
\end{subfigure}
\end{center}
\caption{Anisotropic diffusion problem. Uniform mesh (25.3~K~DOFs).}
\label{fig:anisotropic-stephansen}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\begin{subfigure}{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{anisotropic_counter.pdf}
\label{anisotropic-adaptive:counter}
\caption{Computed solution and refined mesh, counterclockwise advection field (Level 12: 23.7~K~DOFs)}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{0.05\textwidth}
\begin{subfigure}{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{anisotropic_clock.pdf}
\label{anisotropic-adaptive:clock}
\caption{Computed solution and refined mesh, clockwise advection field (Level 10: 22.3~K~DOFs)}
\end{subfigure}
\end{center}
\caption{Anisotropic diffusion problem. Adaptive refinement.}
\label{fig:anisotropic-adaptive}
\end{figure}
The advection field is solenoidal ${\mathbf{b} = (\beta_x, \beta_y)^T}$, with ${\beta_x=40x(2y-1)(x-1)}$ and ${\beta_y=-40y(2x-1)(y-1)}$ for the counterclockwise case, and ${\mathbf{b} = -(\beta_x, \beta_y)^T}$ for the clockwise case. Unlike the previous example, the advective field is neither constant nor orthogonal to the discontinuities in $K$. However, its orientation is still along the direction of increasing diffusivity; for that reason, internal layers develop in the solution. The forcing term is ${f(x,y)=10^{-2}\exp(-(r-0.35)^2/0.005)}$ with ${r^2 = (x-0.5)^2+(y-0.5)^2}$, corresponding to a Gaussian hill with center at $r=0.35$. Finally, we set $\sigma=1$ for the reaction term, and $g_D=0$ on $\partial\Omega$ for the boundary condition. We consider two subcases, the first on a quasi-uniform mesh with ${h=0.024}$, conforming to the discontinuities of $K$, and the second through an adaptive scheme starting from a uniform triangular mesh (${h=0.177}$). We solve both cases using the same polynomial degree ${p=1}$ for trial and test spaces. Figure~\ref{fig:anisotropic-stephansen} shows results obtained for a uniform mesh, while Figure~\ref{fig:anisotropic-adaptive} shows results for adaptive mesh refinement with fewer degrees of freedom than in the uniform mesh case. We use the SWIP formulation such that the jump penalty considers the principal directions of the diffusivity. Thus, SWIP avoids overshoots and undershoots near the material interfaces, which is not the case for standard interior penalty schemes~\cite{ ern2009}. Finally, the adaptive strategy concentrates refinement at the inner layer but without losing the approximation quality.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\begin{subfigure}{0.38\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{3d_mesh0.pdf}
\caption{Level 0. Inner contour for $u=0.5$.}
\label{3D:mesh}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{0.1\textwidth}
\begin{subfigure}{0.38\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{3D_mesh5.pdf}
\caption{Level 5. Inner contour for $u=1$.}
\label{3D:sol}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.38\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{3D_mesh9.pdf}
\caption{Level 9. Inner contour for $u=1$.}
\label{3D:bottom}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{0.1\textwidth}
\begin{subfigure}{0.38\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{3D_mesh13.pdf}
\caption{Level 13. Inner contour for $u=1$.}
\label{3D:top}
\end{subfigure}
\end{center}
\caption{3D advection-dominated diffusion problem. Adaptive mesh evolution. }
\label{fig:3DMesh_evolution}
\end{figure}
\subsection{3D advection-dominated diffusion}
As a last example, we consider a 3D advection-diffusion problem in the unit cube ${\Omega = (0 \, , \, 1)^3 \subset \mathbb{R}^3}$. We set the source term ${f=0}$, the diffusion ${K=10^{-3}}$, the spiral-type advective field ${\mathbf{b}=(\beta_x,\beta_y,\beta_z)^T = (-0.15\,\sin(4\pi z) \, , \, 0.15\,\cos(4\pi z) \, , \, 1)^T}$, and the inflow boundary datum $g$ as
\begin{equation*}
g =
\left\{
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\begin{array}{ll}
1+\tanh\left[M \left( 0.15^2 - \left(x- 0.6 \right)^2 - \left(y- 0.5 \right)^2 \right) \right] & \textrm{on } z=0, \\
0 & \textrm{elsewhere on} \ \Gamma, \\
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation*}
These parameters produce a solution that presents an inner layer in the bottom of the unit cube (${z=0}$) for values of $M\gg 1$ in the inflow boundary datum. On the other hand, at the top of the unit cube (${z=1}$), the solution exhibits a boundary layer due to the advection-dominant regime and the boundary condition imposed on that surface. Figure~\ref{fig:3DMesh_evolution} shows the evolution of the 3D mesh as the refinement strategy progresses. Figure~\ref{3D:mesh} displays the initial progress of the spiral shape of the inner layer inside the unit cube. Figures~\ref{3D:sol},~\ref{3D:bottom}, and~\ref{3D:top} reflect the refinement process to capture the sharp internal layer that the advective field induces as well as the boundary layer that appears at the outlet due to the small diffusion. Figure~\ref{fig:3D}, shoes the discrete solution for a refined mesh displaying the interior mesh as well as a cut of the solution.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{3D_slice.pdf}
\caption{3D advection-dominated diffusion problem. Slice over $y=0.5$. Level 13: 4'858,125~DOFs. }
\label{fig:3D}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}\label{ref:concl}
In this paper, we describe an adaptive stabilized conforming finite element method that minimizes the residual on dual discontinuous Galerkin (dG) norms for advection-diffusion-reaction problems. We demonstrate the performance and robustness of the method by analyzing in detail several challenging diffusivity distributions. In particular, we tackle problems with highly heterogeneous and anisotropic coefficient distributions as well as advection-dominated cases. The method computes smooth solutions that minimize a residual on a dual dG norm. This residual minimization problem leads to an equivalent saddle-point problem, which we solve explicitly for a discretely continuous approximation and an efficient and reliable error estimate that can guide adaptive mesh refinement. In the context of advection-diffusion-reaction problems, this method recovers the optimal convergence rates for $h$-adaptive schemes in the dG norm. Besides, the method captures sharp boundary and internal layers as well as overcomes the classical overshooting and undershooting problems. In summary, we use several challenging numerical examples to show the robustness of the method under a wide range of scenarios.
\section{Acknowledgments}
The CSIRO Deep Earth Imaging Future Science Platform Postgraduate Top-Up Scholarship supports the work of RJC and this is gratefully acknowledged. This publication was made possible in part by the CSIRO Professorial Chair in Computational Geoscience at Curtin University and the Deep Earth Imaging Enterprise Future Science Platforms of the Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation, CSIRO, of Australia. This project has also received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No 777778 (MATHROCKS). At Curtin University, The Curtin Corrosion Centre, the Curtin Institute for Computation, and The Institute for Geoscience Research (TIGeR) kindly provide continuing support.
|
\section{Introduction}
In many industrial processes such as wet granulation, coating, or
drying, powders can contain a small amount of liquid. In these powders, the appearance of liquid capillary bridges between the grains generates adhesion forces at the micro-scale that
can modify dramatically the granular medium's mechanical properties
at the macro-scale~\cite{herminghaus2005}. One of the signatures of capillary bridges
is the formation of agglomerates. Next to many other applications, this is for example important in the combustion of biomasses. The ash composition of biogenic fuels like energy crops or agricultural residues contains always a high amount of silicon and potassium, which are prone to melt at the
operating temperatures of fluidized beds~\cite{gatternig2015investigations}. The molten ash then forms
liquid bridges between particles and causes agglomeration. The growth of agglomerates, if not counteracted properly, can cause the defluidization of the bed. In this
sense, understanding the interaction between solid particles as
mediated by the liquid bridges is critical to reduce the
limiting factors of fluidized bed reactors and to improve their
performance.
In the literature one can find a considerable amount of research focusing on analytical expressions that estimate the capillary forces induced by the bridges~\cite{lian1993theoretical,mikami1998numerical,willett2000capillary,
rabinovich2005capillary,megias2009capillary, megias2010analysis}.
Most of these works make use of either an energetic route (i.e., via the derivative of the total interface energy) or, equivalently\cite{lambert2008comparison}, approximate solutions of the Young-Laplace equation. Typically, once the meniscus geometry is known, the capillary force can be
obtained by multiplying the cross-sectional area by the Laplace
pressure and adding the surface tension of the liquid.
The two main approximations employed to describe the meniscus shape are the toroidal~\cite{haines1925studies,fisher1926capillary} and the Derjaguin~\cite{derjaguin} approximations. Several other approximate solutions of the Young-Laplace equation based on these two have been reported in literature~\cite{willett2000capillary,rabinovich2005capillary,butt2009normal}.
Many of these approximations assume the bridge connecting two identical spherical particles. In reality, particles are often polydisperse in size, and some authors
proposed theoretical models for the prediction of the capillary
force for unequally-sized
spheres~\cite{willett2000capillary,chen2011liquid,sun2018liquid,lian2016capillary}.
In addition, most studies found in literature
focus on capillary bridges with small, typically less than 10\%, liquid-to-solid volume ratios (e.g.,\cite{huppmann1975modelling, lian1993theoretical,willett2000capillary,rabinovich2005capillary, roy2016micro}), whereas only few studies focus on larger volumes~\cite{sun2018liquid,farmer2015asymmetric,xiao2020capillary}. Interestingly, with a large enough liquid volume, the solution that minimizes the surface energy is not anymore axisymmetric~\cite{vogel2006convex}, as it was also shown numerically and experimentally~\cite{farmer2015asymmetric}. Moreover, when increasing the separation distance, it is possible to observe a transition from a convex to a concave profile~\cite{xiao2020capillary}.
Numerical methods to tackle the problem of the liquid capillary bridge were devised already in the early 1970s by Erle and coworkers, obtaining a satisfactory agreement at large separation distances~\cite{erle1971liquid}. Generally, for static solutions, one can numerically minimize the interfacial free energy using a number of freely available tools~\cite{brakke1992surface}. If the dynamics of the bridge formation does play a role, CFD methods such as the volume-of-fluid (VOF) and level set methods are common choices~\cite{rider1998reconstructing,sussman1994level}. They solve the macroscopic Navier-Stokes equations by tracking or capturing the interface. An alternative approach is the lattice Boltzmann method (LBM), which became popular due to its straightforward implementation, its inherent parallelization and a wide selection of multiphase models being available~\cite{kruger2017lattice,liu2016multiphase}.
We would like to emphasize that the LBM can be used to model
dynamic problems that are beyond of the scope of other methods based just on the minimization of surface energy as, for example, implemented in Surface Evolver~\cite{brakke1994surface}. In the LBM, hydrodynamics is being described at the Navier-Stokes level in the nearly incompressible limit. The dynamics of the solid particles can be simulated by solving Newton’s equations of motion for the translational and rotational degrees of freedom, and coupled to the single or multicomponent fluid using various approaches\cite{ladd1994numerical,ahlrichs1999simulation,sega2013mesoscale}.
In comparison with conventional CFD methods, the LBM is limited to low Mach numbers. Also, at high Knudsen numbers, more work is needed to improve the accuracy of the method while maintaining computational efficiency. However, these limitations have no influence on the current study of capillary bridges.
In this work, we use the multicomponent inter-particle
potential model by Shan and Chen~\cite{shan1993lattice} coupled to solid particles modelled using the approach introduced by Ladd and Aidun~\cite{ladd1994numerical, ladd2001lattice,aidun1998direct,HFRRWL14} to investigate the validity and suitability of several analytical approximations of the bridge forces.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section II(A-B), we introduce some widely used models for the capillary bridge force. In section II(C), we describe the multicomponent lattice Boltzmann method that we use to model the capillary bridges forming between spherical particles. In Section III we investigate five different capillary bridge models with small and large bridge volumes, some of which have been frequently used to describe capillary bridge forces in Discrete Element Method (DEM) simulations~\cite{roy2016micro,roy2017}. As an example of the possible applications, we use one of the potentials to model the interaction between particles and show the formation of clusters due to the capillary bridges under shear flow. In Section IV we discuss the limit of the theoretical models and summarize our results.
\section{Methodology}
\subsection{Capillary bridge geometry and bridge volume}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig1.pdf}
\caption{Sketch of the liquid bridge geometry displaying the parameters involved in the calculations.}
\label{fig:sketch}
\end{figure}
The volume of the liquid bridge is an important ingredient in the calculation of the capillary force and needs special attention.
Fig.~\ref{fig:sketch} depicts a sketch of the main geometrical quantities involved in the description of the bridge. Two particles of radius $R_1$
and $R_2$, respectively, are separated by the surface-to-surface distance $S$. The principal radii of the liquid meniscus are $\rho$
and $l$, respectively, and the volume of each particle is $V_{p,1}$ and $V_{p,2}$. The contact angles
are denoted as $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$, and the half-filling angles are
denoted as $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$. $x_a$ and $y_a$ are the abscissa and ordinate of the contact point between the solid and liquid profiles. The coordinate system is chosen such that the $x$-axis lies along the straight
line joining the centers of the particles, with its origin located at the middle point between the spherical surface.
By integrating the liquid profile $y(x)$ one can obtain the liquid volume of the bridge $V_l$, which in the case of two equal spheres reads
\begin{equation}\label{eq:1}
V_l= \pi \int_{-x_a}^{x_a} y^2(x) dx - 2V_s,
\end{equation}
where $V_s$ is the volume of the spherical caps wet by the liquid. The volume of the spherical caps are calculated geometrically as $\pi R_1^3 (2+\cos \phi_1)(1-\cos \phi_1)^2/3$ and $\pi R_2^3(2+\cos \phi_2) (1-\cos \phi_2)/3$, respectively.
In the toroidal approximation,
the meridional profile of pendular bridges is approximated by an arc of a circle. This approximation leads to a
simple closed-form solution for the Young-Laplace equation, which has been widely used for the
estimation of the forces between spherical
particles~\cite{lian1993theoretical,huppmann1975modelling}. In this
approach, the surface curvature is not constant along the meniscus of the liquid bridge. Consequently, the total force in the toroidal approximation is a function of the local surface curvature and thus of the position of the orthogonal plane~\cite{willett2000capillary}. The toroidal approximation can be used for small menisci, where the effect of gravity can be neglected. Deviations from the toroidal approximation agree with the results from the forces calculated numerically with the exact bridge shape \cite{butt2009normal}.
Many authors used the toroidal approximation to calculate the liquid bridge volume for equally and unequally-sized spheres~\cite{megias2010analysis,sun2018liquid,megias2009capillary,huppmann1975modelling,pietsch1967haftkraft}. Pietsch and Rumpf
reported the expression of the bridge volume with a wide range of partial wetting, as shown
in Table \ref{table1}~\cite{pietsch1967haftkraft}. Other authors derived simpler expressions
with further simplifications. However, their expressions underestimate~\cite{huppmann1975modelling,simons1994analysis} or overestimate~\cite{rabinovich2005capillary} the bridge volume, as compared to the values obtained in Refs.~\cite{pietsch1967haftkraft,megias2009capillary}. Megias-Alguacil and Gauckler
calculated the liquid bridge volume in
terms of the abscissa $x_a$, the contact angle and the separation
distance~\cite{megias2009capillary}. In case of two equal spheres, their expression is fully equivalent to the one from Pietsch and Rumpf if the relation
\begin{equation}
\phi=\arccos\left[S/(2R_p)+1-x_a/R_p\right]
\end{equation} is used~\cite{pietsch1967haftkraft}. Chen and coworkers developed an improved mechanical model
which is capable of analyzing the force and the volume of the liquid
bridge by assuming that the liquid bridge profile is circular in
shape between two unequally-sized spherical particles~\cite{chen2011liquid}. Later, Sun and
Sakai proposed a more general expression for the
capillary bridge volume which coincides with the one of Chen and coworkers if the spheres have the same contact angle~\cite{sun2018liquid}.
\begin{table*}
\begin{center}
\setlength\arrayrulewidth{1.0pt}
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\hline
Models & & &Capillary bridge volume $V_l$ \\ \hline
Pietsch \& Rumpf~\cite{pietsch1967haftkraft}
&$\frac{V_l}{2\pi}$&= & $\rho(\rho^2 + b^2 ) \cos(\theta + \phi) - \frac{1}{3} \rho^3 \cos^3(\theta + \phi)$\\
&&&$- \frac{1}{24}d_p^3 (2 + \cos \phi) (1 - \cos \phi)^2$\\
&&&$- b \left[\rho^2 \cos(\theta + \phi) \sin(\theta + \phi)
+\rho^2 \left( \frac{\pi}{2} - \theta - \phi \right)\right]$\\
&$b$&=&$\rho + l$, $\rho = \frac{d_p (1 - \cos \phi) + S}{2 \cos(\theta + \phi)}$\\
&$l$&=&$R_p \sin \phi + \rho [\sin(\theta + \phi) - 1] $\\
Alguacil \& Gauckler~\cite{megias2009capillary}
&$\frac{V_l}{2\pi}$&=&$((l-\rho)^2 + \rho^2)x_a -\frac{x_a^3}{3} + (l-\rho)\left[x_a \sqrt{\rho^2-x_a^2} + \rho^2 \arcsin \frac{x_a}{\rho} \right]$\\
&&&$-\frac{1}{3}(x_a-S/2)^2(3R_p -(x_a-S/2))$\\
&$\rho $&=&$ \frac{x_a R_p}{(S/2 + R_p -x_a)\cos \theta - \sqrt{R_p^2 - (x_a-S/2 - R_p)^2} \sin\theta}$\\
&$l $&=&$ \sqrt{R_p^2 - (x_a-S/2 - R_p)^2} + x \frac{\sqrt{R_p^2 - (x_a-S/2 - R_p)^2} \cos\theta + (S/2+R_p-x_a) \sin\theta -R_p}{(S/2+R_p-x_a) \cos\theta - \sqrt{R_p^2 - (x_a-S/2 - R_p)^2} \sin\theta}$\\
Chen et al.\cite{chen2011liquid}
&$V_1$&=& $\pi\rho(a^2+\rho^2)(\cos(\phi_1+\theta)+\cos(\phi_2+\theta))- \frac{\pi}{3}\rho^3(\cos^3(\phi_1 + \theta) $\\
&&&$+ \cos^3(\phi_2+\theta)) -a\pi \rho^2(\sin(\phi_1 + \theta) \cos(\phi_1 + \theta) + \sin(\phi_2 + \theta) \cos(\phi_2 + \theta)$ \\
&&&$+ a\rho^2( \phi_1 + \phi_2 +2\theta - \pi)) $\\
&$V_2$&=&$ \frac{\pi}{3}\left((2-3\cos\phi_1+\cos^3\phi_1)R_1^3 + (2-3\cos\phi_2+\cos^3\phi_2)R_2^3 \right) $ \\
&$V_l$&=&$V_1 - V_2$\\
&$\rho$&=&$\frac{R_1(1-\cos\phi_1)+ S+ R_2(1-\cos\phi_1)}{\cos(\phi_1 + \theta) + \cos(\phi_2 + \theta)}$\\
&$l$&=&$ R_1 \sin\phi_1 - \rho (1 -\sin(\phi_2 + \theta))$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Capillary bridge volume ($V_l$) from different theoretical models}
\label{table1}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Capillary bridge force}
The capillary force is usually calculated following one of two routes, namely,
the geometric one (approximating the solution of the Laplace
equation) and the energetic one (taking the derivative of the total interfacial energy). In the geometric approach, the capillary force exerted on solid spheres due to the liquid bridge is the sum of two components, which are the contributions from the surface tension and the hydrostatic pressure, respectively. The surface tension and hydrostatic contributions can be obtained by knowing the height of the neck, the tangent of the profile and the contact area, respectively. The direction of the hydrostatic pressure force depends on the curvature of the meniscus, while the surface tension force is always attractive. Convex bridges yield positive Laplace pressure contributions and repulsive hydrostatic pressure forces. On the contrary, the pressure in concave bridges is negative, and the corresponding force attractive. Once the profile of the bridge is known, both terms can be determined by geometrical means. In this study, the capillary force is attractive for F > 0 and repulsive for F < 0.
In order to obtain the hydrostatic pressure in the geometric approach, the geometry of the bridge has to be approximated. The so-called toroidal and Derjaguin approximations are two widely applied options. For relatively small liquid bridges (mostly concave) and at stable separation distances, the toroidal approximation has been shown to produce errors smaller than 10$\%$ in the calculated capillary force, in comparison with exact numerical techniques \cite{lian1993theoretical,
hotta1974capillary,orr1975pendular}. However, with increasing
separation distance, the toroidal solution may underestimate the
capillary bridge force~\cite{mazzone1987behavior}. Alguacil and Gauckler studied the validity of the toroidal approximation for the case of convex liquid bridges, showing agreement within 30\% with the numerical solution of the Young-Laplace equation~\cite{megias2010analysis,megias2011accuracy}.
The Derjaguin approximation was originally developed for determining the force between unequal spheres based on the interaction energy between
planar surfaces. The validity of this approximation is intuitively limited to separation distances that are small compared to the radii of the spheres, or, equivalently, when the radius of the bridge profile is orders of magnitude smaller than the neck radius.
Rabinovich and coworkers found that Derjaguin's approximation is valid only at strictly zero separation distance~\cite{rabinovich2005capillary}. Willett and coworkers proposed a variant of the Derjaguin approximation for the total capillary forces between spheres as a function of the separation distance and for a fixed bridge volume~\cite{willett2000capillary}. In the energetic approach, the total capillary force is obtained by perturbing the displacement $S$ between the two particles, provided
that the volume of the liquid is constant
\begin{equation}\label{eq:2}
F = \frac{dW}{dS},
\end{equation}
where $W$ is the interfacial free energy determined by surface tension, interface contact areas and contact angle \cite{israelachvili2015intermolecular}. Rabinovich and coworkers showed that the energetic and geometric routes are equivalent despite the nonequilibrium nature of the problem, and proposed an explanation for the failure of the Derjaguin approximation at large distances~\cite{rabinovich2005capillary}.
Chau and coworkers calculated the capillary force for non-axisymmetrical shapes allowing the meniscus to fulfill the Kelvin equation~\cite{chau2007three}. More recently, Wang and coworkers used the interfacial energy minimization approach to study the forces and the rupture behaviour of water bridges between three spherical particles at equilibrium configurations~\cite{wang2017capillary}.
In the following we consider five different theoretical models, which are representative of the bulk of works on the subject. Theoretical models have limitations due to the approximations made in solving the Young-Laplace equation. To gain insight into different models, we explore the quality of the models for the prediction of capillary bridges using our lattice Boltzmann simulations.
In model A, as reported by Lian and coworkers, the liquid bridge force is calculated by the toroidal approximation~\cite{lian1993theoretical}. We use the ``gorge'' method ($F=\pi l^2 \Delta p + 2\pi \sigma l $) from their work, in which the area at the neck is used to calculate the hydrostatic pressure force and the tangent at the neck to obtain the surface tension force. The capillary force is calculated in terms of the half-filling angle, separation distance, and contact angle. For a wide range of liquid bridge volumes and stable separation distances, this method produces errors within 10\% in the calculation of the capillary force in comparison withhttps://latex.hi-ern.de/project/5e565d1c2ef5060157deb605
those obtained from an exact numerical technique.
Model B was used by several authors, deriving the expression for the capillary force by the toroidal approximation~\cite{megias2009capillary, huppmann1975modelling, pietsch1967haftkraft}. In this model, the surface tension force ($2\pi \sigma R_p \sin \phi \sin(\phi + \theta)$) is obtained at the intersection of the three-phase contact line; and the hydrostatic pressure force is calculated by the axially projected wetted area of the particle. In Model B, the capillary force depends on the half-filling angle, separation distance, and contact angle.
Model C is a semi-analytical model proposed by Willett and coworkers~\cite{willett2000capillary}. The volume of the capillary bridge is in this case an input of the problem and, in the following comparison, we will use the value obtained from the simulations. The error of their approximations
is no more than 4$\%$ when the liquid-to-solid volume ratio is
0.001. However, the error increases with increasing volume ratio.
The accuracy can be improved with a more complex expression, which
is valid for half-filling angles $< 50^\circ$ and volume ratios $V^*$
less than 0.1, giving an error in the force estimation of less
than 3$\%$. Model C can also be used to calculate the total capillary force for unequal spheres. The authors pointed out that deviations from the solution for equal spheres occur only when the bridge volume is large compared to that of the spheres.
Model D represents the approach of Rabinovich and coworkers, who obtained the capillary force between two spheres based on the Derjaguin approximation~\cite{rabinovich2005capillary}. Model E is from Miakmi and coworkers, who derived a formula for the liquid bridge
force as an explicit function of the
liquid bridge volume and separation distance based on the regression analysis of the numerical
solutions of the Young-Laplace equation~\cite{mikami1998numerical}. The details of the models
can be found in Table \ref{table2}. Again, like in the case of Model C, for both Model D and Model E, the liquid bridge volume is an input of the problem.
\begin{table*}
\setlength\arrayrulewidth{1.0pt}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
\hline
Models & Capillary force $F$ \\
\hline
Model A
&$F= 2 \pi \sigma l \left(1 + \frac{l - \rho}{2 \rho} \right)$\\
Lian et al.\cite{lian1993theoretical} &$\rho = \frac{2R_p(1-\cos\phi)+S}{2\cos(\theta+\phi)}$\\
&$l = R_p \sin\phi - \left( R_p (1- \cos \phi) + S/2 \right) \frac{1- \sin(\theta+\phi)}{\cos(\theta+\phi)}$\\
Model B
& $F =2 \pi R_p \sigma \sin\phi \sin(\theta + \phi) + \pi \sigma R_p^2 \sin^2\phi \left( \frac{1}{\rho} - \frac{1}{l} \right)$\\
Huppmann\cite{huppmann1975modelling}, Pietsch\cite{pietsch1967haftkraft}&$\rho = \frac{2R_p(1-\cos\phi)+S}{2\cos(\theta+\phi)}$\\
&$l = R_p \sin\phi - \left( R_p (1- \cos \phi) + S/2 \right) \frac{1- \sin(\theta+\phi)}{\cos(\theta+\phi)}$\\
Model B
& $F = 2 \pi \sigma R_p\sin\phi \sin (\phi + \theta) - \pi R_p^2 \sigma \sin^2\phi \left( \frac{1}{l} + \frac{1}{\rho}\right)$\\
Megias \& Gauckler\cite{megias2010analysis}&$\rho = \frac{x_a R_p}{\sqrt{R_p^2 - (x_a-S/2 - R_p)^2} \sin\theta - (S/2 + R_p -x_a)\cos \theta }$\\
&$l = \sqrt{R_p^2 - (x_a-S/2 - R_p)^2} +$\\
& $\qquad{}+ x_a \frac{\sqrt{R_p^2 - (x_a-S/2 - R_p)^2} \cos\theta + (S/2+R_p-x_a) \sin\theta -R_p}{(S/2+R_p-x_a) \cos\theta - \sqrt{R_p^2 - (x_a-S/2 - R_p)^2} \sin\theta}$\\
Model C
& $F = 2\pi R_p \sigma \exp\left[f_1 - f_2\exp\left(f_3 \ln\frac{S}{2\sqrt{V/R_p}} + f_4 \ln^2\frac{S}{2\sqrt{V/R_p}}\right)
\right] $ \\
Willett et al.\cite{willett2000capillary}&\\
Model D
& $F=\frac{2\pi \sigma R_p \cos \theta}{1 + S/(2d)}$\\
Rabinovich et al.\cite{rabinovich2005capillary} & $d=\frac{S}{2}(-1+\sqrt{1+2V_l/(\pi R_p S^2)} )$\\
Model E
& $F^* = \exp(A S^* + B) + C$\\
Mikami et al.\cite{mikami1998numerical} &$A = - 1.1 \Bar{V}^{-0.53}$\\
&$B = (-0.34 \ln \Bar{V} - 0.96) \theta^2 - 0.019 \ln \Bar{V} + 0.48$\\
&$C = 0.0042 \ln \Bar{V} + 0.078$\\
&$\Bar{V}=\frac{4\pi}{3}V^*$\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Capillary force from different theoretical models (the
definitions of the coefficients $f_1, f_2, f_3$ and $f_4$ are
presented in the Supplementary Material). Note that the two expressions reported for Model B found in the literature are equivalent. In orginal models B (Megias \& Gauckler\cite{megias2010analysis}) and D, negative capillary forces indicate attraction whereas a positive force is repulsive. To keep consistency with our current study, we use positive capillary forces from models B and D for attraction.}
\label{table2}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Lattice Boltzmann Method}
The lattice Boltzmann method is a mesoscopic approach to approximate solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations by computing the moments of the Boltzmann transport equation solved on a lattice~\cite{benzi1992lattice}. Here, we model the droplet using
the multicomponent lattice Boltzmann method of Shan and Chen~\cite{shan1993lattice,liu2016multiphase}. Each component follows a discretized Boltzmann equation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:3}
f_i^c (\vec{x} + \vec{c}_i \Delta t, t+\Delta t ) = f_i^c (\vec{x}, t ) + \Omega_i^c (\vec{x}, t ),
\end{equation}
where $f_i^c (\vec{x}, t )$ represent the amount of particles of component $c$ at lattice position $\vec{x}$ and at time $t$ that are moving along the $i$-th of the $N=19$ discretized directions, with velocity $\vec{c}_i (i = 1,\ldots,N)$ commensurate with the three-dimensional lattice. In reduced units, the timestep $\Delta t$ and the lattice constant $\Delta x$ are
set to 1. Here, $\Omega_i^c$ is the Bhatnagar-Gross-Krook (BGK) collision
operator representing the relaxation of the particle distribution towards the local Maxwell-Boltzmann equilibrium~\cite{bhatnagar1954model}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:4}
\Omega_i^c = -\frac{f_i^c (\vec{x}, t ) - f_i^{eq}[\rho^c(\vec{x},t), \vec{u}^c(\vec{x}, t) ] }{\tau^c},
\end{equation}
where the equilibrium distribution is approximated as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:5}
f_i^{eq} = \zeta_i \rho^c \left[1 + \frac{\vec{c}_i\vec{u}}{c_s^2} + \frac{(\vec{c}_i\vec{u})^2}{2c_s^4} - \frac{u^2}{2c_s^2} \right].
\end{equation}
Here, $\tau^c$ sets the relaxation time.
$\rho_c(\vec{x},t) = \rho_0 \sum_{i} f_i^c (\vec{x},t)$ is the fluid
density, and $\vec{u} =
\vec{u}^c(\vec{x},t)$ (defined by $\rho_c (\vec{x},t) \vec{u}^c (\vec{x},t) \equiv \sum_i
f_i^c (\vec{x},t) \vec{c}_i$) is the macroscopic bulk velocity of the fluid. $\rho_0$ is a reference density and is chosen to be 1. $c_s = 1/\sqrt{3}$ is
the speed of sound and $\zeta_i$ are the coefficients from the velocity space discretization. $\nu_c
= c_s^2 (\tau_c - 1/2)$ is the kinematic viscosity of the fluid.
The fluid interaction between components $c$ and $c^\prime$ is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:6}
\vec{F}^c (\vec{x}, t) \equiv - \Phi^c (\vec{x}, t)\sum_{c^{\prime}} G_{c c^{\prime}}\sum_{\vec{x}} \Phi^{c^{\prime}} (\vec{x}, t) (\vec{x}^{\prime}- \vec{x}),
\end{equation}
where $\vec{x}^\prime$ are the nearest neighboring lattice sites. $\Phi^c (\vec{x},t)$ is the effective mass and we use
\begin{equation}\label{eq:7}
\Phi^c (\vec{x}, t) = \rho_0 \left[ 1 - \exp\left( - \frac{\rho^c(\vec{x}, t)}{\rho_0} \right) \right].
\end{equation}
$G_{c c^\prime}$ represents the coupling-constant of the interaction potential between components $c$ and $c^\prime$. In this work, we use $G_{c c^\prime} = 0.1$. The effect of the force is imposed by
adding a shift to the velocity $\vec{u}$ in the equilibrium distribution
\begin{equation}\label{eq:8}
\Delta \vec{u}^c (\vec{x}, t) = \frac{\tau^c \vec{F}^c (\vec{x}, t)}{\rho^c(\vec{x}, t)}.
\end{equation}
The actual macroscopic bulk velocity is finally calculated as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:9}
\rho^c(\vec{x}, t) \vec{u}^c (\vec{x}, t) = \sum_i f_i^c (\vec{x}, t) \vec{c}_i+ \frac{\vec{F}^c (\vec{x}, t)}{2}.
\end{equation}
The particles are discretized on the fluid lattice and interactions
between the fluid and the particles are introduced using a
modified bounce-back boundary condition,
resulting in a modified lattice Boltzmann equation~\cite{ladd1994numerical,aidun1998direct}. The particles follow Newton's equations of motion for the linear and angular momentum
\begin{equation}
\vec{F}_p = m \frac{d \vec{u}_p}{dt}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\vec{D} = J \frac{d \vec{\omega}}{dt},
\end{equation}
where $\vec{F}$ is the total force acting on a particle, $m$ is the particle mass, and $\vec{u}_p$ its velocity. $\vec{D}$ is the torque, $J$ the particle's moment of inertia, and $\vec{\omega}$ its angular velocity.
The force in Eq.~\ref{eq:6} considers interactions between a lattice node outside of a particle and a lattice node inside a particle. To calculate these interactions, we fill the lattice nodes in the outer shell of the particle with a virtual fluid. We define a parameter
$\Delta \rho$, the particle colour, which allows us to control the
interaction between the particle surface and the two fluids as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:10}
\rho_{virt}^r(\vec{x},t) = \rho^r(\vec{x},t) + |\Delta \rho|
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:11}
\rho_{virt}^b(\vec{x},t) = \rho^b(\vec{x},t) - |\Delta \rho|,
\end{equation}
where $\rho_{virt}^r(\vec{x},t)$ and $\rho_{virt}^b(\vec{x},t)$ are
the averages of the densities of neighboring fluid nodes for
components $r$ and $b$, respectively. A particle color $ \Delta
\rho= 0$ corresponds to a contact angle of $\theta = 90^\circ$, i.e.,
a neutrally wetting particle~\cite{JH11,DKCH14}.
We place two particles ($R_p=80$ lattice units for equal spheres, $R_p=70$ and $90$ lattice units, respectively, for unequally sized spheres) along the $x$ axis, separated by a surface-to-surface distance $S$. A droplet is initialized in the center of the system.
The droplet size is chosen large enough to make sure that the capillary
bridge can form between two particles (a minimum droplet radius of 23 lattice sites is used). As constant input parameters, we prescribe the
liquid bridge volume V$_l$ = V$_{bridge}$, the contact angle $\theta$,
the particle-particle separation distance $S$ and the surface
tension of the fluid, $\sigma$. By changing the droplet radius and length, we can
obtain a wide range of liquid-to-solid volume ratios. We fix the
position and orientation of the particles and let the system
equilibrate. Then, we measure the forces acting on the
particles for different values of the separation, contact angle, and volume ratio. To study the effect of discretization artefacts, we carried out a convergence study for the capillary force calculation, as a function of the grid size. In these tests, the relative liquid bridge volume is fixed at 0.133, and the effective resolution is increased by employing larger particle radii and correspondingly a higher number of lattice sites. Table~\ref{table3} summarizes the calculated capillary force. By increasing the resolution by a factor of three, the change in force is only about 2.5\%. This value can be therefore used as an estimate of the (quite small) discretization error.
\begin{table*}
\setlength\arrayrulewidth{1.0pt}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\hline
Box size & & & $F/(\sigma R_p)$\\
\hline
128$\times$128$\times$248 & & & 1.92\\
192$\times$192$\times$336 & & & 1.94\\
256$\times$256$\times$448 & & & 1.94\\
384$\times$384$\times$608 & & & 1.97\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Dimensionless capillary force ($F/(\sigma R_p)$) calculated from LBM-DEM at $R_p/N_x = 0.3125$, $S/R_p=0.625$ and $V_l/V_p = 0.133$.}
\label{table3}
\end{table*}
If not specified otherwise, we present all results in dimensionless units.
The dimensionless force, bridge volume and separation distance are
defined as $F^*=\frac{F}{\sigma R_p}$, $V^*=\frac{V_l}{V_p}$, and
$S^*=\frac{S}{R_p}$.
\section{Results and Discussion}
\begin{figure*}[tbp]
\centering
\subcaptionbox{$V^* = 0.07$\label{fig:2a}}{\includegraphics[width=0.6\columnwidth]{fig2a.pdf}}\hspace{.3em}%
\subcaptionbox{$V^* = 0.133$\label{fig:2b}}{\includegraphics[width=0.6\columnwidth]{fig2b.pdf}}
\subcaptionbox{$V^* = 0.25$\label{fig:2c}}{\includegraphics[width=0.6\columnwidth]{fig2c.pdf}}\\
\subcaptionbox{contact angle=34.6$^\circ$\label{fig:5d}}{\includegraphics[width=0.6\columnwidth]{fig2d.pdf}}
\subcaptionbox{contact angle=60$^\circ$\label{fig:5e}}{\includegraphics[width=0.6\columnwidth]{fig2e.pdf}}
\caption{Liquid bridge profile with different volume ratios under fixed separation distance ($S/R_p=0.375$) (top row: contact angle =$48^\circ$) and contact angles (bottom row: volume ratio $V^*=0.133$).
}
\label{fig:snap1}
\end{figure*}
We vary the ratio of bridge volume to particle volume $V^*$($V_l/V_p$)
from 0.07 to 0.7. The dimensionless separation distance $S^*$($S/R_p$) between spheres
is changed from 0.25 to 1.45 to obtain the corresponding liquid bridge force. The influence of the contact angle is tested by
performing simulations for $\theta=34.6^\circ, 48^\circ, 60^\circ$ and $74^\circ$,
respectively.
We report the bridge profiles under different liquid volumes and contact
angles in Fig.~\ref{fig:snap1} using the same liquid volume $V^*=0.133$. As expected, the bridge shape is symmetric. However, one can appreciate that the meniscus changes from concave to convex when the liquid volume is increased. This change is induced by the geometric constraints, even though the wetting parameter (defining the contact angle of a droplet on a plane surface) is kept constant.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{fig3.pdf}
\caption{Capillary bridge force between two equally-sized spheres with bridge volume $V^*=0.133$, for different contact angles (left panel: $34.6^\circ$, middle panel: $48^\circ$, right panel: $60^\circ$).}
\label{fig:force-small-volume}
\end{figure*}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:force-small-volume} we compare the force/distance relation obtained with the lattice Boltzmann method to the predictions of the theoretical models at various contact angles. A similar behaviors are observed at different bridge volumes, and reported in the Supplementary Material).
Models A, B and C show a very good qualitative and quantitative agreement with the simulation results, with relatively small discrepancies ($<10\%$), nicely reproducing the different trends characterizing the different contact angles. Models A and B predict slightly higher capillary forces than calculated with the lattice Boltzmann simulation, while model C predicts slightly lower values. Models D and E are both qualitatively and quantitatively not satisfactory, showing a slope of the force/distance curve that is only mildly dependent on the contact angle. While Model D partly underestimates and partly overestimates the capillary bridge force, Model E constantly overestimates it by a factor 1.5 to 3.
The overall trend indicates the capillary force decreasing with increasing particle
separation, due to the decreasing surface tension force.
When the contact angle or the bridge volume increase, the slope of the force/distance curve decreases. And at $\theta=60^\circ$ or $V^*=0.25$ (see Fig \ref{fig:force-large-volume}b), the capillary force/distance curve becomes almost flat, except for the appearance of a maximum at a reduced separation distance $S/R_p\simeq0.5$. In this case, the bridge profile is convex at small separation $S$ while it becomes concave at large $S$. The peak displayed by the capillary force, previously already reported~\cite{tselishchev2003influence,megias2009capillary}, originates from the non-monotonic Laplace component~\cite{megias2009capillary}.
\begin{figure*}[tbp]
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45,width=2.0in]{fig4a.pdf}
\caption{Bridge volume $V^*=0.07$}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{3mm}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45,width=2.0in]{fig4b.pdf}
\caption{Bridge volume $V^*=0.25$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Dimensionless capillary bridge force ($F/(\sigma R_p)$) between two equal spheres under different bridge volume. (Contact angle $\theta=48^\circ$)}
\label{fig:force-large-volume}
\end{figure*}
Next, we present results on capillary bridges between two static unequally sized spheres with identical contact angles.
There is limited work in the literature regarding spheres of different size. Chen and coworkers (and later Sun and Sakai~\cite{sun2018liquid}) proposed a mechanical model to analyze the force and the volume of the liquid bridge, by considering a circular arc-shaped liquid bridge profile between two unequally sized
spheres~\cite{chen2011liquid}. In the following, we denote these models as Model F, and we provide a comparison of its predictions with the results of our lattice Boltzmann simulations.
In addition, we show the predictions of Model C, computed using the harmonic mean of the radii $R_m=\frac{2R_1 R_2}{R_1+R_2}$ to calculate
capillary forces and bridge volumes~\cite{willett2000capillary}. In the simulations and model F, we use $R_p =$ 70 and 90 lattice units, respectively.
In Fig~\ref{fig:force-unequal-spheres} we report the force/distance curves for unequal spheres. The behavior is qualitatively similar to the equal sphere case. At moderate contact angles and liquid volumes, the capillary force decreases with increasing particle separation due to the decreasing surface tension force, and a maximum in the force appears for the largest contact angle and liquid volume considered, much like in the symmetric system.
Model F captures qualitatively very well the trend of the force/distance curves, also at high contact angles and liquid bridge volumes, and is also quantitatively accurate under most conditions.
Model C is worse than Model F in reproducing the qualitative trend at high contact angles and high liquid bridge volumes. However, from the quantitative point of view, Model C and Model F provide, on average, comparable predictions.
\begin{figure*}[tbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{fig5a.pdf}\hspace{1em}%
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{fig5b.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Capillary bridge force between two unequally-sized spheres with radii equal to 70 and 90 lattice units, respectively. Left panel: different contact angles and bridge volume $V^*=0.133$. Right panel: different bridge volumes and the same contact angle $\theta = 48^\circ$.
}
\label{fig:force-unequal-spheres}
\end{figure*}
In the Supplementary Material, we also report the predictions of Models C and F, where we use, again, the harmonic mean of the radii.
The results presented above show that several models have problems in reproducing the force/separation curves when the liquid bridge volume starts becoming comparable with that of the solid particles. The capillary bridge volume has an influence on the bridge shape (and consequently on the force) has also been demonstrated by experiments~\cite{farmer2015asymmetric}.
In fact, at high volumes or contact angles, as reported by Niven, liquid bridges tend even to adopt non-axisymmetric geometries~\cite{niven2006force}.
The lattice Boltzmann simulations can also reproduce this condition. Fig.~\ref{fig:asymm} illustrates the appearance of an asymmetric liquid bridge (e.g. tear-drop shape) between
spheres at different contact angles and bridge volumes. A droplet sits initially between two fixed particles. Then it migrates from its axisymmetric configuration to one side due to the pressure gradient produced from the top and bottom curvatures. In the case of the highest contact angle ($132^\circ$) a mechanically stable state is reached, and the capillary force is zero, whereas for neutral wetting conditions ($\theta=90^\circ$), we measure non-zero attractive forces. Clearly, these configurations cannot be described by the models discussed here. Interestingly, however, models A, B, C and D would predict a transition from attractive to repulsive capillary forces.
\begin{figure*}[tbp]
\begin{center}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45,width=1.6in]{asy_a.pdf}
\caption{(a) $R^*=0.572$, $\theta = 90^\circ$}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{1em}%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45,width=1.6in]{asy_b.pdf}
\caption{(b) $R^*=0.572$, $\theta = 132^\circ$ }
\end{subfigure}\\
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45,width=1.8in]{asy_c.pdf}
\caption{$R^*=1.144$, $\theta = 90^\circ$}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{1em}%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45,width=1.8in]{asy_d.pdf}
\caption{(d) $R^*=1.144$, $\theta = 132^\circ$}
\end{subfigure}
\end{center}
\caption{Asymmetric liquid bridge between equal spheres from lattice Boltzmann simulation at different separation distances ($V^*=0.5$ for $S^*=0.572$, $V^*=0.65$ for $S^*=1.144$)}
\label{fig:asymm}
\end{figure*}
\subsection*{Many particles system under shear flow}
\begin{figure*}[tbp]
\begin{center}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{fig8a.pdf}
\caption{No capillary force}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{3mm}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{fig8b.pdf}
\caption{$\sigma=1\times10^{-5}$}
\end{subfigure} \\
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{fig8c.pdf}
\caption{$\sigma=5\times10^{-5}$}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{3mm}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{fig8d.pdf}
\caption{$\sigma=5\times10^{-4}$}
\end{subfigure}
\end{center}
\caption{Simulation snapshots of particle clustering at $t=4 \times 10^6 \Delta t$ under different capillary forces in a shear flow. Particles belonging to the same cluster have the same color. (a: no capillary force; b,c,d: capillary force with different surface tension parameter $\sigma$).}
\label{fig8}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[tbp]
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45,width=2.8in]{fig9a.pdf}
\caption{No capillary force}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{3mm}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45,width=2.8in]{fig9b.pdf}
\caption{$\sigma=10^{-5}$}
\end{subfigure} \\
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45,width=2.8in]{fig9c.pdf}
\caption{$\sigma=5\times10^{-5}$}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{3mm}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45,width=2.8in]{fig9d.pdf}
\caption{$\sigma=5\times10^{-4}$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Particle cluster size (i.e., the total number of particles in a cluster) distribution in a time span from $10^6$ to $4 \times 10^6 \Delta t$. Clusters form due to the presence of capillary bridges between the suspended particles in a shear flow (a: no capillary bridges force; b,c,d: capillary force with different surface tension parameter $\sigma$).}
\label{fig9}
\end{figure*}
Model C predicts the capillary force with high accuracy, and is also easy to be implemented in a DEM code. To show the possibilities opened by coarse-graining the capillary interaction using this simple model potential, we run several LBM/DEM simulations of a suspension of particles in a shear flow, and study the influence of the presence and strength of the capillary bridge on the structural properties of the wet granular material.
Our starting configurations are generated by placing 2000 particles (with radius $R_p=3\Delta x$) randomly in a cubic simulation box (side length of 128$\Delta x$). This corresponds to a packing fraction of 10$\%$. We assume that the secondary fluid is, effectively, uniformly distributed among all the particles with a constant fraction of 5$\times 10^{-6}$.
Capillary bridge forces are introduced using model C and, consequently, the dynamics of the secondary fluid is not resolved in these simulations. The contact angle parameter is set to 123 degrees. We obtain different degrees of capillary bridge strength by changing the surface tension coefficient. The shear flow is imposed using Lees-Edwards boundary conditions~\cite{lees1972computer,HVC04} in the $x$-direction, generating a spatially homogeneous, linear shear flow. The usual periodic boundary conditions with no imposed velocity are applied to the remaining directions.
In Fig~\ref{fig8}, we present instantaneous snapshots of the system, showing the formation of particle clusters due to capillary bridges. We colour the particles based on a simple cutoff clustering algorithm, as implemented in the Pytim software package~\cite{sega2018pytim}. Two particles are assigned to the same cluster if their distance is less than the cutoff $\delta_r=6.5\Delta x$ (the radius of particles being 3.0$\Delta x$). Without capillary bridge forces (Fig~\ref{fig8}a), particles are homogeneously distributed in the system. With weak capillary bridge forces (Fig~\ref{fig8}b), only a limited tendency to cluster formation is observed. The aggregating force is balanced by the presence of shear, that tends to disrupt the clusters. With stronger capillary forces (Figs~\ref{fig8}c and ~\ref{fig8}d), the shear forces are not anymore able to prevent the formation of clusters, and increasingly large structures are found.
To provide a more quantitative picture, in Fig~\ref{fig9} we report the histograms of the cluster size distribution, sampled over the time span from $10^6$ to $4 \times 10^6 \Delta t$, after having reached stationary conditions. Without capillary force (Fig~\ref{fig9}a), around 80$\%$ of the particles do not belong to any cluster (cluster size equal one), and the largest cluster observed is composed of 8 particles. With increasing capillary force (Figs~\ref{fig9}b-d), an increasing amount of particles is involved in larger clusters and eventually, particles tend to agglomerate in a single cluster (Fig~\ref{fig9}d, the average size of the largest cluster containing 850 particles). In this case, the particles not belonging to any cluster are just a small fraction (5-6\%) of the total number of clusters.
\section*{Conclusion}
We performed lattice Boltzmann numerical simulations of the static capillary bridge between equally and unequally-sized spherical particles at different wetting conditions and liquid bridge volumes. We reviewed some of the most popular analytical and semi-analytical models that predict the capillary bridge force between particles and compared them to the results of the numerical simulations, to explore their validity and suitability for modeling capillary bridges forces.
For pairs of equally-sized spherical particles, sufficiently small contact angles and
liquid-to-solid volume ratios, three models are found to be in good qualitative and quantitative agreement with the numerical simulations.
In case of unequal spherical particles, the model of Willett and coworkers~\cite{willett2000capillary} (Model C), as well that of Chen and coworkers~\cite{chen2011liquid} (Model F) turned out to describe reasonably well the capillary bridge force, also at moderately high contact angles and volume fractions. In this sense, both models are good candidates to implement capillary forces in discrete element method simulations.
As an example of a possible application, we showed the capability of model C to study the influence of the capillary bridge force on the agglomeration of particles in a shear flow. Up to moderate capillary force strengths, the imposed shear flow is able to disrupt the forming clusters, but with stronger interactions one observes the transition to an almost complete agglomeration.
This work lays the foundation of future investigations on the formation and rheology of large-scale systems of capillary-bridge agglomerates, thanks to the reduced computational requirement of the coarse-grained model.
Possible future extensions of the current work include the modelling of asymmetric bridges, which form at high contact angles, and the inclusion of liquid transport across the bridges.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
The authors thank B.~Nun, T.~Plankenb\"uhler and J.~Karl for fruitful discussions. Financial support by the German Research Foundation (DFG) within the project HA\,4382/7-1 as well as the computing
time granted by the J\"ulich Supercomputing
Centre (JSC) are highly acknowledged.
\section*{Appendix}
The definitions of the coefficients $f_1, f_2, f_3$ and $f_4$ in Table~\ref{table2} for model C are in Table~\ref{table8}.
\begin{table*}
\begin{center}
\setlength\arrayrulewidth{1.0pt}
\begin{tabular}{|c| c|}
\hline
Coefficients & Expressions \\ \hline
$f_1$
&$(-0.44507 + 0.050832 \theta - 1.1466\theta^2 )$\\
&$- (0.1119 + 0.000411\theta + 0.1490\theta^2 ) \ln \Bar{V} $\\
&$-(0.012101 + 0.0036456\theta + 0.01255\theta^2 )(\ln \Bar{V})^2$ \\
&$- (0.0005 + 0.0003505\theta + 0.00029076\theta^2 )(\ln \Bar{V})^3$\\
\hline
$f_2$
& $(1.9222 - 0.57473\theta- 1.2918\theta^2 ) $\\
& $- (0.0668 + 0.1201\theta + 0.22574\theta^2 )\ln \Bar{V} $\\
& $- (0.0013375 + 0.0068988\theta + 0.01137\theta^2 )(\ln \Bar{V})^2$\\
\hline
$f_3$
& $ 1.268 - 0.01396\theta - 0.23566\theta^2$ \\
&$+(0.198 + 0.092\theta - 0.06418\theta^2 )\ln \Bar{V}$ \\
&$+(0.02232 + 0.02238\theta - 0.009853\theta^2 )(\ln \Bar{V})^2$ \\
&$+(0.0008585 + 0.001318\theta- 0.00053\theta^2 )(\ln \Bar{V})^3$\\
\hline
$f_4$
&$-0.010703 + 0.073776\theta- 0.34742\theta^2 $\\
&$+(0.03345 + 0.04543\theta - 0.09056\theta^2 )\ln \Bar{V} $\\
&$+(0.0018574 + 0.004456\theta - 0.006257\theta^2 )(\ln \Bar{V})^2$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Coefficients $f_1, f_2, f_3$ and $f_4$ in Table \ref{table2} for Model C ($\Bar{V} = \frac{4\pi}{3}V^*$)}
\label{table8}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
Maritime surveillance (MS) aims at providing seamless wide-area operational pictures in coastal areas and the oceans in real time. Multiple heterogeneous sensors and information sources are nowadays available for MS, all with their advantages and limitations, and significant research and engineering effort has been made for their combination.
Besides the most common terrestrial sensors for MS, e.g., the automatic identification system~(AIS), X-band radars, and over-the-horizon (OTH) radars, space-based sensor technologies enable persistent monitoring of the maritime domain and ship traffic on a global scale even in remote areas of the Earth.
Space-based remote sensing technologies, reviewed in the first part of this work~\cite{SpaceAESM_1:J20}, include satellite-based AIS (Sat-AIS), synthetic aperture radar (SAR), multi-spectral (MSP) and hyper-spectral (HSP) optical sensors and global navigation satellite systems reflectometry (GNSS-R).
Space-based sensors for Earth observation installed on satellites allow collecting images of very large areas in remote regions of the globe with relatively short latency, and hence are strongly relevant to MS.
As a consequence of the deployment and spread of space-based sensor technologies, advanced data
processing paradigms, e.g., big data analysis, machine learning, artificial intelligence (AI) and data fusion, are now extremely needed to fully exploit the
wide availability of large data sets of satellite images.
In particular, the development of future MS systems combining multiple sensors requires dedicated algorithms to process raw satellite images, detect and classify ships and fuse information from heterogeneous sensors. These algorithms support MS by processing and organizing the increasing amount of heterogeneous information.
The extracted data and readily-understandable information digested therefrom will help end-users, such as governmental and military authorities, coast guards, and
police, to detect anomalies, threats such as oil spills, piracy, and human trafficking, and act in time to prevent accidents and wrongdoing.
In this second part of our work, we describe the main AI and imaging techniques for image segmentation, target detection and classification, and provide possible use cases with real images acquired by satellite sensors.
Then, we describe recent Bayesian and statistical fusion techniques to extract knowledge from the troves of historical Sat-AIS data, such as most common maritime routes, and to track multiple targets by fusing information collected by multiple heterogeneous sensors. Among these, multitarget tracking (MTT) algorithms based on the sum-product algorithm (SPA) are gaining popularity thanks to their ability to fuse information from heterogeneous sources, to their scalability, i.e., low computational complexity in terms of the
number of information sources, targets and measurements, and to their capability to include contextual information, e.g., maritime routes and ships class information extracted from satellite images. We also provide a use case that confirms the strength of SPA-based MTT algorithms when combined with information acquired by satellite sensors is also provided.
\section{Advanced AI Techniques for Satellite Sensor Data}
\label{sec:Advanced_AI}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{./Figures/DigitalReport_new}
\caption{Examples of satellite images augmented by a digital report for each detected ship.
(Top) MSP sensor: Pleiades, Area: close to Khark island (Iran), Date: 25th November 2014. (Bottom) MSP sensor: Sentinel-2, City: Strait of Messina (Italy), Date: 23rd January 2020.
}
\label{fig:digital_report}
\vspace{-1mm}
\end{figure}
The proliferation of space-based sensors collecting images of the Earth has called for the development of advanced AI and imaging techniques to extract ship features and identities to improve the surveillance capability.
In particular, and analogous to many other scientific fields, deep neural network (DNN) techniques for detection and segmentation of specific targets from satellite images have recently received increasing interest.
Advanced AI and DNN techniques allow, for example, the production of a ``digital report'' for any satellite image by performing vessel detection, segmentation,
classification, and identification: by estimating ships dimensions and headings, and by providing geographic coordinates and timestamp.
Fig.~\ref{fig:digital_report} shows some examples of satellite images augmented by a digital report for each detected ship.
In this section, we provide a review of the main AI and statistical techniques for target detection, segmentation and classification in images acquired by satellite sensors.
\vspace{-2mm}
\subsection{DNN Architectures for Satellite Image Segmentation and Target Classification }
\label{subsec:main_architectures_obj_class}
Complex DNNs with multiple hidden layers and neurons can be used for satellite image segmentation and target classification. The training of these requires large labeled datasets, and this is naturally demanding both of storage and of computational power. Graphical processing units (GPUs) are the key to address the computational demand.
Data augmentation techniques, such as cropping, padding and flipping, enable practitioners to significantly increase the diversity of data images available to train large DNN models, without actually collecting new images~\cite[Ch. 7]{GooBenCou:B16}.
For image segmentation and target classification, convolutional neural network (CNN) architectures are the most common~\cite[Ch. 9]{GooBenCou:B16}, since they allow for an efficient analysis of image textures, i.e., the contextual signal from the neighbouring pixels of a pixel under test. During the training phase of a CNN, features automatically extracted from a set of training images are assessed to understand (learn) which of them are the most suitable and relevant to perform segmentation and/or classification.
Nowadays, the most used CNN architectures are the SegNet~\cite{Kendall:J15}, the U-Net~\cite{Ronnebergem:J15,CapobiancoSM18,GargiuloDIRR19}, and the Mask R-CNN~\cite{HeGkDoGi:C17}. The first two are fully-connected CNNs and they are mostly used for pixel-wise classification; the Mask R-CNN, instead, is a regional CNN mostly used to perform image segmentation by providing as output bounding boxes around the identified targets. Fig.~\ref{fig:u-NetModel} depicts a general workflow example of a satellite image segmentation task based on the U-Net architecture.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{./Figures/U-NetModel3}
\caption{General workflow example of a satellite image segmentation task based on the U-Net architecture. The chosen DNN architecture is trained to perform pixel-wise classification (target/no-target) using a training dataset of pre-processed satellite images that have been segmented manually in accordance with the ground-truth (training phase). During this phase, the U-Net model parameters are optimized by minimizing an appropriate cost function. The trained U-Net model is then used to perform pixel-wise classification on a test satellite image (testing phase). Concretely, a test satellite image is divided into $N$ sub-images; for each sub-image $i$, the final Softmax layer in the U-Net model assigns a classification score to each pixel. The segmented satellite image is eventually obtained by averaging the scores assigned to each pixel in the overlapping sub-images.
}
\label{fig:u-NetModel}
\vspace{-1mm}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Use Cases: AI Techniques for Satellite Image Segmentation and Classification}
\label{subsec:use_case_dataset}
The first use case that we present is to detect ships and extract important features, e.g, position, width, length, heading and other relevant information, from very high resolution (VHR) optical satellite images by means of CNNs. The training dataset consists of about 200000 VHR images, with spatial resolution of approximately 1.5 m and dimension 768 by 768 pixels, acquired by the GeoEye, SPOT, Pleiades and Black Sky satellites. The inference, i.e., the testing of the CNN, is performed on new images acquired by the same sensors. A Mask R-CNN architecture is used, and Fig.~\ref {fig:rawSegmentation}-(a) shows an example result of the segmentation task: detected ships are surrounded by bounding boxes and highlighted with different colors.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{./Figures/rawSegmentation_new}
\caption{
(a) Example result of the segmentation task on VHR images (first use case): detected ships are surrounded by bounding boxes and highlighted with different colors. (b) Example result of the segmentation task ran over a validation dataset of HR images (second use case): left-hand side images represent the ground-truth, i.e., ships are manually extracted, while the right-hand side images represents the output of the segmentation task.}
\label{fig:rawSegmentation}
\end{figure}
The second use case is the segmentation of high resolution (HR) images, with spatial resolution of about 10 m. A real dataset of HR images for training and testing is not available. However, a synthetic dataset is obtained by degrading 10000 VHR images acquired by SPOT satellite, by means of appropriate computer vision techniques, such as the pyramid representation~\cite{adelson1984}, in which an image is subject to repeated smoothing and subsampling. The type of architecture employed in this case is the U-Net, and Fig.~\ref{fig:rawSegmentation}-(b) represents an example result of the segmentation task ran over a validation dataset of HR images. In particular, the left-hand side images of Fig.~\ref{fig:rawSegmentation}-(b) represent the ground-truth, i.e., ships are manually extracted, while the right-hand side images represents the output of the segmentation task.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{./Figures/FrontAndBack}
\caption{Stern and bow classification for detected ships in clipped satellite images acquired by S-2.}
\label{fig:SternAndBow}
\end{figure}
The third use case is related to the classification between ship stern and bow by means of a ResNet34~\cite{HeZhangRenSun:C16} architecture. The training dataset is composed of satellite images acquired by Sentinel-2 (S-2), from which detected ships are clipped, manually divided into stern and bow, and labelled. Fig.~\ref{fig:SternAndBow} represents the results of the classification.
In order to have a more complete view of the maritime situational picture, DNNs can be also conceived to discriminate among different types of vessels, by exploiting the heterogeneous information contained in historical Sat-AIS messages. In particular, the information provided by historical Sat-AIS data, e.g., ship width, length, and type, can be used to train neural networks to classify vessels into 14 categories derived by the AIS ship type, i.e., anti pollution-law, medical-non-conflict, cargo, dredging-military-sailboat, fishing, high speed craft, other-unknown-reserved, passenger, pilot boat, pleasure, search and rescue, tanker, tug-towing, wing in ground-effect. The neural network architecture used to perform this classification task consists of 2 hidden layers, the first with 200 neurons and the second with 100 neurons, and of an output layer of 14 neurons, with each neuron providing the probability of belonging to the respective category.
During the inference phase, the neural network utilizes the information, e.g., length, width and area, provided by a segmentation task on VHR or HR satellite images, to categorize each of the detected vessels into one of the 14 classes.
\section{Extracting Knowledge from Sat-AIS Data}
\label{sec:Sat-AIS_data}
Sat-AIS is a revolutionary technology to obtain a comprehensive and global picture of maritime traffic, including that of areas far from ports and shore.
AIS messages can be collected by low Earth orbit satellite systems and provide a global capability for maritime traffic monitoring using constellations of
satellites and a network of globally distributed ground-based stations.
This offers several benefits, including enhanced monitoring of fine-scale vessel behavior and traffic patterns, improved ability to identify potential threats, and more cost-effective use of assets.
The global coverage enabled by space-based technology is a key feature that led Sat-AIS to become the major source, by volume and coverage, of maritime traffic information for global-scale monitoring.
Nowadays, AIS data has been of increasing value, not only for ships themselves, but especially for coast guards, naval forces, and other marine operational authorities that can exploit such data to improve
MS.
The availability of global datasets provided by Sat-AIS technology opens up new ways
to extract valuable knowledge for MS.
However, with the increase of the available Sat-AIS data to massive scales, computational strategies must cope with challenges typically faced when collecting, storing, querying, and processing globally distributed datasets of considerable size. Vast amounts of data tend to overwhelm human operators and call for approaches with a high degree of automation.
Furthermore, standard algorithms are proving to be unable to deal with the non-idealities (e.g., erroneous, incomplete, intermittent, or counterfeit information) of such datasets.
As an example, in contrast with traditional positional measurements, Sat-AIS messages are irregularly-sampled, with an update interval usually dependent on the specific vessel's kinematic behaviour.
Moreover, ships can enter and exit the receivers' network coverage; or, worse,
intentionally disable Sat-AIS transmitters.
All this can lead to surveillance gaps that range from several minutes to many hours.
From this perspective, the success of future surveillance systems using maritime data will increasingly require to combine statistical, big data analytics, and AI techniques in order to handle
all the aforementioned challenges introduced by AIS datasets.
\subsection{AIS-based Maritime Traffic Knowledge Discovery}
\label{sec:ext_stat_hist_AIS_data}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{.5\columnwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\columnwidth]{Figures/routes_1}
\vspace{3mm}
\end{minipage}
\\
\begin{minipage}{.5\columnwidth}
\centering
\hspace*{-1mm}\includegraphics[width=.9\columnwidth]{Figures/routes_2}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Maritime traffic graphs (MTGs) extracted from AIS data obtained in the North sea (upper figure) and in the Mediterranean sea (lower figure).}
\end{figure}
One of the biggest challenges to improve MS is capitalising on the increasingly available stream of AIS data by turning this information into
actionable
knowledge of the maritime situational picture
at global scale.
In recent years,
a significant body of research has been dedicated to the development of
new methodologies in support of MS
that aim at learning, from historical AIS data, motion patterns of ships, i.e., recurrent sea routes and statistical analytics about the dynamics, density and types of vessels that, if well-characterised, can be beneficial for different MS applications such as anomaly detection, knowledge-based tracking, classification, and long-term prediction of vessels.
Knowledge discovery of maritime traffic patterns from AIS data can be broadly classified \cite{survey19,Zissis20} into statistics-grid-, and vector-based methods.
In addition, machine learning tools have been recently explored to encode AIS historical (training) data for vessel trajectory prediction~\cite{Zissis2017,Nguyen2018,icassp20}.
Common statistics-based techniques \cite{Cazza16,Li16} focus on analysing the available data in order to provide a visual representation and quantitative modelling of the
fundamental statistical analytics.
Grid-based methods \cite{Bomb06,Ristic08,Xiao17}
divide the area of interest into a spatial grid of indexed cells, each dealing with the static and dynamic properties of those vessels that
passed through
the specific element of the grid.
This presents the benefit of reducing the overall scale of the information extraction process, as well as the storage for fast query/search operations.
On the other hand, vector-based methods use a vectorial representation of maritime traffic, as sea routes are considered as a set of links connecting waypoints.
This allows for high compactness of the waypoints and traffic routes representation at a global scale.
A vector-based approach based on point clustering is the traffic route extraction for anomaly detection (TREAD) algorithm developed in~\cite{Pallo13}.
TREAD generates a set of historical patterns of life represented by waypoint and route features, where waypoints are defined as stationary objects like ports and offshore platforms or entry/exit points.
Successful advancements on vector-based knowledge discovery~\cite{Coscia2018,oceans2019}
have recently led to the development of
an unsupervised graph-based methodology
to identify the spatiotemporal dynamics of ship routes, and
efficiently extract a compact representation of global maritime patterns
from large volumes of historical AIS data, in the form of a maritime traffic graph (MTG).
This method builds on recent advances in long-term vessel motion modeling~\cite{Millefiori2016,Millefiori2016-2} whereby the dynamics of ships can be effectively described by a piecewise Ornstein-Uhlenbeck (OU) mean-reverting stochastic process. This approach, extensively validated against real-world datasets~\cite{Millefiori2015,Millefiori2016}, relies on model parameters that change only at waypoints (places where ships regularly stop or change their velocity).
The OU model makes it possible to
statistically represent with increased accuracy the dynamics of maritime traffic,
associate sparse (in space and time) measurements to tracks,
and hence
synthesize historical ship trajectories into a sequence of waypoints
connected together by a network of
navigational legs (with non-maneuvering motion between waypoints).
The MTG method works in an unsupervised way, is computationally efficient, and can deal with big data processing models and paradigms.
The effectiveness of the proposed methodology has been successfully demonstrated on real-world extensive AIS datasets
collected in the Iberian Coast and English Channel areas \cite{Coscia2018},
as well as
during the validation phase in four operational trials of the EU-H2020 project for maritime integrated surveillance awareness (MARISA) \cite{oceans2019}.
Starting from raw AIS streams,
the MTG model can be automatically extracted based on the following key data processing steps as also shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:diagram_MTG}:
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\columnwidth]{./Figures/Diagram_MTG}
\caption{General workflow for the extraction of a MTG model. Tracks initially extracted from historical AIS data are used as input (top-left map: 19009 AIS tracks). In the first step, waypoints for each AIS track are identified by a statistical procedure for change detection based on the OU dynamic model (top-right map: 162662 detected waypoints). In the second step, the identified waypoints are then clustered to identify specific geospatial regions where waypoints are concentrated (bottom-right map: 2286 clusters with each cluster identified by a color). During the final step pruning and merging techniques can be used to encode ships' patterns in a lower-dimensional graph representation (bottom-left map: 99 nodes and 401 edges).
}
\label{fig:diagram_MTG}
\vspace{-1mm}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Detection of navigational waypoints}
Based on the OU dynamic model for accurate long-term ship prediction, statistical procedures for change detection~\cite{Millefiori2017,Coscia2018} can be applied to identify specific geospatial waypoints where the mean long-term velocity parameter of the underlying OU process tends to change.
The detected waypoints represent:
i) ports, where a ship's speed is null either before (leaving the port) or after the change (entering the port);
ii) navigational waypoints, where the direction of the ship changes (while the speed is possibly constant);
iii) entry, exit, and entry/exit points,
i.e. virtual boundary regions of the area of interest that
summarise
the entering and exiting traffic.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:diagram_MTG}-(top-right map) a total of 162662 waypoints are identified during this step.
\subsubsection{Clustering of navigational waypoints}
\label{sec:clustering}
Based on the assumption that most maritime traffic is inherently regular, change points are expected to be concentrated around specific geospatial regions.
To find these significant waypoint areas, standard density-based clustering techniques (such as density-based spatial clustering of applications with noise (DBSCAN)~\cite{dbscan}) can be used in order to group together multiple change points into a lower number of distinct waypoint clusters.
Intuitively, a clustering algorithm will look for regions where navigational change points are very close in the feature space and will identify outliers as points lying in low-density regions.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:diagram_MTG}-(bottom-right map) a total of 2286 clusters are found during this step (each cluster is identified by a color).
\subsubsection{Merging and pruning procedures}
When clustering algorithms are applied to large-scale real-world datasets involving a huge number of data points,
the output generated by such unsupervised classification will usually need some post-processing.
To this end, pruning and merging techniques can be used to progressively improve and simplify the overall MTG by reducing the number of graph entities (i.e., nodes and edges), and thus implicitly encode knowledge about ships' patterns using a lower-dimensional representation.
The number of graph edges can be reduced by eliminating those links characterized by low weights, these being least likely to represent recurrent patterns; and by merging closely-spaced
edges (connecting waypoints in a cluster with waypoints in a different cluster) into
one, as these are more efficiently represented by a single route.
Fig.~\ref{fig:diagram_MTG}-(bottom-left image) represents the resulting MTG which consists of 99 nodes and 401 edges.
As a result, the structure of maritime traffic in the area of interest during a reference time interval
can be represented, using graph formalism,
by a directed graph
$\mathcal{G} = (\mathcal{N},\mathcal{E})$
where $\mathcal{N} = \{1,2,...,N\}$ is the set of nodes, and $\mathcal{E} \subseteq \mathcal{N} \times \mathcal{N}$ is the set of edges.
In particular, it is supposed that $(i, j)$ belongs to $\mathcal{E}$ if and only if there are ship tracks with two consecutive waypoints $i$ and $j$, where node $i$ is the predecessor of node $j$.
In this way, the adjacency matrix of the graph
$\mathcal{A}$
can be directly constructed from the raw ship tracks data (i.e., time-ordered lists of AIS messages) by simply identifying the transitions (and associated direction) of ships from a generic pair of nodes.
We naturally assume that $(i,i) \notin \mathcal{E}$ for any $i \in \mathcal{N}$, so that diagonal elements
of $\mathcal{A}$ are set to zero, i.e. $\mathcal{G}$ is a directed simple graph
with no self-loops.
A graph of order (i.e., number of nodes) $|\mathcal{N}|=N$ and size (i.e., number of edges) $|\mathcal{E}|=L$ is denoted as $\mathcal{G}(N,L)$.
In conclusion, the extracted waypoints -- nodes and edges of the MTG -- can be represented as vector features with different attributes directly extrapolated from the available AIS messages or computed during the graph extraction phase.
The attributes of each graph entity will include aggregate georeferenced data and statistical analytics about the identified maritime patterns.
The resulting geospatial information layer, that can be directly used for efficient mapping, query and search operations, serves as a baseline reference of maritime traffic for different MS applications.
\subsection{Maritime Anomaly Detection}
\label{sec:anomaly_detection}
Contextual information about historical maritime traffic extracted through knowledge discovery methods discussed in Section~\ref{sec:ext_stat_hist_AIS_data}
can be highly beneficial
as prior information on the nominal dynamic behaviour of vessels
to determine when anomalous activities are happening.
Common threats in the maritime domain include
drug smuggling, piracy and terrorism,
illegal
immigration,
marine pollution,
prohibited imports/exports, or illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing.
Recently, anomaly detection strategies have been explored and applied in maritime traffic monitoring
\cite{Ristic08,Lane10,Kowalska12,Vespe12,Enrica18,Enrica18-B}
in order to detect unexpected ship stops or unexpected changes in course, i.e. any vessel's anomalous deviation from the standard route
that might be related to an activity that requires closer attention.
Most research on maritime anomaly detection~\cite{Ristic08,Lane10,Kowalska12,Vespe12}
relies on two steps: i) knowledge discovery of maritime traffic patterns from historical data, and
ii) anomaly detection via unsupervised learning.
More recently, an innovative statistical framework \cite{Enrica18,Enrica18-B} that combines the available
context data with a parametric model of the vessel's kinematic behaviour has received special attention.
Unlike other works \cite{Ristic08,Lane10,Kowalska12,Vespe12}, here the formulation of maritime anomaly detection is based on the OU dynamic model \cite{Millefiori2016}.
While it is useful that the OU model represents targets' motion in terms of speed and direction, its key strength
is its greatly reduced prediction uncertainties: deviations from prediction are less easily explained as random
noise than they would be if other models were used.
This line of research
has focused on
the development of anomaly detection strategies that provide the ability to
reveal vessel deviations from standard navigational routes as well as \textit{dark} deviations in the presence of possibly intentional
surveillance gaps (due to AIS disablements or limited sensor coverage).
Using the OU model to represent the vessel dynamics and contextual information to define the nominal behaviour at sea, the anomaly detector
in~\cite{Enrica18,Enrica18-B}
runs a hypothesis testing procedure -- the generalized likelihood ratio test --
to make decisions on the existence of anomalous deviations within a given time window relying upon the available measurements (e.g. AIS, radar, SAR).
This method, successfully applied to a real-world rendezvous detection scenario in \cite{Enrica18-B}, can integrate measurements from multiple sources and handle different levels of data unavailability.
The use of multiple heterogeneous measurements associated with the vessel under track, e.g., AIS messages combined with non-cooperative contacts from coastal surveillance radar networks or satellite networks,
can lead to a significant improvement of detection performance.
From the end-user perspective, this method enables operators to establish the detection false alarm rate, which is a well-known issue for maritime command and control systems.
Moreover, such an automatic detector enables quick reaction of human operators to anomalies at sea with much improved chances of a productive operation for surveillance and intercept units.
Further advances led to the design of
a probabilistic joint anomaly detection and tracking methodology \cite{fusion18,icassp19}
for sequential detection of maritime anomalous deviations and simultaneous vessel tracking
where new contacts are periodically available based on surveillance coverage and reporting frequencies.
This is motivated by the fact that maritime anomaly detection would ideally be performed in real-time, as new observations become available.
This method allows for a mathematical definition of nominal vessel behaviour based on the combination of the OU dynamic model and context information extracted from historical data.
The key idea behind this approach is to represent any anomalous deviation as a switching unknown control input that goes into action by modifying the nominal object dynamics,
i.e., the OU mean velocity parameter.
As a result, anomaly detection and target tracking can be recast as a
special Bayesian state estimation problem for which recent advances on hybrid Bernoulli filtering~\cite{rnc2019} can be used.
This Bayesian framework has been extended in \cite{icassp19}
where an adaptive version,
based on the multiple-model approach \cite{BarWilTia:B11},
of the single-model
joint anomaly detection and tracking filter
has been derived
to handle unknown parameters in the underlying vessel dynamics.
\section{Bayesian Information Fusion and MTT for MS}
\label{sec:radars_ms_overview_info}
The main purpose of a multisensor MTT algorithm is to sequentially determine the number of ships in the MS area and estimate their states, e.g., position, velocity, course, and heading, by exploiting measurements from multiple heterogeneous sensors. The measurements are noisy observations of the kinematics, dimensions, shapes, or other features of the targets that can also be output of a classifier. The MTT problem thus consists of a detection step and an estimation step; mathematically, these can be formalized as follows. We denote with $\V{x}_n = [\V{x}_{n,1}^\text{T} \cdots \V{x}_{n,K_n}^\text{T}]^\text{T}$ the unknown states of $K_n$ targets at time $n$, with $\V{z}_n^{(s)} = [\V{z}_{n,1}^{(s)\text{T}} \cdots \V{z}^{(s)\text{T}}_{n,M_n^{(s)}}]^{\text{T}}$ the $M_n^{(s)}$ measurements generated by sensor $s$ at time $n$ and with $\V{z}$ all the measurements from all sensors up to time $n$.
Fig.~\ref{fig:example_measurements} represents examples of measurements $\V{z}_{n,m}^{(s)}$ that could be extracted from a MSP image acquired by a S-2 optical sensor by means of a segmentation and classification technique, as described in Section~\ref{subsec:main_architectures_obj_class}.
Based on the measurements $\V{z}$, the likelihood functions $f(\V{z}_{n,m}^{(s)} | \V{x}_{n,k})$ and the probability density functions (pdfs) $f(\V{x}_{n,k} | \V{x}_{n-1,k})$, e.g., the OU dynamic model, we wish to
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textit{(Detection step)} estimate the number of targets $\hat{K}_n$;
\item \textit{(Estimation step)} estimate the target states $\hat{\V{x}}_{n} = [\hat{\V{x}}_{n,1}, \ldots, \hat{\V{x}}_{n,\hat{K}_n}]$.
\end{enumerate}
In a Bayesian formulation, the estimation step
essentially amounts to calculating at each time $n$,
the posterior pdfs $f(\V{x}_{n,k} | \V{z} )$ of the states $\V{x}_{n,k}$ given all the measurements up to current time $\V{z}$.
MTT methods have to cope with various challenges, for example, the heterogeneity of the different information sources \cite{VivoneBH15_53,MeyBraWilHla:J17,MeyKroWilLauHlaBraWin:J18},
and the measurement-origin uncertainty (MOU), i.e., the fact that it is unknown which target (if any) generated which measurement.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.5\columnwidth]{./Figures/measurementsExample}
\caption{Example of measurements $\V{z}_{n,m}$ (sensor index $s$ is omitted for clarity) extracted from four detected ships in a MSP image acquired by S-2 satellite. In this example scenario, each measurement $\V{z}_{n,m}$ consists of the range $\rho_{n,m}$, the bearing $\theta_{n,m}$, length $l_{n,m}$ and the width $w_{n,m}$ of the detected ships.}
\label{fig:example_measurements}
\end{figure}
Existing MTT algorithms can be broadly classified as ``vector-type'' algorithms, such as the joint probabilistic data association (JPDA) filter \cite{BarWilTia:B11} and the multiple hypothesis tracker (MHT) \cite{Rei:J79,ChongMR18}, and ``set-type'' algorithms, such as the (cardinalized) probability hypothesis density
filter \cite{Mah:B07,Mah:J03,Mah:J07,VoVoCan:J07}
and multi-Bernoulli filters \cite{Mah:B07,VoVoCan:J09}.
Vector-type algorithms represent the multitarget states and measurements by random vectors, whereas set-type algorithms represent them
by random finite sets.
Algorithms of both types have been developed and evaluated~\cite{PonsforW10_18,MarescaBHG14_52}.
Several limitations have been noted. First, the fusion of heterogeneous
information sources is not straightforward. Second, they do not adapt to time-varying model parameters. And third, their complexity usually does not scale well in relevant system parameters, e.g., the number of sensors.
\subsection{SPA-based Multisensor MTT Algorithm}
\label{sec:multisensor_multitarget_tracking_SPA}
An emerging approach to MTT and information fusion -- one with flexibility, low complexity and useful scalability -- is based on a factor graph and the \emph{sum-product algorithm} (SPA)~\cite{MeyBraWilHla:J17,MeyKroWilLauHlaBraWin:J18,GagSolMeyHlaBraFarWin:J20}.
First, a factor graph representing the statistical model of the MTT problem is derived; then, the SPA is used to obtain a principled and intuitive approximation of the Bayesian inference needed for targets detection and estimation.
A major advantage of the SPA is its ability to
exploit conditional independence properties of random variables for a drastic reduction of complexity; thereby, SPA-based MTT algorithms can achieve an attractive
performance-complexity compromise (see \cite{MeyKroWilLauHlaBraWin:J18} and references therein), making them suitable for large-scale tracking scenarios involving a large number of targets, sensors, and measurements, and allowing their use on resource-limited devices.
The SPA's versatility and intuitiveness
has enabled the establishment of a suite of Bayesian multisensor MTT tracking and information fusion algorithms
where,
similar to
a construction kit system,
algorithm parts can be combined, extended, or adapted to achieve desired functionalities and properties.
SPA-based MTT algorithms can be extended to fuse heterogeneous data, e.g., terrestrial radars, SAR, optical sensors, and AIS. They can incorporate different dynamic models such as nearly constant velocity (NCV) or OU. They can also be designed to infer time-varying model parameters, such as detection probabilities of radar sensors; and to select an index from a menu of multiple target motion models.
The use of SPA-based MTT algorithm is promising due to the highly efficient solution of the MOU problem combined with sequential Monte Carlo techniques, and is potentially suitable for arbitrary non-linear and non-Gaussian problems.
The SPA-based MTT algorithm estimates the number of targets $K_n$ and their state at each time $n$ by efficiently solving the MOU problem and calculating the beliefs $\tilde{f}(\V{x}_{n,k})$, which approximates the marginal posterior pdfs $f(\V{x}_{n,k} | \V{z})$, by employing an iterative version of the SPA on a suitably devised factor graph~\cite{MeyBraWilHla:J17,MeyKroWilLauHlaBraWin:J18}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{./Figures/exampleDistributions_v13}
\caption{An example of factor graph
for the case of two targets and two measurements produced by a single sensor.
In addition, the previous, predicted, and current beliefs for the two targets are shown.}
\label{fig:exampleDistribution}
\end{figure*}
The SPA approach is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:exampleDistribution} via a simple 2-target example with two measurements and a single sensor.
It is structured into four sections that refer to various beliefs and/or operations within the SPA-based MTT algorithm.
The \textit{previous belief} for target $k \! \in \! \{1,2 \}$ approximates the marginal posterior pdf of the previous state $\V{x}_{k,n-1}$, i.e., $f(\V{x}_{k,n-1} | \V{z}^-)$,
which is represented by the factor node ``$f^{-}_{k}$'' in Fig.~\ref{fig:exampleDistribution}, and where $\V{z}^-$ denotes all the measurements up to time $n-1$.
In the \textit{prediction} step, the previous belief is converted into the \textit{predicted belief}, which approximates the pdf $f(\V{x}_{n,k}|\V{z}^-)$. The prediction is performed by utilizing an appropriate dynamic model $f(\V{x}_{n,k}|\V{x}_{n-1,k})$, which is represented by the factor node ``$f_{k}$''. When the time interval between two consecutive time steps is large, e.g., in the order of hours, as for the case of two consecutive SAR images, the OU dynamic model can be used to reduce the prediction uncertainty.
In the \textit{measurement update and data association} step, the measurements $\V{z}_{n,1}^{(1)}$ and $\V{z}_{n,2}^{(1)}$ are used to evaluate the likelihoods $f(\V{z}_{n,m}^{(1)}|\V{x}_{n,k})$ and solve the MOU problem as described in~\cite{MeyKroWilLauHlaBraWin:J18}.
This results in the \textit{current belief}, which approximates the current marginal posterior pdf $f (\V{x}_{n,k} | \V{z})$ at time step $n$.
The current belief is centered around the current measurement and it is used for target detection and
for state estimation at the current time step $n$.
In addition to the factor graph, Fig.\ \ref{fig:exampleDistribution} also visualizes the previous, predicted, and current beliefs for the first and second target in the upper and lower three-dimensional plots,
respectively. The arrows in the lefthand plots represent the trajectories of the targets.
Because of the uncertainty of target-measurement association and the proximity of the two targets,
the current beliefs are bimodal.
The smaller of the two modes is centered roughly at the position of the respective other target.
\subsubsection{Multiple Dynamic Models and Integration of Contextual Information}
\label{subsubsec:adapting_dyn_models}
Many tracking scenarios, such as those involving maneuvering targets, require the use of different dynamic models in different time periods in order to better describe targets that maneuver, such as alternating between NCV and constant turn-rate motion models.
Therefore, following an interacting multiple model approach \cite[Ch.~11]{BarRonKir:01}, the evolution of the state of a target can be modelled by means of a set %
of possible dynamic models. A dynamic model (DM) index $\ell_{n,k}$ is introduced for each target $k$ to select the most appropriate DM at time $n$~\cite{SoldiB:C18,SoldiMBH:J19}.
The DM indices $\ell_{n,k}$
are modeled as discrete random variables that are independent across targets and evolve in time
according to a Markov chain.
Bayesian inference on the DM indices $\ell_{n,k}$ and the target states $\V{x}_{n,k}$ can be still be performed by running the SPA algorithm on a suitable devised factor graph.
Similarly, the multiple DM formalism can be used to improve the performance of an MTT algorithm by integrating geographic information about standard maritime routes, e.g., MTGs obtained by historical Sat-AIS data, as explained in Section~\ref{sec:ext_stat_hist_AIS_data}.
In particular, each navigational leg of an MTG, i.e., an edge $(i,j)$ connecting waypoint $i$ to waypoint $j$, can be associated to a specific dynamic model characterized by a dominant direction, that is, from waypoint $i$ to waypoint $j$. Still, a discrete random variable $\ell_{n,k}$ can be introduced to select the DM, that is the maritime route, that the target is following at time $n$~\cite{SoldiGMHBFW:C19}.
The evolution of $\ell_{n,k}$ is again model
ed by a Markov chain.
This results in a multisensor MTT algorithm that
automatically takes into account the knowledge of standard
maritime routes.
\subsubsection{Fusion of Sat-AIS information}
\label{subsec:surveillance}
The SPA-based MTT algorithm can also be extended to fuse information coming from a Sat-AIS system~\cite{GaglioneBS:C18,SoldiGMHBFW:C19}. The fusion of this information is often difficult due to the asynchronicity and sparsity of the Sat-AIS messages, and the non-trivial association between messages and targets. Indeed, although each Sat-AIS message usually includes a unique maritime mobile service identity (MMSI), this may be absent, or mistaken for a different MMSI, or observed for the first time, in which case no prior information is available on the target-message association.
The SPA-based MTT method can be efficiently extended to fuse Sat-AIS messages and measurements obtained from SAR, optical images, or other sensors, and to identify (or label) each detected ship by means of the MMSI. The label associated to each target is modelled as a discrete random variable: marginal posterior pdfs of the targets states $\V{x}_{n,k}$ and of the labels can still be efficiently obtained by running the SPA algorithm on a factor graph derived by the underlying statistical formulation of the problem.
\subsubsection{Classification-Aided SPA-based Multitarget Tracking}
\label{subsec:class_aided_multitarget_tracking}
As explained in Section~\ref{subsec:main_architectures_obj_class}, modern deep learning segmentation and classification techniques are able to provide, in addition to kinematic data, class information for detected ships in satellite images. This information assigns each ship to one category among a predefined finite set of categories, e.g., cargo, dredging-military-sailboat, fishing, high speed craft, other-unknown-reserved, passenger or pilot boat.
The SPA-based MTT approach can be efficiently extended for the exploitation of imperfect
\textit{class} information.
This class information allows, for instance, the use of
class-dependent DMs or measurement models. As a consequence, the inclusion of class information greatly improves the performance of the SPA-based MTT algorithm~\cite{GagSolBraMagMeyHla:J19,SoldiGDBSFTP:C20}.
\subsection{Use case scenario: SPA-based MTT to Fuse AIS Data and SAR Measurements}
\label{subsec:use_case_scenario}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.5\columnwidth]{./Figures/UseCase_scenario}
\caption{(Left images) Subsampled (5x times) quicklook SAR images acquired on 9 September 2018 at 04:37 (Left-Top) and on 10 September 2018 at 04:55 (Left-Bottom) by the COSMO-SkyMed constellation. (Right Images) Full resolution SAR images showing detected ships on 9 September 2018 at 04:37 (Top-Right) and on 10 September 2018 at 04:55 (Bottom-Right). (All the images are of ASI property and processed by E-GEOS.)}
\label{fig:SAR_detections_GAIA_LEADER}
\end{figure}
The use-case scenario described in the current section aims at demonstrating how SPA-based MTT methods can be efficiently used to fuse measurements (ship detections) extracted from SAR images, which do not provide any information regarding ship identities, and the information contained in the AIS messages, i.e., ship's position and the MMSI identifier~\cite{GaglioneBS:C18,SoldiGMHBFW:C19}. The AIS messages and SAR measurements were collected from an area of the Mediterranean Sea, off the shore of Malta, in the period from 8 September 2018 at 16:30 till 12 September 2018 at 16:47. The SAR measurements are extracted from a sequence of SAR images acquired by the COSMO-SkyMed constellation, by means of AI segmentation techniques as described in Section~\ref{subsec:main_architectures_obj_class}, and consist of estimated GPS coordinates of the detected targets, i.e., latitude and longitude.
The time interval between two consecutive AIS messages is at least of 5 hours.
Fig.~\ref{fig:SAR_detections_GAIA_LEADER} shows two examples of subsampled quicklook SAR images (left column) acquired by the
COSMO-SkyMed constellation and two examples of full resolution SAR images (right column) showing detected
ships.
Due to the MOU problem, it is not known in advance whether a SAR measurement is originated from a target or is a false alarm, and, in the case it has been originated by a target, it is not known by which target.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.55\columnwidth]{./Figures/realAndEstTraj_V3_Meas_Traj}
\caption{(a) SAR (red crosses) and AIS (green triangles) measurements used by the SPA-based fusion algorithm obtained in the period from 8 September 2018 at 16:30 till 12 September 2018 at 16:47. The measurements inside the red dashed rectangle have not been considered. (b) Estimated and real (derived by AIS messages) trajectories for the vehicles carrier GAIA LEADER obtained using the SAR and AIS measurements.}
\label{fig:useCaseScenarioImage}
\end{figure}
The main purpose of this use case is therefore to fuse SAR measurements with AIS messages in order to track potential targets and also
identify them by exploiting the MMSI identifiers. The SAR measurements and AIS messages used by the SPA-based MTT method are represented in Fig.~\ref{fig:useCaseScenarioImage}-(a) by the red crosses and green triangles, respectively. The
red dashed rectangle delimits a geographical area of little interest from a tracking point of view with a large number of docked ships. Therefore, the SAR measurements and AIS messages from ships within this red dashed rectangle are discarded.
The dynamic model used to describe ship motion in the SPA-based MTT algorithm is the OU model. Estimated positions of detected targets
are calculated each time a SAR measurement is obtained, using all AIS messages gathered in the time interval between the current
and the previous SAR measurements. Besides estimating the number of targets and their positions, the algorithm associates,
when possible, an MMSI identifier to each of them. These MMSI identifiers are selected from a set consisting of all the MMSI
identifiers so far observed.
Fig.~\ref{fig:useCaseScenarioImage}-(b) shows the output of the SPA-based MTT algorithm. One can observe that in the considered time
period and area only a single target, identified by the algorithm as the vehicles carrier GAIA LEADER, is present. In particular, the red and blue lines show the real (derived by AIS messages) and estimated trajectories of the vehicles carrier GAIA LEADER.
The SPA-based MTT algorithm is therefore able to provide fused trajectories of the targets using both SAR measurements and AIS messages and allows the identification of each estimated trajectory by associating it to the most likely MMSI identifier.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusion_fut_work}
The increasing availability of multiple space-based sensors providing detailed images of the ships at sea calls for the development of advanced image analysis techniques for target detection, segmentation and classification. In a companion paper~\cite{SpaceAESM_1:J20}, we introduced and discussed several satellite technologies for Maritime Surveillance (MS). In this paper, we reported the most recent deep-learning techniques and described their effectiveness in several use cases exploiting SAR, high-resolution (HR) and very high-resolution (VHR) images.
We have presented Bayesian and allied statistical techniques to extract information (for example, common sea-lanes) from repositories of historical Sat-AIS data, and have shown how to track multiple targets using heterogeneous space-based and terrestrial sensors. Multitarget tracking (MTT) approaches based on the sum-product algorithm (SPA) have gained strong popularity thanks to their flexibility and scalability.
A use case scenario that demonstrates the fusion of measurements extracted from SAR images
acquired near the shores of Malta island with AIS messages highlights the effectiveness of the SPA-based MTT methods in the context of MS using space-based sensors.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{introduction}
As it is well known, the classical field configurations merely serve as an approximate description of the system. Within the framework of quantum field theory, the ultimate description of the state is given by a quantum state, which is an element of the physical Hilbert space. Although the classical description is extremely accurate for macroscopic systems, there could be still some cumulative quantum effects that could become relevant in time. In \cite{Dvali:2011aa,Dvali:2012en,Dvali:2012wq,Dvali:2013vxa,Dvali:2013eja,Dvali:2017eba}, the quantum corpuscular approach to classical backgrounds was developed and it was shown that the coherent state description of time-dependent systems leads to new type of quantum effects, which, in certain cases, can result in complete breakdown of the classical description. This was shown to have potentially important ramifications for systems such as black holes, de Sitter spacetime and cosmic inflation, predicting new deviations from semi-classical evolution. The importance of these considerations in the context of the beginning of inflation was discussed in \cite{Berezhiani:2015ola}\footnote{See also \cite{Berezhiani:2016grw}, where the origin of the observed density perturbations was identified, within the proposal of \cite{Dvali:2013eja}, as the quantum uncertainty in the number of inflaton constituents (with significantly screened mass-gap, due to collective gravitational effects) within the Hubble patch.}.
To be specific, let us begin by recapping the argument of \cite{Dvali:2017eba}. In a weakly interacting theory possessing a dimensionless quantum coupling $\alpha\ll 1$, one may consider a system in a quantum state with large occupation number $N$. Initially, the dynamics of such a system should be well approximated by its classical equations of motion. Usually, one may define a classical collective coupling $\alpha N$, which characterizes the strength of classical nonlinearities in the equation of motion and consequently sets the classical time-scale $t_{\rm cl}$, after which nonlinear corrections to the classical dynamics become important, even if initially the system was prepared in a state well-described by free waves. Quantum mechanically, the latter corresponds to the expectation value of the quantum field in a coherent state, with the mean occupation number determined by the amplitude of the wave in question. It was argued in \cite{Dvali:2017eba} that the quantum scattering among the constituent quanta should lead to the decoherence of the coherent state, which in turn might cause a quantum departure from the classical evolution, with a time-scale of significant deviation estimated as
\begin{eqnarray}
t_{\rm q}=\frac{t_{\rm cl}}{\alpha}\,;
\label{introtq}
\end{eqnarray}
referred to as \textit{quantum break-time} in \cite{Dvali:2017eba}\footnote{However, it was shown in \cite{Dvali:2013vxa} that the quantum break-time is in general shorter for systems near criticality (i.e. $\alpha N=1$) and possessing semi-classical Lyapunov exponent.}. There, these concepts were shown to take a particularly simple form, when applied to the massive scalar field with quartic self-interaction. For this system, a harmonically oscillating homogeneous field represents an accurate solution to the full nonlinear equation on timescales
\begin{eqnarray}
t\ll t_{\rm cl}\equiv\frac{1}{\omega (\alpha N)}\,;
\label{introtcl}
\end{eqnarray}
where, according to the notation of \cite{Dvali:2017eba}, $\omega$ is the classical frequency of harmonic oscillations, the quantum coupling $\alpha\equiv \hbar \lambda$ is connected to the classical parameter $\lambda$ of quartic nonlinearity (with $\alpha\rightarrow 0$ in the classical limit of vanishing Planck's constant $\hbar\rightarrow 0$) and the occupation number (within the Compton volume $\sim \omega^{-3}$) $N=\frac{A^2}{\hbar \omega^2}$ is determined in terms of the amplitude $A$ of the classical wave; implying the independence of $t_{\rm cl}$ from $\hbar$. Representing the classical background as a coherent state of zero-momentum particles and estimating the rate of quantum-breaking using $2\rightarrow 2$ scattering of constituent quanta, it was shown in \cite{Dvali:2017eba} that the quantum break-time reduces to the general expression \eqref{introtq}. Although $t_{\rm q}\gg t_{\rm cl}$, it was argued in \cite{Dvali:2017eba} that the gradual quantum decoherence is a cumulative effect and should persist even after one properly accounts for the classical nonlinearities, extending the regime of validity beyond \eqref{introtcl}. Similar results were reproduced for axions in \cite{Dvali:2017ruz}. Recently, analogous conclusions on quantum breaking were drawn in \cite{Kovtun:2020ndc,Kovtun:2020kcl} , based on numerical analysis within the so-called \textit{2-Particle-Irreducible} (2PI) formalism for $(1+1)$-dimensional self-interacting scalar field theory with a conserved charge.
The adoption of these arguments to certain physical systems has staggering ramifications, as we have mentioned at the beginning of this section. Focusing on cosmic inflation, for concreteness, we reiterate the proposal of \cite{Dvali:2013eja} and its consequences for the paradigm. Let us further restrict the discussion to the so-called ``$m^2\phi^2$-model'', for simplicity. At the end of the slow-roll phase, the scalar field begins to oscillate and behaves as a non-relativistic condensate. A quantum state corresponding to such a configuration consists of large number of zero-momentum $\phi$-particles. The gravitational background sourced by such a quantum condensate was argued to represent some sort of a condensate as well, constructed around the Minkowski vacuum by gravitational degrees of freedom. The motivation for the latter is obvious, if one ware to drain the scalar condensate the gravitational configuration would approach the Minkowski space. Rewinding time to the slow-roll stage of inflation, the similar description was suggested to hold. Although, due to significant change in the classical dynamics, the degrees of freedom making up the condensates can go significantly off-shell. In \cite{Dvali:2013eja}, the properties of the gravitational condensate, i.e. the dispersion relation of constituents, was determined by demanding the reproduction of the semi-classical properties of the quasi-de Sitter space. Quantum processes such as particle production during inflation was identified as the scattering among the condensate constituents. For example, the microscopic process behind the production of gravitational waves was identified as the annihilation of the quanta making up the gravitational background. This led to the conclusion that if these processes last long enough the quantum depletion of the background should become significant and invalidate the semiclassical description. In fact, it was established that if inflaton starts out in the regime of slow-roll eternal inflation (self-reproduction), the dynamics should become fully quantum before the scalar field reaches the bottom of the potential and ends inflation.
The goal of this work is to start taking first steps towards establishing the link between the S-matrix estimates of \cite{Dvali:2013eja} and the rigorous real-time dynamics of coherent states for setups such as cosmic inflation. As it will become clear shortly, the scope of the current work is limited and is by no means directly applicable to cosmological frameworks. However, our analysis provides an important foundation for more sophisticated analysis by pinpointing the possible advantages of designing the states in its entirety.
In general, approaches to computing the corrections to the classical evolution fall in two main categories. The most commonly used one is the semiclassical analysis, in which one studies the evolution of perturbations around the classical background and evaluates the semiclassical back-reaction on the latter. The expansion, within these methods, can be organized w.r.t. different parameters (e.g. coupling, $\hbar$ and many others) and a plethora of different effects can be captured (for instance, 2PI approach capturing thermalization). See \cite{Cooper:1994hr,Habib:1995ee,Cooper:1996ii,Aarts:2000wi,Mihaila:2000sr,Berges:2001fi,Aarts:2002dj,berges,Borsanyi:2008ar} and references therein for interesting work on the subject. A useful overview of such methods, along with a complete list of relevant references can be found in \cite{calzetta}. The goal of this article is not to utilize this methods per se, but instead we will be questioning some of their underlying assumptions, as it will become clear.
The other category consists of replacing the classical background by a coherent state (since coherent states represent a proper quantum counterpart of classical field configurations) of large number of quanta and studying the evolution as a multi-particle scattering process \cite{Dvali:2011aa,Dvali:2012en,Dvali:2012wq,Dvali:2013vxa,Dvali:2013eja,Dvali:2017eba}. In cases when classical evolution is not significantly affected by interactions, the said state is made of on-shell (asymptotic) particles, as discussed above\footnote{See \cite{Glauber:1963tx,Kibble:1965zza} for the earlier work on representing classical configurations as coherent states.}. In the opposite situation, the latter approach requires invoking off-shell degrees of freedom \cite{Dvali:2013eja,Dvali:2017eba}, with the off-shell-ness connected with the properties (e.g. dispersion relation) of the constituent quanta being related to the classical background and continuously changing in case of nontrivial classical evolution.
The approach adopted in this work belongs to the second category. The distinguishing feature is the construction of coherent states out of the vacuum of the interacting theory, canonical field-operator and its conjugate momentum, without invoking asymptotic approximation for them\footnote{Our construction falls within the category of generalized coherent states; for the overview of various aspects see \cite{Zhang:1990fy}.}. Our work is, in spirit, very similar to the study of \cite{Vachaspati}, where the quantum mechanical analog case was analysed. Within our method, the initial construction is exact and valid to all orders in perturbation theory. Eventually, we are forced to perform a loop expansion for practical reasons. We show that for the leading order quantum effects it would have sufficed to construct the coherent state in terms of asymptotic particles, but our improved construction still helps with some intermediate technical steps. Furthermore, the adopted construction ensures the consistency of the perturbative expansion for the state and the dynamics; e.g. for 2-loop calculation the coupling dependence of the state appears to be relevant. Moreover, we perform a rigorous computation of nonlinear contributions to the classical dynamics and its quantum entourage, reproducing the Dvali--Gomez--Zell formula \eqref{introtq} for the quantum break-time.
In this work, we therefore study the quantum evolution of a coherent state in an interacting quantum field theory. The analysis is performed for a scalar field with quartic self-interaction, but can be straightforwardly extended to other theories (to be presented elsewhere). In particular, we study the Lagrangian\footnote{From this point forward, we will be working in units $\hbar=c=1$.}
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{L}=-\Lambda-\frac{1}{2}Z(\partial_\mu \hat{\phi})^2-\frac{1}{2}Zm^2\hat{\phi}^2-\frac{\lambda}{4!}Z^2\hat{\phi}^4\,;
\label{introlag}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Lambda$, $Z$, $m$ and $\lambda$ are the bare vacuum energy, field normalization, mass and coupling constant respectively; with all of them expected to be infinite, as usual (keeping in mind that $Z$ does not get a correction at 1-loop, whithin the theory at hand). The parameters are considered to be such that there is a single non-degenerate vacuum with vanishing field-value.
Just like in textbook calculations, we assume that there exists a vacuum state $|\Omega\rangle$ with unit norm, which is the Hamiltonian eigenstate with lowest possible eigenvalue. Then, the coherent state corresponding to a classical field configuration with $\phi_{cl}(x)$ and $\pi_{cl}(x)$ can be constructed as
\begin{eqnarray}
|C\rangle=e^{-i\int d^3 x \left( \phi_{cl}(x)\hat{\pi}(x)-\pi_{cl}(x)\hat{\phi}(x) \right)}|\Omega\rangle\,,
\end{eqnarray}
with $\pi$ standing for the conjugate momentum. The convenient property of this state is that it has unit norm and satisfies the following to all orders in $\lambda$ at the initial moment of time $t=0$
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\langle C | \hat{\phi} |C\rangle (t=0)=\phi_{cl}(x)\,,\\
&&\langle C | \hat{\pi} |C\rangle (t=0)=\pi_{cl}(x)\,.
\end{eqnarray}
We adopt two complementary methods for studying the dynamics:
\begin{itemize}
\item[ {\bf (I)}] Instead of applying standard field-theoretical methods, we propose a new approach based on the evaluation of physical quantities in a Taylor series in time $t$, elapsed since the initial moment. We calculate first several terms of the expansion, giving it initially in the form that is valid to all orders in coupling constant. Examining the coherent-state-expectation-value of the field operator, we find that all manifestly finite contributions are identical to the iterative solution to the classical equation of motion, at each calculated order in $t$. Remarkably, these are supplemented with terms involving vacuum expectation values of singular operators, some of which can be absorbed via the renormalization of parameters, while the others need to be resummed together with higher order terms in $t$. We also found that the initial acceleration of this 1-point-function does not seem to be governed by the effective potential (a la Coleman-Weinberg \cite{Coleman:1973jx}), contradicting the standard intuition. Presumably, this too needs to be resolved through the resummation.
On the flip side, one advantage of the method in question is the absence of the so-called initial-time singularity, one tends to encounter within semi-classical techniques for certain initial states for fluctuations; for the relevant discussion of the latter and the proposed resolutions see \cite{Cooper:1987pt,Baacke:1997zz,Boyanovsky:1998aa,Baacke:1999ia,calzetta}.
\item[{\bf (II)}] In the attempt to extend the analysis to finite time-intervals and to ameliorate the above-mentioned puzzle with leftover divergencies, we have reanalyzed the evolution of the one-point expectation value in a coherent state using the interaction-picture approach, by performing a coupling expansion from the get-go. It is demonstrated that the expectation value of the field-operator evolves according to the classical equations of motion, albeit with renormalized parameters, supplemented with finite (yet small) quantum corrections. The price for this elegant result is the logarithmic initial-time singularity in the second-time-derivative of the one-point function in question, along with usual spurious secular divergencies that seem to be under control for an extended period of time. As we will show, expanding the result before the final step of the calculation in a Taylor series in elapsed time, we recover the results of the previous method. Most importantly, we will discuss the caveats concerning this reproduction. Although these results are limited by a given order of classical nonlinearities, it should be straightforward to extend them to higher orders.
\end{itemize}
\vskip 5pt
Furthermore, we use method (I) to evolve the state itself and compare it to the classically evolved coherent state, finding the departure after infinitesimal interval of time with interesting contributions. In (3+1)D, these corrections appear to be divergent, without any obvious regularization in sight that could give a physically sound result. We are therefore left with the only logical conclusion that these infinities need to be resummed with higher-order corrections in infinitesimal time to give a finite final answer. Although parametrically the corrections at hand appear to be of interesting form, assertive claims do not seem possible at this point. However, we show that the results become finite in (1+1)D, providing us with a tractable departure from the classical evolution.
The goal of this article, is therefore the following: to build explicitly, at an operatorial level, the simplest possible coherent state mimicking a classical configuration and to analyze its dynamics. Our approach is orthogonal to the commonly used background field methods (e.g. \cite{Baacke:1997zz}), where initial conditions for 1-point and 2-point correlation functions are specified based on semi-classical reasoning and by requiring the absence of the initial time singularity. Our work helps to elucidate the points that are obscured within these methods. In fact, our analysis demonstrates that if (non-squeezed, i.e. simplest) coherent states constructed consistently, without even invoking asymptotic degrees of freedom and the free vacuum, are to be physical then the so-called "initial-time singularity" must be an artefact of the perturbative expansion. Or, one would have to proclaim the inconsistency of non-squeezed coherent states in four-dimensional quantum field theory in question.
The article is organized as follows. In Sec. 2, the theoretical framework is described. In Sec. 3, the main results of the time expansion are shown for a concrete coherent state, corresponding to the homogeneous classical field configuration. In particular we evaluate both the overlap between the quantum and classically evolved coherent states, and the expectation value of some operators. In Sec. 4, we perform the interaction-picture computation of the one-point expectation value in the coherent state. Finally, we summarize the results in Sec. 5 and discuss the outlook. Some of the technical details have been relegated to appendices.
\section{Setup}
\label{setup}
The Hamiltonian corresponding to the Lagrangian density \eqref{introlag} is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{H}=\int d^3x\left( \frac{1}{2}\frac{\hat{\pi}^2}{Z}+\frac{1}{2}Z(\partial_j \hat{\phi})^2+\frac{1}{2}Zm^2\hat{\phi}^2+\frac{\lambda}{4!}Z^2\hat{\phi}^4 +\Lambda\right)\,,
\label{hamilton}
\end{eqnarray}
where the conjugate momentum is given by $\hat{\pi}=Z\partial_t\hat{\phi}$. We also have the usual equal-time canonical commutation relations
\begin{eqnarray}
&&[\hat{\phi}(x,t),\hat{\pi}(y,t)]=i\delta^{(3)}(x-y)\,,\\
&&[\hat{\phi}(x,t),\hat{\phi}(y,t)]=[\hat{\pi}(x,t),\hat{\pi}(y,t)]=0\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Let us begin by constraining the parameters of the theory so that the energy density of the interacting vacuum $|\Omega\rangle$ vanishes, i.e. by requiring
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{zeroenergylevel}
\langle \Omega | \hat{\mathcal{H}} |\Omega\rangle=0\,,
\end{eqnarray}
with $\mathcal{H}$ denoting the Hamiltonian density operator. For \eqref{hamilton} we get
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \Omega | \hat{\mathcal{H}} |\Omega\rangle=\Lambda+\frac{1}{2Z}\langle \Omega | \hat{\pi}^2 |\Omega\rangle+\frac{1}{2}Z\langle \Omega | (\partial_j \hat{\phi})^2 |\Omega\rangle+\frac{1}{2}Zm^2 \langle \Omega | \hat{\phi}^2 |\Omega\rangle+\frac{\lambda}{4!}Z^2\langle \Omega | \hat{\phi}^4 |\Omega\rangle\,.
\end{eqnarray}
This can be made to vanish by adjusting the bare vacuum energy $\Lambda$ accordingly.
As already mentioned in the introduction, the coherent states of our main interest can be parameterised as
\begin{eqnarray}
|C\rangle=e^{-i\hat{f}}|\Omega\rangle\,, \quad \text{with} \quad \hat{f}\equiv \int d^3 x \left( \phi_{cl}(x)\hat{\pi}(x,0)-\pi_{cl}(x)\hat{\phi}(x,0) \right)\,.
\label{cohst}
\end{eqnarray}
As the expression speaks for itself, we have presented the state in the Heisenberg picture; moreover, notice that due to the definition of the conjugate momentum we have $\pi_{cl}=Z\dot{\phi}_{cl}$.
The Hamiltonian density \eqref{hamilton} in a coherent state \eqref{cohst} can be readily obtained, after adjusting the vacuum energy to zero, reducing to
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle C| \hat{\mathcal{H}}(x) |C \rangle(t=0)=Z\left[\frac{1}{2}\frac{\pi_{cl}^2}{Z^2}+\frac{1}{2}\left(\vec{\nabla}\phi_{cl}\right)^2+\frac{1}{2}\left(m^2+\frac{\lambda Z}{2}\langle\Omega|\hat{\phi}(x)^2 |\Omega\rangle\right)\phi_{cl}^2+\frac{\lambda}{4!}Z\phi_{cl}^4\right]\,.
\label{initiclassham}
\end{eqnarray}
Here and throughout this work, we employ the fact that $\langle\Omega| \hat{\phi}|\Omega \rangle=\langle\Omega| \hat{\phi}^3|\Omega \rangle=\langle\Omega| \hat{\pi}|\Omega \rangle=0\,,$ due to $Z_2$ symmetry.
This looks encouragingly similar to the classical expression
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{H}_{cl}=\frac{1}{2}\pi_{cl}^2+\frac{1}{2}\left(\vec{\nabla}\phi_{cl}\right)^2+\frac{1}{2}m_{\rm ph}^2\phi_{cl}^2+\frac{\lambda_{\rm ph}}{4!}\phi_{cl}^4\,.
\end{eqnarray}
However, there are important differences as well. First thing to notice is the appearance of the divergent equal-point 2-point function. At this point, one might be inclined to absorb this divergence into the mass. In other words, at 1-loop order (at which, we expect $Z=1$) one could define a physical mass and coupling as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{massrenorm1}
&&m_{\rm ph}^2\stackrel{?}{\equiv} \left(m^2+\frac{\lambda}{2}\langle\Omega|\hat{\phi}(x)^2 |\Omega\rangle\right)\,,\\
&&\lambda_{\rm ph}\stackrel{?}{\equiv}\lambda \,;
\label{eq:renormalization_vacuum}
\end{eqnarray}
which follows from identifying $\mathcal{H}_{cl}$ with the expectation value of $\hat{\mathcal{H}}$. Although the mass renormalization \eqref{massrenorm1} is of the expected form, the coupling assignment \eqref{eq:renormalization_vacuum} seems to be inconsistent with the standard one for our setup; but we will come to this point later on.
Before specializing on a coherent state describing a particular configuration of interest, let us make some general remarks that will aid us with technical calculations.
\subsection{Heisenberg Picture}
\label{heisenbergpicture}
Among other quantities, one might be interested in the expectation value of various operators in a coherent state. In general, it is convenient to discuss these in Heisenberg picture. Let us consider the following expectation value
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle C|\prod _i \mathcal{O}_i(\hat{\phi},\hat{\pi};t_i) | C \rangle\,,
\label{expval}
\end{eqnarray}
with $|C\rangle$ being a coherent state \eqref{cohst} constructed using operators at time $t=0$ and $\mathcal{O}_i$ standing for a composite operator at a moment $t_i$; in other words, we have equal time products within each $\mathcal{O}$. Then it is straightforward to show that \eqref{expval} can be expressed as a vacuum-expectation-value of shifted operators $\mathcal{O}_i(\phi_{cl}+\hat{\phi},\pi_{cl}+\hat{\pi};t_i)$ evolved from $t=0$ using the background-field-method Hamiltonian $\hat{H}[\phi_{cl}+\hat{\phi},\pi_{cl}+\hat{\pi}]$. Namely, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle C|\ \prod_i\mathcal{O}_i(\hat{\phi},\hat{\pi};t_i) | C \rangle=\langle \Omega|\prod_i \left(e^{i\hat{H}[\phi_{cl}+\hat{\phi},\pi_{cl}+\hat{\pi}]t_i} \mathcal{O}_i(\phi_{cl}+\hat{\phi},\pi_{cl}+\hat{\pi};0)e^{-i\hat{H}[\phi_{cl}+\hat{\phi},\pi_{cl}+\hat{\pi}]t_i}\right) | \Omega \rangle\,,~~
\label{heisen}
\end{eqnarray}
which is quite intuitive as the exponential operator defining our coherent state \eqref{cohst} is a field displacement operator. For the face value, it appears as if we have evaluated the expectation value in semi-classical approximation by quantising perturbations around a fixed classical background and treating perturbations to be in the vacuum. However, due to the fact that $|\Omega\rangle$ is the vacuum of the fundamental theory rather than the one of a semi-classical theory of perturbations, the matters are somewhat more complicated. As we will see on concrete examples, while the dynamics of correlators is identical to the one inferred from the background field method, the initial conditions are quite different. Nevertheless, it is important to show that \eqref{heisen} is exact and holds for any theory. It follows from the following mathematical identity
\begin{eqnarray}
e^{e^{\hat{X}}\hat{Y}e^{-\hat{X}}}=\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{1}{n!}(e^{\hat{X}}\hat{Y}e^{-\hat{X}})^n=e^{\hat{X}} e^{\hat{Y}}e^{-\hat{X}}\,,
\label{identity}
\end{eqnarray}
which holds for any operators $\hat{X}$ and $\hat{Y}$; together with the observation that for equal time operators we have
\begin{eqnarray}
e^{i\hat{f}}\mathcal{O}(\hat{\phi},\hat{\pi};0)e^{-i\hat{f}}=\mathcal{O}(\phi_{cl}+\hat{\phi},\pi_{cl}+\hat{\pi};0)\,,
\end{eqnarray}
following from the Baker--Campbell--Hausdorff formula.
Regarding the coherent states themselves, we are parameterising them in terms of two functions of spatial coordinates $\phi_{cl}(x)$ and $\pi_{cl}(x)$, and a time stamp appearing on the operators invoked in their construction. Using \eqref{identity}, we can write
\begin{eqnarray}
|\phi_{cl},\pi_{cl};t\rangle={\rm exp}\left[ -i\int d^3 x \left( \phi_{cl}(x)\hat{\pi}(x,t)-\pi_{cl}(x)\hat{\phi}(x,t) \right)\right]|\Omega\rangle\nonumber \\
={\rm exp}\left[ -i\int d^3 x e^{i\hat{H}t}\left( \phi_{cl}(x)\hat{\pi}(x,0)-\pi_{cl}(x)\hat{\phi}(x,0) \right)e^{-i\hat{H}t}\right]|\Omega\rangle\nonumber \\
=e^{i\hat{H}t}{\rm exp}\left[ -i\int d^3 x \left( \phi_{cl}(x)\hat{\pi}(x,0)-\pi_{cl}(x)\hat{\phi}(x,0) \right)\right]e^{-i\hat{H}t}|\Omega\rangle\nonumber\\
=e^{i\hat{H}t}|\phi_{cl},\pi_{cl};0\rangle\,.
\label{heisenstate}
\end{eqnarray}
Notice that this relation is similar to the one we have for field (and conjugate momentum) eigenstates in Heisenberg picture.
\subsection{Schr\"odinger Picture}
\label{schrodpic}
Besides expectation values, one is usually interested in transition amplitudes as well, for which it may be convenient to see how the coherent state itself is evolving.
To see how the coherent state \eqref{cohst} evolves in the Schr\"odinger picture, we use \eqref{identity} once more to obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
|C\rangle (t)=e^{-i\hat{H}t} e^{-i\hat{f}}|\Omega \rangle=e^{-ie^{-i\hat{H}t}\hat{f}e^{i\hat{H}t}}e^{-iE_{\Omega}t}|\Omega \rangle\,;
\label{ct}
\end{eqnarray}
with $E_\Omega$ denoting the vacuum eigenvalue of the Hamiltonian, which we have been adjusting to zero \eqref{zeroenergylevel}.
In other words, the evolved state is the one created by the same linear combination of $\hat{\phi}$ and $\hat{\pi}$, but 'evolved' backwards in time. This seems to correspond to a nontrivial squeezing of the coherent state. Moreover, comparing to the Heisenberg picture result, time-evolution simply scans through states \eqref{heisenstate}, with fixed $\phi_{cl}(x)$ and $\pi_{cl}(x)$.
\section{Concrete Example: Homogeneous background}
A state of particular interest is the one corresponding to the homogeneous field configuration, as being a popular representative of configurations used in background field calculations. In particular, we focus on a state that corresponds to a classical homogeneous background with the following initial conditions
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\phi_{cl}(t=0)=\phi_0\,,\\
&&\pi_{cl}(t=0)=0\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Here we have chosen vanishing initial momentum for simplicity. Classically, this background will undergo anharmonic oscillations. In order to study the quantum aspects of this evolution, we need to define the quantum state corresponding to this classical background.
Following our previous discussion we have (for some rudimentary discussion see appendix A)
\begin{eqnarray}
|C\rangle(t=0)=e^{-i\hat{f}}|\Omega\rangle\,,\qquad \text{with}\qquad \hat{f}\equiv \int d^3x\phi_0\hat{\pi}\,;
\label{initstate}
\end{eqnarray}
In the remainder of this section we will compute the rate of departure of this state from the classical evolution and the expectation values of different operators.
\subsection{Rate of Departure}
\label{departurerate}
Applying \eqref{ct} to the homogeneous state at hand, we get
\begin{eqnarray}
|C\rangle (t)=e^{-i\phi_0\int d^3x e^{-i\hat{H}t}\hat{\pi}(x)e^{i\hat{H}t}}|\Omega \rangle\,.
\label{ct1}
\end{eqnarray}
Here we choose to work in Schr\"odinger picture, hence there is no time-label on $\pi$. At this point, we are interested in analysing the evolution of the state for an infinitesimal time $t$ and comparing the result to the classical evolution. In particular, we will be interested in evolving the state up to $t^2$-order, since this is where interesting effects begin to emerge. This is done, using
\begin{eqnarray}
\int d^3x e^{-i\hat{H}t}\hat{\pi}(x)e^{i\hat{H}t}=\int d^3x\left[\hat{\pi}(x)+t\left(Zm^2\hat{\phi}+\frac{\lambda Z^2}{3!}\hat{\phi}^3 \right)-\frac{t^2}{2}\left( m^2\hat{\pi} +\frac{\lambda Z}{4}\left(\hat{\pi}\hat{\phi}^2+\hat{\phi}^2\hat{\pi}\right)\right)\right]\nonumber \\+\mathcal{O}(t^3)\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Now, classically we know how the scalar field evolves in infinitesimal time $t$. Namely, if at $t=0$ we had $\phi=\phi_0$ and $\dot{\phi}=0$ then at time $t$ we would have
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi_{cl}(t)=\phi_0-\frac{t^2}{2}\left( m_{\rm ph}^2 \phi_0+\frac{\lambda_{\rm ph}}{3!}\phi_0^3 \right)+\mathcal{O}(t^3)\,.
\end{eqnarray}
In order to parameterise the deviation of an evolved coherent state from a coherent state constructed for the latter classical background, we calculate the overlap between \eqref{ct} and
\begin{eqnarray}
|C_{cl}\rangle (t)=e^{-i\int d^3x\left( \phi_{cl}(t)\hat{\pi}-\pi_{cl}(t)\hat{\phi} \right) }|\Omega\rangle\,.
\label{cohclass}
\end{eqnarray}
Here, we will assume $\phi_{cl}(t)$ and $\pi_{cl}(t)=Z\dot{\phi}_{cl}(t)$ to be given by the above mentioned classical solution, albeit with renormalized parameters.
By calculating number of commutators, the above expression can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle C_{cl}|C(t)\rangle=\langle \Omega | e^{\hat{Y}(t)} |\Omega \rangle\,.
\end{eqnarray}
In the limit of infinitesimal time we can straightforwardly evaluate $\hat{Y}(t)$ up to $t^2$ order, arriving at
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{Y}(t)=&&it \left[ \frac{1}{2}Z\phi_0^2\left(m_{\rm ph}^2-m^2+\frac{\lambda_{\rm ph}-\lambda Z}{3!}\phi_0^2 \right)V+\frac{1}{24}\lambda Z^2\phi_0^4V\right.\nonumber \\
&&~~~~+Z\phi_0\left(m_{\rm ph}^2-m^2+\frac{\lambda_{\rm ph}-\lambda Z}{3!}\phi_0^2\right)\int d^3 x\hat{\phi}(x)\nonumber\\
&&~~~~\left. -\phi_0\int d^3 x\left(\frac{\lambda Z^2\phi_0}{4}\hat{\phi}^2+\frac{\lambda Z^2}{3!} \hat{\phi}^3\right) \right]\nonumber\\
&-&it^2\left[ \frac{1}{2}\phi_0\left(m_{\rm ph}^2-m^2+\frac{\lambda_{\rm ph}-\lambda Z}{3!}\phi_0^2 \right)\int d^3 x\hat{\pi} \right.\nonumber \\
&&~~~~~\left. -\frac{1}{2}\phi_0 \int d^3 x \left(\frac{\lambda Z\phi_0}{4}(\hat{\pi}\hat{\phi}+\hat{\phi}\hat{\pi}) +\frac{\lambda Z}{4}(\hat{\pi}\phi^2+\hat{\phi}^2\hat{\pi})\right)\right]+\mathcal{O}(t^3)\,,
\label{Z}
\end{eqnarray}
where $V$ denotes the spatial volume, i.e $V\equiv\int d^3 x$.
Notice that if quantum and classical evolutions were identical, then we would end up with $\langle C_{cl}|C(t)\rangle=1$; of course, after taking into account a proper relation between the physical and bare parameters. Notice that this calculation is different from the infinitesimal-time transition amplitude analysis, used in path-integral formalism; the latter will be briefly discussed in section \ref{pathintegral}.
Let us proceed to calculating the probability for an evolved state to coincide with the classically evolved state, resulting in
\begin{eqnarray}
|\langle C_{cl}|C(t)\rangle |^2=1-t^2 D+\mathcal{O}(t^3)\,,
\label{probdep}
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
D=&&\frac{(\lambda Z^2)^2\phi_0^4}{16}\int d^3x_1d^3x_2 \left[ \langle \hat{\phi}(x_1)^2\hat{\phi}(x_2)^2\rangle-\langle \hat{\phi}(x_1)^2\rangle\langle\hat{\phi}(x_2)^2\rangle \right]\nonumber \\
&&+\frac{(\lambda Z^2)^2\phi_0^2}{36}\int d^3x_1d^3x_2 \langle \hat{\phi}(x_1)^3\hat{\phi}(x_2)^3\rangle\nonumber \\
&&-\frac{\lambda Z^3}{3}\phi_0^2\left( m_{\rm ph}^2-m^2+\frac{\lambda_{\rm ph}-\lambda Z}{3!}\phi_0^2\right)\int d^3x_1d^3x_2\langle \hat{\phi}(x_1)\hat{\phi}(x_2)^3\rangle\nonumber\\
&&+Z^2\phi_0^2 \left( m_{\rm ph}^2-m^2+\frac{\lambda_{\rm ph}-\lambda Z}{3!}\phi_0^2\right)^2 \int d^3x_1d^3x_2\langle \hat{\phi}(x_1)\hat{\phi}(x_2)\rangle\,.
\end{eqnarray}
We would like to stress that in this expression, $\langle\ldots\rangle$ stands for the vacuum expectation value.
Simplifying this expression to order $\lambda^2$, we get
\begin{eqnarray}
D=&&Z^2\phi_0^2\left( m_{\rm ph}^2-m^2-\frac{\lambda Z}{2}\langle \hat{\phi}^2\rangle+\frac{\lambda_{\rm ph}-\lambda Z}{3!}\phi_0^2\right)^2\int d^3x_1d^3x_2\langle \hat{\phi}(x_1)\hat{\phi}(x_2)\rangle\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{(\lambda Z^2)^2\phi_0^4}{8}\int d^3x_1d^3x_2\langle \hat{\phi}(x_1)\hat{\phi}(x_2)\rangle^2\nonumber \\
&&+\frac{(\lambda Z^2)^2\phi_0^2}{4}\int d^3x_1d^3x_2\langle \hat{\phi}(x_1)\hat{\phi}(x_2)\rangle^3+\mathcal{O}(\lambda^3)\,,
\label{dd}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have dropped terms that were obviously higher order than desired.
Provided that $m_{\rm ph}$ and $\lambda_{\rm ph}$ are the renormalized mass and coupling, there is no possibility for the first line of \eqref{dd} to give $\lambda^2$ contributions.
Therefore, the expression for $D$ simplifies to the last two lines of \eqref{dd}, keeping in mind that, at the order we are working, all the expectation values need to be evaluated within free theory. Now, these remaining terms look interesting. In particular, the second line of \eqref{dd} looks like a semi-classical term, as it goes as $(\lambda N)^2$ (with $N\propto \phi_0^2$ being number of quanta within the Compton volume), while the third line behaves as $\lambda^2 N$.
The problem is the evaluation of the integrals. If we compute them by Fourier transforming the 2-point function and then we exchange the order of momentum and position integrals, we end up with a divergent result. The IR divergence can be regulated by taking a finite volume, however the integrals are also UV divergent. At this point the only way around the latter is to proceed via analytic continuation. For instance, using the Fourier space expression for the propagator and exchanging the order of integration we readily obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\int d^3x_1d^3x_2\langle \hat{\phi}(x_1)\hat{\phi}(x_2)\rangle^2=\frac{V}{4(2\pi)^3}\int d^3k \frac{1}{k^2+m^2}\,.
\label{d1}
\end{eqnarray}
To perform the integration we use dimensional regularisation. After analytically continuing the result back to 3d, we get
\begin{eqnarray}
\int d^3x_1d^3x_2\langle \hat{\phi}(x_1)\hat{\phi}(x_2)\rangle^2=-\frac{V}{16 \pi}m\,.
\label{reg1}
\end{eqnarray}
The problem with the result is the negative sign on the right-hand side of \eqref{reg1} and a negative contribution to $D$ seems to violate unitarity (notice that for the face value the left-hand side seems manifestly positive definite). Analogously, the integral appearing in the third line of \eqref{dd} can be processed in the Fourier space as
\begin{eqnarray}
\int d^3x_1d^3x_2\langle \hat{\phi}(x_1)\hat{\phi}(x_2)\rangle^3=\frac{V}{8(2\pi)^6} \int d^3k_1 d^3k_2 \frac{1}{\sqrt{k_1^2+m^2}\sqrt{k_2^2+m^2}\sqrt{(\vec{k}_1+\vec{k}_2)^2+m^2}}\,.
\label{d2}
\end{eqnarray}
Regretfully, we were unable to evaluate this integral further. Also, it must be noted that the second line of \eqref{dd} must be made finite independently from the third line, as they scale differently in $\phi_0$.
In the absence of a regularization scheme, that yields a physically sound finite result, it seems our perturbative expansion in time breaks down here and the resummation is warranted. In other words, the only conceivable resolutions to the puzzle at hand seems to be the resummation of this infinity together with higher order terms in $t$, in order to hopefully achieve a finite answer.
However, as one can see, the fate of $D$ is dimension sensitive. In fact, in (1+1)-dimensions both integrals from \eqref{d1} and \eqref{d2} converge. The first can be easily computed analytically; the second one, on the other hand, requires numerical integration. Putting results together, the expression reduces to
\begin{eqnarray}
|\langle C_{cl}|C(t)\rangle _{2D}|^2=1-t^2 \cdot \lambda^2\phi_0^2\cdot\frac{L}{64m}\cdot\left(\frac{\alpha}{2}+\phi_0^2 \right)+\mathcal{O}(\lambda^3,t^3)\,,
\label{p2}
\end{eqnarray}
with $\alpha\approx 3$ and $L$ denoting the spatial system size.
An important point to notice is the lack of a linear term in this expression of departure of probability from unity, which would have been the rate of departure. Instead, we have the acceleration of departure. This is connected to the property of infinitesimal transition amplitudes for coherent states we are about to discuss in the following section.
Before moving forward to the evolution of a one-point expectation value, where the treatment of infinities can be discussed in a clearer way, it is worth pausing to see the fate of these infinities within path-integral formalism for coherent states. In particular, we will see that the divergencies similar to those in \eqref{dd} do not pose a problem there.
\subsection{Path-Integral}
\label{pathintegral}
Let us now discuss the path-integral formalism for coherent states. This topic has a long history going back to \cite{Klauder:1960kt,Schweber,Berezin:1971jf,Klauder:1979gi} (see also \cite{Zhang:1990fy} and references therein). Here, we simply overview some of the intermediate steps in the derivation.
The main motivation for this section is to underline the difference between the philosophy of section \ref{departurerate} and the commonly accepted approach to infinitesimal segments in path-integral. For the coherent states \eqref{cohst} the latter can be calculated as
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle\phi'_c,\pi'_c;t+dt|\phi_c,\pi_c;t\rangle=\langle \Omega | e^{i\int d^3 x \left( \phi'_c(x)\hat{\pi}(x)-\pi'_c(x)\hat{\phi}(x) \right)}\cdot e^{-i\hat{H}dt} \cdot e^{-i\int d^3 x \left( \phi_c(x)\hat{\pi}(x)-\pi_c(x)\hat{\phi}(x) \right)} | \Omega \rangle\,,
\label{gensegment}
\end{eqnarray}
with $dt$ being an infinitesimal time-interval, while $\{\phi_c(x),\pi_c(x)\}$ and $\{\phi'_c(x),\pi'_c(x)\}$ stand for c-number functions characterising the initial and final states respectively.
We can use the tricks of section \ref{heisenbergpicture}, to show that \eqref{gensegment} can be rewritten as
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle\phi'_c,\pi'_c;t+dt|\phi_c,\pi_c;t\rangle&=&e^{\frac{i}{2}\int d^3 z(\delta\phi_c(z)\pi_c(z)-\phi_c(z)\delta\pi_c(z))}\times\nonumber\\
&&\times\langle \Omega | e^{i\int d^3 x \left( \delta\phi_c(x)\hat{\pi}(x)-\delta\pi_c(x)\hat{\phi}(x) \right)}\cdot e^{-i\hat{H}[\phi_c+\hat{\phi},\pi_c+\hat{\pi}]dt} | \Omega \rangle\,,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
without loss of generality; here, we have introduced the notation $\delta\phi_c\equiv \phi'_c-\phi_c$ and $\delta\pi_c\equiv \pi'_c-\pi_c$. Notice that the Hamiltonian is a functional of shifted fields.
At this point, it has not been assumed that as $dt\rightarrow 0$, field variations should also vanish.
If we were to assume infinitesimal variation of the field and its conjugate momentum, then the expression would reduce to its familiar form. In other words, treating $\delta\phi_c$ and $\delta\pi_c$ to be as infinitesimal as $dt$ and working to linear order in these quantities, we could easily derive the following simplified transition amplitude
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle\phi'_c,\pi'_c;t+dt|\phi_c,\pi_c;t\rangle \Big|_{infinitesimal}=e^{i\left(-\bar{H}dt+\frac{1}{2}\int d^3 x(\delta\phi_c \pi_c-\phi_c \delta\pi_c)\right)}\,;
\label{smallsegment}
\end{eqnarray}
where the c-number Hamiltonian $\bar{H}$ is defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{H}\equiv \int d^3 x\left(\frac{1}{2}\pi_c^2+\frac{1}{2}(\vec{\nabla}\phi_c)^2+\frac{1}{2}\left(m^2+\frac{\lambda}{2}\langle\Omega|\hat{\phi}^2|\Omega\rangle\right)\phi_c^2+\frac{\lambda}{4!}\phi_c^4\right)\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Notice the appearance of the same mass renormalization as in previous sections. This should give us a pause, since for the standard path-integral construction, with field eigenstates, there are no renormalizable infinities emerging at this stage of the derivation.
However, this assumption of infinitesimal $\delta\phi_c$ and $\delta\pi_c$ may not be, strictly speaking, warranted for the purposes of path integral derivation, as for the latter we need intermediate path segments with arbitrary configurations. A short time interval does not entail that only paths with small variation contribute. In the standard path-integral formalism, this complication is avoided due to the orthonormality of the field-eigenstate basis. Plausibly, one can make the case that most of the contribution comes from more or less smooth trajectories, but it is an approximation nonetheless. We need to be extra cautious here, especially considering that we are after tiny cumulative effects. It must be stressed that the limit of smooth paths is precisely the approximation that is used in the literature to construct the path-integral for coherent states \cite{Klauder:1960kt,suzuki,Zhang:1999is}.
Let us appreciate the fact that for smooth trajectories the transition amplitude for an infinitesimal segment takes such an elegant form \eqref{smallsegment}. In the standard case, that is if we had dealt with field-eigenstates, there would have been only a field configuration labelling states and the path-integral over conjugate momenta on the right-hand-side.
In our case, on the other hand, for an infinitesimal-time-transition-amplitude that assumes $\delta\phi_c$ and $\delta\pi_c$ to be $\mathcal{O}(dt)$ or smaller, we get a pure phase. This is precisely the reason why $\mathcal{O}(t)$ terms are lacking in \eqref{probdep}.
Going along with the approximation at hand, we can use \eqref{smallsegment} to construct the path-integral over a finite period of time by piling up a large number of infinitesimal segments and integrating over intermediate configurations, keeping in mind that coherent states provide us with a resolution of identity. In so many words, we can write
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle\phi'_{c},\pi'_{c};t'|\phi_{c},\pi_{c};t\rangle \simeq \int [d\mu(\phi,\pi)] e^{i\int_{t}^{t'} dt\left(\int d^3x \dot{\phi}\pi-\bar{H}\right)}\cdot e^{\frac{i}{2}\int d^3x \left[\pi_c'\phi'_c-\pi_{c}\phi_{c}\right]}\,,
\label{pathintegral1}
\end{eqnarray}
with the measure $[d\mu]$ defined using the following resolution of identity
\begin{eqnarray}
1=\int [d\mu(\phi,\pi)]~ |\phi,\pi\rangle\langle \phi,\pi |\,,
\end{eqnarray}
implying the measure being dimensionless; for the detailed discussion see \cite{Zhang:1990fy} and references therein (a brief discussion of Green's functions in this formalism is given in appendix B).
Alternatively, one could follow the standard path-integral construction, utilizing the resolution of identity by means of field and conjugate momentum eigenstates. In that case, the coherent state appears only in wave-functions of the initial and final states
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \phi_c',\pi_c';t' |\phi_c,\pi_c;t \rangle=\int\mathcal{D}\phi\,\mathcal{D}\pi~{\rm exp}\left({i\int_{t}^{t'} d^4x\left( \pi\dot{\phi}-\mathcal{H}(\phi,\pi) \right)}\right)\cdot\langle\Omega|\phi-\phi_c';t'\rangle\cdot\langle\phi-\phi_c;t |\Omega\rangle\nonumber\\
\cdot e^{-\frac{i}{2}\int d^3x\left( \phi_c\pi_c-\phi_c'\pi_c' \right)}\cdot e^{i\int d^3x~(\phi(t)\pi_c-\phi(t')\pi_c')}\,.~~~
\label{pathintegral2}
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $|\phi;t\rangle$ appearing on the right-hand-side represents an eigenstate of $\hat{\phi}(t)$.
Let us finish this section by pointing out important differences between \eqref{pathintegral1} and \eqref{pathintegral2}. For starters, the Hamiltonians differ by the infinite contribution that should be absorbed in the renormalization of mass. Furthermore, we did not have to assume smooth paths in the derivation of \eqref{pathintegral2}, making it somewhat superior to \eqref{pathintegral1}. The price of this elegant result is the appearance of the wave-function of the vacuum, which would have to be calculated perturbatively. These wave-functions can be further simplified by shifting the field-configuration of integration by the classical function satisfying the appropriate boundary conditions. The last factor from \eqref{pathintegral2} simply imposes the initial and final conditions on the conjugate momentum.
We will not discuss further the path-integral formalism in this work. It was mentioned purely for comparative purposes of its infinitesimal segment to the one computed in the previous subsection.
\subsection{Expectation Value of the Field}
\label{fieldexpval}
We would like to calculate the evolution of the expectation value of the field operator in the coherent state \eqref{initstate}, that is $\langle C| \hat{\phi} |C \rangle (t)$, and compare it to its classical counterpart. Applying the general Heisenberg picture formalism we laid out in section \ref{heisenbergpicture} and expanding the result to order $t^4$, we arrive at the following expression\footnote{Some of the relevant commutators can be found in appendix C.}
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle C| \hat{\phi}(x) |C\rangle (t)=\phi_0-\frac{t^2}{2}\left[ \phi_0\left(m^2+\frac{\lambda Z}{2}\langle\Omega |\hat{\phi}(x)^2 |\Omega\rangle\right)+\frac{\lambda Z}{3!}\phi_0^3\right]-\frac{t^3}{3!}\left[\frac{\lambda}{2}\phi_0\langle \Omega |\hat{\pi}\hat{\phi}+\hat{\phi}\hat{\pi} | \Omega\rangle\right]\nonumber\\
+\frac{t^4}{4!}\left[ \lambda Z\phi_0\langle \Omega | (\partial_\mu \hat{\phi})^2+m^2\hat{\phi}^2 |\Omega\rangle+
\phi_0\left( m^4+\lambda Zm^2\langle\Omega| \hat{\phi}^2|\Omega\rangle+\frac{5}{2\cdot 3!}(\lambda Z)^2\langle \Omega | \hat{\phi}^4 |\Omega\rangle \right)\right. \nonumber \\
\left. +\frac{\lambda Z}{3!}\phi_0^3\left( 4m^2+5\lambda Z\langle\Omega | \hat{\phi}^2|\Omega\rangle \right)+\frac{(\lambda Z)^2}{2\cdot 3!}\phi_0^5\right]+\mathcal{O}(t^5)\,.~~~
\label{ans1}
\end{eqnarray}
Important point to notice is that $t^3$ term vanishes because it can be written as $\partial_t \langle \Omega| \hat{\phi}^2|\Omega\rangle$, which must vanish for the Poincare invariant vacuum.
Let us try renormalizing parameters at hand, in such a way that makes \eqref{ans1} finite at 1-loop order. Curiously enough, the finite part of \eqref{ans1} matches the classical evolution exactly at each order in $t$; we have checked this statement explicitly up to $t^7$ corrections. In order to avoid the accidental mismanagement of classical nonlinearities, we perform the loop expansion by keeping $\lambda$ finite but treating the loop factor $\frac{\lambda}{16\pi^2}$ to be small. As a result, in dimensional regularisation, \eqref{ans1} reduces to
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle C| \hat{\phi}(x) |C\rangle (t)\Big |_{\rm 1-loop}=&&\phi_0-\frac{t^2}{2}\left[ \phi_0m_{\rm ph}^2+\frac{\lambda}{3!}\phi_0^3\right]\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{t^4}{4!}\left[\phi_0 m_{\rm ph}^4 +\frac{2\lambda }{3}\phi_0^3m_{\rm ph}^2+\lambda\phi_0^3\Sigma+\frac{\lambda ^2}{2\cdot 3!}\phi_0^5\right]\,.
\label{ans2}
\end{eqnarray}
where $m_{\rm ph}^2\equiv m^2+\Sigma$, we have taken into account that $\langle \Omega | (\partial_\mu \hat{\phi})^2+m^2\hat{\phi}^2 |\Omega\rangle$=0, in dimensional regularization and have set $Z=1$, since it acquires corrections only starting at 2-loop in $\phi^4$ theory\footnote{Notice that $\lambda$ and $Z$ always appear in $\lambda Z$ combination here.}. Also, in this expression $\Sigma$ denotes the usual 1-loop bubble integral
\begin{eqnarray}
\Sigma\equiv\frac{\lambda}{2}\int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{-i}{k_\mu^2+m^2}\,.
\label{eq:sigma}
\end{eqnarray}
In other words, 1-loop computation entails keeping terms linear in $\Sigma$ only.
The key observation we would like to stress on, concerns the initial field acceleration. Being given by the $t^2$-term of \eqref{ans1}, it seems to be determined in terms of the renormalized mass and the bare coupling constant. The latter being infinite in the standard renormalization prescription, our result seems quite strange. One would expect the renormalized coupling to be the one driving the acceleration from the initial value of the field. In order to make the point even clearer, let us simply take Hamilton's operator equation (in the Heisenberg picture) and find its expectation value in the coherent state \eqref{initstate}, at the initial time,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Big[\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2} \langle C| \hat{\phi} |C \rangle-\Delta \langle C| \hat{\phi} |C \rangle +m^2 \langle C| \hat{\phi} |C \rangle+\frac{\lambda Z}{3!} \langle C| \hat{\phi}^3 |C \rangle\Big]_{t=0}=0\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The second term vanishes due to the homogeneity of the coherent state and the vanishing of the one-point vacuum expectation value. The last two terms also simplify to give a result identical to the one deduced from \eqref{ans1}
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2} \langle C| \hat{\phi} |C \rangle\Big|_{t=0}=-\phi_0\left(m^2+\frac{\lambda Z}{2}\langle\Omega |\hat{\phi}(x)^2 |\Omega\rangle\right)-\frac{\lambda Z}{3!}\phi_0^3\,.
\label{inita}
\end{eqnarray}
It must be emphasized that this expression is exact up to this point. Even if one could question the validity of the time-series expansion adopted earlier, Hamilton's operator equation serves as a core of any perturbative calculation in quantum field theory.
The surprising feature of \eqref{inita} lies in the fact that the initial acceleration of the field value is driven by the bare coupling constant, rather than the one running as a function of $\phi_0$. In other words, the effective potential felt by the field at $t=0$ lacks the logarithmic correction encountered in the celebrated Coleman-Weinberg's work \cite{Coleman:1973jx}. This may not sound too surprising as the latter deals with constant backgrounds, while here we are dealing with an oscillating one (although at the initial moment $\dot{\phi}=0$). In general, the 1-loop effective action can be organised in a derivative expansion
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma[\phi]=\int d^4 x \Big(-V(\phi^2)-F(\phi^2)(\partial_\mu\phi)^2+P((\partial_\mu\phi)^2)+\ldots\Big)\,,
\label{GammaDer}
\end{eqnarray}
with ellipsis standing for terms with more than one derivative per field. For constant and homogeneous field configurations one legitimately assumes tree-level values for $F$ and $P$, while including loop effects in the potential. For time-dependent backgrounds, on the other hand, one needs to be more cautious. For instance, it is straightforward to show that up to $\sim\lambda^2$ terms, at 1-loop, one gets
\begin{eqnarray}
F\sim 1+ \lambda^2\frac{\phi^{2}}{m^{2}}\,\qquad \text{and}\qquad P\sim\frac{\lambda^2}{m^4}(\partial_\mu\phi)^4\,;
\end{eqnarray}
see \cite{Iliopoulos:1974ur,Fraser:1984zb} for the relevant discussion. Schematic equations for the homogeneous field that follow, take the following form
\begin{eqnarray}
\left(1+\frac{\lambda^2 \phi^2}{m^2}+\frac{\lambda^2 \dot{\phi}^2}{m^4} \right)\ddot{\phi}=-V'(\phi^2)\phi-\lambda^2\frac{\phi}{m^2}\dot{\phi}^2\,.
\label{schematiceq}
\end{eqnarray}
Although the effective potential depends on renormalized running-coupling, bringing the expression in parentheses to the right-hand-side may significantly affect it. In other words, some of the derivative terms of the effective action modify the background field dynamics at the same level as the radiatively generated potential terms\footnote{Let us stress that this statement holds only in cases when tree-level potential gives a leading contribution to the dynamics and one is interested in sub-leading quantum effects. There are supersymmetric inflationary scenarios in which the inflaton field rolls solely due to radiative corrections to the potential \cite{Dvali:1994ms,Dimopoulos:1997fv}. In those cases the derivative corrections to the effective action give a negligible contribution compared to the quantum potential terms. We would like to thank Gia Dvali for the discussion on this matter.}. In a similar fashion, if we were to consider a configuration with initial $\dot{\phi}$, the last term on the right hand side of \eqref{schematiceq} could give vanishing contribution to $\ddot{\phi}$, together with the combination of mass-term and the third term in parentheses.
It must be mentioned that the full expression for $F$ obtained in \cite{Iliopoulos:1974ur,Fraser:1984zb} does not seem to lead to the reconciliation with our result for coherent states. In fact, being of semi-classical nature, there is no reason to expect the effective field-acceleration from \eqref{GammaDer} to reproduce the fully quantum result. It must simply serve as a lesson, not to draw conclusions for the dynamical problem based on the static-background analysis. More detailed discussion of these points from the effective action perspective is beyond this work and will be presented elsewhere.
Here, we can shed some light on the possibility of the above-mentioned idea of potential cancelations among derivative terms within the coherent state formalism by introducing non-vanishing initial momentum for the field. For this, let us consider the following initial state
\begin{eqnarray}
|C\rangle=e^{-i\hat{f}}|\Omega\rangle\,, \quad \text{with} \quad \hat{f}\equiv \int d^3 x \left( \phi_{0}\hat{\pi}(x,0)-\pi_{0}\hat{\phi}(x,0) \right)\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Assuming $Z=1$ for notational simplicity and keeping in mind that it could be easily reintroduced, we get the following extension of \eqref{ans1}
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle C| \hat{\phi}(x) |C\rangle (t)=\phi_0+\pi_0 \cdot t-\frac{t^2}{2}\left[ \phi_0\left(m^2+\frac{\lambda }{2}\langle\Omega |\hat{\phi}(x)^2 |\Omega\rangle\right)+\frac{\lambda }{3!}\phi_0^3\right]\nonumber \\
-\frac{t^3}{3!}\left[ \pi_0\left(m^2+\frac{\lambda }{2}\langle\Omega |\hat{\phi}(x)^2 |\Omega\rangle\right)+\frac{\lambda }{2}\phi_0^2\pi_0\right]+\mathcal{O}(t^4)\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The interesting property of this relation is that the initial momentum does not enter at $t^2$ order, which seems to reassure the statements made around \eqref{schematiceq}.
Closing the bracket on this somewhat speculative attempt for the interpretation of our field-acceleration result, let us go back to \eqref{ans1} and think about an alternative way around the puzzle of having the bare coupling constant being in control of the initial evolution. Splitting the infinite bare coupling into the physical one and a counter-term, as per usual $\lambda=\lambda_{\rm ph}+\delta \lambda$, one can easily convince oneself that the only possibility of getting rid of the infinite leftover term $\left[-\frac{t^2}{2}\frac{\delta \lambda}{3!}\phi_0^3\right]$ is in combination with higher order terms in $t$. For example, there is an infinite term of the form $\left[\frac{t^4}{4!}\frac{\delta \lambda^2}{2\cdot 3!}\phi_0^5\right]$ descending from the last $t^4$-term of \eqref{ans1}, along with other similar ones. The question is if they can be combined into a function of the combination $[\delta \lambda \phi_0^2 t^2]$, vanishing in the infinite limit for the latter. We will tackle this question of time-series resummation within the interaction-picture formalism in section \ref{interactionpicture}.
\subsection{Curious Case of Two-Point Function}
Finally we come to the 2-point correlation function calculated in the coherent state
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle C(t=0)|\hat{\phi}(x,t)\hat{\phi}(y,0)|C(t=0)\rangle=\phi_0^2+\langle \Omega|\hat{\phi}(x,0)\hat{\phi}(y,0)|\Omega\rangle+t \langle \Omega|\hat{\pi}(x,0)\hat{\phi}(y,0)|\Omega\rangle\nonumber \\
-\frac{t^2}{2}\left[ \phi_0^2\left( m^2+\frac{\lambda}{2} \langle\Omega|\hat{\phi}^2|\Omega\rangle+\frac{\lambda}{3!}\phi_0^2\right)+\langle \Omega|\hat{\phi}(y,0)\left(-\Delta+m^2+\frac{\lambda}{2}\phi_0^2+\frac{\lambda}{3!}\hat{\phi}^2(x)\right)\hat{\phi}(x,0)|\Omega\rangle \right]\nonumber \\
+\mathcal{O}(t^3)\,.~~
\label{2point}
\end{eqnarray}
Here, the notation $|C(t=0)\rangle$ has been invoked to underline the fact that the coherent state has been constructed using operators at $t=0$, as we are using the Heisenberg picture.
Few interesting comments are in order here:
\begin{itemize}
\item The first two terms of \eqref{2point} should be compared to the result of the background field method. In our case, the second term is a vacuum expectation value, while in the background field method the latter gets replaced with a two-point function for perturbations; the dispersion relation of which depends on the background configuration.
\item On the second line of \eqref{2point}, the first term looks encouraging as it is precisely the combination we have dealt with in \eqref{ans1}. In other words, the renormalization prescription that makes $t^2$-term of \eqref{ans1} finite takes care of that combination here as well.
\item The second term of the second line of \eqref{2point} is also quite appealing, as the operator there resembles a background dependent operator appearing in the equation of motion for perturbations. It must be stressed that this result is reminiscent of the general results regarding Heisenberg picture operators; see section \ref{heisenbergpicture}.
\end{itemize}
\vskip 20pt
Furthermore, we can repackage \eqref{2point} in a simpler form by means of Hamilton's equation as
\begin{flalign}
&\langle C(t=0)|\hat{\phi}(x,t)\hat{\phi}(y,0)|C(t=0)\rangle=\phi_0^2+\langle \Omega|\hat{\phi}(x,t)\hat{\phi}(y,0)|\Omega\rangle\nonumber \\
&~~~~~~~~~-\frac{t^2}{2}\left[ \phi_0^2\left( m^2+\frac{\lambda}{2} \langle\Omega|\hat{\phi}^2|\Omega\rangle+\frac{\lambda}{3!}\phi_0^2\right)+\frac{\lambda}{2}\phi_0^2\langle \Omega|\hat{\phi}(x,0)\hat{\phi}(y,0)|\Omega\rangle \right]
+\mathcal{O}(t^3)\,.
\label{2point1}
\end{flalign}
The first two terms are self-explanatory, radiative corrections must be taken care of as usual in order to make the second term finite. Namely, at 1-loop the mass renormalization must be the standard one. As a result, examining the second line of \eqref{2point1} and comparing it with the 1-point function case, we realize that the divergent part of the bare coupling, appearing on the second line of \eqref{2point1}, needs to be resummed with higher order $t$-terms in a similar fashion (see the argument at the end of section \ref{fieldexpval}).
\section{Interaction Picture}
\label{interactionpicture}
In previous sections we have tackled the problem of evolution from a relatively unconventional side. That is, we have chosen the time interval as a primary parameter for organising the expansion, instead of the coupling. One of the advantages of that approach is that it is quite straightforward to account for classical nonlinearities through the underlying quantum process.
In this section we would like to pursue a more standard avenue, involving the expansion in coupling from the get-go but keeping the time-interval of evolution arbitrary. As we are about to show, this corresponds to the resummation of the time-expansion of section \ref{fieldexpval} at a given order in the coupling constant.
Focusing on the homogeneous coherent state \eqref{initstate} studied earlier, we are after the evolution of one-point expectation value
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle C| \hat{\phi}(t,x) |C\rangle\,.
\label{eq:tadpole}
\end{eqnarray}
Using the standard method we can convert this into the following out-of-time-ordered vacuum expectation value in the interaction picture
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle C| \hat{\phi}(t,x) |C\rangle=\lim_{T\rightarrow \infty}\frac{\langle 0| U(T,0)e^{i\phi_0\int d^3x' \hat{\pi}_{I}(0,x')}U(0,t) \hat{\phi}_I (t,x) U(t,0)e^{-i\phi_0\int d^3x'' \hat{\pi}_{I}(0,x'')}U(0,-T)|0 \rangle}{\langle 0|U(T,-T) |0\rangle}\,.\nonumber
\label{eq:perturbative_tadpole}
\end{eqnarray}
Here the subscript '$I$' denotes the corresponding operator to be in the interaction picture, possessing the standard free-particle expansion in ladder operators, '$|0\rangle$' stands for the free-theory vacuum and $U$ is the usual time-ordered exponential of the interaction Hamiltonian, i.e. $U(t,t_0)\equiv T\{{\rm exp}(\int_{t_0}^{t}dt~H_{I})\}$; with $H_{I}\equiv \lambda/4!\int d^3z\hat{\phi}_I ^4(t,z)$. As it stands, the expectation value in a coherent state has been recast as a vacuum expectation value for asymptotic states with some operator insertions; with the information about the state being imprinted in the exponential field-displacement operators. The latter have a simple effect on enclosed operators, that follows from the Baker--Campbell--Hausdorff identity,
\begin{eqnarray}
e^{i\phi_0\int d^3x' \hat{\pi}_{I}(0,x')}\hat{\phi}_I(t,x)e^{-i\phi_0\int d^3x'' \hat{\pi}_{I}(0,x'')}=\phi_0 {\rm cos}(mt)+\hat{\phi}_I(t,x) \,;
\end{eqnarray}
where the first term represents a homogeneous solution to free equations of motion, with desired initial conditions.
We evaluate the above expression for the one-point function explicitly up to $\lambda^2$ order in appendix D. Since in this work we are primarily interested in 1-loop results, let us drop higher order contributions and present a clean result valid up to quadratic order in classical nonlinearities and to the first order in the loop factor (i.e. in $\hbar$, if we were to reinstate it)
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle C| \hat{\phi}(t,x) |C\rangle_{1-loop}=&&\phi_0{\rm cos}(m_{\rm ph}t)-\frac{\lambda \phi_0^3}{3!}\frac{{\rm sin}(m_{\rm ph}t)(6m_{\rm ph}t+{\rm sin}(2m_{\rm ph}t))}{16m_{\rm ph}^2}\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{\lambda^2\phi_0^5}{4!^22^6m^4}\Big( (23-72m^2t^2){\rm cos}(mt)-24~{\rm cos}(3mt)+{\rm cos}(5mt)\nonumber \\
&&~~~~~~~~~~~+12~mt(8~{\rm sin}(mt)-3~{\rm sin}(3 mt)) \Big)\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{\lambda^2}{2}\int_0^t dt_1\int_{0}^{t_1}dt_2\int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{{\rm sin}(2E_p(t_1-t_2))}{(2E_p)^2}\frac{{\rm sin}(m(t-t_1))}{m}\Phi(t_1)\Phi(t_2)^2\nonumber\\
&&+\mathcal{O}(\lambda^3)\,,
\label{finint}
\end{eqnarray}
where, $\Phi(t)\equiv \phi_0 {\rm cos}(mt)$ and $m_{\rm ph}$ is defined in the usual manner as
\begin{eqnarray}
m_{\rm ph}^2\equiv m^2+\frac{\lambda}{2}\langle \hat{\phi}_I^2 \rangle\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Here the second term is the expectation value in a free theory vacuum, a.k.a. 'Bubble Diagram'. Notice that one can use $m$ and $m_{\rm ph}$ interchangeably in \eqref{finint} everywhere except for the first line, due to the order of approximation.
Interestingly, and expectantly, our calculation recovers the classical nonlinear evolution through quantum dynamics, supplemented with quantum corrections. Namely, the first three terms are precisely what one would obtain by solving the classical homogeneous equation perturbatively in $\lambda$. The last term, on the other hand, is a 1-loop divergent contribution. It is therefore natural to expect this divergence to renormalize the coupling constant, as the mass renormalization has been already taken care of. Neglecting this prejudice, the fate of the divergence should be determined by its time dependence, which we are about to check.
Naively, the momentum integral in the last term of \eqref{finint} appears to be linearly divergent, which is not the behaviour we would expect for the one-loop diagram responsible for the coupling constant renormalization. However, such assessment fails due to the appearance of the oscillatory function of energy. After swapping momentum and time integrals and explicitly performing the latter, it becomes evident that the divergence is logarithmic.
In order to verify that the computation of the current section is up to this point compatible with the time-expansion analysis of previous sections, we may blatantly expand \eqref{finint} in Taylor series to $t^4$ order (preceded by explicit integration over $t_{1,2}$). It is a matter of straightforward computation to show that this leads to the result identical to \eqref{ans2}. In other words, the last term of \eqref{finint} is $\mathcal{O}(t^4)$, in time-expansion, and thus does not contribute to the initial field-acceleration.
For the latter we once again arrive at
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{t\rightarrow 0}\partial_t^2 \langle C| \hat{\phi}(t,x) |C\rangle_{1-loop}=-m_{\rm ph}^2\phi_0-\frac{\lambda}{3!}\phi_0^3\,.
\label{eq:eff_pot}
\end{eqnarray}
For the physical discussion and potential interpretation of this result, the reader is redirected to section \ref{fieldexpval}.
At this point one may still wonder, whether in the current interaction-picture computation, the time-expansion of the integrand in the last term of \eqref{finint} is legitimate (due to the fact that every single term in this expansion seems to diverge). Instead, let us proceed by isolating the divergent part and then compute the leftover finite contribution without time-expansion. For this we use the trick that has been used before in a similar context in \cite{calzetta}. In particular, in order to rewrite the last term of \eqref{finint} in a manifestly logarithmically divergent form, we rewrite the momentum-dependent oscillatory term as
\begin{eqnarray}
\sin{\left(2E_p(t_1-t_2)\right)} = \frac{1}{2E_p}\frac{d}{dt_2}\cos{\left(2 E_p(t_1-t_2)\right)}\,.
\label{bp}
\end{eqnarray}
Integration of this by parts in the integrand of \eqref{finint} leads to the emergence of three terms: two boundary terms and a term with derivative acting on $\Phi(t_2)$. The upper boundary term, after further integration over $t_1$ and remembering that at this order in our expansion we can replace $m$ with $m_{\rm ph}$, gives the following contribution
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle C|\hat\phi(t,x)|C\rangle\supset \frac{\lambda ^2 \phi _0^3}{2}\frac{\sin \left( m_{\text{ph}}t\right) \left(6
m_{\text{ph}}t+\sin \left(2 m_{\text{ph}}t\right)\right)}{16\, m_{\text{ph}}^2}\int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}\,\frac{1}{(2E_p)^3}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Interestingly, this term exhibits the time-dependence identical to the second term of \eqref{finint}, with the momentum integral corresponding to the 1-loop diagram responsible for the coupling constant renormalization in scattering computations. Therefore, the contribution in question can be absorbed by the term linear in $\lambda$ as a coupling renormalization
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda_{\rm ph}=\lambda-3\lambda^2 \int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}\,\frac{1}{(2E_p)^3}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The remarkable outcome of the adopted trick lies in the fact that the other two terms resulting from integration-by-parts are finite. The lower boundary term (henceforth denoted as $F_{\rm L}$) descending from the last line of \eqref{finint}, gets expressed through Meijer G-functions. The numerical behaviour of this contribution has been depicted on Fig. \ref{meijer}. Away from the initial moment, it seems to undergo steady oscillations. However, it exhibits peculiar behaviour near $t=0$, namely
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{t\rightarrow 0}F_{\rm L}(t)=\frac{\lambda^2\phi_0^3}{64 \pi^2}\left( -\frac{1}{2}+\gamma+{\rm ln }\left( mt\right) \right)t^2+\mathcal{O}(t^4)\,;
\label{initsing}
\end{eqnarray}
which implies that the contribution to the field-acceleration, i.e. $\partial_t^2 \langle C| \hat{\phi}(t,x) |C\rangle$, has a logarithmic initial time singularity. This is believed to be an artefact of the weak coupling expansion; see \cite{calzetta} and references therein. Moreover, the unusual behaviour we have encountered in the time-expansion analysis is related to $F_{\rm L}(t)$-contribution as well. Namely, if we were to expand the integrand of $F_{\rm L}(t)$ in a Taylor series in $t$, before momentum integration, we would get a logarithmically UV-diverging $t^2$-term (which would undo the coupling renormalization) and quadratically UV-diverging $t^4$-term. In other words, the peculiar initial time behaviour exhibited by \eqref{initsing} seems to be the price for recovering the standard renormalization prescription.
\begin{figure}
\hskip 50pt \includegraphics[width = 0.75\linewidth]{meijer}
\caption{\small Numerical comparison of finite quantum corrections descendent from the last term of \eqref{finint}. The \textit{blue} curve denotes $F_L$, the \textit{orange} one corresponds to $F_n$ and the $green$ one represents $F_a$.}
\label{meijer}
\end{figure}
The remaining term resulting from integrating \eqref{bp} in the last term of \eqref{finint}, consist of two parts. The part that can be analytically calculated (which we denote as $F_a(t)$) and the one requiring numerical integration (denoted by $F_n(t)$). Together with $F_{\rm L}$, they are depicted in Fig. \ref{meijer}, demonstrating that eventually $F_a$ dominates over the other contributions. The analytic expression for $F_a(t)$ takes the following form
\begin{eqnarray}
F_a(t)=\frac{\lambda^2\phi_0^3}{32\pi^2}\frac{{\rm sin}(mt)(2mt+{\rm sin}(2mt))}{16m^2}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Putting everything together, \eqref{finint} can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle C| \hat{\phi}(t,x) |C\rangle_{1-loop}=&&\phi_0{\rm cos}(m_{\rm ph}t)-\frac{\lambda_{\rm ph} \phi_0^3}{3!}\frac{{\rm sin}(m_{\rm ph}t)(6m_{\rm ph}t+{\rm sin}(2m_{\rm ph}t))}{16m_{\rm ph}^2}\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{\lambda_{\rm ph}^2\phi_0^5}{4!^22^6m_{\rm ph}^4}\Big( (23-72m_{\rm ph}^2t^2){\rm cos}(m_{\rm ph}t)-24~{\rm cos}(3m_{\rm ph}t)+{\rm cos}(5m_{\rm ph}t)\nonumber \\
&&~~~~~~~~~~~+12~m_{\rm ph}t(8~{\rm sin}(m_{\rm ph}t)-3~{\rm sin}(3 m_{\rm ph}t)) \Big)\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{\lambda_{\rm ph}^2\phi_0^3}{32\pi^2}\frac{{\rm sin}(m_{\rm ph}t)(2m_{\rm ph}t+{\rm sin}(2m_{\rm ph}t))}{16m_{\rm ph}^2}+F_n(t)+F_{\rm L}(t)\nonumber\\
&&+\mathcal{O}(\lambda^3)\,,
\label{finexp}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}
\hskip 50pt \includegraphics[width = 0.75\linewidth]{leadcorr}
\caption{\small The \textit{blue} curve denotes the second term of \eqref{finexp}, while the \textit{green} one depicts $F_a$ (rescaled by the loop factor for the visibility). The plot is displayed in units of $\lambda_{\rm ph} \phi_0^3/m_{\rm ph}^2$.}
\label{leadcorr}
\end{figure}
As one can easily notice, besides the renormalization of parameters, there are actual quantum corrections to the classical dynamics. Moreover, the dominant quantum effect can be evaluated analytically and it exhibits significant similarity with the linear classical correction to the dynamics; (ignoring numerical coefficients of order unity) the former is suppressed by the loop factor. Moreover, it is easy to see that these contributions are always out of phase, as depicted in Fig. \ref{leadcorr} for convenience. Due to the linear growth of the correction in question, one might expect it to eventually dominate over the first term of \eqref{finexp}. However, taking into account the secular instability present in classical corrections, which we know for a fact to be an artefact of the approximation, one may wonder whether the observed quantum instability is equally spurious. In fact, at the level of the carried-out computation, the classical evolution breaks down (departs from full nonlinear evolution) around the timescale
\begin{eqnarray}
t_{\rm cl}=\left[\frac{\lambda_{\rm ph} \phi_0^2}{16m_{\rm ph}} \right]^{-1}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
In a similar fashion, if we were to estimate the time it would take for the quantum contributions to become of order $\phi_0$, we would obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
t_{\rm q}=t_{\rm cl}\left(\frac{\lambda_{\rm ph}}{16\pi^2}\right)^{-1}\,.
\label{tq}
\end{eqnarray}
It must be stressed that this timescale matches the expression for the quantum-break-time given in \cite{Dvali:2017eba}, according to which, assuming re-scattering of the background constituents to be the underlying process responsible for quantum breaking, and assuming $2\rightarrow 2$ scattering to be the simplest contributing process (treating particles to be collectively off-shell, thus ignoring the kinematic prohibition of the process) one would get the rate of quantum depletion to be given by $N/t_{\rm q}$ where $N$ is the number of particles per Compton-volume.
Regretfully, more definite statements require going to higher orders in $\lambda$. In particular, we know for a fact that there are processes that change the total number of particles, the most elementary one being $4\rightarrow 2$, with rate proportional to $\lambda^4$; see the discussion in \cite{Dvali:2017eba}. In other words, we expect the quantum part of \eqref{finexp} to have higher order corrections in the classical coupling $\lambda$. Therefore, it remains an open question whether the observed quantum secular instability survives in the resummed theory.
\section{Summary and Outlook}
In this work, we have studied the real-time quantum dynamics of coherent states in the case of an interacting quantum field theory. One of the vital details about the setup is the build-up over the vacuum of the interacting theory, rather than of the free Hamiltonian. In this way we manage to bypass some of the unnecessary approximations, which in turn helps us to avoid some of the complications that could arise in case of inconsistent perturbative treatment of the dynamics and the state itself.
In order to establish the gradual departure of physical observables from their classical trajectories, we have begun the analysis by organizing the dynamics as a Taylor series in time elapsed since the initial moment. This method seemed particularly promising for computing the initial values of certain physical quantities. Below we recap some of our central results in this regard.
Considering a coherent state \eqref{cohst} corresponding to the configuration with homogeneous field $\phi_0$ and its momentum $\pi_0$, the initial expectation values of the Hamiltonian density and the field-acceleration take the following form at one-loop\footnote{Notice that the exact results given by \eqref{initiclassham} and \eqref{inita} are equally elegant. However, we refrain from making statements beyond 1-loop here, since we have mainly focused our discussion on the latter.}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{hamden}
&\langle C| \hat{\mathcal{H}}(x) |C \rangle(t=0)&=\frac{1}{2}\pi_{0}^2+\frac{1}{2}m_{\rm ph}\phi_{0}^2+\frac{\lambda}{4!}\phi_{0}^4\,,\\
&\partial_t^2 \langle C| \hat{\phi}(x) |C\rangle (t=0)&=-m_{\rm ph}^2\phi_0-\frac{\lambda}{3!}\phi_0^3\,,
\label{facc}
\end{eqnarray}
where $m_{\rm ph}$ stands for the renormalized mass. The equation \eqref{facc} simply follows from the expectation value of Hamilton's operator equation, evaluated at the initial moment. The unexpected property of these results lies in the fact that these quantities seem to be governed by the tree-level potential (i.e. no evidence for coupling renormalization at this level). In fact, as we have argued qualitatively in section \ref{fieldexpval}, the standard expectation regarding the field-acceleration needs to be reconsidered by including radiatively induced derivative interactions in the effective action, as they seem to contribute to the dynamics as significantly as the potential terms (irrespective of the rate of the dynamics). Unfortunately, after all is said and done the manifestly infinite contributions remain (through the bare coupling) and need to be disposed off via resummation.
Another interesting observation we would like to bring attention to, concerns the initial-time two-point function. In particular, the following result holds to all orders in perturbation theory\footnote{The only property of the theory used in deriving this expression was that the vacuum expectation value of odd number of fields vanishes.}
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle C| \hat{\phi}(0,x) \hat{\phi}(0,y) |C\rangle =\phi_0^2+\langle \Omega| \hat{\phi}(0,x) \hat{\phi}(0,y) |\Omega\rangle\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The striking similarity with the background field technique is obvious here. Note however that the second term is a background independent vacuum two-point function, while in the semiclassical treatment it comes out to be the correlator for fluctuations with background-dependent dispersion relation.
Moving forward, we have computed first several terms in the time-series of $\langle C| \hat{\phi}(t,x) |C\rangle (t)$, illustrated in \eqref{ans1}. It is straightforward to see that the effect of classical nonlinearities is correctly captured by every computed term. In fact, all finite terms obtained in this expansion seem to correspond to classical contributions; this statement has been verified explicitly up to $t^7$ order. We would like to emphasize that the reproduction of classical contributions at each order in $t$ is performed in full generality without resorting to the weak coupling expansion. In this approach, quantum effects seem to appear in the form of vacuum expectation values of singular operators, some of which can be absorbed by the parameters of the theory, while the others need to be resummed with higher order terms in $t$.
Due to the above-mentioned need for the resummation of the time-series, we have performed the calculation of $\langle C| \hat{\phi}(t,x) |C\rangle (t)$ within the interaction-picture framework. Even though the starting point of every single calculation invokes the infinitesimal time limit of the Hamiltonian flow, the method in question manages the resummation of the time-series at a given order in perturbation theory (in coupling constant), yielding a result valid for extended periods of time. In particular, we have evaluated the quantity in question up to $\lambda^2$ order, further simplifying the result by dropping 2-loop contributions, leading to \eqref{finexp}, which includes nonlinear classical effects up to order $\lambda^2$ as well as 1-loop quantum corrections; with parameters being renormalized as per the standard prescription. The appearance of the standard coupling renormalization, unlike \eqref{facc}, shows potential in terms of recovering the effects of Coleman-Weinberg effective potential to some extent, but for that one needs to extend our 1-loop calculation to higher orders in $\lambda$ (classical coupling) and perform the resummation. The outcome of the latter is especially interesting, due to the appearance of spurious secular divergencies in \eqref{finexp} that are obviously an artefact of the perturbative calculation. The obtained quantum corrections to the dynamics have interesting properties, with the most notable ones being:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{Logarithmic initial-time singularity} $$\lim_{t\rightarrow 0}\partial_t^2 \langle C| \hat{\phi}(t,x) |C\rangle\supset \frac{\lambda^2\phi_0^3}{32\pi^2}{\rm ln}(mt).$$ Similar pathologies have been previously encountered in the literature. Namely, in the background field methods one sometimes considers the initial state of perturbations to be given by the free-theory vacuum for fluctuations leading to initial-time singularities, which is believed to be an artefact of the adopted, strictly speaking ill-defined, treatment of the initial state (see the discussion in \cite{calzetta} and references therein). In our coherent state calculation, on the other hand, we have not invoked any free-theory states or operators in the construction.
However, we have shown that the perturbative expansion of the interaction picture and subsequent termination of the series at 1-loop effectively reduced our expression to the one we would obtain if the initial coherent state were built from a free theory vacuum.
\item \textit{Growing quantum correction to the classical dynamics.} It has a form similar to the classical secular (spurious) instability, albeit with a loop-factor suppression. Therefore, it is incapable of giving a significant correction to the dynamics; the perturbative expansion breaks down before quantum terms have time to grow sufficiently. However, if taken for the face value and compared to the initial field displacement $\phi_0$, it leads to the estimate of \cite{Dvali:2017eba} for the quantum break-time (i.e. the time it takes for the quantum evolution to depart significantly from the classical dynamics), which was obtained using the simplest $2\rightarrow 2$ re-scattering of the constituents as a source of quantum breaking.
\end{itemize}
\vskip 10pt
We have also studied the quantum evolution of a coherent state for infinitesimal time $t$, and its subsequent overlap with a coherent state constructed out of the classically evolved field configuration. We have computed the probability for a quantum state at time $t$ to coincide with the aforementioned classical counterpart. The deviation is schematically given as
\begin{eqnarray}
|\langle C_{cl}|C(t)\rangle |^2=1-t^2 D+\mathcal{O}(t^3)\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The notable fact about this expression is that the probability departs from unity quadratically in $t$, which is due to the fact that the infinitesimal transition amplitude between coherent states is a pure phase at leading order in $t$ (see the discussion of sections \ref{departurerate} and \ref{pathintegral}). Regretfully, the coefficient $D$ is divergent in (3+1)-dimensions and a resummation of higher order terms in $t$ seems to be required. However, in (1+1)-dimensions one gets an elegant result given by \eqref{p2}, which shows that the characteristic timescale of departure from the classical path behaves as $\lambda^{-1}$. This, on the other hand, corresponds to a parametrically shorter time than \eqref{tq}.
It is quite possible for the computed departure probability to capture more of the microscopic dynamics than the one-point function. However, the above-mentioned peculiar result may be an artefact of the infinitesimal-time approximation. In particular, examining the quantum contribution to \eqref{finexp} it is easy to see that, while over timescales longer than the inverse-mass the correction is linear in time (giving $t_{\rm q}\sim \lambda^{-2}$), for infinitesimal time-interval the corrections become quadratic in time thus giving $t_{\rm q}\sim \lambda^{-1}$. In other words, departure rates observed for infinitesimal time may be part of oscillatory behaviour, similar to \eqref{finexp}.
We would like to conclude by briefly mentioning future directions. Our calculation can be straightforwardly extended to include higher order corrections in coupling, which may clarify whether the growing quantum effects (depicted in \eqref{finexp}) are spurious or not. Moreover, as we have already pointed out, going to higher orders in coupling may open up another channel of depletion connected to the particle number changing processes. Alternatively one could introduce another light particle coupled to $\phi$, unlocking the two-particle annihilation channel. It would be interesting to see how the particle production in the adopted coherent state formalism compares to the standard semi-classical analysis which studies the production of particles in the time-dependent classical background. These and other related questions will be discussed elsewhere.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We would like to thank Gia Dvali for many illuminating discussions and comments on the manuscript. We also thank Giordano Cintia, Cesar Gomez, Georgios Karananas, Otari Sakhelashvili, Dimitris Skliros, Tanmay Vachaspati and Sebastian Zell for valuable discussions.
\newpage
\section*{Appendix A: Coherent State: Normal Ordering}
\renewcommand{\theequation}{A-\Roman{equation}}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In this appendix, we would like to discuss a point that could, in principle, be used to question the legitimacy of the adopted construction.
We have considered the following coherent state
\begin{eqnarray}
|C\rangle=e^{-i\hat{f}}|\Omega\rangle\,,\qquad \text{with}\qquad \hat{f}\equiv \int d^3x\phi_0\hat{\pi}\,;
\label{initstate1}
\end{eqnarray}
focusing on a homogeneous one for simplicity.
This may appear to be problematic, because of the same point singularity. Even though, the state defined this way is properly normalised, i.e. $\langle C|C \rangle=1$, one should keep in mind that the exponential operator is defined as its Taylor series
\begin{eqnarray}
|C\rangle=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{(-i\phi_0)^n}{n!}\int d^{3}x_1\ldots d^{3}x_n \hat{\pi}(x_1)\ldots \hat{\pi}(x_n)|\Omega\rangle\,.
\label{cohexp}
\end{eqnarray}
Almost every term in this expansion possesses a singularity, for instance the operator
\begin{eqnarray}
\int d^{3}x_1d^{3}x_2 \hat{\pi}(x_1)\hat{\pi}(x_2)
\end{eqnarray}
is singular. Easiest way to convince oneself in this statement is to calculate the vacuum expectation value
\begin{eqnarray}
\int d^{3}x_1d^{3}x_2 \langle \Omega|\hat{\pi}(x_1)\hat{\pi}(x_2)|\Omega\rangle\,,
\end{eqnarray}
which diverges. It is straightforward to show that to the leading order in perturbation theory it possesses an infrared divergence (i.e. is proportional to the volume of the system). The ultra-violate singularity from the overlapping points, on the other hand, can be regulated. At this point we may wonder whether singularities must be brushed off term-by-term from \eqref{cohexp}, using normal ordering. This is a legitimate point, since there would be no objection against the state constructed using non-singular operators acting on the vacuum. Indeed, let us see what happens when we go down this road. For illustrative purposes, we will perform analysis up to certain order in $\phi_0$, in particular we begin by improving our coherent state as
\begin{eqnarray}
|C\rangle=\left( 1-i\phi_0\int d^3x_1\hat{\pi}(x_1)+\frac{(-i\phi_0)^2}{2}\int d^3x_1d^3x_2:\hat{\pi}(x_1)\hat{\pi}(x_2):\right.\nonumber\\ \left.+\frac{(-i\phi_0)^3}{3!}\int d^3x_1d^3x_2d^3x_3:\hat{\pi}(x_1)\hat{\pi}(x_2)\hat{\pi}(x_3):\right.\nonumber\\
\left.+\frac{(-i\phi_0)^4}{4!}\int d^3x_1d^3x_2d^3x_3d^3x_4:\hat{\pi}(x_1)\hat{\pi}(x_2)\hat{\pi}(x_3)\hat{\pi}(x_4):+\ldots\right)|\Omega\rangle\,.
\label{cohexp1}
\end{eqnarray}
As one can see, we have simply replaced operators with their normal ordered versions. See \cite{Skliros:2015vpa,Ellis:2015xwp} for the discussion on complete normal ordering. For convenience, we give the explicit expressions that will be of use
\begin{eqnarray}
&&:\hat{\pi}(x_1)\hat{\pi}(x_2):=\hat{\pi}(x_1)\hat{\pi}(x_2)-\langle\Omega| \hat{\pi}(x_1)\hat{\pi}(x_2)|\Omega\rangle\,,\\
&&:\hat{\pi}(x_1)\hat{\pi}(x_2)\hat{\pi}(x_3):=\hat{\pi}(x_1)\hat{\pi}(x_2)\hat{\pi}(x_3)-3\hat{\pi}(x_1)\langle\Omega|\hat{\pi}(x_2)\hat{\pi}(x_3)|\Omega\rangle\,,\\
&&:\hat{\pi}(x_1)\hat{\pi}(x_2)\hat{\pi}(x_3)\hat{\pi}(x_4):=\hat{\pi}(x_1)\hat{\pi}(x_2)\hat{\pi}(x_3)\hat{\pi}(x_4)-6:\hat{\pi}(x_1)\hat{\pi}(x_2):\langle\Omega|\hat{\pi}(x_3)\hat{\pi}(x_4)|\Omega\rangle\nonumber \\
&&\hskip 135pt-\langle\Omega|\hat{\pi}(x_1)\hat{\pi}(x_2)\hat{\pi}(x_3)\hat{\pi}(x_4)|\Omega\rangle\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Here, we have implicitly assumed that both sides are integrated over coordinates. Although we have gotten rid of singularities, we need to check the normalization. It is easy to see that \eqref{cohexp1} does not have a unit norm. Upon normalization we get
\begin{eqnarray}
|C\rangle=&&\Big( 1-\frac{\phi_0^2}{2}\int d^3y_1d^3y_2\langle \Omega |\hat{\pi}(y_1)\hat{\pi}(y_2)|\Omega\rangle\nonumber \\
&&+\frac{\phi_0^4}{24}\int d^3y_1d^3y_2d^3y_3d^3y_4\langle \Omega |\hat{\pi}(y_1)\hat{\pi}(y_2)\hat{\pi}(y_3)\hat{\pi}(y_4)|\Omega\rangle +\ldots\Big)\nonumber \\
&&\times\left( 1-i\phi_0\int d^3x_1\hat{\pi}(x_1)+\frac{(-i\phi_0)^2}{2}\int d^3x_1d^3x_2:\hat{\pi}(x_1)\hat{\pi}(x_2):\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+\frac{(-i\phi_0)^3}{3!}\int d^3x_1d^3x_2d^3x_3:\hat{\pi}(x_1)\hat{\pi}(x_2)\hat{\pi}(x_3):\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+\frac{(-i\phi_0)^4}{4!}\int d^3x_1d^3x_2d^3x_3d^3x_4:\hat{\pi}(x_1)\hat{\pi}(x_2)\hat{\pi}(x_3)\hat{\pi}(x_4):+\ldots\right)|\Omega\rangle\,.
\label{cohexp2}
\end{eqnarray}
The first line represents the normalization factor. It is straightforward to show that upon expansion this normalization factor simply removes the normal ordering and reduces \eqref{cohexp2} to \eqref{cohexp}. In conclusion we are back to square one.
For non-interacting case, one can easily re-sum the normalization factor. In fact, the normalized normal ordered state in that case reduces to
\begin{eqnarray}
|C\rangle=e^{-\frac{\phi_0^2}{2}\int d^3x_1 d^3x_2\langle \hat{\pi}(x_1)\hat{\pi}(x_2) \rangle}:e^{-i\phi_0\int d^3x\hat{\pi}(x)}:|\Omega\rangle\,.
\end{eqnarray}
This is precisely what one gets in quantum mechanics. Expanding in terms creation-annihilation operators we would arrive at the familiar expression.
In conclusion, the imposition of normal ordering brings the norm away from $1$, which can be fixed by introducing a constant normalization factor, amounting to the removal of the normal ordering.
\section*{Appendix B: Path-Integral: Green's Functions}
\renewcommand{\theequation}{B-\Roman{equation}}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
Here, we would like to discuss a generating functional for Green's functions within the path-integral formalism overviewed in section \ref{pathintegral}. In other words, we are interested in a path-integral representation of the transition amplitude with field insertions
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle\phi_{out},\pi_{out};t_{out}|\prod_k\hat{\phi}(x_k,t_k)|\phi_{in},\pi_{in};t_{in}\rangle\,, \quad \text{with} \quad t_k>t_{k+1},~~\forall ~k\,.
\end{eqnarray}
As usual, we will dissect the time interval into infinitesimal ones by inserting the resolution of identity, as a result some of the segments will add up with a field operator sandwiched inside. Having already discussed segments without insertions in section \ref{pathintegral}, let us focus on the one with a field insertion
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle\phi'_c,\pi'_c;t+dt|\hat{\phi}(x,\tau)|\phi_c,\pi_c;t\rangle \quad \text{with}\quad \tau\in [t,t+dt]\,.
\end{eqnarray}
This element can be straightforwardly evaluated to the linear order in $dt$ and field variations as
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{dt\rightarrow 0}\langle\phi'_c,\pi'_c;t+dt|\hat{\phi}(x,\tau)|\phi_c,\pi_c;t\rangle=\left[ 1-idt\bar{H}[\phi_c,\pi_c] \right]\phi_c(x,t)-idt\int d^3z \Big(\dot{\pi}_c(z)\langle\hat{\phi}(z)\hat{\phi}(x)\rangle\nonumber \\
+\partial_{\vec{z}}\phi_c(z)\langle\partial_{\vec{z}}\hat{\phi}(z)\hat{\phi}(x)\rangle+m^2\phi_c(z)\langle \hat{\phi}(z)\hat{\phi}(x) \rangle+\frac{\lambda}{3!}\phi_c^3(z)\langle \hat{\phi}(z)\hat{\phi}(x)\rangle+\frac{\lambda}{3!}\phi_c(z)\langle \hat{\phi}^3(z)\hat{\phi}(x) \rangle\Big)\,;
\end{eqnarray}
where, $\langle\ldots\rangle$ stands for the vacuum expectation value. The second line can be simplified further using Heisenberg's operator equation equation of motion, but it's unnecessary. Notice that we will, once again, pile-up intervals of this kind together. As a result, the infinitesimal term $dt\,\bar{H}$ will turn into an exponentiated time-integral. The infinitesimal term involving expectation values, on the other hand, receives only contributions from intervals with field insertions and thus vanishes in the limit $dt\rightarrow 0$.
Therefore, it seems one can make the case for the familiar path-integral representation for Green's functions (as stated in \cite{Zhang:1999is})
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle\phi_{out},\pi_{out};t_{out}|\prod_k\hat{\phi}(x_k,t_k)|\phi_{in},\pi_{in};t_{in}\rangle \simeq \int [d\mu(\phi,\pi)]\prod_k\phi(x_k,t_k)e^{i\int_{t_{in}}^{t_{out}} dt\left(\int d^3x \dot{\phi}\pi-\bar{H}\right)}\nonumber \\
\times e^{i\int d^3x \left[\pi_{out}\phi_{out}-\pi_{in}\phi_{in}\right]}\,.
\label{greenpath}
\end{eqnarray}
From this, one can define the generating functional and quantum effective action as usual, through the Legendre transform.
Next, we could derive Coleman-Weinberg potential using the usual background field method; underlining the fact that all the complications we have encountered with infinites in \eqref{dd} are hidden in '$\simeq$' sign appearing in \eqref{greenpath}.
\section*{Appendix C: Expectation Value of the Field Operator}
\renewcommand{\theequation}{C-\Roman{equation}}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
Here we give expressions for the relevant commutation relation used in section \ref{fieldexpval} to evolve the expectation value of the field operator using the relations given in sections \ref{heisenbergpicture} and the Baker--Campbell--Hausdorff formula. In particular
\begin{eqnarray}
&&[\hat{H},\hat{\phi}(x)]=-\frac{i}{Z}\hat{\pi}\,,\\
&&[\hat{H},[\hat{H},\hat{\phi}(x)]]=-\Delta \hat{\phi}(x)+m^2\hat{\phi}+\frac{\lambda Z}{3!}\hat{\phi}^3\nonumber\\
&&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+\int d^3z \vec{\nabla}^{(z)}\left( \delta^{(3)}(x-z)\vec{\nabla}^{(z)}\hat{\phi}(z)\right)\,,
\end{eqnarray}
(The last term is a boundary term, the likes of which we will be dropping; by assuming that the observable will be evaluated away from the boundary.)
\begin{eqnarray}
&&[\hat{H},[\hat{H},[\hat{H},\hat{\phi}(x)]]]= -\frac{i}{Z}\left[ (-\Delta+m^2)\hat{\pi}+\frac{\lambda Z}{4}\left( \hat{\pi}\hat{\phi}^2+\hat{\phi}^2\hat{\pi} \right) \right]\,,\\
&&[\hat{H},[\hat{H},[\hat{H},[\hat{H},\hat{\phi}(x)]]]]= (-\Delta+m^2)^2\hat{\phi}+\frac{\lambda Z}{3!}(-\Delta+m^2)\hat{\phi}^3+\frac{\lambda Z}{2}\hat{\phi}^2(-\Delta+m^2)\hat{\phi}\nonumber \\
&&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-\frac{\lambda}{4Z}\left( \hat{\pi}^2\hat{\phi}+2\hat{\pi}\hat{\phi}\hat{\pi}+\hat{\phi}\hat{\pi}^2 \right)+\frac{(\lambda Z)^2}{2\cdot 3!}\hat{\phi}^5\,.
\end{eqnarray}
We have used these expressions, together with the fact that the commutators of shifted operators (appearing in \eqref{heisen}) obey similar relations, in deriving \eqref{ans1}.
\section*{Appendix D: Interaction-Picture Computation}
\renewcommand{\theequation}{D-\Roman{equation}}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
Here, we would like to give some of the intermediate steps used in arriving at the results of section \ref{interactionpicture}. In a nutshell, this appendix represents the recount of the standard interaction-picture steps applied to the evaluation of \eqref{eq:perturbative_tadpole}.
The operators $\hat{\phi}_I$ and $\hat{\pi}_{I}$, appearing in section \ref{interactionpicture}, are the usual interaction picture operators
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\hat{\phi}_I (t,x)=\int \frac{d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 E_p}}\left( \hat{a}_pe^{ip_\mu x^\mu}+\hat{a}^{\dagger}_pe^{-ip_\mu x^\mu} \right)\Big|_{x^0=t-t_0}\,,\\
&&\hat{\pi}_I (t,x)=\int \frac{d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3}(-i)\sqrt{\frac{E_p}{2}}\left( \hat{a}_pe^{ip_\mu x^\mu}-\hat{a}^{\dagger}_pe^{-ip_\mu x^\mu} \right)\Big|_{x^0=t-t_0}\,,
\end{eqnarray}
with $p^0=E_p\equiv\sqrt{m^2+\vec{p}^2}$ and $t_0$ being a fiducial moment of time at which the ladder operators have been defined (not to be confused with moment of construction of our coherent state $t=0$); as usual $t_0$ drops out from observables.
The time evolution operator $U$, connecting the interaction-picture operators to $\hat{\phi}$ and $\hat{\pi}$, is the usual one of interaction picture
\begin{eqnarray}
U(t,t_0)&&=T\left\{e^{-i\int_{t_0}^tdt'H_I(t')} \right\}\\
&&=1+(-i)\int_{t_0}^tdt_1H_I(t_1)+(-i)^2\int_{t_0}^t dt_1\int_{t_0}^{t_1} dt_2 H_I(t_1)H_I(t_2)+\ldots\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The last equality follows from the definition of the time-ordered product. We have chosen to expand it in terms of non-ordered products because the expectation value we are calculating is also non-ordered.
We evaluate the one-point expectation value \eqref{eq:perturbative_tadpole} to order $\lambda^2$ piece-by-piece, starting with the inner part
\begin{eqnarray}
U(0,t) \hat{\phi}_I (t,x) U(t,0)=\hat{\phi}_I(t,x)+i\frac{\lambda}{3!}\int_0^t dt_1\int d^3z ~\hat{\phi}_I^3(t_1,z)D(t_1-t,z-x)\nonumber \\
+\frac{\lambda^2}{3!4!}\int d^3z_1d^3z_2\Big\{-\int_0^tdt_1\int_{t_1}^tdt_2~\hat{\phi}_I^4(t_1,z_1)\hat{\phi}_I^3(t_2,z_2)D(t_2-t,z_2-x) \nonumber\\
+\int_0^tdt_1\int^{t_1}_0dt_2~\hat{\phi}_I^3(t_1,z_1)\hat{\phi}_I^4(t_2,z_2)D(t_1-t,z_1-x)\Big\}\nonumber\\
+\mathcal{O}(\lambda^3)\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Here, the function $D$ stands for the following commutator
\begin{eqnarray}
D(t_1-t,z-x)\equiv [\hat{\phi}_I (t_1,z),\hat{\phi}_I (t,x)]=\int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{1}{2 E_p}\Big( e^{ip_\mu(z-x)^\mu}-e^{-ip_\mu(z-x)^\mu} \Big)\Big|_{p^0=E_p}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Moving forward, it is straightforward to show that
\begin{eqnarray}
e^{i\phi_0\int d^3x' \hat{\pi}_{I}(0,x')}\hat{\phi}_I(t,x)e^{-i\phi_0\int d^3x'' \hat{\pi}_{I}(0,x'')}=\Phi(t)+\hat{\phi}_I(t,x)\,, \quad \text{with}\quad \Phi(t)\equiv \phi_0 {\rm cos}(mt)\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Notice that the exponential operator still acts as a displacement operator but, unlike earlier calculations, instead of displacing the field by $\phi_0$ it does so by the time-dependent classical configuration of free theory. This is easy to understand, as field and momentum operators are at different times here, while in the earlier discussion they were at equal times; also, operators are the ones of the interaction picture, hence the appearance of the harmonic classical background. (Remember that earlier we saw that even in full theory one gets a full anharmonic classical background in similar calculation; the observation that was made perturbatively in time.)
Combining everything we have the following
\begin{eqnarray}
A\equiv e^{i\phi_0\int d^3x' \hat{\pi}_{I}(0,x')}U(0,t) \hat{\phi}_I (t,x) U(t,0)e^{-i\phi_0\int d^3x'' \hat{\pi}_{I}(0,x'')}-\Phi(t)=\hat{\phi}_I(t,x)\nonumber \\
+i\frac{\lambda}{3!}\int_0^t dt_1\int d^3z ~(\Phi(t_1)+\hat{\phi}_I(t_1,z))^3D(t_1-t,z-x)\nonumber \\
+\frac{\lambda^2}{3!4!}\int d^3z_1d^3z_2\Big\{-\int_0^tdt_1\int_{t_1}^tdt_2~(\Phi(t_1)+\hat{\phi}_I(t_1,z_1))^4(\Phi(t_2)+\hat{\phi}_I(t_2,z_2))^3D(t_2-t,z_2-x) \nonumber\\
+\int_0^tdt_1\int^{t_1}_0dt_2~(\Phi(t_1)+\hat{\phi}_I(t_1,z_1))^3(\Phi(t_2)+\hat{\phi}_I(t_2,z_2))^4D(t_1-t,z_1-x)\Big\}\nonumber\\
+\mathcal{O}(\lambda^3)\,.~~~~~~~~
\label{Ainter}
\end{eqnarray}
Another quantity we need to calculate is $U(T,0)\hat{O}U(0,-T)$, with the inserted operator being the entire previous expression. Since we are interested in order $\lambda^2$ corrections and that the leading order term in the above expression is linear in the field (keeping in mind that the vacuum expectation value of the odd number of fields vanishes), we only require the following to the linear order in coupling
\begin{eqnarray}
U(T,0)\hat{O}U(0,-T)=\hat{O}+(-i)\int_0^Td\tau~H_I(\tau)\hat{O}+(-i)\hat{O}\int_{-T}^0d\tau~H_I(\tau)+\mathcal{O}(\lambda^2)\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, the entire one point function takes the following form
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle C| \hat{\phi}(t,x) |C\rangle=\lim_{T\rightarrow \infty}\frac{1}{\langle 0|U(T,-T) |0\rangle}
\Big\{ \Phi(t)\langle 0|U(T,-T)|0 \rangle+\langle 0|A|0\rangle \nonumber~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\\
+\frac{\lambda^2}{3!4!}\int_0^tdt_1\int d^3zd^3y~D(t_1-t,z-x)\Big( \int_{-T}^Td\tau\langle 0|\hat{\phi}_I^4(\tau,y) |0\rangle\Phi^3(t_1)
\nonumber\\
+3\int_{0}^Td\tau \Phi(t_1)\langle 0|\hat{\phi}_I^4(\tau,y)\hat{\phi}_I^2(t_1,z)|0\rangle+3\int_{-T}^0d\tau \Phi(t_1)\langle 0|\hat{\phi}_I^2(t_1,z)\hat{\phi}_I^4(\tau,y) |0\rangle \Big)\Big\}\,;
\label{original}
\end{eqnarray}
with $A$ given by \eqref{Ainter}. Notice that some of the disconnected contributions cancel trivially. One can easily recognize that the term with the integral over $\tau\in(-T,T)$ should cancels with the combination of normalisation pre-factor and one of the terms from $A$, just like disconnected diagrams cancel in the standard calculations.
Let us begin evaluating $\langle 0|A|0\rangle$ order by order in $\lambda$. To the zeroth order we obviously have simply $\Phi(t)$, which is the classical background of a free theory. The first order correction is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle 0|A|0\rangle=i\lambda\int_0^tdt_1\int d^3 z \left(\frac{1}{3!}\Phi^3(t_1)+\frac{1}{2}\Phi(t_1)\langle \hat{\phi}_I^2(t_1,z) \rangle\right)D(t_1-t,z-x)+\mathcal{O}(\lambda^2)\,.~~~
\label{linearA}
\end{eqnarray}
From this expression it immediately follows that, after substituting it into \eqref{original}, the order $\lambda$ part of $\langle 0|U(T,-T) |0\rangle$ in combination with the $\Phi^3$-term of \eqref{linearA} cancels with the first $\lambda^2$ term.
Notice that $\langle \hat{\phi}_I^2(t_1,z) \rangle$ is an equal time and point expectation value and as such independent of the space-time coordinates. Henceforth, it will be denoted simply as $\langle \hat{\phi}_I^2 \rangle$. After using the explicit expression for $D$, the result simplifies to
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle 0|A|0\rangle=-\frac{\lambda \langle \hat{\phi}_I^2 \rangle}{2}\cdot \phi_0\frac{t~{\rm sin}(mt)}{2m}+\frac{\lambda}{3!}\int_0^t dt_1 \Phi^3 (t_1) \frac{1}{m}{\rm sin}\left(m(t_1-t)\right)+\mathcal{O}(\lambda^2)\,.
\label{eq:propag}
\end{eqnarray}
This result makes perfect physical sense. In fact, the first term together with $\Phi(t)$ in \eqref{original}, can be repackaged into $\phi_0\,{\rm cos}\left( \sqrt{m^2+\frac{\lambda}{2}\langle \hat{\phi}_I^2 \rangle} ~t \right)$, up to $\lambda^2$ corrections, therefore corresponding to the mass renormalization. The third term, on the other hand, is simply the leading order classical correction due to nonlinearities, which can be easily integrated to give
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi^{(1)}(t)=-\frac{\lambda \phi_0^3}{3!}\frac{{\rm sin}(mt)(6mt+{\rm sin(2mt)})}{16m^2}\,.
\label{linsoln}
\end{eqnarray}
Here, label '$(1)$' marks the fact that this correction is linear in coupling.
In order to compute quadratic corrections, we will need the correlation function
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle 0| \hat{\phi}_I(t_1,z_1) \hat{\phi}_I(t_2,z_2) |0\rangle=\int \frac{d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{1}{2 E_p} e^{i\vec{p}\cdot(\vec{z_1}-\vec{z_2})}\cdot e^{-iE_p(t_1-t_2)}\,;
\end{eqnarray}
other correlators that make appearance in $A$-term and follows trivially from Wick's theorem are
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle 0| \hat{\phi}_I(t_1,z_1) \hat{\phi}_I^3(t_2,z_2) |0\rangle=&&3 \langle 0| \hat{\phi}_I(t_1,z_1) \hat{\phi}_I(t_2,z_2) |0\rangle \cdot \langle \hat{\phi}_I^2 \rangle\,,\\
\langle 0| \hat{\phi}_I^3(t_1,z_1) \hat{\phi}_I ^3(t_2,z_2) |0\rangle=&&6\langle 0| \hat{\phi}_I(t_1,z_1) \hat{\phi}_I(t_2,z_2) |0\rangle^3\nonumber \\
&&+3\langle 0| \hat{\phi}_I(t_1,z_1) \hat{\phi}_I(t_2,z_2) |0\rangle \cdot \langle \hat{\phi}_I^2 \rangle^2,\\
\langle 0| \hat{\phi}_I^4(t_1,z_1) \hat{\phi}_I ^2(t_2,z_2) |0\rangle=&&12\langle 0| \hat{\phi}_I(t_1,z_1) \hat{\phi}_I(t_2,z_2) |0\rangle^2 \langle \hat{\phi}_I^2 \rangle\nonumber \\
&&+3 \langle \hat{\phi}_I^2 \rangle^3\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Next we evaluate terms descending from the $\lambda^2$ part of \eqref{Ainter}, it is fairly straightforward to show that only terms with nontrivial power of $\langle 0| \hat{\phi}_I(t_1,z_1) \hat{\phi}_I(t_2,z_2) |0\rangle$ contribute,
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle 0|A|0\rangle \Big|_{\lambda^2}=\Phi^{(2)}(t)+F_1(t)\langle \hat{\phi}_I^2 \rangle+F_2(t)\langle \hat{\phi}_I^2 \rangle^2+L_{coupling}+L_{sunrise}.
\label{appenA2}
\end{eqnarray}
Here $\Phi^{(2)}(t)$ stands for the quadratic (in $\lambda$) corrections to the classical background and is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi^{(2)}(t)=\frac{\lambda^2\phi_0^5}{4!^22^6m^4}\Big( (23-72m^2t^2){\rm cos}(mt)-24~{\rm cos}(3mt)+{\rm cos}(5mt)\nonumber \\
+12~mt(8~{\rm sin}(mt)-3~{\rm sin}(3 mt)) \Big)\,.
\label{quadsoln}
\end{eqnarray}
The functions $F_{1,2}$ are given as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
F_1(t)=-\frac{\lambda^2\phi_0^3}{4!2^5m^4}\Big( 2(-1+6m^2t^2){\rm cos}(mt)+2~{\rm cos}(3mt)+mt(-13~{\rm sin}(mt)+3~{\rm sin}(3mt)) \Big)\,,~\nonumber\\
F_2(t)=\frac{\lambda^2\phi_0}{32 m^3}t\Big( -mt~{\rm cos}(mt)+{\rm sin}(mt) \Big)\,.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
It is straightforward to check that \eqref{quadsoln} coincides with the $\lambda^2$-contribution to classical dynamics. Moreover, the second term of \eqref{appenA2} corresponds to 1-loop mass renormalization in $\Phi^{(1)}(t)$. The third term of \eqref{appenA2}, on the other hand, contributes to 2-loop mass renormalization $\Phi(t)$. Unlike our previous results, here we get nontrivial loop diagrams as well. In particular, $L_{coupling}$ involves the loop-integral corresponding to the renormalization of coupling, $L_{sunrise}$ corresponds to the so called sunrise 2-loop diagram. To be more concrete, for the former we have
\begin{eqnarray}
L_{coupling}=\frac{\lambda^2}{2}\int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3} \int_0^t dt_1\int_{0}^{t_1}dt_2~\frac{{\rm sin}(E_p(t_1-t_2))}{(2E_p)^2}\frac{{\rm sin}\left(m(t-t_1)\right)}{m}\nonumber \\
\times\left(\Phi(t_1)\Phi^2(t_2)+\Phi(t_1)\langle \hat{\phi}_I^2 \rangle\right)\,.
\end{eqnarray}
(Notice that terms containing $\langle \hat{\phi}_I^2 \rangle$ correspond to two-loop diagram, in which one of the propagators in the loop has an attached bubble.) It is easy to check, that if we were to expand 1-loop part of $L_{coupling}$ in Taylor series in $t$, we would find that it is $\mathcal{O}(t^4)$. This seems to be consistent with the result of previous sections.
For the sunrise integral, on the other hand, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
L_{sunrise}=\frac{\lambda^2}{3}\int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{d^3p'}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{1}{2E_p\cdot 2E_{p'}\cdot 2E_{p+p'}}\times\nonumber\\
\times \int_0^t dt_1\int_{0}^{t_1}dt_2~{\rm sin}\Big((E_p+E_{p'}+E_{p+p'})(t_1-t_2)\Big)\frac{{\rm sin}\left(m(t-t_1)\right)}{m}\Phi(t_2)\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Combining everything we have gotten so far and renormalising the mass we arrive at
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi(t)+\langle 0|A|0\rangle=&&\phi_0{\rm cos}(m_{\rm ph}t)-\frac{\lambda \phi_0^3}{3!}\frac{{\rm sin}(m_{\rm ph}t)(6m_{\rm ph}t+{\rm sin(2m_{\rm ph}t)})}{16m_{\rm ph}^2}\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{\lambda^2\phi_0^5}{4!^22^6m^4}\Big( (23-72m^2t^2){\rm cos}(mt)-24~{\rm cos}(3mt)+{\rm cos}(5mt)\nonumber \\
&&~~~~~~~~~~~+12~mt(8~{\rm sin}(mt)-3~{\rm sin}(3 mt)) \Big)\nonumber\\
&&+L_{coupling}+L_{sunrise}+\mathcal{O}(\lambda^3)\,,
\end{eqnarray}
This already looks very promising, but before concluding let us take care of terms from \eqref{original} with $T$ as a limit of integration.
As a result of straightforward computation, all of the $T$-dependent terms cancel, except one; from which $T$ drops out in $T\rightarrow \infty$ limit. Putting everything together we have the following
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle C| \hat{\phi}(t,x) |C\rangle=\Phi(t)+\langle 0|A|0\rangle- \frac{\lambda^2\langle \hat{\phi}_I^2 \rangle}{2m}\int_0^tdt_1\int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{1}{(2E_p)^3}\Phi(t_1){\rm sin}(m(t_1-t)){\rm cos}(2E_pt_1)\nonumber\\
+\mathcal{O}(\lambda^3)\,.~~~~~~~~~~~
\end{eqnarray}
Obviously, the second term in this expression corresponds to a 2-loop correction, similar to $L_{sunrise}$, with 1-loop result nicely summarized in \eqref{finint}.
|
\section{Introduction}
As a promising physical layer security (PLS) technique, directional modulation (DM) \cite{Babakhani2008,Babakhani2009,Daly2009Directional,Daly2010Directional} has attracted ever-growing interests from industry and academic due to its unique characteristic, which projects modulated confidential signal into a predetermined spatial direction while makes the constellations of the signal in other directions distorted simultaneously. By contrast, the traditional communication methods based on cryptographic techniques need additional secure channels for private key exchanging and thus may be not applicable in the mobile Internet. Benefiting from the key-less PLS technique \cite{Wang2012Distributed,ChenX2017,Zou2016Relay,JZhao2019,Guo2017Exploiting}, DM can significantly decrease the probability of confidential signal being eavesdropped on and gradually becomes an alternative technology to do encryption in the higher layer.
With a substantial progression of PLS in various aspects, such as massive multi-input-multi-output (MIMO) technique \cite{Wu2017Secure}\cite{Ni2019} and artificial noise (AN) aided secure transmission \cite{Yan2016Artificial,Zhao2016Anti,Zhao2016Physical}, DM has also been rapidy developed by integrating the merits of these PLS techniques. In \cite{Daly2009Directional} and \cite{Daly2010Directional}, the authors proposed a DM signal construction method by shifting the phase of each antenna element which is implemented on the radio frequency (RF) front-end but requires high speed RF switches and high complexity. To overcome those disadvantages, \textit{Hu et al.} in \cite{Hu2016} developed an AN-aided robust baseband DM scheme by considering the estimation errors on direction angles. As a further step, \textit{Shu et al.} in \cite{Shu2016DM} considered multi-user broadcasting scenarios and proposed a leakage-based robust DM scheme. Moreover, in \cite{2019Optimal}, \textit{Lu et al.} put forward a power allocation strategy for transmitting confidential signal and AN, which significantly increases the secrecy performance.
However, DM can only guarantee the security in a specific direction rather than a specific distance, which means that the eavesdroppers can intercept confidential message at the same direction but different distance \cite{book2009}. When the eavesdroppers are located on the same direction as desired receivers, the secure transmission may face with a great challenge. To guarantee a secure transmission in the aforementioned scenario, researchers investigated the combination of PLS and DM \cite{Shu2020DM,Qin2018,Han1} and started the study of secure precise wireless transmission (SPWT) in the two dimensional scenario, which aims to transmit confidential message to a specific direction and distance. Specifically, in \cite{Sammartino2013} and \cite{Wang2015}, the authors proposed a linear frequency diverse array (LFDA) to address the problem that DM can not guarantee the secure transmission in different distance. With the LFDA, the produced beam-pattern is controlled by both direction and distance, thus secure transmission can be guaranteed in the scenario where the desired user and eavesdropper are located in the same direction but different distance. Nevertheless, LFDA scheme has its weakness that the direction and distance of the produced beam-pattern achieved by LFDA are coupled. This means that multiple direction and range pairs may exist at locations where eavesdroppers can receive the identical signal as the desired users, which may still cause security problems. In \cite{liu2017random,Hu2017SPWT,Shu2018SPWT}, the authors proposed a random frequency diverse array (RFDA) scheme, which has a property that can decouple the correlation between the direction and distance. In addition, two random subcarrier selection methods were proposed in \cite{Shen2019} to achieve SPWT for each modulated orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) symbol \cite{Zhu2009Chunk}\cite{Zhu2012Chunk}, which makes SPWT more practical for real scenarios. In \cite{Shen2020}, the authors proposed a hybrid digital and analog (HDB) beamforming scheme which significantly reduces the complexity of SPWT, while reduces the RF-chain circuit complexity in medium-scale and large-scale systems.
Due to the high requirements on the specific direction and distance, SPWT is usually applied in light of sight (LOS) channel scenarios, such as unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) communication, suburban mobile communication and satellite communication. However, the direct path from the transmitter to the receiver may be obstructed by some obstacles, such as high buildings, mountains and trees. This means that the LOS channel between transmitter and receiver could be unavailable. Thus, the technology of intelligent-reflecting-surface (IRS)\cite{2017IRS} is introduced to achieve SPWT, since it can reflect the confidential signal and provide an extra transmission path. In other words, IRS is regraded as a relay but more practical since an IRS consists of a number of low-cost passive elements with adjustable phase shifts. Different from amplify-and forward (AF) relay, IRS only reflects the received signal as a passive array where additional power consumption can be avoided. Moreover, a full-duplex modeled IRS system has a higher spectral efficiency than a AF relay modeled transmission system. In \cite{Wu2019}, the authors proposed an enhanced IRS-aided wireless network via joint active and passive beamforming. Then, the authors in \cite{Wu2020Tcom} studied a more practical IRS-aided wireless network, where an IRS is deployed with only a finite number of phase shifts at each element. To transmit both power and information, \textit{Wu et al.} in \cite{Wu2020WCL} proposed a new simultaneous wireless information and power transfer system with the aid of the IRS technology. Moreover, an IRS assisted secure wireless communications with multiple-transmit and multiple-receive antennas was shown in \cite{Jiang2020}. To the best of our knowledge, most recent works related on IRS transmission are based on a single equipped IRS. Since the receiver's position may change frequently to different locations, the direct path between a single IRS and receiver may also be unavailable which may lead to a failure transmission.
As aforementioned, due to the LOS direct path requirement of SPWT, a more reliable secure transmission scheme has to be designed. IRS-aided SPWT is an alternative scheme to overcome the problem that the LOS direct path may be unavailable. In this paper, we combine SPWT with IRS in a direct path unavailable scenario and propose three multi-IRSs-aided SPWT schemes. Moreover, a three dimensional (3D) scenario is considered which has one more pitch angle dimension than that of two dimensional (2D) scenario (distance dimension and azimuth angle dimension only). Then, with the goal of maximizing the signal-to-interference-and-noise ratio (SINR) or secrecy rate (SR) at the location of desired users, confidential message energy can be conserved by the desired users while other users can only receive a constellation distorted signal with low useful signal power. Our main contributions are summarized as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Considering multi-IRS, a 3D SPWT system with rectangular transmit antenna array is proposed. Due to the fact that the IRS consists of a number of low cost passive elements with adjustable phase shifts, it can significantly reduce the complexity and increase the energy efficiency compared with AF relay. More importantly, the system designs the phase shifts for the part of IRSs which has available LOS channel to the user. Compared with single-IRS system which can not guarantee that there exist a LOS direct path between the IRS and the user, multi-IRS system is more practical for real scenarios. Then, a maximum-signal-to-noise ratio (MSINR) scheme is proposed with single user which guarantees the desired user receiving the maximum confidential signal power, while at the same time, the artificial noise is projected on the null-space of the desired user to interfere the location-unknown and potential existed eavesdroppers.
\item Considering multi-user scenarios where the part of undesired users are regarded as eavesdroppers, a maximum-secrecy-rate (MSR) scheme is proposed to send confidential message to the desired users and protect the privacy information from eavesdropper at the same time. In this scenario, this scheme is achieved by maximizing the secrecy capacity of the minimal user. The MSR algorithm provides the optimal solutions of beamforming vector, AN vector in transmitter and the phase-shifting in the IRSs with an extremely high complexity.
\item To reduce the high complexity of MSR scheme, a low-complexity maximum-signal-to-interference-and-noise ratio (MSLNR) scheme is proposed by maximizing the ratio of the confidential signal power received by desired users to that received by eavesdroppers. Numerical results show that this scheme gives a suboptimal solution with a significantly reduced complexity, while the secrecy rate performance of the MSLNR scheme is close to that of the MSR scheme.
\end{enumerate}
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we propose the IRSs-aided 3-D SPWT system model. Then, a MSINR scheme for single user scenario is presented in Section III. In Section IV, a high performance MSR scheme and a low-complexity MSLNR scheme are proposed for multi-user scenario. The performance of the proposed method is evaluated in Section V. Finally, the conclusions are drawn in Section V.
$Notations$: Throughout the paper, matrices, vectors, and scalars are denoted by letters of bold upper case, bold lower case, and lower case, respectively. Signs $(\cdot)^*$, $(\cdot)^T$, $(\cdot)^H$, and $(\cdot)^{-1}$ denote conjugate, matrix transpose, conjugate transpose, and Moore-Penrose inverse, respectively. The symbol $\mathbf{I}_K$ denotes the $K\times K$ identity matrix.
\section{System Model}
As shown in Fig. \ref{system}, consider a multi-IRS-aided SPWT system where the direct path from the transmitter Alice to the receiver Bob is blocked by high-rise buildings. The transmitter Alice is a rectangular antenna array with the antenna number of $N=N_r \times N_c$ and the antenna spacing is denoted as $d_A$. The $K$ IRSs with a rectangular array having $M=M_r \times M_c$ elements are equipped on the surface of high-rise building. Assuming that all of the IRSs are perpendicular to the ground, the element spacing and height of each IRS are denoted as $d_I$ and $g$, respectively. Without loss of generation, we assume the transmitter Alice and the users are on the ground at the same height. Due to the large path loss, the signal power reflected by the IRS two or more times is negligible. Therefore, it is assumed that the channels from Alice to IRS and IRS to Bob are light of sight (LOS) channel, while the direct path channel from Alice to Bob is unavailable.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth]{system.eps}\\
\caption{Schematic diagram of the proposed scheme.}\label{system}
\end{figure}
Taking the first antenna of Alice as the reference element, the angle between the antenna array of Alice and the projection of IRS on the ground is denoted as $\theta_{IX}$, the azimuth angle and the pitch angle between Alice and the IRS are denoted as $\theta_{AI}$ and $\varphi_{AI}$, respectively. $\theta_{IB}$ and $\varphi_{IB}$ denote the azimuth angle and the pitch angle between the IRS and Bob, respectively. Moreover, we denote $r_{AI}$, $r_{IB}$ and $r_{AB}$ as the distance from Alice to IRS, the distance from IRS to Bob, and the distance from Alice to Bob, respectively.
In general, we assume that the location of the IRSs and Bob are known by Alice. Assuming that the reference antenna of Alice as the origin, the row and column of rectangular antenna array are regarded as X-axis and Y-axis, respectively. Then we establish a rectangular coordinate system. The locations of Bob and $k$-th IRS are expressed as $(x_B,y_B,0)$ and $(x_{Ik},y_{Ik},g_k)$, respectively. The values of $\theta_{IX}$, $(x_B,y_B,0)$ and $(x_{I_k},y_{I_k},g_k), \forall k=1,2,\ldots,K$ are known in advance.
According to the location coordinating information of Bob and IRS, the azimuth angles and pitch angles can be obtained by trigonometric function operations which are expressed as
\begin{align}\label{AIk}
&\theta_{AI_k}=\arctan \frac{y_{I_k}}{x_{I_k}},\\
&\varphi_{AI_k}=\arctan \frac{g_k}{\sqrt{x^2_{I_k}+y^2_{I_k}}},
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}\label{IkB}
&\theta_{I_kB}=\arctan \frac{y_{I_k}-y_b}{x_B-x_{I_k}},\\
&\varphi_{I_kB}=\arctan \frac{g_k}{\sqrt{(x_{I_k-x_B)^2}+(y_{I_k}-y_B)^2}}.
\end{align}
where $\theta_{AI_k}$ and $\varphi_{AI_k}$ denote the azimuth angle and pitch angle between Alice and the $k$-th IRS, respectively. $\theta_{I_kB}$, and $\varphi_{I_kB}$ denote the azimuth angle and pitch angle between Bob and the $k$-th IRS, respectively. The distance from Alice to the $k$-th IRS (the first row first column element) $r_{AI_k}$ and the distance from $k$-th IRS to Bob $r_{I_kB}$ can be expressed as
\begin{align}\label{rAk}
r_{AI_k}=\sqrt{x^2_{I_k}+y^2_{I_k}+g^2_k},
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}\label{rkB}
r_{I_kB}=\sqrt{(x_{I_k}-x_B)^2+(y_{I_k}^2-y_B)+g^2_k},
\end{align}
respectively. Then, the angle and distance information are obtained which can facilitate the next calculations.
In the following, the channel steering vectors between Alice to the $k$-th IRS and the $k$-th IRS to Bob are derived. First, according to SPWT system, random-subcarrier-selection (RSCS) is applied in transmitter's antennas. Then, according to \cite{Shen2019}, the subcarrier frequency allocated to the $n$-th element of transmitter antenna array is given by
\begin{align}\label{fn}
f_n=f_c+\eta_n \Delta f,
\end{align}
where $f_c$ denotes the reference frequency, $\Delta f$ denotes the sub-channel bandwidth and $\eta_n\in \{0,1,\cdots,N_s-1\}$ denotes the chosen subcarrier index. Note that the total bandwidth $B=N_s \Delta f$. It is assumed that the total bandwidth is far less than the reference frequency, i.e. satisfying $N_s \Delta f \ll f_c$.
Then, the phase of the received signal from the reference element of Alice (i.e. the first element with the reference frequency $f_c$) is given by
\begin{align}\label{psiA0}
\psi_{0}=2\pi f_c \frac{r}{c},
\end{align}
where $c$ is the light speed, $r$ denotes the distance between Alice and receiver (the $k$-th IRS). Likewise, the phase of the received signal from the $n$-th element of Alice can be expressed as
\begin{align}\label{psiAn}
\psi_{{n_r,n_c}}=&2\pi f_{n_r,n_c}\cdot \nonumber\\
&\frac{r_A+(n_r-1)d_A\cos \beta_A-(n_c-1)d_A\cos \gamma_A}{c},
\end{align}
where $\beta_A$ denotes the angle between the receiver and the columns of the antenna array of Alice, which can be expressed as
\begin{align}\label{betaA}
\beta_A=\arccos(\cos \varphi_A \sin \theta_A).
\end{align}
And $\gamma_A$ is the angle between the receiver and the rows of the antenna array of Alice, which is given by
\begin{align}\label{gammaA}
\gamma_A=\arccos(\cos \varphi_A \cos \theta_A),
\end{align}
where $\varphi_A$ and $\theta_A$ are the receiver's pitch angle and azimuth angle related to Alice, respectively.
Then, the phase shift of the $n_r$-th row and the $n_c$-th column element at Alice relative to the reference element is given by
\begin{align}\label{psiAn}
\Psi_{{n_r,n_c}}=\psi_{k_{n_r,n_c}}-\psi_{k_0}.
\end{align}
Then the normalized steering vector from Alice to a specific location with $(r,\theta,\varphi)$ is given by
\begin{align}\label{hA}
\mathbf{h}_A=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}&[e^{j\Psi_{{1,1}}},e^{j\Psi_{{1,2}}},\cdots,e^{j\Psi_{{N_c,1}}},\nonumber\\
&e^{j\Psi_{{2,1}}},\ldots,e^{j\Psi_{{N_c,N_r}}}].
\end{align}
Similarly, the phase shift of the reflected signal at the $m_r$-th row and the $m_c$-th column element of $k$-th IRS relative to the reference element (i.e. the first element of the IRS) is given by
\begin{align}\label{psiI}
\Phi_{{m_r,m_c}}(f_{n_r,n_c})&=\frac{2\pi f_{n_r,n_c}}{c}( r_I+\Delta r_{{m_r,m_c}}(n_r,n_c) \nonumber\\
&-(m_r-1)d_I\cos \beta_{I_k}+(m_c-1)d_I\cos \gamma_{I_k}),
\end{align}
where $f_{n_r,n_c}$ denotes the reflected signal frequency. $\Delta r_{{m_r,m_c}}(n_r,n_c)$ denotes the distance difference related to the $n_r$-th row and the $n_c$-th column element of Alice which can be expressed as
\begin{align}\label{deltar}
\Delta r_{{m_r,m_c}}(n_r,n_c)=&(m_c-1)d_I\cos \varphi_{AI_k} \cos (\theta_{AI_k}-\theta_{I_kX})\nonumber\\
&-(m_r-1)d_I\sin \varphi_{AI_k}.
\end{align}
Note that in (\ref{psiI}), $\beta_{I_k}$ denotes the angle between the column of the $k$-th IRS and the receiver (i.e. desired users), and $\gamma_I$ denotes the angle between the row of IRS and the receiver, which are different from $\beta_A$ and $\gamma_A$ since the IRS has its placement angle $\theta_{IX}$. The expressions of $\beta_I$ and $\gamma_I$ are represented as
\begin{align}\label{betaI}
\beta_{I_k}=\arccos\left(\cos \varphi_{I_k} \sin (\theta_{I_k}+\theta_{I_kX})\right),
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}\label{gammaI}
\gamma_{I_k}=\arccos\left(\cos \varphi_{I_k} \cos (\theta_{I_k}+\theta_{I_kX})\right),
\end{align}
where $\varphi_{I_k}$ is the pitch angle between the $k$-th IRS and the receiver, and $\theta_{I_k}$ is the azimuth angle between the $k$-th IRS and the receiver.
Hence, the steering vector from the $k$-th IRS to the receiver can be expressed as
\begin{align}\label{hIk}
\mathbf{h}_{I_k}(f)=&[1,e^{j\Phi_{{1,2}}(f)},\ldots,e^{j\Phi_{{M_c,1}}(f)},\nonumber\\
&e^{j\Phi_{{2,1}}(f)},\ldots,e^{j\Phi_{{M_r,M_c}}(f)}]^T.
\end{align}
Considering the security problem of SPWT system, AN is used in beamforming to interfere eavesdroppers. Then, the transmitted signal can be expressed as
\begin{align}\label{s}
\mathbf{s}=\sqrt{\alpha P_s}\mathbf{v}x+\sqrt{(1-\alpha)P_s}\mathbf{w}.
\end{align}
where $\alpha$ denotes the power allocation factor which allocates the power of transmitted confidential signal and AN, which satisfies $0\leq\alpha\leq 1$. $P_s$ is the transmit power of Alice. $x$ is a transmitted complex digital modulation symbol with $\mathbb{E}[{|x|^2}]=1$. In addition, $\mathbf{v}\in \mathbb{C}^{N\times 1}$ denotes the beamforming vector with $\|\mathbf{v}\|^2=1$ and $\mathbf{w}\in \mathbb{C}^{N\times 1}$ is the artificial noise with $\|\mathbf{w}\|^2=1$.
Next, by substituting the location information of the $k$-th IRS $(r_{AI_k},\theta_{AI_k},\varphi_{AI_k})$ into (\ref{hA}), and the Bob's location information $(r_{I_kB},\theta_{I_kB},\varphi_{I_kB})$ relative to the $k$-th IRS into (\ref{hIk}), respectively, we can obtain the steering vector $\mathbf{h}_{A_k}$ from Alice to the $k$-th IRS and the steering vector $\mathbf{h}_{I_kB}$ from the $k$-th IRS to Bob , respectively. Then, the received signal reflected from K IRSs to Bob can be expressed as
\begin{align}\label{yb}
y_{AIB}&=\sum \limits_{k=1}^K \rho_{AI_kB}\mathbf{h}^H_{A_k} \mathrm{diag}(\mathbf{s})\cdot\nonumber\\
&[\mathbf{h}_{I_kB}(f_{1,1}),\mathbf{h}_{I_kB}(f_{1,2}),\ldots,\mathbf{h}_{I_kB}(f_{N_r,N_c})]^H\mathbf{\Theta}_k+n_B,
\end{align}
where $\rho_{AIB}$ denotes the path loss through the reflection path and is proportional to $\frac{1}{r_{AI_kB}^2}$ with $r_{AI_kB}=r_{AI_k}+r_{I_kB}$. $n_B$ is the additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) at Bob with the distribution $\mathcal{CN}\sim(0,\sigma^2)$. $\Theta$ represents the phase-shift matrix of IRS which is expressed as
\begin{align}\label{Theta}
\mathbf{\Theta}_k=\left[ e^{j\varphi_{k_{1,1}}},e^{j\varphi_{k_{1,2}}},\ldots ,e^{j\varphi_{k_{m_r,m_c}}} \right]^T.
\end{align}
Defining $\mathbf{H}_{I_kB}(\mathbf{f})=[\mathbf{h}_{I_kB}(f_{1,1}),\ldots,\mathbf{h}_{I_kB}(f_{N_r,N_c})]$, (\ref{yb}) can be rewritten as
\begin{align}\label{yb1}
y_{AIB}&=\sum \limits_{k=1}^K [\rho_{AI_kB}\sqrt{\alpha P_s}\mathbf{h}^H_{A_k} \mathrm{diag}(\mathbf{v})\mathbf{H}^H_{I_kB}(\mathbf{f})\mathbf{\Theta}_k x\nonumber\\
&+\rho_{AI_kB}\sqrt{(1-\alpha) P_s}\mathbf{h}^H_{A_k} \mathrm{diag}(\mathbf{w})\mathbf{H}^H_{I_kB}(\mathbf{f})\mathbf{\Theta}_k]
+n_B.
\end{align}
Accordingly, the SINR of Bob is given by (\ref{SINRb}).
\begin{figure*}
\begin{align}\label{SINRb}
\mathrm{SINR}_B=\frac{|\sum \limits_{k=1}^K \rho_{AI_kB}\sqrt{\alpha P_s}\mathbf{h}^H_{A_k} \mathrm{diag}(\mathbf{v})\mathbf{H}^H_{I_kB}(\mathbf{f})\mathbf{\Theta}_k|^2}{|\sum \limits_{k=1}^K\rho_{AI_kB}\sqrt{(1-\alpha) P_s}\mathbf{h}^H_{A_k} \mathrm{diag}(\mathbf{w})\mathbf{H}^H_{I_kB}(\mathbf{f})\mathbf{\Theta}_k|^2+\sigma^2}
\end{align}
\hrulefill
\end{figure*}
\section{Proposed MSINR scheme in single-user system}
In this section, we consider a single-user scenario to achieve SPWT by optimizing both the beamforming in Alice and the phase-shifting in IRSs. Since the eavesdroppers' locations are usually unknown by Alice, their channel state information (CSI) is unavailable. Thus, we resort to maximize the SINR at Bob with a given power allocation factor $\alpha$. As a result, AN can be projected in the null space of Bob, and only potential eavesdroppers will be influenced by AN.
In this case, the optimization problem is transformed to
\begin{subequations}\label{P1}
\begin{align}
&\mathop {{\max}}\limits_{\mathbf{v},\mathbf{w},\Theta} ~\mathrm{SINR}_B \label{P1_1}\\
&~\mathrm{s}.\mathrm{t}.~~\|\mathbf{v}\|^2=1,\|\mathbf{w}\|^2=1, \label{P1_3} \\
&~~~~~~~(\ref{Theta}),\forall k=1,2,\ldots,K.\label{P1_4}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Let us define auxiliary variables $\Omega_k=diag(\mathbf{h}^H_{A_k})$ and $\Upsilon_k=\rho_{AI_kB}\sqrt{ P_s}$. Then, according to the matrix transformation, we can rewrite $\mathbf{h}^H_{A_k} \mathrm{diag}(\mathbf{v})$ and $\mathbf{h}^H_{A_k} \mathrm{diag}(\mathbf{w})$ to $\mathbf{v}^T\Omega_k$ and $\mathbf{w}^T\Omega_k$, respectively. As a result, problem (\ref{P1}) can be rewritten as
\begin{subequations}\label{P2}
\begin{align}
&\mathop {{\max}}\limits_{\mathbf{v},\mathbf{w},\Theta} ~\frac{|\sqrt{\alpha}\mathbf{v}^T\sum \limits_{k=1}^K \Upsilon_k \Omega_k \mathbf{H}^H_{I_kB}(\mathbf{f})\mathbf{\Theta}_k|^2}{|\sqrt{1-\alpha}\mathbf{w}^T\sum \limits_{k=1}^K\Upsilon_k\Omega_k \mathbf{H}^H_{I_kB}(\mathbf{f})\mathbf{\Theta}_k|^2+\sigma^2}\label{P2_1}\\
&~\mathrm{s}.\mathrm{t}.~~\|\mathbf{v}\|^2=1,\|\mathbf{w}\|^2=1 \label{P2_3}\\
&~~~~~~~(\ref{Theta}),\forall k=1,2,\ldots,K.\label{P2_4}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
In (\ref{P2_1}), another auxiliary variable is defined as $\Gamma =\sum \limits_{k=1}^K \Upsilon_k \Omega_k \mathbf{H}^H_{I_kB}(\mathbf{f})\mathbf{\Theta}_k$, $\Gamma \in \mathbb{C}(N\times 1)$ to simplify the objective function. For any given $\Theta_k (\forall k=1,2,\ldots,K)$, it is known that the optimal transmit beamforming solution to (\ref{P2}) is
\begin{align}\label{vopt}
\mathbf{v}_{opt}=\frac{\Gamma^*}{\|\Gamma\|},
\end{align}
and the optimal AN vector is
\begin{align}\label{wopt}
\mathbf{w}_{opt}&=[\frac{\mathbf{z}[\|\Gamma\|^2\mathrm{I}_N-\Gamma \Gamma^H]}{\|\mathbf{z}[\|\Gamma\|^2\mathrm{I}_N-\Gamma \Gamma^H]\|}]^T\nonumber\\
&=\frac{[\|\Gamma\|^2\mathrm{I}_N-\Gamma^* \Gamma^T]\mathbf{z}^T}{\|\mathbf{z}[\|\Gamma\|^2\mathrm{I}_N-\Gamma \Gamma^H]\|},
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{z}$ consists of $N$ i.i.d circularly-symmetric complex Gaussian random variables with zero-mean and unit-variance, i.e., $\mathbf{\mathbf{z}}\sim \mathcal{CN}(0,\mathbf{I}_N)$.
Substituting (\ref{vopt}) and (\ref{wopt}) into (\ref{SINRb}), the optimal SINR at Bob is given by
\begin{align}\label{SINRopt1}
\mathrm{SINR}_{B}=\frac{|\sqrt{\alpha}\sum \limits_{k=1}^K \mathbf{v}^T\Upsilon_k \Omega_k \mathbf{H}^H_{I_kB}(\mathbf{f})\mathbf{\Theta}_k|^2}{\sigma^2}.
\end{align}
Accordingly, the optimization problem (\ref{P2}) is equivalent to
\begin{subequations}\label{P3}
\begin{align}
&\mathop {{\max}}\limits_{\Theta} ~|\sum \limits_{k=1}^K\mathbf{v}^T \Upsilon_k \Omega_k \mathbf{H}^H_{I_kB}(\mathbf{f})\mathbf{\Theta}_k|^2\label{P3_1}\\
&~\mathrm{s}.\mathrm{t}.~~(\ref{Theta}),\forall k=1,2,\ldots,K.\label{P3_2}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Since $\Upsilon_k$, $\Omega_k$ and $\mathbf{H}^H_{I_kB}(\mathbf{f})$ in (\ref{P3_1}) are known, and $\mathbf{v}^T\Upsilon_k \Omega_k \mathbf{H}^H_{I_kB}(\mathbf{f})$ is a $1\times M$ vector. Thus, (\ref{P3_1}) can be rewritten as
\begin{align}\label{thetaopt}
&|\sum \limits_{k=1}^K \mathbf{v}^T\Upsilon_k \Omega_k \mathbf{H}^H_{I_kB}(\mathbf{f})\mathbf{\Theta}_k|^2\nonumber\\
&=|\sum \limits_{k=1}^K (\sum \limits_{m=1}^M A_{k_{m}}e^{j\gamma_{k_{m}}}e^{j\varphi_{k_m}})|^2,
\end{align}
where $A_{k_{m}}$ is a positive real number which denotes the amplitude of the $m$-th element in $\mathbf{v}^T\Upsilon_k \Omega_k \mathbf{H}^H_{I_kB}(\mathbf{f})$, and $0\leq\gamma_{k_{m,n}}\leq2\pi$ denotes the phase angle of the $m$-th element in $\mathbf{v}^T\Upsilon_k \Omega_k \mathbf{H}^H_{I_kB}(\mathbf{f})$. In addition, the subscript $m$ in (\ref{thetaopt}) is the simplified expression of $(m_r,m_c)$, which satisfies $m=(m_r-1)M_c+m_c,(0\leq m_r\leq M_r,0\leq m_c\leq M_c)$.
According to (\ref{thetaopt}), it is clear to see that when $\sum \limits_{m=1}^M A_{k_{m,n}}e^{j\gamma_{k_{m,n}}}e^{j\varphi_{k_m}}$ for each $k$ has the same phase angle, $|\sum \limits_{k=1}^K (\sum \limits_{m=1}^M A_{k_{m}}e^{j\gamma_{k_{m}}}e^{j\varphi_{k_m}})|^2$ achieves the maximum value. Thus, let us denote a constant phase angle for each $k$ of $\sum \limits_{m=1}^M A_{k_{m,n}}e^{j\gamma_{k_{m,n}}}e^{j\varphi_{k_m}}$ to $\varphi_0$, i.e.,
\begin{align}\label{varphi0}
\arg(\sum \limits_{m=1}^M A_{k_{m}}e^{j\gamma_{k_{m}}}e^{j\varphi_{k_m}})=\varphi_0,\forall k=1,2,\ldots,K,
\end{align}
In this case, the optimization problem (\ref{P3}) can be transformed to $K$ sub-optimization problem as
\begin{align}\label{P4}
&\mathop {{\max}}\limits_{\varphi_{k_m}} ~|\sum \limits_{m=1}^M A_{k_{m}}e^{j\gamma_{k_{m}}}e^{j\varphi_{k_m}}|,\forall k=1,2,\ldots,K.
\end{align}
Next, we have the following inequality:
\begin{align}\label{upperbound}
|\sum \limits_{m=1}^M A_{k_{m}}e^{j\gamma_{k_{m}}}e^{j\varphi_{k_m}}|\leq \sum \limits_{m=1}^M |A_{k_{m}}e^{j\gamma_{k_{m}}}e^{j\varphi_{k_m}}|,
\end{align}
when $\gamma_{k_m}+\varphi_{k_m}=\varphi_0(\forall m=1,2,\ldots,M$), and the inequality (\ref{upperbound}) satisfies the equality condition. Accordingly, the optimal value of $\varphi_{k_m}$ is given by
\begin{align}\label{varphikm}
\varphi_{k_m}=\varphi_0-\gamma_{k_m}.
\end{align}
Then, after substituting $\varphi_{k_m}$ into (\ref{SINRopt1}), the optimal $\mathbf{v}$ and $\Theta_k$ can be obtained within a finite number of iterations. The detailed process is shown in Algorithm 1. To be specific, first, giving an initial value of $\mathbf{\Theta_k}[0],\forall k=1,\ldots,K$, according to (\ref{vopt}), we can obtain $\mathbf{v}[0]$. Next, substituting $\mathbf{v}[0]$ into (\ref{SINRopt1}), $\mathbf{\Theta_k}[1],\forall k=1,\ldots,K$ can be obtained by (\ref{varphikm}). At last, we repeat the above process until convergence, and obtain the optimal solution $\mathbf{v}_{opt}$ and $\mathbf{\Theta}_{k_{opt}},\forall k=1,\ldots,K$ . Since $\mathrm{SINR}_B(\mathbf{v}[n+1],\mathbf{\Theta}[n+1])\geq \mathrm{SINR}_B(\mathbf{v}[n+1],\mathbf{\Theta}[n])\geq \mathrm{SINR}_B(\mathbf{v}[n],\mathbf{\Theta}[n])$, where$\mathbf{\Theta}[n]={\mathbf{\Theta}_1[n],\ldots,\mathbf{\Theta}_K[n]}$, Algorithm 1 converges.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{Iteration algorithm for the MSINR scheme}
\label{alg:A}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE {Initialize $\mathbf{\Theta_k}[0](\forall k=1,\ldots,K)$ randomly that is feasible to (\ref{P2});}
\STATE {Set $n=0$;}
\REPEAT
\STATE {Obtain $\mathbf{v}[n]$ by (\ref{vopt});}
\STATE {Substitute $\mathbf{v}[n]$ into (\ref{SINRopt1}), and obtain $\mathbf{\Theta_k}[n+1]$ by (\ref{varphikm});}
\STATE {Update n=n+1;}
\UNTIL{convergence}
\STATE {Output the final optimal solution $\mathbf{v}_{opt}=\mathbf{v}[n]$, $\mathbf{\Theta}_{k_{opt}}=\Theta_k[n], \forall k=1,\ldots,K$.}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
Furthermore, it should be noted that, since $\mathbf{w}$ is designed on the null-space of Bob, we have
\begin{align}\label{null-space}
\mathbf{w}^T\sum \limits_{k=1}^K\Upsilon_k\Omega_k \mathbf{H}^H_{I_kB}(\mathbf{f})\mathbf{\Theta}_k=0.
\end{align}
Thus, by substituting $\mathbf{\Theta}_{k_{opt}},\forall k=1,\ldots,K$ into (\ref{wopt}), the optimal solution of $\mathbf{w}$ can be obtained.
\section{Proposed Schemes in multi-user system}
In this section, we consider a multi-user multi-IRS-aided SPWT system. Let $P$ denote the number of desired users which confidential message is transmitted to, and let $Q$ denote the number of undesired users which are not expected to receive the confidential signals. We regard $P$ desired users as legitimate users (Bobs) and $Q$ undesired users as eavesdroppers (Eves), respectively. To protect the confidential signal from eavesdropping by Eves, the optimization problem can be established by maximizing the SR.
\subsection{Proposed MSR scheme}
According to the equation of SINR (\ref{SINRb}) in Section III, the SINR at the $p$-th desired user $\mathrm{SINR}_{b_p}$ can be given by substituting $\rho_{AI_kB_p}$ and $\mathbf{H}^H_{I_kB_p}$ into (\ref{SINRb}). Similarly, the SINR at the $q$-th eavesdropper $\mathrm{SINR}_{E_q}$ can be given by substituting $\rho_{AI_kE_q}$ and $\mathbf{H}^H_{I_kE_q}$ into (\ref{SINRb}). Then, the SR can be expressed as
\begin{align}\label{SR}
\mathrm{SR}=\min \limits_{p,q} \{\log(1+\mathrm{SINR}_{B_p})-\log(1+\mathrm{SINR}_{E_q})\}.
\end{align}
Accordingly, the optimization problem of maximizing the SR is constructed as
\begin{subequations}\label{P4}
\begin{align}
&\mathop {{\max}}\limits_{\mathbf{v},\mathbf{w},\Theta,\alpha} ~\mathrm{SR}\label{P4_1}\\
&~\mathrm{s}.\mathrm{t}.~~\|\mathbf{v}\|^2=1,\|\mathbf{w}\|^2=1 \label{P4_3}\\
&~~~~~~~(\ref{Theta}),\forall k=1,2,\ldots,K.\label{P4_4}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
However, the objective function in (\ref{P4_1}) is composed of the logarithmic function of the product of fractional quadratic functions, which is non-convex and difficult to tackle. Thus, semi-definite relaxation and first order Taylor expansion are employed in transforming the original problem into a convex problem. The detailed process is illustrated as follows.
First, we can observe that in (\ref{SINRb}, the beamforming vector $\mathbf{v}$, the AN vector $\mathbf{w}$ and the phase shifting in IRS $\Theta$ are coupled, which makes the joint optimization problem very difficult to solve. Therefore, we give an initial value of $\Theta_k,\forall k=1,2,\ldots,K$. Then, let $\Gamma_p =\sum \limits_{k=1}^K \Upsilon_k \Omega_k H^H_{I_kB_p}(\mathbf{f})\mathbf{\Theta}_k$ and $\Gamma_q =\sum \limits_{k=1}^K \Upsilon_k \Omega_k H^H_{I_kE_q}(\mathbf{f})\mathbf{\Theta}_k$. Accordingly, problem (\ref{P4}) can be simplified as
\begin{subequations}\label{P5}
\begin{align}
&\mathop {{\max}}\limits_{\mathbf{v{'}},\mathbf{w{'}}} ~\min\limits_{p,q} \{\log(1+\frac{|\mathbf{v}^T\Gamma_p|^2}{|\mathbf{w}^T\Gamma_p|^2+\sigma^2})\nonumber\\
&~~~~~~~~~~~~~-\log(1+\frac{|\mathbf{v}^T\Gamma_q|^2}{|\mathbf{w}^T\Gamma_q|^2+\sigma^2})\},\label{P5_1}\\
&~\mathrm{s}.\mathrm{t}.~~\|\mathbf{v^{'}}\|^2+\|\mathbf{w{'}}\|^2=1.\label{P5_2}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Note that in (\ref{P5}), power allocation factor $\alpha$ is integrated into $\mathbf{v{'}}$ and $\mathbf{w{'}}$, i.e. $\mathbf{v}=\alpha\mathbf{v{'}}$ and $\mathbf{w{'}}=(1-\alpha)\mathbf{w}$. Thus the power constraint is given as (\ref{P5_2}), and then the optimization variables are reduced to two.
Next, we introduce a set of the exponential variables to substitute the numerators and denominators of the fractions in the objective function in (\ref{P5}), i.e.,
\begin{align}\label{evariable}
&e^{\mu_p}=|\mathbf{v{'}}^T\Gamma_p|^2+|\mathbf{w{'}}^T\Gamma_p|^2+\sigma^2,\\
&e^{\nu_p}=|\mathbf{w{'}}^T\Gamma_p|^2+\sigma^2,\\
&e^{\lambda_q}=|\mathbf{v{'}}^T\Gamma_q|^2+|\mathbf{w{'}}^T\Gamma_q|^2+\sigma^2,\\
&e^{\omega_q}=|\mathbf{w{'}}^T\Gamma_q|^2+\sigma^2.
\end{align}
According to the properties of exponential and logarithmic functions, the problem (\ref{P5}) can be rewritten as
\begin{subequations}\label{P6}
\begin{align}
&\mathop {{\max}}\limits_{\mathbf{v{'}},\mathbf{w{'}}} ~\min\limits_{p,q} \{\mu_p-\nu_p-\lambda_q+\omega_q\},\label{P6_1}\\
&~\mathrm{s}.\mathrm{t}.~~\|\mathbf{v{'}}\|^2+\mathbf{w{'}}\|^2=1,\label{P6_2}\\
&~~~~~~~|\mathbf{v{'}}^T\Gamma_p|^2+|\mathbf{w{'}}^T\Gamma_p|^2+\sigma^2\geq e^{\mu_p},\label{P6_3}\\
&~~~~~~~|\mathbf{w{'}}^T\Gamma_p|^2+\sigma^2\leq e^{\nu_p},\label{P6_4}\\
&~~~~~~~|\mathbf{v{'}}^T\Gamma_q|^2+|\mathbf{w{'}}^T\Gamma_q|^2+\sigma^2\leq e^{\lambda_q},\label{P6_5}\\
&~~~~~~~|\mathbf{w{'}}^T\Gamma_q|^2+\sigma^2\geq e^{\omega_q}\label{P6_6}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Then, the objective function (\ref{P6_1}) is a concave function because it is a minimum of the affine functions. However, the constraint (\ref{P6_3})-(\ref{P6_6}) are all non-convex. In order to transform these constraints into convex ones, we substitute the positive semi-definite matrix variables $R_v=\mathbf{v{'}}^*\mathbf{v{'}}^T$, $R_w=\mathbf{w{'}}^*\mathbf{w{'}}^T$ and $R_{\Gamma_p}=\Gamma_p\Gamma_p^H$ into (\ref{P6}). Note that $R_v$ and $R_w$ need to satisfy $R_v,R_W\succeq0$, and $\mathrm{rank}(R_v,R_w)=1$. Since the rank-one constraint is still non-convex, we apply the semi-definite relaxation (SDR) to relax this constraint.
As a result, the optimization problem (\ref{P6}) is reduced to
\begin{subequations}\label{P7}
\begin{align}
&\mathop {{\max}}\limits_{\mathbf{v{'}},\mathbf{w{'}}} ~\min\limits_{p,q} \{\mu_p-\nu_p-\lambda_q+\omega_q\},\label{P7_1}\\
&~\mathrm{s}.\mathrm{t}.~~\mathrm{Tr}(R_v)+\mathrm{Tr}(R_w)=1,\label{P7_2}\\
&~~~~~~~\mathrm{Tr}(R_{\Gamma_p}R_v)+\mathrm{Tr}(R_{\Gamma_p}R_w)+\sigma^2\geq e^{\mu_p},\forall p,\label{P7_3}\\
&~~~~~~~\mathrm{Tr}(R_{\Gamma_p}R_w)+\sigma^2\leq e^{\nu_p},\forall p,\label{P7_4}\\
&~~~~~~~\mathrm{Tr}(R_{\Gamma_q}R_v)+\mathrm{Tr}(R_{\Gamma_q}R_w)+\sigma^2\leq e^{\lambda_q},\forall q,\label{P7_5}\\
&~~~~~~~\mathrm{Tr}(R_{\Gamma_q}R_w)+\sigma^2\geq e^{\omega_q},\forall q,\label{P7_6}\\
&~~~~~~~R_v,R_w\succeq 0 ,\label{P7_7}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
In this case, the constraints in (\ref{P7_3}) and (\ref{P7_6}) are convex. However, the constraints in (\ref{P7_4}) and (\ref{P7_5}) are still non-convex, thus we linearize $e^{\nu_p}$ and $e^{\lambda_q}$ based on the first-order Taylor approximation as
\begin{align}\label{taylor}
e^{\nu_p}=e^{\bar{\nu_p}}(\nu_p-\bar{\nu_p}+1),\\
e^{\lambda_q}=e^{\bar{\lambda_q}}(\lambda_q-\bar{\lambda_q}+1),
\end{align}
where $\bar{\nu_p}$ and $\bar{\lambda_q}$ are the approximation point, and the approximations are made around
\begin{align}
&\bar{\nu_p}=\ln\left(\mathrm{Tr}(R_{\Gamma_p}R_w)+\sigma^2 \right),\label{appr1_1}\\
&\bar{\lambda_q}=\ln\left(\mathrm{Tr}(R_{\Gamma_q}R_v)+\mathrm{Tr}(R_{\Gamma_q}R_w)+\sigma^2 \right)\label{appr1_2}.
\end{align}
Hence, the problem (\ref{P7}) is eventually transformed as
\begin{subequations}\label{P8}
\begin{align}
&\mathop {{\max}}\limits_{\mathbf{v},\mathbf{w}} ~\min\limits_{p,q} \{\mu_p-\nu_p-\lambda_q+\omega_q\},\label{P8_1}\\
&~\mathrm{s}.\mathrm{t}.~~\mathrm{Tr}(R_v)+\mathrm{Tr}(R_w)=1,\label{P8_2}\\
&~~~~~~~\mathrm{Tr}(R_{\Gamma_p}R_v)+\mathrm{Tr}(R_{\Gamma_p}R_w)+\sigma^2\geq e^{\mu_p},\forall p,\label{P8_3}\\
&~~~~~~~\mathrm{Tr}(R_{\Gamma_p}R_w)+\sigma^2\leq e^{\bar{\nu_p}}(\nu_p-\bar{\nu_p}+1),\forall p,\label{P8_4}\\
&~~~~~~~\mathrm{Tr}(R_{\Gamma_q}R_v)+\mathrm{Tr}(R_{\Gamma_q}R_w)+\sigma^2\leq \nonumber\\
&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~e^{\bar{\lambda_q}}(\lambda_q-\bar{\lambda_q}+1),\forall q,\label{P8_5}\\
&~~~~~~~\mathrm{Tr}(R_{\Gamma_q}R_w)+\sigma^2\geq e^{\omega_q},\forall q,\label{P8_6}\\
&~~~~~~~R_v,R_w\succeq 0.\label{P8_7}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Now, the objective function and all the constraints in (\ref{P8}) are convex, and problem (\ref{P8}) is a convex semi-definite program (SDP), thus it can be optimally solved by existing convex optimization solutions such as CVX \cite{CVX2004}. However, in general the solution of $R_v$ and $R_w$ may not satisfy the relaxed constraint $\mathrm{rank}(R_v,R_w)=1$, which implies that the optimal solution of problem (\ref{P8}) only serves an upper bound of problem (\ref{P6}). Thus, it is necessary to construct a rank-one solution from the obtained higher-rank solution to problem (\ref{P8}). The detailed steps are shown as follows.
1) First, we decompose $R_v$ and $R_w$ as $R_v=U_v\Sigma_vU^H_v$ and $R_v=U_w\Sigma_wU^H_w$, respectively. Herein, $U_v$ and $U_w$ are unitary matrices. $\Sigma_v$ and $\Sigma_w$ are eigenvalue diagonal matrices of $R_v$ and $R_w$, respectively. They have the same size of $N\times N$.
2) Next, we obtain the suboptimal solution of (\ref{P6}) as $\bar{\mathbf{v{'}}}=U_v\Sigma^{\frac{1}{2}}_v\xi_v$ and $\bar{\mathbf{w{'}}}=U_w\Sigma^{\frac{1}{2}}_w\xi_w$, where $\xi_v,\xi_w\sim \mathcal{CN}(0,\mathbf{I}_{N\times 1})$ are $N\times 1$ random vectors.
3) Finally, with sufficient independent generated random vectors $\xi_{v}$ and $\xi_w$, the optimal solution of (\ref{P6}) is approximated as $\bar{\mathbf{v{'}}}$ and $\bar{\mathbf{w{'}}}$ which achieves the highest objective value among all $\xi_v$ and $\xi_w$.
After the solutions of $\mathbf{v{'}}$ and $\mathbf{w{'}}$ are obtained with given $\Theta_k$, the next step is to optimize $\Theta_k$ with the obtained $\mathbf{v{'}}$ and $\mathbf{w{'}}$. The optimization problem can be constructed as
\begin{subequations}\label{P9}
\begin{align}
&\mathop {{\max}}\limits_{\Theta_k} ~\min\limits_{p,q} \{\log(1+\mathrm{SINR}_{B_p})-\log(1+\mathrm{SINR}_{E_q})\},\label{P9_1}\\
&~\mathrm{s}.\mathrm{t}.~~|\Theta_{k_m}|^2=1,\forall k=1,\ldots,K,\forall m=1,\ldots,M.\label{P9_2}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Observing (\ref{SINRb}), all the parameters in $\rho_{AI_kB}\sqrt{\alpha P_s}\mathbf{h}^H_{A_k}\mathrm{diag}(\mathbf{v})\mathbf{H}^H_{I_kB}(\mathbf{f})$ are known, thus for simplicity we denote
\begin{align}\label{hvbp}
\zeta_{kB_p}=\rho_{AI_kB}\sqrt{\alpha P_s}\mathbf{h}^H_{A_k}\mathrm{diag}(\mathbf{v})\mathbf{H}^H_{I_kB}(\mathbf{f}),
\end{align}
similarly, we denote
\begin{align}\label{hwbp}
\eta_{kB_p}=\rho_{AI_kB}\sqrt{\alpha P_s}\mathbf{h}^H_{A_k}\mathrm{diag}(\mathbf{w})\mathbf{H}^H_{I_kB}(\mathbf{f}).
\end{align}
Then, the SINR at the $p$-th desired user is reduced as
\begin{align}\label{SINRbp}
\mathrm{SINR}_{B_p}=\frac{|\sum \limits_{k=1}^K \zeta_{kB_p} \mathbf{\Theta}_k|^2}{|\sum \limits_{k=1}^K\eta_{kB_p}\mathbf{\Theta}_k|^2+\sigma^2}.
\end{align}
Since $\zeta_{kB_p}$ and $\eta_{kB_p}$ are $1\times M$ vectors and $\Theta_k$ is a $M\times 1$ vector, the summation can be rewritten as
\begin{align}\label{sums1}
\sum \limits_{k=1}^K \zeta_{kB_p} \mathbf{\Theta}_k=\mathbf{O}_{B_p}\mathbf{\Theta}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}\label{sums2}
\sum \limits_{k=1}^K \eta_{kB_p} \mathbf{\Theta}_k=\mathbf{U}_{B_p}\mathbf{\Theta}
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{O}_{B_p}$, $\mathbf{U}_{B_p}$ and $\Theta$ are the composite vector of $\zeta_{kB_p}$, $\eta_{kB_p}$ and $\Theta_k$, respectively, which are given as
\begin{align}\label{P}
\mathbf{O}_{B_p}=[\zeta_{1B_p},\zeta_{2B_p},\ldots,\zeta_{KB_p}],
\end{align}
\begin{align}\label{Q}
\mathbf{U}_{B_p}=[\eta_{1B_p},\eta_{2B_p},\ldots,\eta_{KB_p}],
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}\label{DTheta}
\mathbf{\Theta}=[\Theta^T_1,\Theta^T_2,\ldots,\Theta^T_K]^T.
\end{align}
Similarly, $\mathbf{O}_{E_q}$, $\mathbf{U}_{E_q}$ and $\Theta$ can be obtained. Then, the optimization problem is reduced as
\begin{subequations}\label{P10}
\begin{align}
&\mathop {{\max}}\limits_{\Theta_k} ~\min\limits_{p,q} \{\log(1+\frac{|\mathbf{O}_{B_p}\mathbf{\Theta}|^2}{|\mathbf{U}_{B_p}\mathbf{\Theta}|^2+\sigma^2})\nonumber\\
&~~~~~~~~~~~~~-\log(1+\frac{|\mathbf{O}_{E_q}\mathbf{\Theta}|^2}{|\mathbf{U}_{E_q}\mathbf{\Theta}|^2+\sigma^2})\},\label{P10_1}\\
&~\mathrm{s}.\mathrm{t}.~~|\Theta_{k_m}|^2=1(\forall k=1,\ldots,K,\forall m=1,\ldots,M).\label{P10_2}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
According to (\ref{P8}), problem (\ref{P10}) can be transformed as
\begin{subequations}\label{P11}
\begin{align}
&\mathop {{\max}}\limits_{\mathbf{v},\mathbf{w}} ~\min\limits_{p,q} \{a_p-b_p-i_q+l_q\},\label{P11_1}\\
&~\mathrm{s}.\mathrm{t}.~~R_{\Theta_{m,m}}=1,\forall m=1,\ldots,KM,\label{P11_2}\\
&~~~~~~~\mathrm{Tr}(R_{O_{B_p}}R_{\Theta})+\mathrm{Tr}(R_{U_{B_p}}R_{\Theta})+\sigma^2\geq e^{a_p},\forall p,\label{P11_3}\\
&~~~~~~~\mathrm{Tr}(R_{U_{B_p}}R_{\Theta})+\sigma^2\leq e^{\bar{b_p}}(b_p-\bar{b_p}+1),\forall p,\label{P11_4}\\
&~~~~~~~\mathrm{Tr}(R_{O_{E_q}}R_{\Theta})+\mathrm{Tr}(R_{U_{E_q}}R_{\Theta})+\sigma^2\leq \nonumber\\
&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~e^{\bar{i_q}}(i_q-\bar{i_q}+1),\forall q,\label{P11_5}\\
&~~~~~~~\mathrm{Tr}(R_{U_{E_q}}R_{\Theta})+\sigma^2\geq e^{l_q},\forall q,\label{P11_6}\\
&~~~~~~~R_v,R_w\succeq 0.\label{P11_7}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $R_{O_{B_p}}=\mathbf{O}^H_{B_p}\mathbf{O}_{B_p}$, $R_{U_{B_p}}=\mathbf{U}^H_{B_p}\mathbf{U}_p$, $R_{O_{E_q}}=\mathbf{O}^H_{E_q}\mathbf{O}_{E_q}$, and $R_{U_q}=\mathbf{U}^H_{E_q}\mathbf{U}_{E_q}$ are known. $R_{\Theta}=\mathbf{\Theta}\mathbf{\Theta}^H$ satisfies that the diagonal element equals to one and rank$(R_{\Theta})=1$. Since the rank-one constraint is non-convex, we relax this constraint. Moreover, a set of exponential variables $a_p$, $b_p$, $i_q$ and $l_q$ are introduced which are substituted as
\begin{align}\label{evariable1}
&e^{a_p}=\mathrm{Tr}(R_{O_{B_p}}R_{\Theta})+\mathrm{Tr}(R_{U_{B_p}}R_{\Theta})+\sigma^2,\\
&e^{b_p}=\mathrm{Tr}(R_{U_{B_p}}R_{\Theta})+\sigma^2,\\
&e^{i_q}=\mathrm{Tr}(R_{O_{E_q}}R_{\Theta})+\mathrm{Tr}(R_{U_{E_q}}R_{\Theta})+\sigma^2,\\
&e^{l_q}=\mathrm{Tr}(R_{U_{E_q}}R_{\Theta})+\sigma^2,
\end{align}
and $\bar{b_p}$, $\bar{i_q}$ are the approximation point which are made around
\begin{align}
&\bar{b_p}=\ln\left(\mathrm{Tr}(R_{U_{B_p}}R_{\Theta})+\sigma^2 \right),\label{appr2_1}\\
&\bar{i_q}=\ln\left(\mathrm{Tr}(R_{O_{E_q}}R_{\Theta})+\mathrm{Tr}(R_{U_{E_q}}R_{\Theta})+\sigma^2 \right)\label{appr2_2}.
\end{align}
As a convex problem, (\ref{P11}) can be solved iteratively by the existing convex optimization solutions such as CVX. While the relaxed constraint may not lead to a rank-one solution, the Gaussian randomization can be similarly used as in problem (\ref{P10}) to obtain a feasible solution of (\ref{P11}) based on the higher-rank solution obtained by solving (\ref{P11}).
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{Proposed MSR scheme}
\label{alg:A}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE {Initialize $\mathbf{v}[0]$, $\mathbf{w}[0]$ and $\Theta[0]$ randomly that is feasible to (\ref{P4});}
\STATE {Set $n=0$;}
\STATE Set $m=0$;
\REPEAT
\STATE Substitute $\Theta[n]$ into (\ref{P8});
\REPEAT
\STATE {Substitute $\mathbf{v}[m]$ and $\mathbf{w}[m]$ into (\ref{appr1_1}) and (\ref{appr1_2}), respectively, yields $\bar{\nu_p}[m]$ and $\bar{\lambda_q}[m]$;}
\STATE Substitute $\bar{\nu_p}[m]$ and $\bar{\lambda_q}[m]$ into (\ref{P8}) yields the optimal solution ${\mathbf{R}_v}[m+1]$ and ${\mathbf{R}_w}[m+1]$;
\STATE Obtain $\mathbf{v}[m+1]$ and $\mathbf{w}[m+1]$ by Gaussian randomization;
\STATE {Update $m=m+1$;}
\UNTIL{Convergence}
\REPEAT
\STATE {Substitute $\mathbf{\Theta}[n]$ into (\ref{appr2_1}) and (\ref{appr2_2}), yields $\bar{b_p}[n]$ and $\bar{i_q}[n]$;}
\STATE Substitute $\bar{b_p}[n]$ and $\bar{i_q}[n]$ into (\ref{P11}) yields the optimal solution ${\mathbf{R}_{\Theta}}[n+1]$;
\STATE Obtain $\mathbf{\Theta}[n+1]$ by Gaussian randomization;
\STATE {Update $n=n+1$;}
\UNTIL{Convergence}
\UNTIL{Convergence}
\STATE {Output the final optimal solution $\mathbf{v}_{opt}=\mathbf{v}[m]$ , $\mathbf{w}_{opt}=\mathbf{w}[m]$ and $\Theta_{opt}=\Theta[n]$.}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
The detailed process of the MSR scheme is shown in Algorithm 2. First, we give initialized $\mathbf{v}[0]$, $\mathbf{w}[0]$ and $\mathbf{\Theta}[0]$, then the values of $\mathbf{v}[1]$, $\mathbf{w}[1]$ are obtained with $\mathbf{\Theta}[0]$ by solving problem (\ref{P8}). Next, we obtain $\mathbf{\Theta}[1]$ with $\mathbf{v}[1]$, $\mathbf{w}[1]$ by solving problem (\ref{P11}). Thus, the optimal solutions of $\mathbf{v}$, $\mathbf{w}$ and $\mathbf{\Theta}$ can be obtained within a finite number of iterations.
The convergence is analyzed as follows. Algorithm 2 consists of twice CVX optimizations and once iteration operation. In the two CVX algorithms, since the objective function is concave that has a maximum value, and all constraints are convex, the CVX algorithms converge. From step 6 to step 11, we can obtain $\mathbf{v}[m+1]$ and $\mathbf{w}[m+1]$ which satisfy $F(\mathbf{v}[m+1]),\mathbf{w}[m+1],\mathbf{\Theta}[n]\geq F(\mathbf{v}[m]),\mathbf{w}[m],\mathbf{\Theta}[n]$, where $F$ denotes the objective function. From step 12 to step 17, $\mathbf{\Theta}[n]$ can be obtained which satisfies $F(\mathbf{v}[m+1]),\mathbf{w}[m+1],\mathbf{\Theta}[n+1]\geq F(\mathbf{v}[m+1]),\mathbf{w}[m+],\mathbf{\Theta}[n]$. Therefore, Algorithm 2 converges.
Next, we study the complexity of the proposed algorithm. According to \cite{book2012}, the per-iteration complexity of the proposed high performance scheme can be approximately calculated as $O(T_1N^{3.5}+T_2(MK)^{3.5}+((K^2+2K)M^2+(K+1)N^2+KMN)(P+Q))$, where $T_1$ and $T_2$ denote the inner iterations times from step 6 to step 11 and from step 12 to step 17 in Algorithm 2, respectively.
\subsection{A low-complexity MSLNR scheme}
Since the complexity of the MMSR scheme proposed in Section III-A is high in practice, we propose a low-complexity MSLNR scheme in this subsection which is more practical in realistic scenarios. Based on the MSLNR scheme, the beamforming vector on Alice and the phase shifting on IRS are designed to preserve the power of confidential message as possible in the desired users by minimizing the leakage of confidential message to the eavesdroppers (undesired users). Meanwhile, the AN vector is designed to minimize its impact on desired users, i.e. designed on the null-space of the desired users. The benefit of this scheme is the significantly reduced complexity compared to the MSR scheme.
First, we give the optimal problem of MSLNR scheme as
\begin{subequations}\label{PSLNR}
\begin{align}
&\mathop {{\max}}\limits_{\mathbf{v},\mathbf{w},\Theta} ~\mathrm{SLNR}\label{PSLNR_1}\\
&~\mathrm{s}.\mathrm{t}.~~\|\mathbf{v}\|^2=1,\label{PSLNR_2}\\
&~~~~~~~\|\mathbf{w}\|^2=1 \label{PSLNR_3}\\
&~~~~~~~(\ref{Theta}),\forall k=1,2,\ldots,K.\label{PSLNR_4}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
According to the definition of SLNR, the expression can be given by
\begin{align}\label{SLNR}
\mathrm{SLNR}=\frac{|\sqrt{\alpha}\mathbf{v}^T\mathbb{H}_{\Theta B}|^2}{|\sqrt{\alpha}\mathbf{v}^T\mathbb{H}_{\Theta E}|^2+\sigma^2}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}\label{HHb}
\mathbb{H}_{\Theta B}=[&\sum \limits_{k=1}^K \Upsilon_{k1} \Omega_k \mathbf{H}^H_{I_kB_1}(\mathbf{f})\mathbf{\Theta}_k,\ldots,\nonumber\\
&\sum \limits_{k=1}^K \Upsilon_{kP} \Omega_k \mathbf{H}^H_{I_kB_P}(\mathbf{f})\mathbf{\Theta}_k]
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}\label{HHe}
\mathbb{H}_{\Theta E}=[&\sum \limits_{k=1}^K \Upsilon_{k1} \Omega_k \mathbf{H}^H_{I_kB_1}(\mathbf{f})\mathbf{\Theta}_k,\ldots,\nonumber\\
&\sum \limits_{k=1}^K \Upsilon_{kQ} \Omega_k \mathbf{H}^H_{I_kB_Q}(\mathbf{f})\mathbf{\Theta}_k].
\end{align}
In this case, with a given $\mathbf{\Theta}$, when $\mathbb{H}_{\Theta B}$ and $\mathbb{H}_{\Theta E}$ are known, (\ref{SLNR}) can be rewritten as
\begin{align}\label{SLNR1}
\mathrm{SLNR}=\frac{\alpha(\mathbf{v^*})^H\mathbb{H}_{\Theta B_p}\mathbb{H}^H_{\Theta B_p}\mathbf{v^*}}{\alpha(\mathbf{v^*})^H\mathbb{H}_{\Theta E_p}\mathbb{H}^H_{\Theta E_p}\mathbf{v^*}+\sigma^2}.
\end{align}
Thus, according to the generalized Rayleigh-Ritz theorem \cite{Horn1985Matrix}, the optimal solution of $\mathbf{v^*}$ is given by the largest eigen-value of the matrix
\begin{align}\label{eigen}
[\mathbb{H}_{\Theta E_p}\mathbb{H}^H_{\Theta E_p}+\frac{\sigma^2}{\alpha}\mathbf{I}_N]^{-1}\mathbb{H}_{\Theta B_p}\mathbb{H}^H_{\Theta B_p}.
\end{align}
Then, with the obtained $\mathbf{v}$, the SLNR can be expressed as
\begin{align}\label{SLNR2}
\mathrm{SLNR}=\frac{\sum^P \limits_{p=1}|\mathbf{O}_{B_p}\mathbf{\Theta}|^2}{\sum^Q \limits_{q=1}|\mathbf{O}_{E_q}\mathbf{\Theta}|^2+\sigma^2}.
\end{align}
Next, after we give an initial value of $\Theta[0]$, the optimal $\varphi_{k,m}$ can be obtained by the gradient descent method when $\varphi_{k',m'}(k' \neq k,m'\neq m)$ is fixed. Herein, $\varphi_{k,m}=\varphi_{k_{mc,mr}}$, where $m=(mc-1)Mr+mr$. The specific derivation of $\varphi_{k,m}$ is given in Appendix A.
Accordingly, $\Theta[1]$ is obtained, after a finite number of iterations, the optimal solution of $\mathbf{v}$ and $\Theta$ can be obtained.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{Proposed MSLNR scheme}
\label{alg:C}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE {Initialize $\mathbf{v}[0]$ and $\mathbf{\Theta}[0]$ randomly that is feasible to (\ref{Theta}), and $\mathbf{v}^H[0]\mathbf{v}[0]=1$, respectively;}
\STATE {Set $n=0$;}
\REPEAT
\STATE Set $m=0$;
\REPEAT
\STATE {Substitute $\mathbf{v}[n]$ and $\mathbf{\Theta}[m]$ into (\ref{SLNR}) yields $\mathbf{\Theta}[m+1]$ according to Appendix A;}
\STATE {Update $m=m+1$;}
\UNTIL{Convergence}
\STATE Substitute $\mathbf{\Theta}[m]$ into (\ref{HHb}),(\ref{HHe}) and (\ref{eigen}) yields the optimal solution $\mathbf{v}[n+1]$;
\STATE Update $n=n+1$;
\UNTIL{Convergence}
\STATE {Output the final optimal solution $\mathbf{v}_{opt}=\mathbf{v}[n]$ and $\mathbf{\Theta}_{opt}=\mathbf{\Theta}_{opt}[m]$.}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
The complete iterative procedure for solving problem (\ref{PSLNR}) is summarized in Algorithm \ref{alg:C}.
In Algorithm \ref{alg:C}, we first initialize $\mathbf{v}[0]$ and $\mathbf{\Theta}[0]$ which satisfy their constraints. Then, we yield $\mathbf{\Theta}[1]$ with the initial value of $\mathbf{\Theta}[0]$ and $\mathbf{v}[0]$ according to Appendix A. Next, with $\mathbf{\Theta}[1]$, we can obtain $\mathbf{v}[1]$ by the generalized Rayleigh-Ritz theorem. Thus, after a number of iterations, the algorithm converges, and the optimal solutions of $\mathbf{\Theta}$ and $\mathbf{v}$ are obtained. At last, AN vector is designed to minimize the impact on desired user by designing it on the null-space of the desired users. The optimization problem is given by
\begin{align}\label{P12}
&\min \limits_{\mathbf{w}} ~|\sqrt{1-\alpha}\mathbf{w}^T\mathbb{H}_{\Theta B}|^2\nonumber\\
&s.t ~~~~~\mathbf{w}^T\mathbf{w}=1.
\end{align}
Let $\Gamma_p =\sum \limits_{k=1}^K \Upsilon_{kp} \Omega_k \mathbf{H}^H_{I_kB_p}(\mathbf{f})\mathbf{\Theta}_k$, $\Gamma \in \mathbb{C}(N\times 1)$, then $\mathbb{H}_{\Theta B}$ is reduced as
\begin{align}\label{HHb1}
\mathbb{H}_{\Theta B}=[\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2,\ldots,\Gamma_P].
\end{align}
make a reasonable assumption of $N\geq P$, which means that the number of transmit antennas at Alice is larger than the number of desired users. To project the AN on the null space of desired users, the following orthogonal projector is constructed as
\begin{align}\label{wzj}
\mathbf{w}^T=\frac{\mathbf{z}(\mathbf{I}_N-\mathbb{H}_{\Theta B}[\mathbb{H}^H_{\Theta B}\mathbb{H}_{\Theta B}]^{-1}\mathbb{H}^H_{\Theta B})}{|\mathbf{z}(\mathbf{I}_N-\mathbb{H}_{\Theta B}[\mathbb{H}^H_{\Theta B}\mathbb{H}_{\Theta B}]^{-1}\mathbb{H}^H_{\Theta B})|}.
\end{align}
In this case, we have
\begin{align}\label{wH}
\mathbf{w}^T\mathbb{H}_{\Theta B}=\frac{\mathbf{z}(\mathbb{H}_{\Theta B}-\mathbb{H}_{\Theta B})}{|\mathbf{z}(\mathbf{I}_N-\mathbb{H}_{\Theta B}[\mathbb{H}^H_{\Theta B}\mathbb{H}_{\Theta B}]^{-1}\mathbb{H}^H_{\Theta B})|}=\mathbf{0}_{1\times P}.
\end{align}
This result means that the received AN power of each desired user is zero, thus AN only distorts the received signal at undesired users.
In conclusion, the optimal solution of $\mathbf{v}$, $\mathbf{w}$, and $\mathbf{\Theta_k},\forall k=1,\ldots,K$ are obtained by the proposed MSLNR scheme.
Finally, we analyze the convergence and complexity of Algorithm \ref{alg:C}. First of all, it is clear to observe that $\mathrm{SLNR}(\mathbf{v}[n+1],\mathbf{\Theta}[m+1])\geq \mathrm{SLNR}(\mathbf{v}[n+1],\mathbf{\Theta}[m])\geq \mathrm{SLNR}(\mathbf{v}[n],\mathbf{\Theta}[m])$, thus the algorithm converges. The per-iteration complexity of MSLNR scheme can be approximately calculated as $O(3N^3+P^3+(MN(N+K+1)+N^2+N+TKM)(P+Q)+NP(N+P))$, where $T$ is the times of inner iterations from step 4 to step 8 in Algorithm \ref{alg:C}.
\section{simulation results and analysis}
In this section, we evaluate the performance of our proposed schemes by numerical simulations. The default system parameters are chosen as shown in Table \ref{tab}. By default, we assume $\sigma^2_B=\sigma^2_E$.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{SIMULATION PARAMETERS SETTING}\label{tab}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
Parameter&Value\\
\hline
The number of transmitter antennas ($N_r\times N_c$)&$4\times 4$ \\
\hline
The number of IRS elements ($M_r\times M_c$)&$4\times 4$ \\
\hline
The number of desired users (P)&2\\
\hline
The number of eavesdroppers (Q)&2\\
\hline
The number of IRS (K)&2\\
\hline
The antenna spacing of Alice ($d_A$)&$c/2f_c$\\
\hline
The element spacing of IRS ($d_I$)&$c/2f_c$\\
\hline
Total signal bandwidth (B)&5MHz\\
\hline
Total transmit power ($P$)&1W \\
\hline
Power allocation factors for MSLNR scheme&0.9\\
\hline
\tabincell{c}{Desired users' positions \\ $({(x_{B_1},y_{B_1},z_{B_1}),(x_{B_2},y_{B_2},z_{B_2})})$}&\tabincell{c}{$(100m,50m,0)$,\\$(200m,150m,0)$}\\
\hline
\tabincell{c}{Eavesdroppers' positions \\
$({(x_{E_1},y_{E_1},z_{E_1}),(x_{E_2},y_{E_2},z_{E_2})})$}&\tabincell{c}{$(150m,0,0)$,\\$(200m,50m,0)$}\\
\hline
\tabincell{c}{IRSs' positions \\
$({(x_{I_1},y_{I_1},z_{I_1}),(x_{I_2},y_{I_2},z_{I_2})})$}&\tabincell{c}{$(50m,150m,50m)$,\\$(100m,200m,30m)$}\\
\hline
Central carrier frequency ($f_c$)&3GHz\\
\hline
Subcarriers number (N)&1024\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth]{SINR.eps}\\
\caption{3-D surface of SINR versus coordinate of proposed MSINR scheme.}\label{SINR}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth]{iteration.eps}\\
\caption{Achievable rate versus iteration times of proposed MSINR scheme.}\label{iteration}
\end{figure}
Fig. \ref{SINR} illustrates the 3-D performance surface of SINR versus the location coordinate of the proposed MSINR method, since with the assumption that the users are all on the ground i.e. the Z axis coordinate is $0$, and the SINR versus the X and Y axes coordinate is drawn. It can be observed that, in the single-user scenario, proposed MSINR scheme has achieved SPWT since there is only one high signal energy peak of confidential messages formed in the desired position (in this scenario, the single user set on $(100m,50m,0)$ is considered), while outside the main peak, the SINR is far lower than that of the desired user. The average SINR outside the main peak is only less than one tenth of that in the desired user. Moreover, the SINR versus the iteration times with random initial value of $\mathbf{v}$ and $\Theta$ is illustrated in Fig. \ref{iteration}. It is seen from the figure that the MSINR algorithm converges within $10$ iterations. According to Section III, each iteration has an analytical solution, thus the MSINR scheme based on single user scenario has a extremely low complexity for practical applications.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth]{SR.eps}\\
\caption{Curves of SR versus SNR for proposed schemes in multi-user scenario.}\label{SR}
\end{figure}
Fig. \ref{SR} draws the curves of secrecy rates versus SNR based on proposed MSR scheme, proposed MSLNR scheme and conventional scheme without IRS. Besides, the conventional scheme is based on \cite{Shu2018SPWT}, which has the available direct path channel. The simulation result show that, the MSR scheme has the best secrecy rate performance, and the MSLNR scheme has a slightly lower secrecy performance than the MSR scheme. Moreover, even if the conventional scheme has the direct path, its secrecy rate performance still has a obvious gap compared to the former two schemes. This result show that our proposed multi-IRS schemes have the spectrum efficiency advantage. Additionally, the value of power allocation factor $\alpha$ is also related to the SR performance of the MSLNR scheme, which is illustrated in Fig.\ref{SR}. With three different $\alpha$ values of with $0.9$, $0.5$ and $0.1$, the SR performances are significantly different. The SR performance improves as the value of $\alpha$ increases. Since the value of $\alpha$ is intimately related to energy efficiency, how to choose the value of $\alpha$ should consider a balance among energy efficiency, security and performance.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth]{Alpha.eps}\\
\caption{Curves of SR versus power allocation factor $\alpha$ for proposed MSLNR scheme.}\label{Alpha}
\end{figure}
Based on the above discussion, we make an investigation concerning the impact of $\alpha$ on the SR performance in Fig. \ref{Alpha}. Fig. \ref{Alpha} draws the curves of SR versus $\alpha$ in three different SNR scenarios: (1)SNR=-10dB, (2)SNR=0dB and (3)SNR=10dB. It can be seen that, in the low SNR region, the impact of AN is weak due to a large channel noise, thus the SR curve increases with increasing $\alpha$ and the value of $\alpha$ should be as large as possible. However, as the SNR increases, the AN plays a key role in SR performance, the curve is a concave function of $\alpha$, and there exists the optimal value of $\alpha$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth]{NT.eps}\\
\caption{Curves of SR versus $N_T$ for proposed schemes in multi-user scenario.}\label{NT}
\end{figure}
Fig. \ref{NT} shows the impact of transmit antenna number on the SR performance. Since the transmitter is a $N_r\times N_c$ rectangular antennas array, for convenience we set $N_r=N_c=N_T$ and the total number of antenna is $N_T^2$, and thus Fig. \ref{NT} shows the secrecy rates versus $N_T$. Observing Fig. \ref{NT}, with the increasing of the antenna number, the improvement of secrecy rate is not obvious. This is due to the fact that transmitting power and the number of reflection path are both fixed, thus increasing the number of transmit antennas can not improve the received confidential signal power significantly.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth]{MI.eps}\\
\caption{Curves of SR versus $M_I$ for proposed schemes in multi-user scenario.}\label{MI}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{MI}, the impact of IRS element number on the SR performance is evaluated. Similarly, we set $M_r=M_c=M_I$ and the total number of IRS element is $M_I^2$. Note that the performance of non-IRS scheme is independent on $M_I$, thus the curves of non-IRS scheme are neglected. The result is different from that in Fig. \ref{NT}. It can be seen that, with the increase of the IRS element number, the secrecy rate is improved significantly. The reason for this result is that, each IRS element reflects confidential message transmitted from Alice. Increasing the number of IRS elements can be regarded as increasing the number of reflection path. Thus, with the optimal designs of beamforming vector phase shifting, the more the reflection paths, the more confidential message energy can be received by desired users, thus the SR increases.
In summary, the proposed MSINR scheme can transmit confidential signal securely and precisely, and only a single energy peak yields in the desired location. Moreover, the power allocation factor will affect the secrecy rate, and there exists an optimal value. Then, the proposed MSR scheme has the optimal secrecy performance, the proposed MSLNR scheme has the low-complexity and a close secrecy performance to the MSR scheme. Moreover, the number of Alice's antennas has slight impact on secrecy rate but the number of IRS elements affecting significantly in secrecy rate, namely, with the elements number of IRS increases, the secrecy rate increases.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, multi-IRSs-aided schemes have been proposed to achieve SPWT based on the scenario that the direct path between transmitter and receivers are unavailable. First, a MSINR scheme was proposed based on a single-user scenario while there exist potential eavesdroppers and their position knowledge is unavailable. With the proposed MSINR scheme, the desired user can achieve a maximum received confidential signal energy. Out of the desired user's position, confidential signal is protected from eavesdropping by beamforming, phase shifting and AN. Only weak confidential signal energies are conserved in these locations. Next, a high performance MSR scheme and a low-complexity MSLNR scheme have been proposed in multi-user scenario. Using these two schemes, we obtained the following interesting results: (1) the proposed MSR scheme has the superior SR performance, and proposed MSLNR scheme has a slightly lower performance than that of the MSR scheme but has a significantly lower complexity. The two schemes perform much better than non-IRS scheme. (2) The SR performances of the proposed two schemes are related to the transmit antenna number and the IRS element number, and the SR performance improvement of IRS element number is more obvious. (3) The power allocation factor can impact the SR performance of proposed MSLNR scheme. As the SNR increases, AN becomes more and more important. Due to the high security and low complexity of IRS, the proposed schemes can be potentially applied in the future scenarios including UAV communications, automobile communications and so on.
\begin{appendices}
\section{DERIVATION OF $\varphi_{m}$}
By substituting Eqs. (\ref{P}) and (\ref{DTheta}) into $\sum^P \limits_{p=1}|\mathbf{O_{B_p}}\mathbf{\Theta}|^2$, we have
\begin{align}\label{hbvavd}
\mathbf{O}_{B_p}\mathbf{\Theta}&= \sum^K \limits_{k=1} \sum^M \limits_{m=1} \mathbf{O}_{B_{p_{k,m}}}{e^{j{\varphi_{k,m}}}} \nonumber\\
&= {e^{j{\varphi _{k,m}}}}{A_{{B_{p_{k,m}}}}} + {B_{{B_{p_{k,m}}}}},\forall p=1,\ldots,P
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}\label{ABm}
&{A_{{B_{p_{k,m}}}}}={ O_{B_{p_{k,m}}}},\\
&{B_{{B_{p_{k,m}}}}}=\sum^{K,M} \limits_{(k',m')\neq (k,m)} \mathbf{O}_{B_{p_{k',m'}}}{e^{j{\varphi_{k',m'}}}}.
\end{align}
Then, we have
\begin{align}\label{hbvavd2}
\sum^P \limits_{p=1}|\mathbf{O}_{B_p}\mathbf{\Theta}|^2&=\sum^P \limits_{p=1}({A_{{B_{p_{k,m}}}}}e^{j{\varphi_{k,m}}} + {B_{{B_{p_{k,m}}}}})^H\cdot\nonumber\\
&~~~~~~~~({{A_{{B_{p_{k,m}}}}}e^{j{\varphi_{k,m}}}} + {B_{{B_{p_{k,m}}}}})\nonumber\\
&=\sum^P \limits_{p=1}(A_{{B_{p_{k,m}}}}^HA_{{B_{p_{k,m}}}}+B_{{B_{p_{k,m}}}}^HB_{{B_{p_{k,m}}}})\nonumber\\
&~+2(R_{B_{{k,m}}}\cos \varphi_{k,m}-I_{B_{{k,m}}}\sin \varphi_{k,m}),
\end{align}
with
\begin{align}\label{RBm1}
&R_{B_{k,m}}=\sum^P \limits_{p=1}\mathrm{Re}(A_{{B_{p_{k,m}}}}B_{{B_{p_{k,m}}}}^H),
\end{align}
\begin{align}\label{RBm2}
&I_{B_{k,m}}=\sum^P \limits_{p=1}\mathrm{Im}(A_{{B_{p_{k,m}}}}B_{{B_{p_{k,m}}}}^H).
\end{align}
where $\mathrm{Re}(\cdot)$ and $\mathrm{Im}(\cdot)$ denote the real part and the imaginary part, respectively.
Similarly, we can obtain $|\mathbf{O}_{E_q}\mathbf{\Theta}|^2$, $A_{{E_{q_{k,m}}}}$, $B_{{E_{q_{k,m}}}}$, $R_{E_{{k,m}}}$ and $I_{E_{{k,m}}}$ where $q=1,\ldots,Q$. Thus, the SLNR can be expressed as
\begin{align}\label{SLNR2}
\mathrm{SLNR}=\frac {X_{B_{k,m}}+2 R_{B_{k,m}} \cos \varphi_{k,m} - 2 I_{B_{k,m}}\sin \varphi_{k,m}} {X_{E_{k,m}}+2 R_{E_{k,m}} \cos \varphi_{k,m} - 2 I_{E_{k,m}}\sin \varphi_{k,m}}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}\label{XB}
&X_{B_{k,m}}=\sum^P \limits_{p=1}(A_{{B_{k,m}}}^HA_{{B_{k,m}}}+B_{{B_{k,m}}}^HB_{{B_{k,m}}}),\\
&X_{E_{k,m}}=\sum^P \limits_{p=1}(A_{{E_{k,m}}}^HA_{{E_{k,m}}}+B_{{E_{k,m}}}^HB_{{E_{k,m}}})+\sigma^2.
\end{align}
Therefore, in order to obtain the optimal $\varphi_m$, we compute the derivation of $\mathrm{SLNR}_B$ with respect to $\varphi_m$,
\begin{align}\label{deri}
&\frac{\partial(\mathrm{SLNR})}{\partial (\varphi_{k,m})}=\nonumber\\
&\frac {2y_1\sin \varphi_{k,m}+2y_2\cos \varphi_{k,m}+4R_{B_{k,m}}I_{E_{k,m}}-4R_{E_{k,m}}I_{B_{k,m}}} {[X_{E_{k,m}}+2 Re_{E_{k,m}} \cos \varphi_{k,m} - 2 I_{E_{k,m}}\sin \varphi_{k,m}]^2},
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}\label{y1}
&y_1=X_{B_{k,m}}R_{E_{k,m}}-X_{E_{k,m}}R_{B_{k,m}},
\end{align}
\begin{align}\label{y2}
&y_2=X_{B_{k,m}}I_{E_{k,m}}-X_{E_{k,m}}I_{B_{k,m}}.
\end{align}
Let $\frac{\partial(\mathrm{SLNR})}{\partial (\varphi_{k,m})}=0$, we obtain
\begin{align}\label{phim}
\varphi_{k,m}=\arcsin \frac{2R_{E_{k,m}}I_{B_{k,m}}-2R_{B_{k,m}}I_{E_{k,m}}}{\sqrt{y_1^2+y_2^2}}-\varphi_y,
\end{align}
where $\varphi_y$ satisfies $\sin \varphi_y=\frac{y_2}{\sqrt{y_1^2+y_2^2}}$ and $\cos \varphi_y=\frac{y_1}{\sqrt{y_1^2+y_2^2}}$.
\noindent This complete the derivation of $\varphi_{k,m}$.
\end{appendices}
\ifCLASSOPTIONcaptionsoff
\newpage
\fi
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section*{Introduction}
\setcounter{section}{-1}
The goal of this paper is to provide an effective framework for the study of homotopy models of operads. Various models of $\infty$-operads in simplicial sets and in topological spaces
have been introduced in the literature.
The model that we propose in this paper relies on the Mandell model for the homotopy of spaces, which takes place in the category of $E_{\infty}$-algebras (see~\cite{Mandell,MandellIntegral}).
We construct our model for the homotopy of operads within the category of $E_{\infty}$-algebras used by Mandell.
By passing from spaces to $E_{\infty}$-algebras, we have to replace operads by cooperad structures, which are dual to operads in the categorical sense.
In a first step, we define a notion of \emph{strict} Segal $E_{\infty}$-Hopf cooperad, which is close to an $E_{\infty}$-algebra counterpart
of the Cisinski--Moerdijk notion of dendroidal space~\cite{CisinskiMoerdijkI,CisinskiMoerdijkII}.
In a second step, we define a notion of \emph{homotopy} Segal $E_{\infty}$-Hopf cooperad. The idea is to integrate homotopies in the composition schemes
that govern the structure of our objects. This notion of homotopy Segal $E_{\infty}$-Hopf cooperad
is the model that we aim to define and study in the paper.
If we forget about $E_{\infty}$-algebra structures and focus on operads and cooperads defined in a category of differential graded modules,
then we can use the bar duality theory to define notions of homotopy operads and of homotopy cooperads.
The bar duality approach enables authors to apply effective methods of perturbation theory (like the basic perturbation lemma)
for the study of homotopy operads and of homotopy cooperads.
We prove that every homotopy Segal $E_{\infty}$-Hopf cooperad admits a cobar construction, and hence, defines a homotopy cooperad in the classical sense.
We also define a notion of homotopy morphism of homotopy Segal $E_{\infty}$-Hopf cooperads and we prove that every homotopy morphism
induces a morphism on the cobar construction.
Hence, our notion of homotopy Segal $E_{\infty}$-Hopf cooperad provides a lift of the homotopy cooperads
that are defined in terms of the cobar construction when we forget about $E_{\infty}$-algebra structures
and work in a category of differential graded modules.
We implement these ideas as follows.
We work with the (chain) Barratt--Eccles operad, denoted by $\EOp$ hereafter, which defines an $E_\infty$-operad in the category of differential graded modules.
We take the category of algebras over the Barratt--Eccles operad as a model for the category of $E_\infty$-algebras in differential graded modules.
By the main result of~\cite{BergerFresse}, the normalized cochain complex of a simplicial set $\DGN^*(X)$ is endowed with an action of this operad.
The object $\DGN^*(X)$, equipped with this particular $E_\infty$-algebra structure, defines a representative of the Mandell model of the space $X$.
The Barratt--Eccles operad is endowed with a diagonal. This observation implies that the Barratt--Eccles operad
acts on tensor products, and therefore, that the category of algebras over the Barratt--Eccles operad
inherits a monoidal structure from the category of differential graded modules.
But this monoidal structure is only symmetric up to homotopy, because the diagonal of the Barratt--Eccles operad is only homotopy cocommutative.
For this reason, we can hardly define cooperads in the ordinary sense in the category of algebras over the Barratt--Eccles operad.
To work out this problem, a first idea is to define homotopy cooperads in terms of a functor on the category of trees,
which represent the composition schemes of operations in an operad.
We follow this idea to define the notion of a strict Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperad.
We explicitly define a strict Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperad as a functor from the category of trees to the category of $E_\infty$-algebras
equipped with facet operators that model subtree inclusions. The morphisms of $E_\infty$-algebras that we associate to the tree morphisms
model the composition structure of our objects. We will therefore refer to these morphisms as the coproduct operators.
We prove that every strict Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperad is weakly-equivalent (quasi-isomorphic) to a strict cooperad in the ordinary sense
when we forget about $E_\infty$-algebra structures and transport our objects
to the category of differential graded modules.
We use a particular feature of the category of algebras over the Barratt--Eccles operad to simplify the definition of this forgetful functor: the coproduct of any collection of objects
in this category is weakly-equivalent to the tensor product (in general, in a category of algebras over an $E_\infty$-operad, such results are only valid for cofibrant objects).
We use a version of the Boardman--Vogt $W$-construction to establish this result.
We already mentioned that the notion of a strict Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperad is close to Cisinski--Moerdijk's notion of a dendroidal space~\cite{CisinskiMoerdijkI,CisinskiMoerdijkII}.
(We also refer to~\cite{LeGrignou} for the definition of an analogous notion of homotopy operad in the differential graded module context).
The facet operators of our definition actually correspond to the outer facets of dendroidal spaces, while the coproduct operators correspond to the inner facets.
The main difference lies in the fact that we do not take a counterpart of operadic units and arity zero terms in our setting.
The paper~\cite{Ching}, about the bar duality of operads in spectra, also involves a notion of quasi-cooperad, which forms an analogue, in the category of spectra, of our strict cooperads.
To define a notion of a homotopy cooperad, an idea is to replace the category of trees by a resolution of this category (actually, a form of the Boardman--Vogt construction).
We then replace our functors on trees by homotopy functors in order to change the functoriality relation,
which models the associativity of the coproduct operators,
into a homotopy relation. The resolution of the category of trees has a cubical structure. We actually define our homotopy functor structure
by taking a cubical functor on this category, by using a cubical enrichment
of the category of $E_\infty$-algebras.
In the context of algebras over the Barratt--Eccles operad, this cubical enrichment can be defined by using tensor products $A\otimes I^k$, $k\geq 0$,
where $I^k$ represents the cellular cochain algebra of the $k$-dimensional cube $[0,1]^k$.
We equivalently have $I^k = \DGN^*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k}$, where we consider the $k$-fold tensor product of the normalized cochain complex of the one-simplex $\Delta^1$.
The cubical functor structure that models the composition structure of our homotopy Segal cooperads
can then be defined explicitly, in terms of homotopy coproduct operators
associated to composable sequences of tree morphisms
and with values in tensor products with these cubical cochain algebras $I^k$, $k\geq 0$.
This is exactly what we do in the paper to get our model of homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads.
To carry out this construction, we crucially use that the objects $I^k$ are endowed with an action of the Barratt--Eccles operad and are equipped with compatible connection operators,
which we associate to certain degeneracies in the category of trees.
Note that in comparison to other constructions based on dendroidal objects (see for instance the study of homotopy operads in differential graded modules
of~\cite{LeGrignou}),
we keep strict associativity relations for the facet operators corresponding to subtree inclusions.
To conclude the paper, we also prove that every homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperad is weakly-equivalent to
a strict Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperad
Previously, we mentioned that we use a comparison between coproducts and tensor products
to define a forgetful functor from Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads
to Segal cooperads in differential graded modules.
However, the map that provides this comparison, which is an instance of an Alexander--Whitney diagonal, is not symmetric.
For this reason, we consider shuffle cooperads (in the sense of~\cite{DotsenkoKhoroshkin})
rather than symmetric cooperads
when we pass to Segal cooperads in differential graded modules.
Briefly recall that a shuffle (co)operad is a structure that retains the symmetries of the composition schemes of operations in a (co)operad,
but forgets about the internal symmetric structure of (co)operads.
The category of shuffle operads and the dual category of shuffle cooperads were introduced by Vladimir Dotsenko and Anton Khoroshkin in~\cite{DotsenkoKhoroshkin},
with motivations coming from the work of Eric Hoffbeck~\cite{Hoffbeck},
in order to define an operadic counterpart of the classical notion of a Gr\"obner basis.
This theory provides an effective approach for the study of the homotopy of the bar construction of operads
(in connection with the Koszul duality theory of Ginzburg--Kapranov~\cite{GinzburgKapranov}),
because one can observe that the (co)bar complex of a (co)operad
only depends on the shuffle (co)operad structure
of our object (when we forget the symmetric group actions).
\medskip
We give brief recollections on the tree structures and on the conventions on trees that we use all along this paper in a preliminary section.
We also briefly review the definition of cooperads in terms of functors defined on trees in this section.
We study the strict Segal cooperad model afterwards, in Section~\ref{sec:strict-segal-cooperads}.
Then we explain our definition of homotopy Segal $E_{\infty}$-Hopf cooperads. We address the study of this notion in Section~\ref{sec:homotopy-segal-cooperads}.
We devote an appendix to brief recollections on the definition of the Barratt--Eccles operad and to the proof of the crucial statements
on algebras over this operad that we use in the definition of homotopy Segal $E_{\infty}$-Hopf cooperads (the weak-equivalence
between coproducts and tensor products, and the compatibility of connections with the algebra structure
of cubical complexes).
\medskip
We work in a category of differential graded modules over an arbitrary ground ring $\kk$ all along this paper, where a differential graded module (a dg module for short)
generally denotes a $\kk$-module $M$ equipped with a decomposition of the form $M = \bigoplus_{*\in\ZZ} M_*$
and with a differential $\delta: M\rightarrow M$ such that $\delta(M_*)\subset M_{*-1}$.
We therefore assume that our dg modules are equipped with a lower grading in general, but we may also consider dg modules
that are naturally equipped with an upper grading $M = \bigoplus_{*\in\ZZ} M^*$
and with a differential such that $\delta(M^*)\subset M^{*+1}$.
We then use the classical equivalence $M_* = M^{-*}$ to convert the upper grading on $M$
into a lower grading.
We equip the category of dg modules with the standard symmetric monoidal structure, given by the tensor product of dg modules,
with a sign in the definition of the symmetry operator that reflects the usual commutation rule
of differential graded algebra.
We call weak-equivalences the quasi-isomorphisms of dg modules and we transfer this class of weak-equivalences
to every category of structured objects (algebras, cooperads)
that we may form within the category of dg modules.
We take the category of algebras over the chain Barratt--Eccles operad, denoted by $\EOp$, as a model for the category of $E_\infty$-algebras in dg modules.
We use the notation $\EAlg$ for this category of dg algebras. We also adopt the notation $\vee$ for the coproduct in $\EAlg$.
We refer to the appendix~(\S\ref{sec:Barratt-Eccles-operad}) for detailed recollections on the definition and properties of the chain Barratt--Eccles operad,
and for a study of the properties of the coproduct, notably the existence of a weak-equivalence $\EM: A\otimes B\xrightarrow{\sim}A\vee B$
that we use in our constructions.
We also use that the normalized cochain complex of a simplicial set $\DGN^*(X)$ inherits the structure of an $\EOp$-algebra.
We refer to~\cite{BergerFresse} for the definition of this $\EOp$-algebra structure. (We give brief recollections on this subject in~\S\ref{sec:Barratt-Eccles-operad}.)
We also adopt the notation $\Sigma_r$ for the symmetric group on $r$ letters
all along the paper.
\thanks{The authors acknowledge support from the Labex CEMPI (ANR-11-LABX-0007-01) and from the FNS-ANR project OCHoTop (ANR-18CE93-0002-01).}
\section{Background}\label{section:background}
The first purpose of this section is to briefly explain the conventions on trees that we use all along the paper.
We also briefly recall the definition of the notion of a shuffle cooperad, which is intermediate between the notion of a non-symmetric cooperad
and the notion of a symmetric cooperad.
The idea of shuffle cooperads, as we already explained in the introduction of the paper, is to retain the symmetries of the composition schemes of cooperads (based on trees),
but to forget about the internal symmetric structure
of our objects.
This construction is possible for cooperads with no term in arity zero, because the trees
that we consider in this case
have a natural planar embedding (and as such, have trivial automorphism groups).
In what follows, we mainly consider shuffle cooperads (rather than shuffle operads). Our main interest for this notion lies in the observation
that the category shuffle cooperads is endowed with a cobar complex functor, which is the same as the cobar complex functor on the category of cooperads
when we forget about the internal symmetric structure
of our objects.
\subsection{Recollections and conventions on the categories of trees}\label{subsection:trees}
In general, we follow the conventions of the book~\cite[Appendix A]{FresseBook} for the definitions that concern the categories of trees.
To summarize, we consider the categories, denoted by $\Tree(r)$ in~\cite[\S A.1]{FresseBook}, whose objects are trees $\ttree$
with $r$ ingoing edges $e_1,\dots,e_r$ numbered from $1$ to $r$ (the leaves), one outgoing edge $e_0$ (the root),
and where each inner edge $e$ is oriented from a source vertex $s(e)$ to a target vertex $t(e)$
so that each vertex $v$ has one outgoing edge and at least one ingoing edge.
The morphisms of $\Tree(r)$ are composed of isomorphisms and of edge contractions,
where we assume that the isomorphisms preserve the numbering of the ingoing edges.
The assumption that each vertex in a tree has at least one ingoing edge implies that our trees have a trivial automorphism group (see~\cite[\S A.1.8]{FresseBook}).
In what follows, we use this observation to simplify our constructions.
Namely, we can forget about isomorphisms by picking a representative in each isomorphism class of trees
and we follow this convention all along the paper.
The set of vertices of a tree $\ttree\in\Tree(r)$ is denoted by $V(\ttree)$
whereas the set of edges is denoted by $E(\ttree)$.
The set of inner edges (the edges which are neither a leaf nor a root) is denoted by $\mathring{E}(\ttree)$.
For a vertex $v\in V(\ttree)$, we use the notation $\rset_v$
for the set of edges $e$ such that $t(e) = v$.
The symmetric group $\Sigma_r$ acts on the category of $r$-trees $\Tree(r)$ by renumbering the ingoing edges.
In what follows, we also consider a version of the category of trees $\Tree(\rset)$ where the ingoing edges of the trees
are indexed by an arbitrary finite set $\rset$,
and not necessarily by an ordinal, so that the mapping $\rset\mapsto\Tree(\rset)$
defines a functor from the category of finite sets and bijections between them
to the category of small categories.
The categories of trees are endowed with composition operations $\circ_i: \Tree(k)\times\Tree(l)\rightarrow\Tree(k+l-1)$,
which provide the collection $\Tree(r)$, $r>0$,
with the structure of an operad in the category of categories.
These composition operations have a unit, the $1$-tree $\downarrow\in\Tree(1)$ with a single edge which is both the root and a leave,
but we put this tree aside actually and we do not consider it in our forthcoming constructions.
Recall that we call $r$-corolla the $r$-tree $\ytree\in\Tree(r)$ with a single vertex $v$, one outgoing edge with this vertex $v$ as a source,
and $r$ ingoing edges targeting to $v$. We also consider corollas $\ytree\in\Tree(\rset)$
whose sets of ingoing edges are indexed by arbitrary finite sets $\rset$.
To each vertex $v$ in a tree $\ttree$, we can associate an $\rset_v$-corolla $\ytree_v\subset\ttree$,
with $v$ as vertex, the ingoing edges of this vertex in $\ttree$
as set of ingoing edges, and the outgoing edge
of $v$ as root.
The existence of a tree morphism $f: \ttree\rightarrow\stree$ is equivalent to the existence of a decomposition $\ttree = \lambda_{\stree}(\sigmatree_v,v\in V(\stree))$,
where $\lambda_{\stree}$ denotes a treewise operadic composition operation, shaped on the tree $\stree$,
of subtrees $\sigmatree_v\subset\ttree$, $v\in V(\stree)$,
that represent the pre-image of the corollas $\ytree_v\subset\stree$, $v\in V(\stree)$,
under our morphism.
For tree with two vertices $\gammatree$, the composition $\ttree = \lambda_{\gammatree}(\sigmatree_u,\sigmatree_v)$
is equivalent to an operadic composition operation $\ttree = \sh_*(\sigmatree_u\circ_i\sigmatree_v)$,
where $\sh_*$ denotes the action of a permutation,
associated to a partition of the form $\{1<\dots<r\} = \{i_1<\dots<\widehat{i_p}<\dots<i_k\}\amalg\{j_1<\dots<j_l\}$,
which reflects the indexing of the leaves in the tree $\gammatree$.
The index $i_p$ is a dummy composition variable which we associate to the inner edge of this tree $\gammatree$.
We can insert this dummy variable at the position such that $i_{p-1}<j_1<i_{p+1}$ inside the ordered set $\{i_1<\dots<\widehat{i_p}<\dots<i_k\}\subset\{1<\dots<r\}$
in order to work out the symmetries of this operation (we go back to this topic in the next paragraph).
Each $r$-tree $\ttree\in\Tree(r)$ has a natural planar embedding, which we determine as follows.
Let $\{e_{\alpha},\alpha\in\rset_v\}$ be the set of ingoing edges of a vertex $v\in V(\ttree)$.
Each edge $e_{\alpha}$ can be connected to a leaf $e_{i_{\alpha}}$
through a chain of edges $e_{\alpha} = e_{\alpha_0}$, $e_{\alpha_1}$, \dots, $e_{\alpha_l} = e_{i_{\alpha}}$,
such that $t(e_{\alpha_k}) = s(e_{\alpha_{k-1}})$, for $k = 1,\dots,l$.
Let $m_{\alpha}\in\{1,\dots,r\}$ be the minimum of the indices $i_{\alpha}$ of these leaves $e_{i_{\alpha}}$
that lie over the edge $e_{\alpha}$
in the tree $\ttree$. We order the set of ingoing edges $e_{\alpha}$, $\alpha\in\rset_v$, of our vertex $v$ by taking $e_{\alpha}<e_{\beta}$
when $m_{\alpha}<m_{\beta}$. We perform this ordering of the set of ingoing edges for each vertex $v\in V(\ttree)$
to get the planar embedding of our tree. We have an obvious generalization of this result for the trees $\ttree\in\Tree(\rset)$
whose ingoing edges are indexed by a set $\rset$
equipped with a total ordering.
The existence of this natural planar embedding reflects the fact that the automorphism group of any object $\ttree$
is trivial in our categories of trees $\Tree(\rset)$.
\subsection{Recollections on the treewise definition of cooperads and of shuffle cooperads}\label{subsection:shuffle-cooperads}
Throughout the paper, we mainly use a definition of cooperads in terms of collections endowed with treewise composition coproducts.
We refer to \cite[Appendix C]{FresseBook} or \cite[Section 5.6]{LodayValletteBook}, for instance, for a detailed account of this combinatorial approach to the definition of a cooperad.
In the paper, we more precisely use that a cooperad $\COp$ is equivalent to a collection of contravariant functors on the categories of trees $\COp: \ttree\mapsto\COp(\ttree)$
such that $\COp(\ttree) = \bigotimes_{v\in V(\ttree)}\COp(\ytree_v)$,
for all $\ttree\in\Tree(r)$
and where the morphism $\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\stree}: \COp(\stree)\rightarrow\COp(\ttree)$ induced by a tree morphism $f: \ttree\rightarrow\stree$
also admits a decomposition of the form $\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\stree} = \bigotimes_{v\in V(\stree)}\rho_{\sigmatree_v\rightarrow\ytree_v}$
when we use the relation $\ttree\simeq\lambda_{\stree}(\sigmatree_v,v\in V(\stree))$.
In the standard definition, the definition of the structure of a cooperad is rather expressed in terms of the coproduct operations $\rho_{\sigmatree_v\rightarrow\ytree_v}$
which generate the general operators $\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\stree}$
associated to the tree morphisms $f: \ttree\rightarrow\stree$. (We review this reduction of the definition later on in this paragraph.)
The consideration of general coproduct operators $\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\stree}$ in the definition of a cooperad
is motivated by the definition of the category of Segal cooperads
in the next section.
In the definition of a symmetric cooperad, we assume, besides, that the symmetric group $\Sigma_r$ acts on the collection $\COp(\ttree)$
in the sense that a natural transformation $s: \COp(\ttree)\rightarrow\COp(s\ttree)$, $\ttree\in\Tree(r)$,
is associated to each permutation $s\in\Sigma_r$,
where $\ttree\mapsto s\ttree$
denotes the action of this permutation on the category of trees $\Tree(r)$.
Then we require that the decomposition $\COp(\ttree) = \bigotimes_{v\in V(\ttree)}\COp(\ytree_v)$ is, in some natural sense, preserved by the action of the symmetric groups.
Note that we can again extend the definition of the functor underlying a cooperad $\COp$ to the categories of trees $\Tree(\rset)$ whose leaves are indexed by arbitrary finite sets $\rset$.
We then consider an action of the bijections of finite sets to extend the action of the permutations on ordinals.
Recall that $\ytree_v$ denotes the corolla generated by a vertex $v$ in a tree $\ttree$.
The object $\COp(\ytree)$ associated to a corolla $\ytree$ only depends on the number of leaves of the corolla (since all corollas with $r$ leaves are canonically isomorphic).
Thus the decomposition relations of the above definition imply that our functor is fully determined by a sequence of objects $\COp(r)$, $r>0$,
equipped with an action of the symmetric groups $\Sigma_r$, so that $\COp(\ytree) = \COp(r)$ for a corolla with $r$-leaves,
together with coproduct operations $\COp(r) = \COp(\ytree)\rightarrow\COp(\ttree)$,
which we associate to the tree morphisms with values in a corolla $\ttree\rightarrow\ytree$.
Furthermore, these coproduct operations can be generated by coproduct operations with values in a term $\COp(\gammatree)$
such that $\gammatree$ is a tree with two vertices,
because every tree morphism $\ttree\rightarrow\stree$ can be decomposed into a sequence of edge contractions,
which are equivalent to the application of tree morphisms of the form $\gammatree\rightarrow\ytree$
inside the tree $\ttree$.
In this equivalence, we can still consider a collection $\COp(\rset)$ indexed by arbitrary finite sets $\rset$
and take $\COp(\ytree) = \COp(\rset)$ for a corolla $\ytree$ whose set of leaves
is indexed by a finite set $\rset$.
Note that such a consideration is necessary in the expression of the decomposition $\COp(\ttree) = \bigotimes_{v\in V(\ttree)}\COp(\ytree_v)$,
because we then take an arbitrary set to index the edges of the corollas $\ytree_v$,
which correspond to the ingoing edges of the vertices of our tree (but we go back to this observation in the next paragraph).
If we unravel the construction, then we get that the $2$-fold coproducts $\COp(\rset) = \COp(\ytree)\rightarrow\COp(\gammatree)$ are equivalent to coproduct operations
of the form $\circ_{i_p}^*: \COp(\rset)\rightarrow\COp(\rset_u)\otimes\COp(\rset_v)$
with $\rset_u = \{i_1,\dots,i_p,\dots,i_k\}$
and $\rset_v = \{j_1,\dots,j_l\}$ such that $\{i_1,\dots,\widehat{i_p},\dots,i_k\}\amalg\{j_1,\dots,j_l\} = \rset$.
(We then retrieve the dual of the classical partial product operations associated to an operad.)
Recall that we assume by convention that the vertices of our trees have at least one ingoing edge.
(For this reason, we assume that the sequence of objects $\COp(r)$, which underlies an operad, is indexed by positive integers $r>0$.)
This convention enables us to order the ingoing edges of each vertex in a tree whose leaves are indexed by an ordinal $\rset = \{1<\dots<r\}$,
and as a consequence,
to get rid of the actions of the symmetric groups
in the construction
of the tensor product $\COp(\ttree) = \bigotimes_{v\in V(\ttree)}\COp(\ytree_v)$ (since we can use such a canonical ordering of the edges of the corolla $\ytree_v$
to fix a bijection between the indexing set of this set of edges $\rset_v$
and an ordinal $\{1<\dots<r_v\}$).
The idea, explained in~\cite{FressePartitions}, is to order the ingoing edges according to the minimum
of the index of the leaves of the subtree
that lie over each edge.
This observation is used to define the notion of a shuffle cooperad. Indeed, a shuffle cooperad explicitly consists of a collection of contravariant functors
on the categories of trees $\COp: \ttree\mapsto\COp(\ttree)$ with the same operations and structure properties
as the classical symmetric cooperads, but where we forget about the actions
of permutations. If we express the definition in terms of $2$-fold coproducts, then we get that a shuffle cooperad consists of a collection $\COp(r)$, $r>0$,
equipped with coproducts $\circ_{i_p}^*: \COp(\{1<\dots<r\})\rightarrow\COp(\{i_1<\dots<i_p<\dots,i_k\})\otimes\COp(\{j_1<\dots<j_l\})$
associated to partitions $\{i_1<\dots<\widehat{i_p}<\dots<i_k\}\amalg\{j_1<\dots<j_l\} = \{1<\dots<r\}$
such that $i_{p-1}<j_1<i_{p+1}$ (see~\cite{DotsenkoKhoroshkin}).
These partitions are equivalent to the pointed shuffles of~\cite{Hoffbeck}.
Note that we can extend the ordering of the ingoing edges of each vertex in a tree to an ordering of the vertices themselves.
We use this observation in our definition of the forgetful functor from the category of Segal cooperads in $E_\infty$-algebras
to the category of Segal cooperads in dg modules.
\subsection{Counits, connected cooperads and local conilpotence}\label{subsection:conilpotence}
In the standard definition of a cooperad, we assume that the coproducts $\circ_{i_p}^*$ satisfy natural counit relations
with respect to a counit morphism which we associate to our objects,
but we forget about this counit morphism and about the counit conditions in the definition
of the previous paragraph.
The cooperads that we consider are actually equivalent to the coaugmentation coideal of coaugmented cooperads.
If we start with the standard definition of a cooperad (where we have a counit), then we should take components of the coaugmentation coideal of our cooperad $\COp$
in the definition of the treewise tensor products $\COp(\ttree) = \bigotimes_{v\in V(\ttree)}\COp(\ytree_v)$
and of the treewise coproducts $\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\stree}: \COp(\stree)\rightarrow\COp(\ttree)$.
In the definition of cooperads, one often has to assume the validity of a local conilpotence condition.
In the treewise formalism, this local conilpotence condition asserts that for every element $x\in\COp(\stree)$
in the component of a cooperad $\COp$ associated to a tree $\stree\in\Tree(r)$, we can pick a non-negative integer $N_x\in\NN$
such that $\sharp V(\ttree)\geq N_x\Rightarrow\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\stree}(x) = 0$,
for every tree $\ttree\in\Tree(r)$.
This condition ensures that the map $\rho: \COp(\stree)\rightarrow\prod_{\ttree\rightarrow\stree}\COp(\ttree)$
induced by the collection of all coproducts $\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\stree}: \COp(\stree)\rightarrow\COp(\ttree)$
factors through the sum $\bigoplus_{\ttree\rightarrow\stree}\COp(\ttree)$.
In what follows, we may actually need a stronger connectedness condition, which we define by requiring that the components of our object $\COp(\ttree)$
vanish when the tree $\ttree$ contains at least one vertex with a single ingoing edge. For an ordinary cooperad, this requirement is equivalent to the relation $\COp(1) = 0$.
In general, this connectedness condition implies that our object $\COp$ reduces to a structure given by a collection of functors $\ttree\mapsto\COp(\ttree)$
on the subcategories $\widetilde{\Tree}(r)\subset\Tree(r)$ formed by trees $\ttree$
where all the vertices have at least two ingoing edges (in~\cite[\S A.1.12]{FresseBook}
the terminology `reduced tree' is used for this subcategory of trees). The conilpotence of the cooperad $\COp$
then follows from the observation that, for any given tree $\stree\in\widetilde{\Tree}(r)$,
we have finitely many morphisms such that $\ttree\rightarrow\stree$
in $\widetilde{\Tree}(r)$.
We say that a cooperad is connected when it satisfies this connectedness requirement $\COp(1) = 0$, or equivalently, when $\ttree\not\in\widetilde{\Tree}(r)\Rightarrow\COp(\ttree) = 0$.
In what follows, we will similarly say that a Segal cooperad $\COp$ is connected when it satisfies the same treewise condition $\ttree\not\in\widetilde{\Tree}(r)\Rightarrow\COp(\ttree) = 0$.
We mainly use the local conilpotence and the connectedness condition in our study of the $W$-construction of (Segal) shuffle dg cooperads
and in our definition of the cobar construction for homotopy Segal shuffle dg cooperads.
\section{The category of strict Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads}\label{sec:strict-segal-cooperads}
We study the category of Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads in this section.
We devote our first subsection to the definition of this category.
We then study strict Segal dg cooperads, which are structures, defined within the category of dg modules, which we obtain by forgetting the $E_\infty$-algebra structures
attached to the definition of a Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperad.
We also explain the definition of an equivalence between our Segal dg cooperads and ordinary dg cooperads.
We devote the second subsection of this section to these topics.
We study the cobar complex of Segal dg cooperads afterwards, in a third subsection.
We eventually explain a correspondence between operads in simplicial sets and Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads.
We prove that we can retrieve a completion of operads in simplicial sets
from a corresponding Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperad.
We devote the fourth subsection of the section to this subject.
Recall that we use the notation $\EOp$ for the chain Barratt--Eccles operad and that $\EAlg$ denotes the category of algebras in dg modules associated to this operad.
\subsection{The definition of strict Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads}\label{subsec:strict-segal-cooperads}
We begin our study by defining the objects of our category of Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads.
We actually define beforehand a notion of Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf pre-cooperad, which consists of objects equipped with all the operations
that underlie the structure of a Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads (coproducts and facet operators),
and then we just define a Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperad as a Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf pre-cooperad whose facet operators
satisfy an extra homotopy equivalence condition (the Segal condition).
We make these definitions explicit in the first paragraph of this subsection.
We explain the definition of morphisms of Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads afterwards in order to complete the objectives of this subsection.
We are guided by the combinatorial definition of cooperads in terms of trees, which we briefly recalled in the overview of~\S\ref{subsection:shuffle-cooperads}.
\begin{defn}\label{definition:strict-E-infinity-cooperad}
We call (strict) Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf shuffle pre-cooperad the structure defined by a collection of $\EOp$-algebras
\begin{equation*}
\AOp(\ttree)\in\EAlg,\quad\text{$\ttree\in\Tree(r)$, $r>0$},
\end{equation*}
equipped with
\begin{itemize}
\item
coproduct operators
\begin{equation*}
\rho_{f: \ttree\rightarrow\stree}: \AOp(\stree)\rightarrow\AOp(\ttree),
\end{equation*}
defined as morphisms of $\EOp$-algebras, for all tree morphisms $f: \ttree\rightarrow\stree$,
and which satisfy the following standard functoriality constraints $\rho_{\stree\xrightarrow{=}\stree} = \id_{\AOp(\stree)}$
and $\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\utree}\circ\rho_{\utree\rightarrow\stree} = \rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\stree}$,
for all pairs of composable tree morphisms $\ttree\rightarrow\utree\rightarrow\stree$,
\item
together with facet operators
\begin{equation*}
i_{\sigmatree,\stree}: \AOp(\sigmatree)\rightarrow\AOp(\stree),
\end{equation*}
also defined as morphisms of $\EOp$-algebras, for all subtree embeddings $\sigmatree\subset\stree$,
and which satisfy the following functoriality relations $i_{\stree,\stree} = \id_{\stree}$ and $i_{\thetatree,\stree}\circ i_{\sigmatree,\thetatree} = i_{\sigmatree,\stree}$,
for all $\sigmatree\subset\thetatree\subset\stree$.
\item
We also assume the verification of a compatibility relation between the facet operators and the coproduct operators.
We express this compatibility relation by the commutativity of the following diagram:
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrixcolsep{5pc}\xymatrix{ A(\stree)\ar[r]^-{\rho_f} & \AOp(\ttree) \\
A(\sigmatree)\ar[u]^{i_{\sigmatree,\stree}}\ar@{.>}[r]^-{\rho_{f|_{f^{-1}\sigmatree}}} &
\AOp(f^{-1}\sigmatree), \ar@{.>}[u]_{i_{f^{-1}\sigmatree,\ttree}} }
\end{equation*}
for all $f: \ttree\rightarrow\stree$ and $\sigmatree\subset\stree$, where $f^{-1}(\sigmatree)\subset\ttree$
denotes the subtree such that $V(f^{-1}\sigmatree) = f^{-1}V(\stree)$
and we consider the obvious restricted morphism $f|_{f^{-1}\sigmatree}: f^{-1}\sigmatree\rightarrow\sigmatree$.
\end{itemize}
We say that a Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf shuffle pre-cooperad $\AOp$ is a Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf shuffle cooperad when it satisfies the following extra condition (the Segal condition):
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(*)]
The facet operators $i_{\sigmatree_v,\ttree}: \AOp(\sigmatree_v)\rightarrow\AOp(\ttree)$
associated to a tree decomposition $\ttree = \lambda_{\stree}(\sigmatree_v, v\in V(\stree))$
induce a weak-equivalence
\begin{equation*}
i_{\lambda_{\stree}(\sigmatree_*)}: \bigvee_{v\in V(\stree)}\AOp(\sigmatree_v)\xrightarrow{\sim}\AOp(\ttree)
\end{equation*}
when we pass to the coproduct of the objects $\AOp(\sigmatree_v)$
in the category of $\EOp$-algebras. We refer to this weak-equivalence $i_{\lambda_{\stree}(\sigmatree_*)}$ as the Segal map
associated to the decomposition $\ttree = \lambda_{\stree}(\sigmatree_v, v\in V(\stree))$.
\end{enumerate}
We finally define a Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf symmetric (pre-)cooperad as a Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf shuffle (pre-)cooperad $\AOp$
equipped with an action of the permutations such that $s^*: \AOp(s\ttree)\rightarrow\AOp(\ttree)$, for $s\in\Sigma_r$ and $\ttree\in\Tree(r)$,
and which intertwine the facets and the coproduct operators attached our object.
\end{defn}
We have the following statement, which enables us to reduce the verification of the Segal condition to particular tree decompositions.
\begin{prop}\label{proposition:Segal-condition}
For any Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf shuffle pre-cooperad $\AOp$, we have an equivalence between the following statements:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The Segal condition holds for all tree decompositions $\ttree = \lambda_{\stree}(\sigmatree_v,v\in V(\stree))$.
\item The Segal condition holds for all tree decompositions of the form $\ttree = \lambda_{\gammatree}(\sigmatree_u,\sigmatree_v) = \sigmatree_u\circ_i\sigmatree_v$,
where we take an operadic composition along a tree with two vertices $\gammatree$ equivalent to the performance of an operadic composition product $\sigmatree_u\circ_i\sigmatree_v$
of a pair of trees $\sigmatree_u,\sigmatree_v\subset\ttree$ (we abusively omit the action of the shuffle permutation
that we associate to general composition operations of this form, see~\S\ref{subsection:trees}).
\item The Segal condition holds for all decompositions of trees into corollas $\ttree = \lambda_{\ttree}(\ytree_v,v\in V(\ttree))$.\qed
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
We now define morphisms of strict Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads.
\begin{defn}\label{definition:E-infinity-cooperad-morphism}
A morphism of Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf shuffle (pre-)cooperads $\phi: \AOp\rightarrow\BOp$ is a collection of $\EOp$-algebra morphisms $\phi_{\ttree}: \AOp(\ttree)\rightarrow\BOp(\ttree)$, $\ttree\in\Tree(r)$, $r>0$,
which preserve the action of the facets and coproduct operators on our objects
in the sense that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
the diagram
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrix{ \AOp(\stree)\ar[r]^{\phi_{\stree}}\ar[d]_{\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\stree}} & \BOp(\stree)\ar[d]^{\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\stree}} \\
\AOp(\ttree)\ar[r]^{\phi_{\ttree}} & \BOp(\ttree) }
\end{equation*}
commutes for all tree morphisms $\ttree\rightarrow\stree$,
\item
the diagram
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrix{ \AOp(\stree)\ar[r]^{\phi_{\stree}} & \BOp(\stree) \\
\AOp(\sigmatree)\ar[r]^{\phi_{\sigmatree}}\ar[u]^{i_{\sigmatree,\stree}} &
\BOp(\sigmatree)\ar[u]_{i_{\sigmatree,\stree}} }
\end{equation*}
commutes for all subtree embeddings $\sigmatree\subset\stree$.
\end{enumerate}
If $\AOp$ and $\BOp$ are Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf symmetric (pre-)cooperads, then $\phi: \AOp\rightarrow\BOp$ is a morphism of Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf symmetric (pre-)cooperads
when $\phi$ preserves the action of permutations on our objects in the sense that
\begin{enumerate}\setcounter{enumi}{2}
\item
the diagram
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrix{ \AOp(s\ttree)\ar[r]^{\phi_{s\ttree}}\ar[d]_{s^*} & \BOp(s\ttree)\ar[d]^{s^*} \\
\AOp(\ttree)\ar[r]^{\phi_{\ttree}} & \BOp(\ttree) }
\end{equation*}
commutes, for all $s\in\Sigma_r$ and $\ttree\in\Tree(r)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}
The morphisms of Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf shuffle (pre-)cooperads can obviously be composed,
as well as the morphisms of Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf symmetric (pre-)cooperads,
so that we can form a category of Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf shuffle (pre-)cooperads and a category of Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf symmetric (pre-)cooperads.
In what follows, we adopt the notation $\EOp\Hopf\sh\SegOp^c$ for the category of Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf shuffle cooperads
and the notation $\EOp\Hopf\Sigma\SegOp^c$ for the category of Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf symmetric cooperads.
\subsection{The forgetting of $E_\infty$-structures}\label{subsection:forgetful-strict}
To any Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperad $\AOp$, we can associate a Segal cooperad in dg modules by forgetting the $E_\infty$-algebra structure attached to each object $\AOp(\ttree)$.
We examine this construction in this subsection.
We need to assume that the vertices of our trees are totally ordered in order to make the construction
of the forgetful functor from Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads to Segal dg cooperads
work.
For this reason, we restrict ourselves to Segal shuffle cooperads all along this subsection, though our definition of Segal dg cooperad
makes sense in the symmetric setting.
\begin{defn}\label{definition:tree-shaped-cooperad}
We call Segal shuffle dg pre-cooperad the structure defined by a collection of dg modules
\begin{equation*}
\AOp(\ttree)\in\dg\Mod,\quad\text{$\ttree\in\Tree(r)$, $r>0$},
\end{equation*}
equipped with
\begin{itemize}
\item
coproduct operators
\begin{equation*}
\rho_{f: \ttree\rightarrow\stree}: \AOp(\stree)\rightarrow\AOp(\ttree),
\end{equation*}
defined as morphisms of dg modules, for all tree morphisms $f: \ttree\rightarrow\stree$, and which satisfy the same standard functoriality constraints
as in the case of Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf shuffle cooperads,
\item
together with Segal maps
\begin{equation*}
i_{\lambda_{\stree}(\sigmatree_*)}: \bigotimes_{v\in V(\stree)}\AOp(\sigmatree_v)\rightarrow\AOp(\ttree),
\end{equation*}
defined as morphisms of dg modules, for all tree decompositions $\ttree = \lambda_{\stree}(\sigmatree_v,v\in V(\stree))$,
and such that
for the trivial decomposition $\ttree = \lambda_{\ytree}(\ttree)$, we have $i_{\lambda_{\ytree}(\ttree)} = \id_{\AOp(\ttree)}$,
while for nested decompositions $\ttree = \lambda_{\utree}(\thetatree_u,u\in V(\utree))$ and $\thetatree_u = \lambda_{\stree_u}(\sigmatree_v,v\in V(\stree_u))$, $u\in V(\utree)$,
we have
\begin{equation*}
i_{\lambda_{\utree}(\thetatree_*)}\circ(\bigotimes_{u\in V(\utree)}i_{\lambda_{\stree_u}(\sigmatree_*)}) = i_{\lambda_{\stree}(\sigmatree_*)},
\end{equation*}
where we consider the composite decomposition $\ttree = \lambda_{\stree}(\sigmatree_v,v\in V(\stree))$
with $\stree = \lambda_{\utree}(\stree_u,u\in V(\utree))$.
\item
We still assume the verification of a compatibility relation between the Segal maps and the coproduct operators.
We express this dg module version of the compatibility relation by the commutativity of the following diagram:
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrixcolsep{7pc}\xymatrix{ \AOp(\stree)\ar[r]^-{\rho_f} & \AOp(\ttree) \\
\bigotimes_{u\in V(\utree)}\AOp(\sigmatree_u)\ar[r]_-{\bigotimes_{u\in V(\utree)}\rho_{f|_{f^{-1}\sigmatree_u}}}
\ar[u]^{i_{\lambda_{\utree}(\sigmatree_*)}} &
\bigotimes_{u\in V(\utree)}\AOp(f^{-1}\sigmatree_u)
\ar[u]_{i_{\lambda_{\utree}(f^{-1}\sigmatree_*)}} }
\end{equation*}
for all tree morphisms $f: \ttree\rightarrow\stree$ and decompositions $\stree = \lambda_{\utree}(\sigmatree_v,v\in V(\utree))$,
where we consider the pre-image $f^{-1}\sigmatree_v\subset\ttree$
of the subtrees $\sigmatree_v\subset\stree$.
\end{itemize}
We then say that a Segal shuffle dg pre-cooperad $\AOp$ is a Segal shuffle dg cooperad when the following Segal condition holds:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(*)]
The Segal map $i_{\lambda_{\stree}(\sigmatree_*)}$ is a weak-equivalence
\begin{equation*}
i_{\lambda_{\stree}(\sigmatree_*)}: \bigotimes_{v\in V(\stree)}\AOp(\sigmatree_v)\xrightarrow{\sim}\AOp(\ttree),
\end{equation*}
for every decomposition $\ttree = \lambda_{\stree}(\sigmatree_v, v\in V(\stree))$.
\end{enumerate}
We still define a morphism of Segal shuffle dg (pre-)cooperads $\phi: \AOp\rightarrow\BOp$
as a collection of dg module morphisms $\phi_{\ttree}: \AOp(\ttree)\rightarrow\BOp(\ttree) $
that preserve the coproduct operators $\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\stree}$
and the Segal maps $i_{\lambda_{\stree}(\sigmatree_*)}$
in the obvious sense.
We use the notation $\dg\sh\SegOp^c$ for the category of Segal shuffle dg cooperads, which we equip with this notion of morphism.
\end{defn}
The forgetful functor from the category of strict Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf shuffle cooperads to the category of Segal shuffle dg cooperads
essentially ignores the $E_\infty$-structures
attached to our objects.
However, Definition~\ref{definition:strict-E-infinity-cooperad} uses the coproduct of $\EOp$-algebras $\vee$,
while Definition~\ref{definition:tree-shaped-cooperad} uses the tensor product $\otimes$.
To pass from one to the other, we need to use the natural transformation $\EM$ described in Construction~\ref{constr:Barratt-Eccles-diagonal}.
\begin{prop}\label{proposition:forgetful-strict}
Let $\AOp$ be a strict Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf shuffle cooperad, with coproduct operators $\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\stree}: \AOp(\stree)\rightarrow\AOp(\ttree)$
and facet operators $i_{\sigmatree,\stree}: \AOp(\sigmatree)\rightarrow\AOp(\stree)$.
The collection $\AOp(\ttree)$, $\ttree\in\Tree(r)$, equipped with the coproduct operators inherited from $\AOp$ and the Segal maps
given by the composites
\begin{equation*}
\bigotimes_{v\in V(\stree)}\AOp(\sigmatree_v)\xrightarrow{\EM}\bigvee_{v\in V(\stree)}\AOp(\sigmatree_v)\xrightarrow{i_{\lambda_{\stree}(\sigmatree_*)}}\AOp(\ttree),
\end{equation*}
for all tree decompositions $\ttree = \lambda_{\stree}(\sigmatree_v,v\in V(\stree))$, is a Segal shuffle dg cooperad.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We easily deduce from the associativity of the facet operators in the definition of a Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf shuffle cooperad~(\S\ref{definition:strict-E-infinity-cooperad})
that the Segal maps of $\EOp$-algebras $i_{\lambda_{\stree}(\sigmatree_*)}: \bigvee_{v\in V(\stree)}\AOp(\sigmatree_v)\rightarrow\AOp(\ttree)$
satisfy natural associativity relations, which parallel the associativity relations of the Segal maps
of Segal shuffle cooperads in dg module. (By the universal properties of coproducts, we are left to verifying such a relation on a single summand of our coproducts.)
We use the associativity of the transformation $\EM$ to pass from this associativity relation on coproducts
to the associativity relation on tensor products
which is required in the definition of Segal shuffle dg cooperad.
We eventually deduce from the result of Proposition~\ref{claim:Barratt-Eccles-algebra-coproducts}
that the dg cooperad version of the Segal condition for $\AOp$
is equivalent to the Segal condition of strict Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{remark:order-trees}
Note that the definition of the Segal map in the construction of this proposition
requires to pick an order on the vertices of the tree $\stree$
since the transformation $\EM$ is not commutative.
\end{remark}
We immediately see that an ordinary shuffle dg cooperad, in the sense of the definition of~\S\ref{subsection:shuffle-cooperads}, is equivalent to a Segal shuffle dg cooperad
where the Segal maps define isomorphisms $i_{\lambda_{\stree}(\sigmatree_*)}: \bigotimes_{v\in V(\stree)}\AOp(\sigmatree_v)\xrightarrow{\simeq}\AOp(\ttree)$.
We aim to prove that every Segal shuffle dg cooperad is weakly-equivalent to such an ordinary shuffle dg cooperad.
We then need to assume that our Segal shuffle dg cooperad satisfies the connectedness condition of~\S\ref{subsection:conilpotence}.
Namely, we have to assume that $\AOp(\ttree) = 0$ when the tree $\ttree$ is not reduced (contains at least one vertex with a single ingoing edge).
Recall that we say that $\AOp$ is connected when it satisfies this condition.
We use a version of the Boardman--Vogt $W$-construction in order to establish the existence of our equivalences.
The classical Boardman--Vogt construction (see~\cite{BergerMoerdijkResolution,BoardmanVogt})
is defined for ordinary operads (actually for algebraic theories in the original reference~\cite{BoardmanVogt}).
We therefore have to dualize the classical definition in order to deal with cooperads (rather than with operads)
and we have to extend the construction to the context of Segal dg cooperads.
We explain the definition of this $W$-construction of Segal dg cooperads with full details in the next paragraphs.
In a first step, we explain the definition of a covariant functor of cubical cochains on the category of trees.
We will pair this functor with the contravariant functor underlying a Segal shuffle dg cooperad to define our object.
In fact, we do not need the full connectedness condition for the definition of the Boardman--Vogt $W$-construction of a Segal shuffle dg cooperad $\AOp$,
because the definition makes sense as soon as the coproduct operators of our object
fulfill the local conilpotence property of~\S\ref{subsection:conilpotence} (which is implied
by the connectedness condition, but can be satisfied in a broader context). We will explain the definition of the Boardman--Vogt $W$-construction in this setting.
\begin{constr}
Fix $\stree\in\Tree(r)$.
For a tree morphism $\ttree\rightarrow\stree$, equivalent to a treewise decomposition $\ttree = \lambda_{\stree}(\sigmatree_v,v\in V(\stree))$,
we set:
\begin{equation*}
\square^*(\ttree/\stree) = \bigotimes_{e\in\mathring{E}(\sigmatree_v),v\in V(\stree)}\underbrace{\DGN^*(\Delta^1)}_{=: I_e},
\end{equation*}
where we associate a factor $I_e = \DGN^*(\Delta^1)$ to every inner edge of a subtree $\sigmatree_v\subset\ttree$ (recall that $\mathring{E}(\thetatree)$
denotes the set of inner edges, which we associate to any tree $\thetatree$
in our category).
This collection of dg modules $\square^*(\ttree/\stree)$ defines a covariant functor on the over category of tree morphisms $\ttree\rightarrow\stree$, where $\ttree\in\Tree(r)$.
Recall that the cochain complex $\DGN^*(\Delta^1)$ is given by $\DGN^*(\Delta^1) = \kk\underline{0}^{\sharp}\oplus\kk\underline{1}^{\sharp}\kk\underline{01}^{\sharp}$,
with the differential such that $\delta(\underline{0}^{\sharp}) = -\underline{01}^{\sharp}$
and $\delta(\underline{1}^{\sharp}) = \underline{01}^{\sharp}$ (see~\S\ref{constr:cubical-cochain-connection}).
We use that a composite of tree morphisms $\ttree\rightarrow\utree\rightarrow\stree$
is equivalent to a double decomposition $\utree = \lambda_{v\in V(\stree)}(\stree_v,v\in V(\stree))$
and $\ttree = \lambda_{u\in V(\utree)}(\sigmatree_u,u\in V(\utree))$,
which yields $\ttree = \lambda_{v\in V(\stree)}(\thetatree_v,v\in V(\stree))$ with $\thetatree_v = \lambda_{u\in V(\stree_v)}(\sigmatree_u,u\in V(\stree_v))$.
We define
\begin{equation*}
\partial_{\ttree\rightarrow\utree/\stree}: \square^*(\ttree/\stree)\rightarrow\square^*(\utree/\stree)
\end{equation*}
as the morphism of dg modules induced by the identity mapping on the factors $I_e$ associated to the edges such that $e\not\in\mathring{E}(\sigmatree_u)$, for all $u\in V(\utree)$,
and by the map $d_0: I_e\rightarrow\kk$ such that $d_0(\underline{1}^{\sharp}) = 1$ and $d_0(\underline{0}^{\sharp}) = d_0(\underline{01}^{\sharp}) = 0$
on the factors $I_e$
associated to the edges $e$ such that we have $e\in\mathring{E}(\sigmatree_u)$, for some $u\in V(\utree)$ (the edges which collapse when we pass to $\utree$).
The collection $\square^*(\ttree/\stree)$ also defines a contravariant functor on the under category of tree morphisms $\ttree\rightarrow\stree$,
when we fix $\ttree\in\Tree(r)$ instead of $\stree\in\Tree(r)$.
For tree morphisms $\ttree\rightarrow\utree\rightarrow\stree$ as above,
we then consider the map
\begin{equation*}
\rho_{\ttree/\utree\rightarrow\stree}: \square^*(\ttree/\stree)\rightarrow\square^*(\ttree/\utree)
\end{equation*}
induced by the identity mapping on the factors $I_e$
associated to the edges such that $e\in\mathring{E}(\sigmatree_u)$, for some $u\in V(\utree)$,
and by the map $d_1: I_e\rightarrow\kk$ such that $d_1(\underline{0}^{\sharp}) = 1$ and $d_1(\underline{1}^{\sharp}) = d_1(\underline{01}^{\sharp}) = 0$
on the factors $I_e$ associated to the edges $e$
such that $e\not\in\mathring{E}(\sigmatree_u)$, for all $u\in V(\utree)$.
We easily check that the above constructions yield associative covariant and contravariant actions on our collection of dg modules $\square^*(\ttree/\stree)$,
which, in addition, commute to each other. We accordingly get that our mapping $(\ttree\rightarrow\stree)\mapsto\square^*(\ttree/\stree)$
defines a covariant functor on the comma category of tree morphisms $\ttree\rightarrow\stree$.
\end{constr}
\begin{remark}
The application of the face operator $d_0$ for the definition of the covariant functor structure on the collection $\square^*(\ttree/\stree)$
and the application of the face operator $d_1$ for the definition of the contravariant functor structure
is converse to the usual convention for the definition of the $W$-construction.
This choice is motivated by our choices regarding the definition of the cobar construction of homotopy Segal dg cooperads,
which are themselves forced by the definition of connections
in the category of $\EOp$-algebras, and by a seek of coherence between the definition of the $W$-construction
and the definition of the cobar construction of (homotopy) Segal dg cooperads,
which we need in order to be able to compare the $W$-construction
with the cobar construction.
\end{remark}
We now address the definition of the $W$-construction.
\begin{constr}\label{construction:W}
Let $\AOp$ be a Segal shuffle dg pre-cooperad.
We assume that the treewise coproduct operators on $\AOp$ satisfies the local conilpotence condition of~\S\ref{subsection:conilpotence}.
We set:
\begin{equation*}
\DGW^{c}(\AOp)(\stree) = \eq(\xymatrix{\bigoplus_{\ttree\rightarrow\stree}\square^*(\ttree/\stree)\otimes\AOp(\ttree)\ar@<+2pt>[r]^{d^0}\ar@<-2pt>[r]_{d^1}
& \bigoplus_{\ttree\rightarrow\utree\rightarrow\stree}\square^*(\utree/\stree)\otimes\AOp(\ttree)\ar@/_2em/[l]_{s^0} }),
\end{equation*}
where we take the equalizer $\eq$ of the map $d^0$ induced by the covariant action $\square^*(\ttree/\stree)\rightarrow\square^*(\utree/\stree)$ of the tree morphisms $\ttree\rightarrow\utree$
and of the map $d^1$ induced by the contravariant action $\AOp(\utree)\rightarrow\AOp(\ttree)$
on our tensors. (The reflection map $s^0$ is given by the projection onto the summands such that $\ttree = \utree$.)
We may equivalently use the following end-style notation for this equalizer:
\begin{equation*}
\DGW^{c}(\AOp)(\stree) = \int_{\ttree\rightarrow\stree}'\square^*(\ttree/\stree)\otimes\AOp(\ttree),
\end{equation*}
where the notation $\int'$ refers to the consideration of sums (rather than products) in the above equalizer definition of our object.
We note that this additive end is well defined because the local conilpotence condition implies that the contravariant action operations $\AOp(\utree)\rightarrow\AOp(\ttree)$
land in a sum when $\ttree$ varies, while the covariant action operations $\square^*(\ttree/\stree)\rightarrow\square^*(\utree/\stree)$
land in a sum because each tree morphism $\ttree\rightarrow\stree$ has finitely many factorizations $\ttree\rightarrow\utree\rightarrow\stree$.
The objects $\DGW^{c}(\AOp)(\stree)$ inherit natural coproduct operators $\rho^W_{\utree\rightarrow\stree}: \DGW^{c}(\AOp)(\stree)\rightarrow\DGW^{c}(\AOp)(\utree)$
by covariant functoriality of the objects $\square^*(\ttree/\stree)$.
Besides, we have, for each tree decomposition $\stree = \lambda_{\utree}(\sigmatree_u, u\in V(\utree))$,
a natural Segal map
\begin{gather*}
i^W_{\sigmatree_*,\stree}: \bigotimes_{u\in V(\utree)}\DGW^{c}(\AOp)(\sigmatree_v)\rightarrow\DGW^{c}(\AOp)(\stree),
\intertext{induced by the following operators on our additive end}
\bigotimes_{u\in V(\utree)}\square^*(\thetatree_u/\sigmatree_u)\otimes\AOp(\thetatree_u)
\rightarrow\square^*(\lambda_{\utree}(\thetatree_u)/\stree)\otimes\AOp(\lambda_{\utree}(\thetatree_u)),
\end{gather*}
where we fix a collection of tree morphisms $\thetatree_u\rightarrow\sigmatree_u$, $u\in V(\utree)$, which we put together on $\utree$
in order to get a tree morphism $\lambda_{\utree}(\thetatree_u)\rightarrow\lambda_{\utree}(\sigmatree_u) = \stree$,
and we use the obvious isomorphism $\bigotimes_{u\in V(\utree)}\square^*(\thetatree_u/\sigmatree_u)\simeq\square^*(\lambda_{\utree}(\thetatree_u)/\stree)$
together with the Segal map $i_{\lambda_{\utree}(\thetatree_*)}: \bigotimes_{u\in V(\utree)}\AOp(\thetatree_u)\rightarrow\AOp(\ttree)$ on $\AOp$
for the tree $\ttree = \lambda_{\utree}(\thetatree_u)$.
\end{constr}
We check that the above construction provides the object $\DGW^c(\AOp)$ with a well-defined Segal dg cooperad structure later on.
We define, before carrying this verification, a decomposed version of the $W$-construction. The idea is to replace the contravariant functor $\AOp(\ttree)$
in the definition of the $W$-construction by a decomposed version of this functor, which we construct in the next paragraph.
\begin{constr}\label{construction:decomposed-Segal-cooperad-terms}
We again assume $\AOp$ that is a Segal shuffle dg pre-cooperad.
For a tree morphism $\ttree\rightarrow\stree$, equivalent to a treewise decomposition $\ttree = \lambda_{\stree}(\sigmatree_v,v\in V(\stree))$, we set:
\begin{equation*}
\AOp(\ttree/\stree) = \bigotimes_{v\in V(\stree)}\AOp(\sigmatree_v).
\end{equation*}
The collection of these objects inherits the structure of a contravariant functor on the over category of tree morphisms $\ttree\rightarrow\stree$,
where we fix the tree $\stree\in\Tree(r)$
and $\ttree$ varies. We proceed as follows.
Let $f: \utree\rightarrow\ttree$ be a tree morphism, which we compose with the above morphism $\ttree\rightarrow\stree$ to get $\utree\rightarrow\stree$.
In this case, for the decomposition $\utree = \lambda_{\stree}(\thetatree_v,v\in V(\stree))$,
we have $\thetatree_v = f^{-1}\sigmatree_v\subset\utree$, where we consider the pre-image of the subtree $\sigmatree_v\subset\ttree$
under the morphism $f: \utree\rightarrow\ttree$.
Furthermore, we can identify our morphism $f: \utree\rightarrow\ttree$
with the morphism $\lambda_{\stree}(\thetatree_v)\rightarrow\lambda_{\stree}(\sigmatree_v)$
which we obtain by putting together the morphisms $f|_{\thetatree_v}: \thetatree_v\rightarrow\sigmatree_v$
on the tree $\stree$. We just define the decomposed coproduct operator
\begin{equation*}
\rho_{\utree\rightarrow\ttree/\stree}: \AOp(\ttree/\stree)\rightarrow\AOp(\utree/\stree)
\end{equation*}
as the tensor product of the coproduct operators $\rho_{\thetatree_v\rightarrow\sigmatree_v}: \AOp(\sigmatree_v)\rightarrow\AOp(\thetatree_v)$
which we associate to these restrictions $f|_{\thetatree_v}: \thetatree_v\rightarrow\sigmatree_v$.
The collection $\AOp(\ttree/\stree)$ also defines a covariant functor on the under category of tree morphisms $\ttree\rightarrow\stree$,
when we make the tree $\stree$ vary and we fix $\ttree\in\Tree(r)$.
We consider a composable sequence of morphisms $\ttree\rightarrow\utree\rightarrow\stree$.
We write $\utree = \lambda_{v\in V(\stree)}(\stree_v)$ for the decomposition equivalent to the morphism $f: \utree\rightarrow\stree$
and $\ttree = \lambda_{u\in V(\utree)}(\sigmatree_u)$ for the decomposition equivalent to the morphism $\ttree\rightarrow\utree$.
Then the decomposition equivalent to the composite morphism $\ttree\rightarrow\stree$
reads $\ttree = \lambda_{v\in V(\stree)}(\thetatree_v,v\in V(\stree))$ with $\thetatree_v = \lambda_{\stree_v}(\sigmatree_u,u\in V(\stree_v))$,
for $v\in V(\stree)$.
The operator
\begin{equation*}
i_{\ttree/\utree\rightarrow\stree}: \AOp(\ttree/\utree)\rightarrow\AOp(\ttree/\stree)
\end{equation*}
of the covariant action of $f: \utree\rightarrow\stree$ on our collection
is given by the tensor product of the Segal maps $i_{\lambda_{\stree_v}(\sigmatree_*)}: \bigotimes_{u\in V(\stree_v)}\AOp(\sigmatree_u)\rightarrow\AOp(\thetatree_v)$
which we associate to the decompositions $\thetatree_v = \lambda_{\stree_v}(\sigmatree_u,u\in V(\stree_v))$.
We easily check that the above constructions yield associative covariant and contravariant actions on our collection $\AOp(\ttree/\stree)$,
which, in addition, commute to each other. We accordingly get that our mapping $(\ttree\rightarrow\stree)\mapsto\AOp(\ttree/\stree)$
defines a contravariant functor on the comma category of tree morphisms $\ttree\rightarrow\stree$.
\end{constr}
We can now proceed to the definition of our decomposed $W$-construction.
\begin{constr}\label{construction:decomposed-W}
Let $\AOp$ be a Segal shuffle dg cooperad. We assume that $\AOp$ satisfies the local conilpotence condition of~\S\ref{subsection:conilpotence} as in Construction~\ref{construction:W}.
We set:
\begin{equation*}
\DGW^{c}_{dec}(\AOp)(\stree) = \int_{\ttree\rightarrow\stree}'\square^*(\ttree/\stree)\otimes\AOp(\ttree/\stree),
\end{equation*}
where the notation $\int'$ refers to the same additive end construction as in Construction~\ref{construction:W}, and we consider the decomposed contravariant functor $\AOp(\ttree/\stree)$
defined in the previous paragraph.
We note again that this additive end is well defined because the local conilpotence condition implies that the decomposed coproduct operators $\AOp(\ttree/\stree)\rightarrow\AOp(\utree/\stree)$
land in a direct sum when $\utree$ varies, like the coproduct operators $\AOp(\ttree)\rightarrow\AOp(\utree)$
in Construction~\ref{construction:W} (and yet because the covariant action on $\square^*(\ttree/\stree)$
involves finitely many terms on each term of the end).
The coproduct operators $\rho^W_{\utree\rightarrow\stree}: \DGW^{c}_{dec}(\AOp)(\stree)\rightarrow\DGW^{c}_{dec}(\AOp)(\utree)$
are defined by using the covariant functoriality of the objects $\square^*(\ttree/\stree)$
and $\AOp(\ttree/\stree)$.
For each tree decomposition $\stree = \lambda_{\utree}(\sigmatree_u,u\in V(\utree))$, we define the Segal map
\begin{gather*}
i^W_{\sigmatree_*,\stree}: \bigotimes_{u\in V(\utree)}\DGW^{c}(\AOp)(\sigmatree_u)\rightarrow\DGW^{c}(\AOp)(\stree)
\intertext{termwise, by the morphisms}
\bigotimes_{u\in V(\utree)}\square^*(\thetatree_u/\sigmatree_u)\otimes\AOp(\thetatree_u/\sigmatree_u)
\rightarrow\square^*(\lambda_{\utree}(\thetatree_u)/\stree)\otimes\AOp(\lambda_{\utree}(\thetatree_u)/\stree),
\end{gather*}
associated to the collections of tree morphisms $\thetatree_u\rightarrow\sigmatree_u$, $u\in V(\utree)$,
which we get by tensoring the same isomorphisms $\bigotimes_{u\in V(\utree)}\square^*(\thetatree_u/\sigmatree_u)\simeq\square^*(\lambda_{\utree}(\thetatree_u)/\stree)$
as in Construction~\ref{construction:W}
with parallel isomorphisms $\bigotimes_{u\in V(\utree)}\AOp(\thetatree_u/\sigmatree_u)\simeq\AOp(\lambda_{\utree}(\thetatree_u)/\stree)$,
which we associate to the objects of Construction~\ref{construction:decomposed-Segal-cooperad-terms}.
\end{constr}
We have the following observation, which can be used to give a reduced description of both the $W$-construction $\DGW^{c}(\AOp)$
and the decomposed $W$-construction $\DGW^{c}_{dec}(\AOp)$.
\begin{lemm}\label{lemma:W-construction-splitting}
The additive end equalizers in the definition of the $W$-construction $\DGW^{c}(\AOp)$ in Construction~\ref{construction:W}
and in the definition of the decomposed $W$-construction $\DGW^{c}_{dec}(\AOp)$
in Construction~\ref{construction:decomposed-W}
split when we forget about differentials, so that the terms of these objects have a reduced description
of the form:
\begin{align*}
\DGW^{c}(\AOp)(\stree) & = \bigoplus_{\ttree\rightarrow\stree}L\square^*(\ttree/\stree)\otimes\AOp(\ttree), \\
\DGW^{c}_{dec}(\AOp)(\stree) & = \bigoplus_{\ttree\rightarrow\stree}L\square^*(\ttree/\stree)\otimes\AOp(\ttree/\stree),
\end{align*}
where, for a tree morphism $\ttree\rightarrow\stree$ equivalent to a tree decomposition such that $\ttree = \lambda_{v\in V(\stree)}(\sigmatree_v,v\in V(\stree))$,
we define $L\square^*(\ttree/\stree)\subset\square^*(\ttree/\stree)$
by the tensor product:
\begin{equation*}
L\square^*(\ttree/\stree) = \bigotimes_{e\in\mathring{E}(\sigmatree_v),v\in V(\stree)}\underbrace{(\kk\underline{0}^{\sharp}\oplus\kk\underline{01}^{\sharp})}_{=: \mathring{I}_e}.
\end{equation*}
(Thus, we just drop the factors $\underline{1}^{\sharp}$ from the normalized cochain complexes $I_e = N^*(\Delta^1)$ in the expression of the object $\square^*(\ttree/\stree)$.)
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}
This lemma readily follows from the fact that the terms $\varpi = \sigma\otimes\alpha\in\square^*(\ttree/\stree)\otimes\AOp(\ttree)$
(respectively, $\varpi = \sigma\otimes\alpha\in\square^*(\ttree/\stree)\otimes\AOp(\ttree/\stree)$)
with $\underline{1}^{\sharp}$ factors in the additive end definition of the object $\DGW^{c}(\AOp)(\stree)$ (respectively, $\DGW^{c}_{dec}(\AOp)(\stree)$)
are determined by the equalizer relations,
which identify such terms with the image of tensors of the form $\varpi' = \sigma'\otimes\alpha'\in L\square^*(\ttree'/\stree)\otimes\AOp(\ttree')$
(respectively, $\varpi' = \sigma'\otimes\alpha'\in L\square^*(\ttree'/\stree)\otimes\AOp(\ttree'/\stree)$)
under the action of coproduct operators,
where $\sigma'$ is defined by withdrawing the factors $\underline{1}^{\sharp}$ from $\sigma\in\square^*(\ttree/\stree)$
and $\ttree'$ is the tree obtained by contracting the edges $e$
that correspond to such factors in $\ttree$.
Indeed, we then have $\sigma' = \partial_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree'/\stree}(\sigma)$ and, in the case of $W$-construction $\DGW^{c}(\AOp)$,
from the zigzag of morphisms
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrix{ \square^*(\ttree/\stree)\otimes\AOp(\ttree)\ar[dr]_{\partial_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree'/\stree}\otimes\id} &&
\square^*(\ttree'/\stree)\otimes\AOp(\ttree')\ar[dl]^{\id\otimes\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree'}} \\
& \square^*(\ttree'/\stree)\otimes\AOp(\ttree) & },
\end{equation*}
which we extract from our equalizer, we see that we have the identity $\sigma'\otimes\alpha = \sigma'\otimes\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree'}(\alpha')\Rightarrow\alpha = \rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree'}(\alpha')$.
We argue similarly in the case of the decomposable $W$-construction.
\end{proof}
We now check the validity of the definition of our Segal shuffle dg pre-cooperad structure on the $W$-construction $\DGW^{c}(\AOp)$ in Construction~\ref{construction:W}
and on the decomposed $W$-construction $\DGW^{c}_{dec}(\AOp)$ in Construction~\ref{construction:decomposed-W}.
We use the following straightforward observation (see \cite[Appendix A]{FresseBook}).
\begin{lemm}\label{lemma:tree-decomposition-chain}
Let $\stree = \lambda_{\utree}(\sigmatree_u,u\in V(\utree))$ be a tree decomposition.
There is a bijection between the set of collections of composable pairs of tree morphisms $\{\thetatree_u\rightarrow\ttree_u\rightarrow\sigmatree_u,u\in V(\utree)\}$
indexed by $V(\utree)$
and the set of composable pairs of tree morphisms $\thetatree\rightarrow\ttree\rightarrow\stree$.
This bijection associates any such collection $\{\thetatree_u\rightarrow\ttree_u\rightarrow\sigmatree_u,u\in V(\utree)\}$
with the morphisms $\lambda_{\utree}(\thetatree_u,u\in V(\utree))\rightarrow\lambda_{\utree}(\ttree_u,u\in V(\utree))\rightarrow\lambda_{\utree}(\sigmatree_u,u\in V(\utree)) = \stree$.\qed
\end{lemm}
\begin{thm-defn}\label{lemma:W-construction-cooperad}
The objects $\DGW^{c}(\AOp)$ and $\DGW^{c}_{dec}(\AOp)$, equipped with the coproduct operators and the Segal maps defined in Construction~\ref{construction:W},
form Segal shuffle dg pre-cooperads, to which we respectively refer as the $W$-construction and the decomposed $W$-construction
of the Segal shuffle dg (pre-)cooperad $\AOp$.
For the decomposed $W$-construction $\DGW^{c}_{dec}(\AOp)$, we get in addition that the Segal maps
define isomorphisms
\begin{equation*}
i_{\lambda_{\stree}(\sigmatree_*)}: \bigotimes_{v\in V(\stree)}\DGW^{c}_{dec}(\AOp)(\sigmatree_v)\xrightarrow{\simeq}\DGW^{c}_{dec}(\AOp)(\ttree),
\end{equation*}
for all tree decompositions $\ttree = \lambda_{\stree}(\sigmatree_v,v\in V(\stree))$, so that $\DGW^{c}_{dec}(\AOp)$
is identified with a shuffle dg cooperad in the ordinary sense.
\end{thm-defn}
\begin{proof}
The associativity of the coproduct operators on $\DGW^{c}(\AOp)$ and $\DGW^{c}_{dec}(\AOp)$
is immediate from the definition of these morphisms
in terms of associative actions on the terms
of our additive ends
in Construction~\ref{construction:W} and Construction~\ref{construction:decomposed-W}.
We similarly check the validity of the associativity condition for the Segal maps that we attach to our objects.
We also deduce the compatibility between the Segal maps and the coproduct operators from termwise counterparts of this relation.
To establish that Segal maps define isomorphisms in the case of the decomposed $W$-construction, we use the reduced expression of Lemma~\ref{lemma:W-construction-splitting},
the fact that the tensor products of this reduced expression have a factorization
of the form
\begin{multline*}
L\square^*(\ttree/\stree)\otimes\AOp(\ttree/\stree) = (\bigotimes_{e\in\mathring{E}(\sigmatree_v),v\in V(\stree)}\mathring{I}_e)\otimes(\bigotimes_{v\in V(\stree)}\AOp(\sigmatree_v))\\
\simeq\bigotimes_{v\in V(\stree)}(\underbrace{\bigotimes_{e\in\mathring{E}(\sigmatree_v)}\mathring{I}_e}_{= L\square^*(\sigmatree_v/\ytree_v)}
\otimes\underbrace{\AOp(\sigmatree_v)}_{= \AOp(\sigmatree_v/\ytree_v)})
\end{multline*}
and the bijective correspondence of Lemma~\ref{lemma:tree-decomposition-chain}.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}\label{proposition:quasi-isomorphism-bar-strict-cooperads}
If $\AOp$ is a connected Segal shuffle dg pre-cooperad $\AOp$ (where we use the connectedness condition of~\S\ref{subsection:conilpotence}),
then we have a zigzag of natural transformations of Segal shuffle dg pre-cooperads
\begin{equation*}
\AOp\xrightarrow{\sim}\DGW^c(\AOp)\leftarrow\DGW^c_{dec}(\AOp)
\end{equation*}
where the morphism on the left-hand side is a weak-equivalence termwise.
If $\AOp$ satisfies the Segal condition (and, therefore, is a Segal shuffle dg cooperad $\AOp$),
then the morphism on the right-hand side of this zigzag is also a weak-equivalence
and the $W$-construction $\DGW^c(\AOp)$ also satisfies the Segal condition,
so that $\AOp$ is, as a Segal shuffle dg cooperad, weakly-equivalent to a shuffle dg cooperad in the ordinary sense.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We address the definition of the morphism $\beta: \AOp\rightarrow\DGW^{c}(\AOp)$ first.
We consider the dg module morphisms $\beta_{\ttree\rightarrow\stree}: \AOp(\stree)\rightarrow\square^*(\ttree/\stree)\otimes\AOp(\ttree)$
defined by pairing the coproducts $\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\stree}: \AOp(\stree)\rightarrow\AOp(\ttree)$
associated to the morphisms $\ttree\rightarrow\stree$
with the unit morphisms $\eta: \kk\rightarrow I_e$ of the cochain algebras $I_e = \DGN^*(\Delta^1)$
in $\square^*(\ttree/\stree)$.
We readily check that these morphisms $\beta_{\ttree\rightarrow\stree}: \AOp(\stree)\rightarrow\square^*(\ttree/\stree)\otimes\AOp(\ttree)$
induce a morphism with values in the additive end of Construction~\ref{construction:W}. (We just note that the local conilpotence condition
implies again that the collection of these morphisms land in the sum of the objects $\square^*(\ttree/\stree)\otimes\AOp(\ttree)$ when $\ttree$ varies.)
We accordingly get a dg module morphism $\beta: \AOp(\stree)\rightarrow\DGW^{c}(\AOp)(\stree)$, for each tree $\stree$.
We easily deduce from the associativity of the coproduct operators that these morphisms commute with the coproduct operators on $\AOp$
and on $\DGW^{c}(\AOp)(\stree)$.
We similarly prove that our morphisms preserve the Segal maps by reducing the verification of this claim
to a termwise relation.
We therefore get a well defined morphism of Segal shuffle dg cooperads $\beta: \AOp\rightarrow\DGW^{c}(\AOp)$
as requested.
We now check that this morphism defines a termwise weak-equivalence $\beta: \AOp(\stree)\xrightarrow{\sim}\DGW^{c}(\AOp)(\stree)$.
For this purpose, we use the reduced expression of the $W$-construction given in Lemma~\ref{lemma:W-construction-splitting},
and we take a filtration of our object by the number of vertices of the trees $\ttree$
in this expansion.
We see that the terms of the differential given by the map $\delta(\underline{0}^{\sharp}) = -\underline{01}^{\sharp}$
in the normalized cochain complexes $I_e = \DGN^*(\Delta^1)$
preserve this grading, as well as the term of the differential induced by the internal differential
of the dg modules $\AOp(\ttree)$,
but the terms of the differential given by the map $\delta(\underline{1}^{\sharp}) = \underline{01}^{\sharp}$
increase the number of vertices
when we pass to the reduced expansion.
We just take the spectral sequence associated to our filtration to neglect the latter terms and to reduce the differential of our object
to the terms given by the maps $\delta(\underline{0}^{\sharp}) = -\underline{01}^{\sharp}$
and the internal differential of the dg modules $\AOp(\ttree)$.
The acyclicity of the cochain complex $\mathring{I}_e = (\kk\underline{0}^{\sharp}\oplus\kk\underline{01}^{\sharp},\delta(\underline{0}^{\sharp}) = -\underline{01}^{\sharp})$
implies that all terms of our reduced expansion have a trivial homology, except the term associated to the identity morphism $\ttree = \stree\rightarrow\stree$
for which we have $L\square^*(\stree/\stree) = \kk$.
Hence, our map $\beta: \AOp(\stree)\rightarrow\DGW^{c}(\AOp)(\stree)$ induces an isomorphism on the first page of the spectral sequence associated to our filtration,
and we conclude from this result that $\beta: \AOp(\stree)\rightarrow\DGW^{c}(\AOp)(\stree)$
defines a weak-equivalence of dg modules,
as requested.
Note simply that the connectedness assumption of the theorem implies that the object $\DGW^{c}(\AOp)(\stree)$ reduces to a finite sum, for any given tree $\stree$,
because we have only finitely many morphism $\ttree\rightarrow\stree$ such that $\ttree$ is reduced,
and for which the object $\AOp(\ttree)$ does not vanish (see~\S\ref{subsection:conilpotence}).
This observation ensures that no convergence issue occurs in this spectral argument.
We obviously define our second morphism $\alpha: \DGW^c_{dec}(\AOp)\rightarrow\DGW^c(\AOp)$ termwise,
by taking the tensor product of the identity map on $\square^*(\ttree/\stree)$
with the morphism
\begin{equation}\tag{$*$}\label{eqn:termwise_segal_maps}
\AOp(\ttree/\stree) = \bigotimes_{v\in V(\stree)}\AOp(\sigmatree_v)\xrightarrow{i_{\lambda_{\stree}(\sigmatree_*)}}\AOp(\ttree)
\end{equation}
given by the Segal map on $\AOp$, where we consider the decomposition $\ttree = \lambda_{v\in V(\stree)}(\sigmatree_v)$
equivalent to the morphism $\ttree\rightarrow\stree$.
We just check that these maps~(\ref{eqn:termwise_segal_maps}) define a morphism of bifunctors on the comma category of tree morphisms $\ttree\rightarrow\stree$
to obtain that they induce a well-defined map on our additive end. This map also commutes with the action of our coproduct operators
on $\DGW^c_{dec}(\AOp)$ and $\DGW^c(\AOp)$.
We easily deduce, from the associativity relations of the Segal maps, that the maps~(\ref{eqn:termwise_segal_maps})
intertwine the action of the Segal operators on $\DGW^c_{dec}(\AOp)$ and $\DGW^c(\AOp)$
and hence, define a morphism of shuffle dg pre-cooperad.
We again use the spectral sequence determined by the filtration by the number of vertices of trees
in the reduced expansions of Lemma~\ref{lemma:W-construction-splitting}
to study the effect of our map in homology.
We use that the first page of the spectral sequence is given by these reduced expansions
with the differential inherited from our objects $\AOp(\ttree/\stree)$ and $\AOp(\ttree)$
and from the terms $\delta(\underline{0}^{\sharp}) = -\underline{01}^{\sharp}$
of the differential on the factors $\mathring{I}_e\subset I_e = \DGN^*(\Delta^1)$.
We immediately deduce that our morphism induces an isomorphism on the first page of this spectral sequence as our maps~(\ref{eqn:termwise_segal_maps}),
which we pair with the identity of the object $L\square^*(\ttree/\stree)$ in our reduced expansions,
are weak-equivalences when we assume that $\AOp$ satisfies the Segal condition.
We conclude from this observation that our morphism $\alpha: \DGW^c_{dec}(\AOp)\rightarrow\DGW^c(\AOp)$
defines a termwise weak-equivalence of Segal shuffle dg pre-cooperads.
(We again use the connectedness assumption to ensure that no convergence issue occurs in this spectral sequence argument.)
Finally, the existence of such a weak-equivalence of Segal shuffle dg pre-cooperads $\alpha: \DGW^c_{dec}(\AOp)\xrightarrow{\sim}\DGW^c(\AOp)$
immediately implies that $\DGW^c_{dec}(\AOp)$ fulfills the Segal condition,
and hence, defines a Segal shuffle dg cooperad,
since the Segal maps for $\DGW^c(\AOp)$ are weakly-equivalent to the Segal maps for $\DGW^c_{dec}(\AOp)$,
which are isomorphisms by the result of Proposition~\ref{lemma:W-construction-cooperad}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The application of cobar complexes}\label{subsection:strict-Segal-cooperad-cobar}
In this subsection, we describe a cobar construction for Segal shuffle dg (pre-)cooperads. This is a construction that, from the structure of a Segal shuffle dg pre-cooperad $\AOp$,
produces an operad in dg modules $\DGB^c(\AOp)$.
We make explicit the definition of the structure operations of the cobar construction $\DGB^c(\AOp)$
in the next paragraph.
We check the validity of these definitions afterwards.
We eventually make a formal statement to record the definition of this dg operad $\DGB^c(\AOp)$.
\begin{constr}\label{construction:bar-complex}
We define the graded modules $\DGB^c(\AOp)(r)$, which form the components of the cobar construction $\DGB^c(\AOp)$,
by the following formula:
\begin{equation*}
\DGB^c(\AOp)(r) = \bigoplus_{\ttree\in\Tree(r)}\DGSigma^{-\sharp V(\ttree)}\AOp(\ttree),
\end{equation*}
where $\DGSigma$ is the suspension functor on graded modules.
We also have an identity $\DGSigma^{-\sharp V(\ttree)}\AOp(\ttree) = \bigl(\bigotimes_{v\in V(\ttree)}\underline{01}^{\sharp}_v\bigr)\otimes\AOp(\ttree)$,
where we associate a factor of cohomological degree one $\underline{01}^{\sharp}_v$ to every vertex $v\in V(\ttree)$.
We just need to fix an ordering choice on the vertices of our tree to get this representation, as a permutation of factors produces a sign
in the tensor product $\bigotimes_{v\in V(\ttree)}\underline{01}^{\sharp}_v$.
To every pair $(\ttree,e)$, with $\ttree\in\Tree(r)$ and $e\in\mathring{E}(\ttree)$,
we associate the map
\begin{equation*}
\partial_{(\ttree,e)}: \DGSigma^{-\sharp V(\ttree)+1}\AOp(\ttree/e)\rightarrow\DGSigma^{-\sharp V(\ttree)}\AOp(\ttree)
\end{equation*}
given by the coproduct operator $\partial_{(\ttree,e)} = \rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree/e}$ on $\AOp(\ttree/e)$, where $\ttree/e$ is defined by contracting the edge $e$ in $\ttree$,
together with the mapping $\underline{01}_{u\equiv v}\mapsto\underline{01}_u\otimes\underline{01}_v$
in the tensor product $\underline{01}_{u\equiv v}\otimes\bigotimes_{x\in V(\ttree/e)\setminus\{u\equiv v\}}\underline{01}^{\sharp}_x$,
where $u$ and $v$ respectively denote the source and the target of the edge $e$ in $\ttree$,
while $u\equiv v$ denotes the result of the fusion of these vertices in $\ttree/e$. (Note that $V(\ttree/e) = V(\ttree)\setminus\{u,v\}\amalg\{u\equiv v\}$.)
To perform this construction, we put the factor $\underline{01}_{u\equiv v}$ associated to the merged vertex $u\equiv v$
in front position of the tensor product $\bigotimes_{x\in V(\ttree/e)}\underline{01}^{\sharp}_x$,
using a tensor permutation if necessary (recall simply that such a tensor permutation
produces a sign). The other option is to transport the map $\underline{01}_{u\equiv v}\mapsto\underline{01}_u\otimes\underline{01}_v$
over some tensors in order to reach the factor $\underline{01}_{u\equiv v}$
inside the tensor product $\bigotimes_{x\in V(\ttree/e)}\underline{01}^{\sharp}_x$.
This operation produces a sign too (because this map $\underline{01}_{u\equiv v}\mapsto\underline{01}_u\otimes\underline{01}_v$
has degree $1$ and therefore the permutation of this map with a tensor returns a sign).
Both procedures yield equivalent results.
Then we take
\begin{equation*}
\partial = \sum_{(\ttree,e)}\partial_{(\ttree,e)},
\end{equation*}
the sum of these maps $\partial_{(\ttree,e)}$ associated to the pairs $(\ttree,e)$.
The next lemma implies that this map $\partial$ defines a twisting differential on $\DGB^c(\AOp)(r)$,
so that we can provide $\DGB^c(\AOp)(r)$ with a dg module structure with the sum $\delta+\partial: \DGB^c(\AOp)(r)\rightarrow\DGB^c(\AOp)(r)$
as total differential, where $\delta: \DGB^c(\AOp)(r)\rightarrow\DGB^c(\AOp)(r)$ denotes the differential
induced by the internal differential of the objects $\AOp(\ttree)$
in $\DGB^c(\AOp)(r)$.
We now fix a pointed shuffle decomposition $\{1<\dots<r\} = \{i_1<\dots<\widehat{i_p}<\dots<i_k\}\amalg\{j_1<\dots<j_l\}$
associated to the composition scheme of an operadic composition product $\circ_{i_p}$,
which we can also represent by a tree with two vertices $\gammatree$.
For a pair of trees $\ttree\in\Tree(\{i_1<\dots<i_k\})$ and $\stree\in\Tree(\{j_1<\dots<j_l\})$,
we consider the map
\begin{equation*}
\circ_{i_p}^{\stree,\ttree}: \DGSigma^{-\sharp V(\stree)}\AOp(\stree)\otimes\DGSigma^{-\sharp V(\ttree)}\AOp(\ttree)
\rightarrow\DGSigma^{-\sharp V(\stree\circ_{i_p}\ttree)}\AOp(\stree\circ_{i_p}\ttree)
\end{equation*}
yielded by the Segal map $i_{\stree\circ_{i_p}\ttree}: \AOp(\stree)\otimes\AOp(\ttree)\rightarrow\AOp(\stree\circ_{i_p}\ttree)$
associated to the decomposition of the grafting $\stree\circ_{i_p}\ttree = \lambda_{\gammatree}(\stree,\ttree)$,
together with the obvious tensor identity $\bigotimes_{u\in V(\stree)}\underline{01}^{\sharp}_u\otimes\bigotimes_{v\in V(\ttree)}\underline{01}^{\sharp}_v
= \bigotimes_{x\in V(\stree\circ_{i_p}\ttree)}\underline{01}^{\sharp}_x$,
which we deduce from the relation $V(\stree\circ_{i_p}\ttree) = V(\stree)\amalg V(\ttree)$.
Then we consider the composition product
\begin{equation*}
\circ_{i_p}: \DGB^c(\AOp)(\{i_1<\dots<i_k\})\otimes\DGB^c(\AOp)(\{j_1<\dots<j_l\})\rightarrow\DGB^c(\AOp)(\{1<\dots<r\})
\end{equation*}
defined by the sum of these maps $\circ_{i_p}^{\stree,\ttree}$ associated to the pairs $(\stree,\ttree)$. We check in a forthcoming lemma
that these operations preserve our differentials, and hence, provide our object with well-defined dg module operations.
\end{constr}
We first check the validity of the definition of our twisting differential on the cobar construction.
We have the following more precise statement.
\begin{lemm}\label{lemma:differential-bar-construction}
We have the relations $\partial^2 = \delta\partial + \partial\delta = 0$ on $\DGB^c(\AOp)(r)$, where $\delta: \DGB^c(\AOp)(r)\rightarrow\DGB^c(\AOp)(r)$
denotes the differential induced by the internal differential of the objects $\AOp(\ttree)$ (as we explained in the above construction).
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}
The identity $\delta\partial +\partial\delta = 0$ reduces to the termwise relations $\delta\partial_{(\ttree,e)} + \partial_{(\ttree,e)}\delta = 0$,
which in turn, are reformulation of the fact that the coproduct operators $\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree/e}$
are morphisms of dg modules.
We check that the relation $\partial^2 = 0$ holds on each summand $\DGSigma^{-\sharp V(\ttree)}\AOp(\ttree)\subset\DGB^c(\AOp)$
in the target of our map.
Note that $\mathring{E}(\ttree/e) = \mathring{E}(\ttree)\setminus\{e\}$.
Hence the components of $\partial^2$ which land in $\DGSigma^{-\sharp V(\ttree)}\AOp(\ttree)$
are defined on a summand $\DGSigma^{-\sharp V(\stree)}\AOp(\stree)\subset\DGB^c(\AOp)$
such that $\stree = \ttree/\{e,f\}$,
for some $e,f\in\mathring{E}(\ttree)$, $e\not=f$, and are given by the composites:
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrix{ & \DGSigma^{-\sharp V(\ttree)+1}\AOp(\ttree/e)\ar[dr]^{\partial_{(\ttree,e)}} & \\
\DGSigma^{-\sharp V(\ttree)+2}\AOp(\ttree/\{e,f\})\ar[ur]^{\partial_{(\ttree/e,f)}}\ar[dr]_{\partial_{(\ttree/f,e)}} && \DGSigma^{-\sharp V(\ttree)}\AOp(\ttree) \\
& \DGSigma^{-\sharp V(\ttree)+1}\AOp(\ttree/e)\ar[ur]_{\partial_{(\ttree,f)}} & }.
\end{equation*}
Both composites are given by composite coproduct operators
such that
\begin{equation*}
\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree/e}\circ\rho_{\ttree/\{e,f\}\rightarrow\ttree/e} = \rho_{\ttree/\{e,f\}\rightarrow\ttree} = \rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree/f}\circ\rho_{\ttree/\{e,f\}\rightarrow\ttree/f}
\end{equation*}
by functoriality of the object $\AOp$. We just note that the above composites differ by an order of tensor factors $\underline{01}$ to conclude that these composite coproducts
occur with opposite signs in $\partial^2$, and hence, cancel each other. The conclusion follows.
\end{proof}
We check the validity of our definition of the composition products on the cobar construction. We have the following more precise statement.
\begin{lemm}\label{lemma:bar-construction-product-operad}
The composition products $\circ_{i_p}$ of Construction~\ref{construction:bar-complex} preserve both the cobar differential $\partial$ and the differential $\delta$
induced by the internal differential of the object $\AOp$ on the cobar construction $\DGB^c(\AOp)$,
and hence, form morphisms of dg modules.
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}
We prove that $\circ_{i_p}$ commutes with the differentials on each summand $\AOp(\stree)\otimes\AOp(\ttree)$
of the tensor product $\DGB^c(\AOp)(\{i_1<\dots<i_k\})\otimes\DGB^c(\AOp)(\{j_1<\dots<j_l\})$,
where $\stree\in\Tree(\{i_1<\dots<i_k\})$, $\ttree\in\Tree(\{j_1<\dots<j_l\})$.
We just use that the Segal maps, which induce our composition product componentwise, are morphisms of dg modules to conclude that $\circ_{i_p}$
preserves the internal differentials on our objects.
We focus on the verification that $\circ_{i_p}$ preserves the cobar differential.
We set $\thetatree = \stree\circ_{i_p}\ttree$ and we consider a tree $\thetatree'$ such that $\thetatree = \thetatree'/e$ for an edge $e\in\mathring{E}(\thetatree')$
which is contracted in a vertex in $\thetatree$. This vertex comes either from $\stree$
or from $\ttree$. In the first case, we have $\thetatree' = \stree'\circ_{i_p}\ttree$, for a tree $\stree'\subset\thetatree'$ such that $e\in\mathring{E}(\stree')$
and $\stree'/e = \stree$ (we can actually identify $\stree'\subset\thetatree'$
with the pre-image of the subtree $\stree\subset\thetatree$ under the morphism $\thetatree'\rightarrow\thetatree'/e = \thetatree$).
In the second case, we have $\thetatree' = \stree\circ_{i_p}\ttree'$,
for a tree $\ttree'\subset\thetatree'$ such that $e\in\mathring{E}(\ttree')$ and $\ttree'/e = \ttree$ (we can then identify $\ttree'\subset\thetatree'$
with the pre-image of the subtree $\ttree\subset\thetatree$
under our edge contraction morphism $\thetatree'\rightarrow\thetatree'/e = \thetatree$).
The compatibility between the Segal maps and the coproduct operators imply that the following diagrams commute:
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrix{ \AOp(\stree'/e)\otimes\AOp(\ttree)\ar[d]_-{\rho_{\stree'\rightarrow\stree'/e}\otimes\id}\ar[r]^{i_{\stree'/e\circ_{i_p}\ttree}} &
\AOp(\stree'/e\circ_{i_p}\ttree)\ar[d]^-{\rho_{\stree'\rightarrow\stree'/e}} \\
\AOp(\stree')\otimes\AOp(\ttree)\ar[r]^{i_{\stree'\circ_{i_p}\ttree}} &
\AOp(\stree'\circ_{i_p}\ttree) },
\quad\xymatrix{ \AOp(\stree)\otimes\AOp(\ttree'/e)\ar[d]_-{\id\otimes\rho_{\ttree'\rightarrow\ttree'/e}}\ar[r]^{i_{\stree\circ_{i_p}\ttree'/e}} &
\AOp(\stree\circ_{i_p}\ttree'/e)\ar[d]^-{\rho_{\ttree'\rightarrow\ttree'/e}} \\
\AOp(\stree)\otimes\AOp(\ttree')\ar[r]^{i_{\stree'\circ_{i_p}\ttree}} &
\AOp(\stree\circ_{i_p}\ttree') }.
\end{equation*}
This yields the relation $\partial_{(\stree'\circ_{i_p}\ttree,e)}\circ\circ_{i_p}^{\stree'/e,\ttree} = \circ_{i_p}^{\stree',\ttree}\circ(\partial_{(\stree',e)}\otimes\id)$
in the first case
and the relation $\partial_{(\stree\circ_{i_p}\ttree',e)}\circ\circ_{i_p}^{\stree,\ttree'/e} = \circ_{i_p}^{\stree,\ttree'}\circ(\id\otimes\partial_{(\ttree',e)})$
in the second case.
By summing these equalities with suitable suspension factors we get that $\partial$
defines a derivation with respect to $\circ_{i_p}$.
\end{proof}
We immediately deduce from the associativity of the Segal maps that the composition products of Construction~\ref{construction:bar-complex}
satisfy the associativity relations of the composition products of an operad.
We therefore get the following concluding statement:
\begin{thm-defn}
The collection $\DGB^c(\AOp) = \{\DGB^c(\AOp)(r),r>0\}$ equipped with the differential and structure operations
defined in Construction~\ref{construction:bar-complex}
forms a shuffle operad in dg modules.
This operad $\DGB^c(\AOp)$ is the cobar construction of the Segal shuffle dg (pre-)cooperad $\AOp$.\qed
\end{thm-defn}
\begin{remark}
In the case of an ordinary dg cooperad, we just retrieve the cobar construction functor of the classical theory of operads $\COp\mapsto\DGB^c(\COp)$,
which goes from the category of locally conilpotent (coaugmented) dg cooperads
to the category of (augmented) dg operads. (Recall simply that we drop units from our definitions so that our cooperads are equivalent to the coaugmentation coideal of coaugmented cooperads,
whereas our cobar construction is equivalent to the augmentation ideal of the classical unital cobar construction.)
By classical operad theory, we also have a bar construction functor $\POp\mapsto\DGB(\POp)$, which goes in the converse direction, from the category of (augmented) dg operads
to the usual category of locally conilpotent (coaugmented) dg cooperads.
For a locally conilpotent Segal shuffle dg pre-cooperad $\AOp$, we actually have an identity $\DGW^c_{dec}(\AOp) = \DGB\DGB^c(\AOp)$,
where we consider the decomposed $W$-construction of the previous subsection and the cobar operad $\DGB^c(\AOp)$,
such as defined in this subsection.
\end{remark}
\subsection{The strict Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperad associated to an operad in simplicial sets}
In this subsection, we study a correspondence between the category of operads in simplicial sets
and the category of Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads.
In a first step, we explain the construction of the structure of a strict Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperad
on the normalized cochain complex of a simplicial operad.
\begin{constr}\label{definition:cooperad-from-simplicial-operad}
Let $\POp$ be a (symmetric) operad in the category of simplicial sets $\simp\Set$.
Let $\DGN^*: \simp\Set^{op}\rightarrow\EAlg$ be the normalized cochain complex functor, where we consider on $\DGN^*(-)$ the $\EOp$-algebra structure
defined in~\cite{BergerFresse} (see also our overview in~\S\ref{sec:Barratt-Eccles-operad}).
For a tree $\ttree\in\Tree(r)$, we set $\POp(\ttree) = \prod_{v\in V(\ttree)}\POp(\rset_v)$.
Then we set:
\begin{equation*}
\AOp_{\POp}(\ttree) = \DGN^*(\POp(\ttree)).
\end{equation*}
We equip this collection with the coproduct operators $\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\stree}: \AOp_{\POp}(\stree)\rightarrow\AOp_{\POp}(\ttree)$
induced by the treewise composition products on~$\POp$
and with the facet operators $i_{\sigmatree,\stree}: \AOp_{\POp}(\sigmatree)\rightarrow\AOp_{\POp}(\ttree)$
induced by the projection maps $\prod_{v\in V(\ttree)}\POp(\rset_v)\rightarrow\prod_{v\in V(\sigmatree)}\POp(\rset_v)$,
for $\sigmatree\subset\ttree$.
We also have operators $s^*: \AOp_{\POp}(s\ttree)\rightarrow\AOp_{\POp}(\ttree)$,
associated to the permutations $s\in\Sigma_r$,
which are induced by the corresponding action of the permutations $s_*: \POp(\ttree)\rightarrow\POp(s\ttree)$
on our simplicial sets.
\end{constr}
\begin{prop}\label{proposition:cooperad-from-simplicial-set}
Let $\POp$ be an operad in $\simp\Set$. The collection $\AOp_{\POp}(\ttree)$, equipped with the coproduct operators and facet operators defined in the above construction,
and with our action of permutations,
defines a strict Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf symmetric cooperad. This construction is functorial in $\POp$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The associativity of the coproduct maps is a direct consequence of the associativity of the products in $\POp$ and of the functoriality of the normalized cochain complex $\DGN^*(-)$.
The associativity of the facet operators and their compatibility with the coproducts also follows from the counterpart of these relations at the simplicial set level
and from the functoriality of the normalized cochain complex $\DGN^*(-)$,
and similarly as regards the compatibility between the action of permutations, the coproduct operators and the facet operators.
We only need to prove the Segal condition. By Proposition \ref{proposition:Segal-condition}, we can reduce our verifications to the case
of a decomposition $\ttree = \lambda_{\gammatree}(\sigmatree_u,\sigmatree_v)$
over a tree with two internal vertices $\gammatree$.
We observe that, as our facet operators are induced by simplicial projections, there is a commutative diagram:
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrixcolsep{2pc}\xymatrix{ \AOp_{\POp}(\sigmatree_u)\vee\AOp_{\POp}(\sigmatree_v) = \DGN^*(\POp(\sigmatree_u))\vee\DGN^*(\POp(\sigmatree_v))
\ar[r]^-{i_{\lambda_{\gammatree}(\sigmatree_u,\sigmatree_v)}} &
\AOp_{\POp}(\ttree) = \DGN^*(\POp(\sigmatree_u)\times\POp(\sigmatree_v)) \\
& \DGN^*(\POp(\sigmatree_u))\otimes\DGN^*(\POp(\sigmatree_v))\ar[lu]^-{\EM}\ar[u]_-{\AW} },
\end{equation*}
where $\AW$ denotes the classical Alexander--Whitney product $\AW: \DGN^*(X)\otimes\DGN^*(Y)\rightarrow\DGN^*(X\times Y)$.
Both maps $\EM$ and $\AW$ are weak-equivalences (the map $\EM$ by Proposition~\ref{claim:Barratt-Eccles-algebra-coproducts}).
Hence $i_{\lambda_{\gammatree}(\sigmatree_u,\sigmatree_v)}$ is also a weak-equivalence.
The conclusion follows.
\end{proof}
The normalized cochain complex functor $\DGN^*: \simp\Set^{op}\rightarrow\EAlg$ admits a left adjoint $\DGG: \EAlg\rightarrow\simp\Set^{op}$,
which is defined by the formula $\DGG(A) = \Mor_{\EAlg}(A,\DGN^*(\Delta^{\bullet}))$,
for all $A\in\EAlg$ (see~\cite{Mandell} for a variant of this construction).
This pair of adjoint functors also defines a Quillen adjunction between the Kan model category of simplicial sets
and the model category of $\EOp$-algebras (we refer to~\cite{BergerFresse} for the definition of the model structure on the category of $\EOp$-algebras).
By the main result of~\cite{Mandell}, if we take $\kk = \bar{\FF}_p$ as ring of coefficients, then the object $L\DGG(\DGN^*(X))$,
which we obtain by applying the normalized cochain complex functor to a connected simplicial sets $X\in\simp\Set$
and by going back to simplicial sets by using the derived functor $L\DGG(-)$
of our left adjoint $\DGG(-) = \Mor_{\EAlg}(-,\DGN^*(\Delta^{\bullet}))$,
is weakly-equivalent to the $p$-completion of the space~$X$ (under standard nilpotence and cohomological finiteness assumptions).
We aim to examine the application of this adjoint functor construction to our Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads.
We need to form resolutions of our objects in the category of Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf symmetric cooperads
with cofibrant $E_\infty$-algebras
as components to give a sense to the application of the derived functor $\DGG$
to our objects. We rely on the following observation.
\begin{lemm}
Let $R: \EAlg\rightarrow\EAlg$ be a functorial cofibrant replacement functor on the model category of $\EOp$-algebras (which exists because
the category of $\EOp$-algebras is cofibrantly generated).
If $\AOp\in\EOp\Hopf\Sigma\SegOp^c$ is a Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf symmetric pre-cooperad, then the collection $\ROp(\ttree) = R\AOp(\ttree)\in\EAlg$, $\ttree\in\Tree(r)$, $r>0$,
inherits a Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf symmetric pre-cooperad structure
by functoriality. If $\AOp$ satisfies the Segal condition and is such that the objects $\AOp(\ttree)$ are cofibrant as dg modules,
then $\ROp = R\AOp$ also satisfies the Segal condition,
and hence, forms a Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf symmetric cooperad.
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}
The first claim, that the collection $\ROp(\ttree) = R\AOp(\ttree)\in\EAlg$, $\ttree\in\Tree(r)$, $r>0$,
inherits a Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf symmetric pre-cooperad structure,
is immediate.
To establish that $R\AOp$ also satisfies the Segal condition, we just use the result of Proposition~\ref{claim:Barratt-Eccles-algebra-coproducts}
(we merely need the extra assumption that the objects $\AOp(\ttree)$ are cofibrant as dg modules, like the cofibrant $\EOp$-algebras $R\AOp(\ttree)$,
to get that the weak-equivalences $R\AOp(\ttree)\xrightarrow{\sim}\AOp(\ttree)$
induce a weak-equivalence when we pass to a tensor product).
\end{proof}
The application of the functor $\DGG(-)$ to the Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf symmetric cooperad $R\AOp$
defined in this proposition returns a Segal symmetric operad in the category of simplicial sets,
where a Segal symmetric operad is the obvious counterpart,
in the category of simplicial sets,
of our notion of a Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf symmetric cooperad (we just have to dualize the definition).
We mention in the introduction of this paper that such structures are close to Cisinski--Moerdijk's notion of a dendroidal Segal space (see~\cite{CisinskiMoerdijkI}).
We can also check that every Segal symmetric operad
is weakly-equivalent to an operad
in the ordinary sense.
We can proceed along the lines of Cisinski--Moerdijk's dendroidal nerve construction or use a counterpart, in the category of simplicial sets,
of the $W$-constructions of~\S\ref{subsection:forgetful-strict}.
We then get that every Segal symmetric operad in the category of simplicial sets $\POp$
is connected to an ordinary symmetric operad $\DGW_{dec}(\POp)$
by a zigzag of natural weak-equivalences of Segal symmetric operads:
\begin{equation*}
\POp\xleftarrow{\sim}\DGW(\POp)\xrightarrow{\sim}\DGW_{dec}(\POp).
\end{equation*}
We record the following straightforward consequence of our statements to conclude this subsection.
\begin{prop}
We assume $\kk = \bar{\FF}_p$ and we consider normalized cochains with coefficients in this field, so that $\DGN^*(X,\bar{\FF}_p)$
represents the Mandell model of the space $X$ in the category of $\EOp$-algebras.
We use the notation $\DGG(-)$ for the adjoint functor of $\DGN^*(-)$, from the category of $\EOp$-algebras
to the category of simplicial sets.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
Let $\POp$ be a symmetric operad in simplicial sets. We consider the Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf symmetric cooperad $\AOp_{\POp} = \DGN^*(\POp(-))$
given by the resolution of Proposition~\ref{proposition:cooperad-from-simplicial-set} and its resolution $R\AOp$
in the category of Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf symmetric cooperads.
If $\POp$ consists of connected nilpotent spaces with a cohomology $\DGH^*(-,\bar{\FF}_p)$ of finite dimension degreewise,
then the object $\DGG(R\AOp_{\POp})$ defines a Segal symmetric operad in simplicial sets such that $\DGG(R\AOp_{\POp})(\ttree) = \POp(\ttree)^{\wedge}_p$,
for each tree $\ttree\in\Tree(r)$, $r>0$, where we consider the $p$-completion of the space $\POp(\ttree)$.
Thus, if we apply our functor $\DGW_{dec}(-)$ to this Segal symmetric operad $\DGG(R\AOp_{\POp})$
then we get a model of the $p$-completion $\POp(-)^{\wedge}_p$
in the category of ordinary operads.
\item
If we have a pair of symmetric operads in simplicial sets $\POp$ and $\QOp$ which satisfy these connectedness, nilpotence and cohomological finiteness assumptions,
then the existence of a weak-equivalence $\AOp_{\POp}\sim\AOp_{\QOp}$ at the level of the category of Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf symmetric cooperads
implies the existence of a weak-equivalence $\POp(-)^{\wedge}_p\sim\QOp(-)^{\wedge}_p$
at the level of the $p$-completion of our operads.\qed
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\section{The category of homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads}\label{sec:homotopy-segal-cooperads}
We study the homotopical version of Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads in this section. The informal idea is to require that the coproduct operators
satisfy the associativity relation $\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\utree}\circ\rho_{\utree\rightarrow\stree} = \rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\stree}$
only up to homotopy. We construct a model to shape the homotopies that govern these associativity relations
and the compatibility relation between these homotopies and the facet operators.
We explain our definition of homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperad with full details in the first subsection of this section.
We then examine the forgetting of $E_\infty$-algebra structures in the definition of this structure, as in a study of strict homotopy $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads,
and we examine the application of the cobar construction to homotopy Segal cooperads. We devote our second and third subsection to these topics.
We study a homotopy version of morphisms of Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads afterwards, in a fourth subsection,
and we eventually prove, in the fifth subsection, that every homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperad
is weakly equivalent to a strict Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperad.
We still take the category of algebras $\EAlg$ associated to the chain Barratt--Eccles operad $\EOp$
as a model of a category of $E_\infty$-algebras in dg modules
all along this section.
\subsection{The definition of homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads}
We define homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads essentially along the same plan as strict Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads.
We still define a notion of homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf pre-cooperad beforehand, as a structure equipped with operations that underlie the definition of a homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperad.
We define the notion of a homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperad afterwards, as a Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf pre-cooperad equipped with facet operators that satisfy the Segal condition.
In comparison to the definition of strict Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads, we mainly consider higher coproduct operators,
which we use to govern the homotopical associativity of the composition of coproduct operators.
We use a complex of cubical cochains, which we define from the cochain algebra of the interval $I = \DGN^*(\Delta^1)$, in our definition scheme
of this model of higher coproduct operators.
We explain the definition of the structure of this complex of cubical cochains in the next preliminary construction.
We address the definition of homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads afterwards.
We explain a definition of strict morphism of homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads to complete the objectives of this subsection. (These strict morphisms
are particular cases of the homotopy morphisms that we define in the fourth subsection of the section.)
\begin{constr}\label{constr:cubical-cochain-algebras}
We define our cubical cochain algebras $I^k$, $k\in\NN$, as the tensor powers of the cochain algebra of the interval:
\begin{equation*}
I^k = \underbrace{I\otimes\dots\otimes I}_k,\quad I = \DGN^*(\Delta^1).
\end{equation*}
We make the Barratt--Eccles operad acts on these tensor products through its diagonal $\Delta: \EOp\rightarrow\EOp\otimes\EOp$
and its action on each factor $I = \DGN^*(\Delta^1)$
so that our objects $I^k$ inherit a natural $\EOp$-algebra structure (see Construction~\ref{constr:Barratt-Eccles-diagonal}
and Construction~\ref{constr:cubical-cochain-connection}).
We can identify the object $I^k$ with the cellular cochain complex of the $k$-cube $\square^k$.
We define face operators $d^i_{\epsilon}: I^k\rightarrow I^{k-1}$, for $1\leq i\leq k$ and $\epsilon\in\{0,1\}$,
and degeneracy operators $s^i: I^{k-1}\rightarrow I^k$, for $0\leq i\leq k$,
which reflect classical face and degeneracy operations
on the topological cubes $\square^k$.
We determine these operators from the maps
\begin{equation*}
\DGN^*(\Delta^1)\xrightarrow{d_{\epsilon}}\DGN^*(\Delta^0) = \kk,\quad\epsilon\in\{0,1\},
\quad\text{and}
\quad\kk = \DGN^*(\Delta^0)\xrightarrow{s_0}\DGN^*(\Delta^1),
\end{equation*}
induced by simplicial coface and codegeneracy operators of the $1$-simplex $d^{\epsilon}: \Delta^0\rightarrow\Delta^1$
and $s^0: \Delta^1\rightarrow\Delta^0$,
and from the connection of Construction~\ref{constr:cubical-cochain-connection}
\begin{equation*}
\DGN^*(\Delta^1)\xrightarrow{\nabla^*}\DGN^*(\Delta^1)\otimes\DGN^*(\Delta^1),
\end{equation*}
which we associate to the simplicial map $\min: \Delta^1\times\Delta^1\rightarrow\Delta^1$
such that $\min: (s,t)\mapsto\min(s,t)$ on topological realization.
Recall briefly that we have an identity $\DGN^*(\Delta^1) = \kk\underline{0}^{\sharp}\oplus\kk\underline{1}^{\sharp}\oplus\kk\underline{01}^{\sharp}$,
where $\underline{0}^{\sharp}$ and $\underline{1}^{\sharp}$ denote elements of (cohomological) degree $0$,
dual to the classes of the vertices $\underline{0},\underline{1}\in\Delta^1$
in the normal chain complex $\DGN_*(\Delta^1)$,
whereas $\underline{01}^{\sharp}$ denotes an element of (cohomological) degree $1$
dual to the class of the fundamental simplex $\underline{01}\in\Delta^1$. This cochain complex $\DGN^*(\Delta^1)$
is equipped with the differential such that $\delta(\underline{0}^{\sharp}) = - \underline{01}^{\sharp}$
and $\delta(\underline{1}^{\sharp}) = - \underline{01}^{\sharp}$.
The face operators $d_0,d_1: \DGN^*(\Delta^1)\rightarrow\DGN^*(\Delta^0) = \kk$
are defined by the formulas $d_0(\underline{0}^{\sharp}) = 0$, $d_0(\underline{1}^{\sharp}) = 1$, $d_1(\underline{0}^{\sharp}) = 1$, $d_1(\underline{1}^{\sharp}) = 0$,
and $d_0(\underline{01}^{\sharp}) = d_1(\underline{01}^{\sharp}) = 0$,
while the degeneracy operator $s_0: \kk = \DGN^*(\Delta^0)\rightarrow\DGN^*(\Delta^1)$ is defined by the formula $s_0(1) = \underline{0}^{\sharp}+\underline{1}^{\sharp}$.
We refer to Construction~\ref{constr:cubical-cochain-connection} for the explicit definition of the connection $\nabla^*$ on basis elements.
We mainly use that this connection satisfies relations of the form $(d_1\otimes\id)\circ\nabla^* = s_0 d_1 = (\id\otimes d_1)\circ\nabla^*$
and $(d_0\otimes\id)\circ\nabla^* = \id = (\id\otimes d_0)\circ\nabla^*$,
which reflect the identities $\min\circ(d^1\times\id) = d^1 s^0 = (\min\circ\id)\times d^1$
and $\min\circ(d^0\times\id) = \id = (\min\circ\id)\times d^0$
at the topological level.
We number our factors from right to left in our cubical cochain algebras
\begin{equation*}
I^k = \underset{k}{\DGN^*(\Delta^1)}\otimes\dots\otimes\underset{1}{\DGN^*(\Delta^1)}
\end{equation*}
and we use this numbering convention to index our face and degeneracy operators (the superscript in the notation of the faces $d^i_{\epsilon}$
indicates the factor of this tensor product on which we apply a simplicial face operator $d_{\epsilon}$
and the superscript in the notation of the degeneracies $s^j$ similarly indicates the factor of the tensor product $I^{k-1}$
on which we apply a simplicial degeneracy or a connection operator).
We precisely define the face operators of our cubical cochain algebras $d^i_{\epsilon}: I^k\rightarrow I^{k-1}$, $i = 1,\dots,k$, $\epsilon = 0,1$, by the formula:
\begin{align*}
d^i_{\epsilon} & = \id^{\otimes k-i}\otimes d_{\epsilon}\otimes\id^{\otimes i-1}\\
\intertext{and our degeneracy operators $s^j: I^{k-1}\rightarrow I^k$, $j = 0,\dots,k$, by the formulas:}
s^0 & = \id^{\otimes k-1}\otimes s_0, \\
s^j & = \id^{\otimes k-j-1}\otimes\nabla^*\otimes\id^{\otimes j-1}\quad\text{for $j = 1,\dots,k-1$}, \\
s^k & = s_0\otimes\id^{\otimes k-1},
\end{align*}
\end{constr}
We are now ready to define our main objects.
\begin{defn}\label{definition:homotopy-E-infinity-cooperad}
We call homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf shuffle pre-cooperad the structure defined by a collection of $\EOp$-algebras
\begin{equation*}
\AOp(\ttree)\in\EAlg,\quad\text{$\ttree\in\Tree(r)$, $r>0$},
\end{equation*}
equipped with
\begin{itemize}
\item
homotopy coproduct operators
\begin{equation*}
\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}: \AOp(\stree)\rightarrow\AOp(\ttree)\otimes I^k,
\end{equation*}
defined as morphisms of $\EOp$-algebras, for all composable sequences of tree morphisms $\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree$, $k\geq 0$,
and which satisfy the face and degeneracy relations depicted in Figure~\ref{homotopy-E-infinity-cooperad:0-faces}-\ref{homotopy-E-infinity-cooperad:degeneracies},
\item
together with facet operators
\begin{equation*}
i_{\sigmatree,\stree}: \AOp(\sigmatree)\rightarrow\AOp(\stree),
\end{equation*}
defined as morphisms of $\EOp$-algebras again, for all subtree embeddings $\sigmatree\subset\stree$,
and which satisfy the usual functoriality relations $i_{\stree,\stree} = \id_{\stree}$
and $i_{\thetatree,\stree}\circ i_{\sigmatree,\thetatree} = i_{\sigmatree,\stree}$ for all $\sigmatree\subset\thetatree\subset\stree$,
\item
and where we also assume the verification of compatibility relations between the facet operators and the coproduct operators,
which we express by the commutativity of the diagram of Figure~\ref{homotopy-E-infinity-cooperad:facet-compatibility}.
\end{itemize}
We again say that a Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf shuffle pre-cooperad $\AOp$ is a Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf shuffle cooperad when the facet operators satisfy a Segal condition,
which reads exactly as in the context of strict Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf shuffle cooperads:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(*)]
The facet operators $i_{\sigmatree_v,\ttree}: \AOp(\sigmatree_v)\rightarrow\AOp(\ttree)$
associated to a tree decomposition $\ttree = \lambda_{\stree}(\sigmatree_v, v\in V(\stree))$
induce a weak-equivalence
\begin{equation*}
i_{\lambda_{\stree}(\sigmatree_*)}: \bigvee_{v\in V(\stree)}\AOp(\sigmatree_v)\xrightarrow{\sim}\AOp(\ttree)
\end{equation*}
when we pass to the coproduct of the objects $\AOp(\sigmatree_v)$
in the category of $\EOp$-algebras.
\end{enumerate}
We also define a homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf symmetric (pre-)cooperad as a homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf shuffle pre-cooperad $\AOp$
equipped with an action of the permutations such that $s^*: \AOp(s\ttree)\rightarrow\AOp(\ttree)$,
for $s\in\Sigma_r$ and $\ttree\in\Tree(r)$,
and which intertwine the facets and the homotopy coproduct operators attached our object.
\end{defn}
Note that the statement of Proposition \ref{proposition:Segal-condition}, where we reduce the verification of the Segal condition to various particular cases,
obviously holds for homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads too.
\begin{figure}[p]
\ffigbox
{\caption{The compatibility of homotopy coproducts with $0$-faces.
The diagram commutes for all sequences of composable tree morphisms $\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree$
and for all $1\leq i\leq k$, where $\widehat{\ttree_i}$ means that we delete the node $\ttree_i$
and we replace the morphisms $\ttree_{i+1}\rightarrow\ttree_i\rightarrow\ttree_{i-1}$
by their composite $\ttree_{i+1}\rightarrow \ttree_{i-1}$.}\label{homotopy-E-infinity-cooperad:0-faces}}
{\centerline{\xymatrixcolsep{7pc}\xymatrix{ \AOp(\stree)
\ar[r]^{\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}}
\ar[dr]_{\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\dots\widehat{\ttree_i}\dots\rightarrow\stree}} &
\AOp(\ttree)\otimes I^k\ar[d]^{\id\otimes d^i_0} \\
& \AOp(\ttree)\otimes I^{k-1} }
}}
\ffigbox
{\caption{The compatibility of homotopy coproducts with $1$-faces.
The diagram commutes for all sequences of composable tree morphisms $\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree$
and for all $1\leq i\leq k$.}\label{homotopy-E-infinity-cooperad:1-faces}}
{\centerline{\xymatrixcolsep{7pc}\xymatrix{ \AOp(\stree)
\ar[r]^{\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}}
\ar[dd]_{\rho_{\ttree_i\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}} &
\AOp(\ttree)\otimes I^k\ar[d]^{\id\otimes d^i_1} \\
& \AOp(\ttree)\otimes I^{k-1} \\
\AOp(\ttree_i)\otimes I^{i-1}\ar[r]_-{\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_i}\otimes\id} &
\AOp(\ttree)\otimes I^{k-i}\otimes I^{i-1}\ar[u]_{\simeq} }
}}
\ffigbox
{\caption{The compatibility of homotopy coproducts with degeneracies.
The diagram commutes for all sequences of composable tree morphisms $\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_{k-1}\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree$
and for all $0\leq j\leq k$ (with the convention that $\ttree_0 = \stree$ in the case $j = 0$
and $\ttree_k = \ttree$ in the case $j = k$).}\label{homotopy-E-infinity-cooperad:degeneracies}}
{\centerline{\xymatrixcolsep{7pc}\xymatrix{ \AOp(\stree)
\ar[r]^-{\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_{k-1}\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}} \ar[rd]_{\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_{k-1}\rightarrow\dots\ttree_j=\ttree_j\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}} &
\AOp(\ttree)\otimes I^{k-1}\ar[d]^{\id\otimes s^j} \\
& \AOp(\ttree)\otimes I^k }
}}
\ffigbox
{\caption{The compatibility between coproducts and facet operators.
The diagram commutes for all sequences of composable tree morphisms $\ttree\xrightarrow{f_k}\ttree_k\xrightarrow{f_{k-1}}\cdots\xrightarrow{f_1}\ttree_1\xrightarrow{f_0}\stree$
and for all subtrees $\sigmatree\subset\stree$.}\label{homotopy-E-infinity-cooperad:facet-compatibility}}
{\centerline{\xymatrixcolsep{15pc}\xymatrix{ \AOp(\stree)\ar[r]^{\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}} &
\AOp(\ttree)\otimes I^k \\
\AOp(\sigmatree)
\ar@{.>}[r]_-{\rho_{(f_0\dots f_k)^{-1}(\sigmatree)\rightarrow(f_0\dots f_{k-1})^{-1}(\sigmatree)\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow f_0^{-1}(\sigmatree)\rightarrow\sigmatree}}
\ar[u]^{i_{\sigmatree,\stree}} &
\AOp((f_0\dots f_k)^{-1}(\sigmatree))\otimes I^k\ar@{.>}[u]^{i_{(f_0\dots f_k)^{-1}(\sigmatree),\ttree}\otimes\id} }
}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[p]
\ffigbox
{\caption{The coherence of the face and degeneracy relations of the coproduct operators with respect to the relation $s^j d^i_0 = \id$
between the cubical face and degeneracy operators
for $i = j,j+1$.}\label{homotopy-E-infinity-cooperad:0-face-coherence}}
{\centerline{\xymatrixcolsep{10pc}\xymatrix{ & \AOp(\ttree)\otimes I^{k-1}\ar[d]_{\id\otimes s^j}\ar@/^2pc/[dd]^{\id} \\
\AOp(\stree)
\ar[ru]^{\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_{k-1}\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}} \ar[r]_{\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_j=\ttree_j\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\stree}} \ar[rd]_{\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_{k-1}\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}} &
\AOp(\ttree)\otimes I^k\ar[d]_{\id\otimes d^i_0} \\
& \AOp(\ttree)\otimes I^{k-1} }
}}
\ffigbox
{\caption{The coherence of the face and degeneracy relations of the coproduct operators with respect to the relation $s^j d^i_1 = s^0\otimes\id_{I^j}$
for $i = j$.}\label{homotopy-E-infinity-cooperad:1-face-coherence-left}}
{\centerline{\xymatrixcolsep{10pc}\xymatrix{ \AOp(\stree)
\ar@/_3pc/[ddd]_{\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\stree}}
\ar[r]^{\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_{k-1}\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}} \ar[rd]_{\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_j=\ttree_j\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\stree}}
\ar[dd]^{\rho_{\ttree_j\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}} &
\AOp(\ttree)\otimes I^{k-1}\ar[d]^{\id\otimes s^j} \\
& \AOp(\ttree)\otimes I^k \ar[d]^{\id\otimes d^j_1} \\
\AOp(\ttree_j)\otimes I^{j-1}
\ar[r]^{\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\cdots\rightarrow\ttree_j=\ttree_j}\otimes\id}
\ar[dr]_{\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_j}} &
\AOp(\ttree)\otimes I^{k-1} \\
\AOp(\ttree)\otimes I^{k-1}\ar[r]_{\id\otimes d^j_1} &
\AOp(\ttree)\otimes I^{k-j-1}\otimes I^{j-1}\ar[u]_{\id\otimes s^0\otimes\id} }
}}
\ffigbox
{\caption{The coherence of the face and degeneracy relations of the coproduct operators with respect to the relation $s^j d^i_1 = \id_{I^{k-j}}\otimes s^j$
for $i = j+1$.}\label{homotopy-E-infinity-cooperad:1-face-coherence-right}}
{\centerline{\xymatrixcolsep{10pc}\xymatrix{ \AOp(\stree)
\ar@/_4pc/[dddd]_{\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\stree}}
\ar@/_2pc/[ddd]|{\rho_{\ttree_j\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\stree}}
\ar[r]^{\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_{k-1}\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}} \ar[rd]_{\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_j=\ttree_j\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\stree}}
\ar[dd]^{\rho_{\ttree_j=\ttree_j\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}} &
\AOp(\ttree)\otimes I^{k-1}\ar[d]^{\id\otimes s^j} \\
& \AOp(\ttree)\otimes I^k\ar[d]^{\id\otimes d^{j+1}_1} \\
\AOp(\ttree_j)\otimes I^j\ar[r]^{\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_j}\otimes\id} &
\AOp(\ttree)\otimes I^{k-1} \\
\AOp(\ttree_j)\otimes I^{j-1}
\ar[r]_{\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_j}\otimes\id}
\ar[u]_{\id\otimes s^j} &
\AOp(\ttree)\otimes I^{k-j-1}\otimes I^{j-1}\ar[u]_{\id\otimes\id\otimes s^j} \\
\AOp(\ttree)\otimes I^{k-1}\ar[ru]_{\id\otimes d^j_1} }
}}
\end{figure}
\afterpage{\clearpage}
\begin{remark}\label{remark:compatibility-relations}
The faces and degeneracy operators on our complex of cubical cochain algebras
satisfy the following system of identities:
\begin{align*}
d^j_{\epsilon} d^i_{\eta} & = d^i_{\eta} d^{j-1}_{\epsilon},\quad\text{for $i<j$, $\epsilon,\eta\in\{0,1\}$}, \\
s^j d^i_{\epsilon} & = \begin{cases} d^i_{\epsilon} s^{j-1}, & \text{for $i<j$, $\epsilon\in\{0,1\}$}, \\
\id, & \text{for $i = j,j+1$ and $\epsilon = 0$}, \\
s^0\otimes\id_{I^j}, & \text{for $i = j$, $\epsilon = 1$, using $I^{k-1} = I^{k-j-1}\otimes I^j$}, \\
\id_{I^{k-j}}\otimes s^j, & \text{for $i = j+1$, $\epsilon = 1$, using $I^{k-1} = I^{k-j}\otimes I^{j-1}$}, \\
d^{i-1}_{\epsilon} s^j, & \text{for $i>j+1$, $\epsilon\in\{0,1\}$},
\end{cases} \\
s^j s^i & = s^i s^{j+1},\quad\text{for $i\leq j$}.
\end{align*}
We easily check that a multiple application of face and degeneracy relations of Figure~\ref{homotopy-E-infinity-cooperad:0-faces}-\ref{homotopy-E-infinity-cooperad:degeneracies}
for the coproduct operators of homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf shuffle cooperads lead to coherent results
with respect to these identities.
For instance, we have the double face relation
\begin{multline*}
(\id\otimes d^j_0 d^i_0)\circ\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}
= \rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\cdots\widehat{\ttree_j}\cdots\widehat{\ttree_i}\cdots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}\\
= (\id\otimes d^i_0 d^{j-1}_0)\circ\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree},
\end{multline*}
which expresses the coherence of the face relations of Figure~\ref{homotopy-E-infinity-cooperad:0-faces}
with respect the double $0$-face identity $d^j_0 d^i_0 = d^i_0 d^{j-1}_0$
in our complex of cubical cochain algebras.
We get similar easy results for the other double face identities $d^j_{\epsilon} d^i_{\eta} = d^i_{\eta} d^{j-1}_{\epsilon}$
and the other commutation relations between the face and degeneracy operators $s^j d^i_{\epsilon} = d^i_{\epsilon} s^{j-1}$, $s^j d^i_{\epsilon} = d^{i-1}_{\epsilon} s^j$,
and $s^j s^i = s^i s^{j+1}$,
while the coherence of the face and degeneracy relations of the coproduct operators
with respect to the relations $s^j d^i_0 = \id$, for $i = j,j+1$,
and $s^j d^j_1 = s^0\otimes\id_{I^j}$, $s^j d^{j+1}_1 = \id_{I^{k-j}}\otimes s^j$
follows from the commutativity of the diagrams of Figure~\ref{homotopy-E-infinity-cooperad:0-face-coherence}-\ref{homotopy-E-infinity-cooperad:1-face-coherence-right}.
\end{remark}
We have the following obvious notion of strict morphism of homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf shuffle (pre-)cooperads
and of homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf symmetric (pre-)cooperads,
which generalize the definition of morphism of strict Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf shuffle (pre-)cooperads
and strict Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf symmetric (pre-)cooperads
in~\S\ref{sec:strict-segal-cooperads}
\begin{defn}\label{definition:homotopy-E-infinity-cooperad-morphism}
A (strict) morphism of homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf shuffle (pre-)cooperads $\phi: \AOp\rightarrow\BOp$
is a collection of $\EOp$-algebra morphisms
\begin{equation*}
\phi_{\ttree}: \AOp(\ttree)\rightarrow\BOp(\ttree),\quad\text{$\ttree\in\Tree(r)$, $r>0$},
\end{equation*}
which
\begin{enumerate}
\item
preserve the action of all coproduct operators on our objects,
in the sense that the diagram
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrix{ \AOp(\stree)\ar[r]^{\phi_{\stree}}\ar[d]_{\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}} &
\BOp(\stree)\ar[d]^{\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}} \\
\AOp(\ttree)\otimes I^k\ar[r]^{\phi_{\ttree}\otimes\id} & \BOp(\ttree)\otimes I^k }
\end{equation*}
commutes, for all sequences of composable tree morphisms $\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree$,
\item
and the action of facet operators, so that we have the same commutative diagram as in the case of morphisms strict Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf shuffle (pre-)cooperads:
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrix{ \AOp(\stree)\ar[r]^{\phi_{\stree}} & \BOp(\stree) \\
\AOp(\sigmatree)\ar[r]^{\phi_{\sigmatree}}\ar[u]^{i_{\sigmatree,\stree}} &
\BOp(\sigmatree)\ar[u]_{i_{\sigmatree,\stree}} },
\end{equation*}
for all subtree embeddings $\sigmatree\subset\stree$.
\end{enumerate}
If $\AOp$ and $\BOp$ are homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf symmetric (pre-)cooperads, then we say that $\phi: \AOp\rightarrow\BOp$ is a morphism of Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf symmetric (pre-)cooperads
when $\phi$ also preserves the action of permutations on our objects (we express this condition by the same commutative diagram as in the case of strict $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads).
\end{defn}
These strict morphisms of homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf shuffle (pre-)cooperads can obviously be composed,
as well the strict morphisms of homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf symmetric (pre-)cooperads,
so that we can form a category of homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf shuffle (pre-)cooperads
and a category of homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf symmetric (pre-)cooperads
as morphisms.
In what follows, we adopt the notation $\EOp\Hopf\sh\hSegOp^c$ for the category of homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf shuffle cooperads
and the notation $\EOp\Hopf\Sigma\hSegOp^c$ for the category of homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf symmetric cooperads.
We can modify the above definition to assume that the preservation of coproduct operators holds up to homotopy only, just as we assume
that the coproduct operators satisfy associativity relations up to homotopy in a homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf pre-cooperad.
This idea gives the notion of homotopy morphism, which we study in Subsection~\ref{subsection:homotopy-morphisms}.
\subsection{The forgetting of $E_\infty$-structures}
We now study the structure in dg modules that we obtain by forgetting the $E_\infty$-algebra structure attached to each object
in the definition of a homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperad.
We follow the same plan as in Subsection~\ref{subsec:strict-segal-cooperads},
where we examine the parallel forgetting of $E_\infty$-algebra structures
in strict Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads.
In the previous subsection, we assume that the associativity of the coproduct operators only holds up to homotopy for the definition of a homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperad,
but we keep the same notion of facet operators as in the case of strict Segal $E_\infty$-cooperads.
In the case of homotopy Segal cooperads in dg modules, we retain the homotopy associativity relation of the coproduct operators of homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads,
and we retrieve the expression of the Segal map that we obtained from the structure of the facet operators
in the definition of strict Segal dg cooperads.
We again need to assume that the vertices of our trees are totally ordered in order to make the construction
of the forgetful functor from homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads
to homotopy Segal dg cooperads work.
For this reason, we restrict ourselves to Segal shuffle cooperads all along this subsection (as in our study of strict Segal cooperads in dg modules).
\begin{defn}\label{definition:homotopy-tree-shaped-cooperad}
We call homotopy Segal shuffle dg pre-cooperad the structure defined by a collection of dg modules
\begin{equation*}
\AOp(\ttree)\in\dg\Mod,\quad\text{$\ttree\in\Tree(r)$, $r>0$},
\end{equation*}
equipped with
\begin{itemize}
\item
homotopy coproduct operators
\begin{equation*}
\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}: \AOp(\stree)\rightarrow\AOp(\ttree)\otimes I^k,
\end{equation*}
defined as morphisms of dg modules, for all composable sequences of tree morphisms $\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree$, $k\geq 0$,
and which satisfy the same face and degeneracy relations,
expressed by the commutative diagrams of Figure~\ref{homotopy-E-infinity-cooperad:0-faces}-\ref{homotopy-E-infinity-cooperad:degeneracies},
as the homotopy coproduct operators of Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf shuffle cooperads,
\item
together with Segal maps
\begin{equation*}
i_{\lambda_{\stree}(\sigmatree_*)}: \bigotimes_{v\in V(\stree)}\AOp(\sigmatree_v)\rightarrow\AOp(\ttree),
\end{equation*}
defined as morphisms of dg modules, for all tree decompositions $\ttree = \lambda_{\stree}(\sigmatree_v,v\in V(\stree))$,
and which satisfy the same functoriality relations
as the Segal maps of strict Segal cooperads in dg modules.
Namely, for the trivial decomposition $\ttree = \lambda_{\ytree}(\ttree)$, we have $i_{\lambda_{\ytree}(\ttree)} = \id_{\AOp(\ttree)}$,
and for nested decompositions $\ttree = \lambda_{\utree}(\thetatree_u,u\in V(\utree))$ and $\thetatree_u = \lambda_{\stree_u}(\sigmatree_v,v\in V(\stree_u))$, $u\in V(\utree)$,
we have
\begin{equation*}
i_{\lambda_{\utree}(\thetatree_*)}\circ(\bigotimes_{u\in V(\utree)}i_{\lambda_{\stree_u}(\sigmatree_*)}) = i_{\lambda_{\stree}(\sigmatree_*)},
\end{equation*}
where we again consider the composite decomposition $\ttree = \lambda_{\stree}(\sigmatree_v,v\in V(\stree))$
with $\stree = \lambda_{\utree}(\stree_u,u\in V(\utree))$.
\item
We now assume the verification of the compatibility relations depicted in Figure~\ref{homotopy-dg-cooperad:Segal-coproduct-compatibility},
for the Segal maps and the higher coproduct operators.
\end{itemize}
We also say that a homotopy Segal shuffle dg pre-cooperad $\AOp$ is a homotopy Segal shuffle dg cooperad when the Segal maps
satisfy the following Segal condition (the same Segal condition as in the case of strict Segal dg cooperads):
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(*)]
The Segal map $i_{\lambda_{\stree}(\sigmatree_*)}$ is a weak-equivalence
\begin{equation*}
i_{\lambda_{\stree}(\sigmatree_*)}: \bigotimes_{v\in V(\stree)}\AOp(\sigmatree_v)\xrightarrow{\sim}\AOp(\ttree),
\end{equation*}
for every decomposition $\ttree = \lambda_{\stree}(\sigmatree_v, v\in V(\stree))$.
\end{enumerate}
We still consider a notion of strict morphism of homotopy Segal shuffle dg (pre-)cooperads, which we obviously define
as a collection of dg module morphisms $\phi_{\ttree}: \AOp(\ttree)\rightarrow\BOp(\ttree) $
that preserve all homotopy coproduct operators $\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}$
and the Segal maps $i_{\lambda_{\stree}(\sigmatree_*)}$.
We use the notation $\dg\sh\hSegOp^c$ for the category of Segal shuffle dg cooperads, which we equip with this notion of morphism.
\end{defn}
\begin{figure}[t]
\ffigbox
{\caption{The compatibility between coproducts and Segal maps.
The diagram commutes for all sequences of composable tree morphisms $\ttree\xrightarrow{f_k}\ttree_k\xrightarrow{f_{k-1}}\cdots\xrightarrow{f_1}\ttree_1\xrightarrow{f_0}\stree$
and for all decompositions $\stree = \lambda_{\utree}(\sigmatree_v, v \in V(\utree))$.
The map $\mu: (\bigotimes_{v\in V(\utree)}I^k)\rightarrow I^k$ on the right hand side vertical arrow is given by the associative product
of the $\EOp$-algebra $I^k$.}\label{homotopy-dg-cooperad:Segal-coproduct-compatibility}}
{\centerline{\xymatrixcolsep{15pc}\xymatrix{ \AOp(\stree)
\ar[r]^{\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}} &
\AOp(\ttree)\otimes I^k \\
& \left(\bigotimes_{v\in V(\utree)}\AOp(\sigmatree_v)\right)\otimes\left(\bigotimes_{v\in V(\utree)}I^k\right)
\ar@{.>}[u]_{i_{\lambda_{\utree}((f_0 \dots f_k)^{-1}(\sigmatree_*))}\otimes\mu} \\
\bigotimes_{v\in V(\utree)}\AOp(\sigmatree_v)
\ar@{.>}[r]_-{\bigotimes_v\rho_{(f_0\dots f_k)^{-1}(\sigmatree_v)\rightarrow(f_0\dots f_{k-1})^{-1}(\sigmatree_v)\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\sigmatree_v}}
\ar[uu]_-{i_{\lambda_{\utree}(\sigmatree_*)}} &
\bigotimes_{v\in V(\utree)}\left(\AOp((f_0 \dots f_k)^{-1}(\sigmatree_v))\otimes I^k\right)\ar@{.>}[u]_{\simeq} }
}}
\end{figure}
There is a forgetful functor from the category of homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads to the category of homotopy Segal shuffle dg cooperads,
which is similar to the one that we have in the strict case.
To be more precise, we have the following proposition, which represents the homotopy counterpart of the result of Proposition~\ref{proposition:forgetful-strict}.
\begin{prop}\label{proposition:forgetful-homotopy}
Let $\AOp$ be a homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf shuffle cooperad,
with coproduct operators $\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}: \AOp(\stree)\rightarrow\AOp(\ttree)\otimes I^k$
and facet operators $i_{\sigmatree,\stree}: \AOp(\sigmatree)\rightarrow\AOp(\stree)$.
The collection $\AOp(\ttree)$, $\ttree\in\Tree(r)$, equipped with the coproduct operators inherited from $\AOp$ and the Segal maps
given by the following composites
\begin{equation*}
\bigotimes_{v\in V(\stree)}\AOp(\sigmatree_v)\xrightarrow{\EM}\bigvee_{v\in V(\stree)}\AOp(\sigmatree_v)\xrightarrow{i_{\lambda_{\stree}(\sigmatree_*)}}\AOp(\ttree)
\end{equation*}
(the same composites as in Proposition~\ref{proposition:forgetful-strict}),
for all tree decompositions $\ttree = \lambda_{\stree}(\sigmatree_v,v\in V(\stree))$,
is a homotopy Segal shuffle dg cooperad.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The face and degeneracy relations for the homotopy coproduct operators are directly inherited from the homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf shuffle cooperad $\AOp$,
as we do not change the coproduct operators in our forgetful operation.
The functoriality relations of the Segal maps
and the Segal condition
follows from the same arguments as in Proposition \ref{proposition:forgetful-strict}
since the definition of the Segal maps
is the same as in the strict case.
The compatibility between the homotopy coproduct operators and the Segal maps follows from the commutativity of the following diagram,
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrix{ \bigotimes_{v \in V(\utree)}\AOp(\sigmatree_v)
\ar[d]|{\bigotimes_{v \in V(\utree)}\rho_{(f_0\dots f_k)^{-1}(\sigmatree_v)\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow f_0^{-1}(\sigmatree_v)\rightarrow\sigmatree_v}}
\ar[r]^{\EM} &
\bigvee_{v\in V(\utree)} \AOp(\sigmatree_v)
\ar[d]|{\bigvee_{v \in V(\utree)}\rho_{(f_0\dots f_k)^{-1}(\sigmatree_v)\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow f_0^{-1}(\sigmatree_v)\rightarrow\sigmatree_v}} \\
\bigotimes_{v \in V(\utree)}\left(\AOp((f_0\dots f_k)^{-1}(\sigmatree_v)\otimes I^k)\right)
\ar[r]^{\EM}\ar[d]_{\simeq} &
\bigvee_{v\in V(\utree)}\left(\AOp((f_0\dots f_k)^{-1}(\sigmatree_v))\otimes I^k\right)
\ar[d]|{\sum_v\left(i_{(f_0\dots f_k)^{-1}(\sigmatree_v),\ttree}\otimes\id\right)} \\
\left(\bigotimes_{v\in V(\utree)}\AOp((f_0\dots f_k)^{-1}(\sigmatree_v))\right)\otimes\left(\bigotimes_{v\in V(\utree)}I^k\right)
\ar[d]_{\EM\otimes\EM} &
\AOp(\ttree)\otimes I^k \\
\left(\bigvee_{v\in V(\utree)}\AOp((f_0\dots f_k)^{-1}(\sigmatree_v))\right)\otimes\left(\bigvee_{v\in V(\utree)}I^k\right)
\ar[ru]_-{i_{\lambda_{\utree}(\sigmatree_*)}\otimes\nabla} }
\end{equation*}
where $\nabla = \sum_v\id: \bigvee_v I^k\rightarrow I^k$ denotes the codiagonal of the $\EOp$-algebra $I^k$,
we use that the composite $\nabla\circ\EM: \bigotimes_v I^k\rightarrow I^k$ is identified with the associative product $\mu: \bigotimes_v I^k\rightarrow I^k$
and we consider the Segal map
of $\EOp$-algebras $i_{\lambda_{\utree}(\sigmatree_*)}: \bigvee_{v\in V(\utree)}\AOp((f_0\dots f_k)^{-1}(\sigmatree_v))\rightarrow\AOp(\ttree)$.
\end{proof}
The normalized cochain complex of the $k$-cube $I^k = \DGN^*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k}$ is identified with the sum of the top dimensional element $\underline{01}^\sharp{}^{\otimes k}$
with the image of cubical face operators. We use this observation to determine the homotopy coproducts of homotopy Segal dg cooperads
in the following lemma.
For a morphism of dg modules $\alpha: X\rightarrow Y\otimes I^k$, we let $\alpha^{\square}: X\rightarrow Y$ be the homomorphism of graded modules of degree $k$
given by the component of the map $\alpha$ with values in $Y\otimes\underline{01}^{\sharp}{}^{\otimes k}\subset Y\otimes I^k$,
where we consider the top dimensional element $\underline{01}^{\sharp}{}^{\otimes k}\in\DGN^*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k}$
of the cubical cochain complex $I^k = \DGN^*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k}$,
so that we have:
\begin{equation*}
\alpha(x) = (-1)^{k\deg(x)}\alpha^{\square}(x)\otimes\underline{01}^{\sharp}{}^{\otimes k} + \text{tensors with a factor of dimension $<k$ in $I^k$},
\end{equation*}
for any $x\in X$. We also write $\delta(\alpha^{\square}) = \delta\alpha^{\square} - (-1)^k\alpha^{\square}\delta$
for the differential of this homomorphism.
\begin{lemm}\label{lemma:homotopy-cooperad-top-component}
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{homotopy-cooperad-top-component:expression}
Let $\AOp$ be a homotopy Segal shuffle dg cooperad. The graded homomorphism of degree $k$
\begin{equation*}
\rho^{\square}_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}: \AOp(\stree)\rightarrow\AOp(\ttree)
\end{equation*}
that we associate to the dg module morphism $\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}: \AOp(\stree)\rightarrow\AOp(\ttree)\otimes I^k$,
for any sequence of composable tree morphisms $\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree$,
satisfies the relation
\begin{equation}\tag{*}\label{equation:differential-top-component}
\delta(\rho^{\square}_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree})
\begin{aligned}[t] & = \sum_{i=1}^k(-1)^{i-1}\rho^{\square}_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_i}
\circ\rho^{\square}_{\ttree_i\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}\\
& - \sum_{i=1}^k(-1)^{i-1}\rho^{\square}_{\ttree\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\hat{\ttree}_i\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\stree}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Moreover, if we have a degeneracy $\ttree_j = \ttree_{j+1}$ in our sequence of tree morphisms, for some $0\leq j\leq k$ (with the convention that $\ttree_{k+1} = \ttree$ and $\ttree_0 = \stree$),
then we have the relation
\begin{equation}\tag{**}\label{equation:degeneracy-top-component}
\rho^{\square}_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_{k}\rightarrow\dots\ttree_{j+1}=\ttree_j\cdots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree} = 0.
\end{equation}
\item\label{homotopy-cooperad-top-component:generation}
Let now $\AOp(\ttree)$, $\ttree\in\Tree(r)$, $r>0$, be any given collection of dg modules
equipped with graded homomorphisms $\rho^{\square}_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}: \AOp(\stree)\rightarrow\AOp(\ttree)$,
of degree $k$,
and which satisfy the relations (\ref{equation:differential-top-component})-(\ref{equation:degeneracy-top-component})
of the previous statement.
Then there is a unique collection of morphisms of dg modules $\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}: \AOp(\stree)\rightarrow\AOp(\ttree)\otimes I^k$,
which extend these maps on the summands $\AOp(\ttree)\otimes\underline{01}^{\sharp}{}^{\otimes k}$
and satisfy the face and degeneracy relations of homotopy coproduct operators
of Figure~\ref{homotopy-E-infinity-cooperad:0-faces}-\ref{homotopy-E-infinity-cooperad:degeneracies}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}[Proof of assertion~\ref{homotopy-cooperad-top-component:expression}]
We use the identities
\begin{gather*}
\begin{aligned}
(I^k)_{-k} & = \kk\,\underline{01}^{\sharp}{}^{\otimes k}\\
(I^k)_{1-k} & = \bigoplus_{i=1}^k\bigl(\bigoplus_{\epsilon\in\{0,1\}}\kk\,\underline{01}^{\sharp}{}^{\otimes k-i}\otimes\underline{\epsilon}^\sharp\otimes\underline{01}^{\sharp}{}^{\otimes i-1}\bigr),
\end{aligned}
\intertext{and the relations}
d^i_{\epsilon}(\underline{01}^{\sharp}{}^{\otimes k-j}\otimes\underline{\eta}^\sharp\otimes\underline{01}^{\sharp}{}^{\otimes j-1})
= \begin{cases}\underline{01}^{\sharp}{}^{\otimes k-1}, & \text{if $i = j$ and $\epsilon\equiv\eta + 1\mymod 2$}, \\
0, & \text{otherwise}, \end{cases}
\end{gather*}
which implies that we have a formula of the form:
\begin{multline*}
\alpha(x) = (-1)^{k\deg(x)}\alpha^{\square}(x)\otimes\underline{01}^{\sharp}{}^{\otimes k} \\
+ \sum_{i=1}^k\left(\sum_{\epsilon\in\{0,1\}}(-1)^{(k-1)\deg(x)}((\id\otimes d^i_{\epsilon+1})\circ\alpha)^{\square}(x)\otimes\underline{01}^{\sharp}{}^{\otimes k-i}\otimes\underline{\epsilon}^\sharp\otimes\underline{01}^{\sharp}{}^{\otimes i-1}\right)\\
+ \text{tensors with a factor of dimension $<k-1$ in $I^k$},
\end{multline*}
for any morphism $\alpha: X\rightarrow Y\otimes I^k$ and any $x\in X$,
where we consider the homomorphism of graded modules $((\id\otimes d^i_{\epsilon+1})\circ\alpha)^{\square}: X\rightarrow Y$
associated to the composite $(\id\otimes d^i_{\epsilon+1})\circ\alpha: X\rightarrow Y\otimes I^{k-1}$ (and we obviously take the face operator $d^i_{\epsilon+1}$
indexed by the residue class of $\epsilon+1$ mod $2$).
We deduce from the differential formula
\begin{equation*}
\delta(\underline{01}^{\sharp}{}^{\otimes k-i}\otimes\underline{\epsilon}^\sharp\otimes\underline{01}^{\sharp}{}^{\otimes i-1}) = (-1)^{k-i+\epsilon+1}\underline{01}^{\sharp}{}^{\otimes k}
\end{equation*}
that the projection of the relation $\delta(\alpha(x)) = \alpha(\delta(x))$ onto $Y\otimes\underline{01}^{\sharp}{}^{\otimes k}\subset Y\otimes I^k$
is equivalent to the following relation:
\begin{equation*}
\delta(\alpha^{\square}(x)) + \sum_{i=1}^k\bigl(\sum_{\epsilon\in\{0,1\}}(-1)^{i+\epsilon}((\id\otimes d^i_{\epsilon+1})\alpha)^{\square}(x)\bigr)
= (-1)^k\alpha^{\square}(\delta x).
\end{equation*}
The relation of our statement (\ref{equation:differential-top-component}) then follows from the compatibility of coproducts with the face operators
(the relations of Figure~\ref{homotopy-E-infinity-cooperad:0-faces}-\ref{homotopy-E-infinity-cooperad:1-faces}).
If we have $\ttree_j = \ttree_{j+1}$ for some $j$, then the morphism $\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}$
factors through the image of a degeneracy $\AOp(\ttree)\otimes s^j: \AOp(\ttree)\otimes I^{k-1}\rightarrow\AOp(\ttree)\otimes I^k$
by the compatibility of the coproducts with the degeneracies (the relations of Figure~\ref{homotopy-E-infinity-cooperad:degeneracies})
and this requirement implies the vanishing relation $\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}^{\square} = 0$
since $I^{k-1}$ is null in dimension $k$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of assertion~\ref{homotopy-cooperad-top-component:generation}]
The operators $\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}: \AOp(\stree)\rightarrow\AOp(\ttree)\otimes I^k$
are defined by induction on $k$.
If $k = 0$, then we take $\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\stree} = \rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\stree}^{\square}$.
The compatibility conditions of Figure~\ref{homotopy-E-infinity-cooperad:0-faces}-\ref{homotopy-E-infinity-cooperad:degeneracies}
are tautological in this case.
If $k > 0$, then defining a morphism of dg modules $\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}: \AOp(\stree)\rightarrow\AOp(\ttree)\otimes I^k$
amounts to defining a morphism of dg modules
$\rho'_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}: \AOp(\stree)\otimes\DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k}\rightarrow\AOp(\ttree)$.
Let $d_i^{\epsilon}: \DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k-1}\rightarrow\DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k}$ denote the coface operators attached to the cubical complex $\DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k}$
dual to the face operators $d^i_{\epsilon}: \DGN^*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k}\rightarrow\DGN^*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k-1}$
that we considered so far. We let $\rho'_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}(x\otimes\underline{01}^{\otimes r})
= \rho^{\square}_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}(x)$,
and we define inductively:
\begin{align*}
\rho'_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}(x\otimes d_i^0(\underline{\sigma})) &
= \rho'_{\ttree\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\widehat{\ttree_i}\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\stree}(x\otimes\underline{\sigma}), \\
\rho'_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}(x\otimes d_i^1(\underline{\sigma})) &
= \rho'_{\ttree\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_i}(\rho'_{\ttree_i\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\stree}\otimes\id(x\otimes\underline{\sigma})),
\end{align*}
where we use the factorization $\underline{\sigma}\in\DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k-1}\Rightarrow\underline{\sigma} = \underline{\sigma}'\otimes\underline{\sigma}''\in\DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k-i}\otimes\DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes i-1}$.
We deduce from the compatibility of the homotopy coproducts with the face operators that our coproduct operator is necessarily given by these formulas
and this observation proves the uniqueness of the coproduct operators
extending our maps $\rho^{\square}_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}$.
We may also use the observations of Remark \ref{remark:compatibility-relations} to check that our maps satisfy the compatibility relations
of Figure~\ref{homotopy-E-infinity-cooperad:0-faces}-\ref{homotopy-E-infinity-cooperad:degeneracies}
on the whole dg modules $\AOp(\ttree)\otimes I^k$.
We only need to prove that the map $\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}$
or equivalently the map $\rho'_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}$
commutes with the differential.
We proceed by induction on $k$. For $k = 0$ the statement is obviously equivalent to relation~(\ref{equation:differential-top-component}).
For $k > 0$, the relation $\delta(\rho'_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}(x\otimes\underline{\sigma}))
= \rho'_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}\delta(x\otimes\underline{\sigma})$
follows from the induction assumption
in the case $\underline{\sigma} = (d_i^{\epsilon})(\underline{\tau})$, for some $1\leq i\leq k$, $\epsilon\in\{0,1\}$, $\underline{\tau}\in\DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k-1}$,
and reduces to relation~(\ref{equation:differential-top-component})
when $\underline{\sigma} = \underline{01}^{\otimes k}$.
The conclusion follows.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The application of cobar complexes}\label{subsection:homotopy-Segal-cooperad-cobar}
The aim of this Subsection is to extend the cobar construction of Subsection~\ref{subsection:strict-Segal-cooperad-cobar}
to homotopy Segal dg cooperads. We follow the same plan.
We make explicit the definition of the structure operations of the cobar construction $\DGB^c(\AOp)$
associated to a homotopy Segal shuffle dg cooperad $\AOp$
in the next paragraph.
We check the validity of these definitions afterwards and we record the definition of this dg operad $\DGB^c(\AOp)$
to conclude this subsection.
We assume all along this subsection that $\AOp$ is a homotopy Segal shuffle dg cooperad.
We also assume that $\AOp$ is connected in the sense that we have $\AOp(\ttree) = 0$ when the tree $\ttree$ is not reduced (has at least one vertex with a single ingoing edge).
This condition implies that every object $\AOp(\stree)$
is the source of finitely many nonzero homotopy coproducts $\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\stree}: \AOp(\stree)\rightarrow\AOp(\ttree)\otimes I^k$,
because the set of tree morphisms $\ttree\rightarrow\stree$ with $\ttree$ reduced and $\stree$ fixed is finite.
\begin{constr}\label{construction:bar-complex-homotopy}
We define the graded modules $\DGB^c(\AOp)(r)$ which form the components of the cobar construction $\DGB^c(\AOp)$
by the same formula as in the strict case
\begin{equation*}
\DGB^c(\AOp)(r) = \bigoplus_{\ttree\in\Tree(r)}\DGSigma^{-\sharp V(\ttree)}\AOp(\ttree),
\end{equation*}
but we now take a cobar differential that involves terms given by higher coproduct operators and which we associate to multiple edge contractions.
We precisely consider the set of pairs $(\ttree,\underline{e})$, where $\ttree\in\Tree(r)$ and $\underline{e} = (e_1,\dots,e_m)$
is an ordered collection of pairwise distinct edges $e_i\in\mathring{E}(\ttree)$.
To any such pair, we associate the sequence of tree morphisms such that
\begin{gather*}
\sigma(\ttree,\underline{e}) = \{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree/{e_1}\rightarrow\ttree/{\{e_1,e_2\}}\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree/\{e_1,e_2,\dots,e_m\}\}.
\intertext{and the map of degree $-1$}
\partial_{(\ttree,\underline{e})}: \DGSigma^{-\sharp V(\ttree)+m}\AOp(\ttree/\{e_1,\dots,e_m\})\rightarrow\DGSigma^{-\sharp V(\ttree)}\AOp(\ttree)
\intertext{given by top component of the homotopy coproduct $\rho_{\sigma(\ttree,\underline{e})}$}
\partial_{(\ttree,\underline{e})} = \rho^{\square}_{\sigma(\ttree,\underline{e})},
\end{gather*}
such as defined in Lemma~\ref{lemma:homotopy-cooperad-top-component}.
Recall that the object $\DGSigma^{-\sharp V(\ttree)}\AOp(\ttree)$
is identified with a tensor product
\begin{equation*}
\DGSigma^{-\sharp V(\ttree)}\AOp(\ttree) = \bigl(\bigotimes_{v\in V(\ttree)}\underline{01}^{\sharp}_v\bigr)\otimes\AOp(\ttree),
\end{equation*}
where we associate a factor of cohomological degree one $\underline{01}^{\sharp}_v$ to every vertex $v\in V(\ttree)$.
In the definition of our map $\partial_{(\ttree,e)}$, we also perform blow-up operations
\begin{equation*}
\underline{01}_{u\equiv v}^{\sharp}\mapsto\underline{01}_{u}^{\sharp}\otimes\underline{01}_{v}^{\sharp},
\end{equation*}
for each edge contraction step $\ttree/{\{e_1,\dots,e_{i-1}\}}\rightarrow\ttree/{\{e_1,\dots,e_{i-1},e_i\}}$,
where $u$ and $v$ represent the vertices of the edge $e_i$ in the tree $\ttree/{\{e_1,\dots,e_{i-1}\}}$,
and $u\equiv v$ represents the result of the fusion of these vertices
in $\ttree/{\{e_1,\dots,e_{i-1}\}}$.
The performance of this sequence of blow-up operations, in parallel to the application of the map $\rho^{\square}_{\sigma(\ttree,\underline{e})}$,
enables us to pass
from the tensor product $\DGSigma^{-\sharp V(\ttree)+m}\AOp(\ttree/\{e_1,\dots,e_m\})
= \bigl(\bigotimes_{x\in V(\ttree/\{e_1,\dots,e_m\})}\underline{01}^{\sharp}_x\bigr)\otimes\AOp(\ttree/\{e_1,\dots,e_m\})$
to $\DGSigma^{-\sharp V(\ttree)}\AOp(\ttree) = \bigl(\bigotimes_{x\in V(\ttree)}\underline{01}^{\sharp}_x\bigr)\otimes\AOp(\ttree)$.
This operation may involve a sign, which we determine as in the strict case in Construction~\ref{construction:bar-complex}.
Finally, we take:
\begin{equation*}
\partial_m = \sum_{(\ttree,(e_1,\dots,e_m))}\partial_{(\ttree,(e_1,\dots,e_m))},\quad\text{for $m\geq 1$},
\quad\text{and}\quad\partial = \sum_{m\geq 1}\partial_m.
\end{equation*}
(We just use the connectedness condition on $\AOp$ to ensure that this sum reduces to a finite number of terms
on each summand $\DGSigma^{-\sharp V(\ttree)}\AOp(\ttree)$
of our object $\DGB^c(\AOp)(r)$.)
We prove next that this map $\partial$ also defines a twisting differential on $\DGB^c(\AOp)(r)$, so that we can again provide $\DGB^c(\AOp)(r)$
with a dg module structure with the sum $\delta+\partial: \DGB^c(\AOp)(r)\rightarrow\DGB^c(\AOp)(r)$ as total differential,
where $\delta: \DGB^c(\AOp)(r)\rightarrow\DGB^c(\AOp)(r)$ denotes the differential induced by the internal differential of the objects $\AOp(\ttree)$
in $\DGB^c(\AOp)(r)$ (as in the case of the cobar construction of strict Segal dg cooperads).
We equip the object $\DGB^c(\AOp)$ with composition products
\begin{equation*}
\circ_{i_p}: \DGB^c(\AOp)(\{i_1<\dots<i_k\})\otimes\DGB^c(\AOp)(\{j_1<\dots<j_l\})\rightarrow\DGB^c(\AOp)(\{1<\dots<r\}),
\end{equation*}
which we define exactly as in the strict case.
We explicitly define $\circ_{i_p}$ as the sum of the maps
\begin{equation*}
\circ_{i_p}^{\stree,\ttree}: \DGSigma^{-\sharp V(\stree)}\AOp(\stree)\otimes\DGSigma^{-\sharp V(\ttree)}\AOp(\ttree)
\rightarrow\DGSigma^{-\sharp V(\stree\circ_{i_p}\ttree)}\AOp(\stree\circ_{i_p}\ttree)
\end{equation*}
yielded by the Segal map $i_{\stree\circ_{i_p}\ttree}: \AOp(\stree)\otimes\AOp(\ttree)\rightarrow\AOp(\stree\circ_{i_p}\ttree)$
associated to the composition operation $\stree\circ_{i_p}\ttree = \lambda_{\gammatree}(\stree,\ttree)$
in the category of trees, where $\stree\in\Tree(\{i_1<\dots<i_k\})$ and $\ttree\in\Tree(\{j_1<\dots<j_l\})$.
In a forthcoming lemma, we also check that these operations preserve the above differential, and hence, provide our object with well-defined operations in the category of dg modules.
\end{constr}
We first check the validity of the definition of the twisting differential announced in our construction. This result is a consequence of the following more precise lemma.
\begin{lemm}\label{lemma:differential-bar-construction-homotopy}
We have the relation $\delta\partial_m + \partial_m\delta + \sum_{i=1}^{m-1}\partial_i\partial_{m-i} = 0$, for each $m\geq 1$.
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}
If $m = 1$, then the statement reduces to $\delta\partial_1 + \partial_1\delta = 0$, and we readily check, as in the case of the cobar construction of Segal dg cooperads,
that this relation is equivalent to the fact that the coproducts of degree zero $\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\stree} = \rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\stree}^{\square}$
are morphisms of dg modules.
We now prove the statement for $m>1$. From Equation~(\ref{equation:differential-top-component}) of Lemma~\ref{lemma:homotopy-cooperad-top-component},
we see that, for every tree $\ttree$ and every sequence of internal edges $\underline{e} = (e_1,\dots,e_m)$,
we have:
\begin{align*}
\delta\partial_{(\ttree,\underline{e})} + \partial_{(\ttree,\underline{e})}\delta &
= \sum_{i=1}^{m-1}\pm\rho^{\square}_{\ttree\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\widehat{\ttree/\{e_1,\dots,e_i\}}\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree/\{e_1,\dots,e_m\}} \\
& + \sum_{i=1}^{m-1}\pm\rho^{\square}_{\ttree\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree/\{e_1,\dots,e_i\}}\circ\rho^{\square}_{\ttree/\{e_1,\dots,e_i\}\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree/\{e_1,\dots,e_m\}}
\end{align*}
Then, by taking the sum of these expressions over the set of pairs $(\ttree,\underline{e})$, we obtain the formula:
\begin{align*}
\delta\partial_m + \partial_m\delta &
= \sum_{\substack{(\ttree,\underline{e})\\i=1,\dots,m}}\pm\rho^{\square}_{\ttree\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\widehat{\ttree/\{e_1,\dots,e_i\}}\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree/\{e_1,\dots,e_m\}} \\
& + \sum_{i=1}^{m-1}\bigl(\underbrace{\sum_{(\ttree,\underline{e})}\pm\rho^{\square}_{\ttree\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree/\{e_1,\dots,e_i\}}
\circ\rho^{\square}_{\ttree/\{e_1,\dots,e_i\}\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree/\{e_1,\dots,e_m\}}}_{= \partial_i\partial_{m-i}}\bigr).
\end{align*}
In the first sum of this formula, the term that corresponds to the removal of the node $\ttree/\{e_1,\dots,e_{i-1},e_i\}$
and the term that corresponds to the removal of the node $\ttree/\{e_1,\dots,e_{i-1},e_{i+1}\}$
for the pair $(\ttree,(e_1,\dots,e_{i-1},e_{i+1},e_i,e_{i+2},\dots,e_m))$
with $e_i$ and $e_{i+1}$ switched
are equal up to a sign. We readily check that these signs are opposite, so that these terms cancel out in our sum. The conclusion of the lemma follows.
\end{proof}
We still check the validity of our definition of the composition products.
\begin{lemm}\label{lemma:bar-construction-product-operad-homotopy}
The twisting map $\partial$ and the differential $\delta$ induced by the internal differential of the object $\AOp$ on the cobar construction $\DGB^c(\AOp)$
form derivations with respect the composition products of Construction~\ref{construction:bar-complex-homotopy},
so that these operations $\circ_{i_p}$ define morphisms of dg modules.
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}
We generalize the arguments used in Lemma \ref{lemma:bar-construction-product-operad}.
We again prove that $\circ_{i_p}$ commutes with the differential on each summand $\DGSigma^{-\sharp V(\stree)}\AOp(\stree)\otimes\DGSigma^{-\sharp V(\ttree)}\AOp(\ttree)$
of the tensor product $\DGB^c(\AOp)(\{i_1<\dots<i_k\})\otimes\DGB^c(\AOp)(\{j_1<\dots<j_l\})$,
where $\stree\in\Tree(\{i_1<\dots<i_k\})$, $\ttree\in\Tree(\{j_1<\dots<j_l\})$.
We can still use that the Segal maps, which induce our composition product componentwise, are morphisms of dg modules to conclude that $\circ_{i_p}$
preserves the internal differentials on our objects.
We therefore focus on the verification that $\circ_{i_p}$ preserves the twisting differential $\partial$.
We set $\thetatree = \stree\circ_{i_p}\ttree$ and we consider a tree $\thetatree'$ such that $\thetatree = \thetatree'/\{e_1,\dots,e_m\}$
for an sequence of edges $e_1,\dots,e_m\in\mathring{E}(\thetatree')$.
We then have $\thetatree' = \stree'\circ_{i_p}\ttree'$, where $\stree'$ and $\ttree'$ represent the pre-image of the subtrees $\stree\subset\thetatree$ and $\ttree\subset\thetatree$
under the map $\thetatree'\rightarrow\thetatree'/\{e_1,\dots,e_m\}$, and $\stree = \stree'/\{e_{\alpha_1},\dots,e_{\alpha_r}\}$, $\ttree = \ttree'/\{e_{\beta_1},\dots,e_{\beta_s}\}$,
for the partition $\{e_{\alpha_1},\dots,e_{\alpha_r}\}\amalg\{e_{\beta_1},\dots,e_{\beta_s}\} = \{e_1,\dots,e_m\}$
such that $e_{\alpha_1},\dots,e_{\alpha_r}\in\mathring{E}(\stree')$ and $e_{\beta_1},\dots,e_{\beta_s}\in\mathring{E}(\ttree')$.
We may note that one the component of this partition can be empty (we take by convention $r = 0$ or $s = 0$ in this case).
The compatibility between the Segal maps and the coproduct operators in Figure~\ref{homotopy-dg-cooperad:Segal-coproduct-compatibility}
together with the degeneracy relations of Figure~\ref{homotopy-E-infinity-cooperad:degeneracies}
imply the commutativity of the following diagram:
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrixcolsep{5pc}\xymatrix{ \AOp(\stree)\otimes\AOp(\ttree)
\ar[r]^-{\rho_{\sigma(\stree',\underline{e}|_{\stree'})}\otimes\rho_{\sigma(\ttree',\underline{e}|_{\ttree'})}}
\ar[ddd]|{i_{\stree\circ_{i_p}\ttree}} &
\AOp(\stree')\otimes I^{r-1}\otimes\AOp(\ttree')\otimes I^{s-1}
\ar[d]|{(\id\otimes s^{m-\beta_*})\otimes(\id\otimes s^{m-\alpha_*})} \\
& \AOp(\stree')\otimes I^{m-1}\otimes\AOp(\ttree)\otimes I^{m-1}\ar[d]^{\simeq} \\
& \AOp(\stree')\otimes\AOp(\ttree')\otimes I^{m-1}\otimes I^{m-1}\ar[d]^{i_{\stree',\ttree',\thetatree}\otimes\mu} \\
\AOp(\thetatree)\ar[r]_{\rho_{\sigma(\thetatree',\underline{e})}} &
\AOp(\thetatree')\otimes I^{m-1} },
\end{equation*}
where we set $\underline{e}|_{\stree'} = (e_{\alpha_1},\dots,e_{\alpha_r})$ and $\underline{e}|_{\ttree'} = (e_{\beta_1},\dots,e_{\beta_s})$ for short,
and $s^{m-\alpha_*} = s^{m-\alpha_1} s^{m-\alpha_2}\cdots s^{m-\alpha_r}$, $s^{m-\beta_*} = s^{m-\beta_1} s^{m-\beta_2}\cdots s^{m-\beta_s}$.
(These composites correspond to the positions of the degeneracies
when we take the pre-image of the subtrees $\stree,\ttree\subset\thetatree$
under the sequence of tree morphisms $\thetatree'\rightarrow\thetatree'/\{e_1\}\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\thetatree'/\{e_1,\dots,e_m\} = \thetatree$.)
Note that we may have $r = 0$ or $s = 0$ and our diagram is still valid in these cases. (We then take $I^{-1} = \kk$ by convention and $s^0: I^{-1}\rightarrow I^0$
denotes the identity map.)
We actually have three possible cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item $r = 0$:
In this case all the edges of our collection $\underline{e}$ belong to $\ttree'$, we have $\stree = \stree'$,
and the commutativity of the diagram implies that $\partial_{\theta',\underline{e}}\circ i_{\stree\circ_{i_p}\ttree}
= i_{\stree\circ_{i_p}\ttree'}\circ(\id\otimes\partial_{\ttree',\underline{e}})$.
\item $s = 0$:
In this mirror case, all the edges of our collection $\underline{e}$ belong to $\stree'$, we have $\ttree = \ttree'$,
and we get $\partial_{\theta',\underline{e}}\circ i_{\stree\circ_{i_p}\ttree}
= i_{\stree'\circ_{i_p}\ttree}\circ(\partial_{\stree',\underline{e}}\otimes\id)$.
\item $r,s\geq 1$: in this case, the composite of the vertical morphisms on the right hand side of the diagram
does not meet $\AOp(\stree'\circ_{i_p}\ttree')\otimes\underline{01}^{\sharp}{}^{\otimes m-1}$,
because the product of degeneracies carries $I^{r-1}\otimes I^{s-1}$ to a submodule of $I^{m-1}\otimes I^{m-1}$ concentrated in dimension $<m-1$,
whose image under the product can not meet $\underline{01}^{\sharp}{}^{\otimes m-1}$,
so that we have $\partial_{\theta',\underline{e}}\circ i_{\stree\circ_{i_p}\ttree} = 0$.
\end{itemize}
From these identities, we obtain the derivation relation $\partial_m\circ\circ_{i_p} = \circ_{i_p}\circ(\partial_m\otimes\id + \id\otimes\partial_m)$,
valid for each $m\geq 1$. The conclusion follows.
\end{proof}
We still immediately deduce from the associativity of the Segal maps that the composition products of Construction~\ref{construction:bar-complex-homotopy}
satisfy the associativity relations of the composition products of an operad.
We therefore get the following concluding statement:
\begin{thm-defn}
The collection $\DGB^c(\AOp) = \{\DGB^c(\AOp)(r),r>0\}$ equipped with the differential and structure operations defined in Construction~\ref{construction:bar-complex-homotopy}
forms a shuffle operad in dg modules.
This operad $\DGB^c(\AOp)$ is the cobar construction of the connected homotopy Segal shuffle dg (pre-)cooperad $\AOp$.\qed
\end{thm-defn}
\subsection{The definition of homotopy morphisms}\label{subsection:homotopy-morphisms}
We devote this section to the study of homotopy morphisms of Segal cooperads.
We always assume that our target object is equipped with a strict Segal cooperad structure for technical reasons,
but our source object can be equipped with a general homotopy Segal cooperad structure.
We explain the definition of these homotopy morphisms in the context of $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads first.
We examine the forgetting of $E_\infty$-structures afterwards and then we study the application
of homotopy morphisms to the cobar construction.
\begin{defn}\label{definition:homotopy-morphisms}
We assume that $\BOp$ is a strict Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf shuffle cooperad while $\AOp$ can be any homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf shuffle cooperad.
We then define a homotopy morphism of homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf shuffle cooperads $\phi: \AOp\rightarrow\BOp$
as a collection of $\EOp$-algebra morphisms
\begin{equation*}
\phi_{\ttree}: \AOp(\ttree)\rightarrow\BOp(\ttree),\quad\text{$\ttree\in\Tree(r)$, $r>0$},
\end{equation*}
referred to as the underlying maps of our homotopy morphism, together with a collection of higher morphism operators
\begin{equation*}
\phi_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}: \AOp(\stree)\rightarrow\BOp(\ttree)\otimes I^{k+1},
\end{equation*}
defined in the category of $\EOp$-algebras as well and associated to sequences of composable tree morphisms $\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree$,
so that the compatibility relations with the face and degeneracy operators expressed by the diagrams of Figure~\ref{homotopy-morphisms:0-faces}-\ref{homotopy-morphisms:degeneracies}
hold, as well the compatibility relations with the facet operators
expressed by the diagrams of Figure~\ref{homotopy-morphisms:facets}-\ref{homotopy-morphisms:homotopy-facets}.
(For the underlying maps of our homotopy morphism, we just retrieve the relation of Definition~\ref{definition:E-infinity-cooperad-morphism}.)
When $\AOp$ and $\BOp$ are symmetric cooperads, we say that $\phi: \AOp\rightarrow\BOp$
defines a homotopy morphism of homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf symmetric cooperads
if we have also the compatibility relations with the action of permutations
expressed by the diagrams of Figure~\ref{homotopy-morphisms:0-faces}-\ref{homotopy-morphisms:degeneracies}.
(For the underlying maps of our homotopy morphism, we just retrieve the relation of Definition~\ref{definition:E-infinity-cooperad-morphism}.)
\end{defn}
We also have a version of this definition for homotopy Segal shuffle dg cooperads without $E_\infty$-structure.
\begin{defn}\label{definition:homotopy-morphisms-forgetful}
We assume that $\BOp$ be a strict Segal shuffle dg cooperad while $\AOp$ can be any homotopy Segal shuffle dg cooperad.
We then define a homotopy morphism of homotopy Segal shuffle dg cooperads $\phi: \AOp\rightarrow\BOp$
as a collection of morphisms dg modules
\begin{equation*}
\phi_{\ttree}: \AOp(\ttree)\rightarrow\BOp(\ttree),\quad\text{$\ttree\in\Tree(r)$, $r>0$},
\end{equation*}
to which we again refer as the underlying maps of our homotopy morphism, together with a collection of higher morphism operators
\begin{equation*}
\phi_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}: \AOp(\stree)\rightarrow\BOp(\ttree)\otimes I^{k+1},
\end{equation*}
defined in the category of dg modules as well and associated to sequences of composable tree morphisms $\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree$,
so that we have the compatibility relations with respect to the face and degeneracy operators expressed by the diagrams
of Figure~\ref{homotopy-morphisms:0-faces}-\ref{homotopy-morphisms:degeneracies} (as in the case of homotopy morphisms $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads),
together with the compatibility relations with respect to the Segal maps
expressed by the diagrams of Figure~\ref{homotopy-dg-morphisms:Segal-maps}-\ref{homotopy-dg-morphisms:homotopy-Segal-maps}.
\end{defn}
\begin{figure}[p]
\ffigbox
{\caption{The compatibility of homotopy morphisms with $0$-faces.
The diagrams commute for all sequences of composable tree morphisms $\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree$
and for all $1\leq i\leq k$, where $\widehat{\ttree_i}$ means that we delete the node $\ttree_i$.}\label{homotopy-morphisms:0-faces}}
{\centerline{\xymatrixcolsep{10pc}\xymatrix{ \AOp(\stree)
\ar[r]^{\phi_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}}
\ar[d]^{\phi_{\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}} &
\BOp(\ttree)\otimes I^{k+1}\ar[d]^{\id\otimes d^{k+1}_0} \\
\BOp(\ttree_k)\otimes I^k
\ar[r]_{\rho^{\BOp}_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k}\otimes\id} &
\BOp(\ttree)\otimes I^k \\
\AOp(\stree)
\ar[r]^{\phi_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}}
\ar[dr]_{\phi_{\ttree\rightarrow\cdots\widehat{\ttree_i}\cdots\rightarrow\stree}} &
\BOp(\ttree)\otimes I^{k+1} \ar[d]^{\id\otimes d_0^i} \\
& \BOp(\ttree)\otimes I^k }
}}
\ffigbox
{\caption{The compatibility of homotopy morphisms with $1$-faces.
The diagrams commute for all sequences of composable tree morphisms $\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree$
and for all $1\leq i\leq k$.}
\label{homotopy-morphisms:1-faces}}
{\centerline{\xymatrixcolsep{4pc}\xymatrix{ \AOp(\stree)
\ar[rr]^{\phi_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}}
\ar[d]^{\rho^{\AOp}_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\stree}} &&
\BOp(\ttree)\otimes I^{k+1}
\ar[d]^{\id\otimes d_1^{k+1}} \\
\AOp(\ttree)\otimes I^k
\ar[rr]_{\phi_{\ttree}\otimes\id} &&
\BOp(\ttree)\otimes I^k \\
\AOp(\stree)
\ar[rr]^{\phi_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}}
\ar[d]^{\rho^{\AOp}_{\ttree_i\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}} &&
\BOp(\ttree)\otimes I^{k+1}
\ar[d]^{\id\otimes d_1^i} \\
\AOp(\ttree_i)\otimes I^{i-1}
\ar[r]_-{\phi_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_i}\otimes\id} &
\BOp(\ttree)\otimes I^{k-i+1}\otimes I^{i-1}\ar[r]_-{\simeq} &
\BOp(\ttree)\otimes I^k }
}}
\ffigbox
{\caption{The compatibility of homotopy morphisms with degeneracies.
The diagrams commute for all sequences of composable tree morphisms $\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree$
and for all $0\leq j\leq k+1$.}\label{homotopy-morphisms:degeneracies}}
{\centerline{\xymatrixcolsep{10pc}\xymatrix{ \AOp(\stree)
\ar[r]^{\phi_{\stree}}
\ar[dr]_{\phi_{\stree = \stree}} &
\BOp(\stree)
\ar[d]^{\id\otimes s^0} \\
& \BOp(\stree)\otimes I^1 \\
\AOp(\stree)
\ar[r]^{\phi_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}}
\ar[rd]_{\phi_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\cdots\ttree_j = \ttree_j\cdots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}} &
\BOp(\ttree)\otimes I^{k+1}
\ar[d]^{\id\otimes s^j} \\
& \BOp(\ttree)\otimes I^{k+2} }
}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[p]
\ffigbox
{\caption{The preservation of facet operators by the underlying maps of homotopy morphisms.
The diagram commutes for all subtrees $\sigmatree\subset\stree$.}
\label{homotopy-morphisms:facets}}
{\centerline{\xymatrixcolsep{5pc}\xymatrix{ \AOp(\stree)\ar[r]^{\phi_{\stree}} & \BOp(\stree) \\
\AOp(\sigmatree)\ar[r]^{\phi_{\sigmatree}}\ar[u]^{i_{\sigmatree,\stree}} &
\BOp(\sigmatree)\ar[u]_{i_{\sigmatree,\stree}} }
}}
{\caption{The compatibility of homotopy morphisms with facet operators.
The diagram commutes for all subtrees $\sigmatree\subset\stree$
and for all sequences of composable tree morphisms $\ttree\xrightarrow{f_k}\ttree_k\xrightarrow{f_{k-1}}\dots\xrightarrow{f_1}\ttree_1\xrightarrow{f_0}\stree$.}
\label{homotopy-morphisms:homotopy-facets}}
{\centerline{\xymatrixcolsep{10pc}\xymatrix{ \AOp(\stree)\ar[r]^-{\phi_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}} &
\BOp(\ttree)\otimes I^{k+1} \\
\AOp(\sigmatree)
\ar@{.>}[r]_-{\phi_{(f_k\dots f_0)^{-1}(\sigmatree)\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow f_0^{-1}(\sigmatree)\rightarrow\sigmatree}}
\ar[u]^{i^{\AOp}_{\sigmatree,\stree}} &
\BOp((f_k\dots f_0)^{-1}(\sigmatree))\otimes I^{k+1}
\ar@{.>}[u]^{i^{\BOp}_{(f_k\dots f_0)^{-1}(\sigmatree),\ttree}\otimes\id} }
}}
\ffigbox
{\caption{The preservation of the action of permutations by the underlying maps of homotopy morphisms.
The diagram commutes for all $s\in\Sigma_r$ and $\ttree\in\Tree(r)$.}
\label{homotopy-morphisms:permutations}}
{\centerline{\xymatrixcolsep{5pc}\xymatrix{ \AOp(s\ttree)\ar[r]^{\phi_{s\ttree}}\ar[d]_{s^*} & \BOp(s\ttree)\ar[d]^{s^*} \\
\AOp(\ttree)\ar[r]^{\phi_{\ttree}} & \BOp(\ttree) }
}}
\ffigbox
{\caption{The compatibility of homotopy morphisms with facet operators.
The diagram commutes for all subtrees $\sigmatree\subset\stree$
and for all sequences of composable tree morphisms $\ttree\xrightarrow{f_k}\ttree_k\xrightarrow{f_{k-1}}\dots\xrightarrow{f_1}\ttree_1\xrightarrow{f_0}\stree$.}
\label{homotopy-morphisms:homotopy-permutations}}
{\centerline{\xymatrixcolsep{10pc}\xymatrix{ \AOp(\stree)\ar[r]^-{\phi_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}} &
\BOp(\ttree)\otimes I^{k+1} \\
\AOp(\sigmatree)
\ar@{.>}[r]_-{\phi_{(f_k\dots f_0)^{-1}(\sigmatree)\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow f_0^{-1}(\sigmatree)\rightarrow\sigmatree}}
\ar[u]^{i^{\AOp}_{\sigmatree,\stree}} &
\BOp((f_k\dots f_0)^{-1}(\sigmatree))\otimes I^{k+1}
\ar@{.>}[u]^{i^{\BOp}_{(f_k\dots f_0)^{-1}(\sigmatree),\ttree}\otimes\id} }
}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\ffigbox
{\caption{The preservation of Segal maps by the underlying map of homotopy morphisms of homotopy Segal dg cooperads.
The diagram commutes for all tree decompositions $\stree = \lambda_{\utree}(\sigmatree_v,v\in V(\utree))$.}
\label{homotopy-dg-morphisms:Segal-maps}}
{\centerline{\xymatrixcolsep{5pc}\xymatrix{ \AOp(\stree)\ar[r]^{\phi_{\stree}} & \BOp(\stree) \\
\bigotimes_{v\in V(\utree)}\AOp(\sigmatree_v)
\ar[r]^{\bigotimes_{v\in V(\utree)}\phi_{\sigmatree_v}}
\ar[u]^{i^{\AOp}_{\sigmatree_*,\stree}} &
\bigotimes_{v\in V(\utree)}\BOp(\sigmatree_v)
\ar[u]_{i^{\BOp}_{\sigmatree_*,\stree}} }
}}
\ffigbox
{\caption{The compatibility of homotopy morphisms of homotopy Segal dg cooperads with the Segal maps.
The diagram commutes for all tree decompositions $\stree = \lambda_{\utree}(\sigmatree_v,v\in V(\utree))$
and for all sequences of composable tree morphisms $\ttree\xrightarrow{f_k}\ttree_k\xrightarrow{f_{k-1}}\dots\xrightarrow{f_1}\ttree_1\xrightarrow{f_0}\stree$.}
\label{homotopy-dg-morphisms:homotopy-Segal-maps}}
{\centerline{\xymatrixcolsep{10pc}\xymatrix{ \AOp(\stree)
\ar[r]^-{\phi_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}} &
\BOp(\ttree)\otimes I^{k+1} \\
& \bigotimes_{v\in V(\utree)}\BOp((f_k\dots f_0)^{-1}(\sigmatree_v))\otimes\left(\bigotimes_{v\in V(\utree)}I^{k+1}\right)
\ar@{.>}[u]_{i^{\BOp}_{(f_k\dots f_0)^{-1}(\sigmatree_*),\ttree}\otimes\mu} \\
\bigotimes_{v\in V(\utree)}\AOp(\sigmatree_v)
\ar@{.>}[r]^-{\bigotimes_v \phi_{(f_k\dots f_0)^{-1}(\sigmatree_v)\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow f_0^{-1} (\sigmatree_v)\rightarrow\sigmatree_v}}
\ar[uu]^{i^{\AOp}_{\sigmatree_*,\stree}} &
\bigotimes_{v \in V(\utree)}\left(\BOp((f_k\dots f_0)^{-1}(\sigmatree_v))\otimes I^{k+1}\right)
\ar@{.>}[u]_{\simeq} }
}}
\end{figure}
\afterpage{\clearpage}
We have the following statement, which is the homotopy version of the result of Lemma~\ref{lemma:homotopy-cooperad-top-component},
and which can be proved by the same arguments.
We still write $\alpha^{\square}: X\rightarrow Y$ for the homomorphism of graded modules of degree $k$
associated to a morphism of dg modules $\alpha: X\rightarrow Y \otimes I^k$
such that $\alpha(x) = (-1)^{k\deg(x)}\alpha^{\square}(x)\otimes\underline{01}^{\sharp}{}^{\otimes k} + \text{tensors with a factor of dimension $<k$ in $I^k$}$.
\begin{lemm}\label{lemma:homotopy-morphism-top-component}
\begin{enumerate}
\item
Let $\phi: \AOp\rightarrow\BOp$ be a homotopy morphism of homotopy Segal shuffle dg cooperads,
where we still assume that $\BOp$ is a strict Segal shuffle dg cooperad
as in Definition~\ref{definition:homotopy-morphisms-forgetful}.
The graded homomorphism of degree $k+1$
\begin{equation*}
\phi^{\square}_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}: \AOp(\stree)\rightarrow\AOp(\ttree)
\end{equation*}
that we associate to the dg module morphism $\phi_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}: \AOp(\stree)\rightarrow\AOp(\ttree)\otimes I^{k+1}$,
for any sequence of composable tree morphisms $\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree$,
satisfies the relation
\begin{equation}\tag{*}\label{equation:homotopy-morphism-top-component}
\delta(\phi^{\square}_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree})
\begin{aligned}[t]
& = (-1)^{k+1}\rho^{\BOp}_{\ttree_k\rightarrow\stree}\phi^{\square}_{\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree} \\
& + \sum_{i=1}^k(-1)^i\phi^{\square}_{\ttree\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\hat{\ttree}_i\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\stree} \\
& + (-1)^k\phi_{\ttree}\circ\rho^{\AOp\square}_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree} \\
& - \sum_{i=1}^k(-1)^i\phi^{\square}_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_i}\circ\rho^{\AOp\square}_{\ttree_i\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Moreover, if we have a degeneracy $\ttree_j = \ttree_{j+1}$ in our sequence of tree morphisms, for some $0\leq j\leq k$ (with the convention that $\ttree_{k+1} = \ttree$ and $\ttree_0 = \stree$),
then we have the relation
\begin{equation}\tag{**}\label{equation:homotopy-morphism-degeneracy-top-component}
\phi^{\square}_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_{k}\rightarrow\dots\ttree_{j+1}=\ttree_j\cdots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree} = 0.
\end{equation}
\item
In the converse direction, if we have a collection of dg module morphisms $\phi_{\ttree}: \AOp(\ttree)\rightarrow\BOp(\ttree)$, $\ttree\in\Tree(r)$, $r>0$,
together with a collection of dg graded homomorphisms $\phi^{\square}_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}: \AOp(\stree)\rightarrow\AOp(\ttree)$,
of degree $k+1$,
which satisfy the relations (\ref{equation:homotopy-morphism-top-component})-(\ref{equation:homotopy-morphism-degeneracy-top-component})
of the previous statement,
then there is a unique collection of morphisms of dg modules $\phi_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}: \AOp(\stree)\rightarrow\AOp(\ttree)\otimes I^k$,
which extend these maps on the summands $\AOp(\ttree)\otimes\underline{01}^{\sharp}{}^{\otimes k+1}$
and satisfy the face and degeneracy relations of homotopy morphism operators
of Figure~\ref{homotopy-morphisms:0-faces}-\ref{homotopy-morphisms:degeneracies}.\qed
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemm}
We now prove that any homotopy morphism of homotopy Segal shuffle dg cooperads $\phi: \AOp\rightarrow\BOp$, as in Definition~\ref{definition:homotopy-morphisms-forgetful},
gives rise to an induced morphism on the cobar construction $\phi_*: \DGB^c(\AOp)\rightarrow\DGB^c(\BOp)$.
We address the definition of this morphism in the next paragraph.
We assume all along this study that a homotopy morphism $\phi: \AOp\rightarrow\BOp$ is fixed, with $\AOp$ a homotopy Segal shuffle dg cooperad
and $\BOp$ a strict Segal shuffle dg cooperad.
We need to assume that the object $\AOp$ is connected in order to give a sense to the cobar construction $\DGB^c(\AOp)$ (see~\S\ref{subsection:homotopy-Segal-cooperad-cobar}).
We also need to assume that $\BOp$ is connected in the construction of our morphisms.
We therefore assume that these connectedness conditions hold in the rest of this subsection.
\begin{constr}\label{construction:bar-complex-homotopy-morphism}
The underlying maps of our homotopy morphism $\phi: \AOp\rightarrow\BOp$ induce morphisms of graded modules between the components of the cobar construction:
\begin{equation*}
\phi_{\ttree}: \DGSigma^{-\sharp V(\ttree)}\AOp(\ttree)\rightarrow\DGSigma^{-\sharp V(\ttree)}\AOp(\ttree).
\end{equation*}
In addition to these maps, we consider morphisms
\begin{equation*}
\phi_{(\ttree,\underline{e})}: \DGSigma^{-\sharp V(\ttree)+m}\AOp(\ttree/\{e_1,\dots,e_m\})\rightarrow\DGSigma^{-\sharp V(\ttree)}\BOp(\ttree).
\end{equation*}
associated to the pairs $(\ttree,\underline{e})$, where $\ttree$ is a tree and $\underline{e} = (e_1,\dots,e_m)$
is an ordered collection of pairwise distinct edges $e_i\in\mathring{E}(\ttree)$,
as in Construction~\ref{construction:bar-complex-homotopy}.
To define the latter maps, we again consider the sequence of composable tree morphisms
\begin{gather*}
\sigma(\ttree,\underline{e}) = \{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree/{e_1}\rightarrow\ttree/{\{e_1,e_2\}}\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree/\{e_1,\dots,e_m\}\},
\intertext{which we associate to any such pair $(\ttree,\underline{e})$ in Construction~\ref{construction:bar-complex-homotopy},
and we set}
\phi_{(\ttree,\underline{e})} = \phi^{\square}_{\sigma(\ttree,\underline{e})},
\end{gather*}
where we take the top component of the morphism $\phi_{\sigma(\ttree,\underline{e})}$ (such as defined in Lemma~\ref{lemma:homotopy-morphism-top-component}).
In this construction, we also use the same blow-up process as in Construction~\ref{construction:bar-complex-homotopy}
to pass from the tensor product $\DGSigma^{-\sharp V(\ttree)+m}\AOp(\ttree/\{e_1,\dots,e_m\})
= \bigl(\bigotimes_{x\in V(\ttree/\{e_1,\dots,e_m\})}\underline{01}^{\sharp}_x\bigr)\otimes\AOp(\ttree/\{e_1,\dots,e_m\})$
to $\DGSigma^{-\sharp V(\ttree)}\BOp(\ttree) = \bigl(\bigotimes_{x\in V(\ttree)}\underline{01}^{\sharp}_x\bigr)\otimes\AOp(\ttree)$
and to determine a possible sign, which we associate to our map $\phi_{(\ttree,\underline{e})}$.
In what follows, we identify the morphisms $\phi_{\ttree}$, induced by the underlying maps of our homotopy morphism $\phi: \AOp\rightarrow\BOp$,
with the case $m=0$ of these homomorphisms $\phi_{(\ttree,\underline{e})}$.
Finally, we take:
\begin{gather*}
\phi_m = \sum_{(\ttree,(e_1,\dots,e_m)}\phi_{(\ttree,(e_1,\dots,e_m))},\quad\text{for $m\geq 0$},
\quad\text{and}\quad\phi = \sum_{m\geq 0}\phi_m
\intertext{to get a map}
\phi_*: \DGB^c(\AOp)(r)\rightarrow\DGB^c(\BOp)(r),\quad\text{for each arity $r>0$}.
\end{gather*}
(Note that we use the connectedness condition on $\BOp$ to ensure that the above sum reduces to a finite number of terms on each summand $\DGSigma^{-\sharp V(\ttree)}\AOp(\ttree)$.)
We aim to prove that this map is compatible with the structure operations of the cobar construction.
\end{constr}
We check the preservation of differentials first. This claim follows from the following more precise observation.
\begin{lemm}\label{lemma:differential-bar-morphisms}
We have the relation
\begin{equation*}
\delta^{\BOp}\phi_m = \phi_m \delta^{\AOp} + \partial^{\BOp}\phi_{m-1} - \sum_{i=0}^{m-1}\phi_i\partial_{m-i}^{\AOp},
\end{equation*}
for all $m\geq 0$,
where $\delta = \delta^{\AOp},\delta^{\BOp}$ denotes the term of the differential of the cobar construction induced by the internal differential of the objects $\COp = \AOp,\BOp$,
we denote by $\partial^{\AOp} = \sum_{m = 1}^{\infty}\partial_m^{\AOp}$ the twisting map of the cobar construction
of the homotopy Segal shuffle dg cooperad $\AOp$,
while $\partial^{\BOp}$ denotes the twisting differential of the cobar construction
of the strict Segal shuffle dg cooperad $\AOp$.
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}
We argue as in the proof of Lemma \ref{lemma:differential-bar-construction-homotopy}.
We use the relation of Equation~(\ref{equation:homotopy-morphism-top-component}) of Lemma~\ref{lemma:homotopy-morphism-top-component}
to write
\begin{align*}
\delta^{\BOp}\phi_{(\ttree,\underline{e})} - \phi_{(\ttree,\underline{e})}\delta^{\AOp} &
= \sum_{i=1}^{m-1}\pm\phi^{\square}_{\ttree\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\widehat{\ttree/\{e_1,\dots,e_i\}}\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree/\{e_1,\dots,e_m\}} \\
& - \rho^{\BOp}_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree/e_1}\phi^{\square}_{\ttree/e_1\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree/\{e_1,\dots,e_m\}}\\
& + \sum_{i=0}^{m-1}\pm\phi^{\square}_{\ttree\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree/\{e_1,\dots,e_i\}}\rho^{\AOp\square}_{\ttree/\{e_1,\dots,e_i\}\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree/\{e_1,\dots,e_m\}}.
\end{align*}
Then, by taking the sum of these expressions over the set of pairs $(\ttree,\underline{e})$, we obtain the formula:
\begin{align*}
\delta^{\BOp}\phi_m - \phi_m\delta^{\AOp} &
= \sum_{\substack{(\ttree,\underline{e})\\i=1,\dots,m}}\pm\phi^{\square}_{\ttree\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\widehat{\ttree/\{e_1,\dots,e_i\}}\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree/\{e_1,\dots,e_m\}} \\
& + \underbrace{\sum_{(\ttree,\underline{e})}\pm\rho^{\BOp}_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree/e_1}\phi^{\square}_{\ttree/e_1\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree/\{e_1,\dots,e_m\}}}_{=\partial^{\BOp}\phi_{m-1}} \\
& + \sum_{i=0}^{m-1}\bigl(\underbrace{\sum_{(\ttree,\underline{e})}\pm\phi^{\square}_{\ttree\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree/\{e_1,\dots,e_i\}}
\circ\rho^{\AOp\square}_{\ttree/\{e_1,\dots,e_i\}\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree/\{e_1,\dots,e_m\}}}_{= \phi_i\partial_{m-i}}\bigr).
\end{align*}
In the first sum of this formula, the term that corresponds to the removal of the node $\ttree/\{e_1,\dots,e_{i-1},e_i\}$
and the term that corresponds to the removal of the node $\ttree/\{e_1,\dots,e_{i-1},e_{i+1}\}$
for the pair $(\ttree,(e_1,\dots,e_{i-1},e_{i+1},e_i,e_{i+2},\dots,e_m))$
with $e_i$ and $e_{i+1}$ switched
are again equal up to a sign. We can still check that these signs are opposite, so that these terms cancel out in our sum. The conclusion of the lemma follows.
\end{proof}
We now check that our morphisms preserves the composition products. This claim follows from the following more precise observation.
\begin{lemm}\label{lemma:morphism-cobar-operad}
We have the relation $\phi_m\circ\circ_{i_p} = \sum_{r+s=m}\circ_{i_p}\circ(\phi_r\otimes\phi_s)$, for all $m\geq 0$.
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}
The proof is similar to that of Lemma~\ref{lemma:bar-construction-product-operad-homotopy}.
For $m = 0$, the relation follows the commutativity of the diagram of Figure~\ref{homotopy-dg-morphisms:Segal-maps} (since $\circ_{i_p}$ is defined as a sum of Segal maps).
We therefore focus on the case $m\geq 1$.
We consider again a summand $\Sigma^{-\sharp V(\stree)}\AOp(\stree)\otimes\Sigma^{-\sharp V(\ttree)}\AOp(\ttree)$
of the tensor product $\DGB^c(\AOp)(\{i_1<\dots<i_k\})\otimes\DGB^c(\AOp)(\{j_1<\dots<j_l\})$,
where $\stree\in\Tree(\{i_1<\dots<i_k\})$, $\ttree\in\Tree(\{j_1<\dots<j_l\})$.
The composition product maps $\circ_{i_p}$ carry this summand into $\Sigma^{-\sharp V(\thetatree)}\AOp(\thetatree)$,
with $\thetatree = \stree\circ_{i_p}\ttree$.
The components of the map $\phi_m$ carry this summand into terms of the form $\Sigma^{-\sharp V(\thetatree')}\AOp(\thetatree')$,
for trees $\thetatree'$ equipped with a set of internal edges $(e_1,\dots,e_m)$
such that $\thetatree'/\{e_1,\dots,e_m\} = \thetatree$.
We still have $\thetatree' = \stree'\circ_{i_p}\ttree'$ and $\stree = \stree'/\{e_{\alpha_1},\dots,e_{\alpha_r}\}$, $\ttree = \ttree'/\{e_{\beta_1},\dots,e_{\beta_s}\}$,
for a partition $\{e_{\alpha_1},\dots,e_{\alpha_r}\}\amalg\{e_{\beta_1},\dots,e_{\beta_s}\} = \{e_1,\dots,e_m\}$
such that $e_{\alpha_1},\dots,e_{\alpha_r}\in\mathring{E}(\stree')$ and $e_{\beta_1},\dots,e_{\beta_s}\in\mathring{E}(\ttree')$.
We then have the following commutative diagram:
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrixcolsep{8pc}\xymatrix{
\AOp(\stree)\otimes\AOp(\ttree)
\ar[r]^-{\phi_{\sigma(\stree',\underline{e}|_{\stree'})}\otimes\phi_{\sigma(\ttree',\underline{e}|_{\ttree'})}}
\ar[ddd]|{i_{\stree\circ_{i_p}\ttree}} &
(\BOp(\stree')\otimes I^r)\otimes(\BOp(\ttree')\otimes I^s)
\ar[d]|{\id\otimes s^{m-\beta_*}\otimes\id\otimes s^{m-\alpha_*}} \\
& (\BOp(\stree')\otimes I^m)\otimes(\BOp(\ttree')\otimes I^m)
\ar[d]^{\simeq} \\
& \BOp(\stree')\otimes\BOp(\ttree')\otimes I^m\otimes I^m
\ar[d]^{i_{\stree'\circ_{i_p}\ttree'}\otimes\mu} \\
\AOp(\thetatree)\ar[r]_{\phi_{\sigma(\thetatree',\underline{e})}} &
\BOp(\thetatree')\otimes I^m }
\end{equation*}
(by the relations of Figure~\ref{homotopy-dg-morphisms:homotopy-Segal-maps} and Figure~\ref{homotopy-morphisms:degeneracies}).
We use the same notation as in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma:bar-construction-product-operad-homotopy}
in this diagram
and we still consider the morphisms $\phi_{\sigma(\stree',\underline{e}|_{\stree'})}: \AOp(\stree'/\{e_{\alpha_1},\dots,e_{\alpha_r}\})\rightarrow\AOp(\stree')\otimes I^r$
and $\phi_{\sigma(\ttree',\underline{e}|_{\ttree'})}: \AOp(\ttree'/\{e_{\beta_1},\dots,e_{\beta_s}\})\rightarrow\AOp(\ttree')\otimes I^s$
associated to the sequences of tree morphisms
such that $\sigma(\stree',\underline{e}|_{\stree'}) = \{\stree'\rightarrow\stree'/e_{\alpha_1}\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\stree'/\{e_{\alpha_1},\dots,e_{\alpha_r}\}\}$
and $\sigma(\ttree',\underline{e}|_{\ttree'}) = \{\ttree'\rightarrow\ttree'/e_{\beta_1}\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree'/\{e_{\beta_1},\dots,e_{\beta_s}\}\}$.
We also use the notation $s^{m-\alpha_*} = s^{m-\alpha_1} s^{m-\alpha_2}\cdots s^{m-\alpha_r}$, $s^{m-\beta_*} = s^{m-\beta_1} s^{m-\beta_2}\cdots s^{m-\beta_s}$,
and $\mu: I^m\otimes I^m\rightarrow I^m$ denotes the product of the dg algebra $I^m$
as usual.
We see, by elaborating on the arguments of the proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma:bar-construction-product-operad-homotopy},
that the composite of the right-hand side vertical morphisms of this diagram does not meet $\BOp(\thetatree')\otimes\underline{01}^{\sharp}{}^{\otimes m}$
unless we have $\{e_{\alpha_1},\dots,e_{\alpha_r}\} = \{e_1,\dots,e_r\}$ and $\{e_{\beta_1},\dots,e_{\beta_s}) = (e_{r+1},\dots,e_m\}$. (We have in this case
$s^{m-\beta_*}(\underline{01}^{\sharp}{}^{\otimes r}) = \underline{01}^{\sharp}{}^{\otimes r}\otimes 1^{\otimes s}$,
$s^{m-\alpha_*}(\underline{01}^{\sharp}{}^{\otimes s}) = \underline{1}^{\sharp}{}^{\otimes r}\otimes\underline{01}^{\sharp}{}^{\otimes s} + \text{other terms}$,
and $\mu(s^{m-\beta_*}(\underline{01}^{\sharp}{}^{\otimes r})\otimes s^{m-\alpha_*}(\underline{01}^{\sharp}{}^{\otimes s})) = \underline{01}^{\sharp}{}^{\otimes m}$.)
We conclude from this analysis that the composite $\phi_{(\thetatree',\underline{e})}\circ\circ_{i_p}$ vanishes unless the edge collection $\underline{e} = (e_1,\dots,e_m)$
is equipped with an order such that $\{e_{\alpha_1},\dots,e_{\alpha_r}\} = \{e_1,\dots,e_r\}$
and $\{e_{\beta_1},\dots,e_{\beta_s}\} = \{e_{r+1},\dots,e_m\}$.
We get in this case $\phi_{(\thetatree',\underline{e})}\circ\circ_{i_p} = \circ_{i_p}\circ\phi_{(\stree',\underline{e}|_{\stree'})}\otimes\phi_{(\ttree',\underline{e}|_{\ttree'})}$
and summing over the pairs $(\thetatree',(e_1,\dots,e_m))$ with $\thetatree' = \stree'\circ_{i_p}\ttree'$, $e_1,\dots,e_r\in\mathring{E}(\stree')$, $e_{r+1},\dots,e_m\in\mathring{E}(\stree')$,
amounts to summing over the pairs $(\stree',(e_1,\dots,e_r))$ and $(\ttree',(e_{r+1},\dots,e_m))$
such that $\stree'/\{e_1,\dots,e_r\} = \stree$ and $\ttree'/\{e_1,\dots,e_r\} = \ttree$.
We therefore obtain the relation of the lemma $\phi_m\circ\circ_{i_p} = \sum_{r+s=m}\circ_{i_p}\circ(\phi_r\otimes\phi_s)$
when we perform this sum.
\end{proof}
We get the following concluding statement:
\begin{thm-defn}
The collection of morphisms $\phi_*: \DGB^c(\AOp)(r)\rightarrow\DGB^c(\BOp)(r)$, $r>0$, defined in Construction~\ref{construction:bar-complex-homotopy-morphism},
defines a morphism of shuffle dg operads $\phi_*: \DGB^c(\AOp)\rightarrow\DGB^c(\BOp)$,
the morphism induced by the homotopy morphism of connected homotopy Segal shuffle cooperads $\phi: \AOp\rightarrow\BOp$
on the cobar construction.\qed
\end{thm-defn}
\subsection{The equivalence with strict $ E_\infty $-cooperads}\label{subsection:strict-equivalence}
We devote this final subsection to proving the following result.
\begin{thm}\label{theorem:strictification}
Every connected homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperad (either symmetric or shuffle)
is weakly-equivalent to a connected strict Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperad.
\end{thm}
We prove Theorem~\ref{theorem:strictification} by constructing a functor $\AOp\mapsto\DGK^c(\AOp)$, from the category of connected homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads (symmetric or shuffle)
to the category of strict Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads, and a zigzag of weak-equivalences between $\AOp$ and $\DGK^c(\AOp)$.
For this purpose, we consider a category $\Tree^{\square}$, enriched in dg modules, which encodes the homotopy coproduct operators of homotopy Segal cooperads.
We explain the definition of this category $\Tree^{\square}$ in the next paragraph.
We have a morphism of enriched categories $\Tree^{\square}\rightarrow\Tree$, where, by an abuse of notation, we denote by $\Tree$ the enriched category in $\kk$-modules
whose hom-objects are the $\kk$-modules spanned by the set-theoretic tree morphisms.
We define our functor $\DGK^c(-)$ as a homotopy Kan extension, by dualizing a two-sided bar complex over the enriched category $\Tree^{\square}$.
Note that, in our statement, we again assume that our Segal cooperad $\AOp$ is connected in the sense of~\S\ref{subsection:conilpotence}.
This assumption enables us to simplify our constructions and to avoid technical difficulties
in the verification of our result. We assume that our cooperads satisfy this connectedness condition all along this section.
Recall that a (homotopy or strict) Segal cooperad $\AOp$ is connected if we have $\AOp(\ttree) = 0$
when the tree $\ttree$ is not reduced (has at least one vertex with a single ingoing edge)
and that this condition implies that we can restrict ourselves to the subcategories of reduced trees, denoted by $\widetilde{\Tree}(r)\subset\Tree(r)$, $r>0$,
in the definition of the structure operations that we associate to our objects.
For simplicity, all along this subsection, we keep the notation $\Tree$ for our constructions on tree categories (for instance, we use the notation $\Tree^{\square}$
for our enriched category of trees).
Nevertheless, we restrict ourselves to reduced trees, as permitted by our connectedness assumption on cooperads,
and for this reason, we only define the enriched hom-objects $\Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\stree)$ associated to the full subcategories of reduced trees $\widetilde{\Tree}^{\square}(r)$, $r>0$.
Recall that for reduced trees $\stree,\ttree\in\widetilde{\Tree}(r)$, the set of tree morphisms $\Tree(\ttree,\stree)$
is either empty or reduced to a point (see \cite[Theorem B.0.6]{FresseBook}).
For the enriched version of this category, we therefore have:
\begin{equation*}
\Tree(\ttree,\stree) = \begin{cases} \kk, & \text{if we have a morphism $\ttree\rightarrow\stree$}, \\
0, & \text{otherwise}, \end{cases}
\end{equation*}
for any pair of reduced trees $\stree,\ttree\in\widetilde{\Tree}(r)$, $r>0$.
Note that we may still write $\Tree(\ttree,\stree) = *$ in this setting, because we identify the object $\Tree(\ttree,\stree) = \kk$
with the terminal object of the category of cocommutative coalgebras, and we can actually regard $\Tree$
as a category enriched in cocommutative coalgebras.
This observation, to which we go back later on, motivates our abuse of notation.
\begin{constr}\label{construction:W-homotopy}
We define the enriched category $\Tree^{\square}$ in this paragraph. We take the same set of objects as the category of reduced trees $\widetilde{\Tree}$.
In the definition of the hom-objects, we consider the cubical chain complexes $\DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k}$, dual to the cubical cochain algebras $I^k = \DGN^*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k}$
of the definition of homotopy Segal cooperads.
We use the coface operators $d_i^{\epsilon}: \DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k-1}\rightarrow\DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k}$
and the codegeneracy operators $s_j: \DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k}\rightarrow\DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k-1}$
dual to the operators $d^i_{\epsilon}: I^k\rightarrow I^{k-1}$, $i = 1,\dots,k$, $\epsilon = 0,1$,
and $s^j: I^{k-1}\rightarrow I^k$, $j = 0,\dots,k$,
considered in Construction~\ref{constr:cubical-cochain-algebras}.
We then have $d_i^{\epsilon} = \id^{\otimes k-i}\otimes d^{\epsilon}\otimes\id^{\otimes i-1}$, $s_0 = \id^{\otimes k-1}\otimes s^0$,
$s_j = \id^{\otimes k-j-1}\otimes\nabla_*\otimes\id^{\otimes j-1}$, for $j = 1,\dots,k-1$,
and $s_k = s^k\otimes\id^{\otimes k-1}$,
where $d^{\epsilon}: \kk = \DGN_*(\Delta^0)\rightarrow\DGN_*(\Delta^1)$, $\epsilon = 0,1$, and $s^0: \DGN_*(\Delta^1)\rightarrow\DGN_*(\Delta^0) = \kk$
are the cofaces and the codegeneracy of the normalized chain complex of the one-simplex,
while $\nabla_*: \DGN_*(\Delta^1)\otimes\DGN_*(\Delta^1)\rightarrow\DGN_*(\Delta^1)$
denotes the connection of Construction~\ref{constr:cubical-cochain-connection}.
We precisely define the dg module $\Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\stree)$, which represents the dg hom-object associated to a pair of reduced trees $\stree,\ttree\in\widetilde{\Tree}$
such that $\ttree\not=\stree$ in our enriched category, by the following quotient
\begin{equation*}
\Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\stree)
= \bigoplus_{k\geq 0}\left(\bigoplus_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}
\DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k}_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}
\right)/\equiv,
\end{equation*}
where a copy of the cubical chain complex $\DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k}$ is assigned to every sequence
of composable tree morphisms $\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree$,
and we mod out by the relations
\begin{align*}
d^0_i(\underline{\sigma})_{\ttree\rightarrow\cdots\rightarrow\stree}
& \equiv\underline{\sigma}_{\ttree\rightarrow\cdots\widehat{\ttree_i}\cdots\rightarrow\stree}, \\
s_j(\underline{\sigma})_{\ttree\rightarrow\cdots\rightarrow\stree}
& \equiv\underline{\sigma}_{\ttree\rightarrow\cdots\ttree_j = \ttree_j\cdots\rightarrow\stree},
\end{align*}
where $\underline{\sigma}$ denotes an element of the cubical chain complex (of appropriate dimension).
The composition operations of this enriched category
\begin{equation*}
\circ: \Tree^{\square}(\utree,\stree)\otimes\Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\utree)\rightarrow\Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\stree)
\end{equation*}
are given by
\begin{multline}\tag{$*$}\label{cubical-enriched-category:composition}
\underline{\sigma}_{\utree\rightarrow\utree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\utree_1\rightarrow\stree}
\circ\underline{\tau}_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_l\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\utree}\\
= (\underline{\tau}\otimes\underline{0}\otimes\underline{\sigma})_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_l\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\utree
\rightarrow\utree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\utree_1\rightarrow\stree}
\end{multline}
as long as $\utree\not=\stree$ and $\ttree\not=\utree$. We just take in addition $\Tree^{\square}(\stree,\stree) = \kk$ to provide our category with identity homomorphisms.
We easily check that the above formula preserves the relations of our hom-objects
and hence gives a well-defined morphism
of dg modules. We immediately see that these composition operations
are associative too.
We can also define the objects $\Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\stree)$ in terms of a coend.
We then consider an indexing category $\CubeCat$ generated by the $0$-cofaces $d^0_i$ and the codegeneracies $s^j$
attached to our cubical chain complexes
and which reflect the face and degeneracy operations that we apply to the sequences of composable tree morphisms.
The objects of this category are the ordinals $\underline{k+2} = \{k+1>k>\dots>1>0\}$, with $k\geq 0$.
The morphisms are the non decreasing maps $u: \underline{k+2}\rightarrow\underline{l+2}$
such that $u(k+1) = l+1$ and $u(0) = 0$.
The coface $d^0_i$ corresponds to the map $d^0_i: \underline{k+1}\rightarrow\underline{k+2}$ that jumps over $i+1$ in $\underline{k+2}$,
while the codegeneracy $s_j$ corresponds to the map $s_j: \underline{k+2}\rightarrow\underline{k+1}$
such that $s_j(x) = x$ for $x = 0,\dots,j$ and $s_j(x) = x-1$ for $x = j+1,\dots,k+2$.
We easily check that the collection of cubical chain complexes $\DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k}$,
equipped with the previously defined operators $d^0_i: \DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k-1}\rightarrow\DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k}$
and $s_j: \DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k}\rightarrow\DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k-1}$,
defines a functor $\underline{k+2}\mapsto\DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k}$ on this category $\CubeCat$.
In general, we denote by $X_k$ the image of an object $\underline{k+2}\in\CubeCat$
under a (contravariant or covariant) functor $X$
over the category $\CubeCat$.
For a pair of reduced trees $\ttree,\stree\in\widetilde{\Tree}(r)$ with $\ttree\not=\stree$,
we also consider the functor $\NCat(\ttree,\stree): \CubeCat^{op}\rightarrow\Set$
such that
\begin{equation*}
\NCat(\ttree,\stree)_k = \bigl\{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree|\ttree_i\in\widetilde{\Tree}(r)\,(\forall i)\bigr\},
\end{equation*}
where we consider the set of all sequences of composable tree morphisms of length $k+1$ with $\ttree_{k+1} = \ttree$, $\ttree_0 = \stree$,
and we equip this set with the obvious action of the category $\CubeCat$ (we adapt the usual definition
of the simplicial nerve of a category).
We then have:
\begin{equation*}
\Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\stree) = \int^{\underline{k+2}\in\CubeCat}\kk[\NCat(\ttree,\stree)_k]\otimes\DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k},
\end{equation*}
where $\kk[\NCat(\ttree,\stree)_k]$ is the $\kk$-module generated by the set $\NCat(\ttree,\stree)_k$.
We can also express the composition operation of the category $\Tree^{\square}$ in terms of a termwise composition operation on this coend
which we define by the above formula~(\ref{cubical-enriched-category:composition}).
We have well-defined (contravariant) facet operators
\begin{equation*}
i_{\sigmatree,\stree}: \Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\stree)\rightarrow\Tree^{\square}(\thetatree,\sigmatree),
\end{equation*}
which we associate to all subtree inclusions $\sigmatree\subset\stree$, where $\thetatree = f^{-1}(\sigmatree)$ is the pre-image of the subtree $\sigmatree\subset\stree$
under the (at most unique) morphism $f: \ttree\rightarrow\stree$.
We define these facet operators on our coend termwise,
by the map
\begin{equation*}
i_{\sigmatree,\stree}: \kk[\NCat(\ttree,\stree)_k]\otimes\DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k}\rightarrow\kk[\NCat(\thetatree,\sigmatree)_k]\otimes\DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k}
\end{equation*}
induced by the set-theoretic facet operator $\NCat(\ttree,\stree)_k\rightarrow\NCat(\thetatree,\sigmatree)_k$
which carries any sequence of composable tree morphisms $\ttree\xrightarrow{f_k}\ttree_k\xrightarrow{f_{k-1}}\cdots\xrightarrow{f_1}\ttree_1\xrightarrow{f_0}\stree$
to the sequence of tree morphisms such that $(f_0\cdots f_k)^{-1}(\sigmatree)\rightarrow(f_0\cdots f_{k-1})^{-1}(\sigmatree)\rightarrow\cdots\rightarrow f_0^{-1}(\sigmatree)\rightarrow\sigmatree$,
where we use $\thetatree = (f_0\cdots f_k)^{-1}(\sigmatree)$.
We can also associate a Segal map
\begin{equation*}
i_{\lambda_{\utree}(\sigmatree_*)}: \Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\stree)\rightarrow\bigotimes_{u\in V(\utree)}\Tree^{\square}(\thetatree_u,\sigmatree_u),
\end{equation*}
to every tree decomposition $\stree = \lambda_{\utree}(\sigmatree_*)$, where we set $\thetatree_u = f^{-1}(\sigmatree_u)$, for all factors $\sigmatree_u\subset\stree$.
We then take the tensor product of the product of the above set-theoretic assignments $\NCat(\ttree,\stree)_k\rightarrow\prod_{u\in V(\utree)}\NCat(\thetatree_u,\sigmatree_u)_k$
with the map $\mu^*: \DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k}\rightarrow\bigotimes_{u\in V(\utree)}\DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k}$
induced by the coassociative coproduct of the cubical chain complex $\DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k}$.
We just need to fix an ordering on the set of vertices of our trees since this coproduct is not associative.
We easily check that the facet operators and the Segal maps satisfy natural associativity relations and are compatible, in some natural sense,
with the composition operation of our enriched category structure.
In the symmetric context, we can also observe that the hom-objects $\Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\stree)$
inherit an action of the symmetric group such that
\begin{equation*}
s_*: \Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\stree)\rightarrow\Tree^{\square}(s\ttree,s\stree),
\end{equation*}
for every pair of reduced trees $\stree,\ttree\in\widetilde{\Tree}(r)$, $r>0$,
and for every permutation $s\in\Sigma_r$,
which are induced by the mappings $\ttree_i\mapsto s\ttree_i$ at the level of the sets $\NCat(\ttree,\stree)_k$.
These operators are compatible with the enriched category structure (so that the mapping $s_*: \ttree\mapsto s\ttree$
defines a functor on the enriched category $\Tree^{\square}$)
and with the facet operators. (But the action of permutation is not compatible with the Segal maps with values in the tensor product, since we need to order the vertices
of our trees when we form these maps.)
\end{constr}
We use that this enriched category in dg modules $\Tree^{\square}$ can be upgraded to a category enriched over the category of $\EOp$-coalgebras.
\begin{prop}\label{proposition:E-algebra-tree-category}
Each object $\Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\stree)$ inherits an $\EOp$-coalgebra structure from the cubical chain complexes $\DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k}$.
The composition products define morphisms of $\EOp$-coalgebras $\circ: \Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\utree)\otimes\Tree^{\square}(\utree,\stree)\rightarrow\Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\stree)$
(we switch the conventional order of the factors of the composition to make the diagonal action of the Barratt--Eccles operad compatible with these operations).
The facet operators $i_{\sigmatree,\stree}: \Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\stree)\rightarrow\Tree^{\square}(\thetatree,\sigmatree)$
also define morphisms of $\EOp$-coalgebras,
as well as the operators that give the action of permutations $s_*: \Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\stree)\rightarrow\Tree^{\square}(s\ttree,s\stree)$
in the symmetric setting.
The constructions of the previous paragraph accordingly give a category $\Tree^{\square}$ enriched in $\EOp$-coalgebras
and equipped with facet operators (together with an action of permutations), which are defined within the category of $\EOp$-coalgebras
and are compatible with the composition structure of our objects.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
For each $k\geq 2$, we use that $\kk[\NCat(\ttree,\stree)_k]$ inherits a cocommutative coalgebra structure (given by the diagonal of the set $\NCat(\ttree,\stree)_k$)
in order to extend the $\EOp$-coalgebra structure of the cubical chain complex $\DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k}$
to the tensor product $\kk[\NCat(\ttree,\stree)_k]\otimes\DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k}$.
We readily check that this $\EOp$-coalgebra structure is compatible with the action of the category $\CubeCat$
and therefore passes to our coend. (Recall simply that the forgetful functor from a category of coalgebras to a base category creates coends.)
We easily check that the composition operations of the category $\Tree^{\square}$ are also compatible with the $\EOp$-coalgebra structure termwise,
as well the facet operators. Then we just pass to the coend
to get the conclusions of the proposition.
\end{proof}
We now consider the enriched category in cocommutative coalgebras such that
\begin{equation*}
\Tree(\ttree,\stree) = \begin{cases} \kk, & \text{if we have a morphism $\ttree\rightarrow\stree$}, \\
0, & \text{otherwise}, \end{cases}
\end{equation*}
for any pair of reduced trees $\stree,\ttree\in\widetilde{\Tree}(r)$, $r>0$ (with the same abuse of notation as in the introduction of this subsection).
We immediately see that this enriched category inherits the same structures (facet operators, action of permutations) within the category of cocommutative coalgebras
as the enriched category in $\EOp$-coalgebras $\Tree^{\square}$.
We also have the following observation:
\begin{prop}\label{lemma:tree-square-contractible}
\begin{enumerate}
\item
The hom-objects of the enriched category $\Tree^{\square}$ are endowed with weak-equivalences
\begin{equation*}
\epsilon: \Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\stree)\xrightarrow{\sim}\kk,
\end{equation*}
which are yielded by the augmentation maps such that $\epsilon(1_{\ttree\rightarrow\stree}) = 1$
and $\epsilon(\underline{\sigma}_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_0\rightarrow\stree}) = 0$
in cubical dimension $k>0$ when $\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_0\rightarrow\stree$
is non degenerate.
\item
These weak-equivalences also define a morphism of enriched categories
\begin{equation*}
\epsilon: \Tree^{\square}\xrightarrow{\sim}\Tree,
\end{equation*}
which is compatible with the facet operators and with the action of permutations whenever we consider this extra structure.
(We then regard the enriched category in cocommutative coalgebras $\Tree$ as a category enriched in $\EOp$-coalgebras
by restriction of structure through the augmentation map of the Barratt--Eccles operad.)
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The morphism $\epsilon: \Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\stree)\xrightarrow{\sim}\kk$ has an obvious section $\eta: \kk\rightarrow\Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\stree)$
given by $\eta(1) = 1_{\ttree\rightarrow\stree}$.
We construct a chain homotopy $h: \Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\stree)\otimes\DGN_*(\Delta^1)\rightarrow\Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\stree)$
between $\eta\circ\epsilon = h(-\otimes\underline{1})$ and $\id = h(-\otimes\underline{0})$
to prove that $\epsilon$ is a weak-equivalence.
We proceed as follows. For $k\geq 0$, we consider the map
\begin{equation*}
h_k: \DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k}\otimes\DGN_*(\Delta^1)\rightarrow\DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k}
\end{equation*}
defined by the composite
\begin{multline*}
\DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k}\otimes\DGN_*(\Delta^1)\xrightarrow{\id\otimes\mu^*}\DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k}\otimes\DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k} \\
\xrightarrow{\simeq}(\DGN_*(\Delta^1)\otimes\DGN_*(\Delta^1))^{\otimes k}\xrightarrow{(\nabla_*^{\max})^{\otimes k}}\DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k},
\end{multline*}
where $\mu^*$ is the ($k$-fold) Alexander--Whitney diagonal and $\nabla_*^{\max} = \DGN_*(\max)\circ\EM$ is the composite of the Eilenberg--MacLane map
with the morphism induced by the map of simplicial sets $\max: \Delta^1\times\Delta^1\rightarrow\Delta^1$
such that $\max: (s,t)\mapsto\max(s,t)$. (Thus, we consider a mirror of the connection $\nabla_* = \nabla_*^{\min}$,
which we use in the definition of the codegeneracies of our cubical complex $\DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k}$.)
We claim that these maps preserve the action of the cofaces $d^0_i$ and of the codegeneracies $s_j$ on the cubical complex $\DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k}$.
The preservation of the cofaces $d^0_i$ follows from the formulas $\nabla_*^{\max}(\underline{1},\underline{01}) = 0$
and $\nabla_*^{\max}(\underline{1},\underline{\tau}) = \underline{1}$ for $\deg(\underline{\tau}) = 0$.
The preservation of the codegeneracies $s_j$ is immediate in the cases $j = 0$ and $j = k$.
We use the properties of the Alexander--Whitney diagonal and of the Eilenberg--MacLane map to reduce the verification of the preservation of the codegeneracies $s_j$
such that $j = 1,\dots,k-1$ to the case $k=2$.
We then deduce our claim from the distribution relation
\begin{equation*}
\nabla_*^{\max}(\nabla_*^{\min}(\underline{\sigma}_2\otimes\underline{\sigma}_1)\otimes\underline{\tau})
= \sum_{(\underline{\tau})}\nabla_*^{\min}(\nabla_*^{\max}(\underline{\sigma}_2\otimes\underline{\tau}')\otimes\nabla_*^{\max}(\underline{\sigma}_1\otimes\underline{\tau}'')),
\end{equation*}
valid for $\underline{\sigma}_2,\underline{\sigma}_1,\underline{\tau}\in\DGN_*(\Delta^1)$,
and where we write $\mu^*(\underline{\tau}) = \sum_{(\underline{\tau})}\underline{\tau}'\otimes\underline{\tau}''$
for the Alexander--Whitney diagonal of the element $\underline{\tau}\in\DGN_*(\Delta^1)$.
(This relation, which reflects the classical min-max distribution relation, can easily be checked by hand.)
We deduce from these verifications that these maps $h_k$, tensored with the identity of the factor $\kk[\NCat(\ttree,\stree)_k]$,
induce a well-defined map on our coend $h: \Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\stree)\otimes\DGN_*(\Delta^1)\rightarrow\Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\stree)$.
We also have $h_k(\underline{\sigma}\otimes\underline{1}) = \underline{1}^{\otimes k}$ and $h_k(\underline{\sigma}\otimes\underline{0}) = \underline{\sigma}$, for each $k\geq 0$,
and these identities give the relations $\eta\circ\epsilon = h(-\otimes\underline{1})$ and $\id = h(-\otimes\underline{0})$
at the coend level.
This verification completes the proof of the first assertion of the proposition, while an immediate inspection gives the verification of the second assertion.
\end{proof}
This proposition has the following corollary, which we use in our verification that the homotopy Kan construction returns Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf pre-cooperads
that satisfy the Segal condition.
\begin{cor}\label{cor:Segal-condition-tree-square}
The Segal map of Construction~\ref{construction:W-homotopy} defines weak-equivalence of dg modules
\begin{equation*}
i_{\lambda_{\utree}(\sigmatree_*)}: \Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\stree)\rightarrow\bigotimes_{u\in V(\utree)}\Tree^{\square}(\thetatree_u,\sigmatree_u),
\end{equation*}
for every tree decomposition $\stree = \lambda_{\utree}(\sigmatree_*)$, where we again set $\thetatree_u = f^{-1}(\sigmatree_u)$, for all factors $\sigmatree_u\subset\stree$.\qed
\end{cor}
We can reformulate the definition of the structure operators of homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf shuffle pre-cooperads in terms of the category $\Tree^{\square}$.
We get the following result, which follows from formal verifications.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:dg-category-trees}
Let $\AOp$ be a connected homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf shuffle pre-cooperad (either symmetric or shuffle).
The objects $\AOp(\ttree)$, $\ttree\in\Tree(r)$, $r>0$, inherit an action of the enriched category $\Tree^{\square}$,
given by operators
\begin{equation*}
\rho: \AOp(\stree)\otimes\Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\stree)\rightarrow\AOp(\ttree),
\end{equation*}
defined in the category of dg modules, and which preserve the action of the facet operators in some natural sense (as well as the action of permutations in the symmetric setting).
The homotopy coproduct operators $\rho_{\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree}$
are identified with the adjoint morphisms
of the maps
\begin{multline*}
\AOp(\stree)\otimes[\ttree\rightarrow\ttree_k\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_1\rightarrow\stree]\otimes\DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k}\\
\rightarrow\AOp(\stree)\otimes\underbrace{\int^{\underline{k+2}\in\CubeCat}\kk[\NCat(\ttree,\stree)_k]\otimes\DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k}}_{\Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\stree)}
\rightarrow\AOp(\ttree),
\end{multline*}
which we determine from this action.\qed
\end{prop}
In the case where $\AOp$ is a strict Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf shuffle pre-cooperad, we may see that the action of the enriched category $\Tree^{\square}$
defined in this proposition factors through an action of the category enriched in cocommutative coalgebras $\Tree$ (which satisfies the same properties).
Thus we just retrieve the obvious functor structure of the object $\AOp$
in this case.
\medskip
We now tackle the definition of our homotopy Kan construction. We have to dualize the structure operations attached to the category $\Tree^{\square}$.
For this purpose, we use the following observation.
\begin{lemm}\label{lemma:finite-generated-tree-square}
The dg hom-object $\Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\stree)$ forms a free module of finite rank over the ground ring $\kk$, for all trees $\ttree,\stree\in\widetilde{\Tree}(r)$, $r>0$.
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}
Each element of our coend has a unique representative as a (linear combination) of tensors
of the form
\begin{equation*}
[\ttree\xrightarrow{\not=}\ttree_k\xrightarrow{\not=}\dots\xrightarrow{\not=}\ttree_1\xrightarrow{\not=}\stree]\otimes\underline{\sigma}
\in\kk[\NCat(\ttree,\stree)_k]\otimes\mathring{\DGN}_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes k},
\end{equation*}
where $\mathring{\DGN}_*(\Delta^1) = \kk\underline{0}\oplus\kk\underline{01}$. Then we just use that the set of sequences of composable morphisms
of the form $\ttree\xrightarrow{\not=}\ttree_k\xrightarrow{\not=}\dots\xrightarrow{\not=}\ttree_1\xrightarrow{\not=}\stree$, $k\geq 0$,
is finite,
because each tree $\ttree_i$ is given by the contraction of a subset of inner edges $e\in\mathring{E}(\ttree)$,
which are in finite number.
\end{proof}
We can now define the two-sided cobar complex which underlies our homotopy Kan construction $\DGK^c(\AOp)$.
We address this construction in the next paragraph.
\begin{constr}\label{constr:two-sided-cobar}
We use the statement of the previous lemma to dualize the structure operations associated to the enriched category $\Tree^{\square}$.
For a pair of trees $\stree,\ttree\in\Tree(r)$, $r>0$, we let $\Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\stree)^{\sharp}$
denote the dual $\EOp$-algebra
of the $\EOp$-coalgebra $\Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\stree)$.
The composition operations of the enriched category $\Tree^{\square}$ induce a coproduct map
\begin{align*}
\gamma^*: \Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\stree)^{\sharp}
& \rightarrow\prod_{\ttree\rightarrow\utree\rightarrow\stree}\Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\utree)^{\sharp}\otimes\Tree^{\square}(\utree,\stree)^{\sharp},
\intertext{which also forms a morphism of $\EOp$-algebras. We also have an augmentation map}
\eta^*: \Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\stree)^{\sharp} & \rightarrow\kk,
\end{align*}
which we take as the identity in the case $\ttree = \stree$, as the zero map in the case $\ttree\not=\stree$.
The facet operators induce $\EOp$-algebra morphisms
\begin{equation*}
i_{\sigmatree,\stree}: \Tree^{\square}(\thetatree,\sigmatree)^{\sharp}\rightarrow\Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\stree)^{\sharp},
\end{equation*}
which preserve the above coproduct and counit operations. Note that the cartesian product in the definition of the operation $\gamma^*$ reduces to a direct sum,
since every morphism $\ttree\rightarrow\stree$ admits finitely many factorizations $\ttree\rightarrow\utree\rightarrow\stree$.
In the symmetric setting, we also consider $\EOp$-algebra morphisms
\begin{equation*}
s^*: \Tree^{\square}(s\ttree,s\stree)^{\sharp}\rightarrow\Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\stree)^{\sharp}
\end{equation*}
given by the action of permutations $s\in\Sigma_r$.
For a homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperad, the operations of Proposition~\ref{prop:dg-category-trees}
dualize to $\EOp$-algebra morphisms
\begin{equation*}
\rho^*: \AOp(\stree)\rightarrow\prod_{\ttree\rightarrow\stree}\AOp(\ttree)\otimes\Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\stree)^{\sharp},
\end{equation*}
which we can also identify with an end of the homotopy coproducts attached to our object by the adjoint definition
of these operations in our Proposition~\ref{prop:dg-category-trees} (we again use a variant of the observations
of the previous lemma to obtain that the tensor product with $\AOp(\ttree)$
distributes over this end).
These morphisms are coassociative and counital with respect to the coproduct and counit operations of the objects $\Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\stree)^{\sharp}$,
commute with the action of the facet operators on our homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperad
and on the objects $\Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\stree)^{\sharp}$ (and commute with the action of permutations in the symmetric setting).
We then let $\FOp_{\stree}(\ttree)\in\EAlg$ be a collection of $\EOp$-algebras, defined for any fixed tree $\stree\in\widetilde{\Tree}(r)$, for all $\ttree\in\widetilde{\Tree}(r)/\stree$,
and equipped with coproduct operations
\begin{equation*}
\gamma^*: \FOp_{\stree}(\ttree)\rightarrow\prod_{\ttree\rightarrow\utree\rightarrow\stree}\Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\utree)^{\sharp}\otimes\FOp_{\stree}(\utree),
\end{equation*}
defined in the category of $\EOp$-algebras, and which are again coassociative and counital with respect to the coproduct and counit operations
of the objects $\Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\stree)^{\sharp}$.
We assume that this collection defines a functor in the tree $\stree$ when $\stree$ varies
and that we have facet operators
\begin{equation*}
i_{\sigmatree,\stree}: \FOp_{\sigmatree}(\thetatree)\rightarrow\FOp_{\stree}(\ttree),
\end{equation*}
associated to all subtrees $\sigmatree\subset\stree$, with $\thetatree = f^{-1}(\sigmatree)$, the pre-image of $\sigmatree$ under the morphism $f: \ttree\rightarrow\stree$,
which again satisfy natural functoriality relations and are compatible with the coproduct operations.
In the symmetric setting, we also assume that we have an action of the permutations $s^*: \FOp_{s\stree}(s\ttree)\rightarrow\FOp_{\stree}(\ttree)$,
which is compatible with the structure operations
attached to our collection.
In what follows, we consider the cases $\FOp_{\stree}(\ttree) = \Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\stree)^{\sharp}$ and $\FOp_{\stree}(\ttree) = \Tree(\ttree,\stree)^{\sharp}$,
where in the latter case $\Tree(\ttree,\stree)^{\sharp}$ denotes the commutative algebra of functions $u: \Tree(\ttree,\stree)\rightarrow\kk$
on the morphism sets of the tree category $\Tree(\ttree,\stree)$.
For each $n\in\NN$, we set
\begin{multline*}
\DGK^n(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\FOp_{\stree})\\
= \prod_{\ttree_n\rightarrow\cdots\rightarrow\ttree_0\rightarrow\stree}
\AOp(\ttree_n)\otimes\Tree^{\square}(\ttree_n,\ttree_{n-1})^{\sharp}\otimes\dots\otimes\Tree^{\square}(\ttree_1,\ttree_0)^{\sharp}\otimes\FOp_{\stree}(\ttree_0),
\end{multline*}
and we equip this object with the coface operators $d^i: \DGK^{n-1}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\FOp_{\stree})\rightarrow\DGK^n(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\FOp_{\stree})$
defined termwise by the maps such that
\begin{align*}
d^i & = \begin{cases}
\id\otimes\id^{\otimes n-1}\otimes\gamma^*, & \text{for $i = 0$}, \\
\id\otimes\id^{\otimes n-i-1}\otimes\gamma^*\otimes\id^{\otimes i-1}\otimes\id, & \text{for $i = 1,\dots,n-1$}, \\
\rho^*\otimes\id^{\otimes n-1}\otimes\id, & \text{for $i = n$},
\end{cases}
\intertext{and with the codegeneracies $s^j: \DGK^{n+1}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\FOp_{\stree})\rightarrow\DGK^n(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\FOp_{\stree})$
defined termwise by the maps}
s^j & = \id\otimes\id^{\otimes n-j}\otimes\eta^*\otimes\id^{\otimes j}\otimes\id\quad\text{for $j = 0,\dots,n$}.
\end{align*}
We easily check that this definition returns a cosimplicial object in the category of $\EOp$-algebras.
We also have facet operators
\begin{equation*}
i_{\sigmatree,\stree}: \DGK^{\bullet}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\FOp_{\sigmatree})\rightarrow\DGK^{\bullet}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\FOp_{\stree}),
\end{equation*}
compatible with the cosimplicial structure, and defined by the termwise tensor products of facet operators
\begin{multline*}
i_{\thetatree_n,\ttree_n}\otimes i_{\thetatree_{n-1},\ttree_{n-1}}\otimes\dots\otimes i_{\thetatree_0,\ttree_0}\otimes i_{\sigmatree,\stree}:\\
\AOp(\thetatree_n)\otimes\Tree^{\square}(\thetatree_n,\thetatree_{n-1})^{\sharp}\otimes\dots\otimes\Tree^{\square}(\thetatree_1,\thetatree_0)^{\sharp}\otimes\FOp_{\stree}(\thetatree_0)\\
\rightarrow\AOp(\ttree_n)\otimes\Tree^{\square}(\ttree_n,\ttree_{n-1})^{\sharp}\otimes\dots\otimes\Tree^{\square}(\ttree_1,\ttree_0)^{\sharp}\otimes\FOp_{\stree}(\ttree_0),
\end{multline*}
where $\thetatree_i = (f_0\cdots f_i)^{-1}(\sigmatree)$, $i = 0,\dots,n$, denotes the pre-image of the subtree $\sigmatree\subset\stree$
under the composite of the tree morphisms $\ttree_i\xrightarrow{f_i}\cdots\xrightarrow{f_1}\ttree_0\xrightarrow{f_0}\stree$.
In the symmetric setting, we still consider an action of permutations
\begin{equation*}
s^*: \DGK^{\bullet}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\FOp_{s\stree})\rightarrow\DGK^{\bullet}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\FOp_{\stree}),
\end{equation*}
defined again by an obvious termwise construction, and compatible with the facet operators.
\end{constr}
We record the outcome of the previous construction in the next proposition.
\begin{prop}\label{proposition:cosimplicial-B}
The construction of the previous paragraph returns a collection of cosimplicial $\EOp$-algebras
\begin{equation*}
\DGK^{\bullet}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\FOp_{\stree})\in\EAlg,\quad\stree\in\widetilde{\Tree}(r),\quad r>0,
\end{equation*}
equipped with compatible facet operators $i_{\sigmatree,\stree}: \DGK^{\bullet}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\FOp_{\stree})\rightarrow\DGK^{\bullet}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\FOp_{\stree})$,
which satisfy the usual functoriality relations.
If the homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperad $\AOp$ is symmetric and $\FOp_{\stree}(-)$ is endowed with a symmetric structure as well,
then we also have an action of permutations on our objects $s^*: \DGK^{\bullet}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\FOp_{s\stree})\rightarrow\DGK^{\bullet}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\FOp_{\stree})$
compatible with the cosimplicial structure and with the facet operators.
\qed
\end{prop}
In the case of a decomposition $\stree = \lambda_{\utree}(\sigmatree_u,u\in V(\utree))$, we can assemble the facet operators
$i_{\sigma_u,\stree}: \FOp_{\sigmatree_u}(\thetatree_u)\rightarrow\FOp_{\stree}(\ttree)$
associated to a bicollection of $\EOp$-algebras $\FOp_{\stree}(\ttree)\in\EAlg$
as in Construction~\ref{constr:two-sided-cobar}
into a Segal map
\begin{equation*}
i_{\lambda_{\utree}(\sigmatree_*)}: \bigvee_{u\in V(\utree)}\FOp_{\sigmatree_u}(\thetatree_u)\rightarrow\FOp_{\stree}(\ttree),
\end{equation*}
and we can define a Segal map similarly on our cosimplicial object $\DGK^{\bullet}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\FOp_{\stree})$.
We say that our bicollection $\FOp_{\stree}(\ttree)\in\EAlg$ satisfies the Segal condition when the above Segal map is a weak-equivalence.
We have the following statement.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:cosimplicial-Segal}
If $\AOp$ is a homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperad and hence satisfies the Segal condition, and if the bicollection $\FOp_{\stree}(\ttree)\in\EAlg$ satisfies the Segal condition as well,
then the Segal maps that we associate to our cosimplicial object $\DGK^{\bullet}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\FOp_{\stree})$
define levelwise weak-equivalences of cosimplicial $\EOp$-algebras
\begin{equation*}
i_{\lambda_{\utree}(\sigmatree_*)}: \bigvee_{u\in V(\utree)}\DGK^{\bullet}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\FOp_{\sigmatree_u})\xrightarrow{\sim}\DGK^{\bullet}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\FOp_{\stree}),
\end{equation*}
for all tree decomposition $\stree = \lambda_{\utree}(\sigmatree_u,u\in V(\utree))$,
so that $\DGK^{\bullet}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\FOp_{\stree})$ also satisfies a form of our Segal condition levelwise.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The Segal maps of the proposition are given, on each term of the cosimplicial object $\DGK^{\bullet}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\FOp_{\stree})$, by expressions of the form
\begin{multline*}
\bigvee_{u\in V(\utree)}
\biggl(\AOp(\thetatree_n^u)\otimes\cdots\otimes\Tree^{\square}(\thetatree_i^u,\thetatree_{i-1}^u)^{\sharp}\otimes\cdots\otimes\FOp_{\stree}(\thetatree_0^u)\biggr)\\
\rightarrow\AOp(\ttree_n)\otimes\cdots\otimes\Tree^{\square}(\ttree_i,\ttree_{i-1})^{\sharp}\otimes\cdots\otimes\FOp_{\stree}(\ttree_0),
\end{multline*}
where $\thetatree_i^u$ denote the pre-images of the subtree $\sigmatree\subset\stree$ under the tree morphisms $\ttree_i\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\ttree_0\rightarrow\stree$
and we take a tensor product of facet operators
on each factor. We compose this map with the Eilenberg--MacLane map to pass from the coproduct $\bigvee_{u\in V(\utree)}$
to a tensor product $\bigotimes_{u\in V(\utree)}$ (as in Proposition~\ref{proposition:forgetful-strict}).
We have an obvious commutative diagram which enables us to identify the obtained Segal map
with a tensor product of the form:
\begin{multline*}
\biggl(\bigotimes_{u\in V(\utree)}\AOp(\thetatree_n^u)\biggr)
\otimes\cdots\otimes\biggl(\bigotimes_{u\in V(\utree)}\Tree^{\square}(\thetatree_i^u,\thetatree_{i-1}^u)^{\sharp}\biggr)\otimes\cdots
\otimes\biggl(\bigotimes_{u\in V(\utree)}\FOp_{\stree}(\thetatree_0^u)\biggr)\\
\rightarrow\AOp(\ttree_n)\otimes\cdots\otimes\Tree^{\square}(\ttree_i,\ttree_{i-1})^{\sharp}\otimes\cdots\otimes\FOp_{\stree}(\ttree_0),
\end{multline*}
where we take a factorwise tensor product of Segal maps associated to the objects $\AOp(-)$, $\Tree^{\square}(-,-)^{\sharp}$ and $\FOp_{\stree}(-)$.
In the case of the objects $\Tree^{\square}(-,-)^{\sharp}$, we retrieve the dual of the Segal maps
considered in Corollary~\ref{cor:Segal-condition-tree-square}.
These Segal maps are weak-equivalences therefore, like the Segal maps associated to the objects $\AOp(-)$ and $\FOp_{\stree}(-)$ by assumption.
The conclusion follows.
\end{proof}
We now focus on the cases $\FOp_{\stree}(-) = \Tree^{\square}(-,\stree)^{\sharp},\Tree(-,\stree)^{\sharp}$. The coproduct operation on $\Tree^{\square}(-,-){\sharp}$,
such as defined in Construction~\ref{constr:two-sided-cobar},
gives a natural transformation $\Tree^{\square}(-,\stree)^{\sharp}\rightarrow\Tree^{\square}(-,\ttree)^{\sharp}\otimes\Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\stree)^{\sharp}$,
which passes to our cosimplicial object, by functoriality of our construction, and yields a morphism of cosimplicial $\EOp$-algebras
\begin{equation*}
\rho^*: \DGK^{\bullet}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\Tree^{\square}(-,\stree)^{\sharp})
\rightarrow\DGK^{\bullet}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\Tree^{\square}(-,\ttree)^{\sharp})\otimes\Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\stree)^{\sharp},
\end{equation*}
for every pair of objects $\stree,\ttree\in\widetilde{\Tree}(r)$, $r>0$.
In the case $\FOp_{\stree}(-) = \Tree(-,\stree)^{\sharp}$, we similarly get morphisms of cosimplicial $\EOp$-algebras
of the form
\begin{equation*}
\rho^*: \DGK^{\bullet}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\Tree(-,\stree)^{\sharp})\rightarrow\DGK^{\bullet}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\Tree(-,\ttree)^{\sharp})\otimes\Tree(\ttree,\stree)^{\sharp}.
\end{equation*}
Note that the map $\Tree^{\square}(-,-)\rightarrow\Tree(-,-)$ of Proposition~\ref{lemma:tree-square-contractible}
induces a natural transformation in the converse direction between these cosimplicial objects $\DGK^{\bullet}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\FOp_{\stree})$
that we associate to $\FOp_{\stree}(-) = \Tree^{\square}(-,\stree)^{\sharp}$ and to $\FOp_{\stree}(-) = \Tree(-,\stree)^{\sharp}$.
We then have the following result.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:cosimplicial-cooperad-B}
\begin{enumerate}
\item
The above coproduct operations provide the collection of cosimplicial $\EOp$-algebras
\begin{equation*}
\DGK^{\bullet}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\Tree^{\square}(-,\stree)^{\sharp})\in\cosimp\EAlg,\quad\stree\in\widetilde{\Tree}(r),\quad r>0,
\end{equation*}
with the coproduct operators of a homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf pre-cooperad structure.
These coproduct operators are compatible with the facet operators and hence $\DGK^{\bullet}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\Tree^{\square}(-,\stree)^{\sharp})$
forms a cosimplicial object in the category of homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads (shuffle or symmetric when $\AOp$ is so).
\item
In the case of the cosimplicial object $\DGK^{\bullet}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\Tree(-,\stree)^{\sharp})$,
we similarly obtain a strict Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf pre-cooperad structure
compatible with the cosimplicial structure
on $\DGK^{\bullet}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\Tree(-,\stree)^{\sharp})$.
Furthermore, the natural transformations $\Tree(-,\stree)^{\sharp}\rightarrow\Tree^{\square}(-,\stree)^{\sharp}$
induce levelwise weak-equivalences of cosimplicial $\EOp$-algebras
\begin{equation*}
\DGK^{\bullet}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\Tree(-,\stree)^{\sharp})\xrightarrow{\sim}\DGK^{\bullet}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\Tree^{\square}(-,\stree)^{\sharp}),
\end{equation*}
which preserve the homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf pre-cooperad structures, and hence, define a levelwise weak-equivalence
of cosimplicial objects in the category of homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf pre-cooperads.
\item
Both objects $\DGK^{\bullet}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\Tree^{\square}(-,\stree)^{\sharp})$ and $\DGK^{\bullet}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\Tree(-,\stree)^{\sharp})$
also satisfy the Segal condition levelwise, and hence define (homotopy) Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads
when $\AOp$ does so.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The first assertion is an immediate consequence of the functoriality properties of our construction.
In the second assertion, we use that the natural transformation $\Tree^{\square}(-,\stree)^{\sharp}\rightarrow\Tree(-,\stree)^{\sharp}$
is dual to the augmentation map of Proposition~\ref{lemma:tree-square-contractible},
which is a weak-equivalence by the result of this proposition.
The third assertion follows from the result of Proposition~\ref{prop:cosimplicial-Segal}
since Corollary~\ref{cor:Segal-condition-tree-square} implies that the bicollection $\FOp_{\stree}(\ttree) = \Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\stree)^{\sharp}$
satisfies the Segal condition and this is also obviously the case of the bicollection $\FOp_{\stree}(\ttree) = \Tree(\ttree,\stree)^{\sharp}$.
\end{proof}
We use a totalization functor to transform the cosimplicial (homotopy) Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads
of the previous proposition into ordinary (homotopy) Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads
in dg modules.
\begin{constr}\label{definition:corealization}
Let $R^{\bullet}$ be a cosimplicial object of the category of $\EOp$-algebras. We set
\begin{equation*}
\DGN^*(R^{\bullet}) = \int_n R^n\otimes\DGN^*(\Delta^n),
\end{equation*}
and we equip this object with the $\EOp$-algebra structure induced by the diagonal $\EOp$-algebra structure on $R^n\otimes\DGN^*(\Delta^n)$ termwise.
If we forget about $\EOp$-algebra structures, then we can identify this object with the conormalized complex of cosimplicial dg modules
(see for instance~\cite[\S II.5.0.12 and \S II.9.4.6]{FresseBook}),
and as such, this functor carries the levelwise weak-equivalences of cosimplicial objects
to weak-equivalences in the category of dg modules.
For a cosimplicial connected (homotopy) $E_\infty$-Hopf pre-cooperad $\KOp^{\bullet}$, the collection $\DGN^*(\KOp^{\bullet}(\stree))$,
which we obtain by applying this conormalized complex functor termwise,
also inherits the structure of a (homotopy) $E_\infty$-Hopf pre-cooperad (shuffle or symmetric when $\KOp^{\bullet}$ is so)
by functoriality of our conormalized complex construction.
\end{constr}
We use the following lemma.
\begin{lemm} \label{lemma:cosimplicial-quasi-iso}
Let $R^{\bullet}$ and $S^{\bullet}$ be cosimplicial $\EOp$-algebras. The $\EOp$-algebra morphism $\DGN^*(R^{\bullet})\vee\DGN^*(S^{\bullet})\rightarrow\DGN^*(R^{\bullet}\vee S^{\bullet})$
induced by the canonical morphisms $R^{\bullet}\rightarrow R^{\bullet}\vee S^{\bullet}$ and $S^{\bullet}\rightarrow R^{\bullet}\vee S^{\bullet}$
is a weak-equivalence.
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}
We have a commutative diagram
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrixcolsep{5pc}\xymatrix{ \DGN^*(R^{\bullet})\vee\DGN^*(S^{\bullet})\ar[r] &
\DGN^*(R^{\bullet}\vee S^{\bullet}) \\
\DGN^*(R^{\bullet})\otimes\DGN^*(S^{\bullet})\ar[r]^{\AW}\ar[u]^{\EM} &
\DGN^*(R^{\bullet}\otimes S^{\bullet})\ar[u]_{\DGN^*(\EM)}
},
\end{equation*}
where the vertical maps are given by the natural transformations between the tensor product and the coproduct in the category of $\EOp$-algebras,
such as defined in Construction~\ref{constr:Barratt-Eccles-diagonal},
and the bottom horizontal map $\AW$ is the generalization of the Alexander--Whitney diagonal
for the conormalized cochain complex of cosimplicial dg modules.
In the case of cosimplicial dg algebras, this map $\AW$ is used to represent a product operation.
The vertical maps $\EM$ also identifies tensor products with associative products in the coproduct of $\EOp$-algebras
by the definition of Construction~\ref{constr:Barratt-Eccles-diagonal}. The commutativity of the diagram
readily follows from this interpretation of our maps.
The vertical maps are weak-equivalences by Proposition~\ref{claim:Barratt-Eccles-algebra-coproducts}.
The bottom horizontal map is also a weak-equivalence (by the general theory of the Eilenberg--Zilber equivalence).
Therefore the map of the proposition, which represents the upper horizontal map
of our diagram, is also a weak-equivalence.
\end{proof}
This lemma has the following immediate consequence.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:totalization-Segal-cooperads}
If $\ROp^{\bullet}$ is a cosimplicial (homotopy) Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf pre-cooperad that satisfies the Segal condition levelwise,
then $\DGN^*(\ROp^{\bullet})$ satisfies the Segal condition as well, and hence forms a (homotopy) Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperad
in the category of dg modules.\qed
\end{prop}
Then we have the following statement.
\begin{prop}
Let $\AOp$ be connected homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperad (shuffle or symmetric).
\begin{enumerate}
\item
The objects $\DGN^*(\DGK^{\bullet}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\Tree^{\square}))$ and $\DGN^*(\DGK^{\bullet}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\Tree))$,
defined by taking the totalization of the cosimplicial (homotopy) Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads
of Proposition~\ref{prop:cosimplicial-cooperad-B},
respectively form a homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperad and a strict homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperad (which are shuffle or symmetric when $\AOp$ is so).
The levelwise weak-equivalence of Proposition~\ref{prop:cosimplicial-cooperad-B}
induces a weak-equivalence of homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads
\begin{equation*}
\DGN^*(\DGK^{\bullet}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\Tree(-,\stree)^{\sharp}))\xrightarrow{\sim}\DGN^*(\DGK^{\bullet}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\Tree^{\square}(-,\stree)^{\sharp})),
\end{equation*}
when we pass to this totalization.
\item
Furthermore, we have a weak-equivalence of homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads (shuffle or symmetric)
\begin{equation*}
\AOp(\stree)\xrightarrow{\sim}\DGN^*(\DGK^{\bullet}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\Tree^{\square}(-,\stree)^{\sharp})).
\end{equation*}
This weak-equivalence is natural in $\AOp$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The first assertion of the proposition immediately follows from the statements of Proposition~\ref{prop:cosimplicial-cooperad-B}
and from the result of Proposition~\ref{prop:totalization-Segal-cooperads}.
Thus, we focus on the proof of the second assertion.
We define our natural transformation first.
We use that the coproduct map $\rho^*: \AOp(\stree)\rightarrow\prod_{\ttree\rightarrow\stree}\AOp(\ttree)\otimes\Tree^{\square}(\ttree,\stree)^{\sharp}$
which we associate to our object in Construction~\ref{constr:two-sided-cobar}
defines a coaugmentation over the cosimplicial object $\DGK^{\bullet}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\Tree^{\square}(-,\stree)^{\sharp})$,
or equivalently, a morphism
\begin{equation*}
\eta: \AOp\rightarrow\DGK^{\bullet}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\Tree^{\square}(-,\stree)^{\sharp}),
\end{equation*}
where we regard $\AOp$ as a constant cosimplicial object (see~\cite[\S II.5.4]{FresseBook} for an account of these concepts).
We immediately see that this morphism is compatible with the coproduct operators, with the facets (and with the action of permutations whenever defined),
and hence, defines a morphism of cosimplicial homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads (shuffle or symmetric)
which yields a morphism of homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads in dg modules of the form of the proposition
when we pass to conormalized cochain complexes (we just use that we have $\DGN^*(\AOp) = \AOp$
in the case of the constant cosimplicial object $\AOp$).
The weak-equivalence claim follows from the observation that, in the case $F_{\stree}(-) = \Tree^{\square}(-,\stree)^{\sharp}$,
the cosimplicial object $\DGK^{\bullet}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\Tree^{\square}(-,\stree)^{\sharp})$
is endowed with an extra codegeneracy $s^{-1}$,
which is defined by extending the definition of Construction~\ref{constr:two-sided-cobar}
to the case $j=-1$:
\begin{equation*}
s^{-1} = \id\otimes\id^{\otimes n+1}\otimes\eta^*.
\end{equation*}
(We again refer to~\cite[\S II.5.4]{FresseBook} for a proof that the existence of this extra codegeneracy forces the contractibility of the conormalized cochain complex
in the cosimplicial direction, and hence, forces the acyclicity of our map.)
This observation finishes the proof of the proposition.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{theorem:strictification}]
We can now conclude the proof of Theorem~\ref{theorem:strictification}. The results of the previous proposition
returns a zigzag of weak-equivalences of homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperads (shuffle or symmetric)
\begin{equation*}
\AOp(\stree)\xrightarrow{\sim}\DGN^*(\DGK^{\bullet}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\Tree^{\square}(-,\stree)))
\xleftarrow{\sim}\DGN^*(\DGK^{\bullet}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\Tree(-,\stree)^{\sharp})),
\end{equation*}
from which the result follows since the Segal $E_\infty$-Hopf cooperad
\begin{equation*}
\DGK^c(\AOp)(\stree) = \DGN^*(\DGK^{\bullet}(\AOp,\Tree^{\square},\Tree(-,\stree)^{\sharp}))
\end{equation*}
is strict by construction.
\end{proof}
\begin{appendix}
\renewcommand{\thesubsubsection}{\thesection.\arabic{subsubsection}}
\section{The Barratt--Eccles operad and $E_\infty$-algebras}\label{sec:Barratt-Eccles-operad}
The purpose of this appendix is to prove the results on the category of algebras over the Barratt--Eccles operad that we use throughout this article.
In preliminary paragraphs, we briefly review the definition of the chain Barratt--Eccles operad
and the definition of the associated category of $E_\infty$-algebras. We mostly follow the conventions of~\cite{BergerFresse} for the definition of this operad
and we refer to this article for more detailed explanations
on this subject. We also briefly explain our conventions and basic definitions on permutations.
We devote the next paragraph to this subject.
In~\S\ref{section:background}, we recall the definition of a cooperad without counit and we also forget about counits in the definition
of the notions of Segal cooperad that we consider all along this paper. But the Barratt--Eccles operad is more naturally defined as a unital operad.
Therefore we go back to the usual definition of an operad with unit in this appendix. Similarly, as the Barratt--Eccles operad naturally forms a symmetric operad,
we consider composition products in the standard form $\circ_i: \EOp(k)\otimes\EOp(l)\rightarrow\EOp(k+l-1)$
in this appendix, and not the general operations $\circ_{i_p}: \EOp(\{i_1<\dots<i_k\})\otimes\EOp(\{j_1<\dots<j_l\})\rightarrow\EOp(\{1<\dots<r\})$,
since we can deduce the latter from the former by the action of a shuffle permutation
on the Barratt--Eccles operad (see~\S\ref{subsection:shuffle-cooperads}).
\begin{recoll}[Conventions on permutations and the associative operad]\label{recoll:permutations}
We denote the symmetric group on $r$ letters by $\Sigma_r$.
We represent a permutation $s\in\Sigma_r$ by giving the sequence of its values
\begin{equation*}
s = (s(1),\dots,s(r)).
\end{equation*}
We use that the collection of the symmetric groups $\Sigma_r$, $r\in\NN$, form an operad in sets.
The symmetric structure of this operad is given by the left translation action.
The operadic composition $u\circ_i v\in\Sigma_{k+l-1}$ of permutations $u\in\Sigma_k$ and $v\in\Sigma_l$
is obtained by inserting the sequence of values of the permutation $v = (v(1),\dots,v(l))$
at the position of the value $i\in\{1,\dots,k\}$
in the permutation $u = (u(1),\dots,u(k))$,
by performing the value shift $v(y)\mapsto v(y) + i-1$
on the terms of the permutation $v$
and the shift $u(x)\mapsto u(x) + l-1$ on the terms of the permutation $u$ such that $u(x)>i$.
Thus, we have
\begin{equation*}
(u(1),\dots,u(k))\circ_i(v(1),\dots,v(l)) = (u(1)',\dots,\underbrace{v(1)',\dots,v(l)'}_{u(t)},\dots,u(k)'),
\end{equation*}
where $t$ is the position of the value $i$ in the sequence $(u(1),\dots,u(k))$, while $v(y)'$ and $u(x)'$ denote the result of our shift operations
so that we have $v(y)' = v(y) + i-1$, for all terms $v(y)$, we have $u(x)' = u(x)$ when $u(x)<i$
and $u(x)' = u(x) + l-1$ when $u(x)>i$.
This operad in sets governs the category of associative monoids. In our constructions, we also use a counterpart of this operad in our base category of modules.
This associative operad $\AsOp$ is defined by taking the modules spanned by the sets of permutations $\AsOp(r) = \kk[\Sigma_r]$, for $r\in\NN$,
with the induced structure operations.
In what follows, we generally identify a permutation $s\in\Sigma_r$ with the associated basis element in $\AsOp(r)$.
We also use the notation $\mu\in\AsOp(2)$ for the element of the associative operad given by the identity permutation on $2$ letters $\mu = \id_2\in\Sigma_2$,
which governs the product operation when we pass to associative algebras.
We trivially have $\AsOp(0) = \kk$ and we can identify the element given by the trivial permutation $* = \id_0\in\Sigma_0$ with an arity zero operation
which represents a unit for this product structure.
\end{recoll}
\begin{recoll}[The Barratt--Eccles operad and $E_\infty$-algebra structures]\label{recoll:Barratt-Eccles-operad}
The chain Barratt--Eccles operad $\EOp$ is defined by the normalized chain complexes of the homogeneous bar construction
of the symmetric groups.
Thus, we have:
\begin{equation*}
\EOp(r) = \DGN_*(W(\Sigma_r)),
\end{equation*}
for each arity $r\in\NN$, where $W(\Sigma_r)$ denotes the simplicial such that
\begin{equation*}
W(\Sigma_r)_n = \underbrace{\Sigma_r\times\dots\times\Sigma_r}_{n+1},
\end{equation*}
for each dimension $n$, together with the face and degeneracy operators such that
\begin{align*}
d_i(w_0,\dots,w_n) & = (w_0,\dots,\widehat{w_i},\dots,w_n), \\
s_j(w_0,\dots,w_n) & = (w_0,\dots,w_j,w_j,\dots,w_n),
\end{align*}
for any $(w_0,\dots,w_n)\in W(\Sigma_r)_n$.
For simplicity, we do not make any distinction between a simplex $(w_0,\dots,w_n)\in W(\Sigma_r)$
and the class of this simplex in the normalized chain complex $\EOp(r) = \DGN_*(W(\Sigma_r))$
in our notation. We just get $(w_0,\dots,w_j,w_j,\dots,w_n)\equiv 0$ for the degenerate simplices when we pass to the normalized chain complex.
The differential of simplices in $\EOp(r)$
is given by the usual formula:
\begin{equation*}
\delta(w_0,\dots,w_n) = \sum_{i=0}^n (-1)^i(w_0,\dots,\widehat{w_i},\dots,w_n).
\end{equation*}
The action of the symmetric group $\Sigma_r$ on $\EOp(r)$ is induced by the left translation action of permutations
on these simplices. We explicitly have:
\begin{equation*}
s\cdot(w_0,\dots,w_n) = (s w_0,\dots,s w_n),
\end{equation*}
for each permutation $s\in\Sigma_r$.
The operadic composition operations $\circ_i: \EOp(k)\otimes\EOp(l)\rightarrow\EOp(k+l-1)$ are given by the composite of a termwise application
of operadic composition operations on permutations with the Eilenberg--MacLane map
when we pass to normalized chains. For $(u_0,\dots,u_m)\in\EOp(k)$ and $(v_0,\dots,v_n)\in\EOp(l)$,
we explicitly have:
\begin{equation*}
(u_0,\dots,u_m)\circ_i(v_0,\dots,v_n) = \sum_{(i_*,j_*)}\pm(u_{i_0}\circ_i v_{j_0},\dots,u_{i_{m+n}}\circ_i v_{j_{m+n}}),
\end{equation*}
where the sum runs over the set of paths $\{(i_t,j_t),t=0,\dots,m+n\}$ which start at $(i_0,j_0) = (0,0)$ and end at $(i_{m+n},j_{m+n}) = (m,n)$
in an $m\times n$ cartesian diagram, the expression $\pm$ denotes a sign which we associate to any such path,
and along our paths, we take the operadic composites $u_{i_t}\circ_i v_{j_t}\in\Sigma_{k+l-1}$
of the permutations $u_{i_t}\in\Sigma_k$ and $v_{j_t}\in\Sigma_l$.
(The sign $\pm$ is determined by the shuffle of horizontal and vertical moves which we use when we form our path.)
For convenience, we may also represent such a composite by a picture
of the following form:
\begin{equation*}
(u_0,\dots,u_m)\circ_i(v_0,\dots,v_n) = \sum\pm\left(\vcenter{\xymatrix@R=2mm@C=3mm{ u_0\circ_i v_0\ar@{-}[d]\ar@{-}[r] &
u_1\circ_i v_0\ar@{-}[d]\ar@{-}[r] &
*{\cdots}\ar@{-}[r] &
u_m\circ_i v_0\ar@{-}[d] \\
u_0\circ_i v_1\ar@{-}[d]\ar@{-}[r] &
u_1\circ_i v_1\ar@{-}[d]\ar@{-}[r] &
*{\cdots}\ar@{-}[r] &
u_m\circ_i v_1\ar@{-}[d] \\
*{\vdots}\ar@{-}[d] & *{\vdots}\ar@{-}[d] & & *{\vdots}\ar@{-}[d] \\
u_0\circ_i v_n\ar@{-}[r] &
u_1\circ_i v_n\ar@{-}[r] &
*{\cdots}\ar@{-}[r] &
u_m\circ_i v_n }}\right),
\end{equation*}
where we take the sum of the simplices that we may form by running over all paths contained in the diagram materialized in our figure. (To be fully explicit, we take the paths
which go from the upper-left corner to the lower-right corner of the diagram
by a shuffle of horizontal moves $\xymatrix@R=2mm@C=3mm{u_x\circ_i v_y\ar@{-}[r] & u_{x+1}\circ_i v_y }$
and of vertical moves $\xymatrix@R=2mm@C=3mm{u_x\circ_i v_y\ar@{-}[r] & u_x\circ_i v_{y+1}}$.)
Recall that the operad of permutations in sets is identified with the set-theoretic associative operad (the operad which governs the category of associative monoids).
From the relation $W(\Sigma_r)_0 = \Sigma_r$ for any $r\in\NN$, we get an operad embedding $\AsOp\subset\EOp$
which identifies the module-theoretic version of the associative operad $\AsOp$
with the degree zero component of the Barratt-Eccles operad $\EOp$.
In what follows, we still use the notation $\mu\in\EOp(2)$ for the degree $0$ operation, represented by the identity permutation $\mu = \id_2\in\Sigma_2$,
which governs the product operation of associative algebra structures
in the Barratt--Eccles operad.
Note that we still have $\EOp(0) = \AsOp(0) = \kk$ (we take the convention to consider operads with a term in arity zero throughout this paragraph)
and the generating element of this arity zero term $*\in\EOp(0)$ also represents a unit operation
when we pass to the category of algebras over the Barratt--Eccles operad.
The Barratt--Eccles operad $\EOp$ is weakly-equivalent to the operad of commutative algebras $\ComOp$, and forms, as such, an instance of an $E_\infty$-operad.
Recall that we have $\ComOp(r) = \kk$, for any $r\in\NN$. The weak-equivalence $\EOp\xrightarrow{\sim}\ComOp$
is given by the standard augmentation $\DGN_*(W(\Sigma_r))\rightarrow\DGN_*(\pt) = \kk$
on the normalized chain complexes $\EOp(r) = \DGN_*(W(\Sigma_r))$, $r\in\NN$,
and sits in a factorization $\AsOp\hookrightarrow\EOp\xrightarrow{\sim}\ComOp$ of the usual morphism $\AsOp\rightarrow\ComOp$
between the associative operad $\AsOp$ and the commutative operad $\ComOp$.
We take the category of algebras over the Barratt--Eccles operad to get our model of the category of $E_\infty$-algebras.
Recall that we have $\EOp(0) = \kk$ so that our $\EOp$-algebras are equipped with a unit, which is represented by the generating element of this arity zero term of our operad $*\in\EOp(0)$.
By the main result of the article~\cite{BergerFresse}, the normalized cochain complex of a simplicial set $\DGN^*(X)$
is endowed with the structure of an algebra over the Barratt--Eccles operad.
This $\EOp$-algebra structure is functorial in $X\in\simp\Set$,
and extends the classical associative algebra structure of normalized cochains.
\end{recoll}
\begin{constr}[The diagonal and the action of the Barratt--Eccles operad on tensor products]\label{constr:Barratt-Eccles-diagonal}
In our constructions, we use that the Alexander--Whitney diagonal on the normalized chain complexes $\EOp(r) = \DGN_*(W(\Sigma_r))$, $r\in\NN$,
induces a morphism of dg operads $\Delta: \EOp\rightarrow\EOp\otimes\EOp$, where $\EOp\otimes\EOp$
is given by the arity-wise tensor product $(\EOp\otimes\EOp)(r) = \EOp(r)\otimes\EOp(r)$,
for any $r\in\NN$.
This map is given by the usual formula:
\begin{equation*}
\Delta(w_0,\dots,w_n) = \sum_{k=0}^n(w_0,\dots,w_k)\otimes(w_k,\dots,w_n),
\end{equation*}
for any $(w_0,\dots,w_n)\in\EOp(r)$.
The existence of this diagonal implies that a tensor product of $\EOp$-algebras $A\otimes B$
inherits an $\EOp$-algebra structure, since we can make an operation $\pi\in\EOp(r)$
act on $A\otimes B$
through its diagonal $\Delta(\pi)\in\EOp(r)\otimes\EOp(r)$. We explicitly take:
\begin{equation*}
\pi(a_1\otimes b_1,\dots,a_r\otimes b_r) = \sum_{(\pi)}\pi'(a_1,\dots,a_r)\otimes\pi''(b_1,\dots,b_r),
\end{equation*}
for all $a_1\otimes b_1,\dots,a_r\otimes b_r\in A\otimes B$, where we use the expression $\Delta(\pi) = \sum_{(\pi)}\pi'\otimes\pi''$
for the expansion of the coproduct of the operation $\pi\in\EOp(r)$
in the Barratt--Eccles operad.
In the paper, we also use that we have a morphism of $\EOp$-algebras
\begin{equation*}
\AW: A\vee B\rightarrow A\otimes B,
\end{equation*}
for any pair of $\EOp$-algebras $A$ and $B$, where we adopt the notation $\vee$ for the coproduct in the category of $\EOp$-algebras.
This morphism is induced by the inclusions $A\otimes *\rightarrow A\otimes B\leftarrow *\otimes B$
on each factor of the coproduct $A\vee B$, where we still use the notation $*$
for the unit of the $\EOp$-algebras $A$ and $B$.
(We will see in the proof of the next proposition that we can identify this map with an instance of an Alexander--Whitney diagonal. We therefore adopt the notation $\AW$ for this morphism.)
We have a morphism of dg modules which goes in the converse direction
\begin{equation*}
\EM: A\otimes B\rightarrow A\vee B,
\end{equation*}
and which is given by the formula $\EM(a\otimes b) = \mu(a,b)$, for each tensor $a\otimes b\in A\otimes B$, where $\mu(a,b)$ denotes the product of the elements $a\in A$ and $b\in B$
in the $\EOp$-algebra $A\vee B$. (We are going to see that we can identify this map with an instance of an Eilenberg--MacLane map.)
Note that neither $\AW$ nor $\EM$ are symmetric, and actually, the tensor product $A\otimes B$
does not define a symmetric bifunctor on the category of $\EOp$-algebras since the Alexander--Whitney diagonal $\Delta: \EOp(r)\rightarrow\EOp(r)\otimes\EOp(r)$
fails to be cocommutative.
\end{constr}
We have the following useful property.
\begin{prop}\label{claim:Barratt-Eccles-algebra-coproducts}
The above morphisms $\AW: A\vee B\rightarrow A\otimes B$ and $\EM: A\otimes B\rightarrow A\vee B$ satisfy $\AW\EM = \id$
and we have a natural chain homotopy $H: A\vee B\rightarrow A\vee B$
such that $\delta H + H\delta = \EM\AW - \id$.
Hence, our morphisms induce homotopy inverse weak-equivalences of dg modules
\begin{equation*}
\AW: A\vee B\xrightarrow{\sim} A\otimes B\quad\text{and}\quad\EM: A\otimes B\xrightarrow{\sim} A\vee B,
\end{equation*}
for all $\EOp$-algebras $A$ and $B$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We consider the case of free $\EOp$-algebras first $A = \EOp(X)$ and $B = \EOp(Y)$.
We represent the elements of a free algebra such as $A = \EOp(X)$
by formal expressions of the form $a = u(x_1,\dots,x_r)$,
where $u\in\EOp(r)$ and $x_1,\dots,x_r\in X$.
We then have the expressions:
\begin{align*}
A\otimes B = \EOp(X)\otimes\EOp(Y) & = \bigoplus_{p,q}\EOp(p)\otimes_{\Sigma_p} X^{\otimes p}\otimes\EOp(p)\otimes_{\Sigma_q} Y^{\otimes q}, \\
A\vee B = \EOp(X\oplus Y) & = \bigoplus_{p,q}\EOp(p+q)\otimes_{\Sigma_p\times\Sigma_q} X^{\otimes p}\otimes Y^{\otimes q}.
\end{align*}
We use that the operadic composite $\id_2(u,v)$ of permutations $u\in\Sigma_p$ and $v\in\Sigma_q$
is identified with the result of a direct sum operation
such that $u\oplus v = (u(1),\dots,u(p),p+v(1),\dots,p+v(q))$.
Recall that $\mu = \id_2$ represents the associative product when we pass to the Barratt--Eccles operad $\EOp$.
For a tensor $a\otimes b = u(x_1,\dots,x_p)\otimes v(y_1,\dots,y_q)$
such that $u = (u_0,\dots,u_m)\in\EOp(p)$ and $v = (v_0,\dots,v_n)\in\EOp(q)$,
we have $\mu(a,b) = \mu(u,v)(x_1,\dots,x_p,y_1,\dots,y_q)$,
where we take the composite $\mu(u,v)$
in the Barratt--Eccles operad.
By definition of this composite in terms of shuffles of termwise composites $\mu(u_i,v_j) = u_i\oplus v_j$ (we apply the Eilenberg--MacLane map),
we obtain an expression of the following form:
\begin{multline*}
\EM(u(x_1,\dots,x_p)\otimes v(y_1,\dots,y_q))\\
= \sum\pm\underbrace{\left(\vcenter{\xymatrix@R=2mm@C=3mm{ u_0\oplus v_0\ar@{-}[d]\ar@{-}[r] &
u_1\oplus v_0\ar@{-}[d]\ar@{-}[r] &
*{\cdots}\ar@{-}[r] &
u_m\oplus v_0\ar@{-}[d] \\
u_0\oplus v_1\ar@{-}[d]\ar@{-}[r] &
u_1\oplus v_1\ar@{-}[d]\ar@{-}[r] &
*{\cdots}\ar@{-}[r] &
u_m\oplus v_1\ar@{-}[d] \\
*{\vdots}\ar@{-}[d] & *{\vdots}\ar@{-}[d] & & *{\vdots}\ar@{-}[d] \\
u_0\oplus v_n\ar@{-}[r] &
u_1\oplus v_n\ar@{-}[r] &
*{\cdots}\ar@{-}[r] &
u_m\oplus v_n }}\right)}_{\in\EOp(p+q)}
(x_1,\dots,x_p,y_1,\dots,y_q),
\end{multline*}
where the sum runs over all paths that we may form in the diagram of our figure (as in our representation of the composition of the Barratt--Eccles operad in~\S\ref{recoll:Barratt-Eccles-operad}).
We use this representation to identify our morphism $\EM: A\otimes B\rightarrow A\vee B$ with an instance of an Eilenberg--MacLane map.
The morphism $\AW: A\vee B\rightarrow A\otimes B$, on the other hand, carries any free algebra element $c = w(x_1,\dots,x_p,y_1,\dots,y_q)$
such that $w = (w_0,\dots,w_n)\in\EOp(p+q)$
to the image of the elements $x_1\otimes *,\dots,x_p\otimes *,*\otimes y_1,\dots,*\otimes y_q\in\EOp(X)\otimes\EOp(Y)$
under the action of the operation $w$ on $\EOp(X)\otimes\EOp(Y)$,
and hence to the tensor such that $\AW(w(x_1,\dots,x_p,y_1,\dots,y_q)) = \sum_{(w)} w'(x_1,\dots,x_p,*,\dots,*)\otimes w''(*,\dots,*,y_1,\dots,y_q)$,
where we use the notation $\Delta(w) = \sum_{(w)}w'\otimes w''$
for the expansion of the coproduct of the simplex $w$
in the Barratt--Eccles operad. Thus, if we assume $w = (w_0,\dots,w_n)$, then we have $\sum_{(w)}w'\otimes w'' = \sum_{k=0}^n (w_0,\dots,w_k)\otimes(w_k,\dots,w_n)$.
From this analysis, we deduce that our morphism $\AW$ is given by the following Alexander--Whitney type formula:
\begin{multline*}
\AW(w(x_1,\dots,x_p,y_1,\dots,y_q))\\
= \sum_{k=0}^n (w_0|_I,\dots,w_k|_I)(x_1,\dots,x_p)\otimes(w_k|_J,\dots,w_n|_J)(y_1,\dots,y_q),
\end{multline*}
where we set $I = \{1,\dots,p\}$ and $J = \{1,\dots,q\}$ for short and $|_{I}$, $|_{J}$
denote the obvious restriction operations on permutations
which we apply to our simplices termwise. (In this construction, we also use the canonical bijection $\{p+1,\dots,p+q\}\simeq\{1,\dots,q\}$
to identify the permutations of the set $\{p+1,\dots,p+q\}$ with permutations of the set $\{1,\dots,q\}$.)
For short, we may adopt the notation $x_*$ and $y_*$ for the words of variables $x_* = x_1,\dots,x_p$ and $y_* = y_1,\dots,y_q$
that occur in our expression of free algebra elements.
The chain homotopy $H$ can be given by a formula of the following form:
\begin{multline*}
H(w(x_*,y_*)) = \sum\pm(w_0,\dots,w_k)\\
\star\left(\vcenter{\xymatrix@R=2mm@C=3mm{ \scriptstyle{w_k|_I\oplus w_l|_J}\ar@{-}[d]\ar@{-}[r] &
\scriptstyle{w_{k+1}|_I\oplus w_l|_J}\ar@{-}[d]\ar@{-}[r] &
*{\cdots}\ar@{-}[r] &
\scriptstyle{w_l|_I\oplus w_l|_J}\ar@{-}[d] \\
\scriptstyle{w_k|_I\oplus w_{l+1}|_J}\ar@{-}[d]\ar@{-}[r] &
\scriptstyle{w_{k+1}|_I\oplus w_{l+1}|_J}\ar@{-}[d]\ar@{-}[r] &
*{\cdots}\ar@{-}[r] &
\scriptstyle{w_l|_I\oplus w_{l+1}|_J}\ar@{-}[d] \\
*{\vdots}\ar@{-}[d] & *{\vdots}\ar@{-}[d] & & *{\vdots}\ar@{-}[d] \\
\scriptstyle{w_k|_I\oplus w_n|_J}\ar@{-}[r] &
\scriptstyle{w_{k+1}|_I\oplus w_n|_J}\ar@{-}[r] &
*{\cdots}\ar@{-}[r] &
\scriptstyle{w_l|_I\oplus w_n|_J} }}\right)(x_*,y_*),
\end{multline*}
where $\star$ denotes a ``join'' operation (given by the obvious concatenation operation in $W(\Sigma_*)$), and the sum runs over the indices $0\leq k\leq l\leq n$,
together with the set of paths $\{(i_t,j_t),t=k,\dots,n\}$ which start at $(i_k,j_k) = (k,l)$ and end at $(i_n,j_n) = (l,n)$
in the $l-k\times n-l$-diagram represented in our figure.
The relation $\AW\EM = \id$ is an instance of the general inversion relation between the Alexander--Whitney diagonal and the Eilenberg--MacLane map.
In our context, we can also deduce this relation from the observation that the element $a\otimes b\in A\otimes B$
in a tensor product of $\EOp$-algebras $A$ and $B$
represents the product of the tensors $a\otimes *,*\otimes b\in A\otimes B$,
so that we have the identity $a\otimes b = \mu(a\otimes *,*\otimes b)$
in $A\otimes B$.
The proof of the chain homotopy relation $\delta H + H\delta = \AW\EM - \id$
is straightforward: the composite $\AW\EM$ corresponds to the $0$-face of the terms with $k=0$ in the expression of $H$
while the identity map corresponds to the $n$-face of the terms with $k=l=n$, and the other faces cancel out
when we form the anti-commutator $\delta(H) = \delta H + H\delta$.
The morphisms $\AW$ and $\EM$, which are defined for all $\EOp$-algebras $A$ and $B$,
are obviously functorial. We check that our chain homotopy $H$ is also functorial
with respect to the action of the morphisms
of free $\EOp$-algebras $\phi: \EOp(X)\rightarrow\EOp(X)$ and $\psi: \EOp(Y)\rightarrow\EOp(Y)$
on the coproduct $\EOp(X)\vee\EOp(Y) = \EOp(X\oplus Y)$.
Thus, we establish that we have the following relation:
\begin{equation*}
H((\phi\vee\psi)(w(x_*,y_*))) = (\phi\vee\psi)(H(w(x_*,y_*))),
\end{equation*}
for all $c = w(x_*,y_*)\in\EOp(X\oplus Y)$.
We use that $\phi = \phi_f: \EOp(X)\rightarrow\EOp(X)$ and $\psi = \psi_g: \EOp(Y)\rightarrow\EOp(Y)$
are induced by morphisms of dg modules $f: X\rightarrow\EOp(X)$
and $g: Y\rightarrow\EOp(Y)$.
We use the short notation $f(x_i) = \sum s^i(\underline{x}_i')$ and $g(y_j) = \sum t^j(\underline{y}_j')$
for the expansion of these free algebra elements $f(x_i)\in\EOp(X)$ and $g(y_j)\in\EOp(Y)$,
which we associate to the factors of a tensor $c = w(x_1,\dots,x_p,y_1,\dots,y_q)$.
We also write $s^i = (s^i_0,\dots,s^i_{d_i})$ and $t^j = (t^j_0,\dots,t^j_{e_j})$, where $d_i$ and $e_j$ are dimension variables.
We have the formula:
\begin{equation}\tag{$*$}\label{eqn:coproduct_functoriality}
(\phi\vee\psi)(w(x_*,y_*)) = w(f(x_*),g(y_*)) = \sum w(s^*,t^*)(\underline{x}_*',\underline{y}_*'),
\end{equation}
where we form the composite $w(s^*,t^*) = w(s^1,\dots,s^p,t^1,\dots,t^q)$ inside the Barratt--Eccles operad.
(In this formula, we also use the notation $s^*$ and $t^*$ for the words of simplices $s^* = s^1,\dots,s^p$ and $t^* = t^1,\dots,t^q$,
as well as the notation $\underline{x}_*'$ and $\underline{y}_*'$
for the composite words $\underline{x}_*' = \underline{x}_1',\dots,\underline{x}_p'$
and $\underline{y}_*' = \underline{y}_1',\dots,\underline{y}_q'$.)
We then use a multidimensional generalization of the picture of~\S\ref{recoll:Barratt-Eccles-operad}
for the definition of the operadic composition
in the Barratt--Eccles operad. We are going to use that the shuffles of horizontal and vertical moves, which we carry out in this definition of operadic composites,
satisfy natural associativity and commutativity relations when we perform a multidimensional
application of this operation.
We analyze the expression of the composite $(\phi\vee\psi)(H(w(x_*,y_*)))$ first.
We then apply the composition operation $w'\mapsto w'(s^*,t^*)$
to the simplices that occur in the expression of the chain homotopy $H(w(x_*,y_*))$.
We decompose the result of this operation as a join of simplices, using the join decomposition of the simplices that occur in the definition of our chain homotopy.
We identify the first factor of our join with a chain of composite permutations $w_x(s^*_{\alpha_*},t^*_{\beta_*})$,
where $w_x$ runs over the vertices of the simplex $(w_0,\dots,w_k)$,
which represents the first factor of our join in the expression of $H(w(x_*,y_*))$.
We take all shuffles of $w_x$-directional moves in the chain $(w_0,\dots,w_k)$
with $s^i_{\alpha_i}$-directional and $t^j_{\beta_j}$-directional moves
in subchains of the simplices $s^i$ and $t^j$
of the form $s^i{}' = (s^i_0,\dots,s^i_{d_i'})$ and $t^j{}' = (t^j_0,\dots,t^j_{e_j'})$,
where $d_i'\leq d_i$ and $e_j'\leq e_j$.
We identify the second factor of our join with a chain of composite permutations
of the form $w_x|_I(s^*_{\alpha_*})\oplus w_y|_J(t^*_{\beta_*})$,
where $w_x|_I\oplus w_y|_J$
runs over the vertices of the second join factor in the expression of $H(w(x_*,y_*))$, starting at $w_k|_I\oplus w_l|_J$
and ending at $w_l|_I\oplus w_n|_J$.
When we pass from the previous join factor to this second join factor in our computation of $(\phi\vee\psi)(H(w(x_*,y_*)))$,
we carry out a move of the form $\xymatrix@R=2mm@C=3mm{w_k\ar@{-}[r] & w_k|_I\oplus w_l|_J }$,
and hence, our move has to be constant in the $s^i_{\alpha_i}$ directions
and in the $t^j_{\beta_j}$ directions.
This observation implies that we start this simplex at the end point of the chains $s^i{}' = (s^i_0,\dots,s^i_{d_i'})$ in the $s^i_{\alpha_i}$ directions
and at the end point of the chains $t^j{}' = (t^j_0,\dots,t^j_{e_j'})$
in the $t^j_{\beta_j}$ directions.
Thus, to form the chains of composite permutations of our second join factor, we shuffle $w_x|_I$-directional and $w_y|_J$-directional moves
in the $2$-dimensional diagram $(w_k|_I,\dots,w_l|_I)\times(w_l|_J,\dots,w_n|_J)$
with $s^i_{\alpha_i}$-directional moves in the chains $s^i{}'' = (s^i_{d_i'},\dots,s^i_{d_i})$
and $t^j_{\beta_j}$-directional moves in the chains $t^j{}'' = (t^j_{e_j'},\dots,t^j_{e_j})$.
We now analyze the expression of the composite $H((\phi\vee\psi)(w(x_*,y_*)))$,
which we obtain by applying our chain homotopy $H$
to the element $(\phi\vee\psi)(w(x_*,y_*))
= \sum w(s^*,t^*)(\underline{x}_*',\underline{y}_*')$.
The simplices of the composite $w(s^*,t^*)$
consist of chains of composite permutations $w_x(s^*_{\alpha_*},t^*_{\beta_*})$,
which we obtain after shuffling $w_x$-directional moves in the chain $w = (w_0,\dots,w_n)$
with $s^i_{\alpha_i}$-directional moves in the chains $s^i{}'' = (s^i_0,\dots,s^i_{d_i})$
and $t^j_{\beta_j}$-directional moves in the chains $t^j{}'' = (t^j_0,\dots,t^j_{e_j})$.
To form our chain homotopy, we cut this chain at two positions $w_k(s^*_{d_*'},t^*_{e_*'}) = w_k(s^1_{d_1'},\dots,s^p_{d_p'},t^1_{e_1'},\dots,t^q_{e_q'})$
and $w_l(s^*_{d_*''},t^*_{e_*''}) = w_l(s^1_{d_1''},\dots,s^p_{d_p''},t^1_{e_1''},\dots,t^q_{e_q''})$ with $0\leq k\leq l\leq n$
and $0\leq d_i'\leq d_i''\leq d_i$, $0\leq e_j'\leq e_j''\leq e_j$.
We take the subchain of permutations running from $w_0(s^*_0,t^*_0)$
up to $w_k(s^*_{d_*'},t^*_{e_*'})$
to get the first join factor of our chain homotopy. We exactly retrieve the same chains as in our decomposition of~$(\phi\vee\psi)(H(w(\underline{x},\underline{y})))$.
We then form the restrictions $w_x(s^*_{\alpha_*},t^*_{\beta_*})|_{I'} = w_x|_I(s^*_{\alpha_*})$
and $w_y(s^*_{\alpha_*},t^*_{\beta_*})|_{J'} = w_y|_J(t^*_{\beta_*})$
where $I'$ denotes the terms of the composite permutations $w_x(s^*_{\alpha_*},t^*_{\beta_*})$
that correspond to the positions of the variables $\underline{x}_*'$,
whereas $J'$ denotes the terms of the composite permutations $w_y(s^*_{\alpha_*},t^*_{\beta_*})$
that correspond to the positions of the variables $\underline{y}_*'$.
We take a chain of direct sums $w_x(s^*_{\alpha_*},t^*_{\beta_*})|_{I'}\oplus w_y(s^*_{\alpha_*},t^*_{\beta_*})|_{J'}$
such that $w_x(s^*_{\alpha_*},t^*_{\beta_*})$ runs from $w_k(s^*_{d_*'},t^*_{e_*'})$ up to $w_l(s^*_{d_*''},t^*_{e_*''})$,
while $w_y(s^*_{\alpha_*},t^*_{\beta_*})$ runs from $w_l(s^*_{d_*''},t^*_{e_*''})$ up to $w_l(s^*_{d_*},t^*_{e_*})$.
(We then take a shuffle of $w_x(s^*_{\alpha_*},t^*_{\beta_*})$-directional moves and of $w_y(s^*_{\alpha_*},t^*_{\beta_*})$-direction moves.)
We easily see that this operation produces a degeneracy in the case where we have $e_j'<e_j''$ for some $j$,
because in this case the subchain of permutations $w_x(s^*_{\alpha_*},t^*_{\beta_*})$
contains a $t^j_{\beta_j}$-directional move, which produces a degeneracy when we pass
to the restriction $w_x(s^*_{\alpha_*},t^*_{\beta_*})|_{I'} = w_x|_I(s^*_{\alpha_*})$.
We similarly see that our operation produces a degeneracy in the case where we have $d_i''<d_i$ for some $i$.
We therefore have to assume $d_i'' = d_i$ for all $i$ and $e_j' = e_j$ for all $j$ in order to avoid possible degeneracies,
and in these cases, we exactly retrieve the same chains as in our expression of the second join factor in our decomposition of~$(\phi\vee\psi)(H(w(x_*,y_*)))$.
We conclude from this analysis that the expansions of $H((\phi\vee\psi)(w(x_*,y_*)))$ and $(\phi\vee\psi)(H(w(x_*,y_*)))$ consist of the same joins of simplices,
and therefore these composites agree, as expected.
To finish the proof of our proposition, we use that every object of the category of $\EOp$-algebras has a presentation in terms of a natural reflexive coequalizer of free $\EOp$-algebras.
If we have a pair of objects $A$ and $B$, then we can form a commutative diagram:
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrix{ \EOp(X_1)\otimes\EOp(Y_1)\ar@<-2pt>[r]_{\EM}\ar@<+2pt>[d]\ar@<-2pt>[d] &
\EOp(X_1)\vee\EOp(Y_1)\ar@<-2pt>[l]_{\AW}\ar@<+2pt>[d]\ar@<-2pt>[d]\ar@(ur,dr)[]!UR;[]!DR^{H} \\
\EOp(X_0)\otimes\EOp(Y_0)\ar@<-2pt>[r]_{\EM}\ar@/_1em/[u]\ar@{.>}[d] &
\EOp(X_0)\vee\EOp(Y_0)\ar@<-2pt>[l]_{\AW}\ar@/_1em/[u]\ar@{.>}[d]\ar@(ur,dr)[]!UR;[]!DR^{H} \\
A\otimes B\ar@<-2pt>[r]_{\EM} & A\vee B\ar@<-2pt>[l]_{\AW}\ar@{.>}@(ur,dr)[]!UR;[]!DR^{H} }
\end{equation*}
where we take the presentations of $A$ and $B$ by reflexive coequalizers in the vertical direction and our deformation retract diagram
of Alexander--Whitney and Eilenberg--MacLane maps
in the horizontal direction. We use this diagram to check that our chain homotopy $H$ passes to the quotient
and induces a chain homotopy such that $\delta H + H\delta = \EM\AW - \id$
on $A\vee B$,
as indicated in our figure.
\end{proof}
\begin{constr}[The action of the Barratt--Eccles operad on the interval, on cubical cochains and the definition of connections]\label{constr:cubical-cochain-connection}
We already recalled that the normalized cochain complex of a simplicial set $\DGN^*(X)$ inherits the structure of an algebra over the Barratt--Eccles operad.
We refer to~\cite{BergerFresse} for the precise definition.
We consider the cochain algebra of the $1$-simplex $X = \Delta^1$ in our definition of homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-cooperads
together with the cubical cochain algebras
\begin{equation*}
I^m = \underbrace{\DGN^*(\Delta^1)\otimes\dots\otimes\DGN^*(\Delta^1)}_m
\end{equation*}
which we provide with an $\EOp$-algebra structure, using the action of the Barratt--Eccles operad on each cochain complex factor $\DGN^*(\Delta^1)$,
and the diagonal operation of Construction~\ref{constr:Barratt-Eccles-diagonal}.
We study structures attached to the cochain algebra $I = \DGN^*(\Delta^1)$ in this paragraph.
We also consider the normalized chain complex $\DGN_*(\Delta^1)$, dual to $\DGN^*(\Delta^1)$.
We have
\begin{equation*}
\DGN_*(\Delta^1) = \kk\underline{0}\oplus\kk\underline{1}\oplus\kk\underline{01},
\end{equation*}
where $\underline{01}$ denotes the class of the fundamental simplex of $\Delta^1$ in the normalized chain complex,
whereas $\underline{0}$ and $\underline{1}$ denote the class of the vertices of $\underline{01}$.
We can identify $\kk\underline{0}\subset\DGN_*(\Delta^1)$ with the image of the map $\DGN_*(d^1): \DGN_*(\Delta^0)\rightarrow\DGN_*(\Delta^1)$
induced by the $1$-coface $d^1: \Delta^0\rightarrow\Delta^1$,
while $\kk\underline{1}\subset\DGN_*(\Delta^1)$ is identified with the image of the map $d^0: \DGN_*(\Delta^0)\rightarrow\DGN_*(\Delta^1)$
induced by the $0$-coface $d^0: \Delta^0\rightarrow\Delta^1$. We have $\delta(\underline{01}) = \underline{1} - \underline{0}$.
For the cochain algebra, we have
\begin{equation*}
\DGN^*(\Delta^1) = \kk\underline{0}^{\sharp}\oplus\kk\underline{1}^{\sharp}\oplus\kk\underline{01}^{\sharp},
\end{equation*}
where we take the basis $(\underline{0}^{\sharp},\underline{1}^{\sharp},\underline{01}^{\sharp})$
dual to $(\underline{0},\underline{1},\underline{01})$.
We now explain the definition of a connection $\nabla^*: \DGN^*(\Delta^1)\otimes\DGN^*(\Delta^1)\rightarrow\DGN^*(\Delta^1)$,
which we use in the construction of degeneracy operators in our definition of homotopy Segal $E_\infty$-cooperads.
We consider the simplicial map $\min: \Delta^1\times\Delta^1\rightarrow\Delta^1$ defined by the mapping $(s,t)\mapsto\min(s,t)$
on topological realizations, or equivalently, by the following representation:
\begin{equation*}
\vcenter{\hbox{\includegraphics{connection-picture.pdf}}},
\end{equation*}
where we take the projection onto the diagonal simplex along the lines depicted in the figure.
We take the composite $\nabla_* = \DGN_*(\min)\circ\EM$ of the induced map on normalized chain complexes $\DGN_*(\min): \DGN_*(\Delta^1\times\Delta^1)\rightarrow\DGN_*(\Delta^1)$
with the Eilenberg--MacLane map $\EM: \DGN_*(\Delta^1)\otimes\DGN_*(\Delta^1)\rightarrow\DGN_*(\Delta^1\times\Delta^1)$.
We get the following formulas:
\begin{align*}
& \nabla_*(\underline{0}\otimes\underline{0}) = \nabla_*(\underline{1}\otimes\underline{0}) = \nabla_*(\underline{0}\otimes\underline{1}) = \underline{0}, \\
& \nabla_*(\underline{1}\otimes\underline{1}) = \underline{1}, \\
& \nabla_*(\underline{1}\otimes\underline{01}) = \nabla_*(\underline{01}\otimes\underline{1}) = \underline{01}, \\
& \nabla_*(\underline{0}\otimes\underline{01}) = \nabla_*(\underline{01}\otimes\underline{0}) = 0, \\
& \nabla_*(\underline{01}\otimes\underline{01}) = 0.
\end{align*}
We define our connection on normalized cochains $\nabla^*$ as the dual map of this morphism $\nabla_*$.
We accordingly take:
\begin{equation*}
\nabla^* = \EM\circ\DGN^*(\min): \DGN^*(\Delta^1)\rightarrow\DGN^*(\Delta^1)\otimes\DGN^*(\Delta^1),
\end{equation*}
and we can determine this morphism by the following formulas on our basis elements:
\begin{align*}
& \nabla^*(\underline{0}^{\sharp}) = \underline{0}^{\sharp}\otimes\underline{0}^{\sharp} + \underline{1}^{\sharp}\otimes\underline{0}^{\sharp}
+ \underline{0}^{\sharp}\otimes\underline{1}^{\sharp}, \\
& \nabla^*(\underline{1}^{\sharp}) = \underline{1}^{\sharp}\otimes\underline{1}^{\sharp}, \\
& \nabla^*(\underline{01}^{\sharp}) = \underline{01}^{\sharp}\otimes\underline{1}^{\sharp} + \underline{1}^{\sharp}\otimes\underline{01}^{\sharp}.
\end{align*}
We crucially need the observation of the next proposition in our constructions.
\end{constr}
\begin{prop}\label{prop:cubical-cochain-connection}
The map $\nabla^* = \EM\circ\DGN^*(\min): \DGN^*(\Delta^1)\rightarrow\DGN^*(\Delta^1)\otimes\DGN^*(\Delta^1)$ defined in the above paragraph is a morphism of $\EOp$-algebras,
where we use that the Barratt-Eccles operad $\EOp$ acts on the tensor product $\DGN^*(\Delta^1)\otimes\DGN^*(\Delta^1)$
through the operadic diagonal $\Delta: \EOp\rightarrow\EOp\otimes\EOp$
and its action on each factor $\DGN^*(\Delta^1)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We go back to the definition of the $\EOp$-algebra structure of normalized cochain complexes of simplicial sets
in terms of a dual $\EOp$-coalgebra structure on normalized chain complexes.
We prove that the morphism $\nabla_*: \DGN_*(\Delta^1)\otimes\DGN_*(\Delta^1)\rightarrow\DGN_*(\Delta^1)$,
dual to the morphism of our claim, is a morphism of $\EOp$-coalgebras.
We may note that the Eilenberg--MacLane map $\EM: \DGN_*(X)\otimes\DGN_*(Y)\rightarrow\DGN_*(X\times Y)$
does not preserve $\EOp$-coalgebra structures
in general. Nevertheless, such a statement holds when one factor is a one-point set, $X = *$ or $Y = *$,
because in this case, we have $\DGN_*(X)\simeq\DGN_*(X)\otimes\kk\simeq\DGN_*(X\times *)$
or $\DGN_*(Y)\simeq \kk\otimes\DGN_*(Y)\simeq\DGN_*(*\times Y)$, and the Eilenberg--MacLane map
reduces to the identity morphism on the functor of normalized chains.
We readily deduce from this observation that our morphism $\nabla_*: \DGN_*(\Delta^1)\otimes\DGN_*(\Delta^1)\rightarrow\DGN_*(\Delta^1)$
preserves $\EOp$-coalgebra structure on the subcomplex generated by the tensors $\underline{\sigma}\otimes\underline{\tau}\in\DGN_*(\Delta^1)\otimes\DGN_*(\Delta^1)$
such that $\underline{\sigma}\in\{\underline{0},\underline{1}\}$
or $\underline{\tau}\in\{\underline{0},\underline{1}\}$
since such tensors lie in the image of the coface maps $d^i\otimes\id: \DGN^*(\Delta^0)\otimes\DGN_*(\Delta^1)\rightarrow\DGN_*(\Delta^1)\otimes\DGN_*(\Delta^1)$
and $\id\otimes d^i: \DGN^*(\Delta^1)\otimes\DGN_*(\Delta^1)\rightarrow\DGN_*(\Delta^0)\otimes\DGN_*(\Delta^1)$,
with $i = 0,1$.
We use the notation $\pi_*: \DGN_*(\Delta^1)\rightarrow\DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes r}$ for the operation
that we associate to an element of the Barratt--Eccles operad $\pi\in\EOp(r)$
in the definition of the $\EOp$-coalgebra
structure on $\DGN_*(\Delta^1)$.
In general, for a tensor $\underline{\sigma}\otimes\underline{\tau}\in\DGN_*(\Delta^1)\otimes\DGN_*(\Delta^1)$, we have the formula:
\begin{equation*}
\pi_*(\underline{\sigma}\otimes\underline{\tau}) = \sum_{(\pi)}\sh(\pi'_*(\underline{\sigma})\otimes\pi''_*(\underline{\tau})),
\end{equation*}
where $\Delta(\pi) = \sum_{(\pi)}\pi'\otimes\pi''$ denotes the coproduct of the operation $\pi$,
while $\sh: \DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes r}\otimes\DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes r}\rightarrow(\DGN^*(\Delta^1)\otimes\DGN^*(\Delta^1))^{\otimes r}$
is the tensor permutation such that $\sh(a_1\otimes\dots\otimes a_r\otimes b_1\otimes\dots\otimes b_r) = (a_1\otimes b_1)\otimes\dots\otimes(a_r\otimes b_r)$.
Thus the statement of our claim is equivalent to the following relation:
\begin{equation}\tag{$*$}\label{eqn:nabla_product}
\pi_*(\nabla_*(\underline{\sigma}\otimes\underline{\tau})) = \sum_{(\pi)}\nabla_*^{\otimes r}\sh(\pi'_*(\underline{\sigma})\otimes\pi''_*(\underline{\tau})),
\end{equation}
for $\pi\in\EOp(r)$, and for any $\underline{\sigma}\otimes\underline{\tau}\in\DGN_*(\Delta^1)\otimes\DGN_*(\Delta^1)$.
We can use the argument of the previous paragraph to establish the validity of this relation in the case where $\underline{\sigma}$ or $\underline{\tau}$
is a vertex $\underline{0},\underline{1}\in\DGN_*(\Delta^1)$.
We therefore focus on the case $\underline{\sigma}\otimes\underline{\tau} = \underline{01}\otimes\underline{01}$.
We then have $\nabla_*(\underline{01}\otimes\underline{01}) = 0$,
so that the above equation (\ref{eqn:nabla_product})
reduces to the following vanishing relation:
\begin{equation}\tag{$*'$}\label{eqn:vanishing_nabla_product}
\sum_{(\pi)}\nabla_*^{\otimes r}\sh(\pi'_*(\underline{01})\otimes\pi''_*(\underline{01})) = 0.
\end{equation}
We devote the rest of this proof to the verification of this relation.
\textit{The definition of the action of the Barratt--Eccles operad on chains}.
To carry out our verification, we have to go back to the explicit expression of the operation $\varpi_*: \DGN_*(\Delta^1)\rightarrow\DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes r}$
associated to an element of the Barratt--Eccles operad $\varpi\in\EOp(r)$
in terms of interval cuts associated to a table reduction
of the simplices of the permutations $(s_0,\dots,s_l)$
that occur in the expansion of $\varpi$.
We briefly recall this construction in the general case of a $q$-dimensional simplex $\Delta^q$.
We refer to~\cite{BergerFresse} for details.
The table reduction is a sum of surjective maps $s: \{1,\dots,r+l\}\rightarrow\{1,\dots,r\}$,
which we determine by sequences of values $s = (s(1),\dots,s(r+l))$,
which we arrange on a table, as in the following picture:
\begin{equation*}
s = \left|\begin{array}{l} s(1),\dots,s(e_0-1),s(e_0) \\
s(e_0+1),\ldots,s(e_1-1),s(e_1) \\
\vdots\\
s(e_{l-2}+1),\dots,s(e_{l-1}-1),s(e_{l-1}) \\
s(e_{l-1}+1),\dots,s(r+l)
\end{array}\right..
\end{equation*}
The caesuras $s(e_0),\dots,s(e_{l-1})$, which terminate the rows of the table, are the terms $y = s(x)$ of the sequence $s = (s(1),\dots,s(r+l))$
that do not form the last occurrence of a value $y\in\{1,\dots,r\}$.
Thus, the complement of the caesuras, which consists of the inner terms of the rows $s(e_{i-1}+1),\dots,s(e_i-1)$, $i = 0,\dots,l-1$,
and of the terms of the last rows $s(e_{l-1}+1),\dots,s(r+l)$, consists of the terms of the sequence $s = (s(1),\dots,s(r+l))$
which are not repeated after their position.
The table reduction of a simplex of permutations $\varpi = (s_0,\dots,s_l)$
is a sum of table arrangements of surjections
of the following form:
\begin{equation*}
\TR(s_0,\dots,s_l) = \sum\left|\begin{array}{l} s_0(1),\dots,s_0(r_0-1),s_0(r_0) \\
s_1(1)',\dots,s_1(r_1-1)',s_1(r_1)' \\
\vdots \\
s_{l-1}(1)',\dots,s_{l-1}(r_{l-1}-1)',s_{l-1}(r_{l-1})' \\
s_l(1)',\dots,s_l(r_l)' \end{array}\right.,
\end{equation*}
and which we obtain by browsing the terms of our permutations $s_i$, $i = 0,\dots,l$.
For $i = 0$, we retain all terms of our permutation $s_0(1),\dots,s_0(x),\dots$ up to the choice of a caesura $s_0(r_0)$, where we decide to stop this enumeration.
For $i > 0$, in the enumeration of the terms of the permutation $s_i$ we only retain the values $s_i(1)',\dots,s_i(x)',\dots$
that do not occur before the caesura on the previous rows of our table.
For $i < l$, we again stop this enumeration at the choice of a caesura $s_i(r_i)$.
For $i = l$, we run this process up to the last term of the permutation $s_l$. We sum over all possible choices of caesuras.
For $0\leq\upsilon_0\leq\dots\leq\upsilon_p\leq q$, we generally denote by $\underline{\upsilon_0\dots\upsilon_p}\in\Delta^q$
the $p$-simplex defined by taking the image of the fundamental simplex of the $q$-simplex $\Delta^q$
under the simplicial operator $u^*: \Delta^q_q\rightarrow\Delta^q_p$
associated to the map $u: \{0<\dots<p\}\rightarrow\{0<\dots<q\}$
such that $u(x) = \upsilon_x$, $x = 0,\dots,p$.
The notation $\underline{0\cdots q}$, for instance, represents the fundamental simplex of $\Delta^q$.
Each surjection $s = (s(1),\dots,s(l+r))$
in the table reduction
of an element of the Barratt--Eccles operad $\varpi = (s_0,\dots,s_l)$
is used to assign a sum of tensors
\begin{equation*}
s_*(\underline{0\cdots q}) = \sum_{\alpha}\pm\underline{\sigma}_{(1)}^{\alpha}\otimes\dots\otimes\underline{\sigma}_{(r)}^{\alpha}\in\DGN_*(\Delta^q)^{\otimes r}
\end{equation*}
to the fundamental simplex $\underline{0\cdots q}\in\Delta^q_q$.
We proceed as follows. We fix a sequence of indices $0 = \rho_0\leq\dots\leq\rho_x\leq\dots\leq\rho_{r+l} = q$,
which we associate to an interval decomposition of the indexing sequence
of the fundamental simplex:
\begin{equation*}
\underline{0\cdots q} = \underline{\rho_0\cdots\rho_1}|\underline{\rho_1\cdots\rho_2}|\cdots\,\cdots|\underline{\rho_{r+l-1}\cdots\rho_{r+l}}.
\end{equation*}
For $x = 1,\dots,r+l$, we label the interval $\underline{\rho_{x-1}\cdots\rho_x}$
with the value of the term $s(x)$ of our surjection $s = (s(1),\dots,s(r+l))$
in $\{1,\dots,r\}$,
as in the following picture:
\begin{equation*}
\underline{\rho_0\overset{s(1)}{\cdots}\rho_1}|\underline{\rho_1\overset{s(2)}{\cdots}\rho_2}|\cdots
\,\cdots|\underline{\rho_{x-1}\overset{s(x)}{\cdots}\rho_x}|\cdots
\,\cdots|\underline{\rho_{r+l-1}\overset{s(r+l)}{\cdots}\rho_{r+l}}.
\end{equation*}
Then, for $i\in\{1,\dots,r\}$, we concatenate the intervals $\underline{\rho_{x-1}\cdots\rho_x}$ labelled by the value $s(x) = i$
in order to form the factor $\sigma_{(i)}^{\alpha}$ of our tensor $s_*(\underline{0\cdots q})\in\DGN_*(\Delta^q)^{\otimes r}$.
We sum over all possible choices of indices $0 = \rho_0\leq\dots\leq\rho_x\leq\dots\leq\rho_{r+l} = q$.
The image of the simplex $\underline{0\cdots q}\in\DGN_*(\Delta^q)$ under the operation $\varpi: \DGN_*(\Delta^q)\rightarrow\DGN_*(\Delta^q)^{\otimes r}$
associated to an element of the Barratt-Eccles operad $\varpi\in\EOp(r)$
is given by the sum of the tensors $s_*(\underline{0\cdots q})\in\DGN_*(\Delta^q)^{\otimes r}$,
where $s$ runs over surjections that occur in the table reduction of $\varpi$.
In general, we can determine the action of the operation $\varpi_*: \DGN_*(X)\rightarrow\DGN_*(X)^{\otimes r}$
on an element $\sigma\in\DGN_*(X)$ in the normalized chains of a simplicial set
by using that $\sigma$ is represented by a simplex $\sigma\in X_q$ such that $\sigma = \hat{\sigma}(\underline{0\cdots q})$
for some simplicial map $\hat{\sigma}: \Delta^q\rightarrow X$.
Indeed, by functoriality of the operation $\varpi_*: \DGN_*(X)\rightarrow\DGN_*(X)^{\otimes r}$,
we have the identity $\varpi_*(\sigma) = \DGN_*(\hat{\sigma})^{\otimes r}(\varpi_*(\underline{0\cdots q}))$
in $\DGN_*(X)^{\otimes r}$.
But we do not use really this correspondence in the follow-up, because we are going to focus on the computation of the tensors $\varpi_*(\sigma)\in\DGN_*(X)^{\otimes r}$
for the fundamental simplex of the $1$-simplex $\underline{01}\in\Delta^1$.
We study the terms that may remain in the expansion of $\varpi_*(\underline{01})\in\DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes r}$ after the reduction of the factors $\sigma_{(i)}^{\alpha}\in\DGN_*(\Delta^1)$
associated to degenerate simplices in $\Delta^1$.
\textit{The reduction of degenerate simplices for the action of the Barratt--Eccles operad on the $1$-simplex $\underline{01}\in\DGN_*(\Delta^1)$}.
In general, in order to get non-degenerate simplices $\sigma_{(i)}^{\alpha}$ in the above definition of the tensors $s_*(\underline{0\cdots q})\in\DGN_*(\Delta^q)^{\otimes r}$,
we have to assume that we have a strict inequality $\rho_x<\rho_{y-1}+1$ for each pair $x<y$
such that $s(x)$ and $s(y)$ represent consecutive occurrences of a value $s(x) = s(y) = i$
in our surjection $s(1),\dots,s(r+l)$.
In the case $q = 1$, we must have $0 = \rho_0 = \dots = \rho_{t-1}<\rho_{t} = \dots = \rho_p = 1$, for some index choice $t$.
Then we associate an interval $\underline{01}$ to the term $s(t)$ of our surjection $s$,
an interval of length one $\underline{0}$ to the terms $s(x)$ such that $x<t$,
and an interval of length one $\underline{1}$ to the terms $s(x)$ such that $x>t$.
In this context, the only possibility to get a tensor product of non degenerate simplices is to assume that $s(t)$
lies the last row of our table.
Indeed, we can observe that no caesura $s(e_i)$ should be associated to an interval $\underline{1}$ or $\underline{01}$,
because in the case where such an interval $\underline{1}$ or $\underline{01}$
is labelled by the value of a caesura $s(e_i)$,
the next occurrence of this value should be associated to the interval $\underline{1}$,
producing a degeneracy $\underline{\cdots 11\cdots}$
when we perform the concatenation operation.
Now, if we assume that all caesuras $s(e_i)$ are associated to the interval $\underline{0}$,
then the term $s(t)$ associated to the interval $\underline{01}$
necessarily occurs after the last caesura,
and hence, necessarily lies on the last row of our table.
In the case of the table reduction of a simplex of permutations $\varpi = (s_0,\dots,s_l)$,
we get that the interval $\underline{01}$ is associated to a term $s_l(t') = s_l(t)'$
which we retain in the sequence of values of the permutation $s_l$
on the last row of our table reduction.
The interval of length one $\underline{1}$ can only be labelled by the value of terms $s_l(x)'$ that occur after $s_l(t)'$
on the last row of our table.
The values of the terms $s_l(x)$ such that $x<t'$ in the permutation $s_l(x)$
can not occur at such positions.
Therefore, the occurrences of these values in our table reduction can only be decorated by intervals of length one $\underline{0}$,
and produce either a vertex $\sigma_{(i)}^{\alpha} = \underline{0}$ or a degenerate element
when we perform our concatenation operation.
This analysis implies that the tensors $\sigma_{(1)}^{\alpha}\otimes\cdots\otimes\sigma_{(r)}^{\alpha}$,
which occur in the expansion of a coproduct $\varpi_*(\underline{01})\in\DGN^*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes r}$, $\varpi = (s_0,\dots,s_l)$,
satisfy the following repartition constraint (when no degeneracy occurs):
\begin{equation*}
\sigma_{(i)}^{\alpha} = \begin{cases} \text{$\underline{0}$}, & \text{for $i = s_l(1),\dots,s_l(t'-1)$}, \\
\text{$\underline{01}$}, & \text{for $i = s_l(t')$},
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
where $s_l(t') = s_l(t)'$ is the term of the permutation $s_l(1),\dots,s_l(r)$ that we associate to the interval $\underline{01}$ in our interval decomposition process.
Note also that (in non degeneracy cases) we necessarily have
\begin{equation*}
\sigma_{(i)}^{\alpha} = \underline{01},\quad\begin{aligned}[t] & \text{for the values of the caesuras $i = s_*(e_*)'$}\\
& \text{in our table reduction of the simplex $\varpi = (s_0,\dots,s_l)$},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
since the values of the caesuras are repeated in our table (and hence lead to simplices of positive dimension when we perform our interval concatenation).
\textit{The verification of the vanishing relation}.
We go back to the operations $\pi_*': \DGN_*(\Delta^1)\rightarrow\DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes r}$ and $\pi_*'': \DGN_*(\Delta^1)\rightarrow\DGN_*(\Delta^1)^{\otimes r}$
associated to the factors of a coproduct $\Delta(\pi) = \sum_{(\pi)}\pi'\otimes\pi''$
in the expression of our equation~(\ref{eqn:vanishing_nabla_product}).
Recall that, for an element $\pi = (w_0,\dots,w_n)\in\EOp(r)$, we have by definition $\Delta(\pi) = \sum_k(w_0,\dots,w_k)\otimes(w_k,\dots,w_n)$.
We fix a term of this coproduct $\pi'\otimes\pi'' = (w_0,\dots,w_k)\otimes(w_k,\dots,w_n)$
and interval decompositions that fulfill the conditions of the previous paragraph
for some table reductions of the simplices $\pi' = (w_0,\dots,w_k)$
and $\pi'' = (w_k,\dots,w_n)$.
We consider the associated tensors $\sigma_{(1)}'\otimes\dots\otimes\sigma_{(r)}'$ and $\sigma_{(1)}''\otimes\dots\otimes\sigma_{(r)}''$
in the expansion of $\pi'_*(\underline{01})$
and $\pi''_*(\underline{01})$. We consider the case $k<n$ first.
Let $i = w_k(t')$ be the term of the permutation $w_k$ to which we associate the interval $\underline{01}$ in the table reduction of $\pi' = (w_0,\dots,w_k)$,
so that we have $\sigma_{(i)}' = \underline{01}$ (in a non degeneracy case).
If this term $i = w_k(t')$ occurs on the first row of our table reduction of the simplex $\pi'' = (w_k,\dots,w_n)$,
then we have either $\sigma_{(i)}'' = \underline{0}$ (when $w_k(t')$ occurs before the caesura)
or $\sigma_{(i)}'' = \underline{01}$ (when the caesura is at $w_k(t')$).
In both cases, we have $\nabla_*(\sigma_{(i)}'\otimes\sigma_{(i)}'') = 0$ since $\nabla_*(\underline{01}\otimes\underline{01}) = \nabla_*(\underline{0}\otimes\underline{01}) = 0$
by definition of our map $\nabla_*$,
and therefore such a choice results in a zero term
in the expression $\nabla^*\sh(\pi'_*(\underline{01})\otimes\pi''_*(\underline{01}))$.
If, on the contrary, we take the caesura $j = w_k(r_k'')$ before the value $i = w_k(t')$
occurs in our table reduction of the simplex $\pi'' = (w_k,\dots,w_n)$,
then this means that the value $j = w_k(r_k'')$ occurs before $i = w_k(t')$
in the permutation $w_k$,
and in this case, we have by our previous analysis $\sigma_{(j)}' = \underline{0}$
when we form the coproduct $\pi'_*(\underline{01})$.
We then have $\nabla_*(\sigma_{(j)}'\otimes\sigma_{(j)}'') = 0$ (since $\nabla_*(\underline{0}\otimes\underline{01}) = 0$),
We still conclude that our choice results in a zero term in the expression $\nabla^*\sh(\pi'_*(\underline{01})\otimes\pi''_*(\underline{01}))$.
In the case $k = n\Rightarrow\deg(\pi'') = 0$, we just consider the value $j = w_n(t'')$ to which we assign an interval $\underline{01}$ in our construction
of the tensor $\pi''_*(\underline{01})$, and we argue similarly: if $t'<t''$, then we have $\sigma_{(i)}'' = \underline{0}$,
so that $\nabla_*(\sigma_{(i)}'\otimes\sigma_{(i)}'') = \nabla_*(\underline{01}\otimes\underline{0}) = 0$;
if $t'=t''$, then we have $\sigma_{(i)}' = \sigma_{(i)}'' = \underline{01}$
and $\nabla_*(\sigma_{(i)}'\otimes\sigma_{(i)}'') = \nabla_*(\underline{01}\otimes\underline{01}) = 0$;
if $t'>t''$, then we have $\sigma_{(j)}' = \underline{0}$
and $\nabla_*(\sigma_{(j)}'\otimes\sigma_{(j)}'') = \nabla_*(\underline{0}\otimes\underline{01}) = 0$.
In all cases, we conclude that our choices result in a zero term in $\nabla_*^{\otimes r}\sh(\pi'_*(\underline{01})\otimes\pi''_*(\underline{01}))$.
Hence, we do obtain the vanishing relation $\sum_{(\pi)}\nabla_*^{\otimes r}\sh(\pi'_*(\underline{01})\otimes\pi''_*(\underline{01})) = 0$,
and this result finishes the proof of our proposition.
\end{proof}
\end{appendix}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\subsubsection{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}{3\textsc{p}@ \@plus \textsc{p}@}{-5\textsc{p}@}{\normalsize\bfseries}}
\makeatother %
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{amsthm}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{amsfonts}
\usepackage[ruled,noend,linesnumbered]{algorithm2e}
\usepackage{balance}
\usepackage{textcomp
\usepackage{url
\usepackage{enumitem}
\usepackage[labelfont=bf]{caption}
\usepackage{comment}
\usepackage{todonotes}
\usepackage[normalsize]{subfigure}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{multirow}
\specialcomment{ssx}{\begingroup\color{red}Comments: }{\endgroup}
\includecomment{comment}
\newlength{\figwidths}
\setlength{\figwidths}{3.3in}
\newlength{\figwidthd}
\setlength{\figwidthd}{7in}
\newlength{\expwidths}
\setlength{\expwidths}{3.5in}
\newlength{\expwidthd}
\setlength{\expwidthd}{7in}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\theoremstyle{plain
\newtheorem{definitions}{Definition
\newtheorem{problems}{Problem
\newtheorem{theorems}{Theorem
\newtheorem{lemmas}[theorems]{Lemma
\newtheorem{claims}[theorems]{Claim
\newtheorem{corollaries}[theorems]{Corollary
\newtheorem{propositions}[theorems]{Proposition
\makeatletter
\def\@endtheorem{\hfill\ensuremath{\blacksquare}\endtrivlist\@endpefalse }
\makeatother
\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem{examples}{Example
\theoremstyle{remark}
\newtheorem*{remarks}{Remark}
\newtheorem*{notes}{Note}
\newtheorem{case}{Case}
\newtheorem*{proofs}{Proof sketch}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmax}{arg\,max}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmin}{arg\,min}
\makeatletter
\newenvironment{questions}[1][Q]{\par
\addvspace{6pt plus 6pt
\fontsize{10pt}{1.5em}
\normalfont \partopsep=\z@skip \topsep=\z@skip
\trivlist
\item[\hskip\labelsep
\bfseries
#1\@addpunct{:}]\ignorespaces
\itshape\color{blue}
}{%
\endtrivlist\@endpefalse
}
\newenvironment{reply}[1][Reply]{\par
\addvspace{3pt plus 3pt
\pushQED{\qed}%
\fontsize{10pt}{1.5em}
\normalfont \partopsep=\z@skip \topsep=\z@skip
\trivlist
\item[\hskip\labelsep
\scshape
#1\@addpunct{:}]\ignorespaces
}{%
\popQED\endtrivlist\@endpefalse
}
\newenvironment{summary}{\par
\addvspace{3pt plus 3pt
\fontsize{10pt}{1.5em}
\normalfont \partopsep=\z@skip \topsep=\z@skip
}{%
}
\newenvironment{revised}{\color{blue}}{}
\makeatother
\newcommand{\nop}[1]{}
\newcommand{\textsc{n/a}}{\textsc{n/a}}
\newcommand{\textsc{lhs}}{\textsc{lhs}}
\newcommand{\textsc{rhs}}{\textsc{rhs}}
\newcommand{\textsc{p}}{\textsc{p}}
\newcommand{\textsc{ptime}}{\textsc{ptime}}
\newcommand{\textsc{np}}{\textsc{np}}
\newcommand{\textsc{np}-complete}{\textsc{np}-complete}
\newcommand{\textsc{np}-hard}{\textsc{np}-hard}
\begin{document}
\title{Time Series Data Imputation: A Survey on Deep Learning Approaches}
\author[1]{Chenguang Fang\corref{cor1}}
\ead{<EMAIL>}
\author[1]{Chen Wang}
\ead{<EMAIL>}
\address[1]{Tsinghua University, Beijing}
\cortext[cor1]{Corresponding author. Tel.: +(86)18867608173}
\markboth{xxx}%
{xxx}
\begin{abstract}
Time series are all around in real-world applications. However, unexpected accidents for example broken sensors or missing of the signals will cause missing values in time series,
making the data hard to be utilized. It then does harm to the downstream applications such as traditional classification or regression, sequential data integration
and forecasting tasks, thus raising the demand for data imputation.
%
Currently, time series data imputation is a well-studied problem with different categories of methods.
However, these works rarely take the temporal relations among the observations and treat the time series as normal structured data, losing the information from the time data.
%
In recent, deep learning models have raised great attention. Time series methods based on deep learning have made progress with the usage of models like RNN,
since it captures time information from data. In this paper, we mainly focus on time series imputation technique with deep learning methods, which recently made progress in this field.
We will review and discuss their model architectures, their pros and cons as well as their effects to show the development of the time series imputation methods.
\end{abstract}
\begin{keyword}
Time Series Imputation \sep Deep Learning \sep GAN \sep RNN
\end{keyword}
\maketitle
\section{Introduction}
\label{sect:introduction}
Time series are vital in real-world applications. However, due to unexpected accidents, for example broken sensors or missing of the signals,
missing values are everywhere in time series. In some datasets, the missing rate can reach 90\%, which makes the data hard to be utilized \cite{DBLP:journals/cbm/Garcia-Laencina15}.
The missing values significantly do harm to the downstream applications such as traditional classification or regression, sequential data integration \cite{DBLP:conf/icde/LiWZWMH16}
and forecasting tasks \cite{DBLP:journals/asc/HsiehHY11}, leading to high demand for data imputation.
Our preliminary study \cite{DBLP:conf/cikm/FangSCG19} shows that imputing the missing values indeed helps significantly the prediction of fuel consumption.
In the scenarios of fuel consumption prediction, missing values happen due to the errors of sensors.
We propose an imputation approach named FuelNet to deal with such errors. The FuelNet generates proper values to impute missing data. With imputed data, the
fuel consumption can be reduced by around 45.5\%.
In current stages, time series data imputation is a well studied problem with different categories of methods including
deletion methods, simple imputation methods and learning based methods. However, these works rarely take the temporal relations among the observations and treat the time series as normal structured data, thus losing
the information from the time data.
Fortunately, with the increasing development of deep learning, a large quantity of deep learning methods are researched, among which RNN is one of the typical methods to handle sequence data.
The intuition on why deep learning models could advance imputation tasks is that, they are proven to have the ability to mine information hidden in the time series. These characteristics could enable them
to impute missing values with such models.
Recently, deep learning methods have been applied to multivariable time series imputation and show positive progress in imputing
the missing values. In this paper, we mainly survey three papers about time series imputation with deep learning methods \cite{che2018recurrent, DBLP:conf/nips/LuoCZXY18, DBLP:conf/nips/CaoWLZLL18, DBLP:conf/ijcai/Luo0CY19, DBLP:conf/nips/LiuYZZY19}
among which RNN, GRU and GAN are adopted separately or in combination. We will review these papers about their model structure, the common parts they all adopted and the advantages and disadvantages through comparison.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we categorize existing data imputation methods and mainly give an introduction to deep learning imputation methods.
Section 3 will show the definition of the problems and the symbols. Section 4 will give a detailed discussion of deep learning methods, mainly about their concrete structure, advantages and disadvantages.
And finally in Section 5 we summarize the survey and give our conclusions.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\caption{Comparison of different methods addressing time series imputation}
\label{tab:comparison-of-methods}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{50mm}{
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
Methodologies & Sample approaches from the literature & Time interval & Value type & Time series dimension \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Deletion} & Listwise Deletion \cite{wothke2000longitudinal} & regular/irregular & qualitative & multidimensional \\ \cline{2-5}
& Pairwise Deletion \cite{mcknight2007missing} & regular/irregular & qualitative & multidimensional \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Neighbor Based} & QDORC \cite{DBLP:conf/kdd/SongLZ15} & regular/irregular & quantitative/qualitative & multidimensional \\ \cline{2-5}
& SRKN \cite{icde19} & regular/irregular & quantitative/qualitative & multidimensional \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Constraint Based} & DERAND \cite{DBLP:journals/pvldb/SongZC015, DBLP:journals/tkde/SongSZCW20} & regular/irregular & quantitative/qualitative & multidimensional \\
\cline{2-5} & SCREEN \cite{DBLP:conf/sigmod/SongZWY15} & regular/irregular & qualitative & single dimensional \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Regression Based}
& ARX \cite{box2015time} & regular & qualitative & single dimensional \\ \cline{2-5}
& IMR \cite{DBLP:journals/pvldb/ZhangS0Y17} & regular & qualitative & single dimensional \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Statistical} & DPC \cite{DBLP:conf/sigmod/ZhangSW16} & regular & qualitative & single dimensional \\ \cline{2-5}
& IIM \cite{DBLP:conf/icde/ZhangSSW19} & regular & qualitative & multidimensional \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{MF Based} & TRMF \cite{DBLP:conf/nips/YuRD16} & regular & qualitative & multidimensional \\ \cline{2-5}
& NMF \cite{DBLP:conf/icml/MeiCGH17} & regular & qualitative & multidimensional \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{EM Based} & EM \cite{DBLP:conf/nips/GhahramaniJ93} & regular & qualitative & multidimensional \\ \cline{2-5}
& EM-GMM \cite{nelwamondo2007missing} & regular & qualitative & multidimensional \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{MLP Based} & MLP \cite{DBLP:journals/nca/SharpeS95} & regular & qualitative & single dimensional \\ \cline{2-5}
& ANN \cite{nordbotten1996neural} & regular & qualitative & single dimensional \\ \hline
\multirow{5}{*}{DL Based} & GRU-D \cite{che2018recurrent} & regular/irregular & qualitative & multidimensional \\ \cline{2-5}
& GRUI-GAN \cite{DBLP:conf/nips/LuoCZXY18} & regular/irregular & qualitative & multidimensional \\ \cline{2-5}
& BRITS \cite{DBLP:conf/nips/CaoWLZLL18} & regular/irregular & qualitative & multidimensional \\ \cline{2-5}
& E2GAN \cite{DBLP:conf/ijcai/Luo0CY19} & regular/irregular & qualitative & multidimensional \\ \cline{2-5}
& NAOMI \cite{DBLP:conf/nips/LiuYZZY19} & regular/irregular & qualitative & multidimensional \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table*}
\section{Categorization}
\label{sect:classification}
In this section, we will give a brief introduction of the major approaches to time series imputation. Moreover, we will classify existing time series imputation methods according to the
principles and techniques they rely on.
In order to impute the missing values, researchers have proposed many imputation methods to handle the missing values in time series. In this paper,
we mainly conclude 8 kinds of the missing value imputation methods including \textbf{deletion methods}, \textbf{neighbor based methods}, \textbf{constraint based methods},
\textbf{regression based methods}, \textbf{statistical based methods}, \textbf{MF based methods}, \textbf{EM based mathods}, \textbf{MLP based mathods} and \textbf{DL based methods}.
Table~\ref{tab:comparison-of-methods} shows the comparison of these methods we conclude. We will introduce each kind of method respectively as follows.
\textbf{Deletion methods} take a simple strategy that they directly erase the observations that contain missing values from the raw data \cite{mcknight2007missing, wothke2000longitudinal}.
It is also a commonly adopted strategy when the missing value is not
high and the deletion of the missing values will not influence the downstream applications. However, when the missing rate reaches some level (in \cite{graham2009missing}, it is 5\%),
ignoring the missing values and deleting them make the data incomplete and not suitable for downstream applications.
\textbf{Neighbor based methods} \cite
batista2002study,DBLP:conf/kdd/SongLZ15} find out the imputation value from neighbors, e.g., identified by clustering methods like KNN or DBSCAN.
They first find the nearest neighbors of the missing values through other attributes, and then update the missing values with the mean value of these neighbors.
Moreover, considering the local similarity, some methods take the last observed valid value to replace
the blank \cite{amiri2016missing}.
SRKN (Swapping Repair with K Neighbors) \cite{icde19} in our preliminary study could also be adapted to impute the missing values that are misplaced in other dimensions.
\textbf{Constraint based methods} \cite{DBLP:journals/pvldb/SongZC015,DBLP:journals/tkde/SongSZCW20} discover the rules in dataset, and take advantage of these rules to impute.
To apply to time series data, similarity rules such as differential dependencies \cite{DBLP:journals/tods/Song011,DBLP:journals/tkde/Song0C14} or comparable dependencies \cite{DBLP:conf/icde/SongCY11,DBLP:journals/vldb/Song0Y13} could be employed that study the distances or similarities of timestamps as well as values \cite{DBLP:journals/isci/SongZ014}.
More advanced constraints could be specified in a graph structure \cite{DBLP:conf/icde/0001SLZP15,DBLP:conf/sigmod/ZhuSL0Z14}, such as Petri net, and employed to impute the qualitative values of events in time series \cite{DBLP:journals/pvldb/0001SZL13,DBLP:journals/tkde/0001SZLS16}.
These methods are effective when the data is highly continuous or satisfies certain patterns. For example, when the data is increasing linearly, it is effective and efficient
to take simple methods or clustering methods. And when the rules or constraints are satisfied, constraints based methods outperform others in both time and accuracy \cite{DBLP:conf/sigmod/SongZWY15}.
However, multivariable time series in the real world are not usually satisfied with such rules, thus more general methods are required and learning based methods are
researched to impute the time series automatically.
\textbf{Regression based methods}
LOESS~\cite{Cleveland1996} learns a regression model from nearest neighbors for predicting the missing value referring to the complete attributes.
For time series data, autoregressive (AR) models (e.g., ARX \cite{box2015time} and ARIMA \cite{DBLP:journals/ijon/Zhang03}) try to predict missing values from historical data.
More advanced IMR (iterative minimum repairing \cite{DBLP:journals/pvldb/ZhangS0Y17}) provides both anomaly detection and data repair for both anomalies and missing values.
These methods mostly benefit from historical data as well as the accuracy of the nearest neighbors. Thus they could be applied when neighbors are reliable and the time series are highly relative.
\textbf{Statistical based methods} rely on statistical models to impute the missing values \cite{little2019statistical}.
Simple statistical methods just utilize the data in the original data to impute the missing values, such as take the mean value or median value of the
attribute to impute \cite{acuna2004treatment, kantardzic2011data}.
\cite{DBLP:conf/sigmod/ZhangSW16} estimates probability values by statistics on speeds as well as the changes.
Recently, more advanced IIM (Imputation via Individual models) \cite{DBLP:conf/icde/ZhangSSW19} adaptively learns individual models for various number of neighbors.
Unlike regression based methods which based on just historical data, statistical based models are learned from the whole dataset, including historical data and future data.
Therefore, they may capture more information from raw data.
\textbf{Matrix Factorization based methods}
The Matrix Factorization (MF) algorithm tries to impute the value with the Matrix Factorization and reconstruction to find the correlations among the data and complete the missing values which is a classical method of
collaborative filtering \cite{luo2014incremental}. In recent years MF based approaches are introduced into time series imputation fields \cite{DBLP:conf/nips/YuRD16, DBLP:conf/icml/MeiCGH17}.
In general, MF based approaches decompose the data matrix into 2 low-dimensional matrices in the meantime extracting the features from original data. And then they try to reconstruct the original matrix and
in this processing, missing values are imputed.
\textbf{Expectation-Maximization based methods}
Expectation-Maximization (EM) based methods have been successfully applied to missing data imputation problems \cite{nelwamondo2007missing,DBLP:journals/nca/Garcia-LaencinaSF10,DBLP:conf/nips/GhahramaniJ93}. EM based methods follow a two-stage strategy consisting of the E (Expectation) step and the
M (Maximization) step which iteratively imputes the missing values with the statistical model parameters
and then updates the statistical model parameters to maximize the possibility of the distribution of the filled data.
\textbf{Multi-Layer Perceptron based methods}
Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) based methods employee MLP, which is also called fully connected networks. MLP tries to predict missing value by complete values. It can be divided into 3 parts: input layers, hidden layers and output layers.
In this approach, by minimizing the loss function, the perceptron learns a function to impute missing values by input variables. In \cite{DBLP:journals/nca/SharpeS95}, MLP is used to predict missing values in neural network-based diagnostic systems.
And in \cite{nordbotten1996neural}, MLP is employed to impute Population Census.
Recently, \textbf{deep learning based methods} \cite{che2018recurrent, DBLP:conf/nips/LuoCZXY18, DBLP:conf/ijcai/Luo0CY19, DBLP:conf/nips/CaoWLZLL18}
mainly deploy Recurrent Neural Network (RNN), since RNN is capable of capturing the time information. In these papers, time information is handled separately and
attached with more importance. To impute the time series, not only RNN is used, they also combine the models like Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU)
\cite{che2018recurrent, DBLP:conf/nips/LuoCZXY18, DBLP:conf/ijcai/Luo0CY19}
to extract the long-term information, Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN) \cite{DBLP:conf/nips/LuoCZXY18, DBLP:conf/ijcai/Luo0CY19} to generate the imputed values
and Bidirectional Recurrent Networks to improve the accuracy \cite{DBLP:conf/nips/CaoWLZLL18}.
According to the above classification, due to the length, the methods for time series imputation are too many to give a detailed introduction.
Since among these methods, deep learning based ones are the latest and most powerful, we will discuss 3 latest deep learning methods
for time series imputation, find the connections and the differences among them.
\section{Preliminary}
In this section, we first give our formalization of the imputation tasks. It is because when introducing the aforesaid deep learning methods,
they formalize the imputation tasks with different symbols and formulas. And in our research, we review them and explain their methods with uniform definitions.
\begin{definitions}[Multivariable Time Series]
We first denote a timestamp lists $\mathbf{T} = (t_0, t_1,..., t_{n-1})$, and the time series $\mathbf{X} = \{\mathbf{x_{t_0}},\mathbf{x_{t_1}}, ...,\mathbf{x_{t_{n-1}}}\}^T$
as a sequence of $n$ observations. The $i$-th observation of $\ \mathbf{X}$ is $\mathbf{x_{t_i}}$, which consists of $d$ attributes $\{x_{t_i}^0, x_{t_i}^1, ..., x_{t_i}^d\}$.
\end{definitions}
After defining the multivariable time series, we use mask matrix $\mathbf{M}$ to denote the missing values.
\begin{definitions}[Mask Matrix]
Mask Matrix $\mathbf{M}$ represents the missing values in $\mathbf{X}$, i.e., $\mathbf{M} \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times d}$.
And each element of $\mathbf{M}$ is defined as below
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{M}_{t_i}^{j}=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
{0} & {\text { if } x_{t_i}^{j} \text { is not observed, i.e. } x_t^j = \text{None}} \\
{1} & {\text { otherwise }}
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
\end{definitions}
To utilize the time information, the time intervals should be recorded with an extra structure.
Therefore, we introduce the time lag, a matrix to represent the time intervals between two adjacent observed values of $\mathbf{X}$.
\begin{definitions}[Time Lag]\
We use $\mathbf{\delta} \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times d}$ to record the time lag, and we calculate it in an iterative way as follows.
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\delta}_{t_{i}}^{j}=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
{t_{i}-t_{i-1},} & {\mathbf{M}_{t_{i-1}}^{j}=1} \\
{\mathbf{\delta}_{t_{i-1}}^{j}+t_{i}-t_{i-1},} & {\mathbf{M}_{t_{i-1}}^{j-1}==0 \& i>0} \\
{0,} & {i==0}
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
\end{definitions}
\begin{examples}
We now give an example of the time series $\mathbf{X}$, and corresponding timestamp lists $\mathbf{T}$
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{X}=
\left[\begin{array}{cccc}{1} & {6} & {\text { None }} & {9} \\
{7} & {\text { None }} & {7} & {\text { None }} \\
{9} & {\text { None }} & {\text { None }} & {79}\end{array}\right],
\mathbf{T}=\left[\begin{array}{c}{0} \\
{5} \\
{13}\end{array}\right]
\end{equation}
And we can thus compute the mask matrix $\mathbf{M}$ and the time lag $\mathbf{\delta}$.
\begin{equation}
{\mathbf{M}}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}{0} & {0} & {1} & {0} \\ {0} & {1} & {0} & {1} \\ {0} & {1} & {1} & {0}\end{array}\right],
\delta=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}{0} & {0} & {0} & {0} \\ {5} & {5} & {5} & {5} \\ {8} & {13} & {8} & {13}\end{array}\right]
\end{equation}
\end{examples}
\section{Methods}
In this section, we will first give an overall review of the relationships among the given approaches and comparisons of them and then discuss them individually with details.
The main deep learning methods we researched for time series imputation are GRU-D \cite{che2018recurrent}, GRUI-GAN \cite{DBLP:conf/nips/LuoCZXY18}, E$^2$GAN \cite{DBLP:conf/ijcai/Luo0CY19},
BRITS \cite{DBLP:conf/nips/CaoWLZLL18} and NAOMI \cite{DBLP:conf/nips/LiuYZZY19}. All of them are deep learning approaches published recently for time series imputation tasks.
Among these methods, recurrent neural network (RNN) and generative adversarial network (GAN) are main architectures that are adopted.
The reason is that RNN and its variations (e.g., LSTM, GRU) have been proven powerful in modeling sequence data, while GAN has been successfully applied to generation and imputation tasks.
To describe the relationships among these methods, we illustrate the dependencies and common structures of them in Figure~\ref{fig:relationships}.
In Figure~\ref{fig:relationships}, we use arrows to describe the dependencies, for example GRUI-GAN improves the work by using GAN while
E$^2$GAN is the updated version of GRUI-GAN. And we use boxes to describe the common structures among the methods, for example GRU-D and BRITS are both pure RNN models and
BRITS and NAOMI both adopt bidirectional RNN structures. This can help us to understand how the time series imputation task is systematically modeled, how the solutions are developed and what progress people
make in this process. In the following sections, we will take a progressive order to review them.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\expwidths]{fig-relationships}\\
\caption{The relationships among methods we mainly surveyed.}
\label{fig:relationships}
\end{figure}
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\caption{Characteristics of the chosen methods}
\label{tab:characteristics}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
Methodologies & Model Prototype & Specific Models & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Auto-Encoder \\ Enhanced\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Adversarial Training \\ Enhancednced\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Bidirectional \\ Enhanced\end{tabular} \\ \hline
GRU-D & RNN & GRU & -- & -- & -- \\ \hline
GRUI-GAN & Hybrid & GRU+GAN & -- & yes & -- \\ \hline
E2GAN & Hybrid & GRU+GAN & yes & yes & -- \\ \hline
BRITS & RNN & Bidirectional RNN & -- & -- & yes \\ \hline
NAOMI & Hybrid & RNN+GAN & -- & yes & yes \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Characteristics of Chosen Methods}
\label{sect:characteristics}
In this section, we give the characteristics of the chosen methods in Table~\ref{tab:characteristics} to give a brief introduction and
a taxonomy of the chosen methods we reviewed. We consider the following criteria:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Irregular Time Series Awareness}: time series including regular time series with fixed time interval and irregular time series. Both of them are common kinds
which are important for classifying the using condition of the methods~\cite{DBLP:conf/sigmod/ZhangSW16, DBLP:conf/sigmod/SongZWY15}.
\item \emph{Model Prototype}: model prototype concludes the overall kind of model in the methods, e.g., RNN, GAN and CNN. It is a basic information to classify the model type. If the
model prototype is hybrid, it means more than 1 kind of prototype is employed.
\item \emph{Specific Models}: specific models introduce the specific kinds of model adopted in the methods. The specific models may relate to the basic idea of the methods.
\item \emph{Auto-Encoder Enhanced}: auto-encoder structure is an approach that can be applied in the imputation of the data. With the structure of encoder and decoder,
it extracts the features from low-dimensional layers and recovery missing values by decoder. Therefore, it can serve as a feature of methods.
\item \emph{Adversarial Training Enhanced}: adversarial training adopts adversarial structure (e.g., GAN \cite{DBLP:conf/nips/GoodfellowPMXWOCB14} and CGAN \cite{DBLP:journals/corr/MirzaO14})
to enhance the model. It takes the idea of generative adversarial structure with generator and discriminator. Large amount of models can be enhanced with such idea.
\item \emph{Bidirectional Enhanced}: Bidirectional RNN trains 2 models in forward direction and backward direction respectively with RNN and then combines them into the same loss function \cite{DBLP:journals/nn/GravesS05}.
This idea is vital in data imputation tasks since both previous series and future series of missing values are known. Therefore, bidirectional structure benefits from both backward and forward training processing. Such idea is
adopted in \cite{DBLP:conf/nips/LiuYZZY19,DBLP:conf/nips/CaoWLZLL18}.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{GRU-D}
\label{subsect:GRUD}
GRU-D is proposed by \cite{che2018recurrent} as one of the early attempts to impute time series with deep learning models.
It is the first one among the 5 researched paper to systematically model missing patterns into RNN for time series
classification problems. It is also the first research to exploit that, RNN can model multivariable time series with the informativeness
from the time series.
Former works like \cite{lipton2016directly, choi2016doctor} attempted to impute missing values with RNN by concatenating timestamps and raw data, i.e., regard
timestamps as one attribute of raw data. But in \cite{che2018recurrent}, the concept \textbf{time lag} is first proposed.
In this paper, Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) is first adopted to generate missing values. In each layer of GRU, since the input can contain missing values,
they replace the input $x_{t_i}^j$ with a combination of the existing values $x_{t_i}^j$ and statistical values, element-wise multiplied with $\mathbf{M}$
and $\mathbf{1}-\mathbf{M}$ respectively.
$$
x_{t_i}^{j} \leftarrow m_{t_i}^{j} x_{t_i}^{j}+\left(1-m_{t_i}^{j}\right) \tilde{x}^{j}
$$
where $\tilde{x}$ can be one of the mean value, last observed value or concatenation of $\left[\mathbf{x_i}; \mathbf{m_i};\delta_i\right]$.
The main contribution of this paper is the GRU based model GRU-D and the proposition of \textbf{decay rate}.
To address the imputation of the missing values, they discover that
\begin{itemize}
\item The missing variables tend to be close to some default value if its last observation happens a long time ago.
\item The influence of the input variables will fade away over time if the variable has been missing for a while.
\end{itemize}
And then they propose \textbf{decay rate} $\gamma$, which is defined as below
$$
\gamma_{t_i} = \exp({-\max{(\mathbf{0},\mathbf{W}_{\gamma}\mathbf{\delta_{t_i}})}})
$$
The decay rate tries to model the impact of the other values have on the missing values. In brief, it guarantees that the larger the time intervals are,
the less their influence on imputing the missing values. And then they replace the input variable as
$$
x_{t_i}^{j} \leftarrow m_{t_i}^{j} x_{t_j}^{j}+\left(1-m_{t_i}^{j}\right) \gamma_{\boldsymbol{x}_{t_i}}^{j} x_{t_i^{\prime}}^{j}+\left(1-m_{t_i}^{j}\right)\left(1-\gamma_{\boldsymbol{x}_{t_i}}^{j}\right) \tilde{x}^{j}
$$
Therefore, as illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:GRUD}, the GRU-D model is proposed with 2 different trainable decays $\gamma_{\boldsymbol{x}}$ and $\gamma_{\boldsymbol{h}}$, where
$\gamma_{\boldsymbol{x}}$ is the input decay rate and the $\gamma_{\boldsymbol{h}}$ is the decay rate for the hidden state.
\begin{figure}[t]
\subfigure[GRU]{
\label{fig:GRUD1}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\figwidths]{./fig-GRUD-1}
}
\subfigure[GRU-D]{
\label{fig:GRUD2}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\figwidths]{./fig-GRUD-2}
}
\caption{Model of GRU and GRU-D. Images extracted from \cite{che2018recurrent}.}
\label{fig:GRUD}
\end{figure}
\subsection{GRUI-GAN}
\label{subsect:GRUI}
In \cite{DBLP:conf/nips/LuoCZXY18}, GRU-I is proposed as the recurrent unit to capture the time information. As Figure~\ref{fig:GRUI} illustrates,
it follows the structure of GRU-D in Section~\ref{subsect:GRUD} with the removal of the input decay. Therefore, there is no innovation in the
RNN part as well as the decay rate.
The main contribution of this paper locates in the GAN structure. Figure~\ref{fig:GRUI-GAN} shows the structure.
The Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) structure is made up of a generator (G) and a discriminator (D).
The G learns a mapping $G(z)$ that tries to map the random noise vector $z$ to realistic time series.
The D tries to find a mapping $D(.)$ that tells us the input data's probability of being real.
Therefore, in this paper, the model takes a random noise as the input of the GAN model, which means the generating is a
random process. Both G and D are based on GRU-I, and it takes lots of time to train the model to get the data imputed.
The GRUI-GAN takes advantage of the ability of GAN in imputation, which has been proven powerful in image imputation such as \cite{pathak2016context}.
And the adversarial structure improves accuracy. Moreover, the paper adopts a WGAN structure, which improves the stability of the
learning stage, get out of the problem of mode collapse and makes it easy for the optimization of the GAN model.
However, this model is not practical since the accuracy of the generative model seems not stable with a random noise input. And it also
makes the model hard to converge.
\begin{figure}[t]
\subfigure[GRU]{
\label{fig:GRUI1}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\figwidths]{./fig-GRUI-1}
}
\subfigure[GRU-I]{
\label{fig:GRUI2}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\figwidths]{./fig-GRUI-2}
}
\caption{Model of GRU and GRU-I. Images extracted from \cite{DBLP:conf/nips/LuoCZXY18}.}
\label{fig:GRUI}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.2\expwidths]{fig-GRUI-GAN}\\
\caption{The structure of the GRUI-GAN. Image extracted from \cite{DBLP:conf/nips/LuoCZXY18}.}
\label{fig:GRUI-GAN}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\expwidths]{fig-BRIT}\\
\caption{The structure of the BRITS. Image extracted from \cite{DBLP:conf/nips/CaoWLZLL18}.}
\label{fig:BRITS}
\end{figure}
\subsection{BRITS}
\label{sect:BRITS}
Unlike former methods, BRITS \cite{DBLP:conf/nips/CaoWLZLL18} is totally based on RNN structure and proposes imputation with unidirectional dynamics.
Time lag (corresponding to "time gaps" in \cite{DBLP:conf/nips/CaoWLZLL18}) is also employed since the time series may be irregular.
Similar to the idea of decay rate $\gamma$ from GRU-D introduced in Section~\ref{subsect:GRUD}, they propose \textbf{temporal decay factor}
$\gamma_t = \exp{(-max\left(0,\mathbf{W}_{\gamma}\delta_t + \mathbf{b}_{\gamma}\right))}$. Compared to GRU-D where the time lags are considered in input and serve as
the decay rate, in BRITS the hidden states update with the decay rate $\gamma$.
It means when updating the hidden state, the old hidden state decays according to the time duration recorded in the time lags. Hence, the model is updated by:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mathbf{x}}_{t} &=\mathbf{W}_{x} \mathbf{h}_{t-1}+\mathbf{b}_{x} \\
\mathbf{x}_{t}^{c} &=\mathbf{m}_{t} \odot \mathbf{x}_{t}+\left(1-\mathbf{m}_{t}\right) \odot \hat{\mathbf{x}}_{t} \\
\gamma_{t} &=\exp \left\{-\max \left(0, \mathbf{W}_{\gamma} \delta_{t}+\mathbf{b}_{\gamma}\right)\right\} \\
\mathbf{h}_{t} &=\sigma\left(\mathbf{W}_{h}\left[\mathbf{h}_{t-1} \odot \gamma_{t}\right]+\mathbf{U}_{h}\left[\mathbf{x}_{t}^{c} \circ \mathbf{m}_{t}\right]+\mathbf{b}_{h}\right) \\
\ell_{t} &=\left\langle\mathbf{m}_{t}, \mathcal{L}_{e}\left(\mathbf{x}_{t}, \hat{\mathbf{x}}_{t}\right)\right\rangle
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The former model named RITS is the unidirectional version of the proposed methods in \cite{DBLP:conf/nips/CaoWLZLL18}.
As the bidirectional version, BRITS employs bidirectional RNN by utilizing the bidirectional recurrent dynamics, i.e., they train 2 models in forward direction and
backward direction respectively \cite{DBLP:journals/nn/GravesS05}.
Thus consistency loss is introduced to take the losses of both directions into consideration.
To conclude, in BRITS, time lags are still adopted to deal with irregular time series. Only RNN is used to model the time series. We can also conclude from the model and the experiments that
bidirectional RNN contributes to a higher performance since the unidirectional model may suffer from bias exploding problem \cite{DBLP:conf/nips/BengioVJS15}.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.1\expwidths]{fig-E2GAN}\\
\caption{The structure of the E$^2$GAN. Image extracted from \cite{DBLP:conf/ijcai/Luo0CY19}.}
\label{fig:E2GAN}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{E$^2$GAN}
E$^2$GAN \cite{DBLP:conf/ijcai/Luo0CY19} is another work based on GAN. While the GRUI-GAN in Section~\ref{subsect:GRUI} takes a random noise vector
as input, which takes lots of time to train, E$^2$GAN adopts an auto-encoder structure based on GRUI to form the generator. The overall structure of their model
is in Figure~\ref{fig:E2GAN}.
In E$^2$GAN, concepts including mask, time lag, decay rate and GRUI are all reserved without improvement, thus there is no innovation in the GRUI structure.
The main contribution is the auto-encoder structure they adopt in the generator. This is a common strategy taken by image generation and imputation
such as Context-Encoder \cite{pathak2016context}, PixelGANs \cite{isola2017image}, but not a common strategy in RNN based GAN.
Since the input of the model is the original time series, the model compresses the input incomplete time series $\mathbf{X}$ into a low-dimensional vector $z$
with the help of the GRUI. And then the reconstructing part will reconstruct the complete time series $\mathbf{X'}$ to fool the discriminator.
And the discriminator of the method attempts to distinguish actual incomplete time series $\mathbf{X}$ and
the fake but complete sample $\mathbf{X'}$ through the adoption of recursive neural network. The framework of the discriminator is also an encoder.
E$^2$GAN takes an encoder-decoder RNN based structure as the generator, which tackles the difficulty of training the model and the accuracy.
So far, according to the experiments in the paper, E$^2$GAN has achieved state-of-the-art and outperforms other existing methods.
\subsection{NAOMI}
NAOMI (\textbf{N}on-\textbf{A}ut\textbf{O}regressive \textbf{M}ultiresolution \textbf{I}mputation \cite{DBLP:conf/nips/LiuYZZY19})
proposes a non-autoregressive model which conditions both previous values but also future values, i.e., equipped with bidirectional
RNN like BRITS introduced in Section~\ref{sect:BRITS}. Since in the imputation tasks, future values and historical values are both observed,
the intuition is to take advantage of both values and train bidirectional models for them. As illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:naomi}, $f_f$ and $f_b$ are
forward and backward RNN respectively, thus the hidden state $h_t$ is a joint hidden state concatenated by $h^f_t$ and $h^b_t$.
Moreover, a special predicting strategy is performed in this paper. They adopt a \emph{divide and conquer strategy}. As it is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:naomi},
with 2 known values $x_1$ and $x_5$, they first predict the midpoint $x_3$ by $x_1$ and $x_5$ with proposed bidirectional RNN models, and then $x_3$ is updated and
utilized to predict $x_2$ and $x_4$ respectively. Thus a fine-grained prediction is performed.
Finally, adversarial training is taken to enhance the model.
However, in NAOMI, time gaps are ignored and the data is injected into the RNN model without timestamps. It suggests the model is not aware of
irregular time series although we can still take them as input by removing their timestamps directly.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\expwidths]{fig-naomi}\\
\caption{The structure of the NAOMI. Image extracted from \cite{DBLP:conf/nips/LiuYZZY19}.}
\label{fig:naomi}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we give a brief introduction to the imputation methods for time series. We propose that existing methods can be classified into 3 main classed:
deletion methods, traditional methods, and learning based methods. And we introduce our classification in detail. Moreover, we investigate existing deep learning methods
for time series imputation, since they outperform others and make great progress recently. We mainly researched 3 deep learning methods including
GRU-D, GRUI-GAN, and E$^2$GAN. All of them based on RNN, and the latter two also adopt GAN for more accurate imputation. We also find the relationships among them: GRUI-GAN
is based on the definitions from GRU-D, and E$^2$GAN improves the generator of the GRUI-GAN with auto-encoder. And so far, E$^2$GAN achieves state-of-the-art.
Since the imputation problem is fundamental, we believe with these methods, the filled data would benefit downstream applications in many aspects. And as we observed, most
of the techniques in other fields can be adopted in this task since time series data is everywhere. In the future, we would like to see the time information can be utilized
properly, and the methods can be more general and accurate so that we would not need to choose the best one from too many methods,
and the missing data of the time series would not be a problem.
\section{Future Research Opportunities}
Based on our observation from surveying the development of time series imputation methodologies, we try to highlight some potential research opportunities in this field.
Most existing researches mainly focus on the structure of RNN and try to use bidirectional RNN, Auto-Encoder structure and GAN to enhance the model. With the rapid development in the
deep learning society (especially Natural Language Processing (NLP) where time series are also highly concerned), some techniques have reached better performance (e.g., attention models).
These models can be considered to enhance the imputation models.
Further, most existing methods ignore the missing of timestamps which can also appear obscurely \cite{DBLP:journals/pvldb/SongC016}.
Therefore, there is still demand for such techniques. Existing methods can be extended to impute missing timestamps.
Moreover, query answering without directly imputing missing values is another perspective of dealing with missing values.
Under such scenarios, specific values do not need imputation, and consistent queries in inconsistent probabilistic databases should be generated.
\subsection{Attention Mechanism Enhanced}
In recent years, the attention mechanism has been shown successful in deep learning society, especially in NLP fields.
When adopted in RNN, the attention mechanism allocates weights for each hidden state to draw information from the sequence.
With such mechanism, the model is improved to capture latent patterns in historical data, thus may benefit time series imputation.
Compared to existing RNN models (e.g., LSTM and GRU) which already take long-term dependencies into consideration, the attention mechanism for instance temporal attention enables the model to
see features and status globally. However, LSTM and GRU will still lose long-term information due to the forget gate unit.
Recently, pure attention models are proposed without RNN. The Transformer proposed in \cite{DBLP:conf/nips/VaswaniSPUJGKP17} is one of the popular frameworks.
In the proposed Transformer framework, it only adopts an attention layer called self-attention, which is computed as:
$$
\operatorname{Attention}(Q, K, V)=\operatorname{softmax}\left(\frac{Q K^{T}}{\sqrt{d_{k}}}\right) V
$$
where $Q, K, V$ are queries, keys and values respectively, and $d_k$ is the dimension of the input.
Accepting a single sequence as input, the self-attention mechanism relates different positions of the input and tries to compute a representation of the sequence.
Without applying RNN, the Transformer relies entirely on the self-attention layers to former an encoder-decoder structure, which is similar to the auto-encoder introduced in
Section~\ref{sect:characteristics}. Such a structure provides the ability to extract high-dimensional features for reconstructing, which benefits tasks like machine translation introduced in \cite{DBLP:conf/nips/VaswaniSPUJGKP17}.
For improving the performance of data imputation, due to the effectiveness of the attention mechanisms, models based on attention mechanisms may also address the time series imputation problems.
And two aforementioned categories of the attention mechanisms including temporal attention and self-attention are both potential techniques which may benefit the time series imputation.
Moreover, with the idea of removing RNN and leveraging only attention mechanisms, structures like the Transformer may contribute to a new framework for the imputation tasks.
To summary, two categories of attention mechanisms including temporal attention and self-attention may bring future opportunities on time series imputation. And the pure attention frameworks are also
new directions to model time series.
\subsection{Imputing Missing Timestamps}
Missing timestamps often appear obscurely \cite{DBLP:journals/pvldb/SongC016}, e.g., denoted by \texttt{00:00:00}. Most of existing methods mainly focus on the missing values of the time series.
However, once timestamps are missing, these methods may fail to capture the information of time and unable to obtain accurate imputation results.
Thus, an extension of existing methods to impute missing timestamps is potentially appropriate direction to deal with such scenarios.
\subsection{Consistent Query Answering}
Following \cite{DBLP:conf/sigmod/LianCS10}, query answering without determining the specific imputation of each missing value is crucial in probabilistic databases \cite{DBLP:journals/vldb/DalviS07},
when data from many sources can be inconsistent and uncertain. Therefore, consistent query answering (CQA) is needed. Missing values data in CQA problem increase
the difficulty of answering the query consistently. Both the inconsistent data from different sources and missing values should be considered. Therefore, a combination of data imputation methods and
CQA methods can be a potential approach.
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
Exoplanetary science is one of the fastest expanding fields in astronomy. The increasing number of discovered exoplanets provided necessary motivation for subsidiary disciplines to grow.
Exoplanet atmosphere characterisation, in particular, is one of the frontiers of the field. Transit spectroscopy, which consists in observing transits at different wavelengths has allowed astronomers to robustly detect chemical species such as water vapour, carbon-bearing molecules, oxides and alkali species in the atmosphere \citep{Linsky2010, Fossati2010,berta2012, mandell2013,dekok2013, Ehrenreich2014,Barman2015,Macintosh2015,Macdonald2017,Jacob2018,edwards_w76}. These successes are built upon the foundation of generations of ground based and space based instruments, such as the Very Large Telescope (VLT), the Spitzer Space Telescope and the Hubble Space Telescope. The accumulation of such observations over the years has enabled large scale statistical studies of subpopulations of exoplanets, for example on a wide range of Hot Jupiter atmospheres \citep{sing2016,iyer_pop,population,fisher_18}.
Looking forward, the next generation of space missions, dedicated to exoplanet characterisation, such as Ariel \citep{ARIEL}, Twinkle \citep{edwards_exo} and JWST \citep{JWST_mission}, will be launching within the next decade, delivering spectra with broader wavelength coverage and higher spectral resolution. The prospect of better data quality has encouraged further development in forward modelling of exoplanet spectra and atmospheric retrieval techniques \citep[e.g.][]{Irwin_nemesis,Madhusudhan_retrieval,Line_chimera,Ormel_arcis,Zhang_platon,Taurex3}.
Artificial intelligence and in particular deep learning, has risen in popularity in recent years. Deep learning algorithms have proven successful in efficiently deriving useful models from large amounts of high-dimensional data. Such models, capable of capturing highly non-linear relationships have been used to solve hard problems in a wide range of application domains, such as image classification \citep{ImageReview}, natural language processing \citep{NLPreview} and time series analysis \citep{TSCreview}. Typically, training such complex models without overfitting requires a large amount of data.
The use of deep learning (DL) and general machine learning (ML) algorithms has become widespread in the field of exoplanet research. \cite{McCauliff2015} applied Random Forests (RFs) to identify candidate transit signals from Kepler light-curves. Subsequently \cite{Shallue_2018} and \cite{Pearson2018} demonstrated the potential of DL in transit candidate vetting and inspired followup applications on other instruments \citep[e.g.][]{Alexander_2019,Dattilo2019,Osborn2020,Yu2019}. \cite{Schanche2019} developed a combination of shallow ML and DL models to improve vetting accuracy on WASP data. Additionally, Long Short-Term Memory Network \citep{Mario2020} and Random Forest \citep{Krick2020} were implemented to model and correct the systematics of Spitzer IRAC exoplanet transit modelling and detection.
On the planetary characterisation front, despite the fact that retrieval has always been the standard, universal approach when it comes to inferring atmospheric properties, retrieval frameworks are not without weaknesses. It is essentially a fitting algorithm that attempts to estimate a best-fit solution given a forward model and a list of parameters with their bounds. The limitation imposed by the observational data means that multiple solutions, regardless of their feasibility, could exist, and it is left for the user to judge the feasibility of the outcome. A neural network, on the other hand, is able to learn the intricate, non-linear relationships between parameters and the observational data. The development of a neural network driven retrieval is still at its early stages, but there have been attempts to infer atmospheric properties from a network. \cite{robert_ingo} pioneered the application of deep learning models to identify the existence of molecular species in a transmission spectrum. \cite{Marquez2018} used RFs to infer atmospheric properties, such as temperature and water abundance, from exoplanet spectra. The success of RFs inspired further applications. \cite{fisher2020} applied the same algorithm on high resolution ground-based observations. \cite{Nixon2020} built upon \cite{Marquez2018}'s work and produced an RF generated posterior distribution with excellent agreement to one from a fully Bayesian retrieval. On the neural network front, \cite{exogan} utilised a Generative Adversarial Network (GAN), a deep learning network architecture that can generate the closest synthetic spectrum and its associated atmospheric properties to a given observed spectrum. \cite{Cobb2019} developed a Bayesian Neural Network to model the posterior distribution between atmospheric parameters. To speed up the computationally expensive radiative transfer simulation process, \cite{Himes2020} trained a ML surrogate forward model and demonstrated its potential to significantly reduce retrieval time.
However, despite their predictive power, models generated using some of the most powerful machine learning algorithms --deep learning being the most prominent example-- are often regarded as `black boxes'. Deep neural networks trained on large, high-dimensional datasets are models that typically contain thousands or even millions of parameters learnt from data. This is what allows them to model complex non-linearities within the data and ultimately leads to their accurate predictions. But the same complexity also makes it difficult to understand what factors contribute the most to DNN predictions. Developing methodologies to make such models more interpretable is a growing area in the field of machine learning \citep{molnar2019}. Better interpretability and a more robust understanding of the DNN's uncertainties may lead to a broader adoption of these methods in the physical sciences. It allows us to understand if our models make correct predictions for the right reasons, why our models are wrong --when they are-- and how to correct for their biases. Beyond this, interpretability methods allow for identifying the ever-present biases in the dataset -- especially relevant in the case of astrophysics where a lot of effort is dedicated to analysing simulated data in preparation for deploying a new instrument. Finally, understanding machine learning models in terms we can relate to the underlying theory of the application domain (e.g. astrophysics), can provide us with new theoretical insights.
In this paper, we will investigate the use of several DNN architectures (MLPs\footnote{Multilayer Perceptrons (MLPs) are fully (i.e. `densely') connected feed-forward neural networks. They are the oldest type of DNN developed and the most commonly used in structured data.}, CNNs, LSTMs) in the problem of exoplanet atmospheric retrievals. We emphasise that our goal is not to train a neural network to perform retrieval, the two methodologies might have similar outcomes but they are different in their approach. Our goal is to investigate how to probe into the inner workings of DNN models trained to perform this prediction task. We will demonstrate how to analyse the performance of a trained model and answer questions like: `What is the true abundance range if the model predicts an abundance of H$_2$O of $10^{-5}$?' We will use this analysis to explore the performance of an instrument/observational strategy (in our case the Deep survey by the ESA Ariel space telescope \citep{ARIEL}). Moreover, we will present a general methodology that can be applied to any trained neural network (or rather any statistical predictive model) to understand how its input affects its predictions. The proposed method is a quantification of the sensitivity of the trained model to the various features of the input. In the context of atmospheric retrievals, we will visualise how different features of the spectrum affect the quality of the retrieval. In other words we ask: `Where does a neural network look in the spectrum to determine the value of each of the retrieved parameters?' As we will see, the answer mostly agrees with our physical intuition, yet it occasionally brings to light interesting new insights about the model, the data, or the underlying physics. Our implementation is available on Github\footnote{\url{https://github.com/ucl-exoplanets/Spectra_Sensitivity_analysis}} and Zenodo \citep{khy_sensitivity}.
\section{Problem Statement, Data \& Models}
\subsection{Objectives}
There are three main objectives in this investigation:
\begin{enumerate}
\item To train DNNs to infer different atmospheric parameters from a transmission spectrum. We demonstrate that several DNN architectures (MLPs, CNNs, LSTMs) are capable of producing models that achieve good predictive performance in this task. We use the best model obtained at this stage as an example model for the next two stages (which, we should note, are not tied to any specific model or learning algorithm).
\item To present a detailed evaluation methodology to investigate the quality of the predictions of any given trained model. We move beyond the naive regression visualisations and demonstrate how to decompose the error of the model into its bias and variance components, how to check for interactions among variables and how to assess the credibility of its predictions. In doing so, we also infer the limits of credibility on each target on the given dataset under our model.
\item To introduce a perturbation-based sensitivity analysis approach for visualising regions of the input that are most relevant for the predictions of any given trained model. Doing so, allows us to understand whether the regions of the input the model is most sensitive to, align with our physical intuition.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Data Generation}
\label{sec:gen_data}
\begin{table}[]
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{c|ccc}
AMPs & Range & Scale & Sampling \\ \hline
H$_2$O & -9 to -3 & log & Uniform \\
CH$_4$ & -9 to -3 & log & Uniform \\
CO & -9 to -3 & log & Uniform \\
CO$_2$ & -9 to -3 & log & Uniform \\
NH$_3$ & -9 to -3 & log & Uniform \\
M$_p$ {[}log(M$_J$){]} & -3.00 to 1.43 & log & \cite{target_list} \\
R$_p$ {[}R$_J${]} & 0.07 to 2.39 & linear & \cite{target_list} \\
T$_p$ {[}K{]} & 1393 to 3999 & linear & \cite{target_list} \\
Cloud {[}log(Pa){]} & 2.7 to 6 & log & Uniform
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Sampling range, scale and sampling method used for different AMPs in the synthetic dataset.}
\label{tab:prior}
\end{table}
For the purposes of this study, we generated synthetic\footnote{Although the specific models trained on this dataset, their predictive performance and sensitivity analysis results are problem-specific, it is important to clarify that all methodologies presented in this work are applicable to any machine learning model trained on a given dataset.} planetary atmospheres from planets contained in the Ariel Target list \citep{target_list}. A total of 11940 transmission spectra were produced. A transmission spectrum records the $\lambda$ dependency change in transit depth ($\Delta$t$_\lambda$). This large scale spectrum generation is made possible through the function \textit{Alfnoor-forward} in Alfnoor \citep{alfnoor}, a pipeline consisting of TauREx3 and ArielRad, the Ariel Radiometric Model \citep{mugnai_Arielrad}. Each generated spectrum is binned to Ariel Tier-2 resolution with error-bars calculated based on Deep survey requirements and realistic estimates of the instrument, observations taken and planet observed. The Ariel Tier 2 resolution is kept the same throughout the investigation, any binning process is not performed in wavelength space. This setup was used by \cite{alfnoor} in their investigation, which provided a benchmark for us to compare in Section \ref{sseq:credibility}. Here we denote the binned spectrum as the mean, ground truth spectrum $\bar{\mathbf{X}}$ = [$\bar{x}_1$, $\bar{x}_2$, \dots, $\bar{x}_{52}$], where $x_i$ represents the transit depth at the $i$-th wavelength bin in ascending order. The associated uncertainty for each $x_i$ will be denoted as $\sigma_i$.
All generated spectra are subject to the same assumptions: the atmosphere for each spectrum is assumed to have constant He/H$_2$ ratio of 0.17, a hypothesis corresponding to a primary atmosphere with solar composition. Rayleigh scattering and Collision Induced Absorption for H$_2$-H$_2$ and H$_2$-He are included. The T-P profile is assumed to be isothermal and trace gases are introduced to the atmosphere with iso-abundance profiles (profiles constant with altitude). Other planetary parameters necessary in producing a transmission spectrum and estimating the observational uncertainties (spectrum and error bars), such as stellar radius (R$_s$), planet radius (R$_p$), planet mass (M$_p$), planet temperature (T$_p$) and other orbital parameters (semi-major axis, distance to the star, eccentricity) are taken from the predictions in \cite{target_list}.
To generate an unbiased sample of spectra, we added a number of trace gases. For each constituent trace gases (H$_2$O, CH$_4$, CO, CO$_2$ and NH$_3$), we uniformly sampled their log abundance from -9 to -3\footnote{The range was chosen to explore Ariel Deep survey's ability at capturing low molecular abundances. Log abundance values $> -3$ are omitted as they can easily be detected via current retrieval methods. }. The line lists of different molecules are taken from ExoMol \citep{Tennyson_exomol}, HITRAN \citep{gordon} and HITEMP \citep{rothman}. Additionally, we have also added grey clouds with its cloud deck pressure log(P$_{cloud}$) uniformly sampled from 2.7 to 6. Table \ref{tab:prior} summarises the sampling range, sampling method and their respective scales. For a detailed discussion of the data generation process, we refer the interested readers to Section 2.2 of \cite{alfnoor}.
\subsection{Data Preprocessing}
\label{sec:preprocessing}
The term `parameter' is defined differently under the context of machine learning and exoplanet atmospheric retrievals. To explicitly distinguish the different contexts, we will refer to Atmospheric Model Parameters as `AMPs' and Deep Neural Network parameters (synaptic weights) as `weights' hereafter.
The synthetic spectra and their corresponding AMPs are standardised (normalised so that each feature, i.e. wavelength bin and each AMP has zero mean and unit variance) to facilitate the training of the DNN models (see Figure \ref{fig:spectra_compare} for empirical comparison of sample spectra before and after standardisation). The standardised dataset is then split uniformly at random into three subsets, the original training set (70\%), the validation set (10\%) and the test set (20\%).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{spectra_preprocess.png}
\caption{Empirical comparison of a sample of synthetic spectra before and after standardisation. The comparison shows that our transformation only scales the spectral features, without distorting their relative shape.}
\label{fig:spectra_compare}
\end{figure}
The original training set is not directly used in training. Rather, it is used to generate an augmented training set. For each datapoint (spectrum) $\bar{\mathbf{X}}$ in the original training set, we generate 50 datapoints $\tilde{\mathcal{X}}$ for the augmented training set. Each $\tilde{\mathcal{X}}$ is produced by sampling a new $\tilde{x_i}$ from a Gaussian distribution centered at $\bar{x_i}$ and having a standard deviation defined by the corresponding $\sigma_i$. The original ground-truth (i.e. noise-free) spectra are thus discarded and the models are trained only on these noisy, more realistic samples. The same applies for the validation set, whereas the test set is kept noise-free.
\subsection{Model Training}
\label{sec:training}
We trained a DNN to perform a multi-output regression task. The task is to predict nine targets, log(X$_{H_2O}$), log(X$_{CH_4}$), log(X$_{CO}$), log(X$_{CO_2}$), log(X$_{NH_3}$), R$_p$, log(M$_p$), T$_p$ and log(P$_{cloud}$) from a given spectrum. For ease of referencing we denote the AMPs as $\mathbf{y} = [y_1,y_2, ... y_9]$, where $y_j$ represents the $j$-th AMP (as ordered above). The model is trained in a supervised manner by minimising the Mean Squared Error (MSE) between the predicted values $\mathbf{\hat{y}}$ and the ground truth $\mathbf{y}$, averaged across all targets. Details of how the neural networks were trained can be found in Appendix \ref{app:imple}. The results and figures shown in this paper are selected from our best performing model, an 1-dimensional Convolutional Neural Network (1D-CNN).
\section{Evaluation of Predictive Models} \label{sec:method}
\subsection{Prediction versus Truth Plot}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{PVT_plot.png}
\caption{Prediction versus Truth Plot for each AMP in their respective units. Each blue point represents a single spectrum from the test set. Prediction from the model (y-axis) is plotted against the corresponding ground truth (x-axis). The black diagonal line represents the distribution of perfect predictions. }
\label{fig:all_distributions}
\end{figure}
In Figure \ref{fig:all_distributions} we compare for each of the individual AMPs to be retrieved, the value predicted by the model (y-axis) against the true value (x-axis). These predictions were generated for noise-free spectra from the test set. Each blue point in every subplot represents prediction from a single (test) spectrum. The diagonal line represents the predictions of a perfect model (one that always predicts the ground truth). This is a classic visualisation of regression results. It is useful for obtaining an overall sense of the model's performance: ideally `points should not deviate much from the diagonal'. But significant information is obscured by the fact that (i) the density of points is not uniform and that (ii) `deviation' can assume different mathematical meanings (e.g. `average deviation', `standard deviation around the mean').
\subsection{Bias \& Variance Visualization}
\label{sec:BVPlot}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{alt_BVP.png}
\caption{Visualization of bias \& variance for different AMPs. Each point represents the average absolute deviation of the model's prediction from the ground truth (a measure of the model's bias) and the associated error-bar represents the 1-$\sigma$ spread of the predictions (a measure of the model's variance). Note that the model's variance also includes contributions from the irreducible noise. }
\label{fig:BVPlot}
\end{figure*}
To get a deeper understanding of the model's performance, we need to go beyond Figure \ref{fig:all_distributions}. The error (in our case, the MSE) of a regression model can be decomposed into 3 terms: bias, variance and irreducible noise \citep[][]{Murphy_2012}. Here we state explicitly our definition of bias and variance to avoid any confusion with the terminologies. Bias refers to the mean absolute deviation of the model's predictions from the true value. Variance refers to the spread/width of the model’s prediction. Irreducible Noise (third term) refers to variance inherent to the data\footnote{The noise component is due to the inherent uncertainty in predicting the targets (AMPs) from the data (spectra), even with a `perfect' model. As such it is irreducible.}. We note here that the variance we computed for each wavelength bin in the following figures will inherently contain variance from both model’s prediction and the irreducible noise.
An approximate visualisation of the bias and variance components of the error for each AMP as shown in Figure \ref{fig:BVPlot} \footnote{The interested reader can find the same type of plots generated by the other DNN models examined in Figures \ref{fig:mlp_bvp} \& \ref{fig:lstm_bvp}.} can be more illuminating. Each subplot is generated by equal frequency binning of the true values (each bin contains 100 data points). For each bin we calculate the mean absolute difference between pairs of predicted and true values $|\hat{y}_j - y_j|$ (a proxy of the model's bias) and the standard deviation of these differences (a proxy of its variance and variance from irreducible noise ). Ideally, one would like to keep both components of the error low, i.e. to consistently predict values close to the truth. Using Figure \ref{fig:BVPlot} we can inspect regions where the model's predictions suffer from high bias (deviation), high variance (spread) or both.
In our application on the simulated Ariel-like dataset, the model's predictions on the gases exhibit a similar trend: the prediction starts off with small bias and variance at high abundances, both the bias and the variance gradually become higher as the abundance drops, reaching a peak at certain abundance. At lower abundances, below the credibility limit (see Section~\ref{sseq:credibility}) of the corresponding gas, the network resorts to --on average-- outputing an `average low' value. This results in a characteristic trough (its minimum indicating the `average low' value for each gas). This behaviour is expected. A molecule's absorption feature is most prominent at high abundances and this helps to tightly constrain the model's predictions. However, as gas abundance decreases, so does the magnitude of the corresponding feature, making it easier for other absorption features to partially, or --in some cases-- even completely mask it. The task therefore becomes progressively harder, which contributes to a higher variance and a significantly biased mean deviation. If the level of abundance becomes low enough, the model can no longer constrain the prediction due to presence of features from other molecules. At this point, the best strategy for a loss minimising model is to restrict its output and output a limited range of values centred at an average value in the low abundance region (see discussion in Section \ref{sseq:credibility}).
The above trend is generally followed by most gases except CO, which has most of its predictions clustered around log(X) = -6 exhibiting large bias. The poor quality of the predictions for CO is expected, given the spectral coverage of the instrument and lack of broad-band features from the molecule itself. The lack of information on CO causes the model to minimise the loss by always predicting a restricted range of values with an average volume mixing ratio of log(X) = -6 (see Figure \ref{fig:deivation}).
On the other hand, for planetary parameters such as M$_p$, R$_p$ and T$_p$, the performance of the model varies. The model's M$_p$ predictions are generally characterised by low bias. The ability of the model to predict M$_p$ accurately, suggests that the Ariel Tier 2 spectra alone contain sufficient information to constrain M$_p$, confirming the findings in \cite{quentin_mass}. The model's performance on R$_p$ and T$_p$, however, is not as satisfactory. While the model is able to accurately predict smaller planetary radii, its predictions on the very largest radii in the sample are characterised by high bias. In particular, the radius is consistently underestimated. For T$_p$, the model becomes progressively more biased in hotter temperatures starting from T$_p$ = 1500K, again consistently underestimating them (see Figure \ref{fig:all_distributions}).
Regarding the model's prediction of log(P$_{cloud}$), it appears that most of the predictions have been stratified into two levels, a sign that the model is only able tell qualitatively whether the atmosphere is cloudy or not.
The poor performance in R$_p$, T$_p$ and log(P$_{cloud}$) can be explained by several factors. Most notably:
\begin{itemize}
\item [1.] The degeneracy involving these quantities. It is well known that the interaction between these quantities could produce very similar spectral features \citep[e.g.][]{Brown_2001,deWit_mass, Griffith_degen_2014,fortney_clouds,fisher_18,Rocchetto_biais_JWST,Lecavelier_des_Etangs_2008,Tinetti_ariel,quentin_mass}. For example, the model tends to underestimate T$_p$ and R$_p$ and overestimate log(P$_{cloud}$) (i.e. predict a less cloudy atmosphere). All of these AMPs can compensate each other producing similar spectra. As there are more than one possible solutions, our model (being a deterministic function outputting a single prediction for each AMP) fails to always identify the `true' (i.e. in the data generation sense) solution given the limited information from the data. Ideally, in an atmospheric retrieval setting, rather than predicting the most probable values of the AMPs, we would rather predict their posterior distribution or at least capture their covariance. In Section \ref{sec:interaction} we perform an initial investigation of interactions among AMPs.
\item [2.] The standardising step in Section \ref{sec:preprocessing} was performed by extracting the overall mean and standard deviation of the training set, the order of magnitude differences between spectra may have significantly reduced the dynamic range within a spectrum, dwarfing any molecular signatures.
\item [3.] The non-uniform distribution of R$_p$, T$_p$ and M$_p$ in the generated data. The non-uniformity means that the model will focus on more accurately predicting values in the densely-populated areas of the target space to the potential detriment of the quality of its predictions elsewhere, if that means achieving a lower MSE \footnote{The non-uniform distribution could be alleviated with better knowledge on permitted combinations of R$_p$, T$_p$ and M$_p$, an alternative way is to adjust the weight of each sample based on its rarity (heavier loss on uncommon examples). }.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{alt_binned_pred_case_study.png}
\caption{Visualization of bias \& variance for H$_2$O, CH$_4$ and CO at high and low NH$_3$ (top) and CO2 (bottom) (log-) abundance. H$_2$O and CH$_4$ prediction improved at low NH$_3$ abundance level. Please note that the model's variance also includes contributions from the irreducible noise.}
\label{fig:BVPlot_NH3}
\end{figure*}
Our example above has investigated the average deviation and spread of the prediction at each prediction level. This quantification and visualization of bias and variance can be further utilised to help us determine the optimal model complexity for a given predictive task (see Appendix \ref{sec:complexity} for a detailed discussion).
\subsection{Interactions between AMPs}
\label{sec:interaction}
Next, we inspect whether the model aligns with our physical intuition on the problem. More specifically, we ask ``Does it perform worse when we expect it to?" One way to investigate this is to measure how its predictions on the $j$-th AMP $\hat{y_j}$ vary conditioned on the true value of another AMP $y_k$, $k \neq j$ having a `low' or a `high' value. For the purposes of this visualisation, we focused on gases and defined any log abundance in the lowest quartile (i.e. the lowest 25\% of the values) of the population as `low' and any log abundance in the highest quartile (i.e. the highest 25\% of the values) as `high'.
Figure \ref{fig:BVPlot_NH3} shows how the (binned) predictions of H$_2$O, CH$_4$ and CO change under high ($> -4$) and low ($< -7$) abundances of NH$_3$ and CO$_2$. The binning procedure is similar to the one described Section \ref{sec:BVPlot}, but the bin size is reduced to 30 samples.
We can observe that a high or low abundance of NH$_3$, gives rise to a distinctive contrast in the quality of predictions for most molecules. In particular, the quality of the predictions of CH$_4$ is highly affected by the abundance level of NH$_3$. This observation aligns with our expectations. As ammonia's absorption feature spans from 2 - 4 $\mu$m, it can partially or fully cover any other absorption features within that range at high abundances, reducing the model's ability to accurately predict the abundance of molecules such as CH$_4$, and vice versa. The same issue, however, should not arise for H$_2$O, as the molecule possesses several broad band features outside 2 - 4 $\mu$m, i.e. a well-trained network should be able to rely on information available outside this range to predict water abundance, which means there shouldn't be a dramatic improvement when NH$_3$ is low. This somewhat unexpected improvement in performance hints to the mechanism behind the model's prediction, this mechanism is further discussed in Section \ref{sec:resultsII}
On the other hand, the model's performance on CH$_4$ does not change as much under different levels of CO$_2$. This is also an expected outcome, as CO$_2$'s absorption feature lies in 5 - 6 $\mu$m, thus distinct features in CH$_4$ are less likely to be masked by changes in CO$_2$'s features \citep{sharp2007}.
It is possible to construct similar plots for other AMPs beyond NH$_3$ and CO$_2$. The purpose of this work is to demonstrate general evaluation tools that shed light into the inner workings of machine learning models. To avoid overly-emphasising our analysis on our particular (dataset, model) combination, we shall forgo an exhaustive discussion on all combinations of AMPs interactions\footnote{Interested readers can inspect the full results in Figures \ref{fig:h2o_bvp} - \ref{fig:cloud_bvp}, the results shown here are produced using our 1D-CNN model.}.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{post_NN2.png}
\caption{Posterior distribution from a test set spectrum. The ground truth is indicated by the blue line. The model tends to perform well on abundant trace gases with the exception of CO. It is also able to capture some correlation between AMPs.}
\label{fig:posterior}
\end{figure*}
Another well-known way to visualise the covariance between different AMPs is to visualise the learnt posterior distribution. We sample the parameter space of the model by varying the same input spectrum according to its uncertainty. Figure \ref{fig:posterior} shows an example posterior distribution produced using a spectrum from the test set. The model managed to predict within 2-$\sigma$ of the ground truth values (indicated by the blue line) when the log abundances of the gases are higher than -6, which is expected from our analysis in previous sections. We can see that the model is able to capture some of the correlations such as M$_p$ vs R$_p$, R$_p$ vs T$_p$, which are among some of the worst performing AMPs. On the other hand, the model failed to capture other well-known correlations such as H$_2$O vs R$_p$ and H$_2$O vs clouds. This analysis is thus highlighting a shortcoming of this model.
Upon discovering ways in which a model's behaviour is poor (either in terms of predictive performance, or in terms of capturing aspects of the underlying physics) we can take further measures to improve it.
In our analysis above, we noticed that certain known correlations among the targets (AMPs) were not captured by the model. There are ways to explicitly introduce domain knowledge like this into the architecture of the neural network, e.g. by parameter sharing across targets as discussed in \cite{reyes2019performing}. As this work is focused on analysing models and diagnosing problems, applying such methods to this setting is reserved for future work.
\subsection{Credibility of predictions}
\label{sseq:credibility}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Deivation_actual_unit_gas.pdf}
\caption{Average deviation for different molecules at different predicted abundance. The error bars on each bar represent 95 \% confidence intervals around the mean. The black curve represents the total number of predictions made by the model (frequency) within each bin. }
\label{fig:deivation}
\end{figure}
So far we have looked at how the quality of a model's predictions varies across different ground truth values. During the training phase, this is useful for identifying problems with our models; targets whose prediction is problematic, areas of particularly high bias or variance, interactions among AMPs suggestive of degeneracies, among others.
However, in real life we rarely have access to the ground truth, thus a more practical question would be: ``What is the expected deviation of a given prediction from the ground truth?". In other words, we would like to know how credible a given prediction by our model is.
Our analysis in Sections \ref{sec:BVPlot} and \ref{sec:interaction} has provided us with some qualitative intuition regarding the credibility of the model's predictions. For example, the model's prediction is more reliable at higher molecular abundances and when there is less interference from other molecules. To obtain a more quantitative measure, we follow similar approach to Section \ref{sec:BVPlot} and compute the average deviation, at different prediction levels for each AMP (Figure \ref{fig:deivation}). The error bars on each bin represent 95\% confidence intervals. Instead of binning with equal frequency like Section \ref{sec:BVPlot}, we performed equal-width binning and thus each bin will have different number of data points. The black line shows the number of data points per bin. Bins with fewer than 20 data points are omitted.
The distribution of average deviations aligns with our discussion in Section \ref{sec:BVPlot}. For high predicted abundances the model starts off with low average deviation, and as the predicted abundance level goes down, the model struggles to predict well and begins to have higher average deviation. However, counter to our intuition, the average deviations do not increase monotonically and begin to decrease after a certain abundance level. This peak corresponds to the trough we saw in the figures of Section \ref{sec:BVPlot}. This provides us with clues about of the model's loss minimisation strategy. The model is restricting its output to a limited range of values at low abundance levels, centred around some average value. This can be evidenced by the distribution of counts (black line) being centred at some value in the low abundance region and few or zero counts at the lowest abundance level (log(X$_{gas}$) = -9).
Another important insight that can be drawn from Figure \ref{fig:deivation} is the trustworthiness of the prediction varies across abundance levels. We propose a method to qualitatively assess the credibility limit of each gas - the limit at which predictions remain meaningful to the model's user. First, we compute the probability $P$ that the model's prediction ($\hat{y_j}$) does not deviate more than a positive real value $\epsilon$ from the ground truth $y_j$. We then require that $P$ be at least $1-\delta$ to consider the prediction credible. A detailed discussion on the method is included in Appendix \ref{app:credibility}. In Figure \ref{fig:cred_limit} we demonstrate an example where we have chosen $\epsilon$ = 0.5, and defined a credibility threshold $\delta$ = 0.3, so that any prediction level with probability P $\geq 1-\delta$ is credible. We can then define the lowest predicted abundance level that satisfies this as the credibility limit of that gas.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{cred_probability.pdf}
\caption{Probability of finding a prediction within $\epsilon$ = 0.5 to the ground truth for each molecule. The grey dotted line represents the probability threshold at 0.7 ($1-\delta$). Any bin with P $>$ 0.7 is considered credible in this case. }
\label{fig:cred_limit}
\end{figure}
This limit is specifc to the chosen $\delta$ and $\epsilon$, as well as the trained model. Table \ref{tab:upper_bound} summarises the estimated limit for each molecule. Although this approach is useful, we should still be mindful of its limitations. Note that for several gases the probability that the prediction error will not deviate from the acceptable region seems to increase at the lower end of the log abundance. However, this increase does not necessarily imply a higher predictive power at low abundances. In the aforementioned cases, this apparent increase in predictive power can be most likely attributed to the small number of instances that fall within these bins, as evidenced by Figure \ref{fig:deivation}. It is thus a small sample effect.
Similar work by \cite{alfnoor} determined the detection limit from a retrieval perspective. In their work they have generated 164 planets using the same setup as the one presented in Section \ref{sec:gen_data} and determined the lowest abundance at which they can constrain the molecular abundance within 1 order of magnitude of error. Our limit here addresses the trustworthiness of the neural network, which can not be directly compared with results from retrievals. Despite the differences, both studies suggest that Tier-2 Ariel spectra are capable of allowing for the consistent detection of some molecules in abundances as low as log(X) = -5.8. While it is possible that given a different architecture, the credibility limit could be improved, we would like to re-iterate that our goal is not to compete against retrieval frameworks, and thus we will leave this for future work.
Interested readers could refer to Figure \ref{fig:all_deviation} for the distribution of average deviation of all AMPs. Credibility limits for non-gaseous AMPs are less straightforward, and are more influenced by the training set. As the training set is not uniformly distributed w.r.t. these AMPs, trained models will have a tendency to focus on the regions containing a higher density of examples, biasing the predictions. Thus, the derived limit first and foremost would depend on biases of the training set and for this reason we chose to omit it here to avoid over-interpretation.
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|l|l}
Molecules & Credibility Limit (log$_{10}$) & Detection Limit \\ \hline
H$_2$O & -4.3 & -6.5\\
CH$_4$ & -5.8 & -7 \\
CO & N/A & -5.5 \\
CO$_2$ & -3.8 & -7 \\
NH$_3$ & -5.3 & -6.5
\end{tabular}
\caption{Credibility limit for each molecule at $\delta = 0.3,\epsilon=0.5$. This limit is derived using the lowest credible (log-) abundance level, following the credibility definition in Appendix \ref{app:credibility}. The detection limit is reproduced from \cite{alfnoor} as a comparison to retrieval methods}
\label{tab:upper_bound}
\end{table}
\section{Sensitivity Analysis for Model Interpretation}
\subsection{Method}
\label{sec:sensi_method}
Given any trained predictive model $\mathcal{M}$ (e.g. a neural network) that takes an input $\mathbf{x}$ and outputs the corresponding prediction $\hat{\mathbf{y}}$, a perturbation-based sensitivity test can be performed to assess the change in the prediction $\hat{y}$ when a set of features (transit depth, in our case) $x_i$ (consecutive or not) is perturbed.
This approach assesses quantitatively how $\mathbf{\hat{y}}$ varies as a set of $x_i$ (transit depths) vary. The intuition is that perturbations in the regions of the input containing higher information about the target will yield larger deviations in the output of the model.
Below we outline a general procedure for such a sensitivity analysis:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Produce a reference prediction $\mathbf{\hat{y}}_r$ on an unperturbed input $\mathbf{x}_r$.
\item Perturb the input $\mathbf{x}_p$.
\item Predict $\mathbf{\hat{y}}_p$ on the perturbed input $\mathbf{x}_p$.
\item Compare $\mathbf{\hat{y}}_p$ and $\mathbf{\hat{y}}_r$.
\item Repeat step 2 - 4 for different sets of features.
\end{enumerate}
The form of perturbation depends on the context of the problem. \cite{occlustion} demonstrated the idea on models performing image classification. They perturbed the input image by setting a region to zero pixel value, and produced a heat-map of sensitivity by covering each region systematically.
In this investigation we adapted this procedure to our multi-target regression problem. Instead of setting $x_i$ to zero like \cite{occlustion}, we applied the perturbation by sampling each wavelength bin $x_i$ according to its respective error bars (i.e. from a Gaussian centred at its unperturbed value and with standard deviation $\sigma_i$). There are three main reasons for this choice: 1. \emph{Physical plausibility.} Setting a window of the spectrum to zero would render it nonphysical, as a transit depth of 0 would mean $R_p = 0.$ 2. \emph{Statistical plausibility.} Neural networks excel at interpolation but not extrapolation. Perturbing the input spectrum within its error bars would still result in valid input (i.e. a sample from the actual data distribution) for the Neural Network. 3. \emph{Instrument plausibility.} The result of the test under these conditions provides realistic measurement of the relative sensitivity of each wavelength bin for the purposes of determining each of the parameters to be retrieved, in the context of Ariel Deep survey specifications (Tier 2 spectra). This also means any derived result will be specific to the instrument and observing strategy.
At each iteration we select a random number of $x_i$ and apply the perturbation by scattering these points according to $\mathcal{N}(x_i,\sigma_i^2)$. For computational efficiency, at each iteration the number of $x_i$ is chosen from 27 (half of the total number of wavelength bins) down to 2 (parts of a feature). The intention is to account for the influence from both broad and narrow features, as well as the inter-dependencies between different wavelength bins. We repeat the above procedure 1000 times with 300 spectra randomly chosen from the test set and calculate the average mean squared difference per AMP (i.e. parameter to be retrieved) between $\mathbf{\hat{y}}_p$ and $\mathbf{\hat{y}}_r$ for each wavelength bin. The result is a sensitivity map of the model's output for each AMP, w.r.t. each feature. A detailed implementation of the test is discussed in Appendix \ref{app:sensi_imple}.
The sensitivity map is a tool for us to visualise what factors drive the model's predictions. As such, it allows us to investigate whether the model aligns with our physical intuition. This can also shed light to potential biases of the model or the training data. Finally, it can even aid us in identifying potentially undiscovered relationships among features.
\subsection{Sensitivity map}
\label{sec:resultsII}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{sensitivity_map_CNN.png}
\caption{Sensitivity map for each AMP. Each wavelength bin is colour-coded to reflect the relative sensitivity level among bins, with yellow being the most sensitive and black being the least. Each spectrum shows the corresponding molecule’s characteristic absorption features in Ariel Tier-2 resolution.}
\label{fig:sensi_map}
\end{figure*}
We applied the general procedure outlined in Section \ref{sec:sensi_method} and produced sensitivity maps for the different atmospheric parameters of interest, using as the model $\mathcal{M}$ the 1D-CNN we trained in Section \ref{sec:training}. We shall explicitly ignore regions where the model's prediction is uncertain and restrict the sensitivity analysis to cases with log(X$_{gas}$) $>$ -5 \footnote{There are different limits for some gases, but for simplicity we chose a conservative value.}. We will first investigate whether the model's predictions align with our physical intuitions regarding inferring AMPs from spectra. Figure \ref{fig:sensi_map} summarises the results of the sensitivity analysis for all the AMPs. The left sub-figure summarises the molecular species and the right sub-figure summarises the planetary parameters and clouds.
\subsubsection{Sensitivity Map for active molecules.}
Each spectrum on the left sub-figure displays the corresponding molecule's characteristic absorption features in Ariel Tier-2 spectra and each bin in the spectrum is colour-coded to reflect the relative sensitivity of the model's prediction of the corresponding molecular abundance due to changes in the value of said bin. We normalised each spectrum according to its respective minimum and maximum.
We can see that many of the highlighted regions correspond to the major absorption features of the molecules. This alignment is evidence that the neural network is recognising individual molecular features and basing its predictions of the corresponding molecular abundance on the peaks and troughs of these absorbing regions. Even in the case of CO, whose abundance the model generally fails to accurately predict, it nonetheless manages to highlight the absorption bands of the molecule as the most important region for predicting it.
So far, we see that the predictions of the neural network are based on factors that agree with our physical intuition. However, we can also see that for some molecules, not all peaks are highlighted by the model, i.e. for H$_2$O only the peaks at 2-3$ \mu$m are highlighted. The model is tasked to jointly predict all quantities of interest. As a result, it is compromising performance across individual molecular species to identify the optimal features to predict them jointly.
Sensitivity maps like these are useful for improving the transparency and thus, our confidence in the predictions of the model. On the other hand, they also give us an indication of where most of the information is coming from for the model in question. Here we only present maps for log(X$_{gas}) > -5$. It is possible that in the face of different combinations of abundances, the sensitivity map will change accordingly. As the purpose of this study is to explain the methodology, the discussion of sensitivity maps at different abundances will be left for future work.
\subsubsection{Sensitivity Map for M$_p$,R$_p$, T$_p$ and clouds}
For AMPs other than gaseous species, their corresponding sensitivity maps are summarised on the right side of Figure \ref{fig:sensi_map}. We used the same, randomly sampled spectrum to investigate their sensitivity to each wavelength bin. Below we provide our observations and offer an interpretation of these maps.
M$_p$, R$_p$, T$_p$ and clouds are interconnected via the computation of scale height, $H_{sc} = \frac{k_b T R_p^2}{\mu G M_p}$. The photometric points at the blue end of the spectrum are `calibration' points as they are the lowest points of the spectrum, these points help to provide an estimate for R$_p$ but are often masked in the presence of clouds. In the absence of M$_p$ from external sources, the model examined here attempts to derive it from the spectrum, which again is correlated with R$_p$, and clouds, as described in \cite{changeat2019}, and can be visualised via the similarities between their respective sensitivity maps.
Temperature on the other hand, is highlighted in three distinct regions, photometric waveband, ~3$\mu$m and ~5 $\mu$m regions. The model appears to be relying on the most probable highest features in the spectrum, combined with the photometric points, to derive the scale height via the features' size \footnote{The size of the features is determined by a quasi-linear function of H$_{sc}$.} and subsequently, the temperature. However, the aforementioned degeneracy between M$_p$, R$_p$, and clouds means that temperature is not accurately determined, as can be seen from Figure \ref{fig:BVPlot}.
\subsection{Choice of Network}
We should keep in mind that sensitivity maps like the one shown in Figure \ref{fig:sensi_map} are model-specific, i.e. different models can have different sensitivity maps.
The sensitivity analysis described here does not directly measure the information in the features that is relevant for predicting the AMPs, but rather, it captures the degree to which a given model uses said information to predict the AMPs.
Figures \ref{fig:mlp_sensi} \& \ref{fig:lstm_sensi} show the sensitivity maps for the networks of the other two DNN architectures we trained as outlined in Section \ref{sec:training}. Interestingly,
we find that all three models were able to highlight most of the peaks and troughs of the molecule’s characteristic features. This is evidence\footnote{Naturally, the class of models explored here is constrained to DNNs, so we cannot make any strong model-independent claims. Yet in this case, all three models agree with one another and with physical intuition.} that these regions of the spectra are indeed important features for determining their corresponding molecular abundances.
There are also notable differences in the sensitivity maps of each model, in particular the maps obtained for non-molecular AMPs. For example, the MLP tends to focus on 4-5 $\mu$m to derive quantities such as M$_p$, R$_p$. T$_p$ and cloud top pressure, while the LSTM and the 1D-CNN tend to also focus on 2-3 $\mu$m features. Despite any differences in sensitivity across different models, non trace-gas AMPs exhibit high sensitivity to the same regions for a given model, highlighting the degeneracy between these AMPs.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
In the context of exoplanet atmospheric retrievals using simulated data from Ariel, we investigated the use of three different types of DNN architectures (MLP, CNN, LSTM) for inferring atmospheric
model parameters from exoplanet spectra. We presented a suite of methodologies for analysing the performance of any regression model, identifying its main source of error by leveraging the concepts of bias and variance, and quantifying the credibility of its predictions. Applying these evaluation methodologies to the three DNN models we trained, we found that they all behaved similarly for this dataset, and that they are capable of reliably determining molecular abundances down to as low as 10$^{-5.8}$.
We also introduced a perturbation based sensitivity analysis which allows us to assess the relative importance of each feature (wavelength bin) in predicting each target (atmospheric parameter), for a given trained predictive model. Our analysis confirmed that the predictions of the DNN models we constructed largely align with our physical intuition with respect to each atmospheric parameter's spectral signature, our understanding of Ariel's instrument specification and Ariel Deep survey observational strategy.
The evaluation and interpretability methods presented in this paper are applicable to any predictive model learned from data and only require access to the model's predictions and the training data. These tools allow us to analyse the predictions of a model, identify potential biases in the model itself or the data, understand the factors driving the model's predictions and investigate whether these agree with our current knowledge of the underlying physics, whether the model's predictions are `right for the wrong reasons' or whether it can provide us with new theoretical insights. Ultimately, they can make predictive models more transparent and thus more easy to adopt by domain experts.
\newline
\newline
\textbf{Software:} ArielRad: \citep{mugnai_Arielrad}, TauREx3 \citep{Taurex3}, h5py \citep{hdf5_collette}, Matplotlib \citep{Hunter_matplotlib}, Pandas \citep{mckinney_pandas}, Numpy \citep{oliphant_numpy}, Keras \citep{chollet2015keras}, Tensorflow \citep{tensorflow}.
\newline
\newline
{\large \textbf{Acknowledgements}}
We appreciate suggestions from the anonymous reviewer, which has improved the quality of the manuscript. This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 758892, ExoAI) and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 COMPET programme (grant agreement No 776403, ExoplANETS A). Furthermore, we acknowledge funding by the Science and Technology Funding Council (STFC) grants: ST/K502406/1, ST/P000282/1, ST/P002153/1 and ST/S002634/1. We are grateful for the support of the NVIDIA Corporation through the NVIDIA GPU Grant program.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:introduction}}
\IEEEPARstart{S}{epsis} is a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a host’s unbalanced response to an infection. It is one of the most severe diseases in the intensive care unit (ICU) and one of the world’s leading lethal diseases \cite{r1}\cite{r2}\cite{r3}\cite{Zheng_2021}. Its common clinical manifestations include abnormalities in body temperature, heart rate, breathing, and peripheral white blood cell counts. Besides, sepsis is often accompanied by multiple organ dysfunction syndromes, such as hemodynamic instability, respiratory failure, and disseminated intravascular coagulation. In the past few decades, the high morbidity and mortality caused by sepsis have made the society to endure huge economic burden \cite{r1}\cite{r2}\cite{r3}. The prevalent methods of the diagnosis of sepsis are microbiological culture and taxonomic identification of the pathogen. However, the methods based on bacterial culture techniques have several shortcomings: (1) it usually takes 24 hours to obtain a positive result; (2) only one-third of the blood cultures are positive in clinically diagnosed sepsis cases, so negative results in culture do not mean negative cases; (3) the chances of a positive culture are reduced in patients who have already used antibiotics; (4) false positives are frequently caused by contamination; (5) short-term bacteremia can lead to a positive blood culture without a severe inflammatory response. Therefore, the sensitivity and specificity of the methods based on microbiological culture are quite low, and hence fails to diagnose sepsis effectively.\cite{culture1}\cite{culture2}
Biomarkers such as procalcitonin (PCT) and C-reactive protein (CRP) have been considered to diagnose and evaluate sepsis in emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU). PCT is increasingly recognized as an important diagnostic and monitoring tool in clinical practice that provides significant information for clinical decision making. It is a potential biomarker in assisting clinicians in the diagnosis of generalized infection and sepsis in ICU. Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been carried out to describe the utility of PCT in distinguishing sepsis from SIRS and non-septic burn patients.\cite{marker1} However, the overall sensitivity and specificity of PCT range from 0.72 to 0.93 and 0.64 to 0.84, respectively \cite{Pierrakos_2020}, which is incompetent in the clinical context. CRP was reported as an indicator whose daily measurement is useful in monitoring sepsis, but its low specificity may be its primary drawback and it is hard to define CRP as an independent predictor of sepsis\cite{maker2}.
In recent years, with the rise of high-throughput sequencing technology, tens of thousands of genes can be detected in parallel \cite{r4}\cite{r5}\cite{r6}\cite{Nan_2020}, providing opportunities for precise molecular diagnosis using machine learning methods \cite{r7}\cite{r8}\cite{10.3389/fcell.2021.671302}\cite{Liu_2020}\cite{Wang_2019}. Several gene markers have been developed for the diagnostic prediction of sepsis.
For instance, Scicluna \textit{et al.} proposed the FAIM3:PLAC8 ratio as a candidate biomarker to assist in the rapid diagnosis of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) \cite{r9}, which accounts for a high proportion of intensive care unit (ICU) admissions for respiratory failure and sepsis. McHugh \textit{et al.} designed a classifier SeptiCyte Lab composed of four mRNAs of CEACAM4, LAMP1, PLA2G7, and PLAC8 by applying Support Vector Machine (SVM) and Random Forest \cite{r10}. Scicluna \textit{et al.} developed a sNIP score for sepsis diagnosis based on the expression abundance of three genes using SVM and bootstrapping \cite{r11}. However, the above-mentioned mRNA biomarkers cannot obtain consistent results in multiple independent data sets.
In this paper, we introduced a novel recurrent logistic regression (RLR) as an automatic detection for the diagnostic biomarkers of sepsis. Since patients with sepsis have a severely dysregulated immune system \cite{r10}\cite{r11}\cite{r12}, we principally concentrated on the immune-related genes (IRGs) and regarded them as the key molecular events involved in sepsis. Based on IRGs, the RLR model was trained and the less significant genes were filtered during each iteration until no gene is eliminated. Regularization and elimination of insignificant features were applied simultaneously in RLR to avoid overfitting and hence reduce the complexity of the discriminative model. The biomarkers identified by RLR were verified on nine independent expression cohorts across three different detection platforms. We also evaluated the classification performance of each individual gene in the identified biomarkers. Finally, network and functional analyses were carried out for the genes interacting with these biomarkers.
\section{Materials and Methods}
\subsection{Data and preprocessing}
Eleven different gene expression cohorts were collected from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database with both sepsis samples and healthy controls, including three adult datasets and eight pediatric datasets (Table \ref{tab:1}). In total, 1,384 samples were analyzed from three microarray platforms, Affymetrix Human Genome U133 Plus 2.0 (AffyU133P2), Affymetrix Human Genome U219 (AffyU219), and Agilent Human Gene Expression 4x44K v2 Microarray (AgilentV2). The raw data were preprocessed and normalized using the robust multichip average (RMA) algorithm \cite{r13}\cite{r14}\cite{r15}.
GSE57065 is adopted for model training (Discovery cohort \uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral1}) and GSE26378 is used for tuning the hyperparameter (Discovery cohort \uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral2}). Seven datasets (GSE95233, GSE28750, GSE8121, GSE13904, GSE26440, GSE9692, and GSE4607) from AffyU133P2 serve as the validation cohorts \uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral1} to evaluate the diagnostic performance. GSE65682 and E-MTAB-
1548 detected by other platforms are set as the validation cohorts \uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral2} for evaluating the cross-platform capability.
We intend to train a robust prediction model across the biological heterogeneity of childhood and adult sepsis, so the adult and children samples were incorporated for model training.
\subsection{Immune-related gene selection}
Since sepsis is a disease related to patients’ immune systems, only immune-related genes (IRGs) are considered as potential biomarkers in this study. 770 IRGs were collected from the database nanoString (www.nanoString.com), which has been used in hundreds of studies of pathogen infection and the related host response.\cite{nano}\cite{nano2} The numbers of IRGs are 737, 740, and 627 on AffyU133P2, AffyU219, and AgilentV2, respectively. We aimed to find a biomarker that can be applied to different platforms, so the 608 common IRGs of the three platforms were utilized for computational modeling (Figure \ref{fig:1}a).
\subsection{Recurrent logistic regression}
Recurrent logistic regression contains many iterations with model optimization and automatical feature selection, since each iteration involves regression step and elimination step (Figure \ref{fig:1}b).
\textbf{Regression step:} Logistic regression is employed to the candidate gene set (initially 608 IRGs). The expression abundance of genes in each sample, is represented by a vector denoted as
\begin{equation}
\bm{x} = (g_1,\cdots,g_n)^T
\end{equation}
where $g_i$ is the $i$-th gene expression.
To construct a classifier involving fewer genes features based on the expression vector $\bm{x}$ of a sample, a function $f:\mathbb{R}^n\to\{0,1\}$ is built, where $0$ represents healthy controls and $1$ represents sepsis. The logistic model applied in RLR is a binary classifier expressed by
\begin{equation}
f(x)=\frac{1}{1+e^{-\bm{wx}}}=\frac{1}{1+e^{-(w_0+w_1g_1+\cdots+w_ng_n)}}
\end{equation}
where $\bm{x}$ is an expression vector and $f(x)$ is a diagnostic risk score used to predict the probability of having sepsis. $\bm{w} = (w_0,w_1,\cdots,w_n)^T$ are parameters optimized by the cost function with regularization,
\begin{equation}
J(w;X)=\frac{1}{2} \bm{w}^T \bm{w}+\sum_{i=1}^n \log\left(1+\exp\left(-y_i(\bm{x}_i^T\bm{w}+w_0)\right)\right)
\end{equation}
where $X$ is the collection of samples $\bm{x}_1,\bm{x}_2,\cdots, \bm{x}_n$ in discovery cohort and $y\in\{0,1\}$ is the label for each sample.
\textbf{Elimination step:} After optimizing the regression model, the minor genes regarded as less significant are eliminated. A gene $g_i$ is defined as minor gene if the absolute value of its corresponding weight $w_i$ is less than a proportion of the absolute maximum weight, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
|w_i|< C\max\left(|w_1|,\cdots, |w_n| \right)
\end{equation}
where $C\in [0,1]$ is a hyperparameter. Instead of using the traditional way that chooses a fixed threshold such as P value $< 0.01$, this step selects features adaptively based on the maximum weight trained by the model.
The regression step and elimination step are repeated iteratively until it converges, specifically, no more minor gene remained. In this sense, the algorithm is named the recurrent logistic regression (RLR).
The RLR is first trained on the discovery cohort \uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral1} and evaluated by the AUROC on discovery cohort \uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral2} (Figure \ref{fig:1}c). We exhaustedly tried possible values of the hyperparameter C with the search space between 0.75 and 0.9 and each interval equaling to 0.01. The hyperparameter C can therefore be determined by the optimal performance on discovery cohort \uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral2}.
\subsection{Performance evaluation and analysis}
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was applied for performance evaluation, which is the function image of True Positive Rate (TPR) with respect to False Positive Rate (FPR), where TPR represents the positive correctly classified samples to the total number of positive samples and FPR represents the ratio between the incorrectly classified negative samples to the total number of negative samples. Area Under the Curve (AUC) means the area under the ROC curve ranging from 0 to 1. Higher AUC indicates a more discriminative model. We use AUC to quantify the discrimination ability of the models on seven cohorts measured with the same platform and compare to the existing biomarkers. Moreover, the cross-platform capability is also evaluated on two cohorts from different platforms.
Meta-analysis was conducted for the constructed gene panel LIFTS (LRRN3, IL2RB, FCER1A, TLR5, and S100A12) and the Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) are demonstrated in forest plot (Figure \ref{fig:3}). Four graphical elements are presented including the estimated SMD (solid block), the respective 95\% confidence intervals for each cohort (horizontal line), the non-effect size (vertical line), and overall estimation of all cohorts (red rhombus) \cite{r16}.
To analyze the role of the five genes in LFTS, we presented the human protein interaction and constructed the protein interaction network. Protein interactions were obtained from the database InWeb\_InBioMap \cite{r17,r18}which is the most comprehensive resource for human protein interactome. Around 57\% of the interactions are experimentally validated. The interaction network was conducted and illustrated using the R package igraph.Function enrichment was carried out using the R package clusterprofiler \cite{r19} and the network-guided gene set characterization pipeline of KownEnG \cite{Blatti_2020}, respectively.
\section{Results}
\subsection{Identification of LIFTS}
Patients with sepsis have a severely dysregulated immune system, which impairs clearance of the infection and leaves the body susceptible to new infections with an increased risk of death. Thus, we principally concentrated on the immune-related genes (IRGs) and regarded them as the key molecular events involved in sepsis. After taking the intersection across different platforms, 608 IRGs are screened as potential biomarkers for further analysis.
The recurrent logistic regression (RLR) was then applied on the discovery cohort GSE57065. Different hyperparameter results in multiple gene panels. To select the best gene panel and the hyperparameter, we tried a series of thresholds and evaluated their performance on the independent discovery cohort \uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral2}, GSE26378. Figure \ref{fig:2} displays the AUROC of these gene panels and indicates that generally a larger C results in a smaller model size N during the optimization. We finalized the model with the highest AUROC up to 0.9951 when C equals to 0.83. The discriminative function of the diagnostic model is
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
y(x)=&[1+\exp(-0.9305g_{LRRN3}-0.9692g_{IL2RB}\\
&-0.7378 g_{FCER1A}+0.8460 g_{TLR5}\\
&+0.8905g_{S100A12}-0.0153)]^{-1}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
which contains five genes, LRRN3, IL2RB, FCER1A, TLR5, and S100A12. We abbreviated the biomarkers by LIFTS, which is composed by the initial letters of each gene. The Genome characteristics of the five genes are listed in Table \ref{tab:2}.
\subsection{The diagnostic capability}
Since the value of logistic model is too concentrated to illustrate, i.e., ranging from 0 to 1, we used the corresponsive part in logits of our diagnostic model to represent the diagnostic ability of each gene and LIFTS. Specifically, the logit is
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
logit=&-0.9305 g_{LRRN3}-0.9692 g_{IL2RB}\\
&-0.7378 g_{FCER1A}+0.8460 g_{TLR5}\\
&+0.8905 g_{S100A12}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The standard difference mean $\bar X-\bar Y$ in effect size between the sepsis and control subjects is displayed in Figure \ref{fig:3}, where $\bar X$ is the mean of logits for the sepsis samples and $\bar Y$ corresponds to normal samples. The five genes individually are qualified to distinguish sepsis samples with the average standard mean difference (SMD) ranging from $1.5$ to $3.5$ and their confidence intervals do not cross zero. Compared with the individual genes, LIFTS achieves a much higher average SMD of $11.6$, suggesting that the weighted gene panel has better diagnostic capability than each of the five genes.
\subsection{Performance comparison across different models}
LIFTS was evaluated on the nine independent cohorts and compared to existing biomarkers. Figure \ref{fig:4} shows the ROC curves comparison between the LIFTS and three known transcriptome biomarkers, i.e., FAIM3:PLAC8, SeptiCyte Lab, and sNIP. SeptiCyte Lab includes four genes and its risk score is PLAC8/PLA2G7*LAMP1/CEACAM4. sNIP contains three genes and it is represented as (NLRP1-IDNK)/PLAC8. The genes of all these four biomarkers are detectable on the AffyU133P2.
Overall, LIFTS outperforms the other biomarkers on all the validation cohorts except GSE95233. The area under ROC curve (AUC) of LIFTS on each dataset is consistently close to 1. The lowest score, 0.9722 on GSE13904, is still much higher than the other biomarkers. NLRP1 and PLAC8 are not detected on either the AffyU219 or the Agilent platform, so sNIP cannot be applied on dataset GSE65682. Since NLRP1 does not exist on GSE65682 and PLAC8 is not available on E-MTAB-1548, some previous biomarkers could not be evaluated on these two datasets. The AUC of LIFTS on GSE65682 and E-MTAB-1548 are 0.9994 and 1.0, which are superior to its counterparts, indicating the portability of LIFTS among different platforms in diagnostic prediction (Figure \ref{fig:5}).
The AUC curves are related to the standard difference means. Considering LIFTS performance shown in Figure \ref{fig:3} and Figure \ref{fig:4}, the higher AUC value always corresponds to higher standard difference mean. For example, in GSE13904, the AUC value is relatively low and correspondingly the standard difference mean is relatively closer to zero. However, focusing on E-MTAB-1548, the AUC is 1.0 and the standard difference mean is far from zero.
\subsection{Topological and functional analysis of LIFTS}
Proteins usually group together as modules to implement in particular cellular functions through interactions \cite{r20}\cite{r21}\cite{r22}\cite{Cheng_2020}. The interference in protein interactions and new undesired protein interactions can cause diseases \cite{r23}\cite{r24}\cite{r25}.To explore the functions of the genes in LIFTS, we further studied the topological property of the genes physically interacted with the five genes by network analysis (Figure \ref{fig:6}A). Specifically, 1, 45, 19, 7, and 3 partner genes interact with LRRN3, IL2RB, FCER1A, TLR5, and S100A12, respectively (Figure \ref{fig:6}B). These genes are closely connected and involved in specific biological processes, including growth hormone synthesis, secretion and action, chemokine signaling pathway, B cell receptor signaling pathway, T cell receptor signaling pathway, \textit{etc}. (Figure \ref{fig:6}C). For the protein interaction network, the connections among genes are significantly dense than the simulated networks (P $<$ e-26, Rank sum test, Figure \ref{fig:6}D), where we randomly picked up the same number of proteins 10,000 times and calculated their network density distribution. The densities of the simulated networks are mainly less than 0.05 whereas the density of the curated network is 0.2854, indicating the five genes tend to function together with higher network connectivity than other genes.
Given that there are only five genes in LIFTS, standard methods for enrichment analysis may not detect any relevant functional category or pathway. We also employed the network-guided gene set characterization pipeline of KnowEnG \cite{Blatti_2020} for this gene set to better understand their function. Four function resources were used in this pipeline, including Gene Ontology, Enrichr, Pathway Comments, and Reactome. In addition to the functions the partner genes enriched, the five genes are also implemented in pathways of immune system, IL1 and megakaryotyces in obesity, \textit{etc}. Default parameters were used during the analysis.
\section{Discussion}
We developed a novel model to screen the diagnostic biomarkers of sepsis based on the logistic regression. Five genes were identified as a prediction model (LIFTS) with an average AUROC of 0.9959 among 11 cohorts containing in total 1,384 samples. LIFTS demonstrated its robust portability across three different transcriptome platforms, which is much better than its counterparts such as SeptiCyte Lab \cite{r11}. Our analysis thus determined an accurate prediction model and reproducible transcriptome biomarkers that can lay a foundation for clinical diagnostic tests and biological mechanistic studies.
The model was built starting with the immune-related genes. The expression of immune-related genes is response for the dysregulated host immune system to infection in sepsis, so the immune-related genes serve as prior knowledge for the classification model and prevent overfitting, resulting in a robust model for patient heterogeneity. Otherwise, if start with all genes, a different gene panel will be obtained with unexpected noise. The model may get an extremely high performance for the training cohort, but performs worse when it comes to the validation cohorts.
After filtering the genes, the number of candidate genes was greatly shortlisted, which is also an efficient preprocessing step for feature selection. Some researchers made use of differentially expressed (DE) genes as diagnostic signatures\cite{Liu_2020a}\cite{Scicluna_2017}. However, DE genes are extremely inconsistent among different datasets and platforms. Only a few overlapping DE genes were obtained among the 11 datasets we used (Supplementary Figure S2, S3), leading to obstacles to find a robust classifier based on DE genes.
The classical logistic regression can only return the classifier with a given number of genes. Mathematically, our goal is to maximize the performance of classification and minimize the complexity of the diagnostic model simultaneously, requiring a competent algorithm with the ability to filter out irrelevant genes automatically. To this end, an enhanced version of logistic regression, recurrent logistic regression (RLR), was developed using the weight of each term as a measure of the gene importance. Importantly, the selection of features and the construction of classifiers are usually regarded as two independent tasks, but we combined these two tasks together. Thus, the biomarkers are more adaptive to the base model and superior to other models, which use a specific algorithm on previously selected biomarkers. When compared with least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), a method that useS L1 regularization to impose sparsity, our results demonstrated that RLR overall outperforms LASSO according to AUROC in the discovery and validation cohorts (Supplementary Figure S1).
During the training process, interestingly, we observed that running logistic regression using different coding languages may lead to different results. In this study, the function LogisticRegression in the sklearn package of python was used. Technically, we applied $L_2$ regularization in our logistic regression processes, which is commonly used in machine learning to reduce model overfitting. In some studies, logistic regression with $L_2$ regularization is called ridge regression \cite{r26}. The advantage of regularization is that it improves numerical stability, not only forces weights to shrink but also copes with the case sophisticatedly when the number of features is larger than the number of samples.
Despite 11 public datasets were taken advantage, all of them were detected using microarray technology. No RNA-seq datasets were included, thereby making our model not applicable for all transcriptome platforms. Therefore, we call for the detection of sepsis using RNA-seq technologies in the near future. Then a large-scale of datasets will be available for further validation, which is able to reduce the risk of the diagnostic model.
Moreover, the proposed method can be used in biomarker identification of other diseases. Since logistic regression is widely used for biomarker identification and several such types of gene expression signatures have been developed for cancers with decent performance, RLR is an upgrade of logistic regression hence it can be applied to the domains where logistic regression can be applied. In terms of the performance, it is superior to logistic regression theoretically, but in practice it depends on a series of factors, such as the detected feature numbers, the sample size, and disease heterogeneity.
In conclusion, the diagnostic biomarkers LIFTS shows higher accuracy and robustness compared to the existing biomarkers when differentiating the sepsis patients from the normal controls. Further clinical trials are needed to confirm the findings in the paper.
\appendices
\section*{Declarations}
\subsection*{Ethics approval and consent to participate}
Not appliable.
\subsection*{Consent for publication}
Not appliable.
\subsection*{Competing interests}
None decleared.
\subsection*{Funding}
This work was supported by the Basic and Applied Basic Research Programs Foundation of Guangdong Province (2019A1515110097).
\subsection*{Authors' contributions}
L.C. conceived the project and wrote the manuscript. Y.Y. and Y.Z. performed research, analyzed data, and drafted the manuscript; S.L., X.Z., M.W., and K.L. supervised the project. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
Not applicable
\subsection*{Availability of data and materials}
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available in GEO database. Source code is available at \href{https://github.com/bio-LIFTS/LIFTS}{https://github.com/bio-LIFTS/LIFTS}.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.